Corpus-Paul

["Frank W. Hughes" <fwhughes AT sunbeach.net>]

> It occurred to me after sending this that to conclude
> in this way risks
> confusing the principal issue under discussion, viz. the significance
> of
> the phrase MHTE DI' EPISTOLHS hWS DI' hHMWN in 2 Thess 2:2, which is
> logically prior to a judgment on the authorship question. I.e., if the
> interpretation of the phrase I've argued for is valid, one must then try
> out construing it as Paul's statement and as a Paulinist's in order
> to
> assess the probabilities for authorship (and so also with 3:17).
I think the history of scholarship on 2 Thess. shows quite unmistakably
that one cannot take the question of the meaning of 2:2 (and 2:15 and 3:17)
apart from the issue of the authorship of the letter as a whole. 
The writer of 2 Thess. is basically warning his audience against the wrong
theology, which is conveyed through a spirit, logos, or letter as from
Paul, that says the Day of the Lord has already come.  In Early
Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians I argued that 2:1-2 constitute
the partitio of the letter, giving the thesis to be argued.  The author
then has a two-part probatio in 2:3-12 and 2:13-15.  In 2:3-12 the
author argues that the day of the Lord cannot have come until certain signs
have happened.  And in 2:13-15 the author also argues that the readers
shouldn't be "thrown into a tizzy" (my, what an idiomatic translation,
Bob!) by the false doctrine.  Interestingly the sources of false doctrine
in 2:1-2 are spirit, logos, and letter, whereas the sources of true doctrine
in 2:15 are logos and letter -- the spirit (Spirit) is prominently absent! 
(Try to fit that one neatly into Pauline theology!)

I think that the problems for Pauline authorship are many, and so I argued in my dissertation (Northwestern 1984) and in the monograph (JSNTSup 30, 1989).  If Paul is as rhetorically effective as he is in Galatians and Romans (and I certainly think 1 Thessalonians as well), why would Paul even broach the issue in 2 Thess 2:1-2 of whether or not his letters are authentic?  Who would have forged a Pauline letter in Paul's lifetime?  Who would have wanted to?  And why would Paul even remotely suggest that letters "as from us" might not really be from Paul, since this was the main way he communicated with his churches when he could not be there in person, which was most of the time?  He would be doing severe damage to his ethos as conveyed in Pauline letters.  Bob Kraft is certainly correct in asking why Paul would have suggested that there is the sign of authenticity "in every letter" (3:17) when there has been, apparently, only 1 before it to Thessaloniki, and that one without any mention of such a sign -- nor is there any mention of the sign of authenticity (whatever that was) in any other Pauline letter.

So what I did was to argue that the rhetorical situation that the rhetoric of the letter implies is best able to be understood after Paul's death, when the issue of what the true Pauline legacy was was being fought out within Pauline churches.  The chapter entitled "2 Thessalonians as a Deuteropauline Letter" and the chapter entitled "The Legacy of Paul" in Early Christian Rhetoric is where I spelled this out.

I didn't think anyone was really that interested in 2 Thessalonians anymore.  Glad that some people are.

All best,
Frank W. Hughes
Lecturer in NT Studies
Codrington College
Barbados