Corpus-Paul

["Michael Thompson" <mbt2 AT cam.ac.uk>]

Jeff Peterson wrote:

> At 6:05 PM -0300 4/30/99, Frank W. Hughes wrote:
>
>>The classic problem of 2 Thessalonians, as reflected by the publication of
>>William Wrede's Die Aechtheit des 2. Thessalonicherbriefes untersucht in
>>1903, was how you can take seriously the literary closeness of 1 and 2
>>Thessalonians, which Wrede showed primarily by way of a synopsis in
>>parallel columns.
>
> Just curious: is it Wrede's book that should be credited with establishing
> pseudonymous authorship of 2 Thess as scholarly orthodoxy? I've operated on
> this assumption but would appreciate having it dis/confirmed by someone
> who's worked through the literature as thoroughly as Frank.
>
> Jeff
>
> ------------------------------------
> Jeffrey Peterson
> Institute for Christian Studies
> Austin, Texas, USA
> ------------------------------------

Jeff, Frank Hughes is certainly right that Wrede is the definitive work. It has influenced German scholarship as a whole (Trilling and Lüdemann have not added that much to the argument) and American critical orthodoxy to a large extent, but it hasn't persuaded many British scholars I know, although they are aware of it. Wrede really deserves translation and a critical evaluation in English, something I've intended to do for years but haven't gotten around to.

I'm new to this group and haven't been following the thread for many days, but may I add two bits to the Thessalonians discussion? First, Frank Hughes states,

The problem for scholarship both before and especially Wrede was how you can have such literary closeness and have such differences in theology, including the major difference in whether or not the Day of the Lord will come so soon as to have apocalyptic signs before its coming. 1 Thess. says there will be no such signs; 2 Thess. gives a lengthy exposition of the signs in 2 Thess. 2:3-12.

Did I miss something, or does 1 Thess actually say there will be no signs before the coming of the Day of the Lord? I know it gives the impression that the Day will come quickly (when it comes), but that is precisely the point; Paul fanned the flames of expectancy too much in his first letter and had to control the fire he created in the second. At any rate, we find both a sense of imminency and intervening signs in the Olivet discourse in the synoptics, as many have noted before. Those interested in the theological argument as a criterion for separating the letters will be interested to see Colin Nicholl's Cambridge dissertation which is now close to completion.

Second, every view regarding the authorship of 2 Thess has problems to overcome; the biggest IMHO for the pseudonymous position is the difficulty of accounting for the letter's acceptance in Thessalonica. In my essay 'The Holy Internet' on communication in the early church (in The Gospels for All Christians, ed Richard Bauckham) I argued that news spread relatively quickly. This has implications for those who place the origin of 2 Thess away from Thessalonica and long after Paul¹s death (e.g. Trilling and Menken). Many theorize that the letter came to be widely received before the Thessalonians themselves learned of its existence; by that time, its acceptance had effectively become a fait accomli. This argument depends on a lengthy delay between the letter¹s publication and its arrival in its stated destination.

We might understand a congregation¹s acceptance of a pseudonymous letter purportedly written to them by Paul if it were a jewel like Ephesians. But 2 Thessalonians implies that the recipients are being shaken and duped in their eschatology (2.1-3), are forgetting what Paul told them (2.5), and are lazy busybodies who need to get back to work (3.10-12)‹not exactly flattering words. Situated by the Egnatian thoroughfare and a busy port, the church in Thessalonica would have discovered very quickly that a letter was circulating which they had never received from Paul. But we have not the slightest historical evidence that it was questioned there (and to my knowledge, no evidence of a major disaster that destroyed the continuity of tradition there). The faster news spread in the ancient world, the more difficult it becomes to sustain the pseudonymous argument, unless the letter originated with the leadership of Thessalonica shortly after Paul¹s death‹a view few, if any, so far have adopted. But again, have I missed something?

I look forward to the continuing discussion.

Mike Thompson
Lecturer in NT, Ridley Hall
Cambridge UK

============================================================================

Michael B Thompson Telephone (0)1223-741066(study)
Ridley Hall (0)1223-741077 (home)
Cambridge, UK CB3 9HG (0)1223-741081 (fax)
http://www.ridley.cam.ac.uk