Corpus-Paul

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

> Adolf Hilgenfeld, "Die beiden Briefe an die Thessalonicher nach Inhalt und
> Ursprung",_ZWTh_ 5 (1862), pp. 225-64.

I dealt with Hilgenfeld in pp. 29-35 of my dissertation.  It was an excellent 
article,
written two years after the death of Baur by a fellow member of the Tübingen 
School in
a journal edited by Hilgenfeld.  Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) is very close indeed 
to where
I think most people who accept the pseudonymous authorship of 2 Thess. (and 
the
Pauline authorship of 1 Thess.) today are.  It is an article that still 
repays careful
study.  This article and the article by Richard Adelbert Lipsius (1830-1892), 
"Ueber
Zweck und Veranlassung des ersten Thessalonicherbrief," _Theologische Studien 
und
Kritiken_ 7 (1854) 905-34, were excellent refutations of Baur's position 
against the
Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians.  It was to Lipsius that Baur responded 
in "Die
beiden Briefe an die Thessalonicher: Ihre Echtheit und Bedeutung für die 
Lehre von der
Parusie Christi," _Theologische Jahrbücher_ 14 (1855) 141-68.  Baur came to 
the
stunning (and unique) solution that, not only did Paul not write either 
Thessalonian
letter, but that 1 Thessalonians was literarily dependent on 2 Thessalonians! 
 Baur's
article is translated by Allen Menzies in Baur, _Paul, the Apostle of Jesus 
Christ_
2.314-340.  Both Lipsius and Hilgenfeld defended the Pauline authorship of 1
Thessalonians by positing that it was an earlier letter.

Frank W. Hughes
Lecturer in NT Studies
Codrington College
Barbados