First, a disclaimer: This article was originally going focus on pseudonymity in the ancient world, while using I Thessalonians and II Thessalonians as examples. However, there are apparent eschatological differences between II Thess and I Thess – and that Paul himself possibly did not write II Thess — this means bridging any connections between pseudonymity and how each letter approaches eschatology. Therefore, this article will weave both topics together.
Beginning with pseudonymity, here are some points to consider when comparing II Thessalonians’ authorship with to I Thess:
As Brown discusses, the Pauline letters in question are not the only instances of pseudepigraphic works in Scripture: The book of Wisdom, written around 100 BC, has Solomon as the author, though 800 years after Solomon’s reign. And books attributed to Moses were written at least 700 years after the fact. Yet the disputed Pauline letters differ some from the above examples – namely, they were written either during or shortly after Paul’s life (Brown 587).
The overall letter format for II Thess matches up well with I Thess, including similarities in vocabulary (Brown 593). Paul even states that “This greeting is with my own hand, Paul; this is my mark in every letter” (II Thess 3:17). However, II Thess has noticeable differences as well: The tone is less formal, it puts less focus on Paul’s ministerial work and travels (Brown 592, 593), and it appears to be about upholding apostolic traditions towards the end of the first century (Senior 1681).
Here are a few brief reasons for the later dating: 1.) Because I Thess is the earliest record of Paul’s writings, it does not square with Paul’s comment about “my mark in *every letter*; it assumes that other letters (plural) had already been written. 2.) This also does not square with Paul being a copied authority so early in his ministry. 3.) Because the apocalyptic teachings in II Thess mesh well with Revelation, that puts the dating around the end of first century (Brown 593, 594).
This leads to the eschatological differences between II Thess and I Thess and how the later dating in II Thess may explain the discrepancies. Brown points out that as persecution against Christians became more widespread, the 90’s AD found many Christians redressing Jewish apocalyptic teachings into showing that Satan was in cohorts with the Roman empire. II Thess draws on these ideas and predicts the coming of a figure known as the “man of lawlessness”(II Thess 2.3; Brown 595).
The writer of II Thess may have wanted to to clarify this apocalyptic sign, as the Thessalonians had understood apocalyptic signs to be more immediate after Paul first preached about the parousia. In fact, some Thessalonians had even understood Paul as claiming the “day of the Lord is already at hand” (II Thess 2:2; Brown 594). But as Brown comments, how does this passage fit with “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” in I Thess 5:2? (Brown 594).
II Thess first clears up the Thessalonians’ hyper-focusing on the parousia and reminds them of all that must happen *before* Jesus’ return (Senior 1680). It also addresses “the lie” – that is, the Thessalonians should watch carefully for false teachers, and that the signs of the parousia have not occurred yet (Brown 596).
Still, the teachings in II Thess add more to the mystery about the end times: Was the “man of lawlessness” in fact one of the Roman emperors in the first or early second century? Or did a false prophet trick the Thessalonians into a different belief about the end times, which II Thess then had to correct? (Brown 597, 598). Or, as with understanding the parousia, are the apocalyptic signs in II Thess merely a symbolic way of saying that opposition to God is ongoing? Or God’s kingdom will be fully realized after a final, climactic opposition that leads to Christ’s return? (Brown 597, 598). Or what about the scores of failed claims — for centuries now – about the “anti-Christ”?
See, I should have called Kirk Cameron, after all.
Works Cited
Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Senior, Donald, et al. The Catholic Study Bible. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Ignatius Press. Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. Ignatius Pr, 2016.