Skip to main content

Authorship of 2 Thessalonians



    Although it is generally accepted that Paul wrote most of the epistles, there are still questions surrounding the authorship of several letters. The six in question are 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians. For this blog, I want to focus solely on 2 Thessalonians and try to uncover who wrote this letter and why this letter was even included.





   1 Thessalonians was written by the apostle Paul to a church in Thessalonica with the intention of encouraging them in their new-found Christianity and guiding them onto the correct path. "Rather than a correction of any doctrinal or behavioral error, then, 1 Thessalonians is a hortatory letter of friendship with the goal of guiding the readers in the development of Christian character. (Akerlund 20)". The newly converted Christians in Thessalonica were under extreme persecution and ostracism from the Roman society and, in today's terms, would have been considered "alternative" at the very least. Because they declared that someone other than the emperor of Rome was "king", their very lives were in danger.

     It should be noted that Paul's letter has been under scrutiny at times because of speculation that Paul was anti-Semitic. According to an article by Jeffery S. Lamp, from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Paul was rather harsh with the fledgling church because of these anti-Jewish feelings. In his letter, Paul states:

"13And for this reason we also give thanks to God constantly, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you did not receive it as a human word, but just as it truly is, God’s word, which is also at work in you who believe. 14For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God that are in Christ Jesus in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own kinsfolk as they did from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, who drove us out, who are displeasing God, who are hostile to all people, 16and who are forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles so that they might be saved; thus they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them finally. (1 Thessalonians 2:13-16)."

That final sentence (verse 16) seems very damning of Jewish tradition and culture. Despite this, Paul writes a very encouraging and uplifting letter of guidance to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians. Why, then, was a second letter included. Surely Paul said what he needed to say in the first letter. There are no follow-up letters with Galatians or Ephesians to offer clarity or insight, for example. These letters seem to stand alone. 



   

    One answer may be that Paul was writing in response to changes in his personal life. In an article published by Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, Derek Edwin Noel King hypothesizes that Paul's writings show four different aspects of his personality. Using the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, King analyzes Paul's different writing styles in each letter, and makes a compelling argument that he is the actual author of 2 Thessalonians. Based on Paul's writing King states, "Overall, Paul is found to be an ESTJ (Dominant Thinking, Auxiliary Sensing, Tertiary Intuitive and Inferior Feeling) (King 865)." People with the personality type ESTJ tend to be dedicated and strong-willed. This description seems accurate when considering Paul's tenacity and dedication to making sure the early churches were set up properly. This also explains why Paul included a follow up letter to the new church in order to encourage and guide them.


     While researching this question, I was unable to find a satisfactory answer as to who the actual author of 2 Thessalonians is, if it is not Paul. There is some speculation that the author could have been a student or follower of Paul's discipleship. Another theory is that 2 Thessalonians is pseudepigraphical. Pseudepigraphical writings are attributed to writers from whom they are not written. Thus, also tend to be rather ambiguous by nature. The fact that "Paul" does not directly reference 1 Thessalonians in his second letter, shows that he could run the risk of being intentionally ambiguous because his readers would understand the context of his letters. This means that "Paul" was writing in response to the changing atmosphere in Thessalonica. His readers understood, in context, the reason he was sending extra instruction and encouragement, without him having to restate his first letter.




     In the end, I will concede that, despite the many speculations and theories surrounding the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, this in no way detracts from the spiritual meaning of the work. Readers are still able to understand that Paul, or the writer attributing his work to Paul, is spelling out what it means to live as a Christian and encouraging those who are being persecuted for their beliefs.












Works Cited:

ÅKERLUND, TRULS. "To Live Lives Worthy of God": Leadership and Spiritual Formation in I Thessalonians 2: 1-12." Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care, vol. 9, no. 1, Spring2016, pp. 18-34. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=114798746&site=ehost-live.





King, Derek Edwin Noel. "The Four Pauls and Their Letters: A Study in Personality-Critical Analysis." Mental Health, Religion & Culture, vol. 15, no. 9, Nov. 2012, pp. 863-871. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/13674676.2012.677591.

Lamp, Jeffrey S. "Is Paul Anti-Jewish? Testament of Levi 6 in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16." Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 3, July 2003, p. 408. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10294697&site=ehost-live.

Roose, Hanna. "'A Letter as by Us': Intentional Ambiguity in 2 Thessalonians 2.2." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol. 29, no. 1, Sept. 2006, pp. 107-124. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0142064X06068381.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is There an Acceptable Reason to Divorce One's Spouse (according to Paul or the 1st Century Roman Empire)?

In 1 Corinthians, Paul has a lot to say concerning men and women, sex, marriage and divorce. He begins chapter 7 by stating that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman", but goes on to say that, because of the temptation of sexual immorality, "each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband". So, in this context it seems as though Paul is saying men and women should marry only to protect themselves from the sin of sexual immorality. This seems like a pretty bleak existence.  The question then, is this: According to Paul and the 1st Century Roman Empire, is there an acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse? The answer is not as cut and dried as one might think. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the two groups' opinions are split on the subject. It should be noted that Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, was taught that marriage is absolute . In Matthew 19:6 and 19:9 Jesus addresses a Pharisee who is badg
Post a Comment
Read more

Who was Herod Archelaus and Why were Joseph and Mary Afraid of Him?

                                                                   While putting my Matthew blog together, I hit brick wall after brick wall. To be completely honest, the end result of my research on this blog topic is, partially, supposition. However, the facts that I did find, are truly fascinating.       To begin, we must first delve into a quick background of Herod Archelaus. Archelaus was the first son of Herod the Great and the principal heir  to the throne of Judea. After the,  possibly very gruesome , death of his father, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to defend his birthright. His brothers, Antipas and Philip, both made equal claims to the Judean throne. Emperor Augustus, however, recognized that he should receive the largest portion of the inheritance, but he did not go as far as to name him king. Instead, Archelaus had to settle for the lesser title of ethnarch, which is equal to the governor of a specific region. This emphasized his dependence on the Roman Empire
Post a Comment
Read more

A discussion on Paul's teachings about marriage and his views on women's rights in general

While reading Romans chapter 7, I was first struck by the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements on what marriage should look like for believers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives no alternative to being married once you're married, even in the case of adultery (or so it seems), which is directly against the lessons of his teacher, Jesus. He even says that if you DO   get a divorce, then you are not permitted to marry again. Period. Of course, he does allow for reconciliation and remarriage between the husband and wife, which is, admittedly, a small concession. In Romans, however, Paul teaches that if a husband dies, the wife is free from the marriage bond and allowed to remarry. Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between Paul's teachings to the Romans, who he had not even met yet, and his teachings to the Corinthians?  Also, why does Paul only address the issue as it concerns men? Many bible scholars agree that in Romans Paul is referencing the Mosaic
Post a Comment
Read more