The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians

By William Wrede

Scholars continue to debate whether Second Thessalonians was written by Paul or by pseudonym. The position that the letter is a late imitation is largely based on the comparison of the parallel expressions of two epistles to the Thessalonians. There are more words and phrases that are shared between these two letters than there are in any other two New Testament letters. William Wrede's study is the ultimate source of scholarly perception of these parallels. Not only does Wrede locate some exact parallels, he also finds definite words, verses, and related passages that precisely mirror and reflect their counterparts in First Thessalonians. Scholars who conclude that Second Thessalonians is pseudonymous owe much of that conclusion to Wrede's work.

Wrede's order of the Greek parallels has been reproduced with his original annotations in this translation.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Release date: Apr 25, 2017
• ISBN: 9781498292719

William Wrede

William Wrede (1859-1906) was a leading proponent of radical literary criticism, whose masterful Messianic Secret in the Gospels revolutionized NT studies. A late bloomer, Wrede became Professor of New Testament at Breslau, Germany in 1895 at age 36 and died just eleven years later. He produced only two major books---one on the gospels (1901) and this volume on Paul (1904) - both of which became classics, whose theses are referred to in all later texts on these topics.

Book preview

9781498292702.kindle.jpg

The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians

William Wrede

Translated by Robert Rhea

7810.png

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SECOND LETTER TO THE THESSALONIANS

Copyright © 2017 Robert B. Rhea. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-4982-9270-2

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-9272-6

ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-9271-9

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Names: Wrede, William. | Rhea, Robert B.

Title: The authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians / William Wrede. Translated by Robert B. Rhea

Description: Eugene, OR : Cascade Books, 2017 | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: ISBN 978-1-4982-9270-2 (paperback) | ISBN 978-1-4982-9272-6 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-4982-9271-9 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Thessalonians, 2nd—Evidences, authority, etc.

Classification: LCC BS2725.3 W6 2017 (print) | LCC BS2725.3 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 02/07/17

Table of Contents

Title Page

Translator’s Preface

Translator’s Note

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations for Reference Works

Notes On The Greek

Preface

Preliminary Remarks

Chapter 1: The Literary Relationship of the Two Letters to the Thessalonians

Chapter 2: Objections to an Early Fiction

Chapter 3: Literary Form and Composition

Chapter 4: The Letter as Forgery

Chapter 5: The Significance of the Jerusalem Temple

Bibliography

To my mother Sara who understood the beauteous natural world with all its plants, flowers, shrubs, trees, the skies above and all creatures above and below the waters to be a wondrous reflection of heaven, a truly vibrant, marvelous manifestation of the Divine Love permeated by earthly light, glory, and splendor which mirror throughout the earth the radiance of our Lord and Lady, Jesus of Galilee and the Queen of Heaven.

To my sister Ann and her family for their tolerance of the many ways of my life’s journey.

Translator’s Preface

Wrede tells us in the preface to his study of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians that for a certain time he could not decide for or against the authenticity of this letter that tradition ascribes to the Apostle Paul. Unlike those scholars who had used the eschatological argument to reach a definite decision for or against authenticity, he was never satisfied with it and did not consider that argument to be definitive. One must assume that though he had doubts, he must have always held the suspicion that the letter was not Paul’s but could not quite put his finger on those characteristics of it that gave rise to this opinion. It seems that he must have spent a rather long time with the attempt to find a more precise way to describe and document a definite factual approach to the dilemma.

It must have been that as he began juxtaposing the verses of the two letters to the Thessalonians, placing them side by side in the order that they occurred in their respective texts, he happened upon what for him became the most vaild solution. Not only was he able to locate some exact parallels of words, phrases, and sentences, he also could find definite related words, verses, and related passages that precisely mirrored and reflected their counterparts in the First Letter to the Thessalonians. What must have been the final discovery was the related structure of the two letters that enabled him to declare at long last, Eureka. Wrede’s order of the Greek parallels has been reproduced with his original annotations in this translation; for since they form the foundation of his argument, it was deemed essential to present them in the manner in which he laid them out.

This sense of discovery permeates his study, particularly the first chapter, but it extends also throughout this work. Even when he addresses the possible origin of this letter and its destination, he continues the adventure by postulating that it may have been written in Phrygia where within in a short amount of time it was added to the collection of Paul’s letters in surrounding Christian communities before it eventually found its way to Rome where Marcion added it to his Apostolikon. As I translated the text, it was this perceived sense of excitement of his that made the endeavor a captivating one. It seemed each day he took me on another adventure as though he were telling a story, even though he was writing an exegetical study.

Robert B. Rhea

Bristol, Tennessee

June 2016

Translator’s Note

Wrede did not prepare and append a bibliography to his study of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians. Rather he placed fragmentary footnotes at the bottom of a page, and thus much of what today is expected for a complete footnote was not included. From the bibliographical data that he reported, it is evident that he sought only to guide the reader to an author and a source; and often he did not give the name of a publisher, the date of publication, or title or range of pages for periodical entries.

The bibliography for this translation has been compiled from entries taken from Wrede’s original footnotes. For those periodical entries for which he did not give the title of the article and sometimes when he did not give even the title of a monograph, I have used the designation, untitled entry, followed by the title of the journal or other publication cited.

From time to time he used abbreviations but did not attach a list of abbreviations with their corresponding full titles. For these entries I have had no other alternative but to simply list the abbreviations. Nonetheless my incomplete bibliography and list of abbreviations give the reader a better overview of this material than Wrede’s original footnotes to his text.

Acknowledgments

The Rev. Harry Shaefer suggested this project, typed Wrede’s Greek into the SBL polytonic font, and proofread the entire manuscript. Susan Kotlinski proofread the Greek. Paolo Livieri compared the translation with the original German.

We would like to especially thank the Rev. Dr. Richard Ray, interim president, and the IT Department of King University, Bristol, Tennessee for their kind cooperation with the use of their facilities for the completion of much of this project.

Abbreviations for Reference Works

HNT Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament.

JPT Jahrbuch für protestanische Theologie. 1880.

LNTT Lehrbuch der Neutestamentliche Theologie.

MK Das Meyersche Kommentar. 5th and 6th ed.

NTS Neutestamentliche Studien.

NZHT Niedners Zeitschrift für historische Theologie. 1851.

PA Patr Apost.

PAO Patr Apost Opp.

SBL Schenkels Bibellexikon.

SK Studien und Kritiken. 1850.

TJ Theologisches Jahrbuch. 1848.

TLZ Theologische Literatur Zeitung. 1891.

TSSO Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen. 1889.

TUU Texte und Untersuchungen.

TZT Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie. 1839.

ZKWKL Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben. 1886.

ZNTW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.

ZWT Zeitschrift für die wissenschaftliche Theologie. 1862.

Notes On The Greek

It has been our intention to reproduce Wrede’s use of the Nestle Aland Greek text of the New Testament, except for some obvious typographical errors:

* In 2 Thess 1:7 Wrede has incorrectly place a period between τοῖς and θλίβουσιν.

* In 1 Thess 1:3, Wrede has incorrectly written παιτρὸς.

* For 1 Thess 4:5–6, the heading is correct, but Wrede has mislabelled verse 5 as 6 and verse 6 as 7.

* Footnote 46 on page 55 referencing Spitta, Zur Geschichte quotes 2 Thess 3:11 incorrectly, putting a semi-colon after τινας.

* On page 9, Wrede incorrectly has κατευθύναι ἡμῶν τὰς καρδιάς, which we have corrected to read ὑμῶν.

Otherwise, we have followed the Greek text that is in the German edition of Die Echtheit.

Preface

The following exegetical study was already completed as I began the writing of my book on The Messianic Secret in the Gospels (Göttingen, 1901 ) more than two years ago except for some comments that I have since completed. Meanwhile H. Holtzmann’s article, "On the Second Letter to the Thessalonians ," appeared in the Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenachaft, II 1901 , S. 97–108 . Since likewise in his work as in mine the relationship of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians to the First Letter to the Thessalonians is particularly discussed, the question could arise as to whether or not my study is pertinent to the debate. On that matter I have not fostered any doubt. My study is so completely different from Holtzmann’s work with regard to content, composition, and conception that I would have written it in any event, even if I had been familiar with his article. With regard to the revision and editing of my entire study, which I completed for its publication, I found that only a few significant additions and a series of formal revisions were necessary.

Perhaps the presentation in Chapter I is too expansive for some readers. However, here where the foundation of the argument is dealt with, I have wanted to present the facts as precisely as possible.

With regard to the presentation of the problem of Chapter V—whoever knows better what might be said here, I would be very thankful for that person’s viewpoint. Most valuable to me concerning this matter was H. Gunkel’s comment, which he sent me via a letter, even though I could not accept his view.

The question concerning the authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians has only marginal significance for the history of early Christianity. Nonetheless this topic has a special meaning and fascination. Almost against my will it has continued to intrigue me once I had approached it closely.

Breslau, December 1902

W. Wrede

Preliminary Remarks

With regard to the concern of biblical criticism that questions the authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, E. Reuss ¹ has missed the striking primary argument. As H. Holtzmann sought to find it (the primary argument) in his description and study of the eschatological theme of the second chapter, ² so he certainly gave expression to the prevailing opinion of the school of modern biblical criticism, as far as biblical criticism has generally disputed and questioned the Pauline origin of this little letter. Yet the efforts of the defense on the other hand have focused themselves thoroughly and predominantly on the same argument and topic.

It is my view that although certainly a suspicion can arise from the nature of the content and meaning of this passage, a thoroughly convincing argument against the Pauline origin and provenance of this letter does not allow itself to be documented on the basis of it. That which, for example, B. Bornemann,³ Jülicher,⁴ Zahn,⁵ and, among other viewpoints, Gunkel⁶ and Bousset⁷ have written along these lines about the passage that presents the Anti-Christ is not so easily discounted. That the reference of the passage points to Nero has by all means been totally discarded. One realizes that the traits of the Anti-Christ are not to be found with this description, which would then reveal the Roman ruler, a mother-murderer, the Redivivus, and a persecutor of Christians. Then too the argument and claim that this chapter has been influenced by the Book of Revelation no longer so easily finds the reception and belief it once had.

Totally independent from the concept of the eschatological passage, one can find with substantially better results that very striking primary argument with another aspect and point: in the literary relationship of the Second Letter to the First Letter of the Thessalonians. Many scholars have hardly at all taken note of this relationship;⁸ others have seriously examined it and have placed emphasis upon it; but without exception its meaning and significance have not been highly and properly enough evaluated by any of them.⁹

At least to me it appears that the matter is to be understood as follows. My judgment of this letter has wavered and swung back and forth for a rather long time. Yet a more exact and careful study of its relationship to the First Letter to the Thessalonians has led me to the viewpoint that its authenticity does not allow itself to be verified and sustained. However in this regard it is my opinion that despite all of the well-intended observations which have arisen from the comparison of these two letters, the strength of this argument has yet to become fully evident and understood, be that merely because one has not thoroughly enough collected, highlighted, followed up, and consequently pursued the observations that have been made. If I am mistaken about this, then the reader alone must decide.

Naturally it will not be possible to limit our study to only one aspect of the comparison. Then too much of what is often dealt with here will only be briefly touched on in this study; other aspects of the matter will require a detailed analysis and observation. Above all our effort should not remain with merely a negative assessment: it must be asked how this letter is to be positively understood and comprehended as document penned by pseudonym. Thus far biblical criticism has brought about valuable contributions to this question, but it has not attended to the matter with the same interest as it has with the formulation and substantiation of the negative assessment.¹⁰ Therefore, the scholarship has not sufficiently recognized and valued certain difficulties that stand in the way with regard to the dispute over the authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians.

1. Reuss, Die Geschichte,

73

.

2. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch,

215

.

3. Bornemann, Die Thessalonicherbriefe,

357

ff.

4. Jülicher, Einleitung,

41

ff.,

48

ff.

5. Zahn, Einleitung,

178

ff.

6. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos,

221

ff.

7. Bousset, Der Antichrist, 13

.

8. Klöpper, Der zweite Brief. Also B. Weiss in his Einleitung deals briefly with this relationship.

9. Weizsäcker, Der Apostolische Zeitalter,

258

. He makes this point a primary argument. On page

460

of his study, Die Thessalonicherbriefe, Bornemann finds this argument the most important but still maintains that the second letter is authentic. Holtzmann places special emphasis on this in his article, Zum zweiten Thessalonicherbrief, but concludes that the apocalyptic expectation of the second letter remains the decisive element.

10. Bornemann, Die Thessalonicherbriefe,

478

. He states, . . . previously those who debate the authenticity of the second letter have neither made the attempt nor sought to elaborate on it to make clear the unique character and the distinct content of the second letter under the presupposition of its fictitiousness.

Chapter I

The Literary Relationship of the Two Letters to the Thessalonians

A Comparison of the Parallels

First of all, let us simply place once more, in a concise overview, the corresponding parallels that are to be found in both letters.

For our purposes it is best to move and place the pertinent passages and pericopes of the first letter next to those of the corresponding sections of the text of the second letter, all that is related—not simply similar verbal sounds but also random words and other similarities—so that they might be highlighted by the printed text, and then begin the discussion with a few comments of explanation. This overview will make clear which parallels must be viewed and considered together—for it depends upon those relationships, as it will become apparent. On the other