The Authorship of 2 Thessalonians

Oddly enough, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 was in the news today. I saw one journalist who frequently claims to have significant Bible knowledge (but keeps getting some of the basics wrong) state that this epistle was a forgery and not actually written by Paul. I thought I would respond.

The idea that Paul is not the author of 2 Thessalonians is largely a holdover from the 19^th century when the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation was in its infancy and the authorship of all of the books of the Bible was up for grabs. Greater understanding of the texts, their theology, and a more thorough understanding of the use of the historical-critical method has substantiated most of the traditional claims of Pauline authorship. 2 Thessalonians is still debated. While earlier generations focused on the eschatological differences between it and 1 Thessalonians, a greater realization that such differences were not in conflict has led to a more recent focus on the stylistic differences between it and 1 Thessalonians as the reason to doubt Pauline authorship. I’ve not found the arguments against Pauline authorship convincing, and I would like to give the reasons why.

-          Doubts about authorship are only based on the differences of style between it and 1 Thessalonians. If all we had was the second letter no one would doubt its authorship. Yet, no one doubts the Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians even though it is stylistically different from Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, letters which no one doubts are Pauline, too.

-          The Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is well attested in the early Church. No one doubted its authenticity until recently.

-          The letter claims to be from Paul (1:1; 3:1).

-          Those who reject Pauline authorship state that 2 Thessalonians was written just after Paul’s death. 1 Thessalonians is widely regarded as being the first Pauline letter. This would mean that 2 Thessalonians was written about 25 years after 1 Thessalonians. Yet, if the second letter is a forgery, the author apparently was attempting to create a letter for the era 1 Thessalonians (1:1) a quarter of a century later. This in of itself is odd. Why not just create a brand new letter? Why introduce a letter that the Thessalonians are supposed to believe was lost for 25 years? And then why make references to personal encounters/information concerning the readers (2:5, 15; 3:1, 6-10) and respond to the specific situation of his readers (1:4; 2:2, 3:11) when the persons and situation would have undoubtedly changed.

-          While there were definitely forged documents circulating within the early church (particularly in later centuries) there distinguishing characteristic was that they were attempting to introduce heresies into the Church. There is nothing like that in 2 Thessalonians. Indeed, the author is encouraging his readers to continue to follow established Pauline teaching (3:1, 6).

-          While there are differences in style between it and 1 Thessalonians, they are far more alike than they are different. Indeed, those who doubt Pauline authorship state that the forger was imitating Paul’s style.

-          There are several stylistic and theological similarities between 2 Thessalonians and other Pauline letters. Here are a just a few: 2:10-12 (Romans 1:26-28), 3:8 (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15-18), 3:9 (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1), 3:14 (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11), 3:17 (cf. Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 16:21), and 3:18 (cf. Philippians 4:23; Galatians 6:18; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Romans 16:20).

It’s generally guarded that those who favor the non-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians have the larger burden to bear to make their case. The above reasons are why I favor Pauline authorship.