This is the third entry in the Second Letter of Paul to the
Thessalonians Bible Junkies Commentary. You can find the first entry here. In
the first entry I discussed introductory matters, such as the origin of the
Church in Thessalonica, its early history with Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, and
also introductory matters of scholarship, including the structure of Paul’s
letters, modeled on the Hellenistic letter form, and noting such issues as
whether the letter was written by the Apostle Paul. In the second entry, I gave
an overview
of the content in 2 Thessalonians. In this, the third entry, I begin the
process of commenting on the text itself, based on the New Revised Standard
Version in English and the Greek text which underlies all translations.
1 Paul, Silvanus,
and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ. (NRSV)
The salutation in 1 Thess. is the simplest of all of Paul’s letters, so
2 Thess. is not much more complex in adding a slightly extended grace to the
Church. It is instructive, however, to see that scholars have argued for the
authenticity of this letter and the inauthenticity of this letter partly on the
basis of the similarity of the salutation. The case for authenticity is
straightforward: the same three co-authors have addressed a letter to the
Church they founded and had to leave quickly in light of new developments in
Thessalonica, so the salutation would naturally be quite similar to their
previous letter. The argument against authenticity takes the fact of the
similar salutations and turns it on its head. Someone, in an attempt to claim
Paul’s mantle of authority, has slavishly mimicked the form of 1 Thess. in
order to shape the letter in the Pauline style.
Now, in all fairness, I know of no one who makes this claim in a
vacuum, that is, that this piece of evidence alone is compelling or settles the
case in any way against Paul’s authorship of 2 Thess., but I must say that it
is to my mind as poor a piece of evidence that one could bring against a claim
of authorship. The suggestion is, in combination with other factors naturally,
that the shaping of the salutation in 2 Thess. in light of 1 Thess. indicates authors
trying to maintain Paul’s authorial style and authority. The problem with this
as evidence is the manner in which these claims are generally made: arguments
against Pauline authorship of certain letters attributed to Paul are generally
done so on the basis of dissimilarity to Paul’s “genuine” epistles in style and
content. So, the general argument is that a letter is not considered to have
been written by Paul because it is too unlike Paul’s writing and thinking in
other letters. For instance, this claim is made about the eschatology in 2
Thess. as compared to 1 Thess. If, however, the argument is now made that a
letter is not considered Paul’s because the writing is too much like Paul
it seems that one is engaged in a sort of argumentative sleight of hand in
which an argument or theory is not able to be falsified. Is the letter unlike
Paul’s “genuine” epistles? Then it is probably not a letter from Paul. And if
the letter is too much like Paul’s “genuine” epistles? Then it, too, is
probably not a letter from Paul. On this score one should demand consistency:
you can make one of these arguments against authorship of a letter, but not
both. To my mind, this salutation does point to the authorship of Paul,
Silvanus and Timothy, just as it states, though this piece of evidence is not decisive.
The salutation itself points to a closeness in time to 1 Thess. if this
letter is written by Paul, since it includes all three authors again, which means
that they are all still together. We know that according to Acts of the
Apostles 17:14-15
and 18:5 Silvanus and Timothy met up with Paul in
Corinth, where Paul stayed for about 18 months, so in all likelihood this would
be the place from and the time-frame in which the letter was written if, as I
think, it emerges genuinely from Paul and his friends.
It raises the question, again, though of how much of a role Silvanus
and Timothy have in writing this letter in which they are proclaimed as
co-authors. As I wrote in the 1
Thessalonians online commentary,
What role do they play in the writing of this letter? Does Paul mention
their names because of their dealings with the Thessalonians? Or do they have a
role to play in the shaping of the letter itself? There is more work being done
on scribes (Greek: amanuensis) and their role as letter writers now than
there has been previously, but it is still unclear if named co-authors refers
to their actual function as co-authors, scribes or as a polite formality based
on their previous relationships with the church.
This issue becomes even more pronounced for 2 Thess., since we have a
letter, 1 Thess., with which we can compare questions of change, difference, and
similarity. For instance, is it possible that changes in tone in the letter can
be attributed to one or another of the co-author’s taking the lead in the
writing? Can similarity in the salutation, for example, be attributed to having
the same person act as the scribe working from the same notes (or from memory)?
It might not be possible to answer these questions definitively, but the
question of co-authorship is a better setting for asking how letters are both
similar and dissimilar without claiming that a letter does not emerge from Paul’s
pen or circle.
As to the rest of the salutation, the mention of the church (ekklêsia)
in Thessalonica is straightforward, as in 1 Thess., but the greeting has become
somewhat more complex than the 1 Thess. greeting of grace (charis) and
peace (eirênê). Paul’s letters all begin with grace (charis), but
by noting that peace (eirênê) comes from God and Jesus Christ, something
not noted in 1 Thess., Paul, Silvanus and Timothy might be attempting to establish
the need to rely on God in all things and that peace itself is a divine gift. I wrote elsewhere about
peace in the New Testament, which is dependent upon the Hebrew shalom and
considers peace not so much in the political sphere, but as salvation of the
whole person. The Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament describes the three most significant
meanings of eirênê: “peace as a feeling of peace and rest”; “peace as
the salvation of the whole man in an ultimate eschatological sense”; and “peace
as a state of reconciliation with God” (412-15). In Paul, it can also refer to “peace
of soul” (e.g., Romans
5:1-2, 15:13; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:13-17; Colossians 3:11, 15). I do
not think it is possible to distinguish exactly what sense of “peace” Paul,
Silvanus and Timothy refer to here, but it could certainly include “peace of
soul,” “peace as a feeling of peace and rest,” and “peace as a state of
reconciliation with God.” Whether it also includes “peace as the salvation of
the whole man in an ultimate eschatological sense,” we might want to reconsider
after examining more of the letter.
John W. Martens
0 comments:
Post a Comment