The authenticity of this epistle is still in dispute.
James D. G. Dunn finds a “roughly even split among critical commentators on
Colossians and 2 Thessalonians.” Even assuming that it is authentic, this epistle was not sent by Paul alone, but by three people: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. As Professor Ernest Best, New Testament scholar, explains the problem: The structures of the two letters (to which Best refers) include opening greetings (
1 Thessalonians 1:1a, 2 Thessalonians 1:1–2) and closing benedictions (1 Thessalonians 5:28, 2 Thessalonians 3:16d–18) which frame two, balancing, sections (AA'). In 2 Thessalonians these begin with similar successions of nine Greek words, at 1:3 and 2:13. The opening letter section (1:3–2:12) itself comprises two halves, 1:3–12 (where the introductory piece, A, is 1:3–5; the first development, B, is 1:6–10; and the paralleling and concluding development, B', is 1:11–12) and 2:1–12 (with pieces: A 2:1–4, B 2:5–7, B' 2:8–12). The second, balancing, letter section (2:13–3:16c) also comprises two halves: 2:13–3:5 (with pieces: A 2:13–14, B 2:15–17, B' 3:1–5) and 3:6–16c (with pieces: A 3:6–9, B 3:10–12, B' 3:13-16c). Of the twelve pieces in 2 Thessalonians, seven begin with 'brother' introductions. Of the eighteen pieces in 1 Thessalonians, fourteen begin with 'brother' introductions. In both letters, the sections balance in size and focus, and in many details. In 2 Thessalonians, in 2:5 and 3:10, for example, there is a structural balance of the use of "when I was with you..." and "when we were with you...".
George Milligan argued that a church which possessed an authentic letter of Paul would be unlikely to accept a fake addressed to them. This argument was similarly supported by Colin Nicholl, who has put forward a substantial argument for the authenticity of Second Thessalonians. He points out that "the pseudonymous view is[...] more vulnerable than most of its advocates conceded.[...] The lack of consensus regarding a date and destination[...] reflects a dilemma for this position: on the one hand, the date needs to be early enough for the letter to have been accepted as Pauline[...] [on] the other hand, the date and destination need to be such that the author could be confident that no contemporary of 1 Thessalonians [...] could have exposed 2 Thessalonians as a[...] forgery." Those who believe Paul was the author of 2 Thessalonians also note how Paul drew attention to the authenticity of the letter by signing it himself: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, which is how I write in every letter."
Bruce Metzger writes, "Paul calls attention to his signature, which was added by his own hand as a token of genuineness to every letter of his (3:17)." While some draw attention to this verse as an excessive attempt of a forging author to convince his readers of authenticity, a parallel stock phrase has been noted by some in the authentic Galatians 6:11. A parallel has also been noted among
Cyprian where he stresses in his 9th epistle, under potential fears of the circulation of a forged letter, that examination of the style of the signature should be used in order to authenticate the letter: "examine whether both the writing and the signature are yours and write back to us what the matter is in truth." Other scholars who hold to authenticity include
Gregory Beale, Gene L. Green, Ivor H. Jones,
Leon Morris,
Ben Witherington III, Paul Foster, and Kretzmann. According to Leon Morris in 1986, the majority of current scholars at that time still held to Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians.
Opposition to authenticity At least as early as 1798, when
Johann Ernst Christian Schmidt published his opinion, Paul's authorship of this epistle was questioned. More recent challenges to this traditional belief came from scholars such as
William Wrede in 1903 and
Alfred Loisy in 1933, who challenged the traditional view of the authorship. Regarding Nicholl's argument for authenticity, on the one hand, it is worth noting that at least some forged Pauline letters were written well after a date modern scholars might deem early enough for the letter to be considered Pauline, such as the
Third Epistle to the Corinthians, estimated to have been written around 160-170 CE; forgers were not forced to write close in time to the writers they imitated. On the other hand, it is not clear that a forger would need to ensure his writing was not contemporaneous with 1 Thessalonians if he was not actually writing the letter to Thessalonica; furthermore, if Nicholls is correct in believing 2 Thessalonians to be authentic, then Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 provides evidence that forgeries in his name already existed in his own lifetime, discrediting his argument that forgers would take care to write far enough apart in time to ensure contemporaries could not denounce the forgery. In his book
Forged, New Testament scholar
Bart D. Ehrman puts forward some of the most common arguments against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. For example, he argues that the views concerning the
Second Coming of Christ expressed in 2 Thessalonians differ so strikingly from those found in 1 Thessalonians that they cannot be written by the same author. Several modern scholars agree with Ehrman that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul but by an associate or disciple after his death. Scholars include
Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Vincent Smiles,
Udo Schnelle, Eugene Boring, and Joseph Kelly.
Norman Perrin observes, "The best understanding of 2 Thessalonians[...] is to see it as a deliberate imitation of 1 Thessalonians, updating the apostle's thought." Perrin bases this claim on his hypothesis that prayer at the time usually treated
God the Father as
ultimate judge, rather than Jesus. Daryl Schmidt performed a detailed syntactical comparison between 2 Thess and other
disputed letters attributed to Paul in comparison to his
undisputed letters and concluded that 2 Thess is highly unlikely to have been written by Paul. Among the undisputed letters, there are five
embedded clauses at four layers of embeddedness in the longest sentence in the opening thanksgiving section of the
Letter to the Romans, six clauses at four layers in
1 Corinthians, five clauses at three levels in
2 Corinthians, six clauses at one level in
Philippians, and ten clauses at five levels in
1 Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians, in contrast, has an uncharacteristic twenty-two clauses at fifteen levels of embeddedness in the equivalent section. Schmidt demonstrates similar anomalies in 2 Thess' structures of genitive constructions in non-phrase strings, and its frequent reliance on coordinating and subordinating constructions, and concludes that — in combination with other evidence — it is highly unlikely to have been written by Paul. == Background ==