Who wrote 2nd Thessalonians?

[Mankney]

Hi, I am in the process of studying 2 Thess and reading 5 different commentaries trying to explore the different ideas and concepts of each commentary. The Collegeville Bible (Catholic) commentary that I bought for my Logos software says Paul did not write 2 Thess.

Is this a common belief and would anyone have any ideas or thoughts on what people who believe it was not written by Paul base it on?

It seems as I am reading the scriptures more in depth for the first time that modern scholars are trying to tell us that they know who wrote these books better now 2000 years later than the people who were around at the time and it has me confused…which admittely is not hard

Thanks for any comments

 

[Fidelis]

There has been scholarly speculation about this for many years. Those who hold that 2 Thess was not written by Paul point primarily to two issues.

The first is that the letter seems to address issues within the Church at Thessalonica that indicate a more mature church, that is, they are experiencing problems that a church might experience only after it had been established for a while. The issue most frequently cited is the question of “the last days.”

The second point often pointed to is that the letter sounds too much like Paul to be Paul! In other words, it seems like someone (purportedly a disciple of his) is trying hard to imitate Paul while using his name to bolster his authority. This is called pseudepigraphy and was very popular in the ancient world.

Personally, I find these to be weak reasons to base ones belief on an authorship of the letter as being someone other than Paul. Keep in mind, in any case, that this is all scholarly speculation, since it is impossible to definitively prove any of this. You don’t have to accept the speculations of the commentator – and in this case I don’t, prefering to just assume that Paul wrote this, as well as the other NT letters traditionally attributed to him (and this includes Hebrews).

Used to be that this type of scholarly speculation was confined to dusty specialist journals. Now it’s in every popular commentary where it is often (erroneously) presented as established fact. If the Collegeville commentary you have presents it this way (which wouldn’t surprise me), shame on them.

 

[Mankney]

Great response.

Thanks so much.

 

[JMBNH]

With the exception of Hebrews none of the Pauline Epistles had their authorship by St Paul questioned in the early Church. Though some people these days would claim that 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians aren’t, it seems ridiculous given the first named fact. As for Hebrews I haven’t got a clue whether St Paul wrote it or not

 

[Ron_Conte]

With the exception of Hebrews none of the Pauline Epistles had their authorship by St Paul questioned in the early Church. Though some people these days would claim that 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians aren’t, it seems ridiculous given the first named fact. As for Hebrews I haven’t got a clue whether St Paul wrote it or not

Well said. The unanimous testimony of the early Church fathers suffices.

Also, the first verse states that the letter was written by Paul et alia:
[2 Thessalonians 1]
{1:1} Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy, to the Church of the Thessalonians, in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So the theory that Paul did not write it depends upon the premise that Sacred Scripture contains factual errors, a premise also rejected by the early Church fathers, the Saints, and numerous Popes.

 

[Robster7]

Question re scholarly speculation:
Please reply, anyone who knows!
Let me know if this is an acceptable theory.

There are other books in which scholars question who the author is, and whether they are historically accurate (In Judith, it is said, historical times, places and names are mixed up; Jonah is said to be more of an instructive moral tale, not necessarily historical).

Now for me, I do not find this disturbing. The Bible is God’s Word; the primary intent of which is to reveal supernatural and moral truth. In some cases, I believe, specific historical details, insofar as they are not essential to the moral or supernatural revelation being given, need not be a 100% accurate.
The main lesson is not in such secondary information.

Please let me know anyone if this is an acceptable position to hold.

 

[juliamajor]

Question re scholarly speculation:
Please reply, anyone who knows!
Let me know if this is an acceptable theory.

There are other books in which scholars question who the author is, and whether they are historically accurate (In Judith, it is said, historical times, places and names are mixed up; Jonah is said to be more of an instructive moral tale, not necessarily historical).

Now for me, I do not find this disturbing. The Bible is God’s Word; the primary intent of which is to reveal supernatural and moral truth. In some cases, I believe, specific historical details, insofar as they are not essential to the moral or supernatural revelation being given, need not be a 100% accurate.
The main lesson is not in such secondary information.

Please let me know anyone if this is an acceptable position to hold.

Totally acceptable. despite what people think if you don’t acknowledge errors in fact or time,science or even syntax it will cause more not less doubts in scripture.Tobit has the totally wrong king for that time period shalamansar is what it has but Tiglath Pileser III is who it was. noah’s Ark has a different set of animals did the animals go in two by two or seven and two?