THESSALONIANS, SECOND EPISTLE TO

3. Authenticity.^ — (1) External testimony. The evi-dence already cited for 1 Th. is reinforced by quotations in Polycarp, and possibly in Justin Martyr; that is, of the two Epistles the Second is the more strongly attested.

(2) Internal evidence. Circumstances have already been assigned to the letter, in themselves consistent and not improbable. To these may be added the close resemblance to 1 Th. in subject-matter and phrasing, so obvious that it need not here be detailed. A literary dependence of 2 Th. on 1 Th. is practically certain, for the interval necessary to justify a second letter at all for-bids the supposition of unconscious repetition. If 2 Th. is by St. Paul, he must have re-read his former letter before writing this, and the question naturally arises whether it is likely that he would so reproduce himself. (The case of Colossians and Ephesians is not parallel: these were contemporary Epistles, and not addressed to the same Church.) Hence the resemblance to 1 Th. is made an argument against the Pauline authorship of 2 Th. Moreover, along with the resemblance are found other featiu:es which are regarded as un-Pauline and post-Pauline, with the result that the Second Epistle is widely rejected by those who admit the First. The grounds of this rejection must be briefly examined.

(a) Style. It is freely admitted that this argument is hazardous and indecisive: those who rely upon it would not perhaps quarrel with Jowett's dictum that 'objections of this kind are, for the most part, matters of taste or feeling, about which it is useless to dispute' {Com. on Th. i. 147). The argument must also reckon with those evident features of Pauline style and vocabulary which the close resemblance of some two-thirds of the Ep. to 1 Th. carries with it, while in the remainder what is exceptional may be due to the new subject-matter. Still, it may be argued that some of the passages which are most closely parallel to 1 Th. show'a loss of ease and simplicity which suggests that they have been worked over by another hand. There is a difference, hard to account for in the same writer saying the same thing after so short an interval; nor is the change such as marks advance towards the style of St. Paul's later letters.

(6) Subject-matter (apart from 2'-"). As compared with 1 Th., very little appears in 2 Th. that is new or convincingly Pauline: something, too, of the warmth and glow of personal feeling has gone. Tlie severity of tone in 1^-^ cannot perhaps be objected to, in view of 1 Th 2f^- 's, while 3"" is suffi-ciently accountedfor by an aggravation of the offence already rebuked (1 Th 4" 5"). The reference to an 'epistle as from us ' (22) suggests an earlier correspondence of St. Paul with his Churches, of which we have no knowledge, frequent enough to have already given rise to fraudulent imitation. This IS not impossible, though the precaution of a certifying signature (3^') may seem, perhaps, a little inadequate,

(c) The passage 2>-'2. The objection that this con-tradicts the eschatology of 1 Th S^- ^ cannot be sustained. "The earlier passage speaks of a coming of ' the day of the Lord,' sudden and unexpected: if this had been misinter-preted of a coming so imminent as to cause the ordinary duties of life to lose interest or claim, the Apostle might well.without inconsistency, remind the Thessaloniansthathe had warned them of si^is which must first be fulfilled (2'-') . A more serious doubt is raised by the apocalyptic character of the passage, unique in Paul, and held to snow both de-

Eendence on later writings and allusion to post-Pauline istory. So far, however, as the thought is exceptional, the section may fairly be regarded as a pendant to the equally exceptional section 1 Th 4is-" (cf. also Ro T'-' Gal i^-^'). and as more likely to be original than attributed to Paul by a later imitator. 'The question rather is whether it can be accounted for lay contemporary ideas, or betrays the facts and conceptions of a later time. The general thought is that the coming of Christ is to be heralded by an outburst of iniquity, described as the 'apostasy' ('falling away '2'), either headed by or personified as 'the man of sin' (RVm 'the man of lawlessness'), 'the son of perdition,' 'the lawless one' (w.^- ^) whose character and coming are more fully described in w.'- '-'2. Already ' the mystery of law-lessness' is at work (v.'), but the crisis is delayed, as the Thessalonians know, by "that which restraineth| (v.'h ' one who restrains ' (v.') . In due season this restraint will be removed, that the lawless one may be revealed, to be slain by the Lord Jesus (w.6-9). ,, ^ , ■

Now, of the elements of this conception, that of an apos-tasy' is not un-Pauline: it appears 2 Co 11"-", Rp 16i'-2» (as well as Ac 20"'-"', and throughout the Pastoral Epp.),

THEUDAS

and is attributed to false teachers. The same idea occurs in Mt 24S- "• "■ «||, 2 Pet. and Jude, 1 Jn 2^»- 22 43, 2 Jn». This wide prevalence of the thought in the NT writings, and the constant prediction of 'many' false teachers, false prophets, false Christs, antichrists (1 Jn 2"), may suggest as regards ourpaBsage(l) that it draws upon a common stock of eschatological ideas; (2) that 'the man of sin' is not necessarily a person but rather a type (cf. 1 Jn 2", 'many antichrists," but v.22 and elsewhere 'the antichrist'), symbolizing tendencies and movements, and therefore only at grave hazard to be identified with any definite historical personage. Hence the alleged reference to the legend of Nero redivivus' (Tac. Hist. ii. 8), with its iinpUcation of A.D. 68-70 as the earliest possible date for 2 "Th., is quite without warrant.

It is true that our passage has close affinities with Revela-tion (especially 13" -" W- 21 20'°), but this does not neces-sarily mean dependence. For Ezk 38. 39, Dn 7-9. 11.12, and later extra-canonical Jewish apocalyptic literature present, under varied historic colouring, the same conception of a final rally of the powers of evil before the last days, and of the triumph of Messiah over 'antichrist.* In Test. xii. Patr. this anti-christ' is 'Belial' or 'Behar' (cf. 2 Co 6"), in Rev. 'the beast' (symbol of the Roman Empire rather than exclusively of Nero), and it is not necessary to regard ' the man of sin ' and equivalent expressions as more personal than these. What is really peculiar to 2 Th. is the assertion of a restraining power, holding in check the mystery of lawlessness already at work. Can this be explained as historical colour given by St. Paul to current apocalyptic tradition under the circumstances of a.d. 53 or thereabouts?

Now, at that date the Apostle of the Gentiles had lately experienced the determined enmity of the Jews to his whole Christian mission, at Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth. Though the Parousia is not yet (2 Th 22), St. Paul expects it within his own lifetime (1 Th 4"). The traditional 'antichrist' is therefore already to be looked for (2 Th 2'), and might well be discovered in Jewish hatred, bent on the very destruction of Christianity (1 Th 2"- ")^ fortified by its secure hold of the national sanctuary (2 Th 2*), and held in restraint only by the forces of order seated in the Roman power, or, possibly, in the better elements of Judaism itself (26- 7). Thus interpreted, the passage would be a develop-ment on apocalyptic lines of the outburst of I'-u", and no necessity would remain f ortbesuggestion, quite unsupported by evidence, that 2' -'2 either is an interpolation , or is itself a genuine Pauline fragment worked up into aspurious Epistle.

So far, then, as doubts concerning 2 Th. are reduced to argument, they can hardly prevail against the tradition of Pauline authorship. Whether misgivings as to style can be relieved by the suggestion that Timothy or Silas wrote in the Apostle's name is doubtful; at least, the repeated ' we ' points to no such co-operation (cf . 1 Th 2"-3'). The trend of present critical opinion is perhaps indicated in Jfllicher's judgment, that the difficulties 'can after all be most easily solved' under the view that the Epistle was written by St. Paul.

S. W. Green.

THESSALONICA (modern SaloniH). — An important city of the Roman province Macedonia, situated on the Via Egnatia, the overland route from Italy to the E., and at the north-eastern corner of the Thermaic Gulf. Its buildings rose above one another in tiers on the slopes of the hills. The situation is in every respect admirable, and must have been early occupied. This city was founded about B.C. 315, and named after a step-sister of Alexander the Great. Its greatness under Macedonian rule was even extended under Roman rule. It became the capital of the Roman province Macedonia, constituted B.C. 146. It was made a 'free city' in b.c. 42 (Ac 17' knows this fact), and was ruled by its own magis-trates under the rather rare title 'politarchs,' who were 5 or 6 in number. There were many Jews here, as the possession of a synagogue shows (Ac 17'), and a number of proselytes (Ac 17*). The enemies of St. Paul raised a cry of treason, and a serious riot resulted. Some of Paul's friends had to give security that this would not be repeated. This forced Paul to leave the city. Members of the church here were Jason, Gaius, Secundus, Aristarchus. See Thessalonians. A. Souteb.

THEUDAS.— Mentioned by Gamaliel (Ac 5") as the leader of an unsuccessful rebellion of 400 men. Josephus

931