Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (50 page)

8
.
The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 364.

9
. W. Wrede,
Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs
. TU n.s. 9.2 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903); Edgar Krentz, “A Stone That Will Not Fit: The Non-Pauline Authorship of Second Thessalonians,” in J. Frey et al., eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, pp. 439–70. For a pithier statement, see Edgar Krentz, “Thessalonians, First and Second Epistles to the,”
ABD
VI, 517–23 (on 2 Thess). For another, fuller overview, see John A. Bailey, “Who Wrote II Thessalonians?”
NTS
25 (1979): 131–45.

10
. Malherbe stresses that there are more differences than similarities between the two letters. That is certainly true—how could it not be?—but it is of no relevance to the question of whether a forgery (as opposed to Paul himself) made use of the first letter. He was under no obligation to replicate the letter in full. See Abraham J. Malherbe,
The Letters to the Thessalonians
AB 32B (New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp. 356–58.

11
. Not even in closely related passages such as Rom. 8:14–17 and Gal. 4:1–7.

12
. For a basic overview of the parallel structures, see Bailey, “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians?” p. 133.

13
. Ibid., p. 134.

14
. Jewett,
The Thessalonian Correspondence
, p. 11.

15
. See pp. 218–22.

16
. Darryl Schmidt, “The Syntactical Style of 2 Thessalonians: How Pauline Is It?” in
The Thessalonian Correspondence
, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Peeters, 1990), pp. 383–93.

17
. The issue is debated, of course, throughout the commentaries.

18
. Among important discussions arguing for an “imminent” eschatology for 2 Thess 2:2, see Andreas Lindemann, “Zum Abfassungszweck des Zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes,”
ZNW
68 (1977): 35–47; and especially A. M. G. Stephenson, “On the Meaning of
in 2 Thessalonians 2,2,” in
SE
4, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968), pp. 442–51.

19
. See the revival of the theory in T. W. Manson, “St Paul in Greece,”
BJRL
35 (1952–53): 428–47.

20
. See the references and refutation of Bailey, “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians?” pp. 136–37, 140–41.

21
. See the discussion of Wrede in Jewett,
Thessalonian Correspondence
, p. 6.

22
. Jewett,
Thessalonian Correspondence
, p. 10.

23
. Ibid., p. 6.

24
. Among the better exegetical discussions, Eve-Marie Becker,
in 2 Thess 2.2 als Hinweis auf einen verlorenen Brief,”
NTS
55 (2009): 55–72 opts for the first option—that the phrase applies to “spirit, word, and letter”—whereas Glenn S. Holland, “‘A Letter Supposedly from Us’: A Contribution to the Discussion about the Authorship of 2 Thessalonians,” in
The Thessalonian Correspondence
, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Peters, 1990), pp. 394–402, opts for the second.

25
. Hanna Roose, “‘A Letter as by Us’: Intentional Ambiguity in 2 Thessalonians 2.2,”
JSNT
29 (2006): 107–24.

26
. Andreas Lindemann, “Zum Abfassungszweck.”

27
. “Der 2. Thess. muss als der in Wahrheit erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher angesehen werden. Es ist der allein echte Paulus-Brief. … Der Verfasser des 2. Thess. will mit seinem Schreiben den 1 Thess. verdrängen.” “Der Verfasser des 2. Thess. [will] mit seinem Schreiben den 1. Thess. ersetzen.” Willi Marxsen,
Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief
(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982), pp. 35, 80.

28
. Eve-Marie Becker,

29
. The phrase is used explicitly of 2 Thessalonians recently by Hanna Roose, in reliance on Eckhart Reinmuth, “Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher,” in N. Walter, E. Reinmuth, and P. Lampe, eds.,
Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp. 105–204. For the concept more broadly see, e.g., Annette Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy?” in
The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice
, ed. Thomas L. Brodie et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), pp. 113–32; and her earlier dissertation,
Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe
(Göttingen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2004).

30
. It will be seen that I am not here taking the position of Frank Hughes, who sees 2 Thessalonians as a counterforgery to the eschatological views of Colossians and Ephesians. Those views involve an immanent/realized eschatology, not an imminent (or sudden) eschatology. See Frank Witt Hughes,
Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians
(JSNTSSup 30, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).

31
. Jewett maintains, on the contrary, that the statement of 3:17 would be a “risky method of supporting the acceptance of the forger” since it would call “into question the authenticity of every Pauline letter not bearing the ‘mark’ of Paul’s signature at the end” (p. 6). There is no reason to think, however, that this author was overly concerned about the authenticity of Paul’s other letters. Why would he care whether, say, Ephesians was accepted as authentic?

32
. See Speyer,
Die literarische Fälschung
, pp. 57–58.

33
. For example, Angela Standhartinger,
Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des Kolosserbriefs
(Leiden: Brill, 1999). The most recent representative of this view is Nicole Frank, “Der Kolosserbrief und die ‘Philosophia’: Pseudepigraphie als Spiegel frühchristlicher Auseinandersetzungen um die Auslegung des paulinischen Erbes,” in Jörg Frey et al., eds.,
Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion
, pp. 411–32.

34
. E. T. Mayerhoff,
Der Brief an die Colosser mit vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung der drei Pastoralbriefe
, ed. J. L. Mayerhoff (Berlin: Hermann Schültz, 1838).

35
. Heinrich Ewald,
Die Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus
(Göttingen: Dieterisch, 1857). In recent times, the position has been taken by James D. G. Dunn,
The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon
, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996).

36
. For a list of scholars holding the various views of authenticity, inauthenticity, and composition by a co-worker, see of Outi Leppã,
The Making of Colossians: A Study on the Formation and Purpose of a Deutero-Pauline Letter
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), pp. 9–15.

37
.
NTS
12 (1965–66): pp. 231–44. The fullest recent assessment is Thomas Schmeller,
Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des Urchristentums in der Bildungswelt seiner Zeit
(Freiburg: Herder, 2001). For opposition to traditionally understood Pauline schools, see Peter Müller,
Anfänge der Paulusschule: Dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief
, ATANT, 74 (Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1988); and more recently Standhartinger,
Studien
, pp. 3ff. Still more recently Standhartinger appears to give back a good deal of ground: Angela Standhartinger, “Colossians and the Pauline School,”
NTS
50 (2004): 572–93, where she speaks of an
opinio communis
that the Deutero Paulines were “products of the School of Paul.”

38
. See pp. 105–19.

39
. “Colossians, Epistle to the,” ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1.1090–96. E. P. Sanders (“Literary Dependence in Colossians,”
JBL
85, 1966, 28–45) went further and argued that Colossians 1–3 shows evidence of material that had possibly been collected from a range of Pauline letters: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. Leppä (
Making of Colossians
) has more recently argued that Sanders was right but that he did not go far enough; Colossians used all seven undisputed letters, and not just in the first three chapters. If he is correct, we would have a clear argument for the letter being forged by someone borrowing material from Paul’s own work. Others, however, such as Standhartinger (
Studien
), are probably right that at the end of the day, there is simply not enough verbatim agreement to make the case. But as it turns out, this is not the strongest argument for forgery in any event.

40
. Walter Bujard,
Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief: als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973).

41
. Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke make the remarkable argument that since Col. 1:1–2 and 4:18 differ so widely from Paul’s epistolary style, they cannot be forged, as a forger would be sure to follow the style, whereas Paul was free to depart from it (
Colossians
AB 34B, New York: Doubleday, 1994, p. 121). Once again, Neutestamentlers would be well served to learn more about the practices of ancient forgery.

42
. It is true that there is still some eschatological reserve in Colossians, as often noted: 1:5 (“the hope laid up for you in heaven”), 1:27 (Christ is “the hope of glory”), 3:4 (“when Christ appears”), 3:6 (“the wrath of God is coming”). But these more traditional Pauline notions have been set in a broader context that is completely non-Pauline—indeed, anti-Pauline. This author maintains that believers have already been spiritually raised with Christ, a view that Paul takes care to argue against elsewhere.

43
. The term otherwise occurs eleven times in Paul, never in reference to God forgiving sins: Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Cor. 2:7, 10 [tris]; 12:13; Gal. 3:18; Phil. 1:29; 2:9; Phlm. 22.

44
. Pervo has made the most recent argument that the shift of the image is significant for the authorship of the letter:
Making of Paul
, p. 67.

45
. On the book’s eschatological reserve, see note 42.

46
. One other oddity of Colossians has sometimes been noted. In Paul’s own letters he states unequivocally his unwillingness to “preach the Gospel” in a church founded by someone else (Rom. 15:20; see 2 Cor. 10:13–16; Gal. 2:9), because he does not want to build on someone else’s foundation. Yet if Colossians is authentic, that appears to be exactly what he is doing here (unless Paul simply meant he was unwilling to visit someone else’s church in the flesh). In any event, the Epaphras who is named here as one who established the community in Colossae (1:7) is said to be a fellow prisoner of Paul in Philemon (Phlm. 23). Has the author taken a known character and made him the founder of the church? Nothing in Philemon connects him either with the founding of the church in Onesimus’ house or with Colossae.

47
. It is sometimes pointed out that the earthquake that allegedly destroyed Colossae in 61
CE
should have some bearing on the question of the authenticity of the letter—either that it must have been written before the earthquake (by Paul) or afterward by a forger, once the community had a chance to recover. Both views assume the letter was actually sent to Colossae. But if it is forged, there is absolutely no reason to think that it was. Moreover, recent scholars such as Standhartinger have given good reason for doubting that the town was ever destroyed by earthquake. Standhartinger,
Studien
, pp. 12–13.