Is Jonah a False Prophet?

The book of Jonah is one of my favorite, if not my absolutely favorite, books in the Bible. I even spend time on it in my introduction to theology (sorry Jeremiah, no time for you). We always learn a lot and the students love berating Jonah, ‘the drama queen.’

When all four chapters are read, it is clear that the great fish is overemphasized in the popular approach to the book; this is not just simply a book about a man being swallowed by a fish. The real crisis of the book is in chapter 4 when, after delivering his message, Jonah is angry that God has relented from punishing or overthrowing Nineveh (4:1-3).

But this was very displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry. He prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing. And now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

The rest of the chapter, and the real payoff of the book, is God using the object lesson of a shady plant to show Jonah the backwardness of his concerns.

At St. Thomas, our theology department uses the New Oxford Annotated Bible. I like it, and encourage my students to read the footnotes, but I think that the NOAB completely misses this one. The editors write:

Jonah is angry and embarrassed; because his words (3:4) did not come true, he will be judged a false prophet (Deut. 18:21-22). Unlike the LORD, Jonah is more concerned for his own credibility than for the lives of thousands of foreigners.

I don't buy it.  I do not think that Jonah is concerned with his reputation.  The passage in Deuteronomy reads,

You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

Not only do I not think that Jonah is concerned with being perceived as a false prophet, but I don't think that the criteria is particularly applicable to the role of the prophet in Israel and Judah!

First to examine the issue of the reason for Jonah's anger. 

In addition to the NOAB noted above, the SCM commentary by Phillip Cary presents Jonah as being angry because he was tricked by God. Jonah thought God meant 'overturned' a la Sodom, but God meant 'turned around,' as in repentance. 

Jonah himself is made to look like a false prophet--as the word that the LORD gave him to speak succeeds in bringing mercy where it threatened destruction. (127)

But Jonah knew that God would be merciful (that is the reason he fled) so this explanation of trickery does not seem convincing to me at all. I have read this interpretation in other places, so I was curious about how early we begin to have this interpretation. 

We find it in John Wesley's notes:

Did I not think of this? That thy pardon would contradict my preaching... Disgraced and upbraided by hardened sinners, who will brand me for a liar.

Calvin also addresses this passage and, disagreeing with Jerome, also asserts that Jonah's anger is about his prophetic status. (Read the whole passage if you'd like to read some serious jabs at Jerome)

...for [Jerome] denies that he grieved because God had showed mercy to so illustrious a city; but because the conversion of the Gentiles was a certain presage of the destruction of the chosen people. As then Jonah perceived as in a mirror the near ruin of Israel...Nay,... the cause of his grief was another, even this, — that he was unwilling to be deemed a false or a lying prophet: hence was his great grief and his bitterness

Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (8th c. CE) seems to have this as well. 

And is it not enough for me that Israel should call me a lying prophet; but shall also the nations of the world (do likewise)?

Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews has many paragraphs regarding Jonah, who is a disciple of Elisha:

The next task laid upon him was to proclaim their destruction to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The doom did not come to pass, because they repented of their wrong-doing, and God had mercy upon them. Among the Israelites Jonah was, therefore, known as "the false prophet." When he was sent to Nineveh to prophesy the downfall of the city, he reflected: "I know to a certainly that the heathen will do penance, the threatened punishment will not be executed, and among the heathen, too, I shall gain the reputation of being a false prophet..."  

Clearly, seeing Jonah's fear of damage to his reputation as the source of his anger is an old interpretation, and I think it deserves some more investigating than can be done here.  

But is Jonah truly a false prophet? What he said did not come about and so, according to Deuteronomy, he is indeed.  But what about the nature and role of prophecy in Judah and Israel? Does Deuteronomy's description of a false prophet make sense? 

Marvin Sweeney has a good introduction to the nature of prophecy.  He writes: 

Many prophets speak about potential future events, but they do so as part of their interest in persuading their contemporaries to adopt a specific course of action or attitude that they think best represents the will of G-d and the best interests of the people. 

His point here (as Miguel makes in earlier posts on Bible Junkies here and here ) is that the role Israelite and Judahite prophets is more complicated and nuanced than the role of 'fortune teller.'

The role of the prophet is often the role of the doctor: "You have one year to live! (unless you lose weight, exercise, cut down on the trans fats and take these pills)." A patient doesn't sue his doctor for malpractice when he outlives his prognosis by heeding his warning, and neither is Jonah a false prophet. 

Anchor Bible Commentary (Saason) has in this passage other examples of prophetic pronouncements that are heeded, and so God relents.  

One great example is found in 2 Kings 20:1-6a.  Isaiah goes to proclaim to Hezekiah that he will die.  After he delivers the pronouncement, Hezekiah prays to God and God relents.  Before Isaiah leaves the building, God tells him to go back and tell the king that he has 15 more years to live.

In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.” Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to theLord: “Remember now, O Lord, I implore you, how I have walked before you in faithfulness with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” Hezekiah wept bitterly. Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the Lord came to him: “Turn back, and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, Thus says the Lord, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. I will add fifteen years to your life.

According to the logic of Deuteronomy and the commentators on Jonah, Isaiah would be a false prophet.  Sasson gives other examples which would work as well 

• Ezekiel's prediction of the destruction of Tyre (Ez 26-29)
• Jeremiah's prediction of Jehoiakim's burial (Jer 22:19; 2 Ki 24:6)

I would add to these, in an odd way, David's pre-mortem mourning for Bath-Sheba's son, for he clearly believes that God can (and might) change his judgment.  

All of this to say, I do not see Jonah as a false prophet and, when compared to other great prophets, his accomplishment is perhaps greatest of all. Jonah's unhappiness is that he does not want to be successful;  he knew God would forgive the Ninevites and that is the very thing he does not want to happen.  If Jonah's concern was for his reputation, then God's use of the plant and his explanation would be a non-sequitur.  

Isaac M. Alderman
Follow me on Twitter @isaacalderman
Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook

Theology Faculty Discuss Pope Francis

Wikimedia

The University of St. Thomas Theology department recently hosted (11/14/13) a panel discussion on Pope Francis. The whole discussion is now available on UST's YouTube site (and embedded below).

The panelists were all from the department and the audience was comprised of undergraduates, seminarians, graduate students and community members.

The event was moderated by UST professor Michael Hollerich (Church history).

Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) (Church history) spoke first and gave an outline of the important events, statements, interviews and comments by the Pope over the last 6 months. One of the most significant differences between Francis and his immediate predecessors is his relationship to the press. This is most typified in his long form interview published in America Magazine, which Massimo helped to translate into English.

Caravaggio, The Calling of St. Matthew

John Martens (NT), whom you know from BibleJunkies.com, discussed Pope Francis' use of New Testament in his interview.  Much of John's thoughts can be found in his earlier Bible Junkies' post.  He looks at, particularly, the call of Matthew and the Good Samaritan and focuses on the theme of mercy.    

Corrine Carvalho (HB/OT) addressed Pope Francis' approach to issues of gender and sexuality.  She discussed how Francis' approach to these issues is really more about tone than substance, since all that has changed is the manner of the discussion.  However, tone and the willingness is very important to dialogue.  She concluded (to a round of applause) about how the dissolution of mandatory celibacy for priests would actually compliment the Pope's own views on community and marriage.  

Paul Wodja (moral theology), made comparisons between Francis and John Paul II. John Paul II's style was proclamatory and focused on the moral teachings of the Church, while Francis' style is conversational and focused on the Gospel. He further compares them by focusing on their personalities as shaped by two cities: Karol Wojtyla was shaped by his time as the bishop of the communist-planned city of Nowa Huta, and Jorge Bergoglio's interaction with the slum Villa 31 while he was the bishop of Buenos Aries.

Many audience members had questions (quite a few had statements) and I encourage you to watch the whole event which lasts 90 minutes.

Isaac M. Alderman
Follow me on Twitter @isaacalderman
Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook


 

Biblical Inerrancy Panel: Live-Blog and Live-Tweet

From the evangelical world, in particular this year’s annual meeting of the

Evangelical Theological Society (http://www.etsjets.org/annual_meeting_overview), being held in Baltimore, MD, comes news through Bible Gateway of a live-blog (http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/) and live-Tweet (http://twitter.com/BibleGateway) of the biblical inerrancy panel discussion that’s kicking off this year’s annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (http://www.etsjets.org/annual_meeting_overview), being held in Baltimore, MD, a few days prior to the beginning of the SBL/AAR meetings. 

The Panel members include Albert Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John R. Franke, who are all major players in this discussion. All of them contributed to the upcoming book Five Views on Inerrancy, and will be discussing the topic along with answering questions. I am not aware of live-streaming or later posting of the material on YouTube, so joining along with the online discussion seems the best way to participate if you are not in Baltimore.

On related matters, later this week, on Friday and Saturday, Bible gateway plans to live-Tweet the proceedings of the National Bible Bee (http://www.biblebee.org/).

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

Review: Bible Secrets Revealed: "Lost in Translation"

(Photo credit: History Channel)

This week I watched the premiere of a new History Channel series, “Bible Secrets Revealed”. Although Isaac always reminds me that I shouldn't spend time on any show this channel presents, I decided to give it a chance, even though I knew Dr. Bart Ehrman was the one who first spoke in the sneak preview. Also, the series announcement was posted in several blogs I follow, and I noticed in their comments that several scholars I know were looking forward to watch it. I know, just looking at the show’s title should make anybody who studies the Bible seriously scoff with skepticism, but since this is a TV program oriented to “average people” (as they kept saying in the show), I decided to ignore the title for the duration of the presentation.  

Here are my impressions of the first episode “Lost in Translation” (feel free to insert more scoffing at the title’s cheesiness here).

Production – 8.5

This has to be a pretty expensive production. No old lame pictures or grainy videos from the 80’s and 90’s of archaeologists bossing around poor volunteer students or corny poses for the cameras (at least not in this episode). On the contrary, we find very recent footage and constant on-location photography, beautiful backgrounds, appealing transitions and great quality sound. If this continues in the same way many people will follow the series at least for the next couple of episodes.

Scholars and authors – 8.9

I was surprised of the amount of well-known scholars and authors the producers interviewed in this episode: Bart Ehrman, Reza Aslan, Robert Mullins, David Wolpe, Candida Moss, Elaine Pagels, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Dale Martin, Jeffrey Geoghegan, Lori Ann Ferrell, Chris Keith, Mark Goodacre, Peter Lanfer, Bradley Hale, Jennifer Wright-Knust, Jonathan Kirsch, Joel Hoffman, Pnina Shor, and Yuval Peleg. Robert Cargill seems to be the one leading the comments; he definitely speaks more than the other academics and I am not shocked. Producers always prefer the better looks and the more eloquent and articulate people, no matter how smart or knowledgeable they are. Anyway, having all these personalities on board (according to the list I saw in one blog, there are more scholars interviewed in the coming episodes) was the reason I remained watching the episode until the end.

 Content – 6.5

Here is where I find many shortcomings and imprecisions in the show’s premiere, and to some extent, to the detriment of the reputation of some of its participants.  The episode begins with the overstated and apocryphal bedouin boy story of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) discovery. When do people finally are going to acknowledge that Bedouins had access to those caves and their contents before the strayed goat climbed up there? I guess that doesn't sell as much as having a small boy chasing his pet and accidentally making the most important discovery of the twentieth century. To me this shows lack of respect to the memory of Yigael Yadin, Fr. Roland De Vaux and others and of their efforts collecting as many stolen and dispersed DSS fragments and whole scrolls as possible.

The concepts of history and truth as they were conceived by the biblical authors and the early readers/hearers of both the Old and the New Testaments are never defined: just a vague mention that the scripture writers were theologians and that they had an agenda. This is one of the two ideas that would get “average people” who watch the show confused and apprehensive. Everything is valued according to the idea of what ‘history’ means to the Western, secular, twenty-first century mentality. Therefore, for the show, the Bible appears now full of inaccuracies and contradictions that need to be cleared out for the unsuspecting readers who had believed these stories as factual truth for millennia.  From trying to find out who really killed Goliath to making a guest list of those present at the birth of Jesus, there was a total absence of discussion on the history of sources and traditions. Moreover, I am almost convinced that Bart Ehrman will never acknowledge the difference between the terms 'pseudoepigraphy' and 'forgery'. The "anonymous authors lie", he says, by attributing to famous personalities what they have written. More of the same thing… Now, the other idea that would confuse the audience is the subject of inspiration. It was never mentioned or developed by anyone (at least it wasn't included in the episode if the scholars ever spoke about it). Therefore the Bible is treated as little more than an average romance. 

I find interesting how Francesca Stavrakopoulou justifies the reason why the New Testament was written in Greek and not in Aramaic: the missionaries needed money to continue their job. They wrote in Greek, she claims, because “they were interested in money for their journeys”. Therefore “they were not interested in the Jews”. Even if money is one of the reasons, how do we explain then Paul’s writings to the Christian communities of Corinth and Rome? She also treats Isaiah 7:14 as a misogynistic mistranslation from the Hebrew. I thought that translation was never an issue and if it was, it was cleared out centuries ago. 

Even though there are several Roman Catholic scholars interviewed, the Evangelical approach to the history of the interpretation of the Bible has the leading and the judging voice here. It is “obvious” (they say), that the Church did not want the Bible read by the “average person” for reasons of power and money (here they have it again, Catholics rulers were the only ones seeking money and power).  However, they later acknowledge that after the English separation, every monarch wanted their own translation.  Nonetheless, I also think some academics should give the early Reformation rulers some credit: that they did this as leaders having some faith and looking for the well-being of their subjects and not only as egomaniacs seeking for power.  I found hilarious how Cargill states that Henry VIII wanted “the blessing of the Pope to get a divorce”. He really needs some extra reading done, pronto.  Maybe he will finally understand Clement VII’s main position on the matter.

I think you get the idea how the rest of the episode went. However, showing clips here and there from one author, then inserting a snippet now and then from another scholar in the middle of a developing topic, made many true statements about the history of the composition and translation of the Bible sound unappealing and confusing, like constantly blaming the authors/editors of the Bible of “tampering” with the original texts. There is something I need to say on behalf of the colleagues who contributed in this episode. Producers got what they wanted, not necessarily what many of these scholars needed to convey. So as Isaac told me: If you want something studied and treated seriously, don’t spend time watching any show about it on that channel.

 Juan Miguel Betancourt

Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

Related articles

• The History Channel's Bible Show

The Holy Land's Best Guide

Biblioblogs and Twitter have had many announcements and prayers for Fr. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, who died earlier this week. Although he was, of course, a great New Testament scholar, he is really best known for his travel guide, The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide.

There is a very good interview (Part 1 and Part 2) with Fr. Jerome on the archaeological podcast The Book and the Spade. My favorite bit was, when discussing his guidebook, he was asked about the local archaeological tour guides:

...[the guides] are not critical, so they will tend to buy into the lowest common denominator. They will say at a site, “Well tradition says...,” or, “It is perhaps thought...” Well, normally you can determine pretty easily what level of probability is attached to information. Like, there is no doubt at all about the Holy Sepulcher or about the Church of the Nativity. There is every doubt in the world attached to the little Chapel of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives.  One is almost a 100% certain, the other has zero chance of being correct. And so it’s like that, but that’s why I think they should do a little more homework." 

This made me laugh, reminding me of last January when Juan Miguel and I took seminarians from St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity to Israel for an intensive course. Miguel and I gently argued with our guides so often about issues of historical accuracy that when on a boat, on the Sea of Galilee, our guide confidently announced to our students that, “Without question, 100%, absolutely, this is the lake that is in the Gospels!” 

We were fortunate to be able to go to Israel again, and even more so because we briefly meet Fr. Jerome on that same trip while visiting a friend at Ecole Biblique. If you go to Israel, without question, 100%, absolutely, Fr. Jerome’s The Holy Land is the guide to take with you.

Isaac M. Alderman

Follow me on Twitter @isaacalderman
Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook

Israelite Prophecy of the 7th century BCE: Nahum and the Divine Warrior

Nineveh: "Though they are at full strength and many,
they will be cut off and pass away." Nahum 1:12

Many scholars agree asserting that Israelite prophecy shares many similarities in form and style with Mesopotamian prophetic literature. During the time Judah was very active with prophetic ministry, Assyrian records show also big activity in prophetism. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there are significant differences between the Israelite and the rest of the ANE prophecy. As an example, the latter is concerned for the prosperity of the kingdom, favoring the rulers and making sure that the gods always have nice and well-kept places of worship. The former instead concentrates in being critical of kings, in denouncing social justice issues, and in honoring YHWH with a sincere heart.

These three prophets we are studying in class now, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, continue in a similar way the work  of those of the 8^th century we have already seen (Amos, Hosea and Micah). During the political turmoil of the late 7^th and early 6^th centuries, these men were ready to pass judgment and warn Judah that solely on YHWH and his Law should they look for confidence; otherwise the consequences would be more than severe…

 Nahum is the seventh book of the Minor Prophets. Although we don’t have any details about the prophet or the date of the book's composition, it is very plausible to claim that the book was written after the fall of Nineveh which Nahum announces so forcefully (612 BCE). The book condemns Nineveh, Judah’s former ally, but now turned into an enemy. Nahum’s prophecy then belongs to the “oracle against the nations” category, a judgment pronounced by YHWH to peoples other than Israel of Judah (Isa 13-35; Jer 46-51; Ezek 25-32, etc). This oracle therefore is aimed to provide hope for the Judahites oppressed by the Assyrians; thus the meaning of  the prophet's name: "comfort".

Scholars divide Nahum in at least three major sections. The first part (Nah 1:2-11) presents the LORD as a warrior seeking for vengeance against the Assyrians (Nineveh is also personified as the adversary).  Then, Nah 1:12-15 is considered a hopeful oracle that Judah’s oppression is coming to an end and should await for the good news. Finally, Nah 2:1-3:19 portrays the invasion of Nineveh. Here the prophet seems to be the watchman that witnesses the enemy’s downfall, which is personified this time as a prostitute who after being violated is shown to be a spectacle to all.

"Devastation, desolation and destruction. Hearts faint and knees tremble,
all loins quake, all faces grow pale." Nahum 2:10

The use of violent language is significant and disturbing in this book (ex. 2:7; 3:3, 5-7). This has traditionally brought questions on theological and ethically sensitive issues like revenge, violence, justice, forgiveness and moreover, about women as a symbol of evil. It is worth pointing out that there is no reading from Nahum in the Jewish Lectionary, the Roman Catholic Sunday Lectionary (although there is one reading combining 2:1-3;3:1-3,6-7 on a weekday) or the Revised Common Lectionary, which make me ask if these religious communities have made a decision to avoid these texts fearing the dislike of the modern mindsets. 

 Juan Miguel Betancourt

Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

Do You Know Your Geography? Prove it.

The Christian Science Monitor has a fun quiz on the geography of the Middle East.  It also has trivia to go along with it (Did you know deodorant was invented in Egypt?).  

Give it a go.  I got 18/19 right. Damn you, Bahrain!  




Isaac M. Alderman
Follow me on Twitter @isaacalderman
Follow Bible Junkies on Twitter @Biblejunkies
Feel free to“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook

The Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians Online Commentary (8)

This is the eighth and final 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 the third entry, I started the process of commenting on the text itself, discussing the salutation, based on the New Revised Standard Version in English and the Greek text which underlies all translations. The fourth entry commented on the Thanksgiving and the apocalyptic themes found there. In the fifth entry, we began looking at the claim that a letter purported to be from Paul is circulating in Thessalonica and an involved description of the apocalyptic events which must take place before the return of Jesus Christ. The sixth entry completed the examination of the apocalyptic themes in chapter two. The seventh blog post examined most of chapter three, including Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy’s request for prayer and the exhortation to keep away from idle believers. This final entry looks at the closing and offers some final comments on the question of authorship and the eschatological concerns which have been central to both 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

4. Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians:

d) Closing (3:16-18):

¹⁶ Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in all ways. The Lord be with all of you.¹⁷ I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write. ¹⁸ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. (NRSV)

The second letter to the Thessalonians ends with an entirely normal closing, consisting of a peace wish (3:16) and a simple grace, which is a slightly modified form of that found in 1 Thessalonians (3:18).  Between these simple and regular elements of a Pauline epistolary closing is the claim that “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write” (3:18). Many scholars have asked whether this epistolary claim is “arguing too much” for the authenticity of this letter, especially since 2:2 suggests a spurious letter might already be circulating.  Some scholars, therefore, have taken 3:17 to indicate 2 Thessalonians was written by a pseudonymous author.  The argument for pseudonymity on the basis of 3:17 is that the author wished to allay any suspicion of inauthenticity that his letter might arouse, so he, in a sense, goes all in claiming that his signature is the mark of authenticity. Charles Giblin, S.J. offers a version of this argument in the NJBC saying, “the writer is concerned to authenticate his communication on the basis of a tradition that must refer to more than one of the Pauline letters we have…He not only assumes 1 Thess  (which Paul does not note as one he signed) but also supposes at least two other letters in which Paul penned his own comments (of which we have clear evidence only in 1 Cor, Gal, Phlm)” (875).

It is difficult to assess this argument, not just that of Giblin specifically, but of the argument for inauthenticity on the basis of this claim in 3:17. But what is the claim in 3:17? The claim is that Paul is writing the greeting in his own hand, though there are only three letters in which we have a definitive statement of Paul writing in his own hand (which Giblin notes above).  It is, of course, possible that Paul, who uses letter writers, does write the greeting in his own hand, even when he does not mention it. It would be a strange thing for a pseudonymous author to draw attention to something which actually does not occur in Paul’s authentic letters and which, one supposes, could not be forged according to Paul’s handwriting (unless he is aware that Paul never does write in his own hand or has not done so for the Thessalonians).

I think it is more likely that Paul had reason to believe a spurious letter in his name was circulating (2 Thessalonians 2:2) and so he draws attention to a feature of his letters, his own handwriting, that sets his letters apart. Some scholars have said that the early 50s would be “too early” for a spurious letter supposedly from Paul to be sent around to his churches, though it is not clear on what basis such a claim is made. Too early according to what standards of historical development or literary practice? People whom Paul bluntly called “false apostles” and “super-apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:13, 12:11) dogged him in Corinth, why could not opponents even earlier in his ministry be causing trouble in Thessalonica?

How could Paul argue against a letter he did not write except by saying that there are marks (sêmeion) that his letters have, his own handwriting, by which they can be authenticated? What else could he or should he do? He certainly authenticates Galatians in this manner in Galatians 6:11. The easiest way to read 2 Thessalonians 3:17 is to see it as a genuine claim of authenticity instead of a curious way to claim authenticity for a spurious letter.

It points to the major issue that has clung to this letter recently: did Paul write it? Whether it is due to the tone of the letter (it is not as warm as 1 Thessalonians), the apocalyptic claims (the scenario in 2 Thessalonians is at odds with that in 1 Thessalonians), the literary quality (2 Thessalonians is too similar to 1 Thessalonians and so must have borrowed from 1 Thessalonians, but not by Paul but by some later unknown Christians), or 3:17, as just discussed, all considerations of 2 Thessalonians have been seen through the light of authorship.  Some of these claims revolve around the letter being too much like Paul’s other letters (literary and linguistic similarity) or differences with Paul’s other letters (tone, apocalyptic scenario), but none of these arguments hit home ultimately with force.  The language and style of this letter is thoroughly Pauline.

There seem to me to be questions which those who argue for inauthenticity of any letter need to be able to answer, even if not fully or completely: why would a pseudonymous author “copy” 1 Thessalonians? If 2 Thessalonians is inauthentic, why rely on 1 Thessalonians for structure and style?

Was it being sent to Thessalonica? 2 Thessalonians is distinctly local in its particular teaching, is linked to 1 Thessalonians literarily and presupposes the same basic situation on the ground. Why would a pseudipigrapher do this? Was it after Paul died? What would the purpose of the letter be if Paul had already died? Did the situation in the Church mirror the situation in the letter or did the letter fabricate the situation? What would the hope for the letter’s outcome be? Would not the Thessalonians know that Paul was either dead and could not write a letter, or alive and so they could check who had written the letter? If you claim to be proving the authenticity of a letter by handwriting, would there not be means of checking this?

Let me try to answer some questions, though, and not just raise them. If this is a genuine letter of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, why did they write again to Thessalonica? Frankly, the letter itself answers these questions. I would suppose that this letter is written only months, perhaps weeks, after 1 Thessalonians. The Church is still having difficulty with respect to the teaching on the eschaton and the apocalyptic scenarios of the early Church.  While initially, Paul and the others had to stress that all, even the dead, would be resurrected when Christ returned, though we do not know when this will be, now they must respond to another apocalyptic misunderstanding: Christ has not returned yet and there are clear signs that will accompany his return. In addition, and perhaps related to the concerns about the apocalyptic scenarios, in 1 Thessalonians Paul, Silvanus and Timothy are effusive in their praise for the Church’s growth and development, but in 2 Thessalonians they are now focusing on the need for the Thessalonians to be diligent until the end and not burden anyone in the community. It might be that some Thessalonians, in light of their belief that Christ has returned, are no longer engaging in their usual work or business. They are called to cast off idleness and get to work in order to support themselves.

Although I take seriously the questions and concerns of scholars regarding the authenticity of this letter, ultimately it makes most sense to me as a letter of Paul and his co-workers. To propose this as a pseudonymous letter opens up so many questions and problems that simply cannot be answered satisfactorily or make sense of this particular letter. The bottom line is that almost 2,000 years later Christians still have similar problems with the early Christian apocalyptic scenarios. American Evangelical Christians, partly on the basis of 1 Thessalonians 4, created the “Rapture” as a way of creating a “way out” for devout Christians from the suffering of the eschaton, which in some ways is the same as saying the end has already occurred since you are going to miss the chaos and tribulation of the end times. Others want to predict the coming of the end, saying that it is a month, a year, or some other short time away in the future. Paul and his co-workers walk a middle path in the Thessalonian correspondence: the end has not happened yet, but it is coming soon, so keep awake and be alert and be prepared. The best way to prepare, of course, as noted in the 1 Thessalonians commentary, is to live out a life of Christian virtue, a life dedicated to faith, hope and love here and now.

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

I encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.

This entry is cross-posted at America Magazine, The Good Word