BEI.ATIOlf TO THE OT AXD TO CHRISTIAN LITERATVRS.— The OT is never appealed to as authority or directly quoted ; but its history is referred to (21^) and its language perhaps consciously adapted ('21R 45- 6. 8. 9 58. 22(t)). There is a certJiin similarity of language between 415-17 and 2 Es 5>-, but the thought there is different, the writer considering the juslice of God's dealing with difterent generations of men, and the language is not sufficiently similar to suggest literary depend- ence on either side ; if there is any, probably 2 Esdras is the later work.
There is no reference to Christian literature, but it is possible that !&■ 10 point to the germ of some proff^ssion of faith in the Father and the Son made at llaptism (a>.»:(i.vof here only in St. Paul); it is possible again that 4*-^ (irxpctyytXteti 5ii rou K. 'Irircu) refers to the definite enactments of Ac 15'^, and that 41"* is a semi-quutation from a creed. There seems a reminiscence of St. Stephen's speech (Ac 7^1) in 21''^ ; and of our Lord's eschato- logical discourse in 2i» (Mt 2332-36) 4l»-J' (Mt L>4-iS'-33) 52. » (Mt 24«) 63 (Lk 21*', Mt 248) ; but the majority of these are too much the common language of all Apocalypses to allow us to build on them with certainty.
A comparison of S** with Ac 1422 2 Ti 312 suggests a semi- quotation of our Lord's words, e.g. Mt 24!^, Jn ItP^, but a sugges- tion that there is a reminiscence of our Lord's sayings recoMed in Jn e'--* in P and of Jn 17^ in 1^ (P. Ewald, Das UauptprvUem der Evatuitlifn-Frafjc, pp. 85, 93) is more doubtful.
In 415 iv }.iiyt>t KuQiCu 18 a possible quotation of some saying unrecorded in the Gospel (cf. Zahn, p. Loy); and 5'^, which is often found combined with the a'jrapluni yivirHi hoxtfjM Tpu.- viX'TKt, is perhaps another (cf. Uescli, A<irapha, p. lHi). All these cases point rather to an oral tradition than to written documents.
v. AUTIIKNTICITY. — The authenticity is now generally admitted, though there are still oppon- ents (cf. Holtzmann, Kiiil.'^ p. 2.37). The external evidence outside the MT is less strong than for some Epistles, as this Ejiistle did not lend itself readily to quotation ; but it was included in Mar- cion's canon [circ. 140), and that implied some previous Catholic collection. The language of 2'"'' {((pOaat . . . WXos) is found in exactly the !*aiiie form ill the Test. XI J Patr. (Levi, ch. 6 ; but see below). There are possible reminiscences of 4111-17 JQ Didachi xvi. 6 ; and of 1° and 4- in Clem. Uom. ch. 42 (but not of 5** in Clem. 38, where the thought is dill'erent). Put the strongest support is given by 2 Thess., which, whatever its date, im])lies the existence and the recognition of the I'auline authorship of our Epistle. No doubt of its authenticity was raised before the 19th century.
The internal evidence equally supports the genu- ineness, in spite of a few dillicultie.s. The objec- tion that the Epistle implies a longer lapse of time than a few weeks is met by the consideration that the Acts will permit of an interval of nearly a j'ear between the foundation of the Cliurch and the writing of the letter. The dilliculties of recoii- cili.ation with the Acts about the movements of Silas and Timothy and the persecution by heatlun have been discussed above. As far as they are dilliculties, they allect the historical character of the Acts rather than of 1 Thessalonians.
A few other objections deserve notice. It is urged that St. Paul's eager defence of his motives (21-6), and incidentally of his apostolic rights (26), implies a lat«r stage in his life, when Jewish ChristiunM hail attacked his apostleship. But such depreciation of his motives would be natural to Jews longing to thwart hiui (cf. 2i6), or to heathen, indignant at the oon.
746
I. THESSALOXIANS
II. THESSALONIANS
version of their friends. The incidenU of Ac 15, Mid probaWy of G ™2" lay behind him, and would account for the n.c.dental aUusion ii¥ ; while, even apart from any attack of opponent^, he mi-ht think it well to contrast his motives with thote ol othe to" hers with whom he might heconfu.ed-sucli a. Jewish impostors Uke Elvmas (Ac IS'O tXk/w ■"^'■'« «•>■•?).. heatheM rtatoSns or sophists, taking pay for their <^''^h'"K (''.^'•'; '=,.) : or. at-a.n, he may have desired to du^soc.ate h"""'" fro" Ihe impure teaching (« i»»D-,.»...-) of the priests of the Cabein (Liclitloot, BiWfca'i'"*''!'*, P-'2=0. . , •„„ ,t,. „.„.^„us
v-ain 216>> has boon nterpreted as implying the pre%nous deslSion of Jerusalem. If this were so, it would te more StS to strike out Ihela-st sentence a| the ..iterpolat on of
"si?rbe pointing out the fulrtlment of St- P''"^^ r/'^^.'.^ee hal words dS not necessarily mean more than 'hat sentence has oeen pronounced upon them ; the wrath of Ood 13 gone tortn , thrk?ngdom of God passed from them when they rejected the Messiah-, they are paraUel to the thought of ICo 2»ii, llo n^s S akd Ac 13« 1S« ; and the use of the phrase m the Test. V// PaXr perhaps shows that it was a halt-stereotyped Rah- binfcal Torm'l.la for declaring God's i'-dsn^ent Moremer the „r..sent participles i«i«-:2c.T»., »vXo..ri.., and the phrase i ; " r.Tx"'/". are^nconsistent with the destruction o..erusalem. Oiice'more, 4." often, an apl»rent .nconsjstcnc w ith 2 Co 5 _