1. Author. — 1. The external eviilcnce in favor of the second epistle is somewhat more dotinite than that which can be bronght in favor of the tirst. It seems to be referred to in one or two passages of Polycarp (iii, 15, in Polyc. c. 1 1, and possibly i, 4 in the same chapter; comp. Polyc. c. 8, and see Lardner, ii, 6) ; and the lan- guage in which Justin Martyr {Dial. p. o3G D) sjieaks of the Man of Sin is so similar that it can scarcely be independent of this epistle. .With Irenseus the direct testimony commences {Adv. llwr. iii, 7, 2): "And again in the second epistle to tlie Thessalonians, speak- ing concerning Antichrist, 'And then shall the un- godly one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall slay with the breath of his month,' "etc. (comp. 2 Thess. ii, 8). Clemens Alexandrinus {Strom, v, 554) : '•The apostle says, 'Pray that we may be delivered from perverse and wicked men, for all have not faith' " (comp. 2 Thess. iii, 2). Tertiillian {De Res. Canm, xxiv, o39) : " And in the second ejiistle to the same," viz. the Thessalonians, "with greater earnestness he says, 'I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, etc., that ye be not soon moved in your mind, nor shaken, neither by spirit nor by word,' " etc. (com]). 2 Thess. ii, 2, 3).
The second ejiistle, like the first, is found in the can- ons of the Syriac and Old Latin versions, and in those of the Muratorian fragment and of the heretic Marcion, and was iniiversally received by the Church.
2. The internal character of the epistle, as in the for- mer case, bears the strongest testimony to its Pauline origin (see Jowett, i, 143). ."The genuineness of this epistle," remarks Eichhorn, " follows from its contents. Its design is to correct the erroneous use which had been made of some things in the tirst epi>tlc; and who but the writer of that tirst epistle would have set him- self thus to such a task? It, however, appears that the author of the first must also be the author of the sec- ond; and. as the former is the production of Paul, we nnist ascribe the latter also to him. It was essential to the apostle's reputation that the erroneous conse- quences which had been deduced from his words should be refuted. Had he refrained from noticing the ex- ]iectation built upon his words of the speedy return of Christ, his silence would have confirmed the conclusion that this was one of his peculiar doctrines; as such it woidd have passed to the succeeding generation; and when they perceived that in tliis Paid had been mis- taken, what amfidence couUl they have had in other parts of his teachingV The weight of this as an evi- dence of the genuineness of tiiis Second Epistle to the 'J'hessalonians acquires new strength from the fact that of all the other expressions in the epistle not one is opposed to any point either in the history or the doc- trine of the apostle" {Eiideit. ins N. T. iii, 60).
3. Notwithstanding these evidences in its favor, the genuineness of this epistle has been called into doubt by the restless scepticism of some of the German crit- ics. The way here was led by John Ernest Chr. Schmidt, who, in 1801, published in his Bibliot/iek ^flir KrVik iind Exerjese a tract entitled Vermuthvvf/en iiher die beiden Btiefe an die T/iessahiiier, in which he im- pugned the genuineness of the first twelve verses of the second chapter. He afterwards, in his Einhitiing, p. 256, enlarged his objections and applied them to the whole epistle. He has been followed by Schrader {Apnslel Pavliis), Kern {Tiibinf/. Zcilschr.f. Theol. 1839, ii, 145), and Baur {Paiiliis der Apostel). I)e Wetle at first condemned this epistle, but afterwards withdrew his condemnation and frankly accepted it as genuine.
His cavils are more than usually frivolous, and have been most fidly replied to by (iuericke {Beitraqe ziir hist.-krit. Kiiili'it. ins X. T. [llalle, 1828], p. 92-99), by Heiche {Antlieiitiie Post, ad Thessalon. Epist. Viudicixe [(Jiitt. 1829], and by Pelt, in the Prolegomena to his Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians (p. xxvii). See also (irimm, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 18,o0, [). 753 s(]. ; Lipsius, ibid. 1854, p. 905 sq. ; Hilgen- feld, in his Zeilschr.f. viss. Theol. 18G2, p. 225 sq.
It will thus be seen that this ei)istle has been reject- ed by some modern critics who acknowledge the first to be genuine. Such critics, of course, attribute no weight to arguments brought against the first, such as we have considered already. The Apocalyptic passage (2 Thess. ii, 1-12) is the great stumbling-block to them. It has been objected to either as alluding to events subse- quent to Paul's death — the Neronian persecution, for in- stance— or as betraying religions views derived from the jMontanisra of the 2d century, or, lastly, as contra- dicting Paul's anticipations expressed elsewhere, espe- cially in the first epistle, of the near approach of the Lord's advent. That there is no reference to Nero we shall endeavor to show presently. That the doctrine of an Antichrist did not start into being with ^Nlonta- nism is sliown from the allusions of Jewish writers even before the Christian sera (see Bertholdt, C/i?7'.</. ji. 69 ; Gfrorer, .Tahrh. des Heils, ii, 257) ; and appears still more clearly from the passage of Justin Martyr referred to in the paragraph above. That the language used of the Lord's coming in the second epistle does not contradict, but rather supplement, the teaching of the first— post- poning the day, indeed, but still anticipating its ap- proach as possibly within the apostle's lifetime — may be gathered both from expressions in the passage itself (e. g. ii, 7, "is already working") and from other parts of the epistle (i, 7,8), especially those which speak of the " signs" of the coming. Other special objections to the epistle will scarcely command a hearing, and must nec- essarily be passed over here.