as that of II. iii. 17, should have occurred in the earliest of Paul’s letters; in view of ii, 3, its appearance, after the composition of 1 Thess. and even of other letters, is psychologically valid. The comparative absence of allusions in 2 Thess. to 1 Thess. (cf, however, Il. ii. 1 = I. iv. 17, etc.) is best explained by the fact that in the second letter Paul is going back to elaborate part of his original oral teaching in the light of fresh needs which had emerged since he wrote the first epistle. In this sense, and in this sense only, 2 Thess. anticipates the other letter. Finally, while I. ii. 17-11. 6 does not absolutely exclude the possibility of a previous letter, it cannot be taken to presuppose one of the character of 2 Thess., least of al when the letter is dated from Beroea (Acts xvii. 10, Ewald and Laurent).
$5, Its Authenticity.—Since Paul Schmidt’s edition (see be- low) and von Soden’s essay (Studien u. Kritiken, 1885, pp. 263- 310), with which the English reader may compare Jowett’s proof (vol. i, pp. 4-17), it is πὸ longer necessary to discuss the authenticity of the first epistle, or even its integrity. Almost the only passage where a marginal gloss may be reasonably conjectured to have crept into the text is ii. 16.1 The second epistle, however, starts a real probiem, both on the score of its resem- blance to the first epistle and of its divergence from the style and thought of that or indeed of any other Pauline letter. Paul is still with Silvanus and Timotheus (i. 1) at Corinth (iii. 2, reff. ; 1 Thess. 11. 15 f.), writing presumably not long after the despatch of the former epistle (ii. 15). Bresh information has reached him (1. 11),? and his aim is to repudiate further misconceptions of his teaching upon the Last Things, as well as to steady the church amid its more recent ana- baptist perils. Hence he writes in substantially the same tone and along the same lines as before; anything he has to communicate is practically a restatement of what he had already taught orally (ii. 5, 15), not a discussion of novel doubts and principles. If any change has taken place in the local situation, it has been in the
1 The terminus ad quem for the composition of the epistle, if it is genuine, is his next visit to Thessalonica (Acts xx. 1, 2); most probably it was despatched before: Acts xviii. 12. Corinth is the only place where we know the three men were to- gether at this period.
2 How, we are not told. Possibly Paul had been asked by the local leaders ta exert his influence and authority against pietistic developments in the community (iii. 14). The situation demanded an explicit written message; probably no visit of Silvanus or Timotheus would have sufficed, even had they been able to leave Corinth. Spitta’s theory (see below) implies that Timotheus had been in Thessalonica since τ Thess. was written (ἔτι, ii. 5), but of this there is no evidence whatever.