The similarity of material and structure is probably sufficient to prove dependence, possibly even literary dependence. But why not? Intrinsic probability as well as the known practice of the ancients suggests that a copy of I. would be available at Corinth for Paul's use in continuing the correspondence. There remains thus, as the only serious objection to the authenticity of II. its belated supplement to Pauline eschatology. The Antichrist doctrine, if not actually opposed to his teaching elsewhere, is al most unmentioned (but cf. I. Cor. xv. 24-28 and "Belial" in II. Cor. vi. 15). Did Paul forget to mention this preliminary crisis when seeking in I., v. I–II to allay excitement at Thessalonica over the expected immediate Coming and to restore orderly in dustry? Was the working of the "mystery of iniquity" an of ?For answer we must consider the occasion for his introducing the (apocalyptic) "word of the Lord" cited in I., iv. 15-17. It was to restore the hope of certain converts grieved by recent be reavement, and professedly contains but a part of the teaching. Paul purposely limited himself to the single lesson in I., v. I–I I of watchfulness in view of the uncertainty of the hour. But his readers, reminded of the revelation, seem now to feel that a little more definite information concerning the "times and seasons" would greatly help. If the Antichrist paragraph of II. be read as
in reply to an intimation of this kind, probably by letter, while the fact is kept in mind that in both letters the subject is repeat edly declared to be no new doctrine but something preached from the beginning by Paul and his fellow-missionaries, it will be easier to realize that it is not an afterthought with which we are here dealing, but rather something earlier and primitive, brought now to the surface by further development of the subject.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.—The most careful study of I. and II. Thess., with full bibliography will be found in the International Critical Commen tary by J. E. Frame, 1912. Similar ground is taken by E. von Dob schiitz in Meyer's Commentary (19o9) and by M. Dibelius in Lietz mann's Handbuch (1911), also by Geo. Milligan (1908) and J. Moffatt (in Expositor's Gr. Test., 191o). Against the authenticity of II. see H. J. Holtzmann (Einl. 1892 and Zeitschr. f. ntl. Wiss., 1901), Pfleid erer, Urchristenthum (1902), and Wrede, Echtheit des zweiten Thes salonicherbriefes (1903). On the relation to Synoptic apocalypse see Bacon, The Gospel of Mark (1925). (B. W. BA.)