The genuineness of this epistle,' remarks Eich horn, follows from its contents. Its design is to correct the erroneous use which had been made of some things in the first epistle • and who but the writer of that first epistle wou'ld 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 second ; and as the former is the production of Paul, we must ascribe the latter also to him. It WaS essential to the apostle's reputation that the erroneous consequences which had been deduced from his words should be refuted. Had he re frained from noticing the expectation 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 would have passed to the succeeding generation ; and when they perceived that in this Paul had been mistaken, what confidence could they have had in other parts of his teaching? The weight of this, as an evidence of the genuineness of this Second Epistle to tbe Thessalonians, 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 doctrine of the apostle ' (Ein leit. ins N. T. iii. 69).
The external evidence in favour of the genuine ness of this epistle is equally strong with that which attests the first. Polycarp (Ep. aa' Philip. sec. It) appears to allude to ch. iii. 15. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (p. 193, 32, ed. Syl burg. 1593), speaks of the i eigning of the man of sin (Tdv Tijs avoutas dveparzrop), which seems to be an evident allusion to ch. ii. 3 ; and in a passage, quoted by Lardner (vol. ii. p. 125), he uses the phrase T.* ciroaraafas eivOpunros. The eighth verse of this second chapter is formally cited by Irenus (iii. c. 7, sec. 2) as from the pen of an apostle ; Clement of Alexandria specially adduces ch. iii. 2, as the words of Paul (Strom. lib. v. p.
5542 ed. Sylb.), and Tertullian also quotes this epistle as one of Paul's (De Resurrec. Carnis, c. 24) Notwithstanding these evidences in its favour, the genuineness of this epistle has been called into doubt by some of the German critics. The way here was led by John Emest Chr. Schmidt, who, in 18o1, published in his Bibliothek fur Kritik und Exegese, a tract entitled Vermuthungen iiber die Belden Briefe an die Thessalonicher, in which he impugned the genuineness of the first twelve verses of the second chapter. He afterwards, in his Einleitung, p. 256, enlarged his objections, and applied them to the whole epistle. De Wette took the same side, and in the earlier editions of his E inleitung, has adduced a number of reasons in support of his opinion, drawn from the epistle itself. His objections are of little weight, and have been most fully replied to by Guericke (Beitrlige Zlir Hist. Krit. Einl. ins N. T. s. 92-99, Halle 1828), by Reiche frluthentia Post. ad Thess. Epist. Vindicia, Gott. 1829), and by Pelt in the Prolego mena to his Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessaloozians (p. xxvii.) In his later editions, De Wette admits that the objections he adduced are not sufficient, and that the style is Pauline ; and in his Exeget. Handbuch he defends the genuine ness of the epistle against the cavils of Kern in the Tiibinger Zeitschr. for 1839. Baur has also ob jected to this epistle on several grounds, but none of them are of importance ; see Davidson, /ntrod.
p. 455 ; Bleek, Einl. p. 387 Jewell, An Exposition, Lond. 1583 12mo, 1811 Svo ; W. Sclater, Exposition and Notes, Lond. 1619, 1629, 4to ; J. Alph. Turretin, Commentarius, Basil 1739, 8vo ; Flatt, Vorlesungen, Tub. 1829 ; Lud. Pelt, Conzmentarius, Gryphiswald 1830, 8vo ; Jowett, 2d ed. 1859 ; Ellicott, 2d ed. 1862 ; and the commentaries of Olshausen, De Wette, and Meyer.—W. L. A.