^{page 131 note 1} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, 2 (New York: Scribner's, 1955) p. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 2} Bornkamm, G., Paul (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 3} Marxsen, W., Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), pp. 37–44.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 4} In Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H., Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), pp. 153 f.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 5} From an earlier day one may mention the influential work of Wrede, W., Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes (Theologische Untersuchungen IX, 2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903)Google Scholar and more recently Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (1931; repr. New York: Seabury, 1968), p. 42Google Scholar, Loisy, A., The Origins of the New Testament (Ist French ed. 1936; London: George Allen and Unwin, 1950), p. 290Google Scholar and Enslin, M. S., Christian Beginnings (New York: Harper and Row, 1938), pp. 239–44Google Scholar. Doubt about Pauline authorship has existed since the end of the eighteenth century; for the history of the issue see Rigaux, B., Les Épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (Études Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1956), pp. 124–52.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 6} Masson, C., Les Deux Épîtres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament ixa; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1957), pp. 9–13.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 7} Ibid. p. 84 n. 1.

^{page 131 note 8} In the Meyer and Hermeneia series, respectively.

^{page 131 note 9} Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942), pp. 44 f.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 1} Harrison, P. N., Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: University Press, 1936), p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 2} von Dobschütz, E., Die Thessalonicherbriefe (Meyer; 7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1909), pp. 39 f.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 3} So Petersen, R. J., ‘The Structure and Purpose of Second Thessalonians’, Diss. Harvard 1968, p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 73, 710.

^{page 135 note 1} Op. cit. p. 39.

^{page 135 note 2} Grayston, K. and Herdan, G., ‘The authorship of the Pastorals in the light of statistical linguistics’ N.T.S. 6 (1960), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 3} Graafen, J., Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes an die Thessalonicher (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen xiv, 5; Münster: Aschendorff, 1930), pp. 50 f.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 4} Cited by Wrede, op. cit. p. 33 n. 2.

^{page 136 note 1} Zahn, T., Introduction to the New Testament, 1 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909), p. 250.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} Frame, J. E., Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1912), pp. 37–55.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 3} Wrzol, J.. Die Echtheit des Zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes (Biblische Studien xix, 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1916), pp. 78–82.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} See below on the eschatological argument.

^{page 136 note 5} Bacon, B. W., Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1900), p. 74.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} Goguel, M., Introduction au Nouveau Testament 4, i (Paris: Payot, 1925), p. 335.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} See the remarks of R. W. Funk on the authority implicit in the apostolic parousia in I Thess. ii. 17–iii. 13 in ‘The Apostolic Parousia: form and significance’, Christian History and Interpretation (ed. Farmer, W., Cambridge: University Press, 1967), pp. 249–68.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 3} Harnack, A., ‘Das Problem des zweiten Thcssalonicherbriefs’, Sitzungsbericht der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophische-historische Klasse (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1910), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} So rightly Wendland, P., Die urchristliche Literaturformen, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, i (ed. Lietzmann, H.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1912), p. 295.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), pp. 157–9.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} The Greek translated ‘has come’, ένέστηκεν, can mean ‘to be at hand’, and this is the interpretation of the Vulgate, AV, RSV, the Zürcherbibel and of H. Koester, op. cit. p. 154. But in the New Testament ένεσττα is contrasted to μέλλοντα in I Cor. iii. 22 and Rom. viii. 38 (cf. Gal. i. 4 and I Cor. vii. 26), and the commentators (and Bauer, W., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (4th ed. trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957Google Scholar), ad loc., and A. Oepke in Theological Dictionary of the Mew Testament, ad loc.) are correct in rejecting this interpretation.

^{page 139 note 1} Had Paul stayed there only three or four weeks he would not have had to work at all, whereas in I Thess. ii. 9 he says he worked night and day – he means as a tentmaker – that he might not be a burden to the Thessalonians.

^{page 140 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 560–78.

^{page 140 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 335–7.

^{page 140 note 3} Dibelius, M., An die Thessalonicher I, II (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1937), p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Schweizer, E., ‘Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief ein Philipperbrief?’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 1 (1945), 90–105, 286–9Google Scholar and ‘Das Problem des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 2 (1946), 74 f.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} Michaelis, W., ‘Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief kein Philipperbrief’, Theologische Zeitschrift, 1 (1945), 282–6.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} Op. cit. p. 67.

^{page 141 note 4} Manson, T. W., ‘St. Paul in Greece: The Letters to the Thessalonians’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 35 (1952–1953), 428–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Ibid. p. 436.

^{page 142 note 2} Hurd, J., The Origin of I Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965), pp. 25–7.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Jewett, R., ‘Enthusiastic Radicalism and the Thessalonian Correspondence’, Proceedings of the 1972 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, pp. 181–232.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} Loc. cit. Koester also locates Ephesians and II Cor. vi. 14–vii. i within this stream.

^{page 143 note 2} So correctly Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, New York: Abingdon, 1970), p. 481.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} History 1.22.

^{page 144 note 2} Fenton, J. C., ‘Pseudonymity in the New Testament’, Theology 58 (1955), 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 144 note 3} Republic 376 f., 382, 414, 159.

^{page 144 note 4} History 7.6.

^{page 144 note 5} De Baptismo 17.

^{page 145 note 1} R. Bultmann, loc. cit.

^{page 145 note 2} Guthrie, D., ‘Epistolary Pseudepigraphy’, New Testament Introduction (3rd ed.; London: Tyndale, 1970), p. 680.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Metzger, B., ‘Literary forgeries and canonical Pseudepigrapha’, J.B.L. 91 (1972), 1–24.Google Scholar