（按上圖或按此免費下載）

撮要

自18世紀末開始，學者便質疑保羅作為帖撒羅尼迦前後書作者所重建的歷史語境。反對他是帖撒羅尼迦後書作者的理論可綜合為以下數項：(1)非保羅思維；(2)文體仿照；(3)神學差別；及(4)風格差異。非保羅思維的論點過於主觀，且缺說服力。文體仿照則忽略了其他保羅書信也有同樣現象；再者，帖撒羅尼迦前後書的完成時間相隔甚短，故同一作者很有可能記得曾寫過的內容。雖然目前所認知的歷史語境有待修改，但是對於基督再來的緊迫性和其時間的未知性，亦可見於馬可福音十三章中有關耶穌的終末言論。另外，風格差異也可能是保羅選用不同的代筆人所造成的問題(如羅十六22)。以帖撒羅尼迦後書為冒名書信作出發點所重建的歷史語境，亦須假設收信的教會群體相當無知。因此，這理論除非能提供一個較完整的歷史語境，以支持帖撒羅尼迦後書不是保羅所寫的，否則其理據並不強於支持保羅為作者的看法。

ABSTRACT

Since the late eighteenth century, scholars have questioned the adequacy of the historical situation reconstructed for understanding the relationship between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians if both were written by Paul. Hypotheses that purportedly prove the pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians have been proposed and can be grouped into: (1) un-Pauline characteristics; (2) literary dependency; (3) theological discrepancy; and (4) stylistic differences. Un-Pauline characteristics are subjective and fail to convince. Literary dependency argues certain passages show that 2 Thessalonians had 1 Thessalonians as their sources. However, similar phrases are also found in other undisputed Pauline letters such as 1Corinthians 1:4. Furthermore, if both letters were written within very short interval, then it is possible that Paul still remembered what he had written in the first letter. Although it is true that a possible reconstruction of historical situation is still requesting apparent theological differences, the tension between the certainty of the pending Parousia and the uncertainty of timing is not something unusual, as can be seen in the little apocalypse in Mark 13. Stylistic differences can be explained adequately by Paul’s use of different amanuenses (cf. Rom. 16:22). When one examines further the hypothetical situations as reconstructed based on pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians, one finds that the hypotheses have to assume certain naivety on the part of the recipients. Therefore, until a more plausible historical situation can be suggested, the arguments for the pseudonymity of 2 Thessalonians are not better than those that assume genuine Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians.

原載於《建道學刊》26期（2006年7月），頁1-24。