The two Thessalonian letters are unique in the biblical corpus (and among wider epistolary evidence) in naming three overt participants in the letters’ prescripts. Debate continues as to whether Silvanus and Timothy join Paul as “coauthors” or merely as “cosenders.” This paper continues the exploration, recognizing and pursuing several incomplete avenues of inquiry.
Scholarship is already unclear what distinguishes these two labels. Rather than two clearly delimited alternatives, the labels tend to identity rough positions along a spectrum. Commentators themselves fall not into two groups but more broadly along this spectrum.
The preponderance of plural language concerning the authors/senders is widely acknowledged for 1 and 2 Thessalonians (whether we accept the latter letter as authentic or suspect it of intentional pseudepigraphic mimicry). More than any other letters associated with Paul, the Thessalonian epistles express “our” delights and concerns for the recipients. Only five occasions offer comments from a singular “I” – twice clarified as “I, Paul.”
Scholars have explored multiple interpretations of such plural language in letters, such as the survey of Byrskog (ZNW 1996). Perhaps oddly, commentators regularly discourage reading the persistent use of “we” in the Thessalonian letters as implying shared contributions from the three named collaborators. Evangelical authors are among those who seek alternative explanations, in practice often diluting or dismissing the participation of Silvanus and Timothy and spotlighting only Paul. Even those who tolerate the possibility of team collaboration (and the rare few who evince sympathy for its likelihood) relapse into describing a singular author for the sake of convenience or tradition.
In addition to reassessing the evidence and arguments that favour a collaborative effort in the letters’ composition, this paper considers several corollaries of permitting multiple contributors to these two letters (and to others in the Pauline corpus). Corollaries include the probability of more diverse vocabulary and grammar and even of theological emphases – and a query of the ease with which we might accurately benchmark a uniform “Pauline” theology. Conversely, this paper considers potential deficiencies if we misclassify such plurals and attribute to “Paul” words and ideas that belong to more than one solo author.