Related to my earlier post today, I have had not much time to write in the past few days due to illness (for those who wish to help with my research and medical bills, one can make a donation at paypal or/or GoFundMe; prayers/positive thoughts for my recovery, not just from this illness, but just from the poor health I suffer from quite a bit, are always welcome, too!), but I wished to reproduce the following interesting excerpts defending the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and James from Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1970)
The Eschatology of 2 Thessalonians and Pauline Authorship
Eschatology
A change of approach is alleged in the second Epistle as compared with the first in respect of the parousia. Here it is less imminent, for certain events must first take place. Some of the earlier critics attempted to heighten the problem by supposing that the ‘man of sin’ was intended to be identified with Nero Redivivus, which meant that the Epistle could not have been earlier than the last decade or two of the first century, i.e. too late for Pauline authorship. But there has been a change in the twentieth century towards the whole subject of eschatology. As Neil points out, time sequence does not arise in eschatological thought, and to attempt to date documents on such grounds must inevitably lead to a false trail. It must further be borne in mind that 1 Thessalonians v. 1-11 presupposes some knowledge of eschatological signs on the part of the readers, which suggests that Paul had given them some oral instruction in that matter. While the section about the ‘man of sin’ finds no parallel in 1 Thessalonians, there is no reason to deny that Paul could have written it. Earlier attempts to regard it as an independent apocalypse which was later attached to the Epistle are not now favoured. The work of Bousset on the antichrist legend has shown that the background of it must be largely found in Jewish apocalyptic thought and that the man of sin is therefore the Pseudo-Messiah and not some historical person such as Nero as formerly proposed. Had the Nero Redivivus myth been in mind in this passage it would at once date it as post-Pauline. Because of the close similarities between the passage and Mark xiii it is reasonable to suppose that Paul was acquainted with Jesus’ eschatological teaching. In that case no weighty objection can be lodged against the language here. A sufficient explanation of the different eschatological emphasis is the need to answer a misunderstanding which had not arisen then 1 Thessalonians was written. The change is not in eschatology but in viewpoint due to changing circumstances. (570-72)
Is the Greek of James a Refutation of the Traditional Authorship of the Epistle?
The style of Greek is generally good and cultured and this fact has been regarded as conclusive against the traditional view. Thus Dibelius makes the categorical statement, ‘The style is frequently cultured, the Greek vocabulary large, the entire diction not that of a man, whose real language was Aramaic.’ While admitting the good quality of the Greek, which has been pronounced by competent authorities to be among the best in the New Testament, some modifications are necessary. Oesterley has drawn attention to some indications of a Hebrew background to the language, while Ropes admitted that the language was Koiné with a biblical tine. Rendall went so far as to maintain with some cogency that the author’s hand ‘is not that of a skilled or practised writer, with easy command of his resources or his pen’.
With these modifications regarding the Greek style, the act still remains that it is paradoxical that one of the most Jewish letters in the New Testament should have been written by an author apparently so much at home in the Greek language, and some sympathy must be felt for the objection that a Galilaean could not have acquired such facility, since his native language was Aramaic. Yet this appears to be largely an a priori argument. It clearly can neither be proved nor disproved that James, a Galilaean, was incapable of writing this Epistle. It has been maintained that there was nothing to induce James to learn Greek since all his dealings appear to have been with Jewish Christians. But this opinion takes insufficient account of the known bilingual character of Gaililee. There were many Greek towns in that district, and because of this it must surely be assumed that it was in the power of any Galilaean to gain a knowledge of Greek. If a priori arguments are to be used, it would be more reasonable to assume that James was bilingual than the reverse.
Yet the problem still remains whether a peasant could have acquired sufficient education to write the type of Greek found in the Epistle, even supposing him to have been bilingual from early years. Rendall answered emphatically in the affirmative, maintaining that the Jewish people were the most literary of all the Mediterranean nations and citing the LXX as evidence of the Jewish adoption of Hellenism. Oesterley on the other hand admitted the possibility of such learning, but denied the probability. The question cannot be decided conclusively on a priori suppositions. But one consideration would appear to tip the balance in favour of James being bilingual, and that is his position as leader of the Jerusalem church. Constant travellers to and from Jerusalem would bring him in touch with people from various parts and the majority of them would undoubtedly be Greek speaking. It may even be argued with some cogency that the opportunities for public speaking and debate would develop in him some mastery of the rhetorical style such as vivid illustrations and rhetorical questions. Again there is a reasonable possibility that James may have employed a Greek amanuensis. On the whole, it would seem that not much importance should be attached to the objections based on language and it is significant that most weight is not placed on other considerations. (747-49)