Currents in Biblical Research

http://cbi.sagepub.com Evaluating 1 Thessalonians: An Outline of Holistic Approaches to 1 Thessalonians in the Last 25 Years
Sean A. Adams Currents in Biblical Research 2009; 8; 51 DOI: 10.1177/1476993X09339444 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/51

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Currents in Biblical Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cbi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://cbi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/8/1/51

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Evaluating 1 Thessalonians: An Outline of Holistic Approaches to 1 Thessalonians in the Last 25 Years

Sean A. Adams
University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, UK adams.sean@gmail.com

Abstract
This article focuses on works that have been produced within the last 25 years which attempt to provide a holistic approach to the understanding and interpretation of 1 Thessalonians, such as: epistolary, rhetorical, theological, linguistic, and various combinations of the above. Proponents of each view and their perspectives will be outlined along with their structural division of the text. This article attempts to provide a general map of particular approaches to 1 Thessalonians, but also provides a brief outline of some of the critiques and weaknesses of the different methodologies. This article concludes with a brief statement regarding the trajectory of current studies.
Keywords: 1 Thessalonians, approaches, epistolography, linguistic, methodology, rhetoric.

Over the past 25 years there has been a promulgation of approaches to Pauls first letter to the Thessalonians (see Weima and Porter 1998). Throughout the majority of the twentieth century, scholars applied the conventional methodology of form, redaction and traditional criticisms to 1 Thessalonians with standard results. However, following the appropriation
Currents in Biblical Research
The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navVol. 8.1: 51-70 Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009 ISSN 1476-993XDOI: 10.1177/1476993X09339444

52

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

of rhetorical criticism and other approaches by New Testament scholars, most commentaries and monographs now apply a particular critical methodology to the text that may or may not involve some of the more traditional approaches. This article will focus on works that have been produced within the last 25 years that attempt to provide a holistic approach to the understanding and interpretation of 1 Thessalonians, such as: epistolary, rhetorical, theological, linguistic, and various combinations of the above. Although a critical evaluation of every approach is not possible, this work will provide some comment on the strengths and weaknesses of various key proposals. Overall, this article will attempt to provide a map of the particular holistic approaches to 1 Thessalonians in order to better understand the different perspectives that this letter has elicited in recent years as well as a brief point on the emerging trajectories within this area of study.

Epistolary Approach Beginning in the 1970s there was a movement to re-evaluate the Pauline letters in light of their relationship to the letters in the ancient world. The primary importance of the study of the ancient Greek letter form for biblical exegesis is to determine the structure of the letter in relationship to Pauls and other biblical letters. In this case, scholars are divided over whether Pauls letters fall into three, four or five divisions. The question revolves around whether two of the letter parts are viewed, on functional grounds, to be separate and discreet units within the letter, or whether they are subsumed in the other parts of the letter. One of the most influential scholars in this endeavour is John White, who has not only written a number of books on the topic, but was also the chair of the SBL ancient epistolography section for a number of years. Arguably Whites most prominent contribution was his attempt to situate Pauls letters within the epistolary ambience of the Greco-Roman era through the use of the papyri letters from Egypt (White 1986). White begins most of his discussions of Pauline epistolography with an evaluation of the Greek papyri, which sets the backdrop for the later investigation into the structure of Pauls letters. When evaluating the papyri letters for their letter divisions White looks for formal features within the text, such as formulas and constructions, to help determine proper boundaries (White 1986; Doty 1973-28; Alexander 1989). From his evaluation of the Greek letter, White concludes that the typical Greek letter consists of

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

53

three parts or divisions: opening, body, and closing (White 1983: 438-39; 1986: 198-211; Klauck 1998: 29-55). In a later work, White further defends his three-part division of the Pauline letter and further outlines what features are located in each part (1988: 97): Opening (address, grace greeting and thanksgiving prayer), Body (introductory formula, transition formulas, concluding section/Pauls apostolic presence section) and closing (closing greetings, the Holy Kiss greeting, grace benediction). Of particular note in this outline is the location of the thanksgiving and parenetic sections, for which White places the thanksgiving section within the letter opening and does not consider it a distinct section within Pauls letters. Likewise, the parenetic section is considered to be a small portion of the letter body conclusion and not a discreet component. The incorporation of the thanksgiving within the letter opening and the parenetic section within the letter body betray the large influence of the Greek papyri letters on Whites understanding and perspective of the Pauline letters. Another scholar who endorses the three-part letter division is Stirewalt. Similarly to White, Stirewalt seeks to locate Pauls letter-writing from among the letters of antiquity and concludes that Pauls letters are most akin to the official letter form used among the administration, rulers and officials of the ancient world (Stirewalt 2003: 25-55; White 1972b; Malherbe 1988: 1-14). In using this template Stirewalt provides the following outline to the Pauline letter form: Salutation (identification of the primary sender, naming of co-senders, address to multiple recipients), Body (background, basis or explanation for the message, message: order, request, commendation, promise), and Subscription (2003: 33). Once again it is apparent that the papyri letters, in this case the official letters, strongly influenced Stirewalts perspective of the Pauline letter. This is not to say that there are no similarities between the official letter and the Pauline letter; in fact Stirewalts study provides some interesting insights into Pauls letters. However, it does appear that Stirewalt rigidly adopted the official letter form for his evaluation and organization of Pauls letters. A good example of this would be the lack of discussion regarding the thanksgiving aspect of Pauls letters. In his explanation of Pauls letter form, Stirewalt spends much time providing a thorough elucidation of his division of the salutation, namely, the identification of the primary sender, naming of co-senders and addressing the letter to multiple recipients, but provided only a short rationale for his body divisions. Consequently, when he evaluated 1 Thessalonians Stirewalt stated that the body background would begin at 1.2 and continue until 3.13; however, he does not mention

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

54

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

the role of the thanksgiving, even though the number and division of the thanksgiving(s) is one of the key epistolary issues in that letter (2003: 60). It is unlikely that Stirewalt does not acknowledge the existence of the thanksgiving as an aspect of an official letter; however, it would have benefited his theory to have identified its role and purpose in the development of the body background and the similarities and dissimilarities between Paul and other official letter writers. Moving on from the three-part letter perspective, there is a collection of scholars who propose that the Pauline letter consists of four distinct parts. OConnor, Weima and OBrien have expressed that Pauls letters generally consist of four distinct parts: opening, thanksgiving, body and closing (Murphy-OConnor 1995: iv; Weima 1994: 11; OBrien 1993: 550-53; Roetzel 1999: 81-92). Although each of them has a different perspective on the composition of the letter, Weimas outline of the four-part letter provides a good introduction of this view (1994: 11): Opening (sender, recipient, salutation), Thanksgiving, Body (transitional formulae, autobiographical statements, concluding paranesis, apostolic parousia), and Closing (peace benediction, hortatory section, greeting, autograph, grace benediction). The most notable difference between the four-part letter structure and the three-part letter structure is the acknowledgement that the thanksgiving portion of the Pauline letter is a discrete unit. As a result, the above scholars have removed the thanksgiving from either the letter opening or body, as outlined above, and have created a new section. Most scholars who recognize a thanksgiving section in Pauls letters agree that Paul adopted this element from ancient epistolary convention, but further adapted it to a highly developed and sophisticated component of his letters (OBrien 1977). The understanding of the thanksgiving as a distinct unit of Pauline epistolography is important for the study of Thessalonians as the delineation of this unit is one of the more contested issues. The final perspective on the construction of the Pauline letter is the fivepart letter division. One of the first scholars to propose a five-part letter is William Doty, who expresses that in addition to the opening, thanksgiving, body and closing, there is a paranesis section in which Paul exhorts and directs his followers in proper Christian behaviour (Doty 1973). A number of other scholars have also adopted this perspective (Puskas 1995: 8-9; Funk 1966: 270); however, most recently Porter and Adams have proposed a five-part structure similar to that of Dotys mentioned above, but with a more specific and detailed outline of the contents of each letter part (Porter and Adams 2009): Opening (sender, addressee, greeting), Thanksgiving or Blessing (intercession formula, eschatological formula), Body (introductory

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

55

formulae, body proper, body closing formulae), Paranesis (opening, often indicated by the use of parakole/w, specific directions regarding how to live the Christian faith), and Closing (doxology, hortatory section, greetings, autograph, grace benediction). It is important to note that although some scholars adhere to a four- or five-part letter form by Paul, it does not necessarily indicate or require all four or five parts to occur in every letter. Paul, as a skilled writer and communicator, has the ability to adapt his communication style and, correspondingly, his letter to meet the needs of the moment. When identifying specific approaches to 1 Thessalonians, it is apparent that the epistolary approach was the one of the most common during the twentieth century (Best 1972; Morris 1991). Although there are a number of alternate approaches being developed for analyzing 1 Thessalonians, epistolary theory still has a number of supporters. A couple of scholars suggest that 1 Thessalonians fits within the four-part letter form. For example, Malherbe (2000: viii) expresses that 1 Thessalonians should be divided into: Opening (1.1), Autobiography (which includes a thanksgiving and concluding prayer; 1.23.13), Exhortation (4.15.22), and Closing (5.23-28). Similar, Green (2002: 175-76) also makes use of the four-part letter division; however, he divides the text somewhat differently: Opening (1.1), Thanksgiving (1.2-10), Body (2.15.22, although Green subdivides this section at 4.1), and Closing (5.23-28). Alternately, Porter and Adams, Gaventa and Bruce make use of the fivepart letter division. Porter and Adams (2009) divide the text by Opening (1.1), Thanksgiving (1.2-10), Body (2.13.13), Parenesis (4.15.22), and Closing (5.23-28). Gaventa (1998: 7) also ascribes a five-part letter division: Salutation (1.1), Thanksgiving (1.2-10); Body (2.13.13); Ethical Instruction (4.15.24); and Closing (5.25-28); however, she does not interpret 1 Thessalonians as totally epistolary, but also as having rhetorical impact. Bruce (1982: 4), on the other hand, also states that Paul utilizes five distinct units in his letters; however, in 1 Thessalonians Paul makes an unique arrangement: Opening (1.1), Thanksgiving I (1.2-10), Body I (2.1-12), Thanksgiving II (2.13-16), Body II (2.173.13), Parenesis (4.15.24), and Closing (5.25-28). It is clear that when attempting to divide 1 Thessalonians into its respective parts that there is substantial difficulty in determining the boundaries of the thanksgiving section. As a response to this, there have been some theories developed that have questioned the authorial composition of 1 Thessalonians and its cohesion as a letter. For instance, Schmithals proposed that the two Thessalonian epistles were actually a combination of four distinct letters that were separated and combined into the two canonical letters (1972: 180). Although this four-letter theory was successfully

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

56

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

challenged by Jewett, Schmithals is not the only scholar to propose such an idea (Jewett 1986: 33-36; Bruce 1982: xliv-xlvi). An augmented composite view of 1 Thessalonians was adopted by Richard in his commentary in which he proposed that a short earlier missive (2.134.2) was inserted within the chronologically later First Thessalonians letter (1.12.12 + 4.35.28) (Richard 1995: 11-12). Based on this construction, Richard then applies epistolary theory to the text, although when various aspects of the text do not fit neatly within his understanding of what the letter should look like he assigns it the label of insertion, interpolation or redacted by an editor. These compositional models present a serious challenge to evaluating 1 Thessalonians as a whole as they often fragment the text beyond repair. Furthermore, the subjective nature of these models limits their usefulness and has resulted in a general aversion to them within scholarship. Other scholars who take an epistolary interpretive approach to 1 Thessalonians are less interested in delineating its particular divisions, and are more focused on identifying which category of letter it fits. Working with the categories developed by epistolary handbooks (Malherbe 1988; Reed 1997), scholars have attempted to apply different labels to 1 Thessalonians and some of the other Pauline letters. For example, Stowers (1986: 96) identifies 1 Thessalonians as a parenetic letter in which Paul exhorts his readers to faith and concrete Christian action. Chapa (1994) and Smith (1995: 42-60) state that this letter is of consolation, whereas SchoonJanssen (2000: 189), on the other hand, claims that 1 Thessalonians is a friendship letter due to the various topics that it covers and that it should not be interpreted as a business or instructional letter. Part of the problem with using categories developed in the epistolary handbooks is that they often dont define letters that are as large and complex as those written by Paul. Often when forcing Pauls letters into such categories the interpreter is forced to strip the complexity of the letter and focus on one dominant aspect to the neglect of others. The simple, and unsatisfactory, way around this is to label all of Pauls letters as mixed. This, however, fails to provide any interpretive insight. One of the main critiques and drawbacks of using the epistolary approach as the sole method of evaluating the Pauline letters is that it loses its ability to interpret the letter once one proceeds past the higher levels of discourse. Epistolary theory does an admirable job at determining the larger structures of the letter and some of their components; however, it fails to provide significant interpretive weight when attempting to evaluate the particular semantic and linguistic features in the various letter parts (Jewett 1986: 70;

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

57

Watson 1997). It is at this juncture that some scholars who use epistolary theory fall back on evaluating the text based on a logical or thematic basis. This has led to a number of approaches that suffer from theological bias as well as being methodologically unsound (Jewett 1986: 68). Furthermore, some scholars have rightly critiqued epistolary theory as a theory that tends to divide texts into fragments based on their formal features without evaluating the nature or meaning of the text as a whole (Wanamaker 2000: 284). These critiques are well founded and need to be addressed by scholars who adopt an epistolary approach. Epistolary theory, on its own, is insufficient to adequately divide the text into units smaller than those developed by standard epistolary features.

Rhetorical Approach One of the main approaches to the Pauline letter in current scholarship is the utilization of rhetoric and rhetorical categories as a means of understanding and dividing the Pauline letter (Betz 1979; 1985; Jewett 1986; Johanson 1987). In general, these scholars seek to understand and exegete Pauls letter in light of rhetorical categories and theory rather than epistolary categories, although some wish to amalgamate the two approaches. It is the perspective of these scholars that Paul had access to and used rhetorical methodology to shape his letters to have the greatest impact on his recipients. Although there are a large number of rhetorical theories and approaches to the Pauline letters, most of them fall within three general categories (Porter 1993; Thurn 1990: 57-64). First, would be those scholars who primarily see Pauls epistles as genuine examples of the Greco-Roman letter, but might use rhetorical theories and perspectives at specific times in their evaluation of the text, but not as a holistic methodology (Doty 1969; 1973; White 1972a; see epistolary section above). For them, the primary approach to evaluate Pauls letters would be from an epistolary perspective, and then the secondary use of rhetorical categories. The second approach, primarily developed by Kennedy, proposes that these documents are effectively speeches with a minimal epistolary framework as a cover, overall, discounting the epistolary aspect of the letter and solely focusing on the various rhetorical categories. This position has not been widely accepted within the scholarly community (Kennedy 1984). The third approach views epistolary theory and rhetorical theory as equally viable, but working on different discourse levels, which makes them more compatible (Thurn 1990; Johanson 1987).

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

58

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

Arguably the most notable development out of these categories is the work by Betz, who attempts to combine the first two approaches by maintaining the validity of the epistolary structure, while also acknowledging rhetorical features and characteristics (1979; 1985). This approach has been most influential, inspiring a whole stream of commentaries that continue to attempt to integrate these two approaches (Jewett 1986: 63-87; 2007; Longenecker 1990; Hughes 1989; Wanamaker 1990) although sometimes with questionable combinations (Harris 2005: 105-14). The validity of the approach itself has also come into question by a number of scholars (Porter 1993: 102-104; Classen 1993: 266-68), but it is still currently one of the dominant approaches to 1 Thessalonians. In support of their rhetorical approach, most scholars search the ancient rhetorical handbooks for signs of rhetorical influence on ancient epistolography. To this end, Malherbes Ancient Epistolary Theorists has become an invaluable resource for modern scholars (1988). However, there are a few cases in which his work has been taken out of context and wrongly used to support an early connection between rhetoric and the epistle (Hughes 1989: 24; Thurn 1990: 63-64). Malherbe does state that epistolary theory in antiquity belonged to the domain of the rhetoricians, but he continues by qualifying that, it was not originally part of their theoretical system. It is absent from the earliest extant rhetorical handbooks, and it only gradually made its way into the genre (1988: 2). Likewise, Malherbe later concludes, It is thus clear that letter writing was of interest to rhetoricians, but it appears only gradually to have attached itself to their rhetorical system (1988: 3). This is not to say that Malherbe did not recognize that there was some rhetorical connection to the letter, but rather it was scattered and in passing, not formalized until the writings of Julius Victor, ars rheotorica in the fourth century ce (1988: 3). In general, most scholars who utilize a rhetorical approach to 1 Thessalonians make use of rhetorical categories which divide the letter into sections based on their rhetorical function within the letter. These Latin categories are: exordium, narratio, partitio or propositio, probatio (further divided into confirmatio and reprehensio) and pereratio (Aristotle, Ars rhetorica 3.13.4; Cicero, De inventione 1.19; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 46; Hughes 1989: 32-43; 2000; Jewett 2007: 29-30; Longenecker 1990: cx; Betz 1975; Walton 1995). It is important to note that Betz, who was one of the first modern scholars to make use of these categories, was forced to invent a category, exhortatio, not found anywhere in the classical rhetorical handbooks in order to account for the paranetic nature of parts of Pauls letters (Longenecker 1990: cix-cxiii; Classen 1991: 8-15, 29-33).

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

59

The exordium, which is equivalent to the Greek prooimion, acts as the prologue for the beginning of a speech and introduces the rhetor and the speech-subject to the audience (Hughes 1989: 34; Jewett 2007: 29). The importance of the exordium is to properly frame the upcoming discourse and to create a favourable disposition within the audience so that they would be interested in listening to the speech of the orator (Cicero, De inventione 1.20; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 4.1.5). The next section, the narratio or diegesis, is determined by the need of the occasion and each of the three genera of rhetoric: epideictic, defence and deliberative (Aristotle, Ars rhetorica, 3.16). The use of the narratio is not mandatory as it provides background understanding and information to the listener (Jewett 2007: 29; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 4.2). In particular to the judicial arena, the use of the narratio outlines the events that have occurred or have allegedly occurred in the situation that is currently under review (Cicero, De inventione 1.27). Prior to the probatio, there is sometimes inserted a propositio, or partitio, which provides the thesis or a short introduction to the issues that are pertinent to the case. This section can be potentially important to the rhetor, because it affords an opportunity to frame the argument in a light that is favourable to ones own position (Cicero, De inventione 1.31). Arguably the most important section of ancient rhetoric is the probatio, or proof. All of the prior sections mentioned above are designed to facilitate the audiences understanding and favourable disposition towards the proof (Hughes 1989: 39). It is in this section that the rhetor attempts to persuade the audience in regards to the topic to their particular viewpoint. When dealing with forensic rhetoric, the probatio is followed by a refutatio, the rebuttal of the oppositions view (Jewett 2007: 29). The final section is the peroratio, or epilogos, which provides the close of the rhetorical discourse. Here the rhetor recaps their argument and refreshes their points to the audience (Cicero, De inventione 1.98). It is at this point that the argument is brought home and the audience is petitioned to make a decision that is favourable to the position of the rhetor (Hughes 1989: 41-43). When evaluating particular rhetorical approaches to 1 Thessalonians there is some general agreement regarding the use of the above categories, although some scholars use and define each term in different ways (Green 2002: 71). One of the first recent rhetorical outlines of 1 Thessalonians is by Jewett (1986), who divides the text into four parts: Exordium (1.15); Narratio (1.63.13); Probatio (4.15.22); and Peroratio (5.23-28). With partial similarities, although with more categories (and some reference to epistolary framing), Wanamaker (1990: 49) segments 1 Thessalonians into six parts: Epistolary

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

60

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

Prescript (1.1); Exordium (1.2-10); Narratio (2.13.10); Transitus (3.11-13); Probatio (4.15.22); and Peroratio and Epistolary Closing (5.23-28). Hughes (1990: 94-116), on the other hand, provides a substantially different division of the text explicitly incorporating epistolary elements alongside rhetorical categories: Exordium (1.1-10); Narratio (2.13.10); Partitio (3.11-13); Probatio (4.15.3); Peroratio (5.4-11); Exhortation (5.12-22); and Conclusion (5.23-28). Olbricht differs slightly to the above outlines in that, although he does subscribe to an (Aristotelian) rhetorical approach to 1 Thessalonians, he views this letter in light of an epistolary framework of prescript and postscript. As a result, Olbricht divides the letter thus: Prescript 1.1; I. Exordium 1.2-3; II. Statement 1.4-10; III. Proof 2.15.11; Epilogue 5.12-24; Postscript 5.25-28 (1990: 235). Proposing a new genre of church rhetoric Olbricht understands 1 Thessalonians to contain characteristics of both deliberate and epideictic rhetoric. Wuellner in his article interprets Pauls First Thessalonian letter in light of paradoxical encomium and the argumentative role which selects rhetorical schemes and techniques (Wuellner 1990). Using this approach, Wuellner divides the text into three main sections: Exordium 1.1-10; Main Argument, 2.15.22, made of two parts; and Peroration 5.23-28 (1990: 128-35). When attempting to evaluate this methodology, one of the main questions that has been raised about applying a rhetorical approach to the Pauline letters is regarding the specific rhetorical categories that are being used. For a rhetorical view that critiques the use of Latin categories, see Krentz 2000: 316. Porter, along with others, has sought to differentiate between the use of ancient and modern rhetorical categories for the evaluation of epistolary works (Porter 1993: 106-109). In fact, Porter critiques Betzs and Kennedys positions because he believes that they give the false impression that the ancients themselves would have recognized the kind of analysis that is being performed on the Pauline epistles by modern interpreters (Porter 1993: 109). Consequently, Porter calls for a distinction between modern and ancient rhetorical categories and the acknowledgement by scholars that they are imposing modern conceptual frameworks onto the evaluation of the text (Porter 1993: 109). This entire discussion, however, begs the question of whether the ancients themselves, including Paul, would have viewed the letter in these categories. After evaluating the epistolary and rhetorical handbooks, Reed suggests that the standard epistolary components (opening, body and closing) share some similarities with the four principal patterns of rhetorical arrangement (exordium, narration, confimatio and conclusio), but that the similarities are

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

61

functional, not formal (Reed 1993: 307-308). In other words, there is no necessary connection between the basic theory of epistolary structure and the technical teachings about rhetorical arrangement (Reed 1993: 308). Likewise, Julius Victor, who advocates the use of rhetorical features in letters states, the openings and conclusions of letters should conform with the degree of friendship (you share with the recipient) or with his rank, and should be written according to customary practice (Julius Victor, De Epistolis 8-9; Malherbe 1988: 65). Reed goes on to conclude that although Paul does use rhetoric in his letters, it is most beneficial to describe various aspects of Pauls letters as rhetorical, rather than prescribe it as Pauls argumentative strategy (Reed 1993: 314).

Theological Approach Having investigated a large number of works that evaluate 1 Thessalonians holistically, it is interesting to note the lack of works that specifically focus on the theological nature of this epistle. Collins (1977) and Donfried (1993), in their articles on the theology of 1 Thessalonians, have provided an overview of the major theological themes and aspects of this letter; however, despite this foray, there have been few scholars who have continued to refine their work (Bassler 1994). Often the theology of Thessalonians is treated within a larger composition of Pauline theology (Marshall 2004: 236-51); however, the one major theological area that has been treated in some depth in its own right is eschatology (Kaye 1975; Neyrey 1980; Mearns 1981), although occasionally subsumed under the larger investigation of Pauline eschatology (Pitts 2008). Morris (1989), in the Word Biblical Themes commentary series, evaluates some of the major theological issues that are raised in 1 Thessalonians. After providing a brief prologue to some of the introductory issues, Morris investigates the major theological themes under the headings of: The Living and True God, Jesus Christ Our Lord, The Last Things, The Defeat of Evil, The Christian Family, and The Christian Life. Although Morris does not proceed sequentially through the letter, he does address the primary theological points within the epistle through a thematic approach. One of the most recent contributions to the theological understanding of 1 Thessalonians is by A. Paddison (2005), who critiques the dominant scholarly dependence on historical criticism for its failure to take the meaning-potential of the text seriously. Paddison seeks to evaluate the text at face value and to wrestle with its content and its implications. Using a relatively

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

62

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

unique approach of an eclectic conversation with modern and pre-modern theologians, Paddison attempts to explore the theological truths (primarily eschatological) that the text points towards. In this work, Paddison primarily investigates Aquinas and Calvins readings of 1 Thessalonians (among others from diverse theological traditions) in order to understand, not only what this text has meant for other people throughout history, but also how it continues to provide a path for hermeneutical journeys today.

Linguistic Approach After epistolary and rhetorical models, there have been a number of linguistic approaches used to understand the text of 1 Thessalonians. Although the term linguistic should not be properly attributed to all of these studies, all of them have a particular focus on the text and its composition. This approach began to gain momentum in the 1970s with a few articles (Hurd 1971; Collins 1984: 35-39), and has been steadily increasing its usefulness for the study of the New Testament. One linguistic approach that has been used to analyse 1 Thessalonians, with varying degrees of scholarly support, is the structuralist perspective. Two major articles were written in the 1983 edition of Semeia that attempt to identify the structural components of Pauls first letter to the Thessalonians. Malbon, building on the work of H. Boers (1976), focuses on the role of syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of the text and how epistolary texts differ from narrative texts (1983). Patte also distinguishes between the roles of narrative and discursive texts, but focuses on dialogic and warranting levels to develop a semiotic model (1983). More recently, Lambrecht has attempted to determine the structural nature of 1 Thessalonians (2000a; 2000b). In these two articles, Lambrecht attempts to determine internal structure based on various grammatical and textual features. Strictly speaking this is not a structural analysis like that of Patte and other structuralists who apply a consistent linguistic methodology to the text, but rather an investigation of the divisions within the text that are indicated by a variety of linguistic features. Although the structuralist approach to 1 Thessalonians is a valid approach in that it is textually based and looks for internal divisions within the work that are supported by formal features and not superimposed by the interpreter, the perspective is often insufficient for a thorough analysis of the text without the incorporation of determining literary text type. As a result, structural analysis is best integrated with an alternate methodology.

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

63

Moving away from structuralism and towards text linguistics, Holmstrand analyses three Pauline letters in an attempt to outline some of the formal linguistic features that help create a text (Holmstrand 1997). Looking to understand the method by which linguistic phenomena affects the way a reader or listener perceives the text, Holmstrand employs the text-linguistic concepts of pragmatics, semantics, syntax and cohesion (1997: 16-17). In addition to this, Holmstrand attempts to identify particular transitional and thematic markers that might indicate breaks within the text (1997: 19-32). Ultimately, Holmstrand believes that a proper delineation and demarcation of the text into linguistically supported sections will facilitate accurate theological and exegetical interpretations that are not superimposed onto the text (1997: 16-17). See also this approach by Vanhoye (1990). Finally, Beale, in his commentary, expresses that both the epistolary and rhetorical approaches to 1 Thessalonians and the Pauline letters are inadequate. Consequently, Beale states that he will be following a discourse analysis methodology, which he defines as discerning the main logical point of each literary unit (paragraph) through a logical analysis of the development of the propositions in each unit and then tracing the logical development of the themes from paragraph to paragraph and attempting to discover the main point of the entire epistle (2003: 24-25). Although this is a fair approach to 1 Thessalonians, his utilization of the phrase discourse analysis is not in the formal linguistic classification (see Adams forthcoming), but rather an attempt to view the letter as a united whole. Although Beale attempts to draw on the work of Sterner (1998) and Callow (1982), he does not have a holistic linguistic model that grounds these two other works, whose semantic structural exegesis identifies the higher-level semantic components and the relationships between them to form a text as a whole.

Combined Approach In addition to the approaches outlined above, there have been a number of attempts to amalgamate two or more interpretive models to provide greater insight and to eliminate some of the inherent weaknesses of particular perspectives. By far the most common combination, which was mentioned above and so will not be fully elaborated here, is the blending of epistolary and rhetorical models (Klauck 2006: 183-228). A majority of scholars who evaluate 1 Thessalonians using a rhetorical approach also reference ancient letter forms as providing the initial framework for Pauls writings. Although most scholars take this union for granted, Wanamaker has

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

64

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

commented that though a synthesis of these two approaches is possible, it is a marriage of unequal partners (Wanamaker 2000: 286). As a result, despite the fact that scholars have united these two models further methodological investigation is warranted. Over the past decade, Witherington has attempted to apply his sociorhetorical approach to the New Testament. Witherington (2006) is not unique in his attempt to provide a well-grounded sociological background to the study of 1 Thessalonians (Still 1999; De Vos 1999, who both look at sociological models of conflict; Nicholl 2004), but he is one of the first to combine this approach with rhetorical theory. Interpreting 1 Thessalonians as a strictly orally presented text, Witherington expresses that 1 Thessalonians must be understood rhetorically, as looking at it from the epistolographical perspective would highlight it as a written document (2006: 16-17). At the same time, Witherington is not able to completely ignore the epistolary nature of 1 Thessalonians as is shown by his outline of the letter: Epistolary prescript and greeting (1.1); Thanksgiving report/ exordium (1.2-3); Narratio (1.43.10); Concluding and Prospective Wish Prayer (transitus) (3.11-13); Exhortatio (4.15.15); Peroratio (5.16-22); Concluding wish prayer (5.23-24); Closing greetings and charges (5.2527); and benediction (5.28) (Witherington 2006: 31). Adams, in his forthcoming work, approaches the text through a discourse analysis model that is paired with an understanding of Greek epistolography. Based on Hallidays linguistic methodology of the systemic-functional nature of language, Adams develops a tripartite register model that analyses the ideational, interpersonal and textual aspects of Pauls letter. Making use of the top-down approach of the epistolary model and pairing it with the bottom-up register model of discourse analysis, Adams attempts to provide linguistic support for higher-level textual divisions that are suggested by formal epistolary features. In addition to this, Adams seeks to provide linguistic support for the internal cohesion of the letter as a whole as well as identify emphatically marked portions of the text that might facilitate exegetical insight. Cousar (2001), in his commentary, foregoes the traditional verse-byverse structure for a section-by-section approach that focuses on key textual concepts and how they are developed. Reading the text in its final form, Cousar applies a literary-theological methodology that attempts to place the text within its cultural, literary and theological milieu. Not focusing on the standard scholarly issues that dominate 1 Thessalonians discussion, Cousars approach reads 1 Thessalonians in light of other Pauline letters and the relational and theological concerns that are addressed elsewhere. Overall, this work seeks to differentiate itself through its unique approach. Although

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

65

it is definitely not revolutionary, its combination of literary and theological methodologies provides a welcome trajectory for further investigations. Johanson has developed a model of rhetorical analysis which utilizes insights from linguistics alongside ancient and modern rhetorical categories, aiming at an understanding of 1Thessalonians as an act of communication (1987: 3). Furthermore, Johanson is hesitant to adopt Aristotelian categories for letters as he believes that Aristotles three classical categories (epideictic, deliberative and judicial) were created before a time in which the sermon was common (1987: 41). As a result, Johanson, questioning Kennedys claim that classical oratory can be applied to all genres (Kennedy 1984: 19), combines both modern and ancient concepts of rhetoric. To this approach, Johanson adds the concept of text-linguistics in which he develops a communications model that evaluates the basic semiotic dimensions of the text and how they pragmatically facilitate the act of communication. Although there has been some challenges to the use of both modern and ancient rhetorical categories on the interpretation of Pauls letters (Reed 1993), Johanson has provided a solid methodological blend of linguistic and rhetorical theories and supplies an example of how linguistics can provide further support for existing approaches to the New Testament. Although this final work does fall outside the 25-year time span of this article and is not part of a combined approach, it is important to note the proposal of Koester that 1 Thessalonians does not fit any genre of the ancient world, but that it is sui generis (Koester 1979). Accordingly, Koester expresses that when I Thessalonians was composed, no species or genre of the Christian letter existed, nor was there a pattern for the incorporation of particular sub-genres and forms, nor had the literary vocabulary and terminology for this type of writing been established (1979: 33). Although this view is not favoured now by scholars, who see strong parallels between Pauls letters and ancient letters and rhetoric, Koesters perspective has been influential.

Conclusion After evaluating the various approaches to 1 Thessalonians over the past 25 years, it is clear that there has been a general dissatisfaction with the traditional methodologies of the early twentieth century. In an attempt to rectify this, scholars have looked to other disciplines, many of them outside the field of biblical studies, to provide a new perspective to the text. To be sure, the epistolary and rhetorical approaches to 1 Thessalonians are still propagated;

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

66

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

however, there is an increased pairing of these approaches with others, such as literary or linguistic, to offset some of the inherent weaknesses in the model. Looking forward, it is safe to say that this trend of amalgamating critical approaches will continue for the foreseeable future as the scholastic world of biblical criticism attempts to find and use new and different approaches to gain a greater understanding of the text.

Bibliography
Adams, S.A. forthcoming  A Linguistic Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

Alexander, L.C.A. 1989  Hellenistic Letter-Form and the Structure of Philippians, JSNT 37: 87-101. Aune, D.E. (ed.) 1988  Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (SBLSBS, 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Balch, D.L., E. Ferguson and W.A. Meeks (eds.) 1990  Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Bassler, J.M. (ed.) 1994  Pauline Theology: Vol. I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Beale, G.K. 2003  12 Thessalonians (IVPNTCS; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press). Best, E. 1972  The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A&C Black). Betz, H.D. 1975  The Literary Composition and Function of Pauls Letter to the Galatians, NTS 21: 353-79. 1979  Galatians: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1985  2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Boers, H. 1976  The Form-Critical Study of Pauls Letters: 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study, NTS 22: 140-58. Bruce, F.F. 1982  1 and 2 Thessalonians (WBC, 45; Waco, TX: Word Books). Callow, J. 1982  A Semantic Structural Analysis of Second Thessalonians (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics). Chapa, J. 1994  Is First Thessalonians a Letter of Consolation?, NTS 40: 150-60. Church, F.F., and T. George (eds.) 1979  Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays Presented to George Huntston Williams on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill).
Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

67

Classen, C.J. 1991  Paulus und die antike Rhetorik, ZNW 82: 1-33. 1993  St Pauls Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric, in Porter and Olbricht (eds.) 1993: 265-91.

Collins, R.F. 1977  The Theology of Pauls First Letter to the Thessalonians, Louvian Studies 6: 315-37. 1984  Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL, 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press).

Collins, R.F. (ed.) 1990  The Thessalonian Correspondence (BETL, 87; Leuven: Leuven University Press). Cousar, C.B. 2001  Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys). De Vos, C.S. 1999  Church and Community Conflict: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities (SBLDS, 168; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Donfried, K.P. 1993  The Theology of 1 Thessalonians, in Donfried and Marshall (eds.) 1993: 1-79. Donfried, K.P., and J. Beutler (eds.) 2000  The Thessalonian Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Donfried, K.P., and I.H. Marshall (eds.) 1993  The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Doty, W.G. 1969  The Classification of Epistolary Literature, CBQ 31: 183-99. 1973  Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Funk, R.W. 1966  Language, Hermeneutic, and the Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York: Harper & Row). Gaventa, B.R. 1998  First and Second Thessalonians (Interpretation; Philadelphia: Westminster). Green, G.L. 2002  The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Harris, M.J. 2005  The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Hawthorne, G.F., and R.P. Martin (eds.) 1993  Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press). Holmstrand, J. 1997  Markers and Meaning in Paul: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Galatians (ConBNT, 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell).

Hughes, F.W. 1989  Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians (JSNTSup, 30; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1990  The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians, in Collins (ed.) 1990: 94-116. 2000  The Rhetoric of Letters, in Donfried and Beutler (eds.) 2000: 194-240.

Hurd, J.C. 1971  Concerning the Structure of 1 Thessalonians, unpublished paper, presented at 1971 SBL annual meeting.

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

68

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

Jewett, R. 1986  The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (FFNT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 2007  Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Johanson, B.C. 1987  To all the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians (ConBNT, 16; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell). Kaye, B.N. 1975  Eschatology and Ethics in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, NovT 17: 47-57. Kennedy, G.A. 1984  New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press).

Klauck, H.J. 1998  Die antike Briefliteratur und das Neue Testament (UTB, 2022; Paderborn: Schningh). 2006  Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).

Koester, H. 1979  1 ThessaloniansExperiment in Christian Writing, in Church and George (eds.) 1979: 33-44. Krentz, E. 2000  1 Thessalonians: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints, in Donfried and Beutler (eds.) 2000: 287-318. Lambrecht, J. 2000a  A Structural Analysis of 1 Thessalonians 45, in Donfried and Beutler (eds.) 2000: 163-78 2000b  Thanksgiving in 1 Thessalonians 13, in Donfried and Beutler (eds.) 2000: 135-62. Longenecker, R.N. 1990  Galatians (WBC, 41; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990). Malbon, E.S. 1983  No Need to Have Any One Write? A Structural Exegesis of 1 Thessalonians, Semeia 26: 56-83. Malherbe, A.J. 1988  Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS, 19; Atlanta: Scholars Press). 2000  The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 32B; New York: Doubleday).

Marshall, I.H. 2004  New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press). Mearns, C.L. 1981  Early Eschatology Developments in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians, NTS 27: 137-57. Morris, L. 1989  1, 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Themes; Dallas: Word). 1991  The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn).

Murphy-OConnor, J. 1995  Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Opinions, His Skills (GNS, 41; Collegeville: Liturgical Press).

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

Adams Evaluating 1 Thessalonians

69

Neyrey, J.H. 1980  Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians: The Theological Factor in 1, 9-10; 2, 4-5; 3, 11-13; 4, 6 and 4, 13-18, in SBLSP 1980: 219-31. Nicholl, C.R. 2004  From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (SNTSMS, 126; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). OBrien, P.T. 1977  Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup, 49; Leiden: Brill). 1993  Letter, Letter Forms, in Hawthorne and Martin (eds.) 1993: 550-53. Olbricht, T.H. 1990  An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, in Balch, Ferguson and Meeks (eds.) 1990: 216-36. Paddison, A. 2005  Theological Hermeneutics and 1 Thessalonians (SNTSMS, 133; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Patte, D. 1983  Method for a Structural Exegesis of Didactic Discourses: Analysis of 1 Thessalonians, Semeia 26: 85-129. Pitts, A.W. 2008  Unity and Diversity in Pauline Eschatology, in Porter (ed.) 2008: 65-91. Porter, S.E. 1993  The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature, in Porter and Olbricht (eds.) 1993: 100-122. Porter, S.E. (ed.) 1997  Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C. to A.D. 400) (Leiden: Brill). 2008  Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (PAST, 5; Leiden: Brill). Porter, S.E., and S.A. Adams 2009  Paul the Letter Writer (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Porter, S.E., and T.H. Olbricht (eds.) 1993  Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 1997  The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (JSNTSup, 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Puskas, Jr., C.B. 1995  The Letters of Paul: An Introduction (GNS, 25; Collegeville, PA: Liturgical Press). Reed, J.T. 1993  Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret Pauls Letters: A Question of Genre, in Porter and Olbricht (eds.) 1993: 292-324. 1997  The Epistle, in Porter (ed.) 1997: 171-83. Richard, E.J. 1995  First and Second Thessalonians (SP, 11; Collegeville, PA: Liturgical Press). Roetzel, C. 1999  Paul: The Man and the Myth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Schmithals, W. 1972  Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press). Schoon-Janssen, J. 2000  On the Use of Elements of Ancient Epistolography in 1 Thessalonians, in Donfried and Beutler (eds.) 2000: 179-93.

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009

70

Currents in Biblical Research 8.1 (2009)

Smith, A. 1995  Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster Press). Sterner, R.H. 1998  A Semantic and Structural Analysis of 1 Thessalonians (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics). Still, T. 1999  Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours (JSNTSup, 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Stirewalt, Jr., M.L. 2003  Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Stowers, S.K. 1986  Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC, 5; Philadelphia: Westminster). Thurn, L. 1990  The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter: With Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions (bo: bo Akademi). Vanhoye, A. 1990  La composition de 1 Thessaloniciens, in Collins (ed.) 1990: 73-86. Walton, S. 1995  What has Aristotle to do with Paul? Rhetorical Criticism and 1 Thessalonians, TynBul 42: 229-50. Wanamaker, C.A. 1990  The Epistle to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 2000  Epistolary vs. Rhetorical Analysis: Is a Synthesis Possible?, in Donfried and Beutler (eds.) 2000: 255-86.

Watson, D.F. 1997  The Integration of Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians, in Porter and Olbricht (eds.) 1997: 388-426. Weima, J.A.D. 1994  Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup, 101; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Weima, J.A.D., and S.E. Porter 1998  An Annotated Bibliography of 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Leiden: Brill). White, J.L. 1972a  The Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS, 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). 1972b  The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography (SBLDS, 5; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). 1983  Saint Paul and the Apostolic Letter Tradition, CBQ 45: 435-56. 1986  Light From Ancient Letters (FFNT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1988  Ancient Greek Letters, in Aune (ed.) 1988: 85-105.

Witherington, B. 2006  1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Wuellner, W. 1990  The Argumentative Structure of 1 Thessalonians as Paradoxical Encomium, in Collins (ed.) 1990: 117-36.

Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com by Eduardo de la Serna on October 2, 2009