David Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians

Transcription

1

2

3 Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments In Verbindung mit der Stiftung Bibel und Orient der Universität Fribourg/Schweiz herausgegeben von Max Küchler (Fribourg), Peter Lampe, Gerd Theißen (Heidelberg) und Jürgen Zangenberg (Leiden) Band 71 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

4 David Luckensmeyer The Eschatology of First Thessalonians Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

5 for Melissa Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. ISBN Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck und Bindung: b Hubert & Co., Göttingen. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

6 Foreword When I was ten years old, my parents moved from northern California to outback Australia to farm cotton. The nearest town had a population of approximately two-thousand people and supported three churches Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian. We went to the Presbyterian church despite the fact that my dad had graduated with a Master of Divinity from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in the US. At times, while driving home from church on a Sunday morning, dad would correct some of the things we heard: As Baptists, we believe.... I grew up in a Baptist home. Consequently, as a teenager, when I developed an interest in theology, I was exposed to systematic theologies representative of literal and dispensational interpretations. I took to reading some of dad s textbooks from the Baptist Seminary, including a book or two on eschatology. Even my parents were surprised by my interest in the subject. They once asked, Son, why are you reading this stuff? to which I replied, Because I find it interesting. It is sufficient to say that my tertiary studies at the University of Queensland (UQ), Australia, encompassed a significant and challenging period of personal and intellectual growth, due in large part to the teaching expertise of Professor M. Lattke (now Emeritus). When it came to choosing a topic for my PhD dissertation he wisely encouraged me to find an area of personal interest, one which would remain exciting even after years of research. This led me to eschatology a subject that had long interested me first to the eschatology of Paul and then more specifically to the eschatology of First Thessalonians. At that time I only had an inkling of an idea that my dispensational heritage of literal interpretations, which included a real rapture of the church, would give way to historical-critical investigations, and culminate in an interpretation of the eschatology of First Thessalonians based on epistolary, social, political and rhetorical considerations. Since the dissertation has been completed, I have had the occasion to expand significantly and rewrite parts of the manuscript for publication. The introduction has been substantially rewritten, and introductions and conclusions to each of the exegetical chapters have been added which hopefully contribute to the readability of the monograph. In addition, a new chapter (on 1 Thess 5:1 11) has been included which means that I now address all pericopes in the letter that relate to the subject matter. I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible in my engagement with the secondary literature. Unfortunately, the article by Stefan Schreiber (2007) appeared too late to be properly incorporated into the discussion. I might have missed a few other important articles which should have been considered.

7 vi Foreword There are many people who have supported me while I undertook this research project; I wish to thank them publicly here. My principal supervisor, Emeritus Prof. M. Lattke, deserves the first mention of thanks. He has been very generous with his time and has taught me how to think critically, not only about the world of Paul, but about contemporary issues as well. Thanks go to my other supervisor, Dr R. Strelan, who has also contributed significantly to my scholarly enterprise. I gratefully acknowledge my principal supervisor s invitation to attend the SNTS 2001 General Meeting in Montreal. In particular, thanks must go to Profs J. A. D. Weima and R. Hoppe for allowing me to participate in the seminar on the Thessalonian Correspondence. At this early stage in my PhD candidature, I found it helpful to meet other Thessalonian specialists and share in scholarly discussion. Also, at the beginning of my candidature, Dr I. Petersson spent many patient hours teaching me German, for which I am very grateful. In the same year, I travelled to New Haven to undertake a research stint at the Yale Divinity School Library, which, on the advice of Prof. A. J. Malherbe, had every resource available for research on the Thessalonian correspondence. He was correct. I was awarded a Graduate School Research Travel Award from UQ to defray some of the travel expenses. In addition to this, I was also awarded an Australian Postgraduate Award which enabled me to undertake full-time research. I thank my family for their support. My wife, Melissa, has supported me without reservation, throughout my candidature. I dedicate this monograph to her in acknowledgement of her enduring loyalty and friendship. On numerous occasions my parents, Richard and Drinda, took care of our children, Sarah, Olivia and Ella, so that I could concentrate on writing. I thank my fellow participants in New Testament jours fixes for their support. These seminars were directed by Prof. M. Lattke who encouraged all of us to be more critical of the New Testament and its world. In addition, I wish to thank other significant persons in my life who have been close conversation partners in this project and/or who have given much moral support: Richard and Drinda Luckensmeyer (parents), Jonathan Luckensmeyer (brother), Dr Greta Gaut (sister), and Keith Smith, Stuart Quarterman, John Bowen and Chris Page (friends). I thank the editors of NTOA for their acceptance of the manuscript, and also Mr Christoph Spill of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, for his friendly advice and support throughout the publication process. I also thank Prof. Pauline Allen, Director of the Centre for Early Christian Studies, Brisbane, for giving me time off work to revise the manuscript. The Centre, which supports many research endeavours including early Christianity, Pastristics, China and Islam, has provided a generous subsidy to support the publication of this monograph. Brisbane, 19 October 2008 David Luckensmeyer

8 Technical Preface The author-date referencing system is used throughout this monograph, but not exclusively so. Often, in the introduction (Chapter 1), the full title of secondary literature is provided in the hope that it will aid the usefulness of the chapter as an introduction to First Thessalonians. Only recent publications on First Thessalonians which are considered important for the systematic discussion of the letter are referenced in this way. Otherwise, the author-date referencing system is used. Multiple references have been ordered in a particular way to serve different purposes. In the introduction, references are ordered chronologically, from oldest to newest. This is done to aid the reader in ascertaining whether the discussion is old or new, and whether it is of increasing or decreasing interest to scholars. In contrast, references in subsequent chapters are ordered alphabetically. This is done to aid the reader in obtaining further bibliographic details for each reference. The symbol is used to refer to a section or sections of a chapter, not to a paragraph as it might normally be used. References to biblical texts are given in the traditional order. References to the OT Pseudepigrapha and to other ancient sources are given in roughly chronological order. Where a reference is given to the Theodotian text of Daniel, this is indicated by a small after the reference. A number of Greek words are used as technical terms (ekklēsia, kērygma, orgē and parousia). In these cases, the words have been italicised and the Greek has been represented with the English ē. The problem of the correct representation of is especially well-known in German literature, where it is spelled parusia. I am aware of this problem but have chosen to use the spelling parousia, in keeping with scholarly convention in English literature. Moreover, Greek words and phrases are often supplied in brackets to indicate the basis for a translation, or to inform the reader of the original choice of vocabulary and syntax. Greek verbs are given in the infinitive form while nouns are given in the nominative form. If it is important to provide a phrase or clause, then the relevant Greek text is reproduced verbatim. The text of NA 27 is the starting point of the analyses, but all textual critical issues are thoroughly addressed such that the texts for analysis, and particularly the arrangements, are my own. The abbreviations follow the conventions set out in The SBL Handbook of Style edited by P. H. Alexander et al. 1999, and in the TRE Abkürzungsverzeichnis compiled by S. M. Schwertner In addition, the abbreviations for ancient authors and texts appear at each entry in the indices (see I). Festschriften appear under FS in the list of abbreviations for the convenience of the reader. These

9 viii Technical Preface volumes also appear under the editor(s) in the bibliography. This is done to honour the work of the editor(s). The typesetting of the manuscript was accomplished in Adobe InDesign CS3 for Mac using Garamond Premier Pro from Adobe, LaserGreek in Unicode and LaserHebrew from Linguist s Software, Inc., PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA USA, ph: (425) ,

10 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction I. The Thesis II. Statement of Method III. Topical Analysis of First Thessalonians IV. Topical Survey of Recent Secondary Literature a. Early Christian Mission Kērygma b. Chosen and Called c. Expectation (Hope) of Salvation and Resurrection d. Word of the Lord e. Conflict (Affliction and Suffering) f. Paul s Concern (Exhortation and Consolation) g. Ethics (Being Set Apart) h. Parousia of the Lord i. Judgment (Orgē, Day of the Lord) j. Being in Christ, with Christ k. Structure of an Early Christian Letter l. Priority of Second Thessalonians? m. Apocalyptic V. Eschatology as a Hermeneutical Key VI. Conclusion Chapter 2: An Epistolary Analysis of First Thessalonians I. Setting the Scene II. Letter-Opening and Closing Excursus 1: Multiple Authors in Antiquity III. Letter-Body or Main Part? IV. Letter-Thanksgiving V. Apostolic Parousia VI. Letter-Paraenesis VII. Conclusion

11 x Table of Contents Chapter 3: First Thessalonians 1: I. Arranged Text and Translation II. Preliminary Issues a. Arrangement of the Text b. The Immediate Context c. The Function of 1:9 10 as a Summary III. Analysis a. Turned to God from Idols (1:9) Excursus 2: Conversion to Christianity b. Jesus Raised from the Dead (1:10) Excursus 3: Pre-Pauline Traditional Formulae and 1:9c IV. Conclusion Chapter 4: First Thessalonians 2: I. Arranged Text and Translation II. Preliminary Issues a. Arrangement of the Text b. A Parallel between 2:13 16 and 1: c. Paul s Letter Structure and 2: d. Compilation Theories III. Analysis a. Thanksgiving for the Word of God (2:13) b. Imitation and Suffering (2:14) c. The Judeans Who Killed, Drove Out, Displease and Oppose (2:15) d. God s Orgē Is Going to Come (2:16) IV. The Authenticity of 1 Thess 2: Excursus 4: Paul s So-Called Anti-Semitism V. Conclusion Chapter 5: First Thessalonians 4: I. Arranged Text and Translation II. Preliminary Issues a. Arrangement of the Text b. Parallels with Other Texts c. Words of the Lord d. Parousia in Paul Excursus 5: Monographs and Articles on 4:13 18 (in table form) III. Analysis a. Concerning Those Who Are Asleep (4:13) b. Believing That Jesus Died and Rose (4:14) c. A Word of the Lord (4:15) d. The Lord Himself Will Descend (4:16) e. Always with the Lord (4:17) f. Comfort One Another (4:18) IV. Conclusion

12 Table of Contents xi Chapter 6: First Thessalonians 5: I. Arranged Text and Translation II. Preliminary Issues a. Arrangement of the Text b. Traditional Background and Parallels with Other Texts III. Analysis a. Concerning the Times and the Seasons (5:1 3) b. Eschatological Paraenesis (5:4 10) c. Encourage and Build Up Each Other (5:11) IV. Conclusion Chapter 7: Conclusion Abbreviations Bibliography I. List of Ancient Sources II. List of Commentaries: First (& Second) Thessalonians III. List of Commentaries: Other Indices I. Ancient Authors and Texts a. Old Testament (including Septuagint) b. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament c. Other Jewish Authors and Texts in Antiquity d. New Testament e. Early Christian Literature outside the New Testament f. Other Greek and Latin Authors and Texts in Antiquity II. Modern Authors, Editors and Translators III. Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin Words a. Aramaic Words b. Hebrew Words c. Greek Words d. Latin Words IV. Subjects and Names

13

14 Chapter 1 Introduction I. The Thesis 1. Paul, a self-acclaimed apostle, was at the forefront of early Christian mission, not only because he was among the first missionaries to non-jews but because he continually pushed theological boundaries beyond traditional limits. The earliest missionary proclamation stemmed initially from Jerusalem (the twelve) and then from Antioch, the latter of which was at the centre of the so-called Gentile Christian mission. The letters of Paul provide a first point of reference for investigations of this earliest mission. First Thessalonians is usually considered to be the first extant letter of Paul (and therefore possibly the earliest extant Christian letter), followed by First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians and Philemon (Schnelle 2003), although the precise order of Paul s seven authentic letters is debatable. For the purposes of this investigation, it is not important to determine an absolute chronology of Paul. The traditional date of ~50 c.e. for the writing of First Thessalonians is assumed here. The identification and characterisation of an early as opposed to a late Paul is of secondary importance for a letter which contains a rich mine of information in its own right without having to resort to comparisons with the Pauline Hauptbriefe. In many ways First Thessalonians is representative of Paul s later authentic letters. Paul assumes God as the principal director with Jesus the Lord as principal agent. He also assumes that Christ is merely a proper name for Jesus. The proclamation of Jesus as the Kyrios, who died and was raised, is a central tenant of Paul s message. Even the significant interpretation that Jesus died for us is found in the letter, as is the presumption that Paul s proclamation is the word of the Lord or the very gospel of God. Yet First Thessalonians is also different from his subsequent letters. Arguably, there are no explicit quotations from the Old Testament. The epistolary form of the letter, while following many established structures, differs in significant ways raising numerous questions of interpretation (and even of interpolation). There is a strong dependence on Hellenistic philosophical traditions which is not so prevalent in Paul s other letters. Nowhere else does Paul refer so often to the parousia of the Lord. Finally, one of the most exciting aspects of First Thessalonians is its apparent closeness to the situation of Paul s founding mission to Thessalonica (perhaps only months). In no other letter does Paul replay so thoroughly the past

15 2 Introduction history between himself and a community (see the extensive disclosure of a pastpresent relationship in 2:1 12). This history is reviewed not only in terms of how Paul conducted himself while with the Thessalonians, but it also reveals Paul s concerns while separated from them. In First Thessalonians, Paul responds to a community in conflict. The recurrent theme of affliction indicates psychological, social, political and/or physical abuse. Many factors contributed to the Thessalonians situation including social disruption associated with a conversion experience, Paul s apparent inability to return to the community, the socio-political overtones of Paul s kērygma, and probably some other factors which are specific to the city of Thessalonica but more difficult to identify. For example, the peculiar cultic participation of citizens and the political organisation of the city may also play a role. Acts 17 contributes to the picture of conflict although there it appears that the Thessalonians are the orphans, not Paul (cf. Acts 17:1 10 and 1 Thess 2:17) I argue that eschatology is the best hermeneutical key to interpret Paul s pattern of exhortation in First Thessalonians. The modern term eschatology is understood as a broad topos in Paul which must be situated in terms of its heritage from Jewish eschatology including prophetic and apocalyptic eschatological traditions, 2 and early Christian eschatology formulated out of the kērygmata of the earliest Christian movements. 3 The eschatologies of early Jewish and Christian writers are so diverse that it is more accurate to steer clear of generic definitions. 4 Even the vague notion that eschatology refers to assertions that God will act decisively in the future resulting in a different state of affairs is not uniformly expressed in the relevant literature. The relationship between the modern use of the term eschatology and its ancient root ( -) further complicates matters since the modern term usually refers to more than just the last or final cosmic occurrences. It also includes implications (a tension) for the present 5 and for the continuity of history itself (see Bultmann 1955). The modern use was first coined in the seventeenth century by Abraham Calov (Systema locorum theologicorum, ) where eschatology referred to the last things ( in Greek; res novissimae, extremae in Latin). Consequently, the term eschatology does not correlate to specific references in First Thessalonians or in Paul generally. Rather, it is used here as an umbrella term to describe motifs which often but not always refer to the eschaton, and which serve a similar function. For example, the parousia of the Lord, judgment (including the 1 Regarding the description of Paul as an orphan, see Burke 2003, ; Aasgaard 2004, ; 2007, See Smend 1982; Uffenheimer 1982; Preuß 1986; Nickelsburg 1992b; Petersen 1992; Haag 1995; H.-P. Müller 1999; Blischke 2007, See Klein 1982; Karrer 1986; Aune 1992; Merklein 1995; Lindemann For a general introduction to eschatology, see Schüssler Fiorenza 1976; Wißmann 1982; Fahlbusch 1986; Lona 1986; Cancik 1990; Kreitzer 1993; Söding 1995; Sigel 1998; Filoramo For example, with specific reference to missions of the first Christians, see Cullmann 1956a. More generally, see Stuhlmacher 1967.

16 The Thesis 3 day of the Lord) and the resurrection of Christians, all point to Paul s vision of the future but also ideologically inform Paul s and the Thessalonians ethical decisions. When examined systematically, these motifs may be understood on a literary level as part of an eschatological discourse. 6 However, this does not mean that Paul consciously promoted this discourse or was necessarily even aware of it. It is merely a convenient way for scholars to refer to that particular part of his theology. By no means do I provides an exhaustive treatment of paraenesis in First Thessalonians. By referring to Paul s pattern of exhortation, there is an explicit acknowledgement of First Thessalonians strongly paraenetic character. Paul not only exhorts the Thessalonians in the epistolary letter-paraenesis (Chapter 2, VI), but he does so throughout the whole letter. Malherbe is by far the most convincing proponent of this view and his contributions to scholarship have been introduced extensively (but with criticisms; see III.f below). However, Paul s theology cannot be reduced to paraenesis as that category only represents one aspect of his theology, namely, the imperative claims of Christian living. But in order to characterise these claims as a function of the eschatological discourse in First Thessalonians, the indicative aspect of Paul s theology must first be appropriated. The dialectic between the indicative and the imperative may be understood as a component of Paul s rhetorical or pastoral strategy in his letters. It should be noted that the modern phrase rhetorical strategy has multiple meanings in the secondary literature, whether as referring to the ancient art of rhetorical theory, or to the persuasive and exhortative character of a text, or to modern literary methods of reading Paul, such that it is difficult to use the phrase unambiguously. Similarly, the phrase pastoral strategy has certain anachronistic connotations, despite the widespread use of pastoral by Malherbe and his followers. Consequently, both phrases are avoided. The historical aspect of eschatological statements requires that any characterisations of eschatology in First Thessalonians must be formulated with reference to specific situations and experiences related in the text (see Moule 1964; Carroll 1990), as especially for 1 Thess 4: All eschatological statements in Paul are over-shadowed by his expectation of an imminent parousia of the Lord (cf. even Rom 13:11 13). 8 This recurring emphasis on parousia (which need not include 6 Similarly, Carey formulates a definition of apocalyptic discourse : Apocalyptic discourse refers to the constellation of apocalyptic topics as they function in larger early Jewish and Christian literary and social contexts (1999, 10). Hester builds on this definition by expanding the concept of discourse: It is possible to think of discourse as the communication of ideas concerning things that are of interest to all members of a community (2002, 138). 7 Karrer 1986, 1112; see Klein 1982, But I would not push this point so far as to align myself with Bammel (1959), who argues that any expressions of Naherwartung are peripheral to Paul s theology. 8 Cranfield rightly questions whether Paul thought the temporal end of the world was at hand, or whether he was rather expressing a recognition that history s most significant events have already taken place in the ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, so that all that remains between his ascension and his parousia can only be a sort of epilogue, during the whole of which, whether the actual

17 4 Introduction notions of delay) is firmly an eschatological concern of Paul despite his use of apocalyptic imagery throughout. Although it is possible to distinguish between the main concerns of eschatology and apocalyptic (Sauter 1988, ), the eschatology of Paul is essentially apocalyptic and there should be no emphatic antithesis between the terms (Merklein 1995, 868). 3. I argue that Paul s pattern of exhortation provides: (1) a way to understand the Thessalonians current social disintegration, and (2) a means for integration, not primarily into the social and political realms of Thessalonica, but into an eschatologically identifiable existence. The two aspects of this pattern are comprehensive in application and cannot be separated from each other. That is, Paul s understanding of their social disintegration provides a means for community identity and existence. With eschatology as a hermeneutical key, it is possible to see how Paul is able both to explain why the Thessalonians are experiencing conflict and encourage them to a constructive new community identity. On the one hand, the discursive references to opposition of Paul at Philippi (2:2), to the hindrance of his apostolic commission by some Jews (2:14 16) and to Satan as an opposing power (2:18; cf. 3:5), serve to help the Thessalonians understand their own social disintegration. On the other hand, Paul s identification of the Thessalonians as imitators of himself and the Lord, who received the word in much affliction (1:6), the interdependence of Paul s mission and the acceptance of the word of the Lord/ God (1:5 8; 2:13) with an associated emphasis on thanksgiving (1:2; 2:13; 3:9), and his acknowledgement that such affliction is a common lot (3:3), serve to develop and reinforce community identity. Similarly, Paul s reference to a report (1:8 10), whether consisting of Jewish mission propaganda or not, emphasises a rupture between the Thessalonians previous idol-worship and subsequent turning to serve the living and true God (v. 9). But at the same time, the report also contains essential elements of integration, whereby community members corporately await his son from heaven, Jesus who delivers them from orgē (v. 10). Paul reinforces integration into an eschatological community by reminding the Thessalonians of their chosen status (1:4), destined for salvation (5:9), already called into God s kingdom and glory (2:12) and participating in the parousia of the Lord (2:19; 3:13; 4:15 17; 5:23). The repetition of insider/outsider language throughout the letter serves to strengthen the development of a new community identity. In all, Paul emphasises a cosmic significance. In particular, the eschatological community consists of sons of light and sons of the day (5:5) such that the day of the Lord as manifestation of judgment on the cosmos will not surprise its members (5:4). Ultimately, the fate of the community, living and dead, is to be always with the Lord (4:17). length of time involved is short or long, the end presses upon the life and concerns of the believer as something urgently relevant to the person (1982a, ). I use the word imminent with Cranfield s comments in mind.

18 The Thesis 5 4. There are no monographs to date on the eschatology of First Thessalonians. 9 This is an amazing state of affairs given the volume of secondary literature on the Thessalonian correspondence, and specifically on aspects of eschatology and apocalyptic. Thus, while there are numerous studies on virtually every topic associated with First Thessalonians which are contained under the rubric of eschatology (including no less: life and death, resurrection, translation, the day of the Lord, judgment, deliverance and salvation, the kingdom), there are only a handful of articles which attempt to bring the results of these studies into some kind of synthesis. Even many of these fail to engage all the eschatological concerns of the text. Thus, Ware (1979) and Neyrey (1980) over-emphasise the christological and theological aspects of Paul s eschatology, respectively. Koester (1997) and Khiok- Khng (1998) contribute to the systematic discussion, but not in a comprehensive fashion. In my estimation only Selby (1999) provides a thorough examination of the eschatology in First Thessalonians but using a rhetorical approach. 10 Even Malherbe s commentary (2000), from a scholar who has perhaps contributed the most to recent understandings of the letter, does not do justice to the eschatology in it. 5. I propose to fill the current lacuna in Thessalonian scholarship by proceeding with an analysis of 1 Thess 1:9 10, 1 Thess 2:13 16, 1 Thess 4:13 18 and 1 Thess 5:1 11 as fundamental representatives of the eschatological discourse in the letter. This does not mean that other pericopes are irrelevant or ignored. First Thessalonians is shot through with eschatological and apocalyptic themes and images, so much so that a proper characterisation of its eschatological concerns must include, to some extent, consideration of the entire letter as a cohesive act of communication. Consequently, many other references are incorporated in the various discussions of the analysis (e.g. 2:12, 3:11 13 and 5:23, but not limited to these only). Justification for selecting the four fundamental texts and not others arises from the distinctive nature of their contents, from how they are positioned and structured in the letter, and from a history of non-consensus among scholars regarding Paul s purposes and meanings for each. The results of the analysis open the way to a more comprehensive and systematic interpretation of First Thessalonians which makes sense of the motifs represented by the eschatological discourse and therefore makes sense of Paul s purposes in the letter. Such systematic interpretation is carried out in the conclusions of each chapter in a very concise but comprehensive manner. The question of the epistolary structure of First Thessalonians is important for establishing the purpose and role of each of the fundamental representatives of the eschatological discourse in the letter. Issues of structure, particularly regarding the intensely problematic passage of 1 Thess 2:13 16 as a so-called second letter- 9 The monograph by Nicoll (2004) is the closest anyone comes to filling the lacuna in scholarship, but as discussed below ( V), his synthesis of eschatogy in First Thessalonians is limited by an agenda to find common ground between the situations of First and Second Thessalonians. 10 These articles are reviewed below.

19 6 Introduction thanksgiving, are so far removed from receiving any kind of consensus-answer as to require more than an introductory comment (see Chapter 2). My conclusions there, summarised in an outline of the structure of the letter have significant implications for how I interpret each of the selected texts. For example, in Chapter 2, I conclude that the letter-thanksgiving is contained in 1 Thess 1:2 10 which gives verses 9 10 a rhetorically important position in the letter. In addition, the epistolary analysis shows that 1 Thess 2:13 16 does not need to be understood as a redactional seam, which prepares for a full-scaled defense of the pericope s authenticity; this makes the motif of judgment in verse 16 more significant for the characterisation of the eschatological discourse of the letter, because its authenticity is no longer questioned. Finally, the conclusion that Paul uses topoi to arrange a number of exhortations which are dependent on the Thessalonians situation is very important for the interpretation of 1 Thess 4:13 18 and 1 Thess 5:1 11, pericopes which bear directly on the pressing issues of death and judgment among community members. The remainder of this investigation consists of four exegetical chapters (Chapters 3 6) and a conclusion (Chapter 7). The conclusion includes systematic observations obtained from the analyses and emphasises the contributions and new insights this study makes to current scholarship. 6. The remainder of this introduction is arranged into three sections. After a short section on the methodology employed ( II), I continue with a topical analysis of First Thessalonians ( III). The results of topical analyses, although eschewed by some as redundant in view of more sophisticated (often rhetorical) approaches, demonstrate awareness of what is (and what is not) contained in First Thessalonians. In addition, the results (see summary in III.3) provide a useful arrangement for a topical survey of recent secondary literature ( IV). This topical survey focuses on research published in the last twenty-five years or so which approaches the letter as a whole. Each of the subheadings represent various hermeneutical keys which scholars have used to understand First Thessalonians. Many of these keys offer, more or less, a basis for understanding the letter. I reconsider these not only as a way to introduce the recent secondary literature of the letter, but also as a comprehensive preparation for the thesis, both in terms of an introductory survey on eschatology as a hermeneutical key ( V below), and in terms of the exegetical chapters to follow. The structure of the letter, the emphases on certain topoi typical of eschatological texts and the use of distinctively apocalyptic imagery and themes throughout, serve as an adequate justification of eschatology as a key concept in the letter. Indeed, I argue that eschatology is the key for understanding Paul s pattern of exhortation in First Thessalonians.

20 Statement of Method 7 II. Statement of Method 1. The so-called historical-critical method is deliberately chosen since I am primarily interested in questions of history. That is, questions pertaining to the purpose(s) and intention(s) of an author, the occasion and original meaning(s) of a historical text, and the intended readership, are best investigated and answered by this methodology (Barton 1998a, 9). At the least, it attempts to bridge the gap between the modern interpreter and a historical circumstance. Since the historical-critical approach is an established methodology used by many scholars in biblical studies, only a brief discussion of aspects I would like to highlight ensue: preliminary issues ( 2); preunderstanding ( 3); analysis ( 4) and interpretation ( 5). There is also a short conclusion ( 6). 2. The questions asked of a biblical text will shape the interpretation of that text. The methodology adopted in this monograph automatically positions the discussion in a clearly defined framework. The text becomes the boundaries of this framework and is the controlling factor of historical reconstruction(s). The science of textual criticism which seeks to establish the most probable reading is a precursor to subsequent analysis of the text. 11 Marshall asserts that the aim of historical criticism is two-fold: to determine what actually happened, and, to determine whether the text is historically accurate (1979, 126). This aim implies that it is possible to come to an understanding of the history behind the text. Similarly, Brown (1990, 1148) formulates the foundational goal of historical criticism as the identification and reconstruction of the intention(s) of an author and the original meaning(s) of a text; that is, The sense which the human author directly intended and which the written words conveyed (italics original). In order to accomplish this goal every historical avenue of inquiry suggested by a text must be explored in an attempt to understand the world-view of the author. This approach necessarily involves reconstructions of occurrences and circumstances behind a text, regardless of how tentative or uncertain the evidence is (similarly, Nations 1983, 66). Otherwise, as Dunn puts it, there is only the door to the anarchy of eisegesis (1984, 24). I am aware of the controversy surrounding the terminology of intended and original meaning(s). For some, an attempt to identify such meanings is impossible since there are too many variables in the interpretive process. With reference to Schleiermacher s assertion that all understanding is derived from the acquisition of a particular language at a particular historical time, Prickett and Barnes (1991, 102) conclude: It follows that no text has a fixed meaning, intended by the author: all texts (and indeed all human utterances) have a kind of fluid and dynamic existence, which is apprehended somewhat differently each time they are read or heard by a particular individual. 11 See Aland/Aland 1989; Birdsall 1992; Epp/Fee 1993.

21 8 Introduction However, there was still a precise meaning in the mind of an author which developed through that author s own grasp of language in his (or her) own time. There is certainly a difference between the intention of the text and authorial intention. But I am not convinced by scholars who propose that a text may be autonomous. Even Levenson (a staunch literary critic) asserts: The question is not whether we make historical judgments; the question can only be whether we do so poorly or well (1993, 110). Meaning cannot be divorced from history. Even when literary critics claim to do this, I suggest that they are merely substituting one historical reality with another, namely, their own world-view. Thus, there is no independence of meaning here, just appropriations of meaning from new vantage points, i.e. new historical settings (Payne 1994, 79). In so saying, I do not intend to disempower Ricoeur s distinction between the historical processes behind a text and the effects on its readers which occur in front of a text. 12 When I refer to what Paul intended I mean to refer to au thorial intention as is appropriated from a text, and which is grasped as clearly as possible. I have chosen historical-critical methodology because it fits with my preunderstanding of the text (see below). I am under no illusion that this method exhausts the meaning(s) of the text. Certainly it does not. But since I am asking primarily historical questions, then historical investigation must enter into the solution (so Brown 1989, 27). Other tools, including rhetorical analysis, structural and readerresponse criticism, all have a place within the historical method, as long as the discussion remains focused on answering questions of history. Thus, I prefer to view these other methodologies as diverging paths along the way, each informing my investigation of the text (Stenger 1993, 3 4). 13 The relationship between epistolary and rhetorical analyses deserves an introduction, especially since both are used to examine the structure of First Thessalonians (Chapter 2). Epistolary analysis (form criticism) remains an indispensable tool for defining the structure of Paul s letters. Perhaps no other approach is better able to characterise the mechanical elements of ancient letters. Indeed, the historicalcritical approach retains priority. 14 However, the advances obtained from rhetorical analysis (see the later publications of White) for defining the structure of Paul s letters are substantial. While epistolary ana lysis allows the exegete to elucidate the individual elements of a letter, rhetori cal analysis is more able to show how these elements fit together to form a persuasive act of communication (Donfried 2000a, 38 39). To this end, Jewett (1986, xiii) describes his approach in his monograph on the Thessalonian correspondence: 12 For a discussion of this distinction and other issues of NT interpretation, see Thiselton 1995, Dobbs-Allsopp argues that these tools (which are often thought of as literary tools) should be used to rethink historical cricitism as a specifically literary method of study and reading (1999, 238). 14 Hoppe 2000, 63; Weima 2000,

22 Statement of Method 9 This study offers a combination of traditional historical-critical research, rhetorical analysis, and a comparative use of social-scientific theorizing in an effort to resolve the dilemma of the Thessalonian correspondence. Consequently, there has been a move (rightly so in my opinion) to integrate the results of epistolary and rhetorical approaches (Collins 2000, 319; Hughes 2000, 199). 15 But which approach deserves priority? Is it a marriage of un equal partners (Wanamaker 2000, 286)? Jewett thinks so. He concludes that non-rhetorical approaches suffer from a methodological confusion between epistolary and topical categories (1986, 70). Hence, he continues: There is a need for a more comprehensive analytical method that can incorporate valid exegetical insights from these earlier analyses into a a [sic] more convincing view of the letter as a whole (71). But do rhetorical theorists underemphasise the fundamental importance of epistolary analysis? Thus, to take Jewett as an example again, the charts at the back of his monograph (cf ) are exceptionally helpful in setting out the epistolary structure of First Thessalonians. It is a pity that his view of epistolary analysis is so negative (68 71). To be fair, Jewett does go on to provide a sophisticated and nuanced rhetorical analysis of the letter (71 78). But I wonder whether epistolary analyses are too quickly rejected since such analyses at least attempt to discover what a letter is mainly about and how a letter has been constructed according to its purpose (Green 2002, 74). Also, the results of rhetorical criticism are not (at this time) forming a consensus either (Wanamaker 2000, 273). There is agreement among scholars regarding a number of epistolary features in First Thessalonians, despite consistent variations in arrangement (cf. Holmstrand 1997, 38 40). Such agreement is precisely the place to begin defining the structure of First Thessalonians. The fruits of epistolary analyses in the past, including the identification of normative forms in the epistolary process and the establishment of a consensus for the structure of Paul s letters, are a significant basis for subsequent rhetorical approaches (Hughes 2000a, 241; Smith 2000, 692). I do not go so far as Weima (1997a) who questions outright the legitimacy of the rhetorical approach, although I share some of his misgiv ings. In summary of this issue, I acknowledge numerous studies which examine the use of rhetorical approaches for understanding First Thessalonians, 16 In particular, I draw attention to the monograph edited by Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Syn thesis? (2000), which examines the debate between epistolary and rhetorical approaches. As the contributions show, the purpose of the monograph 15 For a critical introduction to the problems associated with the application of rhetorical ap proaches to Paul s letters, as well as a discussion of the differences between rhetoric and epistolo graphy, see Classen s insightful article (1992). See also Malherbe 1977, 4 12; Anderson 1999, All references to Collins in this study are to R. F. Collins unless otherwise indicated. 16 See for example, Hughes 1990; Olbricht 1990; Wuellner 1990; Walton 1995; 2000; Hester 1996; Hoppe 1997; 1998.

23 10 Introduction is not to elevate one approach over the other (although the different views are put vigorously). Rather, the discussion reveals a complexity of First Thessalonians that can be fruitfully understood from a variety of approaches. 3. All scholars who take the text of the NT seriously must attempt (at least) to identify the assumptions and preunderstandings they bring to a text. Exegesis without presuppositions is an impossibility. The problem then is not the starting point of a particular preunderstanding. It is rather, a failure to criticise one s own preunderstanding in light of his/her findings, or an unwillingness to reformulate or even abandon a cherished a priori (Dunn 1984, 25 26). Further, there is no innocent reading of the Bible, no reading that is not already ideological (Aichele et al. 1995, 5). I admit that my interest in eschatology initially stemmed from my background in the conservative Baptist denomination. From an early age I have been taught about the end-time, and particularly about the timing of the so-called rapture of the church. In some sense, I seek answers to a contemporary dialogue. Yet, while I am personally interested in the final outcome or conclusion(s) of this study, I am quite pre pared to let my preunderstanding be informed and shaped by the text. Bultmann has made clear in his long-famous essay on preunderstanding, however, that the very questions asked and the interpretation which results are always orientated by one s preunderstanding of the text (1984, 72 73). Each instance of interpretation involves working out one s own hermeneutic, alternately edu cating presuppositions with analysis, and then reformulating those presuppositions (i.e. the hermeneutical circle ). In my case, Fundamentalist notions of end-time and rapture (as part of a preunderstanding) have long been left behind. Finally, the success of a methodological procedure does not involve the right choice of methods so much as the acknowledgement that resulting conclusions of any study are not definitive but stand among other and equally valid conclusions (Bultmann 1984, ). A significant goal of this study is to reach an informed understanding of the eschatology of First Thessalo nians. I do not presume to identify the meaning of the text, since I do not have the final word on the matter. Rather, I seek to present an exegesis of the text which is founded on an initial preunderstanding, developed by my methodology, and shaped/reshaped by my analysis of the text (see Hayes/ Holladay 1982, 23). 4. The historical-critical approach contains a number of components or tools through which a text may be examined. Each step of the analysis seeks to investigate a text from a different aspect and underscores the fact that every text speaks in the language of its time and of its historical setting (Bultmann 1984, 147). The context is an indispensable determination of meaning. This includes, according to Davies (1990, 220), intra-textual meaning (questions of exact wording of a text, literary context and grammatical structure), extra-textual meaning (questions of history, culture, sociology and geography) and inter-textual meaning (questions of the use of one text in another, including oral and written traditional material). Literary criticism forms an important component of the methodology, particularly source,

24 Statement of Method 11 form and redaction criticism. All three of these are established methodological tools and need no introduction here. More important for discussion is the relationship between two modes of observation: synchronic and diachronic exegesis. Synchronic investigations examine a text for what it is at a given point in time. And this is where semantic theories of meaning, sociological approaches, and reader-response theorists come to the fore. Diachronic investigations, like those of source, form and redaction criticism, seek to move beyond synchronic modes of observation, and discover the history of a text; how did it come to be what it is. Ironically however, there has been a progressive development of a kind of thinking among literary critics that assumes that synchronic modes of observation have moved beyond the limited usefulness of diachronic modes (Schneiders 1990, 1160). Yet the sequence of synchronic study and diachronic study is not arbi trary. Synchronic procedures have always stood as preliminary investigations in relation to diachronic procedures. Before the question of how the text has come to be (diachronic study) stands the question of what it is at a given point in time (synchronic study). The latter comes into play when synchronic description cannot sufficiently explain the present state of a text (Stenger 1993, 26; emphasis original). There is therefore no escape from the historical contingency of biblical texts even where literary questions are involved. 17 The approach taken here views the NT as a window to be looked through, rather than as an entity to be looked at (or a mirror to look into). 18 And rather than complete a text s meaning, for example, by emphasising reader-response methodology, historical criticism emphasises religionsgeschichtlich parallels, analogies and origins, in order to inform the meaning of a historical text (Dunn 1984, 22). This part of the analysis of a text pertains both to history and to texts. 19 Knowledge about the history of religions before and during the time of the NT is particularly vital for word studies. Certainly, I wish to avoid reading into a text the entire history of meaning of each of its words. Meaning comes from the relation between words and sentences which form the context of words rather than inherently from the words themselves (Thiselton 1979, 79). However, an investigation of the lines of development (or trajectories) of each word is often a beneficial and enriching part of the analysis of a text (Robinson/Koester 1971). Although word studies do not provide the meaning of a word they can provide its history of meaning and this should be taken into account. 17 The confusion regarding diachronic and synchronic readings could stem from a failure to distin guish between the literary interests of historical critics (who examine literature in order to answer questions of history) and literary critics (who examine literature as a finished product and have no interest in questions of history); see Barton 1998a, For a discussion of texts as windows and mirrors, see Reumann Historical studies include the fields of Classical Antiquity, Ancient Israel within the Ancient Orient, Judaism within Hellenism and the Roman Empire, Mystery Religions of the Graeco-Roman world, and historiography. Textual studies include the fields of Greek mythology, poetry, philosophy, early Rabbinic traditions, Mandaean texts, Nag Hammadi, Pistis Sophia, Odes of Solomon, NT Apocrypha, and Early Christian Literature.

25 12 Introduction The translation is really the final output of analysis and stands as a statement of the interpretation. The ideal transference of meaning from one language to another is difficult (if not impossible) to achieve in all its semantic, grammatical and phonological equivalences. The tension between formal equivalence (i.e. the imitation of form in word order, syntax, phonology) and functional equivalence (i.e. the recreation in the target language of the impact or effect that a text had on its hearers or readers in the original language) remains throughout the translation process. While the translation statement itself seeks to approximate the linguistic form of the original, a goal of all exegesis is to transpose the original meaning of the text into the present (Stenger 1993, 8). 5. While a historical text relates historical events of the past, the meaning of those events can only be expressed in the future of that historical text. Other wise, it is no longer a historical text. Consequently, the historical research of a text must always be carried further, since the preunderstanding of each scho lar also has a historical context which is in the future of that text (Bultmann 1984, 150). I do not propose to embrace Bultmann s existential hermeneutic but merely wish to highlight that the quest for timeless or non-historical statements cannot be fulfilled (contra Paddison 2005). There exists a historical meaning of a text which I hope to find by travelling across the historical gap between First Thessalonians and me; historical criticism attempts to understand the then author and the then message. But it is possible to transpose a kernel of meaning from a historical text into the present, taking into account the fact that such a transposition will only be partially successful, since the problem of the divergence in world-views between the first and twenty-first centuries is hardly surmountable (Brown 1984, 27; Martin 1979, ). Yet, since the interpreter of a text is himself/herself caught up within the history of meaning of that text, the interpretive process will have to be repeated and conclusions continually modified. In my interpretation of First Thessalonians, I wish to avoid what seems to be a common pitfall of historical critics. Many scholars attempting historical reconstruction do not acknowledge the lack of information about the world of the first century. In reality, interpretation and the so-called assured results of modern scholarship are largely based on hypotheses and probabilities. There is simply not enough information to posit definite statements; the situation may be likened to swiss cheese whereby the current knowledge base consists of gaping holes. Yet much of the literature reflects an unfounded confidence, as evidenced by the use of statements like: It is certain that, There is no doubt that, it is obvious that etc. The problem is that observations built on a number of probabilities may quickly become improbable. 20 There is always an inherent subjectivity to interpretation: each scholar approaches the history of the NT with a different methodology, a different set of questions and a different preunderstanding. Thus I 20 This point is elegantly made by a non-biblical specialist, so C. S. Lewis (1975, 101).

26 Topical Analysis of First Thessalonians 13 want to emphasise the impossibility of certainty about the precise meaning of any given text. What is the point then? At least the historical-critical approach allows us to attempt to reach commonly accepted truth, at least at some levels, in some areas. The historian displays the basis for an explanation and others can test not only the logic and power of the explanation, but the validity of its factual evidential base (Downing 1990, 285; similarly, Dobbs-Allsopp 1999, ). 6. In conclusion, in the exegetical chapters to follow I offer extensive analysis of four fundamental representatives of the eschatological discourse to be found in First Thessalonians. In keeping with my view that the translation is the final output of the analysis, I have included a detailed arrangement of the text and translation at the beginning of each chapter. As well, I present a number of preliminary issues which I consider important for the analysis; several excursus also appear throughout. I find there exists a paradoxical tension between developing and sustaining the thesis and analysing a text just for the sake of analysis. Neither do I want to drive the premise forward at the neglect of responsible exegesis nor do I neces sarily want to analyse every question arising from a systematic application of the historicalcritical approach. In the exegetical chapters I seek a right balance between the two extremes and consequently develop my thesis that eschatology is the best hermeneutical key for understanding Paul s pattern of exhortation by offering a thorough analysis of the texts. Implications arising from the analyses are presented throughout each chapter in the form of preliminary syntheses (usually at the end of a verse or group of verses) and in a conclusion at the end of the chapter. III. Topical Analysis of First Thessalonians 1. There are many topics which are not mentioned (or are hardly mentioned) in First Thessalonians but which are important for Paul s thought in his other letters. 21 Of the anthropological terms in Paul, there are no references to flesh ( ) or mind ( ), and only one reference to body (, 5:23), two to soul (, 2:8; 5:23) and three to heart (, 2:4, 17; 3:13). In contrast, there are five references to spirit ( 1:5, 6; 4:8; 5:19, 23), the first three of which are to the Holy Spirit. 22 There is no mention of Israel ( ), nor of the Adam-typology so prevalent in Romans and First Corin thians. Neither is there any reference to the powers of sin ( ) and death ( ) although Paul does refer to the measure of sins in a different sense (2:16), and to the topos of the dead (cf. ) which is of significance in the letter (4:13 18). Paul does allude to the effects of sin in some of his exhortations (4:3 8). There is no mention of the Jewish 21 I have used the table of contents in Dunn (1998) as a résumé of Paul s thought. Marshall also identifies many of the same theological absentees in First Thessalonians (1982, ). 22 Power ( ) occurs in conjunction with the first reference only. 1 Thess 1:5, 6 are anarthrous references while 4:8 has the article ( ).

27