Thessalonian Letters - Bibliography - Miscellaneous

Since I'm teaching a paper on the Thessalonian letters, I'd thought I'd blog the bibliography that I've compiled.  Please let me know if I've missed anything. 
 

 Conference Papers on the Thessalonian Letters
Harrison, James R. “‘The Ultimate Sinner’: Paul & the Antichrist in Political Context,” Delivered at the 125th SBL Annual Meeting 2005, Philadelphia, in the “Paul and Politics’ section. Available Online:   www.thepaulpage.com/The%20Ultimate%20Sinner.pdf
Johnson, E. Elisabeth. “Paul’s Reliance on Scripture in 1 Thessalonians,” Paper presented at Society of  Biblical  Literature, New Orleans, 2009.  Accessed, 24 September, 2010-09-25:  www.westmont.edu/~fisk/paulandscripture/Johnson-Paul's_Reliance_on_Scripture_in_1_Thessalonians.pdf


Websites and Online Commentaries
John Chrysostom on Thessalonians: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.html
John Calvin on Thessalonians: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc42/cc42017.htm


Downloadable Commentaries at Internet Archive:
Denney, James. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. Expositor’s Bible. Hodder & Stoughton, 1897.
Eadie, John. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. London: Macmillan,  1877.
Ellicott, Charles J. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians. London: Longman, 1866.
Frame, James E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. ICC.  Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Jowett, Benjamin. The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans. London: J. Murray, 1859.
Milligan, George. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians. London: Macmillan, 1908.
Plummer, Alfred. A Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians. London: R. Scott, 1914.


Online Audio Sermons
1 Thessalonians from the Gospel Coalition:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/scripture-index/a/1+thessalonians

2 Thessalonians from the Gospel Coalition:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/scripture-index/a/2+thessalonians


Other Web Resources
NT GATEWAY: http://www.ntgateway.com/paul-the-apostle/1-and-2-thessalonians/


Other Articles of Interest
Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 31 (1987): 73-93.
Funk, R. W. “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies  Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: University Press, 1967, 249-68.
Harding, J. K. “Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason's House (Acts 17.1–10a)”  New Testament Studies 52 (2006), 29-49.
Hock, R.F. “The Workshop as a Social Setting for Paul's Missionary Preaching,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 438-50.
Judge, E. A. “The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica” Reformed Theological Review 30 (1971), 1-7.
Lassen, Eva Maria. “The Use of the Father Image in Imperial Propaganda and 1 Corinthians 4:14-21,” Tyndale Bulletin 42.1 (1991), 127-136.
Pahl, Michael W. “The ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Word’: Exploring Some Early Christian Patterns” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.2 (2006), 211-227. 
Stowers, S. K. “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984), 59-82.
Sumney, Jerry L. “Paul’s ‘Weakness’: An Integral Part of His Conception of Apostleship,” Journal for the Study of  the New Testament 52 (1993), 71-91.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “The Pauline Letter Closings: Analysis and Hermeneutical Significance,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995), 177-198.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “What does Aristotle Have to do with Paul? An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism” Calvin Theological Journal 32 (1997): 458-68.

Thessalonian Letters - Bibliography - Foreign Language Commentaries

Since I'm teaching a paper on the Thessalonian letters, I'd thought I'd blog the bibliography that I've compiled.  Please let me know if I've missed anything. 


Bickmann, J. Kommunikation gegen den Tod. Studien zur paulinischen Briefpragmatik am Beispiel des Ersten  Thessalonicherbriefes. FzB 86; Würzburg: Echter, 1998.
Dewailly, L.-M. La jeune Église de Thessalonique. Les deux premières épîtres de saint Paul. LeDiv 37; Paris: Cerf, 1963.
Dibelius, M. An die Thessalonicher I, II, an die Philipper. HNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr, 31937.
Haufe, G. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher. ThHK 12/1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999.
Holtz, T. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKK 13; Zürich – Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger – Neukirchener, 1986.
Légasse, S. Les épîtres de Paul aux Tessaloniciens. LeDiv Commentaires 7; Paris: Cerf, 1999.
Marxsen, W. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ZBK.NT 11/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979; tr. it. La  prima lettera ai Tessalonicesi. Guida alla lettura del primo scritto del Nuovo Testamento. Parola per l’uomo d’oggi 6; Torino: Claudiana, 1988.
Marxsen, W. Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. ZBK.NT 11/2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982.
Müller, P.-G. Der erste und zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 2001.
Schürmann, H. Die erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. GSL.NT 13; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1961.
Staab, K. Die Thessalonicherbriefe, Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe. RNT 7/1; Regensburg: Pustet, 51969.
Trilling, W. Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher. EKK 14; Zürich: Benziger, 1980.
von Dobschütz, E. Die Thessalonicher-Briefe. KEK 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 71909, 1974.

Thessalonian Letters - Bibliography - Chapters in Books

Since I'm teaching a paper on the Thessalonian letters, I'd thought I'd blog the bibliography that I've compiled.  Please let me know if I've missed anything. 

Donfried, Karl P. “The Imperial Cults of Thessalonica and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians” in Paul and  Empire:  Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Eds. R. A. Horsley. Pennsylvania: Trinity  Press International, 1997, 215-223.
Fee, G. D. “Christology in the Thessalonian Correspondence” Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007, 31-83.
Fee, G. D. “The Thessalonian Correspondence” in God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, 39-80.
Furnish, V. P. “The Spirit in 2 Thessalonians” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honour of J. D.  G. Dunn.  Edited by G. N. Stanton; B. W. Longenecker & S. C. Barton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, 229-240.
Jervis, L. A.  “1 Thessalonians” in At the Heart of the Gospel: Suffering in the Earliest Christian Message.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, 1-36.
Koester, Helmut “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society  Edited by R. A. Horsley. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997, 158-166.
Manson, T. W. “The Letters to the Thessalonians” in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Ed. M. Black.  Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962, 259-278.
Marshall, I Howard. “Pauline Theology in the Thessalonian Correspondence” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays In honour C.K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker, and S. G. Wilson, London: SPCK, 1982, 173-183.
Rosner, B. “Seven Questions for Paul’s Ethics: 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12 as a Case Study” in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Edited by B. Rosner.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 351-360.
Wiles, G. “Function of the wish-prayers in I Thessalonians” in Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of  the Intercessory Passages in the Letters of St. Paul.  Cambridge: CUP, 1974  45-71.

Thessalonian Letters - Bibliography - Journal Articles

Since I'm teaching a paper on the Thessalonian letters, I'd thought I'd blog the bibliography that I've compiled.  Please let me know if I've missed anything. 
 Adams Jr., E. Randall  “Preaching from 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” South Western Journal of Theology 42 (1999), 66-78.
Adams, Sean A. “Evaluating 1 Thessalonians: An Outline of Holistic Approaches to 1 Thessalonians in the Last 25  Years,” Currents in Biblical Research 8:1 (2009), 51-70.
Ascough, Richard S. ‘The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000), 311–28.
Ascough, Richard S. “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community-Building Language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123:3 (2004), 509-530.
Aus, Roger. “The Litrugical Background of the Necessity and Propriety of Giving Thanks According to 2 Thes 1:3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1972-3), 432-438.
Barclay, John M. G. “Conflict in Thessalonica,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993), 512–30.
Barclay, John M. G. “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity,” Journal for the Study of  the New Testament 47 (1992), 49–74.
Bassler, Jouette M. “The Enigmatic Sign: 1 Thessalonians 1:5,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984), 496-510.
Black, David Alan. “The Literary Structure of 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3.3 (1994), 46-57.
Black, David Alan. “The Weak in Thessalonica: A Study in Pauline Lexicography” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:3 (1982), 307-321.
Bockmuehl, Markus. “1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the Church in Jerusalem,” Tyndale Bulletin 52.1 (2001), 1-31.
Burke, Trevor J. “Pauline Paternity in 1 Thessalonians,” Tyndale Bulletin 51.1 (2000), 59-80.
Criswell, W. A. “Make it a Matter of Prayer: 1 Thessalonians 5:17,” Criswell Theological Review 1:1 (2003), 105-10.
Currie, Thomas W. “1 Thessalonians 5:12-24,” Interpretations (2006), 446-449.
DeSilva, David A. “‘Worthy of His Kingdom’: Honour Discourse and Social Engineering in 1 Thessalonians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (1997), 49-79
Donfried, K. P. “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985), 336–56.
Edson, Charles. “Cults of Thessalonica,” Harvard Theological Review 41:3 (1948), 153-204.
Fowl, Stephen. “A Metaphor in Distress: A Reading of NEPIOI in 1 Thessalonians 2:7.” NTS 36 (1990), 469-473.
Fredrickson, David. “Passionless Sex in 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5,” Word & World 23:1 (2003), 23-30.
Fudge, Edward. “The Final End of the Wicked,’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (1984), 325-334.
Gieschen, Charles A.. “Christian identity in a pagan Thessalonica: the imitation of Paul's cruciform life” Concordia Theological Quarterly, 72:1 (2008), 3-18.
Goulder, Michael D. “Silas in Thessalonica,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48 (1993), 87-106.
Gregory, Andrew. “A Theological Approach to Thessalonians,” Expository Times 117 (2006), 411-412.
Gundry, Robert H. “A Brief Note on “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS  in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996), 39-41.
Gupta, Nijay. “An Apocalyptic Reading of Psalm 78 in 2 Thessalonians 3,”  Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (2008), 179-194.
Harrison, James R. “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.1 (2002), 71-96.
Heath, Jane M. F. “Absent Presences of Paul and Christ: Enargia in 1 Thessalonians 1-3,” Journal for the Study of  the New Testament 32:1 (2009), 3-8.
Hendrix, Holland “Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment: Evidence from Thessalonica,” Semeia 56 (1991), 39-58.
Johnson, E. Elizabeth. “Preaching in 1 Thessalonians,” Journal for Preachers 28:3 (2005), 20-26.
Kaye, B. N. “Eschatology and Ethics in 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Novum Testamentum 17:1 (1975), 47-57.
Koester, Helmut “1 Thessalonians – Experiment in Christian Writing” in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays presented to G. H. Williams (Leidin: Brill, 1979), 33-44.
Krentz, Edgar. “Evangelism and Spirit: 1 Thessalonians 1” Currents in Theology and Mission 14:1 (1987), 22-30.
McKinnish Bridges, Linda. “Terms of Endearment: Paul’s Words of Comfort in First Thessalonians,” Review and  Expositor 96 (1999), 211-232.
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. ““No Need to Have Any One Write”?: A Structural Exegesis of 1 Thessalonians,” Semeia 26 (1983), 56-83.
Malherbe, A. J. “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983), 238–56.
Malherbe, A. J. ““Gentile as a Nurse”: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess 2,” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970), 204-217.
Malherbe, A. J. “Paul: Hellenistic Philosopher or Christian Pastor?” Anglican Theological Review, 68:1 (1986), 3- 13.
Martin, M. “‘Example’ and ‘Imitation’ in the Thessalonian Correspondence,” South Western Journal of Theology 42 (1999), 39-49.
May, David. ““You Cannot Hide the Soul”: 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22,” Review and Expositor 96 (1999), 277-85.
Mearns, C. L. “Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians,” New  Testament Studies 27 (1980–1), 137–57.
Menken, M. J. J. “Paradise Regained or Still Lost? Eschatology and Disorderly Behaviour in 2 Thessalonians,” New  Testament Studies 38 (1992), 271–89.
Otey, Rush. “An Invitation to 1 Thessalonians,” Pentecost (1995), 39-41.
Patte, Daniel. “Method for a Structural Exegesis of Didactic Discourses: Analysis of 1 Thessalonians,” Semeia 26 (1983), 85-136.
Polhill, John B. “Hope in the Lord: Introduction to 1-2 Thessalonians,” South Western Journal of Theology 3:3 (1999), 22-44.
Polythress, Vern S. “‘2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillenianism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (1994), 529-538.
Porter, Stanley, E. “Developments in German and French Thessalonians Research: A Survey and Critique,” Currents in Research 7 (1999), 309-34.
Powell, Charles E. “The Identity of the “Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (1997), 320-32.
Quarles, Charles L. “The APO of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” Westminster Theological Journey 59 (1997), 201-11.
Reinhartz, Adele. “On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation: ‘mimētai mou ginesthe – become imitators of  me’,” Studies in Religion 16 (1987), 393-403.
Roose, Hanna. “‘A Letter as by Us’: Intentional Ambiguity in 2 Thessalonians 2.2,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.1 (2006), 107-124.
Richards, E. Randolph. “Ministering in a Tough Place: Paul's Pattern in Thessalonica,” South Western Journal of Theology 42 (1999), 17-38.
Seifrid, Mark A. “Faith, Hope, and Love: Paul’s Message to the Church at Thessalonica,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3:3 (1999), 58-64.
Skeen, Judy. “Not as Enemies, But Kin: Discipline in the Family of God—2 Thessalonians 3:6-10,” Review and Expositor 96 (1999), 287-294.
Smith, Jay E. “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 11.1 (2001), 65-105.
Smith, Jay E. “Another Look at 4Q416 2 ii.21, a Critical Parallel to First Thessalonians 4:4,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001), 499-504.
Stacy, R. Wayne. “Introduction to the Thessalonian Correspondences,” Review and Expositor 96 (1999), 175-194.
Still, Todd D. “Eschatology in the Thessalonian Letters,” Review and Expositor 96 (1999), 195-210.
Still, Todd D. “Interpretive Ambiguities and Scholarly Proclivities in Pauline Studies: A Treatment of Thee Texts from 1 Thessalonians 4 as a Test Case,” Currents in Biblical Research 5.2 (2007), 207-219.
Still, Todd D.  “Paul's Thessalonian Mission,” South Western Journal of Theology 42 (1999), 4-16.
Vang, Preben  “Sanctification in Thessalonians,” South Western Journal of Theology 42 (1999), 50-65.
Walton, Steve. “What has Aristotle to do with Paul? Rhetorical Criticism and 1 Thessalonians,” Tyndale Bulletin 46.2  (1995), 229-250.
Wanamaker, Charles. ““Like A Father Treats His Own Children”: Paul and the Conversion of the Thessalonians,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 92 (1995), 46-56.
Ware, James “The Thessalonians as a Missionary Congregation: 1 Thessalonians 1:5-8” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 126- 31.
Waternman, G. Henry. “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:2 (1975), 105-113.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. ‘An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thessalonians 2.1-12” Journal for the Study of  the New Testament 68 (1998), 73-99.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “Infants, Nursing Mother, and Father: Paul’s portrayal of a Pastor,” Calvin Theological Journal 37 (2002), 209-229.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “The Slaying of Satan’s Superman and the Sure Salvation of the Saints: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word of Comfort (2 Thessalonians 2:1-17),” Calvin Theological Journal 41 (2006), 67-88.
Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “‘How You Must Walk to Please God': Holiness and Discipleship in 1 Thessalonians” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 98-119.
Winter, Bruce W. “‘If a man does not wish to work…’ A Cultural and Historical Setting for 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16,”Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989), 303-315.
Winter, Bruce W. “The Entries and Ethics of Orators and Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12),” Tyndale Bulletin 44.1 (1993), 55-74.
Yarbrough. Robert W. “Sexual Gratification in 1 Thess 4:1-8” Trinity Journal 20.2 (1999), 215-232.

Thessalonian Letters - Bibliography - Monographs

Since I'm teaching a paper on the Thessalonian letters, I'd thought I'd blog the bibliography that I've compiled.  Please let me know if I've missed anything. 
 Ascough, Richard Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians & 1 Thessalonians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2003.
Beutler, J. and K. P. Donfried, The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Burke, Trevor J. Family Matters : A Socio-Historical Study of Fictive Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians. New York: T & T Clark International, 2003.
Collins R. F. (ed.), The Thessalonian Correspondence. BEThL 87; Leuven: Peeters, 1990.
Collins, R. F. Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians. BEThL 66; Leuven: Peeters, 1984.
Donfried, K. P. Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Donfried, Karl P., and I. Howard Marshall. The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Donfried K. P. and J. Beutler, Eds., The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Holland, G. S. The Tradition that You Received from Us. 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition. HUTh 24; Tübingen: Mohr, 1988.
Huges, F. W. Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemant 30; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.
Jewett, R. K. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Malherbe, A. J. Paul and the Thessalonians. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987.
Nicholl, Colin R. From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Society for New  Testament Studies Monograph Series 126. Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
Pahl, Michael W. Discerning the 'Word of the Lord': The 'Word of the Lord' in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Library of New Testament Studies 389. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009.
Still, Todd D. Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbours.  Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 183. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Walton, Stephen J. Leadership and lifestyle: the portrait of Paul in the Miletus speech and I Thessalonians.  Cambridge: CUP, 2000.

Thessalonian Letters - Bibliography - Commentaries

Since I'm teaching a paper on the Thessalonian letters, I'd thought I'd blog the bibliography that I've compiled.  Please let me know if I've missed anything. 

 

Beale, Gregory K. 1-2 Thessalonians. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Best, Earnest. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Black's New Testament Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
Bruce, F.F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 45. Waco: Word Books, 1982.
Calvin, John. 1, 2 Thessalonians. Calvin's Commentaries.  n.p.: Crossway Books, 1999.
Elias, Jacob W. 1 & 2 Thessalonians.  n.p.: Herald Press, 1995.
Ellingworth, P. & Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians. UBS Handbooks Helps for  Translators. United Bible Society, 1994.
Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Frame, James E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians.  International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 1960.
Furnish, V. P.  1 & 2 Thessalonians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries.  Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. First and Second Thessalonians.  Interpretation Commentary. Louisville: John Knox, 1998.
Green, G. L.  The Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Holmes, Michael. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. The NIV Application Commentary.  Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Jensen, Irving L. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Self-Study Guide. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
Martin, D. Michael. 1 & 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman/Holman, 1995.
Malherbe, A. J. The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor  Bible  Commentary 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Morris, Leon. 1 & 2 Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
McKinnish Bridges, L.  1 & 2 Thessalonians. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary.  Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2008.
Neil, William. The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. Moffatt Commentary. Harper and Brothers, 1950.
Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. Sacra Pagina 11. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995.
Stott, John R. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Living in the End Times Downers. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians, New International Greek Text Commentary. Grand  Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Williams, David J., and Gasque, Ward.  1 & 2 Thessalonians, New International Biblical Commentary.  Peabody,  Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994.
Witherington, Ben. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Woolsey, Warren. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Wesley Press, 1997.

Church in a Workship?

McKinnish Bridges, in her recent commentary on the Thessalonian correspondence argues that the Church in Thessaloniki was composed of artisans who met in their workshop as a voluntary association.

If one imagines the community reading Paul’s words as a group of artisans linked by common vocation and workspace, is one able to understand this text more clearly? I believe so. The passages related to work, to community living, to physical labour have much more meaning when the community is visualised as a working community of manual labourers… The social world of artisans creates a new backdrop for understanding these letters. As I read Paul’s words, I see a community of skilled artisans who have gathered in their workroom to hear his letters read. They pause from their task, wipe the dust from their hands, and listen to their artisan-colleague, Paul, who in earlier days shared their same tools and workspace. In that context of dust and death, craft and faith, the members of the community learn how to live more closely in relationship to God and to one another.

See McKinnish Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 8, 10.

It's a fascinating proposal that I'll be giving some careful thought.

Letter-Carriers as Performers

In reading through Joel Green's excellent new commentary on 1 Peter, he makes this comment that I think aids our discussion on authorial intent, audience understanding and the Hebrew Scriptures.

To say that the majority of the first audience of 1 Peter was comprised of Gentiles is not say that all were Gentiles, and we can imagine that Jewish Christians within the communities to which this letter is addressed would have been able to draw ongoing attention to the scriptural allusions and echoes that dot the landscape of the letter. Second, the person or persons who conveyed the letter across the area of Asia mentioned in 1:1 would have served not only as letter-carriers but also as performers of the letter, interpreting it to these groups of Christians. We can imagine their attending to the interplay of the letter with its scriptural intertexts. Third, it should not be forgotten that Israel’s Scriptures comprised the Bible of those early Christians, so that we would be mistaken were we to suppose that even Gentile converts would not have been progressing in their intimacy with the words of Scripture.[1]

Could we postulate that Timothy, Silvanus or whoever takes this letter, would preach and interpret 1 Thessalonians for the community of believers? Obviously, Green is writing about 1 Peter, so the circumstances are different, but could we postulate a similar scenario for the Thessalonian correspondence? My question is then simply: What evidence do we have of Letter-carriers performing this function? Anyone know of any literature on this matter? It seems a priori plausible, but is there evidence for this?

[1] Green, 1 Peter, pg. 6

Authorial Intent and Community Understanding

My thanks to both to all those offering very helpful questions and comments. I think this topic is one that has the capacity to really open up further understanding of both Paul and his epistles. I want to respond to the questions and comments, and so will begin with Nijay’s comments on my post.

It seems reasonable that our understanding of each of the communities to which Paul writes, can only be re-constructed from the details and evidence in Paul’s writings. For example, we may know much about Thessalonica from other sources, but save Paul’s letters and perhaps Acts, we know nothing of the community of believers in Thessalonica. This means that we must engage in what scholars have called “mirror-reading.”[1] However, utilising Chris Stanley’s categories noted before, I think it is a safe assumption that each of Paul’s communities would at least be a minimal audience.

(c) The 'minimal audience' - '...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited' (69).

If Paul’s usual modus operandi included studying and arguing from the Scriptures - with the Jews and perhaps others (Acts), and the LXX was the Bible of the first Church (1 Tim, public reading of Scripture), then I’m confident that Paul would have instructed his communities to read and learn Israel’s scriptures, with the teachings (letters? 2 Pet 3:16?) of the Apostles, and perhaps Jesus tradition (gospels?). Perhaps Hays has overstated the case of re-constructing the audience’s Scriptural understanding as merely guesswork. It seems that we can have certain parameters within which to construct our understanding, these premises seem likely candidates as boundaries to any hypothesis.

But we must also think historically. Is it plausible that the Thessalonian community, given its age, situation, and circumstance held anything more than a minimal understanding? Amidst the persecution, daily life, eschatological confusion of these believers, is it likely that they were competent with the LXX? To me this seems to be a stretch of the imagination. A minimal audience, yes. A competent audience, no.

Nijay poses the most fascinating question, which is what generated my thoughts in this area. Is Paul competent enough to use arguments that his audiences would understand? This is the question which must guide our thinking. With Nijay I agree that it seems clear that Paul was competent. But this does not solve our initial question. Since Paul was competent to use arguments that the audience would understand, what would suggest that Paul is using an argument which is determined by a Scriptural or Hebrew context, or whether Paul was using a Roman context? According to Tom Wright, Paul moved in three worlds: The world of Judaism, The world of Rome, and the New world inaugurated with Jesus.[2] Each of these play a role in our exegesis of the Pauline letters. But does one of them govern a text, idea or praxis, and if so, how do we determine which one governs and at what times?

So back to my original example: 1 Thess 4:3-7

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to acquire/control your own vessel/organ/wife in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness.

Does an allusion to 1 Sam 21:5 appear more likely? Or is there another background that suits the context better? Is it plausible that these young Christians in Thessalonica would pick up on an allusion to such an obscure text is Samuel? Thus, determining the translation of “organ” and thus the interpretation that this refers to sexual activity. Or, does the word mean “wife” which thus changes the interpretation to ethics in courtship.

What factors persuade us in either direction? The lack of scriptural quotations in Thessalonians as a whole, could be indicative of an audience unfamiliar with Scripture, and that's why Paul builds no technical argument for any of his positions from the Hebrew scriptures. He reasons rather, from "the word of the Lord." [It would be interesting to see what Michael Pahl says about this....] In fact, based on the text of Thessalonians, it seems more likely that "the Gospel" functioned as the authority that determined life, faith and obedience. The Hebrew text features little in Thessalonica, even if Paul was an informed author. He used arguments his audience could understand, and technical arguments based on the Hebrew scriptures would possibly be misunderstood, and would be unnecessary for Paul's purposes... Perhaps?

There is another meta question that looms in our discussion, the question of authorial intent, and modern reconstruction. In the words of J. A. Fitzmyer in his comments on Acts 5 and the possible backgrounds being alluded to, he asks the pregnant question, “Who is seeing the connection between them, Luke or the modern commentator?”[3]

More thinking is required on my part before wading further into that intellectual arena...

[1] J. M G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987) 73-93.

[2] N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Fortress, 2005) pgs. 3-13

[3] Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, pg. 319

Contextual Exegesis

Following on from our previous post on “Contextual Hermeneutics” I have found two posts that also deal with this issue. Nijay Gupta writes on A Couple of Disturbing Trends in Pauline Scholarship. This is followed by Matthew Montonini’s post Were Paul's Audiences Scripturally Illiterate?

Both posts propose issues that I’d like to discuss further. Gupta suggests “What we do know is that the encoded/implied reader was quite savvy with Scripture.” While Matthew outlines the position of Chris Stanley in his book Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (T & T Clark, 2004). Stanley offers three different proposed audiences:

(a) The 'informed audience' - 'a person who knows the original context of every one of Paul's quotations and is willing to engage in critical dialogue with Paul about his handling of the biblical text' (68).

(b) The 'competent audience' - the 'hypothetical person who knows just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point of Paul's quotations in their current rhetorical context' (68).

(c) The 'minimal audience' - '...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited' (69).

Both posts deal with the question we raised in our first post on Contextual Hermeneutics. How much background information can we assume in any of Paul’s churches? Views that suggest an “informed” or “competent” audience appear to be more assumption than demonstration. More discussion needs to take place on factors that could determine what the audiences capabilities were.

Instead of discussing the broad outlines of each view, let us take the specific example of the Thessalonian community. How plausible is it, that a congregation established a few months ago would be either an “informed audience” or a “competent audience”? Thus, for a specific example I alluded to, 1 Thess 4:4 and the understanding of skeuos is still relevant. Would Paul have expected his readers to pick up on the supposed allusion to 1 Sam 21:5, as commentators have?[1] Or would Paul be working with a more rabbinic background understanding?[2] Or did Paul simply choose a word that was multifaceted?

In this case, it seems more likely to me, that the Thessalonian church would be classified as a “minimal audience”. It appears a priori implausible to suggest that recent Gentile converts were “savvy with scripture”. I’m quite happy to concede that the Thessalonians were a ‘minimal audience’ with a respect for the Scriptures. I’m even happy to concur with the notion of formal scripture readings in the community, and leaders in the community reading the LXX. But this would definitely not amount to the audience being informed or competent in the Scriptures. Not after such a short time.

Thinking wider therefore, what we probably have reflected before us in the Pauline churches are various stages of these three categories. Perhaps some in the Galatian churches would have been “informed” community members. It seems likely that Rome would have had a competent audience, if not an informed one.

But can we suppose any at Thessalonica? I’m not convinced.

[1] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, pg. 51 n.59

[2] Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, pg. 227

Judeans in 1 Thess 2:14?

Phil Harland discusses and recommends Steve Mason’s new article: Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 457-512. [I can't get my hands on that article, so am trusting Harland's reading]. According to Harland, “Mason convincingly argues that Ioudaioi (traditionally translated “Jews”) and related terms should be understood in terms of ethnic groupings in antiquity. For the Hellenistic and Roman periods (at least until the third century CE) we should be speaking of “Judeans”, not “Jews”, and of “Judean customs” or practices, not “Judaism”.”

In light of this discussion, can this affect our understanding of 1 Thess 2:14-16?

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from those Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.

This surely softens the blow of what many have seen as problematic. But does it capture the essence of what Paul was suggesting? Given the contrast with “Gentiles” it does appear to make more sense of the passage, since Paul is not suggesting that all Gentiles have refused his message, and therefore he is not suggesting that all Judeans were involved in the death of Jesus.

Is this plausible? Any objections?

Contextual Hermeneutics: 1 Thessalonians 4:4 as a Test Case

Scholars often debate the finer points of interpretation based on various backgrounds or nuances to specific words, phrases or ideas. In 1 Thessalonians 4:4 we are presented with a verse that causes much distress to the interpreter for precisely this reason. The background context will determine how one understands this verse. The passage in context reads:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to acquire/control your own vessel/organ/wife in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness.

The key words are that of skeuos (vessell/organ/body/wife) and ktasthai (acquire/control). How one interprets or understands these words depends very much on the probable backgrounds to which interpreters appeal. Given that Paul is writing to a mainly Gentile audience, a roman background is possible. But Paul is a Jew, well versed is the writings and thought-world of Judaism. So interpreting this against a Jewish back-drop seems equally possible. Enter here the problem of “background information of the early Christians.”

How much background information can we assume in any of Paul’s churches? This has to be one of the most perplexing issues in NT scholarship. We have literally no information from them, or about them, to determine their own background understanding. The audience in all of Paul’s letters remains practically anonymous to us.[1] Thus, how is one to determine the concrete meaning of a phrase, such as the one above? For example, J. E. Smith’s article “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse” spends forty pages analysing three distinctive interpretations.[2] This study is exhaustive in its attempt to investigate these options thoroughly. But again the problem persists as to whether or not we allow Paul’s understanding to dominate our interpretation, or whether we allow the audiences assumed understanding or limited knowledge to affect the way we interpret scripture. Illustrative of this is Wanamaker’s comment:

The Thessalonians did not know Hebrew and therefore Paul could not rely on them to make the kind of connections made by Maurer and others in arriving at this interpretation.[3]

So my question is: Do we sometimes over interpret scripture? Looking for every possible allusion and echo to the Hebrew narrative [or elsewhere], when it is highly unlikely that the audiences would even be aware of such scriptures and allusions? Is much of the research we acquire, a bit of a waste? Any ideas?

[1] M. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word (Baker, 2006) pgs. 68ff. considers possible “implied readers” which may offer some assistance to this problem. However, it will not solve the specifics of this problematic feature of our discipline.

[2] Jay E. Smith, “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse” Bulletin for Biblical Research 11.1 (2001) 65-105.

[3] C. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, pg. 152

Fee vs. Pahl on “The word of the Lord”

Gordon Fee in his massive tome, Pauline Christology, [reviewed by Tilling] suggests that the complex phrase “the word of the Lord” (1 Thess 1:8 and 4:15) refers in 1:8 to the gospel and in 4:15 to “that which is spoken by (or about) the Lord Jesus.” Fee writes:

For Paul, “the word of the Lord” is now that which is spoken by (or about) the Lord Jesus. Indeed, it seems most likely that in the first passage here (1:8), where the phrase is articular, Paul intends it to stand for the gospel; that is, it is the “word” about the Lord. The second passage (4:15), however, is most likely a reflection of the usage in the Septuagint, and thus it refers to a word that Christ himself has spoken (either, most likely, in the Jesus tradition that has come down to Paul, or as a prophetic word that Paul has received from Christ). [1]

Fee does not elaborate further on the reasons for his decision, which is a pity, because Michael Pahl has offered substantive reasons for taking 4:15 as reference to the gospel. See his the making of a dissertation. Fee only references Hurtado’s treatment in Lord Jesus Christ.[2] Hurtado does not develop his view that this is “a saying of the exalted Jesus, probably delivered initially through a Christian prophet.” But merely points back to the treatment of E. Best in his commentary on Thessalonians.[3] Thus, it will be fascinating to see how Michael’s dissertation, now defended, is received by scholarship.

I for one am particularly sympathetic and open to Pahl’s detailed analysis, and wish to read more of his argument. Especially on Pauline epistemology. But that’s for another day…

[1] G. Fee, Pauline Christology, pg. 45

[2] L. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 150-1 as well as Donfried, Shorter Pauline Letters, pgs 39-40 who thinks that this refers to a prophetic oracle.

[3] Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, pg. 189-194.

1 Thess 5:14 - Leaders or Congregation?

In his homily on 1 Thessalonians 5:14, John Chrysostom argued that it referred to those who lead, or "rule." This has not found favour among contemporary commentators such as Bruce, Best, Morris, Green and now Witherington. I, however, like to swim against the tide of scholarship often and wish to suggest that Chrysostom was actually on to something that is too easily dismissed by our regular commentators. Look carefully at the passage:

But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to recognise those who labour among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; 13 consider them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14 And we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15 See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not annihilate the Spirit’s fire. 20 Do not despise prophesying, 21 but test everything; hold fast to what is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil. 23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do this. 25 Beloved, pray for us. 26 Greet all the brothers and sisters with a holy kiss. 27 I solemnly command you by the Lord that this letter be read to all of them. 28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

The question at the transition in vs. 14 is pivotal, who does Paul address? The leaders or the community? Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia held the view that the leaders are here being addressed.[1] Contemporary commentators, however, have suggested that the whole church is in view here. Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional in that of course it is applied to the whole community, but it is the leaders who are to model this to the others. Because Paul has urged the leaders in vs. 12 to admonish the community, Paul probably still has in mind the leaders, but this of course applies to the entire community. In fact, Paul may be addressing the leaders in front of the community so that the community is aware of the leaders responsibility to them, and the churches responsibility to each other.

The strongest critique of the position that it is the leaders to whom Paul is referring to in vs. 14 comes from E. Best in his celebrated commentary on the Thessalonian Epistles.[2]

(i) The position of the leaders as a definite group is not as clearly defined in v.12 as this view supposes; there will have been at this early stage of development in the Thessalonian community considerable fluidity as to who the leaders were and what their duties were. The much more clearly cut situation depicted in the Pastorals comes from a later date.
(ii) Verse 16ff are certainly addressed to the church as a whole; there is nothing to suggest a change of subject between v.16 and v.15; v.15, as Rom 12:14-17, is most easily understood as spoken to the community as a whole, an probably a common tradition underlies both 1 Th 5:12ff and Rom 12:9ff; finally there does not appear to be any change of subject between v.14 and v.15
(iii) If v.14 is addressed to the leaders then there is a change of subject from vv.12f; but v.14 is introduced by practically the same phrase as v.12, and if a change of subject were intended we should expect some greater contrast.
(iv) Brothers as in v. 12 indicates the community at large and not a group within it.
(v) In fact Paul elsewhere uses phrases like those of v.14 to address communities as a whole rather than their leaders; although the same words are not used the conceptions of the second and third phrases are found in Gal.6:1; Phil 2:4 and in 2 Cor 2:7; 7:13; 1 Th 3:17 leaders are encouraged by ordinary church members. We thus conclude that in our verse Paul is laying a duty on all the members of the church.

We'll deal with these objections and in doing so, suggest why Chrysostom and others are actually on to something important. (i) This objection assumes to much and neglects the fact that in vs. 12, the leaders are identified as a specific group. We have no real data concerning the developmental stages of leadership among early Christianity and to assume some sort of evolutionary model is to go beyond the specific evidence of vs. 12. It is most likely that Christianity merely assumed the leadership structures of the Synagogue and/or cultural structures.

With regards to (ii), I would concur with Best that the subject has not changed and that this refers to the entire community. But we must pay careful attention to whom Paul's primary directives are to here. Paul is directing the leaders in this final pericope, and he is doing so in a public letter so that they may do likewise to the community. The subtle change in primary audience happens in vs. 14. Paul addresses the entire community, about the leaders (this includes the leaders being addressed) and then in vs. 14 he addresses the leaders about the community (this includes the community being addressed). Otherwise the repetition of brothers is unnecessary - why not just carry on with the exhortation? But because I contend the exhortation is to all, but specified groups within the all and in front of the all, this makes more sense of the data.

(iii) Best is again correct that this is addressed to the whole community, but Paul is addressing the leaders and the community, and does not want to make a greater contrast. Vs. 14 is directed to the leaders, so as to motivate and direct the entire community in these directives.

(iv) We agree, but "brothers" in vs. 14 could be primarily directed at the leaders, and it makes more sense to hold this because Paul has already addressed the community about the function of leadership in vs. 12-13 and now primarily addresses the leaders as to their further duties in front of the congregation so that the congregation can also follow these directions but also allow the leaders to especially model this and fulfill these duties.

(v) We do not deny that Paul uses these terms and actions for the work of the whole church, but Paul is especially interested in emphasizing the role and function of leaders here, in front of the community. This in fact makes sense of 1 Th 5:27, where Paul writes: I solemnly command you by the Lord that this letter be read to all of them. Who is the "you"? And then who is the all of "them"? Surely, Paul and the apostolic team have written to the leaders, and now wish this letter to be read, as instruction, to the whole community.

Thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome...

[1] See also C. Masson, Les Deux Epitres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens (Paris, 1957).

[2] Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, pg. 229

Witherington on Paul

- He is no armchair theologian pondering out the meaning of theological minutiae. He is, rather, doing his best pastorally to shore up the beliefs and behaviour of his converts so that they can endure as part of a countercultural movement under pressure and persecution. He deliberately draws on imperial rhetoric in his theological expressions and transferring it to Christ and the Lawless One because he believes that only Jesus is truly Lord and that the emperor has no right to command absolute allegiance, much less worship. Paul expects his letters to be read, indeed to be orally and rhetorically delivered in worship services, which is to say in the context of much prayer, singing, worship, and fellowship of various sorts. His theologising in these letters is surrounded by and indeed bathed in prayers of thanksgiving, wish prayers, prayer reports, benedictions, and the like. There is a profound theology of trust and reliance on the Almighty in thee sections of the letters which some have ignored as untheological. This is a huge mistake.

Paul is a pastoral theologian who lives what he preaches and believes what he says. Experience, not just understanding, is the basis of expression in so much of what he says. However uncomfortable some of us may be with this, it is still an essential feature to understanding Paul’s theology. Nor should we overlook how much worship and Christian experience was the matrix out of which much Christian theological reflection came…

Ben Witherington III 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2006) pg. 237. Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild and by Craig L. Blomberg