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.

Worship and Theology

Sean du Toit :: Alphacrucis :: 2013

There is a necessary relationship to the theology that we have and the worship to God that we give.  Theology shapes and informs our worship of God.  All authentic worship assumes a theology.  I wish to go further and suggest that theology itself is a form of worship.  Listen to what Jesus says in John’s gospel: 

 

John 4:23-24   But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. ²⁴ God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.”

 

Every time we declare truth about God, it is an act of worship.  In the verbal and, ethical, individual and communal proclamation of the truth about who God is and what God has done for humanity, we are engaged in acts of worship.  John’s gospel is itself a theological reflection on the truth about the identity of God revealed in Jesus through the revelatory agency of the Spirit to the community gathered to worship and encounter God.  John’s gospel is thus a declaration of worship, enticing those who hear to enter into communion with God.  The vivid metaphors employed throughout are possibly strongest in the Eucharistic sections of John 6 where hearers are instructed to feast on the very body of Jesus, a feast of intimacy with God.  However, that intimacy is developed and maintained through theological reflection on the Christ event revealed throughout John’s gospel and Jesus’ teaching.  There is therefore a dynamic interplay between theology and worship throughout the gospel that invites those with ears to hear to come and taste and see that the Lord is good.  As N. T. Wright has perceptively noted that,

When you begin to glimpse the reality of God, the natural reaction is to worship him.  Not to have that reaction is a fairly sure sign that you haven’t yet really understood who he is or what he’s done.^[1]

 

John’s explicit purpose in this gospel is to evoke a continued relationship of trust in Jesus. 

 

John 20:31      This is written so that you may [] trust that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through trusting you may have life in his name.

 

The subjunctive πιστεύ[σ]ητε may either suggest “come to trust” or “continue to trust” that Jesus is who this gospel declares he is.  We need not quibble over the options as it is probably both.  But that means that an explicit purpose of this gospel is to feed the faithfulness, memory and imagination of God’s people with the truth about God so that they may continue to trust him and rely on him for life through him.  Worship sustains the community of God by facilitating an encounter with God and declaring truth about God.  Furthermore, lyrical theology, i.e., the words of the songs we sing, should give voice to the theology that shapes the life and practices of the church.  It is for this reason that Karl Barth declares that,

Theology is a particularly beautiful discipline.  Indeed, we can confidently say that it is the most beautiful of all disciplines.  To find academic study distasteful is the mark of the philistine.  The theologian who labours without joy is not a theologian at all.  Sulky faces, morose thoughts and boring ways of speaking are intolerable in this field.[2]

 

Joy and exciting thoughts must accompany the theologian for it is upon reflection of God given in Scripture that the theologian must wrestle with theology and construct imaginative portraits of this encountering God that remain in sync and faithful to the revelation of God throughout Scripture.  Vanhoozer aptly notes that “To witness to the love of God is the Christian theologian’s supreme privilege and supreme responsibility.”^[3] 

 

Declaring truths about God which are faithful and in sync with the Scriptural revelation, are themselves an act of worship to the One who is worthy of our attention, affection and allegiance.  The very act of theology must be an act of worship because God is no object to be studied but rather as humble subjects we contemplate the supreme excellency of the divine nature (to echo Jonathan Edwards).  This God who came for us, and revealed Himself to us in many and varied ways of love and salvation, healing and compassion is worthy of our worship.  Stating that God is loving, saving, healing and compassionate is in sync with the truth of the Scriptural revelation, and thus reaffirms the character of God which is thus an act of worship itself. 

 

If we return to John 4:23-24 we notice the central role of the Spirit.  In John’s gospel, it is the role of the Spirit to reveal to us the identity of God and ourselves, but it is also the role of the Spirit to connect us to God (John 20:22).  The Spirit facilitates an encounter with God as the revealing God.  And truth about God is a medium through which God speaks and encounters his people.  The Spirit thus reveals truth, declares truth and inspires truth. 

 

There is therefore a dynamic interplay between theology and worship.  Theology not only inspires worship, but is itself an act of worship.  This worship causes us to further reflect on the God who is worthy of our worship, and thus inspires further theological reflection. 

---

[1] N. T. Wright, Simply Christian, (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 123.

[2] Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1, 656.

[3] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Love of God: Its Place, Meaning and Function in Systematic Theology” in First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Illinois: IVP, 2002), 95.

Letter Carriers - Bibliography

Here's a bibliography I'm compiling on Letter Carriers, as they relate to early Christianity, early Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world.  Feel free to add any items I've missed. 

 

Botha, Pieter. “The Verbal Art of the Pauline Letters: Rhetoric, Performance and Presence” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Stanley Porter and T. H. Olbricht (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 409-428.

Epp, Eldon Jay “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, Ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 35-56.

Head, Peter M. “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon Eds. C.A. Evans & H.D. Zacharias LNTS 70; (London: T & T Clark, 2009), 203-219.

Head, Peter. “Named Letter Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.3 (2009): 279-299.

Keyes, C. W. “The Greek Letter of Introduction,” AJP 56 (1935), 28-44.

Llewelyn, S. R. “The Christian Letters of Recommendation”, NewDocs, 8:170.

Mcquire, M. “Letters and Letter Carriers in Christian Antiquity,” CW 53 (1960): 148-53, 184-85.

Mitchell, Margaret M. “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” JBL 111 (1992): 641-662.

Murphy-O’Connor, J.  Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995.

Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection.  Illinois: IVP, 2004.

1 Peter Among Early Christian Writers

Lee Martin MacDonald notes the following use of 1 Peter among writers in the early Church:

Although there are several parallel phrases in Barnabas and 1 Peter (Barn. 5.6 and 1 Pet 1:20), it is only with Polycarp that clear use of 1 Peter is found (e.g., Pol. Phil. 1.3 and 1 Pet 1:8; Pol. Phil. 10:2 and 1 Pet 2:12).  The author of 2 Pet 3:1 (ca. 100-125, or possibly as late as 180) refers to the existence of an earlier letter by the Apostle Peter.  Eusebius claimed that Papias (ca. 100-150) knew and used 1 Peter (Hist. eccl. 3.39.17), and he includes it in the list of the recognised books (3.25.2 and 3.3.1).  Irenaeus was the first to use 1 Peter by name (Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2), and thereafter many references are made to the book by the early church fathers.  Early witnesses validate the use of the book in the church, and it does not appear to have been seriously questioned in the fourth century, even though it is missing in the Muratorian Fragment.

Lee Martin MacDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origins, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 395-396.

Detailed Exposition

It is not in the interest of extravagant ambition that we trouble ourselves with this detailed exposition, but we hope through such painstaking interpretation to train you in the importance of not passing over even one slight word or syllable in the Sacred Scriptures.  For they are not ordinary utterances, but the very expression of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason it is possible to find great treasure even in a single syllable. – John Chrysostom 

The Intentional Fallacy and Authorial Intent

It is sometimes suggested that the article of William K. Wimsatt, and Monroe C. Beardsley, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 468-488, reprinted in William K. Wimsatt, The Verbal Icon. (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1954), 3-18, has advocated the view that authorial intention is unknowable or irrelevant in understanding a text.  However, a careful reading of this piece notes that these authors are not suggesting that authorial intention be dismissed in reading any kind of text, but more specifically in reading poetry.  In fact, regarding the reading of other texts, they specifically state that “poetry differs from practical messages, which are successful if and only if we correctly infer the intention.”  They thus agree that authorial intention is important for the understanding of texts generally, with the noted exception of poetry.  It is thus ironic that some authors have missed their communicative intent and thus misrepresented their thesis. 

 

The irony is delicious.

Seneca on Household Management

Seneca, Ep. 94:1-2

That department of philosophy which supplies precepts appropriate to the individual case, instead of framing them for mankind at large — which, for instance, advises how a husband should conduct himself towards his wife, or how a father should bring up his children, or how a master should rule his slaves — this department of philosophy, I say, is accepted by some as the only significant part, while the other departments are rejected on the ground that they stray beyond the sphere of practical needs — as if any man could give advice concerning a portion of life without having first gained a knowledge of the sum of life as a whole!  But Aristo the Stoic, on the contrary, believes the above-mentioned department to be of slight import…

---

Translation by Gummere in Loeb.

Hecaton on Household Management

Seneca, De beneficiis 2.18.1-2

Any duty involving two people makes equal demands on them both. Having examined what a father should be like, you will know that just as much work remains in order to make out what a son should be like.  If a husband has a role to play, the wife has no less of one. (2) The reciprocity in making demands and fulfilling them requires a rule which applies to both alike - and that, as Hecatonn says, is a difficult matter. Moral goodness, indeed anything approaching moral goodness, is always uphil1.   It requires not merely action, but rational action. Reason must be our guide throughout our life; all things, from the smallest to the greatest, must be performed on its instructions; gifts must be given in whatever manner reason suggests.

---

Seneca, Moral and Political Essays. Eds. John M. Cooper and J. F. Procopé (Cambridge: CUP, 1995), 226.

Aristotle on Household Management

Aristotle Pol. 1.1253b.1–14. 

And now that it is clear what are the component parts of the state, we have first of all to discuss household management; for every state is composed of households. Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships, I mean that of mastership, that of marriage (there is no exact term denoting the relation uniting wife and husband), and thirdly the progenitive relationship (this too has not been designated by a special name).  Let us then accept these three relationships that we have mentioned.[1]

ἐπεὶ δὲ φανερὸν ἐξ ὧν μορίων ἡ πόλις συνέστηκεν, ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον περὶ οἰκονομίας εἰπεῖν: πᾶσα γὰρ σύγκειται πόλις ἐξ οἰκιῶν. οἰκονομίας δὲ μέρη ἐξ ὧν πάλιν οἰκία συνέστηκεν: οἰκία δὲ τέλειος ἐκ δούλων καὶ ἐλευθέρων. ἐπεὶ[5]δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις πρῶτον ἕκαστον ζητητέον, πρῶτα δὲ καὶ ἐλάχιστα μέρη οἰκίας δεσπότης καὶ δοῦλος, καὶ πόσις καὶ ἄλοχος, καὶ πατὴρ καὶ τέκνα, περὶ τριῶν ἂν τούτων σκεπτέον εἴη τί ἕκαστον καὶ ποῖον δεῖ εἶναι. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ γαμική （ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ἡ γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνδρὸς[10]σύζευξις） καὶ τρίτον τεκνοποιητική （καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ὠνόμασται ἰδίῳ ὀνόματι）. ἔστωσαν δὴ αὗται τρεῖς ἃς εἴπομεν. ἔστι δέ τι μέρος ὃ δοκεῖ τοῖς μὲν εἶναι οἰκονομία, τοῖς δὲ μέγιστον μέρος αὐτῆς: ὅπως δ᾽ ἔχει, θεωρητέον: λέγω δὲ περὶ τῆς καλουμένης χρηματιστικῆς.[2]

 

---

[1] See also N. E. 8.1160a.23-1161a.10; 5.1134b.9-18.  This tradition was common around the inception of early Christian thinking.  See D. L. Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes.” ANRW. II.26.1 (1992): 380–411.

[2] Aristotle, Aristotle's Politica Ed. W. D. Ross Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1957.