Johnny's Reviews > The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis?

I waited to read this volume of essays and responses until I was doing a thorough study of the biblical books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians. I wish I hadn’t procrastinated. The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis offers clues for using so-called “rhetorical criticism” which are useful for all of the epistolary works in the New Testament. Nearly every article in this volume summarizing the work of the Thessalonians Correspondence Seminar offers some seed truth or approach that has enriched my study of the Bible.

Some of the essays consider whether so-called “rhetorical criticism,” the Graeco-Roman basics of persuasion in oral (and written) speech, and “epistolary analysis,” the examination of the structure of sections of biblical letters in comparison with that of classical letters, could even be compatible with historical criticism, the dominant methodology for biblical studies from the late 19th century forward. Personally, I have never had any doubt that they were compatible, but it was nice to read others who had come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, even within that careful consensus, there are major divisions in methodology. For example, Pauline scholars begin their analyses by considering arrangement and structure while other NT scholars tend to focus on “internal argumentation.” (p. 243) As the full volume indicates, particularly in the last few essays, either approach can prove problematic when held so assiduously that one excludes the concerns of the other. For example, one of the authors represented on my shelf has recently admitted that this volume was “overly formulaic” and drew from literary examples too narrow in scope (cited on p. 268).

Some of that narrowness can be seen in arguments as to whether there is an “apology” or “defense” from Paul in the letter. Most scholars discount the idea of an apology due to the lack of extended defenses in the probation or “proof” section. My impression is that an apology can be directed at presumed, indirect, or expected attacks, as well as overt ones. But such an idea seems to be discounted by the consensus of scholars, though Traugott Holz isn’t entirely comfortable with their assurance either (p. 71). If we remove the possibility of “apology,” I would resonate with Rudolf Hoppe’s idea (cited on pp. 7, 9 and expressed on pp. 66-67) that what some have turned apology is actually Paul’s demonstration from his personal ministry of how the gospel overcomes, even in the midst of persecution. This actually works well with Thomas Olbricht’s conclusion about 1 Thessalonians’ persuasive intention: “resides in ‘declaring the action of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit—past, present, and future’ and ‘sustaining faith and brotherly love despite affliction.’ (cited on p. 260)

Johann Vos rejects the apologetic nature of the letter with regard to the Sitz im Leben or setting behind the letter, but he prefers to call it a “self-recommendation” and observes, “An apology responds to complaints that are actually expressed; a self-recommendation may contain apologetic elements (2 Cor. 2:12-18) but does not necessarily have to; it can also anticipate potential reservations or reflections (e.g., Acts 20:18-21).” (p. 83) That sounds rather like “my Impression” in the preceding paragraph, but Vos insists, as do many, that an apology must respond to specific, overt charges. I don’t agree. However, I’m not a New Testament specialist by any means and I really like Vos’ idea that the first three (3) chapters are about strengthening the young church while the last two (2) are about encouraging the church (p. 83, also cited on p. 10).

Yet, I don’t think an apologetic (especially as I understand it as opposed to the strict definition from others) excludes Vos’ general summary/direction for the letter to Thessalonica. This seems to be a factor as Otto Merk cites J. L. Hill’s dissertation in noting that Paul’s use of antitheses to set up the latter part of Chapter 2: “allows the concerns of Paul as the congregation’s founder who is distinct from such people, to come to the fore without there being an immediate reason for this in the specific situation” [my emphasis—jlw] (p. 95). Merk himself speaks of a “potential apology” on p. 112 and Jeffrey Weima’s response to Merk goes even further than this (pp. 122, 130).
Merk doesn’t dwell on whether 1 Thessalonians 2 is an overt apology. He states that we can’t know the exact situation to which Paul is referring but even the allusion: “…illuminates the fundamental principle: Paul is separated from his church, innocently orphaned, because the contradiction inherent between the saving gospel and a world filled with religiosity had taken concrete shape as a result of his activity in Thessalonica.” (p. 103)

Epistolary analysis builds from the study of ancient letters. Consensus essentially consigns these letters to four types: friendship, sympathy, praise, and advice (p. 183). Rhetorical criticism draws from the three types of ancient classical rhetoric: deliberative which attempts to get the reader/hearer to do or stop something, epideictic which attempt to impress readers/hearers with something that is right or honorable, and judicial which are intended to clarify evidence for evaluating actions or decisions (p. 192). As a result, it seems clear that deliberative rhetoric deals with future actions or decisions, epideictic considers the present situation, and judicial evaluates the past (p. 294). These are helpful, especially when one breaks down the three (3) elements in Cicero’s of peroration: 1) the summing up (enumeratione), 2) amplification (amplificatione), and 3) appeal to pity (commiseratione) (p. 230). It is easy to see that Paul often uses these techniques in his letters, especially in his conclusions, but Jeffrey Weima argues against Paul using these techniques, largely from the criticism of Paul’s speaking mentioned in the first letter to the Corinthians (pp. 127-130).

The book is full of interesting ideas and exegetical insights. There are advocates of both types of methodology (epistolary and rhetorical), but there are also caveats worth paying attention to: “There is the danger of forcing a text into the straitjacket of a so-called common pattern.” (p. 174) Even giving the possibility (or even probability) of Paul using rhetorical/epistolary strategies subconsciously, such a warning is well-considered. Indeed, the entire composition of this book is well-considered, even though I agree with some of the scholars represented more than others. My only misgiving is that too little attention is paid to what we used to call “stylistics” in the vein of Luis Alonso-Schokel. It seems like very little is being done with this type of rhetorical study. I was hoping to see more of it in this volume.

Theological students and interested pastors who are not as familiar with rhetorical or epistolary methodologies would do well to at least read a few of the major essays in this volume.