1 Koester, H., Paul and his World: Interpreting the New Testament in its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 59–60Google Scholar.

2 The scholarship on this question is very extensive and it is impossible to attempt even a summary here. For general bibliography on 1 Thess 4.13–18 see Weima, J. A. D. and Porter, S. E., An Annotated Bibliography of 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 196–221Google Scholar. For an overview of the scholarship on this pericope, including an excursus on the monographs and articles on this subject in table form, see Luckensmeyer, D., The Eschatology of First Thessalonians (NTOA/STUNT 71; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) 192–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Luckensmeyer is correct when he remarks that ‘attempts at expressing Paul's thought in these verses are crippled by the sizeable task of engaging the, often not mutually exclusive, theses of different authors’ (192).

3 The calculation of Malherbe that the letter was written some four months after Paul's departure from Thessaloniki c. 50 ce seems reasonable; see Malherbe, A., The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 72Google Scholar.

4 That Paul is introducing the Thessalonians to this material for the first time can be inferred from the fact that he does not use the reminding language characteristic of the work. So Fee, G. D., The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 164–5Google Scholar. It may even be the case that the Thessalonians themselves had raised the issue to Paul through Timothy, although Paul himself makes no mention of this. So Best, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York: Harper & Row, 1982) 180Google Scholar.

5 The relationship between the raising of the dead in 1 Thess 4.17 and the transformation of the living and the dead in 1 Cor 15.51–52 has been the subject of heated debate. Some argue that 1 Thess 4.17 neither includes nor excludes transformation. See, for example, Radl, W., Ankunft des Herrn. Zur Dedeutung und Funktion der Parusieaussagen bei Paulus (BBET 15; Frankfurt: Lang, 1981) 151Google Scholar. Although his argument has not been especially persuasive and he does not consider non-Pauline literature at any length, Gillman argues that transformation is implicit in 1 Thessalonians. See J. Gillman, ‘Signals of Transformation in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18’, CBQ 47 (1985) 263–81. So also Ward, R. A., Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word, 1973) 106–7Google Scholar.

6 Mearns sums up the contrast, saying that Paul underwent a ‘very marked and significant change in his eschatology’. Mearns, C. L., ‘Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians’, NTS 27 (1980–81) 137–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Lüdemann, G., ‘The Hope of the Early Paul: From the Foundation-preaching at Thessalonika to 1 Cor. 15:51–57’, PRSt 7 (1980) 195–201Google Scholar. In the first stage, during his visit to Thessaloniki, Paul had stated that practically all Christians would live to see the return of Jesus from heaven (1 Thess 1.10). The deaths of some Christians in Thessaloniki prompted Paul to modify his position and argue that Christians would all be translated together, the dead being revivified after death (1 Thess 4). The third stage envisions the parousia as a future event in which translation is replaced by resurrection (1 Cor 15). Lüdemann's theory recalls the classical developmental theories of Teichmann, E., Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik (Freiburg and Leipzig: Teubner, 1896)Google Scholar and Charles, R. H., Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism, and Christianity (London: Black, 1899)Google Scholar. The development of Paul's thinking about the resurrected body is also a feature in Becker, J., Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum (SBS 82; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976) 46–54Google Scholar; Becker, , ‘Die Frage nach den entschlafenen Christen in 1 Thess 4,13–18’, Jahrbuch des evangelischen Bundes 23 (1980) 45–60Google Scholar; and Wiefel, W., ‘Die Hauptrichtung des Wandels im eschatologischen Denken des Paulus’, TZ 30 (1974) 65–81Google Scholar. One criticism of these developmental models has been the underlying model of change and development that they employ. See Bornkamm, G., Paul (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971) 222Google Scholar; Guntermann, F., Die Eschatologie des hl Paulus (NAbh 13/4–5; Münster: Aschendorff, 1932) 38–51Google Scholar.

8 Fee, Thessalonians, 180.

9 So Wannamaker, C. A., The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 175Google Scholar; Morris, Leon, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (TNTC 13; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. ed. 1984) 94Google Scholar.

10 Slavonic 2 En. 3.1–3; trans. Anderson, F. I., in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (ed. Charlesworth, J. H.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 110Google Scholar. This parallel is noted by Frame, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1912) 175–6Google Scholar.

11 Marshall, I. H., 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 131Google Scholar.

12 Fee, Thesssalonians, 181.

13 See Furnish, V. P., 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon 2007) 102–3Google Scholar, who envisages ‘partial parallels’ between Paul and Jewish apocalyptic traditions (102). Other posited parallels include LXX Exod 19.16–18, in which clouds, meeting, descent, and trumpets appear. So Ward, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 108.

14 Whiteley, D. E. H., Thessalonians (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Oxford University, 1969) 67Google Scholar, proposes that a misunderstanding over the relative rewards of the deceased versus the living is in view here.

15 Cf. Dan 12.12–13; 4 Ezra 6.18–28; 7.27–28; 13.24; Pss. Sol. 17.44; Sib. Or. 3.367–80. Harrington, D. J., First and Second Thessalonians (SP 11; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1995) 242Google Scholar. An alternative reading of this passage would stress that all meet their fate together. This would rest on the notion that everyone is lifted up in the air. Cf. Epistle of Barnabas 20.2; 51.13; Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities, 19.20.

16 Morris, L., The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 146Google Scholar; Fee, Thesssalonians, 180.

17 Koester, , Paul and his World, 59–60Google Scholar. Koester cites the work of Oepke, A., “παρουσία”, TDNT 5 (1967) 859–71Google Scholar and Holtz, T., Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKKNT 13; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986) 119 as evidence for the linguistic backgroundGoogle Scholar. The origins of this idea are found in Peterson, E., ‘Die Einholung des Kyrios’, ZSth 7 (1929/30) 682–702Google Scholar. Criticisms of Petersen's argument have been offered by Dupont, J., ‘ “Avec le Seigneur” a la Parousie’, ΣYN XPIΣTΩI: L'union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (ed. Dupont, Jacques; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952) 39–79Google Scholar and Cosby, M., ‘Hellenistic Formal Receptions’, BBR 4 (1994) 15–34Google Scholar. Despite these criticisms, Petersen has been followed by Gundry, R. H., ‘A Brief Note on “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of AΠANTHΣIΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17”,’ BBR 6 (1996) 39–41Google Scholar; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 131; Morris, The First and Second Epistles, 146.

18 For the use of the term in imperial contexts see Rigaux, B., Saint Paul Les épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Gembloux Duculot, 1956) 198Google Scholar.

19 An interest in community is also advocated by Ascough, R. S., ‘A Question of Death: Paul's Community-Building Language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18’, JBL 123 (2004) 509–30Google Scholar.

20 So Peterson, ‘Kyrios’, 682–702 and Peterson, ‘ἀπάντησις’, TDNT 1 (1964) 380–1.

21 Koester, Paul and his World, 60 n. 37.

22 Keener, C. S., The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 534 n. 209Google Scholar.

23 Lars Hartman, for instance, argued that Paul based 1 Thess 4.13–18 on an early midrash on Dan 7 that stemmed from Jesus himself. Hartmann's theory can account for the trumpet call but hardly explains the unusual mechanics of the heavenly ascent. Hartman, L., ‘The Eschatological Discourse and the Letters to the Thessalonians’, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 Par (ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 178–205Google Scholar.

24 On dating rabbinic traditions, see Bamberger, B. J., ‘The Dating of Aggadic Materials’, JBL 68 (1949) 115–23Google Scholar.

25 Cf. Braude, W. G., The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 1 (Yale Judaica Series 13; New Haven: Yale University, 1959) xiGoogle Scholar; Kugel, J. L., Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1998) 927Google Scholar.

26 Cf., e.g., Rad, G. von, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2 (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 295Google Scholar; Childs, B. S., Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 497Google Scholar. A different approach is taken by Bouzard, W. C. Jr, ‘Doves in the Windows: Isaiah 60:8 in Light of Ancient Mesopotamian Lament Traditions’, David and Zion (ed. Batto, B. F. and Roberts, K. L.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 307–17Google Scholar, who argues that the doves are unrelated to the ships of Tarshish in the subsequent verse but instead describe the return of God's presence to the restored Temple. His argument regarding the doves, though intriguing, does not account for the first half of Isa 60.8; his attempt to reinterpret the word commonly taken as ‘cloud’ as an architectural feature of the Temple, perhaps ‘canopy’, is unconvincing. There is no reason, in fact, that both the comparison with the sails of the ships and the notion of the return of the deity's presence could not be part of the prophet's intended meaning here.

27 It is perhaps for this reason that when scholars have tried to find verses in the Hebrew Bible that mention ‘clouds’ as possible parallels with 1 Thess 4.17 they have uniformly ignored Isa 60.8.

28 On the individual verse as the significant interpretive unit in midrash, see Kugel, J. L., ‘Two Introductions to Midrash’, Midrash and Literature (ed. Hartman, G. H. and Budick, S.; New Haven: Yale University, 1986) 77–103 (esp. 93–103)Google Scholar.

29 On the disparate influences on and diverse forms of rabbinic eschatology, see Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, vol. 1 (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987) 649–92Google Scholar (esp. 649–52).

30 Following the critical text of Lauterbach, J. Z., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2nd ed. 2004) 159Google Scholar; all translations of rabbinic material are mine [JSB]. As the next entry in this list the second half of Isa 60.8 is adduced: ‘When he scattered them, he did not scatter them except like doves, as it is said: “If any survivors survive, they shall go to the mountains, like doves of the valleys, all of them moaning, each for his iniquity” (Ezek 7.16); and when he brings them back, he will not bring them back except like doves, as it is said: “And like doves to their cotes” (Isa 60.8)’.

31 This and other citations of Midrash Tehillim are taken from the edition of Buber (Jerusalem: Wagschal, 1965–66). That ‘in the future’ refers to the world to come is clear from the second explication of Qoh 1.9 immediately following the one quoted above: ‘Just as the Israelites sang a song in the wilderness and the well sprang up for them [Num 21.17], so in the world to come they will sing a song and the waters will spring up for them [Ps 87.7]’.

32 This midrashic text was already adduced in connection with 1 Thess 4.16–17 by Billerbeck, Paul, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–56) 3.635–6 (who took it from Tanḥuma [Buber edition] Tzav 16)Google Scholar.

33 See the continuation of the discussion: ‘R. Papa said: We can derive from this that a cloud rises three parasangs’.

34 On the heavenly Jerusalem or Temple in Second Temple writings, see Safrai, S., ‘The Heavenly Jerusalem’, Ariel 23 (1969) 11–16Google Scholar; Urbach, E., ‘Heavenly and Earthly Jerusalem’, Jerusalem through the Ages: The Twenty-Fifth Archaeological Convention, October 1967 (ed. Aviram, J.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1968) 156–71Google Scholar; Flusser, D., ‘Jerusalem in Second Temple Literature’, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 44–75Google Scholar; Klawans, J., Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University, 2006) 128–42Google Scholar. The idea appears, of course, in Heb 12.22; for discussion see Attridge, H. W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 222–5Google Scholar. In Gal 4.26 Paul also has a notion of a Jerusalem above.

35 Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 16.4–6. Unique in this treatment is the notion that Koraḥ had seven sons, rather than the usual three (those named in Exod 6.24).

36 For this view, see Bemidbar Rab. 18.20; b. Sanh. 110a–b; Tanḥuma Koraḥ 11; and Rashi on Num 26.11. The Koraḥite Psalms may in fact be the root of the entire tradition. It is almost universally recognized that Num 26.11 is part of a secondary insertion in the priestly census list of Num 26, the insertion comprising, according to most, 26.8–11; cf. Kuenen, A., An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (London: MacMillan & Co., 1886) 100Google Scholar; Dillmann, A., Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament; Leipzig: Hirzel, 2nd ed. 1886) 173Google Scholar; Holzinger, H., Numeri (KHC 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1903) 132Google Scholar; Baentsch, B., Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT I/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903) 630Google Scholar; Gray, G. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903) 389–90Google Scholar; Noth, M., Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 205–6Google Scholar; Blum, E., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990) 132–3 n. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This insertion is most likely to be attributed to a late, post-redactional hand, and was intended to address the question of how it is that Koraḥ and his followers perished and yet his sons composed the Psalms attributed to them (cf., e.g., Ehrlich, A. B., Miqra ki-peshuto [3 vols.; New York: Ktav, 1969] 1.295Google Scholar; Scharbert, J., Numeri [NEchtB 27; Würzburg: Echter, 1992] 106–7)Google Scholar. The conflict between the narrative of Num 16—in which the sons of Koraḥ are not mentioned—and the existence of the Koraḥite Psalms (and perhaps, as some have suggested, the references to the Koraḥites as cultic servants in 1 Chr 9.19) drives not only the insertion of Num 26.11 but also the midrashic material that grew around it (as recognized by Kugel, , Traditions, 791–2Google Scholar). Given the evident lateness of the secondary insertion in Num 26.11, it is tempting to speculate that the biblical passage represents an early stage of the same midrashic process that led to the stories of Midrash Tehillim, just as we find midrashic elements in some later biblical books (e.g., famously, the harmonistic treatment in 2 Chr 35.12–13 of the laws of the Passover sacrifice from Deut 16.7 and Exod 12.8–9).

37 Bem. Rab. 18.20.

38 This understanding is re-emphasized in the treatment of Ps 49.16 in the same midrashic collection: ‘ “But God will ransom my life [נפשי] from the power of Sheol” (Ps 49.16), because we [i.e. the sons of Koraḥ, the authors of this psalm] were not in his [Koraḥ's] counsel. “He will take me. Selah” (Ps 49.16), which is as it is said, “They became a sign” (Num 26.10), proving that he [God] stationed them in mid-air’ (Midrash Tehillim 49.3).

39 The one significant difference between the two versions is the length of time attributed to the ‘Day of Yahweh’: in Midrash Tehillim it appears to be a single moment on a single day, while the talmudic passage reflects the tradition that the world to come would be preceded by a lengthy period of desolation and destruction of the world as we know it. Thus the driving question for the Talmud is what the righteous will be doing during that long period; the answer, however, is the same as that given for the Koraḥites: they will float in mid-air.

40 It is worth noting that Paul is well aware of Koraḥite traditions and alludes to them in 1 Cor 10.10. See discussion in Watson, F., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004) 366–7Google Scholar. We are grateful to John Barclay for this reference.

41 For the translation ‘dead who are in Christ’ see Frame, Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, 175. For the latter view see Best, Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 197 and Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 275. The Vulgate opts for the former sense, rendering the clause ‘et mortui qui in Christo sunt’.