¹ On 1 Thess: Kennedy, G. A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1984) 141–4Google Scholar; Jewett, R., The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 71–8Google Scholar; Johanson, B. C., To All the Brethren: A Text-linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to I Thessalonians (ConB, NT 16; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987)Google Scholar; Olbricht, T. H., ‘An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians’, Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 216–36Google Scholar. On 2 Thess: Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 78–87. Holland, G. S., The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (HUT 24; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988)Google Scholar; Hughes, F. W., Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians (JSNTSup 30; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989).Google Scholar

² Bünker, M., Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korintherbrief (GTA 28; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)Google Scholar; Lampe, P., ‘Theological Wisdom and the “Word About the Cross”: The Rhetorical Scheme in I Corinthians 1–4’, Int 44 (1990) 117–31.Google Scholar

³ Betz, H. D., ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 (1975) 352–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Hall, R. G., ‘The Rhetorical Outline for Galatians: A Reconsideration’, JBL 106 (1987) 277–87Google Scholar; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 144–52; Mack, B. L., Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 66–73.Google Scholar

⁴ Funk, R. W., ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 249–68Google Scholar; White, J. L., The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula: Scholars, 1972)Google Scholar; idem, ‘New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography’, ANRW Teil II: Principat 25.2 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984) 1730–56; Doty, W. G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).Google Scholar

⁵ See Bitzer, L. F., ‘The Rhetorical Situation, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 1–14Google Scholar. The rhetorical situation has two components: first, the nexus of persons, events and relations which provide the conditions that control the speaker's response, and second, the rhetorical problem, including obstacles such as credibility or hostility which the speaker must overcome in order for his or her point to be heard.

⁶ Kennedy (New Testament Interpretation, 141–4) argues that 1 Thessalonians is deliberative, with a long narratio (2.1–3.13) designed to refute specific charges against Paul (2.1–8) and to establish his ethos by identifying him with the Thessalonian church. See also Johanson (To All the Brethren, 165–6, with some hesitations). Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 63–78) holds that the genre is epideictic and that ‘the main argument of the letter is an extended narration of the grounds for giving thanks to God in 1:6–3:13’ (72). The issues raised in chaps. 4–5 are ‘reminders of the pattern of praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour suitable to the new age in which they have become participants’ (ibid.). The key to Jewett's classification is the lack of any indication that Paul disapproved of the behaviour of the church in general. Independently of Jewett, Lyons, G. (Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding [SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985] 220–1Google Scholar) concurred with this judgment, observing that the emphasis of the rhetoric is on the intellectual, educative aspect of edification rather than the volitional aspect, the traditional domain of deliberative rhetoric. Olbricht (‘Rhetorical Analysis’ [above n. 1] 225) argues that there are both deliberative and epideictic features, but that the traditional threefold division of rhetorical genres (forensic, deliberative, epideictic) must be expanded to include the genre of ‘church rhetoric’, unforeseen by Aristotle.

⁷ See Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 72–6; Hughes, F. W., ‘The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians’ (unpublished paper cited in Jewett); Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 142–4.Google Scholar See in general Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2nd ed.; 2 vols.; München: Max Hueber, 1973)Google Scholar.

Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 75–6) holds that the peroratio begins at 5.23 and accordingly regards 5.12–22 as the final topic in the probatio. Similarly, Kennedy (New Testament Interpretation, 143–4) includes 5.12–22 in the ‘headings’ (i.e., of the probatio) and designates 5.23–8 as the epilogue and closing. As strong a case can be made for regarding 5.14–28 as the peroratio, which typically contains a summation (enumeratio), an amplification (amplificatio) and an appeal to emotion (commiseratio) ([Cicero] Ad Herennium 2.30–1 [§ 47–50]). The admonitions νουθετεῖτε τοὺς τάκτους, παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς λιγοψύχους, ντέχεσθε τν σθενν, μακροθυμεῖτε πρòς πάντας amount to a summation of the topics discussed in 4.3–5.13, and this is followed by a list of asyndetic imperatives (5.15–21). Cicero (De Partitione Oratoria 14.53) in fact notes that asyndeton ought to be employed here ‘so as to make [the words] seem more numerous’ and to arouse emotion. The final feature, the appeal to emotion, is normally a brief pathetical appeal which can, inter alia, explain the results of a particular course of action, something obviously present in 5.23–4. See now Olbricht (‘Rhetorical Analysis’ [above n. 1] 235) who suggests that the proofs extend from 2.1 to 5.11 and the epilogue (5.12–24) and postscript (5.25–8) follow thereafter.

⁸ See Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 102; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 142–3. Olbricht (‘Rhetorical Analysis’, 228–9) emphasizes the element of ethos.

⁹ See 1 Cor 8.1–8; 9; 10.23. The language of the Corinthians is also visible in 1 Cor 1–4; 6.12–13.

¹⁰ Malherbe, A. J., Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1977)Google Scholar; Theissen, G., Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1979)Google Scholar; Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University, 1983)Google Scholar; idem, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); Kyrtatas, D. J., The Social Structure of the Early Christian Communities (London and New York: Verso, 1987)Google Scholar; Holmberg, B., Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)Google Scholar.

For earlier discussions see Judge, E. A., ‘The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community’, Journal of Religious History 1 (1960–1961) 4–15, 125–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gager, J. G., ‘Religion and Social Class in the Early Roman Empire’, The Catacombs and the Colosseum (London: Oliphants/Valley Forge: Judson, 1971) 99–120.Google Scholar

¹¹ Hock, R. F., The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 31–47Google Scholar; Agrell, G., Work, Toil and Sustenance (Stockholm: Verbum/Lund: Haåkan Ohlssons, 1976) 99Google Scholar; Meeks, First Urban Christians, 64–5, 73. Schöllgen, G. (‘Was wissen wir über die Sozialstruktur der paulinischen Gemeinden?’, NTS 34 [1988] 71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 73, 76) offers two important cautions. First, given the essentially agrarian nature of ancient economies, it is likely that agricultural day-labourers made up a significant portion of the civic population. Second, ‘da fast alle städtischen Berufe Handarbeit leisteten, gibt der Text [1 Thess 4.11–12] für die Eingrenzung auf eine bestimmte Berufsgruppe keine Handhabe …’ (76).

¹² Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 161–78), for example, suggests that the cooptation of Cabeirus, originally a deity associated with the working poor, and his integration into the civic cult of Thessalonica created a vacuum which the apocalyptic Christ of Paul's preaching filled.

¹³ Donfried, K. P., ‘The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence’, NTS 31 (1985) 336–56, esp. 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Malherbe, A. J. (‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to I Thess ii’, NovT 12 [1970] 203–17Google Scholar) suggests, however, that Paul uses the figure of a nurse, as did Dio, to describe the gentle side of the philosopher's role.

¹⁴ See Hendrix, H., ‘Thessalonians Honor Romans’ (Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1984) 141.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Malherbe, A. J., ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, NovT 25 (1983) 238–56Google Scholar; Spicq, C., ‘La Charité fraternelle selon 1 Th. 4,9’, Mélanges bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957) 507–11Google Scholar; Collins, R. F., ‘Paul's First Reflections on Love’, Emmanuel 87 (1981) 107–13Google Scholar; repr. in Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University and Peeters, 1984) 346–55Google Scholar and Roetzel, C. J., ‘Theodidaktoi and Handwork in Philo and I Thessalonians’, L'apôtre Paul: personnalité, style et conception du ministère (BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University, 1986) 324–31.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Hock (Social Context, 44–7) notes that Dio Chrysostom recommends that the urban poor take up hand work (χειροτέχναι 7.124) in order to meet their needs, stating specifically that such pursuits are ‘neither unseemly [σχήμων] nor injurious’ (7.125). Musonius Rufus (frag. 11) counsels withdrawal from the city and recommends farming as an ideal occupation.

¹⁷ Bradley, D. G., ‘The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis’, JBL 72 (1953) 245Google Scholar. Examples of topoi introduced by περì δέ may be found in Marcus Aurelius 7.32–4; Musonius Rufus 18a-21. See also (Ps-) Isocrates Ad Demonicum 13–43. Koester, H. (‘1 Thessalonians – Experiment in Christian Writing’, Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History [Leiden: Brill, 1979] 38–9Google Scholar) also argues that the instructions in 4.1–12 are traditional and not occasioned by the situation. ‘Even the admonitions to lead a quiet life and work with one's hands are general, albeit concrete, requests to insure the moral and economic independence of the church, not attacks upon lazy church members’ (39 n. 13).

¹⁸ Bradley, ‘Topos’, 246. For a criticism of Bradley, see Mullins, T. Y., ‘Topos as a New Testament Form’, JBL 99 (1980) 541–7Google Scholar and Brunt, J. C., ‘More on Topos as a New Testament Form’, JBL, 104 (1985) 495–500.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Marshall, I. H., 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1983) 114Google Scholar. Similarly, R. F. Collins, ‘Tradition, Redaction, and Exhortation in 1 Thess 4,13–5,11’, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, 163. Bruce, F. F. (1 & 2 Thessalonians [Waco: Word Books, 1982] 89)Google Scholar concludes that Paul and Timothy ‘proceed to give some spontaneous admonition on this point’. Similarly, Johanson, To All the Brethren, 115–16.

²⁰ Malherbe, ‘Exhortation’, 252. See also idem, Social Aspects, 24–8 and idem, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 101–6. Malherbe himself, however, has recently argued on the basis of the density of epistolary clichés in 1 Thessalonians that Paul was responding to a Thessalonian letter. See ‘Did the Thessalonians Write to Paul?’, The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in honor of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1990) 246–57.Google Scholar

²¹ See e.g., Lucian Icaromennipus 31. Zeus complains of philosophers, here presumably Cynics, who say ‘I hold it unnecessary to be a merchant or a farmer or a soldier or to follow a trade; I shout, go about dirty, take cold baths, walk about barefoot in winter, wear a filthy mantle and like Momus carp at everything the others do’ (LCL 2.319).

²² E.g., Plutarch Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 15–19 (1096F–1100D). Plutarch brands the Epicurean life as ‘estranged from public duty, indifferent to human welfare (φιλάνθρωπον) and untouched by any spark of the divine’ (1098D).

²³ Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 96–107, quote, 106.

²⁴ See Betz, Galatians, 221–33 and 221 nn. 12–14.

²⁵ The text of Hierocles' Elements of Ethics is published by von Arnim, H. F., Hierokles ethische Elementarlehre (Papyrus 9780) (Berliner Klassikertexte 4; Berlin: Weidmann, 1906)Google Scholar. The extract from Stobaeus' Anthologium (4.27.20) is found in Wachsmuth, K. and Hense, O., ed.,Joannis Stobaei Anthologium (Berlin: Weidmann, 1884–1912) 4.660.15–664Google Scholar.18. An English translation of the latter is now conveniently available in Malherbe, A. J., Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 93–5Google Scholar. Valerius Maximus (Facta et dicta memorabilia) also has a section ‘De pietate erga parentes et fratres et patriam’ (5.4) containing a small section devoted to ‘fraterna benevolentia’ (5.5.1–4).

²⁶ See e.g., Bruce (1 & 2 Thessalonians, 89), who assumes that Philadelphia ‘is not the kind of specific subject on which ruling would be sought’.

²⁷ White, J. L. (Light from Ancient Letters [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986])Google Scholar notes the presence of the formula in P. Hib. 1.40; P. Yale 42; P. Text. 1.19, 48; P. Grenfell 2.36; P. Ryl. 4.593, 603; BGU 4.12–17; P. Lond. 6.1912 (= CPJ 2.153); P. Oslo inv. 1475; P. Mich. 8.464; P. Amh. 2.113.

²⁸ Thus Frame, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 157Google Scholar; Faw, C. E., ‘On the Writing of First Thessalonians’, JBL 71 (1952) 220–2Google Scholar. Harris, J. R. (‘A Study in Letter Writing’, Expositor 8 [5th series; 09, 1898] 161–80)Google Scholar first proposed that 1 Thessalonians was written as a response to a prior Thessalonian letter.

²⁹ Similarly Rigaux, B., Les Épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie., 1956) 516–17Google Scholar; Best, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972) 171Google Scholar and Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence [n. 1] 78, 92.

³⁰ Heb 13.1; 1 Pet 1.22; 2 Pet 1.7a, b; 1 Clem 47.5; 48.1; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.9 (quoting Rom 12.10); Quis dives salvetur 18; Paed. 3.11.74 (= 1 Pet 3.8–9); Paed. 3.12.96 (= Rom 12.8–13); φιλάδελφος in 1 Pet 3.8.

³¹ Sophocles Antigone 527 (of sisters); Alexis Comicus frag. 334 (Edmonds, J. M., The Fragments of Attic Comedy [Leiden: Brill, 1957–1961] 2.519)Google Scholar; Eratosthenes Catasterismoi (ed. Wagner, R. A. et al. , Mythographi Graeci [Leipzig: Teubner 1894–1902] 3/1 p. 12)Google Scholar; Babrius 47.15 (of brothers); Diodorus Siculus 17.34 (of Oxathres for Darius, his brother); Plutarch Fraterno amore 478B, C (Castor and Pollux); 480C (of the ‘sister’ Muses); 480E; 483C; 491A (of brothers); Lucian Dial, deorum 26.2.4 (Castor and Polydeuces); Philo Legatio 87 (of brothers); Joseph 218 (of Joseph's affection for his brothers); Josephus Ant. 2.6.9 (§161) (of Joseph's love of his brothers); 4.2.4 (§26) (of Moses' love for Aaron); 12.4.6 (§189) (of Josephus the Tobiad's love of his brother).

Φιλάδελφος is found in Epictetus Diss. 3.3.9 (of brothers); Plutarch Quaestiones Romanae 267E (of sisters); Solon 27.5 (of brothers); Xenophon Mem. 2.3.17 (cf. 19) (of brothers). Sotion (apud Stobaeus 4.27.17 = ed. Hense 4.660) (of brothers); Socrates Epistulae 28.12 (‘sociable’, ‘humane’); P. Lond. 1708.101 (of sisters). It appears on gravestones as a description of the deceased, either male (Preisigke, F., ed., Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten [Strassburg: Trubner, 1915-] No. 6235)CrossRefGoogle Scholar or female (No. 6234: 33 BCE; 6653). The titles αί/οίφιλάδελφοι (meaning either ‘the friendly brothers’ or ‘the sisters who loved brothers’ or vice versa) are attested for several lost plays from the middle (Amphis frags. 33–34) and new comedy (Menander frags. 503–508A; Philippides frag. 18; Sosicrates frag. 2; Diphilus frags. 81–82; Apollodorus of Gela frag. 3, all in Edmonds, Fragments of Attic Comedy [cited above]).

³² Betz, H. D., ‘De Fraterno Amore (Moralia 478A–492D)’, Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature [SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978] 232)Google Scholar suggests that the term entered Christian vocabulary via hellenized Judaism. See most recently, H.-J. Klauck, ‘Brotherly Love in Plutarch and in 4 Maccabees’, Greeks, Romans, and Christians [above n. 1] 144–56.

³³ Much later Jerome (Comment, ad Gal. 2.12 [PL 36:256.2; 381]) says that in his own time ‘Macedones in charitate laudantur et hospitalite ac susceptione fratrum’.

³⁴ Hock, Social Setting [above n. 11].

³⁵ MacMullen, R., Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University, 1974) 69–71Google Scholar. That this generalization applies specifically to Thessalonica is suggested by Tafrali, O. (Topographie de Thessalonique [Paris: Geuthner, 1913])Google Scholar who comments on Byzantine Thessalonica: The agora ‘était divisé en plusiers sections, chacque appartenant à une spécialité de marchandises’ (p. 148). See, in general, Kriesis, A., Greek Town Building (Athens: National Technical University, 1965)Google Scholar; Wycherley, R. E., How the Greeks Built Cities (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vickers, M., ‘Towards Reconstruction of the Town Planning of Roman Thessaloniki’, Ancient Macedonia 1 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1970) 239–51.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hence, the occasional examples of persons who were members of a trade association not because they practised that trade, but simply because they lived in the area. See Stambaugh, J. E., The Ancient Roman City (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1988) 149–53, 209–12.Google Scholar

³⁷ See, e.g., on Ostia, Meiggs, Russell, Roman Ostia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960)Google Scholar; Packer, J. E., The Insulae of Imperial Ostia (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1971).Google Scholar

³⁸ MacMullen, , Social Relations [n. 35], 63.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 64.

⁴⁰ The similarities between the organization of Pauline churches and Graeco-Roman professional and religious associations is now recognized by many. See e.g., Wilken, R. L., ‘Collegia, Philosophical Schools and Theology’, The Catacombs and the Colosseum (London: Oliphants, 1971) 268–91Google Scholar; Barton, S. and Horsley, G. H. R., ‘A Hellenistic Cult Group and the New Testament Churches’, JAC 24 (1981) 7–41Google Scholar. The relationship between Pauline churches and collegia was first noted by Hatch, E., The Organization of the Early Christian Churches: Eight Lectures (London: Rivingtons, 1881).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sailer, R. P., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982) 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacMullen, R., Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1966) 173–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Social Relations, [n. 35] 76–7.

⁴² This is very probable in the case of the Christian groups in Corinth, which counted among their numbers Erastus, the city treasurer (Rom 16.23), and Gaius, whose house was large enough to accommodate Paul and the ‘entire church’ (Rom 16.23; 1 Cor 1.14). See Countryman, L. W., ‘Patrons and Officers in Club and Church’, Society of Biblical Literature 1977 Seminar Papers (SBLASP 11; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 135–43.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Pervo, R. I., Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 77–8Google Scholar; Lüdemann, G., Early Christianity according to the Traditions of Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 185–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Hendrix, ‘Thessalonians Honor Romans’ [above n. 14] 108–9, 253–5, 287–8.

⁴⁵ On this see Donfried, ‘Cults’, 344, and Gundry, R. H., ‘The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians’, NTS 33 (1987) 161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Winter, B. W. (‘“If Any Man Does Not Wish to Work …” A Cultural and Historical Setting for 2 Thessalonians 3.6–16’, Tyndale Bulletin 40 [1989] 303–15)Google Scholar suggests that Paul counselled handwork and self-sufficiency in order to ‘wean such persons [Christian clients] from the welfare syndrome, be the source a wealthy Christian or non-Christian patron’ (309). This credits to Paul a rather modern disdain for the system of patronage; but Rom 16.1–3 and other texts show that Paul was not ideologically opposed to the patron-client relationship which, in any event, was an inescapable fact of economic and social life. Winter also assumes that a client who made no further demands on a patron ‘would … earn the respect of his patron’ (ibid.). This wholly misunderstands the nature of the relationship: a houseful of clients was a barometer of status; to have a former client go his (or her) own way was more likely to offend and dishonour than to command respect.

⁴⁷ See Stählin, G., ‘φιλέω’, TDNT 9 (1974) 118–23Google Scholar; Benko, S., Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1984) 79–102.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ That the admonition of 1 Thess 4.6 refers to interference in the marriage of a ‘brother’ has been shown by Yarbrough, O. L., Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul (SBLDS 80; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 73–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Winter (‘“If Any Man Does Not Wish to Work”’, 312) suggests that the church itself began providing for its poorer members. This is plausible, although it would have been accomplished not without (as Winter supposes) but with the assistance of patrons, either Christian or those willing to maintain or form a relationship with a Christian group. Nevertheless, as a comparison with other patron-client relationships shows, the amount of food or money that a patron would or could supply might be limited. And the community itself could hardly support all of the poor on its own accord (hence the injunction of 1 Thess 4.10–11). The example of 1 Tim 5, from a much later period, indicates that in the case of ‘widows’, the community supported those who had no other resources, but encouraged marriageable widows to remarry and those with relatives or patrons (1 Tim 5.16) to seek their support.

⁵⁰ Best, Thessalonians, 172.

⁵¹ D. Lührmann (‘The Beginnings of the Church at Thessalonica’, Greeks, Romans, and Christians [above n. 1] 237–49) argues precisely this: ‘The Greek term γαπν instead of φιλεῖν shows that Paul has in mind Lev 19.18, the “neighbors” being the “brothers and sisters”, their fellow Christians in Macedonia, those who are of the “household of faith” according to Gal 5:10’ (248).

⁵² Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians [above n. 19], 90.

⁵³ Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians [above n. 19], 115; similarly, Milligan, G., St Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Macmillan, 1908) 52.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Best, Thessalonians, 173.

⁵⁵ Koester, ‘I Thessalonians’ [above n. 17], 39. Mayer, G., (Index Philoneus [Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974])CrossRefGoogle Scholar lists 19 occurrences of αὐτομαθής and 44 for αὐτοδίδακτος.

⁵⁶ Ibid.

⁵⁷ Roetzel, ‘Theodidaktoi and Handwork’ [above n. 15]. De migratione 29–30: ‘When you have entered into [Isaac's] inheritance [of being self-taught] you cannot but lay aside toil; for the perpetual abundance of good things ever ready to hand gives freedom from toil.’

⁵⁸ Ibid., 330.

⁵⁹ Malherbe, ‘Exhortation’ [above n. 15], 253; Paul and the Thessalonians, 104–5. On Epicurus' claims see e.g., Cicero De natura deorum 1.72; De finibus 1.71; Diogenes Laertius 10.2–3. Other instances are collected by Pease, A. S., M. Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1955) 1.381–2Google Scholar and discussed by Festu-gière, A. M. J., Epicurus and His Gods (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955) 34.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cicero De finibus 1.65; Kyriai doxai 27 (= Diogenes Laertius 10.148). Friendship is a frequent topic in the Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum (ed. von der Muehll, P., Epicurus Epistulae tres et Ratae Sententiae [2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1966] 60–6).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Malherbe, ‘Exhortation’, 253 and n. 22 above.

⁶² LSJ lists only 1 Thess 4.9 for θεοδίδακτος but the term is not a hapax legomenon. It appears, however, only in Christian literature: Barn. 21.6; Athenagoras Legatio 11, 32; Theophilus Ad Autolycum 2.9; Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 29; Clement of Alexandria Paed. 1.6.27; Paed. 1.6.37; Strom. 1.20.98 (all referring to 1 Thess 4.9); Strom. 2.11.48; Strom. 2.18.84 (quoting Barn. 21.5); Strom. 6.18.166; Quis dives salvetur 20.2. The word appears in John Doxapatres' commentary on Aphthonius' Progymnasmata (ed. Rabe, H., Prolegomenon sylloge [Rhetores graeci 14; Leipzig: Teubner, 1931] 91)Google Scholar. From the fact that the Phoenix was sent to Achilles as a teller of tales (μύθων τε ῥητρ', Homer Il. 9.443) Doxapatres concludes that the poets (i.e., Homer) regarded rhetoric not only as ‘natural but as “god-taught”’ (μ φυσικν μόνον λλ καì θεοδίδακτον). But this usage is extremely late.

⁶³ Compare analogous formulations in which God is the direct agent of a passive verb (or equivalent formulation), e.g., 1 Thess 1.4: ἠγαπημένοι ὑπò [το] θεο, 1 Thess 2.4: δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπò το θεο, 1 Cor 2.12: εἰδμεν τ ὑπò το θεο χαριοθέντα, 1 Cor 2.13: oὐκ ν διδακτοῖς νθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις λλ' ν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος 2 Cor 1.4: παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοì ὑπò το θεο, Gal 4.9: νν δ γνόντες θεόν, μλλον δ γνωσθέντες ὑπò θεο. See also John 6.45: διδακτοì θεο, Ps. Sol. 17.35: διδακτòς ὑπò θεο

⁶⁴ Marshall (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 115) comments: ‘One may be tempted to ask cynically why the Spirit had taught them brotherly love but not apparently sexual purity.’

⁶⁵ The fundamental work on coinage is by Nock, A. D. (‘Word Coinage in Greek’, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 2.642–52)Google Scholar who concentrates on word coinage in the Hermetica.

⁶⁶ The degree of self-consciousness in regard to coinages is indicated by a telling passage in which Quintilian (8.3.30–7) lists fourteen neologisms and is able to identify the author responsible for each one. He reports instances of teachers banning the use of certain coinages: ‘My own teachers still persisted in banning the use of words, such as piratica, musica and fabrica, while Cicero regards favor and urbanus as but newly introduced into the language. For in a letter to Brutus he says: eum amorer et eum, ut hoc verb utar, “favorem” in consilium advocabo, while to Appius Pulcher he writes: te hominem non solum sapientem, verum etiam, ut nunc loquimur, “urbanum” [Ad Familiares 3.8.3].’

Clement of Alexandria displays sensitivity to the fact that θεοδίδακτος is a coinage of Paul's, using it at first only with express reference to 1 Thess 4.9 or Barn. 21.5 (see n. 62). He employs it freely only once its biblical usage has been clearly established. Barnabas uses the term only in his peroratio, i.e., precisely where one expects coinages (see the next note). It is perhaps an index of the rather rare character of φιλαδελφία that Clement only uses it in connection with biblical citations, and in Strom. 2.9.42.1 immediately explains with the much more common term φιλνθρωπία it is φιλανθρωπία τοῖς το αὐτο πνεύματος κεκοινωνηκόσιν.

⁶⁷ Aristotle (Rhet. 3.2.5) recommended caution in the use of neologisms: ‘… we should use strange, compound, or coined words only rarely and in few places’. He suggests that the practice leads to frigidity in style (Rhet. 3.3.1–2) and is suitable only to an emotional speaker (Rhet. 3.7.11). It is probably for this reason that Cicero and others recommend the use of neologisms only in the peroratio, where an appeal to emotion is expected. Cicero, De Partitione Oratorio 53: ‘Amplification therefore is a sort of weightier affirmation, designed to win credence in the course of speaking by arousing emotion. This is accomplished both by the nature of the language used and by that of facts adduced. Words must be employed that are powerfully illuminating without being inconsistent with ordinary usage, weighty, full, sonorous, compounds, coinages [facta], synonyms, unhackneyed, exaggerated, and above all, used metaphorically. This as to single words; in the sentences the words must be disconnected – asyndeton as it is called – so as to make them seem more numerous.’

⁶⁸ See Demetrius De elocutione 2.94–8; Lucian's Lexiphanes is a biting satire on the affectations of Atticism, and in his satire Rhetorum praeceptor, the teacher advises: ‘Sometimes you must yourself make up new monstrosities of words and prescribe that an able writer will be called “fine-dictioned” (εὔλεξειν), an intelligent man “sage-minded” (σοφόνουν), and a dancer “handiwise” (χειρίσοφον)’ (17).

⁶⁹ The only other possible coinage in 1 Thessalonians is ὑπερεκπερισσς in 5.13, i.e., just at the transition to the peroratio (see above n. 7).

⁷⁰ While φιλνθρωπία is very common, φιλαδελφία is restricted to the authors cited above in n. 31. It is absent from such authors as Apollodorus, Aristotle, Arrian, Cornutus, Dio Chrysostom, Diogenes Oenoandensis, Galen, Hierocles (except in Stobaeus’ title), Iamblichus, Philostratus, Plato, Porphyry, Sextus Empiricus, and Theophrastus. Aelius Aristides (Sacred tales 297.25, 27, 30; 297.36; 298.29, 32) uses Φιλάδελφος as a proper name and Diogenes Laertius refers to Ptolemy Philadelphus.

⁷¹ See Burkert, W., Greek Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1985) 212–13Google Scholar; Farnell, L. R., Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1921) 175–228.Google Scholar

⁷² Similar versions of the story are found in Homer Od. 11.298–304; Pindar Pythian Odes 11.61–64; Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3.11.2; Philo De decal. 56; Legatio 84; Lucian Dial. deorum 26.2; Plutarch De fraterno amore 484E; Clement Protrepticus 2.26.

⁷³ Cf. Suetonius Caligula 2–3: ‘[Gaius] built out a part of the Palace as far as the Forum, and making the temple of Castor and Pollux its vestibule, he often took his place between the divine brethren and exhibited himself there to be worshipped by those who presented themselves.’

⁷⁴ Betz, ‘De Fraterno Amore’, 234 n. 27. Interestingly, Plutarch continues with the statement, ‘For as to the exhortations this essay contains, since you are already putting them into practice you will seem to be giving testimony in their favour rather than to be encouraged to perform them’ (478B). Compare 1 Thess 4.10. Other parallels in the NT are noted by Betz, ‘De Fraterno Amore’.

⁷⁵ Bouché-Leclerq, A., Histoire des Lagides (Paris, 1903–6; repr. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963) 1:142 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. P.Oxy. 254: a sanctuary of the two brothers (ἱερòν δύo δελφν λεγόμενον); Suetonius Caligula 2–3; Ovid Fasti 1.706–7; Consolatio ad Liviam 290; Dio Chrysostom 61.11.

⁷⁷ A series of coins bear the head of Bernice on the obverse and a horn filled with fruit and either the two stars or the two πῖλοι (felt caps) of the Dioscuri. See I. N. Sboronos, Τ Νομίσματα το Κράτους τν Πτολεμαίων (Bibliotheke Marasle; Athens: P. D. Sakellariou, 1904–8) 1.244, 246, 251; 2.145 (nos. 962–3 = Plate XXIX 17–18, cf. also Plate XXIX 1–11); 2.153 (no. 991 =Plate XXXV 5).

⁷⁸ Text: Pfeiffer, R., Callimachus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949) 218–22Google Scholar (frag. 228). Arsinoë is addressed as ‘O stolen by the gods (ὧ δαίμοσιν ρπαγίμα, line 46). Other instances of the Dioscuri being associated with the Ptolemies are discussed by Chapouthier, F., Les Dioscures au service d'une déesse (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'athenes et de Rome 137; Paris: Boccard, 1935) 248–62, 262–7Google Scholar. See also Quaegebeur, J., ‘Cultes égyptiens et grecs en Egypte hellénistique: L'exploitation des sources’, Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Studia Hellenistica 27; Leuven, n.p., 1983) 303–24.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Chapouthier, Les Dioscures, 242.

⁸⁰ See Scott, K., ‘Drusus, Nicknamed “Castor”’, CP 25 (1930) 155–61Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Dioscuri and the Imperial Cult’, CP 25 (1930) 379–80; Rostovtzeff, M. I., ‘Le Empereur Tibère et le culte impérial’, Revue historique 163 (1930) 1–26.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Suetonius Tiberius 20; Dio Cassius 55.27.4.

⁸² Æ Dupondius, reverse: C(aius) CAESAR AUG(ustus) GERMANICUS PON(tifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunitia) POT(estate), obverse: NERO ET DRUSUS CAESARES. The fullest presentation of the evidence is found in Banti, A. and Simonetti, L., Corpus nummorum romanorum Vol. 12: Da Germanico a Caligula (Firenze: n.p., 1976) 150–3Google Scholar (Nos. 17/1–13, 2/1, 3/1–5). See also Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1923–1950) Nos. 44, 70–1.Google Scholar

⁸³ Keil, J., ‘Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, Jahreshefte des Österreichisches archäologisches Institut, Beiblatt 24 (1929) 62–4, 65–6.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ A full description is found in Hendrix, ‘Thessalonians Honor Romans’ [above n. 14] 148–50.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 151.

⁸⁶ Edson, C., Inscriptiones Thessalonicae et viciniae = Inscriptiones Graecae Vol. 10, Part 2: Inscriptiones Macedoniae Fasc. 1 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972)Google Scholar No. 56: ‘Αγά-θων Διονισίου κατ’ Διοσκόροις κατ' εὐχήν (‘Agathon, son of Dionysius to the Dioscuri, by a vow’).

⁸⁷ The index nominum for Edson's Inscriptiones Thessalonicae lists 20 persons named Dioscurê/ides and five Romans with Dioscurides as a cognomen; this compares with 20 for Alexander, 15 for Antigona/os, 18 for Apollonia/os, 21 for Demetria/os, 30 for Dionysia/os, 19 for Maxima/Maximos and 8 for Philippos. It is probably for this reason that Edson, C. (‘Cults of Thessalonica’, HTR 41 [1948] 189)Google Scholar described the proper name Dioscurides as ‘enormously popular’ in this region of Macedonia.

⁸⁸ See Heuzey, L., Missione archéologique de Macédonie (Paris, 1876) 1.272–3Google Scholar; Tafrali, Topographie [above n. 35] 102–4; Edson, ‘Cults’, 198; Hendrix, ‘Thessalonians Honor Romans’, 152–3. The gate is no later than 50 CE. On this, see Robert, L., Bulletin épigraphique 134 (1950) 171Google Scholar and idem, ‘Inscriptions de Thessalonique’, Revue de philologie 48 (1974) 208–9, who contests the somewhat later dating of Edson (‘Cults’, 200).

⁸⁹ An early reference to the ξενία appears in Pindar, Nemean Odes 10.9. See also the scholia to Pindar Ol. 3: Oί Διόσκυροι … φ' αυτν πενόησαν πανήγυριν Θεοξένια, παρ τò δοκεῖν τότε ξενίζειν τοὺς θεούς … See Farnell, Greek Hero Cults, 228.

⁹⁰ Euripides Orestes 1635–7; Diodorus Siculus 4.43.1–2. The texts are conveniently collected in Lehmann-Hartleben, K., Samothrace Vol. 1: The Ancient Literary Sources (Princeton: Princeton University, 1958)Google Scholar. See also the Homeric hymns 33.

⁹¹ Pausanias 3.24.5. On this see Harris, J. R., The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1903) 7.Google Scholar

⁹² Philo Legatio 84–5: ‘For having before his eyes the endless ages and reflecting that while he lived forever his brother would be dead forever, and his mourning for him would be as everlasting as his own existence, he [Polydeuces] achieved a great and marvellous reciprocation in that he mingled mortality with his own lot and indestructibility with his brother's, and thus made inequality, the source of injustice, vanish in equality, which is the fountain of justice.’

⁹³ Cumont, F., Recherches sur le symbolisme funeraire des Romains (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 35; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1942) 35–103.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Philo De decal. 56; Sextus Empiricus Adv. math. 9.37; Julian Or. 4.147A; Lydus De mensibus 4.17.

⁹⁵ Iamblichus De vita pythagorica 28.155.

⁹⁶ The allusion is to Homer Od. 11.303: ἄλλοτε μν ζώουσ' τερήμενοι, ἄλλοτε δ' αὗτε τεθνσιν.