¹ Schubert, Paul, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving. Beihefte zur ZNW 20 (Berlin, Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1939).Google Scholar

² Dibelius, Martin, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 3rd ed. with an appendix by Gerhard Iber, 1959), pp. 239–41;Google ScholarE.T., , From Tradition to Gospel, by Wolf, Bertram Lee (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935), pp. 238–40; alsoGoogle ScholarAn die Thessalonicher I II An die Philipper, HNT 11 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1937).Google Scholar

³ Cf. the survey by Doty, William G., Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973).Google Scholar

⁴ Adolf Deissmann believed that Paul's letters were largely unstructured, except for the conventional salutation, thanksgiving and closing. Cf. Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 4th ed. 1923), pp. 198–206.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. op. cit. p. 184.

² Op. cit. p. 27.

³ This is the length of the period according to Schubert, cf. op. cit. pp. 9, 17, although he does suggest that this is not very definite, cf. pp. 7 and 9.

⁴ Op. cit. p. 24, cf. 24–7.

⁵ Op. cit. pp. 13 f.

⁶ Op. cit. p. 18.

⁷ Loc. cit.

⁸ Loc. cit.

⁹ Op. cit. p. 19.

¹ Op. cit. pp. 20 f.

² Op. cit. p. 26, cf. p. 7; von Dobschütz, Ernst, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 7th ed. 1909), p. 62: ‘…materially it contains everything Paul had on his heart concerning his personal relationship to the congregation’.Google Scholar

³ Op. cit. p. 26.

⁴ Op. cit. p. 25.

¹ Loc. cit.

² Sanders, Jack T., ‘The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus’, J.B.L. LXXXI (1962), 348–62.Google Scholar

³ Op cit. pp. 348 f.

⁴ Op. cit. p. 349.

⁵ Loc. cit.

⁶ Op. cit. pp. 349–52.

⁷ Op. cit. p. 352.

⁸ Op. cit. p. 354.

⁹ Mullins, Terence Y., ‘Petition as a Literary Form’, Nov. Test. V (1962), 46–54; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar‘Disclosure: a Literary Form in the New Testament’, Nov. Test. VII (1964), 44–50.Google Scholar

¹⁰ White, John L., The Form and Structure of the Official Petition, SBL Dissertation Series 5 (1972); andGoogle Scholar‘Introductory formulae in the body of the Pauline letter’, J.B.L. XC (1971) 91–7.Google Scholar

¹¹ Op. cit. p. 354.

¹² Op. cit. p. 352.

¹³ Op. cit. p. 356, cf. pp. 355 f.

¹⁴ Op. cit. p. 356.

¹⁵ Op. cit. p. 360, cf. pp. 357–62.

¹⁶ Op. cit. p. 356.

¹ Loc. cit.

² Schmithals, Walter, ‘Die Thessalonicherbriefe als Briefkomposition’, Zeit und Geschichte, Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. by Dinkler, Erich (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1964), pp. 295–315;Google Scholar‘Die historische Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe’, Paulus und die Gnostiker (Hamburg-Bergstedt: Herbert Reich–Evangelischer Verlag GmbH, 1965), pp. 89–157.Google Scholar

³ ‘Die Thessalonicherbriefe als Briefkomposition’, pp. 304 f.; ‘Die historische Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe’, pp. 96 f.

⁴ Op. cit. p. 356.

⁵ Loc. cit.

⁶ Op. cit. p. 357.

⁷ Op. cit. p. 358.

⁸ Op. cit. p. 359.

⁹ Op. cit. p. 360, cf. 356.

¹⁰ Op. cit. p. 361.

¹ Both Funk and White already consider the apostolic parousia as part of the body.

² In a letter dated 16 June 1973.

³ CfFunk, Robert, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 264–70; and especiallyGoogle Scholar‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. by Farmer, W. R., Moule, C. F. D. and Niebuhr, R. R. (Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 249–68; alsoGoogle ScholarWhite, John Lee, ‘The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-body in the Non-literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle’, Vanderbilt Ph.D. dissertation 1970, now also as SBL Dissertation Series 2 (1972), pp. 97–108. Page numbers are to the dissertation. In the SBL publication a blank page 6 has been added, giving one number higher in the page enumeration after p. 6.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. ‘The form and function of the body of the Greek letter’, pp. 10–65.

⁵ Cf. above, p. 143 n. 2, p. 143 nn. 9, 10.

⁶ Cf. Sanders, op. cit. p. 360.

⁷ Cf. Sanders, op. cit. pp. 159 f.

¹ ‘The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter’, pp. 41–50, 70 f., 97–110, 139–50, 158–61.

² Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, pp. 263–74.

³ Op. cit. p. 274, under footnote 84; cf. ‘The Apostolic Parousia’, p. 249.

⁴ ‘The Apostolic Parousia’, p. 251.

⁵ Op. cit. p. 249.

⁶ Op. cit. p. 262.

⁷ Cf. op. cit. p. 258.

⁸ Op. cit. pp. 252 ff., cf. 251–4.

⁹ I give the subdivisions only for those sections where the items are really separate.

¹⁰ Cf. loc. cit., footnote 1.

¹¹ The separate enumeration of 3a and b do not seem justified, notwithstanding Funk's justification, loc. cit., footnote 2. They are nevertheless quoted in order not to confuse the enumeration.

¹² Funk's designation for this item is ‘apostolic parousia’. In order to distinguish it from the underlying theme of the section as a whole, I propose the designation indicated above, for which there is justification in the following statement of Funk: ‘The underlying theme…is the apostolic parousia– the presence of apostolic authority and power – of which the travelogue in the narrow sense is only one element.’ Op. cit. p. 249.

¹ Op. cit. p. 258.

² Op. cit. p. 259.

³ Op. cit. p. 261.

⁴ Op. cit. p. 263.

⁵ ‘Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.Chr.’, Annales academiae scientiarum Fennicae CII B, 2 (1956), 260, footnote 2, cf. Funk, loc. cit.Google Scholar

⁶ Op. cit. p. 265.

⁷ Op. cit. p. 263, footnote 1.

⁸ Op. cit. p. 261.

⁹ Op. cit. p. 41, cf. p. 63, also the remark on p. 41, footnote 37.

¹⁰ Op. cit. p. 8.

¹¹ White, op. cit. p. 62, footnote 58.

¹ Op. cit. p. 41.

² Loc. cit., footnote 37.

³ Op. cit. p. 43.

⁴ Cf. op. cit. pp. 44–50. Unfortunately White does not give examples from papyri letters in which more than one item occurs.

⁵ Op. cit. p. 160, cf. p. 102. My emphasis.

⁶ Op. cit. p. 160, cf. 103 f.

⁷ Op. cit. p. 102.

⁸ Op. cit. p. 104, cf. pp. 160 f.

⁹ Op. cit. p. 104.

¹ Op. cit. pp. 105 f. White's emphasis and parentheses.

² Cf. above, p. 143.

³ Op. cit. p. 356, cf. above, p. 143.

⁴ Loc. cit., cf. above, p. 144.

⁵ Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, p. 271, cf. 269.

⁶ Op. cit. p. 269; cf. ‘The Apostolic Parousia’, p. 254.

⁷ Cf. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, p. 270.

¹ Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God, p. 269.

² Op. cit. pp. 114–18.

³ Op. cit. p. 117.

⁴ Malherbe, Abraham, ‘“Gentle as a Nurse”. The Cynic background to I Thess. II’, Nov. Test. XII (1970), 203–17.Google Scholar

⁵ Malherbe, op. cit. p. 217.

⁶ Malherbe, Abraham, ‘I Thessalonians as a Paraenetic Letter’ (unpublished 1972 SBL Seminar paper), p. 14.Google Scholar

⁷ For the problems in connection with this second κα⋯ in ii. 13, cfFrame, James Everett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1912, 2nd impression 1946), pp. 106 f.;Google ScholarMasson, Charles, Les Deux Épîtres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament XIa (Neuchâtel/Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1957), p. 31. Von Dobschütz takes the κα⋯ not with ⋯μεῑς, but with εὐχαριστο⋯μεν: ‘…this “we” here has no emphasis.’ Cf. op. cit. p. 103.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. above, p. 144, and footnotes 2 and 3.

² ‘Die Thessalonicherbriefe als Briefkomposition’, p. 305; ‘Die historische Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe’, p. 96.

³ ‘Die Thessalonicherbriefe als Briefkomposition’, p. 304; ‘Die historische Situation der Thessalonicherbriefe’, p. 96.

⁴ So von Dobschütz, op. cit. p. 103.

⁵ CfBlass, Friedrich/Debrunner, Albert, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1949), par. 442.12;Google ScholarE.T., and rev., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, by Funk, Robert W. (Chicago: University Press, 1961), par. 442 (12).Google Scholar

⁶ Pearson, Birger A., ‘I Thessalonians 2: 13–16: a Deutero-Pauline Interpolation’, H.T.R. LXIV (1971) 79–94.Google ScholarThe suggestion had been made by Baur, F. C., Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (1845), p. 483;Google ScholarE.T., , Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, by Menzies, A., from the 2nd ed. by Zeller, Eduard (London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1875), 11, 87 f., followed by a number of scholars in the nineteenth century, but was rejected by most twentieth-century scholars.Google ScholarA notable exception is Eckhard, K. G., ‘Der zweite echte Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Thessalonicher’, Z.Th.K. LVIII (1961), 30–44, specifically pp. 32–4, whose reasoning, however, Pearson does not accept. Cf. op. cit. p. 90, footnote 65.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. Pearson, op. cit. pp. 91 f.

² Op. cit. pp. 81–7.

³ So also Pearson, who remarks that ‘the “apostolic parousia” is introduced formally not by the verses from 13–16 at all, but by the apostle's remarks in vv. 11–12’ (op. cit. p. 90). My own understanding of the connection between the apostolic apology and parousia sections had already been formed before I encountered Pearson's article. Recognition of the connection is not dependent on the assumption that ii. 13–16 is an interpolation. Cf. also Schubert, who notes ‘the absence of a formal transition between the section which closes with ii. 16 and that which begins with ii. 17’, and that ‘in a general way (the topic of ii. 17 ff.) follows most naturally upon the reminiscences of his former relations to the church (ii. 1–12)’ (op. cit. p. 23).

⁴ Cf. in that regard the difference in character between the opening formulae of I Cor. i. 10 and I Thess. ii. 1, referred to above, pp. 143f.

¹ Betz, Hans Dieter, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972).Google Scholar

² Within what can be considered the body of Galatians(i. 6–v. 12), the apostolic apology (i. 10–ii. 21) and the two exposition-of-scripture sections (iii. 6–iv. 7 and iv. 22–30) are supportive arguments for this main concern. The admonition section of iv. 12–20 is framed by the two exposition-of-scripture sections. In the case of Galatians the normal exhortation section (v. 13–vi. 10) is a mere appendage. This may already be suggested by the absence of an introductory formula such as λοιπ⋯ν οτυν, ⋯δελφο⋯, ⋯ρωτ⋯μεν (I Thess. iv. 1) or παρακαλ⋯ οτυν ὑμ⋯ς, ⋯δελφο⋯ (Rom. xii. 1).

³ Cf. Schubert, op. cit. p. 24.

¹ Bjerkelund, Carl J., Parakalō: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalō-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen. Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica I (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967).Google Scholar

² Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, pp. 239–41; E.T., pp. 238–40.

³ Op. cit. p. 239. In his commentary he refers only to iv. 1–10. ‘The admonitions, iv. 1–10, constitute, at least through iv. 8, merely reminders of rules of Christian behavior which were already given.’ An die Thessalonicher I II An die Philipper, pp. 19 f.

⁴ Cf. An die Thessalonicher I II, pp. 19 f.

⁵ That would also explain the switch from sexual morality to the question of avarice in v. 6, making the suggestion of Grill, S., ‘In das Gewerbe seines Nächsten eingreifen I Thess. 4, 6’, Bibl. Zeit. XI (1967), 118, unnecessary.Google Scholar

⁶ Op. cit. pp. 24–8, 32 f.

¹ Op. cit. p. 58, cf. p. 109.

² Op. cit. p. 87, cf. p. 109, III.

³ Op. cit. p. 87, cf. p. 74.

⁴ Op. cit. pp. 73 f.

⁵ Op. cit. p. 110.

⁶ Loc. cit.

⁷ Lot. cit.

⁸ Op. cit. pp. 139 f., cf. 118–40.

⁹ Op. cit. p. 122. For Philemon cfWhite, John L., ‘The Structural Analysis of Philemon: a Point of Departure in the Formal Analysis of the Pauline Letter’, SBL 107th Annual Meeting Seminar Papers (1971), I, 1–47; and the unpublished responses by M. Luther Stirewalt Jr., ‘The Letter from Paul to Philemon: the letter-setting’, and Harry Gamble, ‘The formal analysis of Philemon and the formal analysis of other Pauline letters’. The already excessive length of the present survey prohibits the tempting enterprise of a discussion of this letter.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The adjured injunction of v. 27 may have a weakened meaning in the sense of παρακαλ⋯ ὑμ⋯ς ⋯νκυρ⋯ῳ. Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I II, p. 32; cf. Bjerkelund, op. cit. p. 130.

¹¹ Cf. Bjerkelund, op. cit. p. 129.

¹² Op. cit. p. 130.

¹³ Loc. cit.

¹ Op. cit. p. 132.

² On iv. 13–18, cfMarxsen, Willi, ‘Auslegung von I Thess. 4, 13–18’, Z.Th.K. LXVI (1969), 22–37.Google Scholar

³ Op. cit. p. 134.

⁴ Loc. cit. My emphases.

⁵ Cf. in this regard also the identification of two successive disclosure–petition structures in I Thess. i. 2–iii. 13; iv. 1–12 and iv. 13–v. 11; v. 12–22, respectively, by Graydon F. Snyder (‘Apocalyptic and Didactic Elements in I Thessalonians’, SBL 1972 Proceedings, 1, 233–44, specifically pp. 357 f., and ‘A Summary of Faith in an Epistolary Context’, op. cit. 11, 355–66, specifically pp. 235 f.). I do not consider Snyder's attempt successful. Space does not permit its discussion here.

The situation is similar in the case of the suggestion by John Hurd that I Thessalonians has a substructure based on the triad love, faith and hope in the following way: (1) Christian love established in the past (ii. 1–12); (11) Christian faith fulness in the present (ii. 17–iii. 8); (III) Christian hope for the future (iv. 13–v. 11), framed by the three thanksgivings, transitional material and the closing admonitions of v. 12–28. Cf. John Hurd, ‘Concerning the Structure of I Thessalonians’ (unpublished 1972 SBL seminar paper), p. 41. Especially useful is Hurd's discussion of suggested internal, especially chiastic, patterns in the letter (op. cit. pp. 21–8). He points out that one may be sceptical about some of the patterns that have been suggested by various scholars, ‘but Paul does seem capable, often in surprising detail, to work his way to the center of an idea and then to unwind the sequence so as to end where he began’ (op. cit. p. 22).

⁶ Bradley, David G., ‘The Topos as a form in the Pauline paraenesis’, J.B.L. LXXII (1953), 238–46.Google Scholar

⁷ Op. cit. pp. 245 f.

¹ Op. cit. p. 240.

² Op. cit. p. 243.

³ Op. cit. p. 244.

⁴ Op. cit. p. 242.

⁵ Op. cit. p. 246.

⁶ Op. cit. pp. 239 f., cf. p. 246.

⁷ Op. cit. pp. 22–37.

¹ Bradley, op. cit. p. 246.

² Cf. above, pp. 151–2.

³ Cf. above, pp. 151–3.

⁴ Cf. ‘I Thessalonians as a Paraenetic Letter’, esp. pp. 16–18; cf. above, p. 150.

⁵ Op. cit. p. 134, cf. above, p. 156.