A Review Essay
by
James D. Hester
Research Professor and Professor of Religion, Emeritus
University of Redlands
Co-Director for
The Rhetorical New Testament Project at the
Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont;CA
and the Center for Rhetorics and Hermeneutics, Redlands, CA

The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Buetler, editors. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Paperback Xvi + 384. Bibliography and Indices. ($25)

Part One 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 as Symptomatic of the Exegetical Debate
Karl P. Donfried, "The Epistolary and Rhetorical Context of 1 Thessalonians"
Rudolf Hoppe, "The Epistolary and Rhetorical Context of 1 Thessalonians: A Response to Karl P. Donfried"
Traugott Holtz, "On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12"
Johan S. Vos, " On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12: A Response to Traugott Holtz"
Otto Merck, "1 Thessalonians 2:1-12: An Exegetical-Theological Study"
Jeffrey A. D. Weima, "The Function of 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and the Use of Rhetorical Criticism: A Response to Otto Merck"

Part Two: 1 Thessalonians: The Methodological Debate
Jan Lambrecht, "Thanksgivings in 1 Thessalonians 1-3"
Jan Lambrecht, "A Structural Analysis of 1 Thessalonians 4-6"
Johannes Schoon-Janßen, "On the Use of Elements of Ancient Epistolography in 1 Thessalonians"
Frank W. Hughes, "The Rhetoric of Letters"
Frank W. Hughes, "The Social Situations Implied by Rhetoric"
Charles A. Wanamaker, "Epistolary vs. Rhetorical Analysis: Is a Synthesis Possible?"
Edgar Krentz, "1 Thessalonians: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints"
Raymond F. Collins, "'I Command That This Letter Be Read': Writing as a Manner of Speaking"

This collection of essays is made up substantially of revised versions of papers presented at and discussed by members of the Seminar on the Thessalonian Correspondence, which met under the auspices of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas at its annual meetings between 1995 and 1997. The editors also included a revised form of "The Rhetoric of Letters" by Frank Hughes, which had first appeared as chapter two of his dissertation, Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians; and, a slightly revised form of Jan Lambrecht's "Thanksgivings in 1 Thessalonians 1-3," which had appeared in The Thessalonian Correspondence, edited by Raymond Collins. There is no attempt to preserve the original context and sequence of presentation or the original organizing rubric for the Seminar.

These studies make an important contribution to the current state of studies of 1 Thessalonians, but for me the collection also illustrates the impasse traditional scholarship has reached in its analysis of Pauline literature. While I came away from my reading with a better understanding not only of what studies of 1 Thessalonians have contributed to our understanding of the form of a Pauline letter, the function of epistolary formula in analyzing the structure of a letter, and the claims of those using classical rhetorical theory to shed light on historical situations, I also was left with a sense that traditional exegesis and formal literary analysis have reached their limits and rhetorical critics continue to worry too much about reconstructing history. The agenda of historical criticism informs almost every paper in the collection, and form, literary, epistolary, and rhetorical analyses are handmaidens to it. There seems to be little interest in relinquishing -- or at least trying not to give prominence to -- the quest for the historical Paul even though some of the authors recognize the potential of a quest for the rhetorical Paul. I believe Pauline scholars need to turn more fully to the analysis of 1 Thessalonians with tools provided by such things as discourse analysis [see, e.g. S. E. Porter & J. T. Reed, editors, Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (Sheffield, 1999)], rhetorical hermeneutics and style analysis based on oral and aural considerations, as has been recently highlighted by Pieter Botha ["Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity: Suggested implications for the interpretation of Paul's letter to the Galatians" Scriptura 42 (1992): 17-34], for example. It may also be useful to pay heed to scholars like Johannes Vorster ["The Context of the Letter to the Romans: A Critique on the Present State of Research" Neotestamentica 28 (1994): 127-145] and be more attentive to issues of invention and contextuality, in addition to understanding topics and forms within the matrix of function. The new agenda could begin with the promise of socio-rhetorical criticism enhanced by rhetorical pragmatism. What must happen, in any case, is an abandonment of almost complete reliance on the cul-de-sac of historical criticism.

In an introductory essay, "The Scope and Nature of the Debate: An Introduction and Some Questions," Karl Donfried provides a useful overview of the major points made by each of the authors, and himself raises questions about their analyses. Regarding the question of whether or not 2:1-12 should be considered an apology in which Paul defends himself against some cohort of accusers, Donfried points out that papers by him, Vos, and Merck take the position that the primary function of the passage is not apologetic, although Merck refers to it as a "potential apologia." Holtz and Weima, on the other hand, argue for understanding the section as an apology, and both Holtz and Weima express serious reservations about the ability of rhetorical criticism to analyze the implied historical situation mirrored in the passage.

The papers by Lambrecht and Schoon-Janßen analyze epistolary elements in the letter and offer opinions as to its genre. Lambrecht finds two major sections in the letter: 1-3, emphasizing thanksgiving and apology; and 4-5, consisting of exhortation and paraenesis. Schoon-Janßen provides a more formal analysis and argues that the letter should be understood as a letter of friendship. The balance of the papers explores the promise of rhetorical analysis and its relation to epistolary analysis. Most agree that epistolary analysis may help us understand the formal elements of letters used by Paul but can't lead the interpreter to an understanding of the whole. For that, rhetorical criticism seems to hold more promise. However, even that premise is shaky.

In addition to identifying the rhetorical arrangement of the letter in his first essay, Hughes argues in the second, written specifically for this collection, that rhetorical criticism can describe the social situations facing an author by describing the genus of a letter (forensic, deliberative, epideictic). It can also help identify the implication for authorial intention that the selection of one of them by the author has for understanding the rhetorical situation. Wanamaker and Krentz both deal with the question of whether or not some sort of synthesis between epistolary and rhetorical analysis can be forged. Wanamaker keeps the two separate by emphasizing the formal aspects of epistolary analysis in contrast with rhetorical criticism, which he sees as dealing with larger issues of "meaning and significance, intention and strategy." Krentz also points out the formal nature of epistolary analysis but wonders if rhetorical criticism based on the handbooks, particularly that of Aristotle, can be justified. Both have to be used with close attention to the text itself. Finally, Collins wants interpreters to pay close attention to the orality of the letter, i.e., that the letter is clearly intended to be read out loud and thus must be understood as a "speech act," which Donfried also claims but with less elaboration of what he understands by that phrase.

As one can discern from Donfried's overview, the question posed in the subtitle is answered by most of the authors in the negative; discord holds sway! I have chosen to review only four major papers because I think they each bring something new to the discussion. That is not, however, to devalue the careful argumentation found in all the other papers.

Donfried's essay on the epistolary and rhetorical context of 2:1-12 begins Part One of the collection. He chooses to use a type of rhetorical criticism to try to answer the question of whether or not the section should be called an "apology." After reviewing the various definitions of apology that have been used to describe the section, he goes on to describe the elements of a letter as established by epistolary analysis, which he regards as a kind of form-critical analysis that concerns itself with identifying the formal and structural elements of a Pauline letter, including such things as the letter opening, thanksgiving period, the letter body, etc. He also points out common letter formulas, such as a disclosure formula or travelogue. He concludes that this kind of analysis cannot provide a useful analysis of the main body of the letter and therefore can't answer the question of whether this section should be called an apology.

He then moves to "the rhetorical context," which he believes will help an interpreter understand why the letter is constructed the way it is and provide insight into the social situation of the letter. He argues that 1 Thessalonians should be seen as epideictic, and he accepts Hughes' construction of the arrangement of the letter, with 2:1-3:10 making up the Narrative section. Seen this way the topics of the Exordium are elaborated in the Narrative, which can then lead into the Partitio of 3:11-13, and the Proofs that follow in Chapters 4 and 5. Thus there is no need to understand 2:1-10 as a distinctive unit of apology but as part of a narrative that reminds the recipients of the letter both of the friendship they share with Paul and of Paul's ministry as an "ecstatic prophet" whose prophesy is a word of the Lord and whose example should be followed by the Thessalonians. In epistolary terms, therefore, the letter could be classified as an example of a "friendly" letter.

In an insightful exposition of the meaning of comforting and encouragement as the core activity of Paul's ministry among them and as the function of the letter, Donfried goes on to explain how the description of the facts of Paul's behavior in 2:1-12 serves to undergird the prophetic message and consolation Paul elaborates in the "proofs" found, for example, in 4:15-17 and in the exhortations found in 5: 19-21. In my mind, this exegesis is the distinctive element Donfried brings to the discussion.

Donfried's argument is an excellent example of the agenda of the collection. He tackles the exegetical debate about the form and function of 1 Thessalonians 2 by making use of an analytical model that offers a resolution not only of that question but also, indirectly, the one concerning the multiple thanksgiving periods in the letter. The problem I have with it, however, is not about his conclusions, but about his use of the method. It seems to me that the identification of sections of the letter as classically defined periods in the Dispositio of the argument hasn't really added anything to his analysis, if the goal of the analysis is to understand a particular unit within the context of the whole argument. His analysis would work even if he didn't identify 1:2-10 as the Exordium, or 2:1-3:10 and the Narrative, for example. As Wanamaker and Krentz both show, citing with approval Olbricht's neo-Aristotelian analysis of the letter, it is possible to include chapters 2 and 3 as part of the "proofs," eliminating entirely a "statement of facts," which is more characteristic of forensic rhetoric than the other genera. Donfried's analysis illustrates the point made by Stanley Porter and Weima that the danger of trying to fit Paul's argument into classical categories after the fact is very real indeed.

On the other hand, Donfried's essay is also illustrative of the problem of the collection. Although I have no firm suggestion to offer for an alternative structure, the arrangement of the papers seems less than intuitive. Although Part One is designed to illustrate the diversity of interpretations of an exegetical crux, and Part Two the diversity of methodologies underlying various exegetical attempts to resolve the crux, it might have made more sense to put the papers by Wanamaker and Krentz first to set out the problems and promise of epistolary and rhetorical analysis, then those using primarily epistolary analysis, then rhetorical, then Donfried's and those of the respondents, and then Collins. The question of whether or not 2:1-12 is an apology is not really a formal literary question but a rhetorical one, i.e., does it function within the context of the argument as an apology? On the other hand, the identification of the Thanksgiving period is a question of form. In any case, like so many collections of essays, the reader will have to decide in what order to read the papers!

Although he doesn't take up directly the question of the form and function of 2:1-12, Wanamaker does address the question of the value of rhetorical analysis of the letters versus that of epistolary, which he prefers to call "formal literary analysis." In doing so, he reviews the most well known conclusions reached by scholars who have used formal analysis, including Jack Sanders and John White who have argued that the thanksgiving period ends at 1:10; Robert Funk who has defined the period he calls the "travelogue" or "apostolic parousia"; and Hendrikus Boers who argues that 2:1-12 is an "apology" and that 4:1-5:22 should be seen as one part of a six part structure and not considered as a entirely separate "Paraenesis." He also provides a survey and criticism of the rhetorical analyses done by scholars such as George Kennedy, Robert Jewett, Frank Hughes, Wilhelm Wuellner, and Tom Olbricht. Understanding the goal of rhetorical analysis as seeking "to work backward from the text to its rhetorical intention in its rhetorical situation and to the strategies and styles adopted in the text to realize the rhetorical intentions within their rhetorical situation," Wanamaker is able to sort through and illustrate the very different kinds of rhetorical analysis that these scholars practice.

Wanamaker's work is important in at least two levels: he implicitly maintains a careful distinction between rhetorical analysis, which he defines, following David Aune, as an examination of the persuasive character of letters in terms of the forms of their arrangement and the execution of their argument; and rhetorical criticism, which he seems to be doing throughout the paper even though he never clearly describes it as such. For the reviewer this is an important distinction because it might well be possible to do rhetorical analysis of Paul's letters using ancient rhetorical and epistolary handbooks, while making it clear that rhetorical criticism need not make use of such tools.

Wanamaker emphasizes something else missing in most of the other papers. In reviewing and critiquing Wuellner's analysis of the letter, he notes that Wuellner doesn't discuss invention, "a crucial factor for understanding the persuasive character of the writing as a whole." (p. 275) Unless I have missed it, Krentz is the only other author who mentions the "canon" of "invention" at any length in discussing the analysis of the letter. However, even Wanamaker does not reflect on power and the constraint Paul placed on his message by making the inventional choice of the letter genre to convey his argument. In talking about the limitations of formal literary analysis, he doesn't acknowledge the function of formulae as elements of argumentation, pointing the hearer through the topography of the argument. Thus the Thanksgiving period or the "apostolic travelogue" are not just formulae but should identified and analyzed as integral parts of the context of persuasion. It is that realization that ought to provide the synthesis the Wanamaker and other are hard pressed to find. In this collection only Collins approaches it.

Krentz faces directly the value of rhetorical analysis as it has been practiced in the last decade and raises some important caveats about its use. For example, he reviews with appreciation the objections of Stanley Porter and Joachim Classen to the use of ancient rhetoric for analyzing Paul's arguments. He questions reliance on handbooks that post date Paul and indeed on any Latin handbooks. He raises important questions about the tendency to focus on description of arrangement to the exclusion of invention and style. However, he also admits the potential of rhetorical analysis, properly constrained, so he turns to the inventional question of genre and after reviewing the proposals that 1 Thessalonians is deliberative (Kennedy), epideictic (Jewett and Donfried), or "church rhetoric" (Olbricht), he argues that it is probably deliberative, while admitting Olbricht might also be correct. He then moves to the issue of structure by analyzing modes of proof in the letter and elements characteristic to them. In doing so he illustrates his argument that most scholars discern the structure inductively and then try to impose the argument on it. Krentz wants to remind rhetorical critics that handbook examples were meant for instruction and illustration but that in practice the use of structural elements was much more flexible.

Towards the end of the paper, Krentz makes an important observation. He disagrees with Wanamaker in his argument that epistolary analysis produces fragmentation of the letter to the detriment of discerning the argument as a whole. To believe that, says Krentz, is like arguing that identification and description of topoi in an argument would fragment it. Unfortunately, Krentz does not elaborate on that observation. It seems to me that forms, like topics, undergird the topography of an argument and while that observation might seem trite to some, its relevance is often ignored.

Collins' paper deals with a historical phenomenon that is often paid lip service by scholars but then forgotten when their hermeneutical move is made. He attempts to synthesize epistolary and rhetorical analysis by pointing out those places in the letter where Paul alludes to speaking either to the Thessalonians themselves or some other audience. The letter itself should be understood as a "speech act" and fits the category of a "friendly letter." He claims that throughout the letter there are what he calls "echoes of orality," reflected in stylistic elements from Hellenistic rhetoric. (He doesn't allude to any of the studies that describe the predominance of "reading out loud" in the ancient world and their implication that any text may well be primarily an enshrinement of "speech" and therefore primarily a rhetorical artifact.) He also describes how epistolary elements can function as elements of a speech, and supports his observations with appeal to epistolary handbooks in which the norms of letter writing are related to rhetorical practice. That move seems to me to be the most promising avenue to synthesis.

While Collins' proposals come as near to producing a synthesis of method as any I have encountered, I have a small quarrel with what I interpret to be his understanding of "speech act." He seems to mean that the letter was intended to be read aloud to the recipients. But the phrase, "speech act", has a technical meaning in literary criticism that he and others in the volume who use it ignore. Speech Act Theory claims that a speaker or writer often performs at least three "speech acts": (1) a locution; (2) an illocutionary act; and (3) a perlocutionary act. For example, Paul's statement that he is going to visit the recipients of a letter is an illocutionary act because it warns the hearer of his intent, but it can also be perlocutionary because it can cause the hearer to take action to prepare for the visit. (Obviously this illustration is far too simple to describe the theory, and the reader is referred for examples of the use of speech act theory to Kjell Arne Morland's monograph, The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians, to see a fuller explanation and application of the theory to analysis of an argument.) The point is that reading a letter to a community of Christians was a rhetorical act, not a "speech act"! It would be more useful to deal in detail with the constraints of "orality in absentia" to see if Paul might have deliberately structured sound into argument as an aid to persuasion.

Finally, to turn to some minor, admittedly niggling points.

Jeffrey A. D. Weima questions the utility of using rhetorical criticism to analyze Paul's letters, repeating criticisms of such attempts made by such scholars as Stanley Porter and Dennis Stamps. In setting up his argument, he makes the following statement, "If rhetorical criticism is defined as the 'art of persuasion,' then I readily grant that Paul employs a variety of literary or so-called 'rhetorical' devices that are universally practiced in the everyday use of language…" (p. 124) I know of no rhetorical critic who would define rhetorical criticism in this manner. I have a book on my shelf that offers eight different definitions of rhetorical criticism, excluding those formulated by the pragmatists and feminist theorists. Perhaps Weima meant to repeat Aristotle's definition of rhetoric as the "art" of persuasion. Whatever his intent, his description of rhetorical analysis is largely derivative of Porter and demonstrates little knowledge of modern theories of rhetoric as opposed to literary criticism. Given Weima's earlier work, that is surprising.

Traugott Holtz assesses the potential value of rhetorical criticism as calling attention to the unity of the argument of a given Pauline letter, which in turn means that a particular argumentative unit finds meaning within the topography of the whole argument. "The particular must be understood within the whole, which, in turn, can only be presented in the particulars." (p. 69) But then he questions whether such "intellectual theories" can be applied to "literary products" originating in circumstances that are not clearly understood. Implying that they cannot, he doubts that such theories can lead to the "royal road to the discovery of the 'essential message.'" (p. 70)

The implied requirement that there be clarity regarding the historical circumstances of writing and the reference to a quest for the "essential meaning" of a text or rhetorical artifact suggests an essentialism or foundationalism that is not characteristic of rhetorical criticism. Rhetorical critics would not argue that there is one meaning enshrined in a text. In general they reject of hegemony of historical criticism and its attempt to describe the "facts." In the twentieth century, definitions of the function of rhetorical criticism have ranged from evaluating the effect of a speech, to assessing the quality of a speech, to judging whether or not a speech is a fitting response to a situation, to understanding rhetorical discourse as a discourse of power, to analyzing small group communication as indicative of and contributing to group identification. Rhetorical critical analysis, however, does not seek the "essential meaning" of a rhetorical artifact but its contextual, social and performative ethic. Elizabeth Schuessler Fiorenza's latest monograph, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies, is illustrative of a rhetorical criticism that challenges essentialist notions.

A final, quick observation: In several essays the presence of eschatological language or teaching in various places throughout the letter is noted. On the other hand, nowhere is there an attempt to analyze apocalyptic discourse as a potential contributor to the organization and argument within the letter. For that I would recommend the essays in Vision and Persuasion, edited by Greg Carey and Greg Bloomquist, and particularly Duane Watson's essay in that volume, "Paul's Appropriation of Apocalyptic Discourse: The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Thessalonians."

All in all this is a handsome, useful volume, and the essays by Wanamaker and Krentz alone justify its purchase. As Robert Jewett points out in a statement on the rear cover, the collection demonstrates that the work of the Seminar has contributed to pushing forward the quest to understand 1 Thessalonians. Thus it should be an integral part of the library of any serious student of the letter, and it would serve admirably as a textbook for graduate level classes on the letter. However, to return to my thesis, it is time for a New Quest for the Rhetorical Paul!

In closing, the beauty of a review published on-line is that the authors being reviewed or readers of the review can challenge or raise questions of the reviewer, which might even result in a change in something said in the review! I welcome such exchange. If interested, contact me at hester@uor.edu, or if you are a member, use the discussion lists Rhetoric-L or Corpus Paulinum.