Corpus-Paul

["Frank W. Hughes" <fwhughes AT sunbeach.net>]

Dear Mark,

Thanks for your long posting with many questions about the identification of 1 Thessalonians with the "early Paul."  I would refer you to the chronologies of Robert Jewett and Gerd Lüdemann published in 1979 and 1984 and also to the book of essays, The Thessalonian Correspondence, edited by Raymond F. Collins (BETL 87; Leuven: University Press & Peeters, 1990).  (I'd also like to see John Hurd's articles on chronology but confess I haven't as yet.)  The first essay in that book is by Karl P. Donfried, dealing with Acts and the early Paul.  Karl accepts a very early dating of 1 Thessalonians.  Karl, along with Bob Jewett and Gerd Lüdemann and I believe a majority of people who have worked recently on the Thessalonian letters, also agrees that 1 Thess. precedes the Jerusalem Conference.  In my article in the Collins volume, "The Rhetoric of 1 Thessalonians" (pp. 94-116) I also drop some hints about this as well.  Most rhetorical critics of Paul who make a genus identification of 1 Thessalonians identify it as epideictic rhetoric.  This is based on the lack of defense or prosecution in 1 Thessalonians.  (Jeff Weima disagrees with this.)  In other words 1 Thess. seems to come from a time before Paul had reason to (1) defend his apostolic ministry, (2) deal with a "Judaizer" crisis, (3) deal with any other manifestations of Jewish vs. Gentile Christian conflict.  In other words, Paul doesn't use any of the rhetorical apparatus of defense of his apostolic ministry (not even mentioning his title as apostle in the epistolary prescript of 1 Thessalonians!) because he doesn't think he needs to do so.  I am greatly influenced by the conventional interpretation of 1 Thess. 1:9-10, i.e., that Paul was writing to a Gentile congregation.  However, 1 Thess. also has other characteristics that point, I believe strongly, to a date relatively early in Paul's career.  Most important among these characteristics is Paul's naive view of the Parousia, believing that (as I tell my students) Jesus is coming back in the time between 2 weeks and 2 years, and believing that he and perhaps most believers will see the Parousia in their natural lifetimes.  Almost equally important with Paul's naive view of the extreme nearness of the Parousia is the fact that in 1 Thess. 4:1-8 Paul does not use any of the terminology of "flesh" vs. "spirit," when he could very reasonably be expected to do so if he had developed these categories before the writing of 1 Thessalonians.  I also agree with Gerd Lüdemann in his chronology book that Paul needed to explain the resurrection of Christians in 1 Thess. because he had not preached that on his founding visit to that city; he had only preached the resurrection of Christ.

If I were a smarter Pauline theologian than I am, I would also make an argument that 1 Thess. 4:13-5:3 reflects a more naive view of the resurrection and eternal life than 1 Cor. 15.  Help me out, John or somebody, please!

That ought to be enough for now.  I think it might be much more interesting to hear what you're doing with Galatians now, Mark.

All best wishes,
Frank W. Hughes
Codrington College
Barbados, West Indies