Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - 1 Thess and the 'Early Paul'

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Craig S de Vos <csdevos AT trinity.unimelb.edu.au>
  • To: Corpus Paulinum <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: 1 Thess and the 'Early Paul'
  • Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:58:44 +1000

Only having just come back from Easter break and finding over 200 posts from this list it has taken a while to absorb at that has been said! I think Mark Nanos is right to point out that the difference in Paul's argument and use of theological topoi (if we may call them that) between 1 Thess and the other genuine/undisputed paulines may be due to the context and issues being addressed rather than development in his thought. So...

>>The problems that are addressed in 1 Thess. 4:13ff. may point to an early
and naive Paul, but they might point other places. I noted some in my
earlier post. Why not consider that in a fully Greek city an issue like the
ultimate destiny of the individual was of greater concern than it had been
in the areas worked by the "early Paul," where perhaps not as much
emphasis, or the presuppositions brought to bear by new Christ-believers,
did not lead to developing this position statement until pressed upon Paul
"later," thus 1 Thess.? The earlier Paul dealt with the problem of
integrating gentiles into Jewish communal situations, thus justification by
faith and all the "DIK" language; maybe this "mid-" or "late-Paul" has to
deal with "pagan" social situations that only now begin to arise outside of
a Jewish communal situation, and in Greece. They have different concerns....
Maybe justification by faith language is missing from 1 Thess. because it was
not thought by Paul to apply to their kinds of problems, if not involving the
communal identity of gentiles in Jewish environments.)<<

But the question this raises is what we mean by the "early" or "later" Paul? If we take the "early" Paul, as Mark seems to be arguing, as the Paul prior to the writing of any of the letters, then we would have to define all of the letters as coming from the "mid" or "late" Paul. In which case, we are still left with the problem of where we fit 1 Thess and Gal. It is a huge assumption to claim that the issues and arguments Paul develops in Gal must flow from the "early" Paul. Can we be sure that the "early" Paul, even by this definition, was concerned with "the problem of integrating gentiles into Jewish communal situations". Indeed, in Gal 1:16 Paul's call is specifically to preach EN TOIS EQNESIN, in response to which Paul goes to Arabia -- presumably to preach to the Gentiles. How many Jews would there have been there? Would the Jew-Gentile problem have arisen there? Surely you would need to demonstrate that before you could claim that this issue dominated the thinking of the "early" Paul and that the issues we find in 1 Thess come from a later period. Mark also ignores the significance of Paul's reference to Titus in Gal 2:1-3. The whole Jew-Gentile issue only arises after Paul brings him to Jerusalem. Prior to that (i.e., the events described in Gal 2:1ff), Titus' non-circumcision does not appear to have been an issue. Surely that suggests that whatever issues the "early" Paul had to deal with, the Jew-Gentile one was not one of them. Personally, I think it is impossible to talk about the thought of this "early" Paul simply because we have no information to go on. We simply cannot assume that either the "theology" of Gal or 1 Thess is representative at this point in Paul's career.

Nevertheless, if we define the "early" Paul in terms of the materials we have, i.e., the letters, and seek to demonstrate development in his thought in respect to them, we are on very different ground. If we leave aside the Lukan fabrication that Paul's primary missionary venue was the diaspora synagogue, but take the private home, "workshop" or forum/agora as the more likely option (since he clearly understands himself as the "apostle to the Gentiles"), would not issues concerning "Greek" converts vis-a-vis their neighbours and their relationships with their communities/cities have arisen very early? As such, there is nothing to disqualify 1 Thess from being very early. Indeed, it is possible that if Paul preached in such circumstances and such conditions that such issues would have developed before issues related to Jew-Gentile relations did. This would appear to support my observation re Titus in Gal 2:1ff.

Furthermore, as Frank Hughes asserted, "it is impossible for us not to compare 1 Thessalonians with the Hauptbriefe". Indeed, should we not compare 1 Thessalonians with all of the genuine or undisputed paulines? Again, as Frank noted "When you have all of the other authentic letters of Paul having quite consistently justification and the issues and language that go with it, and then when you see that 1 Thessalonians doesn't have those things, it seems logical for us to account for that lack historically". To be more specific, let's compare 1 Thessalonians and Philippians. Both letters appear to be addressed to specifically non-Jewish churches (again, if we leave aside the fabrications of Acts) that are experiencing conflict with their wider Graeco-Roman communities (cf. Phil 1:29-30, 1 Thess 1:6 -- on this see my forthcoming book from Scholars Press: Church and Community Conflicts). In both letters Paul addresses issues of eschatology (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-5:11; Phil 3:10-21), but the issues are different, and the differences are reflected in Paul's treatment. I would be hesitant to attribute them to development. But in 3:2-11 we do have Paul apparently dealing with the matters concerning circumcision, the law and DIKAIOSUNH. Although I do not think Paul is actually addressing problems of Jew-Gentile relations at this point (NB Paul's concern here is entirely with status/appearance, and the bottom line in his argument seems to be resurrection and suffering with Christ, not matters concerning circumcision, the law and DIKAIOSUNH per se -- again see my forthcoming book), he does draw on this language in a sort of shorthand fashion. Either this is still rudimentary at this stage (i.e., Gal and Rom reflect a later stage of development), or he is simply referring in a short of shorthand to issues he has touched on previously. In either case, it would seem to be apparent that circumcision, the law and DIKAIOSUNH have become issues, and the language and thinking behind them have been worked out, in the period between 1 Thess and Phil. In which case, 1 Thess would appear to be earlier than Phil, and probably earlier than both Gal and Rom.

Craig
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Craig S. de Vos
Bromby Lecturer in New Testament
Trinity College Theological School
Royal Parade
Parkville VIC 3052
Australia
(O) +61 3 9349-0129 (F) +61 3 9349-0460
csdevos AT trinity.unimelb.edu.au
-------------------------------------------------------------------

  • 1 Thess and the 'Early Paul', Craig S de Vos, 04/09/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page