Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
This paper seeks to shed some light on 1 Thess 5.14–15, Paul's command to the Thessalonians to ‘admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all’, and not to retaliate. In an earlier study, I focused primarily on Paul's role in nurturing the Thessalonian church. Here, I wish to develop what I discussed only very briefly in that study about the Thessalonians' own care for each other.
1 Malherbe, A. J., Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).Google ScholarThe technical studies on which the book is based are collected in idem, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989).Google Scholar
2 See the discussion of various positions by Black, D. A., Paul, the Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (New York/Bern: Peter Lang, 1984) 26–9.Google Scholar
3 E.g., Best, E., The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Black, 1972) 231.Google Scholar
4 E.g., Frame, J. E., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1912) 198;Google ScholarMarshall, I. H., 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983)151.Google Scholar
5 Black, , Apostle of Weakness, 45–53;Google Scholaridem, ‘The Weak in Thessalonica’, JETS 25 (1982) 307–21.Google Scholar
6 For bibliography on ancient psychagogy, see Malherbe, , Paul and the Thessalonians, 81 n. 65;Google Scholarfor the moral philosophers, idem, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986)Google Scholar
7 See Heitsch, E., ‘Platon über die rechte Art zu reden und schreiben’, Akademie Mainz. Abhandlungen d. Geistes- und sozialwiss. Klasse, Jahrg. 1987.4, and the review by T. A. Szlezák in Gnomon 60 (1988) 390–8.Google Scholar
8 See Malherbe, A. J., ‘“In Season and Out of Season”: 2 Timothy 4:2’, JBL 103 (1984) 236 (= Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 137–45).Google Scholar
9 The translations of classical authors are those of the Loeb Classical Library, where available, but are sometimes slightly modified.Google Scholar
10 See Hadot, I., Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969) 155–8.Google Scholar
11 See Malherbe, , Paul and the Thessalonians, 42–3, 85–7.Google Scholar
12 See Gigante, M., ‘Philodème: Sur la liberté de parole’, Acts du VIIIe Congrès, Association Guillaume Budé (Paris, 1969) 209–10.Google Scholar
13 See Diogenes of Oenoanda, Fr. 24 Chilton: Anger and partiality are signs of weakness.Google Scholar
14 See Gigante, ‘Philodeme’, 208;Google ScholarRiley, M. T., ‘The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates’, Phoenix 34 (1980) 65–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 See Gigante, ‘Philodeme’, 208–9.Google Scholar
16 For the medical metaphor in Epicureanism, see Gigante, M., ‘“Philosophia medicans” in Filodemo’, Cronache Ercolanesi 5 (1975) 53–61;Google ScholarDuvernoy, J. F., ‘Le modèle médical de l'éthique dans l'épicurisme’, Justifications de léthique. XIXe Congrès de l'Association de Societés de philosophie de langue francaise, Bruxelles-Louvain la Neuve, 6–9 Septembre 1982 (Brussels: Univ. of Brussels, (1984) 171–7);Google ScholarNussbaum, M., ‘Therapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle’, Norms of Nature. Studies in Hellenistic Ethics (ed. Schofield, M. and Striker, G.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1986) 31–74;Google ScholarVoelke, A. J., ‘Santée de l'âame et bonheur de la raison. La function théapeutique de la philosophie dans l'épicurisme’, Études de Lettres (Lausanne) 1986, 3, 67–87.Google Scholar
17 Cf. Philo, Migr 144: Related to moral weakness (εύένδοτοζ), άσθένεια is the inability of the rational faculty to bear virtue's hardships; Cicero, Tusc Disp 3.34; 5.3; Leg 1.29: Bad habits and false beliefs twist weak minds and turn them in whatever direction they are inclined; cf. Ad fam 7.8.1.Google Scholar
18 For the popularity of the metaphor among Stoics, see Frede, M., The Stoic Doctrine of the Affections of the Souls', The Norms of Nature, 92–110;Google ScholarRabel, R. J., ‘Diseases of Soul in Stoic Philosophy’, GRBS 22 (1981) 385–93; Hadot, Seneca und die griechisck-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung, 142–6.Google Scholar
19 Cicero, Tusc Disp 4.29; Diog. Laert., 5.115; Cicero, Tusc Disp 4.42: imbecillitas is selfindulgent.Google Scholar
20 SVF 3.471.Google Scholar
21 Plutarch, Adv Colot 1122C; De Stoic repugn 1057AB (= SVF 3.177); Sextus Empiricus, Adv math 7.151 (= SVF 1.67); cf. SVF 3.172; Cicero, Tusc Disp 4.15.Google Scholar
22 SVF 3.473.Google Scholar
23 Stobaues, Flor 2.58,5 Wachsmuth (= SVF 3.95); Cicero, De fin 4.77 (SVF 3.531).Google Scholar
24 Ep 50.9; cf. Cicero, De fin 5.43.Google Scholar
25 De otio 1.1; Ep 7.1; cf. Ep 44.1.Google Scholar
26 Ep 82.23; cf. Cicero, De fin 1.49; 4.64; Plutarch, Consol ad Apoll 116E. On weeping:Google Scholar
27 Cicero, Tusc Disp 4.60; Pliny, Ep 1.12.12; cf. Cicero, Tusc Disp 3.23.Google Scholar
28 De constantia 14.2; 17.1; cf. Plutarch, De audiendo 46E.Google Scholar
29 Seneca, De ira 1.5; cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or 77/78.40;Google Scholar
30 Seneca, , Ep 82.23: Quod auxilium iuvenis inbecillitate humanae?; Ep 95.37: inbecilliores adiuvabit; cf. Epp 77.7; 94.50.Google Scholar
31 Cf. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 87 n. 104. For non-retaliation, see Dihle, A., Die goldene Regel: Eine Einfiihrüng in die Geschichte der antiken und frühchristlichen Vulgärethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 61–71.Google Scholar
32 To the discussion in Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 56–7, 82, 86, should be added Desideri, P., Dione di Prusa: Un intellettuele greco nell'impero romano (Messina/Florence, 1978) 240–1;Google ScholarNussbaum, , ‘Therapeutic Arguments’, 41–5, 51.Google Scholar
33 See Seneca, Ep 64.7–10; Consol ad Marc 1.8; 2.1; De ira 1.6; Dio Chrysostom, Or 9.7–8; Lucian, Nigrinus 35–37. For the problems inherent in adaptation, see Dill, S., Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius (London: Macmillan, 1904) 343–6. For the flatterer adapting, see Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 55AB.Google Scholar
34 See Malherbe, , ‘“In Season and Out of Season”’ (above, p. 376 n. 8).Google Scholar
35 On consolation, see Buresch, K., ‘Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia critica’, Diss. (Leipzig, 1886);Google ScholarKassel, R., Untersuchungen zur griechischen und romischen Konsolationsliteratur (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1958);Google ScholarGregg, R. C., Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories (Cambridge, Mass/Philadelphia: Patristic Foundation, 1975);Google ScholarYves, Marie Duval, ‘Formes profanes et formes bibliques dans les oraisons funébres de Saint Ambrose’, Christianisme et formes littiraires de I'antiquité tardive en Occident, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 23 (Vandoeuvres/Genve, 1977) 235–301.Google Scholar
36 Lucian, Nigrinus 7; Diogenes Laertius 6.68; Cicero, Tusc Disp 4.61.Google Scholar
37 E.g. Ad fam 5.13,16 for political conditions; Ad fam 4.5 for death.Google Scholar
38 See Plutarch, , Quomodo adulator 50B, 72B, 72E.Google Scholar
39 Demetrius, Ps., Τúποι Έπιστολικοí 7 (Malherbe, A. J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists [SBLSBS 19; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988] 35).Google Scholar
40 Behm, J., ‘νουθετέω, νουθεσία’, TDNT 4 (1967) 1019. See Gutierrez, P., La paternité spirituelle selon Saint Paul (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1968) 188–97.Google Scholar
41 Dio Chrysostom, Orr 51.5; 77/78.42; Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 71E-72A.Google Scholar
42 Rebuke: Dio Chrysostom, Or 73.10; reproof: Dio Chrysostom, Orr 33.10; 72.9–10.Google Scholar
43 Anger: Gnomologium Byzantinum 258; 259; fault-finding: Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 66E.Google Scholar
44 Dio Chrysostom, Or 77/78.38; Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 70D-71D; cf. Plato, Apol 26A.Google Scholar
45 Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 73A-C, 74DE.Google Scholar
46 Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 67B.Google Scholar
47 See Sudhaus, S., ‘Epikur als Beichtvater’, ARW 14 (1911) 647–8;Google Scholarde Witt, N. W., ‘Organization and Procedure in Epicurean Groups’, CPh 31 (1936) 206;Google ScholarGigante, , ‘Philodème’, 211;Google ScholarSchmid, W., ‘Contritio und “ultima linea rerum” in neuen epikureischen Texten’, RhM 100 (1957) 301–27;Google Scholaridem, ‘Epikur’, RAC 5 (1962) 741–3; Nussbaum, ‘Therapeutic Arguments’, 49.Google Scholar
48 Περì Παρρησíαζ 38; cf. Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 66A, 67EF, 73E, 74D.Google Scholar
49 Plutarch, Quomodo adulator 72EF; Dio Chrysostom, Or 51.4–5, 7 (Socrates); Or 3.122 (Musonius).Google Scholar
50 For much of what follows, see Malherbe, , ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, NovT 25 (1983) 238–56 (= Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 49–66).Google Scholar
51 Malherbe, , Paul and the Thessalonians, 74–8.Google Scholar
52 Ibid., 66–7. On reminding or remembering, see Cicero, Ad fam 2.1.2; Seneca, Epp 11.9; 94.21, 25–26; Dio Chrysostom, Or 17.2. On imitation, see Dio Chrysostom, Or 55.3–7; Seneca, Ep 95.72.
53 ‘“Gentle as a Nurse”: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii’, NovT 12 (1970) 203–17;Google Scholar‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, 248–9 (= Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 35–48; 58–60).Google Scholar
54 Grabner-Haider, A., Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus (NA N. F. 4; 2nd ed.; Münster: Aschendorff, 1985) 11–13;Google ScholarHoltz, T., Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK 13; Zurich: Benziger, 1986) 90.Google Scholar
55 See Strathmann, H., ‘μαρτúρομαι, κτλ’, TDNT 4 (1967) 510–12.Google ScholarMilligan, G., St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Macmillan, 1908) 51, thinks διαμαρτúρεσθαι is stronger than μαρτúρεσθαι.Google Scholar
56 See Stählin, G., ‘παραμυθéομαι, κτλ, TDNT 5 (1967) 820–1, who regards παραμυθ´α as merely supplementary to παράκλνσις and finds it impossible to distinguish between the two.Google Scholar
57 Tusc Disp 3.30. The theme occupies him in 3.28–60; cf. also 77; 4.12,14, 37, 60, 64. See also Seneca, Epp 2.15; 91.4; Epictetus, Diss 3.24.103–104.Google Scholar
58 Pigeaud, J., La maladie de l'âme, l'éitude sur la relation de l'âme et du corps dans la tradition medico-philosophique antique (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1981) 276–8.Google ScholarFor the use of the theme in psychagogy, see Rabbow, P., Seelenführung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike (Munich: Kösel, 1954) 16–71;Google ScholarHadot, , Seneca und die griechisch-romische Tradition der Seelenleitung, 59–61.Google ScholarSee also Vollenweider, S., Freiheit als neue Schöpfung (FRLANT 147; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 51–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59 For conversion as an unsettling experience, see Malherbe, , Paul and the Thessalonians, 36–52.Google Scholar
60 See von Dobschütz, E., Christian Life in the Primitive Church (New York: Putnam, 1904) 88;Google ScholarHainz, J., Ekklesia: Strukturen paulinischer Gemeinde-Theologie und Gemeinde-Ordnung (Regensburg: Pustet, 1973) 85–95;Google Scholarvon Campenhausen, H., Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (Stanford: Stanford Univ., 1969) 63-–Google Scholar
61 E.g., Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 220, who also records the opinion that it is Semitic in origin.Google Scholar
62 Both conventions are used in the Pastoral Epistles, but polemically rather than positively. See Malherbe, , ‘“In Season and Out of Season”’;idem, ‘Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles’, Texts and Testaments (ed. March, W. E.: San Antonio: Trinity Univ., 1980) 19–35 (= Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 121–36).Google Scholar
63 ‘Les Thessaloniciens “inquiets” étaient-ils des paresseux?’ StTh 10 (1956) 1–13; idem. Notes de lexicographie néotestamentaire (2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 1.157–59.Google Scholar
64 See Malherbe, , Paul and the Thessalonians, 92, 95–107.Google Scholar
65 Rigaux, B., Saint Paul: Les Épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (ÉB; Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 584; Chrysostom PG 62.457.Google Scholar
66 This rare word occurs only here in the NT, and its basic meaning, that of religious despondency, was probably informed by the LXX (see Bertram, G., ‘òλιγóΨυχος’, TDNT 9 [1974] 666).Google ScholarNevertheless, Bruce's, F. F. comparison (1 & 2 Thessalonians [WBC 45; Waco: Word, 1982] 123) with Aristotle's μικρóΨυχος(.Eth Nic 4.3.3, 7) has real merit. While for Aristotle, the mean-souled individual is one who does not insist on what is due him, among the later moralists he is avaricious (Philo, De virt 92) or allows himself to be angered (Musonius Rufus, Fr. 10 [78,9–10 Lutz]). For the association with weakness, see also Plutarch, De cohibenda ira 456E-457A; De tranq animi 468D. See esp. 1 Clem 59. 4, in a prayer, έξανάστνσον τοùς άσθενοûντας παρακκάλεσον όλιγοΨυχοûντας (cf. Isa 57. 15, όλιγοΨùχοις διδοùς μακροθυμíαν).Google Scholar
67 E.g., Stählin, G., ‘άσθενής’, TDNT 1 (1964) 492, apparently depending on Nägeli, T., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905) 46.Google Scholar
68 See also είρννεύετε έν έαυτοîς in 5. 13, addressed to the entire community after specific advice to those who receive instruction.Google Scholar
