1 Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and the Greek EpistolaryTradition: Implications for the Study of Pauline Paraenesis Andrew W. Pitts A significant portion of New Testament literature may be described as paraenetic orexhortive in character. Since the pioneering work ofLietzmann andDibeliusonparaenesisasaGattungorGreco-Romanliteraryform,1the mostsignificantbodyofcomparativematerialforNewTestamentscholars has been the Hellenistic moral philosophers. Sections of the Pauline letters or thelettersintheirentiretyaretypicallycomparedwiththephilosophical letters of popular moralists. When epistolary theory and practice is considered, itistreatedaspartofamonolithictraditionofparaenesiscurrentwithinthe Hellenistic world. This program for the investigation of paraenesis in Pauline material,especiallyasamacro-classificationfortheletter-typeemployed,is misguidedforseveralreasons.Asaninitialconcern,thetheoryofletter writing found in the ancient epistolographers should be sharply distinguished fromtheliterarylettertraditionthatemergedamongofthephilosophersso thatthesetwolevelsofepistolarymaterialshouldnotbeconflatedas representative of a single paraenetic tradition. As Betz points out, the ethical worldoftheGraeco-Romanperiodwasverycomplex,anditisimportantto distinguishamongseverallevelsofethicalmaterialfoundinthewritings extantfromtheperiod.2Whenthesetraditionsaredistinguishedand considered independently it becomes clear that the literary form and epistolary situationofthephilosophicalletter-essaysoftenenlistedinparaenetic investigationscauseproblemsforunderstandingPaulsletterswithina 1SeeforexampleH.Lietzmann,AndieRmer(HNT8;Tbingen:MohnSiebeck,1971, 1906); M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jackobus (KEK 15; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964),pp.19-23;M.Dibelius,DieFormgeschichtedesEvangeliums(ed.byGnter Bornkamm;5thed.;Tbingen:Mohr(Siebeck),1961),p.241;Hefollowsclosely Wendlandsstudyofpseudo-IsocratesToDemonicus.P.Wendland,Anaximenesvon Lampsakos:StudienzurltestenGeschichtederRhetorik:FestshriftfrdieXLVII. VersammlungdeutscherPhilogenundSchulmnnerinHamburg(Berlin:Weidmannsche, 1905),pp.81-101;Therehasalsobeensubstantialdevelopmentinformcriticalanalysisof paraenesisrevolvingaround1Peter.SeeE.G.Selwyn,TheFirstEpistleofSt.Peter:The GreekTextwithIntroductionNotesandEssays(2nded.;London:MacmillanPressLTD, 1947),pp.14-20;p.365;EduardLohse,ParaneseandKerygmain1Petrusbrief,ZNW45 (1954):68-89;areprintandEnglishtrans.ofthisarticleisfoundinC.H.Talbert(ed.), Perspectiveson1Peter(NABPRSpecialStudiesSeries,Number9;Macon,Geo.:Mercer UniversityPress,1986),pp.37-60;forahistoryofresearchon1Peterfromaparaenetic perspectiveseeL.Thure,n,ArgumentandTheologyin1Peter:TheOriginofChristian Paraenesis(JSNTSup114;Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,1995),pp.16-22;more functionaldefinitionshavealsoarisenwhichemphasizesituationalandsocialelements.See forexamplethecontributionsinSemeia50:Paraenesis:ActandForm(1990).Fora discussionofdefinitionalissuesseeW.Popkes,ParaenesisintheNewTestament:An ExerciseinConceptuality,inJ.StarrandT.Engberg-Pedersen(eds.),EarlyChristian Paraenesis in Context (BZNW 125; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 13-46, esp. pp. 13-18. 2H.D.Betz,Introduction,inPlutarchsEthicalWritingsandEarlyChristianLiterature (ed. H.D. Betz; SCHNT; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), pp. 1-2. 2 specifically philosophical framework. The employment of epistolary formulae byPaulfurtherdistanceshislettersfromthephilosophicallettersofhisday whichrarelymadeusetheseconventionsandtheliteraryfeaturestypically claimed to have a uniquely philosophical origin do not conform to patterns of usagefoundamongtheHellenisticmoralists,arenotdistinctively philosophical or may beaccounted for more convincingly within other social and literary contexts. This paper endeavors to develop each of these criticisms andexaminestheworkofMalherbeinparticularwhohasemphasizedin severalplacesparallelsbetweenPaulinelettersandtheethicalletterswhich emerged from the philosophical epistolary tradition. 1. Paraenesis in the Greco-Roman Letter Tradition Paraenesis took a variety of forms in antiquity.3 Moral treatises often containwhatmostwouldconsiderparaenetic,butletterswerealsoavery popularmedium.4Letterwritingwasemployedbothforpersonaland professional purposes.5 The uses for which letters were intended range from fictitiouslettersforcomic,imaginaryorevenhistoricalpurposes,6to philosophicalpropagandatoelementaryschoolexercises.Philosophers madeextensiveuseoftheletter-genreintheirattemptstopropagate particular philosophical schools or agendas, often using the letter form very looselyasliteraryartificeforpursuingtheirinterestsonparticulartopics.7 Rhetoriciansalsomadeuseofthelettergenre,8thoughrhetoricaland epistolarytraditionsseemedtoremaindistinctthroughouttheHellenistic period.9Lettersseemtohaveproliferatedtheancientacademicprofession. 3ForanassortmentofmaterialrelatedmorebroadlytomoralexhortationseeA.J. Malherbe,MoralExhortation,AGreco-RomanSourcebook(LEC4:Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). 4SeeMalherbe,MoralExhortation,79-85;S.Stowers,LetterWritinginGreco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), pp. 91-152. 5OnthepersonalletterseeH.KoskenniemisclassificationinStudienzurIdeeund PhraseologiedesGriechischenBriefesbis400n.Chr.AnnalesAcademiaeScientiarum Fennicae(SuomalaisenTiedeakatemian.SarjaB.nide102,2;Helsinki:Wiesbaden,Otto Harrassowitzz,1956),pp.128-54;cf.D.Brooke,PrivateLettersPaganandChristian (London: Ben, 1929); C. Kim, The Familiar Letter of Recommendation (SBLDS 4; Missoula: ScholarsPress,1972);lettersonprofessionalandtechnicalmattersaredealtwithinF. Susemihl,GeschichtederGriechischeLiteraturinderAlexandrinerzeit(Hildesheim:G. Olms, 1965; 1892). 6OnthisgroupoflettersandtheirpurposesseeC.D.Costa,GreekFictionalLetters:A Selection with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. xiv-xv. 7cf.Malherbe,MoralExhortation,p.79;Stowers,LetterWriting,pp.37-38;M.L. Stirewalt,StudiesinAncientGreekEpistolography(SBS27;Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1992), p. 17. 8 e.g. Demetrius, Ep. 2; Plato, Ep. 3; Isocrates, Ep. 8. 9SeeR.D.Anderson,AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul(rev.ed.;Contributionsto Biblical Exegesis and Theology;Leuven: Peeters, 1999; 1996), pp. 109-127; J.T. Reed, The Epistle,inS.E.Porter(ed.),HandbookofClassicalRhetoricintheHellenisticPeriod(330 B.C. to A.D. 400) (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997), pp. 171-83; extensive work has beendoneseekingtomakeadistinctionbetweenthesetraditionsinPaul,seeJ.T.Reed, 3 Inadditiontorhetoriciansandphilosophers,theyhavebeenattributedto historians,mathematicians,physicians,grammariansandpoets.10Literary lettersontechnicalandphilosophicalmatters,however,differed substantially from the personal letters common among the Egyptian papyri. This warrants a further classification of epistolary material. The distinction between literary and non-literary, personal and official letters11iswellestablished.12Demetriusiscarefultodistinguishpersonal lettersfromtheliterarylettersofThucydides,PlatoandAristotlewhichare not truly letters (ou o qv oiq tiov tiooioi yt voivo o v) but are more like treatises(ouyypo oo)withletteropeningsattached.13Earlyon,therefore, ancienttheoristsaffirmedadistinctionbetweenphilosophicallettersand letterswhichwereintendedforpersonalcommunication.14Partofthis dynamiciscapturedwithintheintendedaudienceoftheletter.Philosophical letters are intended for a public reception while personal or private letters are addressed to a particular individual or community. Stirewalts analysis of this situationaldifferenceishelpful.Hediscussesthedistinctionbetweenletter-writinginnormative,extendedandfictitioussettings.15Officialandpersonal lettersarewritteninnormativesettings:theyarenormativeinthattheyare developedinactualcorrespondenceandsupplybasicmodelsforderivative usesoftheform.16Inthesesettings,thesenderwritesinhisownname,to UsingAncientRhetoricalCategoriestoInterpretPaulsLetters:AQuestionofGenre,in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 HeidelbergConference(JSNTSup90;Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,1993),pp.292-324;S.E.Porter,TheTheoreticalJustificationforApplicationofRhetoricalCategoriesto PaulineEpistolaryLiterature,inS.E.PorterandT.H.Olbricht(eds.),Rhetoricandthe New Testament:Essaysfromthe1992HeidelbergConference(JSNTSup90;Sheffield:Sheffield AcademicPress,1993),pp.100-122;S.E.Porter,PaulinActs(WUNT;Tbingen:Mohr (Siebeck), 1999), pp. 98-125; cf. also C. Poster, The Economy ofLetter Writing in Graeco-RomanAntiquity,inA.Eriksson,T.H.OlbrichtandW.Ubelacker(eds.),Rhetorical ArgumentationinBiblicalTexts:EssaysfromtheLund2000Conference (EmoryStudiesin EarlyChristianity;Harrisburg:TrinityInternationalPress,2002),pp.112-24(notethatthis essay was written by C.J. Swearingen but published under C. Posters name). 10 cf. Stirewalt, Studies, p. 17. 11 cf. Julius Victor, Rhet. 27 (De Epistolis); Cicero (Fam. 2.4.1) distinguishes between non-literary private letters, literary letters and official letters. 12Seeesp.V.Weichert(ed.),DemetriietLibaniiquiferunturu oit iooii|oiet tiooiioioi_opo|qpt,(Leipzig:VerlagvonB.G.Teubner,1910),pp.6-10;W.G.Doty, TheClassificationofEpistolaryLiterature,CBQ31(1969),pp.183-99;Stirewalt,Studies, pp. 1-26; Kim, Familiar Letter; J.L. White, The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A StudyinGreekEpistolography(SBLDS5;Missoula:ScholarsPress,1972);A.J.Malherbe, AncientEpistolaryTheorists(SBS19;Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1988),pp.1-14;W.G.Doty, LettersinPrimitiveChristianity(GBSNewTestamentSeries;Philadelphia:Fortress,1973), pp. 4-8. 13 Demetrius, Eloc. 225, 228. 14Severalscholarsblurthisdistinction.SeeforexampleD.Dormeyer,TheHellenistic Letter-Formula and the Pauline Letter-Scheme, in Stanley E. Porter (ed.), The Pauline Canon (Pauline Studies 1; Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 71; B. Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), p. 126. 15 Stirewalt, Studies, pp. 14-17. 16 Stirewalt, Studies, p. 2; it should be noted that a normative letter setting does not rule out thepossibilitythattheletterbecirculatedinbroadercontexts.Stirewalt(Studies,p.2) 4 addresseesknowndirectlyorindirectlytohim,inanactual,contemporary context.17Thecorrespondencearisesoutofthecontextprovidedbythe relationshipbetweentheauthorandtherecipient.Asthenamesuggests,an extended settinggoes beyond this byextending the typicalepistolarycontext and subject matter. Letters written in an extended setting are intended for the publicandexpounduponnon-epistolarytopicsforagroupofpeople, identifiedorunidentified,andknownorassumedtobeinterested.18Letters writtenontechnicalsubjectsorintendedasphilosophicalorimperial propagandaareoftencreatedinextendedsettings.Infictitioussettings,the writer impersonates another andcomposes a message in that persons name, often used for entertainment purposes and school exercises.19

The types of letters used as mediums for expositing moral philosophies aretypicallywritteninextendedcontexts.20Theepistolaryhandbooks, especially Demetrius On Style, seem concerned to distinguish epistolography as expressed through personal letters from literary letters on philosophical and technicalmatters,includingmoralletter-essays.21 Theprivateletterservesas thebasisfortheexamplelettersinthehandbooks,22indicatingthatthatthey had a specified letter type in mind that (at least at some level) excluded more literaryphilosophicalexpressionsofthetradition.Thispointhasnotbeen emphasizedinmanycontemporarytreatmentsofparaenesiswhichseemto conflatetheevidencefromtheepistolaryhandbookswhichaddressthe personalletterwiththetraditionofHellenisticmoralphilosophyexpressed throughavarietyofmediumsmostlythephilosophicalletter-essay. Paraenesis is then treated as acomprehensive tradition (sometimes excluding evidencefromepistolarytheory)andcomparedwithNewTestament suggeststhatEveninnormativesettingsawritermayassumeorintendthathismessagebe sharedwithalargeraudiencethanthosepeopleaddressed.Thusanofficiallettermaybe publicized and permanently displayed; thewriter of a personal lettermay expect the letter to bepassedamongothersnotnamedbyhim,oritsreceptionmaybethoccasionforasocial gathering.Thatis,acommunityexistsateachendofthecommunication,andinsomeway andtosomeextentthetwoareunitedbecausetwoindividualsorgroupsofpeoplearein correspondence. 17 Stirewalt, Studies, p. 2. 18 Stirewalt, Studies, p. 3. 19 Stirewalt, Studies, p. 3. 20Thisisnottosayphilosophersdidnotusethelettergenreforcorrespondence(cf. Philostratus,Ep.II257).WhatIamsuggestingherethatthesourcesforGreco-Roman paraenesiswhicharetypicallycomparedtoNewTestamentandspecificallyPauline paraenesis are letters of this type or moral treatises without epistolary framing. 21 Philostratus (Ep. II 257) faults a rhetorician named Herodes for departing from epistolary style through excessive use of Atticism and insists that proper epistolary style will not have a veryelevatedliterarylevel,itwillbemoreliterarythaneverydayspeechbutmoreordinary than Atticism, and it must be composed in accordance with common usage (translation taken from Malherbe, Theorists, p. 43); cf. also ps.-Libanius,Eiooiioioi Xopo|qpt,, 46-48. 22 In ps.-Demetrius, 1u oiEiooii|oi, all 21 letter types are illustrated with the personal letterasdoall41lettertypesinps.-Libanius,EiooiioioiXopo|qpt,.AndDemetrius plainlymakesthedistinctionbetweenthetraditionheintendstodescribethemore philosophically oriented letters (Dem. Eloc. 223, 228). 5 writings.23Butitseems,basedonevidencefromtheepistolarytraditionand theindependentstatusofthephilosophicallettergenre,thatamorenuanced classificationofthedataisneeded.Ethicaldiscoursesoriginatingin philosophy which take the form of a treatise or a letter should be distinguished fromtheepistolaryexhortationwhichtheancienttheoristsdescribe. Philosophicalparaenesisisemployedinthispapertorefertotheformer categorywhileepistolaryparaenesisisusedtodesignatethelater.This terminologyreflectstheconvictionthatforthephilosopherstheletterwas merelyoneformaverywellsuitedformforpropagatingphilosophical ideas related to Hellenistic ethical systems whereas for the epistolary theorists andpractitionersparaenesisemergedoutofanintimaterelationshipbetween theauthorandtheaudience,wasnotwrittenwiththeintentionoflater publication and did not (necessarily) have popular philosophy as its content. 2. Philosophical Paraenesis and the Greek Letter-Essay Philosophical paraenesis comes in various forms. Ethical discourse of allsortsmaybefoundinspeeches(e.g.Maximus,Discourse36),epitomes (e.g. Hierocles, On Duties 1.3.53-54), compilations (e.g. Epicurus, Doctrines, 5-17),moraltreatisesoressays(e.g.Plutarch,Moralia,440D-452D)and 23 See for example Fiore, Function; Fiore (p. 126) even uses the handbooks as the basis for analyzing paraenesis in the Socratic lettersclearly a misapplication. See also A.J. Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament, in Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (eds.),ANRW26.1,Part2:Principat(Religion[VorkonstantinischesChristentum:Neues Testament];Berlin:deGruyter,1992),pp.283-85;Malherbesanalysishereincludes philosophical letters with his analysis of ancient epistolary theory. That he intends to include bothcategoriesoflettersunderepistolarymaterialismadeclearbyhisstatementinalater articlethatheincludedinhisearlierstudyelementsofancienttheoryandpractice,both rhetoricalandepistolary,andshowedthattheywerescatteredthroughout1Thessalonians. AbrahamJ.Malherbe,Exhortationin1Thessalonians,NovT25(1983),p.240;seealso David G. Bradley, The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis, JBL 72 (1953), pp. 238-46; J. Piper, Love your Enemies: Jesus Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the EarlyChristianParaenesis(SNTS38;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1979)pp. 20-27;J.I.H.McDonald,KerygmaandDidache:TheArticulationandStructureofthe EarliestChristianMessage(SNTS37;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980),pp. 69-73;G.E.Sterling,HellenisticPhilosophyandtheNewTestament,inStanleyE.Porter (ed.),AHandbooktotheExegesisoftheNewTestament(NTTS;Boston:E.J.Brill,2002), 325-30;Engberg-Pedersendistinguishesbetweentraditionalparaenesis(e.g.Isocrates,the Greekpoets)andphilosophicalparaenesis(e.g.Seneca),butdoesnotseriouslyweighthe contributionofepistolarytheory.T.Engberg-Pedersen,TheConceptofParaenesis,inJ. StarrandT.Engberg-Pedersen(eds.),EarlyChristianParaenesisinContext(BZNW125; Berlin:deGruyter,2004),pp.47-72;cf.alsoT.Engberg-Pedersen,PaulandtheStoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p. 5; Betz emphasizes the rhetorical, and to some degreephilosophical,aspectsofparaenesis,butdoesnotgiveattentiontoitsplaceinthe epistolary tradition. H.D. Betz, Paraenesis and the Concept of God According to Oratio XII (Olympikos)ofDioofPrusa,inJ.StarrandT.Engberg-Pedersen(eds.),EarlyChristian ParaenesisinContext(BZNW125;Berlin:deGruyter,2004),pp.217-221;thecontributors toSemeia50addressthephilosophicalmaterial,butalsodrawmuchmorebroadlyupon Ancient Near Eastern forms, especially Egyptian literature. 6 letters(e.g.Plato,Letter7).24Lettersarethemostcommonsourceamong NewTestamentscholarsforconstructinganaccountofGreco-Roman paraenesisandcorrelatingparallelswithPaulinematerial.Someambiguity still revolves around the precise literary designation of these letters within the broaderHellenisticlettertradition.Theyhavebeenreferredtoasliterary letters,25letter-essays26andphilosophicalletters.27Itisprobablybestto understandtheseasmacro-categoriesandsub-categories.Letter-essaysarea typeofliteraryletterandphilosophicallettersareonetypeofletter-essayletter-essaysmaybewrittenonavarietyofothertechnicalandprofessional topicsaswell.28Stirewalthasprovidedthemostextensivetreatmentofthe Greekletter-essay.29Heidentifiesfourcomponentsintheformoftheletter-essay:30 A.Heading B.Epistolary Introduction C.Transition from the introduction to the Body D.Closing Themostdistinguishingfeatureistheepistolaryintroductionwhichusually contains:31 1.a statement of the theme of the letter, and2.an acknowledgment of the request or need which called it forth; 3.thewritersresponsetotherequestincludingafullerstatementof purpose, and often the basis or presupposition of his work; 4.a description of the method or manner by which the work is presented. Letter-essaysarewrittenoutofagenuineletter-settingandtheyretain formalandstructuralepistolarycharacteristics.32However,theyarelosing some of the form, phraseology and structure of the letter and are incorporating 24Discussionofsomeofthese,includingsampletextscanbefoundinMalherbe,Moral Exhortation, pp. 68-120. 25 e.g. F.I. Merchant, Seneca the Philosopher and His Theory of Style, American Journal of Philology (1905), p. 54. 26e.g.H.D.Betz,DeTranquillitateAnimi(Moralia464E-477F),inH.D.Betz(ed.), PlutarchsEthicalWritingsandEarlyChristianLiterature(SCHNT;Leiden:E.J.Brill, 1978), p. 199. 27e.g.B.Inwood,ReadingSeneca:StoicPhilosophyatRome(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 2005), p. 345. 28 Aune distinguishes between philosophical letters and letter-essays, but his criteria are not entirelyclearexpectthattheletter-essaydoesnotmakeextensiveuseofepistolaryform. However,someoftheexamplesheprovidesseemnolessepistolarythanthephilosophical essays he mentions. Aune, New Testament, p. 167. 29 M.L. Stirewalt, The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay, in K. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate (rev. and exp.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 147-71. 30 Stirewalt, Greek Letter-Essay, p. 156. 31 Stirewalt, Greek Letter-Essay, p. 162. 32 Stirewalt, Greek Letter-Essay, p. 148. 7 themoreimpersonal,objectivestyleofthemonograph.[T]hewriters themselvesrefertothemmostoftenaslogoi.33Letter-essaysarealsomade comprehendibletoathirdparty(oftenusingthethirdpersonaswellasfirst andsecond)andseemtoexpressanintentionforlaterpublication.34These lettersoccur,therefore,inextendedlettersettingssincetheyareintendedfor public use.35 It is this sub-genre of letters, along with treatises on moral philosophy, thatprovidestherichestsourceformodernaccountsofparaenesisamong New Testament scholars. Pseudo-Isocrates To Demonicus is often modeled as theproto-typicalexampleofGreco-Romanparaenesis,bothintermsofits claimtobeparaeneticandinitshortatorystyle.36Falselyattributedto Isocrates,thisletterwasprobablywritteninIsocratesnameinresponseto Aristotle.37 It has all of the formal features of a letter-essay and serves as one ofStirewaltscentralexamples.38Thecollectionofletter-essaysthatare broadlyrepresentativeoftheschoolofIsocratesformsthebasisformaking generalizationsaboutwhathascometobeknownastraditionalparaenesis. Engberg-Pedersen insists that theIsocratean tradition relays five fundamental pointsaboutthenatureofparaenesisinthetraditionalsense.39First,itlinks paraenesis with the poets. Second, there was not a literary genre or collection ofsayingsbehindToDemonicus.Third,thereisadifferencebetween exhorting/urgingontheonehandandadvisingontheother.Fourth, paraenesis is different from an order or command; it is not issued as a master commanding his slaves, but expects and leaves obedience up to those who are enjoined. And fifth, it had popular philosophy as its content.Senecas letters also weigh in significantly as a model for paraenesis in theHellenisticworld.Thesetoofollowtheletter-essayformveryclosely.40 33 Stirewalt, Greek Letter-Essay, p. 148. 34 Doty argues that the most essential distinguishing feature between literary and occasional orprivatelettersistheintenttopublish.TheEpistleinLateHellenismandEarly Christianity:Developments,Influences,andLiteraryForm,Ph.D.diss.DrewUniversity, 1966, p. 9. 35 Stirewalt, Greek Letter-Essay, pp. 169-71.36Dibelius,Formgeschichte,p.241;Wendland,Anaximenes,pp.81-101;Popkes, Paraenesis, p. 14; Engberg-Pedersen, Concept, p. 49; J.G. Gammie, Paraenetic Literature: TowardstheMorphologyofaSecondaryGenre,Semeia50(1990),pp.51-52;Stowers, Letter Writing, pp. 91-92; cf. also Isocrates, To Nic., Nic. and Anti. 37 I. Dring, Der Protreptikos des Aristoteles (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1969), pp. 19-24;Stowers,LetterWriting,p.92;Stirewalt,GreekLetter-Essay,p.166;butcf. Gammie, Paraenetic Literature, pp.51-52.38 Stirewalt, Greek Letter-Essay, pp. 166-67. 39 Engberg-Pedersen, Concept, p. 49-54. 40SeeH.MartinandJ.E.Phillips,ConsolatioadUxorem(Moralia608A-612B),H.D. Betz (ed.), Plutarchs Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), p. 401; M. Griffin, Seneca, a Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1976),p.4;Coleman,incomparingSenecasletterswithCiceros,pointsoutthat Cicerosletters,addressedtoawiderangeoffriendsandacquaintances,arelettersinthe ordinary sense of the word. Their occasional character is revealed by the fact that they can be dated by their topical allusions; in Seneca such dating is impossible and there is very little in the whole collection that could be used to securely assign them to the early sixties, when they 8 Senecausestheletterasaplatformforwritingonphilosophicaltopics.His correspondent,Lucilius,isreferencedverylittleand,giventheimmense amountofmaterialwrittentothisyoungphilosopher,onecangatheronlya few details regarding his life and situation.41 These letters seem to be written inveryextendedcontexts.Theydonotappeartoariseoutofsituational factors as much as they seem to be the product of philosophical reflection with epistolaryornamentation.CostaisnotaloneinmaintainingthatSenecas letterstoLuciliusareprobablynotarealcorrespondence,thoughepistolary signpostsareusedquiteoften,asSenecaclaimstobetakingupapointor answeringaquestionputtohimbyLucilius.42Instead,theletter-form providedSenecawithamorepersonalmediumthanthetraditionaldiscourse for addressing philosophical topics. As Coleman stresses: Liketheconventionindidacticpoetrytheepistolaryframeworkenabledthe writertogivehisdoctrineamorepersonalizedtoneandestablishthroughthe medium of notional correspondence a more intimate relationship with his wider public.Inthisrespectwemayobserveacontrastinthetreatmentofsimilar philosophical topics in Senecas letters and his formal treatises. 43

Therefore,itisnotsurprisingthatSenecawasnotconcernedwithepistolary form as much as he was with proper philosophical style (see Ep. 38, 40, 75).44 Likeotherletter-essaysSenecaslettersadheretoepistolarystyleandmake useofepistolaryformulaeonlyveryloosely.45Senecasconcernwaswith philosophical style which could be communicated through a variety of literary formsbutshouldbedistinguishedfromothertypes[ofstyle];thatthe desirable qualities of such a style are unobtrusiveness, ease, sincerity, clarity, simplicity,purity,andnobility;andthataformhighlyadaptedforthis combinationofqualitiesistheliteraryepistle.46Senecaspurposesfor composinghisletterswerephilosophical.Theywerenotlettersinthe conventional sense. They were written in extended settings, with the intent of wereinfactcomposed.Againitisoftenpossibletoreconstructsomethingofthecontentof theletterwhichCiceroisansweringandofthecharacterandinterestsoftheaddresseefrom the tone ofhiswriting and the range of topics discussed. By contrast it is extremely difficult to form more than a vague picture of Lucilius the man from the sum total of references to him andimpossibletoreconstructanythingmuchofevenoneofhislettersfromthe124pieces thatthatpurporttobeSenecasrepliestohim.Finally,whereasinthecourseofalettertoa close friend Cicero frequently ranges over a medley of topics, Senecas letters are a series of carefullyorganizedlettersessaysonspecificthemes.R.Coleman,TheArtfulMoralist:A Study of Senecas EpistolaryStyle, The Classical Quarterly 24 (1974), pp. 287-88; see also C.Edwards,Self-ScrutinyandTransformationinSenecasLetters,GreeceandRome44 (1997), p. 23. 41 For references see Coleman, Senecas Epistolary Style, p. 287 n4.42 C.D.N. Costa,Seneca: 17 Letters with Translation and Commentary (Warminster:Aris & Phillips, 1988), p. 2 (although I question that Seneca in any way marked the emergence of the literary epistle as a distinct genre). 43 Coleman, Senecas Epistolary Style, p. 288. 44 cf. Merchant, Seneca, pp. 49-50. 45 cf. Aune, New Testament, p. 167. 46 Merchant, Seneca, p. 54. 9 supplementing other writings in a published form. As Coleman concludes, In the letters of Seneca we see not only the emergence of the literary epistle as a distinct genre but also a novel form of moral essay, circumscribed in subject-matter and highly wrought in style.47 LikethewritingsofIsocrates,Senecaslettershaveaidedstudiesin Greco-Romanparaenesisnotonlyintermsofmodelingparaeneticstyle,but also in their contribution to the theory of paraenesis in antiquity. As we might expect,giventhelettergenreinwhichhewrites,Senecasdescriptionof paraenesisiscastintermsofStoicmoralphilosophy(Ep.94,95).He conflatesGreekparaeneticandRomanpreceptoraldiscourseintoone category. This category is not, however, a literary classification but a form of philosophydealingwithethics(Ep.94.1;cf.Ep.89.13).Itisadmonitionor adviceconcerningconductwhichdistinguishesappropriatebehaviorrelative to the type of person: paraenesis for slaves will be different than that directed toward wives (Ep. 95.1).Paraenesisinthephilosophershasitsownstylereflectedmainlyin moraltreatisesandphilosophicalletter-essaysanddefinition,thoroughly nuanced according to the relevant philosophical school. Isocrates and Seneca, twoofthemostsignificantrepresentativesofphilosophicalparaenesis, employ the epistolary genre as a literary medium for advancing philosophical propaganda.Theirlettersdonotresemblethepersonalletterformcommon amongthepapyributreflectmoreextendedsettings,takingtheformofthe Greek letter-essay. Both of these thinkers also commented upon the nature of paraenesis,butneitherseemtoprovideliterarydescriptions.Isocrates describesapracticegroundedinpopularphilosophyratherthanaliterary form48 and Seneca understands paraenesis as a form of philosophy which has ethicsasitscentralcontent.Theirlettersimbibethepracticeofparaenesis. Thisisdistinctfromwhatweseeemergingwithinconventionalepistolary theoryandpracticewhereparaenesisandadmonitionfunctionasastyleor type of letter.AlthoughtolesserdegreethanIsocratesandSeneca,Plinyhasalso been used as a source for paraenetic material among New Testament scholars. Whilehedoesnotwriteinthetraditionofphilosophicalparaenesisor expound upon its conceptual status, Plinys letters provide an often referenced sourceforexhortationinantiquity.Plinysletterstypicallytaketheletter-essayform.Incontrasttothephilosophers,Plinyusestheepistolary frameworktorecordhistory.Likemanyletter-essays,Plinyslettersare written largely with a view to publication.49 They are literary, artful records ofhistoryframedwiththeformalcharacteristicsofaletter.Thekindof narrationweseeinPlinyisunprecedentedintheprivatelettertraditionand Plinyclearlyrealized that it was not a natural function of the private letter 47 Coleman, Senecas Epistolary Style, p. 289. 48cf.W.Popkes,ParaneseundNeuesTestament(SBS168;Stuttgart:Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), p. 17. 49 S. Plinius, Letters of Pliny (trans. by W. Melmoth; London: R. & J. Dodsley, 1763), p. 1. 10 totreatmaterialpropertoformalhistory.50AsTraubremarks:Thisuseof the letter to narrate an artistically whole episode from past history is in accord with,andwelladaptedto,Plinystreatmentoftheliteraryepistle.51Plinys epistles fit well within the Greek letter-essaygenre, including his digressions on moral topics. 3. Epistolary Paraenesis: Ancient Theory and Practice Demetrius,asIhavealreadynoted,makesapointtodistinguishthe typeoflettersthatheintendstodescribefromtheletter-essaysofthe philosophers.Thissuggestsbothaconceptualandliterarydistinctionifwe assumethatthisaspectofearlyepistolarytheorywasmonolithic.Thatthe examplelettersinthetheoristswerepersonallettersisatleastonepointthat commends this thesis. Further, the type of exhortation literature described by epistolologists in the context of properepistolarystyle probably constitutes a more literary (at least stylistic), less technical notion than we see in Isocrates, especiallySenecaandtheothermoralphilosophers.Epistolaryparaenesis wouldhaveconsistedofliteraryfeaturesratherthanaformofphilosophical ethicsandwouldhavebeenquiteflexibleintermsofcontent.Theletter-writer,accordingtothehandbooks,wastoadoptastyleappropriatetohis intentionsforwriting.52Thisseemstoassumethatthestylesortypes mentionedhadformalcharacteristicswhichcouldbeexploitedaccordingto thepurposesofthecomposer,eveniftheywereonlyexercisesinstyleon individual topoi.53 The example letters would have likely been taught at some point within the Greco-Roman school curriculum.54 And while the theoretical discussiondidnotdominatethepracticeofletter-compositioninthe Hellenistic period, it is very likely that the example letters from the handbooks would have been used for instruction in letter-writing at later stages of literacy education.55Soitisnotimprobablethatmanywhowouldhaveprogressed throughtheelementarylevelsofeducationwouldhavehadafamiliaritynot 50H.W.Traub,PlinysTreatmentofHistoryinEpistolaryForm,Transactionsand ProceedingsfromtheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation86(1955),p.219;cf.alsoJulius Victor,Rhet.,27.Henotesthathistoryshouldnottakethesamesequencingofnarrativeif some piece of history is communicated in epistolary form. Pliny certainly does not take notice of this, sequencing narrative after narrative in his letters. 51 Traub, Plinys History, p. 218. 52 ps.-Demetrius, 1u oiEiooii|oi, 1-2. 53A. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS 19; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 8-9. 54 Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, p. 7. 55W.Schubert,EinfhrungindiePapyruskunde(Berlin:Weidmann,1918),p.397;This assumes a framework for Greco-Roman education which involves primary (basic literacy) and secondary (grammar and the poets)/ advanced (rhetoric and/or philosophy) education. Recent treatments which (at least loosely) advocate this framework include: R. Cribiore, Gymnastics oftheMind:GreekEducationinHellenisticandRomanEgypt(Princeton,NJ:Princeton UniversityPress,2001);R.Cribiore,Writing,Teachers,andStudentsinGraeco-Roman Egypt (American Studies in Papyrology 36; Atlanta, GA.:Scholars Press, 1996); T. Morgan, LiterateEducationintheHellenisticandRomanWorlds(CambridgeClassicalStudies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 11 only with the content of the letter types described by the handbooks, but also with their literary description and formal characteristics.56 ThehandbookattributedtoLibaniusorperhapsProclus57comments mostdirectlyonepistolaryparaenesis.Headdressesthistypefirstinhislist andmostextensively.Thepassagedealingwithparaenesisinsistsona differencebetweenparaenesisandadvice.Itdiffersinthesensethatadvice hasanargumentativeorpersuasiveelementinwhichtheaddresseeisurging the recipients to take action based on a set of reasons. He uses the illustration of someone writing concerning whether or not a nation should go to war. This is advice because the just nature of the action is not intuitively grasped by the audience whereas paraenesis is self-evidently goodit is quite apparent to the audience that what the addressee is encouraging them to do is the right thing todo.Thisisconsistentwithcontemporaryassessmentsofparaenetic literature,suchasthoseatLund2000andOslo2001,whichaffirmthat paraenesisassumesasharedideologicalframeworkorworldview.Libanius remarksthathonoringthedivineisanexampleoftrueparaenesisisalso suggestiveofasharedsetofbeliefsbetweentheauthorandrecipient. AccordingtoLibanius,paraenesisdoesnotallowforcontradiction (ovi ppqoiv).Exhortationsintheparaeneticletteralsoinvolvebothpositive andnegativecommands;iturgestherecipienttosomemorallypraiseworthy deedorattitudeandawayfromothermorallyblameworthydeedsand attitudes.Itisnot,asDibeliussuggested,astringoflooselyconnected commands; it seems to have an antithetical structure and often calls the reader to imitate a positive moral model.All of these characteristics are expressed in the model letter: Hopoivti|q .Zqioq,oti ,t iioot,ytvouovtvopt ov ovpov._ptiovyo ptoiou,oyoou,qiouvo|oiov o_ou tiv qou ioi, to tvov tovti ioov ti voi oi, ooiv. Imitation seems to be a central feature in this example, as does the antithetical structure that it is mentioned in the theoretical section of the handbook.As a modelletter,thereferentsremainvague.Inemulatingthispattern,however, particularexamplesofvirtuousmenwouldcertainlyhavebeenasimportant of an aspect of epistolary paraenesis as it was for philosophical paraenesisas weseeinSenecaforexample.Again,theexhortationsdonotseemtobe random.AsStowerspointsout,evenaseeminglyrandomseriesofprecepts orvirtuesmayactuallyprovideanimplicitpatternofcharacter.58The 56Harrisestimatesthatabout30%oftheGreco-Romanworldwouldhavebeenliteratein Greek. He fails, however, to factor in Palestinewhichwould have had amuch higher rate of literacy due to emphasis onwritten Torah at early stages of a childs education. H.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 666-67; see also B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic JudaismandEarlyChristianitywithTraditionandTransmissioninEarlyChristianity(The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998 [1964 C.WK. Gleerup]), pp. 56-66. 57 cf. Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, p. 284. 58 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 95. 12 exampleletteralsoappearstoassumephilophronesis,afriendshipcontext. The person who is in a place to issue exhortations to the recipient undoubtedly has a positive relationship with the recipient of the letter and in most instances seems to speak from the position of a moral superior. Althoughpseudo-Demetriusdoesnotmentiontheparaeneticletter type,hedoesdiscussadmonitory(voutqi|o ,),advisory(ououitui|o ,) andconsoling(opouqi|o,)59typesofletters.60Ofthese,theletterof admonition probably comes closest to what pseudo-Libanius calls a paraenetic letter.Theletterofadmonitionteachesapersonwhatshouldandshouldnot be done. The example letter is very closely tied to situational features, urging the recipient to apologize for his wrong actions toward a particular individual and reaffirming the just thing to do in a particular situation. The exhortations taketheimperativeandconsistbothofpositiveandnegativetypesof commandsthere is antithesis, as Libanius mentions. The advisory letter has remarkableparallelswithLibaniusparaeneticletteraswell.Mostnotably, pseudo-Demetriussuggeststhatadviceinvolvesbothpositiveandnegative elements;exhortationtosomethinganddissuasionfromsomething.Ithasan antithetical structure. It seems, therefore, that there is some significant overlap among the descriptions provided by the epistolary theorists and that there was somedifferenceofopinionconcerningthecorrectandmostconcise classificationofthematerial.Nevertheless,itseemsthatthesetwotheorists mayhavehadasimilarletter-typeinmindwhentheyspokeofadmonishing and paraenetic letters. They may have used a different designation to describe the same or (at least) a similar style. Similarities between the two have already been noted. A few significant differences remain. The handbook attributed to Libaniusemphasizesimitationandmoralitywhichcannotbecontradicted while the handbook written in Demetrius name fails to mention imitation and suggeststhatteaching(io o|tiv)isinvolved.DependingonDemetrius intention,theelementofteachingmayormaynotconflictwithLibanius remarksthatparaenesiscannotbecontradicted.Someteachingcan,perhaps, becontradicted.Butwithinparticularsociologicalcontextswheretheletter writerspeaksasamoralsuperior,thepreceptsarecommunicatedwith authority. And it seems to be precisely this type of context that is assumed in the model letter provided by Demetrius. With respect to the issue of imitation: while this does constitute a significant element of Libanius example letter, it is not mentioned within his theoretical discussion, indicating perhaps that this wasatypicalbutnotessentialfeatureoftheparaeneticstyle.Andalthough Demetriusdoesnotmentiontheirrefutablenatureofparaenesis,hisexample letterconfirmsthiselement.Itseems,therefore,thatDemetriusandLibanius probablyhadverysimilarlettertypesinmindwhentheydisusedparaenetic andadmonitoryletters.Theywereletterscharacterizedbyexhortationofan ethicalcharacteradmittingofanantitheticalstructure:exhortationtoand dissuasion from. The paraenetic letter type in the epistolologists was a stylistic designation,writteninanormativelettersetting,issuingfromareal 59 cf. Seneca, Ep. 94. 60 ps.-Demetrius, 1u oiEiooii|oi, 5, 7, 11. 13 correspondenceandallowingforflexibilityincontentandtheauthors ideological framework.The most abundant examples we have of the non-literary, private types oflettersthatthehandbooksdiscussarefoundinthepapyri.While philosophicallettersaremuchmorerichinethicalcontentthantheletters foundinEgypt,therearesomeletterspreservedinthepapyrithatseemto aligncloselywiththeparaeneticstyleoutlinedbyDemetriusandLibanius. Unfortunately,duetoclimateconditions,mostoftheprivatelettertradition from the Hellenistic world has been lost. The correspondence in the Egyptian papyriconsistsmostlyofbusinessmattersandnotificationsofhealthsoitis not surprising that the amount of ethical content is not as replete as it is in the philosophicalmaterial.DemetriusandLibaniuscommentsandexample letters,however,testifystronglytothecurrencyofparaeneticstyleamong letter writers during theGreco-Roman period. And even among the Egyptian papyri,wecanpointnumerousexampleswhichaligncloselywiththe characteristicstheydiscuss.SomeofCicerospersonallettersmayalsobe relevant for the discussion of epistolary paraenesisthough these Latin letters do not conform closely to the Greek letter form. Twoexamplesfromthepapyrithatseemtoparallelwhatthe handbooksdiscussillustratethisforminpractice.InP.Oxy.3057,aletter fromAmmoniustohisbrother,Apolloniusexhibitstheessential characteristics of a paraenetic or admonitory letter:61 AmmoniustoApolloniushisbrother(otioi),greetings.Ireceivedthe crossedletterandtheportmanteauandthecloaksandthereeds,notgood onesthe cloaks I received were not as old ones, but were better than new ifthatispossible,becauseofthespiritinwhichtheyweregiven.ButIdo notwantyou,brother(o tit),toshowermewiththesecontinualactsof kindness since I can not repay them; the only thing we suppose ourselves to haveofferedyouisourfriendship(iii|q,).Iencourageyou(opo|oio ) nottoconcernyourselfanymorewiththekeytothesingleroom:Idonot wantyou,mybrothers(otiou ,),tofightformysakeorforthesakeof anyoneelse;indeedIpray(tu _ooi)forunityandmutualaffectiontobe kept among you, so that, unlike us, you may be beyond the reach of gossip. Experience leads me to urge (popt oooi) you to live at peace and not to give others any advantage against you. So try and do this for my sake tooafavourtome,whichyouwilleventuallycometorecognizeas advantageous (to you aswell). If youve received thewool from Salvius to thefullamount,andifitssatisfactory,writebacktome.Iwroteyousilly thingsinmypreviousletter,whichyoulldiscount:thefactismyspirit relaxeswhenyournameisthereandthisthoughithasnohabitof tranquility, because of its pressing troubles. Well,Leonasbears up (?). My bestwishestoyou,master,andallyourpeople.Goodhealth,most honoured friend. (Address) To Apollonius, surveyor, his brother. Likemanyofthepapyri,theletterbeginswithapersonalnarrativeafterthe epistolaryopening.Thethemeofphilophronesisisexpressedhereexplicitly 61Althoughthetranslationismyown,Idependheavilyonthetranslationprovidedin Stowers, Letter Writing, pp. 98-99 for P.Oxy. 3057 and 3069. 14 throughfamilialandfriendshipterminology:otioi,o tit,otiou ,, iii|q,. This context is reinforced by referencesin each section of the letter. Thereferencetoprayer(andfamily)assumesasharedworldview.Afterthe narrativesectiontheauthorswitchestoamorehortatorymodeofdiscourse. Theexhortationsheretaketheantitheticalstructurementionedbythe handbooks.Imitationishereaswell,althoughitismoreimplicit:theywere not to be like Ammonius by keeping themselves beyond the reach of gossip. AnotherparaeneticletterisP.Oxy.3069.InthisletterAquila encourages Sarapion, a philosopher, to continue with moral endurance and not to be distracted by worldly enticements, regardless of their aesthetic appeal. AquilatoSarapion,greetings.Iwasoverjoyedtoreceiveyourletter.Our friendCallinicuswastestifyingtotheutmostaboutthewayoflifeyou follow even under such conditionsespecially in your not abandoning your austerities.Yes,wemaydeservetocongratulateourselves,notbecausewe do these things, but because we are not diverted from them by ourselves. Be of good Courage! Carry through what remains like a man! Do not let wealth distract you, nor beauty, nor anything else of the same kind: for there is no goodinthem,ifvirtuedoesnotjoinherpresence,no,theyarevanishing andworthless. Under divine protection, I expect you inAntinopolis. Send Soteris the puppy, since she now spends her time alone in the country. Good health! (Back) To Sarapion the philosopher from his friend Aquila. This letter takes good paraenetic form as well. Aquila begins by offering some personalnarrative,includingthegoodtestimonyhehasreceivedfromothers onSarapionsbehalf.MutualfriendshipwithCallinicusreinforces philophronesis, also established by the use of friendship language on the back oftheletter.Thementionofdivineprotectionaswellastheassumption that theexhortationsareethicallyrightwithoutqualificationindicateashared worldview.Theparaenesisinthisletteralsotakesthetypicalantithetical structure, beginning with exhortations to endure followed by commands not to be distracted by wealth and worldly pleasure. Paraenesisasitemergedwithintheprivatelettertraditionisdistinct from philosophical paraenesis in several ways. First, private letters emerge out normative instead of extended epistolary situations. Second, these letters took thenon-literaryletterstructureasopposedtotheGreekletter-essayform. Third, they are not necessarily tied to a philosophical ideological framework, butdoseemtoassumeasharedworldview.Fourth,unliketypical philosophicalletters,epistolaryformulaeareemployedwithinthelettersuch as joy expressions, greeting formulae, health wishes, expressions of desire and so on. Finally, paraenesis seems to be represented by the ancient theorists and practitioners as a style of writing rather than a form of philosophy.The similarities should not go unnoticed either. Friendship contexts are employed in both types of paraenesis.But this may be part of the framework thatthephilosophersattempttocarryoverfromnormativeletterwriting practices in order to frame their work with epistolary structure. Example also playsarole.Theantitheticalstructureinbothphilosophicalandepistolary paraenesis is significant as well. Much work remains to be done, however, in 15 developingthetraditionofparaenesiswithinprivateepistolarypracticeand the precise relation of epistolary theory to moral philosophy. 4. The Pauline Letter and Philosophical Letter-Essays: A Problem of Genre MostrecenttreatmentsofPaulineparaenesisattempttoestablisha connectionbetweenPaulslettersandparaeneticletter-essays.Malherbehas suggestedformostofhiscareerthat1Thessaloniansisaparaeneticletterin this sense and has recently put forward the same contention for Titus.62 Fiore hasmadesimilarclaimsregardingallofthepastoralepistles.Moregeneral suggestions along these lines are offered by Berger as well.63 When epistolary theory and practice is treated, it is understood as part of this broader trend of paraenesisintheGreco-Romanworld.Whenadistinctionbetween philosophicalandepistolaryparaenesisismaintained,however,thereare significantliteraryobstaclesforunderstandingPaulslettersinlightofthe philosophical development of the tradition. There are two sets of problems in particular. The first involves literary and theoretical issues associated with the formal features of Greek-letter essays and the form and setting of the Pauline letter.Ishallexplorethissetofproblemsinthepresentsection.Thesecond setofproblemswillbedevelopedinthefollowingsectionandrelatesto Paulsuseofphilosophicaltopoiandhowhisusagecomparestopatternsof usage among the philosophers. OneofthemostobviousdifferencesbetweenthePaulineletterand philosophicalletter-essaysistheepistolarysituationsoutofwhichthetwo emerge.Paulslettersrespondandspeaktoveryacutesituationswithin particularchurchcommunities.64Theyarenotwritteninextended,butin normative contexts. They do not communicate in the detached, removed style ofthemonographnorweretheywrittenwiththeintentionofpublicationor seemtosupplementsomealreadypublishedwork.Theyarewrittenwitha constantsenseoftheaudienceinmindandthecontenttypicallyemerges directlyoutofsituationalandcontextualfactorswithinthecommunitiesto whichhewaswriting.Theyarelettersinthenormalsenseoftheterm,not philosophical treatises on moral topics with epistolary framing.AnotherproblemforunderstandingPaulslettersasparaeneticletter-essaysistheissueofstructure.Whilethecontentissignificantlyexpanded and more complex, the form and function of the Pauline letter seems to align 62 A.J. Malherbe, Paul: Hellenistic Philosopher or Christian Pastor? ATR 68 (1968), pp. 3-13;HellenisticMoralists,pp.278-93;MoralExhortation;Pauland1Thessalonians:The PhilosophicTraditionofPastoralCare(Philadelphia:FortressPress,1989);Paraenesisin the Epistle to Titus, in J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (BZNW 125; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 297-318. 63K.Berger,HellenistischeGattungenimNeuenTestament,inWolfgangHaaseand HildegardTemporini(eds.),ANRW25.2(Religion[VorkonstantinischesChristentum:Neues Testament];Berlin:deGruyter,1992),pp.2-12,67-71;Dormeyersuggeststhattheyare christianizedliteraryletters.Dormeyer,HellenisticLetter-Formula,p.71.seealsoGlad, Paul. 64 cf. Long, Ancient Rhetoric, p. 101 16 mostcloselywiththeexamplelettersrepresentedinthehandbooksandthe privatelettersfoundamongthedocumentarypapyri.65Paulusesthetypical non-literary letter format with an epistolary opening, a body (with an opening, middleandclosing)andanepistolaryclosingasindispensableelements, oftenemployingathanksgiving/healthwishandparaeneticsectionaswell. White notices distinct similarities within the letter body as well, with the only dissimilaritiesbeinglengthandaquasi-independentparaenesiswithinthe body.ThesimilaritieshefindsbetweenthePaulineletterbodyandtheletter bodiesoftheGreekpapyriare:(1)theybothdivideintothreestructural components,thebody-opening,-middle,and-closing;(2)thetransitioninto thebodyinPaulandinthepapyribothbeginwithaformulaicorquasi-formulaicconstruction;(3)stereotypedlanguage;and(4)allbody-opening formulae that we find in Paul find their parallel in the papyri.66 These formal similaritiesalignthelettersinthePaulinecorpusmostcloselywiththenon-literaryprivatelettertraditionandwehavenoparallelsofliterary philosophicalletterswhichtookthenon-literaryletterformandemployed epistolary formulae as extensively as Paul. Even in the case of Romans, which hasreceivedsomeattentionalongtheselinesrecently,wehavenoparallels among the philosophical letters in terms of structure.67 They are either entirely descriptiveandphilosophical(likeRomans1-11)ortheircontentisentirely ethical (like Romans 12-15), not a combination of the two. Typicalformulaefoundinthepapyriareemployedthroughoutthe Paulinecorpus,oftenmorefrequently(andwithmoreflexibility)thanwhat 65LongandStirewalthaverecentlysuggestedthatthePaulinelettermaybecloserto official letters in their structure and function. F.J. Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Pauls Apology :TheCompositionalUnityof2Corinthians(SNTS131;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2004),pp.100-01;M.L.Stirewalt,PaultheLetterWriter(GrandRapids:Eerdmans, 2003).Thecontentofhisletters,however,continuestoposeamajorobstacleforthis understanding. Pauls letter do not strike us as letters concerned mainly with official matters, detachedfrompersonalsituations;theydonotseemtobewrittenfortheconductofstate businessandsentbetweenstats,rulers,militaryofficers,orambassadorsintheexerciseof theirduties(Stirewalt,Studies,p.6).Most,however,continuetoaffirmPaulslettersas unusuallylongexamplesofsomethingveryclosetotheprivatelettere.g.J.L.White,Light fromAncientLetters(FactsandFacets;Philadelphia:FortressPress,1983);White,Form; Doty, Letters; Stowers, Letter-Writing. 66 White, Form and Function, pp. 153-54. 67RomanshasbeencomparedtotheGreekletter-essaymoreoftenthananyoftheother Paulineepistles.TherehavebeenseveralstudieswhichseektocastRomanonthe backgroundoftheCynic-Stoicphilosophicalconversationformrelatedtodiatribe,for example.R.BultmanninitiatedthismovementinDerStilderpaulinishcenPredigtunddie kynishstoischeDiatribe(ForschungenzurReligionundLiteraraturdesAltenundNeuen Testaments 13; Gttingen: Vandenhoek&Ruprecht, 1910); hehas beenfollowed byseveral others,seeesp.S.K.Stowers,TheDiatribeandPaulsLettertotheRomans(SBLDS57; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); S.K. Stowers, Diatribe, in D.E. Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament (SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); T. Schmeller, PaulusunddieDiatribe:EinevergleichendeStilinterpretation(Mnster:Aschendorff, 1987). 17 we find in the papyri.68 Mullins catalogues a helpful list of formulae occurring inthepapyriwhichalsooccurinNewTestamentlettersandespeciallythe Pauline corpus.69

Expressionsofjoyandastonishment,transitionalindicators,hesitation formulaeandstatementsofreportwiththeformulaicuseofhearingor learningterminologycanalsobeaddedtothislist.70Allofthesefindtheir parallelsinthepapyriandcanbedetectedinPaulineepistlestoagreateror lesserdegree.However,epistolaryformulaewererarelyutilizedinGreek letter-essaysingeneralorbythemoralphilosophersinparticular,further distancingthePaulineletterformfromtheGreekletter-essayofthepopular philosophers. SomehaveinsistedthatlengthandcomplexityinPaulslettersmay align them more closely with the literary tradition. But while Pauls letters are longerthanthetypicalpersonallettersofhisday,theyexceedtheaverage lengthofliteraryandofficiallettersaswell.71Whilethelettertraditionthat hasbeenpreservedoutsideoftheNewTestamenttestifiestothecurrencyof 68 See J.L. White, 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 (SBLDS 2; Missoula, 1972), pp. 153-55. 69 T.Y. Mullins, Formulas in New Testament Epistles, JBL 91 (1973), p. 387. 70 An analysis of the formal features of these formulae can be found in several places. See Mullins, Formulas, pp. 380-90; T.Y. Mullins, Petition as a Literary Form, NovT 5 (1962), pp. 46-54; T.Y. Mullins, Disclosure: A Literary Form in the New Testament, NovT 7 (1964), pp.44-50;J.L.White,IntroductoryFormulaeintheBodyofthePaulineLetter,JBL90 (1971), pp. 91-97; Epistolary Formulas and Clichs in Greek Papyrus Letters, SBL Abstracts andSeminarPapers14(1978),pp.289-319;J.T.Reed,Philippians3:1andtheEpistolary HesitationFormulas:TheLiteraryIntegrityofPhilippians,Again,JBL115(1996),pp.63-90;J.T.Sanders,TheTransitionfromOpeningEpistolaryThanksgivingtoBodyinthe Letters of the Pauline Corpus, JBL 81 (1962), pp. 348-62; A convenient summary is found in R.E.Richards,TheSecretaryintheLettersofSt.Paul(WUNT2/42;Tbingen:Mohr (Siebeck), 1991), pp. 203-206. 71 cf. P.J. Achtemeier, Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity, JBL 109 (1990), p. 22. 18 much shorter letters, there seems to be some difference of opinion among the ancient theorists as to whether pressing normal length boundaries went against good epistolary style. Clearly Demetrius felt that personal letters should not be aslongasthephilosophicallettersofPlatoandThucydides:1ott yto, ouvtoo ioq,tiooiq,,o otp|oiqit i,.72However,Gregorystates: Eoi t t pov ov tiooiov, q _pti o |oi ou t o_po tpo ypot ov, ou q oiioopo yoo,ou ti_poioyqt ov,t vooiio .73Accordingtothis latertheorist(4thc.),aletterthatachievesitspurposewithoutexcessis appropriateepistolarystyle:oneshouldnotexpoundunnecessarilyupona limitedsubjectnorshouldonesparewordswhenthereismuchtosay.So whileunusual,thereissomeindication(atleastinlaterdevelopmentof epistolarytheory)thatpersonallettersmayhavestretchedbeyond conventional bounds from time to time when the epistolary situation called for it. Certainly the situation in many of the churches to which Paul wrote would havewarrantedthis.Other,moreindividualsituations,likePhilemon,Titus and2Timothycalledformuchless.ButmanyofPaulslettersremainlong accordingtoanystandardofletterwritingstyleinantiquitysothis characteristicmustbeviewedaPaulineadaptationoftheletterform, regardlessofwhichlettertypeoneseesPaulmostcloselyalignedwithit endsupbeingamatterofdegree.ThisisconfirmedbyRichardsrecent analysis:74 Intheapproximately14,000privatelettersfromGreco-Romanantiquity, theaveragelengthwasabout87words,ranginginlengthfrom18to209 wordsCiceroaveraged295wordsperletter,rangingfrom22to2,530, andSenecaaveraged995,rangingfrom149to4134.Bybothstandards, though, Pauls letters were quite long. The thirteen letters bearing his name average 2,495 words, ranging from 335 (Philemon) to 7,114 (Romans).

Lengthandcomplexitydifferedamongalltypesoflettersintheancient world.Paulsletterswerelongerthanmostandwentbeyondmany philosophicaltreatisesintermsoftheirlengthandcomplexitywhichmaybe anindicationofamoretechnicalsetting.Butlengthaloneisnotenoughto overturn several other literary and contextual factors that mitigate against this backgroundforthePaulineletterformespeciallygiventhefactthatPauls lettersarebeenunusuallylongwhencomparedtoliteraryandnon-literary letters.Paulslettersdonottaketheformoftheletter-essay,usetheirnon-formalizedaestheticcharacteroflanguageorresembletheircontent structurallytheytypicallyinvolvedescriptionfollowedbyexhortationnot one or the other which is unparalleled in the philosophical letters. Further, the letter setting involves attention to particular situations and lacks the extended character of the letter-essay. These considerations make it highly unlikely that Paul set out to write or was significantly influenced by the literary epistles of 72 Demetrius, Eloc. 28; cf. also Victor, Rhet. 27. 73 Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 51. 74R.E.Richards,TheSecretaryintheLettersofSt.Paul(WUNT2/42;Tbingen:Mohr (Siebeck), 1991), p. 213. 19 the Hellenistic philosophical schools when he composed his own letters. 5. Philosophical Topoi: Patterns of usage in Pauland in the Hellenistic Moralists Despite the issues of letter formand function, the unique character of Paulineexhortativematerialiscustomarilyaccreditedtoitsoriginwithinthe philosophicalepistolarytradition.Theparallelsthataretypicallyemphasized inthediscussionofparaenesisaretheuseofexampleandantithesis.75Other featuresoftenreferredtoaswellincludethethemeofphilophronesisand knowing/remembranceterminology.76Thesefeaturesareabundantin hortatorymaterialfoundinSeneca,IsocratesandPliny.77UnlikeSenecaand Isocrates,Pauldoesnotdescribehiswritingsasparaeneticwhichshould functionasawarningforprojectingatechnicaldefinitionorliterarymodel frommoralphilosophyontoPaul.78Failuretomakeadistinctionbetween varietiesoflettersandparaenesiswithintheGreco-Romanperiodhasalso resultedintheconflationofseverallevelsofethicalmaterial.Senecas understanding of paraenesis as a form of philosophy is certainly different from the epistolologists descriptions of paraenesis or admonition as a type of letter writteninthecontextofrealprivatecorrespondence.Furtherproblemsarise whenphilosophicaltopoiareconsideredasthebasisforcorrelatingPauline ethicalmaterialwithphilosophicalparaenesis.WhenPaulsusageofthe proposed hortatory features from moral philosophy are examined in his letters, we find that they do always not align with the patterns of usage found among the moral philosophers, that they are accounted for more convincingly in other socialandliterarycontextsorthattheyarenotuniquelyphilosophical. Malherbesanalysisof1Thessaloniansisprobablythemostsystematic treatment of these features in a New Testament book so his work servesas a suitable representation of the use of moral philosophy in the study of Pauline paraenesis.In responding to Malherbe, it is argued that the topoi he suggests donotprovideaconvincingbasisfortheclaimthatinthecompositionof1 ThessaloniansPauldrewheavilyfromtheparaeneticlettertraditionof Hellenistic philosophy. Personal example and imitation has perhaps been emphasized the most indiscussionsofphilosophicalparaenesis.Fioresremarksarefairly representative: In the call to imitation, both as to its purpose and to the details oftheexhortation,PaulreflectsusagefoundintheHellenisticphilosophers and rhetoricians.79 Personal example is used in paraenetic contexts both in the example letters of the epistolary handbooks and in personal letters so that this 75e.g.Fiore,Function,pp.132-44,pp.187-88;Glad,Paul,pp.281-82;Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, pp. 284-92; Sterling, Hellenistic Philosophy, pp. 324, 325. 76 Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, p. 292; cf. Glad, Paul, pp. 160-81; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, pp. 126-27, 331; Sterling, Hellenistic Philosophy, pp. 324, 325.77 For examples see Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, pp. 280-88. 78cf.Petersen,ParaenesisinPaul,inJ.StarrandT.Engberg-Pedersen(eds.),Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (BZNW 125; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), p. 269. 79 Fiore, Function, p. 178.20 featurecanunderstoodinlightofthephilosophicalorepistolaryparaenetic traditionit is not distinctively philosophical. The social context for imitation motifs should alsobe considered when evaluating how this motif functions in Paul. Next to memorization, imitation was the most critical factor of the early stagesofGreco-Romaneducation.80AsCribioreinsists,Theprincipleof imitationinspiredancienteducationfrombeginningtoend.81Exercises using imitation would often involve recomposing oneof the poets, most often Homer.Buttheteacherwasalsotobeimitatedthroughouttheliteracyand grammaticalstagesofeducationastheycreatedmaterialfortheirpupilsas wellasinadvancedrhetoricaleducation(thoughmorerarely)through emulatingthespeechesorcompositionsoftheirteacher.82Imitationinthis contextalsohadamoraldimension.Quintiliansuggeststhatchildrens exercisesofcopyingthewordsandthoughtsofadmirablemenwouldteach them moral lessens and contribute to character formation.83 He states, 84

80cf.Quintilian,Inst.I.1.5;I.3.1;Morgan,LiterateEducation,p.352;onthefunctionof imitation in advanced levels of education see Cribiore, Gymnastics, pp. 220-44. 81 Cribiore, Gymnastics, p. 132. 82 Quintilian, Inst., I.12.12; cf. Cribiore (Gymnastics, 133) mentions the following example: [A]tabletfromthesecondtothirdcenturyC.E.discoveredintheRomancemeteryofthe villageofTebtuniswastheprizedpossessionofaboyorgirlwhosepenmanshipneeded improvement.Ontopofthetablet,ateacherhadwrittenamodelwithahexameterline: Begin,goodhand,beautifulletters,andastraightline,whichwascompletedbythe exhortation,Now,youimitateit!oneofthefewtimeswhichthevoiceofanancient teacherringsloud.Fiore(Function,pp.33-44)isolatestherhetoricalphaseofeducationas oneofmanysocial/literarycontextsforimitationinthepastoralepistles.Butthisseems unfounded for anumber reasons. First, rhetorical educationwaslimited to theGreco-Roman elite and it is questionable whether Paul would have had this type of formal training and, more importantly,whetherhisreaderswouldhavebeenabletopickuponnuancespresentinan environment only available to a fortunate few. Second, the distribution of grammatical papyri in Greco-Roman Egypt suggests that rhetorical schools were limited relatively few centers for Greco-RomanculturemeaningthatmanyamongPaulscongregationswouldhavebeen locatedinplaceswhererhetoricaltrainingwasnotsimplylimited,butunavailable(see Morgan, Literate Education, pp. 63-64) (see also not 88 below). Third, imitation saturated the enkykliospaideiafromtheelementarytoadvancedlevels.Lowerlevelsoftheeducation wouldhavealsobeenavailableinnearlyallcitiesandeveninmanycountryareas,sothat allusions from these settings would have been much more readily grasped by Pauls audiences thanthemoreesotericandelitistschoolsofrhetoric.Theimageryprobablyembodiesthe entireenkykliospaideiawiththeelementarylevelsbeingthosewithwhichPaulsaudiences would have been most familiar. 83Inst.,II.1.35-36;cf.Morgan,LiterateEducation,pp.120-51;C.Skidmore,Practical EthicsforRomanGentlemen:TheWorkofValeriusMaximus(Exter,Eng.:Universityof Exter Press, 1996), p. 22.84Quintilian,Inst.II.2.8;cf.Quintilian,Inst.II.2.1-8;Platonotesalongsimilarlines concerningtheOldAthenianeducationfromwhichclassicaleducationdeveloped:Assoon as a child can understand what is said to him, his nurse and his mother and his teacher and his fatherhimselfstrivetomakehimasgoodaspossible,teachingandshowinghimbyevery word and deed that this is right and that wrong, this praiseworthy and that shameful, this holy and thatunholy, do this and dont do that. If he obeysvoluntarily,somuch better; ifnot, theytreathimlikeapieceofwoodwhichisgettingwarpedandcooked,andstraightenhim out with threats and beatings. And then when they send him to school they tell the teachers to paymuchmoreattentiontothechildrensbehaviorthantotheirlettersortheirmusic.The teachers do that, and then when they have learned their letters and are going on to understand 21 For however many models for imitation he may give them from the authors they are reading, it will still be found that fuller nourishment is provided by thelivingvoice,aswecallit,moreespeciallywhenitproceedsfromthe teacherhimself,who,ifhispupilsarerightlyinstructed,shouldbethe object of their affection and respect. And itisscarcely possible to say how much more readily we imitate those whom we like. Hellenisticteachersfunctionedmuchlikeparents,providingmoralexempla forchildren(theirpupils)toemulate.85SoPaulsuseofimitationimagery probablyhadasmuchtodotheprominenceofthispedagogicaltechniquein theHellenisticworldingeneralandinhisowneducationalbackgroundin particular86 as it did withepistolary(or philosophical) style.87It is likely that Paulintendedtoportrayhimselfnotasamoralphilosopher,butasa Hellenisticteacher.Thisimplicationwouldhavebeenmuchmorereadily detectedbyPaulsaudience,notonlybecauseofawiderawarenessofthe educational tradition,88 but also because Pauls use of example does not quite thewrittenword,justastheydidwithspeechbefore,theysetbeforethemattheirdesksthe worksofgoodpoetstoreadandmakethemlearnthembyheart;theycontainalotof exhortation,andmanypassagespraisingandeulogizinggoodmenofthepast,sothatthe child will be fired with enthusiasm to imitate them, and filled with the desire to become a man likethat.Themusicteachers,too,dojustthesame,andseetoitthatthechildrenarewell behavedanddontdoanythingbad....Andthentheysendthemtoatraineraswell,sothat oncetheirmindsareproperlyformedtheirbodieswillbeinabetterconditiontoactunder their direction, and they wont be forced by physical deficiency to act the coward in battle or in any other situation. The people who are best able to do itI mean, the wealthiestdo this especially, and their sons begin to go to school at the earliest age and stay there the longest. Plato,Prt.325c-326d;translationtakenfromC.C.W.Taylor,PlatoProtagoras:Translated with Notes (rev. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 18. 85OnthecloserelationshipbetweentheparentandtheteacherseePlato,Prt.325c-326d; Isocrates,AdDem.9-11;AsCribiore(Gymnastics,p.106)suggests,[E]ducationinits simplest form was a sons imitation of the excellence and conduct of his own father. By the time the adolescent had reached the age to begin his primary education, The two figures, the father and the teacher, had joined their efforts, and their images blended.86MostagreethatPaulatleastprogressedthroughthegrammaticalphasesofGreco-Roman education. See for example J. Murphy-OConnor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford/ New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1996),pp.32-51;R.F.Hock,PaulandGreco-Roman Education,inJ.P.Sampley(ed.),PaulintheGreco-RomanWorld:AHandbook(Harrisburg/ London/ New York: Trinity Press International, 2003), p. 215;87 Alexander has suggested that the Pauline church have actually duplicated the structure of aHellenisticschool.L.Alexander,PaulandtheHellenisticSchools:TheEvidencefrom Galen,inT.Engberg-Pedersen(ed.),PaulinhisHellenisticContext(Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1995), pp. 60-83; cf. also B. Fiore, Paul, Exemplification and Imitation, J. P. Sampley (ed.),PaulintheGreco-RomanWorld:AHandbook(Harrisburg/London/NewYork: Trinity Press International, 2003), pp. 234-35. 88ThewidespreadgeographicaldistributionofgrammaticalpapyriinEgyptsuggeststhat access to literacy levels of education were quite high among all social and economic classes in Greco-Roman antiquity.Onusing Egypt as a representativemodel for conditions throughout theGreco-Romanworld(agrowingconsensusamongclassicists)seeH.M.Cotton,W.E.H. CockleandF.G.B.Millar,PapyrologyoftheRomanNearEast:ASurvey,Journalof RomanStudies85(1995),pp.214-35;A.K.BowmanandJ.D.Thomas,TheVindolanda Writing Tablets (London: British Museum, 2003); cf. Cribiore, Gymnastics, p. 6. 22 align with its use in popular philosophy. The Cynics rarely used themselves or their contemporaries (they typically used Socrates) as the subject of imitation orpresentedthemselvesforthrightly89asPauldoesin1Thessalonians,using theJudeansaswellashisownexampleasthemodeltobeimitated.90Dodd mentionsapassagefromtheCynicphilosopherEpictetusthatheclaimsis analogous to Pauls self-presentation.91 However, Epictetus actually mentions atheoreticalmodelenteringintoamodeofdescriptionthatutilizesfirst person.Hisuseoffirstpersondiscourseshouldnotbemistakenforself-exemplification.Epictetusremainsinthebackgroundthroughout.Hewrites, Look at me, he says, I am without home. The third person injunction is aclearindicationthatEpictetusdoesnotintendtoconveyhimselfasthe modeltobefollowed,butlookstosomeothermanwhomGodhassent.92 While this passage may reflect some of the broader first person trends in Paul that Dodd is concerned with, it does not go far in explaining Pauls use of self-exemplification. Malherbes insistence that the imitation motif was something Paul drew from Hellenistic philosophy as embodied especially in Seneca goes againstgeneralpatternsofusageamongthemoralphilosophers(ashe recognizes)and,therefore,seemsunfounded.93Theuseofimitationimagery and personal example is dealt with much more satisfactorily in the context of pedagogicaltechniquesamongtheHellenisticschools.94Itisconsistentwith practices in epistolary paraenesis as well. AntithesisisalsoemployedbyMalherbeasafeatureofmoral philosophythatPaulincorporatedinhisletters.95Inadditiontoitsusein philosophical paraenesis, this structure is clearly represented in the epistolary handbooksandinprivateparaeneticletters.Forinstance,P.Oxy. XLII.3069.11-13 and 1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 are structurally similar: 89 Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, p. 246.90 Neither does the function of example in Paul align with its use in Greco-Roman rhetoric. seeR.D.Anderson,AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul(Kampen:KokPharos,1996),pp. 252 and 311.91B.Dodd,PaulsParadigmaticI:PersonalExampleasLiteraryStrategy(JSNTSup 177; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 17; see also Fiore, Function, p. 177 n35. 92 Epictetus, Dis. 45-48. 93 Malherbe, Exhortation, pp. 240-41; Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, p. 290. 94 This background has been suggested as one dimension of a multifaceted motif by some. Fiore suggests that personal example in the pastoral epistles should be understood against the background of imitation in the Socratic epistles, rhetoricians, official letters and as a principle in the schools of rhetoric. The Function of Personal Example, pp. 26-34. Gutierrez combines educational and parental motifs. P. Gutierrez, La paternite spirituelle selon Saint Paul (Ebib; Paris: J. Gablda, 1968), pp. 172-97. Dodd understands the self-references of Paul as a literary strategywithpedagogicalandauthoritativedimensions,attemptingtomoveawayfroman exclusivelyparaeneticfunction.Dodd,PaulsParadigmaticI,pp.27;Castellicomesto similar conclusions, recognizing a pedagogical and authoritative dimension using a theoretical frameworkbasedinFoucault.E.A.Castelli,ImitatingPaul:ADiscourseofPower (Louisville:Westminster/JohnKnox,1991).However,thepedagogicalcontextisprobably rich enough to account for the whole range nuances present in a variety of contexts.95 e.g. Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, p. 290. 23 P.Oxy. XLII.3069.11-13 o iov ou v toiv toivtiv touou ,, ou| o i oioutv ouo oiio oiio oiio oiioo i q toyo to u touov. 1 Thessalonians 2:3-4 q yop opo |iqoi, qov ou| t| io vq, out t o|oopoio, out tv oio, oiio oiio oiio oiio|oo, to|iooto uo ou tou iotuqvoi o tuoyytiiov, ou o, ioioutv, ou| o, ovpo oi, opto|ovt, oiio oiio oiio oiio to o o|io ovi o, |opi o, qov Bothhaveanantitheticalstructureformedthroughtheuseofnegative particles and strong adversative conjunctions. They use the first person plural todescribetheiractionsandimplicitlymodeltheirownbehaviorasan example to be followed by the addressees. Since epistolary and philosophical contextsforGreco-Romanparaenesisremaindistinctandsinceantithesisis employed in both, this feature cannot be used as a basis for demonstrating the lettersuniquelyphilosophicalcharacter.Allthatcanbesaidisthatinthis instance philosophical and epistolary paraenesis share a structural element, not thatthetwodevelopedalongthesametrackorthatPauldrewspecifically from one or the other. Friendshipcontextsareanotherasignificantelementofprivateand philosophicalletters.Malherbeseestheusefriendshiplanguagein1 Thessalonians as a reflection of its connection with moral philosophy:96 Isocrates Demonicus opens with remarks on friendship, and Cicero sees the variousaspectsofparaenesisflourishingbestamongfriends.Senecas paraenetic letterswere written to his friend Lucilius, and friendship formed the basis of his advice tohim. Paulsuse of the philophronetic style in this section is perfectly good paraenetic form. Friendshipcontexts,however,werepopularwithintheprivatelettertradition aswell.Basedonananalysisofthehandbooks,Koskenniemiconcludesthat theprototypical(private)friendlylettershouldhave(1)philophronesis, friendshipbetweentheauthorandaddressee,(2)parousia,anticipated presenceorcomingofthewriterand(3)homilia,dialogbetweentheauthor andaddresseeleadingtofriendship.97Thraedelaterfoundsimilarfeaturesin friendlyliteraryletters.98However,thefriendshipcontextisfundamentally different between the two due to the distinct epistolary situations from which theyemerge.Literary(moral)philosophicallettersaretypicallywrittenin 96 Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists, p. 292.97Koskenniemi,Studien;seealsoR.Funk,TheApostolicParousia:Formand Significance,inW.R.Farmer,et.al.(eds.),ChristianHistoryandInterpretation:Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 266.98K.Thraede,Grundzgegriechisch-rmischerBrieftopik(Zetemata:Heft48;Mchen: Beck, 1970). 24 extendedsettingssothatthefriendshipcontextisoftenepistolaryartificeor only very loosely connected to the content and exhortations of the letter as we sawinSeneca,forexample.Philophronesisinprivateletters,bycontrast, usually bears direct relevance to the content of the letter. Demetrius example of the friendly letter, for instance, closes with: You will do well, therefore, to give close attention to the members of my household lest they need anything, toassisttheminwhatevertheymightneed,andtowriteusaboutwhatever you might choose.99 The friendship context in 1 Thessalonians actually aligns much more closely with the private letter tradition since Paul uses his visit and interactionwiththeThessaloniansasthecentralbasisforestablishingthe contextofphilophronesis.Sowhilephilophronesisiscarriedoutbothin philosophical and private letters, they have very different functions in each.AfourthphilosophicaltopoithathasbeensuggestedconcernsPauls use of oio as a hortatory feature. Malherbe and Sterling, among others, insist thatthefunctionofknowingterminologyin1Thessaloniansshouldbe understood in light Senecas anaphoric use knowing and remembrance motifs. While the language Paul uses may be reminiscent of Seneca in many ways, it reflectsmoreexplicitlyestablishedepistolaryconventionsfordisclosure.100 Malherbe points to five instances of oi o in support of Pauls employment of thisphilosophicaltopoi:1:5,2:1,2,5,11.In1:5oi otakesthefirstperson plural.Theremainingfourinstancesaresecondpersonplural.Disclosure formulaeestablishadirectconnectionbetweentheauthorandtheaddressee by expressing the desire of the author that the audience know something or his orherdesiretoaffirmsomeaspectoftheirknowledge.101Disclosure formulae,therefore,occurinsecondpersondiscourse.102This meansthatthe use of oi o in 1:5 is not a disclosure statement. The other four occurrences do, however, seem to be closely related to epistolary disclosure. The first second personuseofthetermoccursin2:1:ouoiyopoi ototioi .103This statementhasalloftheformalfeaturesofadisclosurestatement:aknowing verb, the people addressed and the information content as well as the optional feature of address. Paul wants his audience to know that his coming was not in vain.Heusestheimperfectiveaspect(apresenttenseform)inorderto emphasizethattheirknowledgeisinprocess,seekingtoreaffirmsomething thattheyshouldalreadyknowthathisvisitwasprofitableinmanyways. 99 Translation taken from Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, p. 32. 100 On disclosure formula see 101cf.White,Form,p.11;R.Aasgaard,MyBelovedBrothersandSisters!:Christian SiblingshipinPaul(JSNTSup265;ECC;London:T&TClark,2004),p.278;cf.alsoR. Aasgaard,BrotherlyAdvice:ChristianSiblingshipandNewTestamentParaenesis,inJ. StarrandT.Engberg-Pedersen(eds.),EarlyChristianParaenesisinContext(BZNW125; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 248-49. 102SeeStanleyE.PorterandAndrewW.Pitts,DisclosureFormulasintheEpistolary Papyri and in the New Testament: Form, Function and Syntax, (In Preparation). 103OntheformulahereseeJ.L.White,IntroductoryFormulae,p.94;F.F.Bruce,1&2 Thessalonians (WBC; Dallas:Word Books, 1982), p. 24; on the formula and its surrounding context, especially the thanksgivingsee OBrien, Introductory Thanksgivings, pp. 141-66; P. Shubert,TheFormandFunctionofthePaulineThanksgivings(BeihefteZNW20;Berlin: Tpelmann, 1939), pp. 24-27.25 Theuseofaddress(otioi )makesthephrasemoreformulaicandadds emphasis to the authors message. The other three second person forms seem to be resumptive of this disclosure formula which functions to set the tone for thepassage.Know(oi ot)isusedstrategicallybyPaulthroughoutthe passage to support the initial disclosure statement informing his audience that his time with the Thessalonians was not in vain. Each occurrence is associated with the audiences knowledge of some aspect of Pauls ministry while he was there:PaulandhiscolleagueshadbeenshamefullytreatedinPhilippibefore they arrived, but they still preached they gospel with boldness in Thessalonica (2:2), while in Thessalonica they never used flattery speech or were motivated bygreed(2:5),theyexhortedeachoftheThessalonianstowalkworthyof their calling (2:11). Remembrance terminology is also enlisted to support this development:theyworkeddayandnighttosothattheywouldnotbea financialburdentotheThessalonians(2:9).Theresumptiveuseofthe knowingverb(oracognitiveverbaswehavein2:9)torecalladisclosure formulaisnotuncommoninPaul.Forexamplein1Corinthians12:1Paul beginswithafulldisclosureformulausingaddressandthenemploysa knowing verb in the second person plural to resume the thought in 12:2, very much like he does in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-2: 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 tpi t ov vtuoi|ov otioi otioi otioi otioi ou tio uo, oyvotiv. Oi ot oi o t... io yvopi o uiv oi... 1 Thessalonians 2:1-2 ouoiyopoi ototioi otioi otioi otioiqvtiooov qov qv po, uo, o i ou |tvq yt yovtv oiio pooo vt, |oi upiot vt, |oo, oiot... Notonlyisaformalconnectionwithepistolaryconventionsmoreeasily establishedin1Thessaloniansthanphilosophicalremembrancetopoi,there aresignificantdifferencesbetweenthewayPaulusesknowingterminology hereandthewayitisemployedinthephilosophers.WhileSeneca,for instance, often assumes that a man knows how he should live (Ep. 94.25-26) itistypicallyinthecontextofknowingsomemoraltruth,notcallinghis audiencetorememberactualeventsthatgrewoutofarealcircumstance.104 Paulsuseofremembrancelanguage,ontheotherhand,recallshistorical eventscloselyconnectedtohisrelationshipwiththeaddressees.The philosophersassumedknowledgeofasetofmoralvalues.WhatPaulspeaks ofisanapprehensiononthepartoftheThessaloniansthatheandhis colleaguesbehavedinacertainwaywhiletheywerewiththem.The Thessalonians to some degree became imitators of Paul which certainly entails thattheseeventshadmoralsignificance.However,Paulsuseofknowing terminologyinthisdistinctivelyhistoricalwayisnotparalleledinthe philosophers. 104See also Seneca, Ep. 11.9; 13.15; Pliny, Ep. 8.24.1. 26 Twosignificantimplicationsemergefromtheaboveanalysisof Malherbesworkon1Thessalonians.First,imitationimageryandknowing terminologyaremoreconvincinglyaccountedforwithinnon-philosophical literaryandsocialcontexts.Paulsuseofpersonalexampledoesnotparallel patternsofusageamongthephilosophersandprobablywouldnothavebeen grasped by his audiences as such. The function of exemplification in Paul and particularlyin1Thessaloniansismuchmoreinlinewiththepedagogical techniquesemployedinHellenisticeducation.Theuseofknowing terminologyismorecloselyalignedwithGreco-Romanepistolary conventionsfordisclosurethanwiththeuseofremembrancemotifsin Seneca. And themes of philophronesis have a distinct function in letter-essays thatdonotcorrespondtothewayPaulframesthesecontextsin1 Thessalonians.ThesecondimplicationresultsfromMalherbesconfusionof epistolary and philosophy paraenetic traditions. Both the antithetical structure andfriendshipcontextsmentionedbyMalherbeareeasilyaccountedfor within the tradition of epistolary paraenesis so that Pauls use of these literary formsdoesnotimplytheirorigininmoralphilosophy.Ofcourse,ifthe paraenetic tradition is understood as monolithic then these parallels become a lotmorecompellingsincetheycannotbeaccountedforwithinaliterary traditionofparaenesisdistinctfromthatrepresentedbythemoral philosophers.

6. Conclusions ThestudyofPaulineparaenesisinNewTestamentresearchhasbeen largelydominatedbyreferencetotheHellenisticmoralphilosophers.This paperhassuggestedthatadistincttraditionofparaenesisemergedamong ancientepistolarytheoryandpracticeasrepresentedespeciallyintheprivate lettertraditionandthataconfusionbetweenphilosophicalandepistolary paraenesis has skewed previous analysis. When these traditions are considered independently,severalliteraryobstaclesemergeforunderstandingPauline ethicalmaterialintermsofthephilosophicalparaenesisfoundamongthe lettersofthemoralphilosophers.TheepistolarysituationforPaulsletteris distinctasistheletterformandlanguage.Paulslettersareoccasionaland employthestructureanddictionoftheprivateGreekletter,evenifthey exceedtheseboundariesintermsoflengthandcomplexity.Eachofthese featuresdistinguishPaulslettersfromtheGreekletter-essaysusedto expoundmoralphilosophiesandexploitphilosophicalpropaganda.The philosophicaltopoisuggestedbyMalherbein1Thessaloniansseemtobe better accounted for within other social and literary contexts. There are some featuresthataresharedbetweenepistolaryandphilosophicalparaenesis,but thesedonotcountasconvincingevidenceforPaulsimplementationof distinctivelyphilosophicallanguage.Hencetheuseofthephilosophical paraeneticletterasamodelfor1ThessaloniansandotherPaulinelettersis unwarrantedandtherelationshipofparaeneticsectionsinPaultoHellenistic philosophy should be approached with caution.