Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:46:14.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reading First Thessalonians as a Consolatory Letter in Light of Seneca and Ancient Handbooks on Letter-Writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2015

David Luckensmeyer  and
Bronwen Neil
David Luckensmeyer
Affiliation:
Australian Catholic University – Centre for Early Christian Studies, PO Box 456 Virginia Brisbane, Queensland 4014, Australia
Bronwen Neil*
Affiliation:
Australian Catholic University – Centre for Early Christian Studies, PO Box 456 Virginia Brisbane, Queensland 4014, Australia.
*
Email: bronwen.neil@acu.edu.au (contact author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul addressed the occasion of deaths among Christians with stock arguments of the consolatory genre, without using the typical epistolary structure associated with consolation in ancient handbooks of letter-writing. It is demonstrated that three of Seneca the Younger's letters also employed stock arguments of consolation, but did not follow the usual structure for a letter of consolation. Using Seneca's letters as a test case for what constituted pagan ideas of consolation, we highlight some compelling reasons for reading First Thessalonians as a letter of consolation, a reading that offers some new insights into the passage on the right Christian attitude towards death in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11.

Keywords

consolationeschatologyNew TestamentSenecaPaul1 Thessalonianslettersepistolary handbooks

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 31 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to analyse First Thessalonians against the background of three consolation letters of Seneca, giving a reading of the Pauline letter as a consolation. After a brief introduction to the purpose of First Thessalonians and the circumstances of its composition, as well as recent scholarship on the question of whether it can rightly be considered a letter of consolation, we compare it with three of Seneca's consolation letters and place it within the larger context of ancient epistolary handbooks, with the aim of identifying common structures of the consolatory letter-type. After giving a précis of the structure of the Pauline letter, we offer a reading of it as a consolation to the Christian community of Thessalonica. Specifically, we address the consolatory features of one of the letter's more difficult pericopes, the passage on the proper Christian attitude to death (1 Thess 4.13–5.11).

2. Introduction to the First Letter to the Thessalonians

The occasion of First Thessalonians is the distress of the Christian community in Thessalonica, precipitated by afflictions suffered by followers of Jesus, including the forced separation or exile of their leader, the apostle Paul. These afflictions had culminated in the deaths of community members before the awaited coming of the Lord (parousia). First Thessalonians may therefore be interpreted according to the ancient epistolary letter-type of consolation (consolatio or παραμυθητικὸς λόγος). Although this interpretation has been advanced a number of times, it has failed to gain acceptance among Thessalonian specialists, for reasons that will be discussed below.

While the wave of modern rhetorical interpretations of early Christian epistolary theory must be acknowledged,Footnote 1 it is still methodologically pertinent to examine the epistolary structure of First Thessalonians. The need to receive and offer consolation in response to misfortune has long been associated with the human condition.Footnote 2 It appears in literature from the earliest times through to Late Antiquity. The genre is discernible from at least the fourth century bce, to be discussed in the next section on epistolary handbooks. Indeed, Greek and Roman philosophical traditions of the time are virtually inseparable and it is increasingly difficult to distinguish source materials.Footnote 3 This is made even more difficult for the subject matter of grief and consolation because of the widespread applicability of the associated traditions. By corollary, similar source-problems abound in Paul too, as is evident in the debate over competing Jewish and Hellenistic influences with regard to the word of the Lord in 1 Thess 4.15–17, for example.Footnote 4 The possibility that Paul and Seneca drew on the same sources is strengthened by Malherbe's comparisons of First Thessalonians with Cynic and Epicurean thought, both of which play an important role in Seneca as well.Footnote 5 Finally, interpretive difficulties associated with the fact that Seneca wrote to an individual while Paul wrote to a community are negated by noting that Seneca's letters at least were intended to be read as a corpus, presumably by a wider audience.Footnote 6

In the present study, we are most interested in advancing our understanding of the purpose or purposes of First Thessalonians. First Thessalonians was written by Paul and probably Silvanus (= Silas) and Timothy in either 50 or 51 ce.Footnote 7 Its authenticity is no longer in question (unlike Second Thessalonians), although there are significant question marks over its integrity; 1 Thess 2.14–16 has been the subject of debate because of its remarkable statements against ‘the Jews’. The letter has no references to the Pauline topic of justification, nor to the Jewish law; instead, it offers extensive statements of an eschatological and even apocalyptic nature. The structure of the letter, with its explicit and discrete thanksgiving sections (beginning at 1.2, 2.13 and 3.9), still baffles many commentators. The antithetical composition of 2.1–12 is no longer taken as evidence for Paul's opponents, but is better explained as part of the paraenetic strategy. There is a lack of rebuke that leads many to consider it of the friendly type, although, as we shall show, this does not adequately account for the repeated references to afflictions and suffering.Footnote 8

While First Thessalonians was written upon the return of Timothy to Paul (and Silas) after visiting the Christian community in Thessalonica, with good reports from there (see 1 Thess 3.1–6),Footnote 9 its occasion originated in the inability of Paul and his colleagues to come back to the community (2.17–18).Footnote 10 The historical circumstances of the separation between founders and foundees are not explained — just that for some reason Paul is unable to return.Footnote 11 The sequence of events may be reconstructed as follows: first Paul attempts and fails to come back to Thessalonica to see his converts face to face (2.17); then he sends Timothy in order to strengthen and exhort them in their faith, that they may not be deceived by their afflictions (3.2–3). Finally, Paul mentions that he wants to remedy the shortcomings of their faith (3.10). What are these afflictions? And what are the Thessalonian Christians' shortcomings of faith? These questions highlight the nexus between the occasion and purpose/s of First Thessalonians.

Conflict-language is central to the letter, whether in relation to the death of Jesus (2.15), Paul's mission to the Gentiles (2.2, 15–16; see 3.1–7), conflict between spiritual powers (1.9; 2.18; 3.5), the good news and imperial Rome (4.17; 5.3), or conflict between community members (5.12–15).Footnote 12 This emphasis on diverse kinds of conflict has led to a plethora of studies on the social, political or theological aspects of conflict, including identification of possible opponents.Footnote 13 As well as verbal, social and political harassment, the Thessalonian Christians probably also suffered physical abuse; that this led to their deaths as martyrs is supported only by a minority of scholars.Footnote 14 There simply is not enough information to determine who died (e.g. males, females, infants, slaves or the elderly) or for what reasons: infant mortality, starvation, old age, physical abuse, persecution or natural causes. However, that some people died is a crucial point, as seen by Paul's emphasis on death (and life) in the letter.Footnote 15 In First Thessalonians, the afflicted life of Jesus-followers was an important part of his founding message: ‘you received the word in much affliction’ (1.6); ‘we have previously suffered’ (2.2); ‘you also suffered’ (2.14); ‘we are destined for these afflictions’ (3.3); ‘for when we were with you, we said beforehand that we would suffer afflictions’ (3.4). These afflictions, past, present and ongoing, confirmed through Timothy's report and quintessentially represented in the deaths of some community members, best describe the occasion of First Thessalonians.

The purpose of the letter is, therefore, to address the context of affliction, and especially instances of death. This reading of the occasion and purpose of the letter admits the strong possibility that First Thessalonians should be read as a letter of consolation.

3. Previous Research on the Genre of First Thessalonians

Let us now briefly survey the previous research of modern scholars who do accept that First Thessalonians should be interpreted as a letter of consolation.

Juan Chapa was among the first to do so, starting with the problematic pericope 1 Thess 4.13–18, and then moving to the letter as a whole.Footnote 16 Chapa identifies the following features that are common both to ancient letters of consolation and First Thessalonians: the inability of the writer to be present; an expression of sympathy with those grieving; stock arguments about the inevitability of death as part of the human condition, and about the acceptance of future afflictions; praise for the recipients' response to misfortune; the presentation of various exempla as a strategy of consolation; and exhortations to overcome grief.Footnote 17 Chapa's conclusions are sound but do not go far enough. Like Donfried,Footnote 18 Chapa is concerned that First Thessalonians does not seem to follow the structure of the consolatory letter-type as outlined by the handbooks.Footnote 19 He concludes that First Thessalonians is not formally a letter of consolation, but at least has a consoling purpose among other purposes.Footnote 20 This, as we demonstrate below, reflects a mistaken view of the epistolary and rhetorical handbooks as prescriptive. It is clear that the epistolary types were by no means fixed,Footnote 21 and certainly Paul was not beholden to existing guidelines.Footnote 22 Morello and Morrison's notion of looking for ‘epistolary colour’, rather than distinguishing between different kinds of letters, is helpful in this regard.Footnote 23 Such a view is consistent with a study of consolatio in Seneca's letters, to which we turn below.

Abraham Smith was the first to apply the rhetorical exigencies of consolatio to every part of the letter's structure.Footnote 24 While he went some way towards establishing an interpretation of First Thessalonians as a letter of consolation, his methodological approach was to construct the ‘audience-oriented’ rhetoric of the letter, and to avoid any transition from rhetoric to reality. He viewed the community as constructions of the author, and not as real people experiencing affliction or persecution in Thessalonica.Footnote 25

4. Consolation in the Ancient World: The Evidence of Classical Handbooks on Letter-Writing

Even a cursory analysis of the epistolary and rhetorical handbooks demonstrates that there was consensus among ancient authors on many of the elements of consolatio. The most important of these handbooks include: Ps.-Demetrius' On Style (De elocutione);Footnote 26 Ps.-Demetrius' Epistolary Types;Footnote 27 and Ps.-Libanius' Epistolary Styles (also attributed to Proclus in some manuscripts).Footnote 28 Of lesser importance are exemplars of ancient rhetorical theory such as Theon's Preliminary Exercises,Footnote 29 Menander Rhetor's second treatise, On Epideictic Speeches (particularly The Consolatory Speech Footnote 30 and The Funeral Speech Footnote 31) and Julius Victor's On Letters.Footnote 32 However, it is debatable how much epistolary theory is encompassed by ancient rhetorical theory and therefore whether it should be discounted or considered just as important.Footnote 33 Some of these handbooks stem from earlier, albeit indistinct, sources, and the structure and contents of consolatory epistles remained static well into the Middle Ages.Footnote 34

Despite considerable differences in emphases and times of writing, a consensus of sorts emerges from the five epistolary and rhetorical witnesses examined above. Menander Rhetor, Ps.-Demetrius and Ps.-Libanius identify a threefold structural division: 1. lamentation; 2. consolation proper; and 3. exhortation.Footnote 35 Reference to the misfortune experienced by the recipient/hearer usually begins the consolation, immediately followed by an expression of lamentation.Footnote 36 Ps-Demetrius suggests that sharing in the sufferer's lamentation will result in one's consolation being better received.Footnote 37 After the lamentation comes the consolation proper, which consists of stock arguments (praecepta). The most common of these is the observation that misfortunes are the common lot of man, unavoidable and impersonal.Footnote 38 The references to ‘fate’ and ‘nature’ are important because of their underlying philosophical connotations.Footnote 39 Mentions of ‘time’ are commonplace, whether with regard to the timing of misfortunes, or the extent to which lamentations are acceptable or even relevant.Footnote 40 The consolation in letters is a substitute for personal presence.Footnote 41 Finally, exhortations are offered, whether general or specific, including the prohibition against excessive lamentation.Footnote 42 Menander Rhetor is alone in instructing the speaker to conclude with praises for the dead and the bereaved, as well as prayers to the gods.Footnote 43 It is interesting to note that there are no explicit references to exempla among these instructions, unless Menander's inclusion of ‘narratives’ constitutes such a reference.Footnote 44

Stowers summarises the salient features of the ancient letter of consolation as follows:Footnote 45

  1. 1. The writer may have a wide range of positive relationships with the recipient.

  2. 2. The recipient has experienced some major misfortune that is apt to produce grief.

  3. 3. The writer expresses grief and provides reasons why the recipient should bear up under the grief.

The above summary accurately reflects the evidence of classical handbooks and shows that, while many common τύποι are employed, there is wide variation in the intricacies of argument and structure.Footnote 46 This is well borne out by both First Thessalonians and the consolation letters of Seneca, to which we now turn.

5. Consolation Letters of Seneca

The philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca, or Seneca the Younger (ca. 4 bce–65 ce) was a contemporary of Paul, and indeed may have died in the same year, also in Rome. He is even said to have corresponded with Paul, although the correspondence attributed to them proved to be a forgery of the fourth century.Footnote 47 The Senecan literary corpus remains the best evidence we have of Stoic philosophy, a tradition with strong affinities to early Christianity.Footnote 48 That Seneca structured a letter-corpus appears clear especially from Ep. 8.1–3.Footnote 49 In particular, the Senecan corpus contains extensive examples of consolatio, thus offering plenty of material to help us assess the interpretation of First Thessalonians as a letter of consolation.

Consolation as a genre in Seneca's extant writings is a relatively neglected area of study, especially when compared with the wealth of studies on the structure of Seneca's letters and treatises.Footnote 50 This neglect is somewhat surprising, considering that the Senecan corpus contains extensive examples of Stoic consolatio, and figures in antiquity alongside other famous works of the genre from other philosophical traditions, including the Platonist Crantor's On Grief,Footnote 51 Cicero's Consolation,Footnote 52 the Middle Platonist Plutarch's Consolation to Apollonius Footnote 53 and the much later work of Boethius, On the Consolation of Philosophy from the early sixth century.Footnote 54 The need for consolation may be precipitated by various adverse events, such as the death of a loved one, prolonged illness, financial loss, political loss of standing or exile.Footnote 55

Consequently, the act of consolation may take various forms of expression, whether a personal visit, letter, speech, treatise, or even an epitaph.Footnote 56 Consolation may also include strong elements of self-consolation, through the application of the lessons of Stoic philosophy to the writer's own situation. There is a special example of this when the exile writes to console his supporters at home, a kind of inversion of the consolatio ad exulem genre. Cicero's Tusculan Disputations is a good example, written while its author was in political exile from Rome.Footnote 57 It will be shown below that Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians offers another example, at 2.17–3.13.

It is now well over a century since Buresch identified a number of Seneca's letters as consolatory, and suggested that Epistulae 63, 93 and 99 are ‘true consolations’.Footnote 58 These letters, along with three so-called dialogues, or treatises,Footnote 59 constitute the Senecan consolatio corpus. Although the three works are addressed to individuals, they may hardly be described as letters; nor are they dialogues.Footnote 60 Their length and style reveal them to be treatises.Footnote 61

6. Consolation in Seneca's Epistulae 63, 93 and 99

The question of whether Seneca followed a recognised structure for his consolation letters presupposes more basic questions, such as whether there was a standard structure in antiquity and if so, whether Seneca knew about it. Three of the handbooks surveyed above described (not prescribed) παραμυθητικὸς λόγος as containing lamentation, consolation and exhortation (lamentatio, consolatio, exhortatio). While Seneca occasionally refers to the norms of letter-writing in general,Footnote 62 and at least once to the usual form of consolatory letters,Footnote 63 it would be incorrect to suggest that he closely followed the handbooks with regard to structure, or indeed that they mandated a given structure.Footnote 64 The modern consensus is that the genre of consolation was defined in antiquity in terms of content, not form.Footnote 65

In Seneca's consolatio, this meant that while he often included the three elements of lamentation, consolation and exhortation, these sections were usually not discrete.Footnote 66 This is particularly the case for the last two, consolatio and exhortatio.Footnote 67

The formal epistolary structures of Epistulae 63, 93 and 99 are difficult to determine.Footnote 68Epistula 63 opens directly with lamentatio (1) and moves immediately into an extensive consolatio (1–16), which contains a mix of praecepta (7–11, on Fortune; 12–13, on the passing of time; 15, on the inevitability of death), exempla (2, of Niobe; 14, of Seneca himself) and exhortationes (against wailing and excessive grief (1–2); on the recollection of lost friends (4–6); on enjoying friendship (7–11); on ceasing to grieve (12); on remembering one's own mortality (15–16)).Footnote 69 Lucilius, the recipient, is mentioned twice (7 and 16) in passages that emphasise a central thesis of the letter — the necessity to rise above Fortune (fortuna).Footnote 70 The wistful expression of hope regarding an afterlife (16) is reminiscent of the conclusion in Ps.-Libanius’ example of a consolatory letter.Footnote 71 Further, as with Menander, Seneca also touches on the matter of how long after a bereavement one is allowed to grieve.Footnote 72 While this letter is not as simple as the example given by Ps.-Demetrius in Τύποι ἐπιστολικοί, nearly all elements of the model letter are present.Footnote 73

Epistula 93 also begins with a lamentatio of sorts, where Seneca refers to lament over the death of Metronax (1), but there is no element of συμπάθεια, in contrast to the instructions of Theon to join in lamentations so that the ensuing consolatio is better received.Footnote 74 The so-called ‘body’ of the letter is rather more amorphous than Epistula 63, and it is difficult to distinguish various praecepta on right living (2, 4) and on the inevitability and inescapability of death (12) within the narratio. The exempla of the 80-year-old man (3–4) and the length of a book (11–12) are more extensive. Unlike the previous letter, Epistula 93 contains a consolatio proper (4), where Seneca employs standard τύποι. Otherwise, the repetition of obsecro te (1 and 4), and a further reference by name to Lucilius (4), serve as organising structures in the letter. There is no recognisable conclusion; Seneca finishes abruptly. Whereas Menander finishes with a prayer to the gods, Seneca includes an expression of thanks to the gods part-way through.Footnote 75

Epistula 99 differs from the previous two letters so far examined, in that it is considerably longer (thirty-two paragraphs compared to sixteen and twelve, respectively) and exhibits formal epistolary characteristics of the antique letter, namely, a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction probably came about because of the need for Seneca to explain the embedding of a letter to Marullus (1). The conclusion is formally expressed because the consolatory letter is considered more of a rebuke (castigo) than a cure (remedium; see solacio in 1), which Seneca felt required explanation (32). However, the letter body is even more unstructured than in Epistulae 63 or 93, and there are no epistolary clues as to its organisation. The letter's introduction hints at lamentatio, with its reference to humouring the bereaved (1),Footnote 76 and the consolatio is clearly marked by the question (2): solaciam expectas? But then follows a mix of praecepta: on the difference between the loss of a child and the loss of a friend (2–3); on indulging grief (4–5); on the indifference of life (12); on the brevity of life (31) and exempla (of countless other men (6); comparing the old man and the child (10–12)), an admonitio against womanish grief (2) and exhortationes on being resigned in spirit (6); against excuses for grief (14); and on expressing natural grief (15–21). There are also two sections of consolatio proper, on the little boy who died having lost nothing (12–13); and a reflection on what might have been, had he lived (22–4). Seneca's extended dialectical discussion of μετριοπάθεια and ἀπάθεια is couched first in terms of the opposing views of Metrodorus, but then broadened to the differences between the opposing views of Epicureanism and Stoicism (25–30).Footnote 77 As in Epistula 63, Fortune figures strongly throughout the letter (cf. 3, 9, 22 and 32).

The foregoing analysis of Epistulae 63, 93 and 99, which is descriptive at best, demonstrates the impossibility of mapping a generic structure for the Senecan consolatio. Footnote 78 Seneca usually includes elements of the so-called ‘macro-structure’ of the genre (lamentation, consolation and exhortation), uses τύποι or stock arguments of consolation and includes occasional exempla.Footnote 79 However, our study has shown that if we wish to describe the consolatio in Seneca's Epistulae morales with any degree of accuracy, we need to approach the letters individually. There is no common overarching structure.

7. The Structure of First Thessalonians

Many of the features of the three Senecan consolation letters appear in First Thessalonians, including the failure to follow a set structure. The epistolary structure of First Thessalonians may be expressed as follows:

1.1 opening

1.2–10 laudatio (expressed as thanksgiving)

After the opening address, Paul uses the familiar epistolary thanksgiving to acknowledge instances of misfortune: receiving the word in much affliction (1.6); undergoing a traumatic conversion experience (1.9). The reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus hints at the occasion of deaths in the community of Jesus-followers.Footnote 80 Note the expressions of fellow suffering (συμπάθεια) in the motif of remembering each other (1.3) and in the image of joint imitation of the Lord (1.6). Community members are characterised as a model (τύπος) for believers elsewhere (1.7).

2.1–16 lamentatio/συμπάθεια

This section narrates occasions of suffering and emphasises the close relationship between Paul and the Jesus-followers in Thessalonica, in preparation for the consolatio to come. The long-standing problem of whether to interpret 1 Thess 2.1–12 as apostolic apologia or autobiographical paraenesis is neatly solved by observing how the narrative description of the past and current relationship between Paul and the Thessalonians serves as lamentatio. Footnote 81 Note the several references to misfortune: Paul's suffering and shameful treatment at Philippi (2.2), his presentation of the Gospel in the face of great opposition (2.2), the mutual suffering of the Thessalonian and Judean churches (2.14), the suffering of Jesus (2.15) and the hindering of Paul's mission (2.16).

Because Paul shares in the misfortunes of the Thessalonians, he becomes an exemplum for the community: he is courageous (2.2), approved by God (2.4–6), gentle (2.7), selfless and tireless (2.8–9) and upright in behaviour (2.10). By contrast, ‘the Jews’ (2.14–16) serve as a negative exemplum.

Finally, there is an explicit statement of exhortation in 2.12: ‘we exhorted, encouraged and urged you to lead a life worthy of God …’

2.17–3.13 self-consolation

The self-consolation is expressed in the context of Timothy's arrival at Thessalonica. Paul cannot join the Thessalonians while they are suffering misfortune.Footnote 82 Thus, Paul longs to see the Thessalonians face to face in 2.17–18 and 3.10 (see also 3.6, 11). The forced separation is put down to Satan's hindrance (2.18; see also 3.5); Timothy (3.1–5) and the current letter are offered as substitutions for Paul's presence (3.6–10).Footnote 83 The thanksgiving trope of 1.2 and 2.13 is repeated here at 3.9 as a reflexive form of consolation.

The following praecepta are formulated in connection with Timothy's visit to the Christian community: first, be strengthened and encouraged in the faith (3.2; see also 3.8, 13); second, no one is to be disturbed (σαίνομαι) by afflictions (3.3); third, you know this is your lot (3.3),Footnote 84 since you were told beforehand that you were to suffer afflictions (3.4). The expression of remembrance and mutual longing (3.6) is designed to offer further consolation: ‘We have been comforted about you, in all our distress and affliction, through your faith’ (3.7). Despite deaths among Christians, Paul asserts: ‘for now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord’ (3.8). The steadfast Thessalonians are his consolation. Finally he gives thanks ‘for all the joy with which we rejoice for your sake before our God’ (3.9).

4.1–12 exhortatio

This section contains numerous exhortations, but this does not preclude the use of praecepta and exempla as part of the consolatory strategy. Thus, Paul opens the section with a statement beseeching and exhorting the Thessalonians to live properly and please God. He reminds them that he is the example to be followed (4.1)Footnote 85 and that he gave them instructions through the Lord (4.2).

The exhortations are intermixed with six commands (praecepta): maintain chastity (4.3); learn to treat your own wife with holiness and honour (4.4); live quietly, mind your own affairs and work with your hands (4.11); do not defraud your brother (4.6); be holy, not unclean (4.7); and finally, love one another (4.9–10). There is an emphasis on the distinction between the Christian community and pagan outsiders (see 4.5, 12; see also 4.13; 5.6).

4.13–5.11 consolatio

1 Thess 4.13 contains strong advice not to grieve as others do, those others being presumably non-Christians, who have no hope in the face of death. Paul then reiterates the command to comfort one another (4.18 and 5.11). Verses 14–17 and 5.2–5 and 9–10 contain a number of faith statements concerning the resurrection of the dead. These are followed by a series of exhortations: do not grieve like those who have no hope (4.13); comfort each another with these words (4.18); do not sleep, but keep awake and be sober (5.6); be sober by having put on a breastplate of faith and love and a helmet, a hope of salvation (5.8); comfort each other and build up one another (5.11).

The extensive presence of eschatological topoi in First Thessalonians, especially 1 Thessalonians 4.13–5.11, may be explained in terms of comforting the bereaved. The single most significant difference between pagan and Christian consolations is the latter's concrete hope for the future, after death. On the thorny subject of the afterlife, Seneca remained ambivalent. Generally speaking, Seneca downplays hope and suggests that one should look only to the past and present (e.g. De brev. vit. 9.1). Modern Christian bias against pagan views of the afterlife has perhaps prevented some scholars from seeing the similarities to which we have pointed.

Seneca's argument that Fortune deals indifferently with all when it comes to death has been noted by Fern.Footnote 86 Indifference is key to Greco-Roman, Stoic consolation. Perhaps Paul also subscribed to indifference, first by referring to the common human lot and then to the fact that, whether one is awake or asleep, ‘we will live together with the Lord’ (1 Thess 5.10). While Malherbe is surely correct to assert that, ‘Unlike Seneca, Paul did not attribute Christian experience to arbitrary fate … Rather, Christians have confidence in God, who has their salvation in mind and who has a hand in human affairs (cf. 5.9)’,Footnote 87 it may be that Paul ascribed some level of indifference to God in response to their ‘lot’. The Thessalonians seem to have lost their confidence in response to various afflictions, including untimely death, untimely in the sense that it occurred before the coming of Christ.

8. Conclusion

Three reasons have been adduced for the failure of modern commentators to accept the interpretation of First Thessalonians as a letter of consolation. These are: first, the problematic structure of the letter, especially the paraenetic tone of the entire letter, rather than just a paraenetic section at the end; second, the failure to pursue a rigorous comparative analysis of First Thessalonians with contemporary examples of consolatio, e.g. Seneca's letters; and finally, a fundamental misunderstanding of the descriptive (rather than prescriptive) nature of ancient epistolary and rhetorical handbooks, discussed above.

We have seen that Paul's contemporary Seneca did not follow the structure proposed by the handbooks in the three letters that we analysed; and no Senecan letter contains all the stock arguments of consolation. In Epistulae 63, 93 and 99, Seneca adapted those structures and stock arguments to suit his occasional purposes, as did Paul in First Thessalonians. We cannot ignore the likelihood that Seneca wrote much of his material with multiple purposes in mind. Thus, the Senecan letters surveyed here may well express consolation along with other purposes such as promoting the author to a wider audience within a structured corpus of letters.

Such conclusions allow for a reinterpretation of the consolation genre, and therefore its applicability to First Thessalonians, which has a clear purpose of consolation, if not a clearly defined structure within that genre. Reading First Thessalonians as a letter of consolation also helps to explain some of the more puzzling eschatological topoi of the pericope 1 Thess 4.13–5.11. Paul's response to the distress of the Thessalonian Christians gave them an eschatological matrix for understanding and accepting affliction, superimposed upon the standard tropes of the classical consolatory tradition.

References

1 See R. K. Gibson and A. D. Morrison, ‘What is a Letter?’, Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (ed. R. Morello and A. D. Morrison; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 1–16; I. J. Elmer, ‘The Pauline Letters as Community Documents’, Collecting Early Christian Letters from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity (ed. B. Neil and P. Allen; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) 37–53. On letter collections more generally, see Gibson, R. K., ‘On the Nature of Ancient Letter Collections’, Journal of Roman History 102 (2012) 56–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. Sogno, B. Storin, E. Watts, eds., A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide to Letter Collections in Late Antiquity (Los Angeles/Berkeley: University of California Press, forthcoming).

2 W. Kierdorf, ‘Consolatio as a Literary Genre’, Brill's New Pauly (ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider; Antiquity Volumes; Leiden: Brill, 2011), Brill Online, Australian Catholic University, www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e619600, accessed 6 May 2014. For studies on consolatio, see secondary references in P. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 55–85. Like Holloway, we adopt a functional rather than form-based definition of the consolatory genre.

3 A. J. Malherbe, ‘Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament’, ANRW 2.26.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992) 267–333, at 331.

4 See D. Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 71; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009) 173–273 (on 1 Thess 4.13–18) and esp. 192–211, on the question of competing Jewish and Hellenistic influences.

5 B. Inwood, Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005) 136. See Malherbe, A. J., ‘“Gentle as a Nurse”: The Cynic Background to I Thess ii’, NovT 12 (1970) 203–17Google Scholar; and id., ‘Anti-Epicurean Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians’, Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus dem Freundes- und Schülerkreis. Dieter Lührmann zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. S. Maser and E. Schlarb; Marburger Theologische Studien; Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1999) 136–42.

6 So H. Cancik, Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Spudasmata 18; Hildesheim: Olms, 1967) 46–58; G. Maurach, Der Bau von Senecas Epistulae Morales (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften. Neue Folge 30; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1970). D. A. Russell, ‘Letters to Lucilius’, Seneca (ed. C. D. N. Costa; Greek and Latin Studies: Classical Literature and its Influence; London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974) 70–95 and H.-J. Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006) 170–1 offer a balanced summary of the issues.

7 Note the plural pronoun, ‘we’ (ἡμᾶς), in 1 Thess 3.6. First Thessalonians is properly a co-authored text. Referring only to Paul in this article is a convenient shorthand.

8 Contra J. Schoon-Janßen, ‘On the Use of Elements of Ancient Epistolography in 1 Thessalonians’, The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? (ed. K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 179–93, at 189–90.

9 Nestle-Aland's 27th edition of the Greek New Testament text has been used throughout. All translations of First Thessalonians are by Luckensmeyer.

10 The question of whether the Thessalonians wrote to Paul has been raised from time to time, but more recently by A. J. Malherbe, ‘Did the Thessalonians Write to Paul?’, The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (ed. R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa; Nashville: Abingdon, 1990) 246–57. Luckensmeyer, Eschatology, 68–71 concluded that Paul was responding only to Timothy's oral report.

11 Paul interprets his inability to return to the Christian community in Thessalonica in apocalyptic terms (cf. ‘Satan’ in 1 Thess 2.18).

12 Conflict- and affliction-language abound in 1 Thess, e.g.: ἀνάγκη (3.7); ἀγών (2.2); ἐγκόπτω (2.18); ἐκδιώκω (2.15); θλίβω (3.4); θλῖψις (1.6; 3.3, 7); κωλύω (2.16); πάσχω (2.14); προπάσχω (2.2); and ὑβρίζω (2.2).

13 The secondary literature is extensive and we note only the most important references: C. S. de Vos, Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian and Philippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities (SBL Dissertation Series 168; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999) 123–77; T. D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours (JSNTSup 183; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1999); M. Tellbe, Paul between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans and Philippians (Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 34; Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 2001) 80–140; Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Conflict in Thessalonica’, CBQ 55 (1993) 512–30Google Scholar; K. P. Donfried, ‘The Imperial Cults of Thessalonica and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians’, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1997) 215–23. On possible opponents, see R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millennarian Piety (Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); and C. J. Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16 (JSNTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994).

14 The ‘minority’ includes Lindars, B., ‘The Sound of the Trumpet: Paul and Eschatology’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 67 (1985) 766–82, at 771CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. S. Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul (JSNTSup 6; Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1985) 113; Donfried, K. P., ‘The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence’, NTS 31 (1985) 336–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘The Theology of 1 Thessalonians as a Reflection of its Purpose’, To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer (ed. M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1989) 243–60; and R. F. Collins, The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation (New York: Crossroad, 1993) 161–2.

15 For death, see 1 Thess 1.10; 2.15; 4.13–16 (cf. 5.3); for life, see 1 Thess 1.9; 3.8; 4.15, 17; 5.10.

16 J. Chapa, ‘Consolatory Patterns? 1 Thes 4,13.18; 5,11’, The Thessalonian Correspondence (ed. R. F. Collins; BETL 87; Leuven: University Press, 1990) 220–8; and id., ‘Is First Thessalonians a Letter of Consolation?’, NTS 40 (1994) 150–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 For additional details, see Chapa, ‘Letter of Consolation?’, 156–9.

18 Donfried, ‘The Theology of 1 Thessalonians’, 243–60 offers no primary references other than Isaiah 40 and very little discussion. See also K. P. Donfried, ‘The Epistolary and Rhetorical Context of 1 Thess 2:1–12’, The Thessalonian Correspondence: The Current Debate (ed. K. P. Donfried and J. Beutler; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 31–60, at 48–9 and 56–7.

19 Chapa, ‘Letter of Consolation?’, 159–60.

20 Chapa, ‘Letter of Consolation?’, 160; similarly, Schoon-Janßen, ‘Elements of Ancient Epistolography’, 190 n. 68.

21 This assertion is demonstrated below with evidence from ancient letter-writing handbooks. For supporting commentary, see S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 53; J. L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 190; D. E. Aune, ‘Letters in the Ancient World’, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Library of Early Christianity 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 158–82, at 158; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 64.

22 H. Koester, ‘1 Thessalonians – Experiment in Christian Writing’, Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays Presented to George Huntston Williams on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. F. F. Church and T. George; Studies in History of Christian Thought 19; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 33–44. An excellent example of the licence afforded to writers is found in Theon's illustration (Progymnasmata 5) of expanding χρεία (chreia); L. Spengel, ed., Rhetores Graeci (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1803–80; repr. 1966) ii.103–4; G. A. Kennedy, trans., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 21–2.

23 Morello and Morrison, Ancient Letters, vi. Similarly, S. A. Adams, ‘Paul's Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relationship’, Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (ed. S. E. Porter and S. A. Adams; Pauline Studies 6; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 33–55, at 38.

24 A. Smith, Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995). See also id., ‘The Social and Ethical Implications of the Pauline Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians’ (Diss. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 1989), which predates Chapa's 1990 article, ‘Consolatory Patterns’.

25 See Smith, Comfort One Another, 16–41.

26 Ps.-Demetrius, Περὶ ἑρμ. para. 223–35, A. J. Malherbe, ed. and trans., Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBL, Sources for Biblical Study 19; Atlanta, 1988) 16–19; see also M. Trapp, ed., Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 181–3; full text and translation in W. R. Roberts, Demetrius on Style: The Greek Text of Demetrius De Elocutione Edited after the Paris Manuscript with Introduction, Translation, Facsimiles, Etc. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902) 173–9; and text in R. Hercher, ed., Epistolographi Graeci (Paris: Didot, 1873) 13–14.

27 Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ., ed. and trans. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 30–41; Malherbe's text is based on V. Weichert, ed., Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur Τύποι ἐπιστολικοί et Ἐπιστολιμαῖοι χαρακτῆρες (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910) 1–12, which includes an extensive introduction and textual commentary; see also Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci, 1–6. A credible date is difficult to determine and ranges from the second century bce to the third century ce. Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 45 suggests that the text has gone through several editions.

28 Ps.-Libanius, Ἐπιστ. χαρ., ed. and trans. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 66–81; Malherbe's text is based on R. Foerster, ed., Libanii opera, vol. ix (Leipzig: Teubner, 1927) 27–47; see also Hercher, Epistolographi Graeci, 6–13, and Weichert, Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur Τύποι, 13–34. Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 188–93, contains excerpts; he does not include the text or translation of the forty-one definitions of letter-types (i.e. paras. 5–45), nor of the appended examples of the types (i.e. paras. 52–92). Malherbe (Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 67) believes that Ἐπιστ. χαρ. may date as late as the sixth century.

29 Theon, Προγυμν. 8. Περὶ προσωποποιΐa, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, ii.10.115–18.

30 Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 9. Περὶ παραμυθητικοῦ, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii.413–18. The new edition and translation of D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 160–5, provides a commentary at pp. 325–7.

31 Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 11. Περὶ ἐπιταϕιοῦ, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii.418–22; ed. and trans. Russell and Wilson, Menander Rhetor, 171–9, with commentary at pp. 331–6.

32 Julius Victor, Ars rhet. 27. De epistolis, K. F. von Halm, ed., Rhetores Latini minores: ex codicibus maximam partem primum adhibitis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1863) 447–8.

33 One justification of this is found in Quintilian, Inst. 12.10.51, D. A. Russell, ed. and trans., Quintilian: The Orator's Education, vol. v: Books 11–12 (Loeb Classical Library (= LCL) 494; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002) 308–9. Against such an equation of speaking (dicere) with writing (scribere), see for example, Ps.-Demetrius, Περὶ ἑρμ. 224–6, Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 16–17. See also Stowers, Letter Writing, 52; Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament, 207; and C. Poster, ‘Introduction’, Letter Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies (ed. C. Poster and L. C. Mitchell; Studies in Rhetoric/Communication; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2007) 1–6, at 2.

34 For example, see the careful argument of D. M. Schenkeveld, ‘Studies in Demetrius On Style’ (Thesis Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam; Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964) 148, who concludes that Περὶ ἑρμ. was written in the first century ce, but uses older source materials from the preceding centuries. Trapp (Greek and Latin Letters, 43) favours a date around the mid second century bce. See also the monumental work of P. von Moos, ‘Consolatio’: Studien zur mittelalterlichen Trostliteratur über den Tod und zum Problem der christlichen Trauer (4 vols.; Munich: W. Fink, 1971–2). By contrast, White, Light from Ancient Letters, 203 considers the evidence of Ps.-Libanius, Ἐπιστ. χαρ. ‘questionable at best’.

35 See also Mitchell, J. F., ‘Consolatory Letters in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen’, Hermes 96 (1968) 299–318Google Scholar, at 302, and Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 63.

36 Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5; Ps.-Libanius, ἐπιστ. χαρ. 21; Menander, περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 9.

37 Cf. Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5 and Theon, Προγυμν. 8.

38 Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5; Theon, Προγυμν. 8.

39 Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5.

40 Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5; Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 11; cf. Julius Victor, Ars rhet. 27.

41 Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 11 and Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5, respectively.

42 Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5; Ps.-Libanius, Ἐπιστ. χαρ. 21; Theon, Προγυμν. 8; Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 11.

43 Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 9 and 11.

44 Theon, Προγυμν. 8, offers a general statement that others have suffered worse misfortunes, but this hardly figures as an exemplum; see Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, ii, 10.117.11–13.

45 Stowers, Letter Writing, 144.

46 So also J. H. D. Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome ‘Letter 60’ (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 26; contra C. Favez, La consolation latine chrétienne (Paris: Vrin, 1937) 39–46.

47 C. W. Barlow, ed. and trans., Epistolas Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam quae uocantur (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1938); J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (NovTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961); B. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 520–7.

48 See G. M. Ross, ‘Seneca's Philosophical Influence’, Seneca (ed. C. D. N. Costa; Greek and Latin Studies: Classical Literature and its Influence; London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974) 116–65.

49 R. M. Gummere, ed. and trans., Seneca: Ad Lucilium epistulae morales (3 vols.; LCL 75–7; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917–25) i.36–9. We follow the numbering of Gummere, from whose edition all citations are taken.

50 See in particular R. Coleman, ‘The Artful Moralist: A Study of Seneca's Epistolary Style’, CQ n. s. 24 (1974) 276–89; Russell, ‘Letters to Lucilius’, is particularly helpful in explaining the issues of dating, recipients, development and intention of the Senecan letter-collection; C. E. Manning, On Seneca's ‘Ad Marciam’ (Mnemosyne Supplement 69; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 8–11; C. D. N. Costa, ed., Seneca, Four Dialogues: De vita beata. De tranquillitate animi. De constantia sapientis. Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994) esp. 207; and B. Inwood, ‘The Importance of Form in Seneca's Philosophical Letters’, Ancient Letters (ed. R. Morello and A. D. Morrison; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 133–48. The analysis of M. E. Fern (The Latin Consolatio as a Literary Type (St Meinrad, IN: Abbey Press, 1941) 34–82) does not relate the structure of Seneca's consolatio to the epistolary handbooks.

51 Crantor, Περὶ πένθους is not extant; mentioned in Cicero, Tusc. 3, J. E. King, ed. and trans., Tusculan Disputations (LCL 141; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927).

52 Cicero's Consolatio is not extant but some of its content is reproduced in Cicero, Tusc. 1 and 3.

53 Consolatio ad Apollonium, F. C. Babbitt, ed. and trans., Moralia (LCL 222; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928).

54 De consolatione philosophiae, H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, S. J. Tester, eds. and trans., Theological Tractates: The Consolation of Philosophy (LCL 74; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).

55 See G. Stählin, ‘παρακαλέω, παράκλησις (C) Comfort and Comforters in Non-Biblical Antiquity’, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. v (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 779–88, at 780–1. For other general studies on consolatio, see also: C. Buresch, Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia critica (Leipzig: J. B. Hirschfeld, 1886); Favez, La consolation; R. Kassel, Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur (Munich: Beck, 1958); Mitchell, ‘Consolatory Letters’; R. C. Gregg, Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories (Patristic Monograph Series 3; Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975); Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, esp. 55–83; and F. L. Redonet, Palabras contra el dolor: la consolación filosófica latina de Cicerón a Frontón (Madrid: Ediciones clásicas, 2001).

56 R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press, 1942) esp. 215–65.

57 Cicero, Tusc. 3.13–14: the wise person is not exempt from grief, yet foresight and premeditation on future events can do much to diminish the pain they will cause; 4.29–30: the proper attitude to the passions, especially fear, is to despise pain and death; and 5.2: virtue is sufficient for happiness, and Philosophy (apostrophised here) is the aid to Cicero's distress. See discussion in B. Neil, ‘From tristia to gaudia: The Exile and Martyrdom of Pope Martin I’, Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Antique Christianity (ed. J. Leemans; BETL 241; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 179–94, at 185–6.

58 Buresch, Consolationum, 109. Epistulae 13, 24, 26, 30, 36, 49, 54, 63, 77, 91, 93, 98, 99 and 107 are identified as consolationes.

59 Ad Marciam de consolatione, Ad Polybium de consolatione and Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione, J. W. Basore, ed. and trans., Seneca: Moral Essays, vol. ii (LCL 254; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932).

60 J. D. Duff, ed., L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum libri x, xi, xii. Three Dialogues of Seneca (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915) ix.

61 See, for example, Ps.-Demetrius, Περὶ ἑρμ. 228, Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 18–19; and Ps.-Libanius, Ἐπιστ. χαρ. 50, Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 72–3. See also Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 41; and Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus, 21. For additional references, see P. Allen, B. Neil, W. Mayer, Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities (Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 28; Leipzig: EVA, 2009) 45–6.

62 Russell, ‘Letters to Lucilius’, 73; Mitchell, ‘Consolatory Letters in Basil’, 299–300 n. 2. Thus, in Ep. 75.1, Gummere ii.136–7, Seneca remarks that he preferred his letters to be like his conversation — ‘spontaneous and easy’ (inlaboratus et facilis). Elsewhere, in Ep. 40.1, Gummere i.262–5, he refers to the gift of a letter from a friend. These are unmistakable references to Ps.-Demetrius (Περὶ ἑρμ. 223–4, Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 16–17), or to similar epistolary theory espoused by him. Seneca also shows that he is aware of the appropriate length of letters in Ep. 45.13, Gummere i.298–9; cf. Ps.-Demetrius, Περὶ ἑρμ. 228, Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 18–19. See also Julius Victor, Ars rhet. 27, Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 186–7. At one point, Seneca (Ep. 59.6, Gummere i.412–13) refers to the style (oratio) of ancient writers (ex antiquis legisse).

63 Ep. 99.1, Gummere iii.128–9, refers to the usual form of consolation (solacio). Seneca is aware that he has inherited common phrases; cf. Ep. 63.12, Gummere i.434–5. In Ad Marc. 2.1, Basore 8–9, Seneca refers to the common practice of offering praecepta before exempla.

64 White, Light from Ancient Letters, 190.

65 Mitchell, ‘Consolatory Letters in Basil’, 302–3; Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus, 26; Holloway, Consolation in Philippians, 64–5; and Inwood, ‘The Importance of Form’, 139; contra Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 51–79.

66 The manuscript evidence precludes any definitive conclusions about the omission of lamentation at the beginning of Seneca's Ad Polybium; Fern, The Latin Consolatio, 209.

67 Stählin, ‘Comfort and Comforters’, 780.

68 In what follows, the letters are referenced by paragraph (in brackets).

69 That Seneca is able to express exhortatio, even in the lamentatio, illustrates the freedom he enjoyed when formulating letters of consolation.

70 See esp. Ep. 63.16, Gummere i.436–7, where Seneca refers to the goal already reached by the deceased; see also Ep. 93.8, Gummere iii.6–7; Inwood, B., ‘Goal and Target in Stoicism’, Journal of Philosophy 83 (1986) 547–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Ps.-Libanius, Ἐπιστ. χαρ. 21, Weichert, Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur Τύποι, 28.25–6.

72 Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 11, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii.418.13–419.6; Seneca, Ep. 63.13, Gummere i.434–5; Ad Marc. 1.7, Basore 6–7; Ad Helv. 16.1, Basore 470–1.

73 There is no epistolary substitution for the absence of the writer in Epistula 63.

74 This is also implied in Menander's injunction to express lament as far as possible: Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 9, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii.413.6.

75 Cf. Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 11, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii.421.25–422.4; Seneca, Ep. 93.8, Gummere iii.6–7.

76 Perhaps Seneca was aware of the sentiment behind Julius Victor's reference to the bleeding wound of the bereaved, in Ars rhet. 27 (see n. 32).

77 On this, see esp. Gregg, Consolation Philosophy, 81–123.

78 Pace Fern, The Latin Consolatio, 207. Seneca's consolatio treatises are hardly more structured. For example, it seems misleading to refer to Ad Marc. 12.1–19.2 as ‘[p]raecepta relating to Marcia's situation’, as does Manning (On Seneca's ‘Ad Marciam’, 9), when that section contains numerous exempla (cf. Ad Marc. 12.5–15.4, Basore 38–47). In the case of Seneca's Ad Helviam, Duff (Three Dialogues, 207) more accurately presents a ‘synopsis’ rather than a ‘structure’.

79 See Fern, The Latin Consolatio, 208; and Mitchell, ‘Consolatory Letters in Basil’, 307–8.

80 Contra Chapa, ‘Letter of Consolation?’, 159, reference to misfortune is made at the beginning of the letter; even the occasion of death is obliquely mentioned in 1 Thess 1.10. Consequently, we do not need to appeal to the lack of reference to misfortune (i.e. in this case, exile) in Seneca's Ad Helviam (Ad Helv. 2.5, Basore 422–3), as does Smith, Comfort One Another, 75. On exile as affliction, a common theme in Late Antique letters of consolation, and the adoption of biblical tropes therein, see Neil, ‘From tristia to gaudia’, 187–90.

81 See Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτ. 9, Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii.414.7. The antithetical construction may well be due to paraenesis (so Malherbe, ‘Gentle as a Nurse’), but it is plausible that the implied opponents are none other than the misfortunes addressed in the letter (e.g. affliction, separation and death).

82 The verb ἀπορϕανίζω used in 1 Thess 2.17 to describe the separation – in the phrase ‘we have been taken from you’ – is rarely used elsewhere and has the connotation of being orphaned, or bereaved, i.e. ‘we have been made orphans’. This fits perfectly with our identification of this pericope as self-consolatory.

83 See Malherbe, ‘Did the Thessalonians Write to Paul?’, 246–57. While we do not agree with his thesis that the Thessalonians wrote to Paul, Malherbe's observations regarding the epistolary function of First Thessalonians are pertinent. Regarding the possible superior efficacy of letters of consolation over consolations in person, see Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 268.

84 The disclosure formula (‘you know’) appears throughout the letter (1.5; 2.1, 2, 5 and 11; 3.3–4; 4.2; 5.2) and is typical of some letters of consolation; e.g. Ps.-Demetrius, Τύπ. ἐπιστ. 5, Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists, 34.18–19; Seneca, Ep. 93.9, Gummere iii.8–9.

85 Cf. the description of Timothy as the co-worker of God (3.2), sent by Paul to strengthen and exhort the Thessalonians, which implies that Timothy is the model for them to follow.

86 Fern, The Latin Consolatio, 59.

87 Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 59.