1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.

1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. By Ben Witherington III. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. xxxi and 286 pages. Paper. $30.00.

Witherington follows his now familiar approach: he briefly describes the city's history, religion, and culture; gives date and occasion for the writing; identifies the rhetorical genre (in this case, epideictic); outlines the letter according to oratorical structure; and argues conservatively for the Pauline authorship and the integrity of both letters. He does not do much with the three rhetorical modes of proof, ethos, pathos, logos, and there is no discussion of lexis, style, or ornamentation. What rhetorical devices serve the "art of persuasion" in these letters?

Some errors have crept into the text. He suggests that there was constant warfare from 44 B.C. to 31 B.C. (p. 4), which is certainly wrong. I doubt that the city of Thessalonica could celebrate the Olympic or Pythian games (see p. 6), which were tied to specific locations (Olympia and Nemea). The province Macedonia was not named after the city, as he says on p. 3. The reference to Philostratus of Libanius (p. xiv) makes no sense; I think the "of" should be "or."

More serious, in my opinion, is his suggestion on p. 12 that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 implies a "prediction of the Temple's demise;" it simply is not in the text. (Incidentally, naos in 2:4 does not mean the inner sanctum, the "holy of holies;" rather, it identifies the temple building itself as distinct from the sacred precinct, to bieron.) He does not discuss the difference in the roles of Christ in the two letters. 1 Thessalonians stresses Jesus' resurrection as the assurance that his parousia will gather the faithful. 2 Thessalonians presents a Jesus whose revelation will be that of a severe judge.

The commentary proper has much that is helpful. One need not agree with With-erington's rhetorical analysis to benefit from much that is there.

Edgar Krentz

Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago