dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 303
In setting forth his case, the letter writer marshals an eschatological prom-
ise of eternal life, while alluding to elements in the letter opening. during
this entire process, the writer builds upon the positive relations between
writer and recipients from the letter opening. the exhortation thus far
has been largely indirect, i.e., there have been no specific imperatival
statements to explicitly enjoin the recipients. rather, the letter body has
implicitly exhorted the recipients by means of moral exempla, discursive
positioning, and eschatological promises.
Paraenesis
It is in the paraenesis that the letter’s argument comes to a forceful climax,
specifically through the clustering of imperatives into a refined parallel
structure. Much work has been done on early Christian paraenesis since
dibelius,32 with the most insightful theoretical work emerging from the
lund-oslo conferences in 2000 and 2001.33 using their work as a begin-
ning point, especially that of James starr,34 along with modifications set
32 Martin dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (auflage; tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 1971 [1919]); dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (2nd ed.; tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1931);
dibelius, “der himmlische kultus nach dem hebräerbrief,” Theologische Blätter 21 (1942):
1–12; and dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle to James (hermenia; trans. M. a.
Williams; Philadelphia: fortress, 1976).
33 for a comprehensive overview of scholarly treatments of paraenesis, along with a
definitional framework for analysis of paraenetic texts, see tite, Valentinian Ethics and
Paraenetic Discourse: Determining the Social Function of Moral Exhortation in Valentinian
Christianity (nhMs 67; leiden: Brill, 2009), 57–133. a seminal treatment of the topic is
found in troels engberg-Pedersen and James M. starr (eds.), Early Christian Paraenesis in
Context (Berlin: de gruyter, 2004). see my discussion of this collection in tite, Valentin-
ian Ethics, 88–107 and 116–24. an earlier, though equally pivotal, treatment of paraenesis
is found in Semeia 50 (1990) (entitled, Paraenesis: Act and Form), edited by leo Perdue.
again, see my discussion in tite, Valentinian Ethics, 67–88.
34 the lund-oslo group set forth the following definition of paraenesis: “a concise,
benevolent injunction that reminds of moral practices to be pursued or avoided, expresses
or implies a shared worldview, and does not anticipate disagreement” (starr and engberg-
Pedersen, “Introduction,” in engberg-Pedersen and starr [eds.], Early Christian Paraen-
esis in Context, 4). from this general definition, James starr delineates five key aspects
of such moral exhortation: (1) “Paraenesis is benevolent... [it builds on an] element of
mutual friendship” and thus works with the assumption that the communicative setting
is one of amicable relations, rather than between opponents; (2) “Paraenesis typically
concerns moral practices to be pursued or avoided” and thus is interested in behavioural
responses or moral paths taken; (3) “Paraenesis reminds someone... [it] ‘concentrates on
memory’” rather than on imparting new information or teaching. Paraenesis recalls what
is known for reinforcing the continuance of moral behaviour; (4) “Paraenesis assumes a
shared worldview or set of convictions that inform and motivate the advice given”; and
(5) “finally, paraenesis does not anticipate disagreement... the advice offered concerns