Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Corinthian Crisis: for review

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Toseland <paul AT toseland.f9.co.uk>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Corinthian Crisis: for review
  • Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:13:40 +0000


My thanks to Richard Fellows for commending my work to the list.
With the kind help of another list member, I have now been able to make
the work available in Acrobat (.pdf ) format, so that it can be read
easily in almost any browser on any platform:

Richard writes:

>He argues persuasively that Paul's second visit to Corinth is
>unlikely to have been between 1 Cor and 2 Cor, and that the
> arguments against placing it before 1 Cor are weak. He also
>demonstrates that the travel plan of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was made
>before 1 Cor, and suggests that Paul had sent Timothy to Corinth
>to make preparations for his own visit.

>He goes on to argue that Paul cancelled the visit announced in 1
>Cor 16.5 and later reinstated it when writing 2 Cor. I am not
>convinced: it seems unnecessary to hypothesise three changes of
>plan where one is all that we need. Also, I don't quite understand
>how 'to spare you I came no more to Corinth' (2 Cor 1.23) can
>refer to a cancelled visit which had been re-instated and was still
>scheduled to go ahead. Surely 1.23 implies that the time that had
>been set for the cancelled visit was in the past when 2 Cor 1.23
>was written.

The last point is well made, and certainly requires an answer; I am
grateful for the feedback.

I would emphasise that, in evaluating reconstructions of Paul’s dealings
with Corinth, we must take account of the implications for the exegesis
of the whole letter, or of all of its constituent parts. In
particular, we must seek to understand the place of our sources in
the ongoing dialogue between Paul, the Corinthians, and the ‘false
apostles’. In the later chapters of my study I have tried to analyse
the theme and argument of 2 Cor 1-7 as a whole, and to
reconstruct the rhetorical situation to which Paul is responding. I
conclude that a section of the Corinthian church had criticised Paul
for cancelling his plan to visit Corinth in the Spring, on the way to
Macedonia (the first visit of the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16). They argued
that this change of plan was irresponsible (1:17); he had taken the
most appalling risk. Paul, however, had postponed this visit in
response to news from Corinth, of serious disorders in the church;
he had already issued a stern warning on his previous visit (2 Cor
13:2), and he did not wish to visit now ‘with a rod’ (1 Cor 4:21). He
would give the church time to put its affairs in order; his envoy
Timothy would help them (1 Cor 4:17). Hence he now planned to
visit Corinth in the Fall or early Winter, after he had been to
Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5-9). However, Timothy returned with worse
news: under the influence of newly arrived rival missionaries, the
church had actually refused to carry out the instructions of 1 Cor
5:1-13! At this, Paul wrote his ‘Letter of Tears’, in which he offered
to come to Corinth ‘no more’ (2 Cor 1:23); if the church had chosen
to reject his authority, he would not use force. Thus, his comment
that 'to spare you I came no more to Corinth' (2 Cor 1.23) relates to
a period in the past in which he had first postponed a visit, and then
cancelled it altogether. He is relating to the Corinthians’ criticism
of
these decisions, and, I have argued, his response to this criticism is
the central theme of the whole of 2 Cor 1-7.

Paul Toseland
http://www.toseland.f9.co.uk/paul/ccindex.htm




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page