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: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Corinthian Crisis: for review
  • Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:53:38 -0800


Paul Toseland wrote:
>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).

Agreed. Do you think that he visit was announced by the 'former letter' or
by Timothy? i.e. do you think they knew about it when 1 Cor was written?
I wonder whether they would have sent a delegation with a letter if they
were expecting an imminent visit.

>Paul, however, had postponed this visit in
>response to news from Corinth, of serious disorders in the church;

Or, according to my reconstruction, he cancelled the visit at the time of 1
Cor because he knew that Titus-Timothy (carrying the tearful letter = 2 Cor
10-13) had not yet arrived in Corinth (1 Cor 16.10) and he wanted the
tearful letter to do its work before his arrival, otherwise he would have
had to be severe in his use of authority (2 Cor 13.10). This is the only
change of plan that we need to postulate, and it follows as an inevitable
consequence of Titus-Timothy's delay. (Titus's delay is, in any case,
required by 2 Cor 2.12-13 (see my e-mail of 1.July.99))

All commentators, including yourself, are forced to suppose that the travel
plan of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was cancelled because of bad news from Corinth, or
because of a bad experience of Paul in Corinth. But Paul is clear that he
had made his plan with confidence (2 Cor 1.15). If the plan was cancelled
because of something which reflected badly on the Corinthians, then Paul is
mentioning a misplaced confidence, and this would be surprising in a letter
of reconciliation. It would conflict with his purpose of emphasizing how
well founded his confidence had been (see 7.14-16). He would, in effect,
be saying, 'I was confident in you, but you let me down'. That is one
reason why I think it is better to take the cancellation as being due to
Timothy's delay. I think this explanation would work with your scheme too,
and it would confirm your claim that the plan of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was earlier
than that of 1 Cor 16.5-8.

>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).

Agreed. He cancelled the visit to spare them. So it is natural to take 2
Cor 1.23 to refer to this cancellation. In your reconstruction you have
two cancellations, both of which were to spare them. This looks
suspiciously like a piece of double vision brought on by the assumption
that Titus and Timothy were different people. Equate 'Titus' with
'Timothy' and you will find that this and many other duplications disappear.

(1 Cor 4.21), (2 Cor 1.23, 2.23), and (2 Cor 13.10) are three very close
parallels. You (and others) have to suppose that they refer to three
completely distinct phases in Paul's interactions with the Corinthians.
This is intolerable deja vu.

>He
>would give the church time to put its affairs in order; his envoy
>Timothy would help them (1 Cor 4:17).

Yes, that was Timothy's mission. He was to remind them of Paul's way of
life in Christ Jesus (4.17). This 'way of life' seems to refer back to the
theme of weaknesses and trials in 4.9-13. In my view it is no coincidence
that those themes are dominant in 2 Cor 10-13. Timothy was to read 2 Cor
10-13 to them, and in so doing he would remind them of Paul's way of like
in Christ Jesus (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).

Yes. And the winter in 1 Cor 16.6 corresponds to the one in Acts 20. It
does seem that the plan of 1 Cor 16.5-8 did go ahead as planned. There is
no need to hypothesize any changes of plan after 1 Cor.

>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);

Along with most commentators, you conjecture that Paul received bad news
from Corinth shortly after writing 1 Cor.: i.e. before Pentecost. That is
how most people explain Paul's change of plan and/or his writing of the
tearful letter. But 1 Cor itself does not anticipate problems of that
sort. When he wrote it he was confident enough to give them his travel
plan. You avoid the problem to some extent by speculating that the bad
situation was brought about by the arrival of outside missionaries after
Stephanas etc. had left Corinth. This is something that Paul could not
have anticipated, because it is an unlikely event. But the fact that it is
an unlikely event tells against your reconstruction. You require that
their arrival be within a very narrow time window and that weighs against
you (and others).

That explanation would be more plausable, I think, if it could be shown on
other grounds that rival missionaries arrived in Corinth at any time after
1 Cor. But I think you and I are agreed that 1 Cor 3-4 was written, at
least in part, against the influence of rivals, and some outside influence
is necessary to explain the Corinthians' perceptions of Peter and the
twelve (1 Cor 1.12; 9.1-5; 15.10-11). So I wonder whether it is necessary
to hypothesize two batches of rivals - one before 1 Cor and one just after
(or simultaneous). Any thoughts?

>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);

You have suggested that the tearful letter cancelled the visit that was
scheduled to be his final collection visit. Those who say that the first
of the two visits of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was carried out also share your view.
But the tearful letter was written in confidence (2.3; 7.14, 16): why would
he cancel the visit if he was so confident that they would come through? I
think you have recognised this problem and have solved it by supposing that
he only threatened to cancel the visit, while being confident that the
threat would not have to be carried out. Am I right? But in solving the
problem like that you run into another problem. It would be out of
character for Paul to say that he would NOT come if they did not reform,
since he tells them elsewhere that he will come and use his authority if
they do not reform (1 Cor 4.20-21; 2 Cor 10-13). What is more, it would
have been a major loss of face to have changed tactics in that way.



Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page