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: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 21:39:22 -0800


Paul,

You have proposed that Timothy arrived in Corinth after 1 Cor and found the
church in rebellion against Paul, under the influence of the 'false
brothers'. Timothy, you believe, returned to Paul in Ephesus with the bad
news, and Paul then sent Titus with the tearful letter and was confident
that the Corinthians would repent; and they did. But if Timothy, with the
aid of 1 Corinthians, had failed to solve the problem(s), how is it that
Titus was so successful? And how is it that Paul was so confident? You
would have to suppose that Titus was a man of extraordinary grace!

How do you explain 2 Cor 7.15, which implies that the Corinthians were no
longer in rebellion when Titus arrived? Did the crisis end as quickly as
it began, without the need for any letter at all?

>In sending the ‘Letter of Tears’ instead of
>visiting Corinth to deal in person with the rebellion, he
>had taken what must have seemed a terrible risk; indeed, as
>I have argued, some in Corinth criticized him heavily for
>this. However, he had boasted to Titus that the Corinthians
>would ‘come through’, and indeed they did (2 Cor 7:14).

We agree that the crisis was essentially over when Paul wrote 2 Cor 7.
How, then, do you explain 2 Cor 10-13, given that you believe 2 Cor was a
unity? I am surprised that you do not equate 10-13 with the tearful
letter, since you say that the tearful letter was written in response to
the intrusion of the outsiders. Or have I misunderstood you?

>In evaluating the probability that rival missionaries arrived
>in Corinth during the narrow window that I postulate, one
>must look at the evidence. Most scholars agree that their is
>no evidence in 1 Cor of such a threatening presence in Corinth;
>but I have argued from evidence in 2 Cor 2:17, 4:2 and other
>passages (pp 148-53 pc) that the intruders were in Corinth when
>the ‘Letter of Tears’ was composed; moreover, it helps explain
>the extraordinary militancy of the church during this period.
>I think the intruders were probably invited to Corinth by members
>of the church who had, in effect, hired them. It would not be so
>surprising if they arrived in Spring; most people preferred to
>avoid travel in the winter.

Your argument assumes that the names 'Titus' and 'Timothy' belong to
different people. I would agree that IF we are dealing with two people,
then a crisis must probably have arisen in Corinth during a period of only
seven weeks, or so, before Pentecost, when Paul was scheduled to depart for
Macedonia. But if Titus was Timothy, then the tearful letter was written
before 1 Cor (and arrived after it), and this gives a rather longer time
window for the crisis to have arisen. This weighs in favour of the
Titus-Timothy hypothesis.

The rival missionaries visited Corinth some time during the travelling
season before the spring when 1 Cor was written. Paul wrote the tearful
letter (2 Cor 10-13) in response and gave it to Timothy to deliver. The
rival missionaries did not spend the winter in Corinth so were not present
when Paul wrote 1 Cor. There is no need to suppose that any outsiders
arrived between 1 Cor and Pentecost, or that any crisis developed in that
short interval.

The suggestion that the crisis was before 1 Cor is supported by the fact
that the issues of the crisis (see especially 2 Cor 10-13) are addressed in
1 Corinthians (see especially chapters 1-4 & 9).


Richard Fellows
Vancouver





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page