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: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 22:08:17 -0800


Paul Toseland wrote:
>I think it is reasonable to suppose that the Corinthians received Titus
>as
>Paul's envoy, and that their reception of him was determined by the
>nature
>of his mission, in particular, by their response to the Letter of Tears.

I don't think you have addressed my concern. You have proposed that
Titus's mission to Corinth was immediately after Timothy's. You have also
suggested that Timothy failed to resolve the problems - hence the need for
the tearful letter, and that Titus delivered the tearful letter, but
returned to Paul with news that the crisis was over. So you need to
explain why there was such a sudden change of heart in Corinth. You seem
to be suggesting that the change was brought about by the tearful letter,
but I have two objections to that view.

a) The language that Paul uses in 2 Cor 7.15 suggests that the Corinthians
were no longer in rebellion when Titus arrived, for they RECEIVED him with
fear and trembling (see for example Furnish p397).

b) 1 Cor seems to have addressed many, if not all, the issues connected
with the crisis. This is true for my reconstruction, and I think it is
also true with yours. Is there a simple explanation of why 1 Corinthians
failed, but the tearful letter succeeded?

These difficulties, I believe, are removed by the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.
1 Corinthians was written after the tearful letter, but arrived in Corinth
before it. In 1 Cor 16.10 Paul asks them to see to it that Titus-Timothy
has nothing to fear when he arrives. It seems that he had been anxious
about his mission, and this is understandable given that he would have to
deliver 2 Cor 10-13, the tearful letter, and given the situation in Corinth
which had seemed to prevail at the time when it had been written. So the
Corinthians knew that Timothy was coming, and they knew that his mission
was to sort them out so that Paul himself would not have to come with a rod
(1 Cor 4.17-21). (They knew this from Stephanas etc., if not also from 1
Cor.). Therefore they anticipated his arrival with fear and trembling (2
Cor 7.15), and received him in that mood. In so doing, they were
'obedient' (2 Cor 7.15) to the instructions that they had been given in 1
Cor 16.10-11.

So we do not have to suppose that there was a sudden unpredictable crisis
immediately after 1 Cor, and that it disappeared as quickly as it started.
No, the worst of the crisis was over before Titus arrived. The situation
had improved considerably because of the departure of the 'false brothers'
from Corinth, the passage of time, and the influence of 1 Corinthians.

>I have argued that, given the nature of the crisis and the involvement
>of
>the 'false apostles', 2 Cor 10-13 provides a much needed 'head to head'
>with
>these opponents which is lacking elsewhere in the letter, and the
>expected
>final warning that Paul will not be lenient with continuing offenders
>when he
> comes (pp 118-120).

Again, I am having difficulty seeing how your response answers the problem
that I raised. You claim that 2 Cor is a unity, so how do you reconcile
your statement above that 2 Cor 10-13 gives a warning to offenders with
your earlier comments that 'the final outcome demonstrated that his
confidence was not misplaced (2 Cor 7:8-12)' and 'However, he had boasted
to Titus that the Corinthians would ‘come through’, and indeed they did (2
Cor 7:14).' At the time of 2 Corinthians was the crisis over, or was it
still on-going? If the Corinthians had already 'come through' when 2 Cor
10-13 was written, I dread to think what the crisis must have been like at
its height!

Richard Fellows
Vancouver.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page