Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] protective anonymity in 2 Corinthians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <tim AT timgallant.org>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] protective anonymity in 2 Corinthians
  • Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:38:44 -0600

----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Fellows" <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:41 PM
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] protective anonymity in 2 Corinthians


Paul's collection for Jerusalem may have been illegal (so Nickel) and Jews
may have found it highly provocative (so Georgi). It seems to have provoked
the attack on Paul just before he was about to sail (Acts 20:3). So, it is
likely that his involvement in the collection put him in danger and it is
reasonable to conjecture that his accomplices in the project would also have
been at risk if their involvement had become widely known.

What about the collection does Nickel claim was illegal?

What about Acts 20.3 suggests the opposition was in any way related to the collection? To the contrary, we find non-Christian Jews repeatedly opposing Paul throughout the Acts record, and the motivation we see has to do with the related issues of Torah and Paul's Gentile focus. I see no evidence that the plotting in 20.3 is collection-related.

Did the collection put Paul in danger. Sure. But not in the provinces. It put him in danger, because it involved taking him back to Jerusalem.

I propose that this explains the very strange anonymity of the two
'brothers' of 2 Cor 8:18-9:5. Why else would Paul not name those whom he
commends so highly? It also explains the equally strange anonymity of the
brother of 2 Cor 12:18, who accompanied Titus on his earlier visit to
Corinth, in which he started the collection (2 Cor 8:6). If Paul had named
these individuals the information could have leaked out to opponents, so he
kept them anonymous so as not to expose them to possible persecution. Not
only does Paul not name the individuals, he also fails to specify where they
came from or give any information that could be used by opponents to
identify them. Moreover, he nowhere connects the collection with any
particular congregations, preferring to refer to provinces. In Romans he
uses the first person singular when talking about his anticipated visit to
Jerusalem, and while he names Timothy and Sosipater, he does not mention
that they were to travel with him. In fact he nowhere implicates any of his
friends in involvement in the collection, except the anonymous brothers.

But this is completely explicable if "brothers" are visiting the congregations he is writing to for the sake of the collection, it seems to me. They were hardly "anonymous" if they were present in person.

Acts also seems to take pains to protect those who were involved in the
collection(s). Rather than omit the names, Luke chooses to omit all
reference to the collections, except where he can present them as very
innocent acts of charity (Acts 11:27-30; 24:17).

I fail to see how Luke's records show a different sort of collection from Paul's.

tim


---------------------------------
Tim Gallant, M.Div.
Elder, Christ Covenant Church
Grande Prairie, Alberta
Web site portal: http://www.timgallant.org/portal.php
MSN: tim AT timgallant.org / Yahoo: rabbisaul7




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page