Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>]

I had written:
>>However, the proponents of the old view were correct in one respect: the
>>travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 should be placed before that of 1 Cor 16:10.
(I meant 1 Cor 16:1-9)
>>Placing it after 1 Cor 16:10 requires implausibly forced reconstructions of
>>subsequent events.

Ed Krentz replied:
>I hope Richard will expand on the above paragraph at length. Here he is
>using, meines Erachtens, a historical critical reading. Does it agree with
>a rhetorical reading, which Richard earlier seemed to give precedence over
>historical reconstruction.
>
>That is a way of saying that I would appreciate in light of the above a
>nuanced statement on method(s) from Richard.

I have never given precedence to rhetorical reading over historical
reconstruction, but have always considered them to be a false dichotomy.
(Are you confusing me with David Amador?).  But thanks for the invitation
to expand on my rather brief statement about the travel plans.  I would be
interested to hear the views of listers on how Paul's travel plans should
be understood.

In 1 Cor 16:1-8 Paul says that he will travel to Corinth via Macedonia for
his collection visit.  Now, it is clear from Paul's letters alone (2 Cor
2:12-13; 7:5; 8:1; 9:4 etc; Rom 15:26; 16:1), as well as from Acts (19:21;
20:1-3) that this plan was followed.  Not only did he follow the route
given in 1 Cor 16 but there are some indications that the timing was not
altered.  If it is correct to connect the Demetrius riot (Acts 19) with the
month of Artemis, then there is every chance that Paul left Ephesus at
Pentecost which fits 1 Cor 16:8.  Furthermore Acts tells us that he spent
the winter in Greece and this fits the winter of 1 Cor 16:6.

The travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 involved two visits to Corinth.  The first
was to have been on his way to Macedonia, and the second was the final
collection visit.  What, then, is the relationship between these two travel
plans?  The simplest solution is to place the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16
before that of 1 Cor 16:1-8: Paul had planned to visit Corinth on his way
to Macedonia as well as after visiting Macedonia, but he cancelled the
first of these visits and communicated the updated travel plan in 1 Cor 16.
 We then require no change of travel plans after 1 Cor.  This would mean
that the tearful letter could not have been written after 1 Cor since he
would then have explained his change of plans in the tearful letter, and we
would not be reading about it in 2 Cor.  Thus we have two choices: either
the tearful letter was 1 Cor (which is difficult to accept for other
reasons) or it was written before 1 Cor and was carried by Timothy who was
en route when 1 Cor was written.

Now, because commentators have been constrained by the assumption that
Titus and Timothy were different people, they have been forced to accept
rather more complicated solutions to the question of the relationship
between the two travel plans.  They do not agree among themselves on the
exact solution but they all say that the travel plan of 1 Cor 16 was
abandoned and that at some stage the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was formulated
and that it in turn was also eventually abandoned in favour of the original
plan.  Thus they have to postulate at least two changes of plan. 2 Cor only
gives evidence of one change of plan which consisted of the cancellation of
a visit.

As I have said, there have been many reconstructions based on the
assumption that the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was after that of 1 Cor
16.  All are complicated.  Non are satisfactory.
Some, e.g. Barrett, Martin, and Thrall, have suggested that the travel plan
of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was made shortly after 1 Cor and that an interim visit was
the first visit of 2 Cor 1:15-16.  This is very awkward for the following
reasons.  

1.
They are suggesting that Paul planned to make a passing visit to Corinth,
but this is exactly what he said in 1 Cor 16 that he had determined NOT to
do.  They offer no explanation as to why he changed his mind.  

2.
Paul says that he had made his travel plan in confidence (2 Cor 1:15), yet
the interim visit was (they suppose) disastrous.  Why would Paul, in a
letter of reconciliation, draw attention to the fact that his confidence in
the Corinthians had been so badly misplaced?  Elsewhere he goes out of his
way to emphasise that his confidence in them had been well founded (2 Cor
2:3, 7:16).

3.
It is odd that Paul should describe his travel plan in 2 Cor 1:15-16 if he
had visited Corinth after forming that plan.  He would have been telling
them what they already knew.  And if the first part of the plan had already
been accomplished by the interim visit, why mention it at all?  The point
of dispute would have been the second promised visit. 

4.
The cancelled visit should not be equated with the second visit of 2 Cor
1:15-16.  In the scheme that the commentators suggest, Paul merely delayed
his final collection visit to Corinth, so why does he describe it as a
cancellation?

5.
If the sorrowful nature of the interim visit led him to change his mind
about making his subsequent promised visit, why did he not give them his
revised plan before he left Corinth?  Why did he change his mind only after
returning to Ephesus?


The solution when Titus is taken to be Timothy is as follows:

After returning to Ephesus (Acts 19.1) Paul made a brief, sorrowful visit
to Corinth (2 Cor 2.1, 12.14, 13.1).  In response he wrote a letter (1 Cor
5.9), now lost.  He then heard that some at Corinth were questioning his
authority (1 Cor 4.18-19, 2 Cor 2.3; 7.11).  He wrote a (tearful) letter (2
Cor 10-13; 2 Cor 1.13, 2.3-4, 9, 7.8,12) to re-assert his authority and
sent it with Titus-Timothy.  At the time of writing he was hopeful that the
letter would have the desired effect (2 Cor 1.15, 2.3, 7.14,16, 13.10) and
he wrote that he intended to visit them soon after the arrival of the
letter (2 Cor 12.14, 12.20-13.2, 2.3).  His intention at that time was to
visit Corinth in the spring, on his way to Macedonia, and then to return to
Corinth (2 Cor 1.15-16, Phil 2.24).  Titus-Timothy travelled with Erastus
via Macedonia (Acts 19.22, Phil 2.19).  Paul learned from Stephanas etc. (1
Cor 16.17) that Titus-Timothy had not yet arrived in Corinth (1 Cor 16.10).
 Titus-Timothy's delay may have been due to his work in starting the
collection in Macedonia (2 Cor 8.6).  Paul therefore cancelled his plan to
visit Corinth at that time because a visit before the tearful letter had
done its work would have been sorrowful (2 Cor 12.20-21; 1 Cor 4.21; 2 Cor
1.23; 2.3), and he wrote 1 Corinthians in lieu of a visit, explaining his
intention to travel to Macedonia first (1 Cor 16.5-7).  Paul was anxious
about Titus-Timothy (2 Cor 2:13) and thought that he might meet him in
Troas since he had last seen him heading in that direction from Ephesus.
He proceeded to
Macedonia to meet him the sooner and to find out what had happened to him
(2 Cor 2.12-13).  Titus-Timothy's visit to Corinth was successful, but the
believers decided that since Paul could not come to Corinth at that time,
they would discipline an offender on his behalf (2 Cor 2.5-10, 7.7-13).  As
a result of Titus-Timothy's delay, he went directly to Macedonia and met
Paul there (2 Cor 1.1; 7.5-6, Acts 19.22).  Paul then wrote 2 Cor 1-9,
which was carried to Corinth by Titus-Timothy (2 Cor 8.17).  After the
winter (1 Cor 16.6; Acts 20.3), Titus-Timothy (Rom 16.21) travelled with
Paul to Judea (Acts 20.4).


Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca
Vancouver