Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Listers,

The following timeline is intended as a follow-up to
my November 6 post, in which I focused on the years
48-50 with respect to the Jerusalem Council and the
Apostolic Decree. Now I’m targeting the years 50-57,
in exploring how consistent Paul was in preaching the
Decree during his second and third missionary
journeys. List members will find my proposal regarding
the church in Berea speculative in the extreme (and
Paul never even mentions the Bereans in his letters),
but I have always been fascinated by Luke’s report of
Paul’s stand-out success in evangelizing Jews there
(Acts 17:10-15). Exactly how this came about may be a
good topic for later discussion. For now, anyway, just
the “bare-bones” of my working chronology:

Early 40’s: Christianity comes to Rome. The
Christ-believers, Jews and Gentiles alike, base
themselves in the synagogues (so E.A. Judge and G.S.R.
Thomas). The church in Rome will remain part of the
synagogue until the mid-60s, save for the period of
49-54, when Jews are banned from the city and
synagogues shut down.

49: On account of public actions and protests from a
certain faction of Christian Jews, Claudius issues an
edict expelling all Jews (whether Christian or
non-Christian) from Rome. Synagogues are shut down,
and the “Righteous Gentiles” (whether Christian or
non-Christian) remain behind. The Christians begin
forming house churches in the city, in order to meet
secretly.

50: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy preach in Berea (for
about six weeks) and receive an unprecedented positive
Jewish reception (Acts 17:10-15). The church founded
in this city will retain strong ties to the synagogue
(somewhat like the church in Rome will, even after the
Jews’ return from expulsion in 54), and because of
this, Paul takes care to enforce the stipulations of
the Apostolic Decree on the Berean Gentiles.

50: Late in the year, Paul arrives in Corinth. He
remains here and preaches for 18 months, during which
time he does not enforce the stipulations of the
Apostolic Decree, consistent with most of his practice
during the second missionary journey. 

51: In the spring, Paul writes I&II Thessalonians from
Corinth. Later, he meets Priscilla and Aquilla, who
have fled Rome.


*** Richard Fellows has reservations about an “early”
dating of the Thessalonian letters:

> I prefer to place 1 Thess. towards the start of the
so-called third missionary
> journey. The visit to Athens in 1 Thess 3.1 might
well correspond to the
> sorrowful visit to Achaia to which Paul alludes in 2
Cor 2.1; 12.14;
> 13.2. . . The conventional (early) dating of 1
Thess. is very difficult to reconcile
> with the movements of Silas and Timothy in Acts
17.13-15.

What do you see as “unreconcilable” here, Richard? I
find it easy enough to reconcile the accounts of Acts
17:13-15, Acts 18:5, and I Thes. 3:1-2,6 with the
“conventional” or early dating. Paul went to Athens,
leaving Silvanus and Timothy behind in Berea (Acts
17:14-15). He waited for them in Athens (Acts 17:16),
and they soon arrived. Paul got word of a crisis
involving persecutions in northern Macedonia, sent
Timothy to Thessalonica (I Thess. 3:1-2) and Silvanus
to Phillipi. He later left for Corinth (Acts 18:1). In
the early spring, Timothy and Silvanus joined him in
Corinth (Acts 18:5). 

I agree with you, of course, that Donfried’s “43”
dating is rather untenable.


51: In the summer, Paul is compelled by Corinthian
Jews to appear before Proconsul Gallio for his
“sacrilegious” non-Jewish teachings (Acts 18:12-18).

52: Paul leaves Corinth early in the year. By
mid-year, he returns from his second missionary
journey and makes his fourth visit to Jerusalem (Acts
18:22), at which point he is questioned about his
diligence in enforcing the Decree while evangelizing
Greece. The apostles railroad him for his liberal
preaching, especially with the Corinthians. Back at
Antioch, he writes a stern letter which will end up
causing confusion and discord in the Corinthian
church. This letter directs the Corinthians, among
other things,

(1) To be married, because of the danger of
fornication
(2) To eschew idol meat
(3) To avoid blood
(4) To wear veils [women]
(5) To shun speaking in tongues


*** This reconstruction of a “lost letter” is
basically John Hurd’s position in his stimulating “The
Origin of I Corinthians”. However, John follows
Wilhelm Erbt in placing the Jerusalem Council during
the visit of Acts 18:22 rather than Acts 15. The
Apostolic Decree thus happens after Paul’s
evangelization of Corinth, which (supposedly) explains
why Paul didn’t enforce it when he first came to the
city. This juxtaposition seems desperate and
unnecessary, and I share Richard’s sentiments (see his
recent posting to John) about mistrusting too much the
historicity of Acts.

52: By the end of this year, Gentile Christianity in
Rome has grown considerably. (Non-Christian
God-fearers have dwindled due to lack of
organization.)

53: Paul’s third missionary journey begins. In the
late summer he comes to Ephesus and uses it as his
base for the next 2+ years. Months later, Chloe’s
people bring Paul news of Corinth (by word of mouth).
Soon after, Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus come
from Corinth with a letter -- a reply to the “stern
letter” written by Paul from Antioch in mid-52. Paul
writes I Corinthians, which contains a compromise of
sorts between his original liberal preaching in
Corinth and the subsequent “backlash” advice set out
in his “stern letter”.

(1) Men and women should remain married, because of
the danger of fornication (7:1-7),
but unmarried men and women should remain unmarried,
unless they lack 
self-control (7:8-9)
(2) Eschew idol meat if “your liberty offends
non-believers” (8:9), but otherwise
“eat whatever is sold in the meat market without
raising any question on 
grounds of conscience” (10:25)
(3) Avoid blood, along the same lines for idol meat
[implicit]
(4) It is good that women wear veils as a concession
to the patriarchy (11:2-6), but they
should really have “freedom of choice regarding their
heads” (11:7-10)
(5) People should speak in tongues only if it is their
“spiritual gift”


54: Death of Claudius at the end of the year; the ban
on Jews in Rome is lifted. The following year
Priscilla and Aquilla -- along with other Christian
Jews, and even more non-Christian Jews -- begin
drifting home. These Jews face a very different
scenario from that of five years before, when the
Gentile Christ-believers had been a small minority in
the synagogue with little influence. Now their numbers
have swelled, and they’re a strong and confident body.
Moreover, they have developed their own patterns of
religious practice which are not especially Jewish,
even by “Righteous Gentile” standards. They are none
too enthused about this Jewish homecoming and return
to the synagogues reluctantly. Tensions quickly mount
between them and (particularly) the non-Christian
Jews. 


*** Mark Nanos has argued that Rom. 14:1-15:13 evinces
tensions between (Gentile) Christians and (Jewish)
non-Christians, and I agree that the conflict in Rome
was not primarily intra-Christian, and, more to the
point, that Paul faulted the “weak in faith” for
precisely that reason -- for lacking faith in Christ,
not for being Jewish. (Mark phrases it thus: “Paul did
not fault the ‘weak in faith’, but attributed this
state to the inscrutable plan of God to confront the
fault that Gentiles were finding with them. He faults
the ‘strong in faith’ for contributing to this ‘weak’
state instead of helping ‘to hold them up’.”)
Personally, I’m certain that Paul would have called
Jewish Christians like Priscilla and Aquilla “strong

in faith”, just as he would have called any
non-Christian Gentiles “weak in faith”. (But, of
course, the argument of Rom. 14:1-15:6 does not apply
to either Jewish Christians or non-Christian
Gentiles.) See his “Mystery of Romans”.


55: Paul’s vacillating on Jewish issues with the
Corinthians has increased confusion, and to exacerbate
things, Jewish teachers have begun to influence the
church successfully. He makes his second visit to
Corinth -- the “painful” or “sorrowful” visit alluded
to in II Cor. 2:1, whereupon he aggressively combats
these influencers. He returns to Ephesus, writes a
furious letter (II Cor. 10-13), and sends it by Titus
(=Timothy?). Later, Paul leaves Ephesus and comes to
Macedonia to meet Titus and learn if things have
progressed or deteriorated further (II Cor. 2:12-13).
Toward the end of the year, Titus arrives with news
that the Corinthian situation has indeed improved, and
Paul writes a follow-up letter (II Cor. 1-9) from
Phillipi. He sends this, again, by Titus, and then
soon leaves for Corinth himself.


*** Richard Fellows has argued -- both on- and
off-list -- that Timothy and Titus were the same
person, that “Titus” was either Timothy’s nick-name or
praenomen. An intriguing proposal, though I’m not
wholly convinced. One would have to account for why
Paul defended Titus’s uncircumcised status to the
apostles during the famine visit in 48 (Gal. 2:1-10),
only to have him circumcised later on (Acts 16:3, year
50) for missionary expediency! On the other hand, if
Titus=Timothy, then Paul was indeed shrewd in sending
an individual whose circumcised status would weigh
heavily against those of the rival influencers. As
Richard said in an earlier post: “Why would Paul
circumcise Timothy for expedient reasons, but select a
(supposedly) uncircumcised ‘100% Gentile Titus’ to
deal with the situation about which we read in II Cor.
11:22? If Titus’ mission was successful, it makes
sense to suppose that he was circumcised at the time
and that he had some Jewish ancestry.” [paraphrase] I
wonder what others think of Richard’s proposal. He has
argued for this in the past (see the archives).


56: Paul’s third visit to Corinth early in the year.
He stays for three months, then returns to Philippi.

57: Paul’s fourth visit to Corinth, early in the year,
whereupon he learns of renewed tensions in the Roman
church/synagogue. He writes Romans, cognizant of the
dominating conflict between Gentile Christians and
Jewish non-Christians, and thus exhorts the Gentiles
to recognize Israel’s primacy (Rom. 11:13-29) and to
abide by minimal purity standards so as not to offend
their Jewish associates (i.e. the Apostolic Decree)
(Rom. 14:1-15:6). But he is also cognizant of the
ongoing concerns of Jewish Christians like his fellow
apostles, for whom the arguments of Rom. 9:1-11:12
seem especially prepared for when he soon visits them
(Rom. 15:25f).


I’ve covered a lot of ground here, but my timeline
should provoke some thoughts about Paul’s consistency
in preaching “Gentile liberty” vis-à-vis the Apostolic
Decree.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua, NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/