Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Loren wrote:
<<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).>>

This is possible, but I think it is a little forced. I agree with John Hurd
when he writes "The customary procedure by which these accounts are
'reconciled' is simple conflation. The two stories are dovetailed, neither
giving way to the other. They are both referred to one event concerning
which it is assumed that what Acts reports Paul omits and vice versa." (The
Origin of 1 Cor. p25).

I think it might be more likely that the visit to Athens of 1 Thess. 3.1

corresponds with Paul's second visit to Achaia. I mentioned 1 Thess. 1.8.
Here are a couple of minor additional arguments for the later date for this
letter: 1 Thess tells us that Paul had sent Timothy to Thessalonica but it
is doubtful that he would have had the resources to do so during his first
visit to Achaia. He was in need and did not receive material support from
the Achaians (2 Cor 11.7-10, see also Acts 18.5).

Later is better because a (presumably larger) later church would have more
collective resources to copy and preserve a letter, and they would be more
likely to supply an envoy. It was Paul's first letter to Corinth which was
lost.

Furthermore, there is the argument that John made, "Indeed, if Paul had
left the Thessalonians only shortly before, it is hard to understand how he
could have attempted REPEATEDLY to revisit them" ('Origins' p26).

But now John writes:
>2)  In the case of 1 Thessalonians one notes, e.g., that the disclosure
>formula in 4:13 indicates that Paul is telling the Thessalonians for the
>first time what to think about Christians who have died before the
>Parousia.  How long would elapse between the founding of the
>congregation and the death of one or more believers.  Not long, I think.

John, you seem here to be arguing the opposite point of view to what you
published in 'Origins'. Perhaps you could clarify your current position, if
you have time. How long would you place between the initial visit to
Thessalonica and the writing of 1 Thess.?

In order to use 1 Thess. 4.13 to show that the letter was written during
Paul's first visit to Achaia one would have to demonstrate that:
1.  1 Thess 4.13 is Paul's first discussion of the issue of death with the
Thessalonians.
2.  At least one person from the community in Thessalonica would have died
before Paul left Achaia.
3.  The Thessalonians would have wished to express their anxiety to Paul.
4.  Envoys passed between Thessalonica and Paul in Achaia and back to
Thessalonica in the period after the first death, and that Paul would have
used the opportunity to respond to the Thessalonians' concerns about death.

Too much in the above list is doubtful so 1 Thess. 4.13 cannot be used to
decide against a late dating of the letter. Indeed, 4.13 can perhaps be
used to argue against the early dating (in its usual form). Time should be
allowed for at least one person to die in Thessalonica, but only a few
weeks are available unless Timothy made an extended stay (but that seems
unlikely given Paul's eagerness to receive news of them, 3.5).

2.17 is sometimes used to argue for an early date, but it can equally be
used to argue the opposite. 2.17-3.1 sounds very much like excuses for not
having returned to Thessalonica. He may be responding to complaints, "We
hear that you were in Corinth for 18 months, so why didn't you visit us?".

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver.