Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

John Hurd wrote:
>I apologize for being such tardy correspondent.  I am both busy and
>reluctant to rehash material that I have published in detail.
>    To Richard Fellows:
>1)  One may not, as an historian, place on the table at one time primary
>and secondary source materials.  I don't care that it is often done by
>biblical (and other) scholars.  Thus to use Acts as the clothes line on
>which to hang the letters is bad historical method.  So also is all talk
>of "missionary journeys" when speaking of Paul and not just Acts.
>Instead one must begin by laying out the primary evidence, i.e., Paul's
>letters, and looking for clues as to their relative sequence.

John, thanks for taking the time to write.

I agree that we have absolutely no prior reason for believing that Acts
contains any accurate information, and that when the undisputed letters are
clear on any matter they should be preferred over anything written in Acts.
I would also add that IF having set Acts against the letters we find that
there is more disagreement than agreement, we should give little weight to
statements in Acts which cannot be checked against the letters.

I also agree that it is worthwhile to interpret the letters without regard
to Acts and to see what clues there might be concerning sequence etc. Only
having done so can we try to test the accuracy or inaccuracy of Acts. The
method is to hang the letters on the clothesline of Acts and determine
whether they belong. So I don't think we disagree on method, but perhaps we
disagree on the results of the exercise, I don't know.

>3)  As to awkwardness when the letters are conformed to Acts, take
>Galatians, ............

Actually, my proposal concerned the placing of 1 Thessalonians in the
sequence of Paul's movements. I argued that when we interpret Paul's Aegean
letters without regard to Acts we get a sequence which fits really quite
well with the sequence given in Acts. I would be interested to hear your
thoughts on what I wrote. It is the accuracy or otherwise of the sequence
of Acts in the Aegean period(s) which is important to the question of the
dating of 1 Thess.

Here you have shifted the territory to Galatians, where, I admit, a
stronger case can be made. Personally, I find it very difficult to test
Acts against Galatians because of the ambiguities in the letter. The
discussions on this list have shown how many unresolved issues there are in
our analysis of Galatians. Who were the influencers? Were they from Judea?
Was the circumcision issue ever raised during the Gal 2 visit to Jerusalem?
Why did Paul emphasise his independence from Jerusalem/Judea? What, if
anything, had the influencers said about Paul's relationship to Jerusalem?
How are we to explain 5.10? To whom was the letter addressed? What is
Paul's purpose in chapters 1&2? etc.  I have changed my mind on some of
these questions in recent months, and they are all areas of debate. I feel
it is too early to use Galatians to test Acts. I would prefer to reserve
judgement.

>    On all of this see the first chapter in my The Origin of 1
>Corinthians.

I've just re-read that chapter. It makes a case against the sequence of
Acts. It majors on issues raised by Galatians and contains little on the
Aegean period(s). 

It makes much of the awkwardness between 1 Thess 3.1-2 and Acts 17.13-15. I
have addressed this issue in the thread on "Dating 1 Thessalonians". 

It makes the point that there is no mention in Acts of certain events which
we read in the letters, such as Paul's second visit to Achaia, or his trip
to Illyricum, and I accept this point.

On page 31 Hurd suggests that the Gallio inscription should not be used to
date Paul's first visit to Corinth, because Acts 18.1-18 may be a collation
of different accounts, some of which may belong to a later visit. But the
dating of Paul's first visit to Corinth in the early 50s is not dependent
on the Gallio inscription alone. When we start with the Egyptian Rebel and
the succession of Festus and work back we find that Paul's first departure
from Corinth (according to the Acts chronology) cannot have been after 54.
When one starts with the earlier chronological data concerning the 14
years, the death of Herod, the famine, etc. everything points to a
departure from Corinth not before 50. So even without Gallio Acts narrows
the range to 50-54. The Gallio inscription merely confirms what one would
already have deduced from an Acts-based chronology. Is this just coincidental?

So I don't think it is sufficient to propose that the Gallio incident
belongs to Paul's second or third visit to Achaia. You would have to deal
with the Egyptian rebel as well, otherwise you have Paul arriving in
Jerusalem too early. Or have I missed something? 

By moving the Gallio incident to the second or third visits you are
bringing forward Paul's plan to visit Rome, and I wonder whether this is a
problem. Maybe someone could shed some light on the likelihood that the
banishment of Jews from Rome was rescinded by Claudius rather than by Nero
on his succession.

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver