Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

[Richard]

> Loren, how do you explain the fact that 2 Cor 10-13
> anticipates rather than
> cancels a visit?

[Loren]

My assumption is that during the painful visit (55),
Paul left Corinth in a hurry, and upon return from
Ephesus, wrote the tearful letter (II Cor. 10-13) in
which he expressed his intent to visit again (II Cor.
12:14, 13:1) -- and soon! -- to set everything to
rights. (This letter is sent by Titus.) But after
"cooling off" he reasoned that a follow-up visit would
result in only more pain and sorrow (II Cor. 1:23,
2:1-2). Later, he learned from Titus (in Macedonia)
that things had improved, and there was thus no longer
any reason to hold back on a follow-up visit.

[Richard]

> Evangelistic visit (51-52)
> Sorrowful visit (54)
> Former letter (54 or 55)
> Tearful letter written (Autumn 55)
> 1 Corinthians (Passover 56)
> Tearful letter arrives (Spring 56)
> 2 Cor 1-9 (Autumn 56)

[Loren]

Richard, you place the former letter between the
tearful visit and the tearful letter, just as you
place I Corinthians between II Cor. 10-13 and II Cor.
1-9. This may remove some obstacles and
"complications" (on which see below), but it
introduces new ones. The former letter (following John
Hurd) directed the Corinthians to be obedient to the
Apostolic Decree (and other moral regulations), and I
Corinthians contained more nuanced and lenient
directives, apropos the responses of Chloe’s people
and Fortunatus & co. The activity of the rival
influencers in II Cor. 10-13 -- and the crisis
engendered thereby -- seems to have been the direct
result of the leniency promoted in I Corinthians. I
Corinthians thus precedes II Cor. 10-13.

[Richard, speaking of the T-T hypothesis]

> Remember that
> complicated stories are unlikely in the extreme when
> a simple explanation
> is available. Imagine waking up in the morning and
> going into the garden.
> You find the trash overturned and deduce that you
> have been visited by
> animals. Then you then see a smashed window pane,
> and think that you have
> been burgled. Then you see a broken tree and your
> first thought is that you
> have become a victim of vandals. Then it dawns on
> you that there has simply
> been a storm overnight. You abandon your previously
> held multiple
> explanations in favour of the single assumption of
> the storm. 

This analogy is clever but not appropriate. Whether we
like it or not, "complicated stories" are the
ingredients of reality. Simple explanations are
preferable in some cases, but not all. To offer a
counter-analogy: If someone were to attempt
reconstructing my own travels in Africa, based on
personal correspondences and using only "the simplest
explanations", the results would be pretty bad. Little
things come up, and plans change. Attitudes and
emotions change -- sometimes daily -- especially
wherever crisis and controversy is involved.


Shifting gears now, with regards to the dating of the
Thessalonian correspondences, I see nothing “forced”
in my harmonizing of Acts 17:13-15, Acts 18:5, and I
Thess. 3:1-2,6, which yields a natural dating of 51
for both Thessalonian letters. Moreover, I agree with
John when he writes:

> 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.

By the way, John, with regards to your (and Elli’s)
concern about using Acts as a “clothesline” on which
to paste Paul’s letters, I agree that historians have
no business weighing primary and secondary materials
simultaneously. But when all is said and done, there
should be no reservations about acknowledging
congruent accounts where they agree.

More on this stuff later,

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


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