Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Loren,

thanks for engaging with some of my arguments. I am prepared to concede
that the argument about the individual offender not being mentioned in 2
Cor 10-13, is not a strong one.

You and I agree that the tearful letter was probably 2 Cor 10-13 and that
it announced a visit by Paul. We agree that the plan of a double visit (2
Cor 1.15-16) was what Paul had in mind when he wrote the tearful letter,
and that he cancelled the first of these visits to spare them. Our view is
supported by the fact that the confidence (1.15) with which Paul made his
travel plan matches the confidence with which he wrote the tearful letter
(2.3; 7.14).

Although we disagree on the place of 1 Corinthians in the sequence, we
agree that:

Paul planned to visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia and on his way back.
Paul wrote the tearful letter (2 Cor 10-13) with confidence, announcing the
first of the two visits, and sent it with Titus.
Paul abandoned the visit announced in 2 Cor 10-13, and instead went to
Macedonia via the Troad.

My question now is: Did Titus travel to Corinth by sea or by land? If he
went by land we can have the following sequence:

Paul planned to visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia and on his way back.
Paul wrote the tearful letter (2 Cor 10-13) with confidence, announcing the
first of the two visits, and sent it with Titus, WHO TOOK THE LAND ROUTE TO
CORINTH.
Titus was delayed in Macedonia.
Titus failed to return to Ephesus on schedule.
Paul did not want to arrive in Corinth before the tearful letter (see 2 Cor
13.10) so he abandoned his planned visit to Corinth and traveled to the Troad.
The Troad had been on Titus's route to Corinth, so Paul thought that he
might find him there (2.13).
Not finding Titus in the Troad, Paul proceeded to Macedonia where he
learned that Titus had passed through safely. He then knew that Titus's
non-arrival in Ephesus had not meant that something had gone dreadfully
wrong with Titus's mission (thus he thanks God in 2.14).
Paul arrived in Macedonia.

I think this fits well with your overall scheme, and offers you the
following advantages:

1. You no longer need to hypothesise that Paul lost confidence in the
tearful letter after sending it: his decision not to go to Corinth was
because he knew that the tearful letter had not yet been delivered there.

2. It explains why Paul thought that he might have found Titus in the
Troad. I don't know how else to explain 2.12-13 with your scheme.

3. It explains the transition between 2.13 and 2.14.


What, if any, are the advantages of supposing that Titus went by sea?

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver