Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Loren wrote:
>May 54:  Paul leaves Ephesus for Macedonia.
>
>Jun 54:  Paul's second visit to Philippi.
>
>Aug 54:  Paul meets Timothy in Achaia.
>
>Mid Aug - Mid Sept:  Paul's second visit to Corinth,
>the "painful visit". His vacillating on Jewish issues
>with the Corinthians has done nothing but increase
>confusion, and, to exacerbate things, rival Jewish
>teachers have begun to influence the church
>successfully. Now there is not only the libertarian
>element (who had followed Apollos when he was there),
>but a conservative Jewish element, who now loosely
>allied themselves against Paul. Paul flees Corinth for
>his life, sailing back to Ephesus.
>
>Oct 54:  Paul writes THE TEARFUL LETTER (partly
>preserved in II COR 10-13) from Ephesus and sends it
>by Titus, who takes the land route. Paul announces
>that he is coming to the Corinthians "for the third
>time" (in the spring), when he will set everything to
>rights. He tells Titus that if he does not meet him in
>Corinth, he will meet him in Troas exactly one year
>later. During this month, the proconsul of Asia is
>murdered.
>
>Nov 54:  Paul imprisoned in Ephesus
>
>Jan 55:  Paul writes PHILIPPIANS from prison. Soon
>after he becomes seriously ill.
>
>Mar 55:  A shaken Paul is released from prison. He
>abandons his plan to travel to Corinth, not only to
>recuperate, but also not wanting to pain the church
>members again -- and still unsure of the outcome of
>the Tearful Letter.
>
>Apr 55:  Timothy sets out for Macedonia (as Paul
>promised in his letter to the Philippians).
>
>Oct 55:  Paul leaves Ephesus and comes to Troas. He
>remains there for a month, waiting for Titus, during
>which time he evangelizes the city.
>
>Nov 55:  Paul crosses over into Macedonia, where he
>later meets Titus.
>
>Mar 56:  Paul writes II COR 1-9 from Phillipi, in
>which he tries driving a wedge between the libertarian
>and conservative factions in Corinth (thus
>Murphy-O'Connor, "Paul: A Critical Life").

>Can anyone find major problems with this timeline?

You suggest that Paul carried out the plan of 1 Cor 16.5-9 and that the
visit to Corinth that he anticipated in that plan became the sorrowful
visit. This is unlikely because the Macedonians would, presumably, have
shown eagerness to contribute to the collection on hearing about it from
Paul. Paul would then have told the Corinthians about the Macedonians'
eagerness when he arrived in Corinth, and we would not be reading about it
in 2 Cor 8. The eagerness of the Macedonians in 2 Cor 8 seems to be news
for the Corinthians, not something that Paul has told them before. 

Paul says that he cancelled the visit to spare them, yet he also says that
he was confident that the tearful letter would have the desired effect. How
do you reconcile these facts? If Titus arrived in Corinth on time, as you
assume, and if Paul was confident about the letter, then why did he cancel
the visit? Wouldn't Paul be contradicting himself by saying that he had
been confident and that the cancellation was to spare them?

As with all the published reconstructions, my main criticism concerns
complexity. Every piece of data in the text seems to have a new assumption
associated with it. There are 7 journeys of Titus/Timothy (Timothy: Ephesus
to Macedonia to Achaia to Asia to Macedonia; Titus: Asia to Macedonia to
Achaia to Macedonia) but only three are needed (Titus Timothy: Asia to
Macedonia to Achaia).
There are two changes in Paul's travel plans, but only one is needed. 

There are also some unanswered questions. What is the connection between
2.13 and 2.14? What was the history of the collection in Corinth and
Macedonia? How did the Corinthians know that Paul had cancelled his visit
(1.17)? How does one achieve a smooth transition between 1 Cor 4.21 and 5.1?

Loren wrote:
>Richard and I disagree on the dating of Paul's painful
>visit and the writing of II Cor 10-13. He (and Paul
>Toseland) see the Previous Letter as the sequel to the
>painful visit, whereas I see II Cor 10-13 as the
>sequel to that visit. To refresh memories, here is a
>snapshot of Richard's timeline:

I write:

I have made some small corrections to Loren's summary of my position:
>51-52:  Paul's first visit to Corinth.
54:  Paul makes a painful visit to Achaia (very likely to Athens only).
54:  Paul writes THE PREVIOUS LETTER from Athens
55:  Paul writes II COR 10-13 from Ephesus -- 
>sent by land with Titus (=Timothy)
>Passover 56:  Paul writes I CORINTHIANS from Ephesus
>Spring 56:  II Cor 10-13 arrives by land, after the
>arrival of I Corinthians
>Fall 56:  Paul writes II COR 1-9 from Macedonia
57:  Paul's third visit to Achaia


Loren continued:
>The dating of the "painful visit" hinges crucially on
>the following text:
>
>"I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and to
>come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me
>to Judea. Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this?
>Do I make plans according to the flesh, ready to say
>'Yes, yes' and 'No, no' at the same time? . . . But it
>was to spare you that I did not come again to Corinth.
>. ." (II Cor. 1:16-23)
>
>The sense I get from this is that Paul had intended
>(in the fall of 54) to come to Corinth ("again, for
>the third time", II Cor. 12:14, 13:1) in the spring of
>55, at the start of the sailing season. But later,
>after "cooling off" -- and after imprisonment and a
>brutal illness (II Cor. 1:8-10?) -- he canceled his
>plan, not wanting to cause any more pain to the church
>until he learned the outcome of II Cor 10-13.

None of this reconstruction is given in the text, of course, but you touch
on a good point. The plan of 2 Cor 1.15-16 mentions no winters and would
fit nicely into one sailing season. It is likely, then that the first leg
of the journey (Ephesus to Corinth) was to be in the spring. 1 Cor was
probably written in the spring so this supports the idea that 1 Cor
effectively cancelled the first leg of the double visit.

>I simply don't like pushing the painful visit (and the
>writing of II Cor 10-13) so far back as to antedate I
>Corinthians.

Actually, I am not really moving the tearful letter earlier. Rather I am
moving 1 Cor later.

> In II Cor 1-9, Paul writes about the
>painful visit and about what he said in II Cor 10-13
>as if they're fresh on his mind, and the most recent
>interchanges.

Paul writes in 2 Cor 1-9 about the Corithian's reaction to the tearful
letter and this shows that 2 Cor 1-9 is Paul's first opportunity to respond
to that reaction. This fits my reconstruction. There are no indications
that a painful visit was fresh in Paul's mind when he wrote 2 Cor 1-9. It
is possible that a painful visit had been fresh in his mind when he decided
not to visit them (2 Cor 2.1), but even this is uncertain.

> Likewise, in I Corinthians Paul refers
>to the Previous Letter as the most recent exchange --

Again, according to my reconstruction the previous letter was the most
recent letter to arrive in Corinth.

>and not to the painful visit at all. Richard gets
>around this last one by supposing the painful visit to
>have involved a controversy in the general Achaian
>region (as opposed to Corinth in particular). This is
>possible, but to me an unnecessary speculation.

I am suggesting, tentatively, that Paul's second visit to Achaia was to
Athens only. Why do you think this is such a heavy assumption? What element
of the reconstruction do you find so surprising? The Athens idea is not
"unnecessary speculation" for some such assumption is necessary to explain
the apparent jump in thought between 1 Cor 4.21 and 5.1, and the Athens
idea makes good sense of it. Perhaps you could engage with the arguments
that I posted.

>By the way, Richard, how do you work Philippians into
>your timeline -- especially apropos your Timothy-Titus
>hypothesis?

Incorporating 1 Thess and Phil I would get:

Phil?
Paul travels from Ephesus to Athens
The former letter
Paul returns to Ephesus
1 Thess
Phil?
2 Cor 10-13 sent
1 Cor
Paul travels to Macedonia and 2 Cor 10-13 arrives in Corinth
2 Cor 1-9.

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver