Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Richard,

> 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.

I assume no such thing. The Corinthians doubtfully
acted on the instructions given in I Cor 16:1-2,
considering the mutiny which threatened at this time.
The collection, at this point, was probably an almost
dead issue. So, during the painful visit, the
Corinthians would not have cared how “eager” the
Macedonians were for the collection.

> 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?

To a degree. But consider that he was also saving
face. Paul would obviously have had misgivings and
insecurities about the outcome of the painful visit
and the tearful letter, regardless of how “confident”
he would later present himself. Also keep in mind II
Cor 1:8-10. If this text indeed refers to imprisonment
and/or being at death’s door -- and surely it refers
to the latter at the very least -- then Paul would
naturally have postponed any imminent travels
traveling in order to recuperate. The more I read II
Cor 1:8-10 in conjunction with II Cor. 1:15-2:4, the
more I see the latter serving as a mask for the
former. It’s like Paul is saying, “Easy for you all to
say that I’m fickle, vacillating, and changing my mind
all the time. When have any of you last been put
through the ordeals I’ve been through?”

> I am suggesting that Paul's second visit to Achaia
> was to Athens only. Why do you think this is a heavy
> assumption? What element of the reconstruction do
> you find so surprising?

To suggest that Paul would not have gone to Corinth in
order to deal directly with the sexual offender --
while sitting right next door in Athens -- doesn’t
square with my perception of his character. You’re
obviously right about the many who believed (or
asserted) that Paul didn’t “have the stones” to come
and exercise his power and authority on occasion (I
Cor. 4:18, for instance). But if he were in Achaia and
learned of this controversy, I think it more than
likely he would have paid the church a visit. This was
one of his most important churches, to which he had
devoted so much time and passion. So I don’t find it
likely that Paul “failed to visit Corinth for a second
time”.

Thanks for your observations, Richard. And I notice
you assume an Ephesian imprisonment theory for
Philippians. Good! While I believe Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philemon were all written much later
-- from Rome -- Philippians seems to come from the
same period of the Corinthian letters.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com



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