Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

John,

thanks for adding to the discussion on chronology.

Your scheme has some interesting features. I particularly like the
suggestion that the famine visit and the Acts 15 visit and the Gal 2.1-10
visit are one and the same and belong just after Acts 18.22. I think you
are proposing something along the lines of the following reconstruction:

Paul traveled from the Aegean to Caesarea, (Acts 18.22) where he met
Agabus, who predicted a famine. Paul traveled to Antioch to arrange a
collection. The circumcision controversy may have arisen in Antioch at this
time. Barnabas, who was a member of the Antioch church, then travelled with
Paul and Titus to Jerusalem to deliver the gift (Acts 11.30) and to address
the circumcision issue (Gal 2.1-10, Acts 15). The prediction of Agabus is
the revelation of Gal 2.1.

Is this what you are proposing? It certainly manages to combine events
which appear to be duplicates. In your 'Origin of 1 Cor' you note that Luke
sometimes passes over long journeys of Paul in a verse or two (Acts 16.6;
18.23). One normally assumes that Luke had little knowledge of those
periods, but it is also plausible that he has simply used different sources
to construct his narrative, and has combined them in the wrong order. He
may have put the pieces of the jigsaw together incorrectly, failing to
notice duplications, and consequently he may have been forced to fill the
gaps with those brief connecting verses. A rather similar thing occurs when
modern commentators try to write a history of Paul's interactions with the
Corinthians. They fail to notice duplications and therefore find that they
must invent journeys to get people from A to B in order to fill the gaps
between their ill fitting pieces.

Have you published anything on chronological matters since your 'origins of
1 Cor'. I notice that you have changed your mind on the implications of 1
Thess 4.13, and that you have abandoned any attempt to place Paul in
Corinth during the time of Gallio, so I would be interested to read any
more recent work.

I have a number of questions and concerns about your chronology.

Firstly, while it is advantageous to simplify Paul's life by removing
duplications, there may not be a net gain if this is done at the expense of
greatly complicating the editorial history of Acts. The sequence requires
that Acts was accurate in certain specific details, but inaccurate in other
specific details. These are additional assumptions and we need sufficient
evidence to bear their weight. Correct method, I believe, is to minimise
total weight of assumptions, and this means that uncertain interpretations
of the letters should not necessarily take precedence over unambiguous
statements in Acts. I therefore wonder whether we could do more to explain
how Acts came to be written in the way that it was. Do you have any
suggestions about the sources that Luke may have used, and why he combined
them in the sequence that he did? If, for example, we could identify two
distinct sources that Luke used, and determine a simple oversight on his
part which forced him to put the jigsaw together in the way that he did,
then we would have a very strong theory, I think. Our use of Acts would be
less arbitrarily selective, and more judicious.


John Hurd wrote:
>                     OUTLINE OF PAUL'S LIFE
>                     Professor John C. Hurd
>
>a. early period
>
>      Persecuted the early Christian Church (Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:9) 
>          [Acts 7:58; 8:1a, 3; 9:1-2, 4, 13-14, 21, 26; 22:4-5, 7, 19-20].
>
>34 C.E.   Converted at Damascus (Gal. 1:15-16) [Acts 9:1-22; 22:4-16;
26:9-18].
>      Sojourned in Arabia (Gal. 1:17a).
>      Returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:17b).  
>      In trouble with King Aretas; escaped through (or over) the city wall
in a basket
>          (2 Cor. 11:32-33) [Acts 9:23-25].
>
>37    First ("Acquaintance") Visit to Jerusalem ("after three years"). 
>      Stayed two weeks seeing only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19) [cf. Acts
>          9:26-30?].
>
>B. Missionary Period
>
>      Missionary work in Syria (Antioch) and Cilicia (Tarsus) (Gal. 1:21).
>      [Missionary work in Cyprus and Pisidian Antioch (Acts  13).]
>      [Missionary work in southern Galatia, i.e., in Iconium, Lystra, and
Derbe
>          (Acts 14:1-23; 16:1-6).]  Visited there only because of illness
(Gal.
>          4:13-14).

Are you sure that Acts 15:41-16:5 belongs to this period?  Doesn't the
mention of the decree in 16.4 rather connect it with the later period after
your Paul's second Jerusalem visit? 
There is no mention of Silas or Barnabas in these verses, and the singular
verbs suggest he travelled alone, so shouldn't this section be placed at
the start of Paul's 'collection period', as you call it, rather than at the
start of his 'missionary period'. Also, the sequence in Acts 16.1-2 is
Derbe-Lystra-Iconium, whereas in Acts 14 it is Iconium-Lystra-Derbe.

If Acts 13:4-14:23 is the first part of the same journey as Paul's initial
evangelization of Macedonia and Achaia, how is it that he has Barbabas was
with him in Galatia, but Silas/Silvanas in the Aegean?

To what period does Acts 15:36-40 belong? Doesn't this passage show that
Paul traveled with Silas/Silvanus after he fell out with Barnabas, whereas
you have Paul travelling to Jerusalem with Barbabas after he traveled with
Silvanus. How do you explain this?

Do I understand correctly that you are a south Galatianist?

>      [By-passed Ephesus and went to Macedonia via Troas (Acts  16:6-12)?]
>      Founded Church in Philippi "in the beginning of the Gospel"  (Phil.
4:15; 1:5)
>          [cf. Acts 16:12-40].
>      Experienced a severe persecution (1 Thess. 2:2; Phil. 1:30) [cf. Acts
>          16:19-39].
>      Founded church in Thessalonica (2 Thess. 2:13-15; Phil. 4:16) [cf. Acts
>          17:1-9].
>      Twice received money from the Philippian church (Phil. 4:16).
>      Preached "in the face of great opposition" (1 Thess. 2:2) [cf. Acts
17:5].
>      Message: Caligula is the "anti-Christ" and therefore the end of this
age is at
>          hand (2 Thess. 2:3-5).
>      Founded church in Corinth with Silvanus and Timothy (2 Cor.  1:19;
10:14;
>          1 Cor. 3:6; 4:15) [cf. Acts 18:1-18].
>      Baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor.
1:14-16;
>          16:15; Rom. 16:23).
>      Received financial support from Philippi (Phil. 4:15).
>
>    .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>40    Heard that the Thessalonian church was being persecuted and that
Caligula's
>          attempt to have his statue erected in the Temple at Jerusalem
had caused
>          them to believe that the Day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess.
>          1:4-7; 2:1-2).
>
>      
>41                       2 THESSALONIANS
>     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>      Worked in Illyricum (Rom. 15:19)?
>     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
>      Worked in Athens. Sent Timothy to Thessalonica to learn whether
persecution
>          had caused the Thessalonians to defect (1 Thess. 3:1-5).
>      Timothy rejoined Paul (1 Thess. 3:6) as Paul was on his way to
Jerusalem,
>          bringing good news and questions from the Thessalonians (by
letter?).
>
>46                  1 THESSALONIANS in reply.

Why not place 1 Thess in your 'collection period' (= 'third missionary
journey' Acts)? We know that Paul made a painful visit to Achaia at that
time. It would better explain 1 Thess 1.8, wouldn't it?

>47    Second ("Conference") Visit to Jerusalem (after "fourteen  years")
>          with Barnabas and Titus taking famine relief from Antioch (Gal.
2:1-10)
>          [cf. Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; 15:2-33].
>      Apostolic Council giving Paul authority over his mission  field but
binding him
>          to require of his Gentile converts the three minimum points of
Jewish
>          morality (avoid idolatry, immorality, and blood; Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25)
>          and to collect money for the Jerusalem church from his converts
(Gal.
>          2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8--9; Rom. 15:25-28).

Can you explain why Silas is presented in Acts 15:22 as a representative of
the Jerusalem church, rather than as a co-worker of Paul of long standing?

Thanks.

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver.