Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The symbolism of '14 years'

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The symbolism of '14 years'
  • Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:11:03 -0800 (PST)


Moises Mayordomo wrote:

> I am not so convinced by numerical symbolism
> unles there are clear indications
> that they are supported by a cultural
> code shared by the potential readers of
> Paul's letters which would direct them to
> make these sort of connections.
> I would like to recall the fact that the
> number 14 has given rise to a
> lot of numerical speculations with respect
> to Matthew's genealogical list (Mt
> 1,17) and none of them has suceeded. The only
> remarkable thing about "14" is that it
> is 2x7, and even so I very much doubt that there
> any valuable indications of a "symbolic
> convention" for this number. It is not
> enough to find 14 years in the
> story of Joseph.

I agree that the story offers nothing conclusive, just
as I agree that specialists often run riot with
numerical symbolism. But it is telling that Paul liked
the number “14”: he used it not only in Gal. 2:1, but
in II Cor. 12:2. It’s possible that Paul went up to
Jerusalem by revelation literally 14 years after his
conversion, just as it’s conceivable that he’d had a
revelation exactly 14 years prior to the writing of II
Cor 10-13. But I don’t like these kinds of
coincidences.


Richard Fellows wrote:

> I see the following possible
> solutions to the problem of the 14
> relatively inactive years:

> 1. The 14 years were not 14 years
> at all. If it is symbolic of Jacob's
> experience, as I suggested it might
> be, then the actual time span may
> have been only 6 or 7 years. This
> would be an appropriate length of
> time for the evangelization of
> Syria and Cilicia.

Indeed, “6 or 7” is probably safer (and saner) than my
earlier proposal of one or two years. I had suggested
a revised timeline such as:

> 42 Paul’s Conversion – to Arabia soon after
> 45 First Jerusalem visit
> 46 To Syria and Cilicia
> Late 47 Second Jerusalem visit
> Early 48 First missionary journey begins
> Mid 49 Antioch incident
> Late 49 Third Jerusalem visit
> Early 50 Second missionary journey begins
> Late 52 Third missionary journey begins
> 57 Captured in Palestine

But I’d overlooked the evidence of II Cor. 11:32
(noted by Richard Fellows off-list, and Jerry Sumney
on-list), where Paul alludes to being hunted by the
governor of Damascus under Aretas IV (who died c. 40).
So a (more plausible) timeline of

> 37 Paul’s Conversion – to Arabia soon after
> 40 First Jerusalem visit
> 41 To Syria and Cilicia
> Late 47 Second Jerusalem visit
> Early 48 First missionary journey begins
> Mid 49 Antioch incident
> Late 49 Third Jerusalem visit
> Early 50 Second missionary journey begins
> Late 52 Third missionary journey begins
> 57 Captured in Palestine

still condenses the “14 years” by about half.

> 2. The initial revelation was not
> the only revelation, and it was a
> later revelation which prompted
> the missionary phase in Paul's life. It may
> be that Paul's gospel of non-circumcision
> of gentiles was given to him by
> some later revelation - perhaps
> the revelation of Gal 2.1.

Francis Watson has speculated similarly (“Paul,
Judaism, and the Gentiles”), as have others, for if
Paul preached a circumcision-free gospel from the
start, it’s hard to see why the issue wasn’t dealt
with formally for 14 years. I agree that Paul
doubtfully felt called to evangelize Gentiles from the
get-go, but that’s a different issue from the
geographical one. 14 years is a long time to be
spending in Syria and Cilicia, regardless of whether
or not one is evangelizing Gentiles (even allowing for
delays, lack of funds, illnesses, etc).


Mesfin Atlaye wrote:

> I hope I will not be shot if I suggest
> that we must separate between
> what Luke tells us about Paul and what
> Paul speaks for himself, particularly
> when we raise autobiographical questions.
> I am preaching to the converted when I
> say the two reports are not quite
> the same. . .

Yes, obviously. But the tyranny of Paul’s letters over
Acts must end. Paul and Luke are both reliable and
unreliable in different ways. Luke at least aspires to
be writing as an historian (even he doesn’t approach
our own standards for such), and Knox’s edict -- that
as a basis for Pauline thought and chronology Acts
should be torched -- should probably be flamed in
turn. Paul, on the other hand, had little interest in
preserving the sort of historical data under
discussion here, and, for reasons stated, I see no
compelling reason to take his “14-year” figures in
Gal. 2:1 and II Cor. 12:2 literally.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page