Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: dating for Romans, etc.

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: dating for Romans, etc.
  • Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:09:44 -0400


Sheila McGinn wrote:
> David, I fail to see how either your scenario fro Paul's activity from
> 51-57 or your dating
> for Romans c. 56-58 poses any problem with Romans being the last of his
> seven-letter
> corpus. Many scholars would agree with your scenario, and would date Phil
> & Phlm 54-56. So
> what is really at stake here?

This is my fault. I concentrated on the dating of Romans and ignored Phil
& Philm. Sorry about that. First, I want to 'decouple' Philippians from
Philemon. What I mean by this is that I believe that the evidence is
clear that
Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were all written at about the same
time,
and were all taken to their various destinations by Onesimus and Tychicus
as
part of the same 'mail run'. However, Philippians was taken to
Philippi by Epaphroditus, and therefore could have been written at a
significantly different time. Therefore, in this posting I am only going
to address issues regarding Philippians.

Now, my evidence is not so much about dates, but about the place of
writing. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that
Philippians was written from Ephesus, whereas I believe it was written
from Rome. Consequently, I assume a later date (60-62), whereas you can
assume an earlier date. My view is that there is simply *no* evidence
that points to Ephesus. There are a few things that allow Ephesus as a
possibility, but that is not the same thing.

For example, Paul's words in Philippians regarding Timothy's movements do
appear to fit with what is recorded in Acts 19 and 1 Cor. However, all
that means is that Timothy's movements in Philippians do not preclude
Ephesus. This, as I understand it, is pretty much *all* the evidence in
favour of Ephesus (I would be happy to read of other specific arguments in
favour)

Now, against your arguments, I go pretty much with what Dan Wallace says
at
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/photl.htm. Briefly:

1) There is no mention of an Ephesian imprisonment anywhere in Acts
(whereas we obviously do have Caesarean and Roman imprisonments).
2) In my reconstruction Philippians was written close to the end of
Paul's 2 years in Rome, and so there is plenty of time for the various
communications with Philippi.
3) The refences to the praetorian guard and Caesar's household (Phil
1:12-14, 4:22) make Rome almost a certainty.

So, overall I find the arguments for Rome much stronger than those for
Ephesus. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I think that there really
is
no evidence *for* Ephesus, but just a lack of some evidence *against* it.
Also, I think you would be very hard pressed to find any evidence
*against*
Rome.

Regards,

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538, O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page