Corpus-Paul

[rfellows AT intergate.ca]

Vince, thanks for bring up these all-important questions.

You wrote:
>I am reading the letters to the Corinthians and am trying to put together 
>some kind of order for them.  This is what I have so far.
>
>Paul goes to Corinth and starts a church from 50/51-52 (based on Gallio's 
>proconcilship)
>
>He writes a letter about reported PORNOS in the church and separation from 
>those inside the church who are immoral (1 Cor. 5:9-13).  While Paul says 
>that his letter did not tell them to separate themselves from non-believers 
>outside the church (since this would mean going out of the world), the 
>Corinthians seem to have understood it to mean that.

I agree so far.

>This indicates that 2 
>Cor. 6:14-7:1, in which Paul does tell them not to associate with any 
>unbeliever, is part of that letter.

I strongly suspect that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 belongs to its present context. It is 
a call to the Corinthians to dissociate themselves from those in the 
congregation (or at least their views) who practice such things as idolatry. 
Notice how the sequence of thought in 2 Cor 6:-7:1 is similar to that in 
chapters 4 and 5 of 1 Corinthians, which also end in a call for separation. 
For more on this understanding of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 see Michael Goulder's paper 
in Novum Testamentum 36,1 (1994).

>Upon receiving news from "Chloe's people" and Stephanas, Fortunatus and 
>Achaicus in Ephesus, Paul writes another letter, 1 Cor., which addresses a 
>number of topics, mainly division in the church and problems in worship 
>services.

Yes.

>Though Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. that he wanted to wait until after he 
>visited Macedonia to visit Corinth, he had to make a trip there earlier than 
>expected.  His travel plans were that he would go to Corinth, solve their 
>problems, return to Ephesus, go to Macedonia, and then return to Corinth in 
>order to pick up their collection for the Jerusalem church. The trip was due 
>to someone in the congregation who was causing trouble - presumably making 
>personal attacks on Paul (2 Cor. 2:5), and depending on when 2 Cor. 10-13 
>was written may have been due to the arrival of the "super-apostles".
>
>This trip went badly for Paul, though, and when he returned to Ephesus he 
>thought about returning to Corinth on his way to Macedonia.  But instead, he 
>thought it best to send Titus with a letter ("letter written in tears").

I do not like the idea of a short visit to Corinth after 1 Corinthians. Such 
a visit was precisely what Paul said he did NOT want to do. Bad news might 
conceivably have tempted him to change his mind, but would he really have 
changed his mind and made the journey unless he was sure that it would work? 
And if he was sure it would work, how come it didn't? This is all very 
awkward.

It is unnecessary to hypothesise that the travel plan of 1 Cor 16 was ever 
abandoned. This is, after all, the plan that was actually carried out. We 
have evidence of only one change of plan, which was Paul's failure to arrive 
in Corinth. This failure was BEFORE 1 Corinthians and is alluded to in 1 Cor 
4:18, I believe.

Take the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 and subtract a visit to Corinth. You 
than have the plan of 1 Cor 16. This is no coincidence.

As for the tearful letter, it was clearly written at a time when Paul had 
reason to be severe with the Corinthians. Such a time existed BEFORE 1 
Corinthians, and before the arrival in Ephesus of Stephanus et al with 
reassuring news from Corinth. The news that the Corinthians had ignored the 
'former' letter must have given Paul and Timothy some concern. Timothy's 
anxiety is reflected in 16:10-11. I propose that the tearful letter was 
written at this time and carried by Timothy, who left Ephesus before 1 
Corinthians, and took the land route and arrived in Corinth after 1 
Corinthians. The tearful letter was to prepare for Paul's visit, which he had 
already announced in the 'former' letter. However, Timothy got stuck en route 
in the Troad or Macedonia and his delay meant that Paul had to cancel his own 
visit ('to spare' them). He had hoped that Timothy's mission would sort them 
out so that he could come to them 'with love and a gentle spirit' instead of 
'with a rod'. By the time Stephanus et al arrived with more reassuring news, 
it was really too late for Paul to make the planned visit: there would not 
have been time for more than a passing visit. Please read 2 Cor 1-9 with the 
above reconstruction in view, and bear in mind that 'Titus' was another name 
used by Timothy. You will see that the former letter is in view in 2 Cor 
1:12-19. Paul's anxiety about what had become of Titus-Timothy in the Troad 
or Macedonia is in view in 2:12-13. Timothy's earlier anxiety about his 
mission is found in 2 Cor 7. His starting of the collection is given in 8:6. 
It all fits.

>This letter did the trick and when Titus gave Paul the good news in 
>Macedonia, he composed 2 Cor. 1-9(at least 1-7).
>
>Though I would like to hear any comments or suggestions any of you might 
>want to make about the above, my big problem is where to place 2 Cor. 10-13.

2 Cor 10-13 is a big big problem for all published reconstructions of events 
(including my own!).

>  I do not think that these chapters were originally a part of 2 Cor.  This 
>could not be the tearful letter since Titus seems to already have come and 
>gone for Corinth (12:18).  Also it was the tearful letter which brought the 
>Corinthians to repentance and 2 Cor. is an answer to that.  So 10-13 had to 
>have been written after 2 Cor.  My thoughts so far are that Paul wrote 2 
>Cor. 1-9 in response to the Corinthians repentance brought by the tearful 
>letter.  Upon his visit, Titus met these "super-apostles" and reported them 
>to Paul.  This lead to the writing of 10-13.  In this case, the mention of 
>Titus and "the brother sent with him (12:18)" going to Corinth would be the 
>visit for the collection (8:17-24).

Many have placed 2 Cor 10-13 as a separate letter after 2 Cor 1-9. They do 
this as a last resort, having found no-where else for it to go. The problems 
with this view are as follows:

1. It requires the weighty hypothesis that an editor joined two letters into 
one.

2. The opponents are already in view in 2 Cor 1-9. Did 'Titus' completely 
underestimate the danger that they represented? If they were such big-shots, 
why did they wait for Titus's departure before making their bid for power? 
Why is there no reference in 2 Cor 10-13 to Paul's bitter disillusionment 
after having been so confident (at the time of 2 Cor 1-9)? 

3. Another problem is that Paul has clearly already visited the audience of 2 
Cor 10-13 twice. This is a problem because it is really difficult to find a 
place for an intermediate visit to Corinth (see my reconstruction above).

I now propose to solve all three problems by the suggestion that not all of 2 
'Corinthians' was directed at Corinth. The letter, after all, is addressed to 
Achaia. I suggest that in chapters 10-13 Paul is directing his remarks to the 
believers in Athens. He does not name them for reasons of tact.

Another problem you face is that in 2 Cor 12:18 Titus is accompanied by one 
other brother, whereas in 2 Cor 8 there are two other brothers. The mission 
of Titus and the brother in 2 Cor 12:18 is identical to the mission of 
Timothy and Erastus recorded in Acts 19:22 (except that Luke does not mention 
that they went on to Achaia).

Richard Fellows