Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Corinthian Correspondence

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vince Endris" <vince_endris AT hotmail.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Corinthian Correspondence
  • Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:02:19 -0400


Clive F. Jacks responded to me,

that I would pretty much agree on your analysis. But I do have a question
about your dating Paul's arrival in Corinth about the time that many
scholars have dated "the Jerusalem conference" at which Paul promises to make a "collection" for the benefit of the Christians in Jerusalem. When would you date this conference? In 49 or so? Before Paul's first visit to evangelize in Corinth?

Well, I must confess that I am very much a beginner in reading and working with Pauline lit. and so I am having a lot of problems putting things together. I have not quite figured out where I want to put the conference. It seems like a lot depends on which visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians included the Jerusalem conference.
If it was the first visit mentioned in 1:18 then it occurred 3 years after Paul's journey to Arabia and back to Damascus. The most common dating I have found for King Aretas' rule in Damascus is somewhere between 37 and 40. So the JC would have taken place anytime during this period after Paul fled Damascus under Aretas (2 Cor. 11:32-33). The one good thing about this dating it seems is that it that it allows time for James and John to be martyred by Herod Agrippa I who died in 44.
I would like to hear some comments on this because I am not quite sure this is right. If it is then it would seem the JC would have to have occured before 44.
If the JC occurred on the second visit mentioned in Gal. 2:1 then it would have been about approximately 14 years after Paul fled under Aretas. Assuming this was as early as possible that would put it around (the beginning of) 50. That would give Paul no more than a year and a half to meet his deadline at Corinth with Gallio at (the end of) 52.
This is the dating I prefer, but again, I would like to hear some comments on dating the JC with James and John before 44.

The problem I have had with such a reconstruction is
that it means making Paul promise to collect funds from congregations which do not yet exist! What is your thought on this aspect?

My understanding of the JC promise was that Paul could go and preach to Gentiles (something he had already been doing with Barnabas) as long as he collected money from the churches he might start. This may also have included going back to those churches they already started.

In response to my proposal that Paul made an unexpected visit to Corinth after 1 Cor. Richard Fellows wrote:

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.

Though Paul said he did not want to go to Corinth, he may not have thought that the situation was a bad as it was at the time. Once he found out, he had to change his plans. Paul might have felt that making a short visit could solve the problem. It does not seem out of Paul's character to over-estimate himself and so the fact that the visit was unsuccessful does not seem to give evidence for it not occurring. This may be another reason why he had to change his plans again and, instead of making another visit he wrote the tearful letter.
Also, The tearful letter had to have followed a painful visit (2 Cor. 2:1) and I am not quite sure that I see one before where you propose to place the letter. If I am reading you right, then you would propose that this painful visit was the initial visit to Corinth. Is that right? When would you place this painful 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.

I did not know this and would, like Dr. Jacks, be interested to hear the evidence behind it. Further, does this mean that every mention of 'Titus' is to be read as Timothy?

Thank you for your help,

Vince Endris



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page