Corpus-Paul

["David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>]

Kym Smith wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Dear Dave,
> 
> I don’t think the lack of any other mention of the people you list is any
> indication of the date of the letters (Col & Phm). You may be right, but I
> don’t think your reasoning is sufficient justification.

I'm still working on this.  I think there's more to be said about who is
mentioned in which letter and who is not, but I'm not finished putting the
arguments together at the moment.

> Nor does the Roman
> imprisonment of Acts preclude a later imprisonment in Ephesus (I suggest
> that such did happen prior to a second, final imprisonment in Rome).

You are quite right.  For example, Paul might have been arrested and
imprisoned in Ephesus prior to having been taken to Rome for the second
time.  However, I would contend that although the evidence *allows for* an
Ephesian imprisonment, it doesn't provide *any* support for one.  On the
other hand, we do have the statement in 2 Tim 16-17 regarding a Roman
imprisonment, the Acts record, and the very strong tradition that Paul
died in Rome all leading to the inescapable conclusion that Paul was
imprisoned in Rome at least one, and (IMHO) probably twice.  Any
additional Ephesian imprisonment appears to me to be an unsupported
speculation.

> Surely we must allow that Paul had quite a number of co-workers who may
> never have been mentioned.

Yes.

> Under Paul’s oversight, Epaphras founded the
> church in Colossae (as he did those in Laodicea and Hierapolis), but it
> was considered a Pauline church. Who did the same in Smyrna, Pergamum and
> the other Asian cities but to whom the apostle did not write a specific
> letter (not that we know of, anyway) and who, therefore, are never
> mentioned by name?

Sorry, I don't understand the point of the question.

> I think it is probably generally accepted that Romans was written well
> before the letters we are talking about.

Yes.

> I think it is even quite well
> accepted that Paul wrote Romans! In the last chapter there are numerous
> people, some described as co-workers, who are not heard of anywhere else –
> Phoebe, Epaenetus, Andronicus, Junias, Urbanus, etc. Because these are not
> mentioned anywhere else does not mean that they came into Paul’s life
> later on or that Romans should be dated later.

I think the significant point is that the people I mentioned in my earlier
post are *all* mentioned in at least two (and in some cases three) of the
Pauline letters, whereas the list of people in Romans contains many who,
as you state, do not appear anywhere else.

> Your inclusion of Mark as one of Paul’s ‘standard companions’ is
> interesting. I have my own ideas as to why he was with Paul at the time of
> writing Colossians, but I would have thought that Peter’s description of
> him as ‘my son’ indicated whose ‘standard companion’ he was. Would you
> call Silvanus/Silas a ‘standard companion’ of Peter (1 Pet 5:12)?

My use of the term 'standard companion' was misleading.  'More well known'
would have been much better, since I was trying to distinguish people who
appear often (or several times, at least) in the NT from those who only
appear once or twice.

> Is there evidence, other than the similar name, for Epaphras and
> Epaphroditus being the same person? I’m easy either way.
> 
> Would not the fact that, of the list of people you mention, two are from
> Asia and the others from around the Aegean (i.e. Philippi and
> Thessalonica), suggest that somewhere nearby (e.g. Ephesus) might be more
> probable than Rome? I ask because you are using the names to suggest that
> the letter was written from Rome whereas the origins of these people need
> not have any bearing on the place of origin of the letter.

The point I was trying to make (not very well) was that if they had been
in Paul's life earlier on then I think we could have expected to find some
reference to them in Acts or the other Paulines, from the period when Paul
was travelling around the Aegean.  As we don't, then the contact probably
post-dates the Acts action, taking us into the period when there is no
evidence that Paul was in or near Ephesus.  This is supported by Paul's
statement to the Ephesian elders that he was not going to see them again,
and also by the fact that he left both Timothy and Titus to lead churches
in his absense.

That's it from me this time,

Regards,

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