Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Mesfin,

You are right to identify Titus as Timothy, but I am surprised that you then
go on to hypothesise two visits by him to Corinth in the period between 1
Cor and 2 Cor 1-7. The whole point of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis is that
it allows a huge simplification of Paul's interactions with the Corinthians.
A SINGLE mission of Titus-Timothy explains the data in 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10;
AND 2 Cor 2:12-13; 7:6, 13-15; AND Acts 19:22; AND Phil 2:22-24. Why make
complicated stories when a simple solution is available? Here is what I
propose:

1. T-T travelled to Philippi (as planned in Phil 2:22-24, and as related in
Acts 19:22) via the Troad.
2. Paul wrote 1 Cor and then left Ephesus at Pentecost, as planned (1 Cor
16:8).
3. T-T arrived in Corinth, but was too late to be able to meet Paul in
Ephesus so he travelled directly to Macedonia.
4. Paul looked for T-T in the Troad, thinking he might still be there (see
1. above).
5. Paul and T-T met in Macedonia.

I also propose the following:
1. 1 Cor was successful and most of those attacked in 1 Cor then moved to
Athens (they are the 'false apostles')
2. 2 Cor 1-9 is addressed to Corinth, but 10-13 is aimed at Athens.
3. 2 Cor is a unity.
4. Paul had visited (only) Athens before 1 Cor.

Mesfin,

your reconstruction, like those offered in the commentaries, makes numerous
assumptions which are not supported by the data.

> What is the problem with the assertion/argument that Paul sent I
Corinthians
> through the Stephanas (16:15ff); and in that letter he informed them of
> Timothy's subsequent visit (4:17 and even more clearly "if Timothy comes"
> 16:10). We can assume that Timothy arrived at Corinth but his presence
seems
> to bring no change to the turmoil in the church.

We have no evidence that Timothy's mission failed. On the contrary, in 1 Cor
Paul seems fairly confident that the letter and the visit of Timothy will be
effective.

> He returns to Ephesus and
> reports the situation to Paul.

There is no evidence that Timothy returned to Paul in Ephesus. Acts 19:22
suggests that he did not.

> Paul therefore makes a quick decision to deal
> with the matter in person.

This is unlikely.  A quick visit to Corinth was exactly what Paul did NOT
want to make (see 1 Cor 16:7)

> Unfortunately that visit was disastrous.

We have too many unexpected twists in the story. Paul would not have made
the conjectured unplanned visit to Corinth unless he were sure that it would
be successful. But we are being asked to believe that it was disastrous.

> Paul
> left Corinth humiliated and hurt (II Cor. 2:5-11).

There is no evidence to connect the offense mentioned in 2 Cor 2:5-11 with a
visit by Paul to Achaia. Nor should we assume that that visit to Achaia
involved Corinth.

> Once he is back to
> Ephesus Paul wrote the letter in question of which II Cor. 10-13 is a
part.
> The carrier of this letter is none other than Timothy-Titus. The plan was
> that the carrier of this so-called tearful-letter/severe letter (II Cor.
> 2:4; 7:12) was suppose to meet Paul in Troas to report the outcome of
Paul's
> letter and also to help in the preaching of the gospel at Troas (II Cor.
> 2:12).

There is no need to propose that Titus had ever planned to meet Paul in
Troas. It is an unnecessary assumption (see my reconstruction above). I do
not believe that there is any reference to Troas in 2 Cor. The Greek says
'the Troad', which is more likely to refer to the region rather than the
town. A region does not represent a good meeting place.

> When Paul arrived at Troas, the expected Titus-Timothy was not there.
> Paul was anxious and therefore abandoned his plan and headed to Macedonia
> (II Cor. 2:13).

Too many changes of plan. As historians, it is our duty to explore the
simple explanations first, and only resort to complicated stories when all
else fails.

Richard Fellows.