Corpus-Paul

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

On 03 Feb 2003 Richard Fellows wrote

> There is no place for the tearful letter between 1 Corinthians and 2
> Corinthians. Consider, for example, how the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16
was
> made BEFORE 1 Corinthians (see 1 Cor 16:5-8). There is no evidence that
Paul
> abandoned his plans of 1 Cor 16.

Richard,

I'm at a complete loss to understand how you can make the statement above.
As far as I can see, the two passages you mention describe exactly the same
'travel plan'.  In 1 Cor Paul states what he intends, and in 2 Cor Paul
re-states his earlier intention:

"Then, when I arrive, I will send those whom you approve with letters of
explanation to carry your gift to Jerusalem.  And if it seems advisable that
I should go also, they will go with me.  But I will come to you after I have
gone through Macedonia —for I will be going through Macedonia— and perhaps I
will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you can send me on my
journey, wherever I go.  For I do not want to see you now in passing, since
I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord allows.  But I will stay in
Ephesus until Pentecost, because a door stands wide open for me, of great
opportunity, but there are many opponents." (1 Cor 16:3-8)

"And with this confidence I intended to come to you first so that you would
get a second opportunity to see us, and through your help to go on into
Macedonia and then from Macedonia to come back to you and be helped on our
way into Judea by you." (2 Cor 1:15-16)

It seems obvious to me that these are two descriptions of the same planned
trip to Corinth via Macedonia, followed by a trip to Jerusalem with the
collection.  2 Cor 1:23-2:4 then explains why Paul changed these plans.  So,
please explain why you believe that "the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was
made BEFORE 1 Corinthians", because I certainly can't see it.

> a) There is no strong reason to believe that Paul had an individual
offender
> in mind in 2 Cor 2 (or ch. 7 for that matter). He uses the plural in 2 Cor
> 2:3-4, and when he writes in 2:5, "If anyone has caused grief..." he may
be
> talking generally about several people. This was his style. His use of the
> singular "anyone" may be to underplay the seriousness of the earlier
> situation which he is now reconciling.

Then how do you explain 2 Cor 2:6-8:

"This punishment on such an individual by the majority is enough for him, so
that now instead you should rather forgive and comfort him. This will keep
him from being overwhelmed by excessive grief to the point of despair.
Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him."

and 2 Cor 7:12

"So then, even though I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who
did wrong, or on account of the one who was wronged, but to reveal to you
your eagerness on our behalf before God."

IMHO both passages clearly indicate a single person who was doing wrong.

> There are all sorts of viable hypotheses and combinations of hypotheses.

True

> However, we can be sure that there was no letter written between 1 Cor and
2
> Cor, and no intermediate visit at that time.

... but we have Paul's clear statement in 2 Cor 13 that he *HAD* made an
intermediate visit:

"This is the third time I am coming to visit you. By the testimony of two or
three witnesses every matter will be established.  I said before when I was
present the second time and now, though absent, I say again to those who
sinned previously and to all the rest, that if I come again, I will not
spare anyone, ..." (2 Cor 13:1-2)

So, please explain how your view is so different from mine?  As far as I am
aware, you have not presented any evidence for this hypothesis.

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