Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

David Inglis wrote concerning 1 Cor 16:3-8 and 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.

The travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16, like that of 1 Cor 16:3-8 involves a visit
to Corinth after a visit to Macedonia. But unlike the plan of 1 Cor 16:3-8,
the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 also included a visit to Corinth BEFORE the visit
to Macedonia. The plans are different because the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16
involved TWO visits to Corinth.

The simplest sequence of events is:

1. Paul planned to do Ephesus-Corinth-Macedonia-Corinth (2 Cor 2:15-16).
2. He cancelled the first of these visits to Corinth, so his itinerary
became Ephesus-Macedonia-Corinth.
3. He wrote 1 Cor, telling them that he intended to do
Ephesus-Macedonia-Corinth (1 Cor 16:3-8).
4. Paul did Ephesus-Macedonia-Corinth.

Note that this sequence involves only one change in Paul's plans. All other
explanations involve two or three changes in plans, and the quite arbitrary
hypothesis that Paul abandoned the plan of 1 Cor 16:3-8 and later
re-instated the exact same plan.

The itinerary that Paul was following when he wrote 2 Corinthians was that
of the travel plan of 1 Cor, for we read of his journey from the Troad to
Macedonia, and his expectation of visiting Corinth. Acts confirms the
Asia-Macedonia-Achaia sequence, and also gives us some clues about the
timing and they agree well with the plan of 1 Cor 16:3-8. Let me explain. In
1 Cor we read that Paul expected to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. In Acts
his departure from Ephesus follows the Demetrius riot, which is most likely
to have occured during the month of Artemis, which was also in the Spring.
This fits well. Furthermore, the winter of 1 Cor 16:6 can be equated to that
of Acts 20:3.

Notice also how in 1 Cor Paul repetitively emphasises that he would not be
coming to them at that time. "I will visit you after passing through
Macedonia - for I intend to pass through Macedonia....  I do not want to see
you now...". This sounds very much like Paul correcting an ealier intention
to visit them directly from Ephesus. He had given them the impression that
he would visit them, but, at the time of writing 1 Cor, he had not made that
visit and was not about to make it in the expected time-frame. This is why
he so painstakingly explains that he would not be able to visit them before
going through Macedonia. His failure to visit them before 1 Cor is perhaps
what lies behind 1 Cor 4:18.

Therefore the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was made before 1 Corinthians and
altered to become the plan of 1 Cor 16:3-8, which was carried out. It then
follows that the tearful letter was not written after 1 Corinthians, because
Paul would have discussed his change of travel plans in the tearful letter
and we would not be reading it in 2 Corinthians. Note that it does not
follow that the tearful letter was 1 Corinthians because it could have been
written before 1 Corinthians and carried by Timothy, who arrived in Corinth
after 1 Corinthians.

> > 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:

I thought I had made myself clear in my last post. 2 Cor was addressed to
Achaia and we should not assume that Corinth was the only church in view. 2
Cor 10-13 presents all sorts of problems if we assume that Corinth was the
target audience of those chapters. It is more likely that Athens is the
church addressed there. So, while I agree that there had been a second visit
to Achaia, I do not think it need have involved Corinth. It is more likely,
in my view, that Paul's visit was to Athens (not Corinth) from Ephesus. We
have evidence for this visit in 1 Thes 3:1. This visit was before 1 Cor
because 1 Thes 3:1 cannot be placed after 1 Corinthians.

The commentators deduce (probably correctly) from 1 Cor that Paul had not
made a second visit to Corinth. They then conclude that the intermediate
visit was after 1 Corinthians because they (falsely) assume that Corinth was
the place visited. Those who cannot believe that the tearful letter was 1
Cor also place the writing of the tearful letter after 1 Corinthians. But
their logic is flawed because the tearful letter could have been written
before 1 Cor and carried by Timothy. As I have tried to explain, there is no
reason to place either the tearful letter, or an intermediate visit between
1 Cor and 2 Cor. There is therefore not reason to doubt that the travel plan
of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was made before that of 1 Cor 16:3-8.

Richard Fellows.