I’ve recently noticed two pieces about 1-2 Corinthians from Australian scholars, which are worth noticing:
Firstly, here, in a description of the “New College Lectures” at the University of New South Wales, David Starling suggests that 1 Corinthians may be thought of as setting a trajectory that validates the systematic codification of Christian theology.
Secondly, in the September newsletter for the Society for the Study of Early Christianity at MacQuarie University, Paul Barnett considers “chronology and the Corinthians.” Drawing on Paul’s letters, Acts, and documentary evidence (e.g. the Gallio inscription), Barnett develops the following timeline:
- 33 1st Easter
- 34 Damascus event
- 47 Jerusalem meeting
- 48 First missionary journey
- 50 Arrival in Corinth
He then focuses on the “Corinthian years,” suggesting the following timeline:
- Visit 1: Acts 18:1-18
- Letter 1 (‘previous’) 1 Cor 5:9
- Letter 2 (First Corinthians)
- Visit 2 (‘painful’) 2 Cor 2:1
- Letter 3 (‘tearful’) 2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8, 12; 10:8-11
- Letter 4 (Second Corinthians)
- Visit 3: Acts 20:2-3
Barnett goes on to argue for the unity of 2 Corinthians, suggesting that Paul’s pastoral approach to the complex situation in Corinth explains the perplexing nature of the letter’s structure. He concludes:
In any discussion of the tone and content of the letter we should note: (a) the trying circumstances that Paul had faced prior to his eventual meeting with Titus, (b) the (mostly) grim news Titus brought about the Corinthian response to the ‘tearful’ letter and their welcome to the new ministers, and (c) the unexpected readiness of the Macedonian congregations in contributing to the Collection that Paul encountered as he travelled from Neapolis to Berea.
The full version of the paper is available on request from the SSEC office.