text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28600232739019489072017-02-12T05:17:52.985-08:00Paul and co-workersThis blog, by Richard Fellows, discusses historical questions concerning Paul's letters, his co-workers, Acts, and chronology. You can visit my web pages here, but note that they are not kept up-to-date.Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-548825820227423662016-02-13T20:51:00.000-08:002016-02-13T20:51:27.177-08:00Richard Last on Gaius as a guest (Rom 16:23)Rom 16:23 reads

Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you.
Richard Last, however, translates ξένος as "guest" instead of "host". See pages 62-71, most of which are available on Google books here. The Pauline Church and the Corinthian Ekklesia: Creco-Roman Associations in Comparative Context (SNTSMS 164; Cambridge: CUP, 2015). He finds that ξένος does not mean "host" in texts concerning associations, and this argument is not without weight. However, his theory creates more problems than it solves:

1. The name "Gaius" is a Latin praenomen (first name), and such names were reserved almost exclusively for intimate friends and family members. It is unlikely that a guest would be a close friend of either Paul or the members of the church of Rome. If Gaius was a guest we would expect Paul to use his cognomen rather than his praenomen.

2. Gaius was not a guest because he was already baptized (1 Cor 1:14). Richard Last counters that 1 Cor 1:14 might refer to a different Gaius:

Steven Friesen provides reason to think that this is not the same Gaius as in 1 Cor 1:14: he observes that the supposed household of Gaius, the ξένος (Rom 16:23), is never mentioned in the Corinthian letter and that 'it is odd that Paul said he baptized Stephanas' whole house (1 Cor 1.16) but he did not say he baptized Gaius's whole house (1 Cor 1.14).' Moreover, I would add, it is peculiar that Paul never commends Gaius's service as a host in the Corinthian correspondence, where he praises other service providers (1 Cor 3:1; 16:15-18).
These are valuable observations, but they do not show that we are looking at two Gaiuses. They simply illustrate that "Gaius" was merely Stephanas's praenomen. Indeed, Last himself perceptively suggests that "Stephanas and other Corinthian service providers were crowned or honoured with inscriptions or proclamations" (p158), so he came close to realizing that Gaius had been named "Stephanas", meaning "crowned".

3. The believers in Rome would find it odd that a mere guest would choose to send greetings to them. Then, as now, people sent greetings to those with whom they had a strong connection. All, or nearly all, of the other greeters in Paul's letters had travelled on church business. A guest would not fit that pattern.

4. Paul would have little motive for sending greetings from a guest. Last proposes that Paul mentioned a guest to show the church of Rome that he (Paul) was able to bring in money by recruiting a fee-paying guest. However, for this to be plausible, Last would need to show that guests at all (or nearly all) association events actually subsidized the association. As far as I can tell, the examples that Last cites do not show that the guests paid for more than the food and wine that they consumed. Last also proposes that Paul mentioned the guest to show his addressees that he was able to recruit new members. However, if Paul wanted to display his ability to recruit, he would have mentioned actual converts, rather than a guest, who was merely a potential future convert.

5. The greeters in Rom 16:21-23 seem to be mentioned in a deliberate order. Paul gives priority to those who have been in the faith for longest and/or have traveled most widely for the gospel. Gaius is mentioned ahead of Erastus, who was already a believer (Acts 19:22), so Gaius was already a believer.

For these reasons I think we can be confident that Gaius was the host, not a guest.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-21536721251435793302016-02-02T22:11:00.000-08:002016-02-02T22:11:00.865-08:00Vicky Balabanski on the destination of PhilemonHere I review Vicky Balabanski, "Where is Philemon? The Case for a Logical Fallacy in the Correlation of the Data in Philemon and Colossians 1.1-2; 4.7-18" JSNT 38(2) 131-150 (2015).

Balabanski argues that Philemon was not a resident of Colossae, as is normally supposed. She then goes on to suggest, more controversially, that this view is consistent with the view that Paul wrote Colossians. She imagines Paul writing, from Rome, to Philemon, whom she locates in or near Rome. Then she imagines Paul writing to the Colossians, from Rome, a year or two later.

The problems Balabanski seeks to solve
She collects a few interesting arguments against the usual assumption that both letters were (putatively or actually) written at the same time and sent by the same letter carrier (Tychicus) to the same city (Colossae):

1. Onesimus was a new Christian in Phlm 10, but Col 4:9 seems to take it for granted that the recipients already knew that Onesimus was a believer.

2. Philemon fails to mention Tychicus. "If these letters had been drafted and sent together, one would expect some words about Tychicus as the letter bearer and as the one responsible for the return of Onesimus." (p136)

3. Philemon's home seems closer to Paul than Colossae was to Paul. In Philemon it seems that Onesimus has sought out Paul as a mediator and it is unlikely that he would travel far. Also, if Philemon was written from Rome to Colossae, Paul would not have planned to visit Philemon (Phlm 22) because his intention was to go west to Spain. Col 4:7-9, by contrast, implies that Colossae had a "greater isolation" from Paul (p143).

4. In Col 4:10 Aristarchus is Paul's fellow-prisoner, but in Phlm 23 Epashras has the role.

5. "Archippus is among the recipients of Phlm (Phlm. 2), whereas he is not expected to be among the direct recipients of Col (Col. 4.17)." Perhaps.

6. She writes, "If Philemon were the patron of the Colossian house-church, why would Paul - or a pseudepigraphical author of the greetings we find in Col. 4 - fail to include greetings in Col. 4 to Philemon, and also Apphia?" (p134). I find this argument week. We have no evidence that Philemon was a particularly prominent Christian leader, so his absence from Colossians is not surprising. It is true that Paul mentions "the assembly in your house" (Phlm 2), but that assembly probably consisted of just Philemon's household. See the discussion here. It is also true that Paul calls Philemon his "co-worker", but this should not be taken literally, for it is just a piece of "idealized praise" designed to cajole him into behaving like a co-worker (see Phlm 17).

These are some of the difficulties of correlating Philemon and Colossians. To these we can add the fact that Paul seems to know Philemon well (Phlm 1, 17, 19, 22), but had not been to Colossae.

Problems with Balabanski's solution
1. The greeters in Philemon are Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. Colossians sends greetings from the same people (as well as the mysterious "Jesus called Justus". This implies that these five men knew both Philemon and the Colossians, which strongly suggests that Philemon lived in or near Colossae. Greetings, in the ancient world, as today, are sent by people who know the recipients. If the two letters were sent to very different locations, it would be a remarkable coincidence that the same five men knew both sets of recipients. If Philemon was in or near Rome and Colossians is genuine, why does Paul not send greetings to Philemon from anyone in Rome who had no special interest in the Colossians?

2. Archippus was in or near Colossae (Col 4:17) and he was also with Philemon (Phlm 2). Balabanski (p137-8) suggests that Archippus may have been sent by Paul to Colossae (or nearby) in the interval between the writing of the two letters. This would be another remarkable coincidence.

3. Col 4:9 has Onesimus travel to Colossae, and Phlm 12 sends Onesimus to Philemon. Onesimus was Philemon's slave and Col 4:9 presents him as a Colossian ("one of you"). Balabanski (p138-41) suggests, without evidence, that Onesimus may have been a resident of Colossae at an earlier time than his residence with Philemon near Rome. Another remarkable coincidence.

So, all 7 men who are associated with Philemon (Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, Archippus, and Onesimus) were also associated with Colossae in Colossians. We can therefore be confident that Philemon was in or near Colossae, if Colossians was written by Paul.

4. The 7 volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal names lists 62 women called Apphia between 100BC and 200AD. All but 4 of these are in the two volumes that cover coastal Asia minor (inland Asia minor is not yet available). Colossae itself has not been excavated, but from nearby Aphrodisias we know of 89 women in the time period, and 13 of them were called Apphia. That is a staggering 15%. Lightfoot wrote, "It is impossible to doubt that Apphia is a native Phrygian name." The spacial distribution of the name Apphria is a further connection between Philemon and Colossae, or at least its province.

I cannot think of a way to overcome these 4 problems simultaneously, but perhaps someone else can.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-38052410013091182902015-10-02T22:49:00.000-07:002015-10-02T22:49:02.407-07:00Thomas Schmeller, the unity of 2 Corinthians, and Titus-Timothy
On 24th May 2010 I argued on this blog (see here) that 2 Cor 1-9 is conciliatory and has a warm tone because Paul did not want to jeopardize the collection that Titus was organizing.

Then, on 17th Nov 2012 Thomas Schmeller (of Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität) gave a paper at the 2012 SBL annual meeting. His paper is called "No Bridge over Troubled Water? The Gap between 2 Corinthians 1–9 and 10–13 Revisited" and is online here. The last two pages contain the important bits. He too argues that Paul adopts a conciliatory tone in 2 Cor 1-9 for the sake of the collection.

Then, on 30th Nov 2012 I emailed Schmeller, pointing him to my blog post and suggesting that he considered Titus-Timothy.

Then, in 2013, JSNT published Schmeller's piece, almost unchanged (JSNT 36(1) 73-84).

Then, on 27th July 2013 I emailed Schmeller again and expressed disappointment that he had not interacted with my blog post, either in his JSNT paper, or on the blog, or by email. He has responded to neither of my emails.

Now, Schmeller's proposal in his paper is not identical to that in my blog post. He is right, for example, to bring in the insights of Vegge. However, there is enough overlap that one should expect some kind of interaction. Maybe my communication with him was too late for him to cite my blog in his JSNT paper. But why present at SBL without leaving time to benefit from feedback? And why no replies to my emails?

This year, in his 2 Corinthians commentary (p31), Guthrie endorses Schmeller's JSNT piece, summarizing that the two parts of the letter have different tones because:

chapters 1-9 prepare for Titus's visit, but 10-13 prepare for Paul's own visit to Corinth. Titus's earlier visit had been successful, while Paul's earlier visit had been a disaster.

This is not quite right as it stands.

1) 2 Cor 12:16-18 prepares for Titus's visit.

2) The following texts from 2 Cor 1-9 prepare the Corinthians for visits and use the first person plural, so they most naturally refer to the future visits of Paul and his co-sender, Timothy. Titus is not in view, unless we equate Titus with Timothy (as we must).

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?" (2 Cor 3:1)
"... we commend ourselves...." (2 Cor 4:2)
"... we do not proclaim ourselves ..." (2 Cor 4:5)
"and I hope that we are also well known to your consciences. We are not commending ourselves to you again" (2 Cor 5:11-12).
3) Timothy also travelled to Corinth, but there is no place for Timothy in Schmeller's reconstruction. If Timothy was not Titus we would suppose that his visit to Corinth had also been a disaster and that, like Paul, he probably travelled back to Corinth after the arrival of 2 Corinthians (see Rom 16:21). Thus, on Schmeller's scheme, we would expect that chapters 10-13 would prepare for the visits of both Paul and Timothy. So why does the first person singular dominate these chapters?

So I still prefer my proposal from May 2010.

Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-21929231294553515532015-09-29T23:58:00.000-07:002015-09-29T23:58:16.512-07:00Reply to SchellenbergFirstly, thank you, Ryan, for your thoughtful rebuttals and clarifications. This moves the conversation forward faster than can be done by means of journal articles alone. I'll comment on each of your numbered points, which correspond to my numbering in the earlier post.

1) Yes, my choice of words was confusing. I did not mean to imply that it would be shameful to be dependent on Paul's letters.

2) On page 212 you summarize your main argument: "First, we noted the striking correspondence between Luke's "primary toponyms" - that is, the places in which the action happens - and those cities that appear in the Pauline corpus, as well as correspondence between Luke's "redundant toponyms" and those absent from it. Given that the scope of Paul's work was broader than that directly attested either in the letters or in Acts, this is difficult to explain except as literary dependence of Acts on Paul's letters." This argument works only if the "broader scope" covers the same time period as the "striking correspondence". You now rely on 2 Cor 11:23-27 to argue for the "broader scope", but the imprisonments and shipwrecks could have occurred well before Paul's Aegean ministry, which is where the "striking correspondence" occurs. Rom 16:7 might be a hint in that direction. In any case, if we were to reconstruct events without regards to Acts we would not put Paul in boats in his Aegean period more often than Acts does, so it is hard to see the relevance of the shipwrecks. Also you require that the "broader scope" involved the kinds of activity (such as establishing churches) that Luke would want to report. Imprisonments are not in this category, and Acts would be less interesting if there were more than one shipwreck narrative. Also note that 2 Cor 11:23-27 cuts both ways: if Luke used Paul's letters why did he not use 2 Cor 11:23-27? The "striking correspondence" is not quite so striking when we remember this and other "misses", such as Illyricum, Spain, and Arabia.

3. Your argument about the "striking correspondence" is statistical so we have to be careful to include all the "misses" as well as all the "hits". If you are excluding the PE you have to include Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, and Miletus in the list of "misses". Also Troas becomes half a "miss" because Paul refers only to the region, the Troad, and not to the city (see Thrall). If, on the other hand, you hypothesize that Paul used the PE, you should include Nicopolis and also deal with the tensions that exist between the PE and Acts. Either way, the "striking correspondence" is not so striking. Also, I was not completely convinced by your attempt to explain why Luke would not have mentioned Paul's visit to the Troad (2 Cor 2:12) or his second or third visits to Corinth. Luke would have been able to mention these visits without having to bring up the controversies that Paul had with the Corinthians. In any case, Luke was not reluctant to describe conflicts between Christians. The lack of "striking correspondence" does not disprove your theory, but it does mean that you need other evidence. Let's turn now to that other evidence.

4. The second argument in the summary on page 212 states "The failure of each author to name specific localities for Paul's work in Galatia further strengthens the case." As I think you agree, this argument has force only if we accept that Luke was a north Galatianist. I am a south Galatianist because I see Gal 2:3-5 as Paul's response to the events of Acts 16:1-3, and because the Galatians seem to know Barnabas, and because Luke's whole point in Acts 16:6-10 is that God was calling the missionaries to Macedonia without delay. There is no hint that he stopped to preach anywhere on the route. Luke was a south Galatianist.
The argument would not be strong, even if Luke was a north Galatianists. It is true that Acts 16:6 and Paul both mention Galatia without naming cities. However, again, we must list the "misses" as well as the "hits". Luke mentions Phrygia in the same breath, but Paul nowhere mentions Phrygia. Also, Luke does not record evangelism in "Galatia" in Acts 16:6 and this would be surprising.

5. If, as I argued, Acts had accurate independent information about the movements of Erastus and Timothy (which is a small detail), then he is likely to have had independent information about the major movements of Paul. I agree that this does not completely disprove your theory, but it does give you a bigger burden of proof.

6. The third and final argument (on page 212) reads "the twin announcements in Acts 19:21 and 20:22 of Paul's intention to make a perilous visit to Jerusalem and then to proceed to Rome evince not only knowledge of Paul's route but also knowledge of his anticipatory description of that route in Rom 15." I'll change my argument here and question whether the correspondences between Rom 15 and Acts 19:21; 20:22 are really so compelling. Works as large as Acts and the Pauline corpus are likely to have some points of verbal agreement, merely by chance. The other texts that concern itinerary do not have such verbal agreement so they must be counted as "misses" if you count this one as a "hit".

7. The understanding of 1 Thess 3 and Acts 17:14-15 suggested by Donfried and me is not "complex", but simple. It involves no duplications of events. Indeed, those who read 1 Thess 3 without regard to Acts have Timothy travel from Macedonia to Achaia twice, but Donfried and I have him make only one such trip. Why do you find the theory "complex"?

I have a couple of further questions:

a) Do you know if anyone has attempted to quantify the frequency of shipwrecks in the first century mediterranean?
b) When ancient authors took personal names from a source did they always leave those names in the same form? That is to say, might Luke have read Rom 16:21 and abbreviated the name "Sosipater" to "Sopater", and might he have read "Prisca" in 1 Cor or Rom and changed it to "Priscilla"?Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-59715243375858766532015-09-28T22:43:00.000-07:002015-09-28T22:43:17.378-07:00Schellenberg responds
Ryan Schellenberg has kindly taken the time to respond to my last blog post, in which I commented on his JBL paper "The First Pauline Chronologist?" I paste his reply below, with his permission. I plan to comment again sometime in the next few days.

........................................................................................................................

1) It's not clear to me how any one is winning or losing here. The task, as I perceive it, is to understand how Luke constructed the book, not to judge or "accuse" him. In any case, the article begins by acknowledging that scholars on both sides of the debate adduce as evidence the correspondence between Paul's itinerary in Acts and that in the letters (p. 200). Given that this correspondence can be explained in multiple ways—Luke as an eyewitness; dependence on Paul's letters; other sources—the burden of the article is to determine which explanation of the data is preferable (again, see p. 200f.). In other words, you seem here simply to be restating the problem the article seeks to address (but doing so in a way that presumes that Luke's honor is at stake, and thus prejudicing the question).

2) I agree with you that Rom 15:19 admits of interpretations other than that Paul engaged in substantive missionary work in cities unmentioned in the Pauline corpus. (Though note that this interpretation of the verse is important in the efforts of scholars like Witherington and Keener to argue for Luke's historical accuracy.) More to the point, perhaps, is the text I cite next, 2 Cor 11:23-27, which refers to (mis)adventures that are simply undocumented in Acts. Two examples: Paul writes to the Corinthians of having experienced "far more imprisonments"; up until this point in the Acts narrative, Paul has only spent one night in a Philippian jail. Wherever those other imprisonments occurred, Acts hasn't told us about them. Nor does Acts give any account of the three shipwrecks to which Paul refers. One could perhaps argue that Luke provides a complete itinerary but has left out a number of the episodes which occurred enroute, but that would be a way of defending a presumption, rather than evaluating historical probability.

3) The scope of the study is limited by the geographical data in Paul's letters, which provide information only about this portion of Paul's itinerary. Evidently, this means that Paul's letters cannot have been used as a source for the itinerary of ch. 13–14. This complicates the question of Luke's sources, perhaps, but does not invalidate my hypothesis. Analogously, the hypothesis that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source is not compromised by the fact that it fails to explain the material in Luke 1–2.

Perhaps I could have been clearer with regard to my references to 2 Timothy. I do not in fact argue that Luke used 2 Timothy, but rather point out that my hypothesis can be extended if one posits his use thereof (see p. 213). I am not committed to any particular reading of the evidence here, but mention it because: a) a number of scholars who doubt the authenticity of 1 Tim and Titus have argued that 2 Tim is authentic; and b) Walker has argued, on other grounds, for Paul's use of 2 Tim. In other words, my goal was to lay out the data and point out that the question of the status of 2 Tim merited further study.

4) As I note on p. 200 and reiterate in the final paragraph, what I am proposing is not that Luke has undertaken the sort of careful collation of data that nurtures modern critical scholarship, but rather that he has been informed by geographical cues in the letters. In other words, from 2 Cor 2:12 he remembers Troas as a "Pauline place", and perhaps remembers also that Paul did not pause there but continued on his journey west. This would account very well for the story in Acts 16. (Ancient writing/reading technology would have made flipping from text to text to remind himself that this happens after Paul has already been in Corinth untenable.)

In regard to your more general concern—whether the way Luke mentions place names betrays literary dependence—I'd invite you to reconsider the case of Galatia. See the first paragraph on p. 202.

5) Acts having information independent of Paul's letters hardly "undermines . . . the whole thesis." Of course Luke had other information too, as Acts 1-14 amply attests. Given Paul's reputation, he can hardly have heard nothing about his mission except what the letters contain. My argument is not that Luke had no knowledge except Luke's letters (see p. 213), but rather that they are the source from which he derived the Pauline itinerary. Again, an analogy: If Luke's gospel betrays knowledge of traditions that are not in Mark, that hardly undermines the hypothesis that he used Mark.

6) It seems to me that alternative hypotheses you provide for the resemblance between Acts 19:21 and 20:22 and Rom 15 are essentially different ways of saying that the author of Acts was dependent on Romans. (But why should the specific phrasing of the letter have been so memorable, if Luke was talking to Paul daily, at all stages of planning and conception of his travels.)

7) I invite you to consider again the context in which my reference to the Acts 17 vs. 1 Thess 3 contradiction arises. If one is creative enough, perhaps one can find "elegant harmony" here. That is, if one begins from the presupposition of agreement, one can come up with complex (if not quite elegant) explanations for apparent disagreement. But my point is that in his Gospel it is quite clear that he is willing to depart from his sources, and that therefore we should approach Acts expecting to find the same. To my mind, this makes attempts to harmonize Acts 17 and 1 Thess 3 (or, e.g., Gal 1–2 and Acts 9:26) look very much like those theories that have Peter denying Jesus six times so that the Gospel accounts might stand in "elegant agreement."

8) Yes, of course. But then Acts is unusual in this regard regardless of what comparators we choose. The most thoughtful reflections on this are that of Loveday Alexander in "Narrative Maps."

9) What geographical knowledge Luke has—better at sea than inland (see n. 33 and, again, Alexander's essay)—may be consistent with the notion that he accompanied Paul, but of course it can also be explained in any number of other ways, as I suggest in pp. 208-9. Only if one assumes in advance that Luke travelled with Paul does it look like clear evidence for that position.

On Acts 20:4, it should be noted that I am not "adding assumptions" to my hypothesis, but rather noting that it works well in concert with another common source-critical theory (see n. 76). As I state clearly on p. 212, there is no reason to assume that Luke's use of Paul's letters precludes his use of other sources. The point is simply that Luke's use of Paul's letters provides the most economical explanation for a certain set of data. (An analogy may again be helpful: The notion that Luke used Mark works well in concert, many think, with the idea that he used either Matthew or Q.)
Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-17121123332327900112015-09-20T23:53:00.000-07:002015-09-20T23:53:31.029-07:00Review of Schellenberg's "The First Pauline Chronologist" Ryan S. Schellenberg "The First Pauline Chronologist? Paul's Itinerary in the Letters and in Acts", JBL 134 (2015).

In Rom 15:19 Paul says that he had "fulfilled the gospel" from Jerusalem clear around to Illyricum. This means, for Schellenberg, that Acts does not provide "a complete account of the geographical scope of Paul's work". He then notes that the places that Luke uses as a narrative setting in Acts 15:36-20:16 correspond almost exactly to those places named in Paul's letters. He argues that this correspondence is more than we would expect if Luke's information was independent of Paul's letters, given that Paul worked in many places that are named in neither Acts nor Paul's letters. This is Schellenberg's main argument for his thesis, which is that Paul's letters were Luke's source for Paul's itinerary of Acts 15:36-20:16.

There are a number of problems with Schellenberg's paper:

1) Luke, naturally, narrates events that occurred in cities where Paul established churches, and Paul too tends to name places precisely because they were the locations of his churches and major centres of his work. Thus it should not be surprising that there is much correspondence between the places named by Luke and those named in the letters (Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, Galatia, Asia, Troas, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Cenchreae, Ephesus, and Miletus). It would be surprising if Luke, a companion of Paul, had not mentioned them. If Luke had failed to mention Paul's work in Ephesus or Philippi, for example, the critics would accuse him of ignorance; but Schellenberg accuses him of dependency on the letters because he does mention them. This seems like a game of "heads I win, tails you lose".
2) Rom 15:19 does not require us to believe that Paul personnally established any churches beyond those recorded by Luke. Paul's method was to go to the major urban centres. The gospel would then spread to the surrounding areas because Paul would preach to visitors from those areas. He might also send out emissaries. See Acts 19:8-10; 1 Cor 16:15; 1 Thess 1:8; Col 1:7; 4:12-13. When Paul says that he had fulfilled the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum he is not saying that he had visited every intervening town himself. He had not visited the Lycos valley, for example.
3) Schellenberg arbitrarily limits the scope of his study to the texts that best fit his case. By limiting his scope to Acts 15:36-20:16 he ignores Luke's narrative setting in Cyprus, which is not mentioned by Paul. Also, his use of the disputed letters is questionable and selective. He suggests that Luke may have got the place names of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra from 2 Tim 3:11, but fails to mention that Paul's itinerary in 1 Timothy is famously hard to reconcile with Acts. Nor does he mention that Trophimus stays behind in Miletus in 2 Tim 4:20, but not in Acts 20:15; 21:29. If Luke was so sloppy in his use of sources, why does he not make mistakes (when he is judged against the undisputed letters)? Schellenberg does not mention the possibility that the author of 2 Timothy got place names from Acts.
4) The way that Luke mentions place names does not betray a literary dependency on Paul's letters. If Luke had got the name "Troas" from 2 Cor 2:12 we would expect him to record the evangelization of Troas at Acts 20:1. Instead Luke has Paul pass through Troas without preaching there at a much earlier date (Acts 16:8) and he also records a later visit (Acts 20:6-12). Luke's account is consistent with Paul's but not dependent on it.
5) Schellenberg writes, "If Richard Fellows's suggestion that Titus was Timothy is correct, then Luke could have decided to refer to him exclusively as Timothy for precisely the same reason" [because "Titus" was associated with controversy]. However, the Titus-Timothy hypothesis proves that Acts had information that was independent of Paul's letters, and this undermines Schellenberg's whole thesis. See my discussion here.
6) Schellenberg thinks that Acts 19:21 and 20:22 are dependent on Rom 15:25; 30-31. I was not convinced by his arguments. In any case, if the author of Acts was a companion of Paul he would have been with Paul when Romans was written and might well have heard the letter being read at that time (indeed I have argued that he was the Lucius of Rom 16:21). He might also have heard the letter after he arrived in Rome. The author's use of Paul's letters would not provide an argument for a late date of Acts.
7) In note 50 Schellenberg mentions Donfried's explanation of how the movements of Timothy in Acts 17:14-15 are consistent with those in 1 Thess 3. He then writes, "I will refrain from comment on the question here". This will not do. If Donfried's explanation (or my own variant of it) makes sense, then we have here a case where Acts looks on the surface to be contradicted by Paul, but on closer examination is found to be in elegant harmony with him. This is hard to explain if Luke got his information from Paul's letters.
8) Apocryphal Acts contain very few redundant toponyms. Acts is very different.
9) Schellenberg tries to address some of the problems with his hypothesis, such as the scarcity of "redundant toponyms" in Luke's gospel, and the Acts narrative in Beroea and Derbe. He has to concede that Luke had good geographical knowledge (which is consistent with him being a companion of Paul). He also has to hypothesize that Luke got Acts 20:4 from a source and took place names from it. It's OK to add assumptions to a theory, but we then need more evidence to prevent the theory from collapsing under its own weight, and in my view that evidence is lacking.

Please push back in the comments section if I have been unfair. I will invite Schellenberg to do so.Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-83680262874666175072015-02-26T21:46:00.000-08:002015-02-26T21:46:00.504-08:00Gal 2:18; 1:8; 5:11 and the rumour that Paul is preaching circumcisionHere I will argue that in Gal 2:18 Paul is (amongst other things) denying the rumour that he has returned to preaching circumcision.

Gal 2:18-21	Gal 5:11	Gal 1:8

18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ,	But my friends, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?	But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you

then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.
	let that one be accursed!

19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.	In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

The majority of commentators agree that "the very things" in 2:18 refers to Law observance in some sense, at least for Gentiles. Paul is then saying "If I build up Law observance, which I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor." Now, this sounds very much like Gal 1:8 and Gal 5:11, as can be seen in the table. All three texts bring up the scenario of Paul preaching circumcision/Law observance, and all three have the form of a condition - an "if" statement. Paul's discussion of the crucifixion of Christ in 2:19-21 parallels his mention of the cross in 5:11b. Furthermore, the words "then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor" in 2:18b parallel "let that one be accursed" in 1:8b. These parallels demand that the texts be interpreted together.

Both 2:18 and 5:11 are first class conditions. The protasis in first class conditions is frequently a statement believed by the audience, but not by the writer/speaker (e.g. 1 Cor 15:13). It is never a purely hypothetical statement believed by neither the writer nor his audience, as far as I can see. For a complete list of NT first class conditions, see Ruben Videira-Soengas. So, either Paul or the Galatians believe that he is building up Law observance again, and that he is now preaching circumcision. Since Paul did not believe these things, it follows that at least some of the Galatians did. So, in 2:18, as in 5:11 Paul is opposing the rumour that he supports Law observance/circumcision. This is a new proposal, I think, and I anticipate four possible objections:

1. "Paul's opposition to circumcision would have been clear to all, so no Galatians could have believed that he was now supporting circumcision."

Paul had delivered the decisions of the Jerusalem church leaders, confirming Gentile liberty (Acts 16:4). He had acted as a messenger, and a messenger (apostle) was expected to deliver his message whether he approved of it or not. The Galatians had no way of knowing whether Paul's support for Gentile liberty was genuine or whether he had merely been trying to please the Jerusalem church leaders. It seems that the agitators proposed the latter. I have argued this in detail here.

2. "The "I" in 2:18 could ever to Peter rather than to Paul."

This seems unlikely since Peter has not been named since 2:14 and it would be difficult for the Galatians to realize that Pal is referring to Peter here. Also, why would Paul not simply name Peter here? It has been suggested that Paul is being diplomatic by alluding to Peter indirectly using the first person singular, but if Gal 2:11-14 is about Peter, it is hardly diplomatic towards him!

3. "The "I" in 2:18 could refer to the Galatian addressees, rather than to Paul."

It is, of course, possible that Paul is offering himself as an example for the Galatians to follow, and that he wants them each individually to identify with the "I" (Gal 4:12). However, it is unlikely that the "I" does not include Paul here. When Paul uses building metaphors, as he does in Gal 2:18, he is invariably talking about the building of the community, rather than about individualistic convictions. He uses οἰκοδομέῶ at Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 8:1, 10; 10:23" 14:4, 17; Gal 2:18; 1 Thess 5:11 and οἰκοδομή appears at 1 Cor 3:9; 14:3, 5, 12, 26; 2 Cor 5:1; 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; as well as Eph 2:21; 4:12, 16, 29. In each case the metaphor is for the building up of others in the community. Therefore we should paraphrase 2:18 "If I again build up a community based on Law observance, which is the very thing that I once tore down, …". This makes perfect sense if Paul is the "I", since he is the architect of the communities that he forms. But it is hard to see how the "I" could refer to the Galatians. It would need to represent each Galatian acting individually (otherwise why not use second person plural), but this is tension with the fact that the metaphor is about mutual up-building.

4. "You are mirror-reading Gal 1:8; 2:18; and 5:11 and mirrors can be placed at all sorts of angles. Could it not be coincidence that these texts can be seen as Paul's denials of a rumour that he was preaching circumcision?"
My method has controls. In Paul's other letters there is no text that can be read as a denial that he preached Law observance. Such texts appear 4 times (Gal 1:8; 2:5, 18; 5:11) and only in the letter written to the province where he had circumcised a disciple. This is surely no coincidence.
Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-43182205234860395722015-01-30T21:50:00.000-08:002015-01-30T21:50:20.749-08:00Review of Douglas Campbell's "Framing Paul"This book aims to decide which letters were written by Paul and to deduce their sequence and provenance. This is an important quest, and Campbell is right to note that chronological matters get insufficient attention (pxvi-xvii).

Correct methodology in this quest is obviously to take all the evidence into account. On any issue the data has to be weighed according to their relevance and according to the reliability of their sources. Reconstructing the history behind Paul's letters therefore requires an evaluation of the reliability of each source document. This is an iterative process in which we must continually re-assess our estimates of the reliability of the sources by judging them against our evolving reconstructed history. No source can be dismissed at the outset.

Unfortunately Campbell does not realize this and proceeds with a flawed methodology that he inherited from Knox. He (rightly) keeps an open mind about the disputed letters:

we cannot at the outset simply exclude as an obvious matter any letters bearing Paul's name. We must make a case for exclusion with respect to each putative Pauline letter; epistolary data is in effect innocent until proved guilty. (p25)
yet he arbitrarily dismisses Acts with a wave of the hand:

the data concerning Paul in the book of Acts, the second principal historical reservoir for his life, is something of an unknown quantity. We do not know who wrote Acts, when, where, or - perhaps most importantly - why. (p20)

The Acts data is initially opaque, irrespective of what we make of Paul. It could be spun out of thin air, for all we know. (p21)
He then proceeds to build his reconstruction using only Paul's letters, which provide insufficient data on many issues.

We will rely on slender snippets of evidence in what follows, because that is all we have - occasional and fragmentary remains of conversations that took place millennia ago. But we do have evidence, and it will not do to dismiss parts of the following reconstruction with a generic claim that "this is insufficient" or "there is still not enough evidence." If this is the evidence that we have and it explains the data in the best existing fashion, then the correct scientific conclusion must be to endorse it and not to complain that we need more data that unfortunately does not exist. (p18)
Campbell's conclusion here is a non-sequator and is obviously false. We should not endorse any conclusion that relies on nothing more than slender snippets of evidence. Yet Campbell does just that throughout the book, building speculation on speculation. However, Paul has left us clear statements on some matters, such as the sequence in which he evangelized the towns of Macedonia and Achaia, and his final voyage around the Aegean. Campbell does a good job at reconstructing these events, as others have done. The fact that Acts scores highly when assessed against these events should give Campbell pause and prompt him to re-consider his dismissal of Acts. Unfortunately he does not make any assessment of Acts and hardly refers to it at all. This left me feeling cheated that I had paid good money for a half finished work.

I very much enjoyed Campbell's demolition of the very common view that Paul visited Corinth and wrote the tearful letter between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. It is odd that he does not equate Titus with Timothy.

He accepts the conventional view that Paul wrote Romans during his last visit to Corinth. He assumes that the letter was read to the Corinthian believers before it was sent and he suggests that Paul wrote much of the contents of the letter with the Corinthian church in mind. In the same way he proposes that Paul's call for the Philippians to unite was intended more for the Corinthians, to whom he read the letter before sending it. He also believes that most of Gal 5:13-6:10 was inappropriate for Paul's Galatian audience, but was written primarily to be read to the Corinthians before the letter was dispatched. Thus Campbell arguments that Philippians and Galatians were written from Corinth during Paul's last stay there. Clearly there could be all sorts of theories about letters being written in part to be heard by the communities where they may have been written, and I am concerned that Campbell does not apply proper controls. More importantly I was unconvinced by the concept. If I need help doing the dishes I ask my children directly. I do not write a letter to my sister, urging her to do the dishes, and then read that letter to my children! Campbell does not explain why Paul would communicate to the Corinthians using letters to other churches rather than just talk to them directly. Nor does he explain why Paul would expose himself to ridicule in Galatian by writing things to them that did apply.

His other main argument for placing Philippians (and Galatians) shortly before Romans is that he sees Judaizing opponents in these letters. This is one of Campbell's slenderest snippets of evidence since it rests on the assumption that the Judaizing movement within the Church loomed large at only one time.

In 2 Cor 8 Paul sends collection delegates to Corinth, and this tells us that the plan was for Paul and the collection delegates to travel from Corinth to Judea without returning to Macedonia. If Philippians was written at this time we would have to suppose that Paul changed his mind and decided that both he and Timothy would return to Macedonia. Also, Campbell does not explain why, on his chronology, there is no mention of the collection in Philippians.

Campbell argues persuasively that Gal 2:10 is a reference to the collection of money from Galatia for Judea. He uses a line of reasoning that Hurtado put forward back in 1976, but does not cite his work. He then assumes, without argument, that the collection from Galatia was intended to be at the same time as the collection from Macedonia and Achaia. His main argument for diverging from the Acts chronology, and for placing Galatians late, hangs on this unexamined assumption. Nor does he explain why Galatians contains no encouragement to the Galatians to give generously, and no expression of disappointment at their failure to give.

It is disappointing that Campbell does not engage with Carlson's work on Gal 2:12, even though he surely must have known about it. Instead he opts (implausibly) for Leudemann's view that the Antioch incident took place before the Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10. It is also disappointing that Campbell assumes that letter carriers read the letters that they delivered, even though Peter Head (who has studied the issue in detail) has told him that there is no evidence for this.

Like most commentators, he places 1 Thessalonians soon after Paul's first visit to Thessalonica. Strangely, he says that it was written from Athens. Others (e.g. Donfried and Witherington) have pointed out that if it was written from Athens Paul would have written "left alone here" instead of "left alone in Athens" in 1 Thess 3:1.

Campbell places Colossians and Philemon very early suggests that they were written not far from Colossae. His reasoning is this:

Moreover, the letter (Philemon) presupposes an effective founding visit from some member of the Pauline mission. But Paul himself sends no greetings from the local "brothers"at his location, so he does not seem himself to be imprisoned at the site of a successful mission; no local christian seems to be named besides itinerant members of his circle of coworkers. (p256. See also p261).
This is very weak. People send greetings to those they know. The greeters in Philemon (and Colossians if genuine) are all itinerant co-workers because it is the itinerant co-workers who had visited the addressees. The absence of local believers among the greeters means only that Philemon had not visited a church in the town where Paul was being held. It does not mean that there was no church in that town. Campbell's early dating of Philemon and Colossians is therefore without evidence.

Campbell judges Paul to be the author of Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians. I don't have much to say about his arguments and I am not an expert on this issue. He feels that many of the arguments for pseudonymity have been over-stated. I wonder, however, whether he over-corrects and ends up giving insufficient weight to those arguments.

He judges the Pastoral Epistles to be pseudonymous. It is refreshing that, unlike some others, he does not seek to give the author the benefit of every doubt on the historical accuracy of the contents. For me, his chapter on the PE was the most valuable. His discussion of the author's knowledge (or lack of it) of "Titus" and "Timothy" was particularly inlightening.

While my review of the book is rather negative, it has to be said that I am hard to please when it comes to books on NT chronology. If I have been overly critical please let me know in the comments.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-21135035702009177322015-01-24T14:23:00.000-08:002015-01-24T14:23:51.072-08:00Reconciling 1 Thess 3:1-2 with Acts 17:14-15Here I will argue that 1 Thess 3:1-2 has been misinterpreted and that Acts is right that Paul and Timothy were never together in Athens. Here are the texts:

1 Thess
3:1 Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμεν καταλειφθῆναι ἐν Ἀθήναις μόνοι,
Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we decided to be left alone in Athens;

3:2 καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν Τιμόθεον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳτοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν
and we sent Timothy, our brother and co-worker of God in proclaiming the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you for the sake of your faith,

3:3 so that no one would be shaken by these persecutions. ...

3:5 διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μηκέτι στέγων ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν,
For this reason, when I could bear it no longer I sent to find out about your faith;

Acts
17:14 Then the believers immediately sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind.

17:15 οἱ δὲ καθιστάνοντες τὸν Παῦλον ἤγαγον ἕως Ἀθηνῶν, καὶ λαβόντες ἐντολὴν πρὸςτὸν Σιλᾶν καὶ τὸν Τιμόθεον ἵνα ὡς τάχιστα ἔλθωσιν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξῄεσαν.
Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and after receiving instructions to have Silas and Timothy join him as soon as possible, they left him.

17:16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, ...

18:5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, ...

It is almost invariably assumed that 1 Thess 3:1-2 implies that Paul and Timothy had been in Athens at the same time. This would indeed be in tension with Acts, which says that Timothy stayed behind in Beroea. I propose the following explanation:

Paul and some believers from Beroea travelled to Athens while Timothy and Silas stayed in Beroea. In Athens Paul sent the Beroean believers back to Berea. He was anxious to hear news of the Thessalonian believers so he asked these Beroeans to tell Timothy "come to me soon and visit Thessalonica on the way". Thus, it was these Beroeans who carried the message that sent Timothy to Thessalonica. Their early departure from Athens meant that Paul would be alone there, but it also meant that Paul would soon hear news about the fate of the Thessalonian church. It is this dilemma that Paul describes in 1 Thess 3:3-5. The timing of the return of Paul's Beroean companions to Beroea was determined by Paul's anxiety about Thessalonica.

This explanation creates no conflict between 1 Thess and Acts and has the advantage of parsimony. It adds no events that are in neither text and it adds little to either. Indeed, the only detail missing from Acts is Paul's request to Timothy to make a detour via Thessalonica.

The usual understanding of 1 Thess has Timothy travel to Athens and then make an additional round trip between Athens and Thessalonica. According to ORBIS this round trip by sea was 1080 km, and cost 195 denarii. This is about 6 months wages for a labourer. Paul had to work to earn his keep and this was time that he would surely have rather spent preaching. The missionaries did not have money to spare. It seems unlikely that the team would have chosen to pay for Timothy to make an unnecessary journey back to Thessalonica from Athens. It was more rational for Timothy to stay behind in Macedonia and plan to join Paul latter. The usual interpretation of 1 Thess 3:1-2 has difficulty explaining why Timothy did not visit Thessalonica before leaving Macedonia instead of returning to Thessalonica from Athens.

I anticipate three possible objections:

1. There is nothing in 1 Thess 3:1-2 to suggest that Timothy was not with Paul when Paul sent him to Thessalonica so we can assume that he was. However, this line of reasoning assumes that Paul wrote to record the movements of Timothy. When reading Paul's letters it is easy to forget that they were written for people who knew much more of the background than we do. The audience of 1 Thessalonians already knew the movements of Paul and Timothy. Paul's purpose in writing 1 Thess 3:1-5 was not to record Timothy's journeys but to stress that he (Paul) had been worried about the Thessalonian believers.

2. Acts 17:5 says that Timothy's instructions were to come to Paul ταχέως (as soon as possible). Is this consistent with a detour via Thessalonica? Yes it is. Beroea was only 73 km from Thessalonica, which was the largest city in Macedonia and would be a suitable port from which to find a boat to Athens. Also, the Greek word ταχέως simply means "soon" or "quickly" and does not mean "immediately" in a modern north European sense. In 1 Cor 4:19 Paul says "I will come to you soon (ταχέως)" even though he was going to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost and then make a long detour to Macedonia before travelling to Corinth (1 Cor 16:5-8).

3. Some commentators take the plural verbs in 1 Thess 3:1-2 to refer to Paul and Silas. However, Paul uses the first person singular in 1 Thess 3:5 so, unless he is being inconsistent, he must be using a rhetorical plural in 1 Thess 3:1-2.

I am not the first to suggest that Timothy was never with Paul in Athens. Karl Donfried (Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity, 2002, p214) cites Dobschütz [1909] and Rigaux [1956] and writes,

In other words: Paul may have sent Timothy back to Thessalonica either while they were still together in Berea or after Paul arrived in Athens. With regard to the latter, it is possible that those who accompanied Paul from Beroea to Athens (Acts 17.15) presented to Timothy, upon their return, Paul's request. Of these two options, we prefer the former since the latter suggests, dubiously, that Paul had received some new information in Athens.
I don't understand why Donfried thinks that Paul would have had to have received new information in Athens. Paul's anxiety about persecutions in Thessalonica would have been heightened by the arrival of Thessalonian opponents in Beroea (Acts 17:13-14). Persecution from these opponents was enough to force Paul's departure to Athens, so Paul would certainly have worried that these same opponents were persecuting the Thessalonian believers. This worry would have continued to trouble Paul in Athens in the absence of new information. 1 Thess 3:1"when we could bear it no longer" implies such a sustained period of anxiety.

Donfried's preference that Paul sent Timothy to Thessalonica from Beroea is unlikely. Paul says that the sending of Timothy resulted in him (Paul) being left alone in Athens. However, the sending of Timothy from Beroea to Thessalonica need not have resulted in Paul being alone in Athens: Paul's Beroean companions or Silas could have stayed with Paul in Athens until Timothy arrived. Furthermore, Paul writes "when I could bear it no longer I sent to find out about your faith" (3:5), but on Donfried's reconstruction he had to bear it for a lot longer anyway. Paul's words make little sense if the interval between the sending of Timothy and Timothy's return to Paul in Corinth with news of Thessalonica (Acts 18:5) was longer than the period of Paul's anxiety about the Thessalonians prior to the sending of Timothy. This makes it unlikely that the sending of Timothy was as early in the sequence as Donfried's preferred option requires.

Others, on the assumption that Timothy was in Athens when Paul sent him, suggest that Acts got it wrong. However, this is special pleading in light of all the details that Acts gets right in this time period (and at other times). Both Acts and 1 Thess have Paul visit Athens after Thessalonica. In both texts Paul has reason to be concerned about persecution in Thessalonica at that time. Both have Paul spending time alone in Athens. Both have Paul eagerly wanting to meet with Timothy. Both have Paul, Silas/Silvanus and Timothy back together later (1 Thess 1:1; Acts 18:5).Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-61117511734223686532015-01-18T09:31:00.000-08:002015-01-18T09:31:54.236-08:00Craig Keener on Crispus-SosthenesCraig Keener, in his Acts commentary, mentions the theory that Sosthenes was Crispus (p2683, 2749, 2776) and he cites my own work. He writes,

Since Crispus was an early convert (1 Cor 1:14), Sosthenes also seems a believer (1:1), and both are described by Luke as "synagogue rulers" (Acts 18:8, 17), it is possible that these are two names for the same person (allowing frustrated members of the synagogue community to beat their former leader Crispus in 18:17). This proposal is ultimately unlikely, however; why would Luke change names without an explanation connecting them? (That Paul likewise uses both names reinforces the objection.)
Keener here considers the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis but raises the superficial objection that Luke does not explicitly identify them. In this post I will answer Keener's objection using his own observations.

If Luke expected his readers to already know that Sosthenes was Crispus then he would have no reason to state the fact. Keener argues that the audience of Acts already knew James (2241), Jason (2533, 2549), probably Alexander (2869) and possibly Tyrannus (2829). Indeed, he believes that Sosthenes was known to Luke (2779). It is therefore odd that Keener does not explore the possibility that the audience of Acts knew Crispus-Sosthenes. The little that we know about him suggests that he may well have become well known throughout the Aegean churches. He was the synagogue ruler and therefore high status. Many in Corinth had come to the faith under his influence (Acts 18:8), and his name, "Sosthenes" (saving strength), reminded everyone that Paul had honoured him for the part that he had played in the formation of the church. He was so well respected in Corinth that Paul cited his endorsement of the contents of 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 1:1). He had been with Paul in Corinth for 18 months and in Ephesus for perhaps 2 years. We know of no other person in the Aegean region who had spend more time with Paul. He had the wealth to travel among the Aegean churches and his fame would have been spread by 1 Corinthians itself when the letter was copied. It is not at all surprising that Luke's audience, which was likely the Aegean churches (see here and here), knew Crispus-Sosthenes.

There is also a good reason why Luke would have wanted to avoid explicitly identifying Sosthenes as Crispus. Throughout his commentary Keener is acutely aware of the fact that Luke presented the faith as unthreatening to Rome. Indeed, on Acts 18:12-17 he writes,

Although Gallio as an actor within the narrative was not trying to provide an apologetic for Paul or his movement, this is de facto how his response functions in the larger context of Acts' apologetic. As soon as a governor's verdict was read out, it was recorded in the province's official proceedings. Because he was a governor and not a local judge (like Thessalonica's politarchs, Acts 17:6-8), Gallio's decision could have far-reaching implications. It would establish a favorable precedent for the Christians .... Luke's marshaling of such precedents would provide Christians with a sense of security and perhaps evidence they could use to respond against slanders in the public arena. (2773-4)
If Luke had explicitly equated Sosthenes with Crispus the text would not have provided the Christians with such a positive precedent that they could bring before Roman officials. Gallio had allowed the Jews to beat a Christian benefactor and this is hardly the kind of precedent that Luke wanted to publicize. Luke's purposes were served by his silence about the identity of Sosthenes.

Keener also objects that 1 Cor 1:1 calls him "Sosthenes", whereas Cor 1:14 calls him "Crispus". However, in 1 Cor 1:1 Paul is appealing to the authority of Sosthenes so it unsurprising that he should use the name that honoured him. In 1 Cor 1:14 Paul is wanting to avoid any hint that being baptized by him is a point of honour, and perhaps for that reason he uses his ordinary name, "Crispus". In any case, 1 Cor 1:14 refers to a time before Crispus was given the name "Sosthenes".

Finally, Keener makes a point that supports the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis:

We know of food shortages close to 51C.E., and these often contributed to instability ... The schism in the Jewish community had, among other things, caused rancour and divided the community's patrons and resources at a time when it could ill afford the division (after Claudius's expulsion in 18:2). (2765)
This economic hardship explains why the Jews beat their benefactor, who had defected to the Christians.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-2160126285551849562014-12-31T17:20:00.000-08:002014-12-31T17:20:48.632-08:00Craig Keener on the identity of Titus and TimothyOn page 2320 of his Acts commentary, Craig Keener discusses the hypothesis that Titus was Timothy, and expresses some hesitations in his characteristically cautious style. He refers to my 2001 paper, but he is presumably unaware of the ways that I have developed the hypothesis since then. His comments are the fullest defence of the two-person hypothesis printed in English and they give me useful feedback concerning how the Titus-Timothy hypothesis is being viewed. In this blog post I duplicate Keener's words (indented) and try to respond to his concerns.

How could Paul battle circumcisionists in Acts 15:1-2 (on the Lukan literary level) and struggle with Barnabas and contend for Titus's freedom (Gal 2:3-5, 13, on the historical level), then circumcise Timothy afterward? This would become a genuine contradiction only if we argue that Timothy is Titus, 233 and given the sequence, not necessarily even then.
Yes, the non-circumcision of Titus in Gal 2:3 was before the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:3.

233 Fellows, "Titus," skillfully defends the identification of Timothy and Titus (developing a suggestion by Borse, "Timotheus und Titus," 34). Some evidence supports this position's plausibility: Apart from 2 Tim 4:10, which Fellows can discount as later misinformation ("Titus," 35-36), Timothy and Titus do not appear together. Certainly, this argument would also resolve why "Titus" does not appear in Acts.
Yes, the Titus-Timothy hypothesis explains why "Titus" does not appear in Acts. Keener ponders this problem also on pages 242, 2862, 2947, 2954, 2958. The strongest arguments for the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, however, are found in the Corinthian correspondence, where it allows us to greatly simplify the sequence of events without duplications or multiple changes of travel plans. Keener does not discuss this.

Also, "Titos" would make a good nickname, a useful shortened form for "Timotheos."
Against Borse, I do not see Titus as a nickname or a shortened form for "Timothy". I think Titus was his praenomen from birth. "Timothy" could have been his cognomen from birth, but I now think it more likely that it was a new name that was given to him to reflect his role in the church (like Simon-Peter or Crispus-Sosthenes). New names often did have a phonetic similarity to the original name, and "Timothy" has an appropriate meaning (honouring God). No NT name is more appropriate for Titus than "Timothy".

Against it would be the oddity of changing names for a person without explanation, even in same letter (2 Cor 1:1, 19 for "Timothy", and thereafter "Titus," e.g., 2:13), though this sometimes occurred (even in Gal 1:18; 2:7-11, 14; Fellows, "Titus," 34-35). Moreover, "Titus" was not a particularly rare name (e.g., 2 Macc 11:34; it appears 201 times in Josephus, but this is because of Vespasian's son); "Titius" in Acts 18:7 is closer to "Titus" than "Timothy" is, yet most do not link them.
Every time that Paul uses the name "Timothy" he is appealing to Timothy's authority, and this raises the possibility that Paul calls him something else in other contexts. Co-senders are included to endorse the contents of the letters (see Fulton's PhD thesis), so Paul is appealing to Timothy's authority at 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; Phlm 1:1. Similarly in 1 Cor 4:17 and Phil 2:19-22 Paul is setting up Timothy as an example for his readers to follow. At 1 Cor 16:10 and arguably 1 Thess 2:2-6 Paul is bolstering Timothy's authority, and he is appealing to his authority also in 2 Cor 1:19. In Rom 16:21-23 he must use the names by which the greeters were best known.

 "Titus", on the other hand, was a praenomen, and praenomina were used among intimate friends and family. In 2 Corinthians, in the context of Titus's recent and forthcoming visits to Corinth, Paul is wanting to emphasize that Titus and the Corinthians had a close and affectionate relationship (2 Cor 7:13, 15; 8:16-17). Presumably Paul is trying to secure that close relationship, perhaps because the success of the collection depended on it. In this context the praenomen is appropriate. By using the praenomen, "Titus", Paul implies that Titus-Timothy considered himself to have a warm relationship with the Corinthians, and that is exactly what Paul wanted to emphasize. Paul's switch between "Timothy" and "Titus" would not have created ambiguity for the original audience, of course, since they would have known him by both names and they would have known his movements and they would have known that there was no other envoy that Paul could be referring to.

Timothy had been circumcised in Galatia and Paul did not want the Galatians to follow Timothy's example. When discussing Timothy in his letter to the Galatians, Paul therefore avoids honouring Titus-Timothy with the name "Timothy". He therefore calls him "Titus" instead, which is appropriate since they knew him well.

So, the name selections are consistent: When Paul wants his audience to follow Titus-Timothy's example, he calls him "Timothy". When he wants to emphasize the warm relationship between Titus-Timothy and his audience, he calls him "Titus".

The thesis is certainly plausible, but given the uncertainty of the positive evidence, whether it is the likeliest solution depends partly on how much one thinks that the author of the Pastorals knew. I favour accurate information in the Pastorals about distinct persons more than Fellows does, believing that the concrete tradition in 2 Tim 4:10 may reflect traditional assumptions about their distinct identities within living memory of Timothy;
When reading 2 Corinthians, it is natural for readers (other than the original audience) to assume that Titus was a different person from Timothy (see Keener's earlier comment). 2 Corinthians could therefore have led the pastor to assume that there was a Titus who was not Timothy (even if he knew that Timothy's praenomen was Titus). It is possible that there were two Titus's but, for me, it is more likely that the pastor made an understandable mistake. Now, 2 Tim 4:10 reads, "for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; Titus to Dalmatia." Commentators are too kind to "Titus" here, perhaps because of a pro-Gentile bias. The text is ambiguous about whether Titus had deserted Paul, and such ambiguity would not be fair on Titus if in fact he had gone to Dalmatia on Paul's instructions. My suggestion is that Titus never existed (as a person separate from Timothy) and that therefore no-one in the pastor's community had heard anything about him (other than what they read in 2 Cor and Gal). The pastor than wrote 2 Tim 4:10 to explain why no-one knew anything further about him: he had deserted to Dalmatia where no churches were established. 2 Tim 4:10 has verisimilitude if "Titus" was remembered only as a name in 2 Cor and Gal.

the evidence of Acts 16:3 is also against this speculation, since the author belongs to the Pauline circle and, on my view of authorship (see Keener, Acts, 1:402-16, and comment on Acts 16:10), would have known Timothy and presumably whether or not Paul had him circumcised.
I fully agree that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul and had good information. Indeed, the Titus-Timothy hypothesis supports the historical accuracy of Acts. I admit that the uninformed reader would not necessarily infer from Gal 2:3-5 that Titus was circumcised, but the original audience was not uninformed. Paul did not need to tell them that he circumcised Timothy because they already knew. The issue at the time of writing was not whether Timothy had been circumcised, but how his circumcision should be interpreted.

Acts 16:1-3 suggests that Paul would have let Timothy pass himself off as a circumcised Jew if people did not already know that he was uncircumcised (see my last post), and Gal 5:11-12 hints that the Galatians had misunderstood the circumcision of Timothy and concluded that Paul had come over to the agitators' position. Gal 2:4-5 works well as Paul's correction of the Galatians' interpretation of the circumcision of Timothy. Here Paul implies that the circumcision of Timothy occurred only because the false brothers found out that Timothy was uncircumcised. He then emphasizes that his circumcision of Timothy did not indicate that he had yielded to the agitators. In short, Gal 2:3-5 is just the sort of thing that we would expect Paul to write about Timothy to the region where he was circumcised.

Keener (p2954-5) makes the suggestion that Titus may have been Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4). This is highly unlikely since both "Titus" and "Gaius" were common Latin praenomina. It was very rare for someone to have two such names.

Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-66592353731944681002014-12-29T23:42:00.000-08:002014-12-29T23:42:05.953-08:00Acts 16:3 confirms that Luke was a JewHere I argue that Acts 16:3 makes best sense if the author took it for granted that his audience knew that Christian missionaries had to be circumcised to be effective. This is one of a series of posts arguing that all Christian missionaries were Jews in Paul's day.

Acts 16:1-3 reads:

1 Paul went on also to Derby and to Lystra, where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
3 τοῦτον ἠθέλησεν ὁ Παῦλος σὺν αὐτῷ ἐξελθεῖν, καὶ λαβὼν περιέτεμεν αὐτὸν διὰ τοὺςἸουδαίους τοὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐκείνοις, ᾔδεισαν γὰρ ἅπαντες ὅτι Ελλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν.
 After deciding to recruit Timothy to his mission team, Paul had three options
1. Leave Timothy uncircumcised and present him as uncircumcised in the mission field.
2. Leave Timothy uncircumcised and let others assume that he was circumcised. This was a real option (see b. Yev 45a-b and see here).
3. Circumcised Timothy.

At first sight it seems odd (to us) that Paul should circumcise Timothy soon after winning an agreement that circumcision is not necessary (Acts 15). We can assume that Acts 16:3 explains this apparent contradiction, at least to the satisfaction of the intended audience.

In Acts 16:3 Luke gives two reasons why Paul chose option 3.
(i) He wanted Timothy to accompany him.
(ii) The Jews in those places all knew that Timothy's father was a Greek.

Luke accompanied Paul and Timothy on the second missionary journey. Most commentators assume that Luke was a Gentile (and that Titus remained uncircumcised). If this were the case, then being a circumcised Jew was not a necessary qualification for being an effective missionary partner on the second missionary journey. So, if Luke was a Gentile (and was presented as such), then reason (i) was insufficient to rule out option 1. On the assumption that Luke was a Gentile, most commentators then conclude that Acts must be saying that option 1 is ruled out by a combination of reasons (i) and (ii), and that option 2 is not considered. They suppose that the Jews tolerated Luke, an uncircumcised Gentile, but would not have tolerated an uncircumcised son of a Jewish woman. This is problematic, not least because the text does not say "they all knew that his mother was a Jew". It says that they all knew that his father was a Greek. Furthermore it is not clear that an uncircumcised son of a Jewish women would have been any more objectionable to anyone than an uncircumcised son of two Gentile parents, since matrilineal descent did not pertain in the first century.

If, on the other hand, Luke was a Jew (see my recent posts), then all of Paul's missionary partners were circumcised (Barnabas, Mark, Silas, Timothy, and Luke). This then raises the possibility that Luke expected his audience to know that Paul's missionary partners had to be circumcised (to be able to have effective ministries in synagogues). We can assume that the audience of Acts knew much more than we do about the required qualification of Christian missionaries in their day. This allows a very different understanding of how Acts 16:3 explains why Paul circumcised Timothy: Luke wrote reason a) to explain why Paul did not choose option 1, and he wrote b) to explain why Paul did not choose option 2. That is to say, Luke wrote "Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him" and the readers knew at that point that it would be necessary for Timothy to at least pass as a Jew. He then wrote "for they all knew that his father was a Greek", which implies that they all knew that Timothy was uncircumcised. Luke wrote this to show that Paul would have let uncircumcised Timothy pass as circumcised (option 2) if people had not already known that he was uncircumcised. Thus Luke communicates that the circumcision of Timothy was not ideological but was merely expedient.

To sum up, in Paul's lifetime his missionary partners would not have been effective in their work if others knew that they were uncircumcised (whatever their parentage). Timothy could not pass himself off as a circumcised Jew because the Jews already knew that his father was a Greek and that therefore he was uncircumcised.

For me, this understanding of Acts 16:3 is confirmed by Gal 2:3-5

But not even Titus, who with me was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us - we did not submit to them even for a moment so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.
I infer from this that the circumcision of Titus (who was also called Timothy) had been misunderstood. The Galatians thought it indicated that Paul had yielded to the position of the agitators, but Paul points out that it was only because the agitators had, by spying, found out that Titus-Timothy's father was a Greek. For more on Titus-Timothy, see here.

Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-7008636831313860642014-12-28T23:16:00.000-08:002014-12-28T23:16:17.872-08:00Craig Keener on whether Luke was Lucius (Rom 16:23)In Keener's judgment the Lucius of Rom 16:21 is probably different from the Luke of Phlm 24; Col 4:14. See, for example, p412 n66. His reasons are as follows:

1. Whereas Lucius was a Jew, Keener (p404) thinks that Col 4:11,14 favours Luke being a Gentile. However, in my last post I argued that Col 4:11, 14 confirms that Luke was a Jew.

2. Following Fitzmyer, Keener points out that the name is spelled differently in Rom 16:23 than in Phlm 24; Col 4:14 (p404 n17). However, this is not surprising. "Luke" is a hypocoristic form of the name "Lucius" and hypocoristic name-forms abound in Philemon and Colossians (Epaphras, Demas), perhaps because the greeters had visited Colossae and had a close relationship with the believers there. Romans, on the other hand, was not written to a city that the greeters had visited, so familiar, abbreviated name-forms would not be appropriate. The greeters had, on their travels, met some believers who subsequently moved to Rome, but they had not met the majority of the audience. Thus Sosipater has his full name-form in Rom 16:21, and the shortened form, Sopater, in Acts 20:4.

3. Keener (p1987n52) notes the view of e.g. Dunn that someone as important as the Lucius of Acts 13:1 would be given a fuller description than that given to the Lucius of Rom 16:21. However, Dunn overlooks the importance of name order. In the list of Greeters, Lucius is named second only to Timothy. This suggests that he had travelled extensively among the churches for many years and had thereby met many who had moved to Rome. It seems that he knew more members of the church of Rome than any of the greeters except Timothy. His position in the list shows that he was prominent and his absence from Acts would be surprising (unless he is the author).

4. Keener correctly argued that Luke may have been present for events where he does not use "we" (as well as events where he does use "we") (p2363-74). However, he back-slides from this conclusion on pages 1987, 2531, 2957, and 2954 where he writes,

Paul there[in Rom 16:21] lists greetings from his coworkers, mentioning Timothy, Lucius (possibly but not necessarily our Luke; the "we" resumes only in Acts 20:5)
But the original plan was for Paul and his companions to sail to Syria directly from Achaia, so it is highly likely that the author of acts assembled, with the others, in Achaia. We should therefore expect to find his name in Rom 16:21-23 since he would know many of the members of the church of Rome. Keener avoids the problem by suggesting, without evidence, that Luke changed his mind about whether to accompany the collection. Keener (p2958) writes,

This may have been a late decision based on Paul's change of course; Macedonia's contribution was complete (cf. 20:3), and Luke could have planned to stay on in Philippi until he learned that Paul was passing through Macedonia en route to Jerusalem.
This is a desperate move by Keener. Luke had long known about the collection, for Paul had passed through Macedonia on his way to Achaia. Why would Luke decide not to participate in the journey, and then change his mind later?

In conclusion, Keener's tentative decision to distinguish between Lucius and Luke is not well founded.

My own earlier post arguing that Lucius was Luke and also the author of Acts is here.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-71246150367348622692014-12-28T11:36:00.000-08:002014-12-28T11:36:09.164-08:00Col 4:11 and Luke's JewishnessIn the next posts I will argue that all Christian missionaries in Paul's day were Jews. In this post we look at Col 4:10-11, 14, which is often cited to indicate that Luke, at least, was probably a Gentile.

10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions - if he comes to you, welcome him.

11 And Jesus who is called Justus greets you. These are the only ones of the circumcision among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰοῦστος, οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς οὗτοι μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴνβασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν μοι παρηγορία.

14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you.
In verse 11 the phrase "ones of the circumcision" is often taken to mean simply "Jews", and it is then inferred that Luke was not a Jew. But it is not the case that Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus were Paul's only Jewish co-workers. What about Prisca, Aquila, Apollos, Mary (Rom 16:6), Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), Crispus-Sosthenes, Silas, as well as Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (Acts 13:1), and also Lucius, Jason and Sosipater (Rom 16:23)? A further problem is that if Paul really did have so few Jewish co-workers, it would be a remarkable coincidence that they were all in the same city as him at this time.

Clearly the scope of Paul's statement here must be limited in some way. Many take it to refer to only those who were with Paul at the time of writing, but this too is problematic. Firstly, there is nothing in the text to suggest this to the audience. Secondly, Timothy was with Paul at the time of writing (Col 1:1), and he was, by then, a Jew (Acts 16:3). If Rome is the provenance, then Prisca, Aquila, Mary, Andronicus, and Junia were probably also close at hand.

Furthermore there is a good reason to suppose that Epaphras and Luke, who were with Paul, were Jews. Here's why. Paul had to defend himself against the charge of bringing a Gentile into the temple. To do so, he stressed his own Jewish credentials and the piety of his friend, Ananias (see here). Given the nature of the charge against him, it was in Paul's interest to be seen to be surrounded by Jews, not Gentiles. Gentile friends could help Paul most by keeping a low profile. Indeed, the tasks of openly supporting Paul and of testifying in his defence would fall particularly to those co-workers who were particularly strict in their observance of the Law, for their testimony would carry weight. It was expedient that those who spent the most time with Paul should be Jews, and preferably strict ones, because of the optics. This suggests that Luke, who accompanied Paul to Rome, was a Jew. Also Epaphras was particularly close to Paul at the time, because Phlm 23 describes him (metaphorically?) as Paul's fellow prisoner, so he too was probably a Jew. Furthermore there are strong arguments that Luke was Lucius (Rom 16:23), who was a Jew (see my next post and here).

How, then, are we to understand Col 4:11? The problems are solved if, with E. E. Ellis and others, we take the "ones of the circumcision" to refer not to Jews in general, but only to those who observed the law rigorously. This seems to be consistent with usage elsewhere (Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 4:12; Gal 2:12; Tit 1:10). If we combine this idea with the insights above, we find that Epaphras, Luke, and Demas were Jews, but not of the strict variety. Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus may then be the only co-workers of Paul anywhere in the world who were of the strict class. They may have been with Paul in Rome specifically because their presence would help his case against the charge of taking Trophimus into the temple. That is to say, Aristarchus may have travelled to Rome with Paul precisely because he was more strict in his observance of the Law than others such as Secundus, Sopater, or Gaius. Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus-Justus, being the strict, will have spent much time openly with Paul and this explains why Paul sends their greetings before those of Epaphras, Luke and Demas, and it also explains why Paul says that they have been a comfort to him. Paul could not put in writing that the strict Jews were with him to help his legal case, but that could be one of the details that Paul has asked Tychicus and Onesimus to pass on in the immediately preceding lines (Col 4:7-9).

In conclusion, Col 4:11 does not argue that Luke was a Gentile, but actually supports the view that he was a Jew.

While the analysis above is consistent with the Pauline authorship of Colossians, it does not require it. I argued before that Jesus Justus was fictional.Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-7025991019658638062014-12-26T13:55:00.000-08:002014-12-26T13:55:12.565-08:00New evidence that Theophilus was from Philippi
Acts 16:11-12 reads

11 We set sail from Troas and took a straight course to Samothrace, the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is
a leading city of the district of Macedonia (πρώτη τῆς μερίδος Μακεδονίας πόλις)and a Roman colony.
I suggest that 16:12 is explicable if Theophilus was from Philippi and Luke wrote this verse to honour him.

πρώτη means "first", but in what sense? Luke is not saying that Philippi was the first city that Paul came to, because Neapolis was the first. Luke must mean "first" in the sense of "most prominent/leading". This presents a problem. Why would Luke honour Philippi in this way, but not other cities? Only Tarsus is similarly honoured (in Acts 21:39, where Paul says "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city"). The problem is particularly acute because 16:12 seems to exaggerate the importance of Philippi. Thessalonica, not Philippi, was the capital of Macedonia, which was divided into four districts. Amphipolis was the largest city in Philippi's district, and Philippi had only 5,000 to 15,000 residents (Keener p 2380). Why would Luke proclaim the importance of Philippi, a relatively minor city, but not do the same for major cities, such as Antioch, Ephesus, Thessalonica, and Corinth? Some have tried to solve the problem by suggesting a reading that is unattested in any Greek manuscript, but Witherington rightly dismisses this as a "step of desperation". Ramsay, however, attempted to answer the question by suggesting that Luke here is boasting of his own hometown (St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen p206-7):

The description of the dignity and rank of Philippi is unique in Acts; nor can it be explained as strictly requisite for the historian's proper purpose. Here again the explanation lies in the character of the author, who was specially interested in Philippi, and had the true Greek pride in his own city. Perhaps he even exaggerates a little the dignity of Philippi, which was still only in process of growth, to become at a later date the great city of its division. Of old Amphipolis had been the chief city of the division, to which both belonged. Afterwards Philippi quite outstripped its rival; but it was at that time in such a position, that Amphipolis was ranked first by general consent, Philippi first by its own consent. These cases of rivalry between two or even three cities for the dignity and title of "First" are familiar to every student of the history of the Greek cities; and though no other evidence is known to show that Philippi had as yet began to claim the title, yet this single passage is conclusive. The descriptive phrase is like a lightning flash amid the darkness of local history, revealing in startling clearness the whole situation to those whose eyes are trained to catch the character of Greek city-history and city-jealousies.
It is an interesting fact that Luke, who hides himself so completely in his history, cannot hide his local feeling;
This idea was taken up (in slightly different ways) by Witherington (1998 p489), Keener (2014 p2383), and Ascough ("Civic Pride at Philippi: the Text-Critical Problem of Acts 16.12" NTS 44 1998). There are three problems with the idea:
1. Philippi was not the author's hometown, for "we" occurs in 16:10, well before the group arrived in Philippi. Keener avoids this problem by suggesting that Luke is boasting of the town where he settled, not of the town of his birth. However, I doubt that people would boast of an adopted town, and Ascough's paper gives no examples of of such.
2. Luke was not interested in honouring himself. His work is anonymous and he refers to himself sparingly. On the occasions when he does use the first person, he generally uses the plural. Keener (p2373) writes that the use of the plural "allows Luke to avoid entirely the risk of self-commendation". Luke was keen to avoid drawing attention to himself. See my last post, here. Furthermore, the name "Luke" was a hypocoristic form of "Lucius", which was a Latin praenomen. It is testement to Luke's humility that he did not insist that others use his nomen or cognomen. See here.
3. Acts was not written exclusively for the church of Philippi, for other Aegean cities receive just as much attention in the narrative. Acts was probably written for churches in multiple cities, as Keener shows (p431-2). It would be undiplomatic for Luke to express civic pride in Philippi, for the purposes of honouring either himself or ordinary members of the Philippian church, if (as is likely) his audience also included believers from other cities, such as Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus. It seems unlikely that Luke would take sides in inter-city rivalries in this way.

It therefore seems to me that it is Theophilus whom Luke is honouring in 16:12. We know that Luke wanted to honour Theophilus, for he calls him "most excellent" (Luke 1:3). Luke's use of a dedicatee (Theophilus) works only if the intended audience knew Theophilus, so it is likely that most of them knew which town he came from. Theophilus was of high status and had probably performed benefactions for the churches, for example by paying for the production of copies of Luke-Acts. Luke's hearers would expect Luke to honour Theophilus, in accordance with ancient conventions concerning the honouring of benefactors. The audience of Luke-Acts were beneficiaries of Theophilus, assuming that he had indeed payed for the publication of the work, so they would not have resented Luke's rather exaggerated emphasis on the status of Philippi. Even today it is common to use hyperbole when thanking sponsors and other contributors to events, books, and films. It is not surprising that Luke describes Theophilus as "most excellent", and his city, Philippi, as first in rank. When a text is inexplicable to us, it is usually because the original audience knew something that we do not. I suggest that they knew that the sponsor of the text was from Philippi.

It seems, then, that Theophilus was from Philippi, and that he may have payed for the distribution of Luke-Acts among the churches of the Aegean, where he was known. This, of course, fits nicely with my view that Acts was written for the Aegean churches, where people such as Jason, Crispus-Sosthenes, Alexander, Tyrannus, and perhaps Pyrrhus, were already known (see here). It also fits with the data that connect Luke with Macedonia and with Philippi in particular. The author of Acts travelled to Macedonia with Paul, Silas and Timothy, but he did not proceed to Corinth, for his name is absent from 2 Cor 1:19 and 1 Thess 1:1. He may have stayed in Macedonia. He probably next appears in 2 Cor 8:18-19 (see here), where he is probably the collection representative of the church of Philippi, for there is no named Philippian in Acts 20:4, and there is every chance that 2 Corinthians was written from Philippi as subscriptions indicate. Finally, he travels through Philippi in Acts 20:6.
Luke spent time in Philippi and the church there came to trust him with their money, and one of them, Theophilus, trusted him to write a history of the church.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-3973750305580136812014-12-24T00:30:00.002-08:002014-12-24T00:30:43.362-08:00Craig Keener on the "we passages" of Acts
Craig Keener's "Acts An Exegetical Commentary" is a must-have for all those doing research into Acts. It has a particular emphasis on background material and, with four volumes, it is able to go into much greater depth than other commentaries. While I will go to other commentaries for quick reference and for text critical questions, Keener's volumes will be my most valued resource on Acts. He writes clearly and considers many sides to every question, and is generally cautious in his conclusions.

Particularly important is Vol 3 p2350-74, where Keener discusses the use of the the first person plural in Acts. He surveys styles of self-reference in ancient writings and concludes that when ancient historians used first person narrative ("I" or "we"), they did so to show that they were present at the events. The style of self-reference in Acts, Keener shows, is no different, except that Luke's Judeo-Christian humility prevents him from naming himself or using first person singular as much as other writers. Luke was a participant in the events where he uses "we", and he was probably also present for other events that he narrates (Keener thinks it likely that Luke was in Judea during the time of Paul's imprisonment there (Acts 21-26)). Keener's conclusions are almost identical to mine (see here), and he has the same concerns as I do about William Campbell's inferences.

I intend to interact with Keener on other issues in my next blog posts.

Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-61385689029511437262014-04-22T21:47:00.001-07:002014-04-22T21:47:42.128-07:00Edward Adams' "The Earliest Christian Meeting Places"

In this recent monograph in the LNTS series, Edward Adams suggests that the early Christians may have met in such places as shops, workshops, barns, warehouses, hotels, inns, bathhouses, rented dining rooms, gardens, watersides, open urban spaces, and burial sites. He explores literary evidence, archaeological evidence, and comparative evidence (meaning data on the meeting places of Jews, associations, and philosophical schools).

Some of the book is available online here.
Hurtado has summarized the book here.

Adams helpfully gathers together a lot of relevant data from a wide variety of sources, so the book is a valuable resource. However, I have some criticisms.

1. Adams claims that there is a consensus that the early Christians met almost exclusively in private houses (homes). His thesis is that this consensus is mistaken. The problem that I have with this is that it is much too vague to be useful. What exactly does Adams mean by "almost exclusively"? 99% of the time? 90%? 70%? He does not say. It is therefore not clear to me whether Adams actually disagrees with his opponents. Perhaps he and they merely have different understandings of what constitutes "almost exclusively". This is one of many cases were New Testament Studies suffers from lack of numeracy. Nowhere does Adams deny that the Christians met in private houses most of the time.

2. He does not make a clear distinction between meetings designed to spread the word to non-believers and meetings of established churches. Evangelistic proclamations will naturally occur in public spaces (e.g. the agora and Areopagus of Athens, Acts 17:17-19). Established churches, however, are more likely to meet in private houses for greater to avoid provoking hostility from the non-Christian population.

3. On page 13 he writes "During spells of persecution or intense harassment, to be sure, inns, restaurants, bathhouses, etc., are not really plausible as meeting places, but in such periods, even meeting in houses would have been difficult." and "the persecution of Christians was sporadic and local and not constant and empire-wide." Thus, Adams considers times when persecution was so intense that it was not safe for believers to meet at all, and times when persecution did not threaten at all, but he overlooks the much more common intermediate scenario. It is clear from the New Testament that there was an ever-present risk of persecution, but that the persecution was not so intense as to make it impossible for Christians to meet at all. Paul suffered frequent persecution (Rom 15:31; 16:4; 7; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 1:8-11; 4:8-10; 6:4-9; 11:23-26, 32-33; Gal 5:11; 6:17; Phil 1:7; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:2, 15; 3:4, 7; Phlmn 9, 13; Acts 9:6, 23-25, 29;13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:19-24; 17:5, 10, 13-14; 18:12; 19:26; 20:3, 23; 21:27-28:31) precisely because he proclaimed his message publicly in synagogues and public spaces. His converts suffered much less persecution (Phil 1:28-30; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 3:3; Acts 14:22; 17:6; 18:17), presumably because they took the precaution of not doing what Paul did. They met in private houses, and thus minimized the risk of provoking opposition. The relative lack of persecution of Paul's converts does not show that they had no need to restrict their meetings in private houses. Rather, it shows that they minimized their exposure to persecution by taking sensible precautions, such as meeting in private houses. Adams' logic seems flawed.

4. On page 29 Adams writes:

In 1 Cor. 11.22, Paul asks rhetorically, 'Do you not have homes (οἰκίας) to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God...?' In 11.34, he issues the instruction: 'If you are hungry, eat at home (ἐν οἴκῳ), so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation'. The rhetorical questions of 11.22 and the injunction of 11.34 would have less persuasive value if some th the congragants (the host and his family) were eating in their own house.
Adams makes a very important point there, and I am grateful to him for it. He is right to infer that 1 Corinthians was not addressed to a group that included a host and his household. However his is wrong to conclude that the church of Corinth had not host. Another option, which I have argued before on other grounds, is that the host and his household were Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who were with Paul at the time of writing and were therefore not part of the audience. So, while Adams makes much of this text, I am not convinced that he draws the right conclusion.

5. On page 72 he quotes the Martyrdom of Justin:

Rusticus the prefect said, 'Where do you (Christians) assemble?'
 'Wherever is chosen and it is possible for each one', said Justin, 'for do you think it is possible for all of us to gather in the same place (of assembly)?'
 Rusticus the prefect said, 'Tell me, where do you assemble, that is, in what place?'
 Justin said, 'I have been staying above the baths of Myrtinus for the entire period I have resided in Rome for this the second time. And I know no other meeting place except the one there. If anyone wishes to come to me there, I am accustomed to share with him the words of truth.'
Adams (p74) writes:

An intriguing feature of this passage, and one that is constantly overlooked, is Justin's claim, in response to Rusticus's questioning, that the Christians gather, 'wherever is chosen and it is possible for one'. The answer implies that Roman Christians at the time utilized whatever space (not just domestic space) they could for meeting purposes.
But it is important not to overlook the fact that Justin is choosing his words carefully to avoid betraying other Christians. If Justin had replied, "we meet in the house of Claudia and the house of Vibius", Rusticus might have raided those houses and arrested the owners and the congregants. Rusticus was not asking about meeting places out of idle curiousity. He was considering arresting other Christians. Justin answers the question as vaguely as possible. His statement "I know of no other meeting place except the one there [above the baths]" is surely not true, but we can assume that Justin expected Rusticus to find it plausible. This, and the fact that Rusticus needs to ask where the Christians meet, suggests that there was no well-known public meeting place of the Christians in Rome. They met in private houses, it seems. The evasion, incidentally, continues in the next passage, where Rusticus asks Justin's co-accused who had taught them the faith. When they say "our parents" he asks them "where are your parents". They disclose no sensitive information: Euelpistus says that his parents are in Cappadocia (which is convenient) and Hierax says that his parents are dead (which is even more convenient).

6. Adams (p74) makes much of the words of Celsus. Celsus discusses Christian "wool-workers, cobblers, laundry makers, and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels", who encourage children to go to "the wooldresser's shop, or to the cobbler's or the washerwoman's shop" to receive Christian instruction. Adams (p138) concludes "Celsus identifies the wooldresser's shop, the cobbler's workshop and the fuller's workshop as settings in which Christian instruction typically takes place." However, it is not clear to me how he differentiates the workshops from the adjoining living spaces. If the washerwoman wanted the children to come to her house she would surely still direct them to "the washerwoman's shop", for that is the landmark that they would know. In any case, Celsus is not referring here to the main church meetings. These probably took place in large private houses, but Celsus does not mention them because he is trying to emphasize that the Christians were of low social status.

7. Adams tries to show that the word οἶκος (house) is not often used in the New Testament to refer to an assembly of Christians, and he includes the compound οἰκονόμος in his analysis. He writes:

The term οἰκονόμος refers in the first place to a household manager or estate manager, but it could also be used for the holder of a civic office, as in Rom. 16.23, with regard to Erastus, who is designated,  ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως, or more generally for someone entrusted with management.
But Adams assumes his own conclusion that οἰκονόμος in Rom 16:23 refers to a civic office. If οἶκος = church, then οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως can mean "manager of the church of the city". That is to say, Paul could be describing Erastus as the treasurer of the believers of Corinth, as Justin Meggitt has proposed. Paul nowhere refers to the secular role of any fellow-believer, so it is unlikely that he does so here.

8. On pages 25, 26, 31, 39, 65, 95, 111, 118, and 131 he uses arguments from silence that seem week to me.

9. Adams does a fine job of assembling a lot of evidence that church meeting places were generally in houses. I therefore find it surprising that he comes down against the consensus view. From the evidence that he cites, I would have expected a conclusion like "churches met in houses at least 70%-95% of the time".

My assessment, then, is that this book is a valuable resource, but its conclusion is misleading. Leave comments below if you disagree.

Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-88798958726802514212014-03-15T18:57:00.002-07:002014-03-15T18:57:39.937-07:001 Cor 16:15-18, the cost of sea voyages, and the identity of StephanasStanford University has produced "ORBIS", a valuable site for calculating the cost of travel in the Roman empire. Thanks to Charles Savelle for bringing this to our attention.

Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus travelled from Corinth to Ephesus and back (1 Cor 16:15-18). According to ORBIS the land journey was 1473 km and would have taken 50 days each way. So if they took the land route they would have been on the road for 100 days each (300 days combined), with a commensurate loss of income. Even a labourer earned one denarius per day (Matt 20:2). The opportunity cost of sending three men by land to Ephesus and back was therefore large.

The sea route is only 453 km and took only about a week, but it cost about 65 denarii each way per person in the first century. It therefore cost about 390 denarii to send the three men to Ephesus.

Now, what does all this tell us about the purpose of the journey of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus to Ephesus? It is normally assumed that they visited Ephesus to deliver the Corinthians' letter, at the request of the church. But if this were the case it is surprising that three people were sent. Why would the Corinthians not have sent just one letter carrier by sea, costing just 130 denarii for the round trip? Why expose three people to the dangers of shipwreck when only one was needed? People did not make unnecessary journeys and the group of three men demands an explanation. No explanation has been given before, as far as I know.

All is clear when we accept that Paul had honoured Gaius, by giving him the name "Stephanas", as I argued here. The church meetings were held in the house of Gaius-Stephanas (Rom 16:23). It was therefore the role of Stephanas and his household to control the proceedings, but the meetings had become disorderly (1 Cor 11-14) because the church members did not show enough respect for their hosts. Stephanas and two members of his household (Fortunatus and Achaicus) therefore travelled to Ephesus to report the problems to Paul and solicit his support, which he gave in 1 Cor 16:15-18. Fortunatus and Achaicus accompanied Stephanas because they shared with him the responsibility of hosting the church and they too needed Paul's endorsement if they were to be able to control the unruly congregation.

The church as a whole did not initiate the visit of the three men to Ephesus. They went on their own initiative and the church merely took the opportunity to send a letter with them.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-9070075148147289842014-03-01T23:30:00.000-08:002014-03-01T23:30:43.188-08:00Continuity of leadership in Paul's churchesIn this post I argue that local church leaders tended to remain in their leadership positions and were not eclipsed by later converts. This helps us to discern the identities of several of Paul's co-workers.

Probably towards the end of the first century the church of Corinth deposed its leaders. Clement of Rome then wrote to them to urge them to re-instate their elders. The shock that Clement expresses in his letter suggests that it was rare for churches to turn against their leaders. Indeed, Clement's words imply that it was expected (and perhaps the norm) for church leaders to remain in office until death.

And as they [the apostles] went through the territories and townships preaching, they appointed their first converts (ἀπαρχή) - after testing them by the Spirit - to be bishops and deacons for the believers of the future. (42:4)

Similarly, our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full foreknowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of, and they went on to add an instruction that if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office. (44:1-2)

How happy those presbyters must be who have already passed away, with a lifetime of fruitfulness behind them; ... (44:5).
Continuity of leadership is not surprising. In the early days of the movement, those who took prominent positions within the churches risked persecution, so it is reasonable to suppose that they were dedicated to the cause. It therefore seems unlikely that the apostles, who appointed the leaders, would later replace them with other leaders.

Also, the numbers of Christians grew dramatically in the early years, and we know from the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp that Paul's churches continued to flourish. This suggests two things. Firstly, apostasy cannot have been common. Secondly, while divisions within churches were inevitable, they cannot have been so serious as to have jeopardized the viability of the churches. Continuity of leadership is therefore to be expected.

The first leaders of the early church were Peter, James, and John. It is no coincidence, I think, that these were the first, or among the first, disciples of Jesus (Mark 1:16-20; John 1:40-42). These were the "firstfruits" of the Jesus movement and they retained their leadership roles until they died, as far as we can tell. It may also be significant that when Peter becomes the first to declare that Jesus was the Christ, he is immediately appointed to a permanent position of leadership (Matthew 16:16-19).

The disciples decided to appoint someone to replace Judas (Acts 1:21-22). Their criterion is interesting. The candidate had to have accompanied Jesus since the time of the baptism of John. Only an early convert was suitable for the role. Now, it is true that James the brother of Jesus became the leader of the Jerusalem church even though he was not a follower of Jesus before the resurrection. However, he seems to have been given the leadership at the time when Peter had to go into hiding in ~44A.D. (Acts 12:17), after he had been within the fold for more than 10 years (Acts 1:14).

Acts 13:1 gives the names of 5 "prophets and teachers" in Antioch in about 46 A.D.: Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul. Barnabas was a believer already in the earliest days of the movement (Acts 4:36-37). Lucius was from Cyrene and was therefore probably among those from Cyrene who came to Antioch from Judea following the death of Stephen (Acts 11:20-21). He therefore probably came to the faith before Paul (Saul). Manean and Simeon had Hebrew/Aramaic names and Manean had been  σύντροφος of Herod. They were therefore probably not natives of Antioch. They may well have escaped to Antioch during the time of the persecution, along with Lucius. Saul's conversion had been in 35A.D.. Perhaps he is mentioned last because he was the most recent convert of the five. While we cannot be sure of all the biographical details, we can be assured that the group as a whole had many years of experience in the faith. They had probably all been believers for longer than the native Antiochenes whom they taught.

During the "first missionary journey" Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each church (Acts 14:23). I doubt that Luke would have gone to the trouble of mentioning this if elders such as these were appointed for only a short time and were soon replaced by others.

Paul's letters also show that it was considered an honour to be an early convert. In 1 Cor 16:15 Paul commends the household of Stephanas for being the "firstfruits (ἀπαρχή) of Achaia". Similarly Rom 16:5 celebrates Epaenetus for being the "firstfruits (ἀπαρχή) of Asia", and in Rom 16:7 Paul recognizes Andronicus and Junia for being in the faith before he was. Also, in 1 Cor 15:8-9 Paul shows that he was "the least of the apostles" by pointing out that Christ appeared to him "last of all". Furthermore, Luke honours his host, Mnason, by writing that the was a disciple of long standing (Acts 21:16).

It is generally acknowledged that Euodia and Syntyche were leaders of the church of Philippi (Phil 4:2-3). They were probably also among the earliest converts there because Paul writes that they had "struggled beside me in the work of the gospel". This probably refers to Paul's first visit to Philippi because:
a) the struggle referred to here may allude to the persecution that Paul suffered in Philippi at that time (1 Thess 2:1; Acts 16:22-23),
b) on the assumption of an Ephesian provenance Paul had visited Philippi only once,
c) the "work of the gospel" may refer to the evangelization of Philippi.
Therefore Euodia and Syntyche were probably early Philippian converts who had leadership roles there after several years.

In summary, all the data suggests that Clement was right. Those who were first to believe commanded the respect of later converts and retained their leadership roles. We should not suppose that new converts could attain positions of leadership in the church (except of course in new churches when all the local believers were new converts). Experience mattered. Being filled with the Spirit was not enough.

Implications for the identities of Crispus, Sosthenes, Gaius, Titius Justus, Stephanas, Jason, Aristarchus, Timothy, and Luke

We have seen above that prominent early converts were appointed to permanent leadership positions so it would be natural for them to be given new names to reflect their new identities and roles. Thus Jesus gave new names to his "firstfruits", Simon (Peter), and James and John (Boanerges) (Mark 3:16-17), in accordance with the OT practice of renaming those who were given a new calling. Did Paul, likewise, give new names to his "firstfruits"? I have made the case in detail on this blog and I will not repeat the arguments here. I will merely show that the observations about church leadership above lend a little support to the renaming hypotheses.

Crispus-Sosthenes
I argued in Tyn Bul 2005 p111ff that Sosthenes (Acts 18:17; 1 Cor 1:1) was Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14) renamed. He was an early convert in Corinth and therefore had the respect of the Corinthian believers. This, and his role in the conversion of many Corinthians, explains why Paul includes him as his co-sender of 1 Corinthians. His name added authority to Paul's letter.

Gaius-Titius-Justus-Stephanas
Gaius was the host of Paul and the whole church of Corinth (Rom 16:23), yet in Acts Paul preaches from the house of Titius Justus (Acts 18:7). It is often supposed that Paul used Titus Justus's house during his first visit to Corinth, but switched to Gaius's house later. However, our findings on the continuity of church leadership makes this less likely. This supports the view that "Gaius" was the praenomen of Titius Justus.

In 1 Cor 16:15-16 Paul urges the Corinthians to be submissive to the household of Stephanas, the "firstfruits of Achaia". Is he promoting the leadership of Stephanas at the expense of Gaius and Crispus? Again, this would conflict with the evidence that changes of leadership were rare. The problem is resolved by the realization that Stephanas was Gaius Titius Justus renamed (see here for the evidence), and that Crispus was Sosthenes, who was no longer in Corinth (1 Cor 1:1).

Jason-Aristarchus
Jason (Acts 17:5-9; Rom 16:21) was the earliest known convert in Thessalonica and host of Paul. He was Paul's firstfruits in the city and therefore, in light of our findings above, he probably became a leader of the church there. Indeed, Luke mentions him as if he is already known to the audience of Acts. This supports my view that he was probably renamed "Aristarchus", which means "best leader". See here.

Titus-Timothy
Acts 16:1-2 tells us that in Lystra Paul found Timothy, who "was well spoken of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium". Paul then appointed Timothy to be his fellow-missionary (Acts 16:3; 1 Thess 3:2; 2 Cor 1:19 etc.). Now, if Timothy was a resident of Lystra he could have been converted no earlier than Paul's first missionary journey. He would then have been a relatively new convert at the time that he joined Paul's traveling team. This is unlikely, given the importance placed on being a Christian of long standing. Why would Paul appoint a novice from Lystra rather than an experienced believer from Antioch? It is more likely that Timothy was an earlier convert and that Paul had sent him as his emissary to the churches of south Galatia, including Lystra. This explains why the believers in Lystra and Iconium commended Timothy: he had fulfilled his duties as Paul's envoy well. So, while Luke does not say so explicitly, the implication is that Timothy was in Paul's orbit in Antioch prior to the "second missionary journey". This supports my contention that he was Titus renamed.

So, it seems to me that the observations about continuity of leadership in the first century church strengthen the cumulative case that Paul gave new names to his prominent early converts.

Lucius-Luke
It is often suggested that Luke was from Troas, simply because the first "we passage" in Acts starts there (Acts 16:8-10). It is, however, unlikely that Paul would recruit someone who would have been so new to the faith. This supports my view, which I have argued on other grounds, that Luke had joined Paul's team in Syrian Antioch and had avoided first person narrative for the land journey for stylistic reasons. See here. He may have been Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1).

Let me know if I have missed any arguments, for or against.Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-32661154576380222662014-01-03T00:15:00.000-08:002014-01-03T00:15:31.261-08:00Von Lips revises his view on Titus-TimothyThe only publication to argue that Titus and Timothy were different people is Hermann von Lips' 2008 book. At the time von Lips understandably knew only my 2001 paper and the earlier work of Borse. I then addressed his points on my blog here.

However, in a 2012 book von Lips gives a very different assessment of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis ("Ohne den 2. Korintherbrief kein Titusbrief!" in Der zweite Korintherbrief. p160-174)". Most of this article is available at google books here. He gives an overview of biographical details about "Titus" and "Timothy" and presents many of the reasons for seeing him as one person, and cites a post from this blog. He concludes:

Wir können nicht definitiv klären, wie die Relation zwischen Titus und Timotheus ist, ob mit diesen Namen ein oder zwei Personen angesprochen werden.

(We can not definitely clarify the relationship between Titus and Timothy - whether one or two people are addressed with these names)
He gives two reasons for his indecision on Titus-Timothy (p167):
1. He finds tension between the circumcision of Timothy and the non-circumcision of Titus in Gal 2:3. He mentions that I offer a solution, but unfortunately he does not discuss it.

2. He is unconvinced by Borse's explanation for why Paul calls Timothy "Titus" when he does. However, Borse's explanation is not mine.

Even though von Lips does not properly explain his reservations about Titus-Timothy, this recent article is much better than his 2008. It is encouraging to see some engagement with my blog, and I think that this discussion of Titus-Timothy does indeed belong in a book on 2 Corinthians.

So we have now had four authors who have supported Titus-Timothy in print, and one who is undecided. No-one now argues against Titus-Timothy in print. So come one, you two-person theorists (you know who you are), you must either argue your case or abandon your position.

Also, Titus-Timothy has made his first appearance in a historical novel. You can download this well researched Spanish novel for free, here. Thanks to Xabier Aletheia for bringing this novel and von Lip's new article to my attention.

Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-67901141156510456652013-12-27T00:07:00.000-08:002013-12-27T00:07:12.543-08:00Hegesippus on the unity between Paul and JamesHere I argue that Hegesippus was a supporter both of Paul's legacy, and of James. This bolsters my view that there was no doctrinal division between Paul and James.

Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 4.22.7-8 tells us that Hegesippus was a Hebrew, and from 4.22 we learn that he travelled to Rome via Corinth:

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: "And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

This journey was in about A.D. 160 because Eusebius says that it was at the time of Anicetus. Hegesippus passed through Aegean churches such as Corinth. Presumably these churches had preserved Paul's letters and his legacy. Since Hegesippus was in agreement with the doctrine held by all the bishops that he met, we can assume that he was no opponent of Paul's influence. Indeed, his statement that Corinth "continued in the true faith" suggests that he believed that Corinth was already in the true faith, at least after Clement's correcting letter (and Clement was also a fan of Paul). So Hegesippus endorsed Paul's legacy.

But Hegesippus was also a huge admirer of James:

The manner of James' death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.3-7)

So, Hegesippus endorsed James too. It is therefore hard to believe that there was a lasting doctrinal schism between Paul and James, yet this seems to be the view of many. Neither Hegesippus, nor Luke saw any rift between the two men. The rift is created only by those who misread Galatians. See here.

Incidentally, Peter Kirby has an interesting post on Hegesippus. He suggests that some words of Hegesippus have been misattributed to Josephus by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen. I think this kind of confused attribution is very possible, especially if Hegesippus's Hebrew name was Joseph.

Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-4779163316811973842013-11-16T15:38:00.000-08:002013-11-16T15:38:43.721-08:00"Antipas" (Rev 2:13) as a symbolic nameDavid Lincicum has tentatively suggested that "Antipas" in Rev 2:13 could be a symbolic name. See here.

Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan lives. (Rev 2:13)
Lincicum provides three new arguments, which I now summarize:

1. The nominative case ending of Ἀντιπᾶς is odd, but is explicable if the seer wanted to draw attention to the meaning of the name.
2. The symbolism of names is very important in the book of Revelation. Consider, for example, the name Jezebel (2:20), which was surely not her birth name.
3. The name could be interpreted as Ἀντι + πᾶς, that is, 'on behalf of or in place of all'. Thus the name could signify that Antipas had died as a martyr on behalf of all the believers in Pergamum. This idea of vicarious suffering by Christians is well attested.

It should also be noted that the earliest Christians thought that those who showed exceptional commitment to the faith should have names with appropriate meanings (Phil 2:8-9; Matt 16:16-18, Acts 4:36-37, and Rev 2:17).

Now, if the name "Antipas" in Rev 2:14 is symbolic, it may still have been his birth name: it may be that the new meaning was attributed to his name following his demonstration of commitment.

We actually have 3 variants of the symbolic name theory:
1. He received the name (or its new interpretation) while he was still alive, perhaps awaiting martyrdom. Compare Peregrinus Proteus taking the name "Phoenix" in anticipation of his death.
2. The name (or just its new interpretation) was given to him after his death, but before the writing of Revelation.
3. The name was ascribed to him for the first time by John's revelation.
I don't know how to decide between these possibilities.

The Christian martyrs in New Testament times are Jesus-Christ, Stephen (which means "crown"), James and John Boanerges, Simon-Peter, Saul-Paul, James the Just-Oblias, Antipas, and Ignatius-Theodorus. They all received a new name, except perhaps for those (Stephen?) who happened to have been born with a name that already had an appropriate meaning. While we cannot be sure that "Antipas" was not his birth name, it seems likely that the church attributed meaning to the name. Lincicum is onto something.Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-91708533128976773002013-11-09T20:39:00.001-08:002013-11-09T20:39:57.406-08:00When did Paul first preach a gospel of Gentile liberty?According to Paul (and others), Gentile men who accepted Christ were part of the people of Israel without having to be circumcised. Now, I used to assume, with the majority, that Paul preached this message from the start of his ministry, soon after his conversion. However, a recent lecture by Gerry Schoberg has caused me to dismiss this assumption. His conclusions are a little different from mine but can be found in his new book, Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul PTMS190.

Thesis
The first preaching by Paul to Gentiles that we know about is during the "first missionary journey" in about 46AD, yet Paul's conversion was in 35AD. Here I argue that Paul did not preach a circumcision-free gospel during the intervening 11 years.

Evidence
1. If Paul had established Gentile churches in this time period Acts would have said so, since Luke is very interested in the spread of the gospel to Gentiles (see Schoberg p119).

2. We have no surviving letters of Paul to any churches that he established in this time period (see Schoberg p119).

3. The church of Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch after hearing the news of the conversion of many Gentiles there (Acts 20-22). If Paul had already established Gentile churches, why did Barnabas not visit them instead?

4. Barnabas found Paul in his home town of Tarsus (Acts 11:25), which is where Paul had gone years earlier (Acts 9:30). This gives the impression that Paul had remained there, perhaps because he had family and friends there.

5. The controversy in the church about circumcision arose only in ~48AD when men came to Antioch from Judea. If Paul had been establishing churches of uncircumcised Gentiles ever since his conversion in 35AD, why did the controversy not arise earlier?

6. Paul went up to Jerusalem (in ~48AD) 14 years after his conversion and presented his gospel of Gentile liberty to the church leaders there (Gal 2:1-3). He did so privately because he was worried that he had been running in vain. Why did he take 14 years to check that he had not been "running in vain"? Why did he not make an earlier visit to Jerusalem to discuss the issue? Why did he not present his gospel to them during the famine visit (Acts 11:29-30; 12:25)? John Chrysostom notes, but does not solve, this puzzle:

What is this, Paul? You would not consult the apostles at the beginning or after three years, but you now consult them after fourteen years are past, to make sure you are not running in vain? Would it not have been better to have done so at first, rather than after so many years? And why did you run at all, if you thought you might be running in vain?
 It makes little sense if he had been preaching that same gospel for all those years, but it is perfectly consistent with the account of Acts. According to Acts Paul had been on only one missionary tour before he laid his gospel before the Jerusalem church leaders. The Holy Spirit had commissioned Paul and Barnabas for that tour, so he had no opportunity to check that Jerusalem endorsed his message. His uncertainty about what Jerusalem believed would have been heightened when the men who came from Judea claimed that Jerusalem supported their view that Law-observance was necessary (Acts 15:1,24).

7. Gal 1:23 reads 'they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."' Now, the faith that Paul had tried to destroy did not include a circumcision-free message (Peter's Cornelius episode came later). Paul makes no distinction here between the faith that he proclaimed early in his ministry and the pro-circumcision faith of the church of the time.

8. Gal 5:11 reads "why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision". This may refer back to a time earlier in Paul's ministry when he had preached circumcision to Gentiles.

9. Paul wrote Galatians to counter the view that he believed in circumcision (for Gentiles). The Galatians were thinking that Paul preached Gentile liberty only to please the Jerusalem church leaders. See here. We can imagine how this misunderstanding could have arisen if Paul had not started preaching Gentile liberty until after the Jerusalem church leaders had come to support it. If, on the other hand, Paul had preached a circumcision-free gospel before anyone else did, then it would be surprising that he does not say so explicitly in his letter.

Conclusion
For the reasons given above, we can be confident that Paul did not preach a Law-free gospel until several years after this conversion. His missionary tour of Cyprus and south Galatia with Barnabas was probably the first time that he did so. It is likely that Paul did evangelize Gentiles in the early years, but he did not preach against circumcision at that time.

When did Paul first receive his circumcision-free gospel?
What, then, are we to make of Gal 1:10-12?

Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not according to man; for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul is challenging the rumour that he opposed circumcision in Galatia only to please men (i.e. the Jerusalem apostles). Paul therefore points out that he had received his gospel of Gentile liberty by revelation at his conversion. At least, that is how he interpreted the revelation in retrospect, it seems. Why, then, did he not preach that gospel from the start? Well, we know from Gal 2:2 that it would have been futile for Paul to preach Gentile liberty when the rest of the church did not yet support such a view. Paul could preach against circumcision only after the Jerusalem church became supportive of that view, following Peter's vision. The church of Antioch was the first to include Gentiles in large numbers (Acts 11:19-22), and it is interesting that at that time Barnabas recruited Paul to come to Antioch to teach (Acts 11:25-26). Presumably Barnabas knew that Paul would support the steps that Antioch had taken to include Gentiles.

I propose, therefore, that Paul received his gospel of non-circumcision (at least in some respects) at his conversion, but did not preach it until much later. Many will object to this. They will use passages such as Gal 2:11-14, 5:2-12 to argue that Paul was uncompromising in his opposition to circumcision and would have preached against circumcision from the start. However, they fail to understand that Paul wrote Galatians to correct the view that Paul actually believed in the need for circumcision. Paul takes an extreme position in these passages only to correct the Galatians' view that a) he believes in circumcision and b) he is writing only to please Jerusalem. Interpreters have become victims of Paul's rhetoric and have cast him as a heroic, principled, individual, rather than as a first century team player who belonged to a collectivist culture.

Imagine a parallel universe in which the rumour in Galatia had been different. Imagine that the Galatians had accused Paul of being a maverick who was stubbornly uncompromising and unwilling to collaborate with other church leaders. Paul would then have written to the Galatians to counter that misinformation. He would have given evidence of his close co-operation with the Jerusalem church, and subsequent generations of commentators would have come away with the view that Paul was a sycophant of Jerusalem. We cannot understand Galatians without first discerning the misinformation that Paul writes to correct.Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-70140077656859619282013-10-12T16:14:00.000-07:002013-10-12T16:14:42.020-07:00New arguments against Knox's chronology of Paul's careerIn his "Chapters in a Life of Paul" John Knox used Paul's letters to reconstruct a sequence of Paul's travels, placing Paul's evangelization of Europe before his visit to Jerusalem of Gal 2:1-10. While Knox's chronology may have fewer followers than it once had, it is still popular in some circles, and Robert Orlando appealed to it in a comment on my last blog post. In this blog post I discuss each of the three pieces of evidence that Knox calls upon, as well as the counter arguments.

Evidence that the council was after Paul's first trip to Macedonia

Knox's first argument: Paul's eagerness to "remember the poor"
Gal 2:10 reads "They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do." This request to "remember the poor" is dated to 48 or 49 AD and Paul's collection of money for Judea was delivered in 56 or 57 AD. This interval of 8 years seems too long, especially given Paul's eagerness. Why would Paul wait such a long time to respond to the request. If the conventional sequence of events were correct then Paul's Galatian readers would surely have retorted, "Well if you were eager, why did you wait so long instead of collecting money from us immediately after the request was made?". Knox's solution to this problem is, of course, to place Paul's Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10 after his stay in Corinth, and this means that the delivery of the collection would be 3 or 4 years after the request was made.

However, Knox is too quick to assume that the collection from the churches of Achaia and Macedonia was Paul's first such collection after the request to "remember the poor". He defends this assumption by stating that there is no evidence of any other collection in the intervening years (1987 p38-39). But there are 3 independent pieces of evidence that suggest that Paul collected funds from Galatia soon after the request was made.

1) 1 Cor 16:1-3 mentions a collection from Galatia. It is unlikely that this was to be delivered at the same time as the collection from Corinth, since Galatia is conspicuously absent from the donor provinces that Paul mentions in Rom 15:26.
2) Larry Hurtado has shown that Gal 2:10 itself suggests that Paul had asked the Galatians to give money to the poor in Judea (and that the agitators had taken this to mean that Paul was obedient to the Jerusalem apostles, which is a charge that Paul denies by saying that he had been eager even before he was asked). See my earlier blog post, here. Now, Paul does not encourage the Galatians to collect money in his letter and there is no indication that the collection is still on-going. It is therefore likely that the collection, to which Gal 2:10 refers, had been completed before the letter was written.
3) Titus was in Jerusalem with Paul (Gal 2:1-2) so he knew the needs of the poor in the church there. Titus was therefore Paul's obvious choice to go to (south) Galatia to organize a collection. The collection from Galatia therefore explains why Timothy (who's first name was Titus) was already in Galatia when Paul arrived (Acts 16:1-3) a few months after the conference. Paul had sent him there to arrange a collection.

It seems to me that these three arguments, in combination, show that Knox was wrong to assume that Paul made only one collection after being asked to "remember the poor". While Knox reduces the time interval from 8 years to "3 or 4 years", he is not able to reduce it any further. If 3 or 4 years is better than 8 years, then the interval of a few months, determined by my proposal, is even better.

Knox's second argument: The brevity of Acts 18:22
Knox (p49) drew our attention to Acts 18:22 where we are told simply that Paul landed at Caesarea and then "went up", presumably to Jerusalem. Luke's account of this visit is strangely brief, which supports Knox's view that Luke has taken the events of this visit and brought them forward to Acts 15. However, Luke is equally brief about Paul's visits to Antioch, Galatia and Phrygia in these same verses (Acts 18:22-23). What advantage is an explanation for Luke's brevity concerning Jerusalem if it does not also explain his brevity concerning these other places? And is the brevity really so strange? I have argued before that Acts was written for the Aegean churches. Luke focusses on a) the history of how the faith found its way to the Aegean churches, and b) events where he was personally present (which included not only the "we passages"). Paul's tour in Acts 18:22-23 belongs to neither category so we should not be surprised that Luke gives few details.

The Knoxians' third argument: "The beginning of the gospel"
Phil 4:15-16 reads

You Philippians indeed know that in the early days of the gospel (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), when I left Macedonia no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone. For even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me help for my needs more than once.
The Acts chronology places Paul's evangelization of Macedonia some 15 years after his conversion, which can hardly be described as the beginning of the gospel for him. Knox places Paul in Macedonia only 6 years after his conversion, and feels that this explains how Paul can write that he left Macedonia "in the beginning of the gospel". I, along with most commentators, think Knox misunderstood Paul's time reference here. The time interval between Paul's conversion and the Philippians' acts of benefaction is not relevant to the context. Paul is here praising the Philippians for being so generous even in the early days of their faith. It was the beginning of the gospel for them. It is interesting to note that Paul never asked any province to contribute funds for Jerusalem until a few years after their evangelization. For the Philippians to give to Paul so soon after their conversion went beyond the call of duty and Paul praises them for that. This understanding of Phil 4:15 is confirmed by verse 16, where he accentuates the same point about the Philippians displaying generosity so soon after their conversion: "For even when I was in Thessalonica....".

Arguments for placing the council before Paul's first trip to Macedonia
The Acts narrative is demonstrably correct about the sequence of Paul's journeys, especially in the relevant time period. Luke was a participant in many of the events, as were many in the Aegean churches, to which he wrote. They would not have been ignorant of the correct sequence of events.

It is impossible to cut Acts 15 from its context and paste it into Acts 18:22 without doing violence to one or both passages. Knoxians seem quite evasive on the question of exactly which events of Acts 15:1-16:5 they wish to move to after the evangelization of Macedonia. In Acts 15 Paul travels to Jerusalem from Antioch and is accompanied by Barnabas. In Acts 18:22, however, he travels from Corinth via Ephesus and Caesarea, and Barnabas is nowhere in sight. Indeed, Paul had already split from Barnabas over John-Mark, and Paul's split from Barnabas is the occasion for Paul's selection of Silas-Silvanus (Acts 15:39-40), who was definitely with Paul during the evangelization of Macedonia and Corinth. Furthermore the conference of Acts 15 is a past event by the time of Acts 16:4. The circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:3 must belong before the second missionary journey: why would Timothy need to be circumcised in time for the 3rd missionary journey but not for the second? Paul's Jerusalem visit of Acts 15 is simply too intertwined with its context to be a duplicate of a visit glossed over at 18:22.

Gal 2:2 reads "Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain." It seems that Paul needed the endorsement of the Jerusalem church leaders. Now, he would have needed this endorsement before his "second missionary journey", which was a mission the he led. Knox must explain why Paul would manage without any endorsement during his "second missionary journey, but then require that endorsement before his "third".

For me, a strong argument against the Knox chronology is that it places the events of Gal 2:1-10 after the text was written! I see Paul's letter to the Galatians as Paul's response to the confusion that resulted from his circumcision of Timothy (see Gal 5:11 for example). Paul would surely have cleared up that confusion when he passed through Galatia (Acts 18:23), so the letter belongs to the second missionary journey, not the third.

The Acts chronology is confirmed by the Gallio inscription, which places Paul's first visit to Corinth in ~51AD. Knox and, especially, Lüdemann hypothesize that Luke may be correct that Paul was brought before Gallio, but that it may have happened during a later visit by Paul to Corinth. This is a desperate move. Acts 18 is a unity rather than a conflation of events from two different visits. Sosthenes (Acts 18:17) was Crispus (Acts 18:8) renamed, and he had left Corinth by the time that 1 Cor 1:1 was written.

In conclusion, the Knox chronology has nothing to recommend it. Luke, even though he probably did not read Paul's letters, has written a better "Letters-based" chronology than Knox was able to do.

Richard Fellowshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-44537983730375458552013-10-03T23:36:00.000-07:002013-10-03T23:36:06.345-07:00Robert Orlando and I debate "A Polite Bribe"Robert Orlando has produced an animated movie about the life of Paul and especially about Paul's collection from Macedonia and Achaia. His use of movie to bring the subject matter to life is to be encouraged, and I am also appreciative of his willingness to engage in discussion. Paul's collections do not receive enough attention.

Please read Orlando's 11 page PDF e-book, which you can download for free here. In this blog post I dialogue with this e-book, expressing 13 concerns. Orlando has kindly responded at length, interspersing his replies in blue font below. I think Orlando here has done a good job at representing the views of many scholars. I will respond to his responses in the comments section.

1) The generosity of believers towards their fellow-Christians was clear evidence of the genuineness of their conversion. Charity was, I think, an identity marker for Christians, just as circumcision was for Jews.

Yes, but these are very broad generalizations: Are you suggesting that the Jews and the entire Greco Roman World were not known for their charity? An extremely Christian centric view of the ancient world. On the contrary Jewish diaspora was involved in charity for a long time prior to Jesus or Paul and the very fact that there were God fearers in their synagogues, was also sign of an outreach, though they understood these Gentiles would not become Jews. As for the Greco Roman world, there was a whole history of (centuries) movements including the Stoics and Epicureans, just to name two that followed systems of virtue, which included the reaching out to their fellow man/woman. Cynics believed that all men were brothers, were against war and slavery, and believed in free speech. They were called "dogs" because they lived a life of poverty in order to care for others, and though their forms of morality would have been different to ours, they were an outreach to others. Almost the hippies of the ancient world and some would say precursors to St Francis of Assisi and the later Monks. However, I digress. I think the discussion of the background of the NT would be impossible for this exchange. There are so many great books to read, but just see Luke Timothy Johnson's, "Among the Gentiles" or read Paul Sampley, Abraham Malherbe, etc

And extracting money from someone's wallet can be as painful as any surgical procedure. The delivery of money from Gentile Christians to Jerusalem may therefore have served to demonstrate to any sceptical Jerusalem Jewish Christians that God had really worked in those Gentiles and transformed their lives and allegiances. By this mechanism the collection might have created a greater sense of unity between the Judean believers and the donor churches.

Exactly, and one of the key points in the film. The collection had much more meaning than merely "taking care of poor people." The Jewish Christians and the original followers of Jesus needed to be convinced of the worthiness of Paul's gospel (revelation) to reach out to Gentiles without the need of Jewish law. Many were not. The collection helped because, along with providing pure resources, it also demonstrated, in light of the growing Gentile population, that the mother church remained in Jerusalem. The collection was something like a Gentile Christian Temple tax that meant they worshipped the same God.

This seems to be what Paul says in 2 Cor 9:13-14, "Through the testing of this ministry you glorify God by your obedience to the confession of the gospel of Christ and by the generosity of your sharing with them and with all others, while they long for you and pray for you because of the surpassing grace of God that he has given you."

Interesting that you would use this letter and section when Paul must also defend his collection(56AD?). I address these exchanges in great detail in my book in a chapter on the identity of the "Pseudo Apostles."
a) the accusers were claiming that Paul was using the money to persuade (bribe) the Jerusalem Apostles of his true apostolic calling. One scholar said bluntly that they were accusing him of "buying his apostleship."
b) the very idea that Paul could be accused of this is a sign that the other Jewish Christians Apostles knew this was NOT just a gift for the poor, but an act that held political power. If not, why try to stop it?
c) There is a much longer discussion here, but the fact that the trouble makers came with letters of commendation, from Jerusalem, according to almost all the Pauline scholars I cited, meant James was either "aware of them" or possibly even the one that sent them. Another fact that raises suspicion about how acceptable the collection ever was in Jerusalem. How much of this, after the fall out in Antioch, was solely Paul's own doing?

The term "polite bribe", on the other hand, implies that Paul expected the recipients of the money to be influenced by the self interest involved in receiving the money. What is the evidence that Paul expected them to be influenced by self-interest rather than by the donors' demonstration of the grace of God?

I think it is important to point out that a) Paul, at least in his own telling (Gal 2:10), did not offer the collection, but agreed to do, so in actuality it was probably James politely "suggesting" it as a solution to the dilemma he faced, between Paul and the Jewish Christian faction b) if we follow Paul's narrative after that point, there was no sign that the collection was ever accepted (Antioch 52-53AD?), and some scholars even suggested that the Jerusalem Apostles only agreed, so he would go away, a notion that is not entirely "off the charts" when we think of Paul's relationship with Jewish Christians upon his return (Romans15:30-33, 58 AD) c) I find it unrealistic, or even against common sense, that anyone, even divinely inspired, would not have to consider the material considerations (self interest) of their careers, and lives. In Paul's case, the money meant, at least temporarily, that James could keep peace with the other Jewish Christians and he could continue proclaiming Christ to the world before the end. For Apostle to the Gentiles, would it have not been worth a "polite" bribe, to save his mission, stay rooted in the Holy land, and possibly offer his new brethren to the House of Zion? I think so!

2) Paul writes, "join me in prayer ..... that my ministry to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints" (Rom 15:31).

For further info I have included the footnote from the book [1] the "saints" did not only mean the general body of believers, but those delegates in Jerusalem led by James. The term "saints" as with the term "poor", have both a general connotation, to the "impoverished" or followers of Christ, and a specific connotation to those Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem. With the Second Coming, Jerusalem and her eschatological expectations would be realized with James at the center, the role of the Nazarites was to be prepared for this day. Also, Paul would have known their self designation "the poor" when he wrote Romans 15:31, Keith Nickle, The Collection, WIPF and Stock Publishers, 2009, pp 138-143, for the significance of James in Jerusalem see, Richard Baukham, The Book of Acts in its first century setting, volume 4 Palestinian setting, Chapter 15 James and The Jerusalem Church, Eerdmans Publishing 1995, 415-480

You infer from this that Paul was anxious that his collection would be rejected by the Jerusalem church, including its leaders, because it came from uncircumcised men (page 1 with note 2).

To the modern ear I think referring to Gentile men as uncircumcised (alone) seems to trivialize the matter. Not that circumcision alone could not be a painful and life threatening experience, especially for young men who as a group bled more than others, but the procedure alone misses the larger point. Circumcision, like shared meals, and other forms of "marking" ethnic boundaries, was not an issue about foreskins, but about what group was in (with God) and what group was out. I hate to use modern references because they are never quite accurate, but I think a 1960s lunch counter in Birmingham Alabama is the closest we have experienced to what was occurring in the early conflicts between Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians. Jesus himself spoke to these distinctions with the Canaanite women Matthew 15:21-28 and later Peter in Acts 9. However, scholars like Richard Esler are quick to point out the important distinction between post 19th century ideas of "race," and the ideas of "ethnicity" in the 1st century. He explains,

  "The Greeks and the Romans were certainly ethnocentric; they did dislike other peoples, including Judeans and one another, but they did not do so on racial grounds. The basis of these entirely predictable stereotypifications was what I am here calling ethnicity, usually that part of an ethnic boundary constituted by a distinctive culture. Thus the Romans thought the Greeks were characterized by levitas, that is flightiness, lack of determination and grit. They found the Judeans antisocial, and hence misanthropic, especially because of their refusal to participate in imperial feast days. The Greeks found the Romans vulgar and lacking in taste. Philo probably mouths the views typical of Judeans generally when he says, 'It has been said that the disposition of the Egyptians is inhospitable intemperate; and the humanity of him who has been exposed to their conduct deserves admiration.'"

He continues,
"In spite of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism still exists in the world. The first step in meeting an evil like this is to understand it. Such understanding is only possible via a clearheaded investigation of phenomena in their own historical context, not by sloppy application of concepts appropriate to another time and place, however well intentioned."[i]
[i] Philip F. Esler, Conflict in Romans, 2003,): 52-, 53.
In light of this cultural background, the reader of scripture will witness a more severe, and volatile dilemma, very capable of derailing the early Christian movement, keeping some from participating in the Passover and later Sacramental meal, or as Paul would say, freely partaking of the "freedom" found in Christ. Yes, the manifestation of Paul's early conflict was the circumcision procedure and table fellowship, but its cause was ethnic division, how to maintain or dissolve with the new age reality of being "in Christ."

 I concede that "ministry" here probably refers to the collection, at least in part, given 15:25, but I have some concerns about your conclusion.

The point you are making is crucial, and I can only say that I studied NT Greek, used numerous study guides for my film/book, and a pile of New testament commentaries, plus completed 50 hours of discussion with modern scholars in Socratic style, to find what I believe to be a majority opinion. I also tried to make certain that the opinion was not stronger on one side or the other of the theo-political aisle. What I found was that when interpreting Romans 15:30-33, in the broadest possible context the scholars were convincingly in favor of two facts, a) that Paul was in fear of his life and b) that it was not only a fear of the non Christian Jews but it included (was linked to) Jewish Christian brethren. [1] Many commentators emphasize that Paul saw serious danger in going back to Jerusalem. See for example, C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, rev. ed. (London: A & C Black, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), 256); Leander E. Keck, Romans (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 367-368; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,, 1990, 108-128); Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,1980), 406-408; and especially Gerd Lüdemann, Paul: The Founder of Christianity(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2002), 42-43. The list goes on...

i) It would have been immodest for Paul to write "join me in prayer .... that my gift to Jerusalem may be impressive to the saints". He may therefore have chosen the phrase "acceptable to the saints" for modesty.

a) I think we are moving unnecessarily into speculation when we have the strong case made above. Moreover, I don't always think of Paul as modest, especially when his apostolic legitimacy is being questioned as it is in 2 Corinthians. When he has that tone of I"M HUMBLE I TELL YOU, I"M HUMBLE! b) And while he is being humble, Paul just happens to mention that he might have remembered himself, or was it another person?, being taken to the seventh heavens, and given revelations, so powerful for the human spirit that it required a "thorn." In my book, I interpret the word in light of Hebrew Scripture as "another person" who follows Paul around undermining him. In other words, he is basically saying to his opponent, I only put up with you because my spirit is so heavenly minded, I don't require your status seeking pettiness. Note* I am not mocking Paul, but only showing his exposed spirituality mixing with his humanity, which, for me, is what makes him so accessible.

When people give money they often underplay its potential impact by saying things like, "I hope it will make a small difference", when they actually mean "I hope it will make a big difference".

I think Paul feared for his life, but as Ben Witherington says in the film, was ready to face the consequences for going all the way to Jerusalem with this delivery to "do it right." He clearly did not need to. Luke has Agabus warn him beforehand, and Paul expresses in his response this very sentiment. (Acts 21:10-12) *** It is very intriguing to me that Luke mentions the journey AND the warning but not the collection?

 Therefore, isn't it possible that Paul was hopeful that the collection would be a spectacular success, but worried that it might merely be OK? How can we know that Paul was anxious that the collection would be a failure or be rejected?

We cannot know precisely, but if we roughly accept a time line sequence as, Thessalonians 48-50AD, 1 Corinthians 50-52 AD, Philippians, Galatians 53 AD, 2 Corinthians 54-56 AD, and Romans appx 58 AD, we find Paul's encounters with his Jewish Christian brothers to get progressively worse! If we simplify and hold to 2 pegs in the sequence a) the agreement at Jerusalem Council (49 AD) and b) the return to Jerusalem (58AD?), we can see a decline in Paul's confidence, though it seemed, given the original need for a collection, it was on shaky ground from the start. When I interviewed Troels Engberg-Pedersen, he pointed out that one of the reasons why the agreement (collection) ultimately did not work was because it was never fully fleshed out, but temporarily glossed over (my words).

ii) Why do commentators assume that the donors' foreskins were the only possible impediment to the triumph of the collection? Are there not other things that could have taken the shine off the collection?

Again, I think using the term foreskins trivializes the severity of the conflict. Re: Your point, one possibility I wrote about in the book was external pressures from Roman leaders in Jerusalem. In other words, those who might fear infighting or splitting, which might, with Imperial eyes, be construed as disorder and possibly leading to chaos. As a result the Messianic movement was being pressured to shut down and return to a stricter observance that did not allow Gentile participants. This could be the pressure James found himself under or perhaps He agreed with? I have read scholars that concluded both ways. Also, this notion of Roman pressure does concur with some of the the secular events of the times.

Perhaps Paul worried that the Jerusalem believers might think that the quantity of money, though generous, was not consistent with Jesus' radical teaching on giving. Perhaps he was concerned that there might be disputes about how he distributed the money. Perhaps the recipients might grumble that they had expected the collection earlier.
iii) Could you try to explain again why you think "the saints" here includes the Jerusalem church leaders? Is it not possible that Paul has others in mind?

Again, I think Paul's underlying central conflict with Jewish Christianity that informs the majority of His writings does not require any further speculation. It speaks for itself and with a rough time line, as I constructed above, we can see the progression, or in this case, the digression of the agreement on collection. You can read my review where Gager goes as far as to say that Paul's gospel was never meant for Jews, but was a Sonderweg, a second path, http://www.thepaulpage.com/reinventing-paul-3/

iii) Could you try to explain again why you think "the saints" here includes the Jerusalem church leaders? Is it not possible that Paul has others in mind?

I gave the references above. There are more, but I think what I have offered is enough to cover the point.

3) You write that the collection from Achaia and Macedonia, mentioned in Romans, was requested by the Jerusalem church leaders (Gal 2:10) (page3).

I did not write "Achaia and Macedonia," on page 3, but did cite Paul's words from Galatians.

However, even if the request to "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) refers to a collection (which is far from certain), how can you be sure that it refers to the same collection?

On your first point, I did not interview one scholar, or find one book, that suggested Galatians 2:10 was NOT a collection, but rather the collection that played out for almost a decade in Paul's life until he reached Jerusalem(58AD). The film and the book take the position that there had always been collections from Antioch to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, and originally for the great famine in Jerusalem, but this is NOT Galatians 2:10. This was a new collection, offered at that time as a "sweetener" to help Paul's Gentile Mission find approval. James, with the promise of the Gentile collection had a way to settle down the false brethren who had "wormed" into the room, no?

The request In Gal 2:10 was made in AD49 and the Aegean collection was delivered in AD56 or AD57. In Gal 2:10 Paul says that he had been eager, so isn't it unlikely that he would wait 7 years?

Paul says he was eager to carry out their wishes. I don't read that as "he was eagerly waiting to be asked to make a collection from the Gentiles??" First, he would have dreaded anything that slowed down His itinerant sharing of the Gospel and this collection consumed his time. Writing in Galatians, retrospectively, I think he was "eager" to offer a collection so he could find agreement and leave, with his apostleship still in tact. Let us not forget, he was called in because there was a real problem. The problem was what to do about Gentile converts who did not want to take the full step (circumcision) to become Jewish? If you we put aside the collection for a moment and its influence and consider what the resolution (agreement) was, it is bit mind boggling. They actually agreed to divide the mission fields! - Peter to the Jews, Paul (and Barnabas) to Gentiles. But, dividing the mission fields? Is this the solution to the new life of Christ now offered to "Jew and Greek" the message that Paul will proclaim in Romans1? This tepid consent, using our modern vernacular might better be described as an "agreeing to disagree." But, as long as the collection was in play, as a source of funds and symbol of Gentile Jewish Paul would remain yoked to James in Jerusalem. The exchange in this meeting raises many questions about who believed what, and where was this movement going, and who followed Jesus' original intentions?

We should consider the possibility that he called upon the (south) Galatians to give right away (in 49AD) and 1 Cor 16:1-3 does indeed refer to a collection from Galatia.

It is interesting that the Galatians do NOT contribute to that (new) collection, but is it really that surprising? Could their lack of participation be related to what happened between Paul and Peter, James and even Barnabas. Once, Paul was ousted, and the faith was turned into a more rigorous practice under James' rule, did they no longer follow the movement, and remain loyal to Paul, the Apostle who offered salvation free of law? Scholars have made this argument and though it is speculative it is plausible.

This collection from Galatia was probably not part of the collection from Achaia and Macedonia because the Galatians are absent from Rom 15:26. So why should we connect Gal 2:10 with the Aegean collection rather than with the Galatian collection?

As I mentioned above, I don't think they are the same. There was an early collection (40s?) that Barnabas and Paul managed in Antioch for the famine in Jerusalem. I read one scholar who said this might have been the reason Paul was sent Antioch to begin with. Paul begins his mission field work with Barnabas and eventually word returns to Jerusalem that Paul is NOT enforcing the Jewish Law on his converts, and a meeting needs to take place. a) this is strange, because what was Paul preaching that had not been agreed upon, and b) why was Barnabas not in trouble? Do you think Paul and Barnabas might have had slightly different messages? Do you think Paul's new gospel beyond Judaism, could be what called the break with Barnabas' and his nephew John Mark? It is only after being called into Jerusalem that Paul offers to break the stale mate and agree to "collect for the poor." If James was asking about Galatians, it would not have made any sense, because that is what Paul had been doing all along. Also, how would the Galatian collection had any impact on the conversation over Gentile Mission. The men there already knew about his work in Antioch. It would not have had any additional impact.The only explanation is that it was a new offering that opened Jerusalem to Paul's Aegean Crescent and beyond. Paul was responsible for this collection for almost the next ten years.

4) The e-book tends to assume that the leaders of the Jerusalem church were sceptical of the gospel of Gentile liberty. I have argued against this http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.ca/2011/10/how-acts-explains-galatians.html">here

. Have I missed something?

Unless one allows Luke Acts to cover over the Pauline corpus, and even then there are echoes of trouble, I think the central conflict at Paul's mission, letter writing, and even key theology (exception Philemon) is in defense of his ministry to his Jewish brethren in Jerusalem. And for very good reason! No we don't need Galatians to make the point, which is the most obvious example. Orthodox (non Christian) Jews and Jewish Christians, who fellowshipped in synagogue and Temple, were both deeply rooted in the worship and honor of the Temple. And there was no "separate church" of Jewish Christians outside of Jerusalem. They remained in synagogue, where they had always been. The "Godfearers" that chose to worship with them, were also in synagogue. Most of these Gentiles would not have chosen to be Jews and for those who did they would need to be circumcised. In the mind of Jewish Christians, even with the Messiah's appearance in Jesus, none of their Jewish beliefs would have changed. Jesus was the Messiah who came to fulfill Jewish destiny. As part of Hebrew Scripture, there are prophecies that explain the end times when the Messiah would come. When there would be a great invitation of all "nations" (Gentiles) to join the House of Zion, and the new kingdom. We don't know how much of the original Pre Paul evangelism had occurred before, but we know it was a very different message, because of how the Jewish Christians reacted to Paul. Also by Paul's own account his calling came directly from Jesus - no "man" was involved. Given this background, it was only a matter of time before Paul's message was going to stir things. a) If you follow Paul's words, there WAS no other gospel but the law free gospel and b) any other gospel, which, in most cases, meant the preachings of His fellow Jewish Christians, or gospel plus Jewish law and c) when they finally tried to create a "middle way" or compromise at the Council, it was resolved in part by splitting the mission fields and in part by the collection. And as I wrote earlier, the track record from Paul's letters after show a deteriorating relationship, culminating in the scene in Jerusalem.

5) You write "The very vision Paul described so joyfully in his letter to the Romans, that of God's grand scheme to save both the Greeks and the Jews, had from the beginning created a massive conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Christians" (page2). However, in Rom 15:15 Paul says that he has written "by way of reminder". His letter was therefore not introducing a new doctrine. The Roman believers had received the same teaching, presumably from believers who came from Judea.

Yes, Rome was evangelized by some one other than Paul. In ln my book (film) I'm arguing that though there were other Jewish Christian missionaries in the outreach to the world, preaching Messiah, that does not mean that their message was the same one that Paul is preaching. a) In Paul's mind, there was another gospel (with law) but it was "'false" and from "messengers of Satan." b) who else would have been traveling and preaching a message of Messiah plus Law, but the Apostles from Jerusalem or a group affiliated? c) Rome was known historically for having a thriving Jewish synagogue, so this was not necessarily a "beyond the synagogue," Pauline message. d) The argument of my book and film, and that of many scholars, is NOT that there were no other missionaries, but that Paul's mission and message were never fully embraced by the core of Jewish Christian leaders (James, Peter, Barnabas, etc) or believers. Paul's ability to work in and around this fact, was present when he wrote His letter to the Romans, because he still needed the support of the Mother Church for legitimacy, and, at this late stage, knew he might have to compromise. His rationale for doing so is possibly the argument behind Romans chapters 9-11. Paul no doubt needed financial support (Romans 15) and without Jerusalem, there is no Rome, and without Rome there is no Spain or "end of the world" and in essence Paul's mission would have ended.

Therefore Paul's gospel was not unique to him.

Given what I have stated above and from some of my earlier responses, I must reiterate, that from my analysis of the sequence of his narrative, I think the uniqueness or Paul's gospel, right or wrong, and the fact that it began with a vision and not from the collective authority of Jerusalem, WAS the central conflict in Paul's ministry and life. It's unique origin was why he at first did not go to Jerusalem. His unique message was why he ultimately felt betrayed in Antioch, why he felt besieged by the Apostles in Corinth, and why he needed to return with the promised collection to make the offering. The reason why there was conflict was NOT merely because it involved the technical procedure of circumcision, but that he was saying that "the gospel that I preach" that had been revealed to him alone was directly from God. It meant that God thru the Messiah Jesus was leading the whole world into a new age. One without class (master or slave) or gender (man or woman) or ethnic boundaries (Jew or Greek), and therefore Judaism as "he understood it" was being transcended, or no longer necessary. Those old dead laws, or their rituals, or practices, were no longer of use because of the surpassing power of being "In Christ. Though, all of the original Apostles believed in Messiah, I don't think the majority of them, or even many of them, believed that this movement entailed the ending of Judaism in quite this way.

We know from Acts 15 that some Jewish Christians opposed the gospel of gentile liberty and Galatians speaks of the same group. Apart from those people at that time, we have no firm evidence that any Judean believers opposed gentile liberty.

One of the basic building blocks of my narrative, supported by a majority of scholars, is that when we compare Paul's letters 50-60AD with Acts written perhaps 30-60 years after, we recognize they have very different (narrative) goals. Actually, Paul does not have a long term goal at all, with the exception of possibly Romans, and even with the great Epistle, still always attempted to meet contingent needs. Some, and I agree with them, point out that Luke had different sources, and different traditions behind his sources, and therefore could not match Paul's outlines or facts all the time. However, even offering these and other concessions, I think it is still odd and possibly even suspicious that Luke 1) does not mention what actually happened to Paul at the end of the story, that featured a great journey and even an arrival in Rome? 2) Mentions a final journey to Jerusalem to meet and reconcile with the Apostles, and find harmony with the greater community, motivated namely by the delivery of the collection, but does not mention the collection (though it slips out in Acts 24:17). Luke also does not describe the contentious relationship between Paul and his fellow Apostles, which I think should be the most obvious source of our curiosity. So, a) I don't think we can totally rely on Luke when it comes to discovering conflict in the early church and b) with the conflict of Acts and Galatians alone, one can begin to link a course toward some of Paul's broader struggles. Acts 21 is linked to Romans 15:30.31, which is linked to the collection that links to 2 Corinthians 8 and elsewhere. Galatians, in one fell swoop, links Peter, Barnabas, back to James in Jerusalem, it also exposes in graphic language and detail exactly how Paul defined the distinction between their gospels and the one true gospel which was his.

I don't think we need to hypothesize judaising missionaries from Judea to explain tensions between Jews and gentiles in Paul's churches.

Through my efforts, I came to the conclusion that it takes more exertion to hypothesize, or is more of "a stretch," to conclude that Paul's Judaising opponents were anyone BUT the Apostles from Jerusalem or their emissaries, though one could argue, James had more or less control at different times in the mission. Though there are numerous others, here is just one footnote supporting this perspective which appears in the section of my book on Pseudo Apostles, and offers the most comprehensive overview and perspective for favoring the above conclusion.

Paul in his defense reveals they are "Hebrews," "Apostles," aware of Paul's collection, and carrying "letters of commendation." He also refers to them possibly as Superlative Apostles, a name that sounds much like the "Pillars" of Galatians. If Superlative and Pseudo Apostles are the same group, they would also qualify in Paul's mind as messengers of Satan. In all likelihood Paul is writing of those in Jerusalem seeking to undermine him. No one else would have the authority to try to undermine Paul and be threatened by him, except those who had the only claim to authority that he lacked: the early Christians out of Jerusalem with their historical knowledge of Jesus. C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Black's New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1973), 30-31 and 277-78. In light of this, see mention of Paul's claim that he had "no room for personal rivalries: Michael Grant, 2000, 144.

In Rom 16:7 Paul says that Andronicus and Junia were "prominent among the apostles", and from the context we can assume that Paul meant this as a compliment. Rom 16:7 therefore implies that Paul considered that it reflected well on Andronicus and Junia that they were prominent among the apostles. If Paul had disdain for the apostles he would not have complimented Andronicus and Junia for being among them. Doesn't all this make it unlikely that Paul was in conflict with the leaders of the Jerusalem church?

Again, I don't see this as a either/or proposition, but a both/and. Paul did not need to "despise" everyone for the points above to have merit. I DO think Paul would have welcomed the partnership of most Apostles, if he felt it did not interfere with "his gospel." I believe, though some in the film have characterized his trip to Jerusalem as a brash "in your face" event, I also believe, Paul longed to see his Gentile Mission reunited with the Jerusalem Apostles, and that the collection, though of financial value was also of true symbolic meaning. The Gentiles were welcomed into the House of Zion and here, the collection, were their offerings to show honor to the true God. Paul hoped and prayed this would be successful, or His mission and message, in the eyes of his brethren, would not have been honest or true. So, again, showing cases where Paul sought out the fellowship of other Jewish Apostles or that he acknowledges his work or shared suffering with them (in prison) does negate the point that Paul ultimately stood on ground that was too far outside the comfort level of the Jerusalem authority and, although for a while they might have found a "tepid" compromise, He was ultimately rejected. It's not one or the other, it is both.

6) You assume that James allowed Paul to preach his gospel of Gentile liberty on condition that he remembered the poor (page 3-4). However, I see James as being fully supportive of Gentile liberty and I don't see any evidence that he would have restricted Paul's preaching if Paul had refused to remember the poor. I don't think there was a deal in that sense. Paul and the pillars found themselves to be in full agreement and no compromises were necessary.

7) What is the evidence that the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles had soured by 58 AD (page 4),

See responses above that link the Paul time line to the digression of conflicts between Paul and the other Apostles.

or that James, Peter, and the other apostles were ever "highly suspicious of Paul's motives" (page 5)?

For one clear example: Jerusalem leaders had sent emissaries to Corinth to disturb the way Paul was conducting his mission, and that meant the collection. These emissaries spread rumors about Paul's dependence on Jerusalem and accused him of embezzling the funds. And so Paul, who had been in jail for at least two years and maybe even four, who had been beaten and weakened from all his sufferings, was now forced to confront an all-out assault on his character. It must have seemed almost too much to bear. Paul had been thrown in jail and forced to work with his hands. He had had trouble in every congregation, so much so that he had had to write numerous letters from prison to prevent his congregations from turning their backs on him (2 Cor 11:5-11). See also some of my earlier responses to the sources and identities of Paul's conflicts.

Your assumption (page 6) that the Jerusalem apostles are the "superapostles" has been rejected by nearly all 2 Corinthians specialists.

We cannot know for certain if the Super Apostles were Peter or James because they are not named, though we can associate the tone of "Super Apostles" in 2 Corinthians with "Supposed Pillars" from Galatians." But outside that fact there are also two other reasons that make a convincing case:

a) the written commendations. It is important to point out that Paul offers in defense that he, unlike these Apostles, did not require letters of commendation (1 Cor 3:1-3). He said his converts alone were his commendations, reiterating his themes that the sources of authority for him came from God (in the work he did with Gentiles), not man. Philemon itself is a commendation letter. See Efrain Agosto, Paul's Use of Greco-Roman Conventions of Commendation (Boston University, 1996): Chapter 4, and J. Paul Sampley, 2003, 101., and b) While scholars have debated the exact identity of these agents we can make an informed guess based on the descriptions we have. Paul calls them "false apostles" (2 Cor 11:13) or "counterfeits of the real thing, dishonest practitioners" (2 Cor 11:15, Phillips). We know they were Jews, as Paul acknowledges in saying, "Are they Hebrews? So am I" (2 Cor 11:22). They also preach a gospel of "good news," a false gospel, but a gospel nonetheless. And, contrary to Paul's gospel, they wanted all Gentile converts to become Jews by submitting to the Law and to circumcision, raising the very same conflict that had caused Paul to bargain with Jerusalem.

 As for Scholars that support the position, in the APB film appears, Robert Jewett, Gerd Ludemann, Phillip Esler, to a lesser degree Paul Achtemeier, and others who might acknowledge the plausibility, but leave the 2 Cor 11's Apostles an open question. Here are some others in support of this perspective not in my film…

 C.K. Barrett:
On Paul [2003], Essays on Paul [1982] Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity [1989]

Michael Goulder :
Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth [2001], St. Paul Vs. St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions [1994]

David Sim:
The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism [1998]

Hugh Schonfield:
The Jesus Party [1974], Those Incredible Christians [1968], Saints Against Caesar [1948]

 James Tabor of North Carolina who spoke at our test screening in Raleigh: http://jamestabor.com/2012/11/05/did-christianity-begin-with-a-bribe-a-new-film-on-paul-a-polite-bribe-probes-the-question/ See, his book on, Paul and James

On our website, we feature an array of diverse voices that speak to the general tensions between the two factions (James and Paul) which caused the general hostility awaiting Paul and the delivery of his collection. A theme that will also lend support to the conclusion that it was the Jerusalem Apostles or their emissaries that traveled to Corinth in an attempt to stop Paul and his collection.

 http://apolitebribe.com/a-polite-bribe-sensationalized-hype-or-expert-opinion/

 For a historian's background to the conflict, see also Catholic Historian & Author of the History of Christianity, http://apolitebribe.com/excerpts/pauljohnsonexcerpt/

8) On page 7 you make the good observation that Paul was keen to go to Jerusalem in spite of the risks, and you ask why. Perhaps he wanted to ensure that the money was delivered and appropriately administered. Perhaps he wanted to spend time with friends, such as the church leaders, and with family members such as his nephew (Acts 23:16), none of whom he had seen for 4 or 5 years. Paul's desire to visit Jerusalem might reflect his good relationship with the church there, rather than his supposed need to mend a broken relationship with them. In any case, perhaps he felt that he was in danger wherever he went.

In order to hold this perspective about Paul and his final journey I think one would have to ignore…
1 - The warning from Agabus and Paul's words in Acts 21.
2) -- The contention as the very root cause in the Pauline corpus overall (Gal, Phil, 1 &2 Cor), and one of the main causes for His letter writing.
3) - The very words from the Apostle himself when he expresses how he alone held and preached the "true Gospel" and so vehemently defended it against the other Apostles, namely the earlier followers of Jesus.
4) -- Paul's anxiety about this trip (Rom 15), and Paul's doubt about the collection's very acceptance.
5) - The rejection of the collection itself and the odd way it was "laundered"(Jewett) by James to be made acceptable.
6) - The sheer violence of the crowd's reaction to Paul in the courtyard and without any sign of help from his brethren
7) - The fact that Paul was never visited in prison with the exception of his nephew after he heard about his murder plot.

Acts 23:16-17 - However, Paul's nephew got wind of this plot and he came and found his way into the barracks and told Paul about it. Paul called one of the centurions and said, "Take this young man to the colonel for he has something to report to him."

- I think it would be naïve to think that Paul would have in any way been casual about the preparation, visit, or aftermath of His entire journey!

9) Also on page 7 you ask why Acts does not mention the collection. You and I agree that the legality of the collection was questionable. If Luke had mentioned it he would have got the donors into trouble with the authorities and he would have provided ammunition to the opponents of the church. So couldn't Luke's silence be protective?

Yes, I could accept that, though that would mean to assume that at an earlier point, Paul was determined to be operating out from under the umbrella of Judaism , which would have otherwise made the transportation of collection of money legal. Possible, but we just don't know. I think the stronger argument is that Luke cannot communicate some of the more sordid details to his patron (Theophilus) because if would have besmirched the divine origins of the movement, and risked the seamless legacy from Jesus to Apostles to Paul, a faith destined for the entire world. Let's consider the impression that would have left. A movement that begins with two factions, and one faction is involved, to some degree, whether by negligence or active behavior, in the attempted murder of the head of the other faction, who have both made an agreement in your 15th chapter. Theophilus natural reaction would have been what happened? Why, if there was so much danger, and work to be done, in light of Rome and beyond, would Paul travel to Jerusalem? The only answer to this line of questioning is the collection. The collection is the link or symbol of all that went wrong, or as we say in dramatic writing the "MacGuffin." It links the Paul story to the Jewish Christian story, which in turn links to ancient Judaism, and without the ancient faith's acceptance, in Rome's eyes, Paul is not a sanctioned Apostle. Remember, the ONLY reason for Paul's return to Jerusalem, whether financial or symbolic, was to bring the collection. Strangely, Luke reports the Agabus warning, the transaction with the Nazirite Vows, attempted murder, even the after math in prison, but NOT the collection?

10) Your rejection of the famine visit (page 1) assumes that Paul is numerating his contacts with Jerusalem in Gal 1-2, but I have argued that Paul is merely arguing that he was not a sycophant of the Jerusalem leaders.

I do think Paul is making sure that he is NOT a sycophant, but pushing (both/and) further than that, he is also defending the origins of his legacy, that his revelation was not given to him by a human authority BUT by his vision alone. By making the point, he removes the question of true apostolic authority from the fixed limitations of geography, where others could ask, Paul, were you in Jerusalem with Jesus and the original movement? Did you sit and eat and learn from the master? How would you know what is the true gospel?

11) On page 1 you say that Paul only made 3 visits to Jerusalem (as a Christian). What evidence do you have against the visit of Acts 18:22, which happened after the time when you and I date Galatians?

We relied on the Pauline letters for our time line from Galatians and also the final trip from Rome, so when he first visits Peter (and James)(35AD), when he is called back over the Gentile issue (49AD), and finally when he returns with that collection (58AD). For more see also, Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul's Life (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979).; Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, the Founder of Christianity (Amherst, NY: Promethus Books, 2002), 59-62; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: His Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004): 1-31; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Doubleday, The Anchor Bible, 1998), 133-141. Note especially the chronological alignment with Junius Annaeus Gallio (Acts 18:1-17; 1 Cor 2:3). Also, for a chronology of Paul based on the progress of the collection, see Gerd Lüdemann, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (London: SCM Press, 1984), 80-92. And for an analysis of the collection's timeline as obtained from Paul's letters, see John Knox, 1950, 51-58.

12) On page 8 you suggest that Paul's Gentile mission may have required a "do-or-die" journey to Jerusalem. However, in 1 Cor 16:4 Paul seems to say that he might not even go.

Good point. Yet again, I think, in trying to highlight this one verse in 1:Cor 16:4 as a counter to Paul's desire to go to Jerusalem in Romans 15:30,31, ignores the larger context and time line. You're making another "either/or" not a "both/and" point. At the time, when Paul was making the rounds for the collection (with the help of Timothy and Titus) from the various cities, he might have felt that his priorities were elsewhere. According to our (APB) narrative, 1 Corinthians (from Ephesians) was written in appx 52-53 AD, 5 years before Romans, in 57-58 AD, so things would have changed. Yet, in between the time span of those 2 letters 2nd Corinthians, 55-56 AD, was written, a much more troubling letter, and one that still exposed deep conflict between Paul and Apostles from Jerusalem. As a result, we concluded, that Paul's turning point on absolutely needing to return to Jerusalem occurred after the incident with the Super/Pseudo Apostles. It was this confrontation that made it clear that Paul's Apostleship was still quite vulnerable to the ridicule from Jerusalem and He had to make things right, which meant completing the collection and showing up in person. He needed once and for all to clear up matters with the mother church before he could move beyond the Aegean, farther west, to Rome, to gain support, and eventually reach Spain.

I think that argument is a solid one because it offer a genuine motivation to return that earlier might not have been there (1 Cor 16: 4), and that frankly would have justified a trip that costs Paul a lot of time and money, not to mention the risking of his life. But, if that is not convincing enough, and we need more proof of Paul's intention to go back to Jerusalem, we only need to read his own words to Agabus in Acts 21 who tried to stop him.

 10 While we were staying there for several days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 He came to us and took Paul's belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'" 12 When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." 14 Since he would not be persuaded, we remained silent except to say, "The Lord's will be done."15 After these days we got ready and started to go up to Jerusalem.

13) There are some chronological errors that can be corrected without effecting the thesis. Page 8 contradicts page 6 and places 4 years between the writing of 2 Corinthians and Romans, which is hardly possible. Why would Paul wait 4 years before delivering his collection?

Yes, we caught that in a later draft, after we finalized the dates for the time line. I will put up new version asap – thanks.

On page 1 you say that Paul was well over 60 years old in AD58. However, most commentators assume, on the basis of Gal 1:13-14, that Paul was born in the common era.

Another correction we made later, that is not in this earlier version. We use the appx 0-5AD for his birth, which meant he was "approaching 60." - thanks

You also say that Paul had been doing missionary tours for "3 decades" by AD58. This would put Paul's conversion before the crucifixion!

Another correction in language made later. I meant his tours had covered 3 different decades 30s, 40's, and 50's, not literally lasting for 30 years. – Thanks again for the free edits. We could have used you much earlier!
And thanks again for the opportunity to respond to your thoughtful and insightful questions. My hope is that, beyond the valuable exercise of debating to find the most accurate perspective, these types of exchanges would open a new conversation to a broader audience, largely unaware of many of the "shared" facts about the story of the Apostle Paul and the early Church!Richard Fellowshttp://email@example.com