|
Methodology involves how we get our answers, and in this
case it is a
question of how we arrive at a chronology of Paul’s career. A
defective methodology tends to produce defective answers; a good
methodology consistently applied tends to lead to good answers—not
infallible, but at least improvable, answers.
 | In trying to put together the pieces of Paul’s career, as
much as in understanding his teachings, good methodology gives
pride of place to the letters, which are primary sources. |
| Good methodology recognizes Acts as an important work of early
Christian edification, but declines to employ material from
Acts, a secondary source. This exclusive use of the letters is
not a matter of ideological zeal, but of methodological caution,
in an attempt to ensure clean results. The reasons for leaving
Acts to one side are provided in Acts as a Source (1)
to
(4). |
| A methodology based exclusively upon the letters provides abundant
material for understanding Paul and his career, without
resorting to harmonization of our sources, i.e. accommodating
Acts to the letters, or (worse) accommodating the letters to
Acts. Little is to be gained by a premature combination of two
different fields of data. |
Almost a century ago, B. W. Bacon warned
against the “obsolete harmonistic method which sacrifices the
individual intention of the sources considered separately to the
dogma of inerrancy” (Bacon 1907:454). Even if the doctrine of
inerrancy may not be quite the controlling factor which it was
earlier, the accommodation of sources to one another still
flourishes, in a mood of methodological complacency. But surely it
is a superior procedure first to do a letters chronology, or
chronologies (see Summary
Chart #4, for a sequential
letters summary) and then go on to an Acts chronology (see Chart
of an Acts Chronology) before we assess what each can contribute
to our knowledge of Paul and early Christianity.
Making due allowance for an author’s perspective and
purpose
In giving priority to the letters, we are not talking about impartial biography or
history; Paul is
very much the partisan, and surely puts his own spin on events which
he recounts. But “this does not necessarily relativize the information from
the letters, so as to leave us without any useful information”
(Bercovitz 1989,179; click on Chronologies). For example, when writing Galatians Paul must have known that his case would be weakened if
he misrepresented the events which he describes, and he seems to have certified
the accuracy of his report with an oath (Galatians 1:20). In any
case, the letters are relatively more reliable than Acts.
Identifying the Principal Structural Elements
These are supplied by:
| The use of just the seven certainly authentic letters; see The
Pauline Legacy. |
| Three Jerusalem visits, and the time intervals of three and fourteen years which
lead up to the first and second visits. |
| Founding missions, in four great centers or
areas (instead of three missionary journeys with a long list of
stopping places). |
| The various stages of the Jerusalem collection. |
| The stages in Paul’s developing relations with his congregations
(see Hurd 1965/1983; click on Origin). |
Working Inductively from Smaller Units
These micro-sequences are established by:
| Collecting anecdotal material from individual letters, including
work on the collection, travel plans, self support, and letter writing. |
| Identifying stages of his relations with churches, such as the founding mission,
a problem or crisis which he learns about, the letter, and sometimes
a post-letter situation. |
Stitching the Pieces Together
The macro-sequence is of course established by assembling the micro-sequences.
For the most part, the connections are provided by information in the
letters: Philippi to Thessalonica to Achaia; or Ephesus to Troas to
Macedonia. In other cases, we work with probabilities: Syria-Cilicia
to Galatia to Macedonia, for the founding missions. The order of
certain letters emerges rather early in the process (one may refer
to the programmatic essay of Hurd 1965:225-48):
» 1 Thessalonians
» 1 Corinthians (Letter L)
» 2 Corinthians 1 – 9 (Letter R)
» Romans
The location of Philippians and Philemon between Letters L
and R is dependent upon the hypothesis of an Ephesian
imprisonment.1 The position of Galatians and of 2 Corinthians 10 –
13 (Letter H) remains less certain. Arguably, Galatians may
be placed after Letter L (1 Corinthians);2 and
Letter H (2 Corinthians 10 – 13), just prior to
Letter R (2 Corinthians 1 – 9).3 The resulting order is as
follows:
» 1 Thessalonians
» 1 Corinthians (Letter L)
» Galatians
» Philippians
» Philemon
» 2 Corinthians 10 – 13 (Letter H)
» 2 Corinthians 1 – 9 (Letter R)
» Romans
1The case for an Ephesian imprisonment is argued in Philippians and Ephesus (2).
2Click on Ephesian Headquarters (4).
3One may consult The X-Letter in 2 Corinthians (a)
to (c).
It needs to be added that an indispensable criterion in the process
of assembling the micro-sequences is the avoidance of time
compression; e.g., one must allow sufficient time for travel, as
well as for settled work during a
founding mission. (Click on freedom
from time compression.)
Needless to say, a letters chronology does not solve all the
problems of Pauline chronology, but it does clear the ground so that
the alternatives listed below (and others which might be mentioned) can be addressed with sound procedures.
These variables are addressed for the most part in one or another of the
special essays which may be found in Author’s
Workshop, and in Special
Topics. The results of these essays are incorporated into the five studies
found in Main Tent.
The “Fallibility Principle”
John R. Watson lays out an impressive methodology for conserving
historic pipe organs, and he illustrates these principles with three
case studies ranging from restoring a [tuning] temperament to
reconstructing a hand pumping mechanism. In his discussion of
minimum intervention, he writes (Watson 2002, 28):
Conservation proceeds from an assumption of the practitioner’s
own fallibility. Because hindsight frequently judges past
restorations harshly, we have learned the importance of designing
restorative alterations that are “reversible” . . . . The
fallibility principle also explains the importance of
cross-disciplinary collaboration between colleagues and allied
professionals. Pride and the defense of professional turf can stand
in the way of collaboration. In restoration, one of two things will
usually be diminished. Either it will be the ego of the
practitioner, or it will be the historic integrity of the organ; only
the former can heal itself.
The fallibility principle is built into the methodology being
advocated in As Paul Tells It . . . In this work, we have
recognized from the outset that our presuppositions, arguments and
evidence must be transparent, and subject to correction with better
arguments and evidence. There are enough variables in the process
of putting this kind of chronology together that the
conclusions offered, though well tested, have
a tentative character which invites comment and improvement (visit Conversation
on Paul).
A Chronology Without Dates?
Readers may find a chronology without dates curious. What is
being offered here is not an absolute chronology, but a relative
chronology, which attempts to establish the proper sequence of
events and writings. Those who work with such a chronology will
discover it to be a useful way of keeping track of comings and
goings, crises, and the apostle’s response to these problems. The
letters offer almost nothing by way of synchronisms with externally
datable events. Paul’s career fits in during the period between the
crucifixion of Jesus (about A.D. 30) and the persecution under Nero
(about A.D. 64), or possibly later.
The Aretas Datum. Paul does mention his escape from arrest in Damascus by the ethnarch
of the Nabatean king, Aretas IV (2 Corinthians 11:32-33),
but this reference is not as helpful as one might wish.
(a) One problem is that we have (so far
as this writer knows) no direct evidence of Nabatean control of
Damascus during this period except from this reference in Paul. Nabatean control is
possible so far as external sources are concerned, but not proven.
(b) It is uncertain whether Aretas controlled Damascus directly, or
only through his ethnarch. (c) While it has been plausibly argued
that Nabatean control would have been unlikely before the death of
the emperor Tiberius in A.D. 37, not all are convinced. (d) The
death of Aretas IV is variously dated as early as 38, and as late as
40. Recognizing the uncertainty which exists, we shall adopt as a
working hypothesis the view that the Aretas episode took place as
early as 37 and as late as 40.
If we suppose that this episode was the occasion for Paul’s
first Jerusalem visit, we might conclude that he made
this visit some time between 37 and 40. We could then date the
second Jerusalem visit (fourteen years later) as early as 51 (or 50, using an inclusive
reckoning), or as late as 54. But it is evident that, even if a
particular combination of uncertainties was correct, precision in
dating would still elude us. Further, even if precision were
possible, what difference would it make for the interpretation of
the letters? The answer is, Little or no difference. A relative chronology is quite adequate for the
purposes of exegesis. What is the benefit of “knowing” that Galatians was
written in the year 53 rather than 56? There are more important
problems to worry about (see above, for the list of “variables”
needing attention). On the whole, then, we have more to gain by
striving for a reliable relative chronology than in trying to
establish synchronisms of dubious ancestry for absolute dating.
The Results
The relative chronology which results from the procedures
outlined above has been laid out in the five studies in Main Tent,
and displayed in Summary Chart #4; see Closing Months (5).
The principal unfinished business is to address the question of Pre-Conference
Founding Missions, in the next page.
|
| Revised March 14, 2003
|
Click Next
button below to continue, A Letters Chronology (2).
|
|
  
|
|
