tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post934894569498769471..comments2023-06-15T09:41:19.355-05:00Comments on NT/History Blog: Timeline of New Testament EventsBill Heromanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-51122657375332628542010-07-01T20:01:04.983-05:002010-07-01T20:01:04.983-05:00That does help. Thanks for taking time to explain...That does help. Thanks for taking time to explain. I'm warming up to the view, I just need to take some time to really look at it and consider it from all angles.Josh Lhttp://jlawson23.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-89944341471618386522010-06-28T21:52:21.524-05:002010-06-28T21:52:21.524-05:00Is that convincing? It is *IF* Paul died in 64.
...Is that convincing? It is *IF* Paul died in 64.<br /><br /><i>*IF* (not is)</i>Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-54740075098425679092010-06-28T21:51:05.724-05:002010-06-28T21:51:05.724-05:00Handing off 1st Tim in Troas, Paul would indeed be...Handing off 1st Tim in Troas, Paul would indeed be coming soon - about a week later, in fact - although he wound up skipping Ephesus and settling for the beach at Miletus.<br /><br />Actually, the most likely correlation to "when I went into Macedonia" has always been Acts 20:1, but commentators usually say there was not enough "time" between verse 1 and verse 5 [for circumstances to arise necessitating the letter]. <br /><br />Other major objections are that Timothy himself had just gone into Macedonia at 19:22, and that Timothy's name also graces the address of 2nd Corinthians (written somewhere between 20:1 & 20:5, from Macedonia).<br /><br />In the Pauline Chronology post, the main argument I gave for my position on 1st Timothy was based on the tighness necessitated by those given paramenters, at the top of the post. If Paul dies in 64, you pretty much have to squeeze a lot into Acts 20:1-5. As it happens, however, that tiny passage covers an immense amount of travel, and thus a large amount of time.<br /><br />Paul had to travel by foot down the Via Egnatia, all the way to the Adriatic, found a church in Dyrrachium, walk back to Macedonia, probably at Thessalonica, and then write to Corinth. <br /><br />Timothy has to be with Paul in Macedonia on his return from Illyricum, and with Paul shortly thereafter at his departure from Corinth.<br /><br />If Timothy returned to Ephesus just before Paul left (or just after, for that matter, providing they met up somewhere in Macedonia), then Ephesus easily gets a year, year-and-a-half in between 20:1 & 20:5.<br /><br />That's 1+ years for Ephesus with no Paul, during which time Timothy tries taking over the church planting duties with scarcely a say-so from Paul, and perhaps not a public say-so at all. That's more than enough time for Timothy to lose all control to the usurpers, despair, and then run to Thessalonica (ironically, like he used to run from Thess to Corinth) to get help from Paul.<br /><br />Paul finds Timothy in Thessalonica, writes the letter, and they go down together to Corinth, before leaving separately for Troas.<br /><br />Is that convincing? It is is Paul died in 64.<br /><br />Ironically, however, the main justification others use for dating Paul's death to 68 is that they need to squeeze in 'the pastorals'. <br /><br />My first contention is that those folks haven't looked hard enough at the trip to Illyricum. My second is that it makes more sense to pack in the data we DO have than to invent tons of data we DON'T have (for a hypothetical fifth journey of Paul) just to fill in a few extra years which are honestly necessitated by nothing.<br /><br />I guess I should do a whole post on that sometime. This doesn't really count. But thanks for making me get it down here.<br /><br />Did that help?Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-45251355376360757552010-06-28T19:44:37.026-05:002010-06-28T19:44:37.026-05:00I read both the posts but I'm still not sure h...I read both the posts but I'm still not sure how you've arrived so squarely at that conclusion. Is it just because you find no real evidence for the later view, and since the record in Acts seems (somewhat) to correlate with the details given in Paul's letter to Timothy that you place it so early? In the letter Paul talks more than once about coming to Timothy soon. But in Acts it is Timothy who ends up coming to Paul, isn't it (after his departure from Ephesus, that is)? Or do you think maybe circumstances just worked out differently than Paul had planned?Josh Lhttp://jlawson23.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-79193027301967817402010-06-27T23:00:22.682-05:002010-06-27T23:00:22.682-05:00Put Timothy and Troas into my search bar, Josh, an...Put Timothy and Troas into my search bar, Josh, and you'll get a sack full of posts. The best among them might be <a href="http://www.billheroman.com/2009/11/pauline-chronology.html" rel="nofollow">Pauline Chronology</a> and the most interesting might be <a href="http://www.billheroman.com/2009/09/appointing-elders-barnabas-vs-paul_01.html" rel="nofollow">Appointing Elders: Barnabas vs. Paul</a>.<br /><br />Feel free to comment here, there or anywhere with more questions or other feedback. Thanks for reading.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-28372485437097157222010-06-27T21:59:14.083-05:002010-06-27T21:59:14.083-05:00At the moment I am personally interested in your p...At the moment I am personally interested in your placing of 1 Timothy. Care to elaborate a bit on why you place it when you do, especially the part about Paul handing it to Timothy himself? Or at least point me to a previous post where you've already dealt with this matter.Josh Lhttp://jlawson23.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com