Paul and the first missionary journey

s1n4m1n · Mon Jan 09, 2006 - 22:39:39

Here is a suggestion, based on archeological evidence, that Paul's first missionary journey occured on or before 37AD. This from D. A. Campbell writing in the Journal of Theological Studies:

A re-examination of an inscription found in Chytri on Cyprus suggests a possibly highly significant, though challenging, piece of further evidence for the reconstruction of Paul's life. This evidence is fragile because the inscription is very partial, but certain concrete considerations previously not remarked on suggest restoring the emperor's name in line 9 as Tiberius, and that of the Roman citizen in line 10 as Quintus Sergius Paul[l]us. Quintus Sergius was also probably the island's governor. It would follow from this restoration—which must be treated with appropriate caution—that Paul's 'first missionary journey', as recounted in Acts 13–14, took place during or before 37 CE, the year of Tiberius' death. This is roughly ten years earlier than is usually thought to be the case, although it is by no means impossible in absolute terms. This conclusion renders the strictly sequential—and foundational—use of information from Acts for the reconstruction of Paul's life highly problematic.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the article. Anybody out there with access to the journal that could read it and summarize it.

Ken

Skip · Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 13:45:04

A web search on several of the keywords doesn't yield much of anything.
The link you provided is dead today, even though I confirmed it with Google.

s1n4m1n · Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 14:19:23

Here a link to the photo of the inscription:

Sergius Paulus

The implication is that if Sergius Paulus is tied to the reign of Tiberius Caesar (who died in 37AD) then the "first missionary journay" of Paul occured about 10 years earlier than previous thougth. The main problem, I think, is that it would throw a little kink in the chronology of Acts.

Ken

DCR · Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 14:31:35

QuoteThe main problem, I think, is that it would throw a little kink in the chronology of Acts.

I would be curious to know the specifics.

But, I suspect that sometimes we make assumptions of precise chronological order in Scripture where it was not necessarily intended. The full name of Luke's writing is "Acts of the Apostles." The title suggests that it is a collection of stories about the apostles... an incident with Peter and John here... a story about Paul and Barnabas there. Then, we have stories about Stephen, Phillip, etc.

I think we can assume that it is generally in chronological order (starting with Jesus' departure from the apostles and ending with Paul's captivity in Rome). But, it wouldn't bother me if turns out that some of the events in between were not necessarily in chronological order.

Skip · Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 14:51:09

Regarding chronology, I suppose is would be no more bothersome than the sometimes-inconsistent chronology between Gospel accounts.
The order of the temptations of Christ comes to mind.

s1n4m1n · Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 14:55:29

One thing is that it would make Paul a very early convert. I think it would even put the conversion of Cornelius after Paul's first missionary journey.

What would be so special about Cornelius' conversion if Paul was already converting Gentiles for years?

marc · Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 20:29:11

If this is true, it would increase the possibility that Paul had physically met and confronted Jesus along with the other Pharisees, which is a possibility I've wondered about before anyway.

Skip · Wed Jan 11, 2006 - 07:26:29

QuoteOne thing is that it would make Paul a very early convert. I think it would even put the conversion of Cornelius after Paul's first missionary journey.

What would be so special about Cornelius' conversion if Paul was already converting Gentiles for years?

It's been a while since I've looked at a timeline chronology for the book of Acts (which rests on the date of the death of Christ).

DCR · Wed Jan 11, 2006 - 08:11:24

Just curious (without looking it up): when Paul writes in Galatians about his difference with Peter on the question of Gentiles and circumcision, where does that incident fall in the book of Acts... before Cornelius or after?

Lee Freeman · Fri Jan 13, 2006 - 16:30:48

QuoteJust curious (without looking it up): when Paul writes in Galatians about his difference with Peter on the question of Gentiles and circumcision, where does that incident fall in the book of Acts... before Cornelius or after?

I think it corresponds to roughly the time of the events in Acts chapter 15, though I could be wrong about that. After the Jerusalem Council when Paul was sent to Antioch.

Pax.

charlie · Thu Feb 02, 2006 - 14:15:23

What if the order of events went something like this:

1. conversion of Saul
2. Saul goes to Jerusalem and finally Tarsus
3. Barnabas brings Saul to Antioch where they work together and begin converting Gentiles
4. Peter comes up to Antioch where Paul "opposes" him
5. Peter goes back to Jerusalem
6. Paul, Barnabas and John Mark go on their 1st Journey
7. In their absence, Jerusalem teachers come to Syria and Galatia while Peter goes to Joppa and Caesarea. The results of these two outings are quite different.
9. Paul fires off a letter to the churches in Galatia to deal with impact from the Judaizers from Jerusalem. He is present in Syria to deal with the matter personally there.
8. Everybody comes to Jerusalem to settle the issue of Gentile converts.

Of course, sometime in there, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem with money for the poor there.

charlie · Thu Feb 02, 2006 - 14:28:07

Okay, I just read this, so I'm not sure how that would affect my last post, but in Acts 11:19-21, you find a short conflated account of the dispersed Christians after Saul's persecution/conversion. It says rather cryptically that they only spread the word among Jews, but that they told the good news about the Lord Jesus among the Gentiles, and this occurred in Antioch. It was news of this that brought Barnabas who, upon arriving in Antioch, found Saul and brought him there to help out too.

The next passage tells that "about this time" the events leading up to the death of Herod occurred. If I remember, this was around AD 46? And we still haven't gotten to the 1st Journey.

Or maybe Sergius Paulus remained in his position, or returned to it, well after the death of Tiberius.

Problematic indeed. Unless 46 and 37 are "about the same time." Or perhaps there were two governors of Cyprus both named Sergius Paulus within 10 or 15 years of each other.

Or maybe Sergius Paulus remained governor after the death of Tiberius.

s1n4m1n · Fri Feb 03, 2006 - 10:34:39

From what I understand, the relatives of Sergius Paulus were wealthy landowners in the Pisidian Antioch area.

spurly · Fri Feb 03, 2006 - 11:33:41

QuoteHere a link to the photo of the inscription:

Sergius Paulus

The implication is that if Sergius Paulus is tied to the reign of Tiberius Caesar (who died in 37AD) then the "first missionary journay" of Paul occured about 10 years earlier than previous thougth. The main problem, I think, is that it would throw a little kink in the chronology of Acts.

Ken

Could he not both be tied to the reign of Tiberias and then continue to reign for much longer after that? Just curious.

s1n4m1n · Mon Apr 10, 2006 - 23:16:38

Here's something I found in the works of Hippolytus (about 200AD):

13. And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ; and beginning at Jerusalem, he advanced as far as Illyricum, and Italy, and Spain, preaching the Gospel for five-and-thirty years. And in the time of Nero he was beheaded at Rome, and was buried there.

I don't know how that relates to everything?

s1n4m1n · Tue Nov 14, 2006 - 09:48:22

I'm bringing this back from the dead because I found a work by a somebody named Conzelmman (?) a liberal theologion who suggested that the chronology in Acts needed "reordering". He even said based on his reading of Acts that the first missionary journey was earlier than most people suspect.

NJK Project · Sun Oct 03, 2010 - 03:36:25

Quote from: Skip on Tue Jan 10, 2006 - 14:51:09
Regarding chronology, I suppose is would be no more bothersome than the sometimes-inconsistent chronology between Gospel accounts.
The order of the temptations of Christ comes to mind.

I have written a brief exegetical explanation in this blog post as to why there is an ordering difference for the temptations of Christ between Matthew and Luke's account. (Scroll down the page). In short, there were 3 different temptations with 4 occurrences, given in a 1-2-3-2. Hope this helps!

jickis31 · Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 20:23:46

Hello There,

This is a very interesting thread. Does anybody know the chronology of Paul's epistles?

regards,
jickis31
examples of family trees

NJK Project · Wed Oct 20, 2010 - 17:25:14

Quote from: jickis31 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 - 20:23:46

This is a very interesting thread. Does anybody know the chronology of Paul's epistles?

Hello jickis31. Here is what I have found on the chronology of Paul's Epistles. It is in the book "Encountering the New Testament

Christian Forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Paul and the first missionary journey

s1n4m1n

Skip

s1n4m1n

DCR

Skip

s1n4m1n

marc

Skip

DCR

Lee Freeman

charlie

charlie

s1n4m1n

spurly

s1n4m1n

s1n4m1n

NJK Project

jickis31

NJK Project

Recent Topics

Login:
Password:
Login for: