Ecclesial Solidarity in the Pauline Corpus. James T. Hughes

churches, but to set some necessary limits to the study due to space.

90. Clarke, Pauline Theology, 77.

91. Best, Paul and His Converts, 25–26.

92. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 3–4.

93. Burton, Galatians, xxvii. See also Magda, Paul’s Territoriality, 82–102, who argues that Paul’s toponymy is consistently Roman, and that this is consistent with Paul using Galatia as a designation for the Roman province. See also Longenecker, Galatians, lxx who notes Ramsay’s research showing that provincial Galatia included these cities during the time in which Paul was writing.

94. Both Longenecker, Galatians, lxxiv–lxxxiii, and Morgado, “Paul in Jerusalem,” 60–67, argue for an identification of Galatians 2:1–10 with Acts 11:30/12:25, and therefore date these events, and Galatians, before the Jerusalem council, to AD 49. However, Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 132–39, and Phillips, Paul, His Letters and Acts, 80–81, both argue for a later date based on the identification of Galatians 2:1–10 with the Jerusalem council. Given the polemical nature of Galatians, it seems unlikely that Paul in writing a historical narrative would risk missing out a visit to Jerusalem which might undermine his claim to independence, whilst at the same time, it is hard to account for why he would avoid the rhetorical and polemical opportunity presented by the decree of the Jerusalem council to demonstrate to his readers that his position was the correct one. However, even if Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15 describe the same event, Galatians still belongs to the earlier part of the 50s and can still be considered one of Paul’s earliest letters.

95. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric, 82–83. See also Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 365; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 4–8; Green, Thessalonians, 60–61.

96. Green, Thessalonians, 63; Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 10–11; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 365–66.

97. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 9–11; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 181–86.

98. Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 29–36; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 68–87; Debanné, Enthymemes, 54–55. Note here Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 187–98, who develops an extensive argument for a setting of 2 Thessalonians within Paul’s ministry.

99. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, xxi; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 73.

100. For example, Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians, 6–8, who argues for five different letters.

101. Harris, Second Epistle, 42–43, notes the large number of twentieth-century commentators and writers who have held to the hypothesis that chapters 1–13 constitute a single document, despite the arguments to the contrary of those who propose partition as the “scholarly consensus.”

102. Barnett, Corinthian Question, 232, raises the problem of beginnings and endings of letters being removed to form one letter, and the difficulty of understanding why that would have happened.

103. Harris, Second Epistle, 14.

104. Harris, Second Epistle, 27–29; see also Hall, Unity, 100–102.

105. So, Harris, Second Epistle, 64–67, dates 1 Corinthians to AD 55 and 2 Corinthians to AD 56. Witherington, Conflict & Community, 352, dates 1 Corinthians to 53 or 54, 2 Corinthians not before late 55, and probably in AD 56.

106. The following commentators all adopt dates for 1 Corinthians between AD 53 and 57: Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 43; Thiselton, First Epistle, 29–32; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 20.

107. The letter is generally dated to AD 56 to 58, although the precise dates are not critical to this study. So, Moo, Romans, 3; Kruse, Romans, 2; Jewett, Romans, 19–20.

108. Lampe, “Roman Christians,” 216–30.

109. Witherington, Philippians, 15–17; Fee, Philippians, 21–23; Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms,” 242–46.

110. Witherington, Philippians, 9–11; Fee, Philippians, 34–37; O’Brien, Philippians, 19–26.

111. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 1.

112. On Barr’s critique, see also Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 106–28; Thiselton, “Semantics,” 80–85; Piñero and Peláez, Study of the New Testament, 457–63; Du Toit, “Contributions,” 295–303.

113. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 95–98.

114. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 76–78.

115. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 78–79.

116. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 85–88.

117. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 83–84. He notes here that Barr’s critique of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament relates not to word study per se, but “illegitimate totality transfer.”

118. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 80–82.

119. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 18.

120. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 25–26.

121. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 53–71.

122. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 64.

123.