This money --- if it ever materialized --- leads nowhere.
Michael BG asked in another thread ---
The only means to address this question is to review the available evidence.How do you deal with Paul’s talk of a collection for Jerusalem (Gal 2:10, 1 Cor 16:1, 3, and Rom 15:25)?
Some see the issue beginning here ---
The effort took shape in the first letter the Corinthians ---“James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship … they only asked that we should remember the poor, also the same thing that I was eager to do.” (Galatians 2:9-10).
It was only in the letters to the Corinthians in which Paul wrote of a collection for the saints. 1/“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have directed the churches of Galatia you are to do also. On the first day of the week, let each of you put something aside, treasuring up whatever he may be prospered in, so that when I come no collections will be needed.” (1 Corinthins 16:1-2).
The collection is front and center in 2 Corinthians. Confusingly, the final compiler combined several letters now found in our received letter, some out of chronological sequence (pt.2 in the link). Chapters 8 and 9 are entirely devoted to the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, however the two chapters are in reverse chronological sequence in our received text --- the events of 2 Corinthians chapter 8 happened after those of chapter 9. Titus returned from delivering a letter including chapter 8 and from attempting to complete the collection, and the Corinthians had accused Paul and Titus of trying to take advantage ---
That’s about the last we hear from Paul on the issue. Then comes the later apologetics.“I did not burden you, yet being cunning I caught you by deceit. I did not take advantage of you by anyone I sent you. I urged Titus and I sent the brother with him. Titus did not take advantage of you.” (2 Corinthians 12:16-18).
The textual history of the letter Romans is not a settled issue. The vast majority of mainstream scholars promote the version found in the current NT --- quelle surprise. However, the mixed nature of the early manuscript record --- along with the early attestations --- can be used equally well to support a more original 14–chapter document (lacking chapters 15 and 16), and lacking the two addresses to Rome in chapter 1.
Portions of chapters 15 and 16 may have been used as attachments to an earlier version of the letter for use with specific various communities. But Romans 15:19-32 reeks of early catholic apologetics --- an interpolation attempting to tie-up a loose end. 2/
And even then, the best the apologetic interpolator was willing to offer was an excuse to deliver the collection later (read: ‘the check is in the mail’) ---
Even the author of the mostly fictional Acts dared offer only a lame substitute story of Paul bringing “alms to my nation” in the temple (Acts 24:17-18). The author of the Acts of the Apostles --- in his bald-faced attempt to make Paul an early-catholic hero --- lacked adequate confidence to address the issue directly. If such a tradition of an actual delivery --- or attempted delivery --- of a collection for the saints in Jerusalem had existed, surely the author of Acts would have used the story to enhance Paul’s heroic status and to tie-up an embarrassing loose end.“Now, however, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.” (Romans 15:25-26).
But no --- only awkward silence.
I believe the best solution for the collection for the saints in Jerusalem is straightforward --- it was a scheme by Paul to fleece the prosperous Corinthians.
robert j
1/ The far away Macedonians are only mentioned in this regard in the Corinthian correspondence --- perhaps Paul was guilt-tripping the Corinthians. The collection is not mentioned in the letters addressed to the Macedonians. The mention in Romans 15:25-26 is addressed in the text and in the footnote below.
2/ I’m not prone to resort to interpolation to resolve difficult issues in Paul’s letters --- being confident of only a very few interpolations in the 5 letters generally considered authentic and addressed to his congregations, and in Romans. But Romans 15:17-32 is right near the top of my sparse list of interpolations for numerous reasons. As addressed in the link above, significant evidence both in early manuscripts and in early attestations lend support for an original letter lacking chapters 15 and 16 and the two addresses to Rome in chapter 1.
