Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Rival Christian missionaries west of Galatia (Was "Why did Paul choose the Aegean?")

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Rival Christian missionaries west of Galatia (Was "Why did Paul choose the Aegean?")
  • Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:13:07 -0800

Jeff wrote:
<<Rainer Riesner among others proposes that Paul took his missionary
itinerary from Isa 66:18–19; Javan follows Lud and Tubal, i.e., Asia
Minor. See his PAUL'S EARLY PERIOD for the details.>>

Riesner suggests that Paul followed the itinerary of Isa 66:18-19, and that
he identified Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Tubal, Javan, and the coastlands
far away, as Tarsus, Cilicia, Lydia, Mysia, and Bithynia, Macedonia, and the
farthest west respectively. This is an attractive theory, and it raises the
same question that I raised at the start of the thread. Why did Paul not
preach in Lydia, Mysia or Bithynia? Why did the Holy Spirit not allow him to
do so? These regions were close at hand, had Jewish populations, and were
next on the list of Isa 66:18-19. Riesner suggests that the reason was that
Jewish Christian missions were already underway in those areas. This makes
perfect sense. These rival missionaries might also have been following the
itinerary of Isa 66:18-19. To get to Lydia, Mysia and Bithynia they would
probably have passed through south Galatia, and this fits very nicely with
the evidence of Gal., which shows that rivals had been at work in Galatia.
The 'influencers' in Galatia were therefore probably Christians, and not
non-Christian Jews, as has been suggested recently.

The fact that Paul's rivals were active far west of south Galatia explains
why he had to circumcise Timothy. The rivals had infiltrated in Jerusalem
and had discovered that Paul did not believe that circumcision was
necessary, and that Titus (who later took the name 'Timothy') was
uncircumcised (Gal 2:3-5). Paul sent Titus-Timothy to south Galatia. The
rivals passed through Antioch (Gal 2:12?), and came to south Galatia, where
they told the Jews in the region that Timothy's father was a Greek (Acts
16:3). When Paul arrived in south Galatia he found Timothy in Lystra (Acts
16:1). It was then clear that the rivals were making an issue of the
Timothy's uncircumcised state, and that this would undermine his
effectiveness. To cut the ground from under the rivals, Paul circumcised
Timothy. This was a necessary expedient because the rival missions extended
so far west. Even Philippi was not beyond the potential reach of the rivals
(Phil 3:2).

The conventional understanding of Acts 16:1-3 is that Timothy was from
Lystra and was circumcised because of the Jews in his home town and the
immediate surrounding region, who knew his father. This makes little sense.
Paul and Timothy moved swiftly west from Iconium, so why would it matter
what the Jews in Lystra thought?

Richard Fellows.










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page