Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Jim Miller wrote:
>    Actually, a substantial Jewish presence in and near Lystra is not 
>unlikely.  Antiochus I settled Jewish populations in central Anatolia in the 
>regions of southern Galatia, Lyconia, eastern Phrygia, etc.  And it is in 
>these Jewish communities that Paul evangelized.  I don't see any problem
with 
>a mixed-marriage Jewish boy coming from any city of central Anatolia.

Jim, what is your source concerning the settlement of Jews in Anatolia by
Antiochus I? I am aware only of the settlement of just 2000 families of
Jews by Seleucid Antiochus III (Josephus Ant. 12.3). He settled them in
Lydia and Phrygia, and no mention is made of Lycaonia.

Also, could someone comment on the nomenclature in Lystra? I seem to
remember that most of the names in inscriptions are Latin names or native
Lycaonian names, rather than Greek names like Timothy, but I may be wrong.

Incidentally, Timothy was uncircumcised and would probably not have been
considered Jewish by his contemporaries.

Anyway, I agree with you that it is possible that there were Jews in
Lystra. But the number of Christian Jews in Antioch must have been orders
of magnitude greater than in Lystra. Antioch had about 100 times the
population of Lystra and had a well established Christian community.
Therefore Antioch is the more likely residence of Timothy. As an envoy from
Antioch to the new south Galatian churches, Timothy would need to visit
Lystra, and this adequately explains his presence there when Paul arrived
in Acts 16:1-3.

But there are other reasons for preferring Antioch as Timothy's home. Paul
chose Timothy as a fellow missionary and Timothy agreed to go with him.
These decisions are difficult to understand if Timothy was from Lystra,
because Paul had had only a little contact with Lystra. After his bad
experience with John-Mark, why would Paul choose someone who he hardly
knew? And why would he choose someone who was rather new in the faith and
had not been to Jerusalem to meet the apostles and was not from a major
centre of Jewish learning? I believe that Timothy was Titus and was from
Antioch, where Paul spent quite some time. He traveled with Paul to
Jerusalem and this gave him the credentials to speak with authority about
the faith. He was given the new name "Timothy" and was sent to the churches
of south Galatia. Meanwhile Paul summoned Silas from Jerusalem. The two of
them traveled to Derbe and Lystra, where they met Timothy. They all
proceeded to Iconium and Paul could see that Timothy had made a good
impression on the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. He had demonstrated his
worth as an envoy and had traveled to south Galatia, which John-Mark had
refused to do. Paul therefore chose him as a missionary partner.

We see a natural progression in the prominence of Titus-Timothy and the
tasks entrusted to him. He was a traveling companion of Paul on his trip to
Jerusalem, but was not a fellow missionary at that stage (the right hand of
fellowship was given only to Paul and Barnabas: Gal 2:9). He then received
his new name, the giving of which implies an increase in status. As an
envoy to south Galatia he was entrusted with new responsibilities. His
selection to be a fellow missionary with Paul was his final promotion. I
feel that this progression is much more believable than the suggestion that
Paul selected a native of Lystra whom he hardly knew.

Richard Fellows.