PhilosopherJay

Hi Archibald,

In the text:

It would not make any logistical sense for the expression "there" to refer to Jerusalem.
Macedonia and Achaia are relatively close to Rome, From Macedonia, he could probably have made it to Rome in two weeks. To go to Macedonia and Achia and then to Jerusalem would probably take two months. From Jerusalem to Rome you would probably have to travel another three months. It is completely illogical. To compare it to modern geography. It is like saying, "Paul purposed in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Massachusettes and New York, saying , "After I have been there, I must also see Los Angeles" Obviously it makes no sense for him to travel all the way from America to the Middle East and then back to America again. Rather, it is more reasonable for someone to say, "I want to visit Jerusalem, but first I will go to Massachusettes and New York. From there, I will go to Washington D.C.

In "Romans" Paul says, "15.19 so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."
If Paul was in Illyricum when he was writing this letter and about to begin his return trip to Jerusalem, He would naturally pass through Macedonia and Achaia and stop at Thessaloniki on his way to Jerusalem.

Look at this map. Please keep in mind that ships hugged the coastline when traveling and didn't venture across the open oceans.

Note that Paul is writing to Greeks in the epistle called "Romans." That is why he uses the term "Greek" over and over again and never uses the term "Roman":

Besides just talking to Greeks, all the provinces that he mentions, Illyricum, are in Greece, west of Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Achaia.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

mountainman

That's a great map Philosopher Jay - thanks.

archibald

Jay,

I admit I'm struggling with Paul's supposed route, but yes, that map helps.

I hope to have thunk a bit more on it later, but in the meantime, one question,

In the above, Acts 19:21 has him at Ephesus at the time , no?

If that were true, the travel plans don't seem to throw up the same geographical ambiguities?

Just different ones?

Anyhow, the other thing which is confusing me is this thing about the destinatiion in 'Romans' being a place he has longed to visit, but apparently never has.

andrewcriddle

One should probably distinguish between the claim that Paul was martyred in Rome and the claim that the "Epistle to the Romans" was originally addressed to Rome. Either claim could be true without implying the truth of the other.

Andrew Criddle

archibald

Here, your issue seems to be that 'going through Macedonia and Achacia' means going in direction of Thessalonika, I think? That would be true if paul were writing from Achacia. But, since the passage where he says this has him in Ephesus, then 'going through Macedonia and Achacia' means going in the direction of Rome, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. As I read it, Paul, after Ephesus, intends going west, before returning east.

So taking Jerusalem as New York and Rome as Los Angeles, Paul has journeyed west from New York to, say, Minneapolis (Ephesus). While there, the Acts passage you quoted would have him saying something like,

"Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the Spirit to go back to New York, after he had passed through Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Los Angeles.”


He gets as far as southern Achacia/Las Vegas but instead of continuing west, and achieving his idea of hitting Rome/Los Angeles, he writes to Rome/Los Angeles instead (perhaps from Acachia/Las Vegas), gives in to his 'in the spirit' intentions to get back to Jerusalem/New York and heads back in the direction of Jerusalem/New York, via Ephesus/Minneapolis again, promising to hit Rome/Los Angeles next time, on his way to Spain (Hawaii?). A trip he never gets around to, because the shit hits the fan when he gets to Jerusalem/New York, which as it turns out, means him being carted to Rome/Los Angeles to face trial in any case.

Seems possible to me?

Apart from mention in Romans of having preached as far as Illyricum?

yalla

I missed this comment when it was made and hence here is a belated, more complete and detailed reference to where FF Bruce makes the statement:

".. no other place could stand in the place of 'Rome' ...because the context [1.8-15] refers to Rome and Rome only"?

"The Epistle of Paul To The Romans : an Introduction and Commentary." by F.F. Bruce
London The Tyndale Press Reprinted Dec 1963

Page 30
First paragraph.
"On further reflection, however, this explanation of the omission of the place-name in Romans 1:7,15, is unsatisfactory. The cases of Romans and Ephesians are not really parallel. Any other place name within the territory of Paul's Gentile mission could stand in the place of "Ephesus' in Ephasians 1.1 and would be suitable in the context. But no other place name could stand in place of 'Rome' in Romans 1.7,15, because the context [Rom 1.8-15] refers to Rome and Rome only. And, even if "Rome" were struck out of 1.7,15, without being replaced by the name of any other city that would have left the local references in verses 8-15 [and in 15:22-32] unintelligible. or at best requiring to be elucidated by intelligent inference."

DCHindley

So, he has been in Macedonia and Achaia, and is now on his way to Jerusalem, and plans to travel ultimately to Spain. How do we know he is not referring to Alexandria or even Utica/Carthage?

DCH

judge

The objection is about the way you misuse the english language I suspect.

judge

This seems to be "hyperscepticism". Which I define as scepticsim without any rational focus. But true scepticism has a rational focus.