along afterward to water what Paul had planted, in the expectation that
there might be divinely given increase (1 Cor. 3:5–14). In fact, this seems
to be Dunn’s point of view (see above). But such a modified version of the
approach in question is equally unsupported by the evidence. Certainly the
importance for Paul of co-workers, both localized and itinerant, is not to be
underestimated; Paul needs to be seen not as a unique and solitary figure,
but as part of a network of assistants, colleagues, and independent co-
workers (not to mention rivals; see Ellis 1993, 183–89; Holmberg 1978,
58–76). And undoubtedly there were actual cases, like the work of Epaphras
in Colossae, where the Christian movement did radiate outward from
Pauline centres through the activity of people whom Paul would have called
or considered co-workers.
But, again, there is no evidence of a deliberate strategy where, as Paul
moves on to new territory, he leaves behind a cadre of evangelistic co-
workers to spread the faith in this way. In the case of Apollos, Paul seems
prepared to accept his activity in Corinth (at least once Paul has made the
requisite distinction between the one master builder and the subsequent
tradespeople [1 Cor. 3:10], or between the one father and the many
guardians [4:15]!), but there is no evidence that Paul initiated it. Colossians
(which I take to be authentic) provides more evidence for the fact that
Paul considered this church to fall within his sphere of jurisdiction than it
does for the idea that Epaphras had founded it under Paul’s supervision.
Of course, the issue is complicated here by a textual crux: Does the author
of the letter see Epaphras as a “minister of Christ on our[hêmôn,i.e., Paul’s]
behalf” or “on your (hymôn) behalf” (Col. 1:7)? While the textual evidence
is not compelling either way, at least it can be observed that nowhere else
in the letter do we find evidence that Paul considered Epaphras to be his
agent of secondary evangelism. Of the co-workers about whom most is
known, i.e., Timothy and, to a lesser extent, Silvanus and Titus, it can be
said that supplementary evangelism was clearly not one of their assigned
tasks.
To ensure that my position is not misunderstood, let me emphasize
that what is under discussion here is Paul’s conscious strategy, not the
actual realities on the ground. I have no doubt that Paul’s churches did
attract converts, and that the Christian movement spread outward from
these churches into the surrounding territory. But this spread was proba-
bly due more to spontaneous expansion along natural lines than to any
organized program of evangelization, and in any case—this is the impor-
tant point—it was not planned or even anticipated by Paul as part of a
conscious strategy. While he rejoiced in the spread of the gospel (2 Thess.
“The Field God Has Assigned” 121