Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Titus and 2 Cor 11.22

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lorna Wilson" <lornawilson28 AT hotmail.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Titus and 2 Cor 11.22
  • Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 01:23:46 EST



Lorna Wilson comments to Richard Fellows on Gal 2:3 issue:
Charles Cousers addresses the Timothy/Titus issue of circumcision in his commentary on Galatians as an issue of "freedom (Interpretation, 40)." How could Paul resist circumcision of Titus yet according to Acts 16:3 arrange circumcision for Timothy? Cousar states that in the case of Timothy w/Jewish ancestry (and I quote) "Paul acts on the basis of freedom he has in Christ to become a Jew for the sake of communication of the gospel to the Jews (cf. 1 or. 9:19-23). With Titus,, the situation is different. He is being pressured by the 'false brethen' and to yield would be to renounce that very liberty he exercised in connection with Timothy. The two opposition actions Paul takes emerges from his awareness that God has graciously freed humanity from the burden of religious restriction, including circumcision, and that is freeing humanity he has set it in the service of the gospel of freedom."

Now S. J. Cohen does not totally agree that Timothy was circumcised simply because he was a Jew. In fact he qustions that argument because Timothy's mother was Jewish and father was Greek in his opinion makes the issue of national status ambigious and that there is no evidence contemporary with the NT that supports the idea that "the sons of a Jewish mother and a Gentile Father were legally considered Jewish." However, he recognizes that the Rabbinic Law on status of children in this scenario was probably established early 2nd century and likely there was discussion and uncertainty about such cases in previous centuries. Cohen believes Paul cirumcised Timothy to show that he did not prohibit Jews from observing the law. Cohen states that Paul had no problem with circumcision as a "cultural practice....but that when circumcision was believed to be required for salvation then he resisted it adamantly (Dict. of Paul and His Letters, Hawthorne ed., 139).

I think Cohen has a good point regarding Paul's agreement on circumcision as a "cultic practice" for he clearly shows otherwise when the practice is attached to salvation..."We are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh (Phil 3:3)"."


Loren wrote:
>Some texts do imply this. But had Titus ended up
>circumcised, Paul wouldn't have appealed to the
>account as justification that the Galatian influencers
>are wrong.

But in Gal 2.3 Paul is NOT saying, "you should not be circumcised because
Titus was never circumcised". Such a statement would leave himself exposed
to the obvious retort, "But what about Timothy?". No, Paul is just saying
that the circumcision was not demanded BY THE APOSTLES.

Gal 2.3-5 is open to a wide range of interpretations and we should be
cautious about drawing firm conclusions from this text. But I think we can
be reasonably confident that Titus was not circumcised in Jerusalem at that
time. To find out whether he was circumcised subsequently, we have to turn
to other texts.

>I suspect Deborah is right: On Crete
>there were probably Jewish factions who resented an
>uncircumcised Greek like Titus leading them.

The PE are of doubtful historical value, but the issues that Loren and
Deborah raise about Crete also apply to Corinth.

Why would Paul circumcise Timothy to make him acceptable to Jews, but
select an uncircumcised, 100% gentile Titus to deal with the situation
about which we read in 2 Cor 11.22? In 2 Cor 11.22 Paul emphasizes his own
Jewish credentials to combat the influence that outsiders have had in
Corinth. One would therefore expect that he would choose a circumcised
envoy to carry this letter. Now, whatever partition theory you accept, you
will probably conclude that Paul selected Titus as the delegate to deliver
2 Cor 11.22, and you will probably also conclude that Titus's mission was
successful. This makes better sense if we suppose that Titus was
circumcised at that time and that he had some Jewish ancestry. It is a
small point, but I think it supports the conclusion that 'Titus' was
nothing more than an informal name used by Timothy.

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis is confirmed by a detailed examination of the
data in 1 & 2 Corinthians.

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.ca


---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: lornawilson28 AT hotmail.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page