Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>]

Chris wrote:

>Richard, I am not a scholar so much of your reasoning is hard for me to
>absorb all at once. Forgive me if you have already addressed this, but put
>simply, how do you account for the fact that according to Acts Timothy was
>circumcised "for the sake of the Jews", whereas in Galatians much is made
>of the fact Titus was not, and did not need to be circumcised?

Good question.  There have been numerous interpretations of Gal 2:1-5.  The
only thing that we know for certain is that 'Titus' was uncircumcised at
the time of the conference.  This is in agreement with our information
about Timothy (assuming that we put the circumcision of Timothy after the
conference).

You point out that Paul makes it clear that 'Titus' did not "need" to be
circumcised.  I agree.  He stated that 'Titus' was not COMPELLED to be
circumcised, and stressed that he had NOT conceded the principle that
circumcision was necessary.  Before deciding whether this fits with the
Titus-Timothy hypothesis, let us first consider the reasons for the
circumcision of Timothy and how it might have been understood, or
misunderstood by the Galatians.

Why, then, was Timothy circumcised?  Was it because of a theological
'need', or was it for more practical reasons?  It was often said that
Timothy was circumcised because, having a Jewish mother, he was considered
a Jew, and that the implication of the agreement in Jerusalem was that Jews
should be circumcised.  But this view is hard to sustain following the work
of Cohen ('Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic
Law, and Matrilineal Descent', JBL 105/2 (1986) 251-268)), who shows that
Timothy would have been classed as a Gentile.  It is better to opt for the
other view, that Timothy was circumcised because he was embarking on a
missionary journey and it was necessary for him to become a Jew to the
Jews.  An alternative would have been for him to have kept quiet about his
uncircumcised state, but Acts makes clear that this was not an option at
the time because all the Jews in the area knew that his father had been a
Greek.  It is an intriguing possibility that Titus-Timothy had tried that
option earlier in Jerusalem or Antioch, but the false brothers had found
out that he was uncircumcised.  That would explain why Paul piles up terms
like KATASKOPHSAI in Gal 2:4.  Be that as it may, it seems probable that
Timothy was circumcised for missionary reasons, rather than on a point of
principle.

Now for a little speculation.  Another piece of data on the circumcision of
Timothy could well be Gal 5:11.  This verse is open to different
interpretations, but it is often taken to show that the Galatians had taken
the circumcision of Timothy to indicate that Paul was preaching
circumcision. i.e. that he HAD conceded the principle.  Now, Timothy was
probably converted by Paul on his first missionary journey.  What, then,
would the Galatians make of the fact that he had not been circumcised at
that time, but was circumcised only after the council of Jerusalem? They
might easily have taken Timothy's circumcision to indicate that Paul had
changed his tune as a result of his consultation in Jerusalem.

Now, does this information and speculation concerning Timothy fit with the
references to 'Titus' in Gal 2?  I believe it does.  

Paul does not say that 'Titus' was never circumcised, but is keen to point
out that he was not compelled to be circumcised by the 'pillars'.  He says
that he did not concede the principle.
Gal 2:1-6 can be read as a refutation of the charge that Paul had
circumcised Titus-Timothy under the influence of the 'pillars'.  He
emphasises that Titus-Timothy was there at the time, and was known to be a
Greek, but was not compelled to be circumcised.  He stresses that the
'pillars' had added nothing to his message.

Chris, thanks for your question.  It's been a while since I've looked at
some of these issues, and you have prompted me to consider new
possibilities which I am just beginning to think through.  Comments please,
anyone.  

However, the reconstruction that I have outlined above is only one of many
possible.  I have a feeling that there would be just as many points of view
in a camp of 'one-person-theorists' as there are among those who live under
the two-person assumption. Gal 2:1-5 is terribly ambiguous and the
Titus-Timothy question must be decided, for the most part, in the
Corinthian letters.

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca