Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

I had written:
>> But the equation Gal 2 with the famine visit has
>> problems of its own:
>> 
>> Why was another
>> visit to Jerusalem necessary, if the question had
>> already been answered on
>> the earlier visit.

Loren responded:
>Another visit to Jerusalem was necessary, because it
>was only after the apostles put the decision into
>practice that major furor erupted. As I said before, I
>think the Antioch incident of Gal. 2:11-14 shows the
>immediate consequences of “giving the gospel a try”.

An advantage of your reconstruction is that it allows Gal 2.11-14 to be
equated with Acts 15.1, without having to reverse the order of Gal 2.1-10
and Gal 2.11-14. 

I had written:
>> It is unlikely that Paul would circumcise Timothy
>> AFTER the controversy
>> arose in Galatia. He would have been playing into
>> the hands of the
>> influencers. For me, it is more probable that the
>> controversy arose partly
>> as a RESULT of the circumcision of Timothy. I see
>> probable references to
>> the circumcision of Timothy in Gal 5.11...

Loren responded:
>In a sense I think you’re right, Richard. Paul
>probably did play into the hands of the influencers.
>Paul had no problems with circumcision per se -- he
>even encouraged it in some contexts -- and I think
>that Gal. 5:10-12 points to incidents similar to the
>later Timothy episode in Acts 16:1-3.

It is very unlikely that Paul circumcised anyone other than Timothy. He
probably believed in circumcision only when it was required for missionary
reasons to make the candidate acceptable to Jews (1 Cor 9.20-21). This
probably only applied to Timothy, because we know of no other gentile who
accompanied Paul as a fellow missionary. Also, Timothy was in an
exceptional situation, being of mixed parentage.

I had written:
>> 3. 
>> Everybody agreed that the apostles were against
>> circumcision (for
>> gentiles), but the Galatians and the influencers had
>> never accepted the
>> authority of the apostles. I proposed this
>> possibility in my post of 24th
>> Sept, and suggested that Gal 1.1-2.14 can be read as
>> Paul's assertion that
>> he had not received his gospel from the apostles,
>> but from God...
>
>Certainly you make your case well, Richard, and I
>admit that your well-presented paraphrase of Galatians
>(in the earlier post of Sept 24) accounts for most of
>Paul’s language. But it’s a Herculean struggle for me
>to realign the poles here. If the Galatians, indeed,
>perceived Paul (and not James) as the conservative
>one, then this requires a shift in thought as to how
>relationships between the apostles were seen in other
>contexts -- not least in Romans.

I have proposed that the circumcision of Timothy caused confusion in
Galatia. The infuencers inferred that Paul really believed in circumcision,
and that he had preached gentile liberty only out of obedience to the
Jerusalem apostles. This confusion probably did not occur anywhere other
than Galatia, so I don't think my reconstruction requires a reappraisal of
any other letter.

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.ca