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: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Titus and 2 Cor 11.22
  • Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:04:03 -0800 (PST)



I had written:

> >Had Titus ended up
> >circumcised, Paul wouldn't have appealed to the
> >account as justification that the Galatian
> influencers
> >are wrong.

Richard then responded:

> 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?".

Not by my reconstruction, for I believe Timothy was
circumcised two years after the meeting of Gal. 2.

I'd like to present my working chronology for the
years 48-50, in hopes of eliciting more discussion
about the Timothy question. In addition, I'd like to
open the doors to debate about "North" vs. "South"
Galatian theories. I follow the former, but I also
believe that Paul's letter predates his 2nd missionary
journey. Almost invariably, those who equate Gal.
2:1-10 with Acts 11:27-30 (as I do) follow the South
Galatian theory. But I've worked out the itinerary and
time frames, and it's both possible and plausible that
Paul visited the northern region during the first
missionary journey. In my novel I'm developing a
rather complex chain of events which leads Paul to
take refuge far north, about midway between Pessinus
and Ancyra. It involves his "eye injury" (Gal.
4:13-15), and serious conflict is involved. We know
Luke either toned down conflict or screened it out
altogether, and I imagine a conflict so serious as to
warrant complete censorship. (Thus no report of travel
to the northern region in Acts 13-14). I'm wondering
if there are other North-Galatian theorists who
believe that the letter predates the 2nd missionary
journey?

Here's the bare-bones of my working chronology:

1. Early 48: The famine visit (Gal. 2:1-10/Acts
11:27-30) takes place. Paul has a private meeting with
the Jerusalem apostles, in which he presses for
legitimization of more liberal practices in leading a
mission to the Gentile world. Some non-Christian
agents intrude (Gal. 2:4), but the pillars informally
agree that Paul can evangelize Gentiles “as he sees
fit”, while Peter evangelizes the Jewish people (Gal.
2:6-9).

2. Early 48 - mid 49: Paul's first missionary journey
(Acts 13-14). En route, John Mark has a falling out
with Paul (Acts 13:13; cf. Acts 15:37-39), unsettled
by controversial results of his law-free gospel, and
returns to Jerusalem.

3. Late 49: The Antioch incident (Gal. 2:11-14)
happens a few months after Paul and Barnabus return
from the first mission. Peter, unnerved by the
investigation of some non-Christian social-control
agents, stops eating with uncircumcised Gentiles --
and Paul denounces him for hypocrisy. Later, Paul
learns that some of his converts in Galatia have
undergone circumcision, under the influence of
non-Christian proselyte converts. Paul writes his
letter to the Galatians.

4. Late 49: The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35)
convenes precisely in order to deal with the
controversies surrounding John Mark's "abandonment" in
Pamphylia, Peter's "hypocrisy" at Antioch, and the
circumcision controversy in Galatia. The pillars
officially pronounce that proselyte conversion is not
required of Gentiles who intereat (or intermarry) with
Jews as a single community based on equality. On the
other hand, Gentiles must abide by minimal standards
(Acts 15:19-20) when in the company of Jewish people.

5. Early 50: Paul's second missionary journey begins
(Acts 15:36 +), with the pillars’ compromise now in
effect. Timothy, on account of his mixed heritage,
initiates a "compromise" of his own and suggests that
he be circumcised. Paul exploits this desire without
hesitation (having in fact approved of something like
this before, back in 46 -- my imagination, of course)
knowing the increased missionary success Timothy's
circumcision will bring about. Any concerns about
setting counter-precedents and misunderstandings (such
as the ones he had to fend off earlier in Gal. 5:11)
are outweighed by this factor. Paul, in any case, had
nothing against circumcision per se. For Jews -- and
half-Jews -- it remained “much of value in every way”
(Rom. 3:2).


[Richard]

> 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, I will address your hypothesis about
Titus=Timothy in a later posting (I’ll focus on the
years 50-57, especially the Corinthian
correspondences.) I’ve read the archive postings in
which you’ve presented this curious idea before.

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page