Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Loren wrote:
>*** Richard Fellows has argued -- both on- and
>off-list -- that Timothy and Titus were the same
>person, that “Titus” was either Timothy’s nick-name or
>praenomen. An intriguing proposal, though I’m not
>wholly convinced. One would have to account for why
>Paul defended Titus’s uncircumcised status to the
>apostles during the famine visit in 48 (Gal. 2:1-10),
>only to have him circumcised later on (Acts 16:3, year
>50) for missionary expediency! 

Splitting Titus-Timothy into two people does not remove the problem (if it
is a problem). One would still need to explain why Paul defended Titus's
uncircumcision, but went on to circumcise Timothy. There are numerous
possible explanations, both with and without the T-T hypothesis. 

I'm not sure whether Gal 2.4-5 refers to the occasion of T-T's
circumcision, or to an earlier occasion when Paul successfully defended his
uncircumcision. If the latter then one might argue that it was precisely
because Paul had won his victory in the case of T-T that he could then go
on to circumcise him without it appearing that he had conceded the issue -
he was magnanimous in victory. If the former, then it is probable that the
issue of T-T's circumcision never came up in Jerusalem. On whatever
hypothesis it is probable that Timothy was circumcised because Paul wanted
him as a fellow missionary (see Acts 16.1-3). Titus (I assume) was not a
fellow missionary when he went to Jerusalem, so there is no difficulty in
equating Titus with Timothy. 

>On the other hand, if
>Titus=Timothy, then Paul was indeed shrewd in sending
>an individual whose circumcised status would weigh
>heavily against those of the rival influencers. As
>Richard said in an earlier post: “Why would Paul
>circumcise Timothy for expedient reasons, but select a
>(supposedly) uncircumcised ‘100% Gentile Titus’ to
>deal with the situation about which we read in II Cor.
>11:22? If Titus’ mission was successful, it makes
>sense to suppose that he was circumcised at the time
>and that he had some Jewish ancestry.”

Loren, as you say, a circumcised Titus was an appropriate envoy to carry 2
Cor 10-13. But this is a rather minor argument for the Titus-Timothy
hypothesis. The decisive advantages accrue when one equates the mission of
Timothy (1 Cor 4.17; 16.10) with that of Titus (2 Cor 2.13, 7.6,13,14;
8.6). Thus the tearful letter (probably 2 Cor 10-13) was written before 1
Cor, and put into the hands of Titus-Timothy who arrived after 1 Cor. This
avoids numerous duplications and unlikely turns of events. The order with
approximate dates should be:

Evangelistic visit (51-52)
Sorrowful visit (54)
Former letter (54 or 55)
Tearful letter written (Autumn 55)
1 Corinthians (Passover 56)
Tearful letter arrives (Spring 56)
2 Cor 1-9 (Autumn 56)
Romans (Early Spring 57)

This accounts for all the data without requiring the highly complicated
stories that the two-person-theorists are forced to tell. Remember that
complicated stories are unlikely in the extreme when a simple explanation
is available. Imagine waking up in the morning and going into the garden.
You find the trash overturned and deduce that you have been visited by
animals. Then you then see a smashed window pane, and think that you have
been burgled. Then you see a broken tree and your first thought is that you
have become a victim of vandals. Then it dawns on you that there has simply
been a storm overnight. You abandon your previously held multiple
explanations in favour of the single assumption of the storm. You become a
Titus-Timothy theorist.

>56: Paul’s third visit to Corinth early in the year.
>He stays for three months, then returns to Philippi.

>57: Paul’s fourth visit to Corinth, early in the year,

There is no need for a fourth visit. We have many reasons to believe that
Paul's plan of 1 Cor 16.1-8 was carried out. You seem to hypothesis that
Paul changed his mind two times after writing 1 Cor 16.1-8, even though
there is no mention in the letters or in Acts of either of your proposed
changes of plan. The view that Paul abandoned his plan of 1 Cor 16.1-8 is
commonly held, but there is not a scrap of evidence for it. It is a
'desperate measure' designed to allow the tearful letter to be written
after 1 Cor. To use my analogy, it is a part of the animal-burglar-vandal
explanation of the data. Commentators have overlooked the possibility that
the tearful letter was carried by Timothy, who left Ephesus before 1
Corinthians.

2 Cor 10-13 does not cancel a visit, but anticipates an imminent visit by
Paul to Corinth. This makes good sense because it was written (in my view)
before 1 Cor and the first visit of the double visit of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was
cancelled by 1 Cor itself. That is to say, the plan of 2 Cor 1.15-16 was
held at the time of writing 2 Cor 10-13. Critics of the hypothesis that 2
Cor 10-13 was the tearful letter often point to the fact that 2 Cor
1.23-2.4 mentions a cancellation whereas 2 Cor 10-13 anticipates a visit.
This is not a contradiction, but rather it confirms that the tearful letter
was overtaken by another letter which cancelled the visit. That other
letter, in my view, was 1 Cor.

Loren, how do you explain the fact that 2 Cor 10-13 anticipates rather than
cancels a visit?

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver