Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Stephen Pegler wrote:
<<In this understanding how do you treat Galatians 2 where Paul states that
Titus was a Greek and was not circumcized and Acts 16 where Luke states
that Timothy was in fact circumcized?>>

Paul writes in Gal 2:3, "But not even Titus, who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised". Paul's point is that the Jerusalem
apostles never insisted on circumcision - not even for Titus. Gal 2:3 tells
us nothing about whether Titus was or was not eventually circumcised, but
we can be sure that he was not circumcised at that time in Jerusalem. This
is in good agreement with the information that we have about Timothy, for
we know that he was uncircumcised at the time of the Jerusalem visit
(assuming, with the vast majority of commentators that the Jerusalem visit
was before Acts 16:1-3). The whole context of Gal 2:1-10 concerns Paul's
relationship with the Jerusalem apostles, and the point that Paul is making
is that they added nothing to his message, and he makes this very clearly
in 2:6. Therefore in 2:3 he is saying that THE JERUSALEM APOSTLES did not
insist on the circumcision of Titus. He is NOT saying "you should not be
circumcised because Titus was never circumcised". Such an argument would
have no logic. Why should Titus's behaviour be normative for the Galatians?
Why should they follow Titus's example more than that of Timothy, who WAS
circumcised? If Paul's purpose in 2:3 was to cite Titus as a precedent for
the Galatians to follow, why did he do nothing to explain away the obvious
counter precedent of Timothy?

Of course, having mentioned in 2:3 that Titus-Timothy was not circumcised
at that time in Jerusalem, the question then arises about why he was
eventually circumcised, and Paul immediately puts the blame firmly with the
'false brothers' (2:4-5). I follow T.W.Mason who argued that 2:4-5 is a
parenthesis in Paul's account of the Jerusalem visit, and I suggest that
the infiltration was in Antioch. The circumcision of Timothy was probably
well known to the Galatians, and this explains why Gal 2:3-5 made sense to
the Galatians, but has been so puzzling to commentators.

It is probable that the false brothers had visited both Antioch and south
Galatia. I suggest that they discovered in Antioch that Titus-Timothy had a
Greek father, and they let this be known to those in the region of Iconium.
Acts 16:1-3 hints that Timothy would not have been circumcised if the
people in the region had not known that Timothy was uncircumcised and this
agrees well with Gal 2:4 where (in my view) Paul blames the spying of the
false brothers for the events that led to the circumcision. Titus-Timothy
had been exposed as an uncircumcised son of a Greek, and Paul could not
claim that the false brothers had told lies about Titus-Timothy. He could,
however, question the way that the information had been obtained. The
broken grammar in 2:4 reflects Paul's agitation and perhaps embarrassment
concerning the incident.

Then, having blamed the false brothers for the circumcision, Paul must make
it clear that, in circumcising Titus-Timothy, he had not yielded in
subjection, and he does this in 2:5.

Returning to 2:3, note that Paul's argument is stronger if we assume that
Titus was Timothy. Timothy had a Jewish mother and the fact that he was
eventually circumcised indicates that he probably had much in his
background and practices that was Jewish. Now, we would expect such an
individual to be under the most pressure to be circumcised. It is just such
a person who you would expect the Judaisers to press to receive
circumcision as the final step in his conversion. Gal 3:3 shows that
circumcision was seen as the completion of the conversion process.
Titus-Timothy was a Greek, but it is his Jewishness that makes it all the
more noteworthy that the apostles did not demand his circumcision. This
interpretation makes good sense of the "not even" (OUDE) in 2:3. The sense
may be as follows, "But not even Timothy, (who was about as Jewish as a
Greek can be), was compelled to be circumcised by the apostles, so there is
no way that they required me to advocate the circumcision of ordinary
Greeks like you".

Incidentally, I do not suppose that Luke believed or wished to imply that
Timothy was from Lystra. Acts 16:1-3 does not state where Timothy came
from, and we should not let our curiosity make us read things into the text
that are not there. Luke had  no need to give a full account of the
movements of Paul's companions (just consider the gaps in the movements of
Silas in Acts 15:32-40).


I suspect that Titus was given the name "Timothy" during the time interval
between Gal 2:3 and Acts 16:1. This would neatly explain the names selected
in these two passages. It also fits well with what we know about the
circumstances in which new names were given. A.J. Kolatch wrote that in the
OT a new name was given "to honor or glorify a person’s newly acquired
position or to predict the role of the individual in the future." We see
the same thing in NT times in the naming of Peter, Barnabas, and Sosthenes.
It is therefore not surprising to find Titus receiving his new name at a
time when he was gaining the status of an important envoy and missionary.
Furthermore, the choice of name makes perfect sense. It was common to
choose a new name which sounded similar to the old name. This was the case
when the new name was chosen for practical reasons (e.g Jesus called
Justus), but also when the reason is more symbolic (e.g. Abram-Abraham,
Hosea-Joshua). Note also Saul-Paul. It is surely no coincidence that
"Titos" and "Timotheos" sound similar. Furthermore, the meaning of the new
name is very appropriate. "Timothy" means "honour of God" or "honoured by
God". Again, we could put this down to coincidence if there were not
numerous other reasons to equate Titus with Timothy.

For the main evidence for Titus-Timothy see my treatment of the Corinthian
correspondence in "Was Titus Timothy?", JSNT 81 (2001) p33-58

Richard Fellows.