corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
- To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:54:44 -0800
Jeff Peterson asked:
<<how on the hypothesis that Timothy and
Titus are the same person does one reconcile Gal 2:3 (Titus not compelled to be
circumcised) with Acts 16:3 (Paul circumcised Timothy because of the
Jews)?>>
Thanks for the question, Jeff. It is an important
one.
Most commentators make the (understandable)
assumption that both of Titus's parents were gentiles, and (rightly) believe
that Paul would never circumcise someone of 100% gentile stock, and therefore
conclude that Titus was never circumcised. Others infer from Gal 2:4-5 that
Titus was actually circumcised. I believe that Titus had a Jewish mother and was
circumcised, but not during the Jerusalem visit, and I think that with this view
we get the best of both worlds. I'll explain this later below.
Do Acts 16:1-3 and Gal 2:3-5 look
suspiciously like accounts concerning the same person, or are they
irreconcilable? Do the two passages illuminate each other, or are they better
understood as involving two different people? It is certainly interesting
to note that the two passages have certain elements in common. Both involve the
circumcision question. Both involve someone who was uncircumcised when Paul went
to Jerusalem, so there is no chronological conflict. Both incidents seem
connected with Galatia in some way. Both involve a common theme of 'knowing':
the Jews all 'knew' that Timothy's father had been a Greek, and the false
brothers were spying. Both passages mention the Greek status of someone. Both
passages involve a person with a similar sounding name. Are these common factors
coincidental, or is there a better explanation? Some commentators have remarked
on the common elements and have concluded that Acts 16:1-3 is a garbled account
of the incident of Gal 2:3-5, in which Luke transferred the story from Titus to
Timothy for some reason. I am convinced that Titus WAS Timothy.
I think it might be instructive if I lay out a
historical reconstruction which I think makes good sense. But please do not get
the impression that this scenario is the only way that the texts can be
understood in the light of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis. What I am about to
present is only what seems most probable to me right now.
Titus was a native of Antioch. His mother was a Jew
and his father was a gentile, and he probably attended synagogue and learned the
scriptures. He became a convert of Paul. He traveled with Paul to Jerusalem
where he was not compelled to be circumcised. Some 'false brothers'
infiltrated Paul's circle and discovered the fact that Titus's father was a
Greek. Titus and Paul returned to Antioch. Titus was given the name 'Timothy'
(meaning 'honouring God'), and Paul sent him as an envoy to the churches of
South Galatia. At about this time the 'false brothers' made a missionary journey
to Lydia, Mysia and Bithynia, passing through south Galatia. While in south
Galatia they (maliciously or otherwise)leaked the information that
Titus-Timothy's father was a Greek. Paul then went to south Galatia
and Titus-Timothy happened to be in Lystra when he arrived. Timothy had lived up
to his name, and all the brothers spoke well of him. He had done a good job and
Paul wanted him to join them on their missionary journey. But the Jews
throughout south Galatia would look suspiciously at Titus-Timothy, for they
all knew that his father had been a Greek. Paul knew that the issue
would plague Titus-Timothy, not only in Galatia, but throughout Asia minor and
beyond, because the false brothers were at work throughout the region, and T-T
would not be beyond their reach. Paul therefore circumcised T-T. They traveled
west, and did not preach in Asia, Mysia or Bithynia because the 'false brothers'
were already there, and Paul wanted to preach where the name of Christ had not
been heard. The 'false brothers' eventually returned through south Galatia and
influenced the believers there. Paul then wrote Galatians and told them that the
apostles had not demanded that Titus be circumcised, though he was with him and
was a Greek at that time. Paul did not deny that T-T's father was a Greek, but
he made it clear that the way that the 'false brothers' had found out was
thoroughly unscrupulous: they had sneaked in and spied.
I think this account explains the common elements
in Gal 2:3-5 and Acts 16:1-3. In addition it offers the following advantages
over the conventional understanding of these passages.
1. It makes Timothy a native of Antioch instead of
Lystra. This is probable because mixed marriages must have been rather common in
Antioch. Josephus tells us that particularly in Antioch the Jews gathered
gentiles to themselves.
2. It better explains Paul's decision to ask
Timothy to accompany him on the missionary journey. They had traveled together
before (to Jerusalem). They knew each other well, and T-T had proved his
abilities as an envoy. After Paul's experience with Mark, he surely did not pick
a new acquaintance from Lystra to accompany him.
3. We run into contradictions if Timothy was from
Lystra. On the one hand Timothy must have been a Jew in many respects and
his mother was certainly a Jew. If Timothy had not been trained in the
scriptures and familiar with Jewish life and customs, he probably would not have
been qualified for the mission and Paul would not have invited him to accompany
him. Also, if he had not had a Jewish upbringing then his circumcision would
have been an empty gesture. On the other hand, Acts mentions no synagogue in Lystra. Also, the fact that Timothy was
still uncircumcised would suggest that he had not been heavily involved in the
Jewish community. Why was it necessary to circumcise Timothy if it had not been
necessary before? The data seems to conflict. The
scenario given above solves the problems. Timothy and his mother were
from Antioch so it is not a problem that there was no synagogue in Lystra.
He had a strong involvement in the Jewish community in Antioch, which was a
tolerant place and did not demand his circumcision. His Jewish background and
his visit to the apostles in Jerusalem made him fully qualified to accompany
Paul.
4. All the accounts of Timothy's
behaviour show that his name, which means 'honouring God', is well
chosen. This is surely no coincidence. Also it was common to pick a similar
sounding name (Silas-Silvanus, Abram-Abraham etc.), and this confirms that Titus
was Timothy.
5. When Luke says that the Jews in 'those places'
knew that Timothy's father was a Greek, he must be referring to a wide
geographical area. If he were only referring to Timothy's neighbours in Lystra
then he would be stating the obvious - of course his neighbours would know that
his father was a Greek. Also, if 'those places' refers just to Lystra and
Iconium it does not explain the circumcision of Timothy because he was about to
leave there. The Titus-Timothy hypothesis neatly explains how 'all the Jews' knew that Timothy's father had
been a Greek, and explains how the region concerned could be very extensive
indeed. Even Philippi was not beyond the reach of the 'false brothers', whom
Paul describes as 'dogs'.
6. The T-T hypothesis explains how Titus was known
to the Galatians (whether north or south).
7. The hypothesis explains why the name
'Titus' nowhere appears in Acts.
8. The hypothesis removes some odd features about
Titus. If he was not Timothy then he was unusual in being the only close
companion of Paul who was not circumcised. He would also be unique in being the
only companion who was with Paul on more than one journey, the only exception
being Timothy himself.
9. There are many indications in the Corinthian
letters that Titus was Timothy but they will have to wait for another
day.
Both the T-T hypothesis and the hypothesis that he
was two people agree that Titus was not circumcised in Jerusalem, and that
Timothy was circumcised in south Galatia. However, the two accounts do seem to
combine well. Each makes better sense in the light of the other. Let me know
what you think. Sorry about the length of this email. If I have not ansered your
question, Jeff, perhaps you could rephrase it.
Yours,
Richard Fellows.
|
-
[Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Jeffrey B. Gibson, 01/03/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Steve Black, 01/03/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul, Jeffrey B. Gibson, 01/03/2004
-
RE: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Bob MacDonald, 01/03/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Jeffrey B. Gibson, 01/03/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Frank W. Hughes, 01/03/2004
-
[Corpus-Paul] Did Paul preach in synagogues?,
Richard Fellows, 01/04/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul preach in synagogues?,
Frank W. Hughes, 01/04/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul preach in synagogues?,
Richard Fellows, 01/07/2004
- [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Jeff Peterson, 01/07/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Richard Fellows, 01/08/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Mark Goodacre, 01/08/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Richard Fellows, 01/10/2004
- [Corpus-Paul] Did Titus/Timothy pass as a Jew?, Richard Fellows, 01/10/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Richard Fellows, 01/26/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Jeffrey B. Gibson, 01/26/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Richard Fellows, 01/27/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul preach in synagogues?,
Richard Fellows, 01/07/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul preach in synagogues?,
Frank W. Hughes, 01/04/2004
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, David C. Hindley, 01/08/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, Richard Fellows, 01/10/2004
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision, David C. Hindley, 01/11/2004
- RE: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision (correction), David C. Hindley, 01/12/2004
-
[Corpus-Paul] Did Paul preach in synagogues?,
Richard Fellows, 01/04/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Frank W. Hughes, 01/03/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Jeffrey B. Gibson, 01/03/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions for Paul,
Steve Black, 01/03/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.