Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page