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: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision
  • Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:17:30 -0500

Richard Fellows asks:

>>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.<<

Your Timothy-Titus hypothesis has long interested me.

However, keep in mind that Acts 16:1-3 says Timothy had a Jewish mother and
a Greek father, while Gal 2:3-5 says that Titus was himself a Greek. Before
you can equate these statements, as if referring to the same person, can you
demonstrate from literature of the period (e.g., Josephus) that having a
Greek father might make one a "Greek" in Jewish eyes, in cases where the
mother was Jewish? Personally, even if the concept of matrilineal descent
making one "Jewish" (and thus in need of circumcision) was not the general
rule, I can see the expediency of circumcising someone of mixed ethnicity.

Even so, in that period I am aware of Jewish extremists (for lack of a
better word) who were indeed insisting that Gentiles interested revering the
Jewish God should, no "must," convert to Judaism completely and be
circumcised. The example I mentioned in an earlier post on another subject,
where Gentiles who had been seen reading the Jewish scriptures were
supposedly ambushed by certain Jews who demanded immediate circumcision on
threat of death, happened in Judaea.

Other Jews had a much more relaxed stand, and would allow these reverent
Gentiles to associate with Jews (and vice versa) without need of full
conversion. From inscriptions, it seems that this was the policy of many
Diaspora Jews, and certainly also Paul, yet Josephus' account of the
conversion of Queen Helena's sons Izatus and Monobazus makes it clear that
even among the Jews of the Diaspora there were some who insisted on (and
sometimes even got) full conversion of reverent Gentiles.

So, we really have only a cloudy and confused picture of the cultural
climate of this period. The undercurrent behind both Acts 16:1-3 and Gal
2:3-5 is where to draw the line that requires circumcision of a reverent
party. The authors of Acts and Galatians may also have differing
perspectives on the subject that would color their statements about the
subject of circumcision of reverent folks of at least partial Gentile stock.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page