Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Did Titus/Timothy pass as a Jew?

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: [Corpus-Paul] Did Titus/Timothy pass as a Jew?
  • Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:44:47 -0800

Mark Goodacre asked:
> what is Paul talking about when he refers to spying? First, without
> wanting to be too graphic, is the implication that someone peeped
> under the bedsheets or stood too close when Titus went to the toilet
> (cf. East is East)? If so, does this mean that Paul had not been
> upfront initially that Titus was uncircumcised?

Yes, there are several indications that Titus allowed others to assume that
he was circumcised, when in fact he was not. He seems to have been slow to
declare that he was uncircumcised, and Paul went along with this. Here,
below, are the indications that this was the case.

1. Acts says the Timothy was circumcised because the Jews 'all knew that his
father was a Greek'. Unless this phrase is completely redundant, Timothy
would not have been circumcised if they had not known that he was
uncircumcised. In other words, if they had not known about is father, they
would have just assumed that he was a circumcised Jew, and he would not have
needed to be circumcised. Timothy, it seems, was able to pass as a
circumcised Jew, but was not able to in Galatia because they all new that
his father was a Greek.

2. Still in Acts, we read that the believing Jews in Jerusalem had been
told that Paul taught Jews not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21). We
also read that Jews from Asia came to the conclusion that Paul had taken
Trophimus into the Temple, and that the city was aroused (Acts 21:28-29).
Whether these specific accusations were justified or not, they show that the
Jerusalemites at least found them credible. Paul's reputation in Jerusalem
must have been such that these accusations could have been made and
believed. Even if Paul had done nothing as extreme as tell Jews not to
circumcise their sons, or take Gentiles into the temple, he must have done
something to make those rumours credible. Now, if Paul had indeed allowed
Titus to keep quiet about his uncircumcised state while in Jerusalem, and if
he was found out, this would neatly explain the reputation that Paul earned.
If those who met Titus took him to be a Jew and were later informed that he
was uncircumcised, they might well conclude that Paul taught Jews not to
circumcise their sons. In the Jerusalemites' eyes Titus's uncircumcised
state would have reflected badly on Paul, since Titus was a convert of Paul
(see 1 Cor 4:17) and was in Paul's charge (see Gal 2:1). Also, if Paul had
indeed allowed Titus to pass himself off as a Jew, this incident would
explain why the accusation about taking Gentiles into the temple was
believed. The discovery that Titus was uncircumcised would have been bad
public relations for Paul in Jerusalem, and it is intriguing to consider the
possibility that this incident may have led to the later accusations against
Paul, and ultimately to his death.

3. Turning to Galatians, the phrase hELLHN WN in Gal 2:3 is noteworthy. The
inclusion of this phrase makes the sentence rather disjointed, and it is
strange that Paul feels the need to include it. From 2:1 it is probable that
Titus was known to the Galatians, so they would surely know that he was a
Greek. Also, the context makes it obvious that Titus was a Greek. The hELLHN
WN seems redundant if Titus was 100% Gentile by parentage and never
circumcised and always upfront about his Gentile status. The fact that Paul
has to include the phrase indicates that there had been some form of
ambiguity about Titus's status. If Titus had passed as a Jew outside the
meeting with the apostles, this would explain why Paul had to include the
'being Greek' to make it clear that Titus was known to be a Greek by those
in the meeting.

4. The accusations of spying and secret infiltration in Gal 2:4 also make
sense in the light of the proposed Titus incident. Gal 2:4-5 is just the
sort of reaction that we would expect from Paul if the 'false brothers' had
discovered, contrary to their prior assumption, that Titus was in fact
uncircumcised. Mark Goodacre is surely right to ask whether Paul was upfront
initially that Titus was uncircumcised. The answer is no, I think. Knox put
it well when he wrote, "It may be supposed that S. Paul would inform the
three Apostles that Titus was uncircumcised, since he would have no reason
for not doing so, but it is quite clear that he regarded the means by which
others became aware of the fact as grossly dishonourable (Gal ii.4)".

5. Luke does not mention that Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to
Jerusalem. Nor does he mention any incident that could correspond to Gal
2:4. These omissions are explained by the proposed Titus incident, which was
a source of bad publicity for Paul. It is understandable that Luke would
want to avoid direct mention of this incident.

The combined weight of these five points make a strong case, I think, that
Titus did indeed pass as a Jew. This further confirms that Titus was
Timothy. It would certainly not be surprising for Titus-Timothy to present
himself as a Jew when moving in Jewish circles. Paul himself said that to
the Jews he became as a Jew, so it is hardly surprising that Timothy should
do the same. One should not assume that Titus-Timothy was involved in a
hideous deceit (not from his point of view, anyway). Some time ago on this
list there was a discussion about the ethics of deception in the ancient
world, and I think I am right in saying that it would not be considered
morally reprehensible for Paul and Titus to be economical with the truth in
this way. In any case, for Titus to be reticent about his uncircumcised
state would be in keeping with Paul's theology. Paul said that 'neither
circumcision or uncircumcision is anything' (Gal 6:15), and it seems that
Titus demonstrated this Pauline indifference to circumcision.

What do listers think about all this? If a man was uncircumcised but had a
Jewish background and travelled and eat with Jews, and if he came into
contact with strict Jews, would he be obliged to disclose the fact that he
was uncircumcised? If so, when? Upon meeting them? Before eating with them?
Never? What different perspectives might Paul and Jerusalem Jews have had on
this question? If your father was a Greek, would you be obliged to reveal
the (shameful) fact?

Richard Fellows.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page