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: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:25:22 -0800

Mark Nanos wrote:
<< In a similar way, even when the leaders met in Jerusalem in what should
have been a coalition-only meeting (from Paul's perspective), and felt
pressure from representatives of the majority Jewish communal norms (not the
coalition's norms)--the so-called "spies," which I translate as "inspectors"
(possibly "informants"), they were resisted. The item symbolizing this
matter was Titus's identity, who was not a Jew and had not become a
proselyte but who was nevertheless present on equal terms with the Jewism
members of this coalition, which represented "the truth of the gospel,"
namely, the equality of standing of Jew and non-Jew in this Jewish coalition
(I do not know how to reconcile this with Timothy references in Acts 16, and
do not see that what has bee offered in the prior posts works, at this
point).>>

Mark, I agree with what you say in the paragraph above, and I am puzzled why
you are unable to reconcile it with the Timothy references in Acts 16. Have
I misunderstood you, or did you misunderstand what I wrote? Could you
explain, as clearly as possible, what you find in Gal 2:1-5 that is hard to
reconcile with Acts 16:1-3?

<<By the way, Paul did mention the victory of this coalition's leaders in
Jer: "we did not give in for a moment,">>

It is interesting that Paul doesn't just say that he did not give in. He
qualifies it. He says that he did not give in with respect to the submission
(TH hUPOTAGH). This could mean that there was a yielding, of sorts, but not
on the point of principle. This would be consistent with the suggestion that
Titus was eventually circumcised (for practical reasons) at a subsequent
date in Galatia.

I agree with Dieter when he writes:
> In other words, Titus could have been circumcised for other reasons than
> pressure from the pseudadelfoi and Paul's point that he did not give in to
> the pressure from the pseudadelfoi or be compelled to circumcise his Greek
> fellow worker would still be valid.

For us Gal 2:3-5 is hopelessly ambiguous. In particular, we have the problem
of the ellipsis between 2:3 and 2:4. The reader is forced to supply the
missing words before he/she can make sense of the text. Early copyists
evidently also had difficulty understanding these verses, for the words 'to
whom not' are omitted in some texts, including Tertullian and Irenaeus (or
were these words omitted by someone who knew that Titus was eventually
circumcised?). If, then, the text is ambiguous to us, and probably also to
the early Christian generations, how could the Galatians have understood it?
Orchard wrote, "Whatever the missing words, we may be sure that they were
entirely obvious to his Galatian addressees." (Biblica 54, 1973). It seems
to me that the very ambiguity of the passage implies that there had been an
incident connected with Titus that was well known to the Galatians, but is
unknown to us. I suggest that this incident was the circumcision of
Titus-Timothy in Galatia. This circumcision would have been well known to
the Galatians, and it could explain Paul's apparent agitation in 2:4-5. As
Burkitt famously remarked, "who can doubt that it was the knife which really
did circumcise Titus that has cut the syntax of Gal. ii 3-5 to pieces?".
Also, the Galatians, knowing that Paul had circumcised Titus, would know to
supply the missing words, 'I circumcised him'. These are surely the words
that Paul cannot bring himself to say. In any case, words such as these are
perhaps implied by the DE at the beginning of 2:4 (assuming it is
adversative): Titus was not compelled to be circumcised BUT [I circumcised
him] because of the false brothers...

I have suggested that the 'false brothers' were the ones who revealed to the
Galatians that Titus-Timothy's father had been a Greek, and that this
explains the accusations of spying in 2:4. How do others understand the
spying? Why did they need to be brought into the meeting to find out what
they found out? What was Paul hiding?

> As far as I know, the view that Titus was actually circumcised was first
> suggested by J. Weiß Urchristentum (1917) 20.

Interestingly, the understanding that Paul did yield is very ancient.
Tertullian believed that Paul circumcised Timothy because of the false
brothers of Gal 2.4.

Richard Fellows








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page