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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Timothy/Titus and circumcision
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:48:41 -0600

on 1/12/04 12:25 AM, Richard Fellows at rfellows AT shaw.ca wrote:

> 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?

Richard,
When I read these two accounts, I do not see that they are talking about the
same people or incidents, and I have not been persuaded by the very
interesting arguments you have made. My research time is presently being
spent engaging other topics.
>
> <<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.

I don't agree, and try as I may, do not understand how the rhetoric
indicates this. As I have already explained (similar are the comments of
Mark Goodacre on this), the resistance seems to me to emphasize that which
relates these earlier cases to the Galatian case for which Paul retells
them, namely, that just as they were not compelled on this matter, so too
the addressees in Galatia should not be compelled on this matter. This
coalition resists that proposition. "Not for a moment" emphasizes, it seems
plain to me, that they did not yield at all on this matter.

This matter (circumcision of non-Jews within this coalition) is the topic,
and the leaders and members of these groups do not do it, so Paul claims in
Gal 2, as far as I can see. So I do not see that it coordinates with what is
related in Acts 16, except that Timothy is not identified there as a non-Jew
but as an uncircumcised Jew. Two perspectives on the same person perhaps,
but it seems much less likely to be about the same incident.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page