Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Concerning the false brothers of Gal 2:4, Mark Nanos wrote on 13 Jan:
> I do not think we come across the influencers in Galatia in Jerusalem, and
> have argued this in detail in Irony of Galatians.

I was disappointed to find that 'Irony of Galatians' contains no such
arguments about the identity of the 'false brothers'. It contains useful
suggestions, but does not support them with evidence. However, Mark may be
partly right. The infiltration reported in Gal 2:4 may have taken place in
Galatia, rather than Jerusalem. (In that case the false brothers may have
been Galatian Jews, and may have had no connection with Jerusalem at all).
Here's why the infiltration of the 'false brothers' was probably in Galatia:

1. Paul writes, ".. that the truth of the gospel might remain with you". If
the incident occurred in Galatia, this is just the sort of thing that we
would expect Paul to write.

2. If the infiltration occurred in Jerusalem, the 'false brothers' would
have known that Paul did not preach circumcision, because he laid out his
gospel at that meeting. If the 'false brothers' became the influencers in
Galatia, it is hard to understand how the Galatians could have come to the
view that Paul preached circumcision (5:11).

3. Paul writes, ".. who slipped in to spy on the freedom WE have in Christ
Jesus, so that they might enslave US". The 'we' cannot refer to Titus alone,
so probably includes Paul also. Now, in Jerusalem Paul would have been among
Jews and would have been observant of Jewish practices. It is therefore hard
to see how Paul could have exercised 'freedom' in Jerusalem, so it is more
likely that the infiltration of the 'false brothers' was in Galatia.

4. The Galatian addressees would only have been able to understand the
broken grammar of Gal 2:4-5 if they were familiar with the incident in
question. This suggests that the infiltration may have occurred in Galatia.
Mark's view is that the 'false brothers' were Jerusalemites and never went
to Galatia. This fails to explain how Paul could have expected his readers
to understand his meaning in Gal 2:4-5.

5. Acts 16:3 may allude to that very incident. Titus was circumcised in
Galatia "because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew
that his father was  Greek." (Acts 16:3). How did they find out? In Gal
2:3-4 Paul says that the Jerusalem apostles did not compel Titus to be
circumcised, "but because of the false brothers...." . The "but" stands
adversative to "circumcised". It therefore seems likely that the spying of
the 'false brothers' led to the circumcision of Titus. They found out that
Titus's father was a Greek and that is why Paul circumcised him. While this
is not the only way of reading the text, it does seem to fit, doesn't it?
Interestingly, both Tertullian and Ambrosiaster said that the 'false
brothers' were responsible for the circumcision of Timothy.

So I think there are reasons to believe that the infiltration was in
Galatia. What do listers think?

Richard Fellows.