Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Titus-Timothy and Galatians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: M.S.Goodacre AT bham.ac.uk, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Titus-Timothy and Galatians
  • Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:03:38 -0800

Mark Goodacre wrote:
> Do you think that Galatians preceeds 1 Corinthians? One thing that
> troubles me about the view that Galatians preceeds 1 Cor. is that in
> the latter Paul is still apparently on friendly terms with the
> Galatians (1 Cor. 16.1) but by 2 Corinthians and Romans, they are no
> longer in view (2 Cor. 8-9, Rom. 15.26). If Galatians is between 1
> and 2 Cor., we have an obvious locus for the fall-out. If it precedes
> 1 Cor., we have to hypothesise another crisis between the writing of 1
> and 2 Cor., no?

Interesting line or argument. I agree that 1 Cor 16:1 suggests that Paul was
on friendly terms with the Galatians at that time. However, it is less clear
that there was a falling out before the writing of 2 Cor and Rom. The
inclusion of Gaius of Derbe in Acts 20:4 suggests to some that Galatia DID
contribute to the collection. Alternatively the collection mentioned in 1
Cor 16:1 may have been delivered separately from Paul's Aegean collection.
Logistically it would make little sense for the Galatians to send their
collection to Jerusalem via Corinth.

> On your view, Richard, does it not make sense to see Timothy / Titus
> in the background of 5.11? If it is known to the Galatians that Titus
> was indeed circumcised, they have an obvious reason for assuming that
> "Paul preached circumcision". On that reading, Paul's difficulty in
> chapter 2 is that he is writing against a background of recipients who
> know that Titus has been circumcised and who want to take this next
> step themselves. What Paul then does with this tricky situation is to
> insist that Titus was not *compelled* to be circumcised (2.3), the
> implicit contrast being to the compulsion applied by Peter in Antioch
> (2.14) and the compulsion applied by the influencers in Galatia
> (6.12).
>
> What do you think? One of the things I find appealing about the
> Timothy / Titus theory (and I am not saying that I'm fully persuaded
> yet, but intrigued) is the possible light it sheds on the background
> of Galatians. You can understand the persuasive power of the
> Galatians' knowledge of this action, "You know, folks, that Paul's
> companion Titus himself has been circumcised, even though he's a
> Greek", over some rumour about what Paul may be saying.

Mark, yes 2:1-3 and 5:11 can certainly be read as referring to the
circumcision of Timothy after the event. In fact it works rather well, as
you have shown above. However, the data can also fit with an earlier date.
If Titus was Timothy, he made a journey from Jerusalem (Gal 2:3) to south
Galatia (Acts 16:1) (perhaps via Antioch or perhaps directly). This journey
provides an occasion when a letter could have been carried. The words "that
the truth of the gospel might always remain with you" mean that the case of
Titus had some particular relevance for the Galatians. I have suggested that
these words are particularly powerful if Titus was at that time preparing to
travel to Galatia. Does this work best with an early date for the letter, or
a later date?

One of the strengths (and frustrations) of the Titus-Timothy theory is that
it is compatible with nearly all the major historical theories concerning
the historical background of Galatians. It works with the North Galatia
theory, and the south Galatia theory; it works with a late date for the
letter, and an early date; it works with Gal 2 = famine visit, and with Gal
2 = Acts 15; and it works with home-grown influencers, and with outside
influencers. While the Titus-Timothy theory does not automatically decide
any of these issues, I hope that one day someone will find a way of
employing it to do so.

I do, however, have a preference for Gal 2 = Acts 15, because one might
expect Timothy, who was a circumcision candidate, to accompany Paul to
Jerusalem for a meeting which had circumcision on the agenda.

The problem is that Gal 2:3-5 is so desperately ambiguous. However, there
are some things that can be said with reasonable confidence from the
references to Titus in Gal 2:1,3. Firstly, we know that Titus was
uncircumcised when he went up to Jerusalem. Timothy was also uncircumcised
at this time, so this is a minor point of agreement. Secondly, Titus was a
companion of Paul specifically, and so was Timothy. Thirdly, Titus was known
to the Galatians. We know this because a) he is mentioned without
introduction in 2:1, b) the non-circumcision of Titus in Jerusalem would not
have been a powerful point in Paul's argument if the readers had not know
that Titus was a leading Christian, rather than an enquirer on the fringes
of the movement, c) if the readers had some background knowledge of the
Titus incident, this would explain why they were expected to understand the
very ambiguous 2:4-5. Since Timothy was also known to the Galatians (both
North and South), this is another minor point of agreement.

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page