Corpus-Paul

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:03:38 -0800 Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca> writes:
> 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.
________________

 

Richard,

 

Am I misunderstanding you?  Do you actually suggest that Titus and Timothy were one and the same person?  I think that this fails on several counts.

 

1.  In 2 Corinthians both names are given, seemingly not interchangeably.

      2 Cor 1.1, 19; 2.13; 7.6, 13, 14; 8.6, 16, 23; 12.18

2.  Timothy is said to be of mixed Jewish and Greek parentage (Acts 2.1-3) with his mother being Jewish.  There may be some problem with accepting Acts as being totally accurate, but I tend to think that in such matters it would be though it might be in error regarding Paul's itinerary.  If his mother was in fact Jewish, Timothy would be considered Jewish and therefore liable to circumcision -- at least in the eyes of the Jewish-Christian party.

3.  Titus, on the other hand, is stated by Paul to be Greek and was therefore not circumcised (Gal 2.3).

george
gfsomsel
___________