Corpus-Paul

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:08:50 -0500 "Stephen C. Carlson"
<scarlson AT mindspring.com> writes:
> At 09:33 AM 2/24/2005 -0500, George F Somsel wrote:
> >In Gal 2.3 it is stated that Titus WAS NOT circumcised.
> 
> No, it does not.  It says that Titus was not *compelled*
> to be circumcised  OUDE ... HNAGKASQH PERITMHQHNAI.  This
> could mean that Titus was not circumcised at all or that
> he volunteered for it, e.g. for the reasons that Acts
> gave re Timothy.
> 
> Stephen Carlson
> 
> -- 
> Stephen C. Carlson                        
> mailto:scarlson AT mindspring.com
> Weblog:                              
> http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
> "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 
> 2.35
> 
> _______________________________________________

While technically you are correct that it does state that he was not
compelled to be circumcised, I think that the clear implication was that
he was in fact not circumcised.  Otherwise it would seem strange that it
would be stated that he was not compelled to be circumcised but left
unstated that he had actually been circumcised.  I think you are picking
nits here.

george
gfsomsel
___________