Corpus-Paul

["Matthew A. Eby" <ebymatt AT yahoo.com>]

--- George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com> wrote:

> I do not accept that Timothy = Titus despite the fact that one person may
> be known by more than one name.  Your theory fails on the basis of the
> circumcision of Timothy and the non-circumcision of Titus.  In Acts 16.3
> PRIOR to his expedition into Galatia it is stated that Timothy WAS
> circumcised.  In Gal 2.3 it is stated that Titus WAS NOT circumcised. 
> Aside from an episiotomy which I would presume was not performed it would
> be imposible to speak of the same person who had already been circumcised
> as not being circumcised.  I also reject the notion that matrilineal
> considerations were not observed at this time in determining who was and
> who was not a Jew.   There is something which I seem to recall but which
> I am unable to locate offhand to the effect that the calf belongs to the 
> cow which was a basis for the idea of matrilineal inclusion in the Jewish
> people.  

George,

It appears that you hold to the North-Galatian hypothesis (a debated matter),
but regardless, it seems that you have missed something even more basic. In 
Gal
2.3, Paul is describing Titus's uncircumcised status during an *earlier* visit
to Jerusalem. Whether you understand this visit as the famine visit (Acts
11.29-30) or the Jerusalem council visit (Acts 15), in neither case does it
contradict the fact that Timothy is still uncircumcised in Acts 16.3.

Regards,

Matthew A. Eby
Ph.D. Student and Research Fellow
Wheaton College Graduate School