Corpus-Paul

["Mitternacht Dieter" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>]

>> 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.
> 

In all three instances (Titus' circumcision, the handshake-report and the 
confrontation at Antioch) we are not quite sure about the outcome. This can 
hardly be a coincidence. It seems to me that there are at least three or four 
conclusions that should be contemplated:

1. The outcome was known to the addressees (and we are left guessing. Weak in 
my view, since it is not corroborated by the argumentative strategy of other 
parts in the letter, where it is obvious that the addressees knew the 
outcome, 3:1-5, 4:12ff).
2. The outcome was not the issue at stake (my preference. The mirror reading 
of Gal 1-2 is so filled with contradictory conclusions that maybe we should 
accept  G. Lyons' conclusion (Pauline Autobiography, 1985, 96) that mirror 
reading "it is inappropriate, if not entirely fallacious, for identifying 
either Paul's opponents or the function of his autobiographical remarks..."
3. The outcome was in the negative in all three instances (possible. I would 
conclude that Paul still reports the instances because his point is not the 
outcome but his persistence).
4. The outcome was in the negative in at least one of the incidents 
(possible. I would conclude as for 3. with the addition that it makes 2./3. 
even stronger).

Dieter