Corpus-Paul

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:00:57 -0800 (PST) "Matthew A. Eby"
<ebymatt AT yahoo.com> writes:
> --- 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
> _______________________________________________

No, it would not be accurate to say that I subscribe to the North
Galatian position -- nor would it be accurate to say that I subscribe to
the South Galatian position.  What would be accurate would be to say that
although I am aware of the the two I don't take a position with regard to
either.  I am primarily an OT person "slumming" <grin> on a NT list. 
 
Let's see what might be said regarding this.  During Paul's floruit
Galatia included more than it came to include later, e.g. under Trajan. 
It is quite possible that Acts uses Galatia in the later sense due to the
fact that he was writing after the shrinkage of the province.  It is
probable, however, that Paul would have used the earlier limits since
that was the condition when he wrote.  Nevertheless, it is not necessary
that Paul would have referenced all of the earlier area when he referred
to "Galatians"  just as I might make a reference to Britss without
referring to the whole of the Great Britain but only a subset which would
be understood (say, British NT scholars).  

Note that in Acts 13.14 it is said that "they came to Antioch in
Pisidia." Yet Paul mentions in Gal 2.11 that "Cephus came to Antioch." 
This would presumably have been of some significance to the Galatians and
therefore is not likely to be Antioch in Syria or one would expect it to
have been so noted since there was a nearer Antioch.  Note also the 
sequence in Gal 2.  

(1) Titus was note COMPELLED to be circumcised
(2) False brethren had attempted to achieve this.
(3) Cephus comes to Antioch 
      (a) he eats with the gentiles
       (b) out of fear of the circumcision party he separates from the
gentiles
       (c) Paul opposes Cephus for attempting to COMPEL the gentiles to
Judaize

The whole is a tightly knit argument in which Paul gives the conclusion
near the beginning "to them we did not yield submission even for a
moment."  Titus WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED Timothy was.  

george
gfsomsel
___________