Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

George wrote:
<<Titus WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED Timothy was.>>

Logically, there are only four possibilities
a) Titus was circumcised in Jerusalem. This is very unlikely. See the
commentaries. In the context Paul is showing that he had support from the
Jerusalem leadership and that he was resolute.
b) Titus was circumcised after the Jerusalem visit, but before the time of
the writing of Galatians, and the Galatians did not know it. This is not
possible. Paul would be leaving himself vulnerable to the accusation of
hiding a key fact.
c) Titus was circumcised after the Jerusalem visit, but before the time of
the writing of Galatians, and the Galatians knew it. This is possible and is
consistent with the Titus-Timothy hypothesis if Galatians was written AFTER
the events of Acts 16:1-3. See Mark G's recent emails.
d) Titus had not been circumcised by the time of the writing of Galatians.
This is possible and is consistent with the Titus-Timothy hypothesis if
Galatians was written BEFORE the events of Acts 16:1-3.

Of the four possibilities, only c) and d) are plausible, and only c) and d)
are consistent with Titus-Timothy. It is difficult to infer anything from
Gal 2:3-5 about whether Titus had been circumcised after the Jerusalem
visit. It is even more difficult to determine from this passage whether he
was circumcised after the writing of the letter!

Incidentally, we do not know whether the infiltration of the false brothers
occured in Jerusalem. It might have, but Antioch and Galatia are other
possibilities.

Richard.