Corpus-Paul

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:38:17 -0800 Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
writes:
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________

A fifth possibility 

e) Titus was NEVER circumcised.

george
gfsomsel
___________