Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Mending the grammar of Gal 2:3-5 with Timothy

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Mending the grammar of Gal 2:3-5 with Timothy
  • Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:19:17 -0800

listers,

Gal 2:3-5 makes little grammatical sense if the DE in 4 is taken as
adversative, so let's explore what happens if we take it as explicative. In
that case verse 4 states the reason why Titus was not compelled to be
circumcised. Blommerde does indeed take it to be explicative and translates:

3. But not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised,
though he was a Greek, 4. namely: because of the false brothren secretly
brought in - they slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ
Jesus that they might bring us into bondage; 5. to them we did ot yield
submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be
preserved for you.

Machen considers a similar understanding:

"Not even Titus," Paul would say in accordance with this interpretation,
"was compelled to be circumcised; and that - namely, the non-circumcision of
Titus - was on account of the privily brought in false brethren." In other
words, if the false brethren had not been there, Titus might have been
circumcised; but their general contention about the Gentile converts made
the question about Titus a test case, so that yielding even in that case
became impossible.

This makes a lot of sense, and seems to be confirmed by 2:5, where Paul
clarifies 2:3-4. Paul, Titus, and the apostles did not yield to the false
brothers for a moment so that the false brothers would not be able to use
this precedent to subvert the truth of the gospel.

Why has this interpretation not been widely accepted? I think it is because
of the implication that the apostles would have had Titus circumcised if
false brothers had not been at large in the church. Commentators deny that
Paul would have permitted the circumcision of an ordinary Gentile under any
circumstances. But why must we assume that Titus was an ordinary Gentile?
Should we not rather take 2:3-5 as evidence that Titus was NOT an ordinary
Gentile, but was the most Jewish of Gentiles? Indeed, this might be the
force of the OUDE in 2:3 - even Titus was not compelled.

If Titus was Timothy he was the one person whom Paul was prepared to
circumcise, for Paul did indeed circumcise him at a later date. In 2:3-5
Paul might then be saying that the Jerusalem apostles did not even ask
TIMOTHY to be circumcised, because they did not want to send the wrong
message to the gentile churches such as those in Galatia, since the false
brothers had made circumcision such a hot issue. So, by equating Titus with
Timothy we can simultaneously mend Paul's grammar in 2:3-5 and end up with a
historically plausible reading. I know of no way of doing this without the
T-T hypothesis. Do you?

I am sometimes asked why Paul did not have Titus-Timothy circumcised in
Jerusalem. Why was the circumcision of T-T appropriate in Galatia if it had
not been appropriate in Jerusalem? What different circumcstances applied in
Jerusalem and Galatia? This is a valid question. I think there are two
differences between the situations in Jerusalem and Galatia. Firstly, Acts
16:3 indicates that Timothy's promotion to the rank of missionary companion
was what made the circumcision necessary at that point. Timothy would need
to be circumcised to gain an audiance among the Jews for his preaching.
Secondly, the circumcision issue was hotly disputed at the time of the
Jerusalem visit and this made it inadvisable to have Timothy circumcised
then. Indeed, Paul may be saying as much in Gal 2:3-5, as has been discussed
above.

On any hypothesis, Paul would not have circumcised Timothy if the south
Galatian churches had been under the influence of the influencers at that
time. Such a circumcision would have sent the wrong message. If Galatians
was written before the circumcision of Timothy it must have been successful
so that Paul was comfortable enough to circumcise him. If Galatians was
written after the circumcision of Timothy the controversy in Galatia arose
after Acts 16:1-3. The interpretation of Gal 2:1-3 given above seems
compatable with both these alternatives. Is there any way of choosing
between them?

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page