Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

Richard, you write (your full post is below):
"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."

Mark replies:
I don't understand how this makes sense. You seem to be arguing that the
apostles wanted to circumcise Titus, just as did the pseudo-brethren
(you write: "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."). They did not do this, you suggest, because it would be used
to subvert the truth of the gospel by the pseudo-brethren. But it would not
subvert what you hold the apostles to believe.

So they didn't do it because it would not have been a free choice to do it,
even though they wanted to? In other words, they were constrained from doing
what they wanted to do, and were not making a free decision after all,
having to do the opposite of what they believed because they were more
concerned about being forced?

I don't get it. Why does it subvert the gospel, if it is what they believe
they should be doing?

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/




on 2/27/05 4:19 PM, Richard Fellows at rfellows AT shaw.ca wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul