Loading...Here is our final guest post from Richard Fellows, based on his article in an international journal of biblical studies: “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the Confusion in Galatia” Biblica 99.4 (2018) 544-566.
He has some bold and controversial claims. Check them out! He’ll be happy to respond to your comments.
******************************
The identity of Titus and the historicity of Acts
This is the last of three guest posts on the background of Galatians. In the earlier two posts I (Richard Fellows) argued that some activists had convinced Galatian Christians 1) that Paul himself believed in the need for circumcision, and 2) that it was only to please the Jerusalem apostles that Paul continued to speak against circumcision. In this post we will explore the identity of Titus and the events that created this confusion that Galatians was written to correct.
Titus has been described as the most enigmatic character in the New Testament. In the undisputed letters the name “Titus” appears at Gal 2:1,3 and 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6,13,14; 8:6,16,23; 12:18,18, yet it is strangely absent from Acts. This raises the possibility that Titus appears in Acts under another name, and Timothy is the only real candidate. Several considerations confirm this Titus=Timothy equation.
- In 1 Corinthians (4:17; 16:10) Timothy is sent to Corinth. In 2 Corinthians Timothy is with Paul again (1:1), but only Titus has returned from Corinth with news of how 1 Corinthians was received. The proofs of this are detailed and are given in my 2001 JSNT paper.
- Paul writes that he had sent a certain brother to accompany Titus (2 Cor 12:16-18) and that his shows that he had not intended to defraud the Corinthians. Evidently this brother was trusted by the Corinthians in money matters. This matches Acts 19:22, where Timothy travels with Erastus, who was a treasurer in Corinth (Rom 16:23).
- Titus carries 2 Corinthians to Corinth and it is likely that he will accompany the Corinthians’ collection to Judea. We should therefore expect him to send greetings in Rom 16:21-23, which was written from Corinth shortly before the collection was delivered. “Lucius” of Rom 16:21 cannot be Titus because both names are Latin praenomina. The others in Rom 16:21-23 were converted too late to be Titus. Timothy is the only possibility.
- The name “Timothy” is somewhat similar phonetically to “Titus” and this increases the probability of identity (compare Paul-Saul, Silas-Silvanus, Jesus-Justus etc.). “Timothy” means “honoring God” and could have been given as a new name to Titus.
- The name “Titus” is a Latin praenomen (first name) and was therefore almost certainly held by a Roman citizen who also had a nomen and cognomen. The cognomen would be used to confer honor, and the praenomen was used among family and close friends. Titus, whoever he was, is referred to by his praenomen, rather than by his cognomen, in 2 Corinthians after 1:19, presumably because Paul and his co-sender did not want to “lord it over” the Corinthians (1:24). If Titus remained uncircumcised (Gal 2:1-5), Paul would be mentioning him as an example for the Galatians to follow and we would expect Paul to use his cognomen. Paul calls Titus by his praenomen, and his suggests that Titus was circumcised by the time of writing. So, both Titus and Timothy (Acts 16:1-3) were probably circumcised, and in connection to Galatia. Surely this is no coincidence. Let us now look in more detail at these passages.
Gal 2:1-5
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2:2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. 2:3 But even Titus, who was with me being Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised. 2:4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 2:5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.
Acts 16:1-4 describes events in Galatia after Paul’s visit to Jerusalem:
16:1 Paul went on also to Derbe and to Lystra, where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 16:2 He was well spoken of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium. 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 16:4 As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.
Tertullian, believed that Gal 2:4-5 referred to the circumcision of Timothy. Connections between these passages were spotted more recently by William Walker, who suggested that the author of Acts read Gal 2:1-5 and rewrote the episode, transferring it to Timothy.
Timothy had a Jewish mother and a Greek father. This tells us –
- He may have been from Antioch, for Josephus writes that the Jews of Antioch “were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves” (BJ 7.45).
- He was uncircumcised because his father was a Greek (see Shaye Cohen’s “Was Timothy Jewish?”).
- He was able to pass himself off as a full Jew, for the Talmud shows that sons of Jewish mothers sometimes kept quiet about their Greek fathers when outside their home towns (and were sometimes encouraged to do so) (b. Yev 45a-b).
A man’s status as circumcised or uncircumcised was discovered by making inquiries about his father (see Cohen’s ‘“Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not”: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?’). Acts 16:3 implies that Timothy would not have needed to be circumcised if the Jews had not learned that his father was a Greek. Galatians tells us how they found out.
Paul writes in Gal 2:3 that Titus was a Greek while he was with him, with the possible implication that Titus passed himself off as a Jew at other times. Gal 2:2 stresses that it was a private meeting and 2:4 says that the false brothers had secretly intruded and spied. We need not imagine the false brothers peaking under Titus’s toga to discover his uncircumcised state. They likely just overheard mention of Titus’s Greek father. It seems that the false brothers let it be know in Galatia that Titus-Timothy’s father was a Greek. Paul then circumcised Titus-Timothy, giving the impression that Paul had yielded the principle, which he denies (Gal 2:5). The broken grammar of Gal 2:4-5 can now be explained. At the beginning of verse 4 an ellipsis can be filled with the words “I circumcised him”. These words are the elephant in the room. It is not just that Paul cannot bring himself to say these words. He also wants the Galatians to KNOW that he cannot bring himself to say these words. Thus, the broken grammar serves Paul’s purposes. We can see now that Gal 2:3-5, while puzzling and ambiguous to commentators for centuries, would have been clear for the believers in Galatia, where Titus-Timothy was circumcised.
After circumcising Timothy, Paul delivers the decisions of the Jerusalem apostles (that circumcision was not required) (Acts 16:4). People interpreted Paul’s circumcision of Titus-Timothy to mean that he now recognised the need for circumcision, and they supposed that he delivered the decisions of the Jerusalem apostles only out of loyalty to them. Galatians was written to respond to this misunderstanding.
There are some important implications of the new view of Galatians:
- We have seen that Acts 16:1-4 explains Gal 2:1-5 and the rest of the letter nicely. Also, it was the activists, not Acts, who misrepresented the position of the Jerusalem apostles. Paul’s silence about the decree is now understandable and its historicity need not be doubted. In short, the supposed unreliability of Acts needs to be reconsidered in light of the new view of Galatians.
- We can no longer cast Paul as an uncompromising extremist opponent of circumcision. This will be of interest to the “Paul within Judaism” crowd.
- Paul and the Jerusalem apostles were in agreement on Gentile inclusion.
- The identification of Titus as Timothy confirms that the Pastoral Epistles were fakes (see 2 Tim 4:10).
I give a big thank you to Bart for hosting these posts, which provide unsettling challenges to both conservative and sceptical scholarship in our polarized field. Thank you also to those who have contributed comments. The conversation can continue.
Great stuff! Very comprehensive and reasonable. Thank you.
You’ve convinced me that Titus and Timothy were one and the same person. Thanks for your work on that topic!
But I’m still having difficulty understanding your conjecture about Paul’s unsaid words–“I circumcised him”. Are you saying that “with the δέ in 2.4 standing adverse to περιτμηθήναι” (Was Titus Timothy? JSNT, 2001), Paul’s unsaid words should be read into Gal 2:3-5 like this?
“But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (περιτμηθήναι). But [I circumcised him] because of the false brothers brought in secretly, who came in by stealth to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus in order to enslave us, to whom we did not yield in subjection for an hour, so that truth of the gospel would be preserved with you.”
Is that correct? And your explanation for “the broken grammar of Gal 2:4-5” is that Paul could not bring himself say words that directly contradict the explicit claim he is about to make — “we did not yield in subjection for an hour”.
Is that correct?
Yes, you have understood me well. I would only add to your final paragraph. Paul had circumcised Titus-Timothy and this had led the Galatians to think that they too should be circumcised. Therefore Paul does not want to draw attention to the fact that the circumcised Titus-Timothy. Furthermore, the Galatians were thinking that Paul believed in the need for circumcision but did not want to say so to the them (for fear of displeasing the pillars). Therefore Paul wanted the Galatians to KNOW that he did not want to draw attention to his circumcision of Titus-Timothy. This, I think, is why he conspicuously does not utter the words “I circumcised him”. Titus-Timothy had been circumcised for purely pragmatic reasons (as a ploy to win Jews). Paul had not yielded the principle that circumcision was not needed for salvation. However, had yielded, in the sense that he had circumcised Titus-Timothy, and that, I think, is why he must deny that the had yielded in the matter.
Did he circumcise him or have him circumcised by someone else? It was my impression that only a rabbi could circumcise and only if he were also a mohel. Not every rabbi was a mohel. While I was a grad student, I did temporary work in a Urology clinic and typed dozens of intraoperative reports on circumcision.It is not a trivial procedure, especially on an adult.
Thanks for your urological input. My father is a retired urological surgeon, so I’ll get his perspective too. I think it is sometimes suggested that Paul must have been a rabbi because he circumcised, but I don’t know how to rule out the possibility that Acts 16:3 just means that Paul commissioned someone else to circumcise Timothy.
Sorry, you lost me. Did Paul believe that non-Jews should be circumcised or not?
Paul thought that non-Jews did not need to be circumcised. Timothy was an exception. He needed to be circumcised so that he could win Jews to faith in Christ. I don’t think ordinary Gentiles would have had the background to be evangelists, even if they had accepted circumcision. But Timothy, having a Jewish mother, may have had a long association with a synagogue and Jewish culture, and he may have had a good understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. All he lacked, evidently, was circumcision. Does that help?
yes, thanks, although I struggle to picture the moment during catechatecal instruction when the instructor had to whip it out.
‘At the beginning of verse 4 an ellipsis can be filled with the words “I circumcised him”. These words are the elephant in the room.’ I’m not clear on why you say this is the elephant in the room, when the elephant is not in the room; that is, the words are not there. A lot of interpretations are possible throughout the Bible if we are allowed to insert words we think ought to be there.
The term “elephant I the room” refers to words that are not said. Yes, many interpretations of Gal 2:4-5 are possible.
“it is strangely absent from Acts. This raises the possibility that Titus appears in Acts under another name, and Timothy is the only real candidate”
If Timothy=Titus why is Timothy not mentioned in Acts 15:2 ???
“Paul and Barnabas … along with some other believers … go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles”
We know from Galatians that Paul “went up again to Jerusalem, with Barnabas” and he “ took Titus along also”(Gal 2:1)
So Luke omitted Titus, Why? We don’t know , but it is obvious that the explanation Timothy=Titus does not work here because Luke did not mention Timothy either and he has no problem mentioning him in other passages (Acts 16:1,17:14-15,18:5,19:22,20:4) . So the “strangely” absence remains , the fact that Luke says “ along with some other believers” makes me think that Luke does not want to mention Titus for any reason he may have . Moreover, that passage points to the fact that indeed Titus (the one Luke does not want to mention) was a different person than Timothy ( one who Luke has no problem mentioning at all).
Good question. The absence of Titus from the third missionary journey in Acts is surprising because he was certainly an important co-worker of Paul at that time. While Timothy appears at 19:22; 20:4, “Titus” is not there. The absence of Titus (or indeed “Timothy”) in Acts 15:2 is not surprising because he had not yet been appointed to be Paul’s co-worker.
Well , I see that what surprises you is not a surprise to me and vice versa !
“The absence of Titus from the third missionary journey in Acts is surprising because he was certainly an important co-worker of Paul at that time”
Outside Galatians Titus is only mentioned by Paul in 2 Cor in relation to his trips to and from Corinth .
The only time Corinth is mentioned in Acts during “the third missionary journey” is
in 19:1 “While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus.”
So why do you expect Titus to be mentioned ?
“The absence of Titus (or indeed “Timothy”) in cis not surprising because he had not yet been appointed to be Paul’s co-worker.”
“Had not yet been appointed to be Paul’s co-worker.” ?
Paul himself says in Gal 2:1 “I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.”
Do you mean that he was not a co-worker yet?
Maybe, perhaps Titus was thinking about becoming one so Paul took him to visit Jerusalem in order to convince him.
Most commentators do find it surprising that the name Titus is absent from Acts, and with good reason. Titus is mentioned ahead of a brother who famous among all the church (2 Cor 8:16-18). He was therefore himself even more famous or important in some way (name order indicated prominence in the ancient world, including in Paul). Titus is sent to Corinth at the time of 2 Corinthians, probably with the aim that he will carry the Corinthians’ collection to Jerusalem. Yet his name does not appear at Acts 20:4, nor at Rom 16:21. If Titus was not Timothy he was by far the most prominent associate of Paul who is absent from Acts.
Yes, it is only after the believers in south Galatia attest to Timothy that he is appointed by Paul to his role as fellow missionary.
If you are going to defend the two-person hypothesis you will need to find a plausible sequence of events that explains the travel notices in 1 Cor 16 and 2 Cor 1. I would recommend the introduction in Thrall’s 2 Cor commentary for a good discussion of the problems.
But even if he was not, who said somebody MUST be a Paul co-worker to be mentioned by Luke? What about Sergius Paulus, Elymas or Lydia and many more ?
But Luke not only did not mention Timothy in Acts 15:2, he introduced him in Acts 16:12
“Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived….
The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him”
To think that this Timothy was already with Paul in Acts 15:2 but was not mentioned because ” he had not yet been appointed to be Paul’s co-worker.” it seems very (very) forced to me. To whom “The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him” ?
Nothing in 16:1-3 suggests that Paul even knew Timothy and you say that he was previously with Paul in Jerusalem in such an important event as the so called council.
Not in Paul’s letters, not in Acts the equation Timothy=Titus works.
See my reply to brenmcg.
The Greek does not say that Timothy lived in Lystra.
I ran across the idea lately that Acts actually borrows very heavily from Josephus. The argument tended to be along the lines of: Josephus has a definite “story line” for the period of Acts, and that much of Acts touches upon characters and themes from Josephus, and some rather inexplicable incidents in Acts can actually be elucidated by referencing the same characters and incidents in Josephus. So the idea is that whoever wrote Acts cribbed rather heavily from Josephus. Another idea floating around is that Luke in its current form is actually later than John. What we have today as Luke is actually a redacted form of an earlier form of Luke that actually did predate John. For the non-scholar, like me, it can become rather confusing. One hardly knows who to credit, or take seriously!
I sympathize. My only advice is to read a variety of authors. Don’t get all your ideas from one place, and be suspicious of those who do. It is very unfortunate that scholars who are sceptical concerning the disputed Paulines tend to accept sceptical views of Acts uncritically, and scholars who are inclined to trust Acts tend to also trust the disputed Paulines. In my view the accuracy of Acts comes into focus when we firmly reject the disputed letters, but, alas, NT scholarship is very polarized.
The first question concerning Acts is whether it was written by a companion of Paul. The question of the relationship between Acts and Josephus is secondary, I think.
2 Cor 7:13-14 :
“we were especially delighted to see how happy Titus was, because his spirit has been refreshed by all of you. I had boasted to him about you, and you have not embarrassed me. But just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting about you to Titus has proved to be true as well”
So Paul boasted Titus about the corinthians before he send him to Corinth and also boasted the corinthians about Titus , when Titus returned from Corinth he was “happy … because his spirit has been refreshed by all of you” and Paul became “especially delighted” once he realized his double-boasting worked so well.
But from 1 Cor we know Timothy was very well known there (1 Cor 4:17,16:10).
So why so much boasting?
I think the answer is : because TITUS WAS NOT TIMOTHY.
Paul probably made an intermediate visit to Corinth (see 2 Cor 13:1-2). He later sent Titus to Corinth with the so-called tearful letter, to resolve a difficult situation. Titus was anxious about his assignment, for Paul had to reassure him (7:14), and he was greatly relieved when it turned out ok (7:7, 13). All this fits perfectly with 1 Cor 4:17 where we read that Timothy had been sent to Corinth to resolve a difficult situation, and 1 Cor 16:10, where we learn that Timothy was anxious about his assignment.
The visit of Timothy to Corinth in 1 Corinthians is the same visit as that from which Titus has returned in 2 Corinthians. Otherwise it is not possible to make sense of the itineraries in 1 Cor 16:5-9; 2 Cor 1:15-16 (many have tried).
I don’t see any argument against Titus-Timothy in any of the verses that you cite. Paul had probably been to Corinth more recently than Titus-Timothy, so he tried to reassure him that the Corinthians would come around. Does that help?
“The visit of Timothy to Corinth in 1 Corinthians is the same visit as that from which Titus has returned in 2 Corinthians. Otherwise it is not possible to make sense of the itineraries in 1 Cor 16:5-9; 2 Cor 1:15-16 .”
Sorry , I read it over and over again and do not see the connection.
But if the “brother to accompany Titus (2 Cor 12:16-18)” could be “Erastus, who was a treasurer in Corinth (Rom 16:23)” all is possible !
I think the “ so-called tearful letter” (part of it being 10:1–13:13 see
https://ehrmanblog.org/are-there-actually-five-letters-in-2-corinthians-so-that-its-2-3-4-5-and-6-corinthians/ ) was written when Paul was in Troas waiting for Titus to return from Corinth ( When I came to Troas … I did not find my brother Titus 2 Cor 2:12-13)
He wrote that letter “out of much distress” (2 Cor 2:4),
after being “unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself” in Ephesus (2 Cor 1:8-11) staying in Troas and without knowing anything about the brothers his “mind could not rest” ( 2 Cor 2:13) , he taught in going himself to Corinth (I wanted to come to you first 2 Cor 1:15-16) ,
(continues …)
to fix things in a somewhat rough way (if I come again, I will not be lenient, I may not have to be severe 2 Cor 13:2-10 ) but he realized (probably with somebody’s else help) that he was not in the best mood and instead departed to Macedonia (I went forth into Macedonia 2 Cor 2:13)
He arrived in Macedonia still with troubles (disputes without and fears within 2 Cor 7:5-10) but then Titus arrived. When he knew about the impact of the “ tearful letter”
(I see that I grieved you with that letter 2 Cor 7:8) he wrote a “conciliatory letter” (1:1–6:13; 7:2–16 see Bart’s article above)
So, this is Paul’s itinerary in 2 Cor and I don’t see at all any conflict with 1 Cor 16:5-9 that refers to an intended previous visit coming from Ephesus that could be ( if he
really went to Corinth after announcing his visit ) the second visit he refers to in 2 Cor 13:1 (This is the third time I am coming to you).
So you are looking for solutions to problems that don’t even exist.
How many times did Paul change his travel plans, according to your reconstruction, and why did he change them?
The answer is between the last part of my first post and the beginning of the second, I realize you didn’t read it ….
There are strong hints in 1 Corinthians that Paul had promised to re-visit Corinth, but had not done so (see 1 Cor 4:17-21 and notice the rather apologetic way that he tells them that he will not visit them now in 1 Cor 16:5-9). Paul’s non-arrival in Corinth at this time can be neatly explained by Timothy’s delayed arrival in Corinth and return to Paul (due to Timothy’s apprehension?). In any case Paul then decided to visit them only after visiting Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5). There is no evidence that he ever modified this plan. This is the only change of plan that we need. On your reconstruction, however, he sent Titus to Corinth and then decided (unprompted by any obvious source of further information) to visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia. Then, according to you, he abandoned that plan and returned to the original plan (again unprompted by any known source of information). So, it seems to me that you have three changes of travel plans, two of which are very arbitrary. Also, it is puzzling why Paul would need to defend his abandonment of a plan, which, according to your reconstruction, the Corinthians did not know.
This has been an excellent series. Thank you.
Does Gal 2 not indicate Paul knew Titus before the Jerusalem council and Acts 16 indicate he met Timothy after the council?
Good question. Yes, Acts 16:1-3 is sometimes taken to mean that Timothy was a new discovery for Paul at the time, but there are problems with this view. Firstly, Paul describes Timothy as his son in the faith. Secondly, it seems unlikely that Paul would appoint a new believer to be his partner. Timothy was not merely a helper who carried the bags, since he needed to be circumcised (to preach in synagogues, presumably). After his experience with Mark, Paul would have wanted someone who was tried and tested. For these reasons it is commonly supposed that Timothy was converted by Paul on the first missionary journey. This would resolve the chronological contradiction that you mentioned, since the first missionary journey was before Titus’s journey to Jerusalem. I put Timothy’s conversion even earlier, and in Antioch. I think Paul sent Titus-Timothy to south Galatia after the Jerusalem council to organize a collection (see Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1-3). Titus-Timothy was still in south Galatia when Paul arrived. Acts does not mention why Timothy was in Lystra, because it does not mention this collection (or the later ones).
Excellent post! This may sound like a silly question, but how is the date of Paul’s conversion calculated? I’m aware that most scholars date Paul’s conversion within a few years of Jesus death, but am unaware of the methodology.
The end of Paul’s stay in Corinth is dated to 51 or perhaps 52. This is from the Gallio inscription of Delphi. Using Acts 16-18, this makes the Jerusalem conference in 48 or 49. If we then subtract the 14 years of Gal 2:1 we get Paul’s conversion in 34 or 35. Some use the mention of Aretas to date Paul’s escape from Damascus (2 Cor 11:32; Acts 9:25) to 37. From Gal 1:18 this was probably 3 years after Paul’s conversion, which brings us back to 34 or so.
You argued Paul circumcised Timothy to win Jews .
But Paul sharply seperated mission for the jews ( Peter) and mission for the gentiles ( Him)
Why did he interfere Peter’s business?
We know that Paul wanted to win Jews as well as to Gentiles, since he submitted to synagogue discipline (2 Cor 11:24) and since he tells us so (1 Cor 9:20). Since Paul submitted to 39 lashes 5 times, it is not hard to imagine Timothy submitting to the circumcision knife. Paul went to largely Gentile regions and I imagine that Peter went to largely Jewish regions. However, it would be impractical for Peter to travel to all the Diaspora Jewish communities, so Paul preached to them.
Perhaps you are thinking that Gal 2:8-9 speaks of a deal in which Paul agreed to stay away from Jews if Peter agreed to stay away from Gentiles. I see it very differently. The world was too big to be covered by the two men, and I thing that they were glad of the opportunity to specialize in terms of territory and in terms of constituency in any overlapping territory.
Paul’s purpose in Gal 2:8-9 is merely to show that the pillars had given him autonomy. He does this to counter the view that he is preaching Gentile liberty to please the pillars.
I’m confused.
“He also wants the Galatians to KNOW that he cannot bring himself to say these words.”
Why? Because he *regrets* circumcising Timothy? Because with hindsight he knows that in so doing, and even though Timothy volunteered (i.e. was not compelled), they *did* in fact “submit to them even for a moment”, i.e. they allowed the “false believers” to manipulate them? And because, in so doing, he inadvertently made himself vulnerable to further manipulation?
But that would mean “we did not submit to them even for a moment” is insincere. He merely *wishes* they hadn’t. But he cannot be insincere and want the Galatians to know it. That would undercut everything.
Or does “submit” mean more precisely “concede to their view”? Are we to understand that what Paul did was not in his mind submission per se, but *was* uncomfortably close to it, and that he regrets that? Are we to read the passage with a note of, “yes, we did let them manipulate us, regrettably, but we didn’t actually submit to them as such”?
I struggle with how wanting the Galatians to know he cannot being himself to say the words helps him to show the Galatians that he is sincere.
Paul does not just say that he did not yield. He says that he did not yield in subjection. The last word, ὑποταγή (subjection) seems redundant, but I think it is there for a purpose. Paul had, in a sense, yielded, but not in subjection. Does that open up more possibilities for you?
Well, the NRSV translators messed up, then, as measured by their own standard of “as literal as possible, as free as necessary”.
A number of crucial parts of your argument are omitted from the blog posts and only addressed in the comments. I hope the experience has been helpful to you.
Whether or not your interpretation is correct, and whether or not it persuades people, no doubt it is useful to have multiple interpretations on the table, as well defended as possible, to help scholars distinguish between theories that can be considered firmly grounded and those that must be considered tentative.
It would be interesting to see a debate between defenders of the two interpretations. Would make a change from atheist vs evangelical or scholar vs mythicist.
Yes, I should have explained Gal 2:5 better. Thanks for the feedback.
It didn’t convince me!
We tend to make the Bible speak our own theological views in every century. We want to find and make any efforts to find a way in the Bible that those who wrote the Bible were not wrong or just writing to correct other wrong theological understandings. I see acts as a much later development trying to fill the gap between the apostle Paul and the gospels. And doing so, tried to resolve those same issues this article is trying to resolve.
You are not the only one who sees Acts that way, but I am wondering what evidence remains to support that view. You might like to read my blog post of Sept 26, in which it is shown from Galatians alone that there was no split between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles.
I find it interesting to compare the language of your conjecture for Gal 2:4 with Acts 16:3!
Gal 2:4, as re-imagined by Fellows:
“But [I CIRCUMCISED HIM] διὰ… τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους [because of the false brothers]…”
Acts 16:3
HE [PAUL] CIRCUMCISED HIM διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους [because of the Jews]…
I can’t imagine deriving your conjectural rereading from Galatians in the context of the Pauline epistles alone. It seems to me that your conjecture could only have been derived from reading the language Acts into Galatians.
Is that what you are doing?
I would say that Gal 2:3-5, if taken in isolation, is thoroughly ambiguous. Most, on the understandable assumption that Titus was an ordinary Gentile, assume that Paul would not have allowed his circumcision. Others (without regards to Acts) have interpreted it to mean that he was circumcised. Such an understanding fits well with Gal 5:11. Galatians is hard to explain unless there was some kind of incident that led the Galatians to believe that Paul had, in conviction, come around to the circumcision camp.
Thank you, Richard Follows. Is 1 and 2 Corinthians potentially being composite letters, not know for sure how many letters are combined in 1 and 2 Corinthians, have any impact on this conclusion?
Good question. In my 2001 paper on Titus-Timothy I assumed that 2 Corinthians should be partitioned, but I have since repented of that foolishness! It is true that 2 Cor 10-13 is more severe than 2 Cor 1-9 (particularly chapter 7), but this difference in tone can now be explained. In chapter 7 Paul stresses that Titus now has complete confidence in the Corinthians. I think he does this for the sake of the collection. Titus must stay out of any ongoing dispute between Paul and factions within the Corinthian church so that he (Titus) can be trusted by all to administer the collection and bring it to completion by delivering it to Jerusalem. The success of the collection requires that the Corinthians have warm feelings towards Titus, so Paul refers to him by his praenomen (first name) and puts a positive gloss on his report.
I am not aware of anyone who still divides 1 Corinthians.
Thank you Richard for your post. You convinced me. Great research and work.
I agree with you on a lot! I am persuaded by your argument that Titus and Timothy are the same person. Furthermore, I agree you that Paul probably circumcised Titus-Timothy.
My reasoning is inter-textual: I am convinced by William O. Walker, Jr’s argument (JSNT,1985) that the author of Acts was familiar with Galatians and that the account of the circumcision of Timothy in Acts contains literary echoes of Gal 2.
Acts: because of (διὰ τοὺς) the Jews
Gal: because of (διὰ δὲ τοὺς) the false brothers… We yielded in submission for an hour.
Based on the echo, it appears that the the author of Acts read Gal 2:5 in the form of the text which reads: “We yielded in submission for an hour.” (The Western text)
Thoughts?
Acts 16:1-3 does not show signs of dependency on Gal 2:1-5, I think. Rather, it seems to be an independent account of the same events. Acts calls him “Timothy”, and this argues against dependency.
You might like to think about the movements of Timothy in Acts 17-18 and in 1 Thes. The two accounts are in perfect agreement when we realize that Timothy need not have been in Athens with Paul. Rather, Paul sent away his companions with instructions to tell Timothy to return to him via Thessalonica (Paul was alone in Athens after sending those companions back to Macedonia). The accounts are superficially in conflict because it is natural to make the false inference that Timothy was in Athens, but on closer inspection they are in agreement. This argues against dependency.
It is very hard to argue against the plain meaning of the “we passages”. It seems unlikely that Acts was written after the “Western” textual variant. It is possible that this variant was made by someone who knew that Titus was Timothy. It is intriguing (nothing more) that the Acts of Paul places Titus in Iconium, and that Tertullian thought that Gal 2:4-5 referred to the circumcision of Timothy.
I still wonder how in the heck they would know if anyone was circumcised or not, did someone had to get naked and prove it?
Shaye Cohen argues that they just made enquiries about the man’s father.
““Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not”: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?”
This article in online here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvzpv5cc.5?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Here is an refinement of my argument:
The author of Acts was familiar with (not dependent on) the authorial original text of Galatians 2:5 which did not include οἷς οὐδὲ
Acts: because of (διὰ τοὺς) the Jews
Gal: because of (διὰ δὲ τοὺς) the false brothers… We yielded in submission for an hour.
Apparently, early editors of Galatians added οἷς οὐδὲ because they refused to imagine Paul submitting to the “FALSE brothers” for the sake of “the TRUTH of the gospel.” This interpolation of Paul’s text made better sense to them since οἷς οὐδὲ echoes “not even Titus [οὐδὲ Τίτος] was compelled to be circumcised.”
The the literary echo of the positive text of Gal 2:5 [We yielded in submission for an hour] in Acts 16:1-3 is the oldest and most important evidence that οἷς οὐδὲ was an editorial interpolation subsequent to the writing of Acts. Later textual evidence for the positive text (the old Latin and the Western text) is secondary.
Is this a better argument?
Yes, this seems better to me, but a companion of Paul would not need to re-read Paul’s letters. I suppose it is not unlikely that Luke reviewed the letter with Paul when it was written, and I suppose it is possible that the way Paul framed his argument (verbally and in the letter) could have influenced Luke’s thinking and thus Acts.
If οἷς οὐδὲ is not original then τῇ ὑποταγῇ seems a bit redundant to my ear. It seems to me that Paul is saying that he yielded but not in submission. Gregory Hartzler-Miller has argued on Facebook that οἷς οὐδὲ could be an interpolation.
Tertullian thought that Gal 2:4-5 refers to the circumcision of Timothy, yet did not, apparently, equate Titus with Timothy. This demands an explanation and needs some creative thinking, if you have time.
Forgive my ignorance, are we to believe that an actual companion of Paul wrote Luke and Acts? Really??? My understanding is that, the writer is not the actual Luke, the companion of Paul but a later unknown writer who had access to Paul’s letter and probably Mark’s gospel.
I don’t see Paul mentioning much of Jesus ministry as the gospels do. It Makes me think that Paul didn’t know much of Jesus even though he claims he received the teaching from no man but from Jesus himself. Another question here could be is how reliable are Paul’s letters? How sure are we that it’s actual Paul’s pen that wrote those letters and not copies from the authentic ones and edited somehow? Or do we have the originals? Again, forgive my ignorance. I’m new at this.
Yes, Acts was written by a companion of Paul. Some deny this, but do so largely on the grounds that the old view of Galatians contradicts Acts. The interpretation of Galatian presented in my three guest post reverses the argument.
Name order was always significant in lists of names, so Lucius (Rom 16:21) was second only to Timothy in prominence among Paul’s companions who were with him when Romans was written. The “brother” who was “famous among all the churches” (2 Cor 8:18) was surely with Paul at that time. Either he was Lucius or he was someone named after Lucius. Therefore Lucius was famous among the churches or he was even more prominent. Now, Acts mentions all of Paul’s prominent companions, yet Lucius is absent from Acts 20:4, for example. This is explicable only if Lucius was the author of Acts. This confirms that Luke was the author, since Luke is just a short form of the name Lucius.
There is, of course, a lot of uncertainty about which letters Paul wrote. There are some sexist corruptions of the letters, but, on the whole, we are able to know the original wording quite accurately.
Re: “If οἷς οὐδὲ is not original then τῇ ὑποταγῇ seems a bit redundant to my ear.”
Yes, regarding the seeming redundancy, I looked at the dictionary on εἴκω: give place… And following Strong’s suggestion, I compared ὑπείκω (retire, withdraw, depart, c. gen. loci, νεῶν from the ships, Il. 16.305; ὑ. τινὶ ἕδρης retire from one’s seat for another…)
I wonder if εἴξαμεν alludes to a fairly literal a sense of Titus (with Paul’s approval) withdrawing and giving up his place at the fellowship table in direct response to the arrival of the false brothers. So the positive reading — “we GAVE PLACE in submission for an time” — need not imply contra Acts that Titus-Timothy was circumcised in Jerusalem; only that he respected the the no-eating-with-Gentiles rule. GIVING PLACE was a proactive gesture done in submission.
Even without discerning a connection between Titus and Timothy, some interpreters have realized that Gal 2:4-5 is a digression that concerns an incident outside of Jerusalem. Notice “might continue with you”. This raises the possibility that the incident happened in Galatia. Indeed, the incident must have been known to the Galatians, otherwise it would have been as ambiguous to them as it is to modern interpreters.
Re: “Notice “might continue with you”. This raises the possibility that the incident happened in Galatia….”
Like this?
Gal 2:3-6 with Fellows conjecture and no οἷς οὐδὲ
Yet not even Titus-Timothy, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. [I circumcised him in Lystra] because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. We DID give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Cf Acts 16:1-3
Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Titus-Timothy lived… Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Yes, that is possible, but perhaps it does not account for the τῇ ὑποταγῇ so well. And we should remember that the best manuscripts include the οἷς οὐδὲ.
I suppose that the Galatians, having received Paul’s letter may have made some copies to distribute among their churches. Perhaps the οἷς οὐδὲ was deleted at that time in at least one of the copies by someone who knew that Titus was Timothy (who was circumcised).
Acts 16:1-3 does not say that Timothy lived in Lystra. It just says that he was there.
Re: “And we should remember that the best manuscripts include the οἷς οὐδὲ…. Perhaps the οἷς οὐδὲ was deleted at that time in at least one of the copies by someone who knew that Titus was Timothy (who was circumcised).”
It seems to me that (with your emphasis on manuscript evidence) you are thinking like a textual critic. I will grant that in terms of text critical reasoning, the case against οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5 too weak to consider. That said, Carlson (Text of Galatians) wrote: “Separating different authors properly belongs to the domain of source criticism, not textual criticism. What the evidence and methods of textual criticism can provide is a text that is reasonably free of later, scribal changes to the text. So, in the case of a thorough reviser of the text, textual criticism in effect treats both the author and the reviser as co-authors and delivers up a joint-authored text for the source-critical customer.”
οἷς οὐδὲ has an unquestioned place in Carlson’s critical text of Galatians. I respect that. But could there still be a place, in your view, for a source-critical hypothesis (based on the echo of Gal in Acts, and the better grammar of Gal without οἷς οὐδὲ etc.) that οἷς οὐδὲ was an interpolation produced by a second author?
I can’t rule out your hypothesis. However, on other grounds I find it unlikely that Luke relied heavily on copies of the letters.
Yes, the omission improves the grammar, but this is an argument in favour of the οἷς οὐδὲ, since it is the superficially harder reading. I have suggested a reason why Paul may have wanted to leave the grammar broken.
RE: Tertullian thought that Gal 2:4-5 refers to the circumcision of Timothy, yet did not, apparently, equate Titus with Timothy.
Tertullian wrote:
“Let us only attend to the clear sense and to the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the Scripture [οἷς οὐδὲ in Gal 2:5] will be apparent. When he first says, “Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised,” and then adds, “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,” etc., he gives us an insight into his reason for acting in a clean CONTRARY way… They therefore gave way (IN A PARTIAL CONCESSION), because there were persons whose weak faith required consideration… He therefore made SOME CONCESSION, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised, and the Nazarites introduced into the temple, which incidents are DESCRIBED IN ACTS.”
Tertullian takes care not to identify the “partial concession” as circumcision. Therefore he could have read Gal/Acts accounts as I read them: Titus [aka Timothy] withdrew from table fellowship in submission to the the no-uncircumcised-participants rule in Jerusalem (as described in Galatians) and for the same reason Timothy [aka Titus] was circumcised in Galatia (as described in Acts).