tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post7370714776055692152..comments2024-03-08T18:04:37.943-08:00Comments on Paul and co-workers: Gal 2:1-5, Acts 16:1-3 and Titus-TimothyRichard Fellowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-581311474302472742011-02-16T20:31:13.477-08:002011-02-16T20:31:13.477-08:00In the cases where Paul commends no-one it may be ...In the cases where Paul commends no-one it may be that the deliverer of the letter was not someone who was to be a visitor to the addressed church(s). In such cases the letter carrier could have been a non-Christian. We don't really know.<br /><br />I don't know of any reason to believe that letter writing conventions in Galatia would have been different from elsewhere. I don't think we have any letters from Galatia in our time period.<br /><br />Yes, I am aware of the theory that Mark told the Jerusalem church leaders that Paul was preaching things that they would not preach. However, as you are seeing from my blog posts, I believe that Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders had the same doctrines. It is always possible that the "men from James", heard from Mark what Paul and others in Antioch were preaching, and went to Antioch to try to correct correct them. However, I do not think that these "men from James" had the blessing of James to try to correct what was going on in Antioch.<br /><br />Mark was later willing to join the 'second missionary journey', so I don't think he had a (big) doctrinal difference with Paul. I suspect he turned back on the "first missionary journey" because he was afraid the the inevitable opposition from the conservative Galatian Jews.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-40346879525090237102011-02-16T11:31:06.224-08:002011-02-16T11:31:06.224-08:00Hi Richard,
Thank you so much for getting back to ...Hi Richard,<br />Thank you so much for getting back to me. I am reading your blog posts with great interest, and I shall read those you refer to above next.<br /><br />Concerning Paul not commending Titus-Timothy, he commends no one, but obviously someone brought the letter. If this is Paul's first letter, perhaps he wasn't so keyed into the customary etiquette of doing so. I don't know for certain, but were the Europeans more into that than the Galatians? If so, maybe Paul didn't have to do here what he did elsewhere; just a thought.<br /><br />One thing, for curiosity sake, I noticed that you seem to make a big deal of Paul's negative thoughts toward Mark. Have you ever heard that the reason why Jerusalem 'suddenly' sent out people to destroy Paul's work was because Mark was uneasy with Paul's missionary methods and had a 'big mouth' back in Jerusalem when he left Paul and Barnabas?<br /><br />Thanks again for submitting all this good stuff in your blog. It certainly has me thinking.<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />EddieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-75041406452056375912011-02-15T21:31:12.001-08:002011-02-15T21:31:12.001-08:00Hi Ed,
your reconstruction here is similar to the ...Hi Ed,<br />your reconstruction here is similar to the one that I favored a few years ago, and you express it very well. As you say, it explains why Timothy was in Galatia when Paul arrived. However, I now prefer to place the writing of Galatians AFTER the events of Acts 16:1-3. I see the circumcision of Timothy as the cause of the confusion in Galatia that led to the writing of Paul's letter. See my blog posts of March and April 2010 on Galatians. Also, to my ear, the mentions of Titus in Galatians are not what we would expect if Titus was the deliverer of the letter. Paul does not commend Titus in Galatians in the same way that he commends him in 2 Cor or Phil (or Phoebe in Rom).<br /><br />My post on the <a href="http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2010/08/chronology-of-pauls-collection-from.html" rel="nofollow"> chronology of the collection from Galatia</a> argues that Titus-Timothy went to south Galatia to organize a collection there. I think this makes sense because, having just been to Jerusalem, he was ideally qualified to report of the need for aid.<br /><br />Let me know what you think.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-82202757490410782642011-02-14T10:36:39.473-08:002011-02-14T10:36:39.473-08:00Greetings Richard,
Concerning your thoughts that G...Greetings Richard,<br />Concerning your thoughts that Galatians 2:5 is ambiguous above…<br />I had thought that the ‘false brethren’ that Paul refers to were then at Jerusalem. They and those they could influence argued against Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15, but Paul wouldn’t yield to them. This is what is reported in the Galatian epistle. It would appear that Timothy-Titus took the letter to the Galatians after Paul understood that these ‘false brethren’ claiming to be from James had not only gone to Antioch but had also reached Syria-Cilicia as well as Galatia, apparently to destroy Paul’s work. The letters that James wrote were taken to Antioch and then to Syria-Cilicia. Months later after Paul had strengthened the churches at Antioch and Syria-Cilicia, he returned without Barnabas to south Galatia with the letters from James (Acts 16:4). Timothy-Titus was already there, having delivered Paul’s epistle to the Galatians and was acting as Paul’s envoy until he arrived. Timothy was by then already well known and well received by all, and at that time and for future ministry in Antioch-Pisidia and beyond, Paul circumcised Timothy. Does this work?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com