Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the confusion in Galatia
Summary
Gal 5.11 is an embarrassment to conventional understandings of Galatians, yet the structure of the letter shows that it is of central importance and it is the clearest text that reveals the rumour refuted by Paul throughout the letter. Paul circumcised Timothy in Galatia and delivered Jerusalem’s decision that circumcision was not necessary. The agitators then encouraged circumcision by appealing to Paul’s authority, claiming that he now approved of circumcision, and that it was only to please the Jerusalem church leaders that he continued to preach a law-free gospel in Galatia. Acts no longer contradicts Galatians, but explains it well.
1. Introduction
In Galatians Paul is responding to misinformation about himself that agitators have spread in the churches of Galatia. John Barclay rightly writes that reading the letter is like listening to half of a telephone conversation, and cautions that, ‘it is so easy to jump to conclusions about what the conversation is about and, once we have an idea fixed in our minds, we misinterpret all the rest of the conversation’ [1]. The idea that has become fixed in the minds of most interpreters, since John Chrysostom, is that the agitators appealed to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles (against that of Paul), believing them to be more supportive of circumcision (for Gentile believers) than Paul [2]. Dunn is typical when he writes,
Paul writes with the clear objective of refuting views which had evidently been put about, to the effect that Paul's gospel was dependent on and derived from the Jerusalem leadership, with the implication that the policy line advocated by the Jerusalem leadership on any point of dispute was to be followed rather than Paul's [3].
In this paper we will start without pre-conceptions about the nature of the misinformation, and we will allow the text itself to reveal to us the key theme that is given prominence by repetition and by the structure of Paul’s argument. We will then explore whether the rest of the letter can be understood in the light of the key theme. Finally we will reconstruct a plausible historical sequence that could have given rise to the misinformation, and we will compare it against Acts. The conclusion that will come out of this process is that the agitators had told the Galatians, ‘Paul circumcised Timothy so he now believes in circumcision so you should be circumcised. Don’t take any notice when he continues to preach against circumcision to you, because he does so only to please the Jerusalem church leaders, for he is their loyal messenger and has always been ambitious for advancement among them’. On this hypothesis Paul must vehemently proclaim his sincere commitment to Gentile liberty in his letter, otherwise his audience will suppose that he is writing only to please Jerusalem and his words will have no persuasive force.
2. Identification of the main misconception: ‘Paul approves of circumcision’
The key texts for understanding Galatians are revealed by its structure. The table below lays out three passages that include the exordium in the first column and the peroratio in the third [4]. The function of Gal 5,2-12 as an additional peroratio will be discussed in section 3 below. Witherington writes,
It was the function of the exordium to prepare for and in a sense give a preview of the chief subject of a speech, just as it was the function of the peroratio to summarize and recapitulate the main subject of the discourse. It is not an accident that commentators have found detailed correspondences between 5.2–12 and what we find in 1.6–10 and between 5.2–12 and 6.12–17, though they have usually not recognized why we have these correspondences.
Longenecker is an exception, noting the numerous parallels between the exordium in 1.6–10 and the remarks in 5.2–12. Firstly, there is the severity of tone in both the exordium and 5.2–12. Secondly, the reference to deserting the one who called the Galatians in 1.6 is paralleled in 5.8 by a very similar remark. Thirdly, the phrase ‘the grace of Christ’ in 1.6 matches up with the reference to falling away from that grace and being alienated from Christ in 5.4. Fourthly, πάλιν is used in both texts to introduce corroborating statements in 1.9 and 5.3, and perhaps most importantly the double anathema in 1.8–9 is clearly paralleled by the threat of divine judgment in 5.10b and the invective in 5.12. In short, the subject intimated in the exordium comes into the clear and brings climax to all the arguments at 5.2–12. Confirmation of this conclusion comes from the peroratio which is meant to review or summarize the main subject of the previous discourse. As Matera points out in both 5.2–12 and 6.12–17 we hear about doing and keeping the Law (5.3; 6.13a), we hear that neither circumcision nor its lack is important (5.6; 6.15), and mention is made of the relationship between circumcision and persecution in both texts (5.11; 6.12). In short the rhetorical signals, both before and after our passage, point to this passage giving us the heart of the argument, the pith of the matter [5].
Gal 1,1-10 | Gal 5,2-12 | Gal 6,11-17 |
Paul and apostle — sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, | 2 Listen! I, Paul, am telling you | 11 See what large letters I make when I am writing in my own hand! |
who raised him from the dead —2 and all the members of God’s familywho are with me, To the churches of Galatia: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
| that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. | 12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. 14 May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. |
| 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith workingthrough love. | 15 For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything! |
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, | 7 You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? 8 Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. 10 I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise.
|
|
but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. | But whoever it is that is confusing you |
|
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! 10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
| will pay the penalty. 11 But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! | 16 As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body.
|
A further correspondence is the fact that ταράσσω appears in Paul only at 1,7 and 5,10. The word does not appear in 6,12-17, but the phrase κόπουσ μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω in 6,17 could be referring to the same spreading of misinformation. Furthermore 5,2 parallels 6,11. In 5,2 when Paul writes Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν he puts his name to what follows, in the style of a legal affidavit, lest there be any doubt that he is writing out of his own sincere conviction. Similarly, in 6,11 he emphasizes that he has picked up the pen to authenticate what he is writing and he points out that he is writing as legibly as possible.
We therefore have several clear parallels. In most cases these parallels appear in the same order in each passage, as the table attempts to show. It is also evident that almost every thought in 5,2-12 has a counterpart in 1,1-10 or 6,11-17 or both.
We now come to the all-important conclusion of each of the passages. We have seen that the double curse in 1,8-9 matches the talk of punishment and castration in 5,10.12. This theme is not so explicit in 6,16. However, Paul wishes peace on those who hold circumcision to be a matter of indifference, and this may imply a curse on those who do not [6].
Given all the connections between 5,2-12 and both the exordium and the peroratio, Witherington is surely right to say that this passage is ‘giving us the heart of the argument, the pith of the matter’. 5,11-12 is the conclusion of the passage and is therefore the heart of the heart, the pith of the pith. It is surely Paul’s rebuttal of the misinformation referred to in the previous verse and in 1,7 with the word ταράσσω. 5,11 along with its parallels in the other passages, if they can be understood as near repetitions of each other, should provide the key to understanding the whole letter, for they should reveal for us the nature of the misinformation that Paul is having to counter.
In 5,11 Paul points to his sufferings to prove that he does not preach circumcision. 6,17 falls at the same place in Paul’s sequence of thought and it is surely no coincidence that it can be interpreted the same way. The agitators had been spreading the misinformation that Paul believes in circumcision, and if these rumours are the κόποι in 6,17a, then 6,17b answers the rumours by pointing to Paul’s injuries: ‘I am committed to Gentile liberty, for I have the wounds to prove it’!This is also Chrysostom’s interpretation [7].
1,8 and 5,11 are parallel texts in the table and it is significant therefore that they both discuss the hypothetical possibility of Paul preaching circumcision. This is no coincidence, as there are no such texts in any other letter. At first sight 1,8 seems superfluous since 1,9 gives a very similar curse, which he had probably told them in person. Why does Paul include 1,8, and why does he apply the curse to himself there, and how does it rebut the misinformation put about by the agitators, referred to in the previous verse? It makes sense when understood in the light of 5,11. In 1,8 Paul calls a curse on himself if he should ever preach circumcision, and thereby refutes the rumour that he believes in circumcision [8]. It may be significant that in 1,8, as in 1,9.11; 2,2 Paul refers to the gospel that he preaches, perhaps to distinguish it from the gospel that the Galatians think he believes in.
Finally, we should expect that the key background to the letter might be reflected also in the propositio (2,15-21). While Paul uses the first person plural in 2,15-17, he uses the singular throughout 2,18-21. There is no need to suppose that the first person singular is paradigmatic. Now, both 2,18 and 2,21 are further texts that refer to the hypothetical possibility of Paul’s support for the law. At 2,18 Paul says that he would be a transgressor if he were to adopt the pro-law position [9]. The thought is quite similar to that expressed in 1,8, where he calls a curse on himself if he should ever adopt such a gospel. 2,21, parallels 5,11 in that both texts refer to the death of Jesus, both are connected with the misinformation of the agitators (2,21 is followed by 3,1 ‘You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?’), and both are prominently placed at the conclusion of their sections. 2,21 is the punch line of the propositio. Indeed, de Boer writes, ‘Verse 21 is the climax of the first two chapters’ [10]. A further parallel is that both 5,11 and 2,21 are followed by shocking statements. In 5,12 he shows that he is no friend of the agitators, and in 3,1 he insults his hearers. There are, of course, many ways to hold a mirror to this verse, but the parallels with 5,11 suggest that in 2,21 Paul may be refuting the belief that he now believes that righteousness is through the law (which would, for him, be a nullification of the grace of God). He calls his audience ‘foolish Galatians’, I suggest, because he needs to forcefully refute the idea that he (secretly) applauds them for contemplating circumcision [11].
2,5 is yet another text where Paul denies yielding to the pro-circumcision view. 2,1-5 will be discussed later.
Ropes supposes that the background to 5,11 is that these agitators have accused Paul of preaching circumcision, and from this he concludes that they were not supporters of circumcision at all [12]! Most commentators, however, think the agitators have accused Paul of being inconsistent, but this would amount to merely an ad hominem attack and its prominent place in Paul’s rhetoric would be surprising. Also, as several scholars have noted, there is little or no evidence that the agitators were opposing Paul’s authority [13].
Several commentators are honest about the difficulty that they have making sense of 5,11. Fee writes, ‘Given all that has been said to this point, this next sentence [5:11] is one of the most puzzling moments in this letter – or in any other of Paul’s letters’ [14]. Even Witherington writes, ‘Verse 11 is one of the most enigmatic and debated verses in the whole letter’ [15]. They struggle to place 5,11 into its context. Moo writes, ‘But one is hard pressed to fit verse 11 neatly into the flow of thought’ [16]. De Boer describes 5,7-12 as ‘a digression’ but spots that 5,7-10 ‘recall the letter’s opening, 1:6–10’ [17]. Longenecker writes, ‘Without any preparation of the reader for what follows, Paul here adds another statement to his series of comments and remarks in vv 7–12’ [18]. Betz writes that ‘Without preparation, Paul confronts the readers with a rhetorical question and statement...’ [19]. Dunn thinks that at 5,11 Paul ‘turns abruptly to a different point’ [20]. Campbell’s paper on 5,11 does not discuss its context at all [21]! The commentators’ difficulties arise because 5,11 does not fit with their presuppositions about the background of the rest of the letter. We should ask instead whether the rest of the letter can be understood in the light of 5,11.
3. Identification of the corollary: ‘It is only to please Jerusalem that Paul continues to speak and write against circumcision to us Galatians’
We have seen that the rumour that Paul believes in circumcision is the likely background to the letter and is addressed by Paul at various points (5,11; 1,8; 2,18.21 and 2,5). Consistent with this, Paul needed to repeatedly assert that he was deeply committed to Gentile liberty. Note the repetition at 5,3 and 1,9, which suggests that the Galatians are questioning Paul’s commitment to his gospel [22]. We have mentioned the emphatic ἐγὼ Παῦλος at 5,2, and note also the first person singular verbs of telling in 5,2 and 5,3 (and see also 1,9.11; 4,11). Paul doesn’t just tell the Galatians to avoid circumcision; he tells them that it is he who is telling them to avoid circumcision. Similarly, in the parallel passage, 6,11, Paul not only writes clearly; he tells the Galatians that he is doing so. Similarly, at 1,6 he expresses his astonishment. The emphasis is on himself also in 2,11-14, where he points to his own uncompromising stand. At 1,20 he swears that he is not lying, suggesting that there is some reason why his hearers might doubt his honesty on the issue at hand (see also 4,16). At the end of the letter (6,17) he points to his wounds as evidence of his commitment. This is the thought that he wants to leave them with. Overall, Paul is more uncompromising on the circumcision question in Galatians than he is elsewhere (Rom 2,13.25; 3,1-2).
As we have seen, 5,2-12 repeats themes introduced in the exordium, and brings forward ideas that are repeated in the peroratio. 5,2-12 acts as an additional peroratio, recapitulating Paul’s argument so far. Paul ends the passage with a shocking statement that he is not on the agitator’s side (5,12). He then gives moral teaching (5,13–6,10) that the agitators would probably have endorsed, and then ends with the peroratio proper (6,11-17). Why does he structure the letter this way? It makes sense when we realize that the Galatians were thinking that Paul had come over to the agitators’ point of view. There was a danger that, by giving teachings that the agitators supported, Paul would have fed the rumour that he was on their side on the circumcision issue too. He therefore had to complete his arguments against the rumour (1,1–5,12), ending with a clear statement that he was no friend of the agitators (5,12), before he could give teachings that the agitators too endorsed. The structure of the letter is therefore a further indication of the extreme measures that Paul had to take to counter the view that he approved of circumcision.
Two important questions must now be addressed. Firstly, if the Galatians were thinking that Paul now believed in circumcision, how did they explain why he did not stop preaching Gentile liberty to them? Secondly, why did Paul have to be so persistent in protesting that he was not a supporter of circumcision? Why would a simple denial not have sufficed? All is explained if the Galatians believed that Paul had an ulterior motive for speaking against circumcision to them, whether in person or by letter. Both questions are answered if the Galatians supposed that Paul, while actually believing in circumcision, was motivated to denounce circumcision to them. This is confirmed by 1,10, at the bottom of the table, where Paul denies that he is seeking to please men. There is no break in thought between 1,9 and 1,10, for the ἄρτι in 1,10 is in an emphatic position at the start of the sentence and picks up the ἄρτι in 1,9. Also the γὰρ in 1,10 suggests a link, and should be translated. The connection between these two verses has puzzled scholars, but can now be explained [23]. In 1,8-9 Paul calls down curses, including on himself, to shock the Galatians into believing he really doesoppose circumcision, and in 1,10 he tells them that he is not just writing these things to please men.
But who are these ἄνθρωποι? Most commentators suggest that they are Paul’s Gentile audience. Paul has been accused, it is said, of omitting the requirement of circumcision to please his converts and potential converts. However, there is nothing in the rest of the letter that suggests that any such accusation had been levelled against Paul. Also, if the ἄνθρωποι in 1,10 are Paul’s converts, then they are different from the ἄνθρωπος in 1,11-12 and indeed 1,1. The connection between 1,10 and what follows would therefore be more obscure [24]. Furthermore, if the ἄνθρωποι are ordinary Gentiles such as the Galatians, it would not be immediately obvious to those Galatians why someone who pleases them cannot be a servant of Christ, so 1,10c would not work well. It is better to suppose that the pleasing here is that of a subordinate to superiors, for it would then be obvious that someone who seeks to please the ἄνθρωποι in that way cannot also be a slave of Christ, for no one can serve two masters [25]. For this reason it is more likely that the ἄνθρωποι are the Judean church leaders, and this is confirmed by what follows [26]. Paul declares that he is indifferent to the status of the ‘pillars’ (2,6) so these are the people that Paul is denying pleasing in 1,10. Also, 1,10 cannot be separated from the following passage, which clearly concerns Judean church leaders. With the ἔτι in 1,10c Paul refers to an earlier time when he had been a pleaser of men, and 1,13 recalls such a time (prior to his conversion). The agitators had perhaps said something like, ‘Paul was ambitious for advancement during his life in Judaism prior to his conversion, and he is still ambitious now, and that is why he ingratiates himself with the Judean church leaders by continuing to preach Gentile liberty to you to’. In 1,13-14 Paul concedes what the Galatians already knew, perhaps from the agitators, that he had indeed been so ambitious that he committed atrocities for the sake of advancement. But in 1,15-24 he says that all this changed when God called him through his grace (1,15), for he did not seek to impress himself upon the Jerusalem apostles with a view to advancement among them (1,16-20) and he proclaimed the faith in Syria and Cilicia without having schmoozed with the other churches of Judea for they knew him only by reputation (1,21-24). Here I have built on the work of Verseput and Hunn, who additionally points out that Paul is not saying in 1,18-19 that he could not have received his gospel from the apostles, for 15 days is plenty of time to learn teachings from Cephas [27]. Instead, Paul is saying that he did not seek to ingratiate himself with the church leaders.
Multiple interpretations of 1,10a are still possible, but perhaps we should follow Lyons in taking the particle ἢ to be disjunctive, and πείθω to mean ‘curry favour with someone’ [28]. Paul would then be asking, ‘For am I now trying to curry favour with the Judean church leaders, or with God?’ and the implied answer is ‘with God’.
Gal 2.6-14 can be similarly understood. To show that his preaching of Gentile liberty was not to please the pillars, Paul points out that they had given him autonomy (2,6-10), and that he was not a pleaser of Peter, for there was one occasion when he opposed him publically (2,11-14). The passage is not about Peter, but rather the relationship between Paul and Peter. To be more precise, it is about Paul’s end of that relationship. Paul does not discuss the outcome of the conflict because it is not relevant to his present purpose [29]. To answer the rumour that he was a pleaser of Peter, Paul cites an incident in which he opposed Peter. Paul criticizes Peter and perhaps James here, but only to prove that he is not their loyal messenger. Paul brings up the incident, and perhaps plays it up, to make his point, and the Galatians will realize this. He is not expecting them to take the incident to be in any way representative of his relationship with Peter. The incident therefore tells us nothing about whether there were ongoing tensions between Paul and Peter, since even the best of friends have disputes from time to time. The role of James in the Antioch incident will be discussed later.
If Gal 1,17-2.14 is to a large extent about the Jerusalem church leaders, as is normally supposed, then it is odd that Paul does not present a consistent view of their position. In 2,7-9 they endorse Paul, but in 2,11-14 they are unsupportive. Furthermore, on the usual interpretation 2,3 is strangely ambiguous about whether the pillars requested the circumcision of Titus.
It is normally supposed that Paul’s authority has been under attack and that he writes 1,1 to assert that his gospel is more authoritative than that of the Jerusalem apostles because it is from God. However, in 5,2 and 6,11, which are parallel texts in the table, Paul does not defend his authority but rather, it seems, his authenticity/sincerity/honesty. 1,1 may therefore be Paul’s response to the view that he preaches Gentile liberty because he is a messenger (ἀπόστολος) of the Judean church leaders, and no longer believes the message himself. 1,1 can be understood as Paul’s first assertion that he believes in the gospel message that he is about to write because it comes from God, and that he is not writing it just because Jerusalem requires him to do so. Of course it does no harm to let the Galatians know that the divine origin of his message also gives it authority, but we need not suppose that this is the main thrust of the text.
4,13-17 presents two major problems. Firstly, Paul describes how the Galatians had respected him as a messenger of God (4,13-15) but then abruptly exclaims ‘So (ὤστε) I have [now] become your enemy by being honest with you’ (4,16) [30]. Interpreters struggle with ὤστε here and translate the verse as a rhetorical question. Longenecker writes, ‘Nonetheless, linguistically speaking, Burton, Zahn, and Sieffert are right: v 16 must be read as an indignant exclamation that draws an inference from what is stated in vv 14–15’ [31]. However, he offers no explanation for how 4,16 draws an inference from 4,14-15. A second problem is the way Paul suddenly turns to discussion of the agitators in 4,17 without introducing them, even with a pronoun. The problems are eased if our present hypothesis is correct, for Paul would be saying, ‘You used to welcome me as a messenger of God (but the agitators have convinced you that I am an overly loyal messenger of the church authorities and that I lie to you when I say I still believe in Gentile liberty), so I have become your enemy by telling you the truth’! Paul does not need to write the words in parentheses if they are the background to the whole letter, and there is no sudden switch to a discussion of the agitators in 4,17, because they are already in view.
4. Historical plausibility
What events could have given rise to the rumour that Paul now believed in circumcision but continued to speak against it to the Galatians out of sycophantic ambition? We will look at the slender hints that Galatians supplies, and then explore whether Acts provides confirmation.
First let us consider the possibility that ‘Titus’ was Timothy’s praenomen [32]. This theory explains why the name ‘Titus’ does not appear in Acts, or indeed in the list of greeters in Rom 16,21-23. However, the major evidence for the Titus-Timothy hypothesis comes from the Corinthian correspondence. Timothy was en route to Corinth when 1 Corinthians was written and ‘Titus’ has just returned to Paul from Corinth when 2 Corinthians was written. If we equate this visit of Timothy with the visit of Titus then an elegantly simple sequence of events results.
Paul wrote the ‘tearful letter’ and sent it with Titus-Timothy, who travelled with Erastus (Acts 19,22; 2 Cor 12,18) via Macedonia towards Corinth. Paul wanted Timothy and the letter to give the Corinthians a stern warning so that he would not have to punish them when he arrived (1 Cor 4,17-21; 2 Cor 1,23–2,3; 13,10) [33]. At this time it was Paul’s plan to visit Corinth, then Macedonia, then Corinth again (2 Cor 1,15-16). Titus-Timothy was delayed en route to Corinth so, to spare them, Paul decided not to go. Perhaps Titus-Timothy’s delay was due to his fears about the mission (1 Cor 16,10-11; 2 Cor 7,13-14) [34]. Some members of the church in Corinth, in arrogant defiance, thought they had deterred Paul from returning (1 Cor 4,18). Stephanas et al travelled to Ephesus at the start of the sailing season. Stephanas refreshed Paul’s spirit (1 Cor 16,18) but Paul did not re-instate the cancelled visit because there was no longer time for a worthwhile visit and important work had arisen in Ephesus (1 Cor 16,5-9). Paul wrote and sent 1 Corinthians. He awaited the return of Titus-Timothy (1 Cor 16,11; 2 Cor 2,13). Paul left Ephesus at Pentecost (1 Cor 16,8) and travelled to the Troad and then to Macedonia (2 Cor 2,12-13). Meanwhile, Timothy’s delay prevented him from returning to Ephesus before Paul left, so he travelled to Macedonia and met Paul there (2 Cor 1,1; 7,6). Paul then wrote 2 Corinthians.
In this sequence of events Paul cancelled his promised visit to Corinth because of Titus-Timothy’s delay, but there are no other changes of travel plans. Those who hypothesize that Titus and Timothy were different people are forced to propose that Paul made multiple and surprising changes to his travel plans. Space does not allow a detailed discussion of the many ways in which the timing and character of Timothy’s mission to Corinth correspond to those of Titus’s mission. However, it is worth noting that the critics of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis have found no fault with the simple sequence that the Titus-Timothy theorists have laid out. Instead, the critics have three objections [35]. Firstly, they question whether Paul would refer to the same person by two different names in the same letter, calling him ‘Timothy’ at 2 Cor 1,1.19 and ‘Titus’ at 2,13 and thereafter. However, some recent work has shown that this type of name switching was common, including in Paul’s letters [36]. Furthermore, the distribution of the two names makes perfect sense. ‘Timothy’ would be his cognomen or agnomen, and, as we would expect, Paul uses this prestigious name at 2 Cor 1,1.19, where Timothy’s authority must be emphasized. Later in the letter, on the other hand, Paul stresses that he and his co-sender do not lord it over the Corinthians, but are workers with them for their joy (1,24), and Paul must endear Titus to the Corinthians for the sake of the collection. It is therefore unsurprising that Paul switches to Timothy’s informal name, ‘Titus’. We will see later that it is expected that Paul would mention Timothy in Galatians, and that he would avoid using his prestigious name (Timothy), lest he signal to the Galatians that they should follow Timothy’s example in accepting circumcision. In short, in the undisputed letters, Titus appears only where we would expect Timothy to appear, and only in contexts where Timothy’s praenomen would be the more appropriate name.
The second objection to the Titus-Timothy hypothesis is that the author of the Pastoral Epistles knew of (or imagined) a Titus who was not Timothy (2 Tim 4,10). However, it cannot be assumed that the pastor would have known Timothy’s praenomen, and it has recently been argued that he simply took the name ‘Titus’ from 2 Corinthians [37].
The third objection to Titus-Timothy is that Timothy was circumcised, whereas it is assumed that Titus was not. Is Gal 2,1-5 Paul’s explanation of the eventual circumcision of Titus-Timothy, or is Paul here declaring that he successfully defended the non-circumcision of Titus? In the discussion that follows we will start by interpreting Gal 2,1-5 without reference to Acts. We will then see that Acts 16,1-3 is in good agreement with Gal 2,1-5 when Timothy is equated with Titus.
There are some indications that the Galatians already knew Titus. This is suggested by the fact that he is mentioned without introduction at 2.1 [38]. Also, the very ambiguity of Gal 2,3-5 (for us) suggests that the Galatians knew something about it that we do not. Also, Paul explicitly connects the infamous occasion with the Galatians (2,5). Why, then, does Paul feel it necessary to say that Titus was a Greek, at least during the meeting [39]? This is our first hint that Titus passed himself off as a Jew outside of the private meeting.
2,3 tells us only that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised and it is not clear whether the pillars requested the circumcision. The pillars’ less than clear endorsement of Titus’s uncircumcised state would make sense if they knew that he passed himself off as a Jew outside of the meeting. 2,3 could then be saying that the pillars tolerated Titus remaining uncircumcised while passing as a Jew. Titus’s practice of presenting himself as a Jew may be what lies behind the οὐδὲ: ‘But not even Titus (who passed himself off as a Jew), who was accompanying me as a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised’ [40].
In any case, the idea that Titus passed as a Jew outside of the meeting explains why Paul mentions that it was a private meeting and accuses the false brothers of spying (2,2-4). John Chrysostom writes,
He points out their hostility by calling them spies; for the sole object of a spy is to obtain for himself facilities of devastation and destruction, by becoming acquainted with his adversary's position. And this is what those did, who wished to bring the disciples back to their old servitude. Hence too appears how very contrary their purpose was to that of the Apostles; the latter made concessions that they might gradually extricate them from their servitude, but the former plotted to subject them to one more severe. Therefore they looked round and observed accurately and made themselves busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised; as Paul says, they came in privily to spy out our liberty, thus pointing out their machinations not only by the term spies, but by this expression of a furtive entrance and creeping in [41].
No spying would be necessary if Titus presented himself as a Greek outside of the meeting [42]. On this understanding, the ‘freedom we have in Christ Jesus’ is the freedom of Paul and Titus to allow Titus to pass as a Jew while being uncircumcised [43].
If, as is normally supposed, the Galatians thought the Jerusalem church leaders were (somewhat) supportive of circumcision, then the end of 2,2 would risk giving the Galatians the impression that Paul was under Jerusalem’s authority [44]. Similarly, if Titus was an ordinary Gentile, then 2,3 would be an admission that the Jerusalem church leaders had the authority to compel ordinary Gentiles to be circumcised [45]. Yet, as is widely agreed, Paul insists on his independence from Jerusalem (for whatever reason). The present hypothesis solves these problems. The Galatians knew that the Jerusalem apostles favoured Gentile liberty, so they understood that Paul chose to keep the meeting private to exclude opponents who might gather information to ‘enslave us’ (2,4) and thus make Paul’s work ‘in vain’ (2,2). The threat did not come from the apostles, but from others, who had to be excluded from the meeting so that Paul could share sensitive information, such as the fact that Titus was uncircumcised. Titus passed as a Jew and is someone whom Paul was prepared to circumcise (and later did), so 2,3 is not an admission by Paul that the apostles could have forced him to act against his principles.
Scholars have often cast Titus as a champion of their foreskins, suggesting that he was never circumcised and that 2,3-5 offers him as an example for the Galatians to follow. However, if Paul wanted his audience to emulate Titus he would probably have referred to him by a more prestigious name, such as nomen, cognomen or agnomen. The fact that Paul uses his praenomen makes it doubtful that Titus remained uncircumcised. This point has been missed. If ‘Titus’ was Timothy, as has been argued above, then he did indeed have a more prestigious name.
Also, if 2,3 records the final outcome of the incident, it is odd that this verse does not come after 2,4-5 [46].
At 2,5 Paul denies that he had yielded in the matter. Mirror-reading this together with 5,11; 1,8 and 2,18.21, we conclude that the Galatians were thinking that Paul had yielded in the matter. The agitators could have misinterpreted Paul’s circumcision of Titus, concluding that Paul had come around to their point of view, and this could explain Paul’s repeated denials. Indeed, the Galatians’ misinterpretation of the circumcision of Titus would explain why circumcision is the main issue in the letter.
When would the circumcision of Titus have been? A clue is perhaps found in 2,2, where Paul strangely uses both the subjunctive present and the aorist of τρέχω. Paul wanted the meeting to be private to exclude those who might learn sensitive information (such as the fact that Titus was uncircumcised) and use it to render his running in vain. If those whom Paul intended to exclude were to gain information and use it immediately then his previous work might be in vane, but if they used the information later then his ongoing work would be in vain. Paul’s use of the subjunctive present here could be an allusion to the fact that the false brothers publicized the uncircumcised state of Titus at a later date, thereby jeopardizing Paul’s work. Paul would then be telling the Galatians in 2,2-4 that he had tried to guard against the very thing that happened, but the false brothers crept in unawares.
A further clue may be found in 5,11 where we learn that the Galatians think that Paul is still (ἔτι) proclaiming circumcision. His use of ἔτι here, instead of πάλιν or νῦν or ἄρτι suggests that the Galatians believe that Paul’s proclamation of circumcision had been more or less continuous and had not been interrupted by a visit to them in which he had only preached Gentile liberty. Therefore the circumcision of Titus explains 5,11 only if it was not before Paul’s most recent visit to Galatia. It may well have been during Paul’s most recent visit to Galatia, because that would be a common point of reference for both ἔτι in 5,11, and because Titus and the incident were evidently well known to the Galatians.
The second ἔτι in 5,11 references an earlier time during which Paul had been persecuted. Now, Paul’s logic requires that persecution could result only from his proclamation of Gentile liberty. Since the two ἔτι most naturally reference the same earlier time, it is likely that Paul proclaimed Gentile liberty while appearing to also proclaim circumcision at this earlier time.
Putting the pieces together, we can then very tentatively propose the following scenario. False brothers found out that Titus-Timothy was not circumcised (and did so through dishonourable spying, in Paul’s view). Titus-Timothy was able to pass himself off as a Jew, but Paul had him circumcised in Galatia after the false brothers publicized the fact that he was uncircumcised. During that visit to Galatia Paul also proclaimed Gentile liberty. The agitators said that Paul’s circumcision of Titus-Timothy showed that he had yielded to the principle that circumcision was necessary, and they explained Paul’s continued preaching of Gentile liberty to the Galatians as merely an attempt to maintain favour with the church leaders in Judea, who wanted existing Gentile churches to be allowed to keep their exemption from the requirement of circumcision.
Confirmation from Acts
We can now turn to Acts 16,1-3, where we learn that 1) Paul did indeed circumcise Titus-Timothy, 2) it was during a visit to Galatia, 3) Titus-Timothy was able to pass as a Jew, and this was probably considered acceptable (if not found out) [47]. If it was widely known that Paul had allowed Titus/Timothy to pass as a Jew, this could explain the spread of rumours that he brought an uncircumcised man into the temple (Acts 21,28-29), and that he encouraged Jews not to circumcise their sons (Acts 21,21). 4) His uncircumcised state had come to be known in Galatia [48]. 5) During the same visit he proclaimed Gentile liberty. He did this by delivering the decisions of the Judean church leaders and this act could well have made him look like a loyal servant of those church leaders. In this collectivist culture a messenger was expected to represent those who sent him, so the Galatians would have difficulty in determining whether Paul’s words represented his own current opinions [49]. Acts 16,1-4 therefore confirms our reconstruction at multiple points [50].
We can note here that this scenario explains why Galatians makes no mention of the decree. No one disputed the fact that the Judean church leaders had confirmed that Galatian Gentiles could remain uncircumcised, and mentioning the decree would have only fed the rumour that he spoke as a messenger of the Judean church [51]. With the conventional interpretation of the letter, we would expect the decree to be Paul’s trump card and his silence on it would be surprising [52].
Also, it has been argued above that the Antioch incident need not have been historically important, and this can explain why Acts does not mention it.
Paul’s circumcision of Titus-Timothy (or Titus or Timothy) could easily lead to confusion. Again John Chrysostom is helpful:
The blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him and so sent him. This he did, that his hearers might the more readily receive him; he began by circumcising, that in the end he might abolish it. But this reason he imparted to Timothy only, and told it not to the disciples. Had they known that the very purpose of his circumcision was the abolition of the rite, they would never have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost. But now their ignorance was of the greatest use to them, for their idea that his conduct proceeded from a regard to the Law, led them to receive both him and his doctrine with kindness and courtesy, and having gradually received him, and become instructed, they abandoned their old customs. Now this would not have happened had they known his reasons from the first; for they would have turned away from him, and being turned away would not have given him a hearing, and not hearing, would have continued in their former error [53].
Also significant, perhaps, is that Acts records that Paul and his co-workers did not preach in neighbouring territories, but pushed on to Macedonia under divine guidance (Acts 16,6-11). The Galatians would then have no easy way to determine whether Paul was preaching Gentile liberty in his new mission field, so may have assumed that he was preaching circumcision (5,11).
It is often supposed that Paul argues in Gal 1,13–2,2 that he cannot have received his gospel from earlier apostles because he presented it to them before he had had sufficient contact with them. If this were the correct interpretation, then Paul would be obliged to mention every Jerusalem visit in this interval, and the absence of the famine visit of Acts 11,29-30 would be a problem. However, it has been argued above that Paul is rather arguing that he is not a pleaser of the apostles. He makes this point in 1,13–1,24 by saying that his character changed at his conversion, such that he did not immediately seek out the earlier apostles to advance himself within their ranks. In chapter 2 he makes the same point by other means (most directly in 2,6). The argument from minimal contact concludes at 1,24, so Paul is not obliged to mention every visit to Jerusalem subsequent to that time, and Paul’s silence on the famine visit is no longer problematic [54].Since we now have plausible explanations for the silence of Galatians on both the decree and the famine visit, we can now confidently identify the visit of Gal 2,1-10 with that of Acts 15 [55].
We have argued that in Galatians Paul exaggerates the intensity of his opposition to the law, and this suggests that the real Paul was more moderate than is often supposed. This conclusion is supported by Acts, in which Paul is not uncompromising on freedom from the law (Acts 16,1-3; 18,18; 21,23-26). We no longer need suppose that Acts distorts Paul. It was the agitators, not Luke, who have misrepresented Paul.
Acts 15,1 tells us that some believers came from Judea to Antioch and agitated for circumcision. Then, at Acts 15,24 we read that this message of circumcision had not been endorsed by the apostles and elders, and had disturbed (ταράσσω) the Gentile believers. The implication is that the Gentile believers had thought that the Judaizers were representing the views of the church leaders, but they were not. In some ways this is a good parallel for the confusion that took place in Galatia, for which the same word, ταράσσω, is used (Gal 1,7; 5,10). The Galatians believed that Paul was speaking under instruction from Jerusalem, just as Antioch had assumed that the Judaizers did the same. If the Judaizers of Acts 15,1 were the agitators of Galatians, then both confusions could be explained by their optimism or negligence.
Finally, it is likely that the agitators used scripture to make their case for circumcision (3,6-29; 4,21-31). Paul was probably more expert in scripture than the Jerusalem church leaders (Acts 22,3; Gal 1,14; Acts 4,13), so the agitators’ case would be greatly strengthened if they could appeal to his authority.
In conclusion, Acts is in agreement with our analysis of Galatians on several points. The widely held hypothesis of frequent inaccuracies in Acts is based largely on the conventional understanding of Galatians, and needs to be reconsidered [56].
It might be objected that while Acts 21,25 tells us that the Jerusalem church leadership remained committed to the decree, Gal 2,12 tells us that James, at least, abandoned any such commitment, for he sent men to Antioch after the conference, with the effect that Jewish believers stopped eating with Gentile believers. This argument would have some weight if the men from James visited Antioch after the conference, but it is more likely that they visited before the conference and should be equated with those from Judea who are mentioned in Acts 15,1-2.24. Stephen Carlson has argued persuasively that ἦλθεν, rather than ἦλθον is the original reading at Gal 2,12b [57]. It is the harder reading and is better attested. With either word, 2,11-12 is awkward because it involves a jump back in time, since Peter’s eating with Gentiles in 2,12a happened before Paul opposed him to his face in 2,11. Why does Paul not narrate events in chronological order? A reasonable explanation is that Peter’s eating with Gentiles, and perhaps the visit of those from James, occurred before the conference of Gal 2,1-10. Paul would then have no choice but to jump back in time. The ὄτε δὲ ἦλθεν at 2,12b would then be resumptive, since it repeats the same words that begin 2,11. We then get the following sequence of events: Peter ate with Gentiles, in Antioch or perhaps elsewhere. Men came to Antioch from Judea/James. Paul visited Jerusalem and returned to Antioch. Peter visited Antioch and refrained from eating with Gentiles. With this sequence James is exonerated since those who travelled in his name were not acting on his instructions (Acts 15,24). If these same people later misunderstood Paul then we can probably blame them for the misunderstanding, rather than James.
5. Conclusions
This paper has explored all parts of Galatians that deal with the agitators and their influence, albeit with necessary brevity. A comprehensive explanation of the background to the letter is proposed.
In Galatia Paul circumcised Timothy but delivered the Judean church leaders’ decision that circumcision was not necessary. These apparently contradictory actions caused some believers from Judea to claim that Paul had come over to their view that circumcision was required, and that he continued to promote the opposite view to the Galatians out of subservience to the Judean church leaders. Galatians is Paul’s response to that misinterpretation [58].
He denies that the circumcision of (Titus-)Timothy was a yielding of the principle (2,5).
The spreading of misinformation by the agitators is mentioned directly perhaps four times in the letter. On each occasion Paul denies that he endorses the pro-law view.
- They have been troubling the Galatians, so Paul denies that he is still preaching circumcision (5,10-11).
- They have been troubling the Galatians, so Paul calls a curse on anyone, including himself, who preaches the pro-law gospel (1,7-8).
- They have bewitched the Galatians, so Paul says that if he were to return to the view that justification comes through the law, he would be building up what he had torn down, and he would then be a transgressor and would be nullifying the grace of God (2,18-21).
- They have given Paul troubles, so he responds that his wounds prove his commitment to the law-free gospel (6,17).
These texts are conclusions of major sections of the letter.
He must show that he writes out of a genuine belief in Gentile liberty, rather than out of loyalty to the authors of the Jerusalem decree, so he responds that he is a messenger of God, not of men (1,1). He is not writing to please Jerusalem (1,10). His gospel is independent of them (1,11-12). While he was ambitious for advancement before his conversion, he later made no attempt to ingratiate himself with the church leadership (1,1-24). He is no respecter of the office of the Jerusalem church leaders (2,6). They did, in any case, give him autonomy (2,6-10), and there was even one occasion when he publically opposed Peter (2,11-14).
The response that Paul fears from his audience is ‘you are just saying that to please Jerusalem’, so he declares his sincerity (5,2; 6,11) and honesty (1,2; 4,16), and he shows that his commitment is genuine by expressing strong feelings (1,6; 3,1-3; 4,20; 5,12).
The findings suggest that Galatians was written to south Galatia after the circumcision of Timothy, who is to be equated with Titus [59]. The Jerusalem visit of Acts 15 can now be confidently identified as that of Gal 2,1-10.
Finally, the historicity of Acts has been confirmed on a number of points. James has been exonerated and we no longer have evidence of on-going tension between Paul and either Peter or James [60].
[1] John M.G. Barclay, ‘Mirror-reading Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 31 (1987) 73-93. Here 74.
[2] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Volume 13. Ed Philip Schaff (Peabody 1889) 2.
[3] James D.G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI 2009) 367.
[4] NRSV.
[5] Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia (Grand Rapids, MI 1998) 360. For further discussion of the parallels see also Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN 1992) 185-6, and Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas, TX 1990) 221-2.
[6] Jervis, for example, writes, ‘The flip side of this blessing is a curse on those who do not follow this rule’. L. Ann Jervis, Galatians (NIBC; Carlisle: Hendrickson 1999) 159. Paul Nadim Tarazi, Galatians: a Commentary (OBS; Crestwood, NY 1994) 33, 326.
[7] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians, 47.
[8] This is the interpretation of Tarazi, Galatians, 31-33.
[9] For a survey of interpretations of 2,17 and 2,18 and the connection between them, see Jan Lambrecht, ‘The Line of Thought in Gal. 2. 14b-21’, NTS 24.4 (1978) 484-495.
[10] De Boer, Galatians, 163.
[11] And, as Dunn, Galatians, 151 observes, ‘if he was addressing south Galatian churches it would be all the more cutting’.
[12] J.H. Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge, MA 1929) 21-22.
[13] B.R. Gaventa, ‘Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm’, Nov. Test. 28.4 (1986). Bernard Lategan, ‘Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians?’, NTS 34 (1988) 411-30. D.J. Verseput, ‘Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2’, NTS 39 (1993) 36-58. Johan S. Vos, ‘Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1–2’, HTR 87/1 (1994) 1-16. Justin K. Hardin, ‘Galatians 1–2 Without a Mirror’, TynBull 65.2 (2014) 275-303. These authors have shown that we should not mirror-read Galatians to conclude that Paul’s authority was under attack. However, they have too quickly abandoned the mirror rather than the image that has been seen in it. They fail to reconstruct the misinformation that was believed by the Galatians, and consequently they are unable to show that the intended audience would have been able to understand the letter, on a first hearing, the way that they do. They are asking too much of the Galatians.
[14] Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (PC; Blandford Forum 2007) 195.
[15] Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 372.
[16] Douglas J. Moo, Galatians (ECNT; Grand Rapids, MI 2013) 336.
[17] Matinus C. de Boer, Galatians (TNTL; Louisville, KY 2011) 319, 320.
[18] Longenecker, Galatians, 232.
[19] Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA 1979) 268.
[20] Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 278.
[21] Douglas A. Campbell, ‘Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-Observant Mission by Paul?’, NTS 57 (2011) 325-47.
[22] The closest parallel in Paul is the repeated command to rejoice in Phil 4,4. Here the repetition serves to convince the audience that he means what he says, because they will find it surprising, given their suffering (1,29-30).
[23] Nestle Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition, for example, begins a new paragraph at 1,10.
[24] Indeed, the common understanding of the letter makes 1,10 ‘unrelated to Paul’s larger contention’. Brian Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”: Personal Example as Literary Strategy (LNTS 177; Sheffield 1999) 147.
[25] Dunn notes that ‘the noun from the verb, areskeia, regularly had a bad sense, “obsequiousness”’.
[26] Borgen links 1,10 to 5,11, as I do, but supposes that the Galatians believed that Paul was preaching circumcision to please the Jerusalem church leaders. It is not clear, on this hypothesis, how the Galatians would have explained why Paul preached only a circumcision-free gospel to them. Nor can this hypothesis explain why Paul needs to repeatedly stress his opposition to circumcision. Peder Borgen, ‘Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men’ in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett, M.D. Hooker, S.G. Wilson eds (London 1982) 37-46. A similar view is expressed by Tarazi, Galatians, 11–13, and by George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology(SNTSMS 35; Cambridge 1979) 8-11.
[27] D.J. Verseput, ‘Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2’, 36-58. Debbie Hunn ‘Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2’, Biblica 91.1 (2010) 24-49. Verseput and Hunn perceive the function of 1,13-24, but do not realize that the Judean church leaders are in view in 1.10. Hunn supposes that 1,13-24 is merely giving an example of Paul’s disinterest in pleasing people in order to justify his assertion that he did not seek to please potential converts either. This seems tenuous. Why would Paul pick only the example of his relationship with church leaders, and why not something more apt?
[28] G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: towards a new understanding (Atlanta, GA 1985) 136-46. Matera, (Galatians, 47) seems favourable to Lyons decisions. Longenecker (Galatians, 18) translates πείθω ‘seek the favor or approval of’, and writes, ‘The Judaizers, it seems, had told the Galatians that Paul really did believe in and preach the necessity of circumcision (5:11) – at least, he preached it elsewhere in his mission. Undoubtedly, therefore, they were saying that his failure to do so to Gentiles in Galatia was because he did not want to offend them, but rather wanted to win their favor’. Longenecker’s view here is identical to mine, except for his assumption that the men in 1,10 are the Galatians. Dodd, (Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”, 147) similarly translates πείθω ‘I seek the approval of’.
[29] This explanation is anticipated by Timothy Wiarda, ‘Plot and Character in Galatians 1–2’, Tyn Bull 55.2 (2004) 244.
[30] This translation is from de Boer, Galatians, 281.
[31] Longenecker, Galatians, 193. Witherington also agrees (Galatians, 313).
[32] The first to propose that Titus was Timothy was Robert King, Who was St. Titus?: The Scripture Notices on the Subject Compared to Received Opinions (Dublin 1853). Independent of him, the same theory was presented by the following authors. Udo Borse, ‘Timotheus und Titus, Abgesandte Pauli im Dienst des Evangeliums’, in Josef G. Ploger and Herman Joh. Weber (eds.), Der Diakon, Wieder-entdeckung und Erneuerung seines Dienstes (Freiburg, 1980), 27-43. Udo Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg 1984), 80-85, and also ‘Tranenbrief und 1. Korintherbrief’, SNTU 9 (1984), 175-202. J. Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT; Regensburg 1994), 587-88, 703. R.G. Fellows, ‘Was Titus Timothy?’, JSNT 81 (2001), 33-58.
[33] The tearful letter did not call for the Corinthians to punishment anyone, for Paul’s intention was to spare them. Rather it threatened that Paul would punish them after he arrived. They took it upon themselves to discipline offenders, perhaps believing that Paul would have done so if he had been able to come. We need not suppose that an individual Corinthian offender is in view in 2 Cor 2,5-10; 7,12. See Christopher D. Land, The Integrity of 2 Corinthians and Paul’s Aggravating Absence (NTM 36; Sheffield 2015), 102-103, 259.
[34] This insight comes from King, Who was St. Titus? (1853), 36.
[35] L. Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe. Erste Folge. Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, ed. Joachim Gnilka and Lorenz Oberlinner, vol. 11.2 (Freiburg 1994) XXXI–XXXII. Andrea Mayer-Haas, “Titus im Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments Eine Einführung” in Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, Wilfried Eisele (eds) Ein Meisterschüler: Titus und sein Brief (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 214; Stuttgart 2008) 24-26. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI 2012-15), 3.2321.
[36] Richard G. Fellows, ‘Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts’, Tyn Bull 67.2 (2016) 247-68, especially 263-5.
[37] Hermann von Lips ‘Ohne den 2. Korintherbrief kein Titusbrief!’ in Der zweite Korintherbrief: Literarische Gestalt – historische Situation –theologische Argumentation: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Dietrich-Alex Koch. Ed. Dieter Sänger (Bristol 2012) 160-174.
[38] So Dean Hawson, ‘Titus’ in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (Boston, MA 1888) 3266; Longenecker, Galatians, 46.
[39] Ramsay understandably infers from 2,3 that Titus was unknown to the Galatians (Expositor 1898).
[40] This, without the text in parentheses, is the translation given by E.H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians: An Essay on its Destination and Date (London 1899) 117.
[41] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians, 15.
[42] ‘It may be supposed that S. Paul would inform the three Apostles that Titus was uncircumcised, since he would have no reason for not doing so, but it is quite clear that he regarded the means by which others became aware of the fact as grossly dishonourable (Gal. ii. 4)’. Wilfred L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of Jerusalem (Cambridge 1925) 189.
[43] For a similar interpretation of 2.4 see D.W.B. Robinson ‘The Circumcision of Titus, and Paul’s “Liberty”’, Aus. Bib. Rev. (1964).
[44] Dunn, (Galatians, 94) supposes that Paul ‘was attempting to steer a careful middle course’, and N.T. Wright thinks he was striding a ridge between dangerous slopes, but on their understanding of the background, Paul would actually have been tumbling into both valleys. Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (London 2002) 17–19.
[45] Howard infers from 2,3 ‘Furthermore, the fact that Paul used the word “compelled” implies that they could have made circumcision compulsory if they had so desired. It is difficult to understand Paul’s choice of words here if after all they could not have had their way if they had so wished’. George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology (Cambridge 1979) 28.
[46] See Wiarda, ‘Plot and Character’, 242.
[47] The Talmud tells us that men with a Jewish mother and a Gentile father were able to pass as Jews, and this was encouraged by rabbis (b. Yev 45a-b’). For Timothy to keep quiet about his uncircumcised state was consistent with Paul’s theology (Gal 3,29; 5,6; 6,15; Rom 2,29). On the difficulty, in general, of telling if someone was a Jew, see S.J.D. Cohen, ‘“Those Who Say They are Jews but are not”: How do you know a Jew in Antiquity when you see one?’ in S.J.D. Cohen and E. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (Atlanta, GA 1993) 1-45.
[48] This is the implication of the final clause of Acts 16.3. Matrilineal descent was not in effect in the first century. See D. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden 1981), 22-32. Also S.J.D. Cohen, ‘Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1–3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and Matrilineal Descent’, JBL 105/2 (1986), 251-68.
[49] Mitchell writes, ‘Perhaps the most burning question about envoys is that of their independence of action or their restriction to the particular commission. In Hellenistic correspondence we find examples of both. Usually envoys were given strict instructions’. Margaret M. Mitchell, ‘New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus’ JBL 111.4 (1992) 649.
[50] Many have suggested that the circumcision of Timothy lies behind Gal 5,11. See particularly Charles H. Talbert, ‘Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem’ Nov. Test. 9 (1967) 33-4. (It is unfortunate that Talbert linked this insight with his questionable identification of the agitators as syncretists, and also with his equation of the Gal 2,1-10 Jerusalem visit with that of Acts 11,30). See also W. M. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London 1895) 183. Witherington demurs: ‘if Paul had really already circumcised Timothy by the time he had written this letter, he would have had to do a lot more explaining than just this passing remark’ (Grace in Galatia, 373). Similarly, Tyson writes, ‘if the circumcision of Timothy did cause a problem between the Galatians and Paul, it is amazing that it is not mentioned or alluded to in Paul’s letter’. Joseph B. Tyson, ‘Paul’s Opponents in Galatia’ NovT 10 (1968) 245. Their point is answered by Gal 2,3-5 when Titus is identified as Timothy.
[51] So, correctly, Talbert, ‘Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem’, 36.
[52] See, for example, Moo, Galatians, 16. Talbert (‘Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem’, 32) writes, ‘only the failure of Paul to mention the Apostolic Decree in Galatians has led some scholars to date the epistle earlier than the Council’.
[53] John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians, 16.
[54] A similar argument is made by Hunn, ‘Pleasing God’, 41–43.
[55] Many reject the identification because, for them, Paul’s silence on the famine visit of Acts 11,27-30 and the decree would be surprising. See for example F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (NLCNT; London 1965) 299-300.
[56] Phillips compares the life of Paul in Acts with that constructed from the undisputed letters. The major tensions that he finds are all with Galatians and most of these are resolved with the present hypothesis. Thomas E. Phillips, Paul, His Letter, and Acts (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody 2009).
[57] Stephen C. Carlson, The Text of Galatians and its History (WUNT2 385; Tübingen 2015) 121-3. See also David I. Yoon, ‘The Antioch Incident and a Textual Variant: “ΗΛθΟΝ” or “ΗΛΘΕΝ” in Galatians 2:12’, ExpT 125 (2014) 423-439.
[58] This mirror-reading meets all 6 criteria set out by Barclay (‘Mirror-reading’ 84-5). These texts are given emphasis and urgency (criterion 2); they are numerous (criterion 3); 5,11 has clarity (criterion 4); the image is absent from the other letters of Paul (criterion 5); a simple, consistent background emerges (criterion 6), and the reconstruction has historical plausibility (criterion 7).
[59] Surprisingly few combine the south Galatia view with a dating of the letter after Paul’s second visit to the region. Dunn is an example. Recently Oakes and Keener.
[60] Against F.C. Baur and nearly all later scholars to some extent. An exception is Nanos, who sees agreement between Paul and the pillars. Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis, MN 2002). For a recent survey of scholarship on the Antioch incident, see Jack J. Gibson, Peter Between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James, and the Gentiles (WUNT2; Tübingen 2013) 2-14.
