tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post1976130442436711174..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Friday Paul: Life Beyond DeathKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-48816512461704005502009-09-20T12:56:35.508-04:002009-09-20T12:56:35.508-04:00Ken,
the Galatians thought that Jerusalem was adv...Ken,<br /><br />the Galatians thought that Jerusalem was advocating non-circumcision because Jerusalem was indeed advocating non-circumcision. The Galatians knew this because they had received a letter that said so (see Acts 16:4). Where is the difficulty?<br /><br />We agree that, following the circumcision of Timothy, the Galatians thought that Paul preached circumcision. But how did the Galatians then explain to themselves why Paul had preached non-circumcision to them? Their explanation was that Paul had preached non-circumcision only to please the Jerusalem leaders. Gal 2:11-14 is Paul's argument that this was not the case. This passage therefore provides no evidence that Jerusalem supported circumcision.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-89127689605700120402009-09-19T07:13:30.262-04:002009-09-19T07:13:30.262-04:00Thanks as always Richard. As usual I find most of...Thanks as always Richard. As usual I find most of these thoughts very worthy of consideration. But I don't think I'll ever get my head around the suggestion that people might have thought Jerusalem was advocating non-circumcision.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-59761369100628647942009-09-18T23:29:34.598-04:002009-09-18T23:29:34.598-04:00I agree with much or what you write here, but woul...I agree with much or what you write here, but would like to correct a few points.<br /><br />North Galatia is not "just north" of the cities of south Galatia. It is a long way away. Luke cannot mean that Paul went to north Galatia, for that would mean that Luke is telling us that Paul received inconsistent divine guidance. See my page here: http://members.shaw.ca/rfellows/Site/South_Galatia.html<br /><br />Acts does NOT imply that Timothy was circumcised because his mother was Jewish. It says that he was circumcised because they all knew that his father had been a Greek. There is a hint here that Paul would not have circumcised him if his uncircumcised state had not been known. Tertullian (correctly I think) says that Timothy was circumcised because of the false brothers of Gal 2:4-5. We can imagine that they were the ones who found out (though their spying) that Timothy was uncircumcised and let this be known in South Galatia. This reconstruction works particularly well if Timothy was Titus renamed.<br /><br />We have no reason to suppose that Titus was any more gentile than Timothy. In the first century the son of a Gentile man was a Gentile, even if his mother was a Jew.<br /><br />I think you are right that Timothy lies behind Gal 5:11. However, I think the rumor in Galatia was that Paul had really believed in circumcision all along and that he had preached non-circumcision just to please the Jerusalem church leaders. See here: http://members.shaw.ca/rfellows/Site/T-T_Galatians_background.html<br /><br />Surly Acts 16:6 implies only that Luke did not place Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in Phrygian Galatia. It does not imply that they were not in Galatia.<br /><br />Church tradition in support the north Galatia hypothesis is worthless as it dates from after the borders were changed to exclude south Galatia. It is not clear how you get Paul from Jerusalem in 49 to Corinth in early 50 (or 51 at the very latest) and include missionary work in north Galatia. There just isn't time.<br /><br />Synagogues were attended by Gentiles too. And we mustn't assume that these gentiles did not also participate in pagan religions. The evidence from Acts 18 is that Paul's converts were mainly Gentile adherents of the synagogue and we should assume that the same is true of Thess. There is no contradiction between 1 Thess and Acts here.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.com