Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Crispus, Titus, and the taking of new names

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rfellows AT intergate.ca
  • To: <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Crispus, Titus, and the taking of new names
  • Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:06:08 -0700



Steve Black wrote:
>As attractive as your theory is, I am not persuaded that we have in
>it a "necessary" reading. It does have the advantage of tidying up
>things a bit, but I think this is not grounds for deeming it true. I
>think we need to be aware of "the fallacy of plausibility". Because
>something is plausible does not mean that something is therefore
>true! I think the best I can say of your proposition is that it is a
>workable model, to move beyond this I would like to see some
>collaborating evidence.

Steve asked for evidence that Titus was Timothy. I will now attempt to give
it, and must apologize in advance for the length of this e-mail. Much of the
evidence is given in my "Was Titus Timothy?", JSNT 2001. This e-mail presents
the T-T hypothesis in a slightly different version to that in my article. The
proposed sequence of events is given at the end of this e-mail.

The main evidence for the Titus-Timothy hypothesis comes from the Corinthian
correspondence. In 1 Corinthians we read of a mission of Timothy to Corinth.
It is generally agreed that he had left Ephesus before 1 Corinthians, and
that he was en route when the letter was written. In 2 Corinthians, on the
other hand, we here nothing of a mission of 'Timothy', but only of that of
'Titus'. Titus has been to Corinth and has traveled to Macedonia, where he
met Paul. Now, if Titus was Timothy then the 'two' missions can be combined.
That is to say, we have the following skeleton sequence:

Titus-Timothy left Ephesus
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians
Titus-Timothy arrived in Corinth
Paul traveled to Macedonia from Ephesus
Titus-Timothy traveled to Macedonia from Corinth
Paul wrote 2 Corinthians (1-9 at least).

In this sequence there is no communication between Paul and Corinth between
the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. No sorrowful visit at this
time, no tearful letter, no return of Timothy to Ephesus. If the sequence is
correct then the background of 2 Corinthians can be found in 1 Corinthians
and preceding events. We have very few events between the two letters.

The conventional view is that the two epistles do not stand in close relation
with each other. A gap of 18 months is usually placed between them, and the
situation of 1 Corinthians is seen to have virtually no causal relationship
to the background of 2 Corinthians.

In the discussion that follows I will argue that the two letters do indeed
belong in a very close relationship to each other. We will see that there are
many aspects of the mission of 'Titus' and the events surrounding it, that
agree well with our data concerning the mission of Timothy and the events
surrounding it. Will this prove beyond reasonable doubt that Titus was
Timothy? You must decide.

The task is like doing a jig-saw with an unknown number of missing pieces. We
find ourselves with two large sections of the puzzle, that we have assembled
on different parts of the table. These two sections are analogous to 1
Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. For convenience, to give us space to work, we
place the two sections far apart on the table. In our mind we try to envisage
what the complete picture might have been, and we imagine what shapes and
figures might have existed in the intervening space between the two sections.
Then it occurs to us that we might try to fit the two sections together. We
find that they do indeed fit. They fit without us having to strain either
section, and there are many points of contact between the two sections. We
can therefore be confident that they belong together. Now, there was nothing
'wrong' with the old idea of putting the sections far apart. That idea
'works' too, but it should be abandoned when the new, more compact, solution
has been found.

So, I will be arguing that the data in the two letters does indeed fit
together without straining. You must decide whether there are enough points
of contact to justify juxtaposing the letters in this way.

1. Travels and travel plans
In 1 Cor 16:5-8 Paul says that he will leave Ephesus at Pentecost and travel
to Macedonia and then Corinth. In 2 Corinthians he has been to the Troad
(2:12) and is in Macedonia, and it about to travel to Corinth. This looks
very much like he is carrying out the plan of 1 Cor 16. Acts confirms that
Paul did indeed take that route from Ephesus to Macedonia to Greece.
Furthermore, Acts gives some (albeit weak) confirmation of the timing of the
itinerary in 1 Cor 16: The Demetrius riot of Acts 19 is most likely to have
happened at the time of the Artemison, which was at around the time of
Pentecost. Furthermore, the winter in 1 Cor 16:6 corresponds to the winter
implied in Acts 20:2,6.

Now, in 2 Cor 1:15-16 we read about an earlier travel plan. Paul had intended
to go from Ephesus to Corinth to Macedonia to Corinth to Judea. He had had to
cancel a trip to Corinth. Now, the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 fits best
BEFORE the 1 Corinthians: he had intended to visit them on his way to
Macedonia, but canceled that visit, leaving only the single visit after
Macedonia. This fits well, and all other solutions involve at least two
changes in travel plans. They all involve the hypothesis that Paul abandoned
the plan of 1 Cor 16, and there is no evidence for this. Hypothesizing the
abandonment of the plan of 1 Cor 16 is like hypothesizing missing pieces
between the two sections of the jigsaw: such hypotheses become redundant when
and if the sections fit together without the gap and without strain.

Further confirmation that the time of the cancelled visit was BEFORE 1
Corinthians comes from the rather repetitive way in which Paul says that he
will pass through Macedonia before visiting them. This is exactly what we
would expect if he had previously given them the strong impression that he
would visit them sooner.

Still further confirmation comes from 1 Cor 4:18, which talks of the
arrogance of some at Paul's non-appearance.

Now let's take a moment or two to work out when the cancelled visit might
have been scheduled for. It is generally agreed, from the references to
Pentecost (16:8) and Passover (5:7-8), that 1 Cor was written in the spring
near the start of the travel season. I'll buy that. In 1 Cor 16 he says that
he does not want to visit them at that time because it would be just in
passing. This suggests that the original plan had involved a longer stay in
Corinth. It is not critical to the story, but let's conjecture that Paul had
originally planned to be in Corinth for the winter preceding 1 Corinthians.

The reason for the cancellation
In 2 Cor he said, "it was to spare you that I did not come again to Corinth"
(1:23). He is explicit about this in 2 Cor precisely because he had not been
explicit before. But while he is not explicit in 1 Cor, there are clues there
that, at the time in question, he had indeed wished to avoid having to punish
them.

Now, it is unlikely that Stephanas et al would have stayed the whole winter
in Ephesus at the church's expense, so they probably arrived from Corinth
shortly before 1 Cor. Hurd argues (correctly I think) that their role was to
represent the church of Corinth, so they would not have presented it in a bad
light. It is possible, then that they re-assured Paul about the situation in
Corinth, and this seems to be confirmed by 1 Cor 16:17-18. We can therefore
expect that in the autumn before 1 Corinthians, Paul's assessment of the
situation in Corinth might well have been a lot more pessimistic than it was
at the time of 1 Corinthians. This is confirmed, to some extent, by 16:10,
which probably indicates that the situation did not seem to be good at the
time of Timothy's departure from Ephesus. It is therefor plausible that
Paul's assessment in the autumn before 1 Cor was such as to cause him to
cancel the visit 'to spare them'.

This is confirmed by what Paul says in 1 Cor 4:21 concerning those who were
arrogant at his failure to visit Corinth: "What do you prefer? Am I to come
to you with a stick, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?". This is just
the same sort of sentiment that he expressed in 2 Cor 1:23, "it was to spare
you that I did not come again to Corinth", and 2 Cor 2:3, "I wrote to you as
I did so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have
made me rejoice". It seems to fit.

The anxiety of 'Titus' and that of 'Timothy'
Titus’s apprehension about his mission is implied by 2 Cor. 7.7,14, "the
consolation experienced by Titus at his coming to Corinth and the boasts
which S. Paul made to Titus on behalf of the Corinthians referring to the
fears which he felt and expressed to S. Paul as to the probable effect of the
letter".(quoting from Belleville). Timothy's apprehension about his mission
is implied by 1 Cor 16:10-11 "See that he has nothing to fear among you".
Again, it fits.

Note also that the aorist tense in 2 Cor 7:15 suggests that Titus's actual
moment of arrival is in view. This matches the aorist tense in 1 Cor 16:10,
which suggests that Paul is thinking of Timothy's arrival rather than his
stay. The fit is very good: the obedience in 2 Cor 7:15 is the Corinthians'
obedience to the instructions given in 1 Cor 16:10-11 to receive
Titus-Timothy well from the moment of his arrival. Some scholars have
suggested that the aorist tense in 2 Cor 7:15 indicates that Paul had
resolved the issues with the Corinthians in a communication prior to the
arrival of Titus. I believe they are right: that communication was 1
Corinthians.

Who started the collection?
Instructions are given for the collection in 1 Cor 16, and Timothy is on his
way to Corinth via Macedonia at that time. In 2 Cor 8:6 we are told that
Titus started the collection in Macedonia or Corinth or both. The critics
have to assume that Timothy did not start the collection for some reason.

Paul's confidence in the collection in Corinth.
2 Cor 9:1-5 shows that Paul boasted to the Macedonians about the collection
in Corinth, and that this boasting started BEFORE Titus arrived from Corinth.
(see my JSNT article for more on this). This confidence fits well with what
we read in 1 Cor 16. There Paul gives practical instructions to the
Corinthians, and no exhortation is required. He seems confident in them. All
this suggests that there has been no change of circumstances (at least as far
as Paul's feeling towards the collection in Corinth is concerned) between the
time of 1 Cor and the time of Paul's arrival in Macedonia. This suggests that
there need not have been any communication between the Corinthians and Paul
between 1 Cor and 2 Cor. If, on the other hand, Titus was not Timothy, then
the tearful letter must have been after 1 Cor, and the data is then difficult
to explain. Would Paul have boasted to the Macedonians about the Corinthians
if his most recent communication with them was the writing of the tearful
letter? Unlikely.

The context of the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16
Conventional reconstruction assume that Paul's intention to visit had been
communicated to the Corinthians verbally, and that the tearful letter
cancelled that visit. However, the context of 2 Cor 1:15-16 implies that the
intention had been communicated by letter. There are two reasons to hold this
view. Firstly, 1:13 refers to writing. Secondly, 1:18-19 refers to Silvanus
and Timothy in such a was as to suggest that they had been a part of the
communication of Paul's intention to visit. This makes best sense if the
intention had been communicated by letter written by Paul and co-sent by
Silvanus and Timothy. As Zahn pointed out, the 'former' letter is probably in
view in 2 Cor 1:13 since the former letter is the one that had been
misunderstood (see 1 Cor 5:9ff).

I suggest that Paul implied in the 'former' letter that he would visit
Corinth in the autumn before 1 Cor. He then heard that the letter had been
ignored. As a result, he cancelled his intended visit "to spare" them. It is
interesting to read 2 Cor 1:13-15 in the light of this reconstruction. We
read there that he made his plan "in this confidence". It seems to me that he
might be saying here that he made his plan on the assumption that they would
understand his letter and expel the immoral brothers.

The search for Titus
In 1 Corinthians Paul expresses uncertainty about when (or if) Timothy would
arrive (1 Cor 16:10). I suggest that Timothy had been due in Corinth in the
previous travel season. This supposition is supported by Philippians, which
should probably be placed in the Aegean period. In Phil 2:9 we read, "I hope
in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I may be cheered by
news of you". This implies that Timothy's return to Paul was to have preceded
Paul's own visit to Macedonia by a long time. Paul was himself planning a
trip to Philippi, when he would get direct contact with them. There would not
be much point sending Timothy to Philippi "to be cheered" by them, if that
cheering were to have been only 6 months before Paul himself was due to
visit. There is a good possibility therefore, that Timothy was already behind
schedule when 1 Corinthians was written.

Now, it is quite possible that Timothy did not arrive in Ephesus by the
Pentecost of 1 Cor 16:8. Acts 19:22 confirms this, for we read there that
Paul sent Timothy to Macedonia ahead of him, while he remained in Ephesus for
a while. This suggests that Timothy went to Macedonia (with a side trip to
Corinth), but did not return to Paul in Ephesus. If, therefore, we are right
to suppose that Tim did not make it back to Ephesus, Paul would leave without
him. Timothy, when he finally did arrive in Corinth, would know Paul's
movements (e.g. from reading 1 Cor 16), and would know to meet Paul in
Macedonia. Titus met Paul in Macedonia.

Now, if Timothy indeed failed to show up in Ephesus by Pentecost, Paul could
well have felt anxious about him. Timothy had last been seen heading north
from Ephesus, taking the land route to Corinth. Paul left Ephesus and took
the SAME route. It would not be surprising, therefore, if Paul looked for
Timothy on his way through the Troad and Macedonia. It is therefore very
interesting that Paul wrote in 2 Cor 2:12-14:

When I came to the Troad to proclaim the good news of Christ, a door was
opened for me in the Lord; but my mind could not rest because I did not find
my brother Titus there. So I said farewell to them and went to Macedonia. But
thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession".

This is significant because it is exactly what we might expect Paul to have
written about Timothy. Note that 2:14 contains a metaphor for a procession,
which matches the movements of Titus-Timothy and Paul around the Aegean along
the SAME route. The triumphal procession was described by Josephus as like a
river, so it was a linear thing, with everyone following the same route.

Now, after the 'former' letter had been misunderstood, I think Paul made one
more attempt to ask the Corinthians to put their house in order, so that he
could visit. He sent Timothy with the tearful letter. If Timothy had arrived
on time, then Paul would not have had to cancel the visit. In 2:14 Paul is
reminding the Corinthians that the movements of Titus-Timothy had himself are
in the hands of God. That is to say, his failure to arrive in Corinth (due to
T-T's delay) was not due to his own fickleness: it is God who leads him and
Titus-Timothy.

Commentators invariably think that Paul had arranged a rendezvous with Titus
in Troas. This view runs into various difficulties. THE Troad is probably the
region, not the city, and a region does not represent a good meeting place.
Furthermore, the conventional understanding makes it very difficult to see
the connection between 2:13 and 2:14.

The time of writing of the tearful letter
The tearful letter had misjudged the situation in Corinth, to some extent at
least. The Corinthians had not been as complicitous as Paul had thought (2
Cor 7:11), and he regretted having sent the letter. This suggest that the
letter was not sent in response to accurate information from a personal visit
to Corinth by Paul or Timothy. This creates difficulties for the two-person
hypothesis. With our theory, on the other hand, it fits well, for in the
period BEFORE 1 Corinthians Paul was dependent on unreliable oral information
(see 1 Cor 11:18 and see a recent e-mail of mine). Clearly communication had
not been good at that time. The 'former' letter had been delivered to Corinth
by people (probably Chloe's people) who could not interpret it properly
(hence the misunderstanding), and these people could probably not report back
accurately to Paul.

2 Cor 10-13
What do we do with 2 Cor 10-13? I suggest that Athens is the intended
audience for this part of 2 Cor.

The frequency of communications
Shortly before 1 Corinthians the church of Corinth had written to Paul with
some basic practical ethical questions. The issues that they raised do not
sound like issues that have arisen only very recently. It sounds like this is
the first opportunity that the church has had to ask Paul questions for some
time (perhaps even since his departure from Corinth in 52). This suggests
that communication between churches in the Aegean was not frequent.

In 1 Cor 4:19 Paul says that he will come to Corinth 'soon', and from 1 Cor
16 we learn that 'soon' meant in about 6 months. This also suggests that
communication was not frequent.

All this means that we should prefer the Titus-Timothy hypothesis because it
greatly reduces the amount of communications that we require around the
Aegean.


The full sequence of events
Putting the pieces together we then get the following with some approximate
dates:

Oct 50 Paul arrives in Corinth
April 52 Paul leaves Corinth
Sept 53 Paul arrives in Ephesus
April 54 Paul visits Athens, discovers that there is sexual immorality in
Achaia, and returns to Ephesus.
July 54 Paul (with Silvanus and Timothy) writes 1 Thess.
August 54 Paul (with Silvanus and Timothy) writes the 'former' letter and
sends it with Chloe's people. In it Paul tells the Achaians to dissociate
themselves from the immoral among them. He also tells them about the
collection and suggests that he would visit them by the end of 55. His
intention was to visit them on this way to Macedonia, and again on his way
back.
Sept 54 Chloe's people return to Ephesus with news that the 'former' letter
has been ignored. The information that Paul received from Chloe's people is
not full or accurate. It is rather troubling. Paul thinks the situation can
be retrieved, but Timothy is not so sure.
March 55 Paul writes Philippians.
May 55 Paul writes the 'tearful' letter and sends it with Timothy, who leaves
for the Troad on his way to Corinth. Erastus goes with him, at least as far
as Athens. The tearful letter tells the Achaians to get their houses in
order, so that he (Paul) would not have to come to them in grief. The tearful
letter was to us short-sharp-shock tactics in preparation for Paul's visit.
August 55 Timothy was due back in Ephesus at this time, but does not appear.
Sept 55 Paul cancels his visit to Achaia, which had been planned for this
time. He wanted to spare them. He had already soured his relationship with
Athens, and he did not want the same to happen with Corinth. The 'former'
letter and then the tearful letter were supposed to set things right so that
he would not need to come 'in grief', but they had not acted on the 'former'
letter, and the tearful letter had not yet arrived, due to Timothy's delay.
March 56 Stephanas et al arrive in Ephesus with reassuring news. Still no
sign of Timothy. They explain that the church had assumed that Paul had meant
for them to dissociate from all immoral people: an unrealistic demand. They
tell Paul that some in Corinth are arrogant concerning his non-appearance.
They deliver a letter.
April 56 Paul writes 1 Corinthians and it arrives in Corinth. In it he
confirms that he will not come to them until after he as been through
Macedonia.
April 56 Some of Paul's opponents in Corinth probably move to Athens.
June 56 Still no sign of Timothy. Paul leaves Ephesus and goes to the Troad,
and does not find Timothy there, so he goes on to Macedonia.
June 56 Timothy arrives in Corinth and delivers the tearful letter.
August 56 Timothy travels to Macedonia and finds Paul there.
Sept 56 Paul writes 2 Corinthians. Corinth is the intended audience of
chapters 1-9, while chapters 10-13 are directed at Athens.
March 57 Paul writes Romans.

Titus-Timothy hypothesis is supported by the fact that the name 'Titus' does
not appear in Acts (or in Romans 16). It is by far the most prominent name in
Paul's letters to be absent from Acts. It is not a problem that Acts
introduces Timothy only after the Jerusalem conference: Luke is carefully
avoiding all reference to Titus before he received the new name Timothy.
Luke, whose focus is on Paul, wants to avoid giving Titus the honour of this
name acquisition. (see my last e-mail, and consider how Luke avoids telling
us that Crispus changed his name to Sosthenes, "Powerful saviour"). This
neatly explains why Luke does not mention the conversion of Timothy.

Finally, it may be no coincidence that "TIMOQEOS" sounds like "TITOS", or
that Timothy means "valued of God", which seems to be an appropriate name for
the missionary-helper. Those in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him (Acts
16:2), so it is not surprising that they should have given him the new name
"valued of God". In picking a similar sounding name they were following the
Jewish practice (consider Saul/Paul, Silas/Silvanus, Abram/Abraham,
Sarai/Sarah).

That will have to do for now. Does all this prove beyond reasonable doubt
that Titus was Timothy? I think so. I have offered a reconstruction of
events, which is the best that I can come up with at the moment with the
assumption that Titus was Timothy hypothesis. The best reconstruction
available to those who assume that Titus was not Timothy is probably that of
Margaret Thrall, or something similar. The test is to put those two
reconstructions side by side and compare them. Which one requires the more
assumptions? Which has more changes of travel plans, more journeys by Paul's
companions, more difficult readings, more unexpected turns of events, more
duplications and more sense of deja vu? Then pick the other one.

Many have tried to make sense of 2 Corinthians, but no explanation has
prevailed. After hundreds of years of analysis using the two-person
assumption, the only thing that the commentators can agree on is that 2
Corinthians contians more than its fair share of problems. The two-person
assumption has failed and it is time to give the One-person assumption a
chance.

Richard Fellows.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page