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: "David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Crispus, Titus, and the taking of new- names
  • Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:51:18 -0400


Richard Fellows wrote in reply to Kym Smith:

> In any case, the title 'ARCHISUNAGOGOS' for Sosthenes in Acts 18:17 is
> probably given by Luke only to show that he is referring to the
> aforementioned Crispus.

I'm sorry Richard, but this is a bit of a stretch: "Oh dear, I've just
used another name for the person I previously called Crispus, so I'd
better use his title so people realize I'm writing about the same person."
Isn't it much more likely that Luke would just use his normal "A who was
called B" method (as suggested in Kym's recent email) to show that the two
names refer to the same person.
[snip]
> This sounds like a duplication caused by the double vision of the
> two-person hypothesis. It is simpler to see Sosthenes as the re-named
> Crispus, especially given the meaning of the name 'Sosthenes', and given
> that it would be highly unusual to find Acts recording the beating of a
> non-Christian.

I'm sorry, but althought yes, it's *possible* that Sosthenes and Crispus
were the same person, there's absolutely nothing compelling that makes
this the most likely scenario. IMHO the situation is simple:

1) Acts contains one reference each to Sosthenes and Crispus, with
*nothing* in the text to suggest they were the same person.
2) 1 Cor also contains one reference each to Sosthenes and Crispus,
agains with *nothing* in the text to suggest they were the same person.
3) The only reason why any would think they *might* be the same person is
that they both appear to have held the same job position. However, these
two references are separated by an indeterminate time interval that as a
minimum can be up to 18 months (Acts 18:11), and hence Sosthenes and
Crispus could very easily have held the same job during this time.
Actually, because it's clear from Acts 18:8 that Sosthenes became a
believer, isn't it likely that this marks the point at which he gave up
the position?
4) Acts says *nothing* about why Sosthenes was beaten, and hence
speculation about the cause cannot be used in any way to support a
particular theory.
5) For me, the clincher is very simple: I can't see any reason why
*both* Luke and Paul would each refer to the same person by two different
names without any indication that they were actually the same person.

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page