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: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Crispus, Titus, and the taking of new- names
  • Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:56:54 -0700


Kym and David,

Concerning the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis, you have recently raised
certain issues which I feel I have already addressed in earlier e-mails
(see in particular those of May 1st, August 13th). I am disappointed that
you have not engaged with the arguments that I presented there.

I will try to answer your points again, and make some fresh observations.

Kym wrote:
>On the other hand, I think that Luke would have made clear the connection
>between Crispus and Sosthenes if there had been one.

In Galatians Paul switches between 'Peter' and 'Cephas', without explaining
that he is referring to the same person. In this case the explanation is
probably that the readers already knew that he went by both names. The same
explanation certainly works in the case of case of Titus-Timothy in 2
Corinthians, and in the case of Crispus-Sosthenes in 1 Corinthians. The
readers would already have known both names, so no ambiguity arose.

Now, if the Galatians knew both names of Peter, why is it such a stretch to
suppose that the readers of Acts would have known both names of Sosthenes?
If I am right, he was an important figure. Crispus-Sosthenes had an
important role in the formation of the church of Corinth and this role was
acknowledged with the giving of his new name, which meant 'powerful
saviour'. Such a character might well have been known to Luke's readers,
just as Peter was known to the Galatians. Also bear in mind that the
Titus-Timothy hypothesis shows that Luke had accurate information on Paul's
Aegean period, so Acts is probably closer to these events than is often
assumed. If the audience of Acts knew both his names, then the case of
Cispus-Sosthenes in 18:12-17 presents no problems. Of course, I cannot
prove that they would have known of him, but I do not need to.

>In Acts it seems to
>be Luke’s style to indicate where variant names are used. E.g. Joseph /
>Barsabbas (1:13); Joseph / Barnabas (4:36); Peter / Simon (10:5,18,32;
>11:13); John / Mark (12:12,25; 15:3); Simon / Niger (13:1); Bar-Jesus /
>Elymas (13:6,8); Paul / Saul (13:9); Judas / Barsabbas (15:22).

All we can say is that Luke sometimes specifically indicates that an
individual had two names. It does not follow that he always did. We know of
one other case where he used both names, without explicitly linking them.
(There may be other cases, but, by their nature, they are difficult to
identify). The name 'SUMEWN' is used in 15:14 for Peter. The similarity in
sound between SUMEWN and Simon combined with the context in which Peter had
been mentioned, and the prior knowledge that Peter was also called Simon,
is sufficient to identify SUMEWN. In the case of Crispus-Sosthenes we do
not have a similarity in sound, but we do have the repetition of
ARCHISUNAGOGOS, and that fulfills the same purpose, it seems.

But I have no doubt that in MOST cases were Luke gives two names for the
same person, he explicitly states that he is doing so. It is therefore
legitimate to ask why he does not do so in the case of Crispus-Sosthenes.
The reason, as I explained before, may be because he did not want to draw
attention to the came change. The Corinthians acclaimed their leaders (1
Cor 1:12; 4:15) and, I believe, they called Crispus "powerful saviour"
after his conversion led to the conversion of many in Corinth (see Acts
18:8). Luke is always careful to present Paul as the one whose preaching
resulted in the conversions, so he was keen not to present Crispus as the
"powerful saviour" of the Corinthians. I am not saying that Luke was
wanting to present a distorted picture: he may have been correct in
presenting Paul as the sole founder of the Corinthian church. We need not
decide that issue now. My point is that Luke was probably reluctant to
emphasize that the Corinthians had honoured Crispus with the name "powerful
saviour".

With these points in mind, I see no difficulty in equating Crispus with
Sosthenes. If, however, you still feel that Luke's presentation of
Crispus-Sosthenes is out of character or unclear for his readers, then you
should remember that splitting him into two people would not make the
passage into typical Luke, and nor would it make the passage unambiguous.
The beating of the non-Christian Sosthenes would be bazaar and the
recording of it would be highly unusual for Acts. Furthermore, we would
have the problem of having to explain why Luke does not explain why
Sosthenes was beaten. Ancient copyists made alterations to the text of
18:17, indicating that they found this incident ambiguous. Why didn't Luke
make himself clear? Kym, you have tried to point to problems with the
Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis, but have not dealt with the corresponding
problems with the two-person hypothesis.

Dave Inglis wrote:
> 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.

Dave, I have already answered this point. (As an aside, I don't know
whether the expression "A HO KAI B" would have implied that the two names,
A and B, were used simultaneously. Would this expression have been used for
a name CHANGE? Can anyone help with this?)

>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.

Luke's silence about why Sosthenes was beaten is explainable if Sosthenes
is to be understood to be Crispus. We are to understand that, having failed
to win their case against Paul, the Jews turned on Crispus, who had
defected to Paul's camp.

>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.

See above. Also note that in 1 Cor Paul uses 'Sosthenes' at 1:1 and
'Crispus' at 1:12 to avoid anachronisms: he was called 'Crispus' when he
was baptised, and 'Sosthenes' when 1 Cor was written. It was common
practice in ancient times to switch from one name to another without
indicating that one was referring to the same person.

Kym wrote:
>I suspect that the 1 Corinthians mentions of Sosthenes and Crispus really
>seal the discussion. Paul was writing with Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1) to the
>church in Corinth. He tells his readers,
>“I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius…”
>(1:14)
>I appreciate that it may be read differently, the ‘you’ may simply mean
>those who were in Corinth at the time Paul did baptize a few people,
>especially considering the time between the baptizing of those men and the
>writing of the epistle. But the most natural reading would see the ‘you’,
>including Crispus and Gaius, as those in Corinth who received this letter.
>Gaius – assuming it was the same Gaius – was still in Corinth when Paul
>wrote Romans a couple of years after writing 1 Corinthians (Rom 16:23).
>That neither Crispus nor Sosthenes are mentioned at the end of Romans
>neither proves nor disproves anything regarding their persons or their
>whereabouts.
>
>So, if it is correct to read 1 Corinthians as I have presented it above,
>Sosthenes was in Ephesus with Paul and Crispus was in Corinth as one of
>the recipients of the letter. The two must be different individuals.

Kym, thanks for raising this issue, which has not been addressed before on
this list. You are suggesting that 1 Cor 1:14 implies that both Crispus and
Gaius stayed in Corinth. A problem with this view is that Romans mentions
Gaius, but not Crispus. Why would Paul send greetings from one, but not the
other? The mention of Gaius but not Crispus in Romans indicates that they
probably did not continue to reside in the same place. One or both of them
probably left Corinth. If Romans was written from Corinth, then Crispus had
probably left Corinth, and this would SUPPORT the Crispus-Sosthenes
hypothesis because Sosthenes appears at 1 Cor 1:1. However, I prefer to
read 1 Cor 1:14-15 as indicating that BOTH Crispus and Gaius had left
Corinth, and I have reason to believe that Romans was not written from
Corinth.

My reading of 1 Cor 1:14-15 is rather different from your's Kym. Paul
writes, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name". Paul's point has
force precisely because both Crispus and Gaius had left Corinth. He is
pointing here to the fortuitous fact that the two people whom he baptized
are no longer in Corinth. The "I thank God" or "I am thankful" reflects the
fortuitous nature of the situation. It seems to me that Crispus and Gaius
should be excluded from the 'you' in the verb 'you were baptized'. They had
left Corinth. Now, if Crispus and Gaius were still in Corinth, then we
would have to read Paul as saying something like, "I am thankful that I
baptised very few of you, so no one can say that you were baptized in my
name". So why doesn't he say that? Why does he go to the trouble of naming
the individuals?

It is worth discussing the movements of Gaius. Sosthenes, Prisca, and
Aquila had all left Corinth. They were leading individuals in the church,
and I assume that they left Corinth because it was not safe for them to
stay. Gaius may have hosted the church in Corinth (wherever Rom was
written), so it is quite plausible that he too was forced to leave the
city. Incidentally, it may have been this exodus of leaders that led to the
fall into factionalism, and the lack of established leaders is reflected in
1 Cor 6:5. So was Gaius one of those who left Corinth, or did he remain?
Much depends on where Romans was written, since a Gaius is mentioned at Rom
16:23. I will now argue that it was not written in Corinth (Athens or
Cenchrea are more likely).

Acts 19:22 tells us that Erastus travelled with Timothy, but in 1 Cor 4:17;
16:10 Timothy seems to be traveling alone. (It can be shown from the
Titus-Timothy hypothesis that these texts refer to the same journey). The
lack of reference to Erastus in 1 Corinthians is hard to explain if Corinth
was Erastus's final destination. Therefore it is unlikely that Erastus was
from Corinth. Therefore, Romans, which mentions Erastus, was probably not
written from Corinth. Therefore Gaius was probably no longer in Corinth
when Rom was written. There was only one year between the writing of 1 Cor
and Rom, so the chances are good that Gaius was not in Corinth when 1 Cor
was written. There are, however, lots of uncertainties in the this chain of
arguments.

In conclusion, it is not possible to be sure from 1 Cor 1:14 alone, whether
Crispus was in Corinth at the time of writing, but there are indications
that he was not. Therefore, the issue that you raise, Kym, does not
eliminate the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis. If anything, it supports it.

Dave wrote:
>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.

Dave, these sorts of pronouncements are not very helpful. You need to
engage with the arguments that I have given, and explain WHY you think your
reconstruction requires a lighter combined weight of assumptions.

Richard Fellows




  • Re: Crispus, Titus, and the taking of new- names, Richard Fellows, 09/26/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page