Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gaius Titius Justus a.k.a. Stephanas

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gaius Titius Justus a.k.a. Stephanas
  • Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:47:52 -0700

Doug wrote:

> The biggest problem is that Paul gives no hint that he renames anyone.

Why is this a problem? What sort of hint would you expect, and why? If Paul
renamed everyone in his churches we would expect to find some reference to
the practice in his letters, but that is not what is being proposed. We have
about 80 names of associates of Paul, and I believe that between three and
six of them received new names from Paul. The candidates are
Crispus-Sosthenes, Titus-Timothy, Gaius Titius Justus-Stephanas, and, more
speculatively, Onesimus, Sopater, and Theophilus. None of these individuals
were ever among Paul's addressees, and they represent a very small fraction
of those in his churches. I am therefore not at all surprised that there is
no direct reference to renaming in Paul's writings.

We do know that Paul took an interest in the meaning of names (Phlm 10-11,
Rom 16:12).

> And
> from Jesus the only secure example of a new name is Cephas. Nowhere does
> Boanerges, if it was a name catch on.

True. I mentioned the case of Boanerges as an example to illustrate the fact
that the namer usually had authority over the one named. This example is
not, of course, a close parallel to the giving of a new name to Crispus or
Gaius. A better parallel would be Joseph Barnabas.

Let's compare the number of cases of name giving in the Palestinian Jesus
movement with those in Paul's churches. I counted 40-50 named people in the
Jesus movement in Palestine in the NT. Of these there are two secure cases
of renaming (Cephas and Barnabas), and some speculative candidates. This
ratio for Palestine (2+ out of 40-50) is really no different from that
proposed for Paul's churches (3-6 out of ~80). In any case, the tendency to
give new names would surely have varied greatly from person to person.

Incidentally, Elymas is another case of re-naming (he took his name to
reflect his profession), but this is in a different catagory.

> One might expect some baptismal
> theology if this was a common practice of Paul's or the NT church
generally.

I don't understand this last comment. Could you explain?

Baptism marked a transformation of character and it represented a
life-changing experience, so it is quite plausable that a new name could
have been given to Crispus and Gaius at the times of their baptisms. Philo
discusses the name changes of Abram, Sarai, and Jacob, and says that they
symbolized a betterment of character, and it was not uncommon in the ancient
world for people to receive new names following religious conversion.

> So why, exactly does Paul write to deal with the problems caused by the
> wealthy, and why is it the "strong" (which certainly correlates with
> wealthy) who seem to be the primary implied readers? They seem to be in
his
> sights as those who took people to court to display the forensic rhetoric,
> and who could afford large dinner parties with the conspicuous consumption
> of meat.

I think I agree that there were probably SOME wealthy people among the
audiance of 1 Corinthians. My point, however, is that 1 Cor 1:26 indicates
that there were not many, and that this seems to be in conflict with our
information on Crispus, Titius Justus and Erastus. Of the Corinthians whose
names we know, too high a proportion seem to have been wealthy. My point is
that the re-naming hypothesis eases this (minor) contradiction by removing
Crispus, Titius Justus and Erastus from the scene.

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page