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 22:32:34 -0700

Doug wrote:

> First, why rename sporadically, when the names are not obvious puns?
> The examples you give of renaming in the Palestinian Jesus movement all
come
> with an explanation tied to specific circumstances or characteristics of
the
> person renamed. What you have not offered, that I can see, is an
explanation
> for why these proposed Pauline renamings have been made at all.

Doug, the Greek name in each name pair is actually very appropriate for the
individual in question.

Crispus was an archisynagogos and therefore almost certainly a wealthy,
influential man. As an archisynagogos he was probably a benefactor of the
synagogue community and we must assume that after believing the preaching of
Paul he would have used his wealth and influence to support the new church.
Acts tells us that a wave of conversions followed Crispus's believing. If he
was indeed Sosthenes then it seems that his name carried so much respect
among the believers in Corinth that Paul chose to include him as a co-sender
of 1 Corinthians. Therefore, Acts, our knowledge of archisynagogoi, and 1
Cor 1:1 all make it likely that our (hypothetical) Crispus-Sosthenes, with
his power and influence, secured the viability of the fledgeling church.
Now, it seems to me that the name "Sosthenes", which means "saving strength"
or something similar, is highly appropriate for the proposed character.
Indeed, I would challenge you to find a name anywhere in the NT with a
meaning that better suites the proposed C-S.

Timothy (honouring God) seems well suited to Paul's faithful son who
represented him as an emissary among the gentile churches. Also, the name is
a near homophone of "Titus" and we know that Jews sometimes picked similar
sounding names. Again, I challenge you to find a more appropriate name than
"Timothy".

I have mentioned that the crown is a Pauline metaphor an that this makes me
suspect that Paul gave the name. The crown metaphor can be used in different
ways. In 1 Thes 2:19 Paul says that the readers are his crown of boasting.
It is therefore plausible that Paul considered Titius Justus to be his crown
and named him accordingly. In 1 Cor 9.24-27, on the other hand, the crown is
the prize for coming first in the race. Since Titius Justus (and Stephanas!)
seems to have been the first convert in Corinth it would be appropriate for
Paul to honour him with the name "Stephanas".

So, the proposed names are not at all random, but just what we would expect
if the renaming theory is correct.

> There is
> nothing obvious to link the pairs. They are possible, but nothing proves
> them. It's simply that without some sort of evidence I can't feel
persuaded
> by your theory.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the evidence that HAS been offered,
both on this list and in Myrou's paper.

> I see little reason to identify Crispus with Sosthenes from Acts,
preferring
> to see the one as preceding the other in the same role (the text gives
them
> both the same title, but seems to treat them as different people),

I disagree with the assumption that Acts treats Crispus and Sosthenes as
different people. If he did then he made a real mess of the passage, leaving
the reader confused about who Sosthenes was and why he was beaten and by
whom. Also, it would be odd for Acts to record an attack on a non-Christian.
In Acts it is nearly always Christians who are attacked.

Doug, you say that Acts seems to treat Crispus and Sosthenes as different
people, but this only seems to be the case to us. The ancients were rather
comfortable in switching from one name to another when writing about the
same person. Paul does this in Galatians when he switches freely between
Cephas and Peter. It was also Luke's style, for in Acts 13:6-8 he switches
between BarJesus and Elymas. As Stephen Carlson has pointed out, Luke
repeats the title "MAGOS" in much the same way as he repeats the title
"Archisynagogos" in Acts 18:8,17. There is no parallel case anywhere in
Acts, or indeed anywhere in the NT, to support your reading of Acts
18:8,17. That is to say, there is no case where two DIFFERENT people are
mentioned in the same passage with the same title without a specific
statement to indicate that they are different people.

> and
> therefore also nothing to identify the Jewish Sosthenes of Acts with the
> co-writer / scribe of 1 Cor.

But your method here is flawed. You have come to your conclusion from Acts
that there is little reason to equate Crispus with Sosthenes and you have
built on that conclusion to interpret 1 Cor 1:1 in such a way as to allow
you to maintain your conclusion. It is better method to assess the
probability based on all the evidence.

There are only three possibilities:

1. There were two Sosthenes. This means that the man in 1 Cor 1:1 happened,
by chance, to have the same name as the archisynagogos of Acts 18:17. The
chances of this are about 1 in 4000.

2. There was one Sosthenes, but he was not Crispus. In that case two
archisynagogoi were converted. That doesn't seem likely either, especially
in a church where not many were of high status.

3. Crispus was renamed.

The third solution is by far the more likely and is supported by the fact
that the meaning of the name Sosthenes is so appropriate, and by a careful
exegesis of Acts 18, I believe.

> Rather, it seems to me that the mention of baptising
> Gaius, followed by the "oh yes, I did baptise the household of Stephanas"
> suggests exactly the opposite.

Why? Remember that Paul switches between Cephas and Peter in Galatians. Why
is it hard to suppose that he followed the same style on other occassions?

> In short, a) I can't really see why the renaming idea emerges in the first
> place and b) I can't see any single clear piece of evidence for it in
> Pauline circles.

Perhaps we should think about what sorts of evidence we would expect to find
if someone did indeed receive a new name. If X was given the name Y, how
would we know? What clues would be left in the historical record? Well, I
don't think we should expect to find a single clear proof. We are fortunate
to have Luke's clear statement in Acts 4:36, but there is no reason to
suppose that Luke would be so helpful in every case. In many cases we would
have no clear statement, but rather we would find a series of "coincidences"
connecting X and Y. For example, we might find that they/he had the same
profession, traveled to the same place, were converted in the same time
period, had the same relationship with someone else, had the same religion,
were born in the same town, etc. etc.. We would also find that one of the
two names was in the right language and had a meaning that fits our
information on a hypothetical X-Y. We would also hope to find evidence of a
life changing event that might have prompted the giving of the new name, and
the presence of an appropriate authority figure who might have given the
name, and so on, and so on. The identification of X with Y is secured by the
combined weight of a series of arguments - not by any one piece of evidence.

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page