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: "Doug Chaplin" <lists AT actually.me.uk>
  • To: "'Corpus-Paul'" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Gaius Titius Justus a.k.a. Stephanas
  • Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 15:50:38 +0100

Richard (and others)

I don't think my point is that the renaming theory is wrong, rather it is
that, as we would expect from such a fragmented historical record, easy
neither to prove nor disprove.

I've not included the previous post in this because of keeping length down,
but I thik I would make the following observations. Even if the Crispus and
Sosthenes of Acts 18 are one and the same person, rather than (as I think)
one person and his successor, it only proves the same person was known by a
Latin and Greek name, not that Paul renamed him, although that could be a
possibility.

I don't think there is a wide enough range of clear data to make any firm
judgement about Luke or Paul's use of more than one name for the same
person, either way. Nor do I think Kephas and Petros provide such an
example: same name, different language.

I certainly don't intend to respond to your "challenge" to find names that
are more appropriate than Stephanas (maybe he'd been successful in the
Isthmian games), Sosthenes and Timotheus, though it sounds like a fun
parlour game: rename this biblical character appropriately for 10 points!
:-) I think that if, on other grounds, renaming can be shown plausible, then
appropriate names become interesting, but since they generally may reflect a
fairly wide ranging virtue, in themselves they prove nothing.

A couple of other points:
If we accept that Gaius Titius Justus indeed existed, then the varied ways
of referring to him fall within a widely known paradigm of name use. But if,
as is more probable than not in Corinth, he is a freedman, (and perhaps even
if not) we have to assess how likely it is that he would give up his pride
in a full Roman name in return for a Greek nickname, however flattering its
meaning. You judge one way, I another.

On the Timothy - Titus question, we have to deal with the evidence of the
pastorals. If pseudonymous, then they appear to bear witness to the fact
that second (possibly third) generation Pauline Christianity clearly
believed them to be two people. (And if Pauline they settle the question in
favour of two individuals.)

In short, it may be possible that Paul gave new names to a handful of
people, but the case is hardly persuasive to a sceptic like me. Since
nothing of significance seems to me to hang on it, I just think we can all
afford to be reserved in our judgement about it.

Doug Chaplin





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page