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: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:47:17 -0700

Doug wrote:

> 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.

No, renaming is the only real possibility here. Crispus is a Latin cognomen
and is therefore unlikely to be found in combination with a Greek name.

> 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!

This may be a good parlour game, but it is an important exercise. Let's
play. Anyone?

> :-) I think that if, on other grounds, renaming can be shown plausible,

But it has been 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.

When people received new names they did not always, or even usually, give up
their old names. Consider Jacob-Israel, Simon-Peter, or Ignatius-Theophorus.
There is no reason to suppose that Gaius gave up his full Roman name when he
accepted a Greek name. He is still called Gaius in Romans 16, perhaps for
the reason that you suggest - thanks for making that point.

> 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.

The case for equating Silas with Silvanus rests on the following points.
1. Onomastic argument. The names sound similar and it is known that Jews
often chose a similar sounding names Greek or Latin name to complement an
ethnic name.
2. Historical argument. We read the name "Silvanus" in 1 Thess 1:1 and 2 Cor
1:19 where we might expect to read the name "Silas".
3. Argument from silence. Acts does not mention Silvanus.

Now, it seems to me that we have equivalent evidence connecting Gaius/Titius
Justus with Stephanas, and MORE evidence connecting Crispus with Sosthenes
and Titus with Timothy. Equivalent points can be made:
1. Onomastic argument. The name "Stephanas" fits him well and crown is a
Pauline metaphor, and someone whom Paul baptized personally and was almost
certainly converted by him alone is just the sort of person to whom Paul
might give a new name.
2. Historical argument. We read the name Silvanus in 1 Cor 16:15 in a
context where we would expect to read "Titius Justus" (since he had a house
and was the first-fruits.
3. Argument from silence. Acts and Romans do not mention Stephanas.

So, if we equate Silas with Silvanus, as I think we should, we should also
equate Stephanus with Gaius and Titius Justus.

Doug, could you give the reference for your statement that 3% of people in
Rome owned a house. Thanks.

> 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.

I profoundly disagree. The name change theory is of great significance for
New Testament studies. It casts a whole new light on Acts 18:8-17, and in so
doing it shows that the chronology of Knox etc. was mistaken. Not only does
it support the Acts chronology, it supports the historicity of Acts in a
number of details. The circumcision of Timothy now makes much better sense;
the sending of Timothy and a companion to Macedonia in Acts 19:22 is now
confirmed by Paul's letters; we can now explain why Acts does not mention
the names "Titus" and "Stephanas"; we now know that Paul's departure from
Ephesus was planned (1 Cor 16:8) and have no reason to suppose that he fled
(as some sceptics suppose); Luke's information about Titius Justus is now in
agreement with what Paul says about Stephanas; and Acts correctly identifies
Sosthenes as a believer whose name would carry respect in the Corinthian
church and this agrees with 1 Cor 1:1. Thus these several minor points of
agreement between Acts and Paul's letters help to answer the question of how
historical Acts is, and this is one of the most pivotal questions in NT
studies

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis also sheds new light on Gal 2:1-5 and Acts
16:1-3 and allows us to piece together some of the historical events that
lie behind 2 Corinthians, such as the movements of Paul and his partner.
This will be crucial in understanding the background of 1 Cor and 2 Cor.
There are also implications for the Pastorals, of course; either there were
two Titus's or the Pastorals are pseudonymous. Also Philippians may be
affected, since an Ephesian provenance seems to fit quite nicely. The
Crispus-Sosthenes theory and the Stephanas theory influence our assessment
of the number of wealthy individuals in the Corinthian church and this has
implications for Pauline ethics.

In short, the name change theory needs to be studied by every student of
Acts, the Corinthian letters, Galatians, and the Pastorals.

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page