corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>
- To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Timothy also known as Titus
- Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:32:53 -0700
Jonathan Ryder wrote:
>1. Is this hypothesis anything like a consensus position?
I suspect that the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, especially in its present
form, is too new for a consensus to have been formed, either for or
against. But don't wait for others to come to a consensus: form your own
view. But perhaps other listers could answer your question by sharing
their views on the hypothesis.
>2. Who was the first to propose it (reference?)?
K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury suggested that 'Luke' confused Timothy with Titus
at Acts 16:1-3 (The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the
Apostles Vol. IV. (Macmillan and co., 1933) 184n3.). More recently Walker
made the same proposal ('The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered', The
Expository Times 92 (1981) 231-235).
The full identification of 'Titus' with Timothy was first proposed by Udo
Borse in the early 80s.
U. Borse, 'Timotheus und Titus', Abgesandte Pauli im Dienst des
Evangeliums, in: Der Diakon, Wiederentdeckung und Erneuerung seines
Dienstes, Hg. Von Josef G.Plöger u. Hermann Joh. Weber, (Freiburg. Basel.
Wien, 1980) 27-43.
U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater, (Regensburger Neues Testament;
Regensburg: Pustet, 1984) 80-85.
U. Borse, 'Tränenbrief und 1. Korintherbrief', Studien zum Neuen Testament
und Seiner Umwelt 9 (1984). 175-202.
Borse believed that the 'Timotheus-Titus-Hypothese' required that the
tearful letter be equated with 1 Corinthians (and I made the same mistake
at first). It seems that he overlooked the possibility that the tearful
letter was carried by Titus-Timothy (who left Ephesus before 1 Corinthians
and arrived in Corinth after 1 Cor). The identification of the tearful
letter as 1 Cor creates difficulties for the TT hypothesis, and I believe
it denied Borse access to some of the strongest evidence.
>3. Who are its recent proponents (references?)?
J. Zmijewki supports it briefly (Die Apostelgeschichte (Regensburger Neues
Testament, Regensburg 1994) 587f, 703.) I don't know of anyone who has
argued against the hypothesis.
Apart from Borse and myself, I know of two others who have independently
come up with the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, but they have not written about
it. My version of the hypothesis can be found at:
http://www.ameritech.net/users/jgibson000/WasTT8w.html
>I'm particularly interested with the hypothesis in relation to Galatians.
You might like to look at my post of on the subject (18th April).
I would be interested to know what you make of Galatians and the TT
hypothesis. There is a lot of exciting new territory to explore.
Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca
-
Re: Timothy also known as Titus,
Braulio Barillas, 05/14/1999
- Re: Timothy also known as Titus, Richard Fellows, 05/15/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Timothy also known as Titus, Jonathan Ryder, 05/15/1999
- Re: Timothy also known as Titus, Richard Fellows, 05/15/1999
- Re: Timothy also known as Titus, Braulio Barillas, 05/17/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.