Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca>]

Jeffrey Peterson,

thanks four your comments.

>The identification hypothesis is very creative and does point up the
>problems involved in specifying Paul's contacts with his churches.
>Nonetheless, the more economical reconstruction facilitated by the
>hypothesis does not of itself supply adequate grounds for its acceptance;

You have expressed an opinion here, but have offered no argument.  You
would need to give some evidence for the hypothesis that Titus and Timothy
were two people, and demonstrate that it is more economical overall than
the one-person view.

On the question of naming conventions, consider the following letter by
Cicero (Att. 15.10):

Cicero to Atticus, greeting.
What an affectionate letter from Brutus.  And what hard luck that you
cannot go to him!  But what am I to say?  That they should accept the other
party's favours?  That were the depth of shame.  That they should try some
new move?  They dare not, and now they cannot.  Well, suppose I advise them
to keep quiet and they do, who can guarantee their safety?  Indeed, if
anything unpleasant happens to Decimus, what sort of life shall we lead,
even if no one molests us? .....

Cicero refers here to Decimus Brutus first as Brutus and then as Decimus.
His selection of names closely parallels Paul's selection of 'Timothy' and
'Titus' in 2 Cor.  First the more formal name is used, then the writer
switches to the more intimate name when the context is one of anxiety about
the safety of the individual (2 Cor 2:13).

>Both TITOS and TIMOQEOS are attested as Hellenistic proper names outside
>early Christian circles; the former was the praenomen of an emperor, and
>there is no indication that in his case it was short for the latter. Absent
>some such corroboration that the names were equivalent in general usage,
>the course of prudence is to recognize TITOS and TIMOQEOS as distinct
>members of the Pauline circle, however this may complicate our
>reconstruction of events.

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis does not require that the names were
equivalent in general usage.  The names 'Jeffrey' and 'Peterson' are in no
way equivalent, but that does not mean that no-one can be called Jeffrey
Peterson.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my e-mail of 14th May.  Here are
three options, though there are more:

1)  That Titus was his only name.  This is the view of commentators who
work under the old assumption that he was not Timothy.  They point out that
Greeks sometimes took a Latin praenomen as their only name.

2)  Another possibility is that the name WAS Timothy's praenomen.  The vast
majority of people with the name 'Titus' used it as a praenomen. 'Timothy'
would probably then be his cognomen and the fact that the two names sound
similar would then be coincidental, (as with option (1)).

3)  It could have been a nickname of some type.  If so, one possibility is
that it was a contraction of TIMOQEOS.  This possibility does not require
that most people who spelled one of their names 'TITOS' were also called
TIMOQEOS.  It requires only that it is plausible that a contraction of
TIMOQEOS could be spelled 'TITOS'.  In this case the name may or may not
have had the same pronunciation as the common Latin praenomen.  I have no
real evidence that TIMOQEOS was abbreviated to 'TITOS', but is there any
evidence for any other abbreviation for this name?

Richard Fellows
Vancouver
rfellows AT intergate.bc.ca