Corpus-Paul

[rfellows AT intergate.ca]

The giving of new names to important figures in the early church seems to 
have been quite a phenomenon. Here are some references:

Mark 3:17
James son of Zebedee, and his brother John (to whom he gave the name 
Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)

Matt 15:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

Acts 4:36
Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means son of 
encouragement (exhortation?))

Rev 2:17
To everyone who  conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will 
give a white stone, and on the white stone is written a new name....

Saul/Paul
Then we have the data on Saul/Paul. He is mentioned by name 150 times in 
Acts, and it is significant that the switch in names occurs at the precise 
point just before he gets his first convert (13:9). The significance of this 
moment in Acts is confirmed by the way that Paul's status relative to 
Barnabas increases after this point. Now, we do not know whether 'Paul' was a 
new name or an old one which newly came into use, or indeed whether he had 
been using it all along. Let us just note that for Luke, at least, the use of 
the name Paul is associated with his missionary success and his increase in 
status.

Now, in all these cases the new name seems to reflect the importance of the 
individual to the establishment of the believing community. I wonder whether 
the phenomenon has its routes in the scriptures:

Gen 17:5
No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I 
have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations.

Gen 17:15
God said to Abraham, "As for Sarah your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, 
but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a 
son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings and 
peoples shall come from her."

Gen 35:10
God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; no longer shall you be called Jacob, 
but Israel shall be your name." So he was called Israel. God said to him, I 
am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations 
shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you.

There is a pattern here. The adoption of new names by the patriarchs and 
matriarch was associated with their becoming fathers and mothers to nations. 
This is very suggestive of comparison with the cases of Simon/Peter and 
Saul/Paul, in particular. The two great fathers of the church are given new 
names in anticipation of their missionary successes. (On Simon's new name, 
and the comparison with Abraham, see the commentary by Davies and Allison).

Anyway, my point is this: taking of new names was very common among the 
leaders of the early church and it seems to have been a recognition of the 
importance of the recipient in the growth or maintenance of the Christian 
community. Now, Luke is comfortable in recognizing the virtue of 
Joseph-Barnabas and his missionary success (e.g. 11:22-24), so he has no 
problem in writing about his naming (4:36), which was a recognition of his 
important role. But after Barnabas falls out of the picture, Luke focuses 
almost exclusively on Paul, who is the great hero of the narative. It is for 
this reason, I suggest, that Luke does not give accounts of the giving of new 
names to any of Paul's companions. His interest is in presenting Paul as the 
great church builder, and he does not want this message to be confused by 
giving too much recognition to other individuals. 

This explains why Luke does not tell us that Crispus was given the name 
'Sosthenes', or that Titus adopted the new name 'Timothy'.

It can be shown on other grounds that Crispus was named 'Sosthenes' at some 
stage after his baptism. (see my e-mail of 1st May). The only problem with 
this theory (as far as I can see) is explaining why Luke doesn't make it 
clear that Sosthenes was the former Crispus. The answer, I suggest, has 
something to do with Luke's reluctance to magnify the importance of Paul's 
companions. Crispus was given the name Sosthenes, which means something like 
"powerful saviour", because of his important role in the Corinthian church. 
That role is demonstrated further by the fact that he was beaten up by the 
Jews, and by his inclusion as co-sender of 1 Corinthians. Luke had a dilemma 
when he came to write 18:17. On the one hand he wanted the reader(s) to 
understand that Sosthenes was the aforementioned synagogue official, to make 
the story hang together. On the other hand, he did not want to present Crisus 
as the 'powerful saviour' of Corinth. This may explain why the passage has 
come down to us in such a state of ambiguity. Perhaps Luke was content to 
leave the dilemma without complete resolution. Any readers who knew that 
Crispus was Sosthenes would understand the passage. Readers who did not know 
would have to be left somewhat puzzled.  Or perhaps he asked his scribe to 
erase the name 'Crispus' from 18:8, but the scribe was not thorough. We 
cannot know exactly why we have the text that we do. My point is only that 
the texts are better explained by the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis, than with 
the conventional two-person hypothesis. Of course, if anyone would like to 
defend the two-person assumption, that would be good. You would need to 
explain why Sosthenes what beaten. Who beat him? What was Luke trying to do 
with this story? How was it in keeping with Lukan themes? How was the reader 
expected to understand it? How is 1 Cor 1:1 to be explained?

It can be demonstrated from the Corinthian letters that the names 'Titus' and 
'Timothy' belonged to the same individual. Now, Titus accompanied Paul to the 
Jerusalem conference and then, it seems, went to Iconium and Lystra, where 
Paul met him (Acts 16:1). Let me speculate a little. Titus (I speculate) was 
from Antioch. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem as a helper, not as a fellow 
missionary. Paul then sent him to south Galatia (to arrange a collection or 
deliver Gal??). He made a good impression and made some converts. As a result 
of his new and important role he was given the name 'Timothy', meaning 
"Valued of God". Paul then arrived and saw how well Titus had done, so 
appointed him as a full fellow-worker. Only after his appointment as 
evangelist was the circumcision of Titus-Timothy necessary. But why doesn't 
Luke tell us that Titus-Timothy had gone to Jerusalem with Paul? And why 
doesn't he tell us that Paul had sent him to Lystra? Why does he seem to 
present Timothy as a new find in Lystra. We now have a possible answer: he 
needed to avoid drawing attention to the name change because that would have 
conferred too much importance on Titus-Timothy. It was not in keeping with 
Luke's purposes to reveal that the church honoured Timothy with the name 
"Valued of God". Again, anyone is welcome to try to defend the idea that 
Titus and Timothy were too people. You will need to come up with a satisfying 
sequence of events surrounding Paul's relations with Corinth, or demolish my 
explanation (see earlier e-mail).

Sorry about the length of this e-mail, but I think these considerations are 
relevent to our current discussions about ARCHISUNAGOGOI, as well as the 
Corinthian sequences.

Thoughts, anyone?

Richard Fellows