Corpus-Paul

[rfellows AT intergate.ca]

Steve Black wrote:
>As attractive as your theory is, I am not persuaded that we have in 
>it a "necessary" reading. It does have the advantage of tidying up 
>things a bit, but I think this is not grounds for deeming it true. I 
>think we need to be aware of "the fallacy of plausibility". Because 
>something is plausible does not mean that something is therefore 
>true! I think the best I can say of your proposition is that it is a 
>workable model, to move beyond this I would like to see some 
>collaborating evidence.

Steve asked for evidence that Titus was Timothy. I will now attempt to give 
it, and must apologize in advance for the length of this e-mail. Much of the 
evidence is given in my "Was Titus Timothy?", JSNT 2001. This e-mail presents 
the T-T hypothesis in a slightly different version to that in my article. The 
proposed sequence of events is given at the end of this e-mail.

The main evidence for the Titus-Timothy hypothesis comes from the Corinthian 
correspondence. In 1 Corinthians we read of a mission of Timothy to Corinth. 
It is generally agreed that he had left Ephesus before 1 Corinthians, and 
that he was en route when the letter was written. In 2 Corinthians, on the 
other hand, we here nothing of a mission of 'Timothy', but only of that of 
'Titus'. Titus has been to Corinth and has traveled to Macedonia, where he 
met Paul. Now, if Titus was Timothy then the 'two' missions can be combined. 
That is to say, we have the following skeleton sequence:

Titus-Timothy left Ephesus
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians
Titus-Timothy arrived in Corinth
Paul traveled to Macedonia from Ephesus
Titus-Timothy traveled to Macedonia from Corinth
Paul wrote 2 Corinthians (1-9 at least).

In this sequence there is no communication between Paul and Corinth between 
the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. No sorrowful visit at this 
time, no tearful letter, no return of Timothy to Ephesus. If the sequence is 
correct then the background of 2 Corinthians can be found in 1 Corinthians 
and preceding events. We have very few events between the two letters.

The conventional view is that the two epistles do not stand in close relation 
with each other. A gap of 18 months is usually placed between them, and the 
situation of 1 Corinthians is seen to have virtually no causal relationship 
to the background of 2 Corinthians.

In the discussion that follows I will argue that the two letters do indeed 
belong in a very close relationship to each other. We will see that there are 
many aspects of the mission of 'Titus' and the events surrounding it, that 
agree well with our data concerning the mission of Timothy and the events 
surrounding it. Will this prove beyond reasonable doubt that Titus was 
Timothy? You must decide.

The task is like doing a jig-saw with an unknown number of missing pieces. We 
find ourselves with two large sections of the puzzle, that we have assembled 
on different parts of the table. These two sections are analogous to 1 
Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. For convenience, to give us space to work, we 
place the two sections far apart on the table. In our mind we try to envisage 
what the complete picture might have been, and we imagine what shapes and 
figures might have existed in the intervening space between the two sections. 
Then it occurs to us that we might try to fit the two sections together. We 
find that they do indeed fit. They fit without us having to strain either 
section, and there are many points of contact between the two sections. We 
can therefore be confident that they belong together. Now, there was nothing 
'wrong' with the old idea of putting the sections far apart. That idea 
'works' too, but it should be abandoned when the new, more compact, solution 
has been found.

So, I will be arguing that the data in the two letters does indeed fit 
together without straining. You must decide whether there are enough points 
of contact to justify juxtaposing the letters in this way.

1. Travels and travel plans
In 1 Cor 16:5-8 Paul says that he will leave Ephesus at Pentecost and travel 
to Macedonia and then Corinth. In 2 Corinthians he has been to the Troad 
(2:12) and is in Macedonia, and it about to travel to Corinth. This looks 
very much like he is carrying out the plan of 1 Cor 16. Acts confirms that 
Paul did indeed take that route from Ephesus to Macedonia to Greece. 
Furthermore, Acts gives some (albeit weak) confirmation of the timing of the 
itinerary in 1 Cor 16: The Demetrius riot of Acts 19 is most likely to have 
happened at the time of the Artemison, which was at around the time of 
Pentecost. Furthermore, the winter in 1 Cor 16:6 corresponds to the winter 
implied in Acts 20:2,6.

Now, in 2 Cor 1:15-16 we read about an earlier travel plan. Paul had intended 
to go from Ephesus to Corinth to Macedonia to Corinth to Judea. He had had to 
cancel a trip to Corinth. Now, the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 fits best 
BEFORE the 1 Corinthians: he had intended to visit them on his way to 
Macedonia, but canceled that visit, leaving only the single visit after 
Macedonia. This fits well, and all other solutions involve at least two 
changes in travel plans. They all involve the hypothesis that Paul abandoned 
the plan of 1 Cor 16, and there is no evidence for this. Hypothesizing the 
abandonment of the plan of 1 Cor 16 is like hypothesizing missing pieces 
between the two sections of the jigsaw: such hypotheses become redundant when 
and if the sections fit together without the gap and without strain.

Further confirmation that the time of the cancelled visit was BEFORE 1 
Corinthians comes from the rather repetitive way in which Paul says that he 
will pass through Macedonia before visiting them. This is exactly what we 
would expect if he had previously given them the strong impression that he 
would visit them sooner.

Still further confirmation comes from 1 Cor 4:18, which talks of the 
arrogance of some at Paul's non-appearance. 

Now let's take a moment or two to work out when the cancelled visit might 
have been scheduled for. It is generally agreed, from the references to 
Pentecost (16:8) and Passover (5:7-8), that 1 Cor was written in the spring 
near the start of the travel season. I'll buy that. In 1 Cor 16 he says that 
he does not want to visit them at that time because it would be just in 
passing.  This suggests that the original plan had involved a longer stay in 
Corinth. It is not critical to the story, but let's conjecture that Paul had 
originally planned to be in Corinth for the winter preceding 1 Corinthians.

The reason for the cancellation
In 2 Cor he said, "it was to spare you that I did not come again to Corinth" 
(1:23). He is explicit about this in 2 Cor precisely because he had not been 
explicit before. But while he is not explicit in 1 Cor, there are clues there 
that, at the time in question, he had indeed wished to avoid having to punish 
them.

Now, it is unlikely that Stephanas et al would have stayed the whole winter 
in Ephesus at the church's expense, so they probably arrived from Corinth 
shortly before 1 Cor. Hurd argues (correctly I think) that their role was to 
represent the church of Corinth, so they would not have presented it in a bad 
light. It is possible, then that they re-assured Paul about the situation in 
Corinth, and this seems to be confirmed by 1 Cor 16:17-18. We can therefore 
expect that in the autumn before 1 Corinthians, Paul's assessment of the 
situation in Corinth might well have been a lot more pessimistic than it was 
at the time of 1 Corinthians. This is confirmed, to some extent, by 16:10, 
which probably indicates that the situation did not seem to be good at the 
time of Timothy's departure from Ephesus. It is therefor plausible that 
Paul's assessment in the autumn before 1 Cor was such as to cause him to 
cancel the visit 'to spare them'.

This is confirmed by what Paul says in 1 Cor 4:21 concerning those who were 
arrogant at his failure to visit Corinth: "What do you prefer? Am I to come 
to you with a stick, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?". This is just 
the same sort of sentiment that he expressed in 2 Cor 1:23, "it was to spare 
you that I did not come again to Corinth", and 2 Cor 2:3, "I wrote to you as 
I did so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have 
made me rejoice". It seems to fit.

The anxiety of 'Titus' and that of 'Timothy'
Titus’s apprehension about his mission is implied by 2 Cor. 7.7,14, "the 
consolation experienced by Titus at his coming to Corinth and the boasts 
which S. Paul made to Titus on behalf of the Corinthians referring to the 
fears which he felt and expressed to S. Paul as to the probable effect of the 
letter".(quoting from Belleville).  Timothy's apprehension about his mission 
is implied by 1 Cor 16:10-11 "See that he has nothing to fear among you". 
Again, it fits.

Note also that the aorist tense in 2 Cor 7:15 suggests that Titus's actual 
moment of arrival is in view. This matches the aorist tense in 1 Cor 16:10, 
which suggests that Paul is thinking of Timothy's arrival rather than his 
stay. The fit is very good: the obedience in 2 Cor 7:15 is the Corinthians' 
obedience to the instructions given in 1 Cor 16:10-11 to receive 
Titus-Timothy well from the moment of his arrival. Some scholars have 
suggested that the aorist tense in 2 Cor 7:15 indicates that Paul had 
resolved the issues with the Corinthians in a communication prior to the 
arrival of Titus. I believe they are right: that communication was 1 
Corinthians.

Who started the collection?
Instructions are given for the collection in 1 Cor 16, and Timothy is on his 
way to Corinth via Macedonia at that time. In 2 Cor 8:6 we are told that 
Titus started the collection in Macedonia or Corinth or both. The critics 
have to assume that Timothy did not start the collection for some reason.

Paul's confidence in the collection in Corinth.
2 Cor 9:1-5 shows that Paul boasted to the Macedonians about the collection 
in Corinth, and that this boasting started BEFORE Titus arrived from Corinth. 
(see my JSNT article for more on this). This confidence fits well with what 
we read in 1 Cor 16. There Paul gives practical instructions to the 
Corinthians, and no exhortation is required. He seems confident in them. All 
this suggests that there has been no change of circumstances (at least as far 
as Paul's feeling towards the collection in Corinth is concerned) between the 
time of 1 Cor and the time of Paul's arrival in Macedonia. This suggests that 
there need not have been any communication between the Corinthians and Paul 
between 1 Cor and 2 Cor. If, on the other hand, Titus was not Timothy, then 
the tearful letter must have been after 1 Cor, and the data is then difficult 
to explain. Would Paul have boasted to the Macedonians about the Corinthians 
if his most recent communication with them was the writing of the tearful 
letter? Unlikely.

The context of the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16
Conventional reconstruction assume that Paul's intention to visit had been 
communicated to the Corinthians verbally, and that the tearful letter 
cancelled that visit. However, the context of 2 Cor 1:15-16 implies that the 
intention had been communicated by letter. There are two reasons to hold this 
view. Firstly, 1:13 refers to writing. Secondly, 1:18-19 refers to Silvanus 
and Timothy in such a was as to suggest that they had been a part of the 
communication of Paul's intention to visit. This makes best sense if the 
intention had been communicated by letter written by Paul and co-sent by 
Silvanus and Timothy. As Zahn pointed out, the 'former' letter is probably in 
view in 2 Cor 1:13 since the former letter is the one that had been 
misunderstood (see 1 Cor 5:9ff).

I suggest that Paul implied in the 'former' letter that he would visit 
Corinth in the autumn before 1 Cor. He then heard that the letter had been 
ignored. As a result, he cancelled his intended visit "to spare" them. It is 
interesting to read 2 Cor 1:13-15 in the light of this reconstruction. We 
read there that he made his plan "in this confidence". It seems to me that he 
might be saying here that he made his plan on the assumption that they would 
understand his letter and expel the immoral brothers.

The search for Titus
In 1 Corinthians Paul expresses uncertainty about when (or if) Timothy would 
arrive (1 Cor 16:10). I suggest that Timothy had been due in Corinth in the 
previous travel season. This supposition is supported by Philippians, which 
should probably be placed in the Aegean period. In Phil 2:9 we read, "I hope 
in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I may be cheered by 
news of you". This implies that Timothy's return to Paul was to have preceded 
Paul's own visit to Macedonia by a long time. Paul was himself planning a 
trip to Philippi, when he would get direct contact with them. There would not 
be much point sending Timothy to Philippi "to be cheered" by them, if that 
cheering were to have been only 6 months before Paul himself was due to 
visit. There is a good possibility therefore, that Timothy was already behind 
schedule when 1 Corinthians was written.

Now, it is quite possible that Timothy did not arrive in Ephesus by the 
Pentecost of 1 Cor 16:8. Acts 19:22 confirms this, for we read there that 
Paul sent Timothy to Macedonia ahead of him, while he remained in Ephesus for 
a while. This suggests that Timothy went to Macedonia (with a side trip to 
Corinth), but did not return to Paul in Ephesus. If, therefore, we are right 
to suppose that Tim did not make it back to Ephesus, Paul would leave without 
him. Timothy, when he finally did arrive in Corinth, would know Paul's 
movements (e.g. from reading 1 Cor 16), and would know to meet Paul in 
Macedonia. Titus met Paul in Macedonia.

Now, if Timothy indeed failed to show up in Ephesus by Pentecost, Paul could 
well have felt anxious about him. Timothy had last been seen heading north 
from Ephesus, taking the land route to Corinth. Paul left Ephesus and took 
the SAME route. It would not be surprising, therefore, if Paul looked for 
Timothy on his way through the Troad and Macedonia. It is therefore very 
interesting that Paul wrote in 2 Cor 2:12-14:

When I came to the Troad to proclaim the good news of Christ, a door was 
opened for me in the Lord; but my mind could not rest because I did not find 
my brother Titus there. So I said farewell to them and went to Macedonia. But 
thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession".

This is significant because it is exactly what we might expect Paul to have 
written about Timothy. Note that 2:14 contains a metaphor for a procession, 
which matches the movements of Titus-Timothy and Paul around the Aegean along 
the SAME route. The triumphal procession was described by Josephus as like a 
river, so it was a linear thing, with everyone following the same route.

Now, after the 'former' letter had been misunderstood, I think Paul made one 
more attempt to ask the Corinthians to put their house in order, so that he 
could visit. He sent Timothy with the tearful letter. If Timothy had arrived 
on time, then Paul would not have had to cancel the visit. In 2:14 Paul is 
reminding the Corinthians that the movements of Titus-Timothy had himself are 
in the hands of God. That is to say, his failure to arrive in Corinth (due to 
T-T's delay) was not due to his own fickleness: it is God who leads him and 
Titus-Timothy.

Commentators invariably think that Paul had arranged a rendezvous with Titus 
in Troas. This view runs into various difficulties. THE Troad is probably the 
region, not the city, and a region does not represent a good meeting place. 
Furthermore, the conventional understanding makes it very difficult to see 
the connection between 2:13 and 2:14.

The time of writing of the tearful letter
The tearful letter had misjudged the situation in Corinth, to some extent at 
least. The Corinthians had not been as complicitous as Paul had thought (2 
Cor 7:11), and he regretted having sent the letter. This suggest that the 
letter was not sent in response to accurate information from a personal visit 
to Corinth by Paul or Timothy. This creates difficulties for the two-person 
hypothesis. With our theory, on the other hand, it fits well, for in the 
period BEFORE 1 Corinthians Paul was dependent on unreliable oral information 
(see 1 Cor 11:18 and see a recent e-mail of mine). Clearly communication had 
not been good at that time. The 'former' letter had been delivered to Corinth 
by people (probably Chloe's people) who could not interpret it properly 
(hence the misunderstanding), and these people could probably not report back 
accurately to Paul.

2 Cor 10-13
What do we do with 2 Cor 10-13? I suggest that Athens is the intended 
audience for this part of 2 Cor.

The frequency of communications
Shortly before 1 Corinthians the church of Corinth had written to Paul with 
some basic practical ethical questions. The issues that they raised do not 
sound like issues that have arisen only very recently. It sounds like this is 
the first opportunity that the church has had to ask Paul questions for some 
time (perhaps even since his departure from Corinth in 52). This suggests 
that communication between churches in the Aegean was not frequent.

In 1 Cor 4:19 Paul says that he will come to Corinth 'soon', and from 1 Cor 
16 we learn that 'soon' meant in about 6 months. This also suggests that 
communication was not frequent.

All this means that we should prefer the Titus-Timothy hypothesis because it 
greatly reduces the amount of communications that we require around the 
Aegean.


The full sequence of events
Putting the pieces together we then get the following with some approximate 
dates:

Oct 50 Paul arrives in Corinth
April 52 Paul leaves Corinth
Sept 53 Paul arrives in Ephesus
April 54 Paul visits Athens, discovers that there is sexual immorality in 
Achaia, and returns to Ephesus.
July 54 Paul (with Silvanus and Timothy) writes 1 Thess. 
August 54 Paul (with Silvanus and Timothy) writes the 'former' letter and 
sends it with Chloe's people. In it Paul tells the Achaians to dissociate 
themselves from the immoral among them. He also tells them about the 
collection and suggests that he would visit them by the end of 55. His 
intention was to visit them on this way to Macedonia, and again on his way 
back.
Sept 54 Chloe's people return to Ephesus with news that the 'former' letter 
has been ignored. The information that Paul received from Chloe's people is 
not full or accurate. It is rather troubling. Paul thinks the situation can 
be retrieved, but Timothy is not so sure.
March 55 Paul writes Philippians.
May 55 Paul writes the 'tearful' letter and sends it with Timothy, who leaves 
for the Troad on his way to Corinth. Erastus goes with him, at least as far 
as Athens. The tearful letter tells the Achaians to get their houses in 
order, so that he (Paul) would not have to come to them in grief. The tearful 
letter was to us short-sharp-shock tactics in preparation for Paul's visit. 
August 55 Timothy was due back in Ephesus at this time, but does not appear.
Sept 55 Paul cancels his visit to Achaia, which had been planned for this 
time. He wanted to spare them. He had already soured his relationship with 
Athens, and he did not want the same to happen with Corinth. The 'former' 
letter and then the tearful letter were supposed to set things right so that 
he would not need to come 'in grief', but they had not acted on the 'former' 
letter, and the tearful letter had not yet arrived, due to Timothy's delay.
March 56 Stephanas et al arrive in Ephesus with reassuring news. Still no 
sign of Timothy. They explain that the church had assumed that Paul had meant 
for them to dissociate from all immoral people: an unrealistic demand. They 
tell Paul that some in Corinth are arrogant concerning his non-appearance. 
They deliver a letter.
April 56 Paul writes 1 Corinthians and it arrives in Corinth. In it he 
confirms that he will not come to them until after he as been through 
Macedonia.
April 56 Some of Paul's opponents in Corinth probably move to Athens.
June 56 Still no sign of Timothy. Paul leaves Ephesus and goes to the Troad, 
and does not find Timothy there, so he goes on to Macedonia.
June 56 Timothy arrives in Corinth and delivers the tearful letter.
August 56 Timothy travels to Macedonia and finds Paul there.
Sept 56 Paul writes 2 Corinthians. Corinth is the intended audience of 
chapters 1-9, while chapters 10-13 are directed at Athens.
March 57 Paul writes Romans.

Titus-Timothy hypothesis is supported by the fact that the name 'Titus' does 
not appear in Acts (or in Romans 16). It is by far the most prominent name in 
Paul's letters to be absent from Acts. It is not a problem that Acts 
introduces Timothy only after the Jerusalem conference: Luke is carefully 
avoiding all reference to Titus before he received the new name Timothy. 
Luke, whose focus is on Paul, wants to avoid giving Titus the honour of this 
name acquisition. (see my last e-mail, and consider how Luke avoids telling 
us that Crispus changed his name to Sosthenes, "Powerful saviour"). This 
neatly explains why Luke does not mention the conversion of Timothy.

Finally, it may be no coincidence that "TIMOQEOS" sounds like "TITOS", or 
that Timothy means "valued of God", which seems to be an appropriate name for 
the missionary-helper. Those in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him (Acts 
16:2), so it is not surprising that they should have given him the new name 
"valued of God". In picking a similar sounding name they were following the 
Jewish practice (consider Saul/Paul, Silas/Silvanus, Abram/Abraham, 
Sarai/Sarah).

That will have to do for now. Does all this prove beyond reasonable doubt 
that Titus was Timothy? I think so. I have offered a reconstruction of 
events, which is the best that I can come up with at the moment with the 
assumption that Titus was Timothy hypothesis. The best reconstruction 
available to those who assume that Titus was not Timothy is probably that of 
Margaret Thrall, or something similar. The test is to put those two 
reconstructions side by side and compare them. Which one requires the more 
assumptions? Which has more changes of travel plans, more journeys by Paul's 
companions, more difficult readings, more unexpected turns of events, more 
duplications and more sense of deja vu? Then pick the other one.

Many have tried to make sense of 2 Corinthians, but no explanation has 
prevailed. After hundreds of years of analysis using the two-person 
assumption, the only thing that the commentators can agree on is that 2 
Corinthians contians more than its fair share of problems. The two-person 
assumption has failed and it is time to give the One-person assumption a 
chance.

Richard Fellows.