Corpus-Paul

["Kym Smith" <khs AT picknowl.com.au>]

Dear Richard,

I quite like to engage in speculative thinking. As you know I have
published a speculative reconstruction of the 60’s of the first century
which follows on from Acts. I believe the NT was completed in that decade.
However, I think that some of your speculation is unnecessary where an
obvious or simple answer is available. You wrote:

<<<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?>>>

An answer to your off-line question, 'Do you think Sosthenes in 1 Cor 1:1
is the same Sosthenes?', may suffice as a response to your on-line post.
The answer must be, I don't really know. It is possible, perhaps probable.
I see no reason why he and Crispus should be the same person. Crispus
could not - and probably would not - continue in the synagogue because he
believed the gospel Paul preached. That Sosthenes was (still) a ruler of
the synagogue obviously some considerable time after Crispus joined Paul
prohibits (to me) the possibility that both names belonged to the one
person.

Why did the Jews beat up Sosthenes in Acts 18:17? Was it because he was a
Christian? Or was it just to get some response from the proconsul? I
suspect the latter because he was still ‘the leader of the synagogue’.
However, the beating itself may have been something which brought him to
hear the gospel and, in the end, to join Paul. For Paul to have included
Sosthenes name in the greetings of 1 Corinthians would intimate to me that
the Corinthian believers knew him. The likely answer, I think, is that
both Crispus and Sosthenes were synagogue leaders before accepting the
gospel and joining with Paul.

Turning to Timothy and Titus, you wrote:

<<<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:>>>

I am not sure how much it affects your arguments, but, despite recent
attempts to divide them, I see no reason to think that 1 and 2 Corinthians
are anything other than the two letters they have traditionally been
considered to be. The fact that Acts allows only three verses (19:8-10)
for Paul’s 2-3 years ministry in Ephesus means that many events may have
happened in that time of which we have no record. In that time Timothy may
have been sent to Corinth on a number of occasions. There is no need to
assume that Timothy was still in Achaia when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. It
may be that he was, but what difference does that make. Timothy may have
taken the previous (now lost) letter to Corinth (1 Cor 5:9). Given that
Paul was in Ephesus – from whence he wrote 1 Cor – for over two years,
both Timothy and Titus may have made several trips across or around the
Aegean of which we know nothing. The time-span is too big for the
reconstruction you put on it.

As far as Paul knowing and travelling with Titus previously and then
meeting him again as Timothy - and that being recorded as a new
relationship - as you suggest, is not at all convincing. The simple
explanation of them being two separate people does not need to be so
worked.

I also see no reason to think that Luke was downplaying the importance of
some characters to maintain his elevation of Paul. He was presenting a
record of Paul’s ministry in that part of Acts and nothing more needs to
be read into it.

Sincerely,

Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknowl.com.au