Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Richard,



You may be right. I still suspect, however, particularly in Crispus’ case
– assuming, again, that Crispus and Sosthenes were separate individuals –
that it is unlikely that he would have retained the title of
ARCHISUNAGOGOS. Whatever his relationship with the synagogue previously,
and whatever the reason he bore the title (and his joining Paul would
certainly suggest that his involvement was at least‘ religious’), his
conversion was likely to have made him an enemy of the synagogue in the
eyes of those who continued in the synagogue (cf. Acts 18:12-13).
Retaining the title of synagogue ruler makes no sense – perhaps it does
not need to.

On the other hand, I think that Luke would have made clear the connection
between Crispus and Sosthenes if there had been one. In Acts it seems to
be Luke’s style to indicate where variant names are used. E.g. Joseph /
Barsabbas (1:13); Joseph / Barnabas (4:36); Peter / Simon (10:5,18,32;
11:13); John / Mark (12:12,25; 15:3); Simon / Niger (13:1); Bar-Jesus /
Elymas (13:6,8); Paul / Saul (13:9); Judas / Barsabbas (15:22).

Given this tendency of Luke, I do not think the fact that both Crispus and
Sosthenes bore the title of ARCHISUNAGOGOS is sufficient to identify them
as the one person.

Sincerely,

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