Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Jeffrey Peterson wrote:
>Further question on the Timothy/Titus equation: how does one account 
>for the data of 2 Corinthians on this hypothesis? It's not only that 
>one has the two modes of reference to the same person within the 
>space of a chapter (Timothy 1:1, 19; Titus 2:13).

Jeff, as I have said before, it is not at all surprising that Paul should
mention the same person by one name in 2 Cor 1:1,19 and use another name in
1:13. Paul uses two different names for Cephas-Peter in Gal 1,2, and he
does the same with Crispus-Sosthenes in 1 Cor 1. This practice was not
uncommon in the ancient world. Even today we often switch names according
to the context. For example, I have already used two different modes of
reference to you, Jeff, in this e-mail. I hope you do not conclude from
this that you are two people!

The switch to 'Titus' at 2 Cor 1:13 is significant and fits the
Titus-Timothy hypothesis. In this verse Paul expressed anxiety about
'Titus', his friend of many many years. It is natural that he should use
here the name by which he had first known him, and use the less formal
'Titus'. 

> It's more 
>problematic that Timothy is listed as a sender of the letter and is 
>then referred back to in the first person (1:19), whereas Titus is 
>referred to in the third person, not only when he is distinguished 
>from the lead author (2:13), but also when he is distinguished from 
>the authors as a group (7:6, 13). 

I do not agree that Timothy is referred to in the first person in 2 Cor
1:19. We read, "For the son of God, whom we proclaimed among you, I and
Silvanus and Timothy....". Now if the readers were expected to understand
the 'we' as unambiguously referring to Paul and Timothy, then Paul would
not have written what he did. He would have simply written, "whom we and
Silvanus proclaimed among you", rather than mentioning Timothy by name.
Paul's rather comberson sentence here shows that the 'we' was ambiguous and
needed clarification. For a discussion of 7:6,13, see my e-mail of 2nd Oct.

>And if chaps. 7-8 are integral with 
>chaps. 1-7 (as I'm inclined to think), then there's the further 
>anomaly of a letter in which one of the senders is then referred to 
>as dispatched in person to the recipients. 

I also see chapters 8-9 as integral to 1-7, but I do not find it strange
that Timothy is mentioned both as deliver of the letter, and as
'co-sender'. Indeed, some commentators have expressed surprise that Titus
is not mentioned as a co-sender in 2 Corinthians. Remember that
'co-senders' were not co-authors.

So, I do not find your counder-arguments compelling, Jeff. The
Titus-Timothy issue, I believe, is to be decided on the question of which
hypothesis makes best sense of the movements of Paul and his companions at
the time of the Corinthian correspondence. I have argued that many problems
are solved by equating the mission of Titus before 2 Cor with that of
Timothy anticipated in 1 Cor. I would be interested to hear how Jeff and
others reconcile the data with the assumption that Titus and Timothy were
two people.

Richard Fellows.