Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Gaius Titius Justus a.k.a. Stephanas

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Gaius Titius Justus a.k.a. Stephanas
  • Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:33:58 -0700

Listers,

I would like to share with you some recent thoughts on the giving of new
names by Paul.

In the ancient world the one giving a name invariably had responsibility for
the one named. Fathers named their children. God named Adam. Adam named the
animals. God named Abraham and Sarah. Pharaoh named Joseph. Jesus named
Peter and Boanerges. In the Roman world manumitted slaves took their
masters' names and adoptive fathers gave their names to their adopted sons.

Therefore, if Paul gave new names at all, he would have given them to those
for whom he had a direct and exclusive responsibility. This rather small
group probably included Crispus and Gaius, whom he baptized personally (1
Cor 1:14). We know that there are good
reasons to suppose that Paul named Crispus "Sosthenes", but what about
Gaius? Was he too given a new name, perhaps at his baptism?

The name Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15,17) means something like "crowned",
which is a Pauline concept and seems appropriate for the earliest of
Corinthian converts, so I have long suspected that he had received his name
from Paul. Now, Stephen Carlson has suggested to me that he was non other
than Titius Justus (Acts 18:7). Since Titius Justus is commonly equated with
Gaius we need to consider whether there was one man called Gaius Titius
Justus who was given the name "Stephanas" by Paul. Here are some reasons to
believe that Stephanas was indeed one and the same person as Gaius and/or
Titius Justus.

1. His name is Greek and has an appropriate meaning.
2. Like Gaius and Titius Justus, Stephanas had a house and this is a point
of agreement between them. Also, in a church where not many were of high
social standing (1 Cor 1:26) it is unlikely that we are looking at three
separate individuals, each with a house. How could Paul write 1 Cor 1:26 if
Gaius, Titius Justus, Crispus, and Erastus, all of whom had wealth, were
among the addressees at the time? But if our hypothesis is correct, all
these people were absent from Corinth at the time, and there may have been
NO wealthy believers present.
3. Like Gaius and Titius Justus, Stephanas was a very early convert in
Corinth. His household was the 'first fruits'. In other words, it was his
conversion that got the church started in Corinth. This is precisely the
role played by Titius Justus in Acts.
4. Paul says that the household of Stephanas had appointed themselves to the
service of the saints. This fits rather well with the suggestion that the
church had met in the house of Stephanas (and perhaps were still meeting
there). Heinrici made that point. Also, Paul's motive for commending
Stephanas's household may have been to unit the church under on one common
roof. Paul worked from the house of Titius Justus (Acts 18:7) and the whole
church met in the house of Gaius at the time of Romans (Rom 16:23).
5. The hypothesis explains why the name "Stephanas" does not appear in Acts
or in Romans. He is the most prominent believer not to be mentioned in Acts.
Romans mentions ALL the prominent Corinthian believers known to us.
6. 1 Cor 1:14 reads, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus
and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name." This
now comes into clearer focus. On our hypothesis neither Crispus (Sosthenes)
and Gaius (Stephanas) were in Corinth at the time of writing. The only ones
whom Paul baptized personally happened not to be among the addressees at the
time and it is for this reason that no one could claim that they (the
addressees) were baptized by Paul. By naming Crispus and Gaius Paul points
to the fortuitous fact.

It therefore seems to me that our information on Gaius, Titius Justus, and
Stephanas provides good supporting evidence for the view that Paul did
indeed give new names to those that he converted personally. This confirms
the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis, if confirmation is needed.

What do you think?

Richard.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page