Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

William Arnal asked about the relevance of the Titus-Timothy theory. I will
try to explain why it should be of interest to everyone on this list, and
comment also on the Crispus-Sosthenes theory.

_Acts_
The question of the historical accuracy or otherwise of Acts is of prime
importance to every student of Paul. Its historicity is supported by the
hypotheses:
a) We can no longer accuse Acts of not knowing about Titus
b) Acts 19:22 is confirmed. From the Corinthian letters we know that
Titus-Timothy was sent to Corinth via Macedonia and that he then travelled
directly to Macedonia, and that Paul left Ephesus after Timothy. Acts does
not mention the side trip to Corinth, but is accurate in what it says,
namely that Titus-Timothy went to Macedonia while Paul stayed in Ephesus a
little while longer. Also, 2 Cor 12:18 confirms that one other person
accompanied Titus-Timothy (Erastus).
c) Acts names Crispus-Sosthenes as a Corinthian believer and both names are
confirmed by 1 Corinthians.  Luke presents Crispus-Sosthenes as an
influential individual whose coming to faith in Christ led to the conversion
of many, and his role as co-sender of 1 Corinthians is very consistent with
this.
d)  Some argue that the Gallio incident has been misplaced by Luke and
belongs to a later visit by Paul to Corinth. Their main argument is that the
synagogue ruler in 18:8 is different from the synagogue ruler in 18:17.
Crispus-Sosthenes removes this argument and shows that Acts is right to
place the Gallio incident (when Sosthenes was still in Corinth) before 1 Cor
(when he was in Ephesus). The so called "letters based chronology", which
conflicts with Acts, can now looks very doubtful.
e) Gal agrees with Acts that T-T was a Gentile and was an early convert.

Concerning Acts 18, the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis shows that Sosthenes
was beaten because he was a leading Christian, and that Gallio's ruling did
not secure the rights of the Christians, as some suppose.

The T-T theory raises the possibility that Timothy was from Antioch and this
means we have no reason to see the south Galatian Jews as being tolerant of
mixed marriages.

_The Corinthian Correspondence_
Much in the Corinthian letters depends on the relationship between 1 Cor and
2 Cor. According to the T-T hypothesis the future  mission of Timothy to
Corinth mentioned in 1 Cor is the same as the past mission of Titus to
Corinth mentioned in 2 Cor. This means that the gap between the two letters
(2 Cor 1-9 at least) is very short (about 6 months). This makes it likely
that the issues addressed in 2 Cor can be interpreted in the light of 1 Cor
and vice versa. Titus-Timothy allows us to piece together a basic framework
for the events leading up to the writing of 2 Cor. This should set the
direction for future research. The implications of T-T for the Corinthian
letters are enormous.

_Galatians_
The Titus-Timothy theory does not immediately answer any of the major
questions concerning Galatians, but I hope that it will one day. Every
commentator must deal with Gal 2:1-5, where Titus is central, and also with
the issue of whether the circumcision of Timothy caused confusion in
Galatia. If Titus was Timothy we have another small argument for Gal 2 =
Acts 15.

_The Pastorals_
T-T shows that either the PE are unreliable sources of historical
information, or there were two Titus's.

_other considerations_
If Titus was not Timothy, then it was possible to be a leading figure in the
church and also be an uncircumcised Gentile. With the T-T hypothesis this
assumption looks shaky.

The cases of Titus-Timothy and Crispus-Sosthenes can be added to those of
Simon-Cephas, Joseph-Barnabas and Ignatius-Theophorus. These cases of the
giving of new names can be interpreted in the light of each other and a
common theme detected. We should now be on the lookout for other renaming
cases (Stephanas? Elymas? Bar-Jesus? Theudas? Aristarchus? Onesimus?).

Matthew Eby wrote:
<<Of course, Richard has published this thesis (which he is not the first to
argue, see his footnotes) in a 2001 article entitled "Was Titus Timothy?"
(_JSNT_ 81): 33-58.>>

While I hope this article is useful, it is in some ways out of date. Since
2001 there have been some key advances which strengthen the Titus Timothy
theory. Also, as I stressed in my paper, there are many ways to reconstruct
the events lying behind 2 Cor. I offered one way, but there are others. The
T-T theory does not hang on any one reconstruction. The most speculative
part of my paper was my placing of 2 Cor 10-13, I think.

<<I'd like to hear from a few who have
actually thought through these issues in any detail.>>
So would I.  Matthew, it sounds like you have given some careful thought to
the issues. Why not start a thread, perhaps on Paul's interactions with
Corinth? It is a long time since there has been discussion on that.

I hope that others will engage with these issues too. This is an exciting
field of research, which has the potential to shed a flood of light on the
New Testament. I would encourage others to take up the task, as there is
much uncharted territory to explore.

Sadly, Udo Borse,who first came up with the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, died
recently. This is a great loss.

Richard.