Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

George wrote:
> Why is it that we have a renaming story for Abram / Abraham, Jacob /
> Israel, Simon / Peter-Cephas, but none for this alleged Titus / Timothy?
> In fact, it is only after many centuries that someone presumes to realize
> that the two might be the same?

Why did people not realise earlier that Titus was Timothy? I can offer three
reasons.

1. While it was not uncommon for Christ-believers in the first century to be
given new names in keeping with their role in the church, this practice was
rare by the second or third centuries. Therefore the idea that "Timothy" was
Titus's Jewish/Christian name would probably not have occurred to believers
in those later generations. I do not know why the practice of giving new
names declined after the first century. Perhaps Rev 2:17 encouraged people
not to give and receive new names in the here and now, but to await a new
name from Jesus on a white stone. Anyway, whatever the reason for it, the
rarity of renaming would make it difficult for the church fathers to
conclude that Titus was Timothy. Interestingly, John Chrysostom did realise
that Crispus was Sosthenes, and he himself had received a new name, I think.
The next person to realise that Crispus was Sosthenes was Fr. Augustine
Myrou, and he too, I think, received his name in adult life. Those who come
from cultures where renaming is common can more readily accept Titus=Timothy
and Crispus=Sosthenes.

2. The Pastorals were accepted at least by the middle of the second century
(whether they were or not). There was a tendency to assume that the same
name always referred to the same person, so they would naturally assume that
the Titus of 2 Tim 4:10 was the Titus of Gal and 2 Cor. It is likely, then,
that the Pastorals made it practically impossible for people to realise that
Titus was Timothy.

3. The matrilineal principle was established in the third and fourth
centuries and there may have been some movement towards it in the second
century. As Shaye Cohen has shown, this led to the belief that Timothy had
been a Jew through his mother. This mistaken belief would make it a little
difficult to equate Titus with Timothy (Gal 2:3).


Titus-Timothy and Crispus-Sosthenes are not the only people who have
undergone mitosis. In the second and third centuries there were those who
assumed that Peter and Cephas were different people. In Cicero we have a
Lucius Herennius Balbus, who was thought to be two people until modern
times.

Of Titus-Timothy's two names, "Timothy" was the one that he generally used.
It appears in Acts, Hebrews, and all the undisputed Pauline letters except
Galatians. Leaving aside the Pastorals, the name "Titus" appears only in Gal
and 2 Cor., and in these letters it is introduced in contexts where it is
appropriate to use Timothy's original name. The name "Titus" may have been
used mainly or exclusively by those who had known him before his renaming.
We know that Paul used the name "Titus" from time to time and that it was
understood at least by the churches of Galatia and Corinth, but we do not
know whether anyone else continued to use the name when refering to Timothy.
In such cases I imagine that the usual name (Timothy) tends to dominate, and
the other name (Titus) falls into disuse. This certainly happened in the
case to Paul, for his praenomen and nomen became lost to history. So it is
not at all surprising that the collective memory forgot that Timothy had
been called Titus, and that when they came to read Galatians and 2
Corinthians in the second century they assumed that Titus was a distinct
person.

It is not surprising that Luke did not record Timothy's other name. After
all, he mentioned only two of Paul's four names, and only one of
Silas-Silvanus's four names. On the other hand, if Titus was not Timothy it
is surprising that Luke does not mention Titus at all!

Does this help?

Richard.