Corpus-Paul

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:10:09 -0800 Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
writes:
> 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.
___________________

I would not say that anyone "realized" that Titus was Timothy but rather
that someone asserted that Titus was Timothy.  I find the whole argument
unconvincing.  That it seems to solve a question regarding why Luke fails
to mention Titus in Acts is most convenient and makes an attractive
result, but this in no way is proof that the two are to be equated.  It
has been supposed that Clement who wrote 1 Clement was the Clement of
Philippians 4.3 whom Paul refers to as one of his SUNERGWN.  Clement
likewise is unnamed in Acts.  While it would be of interest to resolve
whether Clement of Rome was in fact the Clement to whom Paul refers, it
would make no material difference.  Neither do I think that an equation
of Titus with Timothy is of such import as to do violence to the clear
intention of Galatians 2 that Titus was not circumcised whereas it is
asserted that Timothy was.  I realize that it is not fashionable to
ascribe total fidelity to Luke, however, I think that in most respects he
knew whereof he spoke.  I do not think that the question regarding
whether Timothy's mother was a Jew and whether he was circumcised would
be a matter in which he would err.  Nice theory, but I'm not shopping for
a bridge.

george
gfsomsel
___________