Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Concerning the theory that Titus and Timothy were one and the same person
Edgar wrote:
> Titus is a Latin name. Why, when, and how would a Greek get such a Latin
name?

[snipping lots]

> Why would Timothy need or want a Roman name?

Edgar, you are right to say that it is unlikely that someone called Timothy
would later take the name "Titus". But I am no longer suggesting that
Timothy was renamed "Titus". I am proposing the reverse: someone called
Titus was given the name "Timothy" by Paul. Titus was the name that his
parents gave him from birth, whereas the name "Honouring God" was given to
him only after he became Paul's son in the faith. Is that clear? Please
re-read my last email to the list, where I explained this.

Simon was named "Cephas", Joseph was named "Barnabas", and Ignatius was name
"Theophorus". Some commentators use the term 'nickname' to describe such
cases, but I think this is misleading. A nickname in modern use is an
informal, often humorous name. To describe "Cephas" or "Barnabas" or
"Theophorus" as a nickname tends to trivialize the phenomenon of religious
renaming. As in the equivalent cases in the OT tradition, the new names were
not informal or humorous, but reflected the individual's significance for
the community of faith. The names Cephas, Barnabas, Abraham, Sarah, Israel
etc, are not used mainly in informal contexts.

Do the hypothetical cases of Titus-Timothy and Crispus-Sosthenes fit the
same onomastic pattern as Simon-Cephas, Joseph-Barnabas, and
Ignatius-Theophorus? I believe that they do. In all these examples the new
name is in the language of the relevant community, and has a meaning that
reflects the role of the individual in the church. "Timothy" and "Sosthenes"
mean something like "honouring God" and "saving strength" respectively.
Timothy's role was to honour God. Sosthenes, as an archisynagogos had the
power and influence to bring many to the faith (see Acts 18:8 and previous
emails), hence "saving strength". It is instructive to look through a list
of NT personal names and see if you can find one with a meaning that matches
what we know about Titus/Timothy and Crispus/Sosthenes better than the names
"Timothy" and "Sosthenes". I was not able to find any.

In the ancient world, including the OT and NT a name is given by one who has
authority over the person named. Thus Adam names the animals, God names
Abraham, Jesus names Peter, the apostles name Barnabas, and so on. Could
Paul, then have named Timothy and Sosthenes? Yes, absolutely. He baptized
Crispus personally, and he described Timothy as his son in the faith (1 Cor
4:17) This is just the sort of exclusive fatherly authority that might well
result in the giving of a new name.

The fact that "Titus" and "Timothy" are near homophones can only increase
the probability that they were one and the same person. Jews had a tendency
to choose similar sounding names when selecting bi-names. Consider
Saul-Paul, Silas-Silvanus etc..

Edgar, do you still feel that Titus-Timothy is onomastically difficult? If
so, in what ways do you think it does not fit the pattern of the attested
cases of renaming in the first century church. If not, do you have any
concerns about the Titus-Timothy theory?

Richard.