Corpus-Paul

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

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:23:13 -0800 Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
writes:
> Bob, Jeff, and Jack,
> 
> thanks for your constructive emails and helpful suggestion. 
> Unfortunately I
> do not have access to TLG or even to the library right now, so I 
> will not be
> able to take up Bob's suggestion for a while. However, many relevant 
> studies
> have already been done on naming and renaming. I have just finished
> re-reading my files on the subject and will summarise the findings 
> here. I
> think the existing studies are sufficient, though further work would 
> be very
> useful and would give us greater precision.
> 
> New names are given to people in all cultures and in all centuries, 
> but the
> frequency and style of naming does vary. The practice is common 
> among
> Buddhists, Bahais, and Muslims, for example, as well as popes and 
> monks. In
> ancient Egypt Amenhotep IV became "Akhenaten", Nefertiti became
> "Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti" and Tutankhaton became "Tutankhamen", 
> all
> receiving new names for religious reasons. But which culture is 
> relevant to
> the hypothetical case of Titus-Timothy? He had a Jewish mother and a 
> Greek
> father and was probably a native of Antioch, where, according to 
> Josephus,
> many Greeks were attracted to the synagogue and were to some extent
> incorporated among the Jews. So Titus-Timothy would have had a 
> Jewish as
> well as a Greco-Roman heritage. But, as we shall see, the 
> perspective of the
> one giving the name is more important than that of the one who is 
> named. We
> are proposing that Paul gave new names to Titus, Crispus and perhaps 
> Gaius.
_______________________

You note that Ignatius was known also as Theophoros.  It is only in his
epistles (or those posing as being from him), however, that we encounter
this, and it is consistently introduced by the hO KAI formula.  In his
Epistle to the Philippians Polycarp does not mention Theophorus but
simply refers to him as Ignatius. Nowhere does the hO KAI formula appear
with regard to either the name Timothy or Titus (or we wouldn't be having
this conversation).

I think no one would deny that there was a custom of renaming indicated
in a number of Biblical passages (notably the OT) though how widespread
it happened to be might be a matter for debate.  There are some problems
with you hypothesis.  2 Corinthians would encapsulate some of them. 
While it has been deemed to have been a composition consisting of 2-6
different letters, neither method of division serves to solve the problem
that both Titus and Timothy are used in the same letter without any
indication that this is the same individual.  Unless you can account for
the usage of both Titus and Timothy in even what has been considered in
the most fragmented for of 2 Corinthians (Bornkamm) without any
indication that it is referencing the same person (the hO KAI formula),
your hypothesis is doomed to failure.  In Bornkamm's view 1.1-2.13,
7.5-16 and 13.11-13 constitute the "letter of reconciliation."  Here we
find Timothy in 1.1 and 1.19 with Titus in 7.6, 13 and 14.  

george
gfsomsel
___________