Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] protective anonymity in 2 Corinthians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] protective anonymity in 2 Corinthians
  • Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:41:51 -0800

Paul's collection for Jerusalem may have been illegal (so Nickel) and Jews
may have found it highly provocative (so Georgi). It seems to have provoked
the attack on Paul just before he was about to sail (Acts 20:3). So, it is
likely that his involvement in the collection put him in danger and it is
reasonable to conjecture that his accomplices in the project would also have
been at risk if their involvement had become widely known.

I propose that this explains the very strange anonymity of the two
'brothers' of 2 Cor 8:18-9:5. Why else would Paul not name those whom he
commends so highly? It also explains the equally strange anonymity of the
brother of 2 Cor 12:18, who accompanied Titus on his earlier visit to
Corinth, in which he started the collection (2 Cor 8:6). If Paul had named
these individuals the information could have leaked out to opponents, so he
kept them anonymous so as not to expose them to possible persecution. Not
only does Paul not name the individuals, he also fails to specify where they
came from or give any information that could be used by opponents to
identify them. Moreover, he nowhere connects the collection with any
particular congregations, preferring to refer to provinces. In Romans he
uses the first person singular when talking about his anticipated visit to
Jerusalem, and while he names Timothy and Sosipater, he does not mention
that they were to travel with him. In fact he nowhere implicates any of his
friends in involvement in the collection, except the anonymous brothers.

Acts also seems to take pains to protect those who were involved in the
collection(s). Rather than omit the names, Luke chooses to omit all
reference to the collections, except where he can present them as very
innocent acts of charity (Acts 11:27-30; 24:17). So both Paul and Luke
protect all those involved in the collections, but they do so in different
ways.

So far so good, but what about "Titus"? We read in 2 Corinthians that he
made two visits to Corinth to organise the collection. All three of those
who traveled with him are anonymous, and he is heavily implicated in the
collection project, so we can infer that "Titus" was not the name by which
he was commonly known at that time. When referring to his missions to
organize the collection, Paul uses his lesser known name (Titus) so as not
to identify him to opponents, in case the information leaked out or the
letter fell into the wrong hands. I call this 'protective heteronymity'.
Titus delivered the letter and would be able to clarify his own identity
(and those of the 'brothers') to those he could trust. If, on the other
hand, "Titus" was his only name, it is hard to explain why Paul named him
but made all three of his travel companions anonymous. The complete absence
of the name "Titus" from Acts confirms that this was not his usual name.
Also, the name "Titus" appears only in connection with collection visits,
except Gal 2:1-13, which concerns a much earlier time (before he was
renamed, see below).

I have long argued that "Timothy" was Titus renamed, and this is now
confirmed, it seems. I have argued that Titus was renamed "Timothy" when he
was sent from Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-3) to south Galatia (Acts 16:1-3) to
organise a collection there (Gal 2:10, 1 Cor 16:1). Not only is the name
"Timotheos" very suitable, since collections were designed to honour God (2
Cor 8:19; 9:11-15), Titus's new alias would also afford him a degree of
protection as he worked on this controversial project (which Acts decides to
omit, on any hypothesis).

Also, 2 Cor 12:18 now comes into sharper focus. Titus-Timothy's travel
companion was Erastus (Acts 19:22) who was an OIKONOMOS (city treasurer)
(Rom 16:23). He would be an independent auditor of the collection to
guarantee it was conducted properly. This explains why Paul mentions him in
2 Cor 12:18, where he is trying to reduce suspicion about his handling of
the collection. Erastus is anonymous in 2 Cor 12:18 because he was heavily
involved in the collection. Paul says that "Titus" was not a burden to the
Corinthians, but does not say that the anonymous brother was not a burden to
them. This is because he was Erastus, who lived in Corinth.

Furthermore, the conjecture that Timothy's earlier name (Titus) was not
generally known from his Aegean period onwards explains why later tradition
was ignorant of Titus's identity.

Incidentally, Acts does not state that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed. This
seems to be another case of protective heteronymity. The passage (Acts
18:8-17) would be understood by insiders (who knew that Sosthenes was
Crispus's alias), but would be obscure to potential persecutors (and most
commentators!). The passage is baffling (to them) because it was intended to
be.

Richard Fellows.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page