Paul and co-workers

Gaius Titius Justus and his new name, Stephanas

2011-12-27T23:45:00.000-08:00

Here I argue that Gaius Titius Justus gave part of his house to the community of believers in Corinth, and that he was then named "Stephanas" in recognition of his generosity. The main texts are Acts 18:7; 1 Cor 1:14-16; 16:15-18; and Rom 16:23.

Benefaction of the meeting space
An inscription from Stobi, Macedonia, probably from the second century reads:

[Claudius] Tiberius Polycharmus, also (called) Achyrios, the father of the synagogue at Stobi, having lived my whole life according to the (prescriptions of) Judaism, in fulfilment of a vow (have donated) the rooms to the holy place, and the triclinium, with the tetrastoa, out of my personal accounts without touching the sacred (funds) at all. All the right of all the upper (rooms of the building) and the ownership is to be held by me, Claudius Tiberius Polycharmus, and my heirs for all (our?) life. If someone wishes to make changes beyond my decisions, he shall give the Patriarch 250,000 denarii. For thus I have agreed. As for the upkeep of the roof tiles of the upper (rooms of the building), it will be done by me and my heirs.

Polycharmus had given some of the rooms of his house to the Jewish community, while retaining other rooms for his own use. Most synagogues may have been formed out of domestic homes.

I will argue now that this same kind of benefaction provided the meeting places of both the Jews and the Christians in Corinth.

Acts 18:7 reads

Τhen he left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God; his house adjoined (ἦν συνομοροῦσα ) the synagogue.

Titius Justus is here presented as a benefactor who gave space in his house for Paul's use. His house adjoined the synagogue because he (or his predecessors) had given part of their house to be used as the Jewish meeting place. A synagogue, I suggest, had been formed out of Titius Justus's house, in the same way that a synagogue had been formed out of Polycharmus's house. They may, of course, have later extended their house to compensate for the loss of rooms. Titius Justus, like Polycharmus, had given up ownership of the synagogue space in his house, otherwise Paul would not have needed to leave the synagogue.

It is not surprising that the household of Titius Justus should donate rooms for the use of the Christian community, since it seems that they had earlier performed the same benefaction for the Jews.

1 Cor 11:17 and 1 Cor 14:23 suggest that the whole church met in one place. Rom 16:23 confirms this and shows that the meeting place was in Gaius's house. Now, there are indications that the house owner (presumably Gaius) had given up ownership/control of the space where the believers met:

Paul writes, "Do you not have homes to eat and drink in?"(1 Cor 11:22). He writes, "homes", rather than "your own homes", and this indicates that the meeting place was probably not considered someone's home (1). See also 1 Cor 11:34.
If the head of the house (Gaius) had control over the space, why did he allow the impropriety at their communal meals (1 Cor 11:17-34)? Surely he would have insisted at least that they wait for each other. And why did he allow the problems of 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 1 Cor 12:1-14:40? There meetings were disorganized and this suggests that no one person was in charge: Gaius no longer owned the space so he could not bring the congregation to order.
Paul insisted on not receiving payment (1 Cor 9:12,15; 2 Cor 11:7-9; 12:14-15) for his work (presumably because he wanted to be seen to be independent of the influence of any patrons). It is therefore unlikely that he would allow himself or the church to be dependent in the long-term on a patron for their meeting space. The independence of the church required that they have joint control of their meeting space.

All this suggests that, as in the case of Polycharmus, the church of Corinth met in a room or rooms that had been donated from a believer's house and the head of the house had given up ownership/control of the space. We can assume that, by calling Gaius "host", Paul is not saying that Gaius owned the meeting space, but that he performed the other roles of a host - putting himself at the service of the congregation.

Gaius as Titius Justus

"Gaius" was a Roman praenomen. He was almost certainly a Roman citizen since he was able to host the whole church, so he almost certainly also had a Roman nomen and cognomen. Since "Titius Justus" is a nomen-cognomen combination, his full name could have been Gaius-Titius-Justus, as many have pointed out. The following arguments confirm this identification.

Gaius, along with Crispus and the "household of Stephanas", was baptized by Paul. The household of Stephanas were "firstfruits" (1 Cor 16:15) and Crispus was also one of the first converts in Corinth (Acts 18:8). This suggests that Gaius, too, was an early convert, who was baptized by Paul himself, before someone else (presumably Crispus) started doing the baptizing. This supports the view that Gaius was Titius Justus, the first Corinthian convert mentioned in Acts.
I have argued that Gaius had given up control of rooms that he had donated for the church. This is exactly the type of benefaction that we should expect from the household of Titius Justus, which had performed the same benefaction for the synagogue.
If, as seems likely Titius Justus's household had been able to donate rooms that could accommodate the synagogue community, they surely were able to do the same for the (presumably smaller) church. The church would have no reason to move to someone else's house. Even if Titius Justus died or apostatized, the space would probably still be available for the church to use.

The role of Stephanas

1 Cor 16:15-18 reads:

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, - you know that the household of Stephanas were the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints - to put yourselves at the service of such people, and of everyone who works and toils with them. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they bave made up for your absence; for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. So give recognition to such persons.

The recognition that Paul urges should be given to Stephanas suggests that they were benefactors of the church. Carolyn Osiek writes:

Stephanas particularly can be singled out for his social prominence, for he hosts Paul and the whole church, the members of which are expected, as good clients, to be submissive to him

This is precisely the role that Gaius has in Rom 16:23, so we should start to suspect that Stephanas was Gaius.

Stephanas's household is described as the "firstfruits (ἀπαρχὴ) of Achaia". It is widely agreed that the term "firstfruits" has the sense of "the first with the prospect of more to follow". Paul is not saying that Stephanas was merely the first convert of Achaia, because that would not have really helped him to convince the Corinthians to be submissive to this household, and because Athenians were actually the first converts (Acts 17:34). No, the role of "firstfruits" must have been a more substantial role that commanded respect. This fits the role of Titius Justus perfectly. Titius Justus was the "firstfruits", whose benefaction had been followed by a bumper crop of conversions (Acts 18:7-8), and his benefaction deserved the respect of all the Corinthian believers.

The household of Stephanas had "devoted themselves to the service of the saints", as had Gaius Titius Justus, who had acted as host to the whole church (see above).

Paul devotes a lot space in 1 Corinthians to correct the disorder in the Corinthians' meetings, and this fits nicely with the suggestion that Stephanas was Gaius, the host of he church. We can imagine Stephanas, as host, feeling a sense of responsibility for the meetings and deciding to travel to Ephesus to ask Paul for help in controlling the meetings. Stephanas's journey to Ephesus is explicable if he was Gaius.

In 1 Cor 16:15-18 Paul bolsters the authority of Stephanas and his household and this makes perfect sense if he was the host of the church. The Corinthian church was suffering from divisions and poor behavior in their meetings, so Paul here tries to unite them under the roof of Stephanas, their host.

The name "Stephanas"

The name is very rare. In the six volumes of LGPN published so far there are just 5 people called Stephanas. This represents just 0.002% of all recorded persons. The same database records just 6 cases of "Stephanephoros". Stephanas means crowned or crown-bearer or the like. In New Testament times crowns were given as civic honors to luminaries because of their beneficence or achievements on behalf of the city.(2) In inscriptions the most commonly mentioned response of the community to a benefaction is the giving of a crown (3). Inscriptions found at Delos (twice) see image,(4) Egypt,(5) Asia Minor,(6) and twice at Berenice (7) show that synagogues likewise gave crowns to their benefactors, including those who financed building construction. Since Gaius/Titius Justus gave part of his house to the church, it is very appropriate that Paul recognized his commitment by giving him the name "Stephanas".

John Chrysostom wrote about Gaius of Rom 16:23:

See what a crown (στέφανος) he has framed for him by bearing witness to such great hospitality in him, and brought in the entire Church into this man's house!

Name selection

On the present hypothesis, Paul calls Gaius Titius Justus "Stephanas" in 1 Corinthians because doing so recalls his benefaction and thus bolsters his authority. This explains why the name "Stephanas" appears only in 1 Corinthians, but is absent from Acts. In Romans 16:21-23 Paul sends greetings from all those in Corinth who, through traveling, had met many of those who had moved to Rome (see here). It is therefore surprising that Stephanas (who had travelled at least to Ephesus) is not mentioned, unless he is Gaius. It is not surprising that Paul should call him "Gaius" in 1 Cor 1:14 since this refers to a time before he had been given the name "Stephanas". Also, calling him "Stephanas" here would have conferred honor on him, and Paul did not want to hint that being baptized by him is a point of pride. It was not uncommon for ancient writers to use different names for the same person according to context. Cicero does it frequently, and Paul does it with Cephas/Petros in Galatians. The switch of names would produced no ambiguity for the Corinthian readers. Paul calls him "Gaius", rather than "Stephanas", at Rom 16:23, presumably because he had called himself "Gaius" when he travelled among the churches and met those who subsequently moved to Rome.

Other similar cases of new name giving

Nearly all the benefactors of the church in the New Testament were given new names to honor their generosity. See here. These include Crispus-Sosthenes and also perhaps Epaenetus who, like, Stephanas, was a 'firstfruits'. In future posts I hope to show that the tradition of giving new names to benefactors continued into the second century.

Summary of the reconstruction

The family of Gaius Titius Justus had given part of their house for the Jewish community to use as a synagogue. After becoming a Christian and being baptized by Paul, he gave further space in his house for the church to use for its meetings. For this benefaction he was honored with the name "Stephanas" (crowned). Having given up ownership of the space he was not able to enforce proper behavior in the church meetings, so he travelled to Ephesus to get Paul's support. Paul then wrote to the Corinthians, referring to Justus as "Stephanas" to remind them that he had provided the meeting space. Paul urged the Corinthians to respect Stephanas and his household, to give them the authority that they needed encourage proper behavior in the meetings. Later, Paul wrote to the Romans and sent greetings from Gaius Titius Justus Stephanas, who on his travels had met many believers who had subsequently moved to Rome. Paul described him as host of the whole church.

I hope that this post summarizes the evidence for Gaius Titius Justus Stephanas, whom I have previously discussed here, here and here.

Notes
(1) See the work of Edward Adams, as reported by Justin Mihoc, here.
(2) See "The Fading Crown: Divine Honour and the Early Christians", Journal of Theological Studies, (vol 54.2 Oct 2003).
(3) Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field.
(4) Menippus, and Serapion, son of Jason. http://www.pohick.org/sts/delos.html. The image is from Philippe Bruneau, "«Les Israélites de Délos» et la juiverie délienne," Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982).
(5) http:www.pohick.org/sts/egypt.html It is disputed whether this inscription concerns Jews.
(6)CIJ 738
(7)Marcus Tittius in Reynolds 1977:244-45, no. 17 = Roux and Roux 1949 = IGRI 1024. Also Decimus Valerius Dionysius in SEG vol.16, no. 931.

Paul opposed Roman (bisexual) norms, not gay marriage

2011-12-24T11:29:00.000-08:00

This post is borne of the conviction that interpreters of Paul, at all levels, have failed to fully account for the fact that sexual practices in his day were very different from those of most of our modern cultures. When reading 1 Cor 6:9 and Rom 1:26-27 it is natural for us to assume that Paul has in mind the actions of a group equivalent to modern homosexuals - a persecuted minority who represent about 2% of western society. I shall argue that, rather than having such people in view, Paul is attacking the sexual practices of the majority of Romans, and that these practices can better be described as bisexual and unfaithful.

Bisexual practice was the male norm
Today the prevalence of bisexual practice varies enormously, and in some tribes is universal.*
Psychology Wiki writes about bisexuality in history:

Male heterosexuality and homosexuality, while also documented, appear mostly as exceptions, unless we are examining cultures influenced by the Abrahamic religions, where heterosexuality was privileged, and bisexuality and homosexuality forcefully suppressed. In fact, most of the commonly cited examples of male "homosexuality" in previous cultures would more properly be categorized as bisexuality.

In ancient Greece few men had sex only with men, but bisexual practice was normal. See here. The early Roman empire was similar in that respect. For a good selection of the source documents see the collections here. Also see Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents. The section on the early Roman Empire is available here.

James Neill writes in The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies p199

Thus, in the view of Martial and other contemporary writers, it could be taken for granted that nearly all Roman men found younger males at least as attractive, if not more so, than women

With marriage, as Martial says, a man was supposed to give up the pleasure of loving young males, but this was only in theory. Wives had reason to fear competition from young males, who were still widely available, and in fact, a woman could not sue her husband for adultery until the late Empire. (p200)

As illustrated by the literature produced in late Republic and early Empire, homoerotic interests and relationships were a dimension of the sex lives of most of the Roman men of the period. Virtually all the major political and military leaders of the late Republic and early Empire were known for their homosexual loves and affairs. (p200)

Consider, for example, the first 15 emperors, whose reigns lasted from 46 BCE to 138 CE. 2 were probably exclusively heterosexual and 3 may have been exclusively homosexual, though two of these were married (to women). The remaining 10 show evidence of having been bisexual and all had wives. This illustrates that bisexual behavior was very common, even allowing for some exaggeration by the ancient historians. See the discussion by Melinda Selmys here.

Julius Caesar Bisexual, married.

Augustus Bisexual, married.
Tiberius (see here and here) Bisexual, married.
Caligula Bisexual, married.
Claudius Married.
Nero Bisexual, married
Galba Bisexual, married
Otho Probably Bisexual, married
Vitellius Bisexual, married.
Vespasian married
Titus Bisexual, married
Domitian Bisexual, married
Nerva probably homosexual or bisexual, probably unmarried
Trajan probably homosexual, married
Hadrian Probably homosexual, married

The shortage of passive male partners, and resulting abuses
A normal (bisexual) Roman male desired sex with both women and men, but only if they could take the active (penetrating) role. (We should not therefore equate ancient Roman bisexuality with modern bisexuality). Wikipedia explains:

Same-sex attitudes and behaviors in ancient Rome often differ markedly from those of the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual." The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active/dominant/masculine and passive/submissive/"feminized". Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and those of his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.

See here for further discussion of Roman sexuality. The pleasure was had by the one who took the active role, but not, in general, by the passive partner. We see this when Lucian discusses sex with boys:

the one who's in charge ... goes away having taken a choice pleasure, but for the one outraged there are first pain and tears, and then, as the pain loosens a little over time, you won't hurt him any more, so they say, but there's no pleasure whatsoever.

Seneca the Younger's Moral Epistles 95.21

Today women equal men in regard to lust, although born to take the passive role - may the gods and goddesses destroy them! So perverse is their new species of invented immodesty: they actually penetrate men!

Ovid (Ars 2.683-4)

I hate sex that doesn't get both partners off; this is why I'm less moved by love with boys.

Those who enjoyed the passive (penetrated) role were a tiny minority and are frequently ridiculed in our sources (the texts are too numerous to mention). Thus Roman society was cursed with a gross imbalance in which many desired to take the active role, while few wanted the passive role. It seems to me that this mismatch of supply and demand led to all sorts of abuses, in which the rich and powerful used every necessary means to secure the scarce resource.

Thus, not only was most same-gender sex unfaithful to the marriage bed, but it was also an expression of social domination. Sex was commonly involved a male Roman citizen and a non-citizen male who serviced him when coerced or paid. The citizen nearly always took the active role, and indeed, there seems to be agreement nowadays that it was illegal for anyone to penetrate a male Roman citizen. See Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, p110-112. Sex between Roman citizen men was therefore illegal.

The abuse of slaves is shown, for example, by Seneca the Elder's Controversies 4.Preface.10

When Haterius was defending a freedman accused of being his patron's male concubine, I remember him saying: "Lack of sexual modesty in a free man is a legitimate charge, but in a slave it is a necessity, and in a freedman a duty."

Petronius's Satyricon illustrates that this practice threatened marriages:

A handsome young boy turned up among our new waiters, and Trimalchio cornered him and proceeded to lavish kisses on him. To assert her wifely rights, Fortunata [Trimalchio's wife] responded by bad-mouthing Trimalchio, calling him "scum" and "a disgrace" for not controlling his lust.

Male-male sex usually involved an adult man and a beardless boy, who would be discarded when he lost his boyish looks. Seneca the Elder complains that "leading citizens employ their wealth against nature; they have legions of eunuchs and amputate them so they can be apt for a longer passivity" (castration causing them to keep their boyish looks for longer).

We have few sources on female-female sexual relationships. However, since nearly all women had arranged marriages between the ages of 15 and 20 (usually for economic reasons), I think we can assume that most sexual acts between females involved at least one married participant.

Little love or devotion in same-sex relationships
Some are keen (for various reasons) to argue that not all same-sex activity was abusive. However, cases of mutually loving homosexual relationships were rare. Most of the evidence for them comes from works of fiction, where we would expect rare relationships to be recorded. In his chapter on "Love and Devotion in Homosexual Relationships" James Neill (p206-208) cites the following examples:

Encolpius and his slave boy, Giton, in Satyricon by Petronius. However, neither man is faithful and, as discussed here, "An orgy ensues and the sequence ends with Encolpius and Quartilla [a woman] exchanging kisses while they spy through a keyhole at Giton having sex with a virgin girl; and finally sleeping together".

Fortunata and Scintilla in the same novel. They exchange erotic kisses, but both women are married (to men).

Hippothous and Cleisthenes in An Ephesian Tale by Xenophon of Ephesus. However, this is a pederastic relationship and was not loyal since, Hippothous fell in love with a woman named Anthia. See pages 83-84 here.

Hippothous and Hyperanthes in the same novel. This too is a pederastic relationship and Hyperanthes shows no love for Hippothous. See here.

Clinias and Charicles in Leucippe and Clitophon by Achilles Tatius. Again this is an asymmetric (pederastic) relationship. Charicles, the beloved (passive partner), seems indifferent to Clinias, the lover. It would be wrong to think of Clinias as a homosexual since he is clearly experienced in the seduction of women. See here.

Megilla and Demonassa in Dialogues of the Courtesans by Lucian. They have a long term Lesbian relationship, but it is not exclusive, since they entice Leaena to have sex with them.

Berenice and Mesopotamia in Photios's abridgement of Babyloniaca by Iamblichus. Photios lived in the nineth century and, in any case, the relationship between these two women is far from clear. See here, pages 49-52.

Callistratus and Afer in Martial's satire Epigrams 12.42, and Gracchus and a cornet player in Juvenal's Satire 2. These texts refer to (fictional) weddings in which citizen males took the role of a bride. They perhaps represent the best evidence of committed homosexual relationships close to Paul's time-period. We should remember, though, that weddings had little legal consequence, and we cannot assume that neither partner was bisexual in practice. Also, Martial and Juvenal consider it shocking that a Roman citizen should choose to take the female role in these unions, and they expect their readers to be shocked too. This demonstrates the rarity of such unions.

Lastly, Neill mentions the same sex relationships of emperors Nero and Elagabulus. I have already discussed Nero's abusive relationships here. Elagabulus (ca 203-222) married five women in his short life and is no example of faithfulness.

Others point to Plutarch's moralia 751A. However, it is widely agreed (see here) that Plutarch's Eroticus was written in imitation of Plato. Plutarch "was an avid propagandist for Hellenic values, and his works are thought to reflect the attitudes of an age long past."* Thus, Plutarch tells us more about the values of classical Greece than first century Roman practice.

In summary, nearly all same-gender sexual relationships were abusive/unfaithful and Paul would not have approved of the equivalent heterosexual relationships. Hultgren in his recent Romans commentary (p620) writes,

In no case does one find references to or hints of committed same-gender relationships entered into by adults who pledge lifelong fidelity. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence for promiscuity and abuse.

Same-gender sex in the bible
In the bible, as in other ancient Jewish texts, same-gender sex is strongly associated with idolatry. We see this directly in Lev 18:21-22, in 1 Cor 6:9, and in Rom 1:23-27. This reflects the fact that bisexual practice was normal in pagan society. Gen 19:4-11 describes an attempted same-gender sexual assault by "the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man". Clearly this passage is not referring to a homosexual 2% of the population of Sodom, but to the bisexual (and married) majority. A city where all the men are strictly homosexual is absurd and is disproved by the fact that Lot's daughters had found husbands in Sodom (Lev 19:12-14).

1 Cor 6:9-11
Corinth was a very Roman city. We know of a few members of the Corinthian church and I would argue that they all had Latin names (Prisca, Aquila, Gaius-Titius-Justus-Stephanus, Crispus-Sosthenes, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Erastus (which was probably a cognomen)). The background of 1 Corinthians is that members of the Corinthian church were wanting to continue their pagan practices of idolatry and sexual immorality. In "The Corinthian Question" Barnett argues that these opponents were upper class, and this is consistent with their hubris and the influence that they had over the lower class majority in the church. As is often pointed out, Paul is attacking the upper class in 1 Cor 6:1-8 since it was the upper class that took people to court. The context therefore suggests that Paul is attacking the norms of upper class Roman households in 1 Cor 6:9-11.

The NRSV translates 1 Cor 6:9: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (οὔτε μαλακοὶ), sodomites (οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." The terms μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης have been variously translated, but there is perhaps a consensus that they refer respectively to those who take the passive and active roles in male-male sexual unions. Paul's terms therefore imply asymmetric relationships, that usually involved social dominance.

In 1 Cor 4:17-6:20 Paul discusses vices about which some Corinthians had boasted, so the sins that he mentions in 1 Cor 6:9-11 are likely things performed openly. This is confirmed in 1 Cor 6:11 where Paul writes: "and this is what some of you used to be". Paul had recently visited the Corinthian church and he knew its members and their lifestyles. So, while he was diplomatic enough not to name names, his readers will have known exactly who he was referring to when he condemned same-gender activities in 1 Cor 6:9. Paul was condemning the sexual relationships of those individuals: we cannot conclude that he was condemning all possible same-gender sexual relationships. It is especially doubtful that he was condemning committed same-gender relationships, which were very rare. 1 Cor 6:9 refers to 'wrongdoers' and this arguably limits the scope to abusive/unfaithful male-male sexual relationships. It seems unlikely that Paul is here telling male slaves that they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they complied to their masters' sexual advances, since they had no choice in the matter, so 1 Cor 6:9 is not a blanket ban on male-male sexual activity.

While I would go a little further, Thistleton (p451) puts it well when he points to:

Vasey's reminder that in the society of imperial Rome Jews and Christians saw a "form of homosexuality [which] was strongly associated with idolatry, slavery and social dominance. It was often the assertion of the strong over the bodies of the weak." This no doubt colored Paul's perception, and coheres with certain attitudes related to wealth, status, manipulations, and power at Corinth.

Rom 1:18-2:3
Interpreters of the bible often assume that it must contain statements that directly address the burning issues of their own day. Thus, those who want to find a policy statement on gay marriage in the bible will find what they are looking for. However, the bible contains no such policy statement. In Rom 1:26-27 Paul is not saying "do not practice same-gender sex". He describes same-gender sex as a punishment for idolatry, not as a sin (though he surely considered much of it to be a sin).

and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Rom 1:23-27)

.... yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (Rom 1:32)

The "error" in 1:27 is the aforementioned idolatry. (This point has been missed by the NIV translation which has "perversion" instead of "error").

This passage makes sense in the light of the sexual practices of the ancient world described above. Paul is caricaturing the bisexual practices that were characteristic of the pagan world. People gave up having sex with their spouses, but instead had sex with members of their own gender. He is referring to the bisexual majority, not to a homosexual minority. Paul's statement that they "applaud others who practice them" makes it even more unlikely that he was referring to committed same-sex relationships because such relationships (if they existed) were despised (see on Callistratus and Afer above).

At least part of Paul's purpose in this passage is to encourage his readers not to pass judgement on others (Rom 2:1-3). It is therefore ironic that this passage has been used to pass judgement on homosexuals, with brutal consequences. Paul's discussion of same-gender sex in this passage is, in a sense, incidental to his discussion of Gentile culture and passing judgement. He is not giving a policy statement on same-gender sex, so we cannot assume that he condemned all same-gender sexual relationships. Paul's larger argument requires only that he convince his readers that pagan culture resulted in sinful forms of same-gender sex, and that some of them practiced those very same things.

Conclusion
Paul's condemnation of the (abusive and unfaithful) same-gender sex of Roman culture is completely in line with his egalitarian principles (e.g. Gal 3:28). He would surely be shocked to learn that his words have been used to deny equal rights to a persecuted minority whose sexual orientation is not a choice.

Let me know if I have missed any important considerations.

N.T. Wright's blunder on homosexuality

2011-11-29T21:27:00.000-08:00

Paul, I think, was against heterosexual sex outside of committed relationships (marriage), and it is safe to assume that he was also against homosexual sex outside of committed relationships. Paul's statements against homosexuality in Rom 1:18-2:4 and 1 Cor 6:9 do not state that gay marriage is an exception, but this silence is significant only if something similar to gay marriage occurred in Rome or Corinth in Paul's day. N.T. Wright believes that Paul was indeed aware of committed homosexual relationships:

He gave the following comments in this video.

But one thing I do know, as an ancient historian, is that there is nothing in contemporary understanding and experience of homosexual condition and behavior that was unknown in the first century. The idea that in the first century it was all about masters having odd relationships with slaves or older men with younger men - yeah sure that happened, but read Plato's Symposium. They have permanent faithful stable male-male partnerships - lifelong stuff - Achilles and Patroclus in Homer - all sorts of things.

Similarly, here, he writes:

In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it's already there in Plato.

In his Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 1, he writes:

Nor is it the case, as is sometimes suggested, that in the ancient world homosexual relationships were normally either part of cult prostitution or a matter of older people exploiting younger ones, though both of these were quite common. Homosexual 'marriages' were not unknown, as is shown by the example of Nero himself. Plato offers an extended discussion of the serious and sustained love that can occur between one male and another.

And here, he says,

And as a first century historian I want to say the context in which the New Testament is written is one in which there was a lot of casual homosexual experimentation and whatever. But also as you see, hundreds of years before in Plato, people who were in long-term partnerships. So it isn't the case, as some have said, that the New Testament is simply opposed to a phenomenon which is quite different from what we know today.

Have you spotted Wright's blunder? The problem here is that the evidence that Wright cites does not support his conclusion. Plato was a Greek writer, not a Roman, and his Symposium was written in 385BC. Paul refers to homosexuality only in 1 Corinthians and Romans, which were written to the most Roman of all his audiences, and he wrote more than four centuries after Plato. Homer's work, the Iliad, dates to the 8th century BC, so is even less relevant to first century Roman sexual practices, and there is no consensus on whether Achilles and Patroclus were homosexual lovers, and, according to Plato, their relationship was one of age dissonance.

As far as I can tell, there is little evidence for anything close to gay marriage in Paul's day. The evidence of committed homosexual relationships in classical Greece merely brings the lack of such evidence from the early Roman empire into sharper focus. Wright, who by his own admission is no specialist on homosexuality, seems to assume that sexual practices must have remained the same across the centuries. They did not.

The example of Nero, cited by Wright, hardly provides evidence of committed homosexual relationships. Wright is referring to the 'marriages' of Nero to Sporus and to Doryphorus, as recorded by Suetonius: Nero XXVIII-XXIV. The passage, which doesn't make pleasant reading, is reproduced here:

XXVIII. Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero s father Domitius had had that kind of wife. This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemiess who feared that such a relationship might give the reckless and insolent woman too great infiuence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agripinina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing.

XXIX. He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched by his freed man Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered.

Clearly, Nero was not a homosexual in the sense that we would understand the term, and his "marriages" were not committed relationships in any sense. Suetonius's mentions of Nero's "marriages" to men appear in a discussion of Nero's bazaar sexual practices, and this suggests that Suetonius expected the idea of homosexual marriages to appear bazaar to his readers. Suetonius would not have written "he married him with all the usual ceremonies", if this was a recognized practice. Thus, Wright's mention of Nero's "marriages" backfires on him, doesn't it?

Wright says that there has been a lot of confusion about homosexuality, but I fear that he has added to it. Unfortunately many will turn to Wright and other famous writers for guidance on passages like Rom 1:18-2:4 and 1 Cor 6:9, but there is no substitute for consulting specialists and, preferably, the source documents.

How Acts explains Galatians

2011-10-19T21:02:00.000-07:00

Paul's letter to the Galatians is often used to argue that Acts is not historically accurate and cannot have been written by a companion of Paul. In this blog post I bring together some observations that show that Galatians has been badly misunderstood and that it actually confirms the historicity of Acts.

Paul wrote Galatians, especially chapters 1 and 2, to respond to the Galatian believers' misunderstanding of the relationship between himself, the gospel of Gentile liberty, and the Jerusalem apostles. But what exactly was the misunderstanding? The first column in the table below shows the conventional reconstruction of the beliefs of the Galatians. My own reconstruction of their views is shown in the second column.

The conventional assumptions about what the Galatians were saying	The new view about what the Galatians were saying
"The Jerusalem church leaders are a higher authority than Paul on the circumcision question."	"Paul is a higher authority than the Jerusalem church leaders on the circumcision question."
"Paul is against circumcision."	"Paul is in favor of circumcision (so it is OK to be circumcised)."
"Paul preaches a law-free gospel in Galatia, against the wishes of the Jerusalem apostles."	"Paul preaches a law-free gospel in Galatia to please the Jerusalem apostles."
"The Jerusalem apostles are in favor of circumcision (so it is OK to be circumcised)."	"The Jerusalem apostles are against circumcision."

It can be seen that I have reversed all the usual assumptions. Most commentators assume that the Galatians thought that Paul was a disloyal apostle of the Jerusalem church leaders and that he preached a law-free gospel in Galatia against their wishes. I propose that the Galatians assumed that Paul was a loyal envoy of the Jerusalem church leaders and that he preached a law-free gospel in Galatia against his own convictions. Paul argued against circumcision in Gal 3-6, but before he could throw his authority behind this law-free gospel, he needed to show that he was writing out of conviction and not just playing the loyal apostle of the Jerusalem church leaders. This is why he distances himself from the Jerusalem church in Gal 1-2, I suggest. Paul's dilemma when writing Galatians is that almost anything that he might write could be dismissed by the Galatians as motivated merely by a desire to honor Jerusalem's jurisdiction over Galatia. Paul's views against circumcision in the letter will carry weight only if he can first establish that they are indeed his sincere views.

Let us look at the four rows in the table in turn.

"Paul is a higher authority than the Jerusalem church leaders on the circumcision question."
The circumcision debate in Galatia focused on the scriptures (see Gal 3:6-4:31). The Galatians will have known that Paul was well educated in the scriptures (see Acts 22:3, Gal 1:13-14, and Paul's letters generally). Peter and John, at least, were uneducated (Acts 4:13). Therefore the Galatians probably considered Paul's opinion on the circumcision question to be more authoritative than that of the Jerusalem church leadership. The fact that he had helped to found the churches of Galatia will have added to his authority there. It is true that the Jerusalem apostles had been close to Jesus during this life, but no-one appealed to the teachings of Jesus to settle the circumcision debate, as far as we know.

"Paul is in favor of circumcision (so it is OK to be circumcised)."
Gal 5:11 reads,

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision?

The two instances of the word "still" (ἔτι) naturally refer back to the last common point of reference between Paul and the Galatians: his last visit to Galatia. This verse suggests that
1) Paul had, in a sense, preached circumcision during this last visit to Galatia
2) Paul had also preached against circumcision at the same time and had been persecuted because of it
3) the Galatians were believing that Paul had preached only circumcision since leaving them. Paul argues that this cannot be the case because the persecution has not stopped.

The events of Acts 16: 3-10 fit perfectly with Gal 5:11 and explain how the Galatians' confusion arose.

3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in numbers daily. 6 They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them, 8 so, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 10 When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them. (Acts 16:3-10)

Paul delivered the decisions of the elders, to the effect that circumcision was not necessary, and I suggest that Paul was persecuted because of it. At the same time Paul circumcised Timothy in preparation for the onward journey and this might have suggested to the Galatians that Paul was in favor of circumcision and planned to preach circumcision in his new territories. The decision of the missionaries to go beyond Asia, without preaching there, may have contributed to the Galatians' suspicion that Paul intended to preach circumcision in his new mission field: the geographical jump would have given Paul the opportunity to switch his teaching without it being immediately obvious that he had done so. The Galatians could have reasoned, "Paul had Timothy circumcised and then went off with him to lands beyond Asia, without telling us exactly where he was going, because he intended to preach circumcision in his next mission field. He preaches a law-free gospel to us, but he will preach circumcision in his new territory since it will fall under his jurisdiction, now that he is the leader of the missionary team". Paul, writing from that mission field, answers, "If I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted".

Gal 6:17 reads, "From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body". This further suggests that Paul's commitment to the law-free gospel is being questioned in Galatia. He is saying, "my wounds prove my commitment, so let no one question it." The thought here is very similar to 5:11. Paul corrects the view that he believes in circumcision also in Gal 1:8-9 (see the table below). Now, the color-coded table at the end of this post shows that Gal 1:8-9, Gal 5:11, and Gal 6:17 all occur at the same location in Paul's sequence of thought and this confirms that they serve the same function.

The confusion about what Paul actually believed is evident also in 1:7 and 5:9, which also appear at the same place in Paul's sequence of thought (see the color-coded table at the end).

In Galatians Paul presents himself as an uncompromising supporter of a Law-free gospel (Gal 1:8-9; 2:4-5; 2:11-14; 5:2-3; 5:12). The Paul of Galatians takes a more extreme position than does the Paul of Acts or indeed the Paul of the other letters. This is explicable if Paul wrote Galatians to correct the view that he believed in circumcision. See the discussion below for more on how Paul uses the Antioch incident of Gal 2:11-14 to prove his commitment to a law-free gospel.

"Paul preaches a law-free gospel in Galatia to please the Jerusalem apostles."

How did the Galatians explain why Paul preached a law-free gospel to them? Paul's law-free gospel had been given to him by revelation (Gal 1:11-16). However, Paul rarely talked about his revelations (2 Cor 12:1-6), and the fact that he must write Gal 1:11-16 suggests that he is informing the Galatians about it for the first time. Therefore it is unlikely that the Galatians already knew that Paul had received his law-free gospel by revelation.

Now, the (south) Galatian towns where evangelized by Barnabas and Paul. Acts 14:12 tells us how the two missionaries were perceived by the Galatians:

Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.

Zeus was the ruler of all the Gods so the Galatians (probably rightly) thought that Barnabas was in charge. Barnabas himself was under the authority of the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 4:36; 11:22). The Galatians could easily have concluded (probably rightly) that the movement of Jesus-followers had not given Paul authority over the territory of Galatia and that he was obliged there to follow the doctrinal positions of Barnabas and the Jerusalem church. Paul later acted as postman for the Jerusalem church (Acts 16:4) and this will have re-enforced the impression that he was an envoy (apostle) under the direction of the Jerusalem church leaders. Envoys were expected to represent the views of those that sent them (See Mitchell's "New Testament Envoys" JBL 1992).

It is therefore plausible that, when Paul had left Galatia and traveled to Europe, the Galatians came to the view that Paul had preached a law-free gospel to them out of loyalty to the Jerusalem church - and not out of conviction. Confirmation of this is found in the table below.

NRSV text	Commentary
1:1 Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—	The Galatians were saying that Paul preached a law-free gospel to them only because, as a messenger of the Jerusalem church, he was obliged to do so. Here, from the start of the letter, Paul protests that he was not a messenger of the Jerusalem church, but of God. His point is that everything that follows in the letter is written out of conviction. Many suppose that Paul is defending his authority in 1:1, but the word "apostle" simply means "one who is sent" in Paul and does not confer status (see on 1:19 below).
1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—	Here, as elsewhere in the letter, Paul has an exasperated tone. To convince his readers that he is sincere, he expresses emotion that it would be hard to fake.
1:7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.	I am astonished that yo are so quickly deserting" the law-free gospel that I preached to you "and are turning to" a gospel of circumcision, under the influence of "some who are confusing you" by saying that I believe in such a gospel (which is no gospel at all),
1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!	but a curse on us if we ever proclaim circumcision to you. Paul here shows his sincerity by calling down a curse on himself. He here writes the words "contrary to what we proclaimed to you", instead of simply, "contrary to my gospel" because he must distinguish between the gospel that he had preached to them and the gospel that they thought he believed and now preached.
1:9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!	Lest the Galatians think that Paul is faking his disapproval of them (out of obligation to Jerusalem), he repeats the curse.
1:10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people?	Are you thinking that I am writing all this to stay in good standing with the Jerusalem apostles?
If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.	No, I am not a people-pleaser, but a servant of Christ,
1:11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 1:12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.	for I proclaimed the law-free gospel, not because the Jerusalem church had asked me to, but because I had received it from Christ. Here Paul uses the phrase "the gospel that was proclaimed by me" instead of "the gospel that I proclaim" or simply "my gospel" because he must distinguish it from the gospel of circumcision which the Galatians assumed Paul was now preaching in Europe.
1:13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. 1:14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 1:16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.	Here Paul reiterates that he owed his allegiance to God, not to those who shared his gospel. He explains that, immediately following his conversion, he did not consult with any other believers in Jerusalem or Damascus about the gospel that he had been commissioned to proclaim among the Gentiles, but he went straight away into Arabia. Paul's point is that he preached non-circumcision out of conviction and not as a means to ingratiate himself with the leading Christians of Jerusalem (or Damascus). I have argued here that Aretas did not permit Christ to be preached in Arabia and that Paul was therefore the first to preach Christ there. This explains why Paul got into trouble with Aretas (2 Cor 11:32). Luke does not mention Paul's two or three years in Arabia and nor does he mention the the conflict with Aretas, presumably because he wanted to avoid inviting persecution by drawing attention to Paul's illegal preaching in Arabia. The unusual phrase, "his disciples" in Acts 9:25 makes sense if it refers to converts that Paul had made in Arabia while working in isolation from any other Christians. Paul's isolation at that time is also shown by the fact that the Jerusalem believers were not convinced of his conversion (Acts 9:26).
1:18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; 1:19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.	Paul says that when he eventually did go up to Jerusalem, the only apostles he met were Cephas and James. "Apostles" in Paul's usage means missionaries. He did not meet the other missionaries, presumably because many of them were in distant mission fields at the time. That Paul is here limiting the term "Apostle" to missionaries is confirmed by Acts 9:27, which tells us that Paul met (most of) the eleven. There is no conflict between Acts and Galatians here (or elsewhere).
1:20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!	Paul declares that he is not lying, lest the Galatians think that he is telling a white lie as a loyal messenger of the Jerusalem apostles might be expected to do.
1:21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 1:22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 1:23 they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’ 1:24 And they glorified God because of me.	Paul says here that he had preached the law-free gospel before he was known to the Judean believers. It cannot be said that I preached the law-free gospel just to please the Judean churches, because I did not even know them at the time.
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.	In 1:10-24 Paul supports his argument by showing that he had preached the law-free gospel before he had had much contact with the Jerusalem church. He argument does not require that he had had little contact with the Jerusalem church up to the time of writing, and he makes no such claim. Contrary to a common assumption, Paul is not obliged to mention every visit to Jerusalem up to the time of writing, and there is no reason to doubt the famine visit. Paul mentions the "fourteen years" here to show that he had preached his law-free gospel for a long time before he took the time to check that it was in line with the thinking of the Jerusalem church. He is saying, "I cannot have been preaching the law-free gospel to please the Jerusalem church for those 14 years because I was not even sure whether they shared my perspective on the matter."
2:2 I went up in response to a revelation.	2:2 does not contradict Acts 15:1-2. Paul does not mention that he had gone to Jerusalem to receive instructions from the Jerusalem church because to do so would have supported the rumor that he was motived by a desire to please them. Paul therefore gives a different, but not incompatible, explanation for his visit.
Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.	Acts 16:4 shows that the Galatians will already have known about the plenary meeting of Acts 15:3-29 in which the Jerusalem church confirmed that observance of the Law was not required. Here in 2:2 Paul tells them that he had a pre-meeting meeting with the leaders because he was not sure what their position would be. He says this to show, once again, that he had not been preaching the law-free gospel to please the Jerusalem church.
2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 2:4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 2:5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.	Here Paul explains why he did circumcise Timothy, who was also known as Titus. See here.
2:6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.	Paul says here that the Jerusalem leaders meant nothing to him. He says this not to undermine their authority, but to show that his preaching was not motivated by a loyalty to them.
2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),	Here Paul contradicts the rumor that the Jerusalem leaders had told him what to preach. He says that they recognized the legitimacy of the gospel that he had received independently from God. It is significant that only here does Paul discuss the role of Cephas and only here does he refer to him by the name "Petros". This name, for Paul's (Greek-speaking) readers, means "Rock", and signifies Cephas's role as the rock on which the (Jewish) church was to be built (Matt 16:18). If Paul and Cephas were rivals, as some suppose, Paul would not have honored Cephas by calling him "Petros" here.
2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.	Paul shows here that the "pillars" recognized him as an equal: he was not their underling, as the Galatians supposed. There is no reason to suppose that Paul and the pillars were rivals. Rather, we should think of the pillars being happy that Paul and Barnabas were able to take over their responsibilities in Gentile lands, leaving them free to focus on the Jews.
2:10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.	See my blog post here.
2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 2:12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they [he] came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 2:13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’	In this passage Paul argues that, contrary to the rumor, he is firmly committed to Gentile liberty. Much of the emphasis in this passage is on Paul himself: he opposed Peter to his face, he confronted Peter "before them all" even after Barnabas and the others had been led astray. To counter the rumor that he believed in circumcision, Paul portrays himself here as an uncompromising champion of Gentile inclusion. Someone who supported Gentile liberty only to please the Jerusalem church leaders might preach a Law-free gospel and he might even risk conflict over the issue, but he would never take a stance against those same church leaders for not being committed enough on the issue. The Galatians (according to my proposal) were thinking that Paul preached the law-free gospel only out of obedience to the Jerusalem church leaders - principally Peter, the major force behind the inclusion of Gentiles (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11), and perhaps also Barnabas, who led the mission that evangelized Galatia. If Paul can recall an occassion when he actually confronted Peter and Barnabas for not being committed enough to the law-free gospel, he can use it to quosh the Galatian rumor. Gal 2:11-14 is that incident. Paul's criticism of Peter and Barnabas here shows the Galatians that he is not a seaker of their approval. The incident that Paul recounts serves to prove to the Galatians that he genuinely believed in the law-free gospel and was not just the messenger of Peter and Barnabas on the issue. See also the discussion of Gal 2:11-14 below.

Gal 1:1; 5:2 and 6:11 are shown in blue in the table below. They all begin their respective passages on the confusion in Galatia and serve to indicate to the Galatians that what follows are Paul's views, not the views of the Jerusalem apostles speaking through him.

"The Jerusalem apostles are against circumcision."

Paul (and Titus-Timothy) delivered to the Galatians the decisions of the Jerusalem church leaders (Acts 16:4). The Galatians will therefore have believed (rightly I think) that the Jerusalem leaders were against circumcision (for Gentiles of course). Many commentators, on the assumption that the Galatians thought that Jerusalem was in favor of circumcision, are surprised that Paul does not cite the Jerusalem decree to correct them. However, we should reverse the argument: Paul's silence about the decree shows that it would have been counter-productive for Paul to mention it - in fact it had contributed to the rumor that Paul wrote the letter to oppose. Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:1-32 show that the Jerusalem leaders, like Paul, believed that circumcision was unnecessary. Gal 2:6-9 confirm this unanimity between Paul, the Jerusalem "pillars", and Barnabas.

Some have inferred (perhaps correctly) from Gal 2:3 that the "pillars" would have preferred Titus to be circumcised. However, Paul himself circumcised Titus later in Galatia (Acts 16:3) after he had been named "Timothy", so it cannot be argued from 2:3 that Jerusalem was more pro-circumcision than Paul.

The Antioch incident of Gal 2:11-14 harmonizes very well with Acts, especially if we accept the better attested reading, "he came", in 2:12 (see Carlson's post here). The sequence of events is:

1) Peter came to Antioch and ate with Gentiles and then left.

2) Some men "from Judea" (Acts 15:1) came to Antioch and preached circucision, thinking (mistakenly) that they had the approval of James and the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:12; Acts 15:24).

3) Paul, Barnabas, and Titus went up to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1; Acts 15:2) to discuss the circumcision question.

4) Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and Peter later returned to Antioch.

5) the Judeans "from James" were still in Antioch and Peter decided that on this visit he would not eat with Gentiles.

With this sequence it cannot be argued that James could not have written the Jerusalem decree, because the men "from James" were sent before the decree was written and Acts 15:24 shows that they did not have his backing anyway. Peter believed that Gentiles should be included (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11) and his lapse of courage here is completely in character (compare Mark 8:29-38; Mark 14:27-31, 66-72). There is no need to suppose that Peter's views were different from Paul's. Peter's decision not to eat with Gentiles is explained by his lack of courage and also, I suggest, by his new role. At the time of Peter's first visit to Antioch he was, presumably, involved in outreach to Gentiles, but by the time of his second visit to Antioch, it had been decided that he should focus on the Jews (see 2:9 above), so it was now expedient for him to avoid offending Jews.

With the new understanding of the background to Galatians we can no longer assume that Gal 2:11-14 is in any way representative of Paul's relationship with Peter. There may have been occasions when Peter chided Paul for not defending Gentile liberty vigorously enough, but in Galatians Paul cited only the incident that proved the point that he need to make, and that was the Antioch incident.

It is true that there were some in the Judean churches who favored circumcision (for Gentiles) and that the Jerusalem church leaders tried to avoid offending them. We see this in Peter's behavior in Antioch. James's conflict aversion is evident in Acts 21:20-24, and the men of Gal 2:12 may have mistaken his conflict aversion for an endorsement of their mission. However, there is no reason to doubt that the Jerusalem church leaders did indeed write the decree and that it was shared with the Galatians. The Galatians will then have believed that the Jerusalem apostles and Barnabas were against circumcision.

Paul's sequence of thought

The interpretation of the letter given above is further demonstrated by a comparison of the passages that concern the agitators who were propagating the rumor in Galatia. It can be seen from the color-coded table below that Paul follows the same sequence of thought in all three passages. This confirms that the belief that Paul supported circumcision (5:11) is the background to all three passages

Conclusion

The Galatians (rightly?) assumed that the Jerusalem church required Paul to preach the law-free gospel in Galatia. After Paul circumcised Timothy, they concluded that he actually believed in circumcision and this encouraged them to consider circumcision for themselves. Paul wrote Galatians to show that he was genuinely against circumcision and persuade the Galatians not to be circumcised. Acts and Galatians are in perfect agreement.

The cause of the divisions in the Corinthian church

2011-09-28T00:13:00.000-07:00

I will argue here that the libertarian believers in Corinth were partly successful in turning the congregation against Paul and that this led to the divisions in the church that we see in 1 Corinthians.

Let us start by reading 2 Cor 12:16-13:3.

12:16 Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? 18 I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Titus did not take advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves with the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps? 12:19 Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before you? We are speaking in Christ before God. Everything we do, beloved, is for the sake of building you up. 12:20 For I fear that when I come, I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish; I fear that there may perhaps be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. 12:21 I fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced. 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 13:2 I warned those who sinned previously and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again, I will not be lenient - 13:3 since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me.

Here Paul defends himself against criticism (12:16-18) and explains that he does so to prevent the church from falling into "quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder" (12:19-20). The logic of 2 Cor 12:16-20 requires that Paul is worried that criticism of himself could lead to quarreling etc.. It is not hard to imagine that if some Corinthians believers succeeded in denigrating Paul to the rest of the congregation, this could lead to symptoms of disunity such as quarreling etc..

Now, it seems to me that Paul is speaking from experience here, for 12:19, 12:21, and 13:2 all refer back to an earlier time. He must counter the slanders about himself because he knows from experience that they can lead to quarreling etc. in the Corinthian church.

Now, as commentators have pointed out, the quarreling etc. of 2 Cor 12:20 are the problems that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians. Furthermore the sexual immorality of 2 Cor 12:21-13:3 also looms large in 1 Corinthians. Also, 1 Corinthians shows that Paul had been criticized by some Corinthian believers (See 1 Cor 4:1-5; 1 Cor 9:3 and probably 1 Cor 5:9-13 and 1 Cor 16:1-4). Some Corinthians, on hearing criticisms of Paul might well have decided to look around for another apostle and this could explain 1 Cor 1:12. It seems to me, therefore, that attempts by some to denigrate Paul had led to the problems that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and that Paul says in 2 Cor 12:16-20 that he must defend himself so that the same thing does not happen again.

But who was behind these attempts to discredit Paul? I think it was those in the Corinthian church that had a sexually immoral, licentious philosophy. Here is why. Firstly, we have hints at 1 Cor 5:9-13 and 2 Cor 13:3 that they criticized Paul. Secondly, they stood to gain if Paul lost authority in Corinth. Paul disciplined a sexually immoral individual in 1 Cor 5:1-8 and threatened others in 2 Cor 12:21-13:2 and 1 Cor 4:21, but without the support of the church, he would be powerless to enforce his sexual ethics on the licentious believers. The licentious believers would be able to practice their sexual immorality with impunity if they could discredit Paul. 2 Cor 12:16-13:3 confirms that criticism of Paul increased sexual immorality in Corinth (otherwise what is the connection between 2 Cor 12:16-20 and 2 Cor 12:21-13:3? Paul is surely saying that he must defend his reputation lest the licentious continue their sexual immorality in the confidence that he will not be able to punish them.

We need not assume that the licentious attacked Paul only in relation to the issue of sexual ethics. Like a politician in an election campaign, they would seize any opportunity to smear their opponent. Thus they may, for example, have been behind the accusation that Paul intended to defraud the Corinthians (see 2 Cor 12:16-18 and probably 1 Cor 16:1-4), or the criticism that he was not an eloquent speaker, as well as the bringing of Paul to judgement (1 Cor 4:1-5).

In summary, Paul clashed with the sexually immoral in Corinth so they chose to try to undermine his authority in the church by discrediting him in the eyes of the other members of the congregation. This led to disunity.

The chief culprit seems to have been the offender of 2 Cor 2 & 7. See my earlier post here.

Acts and the origin of the Corinthians' problems

2011-09-20T23:11:00.000-07:00

Here I will argue that the problems in the Corinthian church arose because the influential Christian Jews had been driven from town.

Acts 18:15-17 gives the ruling of Gallio after the Jews had brought Paul before the tribunal:

15 since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge in these matters." 16 And he dismissed them from the tribunal. 17 Then all of them seized Sosthenes, the official of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal.

Gallio refused to get involved in the dispute and, with the words "see to it yourselves", he gave the Jews of Corinth jurisdiction in this matter. I doubt that this ruling gave the Jews authority to impose their will on God-fearers and pagans, but it is clear that Gallio expected the non-Christian Jews and Christian Jews to sort out the dispute between themselves. The Christian Jews, being in the minority, lost the resulting power struggle. We read in verse 17 that the non-Christian Jews beat Sosthenes, who was a Christian Jew (see 1 Cor 1:1 and the strong evidence that he was in fact Crispus renamed). Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1), Prisca, and Aquila all went to Ephesus (Acts 18:18 and 1 Cor 16:19), presumably having been forced out of Corinth by the Jews. Ephesus was the logical destination for those influential Christian Jews fleeing persecution. It was outside of Gallio's territory and, unlike Thessalonica, there was no immediate threat of persecution there. Ephesus was the closest large city where Sosthenes, Prisca and Aquila could escape persecution. The suitability of Ephesus in this regard explains why Paul made it his base for more then two years.

Now, the departure from Corinth of all the influential Christian Jews is also evinced by the characteristically pagan problems that arose in the Corinthian church.

Jews were stricter than Gentiles on sexual ethics (1 Cor 5:1; 1 Thess 4:3-5; Rom 1:22-24). The departure from Corinth of the leading Christian Jews explains why Jewish sexual norms were not enforced in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 5; 6:9; 6:12-20; 7:2).

Similarly, the absence of Jewish overseers can explain why the Corinthian believers had no regard for the sensibilities of Jews towards food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8:1-1; 9:19-10:33).

The power vacuum left by the departure of the Christian Jews also goes a long way toward explaining the divisions that occurred in the Corinthian church. I will discuss this further in my next post.

If Crispus was not Sosthenes, his leadership would probably have prevented all these problems from arising in the Corinthian church. It seems to me, therefore, that the Corinthian problems that we find in 1 Corinthians support the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis and the historical accuracy of Acts.

Incidentally, the proposed expulsion of Christian Jews from Corinth fits nicely with the following hypotheses:
1. The Jews Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater (Rom 16:21) were the non-Corinthians Luke, Jason of Thessalonica, and Sopater of Beroea (Acts 20:4) respectively.
2. Gaius (Rom 16:22) and Stephanas were the non-Jew Gaius Titius Justus Stephanas.

Why so many NT female benefactors?

2011-07-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

In this post I show that about half of the benefactors of the church in the New Testament were women, and that this is a much higher proportion than is found among benefactors to the Jews or among benefactors in the general population. This demands an explanation and I will suggest that women gave to the church because the church empowered them.
NT specialist tend to be weak in mathematics, but their neglect of statistics is inexcusable. While certain women benefactors of the Jews, such as Julia Severa and Tation, have been much celebrated, no-one has attempted to actually count the women benefactors, as far as I know. However, Matthew S. Colins writes in Money, Sex and Power in Recovering the Role of Women 1992:

It should be emphasized at this point that the number of women functioning as patrons was only a small percentage of the overall patronage system. By some estimates, they constituted only five percent of the known patrons during the period of the Empire. (p15) .... the number of women acting as patrons was also small, both in the wider social world and within the synagogue. (p19) .... As regards social custom, it appears that the role of patrons in relation to the synagogue was similar to the expected role of patrons in society in general. Both women and men appear to have functioned in this role, perhaps even in the same proportion as in the wider cultural world. (p20)

The epigraphic evidence for Jewish benefaction has been gathered together by Lifshitz (Donateurs Et Fondateurs Dans Les Synagogues Juives, 1967). To this database of 102 inscriptions we can add the Aphrodisias inscriptions, which contain the names of 126 benefactors. There is also Mindus Faustus of the Ostia synagogue, and Papous of Egypt. Have I missed any? In all there are about 248 benefactors of known gender, of which only about 9% (about 23) are female. However, it should be noted that more than half of the ~225 men that I counted are found in the Aphrodisias incriptions, which contain only one woman. Also, 8 of the ~23 women (but just 5 men) are mentioned as donors of a single pavement in Syria. Clearly the Aphrodisias donors and the pavement donors are not statistically independent and should therefore be discounted to some extent. If these finds are removed from consideration we get that 13% of Jewish benefaction was by women. Our sample size is limited so we cannot be precise. However, in my judgement, we can be confident that women represented between 5% and 20% of benefactors of the Jews in inscriptions. The value probably lies between 10 and 15%. This is not surprising since men controlled most of the wealth in the ancient world.

Benefactors in the New Testament
The benefactors of the church in the NT probably include:

Women:
Mary Magdalene (Mark 15:40; Luke 8:2-3; Matt 27:56)
Mary mother of James and Joseph (Mark 15:40; Matt 27:56)
Joanna (Luke 8:2-3)
Susanna (Luke 8:2-3)
The mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matt 27:56)
Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2).
Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41)
Lydia (Acts 16:4-15, 40)
The women with the alabaster jar (Mark 14:3-9)
Mary the mother of John-Mark (Acts 12:12)
Nympha (Col 4:15)

Men:
Joseph-Barnabas (Acts 4:36-37)
Gaius Titius Justus-Stephanas (Acts 18:7; Rom 16:23)
Aquila (Acts 18:2-3; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3).
Crispus-Sosthenes (Acts 18:8, 17; 1 Cor 1:1, 14)
Jason-Aristarchus (Acts 17:6-9)
Epaenetus (Rom 16:5)
Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1)
Joseph of Arimathea (Matt 27:60)
Publius (Acts 28:7-8)

Listed above are 9 men. From the Jewish benefaction inscriptions discussed above, we should expect only 1 woman benefactor for every 9 men, but we have no fewer than 11! While there is some ambiguity about who counts as a benefactor, it is clear that about 50% of the benefactors of the church in the New Testament were women. This is an astonishing finding and demands an explanation. Men had most of the money and less than 20% of synagogue benefactors were women, so why were 50% of church benefactors women?
Intriguingly, the Megido church, which is perhaps the earliest church yet discovered, refers to one women benefactor, Akeptous, and one man, Gaianos. See here.

Some commentators say that Luke has a 'special interest' in women, and they insinuate that he exaggerates their role. This is unlikely since Luke/Lucius was a man. In any case, if we remove Luke-Acts from our sources, we are left with 6 women and 4 men in the lists above, so the ratio does not change.

The high frequency of female benefactors in the NT is explicable if the church was supportive of the rights of women. People give to organizations that they find empowering. Women funded the church because it gave them a voice. This is my assumption for now, but I would be interested to hear of any alternative explanations.

Further resources:
I have discussed most of the NT benefactors here.
"Diakonos and prostatis: Women's patronage in Early Christianity" by Carolyn Osiek.
Richard Bauckham's book: "Gospel Women".

Ignatius, women, greeters, and Lucius as author of Acts

2011-06-30T08:23:00.000-07:00

Women did not travel
I argued earlier that women did not travel (except in the company of male members of their households). Here I will first support this conclusion using data from Ignatius and Clement of Rome.

Travelers
Clement (65), writing probably at the end of the first century, mentions three messengers: Claudius, Ephebus, and Valerius Vito. All three are men.

Ignatius, writing in the early second century, mentions 12 messengers/envoys by name and they are all male: Burrhus (Eph 2; Philad 11; Smyrn 12), Crocus (Eph 2; Rom 10), Onesimus (Eph 2, 6), Euplus (Eph 2), Fronto (Eph 2), Damas (Mag 2), Bassus (Mag 2), Apollonius (Mag 2), Zotion (Mag 2), Polybius (Tral), Philo (Philad 11; Smyrn 10, 13), and Rheus Agathopous (Philad 11; Smyrn 10).

Furthermore, Ignatius's letter to the church of Rome was delivered by "men of Ephesus" (Rom 10). Also, Ignatius assumes that enjoys that will be selected by the Philadelphians (Philad 10) and by Polycarp (Poly 7-8) will be male.

Non-travelers
Ignations mentions 7 individuals who, as far as we know, have not travelled. 3 of them are women, shown in red: Polycarp (Poly); Procurator's lady (Poly 8), Attalus (Poly 8), Alce (Poly 8; Smyrn 13), Tavia (Smyrn 13); Daphnus (Smyrn 13); Eutecnus (Smyrn 13).

Conclusion
All this confirms what we deduced previously from Acts, the letters of Paul, and the disputed letters of Paul: women did not travel (except with family).

Greetings are sent between individuals who knew each other
Ignatius wrote his first four surviving letters from Smyrna where he must have spent considerable time (presumably while waiting for a ship and the right winds). Two of his three later letters were sent to Smyrna (Smyrnaeans and Polycarp) and these are the only letters sent to a place where he spent considerable time (he had not been to Rome, Ephesus, Magneia, or Tralles, and there is no evidence that he would have been allowed to tarry in Philadelphia). It is surely no coincidence, then, that all those whom Ignatius greets individually (the non-travelers listed above) are in Smyrna. His personal acquaintance with them makes him mention them individually.

The only time when an individual joins with Ignatius in sending greetings is when Philo greets the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn 13). Presumably Philo has stayed in Smyrna on his journey to catch up with Ignatius.

Conclusion
The evidence from Ignatius therefore confirms the common-sense view that greetings are sent to and from individuals who have met.

Implications for the identities of the greeters in Rom 16:21-23
Just as Philo, mentioned above, was a man, so too were all those who send greetings in Rom 16:21-23, as well as the greeters in Philemon 23-24. This is no co-incidence. Only men travelled and therefore only men would have met those addressed. Lucius (Rom 16:21) and Luke (Philemon24) were therefore travelers and this supports the view that they were the same person and the author of Acts. I have argued this point in more detail before, here, but without the supporting data from Ignatius and Clement of Rome.

Gal 5:11 the key to understanding Galatians

2011-06-23T10:32:00.000-07:00

Here I will argue that Acts 16:1-4 provides the background that explains Gal 5:11 and the whole of the letter to the Galatians.

Paul went on also to Derbe and to Lystra, where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached the apostles and elsders who were in Jerusalem. (Acts 16:1-4)

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? (Gal 5:11)

Paul circumcised Timothy in anticipation of the onward journey and then delivered the decision of the Jerusalem elders that circumcision was not necessary. These actions appear contradictory to many commentators and we must ask how the Galatians explained them. I suggest that the Galatians reasoned,

"Paul is educated in the scriptures so he knows that circumcision is necessary. He has circumcised Timothy in preparation for the onward journey because he intends to preach circumcision in his new territory, which will fall under his jurisdiction. Here in south Galatia, however, Paul acts as envoy/postman of the Jerusalem church and obediently preaches their law-free gospel, even though he does not believe it. Since Paul believes in circumcision, it is OK for us to receive circumcised".

To put it another way, the Galatians assumed (perhaps rightly) that their churches fell under the authority of Jerusalem so that Paul was obliged to toe the (law-free) party line of Jerusalem there. When traveling to Europe, on the other hand, Paul was the leader of the missionary team and was free to preach his own doctrine, which the Galatians assumed (wrongly) (on the basis of Timothy's circumcision) would include circumcision. I have argued previously, here, here, and here, that the entire letter to the Galatians is explicable as Paul's response to this kind of misunderstanding in Galatia. Galatians and Acts are thereby reconciled. Paul distances himself from the Jerusalem church in Gal 1-2 precisely to show that he preached non-circumcision out of conviction and not out of obedience to the Jerusalem church. In this post I will show that the Galatian misunderstanding, as formulated above, produces a convincing explanation of 5:11.

Gal 5:11 refers to the time of writing, but also refers to an earlier time or times. Paul says that he is still being persecuted, which is a clear reference to an earlier time when he was also being persecuted. Similarly he says that he is not still preaching circumcision, and Paul refers here to an earlier time when he did indeed, in a sense, preach circumcision. Now, in this short, pithy argument, we should assume that the word still refers back to the same time in both cases, and it is natural that it should refer to the time of Paul's most recent visit to Galatia. Now, Paul's argument in Gal 5:11 rests on the assumption (shared by the Galatians) that he would not be persecuted if he did not preach a law-free gospel. Therefore, at the earlier time alluded to by both "stills" Paul must have been preaching a law-free gospel (since he was being persecuted) at the same time as he (in a sense) preached circumcision. The verse therefore refers, almost certainly, to the time of Timothy's circumcision, when Paul "preached circumcision" (at least to Timothy and by the example that his circumcision of Timothy set) while delivering the decisions of the Jerusalem church that said that circumcision was not necessary. The apparently contradictory simultaneous actions of Paul in Acts 16:3-4 are exactly what is implicit in Gal 5:11.

Some might argue that the two "stills" could, in principle, refer back to two different times, and that this would avoid the assumption that Paul preached circumcision and non-circumcision at the same time. This would allow two possibilities, depending on which of the two times was first.
1. Paul preached circumcision, then he preached non-circumcision and was persecuted, then (at the time of writing) he continued to preach non-circumcision and is persecuted. A difficulty here is that when Paul says that he is still being persecuted, the still here would be redundant to Paul's argument. Furthermore, we would expect Paul to say "again preaching circumcision" instead of "still preaching circumcision", since Paul would have been countering the assumption that he resumed his preaching of circumcision rather than merely extending it.
2. Paul preached non-circumcision and was persecuted. Then he preached circumcision and was not persecuted. Then (at the time of writing) he preached non-circumcision and was persecuted again. The problem here is that we have two distinct periods of persecution, so we would expect Paul to write "again being persecuted" instead of "still being persecuted".
Therefore we cannot escape the conclusion that 5:11 refers to an earlier time when Paul was seen to have been preaching circumcision and non-circumcision at the same time.

5:11 in its context
Dunn (p278) says that Paul here "turns abruptly to a different point". Longenecker (p232) says that Paul writes, "without any preparation of the reader for what follows". F.F.Bruce (p236) says that Paul's argument here is "not obviously related to anything in the immediate context either before or after". Betz (p268) writes that "Without preparation, Paul confronts the readers with a rhetorical question and statement...". As far as I know, no-one has even attempted to explain how 5:11 fits its context. This is a huge problem for the commentators' understanding of the background to Galatians, since there are strong indications that 5:11 is not a digression, but is central to the entire letter:
1. It comes between two statements, shown in brown below, where Paul calls a punishment on the "agitators/influencers".
2. In 5:11 Paul corrects the misunderstanding that he believed in circumcision and this confusion is mentioned in Gal 5:10.
3. Importantly, as the table below shows, Paul follows the same line of argument in the same sequence in the three passages where he discusses the agitators/influencers. 5:11 is not an anomaly, but has its equivalent statements in the other two passages at the same locations in the sequence of thought. I have discussed this table in more detail here.

For more on 5:11 see my review of Douglas Campbell's paper here.

Douglas Campbell on Gal 5:11

2011-06-19T22:38:00.000-07:00

Here I review Douglas Campell's recent paper, "Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-observant Mission by Paul?", NTS 57 2011, p325-347.

Gal 5:11 is an immensely important verse:

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ.

Here is Campbell's abstract:

Galatians 5.11 refers to Paul ‘proclaiming circumcision’—a proposition that he is concerned to refute because he constructs two compact but powerful inferences designed to falsify it. One argues from present persecution, the other from the cross. Following a precise reconstruction of these it can be shown that the three main previous interpretations of the reference of Paul's ‘proclamation of circumcision’ are dubious, whether in terms of a blatantly false charge by opponents, a phase in Paul's pre-Christian Jewish life, or an occasional apostolic mission to Jews. A fourth, embarrassing reading is more likely, especially when other comparable missionary work is considered. Early on Paul proclaimed a fully law-observant gospel to pagans that included circumcision, but then later revised his praxis.

Campbell shows (uncontroversially) that the original text contained both instances of "still" (ἔτι). He then argues (against J.L.Martyn) that the word has the same meaning (of extension in time) in both cases. Therefore, when Paul writes (5:11a) "if I am still preaching circumcision", he concedes that there was an earlier time, known to the Galatians, when he had actually preached circumcision. Concerning that earlier occasion when Paul had preached circumcision, Campbell lists what he considers to be the only three possibilities:

(1) 5.11a refers to preaching activity by Paul before his call;

(2) 5.11a refers to missionary work to Jews by Paul after his call;

(3) 5.11a refers to an early phase in Paul's missionary work to pagans, after his call, when he did expect his male converts to be circumcised (a phase that has now passed).

Unfortunately, Campbell has overlooked a fourth possibility, namely, that 5:11a refers to a recent episode in Paul's missionary work when he had "preached circumcision".

Campbell argues against (1) by pointing to the growing consensus that Jews rarely, if ever, evangelized Gentiles. He also points out that it is hard to see how pre-conversion preaching by Paul would have been relevant to Paul's debate here.

Campbell finds (2) problematic because it would make the text irrelevant to the Galatian audience. Why would Paul's Gentile addressees have cared whether Paul had preached (or continued to preach) circumcision to Jews? Also, Jews were already circumcised.

Campbell therefore prefers option (3). He suggests that, for a while after conversion, Paul believed that male Gentile converts should undergo circumcision. This means that Paul later changed his mind and Campbell cites several cases in which people have changed their minds on similar matters. He deals with other objections to option (3) and concludes that it is correct.

My assessment of Campbell's paper

The paper provides a good review of much of the discussion of this very important verse. His arguments against the popular interpretations are well made, and convincing. However, I feel that his study is incomplete, in that he has dealt with only a subset of the relevant issues and texts. I also offer some objections to Campbell's reconstruction:

1. If I have read him correctly, he proposes the following sequence of events:

a) Paul converts, b) Paul preaches circumcision to Gentiles and is not persecuted, c) Paul permanently abandons preaching circumcision to Gentiles, d) Paul visits the Galatians, e) the Galatians think Paul is preaching circumcision to Gentiles, but he is being persecuted for preaching a law-free gospel, and he writes the letter.

Paul says that his is "still" being persecuted and that he is not "still" preaching circumcision. As Campbell points out, these two instances of the word "still" must have the same meaning. They must also, surely, refer to the same earlier time, but Campbell's reconstruction does not allow this because he has the persecution begin only after the period when Paul preached circumcision.

2. According to Campbell the Galatians believed the following sequence:

i) Paul preached circumcision, ii) Paul preached a law-free gospel and was persecuted, iii) Paul preached circumcision again.

The Galatians would then have seen two distinct periods in which Paul preached circumcision. It would then be surprising that Paul says "If I still preach circumcision", rather than "If I again preach circumcision", especially as the period of persecution that would intervened between the two periods of preaching circumcision is in view in this verse.

3. Gal 1:11-12 suggest that Paul's law-free gospel was received by him at his original revelation. Can this objection be overcome?

4. Campbell's reconstruction requires that Paul preached circumcision in the first phase of his missionary career and was not persecuted. However, we know that the persecution started very early (Acts 9:23).

5. Campbell offers no explanation for how the Galatians came to believe that Paul was preaching circumcision at the time of writing (Campbell refuses to appeal to the circumcision of Timothy and on page 339 he seems to assume (against the evidence) that Timothy would have been considered Jewish because of his Jewish mother).

6. Campbell, along with all other commentators, interpret Gal 5:11 in isolation. They fail to see its connection to Gal 5:2-10. I have argued here that the three passages that deal with the agitators, namely Gal 1:1-10, Gal 5:2-12, and Gal 6:11-17 contain the same sequence of thought. Gal 5:11 should be interpreted alongside its counterparts Gal 1:8-9 and Gal 6:17. Rather than being an aside or anomaly, as is universally believed, Gal 5:11 must be central to the background of the entire letter.

7. On page 344 Campbell writes, "Paul's opponents are, after all, trying ot embarrass him (or worse)." There is no evidence for this. Indeed, 5:11 suggests that the influencers/agitators thought that Paul was on their side. As Nanons, for one, has pointed out, there is no evidence that they challenged Paul's authority, and it is hazardous to assume that they were "opponents".

So, while Campbell has successfully shown that the common understandings of 5:11 are problematic, I do not feel that he has yet solved the problems. I am willing to be corrected, though, and I will invite him to comment.

In my next blog post I intend to give my own interpretation of Gal 5:11.

New evidence that Hebrews was written by a man

2011-06-12T13:47:00.000-07:00

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews had previously visited the recipients and intends to travel to them again (Heb 13:19, 23). This suggests that the author was a man, since women rarely, if ever, traveled, except in the company of male members of their households. This point has been overlooked, as far as I can tell.

I argued here that those who travelled among the diaspora churches were all men. I think that women could take any role in the early church, but (due to the misogyny of the wider non-Christian society) did not travel. Most of the New Testament was written by people, such as Luke and Paul, who, through travel, had witnessed events and developed relationships that gave them occasion to write histories and letters. This, I think, goes a long way to explaining why no New Testament document is attributed to a woman. Women, I suggest, had the authority to write scripture, but, since they did not travel, they did not have the occasion to write it.

Tal Ilan's "The Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part III The Western Diaspora 330BCE-650CE" contains 1230 entries for females and 4419 entries for males. Ilan conveniently gives a description field for each entry, in which she includes any references to the person's place of origin in the source. For example, an epitaph records Judah "of Tarsus" (Ταρσεύς). I laboriously searched all 1230 female entries and found just 18 with a place of origin description. I then searched a representative 1230 male entries and found some 45 such entries. From this we can project that the data base contains about 162 male entries with a place of origin description. By any measure, therefore, far fewer women than men had a place of origin description. This does seem to support the assumption that women rarely travelled. Reference to a person's place of origin is unlikely if the person was born, lived, and died in the same location.

Some have argued that Hebrews was written by Prisca/Priscilla. I am grateful to Ruth Hoppin for making the evidence available here and here, and to Brian Small for hosting some further discussion here and here. I would be interested to know how Ruth and others respond to the evidence that women did not tend to travel on church business.

2 Cor 12:2, revelations, chronology, and Paul's reluctance to boast

2011-06-08T23:48:00.000-07:00

I will argue here that Paul's point in 2 Cor 12:2 is that, unlike the "super-apostles", he had received revelations that he had not boasted about during his stay in Corinth.

Commentators seem muddled about why Paul describes his revelation using third person singular narration (2 Cor 12:2-5), and why he mentions that the revelation was "before 14 years". I believe that Paul does these things to show that he is, and was, reluctant to boast of his revelations.

Background
Rival apostles were gaining the loyalty of the Corinthians by boasting (2 Cor 10:12, 17; 11:12-13). Paul therefore wrote to win the Corinthians back. To do this, he had to stoop to the level of the super-apostles by indulging in some boasting himself, but he did so with great reluctance, distancing himself from the boasting as he did it. Thus he repeatedly described his boasting as foolishness:

I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! I feel a divine jealousy for you, ... (2 Cor 12:1-2)

What I am saying in regard to this boastful confidence, I am saying not with the Lord's authority, but as a fool; since many boast according to human standards, I will also boast. (2 Cor 11:17-18)

But whatever anyone dares to boast of - I am speaking as a fool - I also dare to boast of that. (2 Cor 11:21)

I am talking like a madman (2 Cor 11:23)

I have been a fool! You forced me to it. (2 Cor 12:11)

It is likely that the super-apostles had boasted about visions and revelations and that the Corinthians had compared Paul unfavorably with them. The Corinthians would have assumed that Paul had not received many revelations because he had not told them about them. Paul then needed to show the Corinthians that he had indeed received powerful revelations that he had not previously told them about. But how could he do this without, by example, endorsing the same inappropriate boasting for which he condemned the super-apostles? This dilemma explains Paul's approach in 2 Cor 12:1-5.

Paul frames his discussion of his revelation by further emphasizing his reluctance to boast:

It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. (2 Cor 12:1)

On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, ... (2 Cor 12:5)

He also demonstrated to the Corinthians that he was reluctant to talk about the revelation:

was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. (2 Cor 12:4)

and he may here be contrasting his own modest reticence with the unrestrained boasting of the "super-apostles".

Paul's use of third person narrative
Paul's purpose of showing his reluctance to boast is also served by his use the the third person. By transferring the story from himself to "a man in Christ", Paul makes his account sound much less boastful and by this means he expresses his disapproval of direct boasting. That this is the reason for his use of the third person is demonstrated by 2 Cor 12:5 where he virtually says as much.

Luke too uses the "modest third person", as I argued here.

The significance of "14 years" in 2 Cor 12:2
The revelation that Paul chooses to cite as an example is not mentioned elsewhere either by Paul or by Luke and its content could not be repeated (2 Cor 12:4). This suggests that Paul did not often talk about this revelation and I suggest that he had not breathed a word about it to the Corinthians during his visit(s) to them. Paul's decision to cite this particular revelation and to mention its date now become clear when we consider the chronology. Paul had visited the Corinthians in 50-51, some 5 or 6 years before the time of writing. It would therefore have been immediately obvious to the Corinthians that Paul had received his revelation well before his 18 month visit to them and that he had kept a modest silence about it throughout that time. Paul's mention of the "14 years" therefore serves to show the Corinthians that they should not conclude that Paul did not receive revelations from Paul's silence about them. By mentioning the 14 years Paul is contrasting his own modest silence about the revelation with his rivals' boasting. I think this point about the relative chronology of the revelation and Paul's first visit to Corinth may be new, as I have not seen it in the commentaries.

Paul could have written, "I have received greater revelations than the super-apostles, but, unlike them, I don't talk about them", but such a boast would have negated itself and would have been against Paul's principles (2 Cor 12:6b). The subtle mention of the 14 years allows the Corinthians to come to the same conclusion on their own, without Paul having to spell it out to them.

Implications
Some think that Paul refers to the revelation of 14 years ago because it was his most recent major revelation, and they infer that he had few revelations. Thus Barrett p 308: "So Paul must go back fourteen years ... for a suitable example of visions and revelations of the Lord. He was thus ordinarily anything but a visionary ...". This thinking is flawed. Paul mentions this revelation precisely because he received it well before his long stay in Corinth (and because he had not previously mentioned it to the Corinthians).

It seems to me that 2 Cor 12:2 lends a little support to the chronology of Acts. The text fits Paul's purposes best if he had spent several months in Corinth within the previous 9 years or so. Only then would the Corinthians have realized instantly (without counting years) that Paul had been with them for a long time without breathing a word about his earlier revelation. The 18 month stay of Acts 18:11, five or six years before the time of 2 Corinthians, works nicely.

Mary of Rom 16:6

2011-05-01T10:11:00.000-07:00

In Rom 16:3-15 Paul asks his audience to greet 26 individuals, which is far more people than he greets in any other letter. Paul's aim here is presumably to build up his relationship with the Christians of Rome by establishing that he and they have common friends. We should therefore expect the people to be named in descending order of the strength of their connection with both Paul and the church of Rome. This does seem to be the case. The first to be mentioned are Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3-5), who were well known to Paul and also important to the church of Rome (since a church met in their house). Next come Epaenetus, whose importance to Paul's work I have discussed here. Next comes Mary, whom I discuss below. Then we have Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), who were prominent apostles and had been in prison with Paul. The remaining 20 individuals are mentioned in just 8 verses.

While Junia has received a lot of attention, Mary (Rom 16:6) has gone almost unnoticed. She is mentioned ahead of Andronicus and Junia, which seems surprising since Paul gives no indication of personal links with her. If she had been an important co-worker of Paul or his close friend, he surely would have mentioned it. So it seems to me that her position in the list, ahead of Andronicus and Junia, is explicable only if she was very well known and respected by the Christians in Rome. Paul's audience would, of course, have known of her prominence in their church, so Paul would have had no need to mention it. He says only that she has worked hard in Rome, and I think he is saying here that she deserves the respect that accompanies her leadership role in the church (compare 1 Cor 16:16).

Tal Ilan (Lexican of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity part III p64) counts 23 Jews with the name Mary/Mariam/Marian in the western diaspora, out of 552 females. This amounts of 4.2%. In Palestine, on the other hand, (part I p55-56) 70 Jews had the name, out of 317 female Jews. This amounts to 22.1%. Therefore the name was about 5 times more popular in Palestine than in the western diaspora. This observation, which has been overlooked by the commentators, suggests that she had moved to Rome from Palestine. She may have introduced the Christian faith to Rome, and this would account for her prominence there. It matters little whether the Latin name Μαρίαν or the Hebrew Μαριάμ was the original. A Μαριάμ could easily have adopted the name Μαρίαν after moving to Rome.

In summary, the Mary was the most prominent member of the church of Rome known to Paul.

Commentators have differed greatly in their understanding of her. Origen patronized her:

Paul is teaching here that women too ought to work for the churches of God. They work when they teach childreen how to behave, when they love their husbands, when they feed their children, when they are modest and chaste, when they keep a good household, when they are kind, when they are submissive to their husbands, when they exercise hospitality, when they wash the feet of the saints, and when they do all the other things which are allotted to women in the Bible. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. CER 5:248

Chrysostom gave her a teaching role (Homilies on Romans NPNF 1 11:554), but in 1879 William Shedd denied her such a role. Olshausen (1849) and Dodd (1932) did not mention her at all! In 1994 MacArthur suggested that she was a founding member of the church of Rome. Osborne (2004) concludes that "she did play an important role in the life of the church" of Rome. Jewett (2007) writes, "Miriam functioned as an evangelist in Rome". It would seem, then, that commentators are beginning to recognize this Mary's importance.

New evidence that Lucius/Luke wrote Acts

2011-04-22T08:19:00.000-07:00

In Rom 16:21-23 Paul sends greetings to the Romans from 8 individuals, including Lucius (which is the full form of the name "Luke"). I have suggested before that they are listed in descending order of their prominence in the church, but I now think we can be more precise about what kind of prominence pertains here. Paul will have sent greetings from those who were known to many of the members of the church of Rome. The greeters were therefore those who, by traveling among the churches, had met believers who subsequently moved to Rome (Tertius may be an exception since he had developed a connection with the addressees simply by writing down the letter). Many (or all?) of those greeted in Rom 16:3-15 had moved to Rome as believers from elsewhere, and the recent death of Claudius in 54 may have allowed the return to Rome of those whom he had expelled. Prisca, Aquila, Andronicus, Junia, Epaenetus, and Rufus and his mother had all moved to Rome from elsewhere. There must have been many Christians with Paul in Corinth when he wrote Romans, but only those who had travelled among the churches would have been known to more than a few of the believers in Rome. Two points confirm that Rom 16:21-23 is not a list of those who happened to pass through Paul's room when he was dictating the letter, but is rather a list of those who had traveled.

Firstly, it is significant that no women are listed among the greeters. This is in contrast to Rom 15:1-15, which mentions 27 people, of which 10 are women. The absence of women in Rom 16:21-23 is explicable if only travelers are listed, since women did not travel (see here).

Secondly, many of those listed are known to have travelled. Timothy had travelled extensively with Paul. I have argued that Jason was from Thessalonika and was Aristarchus, who was Paul's travel companion (Acts 19:29; 20:4). Sosipater was Sopater, another traveller (Acts 20:4). Gaius was, I have argued, Stephanas, who had been to Ephesus on church business. Erastus was the Erastus who had travelled around the Aegean with Timothy (Acts 19:22).

This analysis shows that Lucius too must have travelled among the churches. Indeed, he is mentioned second only to Timothy, and his prominence in the list suggests that he had been a more prolific traveller than the others (Jason, Sosipater, Gaius, Erastus and Quartus). But how widely had he travelled? I suggest that a clue can be found in 2 Cor 8:18-19 where we read of a "brother" who

"is famous among all the churches for his proclaiming the good news; and not only that, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us while we are administering this generous undertaking for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our goodwill"

This brother had been appointed to accompany Paul to Judea so he was almost certainly with Paul when Paul wrote Romans just before leaving for Judea. He was well known in "all the churches" so he was presumably known to many who had moved to Rome. It is very likely, therefore, that he is one of those who sent greetings in Rom 16:21-23. He cannot have been Timothy, not least because Timothy was Titus. Therefore he was either Lucius or he was one of those mentioned after Lucius (Jason, Sosipater, etc.). Therefore Lucius was either the man who was famous among the churches, or he was even more prominent than him.

He must surely have been the author of Acts because:

1. It is unlikely that Acts would have failed to mention one who travelled among the churches so extensively.
2. The author of Acts would almost certainly have sent greetings to the church of Rome since he would have known many of them through his extensive travel, and he was with Paul in Corinth at the time that Romans was written since he planned to travel with Paul to Judea (Acts 20:2-5). Ro 16:21-23 contains a complete list of the prominent believers who were in Corinth at the time. See also my discussion here.
3. The name "Lucius" is the full form of the name "Luke", which the church fathers unanimously attach to Luke-Acts.

In Philemon 23-24 Paul sends greetings from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke. Again there are no women among the greeters, which suggests that Paul is here sending greetings from those who knew Philemon from visiting his town. This is supported by the fact that Aristarchus frequently travelled on church business (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2). Epaphras was also a church envoy if I am right to equate him with Ephaphroditus (see here). For what it is worth, the disputed letters also assume that Epaphras (Col 4:12), Mark (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11), and Demas (2 Tim 4:10) were traveling co-workers of Paul.

I think we can be confident, therefore, that Luke was a traveling co-worker of Paul. This point tightens the argument for equating him with the Lucius of Rom 16:21 and the author of Acts.

For more on why the author of Acts = Luke = Lucius, see my earlier posts here, here and here.

The prominence of women in the early church

2011-04-19T16:34:00.000-07:00

I have argued before that the historical Paul treated men and women equally and that he has been misrepresented by copyists and by the disputed letters. See my posts here and here. But why, then, do Paul's letters mention far more men than women? I will argue here that it is largely because women were not able to travel independently of male relatives in the ancient world.

Paul's undisputed letters

Below are listed all the Christians mentioned in the undisputed letters of Paul. Women are given in red font. Prisca, Junia and the mother of Rufus had travelled, but had done so with their male relatives (Aquila, Andronicus and Rufus). Phoebe probably travelled with servants or male relatives since she was wealthy and was probably returning to Rome following the expulsion by Claudius. It can be seen that we know of no women who travelled independently of male members of their households. The role of church envoy was taken exclusively by men.

In Rom 16:21-23 Paul sends greetings from Tertius and 7 others. These 7 were probably people who, through travel, had come to know many of those who were currently in Rome. This explains why all 7 are men. Similarly, Philemon 23-24 is probably a list of those who had visited Philemon's town. In my next post I will discuss the implications for the identity of the author of Acts.

Those mentioned in non-traveling contexts and those who traveled with family members of the other sex: ~28 men, 14 women

Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2); Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3-4); Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7); Epaenetus, Mary, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, his mother, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, Philologus, Julia, Nereus, his sister, Olympas (Rom 16:1-15); Tertius (Rom 16:22); Crispus-Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1,14); Gaius (1 Cor 1:14); Chloe (1 Cor 1:12); James (1 Cor 15:7); Euodia, Syntyche, and Clement (Phil 4:2-3); Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus (Philemon 1-2); Cephas and the Lord's brothers (1 Cor 9:5-6).

Other travelers: ~23 men

Paul; Titus (Gal 2:1); Apollos (1 Cor 1:12); Barnabas (1 Cor 9:5-6; Gal 2:1); Silvanus (2 Cor 1:19); Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17); 2 anonymous brothers (2 Cor 8:18-23); An anonymous brother (2 Cor 12:18); Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25-30); Onesimus (Philemon 10); Timothy, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Gaius, Erastus, Quartus (Rom 16:21-23); Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke (Philemon 23-24)

The same picture emerges when we repeat the exercise for Acts and the disputed Pauline letters: women did not travel (except Priscilla with her husband).

Acts

Those mentioned in non-traveling contexts and those who traveled with family members of the other sex
Theophilus (Acts 1:1);
Certain women including Mary, mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14);
Jesus' brothers (Acts 1:14);
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1);
Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicolaus (Acts 6:5);
Simon (Acts 8:9);
Ananias (Acts 9:10); Aeneas (Acts 10:32);
Tabitha (Acts 10:36);
Cornelius (Acts 10:1);
Simon (Acts 10:6);
Mary (Acts 12:12);
Rhoda (Acts 12:13);
James (Acts 12:17);
Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Paul (Acts 13:1);
Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6);
Timothy's mother (Acts 16:1);
Lydia (Acts 16:14); Jailer (Acts 16:23); Jason (Acts 17:5); Dionysius and Damaris (Acts 17:34); Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2); Titius-Justus (Acts 18:7); Crispus-Sosthenes (Acts 18:8, 17); Eutychus (Acts 20:9); Four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9);
Mnason (Acts 21:16).

Other travelers
Peter, John, James, Andrew, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas of James (Acts 1:13); Joseph Barsabbas, Matthias (Acts 1:23); Agabus (Acts 11:27); John-Mark (Acts 12:12); Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13); Judas-Barsabbas, Silas-Silvanus (Acts 15:22); Silas (Acts 15:40); Timothy (Acts 16:1); Apollos (Acts 18:24); Erastus (Acts 19:22); Gaius (Acts 19:29); Sopater, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus(Acts 20:4).

Disputed letters attributed to Paul

Those mentioned in non-traveling contexts and those who traveled with family members of the other sex: 14 men, 5 women
Nympha (Col 4:15); Archippus (Col 4:17); Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20); Lois, Eunice (2 Tim 1:5); Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15); Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17); Carpus (2 Tim 4:13); Onesiphorus (2 Tim 4:19); Prisca and Aquila (2 Tim 4:19); Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20); Eubulus, Pudens, Linus (2 Tim 4:21); Claudia (2 Tim 4:21).

Other travelers: 14 men

Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7); Mark (Col 4:10); Aristarchus, Jesus called Justus (Col 4:11); Ephaphras (Col 4:12); Luke and Demas (Col 4:14); Demas and Crescens and Titus and Mark and Tychicus (2 Tim 4:9-12); Erastus (2 Tim 4:20); Artemas, Tychicus, Zenas and Apollos (Tit 2:12-13); Onesiphorus household (2 Tim 1:16).

Women and travel in the ancient world
It is difficult to find examples of women travelers in the ancient world. Travel was physically demanding and dangerous for women. This is illustrated by a boast of Ramses III in an inscription at Medinet Habu, "I caused the woman of Egypt to walk freely wheresoever she would unmolested by others upon the road." (Thanks to Jack Kilmon for pointing this out to me). There was more equality between the sexes in Egypt than in any other part of the ancient world, and safe travel from women was clearly not the norm, even there.

Conclusion
The history of the expansion of the church is inevitably the history of those who could travel. This goes a long way to explaining why we have far more men than women in Paul's letters and Acts. We have seen that, when those with exclusively traveling roles are excluded, about a third of those mentioned by Paul are women. This is a higher ratio than we find in other sources. Only 22% of Diaspora Jews known to us were female (Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part III The Western Diaspora 330 BCE-650 CE, p61.). In the 6 volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names only 11% of persons are female.

Al Wolters responds on Junia

2011-02-27T23:06:00.000-08:00

Al Wolters has kindly responded to my last post where I critiqued his suggestion that we might have a male Hebrew name in Rom 16:7 instead of a female "Junia". With his permission I paste Al's comments below.

Thanks for alerting me to your discussion of my JBL article on Junia/s. Here are a few brief responses:

(1) I am pleased that you do not dispute the main point of my article: that a Hebrew name Yehunni was known and used in Paul's day, and that it would have been Hellenized as Iounias, -ou.

(2) You are right that Maria could also be a Roman name, assuming that the person in question belonged to the Roman gens Maria, or was a former slave belonging to a member of that gens. However, this doesn't affect my argument, since you agree that the Maria of Rom 16:6 "was almost certainly Jewish."

(3) You write: "A man called Yehunni, after moving to Rome, would likely have taken a Greek or Latin name, such as Junius." Might he not instead, since the name Junius would imply either that he belonged to a prominent Roman gens, or was an ex-slave, have chosen to Latinize his Hebrew name as Junias, on the analogy of names like Andreas?

(4) I am intrigued by your claim that, with virtually no exceptions, "[w]hen Palestinian Christian Jews travelled to Gentile territories where Semitic names would not have been familiar, they took a Greek or Latin name." I notice that this claim contains multiple qualifiers (Palestinian, Christian, Jewish, Gentile territories where Semitic names were unfamiliar), so that the many examples of Jews who did keep Hellenized or Latinized versions of their Hebrew names outside of Palestine, but were not Christians, or lived in places like Babylon or Egypt, cannot be cited as counter-evidence. However, even with these restrictions, in seems to me (without doing a systematic search) that the apostle John (Ioannes) is a clear counter-example, since he lived for years in Ephesus.

(5) You state: "The likely original name of Junia is Joanna," following Bauckham. I would assess this claim much as you assess my argument on Junia/s: it is just possible, but highly unlikely. If IOYNIAN does represent the female Latin name Junia, then a much closer Hebrew equivalent would be Yehunni, which could also be a woman's name, and would have the advantage (in your view) of having an almost perfect Latin "sound-equivalent."

(6) It is my own view that the much higher incidence of Junia compared to Yehunni makes it more likely that IOYNIAN in Rom 16:7 is a woman's name rather than a man's. In my judgment, however, it is only marginally more likely. There are other factors (such as the preponderance of male leadership in Paul's circle) which add weight to the other side. My article was meant to show that it is not unreasonable to defend the view that Junia/s was male. As is the case with so many exegetical questions, we need to be satisfied with degrees of probability.

Here are my own responses to the points that Al makes.

(1) I am not qualified to assess your claim that "Yehunni" would have been Hellenized as Iounias, -ou. As you know, Tal Ilan, sees Yehunni as a variant of "Honi", rather than a name in its own right. One of the two men named Yehunni was designated "the smith". This might support Ilan's view since the designation would serve to distinguish this Yehunni from all the others called Honi, which was a more common name.

(2) You seem to misunderstand my point about Maria. I was merely saying that she does not provide you with a precedent of a Christian using a Hebrew name that would be unfamiliar to his or her neighbours. Maria was able to keep that Hebrew name because it, unlike Yehunni, was also a Latin name.

(4) You are right to cite John as a possible precedent. However, the name "John" was very common and therefore might not have been completely unfamiliar to his Greek neighbours (unlike Yehunni). It was the fifth most popular name in Palestine and 11th in the Western Diaspora, according to Ilan's statistics. Also, I think it is unlikely that the author of Revelation would have wanted to identify himself in his text, for fear of reprisals. This suggests that "John" was not the name by which he was normally known. It may be that he was normally known by a Greek or Latin substitute name.

(6) We do see female leaders in Paul's circle (Prisca, Phoebe, and probably Lydia, Euodia and Syntyche). It is true that the traveling missionaries tended to be male, but we must ask why this was. I am willing to be corrected, but I suspect that it would have been hard for women to get the necessary permission from their husbands/fathers to embark on missionary journeys, and that it would have been dangerous for them to travel alone, and that they might have scandalized the very people whom they hoped to convert if they had travelled with male non-relatives. These restrictions would not have applied to Junia, who travelled with her husband (Andronicus), who was also an apostle. So the scarcity of female traveling missionaries is not necessarily an argument against Junia being one.

Even if we did not know that Junia was a female name, we would still suspect that Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife. They are greeted by Paul as a two-some and are given no separate designations. They seem to have had a long association with each other, since both were in prison with him, and both were in the faith before him. Paul greets and describes them as a two-person unit, in much the same way that he does Prisca and Aquila.

So, since the name "Yehunni" was so rare, and since apostles generally abandoned their Hebrew/Aramaic names when they went to Gentile lands, I think it is highly unlikely that Paul refers in Rom 16:7 to a man called Yehunni.

Junia, a female apostle, or a Hebrew man's name?

2011-02-24T23:53:00.000-08:00

Suzanne McCarthy discusses a paper by Al Wolters, who argued that the name in Rom 16:7 could be the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehunni, which would make it a man's name. (JBL 127, no. 2 (2008): 397-408, available online here).

On page 398 Wolters writes:

After all, it would not be surprising if a person whom Paul numbers among his kinfolk (συγγενείς) should turn out to have a specifically Jewish name, comparable to the Μαρία of the previous verse.

Not so fast! The problem here is that Μαρία is not a specifically Jewish name. As well as the Hebrew name, we have the Latin name, Maria, which is the feminine form of Marius. For this reason Tal Ilan writes,

of the 50 Mariams recorded, only 23 are indubitably Jewish. (Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part III. p5)

While the Maria of Rom 16:6 was almost certainly Jewish, it is likely that she kept her original name only because it also worked as a Roman name. When Palestinian Christian Jews travelled to Gentile territories where Semitic names would not have been familiar, they took a Greek or Latin name that would be recognized there. Cephas-Peter, Simeon-Simon, Saul-Paul, Silas-Silvanus, and John-Mark are good examples. It is hard to think of exceptions to this rule. Barnabas is a special case because the name carried significant meaning (Acts 4:36), which would have been lost if he had been given a familiar Greek or Latin name. Apart from Barnabas, Paul refers to no-one in Gentile territories by a Semitic name (Jesus called Justus of Col 4:11 is no exception because he probably never existed, and his Latin name is given in any case). So Wolter's suggestion that Paul referred to the hypothetical Yehunni by his Hebrew name has no good parallels. A man called Yehunni, after moving to Rome, would likely have taken a Greek or Latin name, such as Junius, rather than transliterating his name as Wolters supposes.

The likely original name of Junia is Joanna, since it is so similar in sound. Indeed Bauckham has argued that Junia was the Joanna of Luke 8:3; 24:10 (Gospel Women p109-202). Joanna was a common name in Palestine. Tal Ilan lists 12 women of that name in Palestine out of a total of 402 women (Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part 1 Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE). Thus about 3% of women had that name. Wolters, on the other hand, finds only 2 men called Yehunni, which represents just 0.08% of the 2505 men listed by Tal Ilan. This figure of 0.08% for Yehunni is much less than the 3% for Joanna.

We can therefore be very confident that Junia was a woman.

Robert King on Titus-Timothy

2011-02-20T21:02:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I chanced upon a book by Robert King, which argues that Titus was Timothy ("Who was St. Titus?: The Scripture Notices on the Subject Compared with Received Opinions.."). The book was published in ..... 1853! Here I will post some reflections on King's book, which is available free on-line here.

I was excited to discover King's book, but shocked that I had not come across it before, since I have worked with Titus-Timothy for 13 years. Equally alarming is that no-one else seems to have been aware of the book, including Borse, Von Lips and James Dunn, who have commented on the the Titus-Timothy hypothesis. I have found only one reference to the book: a critique in the Westminster Review of the same year, available on Google Books, here. It seems, then, that at least four people have independently come to the conclusion that Titus was Timothy, unaware of each other's work.

Why, then, has Robert King's book been so thoroughly ignored? I think there are two reasons.

Firstly, the theory that Titus was Timothy sounds bazaar to many people when they first come across it. One leading scholar, who will remain nameless, wrote to me "You don't seriously think that Titus and Timothy were the same person, do you? That would be one of the stranger ideas I have come across!". I sent him/her a link to my work on Titus-Timothy, and, needless to say, I have no reason to believe that he/she read any of it. Many have difficulty getting over their initial surprise and are unable to form a logical response. It is fascinating to read the first page of King's preface, which shows that King, too, was aware that his theory was going to struggle to overcome people's initial gut response. He wrote, "The Supposition put forward in the following pages as to the identity of SS. Timothy and Titus will naturally be regarded by most readers as a very strange and paradoxical one."

The second reason, I think, for the neglect of King's book, is that it is very badly argued. He gives a very rambling discussion, with frequent diversions, and fails to drive home his points. He takes 250 pages to say what could be said in 10, and his stronger points are lost in the verbosity.

King's main focus is on the Corinthian correspondence. He points out that the information that we have on "Titus" in 2 Corinthians is exactly what we would expect to read of "Timothy". He notices that the Titus-Timothy hypothesis explains the absence of Titus from Acts (and from Rom 16). He makes surprisingly little use of Acts 16:1-3 and Gal 2:1-5. I think he makes two mistakes that I too used to make: he assumes that Timothy was a native of south Galatia rather than Antioch, and he assumes that "Timothy" was his name from birth.

King devotes a lot of space to objections to the hypothesis, but mentions no objection that has not already been discussed on this blog. He struggled with 2 Tim 4:10. Since he accepts the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, he is forced to suggest that there were two men called Titus in Paul's inner circle.

My own summary presentation of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis is here.

Things to click

2010-12-23T23:40:00.000-08:00

Firstly, happy Christmas and seasons greetings to you, my reader.

There has been some interesting stuff on Paul recently:

Scot Mcknight has an article on "Jesus vs. Paul"

There is a new Journal called "Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters", which has its own blog.

Jonathan Robinson has put his thesis online: Sex, Slogans and Σώµατα: Discovering Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.

Mark Goodacre has a few podcasts on Paul in the last three months.

Phillip Long has now almost completed a series of blog posts that present a fairly conventional understanding of Galatians.

The Review of Biblical Literature discusses David Downs' "The offering of the Gentiles: Paul's Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts".

Ken Schenck has a well argued and clearly written post that shows that Luke's intended audience knew that Paul had died soon after the events recorded in Acts.

Deane Galbraith gave a very full account of biblical studies blogging for November.

The renaming of benefactors

2010-12-19T23:37:00.000-08:00

Here I argue that the early church had a tradition of giving new names to its benefactors. I briefly discuss each individual example, and link to more detailed discussions so that the reader can assess the cumulative case for the hypothesis.

Below is a list of the benefactors (and probable benefactors) of the early church whom we know by name. It will be shown that the majority of them show evidence of having received new names in recognition of their benefactions. This may be a testimony to the importance that the early church placed on generosity.

Those who show evidence of having receiving a new name

Crispus-Sosthenes
Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14) was a synagogue ruler and was therefore a benefactor. He became a believer and was instrumental in the conversion of many in Corinth. The name "Sosthenes" means something like, "saving strength", which is a fitting name for Crispus. Sosthenes, like Crispus, was a/the synagogue ruler (Acts 18:17) and, like Crispus, he became a believer, and his name carried authority in Corinth (1 Cor 1:1). The beating of Sosthenes by the Jews at this time of food shortages (CE 51) is explicable if he was Crispus, the benefactor who had defected to Paul's camp. For more on Crispus-Sosthenes see my Tyndale Bulletin article and my web page.

Joseph-Barnabas
Luke reports:

There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (Acts 4:36-37)

Barnabas was therefore a benefactor and had been given a new name. It is not clear whether his name had been given in response to any benefactions that the had made. For a little more on Barnabas, see here.

Mariam the Magdalene
The epithet "Magdalene" means "tower" and is a metaphor for protective strength. It is therefore very suitable for this Mary, who was a benefactor of the Jesus movement (Luke 8:2-3). There are close parallels to this style of naming: Crispus-Sosthenes (saving strength), Simeon-Cephas (rock), James-Oblias (bulwark of the people). The similarity in sound between Mariam and Magdalene increases the probability that "Magdalene" was a new name, rather than merely a reference to a place of birth. For more on this Mary, click here.

Gaius Titius Justus-Stephanas
"Stephanas" means something like "crowned" and is therefore a very suitable name for a benefactor of the church (synagogue benefactors, like pagan benefactors were frequently given physical or metaphorical crowns). Stephanas had put his household at the church's service (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15-18). He was therefore a benefactor with a name to match. Paul tries to persuade the Corinthians to show respect for Stephanas, and to this end he reminds them that Stephanas's household was the "firstfruits of Achaia" (1 Cor 16:15-18), meaning that the conversion of Stephanas and his household was the breakthrough that led to the formation of the Corinthian church. In Acts 18:7 this same role is played by Titius Justus, who makes his house available to Paul. Earlier Titius Justus (or his family) had probably given a wing of his house for use as the synagogue. In 1 Cor 16:15-18 Paul tries to unite the Corinthian church under the roof of Stephanas, but in Rom 16:23 it is Gaius who hosts the whole church, and Gaius, like Stephanas, was one of the first converts in Corinth because he was baptized by Paul himself (1 Cor 1:14). All his suggest that we a looking at one person whose praenomen, nomen, cognomen, and Agnomen were Gaius, Titius, Justus, and Stephanas respectively. I have discussed Stephanas on this block, here, here, and here.

Jason-Aristarchus
Jason hosted Paul and other believers (Acts 17:6-9). He appears later in Corinth and is mentioned in Rom 16:21, where we would expect Paul to mention Aristarchus (Acts 20:4). Both Jason and Aristarchus were from Thessalonica and bother were Jews, which is significant since the church of Thessalonica comprised mostly Gentiles. The name "Aristarchus" means "best archon/ruler", which is an appropriate name for Paul to give to Jason. This hypothesis explains why Aristarchus is included among the greeters in Philemon 23 and is the only name that is not abbreviated or informal: Paul uses his full name to allude to his benefactions in the hope that Philemon will follow his example and make a benefaction of Onesimus. See my blog post here.

Theophilus
Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) is often considered the benefactor who sponsored the publication of Luke and Acts. The name, meaning "lover of God", is appropriate, and there are precedents for almost identical names being used a epithets, including by a Christian benefactor. See my web page here.

Tabitha/Dorcas
Tabitha (Acts 36-41) was a generous believer. Luke translates her name into Greek, which suggests that "Tabitha" was a new name, rather than her birth name. The name Tabitha/Dorcas means "gazelle" and, like "Aquila", symbolizes good eyes, which was a metaphor for generosity. Therefore Tabitha had probably received her name in recognition of her generosity. See my blog post here.

Aquila
If Tabitha was a new name, Aquila (Acts 18:2-3, 18, 26; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3) probably was too. He was a benefactor of the church and his name means "eagle", which, like the Gazelle, was known for its good eyes.

Epaenetus
Epaenetus (Rom 16:5) was the "firstfruits of Asia." This suggests that he may have been a benefactor who had kick-started the church in Asia (compare Stephanas above). If so, he probably received his name, "Epaenetus" in recognition of his generosity, because the name means "praised" and is in the semantic field of ancient benefaction. See my blog post here.

Phoebe
Phoebe was a benefactor of the church (Rom 16:1-2). Her name is Greek and means "shining". It could have been given to her to reflect her role in the church, with a metaphor such as that of Matt 6:22-23 in mind. However, the meaning of the name is very general and not exclusively connected to benefaction, so Phoebe provides little evidence for the phenomenon of benefaction names in the early church.

Footnotes
The benefactor names theory makes good sense of Paul's choice of greeters in Rom 16:21-23. No longer are Crispus, Stephanas, and Aristarchus strangely absent. Instead, Rom 16:21-23 represents a complete list of all the well known believers who were in Corinth at that time. See my blog post here.

It is possible that Titus-Timothy received his new name in recognition either of an act of personal benefaction or the part that he played in organizing the collection from Galatia. "Timothy" means "honoring God" and for Paul, at least, benefactions brought honor to God (2 Cor 8:19; 9:11-13). It is, however, possible that Titus was named "Timothy" for an unrelated reason.

Those who show no evidence of receiving a new name
It is, of course, not surprising that Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) were not honored with new names.

Lydia (Acts 6:4-15, 40) was probably a benefactor of the church. If she received a new name, we have no evidence of it.

Luke 8:2-3 suggests that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna were benefactors of the work of Jesus. Mary Magdalene was the most prominent, because she is mentioned first here, as elsewhere. I know of no evidence that Joanna or Susanna received new names.

Conclusion
The majority of NT benefactors of the church were given new names in recognition of their generosity.

Comments are welcome.

Benefactor=good eyes=Gazelle (Tabitha) and Eagle (Aquila)

2010-12-19T23:33:00.000-08:00

Tabitha (Acts 9:36-42), meaning "Gazelle" and Aquila (Acts 18:2-3, 18, 26; 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3-5), meaning "Eagle" were benefactors of their believing communities and both animals were known for their good eyes. For ancient Jews and early Christians, good eyes symbolized generosity and I will argue here that these individuals had been given their names in recognition of their generosity.

We have good evidence that most of the benefactors of the early church were given new names in recognition of their generosity. I have provided a summary.

In this post I will first show that the meaning of the name "Tabitha" had great significance for Luke and should not be considered a birth name. Then, I will show that the name, meaning "gazelle", is an appropriate name to be given to her in recognition of her contributions to the community. Rick Strelan's paper ("Tabitha: The Gazelle of Joppa (Acts 9:36-41)", Biblical Theology Bulletin. May 2009), which is now available on-line here, provided much of the stimulus for my own thinking. I will engage with Strelan's work in appendix 1 below.

"Tabitha" was not her birth name

Acts 9:36-40 reads,

Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which in Greek is Dorcas. She was devoted to good works and acts of charity. At that time she became ill and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in a room upstairs. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, who heard that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, "Please come to us without delay." So Peter got up and went with them; and when he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs. All the widows stood beside him, weeping and showing tunics and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was with them.

Tabitha and Dorcas both mean gazelle, so in Acts 9:36 Luke is translating the name "Tabitha". In English we could render this verse, "Now in Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which means "Gazelle"". In Acts 9:40, however, Luke uses the word "Gazelle" (Dorcas) as her name. It is not clear whether Tabitha was already known also by the name "Dorcas", or Luke is here giving her that name for the first time. It doesn't matter much. The important question is why the name "Tabitha" was rendered into Greek (at least by Luke). A clue can be found in the following survey of all the NT characters whose names were translated into Greek in early church documents:

Cephas-Petros (John 1:42)

Barnabas, which Luke interprets 'son of ~exhortation' (Acts 4:36)

Elymas, which Luke interprets to mean 'magician' (Acts 13:8)

Boanerges, which Mark interprets, 'sons of thunder' (Mark 3:17).

Thomas-Didymos (John 20:24 and gospel of Thomas)

Simon Kananaios-Zelotes (Matt 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13) Both epithets mean "zealous".

James the Just. Eusebius quotes Hegessipus as saying that 'James was called the Just and Oblias, which signifies in Greek "Bulwark of the people"'.

In probably all 7 cases the name that is translated was not given at birth, but was given at a later time because of its meaning. This strongly suggests that Tabitha was not her birth name either.

Some have suggested that Jews often took an additional (Greek) name that was a translation of their (Semitic) birth name, and that Tabitha-Dorcas is such a double name. However, this would not explain why Luke gives "Gazelle" as the translation of Tabitha, rather than as Tabitha's bi-name. Also, there is almost no evidence that Jews ever did translate their birth names in ancient times (see appendix 2 below). The earliest commentators on this passage, who were much closer to ancient naming practices than we are, did not interpret "Dorcas" as a mundane translation of a birth name, but saw symbolism in the name.

John Chrysostom (A.D. 349-407) wrote:

It is not without a meaning that the writer has informed us of the woman's name, but to show that the name she bore matched her character; as active and wakeful was she as an antelope. (Homily 21 on Acts of Apostles)

Bede (A.D. 672/3-735) wrote:

Now at Jaffa there was a woman disciple by the name of Tabitha, which means Dorcas, that is, "deer," or "fallow deer," signifying souls exalted by the practice of virtues although contemptible in the eyes of people. For the blessed Luke would not have provided the meaning of the name if he had not known there was strong symbolism in it. The deer and the fallow deer are animals that are similar in nature, though different in size. They dwell on high mountains, and they see all who approach, no matter how far away they may be. Hence in Greek they are called dorcades from he sharpness of their vision.

It is therefore unlikely that "Tabitha" was her birth name. Why then, might she have been named, "Tabitha"? Well, immediately after giving the translation of her name, Luke mentions her good deeds and charity and this may be a hint that she had received her name for her benefactions.

Tabitha was "devoted to good works and acts of charity" (Acts 9:36), such as making clothes for widows (Acts 9:39). Aquila too, was a benefactor, since he provided his house for Paul (Acts 18:2-3) and as a meeting place for believers (1 Cor 16:19 and Rom 16:3-5). Note that Aquila's name appears before that of Prisca/Priscilla in the two passages where their benefaction is prominent (Acts 18:2-3 and 1 Cor 16:19), indicating that he (not surprisingly) was in charge of the resources.

"Tabitha" is Aramaic, which is consistent with the view that it was not her birth name. Hacklili writes, “nicknames are mostly in Aramaic, with some in Hebrew” (These are the names. Studies in Jewish Onomastics vol. 3 Ed. Demsky. p105). "Aquila" is Latin, which would not be surprising if the name was given in Rome.

The good eyes of the gazelle and the eagle

John Chrysostom wrote:

But are you clear sighted? Not as the gazelle; not as the eagle. Homily 7 on Philippians

This illustrates the reputation of the gazelle and the eagle for acute vision. The exceptional vision of the eagle requires little discussion. Along with other predatory birds, the eagle has the best vision of all creatures. Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636), even suggested that the eagle was given its name (Aquila) because of its high quality vision:

The eagle (aquila) is named from the acuity of its vision (acumen oculorum), for it is said that they have such sight that when they soar above the sea on unmoving wings, and invisible to human sight, from such a height they can see small fish swimming, and descending like a bolt seize their prey and carry it to shore with their wings. Etymologiae XII.7.10

The Gazelle has exceptional vision for movement because it must watch out for predators. Its eyes are open from birth and are on opposite sides of its head, giving it nearly 360 degree vision. It has striking large dark eyes.

The quotation from Bede above further confirms the gazelle's reputation for acute vision, and suggests that the Greek name, δορκάς, actually signifies good vision. Bede seems to be dependent here on Isidore of Seville, who writes:

Greeks call these wild goats δορκάδες because they see very sharply, that is ὀξυδερκέστερον. They dwell in high mountains and, although far-off, see all who approach. Etymologiae XII.1.15

Liddell and Scott give a very similar etymology for δορκάς: "a kind of deer (so called from its large bright eyes)". The very word, δορκάς, therefore represents good vision.

Intriguingly Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary gives "clear-sighted" as a translation of "Tabitha". I don't know why. Could "Tabitha" in Aramaic folk etymology have been considered to be a contraction of tb, meaning "good", and babatha, meaning "pupil of the eye"? I am out of my depth here.

Good eyes as a symbol of generosity

It is well established that, for Jews, a bad eye represented envy and stinginess (Francois P. Viljoen, "A contextualised reading of Matthew 6:22-23: 'Your eye is the lamp of your body'", Hervormde Teologiese Studies vol 65 no. 1 Pretoria 2009; Rivka Ulmer, The evil eye in the Bible and in rabbinic literature. (Partly available on Google books)). The converse is also attested: a good eye represented generosity. We see this in Prov 22:9

He who has a good eye (tob ayin) will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.

and also in the Jerusalem Talmud:

One Abba Judah was there, who performed the law with a good eye. Being now reduced to poverty, when he saw the Rabbins he was dejected. He went home with a sad countenance. His wife said to him, "Why doth thy countenance languish?". He answered, "The Rabbins are come, and I know not what to do." She said to him, "You have one field left; go and sell half of it, and give to them," Which he did. And when they were departed he went to plough in the half of his field, and found a great treasure. Yerushalmi Horayot 3.4

More importantly, we see the same thing in Matt 6:22

If your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light

The context of this verse is the discussion of money and possessions in Matt 6:19-34, so the 'good eye' here represents generosity, as in the other passages. We can assume that the original intended audience understood the symbolism. It is therefore plausible that a name that signified good eyesight could symbolize generosity. We should therefore not be surprised if the believers named benefactors after the eagle and the gazelle, which had a reputation for exceptional vision.

The generosity of the gazelle

Strelan brings to our attention to the Aramaic Targum to Song of Songs 8.14,:

But in times of trouble, when we pray to you, be like a gazelle which sleeps with one eye closed and one eye open.

The writer here is wanting the Lord not only to notice them in times of trouble, but also to act. This text may therefore give us a hint that the gazelle had a reputation for being attentive to others' needs.

Strelan also quotes the Zohar, which dates to the thirteen century, but may contain earlier material.

our Rabbis have said that she [the gazelle] is the kindest of the animals, and she has more compassion than she has children. When all the animals are thirsty they gather around her, since they know her kind deeds ...

What is the gazelle of the dawn? She is an animal who is compassionate; among all the animals in the world, none is compassionate like her. Because, at a time when time is pressing on her and she needs to feed herself and all the animals, she goes into the distance, by a distant path, and brings food. And she does not want to eat until she comes back and returns to her place. Why? So that the rest of the animals may gather to her, so that she may divide that food for them. When she comes back, all the rest of the animals are gathered to her, and she stands in the middle and distributes portions to each and every one.

Conclusion

Since Luke went to the trouble of translating the name "Tabitha" into Greek, we can assume that the meaning of the name had significance. Tabitha and Aquila were benefactors of the church and it is likely that they had been named after animals with good eyes because good eyes signified generosity.

Footnote: Phoebe (Rom 16:1), whose name means "shining", was also a benefactor of the church. It is possible that she had been named with a metaphor such as that of Matt 6:22-23 in mind.

Appendix 1

Here, again, is the link to Strelan's piece on Tabitha. I am indebted to Strelan's thought provoking work, without which the ideas in this blog post would not have been developed. He points out that, in Acts, Tabitha has a positive, charitable image, that matches that of the Gazelle. I have followed Strelan in this line of thinking.

However, Strelan emphasizes not Tabitha's charity, but her proselyte or fringe status. He argues that the name was used (by Luke at least) as a metaphor for a proselyte or someone on the edge of the Jewish community. I don't agree.

We know the names of only about 19 proselytes to Judaism in the ancient world. About half of them took new names after conversion, but these new names did not, in general, place them on the fringes of the community, but rather asserted their belonging. Thus, the names "Judah" and "Sarah" were particularly common for proselytes. We do have the example of Yeshua Giora (Giora meaning "proselyte"), but here "Yeshua" is surely his conversion name, and "Giora" is a nickname to distinguish him from other Yeshuas. It is therefore unlikely that the name "Tabitha" was given to her or to anyone else as a conversion name to symbolize her proselyte status.

But was Tabitha's name unhistorical and brought into the text by Luke as a metaphor for proselyte status? Strelan seems at times to lean toward this view. For me, a major difficulty here is that Strelan is asking too much of the readers. How were the readers expected to uncover this hidden code that has been obscure to commentators for the last two thousand years? There is nothing explicit in the text that points to Tabitha's supposed proselyte status (whereas her charity is mentioned in the same breath as the meaning of her name). It is true that it would fit the theme of chapter 10 if Tabitha was a proselyte: it would represent a step in Peter's associations towards his fraternization with Gentiles. However, it is not clear how the original readers could have made that link while still in chapter 9.

The suggestion that Luke invented the name "Tabitha" here is problematic because Luke was not an inventor of names. The names that he uses were historical, as is shown by a comparison of the names in Acts and those in Paul's letters. Bauckham's work in Jesus and the eyewitnesses makes a good case that the names in the gospels were not invented either.

Appendix 2

Tal Ilan points out that "Some scholars believe that Jews used Greek names that correctly translated biblical ones". She then goes on to conclude that "there is little evidence" (Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part I p11). I have found a few commentators who assert that Jews had double names consisting of names of different languages with the same meaning. The authorities that they cite seem, for the most part, to trace back to Mussies, "The Jewish People in the First Century" vol 2 p1052. Mussies, in turn, cites various inscriptions, but none of them contain an example of a double name. Mussies does not cite examples of double naming to prove the thesis that the Jews employed translation names. Rather, he (and others) point to the fact that certain Greek names that were common among Jews had the same meanings as names that were common in Palestine. This argument is hopelessly unscientific. Mussies is cherry picking, and does not discuss Greek names that were common among Jews that had no common Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent. Nor does he discuss common Hebrew/Aramaic names that had no common Greek equivalent among Jews. Also, there may be other explanations for Mussies' observations. When Jews named their infants, they may have favored certain meanings, so that, in time certain meanings would be become popular in both the Jewish Greek onomasticon and the Jewish Hebrew/Aramaic onomasticon. It has not been demonstrated that there was conscious name translation going on. Also, even if parents did deliberately choose Greek names that translated Hebrew/Aramaic names, this does not mean that the child would thereby have a double name (and Mussies does not claim that it would). A child might have been named Theodotos in honor of his grandfather, Jonathan, but that does not mean that the child also bore the name Jonathan. Also, once a name, such as Theodotos, entered the Jewish onomosticon it would be passed on to subsequent generations and all connection with the equivalent Hebrew/Aramaic name might be lost. CPJ vol 1 p29 makes this point.

Most telling against the suggestion that Jews held translation double names is the lack of examples. Tal Ilan finds the names of 2531 diaspora Jews (Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part III The Western Diaspora 330 BCE- 650 CE). Yet, Williams, in her exhaustive study, finds only 54 cases of any form of double naming, and only about 3 of these can be considered possible examples of translation naming. Even allowing for under-reporting, we can safely conclude that Jews rarely, if ever, translated their birth names.

Titus-Timothy and the purpose of the tearful letter

2010-11-10T23:35:00.000-08:00

In this post we will test the hypothesis that Titus was Timothy by comparing the purpose of Timothy's prospective mission to Corinth in 1 Corinthians with the purpose of Titus's recent mission to Corinth in 2 Corinthians. I will build on the analysis of my last post where I argued that Timothy's mission was to combat the Corinthians' libertine doctrine. I have previously provided other evidence that the "two" missions were identical (see here and here).

1. Titus's mission to Corinth was to address an issue that would require disciplinary action (if the Corinthians failed to repent) (see 2 Cor 1:23; 2:2,6; 7:11). The same is true of Timothy's mission (1 Cor 4:21; 5:2,11).

2. There was a long-standing clash of lifestyles between Paul and some (many?) of the Corinthians. Paul, in imitation of Christ, exercised self-control and put the needs of the community first (1 Cor 8:13; 9:25-27). Some of the Corinthians, however, indiscriminately followed slogans like "all things are permitted" (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23) and were complacent about sexual immorality, idolatry, and food sacrificed to idols. Paul urged the Corinthians to imitate his lifestyle (1 Cor 4:16-17; 10:33-11:1).

Now, I suggest that the libertines responded by trying to turn the community against Paul. In the context of this clash of lifestyles rejection of Paul meant rejection of his lifestyle, and zeal for Paul meant zeal for his lifestyle. This explains the otherwise obscure connection between 1 Cor 9:1-3, where Paul addresses challenges to his authority, and the previous verse, 1 Cor 18:13, where he outlines his approach to food sacrificed to idols. Those who claimed the right to eat indiscriminately had tried to discredit Paul because of his opposition to their doctrine.
It also explains the connection between 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, where Paul urges the Corinthians to reject idolatry, and both 2 Cor 6:13 and 2 Cor 7:2 where he asks them to open their hearts to him. In the context of the clash of lifestyles, the implication is that they are to open their hearts to his way of life that rejected idolatry. Further evidence of an ideologically motivated attack on Paul by the libertines is found in 2 Cor 12:21-13:7 where they question whether Christ is speaking in Paul.
Paul had to defend himself against criticisms that were intended to discredit his lifestyle. He did so, not for the sake of his reputation, but for the sake of Corinthians, who needed to imitate his lifestyle. The Corinthians had misunderstood the motivation for his self-defense so he had to explain that it was for their benefit (2 Cor 12:19-21). We should not misunderstand Paul's letters in exactly the same way that the Corinthians had done. See Sean's post for further thoughts on the way Paul defends himself only as a means to bring his hearers to greater Christlikeness.

Let us turn now to the tearful letter. Paul wrote the letter "in order that your zeal for us might be made known to you before God" (2 Cor 7:12). Also, it does seem likely that the offender of 2 Cor 2:5-11 had criticized Paul in some way. The tearful letter and the offense therefore concerned the Corinthians' attitude toward Paul. Now, 1 Cor 4:3 and 2 Cor 13:7 show that Paul was not primarily concerned with what the Corinthians thought of him, and in 2 Cor 2:5,10 he even questions whether an offense had been committed, and in 2 Cor 7:12 he denies that he had written on account of the offender or on his own account. So why all the fuss? How can Paul, who cared little what people thought of him, have required the punishment of someone whose criticism had caused Paul little distress? And how can the Paul of 1 Cor 4:3 and 2 Cor 13:7 have written out of much distress and anguish of heart (2 Cor 2:4) just to make the Corinthians zealous for him? This seems inconsistent and egotistical.

The contradictions are resolved when we realize that the tearful letter was sent to counter the libertine doctrine. This issue of licentiousness would have caused Paul to write "out of much distress and anguish of heart" to bring the Corinthians back to zeal for him, meaning zeal for the lifestyle that he exemplified. In 2 Cor 7:12, as in 2 Cor 6:13; 7:1 and 1 Cor 9:1-3 we can assume that Paul expected his hearers to realize (from their familiarity with the context of their recent interactions with Paul) that Paul's lifestyle is in view. The offender's criticism of Paul was an attempt to turn the community against the imitation of Paul's lifestyle. The criticism, in and of itself, caused Paul no great pain, but it posed a huge danger to the community and therefore warranted punishment. Similarly the boasting in sexual immorality in 1 Cor 5:6-8 is compared to yeast that corrupts the whole dough. Paul's primary concern was not to defend himself against criticism, but rather that the Corinthians avoid the licentiousness that might result from that criticism (2 Cor 13:6-7). In the tearful letter Paul had addressed the criticism of himself but his motive had been misunderstood, for he had to explain that had not done so on account of himself nor on account of the offender, but that the Corinthians might have zeal for his lifestyle. This misunderstanding explains why Paul is cautious to avoid a repeat of the same misunderstanding (2 Cor 12:19-21).

So, we have deduced that Paul wrote the tearful letter to encourage zeal for his lifestyle, probably in opposition to the Corinthians' licentious lifestyle. This is exactly the same purpose for which Paul had sent Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor 4:17). Another parallel is that in both cases there is an indication that the zeal lay dormant and needed only to be re-awakened: in 1 Cor 4:17 Timothy need only remind them of Paul's ways, and in 2 Cor 7:12 he had written so that their zeal might be made known to them. The thoughts are very similar.

3. As I argued previously, Timothy's mission to Corinth was to deal with licentiousness. Here is some further evidence that Titus's mission had the same purpose:

a) For Paul the correct response to licentiousness was to "mourn" (1 Cor 5:2; 2 Cor 12:21), and this was the only issue that made Paul write of his tears (see Phil 3:17-19). So, since Paul wrote the tearful letter "with many tears" (2 Cor 2:4) and commended the Corinthians for having lamented in response to the letter (2 Cor 7:7), we should suspect that it was written to combat licentiousness.

b) It was "impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness" that made Paul's second visit to Corinth painful, and this visit was brought to mind by his fear that the same problems would recur on his next visit (2 Cor 12:21-13:2). At the time of Titus's mission Paul had the same recollection of his second visit and concern about his next visit: "So I made up my mind not to make you another painful visit" (2 Cor 2:1). This confirms that Titus's mission was to deal with these same issues of sexual immorality and licentiousness.

c) Paul's intention had been to spare the Corinthians (2 Cor 1:23) so it is doubtful that the tearful letter demanded the punishment of anyone. More likely, the tearful letter called for their repentance and perhaps demanded the punishment of anyone who still remained defiant. In any case, we know that there was one Corinthian who was punished as a direct or indirect result of the tearful letter (2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:11-12). Now, it seems from 2 Cor 2:5-11 that the offender had been shunned by the majority. This is the exact same punishment that Paul demands in 1 Cor 5:11 for anyone who is "sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber".

d) Even allowing for a diplomatic gloss in 2 Cor 7:6-16, it does seem that the tearful letter was successful, except perhaps that a minority did not go along with the punishment of the offender (2 Cor 2:6). The issue that was the primary focus of the tearful letter was therefore one that was largely resolved by the time of 2 Corinthians. The Corinthians' licentiousness was such an issue. In 2 Corinthians we have explicit mention of it only at 2 Cor 12:21-13:7, where Paul seems to warn against a recurrence of earlier sins that some had committed.

So, in conclusion, both Titus and Timothy were sent to Corinth to deal with the licentiousness there. This is further evidence that they were one and the same person. But can there really be any doubt about that?

1 Cor 4:17-21 and licentiousness in Corinth

2010-11-04T00:04:00.000-07:00

Here I argue that the sending of Timothy to Corinth in 1 Cor 4:17-21 concerns the Corinthian licentiousness of chapters 5 and 6.

In 1 Cor 4:11-13 Paul lists his tribulations. He then writes:

4:14 I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 4:15 For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 4:16 I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me.

4:17 For this reason (διὰ τοῦτο) I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church. 4:18 But some of you, thinking that I am not coming to you, have become arrogant (ἐφυσιώθησάν). 4:19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant (πεφυσιωμένων) people but their power. 4:20 For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power. 4:21 What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness? 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among the pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. 5:2 And you are arrogant (πεφυσιωμένοι)! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?

1) If 5:1 is the beginning of the discussion of licentiousness, as many suppose, it is very abrupt. In all the other passages where Paul speaks against licentiousness he is not abrupt but first prepares his readers by appealing to a tradition that they had already received. Thus Phil 3:17-19 starts with an appeal to imitate Paul and those who follow the example that he had set. Similarly, 1 Thess 4:1-8 begins with a reminder that Paul had instructed them how to live. 2 Cor 12:19-13:10 begins with a reference to earlier correspondence. 1 Cor 10:1-8 appeals to the Hebrew scriptures before warning of sexual immorality. Paul had not been to Rome so in his letter to the church there he cannot appeal to traditions that he had passed on to them. However, he still introduces the subject of licentiousness by referring to their knowledge of "the time" (Rom 13:11-14). Similarly, Rom 16:17-18 appeals to "the teaching that you have learned" before warning of the practice of some serving their own appetites. In Gal 5:13-21, though there is no reference to traditions passed on by Paul (for whatever reason), there is a reference to Lev 19:18 at Gal 5:14. Since Paul consistently introduces discussion of licentiousness with some kind of appeal to earlier teachings, it is highly likely that Paul's reference to his "ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church" in 4:17 introduces the subject of licentiousness that is mentioned explicitly first at 5:1 and dominates the next two chapters. Several further arguments will confirm this.

2) Timothy was to "remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church". Paul wrote against licentiousness in every letter that he wrote to a church (Rom 13:13-14; 16:17-18; 1 Cor 5:1-13; 6:9-20; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:13-21; Phil 3:17-19; 1 Thess 4:1-8), so the issue fits the description of something that he taught "everywhere in every church".

3) Timothy's mission is mentioned again at 1 Cor 16:10-11: "If Timothy comes, see that he has nothing to fear among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord just as I am; therefore let no one despise him." These words are explicable if Timothy's mission was to counter opponents in Corinth, such as those who promoted licentiousness.

4) Kenneth Bailey wrote an important and much neglected article, in which he argued, as I do here, that 1 Cor 4:17-21 introduces the subject of sexual immorality ("The Structure of 1 Corinthians and Paul's Theological Method with Special Reference to 4:17", Nov Test 25, 2 (1983)). Bailey (p162) points out that the tone in 1 Cor 4:18-21 is much sharper than in 1 Cor 4:11-16. He writes, "In 4:14 Paul speaks very gently. He wants only to admonish his beloved children and not to make them ashamed. But in 4:18-21 he is threatening the arrogant with a rod!!" This shift in tone confirms that Paul has shifted the focus to a particularly troubling issue. The tone in 4:18-21 and the threat of punishment is much more in keeping with 5:1-9, where punishment is demanded, than it is with 1:1-4:16.

5) 2 Cor 12:21-13:10 ties in nicely with 1 Cor 4:18-21. Paul visited Corinth for the second time and, finding that "impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness" was being promoted in the church, he warned them that he would not be lenient when he returned (2 Cor 12:21-13:2). He decided to delay his return, and wrote to them and sent Timothy to give them maximum opportunity to repent so that he would not have to be severe when he came (1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 13:10). This delay made the culprits cocky (1 Cor 4:18), so Paul responds by saying "would you rather that I came right away with a rod?" (1 Cor 4:21). Thus, the arrogance of these Corinthians concerning Paul's failure to come again to Corinth (1 Cor 4:18) is explicable if they were the proponents of the libertine doctrine whom Paul had warned that he would punish when he came back (2 Cor 13:2). This is confirmed by the parallels between 1 Cor 4:21 and 2 Cor 13:10. Now, this argument requires that Paul's second visit to Corinth took place before 1 Corinthians. This is likely for a number of reasons that I have touched on before. The only counter-argument is that Paul would not suppress all direct mention of the second visit in 1 Corinthians, only to revive its memory in 2 Cor 2:1; 13:1-2. However, Paul brings up the second visit in these passages only because he is forced to do so. He must explain that his failure to return to Corinth was to avoid another painful visit and was not due to fickleness. And he must explain that his failure to return did not mean that he was too timid to carry out the threats that he had made on his second visit. The fact that it is necessary for Paul to give these explanations in 2 Corinthians suggests that he may have avoided the subject of the second visit in earlier correspondence (such as the tearful letter). Paul's mentions of the second visit in 2 Corinthians are to clear up misunderstandings, which are explicable if Paul had suppressed discussion of his second visit in earlier correspondence. Therefore we should not be surprised that there is no mention of the second visit in 1 Corinthians. For more on Paul's silence in 1 Corinthians concerning his second visit see David R. Hall "The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence" JSNTsup 251, p245.

6) 1 Cor 4:17-21 is linked to 1 Cor 5:1-9 by the word "arrogant" (φυσιόω), which appears at 5:2 as well as at 4:18 and 4:19. Bailey (p161) writes,

in 4:18 Paul refers to some who are "arrogant". In 5:2 he becomes more pointed with the remark, "and you are arrogant!".

7) 1 Cor 4:17-21 is linked to 1 Cor 5:1-9 by the issue of Paul's presence and absence. Bailey (p161) writes that Paul seems to be saying:

Some think I am not coming (4:18) but I am indeed coming (4:19); as a matter of fact, although I am absent in body consider me already present in spirit (5:3).

8) The term "kingdom of God", given at 1 Cor 4:20 appears again at 1 Cor 6:9-10, where Paul says that the licentious will not enter the kingdom of God. Similarly, Paul writes in Gal 5:19-21 that licentious wrongdoers will not enter the kingdom of God. The only other mentions of the kingdom of God in Paul's undisputed letters are at Rom 14:17, 1 Thess 2:12, and 1 Cor 15:24, 50.

4:16 I appeal to you, then (οὖν), be imitators of me (μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε).

4:17 For this reason (διὰ τοῦτο) I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

Bailey (p160) points out that both 4:16 and 4:17 have a "therefore" and that "it is difficult to argue that Paul is summarizing his previous argument twice in a row with two "therefores" one after the other." The "therefore" of 4:17 (διὰ τοῦτο) is used by Paul 15 times in all (Rom 1:26; 4:16; 5:12; 13:6; 15:9; 1 Cor 4:17; 11:10, 30; 2 Cor 4:1; 7:13; 13:10; 1 Thess 2:13; 3:5, 7). Bailey (p162) writes that this phrase, when used by Paul, always looks forward in some sense. Now, since 4:17 is linked to 4:16 by the common theme of imitating Paul, it cannot be argued that Paul is starting a completely new theme at 4:17, but Paul's use of the phrase διὰ τοῦτο makes it probable that he is taking the discussion in a new direction.

Paul often uses the phrase to transition from general reflections to specific practical implications. We see this in Rom 1:26 where Paul gets into specifics about sexual practices, and in Rom 13:6 where he gets into specifics about paying taxes. Similarly 1 Cor 11:10 and 1 Cor 11:30. The phrase (διὰ τοῦτο) in 4:17 therefore is in line with Paul's use of the phrase elsewhere if it marks the transition from the general discussion of the Corinthians' arrogant lifestyle (1 Cor 4:6-16) to one particular practical manifestation of that arrogant lifestyle (licentiousness).

10) Bailey (p160-1) writes,

to our knowledge no ancient paragraph system divided the text at 5:1. However, there is wide spread early evidence for a break at 4:16 or 17.

The commentators
Why do most commentators, then, fail to recognize that 1 Cor 4:17-21 is strongly connected with 5:1ff? I suspect that there are two reasons.

Firstly, many read Paul's letters as if they were written for them. They interpret the passage in the context only of what has already been said, and fail to read it from the point of view of the Corinthians, who already knew the history of Paul's interactions with them that we learn about later in the letter and in 2 Corinthians.

Secondly, 1 Cor 4:17-21 is linked to the preceding passage by the theme of imitating Paul and by the word "arrogant" (1 Cor 4:6, 18, 19). Some seem to assume that the passage cannot be linked simultaneously to both the preceding and the following passages. However, recent studies have demonstrated that there is a common theme running through the letter. Hall (The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence p15) writes,

Paul discusses the rhetorical aspect of the Corinthian wisdom in chs. 1-3, and its theological and ethical outworking in chs. 4-16.

Matthew Malcolm's comments are similar, I think:

In 1 Corinthians 1-4 Paul evaluates struggles over leadership in the Corinthian congregation as an implicit expression of human autonomy, and responds by summoning the Corinthians to identify with Christ, by forgoing the role of the boastful ruler and adopting the role of the cruciform sufferer. This identification with the cruciform Christ consequently gives shape to Paul’s ethical instruction in 1 Corinthians 5-14.

Therefore, the links between 1 Cor 4:17-21 and the earlier part of chapter 4 do not in any way weaken the links with chapters 5 and 6.

In my next post I will argue that this mission of Timothy to Corinth is one and the same as the mission of Titus to Corinth of 2 Cor 2:1-13; 7:6-16. This will provide further confirmation that Timothy was Titus.

Laurence Welborn on 2 Cor 13:1

2010-10-09T11:20:00.000-07:00

Over the last two weeks I have been pondering Laurence Welborn's recent article, "By the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses" Paul's Invocation of a Deuteronomic Statute, Nov Test 52 (2010) 207-220. This interesting article is just a click away, here.

2 Cor 12:21-13:2 reads,

12:21 I fear that when I come again, my god may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced. 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 13:2 I warned those who sinned previously and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again, I will not be lenient -

Why did Paul include this citation of Deuteronomy 19:15, and what did the "two or three witnesses" represent? Welborn discusses two common views and then offers his own radically different view.

1. The witnesses represent Paul's three visits to Corinth (two in the past and one projected). Welborn points out that this is problematic because: a) Paul's founding visit to Corinth can hardly be described as a witness against the Corinthian believers, b) multiple visits by the same person do not constitute multiple witnesses, c) Deut 19:15 implies simultaneous witnesses, whereas Paul's three visits were separated in time.

2. Rabbinic literature developed the idea of "witnesses" in Deut 19:15 into that of "warnings", and similarly "witnesses" in 2 Cor 13:1 represents "warnings" made by Paul to the Corinthians. Welborn agrees that this solves the problems of 1, but writes:

Unfortunately, the reinterpretation of "witnesses" as "warnings" in Jewish legal tradition cannot be traced back into the time of Paul. The application of the rule of judical evidence to cases of persons suspected of wrongdoing, in the sense of "warnings" before witnesses, is first attested in the Mishnah tractate on "The Suspected Adultress" (Sotah 1.1-2), dated to the second century C.E.

However, Welborn does not explain why the absence of first century evidence for this interpretation of Deut 19:15 is problematic. Why is absence of evidence evidence of absence here?

Welborn suggests that the "most serious defect" of 1 and 2 is that Deut 19:15 is meant to protect the accused from a single malicious witness. Welborn raises a legitimate question: if Paul is here on the attack against the Corinthians, why does he quote a scripture that actually helps their defense? However, I think Welborn and others have overlooked the background. Paul had not punished the Corinthian wrong-doers during his second visit to Corinth and some of them concluded from this that he was a weak personality and would not discipline them on his next visit either. They said that Paul was severe in his letters, but weak in person (2 Cor 10:1-2 and 2 Cor 10:9-11). So Paul needed to convince the Corinthians that his warnings were not just empty threats. In short, he needed to explain why he had not punished them on his second visit but would do so on his next visit. The citation of Deut 19:15 in 2 Cor 13:1 explains to the Corinthians why he had been lenient before: he wanted to wait until he had given them sufficient warnings. Thus Paul's citation from Deut 19:15 will have convinced the Corinthians to take Paul's threats seriously.

3. Welborn suggests that

Paul himself is the accused who seeks protection under the Deuteronomic rule from pernicious accusation by a malicious witness. Paul cites the rule not only in self-defense, but also as a warning to the Corinthians of the punishment that will fall upon those who are complicit in the wrong done to him, should the testimony of the single witness be shown to be false, in accordance with the Deuteronomic statute.

Welborn feels that Paul is alluding here to the offender of 2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:12, and that this offender had been a solitary witness who accused Paul of planning to defraud the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:14-18). He supports his suggestion with some verbal arguments, including the following:

Most significant of all is Paul's use of the participle ἀδικήσας in 2 Cor 7:12 to describe the one who had given offence; an adjective of this same term - namely, ἄδικος is found in Deut 19:16, 18 as the description of the malicious witness, μάρτυς ἄδικος, literally "an unjust witness."

a) A major problem with this suggestion is that the immediate context of 2 Cor 13:1 is the issue of "impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness". This issue is in view in the previous verse (2 Cor 12:21) and also in the following verse (2 Cor 13:2) since the "previously sinned" appears there too. The issue of financial misconduct (2 Cor 12:14-18) is too far back, I feel.

b) A further problem for Welborn's reconstruction is that it makes Paul's response to accusations rather inconsistent. In 1 Cor 4:3 Paul writes, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court", and at 2 Cor 13:6-7 Paul shows a similar indifference to whether he is judged favorably by the Corinthians. Also, concerning the accusations of financial misconduct (2 Cor 12:14-18) Paul stresses that his purpose is not actually to defend himself, but to build up the Corinthians (2 Cor 12:19). Why would Paul emphasize his indifference to accusations in these passages, but show concern for past and future accusations against himself in 2 Cor 13:1?

c) Lastly, the issue of the offender seems to have been resolved by the tearful letter, so it would be slightly surprising if Paul brought up the issue again in 2 Cor 12:14-18; 13:1 as a live issue. This point assumes the unity of 2 Corinthians, for which I have argued here and here. Welborn partitions both 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians.

So I am not yet convinced of Welborn's proposal that 2 Cor 13:1 refers to legal proceedings against Paul, but read his paper and make up your own mind. Perhaps my objections can be answered.

I do, however, think he may be right to suggest that the offender of 2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:12 had brought an accusation against Paul.

Update Nov 11th.
I have argued recently that the offender of 2 Cor 2:5-11; 7:12 had criticized Paul in an attempt to undermine Paul's efforts to eradicate licentiousness from the Corinthian church. I think this answers my objections to Welborn's theory and thus brings it back into play. Points a), b), and c) above will be addressed in turn below.

a) The offense concerned licentiousness, which is the context of 13:1.

b) While Paul had not been very troubled by the criticism as such, he had been distressed at the influence that it might have on the Corinthians. This could explain why Paul refers to it in 13:1.

c) In 2 Cor 12:21-13:3 Paul does not show that he has reason to believe that licentious acts are presently being committed by members of the Corinthian church. Rather, as I read it, Paul is here wanting to prevent a recurrence of the earlier sins.

Also, if I am right to place the offense before 1 Corinthians then it becomes very tempting to identify the accusation of 2 Cor 13:1 with that of 1 Cor 4:1-4 and/or 1 Cor 9:1-3.

So, Welborn's theory, in this form, has merit. But how can we exclude option 2 above?

"we passages", Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, & W.S. Campbell

2010-09-13T00:10:00.000-07:00

Here I discuss a paper by William Campbell, "The Narrator as "He", "ME," and "We": Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles", JBL 129, no. 2 (2010): 385-407. I will use Campbell's observations to show that the author of Acts was present during the events of the "we passages" and at other times too.

A writer can refer to himself/herself in the first person singular ("I", "me"), the first person plural ("we", "us"), or using the third person, as Richard does now. Campbell explores the styles of self-reference by the ancient historians, Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus, and compares them with Acts. He distinguishes two types of self-designation: narrator level and event level.

Narrator level
Narrative-level self-reference is when the author refers to himself in his capacity as author/narrator. Campbell gives examples from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War: "Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war..."; "the earliest sea battle of those we know". Campbell tells us that Polybius referred to himself frequently (using first person singular) at the narrator level. E.g. "I was persuaded to write"; "I do not think it seemly...". Examples from Josephus include, "as we said previously"; "I would not hesitate to say"; "we Jews".

Concerning Acts, Campbell writes,

Another difference between Acts and the four texts analyzed is how infrequently first person (singular or plural) appears at the narrator level. The narrator rarely intrudes in the story to offer commentary, which compels the narrative to stand on its own merits. Only two instances each of first person singular and plural narrator-level comments occur in Luke and Acts, and these are located in the prefaces (Luke 1:1-3 and Acts 1:1).

My interpretation:
Luke's reluctance to intrude with narrator level self-reference should come as no surprise since his works, like the other gospels, are anonymous. Baum (Nov. Test. 50 (2008)) argues that the purpose of this anonymity was to give priority to the subject matter. Excessive self-reference would distract attention from the narrated events.

Event level
Event level self-reference is when the author refers to his own participation in the historical events. Campbell shows that the third person is generally preferred:

Large sections of War are devoted to Josephus's involvement in the conflict, and once again, as was the case in Thucydides and Polybius, event-level passages with Josephus as a character - indeed the main character and protagonist - are narrated in the third person. One brief example is the account of his appointment as commander of Galilee: "John, son of Ananias, was appointed commander of Gophna and Acrabetta, and Josephus, son of Matthias, of each of the two Galilees" (J.W. 2.568).

Here is an example from Thucydides:

4.104.4 The opponents of the betrayers .... sent to the other commander of the areas in Thrace, Thucydides, son of Olorus ....

Campbell gives the following passage from Polybius, which has striking parallels with Acts.

36.11.1 When instructions arrived in the Peloponnese from Manilius for the Achaeans that they would do well to send Polybius the Megalopolitan with Haste to Lilybaeum, as there was need of him for affairs of state, the Achaeans resolved to send him in accordance with the petition of the consul. 36.11.2 We, thinking it our duty for many reasons to obey the Romans, putting aside all other matters, set sail when summer began. 36.11.3 Arriving in Corcyra and finding there a letter from the consuls that had been sent to the Corcyraeans in which they made quite clear that the Carthaginians had already handed over the hostages to them and were prepared in every way to obey them, 36.11.4 thinking that the war had been brought to end and there was no further any need of us, we sailed back again to the Peloponnese.

My interpretation:

Since Luke refers to himself very sparingly at the narrator level we should expect him to do the same at the event level. Therefore he may well have been present for more of the events than he indicates. If Luke was present only for the 'we passages', as is commonly assumed, he mentioned his presence at every available opportunity, and this would not be consistent with his tendency to minimize self-reference. Indeed, I have argued before, here, that the author of Acts was present with Paul on his journey to Troas (Acts 16:1-9) before the "we passage" of Acts 16:10ff, and was again present in Achaia (Acts 20:3-4) before the "we passage" of Acts 20:6ff).

Since these historians referred to themselves by name at the event level, we should be open to the possibility that Luke did too (albeit more sparingly than the other historians). The convention of anonymity followed by Luke and the other gospel writers required that the author not be identified (obviously). However, it did not require that no reference should be made to the author by name, because otherwise no-one would have accepted the view that the fourth gospel was written by John, or that the first was written by Matthew. I have argued that Luke did indeed refer to himself by name once (Lucius of Acts 13:1).

Of the three forms of self-reference available to Luke (first person singular, first person plural, and third person), first person plural was the least obtrusive. It was the form that drew least attention to the author as an individual and so we should not be surprised that Luke preferred it.

The passage from Polybius above is particularly interesting because the author switches to the first person plural at precisely the point where he sets sail, just as Luke does (Acts 16:10; 20:6; 27:1). This supports the view of Vernon Robbins that first person narrative was preferred for sea voyages (but not his view that the author need not have been present on the voyage).

It seems to me, therefore, that Acts combines the conventions of the historians about styles of self-reference with the convention of the gospels about limiting self-reference. He limits narrator level self-reference to his prefaces, and gives his name (Lucius/Luke) only once (Acts 13:1). He chose to make explicit reference to his participation only for sea voyages and their aftermath, where convention allowed him to use the relatively unobtrusive first person plural. For land events he omitted reference to himself completely, not because he was absent, but because convention required the use of the third person, "Lucius", which he did not want to overdo.

Campbell's evidence shows that when historians used the first person they were indeed claiming to have been participants of the events described. Therefore, Luke was (claiming to be) present. This is, in any case, common sense.

Campbell's deductions about Acts
It is therefore baffling that Campbell uses the same data to conclude that:

The analysis of grammatical practice by Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus raises questions about the traditional argument that the first person plural undeniably documents historical eyewitnessing.

His reasoning seems to be this:

If the author of Acts wished to lift up his historical presence at and involvement in events, the grammatical guidance offered by Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus would seem to be that he identify himself by name, associate himself unmistakably with the narrator character, and report events in which he claims participation primarily in the third person.

He assumes that "the author of Acts never appears as a third person actor in the narrative".

Campbell has failed to make allowance for Luke's desire to avoid excessive self-reference that would detract from the centrality of his subject matter. I have shown above that Luke follows the grammatical guidance of the other historians as much as was possible without obtrusive self-reference.

Moreover, Campbell does not explain how the "we passages" could have been understood by the original readers as implying anything other than the actual presence of the author.

Campbell's paper is valuable because he has made some important observations about the styles of self-designation employed by ancient historians. It is a real pity that his analysis of Acts misses the point completely.

Summary of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis

2010-09-05T23:47:00.000-07:00

This is the last post in the present series exploring whether "Titus" and "Timothy" were one person or two. Here I summarize the evidence with links to the more detailed analysis given in earlier posts.

Titus in 2 Corinthians
Paul refrains from identifying anyone who helped him with the collection, leaving the three "brothers" of 2 Cor 8:18-22 and 2 Cor 12:18 conspicuously anonymous (presumably to protect the collection). In Paul's Aegean period the name "Titus" appears only in connection with two visits to Corinth in which he organized the collection (2 Cor 8:6, 16-17), and this raises the possibility that the name serves to obscure his identity (from outsiders). The complete absence of the name "Titus" from Acts and from Romans increases the suspicion that this was not the name by which he was generally known.

In 1 Corinthians Paul anticipates a visit by Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10-11), and in 2 Corinthians he records the return of Titus from Corinth. The following considerations demonstrate that these two visits are the same.

In 1 Corinthians Paul expects Timothy to visit Corinth when he (Paul) is about to leave Ephesus for Macedonia. We learn from 2 Cor 2:12-13 that Titus's visit to Corinth had been expected in the same timeframe.
Titus's visit to Corinth was associated with Paul's planned visit that never materialized (Paul did not want to visit Corinth until Titus and the "letter of tears" had prepared the Corinthians for his visit, so he cancelled this visit when Titus was delayed). Timothy's visit to Corinth was also associated with Paul's planned visit that never materialized (see 1 Cor 4:17-21 and consider the rather apologetic way Paul explains that he will not be coming to them until after his visit to Macedonia, 1 Cor 16:5-8).
Paul carried out the travel plan that he gave to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 16:5-9, so the cancelled visit was to have been before 1 Corinthians. This is confirmed by the fact that the travel plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16 was the same, but with the addition of a (cancelled) visit.
Timothy was expected in Corinth when the collection was about to start (1 Cor 16:1-3), and Titus started the collection there (2 Cor 8:6).
2 Cor 7:13-14 suggests that Paul had been more confident than Titus about the prospects for Titus's visit to Corinth. 1 Cor 16:10 says the same thing about Timothy.
Timothy's mission (1 Cor 4:17) was to remind the Corinthians of Paul's ways in Christ (1 Cor 4:9-13) so that they would become imitators of Paul (1 Cor 4:16). Paul tells the Corinthians that he had sent the tearful letter (with Titus) "in order that your zeal for us might be made known to you before God". Timothy's mission was to encourage zeal for Paul's ways in Christ, and Titus's mission was to encourage zeal for Paul. These two missions are identical because Paul makes no distinction between himself and his ways in Christ. Update: More specifically, there are good reasons to believe that Timothy was sent to Corinth to counter licentiousness there (see here), and that Titus's mission had the same purpose (see here).

The resulting reconstruction of Paul's interactions with the Corinthians avoids duplications and multiplication of assumptions. See also my "Was Titus Timothy?"JSNT 81 (2001).

I argued here that the Titus-Timothy hypothesis makes it unnecessary to partition 2 Corinthians after 2 Cor 2:13, 2 Cor 6:13, or 2 Cor 8:24.

Titus-Timothy also explains the change of tone after 2 Cor 10:1. At the time of 2 Corinthians Paul was sending Titus back to Corinth to revive the collection. This required that Titus stay on good terms with the Corinthians. This need to preserve the good relationship between Titus and the Corinthians explains why Paul records Titus's report as being so positive (2 Cor 7:5-16). Paul needed to distance Titus from his own criticisms of the Corinthians to avoid any backlash against Titus. If Titus was Paul's co-sender, Timothy (2 Cor 1:1), it makes sense that Paul held back his harsh criticisms of the Corinthians until chapters 10-13, which begin with the words, "I myself Paul", indicating that Paul took sole responsibility for what followed. In these final four chapters Paul detaches himself from his co-sender, Timothy, and probably takes the pen from the scribe, and rebukes the Corinthians without the risk of jeopardizing the relationship between Timothy and the Corinthians. This makes perfect sense of Timothy was Titus, who was on a delicate mission to revive the collection. We see Paul employ the same tactics in Philippians, which also anticipates a visit of Paul's co-sender to the addressed church.

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis explains the remarkable observation that the cases of first person singular (I, me) in 2 Corinthians all fall into one of two categories. There are cases where Paul is being demanding or critical of the Corinthians, and there are references to times when Titus was not present.

1 Thessalonians was written in response to information provided by Timothy, who had just returned from Thessalonica. Thus Timothy probably played a role in the writing of the letter, and this explains why the letter is written almost entirely in the first person plural (the "we" referring to Paul and his co-sender, Timothy). Paul wrote 2 Corinthians using information reported to him by Titus. The predominance of the first person plural (we, us) in 2 Corinthians is therefore explicable if Titus was Paul's co-sender, Timothy. For more on "I" and "we" in 2 Corinthians, see here.

In 2 Cor 12:16-18 Paul defends Titus's conduct and includes Titus in the "we". Then at 2 Cor 12:19 we read, "Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before you?". This suggests that Titus was Paul's co-sender, Timothy. See here.

In 2 Cor 12:18 Paul adds that he sent "the brother" with Titus. This makes sense if this journey of Titus and the anonymous brother was the journey of Timothy and Erastus, recorded in Acts 19:22. Erastus, being a Corinthian treasurer (Rom 16:23), was trusted by the Corinthians in money matters, and would oversee the collection. Paul mentions him in 2 Cor 12:18 to prove that he had no intention of using Titus to embezzle collection funds.

Titus in Galatians

Gal 2:1-5 and Acts 16:1-3 give some corroborating evidence that Titus was Timothy. They show that Titus, like Timothy, was an uncircumcised early associate of Paul and was probably known to the Galatians.

Furthermore, Timothy's mixed parentage and his role as missionary partner of Paul suggest that he too was from Antioch, and his presence in Lystra when Paul arrived is explicable if he was Titus and had been sent to south Galatia to organize the collection referred to in Gal 2:10 and 1 Cor 16:1-2.

There are hints in Gal 2:1-5 that Titus, like Timothy, had mixed Jew-Gentile heritage.

This Jerusalem visit was to discuss circumcision and this question would have been particularly relevant to someone like Timothy, with mixed parentage.
The 'not even' (οὐδὲ) in Gal 2:3 may imply that Titus was the most likely person to require circumcision.
Gal 2:3 can be punctuated to yields a smooth reading: "who with ME was a Greek" (Hutson) or "who was accompanying me as a Gentile" (Askwith), suggesting that Titus was able also to pass as a Jew.
The spying of the false brothers in Gal 2:4-5 could refer to the discovery of the fact that Titus was uncircumcised.

It is surely no coincidence that the name "Timothy" is a very likely name to be given to Titus. The two names had a phonetic similarity (compare Silas-Silvanus etc.). Also, "Timothy" means "honoring God", which is an appropriate name for this faithful convert, especially at the time when his uncircumcised state was a matter of controversy. The giving of the name "Timothy" to Titus is paralleled by other cases of renaming in the early church and elsewhere.

Objections to the Titus-Timothy hypothesis

2 Tim 4:10 shows that the author of the Pastoral Epistles thought that there was a Titus who was not Timothy. However, the author was quite distant from Timothy, and would probably not have known that Timothy's earlier name had been "Titus". And even if he had known, he might still have incorrectly inferred from 2 Corinthians (or from Galatians) that there was another Titus among Paul's co-workers.

Herman von Lips has offered four counter-arguments, but they do not apply to the Titus-Timothy hypothesis in its present form.

Conclusion

Titus was Timothy. This hypothesis, which was first proposed by Udo Borse in 1980, deserves a lot more attention than it has received. A biography of Titus-Timothy is given here.

Von Lips on Titus-Timothy

2010-08-31T14:32:00.000-07:00

Hermann von Lips (Timotheus und Titus 2008 p129-130) defends the theory that Titus and Timothy were different people. This is the only rebuttal of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis in print and is therefore very valuable. In this post I will lay out Hermann's arguments and respond to them.

Hermann starts by acknowledging that equating Titus with Timothy solves the mystery of why the name "Titus" does not appear in Acts. However, he does not discuss any of the other arguments for Titus-Timothy.

Point 1
Hermann refutes the view of Udo Borse that "Titus" and "Timotheos" were short and long name-forms for the same person:

Allerdings muss festgestellt werden, dass Paulus nicht zwishen Kurz- und Langform wechselt, sondern bei einer Form bleibt: generell Priska (Rom 16,3; 1Kor 16,19; vgl. In paulinischer Tradition 2Tim 4,19) und generell Silvanus (2Kor 1,19; 1Thess 1,1; vgl. In paulinischer Tradition 2Thess 1,1 sowie 1Petr 5,12), dagegen die Apostelgeschichte ebenso konsequent jeweils die andere Form: Priszilla (Apg 18,2.18.26) und Silas (13-mal von Apg 15,22 bis 18.5). Diese Lösung scheidet also aus. (p129)

Hermann's point is that Paul consistently uses the names Prisca and Silvanus for people whom Luke consistently calls Priscilla and Silas, and so could not have used different names for Titus-Timothy.

My response
I do not argue that "Titus" was a short form of the name "Timothy", but I see "Timothy" as Titus's new name. In any case, we do have evidence that Paul, like other ancient (and modern) writers, used more than one name for the same person, according to context. Paul switched between Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9,11,14) and Petros (Gal 2:7-8). Also, a strong case can be made that he used diminutive name forms in Philemon 24 (Mark, Demas, Epaphras, and Luke) and that elsewhere he calls the last two "Epaphroditus" and "Lucius". Also, there are strong arguments that Paul used two names for the same person in the cases of Crispus-Sosthenes, Gaius-Stephanas, and probably Jason-Aristarchus. I have explained here why Paul uses the name "Titus" where he does.

Point 2
Hermann points out that Paul could have sent both Titus and Timothy to Corinth. For example, Timothy might have been one of those whom Paul says that he sent to Corinth in 2 Cor 12:17, and he may have been the 'brother' of 2 Cor 8:18-19.

My response
This is interesting speculation, but in the absence of evidence, it does not constitute an argument against Titus-Timothy. Nor does this speculation weaken any of the arguments that I have put forward.

Point 3
Hermann writes,

Nach Apg 19,22 und Phil 2,23 schickt Paulus von Ephesus aus Timotheus voraus nach Makedonien, bevor er selbst dorthin aufbricht. Dass er ihn dann in Makedonien trifft, kann dann ja wohl keine Überraschung sein, wie es im Blick auf Titus zutraf. (p130)

This was not clear to me, so Hermann kindly clarified:

"I read 2Cor 7,5-6 in the sense, that Paul is surprised and glad to find Titus in Macedonia. But he could not be surprised to find there Timothy whom he sent to Macedonia (Acts 19,22 and Phil 2,23). Therefore Titus is not the same as Timothy."

It should be noted that Hermann argues that Philippians was written from Ephesus and that the journey of Timothy to Macedonia anticipated in Phil 2:19-24 is the same as his journey from Ephesus to Macedonia reported in Acts 19:22 (p76-79).

My response
According to the Titus-Timothy hypothesis Timothy's journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, indicated in Acts 19:22 (and Phil 2:19-24), took place before 1 Corinthians. This journey was the first leg of Timothy's journey by land to Corinth, which is anticipated in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 4:17, 16:10-11). Perhaps I was not clear enough about this in my paper. Paul's consolation/relief/surprise at Titus's arrival in Macedonia tells us nothing about which route Titus had taken to Corinth, so I don't see the relevance of Hermann's point. Paul's consolation does perhaps indicate that Titus had been away for a long time and/or that his delay had been serious enough to cause Paul to worry. This fits the Titus-Timothy hypothesis well.

The two-person theorists generally suppose that Timothy went to Corinth via Macedonia, and then returned to Ephesus. This return to Ephesus is problematic because it requires them to hypothesize that Paul sent Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia a second time (Acts 19:22 & 2 Cor 1:1). This proposed second journey looks suspiciously like a duplicate of the journey to Corinth, especially as Timothy's travel companion (Erastus) was a Corinthian.

In 1 Cor 16:10-11 and Phil 2:19 Paul expects Timothy to return to him (in Ephesus) before he (Paul) travels to Macedonia, but Acts 19:22 suggests that Timothy did not return to Paul before Paul went to Macedonia. The texts are reconciled if we suppose that Timothy was delayed such that he could not reach Paul before Paul went to Macedonia. This is precisely what happened to Titus.

Point 4
Herman points out that the council of Gal 2:1-10 was before the events of Acts 16:1-3. He then writes,

Also kann Timotheus, der erst auf der zweiten Reise als Paulusmitarbeiter berufen wird, nicht schon zuvor als “Titus” zur Begleitung des Paulus beim Apostelkonzil dabei gewesen sein. (p130)

His point is that Titus was already a traveling companion of Paul at the time of the Jerusalem council (Gal 2:1-10), which was before Timothy became a traveling companion of Paul (Acts 16:1-3).

My response
Many commentators assume that Timothy was a native of Lystra, on the grounds that it is there that Paul finds him in Acts 16:1, while others admit that we are not told where Timothy was from. No-one has really looked into this issue until now, since (until now) nothing has been at stake.

I have argued on this blog, here, that Timothy (whether he was Titus or not) was a native of Syrian Antioch, not of Lystra. The evidence does not support the assertion that Timothy was a new find for Paul at the time of Acts 16:1. I have also argued here, that he was in Lystra at the time of Acts 16:1 because Paul had sent him there to organize the collection for Judea in response to the request of Gal 2:10. With this understanding of events we see a natural progression in Titus-Timothy's role: he was a travel companion of Paul (Gal 2:1-3), then he was an envoy to south Galatia (Acts 16:1), then he was promoted to full missionary partner.

Point 5
Hermann writes:

Zuletzt ist noch auf die Entstehung der Pastoralbriefe, also die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, Bezug zu nehmen. Sie müssten dann an einem Ort entstanden sein, in dem der wichtigste Paulusmitarbeiter Timotheus = Titus unbekannt war. Nur dann hätte man in Unkenntnis der nur einen Person aus den Paulusbriefen zwei verschiedene Personen entnommen. Aber die naheliegende Entstehung der Pastoralbriefe im paulinischen Missionsgebiet würde dann ausscheiden. Und man müsste auf eine sehr späte Entstehung der Pastoralbriefe folgern, wo es eben gar keine mündliche Erinnerung mehr über die Mitarbeiter des Paulus gegeben hätte. (p130)

He kindly gave me some further commentary:

I think, it would be a great problem when the Pastorals were written in a region where Paul was the sole apostle but his most important co-worker Timothy=Titus was unknown as only one person. I think there were two different traditions: one about Timothy and Ephesus and one about Titus and Crete.
My responseI have already answered this objection here. I argued that the Pastoral Epistles were written in a community that had little memory of Titus/Timothy, whether he/they was/were one person or two. I will now add just one further point. Even if the author of the Pastoral Epistles knew that Timothy's former name had been "Titus" (and I doubt that he did), he could easily have assumed that the "Titus" of 2 Corinthians was a different Titus. The name was common enough. In 2 Corinthians Paul calls Timothy "Titus" in connection with his missions to organize the collection. This, and the anonymity of the three 'brothers' of 2 Cor 8:18-22; 12:18, served to protect the collection from interception (see here). The author of the PE might not have realized this, and would then have concluded that a second Titus is in view, especially as Paul has already called Titus-Timothy "Timothy" at 2 Cor 1:1; 1:19. If, as I argue, Paul called him "Titus" where he did in 2 Corinthians to protect his identity, it would not be surprising that the author of the PE would be similarly misled. It is possible, of course, that there was a second Titus among Paul's co-workers, but I do not find this conjecture at all necessary for the viability of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.

I am not aware of any evidence that there was a genuine tradition connecting "Titus" with Crete. Titus 1:5 cannot be fit into Paul's itinerary in Acts (which we can trust), and Acts 20:25, 38 makes it hard to believe that Paul returned to the east after a hypothetical release from captivity in Rome. The 'tradition' connecting Titus to Crete in the Pastoral Epistles is therefore probably not accurate. So why must we suppose that there is any genuine remembrance in it? Isn't it simpler to suppose that the author made the whole thing up?

Assessment
When Hermann wrote his book he was aware of Borse's work on Titus-Timothy and my 2001 JSNT paper, but he did not have the benefit of my more recent arguments. Apart from point 3, his rebuttals are fair criticisms of our printed presentations of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis. However, these criticisms
are not applicable to the Titus-Timothy hypothesis in its present form.

The Titus-Timothy question is very important for sorting out important issues, such as Pauline chronology, the north/south Galatia debate, the unity of 2 Corinthians, the accuracy of Acts, and the spuriousness of the PE. It is therefore vital that there be more debate on the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, and Hermann's contribution is a welcome start. It is unfortunate that it did not occur in Borse's lifetime.

Let me know of any further arguments against Titus-Timothy that I should address.

A biography of Titus-Timothy

2010-08-26T00:33:00.000-07:00

Timothy and Titus

The image on the right represents the conventional reconstruction of Timothy and Titus, including their backgrounds, movements, and interaction with the churches. The picture is incomplete and consists of two distinct halves that have no inter-connections. For example, the commentators simply place the mission of Titus to Corinth (and the related events of 2 Corinthians) after the mission of Timothy to Corinth (and the related events of 1 Corinthians), without any over-lap or causal relationship between the two. This is no clever trick. Every piece of data seems to require a fresh assumption. This picture works as a picture, but it is nevertheless wrong because a much more compact picture can be constructed from the same pieces. Look carefully, and you will see that pieces in each half fit neatly with each other and combine to give a complete image of a single individual, Titus-Timothy. Once we have seen that a compact solution to the puzzle is possible, we are no longer entitled to propose that the solution that involves a large picture with missing pieces.

Titus-Timothy

Here is a biography of Titus-Timothy. I believe it connects the pieces neatly together without forcing, but you must decide. I have presented the evidence for this reconstruction in about 15 earlier posts.

Jews and Greeks intermingled freely in Antioch, and it was there that Titus was born to a Greek father and a Jewish mother. He was probably not a Roman citizen, and was probably younger than Paul. Titus was converted by Paul, and his mother also became a believer. Titus was uncircumcised but his Jewish heritage created the expectation that he could or should be circumcised. He was therefore chosen to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to address the circumcision issue. He was able to pass as a Jew, but presented himself as a Greek on that occasion. The Jerusalem church leaders, though they knew he was uncircumcised, did not compel him to be circumcised, though they may have preferred it. Titus was presented as an example of a convert who, though uncircumcised, honored God. It was perhaps at this time that Titus was renamed, "Timothy", which meant "honoring God", and was phonetically close to "Titus". It was the Sabbatical year of 48/49 and Titus-Timothy saw first hand the poverty among the believers in Jerusalem, caused by the recent famine and the ban on agricultural activity that was in force. James, Peter, and John asked Paul to remember the poor, so he eagerly sent Titus-Timothy to south Galatia to organize a collection there. Titus-Timothy arrived in south Galatia and instructed the believers there to lay aside some money for Judea on the first day of each week. Paul himself arrived in south Galatia and met Titus-Timothy in Lystra. The believers in Lystra and Iconium attested that Titus-Timothy had fulfilled his mission well, so Paul decided to take him with him on the on-going journey. Titus-Timothy had passed himself off as a Jew but some false brothers had sneaked in and discovered that he was a Greek. The Jews in the region, who were more strict than those of Titus-Timothy's home town, Antioch, thus got to know that his father had been a Greek. Paul therefore circumcised him.

Saul-Paul, Silas-Silvanus, Lucius-Luke, and Titus-Timothy received three pieces of divine guidance, the purpose of which, they finally understood, was to get them to Macedonia without stopping to preach along the way. After visiting Philippi and Thessalonica, Paul left Beroea for Athens, sending Titus-Timothy back to Thessalonica. There Titus-Timothy encouraged the believers in their faith and then traveled, perhaps with Silas-Silvanus, to Corinth, where they met Paul (in A.D. 50). After their arrival in Corinth, Paul was able to devote his time to evangelism. Titus-Timothy and Silas-Silvanus also helped to proclaim Jesus in Corinth.

About 4 years later Paul was probably in prison in Ephesus. He, with Titus-Timothy, wrote to the Philippians at that time, promising to send Titus-Timothy to them so that he might receive news from them. Paul, with Titus-Timothy, probably wrote to Philemon at that time also. Paul received troubling news about the Corinthian church from Chloe's people. Paul decided to postpone his own announced visit to Corinth. Instead he wrote a letter in tears and gave it to Titus-Timothy, who was to deliver it on his way back to Ephesus from Macedonia. Titus-Timothy and the letter were to remind the Corinthians of Paul's Christian ethos so that they recognized their zeal for him as their founder, and thus prepare the Corinthians for Paul's (delayed) visit. The plan was that, after Titus-Timothy's return to Ephesus, Paul would visit Corinth on his way to Macedonia, and would then visit them again before traveling to Jerusalem with a collection for the poor. He was not willing to visit them until his emissary had prepared them for the visit. Paul was confident that the Corinthians would respond favorably to the letter, but Titus-Timothy was apprehensive about the mission. So, Titus-Timothy, carrying the tearful letter, travelled to Macedonia with Erastus (the Corinthian Treasurer), but he was delayed and had to over-winter there. He may have started the collection in Macedonia. This delay had repercussions on Paul's own travel plans. Meanwhile Stephanas arrived in Ephesus from Corinth in the spring (55 or 56). Paul would have used Stephanas to prepare the Corinthians for his planned visit, but there was no longer time for that visit. He therefore decided to cancel that visit and visit them only after going to Macedonia. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, in which he give the new travel plan, instructions for the collection, and commended Titus-Timothy. When Titus-Timothy finally arrived in Corinth he was warmly received, and he began the collection there. The letter was successful, but the shock tactics that Paul used in the letter to prepare for his visit, and the absence of that visit, were not understood by the Corinthians. Also, some "super-apostles" created new problems for Paul. Titus-Timothy was too late to be able to meet Paul in Ephesus or even to head him off in the Troad, so he traveled directly to Macedonia and met Paul there. Paul had been worried that Titus-Timothy's delay indicated a problem with the reception of the tearful letter, so he was relieved to receive Titus-Timothy's good report. Paul, with Titus-Timothy, wrote 2 Corinthians. He mentioned three people who helped with the collection, but left them anonymous to protect the funds. He also referred to Titus-Timothy by his lesser-known name, "Titus", for the same reason. He sent Titus-Timothy back to Corinth, with 2 Corinthians, to finish the collection. Titus-Timothy was to focus on the collection and therefore needed to stay on good terms with the Corinthians. Paul therefore placed his criticisms of the Corinthians in the final four chapters of the letter, which were written in Paul's name alone. So Titus-Timothy traveled to Corinth (with two other collection helpers), and completed the collection there. Paul later arrived in Corinth and wrote to the Romans, sending greetings from Titus-Timothy and others (spring 56 or 57). Threats to the collection required that it take a circuitous route to Judea. Titus-Timothy, Sosipater-Sopater, Jason-Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus and Trophimus took the collection to Troas, while Paul and Lucius-Luke sailed independently from Philippi to Troas. As far as we know, the whole group successfully delivered the collection to Jerusalem.

Finally, Titus-Timothy was imprisoned and released at least once, but we don't know when. He was Paul's loyal partner and envoy, and was spoken well of by Paul, and the believers in Lystra, Iconium, Philippi, and Corinth. He lived up to his name, "honoring God".

Titus-Timothy passed as a Jew

2010-08-18T23:16:00.000-07:00

I have already argued that Gal 2:1-3 and Acts 16:1-3 confirm that Titus was Timothy (see here and here). This post continues the discussion, focusing on the Jewish side to Titus's heritage.

Titus
1. The purpose of the visit to Jerusalem of Gal 2:1-10 was to discuss the circumcision question. This is clear from Acts 15:1-2. In Gal 2:2 suggests that Paul had received a revelation to the effect that he should go up to Jerusalem to lay out the gospel that he preached among the Gentiles (i.e. his gospel of non-circumcision). Further, Carlson's work suggests that the men from James of Gal 2:12 had arrived in Antioch before Paul's Jerusalem visit and could have precipitated it (see my discussion here).
Now, if Titus, like Timothy, had Jewish heritage, the circumcision question would have been particularly relevant for him, and this could explain why he was selected to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.

2. Titus's Jewish heritage, if known to the Galatians, would also explain the "not even" (οὐδὲ) in Gal 2:3. We could then paraphrase: "Not even Titus (whom you know had Jewish heritage), ... was compelled to be circumcised.

3. Back in 1998 Christopher Hutson sent me useful feedback of an early form the Titus-Timothy hypothesis, and included the following paragraph, which I reproduce with permission.

"On the other hand, it seems to me that Gal 2:3 is potentially very important for your case. As I rad this, it strikes me that the modern critical editions have an odd punctuation here, setting off the words hELLHN WN with commas, as if they were a separate phrase. But to my eye, it makes much more sense to treat the participle WN with the definite article hO, so that the entire phrase hO SUN EMOI hELLHN WN is one grammatical unit, not two. This seems to be the way Lightfoot read it. So Check WH and other critical editions prior to NH26 and UBS3. Notice also that EMOI is emphatic (as opposed to the enclitic MOI). So you could translate, "who was with ME as a Greek." For your purposes, you might consider whether this implies that Titus presented himself in other circumstances as a Jew. That would suggest that Titus, like Timothy of Acts 16, stood between Jewish and Gentile worlds. Hmmm."

Hutson now prefers to translate, "who with ME was a Greek", which is nearly the same. Now, I don't think we can prove that EMOI is emphatic, but it is an attractive possibility. Hutson's reading does have the clear advantage that it avoids the cumbersome commas, and I think Askwith suggested a similar reading. It raises the possibility that in Gal 2:3 Paul alludes to an occasion, known to the Galatians, where Titus had passed as a Jew. This would create a rather smooth transition to the next verses, where this occasion seems to be mentioned:

4. Gal 2:4-5 is explicable if the "false brothers", through their spying, had found out that Titus was not actually a Jew. These verses, therefore, contain a further hint that Titus had, on another occasion, passed himself off as a Jew.

Therefore, we have hints that Titus had some Jewish heritage, was able to pass as a Jew, and had done so on an occasion known to the Galatians, until he had been found out.

Timothy
We have the same information about Timothy, who had a Jewish mother.

The Babylonian Talmud reads:

‘And Rav also ruled that the child is fit, for once a man appeared before Rav and asked him, "What [is the legal position of the child] where an idolator or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite?" "The child is fit," the Master replied. ..... Rav Yehudah also ruled that the child is fit, for when one came before Rav Yehudah, the latter told him, "Go and conceal your identity or marry one of your own kind." When such a man appeared before Rava he told him, "Either go abroad or marry one of your own kind."’ (b. Yev 45a-b)

This passage concerns advice for men who, like Timothy, are born to a Jewish mother, and a gentile father. Yehudah suggests that they conceal their half-gentile parentage. Rava gives essentially the same advice, suggesting that they go abroad (where their gentile fathers will not be known). Thus, we should not be surprised if Timothy passed as a Jew on some occasion. Acts 16:1-3 says that Timothy was circumcised because it was known (by then) that his father had been a Greek, suggesting that he would have passed (or continue to pass) as a Jew if his Gentile status had not been known.

Titus-Timothy

Putting the pieces together we then get the following reconstruction: Titus-Timothy was born in Antioch to a Jewish mother and a Gentile father. He went to Jerusalem with Paul to help resolve the circumcision question. Paul sent him to (south) Galatia to organize a collection. He passed himself off as a Jew there, until some 'false brothers' found out that he was a Gentile. He then had to be circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). Paul later wrote to the (south) Galatians: "Not even Titus-Timothy [the half-Jew], who with me was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us - we did not submit to them for an hour so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you [Galatians]."

I'm not saying that Gal 2:1-5 demands to be read in this way, but it surely does work well as commentary on the events of Acts 16:1-3.

Titus-Timothy and the Pastoral Epistles

2010-08-10T23:57:00.000-07:00

2 Tim 4:10 shows that the author of the Pastoral Epistles considered "Titus" and "Timothy" to be two different people. This post explores the possibility that the author took the name "Titus" from 2 Corinthians or Galatians, without realizing that he was Timothy.

"Titus" as Timothy's obsolete name.
Timothy is almost always known by that name (see Paul's letters, Acts & Heb 13:23). I have argued here that Paul calls him "Titus" in connection with the collection precisely because few people knew him by that name. If Timothy did indeed cease to use the name "Titus" this would explain why the author of the Pastoral Epistles did not know that the two names belonged to the same person.

The Pastoral Epistles were distant from Titus/Timothy
It is widely agreed that the author of the Pastoral Epistles wanted his compositions to seem like genuine letters of Paul. Thus, he added the personal details, for example, (e.g. 2 Tim 4:9-22) to lend verisimilitude. The intended audience was not "Titus" or "Timothy", but a wider community of Christians.

The author's decision to use individuals as the putative recipients makes sense if the 'letters' were written after it was known that all the letters addressed to churches had already been collected together. A newly "discovered" letter addressed to a church would have come under suspicion because people would wonder why such a letter had not been circulated earlier. However, a 'letter' addressed to an individual would come under no such suspicion if the individual was not known to have lived into the period when searches were made for Paul's letters. It could then be conjectured that no-one had known about the letter until it had been discovered, for example among the possessions that the individual had passed on after his death.

If anyone in the author's community at the time of composition had known Timothy or Titus well, the verisimilitude that the author carefully cultivates would have been in danger. There would have been a risk that someone object that Timothy had not said anything about having letters from Paul. The pretense of authenticity would not have worked. The fraud (if that is what it was) could have been exposed. The author's choice of "Titus" and "Timothy" as putative recipients of the 'letters' makes best sense, therefore, if his community had relatively little memory of either "men". Therefore, we should not be surprised if the author himself had little memory of "Titus" or "Timothy". Men known only from the genuine letters of Paul would make ideal fictional recipients of 'letters', for no-one would know that they had not received letters from Paul.

The Pastoral Epistles' poor information about Paul's companions
Do we have evidence that the author used the genuine letters as sources of information about Paul's companions? There are a few cases where we see that he probably did.

1 Tim 1:3 reads, "I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine.." This seems to be dependent on 1 Cor 16:5-11 where Paul is expecting Timothy to return to him in Ephesus and plans then to go to Macedonia and mentions opposition in Ephesus. A reader of 1 Cor 16:5-11 could easily imagine that Paul went to Macedonia after instructing Timothy to deal with the adversaries in Ephesus. However, we know from 2 Cor 1:1 and Acts 19:22 that Timothy did not stay behind in Ephesus. The author seems to have simplistically picked information from 1 Corinthians without checking that his assumptions were consistent with other texts.

2 Tim 1:7 implies that Timothy was cowardly. This seems to derive from a misreading of 1 Cor 16:10-11. In actual fact Timothy was not at all cowardly, as Hutson has demonstrated (1).

2 Tim 4:19 reads, "Greet Prisca and Aquila", and the implication is that they are in Ephesus where Timothy is supposed to be. This, again, seems to show a dependency on 1 Cor 16:19 which places the couple in Ephesus. The problem for the credibility of the author of the Pastorals is that Prisca and Aquila returned to Rome before Romans was written (Rom 16:3), so they are unlikely to have been in Ephesus at the time that 2 Timothy is supposed to have been written.

2 Tim 4:21 reads, "Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia". The problem here is that none of these names appear in the rather long list of people in Rome whom Paul greets in Rom 16.

2 Tim 4:13 reads, "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas". The only mention of Troas in Paul's letters is in 2 Cor 2:12-13 "When I came to Troas to proclaim the good news of Christ, a door was opened for me in the Lord; but my mind could not rest because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said farewell to them and went on to Macedonia." Here we read that Paul left the departed from the believers in Troas in an anxious haste to reach Macedonia. A product of anxiety and haste is forgetfulness, so the author of 2 Timothy 4:13 could well have imagined Paul forgetting his coat in Troas when he anxiously hurried on to Macedonia. The author, reading 2 Corinthians, would have concluded that this was Paul's last visit to Troas and that Paul's cloak could therefore still be there. However, Acts 20:5-6 shows that Paul returned to Troas after a change of plan. 2 Tim 4:13, therefore, was crafted to comport with 2 Cor 2:12-13.

The author of the Pastoral Epistles, therefore, does not seem to have had good information about Paul's companions, so he would probably not have known Timothy's obsolete other name. We have reason to believe that the author of Colossians has just as poor information about Paul's companions. In Philemon 23-24 Paul deliberately uses diminutive name forms (see here). The author of Colossians uses the same name forms, suggesting that he took them from Philemon 23-24 without realizing that they were diminutive forms. Also, he probably mis-identified the Mark of Philemon 24 (see here), and misread "Jesus" in Philemon 23 (see here). He may also have misidentified Luke as a Gentile (see here). If, as is likely, the author of Colossians did not know the names ordinarily used by Epaphras, Mark, Demas, and Luke, it is hardly surprising that the author of the Pastoral Epistles did not know the name that Timothy no longer used.

The human mind classifies according to name. Once it has ascribed two identities to two names, it has great difficulty in switching to the one-person view. Conversely, where the same name appears twice, one tends to equate the two individuals. These tendencies have led to misidentifications from ancient times. Even Cephas and Peter were considered two individuals by much of church tradition, starting in the second century, in spite of John 1:42.(2). Thus, it is natural that the author of the Pastorals mistakenly split Titus-Timothy into two people. These things happen. Every other document that sees Titus and Timothy as different people is dependent on the Pastoral Epistles.

In conclusion, it would not be at all surprising if the author of the Pastoral Epistles took the name "Titus" from 2 Corinthians or Galatians without realizing that this was Timothy's former name. The Pastoral Epistles supply no significant evidence against the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.

(1) C.R. Hutson, ‘Was Timothy Timid? On the Rhetoric of Fearlessness (1 Corinthians 16:10-11) and Cowardice (2 Timothy 1:7)’, BibRes 42 (1997), pp. 58-73.

(2) See B.D. Ehrman, "Cephas and Peter" JBL 109/3 (1990) 463-474. Ehrman argues that Cephas and Peter were different people, but has been convincingly refuted by D. Allison, "Peter and Cephas: one and the same," JBL 111(1992) 489-495.

Chronology of Paul's collection from Galatia

2010-08-06T00:03:00.000-07:00

Paul asked the Galatians to contribute money (1 Cor 16:1), and it is invariably assumed that Paul had intended for this money to be delivered to Jerusalem at more or less the same time as the money that he collected from Achaia and Macedonia. The assumption seems to be that Paul is here creating a kind of camaraderie among givers to encourage the Corinthians to be generous, and that this requires the the Galatian collection was contemporaneous. However, in 1 Corinthians Paul has no need to urge the Corinthians to give. He takes their commitment for granted. By mentioning Galatia in 1 Cor 16:1 Paul may instead simply be pointing out that the instructions that he gives are tried and tested: they worked in Galatia. Whatever the reason for mentioning Galatia, it is hazardous to assume, as almost everyone does, that the Galatian collection belongs to the "third missionary journey". I will argue in this post that the collection from Galatia was at the start of the "second missionary journey", some 7 years before the collection from Achaia and Macedonia.

1. Rom 15:26 says that Achaia and Macedonia contributed to the later collection, but makes no mention of Galatia. It would have been insulting to the Galatians to omit them if they had indeed contributed even a small amount to this collection. The simplest explanation is that the collection from Galatia was much earlier.

Some suppose that the crisis in Galatia caused the Galatians to withdrew from the collection. However, it seems unlikely that they would fail to make any contribution worthy of mention. Also, if, as the critics suppose, Paul's opponents in Galatia supported the theological position of the Jerusalem church, it is unlikely that they would oppose sending money to that same Jerusalem church.

2. During his Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10 (=Acts 15) Paul was asked to 'remember the poor' (Gal 2:10). As many have pointed out, this does suggest a collection for Jerusalem. When was this collection. Paul's eagerness implies that he organized this collection shortly after the request was made. If Paul had delayed, the Galatians would have known, and Paul's claim that he had been eager would have sounded hollow.

As is commonly agreed, it is probable that the request was made in 48 or 49. There had been a recent famine in Judea and in 48/49 there was a Sabbatical year, in which agriculture was not permitted. The famine would have prevented Judeans from storing up food in preparation for the Sabbatical year. This situation of acute need explains why the apostles asked Paul to 'remember the poor'. An immediate collection would be required, preferably before the harvest following the Sabbatical year (probably in the summer of 49). This, and Paul's eagerness, suggest that Paul organized a collection immediately after the visit of Gal 2:1-10 (=Acts 15).

So, what collection did Paul organize at that time? The collection from the Galatians is the only one that fits (the Galatians were south Galatians). The collection from Antioch is too early, and the collection from Achaia and Macedonia is much too late (even with Knox's chronology).

We can now discern a pattern in Paul's collections. As far as we now, he never asked any church to contribute more than once (indeed Paul's argument in 2 Cor 8:13-14 would not work if he expected to ask them to contribute again some day). Thus Antioch contributed only to the famine relief collection, and Galatia did not contribute to the final collection. Also, Paul wisely did not ask for contributions from any region during his initial evangelistic visit there. Thus Asia did not participate, and Achaia and Macedonia did not contribute until about 4 years after they were evangelized.

3. I have argued here that Timothy was a native of Antioch, not Lystra. Now, a collection from south Galatia at the start of the "second missionary journey" neatly explains why Timothy was in Lystra when Paul arrived (Acts 16:1): Paul had sent him to organize the collection. We can suppose that Timothy delivered the instructions that Paul mentioned in 1 Cor 16:1-2.

It makes perfect sense that Paul should send Timothy to organize this collection if, as I have argued, he was Titus renamed. Titus-Timothy and Paul went together to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) and saw the poverty that existed among the believers there at that time. Paul was asked to 'remember the poor' whom he and Titus-Timothy had met, so he sent Titus-Timothy to south Galatia to explain the need for a collection to the believers there. Titus-Timothy was uniquely qualified for this job as collection envoy because he had seen the poverty first hand. He was still in south Galatia when Paul himself arrived (Acts 16:1). I will suggest in a future post that Titus may have been named "Timothy" precisely because of his involvement in this collection.

On any hypothesis Acts makes no direct mention of the collection from Galatia (or indeed of the collection from Achaia and Macedonia). Following Nickle ("The Collection" p149-150), I suggest that collections like this were illegal by the time that Luke wrote, and that his explains Luke's silence. Indeed, I have argued that the plot of Acts 20:3 was when the Jews had the Romans declared the collection from Achaia illegal. Whatever the reason for the silence, we should not be surprised that Luke does not mention that Timothy had been sent by Paul to organize the collection. It seems that, in avoiding mention of the collection, which may have been well known to Luke's intended audience, he has inadvertently given future generations the mistaken impression that Timothy was actually a native of Lystra.

Gal 2:1-5, Acts 16:1-3 and Titus-Timothy

2010-08-03T23:12:00.000-07:00

Continuing the series of blog posts on Titus-Timothy, we turn now to Gal 2:1-5 and Acts 16:1-3.

Gal 2:1 Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶΤίτον: 2:2 ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν: καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, κατ'ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον. 2:3 ἀλλ' οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ελλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι: 2:4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶνἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν: 2:5 οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

Gal 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2:2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running or had not run, in vain. 2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 2:4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us - 2:5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.

Acts 16:1 Κατήντησεν δὲ [καὶ] εἰς Δέρβην καὶ εἰς Λύστραν. καὶ ἰδοὺ μαθητής τις ἦν ἐκεῖ ὀνόματι Τιμόθεος, υἱὸς γυναικὸς Ἰουδαίας πιστῆς πατρὸς δὲ Ελληνος,16:2 ὃς ἐμαρτυρεῖτο ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν Λύστροις καὶ Ἰκονίῳ ἀδελφῶν.16:3 τοῦτον ἠθέλησεν ὁ Παῦλος σὺν αὐτῷ ἐξελθεῖν, καὶ λαβὼν περιέτεμεν αὐτὸν διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους τοὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐκείνοις, ᾔδεισαν γὰρ ἅπαντες ὅτι Ελλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν.

Acts 16:1 Paul went on also to Derbe and to Lystra, where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 16:2 He was well spoken of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium. 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Acts 16:1-3 concerns a time shortly after the Jerusalem visit of Gal 2. Paul meets Timothy in Lystra, which is in south Galatia, the region to which Paul later wrote Galatians. There is a consistency between the data on "Timothy" and that on "Titus":

1. Titus and Timothy were both associates of Paul by the start of the "second missionary journey".

2. Both were subordinates of Paul at that time.

3. Both were uncircumcised Greeks at the time of Paul's Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1. On Timothy's Greek status see D. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 22-32. Also S.J.D.

Cohen, ‘Was Timothy Jewish (Acts 16:1-3)? Patristic Exegesis, Rabbinic Law, and

Matrilineal Descent’, JBL 105/2 (1986), pp. 251-68.

4. Both were probably known to the Galatians. Titus is mentioned without introduction in Gal 2:1, which suggests that he, like Timothy, was known to the Galatians.

5. At first sight it appears that Timothy was from Lyrsta, in contrast to Titus, who was from Antioch. However, a closer inspection shows that both were probably from Antioch.

There will have been few Jews, if any, among the believers in Lystra. Acts mentions no synagogue in Lystra and Paul's letter to the (south) Galatians seems to be written exclusively to Gentiles. In Antioch, on the other hand, there were many Jews, for Josephus tells us that Jews were "particularly numerous in Syria", and, ‘it was at Antioch that they specially congregated’ (BJ 7.45). There were many Jews in the church there (Acts 13:1; Gal 2:13), so it is there, not in Lystra, that we should look for Timothy's mother.

The Jews of south Galatia were strict about maintaining their ethnic boundary, for they required the circumcision of Timothy. It is therefore unlikely that many of them would have married Greeks. In Antioch, however, mixed marriages will have been common, for Josephus says of the Jews of Antioch that "they were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves" (BJ 7.45) (consider also Nicolaos, This also suggests that Timothy's mother was from Antioch, not Lystra.

Timothy was a fellow missionary of Paul (2 Cor 1:19), and Paul even calls him "God's co-worker" (1 Thess 3:2). He must have been a prominent fellow-worker of Paul at the time of Acts 16:1-3, otherwise his circumcision would not have been required. However, if Timothy was from Lystra, it is hard to see how he could have been qualified for the task. A Lystran Timothy would have been a relatively new believer, who had had little contact with Paul, and was from a rustic village, spoke mainly Lycaonian (Acts 14:11), and probably had no synagogue. It is hard to imagine Paul choosing one of the "foolish Galatians" to be an important member of his missionary team.

Paul circumcised Timothy, but told the Galatians in the strongest terms not to be circumcised. This is consistent if Timothy was very different from the Galatians in some key respect(s), such as being qualified to preach to Jews or having been brought up with Jewish traditions. This confirms that Timothy was not a Galatian.

I have already argued that Luke was from Antioch. We have no evidence that Paul recruited new converts as fellow-missionaries. I will argue in a future post that Paul had probably sent Titus-Timothy to south Galatia to organize a collection for Jerusalem. In any case, Timothy's role as Paul's envoy explains why we read that the believers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him: the believers reported that Timothy had represented Paul well, so Paul chose him to be part of his team to function as an envoy on future occasions.

6. The 'not even' (οὐδὲ) in Gal 2:3 works well if Titus was Timothy, who was perhaps the most likely person to require circumcision. The sense would then be, "not even Titus (who you know has a Jewish mother and is my closes co-worker), ... was compelled to be circumcised".

7. Gal 2:4-5 appears to refer to the events of Acts 16:1-3. Gal 2:4-5 as it stands, with its broken grammar, is hopelessly ambiguous. If, however, it refers to events well known to the south Galatians, such as the events surrounding the circumcision of Timothy, the text need not have been ambiguous to the intended audience.

Paul's purpose for yielding (or not yielding) was that "the truth of the gospel might continue with you". "you" here refers to the Galatians, suggesting that Paul's response to the false brothers was for the benefit of the Galatians in particular. It is unnecessary to suppose that "you" here refers to all Gentile believers. The 'you' here connects the events of Gal 2:4-5 with south Galatia, and this works well if Titus was Timothy. While Gal 2:3-5 on its own does not tell us whether Titus was eventually circumcised, we can say that the circumcision or otherwise of Titus, like that of Timothy, is of importance to the south Galatians. This is surely no coincidence.

Gal 2:4-5 and Acts 16:1-3 combine nicely. Here is a possible scenario. The false brothers discovered through their spying (whether in Jerusalem or in south Galatia) that Titus-Timothy's father was a Greek. They then revealed this fact to the south Galatians Jews, who then required that Titus-Timothy be circumcised. Gal 2:5 is still ambiguous (to me). Perhaps Paul denies that he gave way for more than the few minutes required for the circumcision of Timothy, or perhaps he is saying that the circumcision of Timothy was in no way a yielding of the principle.

For further discussion see my "Was Titus Timothy?", JSNT 81 (2001).

In summary, Gal 2:1-5 when combined with Acts 16:1-3 provides significant points of agreement between "Titus" and "Timothy". This confirms what we have already seen from the Corinthian correspondence - Timothy was Titus renamed.

Paul wrote to South Galatia: some new arguments

2010-08-02T01:00:00.000-07:00

The post brings together my reasons for believing that Galatians was addressed to the churches in south Galatia that Paul and Barnabas founded (Acts 13:14-14:28). Arguments 1, 4, and 6 are new, I believe.

1. Acts precludes a visit by Paul to north Galatia. Some believe that Acts 16:6 refers to a trip to north Galatia, but this is not possible. We read

16:6 They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia [or Phrygian Galatia], having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 16:7 When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them; 16:8 so, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 16:9 During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 16:10 When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.

In this passage Paul and his companions receive three pieces of divine guidance, the common purpose of which was to get the group to Macedonia as quickly as possible. I suggest that they became "convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news" to Macedonia after reflecting on all three pieces of divine guidance.

This precludes a trip to north Galatia. If they went to north Galatia in 16:6 we would have to suppose that the divine guidance was fickle, sending them first to the north east, then to the west. Why would Luke record such ineffective guidance?

The map shows the route that they may have taken and illustrates that a diversion to north Galatia would not have been consistent with the divine plan that Luke records. The road system here is taken from Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia Land, Men, and gods in Asia Minor Vol i. He firmly supports the south Galatia hypothesis and suggests that τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν refers to the country of Phrygia Paroreius, on either side of Sultan Dag (Vol ii, p3).

2. Chronology does not allow enough time for a preaching tour of north Galatia. Paul visited Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-10 = Acts 15) no earlier than A.D. 48 and arrived in Corinth no later than A.D. 50. In the interval of two year (or less) Paul returned to Antioch; stayed there 'some days' (Acts 15:36); revisited the churches in Syria, Cilicia, and south Galatia; travelled to Macedonia; founded churches there; and preached in Athens. This itinerary is already slightly more rushed than Paul's usual pace. Adding a preaching tour of north Galatia would put additional strain on the chronology here. Others have made this point.

3. Barnabas was known to the recipients of the letter, as Ramsay and others have pointed out. Barnabas is mentioned without introduction in Gal 2:1, suggesting that he was known to the recipients. Also, Gal 2:13 presupposes that the recipients knew Barnabas's previous position on the issue of Jews eating with Gentiles.

4. The circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:1-3) looms large in the background of Paul's letter. The Galatians seem to have gained the impression that Paul actually supported circumcision (see Gal 5:11). Indeed, I have argued here, here, and here that Paul wrote in response to the rumor that he was ideologically in favor of circumcision but had preached against it to please the Jerusalem church leaders. The Galatians' misunderstanding of Paul's position is explicable if they were south Galatians. Paul's circumcision of Timothy could have led them to believe that he actually believed in circumcision, and the delivery of the decisions of the Jerusalem leaders (Acts 16:4) could have suggested to them that Paul had acted all along as a messenger of the Jerusalem church.
Furthermore, if Titus was Timothy, as I believe, then Gal 2:4-5 looks suspiciously like a reference to the discovery of Timothy's uncircumcised state and his subsequent circumcision.

5. Paul's illness would not have taken him to north Galatia. Gal 4:13 tells us that Paul preached to the Galatians because of a physical infirmity. Presumably the infirmity prevented him from supporting himself by working, or limited his ability to travel. It is possible that Paul had intended to travel to Asia and/or Europe, and that his infirmity forced him to scale back his ambitions and travel to south Galatia instead. A detour to north Galatia, on the other hand, would have constituted an extension to Paul's travels, not a cut-back, and it is hard to imagine how a sickness could have led him to decide to go there.

6. Timothy would have been named as a co-sender of a letter to north Galatia. Paul names as co-senders those who helped him found the church to whom he writes. Thus Timothy is a co-sender of 1 Thess, 2 Cor, and Phil; Crispus-Sosthenes is the co-sender of 1 Corinthians; and Silvanus is a co-sender of 1 Thess; while Romans has no co-senders. If Galatians was addressed to north Galatia it is somewhat surprising that Timothy, in particular, is not named as a co-sender.

I am surprised that the north Galatia hypothesis has lasted so long. Does it survive only as a reaction against certain conservative scholars who support the south Galatia hypothesis for all the wrong reasons? Or am I missing something here?

A free commentary offer, and Barnett's 2 Cor sequence

2010-07-28T00:30:00.000-07:00

All the major commentaries on 2 Corinthians suggest a sequence of events in Paul's interactions with that church. If you can see an aspect in which a published sequence is more convincing than mine, please explain it in the comments. I will then send you a free 2 Corinthians commentary of your choice if yours is the best (or only) comment!

The sequence in Paul Barnett's NICNT 2 Corinthians commentary is fairly typical (p11-15). I lay out his sequence below, starting just before 1 Corinthians, and giving my own comments in red font.

"Paul sent Titus to Corinth to establish the collection for the Judaean churches" (8:6, 10; 9:2; cf. 1 Cor 16:12)" This is duplication, since we already know from 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10 that Titus-Timothy was sent to Corinth at that time.

... Paul sends 1 Corinthians

"he planned to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, travel through macedonia ..., and spend the winter in Corinth... Before he could leave Ephesus for Macedonia, however, more bad news arrived, almost certainly brought by Timothy on his return from Corinth after the delivery of 1 Corinthians. So serious was the news that Paul himself now had to go immediately to Corinth, almost a year earlier than he had planned" There is no evidence for this change of plan. It is an unsupported assumption contrived to make the sequence fit. We have no evidence that Timothy returned to Paul in Ephesus.

"Evidently there had been a significant falling away into "impurity, sexual sin and debauchery" (12:21; cf. 13:2). When Paul sought to rectify the situation, this led to "quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder" (12:20)" This creates a duplication because this situation had occurred before 1 Corinthians. As e.g. Harris points out, most or all of the 8 vices of 2 Cor 12:20 are addressed in 1 Corinthians. There had been sexual sin (1 Cor 5:9), and after Paul had sought to correct it the vices had arisen.

"While present in Corinth at that time, Paul disclosed a change of plans (cf. 1 Cor 16:5-7). Doubtless due to his perception of the deterioration in the church as he found it, he felt he had to return to the Corinthians directly, then travel to Macedonia, and come to them again before making his final withdrawal from the Aegean region. ... Upon his return to Ephesus, however, Paul decided to abandon that plan and revert to the original itinerary, which would take him from Ephesus through Macedonia to Corinth." This is a duplication in that 1 Corinthians also shows Paul failing to travel to Corinth (1 Cor 4:18) and instead deciding to go to Macedonia first. Moreover, it is not clear what could have caused Paul to change his mind like this, on Barnett's scheme. He suggests lamely that Paul changed his mind "upon reflection". This is problematic because it would make Paul fickle indeed, and his defense in 2 Cor 1:14-2:3 would be hopelessly inadequate.

"Rather, he chose to write ... the "Severe Letter." This is problematic because of the indications that Paul held the plan of 2 Cor 15-16 when he wrote the Severe Letter (see 2 Cor 1:13-15).

"When Titus did not arrive at Troas..." This is a duplication, since we know from 1 Cor 16:10 that the timing of Timothy's return to Paul was uncertain.

"Titus brought the goood news ...." This creates another problem. How could Titus resolve a problem in Corinth that Paul himself had failed to resolve during Paul's visit?

Thus, after 1 Corinthians, Barnett has:
1. Timothy returns to Paul in Ephesus
2. Paul changes his mind and visits Corinth
3. Paul conceives the plan of 2 Cor 1:15-16
4. Paul returns to Ephesus
5. Paul changes his mind again back to the original plan
6. Paul writes the severe letter
7. Paul sends Titus

I place none of these events after 1 Corinthians.

The sequence of Paul's interactions with the Corinthians

2010-07-26T00:05:00.000-07:00

The Corinthian correspondence contains data about the Paul's travels, his travel plans, the movements of Titus and "Timothy", changes in Paul's relationship to the Corinthian church, and the progress of the collection. Commentators, who suffer from the double-vision of seeing Titus and Timothy as different people, have not been able to explain these data, except by constructing implausibly complicated sequences of events involving a lot of repetition. However, when we recognize that Titus was Timothy, an elegantly simple sequence comes into focus:

1. Paul returned to Corinth from Ephesus and, having found sexual immorality among the Corinthian believers, he warned them that he would not be lenient with them when he came back (2 Cor 12:21-13:2).
2. Paul returned to Ephesus.
3. Paul wrote a letter to Corinth, telling them not to mix with sexually immoral people in the church (1 Cor 5:9). This letter may have been delivered by Chloe's people. Paul may have indicated in this letter that he would visit Corinth soon.
4. Paul received news (probably from Chloe's people when they returned) that many of the Corinthian believers were rejecting Paul and his ethos (1 Cor 4), and that they had misinterpreted his letter (1 Cor 5:9-10).
5. Instead of visiting Corinth at the planned time, Paul decided to send Titus-Timothy, with Erastus and a severe letter, to Corinth (via Macedonia) to give them zeal for Paul and his teaching so that he would not have to be harsh with them when he next visited (1 Cor 4:17-21; 2 Cor 7:12; 2 Cor 1:14; 2 Cor 1:23-2:3). Paul was confident that Titus-Timothy's mission and the severe letter would bring about the desired reconciliation (2 Cor 1:14-15; 2:3; 7:14), so he planned to visit Corinth soon after. Paul planned to make this visit to Corinth and then to proceed to Macedonia before returning to Corinth (2 Cor 1:15-16).
6. Meanwhile those in Corinth who rejected Paul became arrogant and defiant at Paul's failure to arrive at the originally appointed time (1 Cor 4:18-21).
7. Stephanas et al arrived from Corinth in the spring and refreshed Paul's spirit (1 Cor 16:17-18). Titus-Timothy had been delayed and had not yet arrived in Corinth. There was no longer sufficient time for Paul to make a proper visit to Corinth on his way to Macedonia (1 Cor 16:7).
8. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, apologetically explaining that he would not be visiting them before Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5-8). As in the severe letter, he corrected the misunderstanding of his former letter (1 Cor 5:9-10), and urged them to recognize him (1 Cor 4). Paul commended Titus-Timothy's mission (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10-11) and instructed the Corinthians to start the collection soon (1 Cor 16:1-2). He told them that he would leave Ephesus soon (at Pentecost) (1 Cor 16:8).
9. Titus-Timothy finally arrived in Corinth, where he was received well (2 Cor 7:15), in obedience to Paul's earlier instructions (1 Cor 16:10-11). The severe letter brought the Corinthians to repentance. They turned on one prominent offender and punished him (2 Cor 2:4-8; 7:7-11). Titus-Timothy started the collection in Corinth (2 Cor 8:6). However, the Corinthians did not understand why Paul had cancelled his visit (2 Cor 1:17). The 'super-apostles' probably arrived in Corinth at about that time.
10. Titus-Timothy's delay made it impossible for him to meet up with Paul in Ephesus, or even to intercept him in the Troad (2 Cor 2:12-13). So Titus-Timothy travelled directly to Macedonia and met Paul there (2 Cor 7:5-6).
11. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians.

In short:
The news from Chloe's people caused Paul to delay his announced visit to Corinth until after Titus-Timothy's mission. Titus-Timothy was delayed and, at the time of 1 Corinthians, Paul abandoned the visit completely because time no longer allowed it. Titus-Timothy eventually arrived in Corinth with the severe letter and met Paul in Macedonia.

For detailed arguments in support of many of the elements of this sequence, see R. Fellows "Was Titus Timothy?", JSNT 81 (2001) 33-58.

Notice how most of the events recorded in 2 Corinthians are, with this reconstruction, either reported or anticipated in 1 Corinthians. However, those who see Titus and Timothy as different people, place all the events recorded in 2 Corinthians after the writing of 1 Corinthians, creating intolerable deja vu.

This is the eleventh post in the series on Titus-Timothy.