Preference for praenomina in the New Testament

This is, I think, the first study of the conventions governing the use of Latin first names (praenomina) in the New Testament. I will show that believers, and especially gracious hosts, in the New Testament tended to be called by their praenomina.

Following  E.A. Judge , I suggest that Roman citizens were often selected to be church envoys in the NT because of the protection that their Roman status gave them for this dangerous work. This explains the very high proportion of Latin names, particularly among Paul's close companions. In the New Testament we have about 53 male believers who had Greek names and 27 with Latin names. In the first century male Roman citizens held three names: a praenomen, nomen, and cognomen. What seems to have gone unnoticed is that out of the 27 men with Latin names, about 30% are named with a praenomen. This is a very high proportion, even allowing for the possibility that some of the Greek names were also cognomina. Eleanor Dickey (1) reports that when Romans were named by a single name, the praenomen was used only 6% of the time. The praenomina in the NT are

1. Gaius (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23)
2. Gaius (3 John 1)
3. Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37, 39), who seems to be in view in Col 4:10 also.
4. Mark (Philemon 24), whom I take to be different from the Mark of Acts.
5. Lucius (Acts 13:1), whom I take to be the same person as the Lucius of Rom 16:21 and the Luke of Philemon 24 (and Col 4:14).
6. Titus (Gal 2:1,3; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; 2 Tim 4:10; Tit 1:4).
7. Gaius (Acts 20:4)
8. Gaius (Acts 19:29)

Others will find more Lukes and fewer Marks, but will arrive at a similar total number of people. The only (presumed) non-believer who is given a Latin praenomen is:
9. Publius (Acts 28:7-8), who hosted Paul and his companions in Malta.

Why are these men named using praenomina? Can it be explained by the contexts in which they are mentioned, and the social ethos of the early church?

As is widely agreed, praenomina were used primarily by family members and intimate friends (2). Since the early Christians were a close-knit group and considered each other to be "family" (consider the fictive kinship language of e.g. Mark 3:34), we should not be surprised that they often used praenomina. Romans preferred to use their nomina and cognomina in public because a praenomen alone did not necessarily display their citizen status. It is sometimes inferred from this that the NT praenomina were held by non-citizens. Bauckham writes, "Those whose Latin name is merely a common Latin praenomen (Marcus, Lucius) were certainly not Roman citizens" (3). For a similar view see Judge p111. However, not everyone was keen to display his high status (4) and it is particularly doubtful that Christians were so snobby about their Roman citizenship. Paul, at least, seems to have been reluctant to display his citizenship (Acts 16:37-39; 22:25-28). Since, in Christ, there was no "slave or free" (Gal 3:28), it would not seem right for citizen believers to laud it over the others by flaunting their nomina and cognomina. The praenomen had the advantage of being more humble. The humility of early Christian naming conventions is shown by three observations:
1) The authors of the gospels and Acts and Hebrews avoid naming themselves at all, as does Paul in 2 Cor 12:2-5.
2) Hypocoristic name forms are common in the New Testament (see appendix 1).
3) Paul himself probably chose his name, which means "small", out of humility (see here).

Let us now examine the data on individual holders of Latin praenomina in the NT to see whether they were Roman citizens and why their praenomina are used.

Publius of Malta
Publius (Acts 28:7-8) was the leading man of Malta so he was undoubtedly a Roman citizen. Commentators have puzzled over why Luke uses his praenomen instead of nomen or cognomen. The explanation can be found, I think, in his relationship to the author of Acts. He "entertained us hospitably for three days" and Paul visited his sick father (presumably in his house) and cured him. Luke is saying that Publius was a gracious host. The use of his praenomen in this passage serves to reinforce the point that Publius had treated Paul and Luke as intimate friends. Publius might well have invited Paul and Luke to use his first name, especially after they cured his father.

Gaius of Corinth
Just as Luke uses the praenomen of his host in Malta; in the same way Paul uses the praenomen of his host in Corinth (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23). Some or perhaps all of those whom Paul greets in Rom 16:3-15 had travelled (returned) to Rome from the east and Gaius may have hosted them during their journey to Rome. In any case, he hosted Paul and the whole Corinthian church. His house must have been large so it is likely that he was a Roman citizen or freedman, rather than a Greek who had only the one name. The use of his praenomen here suggests that he treated his guests as intimate friends or family members. Rather than lording it over them, he encouraged them to use his praenomen. Now, it seems to me that the kind of man who would allow people to know him by his praenomen would not be the kind of person who would have been comfortable with the fact that high status believers humiliated low status believers in his house. This suggests that Gaius was not complicit in the problems that arose in the church meetings (1 Cor 11:17-33). He must, therefore, have been ineffective in asserting his authority as host over the arrogant Corinthian believers. This neatly explains why Paul must urge the Corinthians to show the household of Gaius Titius Justus Stephanas (who was one man) "a little respect" in 1 Cor 16:15-18.

Gaius of 3 John
Gaius is urged to support traveling Christians (3 John 5-8) so he was probably wealthy and likely a Roman citizen. The author writes:

The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.

The use of the praenomen is not surprising because the author and Gaius were intimate friends and the author may have wanted to emphasize their closeness in order to more effectively influence his friend. Dickey (p65) mentions that praenomina could sometimes be used when making requests.

John-Mark
Acts 12:12-13 tells us that "many had gathered" in the house of Mary, who had a servant and an outer gateway and was the mother of John-Mark. If Col 4:10 is correct, he was a cousin of Barnabas, who was a benefactor (Acts 4:36-37). Both sources therefore suggest that he was from a wealthy family, and this makes it more likely that he was a Roman citizen. Williams (5) points out that the name "Mark" was often held by Jews who were Roman citizens and only in Cyrenaica was it held by non-citizen Jews. In any case he was surely given the name "Mark" at birth. The common assumption that he took that name only when he became a missionary is untenable since the name had nothing to recommend it. The name "Mark" has no appropriate meaning and nor is it a close homophone of "John". Nor is it likely that a Jerusalem Jew, who was not already a Roman citizen, would associate himself with the Roman administration by choosing a Latin name. All the other double names in the NT make better sense (Saul-Paul, Silas-Silvanus, Simon-Peter, Jesus-Justus, Joseph-Barnabas etc.).

The others
In previous blog posts I have discussed the Mark of Philemon 24, Lucius/Luke, and Titus-Timothy. These, along with the Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29) and Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4) and John-Mark, were probably all travelers. The Mark of Philemon 24 and Lucius (Rom 16:21), you see, send greetings because they had met (many of) the addressees on their travels. Excluding those with purely Semitic names, about 40% of those who travelled on church business in the New Testament had Greek names, about 30% had Latin praenomina, and about 30% had either a nomen or a Latin cognomen. Why do so many of Paul's travel companions have Latin praenomina? A very low percentage of non-Romans were called by a praenomen (See appendix 2), so it is likely that many of these men were freeborn citizens (or freedmen). Presumably believers who were Roman citizens travelled more than those who were not, because they could afford it and because their citizenship gave them protection.

Given that about 60% of Roman citizens were called either Lucius, Gaius, or Marcus, great confusion would have been created if the use of praenomina had become universal among the Christians. The use of praenomina, while it seems to have been favored, would then be self-limiting.

I am grateful for the feedback that I received from E.A. Judge on these issues. My thinking also owes much to Larry Welborn (An End to Enmity p298-9), who suggests that Gaius of Corinth is called by his praenomen out of humility, but he oddly ascribes this humility to Paul rather than to Gaius.

Appendix 1: Hypocoristic names in Acts-Revelation

Here are the diminutive forms and their probable formal equivalents.

Priscilla (Acts 18:2, 18, 26); Prisca (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19)

Sopater (Acts 20:4); Sosipater (Rom 16:21)

Apollos (Acts 18:24; 19:1; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4, 5, 6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Tit 3:13); Apollonios

Stephanas? (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15, 17)

Epaphras (Philemon 23; Col 4:12); Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25)

Demas (Philemon 24; Col 4:14); Demetrios (Acts 19:24, 38)

Lukas (Philemon 24; Col 4:14); Lucius (Acts 13:1; Rom 16:21)

Patrobas (Rom 16:14); Patrobios?

Olympas (Rom 16:15); Olympiodoros

Hermas (Rom 16:14); Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15)

Zenas (Tit 3:13); Zenodotos

Artemas (Tit 3:12); Artemidoros

Antipas (Rev 2:13) Antipatros

Appendix 2: It was not common for non-citizens to hold a Latin Praenomen.
There were only about 15 praenomina in common use. Here is the list with their approximate frequencies:
Lucius 21%; Gaius 21%; Marcus, 16%; Quintus, 10%; Publius, 9%; Gnaeus 4%; Aulus 4%; Titus 3%; Sextus 2%; Manius, Numerius, Decimus, Servius, Tiberius, Spurius, each 1%. Of those recorded in the six volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, less than 1% held a Latin praenomen as his only recorded name, and some of these may have been citizens. The Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part III The Western Diaspora 330 BCE-650 CE gives the names of 810 male Jews who have Greek names, and 326 with Latin names. Of these 326 males, only 24 are known to us only by a praenomen, and 5 of these 24 are almost certainly Roman citizens. The Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity Part 1 Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE identifies 2509 male Jews, of which 71 have Latin names. Of these 71, only 9 possible non-citizens possess a Latin Praenomen. The index of Josephus contains not a single praenomen that was held by a non-citizen.

The above statistics may underestimate the occurrence of praenomina in the first century since the sources cover wider spans of time. Much more needs to be done to reconstruct the frequencies of the praenomina in question in the first century in the relevant regions among Romans and non-Romans. However, it does seem that it was not common for non-citizens to boast a Latin praenomen.

Update:
Following helpful comments from Richard Bauckham, I have assembled statistics for the first century.

		Christians in the New Testament	Probably first century men in Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity III	First century men in Lexicon of Greek Personal Names Vols 1-5
1	Number of men with Greek names	53	530	11068
2	Number of men with Latin names	27	100
3	Number of men recorded by Latin praenomen only	8	14	203
	Row 3 divided by row 1	15%	2.6%	1.8%
	Row 3 divided by row 2	30%	14%

It can be seen that, even in the first century, it was rare for men to hold a Latin praenomen as their only recorded name. The number of such men in our sources is only 2% of the number of men with Greek names. From this we should expect to have only one believer in the New Testament recorded by praenomen alone.

Notes on how these statistics were compiled:
The 14 men with praenomen alone in the LJNLAIII comprise 9 men from Cyrenaica who are dated, "Pre-117CE", 1 from Cyrenaica on a "pre-70CE" ossuary, 3 others from Cyrenaica who are definitely first century, and 1 from Egypt. I did not include a certain Lucius or his son Lucius because the father was likely a Roman citizen who had passed his praenomen to his son. Similarly I did not include Quintus or his son, Quintus.
For the LGPN the statistics are limited to those who are designated as certainly first century. I estimated the number of first century men with Greek names by counting those on pages 50, 100, 150, 200, etc. in each of the six volumes.


Notes
(1) Latin Forms of Address p56
(2) Adams writes, "The praenomen was the most intimate of the tria nomina. It was mainly used within the family and between close friends." (Conventions of Naming in Cicero, The Classical Quarterly XXVIII, p161).
Harold Axtell, Men's Names in the Writings of Circero, Classical Philology X 1915, p399, writes, "In cases other than that of direct address the praenomen is more freely used to indicate intimacy".
(3) Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World, p204
(4) Concerning Asia, Kearsley finds evidence that men were not always keen to indicate their high status in Greek inscriptions and he suggests that this may mean that estimates of the number of Roman citizens may need to be increased. Greeks and Romans in imperial Asia: mixed language inscriptions and linguistic evidence for cultural interaction until the end of AD III, 2001. p150-1, brought to my attention by E.A. Judge.
(5)  Williams, "Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts" in The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting Vol 4 p105

Review of Welborn on the offender of 2 Cor 2,7

Here I review L.L. Welborn An end to Enmity: Paul and the "Wrongdoer" of Second Corinthians 2011.

In 500 pages Welborn teases out what can be known about the offender from the key passages 2 Cor 2:5-11 and 2 Cor 7:7-15. He then argues that the conflict between Paul and the offender looms large in almost every section of 2 Corinthians and parts of 1 Corinthians. The offender, he suggests, was the host of the church, Gaius (Rom 16:23), who accused Paul of embezzling money set aside for the poor in Judea.

The book contains a wealth of information on conventions of friendship and enmity in the ancient world, as well as a survey of archaeological data for envisaging Gaius's house. Whether or not readers are convinced by Welborn's overall thesis, I think they will find the book contains much intriguing out-of-the-box thinking on several passages. I'll mention three examples.

1. He plausibly argues that when Paul writes "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses" he means that it is not acceptable for the Corinthians to accept uncorroborated accusations by a single person against Paul. See my review of Welborn's earlier paper here.

2. He presents a good case that Paul chose that name, meaning "small", out of humility (p294-297).

3. He interprets the affliction of 2 Cor 1:8 as Paul's spiritual anguish rather than persecution (p435).

His conclusion that the offender was rich seems reasonable. I also appreciated his arguments that the offense concerned money and had a legal aspect, but it is unfortunate that he does not go on to explore the possibility that the offense is alluded to in 1 Cor 4:1-5. This is perhaps because he assumes from the start that Paul's second visit to Corinth was after 1 Corinthians and that the offense took place on that occasion. He divides 1 Corinthians into 3 letters and 2 Corinthians into 5 letters. Readers who do not share these pre-suppositions will find little to persuade them. Much of his reconstruction is dependent on, for example, the assumption that 2 Cor 10-13 is the tearful letter.

He quickly dismisses the theory that Gaius was Titius Justus (p299-300), but elsewhere presents very similar pictures of Gaius and Titius Justus. He agrees that 1 Cor 1:14 implies that Gaius was "among the first converts to Christianity at Corinth (p288) and that he had a close relationship to Crispus. All this fits Titius Justus nicely. He agrees that Titius Justus hosted Paul's preaching (p93) and that "Gaius placed his own house at the disposal of the Christian community" (p321). He also identifies Gaius, like Titius Justus, as a God-fearer (p370). Then he writes "The fact that Titius Justus is absent from Paul's Corinthian correspondence, even in its earliest stages, permits, and perhaps requires, the inference that the Corinthian Christians had found another place for their assembly" (p249).

In 1 Cor 1:14-15 Paul implies that it is ironic or fortuitous that the only people whom he baptized in Corinth were Crispus and Gaius. What, then was special about Crispus and Gaius that made this fact ironic/fortuitous. Welborn believes that Crispus and Gaius were leaders of the factions. However, Crispus had been given the name "Sosthenes" and had moved to Ephesus (1 Cor 1:1), and Gaius-Stephanas too was with Paul. The fortuitous fact, to which Paul alludes, is that two people whom he had baptized were no longer in Corinth. Also, if Crispus and Gaius were opponents of Paul, as Welborn supposes, it is doubtful that Paul would have named them. Paul never names his opponents, as Welborn acknowledges.

He considers 1 Cor 11:17-34 as a reproof against  Gaius, the host of the church (p402). However there is no suggestion that Gaius was at fault. Indeed, it is precisely because the Corinthian believers were abusing Gaius's hospitality, that Paul urges them to show Gaius Titius Justus Stephanas's household a little respect (1 Cor 16:15-16).

Welborn writes, "Paul's demand that the Corinthians "submit" or "be subject" to Stephanas and his household is surprising, if not to say stunning, in context. Why should the other Corinthian Christians, and especially the leaders of other house-churches, men of substance such as Crispus and Gaius, subordinate themselves to Stephanas?" (p254). But Gaius was Stephanas and Crispus was Sosthenes, who was in Ephesus with Paul.

He assumes that the wrong-doer must be mentioned in Paul's letters, but why? (p233)

He takes "ministry to the saints" in 1 Cor 16:15 to be a reference to the collection because almost the same phrase refers to the collection in 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1 (p256). However, this argument is weakened when we realize that in 2 Cor 8,9 Paul is deliberately vague about the collection (for protective reasons). If the Roman authorities had got their hands on 2 Corinthians they would not be able to determine that Paul was urging a collection for Judea or who his helpers were. Paul uses the phrase "ministry to the saints" in 8:4 and 9:1 precisely because it did not unambiguously indicate a collection of money.

He says that when enemies reconciled they often shared hospitality and he suggest that this is evidence that Gaius, Paul's host, was his former enemy (p287). However, the reconciliation was months earlier than the time of writing of Romans. Surely the convention did not require that Paul stay with his former enemy for the whole winter? Doing so would have alienated others wouldn't it?

This book raises all sorts of issues that are not normally considered in the commentaries and for this reason will be helpful to those with a keen interest in the Corinthian correspondence, even if, like me, they conclude that the central thesis is wrong.

Gaius Titius Justus and his new name, Stephanas

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Titius Justus, Polycharmus, and synagogue architecture

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.

It is a remarkable coincidence that Titius Justus's house happened to adjoin the synagogue .... or is it?

Well, I recently read Stephen Catto's interesting discussion of ancient synagogues here. Thanks, Mark Goodacre, for the link. Catto discusses the Stobi synagogue inscription:

[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.

Until I read Catto's discussion I had not realized that Polycharmus had donated rooms in his own house for use as a synagogue. Polycharmus retained the rooms on the upper floor as his house, while the rooms below became the synagogue. There seems to be a consensus that this is the scenario. Indeed, many believe that the majority of ancient synagogues were formed from domestic houses. So, after his benefaction, Polycharmus's house (the upper rooms) adjoined the synagogue (the ground floor). Sound familiar? This provides a good parallel for the case of Titius Justus and explains the apparent coincidence that his house was part of the same structure as the synagogue.

My suggestion, therefore, is that Titius Justus (or perhaps his forbears) had donated a part of his house for use as a synagogue. The remaining rooms continued to be his house. Thus, his house adjoined the synagogue. Then, after becoming a Christ-believer, he performed a similar benefaction for the church, offering the (rest of) his house as a 'synagogue' for Paul's use. I think this makes sense because someone who is able and willing to be a benefactor of the Jews is likely, after conversion, to provide a similar service for the church.

This is important because it adds another data point for the debate about the origin of synagogue buildings in the ancient world. It also brings Titius Justus into sharper focus and fits nicely with the view that he was Gaius and Stephanas (see my earlier posts here and here and here). Incidentally, the Titius Justus-Stephanas hypotheses came out of discussions with Stephen Carlson, who was the first to connect the two names. I don't know what position, if any, he holds on the hypothesis.

Also incidentally, John Chrysostom wrote about Gaius:

See what a crown (στέφανον) 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!

Benefactors were commonly given a crown, and for Chrysostom, Paul give Gaius a 'crown' by acknowledging his benefaction. Chrysostom seems to have been a hair's width away from realizing that Paul had given Gaius a 'crown' (στέφανος) by naming him "Stephanas" (Στέφανᾶς).