Titus as co-sender of 2 Cor 12:18-19

Here I will present a new argument that Titus was Timothy. I will argue that 2 Cor 12:14-20 makes best sense if Titus was the co-sender of the letter.

Paul had not been a burden to the Corinthians when he had visited them. Instead of respecting him for this behavior, the Corinthians were thinking that it was a trick to allow him to exploit them through others. In this passage Paul defends himself against the charge:

14 Here I am, ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, because I do not want what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children. 15 I will most gladly spend and be spent for you. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? 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? 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. 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; ....

The first person singular is used throughout most of this passage so the three plural verbs in 12:18b and 12:19 require explanation. Who is the 'we' in 2 Cor 18:18-19?

18 παρεκάλεσα Τίτον καὶ συναπέστειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν: μήτι ἐπλεονέκτησεν ὑμᾶς Τίτος; οὐ τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι περιεπατήσαμεν; οὐ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἴχνεσιν;

19 Πάλαι δοκεῖτε ὅτι ὑμῖν ἀπολογούμεθα; κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν: τὰ δὲ πάντα, ἀγαπητοί,ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν οἰκοδομῆς.

The plural in 2 Cor 12:18

In 2 Cor 12:18 the 'we' of περιεπατήσαμεν must be Paul and Titus (see Harris p891). Paul's point here is that Titus had been no more of a burden to the Corinthians than he (Paul) had been. 2 Cor 12:18b is NOT a comment on Paul's behavior in Corinth, because the Corinthians already accept that Paul had not been a burden to them. The Corinthians believed that Paul had been self-supporting in Corinth to win their trust in order to exploit them through envoy(s). Paul's point in 2 Cor 12:18b must therefore be that his envoy, Titus, had shown the same integrity as he had: "Did we (Titus and I) not conduct ourselves in the same spirit".

However, there is a problem. How were the original hearers expected to know that the 'we' here is Paul and Titus? Would not the recipients of the letter assume that subject of the verb is the co-senders of the letter, Paul and Timothy? Paul's text here seems hopelessly ambiguous.

The problem is solves, of course, when we realize that Titus was Paul's co-sender, Timothy. Except in the cases where the Corinthians would have known that Titus-Timothy could not be included, "we" in 2 Corinthians refers to Paul and Titus-Timothy by default. With the Titus-Timothy hypothesis we can translate:

18 I urged Timothy to go, and sent the brother with him. Timothy did not take advantage of you, did he? Did we (Timothy and I) not conduct ourselves with the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps?

The plural in 2 Cor 12:19

Here Paul refers the composition of the letter, so the 'we' naturally comprises the co-senders, Paul and Timothy. The problem is that the inclusion of Timothy here seems abrupt and unanticipated by anything in the preceding verses. Why would Paul use the plural here after using the singular exclusively since 11:21? Any why does he then return the singular in 2 Cor 12:20? Many suppose that Paul uses epistolary plurals in 2 Cor 12:19, but this is an arbitrary solution and should be used only as a last resort.

The problems are solved by equating Titus with Timothy. The letter brings Paul's co-sender, Titus-Timothy, back into view in 2 Cor 12:18 and includes him in the 'we' there. The text has countered the view that Paul has used Titus-Timothy to exploit the Corinthians. The Corinthians might see this as an attempt by Paul and his co-sender, Titus-Timothy, to defend themselves to them, so it is natural that Paul (and Titus-Timothy) should clarify their motives in 2 Cor 12:19.

The singular in 2 Cor 12:20

Paul uses the singular in 2 Cor 12:20, as indeed wherever his future visit to Corinth is mentioned (2 Cor 9:4; 12:14-15; 12:20-13:2; 13:10). Why does he not include his co-sender, Timothy, in his travel plans? We know that Timothy was with Paul when 2 Corinthians was written (2 Cor 1:1) and was also with him later in Corinth (Rom 16:21). So why does Paul in 2 Corinthians completely ignore Timothy's future visit to Corinth? Since he prepares the Corinthians for his own visit, why does he not prepare them for Timothy's or at least acknowledge poor Timothy's existence by using a plural or two?

Again Titus-Timothy solves the problems. He carried 2 Corinthians so was not a part of Paul's future journey to Corinth. Much of 2 Corinthians is devoted to preparing the Corinthians for his visit.

In a future posts I will argue that the change in tone from 2 Cor 10:1 is explained by the Titus-Timothy hypothesis and that partition theories are unnecessary.

The role, authority, and names of Stephanas

Paul was the main founder of the church of Corinth. This fact gave him authority over the congregation there (see 1 Cor 4:15-16 and 2 Cor 10:8,15). We should therefore expect that those who had helped Paul establish a church would also derive authority commensurate with the role that they had played in the formation of the church. I shall first argue that Paul's selection of co-senders shows that the churches did indeed owe respect to those who had helped Paul to found them.

It was rare in the ancient world for the author to include co-senders. Karen Fulton is doing a PhD on co-senders and finds only about 80 such cases. It is significant, therefore that Paul includes named co-senders: Timothy and Silvanus in 1 Thess; Timothy in 2 Cor, Phil, and Phlm; and Sosthenes in 1 Cor. What all these people have in common is that they all participated in the founding of the church in question (see 2 Cor 1:19 and Acts). Rom and Gal have no named co-senders and this is explicable because no-one who was with Paul at the time or writing had helped to found those churches. The role of Sosthenes in the establishment of church of Corinth is clear from Acts 18:8 and from the meaning of his name, if we accept that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed. So, Paul includes co-founders as co-senders. This suggests that the co-founders had authority in the churches that they helped to establish. Paul adds their authority to his own by including their names as co-senders.

This helps us to understand Paul's rhetoric in 1 Cor 16:15-16. Here Paul is urging the Corinthians to be submissive to the household of Stephanas. We also read that the household of Stephanas had been 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 1:34). No, that Paul goes to the trouble of mentioning it at all suggests that the role of "firstfruits" was a more substantial role that commanded respect. It seems, then, that Stephanas had put his house and household at Paul's service and that this had allowed the formation of the church of Corinth.

Now, I have argued here and here that Stephanas was Gaius Titius Justus renamed. However, Doug Chaplain objects:

"Richard Fellows suggests with many that in the Corinthian Church Gaius and Titius Justus are to be identified as the same person. He goes a step further and suggests the man with this good proud Roman name is also to be known by a Greek nickname and identified with Stephanas. ....

I would say that 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 makes that inherently unlikely.

It seems to me that by far the most natural reading is to see Gaius and Stephanas as different people. It would be odd, I think, for Paul to use (what is a conjectural) praenomen for him as an individual and a nickname for him as the paterfamilias of a household."

I am grateful to Doug for the feedback and for getting me to think about this issue again. He is right that "Stephanas" cannot have been a "nickname" in the modern sense of the word, but that is not what is being proposed. Nicknames in modern times are usually informal names that are often humorous, but religious bi-names in the ancient world were very different. I am proposing that Paul gave Gaius Titius Justus the name/epithet "Stephanas" to honor him for making his house available for Paul to use for preaching.

Dale Allison believes that ancient authors could refer to someone by one name and then switch to another name for no apparent reason. However, I have not found this to be the case very often. I think it is valid to ask why the same person would be called "Gaius" in 1 Cor 1:14 and Rom 16:23, "Stephanas" in 1 Cor 1:16 and 1 Cor 16:15-18, and "Titius Justus" in Acts 18:7. In 1 Corinthians Paul is trying to unite the church under Stephanas's roof. To do this he bolsters the authority of Stephanas by reminding the Corinthians that Stephanas's household was the "firstfruits". It therefore makes perfect sense that Paul should call him "Stephanas" in 1 Corinthians, since this name/epithet honors him for his benefaction of providing a house. The Corinthians will have known the significance of the name and why it was given and Paul's use of it here is in keeping with his desire to remind the Corinthians that the household of Stephanas was the firstfruits and worthy of respect. It is true that in 1 Cor 1:14 Paul calls him "Gaius", but this refers to a time before he had earned the name "Stephanas". It is not surprising that Paul should call him "Gaius" in Rom 16:23. Someone's original name did not usually fall from use after they received a religious bi-name. Thus Peter continued to be known as "Simon/Simeon" (e.g. Acts 15:14). Similarly, Bar Kokhba continued to sign his letters "Bar Kosiba". Unlike the Corinthians, the church of Rome would probably not have known the significance of Gaius's bi-name, and Paul had no reason to use it. It is also not surprising that Acts should call him "Titius Justus" (Acts 18:7). By using his nomen and cognomen here Luke may be deliberately revealing that he was a Roman citizen. In any case, this verse refers to a time before Titius Justus would have received his bi-name.

So, there is nothing odd about the way that Paul sometimes calls him "Gaius" and sometimes "Stephanas". On the contrary, Paul's name selections seem to fit the contexts. I am therefore not convinced by Doug's objections to the hypothesis that Gaius was Stephanas. However, I find his comments on Stephanas here very insightful.