tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post7558132068292129666..comments2024-03-08T18:04:37.943-08:00Comments on Paul and co-workers: The role, authority, and names of StephanasRichard Fellowshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-58199576126019878612023-10-19T14:39:39.558-07:002023-10-19T14:39:39.558-07:00Loved reading thhis thank youLoved reading thhis thank youMLM Illustrationshttps://mlm-illustrations.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-61939848060761152842012-05-27T16:46:14.463-07:002012-05-27T16:46:14.463-07:00In my recent discussion of the use of praenomina i...In my recent discussion of <a href="http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.ca/2012/05/preference-for-praenomina-in-new.html" rel="nofollow">the use of praenomina in the NT</a> I argue that Christians who were Roman citizens were often referred to by their praenomina. Gaius Titius Justus is but one example of this. Praenomina were generally used by family and intimate friends and were not as dignified as nomina and cognomina. That Gaius had become known by his praenomen therefore implies that he did not laud his citizenship over other believers, but asked them to use his first name (praenomen) and welcomed them into his home as members of his own family. Compare Publius (Acts 28:7-10), another man whose praenomen implies that he had been a gracious host.<br /><br />I think Stephen is right to suppose that "Gaius" was his better known name. His friends, including those who had moved to Rome, probably knew him primarily as "Gaius". The Corinthians, however, also knew him as "Stephanas". The name honors him for delivering his household for the service of the saints and is used in that context in 1 Cor 1:16; 16:15-18. In 1 Cor 1:14, however, the context is very different. Here Paul is saying that the Corinthians should not boast about being members of the "Paul" faction and it is important that Paul avoids conferring honor on those whom he baptized here. It therefore would have been counter-productive for Paul to call him "Stephanas" at 1 Cor 1:14.<br /><br />Readers can find an up-dated presentation of the Gaius Titius Justus Stephanas hypothesis <a href="http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.ca/2011/12/gaius-titius-justus-and-his-new-name.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-15650415734005734522010-01-11T04:10:43.213-08:002010-01-11T04:10:43.213-08:00Perhaps another way to look at it is that Gaius an...Perhaps another way to look at it is that Gaius and Crispus in 1 Cor 1:14 were their names at their baptism. Rom 16:23 is written to a place outside of Paul's circles and so it is not unreasonable to have him use the better known name.<br /><br />The Gaius in Acts 19 and 20, the Derbean, appears to be a different person.Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239379955876245197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-87441364587369820602009-11-30T20:26:22.088-08:002009-11-30T20:26:22.088-08:00I don't understand your point here, Doug. What...I don't understand your point here, Doug. What is the relevance of the fact that the Peter is a translation of Cephas?<br /><br />The name "Cephas" was translated into Greek so that Greek speakers would understand its significance (which was that its bearer had been commissioned to be the rock on which the church was to be built, or something along those lines). So, our English translations should really read "Rock" instead of "Peter". Only in Gal 2:7-8 does Paul discuss Peter's commissioning, and only here does he call him "Rock", instead of "Cephas". This is no coincidence. Paul switches to the name "Rock" when the significance of this name/title is relevant to the context. This is exactly what I am proposing that Paul does also with "Crowned" (Stephanas).<br /><br />So the comparision is a good one, no?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-66566466795519691392009-11-30T01:57:18.364-08:002009-11-30T01:57:18.364-08:00I'm not entirely sure how fair the Peter-Cepha...I'm not entirely sure how fair the Peter-Cephas comparison is, since one could argue that these are variant language forms of the same name.Doug Chaplinhttp://clayboy.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-32540060642826459522009-11-29T23:13:25.983-08:002009-11-29T23:13:25.983-08:00I appreciate the interaction, Doug. The members of...I appreciate the interaction, Doug. The members of the house of Stephanas had, with Stephanas himself, devoted themselves to the service of the saints (1 Cor 16:15). This could have happened only with the encouragement or permission of Stephanas himself, since he was the head of the household. I am proposing that Stephanas had received that name for making his house and household available for the service of the church. On this hypothesis the household of Stephanas is therefore the benefaction that earned him the name. Therefore, when Paul mentions this household, it is appropriate that he should call him "Stephanas" rather than "Titius Justus", for example.<br /><br />I don't quite see why you think a nomen or cognomen would be more likely at 1 Cor 1:16. Are you supposing that a religious bi-name would not be dignified enough?<br /><br />Concerning the "oddity of swapping names in the same breath", Paul does precisely that with Cephas-Peter at Gal 1:18; 2:7-9, 11-14.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2860023273901948907.post-77545295268043776162009-11-29T11:28:57.270-08:002009-11-29T11:28:57.270-08:00Thanks, Richard. It is, however, still the oddity ...Thanks, Richard. It is, however, still the oddity of swapping names in the same breath where the logic would be to use his nomen or more likely cognomen in referring to him as the head of household.Doug Chaplinhttp://clayboy.co.uknoreply@blogger.com