Review of Walker on Apollos and Timothy as the unnamed brothers

Here I review William O. Walker: "Apollos and Timothy as the Unnamed "Brothers" in 2 Corinthians 8:18-24" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73, 2011.

In 2 Cor 8:5-6, 16-17 Paul says that he is sending Titus to Corinth to complete the collection. Then, in 2 Cor 8:18-24 he commends two anonymous men who will also help with the collection:

18 With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his proclaiming the good news; 19 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. 20 We intend that no one should blame us about his generous gift that we are administering, 21 for we intend to do what is right not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of others. 

22 And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found eager in many matters, but who is now more eager than ever because of his great confidence in you. 

23 As for Titus, he is my partner and co-worker in your service; as for our brothers, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ. 24 Therefore openly before the churches, show them the proof of your love and of our reason for boasting about you.

The first "brother"
Walker argues that the first anonymous "brother" is Apollos.  He has three arguments for identifying the first brother as Apollos:

1. This brother is "famous among all the churches for his proclaiming the good new". This fits Apollos. However, it also fits the author of Acts, who was Paul's fellow-missionary. Walker, who is skeptical of the historicity of Acts, does not discuss the author.

2. He follows Betz in supposing that the anonymity is a kind of a put-down. In 1 Corinthians he sees Apollos as a rival whom Paul would want to put down. However, while the ancients often left enemies anonymous, the anonymous brothers, on any hypothesis, were not enemies of Paul. These do not seem to be examples of anonymity of enmity. No one has found any example of a person who is commended so highly being left anonymous. Betz is wrong. The anonymity here, and in 2 Cor 12:18, served to protect the individuals and the collection from ambush/confiscation. See here.

3. This man is called "the brother", whereas the second man is called "our brother", which is more personal. Furthermore, Paul says nothing about his personal knowledge of the first brother. Why is the description of the first brother so impersonal? Walker infers that "Paul does not feel as close to the first brother as he does to the second" and "Paul is somewhat less enthusiastic about the brother's preaching than are the churches".
However, the reason for the impersonal description of the first brother is surely that Paul wants this brother to be seen as independent of himself and therefore able to clear Paul of any suspicion related to the collection. The role of this "brother" is to guard the collection against embezzlement, and this required that he be trusted and independent of Paul. The brother's role would have been undermined if Paul had described him as his buddy (even if he was his buddy). Walker's inferences therefore do not seem justified.

There are some problems with the Apollos hypothesis.
1. It seems unlikely that Paul's churches would appoint a rival of Paul (as Walker sees him) to administer the collection, and nor would Paul agree to it.
2. The brother was to travel with the collection, so should be mentioned in Acts 20:4. Apollos is not there.
3. The brother, being famous, would surely have known many of those who had moved to Rome by the time of writing of Romans, so should be among the greeters of Rom 16:21-23. Apollos is not mentioned there.

The second brother
Walker believes that the second brother is Timothy. He points out that
1. Timothy was often an envoy of Paul
2. Timothy was with Paul when 2 Corinthians was written
3. Pseudo-Pauline letters were addressed to "Timothy" and "Titus". Walker thinks this supports the view that both were involved with the collection. Walker here would have done better to use Acts 20:4 to show that Timothy accompanied the collection.

I would add a further argument for Timothy being one of those whom Paul sent to Corinth at the time in question. Whenever Paul mentions his plans to come to Corinth in 2 Corinthians, he does so using singular verbs (see in particular 2 Cor 9:4; 12:14; 12:20-13:2; 13:10). It appears from this that Timothy, Paul's co-sender, was not expected to accompany Paul to Corinth, though he was with Paul at the time (2 Cor 1:1) and was later with Paul in Corinth (Rom 16:21; Acts 20:4). The data make sense if Timothy was one of the three delegates who are sent to Corinth in 2 Cor 8:16-24, but which one?

Walker finds that the description of the second anonymous brother fits Timothy well. However, it seems unlikely that Timothy would be one of the "messengers of the churches" (8:23). The description of Titus as "my partner" (2 Cor 8:23) fits Timothy much better. In any case, I consider it certain, on other grounds, that Titus was Timothy.

In Rom 16:21-23 Timothy is named first, and name order was very important. It is very unlikely that Paul would mention Timothy after Apollos, as Walker requires.

I do not understand Walker's explanation for the anonymity of the second brother (Timothy in his view). He writes:

My own suggestion, however, is that Paul omits Timothy's name precisely because he has omitted Apollos's name. The inclusion of Timothy's name would have called attention to the omission of Apollos's name and thus to Apollos himself and thereby elevated him, with Timothy, to a status within the delegation more nearly approximating that of Titus. In short, Paul may well have diverted attention away from Timothy as a way of doing the same with regard to Apollos.

I will invite him to explain.

Acts and the origin of the Corinthians' problems

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.

Titus-Timothy and the purpose of the tearful letter

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?

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

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.

"I" and "we" in 2 Corinthians etc.

Here I argue that Paul writes predominantly in the first person plural ("we"/"us") in the letters where he relied on information from Titus-Timothy, his co-sender. This is the 7th post in the series on the theory that Titus was Timothy.

In Philippians, Philemon, 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans Paul almost always uses the first person singular (I/me), even though he has co-senders in the first three of these letters. In contrast, in 1 Thessalonians the plural (we/us) is used almost exclusively. This makes perfect sense when we remember that 1 Thessalonians was written in response to information received from Timothy, one of Paul's co-senders (1 Thess 1:1; 3:6). At the time of writing Timothy knew much more than Paul about the current situation in the Thessalonian church, so it is to be expected that he had a lot of input to the composition of the letter, and this explains why it was written in the first person plural.

The plural also dominates in 2 Corinthians (Murphy-O'Connor counts 276 plurals and 228 singulars). This is explicable if Paul's co-sender, Timothy, was Titus, who had just returned to Paul from Corinth. It is very hard to explain if Timothy was not Titus.

I will now show that the instances when Paul uses the singular in 2 Corinthians can also be explained by the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.

When Paul uses the first person plural, "we", he can mean:

a) Paul and the addressees

b) Paul and his co-sender(s), e.g. Timothy.

c) Paul and his team generally.

d) Paul and those who were with him at the time referred to.

It is often difficult to know which "we" is intended. However, when he is referring to the composition of the letter we can assume that "we" means Paul and his co-sender(s). In 2 Corinthians Paul (with his co-sender, Timothy) refers to the writing of the letter using the first person plural at 2 Cor 3:1; 5:12; 5:20; 6:11; 8:1; 12:19, and perhaps at 2 Cor 1:8 and 2 Cor 6:9,

while he uses the singular at 2 Cor 6:13; 7:3; 8:3; 8:8; 8:10; 9:1; 10:1; 10:2; 10:9; 11:1; 11:16; 11:17; 11:18; 11:21; 11:23; 11:31; 12:1; 12:5; 12:11; 13:10-11.

I think there is a pattern here. Paul uses the singular whenever he is being critical of the Corinthians or being demanding of them, and he uses the plural at all other times. Thus, it is Paul alone who cajoles them into giving to the collection (2 Cor 8:3; 8:8; 8:10; 8:13; 9:1) and is critical of them 2 Cor 10:1; 10:2; 10:9; 11:1; 11:16; 11:17; 11:18; 11:21; 11:23; 11:31; 12:1; 12:5; 12:11; 13:10-11.

2 Cor 6:11-13; 7:3 are particularly interesting:

We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians; our heart is wide open to you. There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In return--I speak as to children--open wide your heats also. ... Make room in your hearts for us; we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. I do not say this to condemn you, for I said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together.

The plural "We have spoken frankly" indicates that Timothy, as well as Paul, has been responsible for the preceding passages. The subsequent plurals in these verses show that Paul is here defending Timothy as well as himself. He demands that the Corinthians open their hearts to him and to Timothy. However, whereas all previous verbs of writing/speaking have been plural, here they are all singular: "I speak", "I do not say this", "I said before". This switch to the singular demands an explanation. It fits the pattern of Paul using the singular whenever he demands changes to the Corinthians' behavior.

Now, Paul's reluctance to use the plural when being critical or demanding is explicable if his co-sender, Timothy, was Titus, who was being sent back to Corinth to conduct the delicate task of organizing the collection. Titus-Timothy was (or needed to appear to be) loyal to the Corinthians. For the sake of the collection it was important that Paul not jeopardize the relationship between Titus-Timothy and the Corinthians by associating him with any hint of criticism of them. I suggest that this explains the occasions when Paul uses the singular in 2 Corinthians. I have argued here that it also explains why Paul delays his most harsh words to the subscription (2 Cor 10-13).

It is remarkable that all cases of the first person singular in 2 Corinthians fall into one of two categories:

a) cases where Paul is doubting the Corinthians or being critical of them or making demands on them (2 Cor 1:13; 2:3-10; 5:11; 6:13-7:4; 7:8; 7:12: 8:8-14; 10:1-12:16: 12:20-13:3; 13:6; 13:10).

b) cases that concern occasions when Titus was not present (2 Cor 1:15-17; 1:23-2:2; 2:12-13; 7:7; 7:9; 7:14; 7:16; 8:3; 8:23; 9:1-5; 12:17-18: 12:20-13:3; 13:10).

In conclusion, it seems to me that the strange mix of first person plural and singular in 2 Corinthians is accounted for if Paul's co-sender, Timothy, was Titus, who had just returned from Corinth and was about to return there.