The illusive Titus and the anonymous brothers

W.M.Ramsay described Titus as "the most enigmatic figure in early Christian history", and with good reason. He first appears in Gal 2:1-3 as a subordinate of Paul during his Jerusalem visit of A.D. 48/49. He then disappears from view, being absent from the Thessalonian letters, 2 Cor 1:19, Philippians, and 1 Corinthians. But he mysteriously reappears in A.D. 55/56 in 2 Cor 2:12-13; 7:6, 13-15; 8:6, 16-17, 23; 12:18 in connection with visits to Corinth to organize the collection. He then disappears again. All this is surprising.

• Why the 7 year absence?
• When Titus is sent back to Corinth Paul stresses his close relationship to both the Corinthians and himself (2 Cor 8:23). It is his relationship of trust that he has established with both parties that makes him the ideal choice of envoy. But what about Titus's 'first' visit to Corinth? On the usual assumption about Titus's identity, he succeeded in reconciling the Corinthians to Paul after visits by both Paul and Timothy had failed. If we suppose that Titus was already a trusted co-worker of both Paul and the Corinthians, it becomes hard to explain his absence from 1 Corinthians, 2 Cor 1:19, and 1 Thess. If, on the other hand, we suppose that he had no prior relationship to the Corinthians, and had not worked closely with Paul since 48/49, it is hard to explain why Paul chose him as an envoy and how he was able to succeed where Paul and Timothy had failed.
• In 2 Cor 8:23 Paul describes Titus as his partner. This would be a strange claim to make if Titus had recently rejoined Paul’s team after an absence of several years and was expected to leave before the end of the travel season. 2 Cor 8:23 seems to imply an extensive association between Titus and Paul, which is hard to reconcile with the absence of Titus from Romans, 1 Corinthians, etc..
• Paul sent Titus back to Corinth (2 Cor 8:6, 16-17) to organize the collection, so it is a little strange that his name does not appear in Romans 16:21-23, which was written a few months later from Corinth. I have argued here that Paul sent greetings from all his prominent co-workers who were in Corinth at that time.

The strange absence of the name "Titus" from texts such as 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Acts raises the possibility that he is known in those texts by a different name. In my next post I hope to start to build the case that his other name was "Timothy".

But the theory that "Titus" was known by another name, is persuasive only if there is a plausible reason why Paul would switch to using the name "Titus" when he does. I will now argue that Paul called him "Titus" in 2 Corinthians to hide his identity from those who might have stolen or confiscated the collection.

It is a remarkable fact that Paul no-where names anyone who helped with the collection. Indeed, in 2 Cor 8:18-24 Paul mentions two collection helpers and leaves them strangely anonymous. It is very surprising that Paul should not name the men, whom he praises so highly. No parallel example has ever been proposed. Furthermore, we also must reckon with the anonymity of the brother of 2 Cor 12:18. As Thrall (p854) points out, Paul gives this man no description that might substitute for a name, and he was certainly known to the Corinthians. Why are the three brothers not named? The explanation becomes apparent when we realize that there was a risk that the collection would be stolen by bandits or intercepted by Jews or Roman authorities. I have argued in detail here that the Jews did indeed have the collection outlawed and that Paul delivered it anyway. For the protection of the collection it was necessary to prevent the identities of the helpers from becoming public knowledge. It is a mistake to think that 2 Corinthians would be heard or read only by Paul's trusted friends. Outsiders could be present when the letter was read (1 Cor 14:23) and there was a danger of "false brothers" (2 Cor 11:26), and the letter was to be circulated throughout Achaia (2 Cor 1:1). The anonymity of all three brothers therefore served to conceal their identity from outsiders. I am surprised that this has not been proposed before.

Since the name "Titus" appears in 2 Corinthians only in connection with his two missions to Corinth to organize he collection, his identity is concealed (from outsiders) by the use of that name. I suggest that Paul calls him "Titus" here precisely because he was not known publicly by that name.

Acts 24:17, the collection, and Ananias

Acts 24:17 reads:

"Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices" (NRSV)

Now, Downs (correctly) argues that the bringing of alms here sounds more like an act of private piety than the delivery of the collection that Paul had organized from the churches of Achaia and Macedonia ("Paul’s Collection and the Book of Acts Revisited" NTS 52 2006 p50-70). Luke's Paul is here presenting the collection as an act of private piety. Why did he do so? Well, I argued in my last blog post that the collection had been prohibited by the Jews of Achaia, who had jurisdiction in such matters, and that it was therefore illegal or at least controversial. It seems to me that this neatly explains why Paul presents the collection as an uncontroversial act of private piety. Paul, on trial for his life, choses his words carefully, preempting any accusation his accusers might bring about the collection.

Luke did not want to draw attention to the fact that the Christians had defied authority, so he did not reveal that Paul had collected funds from Galatia and later from Macedonia and Achaia. He was comfortable to mention only the uncontroversial famine relief by the church of Antioch (Acts 11:27-30) and Paul's carefully chosen words about bringing alms to Jerusalem. I suspect that Luke was cautious because adversaries of the church could get hold of a copy of Acts. Luke's intended audience, on the other hand, may have already known about the collection, in which case they would have understood the significance of Acts 24:17.

Apart from Acts 24:17, do we have other examples of cases where Luke's Paul carefully choses his words to save his skin? I would like to bring up one example. In Acts 22:1-3 Paul stresses his own strict Jewish credentials, and upbringing at the feet of Gamaliel. Luke here is not making the claim that Gamaliel was Paul's only teacher, or even his main teacher, as many suppose. Under the circumstances it would be legitimate for Paul to be selective with the facts. Remember that this is Luke's account of Paul's words, not Luke's account of events. Then, at Acts 22:12-15 Paul gives not hint that Ananias was a Christian, but says that he was devout according to the Law and respected by the Jews, and that he had endorsed Paul's future work. This information is completely absent from Luke's account of the same events in Acts 9:10-17. In Acts 22:12-15 Paul is seeking support from his audience by claiming that his work had the backing of a devout Jew. Luke's Paul, in great danger, understandably chooses his words carefully to try to win over his hearers.

We cannot, of course, prove that Acts 24:17 and Acts 22:1-3,12-15 are not Lucan invention, but it seems to me that these claims to Jewish piety are just the kinds of things that we would expect Paul to say, given the circumstances.

The plot against Paul (Acts 20:3)

We read in Acts 20:3 that the Jews made a plot against Paul when he was about to set sail for Syria. I will argue that the plot is historical and that it consisted of the decision by the Jews to intercept Paul if he attempted to deliver the collection. Points 3, 4, 5, and 8, are new.

1. Paul nowhere identifies anyone who helped with the collection. The two 'brothers' in 2 Cor 8:18-24 and the 'brother' of 2 Cor 12:18 are strangely anonymous, and Paul conspicuously uses Timothy's lesser-known name (Titus) when discussing him in connection to his missions to organize the collection. These silences are explicable if Paul was aware of opposition to the collection and was worried that it would be endangered if the identities of the helpers would leak out.

2. The plot was when Paul was about to sail. This is historically plausible since only at that time would it have been possible for the Jews to attempt to intercept the collection. Before that time the collection was dispersed in the homes of the individual donors (see 1 Cor 16:2).

3. If the plot was to attack Paul's person, it is surprising that he found out about it. If, on the other hand, Paul had been publicly forbidden from delivering the collection, he would have had reason to suspect that he would be under surveillance. Paul's knowledge of the "plot" is then explicable.

4. If the Jews (who had been given jurisdiction by Gallio) had declared the collection illegal, it would have been too dangerous for Paul to return to the Aegean after delivering the collection, and this would explain why Paul knew that he would not see the Ephesians again (Acts 20:25). The collection's illegality also explains why Acts does not mention it (for Luke is always careful to avoid giving any hint that the Christians do anything illegal).

5. We read that to avoid the plot Paul went north to Macedonia (Acts 20:3) and he sailed from Philippi and stayed in Troas (Acts 20:5). Why Philippi and Troas, rather than, for example, Beroea, Thesssalonica, or Ephesus? This was a long diversion, given his tight schedule (Acts 20:16). Well, it occurs to me that Philippi and Troas are the cities where he would have been safest from the plot of the Jews. We have no evidence of a synagogue in Philippi, and Acts records no Jewish opposition to Paul there. Also, there is no evidence that there were Jews in Troas in the first century.

6. Jewett argues that the boat that Paul took from Philippi to Patara was probably a coastal freighter that he had obtained for his exclusive use. This would have avoided the risk of being betrayed by fellow-passengers or port officials.

7. Paul's decision to split the party (Acts 20:5) will have served to protect the collection (so Gilchrist). The delegates (who were not under suspicion) would have been able to carry the collection with little risk of ambush, while Paul and Luke travelled separately with their empty pockets hanging out. Paul also travelled independently to Assos (Acts 20:13-14) and this also makes sense as a precaution against being arrested or ambushed while boarding a boat with the collection.

8. At first sight it seems that this "we" passage gives a surprisingly detailed and boring account of the journey. However, if the intended readers were expected to know that Paul was in danger of arrest or ambush, this passage is a gripping account of a daring escape and its inclusion is explicable.

It seems to me that the contents of this "We passage" comport well with the preceding mention of the plot (Acts 20:3). It is hard to imagine that Luke has inserted someone else's travel diary into his text at this point, as many suppose.

In summary: Paul, knowing that the collection would be opposed by synagogue Jews, chose to protect the identities of those who were to deliver it. The Jews in Achaia forbid Paul from delivering the collection, but he chose to do so anyway, even though he knew that he would be arrested if he ever returned to the Aegean. He was aware that he was under suspicion and that if he took a boat heading east he could be betrayed by crew or fellow passengers. He therefore headed north to Philippi, where there were few, if any, Jews who opposed him. Knowing that he was under more suspicion than the delegates, he sent them ahead to Troas with the money. Later, he walked from Troas to Assos, as a diversionary tactic, while the others took the money in the boat. To avoid being betrayed by fellow passengers they chartered a coastal freighter for their private use. Luke did not want to mention the collection in writing because of its illegality (Acts might fall into the hands of opponents), but his intended readers probably already knew about it. He wrote a dramatic account of how he and the others smuggled the collection out of the Aegean.