Erastus (Rom 16:23) was Erastus (Acts 19:22)

Was the Erastus of Rom 16:23 the same man as the Erastus of Acts 19:22?

The rarity of the name Erastus

NT scholars have inexcusably failed to quantify the frequency of the name. The table below gives comments that people have made on the rarity or otherwise of the name. They range from "very rare" to "very common". 9 commentators say the name was common, 6 say it was rare, and 2 take an intermediate position. Why such contradictory assessments? And why such imprecision? What is meant by 'common'? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? It's very vague.

Author	Reference	Date	Comment
Cadbury	"Erastus of Corinth" JBL 50 p56	1931	The name Erastus belongs neither to the commonest nor to the most uncommon of names of the Hellenistic world
F.F. Bruce	The Acts of the Apostles p414	1965	The name was quite common
Cranfield	ICC The Epistle to the Romans p807	1979	The name was common enough
G.A. Lee	The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia p126	1982	Erastus was a common name
V.P. Furnish	Biblical Archaeology Review Vol XIV No 1 p20	1988	the name itself is not common
C. Hemer	The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic History p235	1990	this name is perhaps less common than sometimes suggested, but is attested in Ephesus
J. Fitzmyer	Anchor Bible Romans p750	1992	The name Erastus is well attested in inscriptions
A.D. Clarke	Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth	1993	the name Erastus is relatively uncommon
J. MacArthur	Romans 9-16 p379	1994	his was such a common name
Bruce Winter	Seek the Welfare of the City p191-192	1994	The name Erastus was rare in Corinth
Justin Meggitt	Nov. Test. Vol 38 p222	1996	A relatively common name for our period
Quinn & Wacker	The First and Second Letters to Timothy p832	2000	otherwise not found in Corinthian inscriptions
Ben Witherington III	The Acts of the Apostles p590	1998	The name Erastus was in any case a very common one
Barton & Muddiman	The Oxford Bible Commentary p1110	2001	a very rare name in Corinth
Darrell Bock	Baker ECNT Acts p606	2007	The name is common
R. Jewett	Romans p981	2007	The name does not appear frequently
David Peterson	PNTC The Acts of the Apostles p544	2009	The name was common

The table below gives the statistics from the 6 volumes of the LGPN so far published, which conveniently cover the Aegean region.

	Vol 1	Vol2a	Vol 3a	Vol 3b	Vol 4	Vol 5a
	Aegean Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica	Attica	Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily, Magna Graecia	Central Greece	Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Shores of the Black Sea	Coastal Asia Minor: Pontos to Ionia	Total
Erastus	2	14	12	0	4	8	40
All persons	66489	62361	43261	43456	33724	51293	300584

Therefore we have just 40 Erasti out of a total of 300584 entries. The frequency of the name Erastus was therefore 1 in 7500. However, I estimate that only about 12000 entries in the LGPN database can be dated securely to the first century, and 11 of these were called Erastus. Therefore, restricting ourselves to the first century, the frequency of the name can be estimated at 1 in 1100.

Now, both Erasti were Christians in the Aegean region. If we assume (generously) that there were 750 Christians in the Aegean region, the chances of having a second Erastus in that group is about 50%. However, I will now show that further considerations make the two-person hypothesis very unlikely.

"Both" were well-known believers

The Erastus of Acts 19:22 travelled with Timothy from Ephesus to Macedonia. Now, as is commonly agreed, 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10-11 shows that Timothy went from Ephesus to Macedonia and was to proceed to Corinth. Assuming that this was the same journey, there is every chance that Erastus accompanied Timothy to Corinth. So, by the time Romans was written, the Erastus of Acts 19:22 was probably known by believers Corinth, and, in any case, was known in Ephesus and Macedonia. Also, the fact the Luke mentions him at all suggests that he was prominent.

The Erastus of Rom 16:23 was also probably well known among the churches, for this explains why Paul sends greetings from him. Minor characters such as Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4) (who was recognized only by others from Asia (Acts 21:27)) were probably with Paul in Corinth when he wrote Romans, but do not send greetings. Greetings are sent from the prominent believers who were well known to members of the churches who had returned to Rome after the death of Claudius. For more on Paul's selection of greeters in Rom 16:21-23 see my blog post here.

So, both the Erastus of Acts 19:22 and the Erastus of Rom 16:23 were probably well known Christians in the Aegean region. In my judgement there can have been only about 30 such people. The chances of having a second Erastus in a group of 30 people is only about 30/1100 =2.7%. So it is very unlikely that the two texts refer to different men.

"Both" were administrators of money

The Erastus of Rom 16:23 is described as οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως. The exact meaning of the term is disputed, but it is agreed that Erastus must have been an administrator of money.

The Erastus of Acts 19:22 travelled with Timothy to Macedonia and commentators have rightly suggested that their mission was to organize the collection for Judea (Bock p606, Witherington 590, Peterson p544, Albert Barnes 1950). This is because:

1) Timothy and Erastus are described as τῶν διακονούντων (helpers) and the similar term, διακονία, is used 5 times (Acts 11:29; 12:25; Rom 15:31; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1) regarding those who help to take up the collection for Jerusalem (Bock Acts p606).

2) Dunn (p262) remarks about Acts 19:21-22, "The two verses go oddly together: Paul resolves to depart, but then sends others ahead and stays put". The oddity is removed if we suppose that the mission of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia (Acts 19:22) was to organize the collection, which was the purpose of Paul's trip to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 19:21. Luke may have expected his intended audience to know about the collection. The collection was probably declared illegal, particularly in Achaia, so it is not surprising that Luke does not mention the it directly, and neither is it surprising that he does not say that Timothy and Erastus proceeded to Achaia. He had to steer well clear of the collection from Achaia to avoid getting the church into trouble with the authorities (see here).

So, both Erasti were probably administrators of money. As Barnes notes, "the treasurer of the city ... was ... a very proper person to be sent with Timothy for the purpose of making the collection for the poor at Jerusalem".

Counter-arguments

In my judgement, this last point alone is enough to neutralize the rather week counter-arguments.

Some have suggested that the Erastus of Rom 16:23 is unlikely to be the Erastus of Acts 19:22 because the office of οἰκονόμος would have prevented him from traveling (e.g. Morris p544). However, οἰκονόμος here refers to Erastus's role in administering the collection in Corinth, rather than to a civil office (see Meggitt). In any case, Erastus could have taken his office of οἰκονόμος after returning from his mission to Macedonia. On my chronology there was a full year between Erastus's return to Corinth and the writing of Romans, and Aediles were elected to office for a one year term (Winter 195).

As well as this chronological clumping, we must also reckon with the possibility of social clumping. The name may have been more common in the sections of society to which the Christians belonged, than in the general population. This will change the odds, but not nearly enough to bring the two-person theory back into play.

Conclusion

The Erastus of Rom 16:23 and the Erastus of Acts 19:22 were both probably prominent, well travelled, believers with financial roles. This, and the relative rarity of the name, can leave little doubt that we are looking at just one person. In a future post on the Titus-Timothy hypothesis I will argue that Titus and the 'brother' (2 Cor 12:18) are Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19:22).

More on Titus-Timothy and the unity of 2 Corinthians

In this post I argue that the apparent discontinuities in 2 Corinthians disappear when we accept that Titus was Timothy. I have already argued here that Titus-Timothy explains the contrast in tone between 2 Cor 1-9 and 2 Cor 10-13.

2 Cor 2:13-14

2 Cor 2:1-13 is written in the first person singular. In 2 Cor 2:12-13 Paul describes his anxiety at not finding Titus in the Troad.

2 Cor 2:14-3:3, on the other hand, is written in the first person plural. The 'we' here must refer to Paul and his co-sender, Timothy, since 2 Cor 3:1 concerns the writing of the letter. 2 Cor 3:1 refers back to 2 Cor 2:14-17 so the same 'we' is in view throughout.

So 2 Cor 2:12-13 concerns Paul and Titus, whereas 2 Cor 2:14-3:3 concerns Paul and Timothy. If Titus was not Timothy this is an abrupt switch and many commentators, working under the two-person assumption, fail to see a link between these sections.

However, if Titus was Timothy both sections concern Paul and Titus-Timothy. 2 Cor 2:12-13 concerns the Titus-Timothy's delay in Corinth and Paul's evangelistic success in the Troad and journey ot Macedonia. 2 Cor 2:14 continues the theme of the movements of Paul and Titus-Timothy. 2 Cor 2:15 refers to the work of Paul and Titus-Timothy respectively among 'those who are being saved' (which is a reference to the aforementioned converts in the Troad) and 'those who are perishing' (which refers to the opponents in Corinth, who probably caused Titus-Timothy's delay and would then be in view in 2 Cor 2:12-13). Thus Titus-Timothy allows a rather smooth reading of 2 Cor 2:12-3:1.

2 Cor 6:14-7:1

Michael Goulder showed that Paul makes the same points in the same order in 1 Cor 4-6, 2 Cor 6:4-7:1, and 2 Cor 10-13 ("2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an Integral Part of 2 Corinthians" Nov Test 36, 1 1994 p47-57). The table below demonstrates this.

Some (sinners) criticize me,..1 Cor 4:3.........2 Cor 6:3........2 Cor 10:1-2

but I am a servant of God,.....1 Cor 4:1-5......2 Cor 6:4........2 Cor 10:7; 11:5,23

for I suffer tribulation...........1 Cor 4:6-13....2 Cor 6:4-10...2 Cor 11:23-33

I am your father and insist....1 Cor 4:14-21..2 Cor 6:11-13....2 Cor 12:14-18

you reform the sinners..........1 Cor 5-6........2 Cor 6:14-7:1..2 Cor 12:20-13:2

In each of these passages Paul responds to criticism by saying that he is a servant of God and has suffered much. He then says that he has fatherly affection for the Corinthians and tells them to put an end to the sin among them.

There is a logic to the structure of Paul's argument here. He must first address the criticisms and re-establish his authority before he can command the Corinthians to turn from sin. This explains the logical connection between 2 Cor 12:19 and 2 Cor 12:20 (notice the "for", γὰρ). A connection between the sin and the challenge to Paul's authority is also evinced by 2 Cor 13:2-3. Also note Paul's references to boasting and being puffed up in 1 Cor 4:6-7, 18-19 as well as in 1 Cor 5:2, 6.

Paul, therefore, makes essentially the same argument in all three passages. There are some important implications of this:

1) as Goulder points out, there is no need to see 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as in interpolation, and the unfaithful in this passage may well refer to faithless Christians.

2) Nothing much has changed between the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. This makes it unlikely that the interval between the two letters included a) a visit by Paul to Corinth, b) a letter of Paul to Corinth, c) the sending of Titus to Corinth, d) 18 months. Another day I will argue that the Titus's visit to Corinth (2 Cor 7) was one and the same as Timothy's (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10).

3) 2 Cor 10-13 repeats the line of argument found earlier in the letter, in much the same way as the subscription of Galatians (Gal 6:11-18) repeats the argument of Gal 1:1-10 and Gal 5:2-12 (see here). This confirms that 2 Cor 10-13 is indeed the subscription, written in Paul's own hand. This, in turn, supports the Titus-Timothy hypothesis and the unity of 2 Corinthians (see here).

2 Cor 9

I have argued here and here that the legality of the collection was open to challenge and that the collection was in danger of being intercepted. Paul would not have given information in his letter that would help opponents of the church intercept the collection or get it banned. This may explain why he writes in 2 Cor 9:1 that it was not necessary for him to write about the ministry to the saints. He may be referring only to sensitive information, such as the recipients of the collection, who are never named in 2 Corinthians. It is not necessary to suppose, as some do, that 2 Cor 9:1 could not have belonged to the same letter as 2 Cor 8.

Conclusion

The Titus-Timothy hypothesis (directly or indirectly) explains all the apparent discontinuities in 2 Corinthians and renders partition theories obsolete.

"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.

Titus-Timothy and the unity of 2 Corinthians and Philippians

This post continues the series on the Titus-Timothy hypothesis and explains why Paul's tone in 2 Cor 10-13 and Phil 3-4 is much harsher than in 2 Cor 1-9 and Phil 1-2 respectively.

In 2 Cor 10-13 Paul is deeply troubled about the church of Corinth. This contrasts particularly with 2 Cor 7:6-15 where Paul describes Titus's encouraging report. Many feel that these two sections cannot have belonged to the same letter and they propose that 2 Corinthians has been formed by joining more than one letter together. However, there is not a single example of a letter that has been formed in this way.

Background

In 2 Corinthians Paul sends Titus back to Corinth to organize the collection (2 Cor 8:6, 16-24). This was a delicate mission that required that Titus be on good terms with the Corinthians. It was therefore important for Paul to show that Titus was loyal to the Corinthians. For the sake of the collection Paul had to be careful not to suggest that Titus was taking sides in any dispute between Paul and certain Corinthians. Titus's sole mission was to organize the collection and he had to remain (or at least appear to be) strictly neutral on Paul's dispute with the "super-apostles".

2 Cor 7:6-15

Titus had been Paul's envoy to the Corinthians, but, when returning to Paul, he was the Corinthians' envoy to Paul. As such, his duty was to present the Corinthians in the best possible light, and in 2 Cor 7:6-15 Paul reports that Titus had fulfilled that duty. Paul records his very positive reaction to the news that Titus brought. This is fully to be expected. Titus's relationship with the Corinthians would have been jeopardized if Paul had hinted that Titus had said anything bad about the Corinthians. 2 Cor 7:6-15 helps to preserve the positive relationship between Titus and the Corinthians and this will allow him to collect money from them.

2 Cor 10-13

Timothy was the co-sender of 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 1:1), and the Corinthians would have taken this to mean that he endorsed the contents of the letter, at least as far as the end of chapter 9. At 2 Cor 10:1, however, Paul detaches himself from Timothy be writing "I myself, Paul ...". Paul may well have picked up the pen himself at this point and written the remaining chapters in his own hand. It seems unlikely that the Corinthians would not have held Timothy accountable for the contents of 2 Cor 10-13.

We can now bring in the Titus-Timothy hypothesis to explain why Paul reserves his severest words for the subscription (2 Cor 10-13). Any criticism of the Corinthians in 2 Cor 1-9 could have induced a back-lash against Titus-Timothy, the co-sender of the letter, and this would have jeopardized the collection that Titus-Timothy was to complete. Paul therefore segregated his harshest comments to the final chapters, from which he detached Titus-Timothy.

Philippians

Other than 2 Corinthians, there is one other letter that oddly switches to an extended severe section at the end: Philippians. The letter sounds as though it is coming to an end at Phil 2:30 or Phil 3:1a, but from Phil 3:1b the tone becomes more harsh and Paul writes a further two chapters. Why the change of tone? Well, Phil 3:1b, like 2 Cor 10:1 shows signs of being the point at which Paul started writing in his own hand. The letters subscription (Phil 3:1b-4:23) is a kind of a re-writing of the main body of the letter. It would have been more time consuming for Paul to write with his own hand rather than dictate to a professional scribe. All this explains Phil 3:1b. Here Paul states that he does not consider it troublesome to write the same things again, this time in his own hand.

But why is the subscription (Phil 3:1b-4:23) more severe than the main body of the letter)? Well, Timothy, Paul's co-sender (Phil 1:1) was about to visit Philippi (perhaps to start the collection) ahead of Paul (Phil 2:19-24), so it was important that Timothy stay on good terms with the Philippians. Again, the change of tone from Phil 3:1b is explicable if, as seems likely, Timothy's endorsement of the letter (implied by Phil 1:1) would not have applied to the subscription, written in Paul's own hand. By restricting his harsh words to the subscription, Paul shelters Timothy from any backlash from the Philippians.

Conclusion

2 Corinthians and Philippians are, I think, the only two letters from antiquity that have an extended subscription that is harsher in tone than the letter body. It is no coincidence that they are also the only two letters that have a co-sender who will visit the addressees before the author will do so. In both letters Paul saves his harshest words for the subscription (2 Cor 10-13 and Phil 3-4) so that any backlash from the recipients would not be directed against his co-sender, Titus-Timothy, who was about to visit them.

In a future post I will argue that the other fractures in 2 Corinthians are also mended when we see Titus and Timothy as the same person.

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.

"Timothy" as Titus's other name

I have argued that we should expect to find Titus mentioned under another name in Acts, and in Romans and perhaps 1 Corinthians. So who can he be? Since he was from the east (Gal 2:1-3), the only options are Luke/Lucius and Timothy. Now, Titus cannot have been Luke/Lucius because a) there would be no reason for Titus to have two Latin Praenomina (first names), and b) Luke/Lucius was probably a Jew, whereas Titus was a Greek. Therefore Titus was probably Timothy.

In this post I will present two arguments that confirm that Titus was Timothy.

The meaning of the name "Timothy"

Titus was a Gentile believer at a time when the presence of uncircumcised Gentiles in the church was controversial (Gal 2:1-5; Acts 15:1-2). At about this time Philo of Alexandria wrote:

the "proselyte" is one who circumcises not his foreskin but his pleasures and desires and the other passions of the soul. ... But what is "the soul of the proselyte," if not alienation from the polytheistic belief and familiarity with the honoring (ΤΙΜΗΣ) of the one God and Father of all. (Questions and answers on Exodus 2.2).

Paul and Barnabas, who favored the inclusion of Gentiles, no doubt presented Titus as someone who, while not circumcised, nevertheless honored God and should therefore be accepted. So, what better name to give to Titus than "Timothy", which means "honoring God"?

A close parallel to the case of Titus-Timothy can be found in Ignatius. He, like Titus, was an early Gentile believer from Antioch. He took the name "Theophorus", which means "bearer of God". The name relates to the carrying of images of gods in religious processions to honor the deity. A Theophorus is therefore one who honors God. "Timothy" and "Theophorus" are therefore almost synonyms.

Phonetic similarity

The names "Titus" and "Timothy" in the first century were closer in pronunciation than they are in the English speaking world today. It seems that the ι in each name had the same pronunciation ("ee" as in "feet"). Furthermore the θ of "Τιμόθεος" echoes the second τ of "Τίτος", since the two letters were sometimes interchangeable. An example of this is known from Masada where the name "Δωσίθεος" was written "Δωσίτεος".

It was common for Jews to be given a new name that had a phonetic similarity to the old name. In the Old Testament we have Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, and Hoshea-Joshua. In the New we have Paul-Saul, Silvanus-Silas, Jesus-Justus, Joseph-Justus, Simeon-Simon, and Mary-Magdalene. Note also the case of Jesus-Jason (Josephus Ant 2.5.1) and Bar Kosiba who was named, "Bar Kokhba". Other cases of near-homophonic naming include Amelius-Amerius, and perhaps Peregrinus-Proteus-Phoenix.

The similarity in sound of the names "Titus" and "Timothy" therefore increases the probability that they were held by the same person.

"Timothy" is therefore a very fitting name for Titus. I challenge anyone to find a name that works better.

In my next post I hope to present new evidence that Titus was the co-sender of 2 Corinthians.

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.