It has often been noted that, in some key respects, the emphasis of the narrative of Acts is different from what we might suppose from reading Paul’s letters. Given that we can date many of Paul’s letters to an early period, this raises questions about the accuracy and historicity of the account in Acts.
One of the issues is the question of named individuals; whilst there is some significant overlap between the names in Acts and in Paul’s letters, there also appear to be some strange omissions. Lydia is clearly a key leader in Acts 16 in Philippi, and yet she is not mentioned in Paul’s letters. And who is the important person Euodia mentioned in Philippians 4.3 but absent from Acts? Why does the narrative of Acts 18.7 mention Titius Justus as hosting Paul, but such a key person is not mentioned in Paul’s letters—yet Paul describes Stephanas, not mentioned in Acts, as the first convert in the region (1 Cor 16.17)?
One person who has been exploring this issue is Richard Fellows, a specialist in New Testament history, with a focus on Paul’s co-workers and personal names in Acts and Paul’s letters. His background is in science, as can be seen in the statistical analysis of marks on Codex Vaticanus in his recent NTS article.
I had the chance to interview him about his 2016 article in Tyndale Bulletin, “Name Giving by Paul and the Destination of Acts”, and its implications for the accuracy of the Acts of the Apostles. I first published this interview in 2020, and there is further detailed interaction between Richard Fellows and Richard Bauckham in the comments to that previous publication.
IP: What question does your article attempt to answer?
RF: It is well known from the gospels that Simon was named “Peter” by Jesus, and that Joseph was named “Barnabas” (Acts 4:36), but we know that Ignatius of Antioch, in the late first/early second century, was also known as “Theophorus” (bearer of God). Furthermore, James, the brother of Jesus, was named “Oblias”, according to Hegesippus. These examples suggest that the giving of second names was not uncommon, that these second names often suggested laudable qualities in the person so named (‘Rock’, ‘Son of encouragement’, ‘Protector’) and that they functioned bilingually, switching from one language to another. As in the case of inscriptional evidence, we need to remember that much of the ancient world was fluently multilingual.
My paper asks whether there are similar cases of renaming among Paul’s associates in his letters and in Acts. For example, does Luke, in Acts, ever refer to someone by his or her birth name, while Paul refers to the same person by his or her new name? When Paul writes to the Galatians he refers to Simon as “Cephas” at Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14, but switches to “Peter” at Gal 2:7, 8. This kind of name switching was very common in the ancient world when the person in question was already known to the audience by both names. Does Paul ever refer to anyone else by two different names in the same text? Does Luke do the same? These are the questions that I address in the article.
IP: So what cases of name giving are you proposing?
RF: There are several key characters whom I propose have been renamed, and are referred to by these different names, for a variety of reasons
Crispus = Sosthenes
The idea that Sosthenes was Crispus goes back at least to John Chrysostom, where he comments in his Homily on Acts 17 and 18:
This Crispus he means where he writes,
I baptized none save Crispus and Gaius.(1 Corinthians 1:14). This (same) I take to be called Sosthenes — (evidently) a believer, insomuch that he is beaten, and is always present with Paul.
The identification has been taken up in recent times by both Augustine Myrou and by myself in an earlier paper in the Tyndale Bulletin (2005). If Crispus was the same person as Sosthenes, we no longer need to hypothesise that there were two Sosthenes (Acts 18:17 and 1Cor. 1:1) or two ἀρχι-συνάγωγοι (synagogue rulers) who became believers (Acts 18:8 and 18:17; 1 Cor. 1:1). The idea that Crispus was re-named ‘Sosthenes’ creates a remarkably consistent picture of the individual. Luke presents him as a synagogue ruler who caused many others to become Christians (Acts 18:8), and tells us that the Jews singled him out for a beating (Acts 18:17). The authority that his name carried among the believers in Corinth explains why Paul included him as a co-sender (1 Cor. 1:1). Paul named him ‘Sosthenes’, meaning ‘saving strength’ (which seems to be a close parallel to “Peter”, the rock on which Jesus will build the church, Matt 16:18) because, through his power and influence, he secured the viability of the fledgling Christian community in Corinth.
Lydia = Euodia
We have less data here, but it is generally agreed that Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:3) were leaders of the Philippian church, and Luke is unlikely to have mentioned Lydia in Acts 16 if she was not an important church leader. There is also a consensus that Euodia and Syntyche were probably converted during Paul’s first visit to Philippi. This is suggested by the fact that they had ‘struggled alongside’ Paul in the work of the gospel. Lydia too was a convert of Paul’s founding visit. She hosted Paul and his companions (Acts 16:14-15) and later hosted the believers (Acts 16:40).
The names Λυδία and Εὐοδία have a degree of phonetic similarity, and this increases the probability of identity (compare Saul—Paul, Silas—Silvanus, Jesus—Justus, Joseph—Justus). The word εὐωδία, a homophone of Εὐοδία, appears three times in the New Testament (2 Cor. 2:15; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 4:18). Phil. 4:18 describes the Philippians’ gift as a ‘ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας’ (fragrant odour). More intriguing still is 2 Corinthians 2:15 where Paul describes himself and his co-workers as ‘the aroma (εὐωδία) of Christ to God among those who are being saved’. Since the hypothesised Lydia = Euodia had opened her home for others to hear the gospel and had ‘struggled beside me in the work of the gospel’, Paul would surely have included her among his co-workers who were ‘the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved’.
For more details on Phil 4.3, see the 2018 ZNW article by Alistair Stewart and me here.
Gaius = Titius Justus = Stephanas
Titius Justus (Acts 18:7) was Paul’s host in Corinth and his conversion was the breakthrough that Paul needed to get the church started in the city. When writing to the Corinthians, Paul refers to “Stephanas” (crowned) (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15-18) as the “first-fruits” of the province and this fits Titius Justus perfectly. If we equate Stephanas with Titius Justus the background of the letter comes into sharper focus: there was disorder in the church meetings in Corinth, hosted by Titius Justus–Stephanas and his household, so they travelled to Ephesus and reported it to Paul, who told the Corinthians to submit to them.
It has previously been argued that the Gaius of Acts 19.29 and 20.4, Rom 16.23 and 1 Cor 1.14, is the same as Titius Justus, and therefore also Stephanas. If so, then this would explain the absence of the name Stephanas in the list of those greeted by Paul in Rom 16.
The name Stephanas is very rare. In the seven volumes of Lexicon of Greek Personal Names published so far, there are just six people called Stephanas. This represents just 0.002% of all recorded persons. The same database records just eight cases of ‘Stephanephoros’. ‘Stephanas’ is either an abbreviation of ‘Stephanephoros’, or it is a more direct extension of ‘Stephanos’. It therefore means ‘crowned’ or ‘crown-bearer’, or the like. However, Στέφανος is a Pauline term (1 Cor. 9:25; Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19) so it would not be surprising for Paul to use this term in name-giving.
The suspicion that ‘Stephanas’ and ‘Sosthenes’ are names/titles that were given by Paul or the church is enhanced by the fact that they are Greek. It is unlikely that both had Greek birth names since we know nine names of members of the Corinthian church and all but one of them is Latin or Latinised, including Stephanas’s household members, Fortunatus, and Achaicus.
Jason = Aristarchus
Jason was the host of the believers in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5–9), and is mentioned there, without introduction, as if already known to the audience of Acts. He appears again at Rom 16:21, when Paul was about to set sail with a group of church delegates mentioned in Acts 20:4, where the only Thessalonians mentioned are “Aristarchus” (best leader) and Secundus. Unless Jason = Aristarchus, we need to explain why Aristarchus is absent from Rom 16, and Jason is absent from Acts 20:4.
In the article I also discuss “Epaenetus” (praised) (Rom 16:5) and “Theophilus” (lover of God) (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) as possible church benefactors who received new names, and I find confirmation of the phenomenon in the second century Acts of Paul.
In summary, there seems to be a strong cumulative case that Paul gave new names to the founding hosts or benefactors of his churches, in much the same way that Jesus gave the name “Cephas/Peter” to his host. Acts, which records the initial evangelization of the region, refers to the individuals by their birth names. The proposed new names used by Paul in his letters are all Greek and have appropriate meanings that the importance of the person in question, and often make use of characteristically Pauline vocabulary and ideas.
IP: What impact does this have on our assessment of the accuracy and reliability of Acts?
RF: Acts presents Crispus–Sosthenes as an influential person, whose conversion led to the conversion of many in Corinth. This agrees very well with 1 Cor 1:1 where we read that Sosthenes was a co-sender of this letter to Corinth, for Paul includes as co-senders only those who helped him found the churches addressed. Evidently Sosthenes’ endorsement of Paul’s letter carried weight in Corinth and this fits what we read in Acts when we equate him with Crispus. A few scholars think that Acts got its details from the letters, but the agreement here between Acts and 1 Corinthians would be very difficult to contrive.
One argument for the historicity of Acts is that many of the people it names appear also in Paul’s letters. The names James, Peter, John, Barnabas, Mark, Timothy, Jason, Erastus, Aristarchus, Crispus, Sosthenes, Apollos, and Aquila appear in Acts as well as in the undisputed letters of Paul, and it is likely that Prisca, Cephas, Silvanus, and Sosipater, who appear in the letters, are in Acts under different names (Priscilla, Peter, Silas, and Sopater). The name-giving hypothesis strengthens the argument even further, by showing that we can no longer assume that Euodia and Stephanas are absent from Acts, or that Lydia and Titius Justus are absent from Paul’s letters.
I argue in the article that Acts was written for the churches of the Aegean region (which is covered by Acts 16:11–20:38), and that people, such as Crispus = Sosthenes and Jason = Aristarchus, were already known to the audience. This ties Acts to the first century and to a specific place in ways that we would not expect to find in a later creative fiction.
Acts 16:6-10 seems to be saying that Paul and his companions received three pieces of divine guidance, which they interpreted to mean that they should preach in Macedonia without stopping to preach en route. This interpretation is strengthened if, as I argue, Theophilus and the primary intended audience of Acts were in Macedonia. Such an audience would certainly be interested to read that God had directed the missionaries to bring the gospel to them. This seems to rule out the idea that they evangelized north Galatia. So Paul’s letter was likely written to South Galatia. My 2018 article in Biblica builds on the South Galatia theory and resolves the major conflicts between Acts and Galatians in a new way
IP: How does this relate to other recent research that has been done in names in the New Testament—for example, the studies by Richard Bauckham?
RF: Unfortunately Bauckham does not address this particular phenomenon of new name giving in any detail. However, in his book Gospel Women he discusses “Andronicus and Junia” (Rom 16:7) and Joanna, one of the benefactors of the Jesus movement, who’s husband was Chuza (Luke 8:3). He proposes that Joanna took the name “Junia” for use in the Diaspora. In a recent blog post I endorse Bauckham’s idea and tentatively propose that Andronicus was Chuza renamed.
The recent data bases of ancient names, such as LGPN, The LJNLA, and Trismegistos People have enabled much of my research.
IP: How has your proposal been received? What objections have people raised to this way of reading the names?
RF: Craig Keener, in his commentary (p2749), refers to my 2005 article and writes,
Since Crispus was an early convert (1 Cor 114), Sosthenes also seems a believer (1:1), and both are described by Luke as “synagogue rulers” (Acts 18:8, 17), it is possible that these are two names for the same person. … This proposal is ultimately unlikely, however; why would Luke change names without an explanation connecting them?
Keener is right to raise this objection and it is the only objection that I have heard. It is addressed in my 2016 article, but I don’t know how this article has been received. I hope our discussion today might make it more widely known!
IP: Are you planning to develop this further? Where can people find out more?
RF: If Jason was Aristarchus and so on, then it would appear that Paul, in Romans, sends greetings from all the prominent believers who were with him at the time, so we would expect to find the author of Acts among them. Given the importance of name order, Lucius, who is second only to Timothy among the greeters in Romans, was surely the author of Acts, and this confirms the tradition, since “Luke” is just another form of the name Lucius. Thus we have good confirmation that Acts was written by a travel companion of Paul. I am developing this proposal, addressing the evidence in the disputed letters, and the Titus-Timothy hypothesis.
I am also considering people such as Aseneth, Mary Magdalene, Tabitha, and Strataeas in Pseudo-Pionius—and my blog has some further discussions.
IP: Thank you so much for sharing these fascinating insights. I look forward to reading more!
RF: Thank you for the opportunity to share my research here on your blog. I hope that it provokes and widens further discussion and research.
Buy me a Coffee
It seems a good argument to me. We are all familiar with nicknames and in my experience parents call their children by their birth name despite any nicknames or shortened names they acquire along life’s way.
And I am in a small theology group where we have two Paul’s – one we call ‘Blackdog’ because of his email address and the other ‘Pablo’ because that was his name indicated by Teams when he first appeared there — or we can refer to either of them as Paul.
Thanks Guys, Fascinating.
Names are interesting as the Name might be characteristic of the person.
Just God is identified by numerous names that describe His essence or nature.
The varied names are of Hebrew, Roman and Greek origin
LYDIA derives from the Greek Λυδία, Ludía, from λυδία (ludía; “beautiful one”, “noble one”, “from Lydia”
The name Euodia traces its roots back to ancient Greece,
where it originated from the Greek language.
Derived from the words eu meaning good and hodos meaning
journey, Euodia translates to Good Journey.
The name Crispus has its origins in Latin and can be traced
back to the word crispus, which means curly-haired.
Sosthenes, sos’-the-nes (Gk.)– of sound strength;
strong saviour; secure in strength.
Gaius is an ancient name with powerful Roman connections
. Latin in origin, Gaius is a fitting name as you celebrate
welcoming baby home with its meanings “to rejoice”
and “to be glad.” This name was often found in the
full names of several ancient Roman leaders, including none
other than Julius Caesar.
Titius Justus [roman] is described as a “worshiper of God,”
a term often used to refer to Gentiles who were sympathetic to Judaism and attended synagogue services ..
The name Stephanas derives from the Greek word stephanos,
which translates to crown or garland. In ancient times,
a stephanos was often used to denote victory,
awarded to victors in competitions such as the ancient
Olympic Games or as a symbol of honour and status.
Jason
Origin:Hebrew. Other Origin(s):Greek. Meaning:healer;
the Lord is salvation. With Hebrew and Greek origins,
Jason is a boy’s name meaning “healer” and “the Lord is salvation.”
The name Aristarchus is derived from the Ancient Greek
words aristos, meaning best, and archos, which translates
to ruler or leader.
As such, the name carries connotations of excellence in
leadership and governance.
Epaenetus is a name that comes from Ancient Greek,
meaning ‘praised’, and may refer to: Epaenetus of Argos,
winner of the boys’ stadion race in the 80 BC Olympics.
Epenetus of Carthage (died 64 AD), a saint in the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
Theophilus
Origin: Greek. Meaning: Love of God; Loved by God.
Theophilus is a boy’s name of Greek origin, meaning
“love of God” or “loved by God.”
Sosipater, so-sip-a-ter (Gk. fr. Lat.) –the father who saves; saving father; saviour of the father; father saved; defender of the father.
A kinsman of Paul’s (Rom.
And not forgetting Jesus being given a New Name
Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head
were many crowns; and he had a name written,
that no man knew, but he himself.
The glorified saints being given a new name;
Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit
saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh
will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him
a white stone, and in the stone a new name written,
which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
And here given three names? AMAZING.
Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Shalom
This is indeed interesting and makes a lot of sense to me.
Incidently, l read somewhere that a young lad in a Sunday School class thought that God’s other name was actually ‘Harold’ based on the second verse of the Lord’s prayer..
I really like the way that RF is approaching this as a coordinated study into contemporary practice. This should guard against over-enthusiasm, since (when one is restricted to the evidence in the documents alone) the verdict has so often to be ‘unproven’.
I have always been intrigued by the issue of who is who in the Acts and Paul’s letters and whether some of the people mentioned by Luke and Paul had the same names (otherwise, why omit these important people?). Really helpful in bringing the characters to life with the meaning of their names and highlighting their significance in the Acts and Paul’s letters. Looking forward to more hidden gems being discovered!
You might enjoy Andrea Hartmann’s 2023 PhD on Joanna/Junia:
https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/download/382fa40d547ea7f77358cc993d806ddda1178a073d3ad9189ec1f78096927db7/4422047/AHartmann%20thesis.pdf
Oh my goodness! This looks fascinating!
This is a very interesting and useful study, and a reminder of the need to immerse ourselves in the culture of the time to understand what is going on in the texts. The phenomenon of changing names according to culture and context was of course well known in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Sha’ul, for example, was known as ‘Paulos’ to Greeks, from Latin ‘Paulus’ as he was no doubt known in Rome.
The outstanding example was the Princeps himself, who was born Gaius Octavius but who changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar after his adoption by his great-uncle of the same name in 44 BC. Years later, the Senate gives him the name/honorific ‘Augustus’, ‘revered’.
The quarrelling ladies (and their casus belli) in Philippians have always intrigued me, ever since I heard a speaker (nearly 50 years ago!) refer to ‘Eu-odious’ and ‘Soon-touchy’. ‘Euodia’ means ‘fair journey’ and, as the article notes, is suggestive of ‘euodia’ (with omega), ‘fragrance’. It would be wonderful if Euodia and Lydia turned out to be the same person – a nice nickname, perhaps?
It is also interesting that Paul uses the word εὐωδία in Phil 4:18 and in 2 Cor 2:15, when discussing his journey towards Philippi, where he may have written the letter. It seems that when someone with a symbolic name is in view, the name is often echoed. For example, he author of 1 Tim names the addressee twice in the body of the letters and this was very unusual in letters. The word τιμη occurs frequently in 1 Tim. There seems to be an awareness that Timothy was his leadership name.
Some caution for sure: If the conclusion or tentative conclusion is almost always that A=B (and people would also, independently, be pleased if A=B), how scientific is that?
Things get compounded if they are working within an atmosphere where people are scared to debate anything to do with gender, or expected to conclude according to the more feminist option. Although it is a disgrace if ideology comes anywhere near the scholarly community, that of course is entirely independent of the question whether the option that feminists would prefer is the better one (or indeed the worse) – that is for the scholarly labour to decide.
Oh, dear. In the same dysfunctional fellowship relationships requiring independent oversight, mediatorial input. Oh dear indeed. It happens. Sometimes to a division.
There can be many explanations for name differences, similarities, that we will never know with evidence, without resorting to skeptical arguments to undermine the reliability of scripture. There are known unknowns that may never be known.
I think from the context that ‘OhDear’ is not one and the same as Lydia. Lydia may house the meetings but not lead them. (An explanation, not evidence, nor supposition.)
Again with Peter/Cefas, context is key in Acts, relating to the point(s) being made.
But my known unknowns are many, not to be diminished by speculation, even of the scholarly kind.
On a tangential point, in my context working with Muslim background Christians, they often feel that their names give them a dilemma. Should they retain their Muslim name as a witness to others that it’s OK to follow Jesus from a Muslim background and as a way of honouring one’s parents who gave the name, or should you take a Christian name to show everyone that you are serious about following Jesus?
Some soften their names, so Mohammad becomes Mo. Others use two names, their original Islamic name when speaking with Muslims and a Christian name when speaking to Christians. This doesn’t necessarily suggest duplicity, just a desire to fit in to different contexts.
Others change names but adopt a neutral name that can be used in both faiths: Joseph, Daniel and so on.
And when the Home Office registers a foreign national if the name is unfamiliar they often write something totally wrong, for example, one of my friends Polish father came over during the second World War and the surname written was like nothing in Polish!
One might well be chagrined to have the name/title and character of Contention!
Ribai is a Benjamite, and his name means “contentious”.
Jeribai, one of David’s heroes, also has a name derived from the Hebrew word for “contentious”.
Xanthippe is less commonly used as a name, but it retains a symbolic connotation. It can refer to a stereotype of a strong-willed woman, sometimes viewed negatively in the context of being overly contentious or assertive. Additionally, it occasionally appears in discussions related to feminism and historical representations of women, as well as in literary references to discuss complex female characters. Overall, it keeps its historical significance while adapting to modern interpretations.
Historically, Xanthippe is most famously associated with the wife of the philosopher Socrates, known for her reputed strong demeanor and spirited interactions with him. This Xanthippe has been portrayed in various literary and philosophical discourses, often as a figure exemplifying the complexities of marital relationships, particularly in philosophical contexts. Her portrayal has varied, ranging from a nagging wife to a devoted partner, thus embedding the name in discourse around ethics and personal relationships in classical antiquity.
However, even earlier in time, in the Scriptures
Sarai: In the Old Testament, the original name of Abraham’s wife was Sarai, which means “contentious”.
God later changed her name to Sarah, which means “princess”.
Which no doubt, cheered her up somewhat.
I feel that she may well have wanted to live up to that name!
Much like someone owning the Name of CHRISTian.
OR who could forget Jacob = Supplanter
A supplanter is someone or something that takes the place of another, often through cunning, force, or strategic replacement, essentially overthrowing or displacing the original occupant. The word comes from the verb “supplant,” meaning to trip up or overthrow, and is often used in contexts of rulers, new technologies, or even ideas replacing older ones.
Given the name Israel, Jacob wrestling an angel and being renamed Israel for prevailing in his struggle with divine and human forces. It signifies perseverance, struggle, and a deep connection with faith, referring not only to the patriarch Jacob but also to the people and the nation. Feels deeply theological to me. Shalom.
Very interesting article. I think he is onto something in most cases but I don’t agree with his position on Luke and Lucius. They may be variations of the same name but I think the odds are these are two different people.
In Romans 16:21, Lucius is listed among Paul’s Jewish workers while in Colossians 4:10-11,14 Luke is excluded from Paul’s list of his fellow Jews.
Interesting observation. I think the consensus (for good reason) is that Luke was not Jewish.
Much depends on whether Paul wrote Colossians and whether the author really did imply that Luke was a gentile. I would argue that the author of Acts was a Jew. Acts 16:3 tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy, and the only reason that is given is that Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him. This makes sense only if Luke’s audience knew that those accompanying Paul were expected to have a role that (such as preaching in synagogues) that required that they be circumcised. Since the author of Acts also accompanied Paul, he too needed to be circumcised. Also, Paul was accused of taking a Gentile into the temple, so it would be wise for him to travel to Rome with Jewish friends.
Very interesting, thanks.
I wondered if Richard factored in the possibility that people mentioned had subsequently died? Life expectancy was pretty short in those days and leadership would have passed to others.
That is an interesting observation. But of course if the gospels were written early, as more and more scholars are arguing, the time lapse between Paul’s letters and the gospels and Acts will not be many years…
Ah, you’ve piqued my interest now, Ian!
According to Jonathan Bernier’s analysis of the dates of the New Testament, there was a lapse of some 6 years between the writing of 1 Corinthians and the production of Acts, and 4 years for Philippians. He reckons Romans was written about a year after 1 Corinthians.
Looking at the people whom Richard highlighted:
Crispus – Sosthenes: Crispus is mentioned as the first synagogue leaders and Sosthenes some time later after the fracas. Paul was there 18 months so it’s possible that Crispus had died in that interval.
Lydia – Euodia: I’ve always read this as Lydia being well-behaved and Euodia being a bit of a dissenter in which case Lydia didn’t need a mention in the letter!
Gaius – Titius Justus: both Ramsey and Goodspeed agree that these were probably the same person, the latter being a “surname”.
Jason – Aristarchus: It could have been that Jason was not mentioned in Acts 20 because he stayed in Thessalonica whereas Aristarchus travelled with Paul. The absence of Aristarchus from Rom 16 could have been because he had died in the previous year or, as we all often do, Paul forgot to mention him. I’ve always been astounded by Paul’s ready memory of that long list of names presumably because they were always in his prayers.
I’m not wanting to disparage Richard’s work in any way; I am very interested in elucidating more information from scripture by comparisons and original thinking which is why I find Richard’s ideas fascinating and will bear them in mind. It is difficult to make definitive conclusions and so, even though I hate the expression in most forms in which it is deployed, we have to resort to “balance of probabilities”.
Good points, Peter. Yes, it is about balance of probabilities. The case is cumulative. While we can be confident that new names where given, we can be less confident about any one case.
If Crispus died during Paul’s 18 months in Corinth, it might explain why there was a new synagogue ruler, but the beating of Sosthenes in Acts 18:17 would remain very odd.
Yes, Paul may have forgotten to send greetings from Aristarchus in Rom 16, but that theory would be stronger if we knew of a prominent Christian in Corinth who did not send greetings. We don’t.
I used to think that there was a conflict between Euodia and Syntyche, but I now think that Paul is urging them to be of a mind to stand firm in the face of persecution, and he is urging their congregants to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them. See the ZNW article for this interpretation of “yokefellow”.