We know from 1 Cor 16:1-3; 2 Cor 8:1-9:15; 12:16-18; and Rom 15:25-31 that Paul collected funds for the church of Jerusalem from Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia. The money collected from  Macedonia and Achaia must have been large to justify the expense of sending nine people with it (Acts 20:4). Also, Paul asked the Corinthians each to set aside money every week for the collection and this too implies a large collection.

The dangers to the collection

We will now see that the collection risked interception by bandits, and confiscation by Jews and also by civil authorities.

From Bandits

Paul was “in danger from bandits” (2 Cor 11:26). K.F. Nickle (The Collection p83) writes that the temple tax was "accompanied for protection from banditry by a large retinue consisting of paid mercenary guards, pilgrims, and deputies from the communities which had contributed". Josephus (Ant 14.7.2) writes that the Jews of Asia minor kept their temp tax on Cos to protect it from Mithradates, who took it anyway.

From Jews

Acts 20:2-3 tells of a plot by Jews:

“When he had gone through those regions and had given the believers much encouragement, he came to Greece, where he stayed for three months. He was about to set sail for Syria when a plot was made against him by the Jews, and so he decided to return through Macedonia.”

There is good evidence that this plot was an attempt to steal or confiscate the collection:

1. a)Timing. There is a consensus nowadays that "PAR EAUTW" in 1 Cor 16:2 means "at home". Paul asked the Corinthians to put aside money for the collection at home. A consequence of this instruction (and perhaps the motive for it) is that no-one would be able to intercept the collection until it was gathered together just before its carriers sailed. Therefore the timing of the plot, when Paul was about to sail for Syria, fits the assumption that it was an attempt to intercept the collection. The timing makes little sense if the plot was to attack Paul’s person. Why would the Jews wait until Paul was about to leave? It is often assumed that the plot was to attack Paul at sea, perhaps on a pilgrim vessel. This leaves too many unanswered questions. Why would the plotters have thought that they could get away with it on a ship? In the cramped spaces of a ship there would certainly be witnesses to any attack and the perpetrators would have no-where to run. If the plot was against Paul’s person, why did they not attack him at night in a dark alley in Corinth or follow the normal process of administering the 39 lashes that Paul had received 5 times before (2 Cor 11:24)?
   

2. b)Paul’s discovery of the plot. If the Jews told Paul that he was not to deliver the collection, he would naturally suspect that attempts would be made to intercept the collection if he attempted to deliver it. On the other hand, if the plot was to attack Paul, it is surprising that he found out about it.
   

3. c)The change of plan. To avoid the plot Paul traveled to Macedonia instead of sailing directly to Syria. This is a drastic change of plan because it took Paul in the opposite direction from his destination. The detour can only have increased the exposure of the group and the collection to the risk of bandits and shipwrecks. We will see below that Paul had to take precautions to protect the collection during this detour around the Aegean. Furthermore, the detour will have cost them time that they did not have in abundance (Acts 20:16). It is true that Paul was able to visit friends in Philippi and Troas, but this was not the motive for the detours because he had recently come from that region. Acts is clear that the diversion to Macedonia was to avoid the plot. What does this tell us about the nature of the plot? The change of plan makes sense if the plot was to intercept the collection. The plotters will have known that Paul wanted to sail east with the collection and would keep track of any attempt that he made to do so. The focus of their surveillance would be on the Achaian ports, so Paul’s only option would be to travel north by land to Macedonia. If, on the other hand, the plot was to attach Paul at sea, why did he not avoid the plot by simply taking another boat from Cenchreae or by sailing instead from Athens, for example?
   

4. d)There is little evidence of Jews in Philippi or Troas in the first century. Paul may have chosen to stay in these cities because Jews were a threat to the collection.
   

5. e)Luke’s silence. Acts does not state the nature of the plot or the reason for it, and this is unusual. Luke’s silence here is explicable if the plot was to intercept the collection since he chooses not the mention the collection.
   

6. f)Motive.  Nickle (p 88) writes that the hostility of the Jews towards Paul, “became most intense in reaction to the collection activity which the Jews regarded as an open infringement on the rights of the Temple, since, in their eyes, Paul was competing with the traditional Temple tax.”
   

7. g)The legality of the plot.  Five years earlier the Jews beat up Sosthenes, the benefactor of the church. Gallio cared not, and in fact he had given the Jews jurisdiction with the words, “see to it yourselves” (Acts 18:15-17). Therefore, if the Jews planned to intercept the benefaction towards the Jerusalem church, the Gallio incident and the precedent that it set may well have encouraged them to believe that the Roman authorities would not intervene.  Furthermore, they could have argued that Paul had no legal right to deliver funds to Jerusalem outside of the normal temple tax process, which they controlled. It will be argued below that the legality of the collection project was indeed brought into question.
   

From Civil Authorities

1. a)Luke’s silence.  Acts never explicitly mentions the collection, even though Luke-Acts stresses the importance of generous giving. The best explanation is that the collection was considered illegal, at least by the time that Luke wrote (see Nickle p 150). Luke-Acts has a tendency to gloss over conflicts between the church and civil authorities (compare Acts 9:23-25 with 2 Cor 11:22-23). While Acts has been careful not to mention the collection directly, the text contains the following hints that the legality of the collection was in doubt.
   

2. b)Acts 24:17.  Paul says, “Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices”. This oblique reference to the collection makes it sound more like an act of private piety (see D.J. Downs, “Paul’s Collection and the Book of Acts Revisited” NTS 52 2006 pp50-70). These words make good historical sense if the collection was legally dubious. Paul, on trail for his life, would want to present the collection as an act of piety rather than as the unauthorized funding of a controversial sect which was becoming international.
   

3. c)Acts 25:8.  Paul defends himself against “serious charges” by saying “I have in no way committed an offense against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor”. The collection project could well be the offense against the emperor alluded to here. (see Nickle p150).
   

4. d)Fine or bribe?  In Acts 24:22 Felix says, “When Lysius the tribune comes down I will decide your case”, yet we hear nothing of Lysius’s visit or of Felix’s verdict. Instead we read that Felix “hoped that money would be given him by Paul, and for that reason he used to send for him very often and converse with him. After two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus...” (Acts 24:26-27). It is often assumed that  Felix was trying to extract a bribe from Paul. It was illegal to give or receive a bribe so such a transaction would have to happen in secret.  It is hard to imagine how Felix could have expected Paul to arrange a substantial bribe in secret, and any open collection of bribe money would have hurt Felix’s reputation and legal position. It therefore seems more likely that Felix was wanting to confiscate the collection money rather than to receive a bribe.
   

5. e)Other silences in Acts. The legal ambiguity of the collections could explain further strange silences in Acts. 1) Luke does not mention Paul’s collection from Galatia. Nor does he mention that Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-3), or that Titus-Timothy went to south Galatia to organize the collection. Indeed, Luke fails to mention Timothy’s home town. 2) The silences concerning Corinthian envoys are particularly surprising. Acts 20:4 surprisingly includes no Corinthians. Either the Corinthians decided to send no delegates (to avoid retributions from the same Jews who plotted against Paul) or Luke omitted their names for their protection. Acts 19:22 tells us that Timothy and Erastus went from Ephesus to Macedonia. Two pieces of information suggest that their purpose was to organize a collection (in Corinth). Firstly, we are told that Timothy and Erastus were Paul's 'helpers'. The word use here, DIAKONEW is also used in Rom 15:25, 2 Cor 8:19 and 2 Cor 8:20 in reference to the organization of the collection. Secondly, Erastus was a city treasurer (OIKONOMOS) (Rom 16:23), so he would be well qualified to organize the collection. Now, we know from 1 Corinthians that Timothy was sent to Corinth from Ephesus and it is generally agreed, with good reason, that he took the land route via Macedonia. Acts mentions only Timothy's trip to Macedonia and is silent about his continuation to Corinth. He is also silent about Erastus's home province and this type of silence is unusual in Acts. This is explicable if the collection in Achaia was, or became, illegal. 3) Acts glosses over Paul’s collection visit to Macedonia and Achaia, covering this period in less than three verses (Acts 20:1-3). 4) Acts does not mention Paul's second visit to Corinth. The purpose of this visit may have been to announce the collection.
   

The precautions that Paul took to protect the collection

The delegation

Nickle (p83) writes that the temple tax was "accompanied for protection from banditry by a large retinue consisting of paid mercenary guards, pilgrims, and deputies from the communities which had contributed. Paul’s collection was accompanied by 9 people (Acts 20:4) (see also 1 Cor 16:3).

Paul’s use of a chartered boat

Jewett (The Troas Project) has argued that the boat the Paul took from Philippi to Patara was probably a coastal freighter chartered for the exclusive use the the collection party to protect the collection.

At Acts 20:13, 38 Luke refers to the boat simple as “the ship”, and gives no indication that there was any change of vessel until Patara, which is the port on the south coast of Lycia where a switch to an ocean going vessel is required to cross to Judea.

The arrangement that Paul made to meet the boat in Assos (20:13-14) hints that the group had exclusive control of the vessel.

In Acts 20:15-16 we are told that Paul landed in Miletus instead of Ephesus to save time and that he sent for the elders of the Ephesian church from Miletus. Ephesus is north of Miletus and Paul’s message to the elders and their land journey from Ephesus to Miletus will have taken about 5 days. How, then, did this maneuver save time? It makes sense if we suppose Paul wanted to use his chartered boat and/or he was reluctant to travel overland from Ephesus to Miletus (for security reasons). To get out of Ephesus by boat Paul would have to wait for atypical winds since Ephesus is in a bay facing west. Bypassing Ephesus was Paul’s quickest option that did not involve land travel and a change of boat.

The instruction to set aside money at home

There seems to be a consensus nowadays that "PAR EAUTW" in 1 Cor 16:2 means "at home". Paul asked the Corinthians to put aside money for the collection at home, and this may have served to protect the money from theft and confiscation.

Paul’s silence about the collection helpers

We have seen above that the collection was in danger from bandits, Jews, and Roman authorities. We have also seen that the collection probably faced the greatest danger in Achaia.

It is a remarkable fact that Paul’s letters never name any who helped with the collection (except “Titus”).

1. Paul does not mention the names of the two 'brothers' who were delegates of the

churches and were sent to Corinth to help with the collection (2 Cor 8:16-9:5). It is very

strange that he leaves anonymous those that he commends so highly. Nor does he specify which churches had appointed them. It is left ambiguous.

2. 2.The 'brother' who accompanied Titus on his earlier visit to Corinth is also left anonymous (2 Cor 12:18). On the Titus-Timothy hypothesis this ‘brother’ was Erastus and helped with the collection (see above).
   

3. 3.Similarly, 1 Corinthians mentions Timothy's visit (4:17; 16:10), but is silent about Erastus.
   

4. Paul does not say in Romans that anyone was to accompany him to Jerusalem (see

Nickle 140-142).

These silences, in combination, are deafening. They can be explained by Paul’s need to protect his associates and the collection that they organized. Paul’s fears that the collection could be intercepted also explain why no-where in 2 Corinthians does he specify that the recipients of the collection were Judeans. He refers to the recipients (2 Cor 8:4, 13-14; 9:1, 11-14) but does not name them. By keeping silent about the destination of the collection Paul attempts (unsuccessfully according to Acts 20:4) to prevent plots to intercept the funds.

It is often assumed that Paul’s letters were private messages to trusted close-knit groups and that no precautions would be needed to prevent sensitive information from leaking out to hostile parties. This is not the case:

1. 1.Paul was in danger from ‘false brothers’ (2 Cor 11:26)
   

2. 2.Paul’s communities were formed largely from God-fearers who had attended the synagogue. Some may have maintained an allegiance to the synagogue or had family members who did so. It is unrealistic to suppose that the Christians cut all links to Jewish community, or indeed to civil authorities. We should not underestimate the power of gossip.
   

3. 3.Non-believers could attend the meetings of the Christians (1 Cor 14:23-25).
   

4. 4.2 Corinthians, where the most surprising silences occur, was intended for circulation “throughout Achaia” (2 Cor 1:1). It would therefore be particularly difficult to restrict the contents of this letter to trusted insiders.
   

So, Paul’s silence about the identities of his collection helpers protected them and the collection from attack. The conspicuous anonymity of the “brothers” in 2 Corinthians will also have served as a signal to his readers that they too should be careful to protect the identities of those associated with this controversial mission.

Paul's success in keeping secret the identities of those who would travel with him to Jerusalem might also explain why he split the party in Acts 20:4.(2) Paul, knowing that he, but not the delegates, was under surveillance, sent the delegates ahead with the collection, while he travelled separately with Luke.

Moreover, Paul’s need for secrecy in respect to the collection explains why the Corinthians came to suspect his financial propriety (2 Cor 12:13-18). It would be difficult to keep the arrangements for the collection hidden from outsiders while demonstrating to insiders that everything is above board.

Important implications for the Titus-Timothy question

Titus

All this confirms that the anonymity of the three brothers of 2 Cor 8,9 and 12:18 is a device for their own protection. It is therefore very surprising that Paul mentions Titus by name and states explicitly that Titus made a beginning of the collection in Corinth (2 Cor 8:6) and that Titus was eager to return there to complete the collection (2 Cor 8:16-17). On any hypothesis, it is hard to explain why Titus's three companions required anonymity but he did not, except by the assumption that "Titus" was not his usual name. The complete absence of the name "Titus" from Acts all but proves that "Titus" was indeed not his usual name. In all of Paul's Aegean correspondence, the name "Titus" appears only in 2 Corinthians and it appears there only in connection with two visits to Corinth, both of which were to organize the collection. This is no coincidence, as it was only in connection with the collection that he would require the protective heteronymity afforded by the use of the name "Titus". Titus carried 2 Corinthians to Corinth and the letter was in his care. He would be able to clarify (to insiders) that "Titus" had been his earlier name.

We have here deduced that he was not commonly known by the name "Titus", and this helps to explain why the author of the Pastoral Epistles (who presumably found the name "Titus" in Galatians or 2 Corinthians) did not know that Titus was Timothy.

Timothy in Lystra

It is agued in these web pages that Timothy was a native of Antioch and that he went to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-3) and that he went from there to south Galatia to organize a collection following the apostles' request (Gal 2:10). Luke's failure to mention the visit of Titus to Jerusalem or his journey from there to Lystra is rather consistent with our findings above. He does not tell us Timothy's home town, in much the same way that he does not give Erastus's home town. The uninformed reader would assume that Timothy was from Lystra, just as they would assume that Erastus was from Ephesus. Both Paul and Luke carefully avoid connecting any identified individuals with the collection. It is true that we are told that Paul and Barnabas delivered an earlier collection to Judea, but he is able to present it as an uncontroversial act of famine relief, and furthermore, Paul and Barnabas were probably dead by the time Acts was written, so may have not needed

protective silences.

The famine visit

Acts 11:27-30 presents the first collection as merely an act of famine relief, but there may have been a danger that the Romans would see it as international funding of a controversial sect. This might help explain why Paul makes no mention of this collection in Gal 1-2. Also, it may have been delivered rather discretely by Paul and Barnabas. For their own safety they may have handed it over in secret and have had minimal contact with the apostles, and this might explain why the later visit of Gal 2:1-10 (=Acts 15) was the first time that Paul presented his gospel in full to the Jerusalem church leaders. On the historicity of the famine visit see on Agabus.

(1) see Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor, Eng. trans. Abingdon Press, Nashville

1991. p.117-120

2. (2)Thanks to Mike Gilchrist for this observation.
   

Back to Titus-Timothy page

Back to protective heteronymity page