Beka Onikashvili

Tbilisi Theological Academy and Seminary
Master’s Student
Theology, Philosophy
Tbilisi, Georgia
b.onikashvili@gmail.com

The paper examines the question of the identity of Crispus and Sosthenes, the rulers of the synagogue in Corinth mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 18:8; 18:17), as well as the exegetical and textual differences associated with this issue. The study focuses on two principal interpretations. On the one hand, it considers the position of St John Chrysostom, according to whom Crispus and Sosthenes were one and the same person: “Perhaps Sosthenes was beaten for this reason as well, because he supported Paul and restrained them from violence. It is reasonable to suppose that the same Crispus mentioned above was also called Sosthenes; for although the names are two, the office is one—that of ruler of the synagogue. There [Acts 18:8] he became a believer, while here [Acts 18:17] he was beaten on account of Paul” (Commentary on the Apostolos, I, 2011: 316–317). On the other hand, the paper considers the views of those Church Fathers and commentators who regard Crispus and Sosthenes as two distinct individuals.

Both interpretations are critically examined, although particular attention is devoted to Chrysostom’s position and to arguments that may support it. The research is based both on a contextual analysis of the biblical text and on a comparison of different manuscript traditions.

Special significance is attached to Acts 18:17, which describes the beating of Sosthenes. An important textual issue is that the identity of those who beat him differs across manuscript traditions: in some witnesses they are identified as Greeks, whereas in others they are identified as Jews (hoi Hellēnes, hoi Ioudaioi; Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Revised Edition, Stuttgart, 2012: 445). The study treats this variation not as a contradiction, but as a key to the interpretation of the passage.

The paper also analyzes the meaning of the term “Greek” in the New Testament, where, depending on context, it may refer to Gentiles, Hellenistic Jews, or proselytes. The hypothesis that Crispus and Sosthenes were the same person provides a more coherent explanation of the narrative sequence: Crispus’s conversion, his authority within the synagogue, and his subsequent defense of the Apostle Paul before Gallio can be understood as elements of a single narrative trajectory. Within this framework, the beating of Sosthenes may be interpreted as a reaction to his newly adopted religious position and his support for Paul.

At the same time, this identification strengthens the possible connection with the Sosthenes mentioned at the beginning of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:1), providing an additional argument for his conversion to Christianity.

Thus, interpreting Crispus and Sosthenes as one and the same individual offers a more coherent and contextually grounded reading, integrating textual, historical, and exegetical evidence and allowing for a deeper understanding of the relevant passage in the Acts of the Apostles.