'Ready for Every Good Work' (Titus 3:1): Implicit Ethics in the Letter to Titus. Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics. Vol. XIII [1 ed.] 9783161611605, 3161611608

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor

Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

484

“Ready for Every Good Work” (Titus 3:1) Implicit Ethics in the Letter to Titus Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics Volume XIII

edited by

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

Mohr Siebeck

Ruben Zimmermann, born 1968; 1999 Dr. theol. from the University of Heidelberg; 2003 Habilitation from the Ludwig-Maximilians-University München; currently Professor of New Testament at the Johannes Gutenberg-University in Mainz, Germany and research associate at the Department of Old and New Testament Studies of the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Co-Founder of the Mainz Research Center “Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity” (e/αc), see www.ethikmainz.de. orcid.org/0000-0002-1620-4396 Dogara Ishaya Manomi, born 1985; 2008 BA; 2009 Professional Diploma in Education; 2013 MA in Linguistics and (Bible) Translation with specialization in New Testament; 2019 PhD in New Testament studies from the University of Mainz, Germany; currently a full-time lecturer at the Theological College of Northern Nigeria located in Jos, Plateau state, Nigeria, an Affiliated Researcher of the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium, and a Research Associate of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. orcid.org/0000-0003-2092-4596

ISBN 978-3-16-161159 / eISBN 978-3-16-161160-5 DOI 10.1628/ 978-3-16-161160-5 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen T ­ estament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Foreword The citation “… ready for every good work” (Titus 3:1) chosen as the title of this book serves as an example for six passages in which “good works” are explicitly mentioned in the brief letter to Titus (Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14). The addressees are not only encouraged in many ways to behave properly. At the same time, the appeals to a good way of life are reflected and justified by arguments. Thus, this letter is about ethics in the narrower sense. These ethics in the letter to Titus were the subject of an international conference “Ethics in Titus. Exploring an Individual Text Approach to the Pastoral Epistles,” held at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany, from September 12–14, 2019. This volume presents most of the papers from this conference. This conference represents the culmination of an inspiring time of cooperation between the two editors, which began when Dogara I. Manomi contacted Ruben Zimmermann with the request to write a doctoral dissertation on ethics in Titus within the frame of the Mainz Center for “Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity” (www.ethikmainz.de). Thanks to a fellowship from the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD), it was possible for Dogara I. Manomi (and his family) to come to Mainz for three years to work on his dissertation and join the various activities of the faculty. The concept of this conference is closely linked to the program of the Mainz research center for “Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity (e/αc),” founded in 2010 by Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann. In recent years we have organized several conferences on methodology, norms and forms, and hermeneutics on Ancient Ethics, with special focus on Biblical Ethics with a view towards current ethical debates. We have supervised a number of doctoral students and initiated the sub-series “Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics” in WUNT I/II, in which this volume is published, and the open access “Journal for Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity” (www.jeac.de), whose first issue was published in 2019. It has become clear that approaching early Christian ethics is only possible from different perspectives, engaging with various methods and disciplines and driven by multiple requests from current ethical debates. One of the strengths of the conference – as well as of this corresponding volume – was that it managed to bring together scholars from different geographical, cultural, theological, and confessional backgrounds to stimulate dialogue across boundaries in many ways. This can be considered one of the precious moments in scholarship, because far too often scholarly exchange is limited to researchers

VI

Foreword

from the same field, who use similar methods and who share similar confessional creeds. We would therefore like to thank first and foremost all participants for engaging in this open dialogue and respectful exchange. We hope that the readers of this volume will also take up this spirit of diversity in their approach to the ethics of the Epistle to Titus and continue to consider it in their own way. Furthermore, we would like to give our gratitude to the colleagues currently working in the e/αc-research center: Dorothea Erbele-Küster, Esther Kobel, Raphaela Meyer zu Hörste-Bührer, Michael Roth, and Ulrich Volp. We also thank the Fritz Thyssen-Foundation for awarding us funds to organize the conference and to help prepare this book. Organizing the conference and preparing the publication requires also help from many people: Thus, we are deeply grateful to Beate Bechthold, Anna Grundhöfer, Charlotte Haußmann, Lara Hauzel, as well as Dr. Alexander Müller and Jacob Cerone. We give our gratitude also to Professor Jörg Frey and the editorial board for accepting this volume in the WUNT I series. Ms. Elena Müller from Mohr Siebeck gave us professional support in all stages of the publication process, for which we also would like to express our sincere thanks. Mainz, Germany/ Jos, Nigeria, in August 2021

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara I. Manomi

Table of Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Introduction Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus: Introductory Remarks and Summary of the Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I. Linguistic and Rhetorical Aspects of the Implicit Ethics: A Text-immanent Approach Luke Timothy Johnson The Pedagogy of Grace: The Experiential Basis of Morality in Titus . . . . . . 37 Annette Bourland Huizenga Moral Education in Titus: Antitheses for Ethical Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Dogara Ishaya Manomi The Language of Virtue: Discovering Implicit Virtue-Ethical Linguistic Elements in Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Rick Brannan The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus: A View Informed by Discourse Grammar and Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Jermo van Nes Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus: A Reassessment of the Pseudonymity Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Philip H. Towner The Ethical Agenda of Titus: The Time and Space of Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

VIII

Table of Contents

II. Historical and Contextual Dimensions of the Implicit Ethics: A Socio-historial Approach Jens Herzer Ethics, Ethos, and Truth: Reassessing the Question of the Individuality of the Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Michael Theobald Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum? Titus and His Construct of the Opponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Ray Van Neste “Our People”: Ethics and the Identity of the People of God in the Letter to Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Harry O. Maier Ethics and Empire in Titus: Texts, Co-texts, and Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

III. The Relevance of the Implicit Ethics: A Hermeneutical Approach Korinna Zamfir Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus: Ethical Issues and Their Contemporary Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Claire S. Smith Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today: Insights from the Book of Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Hans-Ulrich Weidemann Written to Be with Paul: Reading Galatians with Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Marianne Bjelland Kartzow “Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2): Rethinking Stereotypes and Rhetorical Gossip Towards an Intersectional Ethics of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Introduction

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus Introductory Remarks and Summary of the Contributions Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi The letter to Titus is one of the briefest writings of the New Testament.1 It has often been classified among the Pastoral Epistles and there it remains in the shadow of 1 and 2 Timothy. One seldom gives this writing attention in its own right. With this volume, however, we want to deal not only with Titus as an individual letter, but even more, focus on one aspect in particular: the ethics of this writing. No one will deny that the letter to Titus is about ethics and morality. “Good deeds” are mentioned six times (Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14), virtue and vice catalogues describe the good and bad way of living (e. g., Titus 1:6–9; 2:5), and a household code addresses the different groups in the community (Titus 2:2–9). The moral of the letter, however, has been deemed highly problematic, because of issues pertaining to gender and the social position of women and slaves, the hierarchy of the leadership in the congregation, and the believer’s attitude with respect to society and government. Additionally, at least in German scholarship, presuppositions rooted in Lutheran exegesis on Paul influenced scholarship on Titus. It is striking how consistently, for instance, the commentary by Gottfried Holtz2  – an authoritative commentary in Germany for a long time  – ignores terms like καλὰ ἔργα (Titus 2:7, 14 etc.) or theologically undermines them with the overarching topic of justification. Thus, the ethics of the letter has been ignored, neglected, or heavily criticized. Furthermore, we realize that an ethical reading of the letter is closely linked with preliminary decisions and preconcepts, with norms and values that a reader brings from a particular context or epistemic interest. How then can we approach the “morality” or “ethics” in the letter to Titus? Do we find in Titus an expression of “ethics” as a reflection on moral behavior at all, or is it all about “ethos”? What does the term “ethics” mean? What are we looking for when analyzing the letter 1  It consists of only 46 verses and 659 words. Within the Corpus Paulinum only the Letter to Philemon (334 words, 25 verses) is shorter; in the New Testament only 2 John and 3 John are shorter than Titus. 2  Gottfried Holtz, Die Pastoralbriefe, THKNT 13 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1980; 1st ed. 1966).

4

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

with respect to its ethics? What would the relevance of an ethics of Titus be for current ethical debates and Christian churches today? To answer these questions, it is necessary to locate this volume within a wider frame of research on ethics in the Bible and ancient texts, which has been done at the Mainz “Research Center for Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity” (e/αc).3 The goal of this research center is to explore and analyze ethics in ancient texts, with special focus on the time of Early Christianity with a view towards current debates and relevance. The methodological approaches and working definition given in the following section can be seen as the results of this fruitful collaboration at the Mainz Ethics Center. While sharing those insights, we by no means wish to set up a normative terminology or method to function as the hermeneutical key for all the following papers. However, the suggestions of terms and methodological aspects provided a point of entry into the thicket that is the ethical and moral aspects of the letter to Titus. From there, each contributor could find his or her own way by following some lines or by modifying and contradicting others.

1. Working Definition of Ethics A general consensus has developed in moral philosophy and theology, as well as in biblical scholarship on ethics, that one can categorically distinguish between ethos (synonymous with morals) and ethics.4 “Ethos” can be described as the moral positions of a group based on custom and traditions. “Ethics” is defined as the systematic and theoretical examination of human conduct with a view towards the conditions, rationality, and coherence of moral reasoning and judgement. The definition set forth in the Logic of Love is as follows: “ethics is the reflective consideration of a way of living with a view towards its guiding norms and having as its goal an evaluation.”5 This definition includes three aspects: (1) Ethics has to do with a meta-perspective on behavior and life, with the development of and justification for behavioral norms and conduct of living and not simply the formulation of imperatives. (2) The justification is affected through systematic reflection and language so that one is not simply dealing with a listing of assumptions or norms, but rather with a morally significant argument (or narrative or metaphor) with the purpose of justifying and defending one’s position or convincing others of its correctness. (3) Ethics entails an evaluation, that is to say, ethics always involves  See www.ethikmainz.de (19. 07. ​2021).  See the brief summery on this in Ruben Zimmermann, The Logic of Love. Discovering Paul’s “Implicit Ethics” through 1 Corinthians, trans. Dieter T. Roth (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/ Fortress Academic, 2018), 1–2. 5  Zimmermann, Logic of Love, 4. 3 4

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

5

a judgment of whether a particular action is to be considered good or bad, or better or worse. One could immediately object that such an ethics, in the sense of a reflection upon behavior, is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The authors of the Bible differ from moral philosophers. The biblical texts are stories, hymns, or letters – forms that are different from Aristotle’s volumes on ethics. Though this observation is correct, there are good arguments to retain the term “ethics.” Though the letters of Paul, for instance, refer to a certain extent to problems in daily life, the author reflects upon values, puts them in a hierarchical order, and utilizes diverse linguistic forms like arguments, metaphors, or rhetorical questions. We can find ethical judgement and coherency regarding values and norms. In other words, there exists at least some kind of ethical system or underlying ethical theory. The author is not simply a situational moralist who tells his addressees how they should act. For this reason, instead of referring to an “ethos” of an author or audience behind the text, we retain the term “ethics.” At the same time, we would contend that it is more appropriate to speak of an “implicit ethics.” The term “implicit ethics” seeks, on the one hand, to do justice to the literary and fragmentary medium that is our biblical texts. On the other hand, despite this reality, it asserts that a coherent, theoretically amenable, and therefore discursively compatible ethics in biblical texts can be recognized.6

2. The Organon of the “Implicit Ethics” in Biblical Texts The description of the implicit ethics of a biblical text requires an analysis on several levels, which we refer to as the organon7 of implicit ethics. This organon is a comprehensive grid, which covers eight different approaches within an ethical reading of New Testament texts. The perspectives are heuristically distinguished, but should not be misunderstood as strictly separated or as a fixed methodological path to be followed in a linear order. We have explored the various perspectives elsewhere in detail.8 In the following, we want to present the different aspects briefly and apply them to the letter to Titus by mentioning some  On the term “implicit ethics,” see Zimmermann, Logic of Love, 7–9.  The allusion to Aristotle’s so-called “organon” once more points out that a tool of analysis can be put together ex post, as only ancient commentators grouped together several of Aristotle’s writings on logic (Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, etc.) under the heading of Organon (“Instrument”). See Robin Smith, “Aristotle’s Logic,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ (30. 07. ​2016). 8 See Zimmermann, Logic of Love, chapter 2 (theory) and the application in chapter 3. Manomi used selected elements of the organon and applied them in a modified way to Titus in his dissertation. See Dogara Ishaya Manomi, Virtue Ethics in the Letter to Titus: An Interdisciplinary Study, Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics XII, WUNT II/560 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021). See also the discussion of the model in Key Approaches to Biblical Ethics: 6 7

6

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

examples from the text. The contributions in this volume deepen some of those issues and can therefore easily be placed in this grid. Some of the contributions referred to the organon explicitly, others chose their own terminology but are still close to our perspectives. 1. The Medium of Ethics: Moral Language 8. The Purview of Ethics: The Realm of Validity – Application

7. Ethics and Social Reality: Lived Ethos

2. Ethical Points of Contact: Norms as Indicators of Ethical Significance

The ‘implicit ethics’

6. The Ethical Subject: Questions concerning the Moral Agent

3. Ethics in Context: Convention and TraditionHistory of Individual Norms

4. Ethics as a System of Values: Developing a Hierarchy of Norms 5. Forms of Ethical Reflection: Generating Moral Significance

Fig. 1: The “organon” of the “implicit ethics” (analytical grid)

2.1 The Medium of Ethics: Moral Language. Ethical reflection is bound to language and in our case to text. In conjunction with earlier scholarship in moral philosophy (R. M. Hare), we think that there is ethical meaning in specific forms of speaking and writing, and that the moral significance of a text does not just appear ex post through the usage of texts in a moralized way. Nevertheless, texts are also part of communication, therefore the moral message sent by an act of speaking must also be part of the analysis. In the complex interrelatedness between “ethics and language,” we can distinguish three overlapping aspects:9 (a) at an intratextual level we investigate the linguistic form of a text and its moral implications. Ethics can already be found in some words or more precisely semantemes according to their semantic domains. Additionally, word types such as adverbs, verbs, or even prepositions An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. Volker Rabens, Jaqueline N. Grey and Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn, BINS 189 (Leiden: Brill 2021), 15–79. 9  See for details Ruben Zimmermann, “Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21–33 as Test Case,” in Moral Language in the New Testament, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan van der Watt, WUNT II/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010), 19–50.

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

7

each have a different function as carriers of ethical significance.10 For example, it makes a difference that the noun σωφροσύνη, which was used several times in 1 Timothy (1 Tim 2:9, 15), does not occur in Titus, which prefers verbal expressions.11 Furthermore, we ask about literary style and devices: Is this text a metaphor, narration, or discourse? Each of these create ethical meaning in a different way. Ethics is also closely linked with ought-to sentences, ethical instructions,12 or simply imperatives (e. g., Titus 3:14: μανθανέτωσαν). The imperative alone does not yet qualify as ethics according to the definition above. But most of the imperatives are contextually embedded in an argument. (b) Referring to the intertextual level we realize that moral texts of the Bible are part of an intertextual system of ancient literature.13 A genre is a typified form of text which is established in a communication culture. Some genres, such as vice catalogues and collections of commands, play an important role in communicating ethical values. Titus 2:1–10, for example, is correctly classified as a Haustafel or household code, along with other New Testament texts (e. g., Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:21–6:9; 1 Pet 2:18–3:7) and other ethical texts in the Greek tradition (oikonomikos literature). The antithetical rhetoric in Titus also links the letter with the protreptic literature.14 (c) Finally, as Austin and Searle have pointed out, we do things with words.15 Speech act theory is particularly helpful for describing the “hidden imperatives” in acts of communication, which leads us to the extra-textual level. Ought-to claims are not limited to imperative sentences, but the so-called indirect speech act, the illocutionary act, can also transport an ethical dimension of a statement. “Directives,” speech acts that are intended to cause the hearer to take a particular action (e. g., Titus 1:5: διατάσσω; Titus 2:5, 9; 3:1: ὑποτάσσω), and “commissives,” speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, are particularly relevant to the ethical dimension of a text communication. Brannan puts the two

10  See on this aspect Dogara Ishaya Manomi, “The Language of Virtue: Discovering Implicit Virtue-Ethical Linguistic Elements in Titus” (in this volume). 11  The noun σωφροσύνη occurs in 1 Tim 2:9, 15; in Titus we only find the adjective (σώφρων, Titus 2:2, 5) and the adverb (σωφρόνως, Titus 2:12) next to the verbs σωφρονίζω (Titus 2:4) and σωφρονέω (Titus 2:6). 12  See the contribution by Rick Brannan, “The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus: A View Informed by Discourse Grammar and Speech Act Theory” (in this volume). 13 See Jermo Van Nes, “Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus: A Reassessment of the Pseudonymity Hypothesis” (in this volume). 14  See Annette Bourland Huizenga, “Moral Education in Titus: Antitheses for Ethical Living” (in this volume). 15  See John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). For details about ethical speech acts, see Zimmermann, Logic of Love, 37–39.

8

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

together under the heading of “obligative speech acts” and considers directive speech acts to be dominant in the letter to Titus.16 2.2 Ethical Points of Contact: Norms as Indicators of Ethical Significance Norms form the backbone of each ethical statement. Broadly defined, “norms” in an ethical sentence or discourse express or claim what individuals or groups ought to do. Within a text such an ought-to claim can be set forth in various ways. We find norms that are condensed in a single term, such as “godliness”17 (εὐσέβεια in Titus 1:1; see also εὐσεβῶς in Titus 2:12), “gentleness” (πραΰτης in Titus 3:2), or “truth”18 (ἀλήθεια in Titus 1:1, 14), which transport a positive value. In contrast, we also find negative norms, for instance in Titus 1:7, where the leader (“bishop”) should by no means be “self-willed” (αὐθάδης), “wrathful” (ὀργίλος), or “pugnacious” (πλήκτης). Furthermore, an authority like “Paul himself ” (in Titus 1:1 as the fictive author; in Titus 1:5 as someone who directs Titus) or an aim “for the salvation of all men” (Titus 2:11) may be identified as a norm, provided it serves as an element which advocates right behavior. One can argue for a fine distinction between different terms (principle, maxim, goods, values) under the heading of a “norm,” which cannot be explained here comprehensively.19 Following the analysis by Dogara I. Manomi, more than 100 different norms can be identified in the letter to Titus.20 2.3 Ethics in Context: Convention and Tradition History of Individual Norms Norms are always embedded in conventional use and meaning. In other words, norms have a certain tradition. In which traditional and contemporary contexts do these norms exist? Roughly speaking, we can distinguish three areas forming the background of norms in New Testament texts and in Titus in particular: The text refers to Jewish norms, like “love” (Titus 2:2), Jewish myths (Titus 1:14), or Jewish rituals like circumcision (Titus 1:10). There is also a certain degree of knowledge about

16  See the contribution by Rick Brannan, “The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus: A View Informed by Discourse Grammar and Speech Act Theory” (in this volume). 17  On the specific use of εὐσέβεια in Titus in relation to “good works,” see the contribution by Philip H. Towner, “The Ethical Agenda of Titus: The Time and Space of Ethics” (in this volume). 18  On this norm as a guiding principle, see the contribution by Jens Herzer, “Ethics, Ethos, and Truth: Reassessing the Question of the Individuality of the Pastoral Epistles” (in this volume). 19  See Zimmermann, Logic of Love, 43–48. 20  See Manomi, Virtue Ethics in the Letter to Titus, 123–125.

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

9

fighting over the Torah (see μάχας νομικάς, Titus 3:9), but in general Jewish Scripture does not play a role in the argument.21 There are Hellenistic-philosophical norms, like “philanthropy” (φιλανθρωπία, Titus 3:4), “hospitality” (φιλοξενία, Titus 1:8), “peace” (εἰρήνη, Titus 1:4) or selfcontrol (σώφρων κτλ., see Titus 1:8; 2:2, 4, 5, 6, 12),22 which have played a central role in Greek moral philosophy. Although Titus might use these norms in a unique way, it is necessary to know about the customary use of these norms in contemporary discourse. Here, too, one can think of individual norms. Another Greek norm to mention is the proverb that the Cretans are always liars (Titus 1:12), which is quite prominent in philosophy as the so-called “Epimenides paradox.”23 The introduction of the quote indicates that the author of Titus is fully aware that this was originally told by a Cretan himself (εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης). However, the term “prophet,” the context, and the extensions (“The Cretans are vicious brutes, lazy gluttons”) make it seem rather unlikely that the author was aware of the paradox problem, that the statement itself would have to be a lie. It can be seen here, too, that the reference to the norm alone does not permit an ethical judgment; rather, the way in which the norm is used must be analyzed more precisely. Thirdly, there are specific early Christian norms, that is norms which received an unexpected degree of relevance in the early Christian community. In addition to “Jesus Christ” (Titus 1:1, 4; 2:13; 3:6), “faith” (Titus 1:1), and “elect” (Titus 1:1), we find “grace” (χάρις, Titus 1:4; 2:11; 3:7, 15) or “eternal life” (ζωὴ αἰώνιος, Titus 1:2; 3:7). Furthermore, Christian rituals like baptism are mentioned (Titus 3:5: washing of rebirth – λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας). 2.4 Ethics as a System of Values: Developing a Hierarchy of Norms To evaluate the specific use of a norm in the letter to Titus, it is also vital to recognize its concrete position in the text. Which inner context of different norms is produced? Which emphasis of norms, which hierarchy of values can be recognized? Various norms are not presented in a disconnected manner or as equivalent but are correlated. In connection with a moral-philosophical discussion, it might be helpful to differentiate between a “classificatory” and a “com21  There is no direct quote from the LXX (or Hebrew Bible); in Titus 1:16 there might be an allusion to Psalm 13:1 (LXX), but this remains vague. 22  On the different forms, see above. 23  See Titus 1:12: “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” Kallimachos quotes this proverb in his Hymn to Zeus, see Kallimachos, Werke. Griechisch-Deutsch, ed. Markus Aspeker (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004), 388–89: Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται (Cretans are always liars). According to ancient sources, the primary statement is made by the philosopher Epimenides of Knossos (alive circa 600 BC) (see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.14), who himself was a Cretan, which leads to the so-called Epimenides paradox (i. e., a problem with self-reference in logic).

10

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

parative” value concept. In a classificatory system, we have only the extreme opposite judgements “good – bad; worthy – worthless, etc.” (works are classified as good or bad; see Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 5, 8, 14), whereas with a comparative concept, norms and maxims are discussed along the line of a hierarchy of values (not so good – good – better, etc.). In the letter to Titus, such crude antithetical value judgements are dominant and are most obvious in virtue and vice catalogues, but also in the author’s characterization of the opponents as good and bad moral characters.24 To mention one example: “Works” have value within the framework of good deeds, which are mentioned various times within the letter. However, in Titus 3:5 there is a clear hierarchy where the “works of righteousness” are clearly subordinated to God’s mercy (ἔλεος). To evaluate the relevance of a norm, one must also evaluate the rhetorical setting of the norm. Though εἰρήνη (Titus 1:4) is an important norm in Greek philosophy and also in other Pauline letters (Galatians and Romans), it occurs only stereotypically in the pro­ oemium without any specific value in Titus. 2.5 Forms of Ethical Reflection: Generating Moral Significance Above we have defined ethics as reflection on human behavior. Therefore, the question arises: How does this reflection take place? In what way and with what ethical arguments is a particular ethical judgment made plausible? In what way is “moral significance” explored? One fundamental distinction in ethical argumentation exists in the difference between deontological and teleological argumentation. Ethical argumentation is deontological when the value of an action is deduced from a prescribed norm (τὸ δέον), that is, an “obligation” or “duty” to do so. In Titus we can find one such argument, for instance, in Titus 1:9: κατὰ τὴν διδαχήν. The motive is teleological or consequential when the value of an action is measured by its goal (τὸ τέλος) or consequences. The ethical judgement is dependent on the outcome or impact of an action or behavior. There are various examples of such ethical reasoning in the letter to Titus. At the end of the first section of the household code, the reason for the wrong behavior is related as follows: do this/ be like this … “so that (ἵνα) the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:5). On the contrary, it will be blasphemy if the audience does not behave accordingly. In the same passage, there are two additional ἵνα-clauses (Titus 2:8, 10) that mention consequences which should be avoided or preferred. In other words, the way of living is evaluated by such consequences, and therefore evaluated as good or bad.

24  On the antithetical pairing, see Annette Bourland Huizenga, “Moral Education in Titus: Antitheses for Ethical Living” (in this volume).

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

11

Ethical reflection or, stated more broadly, “the generation of moral significance” is, however, often not accomplished by rational argumentation. The biblical texts address ethical questions in a completely different way, using metaphors, narration, and hymns. However, biblical texts also reveal a reasoned wrestling with an issue which involves an ethical appeal or call to action. Family metaphors, apparent elsewhere in Paul’s letters,25 can also be found in Titus (e. g., Titus as Paul’s child – τέκνον in Titus 1:4). Furthermore, the fruit metaphor is used frequently within ethical reflection (Titus 3:14). Sometimes different modes of generating moral significance can also be combined. In Titus 3:14, it is given as an imperative (“Let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds …”) which finds its reasoning in a teleological argument (ἵνα) that at the same time uses the fruit metaphor (“in order to not be unfruitful [ἵνα μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι]”). The addressee, Titus, is also urged to be a role model (Titus 2:7: τύπος) for good deeds. In terms of ethical reflection, we call this the “mimetic reflection.”26 2.6 The Ethical Subject: Questions concerning the Moral Agent An ethical evaluation or judgment requires an ethical “subject.” The question concerning the ethical subject can be regarded on different levels: Who is the ethical subject? Which moral agents are mentioned in the text, for instance, a “bishop” (ἐπίσκοπος, Titus 1:7) or Titus himself as a role model for good deeds (Titus 2:7)? Furthermore, we may ask, which factors (reason, will, consciousness, affects, gender, etc.) constitute the ethical subject? Does it make a difference whether the moral agent is male or female, young or old? In the letter to Titus, these gender issues play an important role. Different groups of persons are mentioned and qualified with respect to gender and age: old men (Titus 2:2), young women (Titus 2:4), the elders (Titus 1:5), etc.?27 Where does the text refer to stereotypes (e. g., the Cretans as liars, Titus 1:12), which nevertheless transport problematic ethical presuppositions? Is it all about one single human being, or the group of women or men, or the community as a whole, etc.? In Titus, there are also different groups in addition or in opposition to the addressees, which are explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the text with 25 See Christine Gerber, Paulus und seine Kinder: Studien zur Beziehungsmetaphorik der paulinischen Briefe, BZNW 136 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). 26 See Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn, and Ruben Zimmermann (eds.), Metapher  – Narratio – Mimesis – Doxologie. Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik, WUNT 356 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), ch. 3: “Mimetic Ethics” (191–290). 27 On gender issues, see several contributions in this volume: Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, “Written to Be with Paul: Reading Galatians with Titus”; Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, “‘Speak evil of no one!’ (Titus 3:2): Rethinking Stereotypes and Rhetorical Gossip, towards an Intersectional Ethics of Justice.”

12

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

regard to moral categories: There are opponents28 (e. g., rebellious people in Titus 1:10), Cretans, and Jewish people (Titus 1:10–12), “rulers and authorities” (Titus 3:1), as well as “everyone”/the “public” (Titus 2:11; 3:2), which can be associated with citizens, urban groups, or associations.29 2.7 Ethics and Social Reality: Lived Ethos The “implicit ethics” of the text is certainly related to moral practice, to lived ethos. In part, it reflects directly upon moral behavior, in part describes, or even critically questions it. The inquiry concerning “ethos” in “implicit ethics” is therefore focused on the question of the relationship between observations and description in a scriptural text and actual practice. Two ideal types can be distinguished here. In what could be termed a descriptive ethos-reference, the author refers to an extant ethos. In Titus, there seems to be the experience of everyday life in ancient society: slaves are normally submissive to their masters in everything (Titus 2:9), older women instruct the younger ones (Titus 2:3–5), and an ordinary man was subject to authorities (Titus 3:1). This experience of everyday life can be confirmed through other sources. In many cases, the text alone is ambiguous in its correspondence to historical reality. Is it, for instance, a rhetorical exaggeration that the addressees were “once foolish, disobedient (…) slaves to various passions and pleasures”? (Titus 3:3)?30 Can we assume that the admonition to the older women “not to be slanderers or slaves to drink” (Titus 2:3) means that there was a certain number of older women in the community of the Cretan Christians who drank too much alcohol? Retrospective reflection and evaluation are closely linked with prescriptive ethics. For this reason, one can also refer to the letter’s effect on the expected ethos of the community, which we would like to classify as prescriptive ethosreference. The author expects his addressee to change behavior and aims to create a new behavioral convention, to establish a different ethos.31

28  On the constructed ethos of the opponents, see the contribution by Michael Theobald, “Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum? Titus and His Construct of the Opponents” (in this volume). 29 For details on the urban milieu, see Harry O. Maier, “Ethics and Empire in Titus: Texts, Co-texts and Contexts” (in this volume). 30 On the ethos difference between pre-conversion and post-conversion, see the contribution by Ray Van Neste, “‘Our People’: Ethics and the Identity of the People of God in the Letter to Titus” (in this volume) 31 Luke T. Johnson states that the letter to Titus not so much reports facts but constructs realities by means of rhetorics, see Luke Timothy Johnson, “The Pedagogy of Grace: The Experiential Basis of Morality in Titus” (in this volume).

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

13

2.8 The Purview of Ethics: The Realm of Validity – Application Ethics has as its goal an intersubjective dialogue on values and good behavior. Even if current moral philosophy has refrained from universalistic ultimate justifications, it is about justifications of action that go beyond the individual situation. Ethics therefore has a tendency to abstraction and supratemporality. Therefore, the questions arise as to what extent an ethical statement of the Bible is bound to a certain historical situation or takes a more “universalistic view.” Yet, not every text presents itself as equally beneficial for a Christian ethic across time and culture. Can the Bible, or the letter to Titus in particular, still play a role in a Christian’s daily life, in forming a moral character, in orientating the moral statements of Christian communities as the churches, or even more, in the values and norms of society? What is the relevance and purview of the implicit ethics of Titus in current debates? The answers to these questions may differ for those reading Titus in Africa, Australia, or Germany, or for those reading it as women or men, or for those reading it from a different confessional point of view. Therefore, it is obvious that ethical analysis is closely linked with the perspective of the reader. Is it possible to gain inspiration and orientation from Titus for contemporary behavior (e. g., concerning leadership in the church, women’s ministry, or [moral] education)?32 Or are there limits in our understanding of the implicit ethics of the letter to Titus, which require a critical awareness of quick transfers and applications to current questions and ethical debates?33 In any case, it is obvious that raising questions about the relevance or application of the ethics of the letter to Titus makes dealing with complex hermeneutical issues inevitable.34

32  On these questions, see the contributions in this volume by Ray Van Neste, “‘Our People’: Ethics and the Identity of the People of God in the Letter to Titus”; Korinna Zamfir, “Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus: Ethical Issues and Their Contemporary Relevance”; or Claire S. Smith, “Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today: Insights from the Book of Titus” (in this volume). 33 In this direction, see the contribution by Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, “‘Speak evil of no one!’ (Titus 3:2): Rethinking Stereotypes and Rhetorical Gossip, towards an Intersectional Ethics of Justice” (in this volume). 34 See Ruben Zimmermann and Stephan Joubert (eds.), Biblical Ethics and Application. Purview, Validity, and Relevance of Biblical Texts in Ethical Discourse, Festschrift J. G. van der Watt, Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics IX, WUNT 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).

14

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

3. The Contributions of this Volume within Three Different Perspectives The general issue “Ethics in the Letter to Titus” can be addressed at different levels: (1) A text-immanent linguistic, narrative, or rhetorical approach to describe the literary devices and signals by which a text or document points to a particular situation, or where it expresses or formulates a somewhat more generalizing perspective. (2) A socio-historical approach, dealing with the situation of origin by using historical diachronic methods, or reconstructing the probable or intended impact of this text on the explicit readers, as well as early Christian or later discourses. (3) We can also take into account the hermeneutical appropriation of the biblical text in contemporary ethical debates in different cultures, interacting with current ethical theories or moral philosophy. The three dimensions, nevertheless, do not mark separate fields, but address heuristically different perspectives which often overlap in analyzing a text. Some of the following papers can be linked clearly to one of these dimensions. Most of them, however, deal with more than one perspective and method. The volume follows these perspectives to structure the different approaches to the “implicit ethics” of Titus. The brief summaries of the articles that follow are structured accordingly. 3.1 Linguistic and Rhetorical Aspects of the Implicit Ethics: A Text-Immanent Approach For Luke Timothy Johnson, in his article “The Pedagogy of Grace: The Experiential Basis of Morality in Titus,” the letter to Titus is a rhetorical performance, implying that “it does not so much report facts as it constructs realities to which it responds.” This premise leads to three important corollaries that guide Johnson’s argument in this paper. First, in Titus, just as in all of Paul’s letters, we do not have real knowledge of the facts of the situation in Crete, neither do we have any way of accessing such facts behind or beyond the letter’s rhetoric. Hence, Johnson’s approach focuses on the rhetorical situation and rhetorical response that has been shaped by the author. Second, and building on the preceding point, focusing on the rhetoric of the text frees us from the futile and exhausting attempts to trace the historical Titus and the historicity of the issues he describes in Crete. In this framework, the authorship and date of writing are of less significance. What is of the greatest benefit is to engage with the author’s argument as he crafted it. Third, in order to interpret Titus responsibly, we must enter the rhetorical world of the text through imagination, to understand it ac-

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

15

cording to its own standard, not ours. The goal in this approach will be to seek understanding rather than provide a normative account. In this approach, Johnson advises, “we need to practice the hermeneutics of generosity rather than the hermeneutics of suspicion.” Treating the letter to Titus as a rhetorically coherent composition, Johnson offers several answers to some of the puzzling questions about the letter: Why are the Cretans and opponents portrayed so negatively? Why are the leadership requirements so minimal? Why are the household instructions so basic? And what functions do the two theological passages (Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7) that are popularly recognized as genuine Pauline diction and theology perform? Some of Johnson’s main points or conclusions include, for example, that Paul counters the savage character of the Cretan people with a virtue or character ethics rather than a ritual-based or law-based ethics. Moreover, the letter to Titus shows that evil dispositions must be replaced by good ones, savage attitudes by benevolent ones through an internal empowerment by the Holy Spirit. “God’s gift (or grace) is the agent of deep human change, not human rule-keeping.” Regarding ethics, Johnson argues that the letter to Titus does not concern itself primarily with the security of the church, as that is not mentioned. Instead, the letter concerns itself primarily with civilized existence itself. The focus on civilized existence is what makes Johnson regard the participle παιδεύουσα as playing a key role in the ethical orientation of the letter. Using a rhetorical device that portrays the Cretan population as savage all-round to the extent that even the basic unit of civilization, the household, is fragile and under attack, the author rhetorically shows that “the Cretans cannot build on the ancient and noble traditions of Greek paideia, in which both positive moral dispositions and social stability could be assumed ….The pedagogy of grace, what God’s gift of mercy and kindness revealed through the self-giving of Jesus and made available to them through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the case of this rhetorically constructed Crete, must do the heavy lifting of providing the basis of civilization itself.” Rhetoric is also of major interest in Annette Bourland Huizenga’s article “Moral Education in Titus: Antitheses for Ethical Living.” Huizenga regards the letter to Titus as participating in the quests and questions of ancient philosophy in the way that the author draws from popular philosophical language and rhetoric to prescribe how the audience ought to acquire virtues that will enable them to live a good and happy life within their urban, imperial social context. In modern terms, the letter to Titus with its paraenetic nature can be described as a curriculum for “moral development” or “character formation.” Among many features of paraenesis found in the letter, Huizenga focuses particularly on the author’s literary-rhetorical pedagogy. First, she suggests that “protreptic literature” is an appropriate environment to locate the author’s antithetical reasoning. Secondly, she examines the author’s employment of individu-

16

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

al antitheses: the virtues and vices, moral and immoral examples, and promises and warnings that build up his proofs. Thirdly, in relation to the first and second points above, Huizenga considers what the content of the author’s moral teaching signifies for his presuppositions about human nature and human capacity for moral development. It also needs to be mentioned that Huizenga reads the letter from a feminist perspective with a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” as proposed by E. Schüssler Fiorenza. Rhetorical Instruction for Ethical Living: Huizenga notes that the letter to Titus does not follow the three-part structure of a logos protreptikos as outlined by Aune (a negative section, a positive section, and an optional section consisting of personal appeals). However, the author does incorporate all its basic elements by way of (1) heaping disdain on the opposition; (2) presenting, praising, and defending his own thoughts and way of life; and (3) making personal exhortations to the audience to accept his teaching. “He appeals to the audience’s minds and emotions while reminding them of the highly-esteemed ethos of the apostle Paul. He presumes that his audience has the capacity to respond positively to his calls for ethical living. In fact, one could hardly ask for a more concise or obvious example of early Christian protrepsis (and apotrepsis) than this short paraenetic letter.” Antithetical Pairing: The author of Titus appeals to ēthos, pathos, or logos, or, more often, a combination of all three, in presenting his antitheses. Such antithetical pairings are seen in vice and virtue lists, for example, Titus 1:6–9 (virtues) and 1:10–16 (vices). While there is no direct one-to-one antithetical pairings (e. g., love and hate, good and bad), a sharp distinction is drawn between goodness and wickedness, with no middle ground, mostly evident in the assertion “to the clean all things are clean, while to the defiled and unfaithful nothing is clean” (Titus 1:15). Similarly, we find virtues and some negated vices in Titus 2:3 (older women are not to be slanderers and drunkards) and Titus 2:9–10 (enslaved believers are not to talk back or pilfer), and the paideia of grace trains believers to reject vices such as impiety and worldly desires and live by the virtues of moderation, justice, and piety in the present age (Titus 2:12). Moreover, an antithetical structure is seen in the author’s description of the pre-conversion vices that characterized the believers compared to the post-conversion virtues that characterize the believers (Titus 3:3–7). Moral and Immoral Examples: This is the second set of antithetical pairs – representing vivid images of conduct to be adopted or avoided. From the prescript and other instances in the letter, Paul (the father), Titus (the son), and the church leaders that are to be appointed based on moral qualifications serve as examples of good moral character to be adopted while the opponents serve as bad moral examples to be avoided. The author uses harsh disparaging and denigrating descriptions of his opponents to discredit their ideas and behaviors and in so doing to present them as bad moral examples to his audience. Huizenga

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

17

does not reserve her personal struggle and discomfort interpreting such verses. According to Huizenga, the author’s language is so malicious and even seems at odds with his theology that the “grace of the saving God appeared to all people” (Titus 2:11). Promises and Warnings: Another set of educational antitheses are promises and warnings, which are interwoven with the two other antitheses of virtue and vice, good and bad moral examples. By “promises,” Huizenga means the anticipated positive consequences of progress toward virtue, and by “warnings” she means the negative consequences of failure to advance. One explicit warning is given in Titus 3:14, while promises or rewards for good behavior are found in Titus 2:3–4 (approval as good teachers), 4–5 (word of God is not defamed), 9–10 (the teaching of our savior God will be adorned), and 3:7 (eternal life), etc. In summary, Huizenga’s main thesis is that the letter to Titus uses rhetorical instructions, antithetical pairings, and promises and warnings as a curriculum for moral education. Coming from a neo-Aristotelian perspective, Dogara Ishaya Manomi in his article “The Language of Virtue: Discovering Implicit Virtue-Ethical Linguistic Elements in Titus” regards the term virtue or character as a person’s inner dispositions, attitudes, tendencies, and ability to behave in consistent admirable patterns, leading towards human flourishing. Manomi heuristically defines virtue ethics (as a theory) as a critical reflection on the sources, senses, symbols, and services of character in moral formation and function. He focuses on one “sense” of virtue ethics, namely, the linguistic “sense.” The following characterize virtue ethics in the neo-Aristotelian tradition: a sense of moral telos that leads to human flourishing, an emphasis on the morality of persons (“being”) more than the morality of actions (“doing”), emphasis on character development, a sense of moral perfectionism, acknowledgement of the particularity of moral agents, emphasis on moral exemplars, and a consideration of the moral significance of community. His study analyzes and discovers these virtue-ethical properties or characteristics explicitly or implicitly (re)presented in verbal, adjectival, adverbial, and prepositional linguistic and rhetorical (metaphorical) elements in Titus, which are all interwoven with theological notions and ethical norms to place more emphasis on the morality of persons than on the morality of actions, or on the “being” more than the “doing” of moral agents. A few examples of such linguistic elements and their virtue-ethical significance will suffice. With respect to verbal linguistic elements, two direct imperative verbs appear in the “household codes” (Titus 2:1–‍10), namely, λάλει “teach, speak” (Titus 2:1) and παρακάλει “exhort, admonish” (Titus 2:6). These two teaching/training imperatives represent a virtue-ethical approach to morality in two ways: first, they express a continuous and even rigorous process of character development through the act of teaching/training. Second, the expected outcome of the

18

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

teaching gives the imperative verbs a virtue-ethical meaning, namely, “to be/become” temperate, honorable, self-controlled, and so on. Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7 provide a theological basis for these virtues, thereby giving them a Christian perspective. Moreover, the infinitive verb εἶναι and its cognates appear in relation to each group of people mentioned in Titus 2:1–10. Its virtue-ethical significance is more evident when read in the light of the adjectival forms of the virtues which describe and qualify moral qualities of persons rather than moral actions. For example, it expresses the idea of “being self-controlled” (σώφρονας εἶναι) or “possessing the virtue/quality of self-control.” Furthermore, within the household codes in Titus 2:1–10, Manomi finds a number of participles, subjunctive and infinitive verbs, and adjectives that have virtue-ethical significance in the sense that they describe moral qualities of persons more than those of actions. The occurrence of the verbs προΐστασθαι μανθανέτωσαν “let them learn to bring out/devote oneself to” (Titus 3:14; cf. 3:8) in relation to καλὰ ἔργα “good works” within the context of the Christ-event, and the frequent instructions to teach, have virtue-ethical relevance in the way that they point to an inner character that needs to be taught, developed, and brought out in visible external good works. Moreover, they shed more light on the author’s purpose of leaving Titus in Crete, namely, “to set right the things left behind” (Titus 1:5). It indicates that “the things left behind” are related, primarily, to character development through rigorous teaching and being a moral exemplar. A rhetorical metaphorical argumentation is discovered in the metaphor of “fruitfulness” (Titus 3:14; cf. 1:16) related to “good works.” The idea of being “unproductive/ unfruitful” represents the opposite of the Aristotelian virtue-ethical concept of εὐδαιμονία (“human flourishing, well-being”), which is “the good” and consequently, the human telos. In this context in Titus, the believers flourish towards εὐδαιμονία when they do good works. However, if they fail to “bring out/forth” good works, they do not flourish and so do not move towards εὐδαιμονία. Consequently, they become unproductive or unfruitful. The interweaving of these linguistic elements with ethical norms and theological motifs places the emphasis of ethics in the letter to Titus on the morality of persons rather than the morality of actions, thereby being more virtue-ethical than not. In his article “The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus: A View Informed by Discourse Grammar and Speech Act Theory,” Rick Brannan analyzes the various commands, exhortations, instructions, and inferences that occur in the letter to Titus. Regarding speech act theory, Brannan classifies each sentence/clause as one of three types of speech acts: Informative, Obligative, or Constitutive. Informative Speech Acts are those where the purpose of the communication is the exchange of information. They involve giving information and asking for information. Obligative Speech Acts are those where the purpose of the communication is to impose an obligation on the hearer or speaker. And

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

19

Constitutive Speech Acts are those where the purpose of the communication is to constitute a social reality. Each of these types of speech acts encode two different subtypes. Informative speech acts may be either Assertive, where the speaker asserts information, gives a description, or makes a statement, or Information Questions, where the speaker lacks information and formulates a question to acquire the information lacked. Obligative speech acts may be either Directive, where the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do something the speaker requires or desires, or Commissive, where the speaker offers to do things for others. Constitutive speech acts may be either Expressive, where the speaker expresses a psychological state concerning the context of the utterance, or Declarative, where the speaker makes a declaration which brings about the correspondence between the content of the utterance and reality. In Titus, Brannan identifies and discusses 21 ethical instructions spread across the letter to Titus under six different groups, among which the obligative directive speech act clearly dominates. At the end of his discussion of each group of ethical instructions, Brannan discusses the discourse grammar that embeds the ethical instructions. He notes that not all the ethical instructions have an explanation to them. However, for those that do, the primary method of indicating an explanation involves the use of ἵνα (e. g., instructions 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20); the use of γάρ (e. g., instructions 16, 19) and the use of a verb of knowing plus ὅτι (e. g., instruction 17). While acknowledging the pervasive nature of ethical instructions in the letter, Brannan identifies four important portions of the letter that do not directly convey ethical instructions. They include Titus 1:1–4 (epistolary prologue), Titus 1:15–16 (further justification for the instruction of Group 1), Titus 2:11–14 (further explanation – cf. use of γάρ – and justification for the instruction of Group 2), and Titus 3:3–7 (further explanation – cf. use of γάρ – and justification for the instruction of Group 3). In his article “Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus: A Reassessment of the Pseudonymity Hypothesis,” Jermo van Nes applies the methodology of Corpus-linguistics to the moral language of the letter to Titus. His leading question is whether the statistical analysis of language usage permits any conclusions about the authorship of the letter to Titus. As his point of departure in studying the moral vocabulary in Titus in comparison with Paul’s undisputed letters, Van Nes starts with Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida’s categorization of 93 semantic domains in the Greek New Testament, one of which is called “moral and ethical qualities and related behavior.” This domain of moral and ethical qualities is divided into 38 subdomains, having a total of 318 lexical entries. Of these lexical entries, 196 occur at least once in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, and Titus, which Van Nes presents in a statistical table. Applying a “simple linear regression analysis” to determine the significance of the number of occurrences of moral vocabulary types in Titus,

20

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

Van Nes finds that Titus has a considerably high number of moral vocabulary types compared to Paul’s undisputed letters. “Statistically, however, the result is insignificant, as it does not outlie the maximal prediction interval. There is no need, therefore, to postulate a pseudonymous author for Titus on the basis of its moral vocabulary.” The result, nevertheless, allows a possibility of a first century date for the writing of the letter to Titus, because all 48 moral vocabulary types found in Titus are used in at least one of Paul’s undisputed letters and/or extrabiblical sources that have largely been accepted in scholarship to be of a first century date. This result directly challenges the scholarly dating of the letter to Titus to the second century on the grounds that its ethical language is typically that of the second century (e. g., Raymond F. Collins and Robin Lovin, among others). The second aspect of Van Nes’s statistical analysis focuses on the ethical argument in Titus, specifically on enthymemes therein. Using statistical figures comparing enthymemes in Titus and in undisputed Pauline letters, Van Nes argues that “the number of enthymemes in Titus is not significantly different from that of Paul’s undisputed letters. In fact, the use of enthymemes in Romans, Galatians, and 2 Corinthians is more peculiar than in Titus.” Like his earlier argument regarding the use of moral vocabulary types, Van Nes argues that the use of enthymemes in Titus does not form a basis to postulate a second century date for the letter. This conclusion also challenges the second century scholarly dating of the letter to Titus on the basis of its ethical argument (e. g., Lewis Donelson). In summary, Van Nes’s statistical analysis of the moral vocabulary as well as the method of ethical argumentation using enthymemes in Titus shows that its moral language as well as its use of enthymemes is not significantly different from that of Paul’s authentic letters that are typically assigned a first century date, thereby countering the common scholarly dating of the letter to a late first and early second century period, which consequently leads to the argument in favor of a pseudonymous Hellenistic author. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that Van Nes does not necessarily argue that his findings lead to the conclusion that Titus is a genuine Pauline letter. Instead, he challenges adherents of the pseudonymity theory to not use Titus’s alleged peculiar moral language and use of enthymemes as a basis for assigning the letter to a pseudonymous author in the second century. With his contribution “The Ethical Agenda of Titus: The Time and Space of Ethics,” Philip H. Towner approaches the ethics of Titus using Bakhtin’s reflections on the intrinsic relationship between time and space as succinctly represented in his concept of “chronotope.” Specifically, Towner uses the chronotope as a lens from which he analyzes how the author of Titus navigates time and space and to construct an eschatological ethics related to promise, fulfilment and epiphany. Towner finds the intersection of time, space, and ethics in two key passages with-

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

21

in the letter to Titus: Titus 1:1–4 (prescript) on the one hand, and Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7 on the other. In the prescript in Titus 1:1–4, the play of time moves from promise, fulfilment, and appointment. The promise is expressed in πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων “before eternal ages began”; the fulfilment is expressed in καιροῖς ἰδίοις (“the appointed time”; “the ordained eventual time”; “eschatological moment”), referring to the present (“now”) implication of the promise and fulfilment in the appointment of Paul and the proclamation of God’s word with which he has been entrusted. Even though the prescript is heavily temporal, Towner discerns specific conceptual, geographical, and ideological spaces therein. For example, φανερόω (Titus 1:3), understood as an implicit reference to Christ, presents a conceptual as well as geographical divine manifestation of Christ in the space of the world. However, this space is not an ordinary space, but one “under the condition of redemptive possibility,” one which results from promise and fulfilment as conveyed in the apostolic gospel which shapes a particular ethics. Moreover, for Towner, Crete represents both a geographical and symbolic space respectively, as seen in its reference as a place (Titus 1:5) and as a symbol of moral decadence (Titus 1:12). Time and space converge in the prescript and produce an ethical possibility, namely, εὐσέβεια. It is the direct evidence of the “knowledge of the truth” (and possibly the “faith of God’s elect”). In the words of Towner, εὐσέβεια represents “what this ‘knowledge of the truth’ must entail in concrete, empirical ethical terms – as the virtues were intended to do in Greek thought and through a process of ‘Christianization’ also do in the PE.” Despite its overarching significance in the PE, Towner notes that at this stage, it is premature to regard εὐσέβεια as the “ethical agenda of Titus.” In Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7, time plays out in the salvific eschatological epiphany in the “now” and “present” (but also with future implications, cf. Titus 2:13) that has universal scope generally (Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις) and an ethical significance for believers in Christ specifically, in the “now” (also in Titus 3:3–7). Towner calls such an ethical possibility “redemptive enculturation; παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς.” The playout of space in these two passages is seen in the epiphany language (resembling that of the prescript discussed above), which occurs three times (Titus 2:11, 13; 3:4). The epiphany in all these cases refers to acts of divine intervention or help in human space and history. Similar to the prescript, time and space converge in effecting an ethical possibility, namely, the Greek (cf. paideia) virtue εὐσέβεια “piety” and the Pauline language of “good works” (Titus 3:1, 8, 14). At this point, Towner notes the prominence of εὐσέβεια in the PE and its Pauline equivalent of “good works.” He argues, therefore, that whether using εὐσέβεια or “good works,” “Titus introduces an agenda for an ethics that is cosmic in origin and scope and holistic in

22

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

present human experience, the interplay of faith in God and its observable outcome in ethical conduct.” 3.2 Historical and Contextual Dimensions of the Implicit Ethics: A Socio-Historical Approach In his article “Ethics, Ethos, and Truth: Reassessing the Question of the Individuality of the Pastoral Epistles,” Jens Herzer considers “truth” to be a crucial norm for all the three Pastoral Epistles, which not only describes the “implicit ethics” of the letter to Titus, but also represents significant differences between the three letters. Truth, in Herzer’s approach, is not something to be spoken, but to be done (cf. 1 John 1:6; Sir 27:10; Ps 86:11). In addition to its use in everyday language, the concept of truth is suitable for investigating the relationship between ethics and ethos in the PE because it seems to be a Pauline reference category, as seen in statements like “truth of God” (Rom 1:25; 3:7; 15:8), “truth of Christ” (2 Cor 11:10), or “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:5, 14; cf. Col 1:5). In the ethical context, Paul’s use of “truth” (as seen especially in Romans 1) indicates that truth presupposes an ethos that determines and shapes one’s behavior. This usage of “truth” can be identified in the PE. Herzer studies the three letters individually. For him, the genre of each letter serves as the entry point into their differentiation, on the basis of which he studies the concept of “truth” in each letter, locating its form, function, and relevance for ethics and ethos within the respective genre of each letter. Herzer finds that the concept of truth functions as the guiding principle of ethos in each of the letters, but formulated differently, in consonance with the genre of each letter. In terms of genre, 1 Timothy is an apostolic “pastoral epistle,” an ecclesiological “memoir” (memorandum; “Denkschrift”) that sought to consolidate ecclesial structures and establish certain codes of conduct within those church structures. Such consolidation became necessary in the author’s view because of a negative development in the church, which was questioning the truth of the traditional apostolic authority (traditio apostolica). Hence, reaffirming apostolic authority, 1 Timothy formulates an ethos of truth that validates an already established confession and leads to virtue ethic that is expressed in salvation-economical (1 Tim 1:4) and ancient household-economical (1 Tim 3:1–16) terms. In this way, “the claim to truth, the truth-ethos derived from it, and the normative entitlement lead to an apostolically legitimized consolidation of authoritative structures.” Even though truth is the guiding principle of ethos in 1 Timothy, Herzer notes its close relationship with piety, to the extent that they can almost be regarded as synonymous or two sides of the same coin, the “coin,” specifically, being the “civil” (calm, quiet, and honorable) life of believers in Christ before God and the world, as expressed in 1 Tim 2:1–6.

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

23

Unlike 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, a testamentary letter, develops an ethic of succession and imitation from a lived experience of suffering, which also finds its basis in the ethos of truth. This ethos of truth is not limited to fixed confessional and ecclesiological structures but is the proclaimed and received gospel. Drawing from the suffering of Christ, an ethic of “shared suffering” is constructed (2 Tim 2:3–7; 3:11–12). Regarding Titus, Herzer argues that the genre is a mandatum principis or mandate letter that presents concrete tasks in concrete real-life situations (Titus 3:12–14). The mandate specifically is to establish leadership structures that will provide stability in the endangered Cretan churches (Titus 1:5–9). “The letter develops ethical virtue principles which are decisive for the task of the mandate and concern the qualifications of those to whom the mandate refers.” In this way, the letter to Titus presents a kind of a “utilitarian ethics” which promotes doing “good works” within the church and in the wider society (Titus 3:1–8). In summary, Herzer argues that, paying attention to the ethical profile of each of the three Pastoral Epistles with focus on the concept of truth as a guiding principle of ethos, the three letters have distinctive ethical profiles. This conclusion, therefore, once more demonstrates the insufficiency of the Corpus Pastorale approach in capturing the individual profile of each of the three letters, on the one hand, and the plausibility of approaching and analyzing the letters as individual texts, on the basis of which their unity or relationship can be accountably established. The thesis in Michael Theobald’s article “Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum? Titus and His Construct of the Opponents” is that Titus promotes “the ethos of the communities and the law and order derived from it in the context of recognized socio-ethical standards, that is, understanding and practicing ethos before the public forum.” In other words, Titus promotes an ethics that is acceptable in the wider society, which will earn the Christian community the respect, support, and even following among outsiders and authorities. This orientation is grounded on the ethical conviction that God wants to save “all people” universally in Christ Jesus (Titus 2:11; 1 Tim 2:4). In view of this, it is necessary for the church to be open to all and to live in such a way that appeals to all people in the polis. The repeated nature of this ethical approach and its theological grounding, Theobald argues, stands in opposition to the internal ethical views of the author’s opponents, who “rely on rigorism and asceticism and profess a lifestyle that cannot be ‘identical’ with an ‘existence under the conditions of this world.’” The author of the PE constructs his opponents as cultivating a group ethos that demarcates and isolates the church from the wider society, thereby not appealing to ordinary people. In this way, the ethos of the opponents can be constructed as basically an inward-looking ethics as opposed to the author’s outward-looking ethos. While Theobald finds many examples in the PE to support his thesis, a few examples, especially from Titus, will suffice here. For example,

24

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

in Titus 2:1–10 we find three statements that present the public perception of a Christian lifestyle as an argument for their respective paraenesis: Titus 2:5c: “so that (ἵνα) the word of God might not be blasphemed (μὴ … βλασφημεῖται)” (cf. 1 Tim 3:7); Titus 2:8b: “so that (ἵνα) the opponent (ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας) might be put to shame and nothing bad might be said about us”; Titus 2:10c: “so that (ἵνα) they [sc. the slaves] might adorn (κοσμῶσιν) the teaching (τὴν διδασκαλίαν) of our God and Savior in everything.” One pattern discernible from the above-mentioned ethical argumentation is that it is only assigned to subordinates within the hierarchy. Theobald succinctly puts it this way: “According to contemporary economics, the neuralgic points are the behavior of the subordinates within the hierarchy: that of the (young) women towards their husbands or that of the slaves towards their masters.” In this context, the wider social environment influences the internal order and ethos of the Christian communities such that, despite their being aware of their being foreigners in the world, they seek to adapt to the world around them without compromising what they believe to be a true representation of the gospel. Not only Titus 2:1–10, but Titus 1:10–16 also strengthens Theobald’s argument. By saying the opponents “destroy entire households” (Titus 1:11), the author opines that they do not follow the usual socio-ethical ideas and ideals about the oikos, but “destroy” its recognized and acceptable order, probably by redefining different roles in the “house.” Theobald detects three aspects of the opponents’ “teaching” and way of life in Titus 1:10–16 that the author finds to be unhelpful for the public perception of the church: “ first, an alternative socio-ethical understanding of the role of the oikos; second, ideas of purity that are reflected in the opponents’ table practices and its ideal of abstinence; and third, the claim to have a special ‘knowledge of God.’” In summary, Theobald constructs the ethos of the opponents in the three PE by detecting what they sought to achieve in comparison with the ethos that the author promotes. Specifically, he describes the ethos of the opponents in the PE as an internal, demarcated, and “exaggerated group ethos,” while the ethos the author promotes, in a direct polemic against that of the opponents, is one that aligns with the socio-ethically recognized standards of public life in the polis. With his contribution “‘Our People’: Ethics and the Identity of the People of God in the Letter to Titus,” Ray Van Neste examines the connection between ethics and the particular identity of the church in Crete, as found in the letter to Titus. He does this by first noting the descriptors used of Cretans or unbelievers compared to their significantly different post-conversion descriptors. Secondly, he examines the basis of such a dramatic change as presented in the letter. In the course of these examinations, Van Neste abundantly argues that the ethical lists in the letter are not merely imported from the wider culture but are organic to the argument of the letter. At the pre-conversion level, the general description of Cretans as “always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” functions only as a general

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

25

assessment of Cretan culture that finds representation among ancient writers as well. For example, Polybius wrote that it was almost “impossible to find … personal conduct more treacherous or public policy more unjust than in Crete” (Histories 6.47 [Paton, LCL]); and that “So much in fact do sordid love of gain and lust for wealth prevail among them that the Cretans are the only people in the world in whose eyes no gain is disgraceful” (Histories 6.46 [Paton, LCL]). Cicero also comments that “Moral principles are so divergent that the Cretans … consider highway robbery honorable” (De Republica 3.9.15 [Keyes, LCL]). Within the text, the pre-conversion Cretans (including the author!) are described as “foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending their lives in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another” (Titus 3:3). Van Neste thinks that the author’s inclusion of himself in this pre-conversion description is important and should, perhaps, mitigate concern about him being abusive in his descriptors. In juxtaposition to those negative pre-conversion descriptors, the post-conversion descriptors of Cretan converts are positive throughout the letter to Titus. For example, they are “God’s elect” (Titus 1:1), “a people for [God’s] own possession” (Titus 2:14),, “heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:7), “those who have believed in God” (Titus 3:8), “our people” (Titus 3:14), and “those who love us in the faith” (Titus 3:15). These terms provide a stark contrast between the pre-conversion and post-conversion identity of Cretan believers. Of special significance, notes Van Neste, is that, in four instances, those identity descriptors are immediately connected with ethical behavior: “A people for his own possession” (Titus 2:14) is immediately followed by their being zealots for good deeds. “Those who have believed in God” (Titus 3:8) are further described as being intent on devoting themselves to good deeds. “Our people” (Titus 3:14) are also those who learn to engage in good deeds. At many points, Van Neste challenges the common scholarly dismissal of the letter to Titus, especially its ethical language, as lacking any serious theological depth and being only an attempt to accommodate the church into the wider culture. Moreover, in addition to studying a wide range of ethical vocabulary and arguing for their intentional, skillful, and meaningful integration into the overall structure and message of the letter, Van Neste studies how theology, ethics and identity intersect in “key texts” such as Titus 1:16–2:1; 2:5, 8 and 10; 2:11–14; and 3:3–8. He concludes, consequently, that “a central point of the letter to Titus is to argue that the people of God can be identified by a certain ethic, and this ethic is rooted in the saving work of Christ … Thus, Christians should be identified as gospel-shaped people.” In his article “Ethics and Empire in Titus: Texts, Co-texts and Contexts,” Harry O. Maier regards Titus as a pseudonymous letter written during the reign of emperor Trajan or Hadrian, but a Hadrianic period is most likely, due to the striking resemblances in the virtues promoted in Titus with those known during

26

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

Hadrian’s reign. Maier discusses the relation of Titus’s ethical teachings to imperial themes under three broad headings. First, parallels with language found in the imperial cult. In this case, Maier finds parallels with imperial language in the use of “our God and Savior,” for example. Moreover, the epiphany language of Titus was well familiar in imperial language. The arrival of the emperor was celebrated as his epiphany or epiphany of a god, and his reign was extended through the empire by establishing and preserving secure government, similar to the author’s instruction to Titus to “put in order what remained to be done, and (to) appoint elders in every town …” (Titus 1:5). Furthermore, Titus’s reference to the second coming as “waiting for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) also resonated with imperial language regarding the advent of an emperor. There are many theories as to the significance of those parallels in the political ethos of the author, such as evidence of accommodation, polemics, antagonism, or defense before the empire, etc. Maier, however, rejects the theory that the Pastorals generally and Titus in particular evidence antagonism toward the empire, or that they evidence an attempt to defend themselves against imperial opposition either on a local or more general level, or to evangelize the emperor or his empire. Instead, he argues that “virtue language with imperial resonances found in Titus reflects the integration of a set of Jesus followers in the urban life of the Mediterranean east.” Second, the narrative casting of Paul and Titus as actors in the spread of the gospel under the guise of an “imperial situation.” “Imperial situation” refers to how the author rhetorically places his audience in an imperial context by creating circumstances that resonate with imperial culture. “The letter places its listeners within an imperial context and crafts for them a series of imperial looking ideals to live within it and to meet whatever challenges it may be facing. Christological language that has imperial sounding resonances helps to create the imperial situation.” Moreover, the author of Titus creates an imperial narrative in which his addressee is a character in the narrative, just as he uses military language by implying that Titus (and Timothy in 1 and 2 Timothy) is an attaché in God’s household, while Paul himself is a slave entrusted with proclamation by the command of “our Savior God,” another imperial term. Furthermore, the instruction to be submissive to authorities (Titus 3:1) resonates with an imperial situation, just as the list of virtues and vices that establish civic order in the church and home also resonate with imperial concerns. Third, the presence of ethical language that parallels what is found in other urban groups of the empire, specifically amongst associations. The author of Titus creates an imperial situation in this regard by associating Cretans and Jews (or those sympathetic to certain Jewish practices such as circumcision) with vices. For example, among the Cretans, there are “many rebellious people, idle talkers

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

27

and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision” (Titus 1:10). “It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said: ‘Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons’” (Titus 1:12). Joudaioi are also associated with vices. They are associated with “Jewish myths and commandments of those who reject the truth” (Titus 1:14–16). Titus is to “avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:9). While some scholars regard these racist and anti-Jewish statements as historical, Maier regards them as only rhetorical fictions used to create an imperial situation. Noteworthy is that such racial profiling of Cretans and Jews and attempts to tame them were also familiar in imperial contexts, which further implicates the author of the letter to Titus as creating an imperial situation. In summary, Maier argues that the imperial cult, the narrative casting of Paul and his delegates spreading the gospel, and virtue and vice language from various associations in the empire offer texts, co-texts, and contexts for understanding the ethical teachings of Titus and their relationship to their larger social world. These themes, however, have been modified in Titus in the light of the Christevent and an eschatological future. 3.3 The Relevance of the Implicit Ethics: A Hermeneutical Approach The contribution “Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus: Ethical Issues and Their Contemporary Relevance” by Korinna Zamfir can be placed between the historical and the hermeneutical sections of this volume. On the one hand, she reflects on the historical-ethical discourse and social ethics in the PE as well as in particular the paraenesis addressed to women in Titus. Then, she also discusses the contemporary relevance and challenges of this paraenesis for women’s ministry in the church today. Zamfir first locates the ethics of Titus within its wider socio-cultural context. Unlike the common understanding in scholarship, Zamfir argues that the author of Titus does not promote ethical norms out of fear of persecution from a hostile society, neither did he promote those ethical norms as a result of internal tensions caused by supposed heretical factions. Instead, he promotes those ethical norms because “he shares the social and ethical views of the society to which he belongs.” Regarding women’s ministries in Titus, Zamfir notes that, in the strict sense of the word, Titus does not refer to women’s ministries as a formal, officially recognized role comparable to that of the male ἐπίσκοπος/πρεσβύτερος or of (female) διάκονοι (Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Tim 3:2, 9, 11; 5:17). Hence, owing to the prescriptive nature of the PE, only limited information can be gleaned with respect to women’s ministries in the PE generally and in Titus specifically. She asserts that “we cannot argue e silentio that such ministries did not exist, but it would be equally hazardous to engage in hypothetical discussions about ministries that probably existed. We are thus left with Titus 2:4–5, which assigns to older

28

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

women the task to instruct their younger peers, the obvious topic of this paper.” In Titus 2:3–5 older women are urged to be καλοδιδάσκαλοι (Titus 2:3), teachers of what is good, implying teachers of virtue. Πρεσβῦτις here does not refer to an official teaching ministry in the same way as that of the male πρεσβύτερος. These older women are expected to reason, advise, and urge (σωφρονίζω) young women (Titus 2:4) to acquire and exhibit the virtues and attitudes that were typically demanded from women in antiquity. Young women, as (future) wives and mothers, are to be taught by the older women to love their husbands and children (φιλάνδρους, φιλοτέκνους), be temperate/self-restrained and chaste (σώφρονας), pure (ἁγνάς), domestic (οἰκουργούς), good (ἀγαθάς), and submissive (ὑποτασσομένας) to their husbands. Zamfir notes that the teaching role entrusted to older women suggests a presence of hierarchical relationship between women, based on age and seniority within and outside the household. Moreover, argues Zamfir, “women seem to be recognized thus as playing a role in the transmission of moral instruction coming from the master to younger generations,” even though their role was restricted to their fellow women and does not include the general public or a mixed audience. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the content of the older women’s instruction does not encompass doctrinal matters, which was the prerogative of male teachers. Zamfir locates the content of the ethical instructions in Titus to their wider Greco-Roman culture. For example, the virtues and behavior expected from young women (Titus 2:3–5) are commonly found in other ancient sources belonging to a wide range of genres, describing the respectable or good woman. Regarding how to read the letter to Titus (and the Bible generally) for today and the hermeneutical principles to draw from it, Zamfir notes that it should be read contextually, on the basis that “the ethical discourses of the New Testament writings are not only indicative-imperative, but also implicit-pluralistic, and ethical judgements are not only assertoric/apodictic, but also dialectical.” In this light, argues Zamfir, any exhortation, for example, to young women today to love their husband should be necessarily accompanied or complemented by demanding that the young men as husbands and fathers do the same. This then reflects the contemporary contextual view of marriage in many Christian contexts as based on mutual respect, love, and commitment. With specific reference to the exhortations that we can draw from the roles of women in Titus for today, Zamfir lists five points as follows: (a) The instruction in Titus to believers generally, and women specifically, to provide an exemplary lifestyle is still relevant, even though expressed in different forms from that of the first century. (b) When ethical teaching and advice is given by ordained ministers, women and men alike should be given a platform to share their experiences and insights regarding Christian marriage and parenthood. (c) More experienced and accomplished women, whether in the family or in their profession (e. g., academia), should realize and actively take up their responsibility for supporting and sus-

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

29

taining their fellow women. (d) More generally, in a youth-oriented culture, “contemporary ecclesial communities should pay more attention to the experience of older women and men, should listen to their voice and learn from their experience.” (e) Engaging believers (men and women) in pastoral work gives impetus as a sign of trust and helps them to accept their tasks with more of a sense of responsibility, thereby boosting their commitment to the Christian community. Nevertheless, Zamfir concludes, as we seek to appropriate the ethical teachings of Titus (especially as they relate to women) in these and many ways, we need to constantly engage in a process of reflection and discernment. In her article “Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today: Insights from the Book of Titus,” Claire S. Smith’s main thesis is that God is the ultimate teacher in the letter to Titus. While other “characters” in the letter are teachers and learners of different sorts, God is the only one who does not learn. She traces the educational activities in the three theological high points of the letter (Titus 1:1–4; 2:11–14; 3:3–7), from which she draws insights for the ethics of teaching and learning in Christianity today. Noting that these theological statements provide the basis for the ethical instructions in the letter, Smith makes seven observations about God’s educational activities regarding content, medium, addresses, goal, etc. Following these dimensions of God’s teaching activities, Smith draws the following insights for the ethics of teaching and learning in Christianity today: (1) no person can know God without God being their teacher. (2) Yet, God desires that people might know him, which is why he initiated the process of revealing himself and teaching people about him. Therefore, having revealed himself and having taught humans about himself, learning about God is a moral task. “There is an obligation for all people to learn from his divine intervention and self-giving.” (3) Not everything that claims to be spiritual or from God is beneficial, and not all claims of knowledge of God are true (Titus 1:11, 14, 16; 3:9). “This means that Christians need to be discerning in what they learn, and from whom they learn. They are to ensure that the content of their learning is trustworthy, and that they avoid (i. e., reject, cf. Titus 1:11; 3:9) those things that are contrary to God’s truth.” (4) Good learning requires more than doctrinal orthodoxy. Rather, Christian learning addresses the whole of life and leads to the transformation of the whole person. (5) Moreover, Christian learning entails lifelong learning (cf. Titus 2:2, 3, 12–13 παιδεύουσα … προσδεχόμενοι), and its effect on the Christian will be evident to both fellow believers and unbelievers (Titus 1:7; 2:5, 7, 10). (6) Furthermore, the purpose of Christian learning is to enhance one’s relationship with God (cf. Titus 1:11) on the one hand, and to create a “community of learners, who are all his saved and special people, who share a common identity and experience arising from his gracious instruction (Titus 1:1, 4; 2:12).” (7) Finally, Christian learning is eschatologically orientated (Titus 1:2, cf. 3:7; 2:12–13).

30

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

With respect to the ethics of Christian teaching, Smith names the following: (1) Christian teaching is not an end in itself but is directed towards Christian learning as discussed above  – so that people will come to know him and his promise of eternal life (Titus 1:2–3; 2:11). That is, Christian teaching is an expression of faith in God and concern for others, that has its goal in their salvation (cf. Titus 1:13; 3:8).” (2) God himself is the model of the Christian teacher (cf. Titus 1:1 δοῦλος θεοῦ; Titus 1:3 κηρύγματι; Titus 1:7 θεοῦ οἰκονόμον; Titus 1:8 ὅσιον, cf. Titus 1:16). (3) The content of Christian teaching comes from God and belongs to him. It is God’s message. The implication of this is that, “while there is scope for teaching his word in ways that are culturally attuned, Christian teachers are not free to deviate from its substance (Titus 1:9).” (4) Building on the third point above, Christian teachers are not only to be careful about what they teach, but also be concerned about what others teach in the name of the Christian God, and to be able to rebuke and correct teachings that do not represent God’s word correctly (Titus 1:9, 11). (5) Christian teaching is to be directed towards all kinds of people, without discrimination based on age, sex, race, or status. (6) Just as God’s educational activity is directed towards relationships, Christian teaching is to establish and enhance vertical and horizontal relationships (cf. Titus 1:4, 6, 8; 2:4–5, 9–10; 3:1). (7) In Christian teaching, the character of the teacher should align with the content of the teaching (see negative examples with false teachers: Titus 1:10, 16; 3:9–11; and positive examples in the requirements for those to be appointed elders: Titus 1:6–9; and for Titus himself, who is to be a model of good works, and to be sound in his method of teaching and in its content: Titus 2:1, 7–8). Another insight for the ethics of teaching from Titus is that all believers have a responsibility to promote God’s word (Titus 2:5, 7–8, 10; 3:1– 2). Lastly, Christian teaching today, just like learning, is to have an eschatological orientation. Its purpose is for people to know the hope of eternal life and be saved (Titus 1:1–3; 2:10; 3:8, 14). The main argument of Hans-Ulrich Weidemann’s article, “Written to Be with Paul: Reading Galatians with Titus,” is that the letter to Titus was directly and purposely written as a supplement, interpretation, explication, and even corrective of the message of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Taking Daniel Boyarin’s interpretation of Galatians (especially Gal 3:28–29) as an epitome of Paul’s counter-culturally profound vision of a humanity undivided by ethnos, class, sex, and other social differences as his point of departure, Weidemann identifies specific examples of how the letter to Titus reinterprets or modifies Galatians. The author of the letter to Titus anticipates or knows that the Cretan believers had already read Paul’s letter to the Galatians. However, now, he wants them to read his letter (to Titus) with “Galatians in mind – or better: to read Galatians henceforth through the lenses Titus provides. Just as Paul had Titus ‘with me’ in Jerusalem (facing Jewish opposition regarding circumcision), so also the reader of Galatians should have the letter to Titus ‘with’ him.” Weidemann bases his

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

31

argument on a number of premises, among which are: Outside the letter to Titus and especially in Paul’s letter to Galatians, there is an established relationship between Paul and Titus, who was Greek. Titus was “with” Paul (Gal 2:3: ὁ σὺν ἐμοί) in Jerusalem when Paul faced opposition from Jews against his “gospel of the foreskin” (Gal 2:7: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας), against the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:5), and when believers from the church in Antioch were confronted with people “from the circumcision” (Gal 2:12) who misled Peter, Barnabas, and other Antiochene Jewish believers away from acting in line with the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14, cf. 5:7 and 4:16). While Weidemann analyzes the relationship between Galatians and Titus (and between Titus and Paul’s letters generally) at several levels and with numerous examples, three main areas are identified here, wherein such a relationship exists, and specifically, where the “Pastoral modification process” of Galatians by the author of Titus operates. First, in Titus 1:5 and 1:6–9, it is clear that the proclamation of the gospel by Paul in Crete was not complete, and so, had to be complemented by appointing male leaders of the church in each city. Such an instruction to “complement” the gospel by establishing male leadership of the church in each Cretan city modifies and reinterprets Gal 3:28–29 by way of re-enacting or re-emboldening the gender divides between males and females, even in the “household of God.” Second, in Titus 2:1–10, the believers in the household of God still retain their male and female differences, and the community of believers are still distinguished by their gender, age, and social status; they are still being led by a male (most likely married and with children) steward of God (οἰκόνομος θεοῦ Titus 1:7); and they still have a hierarchy. This directly modifies or contradicts the undifferentiated whole nature of the community of believers that Paul envisions in Gal 3:28–29, where, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. According to Weidemann, the letter to Titus documents a serious shift in the ideal of masculinity from the encratic, unmarried athlete to the moderate pater familias well respected by the male elite of his polis. Third, in Titus, there is a significant shift from sexual ethics to the ethics of good citizenship. The aim of ethics in Titus and unlike in Galatians, argues Weidemann, is to present Christians to the secular authorities and the general society as good citizens. In this premise of his thesis, Weidemann sees a possibility of arguing that πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους in Titus 3:2 and ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Titus 3:8 (Gal 6:10: ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας) is preferred and emphasized against Gal 5:16–18 and 5:22–23 (with their internal focus on believers) by focusing on “all people” as addressees of the good works of the Christians. According to Weidemann, Titus sets a new goal for Christian ethics, namely, virtuous life in society: to live self-controlled, upright, and godly (σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς) lives in this present age (Titus 2:12b). Such a life, however,

32

Ruben Zimmermann and Dogara Ishaya Manomi

is not attained by studying Hellenistic ethics, but taught by the grace of God. In these ways, the letter to Titus modifies and reinterprets Galatians. In her article “‘Speak evil of no one!’ (Titus 3:2): Rethinking Stereotypes and Rhetorical Gossip, towards an Intersectional Ethics of Justice,” Marianne Bjelland Kartzow applies intersectionality theory as an aid to interpret the ethics of the letter to Titus. She takes examples from three different discourses in the letter: First, Titus 1:10–14, where ethnic and racial reasoning are weaved together and employed as rhetorical tools when rebellious people are characterized. Second, Titus 2:3, where old women and slander are connected when instructions are given to female leaders of the households. Third, Titus 2:9– 10, where the requirement for slaves not to talk back employs certain social hierarchies that determine who can talk, to whom, when, and how. Regarding what we know or do not know about the letter, Kartzow notes the similarity between Titus, other PE, and other ancient texts in the way it employs rhetorical technique of othering, vilifying, stereotyping, and characterizing his opponents using harsh and strong polemics. Characteristic of every other NT letter, only one side of the story is told, which limits our knowledge as to whether the situation described was real or fictional. Our limitation is further complicated by the fact that we have no access to the (possible) response or defense of the opponents, if they (or it) ever existed. Nevertheless, it is helpful to investigate the ethics of Titus for exegetical, hermeneutical, and practical contemporary reasons, knowing that it is regarded as canonical and therefore an authoritative text by many. Kartzow uses the term “intersectional” to describe a mode of reasoning in which “gender is not the only lens needed in order to understand and address hierarchies and power dynamics. The idea is that identification categories, such as gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, age, ability etc. mutually construct each other but also destabilize each other.” In order to explore how structures of gender, class, race, ethnicity, and age overlap and mutually construct each other in discourses of evil and bad speech, gossip and slander in Titus, Kartzow employs the theory of intersectionality. She adopts three ethical hermeneutical approaches to the text. First, she respects the text as coming from a different historical, social, and theological context, not necessarily saying what we want it to say. Second, she theorizes alternative voices than those heard in the letter. Third, she reads it with the awareness of how the text can harm readers, in history and today. In Titus 1:10–14, Kartzow finds it striking how the author mixes ethnic and racial terminologies with other vices to promote a sweeping characterization of some Jews and native Cretans negatively, especially in relation to stereotypes of speech. Similarly, in Titus 2:3–5, bad and evil talk is gendered in relation to females, employing “misogynic ideas about the female.” Similarly, in Titus 2:9– 10, power and social hierarchy are sustained and promoted using an ethical instruction that silences slaves (irrespective of their gender). Kartzow, therefore,

The “Implicit Ethics” in Titus

33

cautions against following the Pastoral Paul in the path of racism, misogyny, and silencing the voice of the other. “To follow in the rhetorical footsteps of the Pastoral Paul here is dangerous. This way for a male leader to transmit proper values to a co-worker is disturbing.” Aiming at an intersectional ethics of justice, Kartzow advises, “interpreters must read these words with critical awareness, not giving authority to the attitudes reflected in this letter.”

4. Multiple Interpretations, Stimulating Insights: Invitation to Critical Reflection on Each Article With a variety of methods and a variety of different points of view and interests of reading, it becomes obvious that there is not one ethic in the letter to Titus, but a variety of different ethical dimensions come to the fore. With respect to hermeneutical questions and the purview of this letter for ethical orientation today, there can even be contradictory conclusions. We (as the editors of this volume) invite the reader to engage reflectively with the stimulating ideas and arguments of each article in its own right, as we do not intend to forge or force a harmonization of content, meaning, orientation, and attitude towards the text. We regard the different cultural, theological, contextual, geographical, and (non-)confessional backgrounds that might have played a role in the approach, interpretation, attitude, and conclusions of each author concerning ethics in the letter to Titus as one of the strengths of this volume. This significantly enriches the study of ethics in Titus and the Pastoral Epistles at large and has the potential to chart a new course for further research on this short but intriguing text.

I. Linguistic and Rhetorical Aspects of the Implicit Ethics: A Text-immanent Approach

The Pedagogy of Grace The Experiential Basis of Morality in Titus Luke Timothy Johnson This short study of Paul’s Letter to Titus rests upon three premises. The first is that this most neglected of Pauline letters deserves serious attention as a valuable witness to early Christianity, and deserves even more attention by the church, whose book it properly is in virtue of its canonization, yet which – largely under the influence of academic marginalization – is little read or appreciated.1 The second premise is that Titus ought to be read on its own terms as a coherent literary composition, specifically as a real letter from antiquity,2 before entering into comparisons and contrasts to other Pauline letters, however valuable those might prove.3 For that matter, Titus ought not too hastily be collapsed into the genre of mandata principis correspondence, where it comfortably fits4. I  Titus is characteristically considered in the distinct context of “The Pastoral Epistles,” without significant reference to other canonical literature, a clustering reflected in the commentary tradition; see, e. g., Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); John N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, Titus, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). An exception is the commentary by Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB 35 (New York: Doubleday, 1990), which regards this letter as having been composed by the evangelist Luke, as the third volume of Luke-Acts. But thematically, the three letters are almost invariably treated together; see, e. g., David C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), and Philip H. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction. The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). 2  The position that the letters to Paul’s delegates are inauthentic is often linked to the theory that they are a single, pseudonymous, composition, with 2 Timothy serving as a fictive biographical setting (as a farewell letter) and both 1 Timothy and Titus being proto-examples of Church Orders; see Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, and, most fully, Yann Redalié, Paul après Paul: le temps, le salut, la morale selon les épîtres à Timothée et à Tite, MdB 31 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994). 3 In the present essay, certain comparisons and contrasts with 1 Timothy are both unavoidable and valuable if the distinctive tone of Titus is to be assessed. 4  Such correspondence between rulers and subordinates in the Hellenistic age  – correspondence which combined advice concerning a delegate’s personal demeanor together with instructions (mandata) concerning the delegate’s commission – is extant in both inscriptions and papyri (such as the Tebtunis Papyri). For the basics, see C. Bradford Welles, Royal Cor1

38

Luke Timothy Johnson

hold, in short, that Titus, like other compositions that at first might tempt readers to a hasty reduction to “letters of that sort,” yields insight to the degree that its specific and distinctive literary shaping is taken as the most reliable guide to its meaning. The third premise is most pertinent to our topic: The Letter to Titus is a rhetorical performance. The study of rhetoric both ancient and modern reminds us that rhetoric does not so much report facts as it constructs realities to which it responds.5 Whether it is the president of the United States making a State of the Union Address, or parents exhorting their children, the set of positive programs and plans suggested always responds to the state of the crisis as constructed by the rhetorician. There may be some factual basis for the construction, but it is to the rhetorical situation rather than the factual situation that the speaker or writer responds. It may be that the country is in great peril from abroad, or that our children are in great peril because of their friends, or that our culture is collapsing from within, but these “realities” are identified and described through the skill of the rhetorician. The situation as the rhetorician sees it, or constructs it, in turn, shapes her recommendations or exhortations: we must strengthen our national defense, we must protect our innocent children, we must improve the instruments of cultural transmission. That third premise, in turn, has three important corollaries. The first corollary is that, in the Letter of Titus just as in Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Corinthians, we neither have real knowledge about the facts on the ground concerning the situation in Crete – or Corinth or Galatia – nor do we have any way to go behind the letter’s rhetoric to secure such facts. In each case, we are captive to the author’s perception of the situation, or, to put it even more sharply, to those elements in the situation the author has chosen to highlight, as the target for his rhetorical argument. And since good science, or scholarship, consists in pursuing questions for which there are possible answers, so should our attention to Titus focus on the rhetorical situation and rhetorical response shaped by the author. respondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934). For the pertinence to 1 Timothy and Titus, see Michael Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition, FRLANT 146 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988) and Benjamin Fiore, S. J., The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, AnBib 105 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1986); see also Margaret M. Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992): 641–62, although she disagrees with my identification of Paul’s letters with this type. 5 See, e. g., Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); John Louis Lucaites, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally A. Caudill, eds., Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader (New York: Guilford, 1999); Willi Braus, ed., Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities (Waterloo, ON: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 2005).

The Pedagogy of Grace

39

The second corollary follows from the first: such an approach frees us from the exhausting and futile speculations about the historical Titus, about his possible connection to Crete, about the actual state of affairs on that island, and, above all, whether this letter was written to an actual delegate by the hand of the apostle Paul, or composed by his school at work during his ministry, or (by far the majority view) by his school, or some fragment of it, after the apostle’s death.6 If all rhetoric has a certain element of the fictive to it – insofar as every rhetorician fashions vapors into visions – the issue of pseudonymity, considered so essential when the scholarly task was construed as historical reconstruction rather than rhetorical analysis, loses much of its savor.7 Whoever wrote Titus, and whenever Titus was written, the only way forward to greater understanding is through engaging the argument crafted by the author. The third corollary is that to responsibly interpret a composition like the Letter to Titus, we must enter as fully as we can into the rhetorical situation and response as sketched by the author through a risk-filled but thrilling leap of imagination. We must try our best to make sense of the rhetoric, not by the standards by which we think we live, or the principles that we suppose we embrace, but by the terms set by the composition itself. This means we do not ask whether a patriarchal household was a good or bad thing, whether the Roman empire was a blessing or a curse, whether Paul’s delegate ought to have been a person from an under-represented population.8 Instead, we try to enter imaginatively into the world created by the composition, taking seriously what it takes seriously. In a word, since our goal is understanding rather than normative guidance, we need to practice the hermeneutics of generosity rather than the hermeneutics of suspicion.

1. The Rhetorical Situation How, then, does Paul portray the situation faced by his delegate Titus? We are offered several kinds of clues. First, Titus is told that he was left9 on Crete to “set 6  For the formation of the majority (indeed, virtually consensus) view and an analysis of its problems, see Luke T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, AB 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 13–90. 7  In this regard, the approach to Titus is different only in degree from that which ought to characterize the approach to Paul’s more familiar letters. 8  See the chapter 11: “Paul: Oppressor or Liberator?” in Luke T. Johnson, Constructing Paul: The Canonical Paul, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020). 9 The 28th edition of Nestle-Aland has the aorist of ἀπολείπω in preference to the imperfect of the same verb or the aorist of καταλείπω. Both verbs can mean the literal separation of parties (“we were together but then I had to leave you”; see for ἀπολείπω, Odyssey 9.292; Plato, Critias 44D; for καταλείπω, see Odyssey 15.89), or a decision concerning placement in position (“I appointed you to remain”; for ἀπολείπω, see Epictetus, Discourse 2.3; POxyr 105.3; for καταλείπω, see Odyssey 21.33; Herodotus, History 6.125).

40

Luke Timothy Johnson

right what is lacking” – an odd sort of construction10 – and to appoint elders/ supervisors in every city (Titus 1:5). The impression given is not that of a wellestablished community but one that is either new or in need of basic structure.11 Unusual for a mandata principis letter, moreover, the delegate’s own need to exemplify virtue is mentioned only briefly in passing: he is “to show yourself a model of good deeds in every respect, with integrity in your teaching, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be criticized” (Titus 2:7–8).12 It is Paul’s delegate’s tasks of teaching and correcting that are stressed. Beyond the appointment of elders, Titus’s role is defined entirely in didactic/rhetorical terms: he is to “rebuke sharply” (ἔλεγχε ... ἀποτόμως, Titus 1:13), “speak” (λάλει, Titus 2:1), “exhort” (παρακάλει, Titus 2:6), “speak, exhort, rebuke” (λάλει καὶ παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε, Titus 2:15), “remind” (ὑπομίμνῃσκε, Titus 3:1), “insist” (διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, Titus 3:8), “warn” and “avoid” (νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, Titus 3:10). The terms used by Paul do not suggest an audience that is especially receptive. Second, the list of qualities asked of new leaders is correspondingly minimal. The children of elders/supervisors13 are to be believers (τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, Titus 1:6), suggesting that they could well not have been; once more, the sense is of recent converts, among whom not even all the members of a household could be assumed to be believers. The elder’s children, furthermore, are not to have been charged with drunkenness or disorderliness,14 suggesting that they

10  For the phrase τὰ λείποντα (“things lacking”), we would expect, “to supply.” But the rare verb ἐπιδιορθοῦν suggests “correcting” things already in place (see Philo, Against Flaccus 124). The ambiguity is caught equally well by the RSV’s “put in order what remained to be done,” and the NAB’s “set right what remains to be done.” The impression given is of a combination of construction and repair. 11  The establishment of local leaders is a consistent Pauline practice (see Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 16:15–18; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:11–12; Phil 1:1; Col 1:7; 4:12; 1 Thess 5:12–13; 2 Tim 2:2; see Acts 14:23). But only here and in 2 Tim 2:2 do we find Paul exhorting a delegate to select such leaders. By contrast, 1 Timothy 3:1–13 and 5:17–23 assume leaders already in place within a community already well established, with clear ministries in place. In Ephesus, Timothy’s job is not to establish a structure of leadership, but to find persons of good character to manage a structure already in place. 12  In Greek, περὶ πάντα σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον. 13  In contrast to 1 Timothy, the offices of elder (πρεσβύτερος) and supervisor (ἐπίσκοπος) are not clearly distinguished in Titus’s brief treatment (Titus 1:5–9). 14  The term κατηγορία can have the sense of “being accused of ” or “under the charge of ” in the legal sense, see Herodotus, History 6.50; Thucydides, History 1.69. The noun ἀσωτία can be used for any form of prodigality or looseness in living (see Plato, Laws 560E; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1107B; 2 Macc 6:4; Testament of Judah 16.1). For the connections between a dissolute life-style and political unreliability, see the brilliant study by James N. Davidson, Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens (London: Harper­Collins, 1997). Finally, ἀνυπότακτα has the sense of unruly, resistant to control (see Epictetus, Discourse 4.1.161; 1 Tim 1:9). That the elders’ children should not be “drunk and disorderly” would ordinarily go without saying. Here, the author thinks it necessary to say.

The Pedagogy of Grace

41

could well have been (Titus 1:6).15 As for the supervisors (ἐπίσκοποι) to be appointed by Titus, the requirements stress moral qualities rather than administrative abilities. Overall, they are to be “without reproach” (ἀνέγκλητος).16 Positively, they are to have only one wife (Titus 1:6);17 they are to be hospitable (φιλόξενον), lovers of goodness (φιλάγαθον), temperate (σώφρονα), righteous (δίκαιον), holy (ὅσιον) and self-controlled (ἐγκρατῆ).18 Their other positive qualities are didactic/rhetorical: they are to teach the sound doctrine and to refute opponents (Titus 1:8–9). None of this is surprising: ancient teachers were expected to combine sound teaching with high moral character,19 and the qualities listed here could find many parallels.20 What may catch us by surprise is the harshness of the terms used for the vices the supervisor is to lack: that he is to be “blameless” (ἀνέγκλητος – or not open to a charge or accusation) as God’s household manager is stated twice (Titus 1:6, 7). But the standard is startlingly low: he is not to be arrogant (αὐθάδη), liable to rage (ὀργίλον), a drunkard (πάροινον), a brawler (πλήκτην), nor willing to do anything for money (αἰσχροκερδῆ, Titus 1:7).21 Both the leaders of the com15 Note,

in contrast, how 1 Tim 3:4 asks only that children be kept in good order, with no reference to their faith or moral proclivities. 16  The same term appears both for elders and supervisors; for ἀνέγκλητος, see Aristotle, Rhetoric 1360A. 1 Tim 3:2 has the near-synonym ἀνεπίλημπτος (see Philo, Special Laws 3.24). 17  For discussion, see Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 158–60; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 249– 51; Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 213–14. 18  1 Tim 3:2–7 also lists as positive qualities, hospitality (φιλόξενον) and temperance/selfcontrol (σώφρονα), and adds to these “being decent” (κόσμιον). Distinctive to Titus is being a “lover of goodness” (φιλάγαθον), “righteous” (δίκαιον), “holy” (ὅσιον), and “self-controlled” (ἐγκρατῆ). But whereas Titus speaks of the supervisor as “God’s household manager” (θεοῦ οἰκονόμον), 1 Tim 3:4 expands the actual role within the household of the would-be supervisor, making an analogy between his management of his own household and the management of the church. Add to this that 1 Tim 4:6 disqualifies a “recent convert” from the office, and we see once more the picture of a community in Ephesus that is well-established and settled, in contrast to the nascent movement in Crete (where supervisors and elders would necessarily be “recent converts”). 19 See the data assembled in Luke T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 109 (1989): 419–41. 20  See, for example, Onasander’s De Imperatoris Officio, discussed in Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 158–60. 21  1 Tim 3:3 shares the elements of “given to drink” (πάροινον) and “brawler” (πλήκτην) with this list, adding “not given to battle” (ἄμαχος) and “no lover of money” (ἀφιλάργυρος). The terms in Titus 1:7, particularly in combination, are negative in the extreme. One who is αὐθάδης is self-willed and stubborn (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1367A; Herodotus, History 6.92), even “surly” (Theophrastus, Characters 15.1); one who is ὀργίλος is “prone to rage” or “irascible” as an aspect of character (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1108A); one who is πλήκτης is pugnacious or bullying (Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics 1221B). Similarly, to be “money-grubbing” (αἰσχροκερδής) is worse than simply not being a lover of money (see Herodotus, History 1.187; Testament of Judah 16.1; Philo, Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 32). In combination with drunkenness and lack of self-control, the list comprises the qualities associated with poor leadership in antiquity;

42

Luke Timothy Johnson

munity and their children seem to be drawn from materials raw in the extreme. Against such a dismal backdrop, Paul’s list of positive character traits shines the brighter. The contrast, though, is between moral dispositions, or habits, between vices and virtues. Third, the native population of Crete is characterized in entirely negative terms. Quoting a line from “one of their own prophets” that had probably become a popular slogan,22 Paul declares that “Cretans have always been liars (ψεῦσται), vicious beasts (κακὰ θηρία), and lazy gluttons (γαστέρες ἀργαί, Titus 1:12),23 a line that neatly summarizes the catalogue of vices to be rejected by elders and supervisors – all the more so, since they presumably are to be selected from out of the same savage and mendacious population. Fourth, the description of the opponents – especially those οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς (Titus 1:10) who are advancing Jewish fables (προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοίς μῦθοις, Titus 1:14)24  – whom Titus and the supervisors are to rebuke, is consistent with the morally degraded state of the general populace.25 They are rebellious (ἀνυπότακτοι), empty-talkers (ματαιολόγοι) and deceivers (φρεναπάται, Titus 1:10). They teach what they ought not, through the shameless quest for money (αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν, Titus 1:11). They have repudiated the truth (Titus 1:13); their minds and consciences are tainted (μεμίανται, Titus 1:15). They claim to know God but by their deeds they deny them.26 They are “vile” (βδελυκτοί), disobedient (ἀπειθεῖς), and are unqualified for any good deed (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι, Titus 1:16). In terms of character, they are if anything worse than the Cretan population as a whole. Their betrayal of the truth, moreover, is not only a matter of personal attitude and behavior. They are also false teachers who create social unrest within households. We can infer from Paul’s dictum that “to the pure all things are pure see Luke T. Johnson, “Taciturnity and True Religion (James 1:26–27),” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 329–39. 22  See Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Logical Role of the Liar Paradox in Titus 1:12, 13: A Dissent from the Commentaries in Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis,” BibInt 2 (1994): 207–23. 23 The “empty bellies” can easily stand for the “desire for sordid gain” (αἰσχροκερδία); see Reggie M. Kidd, “Titus as Apologia: Grace Liars, Beasts, and Bellies,” HBT 21 (1999): 185–209. 24  The term οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς (literally, “the ones out of circumcision”) occurs in the NT only here, Gal 2:12, and Acts 10:45 and 11:2. It clearly means people belonging to a “Jewish party,” and in Acts refers to Christ-believers. Whether they are “Jewish Christians” (see the NAB) here is less certain. 25 We remember, to be sure, the stereotypical character of polemic between members of opposing parties in antiquity, and that Titus is a “rhetorical performance,” rather than a disinterested report; it is not surprising to find that the vices of the opponents correspond to the ones that appointed leaders are to avoid; see Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander.” 26  The lack of consonance between profession and performance was the most fundamental of charges laid against would-be philosophers (see, e. g., Lucian of Samosata, Timon 54).

The Pedagogy of Grace

43

but to the defiled and unbelieving everything is impure” (Titus 1:15), that the opponents are advancing some version of the Jewish law, with its laws of purity. Law-observance is the very definition of a heteronomous ethic: rightness and wrongness is in such an ethic measured by how actions correspond to an external norm, rather than by the interior disposition of the agent. Paul declares that their own stained and defiled minds and consciences testify to the uselessness of the program they propagate (Titus 1:15). Such charlatans could simply be avoided, if they had not infiltrated and influenced members of this immature church whose members have been drawn from a misanthropic and devious population. As it is, the opponents are “upsetting entire households” (Titus 1:11) by teaching for sordid gain what they ought not teach. Some within the community, we can infer, are more than willing to seize hold of any set of moral guidelines – the more precise the better – in a chaotic and culturally debased environment. Such is the rhetorical situation, or problem, as Paul sketches it. The severity of the crisis faced by Paul’s delegate is suggested by Paul’s final instruction “Avoid foolish arguments, genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile. After a first and second warning, break off all contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned” (Titus 3:9–11). We thus understand that “those from the circumcision” are represented by a “party” (αἱρετικός) within the larger community (if not the church), that Titus is in a position to debate with them or rebuke them, and that, ultimately, for the sake of the integrity of the faith, he may have to cut off all contact with them, leaving them to God.

2. The Rhetorical Response The basic lines of Paul’s response are clear enough. Since the immediate danger of the insidious propagation of a heteronomous ethic is the disruption of households (οἶκοι), attention must be given to the cultivation of proper attitudes and behaviors within the fundamental and essential unit of all societies. Thus, we see that Paul’s specific instructions for his delegate in Titus 2:1–10 and 2:15–3:2 concern relations within the household. The church is never even mentioned in this letter. At a more fundamental level, Paul must provide a convincing alternative to the heteronomous ethic peddled by the opponents. We have already seen how he emphasizes the elements of a character or virtue ethics for elders and supervisors, and we shall see the same stress in his household directives. These two elements, however, raise questions of their own. First, why are the household directives he enunciates so pedestrian, so basic? Do older men really need instruction in being “temperate, dignified, self-controlled?” as well as sound in faith, love and endurance (Titus 2:2)? The last three qualities certainly

44

Luke Timothy Johnson

pertain to fidelity in the faith, but the first three – we might think – should come naturally to civilized folk who are elderly; lack of dignity, lack of self-control, and intemperance are certainly associated more naturally with the wildness of youth than with the weakness of age. But then we remember how elders and supervisors are not to be arrogant or drunkards or brawlers (Titus 1:7)! Perhaps the new believers in Crete need rudimentary instruction in basic human virtues; perhaps what does not come naturally or by cultural influence needs to be taught (Titus 2:3–4)? Similarly, in what context is it appropriate for older women to instruct younger women to love their husbands and children (Titus 2:3–5)? Are not such dispositions natural? Experience ancient and modern, alas, teaches that they may not be, and that the most basic of maternal (and need we add, paternal) instincts may need to be taught and nurtured. Likewise, telling slaves not to talk back to their masters and not to pilfer their goods seems a low behavioral bar to meet (Titus 2:9–10), unless the very chaotic state of the household encourages such subversive gestures. Finally, we note that Paul includes in his exhortation to civic duty, the desire that the Cretans avoid slandering (βλασφημεῖν) and violence (ἀμάχους). Such rudimentary instructions point to a situation in which the basic elements of the household are unstable, or, to put it another way, in which the kind of paideia, or culture, that Paul might assume among his readers in Ephesus or Rome, he does not assume in Crete. If we look closer, however, we cannot help but note that Paul’s household instructions do not really represent a set of rules, that is, do not replace one heteronomous ethic with another. Just as in his requirements of leaders and complaints about opponents, Paul focuses less on specific rules or procedures than he does on moral dispositions, or virtues. Older men should be temperate (νηφαλίους), dignified (σεμνούς) and self-controlled (σώφρονας, Titus 2:2). Older women should not be gossipers or drinkers, but should be reverent (ἱεροπρεπεῖς), teachers of the good (καλοδιδασκάλους) so that they are able to share wisdom with younger women (Titus 2:3). Younger women are not only to love their husbands and children, they are to be self-controlled (σώφρονας), and chaste (ἁγνάς), good managers of the household (οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς), and submissive to their own husbands (ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν) (Titus 2:5).27 Younger men also are to be self-controlled (σωφρονεῖν) in every respect (Titus 2:6). Slaves should seek to please in all matters and demonstrate complete good faith (πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν, Titus 2:9–‍10). And in the civic order, all are to be obedient and open to every good deed (πειθαρχεῖν, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι); they are to be gentle (ἐπιεικεῖς), displaying meekness toward all (πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, Titus 3:1–2). In short, Paul 27  In this rhetorical situation, submission to “their own husbands,” rather than the male teachers who upset entire households makes good sense.

The Pedagogy of Grace

45

wants leaders and members of households to display moral qualities that are the opposite of the malevolent and violent ones of the Cretan population in general. The second major question raised by this response (basic good behavior, positive moral qualities) is how Paul expects the Cretan believers to be so transformed. This question, in turn, brings us to the otherwise puzzling rhetorical functions of Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7. What are they doing, rhetorically? A close examination of these passages brings me to the thesis of my essay, which is that Paul seeks to replace a heteronomous ethic with a character ethic, and that the experience of grace is seen by Paul as itself having the power to educate otherwise savage humans into becoming civilized human beings. It is impossible here to do full justice to each of the two extraordinary passages, so I will focus primarily on how they serve Paul’s argument. In the first case, Paul states the effect and shape of God’s gift. In the second case Paul asserts the reality of their experience of that gift, and once more, its effect. Efficiency in presentation is perhaps served by reading each passage in full in the NAB before pointing out its salient features.

3. The Gift That Teaches For the grace of God has appeared, saving all and training us to reject godless ways and worldly desires, and to live temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age, as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to deliver us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people as his own, eager to do good. (Titus 2,11–14)

Given the rhetorical situation Paul has sketched, several aspects of this statement leap to our attention. The answer to the question of how such a savage population can be changed into a peaceful people is that the power for such transformation comes as gift from God: the inferential γάρ here covers not only the immediately preceding sentence, but Paul’s entire series of instructions concerning good character and right behavior. The Cretan believers can become different because of what God has done for them as free gift. The term gift is much to be preferred to the term “grace,” not simply because grace has been so overused and over-dissected, but because it is the gratuitous and experiential character of Charis that is here important.28 It is not God’s favor from afar, but a gift that has appeared in the empirical world. It is a saving gift (σωτήριος), we observe, that comes from the God who saves and the savior Jesus Christ.29 It is a gift, moreover,  See now especially, John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). is rich in salvation-language: σῴζειν in Titus 3:5; σωτήριος in Titus 2:11, and σωτήρ in Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6. See Murray J. Harris, “Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday, ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 262–77; I. Howard Marshall, “Salvation 28

29 Titus

46

Luke Timothy Johnson

that has been given for or to “all people” (πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις), embracing even (or especially) the unlikely Gentile Cretan population. How has it appeared in the world? Through the self-donation of the savior Jesus for all of them in his death (ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, Titus 2:14). The gift that God gave them was the gift of a man giving himself for the sake of others – a model of humanity totally at odds with their self-serving and misanthropic heritage. Christ is both efficient and formal cause of salvation: he is the giver of the gift and reveals the shape of the gift.30 Their transformation is not yet complete: they await in hope for the full disclosure of the glory – that is, the presence and power – of God (Titus 2:13). What is most striking about the first line of this passage, however, is Paul’s use of the circumstantial participle παιδεύουσα, followed by a ἵνα clause. Following the authority of the great Greek grammarian Smyth, I suggest two things concerning syntax and diction. First, syntax: the circumstantial participle in Greek is the most flexible of all instruments, capable of expressing time, occasion, cause, or concession. It can also express purpose, and that is what it does here.31 God’s saving gift has appeared for all humans, Paul says, precisely for the sake of educating them. The ἵνα clause expresses the purpose/consequence of such education “so that.” Second, diction: Although παιδεύουσα has been translated in a variety of ways,32 I think that here Paul deliberately seeks the nuance of education in the fullest Greek sense, that is, learning how to be civilized human beings, everything that the Greeks understood by paideia, embracing both culture and education.33 In this case, education through God’s empowerment is not a matter of information but transformation. The Cretans are to change internally, in their most fundamental orientation to the world and each other. Negatively, by “rejecting” (ἀρνησάμενοι)34 their former vices  – godlessness (ἀσέβεια) and worldly passions (κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας) – they will be able to live in the present age in a way in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag 3, ed. Hermann Lichtenberger (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 449–69; and idem, “Salvation, Grace, and Works in the Later Pauline Letters,” NTS 42 (1996): 339–58. Given the dismal portrayal of the Cretan population by the author, the language of “salvation” is particularly apt: they have been transformed from hostile and mutually destructive individuals into a community of virtue. 30 See the language of Christ “giving himself ” in Gal 1:4; 2:20 and Eph 5:1. The resemblance in thought to Rom 3:21–5:21 is striking. 31  See specifically Herbert W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. by Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), 458–59. 32 The Vulgate has erudiens, and this broader sense of the term is reflected in the use of “schooling” by Moffatt and Knox, and “teaching” by Hart and the NJB. The narrower sense of “training” is found in the KJV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NAB, and Goodspeed. 33  See the classic works by Werner Wilhelm Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. Gilbert Highet, 3 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1939–1943); Henri-Irénée Marrou, The History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956). 34  Compare the opponents “rejecting” (ἀρνοῦνται) God by their practices in Titus 1:16.

The Pedagogy of Grace

47

entirely different from their past: temperately (σωφρόνως, compare Titus 1:8, 2:2, 4), justly (δικαίως, compare Titus 1:8), and devoutly (εὐσεβῶς). The effect of God’s pedagogy – the gift of Christ’s self-donation – is the change of persons from vice to virtue, from bad character to good character. The final clause of this explanatory passage responds directly to the challenge posed by the opponents. Christ died in order to save them from all lawlessness (ἀνομία) and to purify for himself (καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ) an elect people. The language of “elect people” echoes the language claimed for itself by Israel, for whom the laws of purity are what mark it as separate; Paul, however, sees the change from lawlessness as consisting not in the addition of laws, but in the change of heart. Similarly, the language of “purifying” here unmistakably recalls Titus 1:15, when Paul states in response to those proposing the law that “to the pure all things are pure” (πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς), but that nothing is pure to those who lack faith and whose minds and consciences are stained. Paul insists that the change in disposition, in character, comes first. And the good deeds follow from such reformed character: this people is “eager to do good,” or more literally, “zealous for good deeds” (ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων, Titus 2:14). In effect, the members of Cretan households can meet their pedestrian domestic and civic duties because God’s gift has educated them in required moral dispositions. But how has this change within them happened?

4. The Experience of God’s Goodness The second passage follows the instruction to civic orderliness and the display of an irenic disposition “to all people” in Titus 3:1–2, and, like the one cited earlier, begins with the inferential γάρ, suggesting an explanatory function. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another. But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, which he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. (Titus 3,3–7)

This is an altogether remarkable passage. Like Titus 2:11–14, it offers an explanation why Cretan believers can now live as decent human beings as “an elect people” that is “zealous for good deeds.” But it goes much further in connecting the change within and among them to the actual experience of God’s power. We note immediately that the passage moves through three temporal (and existential) stages: they have been moved from their former lives of vice (Titus 3:3), through the experience of God’s gift of salvation – specifically connected to

48

Luke Timothy Johnson

baptism and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4–6) – to a condition of righteousness that enables them now to be heirs of eternal life (Titus 3:7). Each stage deserves attention as a narrative elaboration of how the pedagogy of grace stated by Titus 2:11–14 has an experiential basis, showing how kindness and mercy is learned through the experience of God’s kindness and mercy, how love for other humans is learned through having experienced God’s philanthropia. Paul starts by saying that “for we ourselves (or “also”) were once (or then)” in a state of alienation from each other and themselves. Rhetorically, the use of the first-person pronoun “we” is powerful, associating the author and his delegate with the implied Cretan readers in their existential condition of need. But something more than rhetorical chumminess is here at work. For just as Paul states in Titus 2:11 that God’s gift has appeared “to or for all humans,” so here he makes clear that all humans – including Titus and himself – are in need of that gift. The list of vices that follows in Titus 3:3 corresponds to the negative portrayal of the Cretan population Paul sketched earlier in the letter: apart from “being foolish and deluded slaves to various desires and pleasures,” (compare “worldly desires” in Titus 2:12) the list is a catalogue of misanthropic dispositions: disobedient (ἀπειθεῖς), living in malice and envy (ἐν κακίᾳ καὶ φθόνῳ διάγοντες), hateful themselves (στυγητοί), and hating each other (μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους). The list not only characterizes the state of humanity in its raw state – and apart from God it remains always raw – but rhetorically prepares for the precise nature of the gift that changes monsters into humans. Paul’s use of “appeared” (ἐπεφάνη) in Titus 3:4 echoes the same verb in Titus 2:11,35 and the noun “gift/grace” in Titus 2:11 is given specificity by the phrase “the kindness and generous love,” perhaps more precisely translated as “gentleness” (χρηστότης)36 and “love for humanity” (φιλανθρωπία).37 These qualities are the contrary of malice and hatred for others. They are, Paul says, the qualities of “God our Savior,” and they have “appeared” to and for all humans in the self-giving of Jesus “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, Titus 2:14). Such a gift was entirely characteristic of the God who saves; it was “according to his mercy” (κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος), a quality also completely contrary to malice and envy (Titus 3:5; see 3:3). And by this gift, Paul declares simply, “he saved us” (Titus 3:5).38 To become merciful, Paul proposes, humans must themselves experience mercy. 35  See Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Letters, WUNT 2/86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). 36 For χρηστός and χρηστότης as characteristically Pauline, see Rom 2:4; 3:12; 11:22; 1 Cor 15:33; 2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22; Eph 2:7; 4:32; Col 3:12. 37 Although φιλανθρωπία does appear occasionally in Greek literature (see Plato, Symposium 189C; Laws 713D), the LXX (Wisdom of Solomon 1:6; 7:23), and related literature (Josephus, Antiquities 1.24; Philo, Cherubim 99), its only NT appearance is here and Acts 28:2 (where it is ascribed to barbarians). 38  For God’s mercy in Paul, see Rom 9:13, 15, 16, 18; 11:30, 31, 32; 15:9; 1 Cor 7:25; 2 Cor 4:1; Gal 6:16; Phil 2:27; Eph 2:4; 1 Tim 1:2, 13, 16, 18.

The Pedagogy of Grace

49

But Paul needs to answer two questions that might (at least logically) be posed: the first is whether they might have reached a state of righteousness through some efforts of their own, rather than by God’s gift. No, it was “not because of any righteous deed we had done.” So the NAB, but the phrase should be translated, “not in a righteousness (ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) based on works (ἐξ ἔργων) which we ourselves have done” (ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς). So much for the program of the opponents “from the circumcision party.”39 When a change of heart is what is required, the performance of acts is not sufficient, for even admirable acts can be perverted by a twisted heart. The second, and most pertinent question, is exactly how the merciful act of Jesus’s self-donation for them, which displayed God’s kindness and love for humanity, reached them. Is it merely formal or real, simply an ideological conviction, or an experience of their own lives?40 Does salvation have an experiential expression? It is essential to Paul’s rhetorical argument that the answer be in the affirmative. Paul states first that they all had experienced “the bath of regeneration” (or: “rebirth,” παλιγγενεσία, Titus 3:5). Although the terminology is distinctive, the reference to the ritual of baptism is unmistakable. Paul and Titus and the Cretan believers alike had undergone a ritual entry into the community that “saved” them by giving them a new identity. As elsewhere in the canonical Pauline letters, “salvation” has a present, social, dimension. It is not something merely to be hoped for at the end-time appearance of God and Christ (2:13); it is realized now through the ritual inclusion in a people defined by moral convictions and commitments that the one baptized had not previously shared. Taking on, or being gifted with, such a new sort of character is, in social terms, accurately termed a rebirth or regeneration. Inclusion in a new social group, however, is by no means the heart of the Cretans’ experience of transformation from a savage to a civilized people. In immediate conjunction with the community ritual of baptism is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which is here associated with newness of life (ἀνακαίνωσις). This Spirit of renewal, Paul declares, has been “poured out on us richly” (ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως, Titus 3:6). Such an outpouring is “through Jesus Christ our Savior” (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν), and it is the power from God – “Holy Spirit” is the fundamental symbol in the canonical letters for the power that comes from the exalted Lord Jesus – that provides the ability to change internally, to actually have dispositions corresponding to the gift given them, to leave off hating themselves and each other and to live as “temperate, righteous, and devout” humans in the present age (Titus 2:12). 39  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same point is being made here that was argued by Paul in Romans 2–‍3. 40  Again, this is the question that Paul addresses in Romans 6–8.

50

Luke Timothy Johnson

Paul ends the passage with a purpose clause. This rebirth given by God places humans in a new relationship with God and the world. Rather than translate the passive aorist participle δικαιωθέντες as the NAB does, “so that we might be justified by his grace,” I think we need to render it as “so that, having been made righteous by/through his gift” (τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι, Titus 3:7), we might become heirs according to hope (κατ᾽ ἐλπίδα) of eternal life (κληρονόμοι ... ζωῆς αἰωνίου). The language of inheritance echoes that of “a people of his own” in Titus 2:14. Against the heteronomous program of the circumcision party, Paul claims that real membership in God’s people comes through a gift of such overwhelming mercy and graciousness that it changes people from the inside. The result is that they are “zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14). And Paul reasserts that telos of moral transformation in the passage immediately following. He tells Titus, “I want you to insist of these points, that those who have believed in God (οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ) be careful to devote themselves to good works (καλῶν ἔργων); these are excellent (καλά) and beneficial to others (ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, Titus 3:8). The Cretan believers can change their behavior because of a change in their character; they have changed their character because of the experience of God’s gift to them of God’s own character through the self giving of Christ, and the rich outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit upon them.

5. Conclusion By treating Paul’s Letter to Titus as a rhetorically coherent composition, I have been able to offer an answer – I hope a plausible answer – to several puzzles posed by this small writing: why are the Cretans and opponents portrayed so negatively, the requirements of leaders so minimal, the instructions for household so basic? And what function play the two glorious passages in which everyone recognizes both genuine Pauline diction and theology? I hope I have shown that Paul counters the savage character of the local population with a character ethics rather than an ethics of ritual rules; evil dispositions must be replaced by good ones, savage attitudes by benevolent ones. But I have also tried to show that Paul connects this internal change among his readers to the embodied experience of baptism and an internal empowerment by the Holy Spirit. God’s gift (or grace) is the agent of deep human change, not human rule-keeping. We have seen as well, that what is at stake for Paul is not the security of the church – it is never mentioned – but rather civilized existence itself. This is why I made so much of the participle παιδεύουσα. According to this rhetorical presentation, the Cretans cannot build on the ancient and noble traditions of Greek paideia, in which both positive moral dispositions and social stability could be assumed. Here, the population is savage, and the basic unit of every civilization, the household, is both fragile and under attack. The pedagogy of grace, what

The Pedagogy of Grace

51

God’s gift of mercy and kindness revealed through the self-giving of Jesus and made available to them through the power of the Holy Spirit, in the case of this rhetorically constructed Crete, must do the heavy lifting of providing the basis of civilization itself. I ask your indulgence to make one final point. As a rhetorical performance, Titus provides us with a possible scenario in Paul’s mission that could have had some basis in fact and therefore has some value as a historical witness. But can we ask also about its possible pertinence as a canonical composition addressed to the church in every age? Canonical writings, after all, wax and wane in their capacity to address the ever-changing circumstances of the church through the ages and throughout all of its world-wide instantiations. I suggest that in many places of today’s world – at least in what we call the First World, at least in my own country – there are many contexts in which Paul’s rhetorical construction seems eerily prescient, where elderly people are addicted to drink and to drugs, where spouses and especially children are not loved  – think only of human trafficking – where workers engage in systematic theft, where populations are alienated from the duties of responsible citizenship, and where violence occurs not only in the streets but also in the household. It is not difficult to make the case that much of our world also has lost, or never had, the sort of paideia that once could be taken for granted, to be replaced by the shrill ideological conflicts of academia and the media, that the basic unit of civilization, the household, is fragile and sometimes broken, and that those offering easy answers to such barbarism are liars who will say anything for personal gain. Taking seriously Paul’s position that what humanity today needs is a transformation from within that changes malevolent vices into benevolent virtues, that such a change in dispositions is the way forward to stabilizing culture, and above all, that such change can and must come from receiving into ourselves the pedagogy of grace taught us by the God’s love for humanity displayed through the self-giving of Christ, and activated within us by the Holy Spirit, taking all this seriously, I say, is highly risky, but is also highly rewarding. The immediate gain is to once more make Titus a composition of the greatest importance as a source for reflection on our own lives. What a gift!

Moral Education in Titus Antitheses for Ethical Living Annette Bourland Huizenga If Pierre Hadot’s conception is correct, that philosophy is “above all a way of life, but one which is intimately linked to philosophical discourse,”1 then the Letter to Titus engages in the quests and questions of ancient philosophy.2 Throughout the letter, the author prescribes how the audience ought to acquire virtues that will enable them to live a good and happy life within their urban, imperial social context, and he does this by drawing on popular moral-philosophical language and rhetoric. In modern terms, we might call his epistolary enterprise a curriculum for “moral development” or “character formation.”3 By “curriculum,” I mean a sort of integrated course of study about living the ethical life. Early 20th-century American educator Franklin Bobbitt described “curriculum” this way: “As applied to education, it is that series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults should be.”4 He proposed that a curriculum be based on:

1  Pierre Hadot, What Is Ancient Philosophy? Trans. Michael Chase (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002), 4. 2  Abraham J. Malherbe was one of the most notable biblical scholars to consider the moralphilosophical context of early Christian literature: “The moral teaching of early Christians in many ways resembled that of their pagan neighbors…. [P]hilosophy was generally regarded as the preeminent guide to the moral life” (Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986]), 11. 3  For example, my university has founded a distinctive initiative for student scholarships and faculty research in order to promote “a campus culture of excellent moral character and purposeful lives.” From the mission statement of the Wendt Character Initiative, University of Dubuque, https://www.dbq.edu/Wendt/. 4 John Franklin Bobbitt, The Curriculum (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1918), 42; his italics. The original Latin meaning was of a race-course (from the verb currere). The first documented English use for curriculum as a course of study comes from the University of Glasgow in the 1630s. Modern thinkers might also think of this kind of moral education as a type of “socialization.” To socialize is “To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable. To convert or adapt to the needs of society” (American Heritage Dictionary), https://www.ahdictionary. com/word/ search.html?q=socialization (June 2019).

54

Annette Bourland Huizenga

the total range of habits, skills, abilities, forms of thought, valuations, ambitions, etc., that its members need for the effective performance of their vocational labors; likewise, the total range needed for their civic activities; their health activities; their recreations; their language; their parental, religious, and general social activities…. It will be wide as life itself.5

Bobbitt’s curriculum for such a communal human life – with its political, economic, familial, artistic, and religious elements – is as broad as the curricular subject matter conceived by classical philosophy, as seen in its writings on ethics, law and politics, rhetoric, household management, agriculture, parenting and other familial duties, and many aspects of friendship and social relations. Like these ancient moral-philosophical texts, the Letter to Titus addresses a broad subject matter and communicates the goal of equipping its audience for what Bobbitt calls “the affairs of adult life.” In this curriculum for faithful living, the author has adopted the epistolary genre of a paraenetic letter which is an appropriate form for his educational program. The characteristics of paraenesis are apparent where: – The author frames his teachings as “reminders,” typical of paraenetic literature, and takes up conventional topoi.6 He considers these topics to be completely uncontroversial and acceptable to his audience. 5  Bobbitt, The Curriculum, 43; my italics. These objectives are not at all alien to Greek paideia (later adopted and adapted by the Romans), with its goal of creating cultured individuals able to take up their proper roles in society. Werner Wilhelm Jaeger defines paideia as “the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature. That is the true Greek paideia, adopted by the Roman statesman as a model…. The ideal of human character which they wished to educate each individual to attain was not an empty abstract pattern, existing outside of time and space” (Werner Wilhelm Jaeger, Archaic Greece: The Mind of Athens, trans. Gilbert Highet, 2nd ed., vol. 1 of Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1945], xxiv–xxv). Jaeger continues: “The man revealed in the work of the great Greeks is a political man. Greek education is not the sum of a number of private arts and skills intended to create a perfect independent personality” (ibid., xxv–xxvi). A later historical study of ancient paideia which includes a chapter on “Women and Education,” is Raffaella Cribiore’s Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 74–101. 6  Abraham Malherbe summarizes the “light touch” of paraenetic literature: “Paraenesis was a style of exhortation used to influence conduct rather than teach something new…. The stylistic devices used therefore sought to confirm the audience or readers in what they already knew by reminding them of it, complimenting them on what they had already accomplished and encouraging them to continue their practice, and offering models of virtue to be imitated” (Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989], 74. Stanley Stowers describes the paraenetic letter this way: “The basic elements in paraenesis are precepts, examples, discussions of tradition moral topics (topoi), encouraging reminders of what the readers already know and have accomplished, and reasons for recommended behavior. Paraenetic letters are generally dominated by encouraging types of exhortation” (Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986]), 96. Stowers continues: “although words of admonition or mild rebuke here and there could be appropriate…. Consolatory sections are also frequently parts of these complex letters of exhortation” (ibid.). Of course, many ancient letters in actuality are of “mixed types,” as Stowers’s

Moral Education in Titus

55

– The letter itself functions as a “teacher,” carrying the mostly-friendly first-person voice and authority of the apostle Paul,7 while simultaneously transferring that authority to Titus and, by extension, to other teachers who follow him. – The letter’s preferred style of teaching is to utilize rhetorical strategies that depend upon antithetical thinking, strategies that seek to influence the audience by persuasion (προτροπή) and dissuasion (ἀποτροπή).8 In these ways, the Letter to Titus stands as a textual resource, a “required reading,” for a curriculum of moral development: it transmits a typical subject matter, highlights the roles of teachers and learners, and demonstrates the author’s pedagogy for the ethical training of his community. In this investigation, I focus particularly on the last element: the author’s literary-rhetorical pedagogy. First I suggest protreptic literature, very broadlyunderstood, as an environment for his choice of antithetical reasoning. Then I examine his employment of individual antitheses: the virtues and vices, moral and immoral examples, and promises and warnings that build up his proofs. Throughout, I consider what this content signifies about his assumptions about human nature, and in particular his suppositions about the human capacity for moral development. What does he think will help someone to improve their character and behaviors? What influences might move a person to become more virtuous, and prevent them from falling into vice? To whom should the audience look for exemplary behavior? And, how does the Savior God empower an increased enthusiasm for the oft-mentioned “good works”? Some of these quesdescription suggests. To this broad range of paraenetic features, Aune adds the presence of vice and virtue lists (David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], 194–96). Malherbe remarks that in paraenesis: “The example is frequently delineated antithetically,” summing up with “paraenetic advice may be diverse in content and consist of brief admonitions strung together” (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 125). Further discussion of the characteristic elements of paraenetic letters may be found in Stowers, Letter Writing, 23, and especially ch. 10: “Letters of Exhortation and Advice.” 7  Like many paraenetic letters, Titus is written in a philophronetic tone. Malherbe, among others, discusses the friendly, warm relationships that lie behind paraenesis from father to son, and from older, wiser teacher to younger, less experienced, student (Abraham Malherbe, “Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus,” in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context, ed. Troels EngbergPedersen and James M. Starr, BZNW 125 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004], 298–99). 8  One oft-cited definition of the paraenetic letter specifically mentions protropē and apotropē as characteristic of these letters: Παραινετικὴ μὲν οὖν ἐστι δι’ ἧς παραινοῦμέν τινι προτρέποντες αὐτὸν ἐπί τι ὁρμῆσαι ἢ καὶ ἀφέξεσθαί τινος. ἡ παραίνεσις δὲ εἰς δύο διαιρεῖται, εἴς τε προτροπὴν καὶ ἀποτροπήν, Ps.-Libanius, Characteres epistolici 5 . However, paraenesis may also be distinguished within ancient and modern sources as different from protropē, as noted by Margaret M. Mitchell in an excursus titled “Paraenesis and Deliberative Rhetoric” in her book, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 50–53. Nonetheless, she finds that the terminology is applied to “sometimes parallel, sometimes identical, and often intersecting literary/rhetorical phenonoma,” 51.

56

Annette Bourland Huizenga

tions have quite explicit answers, but others must be inferred from the rhetorical steps – the antithetical rhetorical steps – employed by the author. Furthermore, I read the Letter to Titus from a feminist perspective outlined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza as a “hermeneutics of suspicion.”9 Therefore, I ask questions that illuminate the author’s beliefs about gender, gender roles and stereotypes and how these beliefs influence his written instructions. I doubt and reject the accuracy of his statements about his opposition, especially those named “Cretan” and “of the circumcision” (Titus 1:10–16). I dispute the justice of his patriarchal views on women. I resist and reject his instructions that reinforce the subjected status of enslaved believers. The history of interpretation of this letter shows how its contents have been used to injure and oppress later believers and societies. These feminist concerns about the exercise of power which exploits and diminishes human beings motivate this investigation of the rhetorical strategies of the author. This letter deserves to be taken seriously within its ancient contexts, yet its teachings must also be contested by later interpreters, especially because the author claims authority to teach about the importance of moral excellence.

1. Rhetorical Instruction for Ethical Living By invoking the terms “persuasion” and “dissuasion,” and identifying them as crucial to the purpose of the Letter to Titus, I intend to examine it within the context of ancient rhetorical and protreptic literature. As described by David Aune, the speech known as the λόγος προτρεπτικός “was the primary rhetorical tool used to attract adherents by exposing the errors of alternative ways of living and demonstrating the truth claims of a particular philosophical tradition over its competitors.”10 The terms “persuasion” (τὸ προτρεπτικόν) and “dissuasion” (τὸ ἀποτρεπτικόν) are also the purview of deliberative rhetoric.11 Noting that none of the extant rhetorical handbooks discusses the λόγος προτρεπτικός and that few examples survive in writing, Aune still argues for the strong influence of this speech on a range of ancient literature. He claims that it is “difficult to claim generic status for the λόγος προτρεπτικός only if an artificially rigid view of the nature of oral and literary genres is maintained. There is an element of flu 9 Schüssler Fiorenza affirms that this hermeneutics “takes as its starting point the assumption that biblical texts and their interpretations are androcentric and serve patriarchal functions” (Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation, with a New Afterword [Boston: Beacon, 1995], 15). 10  David E. Aune, “Protreptic Literature,” The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 383–86, here 383; my italics. 11  Ibid., 383. I have already noted the use of similar terms in Ps.-Libanius, n. 8.

Moral Education in Titus

57

idity between these and related forms of discourse.”12 It is useful to consider the wider influence of “persuasion” and “dissuasion” when analyzing early Christian writings such as the Letter to Titus, which shares a similar rhetorical, even educational, purpose. Aune lists three characteristic features of these logoi: “(1) a negative section centering on the critique of rival sources of knowledge, ways of living, or schools of thought that reject philosophy; (2) a positive section in which the truth claims of philosophical knowledge, schools of thought, and ways of living are presented, praised, and defended; (3) an optional section, consisting of a personal appeal to the hearer, inviting the immediate accepting of the exhortation.”13 Thus, writings of this nature depend upon a foundational, conceptual antithesis: that there is a good and virtuous way of life which is easily-distinguished from a life built on error and wickedness, and that that distinction ought to be perfectly clear to any reasonable human being. Additionally, shorter rhetorical antitheses based on proofs which appeal to pathos, logos, and ethos are laid upon this foundation, so that the readers, or perhaps more usually, the auditors, understand the sharp and unbridgeable division between the two possible choices. Moreover, once a reasonable person has acquired this knowledge of good and evil, the logic of protreptic literature assumes that they have the moral capacity to renounce the evil and choose the good.14 The Letter to Titus does not follow the three-part structure of a logos protreptikos as outlined by Aune. However, the author does incorporate all of its basic elements: (1) heaping disdain on the opposition; (2) presenting, praising, and defending his own thoughts and way of life; and, (3) making personal exhortations to the audience to accept his teaching. He appeals to the audience’s minds and emotions while reminding them of the highly-esteemed ethos of the apostle Paul. He presumes that his audience has the capacity to respond positively to his calls for ethical living. In fact, one could hardly ask for a more concise or obvious example of early Christian protrepsis (and apotrepsis) than this short paraenetic letter.

 Ibid., 384.  Ibid., 385; my italics. 14  Recent neuro-sociological research on changing one’s attitudes and behaviors shows that positive and negative appeals work in different ways. For example, Tali Sharot, cognitive neuroscientist of University College London, spoke about the appealing to the emotions of fear versus hope: “Fear works in two situations. It works when people are already stressed out. And it also works when what you’re trying to do is get someone not to do something, an inaction. For example, if you try to get someone not to vaccinate their kids, fear may work. If there’s, you know, an apple that looks bad, I don’t eat it. Fear is actually not such a good motivator for inducing action, while hope is a better motivator, on average, for motivating action” (Hidden Brain podcast, July 22, 2019). See also her book, The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals about Our Power to Change Others (New York: Picador, 2018). 12 13

58

Annette Bourland Huizenga

2. Antithetical Pairings As I have already stated, like much other ancient literature, the Letter to Titus makes use of direct opposites to persuade and dissuade. In fact, Abraham Malherbe says, “The Epistle to Titus teems with antitheses,”15 while Benjamin Fiore’s assertion about all three Pastoral letters certainly applies to the rhetoric of Titus: “the Pastorals rely on contrasting ideas, conduct, moral qualities, and personalities to set the proper image in focus.”16 The enthymematic structure of such antitheses suggests a condition (a protasis, which is sometimes only implied), then moves to a consequence (apodosis), and lastly, arrives at the “correct” conclusion: if A, then B, therefore, choose A (or choose “not A”). For the negative side of the antithesis, the protasis (A) and apodosis (B) are meant to lead to a “choice” (not A) to avoid or to turn away from that action, which has the function of dissuasion (τὸ ἀποτρεπτικόν). On the other positive side of the antithesis, the protasis and apodosis lead to the “choice” to adopt or turn toward that action, a form of persuasion (τὸ προτρεπτικόν). The proofs of such antitheses rely upon appeals to ethos, pathos, or logos, or, more often, a combination of all three, depending on the antithesis being considered.17 The reader’s choice of which side of the antithesis to accept rests in part on the moral character (τὸ ἦθος) of the one proposing it. If the hypothetical negative consequence is social disapproval versus a positive social esteem, the antithesis might seek to activate the passions (τὰ πάθη) of the audience, by, perhaps, inspiring fear of the negative, while generating desire for the good. The λόγος of an antithesis would often appear self-evident, given that the two sides are set in complete contradiction to each other, but human λόγος might also be buttressed by reference to other authoritative persons and literature.18 Antitheses in various forms proved beneficial for many ancient orators and authors, probably because antitheses were easy for the speaker or author to invent and remember, as well as for the audience to understand and remember.19 This explains in part why antitheses were thought to be effective for the larger goal of instructional texts which  Malherbe, “Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus,” 304; my italics.  Benjamin Fiore, S. J., The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, AnBib 105 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), 20–21; my italics. 17  These proofs are concisely outlined by Aristotle, Rhet. 1356a1–35. 18  This seems to be what Aristotle means about the use of proofs: “to be able to grasp these [proofs], a person must be capable of logical reasoning, of studying characters and the virtues,” ταύτας ἐστὶ λαβεῖν τοῦ συλλογίσασθαι δυναμένου καὶ τοῦ θεωρῆσαι περὶ τὰ ἤθη καὶ τὰς ἀρετάς, Rhet. 1356a21–23 (Freese, LCL, my own minor changes). 19  This assumption aligns with Aristotle’s statement about antithetical statements: “This kind of style is pleasing, because opposites are best understood and even more so when placed side by side, and also because it [antithesis] resembles a syllogism; for refutation is a bringing together of contraries, ἡδεῖα δ’ ἐστὶν τοιαύτη λέξις, ὅτι τἀναντία γνωριμώτατα καὶ παράλληλα μᾶλλον γνώριμα, καὶ ὅτι ἔοικε συλλογισμῷ∙ ὁ γὰρ ἔλεγχος συναγωγὴ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐστίν, Rhet. 1410a20–23 (Freese, LCL, slightly revised). 15 16

Moral Education in Titus

59

seek to educate persons to live a virtuous life: antitheses confront the audience with a stark choice between good and bad. Let us turn first to the opposites of virtues and vices.

3. Virtues and Vices Making lists of well-known virtues (to be adopted) and vices (to be avoided) is a common strategy for training in ethics. In Titus, the first mention of virtues is a short list of qualifications for men who are to be appointed elders: “they ought to be blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children” (Titus 1:6). The next verse adds to these virtues a much longer list, perhaps also to be applied to the “elders,” although the author has shifted his terminology to the episkopos, who is called the God’s household manager (θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, Titus 1:7). After repeating the virtue “blameless,” the author lists five negated vices, using μή before each one, which are then contrasted with seven unambiguous virtues (hospitable, loving the good, moderate, just, holy, self-disciplined, devoted to the faithful word). The overall accumulation of these positive characteristics emphasizes the importance of any man who could embody them, and thus adds to his authority, his ἦθος as teacher of the community (Titus 1:9). The constructive picture of a distinguished male leader is followed immediately by a censorious account of “many”20 (πολλοί) who are set up in opposition to the authorized and highly ethical teachers. The author labels them as “disorderly, idle-talkers, and deceivers, of the circumcision” (Titus 1:10) before launching into a more passionate condemnation of their traits and actions (Titus 1:10–14). Other vices are attached to these opponents: like all Cretans, they are liars, wicked beasts, idle gluttons (Titus 1:12), defiled and unfaithful (Titus 1:15), abominable and disobedient and unworthy of every good work (Titus 1:16). While there is no one-to-one antithetical correspondence between each virtue and vice listed here, e. g., love versus hate, or honesty versus lying, the overall result is a strongly-defined picture of goodness versus wickedness. No middle ground exists, no person whose character might be mostly okay, yet still exhibiting a few flaws. Instead, the author sets up a deep divide: “to the clean all things are clean, while to the defiled and unfaithful nothing is clean” (Titus 1:15). The textual picture presents a contrast meant to persuade the audience (which surely includes those “reading over the shoulder” of the named recipient Titus) to choose the good while keeping away from the wicked. The second chapter of Titus extends instruction on virtue to five different social groups: older men, older women, younger women, younger men, and 20  Whether the “many” are men or male (false) teachers cannot be determined because the Greek uses a “generic masculine.”

60

Annette Bourland Huizenga

enslaved persons.21 For the most part, the recommended qualities are simply virtuous (e. g., dignified, reverent, holy, sound), but a few are negated vices: the older women are told not to be slanderers or drunkards (Titus 2:3), while enslaved believers must not talk back or pilfer (Titus 2:9–10). These negated vices are inspired by cultural stereotypes of older women and the enslaved.22 Yet in general, the tone is friendly, and the image evoked is idealistic and orderly, that of a model (if patriarchal) household or house-church. This set of teachings culminates in a flowing description of the savior God’s own role in “training (παιδεύουσα) us.”23 The paideia of God’s grace has two steps: first, learners have rejected vices, here summarized briefly in the terms “impiety” (ἀσέβειαν) and “worldly desires” (κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας), and then second, they live with the specific virtues of moderation, justice, and piety (σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς) in the present age (Titus 2:12). The implication is that these vices should be found only in the previous lives of the believers, a conclusion that is supported by referring to the past work of Jesus Christ “who gave himself on our behalf so that he might wash us from every lawlessness” (Titus 2:14). The process of paideia, then, is presented as a “temporal antithesis,” a definitive before and after. Or to adapt a modern English saying, “that vice was then and this virtue is now.” By mentioning only a few negative traits in this section, and by relegating those to the past, the author places his audience in a sunny ethical present. He gives them a warmhearted, appealing theological grounding – their moral progress is supported by the very God who appears as “our savior Jesus Christ” and whose goal it is to “cleanse for himself a chosen people, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). The theory that believers have left behind their vices and their unethical living is reiterated in chapter 3: “For once we also were foolish, deceived, serving 21  What are we to make of the fact that there are no corresponding instructions to slaveholders, who surely must also have been members of the community? Emerson Powery suggests that the author of Titus himself was a slaveholder, adding “Whether or not the Pastor is a slaveholder himself, he forcefully employs all of his theological rhetoric in order to support Christian (and non-Christian) slaveholders in the community” (Powery’s full essay appears in Annette Bourland Huizenga, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Wisdom Commentary [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016], 161). 22  Jerome D. Quinn rightly notes the stereotypical images in the exhortation to slaves: “The slave stealing from his master was proverbial in the ancient world, whether Jewish (e. g., Aboth 2.8, apud Strack-Billerbeck 4.732), Greek (Xenophon, Memorabilia, 2.1.16; Menander, Aspis 397–98), or Roman (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 4.24.4; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 33.6.26–27, who was pining for the good old days when slaves were few and nothing around the house had to be sealed with the master’s signet ring)” (Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB 35 [New York: Doubleday, 1990], 149). 23 Of this phrase, Malherbe notes the “educative function of grace, which is to result in the renunciation of ἀσέβεια and the adoption of a way of life akin to the Greek cardinal virtues (σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς), where εὐσέβεια takes the place of ἀνδρεία” (“Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus,” 314).

Moral Education in Titus

61

desires and various pleasure, living for evil and envy, detesting one another” (Titus 3:3). Now the situation has changed dramatically with the epiphany of “our savior God” (Titus 3:4) because God’s mercy is shown in the fact that “he saved us through washing of regeneration, and newness of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out richly upon us” (Titus 3:5–6). Drawing on the Pauline teaching of being saved by grace and not from works, the author emphasizes the effective power of God on behalf of believers, who are justified by grace and heirs to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7). Here again we encounter that difference that is supposed to exist between the old life without God (which was marked by much wickedness)24 and the new life with God (which includes regeneration, justification, grace, the hope of eternal life). However, as with other paraenetic texts, although steps have supposedly been taken toward moral excellence, the audience is perceived as needing reminders of what such progress looks like. For our author, the new life shows itself in “good works” (Titus 1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14). He calls upon Titus to “insist” that the believers be concerned with “good works [because] these things are good and beneficial for people” (Titus 3:8).25 By way of contrast, he reminds Titus (and others reading/hearing over his shoulder) that they must avoid “useless and empty” things such as “foolish investigations and genealogies and quarrels and legal disputes” (Titus 3:9). Therefore, even though God has already accomplished salvation for the believers, and even though the author thinks they should be able to live well out of this blessed newness, they still need to “be careful about good works” (Titus 3:8, 14) which are themselves manifested signs of virtues. Ethical living, then, must be activated by means of the “sound teaching” under the direction of qualified leaders along with the “training power” of the grace of God.

4. Moral and Immoral Examples The second set of antithetical pairs is that of moral and immoral examples, which serve as vivid images of conduct to be adopted or avoided. The use of examples is a widespread form of rhetorical proof found in various kinds of literature, but seems to be especially helpful to texts with an educational purpose. As Malherbe states, “The protreptic and apotreptic functions of personal examples are also 24  I would say the old life was marked by “sin,” as Paul repeatedly states in the letter to the Romans (e. g., Titus 3:23–25; 5:8, 12–14, 20–21; 6:1–2, 6–12, 15–18, etc.), however, cognates for “sin” appear only once in Titus (3:11), in reference to the “factious man” who sins (ἁμαρτάνει). 25 A similar ethical-theological approach is found in Romans 6, especially verses 15–23, where Paul discusses what the believers once were (slaves to sin) and what they are now (freed from sin to serve God). Because they are justified and serving God, Paul asserts that now they need to lead “better” lives because of who they serve. Other Pauline letters also emphasize the once/ now aspects of faith, cf. 1 Thess 1:9–10; Eph 2:1–7, 11–13.

62

Annette Bourland Huizenga

at the heart of paraenetic letters.”26 In the Letter to Titus, the author has often combined virtues with the moral examples to be emulated and the vices alongside immoral examples to be resisted. As the named author of the letter, the person and life of the apostle Paul stands as the primary positive example for the community. While there is no direct appeal to imitate Paul, nor even any biographical information about him,27 the lengthy prescript grants Paul all moral authority as a teacher of the faith. His apostleship is supported by the phrases that invoke God, Jesus Christ, and God’s promise, revelation, and command. Powerful terms like “knowledge of the truth,” “hope of eternal life,” and “proclamation of [God’s] word” serve to establish (or re-establish) Paul in a highly-esteemed position. It is his own ethos that contributes authority to the letter’s contents. Paul has been “entrusted” by the savior God, and therefore deserves the respect, obedience, and imitation of the community, but perhaps especially of its male leaders and teachers. Reading through the prescript, the next moral example worthy of imitation is the recipient Titus, who is the “genuine child” of Paul according to their common faith. Because Titus has been explicitly ordered (διατάσσω, Titus 1:5) by Paul, he has Paul’s full authorization for the specific tasks set out in the letter. Upon hearing that Titus is Paul’s (adopted?) son, and learning of the directions Paul gave to Titus, the audience comes to know that Titus has inherited Paul’s very self: his character, his teachings, and his way of life. Moving ahead to the second chapter, we learn that indeed Titus is a reliable moral τύπος for the younger men (Titus 2:6–7). The genealogy of authorized teachers continues as the qualities of the church leaders are outlined in Titus 1:6–9. All such men are worthy of imitation: Paul (the father), Titus (the child), the elders and any overseer who have been appointed by Titus (and thus by Paul), and perhaps also including the named coworkers at the end of the letter (Titus 3:12–13). Together this grouping epitomizes the height of virtuous masculinity for the community of believers. In stark contrast to these positive exemplars, the author moves to harsh disparagement of his opponents expressed through ethnic bigotry. Wolfgang Stegemann calls attention to the letter’s “xenophobic prejudices”: conglomeration of terms of abuse and slogans…. that are particularly, or primarily (μάλιστα) applicable to ‘those of the circumcision’ (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς). Shortly afterwards a warning is given not to subscribe to Jewish fables (Ἰουδαικοὶ μῦθοι). On the other hand the “opponents” are also identified with negative prejudices concerning the Cretans.28 26 Malherbe,

“Paraenesis in the Epistle to Titus,” 301. assume that the author and the audience would have plenty information about Paul’s life and ministry from other letters, acta, and stories. These would be available from the memories, testimonies, and legends known to those in the audience. 28 Wolfgang Stegemann, “Anti-Semitic and Racist Prejudices in Titus 1:10–16,” trans. from the German by David E. Orton, and found in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett (New York: Brill, 1996), 271–94, here 278. Jouette Bassler adds that the quotation (from Epimenides 27 I

Moral Education in Titus

63

Stegemann continues: “Two polemical strategies of argumentation are intertwined: on the one hand the author labels the deviant group with various derogatory terms. On the other hand he is concerned to identify them with Judaism or the Cretans, whereby certain prejudices are clearly intended to be transferred to the deviant group.”29 The author wants his audience to feel disgust at the negative images and to nod their heads in agreement with the stereotypes: “Of course, what else can you expect of such wicked and crude people? Thank God, we’re not at all like them!” I struggle to interpret these verses appropriately because I cannot believe that these people with their alleged licentious and wicked lifestyles represent actual Jewish or Cretan persons. The author’s language is so malicious and even seems at odds with his theology that the “grace of the saving God appeared to all people” (Titus 2:11). I am negatively affected by his rhetorical tactic of setting up an emotionally-charged immoral example, but not in the way the author expected of his audience. The best that can be said is that the author’s intent is to prevent community members from going down what he thinks of as the road to perdition. Instead, my response is a feeling of revulsion toward his approach, especially when considering the history of its effects on Christian theology and practice. As Stegemann argues, “If anti-semitism is taken to mean the ‘denigration’ of and ‘contempt’ for Jews and one sees precisely in this a Christian continuum …, then the Titus text under discussion can be called antisemitic…. This form of Christian anti-semitism is unfortunately still current.”30 The letter’s second chapter returns to offering positive moral examples to follow by naming the norms for ethical behavior among the five social groups. In the teachings for older men, we hear once more of the kind of masculine virtue that can be fully admired, while the older women ought to exhibit virtuous feminine behavior. Because of their honorable gender-specific character and demeanor, the older women are called the good teachers (καλοδιδάσκαλοι) for the younger women. In particular, the older women can serve as moral examples of the female form of σωφοσύνη.31 Titus and the other male teachers are unable of Crete) is “a familiar racial slur in a particularly virulent form. Through it the opponents are dehumanized (Gk. kaka thēria; NRSV: ‘vicious brutes’), and the accompanying instructions are to muzzle or gag them (Gk. epistomizein; NRSV: ‘silence’). Moreover, all Cretans are included in this brutal condemnation,” Jouette M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, ANTC, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 190. 29 Stegemann, “Anti-Semitic and Racist Prejudices,” 280. 30 Ibid., 293. 31 For a more detailed discussion of the virtue of feminine σωφοσύνη, see my Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household, NovTSup 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 169–76, 203–13, 329–44, 350–59; and, “On Choosing a Wet-Nurse: Physical, Cultural and Moral Credentials” in The History of Religions School Today: Essays on the New Testament and Related Ancient Mediterranean Texts, ed. Thomas R. Blanton IV, Robert Matthew Calhoun, Clare K. Rothschild, WUNT 340 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 248–52.

64

Annette Bourland Huizenga

to perform this exemplary role for the younger women. However, as already noted, Titus is an entirely suitable example, a τύπος for the younger men, who are encouraged to grow into moral maturity. Writing about enslaved persons,32 the author lists several characteristics desirable for people of this legal status, which raises these questions: beyond these cultural stereotypes, is there a specific moral exemplar for enslaved believers to imitate? What about the apostle Paul who in the epistolary prescript is called “slave of God”?33 Does the author mean to suggest that there is something of Paul’s virtue that those who are literally enslaved can adopt? Does Paul exhibit subordination to his own master [God], just as they ought to be “subordinated to their own masters in all things”? Another reference to moral example appears near the end of the chapter where Jesus Christ’s own people are called a ζηλωτής, a “zealot.” According to Benjamin J. Lappenga, in a Greco-Roman educational context, the word can be translated as “imitator” or “emulator,” and refers to how a student ought to follow his or her teacher.34 Surely the translation “imitator(s) of good deeds” should be considered for Titus 2:14 since the letter is concerned with establishing both the virtues and the examples that ought to be followed by the believers. In Titus 3:10, one last immoral example is mentioned, that of the “divisive person” (αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπων),35 who might be someone who engages in the alreadyproscribed activities in verse 9. The “unusual adjective”36 hairetikos suggests its cognate αἵρεσις which often refers to a philosophical group or school.37 Here the adjective has a negative connotation, and it is clear how a virtuous leader ought to react to this immoral person: the imperative is to “reject” (παραιτοῦ) such a person after a warning or two. The apotreptic instruction gives a realistic image

32 Early Christian teachings about slavery continue to be problematic to this day, in no small part because they raise serious theological and ethical issues for people of faith. As Elsa Tamez states: “To read this letter [here she refers to 1 Timothy] without any critique – that slaves consider their masters worthy of all honor and if the master is a believer they should serve them even more (see 1 Tim 6:1–2) – can be seen not only as biblical legitimation of inhuman situations but as a great absence of God, who is known to be in solidarity with the poor and in whom they have placed their hopes for liberation” (Elsa Tamez, Struggles for Power in Early Christianity: A Study of the First Letter to Timothy [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007], xviii). 33  Marianne Bjelland Kartzow provides an excellent and nuanced analysis of the metaphorical and real-life intersections of slavery-language in early Christian literature, The Slave Metaphor and Gendered Enslavement in Early Christian Discourse: Double Trouble Embodied (New York: Routledge, 2018). 34  Benjamin J. Lappenga, “‘Zealots for Good Works’: The Polemical Repercussions of the Word ζηλωτής in Titus 2:14,” CBQ 75:4 (2013): 704–18, here 712. 35  “As early as Irenaeus these verses in Titus and the term hairetikos designate in a technical sense a Christian heretic (Adversus haereses 1.16.3; 3.1.2; 3.3.4),” Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 238. 36  Ibid, 249. 37  Ibid., 248–49.

Moral Education in Titus

65

of Titus rejecting the divisive person and their depravity, because this person is “beyond human help, even that of an apostle.”38 Every one of these examples has been chosen for its usefulness as a proof in persuading the audience toward moral excellence and dissuading them from the opposite. The proofs often appeal to the element of pathos, seeking to evoke either feelings of disgust and abhorrence (leading to avoidance of the negative) or, on the other hand, feelings of admiration and that “zeal for good works” so prized by the author. In addition, the presumed ethos of Paul, along with that of Titus and of other teachers designated by him also “prove” the truth and value of their sound teachings.

5. Promises and a Warning We have now essentially combed through the Letter to Titus twice, attempting to tease out two kinds of antitheses: virtues and vices, and then moral and immoral examples. Interwoven with these is the third antithetical set of promises and warnings. By “promises,” I mean the anticipated positive consequences of progress toward virtue, and by “warnings” I mean the negative consequences of failure to advance. Appropriate to a paraenetic letter, the tone remains friendly so there is only one explicit warning for the audience. The author cautions: “let our people also learn to engage in good works for urgent needs, so that they might not be fruitless” (Titus 3:14). This is a simple enthymeme that emerges from the idea that learning (μανθάνω) is meant to result in “fruit.”39 If you do not learn to do good works, then you will be fruit-less, therefore, learn to do good works so you will be fruit-full. The promised rewards for good behavior lead to great benefits for the entire community: 1. The virtuous overseer (episkopos) will develop as a proficient teacher who is also able to “reprove the opponents” (Titus 1:7–9). 2. Reverent older women will be approved as the “good teachers” of the younger women (Titus 2:3–4). 3. By excelling in virtue, younger women will ensure that the “word of God is not defamed” (Titus 2:4–5). 4. Younger men who imitate Titus will safeguard the group from the reproaches from “the opponent” (Titus 2:6–8). 5. If enslaved persons follow the letter’s instructions, then they will “adorn the teaching of our savior God in all things” (Titus 2:9–10).  Ibid., 252.  A similar idea of fruitless learning (by younger widows) appears in 1 Tim 5:13.

38 39

66

Annette Bourland Huizenga

These promises emphasize the importance of sound teaching inside the community, while also looking outward to the successful handling of the “opponents.” Other present and future rewards for the group may be found in the encouraging theological statements promising God’s grace-filled paideia (Titus 2:11–12), the blessed hope and epiphany of Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13), and the inheritance of eternal life (Titus 3:7).

6. Conclusion My investigation of the broadly antithetical nature of this letter demonstrates in detail what Malherbe and Fiore have stated: that the author employs an abundance of contrasting words, figures, images, and imperatives in his epistolary moral curriculum. Although the use of antithetical reasoning might appear to be a simplistic staple of ancient pedagogy, especially when compared to modern educational methods based on scientific studies, the utilization of antitheses continues to be a common and useful instructional method. As a teacher, I often rectify students’ writing mistakes with a “do use a comma, not a semi-colon.” As a swimming pool lifeguard, I used to shout, “Walk, don’t run!” As a grandmother, I say, “Don’t hit your sister. Be kind.” These directions are often accompanied by a warning – “if you run, you might slip and fall” – or a promise – “your sister will be your friend when you’re both older.” Or I might recommend a role model to follow: The SBL Handbook of Style or the peace-able nature of Jesus. This is how human beings learn to adapt and belong to their social environments, by acquiring new or better information, following examples, taking correction, and realizing the potential consequences of their actions. The antitheses in the Letter to Titus support the purpose of providing individual believers and the whole community with instructions for ethical living. In this Roman Imperial context, the primary teachings for “ethical living” are the stereotypical topics of traditional virtues and vices, especially as demonstrated within household roles and other social relationships. These households ought to be managed in an orderly fashion (Titus 1:6–7, 10–11; 2:4–5), which means they should align with ancient conventional patriarchal conceptions of the family. Furthermore, the social conventions must be enacted publicly so that opponents and other outsiders are able to observe the proper moral behavior of the believers. The grace of the saving God approves and empowers this educational endeavor as a specialized form of paideia (Titus 2:11–12). For the modern reader it is obvious that the author’s vision of an ethical life for believers-in-community is thoroughly patriarchal, resting on the authority of free males who are seemingly wealthy enough to lead a household. The moral life of all other people is demonstrated in their subordination to that authority. The author seeks to bring about high moral character within the group by em-

Moral Education in Titus

67

ploying antithetical rhetorical strategies, which depend upon the shaming and demeaning of other people. Persons of Jewish or Cretan origins, the enslaved, and the so-called factious person, all must be dishonored in this form of instruction. The denunciations are even strengthened because the encouragements and salvific theology are phrased in such a positive style. The cultural prejudices at the end of chapter 1 influence interpretations of the virtues and moral examples in chapter 2. For instance, many readers have assumed that the younger women, being uncivilized Cretans, have a desperate need for the most basic instructions: to love their husbands and children.40 Meanwhile, for hundreds of years, the commands for the enslaved, based on ancient stereotypes, appeared as an advantageous scriptural warrant for many sermons preached at enslaved African-Americans.41 The curriculum for moral education exemplified by the Letter to Titus emerges from particular historical and cultural contexts, but these are not the contexts of modern interpreters. Nearly two thousand years after the writing of this letter we see the truth in the opening statement of L. P. Hartley’s novel The Go-Between states, “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”42 That is why, even though I appreciate the author’s concern for ethics-teaching, I read his instructions as a feminist scholar who critiques patriarchal systems. Since those systems continue to enforce the oppression of other people, I reject a “plain reading” of the ethical teachings of this author. Instead, I would advocate for a moral education curriculum that derives from his affirmation that “the grace of the saving God has appeared to all people, training us so that by rejecting ungodliness and worldly desires, we might live in moderate, just, and godly ways in the present age.”43 While our concepts of how to embody these virtues might have shifted since the first-century, our own “present age” still desperately needs those who desire to learn, teach, and live as ethical persons.

40  Luke Timothy Johnson offers one such reading of the teachings for the younger women in Titus 2:4–5: “What is surprising is that these are qualities that need to be taught. Is this a sign of the savageness and incivility of the native population, that responses ordinarily thought to be ‘natural’ should require teaching?” Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 234; my italics. 41 For a few autobiographical reactions to such preaching, see again, Emerson Powery’s essay in my commentary 1–‍2 Timothy, Titus, 157–59. Cf. also, Emerson Powery and Ronald S. Sadler Jr., The Genesis of Liberation: Biblical Interpretation in the Antebellum Narratives of the Enslaved (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016). 42  L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1953; repr., New York: New York Review Books, 2002), 17. 43 ἐπιφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παιδεύουσα ἡμας, ἵνα ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ὲν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, Titus 2:11–12; my translation.

The Language of Virtue Discovering Implicit Virtue-Ethical Linguistic Elements in Titus Dogara Ishaya Manomi 1. Introduction Like any ethical milieu, Biblical ethics does not exist in a vacuum but is embedded and expressed in language. In search for virtue-ethical features in biblical texts generally and in the Pastoral Epistles (PE) particularly, scholarship has, however, commonly focused on the catalogue of virtues and vices, the occurrences of individual virtues, or even the occurrence of ἀρετή “virtue” itself. This paper,1 however, goes a step further to explore and discover implicit virtue-ethical properties (re)presented in verbal, adjectival, adverbial, and prepositional linguistic and rhetorical (metaphorical) elements in Titus, and how they are weaved together with theological notions and ethical norms to place more emphasis on the morality of persons than on the morality of actions, or on the “being” more than the “doing” of moral agents, which is the central feature of virtue ethics theory. The paper argues, therefore, that the concept of virtue in the letter to Titus is not limited to the occurrence of explicit virtues but is also implicitly expressed in linguistic elements that weave the text together, such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, and rhetorical elements like metaphors.

2. Concepts and Characteristics of Virtue Ethics Inspired by the neo-Aristotelian account of virtue, this paper regards the term virtue or character as a person’s inner dispositions,2 attitudes, tendencies, and 1  It is worth noting that most of the content of this paper are only some few linguistic aspects drawn from my doctoral dissertation, which was published as Dogara Ishaya Manomi, Virtue Ethics in the Letter to Titus: An Interdisciplinary Study, Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics XII, WUNT II/560 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021). I hope that this paper provokes interest and leads the reader to my book, where I develop the argument for a virtue-ethical reading of Titus more elaborately, taking note not only of linguistic elements but also of theological notions and ethical norms and maxims. 2  See William C. Spohn, Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2003), 121.

70

Dogara Ishaya Manomi

ability to behave in consistent admirable patterns, leading towards human flourishing.3 In this light, the paper understands virtue ethics as a critical reflection on the sources, senses, symbols, and services of character in moral formation and function. Nevertheless, for lack of space and time, the paper limits its inquiry to only one “sense” of virtue, namely, linguistic “sense” of virtue. Virtue ethics, as construed in the neo-Aristotelian traditions, has the following characteristics: a sense of moral telos that leads to human flourishing; an emphasis on the morality of persons (“being”) more than the morality of actions (“doing”); emphasis on character development; a sense of moral perfectionism; acknowledgement of the particularity of moral agents; emphasis on moral exemplars; and a consideration of the moral significance of community.4 Our analysis will pay attention to the implicit and explicit presence of these virtue features as (re)presented in verbal linguistic elements in Titus, using insights from Ruben Zimmermann’s “implicit ethics” methodology of reading biblical texts ethically.

3. Implicit Virtue-Ethical Verbal Elements in Titus Intra-textually, the “implicit ethics”5 methodology proposes a focus on the linguistic forms of imperative verbs within a given biblical text. However, beyond imperatives, this section explores the virtue-ethical significance of the linguistic forms and functions of other verbal moods, mostly within the so-called “household codes” pericope in the letter to Titus (Titus 2:1–10), with a few other examples from other parts of the text. 3.1 Virtue-Ethical Function of Imperative Verbs Only two direct imperative verbs appear in the “household codes” (Titus 2:1– ‍10), namely, λάλει “teach, speak,” (Titus 2:1) and παρακάλει “exhort, admonish” (2:6). They both address Titus directly concerning teaching the different groups of the Cretan believers. Λάλει is used in relation to teaching the elderly men, elderly women, and young women, while παρακάλει is used in relation to the 3  See ibid., 28, citing Lee H. Yearly, “Recent Work on Virtue,” RelSRev 16 (1990): 1–9, here 2, for a similar definition. 4  See Lucas Chan (Biblical Ethics in the 21st Century: Developments, Emerging Consensus, and Future Directions [New York: Paulist, 2013], 84–92) for a more detailed classification and discussion of these characteristics of neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. 5 See a detailed discussion of the “Implicit Ethics” in Ruben Zimmermann, The Logic of Love: Discovering Paul’s “Implicit Ethics” through 1 Corinthians, trans. Dieter T. Roth (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2018). See also Ruben Zimmermann, Die Logik der Liebe: Die ‘implizite Ethik’ der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefs, BThSt 162 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2016).

The Language of Virtue

71

young men and slaves. Noteworthy is that all the virtues mentioned in relation to these imperatives are expected outcomes of the teaching/exhorting. These two teaching/training imperatives6 represent a virtue-ethical approach to morality in two ways: firstly, they express a continuous7 and even rigorous process of character development through the act of teaching/training. Concerted teaching/training as a means of acquiring virtue has been a key virtue-ethical approach to ethics right from antiquity. In Plato and other Greek philosophers, teaching was an integral process of civilizing and acquiring ἀρετή (virtue), which is expressed and summarized in the cardinal virtues: prudence, courage, justice, self-control.8 Secondly, the expected outcome of the teaching gives the imperative verbs a virtue-ethical meaning, namely, “to be/become” temperate, honorable, self-controlled, and so on. Virtue ethics is more concerned with “being/becoming” virtuous than “doing” virtuous actions. 3.2 Virtue-Ethical Theological Basis of the Instructions While Greek philosophical virtue ethics points only to teaching/training as a means of acquiring virtues,9 the author of Titus points to both human teaching and divine teaching as the means of acquiring virtues. But much more, he grounds the possibility of divine teaching/training on the Christ-event. The fact that the household virtues are followed immediately by the theological-ethical section of Titus 2:11–14 shows that the household virtues are to be understood in the light of the moral transformative effect of the Christ-event.10 The theological statements in the opening verses (Titus 1:1–4) and in Titus 3:3–7 further support the grounding of all the virtues in Titus on the Christ-event. Lewis Donelson asserts that in the PE, the Christ-event has both epistemological and ontic consequences on the believer. This is indicated, for example, in Titus 3:4–7, in a connection between the epiphany, cultic baptism, and a radical moral transformation. This transformation enables the baptized believers to live moral lives that are not accessible to unbelievers. The primary role of the Spirit in the PE is therefore, ac 6  According to Frances Young, The Pastoral Epistles, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 78, there are about seventy imperatives and twenty-five indirect expressions of command in the PE, which indicate their didactic tone.  7  See Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 747.  8 Ibid.  9 See Young, The Pastoral Epistles, 79–84, for more discussion on teaching and learning in the ancient world. 10 Jerome D. Quinn (The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary and An Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, The Pastoral Epistles, AB 35 [New York: Doubleday, 1990], 130) notes that the conspicuous omission of the injunction to honor God or Christ in the Titus account of the “household codes” is compensated for by adding Titus 2:11–14 “on the faith as the matrix presupposed for all Christian living.”

72

Dogara Ishaya Manomi

cording to Donelson, not for ethical guide but for ethical enablement, unlike Paul’s pneumatological concept of walking in the Spirit.11 3.3 A Virtue-Ethical Construal of εἶναι Εἶναι, a present infinitive form of εἰμί, appears four times within the household codes pericope (Titus 2:1–10). Noteworthy is that each of its occurrences is in relation to the moral character of a group among the Cretan believers as moral agents (Titus 2:2, 4, 9). Firstly, Titus is to teach the older men “to be” (εἶναι) temperate, honorable, self-controlled, being healthy in faith, in love, and in perseverance. Secondly, he is to teach the older women “to be” (εἶναι) reverent in behavior, teaching what is good, not slanderers, and not enslaved to much wine. Thirdly, the older women are to teach the younger women “to be” (εἶναι) husband-loving, children-loving, self-controlled, chaste, devoted to domestic works, be good,12 and being submissive to their own husbands. Fourthly, Titus is to exhort slaves “to be” (εἶναι) pleasing. Εἶναι is not directly used in relation to young men, but the nuance of “to be/being” is captured in the infinitive σωφρονεῖν “to be sensible.” This implies that the verb εἶναι is used in relation to each of the groups that constitute the household. The virtue-ethical significance of εἶναι is to be discovered basically from its being an intransitive verb connoting “being,” instead of a transitive verb connoting “doing.” As the verb “to be,” εἶναι describes a state of moral being of persons. When read in the light of the adjectival forms of the virtues which describe and qualify moral qualities of persons rather than moral actions, εἶναι expresses, for example, the idea of “being self-controlled” (σώφρονας εἶναι13) or “possessing the virtue/quality of self-control.” In this way, the verb εἶναι and the adjectival virtues together place the focus more on the kind of persons the moral agents should be in terms of moral character, than on the kind of moral actions they should do. Notwithstanding, the “doing” of the moral agents emanates from their “being.”14 11  Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, HUT 22, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 142–43. 12  See Annette Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral Epistles and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 392 n. 51 for a discussion of a textual problem related to the use of ἀγαθάς and οἰκουργούς. See also William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 412. 13  Ulrich Luck, “σώφρων, σωφρονέω, σωφρονίζω, σωφρονισμός, σωφροσύνη,” TDNT 7:1097–1104, here 1103, argues that the σώφρονα εἶναι of the bishop in 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:8 does not only refer to “conduct appropriate to faith but also to presuppositions necessary for the discharge of a leading office.” 14 William Barclay (The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, The Daily Bible Study Series, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 246–47) presents this point well by describing the whole of Titus chapter two as “the Christian character in action,” showing each of the groups “what they ought to be within the world.”

The Language of Virtue

73

This virtue-ethical reading of εἶναι and its cognates is not arbitrary, neither is it unaccountable, because it is consistent with the other linguistic elements, theological motifs, and ethical norms in Titus, which focus more on the moral “being” of persons than those of actions. For example, the frequent appearance of the virtues in adjectival and adverbial forms (e. g. Titus 1:8; 2:12), thereby describing the moral qualities of persons (“being”), is consistent with the use of εἶναι to describe the moral “being” of persons. Moreover, the use of theological notions to describe how the Christ-event transforms the moral character con­ tinuously (e. g. Titus 2:12, 14; 3:3–7) is also consistent with the use of εἶναι in relation to the moral character of persons. Dibelius and Conzelmann observe that the household codes in Titus 2:2–10 are “not formulated as a sequence of imperatives, as is usually the case in these rules for the household, but primarily as a series of adjectives (with “to be” εἶναι).”15 On this basis, they argue further, the instructions here look “more like a catalogue of duties than a list of rules for the household.”16 By this, Dibelius and Conzelmann hint at the possibility of interpreting εἶναι in relation to character or moral “being,” even though they themselves do not discuss this relation further. An exception needs to be made, nevertheless, on my new virtue-ethical interpretation of εἶναι “to be/being.” By reading εἶναι virtue-ethically, I do not mean that every occurrence of a form of εἰμί or εἶναι “to be” in Titus functions virtueethically. Other uses of different forms of εἰμί or εἶναι that do not function virtueethically are, for example, seen in Titus 1:10 (εἰσίν “there are” rebellious people); Titus 1:13 (the testimony ἐστίν “is” true); Titus 3:8 (these things ἐστίν “are” good and useful); Titus 3:9 (controversies, genealogies, etc. εἰσίν “are” unprofitable). “To be” is used in these instances in its ordinary linguistic function, unlike the virtue-ethical ones identified and discussed above. 3.4 Virtue-Ethical Function of Participles Most ethical norms17 in Titus 2:1–10 appear either as adjectives, therefore qualities to be possessed rather than actions to be done, or verbal participles18, nuancing “being” more than “doing.” A few other norms are in other linguistic categories. 15  See Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann (The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermenia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972], 139) who, interestingly, note further that the infinitive εἶναι “to be” does not have the force of an imperative verb, but is subordinated, in this case, to λάλει “speak, proclaim, teach” or πρέπει “what is proper, or what befits” in Titus 2:1. 16 Ibid. 17  See Zimmermann’s (The Logic of Love, 42–52; Die Logik der Liebe, 55–62) definition of a norm. 18 A verbal participle is a participle where the verbal aspect is more prominent than other aspects, e. g. substantival or adjectival aspects. See Daniel Wallace, The Participle. https://bible. org/article/participle, accessed 01. 09. ​2020.

74

Dogara Ishaya Manomi

Here, I group the virtues according to their different linguistic categories to show how they are virtue-ethical in the sense of their being virtues to be acquired rather than moral actions to be performed. Table 1: Verbal Participles in the “Household Codes” (Titus 2:1–10)19 Verse Verbal Participle

Translation

Nuance: “Being” or “doing”?

2:1

ὑγιαινούσῃ: Pres. Act. Part.

Being sound, healthy (Titus’s teaching)

“Being” over “doing”

2:2

ὑγιαίνοντας: Pres. Act. Part.

To be healthy or sound (older men … in faith, love, and perseverance)

“Being” over “doing”

2:3

μὴ δεδουλωμένας: Perf. Pass. Part.

Not to be enslaved to much wine (older “Being” over “doing” women) or not being enslaved – one explicated aspect of the virtue of “selfcontrol.”

2:5

ὑποτασσομένας: Pres.  Pass. Part.

Being submissive (younger women to their husbands)

“Being” over “doing”

3.5 Virtue-Ethical Function of Subjunctive and Infinitive Verbs Σωφρονίζωσιν (Titus 2:4)20 is a present active subjunctive verb with a preceding ἵνα, meaning the older women are not to be enslaved to much wine “so that they would exhort/bring back to sense” the younger women. Σωφρονίζωσιν, with a nuance of “self-control” as evident in its σωφρο- root, expresses the virtueethical idea of acquiring the virtue of self-control through training/teaching on the side of the younger women who are being taught, and expresses the moral exemplar concept of virtue ethics on the part of the older women who teach or train the younger women. Self-control or “being sensible or considerate” as a virtue is also expressed in the infinitive verb σωφρονεῖν “to be sensible/self-controlled” in relation to young men (Titus 2:6). Similarly, the virtue of “being submissive” is conveyed in the present passive infinitive ὑποτάσσεσθαι in relation to slaves’ submission to their masters (Titus 2:9). All these linguistic elements, placed in the immediate and wider context of the Titus text, show how the author places more emphasis on the moral “being” of the Cretan believers than on their “doing.” 19 This table is also taken from my dissertation, see Manomi, Virtue Ethics in the Letter to Titus, 249. 20 See Claire S. Smith, Pauline Communities as ‘Scholastic Communities’: A Study of the Vocabulary of ‘Teaching’ in 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, WUNT 2/335 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 339–40; Huizenga, Moral Education, 391 n. 48 for further discussion on this NT hapax legomenon.

The Language of Virtue

75

3.6 Virtue-Ethical construal of προΐστασθαι and μανθανέτωσαν (Titus 3:14) In relation to the ethical norm καλὰ ἔργα “good works” in Titus, the two most important verbs are μανθανέτωσαν (“let them learn”) and προΐστασθαι (“to devote oneself to,” “to bring forth/out”). Προΐστασθαι, an infinitive form of προΐστημι, has, among others, the semantic domain to project (German: vorstehen)21 “to come forward or be brought forward, to manage, to lead, to guide,”22 to lead out, put or bring out, to devote oneself to (responsibly).23 Noting that the letter to Titus presupposes that the Christ-event effects inner qualities and a character that enables moral agents to live responsible moral lives (cf. Titus 2:11–12; 3:3–7), it could be argued that the semantic domain “to project” or “to lead or bring out” (visibly) is more appropriate here. This argument is further supported by the fact that προΐστασθαι appears two times in the same chapter and only in reference to the ethical norm καλὰ ἔργα (which obviously connotes external conducts), presupposing inner-outer dynamics of morality. Moreover, the occurrence of προΐστασθαι in present middle infinitive form in connection with the imperative μανθανέτωσαν in Titus 3:14 suggests an already existing inner moral reality that the moral agent is to continuously learn to “bring out” or express in outer conducts. Based on our interpretation of προΐστασθαι above, we can deduce four virtue-ethical implications as follows: First, the verb plays an explicit linguistic function on the one hand, namely, being an ordinary verb in a sentence, and an implicit virtue-ethical function on the other hand, namely, its contextual use related to a process of character development, especially evident in its use with μανθανέτωσαν in Titus 3:14. The occurrence of προΐστασθαι with the imperative μανθανέτωσαν shows the prominence and intended theological and ethical nuances of the verb. Μανθανέτωσαν is the main verb in Titus 3:14 and the only imperative verb in Titus that directly relates to “good works.” Being a 3rd person plural active imperative verb, it translates as “let them learn.” Learning in the wider context of character development is a central characteristic of virtue ethics in antiquity and today. The virtue-ethical nuances of the imperative verb μανθανέτωσαν is further made clear in the sense that it does not command the believers “to do” good works, but together with the verb προΐστασθαι, “to learn to bring out good works.” Moreover, understanding the use of προΐστασθαι and μανθανέτωσαν in the overall context of frequent exhortations to teach sound doctrine in Titus high21  Walter Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 1402. 22 DBAG, 870, based on Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 23  See also DBAG, Greek NT Lexicon, Bible Works 10.

76

Dogara Ishaya Manomi

lights the strong emphasis on character development through παιδεία. For example, Titus is instructed to teach sound doctrine; the bishop and elders to be able to teach sound doctrine; and older women to teach younger women. All these instructions to teach sound doctrine are to enable the believers to “learn to bring out good works.” Second, προΐστασθαι fulfills an implicit virtue-ethical theological function, namely, that the Christ-event transforms the inner being or character of persons, but which the internally transformed person participates in the process of making this inner transformation an outer reality as well. It only makes sense from this interpretive standpoint why προΐστασθαι occurs only in relation to καλὰ ἔργα in Titus. The author seems to intentionally use προΐστασθαι here to provide a theological balance to the frequent use of “good works” in Titus. It provides a correlation between the inner and outer effects of the Christ-event on one level, and a balance between the personal and missional aspects of the Christian life on another level. The inner possession of character through the Christ-event relates to the personal aspect, while the process of bringing it out in the form of “good works” relates to the missional aspect. Third, the use of προΐστημι in the present infinitive and middle voice (προΐστασθαι) in Titus 3:8 and 3:14 relates to the virtue-ethical concepts of moral perfectionism and moral responsibility respectively, in the sense that it implies that the believers, as moral agents, are to continuously bring forth/out good works. Its occurrence in middle voice, which connotes “oneself ” (with a nuance of moral responsibility) implies the need or place of human cooperation with divine agency in bringing forth good works, as is the case with the cardinal virtues in Titus 2:12 where the “grace” (divine agency) trains the believers (human agency) to say no (by themselves) to ungodliness and worldly passions. Fourth, the occurrence of προΐστασθαι and μανθανέτωσαν in the context of the Christ-event and the frequent instructions to teach shed more light on the author’s purpose of leaving Titus in Crete,24 namely, “to set right the things left behind” (Titus 1:5). It indicates that “the things left behind” are related, primarily, to character development through rigorous teaching and being a moral exemplar. The call to rigorous teaching for character development seems based on the author’s perception that even though the effect of the Christ-event changes the 24  See Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, New Testament in Context (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996), 221, who notes that apelipon “I left” is to be understood in an appointive rather than geographical sense. Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 477–78 notes that the other task of Titus in Crete to “put in order what was left unfinished” (as a different task from appointment of elders) is a “blanket directive,” while appointing qualified elders is a primary means of achieving it. Whatever that unclear task is, Yarbrough argues, it is “perhaps best thought of as involving the range of topics that Paul touches on elsewhere in the letter as it unfolds, like dealing with opponents, instructing the faithful, encouraging household and relational godliness, instilling eschatological hope, and more.”

The Language of Virtue

77

inner character of the believer, the new character does not automatically develop or “come out” in visible commendable moral actions. Its development and visible display in good works must be mediated through a continuous and concerted teaching, learning, and practice with the help of the divine agency. This argument places us in good company with Thomas Aquinas, who can rightly be described as a virtue ethicist based on his Summa Theologica, which is an appropriation and expansion of Aristotle’s virtue ethics. He comments that the instruction to Titus to “set in order the things that are wanting” (Titus 1:5) is related to sins of omission rather than transgression.25 While Aquinas, by this comment, does not directly indicate that this statement is virtue-ethical, he implies it by describing what is to be set right as “sins of omission,” which setting right would require a process of character development that was lacking among the Cretan believers (cf. Titus 1:12; 2:12). 3.7 Adjectival Virtue-Ethical Norms Suffice it to mention, without detailed explanation for lack of space and time, that most of the virtues in the Titus household (Titus 2:1–10) as well as leadership codes (Titus 1:6–9) are presented as adjectives expressed with the virtue-ethical linguistic element εἶναι, whose nuances of “being” (character) over “doing” we have discussed above. Some of the adjectival norms include: νηφαλίους (sober or temperate); σεμνούς (honourable); σώφρονας (self-controlled); μὴ διαβόλους (not slanderous); καλοδιδασκάλους (to be teaching what is good or goodteaching); φιλάνδρους (husband-loving/to love their husbands); φιλοτέκνους (children-loving/to love their children); σώφρονας (self-controlled); ἁγνάς (pure); οἰκουργούς (home-working); ἀγαθάς (good); and εὐαρέστους (wellpleasing). All these describe the “being” more than “doing” of the believers in Crete. Another linguistic category with virtue-ethical significance are nouns such as πίστις (faith), ἀγάπη (love), and ὑπομονή (perseverance), which are moral entities of persons rather than moral actions. 3.8 Adverbial Virtue-Ethical Elements The virtue-ethical feature of adverbs, for example σωφρόνως, δικαίως, εὐσεβῶς (Titus 2:12), lies in their linguistic form and some of the verbs related to them. Being adverbs, they convey a virtue-ethical concept of a manner of life to be lived instead of specific moral action(s) to be performed. One of the verbs related to these adverbial norms is παιδεύουσα. Being a present active nominative (verbal)

25  Thomas Aquinas, Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. and ed. Chrysostom Baer, O. Praem. (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2007), 159.

78

Dogara Ishaya Manomi

participle,26 it suggests a continuing process of moral training towards becoming self-controlled, just, and godly. Claire S. Smith notes, rightly, that “the continuing aspect of the instruction suggests the nuances of training, encouragement, persuasion, practice, and discipline.”27 The virtue-ethical concept here is that living a godly life comes through training (equipping, teaching28), and the agent which trains is “the grace of God.”29 The flow of thought here could be described thus: the Christ-event is transformative, and it effects an inner change in a person, or accomplishes a new identity and character,30 which is inherently capable of enabling one to renounce the ungodliness of the world and to live a godly life. In a complex and relational way, the author shows that the transformative work of the Christ-event and the believer’s rational and continuous understanding (cf. “knowledge of the truth” in Titus 1:1–3) of this fact brings empowerment for ethical living (cf. Titus 2:11–14 and 3:4–8).31 3.9 Metaphorical Virtue-Ethical Element in Titus In Titus 3:14, we find an ethical argumentation/reflection, namely, ἵνα μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι “so that they may not be unfruitful.” This ethical argumentation further confirms and strengthens our argument above that προΐστασθαι and μανθανέτωσαν (Titus 3:8, 14) are the most important verbs in relation to the norm “good works” in Titus. Reading this verse with the earlier description of the opponents in mind gives clarity to its meaning. The opponents are described as those who profess knowing God but deny him by their deeds, therefore, they are unfit (in other words, unfruitful, unproductive) for any good work (Titus 1:16). The implicit message is that any believer in Christ whose belief fails to produce good behavior or good works is an unfruitful person. The fruits or products of 26 Paratext

7.5 (Bible Translation Software), Titus 2:12 Pauline Communities, 318–19, 321–22. 28  See George W. Knight III (The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 319) who understands παιδεύουσα and other related verbs in 2:12 as having an ongoing present significance because it is the controlling verb, and because it is in present tense. Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 227, has to “educate, train, chastise,” and in Titus 2:12, it is for believers in this present age, before Christ’s return. 29  See Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 151; Smith, Pauline Communities, 318–19. 30  See Richard Bondi, “Character,” The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. James F. Childress and John Macquarrie (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 82–84. See also Robert C. Roberts, “Character,” New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, ed. David J. Atkinson and David J. Field (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), 65–70, here 69. 31 See Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, WUNT 2/283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 21, 250–52. See also Gilbert Meilaender, “Divine Grace and Ethics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics, ed. Gilbert Meilaender (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 74–‍88 for further discussion on the role of divine agency in Christian ethics. 27 Smith,

The Language of Virtue

79

faith are the good works, whatever they may be. Nevertheless, the good works do not flow out automatically, but one has to learn to bring them forth/out. The ethical argumentation, therefore, is that if believers do not want to be unfruitful, let them learn to bring out “good works.” The idea of being “unproductive/unfruitful” represents the opposite of the Aristotelian virtue-ethical concept of εὐδαιμονία (“human flourishing, wellbeing”), which is “the good” and consequently, the human telos. In this context in Titus, the believers flourish towards εὐδαιμονία when they do good works. However, if they fail to show good works, they do not flourish and so do not move towards εὐδαιμονία. Consequently, they become unproductive or unfruitful. Good works, therefore, become a means of avoiding unproductivity in life on the one hand, and a means of achieving productivity in life on the other. We could describe this use of “fruitfulness” as metaphorical ethical argumentation. Being a metaphor, it permits an interpretation using an analogy, as follows: the mention of fruits implies an implicit mental imagery of a tree. Hardly would one think of fruits without thinking of a tree. At a simple, non-scientific level,32 a good tree has four major components, namely, root(s), stem, branches, and fruits. The fruits are only the visible aspects of an invisible source, namely, the roots and all the factors necessary for the existence and functioning of the tree, such as sun energy, water, and so on. While the author compares “good works” with “fruits” or fruitfulness, he might have implicitly implied that the “invisible” character from which the “good works” emanate represents the invisible roots (and all other elements) of a tree from which fruits find their source and nourishment. Regarding the stem, the author might have also implied that the stem, being the mediating component between the invisible roots and the visible branches and fruits, represents all that is necessary for the transmission of the invisible reality of a new and transformed character to a visible reality in “good works.” Examples of the factors that constitute the mediating “stem” in Titus include teaching sound doctrine, learning from the teaching of the “grace,” learning from the life of moral exemplars, and learning by practicing the virtues. The author presents all these activities in relation to moral formation and development throughout the letter. Such processes and activities mediate between the inner character of the believer and “good works” in the same way that the stem of a tree mediates between the roots and the fruits.33 Moreover, it is possible to illustrate the virtue-ethical significance of the fruit metaphor in Titus with the “fruit of the Spirit” metaphor in Gal 5:22. Friedrich 32  The author, writing in antiquity, might have had this simple understanding of the components of a tree. 33  Jouette M. Bassler (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, ANTC [Nashville: Abingdon, 1996], 213– 14) rightly understands being productive or fruitful here to refer to “tangible results of an active faith that has expressed itself in generous deeds of service to others.”

80

Dogara Ishaya Manomi

Horn34 rightly notes that the use of the singular noun καρπός “fruit” in relation to the “fruit of the Spirit” is instructive. It indicates that the virtues are the outflow of the believer’s new reality and being in the Spirit. In Titus 3:14 also, the vicious or unproductive life or character is presented with the symbol of “fruitlessness” (ἄκαρποι), which implies that the “fruits” are the external evidence of a person’s inner reality. 3.10 Prepositional Virtue-Ethical Element in Titus In a virtue-ethical reading of Titus, κατά in Titus 1:1 fulfills more than its prepositional linguistic function. It plays a significant virtue-ethical role, pointing to εὐσέβεια as the overall telos of the election and the “knowledge of the truth.” Beyond pointing to the telos, it has a nuance of “enabling”35 as well. It implies that the faith of the elect and their knowledge of the truth “leads to godliness,” nuancing “enabling” godliness. It could be argued that this κατά points even to the moral telos of the entire letter to Titus, based on Philip Towner’s argument that εὐσέβεια represents the virtue-ethical agendum of the letter to Titus, with all other virtues expressing different aspects of εὐσέβεια, which, according to Towner, aligns faith, knowledge, and corresponding conduct together.36 This understanding of εὐσέβεια as a moral telos, in virtue-ethical terms, informs and grounds my interpretation and translation of the highly debated τῆς κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν as “leads to godliness or towards godliness” instead of “according to,” or “in accordance with godliness.”37 34  Friedrich W. Horn, “Tugendlehre im Neuen Testament? Eine Problemanzeige,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik 4, WUNT 313 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 417–31, here 424. 35  See Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 227. 36  Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 152. 37  Many scholars and translators translate the κατά here in this way (e. g. ESV “accords with godliness,” Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 216, “in accord with godliness”). However, I think it does not represent the teleological virtue-ethical posture of the letter. Even Aquinas, who could be described as a virtue ethicist (cf. his Summa Theologica II), translates it as “according to godliness.” See Aquinas, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 156. Martin Luther, Lectures on Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen, vol. 29 of Luther’s Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 9 also translates it as “truth which accords with godliness.” He further defines godliness as serving God and worshipping him. And knowledge according to godliness means this knowledge teaches and has godliness, or godliness is located in it (ibid., 10). He asserts that “there is no godliness except in faith and in truth, because we know that nothing binds the conscience” (ibid., 10). See also Michaela Engelmann, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum Literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe, BZNW 192 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 436–37 for a discussion on the functions of κατά in the opening verses of Titus. See also Daniel C. Arichea and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to Timothy and to Titus (New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 262. Arichea and Hatton rightly note that translating κατά as “leads to godliness” requires “god-

The Language of Virtue

81

Furthermore,38 the κατά in Titus 1:1 expresses an implicit virtue-ethical concept of moral “exemplar”39 based on the author’s assertion that his apostleship is “for the faith of the elect.”40 Beyond his ministerial calling to lead the elect to faith and to guide them into knowing the truth that leads to godliness, the author is implicitly a moral exemplar of the εὐσέβεια kind of life that combines faith, genuine knowledge of the truth, and corresponding conduct.41 In his absence in Crete, he tasks Titus to be that exemplar of εὐσέβεια by asking him to be an example “in all things” (Titus 2:7), which include being an example in faith, knowledge, and corresponding conduct.42

4. Summary and Conclusion Through a virtue-ethical reading of verbal, adjectival, adverbial, prepositional linguistic and rhetorical elements in conjunction with theological motifs and ethical norms in the letter to Titus, this paper has discovered significant and pervasive virtue-ethical concepts and characteristics implicitly embedded and expressed in these linguistic and rhetorical elements within the text. Altogether, the linguistic features place the ethical emphasis of the letter on the character or “being” of the moral agents more than their actions or “doing,” which is the central feature in virtue ethics. While this virtue-ethical construal of the linguistic and rhetorical features in Titus does not mean that the author presents a systematic virtue-ethical system, it shows, to a convincing degree, that the author’s ethical orientation, consciously or unconsciously, is in tandem with a virtue-ethical approach to morality. In relation to the basic question of this volume, as to whether ethics is a plausible standpoint from which the PE can be studied individually, exegetically and hermeneutically, this paper concludes that virtue ethics is a plausible and viable standpoint towards an individual-text approach to the PE.

liness” to be definitely taken in its ethical sense, namely, “living as God wants.” See ibid., 261– 62 for translation options of the phrases “faith of God’s elect” and “knowledge of the truth.” 38  This paragraph is directly copied from my dissertation, described in the first footnote of this paper above. 39  See Chan, Biblical Ethics in the 21st Century, 88–90 for a discussion on moral exemplar as one of the four dimensions of virtue ethics. 40  Barclay (The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 227), translates this statement as “to awaken faith in God’s chosen ones.” 41 See Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (Michigan: University Microfilms International, 1982), 398–402. Fiore does not seem to notice the implicit example that could be argued for in Titus 1:1. 42 Huizenga (Moral Education, 268) understands teachers in the Pastorals as examples for imitation.

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus A View Informed by Discourse Grammar and Speech Act Theory Rick Brannan 1. Introduction The letter to Titus, when read as it has been received, consists of instruction from Paul to Titus regarding the development of the community (communities?) of believers on the island of Crete. This article uses the term “ethical instruction” to refer to the various commands, exhortations, instructions, and inferences that occur in this letter. When considering ethical instruction in the letter to Titus, it is easiest to think about imperative verbs, both singular and plural, in the second and third person. And indeed, this is the typical, explicit formula that is noticed and brought to one’s attention when considering commands. But verbs in the imperative mood are only one method of indicating direction or instruction. After imperatives, one typically thinks of hortatory subjunctives (e. g. Gal 5:25).1 After those obvious choices, however, one may be hard-pressed to grammatically specify other methods to indicate instruction, direction, or desire. Speech act theory, however, provides a framework that may be used to understand more about the intention of the writer or speaker.2 This article uses an application of speech act theory implemented by Jimmy Parks, Michael Aubrey, and Jeremy Thompson and applied to the entirety of the text of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament3 as well as a related annotation of sentence 1  Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 464, Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Biblical Languages: Greek 2 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 57–58. 2 René Dirven and Marjolijn Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 1 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004), 173–174; Ruben Zimmermann, The Logic of Love. Discovering Paul’s “Implicit Ethics” through 1 Corinthians, trans. Dieter T. Roth (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2018), 37–39 (on “Ethical Speech Acts”). 3  Jimmy Parks, Speech Acts Dataset Documentation (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2016).

84

Rick Brannan

types.4 This article also uses an analysis of the discourse structure of the letter and its ethical instruction using principles of “discourse grammar” as described by Steven Runge.5 This examination of the letter to Titus reads it as it has been received, making no judgments on authorship or genuineness of the letter. The setting described in the letter, that “Paul” is the author, “Titus” the recipient, and the location of delivery to Titus is “Crete” is assumed to be valid for the purposes of understanding the letter as a whole unit.

2. Description of the Application of Speech Act Theory Speech Act theory, as applied to the Greek New Testament by the dataset this article uses as a point of departure, begins with classifying each sentence/clause as one of three types of speech acts: Informative, Obligative, or Constitutive.6 Informative Speech Acts are those where the purpose of the communication is the exchange of information.7 They involve giving information and asking for information.8 Obligative Speech Acts are those where the purpose of the communication is to impose an obligation on the hearer or speaker.9 And Constitutive Speech Acts are those where the purpose of the communication is to constitute a social reality.10 Each of these types of speech acts encode two different subtypes. Informative speech acts may be either Assertive, where the speaker asserts information, gives a description, or makes a statement, or Information Questions, where the speaker lacks information and formulates a question to acquire the information lacked. Obligative speech acts11 may be either Directive, where the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do something the speaker requires or desires, or Commissive, where the speaker offers to do things for others. Constitutive speech acts12 may be either Expressive, where the speaker expresses a psychological state concerning the context of the utterance, or Declarative, where the speaker makes a declaration which brings about the correspondence between the content of the utterance and reality.  4 Jimmy Parks, Sentence Types Dataset Documentation (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2016).  5  Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010).  6  The basics of this discussion (types and subtypes) are reliant upon Parks, Speech Acts Dataset Documentation (Heading: “Speech Act Glossary”).  7 Dirven and Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 173.  8 Dirven and Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 159.  9  Dirven and Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 174. 10  Dirven and Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 173. 11  Dirven and Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 167. 12  Dirven and Verspoor, Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 155–58.

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

85

2.1 Sentence Type Analysis Parks, Thompson, and Aubrey have also analyzed sentences/clauses in the Greek New Testament.13 This is a high level analysis, classifying sentences as being one of three types: Declarative, Interrogative, or Imperative.14 Declarative sentences are those that express statements of fact. Interrogative sentences usually request information from another person. Imperative sentences usually issue some directive to another person or group of people. The sentence “types” of Declarative, Interrogative, and Imperative roughly correlate to the primary speech acts of Constitutive, Informative, and Obligative.15 Both analyses apply a framework that distills language (written and spoken) to three primary purposes: Communicating statements of fact, requesting/seeking information, and commanding or directing others. These overlapping analyses provide an excellent starting point for further analysis to determine implicit and explicit commands, which is exactly what Parks and Thompson did next.16 2.2 Commands Analysis Using the text of the Greek New Testament analyzed for Speech Acts and Sentence Types, Parks and Thompson provide a further analysis of “Commands” in the text of the Greek New Testament. In the book of Titus, they have isolated 21 commands and further analyzed them to determine the type of command17 and the class of the verb of the command structure.18

3. Description of the Application of Discourse Grammar The letter to Titus consists of 659 words. The total number of words used in the issuing of commands is 347.19 Over half of this letter is involved in directing Titus and those with him in some way or another, so it is natural to expect ethical in13 Parks,

Sentence Types Dataset Documentation.

14 The definitions and discussion are reliant on Parks, Sentence Types Dataset Documentation. 15 These

are not exact equivalents; each analysis has different bases.  They also derived an analysis of questions, including rhetorical questions, of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament. 17 The command type taxonomy is based on Cleo Condoravdi and Sven Lauer, “Imperatives: Meaning and Illocutionary Force,” Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (2012): 37–58. 18 Verb class uses verbal categories from VerbNet (https://verbs.colorado.edu/verb-index/ vn/class-h.php). VerbNet is described in more detail in Karin Kipper, Anna Korhonen, Neville Ryant, and Martha Palmer, “A Large-scale Classification of English Verbs,” Language Resources and Evaluation 42 (2008): 21–40. 19  Word counts are based on: Michael W. Holmes, SBLGNT (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software; Atlanta: SBL, 2010). 16

86

Rick Brannan

struction to be grouped to achieve a particular effect in communicating to the recipient. The groupings are based on an analysis of connectives in Titus. The purpose of the analysis is to determine mainline content and offline content in the letter. This involves work done by Runge to isolate whether a section of discourse initiates a development on the discourse mainline, or whether it is a supplementary or background discussion moved offline.20 Runge’s function-based understanding of conjunctions such as οὖν, δέ, ἵνα, ὥστε, γάρ, and καί as well as his approach to asyndeton is essential to this method.21 The notions of mainline and offline (or background) communication are discussed in Levinsohn’s non-narrative materials22 and also in Runge’s discussion of developmental markers23 and his description of γάρ.24 Essentially, the mainline25 is viewed as a series of units, each unit with some sort of development marker denoting a new point or development in the discussion. These development markers help the reader split the larger discourse into a series of chunks, “segmenting the discourse into smaller bits for easier processing.”26 Runge uses the term “signpost” to refer to the combination of markers within the unit that perform this function.27 Levinsohn28 uses Breeze as a point of departure to discuss the mainline/theme line, noting that according to her analysis the mainline/theme line presents the backbone of the discourse – whether this be the main events of a narrative, the main steps of a procedure, the main points of an argument or the main commands of an exhortation – while the supportive material provides all that is necessary as a background for understanding the story, procedure, or argument as a whole. These different types of information, which work together to communicate the total message of a discourse, can be distinguished from each other by certain language-specific surface features, such as tense and aspect markers, verb forms, conjunctions, special particles, and word order. 29

Within a given discourse points may have a significant series or set of subpoints or background material; this is also termed as “offline.” Careful examination of  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 44–55.  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 17–58. 22  Stephen H. Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials on Non-Narrative Discourse Analysis (Self-published, 2015, https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/12/09/77/1​2​0​9​7​7​8​3​1​4​0​2​2​6​2​7​8​ 3​4​5​9​6​7​1​2​9​8​9​9​1​7​7​2​2​0​7​6​0​/NonNarr2015.pdf ). 23  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 28–31, Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 93. 24  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 51–54. 25  Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials, 14, uses the term “theme line” instead of “mainline.” 26  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 28. 27  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 137, 344. 28 Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials, 14. 29  Mary J. Breeze, “Hortatory Discourse in Ephesians,” JOTT 5 (1992): 313–47, here 314. Emphasis added. 20 21

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

87

the information structure of the discourse, revealed by the application of discourse grammar, identifies the main points or commands of the discussion and clarifies the structure and nature of the background material. This analysis provides better insight to the overall structure of the discourse and, in this application, the role ethical instruction plays in the discourse. This analysis segments the text of the letter to Titus into six ethical instruction groups, with the 21 instructions distributed among the groups. 3.1 Ethical Instruction Group 1: Titus 1:5–14 3.1.1 The Instructions 1–6 a) Instruction 1: Titus 1:5 NA28: ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην, NRSV: so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: Speech Act: Informative: Assertive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Change of State

The instruction in Titus 1:5 is a two-fold reminder of previous (likely verbal) instruction given to Titus, reminding Titus why he was left behind in Crete. The two portions of the ethical instruction involve putting “in order what remained to be done” and appointing “elders (πρεσβύτερος) in every town.” This is followed up by “as I directed (διατάσσω) you,” on the surface styled as a reminder to Titus but it also functions as a reassertion of Paul’s apostolic authority (vv. 1–4). The instruction also provides background information concerning Titus’s purpose in Crete. The verbs ἐπιδιορθόω (aorist middle subjunctive) and καθίστημι (aorist active subjunctive) both indicate changes of state; the context of the former making clear that Titus and Paul both had agreement on Titus’s tasks in Crete, the latter indicating that appointing elders in the towns of Crete was one of Titus’s agreed-upon tasks. b) Instruction 2: Titus 1:6 NA28: εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. NRSV: someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Seem

88

Rick Brannan

The NRSV, while following the underlying Greek in translating this as a continuation of the sentence which began in verse 5, obscures the connection with the subjunctive verb (καθίστημι) in the previous clause. While there is relation with the previous command (“You need to appoint elders in every town”) this takes it further: “Appoint these kinds of people.” The use of the verb εἰμί in the present active indicative associates the three qualities listed in the last half of the verse with the ambiguous someone/anyone reference at its start. These three qualities30 of elders are: To be blameless, to be married only once, and that their children are believers. The verb class of “Seem” reflects that these qualities are to appear to be displayed by the words and actions of those being considered as elders. c) Instruction 3: Titus 1:7–9 NA28: δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον φιλάγαθον σώφρονα δίκαιον ὅσιον ἐγκρατῆ, ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν. NRSV: For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Seem

While the NRSV translates Titus 1:7–9 as if it is a series of imperative statements, the verb that dominates the structure is δεῖ (indicative) which is supplemented by the infinitive εἶναι. Literally the structure could be translated “It is necessary … to be” which, as a directive speech act, functions as instruction. The NRSV renders this as “he [the bishop] must” throughout the series of statements, making explicit commands or series of commands where there are no imperative verbs. All of the listed qualities are, from the author’s perspective, required in order to serve as a bishop. Outside of “knowing the teaching well” (a summary of Titus 1:9a) these are all personal ethical qualities reflected by the manner in which one lives their life. Here Paul instructs Titus to be aware of these qualities and to pay attention to them as he searches for someone to ostensibly oversee the elders that are being appointed in every town on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5–6). Paul uses a ἵνα clause at the end of the instruction text to justify himself. By seeking these ethical qualities for the bishop, Titus will increase the chances that the bishop 30 These qualities will not be examined further here. For more information, see: I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 154.

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

89

will preach with sound doctrine and be able to refute those who preach against sound doctrine. d) Instruction 4: Titus 1:11a NA28: οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν NRSV: they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families Speech Act: Informative: Assertive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Force

Again the structure of δεῖ plus infinitive is used instead of an imperative. The instruction is short and followed by explanation. The word translated “They” is a relative pronoun, referring to those described in Titus 1:10 as rebellious and ultimately labelled as “the circumcision.” Paul instructs Titus to ensure they no longer disrupt as they have caused “whole families” to question the gospel Paul preaches. e) Instruction 5: Titus 1:11b NA28: διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν. NRSV: by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Forbid

This instruction uses δεῖ with a negator to indicate inappropriate action. By specifying what is not to be done, the text issues preference as to what is to be done. Notable is that both the material taught by these teachers and their motives are brought into question. The hearer/reader clearly understands that the content of the teaching of those opposed to Paul (“the circumcision” in v. 10) is not to be taught or amplified. Instead, they are to teach what is proper and in accordance with the teaching of Paul. f ) Instruction 6: Titus 1:13–14 NA28: ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει, μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν. NRSV: That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Judgment

90

Rick Brannan

The “testimony” found to be true is from v. 12 regarding natives of Crete: “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” The instruction to rebuke (ἐλέγχω) the Cretans is in the imperative with Titus as the subject. It is followed by a ἵνα clause which sets the goal of turning them from their current rejection of the “truth” to Paul’s gospel so that they can be “sound in the faith.” This notion is appositionally described in the negative as not heeding “Jewish myths” or “commandments of those who reject the truth.” Essentially, being sound in the faith involves not doing the wrong things that the ones rejecting the sound doctrine espouse. 3.1.2 Discourse The epistolary prescript (Titus 1:1–4) sets the scene for the letter, placing Paul in a position of authority as arbiter of the message of Jesus Christ. In Titus 1:5, Paul transitions from the prescript with Τούτου χάριν, “for this reason” to explain why Titus remained in Crete and instructs him to appoint elders in the various cities. Paul also provides a list of qualities he believes are indicative of those who will serve well as elders. In Titus 1:7–9 Paul introduces “the overseer/bishop” and provides a similar list, with extensions that include knowledge of the teaching and properly preaching about it. Outside of the direct instruction to Titus to select elders, the qualifications of elder and overseer comprise the bulk of instructions/ commands in this group. After the instructions to elders and overseers and the focus on the responsibility of the overseer to ensure sound doctrine, Paul provides rationale for the need of sound doctrine. While the NRSV begins this section as a new paragraph and does not explicitly translate the γάρ in Titus 1:10, it indicates the discussion is moving further offline to explain the previous content.31 Why is the teaching of sound doctrine needed? Because rebellious and deceptive people associated with parties opposed to Paul (Titus 1:10) are teaching contrary to his gospel. Paul instructs that parties that promote teaching contrary to his own must be silenced because of the effect their teaching has (Titus 1:11). Into this context the quotation from Epimenides is inserted (Titus 1:12), supporting the claim that the people of Crete are given to misrepresentation, lying, and rebelliousness. The combination of the contrary teaching and the supposed predilection of the Cretan people to lying and rebelliousness leads Paul to use the first imperative verb of the letter (ἐλέγχω, Titus 1:13) and command the rebuke of the opposition party (further characterized by “Jewish myths” in Titus 1:14) with the hope that they will embrace the correction of Titus’s message promoting Paul’s gospel by ignoring the false teachers and no longer following their errant ethical instructions.

 Runge, Discourse Grammar, 51–54.

31

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

91

3.2 Ethical Instruction Group 2: Titus 2:1–10 3.2.1 The Instructions 7–11 a) Instruction 7: Titus 2:1 NA28: Σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ. NRSV: But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Communication

After issuing a command to rebuke the Cretans in Titus 1:13–14 and explaining the problems with those who “reject the truth” (Titus 1:14) through asserting that they claim knowledge of God but have actions inconsistent with that knowledge (Titus 1:15–16), Paul shifts focus to Titus to encourage him to teach (here λαλέω, “to speak”) in accordance with Paul’s gospel. The counter to improper action is the teaching of proper action. b) Instruction 8: Titus 2:2 NA28: Πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι, σεμνούς, σώφρονας, ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ· NRSV: Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Seem

The command verb “Tell” (NRSV ) is implied from the previous verse. A list of qualities to be taught is associated with a group, here the “older men.” The instruction is for the older men to exhibit these qualities in their action. These actions include being temperate, being serious, and being prudent. In addition to the ethical action, the older men are to be “sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.” c) Instruction 9: Titus 2:3–5 NA28: πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, καλοδιδασκάλους, ἵνα σωφρονίζωσιν τὰς νέας φιλάνδρους εἶναι, φιλοτέκνους σώφρονας ἁγνὰς οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς, ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημῆται. NRSV: Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive

92

Rick Brannan

Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Seem

As with Instruction 8 in Titus 2:2, the verb “tell” (NRSV ) is implied from Titus 2:1. This more extensive set of instructions is targeted at the “older women” and serves as a functional counterpart to the instructions to “older men.” There are two parts to this section, however, and it uses a similar strategy of indicating ethical action and then explaining or justifying it with a supporting clause. The first part is a simple list of four qualities: Being reverent in behavior, not being slanderers, not being slaves to drink, and being teachers of what is good. In the second part, Paul then uses a ἵνα clause to indicate that older women with qualities such as these are able to serve as “teachers of what is good” to younger women, being examples to them of how to love their families and manage the household. After this another ἵνα clause occurs, this time applying to the entire group. The reason for instructing all of this ethical action is “so that the word of God may not be discredited.” d) Instruction 10: Titus 2:6–8 NA28: Τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σωφρονεῖν περὶ πάντα, σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν, σεμνότητα , λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον, ἵνα ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἐντραπῇ μηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν περὶ ἡμῶν φαῦλον. NRSV: Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured; then any opponent will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Communication

The string of instructions continues. After imploring Titus himself to teach sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), to teach the older men to be sound in faith (Titus 2:2), and to teach the older women to be reverent and encouragers of younger women (Titus 2:3–‍5), a new clause complex with a new imperative verb focuses on the “younger men.” Titus is to urge them (παρακαλέω) to be self-controlled, with the following related clauses explicating how to show oneself to be self-controlled. The NRSV inserts a full-stop after “to be self-controlled” indicating a new clause or thought follows. The NA28, however, has no punctuation32 and the logical reading is that the prepositional phrase περὶ πάντα modifies what preceeds it,33 and the entirety of Titus 2:6–8 are read as a single group. Verses 7–8 reflect that Paul’s instruction to Titus consists of two parts: How Titus is to present himself, and how Titus is to teach.  The SBLGNT inserts a mid-dot (equivalent to a colon).  Marshall and Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 253.

32 33

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

93

e) Instruction 11: Titus 2:9–10 NA28: Δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν, εὐαρέστους εἶναι, μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας, μὴ νοσφιζομένους, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν, ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν. NRSV: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Acquiesce

The NRSV’s “tell” is implied from the context and probably the previous clause (παρακαλέω in Titus 2:6). The command nature of this clause comes from the passive infinitive of ὑποτάσσω (to be subject/submissive to) with the accusative subject of “slaves” and indirect object of “their own masters.” The formulation, while not in the imperative mood, imparts the force of a command. Paul is expressing a truth to Titus that applies to slaves (“Slaves must be …”) with the expectation that the truth will be upheld. Paul indicates that he desires slaves “to show complete and perfect fidelity.” Using another ἵνα clause, Paul explains that this will point those who also witness the ethical action of these Christian slaves toward the sound doctrine of God. 3.2.2 Discourse This major section begins with the conjunction δέ indicating progression along the mainline. The letter shifts from instruction about elders, overseers, and the soundness of their message and moves to ensure that the message Titus teaches is consistent with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). Adherence to sound doctrine is evidenced by how those who confess the sound doctrine comport themselves. Four distinct groups are mentioned in the mainline: Older men (Titus 2:2), Older women (Titus 2:3), Younger men (Titus 2:6), and Slaves (Titus 2:9). Titus is to charge the older women to encourage the younger women (Titus 2:3), and Titus himself is charged to be an example to younger men (Titus 2:7–8). The balance of the section (Titus 2:11–14) is free of commands but again commences with γάρ indicating that it is offline and has the purpose of supporting and explaining mainline content. In this case, Titus 2:11–14 provide further explanation of the last subordinate clause of Titus 2:10b, focused on the teaching of “God our Savior.” The extended statement of Titus 2:11–14 is a summary of the doctrine exhibited when living according to the guidelines laid out in Titus 2:1–10.

94

Rick Brannan

3.3 Ethical Instruction Group 3: Titus 2:15–3:2 3.3.1 The Instructions 12–14 a) Instruction 12: Titus 2:15a NA28: Ταῦτα λάλει καὶ παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε μετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς NRSV: Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Communication

After a dearth of imperative verbs prior to this in chapter 2, three imperatives are stacked one on top of the other, joined with καί. The things to be declared/ spoken involve the content of Titus 2:11–14, which is the essence of Paul’s gospel, as well as the commands in Titus 2:1–10. Marshall notes the use of λάλει here may indicate an inclusio with the use of the same word in Titus 2:1.34 b) Instruction 13: Titus 2:15b NA28: μηδείς σου περιφρονείτω. NRSV: Let no one look down on you. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Psychological State

This is a short imperative clause directed toward the letter recipient, Titus. It has echoes with 1 Tim 4:12 through use of a similar verb, περιφρονέω (compare καταφρονέω in 1 Tim 4:10).35 The effect is simple and generic, as Titus teaches the things Paul has laid out here, he is not to let anyone “look down” on him. Paul believes his message is superior to that of the opposition, and its messenger should not be denigrated or held in low esteem. c) Instruction 14: Titus 3:1–2 NA28: Ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι, μηδένα βλασφημεῖν, ἀμάχους εἶναι, ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. NRSV: Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Acquiesce

 Marshall and Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 297.  Uncial 024 (Ρ) uses καταφρονέω instead of περιφρονέω in Titus 2:15.

34 35

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

95

This command involves an imperative verb (ὑπομιμνῄσκω) with a series of dependent infinitive clauses that follow. Each of the infinitive clauses details another aspect of the manner in which those whom Titus teaches are to be subject to those in authority. The NRSV translates the final clause (“to show every courtesy to everyone”) as if it is also an infinitive, but it is a participial clause that modifies the initial imperative verb. The reminding is to be done with “every courtesy,” the instruction is not about reminding people to be courteous. 3.3.2 Discourse After the reflection on the manifestation of God’s grace that brings salvation, asyndeton with a clause containing three present imperatives (Titus 2:15a) directed at Titus indicates a return to the mainline. Paul moves from meditation and explanation back to instruction and, in this case, two imperative verbs indicating correction (παρακαλέω “exhort” and ἐλέγχω “reprove”). This is followed by another mainline development indicated by an asyndetic clause with an imperative verb, a command to Titus to not let anyone “look down” on him. Paul wants Titus in an authoritative position in order to direct the people of Crete to action that reflects the glory of God. This is followed by another asyndetic clause with an imperative verb (ὑπομιμνῄσκω, Titus 3:1), indicating another development along the mainline. A series of infinitive clauses relying on the imperative verb from 3:1 continues in 3:1b–2, indicating what Titus is to “remind” those reading and hearing the letter. These are again instructions in how to interact with others in order to properly represent “God our Savior.” The balance of the section (Titus 3:3–7) has no commands but consists of yet another γάρ clause (Titus 3:3) explaining the reason for the reminders of Titus 3:1b–2. The explanation is further bolstered by a possibly preformed statement/ hymn (Titus 3:4–7).36 The connection uses δέ indicating further development of the explanation. As Marshall notes, “After this surprisingly short paraenetic section [Titus 2:15–3:2] comes a further theological grounding that provides the basis for it.”37

 Marshall and Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 306.  Marshall and Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 305.

36 37

96

Rick Brannan

3.4 Ethical Instruction Group 4: Titus 3:8b–11 3.4.1 The Instructions 15–17 a) Instruction 15: Titus 3:8b NA28: καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ· NRSV: I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Force

This command is issued directly after one of five “Faithful Saying” statements (Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος) found in the Pastoral Epistles.38 The NA28 includes the phrase at the start of a new paragraph (the start of verse 8); the NRSV however includes the translation of the phrase at the end of the previous paragraph. The previous verses (4–7) are doctrinal, and the “Faithful Saying” statement is usually understood as cataphoric, coming after the content that it is meant to support.39 The command, here a declarative statement with an indicative verb modified by an infinitive clause, also refers to the previous content. The combination of an indicative verb in the first person which expresses desire or will (βούλομαι) and an infinitive verb with a class of assert or force has the effect of a command. Paul wants Titus to insist on the doctrine represented by vv. 4–‍7. A ἵνα clause follows indicating further support for the instruction. Through Titus’s insistent teaching on the mercy received through no purposeful act of righteousness, Paul expects that believers will “devote themselves to good works.” In other words, carefully and insistently taught doctrine will result in ethical action. b) Instruction 16: Titus 3:9 NA28: μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· NRSV: But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Declarative Verb Class: Force

This command is a prohibition. The NRSV’s “avoid” (περιΐστημι) is in the imperative. As Koine Greek is commonly understood as having a Verb-Subject38  The phrase occurs five times in the Pastoral Epistles: (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 3:8). See George W. Knight III, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters, Baker Biblical Monograph (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979). Also see Marshall and Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 326–30. 39  Knight, The Faithful Sayings, 80–111.

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

97

Object (VSO) word order,40 this clause with the verb at the end results in emphasizing the action indicated by the verb. Robertson mentions this sort of emphasis: “This emphasis may be at the end as well as at the beginning of the sentence, or even in the middle in case of antithesis. The emphasis consists in removing a word from its usual position to an unusual one.”41 This type of emphasis is easily seen in an English translation that directly follows the Greek word order: “But stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, avoid [them]!” That this prohibition comes after Paul specifies what is good and proper to pursue is not an accident. The use of δέ as connective provides the opportunity to contrast to the previous statement about proper pursuits and structures the two clauses like: “pursue these things, but these other things are not worth your attention, avoid them.” c) Instruction 17: Titus 3:10–11 NA28: αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος. NRSV: After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions, since you know that such a person is perverted and sinful, being selfcondemned. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Force

The command verb is a middle/passive imperative form of παραιτέομαι, “have nothing to do with.” The instruction from Paul is to remove oneself from the situation with one who ignores up to two admonitions regarding improper action. The reason is given in the dependent ὅτι clause: their lack of response confirms their self-condemned state. 3.4.2 Discourse “This saying is sure” begins the section, but it is in reference to the saying in Titus 3:3–7. This command group commences directly after with Paul’s exhortation to Titus to “insist on” (διαβεβαιόομαι) the things mentioned in 3:3–7. The ἵνα clause directly following the command gives Paul’s reason for insisting: those who believe in God will focus on doing “good works.” After this comes Titus 3:9, which builds further on the argument through contrast. Not only are those who believe in God to do good works, they are to avoid (περιΐστημι) all sorts of controversies that only distract. The overall structure of vv. 8–9 is to “do these  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 182.  Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2006), 417. 40 41

98

Rick Brannan

things” but (δέ) “avoid these other things” going so far as to classify these other things as “unprofitable and worthless.” The use of “unprofitable” (ἀνωφελής) is notable as it directly contrasts “profitable” (ὠφέλιμος) in 3:8. A similar lexical contrast is evident between “worthless” (v. 9, μάταιος) and “excellent” (v. 8, καλός). Verse 10 continues along the mainline of the discourse. After defining what to insist upon and what to avoid, a guideline for correction is given. Paul instructs Timothy to give up to two admonitions to those who persist in practices that are to be avoided, after this they are to be rejected (παραιτέομαι) as they have made their sinfulness plainly evident. 3.5 Ethical Instruction Group 5: Titus 3:12–14 3.5.1 The Instructions 18–20 a) Instruction 18: Titus 3:12 NA28: Ὅταν πέμψω Ἀρτεμᾶν πρὸς σὲ ἢ Τύχικον, σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με εἰς Νικόπολιν, NRSV: When I send Artemas to you, or Tychicus, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Desire

This command consists of a temporal clause that establishes a condition followed by the instruction. When Artemas or Tychicus arrive in Crete, Titus is then to leave and meet Paul in Nicopolis. The imperative verb in the instruction is an aorist form of σπουδάζω (“to make haste/hurry”), interesting because the action itself (coming to Paul) is an aorist infinitive form of ἔρχομαι. The command isn’t in the action itself, it is in how Paul wants Titus is to carry out the action. He does not just want Titus to come, he wants him to hurry. b) Instruction 19: Titus 3:13 NA28: Ζηνᾶν τὸν νομικὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν σπουδαίως πρόπεμψον, ἵνα μηδὲν αὐτοῖς λείπῃ. NRSV: Make every effort to send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, and see that they lack nothing. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Sending and Carrying

The text that the NRSV translates “Make every effort to send” is an imperative form of the verb προπέμπω (“to send on one’s way”) modified by the adverb σπουδαίως (“diligently/earnestly”). Paul instructs Titus to ensure that Zenas and Apollos are sent along. One gets the idea that perhaps they didn’t want to leave, or they didn’t want to go wherever it was that they were supposed to go so Titus

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

99

was to be insistent with them to ensure their leaving. Titus was also to ensure they had whatever they needed for their trip. c) Instruction 20: Titus 3:14 NA28: μανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας χρείας, ἵνα μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι. NRSV: And let people learn to devote themselves to good works in order to meet urgent needs, so that they may not be unproductive. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Seem

This is less of a generic command (“let people learn”) and more of a specific instruction from Paul to those who affiliate with Paul and Titus (οἱ ἡμέτεροι, perhaps “our people”),42 exhorting them to partake in good works. The reason, interestingly, is phrased in the negative, that they “might not be unproductive.” The NRSV uses “unproductive” to translate ἄκαρπος, which might otherwise be translated “unfruitful.” This instruction to those with Titus, to do good things to bear good fruit, is very similar to the explanation of Jesus’ parable of the sower in the synoptic gospels (Matt 13:22–23 || Mark 4:18–20 || Luke 8:14–‍15). 3.5.2 Discourse The commands in this group are strung together on the mainline. The first two commands (Titus 3:12a, 3:13a) involve instructions to Titus regarding the coming and going of people affiliated with Paul, including Titus himself. This leads into the third command, introduced with δέ, indicating some sort of development or response to the previous. After imploring that Zenas and Apollos be sent along with proper provisions (“see that they lack nothing” Titus 3:13b), Paul shifts back one last time to remind Titus that those he ministers to in Crete (“let people learn,” 3rd pl. imperative of μανθάνω) need to devote themselves (infinitive of προΐστημι) to good works. This reiterates the commands of the entire letter and their largely common emphasis on ethical action. The necessity of the ethical action is supported through a subordinate ἵνα clause, “so that they may not be unproductive.” This as well reiterates the general ethical nature of the commands, which are supported throughout the letter as necessary for proper witness and proclamation of Paul’s gospel.

42 Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 439.

100

Rick Brannan

3.6 Ethical Instruction Group 6: Titus 3:15b 3.6.1 Instruction 21: Titus 3:15b NA28: ἄσπασαι τοὺς φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει. NRSV: Greet those who love us in the faith. Speech Act: Obligative: Directive Sentence Type: Imperative Verb Class: Caring and Empathizing

This is a simple greeting formula43 using the same form of ἀσπάζομαι (“to greet”) as is found in 2 Tim 4:19. This formulaic construction44 conveys greetings from a letter author to a local party associated with the recipient of the letter. 3.6.2 Discourse The letter ends as many Pauline letters do, with a greeting section (cf. Rom 16:3– 16) and a simple benediction. Here the greetings are general and compact; Paul uses a middle form of ἀσπάζομαι to relay greetings from those with him to Titus and those in Crete. This is followed by the imperative form of the same verb, a request from Paul to Titus to convey greetings from Paul to “those who love us in the faith.” The function of this command group is to bring the letter to a close and has little relation to the ethical instruction in the body of the letter. 3.7 Summary This analysis identifies and discusses 21 instances of ethical instruction (commands) spread throughout the letter to Titus in six different groups. Of these 21 commands, twelve use imperative verbs to express ethical instruction. The remaining nine use other methods to indicate their nature as instruction: The subjunctive (Instruction 1) Implicit reference or relation to previous subjunctive (Instruction 2) An earlier-used imperative implied along with an infinitive (Instructions 8, 9, relying on the imperative of Instruction 7, and Instruction 11 relying on the imperative of Instruction 10) The indicative of a verb of necessity (δεῖ) with an infinitive (Instructions 3, 4, 5) The indicative of a verb of volition (βούλομαι) with an infinitive (Instruction 15)

Additionally, ten of the 21 instances of ethical instruction are directly followed by an explanation of why the instruction is necessary to pursue. These include:

43  Hans-Josef Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 24–25. 44  Terence Y. Mullins, “Greeting as a New Testament Form,” JBL 87 (1968): 418–26.

The Language of Ethical Instruction in the Letter to Titus

101

Group 1: Instructions 3, 6 Group 2: Instructions 9, 10, 11 Group 3: No instructions have explanations Group 4: Instructions 15, 16, 17 Group 5: Instructions 18, 20 Group 6: No instructions have explanations

There are no common grammatical criteria to indicate that an instruction is likely to have an explanation – six occur in instructions with imperative verbs, and four do not. The primary method of indicating an explanation involves use of ἵνα (Instructions 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20); other methods include the use of γάρ (Instructions 16, 19) and the use of a verb of knowing plus ὅτι (Instruction 17). Letter Portions Without Ethical Instruction There are four significant portions of the letter that do not directly include commands: Titus 1:1–4: Epistolary prologue Titus 1:15–16: Further justification for the instruction of Group 1 Titus 2:11–14: Further explanation (cf. use of γάρ) and justification for the instruction of Group 2 Titus 3:3–7: Further explanation (cf. use of γάρ) and justification for the instruction of Group 3

Outside of the prologue, which functions to declare sender and recipient as well as solidify the sender’s authority over the recipient, the entire letter is either directly or indirectly involved in providing ethical instruction to Titus or preparing Titus with the ethical instruction he is to promote among the churches on Crete.

4. Conclusion As mentioned above, the greater portion of the letter to Titus involves the giving of ethical instruction or commands. This letter frames itself as a personal letter from Paul to Titus and dispenses instructions to Titus regarding his tasks at the churches on Crete. Outside of the prologue, the structure and language of the entire letter is centered around the author Paul instructing the recipient Titus about ethical qualities to be modeled by leaders and other groups of people within the churches of Crete. Even the sections of the letter that do not directly contain ethical instruction are used to further explain the instruction given and support Paul’s overall purpose of preparing Titus to act with authority among the churches in Crete so that both the doctrine (teaching) and actions of these communities of believers will better reflect the truth of the gospel preached by Paul.

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus A Reassessment of the Pseudonymity Hypothesis Jermo van Nes 1. Introduction The authorship of the so-called Pastoral Epistles (PE), including the letter to Titus, has been subject to serious debate for more than two centuries.1 Since Edward Evanson at the end of the eighteenth century, the first among modern exegetes to question the authenticity of Titus, a majority of New Testament scholars has come to the conclusion that the PE were composed by a pseudonymous author.2 Some have argued that a post-70 date is evidenced in particular by the way ethics are expressed in the letters. According to Raymond Collins, “[t]hey are post-Pauline; their language is the common language of late firstand early second-century Hellenistic authors,”3 inter alia because “[c]learly the formulation of the Pastor’s moral exhortation, his paraenesis, is Hellenistic in its formulation.”4 Similarly, Robin Lovin notes that “the characteristics of the good Christian in the Pastoral Epistles do not differ very much from other bits of moral

1  For historical overviews, see Mark Harding, What Are They Saying About the Pastoral Epistles? (New York: Paulist, 2001), 9–27; Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, AB 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 20–54; Jermo van Nes, Pauline Language and the Pastoral Epistles: A Study of Linguistic Variation in the Corpus Paulinum, Linguistic Biblical Studies 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 7–36. 2 Edward Evanson, The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists and the Evidence of Their Respective Authenticity Examined (Ipswich: Jermyn, 1792), 267–69. Cf. Jermo van Nes, “On the Origin of the Pastorals’ Authenticity Criticism: A ‘New’ Perspective,” NTS 62 (2016): 315–20. 3  Raymond F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus. A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 9. 4  Ibid., 54. Collins’s remarks echo the conclusion of Percy N. Harrison (The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles [London: Oxford University Press, 1921], 5, 8), who once famously argued that the PE “in anything like their present form, cannot be the direct work of the Apostle” but originated from “a devout, sincere, and earnest Paulinist, who lived at Rome or Ephesus and wrote during the later years of Trajan or (? and) the earlier years of Hadrian’s reign.” For a critique of Harrison’s work, see Jermo van Nes, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: An Important Hypothesis Reconsidered,” in Paul and Pseudepigraphy, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster, Pauline Studies 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 153–69.

104

Jermo van Nes

advice that were in common circulation early in the second century.”5 Other scholars have debated the coherence of the PE’s ethical argument.6 Dating the letters “at the beginning of the second century,”7 Lewis Donelson concludes that “[t]he author’s method of argumentation … is logically grounded and coherent,” having “many analogues with the theory and practice of his contemporary ethicists.”8 The approach adopted by modern scholars such as Collins, Lovin, and Donelson has been to study the PE as a letter corpus instead of individual letters. In recent decades, however, this has been seriously called into question.9 It would be inaccurate to claim that this is a new approach,10 but a growing group of exegetes has drawn attention to the fact that the letters to Timothy and Titus each have their own qualities and that their literary dependence – despite their many verbal and thematic parallels – should not be taken for granted.11 Because the moral language and construction of ethical argument in Titus have mainly been studied in relation to Paul under the presumption that the PE were originally composed as a pseudonymous letter collection, this study aims to reassess the pseudonymity hypothesis by analyzing (1) the moral vocabulary and (2) the construction of ethical argument exclusively in Titus in relation to each of Paul’s undisputed letters  – Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.12  Robin W. Lovin, Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 74.  See, for example, the studies by James D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, SNTSMS 93 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) and Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup 280 (London: T&T Clark, 2004).  7  Lewis R. Donelson, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 119.  8  Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, HUT 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 113.  9  Cf. Jens Herzer, “Abschied vom Konsens? Die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe als Herausforderung an die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,” TLZ 129 (2004): 1267–82; Michel Gourgues, “La recherche sur les Pastorales à un tournant?,” ScEs 61 (2009): 73–86; I. Howard Marshall, “The Pastoral Epistles in Recent Study,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2012), 268–324; Charles J. Bumgardner, “Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus: A Literature Review (2009–2015),” Southeastern Theological Review 7 (2016): 77–116; Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, “Die Pastoralbriefe,” ThR 81 (2016): 353–403. 10  See, for example, the perceptive and individual study of the PE by Hans H. Mayer, Über die Pastoralbriefe, FRLANT 3/20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 20–26. 11  See, for example, Jermo van Nes, “The Pastoral Epistles: Common Themes, Individual Compositions? An Introduction to the Quest for the Origins of the Letters to Timothy and Titus,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 9.1–2 (2019): 8–14. 12 The undisputed status of these letters is almost universally recognized among New Testament scholars. Cf. Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 9th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 64, 77, 96, 116, 135, 159, 174; Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 6th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 336; François Vouga, “Le corpus Paulinien,” in Introduction au  5  6

105

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus

2. Moral Language in Paul and Titus A comparative analysis of moral vocabulary in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus demands a transparent methodology, not only statistically but also terminologically. It is difficult, however, to find a proper definition of “moral language” in contemporary New Testament scholarship. Noticing this lacuna, Ruben Zimmermann some time ago reflected on the relationship between ethics and language, and found that ethics is based on language as it is constituted by a linguistic dimension that can be described in terms of intra-, inter-, and extra-textual levels.13 The intra-textual level includes syntactical forms, stylistic features, and the structural logic of ethical statements.14 Although not mentioned by Zimmermann, this category also includes moral vocabulary. Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida in this regard helpfully identified 93 semantic domains in the Greek New Testament, one of which is called “moral and ethical qualities and related behavior”.15 This domain is divided into 38 subdomains, having a total of 318 lexical entries. Of these, 196 occur at least once in Romans (Rm), 1 Corinthians (1C), 2 Corinthians (2C), Galatians (Gl), Philippians (Ph), 1 Thessalonians (1Th), Philemon (Phm), and/or Titus (Tit), as shown in table 1 below: Table 1: Lexical entries for “moral and ethical qualities and related behavior” in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus Domain Goodness

Lexical entry

Rm

1C

2C

Gl

Ph

1 ἀγαθός; ἀγαθωσύνη

×

×

×

×

×

2 ἄκακος

×

3 ἀρετή

Just, righteous

×

×

Tit ×

×

4 καλός; καλῶς

×

×

5 χρηστός

×

×

6 χρηστότης

×

7 δίκαιος

×

8 δικαιοσύνη

×

9 δικαίωμα

×

10 ἔνδικος; δικαίως

1Th Phm

×

× ×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

× ×

×

×

×

×

×

× ×

×

Nouveau Testament. Son histoire, son écriture, sa théologie, ed. Daniel Marguerat, 4th ed., MdB 41 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2008), 164. 13 Ruben Zimmermann, “Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21–33 as Test-Case,” in Moral Language in the New Testament, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. Van der Watt in cooperation with Susanne Luther, WUNT 2/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 19–50. 14  Ibid., 28. 15  Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:742–77.

106 Domain

Jermo van Nes Lexical entry

Rm

1C

11 δικαιόω

×

×

12 ἄδικος

×

×

13 ἀδικία

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

14 ἀδικέω Holy, pure

15 ἅγιος; ὅσιος; ὁσίως

×

16 ἁγιωσύνη; ἁγιότης; ὁσιότης

×

17 ἁγιάζω

×

2C

×

Honesty, sincerity

×

×

×

× ×

× ×

×

×

×

24 τελειόω; τελείωσις

×

25 ἁγνῶς

× ×

×

×

×

27 ἀψευδής

×

28 εἰλικρινής

×

29 εἰλικρίνεια

×

×

30 ἀφθορία 31 ἁπλότης Modesty, propriety

× ×

×

32 σεμνότης

×

33 σεμνός 34 εὐσχημόνως

Humility

× ×

× ×

×

×

37 ταπεινοφροσύνη

×

38 ταπεινόω Gentleness

×

39 πραΰτης, πραϋπαθία

×

40 ἐπιείκεια

×

× ×

×

×

41 ἐπιεικής Kindness, harshness

× ×

35 ταπείνωσις 36 ταπεινός

×

× ×

26 ἀληθής

× ×

× ×

23 τέλειος

Tit

× ×

22 ἄμωμος Perfect(ion)

1Th Phm

×

×

19 ἁγνεία; ἁγνότης 21 ἀκέραιος

Ph

×

18 ἁγνός 20 ἁγνίζω; ἀπολούω

Gl

×

42 ταπεινός

×

43 χαριτόω; χάρις

×

×

×

×

44 χρηστεύομαι; χρηστότης

×

×

×

×

45 χρηστός

×

×

46 εὐλογέω; ἐνευλογέω

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

× ×

107

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus Domain

Lexical entry 47 εὐλογία

Rm

1C

2C

Gl

×

×

×

×

Ph

1Th Phm

48 φιλανθρωπία 49 ἀποτομία

× ×

50 ἀποτόμως Mercy, merciless

(Lack of ) self-control

51 ἐλεάω; ἐλεέω; ἔλεος

× ×

52 ἐλεεινός

×

×

× ×

×

×

×

53 οἰκτίρω; οἰκτιρμός

×

54 ἀνέλεος; ἀνελεήμων

×

55 ἐγκρατεύομαι; ἐγκράτεια

× ×

× ×

56 ἐγκρατής

×

57 νήφω

×

58 νηφάλιος

(In)sensible behavior

×

59 ὑπωπιάζω

×

60 ἀκρασία

×

61 σώφρων; σωφρόνως

×

62 μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται

×

63 ἀσωτία

×

64 ἐλαφρία

×

Mature behavior

65 τέλειος

×

Peaceful behavior

66 εἰρηνεύω

×

×

×

Bad, evil, harmful, damaging

68 κακία

×

×

69 κακός; κακῶς

×

×

70 πονηρία

×

×

71 πονηρός

×

×

72 ἀδόκιμος

×

×

73 κακοήθεια

×

74 φαῦλος

×

75 ἀσθενής

×

×

×

×

×

76 ἁμαρτία

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

67 ἡσυχάζω; ἡσυχία

× × ×

× ×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

77 θηρίον

×

78 κύων

×

79 ἔχιδνα; ὄφις

×

×

×

×

80 διάβολος 81 σκότος; σκοτία

Tit

× ×

×

108 Domain Treat badly

Jermo van Nes Lexical entry 82 ἀτιμάζω

Rm

1C

2C

Gl

×

×

×

Ph

×

84 ὑβρίζω

×

85 ὕβρις

× ×

87 ἑσσόομαι

×

Act harshly

88 πλήκτης

Act lawlessly

89 ἀνομία

×

90 ἄνομος

×

91 πλεονεκτέω; πλεονεξία

×

Exploit

× ×

Mislead, deceive

×

×

×

×

×

×

94 ἀσχημονέω; ἀσχημοσύνη; αἰσχύνη; αἰσχρότης

×

×

×

95 αἰσχρός

×

96 ἀφόβως

×

97 ἀπάγω

×

98 δολιόω; δόλος

×

101 φθόνος

× ×

×

×

×

105 παραζηλόω

× ×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

107 ἐρεθίζω

×

×

108 ἐνέχω

× ×

×

110 ὀργίλος

×

111 παροργίζω

×

112 θυμός

×

×

113 ἀγανάκτησις

×

×

114 προκαλέομαι 115 παροξύνομαι

×

×

106 ἐριθεία

109 ὀργή

×

×

104 ζηλόω

Anger, be indignant with

× ×

102 φθονέω 103 ζῆλος

×

×

100 βασκαίνω

Resentful

×

93 λαμβάνω

99 δόλιος Envy, jealousy

×

×

92 κατεσθίω Act shamefully

Tit

×

83 ἀδικέω

86 ὑβριστής

1Th Phm

× ×

109

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus Domain

Lexical entry

Despise, scorn Hate(ful)

Rm

1C

116 καταφρονέω

×

×

117 κατακαυχάομαι

×

118 ἐξουθενέω

×

119 μισέω

×

120 κακία

×

121 πικρία

×

122 ἀποστυγέω

×

×

2C

Gl

×

×

Ph

1Th Phm

× ×

×

×

123 στυγητός 124 θεοστυγής Arrogance, 125 αὐθάδης haughtiness, 126 ὕψωμα pride 127 ὑψηλός

× × × ×

×

×

128 ὑψηλοφρονέω; ὑψηλὰ φρονέω

×

129 ὑπερφρονέω

×

130 ὑπεραίρομαι 131 ὑπερήφανος

× ×

132 φυσίωσις

×

133 φυσιόομαι

×

134 φυσιόω 135 ἀλαζών

× ×

136 κενοδοξία

×

137 κενόδοξος Stubbornness Hypocrisy, pretense

×

138 σκληρότης

×

139 σκληρύνομαι

×

140 σκληρύνω

×

141 ὑποκρίνομαι; ὑπόκρισις

×

142 συνυποκρίνομαι

×

143 πρόφασις

×

144 ἀρνέομαι ×

146 ζύμη 147 προσωπολημπτέω; προσωπολημψία; λαμβάνω πρόσωπον

× ×

145 εὐπροσωπέω Prejudice

Tit

× ×

×

110 Domain Laziness, idleness

Jermo van Nes Lexical entry

Licentiousness, perversion

1C

2C

Gl

Ph

148 ἄτακτος; ἀτάκτως

1Th Phm

× ×

×

151 μιαίνω

×

152 ἀκαθαρσία

×

153 πλάνη

×

154 ἀχρειόομαι

×

155 ἀποστρέφω; διαστρέφω

×

×

×

× × ×

×

156 ἐκστρέφομαι

×

157 φθείρω; διαφθείρω; καταφθείρω 158 φθορά

× ×

×

×

×

159 σκολιός

×

160 πανοῦργος Sexual misbehavior

×

161 πανουργία

×

×

162 πορνεύω; ἐκπορνεύω; πορνεία

×

×

×

×

×

163 ἀσέλγεια

×

164 κοίτη

×

165 πόρνος

× ×

168 μοιχός 169 μοιχαλίς

× ×

170 ἀρσενοκοίτης

×

171 μαλακός

×

172 κύων Drunkenness

173 μεθύω; μέθη

× ×

×

×

174 μεθύσκομαι 175 κῶμος; πότος

180 προαμαρτάνω

× ×

×

176 μέθυσος; οἰνοπότης; πάροινος 177 ἁμαρτάνω; ἁμαρτία Sin, wrongdoing, 178 ἁμάρτημα guilt 179 πταίω

×

×

166 πόρνη 167 μοιχεύω; μοιχάομαι; μοιχεία

Tit

×

149 ἀργός 150 ὀκνηρός

Impurity

Rm

× ×

×

×

×

×

× ×

× ×

×

×

×

111

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus Domain

Lexical entry

Rm

181 ἁμαρτωλός

1C

2C

×

Gl

Ph

1Th Phm

Tit

×

182 ὑπερβαίνω

×

183 παράπτωμα

×

184 ὀφείλω

×

185 ὀφείλημα

×

Sin, 186 ὀφειλέτης wrongdoing, 187 σκανδαλίζω guilt (continued) 188 σκανδαλίζομαι 189 σκάνδαλον

× ×

×

×

×

× ×

× ×

190 πρόσκομμα

×

×

×

×

191 πειράζω; ἐκπειράζω; πειρασμός

×

192 ἔνοχος

×

193 πονηρός

×

× ×

×

×

×

×

×

194 αἴτιον; αἰτία

×

195 ἄμεμπτος; ἀμέμπτως

×

196 ἀπρόσκοπος

× Total

99

74

×

× 65

48

39

33

6

48

Source: Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:742–77; BibleWorks 10.

Prima facie, 48 moral vocabulary types seems quite a high number for a short letter such as Titus. Yet the data generated in table 1 need a proper statistical analysis in order to determine their significance. One method for doing so is to apply (simple) linear regression analysis. While largely neglected in New Testament scholarship, this approach is probably “the most widely used statistical technique” for “modeling the relationship between variables” in science.16 Basically, (simple) linear regression analysis sets itself the task of finding a model or equation in order to make predications of variables based on the relationship between a dependent and an independent factor (or set of factors).17 In this case, the total number of vocabulary tokens x (= total number of words) is the independent factor, and the total number of moral vocabulary types y (= total number of lexical entries for Louw-Nida’s semantic domain “moral and ethical 16  Douglas C. Montgomery, Elizabeth A. Peck, and G. Geoffrey Vining, Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, 5th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012), 1. 17  For a more detailed explanation of (simple) linear regression analysis, see Van Nes, Pauline Language, 120–28; idem, “Hapax Legomena in Disputed Pauline Letters: A Reassessment,” ZNW 109.1 (2018), 122–29.

112

Jermo van Nes

qualities and related behavior”) is the dependent factor. The linear equation is expressed by the following formula:18 ŷ = mx + b This equation functions as a sort of “Pauline average” as it generates the expected number of moral vocabulary types (ŷ). This number, in turn, serves as the basis to calculate a 95 % prediction interval, showing the minimal and maximum values for each letter. The interval is calculated by means of the following formula:19 1 (x – x–)2 ŷ ± tα/2SE  1 + – n + SSxx This prediction interval determines, in the end, whether or not Titus’s number of moral vocabulary types outlies the “Pauline average” as determined by the observed numbers in each of Paul’s undisputed letters. Table 2 below lists all data necessary for the linear regression analysis: Table 2: Linear regression data for moral vocabulary types in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus Vocabulary tokens (x)

Moral vocabulary types (y)

Expected moral Prediction interval vocabulary Min. Max. types (ŷ)

Rm

7111

99

91

58

123

1C

6830

74

88

56

120

2C

4477

65

63

34

92

Gl

2230

48

39

10

69

Ph

1629

39

33

3

63

1Th

1481

33

31

1

61

Phm

335

6

19

-12

51

Tit

659

48

t 2,57 α/2 0,025 SE 10,53 n 7 x– 3441,86 SS xx 44266212,86

 ŷ = estimated y-value; m = slope; x = observed x-value; b = intercept.  ŷ = estimated y-value; tα/2 = T-statistic (from student’s T-distribution); SE = standard error; n = number (of observed values); x = observed x-value; ẋ = average of all x-values; SS xx = sum of all squared deviations (x-values). 18 19

113

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus

The data generated in table 2 can be plotted into a so-called scatter diagram. This is shown in figure 1 below: 140 120 Undisputed Pulines

Moral vocabulary types (y)

100

Rm

Titus

80 2C 60

1C

GI

40

Ph 1Th

20 Phm 0 -20

0

1000

2000

3000 4000 5000 Vocabulary tokens (x)

6000

7000

8000

Figure 1: Moral vocabulary types in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus Figure 1 demonstrates that Titus has a considerably high number of moral vocabulary types in comparison to Paul’s undisputed letters. Statistically, however, the result is insignificant, as it does not outlie the maximal prediction interval. There is no need, therefore, to postulate a pseudonymous author for Titus on the basis of its moral vocabulary. Also, the lexical evidence seems to allow for a first-century date. Listing all 48 moral vocabulary types as found in Titus (cf. table 1), table 3 below shows that nearly all of them are used in at least one of Paul’s undisputed letters and/or extra-biblical sources dating from the first century AD:

114

Jermo van Nes

Table 3: Titus’s moral vocabulary types as found in Paul’s undisputed letters and/ or extra-biblical sources dating from 0–100 AD Lexical entry

Undisputed Paulines (cf. table 1)

1

ἀγαθός; ἀγαθωσύνη

×

2

ἅγιος; ὅσιος; ὁσίως

×

3

ἁγνός

×

4

ἀδόκιμος

×

5

αἰσχρός

×

6

αἴτιον; αἰτία

×

7

ἀληθής

×

8

ἁμαρτάνω; ἁμαρτία

×

9

Extra-biblical sources (c. 0–100 AD)

ἀνομία

×

10

ἀποστρέφω; διαστρέφω

×

11

ἀποτόμως

×

12

ἀργός

×

13

ἀρνέομαι

×

14

ἀσωτία

×

15

αὐθάδης

-

16

ἀφθορία

-

17

ἀψευδής

×

18

διάβολος

19

δίκαιος

× ×

20

δικαιοσύνη

×

21

δικαιόω

×

22

ἐγκρατής

23

ἐκστρέφομαι

24

ἐλεάω; ἐλεέω; ἔλεος

× ×

25

ἔνδικος; δικαίως

×

26

ἐπιεικής

×

27

θηρίον

×

28

κακία (bad, evil, harmful)

×

29

κακία (hateful)

×

30

κακός; κακῶς

×

31

καλός; καλῶς

×

32

μέθυσος; οἰνοπότης; πάροινος

×

33

μιαίνω

34

μισέω

× ×

115

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus Lexical entry

Undisputed Paulines (cf. table 1)

Extra-biblical sources (c. 0–100 AD)

35

νηφάλιος

×

36

ὀργίλος

×

37

πλήκτης

38

πραΰτης, πραϋπαθία

×

39

σεμνός

×

40

σεμνότης

41

στυγητός

-

42

σώφρων; σωφρόνως

×

×

×

43

φαῦλος

×

44

φθόνος

×

45

φιλανθρωπία

46

χαριτόω; χάρις

×

47

χρηστεύομαι; χρηστότης

×

48

χρηστότης

×

×

Source: Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:742–77; BibleWorks 10; Thesaurus Linguae Graecae®.

Only four of the 48 moral vocabulary types found in Titus do not recur in firstcentury writings. Three of them, however, are found in sources antedating the second century AD: αὐθάδης (e. g. Aeschylus, Prom. 907; Herodotus, 6.92.2; Hippocrates, Aer. 24; Xenophon, Cyn. 6.25), ἐκστρέφομαι (Aristotle, Phys. 813a14–15; LXX Deut 32:20), and στυγητός (Aeschylus, Prom. 592). The only word not found in any first-century document is ἀφθορία, but this recurs as late as the fourth century (e. g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Carm. 1.2.3.19; Themistius, in Phys. 82.22).20 Overall, the evidence presented in table 3 does not prove the moral vocabulary of Titus to be typical for the first-century. Yet it does prove that it is not atypical for this period either. Given the (statistical) fact that Titus’s moral language fits the Pauline profile, there is no need to postulate a second-century date on this basis.

20 Cf. Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, With a Revised Supplement, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 275, 289, 520, 1657; Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder (Boston: Brill, 2015), 336, 355, 646, 1976.

116

Jermo van Nes

3. Ethical Argument in Paul and Titus Various forms of ethical argument are found in ancient literature, including the Pauline letter corpus. One of them is the enthymeme, which will serve as example here.21 Drawing on Aristotle’s definition of the enthymeme as a “rhetorical syllogism” (Aristotle, Rhet. 1356b4–6), Lewis Donelson, in his detailed study of the PE, found a total of 19 instances in Titus that take “the form of inference known as cause and effect”22 in relation to three special topics:23 (1) Salvation statements (Titus 1:1–3,13; 2:11–14; 3:4–7,3–11) (2) Character of the religious life (Titus 1:6–8,10–11,16; 2:2–10,5,8; 3:8–‍9,14) (3) Entrusted traditions (Titus 1:5,6,9,12,15; 2:1) David Aune, however, questioned whether Donelson has well grasped Aristotle’s understanding of enthymemes.24 Noting four different functions of the enthymeme by the first-century AD, Aune considers Donelson’s conception of the Aristotelian enthymeme as an abbreviated syllogism to be problematic. According to Aune, “Aristotle suggests that enthymemes should not be used in series …, that they be brief, and that they be expressed in periodic form.”25 They “are used to encapsulate arguments, that is, they function as ‘sound bites’, and it is this function of the enthymeme that led to its categorization as a stylistic element.”26 21 Notable

studies of enthymemes in Pauline literature include Lewis R. Donelson, “The Structure of Ethical Argument in the Pastorals,” BTB 18.3 (1988): 108–13; Jan Botha, “Social Values in the Rhetoric of Pauline Paraenetic Literature,” Neot 28.1 (1994): 109–26; John G. Cook, “The Language and Logic of Romans 1,20,” Bib 75.4 (1994): 494–517; David Hellholm, “Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: The Case of Romans 6,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 119–79; Dieter Mitternacht, Forum für Sprachlose: Eine kommunikationspsychologische und epistolär-rhetorische Untersuchung des Galaterbriefs, ConBNT 30 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999), 299–313; Anders Eriksson, “Enthymemes in Pauline Argumentation: Reading between the Lines in 1 Corinthians,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ed. Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker, Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8 (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), 243–59; Paul A. Holloway, “The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul,” JBL 120.2 (2001): 329–43; Miguel Rodríguez Ruiz, “Recursos retóricos en 1 Co 1–4, con especial atención al status, los topoi y los entimemas,” EstBib 61.2 (2003): 231–75; Chul Woo Lee, “Understanding the Law in Rom. 7:1–6: An Enthymemic Analysis,” Scriptura 88 (2005): 126–38; Samuel Byrskog, “Paulus: Retoriker eller teolog?” STK 87.1 (2011): 33–40; Thomas H. Olbricht and Stanley N. Helton, “Navigating First Thessalonians Employing Aristotle’s Enthymeme,” in Paul and Ancient Rhetoric: Theory and Practice in the Hellenistic Context, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 228–44. 22  Donelson, Pseudepigraphy, 81. 23  Ibid., 69–90. 24  David E. Aune, “The Use and Abuse of the Enthymeme in New Testament Scholarship,” NTS 49.3 (2003): 299–320. 25  Ibid., 306. 26  Ibid., 306.

117

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus

From this perspective, one could seriously question whether Titus 2:2–10 and 3:3–11 should be considered enthymemes. Marc Debanné, in what is the most comprehensive study of enthymemes in Paul’s (undisputed) letters to date, broadly yet carefully defines the enthymeme as “a truth claim supported by a rationale statement” (italics his).27 Debanné in addition to offering thorough discussions of the rhetoric in each letter also prepared appendices in which all Pauline enthymemes are discussed and accounted for.28 Table 4 below lists all of these as well as the enthymemes found by Donelson in Titus (excluding Titus 2:2–10 and 3:3–11): Table 4: Enthymemes in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus Rm

1C

1 1:16b–​17 1:12–​13

2C

Gl

Ph

1Th

Phl

Tit

1:7

1:7–​8

1:7a

1:4–​5

8–​9

1:1–​3

2 1:18–​19a 1:14–​17a 1:18–​19

1:7,9

1:7b

1:6

16

1:13

3 1:19

1:17

1:19–​20

1:10

1:3–​8

1:7–​8

17

2:11–​14

4 1:19b–​​ 20a

1:17–​18

1:20

1:11b–​12 1:12–​14

1:8b–​10

3:4–​7

2:14–​16

2:6a

5 1:20b–​21 1:18–​19

1:15–​18

2:2b–​4

1:6–​8

6 2:1a

1:20b–​21 2:16b–​17 2:7–​8

1:20–​21

2:3–​6

1:10–​11

7 2:1b

1:25–​26

3:1b–​2

2:14b

1:22–​26

2:3–​7

1:16

8 2:3

2:8

3:5b–​6

2:17–​18

1:28b–​29 2:7b–​9

2:5

9 2:9–​11

2:10

3:7–​9

2:18–​19

2:12–​13

2:13–​14

2:8

10 2:12b–​13 2:10b–​11 3:9–​10

2:21

2:20–​21

2:14

3:8–​9

11 2:17–​23

2:14a

3:10–​11

2:21b

2:29–​30

2:18–​20

3:14

12 2:23–​24

2:14b

3:14a

3:2

3:2–​3

3:2–​3

1:5

13 2:25–​26

2:15–​16

3:14b–​16 3:3

3:3

3:3b–​4

1:6

14 2:27–​29

3:2–​3a

3:17–​18

3:4

3:4,7–​9

3:7–​9

1:9

15 3:1–​2

3:3

4:10–​11

3:2,5

3:17–​18

4:1–​2

1:12

16 3:3–​4

3:3b–​4

4:11–​12

3:5

3:17,20–​ 4:3–​6 21

1:15

17 3:5–​6

3:8–​9

4:18

3:6–​7

4:3

4:3–​7

2:1

18 3:9

3:10b–​11 5:6–​8

3:8–​9

4:11

4:7–​8

19 3:20

3:13

5:14b,c–​ 3:10 15

4:12–​13

4:9

20 3:21–​22

3:13b

5:19–​20

21 3:22b–​23 3:17

3:11

4:9b–​10

6:14–​16a 3:12

4:13–​14

27  Marc J. Debanné, Enthymemes in the Letters of Paul, LNTS 303 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 36. 28  Freely accessible at http://markgoodacre.org/LNTS/debanne/.

118

Jermo van Nes Rm

1C

2C

Gl

Ph

1Th

22 3:27–​28

3:18–​19a 6:16b

3:13

4:17–​18

23 3:29–​30

3:21–​23

7:9a

3:18

5:1–​2

24 4:2–​5

4:4b–​5

7:9b–​10

3:19b–​20

5:4–​5

25 4:9–​10

4:6–​7a

7:9b,11

3:21

5:5–​7

26 4:13–​14

4:7b,c

8:1–​2

3:21b–​ 22a

5:8–​10

27 4:13,15

5:1

8:2–​4

3:25–​26

5:9–​11

28 4:15–​16a 5:9–​10

8:10–​12

3:26–​27

5:16–​18

29 4:16b

5:11–​13

8:13–​15

3:28

30 4:16c–​ 17a

6:1–​2a

8:16–​17

3:29

31 5:1

6:2b–​3

8:24–​9:2 4:6–​7a

32 5:6–​8

6:4

9:7

4:8–​9

33 5:8–​9

6:15

9:6,8–​10

4:9b–​10

34 5:9b–​10

6:16

9:11–​14

4:12

35 6:1–​2

6:18

10:3–​4

5:1

36 6:3–​4a

6:18–​19

10:9–​10

5:2–​4

37 6:4b–​5

6:19b–​ 20a

10:14

5:3–​4

38 6:6–​7

7:3–​4

10:17–​18 5:5–​6

39 6:8–​9a,b

7:9

11:3–​4

40 6:9b,c

7:12–​14a 11:5–​6

41 6:9c–​10

7:14

5:11 5:13b–​14

11:19–​20 5:16–​17a

42 6:13–​14a 7:15

12:6a

5:17

43 6:14

7:15–​16

12:9a

6:1

44 6:15–​19

7:18–​19

12:11a

6:2

45 6:21

7:20–​22

12:11b

6:1b,3

46 6:22–​23

7:23

12:11b–​ 12

6:4–​5

47 7:15

7:29b–​31 12:13

6:7b–​8

48 7:14b–​15 8:7

12:14b

6:8–​9

49 7:15–​16

8:9–​10

13:3–​4

6:14–​15

50 7:16

8:11–​12

13:7–​8

6:17

51 7:18

9:1

52 7:18b–​19 9:1b–​2 53 8:1–​2

9:7–​9

54 8:2–​4

9:9–​10

Phl

Tit

119

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus Rm 55 8:4–​5

1C 9:11

56 8:6–​7a

9:12a

57 8:7a,b

9:16a,b

58 8:7b–​8

9:16b,c

59 8:13b–​14 9:16–​17 60 8:14–​16

10:4

61 8:17

10:5

62 8:18–​19

10:11–​12

63 8:19,22–​3 10:17 64 8:24b

10:20–​21

65 8:26

10:22

66 8:27

10:25–​26

67 8:28–​30

10:28–​29

68 8:31b

10:29b–​ 30

69 8:32

11:5

70 8:33

11:7

71 9:6–​7a

11:7b–​9

72 9:7

11:13–​ 15a

73 9:7b–​8

11:15

74 9:14–​16

11:17b–​ 18a

75 9:16–​18

11:18b–​ 19

76 9:19

11:20–​21

77 10:2–​3

11:24–​27

78 10:3–​4

11:28–​29

79 10:10–​11 12:11–​12 80 10:12

12:12–​13

81 10:12b–​ 13

13:8–​10

82 10:16

14:1–​4

83 10:18

14:2

84 11:1

14:13–​14

85 11:2–​5

14:16–​17

86 11:6

14:21–​22

2C

Gl

Ph

1Th

Phl

Tit

120

Jermo van Nes Rm

1C

87 11:12

14:32–​ 33a

88 11:15

14:35

89 11:20b,21 15:9 90 11:28b–​ 29

15:12

91 11:30–​31 15:13,16 92 11:31–​32 15:15 93 11:33b–​ 34

15:17b–​ 18

94 11:35–​36 15:24–​25 95 12:3–​5

15:25–​ 27a

96 12:19

15:29

97 13:1

15:30–​ 32a

98 13:1b–​2

15:32b

99 13:2

15:52b–​ 53

100 13:1a,3a 101 13:3b–​4a 102 13:4b,c 103 13:6–​7 104 13:8 105 13:8b–​9 106 13:10 107 13:11 108 13:12–​14 109 14:3 110 14:4a 111 14:4b 112 14:6b 113 14:6–​7 114 14:7–​8a 115 14:8 116 14:8b–​9 117 14:10,12

16:10–​ 11a

2C

Gl

Ph

1Th

Phl

Tit

121

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus Rm

1C

2C

Gl

Ph

1Th

Phl

Tit

118 14:10b–​ 12 119 14:16–​17 120 14:17,19 121 14:23 122 15:1–​3a 123 15:3 124 15:7–​9a 125 15:27 126 16:17–​18 Source: http://markgoodacre.org/LNTS/debanne/.

Using the same formulas for the linear equation and the prediction interval as explained earlier, table 5 below lists all data necessary for the linear regression analysis (cf. table 4): Table 5: Linear regression data for enthymemes in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus Vocabulary tokens (x)

Moral vocabulary types (y)

Expected moral Prediction interval vocabulary Min. Max. types (ŷ)

Rm

7111

126

111

68

154

1C

6830

100

107

65

149

2C

4477

50

70

31

109

Gl

2230

50

35

-4

73

Ph

1629

19

25

-14

65

1Th

1481

28

23

-17

63

Phm

335

3

5

-37

47

Tit

659

17

t 2,57 α/2 0,025 SE 13,89 n 7 x– 3441,86 SS xx 44266212,86

122

Jermo van Nes

The data of table 5 can again be used for a scatter plot, which is shown in figure 2 below: 200

150

Undisputed Pulines Titus

Rm

Moral vocabulary types (y)

100

1C

2C

GI

50 Ph 1Th 0

-50

Phm

0

1000

2000

3000 4000 5000 Vocabulary tokens (x)

6000

7000

8000

Figure 2: Enthymemes in Paul’s undisputed letters and Titus Figure 2 demonstrates that the number of enthymemes in Titus is not significantly different from that of Paul’s undisputed letters. In fact, the use of enthymemes in Romans, Galatians, and 2 Corinthians is more peculiar than in Titus. Like the use of moral vocabulary types (see figure 1 above), the use of enthymemes in Titus indicates no need to postulate a second-century date on this basis.

4. Conclusion Focusing exclusively on the letter to Titus, this study has shown that its moral language is not significantly different from that of Paul’s undisputed letters. All but one of the moral vocabulary types in Titus are used in first-century writings, which counters the common claim in New Testament scholarship that

Moral Language and Ethical Argument in Titus

123

the (moral) language of the PE is “the common language of late first- and early second-century Hellenistic authors.”29 The same is true for the construction of ethical arguments in Titus in terms of enthymemes. To some scholars this is a sign of pseudonymity as the enthymeme was a common device in ethicists writing during the second-century AD. It was shown, however, that the use of enthymemes was also common practice in the first century as the number of enthymemes in Titus does not appear to be significantly different from that in Paul’s undisputed letters. Overall, the findings of this study should not be taken as evidence that Titus is a genuine letter. They could, for instance, be signs of successful pseudepigraphy. Yet adherents of the pseudonymity hypothesis are advised no longer to assume Titus to be a pseudonymous letter on the basis of its alleged peculiar moral language and use of enthymemes.

 Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 9.

29

The Ethical Agenda of Titus The Time and Space of Ethics Philip H. Towner 1. Introduction 1.1 Scope The broad topic of this article is “the Ethical Agenda of Titus.” It may be questioned whether in so short a writing something as unitary or coherent as “an ethical agenda”  – in the sense of a scheme, theme, or approach at the macro level that organizes ethical details at the micro level – is discernible or ultimately useful. But I think a positive answer can be supplied, because as short as it is, the writing is structured in such a way that the detailed ethical instruction (the shape of “eschatological existence” in the present), even if its source is mainly well-worn tradition, is conceived both logically and theologically as something made possible by a transcendental cosmic event. It is this overarching scheme that determines the ethical agenda, as I hope to demonstrate. And the aim is to observe the way our author navigates time and space in order to assert an eschatological ethics (εὐσέβεια) in terms of promise and fulfillment and epiphany. We will see if Bakhtin’s reflections on time and space in the literary work (the chronotope) provide a useful optic for this exercise. Some preliminary comments will prepare the way forward. First, as most who have worked on this New Testament writing have observed, “ethics” is very much the main concern of its author. The letter presents itself as a set of instructions, sent by the apostle Paul to his coworker, Titus, to assist him in conveying to those under his charge (Christian communities throughout the island of Crete) instructions concerning behavior that is consistent with “the sound teaching” (ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ; Titus 2:1).1 Second, the problematic against which this instruction is given is apparently a situation of opposition 1 For the purposes of this study, the question of the authenticity or pseudonymity of the letter is less pertinent than that of whether the letter is a serious attempt to communicate something about “Christian” ethics, and whether the communication reflects a discernible conceptualization of ethics. My minimal starting point regards the letter to Titus as a serious attempt to communicate a serious message, that the name of Paul is used (whether pseudonymously or not) to lend credence to the notion of an “accepted” or “standard” gospel and associated

126

Philip H. Towner

to the Pauline mission in which some opponents have disrupted Christian communities or households, claimed some sort of authority as teachers, and disseminated a form of teaching in contradiction to that associated with Paul. It is not at all clear what the precise content of this alternative teaching was, beyond its link to disruption and vague association with a certain stereotypical caricature of wild Cretan life (Titus 1:12) and an equally vague Jewish or Jewish-Christian tinge (Titus 1:10, 14–16; 3:9). Third, this “Cretan” problem is to be addressed in two ways: by completion of the establishment of the churches’ leadership throughout the island (Titus 1:5–9), the need of which is linked to the presence of an opposition (Titus 1:10–16; 3:10); and by countering the effects of false teaching (which, beyond reference to “Jewish myths” and “genealogies,” has been described in terms of the unacceptable behavior it produces) by laying down an appropriate pattern of living in alignment with “the sound teaching.” 1.2 Preliminary Observations about Form, Structure, Content, Space, Time The letter to Titus conceptualizes “ethics” at two levels. The micro-level is that of Titus’s actual task among Christian communities on the island of Crete, ethical correction and parenesis. In the case of the opponents, he is to silence and reprove them with the goal of bringing them into alignment with “the sound teaching” (Titus 1:11, 13). And prospective leaders must be equipped for such engagement as well (Titus 1:9). Those who resist discipline are to be avoided (Titus 3:10). With respect to the churches, Titus’s activity is more positively “to teach” and “remind” (Titus 2:1, 15; 3:1) The task and content (defined by “sound teaching”) is then divided by relationships, and given in greater detail as behavioral expectations of leaders, older men, older women, younger women or wives, younger men (Titus himself ), slaves, of the community as a whole as it relates to the civic structures and the public square. For the most part, traditional formats are employed. Instructions regarding the task of appointing leaders compares closely with similar guidelines in 1 Timothy 3. Ethical instruction for the communities is packaged as a modified house or station code (Titus 2:1–3:2). The description of the presence and condemnation of the opponents (Titus 1:10–16) employs some traditional material (the so-called Liars Paradox, Titus 1:12), and some memes of a Pauline and Isaianic nature, but otherwise lacks the appearance of a preformed set piece. This is also the case for the return to general instructions for Titus that follows the “Faithful Saying.” Time and space indicators serve only to locate ethics in the present world of the audience. Almost thematic in the parenetic sections is the use of the present tense (the imperfective aspectual focus on progressive activity without end in teaching. My proposal is that the theological/eschatological literary structure and logic of the discourse can be apprehended.

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

127

sight): the “now” of the Cretan churches, the present experience of Christian existence, is to be characterized by certain behavioral features.2 The space occupied by Titus, his opponents, and those under his care includes geographical space (Crete, the towns of Crete; Titus 1:5), domestic space (Titus 1:11; 2:2–10), and civic space and the public square (Titus 3:1–2). Creating an overarching and unified framework are three literary periods, each composed of a single, long and complex sentence (Titus 1:1–3; 2:11–14; 3:4– 7). These are set off from their surrounding texts not only by complexity and length but also by their rich theological contents, memories/promises of divine interventions, and temporal perspectives. In these theological periods, as we will see in more detail below, time and space merge, so that through them unity is established between the salvific acts of God and the very possibility of the life defined by “the sound teaching” to which the communities are called. The theological superstructure composed of these three periods establishes the possibility of a corresponding ethics that is described in large terms – “the ethical agenda of Titus.” Between the periods one can observe what, for the letter’s audience, the application of the general might look like in specifics, a task that must be left to others. I will move further into those three theological periods, and their depiction of events in and through a creative management of time and space. 1.3 Bakhtin’s Literary Chronotope Recent studies of Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of the literary chronotope, and its diverse applications (in reception theory, cognitive study of literature, narratology, gender and cultural studies), exhibit a considerable range of interpretations of the chronotope  – a device whose potential is still being creatively explored.3 There are possible explanations for this which go back to the development of Bakhtin’s thought. First, he never provided a definitive description of the concept, preferring rather to demonstrate its usefulness in the act of analyzing various narrative texts. And in referring to it along the way, he alternated between “chronotope” and “motif.” Second, in fastening onto time-space as a problematic in the novel, he indicated the influence of Kantian categories of time and 2  Present tense verbal forms in parenetic sections: Titus 1:5–9 (10x); 1:10–16 (12x); 2:1–10 (16x); 2:15 (4x); 3:1–2 (7x); 3:8–11 (10x); present tense in theological periods: 1:1–4 (0x; aorists used of eschatological events); Titus 2:11–14 (2x present adv. ptcs. to indicate results of eschatological events for which the aorist is used); Titus 3:3 (the “formerly” half of the ποτε … ὅτε δέ formula; 1 impf. verb and 4 present adv. ptcs.); Titus 3:4–7 (1x inceptive aorist in v. 7; otherwise all aorists to describe eschatological events). 3 See Liisa Steinby and Tintti Klapuri, eds., Bakhtin and His Others: (Inter)subjectivity, Chronotope, Dialogism (London: Anthem, 2013); Roland Boer, ed., Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, SemeiaSt 63 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2007); Michael Holquist, Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2002).

128

Philip H. Towner

space (through which human beings perceive and construct their world) and Einstein’s theory of relativity (“the inseparability of space and time,” time as the fourth dimension). Time-space it seems is fundamental both to human consciousness and physics, and Bakhtin’s own contribution comes in detecting ways in which this fundamental phenomenon of human consciousness (timespace) becomes manifest in novelistic discourse. But, third, toward the end of his long essay on time and chronotope in the novel, he also suggested that “language … is fundamentally chronotopic” and that “any and every literary image is chronotopic”4. And this grants a license to explore the chronotopic dimensions of all kinds of literary discourse – in our case, specifically what I have described as the theological periods that occur within a New Testament letter5 – but within the parameters of Bakhtin’s developing definition of the chronotope. We will give the name chronotope (literally, “time space”) to the intrinsic connectedness of temporal and spatial relationships that are artistically expressed in literature…. In the literary artistic chronotope, spatial and temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought-out, concrete whole. Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history. The intersection of axes and fusion of indicators characterizes the artistic chronotope.6 [Chronotopes] are the organizing centers for the fundamental narrative events of the novel. The chronotope is the place where the knots of the narrative are tied and untied. It can be said without qualification that to them belongs the meaning that shapes the narrative.7

These definitions provide a functional profile of the device. Roland Boer offered this elaboration: “The chronotope comes into play when an author creates new fictional worlds. Yet those worlds must relate in some way to the actual world in which the author happens to live. The intersection between actual and fictional worlds happens by means of the chronotope”8. And this interrelatedness of “worlds” is precisely what emerges from a close reading of the theological periods in Titus. In them specifically, the author opens up the mundane world of human existence to the supra-mundane and the new possibilities for human 4  Michail M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 251; cf. also Holquist, Dialogism, 106–45. 5  For other examples of the application of Bakhtinian thought to biblical studies, see Olivia L. Rahmsdorf, Zeit und Ethik im Johannesevangelium. Theoretische, methodische und exegetische Annäherungen an die Gunst der Stunde (WUNT 2.488; Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/ Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics, Band X; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 149–50 et al.; Boer, Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies; Walter L. Reed, Dialogues of the Word: The Bible as Literature according to Bakhtin (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 6  Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, 84. 7  Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, 250. 8  Boer, Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies, 2.

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

129

life (= a new manner of ethical behavior) introduced by the decisive apocalyptic, salvation-historical event. While all three periods are in fact shaped similarly with respect to time and space, in the first instance (Titus 1:1–4), ethical possibility as such is only minimally visible because of the predominant interest in centering the Pauline apostolate and proclamation within the time/space frame of apocalyptic event. Perhaps this could be termed “the Pauline chronotope” (and one could compare the development of the concept in 2 Corinthians), the point of which is to demonstrate the intrinsic role of the Pauline apostolate in the outworking of the divine plan of universal salvation (the inclusion of Gentiles). Granted this more dominant concern in the Prescript, the importance in these letters of the new ethical possibility linked to “Paul’s” gospel requires nonetheless that it be at least minimally visible. What is minimally visible in the Prescript, becomes maximally visible in the second and third periods (Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7), in a similar determination of time and space through the chronotope of divine epiphany (or apocalyptic event). The interest in this study is to discern how ethics (an ethical agenda) comes into view and takes specific shape as the author (or his material) deploys the chronotope to manipulate time and space (or manipulates time and space in chronotopic patterns), and this will entail a limited consideration of the apostolic prescript (Titus 1:1–4), and a more substantial reading of Titus 2:11–14, compared more briefly with Titus 3:3–7, in which epiphany and ethics are intrinsically linked.

2. Titus, Apocalyptic Event and the Location of Ethics in Time and Space 2.1 The Epistolary Prescript (Titus 1:1–4) The Pauline Prescripts are self-conscious, designed to underscore the apostle’s credentials and authority. But none is quite as self-conscious as that of the letter to Titus, authentic or not. A single sentence in the Greek, it forms an elaborate theological interpretation of the Pauline apostolate. Its function is presumably either to endow the letter with apostolic authority to assure its influence or to restore Paul’s influence in a contested, and perhaps post-Pauline, situation. The opening line of the greeting is more or less standard, identifying Paul as a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ. The cluster of prepositional phrases that follow expands (somewhat imprecisely) on the term “apostle” as follows:9

9  See Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 667–70.

130

Philip H. Towner

ἀπόστολος … Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ κατὰ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου

The compactness, pace, and changes of direction of this piece call for a brief exposition. First, the two parts of the first prepositional phrase (governed by κατά) indicate the purpose of Paul’s apostolate: to support the elect’s active belief, which is further described as an ongoing apprehension of “the truth.” Second, the brief phrase linked to “knowledge of the truth” by an article (as relative) distinguishes this “truth” (“Paul’s” gospel, described variously in the PE but here in a polemical mode) in terms of the behavior, lifestyle, generated by embrace of this “truth.” Εὐσέβεια has achieved a technical status in the letters to Titus and Timothy (see below), describing “faith-existence” in terms of behavior commensurate with (or produced by) authentic faith. Despite the almost offhand way it is dropped into this elaboration on “apostle,” it is by no means incidental. Then, the third prepositional phrase establishes the very ground of the apostolic ministry: the hope of eternal life. This phrase marks a turn in thought when this “hope,” by relative pronoun, becomes the object of God’s prior (before time) act of promise. God’s pretemporal act of promise finds its fulfillment in the occurrence of a revelatory event in its eschatological moment, and (before any details of this event can be given) is immediately translated into the message and activity of proclamation. Finally, the discursive goal is reached as we are told that God has expressly entrusted this proclamation to Paul (1 Tim 1:11; 2 Tim 1:10–11a; cf. Gal 2:7). 2.1.1 The Play of Time in the Prescript In the Prescript diachrony of time is to the fore and is intentionally shaped: – πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (the time before time) is the time of promise; – καιροῖς ἰδίοις (“the appointed time”; “the ordained evental time”; “eschatological moment”) is the time of revelation, which by implication is the time of fulfillment in some sense; – Together (with the verbs of promise and appearance) πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων … δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις form a transition formula; – the aorist verbs, ἐπηγγείλατο, ἐφανέρωσεν, ἐπιστεύθην, refer to acts accomplished that define the (apostolic) present; – ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου (“the hope of eternal life”), which may seem to entail at least a glance towards the future, is really a tangible feature of the present (under the condition of the fulfillment of promise) as mediated through apostolic proclamation.

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

131

Within the temporal structure, the play of time (promise, fulfillment, appointment) is designed to open up the present age under eschatological conditions. However, in and through the temporal frame, the letter-opening proceeds by way of connotation and indirection and makes an unexpected turn due to anacoluthon. While it is clear that the object of the verb “promised” is eternal life (or “the hope of eternal life”), it is not clear what is referred to in ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ. Normally, we would expect a reference to the Christ-event or some aspect of it (2 Tim 1:9–10; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 16:25), a discrete event. And within the transition formula which links the act of promising to the event of revelation, we would expect continuity of the object (eternal life). But the writer falls into anacoluthon, as he intentionally turns the direction of thought towards proclamation.10 The connotation to be drawn is that the revelation of Christ (and the promise of eternal life linked to Christ) is “now” contained in the gospel, transmitted/ activated by proclamation (ἐν κηρύγματι). What is absolutely clear is that time and theology lead to Paul and his mission as definitive for the present. Although some force is required, in the Prescript, the temporal becomes “artistically visible” as it wraps the apostolic mission in a mantle that covers the span from prehistory and promise to the present and the appearance of promise’s fulfillment in Pauline proclamation. Here everything arrives at the “now” of “Paul.” 2.1.2 The Dimensions of Space But what role does space have in this time-heavy depiction? Specific spaces, conceptual, geographical and ideological, can be discerned. To begin with, φανερόω (Titus 1:3), when used of Christ, portrays Christ’s human history in the world as divine manifestation,11 and though the preference here is to think in terms of the gospel of Christ (and refer only obliquely to the person of Christ), the human arena (the world) as the space of apostolic ministry is inferred. The specific reference to the ethical dimension of life as a measure of the truth of the gospel (καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν; Titus 1:1) points equally in this direction – εὐσέβεια is a manner of life lived in the human arena. But we should not think of this space in strictly mundane terms; it is rather, as the temporal shape of this text suggests, the human arena under the condition of redemptive possibility, the space of promise’s fulfillment/manifestation in the apostolic gospel, to which is linked a particularly shaped ethics. 10  For anacolouthon as an intentional literary ploy, see Andrzej Gieniusz, “ ‘Debtors to the Spirit’ in Romans 8.12? Reasons for the Silence,” NTS 59/1 (2013), 61–72. 11  See Markus Bockmuehl, “Das Verb φανερόω im Neuen Testament,” BZ 32 (1988): 87– 99.; Paul-Gerd Müller, “φανερόω,” in Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 3:413–14.

132

Philip H. Towner

But references to Crete as space should not be ignored (Titus 1:5, 12), for the literary function of Crete extends beyond geography to symbolism, as the disparaging Cretan saying (Titus 1:12) indicates (cf. κόσμος in John). And the symbolism contributes to the image of space that can be imagined from the eschatological and ethical refractions above. Crete opens out the space of the temporal “now” through its story, religion, and ideology flickering in the background. It is a story in competition with the Pauline salvation story, and its story lines (and undoubtedly the Roman story line as well) float in and out of view throughout the letter.12 This symbolic space opens in the adjective ἀψευδής (Titus 1:2), which in Greek thought and Hellenistic Judaism makes the apophatic assertion, “the undeceiving God” (ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεός).13 It engages briefly with the Cretan myth of the birth and death of Zeus on Crete,14 and it anticipates the ironic barb that comes in Titus 1:12 – “one of their own prophets said, ‘Cretans are always liars’” (Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται). Here too time (ἀεί) bears down on Cretan space, pressing it into something hard and resistant to change. The space of possibility opened up by eschatological time under the condition of divine truth is also a space resistant to possibility under the influence of durative time and Cretan myth. Allusion to the myth draws symbolic Cretan space into the Prescript, where the “now” arena of the apostolic kerygma and the “always” of the Cretan myth collide. The time of promise and fulfillment and the space of proclamation converge in the eschatological event (ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις), as Cretan time and space continue to exist alongside. The one chronotope exhibits the shape of hope and change, while the other exudes resistance. The opposing images are not resolved, though temporal possibilities may yet open into the space of Crete (Titus 1:13).

12 See Reggie M. Kidd, “Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars, Beasts, and Bellies,” HBT 21/2 (1999): 185–209; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 659–62. 13  Euripides, Orestes, 364; Plato, Republic 2, 382e; Philo, On Drunkenness, 139; cf. Wis 7:17. 14  According to Callimachus, “Hymn to Zeus” (our point of access, though Epimenides may have coined it), the Cretan lie revolved around the claim of a tomb of Zeus, and falsehood and lying are specific to the disputed claims about Zeus’s birth and death: “My heart is in doubt, for the birth is contested. Zeus, some say you were born in the Idaean mountains; Zeus, others say in Arcadia. Which of them is telling falsehoods, father? ‘Cretans always lie.’ And indeed, Lord, the Cretans built a tomb for you; but you are not dead, you live forever” (lines 5–9; Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns [New York: Oxford University Press, 2015], 52 [Greek text]; 55 [trans.]. In a fragmentary MS of the 12th Hymn of Callimachus, in a context that includes Crete, Zeus, and the assertion of an empty Cretan grave, the rare word occurs in the form ἀψευδέα; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic Tradition [Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002], 106).

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

133

2.1.3 Where Time and Space Meet: The Ethical Possibility Though the reference is fleeting and all but forgotten in the Prescript’s prominent unfolding of time and event, we should mention the reference to ethics (broadly considered) in the short prepositional phrase, κατ’ εὐσέβειαν, tacked on to the preceding phrase, ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’  εὐσέβειαν, to qualify specifically the formulaic “knowledge of the truth.”15 It attracts notice by being appended to the normally self-sufficient formula “knowledge of the truth” (a polemical descriptor of “the Christian faith as the true faith”; Titus 1:1; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; cf. 1 Tim 4:3; Heb 10:26; 2 John 1:116), as well as by virtue of its dialogic connection with the central piece of Titus 2:11–14 (and occurrences in 1 and 2 Timothy). Consequently, although syntactically secondary within the Prescript’s description of the apostolate in the unfolding of time, the semantic importance of κατ’ εὐσέβειαν is notable. With its preposition, it immediately qualifies “knowledge of the truth”; but it might be more useful to think of it in Peircean semiotic terms as a sign that signifies “index”: giving evidence of what is being represented, in this case, in the phrase “knowledge of the truth” (possibly including “the faith of God’s elect”), representing what this “knowledge of the truth” must entail in concrete, empirical ethical terms – as the virtues were intended to do in Greek thought and through a process of “Christianization” also do in the PE. Eὐσέβεια was the most consciously “religious” of the cardinal virtues in Greek philosophical ethics. It makes its way to Titus (and the PE17), by way of developments in Hellenistic Judaism and the LXX (e. g. Prov 1:7; Isa 11:2 and 33:6), no doubt precisely because of its capacity to express in the Greek language a Jewish theology in which faith in God, knowledge of God, covenant loyalty and “fear of the Lord” (the appropriate behavioral response to the law) are bound together. Translation involves substitutions, and as these were made, terms like εὐσέβεια took root and grew in meaning in the new linguistic and cultural soil. Philo adopted and adapted the cardinal virtues. For him, εὐσέβεια was “the queen of 15 The effect achieved is equivalent to 1 Tim 6:3 (εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῇ κατ’ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ) where by implication false teaching may be known by its substandard ethical dimension. 16  See Jesse Sell, The Knowledge of the Truth – Two Doctrines (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1982), 3–31; Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989; repr., London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 122. 17  And if 1 Timothy (or indeed the PE as a whole) is influenced by local/Ephesian thought, then the currency of the language in the Artemis cult (Paul R. Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 19–30; Gregory H. R. Horsley, Stephen R. Llewelyn, Richard A. Kearsley, et al., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98], 2:82; 4:80–81) and imperial cult (T. Christopher Hoklotubbe, Civilized Piety: The Rhetoric of Pietas in the Pastoral Epistles and the Roman Empire [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017]) must also be considered.

134

Philip H. Towner

the virtues” (Spec. Laws, 4.147), the source of the virtues (4.135). Its prominence among the virtues, suggests how the term can occur in stock lists of the cardinal virtues (such as in Titus 2:12; cf. 1 Tim 6:11) and also, by way of metonymy, stand alone to name the index (1 Tim 6:3, 5, 6), the empirical proof of authentic Christian existence (according to this construction of Pauline theology and ethics) – a productive interaction of faith and behavior.18 With so brief a reference to the ethical dimension of the faith in a text bent in other directions, it is premature to think in terms of an “ethical agenda” as a distinct outcome from the intersection of time and space. The ingredients are perhaps in evidence, but they have not yet been convincingly aligned. 2.2 Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7: Epiphany and Paideia-Ethics in Time and Space These two texts have some key features in common. Of the two, Titus 2:11–14 is more central to the entire letter and our consideration of an ethical agenda, and we will focus on this text. But we will first briefly consider the texts side by side to observe similarities and differences. They are dense packages of theology, though they develop different themes, employing different traditions. They are each given in support of ethical instructions.19 And in each case, the epiphany chronotope shapes time and space to grant access to the unseen dimension of the salvation historical drama and the effect on human (Christian) existence. Syntactically, Titus 2:11–14 provides a basis (γάρ) either for the concluding “witness” motivation in the case of the good behavior of slaves (Titus 2:10b) or for the entire household parenesis (Titus 2:1–10), with the last part of v. 10 serving to make the transition from ethics to the ground/possibility of ethics. The opening declaration, ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ (Titus 2:11), secures the connection of thoughts. The chronotopic resemblance to Titus 1:1–3 is close (despite the different foci in each case: the present as the time/space of the apostolic mission versus the present as the time/space of a new manner of existence). In each case, the distinctive “apocalyptic” verbs (ἐφανέρωσεν, Titus 1:3; ἐπεφάνη, Titus 2:11; 3:4; cf. 2 Tim 1:1020) locate, respectively, the fulfillment of promise and the divine intervention in the world of human culture. And the building blocks are closely similar: a careful shaping of time and event, recurrence of the language 18 See Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 171–74; Hermann von Lips, Glaube  – Gemeinde  – Amt. Zum Verständnis der Ordination in den Pastoralbriefen, FRLANT 122 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 83; Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe. Kommentar zum Titusbrief, HThKNT 11/2,3 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1996), 5. 19  Cf. Oberlinner, Kommentar zum Titusbrief, 166. 20 Cf. Jouette M. Bassler, “Epiphany Christology in the Pastoral Epistles: Another Look,” in Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel, ed. Janice C. Anderson, Philip Sellew, and Claudia Setzer, JSNTSup 221 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 194–214.

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

135

of εὐσέβεια, and virtues more generally, the weaving in of gospel content/Christevent. In managing the ethical load of Titus 2:11–‍14, a significant addition comes in the use of the Greek παιδεία concept (Titus 2:12; see below). Following on from the central theological period, Titus 3:3–7 serves the same purpose for the civic/public parenesis of Titus 3:1–2 to which it is linked by γάρ. It employs a ποτε … ὅτε δέ transition of ages formula21 to distinguish the present age of faith from the “former” age of ignorance and disobedience, on the basis of ethical behavior (i. e. ethical realities and possibilities on each side of the epiphany intervention in history).22 However, while noting how the two pieces are similar, there are also marked differences. Their epiphany trajectories are inversely related: Titus 2:11–14 begins from soteriology (Titus 2:10b–11) and develops into ethics (Titus 2:12, 14); Titus 3:3–7, beginning with a stark contrast of epochs, the old (ποτε) characterized by ignorance and disobedience, and the new, implied in the parenesis of Titus 3:1– 2 and the salvific epiphany in Titus 3:4–7 (ὅτε δέ ), moves as a whole from the ethical (3.3) and expands into the soteriological (Titus 3:4–7). The consequence is that each piece strikes a different chord in relation to epiphany and ethics (what the divine intervention in history in each tradition means for ethics). The thrust of Titus 2:11–14 is ethical: divine epiphany establishes the ontological possibility of a particular way of living in the present age (Titus 2:12, 14c), with the former “impossibility” implied in ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν (Titus 2:12; perhaps also in earlier glimpses of a witness motive; Titus 2:5, 10). Moreover, in its double reference to epiphany (past verb in Titus 2:11 and noun in Titus 2:13 standing in for the future parousia of Jesus Christ, the object of hope), Titus 2:11–14 conceives of the present age of Christian existence as encircled (fully conditioned by) epiphany: the epiphany chronotope assumes full literary control of both time and space, creating a unified picture of Christian existence in the world, as ethically defined, in terms of past and future divine interventions bringing help.23 The thrust of Titus 3:3–7 is soteriological:24 its thought, turning on the contrast 21  See Peter Tachau, “Einst” und “Jetzt” im Neuen Testament. Beobachtungen zu einem urchristlichen Predigtschema in der neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und zu seiner Vorgeschichte, FRLANT 105 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), esp. 79–95, 113–15, 128–29. 22  See Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 63–64, 112–13. 23  It was this “unifying” feature (a “present age” bound at each end by “epiphany” and the author’s focus on ethics within this frame) that led me to consider epiphany from the perspective of eschatology and ethics (Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 66–71). More typically the motif has been regarded from the perspective of Christology (e. g. Bassler, “Epiphany Christology in the Pastoral Epistles;” Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, WUNT 2/86 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996]; Karoline Läger, Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe, HThSt 12 [Münster: LIT, 1996], 111–‍19; Lorenz Oberlinner, “Die ‘Epiphaneia’ des Heilswillens Gottes in Christus Jesus,” ZNW 71 (1980): 192–213; Victor Hasler, “Epiphanie und Christologie in den Pastoralbriefen,” ThZ 33 (1977): 193–209). 24  It is possible that in the metaphorical description of the Spirit’s role in salvation (παλιγγενεσία; ἀνακαίνωσις; Titus 3:5) and/or in the reference to the eschatological Spirit-

136

Philip H. Towner

of epochs and the transition formula (ποτε … ὅτε δέ), is to emphasize the fact of salvation in the present epoch, implying (perhaps) the deontological ethical obligation of salvation.25 2.2.1 The Play of Time in Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7 As in the Prescript, in Titus 2:11–14, diachronic time is shaped to thicken in the present, the “eschatological now,” establishing a basis for Christian ethical conduct. The thought flows as follows: – A salvific eschatological epiphany-event of universal proportions has occurred (Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις). – Its outcome, or manner of influence (from the perspective of Christians, “us”; so also in Titus 3:3–7) is depicted in educational terms as “teaching that civilizes” (redemptive enculturation; παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς). – The specific purpose of the “civilizing” epiphany was to open the possibility of living a life of a specific ethical character in the present age (ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι), that character being delineated by the Christianized cardinal virtues (σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς). – Parallel adverbial participles surround and qualify ζήσωμεν and sharpen further the focus on the present, one preceding in time (ἀρνησάμενοι; Titus 2:12), implying a past or perfected act of renunciation (of ungodliness), one characterizing the present (προσδεχόμενοι; Titus 2:13) in terms of a forwardpointing, progressive faith perspective (τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα). Each temporal aspect lends depth to the present status of “living.” – The attitude of expectancy stretches the temporal envelope so that it can embrace a future, a second still-awaited epiphany-event, an eschatological “appearance” of Jesus Christ (ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) that conforms to the first (as epiphanic, bringing help into the world), as it also completes it. – In fact, the reference to Jesus Christ (his epiphanic future parousia), by way of relative pronoun, turns sharply back in time from the present, making use of tradition (the historic self-offering of Christ) which implicitly fills up the reference to “the grace of God” that “appeared,” to indicate that the grace of God in Titus 2:11 alluded all along to the Christ-event in history. Here the backwards reflection performs a repetition of the cycle already run, in which the past event brings into being a people – “redeemed” and “cleansed for God’s

outpouring (οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ἡμᾶς πλουσίως; Titus 3:6) the ethics-related thought of Spiritenablement is somehow also implied (cf. Gal 5; Rom 8). But if so, the thought is remote, and would have to be reached via the catena of Ezekiel texts echoed in Titus 2:14. See Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 782–84. 25  See Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 71.

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

137

own possession,” whose present (eschatological) manner of life is defined in terms of a zeal for “good works.” – In short, time is manipulated in such a way that the great eschatological epiphanic events (past and future) form the cradle, the backdrop, and the reason for a present age characterized by a particular quality of ethics linked to the faith. At the temporal pivot point, the epiphany of God’s grace as redemptive intervention introduces a new ethical possibility into the space/arena of human life. The piece begins in the Greek conceptual world (the language of Titus 2:11–12 is not specifically “Christian”), and finishes strongly in that of the Jewish-Christian. The expectation of a future epiphany and its specific association with the hope of eternal life, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13), creates an opening for the future within the present as it calls up the past. The first reflection (ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; 2:14a) is both a memory of the self-offering of Christ and, in its Pauline form, a reminder that the “Pauline” gospel/tradition is still in play (Gal 1:4; Eph 5:2; 1 Tim 2:6; Mark 10:45). Now, moving ever deeper into Christian discourse, a second ἵνα clause (Titus 2:14b), parallel to the first (Titus 2:12), spells out the purpose/result of Christ’s self-offering in terms of redemption from lawlessness (λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας, parallel to the renunciation of ungodliness in Titus 2:12) and the cleansing of a unique people of God, qualified in ethical language as “zealous for good works” (καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον, ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων, the whole of which is parallel to the positively framed σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι; Titus 2:12). A catena of intertextual links substitutes Jewish/OT content (e. g. Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; Ps 129:8; Ezek 36:25–33; 37:2326) as a way of glossing and (perhaps) denaturing the previous Greek-tempered description of the epiphany of God’s grace and what it produced, at the same time intimating a transition from the pagan world that did not know God to the present world filled with new ethical possibilities. Thus, in the charged atmosphere of the epiphany chronotope, the outcome of the Christ-event (Titus 2:14), in near perfect symmetry with that of God’s grace in Titus 2:11–12, is a people of God, changed (redeemed, purified) with new capacities to live in the present (good works). 2.2.2 The Dimensions of Space in Titus 2:11–14 and 3:3–7 Although we can see immediately that the space of this chronotope overlaps with the space indicated in the Prescript, the epiphany and paideia concepts refract that view of space in a particular way. Epiphany language occurs three times in the letter (aorist verbs in Titus 2:11; 3:4; noun in Titus 2:13). In all cases the language depicts acts of divine inter See Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 761–66.

26

138

Philip H. Towner

vention or help in history.27 In Titus 2:11 and 3:4, the abstract subjects associated with the verb (ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ; ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία … τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ) are eventually filled out with Christian/messianic content. The difference between the two epiphany statements comes in the soteriological thrust of the latter and its association of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit with salvation in Titus 3:5–6a, though this is also rooted fundamentally in “Jesus Christ our savior” (Titus 3:6b). The pluriform background of the epiphany language prepared the way for its use here. It figured significantly in Hellenistic and imperial religious and political discourse  – of gods, kings, heroes, and the emperor, who through various acts were hailed as appearances of the gods in the midst of human life and history to help and benefit the people. The motif was absorbed into Hellenistic-Jewish discourse: in the LXX, the language serves to describe YHWH’s salvific acts as decisive incursions into time and space on behalf of the covenant people.28 In the milieu of the Letter to Titus, a Christian claim that “the grace of God appeared” (or Titus 3:4: “the goodness and lovingkindness of God”) would have been unavoidably “dialogic” (in the Bakhtinian sense), creating a “conversation” with comparable contemporary stories. The Zeus of Cretan myth and the emperor of Roman ideology (as also Greek rulers and heroes in earlier times) were celebrated as instruments of divine grace, and the beneficence they bestowed on their subjects was typically referred to as “grace,” gifts of the gods from on high, and in the case of emperors from Augustus onwards, a beneficent epiphany, the very embodiment of divine grace among people. Whether intentionally polemical or more a matter of employing convenient and relevant language, the tradition in Titus opens dialogically, inviting the “audience” to compare the God of the “Pauline” gospel with the Cretan version of Zeus, or the Roman presentation of Caesar.29 The occupation of Greek space continues as this epiphany story unfolds. A powerful, all-encompassing claim is made in the seemingly innocuous reference to “teaching.” In participial form, παιδεύουσα, the tradition introduces the Greek concept of paideia. Although through Jewish appropriation (LXX) this language was taken into the context of discipline (as of a father with a son), the larger Greek background of “education in culture” provides the more helpful context 27 See Oberlinner, Kommentar zum Titusbrief, 156–57; Dieter Lührmann, “Epiphaneia. Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte eines griechischen Wortes,” in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl G. Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Gert Jeremias, Heinz W. Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 185–99. 28  See Oberlinner, Kommentar zum Titusbrief, 156–57; idem, “Die ‘Epiphaneia’ des Heilswillens Gottes in Christus Jesus;” Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 66–71; Lau, Manifest in Flesh, 179–225; Lührmann, “Epiphaneia,” 193–96; Bassler, “Epiphany Christology in the Pastoral Epistles.” 29  See Kidd, “Titus as Apologia,” 185–209; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 659–62.

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

139

(Plato, Republic, 376E; Aristotle, Rhetoric 1365B30). At the highest level, paideia is the equivalent of “education in culture,” the dynamic and complex process which, from the distance of a twentieth-century European perspective, Jaeger described as an approach to life as a whole that is a “consciously pursued ideal”31. And it is better understood not in terms of the singular term, paideia, but rather “as a vast disorganized external apparatus for living, κατασκευὴ τοῦ βίου”32. It seems doubtful that one such as the author of Titus, living in the midst of the Roman Empire, could be thought to have so formulated and comprehensive a concept of “Greek life/culture” as the one Jaeger proposed. But a view of life as an educational process leading to an ideal, παιδεία leading to ἀρετή, is certainly not beyond reach. And here I would be tempted to break paideia down into its dynamic components. At a minimum, in the present literary context, paideia as a broad program would be seen as delivered through the process (and content) indicated in the term ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία in its various configurations (“sound teaching”; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8), and which would stand in contrast to whatever is implied by the opponents’s teaching activity (Titus 1:11) and its content (Titus 1:14: Jewish myths, traditions of men; cf. 3:933). Although the precise nuance intended in the metaphor “sound teaching” may be debatable (is it “health-producing,” or “pure” and “undefiled”?),34 one can suggest it imagines a holistic (ethical) process of “life-as-learning-experience,” in which the faith-story (Titus 1:1–3; 2:11–14; 3:3–7) comes, by “noetic” (conscious, reflective)35 appropriation and adaptation (“sound teaching” that implies more than simply a oneway indoctrination), to bear on all of practical life (e. g. Titus 2:1–10; 3:1). The association here of paideia with the cardinal virtues suggests, mutatis mutandis, that Christian existence may be conceived of as the conscious pursuit of an ideal manner of living in the present age (ἵνα … σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς 30 See Werner Jaeger, Archaic Greece: The Mind of Athens, trans. Gilbert Highet, 3rd ed., vol. 1 of Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), Book One; cf. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 142–43; Luke T. Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1996), 240–41; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 747–48. 31  Jaeger, Archaic Greece, xvii. 32  Jaeger, Archaic Greece, xviii. 33  Cf. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction, 122–23. 34  See Abraham J. Malherbe, “Medical Imagery in the Pastorals,” in idem, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 121–36. 35  I employ the term “noetic” as it is used in the tradition of Western philosophy, and most recently by Bernard Stiegler, in his various publications, in reference to an effective manner in which human beings must reflect on “tertiary retentions” (memories, such as tradition, worldview, etc. that are literally not one’s own but nevertheless shape one’s perceptions of the world) for life to have personal meaning and value. See, e. g., Bernard Stiegler, The Age of Disruption. Technology and Madness in Computational Capitalism, trans. Daniel Ross (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2019), 46–67, etc.

140

Philip H. Towner

ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι). For our author (or his material), it is the Christ-event as epiphany, and its proclamation, through which an ethical educational pursuit (“sound teaching”) of the ideal commences and continues. For our purposes, the two motifs, epiphany and paideia, combine to indicate that the author used his sources and shaped time and space in such a way as to demonstrate that the story of salvation is one which began out of time in the divine realm, invisible to human beings, and at the appropriate (eschatological) time broke into visibility and human history. Paideia could specifically serve to reimagine the Christian story (in its various configurations: gospel, sound teaching, knowledge of the truth, etc.), in terms of the function of education in Hellenistic thought – not as promoting something strictly religious, but as a universal effort of Christian enculturation. At a past time, God’s beneficent, saving grace appeared in the world/space of human time and existence, introducing new ethical possibilities. 2.2.3 Where Time and Space Meet: the Ethical Possibility In Titus 2:10b–14, time and space intersect in the author’s reflection on the human condition in the same way and place that they did in the Prescript  – which is to say in present time and as indexed by a particular manner of life that can be thought in general terms, as “civilized” by divine grace and in the specific terms of the Greek virtues and the Pauline language of good works. There is no need at this point to reprise εὐσέβεια, nor to doubt its prominence in the author’s ethical conceptualization. All the Greek virtues were available for revision and apostolic use, and yet in the PE, it is εὐσέβεια that attracts most attention and is able to hold together faith and behavior (see discussion and references above). The alternative to the list of virtues, the construction “zealous for good deeds,” emphasizes the visible deeds that give expression to faith and a knowledge of God (cf. Titus 3:1, 8, 1436). But in either case, Titus introduces an agenda for an ethics that is cosmic in origin and scope and holistic in present human experience, the interplay of faith in God and its observable outcome in ethical conduct.

3. The Ethical Agenda of Titus – The Time and Space of Ethics: Concluding Remarks I am reluctant to attempt too fine a discussion of the author’s manipulation of what I have called, the “Pauline chronotope” and the “epiphany chronotope” for possible subversive or polemical purposes. Retreating to Bakhtin’s language of dialogism, what can be asserted, at a minimum, is that in thorough observation  See Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 210–12.

36

The Ethical Agenda of Titus

141

of the two chronotopes, it is clear that lexical and conceptual choices of material that was dialogical would unavoidably invite comparisons, and could have been conscious strategic choices or more a matter of drawing on stories and items that were the common currency of contemporary discourses. In any case, in Titus a certain “Paul” is speaking to “Titus,” and also to a “culture,” and in the latter especially there can be seen hybridization, the mixing of two resonances in “social languages within a single utterance or encounter, or between two linguistic consciousnesses separated from each other especially by time or social differentiation”37. At the macro level, the ethical agenda of Titus is, through a specific organization of time and space, to formulate and articulate the experience of Christian existence as an ethical possibility: (1) linked to the eschatological event of salvific divine intervention in human time/space (= Christ-event, promise/ fulfillment; epiphany), as well as (2) to the present proclamation of the “Pauline” gospel in the same human space of mission, and (3) involving the conscious pursuit of an educative ideal. This ethical possibility can be characterized by the Greek cardinal virtues (and especially εὐσέβεια) and/or by Jewish-Christian configurations such as “good works.” Titus 2:11–12 invites comparison of the new ethical possibility associated with divine epiphany and the large Hellenistic concept of paideia as “education in culture,” the conscious pursuit of an “ideal” manner of living. A question to be asked is whether the more specific parenetic materials (e. g. Titus 2:1–10) reflect the noetic experimentation and adaptation implied by the ethical agenda (as I have constructed it), or rather a fallback to some traditional default.

37  Geoff R. Webb, Mark at the Threshold: Applying Bakhtinian Categories to Markan Characterisation, BibInt 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 24.

II. Historical and Contextual Dimensions of the Implicit Ethics: A Socio-historial Approach

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth Reassessing the Question of the Individuality of the Pastoral Epistles Jens Herzer 1. A Preliminary Note One of the guiding questions of this volume is whether ethics can be a category to understand the three Pastoral Epistles as individual letters, independent of the theory of a literary Corpus Pastorale. This theory has always been controversial in various respects and has not only been thoroughly challenged once again,1 but it has also been modified.2 The criticisms of this theory start at entirely different passages and come to quite different results. None of this should be the subject of fundamental debate today.3 However, the approach of the conference, to present Titus as a single letter in its individual profile, is an indication that a change in approach has taken place within scholarship, in so far as the individual profile of the three so-called Pastoral Epistles is to be brought to bear on interpretation – independent of the question of authorship. This new approach shows that even under different models of authorship each of these three letters has its own characteristics, both in formal terms and in terms of the different subject matters they address. Despite all qualifications and criticism, the theory of a Corpus Pastorale still represents a heuristic paradigm established in scholarship, which, at least in 1 Cf. in particular the pertinent work by Michaela Engelmann, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? Motivsemantische Untersuchungen zum literarischen Verhältnis der Pastoralbriefe, BZNW 192 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). 2  By way of example, cf. the interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles as a novel in three parts by Timo Glaser, Paulus als Briefroman erzählt. Studien zum antiken Briefroman und seiner christlichen Rezeption in den Pastoralbriefen, NTOA 76 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), in connection with Richard I. Pervo, “Romancing an Oft-Neglected Stone: The Pastoral Epistles and the Epistolary Novel,” JHC 1 (1994): 25–47; on this, cf. Engelmann, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? (see n. 1), 80–87. 3 In addition to the study by Engelmann (see n. 1), cf. also William A. Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity. An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals, StBibLit 44 (New York: Lang, 2002); Rüdiger Fuchs, Unerwartete Unterschiede. Müssen wir unsere Ansichten über “die” Pastoralbriefe revidieren? Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien 12 (Wuppertal: SCM Brockhaus, 2003).

146

Jens Herzer

the past, has led to the exploration of certain themes from material of all three letters. Above all, the issue of ethics seems to be destined for such an approach: If the Pastoral Epistles can be traced back in any way to the often described concept of an author or a group of authors, then a uniform, characteristic profile could be presupposed in the ethical concepts, though it would of course be performed necessarily with literary variation in detail.4 Assuming such literary uniformity, the theme of ethics would primarily be connected with and explained from the ecclesiology of the Pastoral Epistles, which supposedly characterizes the basic concern of the corpus as a whole.5 The ethics of the Pastoral Epistles would, under this condition, reflect the descriptive and normative aspects of the structure of the church, which are based on an ethos concretized in parenesis.6 The question is, however, whether such an approach to the ethics of the Pastoral Epistles is really expedient and does justice to the profile and concern of the three epistles. The hypothesis of a Corpus Pastorale presupposes a construct whose existence cannot be proved (and in my opinion is more than improbable). Therefore, an ethic of the Pastoral Epistles or of the Corpus Pastorale would prove to be nothing more than a construct that must necessarily be an abstraction from the concrete form of the individual epistle. This point, however, cannot be further developed here. Starting from the conference’s concern to emphasize the individuality of the Pastoral Epistles with respect to ethics, I will take a different approach, which facilitates a more differentiated view of the respective individual profile of each letter, and at the same time does not ignore the fact that the letters exist in relationship to one another, which can thereafter be more closely defined. But this relationship must be determined first and cannot be assumed a priori. The relationship between ethics and ethos already alluded to will be illustrated by means of a concrete guiding concept common to all three letters. This 4  Cf. the exemplary works of Wolfgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, GNT/NTD Ergänzungsreihe 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 244–55 and Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die urchristlichen Verkündiger, vol. 2 of Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, HThKNT.S 2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1988), 95–109. 5  In addition to the works mentioned in n. 4, cf. Jürgen Roloff, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament, GNT/NTD Ergänzungsreihe 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 250–67 (“God’s orderly household: the Pastoral Epistles”); with specific focus on the significance of women in the church, cf. Ulrike Wagener, Die Ordnung des “Hauses Gottes.” Der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesiologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe, WUNT 2/65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Furthermore, see for example Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, HUT 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986); Stephen C. Mott, “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion. The Philonic Background of Titus ii 10–14 and iii 3–7,” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48; Roland Schwarz, Bürgerliches Christentum im Neuen Testament? Eine Studie zu Ethik, Amt und Recht in den Pastoralbriefen, ÖBS 4 (Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983), among others. 6 On this, cf. the foundational work by Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction. The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989; repr., London: Bloomsbury, 2015), under the assumption of a differentiated consideration of the Pastoral Epistles in their respective individual profile.

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

147

is the concept of “truth” (ἀλήθεια), which characterizes all three letters in different ways and has an conceptual significance.7 Some might rather expect this significance from the concept of “piety” (εὐσέβεια), but this idea is far less significant for the Pastoral Epistles in individual terms than is often claimed.8 Instead, and rather remarkably, εὐσέβεια has a special connection with ἀλήθεια in all three letters. In the following, then, it is not a matter of analyzing concrete ethical instructions, but rather of describing the fundamental context of the foundation of ethics, as it becomes specifically recognizable in the three Pastoral Epistles. Due to the complexity of this question and the limited space available here, what follows will be presented in the form of an essay instead of a comprehensive discourse analysis, such that the style characteristic of a presentation has been maintained and supplemented only by necessary footnotes.

2. Ethics and Ethos Even the philosophical-systematic definition of the term or the concept of “ethics” is not easy, especially when defining its relationship to the concept of “ethos”.9 In the New Testament, as is well known, the concept of “ethos” is not reflected systematically.10 Therefore, the question of an “implicit ethics” in the writings of the New Testament is appropriate.11 Thus, methodologically, with the terms “ethics” and “ethos” two conceptual categories are used that as such – like some others – are alien to the New Testament. This theoretical debate will not be conducted here, but instead, in light of the very different philosophical definitions of ethics/ethos and for the sake of the concrete work on the texts themselves, a rather pragmatic and heuristically reasonable distinction will be assumed.  7 Especially with regard to the epistle to Titus, see also the contribution by Hans-Ulrich Weidemann in this volume.  8  Cf. already, e. g., Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1880), 94; for the definition of the problem, cf. Angela Standhartinger, “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römischen Denkens auf das entstehende Christentum,” NovT 48 (2006): 51–82.  9  As a brief description of the problem, cf. Eilert Herms, “Ethik I. Begriff und Problemfeld,” RGG, 4th ed. (1999), 2:1598–601. 10  Apart from two exceptions (John 19:40 and Heb 10:25) the term ἦθος is found exclusively in Luke-Acts: Luke 1:9; 2:42; 22:39; Acts 6:14; 15:1; 16:21; 21:21; 25:16; 26:3; 28:17 – all these passages refer to concrete customs, practices, or habitual actions. 11  On the methodological framework of “implicit ethics,” cf. Ruben Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung und Normenanalyse im Horizont einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ frühchristlicher Schriften,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums. Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 4, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann (in collaboration with Esther Verwold), WUNT 313 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 3–27.

148

Jens Herzer

In his RGG article “Ethos,” Eilert Herms defines the concept as “the order of interaction,” based on common convictions and attitudes as well as on a “certainty about the origin and goal of human existence”12, which is common to all actors. If ethos is therefore “the possibility for the process of human coexistence shaped by norms and rules,”13 ethics, by way of contrast, describes the “criteria for right action.”14 The ethos of a community therefore presupposes an intersubjective understanding of the criteria and the forms of living and is at the same time its basis. Basically, ethics always implies a theory of the way of life or the design of existence with the goal – formulated in a classically Aristotelian manner – of the eudaimonia. As such, ethics therefore presupposes an ethos that is a basic attitude and “certainty of existence”15 represented by certain principles, which determines the manner in which one acts in life. To formulate it differently and in a more simplified manner: Ethos encompasses and grounds the actionguiding criteria of ethics; ethics reflects, explicates, and concretizes the ethos in relation to life in this world. As already indicated, this is a simplified attempt at differentiation, which does not exist in ancient moral philosophy. The distinction between ethos and ethics could therefore rightly be considered artificial, especially since it is in some ways reminiscent of the old distinction between the indicative and the imperative.16 However, the terms “ethos” and “ethics” offer the possibility of distinguishing or differentiating matters, the content and meaning of which are de facto difficult to define in relation to the concrete texts we wish to explore. This is due to the fact that these texts do not reflect theoretically on ethos or ethics, but rather develop something like an implicit ethics in the execution or implementation of certain fundamental maxims or objectives, which finds their expression in a certain ethos. In order to trace such a concept of ethics that is “beyond the indicative and imperative”17 it is important to identify central concepts, to correlate them with each other, and in this way to describe the semantic network that gives the ethics of a New Testament text its specific form.  Eilert Herms, “Ethos,” RGG, 4th ed. (1999), 2:1640–41, here 1640.  Herms, “Ethik,” (see n. 9) 1599. 14  Herms, “Ethik,” (see n. 9) 1598. 15  Eilert Herms, “Ethik V. Als theologische Disziplin,” RGG, 4th ed. (1999), 2:1611–‍24, here 1612. 16  On the problem, cf. Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann, eds., Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 1, WUNT 238 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), therein, among other contributions, see Hermut Löhr, “Elemente eudaimonistischer Ethik im Neuen Testament?” Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ, 39–55. 17 See n. 16 as well as Ruben Zimmermann, “Ethikbegründung bei Paulus. Die bleibende Attraktivität und Insuffizienz des Indikativ-Imperativ-Modells,” in Die Theologie des Paulus in der Diskussion. Reflexionen im Anschluss an Michael Wolters Grundriss, ed. Jörg Frey and Benjamin Schließer, BThSt 140 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013), 237–55. 12 13

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

149

3. “Truth” as a Guiding Concept of Ethos in the Pastoral Epistles The concept of truth is suitable for our question not least because it plays a central role for Paul himself (apart from the absolute and also everyday use of language) as the “truth of God” (Rom 1:25; 3:7; 15:8), “truth of Christ” (2 Cor 11:10), or “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:5, 14; cf. Col 1:5), and therefore also suggests itself as a Pauline reference category in the investigation of the relationship between ethos and ethics in the Pastoral Epistles. Truth is not only to be spoken of, but – to use the wisdom language of John – “truth must be done” (1 John 1:6; cf. Sir 27:10). “Teach me, Adonai, your way, and I will live in your truth; bind my heart so that I might fear your name,” as it already says in Ps 86:11. The ethical consequences, in particular for “deviation from the truth,” as Paul describes it vividly and impressively in Rom 1, make clear once more how much, from Paul’s point of view, the way of life presupposes an ethos of truth, by which concrete action is determined – or even not determined. It is, therefore, to be expected that this connection is also present and relevant to ethics in the Pastoral Epistles – either as pseudonymous letters committed to the Pauline tradition or even as authentic letters in which Paul himself establishes and reflects this connection anew under special circumstances. In connection with this, another point must be considered with regard to our particular case of the Pastoral Epistles. For the aspects of Pauline or biblical ethics just hinted at, God’s judgment on what man does and does not do is decisive – as a “final cause,” so to speak. The quoted Psalm connects this aspect with the motive of the “fear of God.” And according to Paul in Rom 1, whoever exchanges the truth of God for that which is nothing, the judgment of the wrath of God takes place for them at the moment they surrender themselves to this same “nothingness” This brings about a correspondingly empty and misguided life which deserves death according to God’s judgment (Rom 1:32). But even those who believe through Christ “must appear before God’s (or Christ’s) judgment tribunal in order to receive (as a reward) that which corresponds to what is done in the bodily life” (2 Cor 5:10; cf. Rom 14:10). I do not wish to be misunderstood. Speaking of God’s wrath and judgment is not a threatening backdrop against which the gospel is thrown out as a lifesaver, as it were, to save people from the distress of their own sin – even if Paul explicitly says the latter in 1 Thess 1:19 when he refers to Jesus as the one who “saves us from the wrath to come.”18 If this constituted the ethos by which people’s actions are

18 On this, see the foundational work by Matthias Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaussagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesio­ logie und Ethik im 1 Thess und 1 Kor, BZNW 117 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), especially 70–73, emphasizing “the apostle’s paracletical concern” (73).

150

Jens Herzer

determined, then the ethics would become a compulsory exercise that would not have much to do with responsible action.19 Against this background the concept of truth gains a normative meaning, both theologically and ethically: Theologically with regard to speaking of God and his action and – therein included – the embodiment and the content of the gospel and its proclamation; ethically with regard to the responsibility of humans which results from the Gospel and their positioning towards the claim of that truth. Problematic here is – and that is actually a truism – that even a divine truth does not fall from heaven but is brought up by humans. That is why its normative claim is always disputed, because it is also raised by humans, and so there must almost inevitably be competing claims. With this perhaps all too simple insight, we come back to the Pastoral Epistles, because in these letters the competition of the normative with respect to implicit ethics is evident, starting from a specific ethos of truth. It is remarkable, however, that the term ἀλήθεια is – with one exception that is difficult to interpret – always used absolutely in the Pastoral Epistles and not, for example, as otherwise at least in theologically significant places, defined more closely with an attributive genitive (τοῦ θεοῦ/τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Six of the total fourteen occurrences of the noun appear within 1 Timothy, another six in 2 Timothy, and two in Titus. Since, as is well known, statistical observations can contribute only minimally to the meaning of terms, it is the content associated with them that matters. Furthermore, positive statements must be distinguished from negative ones in which the claim to truth of “others” is disputed. 3.1 Truth, Ethos, and Ethics in 1 Timothy 1 Timothy is particularly relevant for our question because the entire epistle is determined by the connection between the ethos of truth and a normative claim. The ethically programmatic nature of the concept arises from its close connection with the concept of piety. Within the context of every passage in which the concept of truth asserts itself, εὐσέβεια is also present. 1 Timothy 2:1–7 plays a key role: 1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, 2 ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι. 3 τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.

(1) Therefore, above all I (fervently) exhort that requests, prayers, intercessions, (and) thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who exercise power so that we may live a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and honor. (3) This (is) good and pleasing before God, our Savior, (4) who desires that all people might be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

 Cf. Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde (see n. 18), 523 f.

19

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth 5 Εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. 7 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος, ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι, διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ.

151

(5) For (there is) one God, also one mediator between God and humans, (the) human Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, as a witness at the right time. (7) For this I was appointed as a herald and an apostle – I tell (the) truth (and) do not lie – (as a) teacher (of the) nations in faith and truth.

After a downright brilliant introduction, which leads to what is rightly called Paul’s hagiographical self-conception,20 εὐσέβεια is first introduced in 1 Tim 2:2 as one of the two virtues of a life led in accordance with σεμνότης. The expressed aim of the virtue-ethos thus determined is “to live a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and honor.” The concept of βίος is semantically clearly related to the present way of life – not to say the art of living – which is largely determined by the category of the “decency” of the community and its members, which can be perceived both internally and also externally. This orientation of the ethos is taken for granted and therefore becomes the prerequisite for a normative ethical claim which is simultaneously characterized as pleasing to God. The reference to God for a normative lifestyle is at the same time an expression and claim to the truth, whose knowledge as God’s will is also normatively or affirmatively established. In other words: The ethos determined by the truth sets the norm for the “civil” life of the believers in the world.21 εὐσέβεια, σεμνότης, and πίστις thereby become concepts of virtue which characterize this life and – that is the basic tenor of 1 Timothy – give the claim of the truth-ethos a form that is shaped by virtue ethics connoted.22 20 On

this, cf. Raymond F. Collins, “The Image of Paul in the Pastorals,” LTP 35 (1971): 147– 73, here 147: “traces of an emerging Pauline hagiography”; in connection with this, Ernst Dassmann, Der Stachel im Fleisch. Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979), 166, coined the term “Paulushagiographie.” Cf. also Michaela Engelmann, “‘Ich, Paulus.’ Die Paulusbilder der Pastoralbriefe,” in Paulus und Paulusbilder. Konstruktion – Reflexion – Transformation, ed. Manfred Lang, ABIG 31 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013), 221–76, here 236–44; eadem, Unzertrennliche Drillinge? (see n. 1), 505–35, especially 506–19. 21 On the concept of “bourgeoisie” or “civility” in this context, cf. Schwarz, Bürger­liches Christentum im Neuen Testament (see n. 5); Karl Löning, “Epiphanie der Menschenfreundlichkeit. Zur Rede von Gott im Kontext städtischer Öffentlichkeit nach den Pastoralbriefen,” in Und dennoch ist von Gott zu reden (FS Herbert Vorgrimler), ed. Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994), 107–24, here 107–09, 117–24, who considers this characterization as “fundamentally” (107) wrong. Cf. also Marius Reiser, “Bürgerliches Christentum in den Pastoralbriefen?” Bib 74 (1993): 27–44. On the problems, cf. Jens Herzer, “‘Das Geheimnis der Frömmigkeit’ (1Tim 3,16). Sprache und Stil der Pastoralbriefe im Kontext hellenistischrömischer Popularphilosophie – eine methodische Problemanzeige,” TQ 187 (2007): 309–29. 22 This perspective of 1 Timothy shows evidence of a popular-philosophical influence from motifs that belong to Epicurean ethics, a topic that cannot be treated here in extenso. Against the background of a moral-philosophical context, within which the Pastoral Epistles show references in their own way, the programmatic orientation distinguishes 1 Timothy in a special

152

Jens Herzer

Therefore, in 1 Timothy truth is consequently not itself a part of this virtue ethics, but instead represents even a mystery in the form of the confession (1 Tim 3:16), which underlies piety as the decisive virtue for life. This becomes clear in three places where 1 Timothy quotes a fragment of this confession: 1 Tim 2:15; 3:16; and 6:15–16. In 1 Tim 2:4–6 the knowledge of truth as God’s will is related to the confession of the “one God and the one mediator between God and humans, (the) human Christ Jesus.” This confession, however, not only represents the content of the truth to be recognized, but simultaneously establishes Paul’s authority as κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος of this very truth (1 Tim 2:7). With this connection between truth, confession, and apostolic authority, 1 Timothy legitimizes the normative instruction with regard to the structure of the congregation, the lifestyle of believers, and the judgment of others. When the letter then continues in 1 Tim 2:8 with βούλομαι οὖν, it corresponds to this strategy of legitimation, the justification of which lies in the truth-ethos. The ethical relevance of the truth-ethos, which takes shape in piety and knowledge, is also underlined in 1 Tim 3:14–16: 14 Ταῦτά σοι γράφω ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ ἐν τάχει· 15 ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω, ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος, στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. 16 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

(14) I am writing this to you in the hope of coming to you soon. (15) But if I am late (I am writing this) so that you might know how to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and foundation of truth. (16) And highly recognized as a confession is the mystery of piety: who appeared in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared to the messengers, was proclaimed among the nations, has found faith in the world, has been taken up into glory.

With the term ἀναστρέφεσθαι, the concrete way of life also comes into view here, but specifically as it relates to life in the church. As the “house of God” (1 Tim 3:15), the church can be described as a sanctuary of truth.23 The church is, therefore, the guarantor of that ethos which determines life both inside and outside the congregation. Objectively, two things are again relevant here: the theological concretization of the ethos as a “mystery of piety,” which is revealed in the conway. This aspect has so far not been sufficiently considered and examined with respect to the profiling of the ethics of 1 Timothy; on this cf. generally the overview by Abraham J. Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” ANRW 2:26.1, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 267–333, for Epicureanism, see in particular 321–25, however without reference to 1 Tim 2:2. 23 On this, see Jens Herzer, “Rearranging the ‘House of God.’ A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epistles,” in Empsychoi Logoi – Religious Innovations in Antiquity (FS Pieter Willem van der Horst), ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-van de Weg, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 547–66.

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

153

fession itself,24 as well as the individual’s acceptance of and integration into the structures of the church. The characterization of the church as the “house of God” and the explicit development of this concept in terms of household economics also puts ethical behavior under a corresponding rubric. This rubric was already defined at the beginning of the letter in 1 Tim 1:4 in terms of salvific economy, if the letter as a whole is understood as the explanation of the οἰκονομία θεοῦ ἡ ἐν πίστει. In this perspective of economical semantics the idea of faith takes the aspect of faithfulness and reliability and thus clearly moves away from Paul’s own understanding of faith.25 The so-called Haustafelethik, which is still determinative in the Deuteropauline tradition (see especially Eph 5:21–6:6; less pronounced and more schematic in Col 3:18–4:1), and also to some extent in Titus, is replaced in 1 Timothy by an ethic of loyalty and virtue, based on an economic model that is founded theologically (truth-ethos) and ecclesiologically (authoritative structures). Against this background, in terms of genre 1 Timothy proves to be a kind of ecclesiological-hierarchical memorandum, which takes up elements of the Ptolemaic memoranda or the mandata principis without being absorbed in this genre in the proper sense.26 With these elements, the genre of 1 Timothy corresponds in a certain manner to that of Titus.27 However, and this can only be hinted at here, a distinction has to be made between these two letters with respect to the question of genre. Titus as a whole actually represents a mandate letter, whereas 1 Timothy only applies certain elements of the genre (also in the sense of the fictious setting), but has altogether – due to its ecclesiological aim – a different function that is perhaps comparable to something like a “pastoral letter”  Cf. Jens Herzer, “Tradition und Bekenntnis. Die Theologie des Paulus im Spiegel ihrer Rezeption im Ersten Timotheusbrief,” in Paulus und Petrus. Geschichte – Theologie – Rezeption (FS Friedrich W. Horn), ed. Heike Omerzu and Eckart David Schmidt, ABIG 48 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016), 247–71. 25  Cf. in particular Bernhard Mutschler, Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen. Pistis als Mitte christlicher Existenz, WUNT 256 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,) 2010, 245–342, especially 325. 26  A vivid example of this is the papyrus Tebtunis 703, a Ptolemaic memorandum from the third century BCE; cf. Arthur S. Hunt and J. Gilbart Smyly, eds., The Tebtunis Papyri 3/1 (London: Milford, 1933), 66–102. 27  On this, cf. the foundational work of Michael Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition, FRLANT 146 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 154–202, especially 161–80, which assigns the same genre-typical characteristics to 1 Timothy and Titus; furthermore, cf. Luke T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 139–42; Jens Herzer, “Die Pastoralbriefe im Licht der dokumentarischen Papyri des hellenistischen Judentums,” in Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. 3. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Leipzig, Mai 2009), ed. Roland Deines, Jens Herzer, and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, WUNT 274 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 319–46; cf. critically Margaret M. Mitchell, “PTebt 703 and the Genre of 1 Timothy. The Curious Career of a Ptolemaic Papyrus in Pauline Scholarship,” NovT 44 (2002): 344–70. See also below at section 3.3 on the genre of Titus. 24

154

Jens Herzer

or simply a “memorandum.”28 The aim of this “memorandum” (“Denkschrift”) is to consolidate the church model of an οἶκος θεοῦ, which is oriented around ancient socio-economic structures, and to justify the ethical consequences that result from it accordingly. Finally, the last two passages relevant to the concept of truth in 1 Timothy are in 1 Tim 4:3 and 6:5, and they correspond to the meaning of truth as an expression of a guiding ethos: 1 Tim 4:1–3: 1 Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, 2 ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσιν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

(1) The Spirit, however, explicitly says that in the later times some will deviate from the faith by adhering to false spirits and demonic teachings, (2) speaking hypocritically and deceitfully, seared in their own conscience, (3) (who) forbid marriage, (demanding) abstinence from (certain) foods, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who have come to know the truth.

At the beginning of 1 Tim 4, and immediately following the presentation of the church as the house of God and the refuge of truth, the author deals in an apocalyptic manner with the challenge to this truth-ethos by “errant spirits and demonic teachings.” Behind this, of course, we have to assume concrete individuals who do not orient themselves on the normative ethos of the church. They demonstrate with certain ways of acting and ideas that they do not belong to those who have recognized the truth and know on the basis of this recognition that the behavior of “those people” (τινες) is wrong. Also 1 Tim 6:5 is about people who reject the truth-ethos and thereby demonstrate that they have actually entirely lost their understanding if they think that they can turn piety – that is to say, the way of the Christian life in the world – into a business or make a profit or earn some merit from it for themselves: 1 Tim 6:3–6: 3 εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῇ κατ᾿ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ, 4 τετύφωται, μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος, ἀλλὰ νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας, ἐξ ὧν γίνεται φθόνος ἔρις βλασφημίαι, ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί, 5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν. 6 Ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας·

(3) If anyone teaches differently and does not (himself ) follow the saving words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine (which is) in accordance with piety (4), he is pompous and understands nothing, but has a sick desire for disputes and arguments from which arise envy, quarrels, slander, evil suspicions, (5) (and) continuous disputes of people whose minds have been completely corrupted, who are deprived of the truth and think that piety is a merit. (6) But piety is (indeed) a great merit (but only when it is combined) with contentment.

28  Cf. Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition (see n. 27), 157–61, for a comparison with the “‘pastoral epistle’ of Ignatius versus that of Antioch to Polycarp.”

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

155

Deviation from the ethos of truth generates misconduct by which those concerned place themselves outside of the community. Piety has a “benefit” or “profit” only if it generates a virtuous life from the knowledge of truth, which in this case is brought into play with the virtue of αὐτάρκεια (“contentment, modesty”). The term πορισμός has certainly a material component which is shown not least of all by the warning to the wealthy, formulated afterwards against greed as the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:9–10), aimed at encouraging the wealthy to be generous to the congregation (1 Tim 6:17–19). It is thus consistent when, between these two texts, 1 Tim 6:11–12 summarizes once again the distinguishing aspects of a “person of God.” Such a person is one who has recognized the truth according to God’s will, has internalized the ethos contained in this truth, and who under this pre-condition lives virtuously in the church and in the world. And so “he” receives eternal life: 1 Tim 6:11–12: 11 Σὺ δέ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ, ταῦτα φεῦγε· δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην εὐσέβειαν πίστιν, ἀγάπην ὑπομονὴν πραϋπαθίαν. 12 ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, εἰς ἣν ἐκλήθης καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων.

(11) You, however, person of God, avoid these things! Follow after righteousness, piety, faith, love, patience, and compliance! (12) Fight the good fight of faith, receive eternal life, to which you have been chosen and have made the good confession before many witnesses.

At this late stage in the letter, it becomes clear that for 1 Timothy the “truth” clearly implies a virtue ethos, the realization of which finds its genuine expression in the “pious” life of the church. The well-known and meaningful Pauline concepts of justice, faith, and love are placed in a series of virtues which are not only an expression of the Christian life, but a prerequisite for the credibility of the “good confession before many witnesses.”29 3.2 Truth, Ethos and Ethics in 2 Timothy The truth and its recognition are also important categories of ethos and ethics in 2 Timothy, but in a manner significantly different than in 1 Timothy. One could even doubt with good reasons that 2 Timothy substantiates the concept of truth with something like an ethos. Perhaps, because of the testamentary genre the objectives of 2 Timothy do not focus on the concept of truth,30 but – already in the proemium – on Timothy’s “unfeigned faith,” the reason and content of which is outlined in 2 Tim 1:9 f. in concise and confessionally composed statements as the “gospel in the power of God.” Paul hands over this gospel to Timothy, as it  Cf. Mutschler, Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen (see n. 25), 286–88. Alfons Weiser, “Freundschaftsbrief und Testament. Zur literarischen Gattung des Zweiten Briefes an Timotheus,” in Zeit-Geschichte und Begegnungen (FS Bernhard Neumann), ed. Günter Riße (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1998), 158–70; Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition (see n. 27), 236–41, speaks of a “testamentary exhortation.” 29

30 Cf.

156

Jens Herzer

were, as an inheritance (παραθήκη μου, 2 Tim 1:12) and its preservation is entrusted to Timothy as a legacy of “words of salvation” (2 Tim 1:14).31 Instead of an ethos, therefore, we will first have to speak of a certain pathos in 2 Timothy that determines the program of the letter, namely the strong pathos of the tradition (παραθήκη). As I have already mentioned, this is motivated by and related to the genre of the letter. According to this program of 2 Timothy, concrete ethical instruction and thus the question of an underlying ethos takes a back seat. 2 Timothy also is concerned with the life of believers in the world, but not in the same way as 1 Timothy’s concern for the right way to live and its guiding ethos, but instead with regard to the limitation and the end of life. As a whole, the letter moves towards this dimension and finds its brilliant climax in 2 Tim 4:1–8. The ethos which Paul entrusts to Timothy under the sign of his pathos for “his gospel” (2 Tim 2:8) is not defined by the truth, but is an ethos of suffering and discipleship: “All who wish to live piously in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution” (3:12). This is the lesson that Paul himself had to learn in the almost militarily deprived struggle as a “soldier of Christ” (2 Tim 2:3). He generalizes this aspect as a part of his legacy that Timothy must now also learn by “having a share in suffering” (συγκακοπαθεῖν, 2 Tim 1:8; 2:3), without becoming entangled in the concerns of everyday life. The personal exhortation to Timothy is therefore directed towards discipleship in suffering, which derives the corresponding ethos from the gospel of Christ and his own suffering (2 Tim 2:11–13): 11 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συζήσομεν· 12 εἰ ὑπομένομεν, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν· εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς· 13 εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει, ἀρνήσασθαι γὰρ ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται.

(11) Reliable (is) the saying: For if we have died with him, we will also live with him, (12) if we endure, we will reign with him, if we have denied him, he will also deny us, (13) if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

The close connection of the Christian life with the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or the participation in it decisively shapes the ethos of 2 Timothy. It is obvious that this is connected with a considerable challenge in one’s daily “bios.” This perspective explains the polemic specific to 2 Timothy against to “those who claim that the resurrection has already happened” and who thereby fundamentally question both, the Christian ethos of suffering and the “faith” oriented towards the eschatological wreath of victory (2 Tim 2:16–18).32 31  Cf. Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition (see n. 27), 115–18. In 1 Timothy the concept of tradition (παραθήκη) plays only a subordinate role at the end of the letter in 6:20 and also has a different meaning than in 2 Timothy. Whereas in 2 Timothy the tradition entrusted to Timothy is the gospel of Paul, the term in 1 Timothy refers to the letter itself and the instructions contained therein. The term παραθήκη does not appear in Titus. 32  Cf. Mutschler, Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen (see n. 25), 368–71; Jens Herzer, “Vom Sinn und Nutzen der Polemik. Zur Pragmatik der Gegnerinvektiven in den Pastoralbriefen,” in Gegenspieler. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Gegner in frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Li-

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

157

Compared to the findings from 1 Timothy, it is surprising how late the “truth” appears in 2 Timothy: In relation to the “resurrection Christians” Timothy is “to rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Within the broader context of 2 Timothy, the peculiar form ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας can only refer to the gospel and  – corresponding to the apostolic παραθήκη  – its proclamation.33 This also becomes clear from the opposition of truth with “the myths” of those teachers who do not proclaim “sound doctrine” but something “that makes the ears itch,” and against which only sober, suffering, and persistent “evangelistic work” can help (2 Tim 4:3–5). The gospel was already summarized in its core in 2 Tim 1:9–10 and it is implicitly oriented towards the future with the warning against the representatives of those who say that the resurrection has already taken place. Thus, the “truth” of the gospel becomes a precondition of the ethos of suffering, and the term ἀλήθεια therefore obtains a different meaning than it has in 1 Timothy. The truth of the gospel finally proves itself in the completion of suffering and in the attainment of the eschatological wreath of righteousness before the judgment of God (2 Tim 4:8). The apostle resumes his life’s work and he looks forward to the heavenly kingdom. His confidence is largely determined by the certitude that he has faithfully proclaimed the gospel, which all nations have heard (2 Tim 4:17–18). Finally, it is remarkable for 2 Timothy that those who (still) resist this truth are not abandoned, but rather, as a “pedagogical” concept, are to be led carefully – should one say empathetically(?) – to the recognition of the truth (2 Tim 2:25– 26). However, there is an exception formulated from the experience of the failure of such “pedagogical concepts”: Those who (comparable to the example of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres) persistently refuse the truth, not only prove their failure in faith but are – recognizably ironically formulated – “‘(Learning/)making progress’ for the worse” (2 Tim 3:8–9; cf. 3:13). Admittedly, it is not explicitly said again that in their “lack of understanding” (ἄνοια) they are incapable of living a life in accordance with the Christian ethos. But this is implicitly presupposed and also emerges from the moral defamation of the women “roaming in the houses,” who in their errant desire to learn are not capable of recognizing the actual truth and are therefore even incapable of living a life in accordance with Christ (2 Tim 3:6–7).34 In opposition to that stands what Timothy has learned “from his youth” from the “Holy Scriptures,” which in the end leads

teratur, ed. Michael Tilly and Ulrich Mell (in collaboration with Manuel Nägele), WUNT 428 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 183–205, here 197–99. 33  Cf. Alfons Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, EKKNT 16/1 (Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 191–92. 34 Cf. Jens Herzer, “Haben die Magier den Verstand verloren? Jannes und Jambres im 2. Timo­ theus­brief,” in Religion als Imagination (FS Marco Frenschkowski), ed. Lena Seehausen, Paulus Enke, and Jens Herzer (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2019), 129–41.

158

Jens Herzer

to an “education in righteousness” and to the good works which characterize “a person defined by God” (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος) (2 Tim 3:14–17).35 3.3 Truth, Ethos, and Ethics in Titus With regard to the relation between ethos and the ethics, the letter to Titus also has its own profile within the Pastoral Epistles which is related to genre. Because of the explicit mandate given to Paul’s co-worker Titus, the letter is certainly a mandate letter, and it is therefore comparable to the Greco-Roman mandata principis.36 The mandate is the main focus here; detailed ethical instructions or the explication of an ethos are not to be expected, at most a summary list of virtues that are supposed to characterize the bearer of the mandate. Such lists, however, usually have a rather stereotypical character and turn out to be formal elements of the genre with no specific function. This also applies to Titus, when the moral demands for the church leaders are formulated in Titus 1:6–9. The occasion for Titus’s mandate is the precarious situation of Cretan congregations, caused by Jewish “chatterers and deceivers” (Titus 1:10) who are discredited by the author with drastic rhetorical means (Titus 1:10–16). They are accused of adhering to “Jewish myths and the commandments of (those) people who have turned away from the truth” (Titus 1:14). This refers to the truth which had already been mentioned in the prescript as the truth that corresponds to piety and legitimatizes the Pauline apostolate (Titus 1:1; see below). In a negative attribution, the phrase “good work” (ἔργον ἀγαθόν) is introduced as a test category. The people discredited by the author are not capable of any good work because of their “soiled mind and conscience” (Titus 1:15–16). Correspondingly, at the end of the mandate letter, the “good works” (3:8) or the “works of righteousness” (Titus 3:5) are demanded as the proof of a Christian life based on God’s philanthropy (Titus 3:4–7). Only at this point the author formulates something like an ethical guiding principle: “This is good and useful to the people” (Titus 3:8). However, it remains open what is meant concretely by these “useful” good works.37 Nevertheless this statement corresponds to the genre of a mandate, because it emphasizes the benefit of the assignment. Even seemingly concrete demands such as the subordination to secular power structures (Titus 3:1) fit into this perspective. And even if it seems somewhat unusual: An ethos of “usefulness” towards all people arises for the believers from the “goodness and 35 Cf. Friedemann Krumbiegel, Erziehung in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Konzept zur Konsolidierung der Gemeinden, ABIG 44 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2013). 36  On this, see above at n. 27. 37 Cf. Jens Herzer, “‘These things are excellent and profitable to everyone’ (Tit 3:8). The Kindness of God as Paradigm for the Ethics,“ in Character Ethics and the New Testament. Moral Dimension of Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Louisville, Westminster John Knox, 2007), 127– 40.

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

159

philanthropy of God” Titus (3:4), whose mercy through the Spirit in Christ “has been poured out abundantly upon us” (Titus 3:5–6).38 To a certain extent, a passage in Titus 2:1–9 similar to the Haustafeln builds the bridge between the mandate at the beginning in Titus 1 and the presentation of a theological-ethical foundation in Titus 2:10–3:11. Apart from the fact that it shows no relationship to the Haustafeln in Ephesians and Colossians, Titus 2:1–9 remains unspecific in ethical terms and does not represent a classical “Ständeethik,” but addresses the relationship between the older and younger generations and, as a separate aspect, a slave parenesis. It is a rather randomlooking compilation, whose individual admonitions are mostly exhausted in commonplaces. But what about the concept of truth in Titus, which has only been hinted at so far? This concept appears only twice in Titus: right at the beginning in the prescript, and in the context of the polemics against the “opponents” in Titus 1:14. Moreover, there is no concept recognizable that would be characterized by a certain ethos that goes beyond the concern of the mandate. Titus therefore represents, at least to some extent, what Margaret Mitchell once called an “odd mix of the personal and the public, of church order and personal exhortation, of instruction and command, of the particular and the general”39 (referring, of course, to the Pastoral Epistles as a Corpus Pastorale). Nevertheless, the concept of truth for Titus gains a certain programmatic meaning already in the prescript, which is as elaborate as it is difficult to understand: Titus 1:1: Παῦλος δοῦλος θεοῦ, ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ᾿ εὐσέβειαν

Paul, a slave of God, apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the knowledge of the truth that corresponds to piety

It is striking about this sentence that, as in 1 and 2 Timothy, it is a matter of the knowledge of the truth which is the basis for Paul’s legitimation as an apostle of Jesus Christ, and simultaneously also for the legitimation of the mandate given to Titus for his work in congregations that were not founded by Paul himself. The knowledge of the truth, therefore, does not primarily refer to an ethos but rather substantiates a claim to legitimacy. Therefore, the truth that is at issue here explicitly corresponds to εὐσέβεια. This does not make the statement any easier to understand, since εὐσέβεια appears only here in Titus.40 But based on 38 Cf. Jens Herzer, “Titus 3,1–15: Gottes Menschenfreundlichkeit und die ethische Relevanz christlicher Hoffnung,” in 2 Timothy and Titus Reconsidered – Der 2. Timotheus- und der Titusbrief in neuem Licht, ed. Reimund Bieringer, Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 20 (Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 133–79. 39 Mitchell, “PTebt 703 and the Genre of 1 Timothy,” (see n. 27) 344. 40  Cf. Standhartinger, “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen,” (see n. 8) 54: “What constitutes the content of εὐσέβεια cannot be determined in the context of the Pastoral Epistles.”

160

Jens Herzer

this relation, it is possible to conclude that εὐσέβεια, as a more detailed definition of the knowledge of truth, is a correlate of πίστις. Or, to put it another way, the terms πίστις, ἀλήθεια, and εὐσέβεια not only characterize Paul’s apostolic authority, but as such also define the fundamental framework of a Christian life. Only from this something like an ethos could be derived, from which Titus’s assignment results. This assignment aims at an ethics of good works that is conducive or “useful” for the congregation’s life. Titus’s mandate is therefore explicitly opposed to those who are not able to do such “good works” because they have turned away from the truth (Titus 1:14–16). This means that the divine grace in “goodness and philanthropy” takes on a concrete form and a strength that benefits human beings (Titus 3:4) and has a real “pedagogical” effect: It leads believers to live “prudently, justly, and piously in this world” (Titus 2:12). The truth mentioned in the prescript corresponds closely with εὐσέβεια, and thus becomes the prerequisite of a pious life. Titus does not have to develop this connection – this is not the task and object of a mandate letter. But here too something like an implicit ethics emerges, for which truth is presupposed as the guiding ethos with the specific profile of grace or goodness and philanthropy.41

4. Summary: Ethos, Implicit Ethics and Genre Looking at the three Pastoral Epistles individually it becomes clear that the Pastoral Epistles do not have a uniform ethical profile. Therefore, it is not possible to speak of the ethics of the Pastoral Epistles. Formally, the aspect of genre has turned out to be a differentiating feature that determines both the ethos and the ethics of the letters. Since the Pastoral Epistles – even under the condition of pseudepigraphy – are not artificial letters, but instead were written with a specific concern within a concrete context, it must be considered that a determination of genre according to fixed rhetorical rules is not what we would have to expect.42 Nevertheless, I believe that the differences are significant enough to determine the respective ethical profile of the epistles. In terms of content, the concept of truth is profiled in different ways as the guiding principle of the ethos. 1 Timothy is in the proper sense something like an apostolic “pastoral epistle,” an ecclesiological “memoir” (memorandum; “Denkschrift”), whose concern is the consolidation of church structures and the establishment of a certain code of 41 Cf.

Herzer, “‘Das Geheimnis der Frömmigkeit’” (see n. 21). relevance of the genre question or the necessity of a stronger differentiation with regard to the individuality of the three epistles ultimately makes even the usual designation “Pastoral Epistles” problematic because it suggests a genre equality that does not do justice to the specific profile of the three epistles. 1 Timothy is the only epistle of the three that qualifies as a pastoral epistle in the actual sense. On this, see above at n. 26 and n. 27. 42 The

Ethics, Ethos, and Truth

161

conduct within these structures. The particular reason for this is the destructive influence of a development which, in the author’s view, calls into question the truth of the traditio apostolica. Under the premise of apostolic authority, therefore, 1 Timothy formulates an ethos of truth that is oriented towards an already firmly established confession and is directed towards a virtue ethic. This virtue ethic is charged with salvation-economical themes (1 Tim 1:4) and is explained according to the paradigm of ancient household economy (1 Tim 3:1–16). The claim to truth, the ethos derived from it, and the normative entitlement lead to an apostolically legitimized consolidation of authoritative structures. Truth and piety presuppose one another; indeed, one could almost say that ἀλήθεια and εὐσέβεια become synonyms. They are two sides of the same coin, and this coin is the calm, quiet, and honorable (“civil”) life before God and the world (1 Tim 2:1–6). In contrast to this, 2 Timothy, a testamentary letter, develops an ethics of succession and imitation from the basic experience of suffering, which is also based on an ethos of truth. This ethos, however, contains as truth the proclaimed and received gospel and is not restricted to fixed confessional structures. The ethical focus of this truth is on the suffering of Christ, from whom an ethic of “shared suffering” or “struggle” is developed (2 Tim 2:3–7). Paul’s own experience of suffering – being imprisoned and expecting his violent death – is not only presented to Timothy as an expected fate, but is generalized in a fundamental way: “All who want to live ‘piously’ (εὐσεβῶς) in Christ Jesus” are potentially exposed to this pressure of suffering (2 Tim 3:11–12). Once again, the situation is different in Titus. The genre of the letter to Titus has often been defined analogously to that of 1 Timothy. This is also connected with the fact that the genre of the memorandum is closely related to that of the mandate letter (mandatum principis). 1 Timothy as a memorandum does contain elements of a mandate, but in light of the letter’s concrete circumstances, these features serve only a fictional literary function and do not relate to a real situation. This is different, however, in the case of Titus. Titus is a mandate letter that formulates a concrete task for a concrete person and anchors it in a real-life situation within a network of other individuals and their activities (Titus 3:12– 14). The mandate is about the establishment of leadership structures in order to provide stability and orientation within endangered congregations (Titus 1:5–9). The letter develops ethical virtue principles which are decisive for the task of the mandate and concern the qualifications of those to whom the mandate refers. From this task and from its theological justification, a kind of “utilitarian ethics” develops, which is oriented towards doing “good works” and has to prove its worth in the context of a socially loyal environment (Titus 3:1–8). The differentiated look at the ethics in the Pastoral Epistles has demonstrated that the classical interpretation of the letters according to the Corpus Pastorale model is insufficient for capturing the individual profiles of each letter. This per-

162

Jens Herzer

spective should be emphasized, without describing the conceptual and factual characteristics of each letter on the basis of its supposed “unity” with the two others. We can understand inner relations between the three letters properly and place their distinctive accentuations into a plausible relationship with each other only by operating according to this methodological presupposition.43

43 Der vorliegende Artikel entstand mit Unterstützung eines Forschungsstipendiums (Senior Research Fellowship) der Kolleg-Forschungsgruppe „Multiple Secularities – Beyond the West, Beyond Modernities“ des Centre for Advanced Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences an der Universität Leipzig.

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum? Titus and His Construct of the Opponents Michael Theobald Rarely has a request to participate in a symposium plunged me into such chagrin as the request from Mainz to speak about the “ethics of the opponents” of the Epistle to Titus, as if it were about an unknown country for which we have no primary testimonies, only a broken echo which reverberates vaguely to us. The reason for this tricky situation is well-known: The author of Titus does not attempt to argue with his opponents, but rather utilizes the strategy of polemically distancing himself from them in order to stabilize his own followers. Thus we hardly hear anything about how they live and what they think, and when we hear something about them, the information is distorted and brief and does not aid in our understanding of their way of life or their theology. The author does not hold back any means of disqualifying his opponents ethically or morally: He says they are “liars,” they act “out of evil lucre” (Titus 1:11–12), and they are on the hunt “for strife” (Titus 3:9). The other two letters of the Corpus Pastorale follow the same pattern. Thus, 2 Timothy notes that the teachers who opposed the truth belong to the kind of people who would appear at the end of time, when lies and amorality spread throughout the world (2 Tim 3:1–9). How can such a wall of malicious prejudice be broken down and a view of the ethos or even “ethics” of these dissenting Christians be opened up? It can be ruled out that the author fights a phantom such that his polemic is entirely a figment of his own creation.1 It is however disputed whether his 1  This assumption is based upon a strong scholarly consensus. The introductions or excurses dealing with the opponents within recent commentaries serve as a helpful introduction to the question: Ceslas Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales, 4th ed., Études Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 85–119 (“Hérétiques et Hétérodoxes”); Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, 5th ed., RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1989), 31–42; Jürgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, EKKNT 15 (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 228–39 (excursus: “Die Gegner”); Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus. A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, and an Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, the Pastoral Epistles, AB 35 (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 15; Lorenz Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, HThKNT 11/2.3 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1996), 52–73 (excursus: “Die Irrlehrer in den Gemeinden der Pastoralbriefe”); I. Howard Marshall (in collaboration with Philip H. Towner), The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 40–52 (“The Opposition to Paul”); Alfons Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, EKKNT 16/1 (Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 210–25 (excur-

164

Michael Theobald

opponents are identical with those of 1 and 2 Timothy,2 or whether the three letters engage on different fronts.3 Do they offer something like a panorama of contemporary “heretical” views,4 or are they fighting against a specific group whose profile could be reconstructed from their scattered statements?5 Could it be that the opponents – like the author of the epistles – are “Pauline,” that is, Christians who similarly claim the Pauline heritage for themselves, but understand it in a fundamentally different manner? If this assumption is correct, and there is much to be said in favor of it,6 we would have to imagine the opponents in the same place where the author of the Pastoral Epistles and his followers are to be found, in the churches of Asia Minor, perhaps in Ephesus or in the surroundings of the Asia Minor metropolis. Within the context of this essay, it goes without saying that these questions cannot be answered in a remotely satisfying way. I assume that the three letters do not originate from Paul, but are pseudepigrapha with a fabricated author and addressee, and which were constructed as a trilogy. This trilogy was not intended to form an independent corpus but was instead appended to an already extensive Corpus Paulinum, added on to a new edition of the letters, intended to guide their interpretation from the end.7 It is probable that this new edition sus: “Sinngehalt und theologiegeschichtlicher Ort der Irrlehre, die Auferstehung sei schon geschehen (2,18)”; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Cf. also Lloyd Keith Pietersen, The Polemic of the Pastorals. A Sociological Examination of the Development of Pauline Christianity, LNTS 264 (London: T&T Clark, 2004). 2 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 41: “An immediate problem is whether we are dealing with the same basic phenomenon in all three letters. On the whole, this appears to be the more likely interpretation of the evidence”; likewise Brox, Roloff, Oberlinner, Weiser, among others. 3  Jens Herzer, “Juden – Christen – Gnostiker. Zur Gegnerproblematik der Pastoralbriefe,” BTZ 25 (2008): 143–68; idem, “Was ist falsch an der ‘fälschlich so genannten Gnosis’? Zur Paulusrezeption des Ersten Timotheusbriefes im Kontext seiner Gegnerpolemik,” Early Christianity 5 (2014): 68–96; idem, “Zwischen Mythos und Wahrheit. Neue Perspektiven auf die sog. Pastoralbriefe,” NTS 63 (2017): 428–50; idem, “Vom Sinn und Nutzen der Polemik. Zur Pragmatik der Gegnerinvektiven in den Pastoralbriefen,” in Gegenspieler. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Gegner in frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Literatur, ed. Michael Tilly and Ulrich Mell, WUNT 428 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 183–205. 4  Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 66: “ an apologetic vademecum for all sorts of anti-Gnostic conflicts”; similarly in Peter Trummer, Die Paulustradition der Pastoralbriefe, BBET 8 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1978), 169. 5  Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, 52: “the only possible way to determine the basic features of the heresy being fought against [seems to be] to create a theologically coherent and historically appropriate picture from the various pieces of the mosaic.” 6 Cf. below at 2.1. 7 On the introductory questions of the Pastoral Epistles, see the recent and comprehensive work by Martina Janßen, “Corpus pastorale catholicum. Studien zu Komposition und Intention der Pastoralbriefe” (Habilitation, Göttingen, 2019). – On the claim that the author of the Pastoral Epistles reinterpreted Paul by letting “himself ” have the last word on the topics discussed, cf. Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus. Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe, NTOA/StUNT 52 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

165

arose in the second quarter of the 2nd century in Asia Minor, in a pre-Marcionite “gentile Christian” milieu within which a general forgetfulness of Israel was widespread, a characteristic that marks all three epistles.8 When Titus 1:10 specifically attacks “the teachers who came from the circumcision group” (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς), the reference to the Jewish origin is used for their theological defamation, which only works within a “gentile Christian” milieu.9 It should be noted that the strategy of polemical demarcation without an argumentative discussion of the opposing positions, which is used in all three epistles,10 differs clearly from the argumentative style of the authentic Pauline epistles. Paul could also be polemical, but he never left his opponents’ arguments standing; he wanted to convince his readers. The construct of the opponents in the three epistles also has a share in their pseudepigraphic fictionality: When the pastoral “Paul” warns of the “heretics” (Titus 3:10),11 who in fact would have only appeared in the presence of the real 2004); for a case study, cf. Michael Theobald, “Das ‘Kirchliche Amt’ – kein Grund für Kirchenspaltung. Oder wie wir die paulinische Briefsammlung lesen sollten: von hinten (Pastoralbriefe) oder von vorne her (Römerbrief )? Historisch-kritisch oder kanonisch?” in Exegese – ökumenisch engagiert. Der “Evangelisch-Katholische Kommentar” in der Diskussion über 500 Jahre Reformation, ed. Ulrich Luz, Thomas Söding, and Samuel Vollenweider (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016), 119–28.  8 Michael Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe, SBS 229 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016); idem, “Zur Datierung der Pastoralbriefe. Parameter zur Ausmessung ihres Entstehungskorridors,” in Das Baujahr hinter der Kulisse. Zur Datierung neutestamentlicher Spätschriften, ed. Wolfgang Grünstäudl and Matthias Schmidt, WUNT 470 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 355–83; Gerd Häfner takes up the keyword “Israel-Vergessenheit” in Gerd Häfner and Stefan Schreiber, “Pastoralbriefe und Johannesoffenbarung. Kontroverse Einstellungen zu Staat und Gesellschaft,” in Kontroverse Stimmen im Kanon, ed. Martin Ebner, Gerd Häfner, and Konrad Huber, QD 279 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016), 10–‍63, here 26–28.  9  Wolfgang Stegemann, “Antisemitische und rassistische Vorurteile in Titus 1,10–16,” KuI 11 (1996): 46–61; Christine Gerber, “Antijudaismus und Apologetik. Eine Lektüre des Titusbriefes vor dem Hintergrund der Apologie Contra Apionem des Flavius Josephus,” in Josephus und das Neue Testament. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. Christfried Böttrich and Jens Herzer, WUNT 209 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 335–63. 10 In addition to Titus 1:10–15; 3:9–11, cf. also 1 Tim 1:3–7, 19–20; 4:1–5; 6:3–10, 20b–‍21; 2 Tim 1:15; 2:16–18, 23–26; 3:1–9; 4:3–4. 11  Titus 3:10–11: “You are to reject/eject (παραιτοῦ) a heretical person (αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον) after one or two warnings/rebukes (νουθεσίαν), knowing that such a person (ὁ τοιοῦτος) is on the wrong path and is sinful – condemning himself (αὐτοκατάκριτος).” The corresponding substantive αἵρεσις with the sense of heresy only occurs in 2 Pet 2:1; Ign., Eph. 6:2; Trall. 6:1. This fits the time-period of the second quarter of the 2nd cent. Cf. Marcel Simon, “From Greek Hairesis to Christian Heresy,” in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: in honorem Robert M. Grant, ed. William R. Schoedel and Robert L. Wilken, ThH 54 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979), 101–16; Alain Le Boulluec, La Notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe–IIIe siècles. Tome I: De Justin à Irénée (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1985), especially, 41–48; Eduard Iricinschi and Holger Michael Zellentin, Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity, TSAJ 119 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

166

Michael Theobald

author of the epistles several decades after the death of the apostle, this temporal difference is veiled by means of different literary techniques. I mention three here: (1) The “Paul” of the Corpus Pastorale acts prophylactically; he is presented as someone who knows about the (coming) dangers. If “Titus” in Crete is supposed to endow the “elders” with “episcopal” responsibility, it is to serve the purpose that they instruct the churches “in sound doctrine” and rebuke “those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). “For there are many (πολλοί) disobedient, empty talkers and deceivers” (Titus 1:10) who “must be stopped” (Titus 1:11). (2) In Titus, “Paul” speaks of something that is happening elsewhere, on the island of Crete, with its proverbial many cities12 (cf. Titus 1:5). The perspective is not that of “Titus” on Crete (cf. Titus 1:5; 3:12), but that of the implicitly addressed readers, who gain insight into the letter to “Titus.”13 We have to imagine that they are in Asia Minor, not on Crete.14 “Paul” transports – seen from their point of view – the “many” opponents to another place, whereby such a spatial construction of alterity supports the pseudepigraphic fiction.15 (3) Alterity also works temporally. “Paul” refers both in 1 Tim 4:1–5 and 2 Tim 3:1–5 to the fact that “in later” or “the last times” insubordinate people will appear, false teachers who try to confuse the faithful. When “Paul” calls up his addressee “Timothy” to “turn away from these people” (2 Tim 3:5), it indicates that these “last times” are dawning. The fictionality of the concept of the opponents is related to the fact that some statements remain general or vague: “For there are many (πολλοί) disobedient” (Titus 1:10). “Certain (τινες) people have fallen away from faith” (1 Tim 4:1). “The sins of certain people (τινῶν ἀνθρώπων αἱ ἁμαρτίαι)” (1 Tim 5:24) have been revealed.16 At the same time, demarcations are indicated: In Titus 3:14, we are  Homer, Il. 2.649: “Crete with its hundred cities”; Od. 19.174 (“ninety cities”); Horace, Carm. 3.27, 33–34. 13  Not only the talk of the “our” (οἱ ἡμέτεροι) in Titus 3:14, but also the greeting assigned to “those who love us in faith” (Titus 3:15b) as well as the concluding encouragement of χάρις to “you all” (Titus 3:15c) embeds the fictitious communication between “Paul” and “Titus” within a broader readership that is committed to the pastoral cause. 14 Two observations on this: (1) If the fictitious “Paul” in Titus 1:12 defames the inhabitants of Crete in a general way with a sentence attributed to the Cretan Epimenides, he can only hope for approval in this way with non-Cretans. (2) Tychicus, whom “Paul” might wish to send to Crete to replace Titus (3:12), is traditionally associated with Ephesus (cf. Col 4:7; Eph 6:21; also 2 Tim 4:12 – Acts 20:4: Tychicus, an Ἀσιανός “one from Asia [Minor].”). Thus “Paul” seems to write from Ephesus or Asia Minor, which we can also imagine is the location of the implicit readership. 15  Cf. Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, 21–22: “For the choice of a place further away from Ephesus, it might play a role that the two apostolic disciples were to be assigned to different areas for their mission. In this way, the churches of the Pastoral Epistles, which were probably not directly connected with either two places, could be made aware of the wide spread of the church order organized and authorized by ‘Paul.’” 16 Use of the πολλοί or τινες as references to the opponents is already attested in Paul: (οἱ) πολλοί in 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:17; 11:18; Phil 3:18 (“the many” already has a disparaging ring to it in the Socratic dialogues of Plato). Τινες in Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 3:1; Gal 1:7. 12

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

167

told of the “our” (οἱ ἡμέτεροι) and shortly before in Titus 3:10, we are told that “Titus” “should admonish the αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος once and then twice,” and then to “avoid” him.17 This construct permits a glance at the factual situation of the communities. The so-called “heretics” still belong to and participate in the life of the communities. The metaphor in 2 Tim 2:20–21 says that there are different kinds of dishes: those “for honorable use,” and also those for “dishonorable use.” “In a large house, there are not only golden and silver vessels but also wooden and clay vessels.”18 Plainly said: From the author’s perspective, the situation is diffuse. He demands clarity in matters of faith and above all of order and wishes to tighten his own ranks.19 If this diagnosis is accurate, then it follows that it would be incorrect to speak of a separation or divorce of different directions in the ecclesial context of the Pastoral Epistles that had already taken place, but rather of a dispute about which of the two directions gains the upper hand and prevails. If, against this background, the question of the ethical views of the opponents is asked, then this question seems to be posed in a way that promises to be profitable only if it is posed at the same time as a question about the corresponding ethical views of the author of Titus and of the other two epistles, so that their answer contributes to a better understanding of the epistles themselves. The following thesis will be discussed below: Titus, which we assume is the original, initial letter among the Pastoral Epistles trilogy,20 pursues – like the other two epistles – the option of promoting the ethos of the communities and the law and order derived from it in the context of recognized socio-ethical standards, that is, understanding and practicing ethos before the public forum. The theological foundation for this option is the conviction of God’s universal will to save in Jesus Christ.21 If God “wants all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4),22 it is necessary to be open to all and to live in such a way that all people in the polis are addressed by

 See above at n. 11.  Such a “house,” according to the author of the Pastoral Epistles, is the “house” of the ekklesia; cf. 1 Tim 3:15. 19  Therefore Titus 3:14 also speaks pointedly of the “our” (οἱ ἡμέτεροι) and Titus 3:15 of a circle around “Paul” in which people “love” each other. 20  In addition to the alternative that 1 Timothy opened the corpus (2 Timothy was in any case at the end), see most recently Gerd Häfner, “Die Pastoralbriefe (1Tim/2Tim/Tit),” in Einleitung in das Neue Testament, ed. Martin Ebner and Stefan Schreiber, 3rd ed., Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2020), 459–83, here 467–68. 21 Michael Theobald, “‘Lauter Milde allen Menschen gegenüber!’ (Tit 3,2). Grenzüberschreitendes Ethos in den Pastoralbriefen,” in Biblical Ethics and Application. Purview, Validity, and Relevance of Biblical Texts in Ethical Discourse, FS Jan Van der Watt, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 9, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Stephan Joubert, WUNT 384 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 305–29 (I continue this contribution here with a view towards the question of the opponents). 22  Cf. 1 Tim 4:10; Titus 2:11: “bringing salvation to all men.” 17 18

168

Michael Theobald

the life of the believers and that individuals may join them.23 The fact that the author of the Pastoral Epistles repeatedly emphasizes this option in its different facets indicates that he represents it in opposition to and in demarcation from the internal ethical views of his opponents. They rely on rigorism and asceticism and profess a lifestyle that cannot be “identical” with an “existence under the conditions of this world.”24 From the perspective of the author of the Pastoral Epistles, they cultivate a group ethos whose specific outline consists in the fact that it relies on demarcation and does not appeal to “ordinary” people. There are enough indications in the text that point in this direction.

1. The Normative Significance of an Urban/Social “Public Sphere” for the Author of the Pastoral Epistles The relationship between the public and the private sphere is subject to profound changes from culture to culture.25 The architecture of the polis is already revealing for the Hellenistic-Roman world.26 In the center of the polis are the public squares and spaces where the free citizens discuss the affairs of the res publica:27 the agora, the bouleuterion or the theater, including the temples, which, insofar as they were dedicated to a city god or Roman gods, are places of public cults. Around this center, the residential quarters, which serve the private sphere, the vita domestica, are crowded together, whereby the oikos, the house, is also the most important economic unit. Both spheres, the public and the private, overlap, clearly visible in the roles of the oikodespotēs, the master of the oikos, who acts both within the public and the private spheres.28 The shape of the vita domes23  One can speak of a protreptic function of the cultivation of a Christian ethos: Jörg Ulrich, Justin. Apologien, KFA 4/5 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2019), 80: “The behavior of Christians in everyday life exerts an evident power of persuasion on outsiders.” (with reference to Justin, 1 Apol. 16.4). 24 Thus Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, 57. 25  Jürgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Katego­ rie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Mit einem Vorwort zur Neuauflage 1990, 6th ed., Stw 891 (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1999). Cf. also Hasso Hofmann, “Öffentlich/privat,” in HWPh 6:1131– 1134, ed. Joachim Ritter, Karlfried Gründer, and Gottfried Gabriel (Basel: Schwabe, 1984), as well as Lucian Hölscher, “Öffentlichkeit,” HWPh 6:1134–40. 26  Cf. Martin Ebner, Die Stadt als Lebensraum der ersten Christen. Das Urchristentum in seiner Umwelt I., GNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 44–100. 27  In Rome, as in the provinces, court proceedings were “as a rule public, at least until the middle of the 2nd century CE.” “‘Public’ has a different meaning here than it did in the Republic and the early Principality. It means that the trial took place in the forum or in other places, or at most in one of the open courtrooms (basilicae)” (Wolfgang Kunkel, “Prinzipien des römischen Strafverfahrens,” in Wolfgang Kunkel. Kleine Schriften, ed. Hubert Niederländer [Weimar: Böhlau, 1974], 11–31, here 23–24 with ample supporting evidence). 28  “[I]t was … their private autonomy as masters of households on which their participation in public life depended. The private sphere was attached to the house not by (its Greek) name

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

169

tica is not subject to arbitrariness, but to public expectations, as the literature pertaining to economics demonstrates.29 The first Christian ekklesiai at the edge of the synagogues were, as is well known, organized in the form of “house-hold” cells. Paul sees them linked together in an ideal unity within the public sphere, as can be seen from the fact that he addresses his letters, for example, “to the ekklesia of God which is in Corinth,” which is more than a simple address: Because ekklesia is a genuinely political term,30 it deals with the eschatological claim of the gospel within the public sphere of the world.31 According to 1 Corinthians 14:23–25, the openness of the small ekklesiai to non-believers, on which their missionary attraction depends, means that for Paul their discourse must be reasonable and understandable to strangers who come to them. How does religious exuberance help when strangers are repelled? From the very beginning, Christians have known about the importance of the public sphere of the polis because it is the dominion of God who claims the whole world in Jesus Christ. But it seems to take a long time until the public, conversely with its ethical ideas of order, has an effect on the inner space of the ekklesiai, even though it is the same people who live in both spheres.32 When Paul admonishes his addressees in 1 Thess 4:10–12 to behave well “before those outside” (πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω), he is not yet concerned with “bourgeois normality” in the inner sphere.33 Instead, his efforts are directed at only. Movable wealth and control over labor power were no more substitutes for being the master of a household and of a family than, conversely, poverty and a lack of slaves would in themselves prevent admission to the polis. Exile, expropriation, and the destruction of the house amounted to one and the same thing. Status in the polis was therefore based upon status as the unlimited master of an oikos” (Habermas, Strukturwandel, 56; ET: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Thomas Burger with assistance of Fredrick Lawrence [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989], 3; emphasis mine); Susan E. Hylen, “Public and Private Space and Action in the Early Roman Period,” in NTS 66 (2020): 534–53, esp. 540–50, shows clearly: „The overlap between public and private functions and space makes the neat divisions of modern scholarship untenable“ (50). 29 On this, see Oikonomika. Quellen zur Wirtschaftstheorie der griechischen Antike, prefaced, ed., and trans. Gert Audring and Kai Brodersen, TzF 92 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008). 30  Erik Peterson, Ausgewählte Schriften: Ekklesia. Studien zum altchristlichen Kirchenbegriff, Sonderband (Würzburg: Echter, 2010), 15–20 (“The profane ‘ekklesia’ in the Roman Empire”); Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “καλέω κτλ.,” in TWNT 3:488–539, here 516–‍20; Olof Linton, “Ekklesia,” RAC 4:905–21; Peter J. Rhodes, “Ekklesia,” DNP 3:934–‍36; Boris Repschinski, “Ekklesia als Kultgemeinde oder Volksversammlung? Zur Genese des Begriffs in Apostelgeschichte und Matthäusevangelium,” ZKT 137 (2015): 346–‍65, here 347–49. 31 Schmidt, TDNT 3:518: “Thus, although ἐκκλησία is from the very first a secular and worldly expression, it expresses the supreme claim of the Christian community in face of the world.” Peterson, Ekklesia; see therein Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, “Ekklesia, Polis und Synagoge. Überlegungen im Anschluss an Erik Peterson,” 152–95. 32  On the “practical constraints” in the everyday life of an ancient polis, cf. Thomas Johann Bauer, Das tausendjährige Messiasreich der Johannesoffenbarung. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Offb 19,11–21,8, BZNW 148 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 289–314. 33  Accentuated differently, see Jürgen Becker, “Feindesliebe – Nächstenliebe – Bruderliebe.

170

Michael Theobald

avoiding unnecessary offence from “those outside.” Occasionally he can argue with the socially “decent” in order to prevent customs from creeping into the Corinthian ekklesia (1 Cor 11:2–16). 1 Corinthians offers numerous examples of a struggle for the right placement of the ekklesia in the public space of the polis. The question as to when Christian ekklesiai are publicly recognized as relevant entities also depends on the assessment of their growth.34 In Rome the Christians were already publicly perceived in 64 CE (city fire under Nero).35 An echo from Bithynia is provided by the letters of Pliny, which respond to Christian activity in 112 CE.36 From the middle of the 2nd century, the phenomenon of “literary publicity”37 gained significance: Several Christian texts, which belong to the group of the so-called “apologetic” literature, such as the apologies of Aristides or Justin, have dedications to the emperor (i. e., public authorities).38 This innovation in early Christian literary history39 goes hand in hand with a discovery and growing appreciation of ancient education by Christians. The Christian ekklesiai enter the public consciousness as relevant social groups, are noticed, Exegetische Beobachtungen als Anfrage an ein ethisches Problemfeld,” in idem, Annäherungen. Zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zum Umgang mit ihren Quellen, Ausgewählte Aufsätze zum 60. Geburtstag mit einer Bibliographie des Verfassers, ed. Ulrich Mell, BZNW 76 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 382–94, here 387, on 1 Thess 4:1–‍12, a text that regulates “above all and primarily their (sc. the Christian small groups) inner relationship.” “The external relationship only comes into view at the very end: Outside one should not take offence at Christians, therefore it is necessary to realize ‘bourgeois’ normality. This fundamental structure of concentrating on the internal relationship and from there on the determination of the external relationship is not inherent in 1 Thess 4 by chance, but characterizes the typical early Christian admonition in general.” Concerning this, Becker refers to the “structural disposition of the admonition” in 1 Thess 5:12–15; Gal 5:13–6:10; Rom 12,1–2; Col 3:2–17; Eph 5:1–11; Heb 13:1–6; 1 Pet 2:13–17; 3:8–9; 4:7–11 etc. 34  Dietrich-Alex Koch, Geschichte des Urchristentums. Ein Lehrbuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 420; cf. also Franz Dünzl, Fremd in dieser Welt? Das frühe Christentum zwischen Weltdistanz und Weltverantwortung (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2015), 183–303 (“The expansion of Christianity and its impact on the religiousness of early Christians”), especially 183–86 (“Geographical overview”). 35 Christians in Rome were indeed affected by the Edict of Claudius in 49 CE (see Acts 18:2), but they were probably not perceived by the public as an independent group in contrast to the Jews, but as Jews with messianic activities. 36  Cf. Plinius Secundus, ep. 10.96, along with the answer of Emperor Trajan (ep. 10.97). 37  This term has been borrowed from Habermas, Strukturwandel, 88, 89, among other places (see the index, p. 386). 38  Cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 1.1: “To Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus” (on this, see Ulrich, Justin, 64–68); Aristides, Superscript: “To the ruler of the world, Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus” (on this, see Michael Lattke, Aristides “Apologie,” KFA 2, [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 2018], 29–30); cf. also the Quadratus Fragment (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.3.2; according to Eusebius, dedicated and presented to Emperor Caesar Hadrian). – Wolfram Kinzig, “Der ‘Sitz im Leben’ der Apologie in der Alten Kirche,” ZKG 100 (1989): 291–317. 39 Cf. Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), § 1 (“The task”), where he develops criteria for his definition of early Christian literature, among which he no longer counts the Apologists. In fact, from the perspective of the “public sphere” presented here, they represent a literary novelty.

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

171

but are also observed critically. The pressure to defend themselves in the face of prejudices and attacks from the outside is growing. This leads to the “apologetic” literature. The Pastoral Epistles were written before this shift. They belong to the genre of inner-congregational writings, but they also give a clear indication of a change in perspective, as the congregational code in Titus 2:1–10 demonstrates. 1.1 “so that (ἵνα) the word of God will not be blasphemed (μὴ … βλασφημεῖται)” (Titus 2:5). Public Perception of a Christian Lifestyle as an Argument of the Paraenesis The congregational instructions in Titus 2:1–15, from which we begin, is directed – in contrast to the “household codes” (Haustafeln) of the Deuteropauline literature – not at the members of an oikos but instead at five “instances” of the local ekklesia through the mediation of the addressed “Titus,” the representative of future church leaders. He is to instruct them: the older men and women, who in turn are to instruct the young women;40 the young men – among them the author counts “Titus,” who is to be an example for them; finally, the slaves.41 While the instructions for the older and younger men are brief and without any particular motivation, the author brings older women and slaves into discussion within the oikos: in the instruction of the young women by the older women, he brings the men and children of the young women into play; in the instruction of the slaves, he brings their masters into play. Both sequences, like the one concerning “Titus,” each lead to an indication of motives, which are designed in the same way and divide the paraenesis with its refrain-like character into three sections (Titus 2:1–5/6–8/9). In terms of content, they thematize the public perception of the behavior demanded in the polis: 2:5c: so that (ἵνα) the word of God might not be blasphemed (μὴ … βλασφημεῖται) 2:8b: so that (ἵνα) the opponent (ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας) might be put to shame and nothing bad might be said about us 2:10c: so that (ἵνα) they [sc. the slaves] might adorn (κοσμῶσιν) the teaching (τὴν διδασκαλίαν) of our God and Savior in everything 40 Klaus Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” in ANRW 2:25.2, 1031–432, here 1083–84, refers to parallels in the Pythagorean Epistles; Theano to Callisto: “Indeed, to you younger women authority has been given by custom to rule over the household slaves once you have been married, but the teaching ought to come from the older women because they are forever giving advice about household management. For it is good first to learn the things you do not know and to consider the counsel of the older women the most suitable; for a young soul must be brought up in these teachings from girlhood.” Cf. Annette Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2013), 50. 41 On the structure and genre of the text, cf. Alfons Weiser, “Titus 2 als Gemeindeparänese,” in Neues Testament und Ethik. Für Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. Helmut Merklein (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1989), 397–414; cf. idem, “Evangelisierung im antiken ‘Haus,’” in Studien zu Christsein und Kirche, SBAB 9 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 119–48, here 141–46.

172

Michael Theobald

The author explicitly refers to the “word” or the “teaching of God,” which is not to be discredited by outsiders but on the contrary is to command respect. But this is not to be achieved directly through missionary activity, but indirectly through an exemplary socio-ethical behavior of Christians within their community/oikos, which corresponds to that of their environment.42 According to contemporary economics, the neuralgic points are the behavior of the subordinates within the hierarchy: that of the (young) women towards their husbands or that of the slaves towards their masters. This language seems to be self-evident. If the leader of the community, who is typified in the figure of “Titus,” instructs the community according to these ideas, this makes an impression on those who are far away or are even possible opponents of the community. Like an oikodespotēs, he too moves on the borderline between inside and outside of the community, and he is recognized within his role in the polis. It should be noted that the first indication of a motivation in v. 5 might well be an adaptation of the prophet’s word in Isa 52:5 LXX, which Paul already quotes in Rom 2:24 in his accusation of the Jews who do not keep the Law: “For the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you (τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), as it is written.” Instead of the “name,” Titus 2:5 speaks of the “word of God,” but the related slave paraenesis in 1 Tim 6:1 clearly alludes to Isa 52:5 LXX. Those who are under the yoke as slaves should hold their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God (τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ) and the teaching (ἡ διδασκαλία) might not be blasphemed (βλασφημεῖται).43

Although Paul already adapts Isa 52:5 LXX against the original sense of the Scriptures – according to both, the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts, the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because God could not prevent his people from being led away into captivity – Paul and the later adaptations of Isa 52:544 are not alone in this, but are part of an early Jewish tradition, as T. Naph. 8:6 proves: But for the one who does not do good, both angels and men will curse him, and God will be despised among the nations because of him (ὁ θεὸς ἀδοξήσει ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ).45 42  In terms of structure, Matt 5:16 is comparable: “let your light shine before men so that (ὅπως) they may see your good works (ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα) and praise (δοξάσωσιν) your Father in heaven.” 43  The proximity of 1 Tim 6:1 to Titus 2 is also evident in the inclusion of the term διδασκαλία (cf. Titus 2:10). 44  Cf. also Ezek 36:20. 45  Cf. 2 Sam 12:14; Mek. Exod. 15:2: “If the Israelites do God’s will, then his name will be made great in the world …; but if they do not do his will, his name will be dishonored in this world”

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

173

While the topos calls to mind the responsibility of the Jews in the Diaspora to contribute to the greater glory of their God “among the peoples” by their manner of life, the Pastoral Epistles use the topos specifically within their socio-ethical discourse: Christians should be able to justify their ethical behavior before the public forum. 1.2 Additional Evidence for the Topos of “Public Perception” (1 Tim 3:7; 1 Pet 2:12; Polycarp 10:2–3 etc.) (a) Not only the slave paraenesis in 1 Tim 6:1 but also the list of duties for the episcopal office in 1 Tim 3:1–7 uses the topos in a context (vv. 4–7) that indicates the “permeability” of different social spheres: 4 a (The episkopos must) preside over his own house well (τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον), b he must raise his children with discipline and with all decency 5 a  – for if someone does not know how to manage his own house (εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν), b how will he care for God’s church (ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται)? – 6 a (He is) not (permitted to be) a new convert, b so that he may become arrogant c and thus fall to the condemnation of the devil. 7 a Rather, he must also (δεῖ δὲ καί) have a good reputation among outsiders (ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν), b so that (ἵνα) he might not (μή) be defamed and (thereby) fall into the devil’s trap.

The first social sphere is the oikos. In it, the person who is about to take responsibility within God’s ekklesia (i. e., the second social sphere within a Christian’s network) must prove himself as oikodespotēs. Because such a responsible person (like the oikodespotēs) is publicly perceived within the polis – the third social sphere – he must “have a good reputation among outsiders.” Verse 7 is syntactically structured like that of Titus 2:5, 8, 10,46 and argues like Titus 2 with the “public perception.” It presupposes that publicly appreciated standards and values apply to the episcopal ministry. “The leadership of the community was … not only responsible for the correct procedures, but also for its external reputation (cf. 1 Tim 3:7; Ign., Trall. 3:2).”47

(Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the MSS and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 3 Vol. 1976], 2:28–29). 46 The instruction formulated with an absolute δεῖ is followed by a negated ἵνα-clause, a reference to the “public perception,” which is parallel to the examples from Titus 2 and serves as justification for the criterion cited. 47 Markus Öhler, Geschichte des frühen Christentums, UTB 4737 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 323. Ignatius, Trall. 3:2 says concerning the episkopos in the community: “The godless probably even respect him.”

174

Michael Theobald

(b) In another constellation, the topos of the “public perception” of the Christian lifestyle to be considered is found in 1 Pet 2:11–12, the opening of the second main part of the letter (1 Pet 2:11–4:11), which calls Christians to prove themselves in the everyday life of the world and its orders. Although the addressees experience themselves as strangers and guests in the polis because of the hostility to the Christian name and the accusation of disloyal behavior (cf. 1 Pet 4:14, 16), they are nevertheless supposed to convince their pagan neighbors by “living well”: 11 a Beloved, b I admonish you as strangers and guests [sc. in this world], c to abstain from carnal lusts which fight against your soul! 12 a Lead a good life among the gentiles (τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν … καλήν), b so that (ἵνα) they, if they slander you as evildoers (ὡς κακοποιῶν), on account of your good works (ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων), if they look (ἐποπτεύοντες) (more closely), they will praise God (δοξάσωσιν)‚ on the day of visitation (Isa 10:3).

When v. 12, which is syntactically and semantically similar to the previous examples, calls upon the addressees to “live well among the gentiles,” “there is no doubt that there is a certain agreement between Christians and their environment as to what should be considered good and evil.”48 If their confession of Christ brings them the reputation of “evildoers” (κακοποιοί), their “good works” should convince others in the polis in such a way that, even on the “day of visitation” (i. e., on the day of judgment), they “praise God” and thereby – it may be added – are saved. Verse 12 takes up Matt 5:16 and adapts this Gospel saying to the new situation. (c) This third example for the postulated topos, the instruction from the Epistle of Polycarp 10:2d–3a,49 once again takes up Isa 52:5 and is syntactically designed like the previous examples (instruction + final clause): 2 a When you are able to do good (benefacere), do not postpone it (cf. Prov 3:27–28), b for almsgiving delivers from death (cf. Tob 4:10). c All of you be subject to one another (cf. plnEph 5:21; 1 Pet 5:5; Ign. Magn. 13:2)! d Walk blamelessly among the gentiles (conversationem vestram irreprehensibilem habentes in gentibus) (cf. 1 Pet 2:12), e so that you yourselves might be praised on account of your good works (ut ex bonis operibus vestris et vos laudem accipiatis) f and the Lord may not be blasphemed on account of you (et dominus in vobis non blasphemetur). 3 a But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed (per quem nomen domini blasphematur) (Isa 52:5).

48  Wolfgang Schrage, Die Katholischen Briefe. Der Erste Petrusbrief, NTD 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 59–117, here 86. 49  It belongs to the part of the letter that has only been handed down in Latin.

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

175

b Therefore, teach all sobriety (sobrietatem), in which you also walk.

On the one hand, the instruction in v. 2d, e seems to tie in with 1 Pet 2:12;50 on the other hand, it clearly alludes to Isa 52:5 in its continuation into v. 3a. Again it deals with benefacere, the contents of which there seems to be agreement between Christians and gentes. When Christians do good, they can expect recognition for their good deeds from their environment. 1.3 Summary These three examples, which can easily be multiplied,51 illustrate how ethical views were chosen in a broad corridor of early Christian tradition, which Christians believed not only corresponded to God’s will expressed in their gospel, but also had the capacity for majority support in the contemporary polis.52 This applies not only to values and norms – as can be seen, for example, in the reception of the Greek-Hellenistic tradition of the so-called cardinal virtues53 or catalogues of virtues and vices54 – but also to socio-ethical questions about be50  The interpretation of this fact is controversial. While Johannes B. Bauer, Die Polykarpbriefe, KAV 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 64, explains: “The words of the impeccable change among the Gentiles come from 1 Peter 2:12,” Marlis Gielen conversely sees the 1 Peter as dependent upon Polycarp: “Der Polykarpbrief und der 1. Petrusbrief. Versuch einer Neubestimmung ihres literarischen Verhältnisses,” in Aneignung durch Transformation. Beiträge zur Analyse von Überlieferungsprozessen im frühen Christentum, FS Michael Theobald, ed. Wilfried Eisele, Christoph Schaefer, and Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, HBS 74 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2013), 416–44. 51  The following adaptations of Isa 52:5 should be mentioned in addition: (1) 1 Clem. 47:7: “And this news [cf. v. 7: that the ‘ekklesia of the Corinthians is rebelling against the presbyters on account of one or two people’] reached not only us but also those who are of a different mind than ours, so that even blasphemies against the name of the Lord have been brought forward because of your foolishness (καὶ βλασφημίας ἐπιφέρεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀφροσύνην), and you have even brought yourself into danger.” – (2) 2 Clem. 13:1–2: “And let us not please men, nor let us please only one another, but also those outside by right action, so that the name is not blasphemed because of us” (ἵνα τὸ ὄνομα δι᾽ ἡμᾶς μὴ βλασφημῆται). – (3) Ignatius, Trallians 8:2: “Do not offend the Gentiles, lest the church of God be blasphemed because of some unwise people! For woe to him by whom out of folly my name is blasphemed before anyone” (δι᾽ οὗ ἐπὶ ματαιότητι τὸ ὂνομά μου ἐπί τινων βλασφημεῖται). The woe is close at hand in Polycarp, Phil. 10:3. 52 Cf. also Willem Cornelis van Unnik, “Die Rücksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paränese,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche, FS Joachim Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964), 221–34. 53 Cf. Titus 2:12; on this, see Stephen Charles Mott, “Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion. The philonic Background of Titus II 10–14 and III 3–7,” NovT 20 (1978): 22–48; furthermore Friedrich W. Horn, “Paulus und die Kardinaltugenden,” in Paulus – Werk und Wirkung, FS Andreas Lindemann, ed. Paul-Gerhard Klumbies and David S. du Toit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 351–69. 54  Cf. Titus 3:2, 3; 1 Tim 1:9, 10; 6:11; 2 Tim 3:2–5, etc.

176

Michael Theobald

havior in the oikos55 and the authorities in the polis under the conditions of the Imperium Romanum.56 Thus it is not surprising that the social environment influences the internal order of the communities and that, despite their foreignness in the world, tendencies of adaptation to environmental norms are evident. The pagan philosopher Celsus with his Alēthēs Logos (from the years between 177 and 18057) may provide a control. He declares the “ethical teaching” of the Christians to be, when compared with Plato, certainly not a “new science” (1.4).58 He concretizes this in the Christian talk of “humility”(6.15)59 and poverty60 as 55  Already Dibelius and Conzelmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, 41–42, 117–18, recognized (following Wettstein) that the catalogues of official duties or lists of qualifications for officials in Titus 1:6, 7–8; 1 Tim 3:2–7, 8–9, 12 are modelled after corresponding ancient lists, for example, of a στρατηγός: Onosander, De imperatoris officio, Ch. 1, p. 11–22, ed. Hermann A. T. Köchly (Leipzig: Teubner 1860), 3–8. 56  Cf. Titus 3:1–2. Häfner and Schreiber, “Kontroverse Einstellungen,” 14–22, on the topics “explicit instruction on the external relationship” and “conceptual powers” (of such an external relationship) in the Pastoral Epistles. With good reason Häfner explains there on the one hand that the author of the Pastoral Epistles takes up “terms familiar from the environment,” “in order to use their positive connotation” (21), far from developing “a counter-program to the claim of the Roman emperor” (19); on the other hand it does not follow from it “that the relationship to the environment would be completely problem-free in the view of the Pastoral Epistles”, but corresponding 2 Tim 3:12 rather that “the faithful are under a certain pressure from outside (see also Titus 2:8)” (22). Cf. also Alfons Weiser, Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Christen nach den Pastoralbriefen, Beiträge zur Friedensethik 18 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994). 57  On the dating, cf. Horacio E. Lona, Die ‘Wahre Lehre’ des Kelsos, KFA suppl. 1 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005), 54–55; according to him, the work probably comes from Alexandria. 58  Celsus, AL 1.4: “Their ethical teaching (ἠθικὸς τόπος) is common (κοινός) and in comparison with the other philosophers it is neither venerable nor a new knowledge” (translated from Lona, Die ‘Wahre Lehre,’ 76); according to Celsus this is also true in comparison with Judaism, from which Christians have taken over important ideas, cf. 2.5b: “About the resurrection from the dead, about the judgment of God, and about the reward for the righteous and the punishment by fire for the wicked, nothing new about these topics was taught by Christians.” – Tertullian, Apol. 46.2–3: “But while the truth we hold is made clear to all, unbelief meanwhile, at the very time it is convinced of the worth of Christianity, which has now become well known for its benefits as well as from the intercourse of life, takes up the notion that it is not really a thing divine, but rather a kind of philosophy (philosophiae genus). These are the very things, it says, the philosophers counsel and profess – innocence, justice, patience, sobriety, chastity. Why, then, are we not permitted an equal liberty and impunity for our doctrines as they have, with whom, in respect of what we teach, we are compared? (trans. Sydney Thelwall.) 59  As proof, Celsus quotes Plato, Leges 715e–716a: “The God who, as the time-honored word also says, holds the beginning and the end and the center of all things, walks in a straight path, making his path according to nature; and justice always follows him as avenger for those who deviate from the divine law. Whoever wants to be happy keeps to this law and follows it in humility and modesty (ταπεινὸς καὶ κεκοσμημένος).” Clement of Alexandria quotes this paragraph in Stromata 2.132.1 and explains that it corresponds exactly to the word of Jesus: “Whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (cf. Luke 14:11; 18:14; Matt 23:12). Celsus considers this to be a misunderstanding and contrasts the dignity of a man who “humbly” submits to the world order without hubris with the “unseemly” way in which someonehumiliates himself “kneeling on the ground and throwing himself upside down, clothed in the garments of the wicked and covered with dust” (6.15b; Lona, Die ‘Wahre Lehre,’ 330: this is to be understood as “the portrayal of a penitent”). 60  Celsus, AL 6.16: “Jesus’ saying against the rich: ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

177

well as in the call to renounce violence (7.58b–c),61 only to point out critically that the Christians had misunderstood Plato. Celsus’s testimony is so revealing in our context because it demonstrates that it was certainly not the ethical maxims of the Christians that should have caused them distress. On the contrary, these reminded the philosopher of his own teacher, Plato. One final remark: When the described topos of the “public perception” is used, it is always a matter of ethical directives, not yet – measured against a contemporary understanding  – of “ethics” or “ethical teaching” (ἠθικὸς τόπος), which also discursively raises the potential of ethical generalization laid out in those directives.62 But the course for a kind of “ethics” has been set, and ways of development can be imagined.

2. Contours of the Opponents’ Internal Ethos Our considerations began with the “refrain” so characteristic of the congregational instructions in Titus 2:1–15, that in all ethical action we should be mindful of the “public perception” in the polis. Whoever recognizes that this passage is designed in exact contrast to the preceding warning about the heterodox teachers in Titus 1:10–16,63 which Titus 1:9 already announces in advance in the manner of a propositio with the double task of the episcopate, namely on the one hand “to instruct in sound doctrine” and on the other hand “to rebuke those

of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,’ is nicely said by Plato, although Jesus falsified Plato’s teaching, since Plato said, ‘It is impossible for someone who is outstandingly good also to be outstandingly rich’” (Leges 743a). Clement of Alexandria discusses Jesus’ saying (Matt 19:24) in Quis div. 2.2 and claims that the renunciation of riches is nothing new: “Many have done this before the Savior came down to earth, some to have time for philosophy and for the sake of dead wisdom; others out of foolish love of glory and vanity” (Quis div. 11.4). If he is concerned with “the continuity between antiquity and Christianity,” Celsus conversely asserts “the dependence of the Christian” on the pagan side (Lona, Die ‘Wahre Lehre,’ 332). 61 Celsus quotes the “commandment” of the Christians: “If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek” and explains: “Venerable is also this commandment, and in former times it was formulated much better, which they (sc. the Christians) brought back into remembrance in all too coarse a form.” Afterwards, he quotes as proof from Plato’s Crito, among other works, the following dialogue: “In no way, therefore, must one do wrong.  – Certainly not. – Therefore also not the one to whom injustice has been done may do injustice again, as most people believe, if one may not do injustice in any way. – It seems so. – But how? To do evil to the one from whom one has suffered evil, is that, as must people say, just or unjust? – Not at all. Repaying people with evil is no different from doing wrong.” 62  Middle Platonism advocates a tripartite division of philosophy into Metaphysics, Ethics, and Epistemology. 63 Weiser, “Titus 2 als Gemeindeparänese,” 405, on Titus 2:1: “The adversative δέ (v. 1) creates a contrast with all the statements in the section with the thoughts, speech, and behaviour of the false teachers marked in the previous section (Titus 1:10–16).”

178

Michael Theobald

who contradict it,”64 will not hesitate to evaluate the basic impulse of Titus 2:1–15 in an anti-typical manner with regard to the opponents. One cannot help but assume that, unlike the author of the three epistles, they were not concerned with an ethos capable of gaining a majority and being generalized, but cultivated instead an internal or group ethos with elitist features. Again, it is advisable to use the Epistle to Titus as a starting point to substantiate this assumption. 2.1 The Construct of the Opponents in Titus The little that can be gathered from Titus 1:10–16, after removing the polemics about the doctrine and practice of the opponents, can be summed up in three points. (1) In v. 11b the author of the letter explains: “they (sc. his opponents) destroy entire houses.” This means: In his opinion, they do not follow the usual socioethical ideas about the oikos, but “destroy” its recognized order, which means they revolutionize it by redefining the roles in the “house.” It is helpful to compare Titus 1:11 with 2 Tim 3:6, insofar as it explains what “destruction” means: If, according to tradition, women are obliged to “learn” what the oikodespotēs passes on to them in terms of conventional knowledge,65 the opponents seem to find their clientele particularly among women whose intellectual emancipation the author characterizes as “constant learning” in a Sisyphean manner.66 Plainly said, this means that they will never ever become διδάσκαλοι, which they claim to be. Titus 1:11 11a They must shut up, 11b they are destroying entire houses, by teaching out of shameful greed, what they should not teach

2 Tim 3:5–7 5b Turn your back on these people! 6 Because among them also include the people, who creep into houses and there pull certain women over to their side, who are ruled by sin and are driven by desires of every kind, 7 women who are constanly learning and who nevertheless never arrive at the truth.

Mention of “sneaking” into the houses in 2 Tim 3:6 is remarkable: “A polemic against missionary work” becomes clear, “which takes place in the seclusion of the houses (i. e., within the families) and is therefore beyond the control of the public sphere of the community or its leaders.”67 This contradicts the basic 64  On the rhetorical disposition of Titus, cf. Michael Theobald, “Titus: Introduction, Commentary,” in The Paulist Biblical Commentary, ed. José Enrique Aguilar Chiu et al., The Paulist Biblical Commentary (New York: Paulist, 2018), 1472–79. 65  Cf. Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7.3–10.13. 66  Michael Theobald, “Glauben statt Grübeln? Zum Anti-Intellektualismus der Pastoralbriefe,” Early Christianity (2014): 5–34. 67  Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, 37, with regard to Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, 287: “The public, official preaching of the church is the place where one learns the truth.”

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

179

intention of the author, who is concerned with the transparency of the local ekklesia in the public sphere of the polis. (2) Verse 15: “for the pure all things are pure” follows on specifically from Rom 14:20, where Paul uses the slogan “all things are pure” as an argument in the debate about the observance of food laws in Roman house churches.68 The distinction between pure and impure may therefore also have been essential for the opponents of the Epistle to Titus, not in an ethical-moral sense, but rather in a ritual one. Whether their views can be conclusively explained by the purity law of the Mosaic law is rather unlikely, despite the allusion to Isa 29:13 LXX in the discussion of the ἐντολαὶ ἀνθρώπων (“commandments of men”)69 in v. 14. The “commentary text” in 1 Tim 4:3: “They forbid marriage (and demand) abstinence from food which God has created to be consumed with thanksgiving” points to a rigorous asceticism which may have had additional sources of inspiration. Since there is some evidence that even the opponents of the author of the Pastoral Epistles – like the author himself – referred to Paul, their plea for celibacy will be linked to their fidelity to the apostle,70 without their having declared their ideal to be law, as the author of the Pastoral Epistles claims.71 In their table practices, they not only refused to eat meat but also to drink wine, and we are provided with no details about their motives for this. Whoever considers the central role that eating together played in the life of the ancient oikos, in the life of associations, in the cults of the polis and, accordingly, also in the ekklesiai will recognize a tendency towards dissociation in the practice of the opponents that may have been the norm for them. Their rigorous asceticism would have substantially promoted their group ethos. (3) According to v. 16a, the opponents “claim to know God” (θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι), which is countered by the clause in v. 16b: “but by their works they deny  For evidence, cf. Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit, 71–75.  Cf. Michael Theobald, “Von ‘menschlichen Satzungen’ (Jes 29,13) befreit. Eine nachpaulinische Tradition (Kol 2,20–23; Tit 1,14–15) im Licht von Jesus-Worten (Mk 7),” in Bestimmte Freiheit, FS Christof Landmesser, ed. Martin Bauspieß, Johannes U. Beck, and Friederike Portenhauser, ABIG 64 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020), 95–118. – A Jewish background – whatever its exact definition – of at least a part of the opponents’ movement seems to be present; cf. Titus 1:14 (“Jewish μῦθοι”); 1 Tim 1:7: “They wish to be teachers of the law” (νομοδιδάσκαλοι). – See Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales, 85–119; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 46: “A Jewish basis for the opposition is thus beyond question. However, this can be only part of the story.” 70 Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, “Engelsgleiche, Abstinente – und ein moderater Weintrinker. Asketische Sinnproduktion als literarische Technik im Lukasevangelium und im 1. Timotheusbrief,” in Asceticism and Exegesis in Early Christianity. The Reception of New Testament Texts in Ancient Ascetic Discourses. With an Introduction by Elizabeth A. Clark, ed. Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, NTOA/StUNT 101 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 21–68; idem, “Heilig an Leib und Geist. Sexualparänese und Anthropologie im Corpus Paulinum,” in Sexualität, ed. Irmtraud Fischer et al., JBTh 33 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 107–41. 71  1 Tim 4:3: They “ forbid” marrying (κωλυόντων); in Titus 1:14 he speaks of ἐντολαί, which they set up. Both could be polemics. 68 69

180

Michael Theobald

(ἀρνοῦνται) (him).” What is usually in opposition to each other  – “confess” (ὁμολογεῖν) versus “deny” (ἀρνοῦσθαι)72 – serves here to unmask the confession with the mouth by referring to the denial by means of action. In 2 Tim 3:5 the schema varies: “Although they maintain the outward appearance of piety, they deny (ἠρνημένοι) its power.” From this point of view, Titus 1:16 could be interpreted as a topos, which only polemically contains the discrepancy between word and deed. However, the antecedent clause is too specific not to be evaluated concretely as well. The opponents may indeed have claimed individual knowledge of God, by which they saw themselves as different from the ordinary baptized.73 Also the warning about the “contradictions (ἀντιθέσεις)74 of the falsely, so-called knowledge (τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως)” in 1 Tim 6:20 indicates that the opponents had the keyword “knowledge” of God in their mouths and made a claim which the author rejects with the epithet ψευδώνυμος.75 Without being able to clarify the still controversial question here of whether the formulaic expression “knowing God” can be evaluated as an indication of a Gnostic or Gnosticizing character of the opponents’ doctrine or not,76 the following should be noted: From the author’s perspective, this is an elitist “knowledge of God,” whose claim to validity fails because “real faith, which corresponds to piety … [must] prove itself before the public forum, especially before the community.”77 Three aspects of the opponents’ “teaching” and way of life can be detected in Titus 1:10–16: first, an alternative socio-ethical understanding of the role of the oikos; second, ideas of purity that are reflected in the opponents’ table practices and its ideal of abstinence; and third, the claim to have a special “knowledge of God.” The first two aspects do not need to be considered innovations compared with a traditional Pauline Christianity, as the author of the Pastoral Epistles puts it, but can also be interpreted as preservation of old ideals, loaded however with new motivations. If the emancipated understanding of the role of women corresponds to the fact that they had significant leadership functions at the be Matt 10:32–33; Luke 12:8–9; John 1:20. corresponds to their claims to intellectual superiority, as countered by the author of the Pastoral Epistles, cf. Theobald, “Glauben.” 74  A reference to the title of Marcion’s work “The Antitheses” should be excluded, cf. Theobald, “Glauben,” 6 (along with n. 4); the term is to be seen in the context of the broad vocabulary that serves the author of the Pastoral Epistles to vilify “intellectual ‘strife’ as a vice”; cf. Theobald, “Glauben,” 16–19. 75  William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1097: “falsely bearing a name, falsely called.” 76 Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion, BHT 58 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 135: The expression γνῶσις “at this point probably does not at all mean ‘gnosis’ in the sense of the history of religions; it is more probable that γνῶσις here as in all other places in the New Testament simply means ‘knowledge’ that the author of 1 Timothy thus polemizes against the anti-Christian ‘contradictions’ of those who claim to possess γνῶσις.” 77  Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, 48. 72

73 This

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

181

ginning of the Pauline mission, then the opponents’ ideal of abstinence may be interpreted as loyalty to the lifestyle of the apostle, who himself declared that he wished “all men were unmarried” as he was (1 Cor 7:7). Do the three epistles reveal an integral that holds together the aspects mentioned and possibly others, a “theological middle” from which they can be understood? The thesis in 2 Tim 2:18, which is put into the mouth of Hymenaeus and Philetus, two opponents mentioned by name, has every chance of being the sought integral.78 2.2 “The resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim 2:18). “The Theological Middle” of the Opponents’ Doctrine (Lorenz Oberlinner) Just as Titus 1:16 introduces the slogan “We know God” as the self-testimony of the opponents, so too the thesis that “the resurrection has already taken place” in 2 Tim 2:18. This assertion is made by two false teachers, who are mentioned by name: Hymenaeus and Philetus. Although these two were “probably neither real contemporaries of the sender and the addressees nor real figures of the past,” individuals “who would have played a negative role in the missionary history of the community,”79 the “erroneous assertion … reproduced in the form of a short report … [was] probably a real position and was not merely imputed to the opponents.”80 The fact that it is only mentioned in 2 Timothy (i. e., the last epistle of the trilogy) is connected with its overall organization in terms of content, which (like its spatial construct) develops according to plan: If the perspective of Titus is oriented in its theological argumentation towards baptism,81 and that of 1 Timothy towards the repeated gathering of the ekklesia for the liturgical

78  Primarily following Oberlinner, Der Titusbrief, 54, who finds that “the theological center of the ‘false doctrine’” in the “confession of his opponents [quoted in 2 Tim 2:18 is] that the resurrection has already happened.” This is the “‘core proposition’ at the center of the disagreements,” following Egbert Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre. Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe, MThSt 29 (Marburg: Elwert, 1990), 93 and with reference to Philip H. Towner, “Gnosis and Realized Eschatology in Ephesus (of the Pastoral Epistles) and the Corinthian Enthusiasm,” JSNT 31 (1987): 95–124, here 104: “At the center of the false teachers’ gnosis was the belief that the resurrection of believers had already occurred (2 Tim 2:18)”; Hermann von Lips, Glaube, Gemeinde, Amt. Zum Verständnis der Ordination in den Pastoralbriefen, FRLANT 122 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 153: “The fundamental soteriological view of the heretics [is] a spiritualized belief in the resurrection.” 79 Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, 195: There is “a concretizing stylistic device corresponding to pseudepigraphy with the tendency to illustrate problems, processes, and developments through personalization.” 80 Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, 195: A “substantive reproduction of their heresy” was “relatively rare” in the Pastoral Epistles. Apart from Titus 1:16a and 2 Tim 2:18, there seem to be no other examples. 81 Cf. Titus 3:4–7; on this, see Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, HUT 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 185: “This doctrinal proposition unites the three concepts of baptism, the spirit, and regeneration.”

182

Michael Theobald

meal,82 2 Timothy, which apart from elements of the ancient letter of friendship shows features of a literary testament, focuses above all on eschatological topics. According to the fictitious situation of the letter – “Paul” awaits his martyrdom after his Roman trial – and in keeping with the final position of the letter in the trilogy, the resurrection message as the “epitome of the gospel”83 is given special attention. The polemical rejection of the opponents’ thesis that the resurrection has already taken place suggests itself directly in this context. The enthusiastic interpretation of one’s existence in faith according to the slogan that the resurrection had already taken place in a spiritual, individualized sense collided with the conviction that at the end of times death would be “destroyed” and believers would be given “imperishability” (2 Tim 1:10). This slogan refers to the “theological middle” of the opponents’ positions insofar as the inherent devaluation of corporeality explains both the specific ideas of purity of the opponents and the special “knowledge of God” they claimed. It is not without reason that the author sees in the opponents’ renunciation of marriage and food a disregard for creation and emphasizes that “everything that God has created is good and nothing is reprehensible if it is enjoyed with thanksgiving. It is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer” (1 Tim 4:4–5). 2.3 Summary If the opponents saw in the community of believers an enclave of heaven, a place where the resurrection of the dead, as promised in the Jewish Scriptures, is already a reality here on earth, then this also had ethical implications. A life like the “angels” had to weld together the community of the redeemed and demanded a corresponding internal ethos of mutual love, respect, and appreciation with the flip-side that the references to the environment were declared irrelevant for one’s own existence in faith, if not entirely faded out. Unfortunately, the Pastoral Epistles do not offer any further pointers to the ethical views of the opponents 82  Cf. 1 Tim 2:1–7 (oratio universalis); 2:8 (the men’s attitude of prayer); 1 Tim 3:1–7/8–13 (Episkopos – Diakonoi: implicit orientation towards the congregational assembly: leadership and social services); 1 Tim 4:3–4: rejection of ascetic demands with reference to the Eucharist or prayers at mealtime; 1 Tim 4:13: Scripture reading and instruction (in the congregational assembly). 83  Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, 196. Additionally, reference is made to 2 Tim 1:10–12, 18; 2:5–6, 8–13, the inclusio in 2 Tim 4:1 (“I charge you by God and by Christ Jesus, the coming judge of the living and the dead, and by his appearing and by his kingdom”) and 2 Tim 4:8 (“already now the wreath of righteousness is ready, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, but not only to me, but to all who long for his appearance”), as well as to 2 Tim 4:18, but also to the motif of the future divine “retribution” (2 Tim 4:14). – The Corpus Pastorale speaks of “that day,” the future judgment, only in 2 Timothy; cf. the formulaic expression in 2 Tim 1:12 (εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν), 2 Tim 1:18 (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ), and 2 Tim 4:8 (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ). It is not at all a coincidence that 2 Tim 3:1 speaks of “the last days” (ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις) (the variant in 1 Tim 4:1 is: ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς).

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

183

beyond what has been mentioned  – how could they when they defame the opponents as “liars” (Titus 1:12), contentious (Titus 3:9), and “blasphemers” (1 Tim 1:20). Those who wish to have an approximate picture of their ethical ideas should refer to the Acts of Paul, which paints a picture of the apostle that in some ways resembles that of the opponents of the Pastoral Epistles.84 The homily that Paul preaches in the house of Onesiphorus is significant:85 It adapts the Matthean Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, but skips over the blessing on the peacemakers in this world, only to preserve the blessing for the merciful. “Paul” opens the series with the beatitude of those who are pure of heart, and the series as a whole serves his praise of ἐγκράτεια, abstinence. Among the new formations, there are two that are typical of the internal ethos of the groups behind the Acts: “Blessed are those who have renounced this world, for they will be pleasing to God,” and “blessed are those who have forsaken the worldly nature for the love of God, for they will judge angels and be blessed at the right hand of the Father.”

3. Group and Cross-Group Ethos. A Small Typology as a Conclusion After having referred to the Acts of Paul, it would usually now be the appropriate time to attempt to locate the opposing positions theologically and historically in the second century with its different currents.86 Instead, to illustrate the leading question of this essay – “internal ethos or ethos before the public forum” – we will be content to present the corresponding early Christian models in skeletal form and finally ask what significance the Pastoral Epistles have, ethically speaking, for the later history of theology. (1) Jesus represents a delimitation of all group ethics when he programmatically calls for “loving one’s enemies” and justifies this with the action of the Creator, who indiscriminately permits every human being, good or bad, just or unjust, to have a share in the foundational conditions for life: sun and rain (Matt 5:44– 45; cf. Luke 6:35).87 Jesus deliberately sets himself apart from all group egoism: To greet only one’s own comrades and to treat them well is a behavior that 84  Gerd Häfner, “Die Gegner in den Pastoralbriefen und die Paulusakten,” ZNW 92 (2001): 64–77; cf. Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle. The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983). 85 Acts of Paul and Thecla 5–6 (Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes, vol. 2 of Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 6th ed. [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997], 216–17). 86  Weiser, Der zweite Brief an Timotheus, 210–21, does this in a convincing way for the core proposition in 2 Tim 2:18, that the resurrection has already taken place. 87 Becker, “Feindesliebe,” 384: “Love imitates God, as he always creates new possibilities for living everywhere within creation. Love never asks who the other person is, but what he can become on the basis of the possibilities granted him.”

184

Michael Theobald

characterizes professional groups like the hated “publicans” (Matt 5:46), but it is also common practice in criminal circles (among “sinners”; Luke 6:33). An exaggerated group ethos betrays, for example, the Essene sectarian scroll when it calls the community “to love all the sons of light … but hate all the sons of darkness” (1QS I 9–10).88 When Jesus exhorts to go beyond all boundaries, including religious ones (Luke 10:29–‍37), this necessarily follows from his message of the accommodating and unconditional goodness of God. (2) The letters of Paul offer a differentiated picture. On the one hand, the apostle, in his role as a letter writer to the churches he founded, is primarily interested in supporting them as fraternal groups in their ethical endeavors for “sanctification” (1 Thess 4:3) in a motivating way, in accordance with their calling by God. What “brotherly love” (φιλαδελφία) is, he concretizes with instructions for living together in the church (1 Thess 4:3b–6). The reason and the driving force of this “brotherly love” is the being gifted of the believers with the Holy Spirit (1 Thess 4:8). Love is the outflow of their existence renewed by God’s Spirit. In addition to pneumatological reasons, there are also christological reasons for the new nature of Christians, which is expressed in the practice of love. So it is not surprising that Paul uses the semantic field of love (ἀγάπη, ἀγαπᾶν), with one exception (1 Thess 3:12), only for the internal references of the community, not for its external environment, and nowhere extends it to “love of enemies.” On the other hand (as mentioned at the beginning) he does not hide the communities’ external relations. Characteristic is the paraenesis in Rom 12:9–21, which in its first part deals with the internal relationships (v. 9–16), and beginning in verse 17 (cf. also v. 14) deals with external relationships, the latter with an astonishing sense of reality: “Do not repay evil with evil! Be careful to do good to all people! As far as it is possible, keep peace with all people!” (v. 17–18). There are limits to one’s ability and desire to make peace. Knowing that prevents disappointment. Only one’s own abilities can be assessed. The progression of the directives reveals their universal, apocalyptic horizon, which puts a stop to an absolutization of a group ethos: “Do not retaliate, beloved, but leave room for the judgment of God’s wrath, for it is written, ‘Retribution is mine and I will repay,’ says the Lord. Instead, ‘if your enemy is hungry, give him food; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; if you do so, you gather coals of fire upon his head’” (v. 19–20). God is the Lord of history, to whom all must answer, not only believers. The knowledge of a “good” that is implanted in all human beings 88  Cf. also 1QS II 24–26: “All are to be in the fellowship of truth, good humility, merciful love, and righteous thought, [on]e against another in holy counsel and as sons of the eternal assembly. But anyone who refuses to enter [into the covenant of God] and to walk in the hardness of his heart shall not [enter into the com]munity of his …” The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs offers another example: Jürgen Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen, AGSU 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1970).

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

185

(cf. Rom 2:12–16), even those who do not know God’s will from his Torah, offers the potential of a universally valid theological ethics, to which Paul in the Epistle to the Romans – a “theology in letter form” – provides the decisive systematic insights.89 Though, it was not his purpose to work it out as such. (3) Compared to Paul, the Corpus Iohanneum, as far as can be seen, cultivates a typical internal ethos. Its concise expression is found in the “new commandment” of love: “Love one another! As I have loved you, you also must love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples: if you love one another” (John 13:34–35).90 Ethical instructions for the external relationships of the community are sought in vain.91 The reason for this is that in John’s works, the “world” is the sphere far away from God, from which the scattered chosen ones are gathered into the salvific sphere of the church.92 Like Paul, the author of the Fourth Gospel advocates a theology of election, but unlike him, the apocalyptic universal historical perspective is missing. The expectation that God will assume his rule over the whole world at the end of time no longer leads at the forefront, but rather the conviction that here and now the chosen ones will be gathered into the vine of Jesus, which means life, and in death will be “drawn” into eternal life beyond (John 12:32). To speak of the “denunciation of an external relationship defined by the concept of love”93 is not the point. For if “all” people are “to recognize” by the fraternal love practiced in the community that these are Jesus’ disciples,94 the reference to the outside world is not cut off, but the circumstances are only reversed: “Mission,” understood in the Johannine sense, is not centrifugal,95 but centripetal, conceived as a gathering of the elect in the salvific sphere of Christ, who are attracted by the ethos of love lived out in the church.96 The ethos in this  If anywhere in the New Testament, it is Romans which (in continuation of Galatians) offers basic lines for theological ethics. In the horizon of ancient, systematic sketches of ethics, an idiosyncratic and new form of “theological ethics” makes itself known in connection with the Jewish-Hellenistic tradition. 90  Cf. John 15:9–11, 12–17; 1 John 2:9–11; 3:11–24; 4:7–16. 1 John offers approaches to a socioethical concretion of the internal ethos when 3:17 demands sharing the goods of this world with the “brother” in need; cf. William R. G. Loader, “What Happened to ‘Good News for the Poor’ in the Johannine Tradition?” in Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens, vol. 3 of John, Jesus, and History, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, ECL 18 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 469–80. 91  On the contrary, cf. 1 John 2:15–17. 92  Cf. John 11:52; also 1:11–12; 10:14–15; 17:1–26, among other passages. John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life”) corresponds to this because it is about those in the world who believe in him who are to be saved. 93  Becker, “Feindesliebe,” 393 (emphasis mine). 94  Cf. also John 17:21–23. 95  Matthew 28:16–20: “Therefore, go and make all the nations mine disciples ….” 96 This presupposes the awareness of being in the public eye as a Christian community and being perceived by it, or the intention to bear witness in public. On the Johannine understanding of mission, cf. Michael Theobald, “‘Wie mich der Vater gesandt hat, so sende ich euch’ (Joh 89

186

Michael Theobald

salvific sphere is christologically based (“as I have loved you, you also should love one another”). The gospel itself, through its characters, offers the readers narrative97 plot models98 and, with them, strengthens the group ethos, but does not go beyond it in the sense of a universalization of the values conveyed.99 20,21). Missionarische Gestalten im Johannesevangelium,” in Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum, WUNT 267 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 472–89, in particular 486–89 (“Mission im Johannesevangelium”). 97  Speaking along with others of a “narrative ethics” for the Gospel of John is Ruben Zimmermann, “Narrative Ethik im Johannesevangelium am Beispiel der Lazarus-Perikope Joh 11,” in Narrativität und Theologie im Johannesevangelium, ed. Jörg Frey and Uta Poplutz, BThSt 130 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012), 133–70. What such a system is capable of was already developed in 1976 under the use of this terminology by Dietmar Mieth, Dichtung, Glaube und Moral, TTS 7 (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1976), on the Tristan of Gottfried von Straßburg. Zimmermann presents the various concepts that have been developed in recent times within the humanities and social sciences (Zimmermann, “Narrative Ethik,” 146–55 [146 n. 51: literature]) and, in discussion with the efficacious contribution of Wayne A. Meeks, “The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 317–26, using the example of John 11, offers a characteristic attempt to adapt the concept to the Gospel of John. On John 11 as a narrative guide for dealing with death, cf. Michael Theobald, “Trauer um Lazarus. Womit die Juden Martha und Maria zu trösten suchten,” TTZ 114 (2005): 243–56 (also in Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum, WUNT 267 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010], 429–‍42). 98 John the Baptist (John 1) and the blind man who was healed by Jesus (John 9) are such “models of action” when they illustrate what παρρησία = “ frankness” means (John 1:20), as Jesus himself exemplifies “frankness” in his speech and actions (John 7:4, 13, 26; 10:24; 11:14, 54; 16:25, 29); cf. William Klassen, “Parrhesia in the Johannine Corpus,” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, NovTSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 227–54; Stanley B. Marrow, “Parrhēsia and the New Testament,” CBQ 44 (1982): 431–46; Michael Labahn, “Der Weg eines Namenlosen  – vom Hilflosen zum Vorbild (Joh 9). Ansätze zu einer narrativen Ethik der sozialen Verantwortung im vierten Evangelium,” in Die bleibende Gegenwart des Evangeliums, FS O. Merk, ed. Roland Gebauer and Martin Meiser (Marburg: Elwert, 2003), 63–80; idem, “Die parrhesia des Gottessohnes. Theologische Hermeneutik und philosophisches Selbstverständnis,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive, ed. Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle, WUNT 175 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 321–64. 99  But this is what Zimmermann, “Narrative Ethik,” 168–69 means (under the heading: “Universal ethics of friendship instead of conventional ethics”): John 11 (like the Gospel as a whole!) “does not seek to establish an internal ethic.” “If, according to the ancient understanding, open, free speech belonged to the special characteristics of trusted friends, it is extended to the whole world in John’s Gospel. Jesus works and speaks publicly to the whole world (ἐγὼ παρρησίᾳ λελάληκα τῷ κόσμῳ, cf. John 16:25). In this way, John expands the ideal of friendship in a universal sense” (emphasis mine). This does not seem to me to be the case, as the Johannine reception of the topoi of Greek-Hellenistic ethics of friendship especially in John 15:13–15 (cf. 3:29; 11:11; 3 John 15), but also in John 17:6, 9–10 demonstrates: “I have revealed your name to the people you gave me out of the world. For them I pray; I do not pray for the world, but for all whom you have given me, for they are yours. All that is mine is yours, and all that is yours is mine. In them I am glorified.” The same could be seen in the theme of hospitality: Michael Theobald, “Gastfreundschaft im Corpus Iohanneum. Zur religiösen Transformation eines kulturellen Grundcodes der Antike,” in Narrativität, ed. Frey and Poplutz, 171–216; cf. idem, “Freundschaft,” LTK, 3rd ed., vol. 4 (1995), 132–33; Hans-Josef Klauck, “Kirche als Freundesgemeinschaft. Auf Spurensuche

Internal Ethos or Ethos before the Public Forum?

187

(4) The opponents in the Pastoral Epistles cultivated, as far as can be seen, an exaggerated group ethos. According to the author’s attempts at demarcation, they belonged to the communities he wanted to influence with his letters, but they were probably characterized by an elitist consciousness that clearly set them apart from other Christians who sought to live their lives within the familiar structures of marriage and the oikos. The author of the Pastoral Epistles sets strong counterpoints to this when he pleads with his ethical directives and ideas of order to orient oneself on the socio-ethically recognized standards of the polis100 in order to have a protreptic effect.101 With this he links up with Paul102 and goes further. Paul explains in 1 Thess 5:21–22: “Examine all things and hold fast to the good! Avoid evil in every form” and in Phil 4:8: “Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovable, appealing, virtuous, praiseworthy, consider these things!” The intention is expressed programmatically here “to make oneself understood within a general and non-Christian ethical discussion.” Early Christian ethos therefore “avoided the ghetto of special ethics for a small group and challenged others – if they also wanted to serve the good – to engage in such discussion.”103 The latter has not yet taken place in the inwardly directed Pastoral Epistles, but they mark an important stage in the development and reflection of the Christian ethos, which finally leads to the above-mentioned offer of conversation to contemporaries. Such a dialog begins in the apologies of Justin, which, in response to contemporary ethics, offer a fully reflected elaboration of his ethos in light of Jesus’ instructions (1 Apol. 15–17).104 In the Alexandrian School of Clement and Origen, with its open atmosphere, dialog with the educated was cultivated. The seed which the author of the Pastoral Epistles – not his opponents – had sown a few decades earlier was sprouting.

im Neuen Testament,” in Gemeinde zwischen Haus und Stadt. Kirche bei Paulus (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1992), 95–123. 100  Weiser, “Titus 2 als Gemeindeparänese,” 399, rightly remarks with regard to economics that the author of the Pastoral Epistles “did not receive the or any socio-ethical system of order from antiquity, but rather a conscious position was taken in favor of a ‘humanizing middle position,’ between patriarchalism and emancipation” (following Klaus Thraede, “Zum historischen Hintergrund der ‘Haustafeln’ des NT,” in Pietas, FS Bernhard Kötting, ed. Ernst Dassmann and Karl Suso Frank, JAC suppl. 8 [Münster: Aschendorff, 1980], 359–68, here 364–65). 101  Cf. above at n. 23. 102  Cf. also Col 4:5a: “Walk in wisdom towards those outside.” Similarly Eph 5:15. 103  Becker, “Feindesliebe,” 391. 104  Ulrich, Justin, 79–83; idem, “Ethik als Ausweis christlicher Identität bei Justin Martyr,” ZEE 50 (2006): 21–28; cf. also Uwe Kühneweg, “Die griechischen Apolegeten und die Ethik,” VC 42 (1988): 112–20.

“Our People” Ethics and the Identity of the People of God in the Letter to Titus Ray Van Neste 1. Introduction In days past, the letter to Titus was often overlooked when it came to discussions of ethics.1 About two decades ago, I suggested to a prominent Christian ethicist in the US that this letter was a rich resource for ethical teaching. He was dubious, and then conceded it probably was for “pastoral ethics,” that is, he did not think the letter addressed the ethics of anyone but pastors. He exemplifies the regrettable misconception which has taken root over the years. Consider Barth’s book on ethics in which the letter to Titus does not even show up in the index. 2 Richard Hays, in The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics basically skips Titus.3 However, the emphasis on ethics in the letter to Titus is being recognized more often today, thanks often times to work of some of the contributors to this volume. Martin Luther, who readily criticized some biblical books (e. g. James), wrote concerning the letter to Titus: “This is a short epistle, but a model of Christian doctrine, in which is comprehended in a masterful way all that is necessary for a Christian to know and to live.”4 This chapter will examine the connection between ethics and the particular identity of the church in Crete addressed in this letter. I will first note the descriptors used of Cretans or unbelievers and, then, their significantly different 1  In this essay I do not engage the question of the authorship of Titus. I intend to examine the letter as it stands. I will refer to “the author” or “Paul” simply meaning the author of this letter. 2 Karl Barth, Ethics, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981). 3 Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Harper, 1996). 4 Martin Luther, “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament I, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 389. See also his comments in the introduction to his lectures on Titus in vol. 29, Lectures on Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Walter A. Hansen (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968).

190

Ray Van Neste

descriptors post-conversion. Then I will examine the letter’s teaching on what caused this change among the Cretan believers and its importance. Along the way I will argue that the ethical lists in the letter are not merely imported but are organic to the argument of the letter.

2. Descriptors So, what were Cretans, or people in general, like before conversion? We have the famous descriptor in Titus 1:12, borrowed by the author from Epimenides (sixth or seventh century BC): “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This is offered as a general assessment of Cretan culture and was affirmed by other ancient writers as well. Polybius (c. 208–c. 125 BC), the ancient historian, wrote that it was almost “impossible to find … personal conduct more treacherous or public policy more unjust than in Crete” (Histories 6.47 [Paton, LCL]). Polybius continues, “So much in fact do sordid love of gain and lust for wealth prevail among them that the Cretans are the only people in the world in whose eyes no gain is disgraceful” (Histories 6.46 [Paton, LCL]). Cicero (106–43 BC) also comments, “Moral principles are so divergent that the Cretans … consider highway robbery honorable” (De Republica 3.9.15 [Keyes, LCL]). While these quotes come from a time prior to the first century, they aptly describe the general view of Crete in the ancient world.5 There is a further description of pre-conversion Cretans in Titus 3:3, and it is important to note that the author here includes himself in the description (perhaps this should mitigate concern about him being abusive in his descriptors). They are described as “foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending their lives in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” This is a rough crowd! But, while this once described the Cretan believers, notice that they are described differently once they have been washed and renewed (Titus 3:5). These Cretan converts are described positively throughout the letter: “God’s elect” (Titus 1:1) “a people for [God’s] own possession” (Titus 2:14) “Heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:7) “those who have believed in God” (Titus 3:8) “our people” (Titus 3:14)6 “those who love us in the faith” (Titus 3:15) 5  Robert Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, PilNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 495–96, cites other ancient sources corroborating this assessment. 6  Jermo van Nes argues that this phrase refers not to the whole congregation, but to smaller group in his fine article, “Who are ‘Our People’ (οἱ ἡμέτεροι) in Titus 3,14?” ETL 95.4 (2019): 661–65. In the end, I am unconvinced and follow the majority opinion on this point.

“Our People”

191

The first three especially are striking phrases, rich with OT allusions that indicate a particularly privileged people. They are breathtaking, really. Most significantly, note that in four instances the phrase is immediately connected with ethical behavior. “A people for his own possession” (Titus 2:14) is immediately explained as those people being zealots for good deeds. “Those who have believed in God” (Titus 3:8) are further described as being intent on devoting themselves to good deeds. “Our people” (Titus 3:14) are also those who learn to engage in good deeds. The descriptor in Titus 1:1 is of particular interest because, in its place at the beginning of the letter, it sets the tone for the letter. “God’s elect” is explained as those who have faith and a knowledge of the truth, i. e. they believe and know the basic saving message. But, Paul goes on to qualify the truth as κατ᾿ εὐσέβειαν, according to or in accordance with godliness. In other words, God’s authentic saving message always squares with, in fact it leads to, godliness.7 God’s people are identified as those who believe something and know something with the result that they are godly (or at least are pursuing godliness). This idea is reiterated in each of those other descriptors which are immediately followed by reference to engagement in good deeds. As Luther says: “Faith does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question arises, it has already done them and is always doing them.”8 This leads to my thesis: I contend that a central point of the letter to Titus is to argue that the people of God can be identified by a certain ethic, and this ethic is rooted in the saving work of Christ. Put another way, this letter argues that the gospel has a necessary and recognizable impact on the life and behavior of anyone who truly believes it. Thus, Christians should be identified as gospelshaped people. To be a Christian is not only to share a specific belief, but it is also to have the behavior which such belief produces. The concern throughout the letter is the proper conduct of those who “profess to know God” (Titus 1:16).9

3. Ethical Vocabulary It is very common for the significant ethical vocabulary of this letter, much of which occurs in lists of vices or virtues, to be dismissed or downplayed as built merely on stock vocabulary or borrowed from Greco-Roman philosophy as a 7 I. Howard Marshall, on this phrase, states, “Lack of godliness disproves competing claims, while a positive expression of it is the visible emblem of one’s genuine relationship to God” (The Pastoral Epistles, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999]), 123. 8  Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, trans. J. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954), xvii. 9  This parallels the concern of 1 Timothy which was to make sure people knew “how to behave in the household of God” (1 Tim 3:16).

192

Ray Van Neste

sort of cultural accommodation. Since they are placeholders, the terms and the concepts behind the vocabulary ought not be mined too carefully. The critique of the opponents is merely “stock” criticisms – a standard set of slurs ready to hand to be used to discredit without any necessary correlation to what the people in view were really like. Similarly, the list of qualifications for pastors/elders lacks any Christian distinctive, instead mirroring very closely Greco-Roman ideals for leadership. Therefore, this language is simply borrowed without any theological reflection. Thus the ethically loaded descriptions of the false teachers cannot be mined for ethical instruction. The “stock” argument typically rests on the work of R. J. Karris, who argued that the author of the Pastoral Epistles is using a traditional schema of accusations – going back to Plato, used by philosophers against sophists – to discredit his opponents. The language of this schema does not accurately represent these opponents, but is effective as a smear.10 For example, regarding the description of opponents in Titus 1, Sumney writes, “Verse 10 begins the section by asserting that many are insubordinate, empty-talkers and deceivers. These descriptions are general invectives that draw on charges used against Sophists. Thus, they reveal little other than that the author disapproves of them.”11 This argument has been critiqued and adjusted by many,12 but skepticism of the validity of these lists seems to be the default among studies of the Pastorals. As a more recent example of this view, Andrew Chester states: Overall, then, the Pastorals promote a set of standards drawn substantially from pagan society, and they set centrally the compelling need to live as a model citizen, a paragon of civic values, within a structured, hierarchical (indeed paternalistic and patriarchal) system of authority. The church as a whole is thus based on the structure and values of the wider society – or at least, of one part of the Roman ideology. Certainly, the Pastorals (especially 2 Tim.) are also permeated with distinctively Christian themes, but the ethics are not, for the most part, deeply rooted in theological or Christological argument. The distinctively Christian perspective is effectively made subservient to a common-sense, pragmatic and secular focus.13

However, there are serious grounds for questioning this approach. Malherbe concedes that the ethical critiques of false teachers in the “Pastoral Epistles” (PE) 10  Robert J. Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” JBL 92 (1973): 549–‍64. 11 Jerry Sumney, ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 291. 12 See for example, Luke Timothy Johnson, “II Timothy and the Polemic against False Teachers: A Re-examination,” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 6 (1978): 1–26; Lloyd Pietersen, The Polemic of the Pastorals: A Sociological Examination of the Development of Pauline Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 15–20. 13 Andrew Chester, “The Relevance of Jewish Inscriptions for New Testament Ethics,” in Early Christian Ethics in Interactions with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts, ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 107–46, here 141.

“Our People”

193

fit a standard pattern of the time in philosophical disputes, but this does not mean they fail to reflect the historical situation of the letter. These stock forms were used because they were commonly true.14 Thornton also warns against too easily dismissing the critique of the opponents.15 The use of the same terms does not prove anything unless we also examine their contexts and find overlap there as well.16 Most of these studies rest merely on the shared vocabulary rather than examination of the context. Thornton argues that the negative descriptions fit with the context suggesting they describe real problems. Furthermore, “it is unreasonable simply to assume that a secular philosopher and an early Christian writer will use a set of terms or phrases in the exact same way.”17 John Barclay, referring to Galatians, also makes the point that for a polemical letter to “work” it must be believable to the audience, and thus the description of the opponents must be recognizable as true to the recipients. It must then bear some resemblance to reality.18 Thus, while one might argue that in the heat of polemics, exaggeration might be typical, we ought to expect the description of the opponents to make sense to the recipients. And, given the way the descriptive vocabulary is used, it is intended to be morally instructive. The cohesive nature of the letter to Titus is too often overlooked in this discussion. We should note the intentional use of these lists of vices and virtues to demarcate how the people of God ought to behave. These lists, along with the direct instruction, function as moral exemplars in the flow of thought in this very structured letter. Titus moves in a flow of ethical contrasts. + 1:5–9 Elders – 1:10–16 Opponents + 2:1–10 Church    2:11–15 Gospel grounding + 3:1–2 Church    3:3–8 Gospel grounding – 3:9–11 Opponents + 3:12–14 Church

This use of positive and negative examples, moving back and forth between them, was common in the ancient world. Furthermore, the final positive section 14  Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 136. 15  Dillon Thornton, Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 13–16. 16 See also Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13, with whom Thornton interacts. Sandmel appropriately states, “Two passages may sound the same in splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity” (2). 17  Thornton, Hostility in the House of God, 16. 18  John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93, here 76.

194

Ray Van Neste

concludes with the statement that “our people” must “learn to devote themselves to good works” (Titus 3:14). Thus, the ethical descriptors are vital to the purpose of this letter, noting the way “others” behave and contrasting that with the proper behavior of the people of God. “The Christian life in the world is to present a vivid contrast to the criticized Cretan image.”19 Not only does the ethical discussion function in a generally adversative manner, but the lexical repetition and semantic connections suggest a high level of intentionality in the choice of the ethical vocabulary in the description of the opponents. The opponents are rebellious (ἀνυπότακτος, Titus 1:10) and disobedient (ἀπειθής, Titus 1:16). Disobedience is characteristic of life before conversion (ἀπειθής, Titus 3:3). However, this ought not be true of believers. Children of elders ([μὴ] ἀνυπότακτος, Titus 1:6), young wives (ὑποτάσσω, Titus 2:5), and slaves (ὑποτάσσω, Titus 2:9) are all urged to be submissive to proper authority.20 Indeed, the whole congregation is to submit to and obey the government (ὑποτάσσω, Titus 3:1). Also in Titus 1:6, elders are to have children who are characterized by πιστός but the opponents are described as ἄπιστος (Titus 1:15).21 A bishop must not be αἰσχροκερδής (Titus 1:7) but the opponents are motivated by αἰσχρὸν κέρδος (Titus 1:11).22 A bishop must ‘hold fast’ (ἀντεχόμενον, Titus 1:9) to the truth, but the opponents ‘pay attention to’ (προσέχοντες, Titus 1:14) Jewish myths and the commands of men. Furthermore, the opponents teach ‘what they ought not’ (διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ, v. 11), but the elders are to be able to exhort in ‘sound teaching’ (διδασκαλία, v. 9).23 The older women are to be ‘teachers of good’ (καλοδιδάσκαλος, Titus 2:3) and Titus is to be ‘incorrupt in doctrine’ (ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν, Titus 2:7).24 Thus, the elders hold to ‘sound’ (ὑγιαίνω, Titus 1:9) doctrine, and older men are to be ‘sound in the faith’ (ὑγιαίνειν τῇ πίστει, Titus 2:2), but the opponents need to be rebuked so that they may be ‘sound’ (ὑγιαίνω, Titus 1:13) in the faith.25 The Cretan believers are 19  Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 773. 20  Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 193–94, 231; Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB 35 (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 105–06; Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, RNT 7/2 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969), 287; Helmut Merkel, Die Pastoralbriefe, NTD 9/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 93; Jouette M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 186. 21  Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 186, comments, “The requirements concerning the elders’ children are framed with the presence of the ‘rebellious people’ in mind.” 22  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 198; Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 106. 23 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 197. 24  Cf. Alfons Weiser, “Titus 2 als Gemeindeparänese,” in Neues Testament und Ethik: für Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. Helmut Merklein (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1989), 397–414, here 406. 25 There is some debate concerning the object of the rebuke in Titus 1:13. It seems best to understand the rebuke as aimed at the false teachers and those influenced by them (cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 204–05).

“Our People”

195

to be ‘uncontentious’ (ἄμαχος; Titus 3:2) but the opponents are into ‘quarrels’ (μάχη; Titus 3:9). The self-control called for in Titus 2:2, 4, 5 and 6 (σώφρων, σωφρονίζω) contrasts the depiction of the opponents as ‘evil beasts’ and ‘lazy gluttons’ (Titus 1:12). Additionally, the teaching of the older women (as well as the teaching of Titus 2:2–10 in general) will serve to build up households, while the opponents upset them (Titus 1:11). Purity also seems to be a particular concern. While one would expect general statements addressing the marital faithfulness of church leaders (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, Titus 1:6)26 and the purity of the young women (ἁγνός, Titus 2:5), there seems to be a particular concern vis-a-vis the opponents. In Titus 1:15 the word καθαρός occurs three times in a discussion of ritual purity presumably refuting some of the opponents’ claims.27 Titus 2:14 then describes the work of Christ as ‘cleansing’ (καθαρίζω). Whereas the opponents are concerned with ritual purity the true message points to salvation which brings authentic moral cleansing.28 Finally, there is a clear contrast in terms of ‘good works.’ Whereas the opponents are described as “unfit for any good work” (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι; Titus 1:16), the church specifically is to be ready for every good work (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους; Titus 3:1). The exact repetition of words (except for the final climactic and contrasting element) suggests deliberate contrast in a coherent argument.29 Titus 3:1 was formed so as to link back to Titus 1:16. Furthermore, the church is to be careful to engage in ‘good works’ (καλὰ ἔργα, Titus 3:8) and to learn to engage in ‘good works’ (καλὰ ἔργα, Titus 3:14). Titus is to be an example of ‘good works’ (καλὰ ἔργα, Titus 2:7), and believers in general are to be zealots for ‘good works’ (καλὰ ἔργα, Titus 2:14). This wide range of lexical and semantic connections suggests the ethical language used to describe the opponents is intentionally chosen and not merely drawn from a stock of common slurs. As Marshall states, In view of the contrast thus created and the repetition of key ethical themes, it is extremely unlikely that the teaching was adopted in a haphazard manner. The writer enjoins believers in their respective household and community positions to conduct themselves in ways that will neutralise the deleterious effects of the heresy.30

26 While the precise meaning of this phrase is disputed, moral purity is in view in each option.

27  Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 208, “Clearly, then, the tradition [Titus 1:15] is about ritual purity.” So also William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 401–02. 28 Cf. Egbert Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre: Häresie und Wahrheit im Spiegel der Pastoralbriefe, MThSt 28 (Marburg: Elwert, 1990), 84–85. 29  These are also the only two places in the letter where the phrase is singular and uses ἀγαθός rather than καλός. 30 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 231. Cf. also Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermenia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 141, “The entire list of duties here [Titus 2:2–10] is written in view of the opponents.”

196

Ray Van Neste

4. Key Texts The discussion of ethical vocabulary has established the importance of the moral contrast for the argument of the letter. Now we need to consider some key texts which demonstrate the necessary connection between proper behavior and the Christian message. They explain how and why wicked people become the sort of people who live “self-controlled, upright and godly lives” (Titus 2:12). These texts make abundantly clear that the identity of these Cretans believers is bound up with the message of Jesus and this message necessarily entails a certain ethic. 4.1 Titus 1:16–2:1 Perhaps the most striking statement in this letter on the connection between Christian identity and ethics is in the transition between Titus 1:10–16 and 2:1–10. As Paul concludes his description of the false teachers (Titus 1:10–16) he reaches a crescendo, declaring that although they claim to know God (they are professing Christians) their deeds, their manner of life, puts the lie to this assertion. Because the truth of God’s saving revelation has as its aim personal godliness (Titus 1:1), the lack of such godliness is proof that a person has not truly come to the knowledge of that truth or of the God of that truth. As Stan Porter has stated, Paul drew on the virtue/vice list tradition and adapted it to distinguish “the attitudes and behavior of those who are within and without the ecclesial community and the Kingdom of God.”31 The people of God can be identified by a certain way of life. This point is further elucidated as the next unit opens with a contrast, “But as for you” (Σὺ δέ). While the false teachers invalidate their claim to know God by their behavior, Titus is to teach “the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” Many English Bibles and some older commentaries label this unit (Titus 2:1–10) as “Sound Doctrine” (or an equivalent) thus suggesting this unit is about doctrine. However, this completely misses the point. Titus is not commanded to teach sound doctrine but that which is fitting for sound doctrine. The author follows this admonition with a list of ethical expectations based on sex and age. Godliness fits with sound doctrine – echoing Titus 1:1 again. Whereas the lifestyles of the false teachers disproved their claim to know God, Titus is to teach his people to live in such a way that will affirm their claim to know God. Once again, Christian identity is bound up with a certain type of behavior.32 31 Stanley E. Porter, “Paul, Virtues, Vices, and Household Codes,” in Paul in the GrecoRoman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul Sampley, rev. ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 2:369–90, here 371. 32  This also means that the instruction given in Titus 2:1–10 ought not be dismissed as merely culturally shaped or driven. The logic of the letter shows that this behavior is the necessary outworking of conversion, the way people who truly know God behave.

“Our People”

197

Furthermore, this challenges the idea that the teaching of Titus 2:1–10 merely echoes the culture, or represents a compromise with the culture. Such an opinion misses what the text is saying. Regardless of what we may think of the ethics contained in Titus 2:1–10, the text clearly identifies this as the manner of life which corresponds to, or flows from, sound doctrine, that is the godliness which is the expected outcome of knowing the truth (Titus 1:1). The logic of the letter shows that this behavior is the necessary outworking of conversion, the way people who truly know God behave. 4.2 Titus 2:5, 8, 10 The link between belief and behavior and Christian identity also shows up in the ethical instruction of Titus 2:1–10. The instructions to young women, young men, and slaves all contain a reference to how their behavior might reflect on the reputation of God’s message or people. If young women live as expected “the word of God will not be dishonored” (Titus 2:5). If slaves behave properly they will “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” Titus (2:10). And, the proper behavior of young men will keep opponents from having anything bad to say and put such opponents to shame (Titus 2:8). Some interpret these texts as meaning that the church should accommodate to cultural expectations so as to be respectable. However, that misses the depth of these statements in their context. The ethical instruction given here is the sort of behavior which will affirm one’s claim to know God rather than denying such a claim. This behavior is entailed in the gospel. Therefore, the message is adorned and not dishonored when those claiming to believe demonstrate the ethical transformation which that message claims it will deliver. Shaming the opponents by righteous living, then, is not simply a technique to keep trouble at bay but confirms the gospel message by avoiding hypocrisy. Furthermore, the “shame” in view, is not mere personal shame or social shame to the church, but shame or honor directed to the doctrine of God our Savior. This is significantly different from the typical use of standard terms of derision as used in the GrecoRoman philosophical tradition. The theological grounding which follows more clearly demonstrates that this is not simple echoing of Greco-Roman philosophical tradition. 4.3 Titus 2:11–14 The γάρ in 2:11 demonstrates that the following paragraph functions as the ground for the preceding ethical exhortation. The behavior called for in Titus 2:1–10 is rooted in the fact that the saving grace of God has appeared and that

198

Ray Van Neste

Jesus Christ has given himself for believers.33 As Towner states, “The language of Greek ethics is sufficient to describe the observable dimension of this life [in Titus 2:1–10] … but Christian theology is required to explain the power, character, and origin of this way of life.”34 So, after introducing the ethical teaching as that which is fitting for sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), Paul now also directly roots this teaching in sound doctrine, i. e., the saving work of Christ.35 The reason why believers should live as just described, is that they have received this saving message. The grace of God has changed them. “From the perspective of cause and effect, authentic Christian identity involves a creative act of ‘becoming’ (redemption, purification) that makes a unique quality of ‘being’ possible.”36 Furthermore, the saving work of Christ is explained in direct ethical terms. The grace of God which saves (Titus 2:11) also trains its recipients in a certain way of living: saying no to ungodliness and yes to godliness (Titus 2:12). By stating that God’s grace “civilizes” (παιδεύω) it’s recipients, the author shows that this salvation is the way in which “evil beasts” (Titus 1:12) can be changed and become upstanding people.37 The point is clear. If one is the recipient of saving grace he is also, by definition, a pupil in the school of training grace. If grace is not changing the way people live, it is not taking them to heaven. Salvation has necessary ethical implications.38 The ethical framing of the soteriology in this text is seen again in Titus 2:14 where Jesus’s substitutionary death (“he gave himself for us”) is cast in ethical terms with its purpose as redeeming us from “all lawlessness” and purifying us.39 33  “What has been prescribed is to be seen clearly as an outworking of grace, linked intrinsically to the death of Christ and the new way of life associated with that event” (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 744). 34  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 744. 35 While some Jewish and Greco-Roman rooted ethical progress in the work of God or a god, the radical grounding of the whole of the Christian life in the experience of Christ and the Spirit, as in this text, is unique to the Pauline writings. See Craig Keener, “A Comparison of the Fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22–23 with Ancient Thought on Ethics and Emotion,” in The Language and Literature of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th Birthday, ed. Lois K. Fuller Dow, Craig A. Evans, and Andrew W. Pitts, BibInt 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 574–‍98, here 578. 36  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 744. 37  Cf. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 747–48. 38  Yet, Jack T. Sanders says that in Titus 2:1–10 “the difference between Christianity and good citizenship has altogether disappeared” (Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], 87). However, Roman-era religion did not typically provide theological bases for ethics. As Hurtado has stated, “the strong theological bases for behavior in early Christian texts comprise a distinguishing feature in comparison with most philosophical texts of the day” (Larry Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016], 155). Mere good citizenship is not rooted in the saving work of Christ. What is called for here in Titus is a specifically Christian ethic, clad in contemporary Hellenistic (and perhaps Hellenistic-Jewish) language. 39  This flatly refutes Hays’s statement about the PE: “The death of Jesus [though mentioned]

“Our People”

199

That this is not merely spiritual or ritual cleansing is made clear by the following reference that the purified ones are to be “zealous for good works.” Furthermore, these purified people are made “a people for his [God’s] own possession.” The rich OT background of this phrase, applied here to followers of Jesus, heightens the identity transformation that has occurred and thus the change in behavior which is entailed.40 Salvation in Christian and Pauline thought is a grand event with sweeping implications over a wide range of areas, but here the stress is on the direct ethical implication for believers.41 Furthermore, the ethical teaching is rooted not only in the death of Christ, but also in his return (Titus 2:13) – προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The verb προσδέχομαι often has the sense of “eager longing,” and that is the idea here.42 Thus, eager anticipation for the revelation of the glory of Jesus (despite the trouble and opposition currently endured) is the means by which the grace of God teaches believers to deny ungodliness and to live godly lives.43 4.4 Titus 3:3–8 Something similar is seen in Titus 3:3–8. Here the saving work of “God our Savior” is once again described in “appearance” terms along with a Pauline emphasis on grace as opposed to works (Titus 3:4–5). The vice list in v. 3 immediately casts this gospel exposition in ethical terms. While the recipients were once described by the terms in this vice list, they have now been saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).44 There are a number of exegetical debates generated by this phrase, but for our purposes here it is important simply to note the ethical implications of salvation. In light of the opening vice list, the terms “washing” and “renewal” at least suggest cleansing from sin and a new purity. The fact that the readers “once” were foolish, dis… plays no visible role in the formulation of ethical norms” (Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 70). 40  See Ezek 37:23; 36:28; Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6. I particularly like Towner’s apt phrase, believers have become “a people whose messianic identity is uniquely imprinted on them” (The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 763). 41  Similarly, Christopher R. Hutson, First and Second Timothy and Titus, Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 232: “This dense theological statement focuses on the ethical implications of the Christ story, framed in Greco-Roman language …. But the motivation is distinctively Christian.” 42 So also, Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 750. He also points to Mark 15:43; Luke 2:25, 38; 23:51; Acts 23:21; Walter Grundmann, TDNT 2:57–58. 43  Towner calls this “an ongoing activity that is to accompany and direct life in the present age (Jude 21)” (The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 750). 44  The “formerly-now” formula was common in early Christian writing. For references in NT letters, see Raymond Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 358.

200

Ray Van Neste

obedient, etc. suggests they no longer are.45 The saving work of God has changed them. In fact, “salvation is manifested among people in a new quality of living that originates in the cleansing activity of the Spirit, allowing believers to live according to the just demands of God.”46 Thus, not only is the saving work of Christ explained in direct ethical terms, but the church is explicitly identified as those with a certain belief and an ethic entailed by that belief. The transformation of believers is not accidental or incidental but integral to the gospel message.

5. Summary In the preceding analysis, I have sought to follow the line of argument of the letter itself. Many argue that the ethical terminology used is not explicitly Christian and is borrowed from Greco-Roman philosophy. It is true, of course, that the language has significant parallels in Greek philosophy, as is commonly noted. However, the ethical vocabulary does not protrude from the letter like something artificially inserted but is a seamless part of a coherent argument. Standard Christian theology is expressed in Hellenistic terms with an emphasis on the ethical entailments of the Christian message. Indeed, the argument of the letter is that the particular manner of life prescribed is directly called for by the saving work of Christ. This is the lifestyle which corresponds to sound teaching. It is the godliness which is so closely connected to the truth. The letter does not call for cultural accommodation but argues pointedly that Christian conversion necessarily involves not only a change in belief but also a corresponding change in behavior. The author “challenges the reduction of theology to the plane of ideas, and insists that a people’s beliefs are what they live.”47 For a famously corrupt cultural setting, this letter spells out aspects of the lifestyle which results from this conversion in order to help the readers to discern proper leaders and true followers. Some may object to the manner of life described here and suggest it is no longer culturally relevant or appropriate. My point is simply that this is the argument of the letter. Certainly we see that, in the mind of the author, this ethic is not simply borrowed from the culture, but it is rooted in the gospel. This calls 45  So also Hock, “it becomes obvious that Paul wanted to make unambiguous the fact that these are sins that should not have any place in the Christian life” (Andreas Hock, “Equipping the Successors of the Apostles: A Comparative Study of the Ethical Catalogues in Paul’s Pastoral Letters [1 Tim 1:9–10; 6:4–5; 2 Tim 3:2–4; Ti 3:3],” EstBib 64.1 [2006]: 85–98). Hock argues these lists are powerful in themselves showing the passion of Paul to call people not to follow these teachers but to pursue truth. This is a refreshing contrast to those who take these lists to be lazily copied from elsewhere with little thought. 46 Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 789. 47  Reggie M. Kidd, “Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars, Beasts, and Bellies,” HBT 21:2 (1999): 185–209, here 208.

“Our People”

201

into question Andrew Chester’s assessment that in the PE “the ethics are not, for the most part, deeply rooted in theological or Christological argument.”48 De Villiers’s assessment of 1 Timothy is fitting for Titus as well: In the context of the narrated Ephesus in 1 Timothy and in the wider Graeco-Roman context, this was a challenging lifestyle and, ultimately, radically different. There is something heroic when, in the context of a persistent & destructive culture of moral decay, someone opts for the difficult path of sobriety and faithfulness. ... In the light of the collapse of social order & because of the household under threat, it is nothing less than quiet heroism to remain faithful to one woman, to pray for all people, to care for those in need & to raise children in love. The hero, this time, is not on the battlefield, but at home, the one who is taking charge of God’s assembly and the one who witnesses to society at large.49

 Chester, “The Relevance of Jewish Inscriptions,” 141.  Pieter G. R. De Villiers, “Heroes at Home: Identity, Ethos, & Ethics in 1 Timothy within the Context of the Pastoral Epistles,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament, ed. Jan G. Van der Watt, BZNW 141 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 357–86, here 384. 48 49

Ethics and Empire in Titus Texts, Co-texts, and Contexts Harry O. Maier 1. Introduction Consideration of the relation of ethics and the Roman Empire to Titus has largely been undertaken with reference to the Pastoral Epistles more generally. This is legitimate within certain parameters since, notwithstanding differences of genre and debates over the order of their composition, all three letters share a number of common features, including ethical vocabulary and ideals. This is especially the case with 1 Timothy, where parallels are especially striking. Both letters, for example, enjoin submission to governing authorities (1 Tim 2:2–4; Titus 3:1), both warn against people who invade households with false teachings (1 Tim 1:3– 7; 4:1–3; 6:3–5; Titus 1:10–16; 3:9–11), they both offer adapted household rules which include identical terms in their virtue and vice lists for the governance of communities (1 Tim 3:1–13; 5:1–8; Titus 1:6–9; 2:2–10), and both present what we will below describe as “an imperial situation” to apply Pauline instruction. Nevertheless, this essay will so far as possible focus solely on Titus, and will draw on the other letters, specifically 1 Timothy, to highlight parallels where they may furnish important information for the understanding of Titus. In what follows I am assuming that Titus is a pseudonymous letter that was written sometime during the Trajanic or Hadrianic period; I have argued elsewhere that it is best located during the reign of Hadrian, and I will suggest in what follows some striking coincidences in the letter’s promotion of certain virtues with his regime, but the case I bring forward does not depend on fixing a date in either the reigns of Trajan or Hadrian.1 1 Harry O. Maier, Picturing Paul in Empire: Imperial Image, Text and Persuasion in Colossians, Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles (London: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2013), 143–95; also, Angela Standhartinger, “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römischen Denkens auf das entstehende Christentum,” NovT 48,1 (2006): 51–82; Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Εὐσέβεια: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals,” BibInt 11 (2003): 139–65; T. Christopher Hoklotubbe, Civilized Piety: The Rhetoric of Pietas in the Pastoral Epistles and the Roman Empire (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 15–40, who dates the writings to the reigns of Trajan or Hadrian; also for the relation of the Pastorals’ language to imperial politics, Madeleine Wieger, “Εὐσέβεια dans la Septante et dans les épîtres pastorales,”

204

Harry O. Maier

I will discuss the relation of Titus’s ethical teachings to imperial themes under three broad headings: parallels with language found in the imperial cult, the narrative casting of Paul and Titus as actors in the spread of the Gospel under the guise of an “imperial situation,” and the presence of ethical language that parallels what is found in other urban groups of the empire, specifically amongst associations. In discussion of the Pastorals’ relation to “Empire,” the most attention has been given to the first dimension, the language we find in the imperial cult and its replication of imperial political terms as a means of resistance and polemic.2 Alternatively, scholars have argued that the prayers for the imperial authorities and the promotion of ecclesial concord were motivated by the desire to evangelize the emperor and his empire.3 In what follows, I reject the idea that the Pastorals generally and Titus in particular evidence antagonism toward the Empire, or an attempt to defend themselves against imperial opposition either on a local or more general level, or to evangelize the emperor or his empire. My overall thesis simply put is that virtue language with imperial resonances found in Titus reflects the integration of a set of Jesus followers in the urban life of the Mediterranean east.4 This can be seen in the degree to which Titus’s ethical teachings parallel the virtues and ideals associated with the life of associations (collegia, thiasoi, etc.).5 Imperial text, co-text, and context in Titus reflect a use of Paul’s legacy to promote a set of virtues that coincide to a striking degree with civic ideals promoted and celebrated in cities at a variety of levels that ranged from elite strata to the modest gatherings of associations. in Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte: 3rd International Conference Organized by Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22–25 July 2010, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund, WUNT 286 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 312–33. 2  For example, Malcolm Gill, Jesus as Mediator: Politics and Polemic in 1 Timothy 2:1–‍7 (Bern: Lang, 2008); Matthew F. Lowe, “‘This was Not an Ordinary Death’: Empire and Atonement in the Minor Pauline Epistles,” in Empire in the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia Long Westfall, MNTS (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 197–229, here 220–23. 3  I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, The Pastoral Epistles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 422–24; Deborah Krause, “Constructing and Containing an Imperial Paul: Rhetoric and the Politics of Representation in the Pastoral Epistles,” in An Introduction to Empire in the New Testament, ed. Adam Winn, RBS 84 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 203–20, here 212; Roberto Amici, “Principi e norme di non estraneità al mondo nelle lettere a Timoteo e a Tito,” EstBib 67.3 (2009): 445–70. 4  For a similar thesis, but without attention to urban integration, Korinna Zamfir, “Eusebeia, Sôtēria and Civic Loyalty in the Pastoral Epistles,” in “Make Disciples of All Nations”: The Appeal and Authority of Christian Faith in Hellenistic-Roman Times, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Beth Langstaff, and Michael Tilly, WUNT 2/482 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 121–42. 5  For an excellent overview of association ethical values, Alicia Batten, “The Moral World of Greco-Roman Associations,” SR 36 (2007): 135–51; for associations as backdrop for the Pastorals, Korinna Zamfir, “The Community of the Pastoral Epistles: A Religious Association,” in Private Associations and the Public Sphere: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September, 2010, ed. Vincent Gabrielsen and Christian A. Thomsen, Scientia Danica, Series H, Humanistica 8 vol. 9 (Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2015), 206–40.

Ethics and Empire in Titus

205

2. Our God and Saviour in the Imperial Situation of Titus For over a century scholars have detected elements of imperial ideology and politics in the Pastoral Epistles. Adolf von Harnack, Paul Wendland, Ernst Lohmeyer and Adolf Deissmann theorized at the start of the last century that imperial language shaped New Testament christological titles, a point of view Dibelius and Conzelmann cautiously endorsed while at the same time noting parallels within Hellenistic Judaism as well as Greco-Roman religion.6 Where Titus has been considered in this light, it has been with reference to themes discovered more broadly in the companion letters 1 and 2 Timothy, especially with the former, since both of which share christological language and titles with a higher level of frequency than with 2 Timothy. Thus both 1 Timothy and Titus refer to God and/or Jesus (1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10; 3:6) as “our Saviour [σωτῆρος ἡμῶν]”; Titus 2:13 castes future expectation of the return of Jesus as “the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ [ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ]”, an idea also represented in Titus 3:4 where the Pastor speaks of incarnation as the time “when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared [ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ]” (similar in content and vocabulary to 2 Tim 1:10 which refers to “the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus [ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ]”). A generation of late 19th and early 20th century New Testament scholars debated the degree to which this language should be interpreted in the light of the imperial cult. The newly discovered Priene inscription of 9 BCE referred to the birth of Augustus as the beginning of good news and the appearing of a Saviour was to many especially impressive: Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a saviour [σωτῆρα], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [ἐπιφανεῖς] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and 6  Adolf von Harnack, “Als die Zeit erfüllet war,” in Reden und Aufsätze , ed. Adolf Harnack, 2nd ed. (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1906), 301–06; idem, “Der Heiland,” in Harnack, Reden und Aufsätze, 307–11; Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum und Christentum, HNT 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1912); idem, “σωτήρ,” ZNW 5 (1904): 335–53; Ernst Lohmeyer, Christuskult und Kaiserkult (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1919); idem, Kyrios Jesus: eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5–11. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse (1927/28, 4. Abhandlung) (Heidelberg: Winter, 1928); Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1927); Karl Prümm, “Herrscherkult und Neues Testament: III. Zum sprachgeschichtlichen Problem, insbesondere der Pastoralbriefe,” Bib 9 (1928): 129–42; Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 102–03.

206

Harry O. Maier

since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him7

The inscription heralds 23 September as “the birthday of the god [ἡ ἡμέρα γενέθλιος θεοῦ]” Augustus and the “beginning of good tidings for the world [ἦρξεν δὲ τῶι κόσμωι τῶν δι᾽αὐτὸν εὐανγελίων].” For those looking for an imperial imprint in the Pastorals it is remarkable that Jesus’ advent is called an epiphany (1 Tim 6:4; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:11, 13; 3:4) even as he is named God and/or Saviour. Further, it is noteworthy, that even as Providence “has ordered all things [ἡ πάντα διατάξασα]” and has “set [them] in most perfect order [φιλοτιμίαν τὸ τεληότατον ... διεκόσμησεν],” so also God has established Paul to appoint delegates to appoint elders and deacons to “put in order what remained to be done [τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώση” (Titus 1:5). This language has always been impressive for New Testament exegetes and in the case of the Pastorals it has even been seen as influenced by the presence of the imperial cult in Ephesus, an oft-cited location for the Pastorals corpus generally.8 The inscription of Priene reflects Augustan era sentiments. What about later dynasties, specifically that of Trajan and Hadrian during which many locate the Pastorals? Does the christological language of Titus find parallels here as well? Perhaps. Both Trajan and Hadrian were expanding and then consolidating the boundaries of the empire. Both travelled throughout the empire and in the latter case Hadrian’s mints struck coins celebrating his imperial adventus.9 In the latter years of his reign he published coins advertising the places he had visited with geographical reliefs. In earlier years a recurring coin type is his visiting and review of his dispersed army. Both emperors, as J. Rufus Fears notes, advertised their reigns in increasingly “monotheistic” language, in which their reigns as Jupiter’s vice-regents were acclaimed in simple and straightforward affirmations.10 It is possible but of course not demonstrable that the simple affirmation of Jesus as God and Saviour, or even “our great God and Saviour” finds its home in this kind of imperial monotheism, although as Dibelius and Conzelmann, following the still definitive study by Bruno Müller, already pointed out, the phrase “the great  7  Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. Wilhelm Dittenberger, 2 vols. (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903–5; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1960) 2:48–60 (=OGIS 458), lines 32–39.  8  Linda B. Belleville, “Christology, Greco-Roman Religious Piety, and the Pseudonymity of the Pastoral Letters,” in Paul and Pseudepigraphy, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Gregory P. Fewster, Pauline Studies 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 221–44.  9  For the Hadrianic adventus coins, Jocelyn C. Toynbee, The Hadrianic School: A Chapter in the History of Greek Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934); Paul L. Strack, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Teil II. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Hadrian (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933). 10 J. Rufus Fears, “The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology,” in ANRW 2:17.1, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981), 4–141; idem, Princeps a diis electus: The Divine Election of the Emperor as a Political Concept at Rome (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1977), 153.

Ethics and Empire in Titus

207

god” was also found in cultic devotion to the gods.11 The case for an imperial ascription is nudged slightly forward by Titus’s express directions “to be subject to rulers and authorities [ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι]” (Titus 3:1); it is difficult to imagine someone living in the Empire in the first half of the second century not drawing a link between the language of Jesus as God, Saviour, divine epiphany and not having the vast and ubiquitous repertoire of imperial images celebrating the emperor with the same kind of language coming to mind. Further, the arrival of the emperor was celebrated as his epiphany or epiphany of a god, even as his reign was extended through the empire by establishing and preserving secure government – a point that finds an easy parallel in Paul’s instructions to “put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5).12 It is just possible that Titus’s reference to the second coming as “wait[ing] for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ [προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ].” This could also have prompted imperial associations of an emperor’s adventus. This is not to deny influences from other quarters, only to thicken the associations in our attempt to listen to Titus as a text composed in an imperial urban world where images hailing and celebrating the emperor in a variety of ways were everywhere one looked.13 One of our challenges as New Testament scholars is to recognize that ancient religious language was polyphonic, capable of being heard in may ways at the same time, gaining one form set of connotations over another under different circumstances. Too often, attempts to recover authorial intent result in a restriction of the spectrum of meanings of texts. What do these parallels signify, if anything, for the political ethos of the writer of Titus? Adolf Deissman considered the presence of similar language in the New Testament, including 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus as exemplary of what he called “polemical parallelism.”14 The early Christians were contrasting their beliefs directly with claims about the emperor as means to refute them. Closer to our own period, exegetes commenting directly on the Pastorals have echoed his sentiment. Thus Willard Swartely argued that the Pastoral’s adapt imperial 11 Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 144, n. 20; Bruno Müller, “ΜΕΓΑ ΘΕΟΣ,” Dissertationes philologicae Halenses 21 (1913): 282–411; for imperial applications to the emperor, Maier, Picturing Paul, 157–64. 12 For the emperor’s arrival as epiphany, Maier, Picturing Paul, 154–57. 13  Abraham Malherbe, “‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology, ed. Jan G. Van der Watt, NovTSup 121 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 331–58, relates the Pastorals to Greco-Roman moral philosophy; my aim is to expand ways in which the ethical teachings could have been heard from several different locations. 14 Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 346.

208

Harry O. Maier

language for christological confession in order “to strengthen believers in their stance against the imperial cult.”15 Frances Young interpreted Christological uses of imperial titles as “a deliberate placing of this Christ-cult against the Caesarcult, as the universal Gospel to which beleaguered aliens bear witness, and suffer for it”.16 And with reference to Jesus as the only mediator between humans and God in 1 Tim 2:5, Malcolm Gill interpreted it as polemic against the idea of the emperor as mediator between the gods and the empire.17 However, where one group of scholars saw resistance, another saw accommodation and the formulation of a kind of apologia before the emperor to avoid persecution. Dibelius and Conzelmann interpreted parallels with imperial language rather as evidence of accommodation to imperial realities than opposition to them. Thus they argued that the Pastoral Epistles in general promoted the idea of Christian citizenship and a this-worldly emphasis on the transformation of the world: “The author of he Pastorals seeks to build the possibility of a life in this world, although on the basis of Christian principles he wishes to become part of the world. Thus, for him, the peace of a secure life is a goal of the Christian.”18 More recently, T. Christopher Hoklotubbe in a seminal monograph on the language of eusebeia in the Pastorals argues that the prayers for the government and the uses of imperial language to describe Jesus’ reign and the good order that arises from it helped to show Caesar that Christ-believers were his loyal subjects, achieving imperial goods by prayer for authorities, dedicated to harmonious family life and stable households, committed to civic harmony.19 The same point is made, if in a rhetorically shrill voice, by Neil Elliott who describes the pro-imperial stance he sees in the Pastorals as a canonical betrayal of Paul and evidence of “accommodation within oppressive societies.”20 I referred earlier to the letter of Titus as presenting an “imperial situation.” What does this mean? I adapt the description from Lloyd Bitzer who in his study of rhetoric coined the phrase “rhetorical situation” to describe the creation of an exigency or representation of a set of circumstances a particular speech is crafted to address.21 The phrase “imperial situation” thus refers to a rhetorical 15  Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in the New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 251–53. 16 Frances Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 65; also P. Ceslas Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales, 2 vols. (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 1:251–54; John N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, BNTC (London: Black, 1963), 269. 17  Gill, Jesus as Mediator, 158–63. 18  Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 39. 19 Hoklotubbe, Civilized Piety, 206–18. 20  Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 38. 21 Lloyd F. Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1–‍14. Attention to rhetorical/imperial situation is intended to be used in a complementary way with other forms of rhetorical investigation such as the traditionally focused discussion of rhetoric in

Ethics and Empire in Titus

209

crafting of a set of circumstances with resonances at home in the context of the Roman Empire. In the case of Titus, the letter places its listeners within an imperial context and crafts for them a series of imperial looking ideals to live within it and to meet whatever challenges it may be facing. Christological language that has imperial sounding resonances helps to create the imperial situation. More importantly, the letter creates or implies a narrative that creates what we may describe as an imperial story in which addressees of the letter are cast as characters. The letter creates an imperial situation through the use of military language and associations of Paul’s delegates Timothy and Titus as attachés in God’s household. Thus, Paul in Titus is a slave of God who has been entrusted with a proclamation by the command of the Saviour God. This language parallels with what we see in 1 Tim where the letter casts Paul as “an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope [ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν]” (1 Tim 1:1). The command includes the appointing of leaders so as to realize civic harmony through the establishing leaders from harmonious households. Indeed, in Titus 1:7 he describes a bishop as functioning as God’s steward (οἰκονόμος), a domestic metaphor that echoes the representation of the church in in 1 Tim 3:15 as the “household of God [οἶκος θεοῦ].” As Margaret Mitchell has pointed out in her discussion of ambassadorial language in Paul’s letters, amongst the several ways that this language can be understood, it should be recognized for its connection to the idea of the empire as the emperor’s household, which is kept in order by his stewards whom he has dispatched to help keep order across his empire.22 This then accords with the ideal of social harmony in the Pastorals generally. In 1 Tim 2:2 prayers are offered for governing authorities “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way [ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι].” In Titus there is an analogous exhortation to be submissive to authorities (Titus 3:1) that the author expands with a set of ethical ideals at home in the rhetorical topos of homonoia or concord and the avoidance of vices characteristic of stasis and eris, namely faction and strife. In Titus 3:1–10, the author deploys a set of termini technici to admonish against the vices of strife: quarreling (ἀμάχους), foolishness (ἀνόητοι), disobedience (ἀπειθεῖς), wandering (πλανώμενοι), envy (φθόνῳ), hatred (μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους), controversies and dissensions (ἔρεις καὶ μάχας), faction (αἱρετικόν). On the other side, the author promotes virtues associated with political concord: submission to authorities (ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι), obedience (πειθαρχεῖν), being gentle (ἐπιεικεῖς), courteousness (πραΰτητα), to apply oneTitus presented by C. Joachim Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, WUNT 128 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 45–68. 22  Margaret M. Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992): 641–62.

210

Harry O. Maier

self to good deeds (φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι). The household rule topos and the ideal of the harmonious family (Titus 1:6–8; 2:1–10) are also at home in the homonoia thematic and where they appears in Titus, virtues associated with political concord also appear: a bishop is to be free from arrogance (μὴ αὐθάδη), quick-temper (μὴ ὀργίλον), greed (μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ); he must be “hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled (φιλόξενον φιλάγαθον σώφρονα δίκαιον ὅσιον ἐγκρατῆ); older men or elders must be temperate (σώφρονας) and serious (σεμνούς), wives are to be sensible (σώφρονας), chaste (ἁγνάς), domestic (οἰκουργούς), submissive to husbands (ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν), the young are similarly to be temperate (σωφρονεῖν), slaves are to be submissive to their masters (ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι). These lists of virtues are meant to be taken together; in the broader pagan world they would be recognizable as profiles of civic dedication to the common good. God the commander has used his apostle Paul to install Titus as a delegate in Crete in order to promote an order that will help realize recognizably imperial civic ideals we are able to read about in speeches and treatises on civic concord and right government by Dio of Prusa, Plutarch, and Aelius Aristides.23 Imperial propaganda also drew on this language to promote an image of the emperor as the creator and preserver of civic harmony. J. Rufus Fears in an essay on the cult of imperial virtues describes the role of cult to cosmic powers personified as virtues from the Republic onward. During the early imperial period, a set of virtues came to be understood as empowering the emperor with their divine power, and by the time of Trajan and Hadrian these had developed into a set and growing list. The most important feature of these is that imperial coinage provided the chief means by which the emperor’s possession of these virtues were broadcast across the Empire.24 Under Trajan, to quote Fears, “the coinage reveals a gradual progression in the number and variety of the imperial virtues and the intensity with which they are commemorated.” And under Hadrian, “this trend, so marked on the coinage of the last years of Trajan’s reign, was intensified. And from 119 onward a veritable cascade of personifications poured out of the Hadrianic numismatic propaganda.”25 In the east, where there had been cults to particular gods for centuries, they were absorbed into the imperial cult and in23  For an overview of the homonoia and stasis topoi and their typical vocabulary and metaphors, as well as their presence in Dio, Plutarch, Aelius Aristides, as well as contemporary Christian literature, Odd M. Bakke, ‘Concord and Peace’: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Letter of Clement with an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition, WUNT 2/143 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). For a discussion of civic ideals in the Pastorals generally and their imitation of these larger themes, Reggie M. Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence in the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 122 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 111–58. 24 J. Rufus Fears, “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology,” in ANRW 2:17.2, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981), 827–949, here 901. 25  Ibid., 903.

Ethics and Empire in Titus

211

scribed on the coinage. Amongst the absorbed were civic cults to Dikaiosynē; Homonoia/Sebastē Homonoia; Nikē/Sebastē Nikē; Eirēnē, Eusebeia, Eleutheria, Sōtēria, Pistis and Sōphrosyne which, Fears records, was joined with cult to Hygieia influenced by the Roman cult to Salus. Δικαιοσύνη and cognates are of course celebrated in Titus 3:5; 1:8; 2:12; 3:7 (as in the rest of the Pastorals), as are εὐσέβεια (Titus 1:1; 2:12), εἰρήνη (Titus 1:4), πίστις (Titus 1:1, 4, 6, 9, 13; 2:2, 10; 3:8, 15), and – as we have seen, σωτηρία (Titus 2:10, 11, 13; 3:4, 6). Σωφροσύνη finds an important place in the Pastorals generally (1 Tim 2:9; 3:2; 2 Tim 1:7) and specifically in Titus (Titus 1:8; 2:2, 4, 5, 6; 2:12). Intriguingly, the Pastorals champion words and teaching that are marked by ὑγιαίνω and cognates (1 Tim 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 4:3), with the largest frequency of the term found in Titus (Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1, 8). My point here is not that the cult of virtues associated with the emperor has infiltrated the later Pauline corpus, only to mark the imperial valences that the terms came to possess and the way they came to be associated numismatically with the emperor’s image. If the term ὁμόνοια does not appear in Titus or 1 Timothy (notably ἔρις does – Titus 3:9; cf. 1 Tim 6:4 [together with the often paired terminus technicus, φθόνος]), it is sufficient to observe that the documents as a whole attest to concord and the absence of faction and strife as overarching civic ideals.

3. All Cretans are Liars and Joudaioi are Factionalists The imperial situation is created by more than virtue lists; as just indicated it also extends to the representation of vice. This unfolds in a situation where there are “many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision [πολλοὶ καὶ ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς]” (Titus 1:1–11) whom the author associates with Cretans: “It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said: ‘Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons’ [εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί]” (Titus 1:12). Joudaioi do not fare well in Titus. The author associates them with “Jewish myths and commandments of those who reject the truth.” He then goes on to deride them: “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work [Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν. πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς· τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν καθαρόν, ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις. θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι]” (Titus 1:14–16). Later, Joudaioi are implicated in the admonition to “avoid stupid controversies, genealogies dissensions,

212

Harry O. Maier

and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless [μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι]” (Titus 3:9). These are ethically execrable passages and Wolfgang Stegemann has descried them as racist and anti-Jewish.26 Some have found in these charges a historical situation in which an author uses Paul’s name to refute real life Jewish opponents, as in the case of Robert Karris, who argues that they are Jewish Christians promoting an ascetical lifestyle.27 My view is that they are rhetorically created fictions that belong to the creation of the letter’s imperial situation. In an essay that repays attention and is especially instructive for our purposes here T. Christopher Hoklotubbe takes up these verses by relating them to Roman imperial colonialism.28 He observes the way the Roman Empire racialized others as untamed barbarians in need of civilization. The Sebasteion at Aphrodisias represents this in a striking visual form, in a cycle of representations of nations conquered by Augustus and his successors. The monument personifies subjugated nations as females, most of whom are coiffed and wearing a properly arranged peplos. It represents some with partially disheveled hair, peplos askew, and with bound hands to indicate a continuing process of subjugation. Amongst the nations depicted were three islands, including that of Crete whose statue unfortunately not longer exists.29 A common prejudice against Cretans was that they were driven by a wild lust for profit that led them to become savage criminals and pirates.30 Given that association, the personification of the island of Crete as a domesticated woman is a provocative representation of the divinely given power of Rome’s emperor to use his army and/or diplomatic skill to civilize the world. Another cycle of representations contrasts masculine power to subjugate 26  “Anti-Semitic and Racist Prejudices in Titus 1:10–16,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 271–96, esp. 295. 27  Robert J. Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” JBL 92 (1973): 549–64; also Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 695–96; Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 105–12; Marshall and Towner, The Pastoral Epistles, 191–93; Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, AB (New York: Doubleday), 166. 28  T. Christopher Hoklotubbe, “Civilized Christians Among Superstitious Jews and Barbarous Cretans: A Postcolonial Reading of Racialized Rhetoric in Titus,” JBL 139 (2020), forthcoming. I am grateful to Professor Hoklotubbe for allowing me to read his essay before it went to press. In a different vein, George M. Wieland, “Roman Crete and the Letter to Titus,” NTS 55 (2009): 338–54, reads the ethical codes of Titus tailored (345) to address an allegedly Cretan character inclined to deception as well as, in the Cretan Jews, to be deceived, as well as the curtailment of its wild tendencies (348–49), without any recognition of the imperial construction of so-called national characters and identity in Hellenistic and Roman propaganda. 29  For images and discussion see R. R. R. Smith, “Simulacra Gentium: The ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias,” JRS 78 (1988): 50–77, Plates I–V for figures and VIII.4 for the base of the statue of Crete. 30  Hoklotubbe, “Civilized Christians,” for widely shared images amongst writers such as Cicero, Polybius, and Livy, and for common associations of Cretans with liars.

Ethics and Empire in Titus

213

and conquer with feminine distress by depicting emperors as self-possessed heroic nudes or cuirassed towering over their enemies personified as (partially) nude women, with disarranged hair in despair. One striking image has an emperor standing over a terrified disheveled woman who is juxtaposed with a personification of the Roman people or the senate as a properly coiffed, arranged, and poised woman crowning him with victory.31 I bring these images forward not to argue that the writer of Titus ever saw the Aphrodisias Sebasteion or that there were similar images in Crete (if that is where the letter’s audience in fact was), but rather to signal the form of imperial ideology in which the reference to Cretans as liars and Jews as factionalists may be seen to find a place. As for Jews as marked by dissension, quarrelling, debates over the law, with corrupt and impure consciences, it is enough to remember that both Trajan and Hadrian quelled significant Jewish rebellions. This should at least give us pause as to whether we are dealing with historical references in the letter to Titus, or rather a set of stereotypes in order to help the letter construct its imperial situation. In short, Paul has been commanded by God to send Titus as delegate to untamed, disorderly Crete to install a set of leaders noted for virtues which coincidentally are also celebrated civic qualities in the urban culture of the Mediterranean East, and to withstand the alleged factionalism and empire-eroding vices of the quarreling, corrupt Jews. By contrast the ideals for a leader include possession of the cardinal virtues of being self-controlled (σωφρόνως), just (δικαίως), and pious (εὐσεβῶς) (Titus 2:12) that steer a well-ordered household, and the community is to be subject to rulers and those in authority. Opponents on the other hand “upset whole households [ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν]” (Titus 1:11; 1 Tim 4:1; cf. 2 Tim 3:6) and thereby reveal their lack of civilization. Titus thus creates a vivid imperial situation by rhetorically casting real or imagined outsiders as barbarous others and representing Paul’s delegate and the apostle’s teaching legacy as the means toward creating order and civilization.

4. Titus in Urban Context We can see from what has been described so far that Titus is a thoroughly imperial text. My aim in these concluding remarks is to show that it is an imperial text that embeds its audience in a lived urban context. To see this we need only compare the letter’s ethical codes with those found in the numerous associations that dotted the Mediterranean world. The collections of inscriptions published by John Kloppenborg, Richard Ascough and Philip Harland celebrate a variety (but largely stock set) of virtues of patrons, leaders and members 31  R. R. R. Smith, “The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias,” JRS 77 (1987): 88–138, Plate XII.

214

Harry O. Maier

that include εὐσέβεια, φιλοτιμία (often connected with generosity), φιλοξενία, ἀφιλαργυρία, ἀρετή, ἀγαθός and its cognates, δικαιοσύνη, ἐπιμέλεια, εὔνοια, ἡσυχία.32 Additionally codes outline vices to be avoided such as quarrelling, drunkenness, ambition, gossiping, and hybris. As a survey by Alicia Batten has shown, the virtue of εὐσέβεια in the Pastorals parallels the language found in epigraphy celebrating the virtues of patrons and outlining codes of conduct for association members.33 Given the celebration of δικαιοσύνη, εὐσέβεια, σωφροσύνη, εἰρήνη, and ὁμόνοια in imperial elite culture, it is not surprising to find it also championed in that of non-elites who belonged to various clubs and associations. The associations comprised by non-elites modelled themselves after elite society and as such participated in the circulation of social capital that helped to create a cohesive society centred in the offering of honours in return for patronage.34 To discover the stock repertoire of virtues promoted in GrecoRoman associations in Titus is to encounter a group participating in the same circulation of honours. A famous and often cited late second century BCE inscription from Philadelphia in Lydia outlines an ethical code for a household association dedicated to the worship of Dionysios that includes both slave and free and includes specific behavioural rules for women. It forbids members from being deceptive and from knowing or using harmful spells, love charms, abortive drugs, or contraception. It prohibits men from seducing another’s wife, male or female slave, boy, or virgin girl; a free woman is to remain pure.35 Elsewhere, as the data collected by Ascough, Harland, and Kloppenborg indicates, inscriptions herald benefactors of associations for their virtues. An inscription listing honours dedicated to the Lycian benefactor Opramoas of Rhodiopolis on account of his actions spanning several decades from 114–153/53 CE returns multiple times to his ἀρετή, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, and εὐσέβεια as warrants for civic honours.36 Another inscription from Perdeikia, Caria, honours Agreo32 For these virtues and vices in association inscriptions see the index of John S. Kloppenborg and Richard S. Ascough, eds., Attica, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, vol. 1 of Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary, BZNW 181 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), under Virtue and Vice; and the cumulative index of Philip A. Harland, ed., North Coast of the Black Sea, Asia Minor, vol. 2 of Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary, BZNW 204 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), under Virtue and Vice; also John S. Kloppenborg, Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 45. 33 Batten, “The Moral World,” 148. 34 John S. Kloppenborg, “Associations, Christ Groups, and Their Place in the Polis,” ZNW 108 (2017), 1–56; idem, Christ’s Associations, 91–94, here applying Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of social capital to an understanding of honorific language in associations. 35  Lois sacrées de l’Asie mineure, ed. Franciszek Sokolowski (Paris: de Boccard, 1955), 20 = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. Wilhelm Dittenberger, 4 vols., 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1914–1924), 985. 36  Tituli Asiae minoris, Vol. 2: Tituli Lyciae linguis Graeca et Latina conscripti, ed. Ernst Kalinka (Vienna: Rohrer, 1920–1944), 2:905; https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/284795; for com-

Ethics and Empire in Titus

215

phon, a second century governor and patron, for demonstrating “excellence of soul and character” and for being “just in matters relating to the citizenry, pure and in public matters faithful, eager in self-control, pious and affectionate to family members, blameless with friends, gentle and benevolent to his larger household.”37 In 153/54 CE Milesian settlers at Amorgos in the southwestern Aegean honoured Aristeas son of Preimos for being “a good man (ἀνδρὸς εὖ) with respect to all the leadership positions and services which he accomplished in the homeland. He has lived a reverent (σεμνόν) and quiet (ἡσύχιον) life, throughout his whole life, just as all citizens have witnessed through his loveable character (ἀξιοφίλητον αὐτοῦ ἦθο[ς]).”38 The advantage of considering this evidence is that it keeps our reading of Titus closer to the ground of lived urban culture contemporary with Titus and helps us to recognize a way that virtue language filtered into the ethical set of beliefs the letter champions. This is not to say that the early church was an association (although I am convinced that it is more probable than not that Jesus followers could have belonged to associations alongside being members of their assemblies). It is only to make the point that as other small urban groups, Jesus adherents drew on the repertoire of ethical terms around them to promote their own practices. Nor is this to argue that there is nothing idiosyncratic about the Jesus assemblies.39 For example, they assume members have undergone a moral transformation in their migration from worship of gods to Jesus and the God of Israel and they connect the overarching ideal of eusebeia to devotion to them alone, a notion not found outside of this belief system. Further, as Reggie M. Kidd has demonstrated, there is an idiosyncratic ethic in Titus and the Pastorals more generally, due to an eschatological orientation that scholars in their efforts to mark the departure from the earlier Pauline corpus either do not recognize or ignore.40 Titus mentions “hope” three times (Titus 1:2; 2:13; 3:7; see also 1 Tim 1:1; 3:14; 4:10; 5:5; 6:17). In Titus 2:13 “blessed hope” is paired with the epiphany of Jesus: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ’Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ and in 3:7 he celebrates becoming heirs through grace “according to the hope of eternal life [κατ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου].” I have argued for an imperial valence to this eschatology because of parallel language with imperial adventus, but for the writmentary, Christina Kokkinia, Die Opramoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis. Euergetismus und soziale Elite in Lykien (Bonn: Habelt, 2000). 37  Kaunos 4,16 = https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/259542. 38 Inscriptiones Graecae, vol. 12: Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum, Fasc. 7: Inscriptiones insularum maris Aegaei praeter Delum, ed. Jules Delamarre (Berlin: Reimer, 1908), 12/7, 396 = https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/79047. 39  Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence, 142–58 gives attention to the many ways in which the Pastorals depart from civic conventions following a discussion (124–30) of the many ways they conform to them. 40  Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence, 130–36, 159–94.

216

Harry O. Maier

er of Titus (and 1 Timothy) ethics are not solely for the sake of realizing a good civic order and receiving the precious social commodity of honour, they are also oriented to a future that presumably will supplant imperial life. The letters indicate their imperial location by the ethical ideas that reveal participation in the securing of social capital, but that participation cannot account for the entirety of the ethical orientation of Titus or the Pastorals more generally. It is assumed members will care for one another not in order to achieve honour, but in anticipation of the life to come. There is, then, what Kidd aptly describes as “the eschatological base for the Pastorals’ ethical posture.”41 To conclude, the imperial cult, the narrative casting of Paul and his delegates spreading the Gospel, and virtue and vice language from the empire’s various associations offer texts, co-texts, and contexts for understanding the ethical teachings of Titus and their relationship to their larger social world. There is a degree of modulation of these themes by relating them to an eschatological future, but a future that is represented in part by using terms and themes drawn from the imperial world in which Titus was composed.

 Kidd, Wealth and Beneficence, 181.

41

III. The Relevance of the Implicit Ethics: A Hermeneutical Approach

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus Ethical Issues and Their Contemporary Relevance Korinna Zamfir The life and vocation of women has always been a central topic in moral discourse, notably in prescriptive texts which ground ethical norms in religion. This essay addresses the ethical issues emerging from the Epistle to Titus with respect to the life and ministry of women, within one of the focus areas of this volume, that of text and hermeneutics. The issue is a sensitive one for contemporary readers, notably for those with an acute sense of social justice and gender equity: we deal here with gender-specific ethical norms in a canonical writing, which envisages women as subordinated human beings, required to live their vocation in full submission to male authority. As the topic involves assessing moral exhortations, in the first part of this essay I briefly reflect on ethical discourse and social ethics in the Pastoral Epistles [PE]. Subsequently I turn to the paraenesis addressed to women in Titus 2. Finally, I attempt to formulate some observations regarding the contemporary relevance and challenges of this paraenesis.

1. Preliminary Considerations. Moral Discourse and Social Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles The Pastoral Epistles (PE)1 focus notably on moral issues, far more than on doctrinal matters. This justifies a brief reflection on the ethical discourse, the values 1  I read Titus as a pseudonymous epistle (with Martin Dibelius, Norbert Brox, Lorenz Oberlinner, Raymond Collins, Benjamin Fiore and others). Notwithstanding its individual profile, it belongs to the Pastoral Corpus: Peter Trummer, “Corpus Paulinum – Corpus Pastorale. Zur Ortung der Paulustradition in den Pastoralbriefen,” in Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften, ed. Karl Kertelge, QD 89 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1981), 122–45; Gerd Häfner, “Das Corpus Pastorale als literarisches Konstrukt,” TQ 187 (2007): 258–73; Jens Schröter, “Kirche im Anschluss an Paulus. Aspekte der Paulusrezeption in der Apostelgeschichte und in den Pastoralbriefen,” ZNW 98 (2007): 77–‍104, here 80–81; Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 193–‍217; Michael Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016), 35–42.

220

Korinna Zamfir

and norms used and/or established by these writings and the arguments which legitimise certain norms of behaviour. (I use here ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’ interchangeably, referring to a set of principles, values and norms expected to shape behaviour.2) This discussion requires addressing a more complicated question, namely the normativity of the ethical claims made by the PE, more specifically by Titus, for contemporary readers. Claiming to be written by Paul,3 Titus reclaims, along with 1 and 2 Timothy, the authority of the Apostle to persuade readers/hearers that it expresses his final There is a trend in contemporary scholarship to argue that these writings are genuine, individual letters of Paul: Luke T. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 35A (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 63–64, 98–99; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 88– 89, passim; for Titus and 2 Timothy as probably authentic: Jens Herzer, “Abschied vom Konsens? Die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe als Herausforderung an die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,” TLZ 129 (2004): 1267–82; idem, “Fiktion oder Täuschung? Zur Diskussion über die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen/Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction in Early Christian Letters, ed. Jörg Frey et al., WUNT 246 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 489–‍536, here 514–15, passim. Yet, against such objections see Gerd Häfner, “Das Corpus Pastorale,” 456–57, and the detailed analysis of the similarities by Ehrman, Forgery, 195–‍205. Pleading for their independence, some scholars often underscore the differences between these writings and downplay the obvious similarities in terms of language, theological concepts and ethical perspective. Titus might have been written first, but I do not think that it reflects a more primitive community compared to 1 Timothy, whether in terms of institutions or morals. With Annette Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters: Philosophers of the Household, NovTSup 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 278, n. 67 (against L. T. Johnson). Also pace I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1999), 146, 148; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 64, 680; George T. Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 24, 217, 220, 228. 2 For a more detailed definition and systematisation of the ethical norms: Ruben Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung und Normenanalyse im Horizont einer ‘impliziten Ethik’ frühchristlicher Schriften,” in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut – Leben – Leib – Tugend, Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics 4, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, Ruben Zimmermann in collaboration with Esther Verwold, WUNT 313 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 3–27, here 17–21. “‘Norm’ ist ein Zeichen, das in einem ethischen Satz bzw. Diskurs einen Sollensanspruch an das Verhalten eines Einzelnen bzw. einer Gruppe begründet oder das mit einer Wertzuschreibung belegt wird.” (17) “Im engeren Sinn kann man eine Norm als eine begrifflich verdichtete Moralinstanz bezeichnen, auf die direkt oder indirekt Bezug genommen wird.” (18) Formally, norms comprise principles and maxims, materially, goods (Güter) and values (19–21). 3  For the PE as forged letters attributed to Paul in view of his apostolic authority: Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, HUT 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 22, 24, 55, 128, 151, passim; Marco Frenschkowski, “Pseudepigraphie und Paulusschule. Gedanken zur Verfasserschaft der Deuteropaulinen,” in Das Ende des Paulus. Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, BZNW 106 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 239–72, here 251, 262; Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe, NTOA/ StUNT 52 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 221, 224, 383–84; John W. Marshall, “‘I Left You in Crete’: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus,” JBL

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

221

word on a number of ethical issues. Many of these are related to social ethics, specifically the behaviour of women and slaves, with an eye to earning the approval of public opinion, and the attitude believers should display towards political authorities. These writings have had a significant impact on the way Christians were expected to behave in society, but social changes that have occurred over the past two millennia have challenged the relevance of this paraenesis. Assessing the contemporary applicability of these principles is a complicated issue, given the canonical status of these writings. It is not by chance that certain scholars defend these epistles as genuine letters of Paul, because admitting pseudepigraphy (not to mention forgery) in the New Testament bears significant ethical and theological implications.4 Beyond theological questions like the understanding of inspiration and canonical authority, which will not be addressed here, the contemporary relevance of these ethical norms should be connected to the broader discussion regarding the relationship between religion (foundational religious texts) and ethics. Current scholarship will argue that religion and ethics are not coterminous; however, religion obviously plays an important role in shaping ethical principles, norms and behaviour. The question is to what degree are the ethical norms grounded in religious tenets unchangeable; to put it differently, to what degree may personal ethical decisions question these norms in certain circumstances.5

127.4 (2008): 781–803; Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit, 42–43 (“verdeckte Pseudepigraphie”). On forgery see Wolfgang Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung, HAW 1/2 (München: Beck, 1971), 13: “der wirkliche Verfasser mit dem angegebenen nicht übereinstimmt und die Maske als Mittel gewählt wurde, um Absichten durchzusetzen, die außerhalb der Literatur, das heißt der Kunst, lagen.” See also Armin D. Baum, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum, WUNT 2/138 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 11, 93 (insofar Paul did not authorise the writing of the PE, according the ancient perspective they were forgeries). 4  On these issues: David G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 2–3; Baum, Pseudepigraphie, 81–91, 191, 194–96; Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 388–93; Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105–23. Baum even considers that unless we accept that the pia fraus could legitimise deception, one is left with two options: that of a canon within the canon (untenable, in his view), or the rejection of the canonical status of forged writings (191, cf. 194–96). 5 Michael Lambek distinguishes between a Durkheimian and a Weberian response to the question about the relationship between religion and ethics. According to the former, religion constitutes the foundation of ethics and establishing thereby the moral foundation of society. The latter pays more attention to the contextual, historical and cultural aspects and allows more space to wise judgment and choosing between alternatives. Certain religious systems and practices shape specific ethical values and norms and form moral habits, but these may also be challenged on different ethical grounds. Michael Lambek, “Religion and Morality,” in A Companion to Moral Anthropology, ed. Didier Fassin (Chichester: Wiley, 2012), 341–‍58, here 345–52.

222

Korinna Zamfir

Religion usually grounds an imperative moral discourse; religious tenets and references to divine will or authoritative religious figures function as an ultimate, unquestionable foundation for moral norms and behaviour. Ruben Zimmermann argues however that early Christian writings reflect a pluralistic model of implied ethics, which does not refer solely to a transcendental foundation of ethics in a regressus ad infinitum, but also builds on pragmatic arguments related to the everyday questions faced by communities.6 The two types of moral argumentation – the imperative-indicative discourse and the pluralistic one – should be seen as complementary. Aside religious tenets, which provide a strong foundation for ethical claims, a plurality of arguments is inspired by specific circumstances and cultural perspectives. This shows that ethical discourse, even when grounded in religion, does not operate with a set of divine, immutable norms, but also draws from the sociocultural context of a certain time in history. It would be untenable to argue that all these values and norms should be followed without critical reflection. I find helpful the distinction proposed by Zimmermann between a focus on the author and on the text. A focus on the author discloses the way he assesses the morality of the acts (to be) performed by the addressees. The perspective of the author is an apodictic one. In addition, the historical context of the communication can only be approximated. Focusing on the text, on the other hand, allows a dialectic perspective on the ethical judgments of early Christian texts: it does not state that a certain behaviour is right, but it reveals what the text/the author asserts to be right.7 This conjures up the question about the contemporary significance of certain ethical judgements, in texts which hold authority in view of their canonical status and ground thereby prescriptive ethics.8 With respect to the communication setting,9 the PE are part of the debate concerning the right interpretation of Paul. In this context, they strive to establish orthodoxy and orthopraxy, against opinions and lifestyles labelled as deviant. They clearly share the contemporary moral values and norms of respectable social behaviour. Believers are encouraged to live a dignified and honourable  Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung,” 14–15.  Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung,” 13–14. He uses here the distinction of Alan Gewirth between assertoric (or as Zimmermann calls it, apodictic) and dialectical ethical judgement (9–10). 8  “Ob und inwiefern aus einem Geltungsanspruch im historischen Text z. B. aufgrund der kanonischen Stellung des Textes auch gegenwärtig ein ethischer Anspruch im Sinne einer präskriptiven Ethik erwächst, ob man also bereit ist, der im Text erkennbaren ethischen Stimme auch Relevanz beizumessen, ist gesondert zu fragen.” Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung,” 14. 9 On the relevance of the issue for assessing the ethical discourse: Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung,” 17–18. The analysis should identify the reference to the norms recognised in a certain community or newly introduced, the use of ethical concepts (conscience, morality, decorum, justice, law), the exempla, the traditions, and the role and application of norms in the rhetorical argument (22–25). 6 7

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

223

life. The PE promote thus values and virtues like piety (εὐσέβεια),10 prudence, self-restraint and chastity (σωφροσύνη),11 dignity and sobriety (σεμνότης),12 and express a marked sensitivity towards the image of the community in the eyes of fellow citizens.13 The PE reflect the conviction that the division of social spaces and the corresponding gender roles are divinely ordained and they befit human nature. Both the ecclesial community and the larger social sphere have a hierarchical structure. This entails the rule of those superior by nature and in virtue of social standing (the male heads of household and the leaders of the community) over the subordinated categories (notably women and slaves). The author does not promote these norms merely out of fear of a hostile society that would persecute Christ-believers (as often argued), or due to internal tensions caused by supposed heretical factions, but because he shares the social and ethical views of the society to which he belongs. Turning to the ethical discourse in Titus, it is clear from the beginning that the author bases his argument on the authority of Paul, “a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” designated by the Saviour God. Paul is an authoritative religious figure; behind his preaching stands the will and eternal decree of God, now revealed (Titus 1:1–3). Characterising the Saviour God as never lying (ἀψευδής)14 increases significantly the power of the argument. The preaching of Paul grounds the faith and piety of the community (Titus 1:1). The prescript associates the knowledge of the truth (ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας) with piety (εὐσέβεια), both key concepts in the PE. Reaching the knowledge of truth does not simply mean therefore appropriating a theoretical system of doctrines, but opting for a godly way of life. The repeated references to the hope of eternal life, as fundament for the pious lifestyle, functions as a teleological argument (Titus 1:2; 2:13, in the theological excurse concluding the slave-paraenesis and preceding the instruction to submit 10 Titus

1:1; 2:12; 1 Tim 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 5:4; 6:3, 5, 6; 11; 2 Tim 3:5, 12.  Σώφρων and its cognates are found nine times in the PE: Titus 1:8; 2:2, 4, 5, 6, 12; 1 Tim 2:9, 15; 3:2; 2 Tim 1:7. 12  Twice in Titus (2:2, 7), four times in 1 Timothy (2:2; 3:4, 8, 11). 13  This social ethical perspective was aptly described by Martin Dibelius as the ideal of “christliche Bürgerlichkeit,” an endeavour of Christ-believers to be good, virtuous citizens of their society; Martin Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe, 3rd, rev. ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955), 7, 32–33; Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia, trans. Philip Buttolph, Adela Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 8, 39–41. The idiom is a cultural descriptor without derogatory undertones or socioeconomic implications, as often mistakenly claimed. This perspective was determined at least in part by a declining sense of eschatological immediacy. The same was noticed by Céslas Spicq, who argued that the PE set as model the perfectly honest man, the καλὸς κἀγαθός, a man aspiring to the Greek ideal of humanity; Les Épîtres Pastorales 1 (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 227. 14  The idiom is a New Testament hapax, known in ancient literature (compare Euripides, Orest. 364, there, too, in the context of a divine oracle), cf. LSJ, s. v. 11

224

Korinna Zamfir

to political authorities; Titus 3:7, when discussing the ethical change experienced by believers, hallmarked by baptism). The reiterated allusions to respectability complete the religious-theological argument proper. These have both a deontological and a teleological dimension.15 The allusions to standards of appropriate behaviour point to the value assigned to social norms and the concern to acquire good repute, as expressions of an honour and shame mentality.16

2. Ministries for Women in Titus? Titus does not refer to women’s ministries in a strict sense, as a formal, officially recognized role, like that of the ἐπίσκοπος/πρεσβύτερος or of (female) διάκονοι (Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Tim 3:2, 9, 11; 5:17). The issue of women’s ministries is a hazy one in the PE in general, not only in Titus. Due to the prescriptive character of the PE, the information that can be gleaned from these epistles with respect to women’s ministries is very limited. Titus 1:5–7 and 1 Timothy 3:2 (cf. 5:17) envisage the ministry or office of the ἐπίσκοπος/ πρεσβύτερος as held by male heads of households, formally introduced into their ministry by other sanctioned male leaders. At least this is the case if we take the plural πρεσβύτεροι as exclusive and the masculine form ἐπίσκοπος as denoting a function held by a man. Διάκονοι are mentioned only in 1 Timothy; the meaning of the γυναῖκες in 1 Tim 3:11 is notoriously debated, but female διάκονοι are most likely in view.17 Similarly, the role of widows (1 Tim 5:3–‍16) is disputed; in all likelihood they were a group with a particular standing, engaged in house calls, charitable work and probably some 15 The PE use both deontological arguments, which emphasise the conformity of an act with the ethical norms, and teleological ones, which assess the purpose (telos) of an act. On the distinction: Zimmermann, “Pluralistische Ethikbegründung,” 6 (cf. C. D. Broad). 16  The overseer is expected to be blameless (ἀνέγκλητος) and should not be exposed to charges of debauchery and rebellion (Titus 1:6–7). The moral probity of the candidates and their adherence to conventional virtues is essential (Titus 1:5–8). Opponents are silenced in virtue of implicit norms requiring a virtuous lifestyle, control of speech and respect for the order of the community (Titus 1:10–11). (The issue noted here is the argument itself; this does not mean that they are indeed sinners and in the wrong.) 17  Text-internal and external evidence indicates that 1 Tim 3:11 refers to female diakonoi. Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales 1, 456, 460–61; Jürgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, EKKNT 15 (Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 263; Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe. Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief, HThKNT 11/2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994), XXXIX, 113, 139–43; Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letter to Timothy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 251, 271, 279, 285–7; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 493; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 265–6; Gerhard Lohfink, “Weibliche Diakone im Neuen Testament,” in Die Frau im Urchristentum, ed. Gerhard Dautzenberg and Helmut Merklein, QD 95 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993), 320–38, here 332–34; Jennifer H. Stiefel, “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at ‘Women Likewise …’ (1 Tim 3.11),” NTS 41 (1995): 442–57.

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

225

informal teaching.18 If there is one thing we know for sure, it is that the author did not want women to teach matters pertaining to doctrine in the community (1 Tim 2:12). He very much preferred women staying at home, managing the household, being good wives and mothers, and keeping silent in the community. Where does this lead us with respect to women’s ministries in Titus? The epistle does not allude to any formally recognized ministry for women. There is no reference to female διάκονοι or widows, as in 1 Timothy. We cannot argue e silentio that such ministries did not exist, but it would be equally hazardous to engage in hypothetical discussions about ministries that probably existed. We are thus left with Tit 2:4–5, which assigns to older women the task to instruct their younger peers, the obvious topic of this paper. Before any hermeneutical reflection on the relevance of the topic for contemporary ethical discourse, we should take a look at the context of this passage, since, from a hermeneutical perspective, no biblical text can be interpreted and applied in contemporary ethics without attention to its cultural and social setting, to ancient circumstances, views and mentalities that have influenced the author. Consequently, I discuss Tit 2:4–5 in its cultural context, to ask at the end whether Titus is still relevant for the life and ministry of women today.

3. Women Teaching and Supervising Women In Titus 2:3–5 older women are urged to be καλοδιδάσκαλοι (2:3), teachers of what is good,19 i. e. teachers of virtue. Πρεσβῦτις does not stand here for an official teaching ministry that would be the female equivalent of the male πρεσβύτερος.20 They are expected to reason, advise and urge (σωφρονίζω)21 young women (Titus 2:4) to display the virtues and attitudes typically demanded from women in antiquity. By comparison, Titus is expected to address young 18  Spicq, Les Épîtres Pastorales 1, 532–3; Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 74, 76; Ulrike Wagener, Die Ordnung des Hauses Gottes: der Ort von Frauen in der Ekklesiologie und Ethik der Pastoralbriefe, WUNT 2/65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 148–9; Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 292–93; Oberlinner, Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief, 221–2, 231, 233– 34; David C. Verner, The Household of God. The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 163–‍65; Benjamin Fiore, The Pastoral Epistles. First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, SP 12 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 102, 104–07; Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Gossip and Gender. Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles, BZNW 164 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 143–44. 19 LSJ, s. v. καλοδιδάσκαλος; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 246. 20  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 242. 21 BDAG, s. v. σωφρονίζω; also to “bring to one’s senses” (with τινά); “to instruct in prudence or behavior that is becoming and shows good judgment, encourage, advise, urge.” I do not think that σωφρονίζω means here to correct misconduct, chastise, rebuke (Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 294, following Engberg-Pedersen).

226

Korinna Zamfir

men directly, demanding them to be reasonable and self-controlled (σωφρονεῖν, Titus 2:6); the exhortation is remarkably concise.22 The paraenesis to community members of different ages belongs under the heading “teaching what befits sound doctrine” (τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ, Titus 2:1). Teaching refers to moral behaviour.23 The concluding theological excursus on the epiphany of (the grace and glory of ) the saviour God and the saviour Christ and on redemption (vv. 11–16) is meant to underpin the exhortation to pious and respectable life in this world (σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, Titus 2:12) and to good works. The exhortations Titus has to impart to community members (ch. 2) add up to a station code.24 Before instructing young women, older women are demanded to display an exemplary behaviour themselves: they should behave as befits holiness,25 avoiding slanderous speech/gossip and addiction to drinking (ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, Titus 2:3). (This comes very close to the expectation regarding the diakonoi in 1 Timothy, whether women [μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, 1 Tim 3:11] or men [μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, 1 Tim 3:8]). Those expected to teach a virtuous life do so already by the power of their personal example; irreproachability conveys them the required moral authority.26 Their virtues match to a point those required from older men (respectable behaviour and sobriety); perhaps the most conspicuous difference is that they are not demanded explicitly soundness in faith. This might suggest that their instruction does not address doctrine-related matters. Young women are obviously (future) wives and mothers. They should be loving of husband and children (φιλάνδρους, φιλοτέκνους), temperate/self-restrained and chaste (σώφρονας), pure (ἁγνάς), domestic (οἰκουργούς),27 good (ἀγαθάς) and submissive (ὑποτασσομένας) to their husbands. The exhortation is not singular in the PE. In 1 Timothy younger widows (νεωτέρας χήρας, 1 Tim 5:11) are also expected to comply with female roles (γαμεῖν, τεκνογονεῖν, οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, 1 Tim 5:14) and women are demanded to be submissive (1 Tim 22  With the exception of the elder-overseers, where this seems to be self-evident, Titus does not demand men in general (e. g. the younger men, ch. 2) to assume parental roles or to fulfil their roles of husbands and fathers in a respectable way. Only women are addressed from this perspective. Young men are merely demanded to behave in a manner characterised by prudence and self-control (σωφρονεῖν, 2:6). 23  Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, Kommentar zum Titusbrief, HThKNT 11/2.3 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1996), 107–08. 24  The paraenesis seems to reverse the normal relations of authority: Titus, envisioned here as rather young and in need of detailed advice himself, has to exhort not only those of his age, but old men and women as well. The authority of the apostle compensates his own, somewhat deficient influence. 25  Ἰεροπρεπεῖς should not be taken to refer to a holy office, but in a broad sense to holy demeanor. Oberlinner, Kommentar zum Titusbrief, 108; Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 244. 26  Oberlinner, Kommentar zum Titusbrief, 108; Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 303. 27  BDAG, s. v. οἰκουργός (οἰκουρός is the more common form).

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

227

2:11) and embrace motherhood as a gender-specific path to salvation (1 Tim 2:15). 2 Timothy envisages female exempla as believing mothers, who pass on their faith to their children (2 Tim 1:5). The moral instruction delivered by older women presupposes a hierarchical relationship between women, based on seniority, both in the household, among kin, and in the community, within a network of fictive kinship.28 Age provides superiority based on experience and on respectability. The exhortation encourages the older and thereby respected members of the community to address their younger peers “from woman to woman.” This has an added power of persuasion, as it is based on a shared experience and an internal perspective on the life of women.29 An older, more experienced woman, acquainted with the tasks and problems that come with being a wife and mother has the best insight into the life of women. The mandate to instruct younger women is therefore a strategy promoting moral behaviour and notably compliance with gender roles through peers. By commissioning these experienced women to instruct, the leader of the community implicitly expresses his confidence in their capacities. This trust will reinforce their commitment to the role of teachers of traditional morality and their loyalty. The strategy is not particular to the Epistle to Titus. Women supervising other women, ensuring that they comply with their gender-specific roles and behave appropriately is an age-old practice. Already Plato, in his Laws, envisaged public control over marriage, reproduction and child-rearing in his utopian Cretan state, by employing female officials.30 Demanding experienced women to instruct their younger fellows in traditional morality is a strategy closely resembling that of the pseudonymous Neopythagorean letters and treatises supposedly penned by reputed, philosophically-minded women, in response to domestic problems faced by younger women.31 These writings also 28  Mona Tokarek LaFosse, “Age Hierarchy and Social Networks among Urban Women in the Roman East,” in Mediterranean Families in Antiquity: Households, Extended Families, and Domestic Space, ed. Sabine R. Huebner and Geoffrey Nathan (Chichester: Wiley, 2017), 204–20 (referring to the authority of the mother-in-law and other women, kin or not). 29  Bourland Huizenga remarks the same in the case of the Neopythagorean exhortations allegedly written by eminent women: the femininity of the purported authors results in the “implicit authorization of these women as teachers of and role models for the named recipients,” moreover, recurring to these women elevates “common sense advice into the realm of a moral philosophy for women” (Moral Education, 78, 114 on Theano). 30  The female supervisors (episkopoi) of marriage, the supervisors of the nurses and the supervisors of the syssitiai of women who watch over their behaviour (Leg. 6, 784ab; 7, 794b; 806e). On female offices: Marcus Folch, The City and the Stage: Performance, Genre, and Gender in Plato’s Laws (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 254–57. Of the roles and offices assigned by Plato to women, the one conspicuously lacking in the PE is that of priestesses. 31 The dating of the Neopythagorean texts is debated. Alfons Städele opts for a broad interval, between the 2nd cent. BCE and the 2nd cent. CE (Die Briefe des Pythagoras und der Pythagoreer, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 115 [Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1980], 256). See further

228

Korinna Zamfir

promote typical female virtues and traditional gender roles. A young woman should learn from the elder and more experienced to manage the oikos, to behave towards her husband, and rear her children.32 Theano, the wife of Pythagoras, a woman of exemplary virtue,33 coaches Kallisto in household management.34 She reminds her that younger women who acquire in marriage authority over slaves need to be instructed firstly by older women, who employ in the process teaching and advice (διδασκαλία παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων … περὶ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀεὶ παραινούντων). They should learn (μανθάνειν) the matters they ignore and should appreciate the advice of the more experienced women.35 Much of the advice allegedly coming from women addresses younger women’s conduct towards their husband, children and other members of the household, and the exhortations commend the virtues typically required from women. Perictione, possibly envisioned as the mother of Plato,36 stresses that a woman distinguished by harmony should be endowed with prudence (φρόνησις), temperance and chastity (σωφροσύνη). She will thus behave properly towards her husband and love him, her children and her whole household.37 Phintys, a disciple of Pythagoras, praises a woman’s σωφροσύνη which makes her respect and love her husband.38 The exhortation reiterates a woman’s faithfulness to her husband and her domesticity. The wife supervises her household and domestic activities. She should be chaste and self-controlled (σώφρων) and pure.39 The σώφρων, submissive wife, pleasing her husband and taking care of the oikos, is Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 41–43. For the pseudepigraphical nature of these letters and the fictitious character of the setting: Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 252–53. On these exhortations see also David Balch, “Neopythagorean Moralists and the New Testament Household Codes,” ANRW 2:26.3, ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), 380–411; Wagener, Die Ordnung des Hauses Gottes, 89–92. 32  On the experience handed down by Pythagorean women to younger peers: Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 122–23, 285, passim. 33  Pythagoras’s wife (Porph., Vita Pythagorae 4; Iambl., Vita Pythagorae 36; 146). Iamblichus distinguishes her from another Theano, Brontinus’s wife and Pythagoras’s disciple (Iambl., VP 36). She is the type of the wise and irreproachable woman in Neopythagorean literature. On the exemplary character of the Neopythagorean women: Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 84–115, on their wide reception (notably of Theano), as good women and philosopher-women in early Christian literature: 95, 100–03, 109–10, 126. 34 Holger Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period, Acta Academiae Aboensis, ser. A, vol. 30, no. 1 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1965), 197–98; Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 174/175–178/179. 35  Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 197,25–32, Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 174,3. Engl. trans. and discussion: Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 73–75, 122–23, 164–‍65, 194–200. 36  Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 142. 37  Perictione, De mulieris harmonia, Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 142,18–23; 143,1–‍3; 144,8–19; Kenneth S. Guthrie and David Fideler, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987), 239–41. 38  Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 152,3–5. 39  Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 154,10–11.

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

229

also extolled in the letter of Melissa to Kleareta.40 Kleareta should also be modest, relinquishing adornment, and should keep silent (requirements also associated in 1 Tim 2:9–11).41 Some letters (like those purportedly written by Theano to Nikostrate and Euridike) demand women to behave well towards their husband even when he is unfaithful.42 The wife should take care of her household and love her children tenderly (φιλοστοργία περὶ τὰ τέκνα).43 Theano’s letter to Eubule tackles mothers’ role in providing moral education to their children.44 The letter of Myia to Phyllis deals with practical matters concerning the nurture of young children,45 from the same perspective of a more experienced woman writing to a young and inexperienced mother. Apart from the Neopythagorean sources some other instances suggest that women provided moral advice to their peers. Pliny the Younger acknowledges the role of Calpurnia Hispulla in providing moral education to his wife.46 Plutarch says that his wife, Timoxena, authored a treatise on the love of adornment, addressed to an Aristylla.47 The treatise was not preserved, but Plutarch confirms thereby the topos of women teaching traditional virtues to other women. The exhortation in Titus to older women to instruct the younger to be virtuous wives and mothers resembles thus that attributed to Pythagorean and other philosophically-minded women. These exhortations indicate that women, notably when trained in moral philosophy, were thought to be capable to provide moral instruction to other women, and that (as Annette Bourland Huizenga remarks) the exhortation coming from female authors/teachers on matters pertaining to women was more appropriate and more efficient than that voiced by men.48 The primary setting of such instruction was the family,49 but other circumstances where women came together for work and exchange could also be 40  Melissa, a metaphorical figure, is the quintessential model of feminine virtue. Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 84–90, 122, 169–77. 41 Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 160/161–162/163; Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 59–61, 169–77. 42 Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 170/171–174/175 and 178/179–180/181; Engl. trans. Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 68–73 and 73–74. 43 Theano to Nikostrate, Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 172,30–39; analysed by Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 70–71. 44  Focusing on the control of desires and passions Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 166/167– 168/169, Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 184–90. 45  Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 162/163–164/165, Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 122, 177–84. 46  Ep. 4, 19.6 (trans. Betty Radice, LCL). 47  Conj. praec. 48, Mor. 145AB. Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to His Wife, ed. Sarah B. Pomeroy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 48  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 115–6 (“the female pseudonyms suggest the expectation in antiquity that it was these philosophical women who had a special responsibility to instruct other women on these issues,” 116), 119. 49  Tokarek LaFosse, “Age Hierarchy and Social Networks,” 204–20; Péter Balla, The Child-

230

Korinna Zamfir

envisaged. (A family setting seems to be suggested by the example of Eunike and Lois in 2 Timothy, envisaged as transmitting faith from grandmother to mother to son).50 Titus applies thus to a community situation practices common in traditional societies, where older and/or more experienced women introduced the younger into their tasks and prepared them for their life as wives and mothers. The author turns this role into one with certain recognition in the community of faith, although not into an official ministry. Such texts also indicate that virtue is teachable51 and that women may be treated as subjects of moral acts, capable of progressing in virtue. At the same time, young women are envisaged as learners, and thus in a subordinate position.52 Teaching requires the experience that comes with age (Titus himself is an exception, but his young age is compensated by the authority that comes with apostolic empowerment). The teaching-learning relationship is a returning topic in the PE. Women are commonly seen as learners (compare 1 Tim 2:11–12 or 2 Tim 3:6–7, even when here they are not envisaged in a favourable light). (Μανθάνω in general is typical for the PE.53) But whereas in the other passages, women learn from men (for better or for worse), this is the only text where the teachers are also women. Recurring to pseudepigraphy, Titus envisions (elder) women who instruct their younger peers as handing down a teaching coming from and authorized by Paul. In this, too, the strategy of Titus resembles that of the Neopythagorean letters, where women transmit a wisdom of life allegedly inspired by an eminent teacher (Pythagoras).54 Regardless of the historicity of such details, women seem to be recognized thus as playing a role in the transmission of moral instruction coming from the master to younger generations.

Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment, WUNT 155 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 49. 50  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 320: “Lois and Eunice represent quintessentially successful Christian mothers.” 51 Donelson, Pseudepigraphy, 187. 52  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 124, 202. I have discussed in detail elsewhere the topos of men as teachers of women: Men and Women in the Household God: A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles, NTOA 103 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 219–26. 53  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 279–84. It comes up elsewhere in this sense only in 1 Cor 14:35. 54 Pythagorean sources even argue that some of Pythagoras’s teachings were preserved and/ or transmitted by women (his daughter, Damo, and his granddaughter, Bitale, cf. Iambl., VP 146, Guthrie and Fideler, The Pythagorean Sourcebook, 69; Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 106). Bourland Huizenga adds that according to another, late source, Theano mediated women’s acquaintance with the philosophy of Pythagoras through her teaching on sophrosyne, Moral Education, 111 (Ps.-Nicolaus).

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

231

In fact, teaching has a central importance in the PE, as shown by the frequency of διδάσκειν and its derivates.55 This implies to a degree the valuation of the task of the older women designated as καλοδιδάσκαλοι (Titus 2,3). Yet, the injunction should not be overrated, nor contrasted to the prohibition to teach in 1 Tim 2:12, to claim that such prohibition was not universal.56 There is nothing here suggesting that teaching should be carried out in public before a mixed audience (although an all-female community may be envisaged). The content of this instruction does not encompass doctrinal matters (the prerogative of male teachers), and the moral exhortation concerning the behaviour of women has an ideological thrust, as it encourages women to comply with their traditional roles in the household.57 Older women, although καλοδιδάσκαλοι, are not envisaged as teachers in the community, like the ἐπίσκοπος/ πρεσβύτερος. Titus does not recognise a teaching ministry of women strictly speaking.

4. The Content of the Instruction: The Roles and Virtues of Good Women The virtues and behaviour expected from young women in Titus are common in ancient sources belonging to a wide range of genres. They define the respectable woman, or, as Annette Huizenga has pointed out, the topos of the “good woman,” encompassing gender-specific virtues (notably σωφροσύνη) and the devoted performance of female roles.58 A good and respectable woman has to love her husband and submit to him unconditionally, to be a good mother, to be domestic and manage her household appropriately, and to be virtuous, displaying virtues expressing lack of self-assertiveness.59 Since the household was the preferential space where women could have a meaningful role, domesticity was a common expectation.60 Submission and self Donelson, Pseudepigraphy, 188–89.  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 455. 57  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 169, 265; Donelson, Pseudepigraphy, 171–6 (ethics comprise virtues and values). 58  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 202–13. See also Abraham J. Malherbe, “The Virtus Feminarum in 1 Timothy 2:9–15,” in Renewing Tradition. Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson, ed. Mark H. Hamilton, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Jeffrey Peterson, PTMS 65 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick/Wipf & Stock, 2007), 45–65. 59 Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus, 127. 60 A σώφρων woman should stay at home and hide in the absence of her husband. Plut., Conj. praec. 9 (Mor. 139C). She should not voice her thoughts, feelings and wishes. Plutarch combines social hiddenness and the restriction of expensive adornment (Conj. praec. 30 and 32, Mor. 142 CD). In epitaphs: οἰκουρός, IGLSyr 3,1 721, Die Südküste Kleinasiens, Syrien und Palaestina, vol. 4 of Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, ed. Reinhold Merkelbach (München: Saur, 2002), 229; IK Klaudiu polis 71 (PH279432), Steinepigramme, 250–1. Of Amymone (domiseda), 55 56

232

Korinna Zamfir

effacement were also recurring motifs, from drama61 to economical treatises62 and moral-philosophical works.63 Submission was such a common expectation regarding wives that there is no reason to assume that Titus has to counter annoyances in the relation with the outsiders because of an appeal to Christian freedom or women’s claim to gender equality.64 Needless to say, exhorting women to love their husband and children and be domestic was also common in the social and cultural context of Titus. Motherhood was encouraged by the Augustan and subsequent legislation and the associated ideological discourse,65 and was turned into a celebrated female role.66 CIL VI, 11602 = ILS 8402 (1st cent. BCE, Rome). Aurelia Philematium, casta, pudens, unknown to the crowd (volgei nescia), and faithful to her husband, CIL I2, 1221 = CIL VI, 9499 = ILS 7472. 61  In Sophocles’s Antigone, it is affirmed by female characters (Ismene, 61–64) and praised by men (Creon) as the supreme value (666–67). It is said to be fundamental for the order of polis and oikos; a man may not accept disobedience from a woman (672–80). Also Mark Griffith, “Antigone and Her Sister(s). Embodying Women in Greek Tragedy,” in Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, ed. André Lardinois and Laura McClure (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 117–36, here 127. 62  A woman should leave all decisions to her husband and obey his will, showing full submission, as “he has … bought her with a great price – with partnership in his life and in the procreation of children; than which things nought could be greater or more divine” (Ps.-Arist., Oec. 3.1). 63 Submission and surrender of one’s will and interests are also advocated in the Neo­pytha­ gorean exhortations (Perictione, De mul. harm., Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 145,4–6; Guthrie and Fideler, The Pythagorean Sourcebook, 240; Theano to Nikostrate, Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 172,30–39; Theano to Euridike, Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 178/179– 180/181) and in Plutarch (Conj. praec. 40–41, Mor. 144A). A woman should have no feelings of her own (Conj. praec. 14, Mor. 140A); she should not claim her share of property (Conj. praec. 20, 34, Mor. 140EF, 142F–143A); she should have no friends of her own (Conj. praec. 19, Mor. 140C). She should worship the gods of her husband (Conj. praec. 19, Mor. 140D). The husband has the authority to make decisions, whereas the wife has to obey (Conj. praec. 6, 8, Mor. 139AB). 64  Pace Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 246–47. 65 On the Augustan laws promoting marriage and procreation: Leo Ferrero Raditsa, “Augustus’ Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery,” ANRW 2:13, ed. Hildegard Temporini (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 278–339; Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Mother, Routledge Revivals (London: Routledge, 1988), 71–103; Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 60–80; Kristina Milnor, “Augustus, History, and the Landscape of Law,” Arethusa 40 (2007): 7–23; Mairéad McAuley, Reproducing Rome: Motherhood in Virgil, Ovid, Seneca, and Statius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Judith P. Hallett, “Augustan Maternal Ideology: The Blended Families of Octavia and Venus,” in Maternal Conceptions in Classical Literature and Philosophy, ed. Alison Sharrock and Alison Keith (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2020), 113–27; Angela Standhartinger, “Eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein Beitrag zum Einfluss römischen Denkens auf das entstehende Christentum,” NovT 48.1 (2006): 51–82. 66  Hor., Saec. 13–14, 18–20. Romanced narratives praised illustrious women of old and exemplary mothers of the recent past, who had dedicated their life to the education of their children: Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi (Valerius Maximus 4.4 praef.; Plutarch, C. Gracch. 4.1; Ti. Gracch. 1.4), Octavia (Plutarch, Ant. 54), Aurelia, the mother of Julius Caesar, and Atia, the mother of Augustus, as women of traditional excellence (Tacitus, Dial. 28.5–6). Seneca praises his mother for having embraced motherhood (Helv. 16.3).

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

233

The discourse on exemplary womanhood was still well alive two centuries later as shown by the speech Dio Cassius put on Augustus’s lips, which introduced the good wife as one “who is chaste, domestic, a good housekeeper, a rearer of children (γυνὴ σώφρων οἰκουρὸς οἰκονόμος παιδοτρόφος),” tending to her husband’s needs.67 A woman’s love for her husband and for her children was often associated in literary sources.68 Musonius argued that these qualities resulted from the study of philosophy.69 Women’s affection for their family members was not too prominent in literary sources,70 but in epitaphs women were consistently evoked as loving wives and mothers. Φιλανδρία and φιλοτεκνία are recurrent motifs of praise, usually accompanied by gender-specific virtues like σωφροσύνη, κοσμιότης and αἰδώς.71 Obviously, epitaphs represent a specific genre and display a conventional language, but in a sense they come closer to real women’s perception of maternity and their sense of φιλανδρία and φιλοτεκνία (even when their standardised language also played a propagandistic role). When speaking of φιλανδρία, φιλοτεκνία and σωφροσύνη, Titus uses therefore the same language as epigraphic sources, however, not in order to praise women’s qualities, but to demand them to prove their respectable lifestyle by becoming good mothers and wives.

 Cassius Dio, Hist. 56.3.  The ideal wife is σώφρων, caring for and obedient towards her husband, loving her children, and a good housekeeper. Perictione, De mul. harm., Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts, 142,16–143,5; Guthrie and Fideler, The Pythagorean Sourcebook, 240; Theano to Nikostrate, Städele, Die Briefe des Pythagoras, 172,30–34. 69 Who better than she would love her children more than life itself? ... Such a woman is likely to be energetic, strong to endure pain, prepared to feed her children at her own breast and to serve her husband with her own hands …. Would not such a woman be a great help to the man who married her, an ornament to her relatives and a good example for all who know her? Musonius, Fr. 3, 38/39–42/43, Musonius Rufus: “The Roman Socrates,” trans. Cora E. Lutz, YCS 10 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947), 40,25–42,11, slightly modified, emphases added. 70  The topic appears in Xenophon and Plato. A σώφρων woman, a good mother has a larger share of parental affection. Xenophon, Oec. 7.24; 9.19; Oeconomicus. A Social and Historical Commentary, trans. Sarah B. Pomeroy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), modified. Also Mem. 1.4.7; 2.2.1 (trans. Edgar C. Marchant, LCL). On maternal/parental feelings in antiquity: Mark Golden, “Did the Ancients Care When Their Children Died?” Greece & Rome 35.2 (1988): 152–63; Suzanne Dixon, “The Sentimental Ideal of the Roman Family,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson (Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon, 1996), 99–113. 71  Φιλανδρία and φιλοτεκνία appear together frequently: IG XII,3 288 [PH75802]; Aphrodisias 343 [PH257221]; IDid 363A [PH247490]; IvP II. 604 [PH 302279] (epithaph of Otacilia Polla; also quoted by Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 140, n. 11; Verner, The Household of God, 135); TAM V,3 1780 [PH349376] (149/150); IG V,2 182 [PH32216]; IG XII,5 292 [PH77514] (φιλόσοφον καὶ φίλανδρον καὶ φιλόπαιδα) and many more. See Gregory H. R. Horsley, “A Woman’s Virtues,” NewDocs 3 (1983): 40–43 (40); Zamfir, Men and Women, 275, n. 81. 67 68

234

Korinna Zamfir

Moral philosophical writings associate ethical instruction and women’s progress in virtue with philosophy.72 In Titus this role is fulfilled by the word of God, i. e. by Christian teaching. Leading a virtuous life honours the word of God; this turns women into virtuous persons, good wives and mothers. Readers/ hearers of the epistles may also remember that God revealed his word through the proclamation of Paul, which leads to the knowledge of the truth in accordance with piety (Titus 1:1–3). This reference to the word of God encourages women to teach and embrace the ethical instructions and the norms of social behaviour as ones revealed to and transmitted by the Apostle. In addition, an adequate behaviour prevents the exposure of Christian teaching to slander and disrepute (cf. βλασφημέω). This concern is typical for Titus and 1 Timothy; these endorse thereby the exemplary behaviour and submission of women (Titus 2:4–5) and slaves (1 Tim 6:1).73 The plea also confirms that ethical norms are not always based on religious arguments proper, but also appeal to human values and concerns.

5. Women’s Roles in Titus – Lessons for Today(?) We need to ask now how relevant are these exhortations and virtues today, and what are the lessons that can be learned from Titus. In a sense, women’s role and vocation in the family has not changed radically: most women live their lives as wives and mothers. However, in most parts of the world, the understanding of marriage and parenthood has significantly changed. Marriage is no longer perceived as a hierarchical institution, but a communion based on partnership, love and mutual respect, promoting the welfare of both spouses. In addition, women usually also find other vocations, alongside their role in the family or while remining single. Under such circumstances, exhortations to submission to the superior authority of the husband or to an exclusively domestic vocation no longer have their place in ethical exhortations. I am aware that traditionalist interpretative communities, with a certain understanding of the inspired character, inerrancy and authority of the Bible would disagree at this point. But from my perspective the Bible requires a contextual reading and interpreters cannot make abstraction of the social realities and mentalities that have influenced biblical authors and shaped moral instructions 72 Pythagorean female teachers are inspired by philosophy. Musonius (Fr. 3) and Plutarch (Conj. praec. 48, Mor.145B) encourage young women to study philosophy to grow in virtue and become better wives and mothers. 73 Avoiding slander from outsiders denotes a concern for the acceptance of Christian teaching, but it also reflects a sensitivity typical for honour and shame mentality. Donelson argues that “the author is co-opting for his own system the highest ethical ideals of his culture,” with an apologetical intent (Pseudepigraphy, 174).

Women’s Vocation and Ministry according to Titus

235

in the first century. This insight is sustained by the observation formulated in the introduction that the ethical discourses of the New Testament writings are not only indicative-imperative, but also implicit-pluralistic, and ethical judgements are not only assertoric/apodictic, but also dialectical. It is also important to return to the role of religious traditions in grounding ethics and to the question whether traditional ethical norms fundamented on religious texts may be challenged in changing social-cultural contexts. Michael Lambek notes that Society is frequently characterized by a tension between an ethics of tradition (“it is right to do as our parents and grandparents did”; “what our parents and grandparents did is right and good”) and an ethics of reform (“it is right and good to question authority, to improve, to correct past mistakes”).… Analytically speaking, the tension here is between, on the one hand, the urgency to maintain a firm (metaethical) foundation for ethics, which perhaps only ritual or theology can provide …, and on the other hand, the need to enable and articulate a practical reform of ethics that responds to contingency, disquiet, skepticism, contradiction, and new social events or conditions …, as well as human freedom, political activism, social dissension, and personal transformation.74

Considering all these issues, any exhortation to young women today to love their husband and children should be necessarily complemented by one demanding the same from young men as husbands and fathers. In response to feminist critique of the patriarchal norms, which have governed society for two millennia, certain groups attempt to rediscover and reinforce men’s apparently lost male identity. But instilling in men respect for women and integrating fatherhood in the identity of men should be at least as important as encouraging women to be good wives and mothers. In my Eastern European context, I notice the revival of an ill-advised traditionalist discourse, fighting for a “traditional family” where women are again assigned to the household, while the importance of their professional career is denied. This occurs in a number of countries, from Poland, Hungary, Croatia and Romania to the Baltic States. This discourse is inspired not only by biblical texts, but notably by an essentialist understanding of human nature. Such groups conflate feminism with Marxism, homosexuality and paedophilia as the evils of the time, fighting against an alleged global gender-conspiracy aiming to destroy the Christian family. They argue that governments should cut financial expenditure for nurseries and other social facilities enhancing the professional advancement of women. In some countries they are supported by populist and often corrupt governments in illiberal, hybrid and fragile democracies. Under such circumstances, biblical scholars need to endow their students with the ability to read the Bible critically and have to raise their voice against the misappropriation of the Bible.  Lambek, “Religion and Morality,” 351.

74

236

Korinna Zamfir

What remains then of the exhortation in Titus? a) Believers’ concern with an exemplary lifestyle and their sensitivity to the welfare of others, let them be spouses, members of the same religious community or of the larger society is still relevant, even when it takes different forms compared to a society based on the division of spaces and roles and on honour and shame mentality. b) Whereas usually ethical teaching and advice is given by ordained ministers, women and men alike may be invited to share their own experience and insight into what it means to live in a Christian marriage and what their understanding of responsible parenthood is. c) Women’s communities may still play a role today, not in order to reinforce an ideology of subordination, but to offer support to their peers. More experienced women who have accomplished more in their life, whether in the family or in their profession, should realise their responsibility and should become actively involved in the ecclesial as well as in the academic community to sustain their peers. d) More generally, in a culture which exalts youth and the young, contemporary ecclesial communities should pay more attention to the experience of older women and men, should listen to their voice and learn from their experience. e) Engaging believers, men and women, in pastoral work, is obvious in some ecclesial traditions, less so in others. Communities and leaders who are deficient in this sense would well do remembering that those believers who are actively included in pastoral work perceive their task as a responsible role and an expression of trust, which boosts their commitment to the community of faith. A process of reflection is nonetheless indispensable, as ethical exhortations like those found in Titus cannot be applied without discernment.

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today Insights from the Book of Titus Claire S. Smith “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16

1. Introduction The ethics of teaching and learning for Christianity today must arise from our discernment of God’s own ‘ethic’ and take their shape from the biblical testimony to the divine will if they are to be truly Christian. That is, a ‘Christian’ ethic begins with theology1 – who God is, and what God is doing.2 Accordingly, the insights of the letter of Titus for the ethics of teaching and learning in Christianity today arise from what the letter says about God’s attributes and actions. This movement from theology to ethics reflects the structure and methodology of the letter itself, which repeatedly grounds the contours of the Christian life on God’s loving character and saving interventions on Christians’ behalf.3 Moreover, as a theologically-grounded ethic it is not captive to any particular epoch or the differences of geography, culture, and ideology that are readily apparent in any notion of ‘Christianity today’ (cf. Heb 13:8; Jas 1:17). Teaching and learning are most obviously on view in Titus in the use of certain lexemes associated with education (e. g., Titus 2:12 παιδεύω; Titus 3:14 μανθάνω). However, the contribution of Titus to the ethics of teaching and 1  See Greg A. Couser, “The Sovereign Savior of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010), 105–36, here 106, who uses ‘theology’ for his exploration of the doctrine of God in LTT. 2 Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1:1.3, who concludes “yet, however the knowledge of God and of ourselves may be mutually connected, the order of right teaching requires that we discuss the former first, then proceed afterward to treat the latter” (39). 3 See Philip H. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, JSNTSup 34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 243, 248–56; idem, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 74–79.

238

Claire S. Smith

learning is not limited to these words. Teaching and learning are at heart converse activities of communication, where the purpose and/or result of the activity determines its educational nature.4 That is, many different activities can have an educational element, and learning can take many forms. Accordingly, for the purposes of this study, the notion of ‘teaching’ adopted is broad-based, namely: to impart a message from an addresser to an addressee, where the purpose and/ or result of the act is to cause the addressee to gain knowledge, understanding, a skill, attitude or belief or to transform thought, character, belief or conduct; and that of learning is similarly broad-based: to gain knowledge, understanding, a skill or an attitude or belief or be transformed in character, conduct or belief as a consequence of a message from an addresser.5

2. God as the Ultimate Teacher Teaching and learning in the book of Titus begin with God. God is the ultimate teacher, and in a letter where all the other ‘characters’ are teachers and learners of sorts, God is the only one who does not learn. Each of the three theological sections of Titus, which provide the doctrinal foundations for the exhortations and ethical instructions in the letter,6 present God engaging in educational activities, and make similar and distinctive contributions to understanding the educational landscape in Titus and Christianity today. 2.1 Titus 1:1–4 The opening salutation of the letter introduces Paul7 and his apostolic mission, and many of the themes that are developed throughout the letter.8 However, it 4 Claire S. Smith, Pauline Communities as ‘Scholastic Communities’: A Study of the Vocabulary of ‘Teaching’ in 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, WUNT 2/335 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 43, fn. 91, where I note that in Roman Jakobson’s communication model the addresser sends a message to the addressee. The message has a context, which includes authorial intention, culture, situation, etc., and is communicated using a code at least partially common to the addresser and the addressee. The activity requires contact, a physical channel and psychological connection between addresser and addressee” (citing Norman R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978], 33–35). 5 Smith, Pauline Communities, 41–44. 6 Ray Van Neste, “Structure and Cohesion in Titus: Problems and Method,” BT 53.1 (2002): 118–32, here 128. 7 In keeping with the text-based approach of this study, the ascription in Titus 1:1 which names the apostle Paul as author, the identity of Titus as recipient, and the historical situation the letter portrays are taken at face value and followed. 8 Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 217. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 662–63.

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

239

also introduces God, without whom Paul would not have a message or a charge to proclaim it, and without whom the elect, including Paul and Titus, would not have faith or knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness. Whatever else we learn about Paul and his mission, God and his involvement in educational activities is a major focus of the text.9 This is indicated in several ways. God is the subject of the main verbal ideas, all of which are associated with educational activities: God promised (ἐπηγγείλατο) what he then made known (ἐφανέρωσεν) in his word through preaching, which he entrusted to Paul by his command (ἐπιταγήν). God’s educative activity also determines the time schema. His promise of eternal life, which he made before time began (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων) and was previously unknown, has now decisively10 been made known at his command, through the preaching of the gospel11 at the time of his choosing (cf. καιροῖς ἰδίοις).12 Finally, God’s educative activity is located at the centre of the salutation as the “major thought of the section” sandwiched between references to Paul’s evangelistic and teaching ministry, which themselves are divine appointments.13 In fact, the raison d’être for Paul’s ministry is that God has made his message (cf. τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ)14 – the gospel – known, which must be proclaimed.15 Moreover, Paul’s unusual self-description as a servant/slave of God16 may allude to the Old Testament (OT) pattern of those who received revelations from God to be made known (e. g., Jer 25:4; Ezek 38:17; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6); and the description of believers as “the elect of God” recalls the OT expectation that God would use his people to declare his truth to the world (e. g., Exod 19:4–6; 1 Chr 16:13; Ps 105:6, 43; Isa 43:20–21).17  9 Aldred A. Genade, Persuading the Cretans: A Text-Generated Persuasion Analysis of the Letter of Titus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 16–18, notes Paul’s focus on the “central and dominating character of God” in specifying the nature of legitimate teaching. 10  I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 129, notes that a distinction in Titus 1:2–3 between χρόνος and καιρός seems warranted given the juxtaposition of the phrases, where δέ is adversative and the emphasis falls on the decisiveness of the revelation. See also Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB 35 (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 65, 68. 11  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 673, fn. 39, “ἐν κηρύγματι means ‘through or by means of preaching”’. 12  William D. Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Dallas: Word, 2000), 381. 13  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 114–15, this is emphasised by the description beginning and ending with Paul’s divinely appointed role (1:1a, 3b). 14  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 672, ‘the word’ that is manifested refers backward to the promise, and also to its fulfilment in the preaching of the gospel. 15  This is the force of the command entrusting Paul with its proclamation. Cf. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 285. 16  Cf. δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1. 17  Couser, “The Sovereign Savior,” 132–33.

240

Claire S. Smith

2.1.1 Observations about God’s Involvement in Teaching and Learning The following observations can be made about God’s educational activity: First, it is God’s desire and intention that people might know his message. God took the initiative to reveal his promise in the message of the gospel, and took the initiative in entrusting its preaching to Paul, by his command. Both the message of the gospel and Paul’s apostolic commission are evidence that God wants people to know his word of promise. Second, God is the source and author of the content. God promised it from before the ages. He learned it from no one, and no one could know of it without him making it known. It is his message, that must first be taught by him, and those who make it known are dependent upon his prior revelation, and must make it known reliably (cf. κήρυγμα)18 and are accountable to him as the original source of the content. Third, God determined the timing, medium and means by which his word would be made known. It was made known at his appointed time, to be communicated in human words (spoken and possibly written19), through Paul (and by extension, Titus,20 and others) as a divinely commanded messenger. In this, God also condescended to accommodate his message to his audience, so the eternal and divine could be spoken and known by a human audience. Fourth, the nature of the content aligns with God’s character. The content is about the truth that leads to godliness (cf. ἀληθείας τῆς κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν)21 from the God who cannot lie (1:2 ὁ θεός ἀψευδής; v. 3 τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ). There is a correlation between the original ‘speaker’ of the content and the content itself. Moreover, his promise (made before everything and known only to him) has been revealed and inaugurated in the present age, without deviation from the original.22 Thus, the consistency and stability of God’s promise reflects the consistency and reliability of God, and the elect can have faith in God’s word because of the demonstrated character of the source and speaker of that promise. Fifth, God’s educational activities are directed towards relationships. God revealed his word and commissioned Paul (at least) to teach it so that his chosen people would know it and be saved, and God the Father and Christ Jesus would be their Saviour (Titus 1:1 ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; Titus 1:3 τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ; 18  Smith, Pauline Communities, 166, the NT use of the word group reflects Greek usage where “the effectiveness of the proclamation rested on the origin of the message and its authenticity to the original.” Gerhard Friedrich, “κῆρυξ,” TDNT 3:687–8. Klaus Runia, “What is Preaching according to the New Testament?,” TynBul 29 (1978): 3–48, here 8. 19  Cf. Friedrich, TDNT 3:688. E. g., Diodorus Siculus, 14.47.1. Euripides, Suppl., 385. 20  Cf. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 71–72, on the educational nuance of teknon. 21  Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 159–60, both κατά phrases in 1:1 indicate purpose. 22  Couser, “The Sovereign Savior,” 133.

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

241

Titus 1:4 Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν). These vertical divine-human relationships are the result of divine educational activity through human agents. Those who learn from God’s instruction are also brought into relationship with each other as God’s elect with a “common faith” (Titus 1:4 κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν), that is “common” both in terms of content and shared experience of believing.23 Sixth, God’s educational agenda addresses the transformation of the whole individual through strengthened and deepened faith, and in growth of knowledge that produces godliness – not purely in either intellectual gain or moral improvement.24 Seventh, God’s instruction also has a view to the future and eschatological expectation. The telos of God’s promise, and the faith and knowledge of the elect that rest on it, is the hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2) that comes through salvation. God does not make his promise known for the sake of making it known, but so that his elect might be saved, and live in the present in light of the certain hope of the future. Finally, there is an implicit obligation to learn from God’s didactic activity, since he has condescended to make his message known and commanded means by which to make it known through human agent(s) in human words (Titus 1:3). If God had not made this content known, people could not be held accountable for not knowing or responding to it or for rejecting or deviating from it. But God’s desire for people to learn is clear. Moreover, the status (Titus 1:1 ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ), benefits (Titus 1:1, 2 ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας; ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου; Titus 1:4 κοινὴν πίστιν) and responsibilities (cf. all believers Titus 1:1 εὐσέβειαν; Paul Titus 1:1, 3 δοῦλος θεοῦ; ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; ἐν κηρύγματι) of those mentioned in the salutation, including Paul, are dependent upon God being their teacher, and them being faithful learners. 2.2 Titus 2:11–14 The second theological section is a rich and condensed statement that highlights God’s involvement in educational activity through recognised vocabulary of teaching (cf. Titus 2:12 παιδεύω),25 which in turn governs the sentence.26 In its immediate context, the section functions as an explanatory statement, providing the reason why Christian slaves, and all believers, are to live in a way 23  Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, PilNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 474, who also notes the symmetry of kata pistin in 1:1 and v. 4. (467). Cf. Genade, Persuading the Cretans, 16, suggests an inclusio. 24 See Harris, Prepositions and Theology, 159–60 on the two κατά phrases in 1:1. 25  Smith, Pauline Communities, 313–15. 26 Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 743, “The noun phrase and main verb in v. 11 actually form the topic, but the participle ‘teaching’ that modifies this topic controls the whole direction of the sentence.” Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 240, notes that paideuousa is “the most important word in the statement.”

242

Claire S. Smith

that adorns the teaching of our Saviour God (Titus 2:10).27 They are to do so because (γάρ)28 the unmerited saving grace of God for all people29 has appeared30 decisively in history – in the earthly life and death of Jesus Christ31 – and initiated a process32 of instruction that teaches believers how to live in the present age, while they await his final appearing in glory. Thus, the instruction of God’s grace is a defining characteristic of the time between the two epiphanies of Christ, and a distinctive experience of God’s people, who have been saved by the self-giving, redeeming and cleansing work of Christ. God’s grace educates or trains all believers, including Paul and Titus (Titus 2:12 ἡμᾶς), to leave their former way of life33 and embrace another.34 It teaches “us” to renounce behaviour, thoughts, and desires that do not conform to God’s character; and to wait for the glorious appearing of Christ Jesus at the end of time;35 and, in particular, enables believers to live wise, upright and godly lives in the present age, uniquely reflecting the character of their Saviour, being zealous for good works (Titus 2:14).36 Thus, they would ensure that the word of God was not blasphemed, but adorned and commended to those yet to be saved (cf. Titus 2:11 πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις).37 The wider discourse context reflects a strong concern with human teaching and learning, which is evident in the inclusio of Titus 2:1 and Titus 2:15, where 27  Towner, The Goal of our Instruction, 108. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 162, ‘the grace of God’ ought to change the lives of those who believe, and that the “apostle, his co-workers, the community that has responded to this gift of God, all exist to bring ‘the grace of God’ to every human being.” 28 Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIBCNT (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 192, 194. Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 240. 29  Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 237–38. The universal access to salvation is narrowed to the limited application of salvation implied in the first-person plural pronouns in 2:12, 14(x2). Cf. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction, 109. 30  Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 526. NIV. ESV. NASB. Contra: AKJV, NKJV. 31  Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 422. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction, 68–69, 108– 111. Arguably, his resurrection and ascension are also on view in light of his future glorious appearing. 32  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 743. 33  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 270, notes that the aorist ἀρνησάμενοι may indicate the decisive break in renouncing the former life. 34  Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 195, notes the parallels with the ‘two ways’ traditions of Judaism. 35  Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 319, suggests the ἵνα clause “gives the content and goal of grace’s instruction.” Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 750, fn. 25, observes that “little essential meaning is gained or lost” with either translation. Jeffrey S. Lamp, “‘Appearance’ Language in Titus: A Semantics of Holiness,” WTJ 40.1 (2005): 93–109, here 97 fn. 15, “on either reading there is a telic force to the clause, for the content of the teaching clearly has the goal in mind of creating the type of person described in the clause.” 36  Paul S. Jeon, To Exhort and Reprove: Audience Response to the Chiastic Structures of Paul’s Letter to Titus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 79. 37 Cf. ἵνα clauses in 2:5, 8, 10, and explanatory γάρ in 2:11. George Wieland, “Grace Manifest: Missional Church in the Letter to Titus,” Stimulus, 13/1 (Feb. 2005): 8–11, here 9. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 316–18.

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

243

λαλέω functions as a synonym for “teach,” and “sound teaching” corresponds with “these things” (cf. ταῦτα); and in the presence of διδασκ-vocabulary for both the activity of teaching (Titus 2:3, 7) and content (Titus 2:1, 10); and the use of other vocabulary associated with teaching (παρακαλέω Titus 2:6, 15; λόγος Titus 2:8; ἐνδείκνυμι Titus 2:10; ἐλέγχω Titus 2:15 cf. 1:9). Nevertheless, this human activity – the content and manner of Titus’s teaching, and the speech and behaviour it sought throughout the believing community – is premised on God’s own educative activity (cf. Titus 2:11 γάρ). 2.2.1 Observations about God’s Involvement in Teaching and Learning Titus 2:11–14 displays several features of God’s educational activity that were observed in the salutation and makes further contributions. First, again we see that God desires and initiates the educative activity, and is the source and author of the content, which is revealed by him. He determined the timing, and medium and means by which it was made known – although beyond the first appearing of Christ, the medium and means of the ongoing instruction of grace is not specified.38 However, given the place of human teaching activity in the letter, both in word and through modelling, it is difficult to exclude such activity as a means.39 Second, God’s educative intervention again creates and defines the time schema, with the current age characterised by the instruction grace brings (Titus 2:12 ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι; 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι). Both this age and the didactic role of grace inaugurated by the first epiphany of Christ will end with his second epiphany.40 Third, as in the salutation, there is alignment between the content and the character of God as teacher. Indeed, they are almost inseparable. The grace of God is the instructor, and the content taught by grace is the personification of God’s grace in the person of Jesus Christ, who graciously gave himself “for us” (Titus 2:14 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν). God is both the teacher and the content. God’s grace also teaches against ungodliness and enables godly living (Titus 2:12 ἀσέβεια; εὐσεβῶς).41 The association of παιδεύω with family and parental instruction42 also aligns the manner and goal of instruction with God being the Father of

38  Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 163, stresses the distinction between the aorist ἐπεφάνη and present tense παιδεύουσα. 39  In this wider section alone, see especially 2:1, 3–4, 7, 15. Marius Reiser, “Erziehung durch Gnade: Eine Betrachtung zu Tit 2,11–‍14,” EuA 69 (1993): 443–49, here 446, notes the educative modelling role of those whose lives have been changed by grace. 40  Wilfried Eisele, “Vom ‘Zuchtmeister Gesetz’ zur ‘erziehenden Gnade’ (Gal 3,24f; Tit 2,11): religiöse Erziehung in der Paulustradition,” BZ 56/1 (2012): 65–84, here 79. 41  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 142–44. 42  Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 526.

244

Claire S. Smith

believers (cf. Titus 1:4 χάρις ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρός) and alludes to his fatherly instruction and discipline of his chosen OT people.43 Fourth, God again accommodates his message so it can be known by a human audience. Here that accommodation takes two forms: first, in the physical appearing of Jesus Christ in history and the resultant gospel message;44 and, second, in the terms used for the virtuous life taught by grace. However, while these terms were commonly used in Hellenistic ethical instruction, they are reappropriated here with new content expressly of divine origin.45 Fifth, God’s educational activity is again directed towards relationships. The instruction of grace is directed primarily towards God’s people and enables them to live as his people46 (cf. Titus 2:12 ἡμᾶς; vv. 13 and 14 [x2] λαόν). Additionally, the use of παιδεύω for God’s activity connotes the relational dimension of family and parental care, and invokes the relationship between God and his chosen OT people.47 The verb also connotes multifaceted instruction where the personal involvement of the teacher contributes to the successful educational outcome.48 Finally, and most significantly, grace by its very nature builds rather than destroys relationships and is generously other person-centred, and the three virtues taught by grace contribute positively to human-human and divinehuman relationships, addressing successively a believer’s relationship to self, to others, and to God (cf. σωφρόνως, δικαίως, εὐσεβῶς).49 Sixth, the education of grace leads to the transformation of the whole of life. It involves the intentional rejection of desires, thoughts and conduct that are contrary to God’s character (cf. Titus 2:12 ἀσέβεια; εὐσεβῶς) – and that characterise Cretans, in general, and the false teachers in particular50 – and the conscious  E. g., Deut 8:5; 32:10; Ps 94:12; Prov 3:12; Isa 28:26; Jer 46:28. Georg Bertram, “παιδεύω,” TDNT 5:607–08. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 747, fn. 14. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 195. Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 423–24. However, the depiction of this as a “school of suffering and chastisement, of blows and scourges” (so, Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 164) is not lexically necessary, and contextually is at odds with the character of grace. 44  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 266. The use of ‘epiphany’ language should also be included here. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 415–19. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 293. Wieland, “Grace Manifest,” 10. 45  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 749; idem, The Goal of our Instruction, 160–163. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 195. Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 241. 46 Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 237–38. The universal access to salvation is narrowed to the limited application of salvation implied in the second person plural pronouns in 2:12, 14(x2). Cf. Towner, The Goal of our Instruction, 109. 47  Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 239, notes the echoes of themes from the Torah/LXX in Titus 2:14, e. g., Ps 130:8; Deut 14:2; Exod 19:5; Ezek 37:23. Smith, Pauline Communities, 314, 321–22. 48  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 269, it has “elements of persuasion, encouragement, practice and discipline”. 49  John N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, BNTC (London: Black, 1963), 245. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 320. 50  George Wieland, “Roman Crete and the Letter to Titus,” NTS 55 (2009): 338–54, here 348– 43

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

245

embrace of a new way of life (Titus 2:12 ζήσωμεν; Titus 2:14 ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων).51 That is, God’s instruction is both negative and positive. It requires repentance and conversion (cf. ἵνα ἀρνησάμενοι … ζήσωμεν).52 However, while the instruction addresses everyday living, its orientation is of eschatological expectation of the future appearing of “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”53 Thus, it is not just directed towards intellectual gain or living a morally virtuous life, but a future-orientated life of positive goodness54 that will be evident to all, and able to commend the gospel to outsiders for missional purposes.55 Seventh, the implicit obligation to learn that was observed in the salutation is heightened here as the instructive grace that appeared was the grace of God in the Christ-event, in which he sacrificially gave himself “for us” (Titus 2:14) – the recipients of the instruction – in order to redeem and cleanse “us” and create a special people for himself. As each member of the believing community is a recipient of this instruction, each member is obliged to learn. Finally, God’s teaching activity has implications for the educational activity of his people. This section provides the theological rationale and explanation for human activity in the immediate discourse (Titus 1:10–2:15), which itself has an interest in educational activities. The fact that the grace of God now “teaches us” to believe and live in a certain way is also the reason (Titus 2:11 γάρ) that Paul instructs Titus to teach the different groups within the believing community as he does,56 in part because their speech and lives have potential to instruct others. God’s grace offers salvation to all people, but if believers’ faith and speech and lives do not accord with God’s word, outsiders will look at these believers and blaspheme or revile the word of God (Titus 2:5, 8), rather than be drawn to it (Titus 2:10).57 That is, rather than participating in God’s educative activity by commending the gospel, these believers would be working against it “in the 49. Sean Christensen, “The Pursuit of Self-Control: Titus 2:1–14 and Accommodation to Christ,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 6.2 (2016): 161–80, here 178–‍79. 51  See Reggie Kidd, “Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars, Beasts, and Bellies,” HBT 21 (1999): 185–209. 52  Towner, The Goal of our Instruction, 151. 53  Genade, Persuading the Cretans, 61. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 530. On the apposition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ with θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, see Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 178–85; idem, “A Brief Response to ‘The Christology of Titus 2:13 and 1 Tim. 2:5’ by J. Christopher Edwards,” TynBul 62.1 (2011): 149–50. 54  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 263. 55 Wieland, “Grace Manifest,” 8, the potential for change is an assumption behind the missionary impetus of the letter. 56  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 262. 57 Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 191. Wieland, “Grace Manifest,” 9. Chiao Ek Ho, “Mission in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas. J. Köstenberger, Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010), 241–67, here 245–47.

246

Claire S. Smith

present age,” and against its eschatological saving purpose at the appearing of Christ in glory (Titus 2:12–13).58 2.3 Titus 3:3–7 The third theological section shares many features observed in Titus 2:11–14 including: the theological rationale (Titus 3:3 γάρ)59 for the previous instructions for living as believers in a non-Christian world (Titus 3:1–2); the use of ‘epiphany’ language for the decisive appearing of Christ in history (Titus 3:4 ἐπεφάνη);60 the personification of aspects of God’s character to refer to the Christ-event (Titus 3:4 ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ θεοῦ); a distinctive time schema (Titus 3:3 ποτε; 3:4 ὅτε δέ); the use of Saviour terminology for God and Jesus Christ (Titus 3:4, 6 τοῦ σωτῆρος); the repeated use of the first person plural pronoun for the recipients of salvation, among whom are Paul and Titus (Titus 3:3, 4, 5[x2], 6[x2]), and which distinguishes believers from nonbelievers;61 the ministry of the grace of God in Christ (Titus 3:7); the eschatological hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7); themes relating to divine-human familial relationships (Titus 3:7 κληρονόμοι);62 and, finally, believers having a new life characterised by spiritual cleansing63 and transformation (Titus 3:5), that leads to “good works” (Titus 3:8). However, unlike the two earlier theological sections, the educational activities of God are not explicit or a focus here. Nevertheless, the transformative effect of divine instruction is still on view. This is seen in the contrast between the original state of all people, including Paul and Titus,64 and the current state of believers. In their original state, people are characterised by seven vices, the first three of which relate to the knowledge of God: they are ignorant of God,65 disobedient to him,66 and deceived or led away from the right path (ἀνόητοι, ἀπειθεῖς, πλανώμενοι cf. Titus 1:1).67 But with the appearing of the saving goodness and loving kindness of God in Jesus  Wieland, “Grace Manifest,” 10–11.  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 308. 60  Towner, The Goal of our Instruction, 68–69. 61  The first-person plural use of εἰμί (3:3) and γίνομαι (3:7) could be added here. 62  Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 346–47. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 253. 63  Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 438–39. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 781–84. 64  Cf. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 201, on Paul’s deliberate inclusion of himself in this characterisation, which Fee identifies as Paul’s “evangelistic intent” (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 202). 65 Jeon, To Exhort and Reprove, 63. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 309. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 203, “without spiritual understanding.” 66  Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 446. 67 Jeon, To Exhort and Reprove, 94. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 202–03. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 250, “blind to the reality of God and his law; … contemptuous of God’s will; … the dupes of false guides.” 58 59

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

247

Christ that decisively changed – stressed by the disjunctive time schema68 – so that those who are saved by him are no longer characterised by these vices. They know now what they did not and could not know before the appearing of God in Christ. They are no longer ignorant – they have been taught by God. This implicit reference to God’s educative activity provides the backdrop for the explicit references to human teaching activity in the discourse context. Those who are no longer ignorant of God are to be instructed in the things of God. Thus, Titus is to remind believers of what they have already learned concerning submission to governing authorities (Titus 3:1);69 he is to teach emphatically about the saving and regenerating work of God (Titus 3:8 περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι), which corrected their former ignorance, and about its implications for everyday living (cf. Titus 3:1–7);70 and he (and the Cretan believers) is to avoid “foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law.” He is not to learn from them or teach them to others. He is to discern between “true and false instruction.”71 2.3.1 Observations about God’s Involvement in Teaching and Learning The contribution of this section to understanding the educational activity of God is limited. While it is evident that education occurs, and that it is associated with the appearing of Christ in history and his saving work, the details of this divine education are not provided. Rather it is the need for and result of this education that are most on view. This is highlighted in two ways. First, all people need to learn from God. Without his educational intervention all people are ignorant of God. Their ignorance is expressed (and evident) in lives enslaved to worldly passions, and in speech and conduct that are destructive of relationships and self (Titus 3:3).72 People are only able to live a virtuous life (Titus 3:1–2, 8) if they are not ignorant of God, disobedient or deceived, and have learned the gospel and been saved and given new life by God.73 Second, there is an implicit obligation to learn from God. What is on view is not moral renovation but correcting a lack and distortion in a person’s knowledge of God that exists except for his divine intervention. He intervenes because he wants people to know him, and only because of his saving goodness and loving kindness revealed in Christ, not any merit of our own (Titus 3:5).

68  Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 245. A similar disjunctive temporal schema is apparent in 1:2–3. Smith, Pauline Communities, 211, 216. 69 Smith, Pauline Communities, 357–61. 70  Smith, Pauline Communities, 306–08. 71 Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 233, uses this as the heading for Titus 3:8b–11. 72  Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 202. 73  Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 446, 455.

248

Claire S. Smith

3. Insights for Christianity Today This rich and multifaceted portrayal of God’s own teaching activity provides a foundation for the ethics of teaching and learning in the letter of Titus. This movement from theology to ethics arises from the letter itself where God’s character and deeds determine human existence and conduct. This is evident in the three theological high-points of the letter (Titus 1:1–4; 2:11–14; 3:3–8) where the existence and present (and future) experience of God’s people are established by God’s character and actions. However, integral to this new existence is that believers’ characters and lives are to align with God’s character, purposes and deeds. This necessity is indicated several ways: grammatically (Titus 2:11; 3:3 γάρ); linguistically, in words denoting or connoting roles that are subordinate to and representative of God (Titus 1:1 δοῦλος;74 ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; Titus 1:3 κηρύγματι;75 Titus 1:7 θεοῦ οἰκονόμον;76; Titus 2:14 ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον),77 or that present God’s will and character as the measure for believers (Titus 1:3 ἐπιταγήν; Titus 1:7 δεῖ;78 Titus 1:8 ὅσιον; Titus 2:12 εὐσεβῶς cf. Titus 1:179); thematically (e. g., divine activity leading to changed existence and conduct for believers);80 and by way of contrast with unbelievers (e. g., Titus 1:2 ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεός Titus 1:12 κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται; Titus 1:14 ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν; and Titus 1:15; 2:14 καθαρίζω word-group). In short, believers’ lives are to reflect God’s character, and believers are to be concerned about what God is concerned about (e. g., Titus 1:11, 13; 2:5, 8, 10; 3:8). In fact, their renewed and transformed lives are a gift of the Holy Spirit, who has been poured out richly upon all believers (Titus 3:5–6a), who have been purified by the gracious self-sacrifice of Christ, to be zealous for good works (Titus 2:14). That is, theology gives content to and power for ethics – and this general movement from theology to ethics also shapes the educational landscape depicted in the letter.  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 665–66.  See note 18 above. Smith, Pauline Communities, 166. Friedrich, TDNT 3:687–8. Runia, “What is Preaching according to the New Testament?,” 8. 76  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 160–61. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 687. 77  The canonical resonances of ἐκλεκτῶν (1:1) and λαὸν περιούσιον (2:14) with God’s OT chosen people also suggest the alignment of God’s people with God’s character and deeds. Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 120, 285–86. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 762–64. Arguably, the appellation of God as Father and the implied filial relationship with all believers (Titus 1:4) is also apposite here. 78 Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 483, notes that δεῖ γάρ often implies moral necessity or even divine compunction: the requirement that overseers be blameless is “an ironclad necessity.” Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 160. 79  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 136–44, “‘Godliness’ has a theological basis in the Christevent and is integrally related to the knowledge of God. It presupposes a knowledge of God’s requirements” (ibid., 143). 80  E. g., God’s command entrusting Paul with preaching the gospel, and Paul’s subsequent ministry (Titus 1:1, 3); ἵνα clauses in Titus 2:12, 14; 3:7; καθαρίζω word-group in Titus 1:15; 2:14. 74 75

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

249

Nevertheless, much has changed in the cultural landscape since the letter was written, so it is reasonable to ask if this movement from theology to ethics still applies. The letter makes a claim that it does. For instance, it presents a time schema where God’s promise, now made known in the apostolic gospel, remains unchanged since before time began, and that his character and saving purpose have similarly remained unchanged since then (Titus 1:2–3). There is also no indication that the paideia of grace, which characterises the present age between the two epiphanies of Christ, will change – in fact, as the defining feature of this age, the logic is that it will not (Titus 2:12–13).81 By extension, the same is true of the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in renewing and transforming believers (Titus 3:6). Thus, while some of the particulars of our life setting may differ from the original setting, the movement from theology to ethics ensures that the presentation of God’s educative activity in the letter has implications and provides insights for the ethics of learning and teaching in Christianity today. 3.1 Ethics of Learning in Titus The first insight is that no person can know God without God being their teacher. All people start from the same position of ignorance of God, being disobedient to him, easily led astray, and with lives that show it (cf. Titus 3:3).82 Just as we are all in need of God’s saving mercy (Titus 3:5), we are all equally in need of God’s instruction, and entirely dependent on his provision of it. So people of every era, culture, sex, race and social demographic start from the same place. As with our need for regeneration, our need for God’s instruction is egalitarian. Yet God desires that people might know him, and so he has taken the initiative and acted to make himself and his promise known in the earthly life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in the apostolic gospel concerning him (Titus 1:2–3; 2:11, 14; 3:4).83 Hence, learning about God is a moral task because God has made himself known – in Christ, and through human words and human messengers – so there is an obligation for all people to learn from his divine intervention and self-giving. However, not everything that claims to be spiritual instruction is beneficial (cf. Titus 1:11, 14; 3:9), and not all claims to know God or have superior spiritual knowledge are true, even when made by those who claim to be believers (cf. Titus 1:16). Christians are only to learn from spiritual instruction that conforms to 81 I.

e., παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ἀρνησάμενοι … ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, προσδεχόμενοι …  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 309, explains that here ἀνόητοι means “they lack the knowledge that brings salvation.” 83 Cf. the important theme of “divine manifestation” (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 663), where God reveals or makes known what could otherwise not be known, indicated by φανερόω and ἐπιφάνεια (Titus 1:3; 2:11, 13; 3:4). 82

250

Claire S. Smith

healthy or sound instruction (cf. Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8),84 which has not changed over time, and which brings true knowledge of God because he is its source (cf. Titus 1:2–3; 2:12). This means that Christians need to be discerning in what they learn, and from whom they learn. They are to ensure that the content of their learning is trustworthy, and that they avoid (i. e., reject, cf. Titus 1:11; 3:9) those things that are contrary to God’s truth. But good learning requires more than doctrinal orthodoxy. Christian learning addresses the whole of life and results in the transformation of the whole person. The goal is not merely intellectual gain or merely moral improvement or peaceful coexistence with the world. Christian learning is to produce strengthened faith in God and the saving work of Jesus Christ (Titus 1:1; 2:13), greater knowledge of the truth that produces godliness (Titus 1:1), ongoing repentance from ungodly thoughts and deeds (Titus 2:12; 3:3), wholehearted commitment to live a distinctively godly life that commends the gospel (Titus 2:7, 14; 3:1–2, 8, 14 cf. καλῶν ἔργων), and expectant waiting for the return of Christ Titus (2:13). Moreover, it is lifelong learning (cf. Titus 2:2, 3, 12–13 παιδεύουσα … προσδεχόμενοι), the outcome of which will be evident to all, even unbelievers (Titus 1:7; 2:5, 7, 10). Significantly, the purpose of Christian learning is directed towards relationship with God, not self-gain (cf. Titus 1:11). Learning from God creates and nurtures relationship with him and is also an expression of that relationship. God’s people respond to his instruction in lives of faith and obedience (Titus 1:1; 2:12–14), whereas false teachers professed to know God but denied him by their deeds (Titus 1:16). Hence, the necessary posture for learning is a humble desire to know God – not just about God – and to believe in him, belong to him, and to do so on his terms. At the same time, God’s educative activity creates a community of learners, who are all his saved and special people, who share a common identity and experience arising from his gracious instruction (Titus 1:1, 4; 2:12). Christian learning, in content, means, and purpose, builds relationship with God, but it is also directed towards human relationships  – it creates an “us” (ἡμᾶς Titus 2:12; 3:3 cf. 1:3, 4; 2:8, 13, 14; 3:4, 5, 6). The nature and goal of Christian learning then is not a solitary experience of God, but of community and shared relationship with God. Conversely, the experience of Christian community should be that of learning from God, alongside and from each other, and of a community shaped by a shared concern that each member grows in their faith and knowledge of God. In fact, the relational dynamic between believers is a means and encouragement for learning.85  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 168–69.  E. g., through modelling (Titus 2:3–5, 7); affection (Titus 1:4); encouragement (Titus 1:9; 2:6, 15); rebuke (Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15); warning (Titus 3:10). See Smith, Pauline Communities, 339– 40, 368–70, 284–86, 334–36, 327–28, passim. 84 85

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

251

Neglect or distortion of any one of these relational axes  – divine, human, personal and communal  – in the content, educational environment or intent of learning will result in learning that is something less that optimal Christian learning (cf. Titus 3:9–10). Finally, Christian learning is eschatologically orientated. The content of learning concerns the certain hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2, cf. 3:7). The result of learning is living in the present in light of the future glorious appearing of Jesus Christ (Titus 2:12–13 παιδεύουσα … ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αίῶνι, προσδεχόμενοι). The duration of Christian learning is until the day of his appearing when the need for learning will be no more (cf. 1 Cor 13:12). Christians are to persevere in learning until then and not be distracted or deceived.86 The goal of learning is to know God as Father and Saviour, and Jesus Christ as Saviour, and to be heirs of God for eternity (Titus 1:3, 4; 2:13; 3:4, 7). This eschatological orientation is possible because God does not lie and his promise can be trusted, and his grace, goodness, loving kindness, and mercy have appeared decisively in history in the Christ-event (Titus 1:2; 3:4). That is, Christian learning produces faith in God’s work and word and devotion expressed in “good works” on account of all he has done “for us.” 3.2 Ethics of Teaching Regarding the ethics of Christian teaching, the first insight is that Christian teaching is not an end in itself but is directed towards Christian learning. God makes his message known for a purpose – so that people will come to know him and his promise of eternal life (Titus 1:2–3; 2:11) – and the practice and place of teaching in Christianity today can only be explored and assessed in light of that telos. The desire to be a Christian teacher, therefore, is more properly conceived as the desire of a person, who already knows God and hopes in eternal life, to see others know God, and receive eternal life along with them. That is, Christian teaching is an expression of faith in God and concern for others, that has its goal in their salvation (cf. Titus 1:13; 3:8). As a representative and subordinate to God entrusted with doing God’s work, the model of the Christian teacher is God himself (cf. Titus 1:1 δοῦλος θεοῦ; Titus 1:3 κηρύγματι; Titus 1:7 θεοῦ οἰκονόμον; Titus 1:8 ὅσιον cf. Titus 1:16). The Christian teacher’s purpose is God’s purpose; namely, the salvation of God’s people. Like God, the Christian teacher is to make truth known and not lie (cf. Titus 1:12–13). The Christian teacher’s instruction is to be gracious, loving

86 Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 49, notes that the false teachers in Titus are presented as those who are unfaithful to the truth they once grasped.

252

Claire S. Smith

and kind (Titus 1:7–8;87 2:7–8), generous and not for personal gain (Titus 1:11), and benefiting the learners (Titus 3:8).88 Similarly, as God condescended in making known and accommodating his eternal message to his audience, Christian teachers are to be models of gentleness and kindness, and accompany even (strong) rebuke with encouragement89 (Titus 1:7–9, 11, 13; 2:7, 15; 3:1–3). By contrast, false teachers seek to deceive, and use their position for their own benefit (Titus 1:10–11 cf. 1:7),90 such conduct is inimical for Christian teachers. The content of Christian teaching comes from God and belongs to him. It is God’s message. This means that while there is scope for teaching his word in ways that are culturally attuned, Christian teachers are not free to deviate from its substance (Titus 1:9). There is a need for fidelity to the original message (cf. Titus 1:3 κηρύγματι). Some things ought not to be taught in God’s name (Titus 1:11), as they do not conform to what he has made known in the apostolic message of the gospel. For this reason, teachers are not only to watch the content of their own teaching but also to be concerned about what is taught in God’s name by others, and to rebuke and correct those who teach what is contrary to God’s word (Titus 1:9, 11). They are to do this for the sake of those teaching falsehood (Titus 1:13 ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει), and for the protection of others who might learn from them (Titus 1:11; 3:9–10). There is no toleration of false teaching. There is also an imperative that arises from God’s educative activity to ensure people have the opportunity to learn his message. God appointed Paul (Titus 1:3); Paul commissioned Titus (Titus 1:4–5); Titus was to appoint elders in every town in order to teach (Titus 1:5), and to teach the older women to teach the younger women, and Paul told him the broad content and purpose of that instruction (Titus 2:1, 3–5). There was planning, appointment, delegation, and training. The preaching and teaching of God’s word was a priority that was not to be left to chance, as the “grace of God for all people has appeared” and all people are in need of that grace (Titus 3:3). Accordingly, Christian teaching is to be directed towards all kinds of people. It is not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, or status, and it is to address all people and their particular needs. Those who teach falsely are to be taught not to do so. Different groups within the believing community are to be addressed according to their needs. Christian teaching is to be faithful to God’s message, and sensitive to the needs of each person – deferential to God and deferential to all people. 87 Note

the φιλ-compounds: φιλόξενον, φιλάγαθον.  Titus is to insist upon “these things” (3:8a τούτων; 8b ταῦτα, i. e., 3:1–7) which are excellent and profitable “for people” (τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, i. e., certainly believers but possibly also unbelievers). See Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, 453. 89  Smith, Pauline Communities, 284–86, 334–36. 90  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 695–99. 88

Ethics of Teaching and Learning in Christianity Today

253

Moreover, Christian teaching, like God’s educational activity, is to be directed towards relationships. In Titus, teaching established and was expressed within relationships, that often resembled family-type relationships: Paul considered Titus his true child in their common faith (Titus 1:4); elders were to have believing children91 (presumably instructed by them), and were to be hospitable (Titus 1:6, 8); older women were to be spiritual mothers to their spiritual daughters. The content of sound teaching also furthered relationships, in the family and in wider society (Titus 2:4–5, 9–10; 3:1). By contrast, the methods and teaching of false teachers destroyed families, and the words of a divisive person destroyed the believing community. Accordingly, the content and methods of Christian teaching today ought to establish and nurture spiritually formative relationships within the believing community – particularly family-like relationships  – and foster positive relationships in the home, and equip believers to engage with the world as God’s people. In the same vein, there is to be an alignment between the content and the teacher. In Titus, this is seen negatively with the false teachers (Titus 1:10, 16; 3:9– 11), and positively in the requirements for those to be appointed elders (1:6–9), and for Titus himself, who is to be a model of good works, and to be sound in his method of teaching and in its content (Titus 2:1, 7–8). The Christian teacher has a duty to watch over their life and teaching, and – given the secondary audience of the letter (Titus 3:15 πάντων ἡμῶν )92 – believing communities also have a duty to ensure that those who are given formal responsibility to teach have the character and doctrine necessary for the task. Unlike false teachers, Christian teachers are not to be interested in self gain, but to be patient, self-controlled, loving and kind, to have character that has been instructed by God’s grace. However, just as the responsibility to learn from God’s word is shared by all believers, so too the responsibility to promote God’s word is shared by all believers, not just those with formal responsibility to teach it. In Titus, all members of the believing community were to live and speak and believe in ways that commended the gospel (Titus 2:5, 7–8, 10; 3:1–2). If they did not, those outside the community would revile the word of God rather than revere it and be saved. All believers, whatever their life stage or station, could either adorn the gospel or undermine it. For good or for ill, their lives functioned as living lessons about the goodness and truth of God’s word (cf. Titus 1:16). It is the same today. Christians are all to be mindful what their lives ‘teach’ about God and his gospel. Finally, Christian teaching today is to have an eschatological orientation. The purpose of Christian teaching is that people will know the hope of eternal life and be saved (Titus 1:1–3). This is why the truthfulness of the content and the godly character of teachers are so essential, because they are to ensure that – until the  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 682.  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 805.

91 92

254

Claire S. Smith

glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ – his people devote themselves to living lives that express authentic Christian faith and knowledge of God and that adorn the gospel, and thereby advance God’s saving purposes in the world (Titus 2:10; 3:8, 14).93

93 Ho, “Mission in the Pastoral Epistles,” 245, “perhaps inherent [to the term ‘good works’] is the notion that authentic Christian faith should demonstrate a lifestyle that witnesses positively for furthering the gospel.”

Written to Be with Paul Reading Galatians with Titus Hans-Ulrich Weidemann 1. The Letter to Titus as a Supplement to the Letter to the Galatians 1.1 Equality Only beyond Body, Gender, and Sex: Daniel Boyarin on Galatians The motivating force behind Paul’s ministry was a profound vision of a humanity undivided by ethnos, class, and sex, a Hellenistic desire for the One, which among other things produced an ideal of universal human essence, beyond difference and hierarchy. This universal humanity however, was predicated (and still is) on the dualism of the flesh and the spirit, such that while the body is particular, marked through practice as Jew and Greek, and through anatomy as male or female, the spirit is universal. The strongest expression of this Pauline cultural criticism is Galatians, especially Gal 3:28–29.1 This is one of the main theses of Daniel Boyarin’s stimulating book on Paul, “A Radical Jew. Paul and the Politics of Identity,” published in 1994. Boyarin develops here an unconventional, yet highly stimulating and challenging reading of (some) Pauline letters.2 Crucial for his reconstruction of Pauline thought is a sharp accentuation of Paul’s dualism. On the road to Damascus Paul came to see “the dual structure of outer, physical reality, that which he refers to as κατὰ σάρκα, which corresponded to and signified an inner, higher, spiritual reality, that which is κατὰ πνεῦμα.”3 According to Boyarin, Paul holds an essentially dualist anthropology, he is mobilized by as thoroughgoing a “platonized” dualism as that of Philo, even though Paul’s dualism does not imply a rejection of the body4 and the immaterial 1  Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew. Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 181. 2 See also Daniel Boyarin, “Paul and the Genealogy of Gender,” in A Feminist Companion to Paul, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 13–41. 3  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 53. Cf. 69: “The dyadic opposition between flesh and spirit is central on all accounts to Pauline thinking and expression.” 4  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 59. Cf. 185: “Paul’s is a dualism that makes room for the body, however much the spirit is more highly valued.”

256

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

existence of souls without any bodies seems to arouse in him a sense of horror.5 One of Boyarin’s main insights is the notion that “gender difference exists only at one ontological level, the outer or physical, the corporeal, but that at the level of true existence, the spiritual, there is no gender.”6 Boyarin’s reading culminates in his interpretation of Galatians, “which is entirely devoted to the theme of the new creation of God’s one people, the new Israel through faith and through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.”7 Galatians is a theology of the spirit (and Corinthians a theology of the body that balances and completes it).8 In Galatians Paul connects the Law (with its commandment to procreate!) to the flesh and he connects its opposite, Christian freedom, to the spirit. “Flesh” is the penis which is circumcised and at the same time physical kinship (physical Israel). It is the site of sexuality, wherein lies the origin of sin; it is also the site of genealogy, wherein lies the ethnocentrism of Judaism as Paul encountered it.9 In Gal 5:16–17 Paul speaks of “the desire of the flesh” (ἐπιθυμία σαρκός), which according to Boyarin is sexual desire. The social outcome of sexual desire are the works of the flesh (sexual immorality, impurity etc.). Consequently, “celibacy corresponds to ‘the spirit’ and marriage to ‘the flesh’”10 and that is why marriage is a lower state than celibacy (though not forbidden or despised). Since people – even baptized people – are still living in their mortal and sexed bodies, “any possibility of an eradication of male and female and the corresponding social hierarchy is possible only on the level of the spirit, either in ecstasy at baptism or perhaps permanently for the celibate.”11 According to Boyarin, the encratic Fathers are much closer to Paul than has been previously allowed; the encratic forms of Christianity are legitimate heirs to a vitally important part of Paul’s thought. The encratic ideal was the solution of an essentially ethical problem, the search for human autonomy and equality. Only celibates were free of the restrictions of gender (esp. women).12 Crucial and innovative is Boyarin’s insistence on the connection between social and gender equality, receiving the Spirit and celibacy. But what does that all have to do with the letter to Titus? In my opinion, Daniel Boyarin’s reading of the letter to the Galatians is instructive at least in a heuristic sense, because it is probably similar to the reading of Galatians by the opponents of the letter to Titus and thus could explain the motive for its composition and its intentions.  5 Boyarin,

A Radical Jew, 61. A Radical Jew, 196.  7  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 107.  8 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 184–85.  9  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 68. 10  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 193. 11  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 193. 12  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 178–79.  6 Boyarin,

Written to Be with Paul

257

1.2 Paul’s Escort: The Function of the Pastoral Epistles Before going into detail, it is necessary to set out the preconditions and presuppositions of my approach to Titus: In my opinion, Titus is a pseudonymous and pseudepigraphic text and it presupposes an already developed Corpus Paulinum.13 It has been written by the same author as the two letters to Timothy. The three Pastoral Epistles never circulated on their own or as a trilogy,14 but instead have been designed to complement and supplement a Corpus Paulinum which consisted of 10 letters.15 Like all three Pastorals, the letter to Titus formally relies on the letter to the Romans as has been demonstrated recently by Michael Theobald.16 The prescript of the letter to Titus (Titus 1:1–4) is an imitation of the prescript of the letter to the Romans (Rom 1:1–7).17 In Titus 1:15 (πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς) the author hints at the Pauline slogan in Rom 14:20b (πάντα μὲν καθαρά). Titus 3:1 alludes to Rom 13:1–718 and Titus 3:7 quotes Rom 3:24.19 The letter to the Romans, thus, provides the fundamental features for establishing the pseudepigraphy of the letter to Titus as well as the two letters to Timothy. According to Annette Merz, the author of the Pastoral Letters attempts to employ the instrument of fictitious self-reference to influence the reception of the earlier Pauline texts.20 She has characterized this as intended intertextuality and, more precisely, as intentional reference-text-orientated function of inter See Ingo Broer and Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 4th ed. (Würzburg: Echter, 2016), 530–65. 14  As argued by Robert W. Wall with Richard B. Steele, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, The Two Horizons New Testaments Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 15–27. 15  See Michael Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen. Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe, SBS 229 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016), 157–212 and 213–44. 16 See Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit, 61–115. 17  Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit, 65–71. Significant is the direct connection of δοῦλος and ἀπόστολος (only in Rom 1:1 and Titus 1:1). 18 See Titus 3:1 (ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι); Rom 13:1 (πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω); and 13:3 (οἱ γὰρ ἄρχοντες οὐκ εἰσὶν φόβος τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ); cf. 13:5 (διὸ ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι). Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit, 75–78. 19  Titus 3:7 (δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι) and Rom 3:24 (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). 20 Ground-breaking is the work of Annette Merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus. Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe, NTOA/StUNT 52 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). See also Annette Merz, “Amore Pauli: Das Corpus Pastorale und das Ringen um die Interpretationshoheit bezüglich des paulinischen Erbes,” TThQ 187 (2007): 274–94. Annette Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition of Paul: How Might Intertextual Theory Suggest a Reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy?” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles. Explorations of Theory and Practice, ed. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 113–32. Annette Merz, “Why Did the Pure Bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11.2) Become a Wedded Wife (Eph. 13

258

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

textuality. The author of the Pastoral Letters intends deliberately to modify the understanding of other Pauline texts. The pseudepigraphical text compels the readers to look afresh at the pre-texts to which it alludes. But one might then ask why the author created three different letters to supplement the Corpus Paulinum. At this point it is important to note that each of the three Pastoral Letters has its own specific purpose. While all three letters are designed to modify the understanding of older Pauline texts in general, each one of them is designed as a kind of side-kick (or better: to provide a lens) for one specific group of Pauline letters. One can detect this intended relationship taking into account the addressee of each letter and the particular portrait of the (fictional!) opponents: 1 Timothy is specifically concerned with issues of the Corinthian Correspondence (1 and 2 Corinthians). Timothy is mentioned as co-author in 2 Cor 1:1 and as co-founder of the Corinthian ekklesia (besides Paul and Silvanus) in 2 Cor 1:19. In 1 Cor 4:17 and 16:10–11 Paul announces visits of Timothy to Corinth where he has to represent the apostle. 1 Corinthians has been written from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19); 1 Timothy in turn claims to be written to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). The issues at stake are primarily asceticism and gender, since the author of 1 Timothy claims to fight opponents who prohibit marriage and certain foods (1 Tim 4:3: κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων). In the same context he denounces “physical training” (ἡ σωματικὴ γυμνασία) – i. e., asceticism21 – as only of “little benefit.” In contrast to that, he exhorts Timothy: “Train yourself in godliness” (1 Tim 4:7: γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν), because godliness is beneficial for everything and bears the promise of life in the present and of life to come (1 Tim 4:7–8). The opponents of 1 Timothy most certainly reclaimed the authority of Paul himself, especially regarding sexual and dietary asceticism.22 2 Timothy is designed as a letter written in captivity (2 Tim 1:8; 2:9) and as such it correlates to the other Pauline captivity letters (Philippians; Philemon; Colossians; and Ephesians), especially since Timothy is mentioned as co-author in three of the four letters (Phlm 1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1).23 The main focus is the 5.22–33)? Theses about the Intertextual Transformation of an Ecclesiological Metaphor,” JSNT 79 (2000): 131–47. 21  In 1 Cor 9:24–27, Paul presents his encratic lifestyle by evoking the image of the athletic regime and the pains of soaring, cf. Raymond F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus. A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 121. 22  For Pauline sexual asceticism, see 1 Cor 5–7 and 9:24–27, but also 2 Cor 11:2; for abstinence from certain foods, cf. 1 Cor 8:13 and Rom 14:21. See Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, “Engelsgleiche, Abstinente – und ein moderater Weintrinker. Asketische Sinnproduktion als literarische Technik im Lukasevangelium und im 1. Timotheusbrief,” in Asceticism and Exegesis in Early Christianity. The Reception of New Testament Texts in Ancient Ascetic Discourses, ed. Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, NTOA 101 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 21–68. 23  In Phil 2:19–23 Paul once again announces Timothy’s visit. He even emphasizes that Timothy has served with him “as a son with his father” in the work of the gospel.

Written to Be with Paul

259

topic of eschatology: 2 Timothy claims to fight opponents who say that the resurrection has already happened (2 Tim 2:18: ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι). It is obvious that the author refers to crucial passages from Colossians and Ephesians where the characteristic realized eschatology of these captivity letters is formulated.24 2 Timothy antagonizes internal opponents who claim a different kind of eschatology (cf. 2 Tim 4:1, 8). And finally, the letter to Titus is specifically concerned with issues within Galatians. It is addressed to Paul’s companion at the Jerusalem conference (Gal 2:1, 3), and the addressee is instructed to fight opponents, “especially those of the circumcision party” (Titus 1:10: μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς) who by “devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people turn away from the truth” (Titus 1:14: ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν) and are “quarrelling about the law” (Titus 3:9). Obviously, the letter evokes Gal 2:11–14 here,25 especially by means of the juxtaposition of “those of the circumcision party” and “truth.” The opponents of Titus confess to know God (1:16: θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι). The formulation is similar to Gal 4:8–9 where εἰδέναι θεόν and γινώσκειν θεόν are used interchangeably.26 Paul writes to his (former pagan) addressees in Galatia as believers who formerly did not know God (τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεόν) and were enslaved to those who in reality are no gods. According to Paul, the Galatians now know God (νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν), because they are known by God, i. e., by means of receiving the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 3:1–5). The letter to Titus does not wish to encourage such a self-conception and denounces people who claim to know God as Jews,27 i. e. outsiders. But it makes clear that the problem is located within the community: In Titus 3:9–11, Titus is instructed to establish a kind of disciplinary process against a “divisive person” (αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον) who unquestionably is a member of the community. This internal front line of all three Pastoral Epistles is adequately summarized by Annette Merz: “In particular, the frequent references to ‘apostate’ pupils of 24  Cf. Col 1:22; 2:12 (συνηγέρθητε διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν); Col 2:20; 3:1 (εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ); 3:4; Eph 2:5–6 (καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ); Eph 2:8, 19; 5:14 (καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν). See Horacio E. Lona, Die Eschatologie im Kolosser- und Epheserbrief, FB 48 (Würzburg: Echter, 1984), and Philip H. Towner, “Gnosis and realized eschatology in Ephesus (of the Pastoral Epistles) and the Corinthian enthusiasm,” JSNT 10 (1987): 95–124. 25  See Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit, 241–244. “Die gewählte Bezeichnung für Juden, die im Corpus Paulinum kaum begegnet [note: only Rom 4:12 and Col 4:11], wohl aber im Galaterbrief, lehnt sich … gerade an diesen Brief und seinen Kampf gegen die Beschneidungsforderung judaisierender Gegner an, insbesondere Gal 2:12 … Es ist nicht abwegig zu vermuten, dass der Autor des Corpus Pastorale den Galaterbrief in genau der exklusiv-heidenchristlichen Lesart wahrgenommen hat, die auch für die vormarkionitische Briefsammlung und ihre Rezeption in Kleinasien zu seiner Zeit bestimmend gewesen ist.” 26  See Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 709 n. 142. With Gal 4:8 cf. 1 Thess 4:5; 2 Thess 1:8. 27  Cf. Rom 2:17–18.

260

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

Paul suggest that, as a matter of fact, the teaching handed on here to Timothy and Titus was not undisputed within the Pauline communities and groups of his disciples.”28 1.3 The Apostle and His Beloved Child: Titus in Galatians There are several hints that the author of Titus – by choosing Titus as the (fictional) addressee of the letter – especially wanted to draw attention to Galatians. Obviously, the letter to Titus presupposes the pre-story of the two protagonists as it is narrated in Galatians: According to Gal 2:1–2, Paul went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking along Titus, in accordance with a revelation he received. Paul emphasizes “that it was he, not he and Barnabas, who ‘took Titus along,’ and he refers to Titus as having been ‘with me,’ rather than ‘with us’ (v 3).”29 According to Gal 2:3, Titus was “the one with me” (ὁ σὺν ἐμοί) at the so-called Jerusalem council. And perhaps “my brother Titus” (2 Cor 2:13: Τίτον τὸν ἀδελφόν μου) is one of οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ (!) πάντες ἀδελφοί who are Paul’s co-authors of the letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:2). Paul goes on to tell his Galatian audience that not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised (Gal 2:3). This agreement was reached at a second meeting of Barnabas and Paul with the Jerusalem “pillars,” James, Cephas, and John. This meeting was necessary, because the first encounter of the Antiochenes with “them” (i. e., the whole Jerusalem community; Gal 2:2) obviously failed due to the agitation of “certain false brothers” (Gal 2:4–5). But Paul and Barnabas rejected these false brothers’ claim that Titus should be circumcised. “In effect, Titus represented all of Paul’s Gentile converts.”30 After that James, Cephas, and John met with Paul and Barnabas separately, and they gave them their right hand of fellowship after reaching an agreement (Gal 2:9). Paul states that, as a result of the conference, “we [were to go] to the Gentiles and they to those who are circumcised.” “We” at first are Paul and Barnabas.31 But even if Titus was not present at the second meeting of Gal 2:6–‍10 and did not partake in the handshake (which after all was a handshake of Jews with Jews) he then rejoined his Jewish colleagues – at least according to the view of the author of Titus, who takes up the story from here: Paul says that he had once again took  Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition,” 128. Martyn, Galatians, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 189. Cf. 194: “Eclipsing Barnabas.” According to Martyn, it was not the Antioch church and its mission that were crucial for Paul, “but rather that his gospel was made present by a piece of its fruit, Titus.” Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (London: A & C Black, 1993), 90: συμπαραλαμβάνω = take along as assistant or helper. 30  Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP 9 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 80. See also Martyn, Galatians, 194 (“the Gentile Christians represented in Titus”). 31  So all commentators, e. g., Martyn, Galatians, 206: “The ‘we’ are Paul and Barnabas, as representatives of the church in Antioch.” Also Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 111. 28

29 J. Louis

Written to Be with Paul

261

Titus “with me” and “we” (i. e., Paul and Titus) went “to the Gentiles,” ultimately reaching the island of Crete. But the Gentile church on the island of Crete faces opposition – “particularly/ namely by those from the circumcision” (Titus 1:10: μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς32). This brings to mind the occasion of the Antiochene conflict as narrated by Paul in Gal 2:11–14. During this conflict at Antioch, the rest of the Jews (οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι) acted hypocritically along with Peter, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. And according to Gal 2:14, the Jews in Antioch did not act in line with the truth of the gospel (οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). But obviously this does not include the Christbelieving Gentiles – especially Titus, the Greek (Gal 2:3: Ἕλλην ὤν). His conduct was always in step with the truth of the gospel (cf. Gal 2:13). This contrasting and paradigmatic juxtaposition of a “Jewish” position and the “truth” is crucial for understanding the (fictive) opponents in Titus, particularly since Paul uses “the truth of the Gospel” and “the truth” interchangeably in Galatians.33 According to Titus 1:10–14, the many rebellious people especially those of the circumcision group must be silenced so that they will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth (ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν). Thus, on Crete – as once in Antioch – Paul and Titus have to deal with adversaries ἐκ περιτομῆς34 who are opposed to ἡ ἀλήθεια. With this paradigmatic situation the author of Titus directs the minds of his readers to Galatians and not to 2 Corinthians, even if Titus is mentioned here as “an important coworker, or sometime coworker, with Paul in the Gentile mission” and at the same time “something of a crisis-intervention specialist,”35 since Titus successfully mediated the hostile situation in Corinth. Titus helped Paul gather the collection (2 Cor 8:6), since he too was present at the Jerusalem council where the collection was decided. Paul calls him τὸν ἀδελφόν μου in 2 Cor 2:13, and he even calls him κοινωνὸς ἐμὸς καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς συνεργός in 2 Cor 8:23. Only Titus is referred to in this way! But in the letter to Titus neither the collection nor the crisis is mentioned. So its readers are expected to keep Galatians in mind – or better: to read Galatians henceforth through the lenses 32 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1999), 195: “μάλιστα here means ‘namely’ and is used to make the preceding general remark specific (like in 1 Tim 4:10; 5:8, 17; 2 Tim 4:13).” 33 Gal 2:5, 14: ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; Gal 5:7: ἡ ἀλήθεια; and Gal 4:16: ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν; cf. Titus 1:1: ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας. 34 Cf. Gal 2:12: οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, and Titus 1:10: μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς. Further, see Acts 10:45; 11:2: οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς; Col 4:11: οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 195: “The phrase thus identifies the opposition. It does not necessarily imply that circumcision was an issue in the situation.” 35 Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 90.

262

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

Titus provides. Just as Paul had Titus “with me” in Jerusalem (facing Jewish opposition regarding circumcision), so also the reader of Galatians should have the letter to Titus “with” him. Along the lines of the juxtaposition of ἡ ἀλήθεια and οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς in Titus 1:10, 14 (cf. Gal 2:11–14) we find several other combinations in Titus which point to Galatians: 1. Spirit and Baptism: The Spirit is mentioned in connection with baptism only in Titus 3:5. The many references to the Spirit in Galatians are all rooted in baptism, and in Gal 6:1 the Galatians are addressed as πνευματικοί (Gal 6:1). 2. Justification and Inheritance: In Titus 3:7 the author states that the consequence of being saved and justified (δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι) is that believers become heirs of God’s promises (κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατ’ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου). Nowhere else does the inheritance motif appear in the Pastorals. But Marshall rightly observes that “the same link of justification and inheritance” is established in Gal 3:11–29, and the same can be said for “the relationship between inheritance and the Spirit” in Gal 3:14, 18; 4:6–7.36 3. Good Works and Fruit: In Titus 3:14 the author insists that “our people [i. e., Zenas and Apollos] must learn to devote themselves to doing good works (καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι; cf. Titus 3:8) in situations of urgent need (εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας χρείας) so that they are not without fruit (ἵνα μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι). This (albeit indirect) combination of “good works” and “fruit” points to Gal 5:22 where Paul enumerates “the fruit of the Spirit” (ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος) in opposition to the “works of the flesh” (τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σαρκός). Shortly after that he labels the same issues as “doing what is good” (τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες) and “working what is good” (ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθόν; Gal 6:9–10).37

2. “What Remains to Be Done” According to Titus 1:5, Paul was on Crete to evangelize,38 and again Titus was “with” him on his apostolic mission “to the Gentiles” (cf. Gal 2:3, 9). Paul’s evangelization on Crete seems to have been quite successful such that elders needed to be appointed in every city. That is why Paul decided to leave Titus behind on Crete. Titus remains, but Paul who is now with Artemas and Tychikos writes the letter to Titus which probably is delivered by Zenas and Apollos.39  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 324. But cf. Rom 8:15–17 and Eph 1:13–14.

36

37 Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 281, who emphasizes

(with Betz) that τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες (Gal 6:9) is identical with the concepts of the “fruit of the Spirit” (5:22–23) and of “following the Spirit” (5:25; cf. 5:16). 38 According to Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 678, the verb ἀπολείπω (“leave behind,” but also “dispatch, assign”) does not necessarily imply Paul’s physical presence there. 39  William A. Richards, Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity. An Epistolary

Written to Be with Paul

263

2.1 The Supplement to Paul’s Ministry (Titus 1:5–9) According to Titus 1:5, “Titus’ job was twofold: to complete the organization of the church in Crete and to preserve it from doctrinal contamination.”40 Titus 1:5 5 a For this reason I left you (ἀπέλιπόν σε) in Crete b so that you might set in order what remains to be done (ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ) c and (i. e.) appoint elders in every city (καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους), d as I have commanded you (ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην).

We have two second-person verbs of purpose which set out Titus’s agenda in Crete. “The purpose clause outlines Titus’ commission in Crete. He is to set right what was lacking in the churches.”41 The second one explains the first one (καί explicativum).42 To get a better understanding of this concept it is necessary to take the long and elaborated prescript of the letter into account (Titus 1:1–4). “This lengthy prescript foreshadows the substance of the epistle.”43 The author stresses the nature of Paul’s ministry as he sees it and the content of the gospel which is the base of that ministry.44 According to this prescript, Paul, as slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ, is entrusted (ἐπιστεύθην) with the proclamation (κηρύγματι) of the hope of eternal life which God, who does not lie, promised (ἐπηγγείλατο) before the beginning of time. The author stresses that Paul was entrusted with a message that God had revealed to him. This message was “an existing entity before it was entrusted to him.”45 God has promised the chosen people eternal life, and he has kept his promise by revealing the gospel and ordering its proclamation through Paul (who himself was a recipient of it). This promise of eternal life was manifested at the appropriate time in Paul’s κήρυγμα. In the proclamation of the apostle – who thus becomes the central figure of salvation – God reveals his promise made from before time began.46 In sum, Paul’s apostolate consists of the proclamation of the hope of eternal life. This proclamation creates the faith of God’s elect and submits to the knowledge of truth that leads to εὐσέβεια, which is a cardinal virtue (i. e., religious practices

Analysis of the Pastorals, StBibLit 44 (New York: Lang, 2002), 68–69. Cf. 97: “the letter arrives, courtesy of Zenas and Apollos who are passing through in the course of their own work.” 40 William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 385. 41  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 151. 42  Epexegetical καί, see Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 679 n. 10. 43  Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, PilNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 466. According to Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 111, “this section sets the tone and introduces concerns that the letter will later address.” 44  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 112. 45  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 113. 46  Cf. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 306.

264

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

and beliefs that animate a particular lifestyle).47 “This practical emphasis paves the way for Paul’s stress on works in later sections of this epistle.”48 The main goal of Paul’s ministry is the proclamation of God’s redemptive plan. But his mission, as described in Titus 1:1–3, is in need of completion; the proclamation of Paul’s κήρυγμα is not sufficient – there is something “lacking” (τὰ λειπόμενα), something has not been included in his previous activity,49 and for that Paul needs his “legitimate child.” Thus, there are things that must still be set in order! In Titus 1:5 the accent undoubtedly falls on completing Paul’s mission because he had departed before he could accomplish it himself. In my opinion, this is a crucial statement: The proclamation of the gospel by the apostle without appointing leaders who are able to instruct the church and correct opponents is unfinished, incomplete. “The fundamental nature of this task in completing all that needs to be done in the churches is clear from the immediate attention given to it.”50 That is why the target of the whole prescript is Titus 1:5 (ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην) and why the body of the letter immediately commences without any interrupting thanksgiving (like in Galatians, but with different reasons). 2.2 Supplementing the Gospel by a Chain of Male Succession (Titus 1:6–9) The whole opening of the letter evokes a chain of male succession from Paul, the apostle, to Titus, the legitimate child, to the elders, who are to be appointed by Titus. This “chain of succession” is visible behind the traditional epistolary elements which are reduced to a kind of stage set. It is not (only) about male succession, but also about what men are to be appointed to lead the community in the eyes of the author. Men are “provided with masculine examples of morality to follow (Paul, Timothy, Titus, male office-holders) and other immoral examples to avoid (the heretical opponents).”51 In Titus 1:6 and 1:7–9 we have two lists of qualifications in their own right, the first dealing with the elders (Titus 1:6: πρεσβύτεροι), the second with the overseer (Titus 1:7: ἐπίσκοπος). The letter obviously presents elder and overseer as one and the same, πρεσβύτερος being a man’s status (cf. Titus 2:2), ἐπίσκοπος his function, the duty he has to fulfill in the Christian community.52 The function of the elder is presented as oversight (like in Acts 20:17, 28 and 1 Peter 5:1–2). In both  Cf. Wall and Steele, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 337.  Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 469. 49  Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 151. 50  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 152. 51  Annette Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education for Women in the Pastoral and Pythagorean Letters. Philosophers of the Household, NovTSup 147 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 323. 52  Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 322. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 160: “In fact, the logic of the connection demands the identity of the two offices.” 47 48

Written to Be with Paul

265

lists the “overarching virtue” is ἀνέγκλητος (blameless).53 Titus demonstrates great concern for what a significant other might expect, concern for honorable behavior and the regard for public opinion.54 Both lists of qualifications can be interpreted as a detailed explanation of the meaning of ἀνέγκλητος. Let us first take a look at the second list (Titus 1:7–9): Titus 1:7–9 7 a For the overseer must be blameless (δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι) as God’s steward55 (ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον), b not overbearing (μὴ αὐθάδη), c not prone to anger (μὴ ὀργίλον), d not addicted to wine (μὴ πάροινον), e not violent (μὴ πλήκτην), f not pursuing dishonest gain (μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ), 8 a but hospitable (ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον), b loving what is good (φιλάγαθον), c self-controlled (σώφρονα), d just (δίκαιον), e holy (ὅσιον), f chaste (ἐγκρατῆ), 9 a holding fast to the trustworthy saying according to the teaching, b so that he is capable c of both exhorting with healthy teaching (ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ) d and correcting opponents (καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν).

In this second qualification list, ἀνέγκλητος is followed by nine very general requirements for the episkopos: he must not be obstinately self-willed, not quicktempered, not given to drunkenness, not ready for a fight, not pursuing dishonest gain, but must be hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, and just. This is followed by a quite notable pair: ὅσιον (pious, holy) and ἐγκρατῆ (abstinent, ascetic, even celibate).56 Nota bene: There is no hint of the overseer being a pater familias or even married! To the contrary, read with Pauline eyes he even might be celibate. But this list is connected to 1:6 and that means the function of the overseer with its requirements is applied to a married man, a married pater familias! “Titus is instructed first to look at a man’s home life since his management of 53 Wall and Steele, I & II Timothy and Titus, 342. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 321: “comprehensive virtue.” 54  Cf. Korinna Zamfir, Men and Women in the Household of God. A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles, NTOA/StUNT 103 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 106–108. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 149: “a good deal of the concern is for the reputation of the church in the eyes of outsiders.” 55 Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 677: “Since an overseer manages God’s household.” 56 Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 185: “In Paul the word is used of restraint upon one’s sexual desires (1 Cor 7.9) or of an athlete who has to exercise self-control over his body and his habits if he is to be fit to run a race; so too there is a spiritual self-control which must be exercised by the believer over his body so that he may not fail the spiritual test (1 Cor 9.25).”

266

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

his responsibility reveals his ability (or lack thereof ) to be a steward in God’s house.”57 Titus 1:6 6 a If anyone (τις masc.) is blameless (ἀνέγκλητος), b husband of one woman (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ), c having faithful children (τέκνα ἔχων πιστά), d who cannot be accused of being wasteful or stubborn (μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα).

The blamelessness of those men has its roots in the integrity of their marriage.58 The need for elders to be blameless is specified in the two areas of marriage and family life in which this must be true.59 “The man who is beyond reproach is a family man, married to only one wife and with children who were reared in the faith.”60 By this, ὅσιον and ἐγκρατῆ are stripped of any notion of celibacy or sexual abstinence and purity. Likewise σώφρονα and δίκαιον are thus adapted to married men. The main goal of Titus 1 is, therefore, to connect the authority to teach with a specific ideal of masculinity. Not all men are invited to participate actively in teaching and leadership. “This role may be fulfilled only by a few, qualified and respectable men, whereas other men are subordinated to their authority.”61 This ideal is of a man who has married, has raised a family, and is well respected among the urban (male) elites. It also implies some kind of wealth. Those requirements to be fulfilled by the elders comprise values and virtues that largely correspond to those demanded from officials in the Greco-Roman world and reflect an elite mindset centered on honorable public service.62 Excluded from leadership are for example: slaves, ascetics, charismatics, prophets, apostles, teachers, and Jews (i. e., Jewish Christians), even if they all could fulfill the requirements of the second list. 2.3 The Preaching of the Gospel according to Galatians “The central principle in Galatians is the primacy of the gospel.”63 In this letter Paul emphasizes that he is an apostle not from men nor through any man, but 57  Mounce, Pastoral Epistles 385. Cf. Zamfir, Men and Women, 79: “The PE expect candidates for office to show their leadership abilities by proving there [sic] capacity to manage their own household, keeping their children and their oikos in faith and submission.” 58  Cf. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 480. 59  Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 149. 60 Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 321. 61  Zamfir, Men and Women, 286. 62  Cf. Zamfir, Men and Women, 117. Cf. 108: Like the letters to Timothy, the letter to Titus shows great interest “in securing the respectability of the community through compliance with the ethical and social norms shared with contemporary society.” 63  James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 572.

Written to Be with Paul

267

through Jesus Christ and God the Father (Gal 1:1). The gospel that he was proclaiming is not simply human, he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it, rather he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ (1:11–12). Paul claims that he had been confronted by the exalted Lord and had been directly appointed as an apostle by Jesus Christ himself, not to some general apostleship, but specifically as “Apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13, cf. Gal 1:15–16; 2:7–8). Ministries and offices are not mentioned in Galatians,64 and Paul “rarely seems able to address people holding formally recognized positions of authority in his churches.”65 Especially striking is the absence of πρεσβύτεροι in all the letters of the Corpus Paulinum besides 1 Timothy and Titus. Instead of appealing to leadership structures Paul frequently refers to the Spirit as the governing principle of the community. In Galatians Paul addresses ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοί to restore a transgressing fellow believer “in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1). “Paul evidently expected those who were led by the spirit (Gal 5:25) to provide the spiritually sensitive leadership (rather than any rulebook formalism) which such delicate situations require.”66 2.4 Reading Galatians with Titus The letter to Titus on the one hand emphasizes the unique apostleship of Paul (Titus 1:1–4) – as in fact do all three Pastoral Epistles.67 But on the other hand it makes clear that Paul’s ministry is incomplete if it is limited to or even focused on the proclamation of the gospel alone. The author employs the fictional letter to Titus, this Greek man being the symbol and personification of Paul’s lawfree gospel, to establish an all-male leadership structure whose officials are to be recruited from senior members of the community who have a good reputation even among the non-Christian elites: “this assessment is not limited to the Christian community but also takes in the opinions of those outside the church.”68 So with the letter to Titus in mind the readers are able to complete the personal appeals in Gal 4:12–20 where Paul refers to his initial preaching of the gospel in Galatia (Gal 4:13: εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον). Read with the letter to Titus in mind this means that wherever Paul mentions the proclamation of the gospel in any of his letters, this information has to be supplemented by the establishment of qualified male leadership structures.

64  See Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 580–586. According to Dunn, two regular ministries are often mentioned in the Pauline epistles: prophets and teachers. Besides those Dunn points to de facto leadership that emerged (for example 1 Cor 16:15–18; 1 Thess 5:12–13). 65  Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 583. 66  Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 585. 67  See Wall and Steele, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 33. 68  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 682.

268

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

3. Still “Male and Female” 3.1 The Gendered Household Code (Titus 2:1–10) The chain of male succession, established in Titus 1:5–9, is complemented by a kind of gendered ‘household code’ in Titus 2:2–10. As Towner rightly states: “This initial allusion to the household institution sets the pattern for the theology of the church and Christian behavior that will shape much of the letter to Titus (Titus 2:1–15; cf. 1:11).”69 We will first take a look at the text itself and then deal with the question of its genre. Titus 2:1–2 1 a You, however, must speak/teach (Σὺ δὲ λάλει), b what is appropriate to healthy doctrine (ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ). 2 a [You must teach] the older men (Πρεσβύτας) to be temperate (νηφαλίους εἶναι), b venerable (σεμνούς), c self-controlled (σώφρονας), d healthy in faith (ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει), e in love (τῇ ἀγάπῃ), f in endurance (τῇ ὑπομονῇ).

After placing a sharp contrast with the opponents at the beginning (Titus 2:1),70 the author first addresses the older men (Titus 2:2). They are important, because presumably leader-elders would have been drawn from this age group.71 Older men are enjoined “to live a holistic life of Christian dignity and dynamic faith.”72 The author expects six virtues from the senior men, arranged in two triads.73 This first triad consists of the requirements that one must be sober, wellrespected, and self-controlled. These three virtues are not particularly specific Christian virtues. The second triad consists of being “healthy (sound) in faith, love, and steadfastness,”74 which add a Christian emphasis. Several authors like Towner stress the wide range in meaning and the semantic broadness of the terms used here: “Together these terms form an overlapping network of virtues that describes a life of respectability free from overindulgence, dissipation and foolishness.”75

 Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 686 f.  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 230: “Genuine Christian behavior, that which results from conversion (2:11–14; 3:3–7…), is presented as the antithesis to the behavior characteristic of heresy.” 71  See Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 720. But the qualification lists in Titus 1:6, 7–9 and 2:2 overlap only in one single virtue: σώφρων (Titus 1:7 and 2:2). 72  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 722. 73  Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 409: four qualities of older men (taking the last three together). 74 Cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 5:8. 75  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 721, adds that the Christ-event is to be understood as the mystical source of a life so marked. 69 70

Written to Be with Paul

269

Titus 2:3–5 3 a Likewise, [you must teach] the older women (πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως) b to be priestly in the way they live (ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς), c not to be slanderers (μὴ διαβόλους), d not to be slaves to much wine (μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας), e but to teach what is good [or: to be good teachers] (καλοδιδασκάλους), 4 a so they can train the younger women to be self-controlled (ἵνα σωφρονίζωσιν τὰς νέας), b [i. e.] to love their husbands (φιλάνδρους εἶναι), c to love their children (φιλοτέκνους), 5 a (to be) self-controlled (σώφρονας), b pure (ἁγνάς), c a good manager of the oikos (οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς), d to be subject to their husbands (ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν), e so that no one will malign the word of God (ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημῆται).

The author then moves on to older women (Titus 2:3). They are to be priestly in their demeanor, not to be slanderers, and not to be addicted to much wine. The fourth and final quality of the senior women is the most important: they are to be καλοδιδασκάλους, appropriate and good teachers (“good in teaching”) or even required to “teach what is good.”76 It is remarkable that a subordinate teaching role is allotted to older women here. Annette Bourland Huizenga formulates the issue that is at stake: “can a male apostle, overseer, or elder model faithful behavior for women?” To which the answer of our author would be: “none of these Christian men can act as a role model in every facet of virtuous behavior for the women in the community.”77 The objects of their teaching are the younger women and the purpose of the teaching is σωφρονίζειν τὰς νέας. The older women are instructed to “encourage the younger ones to be self-controlled, sober, modest.”78 This is concretized immediately by a list of seven qualities, framed by their attitude towards their husbands. “Encouraged to be self-controlled” does on no account imply celibacy! The first two (φιλάνδρους εἶναι, φιλοτέκνους), as well as the last one (ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν) describe an ideal of a wife and mother. The four in the middle add personal qualities: two point to the restraint of sexual passions (σώφρονας ἁγνάς79), two encourage effectiveness in running the household (οἰκουργοὺς ἀγαθάς). Once again (as in 1:8) virtues that can have an ascetic meaning (here σώφρονας and ἁγνάς, there σώφρονα and ἐγκρατῆ) are applied to married persons and thereby stripped of any allusion to celibacy.

76 Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 134, rightly points to the connection between the priestly terminology and the designation to teach. 77  Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 271. Cf. Quinn, The Letter to Titus, 135. 78  See the discussion by Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 725. 79  According to Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 248, this pair has to do with the self-controlled and chaste demeanor of the women.

270

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

Titus 2:6–8 6 a Likewise, encourage the young men to be self-controlled (Τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σώφρονας), 7 a in everything be an example for them in doing what is good (περὶ πάντα σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων), b in the teaching pure (ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν), c dignified (σεμνότητα), 8 a beyond reproach (in your) healthy instruction (λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον), b in order that the opponent is put to shame (ἵνα ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἐντραπῇ), c because he has nothing evil to say about us (μηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν περὶ ἡμῶν φαῦλον).

The young men are instructed very briefly and very generally (Titus 2:6). Here, “to be σώφρων”80 is the first (and only) virtue that Titus is supposed to exhort the younger men to practice.81 Titus is to provide young men with an example or model for them to imitate. And the author urges that Titus himself serve as that model; he is to be the τύπος καλῶν ἔργων. Titus 2:9–10  9 a [Encourage] slaves to be subject to their masters in all things (Δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν), b to be well pleasing (εὐαρέστους εἶναι), c not speaking against (their masters) (μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας), 10 a not stealing (from them) (μὴ νοσφιζομένους), b but showing complete loyalty to them (ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν), c so that they bring honor in every way to the teaching about our Savior, God82 (ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν).

Slaves are to fulfill their responsibility of obedience to their masters and to please them (Titus 2:9–10). According to Korinna Zamfir, it is improbable that leadership was assigned to slaves. “Being exhorted to show full submission, slaves were obviously excluded from authority; this makes it very unlikely that they were thought to qualify for leadership and implicitly, teaching.”83 Thus, lower social status was an important factor that restricted men from acceding to offices and teaching. But what kind of text (genre) do we have here and what is its intention? At first glance Titus 2:2–10 seems to be a household code84 describing relationships among five groups: two pairs of reciprocally related age classes (senior men and senior women; young women and young men) and slaves (not gendered). But upon further investigation this text is no household code in the strict sense (cf. Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:21–6:9; 1 Peter 2:18–3:7), because it does not provide a series 80  Or: “to be σώφρων in all things” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 412, connecting περὶ πάντα with the preceding, not with the following). 81  Cf. Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 334. In fact, this is the only instruction Titus is commanded to give to younger men. 82  Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 338. 83  Zamfir, Men and Women, 280. 84  Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 231–36.

Written to Be with Paul

271

of instructions to groups in the household85 (i. e., oikos), but instead to groups within the church. The framework of the instruction is not reciprocity, mutuality, or completion: married men and women are not addressed reciprocally,86 and no reciprocity within marriage or family is intended. The parent/child-category is absent. Contrary to the slaves, their masters are not directly addressed. “The senior members, male and female, each have a code of conduct to aspire to, independent of the other. Similarly with the junior members.”87 The “code” is concerned “with their behavior in the home and society at large.”88 The groups are not so much distinguished by the virtues/the codes of conduct. The “center of gravity in this practical instruction” is the emphasis on respectability in behavior that is outward and public.89 But that could have been said in one sentence. So what is the main intention of this strange text? By means of an instruction categorized by age, sex (gender), and status, the church is addressed as a segmented community. The segments are based on gender, age, and social status. Gender is so important that a subordinate teaching role is allotted to older women for the socially conventional instruction of younger women in Titus 2:3–5. So the main focus of the text is the gender, age, and status-based segregation of the church, not different modes of conduct. The whole instruction is grounded in Titus 2:11–14: Christ laid down his life for us, setting us free from every wrong to cleanse for himself a people of his very own, enthusiastic for good works.90 The Christ-event is employed to justify, motivate, and substantiate the presented structure of the “people” that are cleansed by Christ’s sacrificial death. Thus, the author grounds the segmentation of the community according to age, sex, and status in the Christ-event. At the same time he grounds “a lifestyle described in popular ethical language (σώφρων, σεμνός) in the Christ-event.”91 3.2 “Neither Male and Female”: Galatians 3:27–29 But why is Titus ordered to address the local church in this way: segregated according to age, gender, and class? Again the implied reader of the letter is supposed to read it with Galatians in mind. Or better: Titus should serve as a kind of lens for Galatians.  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 717.  Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 408, following Gordon D. Fee. 87  Richards, Difference and Distance, 85. 88 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 230. 89  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 714. 90  Titus 2:14: ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον, ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων. 91  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 236. By using those understandable terms, the author attempts to communicate his main concerns. 85 86

272

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

Crucial for Paul’s remarks on gender in Galatians is its inseparable interrelation with the preference for celibacy over marriage and with the anthropological dualism of spirit and flesh.92 According to Gal 3:27–29, all who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. It was by being baptized “into Christ” that they had been incorporated “in Christ.”93 The effect of baptism is to be “one in Christ” and to be “Christ’s” (Gal 3:29).94 But there is even more: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In Gal 3:27–29 Paul seems to have pronounced the nonexistence of three elemental opposites and thereby the end of the cosmos.95 In Gal 3:28 (οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ) Paul obviously alludes to Gen 1:27 LXX (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς). For the believers who were baptized “into Christ” and are now “in Christ” the most profound distinctions and differentiations within ancient society, even within God’s creation, no longer have significance. It is important to note that this baptismal breaking down of the key oppositions of ancient society is at the same time the presupposition for the Pauline ethics in Gal 5:13–6:10, since those who are ἐν Χριστῷ Ἴησοῦ (Gal 3:26), who are baptized into Christ (Gal 3:27), who are one in Christ (Gal 3:28), who are “Christ’s” (Gal 3:29: Χριστοῦ), who are οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Gal 5:24), and even οἱ πνευματικοί (Gal 6:1) are addressed here. But even the baptized are still in their unredeemed, mortal bodies. And this means that – on the level of the corporeal – they are still “male and female,” because the bodies of all human beings are gender-differentiated. As Daniel Boyarin has pointed out, “gender difference exists only at one ontological level, the outer or physical, the corporeal, but at the level of true existence, the spiritual, there is no gender.”96 That means, “any possibility of an eradication of male and female and the corresponding social hierarchy is possible only on the level of the spirit, either in ecstasy at baptism or perhaps permanently for the celibate.”97 That is why procreation has no significance for Paul,98 and from Paul on through  This is probably the most convincing insight of Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 158–200.  Cf. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 203. On “the participatory soteriology of being ‘in Christ,’” cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 151. Cf. 152: “The phrase ‘in Christ’ (and cognates) is a favorite with Paul to signal the personal, local, and dynamic relation of the believer to Christ.” 94  Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster, 1982), 190: “not only in the sense that they belong to Christ or follow Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 10:7) but even more in the sense that they participate in him by the Spirit.” 95  Martyn, Galatians, 376. 96 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 196. 97  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 193. According to Boyarin, celibacy corresponds to “the spirit” and marriage to “the flesh,” that is why marriage is a lower state than celibacy. 98 In fact, it is God’s Law that commands humans to procreate (Gen 1:28: Αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε καὶ πληρώσατε τὴν γῆν), but sin has used the commandment to procreate in order to arouse sinful desire (Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 164). 92 93

Written to Be with Paul

273

late antiquity, “the call to celibacy is a call to freedom.”99 The believer is released from procreation and sexuality, and it is no coincidence that Paul lists ἐγκράτεια as the ninth and last of the fruits of the Spirit in 5:23 (see below). 3.3 Reading Galatians with Titus (a) Just as marriage is a state of inequality for Paul, so also is this the case for the author of Titus. Women are to be subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God might not be blasphemed (Titus 2:5). Paul himself declared that the head of the woman is man (1 Cor 11:3) and while man is the image and glory of God, woman is the glory of man (1 Cor 11:7). So in marriage there is neither equal status nor egality.100 But in opposition to Paul, celibacy for the letter to Titus is not an option to avoid (or escape), especially not for women! (b) The gendered “household code” in Titus 2:2–10 makes it clear that although “in Christ” there is “no male and female” this does not mean that the “household of God” (cf. Titus 1:7) is not structured according to sex, age, and status. Likewise even though “in Christ” there is “neither slave nor free,” that does not imply the abolishment of slavery altogether (Titus 2:9–10). The letter to Titus, therefore, attempts to demonstrate that those who are ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (Gal 3:26) are still gendered subjects. That is why he addresses men and women and slaves separately. So it is probable that Gal 3:27–29, in connection with Gal 5:13–6:10, provided the trigger for the gendered household code in Titus 2. It is probably no coincidence that the “in Christ” phraseology is missing in Titus.101 At the same time it completely abandons the cosmological and anthropological dualism of flesh vs. spirit. This is even more remarkable regarding the fact that only in the letter to Titus is baptism a central topic and is explicitly connected with the Spirit (Titus 3:3–7). But before bringing the charge against Titus that all this is completely against the intentions of the apostle, we have to take into account the complexity of the genuine Pauline statements. Regarding Gal 3:28, James Dunn rightly emphasizes that Paul’s claim is that the most profound distinctions within human society (racial/cultural, social/economic, sexual/gender) “have been relativized, not removed.”102 The letter to Titus – so to speak – emphasizes the Paul of 1 Cor 11:2–16 over against the Paul of Gal 3:27–29.

 99  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 200, referring to 1 Cor 7:32–34. Cf. 160: “for Paul encratism was the ideal, procreation of no value whatsoever, and marriage indeed merely a defense against desire for the weak.” 100  Cf. Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 200: “Paul held that wives are/were slaves and that their liberation would have meant an end to marriage.” 101  Cf. 1 Tim 1:14; 3:13; 2 Tim 1:1, 9; 2:1, 10; 3:12, 15. 102  Dunn, The Theology of Paul, 593.

274

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

(c) According to Titus 2:7, Titus is instructed to serve as τύπος καλῶν ἔργων for the younger men in the church. This passage functions as an amendment to several Pauline passages in which the apostle presents himself as a model to follow and to copy.103 Once again, “Titus” functions as a kind of sidekick to Paul (as the letter addressed to him functions as a sidekick to the letter to the Galatians). Thus, the readers of the Pauline letters may imitate Paul – and even “become” like Paul, as the apostle writes in Gal 4:12 (Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς, ἀδελφοί)104 – but they have Titus as τύπος καλῶν ἔργων at his side. (d) The letter to Titus applies ἐγκρατῆ to married men (Titus 1:8) and ἁγνάς to married women (Titus 2:5). At the same time σώφρων (and cognates) is promoted for an overall ethical concept.105 In the “household code” in Titus 2:2– 10, σώφρων and cognates appear four times as Paul asks older men, younger women, and younger men to be “self-controlled.” The cognate verb σωφρονίζειν also occurs in the discussion of older women. Jennifer Glancy has emphasized that the Pastoral Epistles valorize self-control as a pivotal virtue for Christian life, an evaluation consistent with the privileged place accorded to self-control in the varieties of Stoicism that flourished in the first and second centuries.106 But why this preference for σώφρων κτλ against ἐγκράτεια κτλ? The answer is found once more in the “household code” of Titus 2:2–10: here the author exposes the virtue of “self-control” in its genderdifferentiated forms.107 “Sōphrosynē for men means sexual self-control, but also has other meanings of mental health and moderate living. However, … sōphrosynē for a woman is a sexualized virtue, referring to her ability to maintain self-control of her bodily desires by practicing faithfulness within marriage.”108 In Titus 2:5 it is completed by “pure,” which here means sexual purity in the case of the married woman, the wife! That is why the author of Titus connects being σώφρονας with the demand that younger women be φιλάνδρους and φιλοτέκνους on the one hand, and ἁγνάς on the other. And he expands the 103  Cf. 1 Cor 4:16: μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε; 1 Cor 7:7–8: ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν  / ὡς κἀγώ;1 Cor 11:1: μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ; Phil 3:17: Συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτως περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς. 104  According to Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 155, the center of Paul’s ministry is in the pathos of this verse: “the Apostle has given up his specific Jewish identity in order to merge his essence into the essence of the gentile Christians and create a new spiritual people of God.” 105  Paul never uses σωφροσύνη (1 Tim 2:9; 2:15), σωφρονίζειν (Titus 2:4), σωφρονισμός (2 Tim 1:7), σωφρόνως (Titus 2:12), or σώφρων (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 5), but he uses σωφρονεῖν (Titus 2:6) twice: Rom 12:3 (ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν) and 2 Cor 5:13 (εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ· εἴτε σωφρονοῦμεν, ὑμῖν). 106  Jennifer A. Glancy, “Protocols of Masculinity in the Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Masculinities, ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, SemeiaSt  / SBL 45 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 235–64, here 240. 107  See Bourland Huizenga, Moral Education, 329–49. 108  Borland Huizenga, Moral Education, 343.

Written to Be with Paul

275

first adjective φιλάνδρους to the demand: ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. “The author commands that women are to be φιλάνδροι and then links that behavior to being sōphrōn.”109

4. The Baptized as Good Citizens 4.1 Baptism and Good Works (Titus 3:1–8) Titus himself is told to be τύπον καλῶν ἔργων (Titus 2:7). In Titus 2:14, then, the author links the Christ-event to the “good works”: the self-sacrifice of Christ was designed to create a people zealous for good works (ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων). The following section, Titus 3:1–8, is framed by references to the “good works” of the faithful.110 And finally, in Titus 3:14 the author states: “let our people also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses” (καλῶν ἔργων). And the reader remembers that the opponents are πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι (Titus 1:16). “Titus is urged to explain to the congregation just what is meant by ‘good works’ (see Titus 3:8).”111 So what exactly are the good works? Titus 3:1–8 is crucial for our reading of the letter because of the juxtaposition between baptism and the Holy Spirit on the one hand and the requirement of “good works” on the other. The whole passage functions “to explain how the readers are capable of doing good works in that they have been saved by God,”112 but at the same time the phrase “good works” is coined in a social and ethical sense. Titus 3:1–8 1 a Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities (ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι), b to be obedient (πειθαρχεῖν), c to be ready for every good work (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι), 2 a to slander no one (μηδένα βλασφημεῖν), b to be peaceable (ἀμάχους εἶναι), c to be gentle (ἐπιεικεῖς), d and to show perfect courtesy toward all people (πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους). 3 a For we ourselves were once foolish (ἦμεν γάρ ποτε καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνόητοι), b disobedient (ἀπειθεῖς), c led astray (πλανώμενοι), d enslaved by various passions and pleasures (δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις),  Borland Huizenga, Moral Education, 355. 3:1: “they have to be ready to every good work (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι)” / Titus 3:8: “And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works (ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ).” 111  Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 356. 112  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 305. 109

110 Titus

276

4

e f g a

5

a b c

6

a

7

a b

8

a b c d

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann passing our days in malice and envy (ἐν κακίᾳ καὶ φθόνῳ διάγοντες), hated by others (στυγητοί) and hating one another (μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους). But when the goodness and love of God our Savior appeared (ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ), [he saved us] not because of works done by us in righteousness (οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς), but according to his own mercy (ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος) he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου) whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior (οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν), so that being justified by his grace (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life (κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατ’ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου). The saying is trustworthy (Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος), and I want you to insist on these things (καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι), so that those who came to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works (ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ). These things are excellent and profitable for everyone (ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις).

The meaning of the phrase “good works” is illustrated by a list of seven virtues or seven commands.113 Titus 3:1–2 starts (!) with a double command of subjection to civil rulers and authorities (ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι) and of obedience (πειθαρχεῖν), that is, respect for legitimate authority (cf. Rom 13:1–‍7 ). “Obedience to civil authorities serves to enhance the community in the eyes of those outside, protects them against oppression and creates the circumstances that enable them to enjoy a certain quality of life.”114 This is followed by the command to be ready for every115 good work (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι). The author adds additional virtues that are necessary for a good social life: they are to speak evil of no one (μηδένα βλασφημεῖν), to be peaceful (ἀμάχους), balanced (ἐπιεικεῖς) and showing complete gentleness toward every human being (πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους). So the good works for which Titus has to serve as an example (typos) are all about life in society, Christian social and civic responsibility. There are striking parallels to Hellenistic descriptions of life in society.116 In Titus 3:3 the author contrasts the way his addressees are now expected to live in society with the way they once lived. He does this by means of a catalogue of seven vices. In this quite general list the middle element stands out: we once were enslaved to passions and various pleasures (δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ  Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 443.  Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 357. 115  On the distributive πᾶν in 3:2, see Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 357. 116  See Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 358, among others. 113 114

Written to Be with Paul

277

ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις). The former life of the baptized was one of ignorance and active opposition to God and people.117 In Titus 3:4–8 the author unfolds the doctrinal backing for the ethical instructions:118 the “linkage between Christ-event and life-style.”119 God himself saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit – not from works of righteousness that we ourselves have done, but according to his mercy. The “good works” are thus rooted in baptism as the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.120 4.2 The Good Works of the Spirituals: Ethics in Galatians (Gal 6:1, 9–10) Let us turn once more to Galatians. We have already noted that Gal 3:28 is a kind of epitome to the parenetical passage in Gal 5:13–6:10. And Martyn rightly links Gal 3:28 to 6:10 and to 6:15: the household of faith is the new unity and the new creation.121 In Gal 6:9–10 Paul rounds off his parenesis: Gal 6:9–10  9 a Do what is good (τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες) b without growing weary of it; c for at the appropriate time we will reap the harvest, d if we do not give up. 10 a Every time we have an opportunity, b then, let us work for the good of all (ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας),122 c and especially for the good of those who make up the household of faith (μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως, cf. Eph 2:19).

Bruce already realized the connection between Gal 6:9 and Titus 1:3 (and 1 Tim 2:6; 6:1).123 It is probable that the author of Titus took the phrases τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες and ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθόν from Gal 6:9–10 and modified them.124

 So Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 777.  See Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 325. 119  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 229. 120  Apart from 2 Tim 1:14 this is the only reference to the Holy Spirit in the Pastorals. 121 Martyn, Galatians, 554. 122  Cf. Rom 2:10: παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ τὸ ἀγαθόν, and Eph 4:28. 123  Cf. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 265. 124 Cf. Titus 2:7: τύπον καλῶν ἔργων; Titus 2:14: ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων; Titus 3:1: πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι: Titus 3:8: καλῶν ἔργων; Titus 3:14: καλῶν ἔργων (cf. Titus 1:16: καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι); cf. 1 Tim 2:10; 3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17. καλός and ἀγαθός are largely synonymous in the letter to Titus, but the author favors καλός by far (on the preponderance of καλός over ἀγαθός like in Matt, Mark, John, Heb, see Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 227), perhaps because “with its wider range” this term “includes outward beauty or nobility” and may thus “accent the observable ‘good’ that makes something like a way of living ‘attractive’” (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 211). Similarly Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 228, following Spicq: “ἀγαθός is more expressive simply of inherent goodness and ap117 118

278

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

Concern for the effect of actions on outsiders is found already in Paul.125 And especially in Galatians the ethical impulse goes beyond the limits of the ekklesia; Paul commands his readers to do what even non-Christians would recognize as “the good.”126 But the addressees of this ethical admonition in Galatians are “the children of God” through belief in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26); they are those who are “baptized into Christ and have put on Christ as their clothing” (Gal 3:27); they belong to Christ Jesus and are all one (Gal 3:28); they are Abraham’s seed and will receive what God has promised (Gal 3:29). They are called to be free (Gal 5:13), they are led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18) and are supposed to live by the Spirit and to sow to the Spirit (Gal 6:8). They belong to Jesus Christ and have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). They are even addressed as πνευματικοί (Gal 6:1): “It is evident that the conduct described in the following verses is not ordinary ethical conduct but behavior which characterizes those led by the Spirit: the uncircumcised who believe.”127 What is more, in the letter to the Galatians the “good works” are subjected to Paul’s “ethical dualism”128 of the flesh vs. the spirit and they are beforehand defined as “fruit of the Spirit” (in opposition to the works of the flesh). According to Gal 5:16–17 the believers will not carry out the desires of the flesh (ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε), for the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit (ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος). Paul then sets out two catalogue lists of vices and virtues in support of his thesis statements regarding the antinomy of the flesh and the Spirit.129 The first list, the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19: τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός) consists of 15 items. What is important here is the fact that this list begins (!) with three “sins of sensuality”:130 πορνεία (illegitimate sexuality), ἀκαθαρσία (sexual impurity131), ἀσέλγεια (debauchery132), and it ends in Gal 5:21 with two vices that have to do with drunkenness and its orgiastic consequences: μέθαι (drunkenness133) and propriateness and implies a strongly positive feeling of satisfaction, whereas καλός often has the additional element of outward attractiveness and beauty.” 125  Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 229 points to Rom 12:17; 13:1–7; 1 Thess 4:12 and  – for the importance of good works – 2 Cor 9:8. 126  Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 332. 127  Frank J. Matera, “The culmination of Paul’s argument to the Galatians: Gal. 5.1–6.17,” JSNT 10 (1988): 79–91, here 86. 128  Longenecker, Galatians, 245. 129  Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 266. 130  Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 253, referring to Lightfoot and Burton. 131 Rom 1:24; 6:19; 2 Cor 12:21: ἐπὶ τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ ἀσελγείᾳ; Eph 4:19: οἵτινες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ; 5:3: Πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:7. 132 Rom 13:13: μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις; 2 Cor 12:21; Eph 4:19; Wis 14:26: μοιχεία καὶ ἀσέλγεια, cf. Josephus, J. W. 2.121 (Essenes!). 133  Luke 21:34; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10; Eph 5:18; 1 Thess 5:7.

Written to Be with Paul

279

κῶμοι (orgies134). Even though the list of vices does not focus solely on “carnal” (i. e., sexual sins), but also on other matters, the main emphasis is doubtless on sexuality. The “flesh with its passions and desires” which those have crucified who belong to Christ Jesus is – of course – not synonymous with “sexuality,” but the emphasis is obvious. In Gal 5:24 Paul deliberately recalls Gal 3:29135 (εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ) and states: Those who belong to Christ (οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; cf. Gal 3:29; 5:5) have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις). Longenecker rightly observed the connection between Gal 5:24 and Gal 3:29 (and Gal 3:26, 28).136 So it is those who are neither male nor female who have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. According to Daniel Boyarin the death and resurrection of Christ is opposed to the fleshy or sexual nature of humans.137 The desires of the flesh are sexual desire, but the works of the flesh are the social outcome of such desire.138 And thus it is no coincidence that the “final and ultimate fruit of the spirit listed in Galatians 5:23 is ἐγκράτεια,” and this term is used here with “its full technical meaning of self-control and withdrawal from sexuality.”139 4.3 Reading Galatians with Titus The author of the letter to Titus expands Gal 6:10 and stresses the relations of believers to outsiders. At the same time the Pauline phrase ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν (Gal 6:10a) is devalued. Doing good to all people, including outsiders (i. e., non-believers) is not an incidental or optional category140 for the letter to Titus. Believers form a separate group in society and are exhorted to take a positive attitude towards it by doing good works. According to Titus 3:1–8, baptism provides the basis and the doctrinal motivation for such conduct. Because of baptism the addressees are able to live differently than before. Baptism has a changing effect not (only) by ending old divisions and inequalities within the community of believers and by establishing new relationships between them. As in Paul it is the Spirit who enables the believers to such practice. But the letter to Titus is more cautious to declare the Spirit as an active, leading force  Rom 13:13: μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις; cf. 1 Peter 4:3.  Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 314. 136  Longenecker, Galatians, 264. 137 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 172. 138  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 174; cf. 175: “Those, however, who are unmoved by eros are capable of creating a society of agape.” 139  Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 176; cf. 1 Cor 7:9 (εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύονται, γαμησάτωσαν) and 9:25 (πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἀγωνιζόμενος πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται). 140  Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 283. 134 135

280

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

(cf. Gal 5:18: εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε141 and also Gal 5:25). Instead, baptism and receiving the Spirit provides the doctrinal background for the conduct of the believers in society.142 God has saved the Christians who were once enslaved by sin and desires, and he has transformed them and empowered them to fulfill the role of good citizens, obedient to the authorities and ready to do every good work. In the letter to Titus being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit does not mean that there is neither male nor female. Baptism does not bring about genderblurring or gender-breakdown, and receiving the Holy Spirit does not lead to celibacy. Instead, baptism makes good citizens! And correspondingly, the καλὰ ἔργα according to Titus are not so much the fruit of the Spirit, but “correct behavior” and “correct ethical conduct”143 (i. e., Christian behavior in society as described in Titus 3:1).144

5. Conclusions: Titus and Galatians – Modification through Supplementation Titus, the Greek, was “with” Paul (Gal 2:3: ὁ σὺν ἐμοί) when the apostle went to Jerusalem to face Jewish opposition against his “gospel of the foreskin” (Gal 2:7: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας), against the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:5), and he certainly was still “with” Paul when the members of the Antiochene church were confronted with people “from the circumcision” (2:12) who caused Peter, as well as Barnabas and the other Antiochene Jews, to cease acting in line with the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14, cf. 5:7 and 4:16). Comparable to that, the letter to Titus was designed to accompany and complement Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Once again, but this time on the island of Crete, Paul and Titus are facing opponents “from the circumcision” who are abandoning the truth (Titus 1:10–16). The author of the letter to Titus deliberately modified the meaning of certain key passages in Galatians, while at the same time claiming supreme interpretative authority.145 The purpose was to exclude certain interpretations of Galatians which probably were proposed by rivals of the author. Having read the letter to Titus its readers are compelled to look afresh at Galatians as the main pre-text to which it alludes.146 By analyzing the relationship 141  Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 246: “with an emphasis on the voluntary subjugation of one’s will to the Spirit who leads.” 142  Cf. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 304–05. 143  Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus, 368. 144  Rightly so Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 792 who emphasizes the verbal link to πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι (Titus 3:1). “The topic has not changed.” 145  Cf. Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition,” 126–27. 146  Cf. Merz, “Why Did the Pure Bride of Christ,” 141.

Written to Be with Paul

281

between Galatians and Titus we detected three main issues where this “Pastoral modification process” operates, but it is important to keep in mind that most of the tendencies in Titus do indeed find points of contact in Paul (Galatians).147 1. Titus 1:5 (with Titus 1:6–9) makes it clear that any proclamation of the gospel is to be complemented by the establishment of male leadership. There is no evangelization, no founding of churches without the appointment of elders in every city to act as overseers. 2. Titus 2:1–10 shows that οἱ οἰκείοι τῆς πίστεως are still “male and female” and that the community is segregated according to gender, age, and status as well as led by an οἰκόνομος θεοῦ (Titus 1:8), who is supposed to be a married man with children. So the λαὸς περιούσιος which Jesus has purified for himself by means of giving himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness (Titus 2:14) is neither an undifferentiated whole nor an entity where there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. Instead the household of God (cf. 1 Tim 3:14) is structured and hierarchical. What is more, the letter to Titus documents a serious shift in the ideal of masculinity. The older Pauline ideal, the encratic athlete who is not married and who has crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24), who does not carry out the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:16: ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκός) and avoids the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19–21) – first and foremost sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery – who lives by the Spirit (Gal 5:16, 25) and is led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18), has been abandoned.148 Instead, Titus aims to establish and to enforce an alternative ideal of masculinity and leadership, namely the temperate and moderate, self-controlled pater familias who is married and well respected by the male elites of his polis.149 3. This shift away from a Pauline masculine ideal of the “ascetic athlete” runs parallel to a shift in ethical matters away from the focus on sexual issues (in combination with holiness and purity) towards good citizenship. Ethics in Titus aims at presenting Christians as good citizens. One might say that Gal 6:10 (ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας) is emphasized against Gal 5:16–18 and 5:22–23 by means of focusing on “all people” as addressees of the good works of the Christians (see Titus 3:2: πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, and Gal 3:8: ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις). Titus, therefore, does not develop a “new” ethics on its own; it contains no “specific ethics.” Instead, it contains modifications and amendments to Pauline 147 Cf.

Merz, “The Fictitious Self-Exposition,” 132. the counter-asceticism of the Pastoral Epistles, see Gail Corrington Streete, “Askesis and Resistance in the Pastoral Letters,” in Asceticism and the New Testament, ed. Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush (New York: Routledge, 1999), 299–316. 149 See Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, “Selbstbeherrschte Hausherren. Beobachtungen zur rhetorischen Funktion des Maskulinitätsideals in den Pastoralbriefen,” in Lukas – Paulus – Pastoralbriefe: Festschrift für Alfons Weiser zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Rudolf Hoppe and Michael Reichardt, SBS 230 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014), 271–301. 148 On

282

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann

ethics. But it does set a new goal for Christian ethics: this goal is to live self-controlled, upright, and godly (σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς) lives in this present age (Titus 2:12b). It is remarkable that the author here names three of the four cardinal virtues150 which “often occurred together in discussions about respectable living.”151 Perhaps ἀνδρεία is missing here because of its ties to asceticism.152 Anyway, the Christian life here is described in common terms of Hellenistic ethics. But to be capable of leading a life like that, the baptized do not have to study Greek moral ethics, but have to be taught by the grace of God to deny impiety and cosmic passions (Titus 2:12a). Here the “past appearance of God’s grace is seen to be presently effective in the human sphere in an educative sense.”153 The goal of this education/training by grace is a virtuous life in society. One might say that as soon as Titus left Crete for Nicopolis to meet Paul there (Titus 3:12), the time of the ascetic charismatics as founders of the church ends and the time of the well-respected elders and overseers begins, in which believers are told “to learn how to choose good works (καλῶν ἔργων) in situations of urgent need so that they are not fruitless (ἄκαρποι)” (Titus 3:14).

 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 271.  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 749. 152  See 1 Cor 16:13 (γρηγορεῖτε, στήκετε ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἀνδρίζεσθε, κραταιοῦσθε) which points back to 1 Cor 5–7 and 9:24–27. 153  Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 747. 150 151

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2) Rethinking Stereotypes and Rhetorical Gossip Towards an Intersectional Ethics of Justice Marianne Bjelland Kartzow 1. Introduction To speak evil or bad of others is unethical. It is unfair and coward, since the third person is not there to defend him- or herself. It can cause conflict and generate bad emotions. To exchange and enjoy stories about others’ mistakes, actions, characters or secrets, can bring out the worst in us. A bad reputation and evil gossip can destroy communities, groups and individuals. Nevertheless, to talk about others, evil or not, potentially creates identity and vital social ties. It strengthens connections between people and works as the social glue in a given community. Moral codes, also in the ancient world, warn against backbiting, evil talk, slander, and gossip, for a variety of good reasons, often with some ambiguity: various authors simultaneously employ the dynamics of such speech and depend on the information gained through it. The letter to Titus partakes in this discourse, for example when warning against evil speech, “Speak evil of no one!” or “blaspheme or defame no one” (μηδένα βλασφημεῖν), in a context where instructions are given on how to be subject and obedient to rulers and authorities and peaceful and gentle to all people (Titus 3:2–3). With this ambiguity as my point of departure, I will examine text passages in this individual letter in which the argument deals with speaking of others, either behind their back or to their face. In order to do so, I start with briefly discussing what we know – and not know – about Titus and the letter, then I introduce the analytical lens of intersectionality, before I define what I mean with an ethics of justice. The text examples are taken from three different discourses in the letter: First, ethnic and racial reasoning are weaved together and employed as rhetorical tools when rebellious people are characterized (Titus 1:10–14). Second, old women and slander are connected when instructions are given to female leaders of the households (Titus 2:3). Third, the requirement to slaves not to talk back employs certain social hierarchies to distribute who can talk when and how (Titus 2:9–10). Before presenting the text material in more detail, a few words about the letter. I read Titus as one voice in a communication process, fictive or not, supposedly

284

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow

written by Paul. As Lone Fatum, I call him the Pastoral Paul, presumably the same author/s who wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, a couple of generations after Paul.1 The letter imagines a context where the authoritative figure of Paul gives instructions to his co-worker. Titus, who is known from several other NT texts, is left in Crete alone (Titus 1:5). However, nowhere else, neither in the Corpus Paulinum nor in Acts, do we hear of any Pauline mission or communities there, but there was a Jewish population at the island at the time, as witnessed by Philo, Josephus, and 1 Macc.2 A chain of male leaders and co-workers are the only named characters in the letter; in addition to Paul, the presumed letter-writer, and Titus, the main addressee, four men are mentioned in the greeting list (Artemas, Tychicus, Zenas the lawyer, and Apollos, Titus 3:12–13). They shall be sent between places and at different times, and the author shows fatherly love and care for them.3 The Pastoral Paul instructs his co-worker at the island to take care of two things, in particular: to appoint leaders and to fix what is defected.4 The instructions and descriptions given are often specific and detailed, as if they reflect a concrete and challenging situation, in which Titus needs advice to navigate according to the sound teaching (e. g. Titus 1:9). The polemic against the opponents is at times harsh and strong. The rhetorical technique of othering, where those he defines as opponents are vilified and characterized with stereotypes, are similar in all the Pastoral Epistles, and familiar from other ancient texts.5 As with every other NT letter, only one side of the story is told. We cannot know for sure whatever the situation addressed in the letter was real or purely fictional. The opponents, if they ever existed, did not write a letter to defend themselves or to correct the Pastoral Paul, at least do we not know of any such letter. These letters accordingly are not windows to the past. We have to ask: What is fantasy, mere arguments, and discourse? Was there ever

1 Lone Fatum, “Christ Domesticated: The Household Theology of the Pastorals as Political Strategy,” in The Formation of the Early Church, ed. Jostein Ådna (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 175–207. 2  Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 213. 3  Titus 3:12–13: “When I send Artemas to you, or Tychicus, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there. Make every effort to send Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, and see that they lack nothing” (NRSV ). 4  Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 211. 5  Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Gossip and Gender: Othering of Speech in the Pastoral Epistles, BZNW 164 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009). Lambert D. Jacobs, “The ‘Ethics’ of Badmouthing the Other: Vilification as Persuasive Speech Acts in First Clement,” in Moral Language in the New Testament, ed. Ruben Zimmermann, Jan G. Van der Watt, and Susanne Luther (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 365–80. For a discussion on “othering,” see also Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, ‘Never Wholly Other’: A Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2)

285

a Titus at Crete? Are these letters, as they employ stereotypes and vilify others, in themselves unethical, as Jeremy Punt asks in the case of other Pauline letters?6 The Letter to Titus constructs its own world and symbolic universe. I read it accordingly, as a text aiming at making sense for some imagined readers. To understand the letter’s argumentation, knowledge of the potential social and cultural environment of the first and second centuries is necessary. The letter also has to be taken seriously since it, alongside other canonical texts, creates and has created realities, for example when read as authoritative in support of certain power systems and hierarchies.

2. On Speaking Evil from a Masculine Perspective There are indeed some paradoxes hidden in the letter to Titus and the apparently conventional recommendation “Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2).7 On the surface, this ideal standard has lasting ethical value, dealing with a specific principle governing a person’s attitude and behavior.8 In order to fix what is defected in Crete and establish a community with leaders who appear acceptable by the surroundings, this advice seems crucial. It follows along the standards for proper masculine behaviors in the ancient world, what Jennifer Glancy calls “protocols of masculinity.”9 A proper man who wants to behave ethically shall speak evil of no one.10 The problem, however, is that the Pastoral Paul does not follow his own standards in his letter to Titus. In order to construct this masculine ideal, he rather speaks or writes evil about a whole set of people. Annette Bourland Huizenga, in the introduction to a recent volume of the Wisdom Commentary series, argues that the Pastoral Epistles as such, “contain arguably the most sexist, exclusivist, and socially oppres 6 Jeremy Punt, “‘Unethical’ Language in the Pauline Letters? Stereotyping, Vilification and Identity Matters,” in Moral Language in the New Testament, ed. Ruben Zimmermann, Jan G. Van der Watt, and Susanne Luther (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 212–31.  7  Greek text: Ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, πειθαρχεῖν, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι, μηδένα βλασφημεῖν, ἀμάχους εἶναι, ἐπιεικεῖς, πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. According to LSJ, βλασφημέω means to vilify; specially, to speak impiously: (speak) blaspheme, defame, rail on, revile, speak evil, see this term in Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with revised supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).  8 One possible definition of ethics: “moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity.” More definitions of ethics at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/ethics.  9  Jennifer A. Glancy, “Protocols of Masculinity in the Pastoral Epistles,” in New Testament Masculinities, ed. Stephen D. Moore and Janice Capel Anderson, SemeiaSt  / SBL 45 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 235–64. 10  See Chapter 6 in Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Destabilizing the Margins: An Intersectional Approach to Early Christian Memory (Wipf & Stock, 2012), 102–09.

286

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow

sive teachings in the New Testament.”11 The canonical and authoritative status of these texts preserves their latent power to invoke malevolence again and again.12 In the reception history and in our contemporary world, living people, groups, and societies have been insulted and harmed by these writings. The letter itself speaks evil of many people. For a better understanding of how these guidelines and regulations regarding proper speech operated in the ancient world, I suggest we draw on intersectional theories and knowledge of the social dynamics of the ancient world. In intersectional reasoning, gender is not the only lens needed in order to understand and address hierarchies and power dynamics. The idea is that identification categories, such as gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, age, ability etc. mutually construct each other but also destabilize each other.13 The concept of intersectionality is an interdisciplinary one, and has made its way also to theology and biblical studies.14 For example: With intersectional reasoning, a male slave in the biblical world was not a proper man, while the difference between a freeborn woman and a foreign female slave was huge, although they both were women.15 If also age and ability are taken into account, it becomes clear that for a female paralyzed child, gender and body intersected in different ways than for a healthy adult woman.16 Accordingly, in order to understand the social environment of these ancient texts, a closer look at intersections and overlaps of categories and systems is necessary.17 For an ideal man, probably what both the experienced Pastoral Paul and his co-worker Titus aimed at being, it was not only important 11  Annette Bourland Huizenga, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Wisdom Commentary 53 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2016), lii. 12  James W. Watts, “Drawing Lines: A Suggestion for Addressing the Moral Problem of Reproducing Immoral Biblical Texts in Commentaries and Bibles,” in Writing a Commentary on Leviticus Hermeneutics – Methodology – Themes, ed. Christian A. Eberhart and Thomas Hieke (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 235–61, here 239. 13 Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: Iss. 1, Art. 8; Lena Gunnarsson, “Why We Keep Separating the ‘Inseparable’: Dialecticizing Intersectionality,” European Journal of Women’s Studies 24, no. 2 (2017): 114–27. 14  Grace Ji-Sun Kim and Susan Shaw, Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018). 15  Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Bernadette J. Brooten, “Early Christian Enslaved Families (1st–4th C.),” in Children and Family in Late Antiquity: Life, Death and Interaction, ed. Christian Laes, Katariina Mustakallio, and Ville Vuolanto, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 111–34. 16 See the introduction in Anna Rebecca Solevåg, Negotiating the Disabled Body: Representations of Disability in Early Christian Texts (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018). 17 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Introduction: Exploring the Intersections of Race, Gender, Status, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies,” in Prejudice and Christian Beginnings: Investigating Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies, ed. Laura Nasrallah and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 1–23. Marianne Bjelland Kartzow,

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2)

287

to be different from women, but also to mark distance to those with deviant ethnic characteristics or social belongings. Hierarchy and difference were vital to male identity construction but also to ethical reasoning.18 Intersectionality offers a nuanced and detailed heuristic tool, helping us to grasp better the complex social web in which the Pastoral Paul operates when advising Titus and the other potential addresses “to speak evil of no one.”

3. An Intersectional Ethics of Interpretation In an article-series they called “Biblical Scholarship ‘After’ Theory,” Yvonne Sherwood and Stephen Moore pointed out that feminist, ideological and postcolonial perspectives in particular restored the dimension of ethical critique to the discipline of biblical studies.19 In her famous SBL Presidential Address back in 1989, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza called for a nuanced ethics of interpretation.20 She is concerned with ethics on many levels: First, she points out that the fundamental idea in all exegesis is to respect the right of the text and assume it may say something different than what we want it to say or expect it to say.21 The biblical text comes from another context, and has to be read accordingly. To respect the difference and uniqueness of these texts are important ethical commitments of interpreters. The task is not to fix or adjust a text, to make it fit it into our time or our ideas about what the bible should have said. For Fiorenza, however, this is not the only task of biblical scholarship: She suggests an ethics of critical reading. It should be included in the reading process also to take seriously that there might have been alternative voices not recorded in the text. These texts are rhetorical constructs. They have silenced alternatives and constructed opponents, not necessarily representing the whole picture. Further, as an additional ethical challenge: These texts have legitimized injustice and inequality. She advocates an ethical awareness related to how these authoritative texts have created and upheld structures of dominance and distribution of privilege. Based on this, I search for an intersectional ethics of justice when reading the Letter to Titus. I take into account that the text as such has to be respected as coming from a different historical, social and theological context, not necessarily “Intersectional Studies,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies, ed. Julia M. O’Brien (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 383–89. 18  See Glancy, “Protocols of Masculinity in the Pastoral Epistles.” 19 Stephen D. Moore and Yvonne Sherwood, “Biblical Studies ‘after’ Theory: Onwards Towards the Past, Part One: After ‘after Theory’, and Other Apocalyptic Conceits,” BibInt 18 (2010), 1–27. 20  See her reflections in retrospect in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 1. 21  Ibid., 18.

288

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow

saying what we want it to say. Further, I will theorize alternative voices than those heard in the letter. Lastly, I am aware of how these texts can harm readers, in history and today. In all these three dimensions of ethical critique, I will employ intersectionality, in order to explore how structures of gender, class, race, ethnicity, and age overlap and mutually construct each other in discourses of evil and bad speak, gossip and slander.

4. Stereotypes of Speech: Cretan Lies, Jewish Myths, Female Slander, and Slavish Back Talking 4.1 Ethnic Reasoning and Racial Stereotypes (Titus 1:10–14) After the salutation and the requirements for appointing elders and bishops, a description of the false teachers is reported. There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; 11they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach. 12It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, 14not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth (Titus 1:10–14, NRSV ).22 10

This paragraph starts by introducing the group that are creating trouble at Crete, the many rebellious, those who are unsubdued, insubordinated, disobedient, and unruly, as alternative translations of the Greek term ἀνυπότακτος.23 These people are accused of a whole set of vices, many of them related to how they speak; they are idle talkers and tell myths (Titus 1:10, 13). More striking is how ethnic and racial terminology are mixed up with other vices in the list. “Those of the circumcision” and “Jewish myths” are mentioned. A variety of stereotypes of speech, storytelling, and myth-making are linked to ethnic categories. A connection is constructed between the categories circumcised/Jews and feminine ways of talking: they tell myths and are babblers. These are not ideal ways of speaking and talking for a proper man!24

22 Greek text: Εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ [καὶ] ἀνυπότακτοι, ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται, μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν, οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν. εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί. ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής. δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως, ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει, μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 23 See the different meanings of the Greek term in Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. 24  See e. g. Plutarch, De curiositate/On Being a Busybody. See also chapter 5 in Kartzow, Gossip and Gender, 164.

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2)

289

In addition, according to the Pastoral Paul, “Cretans are always liars … (vicious brutes, lazy gluttons)” (Titus 1:12).25 This is reported as a truth, coming from their very own prophet, about the people among whom Titus is to spread the word of salvation and fix the uproar.26 The letter is gossiping the Cretans by means of an ethnic imperial stereotype: They are liars. As pointed out by several interpreters, an ethnic insult is here repeated, probably a familiar racial slur at the time, an example of traditional name-calling, that has been categorized as an ancient form of racism.27 The letter plays on widespread slander, serving to uphold the natives’ bad reputation. They are corrupt and detestable, unfit for any good works (Titus 1:15–16). Such colonial reasoning, here aiming at blaming the racial other, the Jews or the Cretans respectively, is also known from other ancient sources.28 Fatum calls this rhetoric “naming and blaming.”29 The advice to talk evil of no one (Titus 3:2) does not seem to apply to the Pastoral Paul himself. He speaks evil about others by help of ethnic reasoning, while he simultaneously accuses them of being babblers, myth-makers and liars. Both the ideal man and the many rebels struggle to control their mouths, it seems. In order to construct and strengthen a community of Christ-believers at Crete, it seems a bit contra productive to reproduce these ethnic stereotypes. As argued earlier, the Jewish population at the island was probably significant at the time. In order to convince the locals, it was probably not strategic to come up with a double insult, in which Jews and Cretans equally represent the rebellious opponents. If Titus ever existed and served his mission at Crete, it would perhaps be recommendable not to circulate or read this letter aloud. There are of course ethical challenges of interpretation when such ethnic stereotypes are employed. Paul, the presumed author and a Jew himself, is badmouthing and slandering, and repeats racialized ideas in his communication with his co-worker Titus. Obviously, all Cretans and Jews did not agree to these 25 Verse 12, Greek text: εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης· Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί. 26  This expression is a bit confusing; it is not a famous line from a Jewish prophet he repeats, but the line can be identified from the Cretan poet Epimenides, see Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 227. See also John W. Marshall, “‘I Left You in Crete’: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus,” JBL 4 (2008): 801–2. 27  Jouette M. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 190. See also Huizenga, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, 139. 28  Denise Kimber Buell, “Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Definition,” HTR 94, no. 4 (2001): 449–76. See also Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity, GTR (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); Cynthia M. Baker, “‘From Every Nation under Heaven’: Jewish Ethnicities in the Greco-Roman World,” in Prejudice and Christian Beginnings: Investigating Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Early Christian Studies, ed. Laura Nasrallah and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 79–99; Shawn Kelley, Racializing Jesus. Race, Ideology and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship (London: Routledge, 2002). 29  Fatum, “Christ Domesticated,” 185.

290

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow

stereotypes. They could be hurt and harmed. Ethnic prejudices or mistreatment could be initiated as a result of the evil gossip reported in the letter. The history of interpretation has shown how dangerous such stereotypes can be, in particular how such text as Titus 1 has contributed to generate antiSemitism throughout history.30 The way in which these verses are mixing antiJewish polemic and vilification of the locals, is highly problematic. Racism is unethical. To follow in the rhetorical footsteps of the Pastoral Paul here is dangerous. This way for a male leader to transmit proper values to a co-worker is disturbing. Aiming at an intersectional ethics of justice, interpreters must read these words with critical awareness, not giving authority to the attitudes reflected in this letter. 4.2 Instructing Old Women Not to Slander: Gossip and Gender (Titus 2:3–5) In addition to be a sign of rebellious people and ethnic others, bad talk is also gendered. Ten years ago, I published a volume on gossip and gender in the Pastoral Epistles. In that book, I studied how the discourse of gossip in these letters builds on contemporary ideas on how gossiping was connected to women. I found that gossip was a typical female vice, also employed as a shaming device among men. I read ancient sources such as Plutarch, Apuleius, Philo and Mishnah, and found texts that confirmed the ridicule of women as gossipers. In the Pastorals, I read the paraneses to the widows in 1 Tim 5, where the ideal widow are required not to be a gossip, alongside other similar texts. I also found that the polemical term for false teaching, old wives tales (1 Tim 4:7), played on similar stereotypes. Also in Titus, the stereotypical topos of connection of women and babbling, storytelling, gossip and slander is evident: In Tit 2, a vice list is given for older women, on how they shall care for and instruct younger women: they are told not to be slanderers (μὴ διαβόλους) but to be good domestic examples for the younger women (Titus 2:3).31 They shall not be slaves of wine and be reverent in behavior. Through their proper life they shall teach others to do well, that means to direct the young women to manage their households, love their husbands and children, “that they be discreet, chaste, homemakers, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:3–5). The group of old and young women and their proper behavior are linked to the sound doctrine; the Pastoral Paul aims at making this domesticated female community serve as a loyal alliance against social and

30  Wolfgang Stegemann, “Anti-Semitic and Racial Prejudices in Titus 1:10–16,” in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 271–94. 31  Greek text: πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς, μὴ διαβόλους μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας, καλοδιδασκάλους.

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2)

291

moral chaos. By doing so, he also instructs or confirms intersectional hierarchy among women. Also in another place in the Pastoral Epistles are female characters connected to slander with the same terminology: In the middle of a list in 1 Tim in which deacons are told to be serious and blameless, not double-tongued or indulging in much wine, the focus abruptly shifts to certain women: “Women, likewise, must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things” (1 Tim 3:11).32 The list for women related to deacons does not simply repeat the required qualifications for male deacons, although there are some parallels.33 The Pastoral Paul accordingly twice labels the speech of different categories of women negatively by using the same Greek term. The two lists share some striking similarities: both tell what these women should be like and what they should do, phrased positively; one might say that the Pastoral Paul is primarily interested in their “be’s” and “do’s.” However, they also share a “do not”: in the list for women related to deacons, only slander is negated, while the older women in Titus should in addition not be too fond of wine. Primarily these women are presented as good women, except for the problem of slander. Various categories of women are connected to terms belonging to the semantic field of gossip. Among several vices the Pastoral Paul could have pointed out, diabolos is chosen twice. He obviously shares with a set of ancient authors the idea that gossip is female speech. Apparently, even ideal women such as deaconesses, household leaders or widows are engaged in a discourse where they perform their natural tendency to gossip, unless they are told not to. To employ a gendered stereotype in a vice list works as a rhetorical device when a man with authority aims at instructing his younger co-worker. Indirectly the Pastoral Paul hints that women, old and young, widowed, deaconesses or housewives, have a gendered tendency to gossip and slander, unless instructed by the male leadership to stay away from it. The letter to Titus engages in the ancient discourse of gender and speech, and employs misogynic ideas about the female. To instruct old women to endure their slanderous habit improves the protocol of masculinity. For women living in the ancient world the connection of women and gossip could or could not make sense. Perhaps it would be insulting to be told not to slander, or perhaps they recognized one of the few channels they had to be heard. Seen with an intersectional lens, to connect women and gossip so notoriously is not serving an ethics of justice. Although this stereotype made perfectly sense in 32 Greek

text: Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν.

33 Stiefel makes a point out of how the qualities required for women “are not in any way gender-

specific” (444). She argues that v. 11 is an abbreviated mirror of 8–9, except the requirement to deacons not to be greedy (450). She identifies these women as “women deacons ministering jointly with men deacons,” in Jennifer H. Stiefel, “Women Deacons in 1 Timothy: A Linguistic and Literary Look at ‘Women Likewise...’ (1 Tim 3:11),” NTS 41 (1995): 442–‍57, here 453.

292

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow

the ancient world, to the male writer, his addresses and those who otherwise shared their worldview, it serves discriminative and misogynic ends in the history of reception. 4.3 Slaves Should Not Talk Back: Power and Hierarchy (Re-)Inscribed (Titus 2:9–10) Continuing in the household code where different groups of people are given requirements: slaves as a group are also presented as someone to be told how to behave. “Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back” (Titus 2:9).34 They are required not to dispute or refuse, not to answer again, or contradict, or deny, or speak against, various possible meanings of the Greek term ἀντιλέγω.35 The voice of the slave is framed according to the overall power structures of the household. Supposedly, both male and female slaves were targeted by this instruction. Whether gender of slaves in the households made any difference when it came to ideals of speech and talk, is hard to tell.36 The focus is on the total submissiveness, for all slaves. They can talk, but not talk back. The slave men and women could talk and make their voices be heard, as long as it did not disturb the hierarchy. Ideally, they shall use their voice to talk in accordance with their master’s masculine standards, but not contradict or deny the total power of their owners. In the ancient world, a slave who performed such virtues of not talking back was a good slave. Seen from their owner’s perspective, and from the Pastoral Paul’s perspective, such a slave acted according to proper ethical standards. In order to keep order and peace, to appoint leaders and fix what was defected, slave moral had to be restored.37 Anti-lego, do not talk back, whatever that meant in the social context, indicated that some voices should be controlled and restricted. The power hierarchy inscribed in the letter accepted that slave masters could employ stereotypes about certain people, slaves here, or old and young women or Jews or Cretans elsewhere in the letter, in order to reach the strategic goal of the Pastoral Paul. 34 Greek text: Δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἐν πᾶσιν, εὐαρέστους εἶναι, μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας. 35  Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. 36  For a further discussion of this question, see Sheila Briggs, “Slavery and Gender,” in On the Cutting Edge: The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed. Jane Schaberg, Alice Bach, and Esther Fuchs (New York: Continuum, 2004), 171–92. 37 Johnson opens up for taking these instructions to slaves as proofs of a concrete situation, arguing that they witness to “a population that is in need of the most basic moral formation,” completely taking over the worldview of the letter, as if it gave a correct historical description of the realities of the island at the time. This is problematic. I miss some historical and ethical critique here, see Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates, 235.

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2)

293

Some commentators point out that these instructions to slaves should be read in light of the opening line of the whole letter, where the Pastoral Paul entitles himself a slave of God (Παῦλος δοῦλος θεοῦ).38 Fiore in the Sacra Pagina commentary series, goes so far to argue that this conventional metaphor39 has egalitarian aspirations: “God is declared master of Paul and, by implication, of all Christians. This sets the stage for egalitarian mutuality within the social and economic stratification of the day.”40 I do not see how the opening words of Titus should compensate or reduce the power structures inscribed in Titus 2:9– 10. That Paul was a slave of God, as also mentioned in Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1, and Gal 1:10, probably did not impact the everyday life of slaves who were considered “bodies” and someone’s property, to be employed for work, pleasure, or sale for those who owned them. The instructions to slaves on being submissive and not talking back, did not apply to such metaphorical slaves as Paul, a slave of God. To instruct slaves not to talk back is confirming hierarchy. It also plays on stereotypes that second-class citizens like slaves are talkative, gossips and busybodies. For an intersectional ethics of justice, also those with a lower rank on the status ladder should have their voices heard. To instruct them not to talk back accordingly is a requirement that goes against proper ethical standards. History has shown that instructions to slaves to be obedient have had direct impact on enslaved persons, men and women, old and young.

5. Conclusion The letter to Titus constructs Christian identity from a masculine perspective by talking bad about others. He says: “Speak evil of no one,” but simultaneously employs the full potential of gossip’s ambiguity. Aiming at an intersectional ethics of justice, three dimensions of biblical interpretation have been central to this study: Respect the text and the possibility that it says something we dislike or do not want it to say; pay attention to those voices not reported in the text; be sensitive to how biblical texts, as authoritative and canonical, have shaped and created hierarchies and structures of oppression. 38  Johnson asks: “Is it entirely accidental that this image of Paul as slave who is under the commandment of God (Tit 1:3) is found in a letter that addresses itself to the submission of slaves (douloi) to their own masters (2:9–10)?” Ibid., 217. No answer is given, unfortunately. 39  For a discussion of this metaphor in a broader early Christian context, see the introduction chapter in Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, The Slave Metaphor and Gendered Enslavement in Early Christian Discourse: Double Trouble Embodied, Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World (London: Routledge 2018). 40 Benjamin Fiore, S. J., The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 195. In his discussion of Titus 2:9–10, he treats the instructions given as general moral codes, not paying attention to social hierarchy or slavery as an economic or legal institution (210).

294

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow

Racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination of women, and slavery can find support in Titus. How to deal with that? In a recent article on Leviticus, James Watts suggests that biblical texts where divine approval for immoral or illegal behavior is given, should be marked and visually highlighted in bibles or commentaries. He argues: “I propose that strikethroughs should mark biblical texts that fail even the lowest standards of moral decency, specially texts that advocate or excuse human acts of genocide (including violent anti-Semitism), indiscriminate capital punishment, slavery and patriarchy.”41 He will not leave those verses out, but signal that they promote unacceptable attitudes or behavior. To keep these verses in the text, but still strike through them also helps not forgetting what impact and harm they have caused and still may cause. To highlight other Bible verses that promote opposite non-discriminative moral values is also an important task for Watts.42 The Letter to Titus takes part in a discourse that may legitimate racism and discrimination. If we take Watts’s suggestion seriously: Are these verses in Titus candidates for strikethroughs? “Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2) represents the letter’s most valuable ethical advice, while the stereotypes and othering taking place throughout the whole letter have the potential to harm. The follow-up question of course will be where to draw the line, a question also discussed by Watts in his article, creatively called “Drawing Lines.”43 I do not know if this is the solution – perhaps most parts of the Letter to Titus should be marked – , but I support the idea of highlighting and problematizing verses that contradict an intersectional ethics of justice. As shown in this analysis, although the letter warns against speaking evil of others, it employs the dynamics of stereotypes and othering, in a variety of contexts. In a (personal) letter from a symbolical and spiritual father to his son, left alone on an island to appoint leaders and fix what was defected, polemical strategies are employed in which the male ideal is contrasted to intersectional others. In addition, it is also an ethical task to theorize about those voices not reported in the text. Most certainly, Jews would not have called their own stories myths and Cretans would oppose they were liars. Old women and young women did not necessarily merely exchange slander, but could also talk about other matters, important household issues perhaps, or they discussed theology. Perhaps slaves wanted to talk back, to correct or oppose, or maybe they had given up altogether. To construct community often means to draw boundaries between “us” and “them.” Identity construction based on othering the outsiders is nevertheless a  Watts, “Drawing Lines,” 242. 243–46. 43  Note also his subtitle: “A Suggestion for Addressing the Moral Problem of Reproducing Immoral Biblical Texts in Commentaries and Bibles.” 41

42 Ibid.,

“Speak evil of no one!” (Titus 3:2)

295

dangerous methodology. In recent interdisciplinary gossip research it is questioned whether to talk about others behind their back necessarily is so bad.44 Small talk can be deep and long-distance reports about someone not present can have a loving and caring potential.45 Some scholars instead encourage more gossip, defined not as bad or evil talk, but as evaluative talk.46 Love and care for others can be expressed through talking about them, by discussing their characters and behaviors and see it from different angles. This practice can give those who gossip time and space to find their own values or ethical limits. Armin W. Geertz explores gossip as religious storytelling and emphasizes its ethical potential.47 If we want to do ethics with Titus: We can follow the letter in speaking evil of no one, and add the recommendation to talk good of someone or talk evaluative of everyone. According to the Pastoral Paul, it was an urgent task for Titus to fix the damage at the Island of Crete. We can disagree with the methods of talking bad about and in the face of others in order to reach that goal. Instead, we can accept difference and be encouraged to fix the damage in our world today. Aiming at an intersectional ethics of justice, to avoid stereotypes and vilifying and talk well about each other may be a good place to start.

44  Aaron Ben-Ze’ev, “The Vindication of Gossip,” in Good Gossip, ed. Robert F. Goodman and Aaron Ben-Ze’ev (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1994). Patricia Meyer Spacks, Gossip (New York: Knopf, 1985). 45  Henry Adelove, Deep Gossip (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). 46  Spacks, Gossip. 47 Armin W. Geertz, “Sladder som religiøs fortelling – Kognitive og socialpsykologiske betraktninger,” in Det brede og det skarpe: Religionsvidenskabelige studier. En gave til Per Bilde på 65-årsdagen, eds. Armin W. Geertz et al. (Kopenhagen, 2004), 47–64.

List of Contributors Annette Bourland Huizenga is Dean of Seminary and professor of New Testament studies at the University of Dubuque, USA. Rick Brannan is General Editor of Lexham English Septuagint and lives in Bellingham, USA. Jens Herzer is professor of New Testament studies at the Faculty of Protestant Theology, University of Leipzig, Germany. Luke Timothy Johnson is Robert W. Woodruff Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, USA. Marianne B. Kartzow is professor of New Testament studies at the Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo, Norway. Harry O. Maier is professor of New Testament studies at the Vancouver School of Theology, Canada. Dogara Ishaya Manomi is a lecturer in biblical studies/linguistics and Bible translation at the Theological College of Northern Nigeria (TCNN) in Jos, Nigeria, and a affiliated researcher at the Evangelical Theological Faculty, Leuven, and a research associate at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Jermo van Nes is Senior Researcher in New Testament studies at the Evangelical Theological Faculty, Leuven, Belgium. Claire S. Smith is a biblical scholar, minister, writer, and Bible teacher in Sydney, Australia. Michael Theobald retired as full professor of New Testament studies at the University of Tübingen, Germany. Philip H. Towner is professor of biblical studies at Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Italy.

298

List of Contributors

Ray Van Neste is professor and Dean of Union University’s School of Theology and Missions in Jackson, Tennessee, USA. Hans-Ulrich Weidemann is professor of New Testament studies at the Catholic Theology seminar of the Philosophy Faculty, University of Siegen, Germany. Korinna Zamfir is professor of biblical studies at the Faculty of Roman Catholic Theology of the Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania. Ruben Zimmermann is professor of New Testament studies (and Ethics) at the Johannes Gutenberg-University in Mainz, Germany, and research associate of the Departement of Old and New Testament of the Faculty of Theology of the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Index of References 1. Old Testament Genesis 1:27 (LXX)

272

Exodus 19:4−6 239 19:5 137 Deuteronomy 7:6 137 32:20 LXX) 115 1 Chronicles 16:13 239 Psalms 86:11 22, 149 105:6 239 105:43 139 129:8 137 Proverbs 1:7 (LXX)

133

Isaiah 11:2 (LXX) 33:6 (LXX)

133 133

29:13 (LXX) 179 43:20−21 239 52:5 (LXX) 172, 174–175 Jeremiah 25:4 239 Ezekiel 36:25−33 137 37:23 137 38:17 239 Amos 3:7 239 Zechariah 1:6 239 LXX Sirach (Sir) 27:10

22, 149

Wisdom of Solomon 1:6 48 7:23 48 14:26 278

2. Greco-Roman Literature Aeschylus

Cicero

Prometheus vinctus (Prom.) 592 115 904 115

De Republica (Rep.) 3.9.15 25, 190

Aristotle (Arist.) Ars Rhetorica (Rhet.) 1356b 116, 139 Physica (Phys.) 813a14–15 115

Celsus Alēthēs Logos 1.4 176 6.15 176 7.58 176

300

Index of References

Herodotus

Polybius (Polyb.)

Historiae (Hist.) 6.92.2 115

Histories 6.46 6.47

Hippocrates De aere acquis locis (Aer.) 24 115 Plato (Plat. Respublica (Resp.) 376E 139

25, 190 25, 190

Themistius In Aristotelis physica paraphrasis (in Phys.) 82.22 115 Xenophon Cynegeticus (Cyn.) 6:25 115

3. Ancient Jewish Literature Josephus (Flavius) Antiquities (Ant.) 1.24 48

On the Special Laws (Spec. Laws) 4.135 134 4.147 134

Jewish War (J. W.) 2.121 278

Qumran/Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS I 9–10 184

Philo of Alexandria

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. 12 Patr.)

Cherubim (Cher.) 99 48

Testament of Naphtali (T. Naph.) 8:6 172

4. New Testament Matthew 5:16 172, 174 5:44−45 183 5:46 184 10:32−33 180 13:22−23 99 19:24 177 23:12 176 28:16–20 185 Mark 4:18–20 99 10:45 137 15:43 199 Luke 1:9 147

2:25 199 2:38 199 6:33 184 6:35 183 8:14−15 99 10:29–37 184 12:8–9 180 14:11 176 18:14 176 21:34 278 23:51 199 John 1:20 180, 186 3:16 185 7:4 186 10:24 186

Index of References 11:14 186 11:52 185 12:32 185 13:34−35 185 15:9–11 185 15:12–17 185 15:13–15 186 16:25 186 16:29 186 17:9–10 186 17:21-23 185 19:40 147 Acts 6:14 147 10:45 42, 261 11:2 42, 261 14:23 40 16:21 147 18:2 170 20:4 166 20:17 264 20:28 264 23:21 199 28:2 48 28:17 147 Romans Rom 105–112 1 22 1:1 293 1:1−7 257 1:16−17 117 1:18−19 117 1:19 117 1:19−20 117 1:20−21 117 1:25 22, 149 1:32 149 2:1 117 2:3 117 2:9−11 117 2:12−13 117 2:12−16 185 2:14 184 2:17 184 2:17−18 184 2:17−23 117 2:23−24 117 2:24 172 2:25−26 117 2:27−29 117 3:1−2 117

3:3−4 117 3:5−6 117 3:7 22, 149, 257 3:9 117 3:20 117 3:21−22 117 3:22−23 117 3:24 257 3:27−28 118 3:29−30 118 4:2−5 118 4:9−10 118 4:13 118 4:13−14 118 4:15 118 4:15−16 118 4:16 118 4:16−17 118 5:1 118 5:6−8 118 5:8−9 118 5:9−10 118 6:1−2 118 6:3−4 118 6:4−5 118 6:6−7 118 6:8−9 118 6:9 118 6:9−10 118 6:13−14 118 6:14 118 6:15−19 118 6:21 118 6:22−23 118 7:14−15 118 7:15 118 7:15−16 118 7:16 118 7:18 118 7:18−19 118 8:1−2 118 8:2−4 118 8:4−5 119 8:6−7 119 8:7 119 8:7−8 119 8:13−14 119 8:14−16 119 8:17 119 8:18−19 119 8:19 119 8:22−23 119 8:24 119

301

302 8:26 119 8:27 119 8:28−30 119 8:31 119 8:32 119 8:33 119 9:6−7 119 9:7 119 9:7−8 119 9:14−16 119 9:16−18 119 9:19 119 10:2−3 119 10:3−4 119 10:10−11 119 10:12 119 10:12−13 119 10:16 119 10:18 119 11:1 119 11:2−5 119 11:6 119 11:12 120 11:15 120 11:20 120 11:21 120 11:28−29 120 11:30−31 120 11:31−32 120 11:33−34 120 11:35−36 120 12:3−5 120 12:6−8 40 12:9−16 184 12:9−21 184 12:19 120 12:19−20 184 13:1 120 13:1−2 120 13:1−7 276 13:2 120 13:3 120 13:3−4 120 13:4 120 13:6−7 120 13:8 120 13:8−9 120 13:10 120 13:11 120 13:12−14 120 13:13 278 14:3 120 14:4 120

Index of References 14:6 120 14:6−7 120 14:7−8 120 14:8 120 14:8−9 120 14:10 120, 149 14:10−12 121 14:12 120 14:16−17 121 14:17 121 14:19 121 14:20 179, 257 14:23 121 15:1−3 121 15:3 121 15:7−9 121 15:8 22, 149 15:27 121 16:3−16 100 16:17−18 121 16:25 131 1 Corinthians 1 Cor 105–112 1:1 258 1:12−13 117 1:14−17 117 1:17 117 1:17−18 117 1:18−19 117 1:19 258 1:20−21 117 1:25−26 117 2:8 117 2:10 117 2:10−11 117 2:14 117 2:15−16 117 2:16 137 3:2−3 117 3:3 117 3:3−4 117 3:8−9 117 3:10−11 117 3:13 117 3:17 117 3:18−19 118 3:21−23 118 4:4−5 118 4:6−7 118 4:7 118 4:17 258 5:1 118

Index of References 5:9−10 118 5:11 278 5:11−13 118 6:1−2 118 6:2−3 118 6:4 118 6:10 278 6:15 118 6:16 118 6:18 118 6:18−19 118 6:19−20 118 7:3−4 118 7:7 181 7:9 118 7:12−14 118 7:14 118 7:15 118 7:15−16 118 7:18–19 118 7:20−22 118 7:23 118 7:29−31 118 8:7 118 8:9−10 118 8:11−12 118 9:1 118 9:1−2 118 9:7−9 118 9:9−10 118 9:11 119 9:12 119 9:16 119 9:16−17 119 10:4 119 10:5 119 10:11−12 119 10:17 119 10:20−21 119 10:22 119 10:25−26 119 10:28−29 119 10:29−30 119 11:1−16 170 11:2−16 273 11:3 273 11:5 119 11:7 119, 273 11:7−9 119 11:13−15 119 11:15 119 11:17−18 119 11:18−19 119

11:20−21 119 11:24−27 119 11:28−29 119 12:11−12 119 12:12−13 119 13:8−10 119 13:12 251 14:2 119 14:13−14 119 14:16−17 119 14:21−22 119 14:23−25 169 14:32−33 120 14:35 120 15:9 120 15:12 120 15:13 120 15:15 120 15:16 120 15:17−18 120 15:24−25 120 15:29 120 15:30−32 120 15:32 120 15:52−53 120 16:10−11 120, 258 16:15−18 40 16:19 258 2 Corinthians 2 Cor 105–112 1:7 117 1:18−19 117 1:19−20 117 1:20 117 2:13 260, 261 2:14−16 117 2:16−17 117 3:1−2 117 3:5−6 117 3:7−9 117 3:9−10 117 3:10−11 117 3:14 117 3:14−16 117 3:17−18 117 4:19−11 117 4:11−12 117 4:18 117 5:6−8 117 5:10 149 5:14−15 117 5:19−20 117

303

304

Index of References

6:14−16 117 6:16 118 7:9 118 7:9−10 118 7:11 118 8:1−2 118 8:2−4 118 8:6 261 8:10−12 118 8:13−15 118 8:16−17 118 8:23 261 8:24−9:2 118 9:6 118 9:7 118 9:8−10 118 9:11−14 118 10:3−4 118 10:9−10 118 10:14 118 10:17−18 118 11:3−4 118 11:5−6 118 11:10 22, 149 11:19−20 118 12:1 118 12:6 118 12:9 118 12:11 118 12:11−12 118 12:14 118 12:21 278 13:3−4 118 13:7−8 118 Galatians Gal 105–112 1:1 267 1:2 260 1:4 137 1:7 117 1:7−8 117 1:9 117 1:10 117, 293 1:11−12 117, 267 1:15−16 267 2:1 259 2:1−2 260 2:2 260 2:3 31, 259, 260–262, 280 2:4−5 260 2:5 22, 31, 149, 261, 280 2:6 117

2:6−10 260 2:7 31, 130, 280 2:7−8 117, 267 2:9 260, 262 2:11−14 259, 261–262 2:12 31, 42, 261, 280 2:13 261 2:14 22, 31, 117, 149, 261, 280 2:17−18 117 2:18−19 117 2:21 117 2:27−29 273 3:1−5 259 3:2 117 3:3 117 3:4 117 3:5 117 3:6−7 117 3:8 281 3:8−9 117 3:10 117 3:11 117 3:11−29 262 3:12 117 3:13 118 3:14 262 3:18 117, 262 3:19−20 118 3:21 118 3:21−22 118 3:25−26 118 3:26 272–273, 278–279 3:26−27 118 3:27 272, 278 3:27−29 271–273 3:28 118, 271–272, 277–279 3:28−29 30–31, 255 3:29 118, 272, 278–279 4:6−7 118, 262 4:8−9 118, 259 4:9−10 118 4:12 118, 274 4:12−20 267 4:13 267 4:16 31, 261, 280 5:1 118 5:2−4 118 5:3−4 118 5:5 279 5:5−6 118 5:7 31, 261, 280 5:11 118 5:13 278

Index of References 5:13−14 118 5:13−6:10 272–273, 277 5:16 281 5:16−17 118, 278 5:16−18 31, 281 5:17 118 5:18 278, 280–281 5:19 278 5:19−21 281 5:21 278 5:22 79, 262 5:22−23 31, 281 5:23 273, 279 5:24 272, 278–279, 281 5:25 83, 267, 280–281 6:1 40, 118, 267, 272, 277–278 6:2 118 6:3 118 6:4−5 118 6:7−8 118 6:8 278 6:8−9 118 6:9 277 6:9−10 262, 277 6:10 31, 279, 281 6:14−15 118 6:17 118 Ephesians 4:11−12 40 4:19 278 5:2 137 5:18 278 5:21−6:6 7, 153, 270 Philippians Phil 105–112 1:1 40, 258, 293 1:3−8 117 1:7 117 1:12−14 117 1:15−18 117 1:20−21 117 1:22−26 117 1:28−29 117 2:12−13 117 2:20−21 117 2:29−30 117 3:2−3 117 3:3 117 3:4 117 3:7−9 117

3:17 117 3:17−18 117 3:20−21 117 4:3 117 4:8 187 4:11 117 4:12−13 117 Colossians 1:1 258 1:5 22, 149 1:7 40 4:11 261 4:12 40 3:18−4:1 5, 153, 270 1 Thessalonians 1 Thess 105–112 1:4−5 117 1:6 117 1:7−8 117 1:8−10 117 1:19 149 2:2−4 117 2:3−6 117 2:3−7 117 2:7−9 117 2:13−14 117 2:14 117 2:18−20 117 3:2−3 117 3:3−4 117 3:7−9 117 3:12 184 4:1−2 117 4:3 184 4:3–6 117, 184 4:3−7 117 4:7−8 117 4:8 184 4:9 117 4:9−10 117 4:10−12 169 4:13−14 117 4:17−18 118 5:1−2 118 5:4−5 118 5:5−7 118 5:7 278 5:8−10 118 5:9−11 118 5:12−13 40, 267

305

306 5:16−18 118 5:21–22 187 1 Timothy 1 22–23 1:1 205, 209, 215 1:3 258 1:3−7 203 1:4 22, 153, 161 1:10 211 1:11 130 1:20 183 2:1−6 22, 161 2:1−7 150 2:2 151, 209 2:2−4 203 2:3 205 2:4 23, 133, 167 2:4−6 152 2:5 208 2:6 137, 277 2:7 152 2:8 152 2:9 7, 211 2:9−11 229 2:11 227, 230 2:12 225, 231 2:15 7, 152, 227 3:1–7 173 3:1−13 203 3:1−16 22, 161 3:2 27, 211, 215, 224 3:4−7 173 3:7 24, 173 3:8 226 3:9 27, 215 3:11 27, 215, 226 291 3:14 215, 281 3:14−16 152 3:15 152, 209 3:16 131, 152 4 154 4:1 166, 213 4:1−3 203 4:1−5 166 4:3 144, 154, 179, 258 4:4−5 182 4:7 258, 290 4:7−8 258 4:10 94, 215 4:12 94 5:1−8 203

Index of References 5:3−16 224 5:5 215 5:11 226 5:14 226 5:17 27, 224 5:24 166 6:1 172, 234, 277 6:3 134, 211 6:3−5 154, 203 6:4 206, 211 6:5 134, 154 6:6 134 6:9−10 155 6:11 134 6:11−12 155 6:15−16 152 6:17 215 6:17−19 155 6:20 180 2 Timothy 1:7 211 1:8 156, 258 1:9 155 1:9−10 131, 157 1:10 134, 182, 205, 206 1:10−11 130 1:12 156 1:13 211 1:14 156 1:15 227 2:2 40 2:3 156 2:3−7 23, 161 2:8 156 2:11−13 156 2:15 157 2:16−18 156 2:18 181, 259 2:20−21 167 2:25 133 2:25−26 157 3:1−5 166 3:1−9 163 3:5 166, 180 3:5−7 178 3:6 178, 213 3:6−7 157, 230 3:7 133 3:8−9 157 3:11−12 23, 161 3:12 156 3:13 157

Index of References 3:14−17 158 4:1 206, 259 4:1−8 156 4:3 211 4:3−5 157 4:8 206, 259 4:17−18 157 4:19 100 Titus Titus 105–112 1:1 8−9, 25, 29–30, 80, 131–132, 159, 190−191, 196–197, 211, 223, 240–241, 246, 248, 250–251 1:1−3 30, 78, 116–117, 127, 134, 139, 223, 234, 253, 264 1:1−4 19, 21, 29, 71, 87, 90, 101, 129, 238, 248, 257, 263, 267 1:1−9 268 1:1−11 211 1:2 9, 29, 132, 215, 240–241, 248, 251 1:2−3 30, 249–251 1:3 21, 30, 131, 134, 205, 223, 240–241, 248, 250–252, 277 1:4 9−11, 29−30, 205, 211, 241, 244, 250–251, 253 1:4−5 252 1:5 7, 11, 18, 21, 26, 27, 31, 40, 62, 76–77, 87–88, 90, 116–117, 127, 132, 166, 206–207, 224, 252, 263, 264, 281, 284 1:5−6 88 1:5−7 224 1:5−9 23, 126, 161, 193, 263 1:5−14 87 1:6 30, 40–41, 59, 87, 116–117, 194–195, 211, 253, 264–265 1:6-7 66 1:6−8 116–117, 210 1:6−9 3, 16, 30–31, 62, 77, 158, 203, 264, 281 1:7 8, 11, 27, 29–31, 41, 44, 59, 194, 209, 224, 248, 250–252, 264, 273 1:7−8 252 1:7−9 65, 88, 90, 252, 264–265

1:8

307

9, 30, 47, 73, 211, 248, 251, 253, 269, 274, 281 1:8−9 41 1:9 10, 30, 59, 88, 116–117, 126, 139, 166, 177, 194, 211, 243, 250, 252, 284 1:10 8, 12, 27, 30, 42, 59, 73, 89–90, 126, 158, 166, 194, 253, 259, 261–262, 288 1:10−11 66, 116–117, 252 1:10−12 12 1:10−14 32, 59, 261, 288, 283 1:10−16 16, 24, 56, 126, 158, 177–178, 180, 193, 196, 203, 280 1:10−2:15 245 1:11 24, 29–30, 42–43, 89–90, 126–127, 139, 166, 178, 194–195, 213, 248–249, 250, 252, 268 1:11−12 163 1:12 9, 11, 21, 27, 42, 59, 77, 90, 116–117, 126, 132, 183, 190, 195, 198, 211, 248, 289 1:12−13 251 1:13 30, 40, 42, 73, 116–117, 126, 139, 194, 211, 248, 250–252, 288 1:13−14 89, 91 1:14 8, 29, 42, 90–91, 139, 158, 194, 248−249, 259 1:14−16 27, 126, 160, 211 1:15 16, 42–43, 47, 59, 116–117, 179, 194, 195, 248, 257 1:15−16 19, 91, 101, 158, 289 1:16 3, 10, 18, 29–30, 42, 59, 61, 78, 116–117, 179–181, 191, 194–195, 249–251, 253, 275 1:16−21 25 2 173, 273, 290 2:1 9, 17, 30, 40, 70, 74, 91–94, 116–117, 125–126, 139, 198, 211, 226, 242–243, 250, 252–253, 268 2:1−2 268 2:1−3:2 126 2:1−5 171 2:1−9 159

308 2:1−10

Index of References

17–18, 24, 31, 42, 70, 72, 77, 91, 93–94, 134, 139, 141, 193, 196–198, 210, 268, 281 2:1−15 171, 177–178, 268 2:2 8−9, 11, 29, 43–44, 47, 72, 74, 91–93, 139, 194, 195, 211, 250, 264, 268 2:2−10 73, 116–117, 127, 195, 203, 268, 270, 273–274 2:2−9 3 2:3 12, 16, 28−29, 32, 44, 60, 93, 194, 225–226, 231, 243, 250, 269, 283, 290 2:3−4 17, 44, 65 2:3−5 12, 28, 32, 44, 91–92, 225, 252, 269, 271, 290 2:4 9, 11, 28, 47, 72, 74, 195, 211, 225 2:4−5 17, 27, 30, 65, 66, 225, 234, 253 2:5 3, 7, 9−10, 24–25, 29–30, 44, 74, 93, 116–117, 135, 171–173, 194–195, 197, 211, 245, 248, 250, 253, 273–274 2:6 9, 17, 40, 44, 70, 74, 93, 211, 226, 243, 270 2:6−7 62 2:6−8 65, 92, 171, 270 2:7 3, 10–11, 29, 61, 81, 194–195, 243, 250, 252, 274–275 2:7−8 30, 40, 92–93, 253 2:8 10, 24–25, 116–117, 139, 171, 173, 197, 211, 245, 248, 250 2:9 7, 12, 72, 74, 93, 171, 194, 292 2:9−10 16–17, 30, 32, 44, 60, 65, 93, 253, 270, 273, 283, 292−293 2:10 10, 24–25, 29–30, 93, 134–135, 171, 173, 197, 205, 211, 242–243, 245, 248, 250, 253−254 2:10−11 135 2:10−14 140 2:10−3:11 159 2:11 12, 17, 21, 23, 30, 48, 63, 134−135, 137, 197–198, 206, 211, 242–243, 245, 248–249, 251

2:11−12 2:11−14

66, 75, 137, 141 15, 18–19, 21, 25, 29, 45, 47–48, 71, 78, 93−94, 101, 116–117, 127, 129, 133–137, 139, 197, 241, 243, 246, 248, 271 2:11−15 193 2:11−16 226 2:12 8−9, 16, 29, 31, 48–49, 60, 73, 76–77, 134–137, 160, 196, 198, 211, 213, 226, 237, 241–245, 248, 250, 282 2:12−13 29, 246, 249–251 2:12−14 250 2:13 9, 21, 26, 46, 49, 66, 135–137, 199, 205, 206, 211, 215, 223, 244, 250–251 2:14 3, 10, 25, 46, 47–48, 50, 60–61, 64, 73, 135, 137, 190–191, 195, 198, 242–245, 248–250, 275, 281 2:15 40, 94–95, 126, 242–243, 252 2:15−3:2 43, 94–95 3:1 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 26, 30, 40, 61, 95, 126, 139, 140, 158, 194–195, 203, 207, 209, 247, 253, 257 3:1−2 30, 44, 47, 95, 127, 135, 193, 247, 250, 253, 276 3:1−3 252 3:1−7 247 3:1−8 23, 161, 275, 279 3:1−10 209 3:2 8, 12, 31–32, 195, 281, 283, 285, 289, 294 3:2−3 283 3:3 12, 25, 47–48, 61, 95, 190, 246, 247–250, 252, 276 3:3−4 199 3:3−7 15–16, 18, 19, 21, 29, 45, 47, 71, 73, 75, 95, 97, 101, 129, 134–136, 139, 246, 273 3:3−8 25,193, 199, 248 3:3−11 116–117 3:4 21, 48, 61, 134, 137–138, 159, 160, 206, 211, 246, 249–251 3:4−6 48

309

Index of References 3:4−7

71, 95–96, 116, 117, 127, 135, 158 3:4−8 78, 277 3:5 9, 10, 48–49, 158, 190, 199, 211, 246, 247, 249–250 3:5−6 61, 138, 159, 258 3:6 9, 49, 138, 205, 211, 246, 249, 250 3:7 9, 17, 25, 29, 48, 50, 61, 66, 190, 211, 215, 224, 246, 251, 257, 262 3:8 3, 10, 18, 21, 25, 30–31, 40, 50, 61, 73, 76, 78, 96, 98, 140, 158, 190–191, 195, 211, 246–248, 250–252, 254, 262, 275 3:8−9 97, 116–117 3:8−11 96 3:9 9, 27, 29, 61, 73, 96–98, 126, 139, 163, 183, 195, 211−212, 249–250, 259 3:9−10 251 3:9−11 30, 43, 193, 203, 253, 259 3:10 40, 64, 98, 126, 166−167 3:10−11 97, 165 3:11−12 246 3:12 98–99, 166, 282 3:12−13 62, 284 3:12−14 23, 98, 161, 193 3:13 98 3:14 3, 7, 10–11, 17–18, 21, 25, 30, 61, 65, 75, 76, 78, 80, 99, 116–117, 140, 166, 190, 191, 194–195, 237, 250, 254, 262, 275, 282

3:15

9, 25, 100, 166, 190, 211, 253

Philemon Phlm 105–112 1 258 8−9 117 16 117 17 117 Hebrews 10:25 147 10:26 133 13:8 137 James 1:17 237 1 Peter 2:1 165 2:11–12 174 2:11–4:11 174 2:12 173, 175 2:18−3:7 7, 270 4:14 174 4:16 174 5:1−2 264 1 John 1:6 22, 149 2:9–11 185 2:15–17 185 3:11–24 185 4:7–16 185 2 John 1:1 133

5. Non-canonical Early Christian Literature Acts of Paul and Thecla 5–6 183 Gregory of Nazianzus Carmina de virtute (Carm.) 1.2.3.19 115 Ignatius To the Trallians (Trall.) 3:2 173

6 :1 165 Justin Apologia i (1 Apol.) 15−17 187 Polycarp The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (Pol. Phil.) 10:2–3 173–174

Index of Authors Acosta-Hughes, Benjamin ​132 Adelove, Aaron ​295 Amici, Roberto ​204 Arichea, Daniel C. ​80 Aristides ​170 Aristotle ​5, 40–41, 58 Arndt, William F. ​99, 180 Ascough, Richard S. ​214 Audring, Gert ​169 Aune, David E. ​55–57, 116 Baker, Cynthia M. ​289 Bakhtin, Michail M. ​128 Bakke, Odd M. ​210 Balch, David ​228 Balla, Péter ​229 Barclay, John M. G. ​45, 193 Barclay, William ​72, 80–81 Barth, Karl ​189 Bassler, Jouette M. ​62–63, 79, 134–135, 138, 194, 289 Batten, Alicia ​204, 214 Bauer, Johannes B. ​175 Bauer, Thomas Johann ​169 Bauer, Walter ​75, 99 Baum, Armin D. ​221 Becker, Jürgen ​169, 183–185, 187 Belleville, Linda B. ​206 Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron ​295 Berger, Klaus ​171 Bertram, Georg ​244 Bitzer, Lloyd F. ​208 Bobbitt, John Franklin ​53–54 Bockmuehl, Markus ​131 Boer, Roland ​127–128 Bondi, Richard ​78 Botha, Jan ​116 Bourland Huizenga, Annette ​7, 10, 60, 63, 67, 72, 74, 81, 171, 220, 225, 227–231, 264, 269–270, 274–275, 286, 289 Boyarin, Daniel ​255–256, 272–274, 279 Brannan, Rick ​7–8 Braus, Willi ​38 Breeze, Mary J. ​86 Brett, Mark G. ​212

Briggs, Sheila ​292 Brodersen, Kai ​169 Broer, Ingo ​257 Brooten, Bernadette J. ​286 Brox, Norbert ​163, 178, 194 Bruce, F. F. ​272, 277 Buell, Denise Kimber ​289 Bumgardner, Charles J. ​104 Byrskog, Samuel ​116 Callimachus ​9, 132 Calvin, John ​237 Cassius Dio ​233 Caudill, Sally A. ​38 Celsus ​176–177 Chan, Lucas ​70, 81 Chester, Andrew ​192, 201 Christensen, Sean ​245 Classen, C. Joachim ​209 Clement of Alexandria ​9, 176–177 Collins, Raymond F. ​103, 123, 151, 199, 258, 263–264, 266, 270, 275–276, 280 Condit, Celeste Michelle ​38 Condoravdi, Cleo ​85 Conzelmann, Hans ​37, 41, 73, 139, 164, 176, 195, 205, 207–208, 223, 225, 233 Cook, John G. ​116 Couser, Greg A. ​237, 239, 240 Crenshaw, Kimberlé ​286 Cribiore, Raffaella ​54 D’Angelo, Mary Rose ​203 Danker, Frederick W. ​99 Dassmann, Ernst ​151 Davidson, James N. ​40 De Villiers, Pieter G. R. ​201 Debanné, Marc J. ​117 Deissmann, Adolf ​205, 207 Delamarre, Jules ​215 Dibelius, Martin ​37, 41, 73, 139, 164, 176, 195, 205, 207–208, 223, 225, 233 Diodorus Siculus ​240 Dionysius of Helicarnassus ​60 Dirven, René ​83–84 Dittenberger, Wilhelm ​206, 214 Dixon, Suzanne ​232–233

312

Index of Authors

Donelson, Lewis R. ​72, 104, 116, 146, 181, 220, 230–231, 234 Dunn, James D. G. ​260, 266–267, 272–273, 278–279 Dünzl, Franz ​170 Ebner, Martin ​168 Edwards, J. Christopher ​245 Ehrman, Bart D. ​104, 219 Eisele, Wilfried ​243 Elliott, Neil ​208 Engelmann, Michaela ​80, 145, 151 Epictetus ​39–40 Epimenides of Crete ​62–63, 289 Eriksson, Anders ​116 Euripides ​132, 223, 240 Eusebius ​170 Evanson, Edward ​103 Fatum, Lone ​284, 289 Fears, J. Rufus ​206, 210 Fee, Gordon D. ​242, 244–246, 247 Fideler, David ​228, 230, 232–233 Fiore, Benjamin ​38, 58, 81, 225, 293 Folch, Markus ​227 Frenschkowski, Marco ​220 Friedrich, Gerhard ​240, 248 Fuchs, Rüdiger ​145 Geertz, Armin W. ​295 Genade, Aldred A. ​239, 241, 245 Gerber, Christine ​11, 165 Gewirth, Alan ​222 Gielen, Marlies ​175 Gieniusz, Andrzej ​131 Gill, Malcom ​204, 208 Gingrich, F. Wilbur ​99 Glancy, Jennifer A. ​274, 285–286, 287 Glaser, Timo ​145 Golden, Mark ​233 Gourgues, Michel ​104 Grey, Jaqueline N. ​6 Griffith, Mark ​232 Grundmann, Walter ​199 Gunnarsson, Lena ​286 Guthrie, Donald ​246 Guthrie, Kenneth S. ​228, 230, 232–233 Habermas, Jürgen ​168–170 Hadot, Pierre ​53 Häfner, Gerd ​165, 167, 176, 183, 219–220 Hallett, Judith P. ​232 Harding, Mark ​103

Harland, Philip A. ​214 Harnack, Adolf von ​205 Harris, Murray J. ​45, 240–241, 245 Harrison, Percy N. ​103 Hartley, L. P. ​67 Hasler, Victor ​135 Hatton, Howard A. ​80 Hays, Richard B. ​189, 198–199 Hellholm, David ​116 Herms, Eilert ​147–148 Herodotus ​39–41 Herzer, Jens ​8, 104, 151–153, 156–160, 164, 220 Ho, Chiao Ek ​245, 254 Hock, Andreas ​200 Hofmann, Hasso ​168 Hoklotubbe, T. Christopher ​133, 203, 208, 212 Holloway, Paul A. ​116 Holmes, Michael W. ​85 Holquist, Michael ​127 Hölscher, Lucian ​168 Holtz, Gottfried ​3 Holtzmann, Heinrich J. ​147 Homer ​166 Horace ​166, 232 Horn, Friedrich W. ​11, 80, 148, 175 Horsley, Gregory H. R.  133, 233 Hunt, Arthur S. ​153 Hurtado, Larry ​198 Hutson, Christopher R. ​199 Hylen, Susan E. ​169 Iamblichus ​228, 230 Ignatius ​165, 173 Irenaeus ​64 Iricinschi, Eduard ​165 Jacobs, Lambert D. ​284 Jaeger, Werner Wilhelm ​46, 54, 139 Janßen, Martina ​164 Jeon, Paul S. ​242, 246 Johnson, Luke T. ​12, 39, 41–42, 67, 76, 80, 103, 139, 153, 192, 212, 220, 238, 241–242, 244, 247, 284, 289, 292–293 Josephus ​48, 278 Joubert, Stephan ​13 Justin ​170 Kalinka, Ernst ​214 Karris, Robert J. ​192, 212 Kartzow, Marianne Bjelland ​11, 13, 64, 225, 284–286, 288, 293

Index of Authors Kearsley, Richard A. ​133 Keener, Craig ​198 Kelley, Shawn ​289 Kelly, John N. D. ​37, 208, 244, 246 Kent Jr., Homer A. ​78 Kidd, Reggie M. ​42, 132, 138, 200, 210, 215–216, 245 Kim, Grace Ji-Sun ​286 Kinzig, Wolfram ​170 Klassen, William ​186 Klauck, Hans-Josef ​100, 186 Kloppenborg, John S. ​214 Knight III, George W. ​37, 78, 96, 239, 242, 244, 246 Koch, Dietrich-Alex ​170 Kokkinia, Christina ​215 Konradt, Matthias ​149–150 Kovalishyn, Mariam Kamell ​6 Krause, Deborah ​204 Krumbiegel, Friedemann ​158 Kühneweg, Uwe ​187 Kunkel, Wolfgang ​168 Labahn, Michael ​186 LaFosse, Mona Tokarek ​227, 229 Läger, Karoline ​135 Lambek, Michael ​221, 235 Lamp, Jeffrey S. ​242 Lamptey, Jerusha Tanner ​284 Lappenga, Benjamin L. ​64 Lattke, Michael ​170 Lau, Andrew Y. ​48, 135, 138 Lauer, Sven ​85 Lauterbach, Jacob Z. ​173 Le Boulluec, Alain ​165 Lee, Chul Woo ​116 Levinsohn, Stephen H. ​86 Liddell, Henry G. ​115, 285, 288, 292 Lindemann, Andreas ​180 Linton, Olof ​169 Lips, Hermann von ​134, 181 Llewelyn, Stephen R. ​133 Loader, William R. G. ​185 Lohfink, Gerhard ​224 Lohmeyer, Ernst ​205 Lona, Horacio E. ​176, 259 Longenecker, Richard N. ​262, 272, 278–280 Löning, Karl ​151 Louw, Johannes P. ​105 Lovin, Robin W. ​104 Lowe, Mattew F. ​204 Lucaites, John Louis ​38 Lucian of Samosata ​42

313

Luck, Ulrich ​72 Lührmann, Dieter ​138 Luther, Martin ​80, 189, 191 MacDonald, Dennis R. Ronald ​183 Maier, Harry O. ​12, 203, 207 Malherbe, Abraham J. ​53–55, 58, 60, 62, 139, 152, 193, 207, 231 Manomi, Dogara Ishaya ​5, 7–8, 69, 74 Marrou, Henri-Irénée ​46 Marrow, Stanley B. ​186 Marshall, I. Howard ​45, 88, 92, 94–96, 104, 163–164, 179, 191, 194–195, 204, 212, 220, 224–226, 231–232, 239, 242–246, 248–250, 261–266, 268–271, 275, 277–278, 280, 282 Marshall, John W. ​220, 289 Martyn, J. Louis ​260, 272, 277 Matera, Frank J. ​260, 278 Mayer, Hans H. ​104 McAuley, Mairéad ​232 McDonald Lee Martin ​221 Meade, David G. ​221 Meeks, Wayne A. ​186 Meilaender, Gilbert ​78 Menander ​60 Merkel, Helmut ​194 Merz, Annette ​164, 220, 257, 260, 280–281 Meyer Spacks, Patricia ​295 Mieth, Dietmar ​186 Miller, James D. ​104 Milnor, Kristina ​232 Mitchell, Margaret M. ​38, 55, 153, 159, 209 Mitternacht, Dieter ​116 Montague, George T. ​220 Montanari, Franco ​115 Montgomery, Douglas C. ​111 Moore, Stephen D. ​287 Mott, Stephen C. ​146, 175 Mounce, William D. ​72, 195, 239, 242, 246–247, 252, 263, 266, 268, 270–271, 276 Müller, Bruno ​207 Mullins, Terence Y. ​100 Musonius Rufus ​233–234 Mutschler, Bernhard ​153, 155–156 Nida, Eugene A. ​105 Oberlinner, Lorenz ​134–135, 138, 163–164, 166, 168, 178, 180–181, 224–226 Öhler, Markus ​173 Onasander ​41, 176 Otacilia Polla ​233

314

Index of Authors

Parks, Jimmy ​83–85 Peck, Elizabeth A. ​111 Perictione ​228, 232–233 Pervo, Richard I. ​145 Petersen, Norman R. ​238 Peterson, Erik ​169 Philo ​40–41, 48, 132 Pietersen, Lloyd Keith ​164, 192 Plato ​39–40, 48, 132, 176–177 Pliny the Elder ​60, 170 Plutarch ​229, 231–232, 234, 288 Polycarp ​175 Porphyrios ​228 Porter, Stanley E. ​83, 196, 221 Potter, Jonathan ​38 Powery, Emerson ​60, 67 Prümm, Karl ​205 Ps.-Aristoteles ​232 Ps.-Libanius ​55–56 Punt, Jeremy ​285 Pythagoras ​171, 227–233 Quinn, Jerome D. ​37, 60, 64–65, 71, 163, 194, 212, 224, 240, 242–244, 246–247, 269 Rabens, Volker ​6, 78 Raditsa, Leo Fererro ​232 Rahmsdorf, Olivia L. ​128 Redalié, Yann ​37 Reed, Walter L. ​128 Reiser, Marius ​151, 243 Repschinski, Boris ​169 Rhodes, Peter J. ​169 Richards, William A. ​145, 262, 271 Roberts, Robert C. ​78 Robertson, Archibald T. ​97 Roloff, Jürgen ​146, 163, 224–225, 231 Ruiz, Miguel Rodríguez ​116 Runge, Steven E. ​84, 86, 90, 97 Runia, Klaus ​240, 248 Sadler, Ronald S. ​67 Sanders, Jack T. ​198 Sandmel, Samuel ​193 Schlarb, Egbert ​181, 195 Schmidt, Karl Ludwig ​169 Schnackenburg, Rudolf ​146 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm ​183 Schnelle, Udo ​104 Schrage, Wolfgang ​146, 174 Schreiber, Stefan ​165, 176 Schröter, Jens ​219 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth ​56, 286–287

Schwarz, Roland ​146, 151 Scott, Robert ​115, 285, 288, 292 Searle, John R. ​7 Sell, Jesse ​133 Seneca ​232 Sharot, Tali ​57 Shaw, Susan ​286 Sherwood, Yvonne ​287 Simon, Marcel ​165 Smith, Claire S. ​13, 74, 78, 238, 240, 241, 244, 247–248, 250, 252 Smith, R. R. R. ​212–213 Smith, Robin ​5 Smyly, J. Gilbart ​153 Smyth, Herbert W. ​46 Sokolowski, Franciszek ​214 Solevåg, Anna Rebecca ​286 Sophocles ​232 Speyer, Wolfgang ​221 Spicq, Ceslas ​163, 179, 208, 223–225, 277 Spohn, William C. ​69–70 Städele, Alfons ​227–229, 232–233 Standhartinger, Angela ​147, 159, 203, 232 Steele, Richard B. ​257, 264–265, 267 Stegemann, Wolfgang ​62–63, 165, 290 Steinby, Lisa ​127 Stephens, Susan A. ​132 Stiefel, Jennifer H. ​224, 291 Stiegler, Bernard ​139 Stowers, Stanley K. ​54–55 Strack, Paul L. ​206 Straßburg, Gottfried von ​186 Streete, Gail Corrington ​281 Sumney, Jerry ​192 Swartley, Willard M. ​208 Tachau, Peter ​135 Tacitus ​232 Tamez, Elsa ​64 Tertullian ​176 Theano ​229, 232–233 Theobald, Michael ​12, 165, 167, 178–180, 185–186, 219, 221, 257 Theophrastus ​41 Thesleff, Holger ​228, 232–233 Thiselton, Anthony C. ​42 Thomas Aquinas ​77, 80 Thornton, Dillon ​193 Thraede, Klaus ​187 Thucydides ​40 Tintti Klapuri ​127 Towner, Philip H. ​8, 37, 41, 71, 78, 80, 88, 92, 94–96, 129, 132–140, 146, 163–164,

Index of Authors 181, 194, 198–200, 204, 212, 220, 224, 237–239, 241–242, 244–246, 248–249, 252–253, 259, 262–263, 265, 267–269, 271, 277, 280, 282 Toynbee, Jocelyn C. ​206 Treggiari, Susan ​232 Trummer, Peter ​164, 219 Ulrich, Jörg ​168, 170, 187 Unnik, Willem Cornelis van ​175 Valerius Maximus ​232 Van Nes, Jermo ​7, 103–104, 111, 190 Van Neste, Ray ​12–13, 104, 238 Verner, David C. ​37, 225, 233 Verspoor, Marjolijn ​83–84 Vielhauer, Philipp ​170 Vining, G. Geoffrey ​111 Volp, Ulrich ​11 Vouga, François ​104 Wacker, William C. ​224 Wagener, Ulrike ​146, 225 Wall, Robert W. ​257, 264–265, 267 Wallace, Daniel B. ​73, 83

315

Watts, James W. ​286, 294 Webb, Geoff R. ​141 Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich ​11, 104, 147, 169, 179, 257–258, 281 Weiser, Alfons ​155, 157, 163, 171, 176–177, 181–183, 187, 194 Welles, C. Bradford ​37 Wendland, Paul ​205 Wieger, Madeleine ​203 Wieland, George M. ​212, 242, 244–246 Witherington, III Ben ​261 Wolter, Michael ​38, 153–156 Xenophon ​60, 178, 233 Yarbrough, Robert W. ​76, 190, 241–243, 248, 263–264, 266 Yearly, Lee H. ​70 Young, Frances M. ​37, 71, 208, 251 Zamfir, Korinna ​13, 204, 233, 265–266, 270 Zellentin, Holger Michael ​165 Zimmermann, Ruben ​4–8, 11, 13, 70, 73, 83, 105, 147–148, 186, 220, 222, 224

Index of Subjects Accusation/charge ​41 Agent/Moral Agent/Agency ​6, 11, 43, 75–76 African–American(s) ​67 Anacoluthon ​131 Anger/rage ​41 Anthropology ​75, 255 Anti–Semitism ​63 Antithesis ​58 Apologetic Literature ​170 Apostle ​129–130, 266–267 Application ​13 Argumentation ​222 – deontological a. ​10, 136, 224 – teleological a. ​10–11, 80, 223–224 Argument(s) ​5, 38–39, 123 Arrogant/Arrogance ​41, 44, 107 Attitude ​43 Authorship (of Titus) ​103–104, 145–146, 257 Baptism, baptized ​9, 47, 49, 50, 181, 262, 275–277 Beast ​42 Behavio(u)r ​42, 43, 45, 50 Bishop (→ Episkopos) Blameless ​41 Blasphemy ​171–172, 175, 234, 242, 273 Brawlers ​41, 44 Captivity Letters ​258 Character ​42–43, 45, 47, 50 – moral character ​41 (→ moral agent) – character ethics ​45, 50 – character formation ​53 Chastity/chaste ​41, 223, 226, 228 (→ moderation, → self-control) Child/children ​40, 42, 44 Christ ​45–47, 49–51, 131, 272, 278 (→ Jesus) Christ-event ​71, 76, 78, 131, 136–137, 141, 245–246, 271 Christianity ​37 Christianization ​133 Chronotope ​125–141 Church ​43, 50–51, 152–153, 169 – Churches of Crete ​101 – Churches’ Leadership ​126

Celibacy ​179, 256, 269, 272–273, 280 Civic (Duty, Ideal) ​44, 47, 211 Civilization ​45, 50, 212 Circumcision ​42–43, 49 Command(ment) ​75, 85, 90–99, 177, 209, 239, 276 Community ​40–43, 267 Conscience ​42–43, 47, 80, 154, 158, 222 Conversion ​190, 194, 200, 245 – Post-Conversion ​12, 190 Corpus Iohanneum ​185 Corpus Pastorale  (→ Pastoral Epistles) Corpus Paulinum ​3, 164, 211, 215, 257–258, 284 Crete/Cretans ​38, 42, 44–51, 189, 211, 289 – Cretan Myth ​132, 138 – Crete as space ​132 Cult, imperial ​205 Declarative (Sentence) ​85 Deed ​(→ Work) – good deeds ​10–11, 25, 47–48, 50, 58, 64 158, 191, 210 (→ Works, Good) – bad deeds ​42 Defile/defilement ​43 Delegate ​39–40, 43, 48 Desire ​47–48, 256 Dignity (dignified) ​43–44, 223, 268 Directives (ethical) ​7, 43, 177, 187 Divorce ​167 Discernment (ethical) ​29, 236–237 Disobedience ​42, 47–48, 135, 194, 209 Disorderliness ​40 Dispositions (moral) ​42–43, 47–48, 50–51, 69 Drunk(enness, drunkards) ​40, 44, 110, 278 Dualism (ethical) ​255, 273, 278 Educate/Education ​46–47, 141 (→ Paideia) Elder(s) ​40–43, 59, 76, 87–88, 90, 194, 253, 264, 266, 288 Epimenides Paradox ​9, 62, 90, 126, 132, 166, 190, 289 Encratism/encratic ideal ​256, 281 Endurance ​43, 91, 268 Enthymeme ​116, 122

318

Index of Subjects

Envy ​47–48, 108, 209 Epiphany ​129, 135, 137 Episkopos ​59, 65, 173, 224, 265 Equality ​160, 232, 255–256 Eschatology ​125, 127, 132, 136–137, 182, 215–216, 241, 259 – eschatological moment ​130, 141 – eschatological wreath ​156–157 Ethics ​passim – Christian ethics ​125, 282 – definition of ethics ​4, 147–148, 285 – implicit ethics ​5–13, 70, 147—148, 160 – intersectional ethics ​287–288 – metaethics ​235 – narrative ethics ​186 – Utilitarian Ethics ​161 – virtue ethics ​(→ virtue) Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity (e/αc) ​ 3–4 Ethos (group ethos) ​12, 57, 147, 167, 183–187 Eusebeia (→ Piety) Evil ​32, 57, 107, 155, 195, 270, 283–287, 295 – evil beasts ​195, 198 – evil talk ​32 Exhort(ing) ​40 Exploit(ation) ​108

Goodness ​41, 47, 105 Gossip(ers) ​44, 283–290 Grace ​9, 45, 47–48, 50–51, 76, 138, 198, 242 Guilt ​110

Faith ​41–44, 47, 80–81, 130, 133, 140, 153, 155, 182, 191, 230, 241, 250–251, 268 (→ Belief ) Family ​234–235 Female/Feminism ​235, 290–291 Feminist Interpretation ​361 Fictivity/Fictional World ​128, 260 Flesh ​256, 278

Identity ​196–197 Ignorance ​135 Imitatio (Christi) Imitation ​62, 161, 257 Immoral(ity) ​64 Imperative (Sentence) ​70–71, 85, 94 Imperium Romanum ​176 Implicit ethics ​(→ ethics) Indicative–Imperative–Schema ​28, 148, 222, 235 Inequality ​273 (→ Equality) Interrogative (Sentence) ​85

Gender (Ethics) ​196, 219, 231, 233, 255–256, 273, 290–292 Genealogies ​43 Genre ​153 Gentile(s) ​46 Gentle, gentleness ​44, 48, 106 Gift (of God) ​45–46 (→ Grace) Glory ​46, 173, 199, 226, 273 Gluttons ​42, 59 God (Father) ​45–46, 48–50, 243, 267 – God as Teacher ​238–239, 243 – God’s Character ​240, 242 – God’s Wisdom ​(→ Wisdom) – People of God ​190 – Undeceiving God ​132 Good/the Good ​44, 158

Habit ​42 Happiness/Happy ​15, 53, 176 Hate, hateful, hating ​47–49, 109 Hermeneutics ​39 – of generosity ​39 – of suspicion ​15, 39, 56 Hierarchy ​287, 292 Holy ​41, 106 Holy Spirit ​47–51, 71, 138, 199, 248–249, 275–280 Honesty ​106 Hono(u)r ​236 – Hono(ur) and Shame ​236 Hope ​47, 50 Hospitality ​9, 41, 186 Household ​39, 41–43, 45, 47, 50–51 Household Code (Haustafel) ​7, 44, 74, 153, 159, 171, 268–271 Human being ​46–47, 66, 128, 140, 160, 184, 219, 272 Humility ​44, 106, 176 (→ Meekness) Hypocrisy ​109, 197, 261

Jealousy ​108 Jesus (Christ) ​9, 46–49, 267, 281 – Jesus Followers ​26 – Self-Giving of Jesus ​29, 48, 51, 242, 249 Jew/the Jews (Ioudaioi) ​8, 31, 42–43, 170, 172–173, 211–213, 259–261, 280, 289, 294 Judgement (ethical) ​4–5, 10, 28, 149, 222, 235 Just/Justice ​5, 16, 45, 60, 71, 155, 213, 219, 283, 290–295 (→ righteous) Justification ​3–4, 61, 262 (→ righteousness)

Index of Subjects Kingdom of God ​157, 196 Kindness ​47–51, 106, 246, 251–252 Law (of Moses)  (→ Torah) ​43, 256, 272 Lawlessness ​47, 198, 212–213 Laziness ​110 Leader(s)(hip) ​40–41, 44, 50, 267 Learning ​249–251 (→ Paideia) Lie, liars ​42, 51, 59, 132, 163, 183, 211–213, 289 (→ Cretans) – Liars Paradox ​9, 126 (→ Epimenides) Life ​244, 248 – Eternal Life ​9, 47, 48, 50, 223, 246 – Lifestyle ​130, 151–152, 168, 171, 196, 200, 212, 223, 236, 264 – Way of Life/(Ethical) Living ​66, 196 Love ​43, 47–49, 59, 67, 77, 91, 155, 183, 228–229, 284, 295 – Brotherly Love ​182, 184–185 – Love Commandment ​185 – Love of Enemies ​184 Malice ​47–48, 190 Man/Men/Male ​59, 219, 223–225, 235, 255, 264, 268–273, 281 (→ Masculinity) – Male Leadership ​31, 62–63, 267, 281, 284, 290–291 – Old(er) Men ​44, 91, 171 – Young(er) Men ​44, 62, 64–65, 71–72, 92–93, 126, 171, 197, 235, 270, 274 Mandata Principis ​37, 40, 153, 158 Marriage ​187, 228, 232–236, 256, 266, 272–274) Masculinity ​212, 285, 264, 292–293 (→ Man) Meekness ​44 (→ Humility) Memorandum ​153–154, 160 Mercy ​47–48, 50, 51, 106 Metaethics ​(→ Ethics) Metaphor ​4, 7, 11, 79, 139, 209, 293 – metaphorical ethics ​11 Mimetic ethics ​11, 62 (→ Imitatio) Ministry ​224, 263 (→ Women’s Ministry) Mission ​262 Moderation (σωφροσύνη) ​223, 274 (→ Self-Control) Modesty ​106, 155 Money ​41–42 Moral/Morality ​3, 41, 44, 47, 49–50 – Moral Agent ​(→ Agent) – Moral Language ​6, 69–80, 105–115, 233 – Moral Philosophy ​5, 54, 234 (→ Philo­ sophy) – Moral Significance ​10

319

– Moral Transformation ​71 Mother/Motherhood ​226–227, 232–233 Myth ​132, 288 (→ Crete/Cretan) Narrative ethics  (→ ethics) Norm (ethical) ​7–8 – definition of Norm ​8, 73, 220 Obedience/obedient ​44, 62, 209, 250, 270, 276 (→ disobedience) Oikonomikos/Oikonomika ​7, 169 (→ Household Code) Oikos ​168, 171–173, 178–179, 228, 271 Ontology ​72–73 Opponents (→ Enemy) 41, 43, 47, 50, 126, 163–167, 178–181, 193–194 Orgies ​278–279 Othering ​284, 294 Paideia ​44, 46, 50–51, 54, 60, 138–139, 249 (→ Pedagogy; → Education) Paraenesis ​54–55, 103, 171–173, 219, 223, 226 – Slave-Paraenesis ​172–173, 223 Parousia (of Christ) ​135–136 Partnership ​234 Pastoral Epistles ​40, 145–147, 161, 187, 219–224, 257 Pater Familias ​265, 281 Pathos ​57–58, 65, 156 Paul (Apostle) ​39, 42–51, 223, 293 Peace ​9, 107, 184, 208, 292 Pedagogy ​47, 49–51, 55 (→ Education) – Ancient Pedagogy ​66 (→ Paideia) Perfect(ion) ​106 Persuasion ​56–57 Philanthropy ​9, 48, 158–160 Philosophy – Greco–Roman Philosophy ​71, 197, 200 – Neopythagorean Philosophy ​227–229 – Stoic Philosophy ​274 Piety/pious (εὐσέβεια/εὐσεβῶς) ​133, 152, 159–160, 208, 213 Pleasure ​47–48 Plurality (of ethics) ​222 Polis ​167–177, 187, 281 Politics ​205 Poor/Poverty ​64, 176 Power ​292–293 Prejudice ​109, 163, 212 Pride ​109 Principle (ethical) ​39, 148, 190, 208, 220–221, 285 (→ Value)

320

Index of Subjects

Prohibition ​96–97 Propositio ​177 (→ Rhetoric) Prophet(s) ​42 Promise(s) ​65–66 Protreptic Literature/Effect ​7, 55–57, 61, 168, 187 Prudence (φρόνησις) ​71, 223, 226, 228 Pseudonymity ​103–123 Public Sphere ​168 Pure/purity/purify ​42–43, 47, 106, 195 Rebirth/regeneration ​47, 49–50 Rebuke ​40, 90–91, 166, 194, 252 Reciprocity ​271 Regressus ad infinitum ​222 Relationship ​240, 244 Respect/Respectability ​62, 182, 224, 227, 234–235, 268, 271 Responsibility ​75–76, 90, 150, 166, 173, 236, 253, 270, 276 Resurrection ​156, 181–182 Rhetoric(al) ​7, 37–43, 45, 48–49, 51, 54–56, 117, 208 Righteous(ness) ​41, 47, 49, 96, 105, 157, 277 (→ Just/Justification) – Education in Righteousness ​158 – Works of Righteousness ​10, 158, 277 Role Model ​11, 62 Roman Empire ​39, 203–212 Salvation ​46–47, 49, 198 Savio(u)r (God, Christ) ​197, 199, 205, 226 Self-control (self-controlled) ​9, 41, 43–44, 74, 92, 107, 213, 226, 274 Semantic Domains ​105, 111 Sex/Sexuality ​110, 255–256, 271, 278–279 (→ Gender) Shame ​108 ​(→ Honor) Sin/Sinner ​61, 110, 149, 184, 199, 224, 256, 280 Slander(ing) ​44, 234, 283, 288–291, 294 Slaves/Slavery ​44, 47–48, 64, 92, 173 – Slave of God ​64, 129, 159, 209, 239, 263, 293 Sophist(s) ​192 Soteriology ​198 Speech Act (Theory) ​7–8, 18–19, 83–101 Spirit ​(→ Holy Spirit) Stereotype(s) ​11, 56, 60, 67, 213, 283–285, 288–295 Steward ​266 – God’s Steward ​88, 209 Submission (submissive) ​44, 93, 226, 232

Succession ​264–265 Suffering ​156–157, 161 Supervisor(s) ​40, 41, 43 Syllogism ​116 Teach(ing) ​40, 41, 42, 43 (→ Paideia) – Ethics of Teaching ​237–238, 251–254 – Women’s Teaching ​225–230 Temperance ​41, 43–44, 47, 49, 223, 228 Theory of Relativity ​128 Time ​123–126, 128 – Timespace ​128 (→ Chronotope) Titus (as person/character) ​39, 48–51, 62, 260 Torah ​9, 185, 244, (→ Law, Jewish) Traditio Apostolica ​161 Transformation (moral) ​46, 49–51, 71, 76, 197, 199–200, 215, 235, 241, 244, 246 – Transformation of the World ​208 Truth ​8, 42, 80–81, 130, 133, 149–161, 191, 196, 223, 239–240, 250–251, 261, 280 – Truth Claims ​56–57, 117 Universalism/Universal ​13, 140, 167, 184, 186, 255 – Salvific Universalism ​129, 136 – Universalistic view ​13 Urban Context ​213–216 (→ Polis) Utilitarian Ethics  (→ Ethics) Value(s) (moral) ​3, 5–8, 186, 220–223, 234, 294–295 (→ Norm) – Classificatory Values ​9–10 – Comparative Values ​9–10 Vice(s) ​42, 46–47, 51, 59–61, 290 – Catalogue of vices ​42, 48, 276 (→ Virtues) Violence ​44–45, 51, 177, 265, 294 Virtue (→ ethics) ​40, 42–44, 46–47, 51, 59–61, 69–81, 226 – Cardinal Virtues ​71, 76, 133, 136, 141, 175, 213, 263, 282 – Catalogue of virtues and vices ​69, 175, 278 – Gender-specific Virtues ​231, 233 – Masculine Virtues ​63 – Virtue of Life ​152 Vocation ​219–221, 234 Warn(ing) ​40, 43, 65 Way of Life  (→ Life) Widow ​225–226, 290–291 Wisdom ​44

Index of Subjects Woman/Women ​3, 42, 56, 63, 74, 171–172, 178, 197, 224–231, 234–236, 256, 269, 271–274, 286, 290–291 – Older/Younger Women ​11–12, 59, 65, 72, 92–93, 171, 226, 253, 269, 290 – Women’s Ministry ​224–225 – Women’s Role(s) ​234–235 Work(s) (→ deed)

321

– Good Works ​50, 55, 61, 65, 75–79, 97, 99, 137, 140, 158, 160, 195, 226, 251, 262, 275–282 Wrath (of God) ​149, 184 Xenophobia ​62 Zeal, zealous ​47, 50