“Evil Beasts, Lazy Gluttons”: A Neglected Theme In The Epistle To Titus

By Riemer A. Faber

[Riemer Faber is Associate Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ont., Canada.]

I. Introduction

The purpose of this article is to address two problems in the interpretation of the Epistle to Titus. One concerns the exegesis of ch. 1:10–16, and in particular the function of the classical quotation, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” The other problem, or rather perceived problem, is that of the authenticity of the letter, now commonly ascribed to a pseudonymous, second-century compilator of loosely connected material. The two matters are related, in that examination of the quotation serves to bring to light a theme that courses throughout the letter as a whole, thus deflating the argument that the letter is a composition of unrelated elements.

The history of the exegesis of the citation in 1:12—Κρῆτες ἀει ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί—is marked by the search for its source. The attribution of the dactyllic hexameter to the semi-legendary poet and philosopher Epimenides appears first in several church fathers, most notably Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.59.1) and Jerome (Comm. Tit. 707).[1] Theodore of Mopsuestia (II, 243) and Theodoret (III, 701 Schulze) ascribe the verse to the Hellenistic poet Callimachus. There is a minor, mainly modern view that the statement was made in a Delphic oracle criticizing Epimenides.[2] In the modern era the continued interest in the provenance of this verse has tended to deflect attention away from considering its function within the immediate and general contexts. Moreover, the tendency to link the quotation in the Epistle to Titus to Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus, in which the phrase “Cretans are always liars” occurs, has led to a disproportionate emphasis upon the element of deceit; the meaning of the words “evil beasts” and “lazy gluttons” has been largely neglected. To be sure, falsehood is an important topic in the Epistle to Titus, and Callimachus’s use informs the function of the verse in Titus 1:10–16.3 This section of the Hymn to Zeus relates the tradition that Cretans are always liars because they claimed to have a tomb of Zeus. The poet, addressing the god, expresses the orthodox conviction that as a god Zeus cannot have died:

Κρῆτες δει ψεῦσται ᾿ καὶ γὰρ τάφον, ῶ ἄνα, σειο
Κρῆτες ὲτεκτήναντο ᾿ οὐ δὲ ου θὰνες ᾿ ἐσσὶ γὰρ ἀεί
(Hymn to Zeus, 8–9)[4]

The occurrence of the phrase Κρῆτες ἀει ψεῦσται in both the Epistle to Titus and Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus has led some modern scholars to focus on the first hemistich. Thus, for example, the verse in Titus 1:12 “was quoted primarily for the sake of the first comment, namely the proverbial deceitfulness of the Cretans, which was widely attested.”[5] Other commentators gloss over an explanation of the second hemistich altogether.[6] The fascination with the phrase “Cretans are always liars” also has affected interpretations of the pericope in Titus 1:10–16 as a whole by its disproportionate emphasis upon the first phrase. It will be clear from the survey which follows that most contemporary explanations of the passage do not draw out fully the substance of the entire classical citation, or its function in the immediate context.

A. Current Interpretations of the Quotation

One explanation of the role of the hexameter in its immediate context is that of the “liar-paradox.” On this view, the statement “Cretans are always liars” functions as a philosophical conundrum: X belongs to Y; X states that Y is false; is the statement true? Anthony T Hanson summarizes the role of the liar-paradox in Titus 1:10–16 thus: “The author uses this popular belief in order to impale the false teachers on the horns of a dilemma: either they accept the truth of the quotation and stand self-condemned; or else they deny it and condemn their own prophet.”[7]

More recently Wolfgang Stegemann has applied a sociological model to the text.[8] The “sociology of deviance” deals with the role of non-conformists from the point of view of a superior group. From this perspective the language and subject of Titus 1:10–16 is marked by racist, anti-semitic tones. He discerns in it an increasingly polemical division between Judaism and gentile Christianity. A third, common interpretation is related to but more general than that represented by Stegemann and explains the phrase as the exercise of “polemical defamation.” Thus, for example, I. Howard Marshall interprets the citation as a harsh denunciation of the false teachers and their followers: “the apostolic invocation of the Cretan stereotype brands the heretics.”[9] A more tempered form of this view is represented by Ernest F. Brown, who suggests that Paul quotes Epimenides only “in order to herald the approach of a time when it shall no longer be true.”[10]

The most radical interpretation of Titus 1:10–16 views the citation as interpolation. This view is advanced by Norbert Brox, who suggests that the quotation is inappropriate to Scripture generally, and ill-suited to the Epistle to Titus.[11] The quotation would not have been used in a genuine letter to a congregation in Crete, as it would cast aspersions upon the Cretan believers. It must be an addition made for the sake of specific circumstance, to discredit heresy.

B. The Contextual Significance of the Quotation

Consideration of the entire hexameter leads to the realization that the apostle quotes it to advance a major theme in this letter. First, it should be noted that the entire hexameter is employed by no other author before Paul in his epistle to Titus; it does appear in later authors, but then often in explaining its appearance in 1:12.[12] Some early commentators, such as Epiphanius (Pan. 2.169.11), link the quotation in Titus to that in Callimachus. Many of them record also that the verb κρητίζειν (“to Cretanize”) means to lie, and they imply that the quotation in the letter alludes to Callimachus’s poem.[13] However, Paul explicitly quotes Epimenides, and the role of the first hemistich in Callimachus sheds only partial light upon the entire verse quoted in Titus 1:12. Evidently the apostle quotes the entire verse because each phrase in it is relevant to the argument that is developed in the immediate and general context.

Modern critics are agreed upon the relevance of the quotation: Epimenides’ claim about the people of Crete is applied to the false teachers who oppose Titus. These opponents are “insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers” (1:10), “especially of the circumcision party” (1:10); they “teach what they ought not, for the sake of gain” (1:11); they are “detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed” (1:16). They may be the same individuals as those depicted in ch. 3 who are involved with “stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law” (3:9). Scholars who date the letter to the turn of the second century a.d. or later are constrained to identify the teachers as promoters of radical Hellenization, especially adherents of (proto-) Gnosticism. In this reading, the terms “myths” (1:14) and “genealogies” (3:9) would refer to the cosmological schemata similar to those published in the second century.

However, there is very little internal evidence to suggest that (proto-) Gnostics are the opponents.[14] On the contrary, compared to the other Pastoral Epistles, the Epistle to Titus alludes explicitly to leaders of Judaism, with phrases such as “those of the circumcision” (οί ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, 1:10),[15] “giving heed to Jewish myths” (προσέχοντες ᾿Ιουδαικοῖς μύθοις, 1:14), “genealogies. .. and quarrels about the law” (γενεαλογίας,. .. καὶ μάχας νομὶκας, 3:9).[16] The traditional view, that the teachers form a group of Jewish Christians who promoted abstinence, ritual purity, and the Mosaic law on foods (cf 1 Tim 4:3), remains the most plausible one.[17] The opponents are the ones truly defiled (1:15); their teaching is false, their ethical standards corrupt.

It is in the context of defying these opponents that the Epimenidean verse quoted is best interpreted, and we shall consider next the three cola which comprise it: “always liars,” “ evil beasts,” and “lazy gluttons.” Assuming Callimachus’s use of the phrase Κρῆτες ἀει ψεῦσται has partial bearing upon the role of it in 1:12, we recall that the heterodox Cretans opposed traditional Greek religion in claiming that Zeus has died. In Callimachus’s poem, the phrase “Cretans are always liars” is used to condemn the heresy against Olympian religion.[18] Loosely comparing the opponents of Titus with the Cretan people generally, the apostle suggests that the false teachers hold theological convictions that are opposed to the truth. Next the Cretans are depicted figuratively as ravenous animals, κακὰ θηρία (1:12). Dibelius-Conzelmann suggest that the words may be understood in light of the statement that the opponents teach for the sake of dishonest gain (αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν, 1:11).[19] If so, Polybius’s comment is relevant, namely, that the Cretans are the “only people in the world in whose eyes no gain is disgraceful” (6.46). Another interpretation, one which gains strength from the context, is that Epimenides, and subsequently Paul, refers to the reputation, recorded by Plutarch (Inim. util. 86C) and Pliny (Nat. 8.83), that Crete contained no wild animals.[20] Thus the phrase must be taken figuratively to mean that the wild creatures on Crete are its people. It seems more likely, therefore, that by employing the phrase κακὰ θηρία the apostle alludes to the violent behavior of Titus’s opponents. They are reported as upsetting entire households by teaching what they ought not (1:11); they are “unrestrained” (ἀνυπότακτοι, 1:10; cf. 1:6) and must “be bridled” (ὲπιστομίζειν, 1:11). Animal imagery is applied positively to potential elders in the word σώφρονα (“master of himself,” 1:6), to the older women who must “train, rein in” (σωφρονίζωσιν, 2:4) the younger ones, and to the young men who must “control themselves” (σωφρονεῖν, 2:6). Such imagery accords well with the implications in κακὰ θηρία, and suggests that it refers especially to the behavior of Titus’s opponents.

The poetic phrase, γαστέρες ἀργαί (1:12), which literally means “lazy bellies,” is not uncommon in Greek literature, and may be traced back to the archaic epic poet Hesiod (Theog. 26, ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι κακ ᾿ ὲλέγχεα γαστέρες οῖον). Besides Hesiod, Xenophon (Cyr. 1.2.8) provides evidence that in Greek literature the stomach may be used as a figure for gluttony. The adjective ἀργαί, which is derived from α-εργαι (“non-working”; cf. Jas 2:20), maybe the source for the play upon words in the phrase πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι (“unfit for any good deed,” 1:16). It would be prudent to state simply that whereas the Epimenidean phrase portrays the Cretan people as gluttons, the apostle Paul uses it to suggest that Titus’s opponents similarly misunderstood the role of human appetites. Thus the opponents of Titus are to be regarded as loosely analogous to the Cretans; their defilement is due to false teaching (ὲντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων, 1:14) that is reflected by incorrect practices in matters of food.[21] More broadly stated, the first half of the hexameter concerns true and false teaching, the second half proper and improper conduct.

The interpretation that the false doctrine of Titus’s opponents is illustrated by unethical behavior is supported by a general and a specific observation. When Paul quotes a non-Scriptural source, as he does also in Acts 17:28 and 1 Cor 15:33, he does so with intent. In short, the entire verse quoted is relevant to its context in Titus 1:10–16. More specifically, when he completes his argument in v. 16 with a reference to the quotation, Paul makes the connection between doctrine and behavior explicit. Referring to the same opponents, he states that they profess to know God but deny him by their deeds: θεὸν δμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται (1:16).

II. Assessments of the Main Theme in the Epistle to Titus

Having noted the importance of the entire hexameter, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” we now consider its thematic function within the Epistle to Titus. In so doing, the perceived problem regarding the authorship and composition of the letter must be examined also, for it is held that the variance in determining the main theme reveals that the letter is the product of a collection of various earlier writings which prove it is pseudepigraphy In the modern era the questioning of Pauline authorship began with Friedrich Schleiermacher (Uber diesogennantenErstenBrief desPaulus an Timotheus, 1807) and F. C. Baur (Die sogennanten Pastoralbriefe des Apostel Paulus, 1835) on stylistic and thematic grounds.[22] Early in the twentieth century, Percy N. Harrison, pressing the significance of hapax legomena, argued that the Pastorals consist of fragments from genuine Pauline letters mixed with later compositions.[23] More recently it has been posited that even the verses which appear Pauline have been fabricated to give the letter a semblance of authenticity.[24]

The underlying argument common to these positions is the apparent miscellaneous or inconsistent nature of the Epistle. It seems to vary in literary form (address to an individual; address to an entire community), in style, and in thematic elements. Moreover, the situations treated seem incompatible; there are many disparate elements. These include evidently ill-joined topics such as the organization of church governance (1:5–16); a haustafel (2:1–10); and hymnic or baptismal-liturgical “interpolations” (3:3–7).[25] Consequently it has been concluded that the letter has developed into community manuals and in form anticipates the Didache, Didascalia Apostolorum, and the Apostolic Constitutions.[26]

The now-standard view is that the author (or authors) of the Pastoral Epistles, wishing to preserve Paul’s influence in the church, inveighs against the threat of “Gnostic” false teaching, and seeks to organize the church’s governance in order to preserve the Christian community. In sum, the Epistle to Titus manifests a distance between the historical Paul and the one represented in the Pastorals.[27]

However, a small group of scholars remains which conserves the tradition that this letter is authentic. Most notable among these are John N. D. Kelly, Gordon Fee, George W. Knight, and most recently Luke T Johnson.[28] In fact Johnson is so bold as to claim that “the position now in favor is deeply flawed and in need of reexamination” as it is based on an “assumed and unexamined verity,” including the amalgamated character of the letter.[29] When we observe that the theme of sound doctrine accompanied by sound living as expressed in the rare quotation occurs elsewhere in ch. 1 and the letter as a whole, we soon realize that there is a unifying theme in the Epistle. This unity argues against the view that the letter is a compilation, and supports the understanding of single authorship. Furthermore, appreciation of this theme explains the use of certain expressions, diction, and modes of thought that make this letter’s purpose unique but not un-Pauline.

A. Examination of the Theme “True Doctrine is Accompanied by Sound Living”

A brief survey of the pericopes in the letter shows that the rare quotation of the entire Epimenidean line is not without broader purpose.[30] The theme “true doctrine is accompanied by sound living” is generally ignored in the critical discussions of the letter, with the exception of Young, who suggests that the combination of theology and ethical instruction is characteristic of the church at the turn of the second century, and who draws a parallel between this feature in Titus and in 1 Clement (43–46), which dates to c. a.d. 95.[31]

1. The Address (1:1–4)

A key clause in the salutation of the letter is found in the opening verse: κατὰ πίστιν ὲκλεκτῶν θεοῦ καὶ ὲπίγνωσιν ἀλ ηθείας τῆς κατ ᾿ εὐσέβειαν (1:1, “to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness”). Kara has been interpreted as “according to “by those who read the letter as a post-Pauline attempt to preserve the belief that has been established, so that the entire phrase means “in accordance with the faith.” As BAG (s.v. II, 4) observes, however, there is a final quality in the preposition here, and the phrase expresses goal. Thus the main theme of the letter as conveyed in the salutation is brought to the fore: to promote knowledge of truth and concomitant godliness. While the wording, “knowledge of the truth” (ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας) is not restricted to this letter (cf 1 Tim 2:4), here only is it joined with “godliness” (εὐσέβεια).[32] When seen in light of the theme as it is developed later, εὐσέβεια seems entirely appropriate, as it means behavior that arises from theological conviction.[33]

Another striking locution in the opening is “God who never lies” (ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς, 1:2). ἀψευδὴς is rare in the Bible, but this does not argue necessarily against Pauline authorship; rather it suggests that truthfulness is a key concept in this letter, and it anticipates “liars” (ψεῦσται, 1:12) in the classical quotation.[34] The unlying God contrasts with the lying opponents of Titus; He is believed by the “truthful” Titus himself (Τίτω γνησίω τέκνω, 1:4), and promotes truth (1:4, 14). The word γνήσιος, though rare, is Pauline (2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:20; 4:3);[35] these references suggest that γνήσιος is not evidence for dating the letter to the turn of the century.[36] Rather, the word contributes to the theme of true teaching (and appropriate behavior) by intimating that Titus is so characterized.

2. Titus’s Work in Crete (1:5–16)

As the subject of the first major section, the appointment of suitable elders constitutes the first application of the theme broached in the salutation. Knowledge of the truth and godliness are joined in the elder’s family. The elder must have believing children who are not open to the charge of being insubordinate (τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ὲν κατηγορία ἀσωτίας ἤ ἀνυπότακτα, 1:6).[37] Whereas the list of desirable qualities (1:6–9) appears similar to that in 1 Tim 3:1–7, the stress upon the union of doctrine and conduct is unique.

In matters of behavior and teaching, the qualities of elders and non-elders are contrasted. In conduct elders must not be arrogant or quick-tempered, or drunkards, violent, greedy for gain (μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὸργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, 1:7). The Cretan reputation for wild and gluttonous behavior is quoted in the context of Titus’s work among the Christians on the island. In teaching, the suitable elder must “hold fast to the sure word as taught” (ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, 1:9), and “give instruction in sound doctrine” (παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῆ διδασκαλία ὑγιανούση). In other words, eligibility for eldership is evidenced by knowledge of the truth, while ineligibility is manifested by improper behavior.

It is in this context that the apostle refers to those on Crete who oppose Titus. The activity of the opponents is marked by their teaching and its effect upon lifestyle: “they are upsetting whole families by teaching what they ought not to teach” (οἴτινες ὄλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ᾶ μὴ δεῖ, 1:11). Only here in the Pastoral Epistles does teaching occur in reference to the opponents; it suggests that instruction—both true and false—is a concern particular to this letter. As was observed in the first section of this article, the poetic line of Epimenides, in which lying and improper behavior are linked, is cited as illustration of the union of teaching and practise. In response to opponents thus characterized, Titus is enjoined to refute heretical teaching and to effect sound living in the faith: “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς. .. ἴνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ὲν τῆ πίστει, 1:13). The chapter ends with a general statement about the link between unbelief and corruption, and between mind and conscience (ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἠ συνείδησις, 1:15). The occurrence of συνείδησις (“conscience”) in this letter is not due to the influence of Hellenistic moralism but to specific thematic concerns, as it functions in relation to norms and behavior, often from a theological perspective.[38]

3. Teaching of Sound Doctrine (2:1–10)

The main theme is developed in ch. 2, in which the apostle exhorts Titus to instruct the Christian community in behavior that accords with sound teaching: λάλει ἄ πρέπει τῆ ὑγιανούση διδασκαλία (2:1). The emphatic personal pronoun and the adversative particle that begin this section (οὺ δὲ, 2:1) demonstrate that vv. 10–16 of ch. 1 have their application in the work of Titus and the Christians on Crete, and that this pericope is not divorced from the former. Titus himself must display integrity and gravity in his teaching (ἐν τῆ διδασκαλία ἀφθορίαν, 2:7). And the older women, for example, are to exhibit reverent behavior (ἐν καταστήματι ίεροπρεπεῖς, 2:3) and to teach what is good (καλοδιδασκάλους, 2:3).[39] In contrast with the Cretans depicted as being gluttonous, the women (and others, like the elders in 1:7) must not be given to much wine (2:3). In the compound καλοδιδασκάλους (“teaching what is good”), not used elsewhere in the New Testament, καλο- functions as internal accusative and means informal teaching by word and example.[40] Then there is the word σωφρονίζωσιν (“recall to their senses”). As the root meaning of this word is “moderation arising from soundness of mind,” it advances the thematic aims in the letter.

4. The Grace of God in Christ (2:11–15)

Chapter 2 ends with a climactic expression of the reason why Christians must display proper conduct and sound doctrine. This pericope has undergone much scrutiny from the perspective of showing its (non-) Pauline theology. Some see it as reflecting Hellenistic moralism (e.g., in σωφρόνως, δικαίως, εὐσεβῶς, 2:12).[41] However, what distinguishes these verses is that doctrine is presented with its application in daily life in mind, so that the passage is not contradictory to theology as expressed by Paul elsewhere. Thus the stress is upon what salvation means for the present behavior (2:12, 14) of the believers on Crete. For, writes Paul at the beginning of this passage, it is God’s grace, which appeared for the salvation of all people, that trains believers to renounce irreligion: παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς ἴνα ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἄσέβειαν (2:12). In this way the passage will not be read as a doctrinal interpolation out of context here, but as part of the progression of thought that began with the salutation in ch. 1. The theological instruction summarized in these lines supports the ethical injunctions.

5. Maintain Good Deeds (3:1–11)

Having stated that the basis of sound doctrine and behavior lies in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, the apostle Paul returns to paraenesis, but now in light of regeneration as expressed in the preceding verses. In contrasting his life before conversion with that of the present, he brings together knowledge, faith, and behavior: “once also we were foolish, disobedient, led astray” (ποτε καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνόητοι, ἀπειθεῖς, πλανώμενοι, 3:3).[42] The autobiographical comment demonstrates that the aspersions cast on the false teachers in 1:10–12 were equally applicable to Paul himself, and thus reduces Epimenides’ broad allegation. Paul implies that his current behavior is to be ascribed to his knowledge of the truth.

The section ends with the exhortation that those who have faith in God ensure that they live accordingly: “so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds” (ἴνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προῖστασθαι οἰ πεπιστευκότες θεῶ, 3:8). Καλῶν ἔργων is unspecific, encompassing all kinds of good behavior. Yet in emphasizing the effect of regeneration in the life of the believer, Paul makes an explicit link between works and faith in joining καλῶν ἔργων and πεπιστευκότες.

6. Personal Instructions and Greetings (3:12–15)

In the final, personal instructions, Paul uses one last opportunity to remind the believers of the link between learning the true doctrine and effecting it in daily life: “let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds” (μανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ οἰ ἡμέτεροι καλῶν ἔργων προἰστασθαι, 3:14).

III. Conclusions

This article has examined the classical quotation, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” in the immediate and general context of the Epistle to Titus. It was observed that the Quellenforschung in modern commentaries and individual studies has affected the interpretation of the phrase by privileging the first half of the dactyllic hexameter. The entire verse is cited to illustrate Paul’s argument in 1:10–16, and its function in its immediate context reveals that a major theme, broached at the outset and permeating the entire letter, is encapsulated in it. The citation of Epimenides in 1:12 is not intended as racist slur, polemic invective, or philosophical dilemma; rather, its purpose is to show that doctrinal error is accompanied by moral corruption. This theme, which courses throughout the letter, is employed to exhort Titus and the Christians on Crete to see the basis, nature, and effect of joining sound teaching with good practice. The hexameter is used not so much to denounce the false teachers without argument, as to encourage the Christian community by means of positive and negative exempla. The unusual words and expressions promoting the theme of true doctrine accompanied by sound living do not attest to non-Pauline authorship, but point up both concerns particular to this letter and the unity of the work as a whole.

More generally, it may be concluded that the theological concerns in the Epistle to Titus are not limited to a specific historical or cultural situation, but accord with what is expressed in the accepted Pauline writings.[43] Thus the close relationship between doctrine and conduct that is integral to Romans (cf Rom 1–11: doctrine; 12–16: practice) is applied to the specific situation on Crete.[44] Lastly, the broad theological implication of this study is that the supposed replacement of the Pauline doctrine of grace with that of works-righteousness in the Pastoral Epistles cannot be based upon this letter, as the Epistle to Titus stresses the union of faith and ethics.[45]

An earlier version of this article was delivered at a symposium in September 2002 honoring Prof. J. Geertsema upon his retirement from the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches, Hamilton, Ont. The author would like to acknowledge the University of Waterloo Research Assistant Program for its generous funding to Stephen Vance, who conducted the required word searches using the TLG digital program.

Notes

1. On Augustine’s quotations of the passage see Georges Folliet, “Les Citations de Actes 17, 28 et Tite 1, 12 chez Augustin,” REAug 100 (1998): 292-95. The commentary of Isho‘dad of Merv (4:39) links the quotation to that of Aratus Phaenomena in Acts 17:28.
2. Thus George L. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis (London: Faber & Faber, 1969), 81.
3. The relevance of Callimachus s Hymn to Zeus to Titus 1:12 is treated by Robert Renehan, “Classical Greek Quotations in the New Testament,” in The Heritage of the Early Church (ed. David Neiman and Margaret Schatkin; Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973), 17–45; J. R. Harris, “The Cretans Are Always Liars,” The Expositor 2 (1906): 305-17.
4. For a full discussion of this poem and the lines in question, see George R. McLennan, Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus: Introduction and Commentary (Rome: Edizioni dell’Atteneo & Bizzarri, 1977), 35–38; and Neil Hopkinson, “Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus” CQ34 (1984): 139-48. Independent evidence corroborates Callimachus’s account of the Cretans’ claim, including: Anth. Pal. 7.275, 746; Lucian, Tim. 6; idem, Philops. 3; Theodoret III, 701; Lucan, Pharsalia 8.872.
5. I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 201. Similarly, “the nub of the accusation lies in the first of three descriptive phrases (ibid).”
6. Thus George W. Knight, T he Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 298–99.
7. Anthony T. Hanson, T he Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 111.
8. Wolfgang Stegemann, “Antisemitische und rassistische Vorurteile in Titus 1, 10–16, ” Kirche und Israel 11, no. 1 (1996): 46-61 (= “Antisemitic and Racist Prejudices in Titus 1:10–16, ” in Ethnicity and the Bible [ed. M. G. Brett; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 271–94).
9. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 192.
10. Ernest F. Brown, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Methuen, 1917), 99.
11. Norbert Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 288.
12. These include: Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.14.59.2.4); Epiphanius (Pan. 2.169.11); Socrates the historian (HE 3.16.77); John Chrysostom (Hom. Tit. 62.675.49); Palladius church historian (Dialogus de vita Joannis Chrysostomi 77.28); Theodoret (Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli 82.861.17); John Damascene (Commentarii in epistulas Pauli 95.1028.11); the Appendix of the Antho-logiae Graecae (256.1); Tatian (oratio ad Graecos 27); Athenagoras (Suppl. 30); and Origen (Cels. 3.43).
13. These include Athenagoras (Leg. 30.3.1); Origen (Cel. 3.43.18, 3.43.31); Epiphanius (Anc. 77.2.2; Pan. 2.169.15); Athenasius (Syn. 39.3.5); Didymus the Blind (In Gen. 227.11); John Malalas (Chron. 88.3); Photius (Bibli. 190.150a.41); Eustathius (Od. 2.49.3, 2.197.30); and the Scholia in Lucianum 25.6.2.
14. John N. D. Kelly (A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [Thornapple Commentaries; London: Black, 1963], 11–12) correctly cautions against identifying the opponents with (proto-) Gnostics: “There is nothing in the sparse, vague hints we are given to indicate that the doctrine attacked had the elaboration or coherence of the great Gnostic systems.” Titus’s opponents are not necessarily identical to those depicted in 1 Tim 1:4, 7.
15. Jerome D. Quinn (The Letter to Titus [AB 35; New York: Doubleday 1990], 98) notes that throughout the NT the phrase οἰ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς is applied to Jewish Christians.
16. Pace J. Christiaan Beker, Heirs of Paul: Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the Church Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991), 46: “The author’s method of dealing with his opponents makes it difficult to gain an intelligible profile of the heretics.” The evidence for Jewish presence on ancient Crete is treated by P. W. Van der Horst, “The Jews of Ancient Crete,” JJS 39 (1988): 183-200.
17. Thus also Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 46–51, 192. This view differs with Beker s, Heirs of Paul, 38: “Paul’s polemic with the Torah and Judaism is no longer a live issue in the Pastoral Epistles.”
18. E.g., Raymond F. Collins, The Ideology of the Epistle to Titus, ETL 76 (2000): 58: The thrust of the proverb cited is ... to characterize the Cretans as insular folk who have departed from conventional theological orthodoxy.”
19. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 135–36.
20. One that is well-argued by Quinn, T he Letter to Titus, 108. Slightly different is the interpretation by Reggie M. Kidd, “Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars, Beasts and Bellies,” HBT 21 (1999): 190: the “Cretans’ social life is predicated upon injustice.”
21. Similarly Pieter G. R. deVilliers, “A Pauline Letter and a Pagan Prophet,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 11 (2000): 85: “In being described as lazy gluttons, their attempts to attain purity are being satirized.”
22. In antiquity Marcion rejected the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles on theological grounds (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 5.21). A summary of the issues pertaining to the canonicity of the letter appears in Mark Harding What Are They Saying About the Pastoral Epistles? (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2000), 9–10, and Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 1–8.
23. Percy N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921). A recent expression of this view is by J. D. Miller, The Pastoral Epistles as Composite Documents (SNTSMS 93; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
24. Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986). Charles F. D. Moule (“The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” in Essays in New Testament Interpretation [ed. Charles F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982], 113–32) holds that Luke wrote them for Paul.
25. The supposed composite nature of the Epistle to Titus is summarized by Hanson ( T he Pastoral Letters, 15) as follows: “The author seems to move from personal exhortation to quoting verses from hymns; then back to advice about running the Church; then a warning against false teachers; then a list of qualities necessary for church leaders, and so on without apparent purpose.”
26. Bonnie Thurston, The Theology of Titus, HBT 21 (1999): 183: Titus provides the transition between the New Testament epistles and the genre of church manuals. .. which were written in post-apostolic times.” Similarly Frances Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 4.
27. Thus Beker, Heirs of Paul, 28. Similarly Young Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 123: “The Pastorals reveal to us the development that took place in the Pauline communities as they were distanced from Paul.”
28. Kelly, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles; Gordon Fee, 1 and2 Timothy, Titus (NIBCNT; Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984); Knight, Pastoral Epistles; Luke T Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (The New Testament in Context; Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1996).
29. Johnson, Letters to Paul s Delegates, 3.
30. A survey of different structural analyses of the letter appears in Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 18–25.
31. Young Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 43–46.
32. According to Hanson (Pastoral Letters, 2) and Young (Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 21) εὺσέβεια is typical of Hellenistic moralism popular in the second century. For a full discussion of the term see Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 135–44.
33. Young (Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 21) defines the term as “a faith reflected in appropriate practice and lifestyle.”
34. Of course, the thought that God is unlying is biblical (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Rom 3:3; etc.); ἀψευδὴς occurs in LXX (Wis 7.17.1).
35. It also appears in LXX: 2 Macc 14:8; 3 Macc 3:23; Sir 7:18.
36. Ceslas Spicq (Les Epitres Pastorales [vol. 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1969],193) rightly notes that the occurrence of diction in the Epistle to Titus not found in the undisputed writings of Paul may be due to circumstantial or actual differences.
37. While the list of desirable qualities (1:6–9) appears like that given in 1 Tim 3:1–7, the union of doctrine and conduct is not stressed there.
38. On the evidence from 1 Cor 8–10 and Rom 14, Mar shall (Pastoral Epistles, 218–19 rightly adds that “we may conclude that there is no great difference between the accepted letters of Paul and the Pastoral Epistles as regards the place of moral norms in relation to conscience.”
39. ἰεροπρεπεῖς refers to conduct that is befitting a priest(ess); it is unusual but not unattested for this period (cf 4 Macc 9:25; 11:20).
40. Fee, 1 and2 Timothy, Titus, 186.
41. Young (Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 73) argues that the Pastoral Epistles do not make sense as Pauline theology, but they do have a theology of their own.”
42. See Young, ibid., 127: The problem is that Paul would certainly not have identified himself as a slave to desires and pleasures, living in wickedness, or needing that kind of discipline.”
43. See Young, ibid., 2: “The teaching in these epistles seems very culture-specific, concerned as they are with the practical outworking of Christian living at the time and in the social environment in which they were written.”
44. Marshall (Pastoral Epistles, 100) notes that “the same building of practice upon doctrine which lies at the heart of Pauline thinking” occurs in the Pastoral Epistles. Pace Otto Merk, “Glaube und Tat in der Pastoralbriefe,” ZNW 66 (1975): 91-102, there is no difference in the relationship between faith and practice between the Letter to Titus and Paul’s other writings.
45. Thus Young, Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 25.