Making an Example: The Rhetorical Usefulness of Timothy in 1 Timothy

Abstract

Scholars of pseudepigraphal letters have recognized that pseudepigraphy troubles the identification of the alleged addressee with the historical addressee. This means that the rhetorical addressee is a matter of choice. Building on Benjamin Fiore’s work on exemplarity, I argue that Timothy as addressee of 1 Timothy helps the Pastor articulate specific aspects of his program. Timothy, like Paul, is an example and serves as a link between Paul’s exemplarity and this letter’s readers. Through Timothy’s exemplarity, the Pastor legitimates young leadership, addressing a second-century controversy in the Jesus movement. Finally, the Pastor reframes Timothy’s reputation, distancing him from Jewish law.

Keywords

1 Timothy law letter Pastoral Epistles pseudepigraphy pseudepigraphal letter Timothy;youth

One of the fruits of scholarly investigation into ancient pseudepigraphy is an appreciation of its implications for interpreting pseudepigraphal letters. Several scholars have pointed out that the pseudepigraphal nature of a text not only means that the alleged author is not the historical author but also that the alleged situation and addressee do not simply correspond to the historical situation and addressee (Stenger 1974: 253–54; Bauckham 1988: 475; Bassler 1996: 20, 24–25; Marshall 2008: 784; Thompson 2009; Lieu 2014: 129–30; Lincicum 2017: 172). Pseudepigraphal letters, then, did not function as actual letters (Marshall 2008: 784; Lieu 2014: 129–30; Lincicum 2017: 172). They were not sent to the alleged addressee and had to employ certain rhetorical tactics to make the situation they describe relevant to the present day, like presenting current problems as arising in the future or by describing analogous situations (see Bauckham 1988: 476–78, among others). Thus pseudepigraphy complicates attempts to reconstruct the history lying behind a pseudepigraphal text.¹

The addressee in a pseudepigraphal letter is therefore a matter of choice. To be sure, functional—that is, non-pseudepigraphal—letters also reflect the authors’ choice in their characterization of addressees, their selection of what matters to address, and how they address such issues.² Yet as Richard Bauckham (1988: 470–74) points out, functional letters necessarily speak to the perceived addressees’ situation.³ Authors of pseudepigraphal letters, by contrast, have more options. Their addressees may be either communities or individuals. This presents these authors with another choice as to which individual(s) or communities they select. Authors of successful pseudepigraphal letters still face constraints, as they must construct a scenario that addresses the present day while plausibly being seen as written in the past (Bauckham 1988: 474–78). But as noted previously, there were several means by which they could accomplish this goal.

These observations are directly relevant for the pseudepigraphal 1 Timothy and its named addressee, Timothy. Timothy is not a historical addressee but a rhetorically constructed one employed toward certain ends.⁴ More specifically, I argue that this choice of a young Timothy as addressee is useful in articulating specific aspects of 1 Timothy’s message; Timothy is crucial, rather than incidental, to this letter’s program. Timothy’s importance is especially seen in the way he functions as an exemplary figure to validate young leadership in the Jesus movement, an occasional point of contention in the second century. Furthermore, by employing Timothy as the rhetorical addressee, the Pastor also reshapes Timothy’s reputation for this pseudepigraphal letter’s readers. Contrary to Acts 16.1–3, 1 Timothy associates Timothy not with the Jewish Torah but with law as an ethnically nonspecific entity applied on the basis of one’s conduct.

A consideration of the choice of Timothy as addressee is not new to scholarship on 1 Timothy, whether studied on its own or with the other Pastoral Epistles.⁵ Yet scholars have differed as to the significance of this choice. For many, the addressee is primarily important in terms of legitimating or reinforcing the Pastor’s project on a general level.⁶ Treating the Pastoral Epistles as a group, Manabu Tsuji (2010) argues that while their content is more suited to a communal letter, personal letters were less likely to be recognized as forgeries. As close associates of Paul, Timothy and Titus are attractive addressees, and these letters’ similarities in content combined with their different situations extends their purview beyond any one temporal or geographic setting.

Others see this general legitimization taking place differently. Werner Stenger (1974) argues that addressing the Pastoral Epistles to Paul’s known envoys allows the Pastor to employ and modify the Pauline ‘apostolic Parousia’ topos.⁷ By employing this theme of taking up Paul’s work in his absence, the Pastoral Epistles thus connect the apostolic period to the postapostolic one. I. Howard Marshall argues that, if pseudepigraphal, Timothy and Titus were analogous to the Pastoral’s intended readers—that is, ecclesial leaders—and that such leaders already ‘claimed to stand in the succession of Timothy and hence ultimately of Paul’ (1999, 75–76, here 354).

For others, the choice of addressee also connects with specific ideological concerns of the epistle.⁸ In The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, Benjamin Fiore (1986: 209–11) notes key features of Timothy’s and Titus’s exemplarity for the readers of these texts. Regarding 1 Timothy in particular, Fiore highlights Timothy’s leadership responsibilities for the community, as well as the importance of his conduct, age, and contrast with opponents. In his conclusion, he directly connects this with the Pastor’s choice of addressees, arguing that ‘examples close to and significant for the community being exhorted’ were important for ancient example ‘theory and practice’ (235).

This previous scholarship provides a useful starting point. The first view is productive in pointing out that the choice of Timothy as addressee constructs an analogous situation to the readers of this letter: just as Timothy related Paul’s teaching in his absence, so too could second-century Jesus devotees continue in Paul’s teaching after his death (especially Stenger 1974). But the lack of consideration of Timothy’s importance for the particulars of 1 Timothy leads to certain missteps, like an unsupported assertion about churches’ preexistent reverence for Timothy (Marshall 1999) and a too-sharp distinction between content and framing (Tsuji 2010).

Fiore, by contrast, draws on passages like 1 Tim. 4.12 and rightly connects Timothy’s exemplarity to this letter’s content (note his description of Timothy’s exemplarity in 1 Tim. 4 as ‘parenetic’; 1986: 209). Yet there is more to be said in this regard. The relationship between Timothy’s and Paul’s exemplarity could be further developed and brought into conversation with how later scholarship has portrayed Timothy’s usefulness. Furthermore, much more could be said as to how Timothy’s exemplarity addresses contemporaneous debates among Jesus devotees. My project aims to fill these gaps, providing a fuller treatment of Timothy’s usefulness for the Pastor and suggesting that Timothy himself is being reframed.

Methodology

A few methodological issues should be addressed before proceeding. Given both the precarious nature of external evidence often marshalled in support of a first-century date and 1 Tim. 5.18’s citation Lk 10.7 as scripture, I date 1 Timothy to the beginning of the second century at the earliest.⁹ I find it most likely that the Pastoral Epistles were composed as a group, though it is also possible that 2 Timothy precedes 1 Timothy.¹⁰ Thus 2 Timothy would have probably influenced the conception of Timothy that 1 Timothy’s readers had in mind, either because 2 Timothy had already shaped how they approached 1 Timothy or because they read the two epistles as mutually illuminating.

When speaking of 1 Timothy and the Pastoral Epistles more generally, I use ‘Paul’ and ‘Timothy’ to refer not to the historical figures but to the rhetorically constructed ones whose identities are indispensable for interpreting this ‘letter’. The Pastor then is the person or persons behind the text responsible for constructing Paul, Timothy, and the situation. Similarly, my references to 1 Timothy as a letter do not imply that it functioned as one but rather that it is framed as one.

Timothy as a Candidate for a Personal Letter

Because reading and writing texts never occurs in a vacuum, it is important to address briefly what conceptions of Timothy the Pastor and ancient readers of 1 Timothy may have had in mind. Timothy is Paul’s most frequently mentioned associate in the extant literature and thus provides an attractive addressee. Paul occasionally refers to Timothy as his ‘coworker’ (συνεργός; Rom. 16.21; 1 Thess. 3.2) and also uses familial language for him, calling him both ‘brother’ (ἀδελφός; e.g., 1 Thess. 3.2; 2 Cor. 1.1) and ‘child’ (τέκνον; Phil. 2.22; 1 Cor. 4.17), the latter indicating a mentor-mentee relationship.¹¹ Both disputed and undisputed epistles list him as a coauthor (2 Cor. 1.1; Phil. 1.1; Phlm. 1.1; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1; Col. 1.1), and in the case of the latter, Timothy and the other cosenders may have played a role in the composition of these letters.¹²

Paul also sent Timothy as his envoy (1 Thess. 3.2–6; 1 Cor. 4.17; 16.10–11; Phil. 2.19–24). As Margaret Mitchell (1992: 644–51) points out, ancient envoys were closely linked with their senders in terms of both how the recipients should treat an envoy and the envoy’s authority. Significantly for this article, Paul sent Timothy to the Corinthians to help them better imitate Paul (1 Cor. 4.16–17), and Timothy also serves as an example alongside Paul in 1 Thess. 1.6–7, where he is listed as one of the coauthors (1 Thess. 1.1). The characterization of Timothy in the undisputed and disputed Paulines is overwhelmingly positive, with the possible exceptions of 1 Cor. 16.10–11 and 2 Tim. 1.7–8. The interpretation of these passages, however, is disputed (see Hutson 1997). Even if one sees a more negative portrayal of Timothy in 1 Cor. 16.10–11 and 2 Tim. 1.7–8, Timothy’s role as addressee in the pseudepigraphal 2 Timothy shows that even a relatively more negative evaluation of Timothy did not inhibit his attractiveness as an addressee.

In addition to continuing the previous characterization, Acts and 2 Timothy develop Timothy’s profile. Both comment on Timothy’s biological family, though the portraits are different. 2 Timothy refers to Timothy’s believing mother and grandmother by name (2 Tim. 1.5), indicating that he is a third-generation Jesus devotee. By contrast, Acts mentions only Timothy’s parents (Acts 16.1), implying that he is a second-generation Jesus devotee. Furthermore, Acts alone describes Timothy’s circumcision, which occurs prior to Timothy working with Paul (Acts 16.1–3). This episode is curious in light of Paul’s insistence that the Greek Titus was not forced to be circumcised (Gal 2.2–3) and will be important later in this article.

In light of these first- and second-century texts’ attitudes toward Timothy, a few initial observations can be made. By naming Timothy as the addressee, 1 Timothy both builds upon the historical Timothy’s role as Paul’s envoy and coworker and participates in a contemporary trend of inscribing a particular profile for Timothy. It also allows for a more in-depth glimpse into what was only sparsely attested in the extant literary record up to this point: the specifics of the relationship between Paul and his envoy. The Pastor will utilize this close relationship throughout the letter to deliver his program more effectively, drawing on and developing various themes outlined previously to address issues of concern to the second-century Jesus movement.

1 Timothy

Timothy as an Example

Key to Timothy’s usefulness for the Pastor is his role as an example, which Paul explicitly enjoins upon Timothy in 1 Tim. 4.12, ‘let no one look down on your youth, but be an example (ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου) for the faithful in speech, behavior, love, faith, and purity’.¹³ The following verses elaborate on Timothy’s responsibilities, and 1 Tim. 4.16 underscores the importance of Timothy’s teaching and conduct: nothing less than the salvation of Timothy and his hearers is at stake.¹⁴ Thus, Timothy’s example is not a subsidiary part of the letter but rather crucial to it.

Before proceeding further, it is helpful to note the role of exemplarity in the Roman Empire more generally (on this, see Fiore 1986; Malherbe 1986: 135–38; Fiore and Blanton 2016; Langlands 2018; and Roller 2018: 1–31). Exemplarity was a relatively common rhetorical device, due in part to its accessibility, as noted by Seneca the Younger (Ep. 6.5). Although there were occasional injunctions to follow a living example (e.g., Pliny the Younger, Ep. 8.13.1–2), which became more popular shortly before 1 Timothy’s composition, exemplarity most often entailed an account of a specific event in the life of a historical or mythical person.¹⁵ The story could be presented by a variety of media, including speeches, statutes, texts, etc. (Langlands 2018: 7). A given exemplary figure had a particular quality meant to be emulated by the observer, though this did not preclude a multiplicity of responses (Langlands 2018: 51–66).

In 1 Timothy, Paul does not mention a particular event in Timothy’s life but rather commands Timothy to be in example ‘in speech, behavior, love, faith, and purity’ (1 Tim. 4.12).¹⁶ Here the pseudepigraphal relationship between author, addressee, and readers becomes important. Within the rhetorical fiction of the letter itself, Timothy is commanded to be a living example to ‘the faithful’ (1 Tim. 4.12)—that is, to Jesus devotees. For the readers of the letter, this command to Timothy to be an example becomes a command for them to look to Timothy for an example.

How exactly this functioned depends on whether Timothy was still alive. If so, he was likely involved in composing this letter (so Bauckham 1988: 493–94), which would have positioned Timothy as a living example. But I find this unlikely, given 1 Timothy’s second-century date. 1 Timothy may present Timothy as an ostensibly living example, but he did not function as one for its readers. Perhaps 1 Timothy’s readers would have known traditions about Timothy that reinforced his value as an example. But because these have largely been lost—apart from the New Testament—it is best to focus on how this letter presents Timothy.

In 1 Timothy, the Pastor does not mention a specific event in Timothy’s life, and thus Timothy does not function as most historical exempla do.¹⁷ Rather the text focuses on particular qualities, in this case—‘speech, behavior, faith, love, and purity’ (1 Tim. 4.12). Although unusual for historical exempla, this focus on behaviors is seen in other pseudepigraphal letters. In the twenty-first letter of Epistulae Socratis, Aeschines tells Xanthippe, the late Socrates’s wife, to ‘remember what Socrates used to say, and try to follow his habits and sayings, since by grieving at every moment you will harm both yourself and, even more so, your children’ (Epistulae Socratis 21.1). Although rhetorically addressed to Xanthippe, the instruction to follow Socrates’s habits and teachings really addresses this letters’ readers. Just as the readers of the Socratic Epistles are to follow this Cynic presentation of Socrates, so too the readers of 1 Timothy are to follow the Pastor’s presentation of Timothy.¹⁸

Timothy and Paul

Timothy is not the only example in 1 Timothy.¹⁹ When talking about his own conversion and repentance from his former way of life, the rhetorical Paul writes, ‘for this reason I was shown mercy: that in me first of all (πρώτῳ) Christ Jesus would show all patience toward an example (ὑποτύπωσις) of those who will come to believe in him for eternal life’ (1 Tim. 1.16). This is not surprising, as Paul sets forth himself as an example in both the disputed and undisputed Paulines (e.g. Phil. 3.17; 2 Thess. 3.9), while also gesturing toward others as both positive and negative examples (e.g. Rom. 4.12; 1 Cor. 10.6–13; see Fiore and Blanton 2016: 186–88).

As Fiore (1986: 198–211) observes, there are both differences and similarities between Paul’s and Timothy’s exemplarity. Paul’s exemplarity is tied to his past as a ‘blasphemer, persecutor, and violent man’ (1 Tim. 1.13) who has been shown mercy so that he would become ‘an example for those who will believe in him for eternal life’ (1 Tim. 1.16). Thus, Paul’s exemplarity is linked to the transformation of sinners who would come to have faith in Jesus (Fiore 1986: 198–201).

Timothy’s exemplarity differs in two respects. First, whereas Paul’s transformation involves his life before and after becoming a Jesus devotee, Timothy is an example of a Jesus devotee continuing to grow, as seen in the emphasis on progress (προκοπή) in 1 Tim. 4.15 (Fiore 1986: 209).²⁰ Second, 1 Tim. 4.12, where Paul explicitly commands Timothy to be an example, is flanked by two statements emphasizing his role as leader. Timothy is to ‘command and teach these things’ (1 Tim. 4.11) and, in Paul’s absence, ‘attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching’ (1 Tim. 4.13). While, as Fiore (1986: 209) has pointed out, both Paul and Timothy are to be examples to all Jesus devotees, the differences between Paul’s and Timothy’s example allow the Pastor to address various subgroups with different nuances. Paul’s example reinforces the importance of faith and love for those who become Jesus devotees from a different walk of life, whereas Timothy’s example shows this is still crucial for a Jesus devotee who continues to progress.²¹

There are also several points of similarity between Paul and Timothy. Both are the recipients of a divine gift: Paul’s transformation is tied to Jesus’s χάρις to him (1 Tim. 1.14), and Timothy’s leadership is tied to his own reception of χάρισμα (1 Tim. 4.14; cf. 1 Tim. 1.18). Soteriological urgency is also tied to both their examples (1 Tim. 1.15; 4.16). A further similarity is found in the occurrence of faith (πίστις) and love (ἀγάπη), though this functions differently for Paul and Timothy, as noted previously.²²

Paul and Timothy’s mentor-mentee relationship explains these similarities.²³ In light of Timothy’s own exemplarity, this establishes a ‘mimetic chain’, to borrow a term from Candida Moss (2010: 46, 67, 103, 168).²⁴ Jesus transforms Paul, who becomes the foremost example to all believers, seen in the qualitative valence of πρῶτος in 1 Tim. 1.16.²⁵ Paul then exhorts Timothy, another beneficiary of divine action as well as Paul’s mentee, to follow his example. The readers of this pseudepigraphal letter see the examples of both Paul and Timothy, which encourage them to join in the pattern as well.

This mimetic chain is seen in the undisputed Paulines. In 1 Cor. 4.17 Paul sends Timothy to help the Corinthians imitate Paul, and 1 Thess. 1.6–7 describes the Thessalonians as imitators of both the Lord and this letter’s coauthors, including Timothy. The Thessalonians have then become examples to Jesus devotees in Macedonia and Achaia more generally. Something similar is seen in Valerius Maximus’s Facta et dicta memorabilia 5.6.2–3, where Valerius notes that Marcus Curtius is an unsurpassed example vis-a-vis his dedication to Rome. Valerius then immediately tells the story of Genucius Cipus, who also shows great loyalty to Rome but in a way that could never live up to Curtius’s original exemplary deed (for this reading of Valerius Maximus, see Langlands 2018: 43–44).

The second example is responsible for establishing this mimetic chain. Nonetheless, in many cases, the first person remains the primary example. In 1 Timothy, Timothy remains secondary to Paul, and thus it is not necessary to posit that the intended readers of 1 Timothy already had a special reverence for Timothy apart from recognizing him as a well-known Pauline associate (Marshall 1999: 75–76, 354; cf. the similar but less emphatic claim in Fiore 1986: 235). Rather, Timothy serves as this chain’s link to the present day and is thus indispensable for connecting Paul’s example to this letter’s readers. For instance, the emphasis of love and faith connected with both Paul’s and Timothy’s exemplarity emphasizes the importance of these qualities for leaders more generally, supplementing the qualifications for bishops and deacons in 1 Tim. 3.1–13.

Age and Leadership

A dynamic undergirding much of the previous material is the age difference between Paul and Timothy. Timothy’s youthfulness is explicitly stated in 1 Tim. 4.12, ‘let no one look down on your youth’ (μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω). It is difficult to determine an exact age for Timothy, though a designation of 20s or early 30s, seems plausible.²⁶ More importantly, νεότης is a relative term, contrasted with old age.²⁷ As Abraham Malherbe (1994) has pointed out, Timothy’s youthfulness is connected with his mentor-mentee relationship with Paul, an older man, and is underscored by a variety of features in 1 and 2 Timothy.²⁸

This age difference is relatively common for living exempla (see Fiore and Blanton 2016: 174; cf. Fiore 1986: passim but especially 210 n. 68). For example, Cicero writes that young men (adulescentes) can act justly and thus receive true glory (Off. 2.43) when ‘they join with illustrious and wise men who do well in caring for the common good. If they frequently associate with them, they encourage the opinion among the people that they will behave similarly as those whom they themselves chose for imitation’ (Off. 2.46). By portraying Timothy as a younger mentee of the older Paul, 1 Timothy is part of a well-established trope where the younger person looks to an older person as an example. Thus 1 Timothy not only provides instructions regarding leaders in the Jesus movement (1 Tim. 3.1–13; 5.17–19) but gives a glimpse into the process of training a leader (cf. 1 Tim. 4.12–16). The pattern of exemplarity established by Paul and Timothy is relevant: leaders in the Jesus movement should learn through friendship and example, especially from the examples of Paul and Timothy.²⁹

Young leadership was occasionally a point of controversy in the early Jesus movement, as in Ignatius’s Letter to the Magnesians and 1 Clement.³⁰ In Magn. 3.1, Ignatius writes:

And it is right that you not take advantage of the young age (ἡλικία) of your bishop, but in accordance with the power of God the Father ascribe all reverence to him, just as I also know that the holy elders have not taken advantage of his visible youthful appearance (τὴν φαινομένην νεωτερικὴν τάξιν), but show respect to him as to one wise in God, yet not to him but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of all.

As Ignatius frames it, the problem is not the youthfulness of the bishop per se but the alleged behavior toward the bishop. Ignatius also does not suggest that the Magnesians’ issue with the young bishop was on principle, but rather he frames it in terms of their taking advantage of this youth.

A concern for young leadership also undergirds 1 Tim. 4.12’s statement ‘let no one look down on your youth’.³¹ Paul’s injunction to care for the Ephesian community (1 Tim. 4.13) comes immediately after mention of his youth. Furthermore, Timothy’s age undergirds his as role leader in 1 Tim. 5.1–2, which enjoins him to vary his interaction with fellow Jesus devotees based on their age and sex. Timothy is to take special care to exhort older men and women as fathers and mothers, and the injunction to treat younger women ‘in all purity’ reflects the view that younger people were more prone to act out of lust (cf. 1 Tim. 5.11; 2 Tim. 3.6), which 1 Timothy seeks to mitigate (see Marshall 1999: 574).

John Barclay (2007: 238–39, here 239) grants that Timothy’s youth is connected to his role as leader but argues that he is ‘clearly an expectation’ who must both be validated by the elders (1 Tim. 4:14) and act cautiously in his interactions with women and older men (1 Tim. 5.1–2). In his view, Timothy’s call to be an example is a call ‘[t]o counteract this disadvantage’—that is, his young age (2007: 238). Barclay is right that Timothy is legitimated by his elders, but this need not be taken as a limitation on young leadership; one could also plausibly read 1 Timothy as a subtle attempt to convince elders to appoint more young persons as leaders, provided they meet the necessary requirements. Barclay’s interpretation also minimizes Timothy’s exemplarity and risks reducing it to an apologetic. By contrast, the young Timothy’s leadership role occurs in the context of Paul’s absence (1 Tim. 4.13), a rhetorical device used to bridge the gap between the ostensible situation and 1 Timothy’s readers (see especially Stenger 1974: 267).³² It would be odd for this device to forge a connection with its readers based on an exception to a general rule.

Instead, Timothy’s role as leader should be read as validating young leaders in the Jesus movement, provided they meet pertinent qualifications. A bishop or deacon must, for instance, maintain an orderly household (1 Tim. 3.4–5, 12). Although rare for men under thirty to be married in the Roman Empire, it was not unattested, and it remained possible for a young man to meet the Pastor’s requirement.³³ Women, who could serve as deacons (see Hylen 2019), tended to be married younger and thus could also meet the Pastor’s criterion. Of course, the situation remains rare—particularly for men—but this may be the point: provided a bishop or deacon meets all the other requirements, youth itself is no reason to preclude someone from leadership. Some concerns are prohibitive, such as being νεόφυτος in the case of would-be bishops (1 Tim. 3.6), and behaviors like excessive drinking (1 Tim. 3.3, 8). But youth per se is not one of them.³⁴

Timothy and Jewish law

Timothy’s usefulness is not limited to the way he allows the Pastor to employ the rhetoric of exemplarity to address the previously mentioned issues. Rather the choice of Timothy as the addressee also allows the Pastor to characterize Timothy in a specific manner. Emphasis on and expansion of certain aspects of a figure is found in both pseudepigraphal literature in general and pseudepigraphal letters more specifically. As Patricia Rosenmeyer (2006: 98) puts it,

[t]he principal impulse behind a pseudonymous letter writer may have been the desire to illuminate a figure from the glorious past through a more intimate character portrait than a standard biography would allow. The letter writer presents an ‘apology’ for the hero’s life, or challenges a later generation to admire his accomplishments, viewing historical events through the lens of one man’s personal correspondence.³⁵

Jubilees provides a case where characters are reframed in light of a text’s more general project. In its ostensible angelic representation of Genesis and Exodus, Jubilees crafts a scenario where ‘the good people are more clearly differentiated from the bad’ (VanderKam 2018: 22–24, here 23). For example, Jubilees elevates Abraham by adding stories of his youthful anti-idolatry zeal (Jub. 12.1–8, 12–15) and by omitting passages that characterize Abraham in an unsavory manner, like when he lies to Abimelech about Sarah being his wife (Gen. 20.1–18). Similarly, I propose that the Pastor’s juxtaposition of Timothy with unnamed opponents reframes Timothy, ‘clarifying’ his relationship to Jewish law.

As noted previously, Acts 16.1–3 describes Timothy’s circumcision prior to working with Paul. Timothy’s mother is a Jewish Jesus devotee and his father is a Greek. Although the exact rationale remains unclear (see Cohen 1999: 363–77 and Barreto 2010: 61–118), Acts attributes the need for Timothy’s circumcision to the fact that Jews living in the places where he and Paul would soon travel ‘all knew that his [i.e., Timothy’s] father was Greek’. Combined with its placement shortly after the Jerusalem council’s decree about Torah’s applicability to non-Jews (Acts 15.22–29), Acts’s account of Timothy’s circumcision participates in what Eric D. Barreto calls ‘ethnic discourse’ (2010: 61–118).

There is good reason to suppose that the Pastor either knew Luke-Acts or at least traditions used in Luke-Acts.³⁶ Several words as well as word clusters or phrases are exclusively or primarily found in Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles among the New Testament writings (Moule 1965: 441–45). These include, for instance, εὐσεβ- stem words, and finishing (τελεῖν) one’s race (δρόμος) (2 Tim. 4.7; Acts 20.24; cf. Acts 13.25). Paul’s characterization overlaps in several respects, and there are significant parallels between Paul’s farewell speech in Ephesus (Acts 20.17–33) and the Pastorals.³⁷ In both cases, Paul warns of deviant teaching arising among the Jesus devotees in Ephesus (Acts 20.17, 30; 1 Tim. 1.3–7), cautions against the dangers of money (Acts 20.33–35; 1 Tim. 6.9–10; Tit 1.11), and offers himself and his teaching as examples for counteracting various issues (e.g. Acts 20.30–35; 1 Tim. 1.16; 2 Tim. 1.13).³⁸

Furthermore, 1 Tim. 5.18 quotes Lk 10.7 as scripture.³⁹ This suggest that the previous overlaps can be explained by the Pastor’s knowledge of Luke and possibly Acts as well. There have been challenges to the unity of Luke-Acts and, more importantly here, whether they circulated together in the second century (for both sides of the debate, see Gregory and Rowe 2010).⁴⁰ Because it is possible that Luke and Acts were separated after originally circulating together (cf. Gregory 2010: 85–87), the use of internal evidence to posit an initial unity is of limited value for this article. But one may also question the usefulness of reception history. It is true, as Andrew Gregory argues (2003), that there is no evidence that Luke and Acts were read together until Irenaeus at the earliest.⁴¹ But second-century interpreters of what became the New Testament did not read these works in light of their initial literary context but rather as a collection of texts (Johnson 2010) through which they addressed their own questions. Thus while there is no proof that Luke and Acts circulated together, one would not expect the extant evidence to give any indication of this in the first place. But even if they did not circulate together, it seems likely that the Pastor would have sought out traditions about Paul and Timothy. Given his knowledge of Luke, and resonances between the Pastorals and Acts noted previously, it is likely he either encountered Acts itself or traditions included within it.

In response to this tradition, 1 Timothy distances Timothy from Jewish law by juxtaposing him with the mysterious opponents.⁴² Not only is Timothy to oppose the opponents’ teaching (1 Tim. 1.3), but Timothy is also an example of faith (πίστις) and love (ἀγάπη; 1 Tim. 4.12), two respects in which the opponents have missed the mark (1 Tim. 1.5). A significant part of these opponents’ teaching involves their alleged misuse of the law (1 Tim. 1.7). Although this supposed misuse is not specified (though cf. 1 Tim. 1.4), 1 Tim. 1.8–11 states that the law is properly (νομίμως) directed toward sinners, not a just person. This moralizing use of the law contrasts with Timothy’s circumcision in Acts, where there are important ethnic dimensions at play.

The opponents allegedly also ‘forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and those who know the truth’ (1 Tim. 4.1–3), which contrasts with ‘the exercise in eusebia urged on Timothy at 7b–10’ (Fiore 1986: 210). Significantly, this contrast would have prohibited any restrictions against food, including Jewish food laws. Here again, 1 Timothy’s readers could plausibly read Timothy as juxtaposed with Jewish use of the law.

One may object that it is not clear that either of these passages presupposes Jewish opponents, in contrast to Titus where this is more likely (e.g., Tit. 1.10, 14; cf. Zamfir 2017). Reconstructing the opponents is a methodologically fraught enterprise, given the polemical (Barclay 1987) and pseudepigraphal (Lincicum 2017) nature of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles.⁴³ I am of the opinion that 1 Timothy’s polemics are intentionally broad, aimed at a wide range of opponents rather than targeting one historical group.⁴⁴ This includes ancient Jewish persons—probably Jewish Jesus devotees—but is not limited to them.

More importantly, 1 Timothy does not require an explicit anti-Jewish polemic to reframe Timothy. Rather, 1 Timothy accomplishes this goal by characterizing Timothy in a way that stands in considerable tension with Acts. This portrayal is similar to other pseudepigraphal works, which also reframe figures as part of their broader program. Moreover, this is also a strategy by which authors engaged with scriptural texts in light of their differences in outlook. Jubilees reframes Abraham by altering the narrative about him rather than by explicitly critiquing Genesis. In other words, both Jubilees and 1 Timothy show rather than tell that previous characterizations of Abraham and Timothy are—from their perspective—flawed. In the case of 1 Timothy, Timothy is no longer a figure who could be martialed for support of Jewish law but becomes a proponent of a non-ethnic moral application of it.⁴⁵

Conclusion

This article is predicated on the view that the addressee is a matter of choice in pseudepigraphal letters and the corollary assumption that the addressee is useful for the author’s project. In the case of 1 Timothy, Timothy legitimates the Pastor’s project on a general level but also in regard to the specifics of this text’s content. Although the former has been widely recognized, I hope to have shown the latter is also important. More could be said in this regard. For example, an analysis of friendship language in 1 Timothy could shed further light on how this letter envisions training leaders in the Jesus movement. True, in other pseudepigraphal letters, the addressees’ usefulness may not be as tightly connected to specific issues. But investigations into how addressees were useful remain productive, as they may further illuminate this type of literature and their function in their initial contexts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to my colleagues at Notre Dame as well as participants in the 2021 Rhetoric and the New Testament Unit of the Society of Biblical Literature for their productive remarks on presentations of this paper at various stages. My conversations with Gary Wallin on exemplarity were helpful in the initial formulation of this article, and Matt Klem’s insights on 1 Timothy and rewritten scripture influenced my comparison of 1 Timothy with Jubilees. I am especially grateful to the anonymous reviewers as well as Jeremiah Coogan, John Fitzgerald, Raleigh Heth, and Kacie Klamm, who read full drafts of this paper and offered further insightful comments. All mistakes are my own. Translations of both primary literature and secondary scholarship are my own.

ORCID iD

Jonathan Sanchez

1

For an application of this principle, see challenge to the Johannine Community.

2

Following : 31–33), I recognize that multiple people are involved in crafting ancient texts in ways that do not easily map onto modern ideas of authorship. Nonetheless, I find that ‘author(s)’ remains productive in describing the person(s) involved in articulating a text’s content, as it allows one to attribute the rhetoric of a letter to choices made by human beings and to address peculiarities like coauthorship.

3

Speaking specifically of what he calls ‘the authentic real letter’ (471). This remains true, albeit in modified form, for what Bauckham calls the ‘letter-essay’ (470), which has a named addressee but also envisions a wider audience, because the author still sees the content as pertinent to both the named addressee and the wider readership.

4

I am influenced by King’s argument (2016: 15–42, here 18) that ‘author-function’, or the intentional way a text is attributed to one or more figures, ‘is deployed in specific contexts to do certain identifiable work’.

5

The implication that pseudepigraphal authorship also challenges the identification of a letter’s addressees has been recognized in scholarship on the Pastoral Epistles for some time. In his 1974 article, Stenger calls the Pastoral Epistles ‘doubly synonymous’ because ‘the claim of pseudonymity also carries with it the recognition of fictive nature of the letter’s addressees’ (253). Cf. : 88) characterization of Timothy and Titus as ‘fictive addressees’.

6

In addition to the examples cited below, see also : 5) with further bibliography.

7

Cf. Funk (1967), upon which Stenger relies, and critique of Funk.

8

Note also the work of John , who argues both that the fabricated correspondence between Paul and Titus provides the foundation for this text’s ‘rigid hierarchy’ (799) and that the descriptions of Titus in 2 Corinthians and especially Galatians ‘makes him an apt recipient for a letter with the anti-Judaic attitudes of the Pastorals’ (798).

9

I am wary of attempts to date the 1 Timothy and the Pastoral Epistles more generally based on identifying the opponents. offers a compelling rejoinder to those who would attribute the Pastoral Epistles to the historical Paul or otherwise date the Pastoral Epistles to the first century based on external evidence (392–403). He also convincingly defends 1 Tim. 5.18 as a citation of Lk 10.7 (361–63).

10

Several scholars have questioned treating the Pastoral Epistles as a unit, often arguing that 2 Timothy was early and sometimes that it is authentically Pauline. See Herzer (2018, 2022); Murphy-O’Connor (1996: 357–59); and Prior (1989). For overviews of this issue, see Ehrman (2013: 192–217); Hoklotubbe (2017: 3–4, n. 3); and : 2–10). Ehrman and Kamfir defend the view that the Pastorals are the product of a single author.

11

The father-child language need not imply that Timothy is young. Paul also refers to his addressees as children (e.g., 1 Cor. 4.14), and both Phil. 2.22 and 1 Cor. 4.17 frame Paul and Timothy’s father-son relationship in terms of their common bond as Jesus devotees.

12

For an argument in favor of the coauthorship of the undisputed Paulines in general 2 Corinthians in particular, see : 1–18).

13

For an overview of Timothy’s exemplarity, see : 209–11).

14

Cf. : 209–11), who views the emphasis as falling on Timothy’s own conduct.

15

: 250) notes that living exempla became more common in the first century CE.

16

Timothy is assumed to be in Ephesus (1 Tim 1.3), but I am not convinced that this alludes to any episode in Paul’s life found in extant sources. See : 363).

17

: 29–45) identifies three components of historical exempla: the hero, the story, and the moral. In 1 Timothy the hero and moral are seen in Timothy and the behaviors prescribed in 1 Timothy (especially 4.12) respectively, but there is no clear story.

18

: 116) notes that ‘[t]he purpose of the collection of letters [i.e., the Socratic Letters] is to propose a mild type of Cynicism as a way of life for its audience.’

19

For an overview of Paul’s exemplarity in 1 Timothy, see : 198–201).

20

Fiore does not directly connect this difference with Paul to Timothy’s usefulness for the Pastor.

21

Paul’s continued progress as a Jesus devotee may be implied in 1 Tim. 4.7–10 (see : 209), but this passage does not relate his progress to faith and love specifically. Note that in 2 Tim. 1.5, Timothy is presumably a third-generation Jesus devotee. When 1 and 2 Timothy are read together, the contrast with Paul is heightened. Timothy, unlike Paul, inherits faith from his family and grows as a lifelong Jesus devotee rather than as one choosing to follow Jesus later in life.

22

Fiore (1986: 204 n. 37, 205, 209–11) notes overlap in terms of the five qualities outlined in 1 Tim. 4.12 (word, conduct, love, faith, and holiness), focusing on love and faith in particular. : 395) notes that ‘πίστις . . . and ἀγάπη together describe the authentic Christian life.’

23

Cf. : 202) discussion of 2 Tim. 1.3–18 and 1 Tim. 1.3–14, which notes that ‘sound teaching’ and the ‘virtue[s]’ of faith and love are passed down from Paul to Timothy by way of example.

24

Moss uses this and other language like ‘chains of imitation’ to describe martyrs’ imitation of Jesus who themselves become examples for Jesus devotees more generally.

25

See the discussion in : 400–402).

26

Overstreet (2009: 541–45) argues that scholars often set too high of an upper limit for terms like νεανίσκος, νεανίας, νεός, and νεότης. Many, though not all, of his examples are compelling. For a discussion of the difficulties of νεανίας and νεανίσκος in regard to the historical Paul, see : xix–xx).

27

Galen, for instance, contrasts ‘youthful’ (ἐν νεότητι) people with ‘older’ (ἐν γήρᾳ) people (De sanitate tuenda libri v, volume 10, p. 322 [Kühn] 322). Cf. : 15–26), who problematizes linking ancient concepts of old age with a precise numerical age.

28

Malherbe (1994) notes, for instance, that 1 Timothy and the other Pastorals use the language of ‘child’ more often than the undisputed Paulines (e.g., 1 Tim. 1.2, 18), and Paul warns Timothy to ‘flee youthful passions’ (νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας) in 2 Tim. 2.22. See also : 210 n. 68), who notes that hortatory literature using exemplarity is often directed ‘toward a youthful audience’.

29

: 115) writes, ‘[t]he Pastorals unambiguously portray Paul as the sole source of genuine tradition and, by implication, assert that Timothy and Titus and any successors they appoint are those who preserve this tradition.’ His emphasis on Paul as the only source of ‘genuine tradition’ overstates matters, but the mimetic chain argued for here frames the training of leaders as participating in the Pauline tradition, even if the initial readers of the Pastorals did not already have a pre-existing connection to Timothy and Titus.

30

Brox (1970: 183–84) argues that the experience of young bishops facing pushback on account of their age undergirds both the Pastorals and Ignatius’s Letter to the Magnesians. For a recent treatment of 1 Clement, see .

31

Others attribute different significance to Timothy’s age. : 210 n. 68), for example, notes that exhortation was often ‘directed towards a youthful audience’. I do not aim to deny such proposals outright but note that debates about age and leadership are an important part of Timothy’s youth in this letter.

32

In terms of Bauckham’s typology of how pseudepigraphal letters addressed their real readers, this falls under the ‘typological’ option where the situation of the ostensible addressee(s) and real readers were constructed as similar (: 477).

33

: 25–41) calculates the initial age of men and women under Roman rule at first marriage based on who dedicates funeral inscriptions for the deceased. Although it varies some by region and was less common than commemorations by parents or siblings, the first commemoration of men by their wives typically occurs in the 25–29 age range. Women first begin to be commemorated by husbands in their teenage years, and by their 20s women are more often commemorated by husbands than fathers.

34

2 Timothy also portrays Timothy as young. If 2 Timothy did precede 1 Timothy, then 1 Timothy retains the view that young people’s youthfulness makes them more prone to sexual misconduct (for more on this view in antiquity, see ). Compare, for instance, 1 Tim. 5.1–2’s injunctions to treat younger women ‘in all purity’ with 2 Tim. 2.22’s warning against ‘youthful passions’. In this scenario, 1 Timothy clarifies that such dangers do not preclude young leadership, a view that could be inferred by Timothy’s role as addressee in 2 Timothy but is not clear. If 1 and 2 Timothy were written together, as I find more likely, then the Pastor uses Timothy in mutually reinforcing ways.

35

See also on the Socratic Epistles, as discussed in n. 18.

36

This is a contested view in scholarship on the Pastorals. See the survey of scholarship and a decision in favor of 1 Timothy knowing Acts in : 10–11).

37

For an overview of the characterization of Paul in general, see Zamfir (2013: 10–11). Paul’s speech in Ephesus is the most persuasive part of Wilson’s larger argument (1979: 107–24, especially 117–18). Both Moule and Wilson argue the same person wrote both Luke-Acts and Pastorals, but this is doubtful (see further, ).

38

Cf. : 118), who sees false teaching as the primary issue.

39

That 1 Timothy cites Luke has been disputed on multiple fronts. For an overview of this issue as well as a compelling rejoinder, see : 361–63).

40

Some, but not all, of the essays from this volume are reprints with light modifications; all citations are from the 2010 collection.

41

Gregory later () cautions that the external evidence should not be used to dismiss the hermeneutical unity of Luke-Acts and then suggests that they likely circulated together initially—at least when presented to Theophilus—before being separated.

42

Positive examples were often juxtaposed with negative ones in antiquity. For more on this phenomenon and its occurrence in 1 Timothy, see : 192, 210, 219–22).

43

For a helpful recent assessment of the opponents in the Pastorals and the difficulties of identifying them, albeit with some differences from my own views, see .

44

In this regard I largely follow : 66), though I do not limit this to so-called gnostic opponents.

45

There is little in 2 Timothy that addresses Judaism or Jewish iterations of the Jesus movement, either explicitly or implicitly. If 2 Timothy was written first, then the Pastor introduces a new concern in 1 Timothy and Titus. If all three Pastoral Epistles were written at the same time, then the Pastor sees it sufficient to treat the Jesus movement’s relationship to Judaism in two epistles. Note that the Pastor’s anti-Judaic project is more explicit in Titus (see especially : 785, 796–98); ultimately, these are different means toward the same end.

References

Barclay

John M.G.

1987 ‘Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 10: 73–93.

Barclay

John M.G.

2007 ‘There Is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ideologies of Age’, NTS 53: 225–41.

Barreto

Eric D.

2010 Ethnic Negotiations: The Function of Race and Ethnicity in Acts 16 (WUNT 293; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Bassler

Jouette M.

1996 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon).

Bauckham

Richard

1988 ‘Pseudo-Apostolic Letters’, JBL 107: 469–94.

Brox

Norbert

1969 ‘Historische und theologische Probleme der Pastoralbriefe’, Kairos 11: 81–94.

Brox

Norbert

1970 ‘Pseudo-Paulus und Pseudo-Ignaitus: Einige Topoi Altchristlicher Pseudepigraphie’, VC 30: 181–88.

Campbell

Douglas A.

2014 Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Cohen

Shaye J.D.

1999 ‘Appendix D: Was Timothy Jewish?’, in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press): 363–77.

10.

Dibelius

Martin

Conzelmann

Hans

1972 The Pastoral Epistles (trans. Buttolph

Philip

Yarbro

Adela

; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

11.

Ehrman

Bart

2013 Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

12.

Fiore

Benjamin

1986 The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).

13.

Fiore

Benjamin

, revised by Blanton

Thomas

IV 2016 ‘Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation’, in Sampley

Paul

(ed.), Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, (2 vols.; London: Bloomsbury): 1.169–82.

14.

Funk

Robert W.

1967 ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance’, in Farmer

W. R.

Moule

C. F. D.

Niebuhr

R. R.

(eds.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Present to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 249–69.

15.

Gregory

Andrew F.

2003 The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus (WUNT 169; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

16.

Gregory

Andrew F.

2010 ‘The Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke-Acts’, in Gregory

Andrew F.

Rowe

C. Kavin

(eds.), Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (repr.; Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press [2007]): 82–93.

17.

Gregory

Andrew F.

Rowe

C. Kavin

(eds.) 2010 Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press).

18.

Herzer

Jens

2018 ‘Rearranging the ‘House of God’: A New Perspective on the Pastoral Epistles’, in Houtman

Alberdina

de Jong

Albert

de Weg

Magda Misset-van

(eds.), Empsychoi Logoi—Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of Pieter Willem van der Horst (Leiden: Brill): 547–66.

19.

Herzer

Jens

2022 ‘Das Geheimnis der Frömmigkeit (1 Tim 3,16): Sprache und Stil der Pastoralbreife im Kontext hellenistich-römishcer Popularphilosophie – eine Problemanzeige’, in Die Pastoralbriefe und das Vermächtnis des Paulus: Studien zu den Briefen an Timotheus und Titus (repr.; WUNT 476; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck [2007]): 381–405.

20.

Hoklotubbe

Christopher

2017 Civilized Piety: The Rhetoric of Pietas in the Pastoral Epistles and the Roman Empire (Waco: Baylor University Press).

21.

Huston

Christopher

1997 ‘Was Timothy Timid? On the Rhetoric of Fearlessness (1 Corinthians 16:10–11) and Cowardice (2 Timothy 1:7)’, Biblical Research 42: 58–73.

22.

Hylen

Susan E.

2019 ‘Women διάκονοι and Gendered Norms of Leadership’, JBL 138: 687–702.

23.

Johnson

Luke Timothy

2010 ‘Literary Criticism of Luke-Acts: Is Reception History Pertinent?’, in Gregory

Andrew F.

Rowe

C. Kavin

(eds.), Rethinking the Unity and Reception of Luke and Acts (repr.; Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press [2005]): 66–69.

24.

Kaestli

Jean-Daniel

1995 ‘Luke-Acts and the Pastoral Epistles: The Thesis of a Common Authorship’, in Tuckett

Christopher

(ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic): 110–26.

25.

King

Karen

2016 ‘What Is an Author? Ancient Author-Function in the Apocryphon of John and the Apocalypse of John’, in Arnal

William E.

et al. (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures Among Jesus Adherents: Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg (Leuven: Peeters): 15–42.

26.

Langlands

Rebecca

2018 Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

27.

Lieu

Judith

2014 ‘The Audience of the Johannine Epistles’, in Culpepper

R. Alan

Anderson

Paul N.

(eds.), Communities in Disputes: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles (Atlanta: SBL): 123–40.

28.

Lincicum

David

2017 ‘Mirror-Reading a Pseudepigraphal Letter’, NovT 59: 171–93.

29.

Malherbe

Abraham

1986 Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster). 1994 ‘Paulus Senex’, ResQ 36: 197–207.

30.

Marshall

I. Howard

, in collaboration with Towner

Philip H.

1999 The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; London: T&T Clark).

31.

Marshall

John W.

2008 ‘I Left You in Crete: Narrative Deception and Social Hierarchy in the Letter to Titus’, JBL 127: 781–803.

32.

Meeks

Wayne

Fitzgerald

John T.

2007 ‘Introduction’, in Meeks

Wayne

Fitzgerald

John T.

(eds.), The Writings of St. Paul: A Norton Critical Edition (New York: Norton): xiii–xxviii.

33.

Méndez

Hugo

2020 ‘Did the Johannine Community Exist?’, JSNT 42: 350–74.

34.

Mitchell

Margaret M.

1992 ‘New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus’, JBL 111: 641–62.

35.

Moss

Candida

2010 The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

36.

Moule

C.F.D.

1965 ‘The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles’, BJRL 47: 430–53.

37.

Murphy-O’Connor

Jerome

1996 Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

38.

Murphy-O’Connor

Jerome

2010 Keys to Second Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

39.

Overstreet

R. Larry

2009 ‘The Greek Concept of “Seven Stages of Life” and Its New Testament Significance’, BBR 19: 537–63.

40.

Parkin

Tim G.

2003 Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press).

41.

Prior

Michael

1989 Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTSup 23; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

42.

Roller

Matthew B.

2018 Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

43.

Rosenmeyer

Patricia

2006 Ancient Greek Literary Letters: Selections in Translation (London: Routledge).

44.

Saller

Richard

1994 Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

45.

Stenger

Werner

1974 ‘Timotheus und Titus als literarische Gestalten: Beobachtungen zur Form und Funktion der Pastoralbriefe’, Kairos 16: 252–67.

46.

Thompson

Trevor

2009 ‘As if Genuine: Interpreting the Pseudepigrpahic Second Thessalonians’, in Frey

Jörg

et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 471–88.

47.

Tsuji

Manabu

2010 ‘Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha’, NTS 56: 253–72.

48.

VanderKam

James C.

2018 Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1–21 (ed. Crawford

; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress).

49.

Welborn

L.L.

2018 The Young Against the Old: Generational Conflict in First Clement (Landham, MA: Lexington Books).

50.

Wilson

S.G.

1979 Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK).

51.

Zamfir

Korinna

2013 Men and Women in the Household of God: A Contextual Approach to the Roles of Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

52.

Zamfir

Korinna

2017 ‘Elusive Opponents in the Pastoral Epistles’, in Joseph

Verheyden

Tobias

Nicklas

Elisabeth

Hernitscheck

(eds.), Shadowy Characters and Fragmentary Evidence (WUNT 388; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 27–48.