We've arrived at the letter to Titus, the last and briefest of the so-called Pastorals and therefore my favorite. What Dr Johnson said of Paradise Lost, Milton's twelve-book epic in blank verse--that no one ever wished it longer--could be said as well of the Pastoral letters, each of which is only a few pages long.
Scratching around for something to say about Titus, I find that others appear to have had a similar problem. For example, the section devoted to the Pastoral letters in The New Testament: an Introduction, a work by Norman Perrin that I have turned to for enlightenment and commentary in these mini-essays on New Testament books, is precisely four pages long. Four pages, on three letters. His section on the letter to the Romans is eight pages long and could be much longer since, as I pointed out, the profundity of the eighth chapter elicits a Perrin punt:
In what is probably the greatest sustained passage from his letters, perhaps the greatest sustained passage from Christian literature altogether, Paul now depicts the details of the possibilities of the new life in Christ as he understands it in his maturity . . . . It is a passage to be read and reflected on by the individual reader rather than commented on by the scholar, and the present writer does not propose to make any remarks whatsoever.
The same writer's laconic treatment of Titus and the two other Pastoral letters has a different source. Reading between his lines, I understand Perrin to be saying something like: these letters might be safely skipped over, but they are in the New Testament, so, in the interests of fullness, I will perform the following perfunctory analysis. [Perfunctory analysis.] Actually, one interesting question relating to the Pastorals might be how it is that they made the cut and were admitted into the New Testament canon. I say "interesting" but I'm not volunteering to study up on it and make a report.
I will say this: regarding Titus, one might at least clear up some misconceptions by observing that the traditional, formal title--"The Letter of Paul to Titus"--contains three nouns, all of which deceive. It's not a letter. It wasn't written by Paul. And it wasn't meant for Titus. (The same could be said of the first and second letters of Paul to Timothy, substituting "Timothy" for "Titus.")
I explained in my account of I Timothy why Paul could not have been the author of the Pastoral epistles, but here is a fast review. Their sleepy serene style is not Paul's. All the Greek-reading scholars concur on this point, and I think we should believe them, because it comes through in translation, too. Moreover, the subject matter of the Pastorals, which is church organization, was not a subject of the known letters of Paul, and could not have been, since when he was alive "church" referred to individual congregations, such as existed at Corinth and Rome, not one universal Christian church that had to be organized so as to endure into a long future as a world institution. Paul could have imagined no such need, the expectation of Christ's second coming and the termination of human history occupying too big a space in his brain. For these and other reasons, the Pastorals had to be written at a much later date, probably around the year 125, well after Paul's race was run, by someone who could not very convincingly imitate Paul, so different were his concerns and outlook--indeed, Paul's great themes, such as justification by faith, are almost absent, and when they do arise, sketchily, the sketchiness betrays the imitation.
That the work is a "letter" to "Titus" appears to be another aspect of the imitation. We hear whispers of Titus in some of Paul's letters, particularly II Corinthians and Galatians. As a contemporary of Paul, he could not be the intended recipient of a "letter" written long after the death of Paul. I suppose that for our fundamentalist friends this is an instance of begging the question, since they are resolved to accept the traditional view that the work known as the letter of Paul to Titus is indeed a letter written by Paul to Titus. If you don't accept the view that the "letter" could not have been written by Paul, you don't have to reject the view that it was written to Titus. But is it even a letter? Once you get past the suspiciously elaborate salutation, it reads more like a short treatise on church organization. Why would the obscure Titus--who is not mentioned in the Book of Acts, the New Testament's contribution to early church history--receive such a document? The overwhelming evidence for non-Pauline authorship at a date well into the second century aligns with the theory that Titus and its two companions were intended as a general guide for church leaders and that, as Perrin puts it, "the address to individuals known to be companions of Paul is a literary device to lend plausibility."
I've indicated that the text is flavorless without discussing in any specific way what is set out. Here's a sample, too memorable to be representative but here goes anyway:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior (2:9-10).
Not the favorite passage of the liberation theologians, but critics of Christianity who have troubled themselves to read the New Testament like to call attention to it. The Bible is long and there's something for everyone! The passage may be viewed as another piece of evidence against Paul's authorship, for in his genuine letters the topic of slavery is almost always a metaphor illustrating some theological concept. As an institution in human affairs, slavery arises, somewhat obliquely, in the letter to Philemon, and Paul's oblique treatment suggests that he would not have written Titus 2:9-10. (And he didn't.)
Comments