Michael S. Robertson, Reading the Letter to Titus in Light of Crete: Dynamics of Early Christian Identity Construction, Critical Approaches to Early Christianity 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2024). 9789004685710.
Reviewed by John D. Doss, Asbury Theological Seminary, Asbury University, John.doss@asburyseminary.edu.
As the title suggests, Michael Scott Robertson provides an important contribution to New Testament (hereafter NT) studies by Reading the Letter to Titus in Light of Crete. Titus is one of the most neglected books of the New Testament, largely because many believe it is a pseudonymous letter. Moreover, focus on Titus itself is often obscured due to its inclusion with the other “pastoral epistles.” Even less attention has been devoted to its relationship to Roman Crete, since many doubt the letter was actually addressed to the island. However, Robertson’s work demonstrates the value of research on ancient Crete for interpreting Titus and understanding its role in the formation of early Christian identity.
In Chapter One, Robertson addresses the critical issues that pose a major barrier to his study. Did Paul compose the letter to Titus, whom he left on the island of Crete (1:5)? Robertson employs the concept of lieux de mémoire (“sites of memory”), as developed by French historian Pierre Nora, to argue that providing answers to such questions is not necessary for his purposes. Robertson demonstrates that the letter to Titus meets the three criteria for being considered a lieu de mémoire. First, the letter itself provides a narrative of Paul and Titus’s involvement in the Christian community at Crete, conveying a desire for Crete to become a site of memory. Second, early Christian reception of Titus (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria) demonstrates that by the second century CE, a commemorative process had developed whereby the letter was read and reread, exercising considerable influence. In the succeeding centuries, a Christian tradition developed in which Titus was considered a native Cretan and the first bishop of Crete (e.g., Eusebius, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and the Acts of Titus), despite the lack of NT evidence for such a view (cf. Tit 1:5; 3:12; 2 Tim 4:10). Hence, since Paul’s letter to Titus at Crete functioned as a landscape of memory, it is essential to examine its setting on the island and its impact on the formation of early Christian identity.
Chapters Two through Four discuss three ancient topoi relevant to studying the letter to Titus in light of Crete: Zeus (Chapter Two), Cretan society (Chapter Three), and Cretan Judaism (Chapter Four). The island was famous throughout the ancient Mediterranean world as the birthplace of Zeus. Robertson traces references to this myth from Hesiod in the eighth century BCE to Diodorus Siculus in the first. Moreover, at least since Euhemerus (fourth/third century BCE), the myth of Zeus’s death and tomb on Crete was also widely propagated. Robertson observes that the myth is directly relevant to the letter to Titus, as it cites the slogan “Cretans are always liars” (Tit 1:12). Clement of Alexandria and Jerome noted that the line comes from Epimenides’ Oracula, which is no longer extant, but is cited by Callimachus in his Hymn to Zeus (third century BCE). Hence, the widespread trope that Cretans were liars was directly tied to the belief that the island contained Zeus’s tomb. Robertson also discusses the epigraphic evidence on Crete that demonstrates the veneration of Zeus in pre-Roman times. He then turns to Crete in the Roman period. Latin literature (e.g., Virgil, Ovid) also mentions ancient Greek mythology concerning Zeus’s birth and death on Crete. Furthermore, the epigraphic and numismatic evidence indicates that, beginning with Augustus, the emperor was widely venerated on the island. He concludes that a “unique fusion of Cretan and Roman identity was created and propagated” (p. 50) during the Roman period.
Robertson’s discussion of Cretan society in Chapter Three is divided chronologically into the pre-Roman and Roman periods and geographically into Cretan and non-Cretan perspectives. In the fourth century BCE, Plato and Aristotle agreed that Cretan society was distinct, as it was more communally oriented than household based, like the Athens in which they wrote. Gender on Crete was of supreme importance, as men were trained and educated in the andreia, or hetaireia (public messes for men), while women were taught household management prior to marriage, contrary to custom in many other Greek poleis. Moreover, Cretan women generally enjoyed high status, at least as concerned property ownership. Robertson utilizes literary sources as well as Cretan material culture (e.g., inscriptions, household architecture) to construct this portrait of Cretan society. The Roman period, which began with the Roman subjugation of Crete during the Third Mithridatic War (73–63 BCE), brought about changes, including a shift away from the old communal society. However, Robertson argues that elements of traditional Cretan culture persisted. He documents the consistently negative portrayal of Cretans in ancient Greek literature through Roman occupation (e.g., Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo) as liars, warlike, greedy, and deceitful (e.g., the verb Κρητίζω, “to act like a Cretan,” also means “to lie”).
Chapter Four is the third and final exploration of the socio-historical background of Crete, focusing on the Jewish community on the island. While the letter to Titus clearly refers to Cretan Jews (cf. 1:10, 14), Robertson admits that there is scant material evidence for a Jewish community in the Imperial period. Nevertheless, he identifies three topoi relating to the letter and Cretan Judaism. First, there is indeed some evidence of an established Jewish community on the island which began before the Maccabean period. He discusses four inscriptions that allegedly relate to Cretan Judaism. The literary evidence is also significant, as Crete is mentioned in 1 Maccabees, Philo, and Josephus, who apparently married a Jew from Crete. Second, Tacitus (Histories 5.2) relates the widespread myth that the Jews originated on Crete. Third, the mythologies of Zeus and Yahweh were sometimes syncretized in antiquity, which is relevant to Titus.
Chapters Five and Six interpret the letter to Titus in light of the research on Crete presented in Chapters Two, Three, and Four. The former focuses on Tit 1:1–2:10. Cretan mythology of Zeus and Minos is already evoked in the prescript (1:1–4). That is, the reference in 1:2 to “the unlying God before the eternal ages” (ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων) and Paul as his messenger is best understood against the backdrop of the proverb against Cretans as liars (cf. 1:12), which is based on the myth of Zeus’ birth and death on the island. Robertson argues that the rest of Titus 1 contains two lists: the qualifications for elders (Tit 1:6–9) constitute the ingroup, while Tit 1:10–16 describes the outgroup. He employs social identity theory to explain the function of the lists, which describe the prototype of characteristics that members of the Christian assemblies are to exhibit. He focuses on the identity of the outgroup as consisting of Cretan Jews (1:10) as well as the “liar paradox” of Tit 1:11 (i.e., “A Cretan says that Cretans lie, which would mean that the speaker himself lies in saying that Cretans lie. If the speaker lies in saying Cretans always lie, then they presumably tell the truth; however, if Cretans tell the truth, then the speaker is telling the truth that Cretans lie,” p. 103). The rest of the chapter concerns the household code in Tit 2:1–10. Robertson argues that there are distinctive aspects of this Haustafel or “household code” (e.g., greater freedom for women, older women instructing younger women on the household), which reflect typical aspects of traditional Cretan society. He employs the postcolonial theory of hybridity to explain the tension between the partial appropriation of Cretan culture in the household code in Tit 2:2–10 and the denunciation of Cretans in 1:12. In other words, the letter indicates that a Cretan Christian “is both an insider and an outsider” (p. 116), occupying a “third space” in which one neither fully embraces nor rejects one’s own culture, thus resulting in a hybrid identity.
The final chapter examines Tit 2:11–14 as a foundational myth for Christian readers of the letter to Titus and its relation to other founding myths in the NT. Robertson explains that there are two “epiphanies” of Christ in Tit 2:11–14, who is called “God” (2:13). Hence, the founding myth conveys that Christians live between Christ’s first (2:11) and second (2:13) comings. Believers as a “people of his own possession” (Tit 2:14, ESV) alludes to Exod 19:5 and thus to Jewish foundation myths. Robertson argues that the text also evokes Cretan Jewish mythology as related by Tacitus (Hist. 5). He then examines the parallels between Tit 2:11–14 and the Roman imperial cult, especially as presented in the Priene inscription and P.Oxy. VII.1021. These official announcements of the reigns of Augustus and Nero, respectively, are similar to Tit 2:11–14, which declares that a human being who is God (θεός) and savior (σωτήρ) has appeared (ἐπεφάνη), giving all people hope (ἐλπίς). Similar language was also used of Zeus, who was frequently associated with the emperor in the Roman imperial cult. Robertson argues that Tit 2:11–14 served as a “counter-memory” that subverted the mythology of Zeus, Cretan Judaism, and the imperial cult. Again, he utilizes the concept of hybridity from the great postcolonial theorist, Homi Bhabha, to explain the complex relationship between submission to the emperor in Tit 3:1 and subversion of imperial mythology elsewhere in Titus.
Reading the Letter to Titus in Light of Crete has several strengths. For one, Robertson’s work is well researched. He provides extensive documentation and interaction with primary and secondary sources. The text of his book is only 146 pages, while the bibliography and index of ancient sources are almost forty pages. Moreover, the utilization of lieu de mémoire is clever, allowing Robertson to focus on the data regarding ancient Crete (e.g., literary sources and material culture) without becoming entangled in questions of authorship, date, and provenance. Accordingly, his research stimulates fresh reflection on the epistle and its interpretation.
Nevertheless, Robertson’s work is not without its shortcomings. On the one hand, he acknowledges the scant evidence for the Jewish community on Crete during the early Roman period. On the other hand, he makes sweeping claims concerning Cretan Jews in Chapter Four, such as that they were “embedded in Cretan culture” and did not “attempt to isolate themselves from their cultural surroundings” (p. 89). In addition to the dilemma of limited data, even the evidence he does use to reconstruct Cretan Judaism is problematic. For example, the inscription commemorating Sophia of Gortyn, the elder (πρεσβυτέρα) and synagogue leader (ἀρχισυναγώγισσα) of Kissamos, is central to his claim that women within the Cretan Jewish community enjoyed a high status. He conveniently uses Anastasius C. Bandy’s dating of the inscription to the first or second century CE. However, most scholars have followed Louis Robert’s later dating of the inscription to the fourth or fifth century CE, which means it cannot be used to support Robertson’s claim. A final weakness is his failure to consider alternative interpretations of Titus, especially of 1:12. For example, Isaiah Allen argues that Paul did not agree with Epimenides’ categorical renunciation of Cretans as “always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons” (1:12, NIV). Instead, he posits that 1:12 cites one of the self-acclaimed prophets of a group of troublemakers within the Christian assemblies on Crete, whom Paul strongly disagrees with and instructs Titus to rebuke severely. If this alternative reading is correct, then the apostle is not endorsing the widespread topos of Cretans as liars, as Robertson assumes, and Tit 1:12 does not stand in tension with the partial appropriation of Cretan culture elsewhere in the epistle. While Allen’s work may have been too recent for Robertson to cite, it illustrates the need for further consideration of plausible alternatives to traditional readings of the letter. Despite these concerns, Reading the Letter to Titus in Light of Crete is a significant resource for future research on Titus.
Table of Contents
Introduction (1–7)
1. Titus, Crete, and Memory (8–32)
2. Zeus (33–50)
3. Cretan Society (51–78)
4. Cretan Judaism (79–89)
5. No Cretans Allowed? (90–118)
6. Our Great God and Savior: A New Foundation Myth (119–40)
Conclusion (141–46)
Discussion
1. Lieux de mémoire. You employ Pierre Nora’s concept to argue that Paul’s letter to Titus on the island of Crete is a lieu de mémoire (“site of memory”), which allows you to study ancient Crete and its relation to Titus without getting into debates on the authenticity of the epistle. How do you think this concept can be applied to other aspects of biblical studies? What do you foresee to be some of the potential fruitful results of doing so?
We are currently seeing some other scholars using Nora’s concept of lieux de mémoire in some interesting ways. For example, Luc Bulundwe (2 Timothée dans le corpus paulinien [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023]) has recently used this concept to analyze how 2 Timothy inherited the image of characters in the proto-Pauline epistles, geographical locations, and the letters of Paul. Tobias Nicklas (“Die Akten des Titus: Rezeption ‘apostolischer’ Schriften und Entwicklung antik-christlicher ‘Erinnerungslandschaften,’” Early Christianity 8 [2017]: 458–80) has also written on how “biblical” traditions crystalize into locations and form “sites of memory” such as the basilica of St. Titus in Gortyn. I hope that the use of Nora’s analytic (of course combined with other methods and analytics) can be used to help us further conceptualize how traditions move through time and space. I particularly see this concept as being helpful in studying Christian apocrypha. I think that this framework can help elucidate how apocryphal traditions make use of earlier traditions and how they interact with the geographic and spatial framework in which they are written and received.
2. Household Code. I found your discussion of Tit 2:2–10 interesting, particularly the observation that the household code reflects traditional aspects of Cretan society (e.g., older women instructing younger women about the household). What are some of the most significant ways that the household code of Titus differs from those found elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet 2:13–3:7)? Are there other observations you would like to make concerning Tit 2:2–10 that may not have received extensive attention in your book?
I first want to clarify that I do not mean to say that Titus 2:2–2 definitely reflects traditional aspects of Cretan society (although it may). I mean to show that there are important points of contact between Titus and Cretan society that could have been salient to readers who read Titus in a Cretan framework. I do not think we can be sure if the author intended these connections, but I think readers could have read this text in such a way.
As far as differing from other New Testament household codes, Titus does not have the same reciprocal pairs of husband/wife and parent/child found especially in Ephesians and Colossians and to a lesser degree in 1 Peter. Women seem to be (slightly) elevated in Titus such that older women are not told to submit to their husbands and older women are given a teaching role.
I would have liked to have examined the role of slaves in Titus more closely. In the book, I do not give enough treatment to Titus 2:9–10. It seems to be quite similar to other exhortations to slaves in the New Testament, but I think it would have been interesting to think through how this may relate to Crete. Unfortunately, I must save this for another project.
3. Imperial Cult. I enjoyed your comparative study of Tit 2:11–14 and imperial propaganda, especially the Priene inscription and P.Oxy. 7.1021. What other passages are there in Titus, besides 2:11–14 and 3:1, that are relevant for understanding its rhetoric vis-à-vis the empire? How do you think Titus compares with other Pauline epistles concerning Christians and the Imperial Cult?
I think that Titus 3:4–7 is also important for understanding the text’s rhetoric vis-à-vis empire. It has a similar focus on ἐπιφαίνω as Titus 2:11–14 along with similar vocabulary to that found in the Priene inscription and P.Oxy. 7.1021. Imperial rhetoric in Titus 3:4–7 is one of my current areas of research.
Regarding how Titus compares with other Pauline epistles concerning Christians and the Imperial Cult, I think that Titus is drawing upon Paul’s rhetoric in Romans, so there is a degree of continuity between Romans and Titus. However, I think that Titus displays somewhat less “resistance” to imperial ideology than Paul does. Titus does resist the empire, but it does so differently and in a different context than what is found in the undisputed Pauline epistles. I think that Titus provides an example of early Christians trying to adapt Paul’s teaching and rhetoric to a new setting, from which we can see both continuity and change.
Leave a Reply