PTEBT 703 AND THE GENRE OF 1 TIMOTHY:

THE CURIOUS CAREER OF A PTOLEMAIC PAPYRUS IN

PAULINE SCHOLARSHIP1

by

MARGARET M. MITCHELL
University of Chicago

Since the eighteenth century the canonical letters of the apostle Paul
to Timothy and the one to Titus have been given the name “Pastoral
Epistles.” This moniker is meant to capture the special character of
these letters that marks their uniqueness within the Pauline corpus.
They are the only letters written to individuals who are Paul’s dele-
gates and, though ostensibly addressed to the delegates themselves,
quite clearly have a wider readership in mind, for whom they give
generalized instructions on church governance, individual behavior,
and the proper exercise of delegated authority. Considered less situa-
tion speciŽ c than a letter like Galatians or 1 Thessalonians, the Pastorals
are an odd mix of the personal and the public, of church order and
personal exhortation, of instruction and command, of the particular
and the general. Those qualities, in combination with other historical,
theological, and stylistic considerations, have led scholars to ask repeat-
edly over the last two centuries what kind of texts these are, and led
many to wonder whether Paul could or would have written them.
What does a third-century bce Ptolemaic papyrus have to do with
this question of the genre of the so-called Pastoral Epistles, 1 Timothy
in particular? This paper will reconstruct the curious career of the
Tebtunis Papyrus no. 703 in the 70 years since its publication in 1933,
particularly at the hands of New Testament Pauline scholars, where
it has recently been heralded by Luke Timothy Johnson as a key piece
of evidence constituting “the discovery of a literary precedent”2 which

1
For Robert M. Grant, with thanks for the books (yes, the 587, but even more,
the 33).
2
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (The
New Testament in Context; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996) 107.
See also idem, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 97 (hereafter referred to as AB).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2002 Novum Testamentum XLIV, 4

Also available online – www.brill.nl
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 345

allows one, through solving the question of the genre of 1 Timothy

and Titus, to demonstrate that they are authentic letters of the apos-
tle Paul.

I. Discovery and Initial Publication

PTebt 703 was salvaged, along with a large cache of papyri, from
cartonnage of mummies unearthed in the winter of 1899-1900 at Ûmm
el Breigât in what was the Arsinoïte nome. That group of papyri was
held by B.P. Grenfell, who worked on them through the Ž rst World
War. After a protracted illness Grenfell died in 1926, and the Ž nds
were taken up by a team headed by A.S. Hunt and J.G. Smyly.
They were assisted on individual matters by the economic historian
M. RostovtzeV, whose most substantial contribution to the volume was
his complete responsibility for the entry on the lengthy papyrus PTebt
703, for which he provided a transcription, introduction, partial trans-
lation, and extensive commentary.3 The Preface to the volume does
not tell how those tasks fell to RostovtzeV, but one can easily see how
the contents of the document—detailed instructions on administrative
oversight of the local commercial activity and royal taxes in the dis-
trict—would have been a natural Ž t for the great economic historian
of the Hellenistic period.
The papyrus itself is 32.5 centimeters high, containing 280 lines of
reconstructed text in Ž ve columns on the recto, and another four
columns on the verso (with verso column one corresponding to recto
column Ž ve). The editor also includes six small “unplaced fragments,”
none of which has more than three clearly distinguishable letters. In
a few places on the papyrus a correcting hand has been at work. The
text itself does not specify a date, but on the basis of paleography,
contents, and plain, non-rhetorical style RostovtzeV dated it to the
third century bce, perhaps as early as Euergetes I (Ptolemy III, reigned
246-221 bce), a judgment supported by the fact that some of the other
papyri belonging to the same load of cartonnage can be securely dated
to his reign.4 Internal evidence is tantalizing, in that the author refers to
oß m‹ximoi (“native troops”)5 who have run oV from their work (perhaps

3
The Tebtunis Papyri, vol. 3, part 1, ed. A.S. Hunt and J.G. Smyly, with assistance
from B.P. Grenfell, E. Lobel and M. RostovtzeV (London: Cambridge University Press,
1933) 66-102 (hereafter referred to as RostovtzeV ).
4
Rostovtze V, 67.
5
LSJ, 1085, s.v. m‹ximow.
346 margaret m. mitchell

with some naètai as well [line 219]), which RostovtzeV assigned to

one of two post-war periods: after the Syrian war waged by Euergetes,
or the battle of Raphia in 217 bce.6 The text also refers (in a note
made with smaller letters) to poikÝlai perist‹seiw, “various diYculties”
(l. 236), but such a general reference is of little help in securing an
indisputable date for the text.7
The text begins [toè] êpomn®matow êpò Z + h! nod+ [Årou?—ŽntÛgrafon
êpñkeit])ai, “a copy of the memorandum by Zenodorus8 follows below.”
This self-description of its genre as a êpñmnhma is found throughout
the text (see also lines 2, 136, 235, 240, 260).9 The memorandum was
originally accompanied by a preŽ xed “cover letter,” but owing to its
mutilated state the identities of the parties involved and addressed in
the memorandum itself remain unknown.10 RostovtzeV argued that
PTebt 703 is a memorandum which contains the instructions from a
dioik®thw, probably from Alexandria, to his subordinate, likely the
oÞkonñmow of the Arsinoïte nome, on administrative matters which are
arranged in rough topical sub-groupings. He queried whether PTebt
703 might in fact be “an extract” from “the original êpñmnhma,”11 con-
taining only the administrative topics that would be most pertinent to
the oversight of the particular newly appointed oÞkonñmow named in
the cover letter. In his view this accounts for its inconsistency in address
(sometimes singular, sometimes plural, notably toward the end of the
papyrus),12 and other clumsy constructions in the document, which
would therefore be due to rough editing. From these observations he
concluded that:
the memorandum seems to be more than a mere arbitrary abridgement; it is
rather an adaptation of a standard document on which the instructions given to
oYcials of a certain class were based. But in spite of its personal and colloquial
character it was hardly written expressly for the use of an oeconomus of the

6
Rostovtze V, 68 and 100, respectively.
7
For further discussion of the date, see Werner Huß, “Staat und Ethos nach den
Vorstellungen eines Ptolemäischen Dioiketes des 3. Jh. Bemerkungen zu P. Teb. III,I
703,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 27 (1980) 67-77, 68-69, who himself prefers a date
around 210 bce.
8
The reconstruction of the name is uncertain; RostovtzeV oVers also the possibil-
ity of Zenothemis (RostovtzeV, 66 ). Later J.A.S. Evans and C.B. Welles proposed
Athenodoros ( J.Juv.P. 7-8 [1953-54] 39); Huß, “Staat und Ethos,” 68-69, argues for
Rostovtze V ’s original proposal.
9
Rostovtze V, 68.
10
Rostovtze V, 66: “Owing to the mutilation of the covering letter which was preŽ xed,
the identity of neither the writer nor the addressee is certainly known.”
11
Rostovtze V, 71.
12
Rostovtze V, 71.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 347

Arsinoïte nome. No mention is made of any particular locality, or of measures

designed for any special circumstances; on the contrary, the instructions are of
general application, and even the most personal remark (l. 258), “ d¢ kaÜ Žpost¡llvn
se eÞw tòn nomòn prosdiel¡x[y]hn (“what I told you in sending you to the nome”),
might refer to any oeconomus, since there is no diYculty in supposing that each
one on appointment had an audience with the dioecetes before leaving Alexandria
for his province. In our view, then, 703 is one of the many copies of the stan-
dard instruction of the dioecetes to the oeconomi.13

In the commentary RostovtzeV himself devoted a good deal of atten-

tion to the issue of genre in this papyrus. First he deŽ ned the genre
of the êpñmnhma itself:
„Upñmnhma is in fact what the word implies, a memorandum. It may be a mem-
orandum for private use, a reminder of either some business to be carried out
in the future . . . or dealt with in the past. . . . Or it may be a memorandum
addressed to another person in order to remind him of something or to ask him
to remind somebody else . . . But there are also hypomnemata written, not to a
man of higher standing by an inferior or to an oYcial by a private person, but
emanating from men of higher or equal position, and containing memoranda
which are in fact requests, orders, or instructions to a colleague or subordi-
nate . . . The existence of êpomn®mata embodying oYcial instructions was accord-
ingly known; nevertheless 703 is a real revelation. For the Ž rst time we have not
quotations from or mentions of an instruction, but the instruction itself; and for
the Ž rst time we meet an instruction of a general, not a special, character. In
fact, this document is a kind of vade-mecum for the oeconomus, who in the clos-
ing sentence is advised ¦xein tŒ êpomn®mata diŒ xerñw, kaÜ perÜ ¥k‹stvn ¤pist¡lle[in]
kayŒ sunt¡taktai. It is, so to say, his appointment-charter.14

Undoubtedly one can hear in the excitement at this discovery the

reason RostovtzeV took on the editorial work on PTebt 703. From
these judgments RostovtzeV disputes Ulrich Wilcken’s thesis that “appoint-
ment charters” were termed ¤ntolaÛ, “circular order[s] addressed to a
group of oYcials,” arguing instead that letters of appointment proba-
bly just included “a general deŽ nition of the oYce,” whereas “instruc-
tions for the conduct of the oYce, if added—and they were probably
usual—, were rather in the form of êpomn®mata and xrhmatismoÛ , not
¤ntolaÛ.”15 Rostovtze V found in this distinction between appointment
letters and instructions for carrying out the tasks of oYce a way to
explain the two chanceries mentioned in the papyri: ¤pistolografeÝa
and êpomnhmatografeÝa, the latter being responsible for updating lists
of bureaucratic responsibilities and excerpting the appropriate elements
for each new appointee. Later Wilcken would return to the point with
new examples, and argue that both terms, êpomn®mata and ¤ntolaÛ,

13
Rostovtze V, 71.
14
Rostovtze V, 68-69.
15
Rostovtze V, 69.
348 margaret m. mitchell

were used to refer to employment charters which were designed, not

just for the instruction of the appointee, but also, through public depo-
sition, to educate the populace on the proper duties of the oikonomos.16
Having determined the genre of the text as a Ptolemaic êpñmnhma,
RostovtzeV proceeded to place that form within a wider literary his-
tory; he observed strong similarities between this text and Roman impe-
rial documents, especially the Gnomon or “code of regulations” of the
idios logos (“special account” or “comptroller”) (B.G.U. V.1), which like-
wise was a memorandum compiled from other sources meant to instruct
the idiologus, but “as it now is has a form quite diVerent from 703.”17
But then he furthered his inquiry into the literary history of this form,
postulating that Ptolemaic êpomn®mata were taken up by Augustus who
introduced mandata principis into his imperial administration.18 In com-
paring these types of bureaucratic instructional or commanding liter-
ature (the êpomn®mata , the ¤ntolaÛ, the Gnomon of the idiologus)
RostovtzeV noted the large degree of overlap, which extends beyond
the generic particularities of any document type, or even of chancery
correspondence itself:
It seems likely that certain parts of these instructions were common to all of them,
especially those of general character, which represented, so to say, the philoso-
phy of the bureaucracy. The language of these passages may well be often re ected
in other oYcial documents, and it would be interesting to collect such expres-
sions and to compare them with other moral precepts of the same kind, e.g., the
Odes of Horace and the rules formulated by Epictetus and M. Aurelius for those
in the service of the government.19

RostovtzeV ’s rich commentary introduced many of the comparative

texts that will surface in later scholarship (though he did not mention
1 Timothy or any other early Christian literature) and signiŽ cantly
highlighted the issue of the genre of this text, which he widened con-
siderably to place it within a broad spectrum of ancient literature. But
his comments on the relevance of PTebt 703 to ancient ethical literature

16
Ulrich Wilcken, “III. Referate,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung (1935) 148-49.
17
Rostovtze V, 70.
18
Rostovtze V continued to maintain the diVerence between ¤ntolaÛ and êpomn®mata,
arguing that it was the latter, and not the former which was a model for the mandata
(pp. 72-73): “As observed above, in the Gnomon of the idiologus Augustus evidently
adopted an existing institution, and it seems most likely that in introducing the use of
mandata principis into Roman administrative practice he was equally following the exam-
ple of the Ptolemies. The mandata show the closest a Ynity not to the Ptolemaic
¤ntolaÛ . . . but to the êpomn®mata .”
19
Rostovtze V, 71. He cites as a “literary analogue” a fragment of a comedic work.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 349

(broadly conceived) were based initially upon his translation of just a

few lines of the papyrus (i.e., ll. 258-80). Hence before we look at the
subsequent reception of this papyrus—which has always been accessed
through RostovtzeV ’s text, translation and commentary—we should
turn Ž rst to the key passage in question.

II. Analysis and Translation

RostovtzeV analyzed the structure and content of the entire docu-
ment as follows:
I. AGRICULTURE
1. Canals (ll. 29-40)
2. Protection of crown-cultivators against the village oYcials (ll. 40-
49)
3. Inspection of crops (ll. 49-57)
4. Sowing of prescribed kinds of crops (ll. 57-63)
5. Registration of agricultural cattle (ll. 63-70)
II. TRANSPORT: Dispatch of corn by land and water (ll. 70-87)
III. ROYAL REVENUES AND MONOPOLIES
1. ƒOyonihr‹, linens (ll. 87-117)
2. Dialogismòw prosñdvn, balancing accounts of public revenues, in
general (ll. 117-34)
3. ƒElaik®, olive commerce (ll. 134-64)
4. ƒEnnñmion, pasturage (ll. 165-74)
5. …Vnia, saleable goods (ll. 174-83)
6. MosxotrofeÝa, feeding of bulls (ll. 183-91)
7. Jæla, forests (ll. 191-211)
8. BasilikaÜ oÞk®seiw kaÜ par‹deisoi, royal dwellings and gardens
(ll. 211-14)
IV. TREATMENT OF DESERTING m‹ximoi AND naètai (ll. 215-
34)
V. RULES CONCERNING OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE (ll.
234-57)
VI. INSTRUCTIONS OF GENERAL CHARACTER ON THE
BEHAVIOUR OF OFFICIALS (ll. 257-80)20

20
Rostovtze V, 73. Huß’ structural analysis almost exactly replicates RostovtzeV ’s,
350 margaret m. mitchell

What is of central importance to the later history of scholarship is

RostovtzeV ’s translation of this last section, ll. 257-80 (actually 258-
80), which smoothed out the considerable lacunae, and produced a
coherent dual set of personal ethical instructions the oikonomos was to
carry out:
But enough now on this subject. I thought it well to write down for you in this
memorandum what I told you in sending you to the nome. I considered that
your prime duty is to act with peculiar care, honestly, and in the best possible
way . . .; and your next duty is to behave well and be upright in your district, to
keep clear of bad company, to avoid all base collusion, to believe that, if you
are without reproach in this, you will be held deserving of higher functions, to
keep the instructions in your hand, and to report on everything as has been
ordered.

This translation represents what appears to be a pair of personal

instructions to the oikonomos about his ethical deportment in the exe-
cution of his oYce. But this impression is created by ignoring major
gaps in the papyrus, and syntactical shifts in the intervening, but lost,
material (i.e., lines 264-69), which RostovtzeV omitted from the trans-
lation altogether, remarking in a note only that they “remain obscure.”21
But when one takes into account the full section ll. 258-80, the text
reads rather diVerently from RostovtzeV ’s rendering, in particular with
regard to whether a) the instructions are all of a “general character
on behavior,” and b) whether there is a m¢n/d¡ progression of two tiers
of instructional material ranked by importance. First, I shall replicate
here the Greek text in question, according to RostovtzeV ’s paleographic
analysis and transcription of the (often fragmentary) papyrus:
257 jei. kaÜ perÜ m¢n toætvn ßkanÇw ¤x¡tv:
258 “ d¢ ka)Ü Žpost¡llvn se eÞw tòn nomòn
259 prosdiel¡x[y]hn, taèta kaÜ d[i]#Œ toè
260 êpomn®matow kalÇw ¦xein êp¡la-
261 bon g[r]‹cai soi. vimhn
… gŒr deÝn tò m¢n
262 [²]gemonikÅtaton Þ#d$Û+v#w kaÜ kaya-
Col. iv.
263 [rÇw k]#aÜ Žpò toè beltÛst[ou poioèntaw?
264 êm # w prosporeæesyai +v[. . . . . . . . . .
# 
265 ¤ndoyhsom¡nhw s # ung! [. . . . . .]&so . [.]
266 )ta dÛkaia prosest# [.]. . . a # . [. .¤]laxist .
267 lñgon prosdejom¡nv & n# , t# [aèt]#a gŒr kaÜ
268 toætoiw parapl®sia k[. . .]. eiw pa-

with the major deviation being the last section, which he takes as extending from ll.
222-80, under the title “Den Abschluß bilden Instruktionen allgemeiner Art” (“Staat
und Ethos,” 68). I do not see signs of a major structural break at either l. 222 or 234.
21
Rostovtze V, 102.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 351

269 re#sx#e . . [. .] . [.] kai#p#e#r . . [. . pl]eiñnvn

270 eï memarturhm¡nhw t°w kayƒ ²mw
271 Žnastrof°w kaÜ ŽgvnÛaw, metŒ d¢ taè-
272 ta e&u eétakt[eÝn] #ka!Ü #ŽkampteÝn ¤n toÝw
273 tñpoiw, m¯ sum[pl¡]#kesyai faæloiw õmi-
274 lÛaiw, feægein [‘pa]#n#t#a sunduasmòn
275 tòn ¤pÜ kakÛa[i ] genñmenon, nomÛzein
276 ¤Œn ¤n toætoiw Žn¡gklhtoi g¡nhs-
277 ye meizñnvn Žjivy®sesyai, ¦xein
278 tŒ êpomn®mata diŒ xer#ñw, kaÜ pe-
279 rÜ ¥k‹stvn ¤pist¡lle[in] #k#a#y#Œ sun-
280 t¡taktai .22

Taking into account this full text, I propose the following, literal
translation of lines 258-80:
So let this su Yce for these matters. But the things which I told you when send-
ing you into the nome—these are the things I supposed it would be good to
write down for you via the memorandum, too. For I considered it necessary, on
the one hand, that you go forth in a most authoritative manner, privately? and
just as . . .23 and from the best [ ] [ ] will be granted [ ] the just
things suit[ ] least account [they] will credit?, for these things are close to
them, too [ ] although [ ] the behavior and struggle of many in rela-
tion to us has been well attested, but (and?) after these things [for you?] to be
orderly and unyielding in the districts, not to join up with bad companions, to
 ee every collusion which is for the worse, to consider that if in these matters
you shall be faultless you will be deemed worthy of greater ones, to have the
memoranda at hand and to write letters concerning each of these matters just as
it is commanded.

Several diVerent translation issues require discussion here. The Ž rst

and major one is RostovtzeV ’s decision that the governing syntax of
the passage is a m¢n/d¡ construction that begins in l. 261 (vimhn … gŒr
[ ]
deÝn tò m¢n ² gemonikÅtaton . . . +êm+w prosporeæesyai ) and resumes, he
thinks, with metŒ d¢ taè-ta . . . eétakt[eÝn] #ka#Ü #ŽkampteÝn in ll. 271-72.
Although not impossible, this is rendered far less likely when one takes
into account that fully six corrupted lines of text interrupt this syntax,
and in at least two clear places a new idea is introduced with g‹r
(l. 267) or kaÛper (or kaÜ perÛ),24 suggesting the beginning of a new

22
The textual emendations RostovtzeV makes in the notes are as folows: “Lines
264-9 remain obscure. At the end of l. 265 the doubtful s may be p. In l. 266 either
¤l‹xista or -ton is possible, and in l. 268 the letter before eiw can be m, p or s. In
l. 269 the uncertainty of the context leaves open the choice between kaÛper and kaÜ
perÛ: the letters after r have perhaps been altered . . . 270. eï m. seems preferable to
¤km.” (p. 102).
23
With RostovtzeV ’s emendation, “purely.”
24
Rostovtze V, 102, oVers both possibilities.
352 margaret m. mitchell

grammatical sentence structure upon which the following inŽ nitives

depend. Secondly, RostovtzeV ’s whole sense of the passage depends
upon a translation of [²]gemonikÅtaton in the Ž rst instance as modifying
deÝn, and meaning “your prime duty,”25 when, especially in the con-
text of a memorandum instructing an oikonomos how to behave in order
to gain the respect of the citizens, its far more natural lexical sense
would be “capable of command, authoritative,” as indeed the adjective
is deŽ ned by the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon.26 In that case the adver-
bial accusative of the adjective modiŽ es the inŽ nitive prosporeæesyai
in line 264, meaning, quite suitably, “that you go forth in a most
authoritative manner.”27 The adverbs RostovtzeV reconstructs, ÞdÛvw
and kaya-[rÇw] are both textually most uncertain, especially the lat-
ter, the sure letters of which already render the adverb kay‹ in its
entirety. But it is only by total speculation regarding the next line
(263)—i.e., the emended term kayarÇw—that one can come at all close
to a sense that the dioikts is specifying such ethical traits as “hon-
esty.” The same is true of “act . . . in the best possible way,” since the
key term, the participle poioèntaw, is an entirely conjectural recon-
struction of the missing last third of the line.28 And one can dispute
yet another of his lexical renderings. In line 272 the inŽ nitive ŽkampteÝn
appears. Although RostovtzeV notes that the verb “is apparently not
otherwise attested,”29 he translates it “be upright,” a most ethically
evocative notion. But there is no lexical justiŽ cation for this transla-
tion. Although the verb is not found elsewhere, the adjective Žk‹mp-
tow, on is not uncommon, and means literally “unbent, rigid,” or, as

25
But note that the author has already speciŽ ed which of the instructions in the
memorandum are most important, in lines 134-38, using the phrase ¤m prÅtoiw: pro[s-
]®kei d¢ t¯n ¤pim¡leian perÜ p‹ntvn !p[oi-]!e[Ý]syai tÇn ¤n tÇi êp[o]!m[n®mat]i gegramm[¡-
]nvn, ¤m prÅtoiw d¢ p! [e]+r[Ü] t# Çn katŒ tŒ ¤la[i-][o]urgÝa (“Give careful attention to doing
all the things written in the memorandum, and of Ž rst importance those concerning
the olive-factories” [my translation]).
26
LSJ, 763, s.v. ²gemonikñw, ®, ñn. The main gloss is “of or for a leader, ready to
lead or guide.” They also cite another meaning attested in papyri, “of or belonging
to the prefect of Egypt.” The adverb ²gemonikÇw, which would be equivalent to the
neuter adjective acting adverbially, as here, they deŽ ne as “like a leader, opp. despotikÇw.”
27
I am taking the superlative here as elative.
28
Rostovtze V reconstructed the same verb with the phrase Žpò beltÛstou in l. 167:
Žpò toè beltÛstou [ poi®-]sa<i>)sye. But in ll. 231-32 it undoubtedly construes with
oÞkonomoum¡nvn. Why not the same here—a reference to administrative conduct in
line with the action of prosporeæesyai, hence a description of being sent out on his
rounds to undertake his managerial duties?
29
Rostovtze V, 102.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 353

LSJ notes, metaphorically “unbending, un inching.”30 Again, given the

prevailing context within a set of instructions for the oikonomos to carry
out his tasks in an authoritative way, and without improper collusion
with troublemakers on the scene, this verb would more naturally be
taken here to refer to being “unyielding in the districts,” “the subdi-
visions of the nome,”31 as I have translated it above.
RostovtzeV ’s consistently ethically-leaning translation of this passage
has also in uenced subsequent treatments of the phrase he himself did
not translate: eï memarturhm¡nhw t°w kayƒ ²mw Žnastrof°w kaÜ ŽgvnÛaw
(ll. 270-271). Later scholars, such as Johnson, will infer that this phrase
refers to a mimetic interchange between the oikonomos and the dioikts
who sends him: “He is to behave in a manner without reproach,  eeing
from any form of vice. And he can Ž nd an example of such ‘behav-
ior and striving’ (anastroph kai agonia) in the superior who sends the
letter (kath’ hemas, lines 270-71).”32 Tellingly, however, Johnson does
not oVer an actual translation of the phrase, nor set it in the wider
context of the document. Instead he relies upon Benjamin Fiore’s sim-
ilarly decontextualized reading, which Ž xed on the word Žnastrof®
and its complement kayƒ ²mw to assert that “there is even a sugges-
tion at 270-71 that the oYcial’s conduct and striving Ž nd their pro-
totype in the superior oYcial,”33 a claim Fiore supported by appeal to
LSJ for a possible meaning of the preposition kat‹.34 But the very
same listing in LSJ glosses this common proposition as “concerning”
or “in relation to,” which would render the very suitable translation
“the behavior and struggle of the many in relation to us has been well
testiŽ ed to” (as I have translated it above). In that case, the phrase
refers not to the behavior of the sender, as Fiore would have it, but
to the rebellious behavior on the part of some residents of the nome
that the dioikts has been exhorting his oikonomos to be on the lookout
for and report back to him about.35
These considerations should be enough to show that there are many

30
LSJ, 47, s.v. Žk‹mptow, -on.
31
With LSJ, 1806, s.v. tñpow, meaning 6.
32
Johnson, AB, 140.
33
Benjamin Fiore, S.J., The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles
(AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986) 82. Fiore never, however, supplies a
translation of the line in question to back up this “suggestion” with either exegetical
or contextual evidence (ditto the next note).
34
S.v. kat‹ B IV, 883, as cited by Fiore, 82 n. 11.
35
See, e.g., the need for the oikonomos to deal with accusations (¤gkaleÝn) against
local authorities in ll. 40-49; the ominous warning in ll. 161-63: kaÜ eÞw oé t¯n tuxo! è & [san
354 margaret m. mitchell

places where the translation of precisely this part of PTebt 703 is

ambiguous, if not (in a large portion) simply uncertain. But RostovtzeV ’s
masterfully coherent translation of the fragmentary passage grabbed
the attention of later readers. Once he had presented this part of PTebt
703 as containing personal ethical exhortation to the new envoy, New
Testament scholars, as we shall see, would push that line of interpre-
tation even further.

III. P.Tebt. 703 in New Testament Scholarship

It was not until thirty-six years after the publication of RostovtzeV’s
text and commentary on PTebt 703 that Ceslau Spicq Ž rst brought
it to the attention of Pauline scholars in the revised fourth edition of
his Les Épîtres Pastorales.36 That Spicq should have been the Ž rst to do
so is Ž tting, for the Swiss scholar is justly famous for his three vol-

kata -]frñnhsin ´jeiw, ¶n =aidÛvw Žna[ireÝn oé d&u!n!®!sei (“and you will come into no
ordinary contempt, which you will not easily be able to remove”); the uprising of the
soliders and sailors in ll. 215-222; the concern about popular mistrust of oYcials such
as himself in ll. 222-233: ána d¢ m®t[e] !par) a-logeÛa mhdem[Ûa g]eÛnhtai m®tƒ llo mhy¢n
ŽdÛkhma t¯n ¤pim¡leian! p ! [o]!i-oè m¯ [p]ar¡rgvw. safÇw gŒr eÞd¡n! a ! i d! e! Ý) §ka!s#ton tÇn ¤n t°i
xÅrai katoikoæn-t# v & [n] k! aÜ pepisteuk¡nai diñti pn t! &ò [to]ioèton e[Þ]w ¤pÛsta s ! i) n ·kt! a
! i
kaÜ [t]°w prñteron k ! [a]!k!e!j!Û!a!w Ž!p!o!l!elu-m¡noi eÞsÛn, oé[yenòw ¦]xont[o]w ¤jousÛan ù boæle-
tai poieÝn, Žl & [ lŒ] p! ‹ ! ntvn oÞkonomoum¡nvn Žpò toè beltÛstou: ka[Ü] t°i xÅrai t¯n Ž[s]f‹-
[le]ian po! i! ®
! s! e! t! [e] . . . (“make it a matter of no cursory attention to you that there be
no extortion or other injustice. For each of those who dwell on the land should know
clearly and have trust that every such sort of thing has been brought to an end and
that they have been released from the former bad circumstances, since no one has the
authority to do what he wishes, but all things are administered in the best way. And
you will make the land secure . . .”; the mention of aß poikÝlai perist‹seiw in l. 236;
and the insistence upon the “safety” of the oY cial himself through proper exercise of
his oY cial duties, in ll. 254-57: taèta gŒr ê [mÇn] poioæntvn k! a ! Ü! toÝw pr‹gmasin tò d¡o! n!
te-l¡sesyai kaÜ êmÝn ² psƒ Žsf‹leia êp‹r-jei (“For if you do these things and com-
plete what is necessary in these matters, you will have total security”).
36
Ceslas Spicq, Saint Paul, Les Épîtres Pastorales (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1969; Ž rst
edition 1947). Although the Ž rst edition post-dated the publication of PTebt 703 by
fourteen years, Spicq did not refer to this papyrus there. Unfortunately no copy of the
second or third editions of Spicq’s commentary may be found in an American library
(nor in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, according to its on-line catalogue), but I
infer that the introduction of PTebt 703 occurred in the fourth edition (the one avail-
able to me) on the basis of Spicq’s remark in that preface from 1969: “Nous-mêmes
avons pris une meilleure connaissance des documents papyrologiques et épigraphiques
qui, de plus en plus accessibles et nombreux, sont tellement éclairants non seulement
sur la langue, mais les institutions, la culture, la religion, la vie familiale, les sentiments,
les goûts et les moeurs du Ier siècle, notamment en Asie Mineure” (1.7). However, it
should be noted that Spicq does not mention the Tebtunis Papyri volumes in the foot-
note on that page (n. 2).
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 355

umes of Notes de lexicographie néotestamentaire,37 which were a concerted

eVort to bring the language of the New Testament into conversation
with his (albeit unsystematically) culled Ž ndings from papyrological and
epigraphical sources. In his 1969 commentary, under the heading
“Désignation et caractère des épîtres pastorales” Spicq argues that, just
as Hebrews is a lñgow t°w parakl®sevw, “les Pastorales, surtout les let-
tres à Timothée, sont des Mandements et des Instructions.”38 Whereas in
the Ž rst edition of the commentary this comment led into a vigorous
defense of the view that the Pastorals were genuine “letters” and not
artiŽ cial “epistles” ( pace Deissmann’s famous distinction), after more
than two decades spent delving into documentary evidence Spicq now
argued that “le ‘genre littéraire’ de nos trois écrits est assimilable à
ces ordonnances, décrets, édits et prescriptions verbales que l’admin-
istration des gouvernements hellénistiques rédigeait sous forme de cor-
respondance,” 39 and, further, he claimed that such a document has in
mind not only the addressee himself, but also a plural set of auditors
who would see it in its published form. Spicq regarded the situation
of the dioikts of Alexandria as analogous to Paul, because he addressed
his subordinates and “leur enjoint de s’acquitter de leurs tâches avec
le même soin et le même dévouement que saint Paul exigera des

37
3 vols. (OBO 22.1-3; Fribourg/Suisse: Editions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1978-82) .
38
Spicq, 1.33, italics original. In the Ž rst edition Spicq had written “les Pastorales,
et surtout les lettres à Timothée, sont des Épîtres d’encouragement et des mandements,
paragg¡llv” (p. xxiii).
39
Spicq, 1.34. This is in fact an almost complete turn-about from the introduction
to the Ž rst edition of the commentary, in which Spicq had taken pains to argue, on
epistolary grounds, that the Pastorals, despite some evidence to the contrary, are pri-
vate letters and not pieces of “oYcial correspondence,” such as “lettres d’aVaires, oYcielles
ou diplomatiques, mandements, requêtes, pétitions, suppliques, etc.” (p. xxix), though
they share with them some formulaic elements: “C’est ainsi que l’intitulatio comme
l’adresse de ses lettres sont nettement celles du style oYciel, apparentées à celles des
mandements impériaux . . . mais les salutations et les voeux ultimes relèvent de la cor-
respondance privée. Par ailleurs la titulature des lettres écrites aux communautés n’a
pas la forme sèche, concise qui est caractéristique des épîtres oY cielles de l’époque . . .”
(pp. xxix-xxx). These sentences, as well as his conclusion to this weighing of similari-
ties and diVerences with oYcial correspondence, were chopped out of the fourth edition
in the middle of this original sentence: “Puisque les Pastorales sont de vraies lettres,
qui ne sont plus de la correspondance privée, sans avoir la rigueur de rédaction des
épîtres oYcielles, le génie personnel de l’Apôtre s’y donne libre cours” (p. xxx). The
fourth edition initiates a new paragraph, after new sections on the role of cultic mate-
rials in the Pastorals and the in uence of farewell discourses, particularly on 2 Timothy,
with: “Le génie personnel de l’Apôtre se donne libre cours dans cette correspondance”
(p. 45).
356 margaret m. mitchell

Pasteurs des communautés chrétiennes.”40 Spicq chose to illustrate this

dynamic of superior addressing a subordinate to do his job in a suit-
able manner by three quotations from PTebt 703: lines 245-246,
Žnag#ka[Ýñ]&n ¤%s[ti p‹nt]a d[iƒ] ¤pistol[Ç]n oÞkonomeÝs&y[a]#i41 (“il est néces-
saire de régler toutes les aVaires par correspondance”), 231-232, Ž#l[lŒ]
&p#‹ntvn oÞkonomoum¡nvn Žpò toè beltÛstou (“tout doit être organisé au
mieux”), and especially lines 261-74, which one can see he has trans-
lated directly from RostovtzeV ’s English: “Je considère comme ton pre-
mier devoir d’agir avec le plus grand soin, avec honnêteté et aussi
bien que possible . . . Ton second devoir est le suivant: ta conduite dans
ton district doit être rangée (eétakteÝn) et sans reproche, évite les mau-
vaises compagnies, fuis toute collusion dont les Ž ns sont malhonnêtes.”42
Spicq manifestly ignored the lacunae and ellipses, as did his source
for the text, RostovtzeV, to produce a seamless text that nicely Ž ts his
view of the Pastorals. This reference to PTebt 703 is in the context
of Spicq’s initial argument that the Pastorals Ž t the “genre littéraire”
of the wide net of hellenistic governmental literature (among the breath-
takingly diverse list of such texts he provides for this umbrella cate-
gory are: other Ptolemaic papyri, Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrines,
Hadrianic inscriptions, Pliny’s letters, Esdras 7:12-15, and the Mari
achive). Spicq did not seek to argue that this papyrus is somehow the
generic template for the Pastorals, however, since later in the Introduction
he will in fact defend another more speciŽ c generic proposal, that the
Pastorals are a type of lñgow protreptikñw: “Sous cet aspect, les Pastorales
ne semblent être qu’une variété de ce genre littéraire des Lettres-traités,
si  orissant à l’époque impériale surtout chez les rhéteurs et les
sophistes.” 43 Via a brief comparison of terminology and topoi in the
Pastorals and Isocratean protreptic discourses, Spicq concluded: “Ces
parallèles littéraires montrent à la fois la Ž délité de l’Apôtre au genre

40
Spicq, 1.35.
41
This sentence appears to refer to the need for letters to be sent back to the dioikts,
as indicated in the following 248-50: “thus they should be prepared to write concern-
ing each of the things in the letters.”
42
Spicq, 1.35-36.
43
Spicq, 1.39. The source of the contradiction in the fourth edition of the com-
mentary—i.e., in giving two diVerent generic designations for the Pastorals (p. 34 on
administrative documents, p. 39 on the “letter treatise” and paraenesis)—is the con ation
that resulted from Spicq’s revisions from his earlier edition, such that he added the
former argument to an introduction which already contained the latter. But his minor
revisions to the earlier edition are telling. The Ž rst edition had read: “A première vue,
les Pastorales ne semblent être qu’une variété d’exposition de ce genre littéraire tradi-
tionnel” (p. xxvii); compare the fourth edition, quoted above in the text.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 357

‘parénétique’ traditionnel et la liberté considérable qu’il prend à son

égard.”44 What Spicq found especially suggestive about PTebt 703 was
(as so often in his scholarship) the lexical parallels with the Pastorals,
especially ¤pimeleÝsyai, mel¡tv soi ána and spoud‹zein/spoudaÛvw,45
though in the same note he listed cross-references from various other
correspondence where these very common terms are found in letters
of request and diplomatic appointment; hence he apparently did not
regard PTebt 703 as outstanding in this regard.
In his commentary Spicq famously argued for the authenticity of
the Pastoral Epistles; important for our inquiry is the fact that neither
PTebt 703 nor the issue of genre played a role in sustaining that
hypothesis. It was based, as he maintained was necessary method-
ologically, Ž rst on external attestation, and secondarily on exegetical
or internal details which corroborate that Ž rst body of evidence.46
Spicq, “le collectionneur par excellence,” through his industrious
research (and uneven editing in revisions of his commentary), left a
legacy of multiple and myriad points of contact (in content, situation,
and diction) between the Pastoral Epistles and ancient documentary
and literary texts, as he adduced plural comparative “genres” without
fear of self-contradiction. A later generation of New Testament schol-
ars would seek to establish priorities among the diVerent corpora of
comparative materials he so usefully collected, and attempt to narrow
the generic possibilities that Spicq was content to compound or jux-
tapose.47 Two doctoral dissertations completed on the heels of one
another in the 1980s which represent this trend, Benjamin Fiore’s The
Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles and Michael
Wolter’s Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition, took up PTebt 703 from
Spicq.
Fiore’s topic is the use of personal example in the argumentation
of the Pastoral Epistles. The body of comparative literature he Ž nds

44
Spicq, 1.41 (the sentence is exactly the same in the Ž rst edition, p. xxviii).
45
See Spicq, 1.35, n. 3 for the references.
46
See Spicq, 1.157-214, esp. the methodological basis for the chapter on p. 160:
“Or les témoignages de la critique externe sont unanimement favorables, et les appré-
ciations subjectives de la critique littéraire peuvent rarement contrebalancer les docu-
ments de la tradition.”
47
Interestingly, the important commentary by Martin Dibelius, revised by Hans
Conzelmann, does not even mention PTebt 703, though it engages the question of
genre directly, and cites other papyri (The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles [Hermeneia; trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972]).
358 margaret m. mitchell

most insightful for comparison with the Pastorals in this regard is the
pseudepigraphical letters attributed to Socrates and his students, but
Fiore Ž rst provides survey chapters on the role and function of exam-
ples in rhetorical and educational theory, in the kingship literature by
Isocrates, Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom, and in epistolary exhortation.
The latter chapter, on epistolary exhortation, is further subdivided: I.
Example in OYcial Letters, and II. Example in Hortatory Letters, the
latter being almost entirely dedicated to Seneca’s Epistulae morales. Among
“oYcial letters,” after a brief introduction to Hellenistic diplomatic cor-
respondence and some of its characteristic vocabulary (esp. the debated
term ¤ntolaÛ), Fiore presents only two examples: PTebt 703 and pVind
25824b II (the Instructions of Mettius Rufus), which he treats in the
space of Ž ve pages en route to Seneca. This relative lack of attention
to the papyri is consonant with his conclusion about these “oYcial let-
ters,” that “on the basis of the documents examined the line of devel-
opment to the Pastorals cannot be said to pass directly through the
decretal letters.”48
Fiore, therefore, gave less credence than his forebearer Spicq (whom,
however, he does not acknowledge) to the viability of this parallel for
the Pastorals. We should note that Fiore did not address the fact that
PTebt 703 only awkwardly Ž ts his own title of “epistolary” exhorta-
tion. Though he mostly is careful to refer to the text as a “memo-
randum,” Fiore never discusses the relationship between memoranda
and letters, and in at least one place he calls PTebt 703 a letter.49
This “genre confusion” is seen especially in his twice translating the
key term êpñmnhma in PTebt 703 as “reminder,” rather than “mem-
orandum,”50 from which he draws such broad conclusions as the fol-
lowing: “This document, then, comes by way of reminder (d[i]a tou
hypomnmatos) and is a literary surrogate for that personal presence.”51
But the passage in question clearly refers to the text itself, not its func-
tion: “ d¢ ka#Ü Žpost¡llvn se eÞw tòn nomòn prosdiel¡x[y]hn, taèta kaÜ
d[i]%Œ toè êpomn®matow kalÇw ¦xein êp¡la-bon g[r]‹cai soi (“I thought it

48
Fiore, 84. The sentence continues “nonetheless, the Pastorals can be said to re ect
the latter in certain ways. The diVerence lies largely in the rhetorical features of the
Pastorals which characterize them as something diVerent from the purely regulatory
documents. The study of the hortatory discourses and the kingship treatises above and
of the epistolary exhortations to follow in this chapter all show the Pastorals to be
more at home in an explicitly rhetorical environment.”
49
Fiore, 81 n. 9.
50
See Fiore, 81 n. 9 and 82.
51
Fiore, 82.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 359

well to write down for you in this memorandum what I told you in
sending you to the nome),”52 as RostovtzeV earlier demonstrated (and
translated the line).
Fiore placed virtually all his attention in his discussion of PTebt 703
on “the last 23 lines,” i.e., ll. 257-80, which “diVer [from the remain-
der of the text] in that they propose general instructions on the behav-
ior of the new oYcial.”53 Without noting that there are signiŽ cant lacu-
nae in these lines, Fiore unhesitatingly formulated some further
conclusions about the function and purpose of the document from
RostovtzeV ’s seamless translation: “The exemplary presence in the per-
son of the oeconomus gives life to the prescriptions. The exemplary pres-
ence of his superior, by way of the written memorandum, gives a
personal immediacy to the prescriptions both for the oYcial and for
his subjects.”54 While these statements may be true in some general
way for all epistolary instructional literature (although, as we have
noted above, this text is not a letter), it is hard to see how this full
hermeneutical re ection can be supported from the translatable por-
tion of these lines in the papyrus, as we have noted in our previous
discussion of the translation problems inherent to the passage. Since
Fiore does not himself translate the passage, but merely makes allusion
to the phrase t°w kayƒ ²mw Žnastrof°w, one cannot ascertain how he
regards it as fuctioning within the immediate literary context. Whether
one adopts my translation or not (see above), one must object to any
inferences being made about the “last 23 lines” of this text without
consideration of the signiŽ cant textual lacunae and uncertain syntax.
In other words, there can be no viable interpretive “suggestions” (see
p. 353 above) without a full translation and explanation of the text.
Moreover, on the basis of Wilcken’s study Fiore went on to argue
that such a memorandum would have “carried with it the require-
ment that it be published . . . Letters of this sort, then, are outlines of
the scope of the oYce and hortatory reminders for the new oYcials,
as well as communications to the communities of what would be
expected of them under the new regime.”55 Fiore did not say that such
a command to publish is in fact not present in PTebt 703, nor that

52
Lines 258-261 (compare also lines 277-280: ¦xein tŒ êpomn®mata diŒ xer!ñw, kaÜ
perÜ ¤k‹stvn ¤pist¡lle[in] !k!a!y!Œ sunt¡taktai).
53
Fiore, 81-82.
54
Fiore, 83.
55
Fiore, 83, but without an actual reference to Wilcken’s article (suggesting that he
was relying on RostovtzeV, 69-70 in invoking Wilcken).
360 margaret m. mitchell

the text in question is not a letter (as RostovtzeV had explicitly stated)
but was meant to accompany a letter. He did agree with RostovtzeV
(though without saying so outright) that the “last verses are more of
an exhortation than a record of speciŽ c duties. As such, they repre-
sent the technique both of the kingship treatises and of hortatory works
generally.” 56
In summary, Fiore did not think PTebt 703, by virtue of its exhor-
tatory conclusion, is representative of a distinctive genre, and, as we
have noted above, he rejected the possibility that it is part of the direct
“line of development to the Pastorals” (p. 84), though he noted that
this papyrus has some “striking similarities, but diVerences too.” Among
those similarities which “will prove helpful in understanding the Pastoral
Epistles” Fiore included: “the letter form itself, the situation of a supe-
rior writing to a subordinate representative, the circular and/or pub-
lic character of the letters, the mixture (though rare) of exhortation
and oYcial directives.”57 As we have noted above, the Ž rst and third
of these four features are not present or not proven, since PTebt 703
is not a letter, and it does not contain evidence of a wider readership
being implicated (that remains possible, of course, but it is clearly not
a Ž nding certain enough to build upon). As the complete argument of
his monograph shows, Fiore found what he considered a far more
appropriate literary analogue to the Pastorals in Seneca’s Epistulae morales
and the Socratic Epistles.
Michael Wolter, in his study defending the pseudepigraphical nature
of the Pastorals,58 largely concurred with Fiore’s decision to “relativize”
(as Wolter puts it) the importance of PTebt 703, but for diVerent rea-
sons, based upon his more detailed study of the entire original text.
Wolter bluntly stated that “Nun wird man die Bedeutung dieses
Memorandums für die Erklärung des literarischen Charakters von 1.
Tim und Tit sicher nicht überschätzen dürfen,” principally because of
the papyrus’ considerable distance, both geographically and chrono-
logically, from the Pastorals. Neither Spicq nor Fiore had even addressed
that important question.59 A further signiŽ cant respect in which Wolter
parted company with Fiore throughout his study is in his insistence

56
Fiore, 82.
57
Fiore, 84.
58
Michael Wolter, Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition (FRLANT 146; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988).
59
Despite the fact that they were given by RostovtzeV a possible way to counter
that objection—by his theory that Ptolemaic êpomn®mata were the pattern upon which
later mandata principis were composed.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 361

that comparative literary work on the Pastorals not treat all three let-
ters as alike. SpeciŽ cally, in his discussion of “Die literarische Gestalt
der Tradition,” after establishing the epistolary and paraenetic nature
of the Pastorals, Wolter compared 1 Timothy and Titus, on the one
hand, with a range of texts beginning with Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp
and ending with the emperor Julian’s epistles. Within this span, under
the title “Verwandte außerchristliche Texte aus hellenistisch-römischer
Zeit,” Wolter included a brief discussion of PTebt 703. (For 2 Timothy,
however, he considered testamentary literature the most relevant com-
parison.) Wolter challenged both Spicq’s and Fiore’s virtually sole con-
centration on the last 23 lines of the text, and he was the Ž rst to
acknowledge that there are in fact major lacunae in six lines in the
very middle of that section (lines 264-69), which alone should give
pause about attributing too much to an uncertain portion of text.60
For him,
Es ist jedoch weniger dieser allgemein-paränetische Abschlub von P. Tebt 703,
der diesen Text mit 1. Tim und Tit vergleichbar macht, als vielmehr die Intention
und Gestaltung des gesamten Memorandums, insofern sich gerade hier jene sprach-
lichen und inhaltlichen Elemente Ž nden, die die Kommunikationsstruktur dieser
beiden Briefe charakteristisch von derjenigen des 2. Tim unterscheiden.61

What Wolter regarded as most comparable between PTebt 703 and

1 Timothy and Titus is the same dual communicative structure includ-
ing imperatives addressed in the second person singular to one promi-
nent addressee alongside third person plural listeners, with the wider
audience of the principal addressee envisioned. This is an observation
only made possible by his engagement with the entire papyrus, and
not just the concluding lines.62 Wolter also picked up RostovtzeV ’s
invocation of the mandata principis in this context (though he disputed
RostovtzeV ’s genealogical argument that they were derived from the
Ptolemaic administrative practice),63 and he furthered the discussion by
a detailed treatment of mandata principis. Before moving on to his treat-
ment of mandata principis it is important to note here that, unlike Fiore,
Wolter never slipped and called PTebt 703 a letter; this is consistent
also in his general delineation of the comparative category under con-
sideration: “brie iche oder briefähnliche Instruktionen und Dienstan-
weisungen von Herrschern oder hohen Beamten.”64 Although he did

60
Wolter, 163, n. 13.
61
Wolter, 163.
62
Wolter, 163-64, with notes 14 and 16.
63
See Wolter, 164, n. 19.
64
Wolter, 161.
362 margaret m. mitchell

not deŽ ne precisely what makes a text “brie ich” or “briefähnlich,”

Wolter nonetheless sought carefully to preserve accurate form-critical
terminology in his study.
Wolter next turned to another category of written instruction, man-
data principis, to which he gave twice the amount of attention as PTebt
703. Wolter considered the mandata principis “eng verwandt” to the
memorandum (neither of which he terms an epistle). In particular
Wolter noted a parallel with the excerpt of a mandatum preserved in
IGLS 1998 in regard to the variation of second person singular address
with third plural imperative.65 He conceded, “Daß nun 1. Tim und
Tit die Mandata principis aufgenommen bzw. sich an diesen unmit-
telbar orientiert hätten, ist nicht sicher zu erweisen,” 66 but he was
conŽ dent that they share a “vergleichbare Kommunikationsstruktur,”
one found also among Hellenistic royal letters.67 Wolter’s main inter-
est was in that form of textual communication and the imagined sit-
uation behind it; not the speciŽ cation of a particular literary form, per
se, but the articulation of “ein relativ geschlossenes Bild des literarischen
Charakters von 1. Tim und Tit.” 68 Although he considered direct
dependence of 1 Timothy and Titus on the imperial mandata principis
possible, due to the fact that the latter were often published in Greek
translation in the provinces, he did not seek to press that claim in
order to argue either for the authenticity or the inauthenticity of these
letters attributed to Paul.
Fiore’s and Wolters’ treatments were published in 1986 and 1988,
respectively. Luke Timothy Johnson, in Letters to Paul’s Delegates (1996 )
and the Anchor Bible Commentary on The First and Second Letters to
Timothy (2001) has argued that PTebt 703 may be a crucial piece of
evidence demonstrating that 1 Timothy and Titus were written by
Paul. He asserts that our papyrus is “an almost perfect example” of
“mandata principis letters,” a generic designation he oVers for 1 Timothy
and Titus which, Johnson claims, “ought to shift the discussion con-
cerning authenticity signiŽ cantly.”69 He appeals for this Ž nding to “more
recent research” (p. 139)70 that has “recognized the literary resem-

65
Wolter, 168.
66
Wolter, 169.
67
Wolter, 169-70.
68
Wolter, 178.
69
Johnson, AB, 142.
70
There is in fact a tension in Johnson’s portrayal of this “recent research” upon
which he builds. Earlier in the commentary he argued (p. 97) that “1 Timothy and
Titus, in turn, Ž t the form of royal correspondence called the mandata principis (literally,
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 363

blance between such letters and 1 Timothy and Titus [ Johnson pro-
vides a footnote here to Fiore and Wolter], categorizing them as a
whole as mandata principis (commandments of a ruler) letters, in recog-
nition of the dominant place held by commandments (entolai, parangeliai )
in them . . . An almost perfect example is provided by the Tebtunis
Papyrus 703.” 71 Readers of this sentence will infer that Fiore and
Wolter, like Johnson, classifed PTebt 703 as a “mandata principis let-
ter,” 72 but, as the previous discussion has demonstrated, neither scholar
did. Indeed, as we have noted, on the contrary, both emphasized the
limited signiŽcance of PTebt 703 for the understanding of the Pastorals.
Moreover, Fiore never used the phrase “mandata principis letters,” and
Wolter in particular explicitly separated his treatment of mandata prin-
cipis from PTebt 703, and never called the mandata principis letters. This
is presumably because Wolter recognized that mandata principis consti-
tute a genre in themselves. They are one of the eight diVerent literary
types of imperial constitutions identiŽ ed by Roman legal historians:
leges datae, orationes et epistulae imperatorum, edicta, mandata, decreta et rescripta,
adnotationes, leges generales, and sanctio pragmatica.73 According to this list
from Leopold Wenger, which is standard,74 imperial letters are one
thing, and mandata another. To be sure, imperial mandata are discussed
and negotiated in letters (the Pliny/Trajan correspondence provides

“commandments of a ruler”) letter. It is intriguing that although both kinds of letters

[a reference also to the “personal paraenetic letter,” his genre designation for 2 Timothy]
have been known for some years, they have neither entered into general discussions
of NT epistolography, nor had any real eVect on the issue of the authenticity of the
Pastorals.” In this context Johnson stresses the longstanding knowledge of this research,
in order to tar the scholars in question (Fiore and Wolter, “who acknowledged these
literary forms”) with “continuing to view the Pastorals from within the dominant par-
adigm [of pseudepigraphy]” (p. 97, n. 272). Johnson does not mention Spicq in this
connection, despite the fact that he was the Ž rst to bring in PTebt 703 and other
oY cial instructional literature, and he held to the authenticity of the Pastorals!
71
Johnson, AB, 140.
72
See also Delegates, 106: “This hypothesis [of pseudepigraphical origin] has become
less necessary, however, in the light of more recent epistolary research, which has pro-
vided evidence for letters dating from Paul’s time and earlier that exhibit precisely the
same combination of characteristics found in 1 Tim and, to some extent, in Titus as
well.” Johnson footnotes Fiore and Wolter here (and in AB 97 n. 272 adds Y. Redalié,
Paul après Paul: Le temps, le salut, la morale selon les épîtres à Timothée et à Tite [Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1994]); in neither book does Johnson acknowledge C. Spicq as the
actual source of the “more recent epistolary research.”
73
Leopold Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band 2 [Wien: Holzhausen, 1953])
424-38.
74
See also, e.g., Frank Frost Abbott and Allan Chester Johnson, Municipal Administration
in the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926) 238-45.
364 margaret m. mitchell

abundant examples),75 just as they are mentioned in many types of lit-

erary texts, such as Cicero and Cassius Dio cited by Johnson, but that
does not make the mandata themselves an epistolary form.76 By turn-
ing “mandata principis” into an adjectival phrase modifying the word
“letter,” Johnson has introduced both a neologism and a new literary
category, not summarized recent research which he would like to build
upon to address the question of the genre and authenticity of the
Pastorals. At the most one can say that his claim that “mandata prin-
cipis letters” constitutes a recognizable ancient genre is a novel one
that still awaits proof. But one must nonetheless observe that to name
our 3rd c. bce papyrus an “almost perfect example” of a Roman
administrative invention of the Ž rst princeps Augustus has a troublingly
anachronistic ring to it. At any rate, one thing is very clear: Fiore and
Wolter do not support the claim Johnson makes by appeal to them.
The second half of the genre designation “mandata principis letter” is
as problematic as the Ž rst, since Johnson has not appreciated (perhaps
in uenced by Fiore?) that his main example, PTebt 703, is in fact not
a letter, but is a memorandum. Johnson refers to it consistently as “the
letter,” 77 and, despite his reference to the Tebtunis papyri volume which
contains RostovtzeV ’s commentary,78 thinks the text merely has the
function of being a “reminder,” rather than reckoning with the doc-
ument’s clear self-designation as a êpñmnhma,79 whose relationship to a
letter (itself or the cover letter RostovtzeV discusses, which is likewise

75
See A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) esp. p. 590f.: “Mandata are distinguished from rescripta issued
on particular occasions . . . Lucian once refers to the ‘book of instructions issued to gov-
ernors’ ( pro Lapsu 12). A large body of administrative law was steadily built up in the
mandata, which must have contained ultimately considerable sections common to the
whole Empire . . . Some instructions would be limited to a particular province or emer-
gency . . . The mandata seem to have contained not a comprehensive code but a mix-
ture of guiding principles, innovations, and occasional instructions.” Throughout the
commentary Sherwin-White notes places where Pliny and/or Trajan refer back to the
mandata; but none of the letters themselves is a mandatum or a “mandata principis letter.”
76
The only other literary form with which the mandata are clearly associated is the
liber mandatorum, which increasingly was found in legal digests.
77
He eVaces the genre issue by appeal to function, when stating in general that
“Some such [mandata principis] letters were carried as memorandums . . .” ( Johnson, AB,
140), but what he might mean by this is unclear.
78
Though Johnson never does mention RostovtzeV as the translator and commen-
tator, but refers only to the volume editors, Hunt and Smyly.
79
See AB, 140: “Much of the letter is taken up with the speciŽ c public works the
delegate is to oversee . . . The letter makes clear that these detailed instructions are
meant as a ‘reminder’ or memorandum” (followed by a quote refering to “this mem-
orandum,” but without discussion).
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 365

not mentioned by Johnson) is tenuous at best. Furthermore, Johnson

gets to this point by ignoring also the debate between RostovtzeV and
Wilcken over whether ¤ntolaÛ and êpomn®mata overlap. For Johnson
the êpñmnhma is the ¤ntolaÛ,80 which are the mandata, all of which he
ascribes to PTebt 703, though the term ¤ntol® is in fact not present
in the text (nor is paraggelÛai, which Johnson mentions earlier as the
distinguishing mark of mandata principis letters “in recognition of the
dominant place held by commandments [entolai, parangeliai ] in them).”81
Johnson has compressed all three into a hybrid literary category, using
quotations from Cicero and Cassius Dio about the practice of issuing
precepts on a personal or imperial level,82 neither of which supports
his claim that there was such a thing as a “mandata principis letter.” 83
As we have seen, Johnson does not accurately represent the “recent
research” of Fiore and Wolter upon which he says he is building in
launching what is in fact his own novel claim for “the appropriate lit-
erary antecedent” of the Pastorals in a generic category called “man-
data principis letters.” 84 But he also goes well beyond them to make
assertions about the literary structure of PTebt 703 that no one, from
RostovtzeV to Wolter, had previously made, arguing that “Much of
the letter [sic, i.e., PTebt 703] is taken up by speciŽ c tasks that the
delegate is to undertake. But these alternate with passages that are
broader and more general in character and that focus on the char-
acter of the delegate and his manner of conducting himself in his new
position.” 85 In fact, as our survey has demonstrated, all previous readers

80
See Delegates, 106: “Such letters carry the mandata principis (commandments of the
ruler) to a newly appointed delegate . . . Although addressed to an individual (namely,
the delegate in question), these directives (or entolai ) have a quasi-public character.”
Johnson carries this line of thought further in the AB commentary, where in places
he vacillates about whether the mandata are for Timothy or for the Ephesian church
(see, e.g., 291, 297; cf. pp. 307 and 312 on the “quasi-public character of the mandata
principis letter”).
81
Johnson, AB, 140.
82
See this argument in Delegates, 107, where he refers to Dio Cassius 53.15.4, a text
which says the emperor gives ¤ntolaÛ , as showing that “such letters were routinely sent
to Roman proconsuls and prefects . . .,” but the text does not mention letters at all.
The same is true of the reference to Ulpian’s proconsular handbook, which Johnson
takes up from RostovtzeV, but RostovtzeV presented it as an example of the mandata,
not of a “mandata letter,” as Johnson terms it (contrast AB, 141 with RostovtzeV, 73).
83
Johnson, AB, 140-41.
84
Quotation from AB, 141.
85
Delegates, 106. We should note, however, that Johnson apparently sought to cor-
rect this inaccuracy in his reediting of this very sentence in the later AB commentary,
which now reads more cautiously: “But in addition to such mandata/entolai is a passage
that focuses on the character of the delegate and his manner of conducting himself in
366 margaret m. mitchell

of PTebt 703 have agreed that the emphasis on the personal com-
portment of the oikonomos appears only in the last lines of PTebt 703.
Fiore, whom Johnson appears to cite on the point, focused his atten-
tion almost exclusively on those verses. Wolter, on the other hand, did
note the variation of second person singular and third person plural
imperatives in the document, but he made no claim that they “alter-
nate” in any regular fashion, and, as we have noted above, he down-
played completely the importance of that section of the papyrus which
speaks of the personal comportment of the oikonomos (i.e., the last 23
lines), due to its brevity and textual uncertainty. In making this asser-
tion about an alternating structure it looks as though Johnson is seek-
ing to map 1 Timothy back onto PTebt 703, in his quest to assert
that the papyrus “exhibit[s] precisely the same combination of char-
acteristics found in 1 Timothy and, to some extent, in Titus as well.”86
In this regard it is telling that PTebt 703 (in whole or in part) is never
mentioned in the exegetical portions of either of Johnson’s commen-
taries on 1 Timothy; this absence demonstrates that, despite the grand
claims of the introduction that this papyrus is “an almost perfect exam-
ple” of their shared genre, the Ptolemaic papyrus actually provides
very little textual material that Johnson can show to be concretely par-
allel to or illuminating for the language87 and composition of 1 Timothy.
Even if Johnson could summon more and better proof for his fun-
damental claims that a) there is such a genre as “mandata principis let-
ters,” and b) PTebt 703 and 1 Timothy both belong in that category,
we must Ž nally return to our opening question and ask, what is the

his new position” (140). But the “alternation” argument nonetheless appears later in
the commentary in the exegetical portions where it is used as though it were an estab-
lished fact (see, e.g., 244, on 1 Tim 4:1-7a: “It is typical of the mandata principis letter
to alternate instructions concerning public order with personal exhortations to the del-
egate concerning his morals and manner of leadership”; p. 255: “I have noted before
that the way 1 Timothy alternates commandments concerning the community with
personal instruction to the delegate Ž ts the form and function of the mandata principis
letter”). But the only place this was defended in the introduction to 1 Timothy was in
Johnson’s own description of the structure of 1 Timothy: “The instructions alternate with
sections devoted to Paul’s delegate Timothy: his attitudes, his practices, and the ways
he is to rebut the errors of his opponents” (AB, 138).
86
Johnson, Delegates, 106, citing Fiore and Wolter as supporting authorities. The
argumentative force of this claim may be seen on the next page: “[Such mandata prin-
cipis letters] also help account for the odd joining of personal and public topics in
1 Timothy and Titus, for such a combination was a standard feature of such letters”
(Delegates, 107).
87
Though I think the parallels noted by Spicq are signiŽ cant (see n. 43 above), they
are not, however, included by Johnson. And, what is more important, none of them
is unique to PTebt 703; all are standard within diplomatic correspondence generally.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 367

payoV of such a conclusion for the meaning of 1 Timothy?88 In par-

ticular, what is the relationship between genre and authenticity? On
the one hand, Johnson initially appears to be appropriately cautious
in his assertions in this regard, as he himself poses and answers the
salient question: “Does the discovery of such a literary precedent prove
1 Timothy to be authentic? By no means. Certainly a pseudepigra-
pher could have made use of this literary form as easily as could Paul
himself.”89 But despite this wise disclaimer, Johnson seems to go on in
the very next sentence to argue the opposite: “it [i.e., the “discovery
of a such a literary precedent] does increase the probability that 1
Timothy was written by Paul during his lifetime.”90 Why? Apparently
because Johnson thinks the barrier to acceptance of Pauline authorship

88
Although I shall focus here on the value of this argument for the question of the
authenticity of 1 Timothy, because that is how Johnson presents his major claim (“the
Ž nding that there are forms of letters common in Paul’s day that were readily avail-
able to him, that Ž t the social circumstances of his relationship with his delegates per-
fectly, and that render intelligible virtually every detail in 1 and 2 Timothy ought to
be of the greatest signiŽ cance in evaluating the authenticity of these letters” [AB, 97]),
it should be noted that in his AB commentary on 1 Timothy Johnson also draws upon
his claim that 1 Timothy is a “mandata principis letter” to adjudicate other exegetical
matters. For example, on p. 148 he argues that this should be the basis for analyzing
the theology of the text (“It is important, therefore, to start an examination of the the-
ological texture—or the theological perspectives—of 1 Timothy from its character as
a mandata principis letter” [AB, 307]); elsewhere it is called upon to explain the ambigu-
ous phrase ¤nÅpion pollÇn martærvn in 6:12, since “The public character of Timothy’s
profession corresponds to the quasi-public character of the mandata principis letter” (but
does not this sentence refer to a prior event, quite independent of this letter?). Yet,
despite a strong reliance on his generic claims in these respects, in other places Johnson
does not ask the inverse question: whether other elements in 1 Timothy are appropri-
ate for a “mandata principis letter,” such as the implied relationship of sender and recip-
ient as father and son that Paul has with Timothy (p. 159), or the incorporation of a
literary topos on aét‹rkeia in 1 Tim 6:2b-10 (AB, 295). In some places he argues that
the “mandata” found in sections of 1 Timothy are “a loose collection” (AB, 285, for
5:17-6:2a), and in others that “this mandata principis letter is more than a loose collec-
tion of commandments, but has a coherent and consistent theological perspective” (AB,
160), without engaging either the internal contradiction of these two assertions or the
question of what compositional structure should be expected in his proferred generic
designation of “mandata principis letter” (something RostovtzeV had re ected on with
some eVort).
89
Delegates, 107; compare AB 141: “By no means does the categorization of
1 Timothy as a mandata principis letter demonstrate its authenticity. A pseudepigrapher,
after all, could have made use of this genre as easily as any other.”
90
Delegates, 107; cf. the succeeding sentence in AB, 141-42: “But the existence of
such a well-attested letter form in widespread use by oYcials centuries before Paul’s
time—with some samples, we remember, inscribed on steles and visible to all—means
at the very least that the literary shape of 1 Timothy does not necessitate its being pseu-
donymous. Indeed, it ought to shift the discussion concerning authenticity signiŽ cantly.”
368 margaret m. mitchell

is ultimately literary: “[1 Timothy’s] strange combination of elements

may be due, not to the clumsy ineYciency of someone trying to imi-
tate [Paul’s] other letters, but to the conventions of an epistolary form
that Paul himself used as freely as he did others in the amazing range
of letters found in the Pauline collection.”91 But the logic here is faulty
on several counts. If there is “an epistolary form” with these “strange”
conventions, then it would have been as available to a pseudepigra-
pher as to Paul, as Johnson himself had just acknowledged.92 Furthermore,
Johnson has not substantiated the premise required to make this argu-
ment: that Paul himself used this (admittedly now problematic) “genre”
of mandata principis letter. The fact that Paul uses letters, and adapts var-
ious epistolary forms in ingenious ways, cannot support the argument
for his knowledge of this particular (putative) epistolary form. The argument
dissolves, and the “appropriate literary precedent” has added nothing
to the case for authenticity (as equally it has also added nothing to
the case for pseudepigraphy).

Conclusion
PTebt 703, in the Ž nal analysis, does not in and of itself contribute
a great deal to the question of the genre and authenticity of 1 Timothy.93
What it does show is an aYnity in language and, as Wolter has nicely
put it, “communicative structure” between the Pastoral Epistles and a
wide range (as richly illustrated by Spicq) of ancient Hellenistic and
Roman administrative and diplomatic correspondence. This helps us
to discern, not so much a narrow literary designation for 1 Timothy
among the myriad types of such correspondence, but rather the broad
cultural conventions in place for administration by proxy in the ancient
Mediterranean world, conventions which were so ubiquitous and eVective
that they were quickly adopted by the missionary movements of

91
Delegates, 107-108.
92
Johnson’s appeal to his “well-attested letter form” being publicly published on ste-
lae in AB, 141-42, in addition to being unsupported by any of this evidence, includ-
ing our papyrus, shipwrecks on the same consideration.
93
Johnson’s full argument for the authenticity of 1 Timothy (and 2 Timothy and
Titus) on the basis of the so-called “literary precedent” of PTebt 703 does not hold,
but the other pillars of his argument (e.g., a critique of the methodology and substance
of the case for pseudepigraphy, the charge that scholars have treated that position as
an unquestioned and unassailable orthodoxy, the claim that the history of scholarship
on the question shows intolerable inconsistency, the myriad arguments he presents for
parallels to material in the Pastorals within the Pauline homologoumena, etc.), must,
however, be assessed on their own terms.
 ptebt 703 and the genre of 1 timothy 369

Christians, in both the Ž rst and subsequent generations.94 If one is con-

tent with that general conclusion, several subsequent lines of research
present themselves:
1. PTebt 703 may provide some interesting examples of how the
oikonomos is in some sense “caught between” the dioikts and the vil-
lagers; how might that inform the study of the Pastorals (and other
surely Pauline letters) and the roles Timothy and Titus are to play
vis à vis opponents and loyalists of the author?
2. Although PTebt 703 is clearly not a “mandata principis letter,” nor
is its content mandata principis, it does include a body of instructions
which have been culled from existing corpora of regulations or stipula-
tions for Ž nancial and agricultural administration of the nome. Similarly,
the mandata known to us from a time closer to the Pastorals, likely the
same period as Pliny the Younger, were collected eventually into libri
mandatorum. Could that Roman imperial chancery practice of collec-
tion and publication of mandates prove useful for investigating the
movement among early Christian groups of the second to fourth cen-
turies from epistolary paraenesis and commands to formal church orders
such as the Traditio apostolica, the Didaskalia and the later composition,
the Constitutiones apostolorum?
3. Comparison of texts should reckon with content as well as form.
PTebt 703 is largely about agricultural and industrial matters the
oikonomos is to superintend. The comparison with the Pastorals sharp-
ens a point that has always perplexed me: Why do we learn so little
about early Christian occupations and livelihoods from the Pastorals
(1 Timothy in particular) when the stability of the household, the
proper use of wealth and the means of porismñw (6:5-6 ) are such a
major preoccupation in them? Is this more a clue to the rhetorical
strategy of the text, or the social history of these Pauline communi-
ties? Is Timothy’s oversight, as depicted in 1 Timothy, of a recogniz-
able type of superintendent in cities of the Asian province?
PTebt 703 cannot be heralded as a new discovery that will dra-
matically in uence debate on the genre and authenticity of 1 Timothy,
but this signiŽ cant documentary papyrus gives us a remarkable win-
dow into everyday life and governance in Ptolemaic Egypt. It is an
important primary text which requires careful translation and examination

94
See Margaret M. Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-
Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,”
JBL 111 (1992) 641-62.
370 margaret m. mitchell

on historical and literary grounds—not unquestioning repetition of mere

segments of RostovtzeV ’s translation and comprehensive commentary.
Largely on that basis some Pauline scholars,95 as we have seen, have
tried to get it to say too much about the Pastorals, but it may yet
yield more secrets about the way administration by proxy was cultur-
ally and literarily encoded in the ancient Mediterranean.

95
Michael Wolter’s work is a commendable exception, for his monograph demon-
strates that he had investigated the Greek text of the full papyrus on its own terms,
and not just made quick conclusions from RostovtzeV ’s translation.