In her 2004 publication, Die Fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Inter-
textuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe, annette
merz argued that the pastoral letters serve as letter guides, as if by paul,
to the pauline corpus.1 Four years after the appearance of merz’s book,
in a 2008 article entitled, “corrective composition, corrective exegesis:
the teaching on prayer in 1 tim 2,1–15,” margaret m. mitchell built on
merz’s study, arguing that 1 timothy’s teaching on prayer (2:1–15) con-
stitutes an additional example of a guiding interpretation of the corpus
Paulinum. mitchell boosted the argument by demonstrating that late
antique interpreters, including athenagoras, origen, and John chrysos-
tom, recognized a connection between First timothy’s and paul’s teach-
ing, therefore, using the former as a hermeneutical lens for interpreting
I wish to thank profs. margaret m. mitchell and david martinez of the university of
chicago for the opportunity to present a draft of this essay at the early christian stud-
ies workshop, december 7, 2009. I am grateful to the faculty, students, and all others in
attendance for the critical feedback I received at this seminar. I also wish to express thanks
to the anonymous reader of the Journal of Biblical Literature who offered a very helpful
critique of the thesis. this essay develops an idea I first published in Hebrews as Pseude-
pigraphon (wunt 2.235; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2009). the same idea is developed dif-
ferently in a subsequent article: “Hebrews as a Guide to reading romans,” in Jörg Frey et
al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in fruhchristlichen Briefen: Pseudepigraphy
and Author Fiction in Early Christian Letters (wunt 246; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2009),
537–73. the three pieces possess wholly different emphases, albeit with some excerpts in
common. I have developed the thesis anew here because I am convinced by it; likewise,
by the critiques of its prior versions.
1 annette merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Inten-
tion und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (ntoa/stunt 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & rupre-
cht, 2004); eadem, “the Fictitious self-exposition of paul: How might Intertextual theory
suggest a reformulation of the Hermeneutics of pseudepigraphy,” in thomas l. brodie,
dennis r. macdonald, and stanley e. porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles:
Explorations of Theory and Practice (ntm 16; sheffield: sheffield phoenix, 2006), 113–32. In
the latter article, merz identifies the particular type of intertextuality at work in pseude-
pigrapha as “continual fictitious self-references” (116). she works out a hermeneutics of
pseudepigrapha by distinguishing three types of intertextuality: latent, intended, and
veiled (119).
