[an aside: I sometimes wonder if, when mentioning a scholar or work on the PE, we shouldn’t immediately tag the author with a short, 3-5 word description of his/her view of authorship]
In his new commentary (NICNT), Philip Towner (authorship: Pauline via a free amanuensis) introduces what is (at least to me) a new argument regarding the context of Titus. He points to local Cretan mythology regarding Zeus as a deified / ascended Cretan king (thus born on the island, NOT on Olympus), etc., and how Cretan portrayals of Zeus are of a long-haired young man, with all the impulsiveness and lusts of youth.
These myths, Towner argues, provide the backdrop for reading Titus. And the first interpretive key to the letter is 1.2b, hO APSEDHS QEOS. From there, Towner reads the letter as polemically engaging the Cretan views of Zeus AND empire and emperor (“appearing,” descriptions of God’s character, etc.)
Has anyone other than Towner read Titus on this basis? Has anyone critiqued this reading, beyond a brusque and reactionary “the PE are pseudonymous, Towner thinks they’re Pauline”?