120 andrew w. pitts
studies of Pauline authorship, likely due to the fact that when these vari-
ables are introduced by defenders of Pauline authorship, the analysis is
often so underdeveloped and weak that many do not take it seriously.23
this raises a major problem in contemporary discussions of Pauline
pseudonymity: the failure to rigorously define style. for example, distinc-
tion is often made between vocabulary, grammar, and style,24 which limits
analysis to textual features and excludes extralinguistic influences. nigel
turner’s treatment of style is marginally superior and concerns itself with
dialect, idiolect, and especially Semitic interference; however, analysis of
contextually influenced features of stylistic variation (e.g. bilingualism),
while present, remains limited.25 and although an often helpful study,
von Sprache und Gesellschaft 3 (handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissen-
schaft, Bd. 3.3; Berlin: de gruyter, 2006), 1353–61.
23 e.g. f. r. montgomery hitchcock, “latinity in the Pastorals,” ExpTim 39 (1928): 347–
52, offers a very primitive analysis along these lines. larry r. helyer, The Witness of Jesus,
Paul, and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology (downers grove, il: iVP academic,
2008), 203, proposes this but his analysis remains highly underdeveloped. Johnson, 1&2
Timothy, 60, is likewise underdeveloped but better than most. donald guthrie, “appendix:
an examination of the linguistic arguments against the authenticity of the Pastorals,”
in his The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (tntc; downers grove, il:
interVarsity, 1990), 235–51, basically just surveys the evidence put forward by harrison
and others and then briefly concludes that these things are more likely explained by the
following factors (250–51): “1. dissimilarity of subject matter undoubtedly accounts for
many new words. themes not previously dealt with unavoidably produce a crop of new
expressions. 2. Variations due to advancing age must be given due weight, since style and
vocabulary are often affected in this way. 3. enlargement of vocabulary due to change of
environment may account for an increased use of classical words. 4. the difference in
the recipients as compared with the earlier epistles addressed to churches would account
for certain differences in style in the same way that private and public correspondence
inevitably differs.” not surprisingly, this swift assessment has not changed the discussion.
i agree with these observations at a very general level but i see why suggestions like this
have not been taken seriously in the discussion because just stating that we potentially
have alternative explanations probably will not prove convincing to many, especially those
who do not already share guthrie’s view. he provides no linguistic reason why Paul should
have such differing style between the two bodies of letters. What we need is a linguistically
informed method that calibrates our expectations in a particular direction, thus helping
us interpret the data either towards situational change (as guthrie suggests) or author
change (pseudonymity view).
24 See Bart d. ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible’s Authors
Are Not Who We Think They Are (new york: harperone, 2011), 46, who speaks of vocabu-
lary and style, as opposed to harrison’s tripartite division (cf. harrison, The Problem of the
Pastoral Epistles, 20–44). guthrie’s treatment of style includes different uses of particles,
prepositions and pronouns, varying uses of the article and ὡς, uncritically adopting many
of harrison’s assumptions (guthrie, “examination,” 247–50).
25 nigel turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 4: Style (edinburgh: t&t
clark, 1976), passim (1), says that his analysis “does not restrict the theme to matters of
syntax in different arrangement, or merely viewed in a new light. close attention is given
to wider categories, such as word-order, rhetoric, parallelism and parenthesis. moreover,
the irregularities in sentence-construction which result from Semitic influence will be