style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 141
ity (cf. also the colossians-ephesians relation) or, usually, a combination
of both.
each of these register profiles emerges with a number of commonali-
ties between themselves. these similarities are not widely questioned so
i will only survey them briefly. While some have sought to note differ-
ences between 1 and 2 thessalonians, especially concerning eschatologi-
cal development and emphases, many have noticed close similarities in
epistolary form and structure.71 the linguistic similarities seem so numer-
ous that holtzmann identifies the so-called “non-epistolary parts” of
2 thessalonians as a paraphrase of 1 thessalonians, similarities typically
interpreted as evidence for literary borrowing.72
although Kenny insists that there are no stylistic grounds for main-
taining a Hauptbriefe, the letters do nevertheless group co-textually in a
number of ways.73 they group in terms of their usage of καί much more
closely than the rest of the letters, a fact that morton and James mcleman
interpret as a definitive datum suggesting the genuineness of only these
four.74 as with the thessalonian correspondence, 1 and 2 corinthians
have the same author/recipient relations, but variation can be explained
through temporal development of the register both on the side of the
author and the recipients—it is evident from 2 corinthians that a num-
ber of events had transpired since Paul had last written the corinthians.
Barr finds a tight semantic grouping of the corinthian correspondence
based on corinthian “pastoral issues.”75 romans and galatians contain a
significant volume of parallel vocabulary due to their detailed discussion
of the gentile controversy and related topics.
the Prison letters occupy register profile 4 around the setting of Paul’s
first roman imprisonment. these group very closely contextually, with
almost exactly parallel realizations in all three metafunctions, with ephe-
sians having just a slightly higher informative score and Philippians real-
izing interactive discourse. a view going as far back as marcion identifies
ephesians as the letter to the laodiceans (tertullian, Ad Versus Mar-
cionem 5.11.12 [PL 2.500]; 5.17.1 [PL 2.512]) that Paul refers to in colossians
71 James everett frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul
to the Thessalonians (icc; new york: Scribner’s, 1912), 45–46; malherbe, Thessalonians,
356–57.
72 h. holtzmann, “Zum zweiten thessalonicherbrief,” ZNW 2 (1901): 97–108; cf. frame,
Thessalonians, 45.
73 Kenny, Stylometric Study, 80–100.
74 a. Q. morton and J. mcleman, Paul, the Man and the Myth: A Study in the Authorship
of Greek Prose (new york: harper and row, 1966).
75 Barr, Scalometry, 56–66.