Paul and Pseudepigraphy (Pauline Studies, Book 8)

style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 151

of co-textual variation quite consistent with this range, sometimes even

less varied than the average (e.g., instances of vocabulary density). two

interpretations of this data have emerged in our study: (1) pseudonym-

ity and (2) register design. a register design interpretation avoids the

problems attendant with the pseudonymity view and at the very least

can explain the same range of data (explanatory scope) with equal force

(explanatory power).

nevertheless, more work needs to be done correlating variation per-

centages from cross-linguistic typological studies with greek stylistic

features. for the purposes of providing a sample above, i have used the

typical features advocated as instances of Pauline style in traditional

studies on pseudonymity to show the potential fruitfulness of a register

design interpretation of Pauline language variation, but the above analysis

already begins to expose some real problems with the lack of precision

in these categories. although our conclusions must be stated here very

tentatively, the initial prospect is quite promising. the linguistic impact

of genre in relation to register will need to be more delicately delineated,

further consideration will need to be given to the impact of the mode/

field of discourse and many further considerations besides. our prelimi-

nary experimentation in style-shift analysis in the Pauline corpus provides

hopeful prospects for further research in all of these directions.

Conclusions

in this investigation, two possible interpretations of language variation

in the Pauline corpus surfaced: (1) pseudonymity and (2) register design.

a register design model of style-shift predicates a substantial degree of

language change in response to social change so that significant co-textual

variation can often be anticipated as the result of register rather than

author variation. i have attempted to develop a register profile landscape

of the Pauline corpus that allows us to formally track changes in social

situational parameters that may impact Paul’s language from one letter

to the next. the most significant contextual variation occurs between reg-

ister profiles 2–4 (the thessalonian correspondence, the Hauptbriefe and

the Prison letters) and register profile 5 (the Pastorals). not surprisingly,

we find the most substantial co-textual variation here as well.

the traditional pseudonymity interpretation is irreparably laden with

methodological problems in the linguistic models it employs. a regis-

ter design model can account at least equally convincingly (explanatory