the problem of the pastoral epistles 157
On second thought, however, he discerned three instead of five strings of
genuine Pauline notes: (1) Titus 3:12–15; (2) 2 Timothy 4:9–15, 20, 21a, 22b;
and (3) II Timothy 1:16–18, 3:10–11, 4:1–2a, 5b, 6–8, 16–18b, 19, 21b, 22a.
In 1964, Harrison once more defended the thesis that sometimes “the
language of the Pastorals is indeed Paul’s own,” but for the most part “are
written in the Hellenistic Greek of the first half of the second century.”16
Except for some minor corrections (e.g., 130 instead of 131 Pastoral hapaxes)
and additions (e.g., more parallel phrases between the PE and second-
century writers), the basic thrust of his thesis remained the same.
2.2. Critique
The overall argument as developed by Harrison against the (in)direct
Pauline authorship of the PE was initially considered a tour de force in
(especially British) New Testament scholarship. Within a few decades it
persuaded many to accept the PE having a set of genuine Pauline notes
in their texts, whether collected by an amanuensis (e.g., Luke) or pseude-
pigrapher.17 There was, however, a vocal minority of scholars during this
period who strongly objected to Harrison’s thesis by countering all of
its major constituents: (1) the non-Pauline character of the PE; (2) their
second-century date; and (3) a fragment theory of authorship.
Non-Pauline Character of the PE
The pervasiveness of the linguistic argument for the non-Pauline charac-
ter of the PE as presented by Harrison must be attributed, at least in part,
“to the apparently more scientific foundation upon which the evidence
is based.”18 However, critics have shown that this seeming objectivity is
seriously flawed by some methodological problems.
16 Harrison, Paulines, 13.
17 So, for instance, E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles (MNTC; London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1936), xvi–xxiii; R. Falconer, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1937), 13–17; P. Carrington, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: Dr. Harrison’s Theory
Reviewed,” ATR 21 (1939): 32–39; B. S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Scrib-
ner, 1947), 9–17; C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 4–12;
G. Holtz, Die Pastoralbriefe (THKNT 13; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965), 16–17;
A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966),
6–14; R. P. Martin, “The Pastoral Epistles,” in Acts-Revelation, vol. 2 of New Testament
Foundations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 300–307; S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral
Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979), 4; J. D. Quinn, “The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of
Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles,” in C. H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Edin-
burgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 62–75.
18 A. E. Bird, “The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles—Quantifying Literary Style,” RTR
56 (1997): 121.