162 jermo van nes
A second-century date for the PE was challenged by Hitchcock, who
criticized Harrison for citing parallels in second-century literature but
keeping silent about first-century writings.35 He finds no less than 278 of
them (over 90%) in both Latin and ( Jewish) Greek authors writing prior
to 50 ce, including Aelian, Aeschylus, Antiphanes, Aristophanes, Arrian,
Cicero, Demosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, Epictetus, Euripides, Galen, Hero-
dotus, Hippocrates, Homer, Horace, Josephus, Longinus, Lucian, Lucil-
ius, Marcus Aurelius, Ovid, Philo, Plato, Plutarch, Polybius, Sophocles,
Strabo, Telestes, Thucydides, Varro, and Vectius Valens.36 Others have
also pointed to parallels in Aristotle, Philodemus, Quintilian, and Valerius
Maximus.37 Moreover, Guthrie shows 78 of Harrison’s 175 proper Pastoral
hapaxes (words not found in the entire New Testament) to be present in
the LXX, which is 18 more than Harrison found in the Apostolic Fathers.38
Thus (1) nearly all of the Pastoral hapaxes were known in Greek literature
by the middle of the first century, and (2) nearly half of the proper Pasto-
ral hapaxes were used in the LXX.
This, of course, does not prove the language of the PE to be fully Pau-
line. However, Guthrie also counters Harrison’s argument that 112 Pauline
indeclinable words are missing in the PE. By adding 93 indeclinables (of
which all but one are found in the PE and all but 8 in the rest of the
Pauline corpus), it appears that of this total amount of 205 indeclinables
131 occur in Romans; 139 in 1 Corinthians; 113 in 2 Corinthians; 107 in
Galatians; 76 in Ephesians; 86 in Philippians; 64 in Colossians; 73 in 1 Thes-
salonians; 57 in 2 Thessalonians; 44 in Philemon; and 92 in the PE. This
means “that the Pastorals compare favourably with the other Paulines.”39
A similar conclusion was reached by the Swedish philologist Gösta Thörnell,
35 Harrison (Paulines, 24) felt misunderstood in this regard, because he never intended
to deny that most of the PE’s vocabulary was used prior to Paul’s days. Still, for his argu-
ment to be valid, he would have to prove that the 306 Pastoral hapaxes were not in use
until the second century.
36 Cf. Hitchcock, “Tests,” 278–79; “The Latinity of the Pastorals,” ExpTim 39 (1928):
347–52; “Classical Allusions in the Pastoral Epistles,” Th 17 (1928): 62–71; “Philo and the
Pastorals,” Herm 56 (1940): 113–35; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
(BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1963), 24; Spicq, Pastorales, 1:185–86; P. Dornier, Les Épitres
Pastorales (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 22; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 42; Mounce, Pastoral
Epistles, ciii–civ; B. Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy
and 1–3 John, vol. 1 of Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2006), 61.
37 Cf. E. K. Simpson, “The Authenticity and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” EvQ 12
(1940): 305–306; The Pastoral Epistles (London: Tyndale Press, 1954), 16–23; Spicq, Pasto-
rales, 1:190–92.
38 Cf. D. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (London: Tyndale, 1956), 12,
39–41; Pastoral Epistles, 216–17; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 42.
39 Guthrie, Mind of Paul, 13; cf. Pastoral Epistles, 224–26; Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 44.