6 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster
along these lines have failed to appreciate how much these situational fac-
tors can influence vast changes in an author’s use of linguistic resources,
often due to an underdeveloped methodology. ehrman’s work on early
christian pseudepigraphy, published this year, reveals that issues of style
remain as a central determining factor in assertions of an epistle’s sta-
tus as pseudepigraphical.16 Pitts’s is, thus, a welcome exploration into
how notions of style can be better defined and appropriated for Pauline
letters.
While P. n. harrison’s seminal work The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles 17
remains an influential work for those scholars who argue for the pseud-
onymity of the Pastoral epistles, Jermo van nes questions its continued
viability in contemporary research. nes documents the extensive critique
of the statistically-based conclusions of harrison that has occurred in the
last century; even those who appreciate such critiques marshal this evi-
dence (even if modified) in support of a fragmentary hypothesis. however,
nes is incredulous that harrison’s conclusions, despite their methodologi-
cal and theoretical flaws, continue to influence and to be used to support
the conclusion of pseudonymity.
Following these more method-driven studies, the next section includes
a series of essays that engage topics relating to disputed letters found
within the new testament canon. sigurd grindheim compares the eccle-
siology of colossians and ephesians to that of the undisputed Pauline
letters. While colossians and ephesians show clear traces of a later devel-
opment, grindheim suggests that this development represents a complex
reapplication of familiar Pauline terms and themes in a way that is consis-
tent with the logic of the apostle’s earlier letters. these observations may
imply the authenticity of these letters given that an imitator would more
likely resort to formulaic mimicking of familiar Pauline expressions and
perhaps introduce his or her own ideas with their own nomenclature.
employing research done with reference to the documentary papyri,
christina Kreinecker addresses the background and language of the author
behind certain passages and phrases in 2 thessalonians. these results are
compared with other Pauline epistles, revealing that the use and applica-
tion of words, phrases and expressions in 2 thessalonians are notably dif-
ferent. in this way, the pseudepigraphy of 2 thessalonians is affirmed.
16 see, for example, ehrman’s comments on colossians (Forgery and Counter-Forgery,
175–76).
17 P. n. harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (london: Oxford university Press,
1921).