Style and PSeudonymity in Pauline ScholarShiP:
a regiSter BaSed configuration
andrew W. Pitts
McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada
a significant consensus among new testament scholars recognizes some
level of pseudonymity within the Pauline canon; most Pauline scholars
at the very least view the Pastoral letters as deutero-Pauline.1 the argu-
ment from “style” functions as the primary diagnostic used to make
this evaluation. Studies in the Pastoral letters famously employ several
(mainly) linguistic criteria to detect shifts in style on the typically unar-
gued assumption that a shift in style necessarily entails a shift in author-
ship. in this essay, i question that assumption based on theoretical and
field research in sociolinguistics. through rigorous modeling, analysis, and
controlled field studies, sociolinguists have reached something of a con-
sensus on the basic components of style and its influences (resulting in
style-shift) whereas biblical scholars have not yet agreed on a definition.
after briefly offering an overview of the previous discussion of linguistic
criteria for detecting Pauline pseudonymity, i lay out in some detail the
theoretical foundations for a linguistically sound theory of style, combin-
ing audience design models for style-shift with register theory, describing
a phenomenon i refer to as register designed style-shift. Scholars have yet
to construct a theory of register with insights from contemporary socio-
linguistic style theory nor has anyone plotted out the implications of reg-
ister theory for a corpus wide analysis of the Pauline canon with reference
to pseudonymity—these will be the principal concerns of this essay.
two possible interpretations for the widely recognized linguistic varia-
tion within the body of writings we possess in Paul’s name will emerge:
(1) a pseudonymity-based interpretation and (2) the register design
interpretation that i am proposing. the linguistic assumptions for the
1 Well known dissenting voices, however, include george W. Knight iii, The Pasto-
ral Epistles (nigtc; grand rapids: eerdmans, 1992), 21–22; Stanley e. Porter, “Pauline
authorship and the Pastoral epistles: implications for canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105–23;
Stanley e. Porter, “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral epistles: a response to r. W. Wall’s
response,” BBR 6 (1996): 133–38. and, interestingly, three of the four commentators in the
major mainstream commentaries not only affirm but vigorously defend Pauline author-
ship, including William mounce (Word), luke timothy Johnson (anchor: 1–2 timothy)
and i. howard marshall (icc)—but not Jerome Quinn (anchor: titus).