style and pseudonymity in pauline scholarship 115
(a fairly typical representative of the pseudonymity interpretation) do not
consistently yield reliable results, still commentators cite him as having
shown something substantial about Pauline authorship.4 luke timothy
Johnson’s evaluation of the carelessness and lack of clarity and theoreti-
cal precision in pseudonymity studies is not surprising and, unfortunately,
seems to be just as true today.5
linguistic criteria continue to form the primary means for denying
Pauline authorship of several letters.6 the principal linguistic diagnostics
employed to distill language variation in the so-called deutero-Pauline
material from other Pauline letters include (1) vocabulary, (2) grammar,
and (3) style, to borrow the primary categories of P. n. harrison’s influen-
tial study.7 yet, in the extensive discussion of variation, we find very little
material on how to methodologically assess variation. We find much talk
of “style” but very little sustained analysis of the concept itself and how
we should understand shifts in style. this essay will seek to bring some
resolution to this seemingly small, but significant hole in the current body
of literature on Pauline authorship and then make applications directly to
questions of pseudonymity, with specific reference to the Pastorals.
4 e.g., recently, Jerome d. Quinn, The Letter to Titus (aB 35; new haven: yale university
Press, 2008), 4.
5 See luke timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (aB 35a; new york:
doubleday, 2001), 58. Porter, “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral epistles: implications
for canon,” 110, echoes similar sentiments: “the methods used to determine authorship are
almost as varied as those scholars doing the calculations, with very little control on what
criteria are being used and what would count as an adequate test of the method.”
6 donald guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th rev. ed; the master reference
collection; downers grove, il: interVarsity, 1996), 633.
7 P. n. harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (london: oxford, oxford univer-
sity Press, 1921), 20–44. Between harrison and h. J. holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch
und exegetisch behandelt (leipzig: engelmann, 1880), 84–118, before him, commentators
began to take for granted that the linguistic data pointed away from Pauline authorship
for the Pastorals. Just a few years later this study had impacted commentaries toward
the pseudonymity view, e.g., Walter lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy and Titus) (icc; edinburgh: t&t clark, 1924), xxvii–
xxix. for analysis of Pauline pseudonymity according to these basic categories in subse-
quent research, see the surveys in Kenneth J. neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline
Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis (SBldS 120; atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 23–114;
matthew Brook o’donnell, “linguistic fingerprints or Style by numbers? the use of Statis-
tics in the discussion of authorship of new testament documents,” in Stanley e. Porter and
d. a. carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures ( JSntSup 168;
Sheffield: Sheffield academic Press, 1999), 233–34; george K. Barr, Scalometry and the
Pauline Epistles ( JSntSup 261; london: t&t clark, 2004), 98–106. for a somewhat recent
application of these criteria as the basis for denying Pauline authorship, see Quinn, Titus,
2–21 (esp. 3–5). Benjamin fiore, The Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus
(Sg; collegeville, mn: liturgical, 2007), 15–19, by contrast, views the Pastorals as pseudony-
mous on the basis of distinct philosophical topoi used in the Pastorals.