116 andrew w. pitts
Theoretical Foundations: Style and Register Variation in Sociolinguistics
one of the primary shortcomings of assessments of Pauline authorship in
biblical studies up to this point remains the lack of a developed, sound
linguistic methodology by which to interpret the data. reviews of the
variation data abound, as do interpretations. there is agreement regard-
ing linguistic variability in the Pastorals as compared to the other Pauline
writings, but the more important question of how to interpret this linguis-
tic variation with respect to authorship via a rigorous linguistic model has
received surprisingly less attention.8 george Barr’s recent work, for exam-
ple, includes a chapter on methodology but this mostly consists of arguing
for the best type of graph (cumulative sum graph), the appropriate way
to construct statistical “scales” and the best features to use in populat-
ing these scales (e.g., colon; expanded sentences; strings of questions).9
armin Baum, in his “semantic” analysis of Pauline literature, comes to the
conclusion that the evidence of semantic variation—while real—is not
significant for studies of authorship. however, he draws this conclusion
almost completely independently of any methodology that would indicate
the significance of the data he examines.10 the current state of the discus-
sion calls for more sustained methodological attention.
8 i should highlight two noteworthy—even if tentatively stated—exceptions. the first
by o’donnell, “linguistic fingerprints,” 251–53 (repr. in his Corpus Linguistics [ntm 6;
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005], much of which has direct and indirect implications for
methodology in authorship attribution), emphasizes the importance of register as an inter-
pretive framework in authorship studies but did not directly plot out any implications for
grouping, as i hope to do. the second, by Stanley e. Porter, “the functional distribution
of Koine greek in first-century Palestine,” in Stanley e. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other
Topics in New Testament Linguistics ( JSntSup 193; Sntg 6; Sheffield: Sheffield academic
Press, 2000), 65–72, 75–78, analyzes register variation in the Pastorals in comparison with
romans, 1 corinthians, and Philippians. unfortunately, his important study has not been
seriously considered in recent discussions of authorship, likely due to its primary focus
on diglossia and the greek in Palestine, with the study of the Pastorals as an applica-
tion at the end. Porter does not make any firm conclusions but suggests that comparison
along register based lines of analysis will likely yield more fruitful results than statistical
studies based on the inadequate corpus size provided to us by the writings we possess in
Paul’s name. See also Jeffrey t. reed, “language of change and the changing of language:
a Sociolinguistic approach to Pauline discourse,” in Porter (ed.), Diglossia, 121–53.
9 this leads one of his reviewers, Sean adams, to negatively assesses the situation:
“Barr utilizes statistics throughout the book, but fails to indicate the statistical relevance
of his findings. he makes many statements regarding the importance of the data and
the uniqueness of his findings, especially in regards to the ‘Pauline’ pattern... .” (Sean a.
adams, “review of Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles,” JGRChJ 2 [2001–2005]: r33).
10 armin d. Baum, “Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: linguistic con-
siderations concerning the richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral epistles,” TynBul 59 (2008):
271–92.