142 andrew w. pitts
4:16, indicating a potential complementary circulation of the two letters
throughout the churches of asia minor.76 evidence of semantic common-
ality exists throughout register profile 4, beyond that of ephesians and
colossians. With the exception of διά, the preposition density for Paul’s
“favored” prepositions is much higher for register profile 4 than the rest of
the Pauline corpus, according to Kenny’s study:77
Sometimes Philemon is set apart as distinct linguistically and it is
in many ways due to its unique social setting, especially in terms of
plurality.78 however, in this way, even Philemon consistently varies (in a
few instances on the upper end of the scale) along with the other Prison
letters in higher density of these conjunctions.
Several features group together within register profile 5. the several
points of variation discussed below tend to be features according to which
the Pastorals group together. each of these groups—commonly accepted
within scholarship as having significant linguistic similarities—emerge
from parallel social contexts. So the semantic clustering phenomenon
seems at least as likely on a register design interpretation as on a pseud-
onymity view.
76 See also John rutherford, St. Paul’s Epistles to Colossae and Laodicea: The Epistle to
the Colossians Viewed in Relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians (edinburgh: t&t clark,
1908); Shirley Jackson case, “to Whom was ephesians Written?” Biblical World 38 (1911):
315–20; michael d. goulder, “the Visionaries of laodicea,” JSNT 43 (1991): 15–16; Stanley e.
Porter and Kent d. clarke, “canon-critical Perspective and the relation of colossians and
ephesians,” Bib 78 (1997): 76–77.
77 Kenny, Stylometric Study, 86.
78 Philemon falls somewhere between individual and group in the plurality component
of its addressee parameter. it is addressed to Philemon, but also to “apphia our sister and
archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house.” most scholars believe that
ancient letter conventions still render Philemon best understood as a letter, primarily writ-
ten to Philemon, but to be read to these others as well. Bell’s notion of “overhearers” is very
helpful in offering linguistic assessment of this addressee phenomenon so that we would
expect this outer layer of addressees to have impact upon language variation, but not to
the degree that Philemon will. i have referred to this type of addressee as “individualized”
to reflect the focus on an individual, with a perspective toward an additional audience.