158 jermo van nes
First, the term hapax legomena is not clearly defined. Sometimes it
seems as if Harrison uses the term “to refer to words that are found in the
Pastorals but not in any of the other Paulines, even when the words occur
more than once.”19 The consequence of not properly defining hapaxes is
well illustrated by John O’Rourke. According to Harrison, he argues, there
are eight words in 1 and 2 Timothy that are also found in other New Testa-
ment writings but not in Paul; 10 such words in 1 Timothy and Titus; 6 in 2
Timothy and Titus; and seven in all three of the PE. Yet by the same token
Romans and I Timothy have ten words in common that are not found in
any other member of the Pauline corpus; nine are shared between Romans
and 2 Timothy; six between Romans and Titus; one between Romans and
1 and 2 Timothy; two between Romans, 1 Timothy, and Titus; four between
Romans, 2 Timothy, and Titus; and one between Romans and all three PE.
From this one could make a case for a close relationship between Romans
and the PE in general and between Romans and Titus in particular. There-
fore, the inclusion of dis- and trislegomena is of no particular significance
to Harrison’s argument.20
Second, a number of diagrams are presented that plot the number of
words per page not found elsewhere in the corpus Paulinum, but it is not
explained how these figures are calculated. Moreover, as Matthew Brook
O’Donnell notes, Harrison is inconsistent in the order of Pauline epistles
presented along the x-axis of his diagrams. By plotting the number of
words per page against each of the thirteen New Testament letters attrib-
uted to Paul for each feature under consideration, all sorts of diagrams
are produced which inevitably curve up towards a high value for the PE.
Consequently, there is always the impression that they differ dramatically
from the rest of the Pauline corpus.21 The same is true for the presenta-
tion of the long list of missing Pauline indeclinables in the PE. At first
glance it seems an impressive argument, but upon closer investigation it
appears that 35 occur in only one, 58 in only two, 70 in only three, and 84
in only four of the 10 epistles which Harrison allows as Pauline. All these
19 M. B. O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints or Style by Numbers? The Use of Statis-
tics in the Discussion of Authorship of New Testament Documents,” in S. E. Porter and
D. A. Carson (eds.), Linguistics and the New Testament: Criticial Junctures ( JSNTSup 168;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 209.
20 J. J. O’Rourke, “Some Considerations About Attempts at Statistical Analysis of the
Pauline Corpus,” CBQ 35 (1973): 484–85.
21 Cf. O’Donnell, “Linguistic Fingerprints,” 209–10.