the problem of the pastoral epistles 163
who argues that the PE “are in their parts and on the whole authored
by Paul.”40 Presenting a wealth of linguistic Pauline parallels, Thörnell
finds all sorts of similarities in (1) negative and positive expressions,
(2) connective repetition and accumulation of identical word(s), (3) alter-
nating repetition and resumption of ideas and forms, (4) strive for sym-
metry and “tone” (klangfigur), and (5) alternation and consequence in
connection with choice of vocabulary.41 The Pauline character of II Timo-
thy is stressed by Anthony Bird, who also criticizes Harrison for focusing
on dissimilarities too much. Using Harrison’s own data, he argues that 91%
of the vocabulary used in II Timothy is somehow present in the undis-
puted Paulines.42 More recently, it was demonstrated that for each of the
83 hapaxes used in Titus semantic neighbors or pragmatic synonyms can
be found in the non-Pastoral Paulines.43 This suggests that the vocabulary
of Titus is essentially Pauline.
Fragment Hypothesis
The fragment theory of authorship as proffered by Harrison has been
criticized as well, even by those who in principle agreed on the linguistic
part of his argument and the PE’s second-century date. Alan Brooke, for
instance, argues that the linguistic evidence presented by Harrison allows
for a larger Pauline element in the composition of the PE. He also thinks
no satisfactory explanation is offered to the complex origin of the Pauline
personalia, suggesting that a short travel-period after the end of Paul’s
“first” Roman imprisonment would equally if not better account for their
presence in the PE.44
Most of the criticism of Harrison’s (by no means novel)45 theory, how-
ever, centers on the subjectivity of its methodology. For many scholars
40 G. Thörnell, Pastoralbrevens Äkthet (Svenskt Arkiv för Humanistika Avhandlingar 3;
Goteborg: Eranos’ Förlag, 1931), 9.
41 Thornell, Pastoralbrevens Äkthet, 11–14, 15–27, 28–42, 43–56, 57–66. Cf. Spicq, Pasto-
rales, 1:180–81.
42 Bird, “Authorship,” 123–24.
43 Cf. A. D. Baum, “Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Con-
siderations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles,” TynBul 59 (2008):
279–87; P. H. R. van Houwelingen, Timoteüs-Titus (CNT; Kampen: Kok, 2009), 18–19.
44 Cf. A. E. Brooke, review of The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, by P. N. Harrison, JTS
23 (1922): 255–62.
45 Starting with K. A. Credner (Einleitung in das Neue Testament [Halle: Waisenhaus,
1836], 478–87), numerous fragment theories have been proposed during the nineteenth
century. For an overview, see C. Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der
Hand der bisher mit Bezug auf die aufgestellten Interpolations- und Kompilationshypothesen
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1894).