Full Description
In Pauline Language and the Pastoral Epistles Jermo van Nes questions the common assumption in New Testament scholarship that language variation is necessarily due to author variation. By using the so-called Pastoral Epistles (PE) as a test-case, Van Nes demonstrates by means of statistical linguistics that only one out of five of their major lexical and syntactic peculiarities differs significantly from other Pauline writings. Most of the PE's linguistic peculiarities are shown to differ considerably in the Corpus Paulinum, but modern studies in classics and linguistics suggest that factors other than author variation account equally if not better for this variation. Since all of these explanatory factors are compatible with current authorship hypotheses of the PE, Van Nes suggests to no longer use language as a criterion in debates about their authenticity.
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
Part 1
The Linguistic Problem of the Pastoral Epistles
1 Origins of the Problem: Founding Figures
1.0 Introduction
1.1 E. Evanson
1.2 F. D. E. Schleiermacher
1.3 J. G. Eichhorn
1.4 H. J. Holtzmann
1.5 P. N. Harrison
1.6 Conclusion
2 Constituents of the Problem: Linguistic Peculiarities
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Peculiarities of Vocabulary
2.1.1 Grecisms
2.1.2 Un-Paulinisms
2.2 Peculiarities of Syntax
2.2.1 Ὡς
2.2.2 Articles
2.2.3 Prepositions
2.2.1 Univariate Statistics
2.2.2 Multivariate Statistics
2.3 Conclusion
3 Solutions to the Problem: Authorship Hypotheses
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Orthonymity Hypotheses
3.1.1 Statistical Fallacies
3.1.2 Derivative Words
3.1.3 Preformed Traditions
3.1.4 Age
3.1.5 Addressees
3.1.6 Subject Matter
3.1.7 Textuality (versus Orality)
3.1.8 Stylistic Adaptation
3.1.9 Register
3.1.1 Luke
3.1.2 Tychicus
3.2 Pseudonymity Hypotheses
3.2.1 Luke
3.2.2 Timothy
3.2.3 Polycarp
3.3 Partial Orthonymity Hypotheses
3.4 Conclusion
Part 2
The Linguistic Problem of the Pastoral Epistles Reconsidered
4 Approaching the Problem: Methodological Considerations
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Linguistic Criticism
4.2 Towards a Linguistic Analysis of the Corpus Paulinum
4.2.1 Consistency Model
4.2.2 Resemblance Model
4.2.3 Population Model
4.2.1 Quantitative Analysis
4.2.2 Qualitative Analysis
4.2.1 Post-Pauline Interpolations?
4.2.2 Co-authors and/or Secretaries?
4.3 Conclusion
5 Pauline Vocabulary: New Perspectives
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Hapax Legomena
5.1.1 Quotations
5.1.2 Proper Nouns
5.1.3 Productivity
5.1.4 Age
5.2 Lexical Richness
5.2.1 Emotionality
5.2.2 Age
5.2.3 Topicality
5.2.4 Textuality (versus Orality)
5.3 Missing Indeclinables
5.3.1 Subjectivity
5.3.2 Emotionality
5.3.3 Textuality (versus Orality)
5.4 Conclusion
6 Pauline Syntax: New Perspectives
6.0 Introduction
6.1. Interclausal Relations
6.1.1 Parataxis
6.1.2 Hypotaxis
6.1.1 Age
6.1.2 Textuality (versus Orality)
6.2 Structural Irregularities
6.2.1 Parentheses
6.2.2 Anacolutha
6.2.3 Ellipses
6.2.1 Emotionality
6.2.2 Textuality (versus Orality)
6.3 Conclusion
Conclusion
Appendix 1 Hapax Legomena in the Corpus Paulinum
Appendix 2 Lexical Richness in the Corpus Paulinum
Appendix 3 Missing Indeclinables in the Corpus Paulinum
Appendix 4 Interclausal Relations in the Corpus Paulinum
Appendix 5 Structural Irregularities in the Corpus Paulinum
Bibliography
Index of Modern Authors
