Missing ‘Particles’ in Disputed Pauline Letters? A Question of Method 1

Abstract

New Testament scholars continue to debate the number of missing ‘particles’ in disputed Pauline letters in order to advocate or challenge their pseudonymity. Surprisingly, however, participants in the debate do not usually define particles nor do they explain how they count missing types. Addressing these methodological issues, the present study suggests using the broader category of ‘indeclinables’ instead of particles, and to count missing types by either comparing the data for a particular letter (or group of letters) against another letter (or group of letters) or in light of the entire Pauline letter corpus. Since the overall result proves to be different for both approaches, it appears that the question regarding the number of missing indeclinables in (pseudo-)Pauline literature is essentially one of method.

Keywords

Authorship Colossians Ephesians particles Pastoral Epistles Paul 2 Thessalonians

Introduction

New Testament scholars continue to dispute the authorship claim of six ‘Pauline’² letters – Ephesians (1.1), Colossians (1.1), 2 Thessalonians (1.1), 1 and 2 Timothy (1.1) and Titus (1.1) – for a variety of reasons.³ One of these concerns the distribution of particles in the Corpus Paulinum. While some scholars have drawn attention to their frequency,⁴ others have focused on their position in sentences.⁵ For many exegetes, however, the question of authorship is most significantly raised with respect to the number of missing particle types in the disputed Pauline letters as compared to the undisputed ones – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.⁶

As early as 1836, Ernst Mayerhoff (1836: 28-32) noticed that Colossians lacks a number of inferential particles and conjunctive expressions that are typical of Paul. His impression was validated by Walter Bujard (1973: 22-53), whose extensive study demonstrated that both Colossians and Ephesians lack two to three times as many conjunctions and particles as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, collectively known as the Pastoral Epistles (PE), Percy Harrison (1921: 36-37) found as many as 112 Pauline particles to be missing. Edgar Krentz (2009: 419-20) has more recently listed some missing particles for 2 Thessalonians as well. Like many contemporary exegetes, each of these scholars have regarded their findings as weighty evidence for the letters’ pseudonymity.⁷

Critics, however, have found themselves in disagreement with this conclusion. Newport White (1912: 71-72), for instance, attributed the PE’s missing particles to variation in subject matter, showing that a majority of 24 typical Pauline particles are missing from the paraenetic Captivity Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians,⁸ Colossians, Philemon) and form only a small minority in the argumentative Hauptbriefe (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians). By regrouping the overall Pauline letter corpus, Friedrich Torm (1917: 234-35) found equal numbers of particles to be missing in (1) the Thessalonian correspondence, (2) the Hauptbriefe, (3) the Captivity Epistles and (4) the PE. John Roberts (1958: 135-37) rhetorically asked whether Paul could have authored 1 and 2 Thessalonians if 114 Pauline particles are found to be missing in both letters. Similarly, John O’Rourke (1973: 486-87) noted that 60 out of Harrison’s list of 112 missing Pauline particles in the PE are wanting in more than half of the other Pauline letters as well. Noticing that 36 of that same list (≈ 32%) are hapax legomena which may not be expected, Eta Linnemann (1996: 92-93) has added that the number of missing particles in the PE (76) does not outweigh the number which they share with at least one other Pauline letter (77).

The aim of the present study is not so much to challenge the (counter)arguments given by scholars to support their particular views on the authorship of disputed Pauline letters. Rather, the purpose is to consider some of the methodological issues involved in counting missing particles in the Corpus Paulinum. One of these issues concerns the importance of making explicit the assumptions on which one’s numerical analysis rests, as it seems that participants of the debate sometimes assume that a statistical argument is without presuppositions.⁹ But before discussing the methodological approaches to measuring missing particle types, an even more fundamental question must be asked: how is a ‘particle’ to be defined? This question seems to have been overlooked but merits careful consideration as it determines the course of the debate.

Terminological Considerations

While New Testament scholars usually attribute much weight to the argument of missing particle types in disputed Pauline letters, it is rare to find definition(s) of particles.¹⁰ Harrison (1921: 36-37), in his most extensive list of particles, not only included adverbs (e.g., τότε) and conjunctions (e.g., ὥστε), but also interjections (e.g., ἰδού), negations (e.g., οὔ), numerals (e.g., δίς), prepositions (e.g., σύν), pronouns (e.g., ἐμαυτοῦ) and adjectives (e.g., ἕκαστος). In addition, he listed several combinations (e.g., νυνὶ δέ). Being aware of different categories, Harrison apparently had a broad understanding of particles. Bujard (1973: 38), on the other hand, limited his analysis of particles in Colossians and Ephesians to conjunctions, although he also included interrogative particles (e.g., πώς). Krentz (2009: 419) insists that the absence of Pauline prepositions and particles in 2 Thessalonians is ‘[p]articularly striking’, but does not specify which words belong to each category as they are listed together with verbs, nouns, adjectives and interrogative pronouns.

The apparent lack of scholarly definitions of particles may not come as a surprise in light of the categorical ambiguity surrounding particles in contemporary grammars of Hellenistic Greek. Unlike ancient grammarians (e.g., Dionysius Thrax, Ars gram. 23-25),¹¹ their modern counterparts prefer to consider particles as a distinct grammatical category. They seem to disagree, however, as to which classes of words belong to it. Some (e.g., Robertson 1919: 1142-93; Turner 1963: 329-41; Humbert 1972: 368-442; Bornemann and Risch 1973: 261-68; Porter 1994: 204-17; Blass, Debrunner and Rehkopf 2001: 84-85, 364-87) prefer almost to equate particles with conjunctions, interjections and/or negations. Others (e.g., Brugmann 1900: 525-50; Jannaris 1968: 365-433; Smyth 1984: 631-71) think they also cover prepositions and/or adverbs. Yet others (e.g., Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950: 411-602; Zerwick 1963: 152-60; Adrados 1992: 705-40; Von Siebenthal 2011: 414-44) maintain that particles are to be distinguished from conjunctions, prepositions and adverbs.

A notable exception in this regard is the British classicist John Denniston (1887–1949). Inspired by the ancient grammarian Dionysius Thrax (170–90 bce), Denniston is one of the first modern grammarians to establish a comprehensive particle index of over 350 different types and combinations/collocations based on writings dating from Homer to 320 bce. He defined particles simply as ‘words expressing a mode of thought, or a mood of emotion’ (Denniston 1954: 0142064X18755907vii). Denniston’s study is still highly acclaimed among classicists, but over the past decades some scholars have come to (partially) disagree with his definition of particles.¹²

Antje Hellwig (1974: 150-56), for instance, wanted to exclude words encoding objective or necessary information in a sentence, such as negative adverbs (e.g., οὐ) or modal particles (e.g., ἄν). Instead, she suggested that words are considered particles only when encoding subjective or unnecessary information like the words that Dionysius (Ars gram. 25) labelled ‘conjunctions’ (σύνδεσμοι). Hellwig also included as particles some of the words labelled ‘adverbs’ (ἐπιρρήματα) by Dionysius (Ars gram. 24), namely those expressing the author’s attitude towards a particular statement, be it rational or irrational (or, in Denniston’s terms, thoughtful or emotional). Rational particles express approval (e.g., ναί), probability (e.g., τάχα), cursing (e.g., νή), assurance (e.g., δηλαδή) and reinforcement of negation (e.g., οὐχί), while irrational particles are mainly interjections expressing indignation (e.g., ἰοῦ), surprise (e.g., βαβαῖ) and enthusiasm (e.g., εὐοῖ). Hellwig excludes adverbs denoting time (e.g., νῦν), manner (e.g., καλῶς), number (e.g., δίς), quantity (e.g., πολλάκις) etc., because they encode objective or necessary information.

Maintaining Denniston’s categorical distinction between the syntactic and semantic functions of particles, Christiaan Sicking (1986: 125-41) has also proposed taking into account their conversational and rhetorical functions. By way of alternative, he suggests distinguishing between four groups of particles: (1) coordinating particles (e.g., ἀλλά), which establish a syntactic relationship between statements irrespective of their contribution to content; (2) connecting particles (e.g., γάρ), which do not establish a syntactic relationship but call attention to a connection between statements; (3) sentence particles, which either qualify (e.g., τοι) or form an inference from statements (e.g., οὖν) in order to establish a communicative basis between speaker and hearer; and (4) particles marking the scope of a statement, whether stressing its limits (e.g., γε) or extension (e.g., καί).

Elena Redondo Moyano (1993: 221-26) argues that Denniston narrowed the meaning of particles by proposing a definition different from their etymology. She argues that Denniston’s definition is too ambiguous because of its generality (‘mood of thought’ and ‘mood of emotion’). For instance, it excludes determinate adverbs (e.g., νῦν) or interjections (e.g., ὦ), while both categories would fit Dionysius’s understanding of σύνδεσμοι. Redondo Moyano also notices that Dionysius classifies under this category words which modern dictionaries classify under adverbs, conjunctions or particles. Similarly, Denniston sometimes defines words as particles which are otherwise defined in dictionaries (e.g., πού) and vice versa (e.g., ἄν).

Whether or not Denniston’s definition of particles is in need of revision, it is clear that no consensus has yet been forged among contemporary classicists on the concept and, consequently, on the number of particle types in ancient Greek. This terminological confusion might be due to the fact that ancient grammarians did not consider particles to be a distinct grammatical category. Modern grammarians, however, apparently feel the need for such a category; some particular words are to be distinguished from adverbs and conjunctions because of their distinctive communicative functions. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of particular words in particle indexes could become a matter of personal preference, for it allows scholars like Harrison to list words in the PE as missing Pauline particles that both ancient and modern grammarians of Hellenistic Greek would never classify as such (e.g., pronouns or adjectives).

It will probably remain a matter of preference as to how one decides which particular words and combinations belong to the category of particles, but it is important to note that the vast majority of them are words of set form. For the purpose of a study of (missing) Pauline particles, therefore, it might be recommended to use the umbrella category of ‘indeclinables’, of which particles – together with most numerals, adverbs, prepositions, connectives and interjections – are interrelated subcategories (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Categories of indeclinables.

The morphological boundaries set by this category of indeclinables make it possible to list at least 296 types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (see appendix).¹³

Methodological Approaches

In addition to the issue of definition, there is the question of how to measure missing indeclinables in disputed Pauline letters. Anthony Kenny (1986: 92, 95) has suggested two possible approaches: either (1) one declares some letters to be Paul’s by definition and compares them against another set of letters (the seven-letter approach) or (2) one accepts the entire Pauline letter corpus as based on tradition and looks for their mutual differences (the thirteen-letter approach).

Seven-Letter Approach

The seven-letter approach is usually preferred among scholars as it is commonly held that only seven New Testament letters are certainly (co-)authored by Paul. So they would first delete from the appendix all types of indeclinable words and combinations that are used exclusively in the six disputed Pauline letters. This reduces the list of 296 types to 273.¹⁴ Table 1 shows how many of these 273 types are missing in each individual Pauline letter, whether disputed or not.¹⁵

Table 1.

Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (seven-letter basis).

	Vocabulary tokens (X)	Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations (Y)
Romans	7111	120
1 Corinthians	6830	114
2 Corinthians	4477	130
Ephesians	2422	202
Galatians	2230	171
Philippians	1629	182
1 Timothy	1591	212
Colossians	1582	213
1 Thessalonians	1481	193
2 Timothy	1238	223
2 Thessalonians	823	219
Titus	659	238
Philemon	335	239

So, for instance, Romans, as the longest of the Pauline letters with 7,111 vocabulary tokens (total number of words), lacks 120 of the 273 types of indeclinable words and combinations that are found in at least one other undisputed Pauline letter (e.g., ἁγνῶς). In order to determine the relationship between the numbers found in Table 1, mathematicians would make use of a so-called scatter diagram, ‘showing the points corresponding to n paired-sample observations (x₁, y₁), (x₂, y₂), …, (x_n, x_n)’ (Clapham and Nicholson 2014: 426; see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (seven-letter basis).

The plotting of such a diagram is a standard procedure in linear regression analysis, which is probably the most widely used statistical technique for investigating the relationship between variables (Montgomery, Peck and Vining 2012: 1).¹⁶ One of its major objectives is to estimate the unknown parameters in a regression model, in this case how many types of indeclinables one may expect to be missing from a Pauline letter. The regression line as expressed by the formula ŷ = −0.0157x + 218.34, whereby ŷ is the estimated number of missing indeclinables (y-axis) and x is the total number of words or vocabulary tokens in a Pauline letter (x-axis), helps to identify the estimated number of missing indeclinable types for each Pauline letter. This line is merely predictive as it shows nothing but the number of indeclinable types one may expect to be missing from a Pauline letter. By means of the regression formula and the data of Table 1, the predictive numbers of missing indeclinables for each Pauline letter can be calculated as follows:

The numbers in the third column of Table 2, as represented by the formula Δ = y – ŷ, show the difference between the observed and expected values for missing Pauline indeclinable types. So, for instance, Romans may be expected to lack about 107 types, which in reality (120) is 13 too many. Thus, from a seven-letter-based perspective, Table 2 indicates that all disputed Pauline letters lack more types of indeclinables than the undisputed letters (except Philemon).

Table 2.

Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (expected on a seven-letter basis).

	ŷ (= −0.0157x + 218.34)	Δ (= y – ŷ)
Romans	107	13
1 Corinthians	111	3
2 Corinthians	148	−18
Ephesians	180	22
Galatians	183	−12
Philippians	193	−11
1 Timothy	193	19
Colossians	194	19
1 Thessalonians	195	−2
2 Timothy	199	24
2 Thessalonians	205	14
Titus	208	30
Philemon	213	26

Kenny (1986: 92) notes, however, that there is a major flaw in the seven-letter approach. What if all disputed Pauline letters diverge from the undisputed paradigm but resemble each other more closely? Would this be proof of the undisputed letters’ plural authorship?¹⁷ Interestingly, the range between the highest and the lowest Δ value for the undisputed Pauline letters (26 for Philemon and −18 for 2 Corinthians making 44 in total) is considerably higher than that of the disputed Pauline letters (30 for Titus and 14 for 2 Thessalonians making 16 in total).

Thirteen-Letter Approach

Kenny (1986: 95) therefore prefers the thirteen-letter approach, assuming the homogeneity of the overall Pauline letter corpus as supported by the majority of exegetes throughout church history.¹⁸ The same type of regression analysis can be applied, but now all 296 types of indeclinables as listed in the appendix are taken into consideration. Table 3 shows how many of these are missing in each individual Pauline letter:

Table 3.

Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (thirteen-letter basis).

	Vocabulary tokens (X)	Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations (Y)
Romans	7111	143
1 Corinthians	6830	137
2 Corinthians	4477	153
Ephesians	2422	221
Galatians	2230	194
Philippians	1629	205
1 Timothy	1591	228
Colossians	1582	233
1 Thessalonians	1481	216
2 Timothy	1238	237
2 Thessalonians	823	239
Titus	659	256
Philemon	335	262

So, for instance, Romans from this perspective lacks 143 of the 296 types of indeclinables that are found in at least one other Pauline letter, whether disputed or not (e.g., ἀεί). A new scatter diagram can be plotted in order to identify the relationship between the numbers of Table 3 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (thirteen-letter basis).

This time the regression formula ŷ = −0.0176x + 253.35 is based on the data of all Pauline letters. It appears that, from a thirteen-letter-based perspective, the disputed Pauline letters are much closer to the regression line. The predictive numbers are shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Missing types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum (expected on a thirteen-letter basis).

	ŷ (= −0.0176x + 253.35)	Δ (= y – ŷ)
Romans	128	15
1 Corinthians	133	4
2 Corinthians	175	−22
Ephesians	211	10
Galatians	214	−18
Philippians	225	−20
1 Timothy	225	3
Colossians	226	7
1 Thessalonians	227	−11
2 Timothy	232	5
2 Thessalonians	239	0
Titus	242	14
Philemon	247	15

Table 4 shows that the disputed Pauline letters no longer have the highest Δ values, as they do not outnumber Romans and Philemon. Interestingly, the highest distances to the regression line are found for three members of the undisputed Paulines, including 2 Corinthians (−22), Galatians (−18), and Philippians (−20). This raises a question that seems to have been overlooked by scholars thus far, namely, which is more peculiar for a letter: to lack more types of indeclinables or to use more types of indeclinables?

Conclusion

It seems, in the end, that the question of missing indeclinables in the Corpus Paulinum is one of method. None of the statistical data presented above should be taken as conclusive evidence for the pseudonymity of Pauline letters, whether disputed or not. More advanced types of regression analysis are needed to establish the upper and lower limits, showing which data points deviate significantly from the regression line.¹⁹ Yet the purpose of this study, it must be recalled, has not been to offer the most sophisticated of statistical analyses of missing Pauline particles. It has rather served to illustrate some of the methodological problems involved, and how decisions taken in this regard affect one’s conclusion regarding authorship. As such, the following recommendations may serve as the outcomes of this study.

First, in spite of the ambiguity surrounding the grammatical concept of particles, a workable definition should be given by those wishing to make up an index of missing Pauline particle types. This will prevent scholars from accusing one another of being selective. At this preliminary stage, one must also decide whether the focus will be restricted to simple and/or compound particles, or whether combinations will be taken into consideration as well. In order to avoid confusion, it has been suggested that the term ‘indeclinables’ should be used instead of ‘particles’.

Secondly, there is not just one particular method for evaluating the number of missing indeclinables in the Corpus Paulinum. By way of example, it has been shown that seven- and thirteen-letter approaches yield different results. Both methods deserve careful consideration.

Finally, is it the absence or presence of specific indeclinable types that makes a Pauline letter (un)disputed? It seems that, from a thirteen-letter-based perspective, 2 Corinthians is marked out as being most peculiar for its various use of indeclinables. This brings to light a new set of questions, including the exclusive explanatory power of author variation. Future research might consider focusing upon the contextual significance of indeclinables in ancient Greek discourse.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix:

Types of indeclinable words and combinations in the Corpus Paulinum

1	ἁγνῶς	75	εἰ δέ καί	149	λίαν	223	ὄϕελόν
2	ἀδήλως	76	εἰ δέ μή γε	150	μακράν	224	πάλαι
3	ἀδιαλείπτως	77	εἰ καί	151	μάλιστα	225	πάλιν
4	ἀεί	78	εἰκῇ	152	μᾶλλον	226	πανταχοῦ
5	ἀκαίρως	79	εἰ μή	153	μεγάλως	227	πάντοτε
6	ἀκριβῶς	80	εἵνεκεν/ἕνεκεν	154	μέν	228	πάντως
7	ἀλλʼ εἰ (καί)	81	εἰ οὖν	155	μέν … ἀλλά	229	παρά (παρʼ)
8	ἀλλʼ ἤ	82	εἴπερ	156	μέν γάρ	230	παραπλήσιον
9	ἀληθῶς	83	εἴ πως	157	μέν (γάρ) … δέ	231	παραυτίκα
10	ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα	84	εἰς	158	μέν οὖν	232	παρεκτός
11	ἀλλʼ οὐ(κ/χ)	85	εἴτε	159	μενοῦνγε	233	πεντάκις
12	ἀλλʼ οὐδέ	86	εἶτα	160	μέντοι	234	πέντε
13	ἀλλά (ἀλλʼ)	87	ἐκ/ἐξ	161	μετά (μετʼ/μεθʼ)	235	περί
14	ἀλλά γε	88	ἐκεῖ	162	μεταξύ	236	περισσοτέρως
15	ἀλλά καί (ἐάν)	89	ἐκτός	163	μέχρι(ς)	237	πέρυσι
16	ἄλλως	90	ἔμπροσθεν	164	μή	238	πλήν
17	ἅμα	91	ἐν	165	μηδέ	239	πλησίον
18	ἀμέμπτως	92	ἐνώπιον	166	μηδέποτε	240	πλουσίως
19	ἀμήν	93	ἐξαυτῆς	167	μηκέτι	241	πνευματικῶς
20	ἄν	94	ἑξήκοντα	168	μή οὖν	242	πολλάκις
21	ἀνά	95	ἔξω	169	μήποτε	243	ποτέ
22	ἀναξίως	96	ἔξωθεν	170	μήπω	244	πού
23	ἀνόμως	97	ἐπάνω	171	μή πως	245	ποῦ
24	ἀντί (ἀνθʼ)	98	ἐπεί	172	μήτε	246	ποῦ οὖν
25	ἄνω	99	ἐπειδή	173	μήτι	247	πρό
26	ἄνωθεν	100	ἔπειτα	174	μόλις	248	πρός
27	ἀξίως	101	ἐπί (ἐπʼ/ἐϕʼ)	175	ναί	249	πώς
28	ἅπαξ	102	ἔσω	176	νή	250	πῶς
29	ἀπέναντι	103	ἔσωθεν	177	νομίμως	251	ῥητῶς
30	ἀπερισπάστως	104	ἑτέρως	178	νῦν	252	σήμερον
31	ἀπό (ἀπʼ/ἀϕʼ)	105	ἔτι	179	νῦν δέ (καί)	253	σπουδαιοτέρως
32	ἀποτόμως	106	ἑτοίμως	180	νυνί δέ (καί)	254	σπουδαίως
33	ἄρα/ἆρα	107	εὖ	181	ὅλως	255	σύν
34	ἄρα οὖν	108	εὐθέως	182	ὁμοθυμαδόν	256	σωματικῶς
35	ἄρτι	109	εὐκαίρως	183	ὁμοίως	257	σωϕρόνως
36	ἀτάκτως	110	εὐσεβῶς	184	ὁμοίως (δέ) καί	258	τάχα
37	αὔριον	111	εὐσχημόνως	185	ὁμολογουμένως	259	τε
38	ἀϕόβως	112	ἐϕάπαξ	186	ὅμως	260	τε γάρ
39	ἄχρι(ς)	113	ἕως	187	ὄντως	261	τε (…) καί
40	γάρ	114	ἤ	188	ὀπίσω	262	τεσσεράκοντα
41	γάρ ἐάν	115	ἡδέως/ἥδιστα	189	ὅπου	263	τοιγαροῦν
42	γάρ καί	116	ἤδη	190	ὅπως	264	τοίνυν
43	γε	117	ἤ καί	191	ὅπως μή	265	τολμηρότερον
44	γνησίως	118	ἡνίκα	192	ὁσάκις	266	τότε
45	δέ (δʼ)	119	ἤτοι	193	ὁσίως	267	τοὐναντίον
46	δέ καί	120	ἴδε/ἰδού	194	ὅταν	268	τριάκοντα
47	δεκαπέντε	121	ἵνα	195	ὅταν γάρ	269	τρίς
48	δέ ὅτι	122	ἵνα καθώς	196	ὅταν δέ	270	τυπικῶς
49	δεῦρο	123	ἵνα καί	197	ὅτε	271	ὑπέρ
50	δή	124	ἵνα μή	198	ὅτι	272	ὑπεράνω
51	διά (διʼ)	125	ἱνατί	199	ὅτι δέ	273	ὑπερβαλλόντως
52	δικαίως	126	ἵνα ὥσπερ	200	ὅτι ἐάν	274	ὑπερέκεινα
53	διό	127	Ἰουδαϊκῶς	201	ὅτι ἐάν μή	275	ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ
54	διόπερ	128	καθάπερ	202	ὅτι εἴ	276	ὑπερλίαν
55	διότι	129	καθάπερ καί	203	ὅτι ὡς	277	ὑπό (ὑπʼ/ὑϕʼ)
56	δίς	130	καθάπερ … οὕτως καί	204	οὗ	278	χάριν
57	δώδεκα	131	καθό	205	οὐ(κ/χ)	279	χωρίς
58	δωρεάν	132	καθώς	206	οὐαί	280	ϕειδομένως
59	ἐάν	133	καθώς καί	207	οὐ γάρ	281	ὦ
60	ἐάν γάρ	134	καθώς … καί	208	οὐ γάρ ἀλλά	282	ὧδε
61	ἐάν δέ	135	καί	209	οὐ γάρ … ἀλλά	283	ὡς
62	ἐάν δέ καί	136	καί γάρ (ὅτε)	210	οὐδέ (οὐδʼ)	284	ὡς (…) ἄν
63	ἐάν μή	137	καί ἐάν	211	οὐδέ γάρ	285	ὡσαύτως
64	ἐάν οὖν	138	καί … καθώς καί	212	οὐδέποτε	286	ὡσαύτως (δέ) καί
65	ἐάν τε (γάρ)	139	καί μή	213	οὐκέτι	287	ὡσεί
66	ἐγγύς	140	καί οὐ(κ/χ)	214	οὐ μή	288	ὡς καί
67	ἐγγύτερον	141	καίπερ	215	οὖν	289	ὡς … καί
68	ἐθνικῶς	142	καλῶς	216	οὔπω	290	ὡς μή
69	εἰ	143	κἄν	217	οὔτε	291	ὡς ὅτι
70	εἰ γάρ (καί)	144	κατά (κατʼ/καθʼ)	218	οὕτως	292	ὡς (…) οὕτως
71	εἰ (γάρ/δέ) … (ἀλλά) καί	145	κατέναντι	219	οὕτως καί	293	ὥσπερ
72	εἰ γάρ … οὕτως καί	146	κατενώπιον	220	οὕτως (…) ὡς	294	ὡσπερεί
73	εἴ γε (καί)	147	κρυϕῇ	221	οὐχί	295	ὥσπερ … ἵνα καί
74	εἰ δέ	148	κύκλῳ	222	οὐχ ὅτι	296	ὥστε

1.

This paper was written when I was research associate in the Department of New Testament studies at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, and it was delivered to the research group ‘The Study of the New Testament Greek’ at the fifth annual conference of the European Association of Biblical Studies held in Córdoba, Spain, 12–15 July 2015. Thanks are due to all participants of the session for their encouraging feedback, and to Professor Dr Martin I. Webber and Dr Andy Cheung for their correction of the English text. The anonymous reviewer of JSNT is also to be thanked for the valuable comments given on the manuscript.

2.

Throughout this study the term ‘Pauline’ is used to refer to (all) New Testament letters attributed to Paul with no connotation to authorship.

3.

For a historical introduction to this debate, see : 88-241.

4.

So, for instance, : 80-87.

5.

So, for instance, : 266-86.

6.

: 56-57) notes that the absence of various typically Pauline particles in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus is ‘a bit more telling’ than the presence of, for instance, 306 hapax legomena.

7.

See, for instance, Piñero and Peláez 1995: 477; Brown 1997: 611, 663-64; Marguerat 2008: 290, 304, 334; : 363. These highly acclaimed New Testament introductions may serve as a snapshot of international currents in biblical scholarship.

8.

White excluded Philippians from his analysis.

9.

This is a rejoinder to : 204, whose conclusive remark after a thorough evaluation of statistical studies on biblical literature was quite similar.

10.

Cf. : 241, who conclude their survey of Greek language and linguistics by noting that more work on particles needs to be done in New Testament scholarship.

11.

For a Greek edition, see Uhlig 1965: 3-101. It is uncertain whether Dionysius was the composer or compiler of this work, as it seems that it underwent several (minor) revisions. See : 267-68 n. 31.

12.

Cf. : 3-43.

13.

Excluding ‘frozen’ combinations like ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, ἀντί τούτου, διά τοῦτο (ταῦτα), εἴ τις, ἐϕ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον, ἐϕ᾽ ᾧ, οὐ μόνον δέ, τοῦ λοιποῦ, τούτου χάριν, etc. This list is still considerably longer than that of Harrison, because he selected indeclinables at random and a priori excluded all indeclinable types and combinations that are typical of the PE (cf. Guthrie 1956: 13; Gilchrist 1966: 32; Linnemann 1996: 93-94). For more flaws in Harrison’s overall argument, see : 153-69.

14.

The 23 types of indeclinable words and combinations that are used exclusively in Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy and/or Titus are: ἀκαίρως, ἀτάκτως, ἑξήκοντα, εὖ, εὐκαίρως, εὐσεβῶς, κατενώπιον, κρυϕῇ, λίαν, μακράν, μέντοι, μηδέποτε, μήποτε, μήτε, νομίμως, ὁμολογουμένως, ὅτι ἐάν μή, πλουσίως, ῥητῶς, σπουδαίως, σωματικῶς, σωϕρόνως and ὡσαύτως.

15.

All data presented in the following tables and figures are based on the 28th edition of Nestle-Aland’s Greek New Testament (2012).

16.

For a more detailed explanation of this statistical method in relation to Pauline vocabulary, see : 122-29.

17.

Cf. : 129-51, who points to the impossibility of drawing this conclusion precisely because of their undisputed status.

18.

For histories of authenticity criticism demonstrating that a majority of exegetes in Church history have rejected the pseudonymity of disputed Pauline letters, see Johnson 2001: 20-42; Thiselton 2011: 11-15; : 2-20.

19.

See : 168

References

Adrados

Francisco Rodríguez

1992 Nueva Sintaxis del Griego Antiguo (Madrid: Gredos).

Blass

Friedrich

Debrunner

Albert

Rehkopf

Friedrich

2001 Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (18th edn; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Bornemann

Eduard

Risch

Ernst

1973 Griechische Grammatik (Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg).

Brown

Raymond E.

1997 An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; New York: Doubleday).

Brugmann

Karl

1900 Griechische Grammatik (3rd edn; Munich: Beck).

Bujard

Walter

1973 Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (SUNT, 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Clapham

Christopher

Nicholson

James

2014 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics (5th edn; Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Collins

Raymond F.

1988 Letters that Paul Did not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (Wilmington, DE: Glazier).

Denniston

John D.

1954 The Greek Particles (rev. Kenneth James Dover; 2nd edn; Oxford: Clarendon Press).

10.

Forbes

A. Dean

1992 Statistical Research on the Bible’, in ABD, VI: 185-206.

11.

Gilchrist

J.M.

1966 The Authorship and Date of the Pastoral Epistles (PhD dissertation, University of Manchester, UK).

12.

Guthrie

Donald

1956 The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul (London: Tyndale Press).

13.

Harrison

Percy Neale

1921 The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (London: Oxford University Press).

14.

Hellwig

Antje

1974 Zur Funktion und Bedeutung der griechischen Partikeln’, Glotta 52: 145-71.

15.

Hoehner

Harold W.

2002 Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

16.

Humbert

Jean

1972 Syntaxe grecque (3rd edn; Paris: Klincksieck).

17.

Jannaris

Antonius Nicholas

1968 An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (Hildesheim: Olms).

18.

Johnson

Luke Timothy

2001 The First and Second Letters to Timothy (AB, 35A; New York: Doubleday).

19.

Kenny

Anthony

1986 A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

20.

Krentz

Edgar

2009 A Stone that Will not Fit: The Non-Pauline Authorship of 2 Thessalonians’, in Jörg

Frey

Jens

Herzer

Janssen

Martina

Rothschild

Clare K.

(eds.), Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (WUNT, 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 415-45.

21.

Linnemann

Eta

1996 Echtheitsfragen und Vokabelstatistik’, JET 10: 87-109.

22.

Marguerat

Daniel

(ed.) 2008 Introduction au Nouveau Testament: Son histoire, son écriture, sa théologie (4th edn; MdB, 41; Geneva: Labor et Fides).

23.

Mayerhoff

Ernst Theodor

1836 Der Brief an die Colosser, mit vohrnehmlicher Berücksichtigung der drei Pastoralbriefe kritisch geprüft (Berlin: Schultze).

24.

Mealand

David L.

1989 Positional Stylometry Reassessed: Testing a Seven Epistle Theory of Pauline Authorship’, NTS 35: 266-86.

25.

Montgomery

Douglas C

Peck

Elizabeth A.

Vining

G. Geoffrey

2012 Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis (5th edn; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley).

26.

O’Rourke

J.J.

1973 Some Considerations about Attempts at Statistical Analysis of the Pauline Corpus’, CBQ 35: 483-90.

27.

Páez

Martín

2012 Bibliography about Greek Particles (1935–2010)’, Syntaktika 42: 3-43.

28.

Piñero

Antonio

Peláez

Jesús

1995 El Nuevo Testamento: Introducción al estudio de los primeros escritos cristianos (Córdoba: El Almendro).

29.

Pitts

Andrew W.

2013 Greek Case in the Hellenistic and Byzantine Grammarians’, in Porter

Stanley E.

Pitts

Andrew W.

(eds.), Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context. III. The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development (LBS, 6; Leiden: Brill): 261-81.

30.

Porter

Stanley E.

1994 Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd edn;BLG, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

31.

Porter

Stanley E.

Pitts

Andrew W.

2008 New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research’, CBR 6: 214-55.

32.

Redondo Moyano

Elena

1993 El repertorio de las partículas in griego antiguo’, Veleia 10: 221-26.

33.

Roberts

J.W.

1958 The Bearing of the Use of Particles on the Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles’, ResQ 2: 132-37.

34.

Robertson

Archibald T.

1919 A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (3rd edn; London: Hodder & Stoughton).

35.

Schnelle

Udo

2017 Einleitung in das Neue Testament (9th edn; UTB, 1830; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

36.

Schwyzer

Eduard

Debrunner

Albert

1950 Griechische Grammatik. II. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Munich: Beck).

37.

Sicking

Christiaan M.J.

1986 Griekse partikels: definitie en classificatie’, Lampas 19: 125-41.

38.

Smyth

Herbert Weir

1984 Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

39.

Thiselton

Anthony C.

2011 1 and 2 Thessalonians through the Centuries (BBC; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).

40.

Torm

Frederick

1917

Über die Sprache in den Pastoralbriefen’, Z

NW 18: 225-43.

41.

Turner

Nigel

1963 Syntax, vol. 3 of J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

42.

Uhlig

Gustav

(ed.) 1965 Grammatici Graeci. I.1/3. Dionysii Thrasis Ars Grammatica (Hildesheim: Olms).

43.

van Nes

Jermo

2013 The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: An Important Hypothesis Reconsidered’, in Porter

Stanley E.

Fewster

Gregory P.

(eds.), Paul and Pseudepigraphy (PAST, 8; Leiden: Brill): 153-69.

44.

van Nes

Jermo

2018a Pauline Language and the Pastoral Epistles: A Study of Linguistic Variation in the Corpus Paulinum (LBS, 16; Leiden: Brill).

45.

van Nes

Jermo

2018b Hapax Legomena in Disputed Pauline Letters: A Reassessment’, ZNW 109: 118-137.

46.

Verhoef

Eduard

2010 The Authenticity of the Paulines Should not Be Assumed’, PzB 19: 129-51.

47.

Von Siebenthal

Heinrich

2011 Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament (Giessen: Brunnen).

48.

White

Newport J.D.

1912 The First and Second Epistles to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus’, in Nicoll

W.R.

(ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton), IV: 55-202.

49.

Witherington III

Ben

2006 Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. I. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; Nottingham: Apollos).

50.

Zerwick

Maximilian

1963 Biblical Greek (trans. Smith

; SPIB, 114; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).