As I gather data to form/bolster/destroy opinions and hypotheses for the paper I'll present at the SBL in November, I'm continually reminded of a few different things.

First, one we all know (or should know): Correlation does not prove causation. This is patently obvious if you stop to think about it. In terms of style and authorship studies in the Greek New Testament, this may be reflected with thoughts like "Because things are similar it doesn't mean they have the same source." Thus some commentators have posited that even though Colossians and Ephesians are similar, they're different enough that they likely don't have the same source, or that one is an edited version of the other.*

Second, one we all easily forget (shame on me too): Lack of correlation does not prove disunion. That is, if I've shown that two things are not correlated as highly as other things all I've really done is show that they're different in some way. The reasons for difference, at least as regards authorship of NT epistles, cannot automatically be assumed to evidence itself in different authorship.  P.N. Harrison,** in my opinion, fell prey to this one because his work only verified that the degree of infrequent words in the Pastorals was higher than in other Paulines.*** He posited (but I don't think he proved) that differences in vocab meant different authorship. Since he, to his mind, proved a difference in vocabulary the difference in authorship came with the package. But he didn't, really. He only proved that the Pastorals, as a group, have a higher percentage of infrequent words ("Pastoral hapaxes", in Harrison-speak). The lack of correlation (infrequent words) does not automatically lead to disunion (different authors for the Pastorals).

Because of all of this, I feel a bit doomed. I'm gathering data on how words are modified in the Pauline epistles and doing a bunch of statistical mumbo-jumbo (that I actually understand, mind you!) to see how things correlate and compare.

But no matter what, at the end of the day, all that can absolutely be said is that particular feature usage between epistles is similar or different. Exploring the reasons for similarity and difference is, of course, where the rubber meets the road. That is the art of scholarship/academia. And that's where I end up needing to remember the above two provisos.

And then, after all of that, I remember that the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics session I'm presenting in allows 10 minutes for presentation, with an informal half-hour follow-up for Q&A. And I'll barely be able to get through the stats in 10 minutes, let alone think about what statistical similarites and differences I find might mean.

* For the record, I think that's a horrible argument, which is why my blithe statement of the argument is biased and, likely, inaccurate. But why couldn't Paul have cribbed his own work? Chances are he kept copies of his letters ...

** Harrison, P.N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921.

*** Actually, Harrison's work had other methodological problems, but I'll grant that the Pastorals have more infrequently-occuring words than other books in the NT corpus where the NT itself provides the word frequency measure. See O'Donnell's Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament for further discussion on Harrison's methodology.