Hermeneutical issues in canonical PseudePigraPHa:
tHe Head/Body motif in tHe Pauline corPus as a test case1
gregory P. fewster
McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Introduction
the primary concern of this essay is to engage some hermeneutical issues
associated with reading canonical pseudepigrapha.2 such issues reach
a pinnacle in the context of the Pauline canon, which can be divided
between those letters whose authenticity is generally accepted, and those
letters whose authenticity is disputed or rejected outright.3 interpretation
of the Pauline epistles requires a hermeneutic that can accommodate the
complexities associated with disputed authorship. indeed, the question
of how we approach the phenomenon of the author is fundamental to
this line of inquiry. Historical criticisms have provided biblical scholars
with an implicit strategy for negotiating the author, yet these are plagued
by methodological incongruity and result in stagnated readings as paths
through the text are repeated ad nauseam. canonical criticism has posi-
tioned itself as a timely corrector to such problems, yet, as i will argue, it
fails in the attempt. i propose an alternative perspective on authorship
that is functional rather than phenomenological, and engenders a read-
ing strategy that emphasizes the constraints of the corpus on the inter-
pretation of individual texts. each of these hermeneutical perspectives
1 earlier forms of this article were presented at a theological research seminar at
mcmaster divinity college and at the “Paul” section of the congress of the canadian soci-
ety of Biblical studies in 2012. i am grateful for the helpful comments from those who
participated in these forums.
2 i adopt the term “canonical pseudepigrapha” from donald guthrie’s “the develop-
ment of the idea of canonical Pseudepigrapha in new testament criticism,” Vox Evangel-
ica 1 (1962): 43–59 and Bruce metzger’s “literary forgeries and canonical Pseudepigrapha,”
JBL 91 (1972): 3–24. more on this designation below.
3 it is probably unnecessary to go into detail with respect to the history and current
state of this discussion. However, for the sake of contextualizing this article, broadly speak-
ing romans, galatians, 1 and 2 corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 thessalonians
typically are understood to be authentic. colossians and 2 thessalonians are debated,
while ephesians and the Pastorals are regarded a pseudonymous. see luke timothy John-
son, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (rev. ed.; minneapolis: fortress,
1999), 271–73; lee martin mcdonald and stanley e. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred
Literature (Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 2000), 388–93.