90 gregory p. fewster
must grapple with two fundamental issues: (1) how does this perspective
conceive of meaning and truth and (2) how does that model appropriate
such meaning?
for the purpose of this essay, i wish to draw out some of these com-
plexities to which i have just alluded by exploring the head/body motif in
ephesians and colossians. i have selected this particular exegetical issue
because the authenticity of ephesians and colossians remains in ques-
tion and the body motif itself is a Pauline theme that spans the breach
between disputed and undisputed letters. therefore, this question avails
itself as a prime test case for a hermeneutic of canonical pseudepigrapha.
traditional readings often promote a stark distinction between the body
imagery in romans and 1 corinthians and the more explicit body/head
imagery in colossians and ephesians. this view tends to be based upon
a hermeneutic that necessarily views deutero-Pauline letters as develop-
ments or adaptations from earlier and authentic expressions of Pauline
thought. rather than understanding christ’s headship of the body as a
metaphor for authority or source, i propose that this headship is a divine
gift, an organic feature of bodies, with the purpose of promoting and pro-
ducing ecclesial unity and maturity.
Preliminary Comments on the Phenomenon of Canonical Pseudepigrapha
reference to the term “canonical pseudepigrapha” in this essay is a definite
and purposeful choice. While the term “pseudepigrapha” generally indicates
a classification of writings in which the ascribed author does not corre-
spond to the individual who actually composed the document, “canonical
pseudepigrapha” indicates a sub-category of pseudepigrapha, wherein the
document is included in a biblical canon.4 certainly, the phenomenon of
pseudepigraphy itself raises some interesting hermeneutical questions—
the canonicity of a pseudepigraphon adds another layer of hermeneutical
complexity. for example, 1 timothy is regarded by many as pseudony-
mous, yet its inclusion in the canon influences a certain ambivalence
to its authority and its relation to Pauline theology differently than, say,
4 see mark Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (the Biblical seminar; sheffield: Jsot,
1986), 16–17; and more recently, Kent d. clarke, “the Problem of Pseudonymity in Bib-
lical literature and its implications for canon formation,” in lee martin mcdonald and
James a. sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 2002), 440–42, for
a discussion of the complexities associated with defining pseudonymity and pseudepig-
raphy. for all intents and purposes, i use these terms almost interchangeably.