92 gregory p. fewster
my primary concern is: how does one’s hermeneutic manage meaning in
canonical pseudepigraphy, and in what way does that affect the interpre-
tation of that text? in what follows, i will elaborate how historical and
canonical strategies deal with these two related issues. as noted above,
historical approaches assume that truthfulness inevitably is paired with
the authenticity of the author to whom the text is ascribed. such concerns
necessarily incorporate an appreciation for the ancient perspectives on
pseudonymity—was this an accepted practice or was this practice associ-
ated with deception?8 naturally, the authentic Pauline letters take prece-
dence in a reconstruction of Pauline thought, that is, truly Pauline thought.
interpretation of these letters consequently appreciates Paul’s letters’
material circumstances, often in light of a reconstructed chronology.9
in this case, the author functions as the originator of meaning.10 While
Honor of Ralph P. Martin ( Jsntsup 87; sheffield: Jsot, 1992), 212–24; Harry y. gamble,
“Pseudonymity and the new testament canon,” in Jörg frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie
und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen: Pseudepigraphy and Author Fiction in Early
Christian Letters (Wunt 246; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2009), 333–62; clarke, “Problem of
Pseudonymity,” 457–65, for a general discussion. see stanley e. Porter, “Pauline authorship
and the Pastoral epistles: implications for canon,” BBR 5 (1995): 105–24, with respect to
authority and canonicity in the Pastorals.
8 there is debate as to whether pseudepigraphy was an accepted or rejected practice
in the ancient world and how these attitudes connected with attempts at literary decep-
tion. see mcdonald and Porter, Early Christianity, 388–93; gamble, “Pseudonymity,” 334–
39, 356–62; ruben Zimmermann, “unecht—und doch wahr? Pseudepigraphie im neuen
testament als theologisches Problem,” ZNT 12 (2003): 27–38; terry l. Wilder, Pseudonym-
ity, the New Testament and Deception (lanham, md: university Press of america, 2004),
35–122, 245–66; lewis r. donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral
Epistles (Hut 22; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1986), esp. 10; ellis, “Pseudonymity and can-
onicity,” 217–19; Porter, “Pauline authorship,” 114–15; metzger, “literary forgeries,” 12–19;
and clarke, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 442–57. this debate is beyond the scope of this
article.
9 see, for example, donald guthrie, New Testament Introduction (rev. ed.; downers
grove, il: interVarsity Press, 1990), 1001–10; l. c. a. alexander, “chronology of Paul,” in
gerald f. Hawthorne and ralph P. martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (down-
ers grove, il: interVarsity, 1993), 115–23; colin J. Hemer, “observations on Pauline chronol-
ogy,” in donald a. Hagner and murray J. Harris (eds.), Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to
F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday (grand rapids: eerdmans, 1980), 3–18, for general outlines
of chronology and related issues. see also udo schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theol-
ogy (trans. m. eugene Boring; grand rapids: eerdmans, 2003), 40, who explicitly states his
desire to read Paul chronologically.
10 so, for example, Vanhoozer’s interpretive paradigm validates that “the ‘original mean-
ing’ is identified with the ‘author’s meaning.’ the original meaning alone is the authen-
tic meaning, the author’s actual, authoritative meaning” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a
Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge [grand
rapids: eerdmans, 1998], 46). schleiermacher frames this as a psychological endeavour;
the hermeneutical task is to access the psychological workings of the author (see friedrich
schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism, and Other Writings [trans. andrew Bowie;