hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 93
chronological interpretation may not always be an explicit hermeneutical
strategy, theological development is often seen to be a feature of Pauline
thought.11 the implicit assertion seems to be that to best understand Paul,
his epistles should be read in the order that they were written. as schol-
ars disagree on what constitutes an authentic Pauline letter, historical
perspectives run into immediate issues, since different “canons” have the
potential to paint different portraits of Paul.12 this is especially pervasive if
the pseudo-Pauline letters are seen as second-class letters. in fact, a univo-
cal Pauline theology maintains viability primarily with an individualistic
perspective on authorship. as some scholars have suggested, the Pauline
letters are a communal product.13 the use of an amanuensis influenced
cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1998], 107–108). note how his comments imply an
investigation of the author’s material context and chronology.
11 this notion of development is central to declarations of pseudepigraphy in the first
place. for example the so-called cosmic ecclesiology of ephesians or institutionalized
forms of church leadership in the Pastorals are seen to be theological developments from
the authentic Paul or at least an early Paul (see, especially, margaret y. macdonald, The
Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-
Pauline Writings [sntsms 60; cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1988], 203–20,
with respect to church leadership and the Pastorals). dunn, for example, in his effort to
focus his Pauline theology around the book of romans, is happy to see clarification and
fuller insights in later letters yet resists any notion of theological evolution (at least in
the orthonymous letters). despite these conclusions, dunn betrays a sensitivity to read-
ing Paul chronologically ( James d. g. dunn, Theology of Paul [grand rapids: eerdmans,
1998], 730–31).
12 two interesting examples of this issue come to mind. the first is seen in richard
Hays’s treatment of Pauline ethics in his Moral Vision of the New Testament. While he views
2 thessalonians and colossians as authentic Pauline letters, the popular view that they are
inauthentic effectively results in his dropping them from his discussion of Pauline ethics
altogether (see richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary
Introduction to New Testament Ethics [new york: Harpercollins, 1996], 61). the second is
a discrepancy between the recent Pauline theology of thomas schreiner (Paul, Apostle of
God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology [downers grove, il: iVP academic, 2001]) and
those of James dunn and udo schnelle. While schreiner accepts a thirteen-letter corpus,
dunn and schnelle both use a seven-letter corpus. at what point are these authors talking
about the same Paul? dunn does not altogether neglect the pseudo-Paulines; occasional
reference can be noted, though usually appearing in the notes as a point of reference.
interestingly, where the consulted commentaries are listed, none come from ephesians or
the Pastorals. colossians holds a peculiar place in dunn’s mind. While it cannot be rightly
attributed to Paul, dunn views it somewhat on the edge of the authentic letters (dunn,
Theology of Paul, xxv–xxviii, 21, 729–33; for a further discussion of dunn’s view on colos-
sians see James d. g. dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on
the Greek Text [nigtc; grand rapids: eerdmans, 1996], 35–39). schnelle is very sensitive to
the relationship of authorship to theology and suggests that acceptance of colossians and
2 thessalonians makes a serious difference in a reconstructed theology. even so, schnelle
opts for the traditional seven letter corpus in his work (schnelle, Apostle Paul, 32, 41).
13 see e. randolph richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composi-
tion and Collection (downers grove, il: interVarsity Press, 2004), 19. Here richards notes