94 gregory p. fewster
the production of a document, though the precise level of influence is
debated.14 the Pauline letters also give evidence of co-authorship.15 at
what point might Paul’s “authorial intent” merge or diverge from a co-
author’s “intent” (such as timothy or silvanus), and how can these be
distinguished?16 evidently, the exercise of defining a discipline according
to the author of ancient letters according to historical considerations is
not without complexities, which further complicates the attempt to artic-
ulate a hermeneutic for canonical pseudepigrapha.
Canonical Corrections to Historical Missteps
the limits of historical interpretive approaches are well known to canoni-
cal critics, especially as this approach pertains to the interpretation of the
Pauline corpus.17 Where, for historical critics, the axiom of interpretation
rests with authorial authenticity, canonical critics relocate this axiom to the
the prevalence of this paradigm in the writing of commentaries. see also e. earle ellis, The
Making of the New Testament Documents (Bis 39; leiden: Brill, 1999), 39–42.
14 see e. randolph richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Wunt 2.42; tübingen:
mohr siebeck, 1991), 15–67; richards, Letter Writing, 20–31, for an extensive discussion on
the influence of the secretary in letter composition in and around the first century ce. How
one relates what can be determined in terms of ancient practices to the internal evidence
of the Pauline letters themselves is of particular concern (see Porter, “Pauline authorship,”
106). an interesting implication of this study can be seen in dunn’s understanding of the
composition of colossians where he proposes that timothy (or some compatriot of Paul)
may have composed the letter based upon rudimentary instruction or notes provided or
left by Paul (dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 37–39). such a reconstruction poses problems
(as dunn implicitly recognizes) regarding the attribution of the letter. is this truly a Pau-
line letter or does it require inclusion with the deutero-Paulines?
15 interestingly, it appears as though some of Paul’s earliest letters included a co-author,
including 1 thessalonians and galatians. it may be important, however, to distinguish
between co-authors and co-senders (see richards, Letter Writing, 32–36). a further con-
sideration beyond the explicit mention of a co-author or co-sender is the presence of first-
person plural references in the letters. richards suggests that there is the possibility of the
“editorial we” (as many modern commentators suggest) while at the same time there is
a good chance that they refer to the senders (richards, Letter Writing, 35; see also rich-
ards, Secretary in Paul, 157, for a table demonstrating the use of first-person references in
2 corinthians). interestingly, the so-called “epistolary we’s” of 2 corinthians occur in a
letter attributed to only one author.
16 even so, richards suggests that the writing team was not a team of equals, Paul
remained the dominant voice even if others made some contribution (richards, Letter
Writing, 33).
17 see Brevard s. childs, The Church’s Guide to Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of
the Pauline Corpus (grand rapids: eerdmans, 2008), 7–13. guthrie’s survey indicates that
many historical critics have had an over-critical predilection to assign pseudonymity to
virtually all of the new testament documents (“canonical Pseudepigrapha,” 46). this is
indeed problematic.