hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 97
motif, can be properly interpreted only when his thought is understood in
terms of its chronological development and maturation and in light of its
social and literary antecedents.31 these priorities quickly move toward a
separation of the themes found in the authentic and disputed letters and
are often divided into two groups: those that include the body’s “head,”
and those that do not. christ as head of the body only occurs in portions
of colossians and ephesians.32 thus, the addition, or at least inclusion,
of the head element to this motif raises some compelling reasons to dis-
tance colossians and ephesians from romans and 1 corinthians.33 the
reconstruction of historical precedents for Pauline thought follows a
predictable pattern. Questions of the motif ’s “source” (see above) only
relate to the authentically Pauline texts (i.e., 1 corinthians and romans),
while the antecedent of the motif in colossians and ephesians is the ear-
lier and authentically Pauline articulation. as noted, truth is appreciated
in proportion to the authenticity of the text itself. the authentic letters
take priority in the interpretive process since they are chronologically
prior and require an investigation of the historical circumstances of writ-
ing. it is only when these questions are answered that the content of the
disputed letters can be appreciated in full.
it is apparent that the canonical approach has great potential to counter-
act some of the interpretive stagnation that is characteristic of some histor-
ical criticism. While the authentic Paulines are not devalued, the disputed
letters are given increased worth in the endeavour of Pauline interpreta-
tion. However, at least when it comes to the interpretation of the head/
body motif in Paul, the canonical approach fails in this attempt. the work
of Brevard childs and robert Wall represents the most thorough-going
treatments of this motif among canonical critics.34 childs’ reading of body
31 a point that Käsemann makes explicitly. see Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, 105.
see also eduard schweizer, The Church as the Body of Christ (richmond, Va: John Knox,
1964), 41, who asserts that regardless of the authenticity of ephesians and colossians there
is clear development in thought vis-à-vis the use of the body metaphor.
32 yorke identifies the tendency among authors to enforce this division (yorke, Church
as the Body of Christ, 105; cf. dunn, “the Body of christ,” 146–47; c. f. d. moule, The Origin
of Christology [cambridge: cambridge university Press, 1977], 76; ernest Best, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians [icc; edinburgh: t&t clark, 1998], 262).
33 in a related vein, dunn rejects Pauline authorship of colossians on one hand,
because its ecclesiology reflects development closer to that of ephesians than romans 12
or 1 corinthians 12 (dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 36).
34 minear’s treatment of the body motif appears in a larger work devoted to ecclesial
images in the new testament. as such, his treatment takes on a canonical flavour, some-
what in line with childs and Wall. for example, minear makes the statement that it does
not matter if Paul wrote colossians because he is interested in new testament images