hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 99
a means to better appreciate the emphases of the historical Paul.40 for
both Wall and childs, the historical Paul remains prominent and the role
of the pseudepigraphical letters is viewed in relation to that figure. While
the deutero-letters are valued as ecclesiastically relevant, there is still the
subtle implication that their value in the discussion of Pauline theology
is of the second order.
Criticisms of Historical Approaches and the Failure
of the Canonical Response
as i have stated, the canonical response to historical interpretive strategies
has failed in its ability to address the complexities of a hermeneutic suited
to the interpretation of canonical pseudepigrapha. the canonical perspec-
tive implies a move towards harmonization and the smoothing over of
inconsistencies or contradictions between authorial voices—as aichele
suggests, a hermeneutics of canon is about similarity not difference.41 this
perspective is fundamentally at odds with the historical approach to the
interpretation of canonical pseudepigrapha, which consistently seeks to
articulate difference. We see here two ends of a spectrum. as is often
the case with critical responses, the pendulum has swung. i suggest that
these two approaches—the historical and the canonical—reflect partic-
ular ideological orientations to the locus of meaning and, by extension,
truth. While the historical approach maintains a focus on the historical
author, the canonical approach reflects a movement that is consistent
with the early post-structuralist notion of authorial death. this framework
rejects the historical author as the generator of meaning in favour of the
recognition that readers play an important role in the meaning-making
process.42 thus, the canonical strategy attempts to reorient the access
point of meaning and truth from the author of a biblical text (in this case
Paul) to the earliest readers of those texts (the early church).
as Barthes and others are quick to point out, such readings strategies
are fundamentally ethical in nature. that is, the rejection of the autho-
rial control of meaning is a rejection of the ethical implications of the
40 in this vein, it is not surprising that Wall, though briefly, addresses many of the same
concerns that historical critics do (see Wall, “ecumenicity and ecclesiology,” 198–99).
41 aichele, Control, 22–24.
42 roland Barthes’ assertion that “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the
death of the author” is paradigmatic of this persepctive (see his “the death of the author,”
in Image, Music, Text [trans. stephen Heath; new york: Hill and Wang, 1977], 148).