hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 101
of authorial deconstruction,46 in following similar anti-authorial logic,
the canonical approach has the potential to commit the same ethical
infelicities as historical criticisms tend to do. Whether a hermeneutic of
canonical pseudepigrapha emphasizes authorial authenticity or ecclesial
reception, there is little opportunity to move interpretation forward and
in a way that is ethically sensitive. nevertheless, authorship remains a fun-
damental concern for studies in pseudepigraphy and critical perspectives
on authorship have continued to develop since Barthes. these develop-
ments are promising in their ability to inform a hermeneutic for canonical
pseudepigrapha.
Canonical Pseudepigrapha and the Question of Author
my goal in this essay has been to address two concerns relating to a
hermeneutic for canonical pseudepigrapha: (1) how one’s hermeneutic
conceives of meaning in such texts, and (2) how this framework affects
the mode of interpreting that meaning. Having addressed and critiqued
these concerns from a historical and canonical perspective, i will articu-
late a positive proposal. the irony of death of the author theory is its
implicit assertion of the author’s significance in the interpretive process.
deconstructionism’s predilection to do away with the author as phenom-
enological category results in an absence of center.47 such de-centering
is criticized by Burke as being over-zealous and the result of the decon-
structionists’ failing to fully grapple with the structure of the phenomenon
with which they are unsettled. While the ethical and historically incon-
gruous problems associated with authorship can be unsettling, complete
erasure is not necessarily as preferable as displacement or relocation.48
authors are significant, but this significance need not be equivalent to
the sole production of meaning, and may be conceived of in functional
terms. foucault identifies the functionality of authorship through author
46 as explained in Burke, Death and Return, 183–84.
47 this author is replaced, perhaps, by what Burke identifies as “reader-authors.” textual
meaning is therefore inherently unstable (Burke, Death and Return, 194–95). He insight-
fully notes that “a multitude of readings implies a stable entity on which such readings
take place (.. .): a tiny proportion of those readings enter public consciousness and less
still endure as acts of reading which have ongoing influence of the interpretation of the
primary text.”
48 see Burke, Death and Return, 184. However, as i have accused canonical critics, relo-
cation can still result in ethical failure.