hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 103
no claims about the historical accuracy of an inscribed author and conse-
quently mitigates the complexities associated with multiple authors of a
single text or collection of texts. the functionality of the author-signature
is proportionate to displacing, rather than erasing, the author. While it
could be argued that this ignores higher-critical discussions of authorship,
i suggest that it provides the opportunity to include the diversity of voices
that are characteristic of the current state of Pauline scholarship. the
functional author perspective avoids interpretive hegemony by appeals
to an historic author or community of reception for meaning. religious
truth is a feature of texts themselves and creative interaction with them.
for canonical pseudepigrapha, this assertion can be stated more specifi-
cally; the meaning of canonical pseudepigrapha can be ascertained vis-
à-vis a dialogical relationship between those texts circumscribed by the
author-signature.
interpretation of such meaning demands, in the first place, a recourse
to the text itself.54 as i have illustrated, the priorities of historical and
canonical approaches have resulted in an insensitivity to the text. it is
perhaps uncritical and lacking in nuance to suggest that we must let
“the text speak for itself ”; yet, the proposed hermeneutical perspective
calls for an appreciation of textual dialogue. that is to say, the Pauline
corpus becomes axiomatic of its own meaning. a recent proposal in this
direction has been to interpret Pauline pseudepigrapha as fictitious self-
exposition of authentic Pauline letters.55 annette merz suggests that “the
pseudepigraphical Pauline letters are examples of a genre with a constitu-
tive intertextual structure.”56 the canonical Pauline pseudepigrapha rely
upon orthonymous Pauline letters to (1) legitimize their existence and
(2) provide a means of interpretation.57 this model, however, rests heav-
ily on an austere rejection of the authenticity of the deutero-Paulines and
Hellenistic and Christian Traditions (Harvard studies in comparative literature; cam-
bridge, ma: Harvard university Press, 2004), 11.
54 By this i do not mean a revisitation of certain structuralist priorities, but i imply
that previous interpretive techniques have treated texts as secondary to their interpretive
contexts.
55 for applications of this proposal, see annette merz, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des
Paulus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (ntoa/stunt
52; göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2004), 195–375; gerd theissen, The New Testa-
ment: A Literary History (trans. linda m. maloney; minneapolis: fortress, 2012), 116–29.
56 annette merz, “the fictitious self-exposition of Paul: How might intertextual the-
ory suggest a reformulation of the Hermeneutics of Pseudepigraphy,” in thomas l. Brodie,
dennis r. macdonald, and stanley e. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explo-
rations of Theory and Practice (ntm 16; sheffield: sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 121.
57 it is therefore suggested that corpus reading is necessitated by the obvious intertex-
tuality between epistles (see merz, “fictitious self-exposition,” 130–31).