hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 105
of specific body parts (ears, eyes, etc.), no mention is made of the rela-
tion of particular gifts (or the individuals possessing those gifts) to specific
body parts. thus, the head terminology of colossians and ephesians is
marked against that ground.
two important considerations can be raised, which stem from the his-
torical interpretive paradigm. first, interpreters are often concerned with
literary antecedents to the head terminology. in such cases, it is often
debated whether headship should be understood to imply “source” or
“authority.”60 this question fits under the broader rubric of the scope and
focus of colossians and ephesians, letters that are said to reflect a more
cosmic and universal vision of christology and ecclesiology.61 thus, the
second consideration stems from such observations and involves a per-
spective that sees the cosmic headship of christ in relation to the uni-
versal church as a significant development in the body motif, a feature of
the lateness and pseudonymity of these letters. as canavan writes, “this
description is a development of the images employed in the undisputed
letters of Paul where the body represented the local community. indeed
in colossians, christ is a ‘corporate body’ embracing all the communi-
ties of christ and christ is the head of this cosmic body.”62 other writers,
however, will nuance their view to different degrees. for example, with
respect to the motif in colossians, dunn notes: “the emphasis on the
interconnectedness and thus interdependence of the members of the
60 for the debate over the significance of κεφαλή, see george e. Howard, “Head/Body
metaphors of ephesians,” NTS 20.3 (1974): 352–53; marchant, “Body of christ,” 4–5; minear,
Images, 207–209; stephen Bedale, “the meaning of κεφαλή in the Pauline epistles,” JTS 5
(1954): 211–15; Jerome neyrey, Paul, In Other Words (louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1990), 134–35; Wayne grudem, “does ΚΕΦΑΛΗ (“Head”) mean ‘source’ or ‘authority over’
in greek literature? a survey of 2,336 examples,” TrinJ 6 (1985): 38–59; ferguson, Church of
Christ, 96–99; Joseph a. fitzmyer, “another look at ΚΕΦΑΛΗ in 1 cor 11:3,” NTS 35 (1989):
510; cynthia long Westfall, “‘this is a great metaphor!’ reciprocity in the ephesian House-
hold code,” in stanley e. Porter and andrew W. Pitts (eds.), Christian Origins and Greco-
Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament (early christianity in
its Hellenistic context 1; tent 9; leiden, Brill, 2013), 579–80. for more specific discus-
sions pertaining to the individual passages, see frank thielman, Ephesians (Becnt; grand
rapids: Baker, 2010), 286–87; Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
(grand rapids: Baker academic, 2002), 567–68; cf. anthony c. thiselton, The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (nigtc; grand rapids: eerdmans, 2000), 812–22.
61 see especially george H. van Kooten, Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline
School (Wunt 2.171; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 2003), 17–30. note also theissen’s discussion
of this theme in connection with his reconstruction of the literary history of the Pauline
and pseudo-Pauline letters (theissen, The New Testament, 118–21).
62 canavan, Clothing the Body, 157–58.