4 stanley e. porter and gregory p. fewster
ancient world is worth exploring. there is a desire, tangible in recent pub-
lications, to think in new ways about these persistent questions surround-
ing pseudepigraphy. the focus on pseudepigraphy in relationship to Paul
affords a unique opportunity to address this desire, not readily available in
studies geared towards new testament pseudepigraphy in general.
Whereas the new testament canon limits those (potentially) pseude-
pigraphic texts that can be examined, the fact that Pauline imitation
extends well beyond canonical boundaries reframes the issue. there is
little doubt that pseudepigraphy has significant implications for canonic-
ity, canon formation, and authority;13 yet, other relevant issues are also
worth considering. For example, Margaret Macdonald’s treatment of Pau-
line churches examines how elements of Pauline thought were developed
in subsequent stages of its institutionalization.14 Whatever the value of
the project, its explicit self-limitation to the canonical Pauline letters was
used to show developmental growth from colossians/ephesians and the
Pastoral letters. the fact is, however, that Pauline thought was an impor-
tant feature of a great deal of early christian literature. the developments
and adaptations of Pauline elements were disseminated through docu-
ments attributed to or involving the apostle and encompassed numerous
theological perspectives, irrespective of where orthodox or heterodox
lines may now be drawn.15 these perspectives may or may not follow the
trajectory set by the Pastoral letters. What we see is a rich Pauline legacy
that developed in the early centuries of the church and that deserves to
be studied—the boundaries of the canon need only be a fuzzy boundary
so far as this discussion is concerned. as such, we have cast the net wide
13 numerous treatments of this particular topic have been offered, including ellis,
“Pseudonymity and canonicity,” 212–24; Porter, “Pauline authorsip and the Pastoral epis-
tles: implications for canon,” 105–24; James W. aageson, “the Pastoral epistles, apostolic
authority, and the development of the Pauline scriptures,” in Porter (ed.), Pauline Canon,
5–26; harry y. gamble, “Pseudonymity and the new testament canon,” in Frey et al.
(eds.), Pseudepigraphie, 346–62.
14 Margaret y. Macdonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio-historical Study of Institution-
alization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (sntsMs 60; cambridge: cambridge
university Press, 1988).
15 Bart ehrman’s Forgery and Counter-Forgery has traced similar lines, extending his
scope to early christian literature from the first to fourth centuries ce. he investigates
what function forged (pseudepigraphical) texts performed in early christian communities.
this is certainly a provocative line of inquiry; however, his treatments fail to define with
any rigour what counts as a forged document. that is to say, his judgments are based on
very traditional conclusions and methods fundamentally limiting the novelty of his own
conclusions. Of course, this only makes a significant difference for those disputed letters
usually included in the new testament canon.