hermeneutical issues in canonical pseudepigrapha 91
3 Corinthians does.5 this is all to say that the phenomenon of canoni-
cal pseudepigrapha requires a hermeneutic that is well-suited to address
the unique issues associated with that category. it has been common-
place to address these issues from a historical (or socio-historical)
perspective—the interpretation of the epistle begins with questions of its
authenticity. this stands to reason, especially in the context of Pauline
studies, wherein the contours of textual meaning are typically organized
around the historical figure of Paul. there are limits to historical-critical
approaches, especially when the assigning of pseudonymity to a letter
is based upon insufficient data; the fact that there is still disagreement
among scholars as to the authenticity of certain Pauline epistles is evi-
dence of this. canonical criticism mitigates the situation somewhat
by reorienting the axiom of interpretation. reconstructing a historical
author and audience is not as important as the reception of these texts
by later christian communities and their efforts to appropriate meaning
in their respective contexts. even this approach is historically-oriented to
some degree insofar as canonical criticism emphasizes a different point
in the history of a text as axiomatic to its interpretation.6 Both interpre-
tive strategies address the question, what makes the document and its
contents true?
Historical Readings of the Pauline Corpus
issues of authorial authenticity may be raised for a number of reasons—
authority of the epistle, relative value within the canon, etc.7 However,
5 though see Havan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian
Orthodoxy (stBl 18; new york: Peter lang, 2000), 10–16, for his discussion on the place of
3 Corinthians in the armenian canon. george aichele makes a similar point with respect
to the gospel of mark and the Gospel of Thomas. Both gospels would be read differently
if they were, respectively, removed from and included in the new testament canon (see
george aichele, The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as Semiotic Mechanism [Harrisville,
Pa: trinity Press international, 2001], 24).
6 as childs writes: “there is an organic continuity in the historical process of the
development of an established canon of sacred writings from the earliest stages of the
new testament to the final canonical stabilization of its scope” (Brevard s. childs, The New
Testament as Canon: An Introduction [Philadelphia: fortress, 1985], 21). Here, canonical
interpretation is inherently connected with a historical, canonization process.
7 see, for example, david g. meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into
the Relationship of Author and Authority in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition (Wunt
2.39; tübingen: mohr siebeck, 1986), 127; metzger, “literary forgeries,” 3–24; e. earle ellis,
“Pseudonymity and canonicity of new testament documents,” in michael J. Wilkins
and terence Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in