104 gregory p. fewster
so commits some of the same infelicities as the historical approaches by
prioritizing the accepted letters above those that are disputed. even so,
this strategy makes a significant contribution to my proposed reading
strategy by its emphasis upon the corpus and by way of the notion of “ono-
mastic intertextuality,” i.e., intertextual allusion based on place names or
person names, which allow readers to “link texts and refer from one to
another.”58 thus, texts converse with one another on the basis of shared
thematic elements signaled by shared lexical and semantic features. the
question, then, is how can these shared thematic elements be appreciated
both in light of one another and within their specific literary and mate-
rial contexts? the reader should resist the urge to harmonize (and fail to
appreciate specific literary and material contexts) as well as the urge to
overemphasize difference (and fail to appreciate the relatedness evoked
by a literary corpus). meaning, therefore, grows out of the reader’s cre-
ative interaction with the text itself as a result of a dialogue between the
particularities of each text and the overarching interplay between same-
ness and difference. as far as interpreting canonical pseudepigrapha goes,
this strategy implies that interpretive priority is not given in a universal
way to any particular text, either disputed letter over undisputed letter
or vice versa.
The Body and Its Head
given certain historical-critical, and even canonical-critical, approaches to
the head/body motif, assumptions of the pseudonymity of ephesians and
perhaps colossians have instigated a particular interpretive momentum.
that is to say, readers come to expect that when body imagery appears in
these letters, it will necessarily include some different nuances than the
imagery in romans and 1 corinthians. as such, the addition of the head
is often seen to represent a diversion or development from the earlier and
simpler vision of the body. certainly, the presence of an explicit “head” is
conspicuously absent in the discussions found in romans 12 and 1 corin-
thians 12.59 in those texts, Paul’s comments are more general assertions
of the unity-diversity dynamic present in bodies and the applicability of
that notion to ecclesiastical ontology. notwithstanding Paul’s description
58 see merz, “fictitious self-exposition,” 123.
59 cf. andrew t. lincoln, Ephesians (WBc 42; nashville: nelson, 1990), 262; rosemary
canavan, Clothing the Body of Christ at Colossae (Wunt 2.334; tübingen: mohr siebeck,
2012), 157.