on pauline pseudepigraphy 3
and “pseudonymity,” the former being text-centered, with the latter being
author-centered.8 in similar fashion, Jörg Frey has questioned the effective-
ness of binary categorizations such as “orthonymity” and “pseudonymity.”
the dialogue between stanley Porter and robert Wall typifies the impor-
tance of delineating appropriate hermeneutical strategies when dealing
with issues in which pseudepigrapha figure—is pseudepigraphy a ques-
tion of historical authenticity or ecclesial reception? and what are the
implications for canon and authority in relationship to these verdicts?
Perhaps one of the most recent interpretive strategies has been to
approve or endorse Pauline pseudepigraphs as reading guides for authen-
tic letters or as fictitious self-exposition, often framed in discussions of
“intertextuality.”11 Bart ehrman has recently explored the polemical con-
texts of christian forgery, suggesting that “knowing that a book is forged is
crucial, but only as the beginning, not the end, of the investigation.”12 that
there is a functional element to the practice of pseudepigraphy in the
8 see clarke, “Problem of Pseudonymity,” 441. this article is reviewed in Porter, “impli-
cations of new testament Pseudonymy,” esp. 242–48.
9 see Jörg Frey, “autorfiktion und gegnerbild im Judasbrief und im Zweiten Petrus-
brief,” in Frey et al. (eds.), Pseudepigraphie, 683–732.
10 see Porter, “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral epistles: implications for canon,”
105–24; with Wall’s response, “Pauline authorship and the Pastoral epistles: a response
to s. e. Porter,” BBR 5 (1995): 125–29; and Porter’s subsequent rejoinder, “Pauline author-
ship and the Pastoral epistles: a response to r. W. Wall’s response,” BBR 6 (1996): 133–38.
Wall’s canonical approach to Pauline pseudepigraphy (especially the Pastorals) has been
well-developed, though not without weaknesses. see robert W. Wall, “the significance
of a canonical Perspective of the church’s scripture,” in Mcdonald and sanders (eds.),
Canon Debate, 528–40; robert W. Wall, “the Function of the Pastoral letters within the
Pauline canon of the new testament: a canonical approach,” in Porter (ed.), Pauline
Canon, 27–46.
11 this general strategy has taken a number of forms. annette Merz has argued for
this technique with reference to the Pastoral letters (Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Pau-
lus: Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe [ntOa/stunt 52;
göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ruprecht, 2004]). she has also developed this with respect
to the thessalonian correspondence (“the Fictitious self-exposition of Paul: how Might
intertextual theory 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: Explorations of Theory and Practice [ntM 16; sheffield: sheffield Phoenix,
2006], 113–32). using 2 thessalonians as a means to interpret 1 thessalonians has also
been developed in hanna roose, “2 thessalonians as Pseudepigraphic ‘reading instruc-
tion’ for 1 thessalonians: Methodological implications and exemplary illustration of an
intertextual concept,” in Brodie et al. (eds.), Intertextuality of the Epistles, 133–51; J. Michael
gilchrist, “intertextuality and the Pseudonymity of 2 thessalonians,” in Brodie et al. (eds.),
Intertextuality of the Epistles, 152–75. the notion of reading-guide has also been proposed
with hebrews in relation to romans (see clare K. rothschild, “hebrews as a guide to
reading romans,” in Frey et al. [eds.], Pseudepigraphie, 537–73).
12 ehrman, Forgery and Counter-Forgery, 3–4.