314 philip l. tite
by the letter writer to be a shared worldview) in the face of opposing
or competing understandings of Christian teaching. the specifics of what
may constitute false teaching, or an occasion for writing the letter (either
within the fictional context of Paul in the first century or the underlying
second-century context of the actual letter writer), is not elucidated in
the letter.
In a sense, the letter could be dismissed given the lack of detail offered.
after all, what do we really gain from an epistolary analysis of this Pauline
pseudepigraphic letter? other letters attributed to Paul, especially from
the second century, offer far more complex appropriations of Paul. Third
Corinthians (both the letter sent to Paul and the response from Paul) dem-
onstrates that Paul was a key authority figure that was used to contend
against those perceived as heretics. the Pastoral epistles, which are clearly
pseudepigraphical constructions from the mid-second century, not only
contend against “heresy” (if indeed they were written in response to the
traditions underlying the Acts of Paul), but also use Paul as an authorita-
tive figure for emerging ecclesiastical structures in the second century.
other traditions portray Paul as a source of divine revelation (Apocalypse
of Paul and perhaps the Prayer of the Apostle Paul), an ideal martyr (Igna-
tius, 1 Clement, and the Acts of Paul), a corrector of misguided teachings
(2 thessalonians, if not authentic; ephesians and Colossians), a supporter
of a particular set of teachings (Alexandrians, at least based on the refer-
ence in the Muratorian Canon), a founding figure of a gentile mission that
was not an aberration of the original apostolic mission (acts), a source of
doctrinal or ethical misinterpretations (revelation), and a philosophical
figure worthy of an educated demographic (Correspondence of Paul and
Seneca, albeit this is later than the second century). so what do we gain
from laodiceans that we don’t from other texts?
In arguing for an internal logic and rhetorical situation underlying lao-
diceans, I am not arguing for the authenticity of this apocryphal letter.
this letter is certainly a pseudepigraphic letter, likely emerging, at the
earliest, in the first half of the second century. Consequently, I am not
claiming that we have “discovered” a lost Pauline letter, indeed the only
one to not stand within the new testament canon.52 rather, I contend
52 a brief caveat on the issue of authenticity needs to be made, especially in light of
my book on laodiceans, where this point is discussed in more detail. If Philip sellew’s
argument that laodiceans only demonstrates knowledge of Philippians letter B, rather
than canonical Philippians, is accepted (which is an argument that I find very convincing),
then laodiceans may be a redacted version of Philippians letter B and thus is a testimony
to a more authentic Pauline letter than canonical Philippians. such a suggestion calls for