Southern Baptist Theology in the Late Twentieth Century
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 2 – Spring 2012
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Reprint, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. 254 pages. Paperback, $32.95.
The Pauline Canon is a reprinted volume, which consists of eight essays on Paul and the early church’s use of his letters. Historically and also in biblical studies, the “canon” frequently refers to the 66 books of the Bible—39 of the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. These essays discuss the more specific Pauline corpus of writing as well the content of theology within this corpus. Among the writers of these articles, the idea of a “Pauline canon” falls short of a consensus, but setting aside the lack of a unified view, these articles explore the context, acceptance, and circulation of Paul’s letter writing.
James W. Aageson’s “The Pastoral Epistles, Apostolic Authority, and the Development of the Pauline Scriptures” examines the importance of Pauline authority in light of the theology that is embedded in the narrative world and the need to adhere to doctrine. The work of God is the larger story, which involves the community espousing the canon. Aageson concludes that the pastoral letters offer sound teaching of Paul to be used in the larger narrative framework of the church. Robert W. Wall looks at the function of the Pastoral Epistles and gives an overview of the formation of the canon in light of them. Wall works off of the premise that the Pastoral Epistles are not canonical but shed light on the canonical process. What is evident from them is the ecclesiastical discipline for forming the moral character of the church–a discipleship process in the community.
M-É. Boismard suggests that the letter to the Laodiceans is embedded in Colossians, by pointing to the apparent doublets, the repeated patterns, in the letter. By separating the doublets by thematic categories, Boismard attempts to reconstruct the Laodicean letter. Detlev Dormeyer explores the substitutionary presence of the author in letters—a feature that appears in Graeco-Roman letter writing and 1 Corinthians 5:3: “though absent in the body, I am present in spirit.” Cicero, PseudoDemetrius, and Aristotle are some of the authors mentioned.
Stanley Porter’s essay on the compilation of the Pauline canon serves as the crux of this collection. Porter presents five competing theories: 1) the gradual collection theory (Zahn-Harnack), 2) lapsed interest theory (Goodspeed-Knox), 3) antignostic theory (Schmitals), 4) personal involvement theory (Moule: Luke, Guthrie: Timothy), and 5) Paul as collector and distributor (Trobisch). Mark Harding takes the given categories of disputed, undisputed, and spurious letters, and recounts the discussions both in history and present times. Harding is convinced that the early church was accepting of pseudepigraphal works for the sake of establishing apostolic authority and defending its faith.
J.C. O’Neill argues: “Paul wrote some of all, but not all of any epistles that bear his name; even Philemon was glossed” (167). O’Neill points to Paul’s frequent use of a secretary (amanuensis) and E.E. Ellis’ well-documented work on pre-formed traditions and documented copies of Paul’s letter.
William O. Walker Jr., explores the plausibility of interpolations in Paul’s letters. Walker defines an interpolation as “foreign material inserted deliberately and directly into the text of a document” (195–96). Walker presses his case a priori from the common presence of interpolation in ancient literature, as well as the suspicion of copyist errors and bundled collections of Paul’s letters. Walker goes on to say that once editorial revisions began, there was no need to keep older copies.
The purpose of these essays is obviously not to put forward a unifying view or doctrine of Paul’s canon of letters. The discussions often leave open-ended conclusions with no definitive answers to the questions posed, but rather there are more speculations, which are unsettling as to the issue of Pauline authorship and authority. These discussions are predisposed and inclined to questioning the integrity of the letters, suggesting that there is a constant editing and reworking of the text.
Although those interested in the academic forum may find these discussions of some interest, they will often discover these conclusions appearing rather hasty or even inconclusive. Readers hoping for breakthroughs in Pauline canon research may find the lack of consensus bitterly disappointing. Take for instance Porter’s conclusion in his central paper: “This paper may appear to be simply a repetition of previously proposed views, with critical responses that leave each position seriously, if not fatally wounded. If such is the case, then that in itself is a positive result of sorts–there is no entirely satisfactory theory as to the origins of the Pauline letter collection” (121).
This conclusion may very well be fitting for the entire volume. The discussions will no doubt continue. The fruit of these discussions, however, may be too soon to tell.
