for treating some letters as post-Pauline is because their content is considered to have developed beyond, or in some cases against, Paul’s ideas as expressed in the letters with undisputed authorship. For example, one of the reasons Lincoln argues that Ephesians is pseudonymous is because of the development in content in relation to Colossians, particularly ecclesiological developments,86 and a number of authors see the development from church as “assembly or gathering” to universal church as indication of a later setting, moving towards “early catholicism.”87 I am seeking to avoid a methodology which establishes “Paul’s” view before looking at the “later” letters. As I noted, some of the development cruxes in relation to ecclesiology are the areas which I am planning to investigate. So, the question of whether ἐκκλησία is used universally in the Pauline corpus,88 or how body imagery is used by Paul, are often resolved in terms of authorship and development. This tends to prevent engagement with the issue of how the whole and local ἐκκλησία might relate to one another. If authorship questions can be left to one side, then there is the possibility of a more fruitful engagement with the Pauline corpus.
Therefore, this is a study of the nine Pauline letters written to churches,89 which seeks to identify similarities, differences, and developments without seeking to establish whether they are down to authorship or cosenders. Rather, this study presupposes that issues of authorship may be informed by the findings of this study, rather than needing to be presupposed.
Second, there is disagreement about the amount of development, and how much development can be anticipated from a single author. So, for example, when discussing titles of church leaders, Clarke argues for “a pattern of notable consistency” across Pauline communities, with no significant difference in institutionalization between the earlier and the later letters.90 Best argues that even across five letters (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians), we should not expect “surface consistency” from Paul, but neither would we expect “great variations” from him.91 Certainly, development should not be assumed, and development should not be assumed to indicate a different author, and this might argue against using a three-part scheme like MacDonald’s, particularly one which divides along lines of assumed authorship.92
Third, I wish to avoid a scheme which prioritizes certain letters for determining Pauline ecclesiology. Yet any scheme must begin somewhere. My proposal is to look at these letters in approximate and relative chronological order. I propose to look at the Pauline corpus in a number of chapters, approaching them diachronically rather than synchronically. These letters are ordered as they would have been written by Paul, but the order also follows that of MacDonald and others who would view a number of these letters as Post-Pauline. The scheme I am proposing is as follows:
I will look first (in chapter 3) at Paul’s earliest letters: Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians. I am dating Galatians to around AD 49–50, based on a south Galatian destination, agreeing with those who argue that Paul uses the term provincially rather than ethnically,93 and that the narrative of Galatians fits best with Acts 11:30/12:25 or Acts 15.94 Paul’s authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been challenged on theological, historical, and literary grounds.95 However, a plausible account can be given for all three of these areas that enables 2 Thessalonians to be grouped with 1 Thessalonians by noting how the rest of the NT treats eschatology,96 the importance of the signature in 2 Thessalonians 3:17,97 and the different rhetorical purposes of the letters.98 This offers sufficient basis to examine the ecclesiological content of the letter by placing it amongst Paul’s earliest letters. 1 Thessalonians is generally dated to approximately AD 50. For the present, I will adopt the working assumption that 2 Thessalonians was written soon after, with both letters probably originating from Corinth.99
In chapter 4, I will cover the Corinthian correspondence. 2 Corinthians has been subject to a number of partition theories, which have impacted upon how this letter (or letters) is seen to relate to the concerns and problems described in 1 Corinthians.100 Whilst recognizing that it is not possible to prove the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, there are two reasons why I will treat 2 Corinthians as a unity in this study.101 First, there is no textual evidence for the separate existence of parts of 2 Corinthians, or for the editorial composition of one letter from a number.102 Second, I would argue that the integrity hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis because the assumptions it makes are reasonable; for example, finding a digression rather than a split at 2:14 and 7:5,103 and noting overlap in terminology between 2 Corinthians 1–7 and 8–9.104 If necessary, the issue of the relationship between the letters will be revisited in the conclusion. 2 Corinthians was probably written quite soon after 1 Corinthians,105 around AD 55.106
Chapter 5 will cover Romans and Philippians, as belonging to the next period of Paul’s ministry. I am assuming Romans to have been written from Corinth.107 I will treat the letter as a unity, as the arguments for Romans 16 being an integral part of the letter are sufficient from a textual, rhetorical, and theological point of view, and more persuasive than any of the alternatives,108 although the unitary nature of the letter is not essential to this study. I am also treating Philippians as a single letter,109 written by Paul, from prison or house arrest in Rome,110 to the church in Philippi which he founded.
Chapter 6 will examine Colossians and Ephesians. Here a pragmatic decision to treat Colossians and Ephesians separately from Philippians, which belongs to the same time period if all three letters were written by Paul, has been made to avoid assuming common authorship.
This scheme is not an attempt to find five periods of development within Pauline understanding of interchurch relations. Rather, it is an attempt to look at things in an approximate and relative order; but I will note similarities and dissimilarities throughout the thesis.
In general terms, I would defend this scheme because it gives the scope to look at ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus, whilst remaining open, as far as possible, on authorship. It will also allow sufficient attention to be given to some aspects of the setting of each letter.
Methodology
In this chapter, I have sought to define ecclesial solidarity, particularly identifying interchurch solidarity as a neglected area. I have also outlined my approach to the Pauline corpus. However, two methodological questions remain unresolved, which I will address here: first, my approach to the
