154 Christoph Stenschke In “When and How was the Pauline Canon Compiled?: An Assessment of Theories” (95-127) Porter surveys four theories on the origin of the Pauline canon. He distinguishes “gradual collection” (argued by Zahn and Harnack), a “lapsed interest” or Goodspeed-Knox theory, a “composite anti-Gnostic” or Schmithals theory and a “personal involvement” theory (Moule, Guthrie). Next Porter presents and critiques D. Trobisch’s theory of the origin of the Pauline canon (Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994). Finally he describes the common ground between such sug- gestions (the gathering of the Pauline corpus required personal involvement at some level, theories that require the least dissection of the individual letters have a better chance of being accepted as probable; the letters were probably gathered in a particular place): In the light of the travelling possible during that time …, it is not unlikely that someone could have gathered the letter collection that resulted (missing out some letters that were either no longer extant or thought not to be of value, perhaps because of their particularistic nature). It appears that such a process would have occurred early, resulting in the relative fixity of the con- tents of the manuscripts that contained Paul’s letters and their order (123). Porter suggests that Luke or Timothy could have been that compiler. Therefore, “there is reasonable evidence so see the origin of the Pauline corpus during the latter part of Paul’s life or shortly after his death, almost assuredly instigated by a close follower if not by Paul himself, and close examination of the early manuscripts with Paul’s letters seems to endorse this hypothesis” (127). In “Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul” (129-68) M. Harding surveys a wider range of possible Pauline letters and writings, such as Hebrews, that have been suggested in the time of the ancient church as coming from Paul (129- 36). Then Harding concentrates on the dispute over the thirteen-letter canon as we have it now. There are three categories of Pauline letters: undisputed, disputed and spurious letters. All Pauline letters outside the NT canon belong to this last category and they might be further categorised as non-canonical Pauline Pseudepigrapha. They consist of Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians and the collection of six letters of Paul to Seneca (138-44). Next Harding discusses pseudepigraphy in the early church (145-50); for a challenge of his claims see A. Baum, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum, WUNT II, 138 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001; cf. my review in NT 47, 2005, 91-93) and T. L. Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception (Lanham: University Press of America, 2004). Baum’s volume seems to be unknown to Harding. Harding then de- scribes the literary and theological integrity of the undisputed and disputed letters of Paul (150-61, for Harding their authors have moved away appreciably from the hermeneutic, theology, and vocabulary of the homologoumena, 167) and asks whether there are pseudepigrapha in the NT. He next presents and critiques the objections to the presence of pseudepigrapha in the NT. Unfor-