are Paul's lost letters implicitly a part of canon

[DamianWarS]

there are some letters that are unknown but referenced in scripture like a letter to the Laodiceans or a letter that preceded 1 Corinthians. If found, would these letters be added to the canon? Or even though they are unknown is there still somewhat a concept that they are implicitly a part of canon.

 

[Petros2015]

I think canon is pretty well closed at this point, but one would presume that if a genuine lost Pauline letter was found, it would agree with the rest of the canon.

 

[Randy777]

there are some letters that are unknown but referenced in scripture like a letter to the Laodiceans or a letter that preceded 1 Corinthians. If found, would these letters be added to the canon? Or even though they are unknown is there still somewhat a concept that they are implicitly a part of canon.

No -I think we have a complete gospel message. So any genuine letter would be consistent with the message already given while any letter that introduces controversy at this late date would be considered a hoax.

 

[tampasteve]

there are some letters that are unknown but referenced in scripture like a letter to the Laodiceans or a letter that preceded 1 Corinthians. If found, would these letters be added to the canon? Or even though they are unknown is there still somewhat a concept that they are implicitly a part of canon.

There are more than just Paul's letters that would qualify. Also the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. That said, it would depend on the situation and how many copies were found. One copy in a dubious to identify region/time would not enable us to be sure if it were real or a later writing - of which there are many. That said, I believe they would more likely qualify as an Apocrypha at this point should a genuine one be found as the canon is more or less closed.

But there would certainly be people that would accept it at face value - there are plenty of members of this community that believe Enoch, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, etc. should be scripture.

 

[FenderTL5]

..only if discovered they were originally written in King James English.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Steve Petersen]

there are some letters that are unknown but referenced in scripture like a letter to the Laodiceans or a letter that preceded 1 Corinthians. If found, would these letters be added to the canon? Or even though they are unknown is there still somewhat a concept that they are implicitly a part of canon.

One Christian denomination has 3rd Corinthians.

Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

 

[DamianWarS]

One Christian denomination has 3rd Corinthians.

Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

I'd like to read the letter to the Laodiceans.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I'd like to read the letter to the Laodiceans.

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

 

[JAM2b]

I think it would depend on how confident scholars are in the authenticity and if it were something that would apply to all mankind and not just something specific that has nothing to do with everyone else...

I imagine that there could have been letters written that were of practical nature, or maybe just filling in details about inconsequential matters or updating on progress. It is totally possible that not everything he ever wrote was inspired Scripture. In fact there are some verses written by Paul that some people think aren't actually Scripture, but just his opinion. He even differentiates when something is his way of thinking and not something God said Himself. I view those verses much like Proverbs. Proverbs is good advice and reflects norms or probabilities, but I don't think they are commandments to follow.

 

[RDKirk]

There are indications that the 2nd century Christians automatically accepted everything validated as Pauline. By that guideline, if a newly discovered letter could be so validated, then, yes.

OTOH, if one goes by the concept that the Holy Spirit guided those same people in what letters they cherished, quoted, protected, copied, shared, et cetera, then we can be confident that the Holy Spirit did not let two thousand years of Christians go without essential scripture. In that case, the letters would be very interesting, but not canon.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Eusebius says that 2 Peter was not part of the canon in his day.

 

[ViaCrucis]

there are some letters that are unknown but referenced in scripture like a letter to the Laodiceans or a letter that preceded 1 Corinthians. If found, would these letters be added to the canon? Or even though they are unknown is there still somewhat a concept that they are implicitly a part of canon.

They've never been recognized as Scripture, they are therefore not Scripture. Simply being penned by an apostle doesn't make something Scripture. It is the the historic use within the Church that makes something Canonical Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

yes I know, that's why I would like to read it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd like to read the letter to the Laodiceans.

There's one, a short spurious epistle that is generally thought to have been penned in the 2nd century. It was rejected in antiquity, but managed to find its way into some copies of the Vulgate in the late middle ages; as such it was also included in Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate into English.

Wycliffe's Bible online here: John Wycliffe's Translation

Wycliffe's translation of Laodiceans here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wycliffe/Lao.txt

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

They've never been recognized as Scripture, they are therefore not Scripture. Simply being penned by an apostle doesn't make something Scripture. It is the the historic use within the Church that makes something Canonical Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

so how the church valued the letters makes them canon irrespective of their content or purpose.

 

[Steve Petersen]

They've never been recognized as Scripture, they are therefore not Scripture. Simply being penned by an apostle doesn't make something Scripture. It is the the historic use within the Church that makes something Canonical Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

Seems to depend on which denomination you are speaking of. I posted a link to an article on 3rd Corinthians as part of the canon of the Syriac churches.

 

[DamianWarS]

There's one, a short spurious epistle that is generally thought to have been penned in the 2nd century. It was rejected in antiquity, but managed to find its way into some copies of the Vulgate in the late middle ages; as such it was also included in Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate into English.

Wycliffe's Bible online here: John Wycliffe's Translation

Wycliffe's translation of Laodiceans here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wycliffe/Lao.txt

-CryptoLutheran

"grace to you, and pees of God the fadir"

 

[ViaCrucis]

Seems to depend on which denomination you are speaking of. I posted a link to an article on 3rd Corinthians as part of the canon of the Syriac churches.

Yes, the Peshitta at one time at least did contain 3rd Corinthians, but I don't believe it is considered part of the modern Syriac Canon.

But it's also recognized that the text that goes by 3rd Corinthians, much like the text we have that goes by Laodiceans is part of some of the spurious texts attributed to St. Paul in the 2nd century; as such they were never widely received. They aren't even usually included in lists of Antilegomena. As such their rare inclusion, such as in the medieval Peshitta or Vulgate is more of a quirk than anything.

My real point is that canonical status is determined by historic usage and broad consensus, a long lost epistle of Paul wouldn't be Scripture simply because it is Pauline; canonicity is found in historic usage and broad consensus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes, the Peshitta at one time at least did contain 3rd Corinthians, but I don't believe it is considered part of the modern Syriac Canon.

But it's also recognized that the text that goes by 3rd Corinthians, much like the text we have that goes by Laodiceans is part of some of the spurious texts attributed to St. Paul in the 2nd century; as such they were never widely received. They aren't even usually included in lists of Antilegomena. As such their rare inclusion, such as in the medieval Peshitta or Vulgate is more of a quirk than anything.

My real point is that canonical status is determined by historic usage and broad consensus, a long lost epistle of Paul wouldn't be Scripture simply because it is Pauline; canonicity is found in historic usage and broad consensus.

-CryptoLutheran

Assuming a document like this surfaced and was considered authentic, can this historic pedigree you speak of be acquired from the result of a large body of churches starting to use and teach from it?

 

[tampasteve]

Assuming a document like this surfaced and was considered authentic, can this historic pedigree you speak of be acquired from the result of a large body of churches starting to use and teach from it?

I assume that is purely a theoretical question....we have a hard enough time getting the scripture we have adopted by all, even with older manuscripts found people and churches cling to old translations that might not be accurate, it seems less likely they would automatically accept an entire book without really good evidence and reason.