are Paul's lost letters implicitly a part of canon

[PaulCyp1]

That would be up to the bishops of the Catholic Church, who defined the original Canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and who alone would have the authority to make any changes.

 

[RDKirk]

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

Well, how the Church valued the letters would have depended on their content and purpose, as well as their authorship.

Although as far as I can tell, everything the Church Fathers could reliably identify as Pauline, they kept. I can only surmise that the Laodiceans thought they were so well off that they didn't bother to keep Paul's letter or even share it.

Or, possibly, they did share it with the Colossians and the Colossians concatenated it with their own.

 

[DamianWarS]

Although as far as I can tell, everything the Church Fathers could reliably identify as Pauline, they kept. I can only surmise that the Laodiceans thought they were so well off that they didn't bother to keep Paul's letter or even share it.

Makes you wonder if they even accepted the letter. But I often wonder how the Revelation messages to the churches fit their then time context. Perhaps the Laodecians were a very humble and meek church and had great need. This message perhaps forced a prophetic interpretation because it was so opposite from the actual church of Laodecia (theoretically). I've never done a study on Ephesians and the revelation message to the Ephesians or the same with Philippians. Perhaps there are parallels in these books/revelation that suggest they were relevant to the individual church bodies as well as prophetic to the entire church... but I'm not sure the book of Ephesians doesn't strike me as a letter addressed to a wooden legalistic church that is written about in Rev 3.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Damian,

Since we don't have the letters, they can't be considered as part of the canon.

They were not around in the late 4th century when the canon was finalised.

The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and other pseudepigraphical letters were available at that time but were not chosen to be in the canon. Why?

Oz

 

[DamianWarS]

Damian,

Since we don't have the letters, they can't be considered as part of the canon.

They were not around in the late 4th century when the canon was finalised.

The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter and other pseudepigraphical letters were available at that time but were not chosen to be in the canon. Why?

Oz

They probably weren't chosen because they weren't authentic. I'm referring to authentic Pauline epistles actually sent to churches for the purposes of teaching and doctrine in the same manner as the other Pauline epistles. Paul refers to existing letters of us that we don't know about so based on the pedigree of the letter are they assumed a part of canon even though we haven't seem them. They certainly were "scripture" to those the letter was intended to

 

[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

Was not the early letters to the Corinthians used within their context? Was not the letter to the laodeicians considered scripture to them?

Paul identifies the letter to the Laodecians as on the same level as the letter to the colossians which they were told to exchange amongst each other. We have colossians today but we don't have Laodecians but is not the missing letter inherently absorbed into canon?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I know of two very enterprising Bedouins who would be willing to sell us all the lost letters we want.

 

[OzSpen]

They probably weren't chosen because they weren't authentic. I'm referring to authentic Pauline epistles actually sent to churches for the purposes of teaching and doctrine in the same manner as the other Pauline epistles. Paul refers to existing letters of us that we don't know about so based on the pedigree of the letter are they assumed a part of canon even though we haven't seem them. They certainly were "scripture" to those the letter was intended to

Damian,

That could be so that they were fake.

However, we are still without the total content of the evidence of the letters in writing.

I can't support the view that Paul's 'lost letters' are assumed to be canonical.

Paul doesn't state that. What did he say? One example of referring to one of those letters is 1 Cor 5:9 (NIV), ' I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people'.

This is John Piper's view, If Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans Were Found Today, Should It Be Added to the New Testament?

Oz

 

[DamianWarS]

Damian,

That could be so that they were fake.

However, we are still without the total content of the evidence of the letters in writing.

I can't support the view that Paul's 'lost letters' are assumed to be canonical.

Paul doesn't state that. What did he say? One example of referring to one of those letters is 1 Cor 5:9 (NIV), ' I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people'.

This is John Piper's view, If Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans Were Found Today, Should It Be Added to the New Testament?

Oz

So JP says theoretically yes, except undoubtedly will never happen.

 

[MarleneJ]

Paul obviously wrote extra letters, but God chose not to preserve them. I really don't understand why people need more letters, when most barely read the ones we have, that are known to be authentic.

Bible illiteracy is at an all time high, and people want to add more books, that no one will read? We need to work on encouraging people to read the Bible cover to cover, every year! That is what builds continuity in our walk with Christ! Not trying to find some "missing" part of the gospel. The gospel is complete, whatever was in the missing books is simply not important in our walk with Christ.

PS. If you are still curious, don't forget to ask Jesus, when you see him, when he returns! Like you will care then, either!

 

[OzSpen]

They certainly were "scripture" to those the letter was intended to

What causes you to reach that conclusion? Where's the evidence?

 

[OzSpen]

We need to work on encouraging people to read the Bible cover to cover, every year! That is what builds continuity in our walk with Christ!

Marlene,

It would have been extremely difficult to convince the Christians of the first century to follow your advice because ...

1. Most did not have access to the papyrus & vellum MSS to pass around for reading. How would any early Christian gain access to the entire OT or NT to follow your suggestion?
2. There was no completed NT canon to read until the end of the 3rd century. Would they have been tossing up whether to read the Epistle of Thomas or 1 Timothy?
3. Most people in that era were illiterate. They couldn't read the Bible through because, like many in churches today, they their literacy level is diminished. I understand the New International Readers' Version was published for people with a lower literacy level than those who read the NIV.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That would be up to the bishops of the Catholic Church, who defined the original Canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and who alone would have the authority to make any changes.

Paul,

They were not the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, but the bishops of the Catholic (General) Church.

Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the [Roman] Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? (source)​

Oz

 

[DamianWarS]

What causes you to reach that conclusion? Where's the evidence?

I use the term loosely hence the double quotation marks and it is based on the Peter's remark in 2 Peter 3:16 reffering collectively to Paul's letters and calling them scripture. Paul tells us he wrote a letter to the Laodecians and he tells the church of colossians to read it and also pass along their own letter. Paul puts both letters on the same level and we consider colossians scripture so I don't see it unreasonably to assume this letter was also considered scripture

 

[Mark_Sam]

I think widespread use and acceptance amongst the churches was an important criteria for the books in the New Testament. That's why the Revelation of St. John was accepted relatively late, since not everyone used it in their liturgical worship. Newly-discovered letters of St. Paul would obviously fail this criteria, as no one has ever used them - otherwise they wouldn't be lost.

 

[MarleneJ]

Marlene,

It would have been extremely difficult to convince the Christians of the first century to follow your advice because ...

1. Most did not have access to the papyrus & vellum MSS to pass around for reading. How would any early Christian gain access to the entire OT or NT to follow your suggestion?
2. There was no completed NT canon to read until the end of the 3rd century. Would they have been tossing up whether to read the Epistle of Thomas or 1 Timothy?
3. Most people in that era were illiterate. They couldn't read the Bible through because, like many in churches today, they their literacy level is diminished. I understand the New International Readers' Version was published for people with a lower literacy level than those who read the NIV.

Oz

Since you cut and then pasted it, you seem to have completely missed what I was talking about! I was talking about TODAY, about NOW! Here is a big portion, so you can actually see what I was talking about.

"Bible illiteracy is at an all time high, and people want to add more books, that no one will read? We need to work on encouraging people to read the Bible cover to cover, every year! That is what builds continuity in our walk with Christ! Not trying to find some "missing" part of the gospel. The gospel is complete, whatever was in the missing books is simply not important in our walk with Christ."

My issue is Biblical literacy today1. Of course, the people in the early centuries did not have much access to the scrolls, and then when the Catholic Church demanded everything be in Latin in the Bible, then people were again denying access to the Bible. Till the 2nd Vatican Council last century. But, not reading the Bible, trusting the priests, instead of the Bible has driven people away from Christ and the Bible.

Today, I have found in my travels, that most people rarely read the Bible at ALL! I started a Challenge to read the Bible quite a while ago, and 75 people volunteered to read the Bible. Not one had every read it before! But did they learn and grow as they read it. A pastor in a church also started one, using George Guthries, "Read the Bible for Life" video series and book. That got a huge amount of people reading the Bible.

So, my goal, is to see people TODAY, reading the Bible daily, and eventually to read the whole Bible. God told me to read the Bible daily when I was first saved, and I have read it through almost every year. Probably over 50 times, in various English translations, in French, German and in Greek, and parts of the OT in Hebrew.

I learn something new about how to walk with God every time I read through it. I recommend the NIV, HCSB, and NET as comfortable books to read. NLT is another version that is translated well, but easy to read for people with lower 1levels of literacy


As for extra-canonical, unfound books, we have enough to read with the 66 Bibles in our modern Bibles. And we will grow and learn if we read all those books! We don't need anymore! Not in the early days of the church, and not now!

 

[OzSpen]

Since you cut and then pasted it, you seem to have completely missed what I was talking about! I was talking about TODAY, about NOW! Here is a big portion, so you can actually see what I was talking about.

"Bible illiteracy is at an all time high, and people want to add more books, that no one will read? We need to work on encouraging people to read the Bible cover to cover, every year! That is what builds continuity in our walk with Christ! Not trying to find some "missing" part of the gospel. The gospel is complete, whatever was in the missing books is simply not important in our walk with Christ."

My issue is Biblical literacy today1. Of course, the people in the early centuries did not have much access to the scrolls, and then when the Catholic Church demanded everything be in Latin in the Bible, then people were again denying access to the Bible. Till the 2nd Vatican Council last century. But, not reading the Bible, trusting the priests, instead of the Bible has driven people away from Christ and the Bible.

Today, I have found in my travels, that most people rarely read the Bible at ALL! I started a Challenge to read the Bible quite a while ago, and 75 people volunteered to read the Bible. Not one had every read it before! But did they learn and grow as they read it. A pastor in a church also started one, using George Guthries, "Read the Bible for Life" video series and book. That got a huge amount of people reading the Bible.

So, my goal, is to see people TODAY, reading the Bible daily, and eventually to read the whole Bible. God told me to read the Bible daily when I was first saved, and I have read it through almost every year. Probably over 50 times, in various English translations, in French, German and in Greek, and parts of the OT in Hebrew.

I learn something new about how to walk with God every time I read through it. I recommend the NIV, HCSB, and NET as comfortable books to read. NLT is another version that is translated well, but easy to read for people with lower 1levels of literacy


As for extra-canonical, unfound books, we have enough to read with the 66 Bibles in our modern Bibles. And we will grow and learn if we read all those books! We don't need anymore! Not in the early days of the church, and not now!

Thanks, Marlene, for clarifying this for me.

I also am a supporter of reading through the Bible in a year. I use the 5 Day Bible Reading Program. Towards the bottom of this page there is a link: Click here to open the Reading Schedule in your browser immediately.

I don't keep up with the 5 day plan as there are often 5 chapters a day, including 3 from the OT. However, if I get through it every 18 months - 2 years, I'm happy. Currently, I'm reading the NLT online. Previously, I read the NIV and ESV.

The point of my post was to demonstrate that this was an impossible plan to implement in the early centuries. Even after the invention of the printing press, for a family to lay one's hands on a Bible was an expensive exercise.

Oz

 

[ubicaritas]

Canonicity primarily concerns churches that don't use critical methods to interpret and understand the Scriptures. Otherwise, we would take a hypothetical letter from Paul and use it to better understand the context of Paul's other writings, just as many of us also use near eastern literature to understand the Old Testament writings.

 

[OzSpen]

Canonicity primarily concerns churches that don't use critical methods to interpret and understand the Scriptures. Otherwise, we would take a hypothetical letter from Paul and use it to better understand the context of Paul's other writings, just as many of us also use near eastern literature to understand the Old Testament writings.

ubi,

That is not what I learned in seminary. This is my understanding of canonicity, expounded by J. Hampton Keathley III in this article from bible.org:

The word canon is used to describe those books recognized as inspired of God. The word comes from the Greek kanwn and most likely from the Hebrew qaneh and Akkadian, qanu. Literally, it means (a) a straight rod or bar; (b) a measuring rule as a ruler used by masons and carpenters; then (c) a rule or standard for testing straightness.

Historically, the word was first used by the church of those doctrines that were accepted as the rule of faith and practice. The term came to be applied to the decisions of the Councils as rules by which to live. All these employ the word in the metaphorical sense of a rule, norm, or standard.

In the course of time, the terms canon and canonical came to be applied to the catalogue or list of sacred books distinguished and honored as belonging to God’s inspired Word. “Greek Christians by the fourth century A.D. had given the word a quasi-technical religious meaning, applying it to the Bible, especially to the Jewish books" (The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture).​

Oz

 

[ubicaritas]

ubi,

That is not what I learned in seminary. This is my understanding of canonicity, expounded by J. Hampton Keathley III in this article from bible.org:

The word canon is used to describe those books recognized as inspired of God. The word comes from the Greek kanwn and most likely from the Hebrew qaneh and Akkadian, qanu. Literally, it means (a) a straight rod or bar; (b) a measuring rule as a ruler used by masons and carpenters; then (c) a rule or standard for testing straightness.

Historically, the word was first used by the church of those doctrines that were accepted as the rule of faith and practice. The term came to be applied to the decisions of the Councils as rules by which to live. All these employ the word in the metaphorical sense of a rule, norm, or standard.

In the course of time, the terms canon and canonical came to be applied to the catalogue or list of sacred books distinguished and honored as belonging to God’s inspired Word. “Greek Christians by the fourth century A.D. had given the word a quasi-technical religious meaning, applying it to the Bible, especially to the Jewish books" (The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture).​

Oz

That really doesn't contradict what I said. Some churches believe canonicity is well-defined and the authority of the institution to define the canon cannot be challenged, others realize it mostly rests on tradition and tend to read the Bible with much the same methods we would read any other ancient document.