are Paul's lost letters implicitly a part of canon

[Knee V]

The primary meaning of "canon" is that it is part of the church's cycle of public readings. In other words, if a given book has passages that are on the church's calendar to be read on any given day, that book is "canonical". The secondary meaning is that, while it is not read publicly, it is basically as useful as those books which are read publicly, but it didn't make it into the cycle of public readings for one reason or another.

If we found an epistle from any given Apostle, and we could somehow 100% conclusively prove that it was absolutely written by an Apostle, it would probably take the definition of "canon" in the secondary sense.

An example of that would be books like Esther and Revelation. Esther is not read from publicly in any Orthodox service, but it is not considered to be any fundamentally different from any other Old Testament book, and we still read from it privately as we would any other Old Testament book that is read publicly. Likewise, the eastern church had a lectionary established before Revelation was universally acknowledged as Apostolic, and as such we do not read from it publicly, but it is not of a lesser status than any other New Testament book, and we read from it privately just as we would any other New Testament that is read from publicly.

However, we also take the stance that the way the Holy Spirit has worked in the church over time is not an accident of history. The historic life of the church is what it is, and we have the Apostolic writings that we have as the Holy Spirit has seen fit to give to us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

The Canon, fundamentally, is the result of how certain texts were used in the Church; namely that they were read in the context of worship, liturgy. Some books were a given, such as the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Psalms (more generally, the Septuagint as a whole), and it's obvious that the Church also accepted the thirteen epistles of Paul, the four Gospels, and the other books of homolegomena very early. While other books were disputed (Antilegomena).

Content and purpose are important obviously. But the Canon wasn't arbitrary or by fiat; it was about those books which were in common use, read in the context of Christian worship. That doesn't apply to a "long lost book". It's the same reason we don't continually add new books to the Canon today, it's the reason why even if the books that make up the Mormon scriptures were historically authentic (though they most certainly are not) they could never be Scripture by the historic Christian definition of Scripture.

The Canon may not be technically "closed", but it's not "open" to adding/removing whatever we want at any time; the Canon is established through the historic consensus and use of the Christian Church. The Canon can only said to still be technically "open" in the sense that there might still be room for discussion on the status of the Deuterocanonical books. Though, obviously, whether you think it's "open" or "closed" on that issue depends on where you stand, as a Lutheran I consider the matter "open" since there has never been a formal, church-wide settling of that issue. Those Protestants who firmly reject the Deuterocanonicals as Apocrypha have already decided the matter is closed for themselves, just as Catholics who at the Council of Trent declared them Canonical have decided the matter is closed for themselves. But regardless, the question of a "closed" or "open" Canon is limited only to certain books which have an established historic usage, if not a universal consensus; not to anything whatsoever, even long lost apostolic writings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

The only means of accomplishing such a task would have to be an ecumenical council. The problem with that is that here in the 21st century Christians are divided between many ecclesiastical bodies, we aren't all in communion with one another--an ecumenical council, at least one recognized by the whole of Christendom, is for all intents and purposes impossible.

Instead I think there would be another avenue: treating an authentic apostolic text as we do the writings of the ancient and holy fathers. Good to read, valuable, but not Scripture. This is basically also how we treat many of the books of the Antilegomena that did not, ultimately, make it into the Canon, such as the Didache or St. Clement's Epistle.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JoeP222w]

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.

The canon of scripture is complete. There is nothing missing.
Paul probably wrote many letters, but they were not scripture (i.e. God-breathed).

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Yes. The Church did not value the 'lost' letters' for some reason enough to keep them. They might be interesting historically, but they are not canon. They will not be canon. The canon has been officially closed for about 1600 years. Practically closed longer than that. But if you want to publish a Bible and include them or remove other books that's your business.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

We already have a mess with 73 vs 66 books. Another mess would be whether to accept a new book. I wouldn't want to go there, even with good evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

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 they would not be added to the canon. God in his providence has allowed these letters to become lost and so they have never been recognized or used by the church at large. The only record we have of them is Paul himself mentioning these letters. No churches early on ever claimed to have these letters or use them. So we can be fairly certainly that they are permanently lost.

 

[tampasteve]

We already have a mess with 73 vs 66 books. Another mess would be whether to accept a new book. I wouldn't want to go there, even with good evidence.

Not to mention the varied acceptance of certain other books (Enoch in the EOOC) and the KJV-O movement.

 

[Tree of Life]

One Christian denomination has 3rd Corinthians.

Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

Not a letter of Paul's.

 

[Tutorman]

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 very well could be

 

[TuxAme]

The canon has been closed for ages. If we happened to find them, they might be treated as a sort of New Testament "apocrypha"- good for advice or perspective, but since it's not Scripture, we wouldn't hold it to the same standard as the Pauline works we already have.

 

[dqhall]

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.

Edited

The Dead Sea Scrolls were written on parchment (animal skins) and papyrus. These were Jewish Biblical and sectarian texts found in the 1940's in Israel. Most of these were written during the first century BC and first century AD.

If you look for more scriptures, you might need to look in a desert as papyrus and parchment rotted in damp climates. There is an Egyptian papyrus estimated to be 4500 years old in the Egyptian Museum. If someone finds a letter attributed to Paul, people will be skeptical as there are many fakes in the antiquities shops of the world.

 

[wonderkins]

Here is one list from Gotquestions.com

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?


For a bit more detailed explanation from bible.org

6. Canonicity

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Would we add the text simply because Paul wrote it? Doesn't this seem to give way too much power to Paul the person?

 

[chilehed]

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.

The works that were included in the Canon were documents that were recognized by the Church as those that had been received from the Apostles from the beginning, and by definition it included all such documents. It's not now possible to discover new documents that have always been recognized as Apostolic, therefore there can be no additions to the canon.

 

[Anguspure]

One Christian denomination has 3rd Corinthians.

Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

....and in consequence the spurious letter gradually lost its canonical status.Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

 

[Hawkins]

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.

Pauline letters are those successfully kept by the churches, and used often by Christians back then due to their theological importance. Other letter either may not have the same theological value or their origin is questionable.

 

[Everyday Sunday]

God over all is in charge what went or goes in His word the Bible.

 

[DamianWarS]

God over all is in charge what went or goes in His word the Bible.

apparently God had different books in mind for different believers

 

[Steve Petersen]

Pauline letters are those successfully kept by the churches, and used often by Christians back then due to their theological importance. Other letter either may not have the same theological value or their origin is questionable.

Titus?