The rule is that any scripture must have been in general use by the Church since its writing. So, many books or letters could be found, but if they are unknown to the Church, they cannot be introduced later. This prevents the introduction of forgeries or fabrications.
The canon is closed, as is the cafeteria. Usage or Catholicity to my understanding was a major criteria in the early church. Would it be possible that the church might acknowledge such a writing as inspired due to the apostolicity criteria that seemed to also be an important criteria in the early church for canonization but not canonical on grounds of its limited use in the early church? I doubt any such situation will arise anytime soon if ever but with the DSS findings anything is possible. These letters were missing from the canon collection from the beginning suggests that, for some reason, the apostles—and ultimately God the Holy Spirit—did not see fit to preserve these documents.
The sovereignty of God in the production of the NT canon should be recognized. If he did not see fit to provide the letter for 2, years of Christian history, why would anyone suppose that a new letter should be added to the canon of Scripture now? Apparently, St. Paul's Third Letter to the Corinthians has been found. The evil one constantly seeks ways to destroy the Church.
Hi everyone- I want to share something with you. I recently found what I think is the Prologue to Paul Epistles behind an old s picture frame.
Weekly Q & A with Dr. William Lane Craig
Written in Latin. Print is legible with vivid color accents and shiny gold paint trim. Size is approx. Your feedback is welcome. Here are three photos: flickr. Lost Pauline Epistles Apologetics. Sacred Scripture. Redratfish January 18, , pm 2. Scoobyshme January 18, , pm 3. ChadS January 18, , pm 4. But, frankly, I am not holding my breath.
I found these three thoughts on a recent google search. Erich January 20, , am Imagine you are a traveler to Asia Minor in the 3rd century and you come across a church that has a letter of Peter that you have not heard 2nd Peter. Perhaps you are suspicious, but at this point, how can you test the claim? The only practical method was conformity to apostolic teaching. You are saying we would also need some external evidence, but often the judgment that a work is pseudepigraphical proceeds from internal considerations e. There is one slender piece of evidence for it, the quotation in 1 Tim 5.
There are, as I suggested, many problems with this thesis, sufficient I think to reconsider whether 1 Tim 5 can carry the argument here. One example: why does Paul not say, in 1 Cor 15, that the Lord appeared to Cleopas? Not according to any logical form I know of.
Lost Pauline Epistles - Sacred Scripture - Catholic Answers Forums
Can you spell out the logic: Really explicitly, everything shown? This would seem to be your central argument, but it just looks like one sentence after another, without a logical relationship between them. Please: make the logic completely explicit in the form in which you present the argument so that i can see how the inference is supposed to work.
It would be a pointless side-track for me to even entertain whether or not that term should be used I am fine with it. The point is just that if 1 Timothy is pseudepigrapha, it was a lie i. We seem to agree on that, so I want to focus on your argument, as that seems to me to be nonexistent. As for 3 , you appear to be talking as though there is a collection of pieces of good evidence to which you are appealing.
At the moment I am helpless to evaluate it, so I have to reject it. Is there a good resource you would recommend that makes the argument?
- The Florida Physician Advertising Handbook.
- Suffering in Prison!
- Navigation menu.
- Inspiration and the Occasional NT Epistles - The Good Book Blog - Biola University.
- Current Legal Issues Affecting Central Banks, Volume IV.: 4.
- Chinese food menu: how to order - chinese menu like a pro;
How are we to distinguish between 1 and 2? Attribution to an apostle, and verisimilitude, are essential features of pseudepigrapha. So how can the attribution to Paul serve as evidence that Paul wrote it? Attribution does nothing to distinguish authentic from pseudepigraphal epistles. We still have options 1 and 2 on the table. Gal, Rom, 2 Cor c in the case of a broader corpus, comparing the epistle with more securely authentic epistles Gal, Rom, Cor, Phil, Phlm, Col, 1 Thess d external attestation to the epistle.
The judgment is not based merely on the negative arguments you discussed in the blog post vocabulary, etc , but on a positive exegesis—an attempt to understand 1 Tim and fit in within our overall picture of Christian origins. That said, I grant that 1 Tim is a highly debatable case, and that scholars of good will are on both sides. Probably, my conviction that Luke is post and that 1 Tim quotes Luke plays a role here as well. Conversely, there is no evidence that Paul knew that Jerusalem was doomed.
That is, if Luke is a product of the 50s or 60s as your final sentence claims, though your most recent comment suggests the 60s , we have the strange scenario that Luke and the rest of the gospels have a clear description of an impending war with Rome, which Paul knowing the gospels as he does never mentions, even though the end of the old covenant and the internalization of the new covenant is very important to Paul.
Right, see David, this is what I mean. If I found a letter in the street purporting to be written by John Smith, I have a reason to think that John Smith wrote it. This is all the more so if I know that John Smith is a prolific letter writer, and the letter is about the sorts of thing that John Smith writes about. Your dismissal of this sort of thing as evidence really does not make sense.
- First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikiwand;
- Finding the Way Again: Rediscovering Radical Love and Freedom in the Lost Teachings of Jesus.
- A Dog That Shits Candyfloss.
- Pastoral epistles;
But the truth is that by itself, this counts as evidence for who wrote it. That is not the default stance.
Worship as Seen in Paul’s Epistles
The default stance is that the book was written by who it claims to be by, and that the church got it right. The sorts of factors you list do not supply grounds for denying what the letter says about itself — and what the early church thought, too, as soon as they started commenting on such matters. The fact that pseudepigrapha existed and this appears to be your whole argument is not a good reason to think that this letter is pseudepigrapha.
My request was genuine. If you really know of a good case, in all seriousness, link to it or let readers know where to find it. I have become surprised at how easily some purportedly critical scholars are impressed with paper-thin arguments. I know some argue that the pastorals must be late, and hence not Pauline, because they reflect a more developed ecclesiology. I marveled that this argument was so easily accepted, because the claim is simply not true. After all you use the name David in here, but seeing the convention of fake names exists on the internet I am going to have to assume you are a liar, I have no proof independent proof you are David.
In fact the same is true of most books on my book shelf, they claim to be written by people with certain names. However we know that today there exists books which people write under fake names. So I will have to assume they are all fakes until proven otherwise. You can be sure I am using my real name, because I gain no advantage from the name I am using. If I was posting as Pope Francis, you would probably suspect pseudepigrapha.
Also, if I was posting as Pope Francis, Glenn would not think much of the evidentiary value of attribution. That is because there would be a good argument against Papal authorship — unlike in the present scenario where there is not a strong argument against Pauline authorship. I think it unlikely that Pope Francis would comment on my blog given the life he leads , an unlikelihood that — absent any other evidence — outweighs the evidence provided by the testimony of your comment.
The fact that you are trying although as I said, not persuasively in my view for pseudonyminity would also give me a reason to be suspicious. These sorts of things cannot be said of whether or not Paul wrote letters giving pastoral guidance addressing the issues that the pastoral letters address. Also related comment: Actually there are plenty of people who use names other than their own — but also not famous names i. Similarly, some good authors use pen names.
David there is a book on my shelf by a guy called C S Lewis. So presumably I should assume his novels are fake until proven otherwise. What your essentially doing here is reasoning from a X would benefit from dishonest action Y, to therefore X did Y. Some scholars mention a similarity in phraseology, but that is a very weak argument.
It seems the earliest use of the Pastorals comes in the second quarter of the second century, by Polycarp. So, it appears to me that we have some significant evidence against the authenticity of the Pastorals.