Hello,
do we have all of Paul’s writtings or could it be that some are missing?
Who wrote the Epistl to the Hebrews?
Greetings and God bless
Dani
No we certainly don’t have all his writings.
eirEnopoiEsas
We have all of the writings of Paul which were considered biblical. He may have written other letters, but they are questionable. The letters I personally think Paul wrote (non-biblical) were to the famous tutor of Nero, Seneca.
Hebrews may have been written by Paul, but it is not 100% known. Other possible authors who have been considered as the authors of Hebrews are Barnabas and Apollos - both traveled with Paul. There is a generally unknown pattern of sevens contained within the NT books, which hint to the finality of the books chosen:
Seven books named after churches: 1. Romans; 2. Corinthians; 3. Galatians; 4. Ephesians; 5. Philippians; 6. Colossians; 7. Thessalonians
(All written by Paul)
Seven epistles named after individuals: 1. Timothy; 2. Titus; 3. Philemon; 4. James; 5. Peter; 6. John; 7. Jude
Seven universal letters: 1. Matthew; 2. Mark; 3. Luke; 4. John; 5. Acts; 6. Hebrews; 7. Revelation
*27 books in all. *
Although this list is not absolute evidence, the pattern lends to the belief that the books were chosen deliberately to comply to this pattern, whether that was communicated by the Holy Spirit or not is unknown. If this is the case, then the NT canon is complete and final. That is not to say that non-canon books, such as Hermas and Clement, cannot be inside our bibles, just as we have non-canon dictionaries and maps inside most bibles today. The earliest extant canons contained non-canon books - even a book explaining Psalms written by Athanasius in the 4th century. If Paul had written Hebrews it is unusual that this knowledge was unknown, and it is especially questionable because Paul’s usual greeting is absent.
Steve
Not counting all the things I don’t know about, there does seem to have been another letter to the Corinthians between I and II which is, as far as I’m aware, not extant.
No one knows who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. But since some opinions have been offered, I’ll offer mine—Clement of Rome. This writer wrote a powerful letter to the Corinthians shortly after the death of Peter and Paul, and there are some things written in that letter which remind me of the letter to the Hebrews. Clement’s letter was read in the early church along with other scriptures.
And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.(Col. 4:16)
This sentence has been interpreted in two way:
- The “letter from Laodicea” was a letter which Paul had written to them, and that he had wanted that letter to be read by the Colossians.
- The “letter from Laodicea” was a letter written by the Laodiceans.
I lean toward the former. If this were the case, and if Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans were discovered, I would see it every bit as inspired as his letter to the Colossians.
I see no reason to assume that the list of NT writings which the Church finally settled on, is the “correct” choice and that these writings are the only inspired ones. It is possible that some of books of this “canon” should not have been included. For example, some in the early church believed that 2 Peter was a forgery, and was not actually written by the apostle Peter.
The church of the third and fourth centuries wanted all of the accepted books of the NT “canon” to have been written by apostles. That may explain Paul’s why name was attached to the letter to the Hebrews (although it is not written in Paul’s style at all, and the vocabulary differs from that of Paul). They also said that 2 and 3 John were written by the apostle John, although the writer clearly identifies himself as “the elder”, which the apostle John is not known to have done. I agree with those who believe that they were written by another John known as “The elder John”. It may also have been another John who wrote Revelation.
Disputed books of the New Testament in early church times were Hebrews, James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation.
Who was the orthodox father who claimed this?
I don’t know of this… where is this evidence?
Don’t you think this is a tad exaggerated?
Steve
One of the two Syriac canon branches eventually decided to leave out RevJohn, the two short Johannine epistles and Jude (and maybe something else, I forget which. Not EpistHeb.) So they didn’t think the dispute was exaggerated. Then again the other Syriac canon branch kept the full 27, so, eh. 
(This is the main difference between the Peshitta and the Peshitto, although I forget which one is the abbreviated one.)
“Disputed” is relative of course: some books over which there were disputes about canonicity were eventually judged (by most Christian groups) to fit canon criteria after all, and other disputes books didn’t. Not all dispute is equally strong.
Hence my question of exaggeration. There were small pockets within the universal church which went off onto tangents, confusing doctrines of Marcion and Mani, etc, as being orthodox. These are typical of some branches of the church today which are less informed and heavily influenced by occultists or heretics.
Steve
i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Emoticons/ummno.gif
Check out the following chart to get your research started:
According to your chart, there were only two major theologians who rejected the discussed books prior to the canon being circulated: Eusebius and Origen. Eusebius’ writings contradict this chart’s claim that he disputed the said books:
Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 25
Eusebius has stated that: “we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.” He does not say that he personally believes this, only that he has learned that 2nd Peter is disputed. The only person he might have learnt this from is Origen; yet this too seems to be highly exaggerated:
From Origen’s Homilies on Joshua, viii. 1
There are challenges thrown around of “disputed books” without showing anyone who actually disputed them. I asked you (Paidion) for an example of an orthodox father who disputed these books, and instead you gave me a chart that lists but two theologians prior to the complete bible (50 copies) being circulated through Emperor Contantine. This is very sloppy research which is nothing more that innuendo and allegation. Many attacks have been made on scripture based on this sloppy journalism. I think such allegations need to put forth actual evidence…
Steve
I asked John Dickson (Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University)
Absolutely. It is very likely that Paul wrote other letters as a man and an Apostle, but these were not required to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and included in the Canon. There are many books mentioned in the OT that we no longer have. Everything that was required was preserved.
God has certainly been gracious & given us more than enough to go on Out of curiosity, do you think all the Christian canons are inspired?
That’s a tough question, Alex. I am inclined to read the Apocrypha, which was part of the earliest OT canons still extant. I think that the protestant movement purged too much out of the OT scriptures. They did this to conform with the Jewish canon of the Sephardi Jews who had entered Europe with the Moors. They believed these Jews were traditional OT jews, but they were mistaken. Luther found this out early in the drama, and wrote his scything book about the Jews as a response to what he found out about them.
I certainly do not have any objection to the protestant scriptures, but I still use an Orthodox bible as well. I also think that many other books are useful to read and learn, such as the ECF. Were these Ot Apocrypha books inspired? I would say yes. Are they integral to the canon? I would say no. I think the bible would be complete to achieve its purpose even if there was only one gospel. In that sense, you can remove a word, sentence, paragraph, or book, and still not be disadvantaged to functional, just as you can remove a kidney and still function, or remove your hair and still function. The bible functions as the word of God even with an “error”. It is still inerrant to function. Some people think that there cannot be one questionable word or the integrity is lost. I do not think this. I think the word of God is fully trustworthy to fulfill its inspired intention as God has planned for us. Unless we know what God has planned we cannot determine the trustworthiness of His objective. For this we simply trust God.
Steve
What is inspired? The Godly man who wrote the letters, or the letters he happened to write? And if none of Paul’s letters outside of those in the New Testament were inspired, how do we know the inspired ones were all correctly selected for the New Testament, and the non-inspired ones were rejected? Did the fourth-century church make an infallible choice? If so, then THEY must have been inspired, and thus we have inspiration outside of the Bible.
We can’t argue that we know our present canon is correct because God somehow preserved the inspired writings. For the apocrypha has been preserved for the same length of time, and yet Protestants affirm that it is not inspired.
It is a common myth that the canon was decided in the 4th century. I believe it was known by John and Clement as early as the dawn of the 2nd century. There are certainly canons reflecting very close similarities to our modern canon from the 2nd century.
Actually, there wasn’t even a CONCEPT of a New Testament canon in the second century.
There were certain lists of letters and other writings which were considered acceptable to read in the churches as opposed to the gnostic forgeries. But note how much disagreement there was as to which writings were genuine:
Hi Paidion,
Your erroneous list of disputed books has confused you; but I am sure that even you will recognize that the Muratorian Fragment, the first canon in your own catalogue, is from the 2nd century.
From bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html:
[size=150]THE MURATORIAN CANON[/size]
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. * It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which “some of us will not allow to be read in church.” A very helpful and detailed discussion of this document is to be found in Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 191-201. Below is Metzger’s English translation of a critically amended text of the Fragment, from Appendix IV of the same book (pp. 305-7). I include Metzger’s footnotes, with their original enumeration, and add some supplementary footnotes of my own. —M.D.M.
As I had said previously: “There are certainly canons reflecting very close similarities to our modern canon from the 2nd century.” The Muratorian Fragment is one of those very canons from the 2nd century. This list is also complimented by an ealier canon found in book 7 of the Apostolic Constitutions, which I believe to have existed at the time of the Muratorian Canon. The Apostolic Constitutions were referred to by many early christians, and they were appealed to as an authority for establishing the canon in later ecumenical councils. If they were a late forgery, as your list suggests, then they would hardly have been recognized as an authority to guide the 5th century bishops. The idea is preposterous.
Following is Canon 1 of the 4th Ecumenical Council:
Following is Canon 2 of the 6th Ecumenical Council:
Following is Canon 1 of the 7th Ecumenical Council:
The 4th, 6th and 7th ecumenical councils appeal to the 85 canons “set forth by the renowned Apostles”. The Orthodox church still uses this list of 85 Apostolic canons to validate the existing canons in use today (see symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm). The resurgence of interest of the Apostolic constitutions was influenced by Sir Isaac Newton and William Whiston, as they had both urged that the Apostolic constitutions should be placed within the existing New Testament canons, as mentioned by Bruce Metzger in the Canon of the New Testament:
(Download a complete copy of Bruce Metzger’s *Canon of the New Testament here: *ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf).
William Whiston, who is renowned for his mammoth translation of the Complete Works of Josephus, also wrote a 700 page defense of the Apostolic Constitutions in Primitive Christianity Revived, which he argued that the AC should be restored to the NT. (You can download the 4 volumes from: archive.org/search.php?query=Primitive%20Christianity%20reviv%27d%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts)
Disclaimer***
As I have argued elsewhere, the church had changed in the 4th century to become a universal sect (Catholicism). What we have learnt about christianity has been through the eyes of this sect. It is akin to learning christianity only from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Luther, Calvin and King Henry were already deeply influenced by Catholicism, so, their innovations changed little from the Catholics they came out from. Most christians today are unaware of this departure from apostolic christianity, so, in ignorance, they desperately seek to defend and justify the workings of this earliest universal sect, thinking that the Catholics are synonymous with christianity. This is clearly not the case, and many of the sectarian doctrines that were introduced by the Roman Catholic papacy need to be completely repented of in order to be truly set free (not everything, but many many things). It is no different to coming out of the Mormons… you need to repent of such teachings in order to have your sight (and faith) fully restored. A similar breach of faith occurred with the northern tribes of Israel when they were subjected to the Samatan Pentateuch. And again, a similar thing happened to the Pharisee Jews through the innovations of Rabbi Akiba. If the claim of Roman Catholics - that the pope was established by Christ - is correct, then we should logically all be Catholics. If their claim is false, then christianity was ruled by a man who falsely claimed his seat from Christ, and who also claimed to be infallible. Many false ideas were introduced. The Catholic view, which altered all of christendom, is a sectarian view. It is not evil to be Catholic, as it is not evil to be a Jehovah’s Witness. But it is a great error; and a person can only progress as much as their beliefs allow them. It is a sectarian limitation. We, today, are all influenced by the papacy - regardless what badge we carry.
Steve
(Robin)
Might that be a good argument for our giving the Byzantine source texts a bit more credance …
Maurice Robinson presnets a good case (for me, at least); I loveto hear your critique on it … I’m open to learning new things, new viewpoints.