Do we have all of Paul's writtings?

[Paidion]

Stefcui, there is considerable difference between a list of books used by second century writers in the churches, and the concept of a plenary, exclusively-inspired canon.

[Stefcui]

Hi Robin,

I personally think that the differences between textual sources, Byzantine and Vaticanus, etc, are highly exaggerated for sectarian purposes. I really don’t think it matters which manuscript tradition you accept. I personally accept the Westcott anf Hort tradition, and I also favor the Septuagint over the Masoretic, but I am certain that it makes no difference what-so-ever to the body of doctrines we hold to, or the fundamentals of our faith. The differences are superficial at best.

[Stefcui]

Stefcui, there is considerable difference between a list of books used by second century writers in the churches, and the concept of a plenary, exclusively inspired canon.

I don’t think so. The object of the 2nd century list was for the purpose of passing down to posterity the books that were regarded as inspired, and those (at that time) which were not. The 2nd century list and the 4th century list is remarkably similar. If you include the Apostolic Constitutions, which I do, the canonical list has had a tradition reaching to the 1st century. That is what the 4th, 6th and 7th ecumenical councils imply.

[Alex_Smith]

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

Thanks for articulating that, I agree (although think Luther went too far in his criticism of the Jews). What’s the ECF?

[Stefcui]

Thanks for articulating that, I agree (although think Luther went too far in his criticism of the Jews).

Yes. Luther was a funny man. He had a ‘take no prisoners’ attitude. He would rather win an argument than win a soul.

What’s the ECF?

The Early Church Fathers.

[Alex_Smith]

What’s the ECF?

The Early Church Fathers.

Ah, of course!

[Paidion]

I don’t think so. The object of the 2nd century list was for the purpose of passing down to posterity the books that were regarded as inspired, and those (at that time) which were not.

Please quote just one second-century Christian writer who referred to any list of Christian writings as “inspired” or who diffentiated between “inspired” books and “non-inspired” books.

What the second-century writers were concerned about was which books had been authored by apostles and which were authored by gnostics or others who claimed their books to have been written by apostles, but which were actually forgeries.

[Stefcui]

I think the Muratorian Fragment shows a list of inspired books. What other purpose was the list for, do you suppose?

[Paidion]

I think the Muratorian Fragment shows a list of inspired books. What other purpose was the list for, do you suppose?

To list the writings or the apostles (and early overseers) so as to distinguish them from the writings of gnostics and others which falsely claimed to be apostolic.

[Stefcui]

I think the Muratorian Fragment shows a list of inspired books. What other purpose was the list for, do you suppose?

To list the writings or the apostles (and early overseers) so as to distinguish them from the writings of gnostics and others which falsely claimed to be apostolic.

Hi Paidion, as you had mentioned earlier:

Disputed books of the New Testament in early church times were Hebrews, James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation.

According to your hypothesis, the Muratorian Fragment was to distinguish the writings of the apostles (from “the writings of gnostics”). If this is so, the Muratorian Fragment demonstrates that John (the Apocalypse) and John (the epistles), as well as Jude, were indeed written by apostles. Yet you suggest that they are to regarded as “disputed books”? As I mentioned, if the Muratorian Fragment canon was simply a list for the purpose of separating gnostic from christian authors, why does the Muratorian Fragment have almost the exact same list (and order) of books mentioned that are now considered canonical? That would be a strange coincidence, and it is nowhere backed up by any credible evidence. I think it is far more sound to understand the Muratorian Fragment as an early canon list, although it is obviously incomplete.

Steve

[Paidion]

According to your hypothesis, the Muratorian Fragment was to distinguish the writings of the apostles (from “the writings of gnostics”). If this is so, the Muratorian Fragment demonstrates that John (the Apocalypse) and John (the epistles), as well as Jude, were indeed written by apostles.

Clearly, the framers of the Muratorian Fragment believed so. As I said previouly, there was considerable disagreement concerning which writings were, in fact, apostolic and which were forgeries.

[Stefcui]

According to your hypothesis, the Muratorian Fragment was to distinguish the writings of the apostles (from “the writings of gnostics”). If this is so, the Muratorian Fragment demonstrates that John (the Apocalypse) and John (the epistles), as well as Jude, were indeed written by apostles.

Clearly, the framers of the Muratorian Fragment believed so.

Yes, which demonstrates my point that the *framers of the Muratorian Fragment *believed the list to represent an inspired canon. You said there was no list in the 2nd century, which is not so. The Muratorian Canon is one of those very lists.

As I said previouly, there was considerable disagreement concerning which writings were, in fact, apostolic and which were forgeries.

Well, there was disagreement, not necessarily “considerable”. It is also difficult today to determine which lists had been altered by later gnostic scribes. Eusebius, for instance, mentions several NT books as spurious, including the Apocalypse, whereas Athanasius, writing at the same time, mentions the same books as being canonical. Eusebius also mentions the Apostolic Constitutions as being spurious, and yet in another place he quotes from the Apostolic Constitutions. There is something wrong with the list of Eusebius because he contradicts himself, which is a sure sign of scribal manipulation. Where these interpolations are clearly seen, they cannot be used as evidence for “considerable disagreement”.

Steve