I was talking with a Protestant friend today about tradition vs sola scriptura, and he was arguing that Paul's instruction to Timothy on how to be a pastor hammered home that he needed to diligently study scripture, was evidence that sola scriptura is all someone needed. I said this was evidence of the role of the Bishop in the church as instructing the locals as to how best to lead their flock, and scripture is obviously of utmost important even if it's not the sole supreme authority.

He came back and said that everything Paul said is included in scripture and there is no evidence that he taught any traditions that were extra biblical. I countered that there was no way that scripture included everything Paul taught every church, and pointed out how there was a "prior epistle" to Corinth missing that Paul references in 1 Corinthians 5:9. He said he hadn't heard about it and needed to do some research and he ended it there.

So my question is, if we found irrefutably the missing Pauline epistle to Corinth, should its contents be considered? Worthy of study? Obviously it wouldn't rise to the level of "God-breathed" as the canon is closed, but surely it would still be worthy of study and inclusion in the magisterium?

Quote:

---

there is no evidence that he taught any traditions that were extra biblical.

---

I mean, that's not true. "Jannes and Jambres," "sawn in half," and "the rock followed them," off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are more.

Quote:

---

So my question is, if we found irrefutably the missing Pauline epistle to Corinth, should its contents be considered? Worthy of study? Obviously it wouldn't rise to the level of "God-breathed" as the canon is closed, but surely it would still be worthy of study and inclusion in the magisterium?

---

Yeah, I mean.. I'd love to read them. It would be strange because we don't have any non-canonical Pauline writing, so I don't know that we have "shelf space" for them - patristic-not-scripture?

This really comes down to the definition your friend is using for Sola Scriptura.

There's the historical view that certainly sees value in extra-biblical traditions and/or sources. Then there's the more modern approach that really boils down to "Solo Scriptura" or "nuda Scriptura." It sounds like your friend leans towards the second view which presents these sorts of problems when historically they weren't an issue.

When it comes to the lost letters to the Corinthians (there's 2 we don't know of), it's kind of an interesting situation. Would it be cool to read them? Yes. Could the become part of Canon? Yes in theory. Lutherans, for example, do not have a closed canon and so if there was irrefutable proof we could add it.

The queston then is what's irrefutable proof? God would almost have to send an angel or something to make this statement because, and this is why I differentiated the Sola Scriptura models above, the tradition of the church would be heavily against the claim that a "new letter" was authentic.

AgLiving06 said:

---

This really comes down to the definition your friend is using for Sola Scriptura.

There's the historical view that certainly sees value in extra-biblical traditions and/or sources. Then there's the more modern approach that really boils down to "Solo Scriptura" or "nuda Scriptura." It sounds like your friend leans towards the second view which presents these sorts of problems when historically they weren't an issue.

When it comes to the lost letters to the Corinthians (there's 2 we don't know of), it's kind of an interesting situation. Would it be cool to read them? Yes. Could the become part of Canon? Yes in theory. Lutherans, for example, do not have a closed canon and so if there was irrefutable proof we could add it.

The queston then is what's irrefutable proof? God would almost have to send an angel or something to make this statement because, and this is why I differentiated the Sola Scriptura models above, the tradition of the church would be heavily against the claim that a "new letter" was authentic.

---

I agree with you the devil is in the details; for the sake of argument I'm just granting that the proof is irrefutable; but in reality there's likely no way that could actually happen.

I would absolutely love to read them, and I think if tested against the rest of the tradition/scripture could be very edifying even if it can't rise to the level of "God-inspired"

I'm not 100% certain that the catholic church's canon is closed, per se. What we do know is that they prayerfully weighed the merits of all possible texts and gave us the divinely inspired results. We also know that nothing written after that time period can become scripture. The hypothetical that the missing Pauline letter(s) reappears means it has not been ruled against previously and was written by a qualified person in a qualified time period, so a review seems possible.

In practice, I don't think it would ever happen. There would be way too much concern of forgery that I don't think the conversation to elevate it to scripture would ever happen without a heavy dose of divine intervention.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

This really comes down to the definition your friend is using for Sola Scriptura.

There's the historical view that certainly sees value in extra-biblical traditions and/or sources. Then there's the more modern approach that really boils down to "Solo Scriptura" or "nuda Scriptura." It sounds like your friend leans towards the second view which presents these sorts of problems when historically they weren't an issue.

When it comes to the lost letters to the Corinthians (there's 2 we don't know of), it's kind of an interesting situation. Would it be cool to read them? Yes. Could the become part of Canon? Yes in theory. Lutherans, for example, do not have a closed canon and so if there was irrefutable proof we could add it.

The queston then is what's irrefutable proof? God would almost have to send an angel or something to make this statement because, and this is why I differentiated the Sola Scriptura models above, the tradition of the church would be heavily against the claim that a "new letter" was authentic.

---

I agree with you the devil is in the details; for the sake of argument I'm just granting that the proof is irrefutable; but in reality there's likely no way that could actually happen.

I would absolutely love to read them, and I think if tested against the rest of the tradition/scripture could be very edifying even if it can't rise to the level of "God-inspired"

---

Yeah. I struggle mentally to say how we could be irrefutable proof.

But if I get past that, it certainly would be awesome to read them.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I was talking with a Protestant friend today about tradition vs sola scriptura, and he was arguing that Paul's instruction to Timothy on how to be a pastor hammered home that he needed to diligently study scripture, was evidence that sola scriptura is all someone needed. I said this was evidence of the role of the Bishop in the church as instructing the locals as to how best to lead their flock, and scripture is obviously of utmost important even if it's not the sole supreme authority.

He came back and said that everything Paul said is included in scripture and there is no evidence that he taught any traditions that were extra biblical. I countered that there was no way that scripture included everything Paul taught every church, and pointed out how there was a "prior epistle" to Corinth missing that Paul references in 1 Corinthians 5:9. He said he hadn't heard about it and needed to do some research and he ended it there.

So my question is, if we found irrefutably the missing Pauline epistle to Corinth, should its contents be considered? Worthy of study? Obviously it wouldn't rise to the level of "God-breathed" as the canon is closed, but surely it would still be worthy of study and inclusion in the magisterium?

---

I'm going to answer this if a different order.

Worthy of study? Absolutely.
Should it be considered? Yes. I'm doubtful it would be accepted or add value.

Consider this. We have 66 books of the Bible written by about 40 different authors. What is likelihood of these authors only writing scripture and not writing other: laws, poems, letters home, letters to friends, letters to churches, other apostles, etc.

God is the ultimate authority. God has placed His stamp on the Biblical texts by indicating that it's His words and orchestrated by the Holy Spirit (and verified many times by the supernature fingerprint of prophesies that become fulfilled). Whenever a claimed tradition or teaching contradicts the Biblical text whose voice rings true? Do you go with the tradition or the biblical text? This should better help one understand where the authority lies.

We'll never irrefutably find another actual Pauline epistle, and Timothy was almost certainly not written by Paul.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah dawg that is like completely irrelevant to his question

---

The first part is completely relevant. Example: King David may have written poems that are not inspired or considered scripture. Would they be worth reading? Absolutely. Matthew's Tax records or ledger wouldn't be inspired either. If we find another letter of Paul to the Corinthian church or to another person, there's a very high probability that it's not scripture given how inspired scripture has been preserved overtime.

argument from tautology

nortex97 said:

---

We'll never irrefutably find another actual Pauline epistle, and Timothy was almost certainly not written by Paul.

---

Do you mean Paul did not write this with his own hand?
Do you mean Paul did not author it through a scribe?



Counter Evidence:

Internal:
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,


External:

Exhibit A
2 Timothy - Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3:3) Irenaeus (AD 180)

Exhibit B
The Muratorian Canon (AD 170, Rome) places the Pastoral Epistles "after the church epistles of Paul, together with Philemon." It mentions "the journey of Paul as he journeyed from Rome to Spain." As we have already seen, Paul himself expressed a desire to travel beyond Rome to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).


If not Paul, then who?

It was likely written toward the end of the 1st century by a disciple of Paul, imho. I know, others will disagree.

I don't yet have/haven't read the Yale Anchor Bible commentary on either Timothy books, nor Titus. Something I am working on this year.

Those snips are excerpts from Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, just fyi. He was a brilliant biblical scholar, imho. I do think both books rightfully belong in the New Testament, yet also am dubious about the instructions to women etc.

nortex97 said:

---

It was likely written toward the end of the 1st century by a disciple of Paul, imho. I know, others will disagree.

I don't yet have/haven't read the Yale Anchor Bible commentary on either Timothy books, nor Titus. Something I am working on this year.

Those snips are excerpts from Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, just fyi. He was a brilliant biblical scholar, imho. I do think both books rightfully belong in the New Testament, yet also am dubious about the instructions to women etc.

---

Excellent! For me the most important part of the discussion would be, do these letters belong in the Bible? I'm happy to know that you agree that they do.

This article explains speaks to many of the points mentioned above. One thing that I find entertaining is this: If I write an email to my wife or close friends, it's going to be a completely different writing style than I would use to write emails at work. Likewise I would expect Paul's letters to be in a completely different writing style when writing to his friends like Timothy vs addressing churches.

Speaking to the reasons against Pauline Authorship

Fair points but I just reject the conclusions, and really analysis of pseudonymous Jewish writings in the apostolic period. The examples are too extant to list, really.

But ultimately the Hellenistic/Roman period of Judaism flourished with examples of 'anonymous' writers, up through the gospel's compilations, not just Paul's epistles. I think claims that this wasn't the case are just incredibly misplaced, whether they regard canonical books or not.