Skip to main content
Biblical Hermeneutics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • Lots of good information here but I would avoid painting early Christian canonical thoughts in such broad strokes just based on the Muratorian canon. Other second century/early third century discussions make it clear that things weren't settled. You can at least say that at least part of the Roman Christian community accepted them as Pauline. Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 21:14
  • I'll try to add more early church references; while the canon wasn't fully settled until the 4th century, the 13 letters with the name Paul at the top were not disputed. Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 21:21
  • 1
    I don't know of anyone saying that they weren't Pauline, so no dispute there. In leau of many early church lists, a lot of this same data could be gathered just by seeing which books were quoted as authoritative and assumed to be by Paul by which fathers. Of course I say "just", but that's a pretty monumental task. This kind of wide-sweeping data would be even stronger evidence than a canon list, but not nearly as convenient to reference :) Commented Apr 3, 2012 at 21:45
  • @Mallioch, one of my professors at AGTS did something like that for his doctoral thesis. It was huge. Commented Apr 4, 2012 at 17:49