I should have said we may not have it. The letter referred to in Colossians 4:16 refers to a letter that Paul had written, or was going to write, to the Laodiceans, which the Laodiceans were going to forward to the Colossians. This letter may have been lost, or it may have been a circular letter that we now know as the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians. However, some people question whether the latter was written by Paul himself (despite Ephesians 1:1 and Ephesians 3:1-3).For example, we know that St Paul wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans, but we don’t have it.
Interesting… thanksThe Council of Trent left undefined whether the present Canon is complete; that is, whether someone might discover divinely inspired writings that have somehow remained hidden all these centuries. For example, we know that St Paul wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans, but we don’t have it. In theory, someone might discover it some day. (We do have an apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is an apocryphon, not the genuine, original Epistle.)
The Bible is complete and there will never be any additions. The Canon of Scripture was closed with the death of the last Apostle.
Who says?Yes, the canon is closed. No more inspired literature will be added to the Bible.
For all we know, this may still be the early days of Christianity.I doubt any books will ever be added. This is because if we do find an “Epistle to the Laodiceans”, its never been part of Tradition.
Fourth centuryHowever, by the time of Athanasius in the third century
The OT Deurerocanon is part of the traditional LXX. Do you mean Third and Fourth Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh?The reason the Church accepts the OT Deutorcanon is because they were considered to be inspired by the early Church. It’s reject some of them, yes. However, its never added to the traditional LXX.
Exactly! This is partially what inspired my question.For all we know, this may still be the early days of Christianity.
How would you prove the Pauline origin of such a letter nearly 2000 years later? The Pauline corpus was accepted by the Church because its apostolic origin was corroborated by eyewitnesses- the very churches Paul had founded. I would posit that it would be next to impossible to verify the authenticity at this late date. Oh, maybe some would attempt to use linguistics, grammar, and style to show that the author was the same person who wrote other letters accepted as canonical but I highly doubt that the Church would consider that sufficient to add the purported letter to the Canon.For all we know, this may still be the early days of Christianity.
Fourth century
The OT Deurerocanon is part of the traditional LXX. Do you mean Third and Fourth Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh?
I thought of that. Maybe the letter could be discovered with corroborating evidence of some kind or another, such as other authoritative documentation of the letter’s authenticity. But really I only mentioned the example to show that in theory, there might be divinely inspired writings in existence that we don’t know about yet and whose authenticity we might be able somehow to prove. Since this is not completely beyond the realm of possibility, and we can’t prove a negative (that such writings don’t exist), the Fathers at Trent did not make a definitive statement that the Canon as they knew it was complete. I’m not saying that I firmly believe that such a theoretical possibility is probable.How would you prove the Pauline origin of such a letter nearly 2000 years later? The Pauline corpus was accepted by the Church because its apostolic origin was corroborated by eyewitnesses- the very churches Paul had founded. I would posit that it would be next to impossible to verify the authenticity at this late date. Oh, maybe some would attempt to use linguistics, grammar, and style to show that the author was the same person who wrote other letters accepted as canonical but I highly doubt that the Church would consider that sufficient to add the purported letter to the Canon.
The Church teaches difinitively that there will be no future addition to Sacred Scripture. This except from Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) states as much.Can there be, in the future, more Catholic, divinely-inspired writings besides the current Catholic canon of the Bible? I.e., is the current Catholic canon of the Bible, the written Word of God, complete? Or are Catholic, divinely-inspired writings in the future possible?
The whole document can be seen here.
- Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
Well, I mean when the Church was young and not really established as it is today.For all we know, this may still be the early days of Christianity.
I know, I mean the Catholic OT canon includes no books outside the LXX traditionThe OT Deurerocanon is part of the traditional LXX. Do you mean Third and Fourth Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh?
Thanks! This helps.The Church teaches difinitively that there will be no future addition to Sacred Scripture. This except from Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) states as much.
The whole document can be seen here.
How to prove Pauline origin depends upon what is found.How would you prove the Pauline origin of such a letter nearly 2000 years later?
The biggest issue in determining the Pauline origin of a previously unknown manuscript is the lack of known Pauline exemplars.I would posit that it would be next to impossible to verify the authenticity at this late date.
Linguistics, grammar, and style are secondary means of authentication.Oh, maybe some would attempt to use linguistics, grammar, and style to show that the author was the same person who wrote other letters accepted as canonical
We also know that the “sorrowful letter” described in 2 Cor. 2:4 does not describe 1 Corinthians, so Paul must have written at least three letters to the Corinthians.For example, we know that St Paul wrote an epistle to the Laodiceans, but we don’t have it. In theory, someone might discover it some day.