Two (3?) letters are missing from the New Testament

[Katholikos]

Since all 14 of St. Paul’s surviving letters were declared “inspired,” it’s seems absolutely certain that all of his letters would have been regarded as Scripture. But three of his inspired writings are missing. Written on fragile papyrus, they either did not survive the vagaries of antiquity, or the originals and last copies and their owner(s) may have been destroyed during the Roman persecutions, when owning a Christian writing was a capital offense.

If the (partial, 66-book cut version of the) Bible is the inspired Word of God, and if three, or definitely two, of St. Paul’s letters are missing, where does that leave “Sola Scriptura” advocates?

Much as the Catholic Church regrets the loss of these letters, it has no affect upon her doctrines and practices. The teaching of the Church is not based upon the New Testament; rather, the NT was based upon the living, dynamic, believing, teaching Church. The Church reveres the Sacred Scriptures, but the NT is the effect, not the cause of her Faith.

But Sola Scriptura advocates believe the Bible is the sole rule of faith and morals and that it contains everything man needs to know for his salvation. But what’s in the missing books?

St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is missing. Our “1 Corinthians” is actually Paul’s second letter to that community. I call it “0 Corinthians” (It is referred to in 1 Cor 5:9).

2 Corinthians 2:3-4 refers to another letter to the community at Corinth that is missing (4 Corinthians?).

And there is a possible third missing letter, written by St. Paul from Laodicea, referred to in Colossians 4:16. This is either a letter that is lost, or scholars think it could possibly be the Letter to the Ephesians.

So, Protestant Bibles are not only missing 7 books of inspired Scripture from the OT plus parts of Esther and Daniel, they are also missing two, and possibly three, of St. Paul’s letters. If Luther had had his way, they would also be missing Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Luther put them as an appendix to his German translation of the Bible, but did not regard them as Scripture equal to the rest of the Bible.

Again, what was in those missing letters?

Whaddayathink?

JMJ Jay
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

 

[Hans_A]

Katholikos, what works can I reference to concerning the missing letters? You have peaked my interest and I would like to have this knowledge (and the ability to back it up) to pass on to my Protestant friends/family I debate with.

Peace be with you,
Hans

 

[Tanais]

I seem to recall somewhere that someone said that maybe one of the letters is a composite of other letters to Corinthians. But I really do not know, I am not a scripture scholar.

 

[iguana27]

The 7 “extra” books in the Catholic canon are all OT books. The 27 books of the NT are agreed upon by Catholic and Protestants.

If there were additional writings of Paul, they were never part of the canon.

 

[Katholikos]

Hans A.:

Katholikos, what works can I reference to concerning the missing letters? You have peaked my interest and I would like to have this knowledge (and the ability to back it up) to pass on to my Protestant friends/family I debate with.

Peace be with you,
Hans

Hans, the evidence is in the New Testament itself.

Preface to 1 Corinthians, NAB: “Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians, apart from a few verses that some regard as interpolations, has never been seriously questioned. Some scholars have proposed, however, that the letter as we have it contans portions or more than one original Pauline letter. We know that Paul wrote at least two other letters to Corinth (see 5, 9;2:3-4) in addition to the two that we now have; this theory holds that the additional letters are actually contained within the two canonical ones. Most commentators, however, find Corinthians quite understandable as a single coherent work.”

[My note: This would mean that the two Corinthian letters are indeed missing.]

1 Corinthians 5:9, 11: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men … I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed. . .”.

Footnote of the Revised Standard Version (Protestant) to 1 Cor 5:9: “An earlier letter, which has been lost, (unless a fragment of it is now found in 2 Cor 6:14-7.1).”

My note: Even if the verses cited are a fragment of the first letter, it’s not the entire letter. This statement of Paul’s is not found in either of the existing Corinthian letters; ergo, it must refer to a letter that is not extant.

---

2 Cor 2:3-4: “I wrote to you as I did . . . For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart . . .”

Preface to 2 Corinthians, RSV: "Chapters 10 to 13 constitute a vigorous defense of Paul and his work and are written in a tone so different from that of Chapters 1 to 9 that many scholars believe they are a fragment of another letter written to Corinth at some other time.

[My note: That would mean that 2 Corinthians is actually (parts of?) two letters.]

RSV footnote 2:3-4: Many identify the letter referred to with chapters 10-13.

---

RSV footnote to Col 4:16: "The letter left at Laodicea, either the letter to the Ephesians or some other Pauline letter no longer extant.

NAB footnote to Col 4:16: “The one from Laodicea, either a letter by Paul that has been lost or the Letter to the Ephesians.”​

The Bible (the original or the cut version) is not the simple document that the average Protestant-in-the-pew believes it to be. It has a long and complex history. And Protestants and their preachers tend to parse the words as if it were written in English.
A translation is an approximation of the meaning of the original.
***And we have no orginals. All we have are copies and translations. That’s one very good reason for not subscribing to Sola Scriptura. ***

Praise and exalt Him forever!

Blessed Father Damien, Pray for us! Jay

 

[Baruch]

Katholikos:

Again, what was in those missing letters?

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament know of books or works that were not included in the canon of Scripture. Some were obviously useful for teaching since they were referenced or cited by inspired authors. Several works are explicitly attributed to some of God’s Old Testament prophets. There is a great number of these that have not survived the centuries: The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14-15); The Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:12-13; 2Samuel 1:18-27); The Parables and Songs of Solomon (1Kings 4:32-33); The Book of the Acts of Solomon (1Kings 11:41); The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (1Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39; 2Kings 1:18; 10:34; 13:8, 12; 14:28; 15:11, 15, 21, 26, 31; 2Chronicles 33:18); The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23; 22:46; 2Kings 8:23; 12:19; 14:18; 15:6, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5); The Book of Nathan the Prophet (1Chronicles 29:29; 2Chronicles 9:29); The Book of Gad the Seer (1Chronicles 29:29); The Books of Ahijah the Shilonite (2Chronicles 9:29); The Book of Addo the Seer (2Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); the Book of the Chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet (2Chronicles 12:15); The Book of the Kings of Israel and Juda (2Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 35:26-27; 36:8); The Commentary on the Book of Kings (2Chronicles 24:27); The Chronicles of Jehu the son of Hanani (2Chronicles 20:34); the Acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet son of Amoz (2Chronicles 26:22); The Chronicles of the Seers (2Chronicles 33:19); The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:1-2); The Book of the Days of the Priesthood of John (1Maccabees 16:23-24); The Records of Jeremiah the Prophet (2Maccabees 2:1-8); The Records and the Memoirs of Nehemiah (2Maccabees 2:13); and The Five Volumes of Jason of Cyrene (2Maccabees 2:20-24). The New Testament also reveals that there were some records from the Apostles that did not come down to us (some of which you referenced): Christ’s words written in the sand (John 8:6-8), a former Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1Corinthians 5:9-11); the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:15-16), The Assumption of Moses (Jude 9); and Enoch (Jude 14-15).

 

[petra]

Katholikos:

If Luther had had his way, they would also be missing Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Luther put them as an appendix to his German translation of the Bible, but did not regard them as Scripture equal to the rest of the Bible.

Katholikos, did Luther unilaterally create the Protestant canon or was there some sort of group or council of reformers that made that decision? I’ve heard (and your statement implies the same thing) that he would have preferred to omit Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation altogether, but he was overridden in that decision. In addition to Luther, who were these other people that established the new Protestant canon?