L
lak611
Guest
I know that Paul’s epistles are not in chronological order in the Bible. Why are they placed in the order that they appear?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Fidelis
Guest
They are roughly placed by length (the longest letters first and then shorter until you get to Philemon), but it is my understanding that the NT in general is arranged in order of importance: the Gospels first, then Acts, then Paul’s letters starting with Romans, then the rest of the Epistles and finally the Book of Revelation. Hebrews was placed where it was because there was some doubt about it’s authorship by Paul, though not about it’s apostolic origin. Revelation was placed at the end of the Bible for similar reasons, but also because, with it’s End Time themes, it has always been seen as a fitting denouement to the entire Bible.I know that Paul’s epistles are not in chronological order in the Bible. Why are they placed in the order that they appear?
L
lak611
Guest
I am still confused about the order of Paul’s epistles because 2 Thessalonians is much shorter than 1 Timothy. Does anyone know if there are any articles available that explain how the order of the canon was determined?They are roughly placed by length (the longest letters first and then shorter until you get to Philemon), but it is my understanding that the NT in general is arranged in order of importance: the Gospels first, then Acts, then Paul’s letters starting with Romans, then the rest of the Epistles and finally the Book of Revelation. Hebrews was placed where it was because there was some doubt about it’s authorship by Paul, though not about it’s apostolic origin. Revelation was placed at the end of the Bible for similar reasons, but also because, with it’s End Time themes, it has always been seen as a fitting denouement to the entire Bible.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
It appears that Paul’s letters are arranged longest to shortest with his letters to the Churches appearing before his letters to individuals.I am still confused about the order of Paul’s epistles because 2 Thessalonians is much shorter than 1 Timothy.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, on page 825, regarding the Epistles of St. Paul, it says:
Order in the Canon—The order of St Paul’s Epistles as found in modern Catholic bibles is not chronological but follows the order adopted by the Council of Trent (PL[Patrologia Latina (Migne)] 34, 31), in which the epistles are ranked in descending order based on the dignity of the Church addressed and the length of the contents. … It is not known who first adopted this order.
Order in the Canon—The order of St Paul’s Epistles as found in modern Catholic bibles is not chronological but follows the order adopted by the Council of Trent (PL[Patrologia Latina (Migne)] 34, 31), in which the epistles are ranked in descending order based on the dignity of the Church addressed and the length of the contents. … It is not known who first adopted this order.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
I don’t know if this a coincidence or not but …It is not known who first adopted this order.
In his thirty-ninth Festal Letter (A.D. 367), St. Athanasius lists the Pauline Epistles in the same order as we do today, except that he places Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, instead of after Philemon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 343-381), in its Canon 60, lists them the same as St. Athanasius.
L
lak611
Guest
Thank you, Todd. That helps clarify things.It appears that Paul’s letters are arranged longest to shortest with his letters to the Churches appearing before his letters to individuals.
L
lak611
Guest
That’s interesting, since they are also in the same order in Protestant Bibles. They must have been placed in that order prior to Trent because Protestants most likely would not follow Trent.In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953, on page 825, regarding the Epistles of St. Paul, it says:
Order in the Canon—The order of St Paul’s Epistles as found in modern Catholic bibles is not chronological but follows the order adopted by the Council of Trent (PL[Patrologia Latina (Migne)] 34, 31), in which the epistles are ranked in descending order based on the dignity of the Church addressed and the length of the contents. … It is not known who first adopted this order.
L
lak611
Guest
That makes sense because Pauline authorship was attributed to Hebrews until much more recently. Even my Douay-Rheims lists Paul as the author of Hebrews, although now most scholars state that they simply do not know who wrote Hebrews.I don’t know if this a coincidence or not but …
In his thirty-ninth Festal Letter (A.D. 367), St. Athanasius lists the Pauline Epistles in the same order as we do today, except that he places Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, instead of after Philemon. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 343-381), in its Canon 60, lists them the same as St. Athanasius.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
You may find this article on “The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul” of some interest.That’s interesting, since they are also in the same order in Protestant Bibles. They must have been placed in that order prior to Trent because Protestants most likely would not follow Trent.
L
lak611
Guest
That was a very interesting article. It appears that the numbering in all of our Bible translations today follows the numbering of the Greek New Testament written by Erasmus in 1516.You may find this article on “The Oldest Extant Editions of the Letters of Paul” of some interest.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
its all traditions of men … no really
- Status
- Not open for further replies.