Ben C Smith

Not a bad hypothesis, actually.

Ben.

Scott M 74

:rolling:

Did they come in packs with sticks of stale gum?

I do find that hypothesis a little too hard to believe, but who knows what went on back then!

Ben C Smith

I do not think that there is any doubt that the letters of Paul could have been collected (indeed, were collected) over the years into a single collection. Other letter collections in antiquity indicate that this certainly is not a miraculous happenstance.

We know part of the mechanism for this kind of collection, namely the exchanging of letters between churches (see Colossians 4.16, for instance). It also seems likely (to me, at any rate) that every time Paul penned a letter there would be at least one extra copy made; that is, I imagine one letter was sent to the church to which it was addressed while another was kept in the possession either of Paul himself or of the church where he penned it (or both).

It is in the particulars (names, exact times, and places) that the questions arise. Who first assembled a Pauline collection, and when and where? How many letters did it have? Who, if anyone, expanded it?

Ben.

Amaleq13

Isn't that pretty much what happened with relics like pieces of the "true cross", Jesus' foreskin, etc.?

Peter Kirby

Paul-o-mon: gotta catch 'em all!

Is it out of the question that Paul kept copies of his letters, and that this genuine collection attracted spurious additions by the time it came for canonization?

Think, for example, of a genuine Paul collection that consisted of the nine letters to churches, minus Ephesians and plus Philemon. Now imagine that in the early second century someone added Ephesians to the front of the passel as a kind of 'cover letter' for Paul's thought. Then you just have to get the Pastoral Epistles in during the mid second century (addressed to two individuals--so the possible explanation is there that Paul didn't want to publish them but they surfaced later), and perhaps Hebrews (placed ambiguously between Paul and the catholic epistles), and you have the Pauline canon we know.

Ben C Smith

Lines 47-50 of the Muratorian canon may provide a clue as to how the Pauline corpus was assembled:

...beatus apostolus Paulus sequens prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem non nisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat....

...the blessed apostle Paul, following the order of his predecessor John, wrote only to seven churches....

(The Latin has been corrected.)

Victorinus of Pettau makes the same connection between Paul and John in his own Commentary on the Apocalypse 1.7 (English translation slightly modified from that of Kevin Edgecomb):

Denique, sive in Asia sive in toto orbe, septem ecclesias omnes; et septenatim nominatas unam esse catholicam Paulus docuit. Primum quidem, ut servaret et ipsum, septem ecclesiarum non excessit numerum, sed scripsit ad Romanos, ad Corinthios, ad Ephesios, ad Tessalonicenses, ad Galatas, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses; postea singularibus personis scripsit, ne excederet numerum septem ecclesiarum.

Finally, as in Asia, so in the whole world; seven churches as all; and Paul taught that the seven named are the one catholic church. Indeed, at first, so he might keep this [rule], he did not exceed the number of seven churches, but rather wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Galatians, to the Philippians, and to the Colossians; afterward he wrote to individual people, lest he exceed the number of seven churches.

One might suspect that Paul himself did not necessarily strive to keep his letters limited to a total of seven churches, but that perhaps later somebody, when assembling a Pauline collection, found letters to seven churches and then stopped hunting for more. Or somebody found letters to fewer than seven churches and decided to pen one or more to make up the difference (Ephesians as a cover letter, perhaps, to follow up on what Peter said?). Or the number could be sheer coincidence, I suppose.

Ben.

Spanky

Thanks for some of your ideas and links.

I still find it odd that all of these letters would eventually reach one person/persons. I mean, what about Timothy, Philemon, and Titus? I can understand the churches saving their copies, even making copies of copies. But sending a letter to a wandering preacher and those being saved and published is a different story. Those (to Timothy, etc.) were more personal letters of admonition.
And why only Paul? Where are the 100's of letters Peter, John (and the rest of the twelve disciples) would have surely sent to the churches? Were the letters attributed to them even of them? Or were they just illiterate, lowly fisherman as ascribed in the gospels.
So many questions, not enough sufficient evidence??
I mean, Paul must have had quite a following, almost a cult like (leader) following amongst the believers for us, sitting here today, to be able to read his writings to the churches, to individuals, and not have in our possession the writings of those who were supposedly with Jesus.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm???

Also, were there other epistles and/or letters that never made it into the NT that were attributed to Paul or any other figurehead?

Spanky

Ben, would you consider this church propaganda, though?

(Although that is an interesting contribution )

Ben C Smith

Of course it is church propaganda. Whether in the best or in the worst possible sense of that word, it is, almost by definition, church propaganda.

The real question is whether it provides any clues as to the origin of the Pauline collection.

Ben.

gurugeorge

Robert M. Price has a great essay discussing Paul's letters where he goes into this a bit here.