What if we discovered Zero Corinthians?

[DavidFilmer]

The New Testament Canon of Scripture (ie, which books are to be accepted as divinely inspired) was hotly debated in the early Church for centuries.  Finally, at a Council of Hippo (393 AD, I think) the canon which we know was enumerated for the first time, and at Carthage (in 404, I think) the proceedings of Hippo were read into the record and endorsed by the Pope, giving the Canon magisterial authority (although the Canon was not dogmatically defined until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century).

The Early Fathers debated the merits of many Christian writings, but there was one epistle which (apparently) was not available for them to consider. I’m talking about Zero Corinthians.

In First Corinthians, Paul mentions an earlier letter (“I wrote to you in my letter…” – 1Cor 5:9). Apparently, First Corinthians was NOT actually the first epistle that Paul wrote to this community, but (at least) the second. This earlier letter that Paul mentioned is sometimes called “Zero Corinthians.”

To my knowledge, this brief mention in 1Cor is the only reference we have to this earlier letter. The letter apparently was not preserved (as were two subsequent Epistles), and the Early Fathers did not seem to have possession of it. When the Canon of the New Testament was debated, the Fathers had no opportunity to consider this letter.

Now, suppose that some archeologist discovered an urn that contained a scroll, and it was somehow possible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this was, indeed, this elusive Zero Corinthians (and I don’t know how you could prove such a thing, as I am neither historian nor archeologist, but suppose for sake of argument that it could be conclusively demonstrated).

I pose this question because I think it has some bearing on the question of Sola Scriptura (the protestant belief that all doctrine can be found within Scripture). Catholics rightly ask, How do you know what “Scripture” is? Catholics know what Scripture is because the Church told us so, but protestants cannot use the authority of the Church as their basis for acceptance of the Canon. The alternative explanations they give are, um, interesting (but hardly convincing).

But what if we found Zero Corinthians? What would the protestants do? Suppose it specifically endorsed the idea of infant baptism. The Calvinists (Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc) would be inserting this into their Bibles, but the Assemblies of God would be condemning it. Or, suppose it actually encouraged the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues.” The Assemblies of God would be all over it, while the Calvinists would be sharply against it.

Regardless of its content, who would have the AUTHORITY to decide if Zero Corinthians was actually a divinely inspired writing?

[jesusandyou]

Very good question. With my limited knowldge in archeology I will try to answer ur qn. Give me some time for research.

David, you did not include Mormons in the list  .

[DavidFilmer]

David, you did not include Mormons in the list

Because the Mormon scriptures do not even claim Apostolic heretige (that's why they call themselves "LATTER DAY Saints" - they came much later). That is why they call their book "ANOTHER Gospel of Jesus Christ."

I know you are just "poking fun" with this comment, but the question COULD be expanded to cover the discovery of any ancient Apostolic writing. Suppose we dug up an Epistle that we could (somehow) prove was written by an Apostle? Take your pick - it doesn't matter. But Zero Corinthians is "special" because we KNOW it existed at one time (the Bible tells us so). We can speculate as to the existence of other Apostolic writings, but we KNOW that Zero Corinthians actually existed. What if we found it today?

[Melody]

Hey David

I think that sometimes we get a little too much of supposes in our minds! For example:

Now, suppose that some archeologist discovered an urn that contained a scroll, and it was somehow possible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this was, indeed, this elusive Zero Corinthians (and I don’t know how you could prove such a thing, as I am neither historian nor archeologist, but suppose for sake of argument that it could be conclusively demonstrated).

Firstly,    very cute, you have a picture imagination (I noted that the archy not only found the scroll, but found it in an urn )

Ok, seriously - as you said, how could anyone "prove beyond any reasonable doubt". This is the the first point of your hypothesis & yet forms the question of the end -  

who would have the AUTHORITY to decide if Zero Corinthians was actually a divinely inspired writing?

I know (from your previous posts) that you are extremely intelligent & well read, so I dismissed my first feeling that you got mixed up here.

On reading your qs again, I can only suppose from that that you meant :
Assuming:
(01) The letter is proved to be authetically written by St. Paul to the Corinthians & is the same letter to which he refers in 1 Corinthians.
Then
(02) Who decides if it is Divine Inspiration?

[Assuming I read your question wrong, correct me & ignore the rest of this post!]

Here's my answer:

The Catholic Church would have to "prove" that it was indeed St. Paul's original letter. Again, no idea how they could do this, but let's say they have.

In that case, if it was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it was indeed authentic, then they would have to agree that it was also Divinely Inspired. After all it is the same person who wrote them all. How could on suggest Divine Inspiration for I & II and not for 0 ?

Now as for:

Suppose it specifically endorsed the idea of infant baptism. The Calvinists (Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc) would be inserting this into their Bibles, but the Assemblies of God would be condemning it. Or, suppose it actually encouraged the practice of speaking in “unknown tongues.” The Assemblies of God would be all over it, while the Calvinists would be sharply against it.

I think it's highly unrealistic to suppose what would be in 0 Corinthians. After all, anything could be in it really. The main thing as I see it, is if it were found to perform pts (01) & (02) I mentioned above.

----

Incidentally, my personal opinion is that even if such a scroll were found, it would meet with the same fate as so many other "authentic" scrolls found that are not in the Bible - The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, The Dead Sea Scrolls etc.

Lemme know what you think David,

Blessings,

Melody

[DavidFilmer]

Hi, Melody. Your intrepretation of my post was correct (and not so much imagination - any scroll that could survive 2,000 years would need to be preserved in an airtight container, and urns are about the only ancient airtight container; the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in urns).

The Catholic Church would have to "prove" that it was indeed St. Paul's original letter.

That would be beyond the Church's compitence, but I do believe it would be possible for archeologists to demonstrate this - if the letter was found, for example, in the midst of a dig which yielded other corrobrating evidence, or if it was found to tie into a previous discovery whose scope was not known at the time. For example, we might - and probably do - have fragments of 0Cor quoted in other Apostolic writings but have been unaware of it since we lacked the source material to compare. But if we dug up this Epistle and found that portions of it were quoted by other Early Fathers, this would be pretty convincing.

In that case, if it was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it was indeed authentic, then they would have to agree that it was also Divinely Inspired. After all it is the same person who wrote them all. How could on suggest Divine Inspiration for I & II and not for 0 ?

But that suggests that we know the Scriptures are divinely inspired because of who wrote them.  I don't think we can say that anything Paul wrote is automatically written under divine inspiration.

Just because 1Cor and 2Cor were later deemed to be inspired does not mean any other writings would automatically qualify (including 0Cor).

When you ask a protestant "Why do you believe the writings in the Bible are inspired" (a question that NO protestant can provide an answer which will withstand examination) they sometimes make the mistake of claiming inspiration by authorship. But that resoning quickly breaks down. We have no idea who wrote three of the four Gospels (we do not know who Matthew (not the Apostle), Mark, or Luke were).  We have no idea who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews (sometimes credited to Paul, but there is no evidence at all to support that idea and LOTS of evidence against it). And, in the Old Testament, and the only thing we know about the Minor Prophets is their name, and we have no idea who wrote the large majority of it.

Likewise, we shouldn't make the same mistake of claiming inspiration by authorship should 0Cor be discovered.

[Seeker]

Good points David.  Here's a related question that is a little off topic.  Let me know if I should start a new thread or not.

Can there be inspired writings that are not in Scripture?  Does Scripture contain the only inspired writings ever written?

If it is possible for the Holy Spirit to inspire someone's writings outside of Scripture, how do we discern which speak the truth?   Especially if it does not directly or explicitly contradict Scripture.

[DavidFilmer]

Good points David. Here's a related question that is a little off topic…

I think this is pretty on-topic, actually, since the purpose of the thread was to promote discussion about the possibility of extra-Biblical inspired writing.

Can there be inspired writings that are not in Scripture?

Oh, sure, LOTS of them – volumes and volumes of them. In Catholic theology, the proceedings of an Ecumenical Council are regarded as inspired (on the same level as Scripture), and an ex cathedra papal document is also considered inspired (same as Scripture).

So LOTS of things could be considered “divinely inspired” but nobody would think to call them “Scripture.” In order for us to consider something “Scripture” it must have at least been written in the Apostolic age.

We have writings like that. Probably the best example is the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, written in 80 AD (so it was written at least before Revelation, and probably written before a couple of other epistles as well). Clement was the third Bishop of Rome (ie, Pope, though the word “pope” – a Latin term – was not used in the Greek speaking world of the Early Church).  Christian tradition has long held that Clement was the same “Clement” mentioned in Phillipians 4:3 (though this is a historically tenuous position). But we do know for sure that, for centuries (before the Church ever defined a New Testament Canon), many Christians regarded this epistle as inspired, and it was read in the Assembly along with Paul and John, etc. (there is a second epistle ascribed to Clement, but that was actually written much later, and not by Clement).

There is nothing “wrong” with the Epistle – it is actually very pastoral and doctrinally sound. It is widely read and studied to this day. But, when the Church considered the Canon of Scripture, She chose to leave this writing out. Why? It was doctrinally sound, written in the Apostolic Age by a Catholic Bishop, Pope, and Saint, and widely held to be inspired by many of the Faithful. Why omit First Clement?

Because not everything that an old Apostolic guy wrote was necessarily written under the protection of divine inspiration. Just because something is doctrinally sound doesn’t make it divinely inspired. And the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church to include that particular document in the Canon.

Protestants (as a general rule) don’t understand this. They highly revere the Bible, but have absolutely no idea how the Bible came to be. It won’t make much of an impression if you talk to them about First Clement, but sometimes talking about Zero Corinthians piques their interest and gets them thinking about exactly what it means to call a document “divinely inspired.”

[Melody]

Just because 1Cor and 2Cor were later deemed to be inspired does not mean any other writings would automatically qualify (including 0Cor).

Good point David. I never really thought of it this way before. I guess I fell into the "inspiration by authorship" trap.

Seeker, great question.

To expand on what David answered you - Whenever a Pope makes an official declaration/s concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects him from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future. If you believe this, you should believe that Divine Inspiration continues even today!

David, about 1 Clement:

Just because something is doctrinally sound doesn’t make it divinely inspired. And the Holy Spirit did not lead the Church to include that particular document in the Canon.

I think ultimately it boils down to the Holy Spirit inspiring the Catholic Church on making the decisions about what is "divine inspired" or not.

I for one will gladly & submissively follow her guidance

Blesssings,

Melody