Corpus-Paul

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>]

Licia Kuenning wrote:

> I accept Jeff's point that we are here to discuss the Pauline
> corpus historically rather than theologically--though the
> boundary does get a little fuzzy when we're talking about the
> Bible; and of course the reason there is so much interest in
> these writings is because they are theologically important to
> a great many people.
>
> The canon is a tradition (or several traditions): there is
> nothing in any of the canonical books that says "Thou shalt
> delineate a canon, and thou shalt call it the Word of God."
> But I am one who has never quite been able to see what is
> wrong with tradition.  Are we the first generation of people to
> know anything?  Granted that those who put together the canon
> had their biases and limitations, and they didn't even have
> Windows 98, still they were temporally and culturally much
> closer to the authors of the writings in question than we are.
> Why shouldn't their judgment of what was authentic be worth
> something?
>

A very brief answer to this question is that, historically, there wasn't just 
*one*
judgment, let alone anything like unanimity among those who *did* judge, even 
when
they used the criterion of "apostolicity".

For a quick review of what was considered "canonical", when, and by whom,  go 
to:

http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net