How many letters did Paul write to the Corinthians?

[ComfortMyPeople]

Silly question. First and Second to the Corinthians, don’t you know how to add?

Now, open your Bible and read:

·        (1 Corinthians 5:9) “In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with. . .”

Well, if we read in the FIRST letter Paul mention another previous letter, namely “In my letter”, there was one more, the, let’s say, zero to Corinthians!

Next, related question. Was this zero-letter inspired by God?

===========quote follows, with some remarks

*** w53 2/15 p. 127 Questions From Readers ***

That there actually existed at one time a letter to the Laodiceans seems established by Colossians 4:16. Do we have it today? Or do we have a replica of it? Maybe we do; maybe we do not. It may have been inspired; it may not have been inspired. But if it was not inspired that does not mean it was false, any more than statements that we might make today are necessarily false merely because they are uninspired. A statement can be absolutely true, though uninspired. So if the letter to the Laodiceans was not inspired, that does not make it false. Merely because it was not preserved in the Bible canon does not make it false. It was not included because it doubtless is not necessary for us today; other letters that are included may cover the same points for us. To include it might mean useless duplication. ==================

Let us admit this zero letter wasn’t inspired. Another question, a very important one:

·        There is a possibility of errors in the apostle writing?

Well, as only the INSPIRED Word of God is errorless, the possibility existed. Perhaps this explains these words of Paul himself:

(Galatians 1:8) “However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed”

Yes, it was a hyperbole. In another words, if I go crazy and declare you…etc. Naturally, Paul himself could develop a mental disorder and declare estrange things. And, in spite he was used to transmit inspired and errorless words, not always could be the case. In other moments, perhaps writing the zero to the Corinthians some minor errors could be introduced. Should the Corinthians be suspicious reading the inspired letters, because some of them weren’t? No, because the apostle himself mention regarding the INSPIRED letter (1 Corinthians 7:40) “I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.”

Nowadays. We had our “steward” class. These brothers are being using for Jehovah to take care of the whole house of God. This is an enormous responsibility. Always are correct? No. Was Paul always right? Yes… WHEN INSPIRED. So, as the “slave” class is not inspired, grant these brothers at least the same weight than the zero to the Corinthians.

[JW Insider]

Some scholars read the two canonical letters to the Corinthians as compilations of several letters, with some duplication likely left out. I haven't read all their reasons, but when I come up with a question on my own based on a text-based issue, I often find that some scholars' explanation for that particular question makes as much sense as any other explanation.

Psalm 14 and 53 shows that duplication has happened. (The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many Jews had kept 151 songs as canonical, not 150.) Jude and 2 Peter contain identical passages.

Paul does not appear to necessarily think of his own words as inspired in all passages when he says:

(1 Corinthians 7:12) 12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord:. . .

Jesus does not necessarily speak of Moses as inspired in all passages when he says:

(Matthew 19:8) 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning.

Yet, the Jews were given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not:

(Romans 3:1, 2) . . .What, then, is the advantage of the Jew,. . . 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.

And the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, in spite of "Babylonian captivity," were apparently given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not for the Greek Scriptures. One of the last books by the apostle John gave them good advice:

(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[ComfortMyPeople]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Some scholars read the two canonical letters to the Corinthians as compilations of several letters, with some duplication likely left out. I haven't read all their reasons, but when I come up with a question on my own based on a text-based issue, I often find that some scholars' explanation for that particular question makes as much sense as any other explanation.

That is correct, JWI. I think this way!

Many brothers, I think many people who believe the Bible is the word of God also think God has "inspired" the compilation of the contents itself, and I don't think that was the case. Rather, Jehovah has, perhaps, in his providence, intervened to the extend necessary to preserve the integrity of His message. And the latter doesn't depend of the compilation order, repetition of contents, and so.

Now, I’m quoting from Insight Book

*** it-2 p. 879 Scripture *** Even the apostles may have written other letters to certain congregations. For example, Paul’s statement at 1 Corinthians 5:9: “In my letter I wrote you,” implies that he wrote a previous letter to the Corinthians, one that is not now existent.

The main point I was trying to expose in my post is:

Is it worth of our trust the “slave” teachings, to the extend these aren’t inspired and, consequently, can occur, and in fact occur, errors?

And the answer is, I think, that Paul, Moses and any Bible writer, when were “out of service” -I mean not under inspiration- could make mistakes. And these mistakes don’t disqualify them to be used for God. In the same way as we all agree our brothers on charge aren’t inspired, we should also permit them to be wrong and make mistakes.

By the way: which of us would not like to read any NOT INSPIRED letter from Paul? Maybe the zero to the Corinthians, or the letter to Laodicea. In spite of any mistake they could have? For similar reasons I respect the teaching of our brothers in spite the errors they could, also, have.

Thanks again JWI for your meaningful points.

 

[John Houston]

Paul wrote many letters to the friends of the various congregations in his territory. Which letter was kept as canonical was the two that contained information harmonious to the message of Jehovah's purpose. And He made sure it survived. The others letters,the 'one' written to the Laodicians was not saved and many letters that the other apostles wrote were also not saved. We have what we need to follow closely enough.

[ComfortMyPeople]

3 hours ago, John Houston said:

Paul wrote many letters to the friends of the various congregations in his territory. Which letter was kept as canonical was the two that contained information harmonious to the message of Jehovah's purpose. And He made sure it survived. The others letters,the 'one' written to the Laodicians was not saved and many letters that the other apostles wrote were also not saved. We have what we need to follow closely enough.

I could not agree more.

I just wish to point out the main reason why I posted these commentaries:

To support the idea we should appreciate the 'slave' teaching in spite the fact this teaching contains errors.

The basis, in this post about "zero to the Corinthians" was:

The the apostles, as you propperly describes, wrote others NOT INSPIRED writings. But in spite of this fact these writings should have been useful and beneficial. We can not imagine the brothers receiving these letters and saying: "well, these aren't inspired... perhaps they contain some errors, let's read another stuff." Sure they read all these NOT INSPIRED letters eagerly.

And, finally, Jehovah, in his providence, moved matters so that only what we would need in the future were included in the Bible canon

Not quite sure if my goal was achieved.

Thanks, John, for your quote.

 

[Anna]

On 1/17/2017 at 10:09 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Nowadays. We had our “steward” class. These brothers are being using for Jehovah to take care of the whole house of God. This is an enormous responsibility. Always are correct? No. Was Paul always right? Yes… WHEN INSPIRED. So, as the “slave” class is not inspired, grant these brothers at least the same weight than the zero to the Corinthians.

Good point!

A question though. Why then does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is inspired?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

A question though. Why then does 2 Tim 3:16 say all scripture is inspired?

Paul was talking about the "Old Testament" Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, etc. These would be the books that the Scribes and Pharisees considered inspired. As far as the "New Testament" is concerned, there may not have even been any writings that were considered inspired -- yet. There may have been no canonical gospels for several more years, and Paul's letters were being collected, but may not have been considered inspired yet, either. 2 Peter is the one place where Paul's letters are then considered to be Scripture.

(2 Peter 3:15, 16) . . .just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. . .

Curiously, 2 Peter was not considered inspired in most of the early collections of "NT" letters. Doubts were expressed about whether 2 Peter should be canonical through the 4th century, but I believe that the information presented here http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield2peter.pdf gives us excellent reasons to accept that the book dates to the apostolic age. Also Origen who was an amazingly good reseaecher and scholar for his time, looked into the question and gave us trustworthy reasoning as to why it should be canonical.

We look at accepted Scripture today, and just accept it matter-of-factly, but there was a time when various books were argued over for decades before being considered acceptable (including Revelation and 2 Peter). There are some Christian-based churches that still accept additional books in their New Testament churches, as they have done for nearly 1,800 years in some cases. But it is sobering to remember that "Christian forgery" was extremely common, just as "Jewish forgery" was common especially after the canon was considered closed. Sometimes the only way you could get your "wisdom" or your "prophecies" to be looked at was to write it as if it had come from a well-known apostle or well-known associate of an apostle.