That's a great idea. It's a very complex topic, but it sounds like you're trying to approach it in a good way.Vanished wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:53 pm For what it's worth - since this is what I'm presently hyperfixated on in my biblical research - I'll likely make a thread soon detailing all the various theories regarding Pauline authorship and the evidence for them. I find the idea of the Paulines originating with Marcion quite compelling, but I also think it's worth exploring the ideas that there were originals that Marcion simply corrupted into what we have today, or that the co-authors of Paul are responsible for the contradictions and errors we see from time to time. And of course, I'd also do my utmost to include as much evidence as I can for both the fully traditional view, that all Pauline epistles (aside from the letters to Seneca) are legitimate, as well as the current scholarly consensus, which is that all Pauline epistles excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are legitimate. Lots of different angles to work this from, but I think before I (or anyone, really) can formulate a new canon and incorporate non-canonical works, I've first got to determine if the current canon is bloated in any way so I don't take forged or corrupted works as evidence for the canonicity of others.
I believe 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and sometimes Colossians are more commonly contested.
Do you know about Robert Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts? He takes the approach of being more inclusive (instead of paring down) and adding some commentary regarding texts likely to be forged or corrupted. A large part of the study of these texts is figuring out where these texts are coming from, even if they aren't by the ascribed author. It might be of interest to you.