Pauline Epistles.Attributed to Paul or not?

[LM77 (Liam Maguire)]

@03Cobra

Inspiration was not a criterion for canonicity, and the early church leaders considered many writings inspired which were not included in the canon.

We went over this ground and debated whether Metzger is correct ad nausium here:

Should "Bible" = "Word of God"?

Actually, Jesus never mentioned the Bible, which did not exist in the time of Jesus, And the Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God. Jesus did refer to specific quotes of God found in the scriptures. Just as a newspaper quoting Trump does not make the entire newspaper the “Word of Trump,” quotes of God included in the scriptures does not make the Bible, in its entirety, the Word of God.

And here:

Speaking of the inspired word of God

It seems to me that some people here think that in order to take issue with certain conceptions of inerrancy and biblicism, you also need to pretty much throw out the entire historical Christian doctrine of inspiration as well. Granted many inerrancy supporters have made a huge deal out of affirming verbal plenary inspiration, which I think is a pretty big step beyond what the church has traditionally intended when it affirms that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and often comes close to s…

Unless there is some new insight to be gained, do we really need to dig up those bodies all over again?