Lost books of the Bible?

[maklelan]

Hi nic:

I take your point. What I wrote was that the canon is recognized by man, not created by man. On the view I'm endorsing, "canon" is merely a label for the collection of books God actually inspired. Since men don't cause books to be inspired by God, men don't create canon.

I have a very high view of God's providence in history.

Best.

cks

Are the books inspired or is the list of books inspired? If only the books are inspired then the canon is absolutely created by humans (humans identify the inspired books and gather them). If the list is inspired then there's an additional evidentiary burden (show why the list should be considered inspired).

[maklelan]

Not sure if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but I have serious doubts that prexilic Israelites even had the concept of a set canon, so the idea that we must demonstrate that they considered those books part of their canon seems a bit ridiculous.

They didn't have a canon back then. They didn't have a canon until well into the Common Era, actually. The idea of scripture as authoritative text developed in the exile and Second Temple Period, but the idea of a collection of books as authoritative in and of itself was a development of the third and fourth centuries CE.

[cksalmon]

Hi Lehi:

You wrote:

You made the claim that God created the canon, it is your task to support your claim.

Actually, what I wrote was "God's canon is recognized by man, not constructed by man." I have also claimed that God inspires certain books and that the canon consists of such books as God has inspired. I don't really have a problem with your summarizing my position as "God created the canon," if by that you understand that, on my view, that those books that God inspired make up the canon.

Let's keep in mind that the "canon" is different from "scripture",

Not on my view, at least not in the sense you go on to elucidate.

the former being, in the ideal case, a subset of the first. The ideal,however, not being likely, it is more than possible that there are spurious books, (e.g., the Song of Solomon) in the canon.

Well, we view the matter in fundamentally different ways. I don't argue to scripture; I absolutely, unashamedly presuppose it. I certainly have no problem with arguments to canonicity, or arguments about canonicity, but with regard to scripture, I'm certainly a thoroughgoing presuppositionalist.

Best.

cks

[Doctor Steuss]

http://yourgoingtohell.com/enoch.html

If this site's name doesn't scream "I'm a non-biased trustworthy website, containing serious scholarship" I don't know what URL possibly could.

The use of the possessive pronoun is just icing on the cake -- gotta admit a certain level of jealousy though that the name is already taken.

(*Re-engaging lurker cloaking device*)

[cksalmon]

Hi Pa Pa:

You wrote:

The issue for me is not "if" these books should be canonized

[LeSellers]

Let's keep in mind that the "canon" is different from "scripture",

Not on my view, at least not in the sense you go on to elucidate.

the former being, in the ideal case, a subset of the latter. The ideal, however, not being likely, it is more than possible that there are spurious books, (e.g., the Song of Solomon) in the canon.

Well, we view the matter in fundamentally different ways.

I see.

Your apparent definition of "canon" is idiosyncratic. Hardly the stuff of open discussion.

I don't argue to scripture; I absolutely, unashamedly presuppose it. I certainly have no problem with arguments to canonicity, or arguments about canonicity, but with regard to scripture, I'm certainly a thoroughgoing presuppositionalist.

I have no idea what the bolded part even means.

In fact, I am not sure what any of this sentence means.

If I accidentally got it, though, it seems that you assume that the Bible was dictated by God, that its contents were selected by Him, and that the vagaries of the humans who did the work were circumvented by Him in such a way as to make their work simple mechanics, with no input from them: they were automatons, hard-wired robots.

I do seem to recall that you are a Calvinist, so your position is internally consistent, no matter how illogical and incomprehensible it is.

Lehi

[cksalmon]

Hi mak:

You wrote:

If only the books are inspired then the canon is absolutely created by humans (humans identify the inspired books and gather them).

I don't concede that, at least as I think you may mean it. Identifying and gathering inspired books does not, of course, create inspired books. But, if all you mean by the human "creation" of canon is that humans identified and gathered inspired books, I'll gladly concede the point. My point was that recognizing and gathering inspired books doesn't cause the recognized and gathered books to be inspired.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Hi Lehi:

You wrote:

Your apparent definition of "canon" is idiosyncratic. Hardly the stuff of open discussion.

Idiosyncratic? My belief that the Christian canon of scripture is complete and contains no spurious works strikes you as an idiosyncratic position on my part? You must not get out much, friend.

I have no idea what the bolded part even means.

In fact, I am not sure what any of this sentence means.

Try it again. I know you can get it.

If I accidentally got it, though, it seems that you assume that the Bible was dictated by God, that its contents were selected by Him, and that the vagaries of the humans who did the work were circumvented by Him in such a way as to make their work simple mechanics, with no input from them: they were automatons, hard-wired robots.

Nope. That's not even close to what I believe.

I do seem to recall that you are a Calvinist, so your position is internally consistent, no matter how illogical and incomprehensible it is.

I'm not sure how a position can be internally consistent and also illogical. You lost me there.

Best.

cks

[maklelan]

Hi mak:

You wrote:

I don't concede that, at least as I think you may mean it. Identifying and gathering inspired books does not, of course, create inspired books. But, if all you mean by the human "creation" of canon is that humans identified and gathered inspired books, I'll gladly concede the point.

The latter is my point. Unless the production of a canonical list was itself inspired, then the canon is of human origin.

My point was that recognizing and gathering inspired books doesn't cause the recognized and gathered books to be inspired.

I agree. How one views the canon is very important, but there's a great deal of precision that must go into defining the word "canon." For instance, is it a list of authoritative books or is it an authoritative list of books? Answering one way or another creates different sets of questions that must follow. Some will say it's both, and that creates a whole new set of questions.

[nicolasconnault]

Hi nic:

I take your point. What I wrote was that the canon is recognized by man, not created by man. On the view I'm endorsing, "canon" is merely a label for the collection of books God actually inspired. Since men don't cause books to be inspired by God, men don't create canon.

I have a very high view of God's providence in history.

Best.

cks

And my point was that if God selected the inspired books that were to be part of the accepted canon (which seems to be your claim), why did He not say that such canon was closed in that very canon? You still haven't explained why you believe the canon to be complete, and what you mean by "complete".

[Glenn101]

And my point was that if God selected the inspired books that were to be part of the accepted canon (which seems to be your claim), why did He not say that such canon was closed in that very canon? You still haven't explained why you believe the canon to be complete, and what you mean by "complete".

The real question is a two parter.

1. Were all of the books selected as part of the canon inspired? (The Song of Solomon is a study in semi-soft pornography.)

2. Were the men who selected the books that make up our canon inspired? (The selection process itself and rancor involved would seem to dictate against an inspired process by inspired men. The inclusion of the Song of Solomon is another indicator of an uninspired process by uninspired men.)

Glenn

[Zakuska]

The real question is a two parter.

1. Were all of the books selected as part of the canon inspired? (The Song of Solomon is a study in semi-soft pornography.)

2. Were the men who selected the books that make up our canon inspired? (The selection process itself and rancor involved would seem to dictate against an inspired process by inspired men. The inclusion of the Song of Solomon is another indicator of an uninspired process by uninspired men.)

Glenn

I know what JS said about the Song of Solomon. But... I have to diagree...

The Song of Solomon provides the perfect prophetic back drop of History and persecution of the church from the time of Jesus, through the Apostasy, to the Restoration and birth of Joseph Smith in SHARON Vermont.

[cksalmon]

Hi nic:

You wrote:

And my point was that if God selected the inspired books that were to be part of the accepted canon (which seems to be your claim)

Well, "selected" (which doesn't really capture what I intend) only in the sense that God did inspire some books but did not inspire all books. Not "selected" in the sense that God chose which inspired books would be historically canonized and which inspired books would not be.

why did He not say that such canon was closed in that very canon?

In which book of the canon do you believe he should have said so, assuming for the sake of argument that the canon is closed? In the last one penned? I'm just trying to get hold of the import of your question. It seems to me sort of like asking "Why did He not say that the book of Genesis is inspired in that very book?" Or, "Why did he not say that the Book of Mormon is inspired in that very book?" Or, "Why didn't Steve Jobs say that the iPad is an Apple product in the very presentation launching the iPad?" Etc.

You still haven't explained why you believe the canon to be complete,

You're right, to a point, I think, nic. I haven't "explained" it. What I have said (essentially) is that I presuppose the comprehensiveness and authority of the Christian canon of scripture. And, indeed, I do. I believe in a very meticulous providence. Thus, I believe that God brought it about that the canon just is exactly what God intends it to be. To contain what he intends it to contain. To leave out nothing that he intends it to contain.

"Closed canon" is, to my mind, an instance of LDS-specific jargon (though certainly not uniquely LDS-specific jargon) intended to force the question between "open" and "closed," which is, of course, fine. But, what I'm fundamentally assuming is a complete canon, which, by virtue of its completeness, is, indeed closed. Note, however, that I don't argue to completeness from closedness, but rather the other way 'round. You may find that a distinction without a difference, but there it is.

and what you mean by "complete".

I mean by "complete" that it lacks no book without which it would not be complete. That (what complete means) strikes me as rather obvious. I can cite definitions of "complete" if it would help, but I trust you get my point. I intend nothing at all obscure.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Tertullian (160-230) called Enoch "Holy Scripture"

I'm not denying that he wrote it, but can you point me to the specific quotation?

I haven't yet been able to find it.

cks

[nicolasconnault]

Hi nic:

You wrote:

Well, "selected" (which doesn't really capture what I intend) only in the sense that God did inspire some books but did not inspire all books. Not "selected" in the sense that God chose which inspired books would be historically canonized and which inspired books would not be.

In which book of the canon do you believe he should have said so, assuming for the sake of argument that the canon is closed? In the last one penned? I'm just trying to get hold of the import of your question. It seems to me sort of like asking "Why did He not say that the book of Genesis is inspired in that very book?" Or, "Why did he not say that the Book of Mormon is inspired in that very book?" Or, "Why didn't Steve Jobs say that the iPad is an Apple product in the very presentation launching the iPad?" Etc.

You're right, to a point, I think, nic. I haven't "explained" it. What I have said (essentially) is that I presuppose the comprehensiveness and authority of the Christian canon of scripture. And, indeed, I do. I believe in a very meticulous providence. Thus, I believe that God brought it about that the canon just is exactly what God intends it to be. To contain what he intends it to contain. To leave out nothing that he intends it to contain.

"Closed canon" is, to my mind, an instance of LDS-specific jargon (though certainly not uniquely LDS-specific jargon) intended to force the question between "open" and "closed," which is, of course, fine. But, what I'm fundamentally assuming is a complete canon, which, by virtue of its completeness, is, indeed closed. Note, however, that I don't argue to completeness from closedness, but rather the other way 'round. You may find that a distinction without a difference, but there it is.

I mean by "complete" that it lacks no book without which it would not be complete. That (what complete means) strikes me as rather obvious. I can cite definitions of "complete" if it would help, but I trust you get my point. I intend nothing at all obscure.

Best.

cks

Thanks, cks.

Which version of the Bible did God "intend" on being authoritative today?

Which translation displays the most providential meticulousness?

Is there any way to know?

How do you know?

If God intended the Bible to be what the Bible is today, does that preclude the possibility that He could equally have intended the Book of Mormon to be what it is today, and be the author of it?

If the canon wasn't put together all at once, but gradually, isn't it possible that God could add to it whenever He feels it is required?

[Zakuska]

I'm not denying that he wrote it, but can you point me to the specific quotation?

I haven't yet been able to find it.

cks

Here it is...

De cultu feminarum Book 1 - Chapter 3

Chapter III. ----Concerning the Genuineness of "The Prophecy of Enoch."22

[1] I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch,23 which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself;24 and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown25 and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God,"26 and concerning all his preachings;27 since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

[2] If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant28 our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration,29 after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document30 of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

[3] But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.31 By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.32

http://www.tertullia...04/anf04-06.htm

[cksalmon]

Thanks, cks.

Which version of the Bible did God "intend" on being authoritative today?

Which translation displays the most providential meticulousness?

Is there any way to know?

How do you know?

If God intended the Bible to be what the Bible is today, does that preclude the possibility that He could equally have intended the Book of Mormon to be what it is today, and be the author of it?

If the canon wasn't put together all at once, but gradually, isn't it possible that God could add to it whenever He feels it is required?

Hi nic:

I think you'll agree that I've invested some time in give and take here, so before we go on with your questions, perhaps you can answer one for me: why do you agree, nic, if you do, that the LDS topical guide is correct in identifying the books it identifies as "lost scriptures?"

That was the impetus for this particular thread, after all.

Best.

cks

[Rob Bowman]

Several Mormons here have objected to my opening post by asserting that there was no such thing as the Bible, and no such thing as the canon, until well after the first century AD. They conclude that the books listed in the LDS Topical Guide were never part of the Bible or the canon and so were never rejected or excluded from or taken out of the Bible or canon. Let me give these LDS responses in their own words:

As has been pointed out plenty of times before, the "Bible" didn't even exist when Paul was writing his letters, it was compiled long afterwards. The epistle was excluded from the Bible because it was never included. (Jerubaal)

That the texts were considered authentic and valuable was all that really mattered to Hebrew Bible historiography. That they were considered canon was not something that was possible for them to decide

[Zakuska]

You forgot Rob. The book of Enoch is in the Ethiopic Canon of Scripture. The Romans church removed it.

[maklelan]

Even the Bible Dictionary: Lost Books entry, to which Dan McClellan refers me, speaks of these

[Zakuska]

Here's why I disagree. The above seems primarily to be an attempt to pit our conclusions against the traditions of the church, not against the evidence. I disagree with many things stated in the Bible Dictionary, and I disagree with many things that Daniel Ludlow has said. I'm bound by no ideology to accept either, and I can put forth a pretty strong argument for my position. If you'd like to engage my argument then let me know, but it seems to me you are trying to win this argument by trapping us under some etic boundary of orthodoxy that you think protects your thesis.

We must also not forget all the Halabaloo the Christian Appologists (of the 1st-3rd centuries) were making over verses and books that where being exised out of the scripture by the Jews, which the Christians were using to prove Jesus was the Christ.

[Uncertain]

If I were arguing the viewpoint of those who claim the Bible alone is sufficient. When it comes to lost books of scripture I would argue these lost books may very well have been viewed as scripture by early Christians. However this is entirely besides the point as long as these books don't contain important truths not already contained in the existing Bible then no worries. The Bible can still contain every truth needed to obtain a heavenly reward and yet not contain all historical books of scripture. Therefore even if there are writings that early Christians viewed as scripture that did not make it into the current Bible this does not necessarily mean the current Bible does not contain every truth needed to form a saving relationship with God. I would also point out there are certain books in the BOM that if they were lost this would not cause a loss of vital saving doctrines. Not every writing accepted as scripture contains information that is absolutely vital in returning to Gods presence.

Now personally I am more or less a religious pluralist so I view all this hullabaloo as something along the lines as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin . But I understand to those involved this is a serious business with possible eternal implications and hence I understand why these matters are taken so seriously.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[nicolasconnault]

Hi nic:

I think you'll agree that I've invested some time in give and take here, so before we go on with your questions, perhaps you can answer one for me: why do you agree, nic, if you do, that the LDS topical guide is correct in identifying the books it identifies as "lost scriptures?"

That was the impetus for this particular thread, after all.

Best.

cks

I hope you do answer my questions cks, I appreciate your insights

I don't particularly have an opinion about this "lost scriptures" issue. I tend to regard them as "lost books" or "lost writings", but since I don't have them I'm not worried about them. I try not to draw doctrinal conclusions from how the topical guide is put together, to me it's just an index. Same with the Bible Dictionary, which actually contains its fair share of inaccuracies.

[cksalmon]

Hi mak:

You wrote:

Here's why I disagree. The above seems primarily to be an attempt to pit our conclusions against the traditions of the church, not against the evidence. I disagree with many things stated in the Bible Dictionary, and I disagree with many things that Daniel Ludlow has said. I'm bound by no ideology to accept either, and I can put forth a pretty strong argument for my position.

I can't argue with that. I'm curious, though, whether you agree with the author of this entry's assessment that the list of allusions to non-biblical documents are "rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible."

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Hi nic:

You wrote:

I hope you do answer my questions cks, I appreciate your insights

Cool.

I don't particularly have an opinion about this "lost scriptures" issue. I tend to regard them as "lost books" or "lost writings", but since I don't have them I'm not worried about them. I try not to draw doctrinal conclusions from how the topical guide is put together, to me it's just an index. Same with the Bible Dictionary, which actually contains its fair share of inaccuracies.

That's fair enough: If you don't have an opinion, you don't have an opinion. What makes the question interesting to me is that the "lost scriptures" argument seems to be a pretty central tenet of LDS Restorationism, whether one assumes piecemeal tampering with the texts, loss via canonical exclusion, or a combination of both.

Let me put it to you differently (it's the question I asked mak): I'm curious whether you agree with the author of this entry's assessment that the list of allusions to non-biblical documents are "rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible."

As with mak, I'm not suggesting that you should believe this. I'm just asking if you, in fact, do. I'm wondering how one might come to a conclusion regarding the "inspiredness" of non-extant documents, as the author of the above (official but uninspired) entry apparently did.

Best.

cks