Lost books of the Bible?

[maklelan]

Hi mak:

You wrote:

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

I don't think all those books are clearly inspired, but I also think inspiration constitutes a wide spectrum of divine intervention that's not necessarily clear to those involved. I'm thus in no position to say they definitely weren't inspired.

[nicolasconnault]

Hi nic:

You wrote:

Cool.

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

To me, the expression "rather clear" is an oxymoron, and in fact it indicates some doubt. As you say we don't have the texts, nor do we know what they contain, so I don't know whether they should have been included or not.

We do, however, have snippets from the plates of brass, quoted in the Book of Mormon, with the writings of Zenos and Zenock. This is a stronger indicator to me that the Bible could have contained more scriptures, than this list of lost books cited in the Bible Dictionary.

[Kevin Christensen]

One of the things that the flood of manuscript and library discoveries has done is to cast light on the transmission of the texts that became the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, showing ever more clearly the selection and editing process. Plus the more that we learn about the context of the scriptures, the more we can see how the differences between the original contexts and later contexts affects interpretation. I find Margaret Barker's "Text and Context" wonderfully enlightening:

Once a community has defined itself by means of a canon of Scripture, there is a new beginning. All the

texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared

beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words

themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning. This, together with the

complex history of how the familiar Old Testament was formed, has important implications for any

reconstruction of Christian origins. We have to ask: Which Scriptures did the first Christians know and use,

and how did they understand what they were reading? The evidence suggests that the texts which became

the Old Testament of the Western Church were not identical to those used by the earliest Church, and that

removing even the texts we have from their cultural context in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

has hindered any attempt to reconstruct Christian origins.

She tells the story about how Jerome adopted for the church the Hebrew of the scriptures, not realizing that that the version he chose had been selected and edited in response to the rise of Christianity. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish scholars had been able to claim that the differences between the Septuagint and the MT were the result of Christian interpolation. The DSS texts suggest a different story. For that matter, Margaret shows how the state of the MT text itself, tells such a story, the opaque passages not being random, but verses important to the claims of the Christians. (See The Older Testament on this.) In "Text and Context" she continues, the emphasis being hers:

An unacknowledged problem at the heart of Western Christian biblical study is that the Church, and

especially the Western Church, has as its Scriptures the Jewish canon and text of the Old Testament, when

the evidence shows clearly that the earliest Church used very different Scriptures. Let us examine that

evidence. This is a complex field and what follows can be no more than a sketch of what is there. There are

many unexamined assumptions, and many facts which must be set alongside each other.

The whole essay is profoundly enlightening.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

LDS readers familiar with 1 Nephi 13 should get a familiar ring.

In an earlier essay, she explored the evidence of a "secret tradition" early Christianity:

If a tradition of secret teaching was known to Clement of Alexandria who flourished at the end of the

second century, and if this

[cksalmon]

I don't think all those books are clearly inspired,

I would go further and say I don't think we can think that any of them are "clearly inspired." We don't have access to them. If we are to believe that any of them were inspired, we'll just have to assume it.

but I also think inspiration constitutes a wide spectrum of divine intervention that's not necessarily clear to those involved.

I agree, which makes me think I've misread you, here.

I'm thus in no position to say they definitely weren't inspired.

But, then, who would be in a position to say that these non-extant texts were inspired?

It certainly appears to me that the author of the entry merely presupposes the "inspiredness" (or, perhaps, the probable "inspiredness") of the alluded-to texts.

My point is not to canonize the Bible Dictionary entry, but to get at the larger assumption (in defense of which the author provides us a list of "rather clear references to inspired writings"): "that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete."

That strikes me as a presupposition, not an argued position.

cks

[Zakuska]

I would go further and say I don't think we can think that any of them are "clearly inspired." We don't have access to them. If we are to believe that any of them were inspired, we'll just have to assume it.

This explanation and your whole argument would be ok if some one had not quoted from them in holy writ. The Inspired writer thought that what they quoted was inspred and true enough to be incuded in scripture. That alone should at least elevate these writtings to a higher level than your average nikel store novell.

[cksalmon]

This explanation and your whole argument would be ok if some one had not quoted from them in holy writ. The Inspired writer thought that what they quoted was inspred and true enough to be incuded in scripture. That alone should at least elevate these writtings to a higher level than your average nikel store novell.

First, what quotations are you referring to? I'll give you Jude 14. What else?

How do you get from a quotation in scripture to the inspiration of the source text?

cks

[cksalmon]

Hi nic:

You wrote:

To me, the expression "rather clear" is an oxymoron, and in fact it indicates some doubt.

Not at all an oxymoron, I don't think. I take "rather clear" to mean something like "pretty clear," or "more clear than unclear." I don't see any contradiction in the pairing.

As you say we don't have the texts, nor do we know what they contain, so I don't know whether they should have been included or not.

So, then, why (not that you're personally doing this) assume that they should have been included? Why assume that the Bible is "rather incomplete" on the basis of the lack of these books in the Christian canon? Apparently, you don't, but others obviously have. And, those others compiled the Bible Dictionary.

We do, however, have snippets from the plates of brass, quoted in the Book of Mormon, with the writings of Zenos and Zenock. This is a stronger indicator to me that the Bible could have contained more scriptures, than this list of lost books cited in the Bible Dictionary.

I see. I don't find it an odd claim, but I do find it problematic. Here's how it reads to me: rather than argue to an incomplete canon on the basis of scriptural allusions to non-biblical texts, you find the Book of Mormon's inclusion of Zenos and Zenock to be more probative with regard to the allegation of an incomplete canon. But, surely, BoM is a contested text between you and I. So, you're perhaps tentatively arguing to canonical incompleteness on the basis of a contested, and arguably, non-inspired document: BoM. For your evidence to hold water with me, I'd have to presuppose the authenticity of BoM, something I don't do.

Since neither of us contest a scriptural reference to, say, the book of Jasher, it seems that claims about that document (and its ilk) place us on some relevant common ground. On the other hand, the authenticity of BoM is certainly not a neutral "fact."

Do you believe that the best evidence for canonical incompleteness is found within the pages of BoM? How would I reliably assess that claim given that I don't believe BoM is authentic scripture?

Must I presuppose, along with you, BoM's authenticity in order to agree with you in this regard?

Best.

cks

[maklelan]

My point is not to canonize the Bible Dictionary entry, but to get at the larger assumption (in defense of which the author provides us a list of "rather clear references to inspired writings"): "that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete."

Given the numerous references to other texts that played a role in the composition of the Bible and the ideology of early Israel and Christianity, the above statement is self-evident unless there exists some reason to believe the Bible as it exists today should be considered complete. The reasons that were given by the ancients for the abatement of scripture, and therefore the closing of the canon, both in Judaism and Christianity, were tied exclusively to the belief that prophecy had stopped. Without that belief there's no reason to close the canon. The Bible is only complete insofar as it is viewed as the authoritative corpus of sacred texts only of the final generations to possess them. Earlier generations had different texts that they considered authoritative, and if their view is incorporated then the canon become incomplete. The reason that some books were excluded from the canon (many of the books listed above) is tied to the accident of preservation. If all of Paul's writings had been extant when the Bible was being compiled they doubtlessly would have been included. If the Chronicler's sources had been extant when the Jewish scriptures were being crystallized it is logical to conclude the same.

[nicolasconnault]

Not at all an oxymoron, I don't think. I take "rather clear" to mean something like "pretty clear," or "more clear than unclear." I don't see any contradiction in the pairing.

Fair enough.

So, then, why (not that you're personally doing this) assume that they should have been included? Why assume that the Bible is "rather incomplete" on the basis of the lack of these books in the Christian canon? Apparently, you don't, but others obviously have. And, those others compiled the Bible Dictionary.

The preface to the Bible Dictionary is rather telling:

This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth. Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation. The topics have been carefully selected and are treated briefly. If an elaborate discussion is desired, the student should consult a more exhaustive dictionary.

In addition to names of persons and places mentioned in the Bible, there are articles that may be regarded as introductory to the study of scripture, such as Bible, canon, revelation, and certain cultural items. A short account is given of each of the books of the Bible. An attempt has been made to deal with a few doctrinal subjects, such as atonement, baptism, Holy Spirit, priesthood, restoration, and resurrection. Chronology and various matters connected with Bible antiquities have also received attention.

Interestingly enough, I only just recently read this preface, after being confused by the assertions of the BD that there was no mortality before the fall, an assertion for which I could find no scriptural or authoritative basis, apart from opinions by Elder McConkie and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. In light of this introductory disclaimer, I am now more cautious about what I read in the Bible Dictionary.

I see. I don't find it an odd claim, but I do find it problematic. Here's how it reads to me: rather than argue to an incomplete canon on the basis of scriptural allusions to non-biblical texts, you find the Book of Mormon's inclusion of Zenos and Zenock to be more probative with regard to the allegation of an incomplete canon. But, surely, BoM is a contested text between you and I. So, you're perhaps tentatively arguing to canonical incompleteness on the basis of a contested, and arguably, non-inspired document: BoM. For your evidence to hold water with me, I'd have to presuppose the authenticity of BoM, something I don't do.

Since neither of us contest a scriptural reference to, say, the book of Jasher, it seems that claims about that document (and its ilk) place us on some relevant common ground. On the other hand, the authenticity of BoM is certainly not a neutral "fact."

Do you believe that the best evidence for canonical incompleteness is found within the pages of BoM? How would I reliably assess that claim given that I don't believe BoM is authentic scripture?

Must I presuppose, along with you, BoM's authenticity in order to agree with you in this regard?

I don't expect you to agree with me if you don't trust the Book of Mormon, but I expect you to understand why it is good evidence for me that the Bible is incomplete, since I consider the Book of Mormon to be equally as divine in origin as the Bible. Basically the two points are:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Bible is incomplete, that God has revealed his Word to many other nations than the Jews, and that there will be new revelations given to prophets as long as the earth shall stand
2. The text of the Bible itself doesn't contradict point 1.

The only conflict is with the christian tradition derived from the Bible, not with the Bible itself.

Personally I don't go around trying to convince people that the Bible is incomplete. I simply don't see any evidence that it is complete, and I don't see any reason to reject new scriptures based on the text of the Bible. My attitude is more one of acceptance than of rejection.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I think rather than expressing the idea that there was some ancient original "Bible" that included these books (a notion which conflict with the Bible Dictionary's own description of the Bible: "By the word Bible therefore we must understand not a single book, but a divine library"), these quotes reference the sum total of authoritative scripture using the term "Bible." I think the repeated qualification "as it exists today," etc., indicates it is a fluid term.

My view (which I expect you to dispute) is that each of the inspired books that are in our canon of the Bible was authoritative for the people of God as soon as it was published or released by their author(s) for distribution or placement in the hands of the religious establishment (e.g., the priestly authorities). For example, once Paul sent his epistle to the Romans on its way to Rome, it was scripture; it was an authoritative text for the Christian church. It became part of the corpus of scripture then, in the first century (compare 2 Peter 3:15-16), and did not await a decision of a fourth-century council to have that authority. Paul expected his letters to be read in the churches and circulated to other churches for reading. I understand "canon" to refer to that corpus of authoritative scriptures possessed by the people of God. So defined, the canon "grew" from the time of Moses to the time of the apostles. The Torah (Pentateuch) was authoritative and "canonical" long before rabbinical discussions formalizing a fixed, closed collection of scriptural books. Taking a fairly traditional view of the origins of the Torah, I maintain it had that authority from the time of Moses. The general tripartite shape of the OT canon is attested in Luke's report of the words of the risen Christ (Luke 24:44).

As for the LDS Bible Dictionary, I think my explanation of its meaning holds up, and that explanation is corroborated by other LDS writers. You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but your arguments don't seem cogent as objections to my understanding of what it says. The Bible is indeed a divine library, not a single book; but it is a library that grew. The conventional LDS position seems to be that this growing library also contracted at times when apostates removed from the "library" books that belonged to it. (Boy, the overdue fines by now must be enormous!)

I had stated that the various quotations I provided from LDS sources demonstrate that my opening post was not knocking down a straw-man of my own invention. You replied:

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.

A strange response, Dan. My point was simple: If a lot of Mormons think that those "lost books" were once part of the people of God's "divine library" but then were taken out, I am not knocking down a straw-man by responding to these Mormons' belief. Telling me that you aren't bound to agree with those Mormons is not an answer to my refutation of those Mormons' belief; it is, implicitly, an indication that you agree with me! As for your argument, I am happy to respond to it, as best I can, but that is a different matter.

Stranger still, whereas you now claim to be presenting your own independent thinking on the subject and not being bound to the traditional LDS view, in your first response to me in this thread you claimed to be correcting me as to what the traditional LDS view is. Thus, in that earlier post, you had written:

First, once you recognize the actual LDS position (shown in the BD quote), your inference becomes false.

Now, though, you feel obliged to tell me that you feel free to disagree with "many things stated in the Bible Dictionary" -- the very source that you had earlier cited as expressing "the actual LDS position."

Hmmm.

[Zakuska]

First, what quotations are you referring to? I'll give you Jude 14. What else?

How do you get from a quotation in scripture to the inspiration of the source text?

cks

The lines that are quoted, the inspired writter felt it inspired enough to include. Certianly God breathing down the throught of the inspired writter wouldn't let him do it if the lines he were quotting were not inspired. I'm not talking about the entire book. But just the lines that were quoted.

Im not even saying to raise the books to "Scriptural" status, but we should at least reverence them enough to be in the Apocrypha as source material to consider.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

My view (which I expect you to dispute) is that each of the inspired books that are in our canon of the Bible was authoritative for the people of God as soon as it was published or released by their author(s) for distribution or placement in the hands of the religious establishment (e.g., the priestly authorities). For example, once Paul sent his epistle to the Romans on its way to Rome, it was scripture; it was an authoritative text for the Christian church. It became part of the corpus of scripture then, in the first century (compare 2 Peter 3:15-16), and did not await a decision of a fourth-century council to have that authority. Paul expected his letters to be read in the churches and circulated to other churches for reading. I understand "canon" to refer to that corpus of authoritative scriptures possessed by the people of God. So defined, the canon "grew" from the time of Moses to the time of the apostles. The Torah (Pentateuch) was authoritative and "canonical" long before rabbinical discussions formalizing a fixed, closed collection of scriptural books. Taking a fairly traditional view of the origins of the Torah, I maintain it had that authority from the time of Moses. The general tripartite shape of the OT canon is attested in Luke's report of the words of the risen Christ (Luke 24:44).

I understand your view, and I do dispute it, primarily on the grounds that there's really no indication anywhere that such was the case, and that there's plenty of evidence that it was not the case (and a general tripartite division of scripture is a long, long way from an authoritative canon). For instance, the standardization of the texts of the Hebrew Bible doesn't take place until an idea of canon begins to show up in the texts. The further back in time we go with the manuscripts, the more variety we find within them and in their organization, showing little control over their content and number. The Septuagint was translated at a time period when the "canon" included a number of texts later rejected, and included significant expansions and reductions of several books. All of the LXX texts differ in many ways from their MT counterparts, as well, and modern textual criticism indicates the translations maintained a close fidelity to their Vorlagen. The Dead Sea Scrolls show closer relationships to the Septuagint than to MT in many texts. The Samaritans split off from the Judean Jews around the same time period, and their canon came to include only the Pentateuch. There was even debate between the first century BCE and second century CE over the validity of certain books, like Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Nowhere does an ideology of canonicity appear prior to the Common Era, and even then it took a few centuries to develop into the ideal it is today.

As for the LDS Bible Dictionary, I think my explanation of its meaning holds up, and that explanation is corroborated by other LDS writers. You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, but your arguments don't seem cogent as objections to my understanding of what it says. The Bible is indeed a divine library, not a single book; but it is a library that grew. The conventional LDS position seems to be that this growing library also contracted at times when apostates removed from the "library" books that belonged to it. (Boy, the overdue fines by now must be enormous!)

The differences between the Septuagint and the MT shows that the library did contract. We have little evidence prior to that, except of course the fact that the Chronicler had several sources for Israelite history before him that we no longer have. The New Testament witness says the same. Jude makes reference to I Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as authoritative in a theological sense, and Paul clearly references epistles as authoritative that are no longer extant. Books like Barnabas and 1 Hermas are also known to have been widely considered authoritative for the first few centuries CE. Obviously the library has ebbed and flowed.

I had stated that the various quotations I provided from LDS sources demonstrate that my opening post was not knocking down a straw-man of my own invention. You replied:

A strange response, Dan. My point was simple: If a lot of Mormons think that those "lost books" were once part of the people of God's "divine library" but then were taken out, I am not knocking down a straw-man by responding to these Mormons' belief.

But you're not just responding to these beliefs. You're claiming that my argument is somehow invalid because you think I'm beholden to those beliefs.

Telling me that you aren't bound to agree with those Mormons is not an answer to my refutation of those Mormons' belief; it is, implicitly, an indication that you agree with me!

Here's what you said:

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.

You then proceed to present LDS statements to the effect that a "Bible" (defined explicitly as a sacred collection of books) has always existed. You equivocate by identifying this use of "Bible" with the use being made by the LDS posters on this board, namely, the modern Christian collection of 66 books divided into Old and New Testaments. I think you recognize that the assertion that there was no Bible or canon prior to the Common Era is not a claim that no scriptures were ever collected prior to that time period. You're either trying to tie me down to those LDS quotes you cited, or you're equivocating.

As for your argument, I am happy to respond to it, as best I can, but that is a different matter.

Stranger still, whereas you now claim to be presenting your own independent thinking on the subject and not being bound to the traditional LDS view, in your first response to me in this thread you claimed to be correcting me as to what the traditional LDS view is. Thus, in that earlier post, you had written:

Now, though, you feel obliged to tell me that you feel free to disagree with "many things stated in the Bible Dictionary" -- the very source that you had earlier cited as expressing "the actual LDS position."

Taking issue with "many things stated in the Bible Dictionary" does not equal taking issue with everything in the Bible Dictionary. I believe those texts were once considered on equal footing with the books now considered canonical. That's consonant with the BD text I quoted.

Hmmm.

I think you're twisting our words a little too much.

[Zakuska]

mak,

Obviously the library has ebbed and flowed.

Can you imagine the size of the late fees for the books that never got checked back into the library!

[cksalmon]

The lines that are quoted, the inspired writter felt it inspired enough to include. Certianly God breathing down the throught of the inspired writter wouldn't let him do it if the lines he were quotting were not inspired. I'm not talking about the entire book. But just the lines that were quoted.

Im not even saying to raise the books to "Scriptural" status, but we should at least reverence them enough to be in the Apocrypha as source material to consider.

Right, I'm asking what lines are quoted. Other than in Jude. That was my question, Zak.

cks

[maklelan]

mak,

Can you imagine the size of the late fees for the books that never got checked back into the library!

I checked a book called Good Old Boy out of the Montgomery County Public Library when I was in fifth grade (1990) and I still have the book. I've seen the Seinfeld episode. I'll not be going back to that library any time soon.

[volgadon]

I checked a book called Good Old Boy out of the Montgomery County Public Library when I was in fifth grade (1990) and I still have the book. I've seen the Seinfeld episode. I'll not be going back to that library any time soon.

That episode is scary.

[volgadon]

Ezekiel was another of those contested books. Many did not consider it authoritative, just the opposite, that it contradicted other writings....

[nicolasconnault]

Now, though, you feel obliged to tell me that you feel free to disagree with "many things stated in the Bible Dictionary" -- the very source that you had earlier cited as expressing "the actual LDS position."

The BD has never represented "the actual LDS position", its preface makes that very clear. There is no "universal consensus" in christendom as to what should be part of the "canon". See:

Judaism 24 books

Samaritanism 5 books

Roman Catholicism 73 books

Protestantism 66 books

Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches 79 books

Eastern, Ethiopian and Syriac Orthodox Churches 81 books

[Rob Bowman]

Nicolas,

You wrote:

The BD has never represented "the actual LDS position", its preface makes that very clear.

Please inform Dan McClellan.

You wrote:

There is no "universal consensus" in christendom as to what should be part of the "canon".

I didn't say there was.

You wrote:

See:

Judaism 24 books

Samaritanism 5 books

Roman Catholicism 73 books

Protestantism 66 books

Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches 79 books

Eastern, Ethiopian and Syriac Orthodox Churches 81 books

Religion 101 alert: Judaism and Samaritanism are not part of "Christendom."

Protestants accept the same canon of Jewish scripture as in Judaism. Of course, Protestants also affirm the New Testament to be Scripture. Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all have the same 27 books in the New Testament.

If you think any of these religions have books in their canon that should be accepted as Scripture, please let me know. While you're at it, shoot off an email to the brethren in Salt Lake City.

[nicolasconnault]

Religion 101 alert: Judaism and Samaritanism are not part of "Christendom."

Protestants accept the same canon of Jewish scripture as in Judaism. Of course, Protestants also affirm the New Testament to be Scripture. Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all have the same 27 books in the New Testament.

If you think any of these religions have books in their canon that should be accepted as Scripture, please let me know. While you're at it, shoot off an email to the brethren in Salt Lake City.

I don't appreciate your condescending tone, it is not conducive to an intelligent conversation.

I obviously know that Judaism and Samaritanism are not part of christendom, I only included them to see if, in excluding them from the argument (which you rightly do), you would also exclude the orthodox churches (which you wrongly do).

[John T]

I understand your view, and I do dispute it, primarily on the grounds that there's really no indication anywhere that such was the case, and that there's plenty of evidence that it was not the case (and a general tripartite division of scripture is a long, long way from an authoritative canon). For instance, the standardization of the texts of the Hebrew Bible doesn't take place until an idea of canon begins to show up in the texts.

Taking issue with "many things stated in the Bible Dictionary" does not equal taking issue with everything in the Bible Dictionary. I believe those texts were once considered on equal footing with the books now considered canonical. That's consonant with the BD text I quoted.

I think you're twisting our words a little too much.

Dan, I think that it is you who does not understand the evolution of the Hebrew canon. This is from another site, and I cite it because the piece references the Bible itself as the primary source : http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

The formation of the Old Testament canon was gradual, and was composed of the writings which spread over many centuries.

Moses commanded that the books of the law be placed in the ark. This--with the addition of the book of Joshua--was done, and the sacred books were kept there during the wilderness journey, and also were in the ark during its permanent residence in Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 31:9,26, cf. 2 Kings 22:8; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25.)

Then were gathered and placed in the temple the historical and prophetical books from Joshua to David's time. On the construction of the temple Solomon deposited in it the earlier books (2 Kings 22:8, Isaiah 34:16), and enriched the collection with inspired writings from his own pen, and also some prophetic writings. So we find Daniel (9:2, R.V.) referring to "the books," Isaiah to "the book of the Lord" (29:18, 34:16).

After Solomon's day a succession of prophets arose, Jonah, Amos, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, and Habakkuk. These all flourished before the destruction of the temple, and enlarged the collection of existing sacred books by valuable additions.

After the Babylonian capture, when the temple was rebuilt and worship re-established, then doubtless were added the writings of Haggai and Zechariah.

About fifty years after the temple was rebuilt Ezra made a collection of the sacred writings (Neh. 8:2,3,14). To this collection were added the writings of Nehemiah, Malachi, and Ezra. It is a fact of history that Nehemiah gathered the "Acts of the Kings and the Prophets, and those of David," when founding a library for the second temple, 432 B.C. (See 2 Maccabees 2:13).

I am not calling this apocryphal book Scripture, OK?

Nevertheless, it is a fascinating history

.

The canon of the Old Testament in the form we now have it, was the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue. This fact is borne witness to in the most ancient Jewish writings. The Great Synagogue was composed of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. There is no doubt but that such a collection of books existed in the time of our Lord and the apostles (Luke 24:27,44).

The differences between the Septuagint and the MT shows that the library did contract...

I never heard that before. Please CFR

[volgadon]

The canon of the Old Testament in the form we now have it, was the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue. This fact is borne witness to in the most ancient Jewish writings. The Great Synagogue was composed of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. There is no doubt but that such a collection of books existed in the time of our Lord and the apostles (Luke 24:27,44).

Actually, the work of the Great Synanogue (if such a body indeed existed) appears to have been in collecting and preserving the best examples of the texts, much like was being done for Homerian works. They also acted rather later than Ezra.

[maklelan]

Nicolas,

You wrote:

Please inform Dan McClellan.

I already commented on that, Rob. You may respond directly to my comments if you wish to engage this topic.

[Thorkyll]

Religion 101 alert: Judaism and Samaritanism are not part of "Christendom."

If you think any of these religions have books in their canon that should be accepted as Scripture, please let me know. While you're at it, shoot off an email to the brethren in Salt Lake City.

How about the Mishnah?

[zerinus]

Mormons frequently cite a list of references in the Bible (taken from their Topical Guide) to books that are not part of the canon of the Bible as we know it to establish that the Bible is now incomplete. In order for these books to support the LDS position, there must be some evidence that the books were once considered part of the canon of Scripture. Below I will survey these references, placing them into six categories, and then offer concluding comments on this line of argument. Biblical quotations are from the KJV.

<snip>

There are two ways of answering your objections: Firstly Mormon belief in missing scripture is derived from modern revelation, not from an analysis of the Bible. It is the Book of Mormon (and other modern scripture) that confirms that there were missing scripture. Now if you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, you have that choice. A lot of people don't believe in the Bible. You apparently do. I am glad that you do. We also believe in the Book of Mormon. Our faith is defined by our canonized scriptures, just like yours is. Secondly, contrary to your arguments, internal evidence in the Bible for missing scripture is very strong. Your arguments are extremely weak. I wrote an article in my Blog three years ago to address the same points that you are raising which you can read here. I think it convincingly exposes the weakness of your arguments.