Is It Possible To Have New Scripture?

[Flyonthewall]

Recently I read a news story on the Gospel of Barnabas found in Iran is supposed cause the collapse of Christianity.

http://www.rt.com/news/iran-christianity-gospel-islam-messiah-215/

Of course it is panned as a fake by Christians, but it got me to thinking...

What would it take to authenticate new scripture?

The BoM is touted as new scripture by the LDS church, and unlike the supposed Gospel of Barnabas, it confirms the validity of Christianity, but is panned as fake by the rest of the Christian world.

If there was a book attributed to Peter, that contained a "gospel", writings similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, not just a letter, would it be welcomed as another book of scripture? or would it be looked at as somewhat of a novelty but not authoritative?

If it was verified as being authored by Peter, or any of the other unpublished Apostles but contained writings that shed new light on a particular topic, such as the apostacy, or, I don't know, anything that doesn't agree with the current standard, would it be picked apart and dismissed too?

As I understand things, if any new writings contain anything that disagrees with a current interpretation held by mainstream Christianity, it will automatically be disavowed as being authorative as everything MUST be in agreement with the the current interpretation of scripture.

[Lightbearer]

The Christian world is at a disadvantage because they have "sealed the heavens" and deny the possibility of further scripture as the Book of Mormon testifies:

"Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written." (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 29:6 - 11)

Thus the Lord can reveal scripture any time He chooses, as for the means He will use I suspect it would be much as He did with the Book of Mormon, through a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. So while this so-called Gospel of Barnabas may threaten mainstream christianity, our determination on what is scripture is not up to uninspired scholars or archealogical evidence. It does not have to be a "fake" to be false. It may well have been written 2000 years ago, it does not mean it is true just because it is of ancient origin. That is why the Book of Mormon is to be recieved through prayer and faith instead of "scientific proof" it must be revealed from God to be of God. That is why the angel Moroni revealed the record rather than just having Joseph stumble on them while money-digging. That is also why Joseph used the Urim and Thumin (seer stones) to translate through the gift of the spirit (translation) rather than have Professor Anthon use his learning to try to decipher their meaning. The mainstream christian world rejects the Book of Mormon because it dares challenge their authority and creeds and traditions. It turns the world upside down because it proclaims a God who is not mute, but who can speak not just to prophets and apostles but to any seeker of truth and can reveal the truth of all things.

[Flyonthewall]

I was thinking about the lost 10 tribes also, and the scriptures they would bring with them...will we accept them with open arms or will we eye them with a bit of suspicion?

Of course recognizing the 10 tribes would make it easier to accept.

Will there be points of contradiction? or will they harmonize with our current scriptures seamlessly?

[Stargazer]

From a completely objective point of view, the authorship of all ancient scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is questionable.

Did Moses write the Pentateuch personally? Or if not personally, did he at least dictate it to a scribe? Or was it like the Koran, which was uttered by an illiterate Mohammed to others equally illiterate, who memorized it, and only much later committed to writing? I assume that if the story of Moses is true in every respect, he was an educated man and very literate, so he could have written it. But even if he did, do we have the original manuscript of the Pentateuch? Of course not; no such document has surfaced.

The same is true of every manuscript of every book of the Bible. There are no originals. The texts in our possession have no provenance. We have no certain knowledge that the Gospel of Mark was penned by Mark. We don't really know if the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him, nor do we really and truly know if Paul wrote those letters.

At least from a historian's point of view.

The nice thing about the Restoration is simply this: because God did not gainsay the Bible to Joseph Smith in the form we have it, we can assume that it is largely in a form that we can rely upon for doctrine, and therefore it must not matter to God whether Moses and Matthew themselves wrote that which is attributed to them -- it is the content that matters -- and maybe they did write it.

As to any possible future scripture arriving at this late date via archaeological research and digging, the provenance issue is still in place. Just because a writing is ancient does not mean it is true. Age alone confers no proof of fact or truth.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Stargazer

[Duncan]

there is a Gospel of Peter and depending on who you talk to it is either an early or late authorship and may contain an eyewitness account of the crucifixion

[cinepro]

If only we had a Prophet in our day who could authenticate such things. If Joseph Smith could look at Egyptian Papyri and identify it as the writings of Abraham, would it be too much to ask for President Monson to authenticate these writings claiming to be scripture?

[blackstrap]

I don't foresee any new scriptures arriving like the BoM did.We got the Dead Sea Scrolls by fortuitous accident.Those scriptures are ones whose content we were already somewhat familiar with. Can you imagine the hubbub if the Church were to purchase a set of jars from the Russian stepps and found a set of manuscrips inside which when translated were declared to be scripture from the Book of Gad . In today's world,it is probably best if such things are delivered from the secular to the religious rather than the other way around.

[Duncan]

I don't foresee any new scriptures arriving like the BoM did.We got the Dead Sea Scrolls by fortuitous accident.Those scriptures are ones whose content we were already somewhat familiar with. Can you imagine the hubbub if the Church were to purchase a set of jars from the Russian stepps and found a set of manuscrips inside which when translated were declared to be scripture from the Book of Gad . In today's world,it is probably best if such things are delivered from the secular to the religious rather than the other way around.

I imagine that the way the Church would get new scripture is exactley what happened with sections 137 and 138-canonizing already published documents

[Storm Rider]

I don't think the Lord is too concerned about how people feel about his teachings, his word, and his way of doing things. It would not matter if "mainstream" Christianity accepted a new book of scripture or not. His ways are not our ways...there will be new books of scripture brought to the people of God in these last days. We should expect it and be prepared to recognize truth when we read it.

What is of vital importance is how we each live our lives; is it in accordance with the Will of our Father? Are we loving our God with all our heart, mind, and strength? Are we loving our neighbor as ourselves? Are we learning to recognize the Spirit of God when he speaks to us and are we prepared to follow him? Let us be concerned about these things and then when we find truth we will claim it as our own.

[HairBear]

For those interested, I've found a good lecture by Dr Peter Williams, where he talks about the canonized Gospels and a few of those that are not, and does some textual comparison as to what constitutes validity.

I’m not endorsing anything he says in the video; just that I think it is an interesting perspective on what is considered scripture and what is not from a scholarly view point.

[Garden Girl]

Lightbearer's post contained a quote from 2 Nephi 29:8-11. But the next two verses are the heart of the matter... v. 12 and 13...

Verse 13: "And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews."

I don't believe this has been completed as yet, so we should expect to have new scripture at some point...

GG

[zerinus]

If only we had a Prophet in our day who could authenticate such things. If Joseph Smith could look at Egyptian Papyri and identify it as the writings of Abraham, would it be too much to ask for President Monson to authenticate these writings claiming to be scripture?

There is no need when that information has already been given:

D&C 91:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen

.

[rameumptom]

I think that with such books, the Lord has already allowed an opening. When Joseph Smith asked about the Apocrypha, the Lord noted that it is inspired, but with lots of interpolations of men. So, if one were to study it with the Spirit, then they could gain much good out of it.

So it is with the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, etc. BTW, there were claims back in the 1990s that some of the DSS teachings would destroy Christianity, as well. I haven't really noticed a difference, though.

[Buzzard]

If only we had a Prophet in our day who could authenticate such things. If Joseph Smith could look at Egyptian Papyri and identify it as the writings of Abraham, would it be too much to ask for President Monson to authenticate these writings claiming to be scripture?

Joseph Smith kind of did this, both in the 91st section, where he talks about the Apocrypha, and also where in the notes to his translation where he declares the Song of Solomon not to be inspired. One could infer by that that he considered the rest of the books in the Bible to be inspired.

[Freedom]

It would be impossible to determine if a new found text is of divine origin without the ratification by the leadership of the church. We have no idea what Paul's handwriting looked like. More records will come forth, and they will be presented to the membership by the first presidency.

[altersteve]

If this happens, would it be added to the Pearl of Great Price or published separately?

[Freedom]

If this happens, would it be added to the Pearl of Great Price or published separately?

We would have to wait and see but I suspect that when the Book of Zebulun comes out it would be a stand alone publication. I also suspect that this will not occur until the millenium, at which time we would see many fundamental changes to our canon.

[Flyonthewall]

It would be interesting if a book of Zenos or Zenock was found in some remote cave...

[volgadon]

I don't think this has been mentioned here before, but a stash of Jewish records and texts has been found in a cave by the ruins of a town along Silk Road. It is probably the most significant textual find for Jewish studies since the Cairo Genizah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not too many finds have been publicised yet though.

[blackstrap]

Did it not take decades before the DDS were pried loose from the fingers of the "guardians" and given to the world at large to study? Let us hope that those records found along the Silk Road will come forth more quickly.

[volgadon]

Did it not take decades before the DDS were pried loose from the fingers of the "guardians" and given to the world at large to study? Let us hope that those records found along the Silk Road will come forth more quickly.

There were some texts of the DSS that were released very early on, bu a good outcome is that since the very negative public outcry, few would be willing to restrict access to new finds as much as was done in the past.

[Anti-NOMunistJackMormon]

I don't know that it would necessarily be cannonized as new scripture but i would see no reason why the church would not study it nor prohibit one to do so on a scholarly or personal level. I actually have a Bible that includes some of the Apocryphalific books of books of the bible. Though I have not cracked it in a couple years.

[The Nehor]

I imagine that as soon as we start living the principles of the scriptures we have we get more. I've seen people who do get their own scriptures via revelation. When the general Church membership starts getting it right I imagine we will get some canonized stuff. I'm not holding my breath at the moment.

[Bikeemikey]

I think that with such books, the Lord has already allowed an opening. When Joseph Smith asked about the Apocrypha, the Lord noted that it is inspired, but with lots of interpolations of men. So, if one were to study it with the Spirit, then they could gain much good out of it.

So it is with the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, etc. BTW, there were claims back in the 1990s that some of the DSS teachings would destroy Christianity, as well. I haven't really noticed a difference, though.

That makes those scriptures about as good as the Bible then right?

There is way more scripture (documents declared to be written by historic figures that we would consider to be prophets, apostles etc) outside our LDS standard works than we have in our current standard works. Is it officially sanctioned canonized scripture? Nope. Is some of it written by some of the same people that wrote stuff in our Standard works, probably. Is some of it more accurate than what we have in our standard works, probably.

Is it ever going to be heavily read my lds membership, unlikely.

In my opinion we should have got rid of the Old Testament back when JS was still the prophet. That book is whacked.

[Aliwe]

I don't know that it would necessarily be cannonized as new scripture but i would see no reason why the church would not study it nor prohibit one to do so on a scholarly or personal level. I actually have a Bible that includes some of the Apocryphalific books of books of the bible. Though I have not cracked it in a couple years.

Those books were not actually "new" scripture. There are two versions of the Old Testament. From historical records, and also by analyzing the text of Matthew 1:23, Matthew 3:3, Acts 2:19-29, and Hebrews 3:7-9 we know that First Century Christians, and indeed Christ Himself, used the 46 books of the Greek version from Alexandria called the Septuagint, or "Seventy" (so called because it was said to have been translated by 70 scribes in 70 days). In 90 AD the Jewish council of Jamnia, in order to distance classic Judaism from the upstart Christian sect, selected the 39 original books of the Masoretic text, written in Hebrew, as the "official" Bible of Judaism. The Church went happily along for centuries, with the East relying on the Septuagint, and the West relying on a Latin translation of the Septuagint called the Vulgate, until 1054 when the two halves of the Church broke ties with each other. In the West, after the Protestant Reformation began in 1517, some question arose as to which books should be canonical. The Council of Trent laid the issue to rest (for Roman Catholics) in 1546 by listing all 46 books of the Septuagint plus the 27 books of the New Testament. Even the original 1611 Authorized Version, called the "King James Bible", had all 73 books. Then in 1644, Parliament outlawed seven books from being read in the Church of England during the Liturgy of the World. The seven books were termed "apocrypha" and moved out of the Old Testament into a special section before the New Testament, and finally by the 1800s dropped altogether. Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Septuagint, and Catholics continue to use the Vulgate.