New Testament Canon - Incomplete/missing Books? Corrupted?

[carbon dioxide]

The point still stands. A canon, not just random letters, was in circulation by the mid second century. St. Athanasius and St. Irenaeus make this clear.

If Mormons have such a hard time with the full canon, why not just drop the Bible and rely on revelation. This naive trust issue is tiresome and redundant.

 

 

Justin Martyr had his own canon.  Clement of Alexandria had his canon.  Origen had his canon.  Eusebius of Caesares had his canon.   There just was no standardized canon that everyone used.   I don't have a problem with the canons used.  My only objection is there are some out there that say that one must follow a standardized canon today to be a Christian.  If it was not true in the 2nd century, its not true in the 21st century.

Edited April 15, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Damien the Leper]

The groups I mentioned as heretical were those so deemed by the church that compiled the Bible, which includes the Early Church Fathers who compiled the first lists of canonical books (between which there was less variation than you seem to realize) and those who met in council in the 4th century to make it official.  That same church exists today, though sadly the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) halves are not currently in communion.  Those who belong to that ancient tradition deem the groups I mentioned to have heretical beliefs.  Those who belong to these other groups and reject the binding nature of the ancient church's conciliar decisions naturally don't view themselves as heretical and unsurprisingly consider that other books, such as the Gnostic letters and so-called gospels, ought to be canonical.  Which is not to say that the Catholic-Orthodox tradition uses only the canonical books.  Far from it.  The canon refers only to those books deemed suitable for use in the liturgy (for prayers or for reading out loud). Different churches in the first couple of centuries had slightly different lists of liturgically-suitable books, but the variation was sorted out and things were standardized once the bishops could safely meet in council without being arrested and executed (the same idea behind the LDS Church's Correlation Committee and its attendant processes was in operation during the councils that met to determine the official canon). Speaking as someone who belongs to that tradition, the heretical gnostic texts are off limits for anything other than academic study, but the other non-canonical books 1st and 2nd Century books that were produced by people within the Catholic-Orthodox tradition (e.g., the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas; the letters of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement) are fair game and considered useful for spiritual reading.

East and West are in partial communion. Unfortunately, the decree of papal infallibility is one of the primary issues for partial communion.

[Damien the Leper]

Justin Martyr had his own canon.  Clement of Alexandria had his canon.  Origen had his canon.  Eusebius of Caesares had his canon.   There just was no standardized canon that everyone used.   I don't have a problem with the canons used.  My only objection is there are some out there that say that one must follow a standardized canon today to be a Christian.  If it was not true in the 2nd century, its not true in the 21st century.

Then don't follow the canon. Make up your own and stop complaining about the canon.

[carbon dioxide]

Then don't follow the canon. Make up your own and stop complaining about the canon.

I have not complained about any canon.  People should use whatever canon they want since the scriptures did not establish a canon. 

[saemo]

The Councils address issues, problems, questions. They don't meet, ever, to discuss things that are OK.

 

The Early Church was not a religion of a Book, but of a Person, Jesus Christ. What the Apostles taught about this Person, was handed on, both in what they taught orally and what they wrote. It was believed by the first converts, that Jesus' return was imminent, and would occur in their own lifetimes. As time went by, and people died, particularly the Apostles, it became a matter of importance to record the Apostolic teachings. The result is the Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There were also letters circulating among the churches, that were held in the same esteem as the Gospels, and used to teach the Apostolic faith.

 

Paul's teachings are of importance, in relationship to the Gospels, because he teaches what it means to be a Christian, after the Resurrection. His letters consist of teaching the faith to the people he had converted, and training Timothy, who Paul had selected as the person he would pass on the Apostolic teachings.

 

Already mentioned are Polycarp, who was taught by the Apostle John, and who mentions in his writings the Gospels and Letters that were in use during his time.

 

Anyway, at the Synod of Hippo in 393, the first approval of a Biblical cannon occurred. 130 years prior, Montanus and two women who claimed to be prophetesses, had created new "scripture". There built a following of the Montanism heresy over time. The Synod at Hippo addressed the issue of new "scripture", and made the first declared approval of a set content of books. What you see in the Roman Catholic Bible today, in the table of contents, is that set content. This approval was not made prior to this time, because there was no need to. The churches were using the same Gospels, Letters, and other writings (Acts, Apocalypse, etc) that they had been using for a couple of centuries (at least). Along with what had been handed on orally, and held within the Church itself. With the Montanus heresy, the Biblical canon had to be addressed and an authorized canon declared. 

 

History then moves along for another 1100 years with no changes to the canon until the Protestant Reformation, when books that were approved at the Synod of Hippo, were removed by the Reformers. The table of contents you see today, in a King James Bible, is the content from the Reformers.

Edited April 15, 2015 by saemo

[Damien the Leper]

Well stated, Saemo.

[Freedom]

No, they only claimed to be writing about historical events and providing guidance and correction to churches and individuals. Their designation as scripture came later. The point is that the early Christians thought the books important enough to preserve. Are you suggesting they aren't scripture after all? 

 

[Edited to add]  Regardind an earlier point you made about no written texts when the early church was organized, you're mistaken.  The early church had written copies of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament).  The NT authors quote from it in their writings when they quote the OT.  The Septuagint was the Bible of the church when it was organized (though it wasn't called the Bible).  The NT books were canonized and added later.  

My point is that they did not have any 'new covenant' scripture. Just because a book is important enough to preserve does not make it scripture. I am suggesting that, based on the bible alone, there is no evidence that any of the books of the new testament were intended to be scripture. If a written canon was so important, why did they not record Jesus's discourses as soon as they were given and get them distributed? There was no need because the notion of canon was not part of their religious tradition. Consequently, we should not assume that any of the apostles intended for any of their writings to become scripture. 

[Freedom]

Well, sure, but we have to base our faith on something. We won't get very far if we wait around until the lost books are found before we make a faith commitment.  Makes sense to ground it on what we concretely have.  Although we'll disagree on what concrete pieces of evidence actually count as valid evidence, I'm sure you'll agree with the principle.

You have no argument with me. I am taking issue with the evangelical Christians who frequent this board and are of the opinion that their interpretation of the evidence is proven fact when their  position is as precarious as every other point of view. 

[Freedom]

Freedom, Bart Ehrman would eat you alive with your lack of education on this subject. Your ignorance of church history is astounding.

My knowledge is quite solid. I have yet to have anybody eat me alive on this subject. 

[carbon dioxide]

My point is that they did not have any 'new covenant' scripture. Just because a book is important enough to preserve does not make it scripture. I am suggesting that, based on the bible alone, there is no evidence that any of the books of the new testament were intended to be scripture. If a written canon was so important, why did they not record Jesus's discourses as soon as they were given and get them distributed? There was no need because the notion of canon was not part of their religious tradition. Consequently, we should not assume that any of the apostles intended for any of their writings to become scripture. 

Perhaps if Paul knew how many outsiders would read his letters he would have been a little more careful in how he worded things so that people unrelated to the people he was addressing would understand 1000 years after the fact. 

[Robert F. Smith]

No, they only claimed to be writing about historical events and providing guidance and correction to churches and individuals. Their designation as scripture came later. The point is that the early Christians thought the books important enough to preserve. Are you suggesting they aren't scripture after all?

You are correct here to some extent.

Some letters and books were indeed preserved because they were considered valuable by early Christians.  They only came to be considered Holy Scripture at a much later time.  Most likely did not survive.

 

[Edited to add]  Regardind an earlier point you made about no written texts when the early church was organized, you're mistaken.  The early church had written copies of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament).  The NT authors quote from it in their writings when they quote the OT.  The Septuagint was the Bible of the church when it was organized (though it wasn't called the Bible).  The NT books were canonized and added later.

Just to clarify. The early Christians were Jews and they recognized the same Bible used by other Jews, which included the Hebrew Bible, along with various Jewish translations -- the Aramaic targums (which Jesus sometimes quotes) and the Greek LXX (Septuagint, which was the version normally quoted by Paul, the Gospel writers, and by others) -- which was especially popular in the Gentile Church, and which included the books of the Apocrypha which Protestants now ignore.  The winnowing process leading to the much later New Testament Canon took centuries to complete, and some books were excluded in that process, notably the Book of Enoch (which is still part of the Ethiopian Christian and Jewish Canon).

Edited April 16, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Books missing from the Protestant Bible

SEE http://www.answers.com/Q/Which_books_are_missing_from_the_Protestant_Bible

 

Books missing from the Bible.

SEE Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7);

Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14);

Book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13);

Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25);

Book of Enoch (Jude 14);

Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);

Book of Nathan the Prophet, and that of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29);

Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr. 9:29);

Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);

Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22);

Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);

the Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chr. 26:22);

Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19);

a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);

a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);

missing epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16);

a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3).

In fact, the Book of Enoch is quoted in the Bible over 30 times

Something similar is contained in the LDS Bible Dictionary at "Lost books":

 

Lost books. The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today.  Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).  To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

   The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................

 The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

...............................................................   

Your source here is in error, Canadaigua.

If Paul is the author of II Timothy, then he cannot be writing later than 63/64 A.D. (the latest date for his execution in Rome)  And he is writing about only one form of Scripture, the Jewish Bible.  There was at that time not even the nub of a concept of the NT Canon.

 

Indeed, the epistles of Paul are the earliest documents included in the NT at a much later date.  All other documents in the later NT are written after his epistles.  Some people have even published a chronological NT, which places Paul first.  This is because the Gospels we now have are the product of a long process of redaction/editing to accord with the later Gentile Church understanding of Jesus, and placing him in the context of their worship and theology.  In fact, the Gospel of Mark is viewed by some as created for public performance (pageant).  The transmission of such documents by hand copying went on for over a thousand years, with all the problems which that entailed.

[Vance]

Vance made a statement in another thread stating

 

"Just as "sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible and therefore due to "sola scriptura" must be rejected."

 

 

"Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

(reference "Got Questions" website)

 

 

This brings up several possibilities from an LDS point of view which I have listed below (obviously the points are not an inclusive list of every possibility)

 

1.  The Bible was complete, authoritative and taught all of the doctrine for salvation/exaltation at one point in time but was subsequently corrupted thus making it incomplete as we have it today.

 

2.  The Bible is incomplete and the early Christians did not have all of the doctrine necessary for salvation/exaltation.

 

3.  Other books were written that were not included in the current NT canon.  If so what books should be included in the current NT canon that are currently not present?

Nah, it is more like this.

 

6 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?

 7 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?

 8 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.

 9 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.

 10 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.

 11 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.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Vance

[Robert F. Smith]

Depends on what Luke meant by the Greek word translated as "many".  Different people will interpret that differently.  Until/if another gospel is found, it's all pointless speculation.  All we have is what we have and our respective traditions that help us make sense of what we have.  My own tradition just happens to be the one that met in council to put the Bible together in the first place.  The church's liturgical framework preceded and determined the nature of that action by several centuries and it's within that framework that we interpret the Bible. Those not of my tradition naturally follow some other principle.  But I think we can all agree, based on the evidence, that the canonicity of the NT books was generally accepted early on (by mid- to late-2nd century, for sure; the lists provided by Irenaeus and Tertullian come to mind), if not formally ratified in council until much later.

It is only at the end of the 2nd century A.D. that the Gospels and other apostolic writings begin to be referred to as the "New Covenant"/"New Testament," but this was only in the generic sense.  This was at a time when Gnostic heresies were especially rampant, which led normative Christianity to excise much of the authentic teachings of the Gospel due to guilt by association with Gnosticism (many Forty-Day teachings of Jesus to the Apostles were lost at this time).  A sayings document such as the Gospel of Thomas may have preceded the Gospels, and scholars have long posited some sort of oral tradition (Q).

 

Bishop Athanasius (Alexandria, Egypt) in 367 A.D. was the first to have referred to the Canon as the 27 books of the current NT, though some claim Origen had done so earlier (he died in 254 A.D.).  Aside from that, we have a broad diversity of claims of canonicity through the 4th and 5th centuries, which belie any claim that the Canon was settled.  The preferential lists vary enormously.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Damien the Leper]

My point is that they did not have any 'new covenant' scripture. Just because a book is important enough to preserve does not make it scripture. I am suggesting that, based on the bible alone, there is no evidence that any of the books of the new testament were intended to be scripture. If a written canon was so important, why did they not record Jesus's discourses as soon as they were given and get them distributed? There was no need because the notion of canon was not part of their religious tradition. Consequently, we should not assume that any of the apostles intended for any of their writings to become scripture.

Like all the books of the BoM? Utilize equal standard.

[Damien the Leper]

It is only at the end of the 2nd century A.D. that the Gospels and other apostolic writings begin to be referred to as the "New Covenant"/"New Testament," but this was only in the generic sense.  This was at a time when Gnostic heresies were especially rampant, which led normative Christianity to excise much of the authentic teachings of the Gospel due to guilt by association with Gnosticism (many Forty-Day teachings of Jesus to the Apostles were lost at this time).  A sayings document such as the Gospel of Thomas may have preceded the Gospels, and scholars have long posited some sort of oral tradition (Q).

 

Bishop Athanasius (Alexandria, Egypt) in 367 A.D. was the first to have referred to the Canon as the 27 books of the current NT, though some claim Origen had done so earlier (he died in 254 A.D.).  Aside from that, we have a broad diversity of claims of canonicity through the 4th and 5th centuries, which belie any claim that the Canon was settled.  The preferential lists vary enormously.

I am not sure Ehrman, Metzger and Brown would agree bit I can empathize with your comments.

[Spammer]

It is only at the end of the 2nd century A.D. that the Gospels and other apostolic writings begin to be referred to as the "New Covenant"/"New Testament," but this was only in the generic sense.  This was at a time when Gnostic heresies were especially rampant, which led normative Christianity to excise much of the authentic teachings of the Gospel due to guilt by association with Gnosticism (many Forty-Day teachings of Jesus to the Apostles were lost at this time).  A sayings document such as the Gospel of Thomas may have preceded the Gospels, and scholars have long posited some sort of oral tradition (Q).

 

 

Until copies of the un-redacted Gospels or the older sayings document are unearthed, identified, and made available for textual analysis and comparison, this will remain, like the actual content of Q or any other posited oral tradition, just a hypothesis.  

Edited April 16, 2015 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

Like all the books of the BoM? Utilize equal standard.

 

I don't understand your statement. Please clarify.

[Spammer]

My point is that they did not have any 'new covenant' scripture. Just because a book is important enough to preserve does not make it scripture. I am suggesting that, based on the bible alone, there is no evidence that any of the books of the new testament were intended to be scripture. If a written canon was so important, why did they not record Jesus's discourses as soon as they were given and get them distributed? There was no need because the notion of canon was not part of their religious tradition. Consequently, we should not assume that any of the apostles intended for any of their writings to become scripture. 

 

Agreed. Sola scriptura approaches beg the question.  On whose authority was the canonicity of the the NT determined?  Since I'm Orthodox, the obvious answer for me is the Orthodox-Catholic church meeting in council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit made that determination. The New Testament is scripture because that ancient church established by Christ through the apostles said so.  If the church that met in council was not the ancient church of Christ, then there's no reason to think any book in the NT is scripture.  Sola scriptura Christians who reject the authority of that church reject the only ground on which they can rest their claims.  Their faith is based on a vicious cycle.  The Bible is true because it's the Bible.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed. Sola scriptura approaches beg the question.  On whose authority was the canonicity of the the NT determined?  Since I'm Orthodox, the obvious answer for me is the Orthodox-Catholic church meeting in council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit made that determination. The New Testament is scripture because that ancient church established by Christ through the apostles said so.  If the church that met in council was not the ancient church of Christ, then there's no reason to think any book in the NT is scripture.  Sola scriptura Christians who reject the authority of that church reject the only ground on which they can rest their claims.  Their faith is based on a vicious cycle.  The Bible is true because it's the Bible.

 

Constantine.

[Spammer]

Constantine.

What about Constantine?

[mfbukowski]

Vance made a statement in another thread stating

 

"Just as "sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible and therefore due to "sola scriptura" must be rejected."

 

 

"Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

(reference "Got Questions" website)

 

 

This brings up several possibilities from an LDS point of view which I have listed below (obviously the points are not an inclusive list of every possibility)

 

1.  The Bible was complete, authoritative and taught all of the doctrine for salvation/exaltation at one point in time but was subsequently corrupted thus making it incomplete as we have it today.

 

2.  The Bible is incomplete and the early Christians did not have all of the doctrine necessary for salvation/exaltation.

 

3.  Other books were written that were not included in the current NT canon.  If so what books should be included in the current NT canon that are currently not present?

I vote in favor of all 3. As far as additions, take your pick. When you have a bunch of contradictions, what difference does a few more make?

We have to understand that there are really no hard boundaries between the philosophies of men and scripture, since both are always subject to interpretation by imperfect humans, and in fact written by imperfect humans.

All we have is what the Lord confirms in our hearts individually.

[Freedom]

Like all the books of the BoM? Utilize equal standard.

The difference is that the LDS church has officially accepted the Book of Mormon and the bible as scripture and our church treats them as scripture. No religion that bases their doctrine on the bible alone can claim it to be scripture because the bible does not every claim that the new testament is scripture. The authors of the Book of Mormon were given a mandate from God to write their books, and the final editor was also given a mandate to compile the books and to preserve them for our day. This cannot be said of any of the books in the New Testament. You just assume they are scripture because your faith has been making that claim for hundreds of years. In the end, it is an argument from silence. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Until copies of the un-redacted Gospels or the older sayings document are unearthed, identified, and made available for textual analysis and comparison, this will remain, like the actual content of Q or any other posited oral tradition, just a hypothesis.  

With the discovery that paper mache burial masks sometimes contain very early documents of all sorts, well preserved, we may be at the inception of an era when some very early Christian documents may be found.  Barring that, however, and based on the materials we do have, there are excellent indications, as pointed out by the following scholars:

 

Nibley, Hugh W., “Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum,” Vigiliae Christianae, 20/1 (Mar 1966):1-24, online at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1581972?sid=21105112574941 &uid=4&uid=2 , reprinted as “The Forty-day Mission of Christ—The Forgotten Heritage,” in H. Nibley, When the Lights Went Out (SLC: Deseret Book, 1970/ 2001), 33-54,49-90, and reprinted as “Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum: The Forty-day Mission of Christ—The Forgotten Heritage,” in Complete Works of Hugh Nibley, IV (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1987), 10-44, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute. byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1039&index=1 .

 

Brown, S. Kent, and C. Wilfred Griggs, “The 40-Day Ministry,” Ensign, 5/8 (Aug 1975):6-11, online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/08/the-40-day-ministry?lang=eng&query=wilfred+griggs .

 

Brown, S. Kent, and C. Wilfred Griggs, “The Post-Resurrection Ministry,” in Robert L. Millet, ed., Studies in Scripture, Volume Six: Acts to Revelation (SLC: Deseret Book, 1987), 12–23.

 

Strathearn, Gaye, “The Valentinian Bridal Chamber in the Gospel of Philip,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, 1 (2009):83-103, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1468&index=5 .