Does the Bible Allow for Additional Mormon Scripture?

Since 1830 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has claimed that none of the historic Christian Bibles contain God's complete or final message. It is further claimed that God, through LDS prophets, has given additional revelation, some of which has been published and is accepted by LDS church members as additional canonical scripture .

The most common response of those critical of this LDS claim is that God fully delivered his message for all time anciently and has nothing further by way of scripture for us today. This completed message is the 66 book collection most commonly endorsed by 20th century Protestants as authoritative and, to which, nothing is ever to be added nor subtracted. If this claim were true, if God inspired the production of precisely 66 books and further inspired the collection of these, and only these, to be the soul source of the Christian message, then there would be no allowance for the basic LDS claim of additional divinely inspired scripture.

However, those who insist that the canon was produced and then closed forever by God 1900 years ago are faced with the problem that both the Bible itself and the history of the Bible refute this claim. I would like to mention some of the historical problems faced by this point of view. In doing so, I have not consulted a single LDS source. All of the information which follows comes either from ancient Christian sources or from recent Christian scholars, and I have chosen only those scholars whose works are well known and widely respected. I have also chosen to include only those items upon which leading scholars are united and to avoid areas wherein they disagree. Some of my sources include Lightfoot's collection of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the multi volume sets of the Ante Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene Fathers, The Septuagint with the introduction by H. B. Swete, the works of Brooke Foss Westcott, Edgar J. Goodspeed, F. F. Bruce and the 3 volume Cambridge History of the Bible. My favorite source is the extensive works of todays most eminent authority on the text, versions, transmission and canonization of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger.

To begin with, the Bible is not simply a collection of all ancient Jewish writings and all early Christian writings. It is, rather, a selection of writings separated from a much larger body of Jewish and Christian literature. Bruce Metzger summarizes that the history of the formation of the canon is not a

If the canon were completed and closed by the end of the 1st century, certainly this fact would have been well known among early Christians. The 66 book Protestant Bible would have been the norm throughout Christian history. This, however, is far from the case. Today's Protestant Bible was not the norm. It was not even the exception. It was totally unknown. I am not referring to minor variants in the text or translation, I am referring to entire books and substantial sections of books. The first Bible known to include all of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and no others was not published until 1629. Before 1629 every known printed Bible in every language, including the King James Version of 1611, and every known Greek and Latin manuscript (of which there are some 14,000) either include additional books or exclude some of the 66, or both.

While this topic of the development of the limits of the Bible is vast, and rightly the subject of many volumes, let me summarize one point by the use of a number. The limits of the Bible for such mainstream Christians as Justin, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and Luther, or such large groups as the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant churches vary by as much as 10,000 verses. That is to say, if a Bible were composed of only books accepted by all of them it would be some 10,000 verses shorter than a Bible which included all books accepted by any of them.

Let us consider some facts concerning the collection of the Old Testament. In the first century AD there were several widely divergent versions of the Old Testament available which significantly differed in length. There were two main ones. A shorter one in Hebrew substantially the same as that which is the basis for modern Protestant Bibles and another longer version in Greek. This longer Greek version known as the Septuagint is the version of the Old Testament most frequently cited by New Testament writers, and is the version principally behind all Christian Bibles from the 2nd century until the present except for the majority of recent Protestant Bibles.

At a Jewish council held at Jamnia in north Palestine in 90 AD the limits of the Jewish canon were finalized. From that time to the present the Jewish Old Testament has been based on an ancient Hebrew version. For 1600 years most Christians and most Jews used significantly divergent versions of the Old Testament. Beginning with Martin Luther, Protestants initiated a movment which has resulted in discarding the traditional Christian Old Testament in favor of the much shorter Jewish version. The question "Which books belong in the Old Testament?" is a question which has been answered differently throughout the Christian era.

The New Testament writers could have resolved the question by giving a list of the completed canon of the the Old Testament. The 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament were all written at least 2 centuries before the Christian era. This means that if we accept the idea of a closed canon, then for the New Testament writers the canon of the Old Testament was closed. If Jesus or Peter or James or John or Paul, or some other recognized Christian authority had ever listed the books of the canon, the issue would have been settled and there would not have been the diversity we find within the many Bibles of Christianity. But they did not. In fact, there is no evidence that they knew of such a list. The obvious conclusion is that the New Testament writers held no concept of a closed canon as advocated by many today.

I will now turn my attention briefly to the New Testament. If there were only to be 27 New Testament books, when the last one was completed would not that important information have recorded, or passed on in some way? During the first half of the 2nd century several Christians produced writings which have been preserved and are commonly referred to as the Apostolic Fathers. Chronologically their writings slightly overlap the New Testament and thus represent what we know of Christianity just following the close of the 1st century. These writers, eight in number, have been scrutinized regarding their knowledge of earlier Christian writings. The findings regarding the existence of a list of authorized books is stated by Metzger:

There is no evidence that anyone from the 1st century had passed on to them a list of the contents of the closed canon of the New Testament, nor is there any evidence that any earlier Christian passed on to them the concept that there was or ever would be a closed canon. Further, there is no evidence that they developed this idea and passed it on to the next generation. So for the first century of Christianity there is no evidence that any Christian believe that any collection comparable to the 66 book Protestant Bible contained the complete message of God.

Attitudes toward the contents of the New Testament varied over the next several centuries resulting in the presentation of a number of lists of its contents. However every known list prior to 367 AD differed from the current list of 27 books. In 367 AD Athanasius wrote his annual Easter letter in which he listed the books of the New Testament. This was the first time known in history of a list which conforms precisely to our modern list. This, however, presented only one view. There had been, and continued to be a substantial list of disputed books. Books which some Christians included in the New Testament and others excluded. The list included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Gospel of Peter and the Revelation of Peter.

There are three great manuscripts of the Bible which represent the primary authority behind all modern New Testament translations. They are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. As well as including 18 Old Testament books not found in most modern Protestant Bibles, they also include five additional New Testament books. This is a summary of the 3 manuscripts together. They all differ in their listing of Old and New Testament books.

Moses did not finish writing and then say this is all. Why? Because there was more to come. Nor did Isaiah, Ezekiel or Malachi finish their writing and say this is all. Why? Because there was still more to come. No New Testament writer finished writing and said this is all, there is no more to come. Why? I say, because there was more to come. How could the last writer, knowing God's message was now complete fail to record such an important fact.

The clear conclusion of history is that the Bible nowhere advocates the idea of a closed canon - that God would never provide any further revelation. The facts of history allow for, in fact virtually guarantee, that the canon remains open. But, the question "Does the extended LDS canon contain authentic inspired scripture" is the same as the question, "Does the Bible contain authentic inspired scripture." The truth of either is discovered as spiritual insights, through the Comforter or Spirit of Truth as Jesus taught his disciples.

While my comments are without question a great oversimplification, the point is that no Biblical writer ever indicated a belief in the idea of a closed canon. This very fact is the principle reason for the great diversity among Christians for almost 2000 years as to what books constitute their authoritative canon.