No other books follow

[lazarus0673]

Hello,

Is there anywhere in the New Testament which states that no other books or additions to the Bible will follow or if they do will be false? Thank you.

 

[SNOOPY]

How about Revelations 22:18-19 ?


18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book


19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.




.

 

[Hitch]

Im all for a new book or two provided it comes from eye witnesses to the events and persons described.

 

[lazarus0673]

Thank you Snoopy. Are these two verses considered strong enough to disavow the Book of Mormon and the RCC catechism and other post NT RCC doctrine? Perhaps you or someone else can point me to the applicable place to seek the answer of my question. Please answer with the appropriate NT chapter and verse. Thank you. God speed.

 

[Nathan Alterton]

How about Revelations 22:18-19 ?


18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book


19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I hate to disagree, and I know this passage is often cited as a scriptural evidence for a closed canon, but I'm afraid it doesn't really carry that water. The passage clearly refers, not to the whole of scripture, but to John's Revelation specifically. To make it apply to the Bible as a whole is to rip it completely out of context.

Marbleshooter, there is a great deal of scholarly debate about when that book was written. I am familar with compelling arguments from the text that Revelation was written prior to John's gospel. While it was not as widely accepted as many of the other books early on, it had still gained general acceptance by the Church well before the middle of the second century.

But as to the OP, my answer is: No, there is no passage that says explicitely, or even implicitely that the canon is closed.

That said, I would find it highly questionable if someone started advocating for new books to be added. There were several very high standards that each book of the canon met in order to be included:

1) Each book was either written by a Prophet, an Apostle, or someone working very directly with a Prophet or Apostle. No exceptions (I would argue this goes for Hebrews as well, even though we don't know who the author was with any certainty - but that's another thread).

2) Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD.

I'm not aware of any book, either extant or lost, which is not already included in the canon that meets those two standards.

 

[Igloo]

I agree with Nathan that there isn't any passage in the NT that talks about the Bible being closed to new additions. Though depending on why the question was asked, I might also bring up the fact that God has included a lot of wisdom even in present day material that you just won't find in the Bible. The Bible doesn't tell you how to make a pb & j sandwich; it doesn't tell you how to fix a car; and while it might have some relationship advice, there are also other worthwhile books and articles that exist out there that can help to enrich one's marriage and friendships. Indeed, if all of life's answers were in the Bible, you wouldn't need God! I think that's a big enough reason to conclude that the Bible isn't an "all I need" guidebook.

 

[Nathan Alterton]

You make an interesting point, Igloo. The Bible is necessary, but it's not sufficient.

 

[for_his_glory]

There have been many parchments found written by some like Stephen for instance and many books of the Apocrypha that have only been discovered or as the Apocrypha have been left out of the KJV of the Bible. This does not mean we can not read them as I am sure they are full of good teachings by those used of God, but the accounts being pretty much of what the books in the Bible already contain as these books were written by first hand account people. I believe if every writing that was ever written by Gods people was added to the original writings we have today in what we call our Bible we would not be able to even lift such a book as it would weigh to much.

 

[Free]

That said, I would find it highly questionable if someone started advocating for new books to be added. There were several very high standards that each book of the canon met in order to be included:

1) Each book was either written by a Prophet, an Apostle, or someone working very directly with a Prophet or Apostle. No exceptions (I would argue this goes for Hebrews as well, even though we don't know who the author was with any certainty - but that's another thread).

2) Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD.

I'm not aware of any book, either extant or lost, which is not already included in the canon that meets those two standards.

Agreed. Too many people don't realize that there were certain criteria to be met.

 

[Webb]

The scriptures may not be sufficient to tell us how to fix a flat or change a tire etc., but they are sufficient for "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" II Pet. 1:3.

 

[Nathan Alterton]

Thank you for pointing that out, Webb. In re-reading this thread, I realized that my statement may have been a little vague.

 

[Texasgirl]

2) Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD.

Source of evidence for this statement?

Example... I believe in the eastern churches the book of Revelation was not accepted as canon until almost the 5th century and has never been read in their liturgy.

 

[Free]

Source of evidence for this statement?

Example... I believe in the eastern churches the book of Revelation was not accepted as canon until almost the 5th century and has never been read in their liturgy.

There is a lot of information out there regarding the development of the NT canon. Athanasius' canon of 367 was the same as the current NT we have now.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml

And here is the first official canon of the Church:

http://www.ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml

As you can see this was accepted long before the Great Schism of 1054.

 

[Texasgirl]

There is a lot of information out there regarding the development of the NT canon. Athanasius' canon of 367 was the same as the current NT we have now.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml

And here is the first official canon of the Church:

http://www.ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml

As you can see this was accepted long before the Great Schism of 1054.

Thank you Free. I'm familiar with Carthage and Hippo, and that Athanasius is the first to correctly list our existing NT canon. And they were well in place before the 1054 schism, you are correct.

I am just questioning this statement:

"Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD."

Every piece of information I have would disagree that each book was widely accepted and circulated by the church from the time of its writing. In addition, there were books that were initially read and circulated (Didache, Epistles of Barnabas, Clement) that did not end up as part of the canon. Which is why Hippo and Carthage were not merely rubber-stamping something that had always been in place.

However, if the poster has information that supports the claim, I would be very interested in knowing what it is.

Thanks for your response. Also didn't realize this was a fairly old thread -- I linked to it from another active thread.

 

[farouk]

1 Cor. 13 speaks of a time 'when that which is perfect is come'; 'perfect' there meaning 'complete'. This verse has often been taken to mean the completion of the canon of Scripture; the context is the cessation of sign gifts.

 

[Texasgirl]

1 Cor. 13 speaks of a time 'when that which is perfect is come'; 'perfect' there meaning 'complete'. This verse has often been taken to mean the completion of the canon of Scripture; the context is the cessation of sign gifts.

I'd say that's more than a stretch.

The perfection in 1 Cor 13 is speaking of a time when we no longer see in a mirror dimly but rather face to face, and of a time when we shall fully understand. This is not a time that has already come for those of us still on earth.

 

[farouk]

tg: Actually, fulness of revelation could be described as perfect in the Biblical sense of completeness.

It is actually a widely held viewpoint.

 

[Free]

Thank you Free. I'm familiar with Carthage and Hippo, and that Athanasius is the first to correctly list our existing NT canon. And they were well in place before the 1054 schism, you are correct.

I am just questioning this statement:

"Each book was widely accepted and circulated by the Church from the time of its writing. Every book included in the Bible had already been accepted as scripture for more than 300 years before the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD made its notable contribution to the codification of the Bible we have today, or even Athanasius' list of the 66 books was produced in 367 AD."

Every piece of information I have would disagree that each book was widely accepted and circulated by the church from the time of its writing. In addition, there were books that were initially read and circulated (Didache, Epistles of Barnabas, Clement) that did not end up as part of the canon. Which is why Hippo and Carthage were not merely rubber-stamping something that had always been in place.

However, if the poster has information that supports the claim, I would be very interested in knowing what it is.

Thanks for your response. Also didn't realize this was a fairly old thread -- I linked to it from another active thread.

All the books that were excluded were under much debate. They were either included or excluded from various canons, with the exception of the Didache, from I can remember. That is more of a book on Christian living and was never considered Scripture, again, from what I can remember.

This process of canonization and which books to include or exclude went on for well over a hundred years, possibly just over two hundred, depending on when the "Muratorian canon" is dated--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment.

This was not something taken lightly, not that you're suggesting that. As one can see from the Muratorian canon there were many books that were already widely accepted and that are in our current NT, ones that were never really in dispute at all.

As to why some were excluded, it is likely that they didn't meet the criteria Nathan made in his first point and were perhaps not as widely known as the others.

 

[Texasgirl]

All the books that were excluded were under much debate. They were either included or excluded from various canons, with the exception of the Didache, from I can remember. That is more of a book on Christian living and was never considered Scripture, again, from what I can remember.

This process of canonization and which books to include or exclude went on for well over a hundred years, possibly just over two hundred, depending on when the "Muratorian canon" is dated--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment.

This was not something taken lightly, not that you're suggesting that. As one can see from the Muratorian canon there were many books that were already widely accepted and that are in our current NT, ones that were never really in dispute at all.

As to why some were excluded, it is likely that they didn't meet the criteria Nathan made in his first point and were perhaps not as widely known as the others.

And some books that were included were under much debate as well (Revelation and Hebrews are two I recall).

It is not to be taken lightly. I simply would like to know the source for the statement that at the time of its writing, each NT book was accepted by the church and the canon was in place 300 years before those councils. I agree with you that many book were never in dispute and accepted from the beginning. That is not the same as 'all' being immediately accepted.

And the Muratorian fragment lists a canon that is incomplete missing Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John, and it includes the Revelation of Peter and the Book of Wisdom from the OT. So I'm not sure how you see that as being a defining moment in establishing the actual canon?

 

[farouk]

I don't think the word 'establishing' is appropriate, by way of suggesting an act of the church, whereby one day some books supposedly became the Word of God.

Rather, if the Word of God was there in its completeness, the church basically recognized what was already there, what was already authoritative.

Tertullian wrote helpfully about this. He refered to the canon of Scripture as the 'instrumentum', the instrument by which the church defined itself, rather than the other way round.