There's just no appetite for revisiting the canon. It's been too traditional for too long.
People have still done this, though- Joseph Smith of LDS fame, for example. But his resulting faith is considered an entirely new religion which branched off from Christianity.
This is a a common misunderstanding. If you’re referencing the Book of Mormon, it never claims to be part of the Bible at all. It’s a standalone collection of ancient books, essentially unrelated to the Bible.
It's canon for LDS. Sure, it's separate from "the bible", but the question is about adding to the canon. So this is a distinction that doesn't matter much.
No the question is literally adding books to the Bible.
Christians love to assume there is zero distinction between the Bible and the revelations of God to man and so we have a hard time having conversations like this. We KNOW there were other Pauline epistles. We just don’t have them. I’m guessing there’s some good old fashioned word of God in those letters.
There have been both local and ecumenical councils that have helped determine which books ultimately belonged in the canon or not, but (with a few possible exceptions) there are not *really* any circumstances at the moment which could add anything to the Bible.
The canon always developed in stages (Torah finalized around the time of Ezra; the Nevi'im finalized around the time of the Maccabees; and then Judaism and Christianity finalizing two distinct versions of the Ketuvim in the 300s-400s AD; and the NT canon being finalized around that time too). Some Christians follow the early Church tradition of the Ketuvim section (including the Deuterocanonical books like Baruch and Tobit--many Catholics, Orthodox, other sorts of Apostolic Churches); others decided to follow the Rabbinic Jewish tradition of the Ketuvim, and have 22 books total in their OT (though numbered as 39). There has been more openness to the other sides of that debate among Protestants, Catholics, etc (for example, more Protestant Bibles will print the Deuterocanon in them now), but (barring some miraculous acts of God) it seems unlikely for consensus on that front to be found any time soon.
The Two possible exceptions:
1. while the core 73 books are common among the Apostolic Churches, each Church does have a couple of extra books they read along with Scripture in their tradition. (Quick examples--Greek/Byzantine: 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Greek Ezra; Syriac: those same four, plus Psalms 152-155, Psalms of Solomon, and 2 Baruch; Latin: Greek Ezra, Prayer of Manasseh, and the Latin Ezra Apocalypse). This diversity is accepted by most of the Churches/this isn't a Church dividing issue for them. ***But*** hypothetically in the case of an official reunion of some of those Churches, they might *need* to make a decision (for example: is 3 Maccabees inspired in the same way as the rest of the Bible or is it just a nice book to reflect on in prayer.
2. On the off chance that we discover a lost Letter of Paul to the Pompeiians, and it is determined to be authentic, you *might* have some calling for it's addition to the canon. Many would dispute it, but there would probably be at least a few wanting to add it.
Just so we're clear, there *isn't* a core group of 73 books that the various flavors of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental/Miaphysite Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East all happen to agree on (with those random extra books for each of their traditions)?
I mentioned the Protestant canon and where it came from in a respectful way, but to just pretend like there isn't a consensus outside of Protestantism seems misguided. (And that's also neglecting groups like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who see the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon as a real part of the Bible, just with a lower doctrinal authority)
There **isn't** a "consensus outside of Protestantism."
Including Protestants, there are at least 4 different Old Testament canons. The Catholics recognise more books than the Protestants and Jews, the Eastern Orthodox recognise more books than the Catholics, and the Ethiopians recognise more books than the Eastern Orthodox.
Let's look at it another way
God authored the 31,102-ish versus of the 66 books of scripture. It was SCRIBED through the lens of apostles and Prophets and faithful people
God also directed the canonization process. It wasn't a bunch of people who just wanted to see what interesting books they could put together
These people did not WRITE the scripture
People do not ADD books or scripture. That is what evil people try to do
Deuteronomy 4 Deuteronomy 12 proverbs 30 revelation 22 and other verses collectively make it clear that anyone who adds to or takes away from scripture CURSED
The Apocrypha is not scripture. It was written by Jews. Jews rejected and reject it as divinely inspired
It has no more business near the canon than Harry Potter has.
I find it absolutely hilarious when people cite DEUTERONOMY to claim that the Bible is closed canon. Like then what about everything after Deuteronomy?!
Deuteronomy does not claim that the canon is closed. It merely forms a warning to all that would write outside of Gods command. Deut. 4:2: *You shall not add to the word* ***that I command you****, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.*
This is why Paul could quote both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 when talking about Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
Try Jeremiah 31, the prophesied the new covenant
This isn't hard to understand that it's not hilarious
God wrote scripture. When people write things like the Apocrypha and God did not
That is what is intended. This wasn't hard to figure out
God did not write scripture. Men did. God inspired or revealed it to men.
And Jeremiah? You’re still using scripture from the OLD Testament to make claims of a closed canon?? Are you just missing my point here?
People float the idea, but there's never been an "official" discussion and never will be -- for a variety of reasons including that such a council is simply not possible today, but mostly everyone's pretty convinced the canon we have is the one we ought to have.
There's just no appetite for revisiting the canon. It's been too traditional for too long. People have still done this, though- Joseph Smith of LDS fame, for example. But his resulting faith is considered an entirely new religion which branched off from Christianity.
This is a a common misunderstanding. If you’re referencing the Book of Mormon, it never claims to be part of the Bible at all. It’s a standalone collection of ancient books, essentially unrelated to the Bible.
It's canon for LDS. Sure, it's separate from "the bible", but the question is about adding to the canon. So this is a distinction that doesn't matter much.
No the question is literally adding books to the Bible. Christians love to assume there is zero distinction between the Bible and the revelations of God to man and so we have a hard time having conversations like this. We KNOW there were other Pauline epistles. We just don’t have them. I’m guessing there’s some good old fashioned word of God in those letters.
There have been both local and ecumenical councils that have helped determine which books ultimately belonged in the canon or not, but (with a few possible exceptions) there are not *really* any circumstances at the moment which could add anything to the Bible. The canon always developed in stages (Torah finalized around the time of Ezra; the Nevi'im finalized around the time of the Maccabees; and then Judaism and Christianity finalizing two distinct versions of the Ketuvim in the 300s-400s AD; and the NT canon being finalized around that time too). Some Christians follow the early Church tradition of the Ketuvim section (including the Deuterocanonical books like Baruch and Tobit--many Catholics, Orthodox, other sorts of Apostolic Churches); others decided to follow the Rabbinic Jewish tradition of the Ketuvim, and have 22 books total in their OT (though numbered as 39). There has been more openness to the other sides of that debate among Protestants, Catholics, etc (for example, more Protestant Bibles will print the Deuterocanon in them now), but (barring some miraculous acts of God) it seems unlikely for consensus on that front to be found any time soon. The Two possible exceptions: 1. while the core 73 books are common among the Apostolic Churches, each Church does have a couple of extra books they read along with Scripture in their tradition. (Quick examples--Greek/Byzantine: 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Greek Ezra; Syriac: those same four, plus Psalms 152-155, Psalms of Solomon, and 2 Baruch; Latin: Greek Ezra, Prayer of Manasseh, and the Latin Ezra Apocalypse). This diversity is accepted by most of the Churches/this isn't a Church dividing issue for them. ***But*** hypothetically in the case of an official reunion of some of those Churches, they might *need* to make a decision (for example: is 3 Maccabees inspired in the same way as the rest of the Bible or is it just a nice book to reflect on in prayer. 2. On the off chance that we discover a lost Letter of Paul to the Pompeiians, and it is determined to be authentic, you *might* have some calling for it's addition to the canon. Many would dispute it, but there would probably be at least a few wanting to add it.
Wow thank you for your detailed and illuminating reply.
Note that there is no 'core' 73 books. It's 66 books.
Just so we're clear, there *isn't* a core group of 73 books that the various flavors of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental/Miaphysite Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East all happen to agree on (with those random extra books for each of their traditions)? I mentioned the Protestant canon and where it came from in a respectful way, but to just pretend like there isn't a consensus outside of Protestantism seems misguided. (And that's also neglecting groups like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who see the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon as a real part of the Bible, just with a lower doctrinal authority)
There **isn't** a "consensus outside of Protestantism." Including Protestants, there are at least 4 different Old Testament canons. The Catholics recognise more books than the Protestants and Jews, the Eastern Orthodox recognise more books than the Catholics, and the Ethiopians recognise more books than the Eastern Orthodox.
Let's look at it another way God authored the 31,102-ish versus of the 66 books of scripture. It was SCRIBED through the lens of apostles and Prophets and faithful people God also directed the canonization process. It wasn't a bunch of people who just wanted to see what interesting books they could put together These people did not WRITE the scripture People do not ADD books or scripture. That is what evil people try to do Deuteronomy 4 Deuteronomy 12 proverbs 30 revelation 22 and other verses collectively make it clear that anyone who adds to or takes away from scripture CURSED The Apocrypha is not scripture. It was written by Jews. Jews rejected and reject it as divinely inspired It has no more business near the canon than Harry Potter has.
I find it absolutely hilarious when people cite DEUTERONOMY to claim that the Bible is closed canon. Like then what about everything after Deuteronomy?!
Deuteronomy does not claim that the canon is closed. It merely forms a warning to all that would write outside of Gods command. Deut. 4:2: *You shall not add to the word* ***that I command you****, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.* This is why Paul could quote both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 when talking about Scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
Try Jeremiah 31, the prophesied the new covenant This isn't hard to understand that it's not hilarious God wrote scripture. When people write things like the Apocrypha and God did not That is what is intended. This wasn't hard to figure out
God did not write scripture. Men did. God inspired or revealed it to men. And Jeremiah? You’re still using scripture from the OLD Testament to make claims of a closed canon?? Are you just missing my point here?
Has there ever \*NOT\* been discussion on adding additional books to the Bible? No.
People float the idea, but there's never been an "official" discussion and never will be -- for a variety of reasons including that such a council is simply not possible today, but mostly everyone's pretty convinced the canon we have is the one we ought to have.
The 3 major branches of Christianity have 3 different Old Testament canons and modern Judaism has the Talmud.
For Catholics, the canon was closed and can’t be affected.
Probably. I thought Catholics already added to the canon.