Add books to the bible?

[PrayingTwice]

Would it be possible to add any new books or letters to the canon of scripture? Hypothetically, let’s say that a new letter from Paul was discovered and was deemed authentic and doctinally sound . . . . could a church council add it to the bible? What statements from the church have dealt with this issue?

 

[Mjohn1453]

The canon of the Bible was settled finally in the Council of Trent. That would seem to preclude adding another book to the Bible. In the unlikely event that a letter from Paul were to be discovered/authenticated I seriously doubt that it would be added. That is because there are many letters and books that could have made it into our canon, and made it into some Orthodox canons, but didn’t. This new letter would probably be viewed as any other work by a saint or early Church father.

I don’t think that there is any statement dealing with this issue because it hasn’t come up, but I would look at the Council of Trent documents that deal with the canon of the Bible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A new letter? Hmmm, you mean new to US, don’t you? It certainly wouldn’t have been “new” to the Church fathers.

The Gospel of Thomas, et. al., for example, are not “new”; they were obviously known in early Christian times when they were written. Paul’s letters, in the Bible, are there because the Holy Spirit guided the workers on the canon to include them because God wanted them there. But there ARE letters of Paul, and of Peter, and of John and James, and Andrew, etc., which WERE known and are NOT in the Bible, judged as not inspired.

So I would have to say that there is no possibility that some “new” book or letter will ever be added to the Bible.

 

[metal1633]

PrayingTwice:

Would it be possible to add any new books or letters to the canon of scripture? Hypothetically, let’s say that a new letter from Paul was discovered and was deemed authentic and doctinally sound . . . . could a church council add it to the bible? What statements from the church have dealt with this issue?

No new books or letters could be added. The Council of Trent Closed the Canon. Please note that Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans is not included in the Canon even though it was esteemed above all the other Epistles by Pope Gregory the Great and due to his influence was contained in a number of Bible version including the codex Fuldensis which is the oldest copy of Jeromes Vulgate. There is a fragment of the Epistle to the Alexandrians in the shape of a lesson -a liturgical Epistle- from an ancient Sacramentary and Lectionary. There are other fragments scattered about in ancient manuscripts of various sorts attributed to Paul.

 

[Fidelis]

Tantum ergo:

But there ARE letters of Paul, and of Peter, and of John and James, and Andrew, etc., which WERE known and are NOT in the Bible, judged as not inspired.

It should be pointed out that these books were judged to be not inspired because they were judged to be inauthentic.

 

[KennySe]

Fidelis:

It should be pointed out that these books were judged to be not inspired because they were judged to be inauthentic.

Right.

Those guys didn’t write those books.

Those books were written after those guys were dead.

So saith the Church, which includes the sucessors to the Apostles.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

If a “new” epistle were discovered, there would be 2 possible scenarios. First, the letters might contain some completely new teaching that contradicted the Church. It would be judged inauthentic or uninspired, because the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years, and her teachings are infallible. The other possibility (this one is more likely) is that the letters would contain a re-iteration of the teachings Paul includes in his other epistles. They would add nothing new to revelation, and thus there would be no need to include them in the list of inspired books.