Could new books be added to Biblical canon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bratislava
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bratislava

Guest
I have ran across this question few days ago.
I myself do not think that anything can be added to the Biblical canon.

However, on another forum I have read opinions saying that it might be possible. I must admit that I never thought about this question when I studied the Bible and its history.

I tried to look up the answer, i found resources saying which books are canonical and why (esp the deuterocanonical books), but so far I haven`t been able to find a document that clearly says that there can be no more books added in the future. Not even the Trent council of 1546 says that, if I understood correctly.

The member of the other forum who says it is possible is very interested in private relevations (both Church-approved and not yet approved) and seems to believe that God is continually adding new things to his Revelation…I think if it was up to him, he would add books of several mystics and visionaries of last 5 centuries to the canon.

Thanks in advance for any pointers in my research!
 
Nope. Not possible. The canon is closed. Even if some allegedly inspired writings were discovered, they have not been in constant use since the founding of the Church - that is a requirement for inclusion in the canon.
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

There will be no further Revelation

CCC 66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [28] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

CCC 67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

[28] DV 4; cf. 1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13.

More books in the Bible would mean additional public revelation. That will not happen.
 
po18guy said:
Even if some allegedly inspired writings were discovered, they have not been in constant use since the founding of the Church - that is a requirement for inclusion in the canon.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That makes sense.

Joe 5859, thanks! These are exactly the quotes we have been repeating to this man to no avail.
(but he seems to believe that if a book by some baroque mystic based on a vision has an imprimatur from a pope, then that means that everything in that book is literally true (like visions about childhood of Virgin Mary), and possibly could be as divinely inspired as Bible books, and wont listen to any arguments from Magisterium...ok, ill quit complaining now)
 
Bratislava said:
Thanks! That makes sense.

Joe 5859, thanks! These are exactly the quotes we have been repeating to this man to no avail.
(but he seems to believe that if a book by some baroque mystic based on a vision has an imprimatur from a pope, then that means that everything in that book is literally true (like visions about childhood of Virgin Mary), and possibly could be as divinely inspired as Bible books, and wont listen to any arguments from Magisterium...ok, ill quit complaining now)
Click to expand...
If what he claims is true, than it is permitted for him to believe it. It is not required of anyone else to believe in them to be Catholic. Such “private revelations” are intended only for the person who receives them. Sometimes, they are good for others, and sometimes not.

Christ’s peace be with you.
 
The question was answered in a previous post (no).

But, we have the blessing of inspiration from the Holy Spirit when we prayerfully read and study the scripture.
 
Biblical canon?

No, I don’t think so.

Fatima, Lourdes - that is another matter and I am not sure what the Church officially teaches (if anything) on what the faithful are supposed to “believe” about those revelations.
 
Strictly speaking, no. But that doesn’t stop other faiths that “borrowed” our Bible from adding new official text that is used strictly in their faith. Although I haven’t heard of one yet to actually say their new text is included in the Bible, but instead have a second canonical book within their faith. Kind of like the Book of Mormon for Mormons.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Biblical canon?

No, I don’t think so.

Fatima, Lourdes - that is another matter and I am not sure what the Church officially teaches (if anything) on what the faithful are supposed to “believe” about those revelations.
Click to expand...
Public revelation ended with the death of the Apostle John, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas. Both Fatima and Lourdes are private revelations, and have been studied and approved by the Church. However, it is not incumbent upon Catholics to believe in them or their content. Additionally, they are not considered to be revelation from God, but rather from Mary herself. So, private revelations can produce even doctrine, but such additional doctrine cannot conflict with already established doctrine.

Perhaps the greatest example of private revelation is the conversion and instruction of Saul. What he received was intended solely for him. However, this was written of during the Apostolic age and so is apparently considered public revelation by dint of that fact.
 
in Hebrews 1, Jesus is the final revelations, Acts 1 tells us the requirments of an apostle, no one today meets those requirements. So, no I don’t think one can add to scripture.

But, that does make me wonder why infallible pronoucnments of a pope or council are not considered to be scripture?
 
Big_Dummy said:
in Hebrews 1, Jesus is the final revelations, Acts 1 tells us the requirments of an apostle, no one today meets those requirements. So, no I don’t think one can add to scripture.

But, that does make me wonder why infallible pronoucnments of a pope or council are not considered to be scripture?
Click to expand...
Scripture is the recording of public revelation to man by God - the last of which was produced by the Apostles. Public revelation was declared closed with the death of the last Apostle, John. Rather than a weakness of the Church, this is her strength, prohibiting any and all future Popes or Church Councils from introducing heretical theology. However, even though revelation is complete, the understanding and interpretation of it was anything but complete. At the time of the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of an eternal, Trinitarian God was just beginning to be understood. Revelation sufficient to establish this doctrine had occurred, but man’s understanding of revelation was developing.

Infallible pronouncements, of which there have been exactly two in 1,977 years, only confirm that which had already been revealed by God. Thus, since they express an unchangeable definition of that which was long ago revealed, they are in the class of teaching, but not of scripture. They reveal nothing new, other than an increased understanding of what already existed. As well, the Church makes such declarations in response to heresy, and not as a normal course of furthering the faith.

JWs and LDS teach that revelation is on-going. But, both teach a god that is far different from the God of Israel. This is precisely why the door was closed on public revelation with the death of the Apostle John.
 
I can see only one possibility for the expansion of the canon of scripture.

It is commonly held among scripture scholars that there are lost letters of the apostle Paul. If any of these were ever found and properly authenticated, it may be theoretically possible for them to be added to the canon of scripture. This scenario, however, seems to be highly unlikely.
 
Even if there were discovered writings written by the Apostles it would not mean that it has to be canonical. There are other writings from the apostolic times that could very well be from the Apostles or things passed on orally from them that are not Scripture, but they are useful and do shed light to our understanding of Scripture. I have no doubts that the Apostolic Constitutions have many oral transmissions in it that are straight from the apostles mouths, as well as other similar documents. These are fancinating to say the least, and they are reliable to a great degree, but the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit to define the canon the way it is because that is the way God desires it. If we had a discover of an authentic gospel account from one of the Apostles, it would truly be valuable provided it would be authentic, but it would not have to be canonical. I believe The Acts of Barnabas was written by St. Mark, and I believe St. Barnabas wrote the “Letter of Barnabas”, but if the Church has not defined them as Canonical then I believe that is what God wants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top