# The hypothetical new manuscript question



## Michael (Jan 5, 2012)

If a manuscript were discovered that proved to be another epistle from a New Testament author such as Paul or Peter, would it be readily welcomed into the cannon? If so, what would that process look like?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 5, 2012)

WCF 1:2 Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Genesis, etc.

The accepted doctrine of canonicity has since the era of the Church Fathers concluded that the canon of inspired scripture is closed. Any number of ancient writings by venerable men might be unearthed but The Holy Spirit has guided the Church of Jesus Christ in recognizing this fact.


----------



## Tim (Jan 5, 2012)

This reminds somewhat of the Mormons.


----------



## Michael (Jan 5, 2012)

Bob,

So if a third letter from Paul to the church in Corinth were discovered today it would not be accepted into the cannon because that would be unconfessional?


----------



## nwink (Jan 5, 2012)

If I remember right, _one_ of the qualifications of those books included in the canon was that those letters were used by many of the churches (and recognized as authoritative). If there was some letter that popped up today that none of the churches then used...well, enough said.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jan 5, 2012)

Would it be welcomed? I wouldn't be surprise that some modern textual critics would welcome it, as long as it can be shown that it's older than most manuscritps known to us today since that seem to be their leading requirement.

Should it be? No, God is the one who preserve his scriptures intact not random chance. in my opinion this would be same thing as accepting modern day prophet since it would be adding to the canon of scripture. It would mean that we could add to the revelation God chose to give to his church until now. Even if it could be demonstrated that one of the apostles wrote it, history would testify that God did not intend for it to be part of the canon.


----------



## Zach (Jan 5, 2012)

The Canon is closed for the reasons shared above. It would be different from the Book of Mormon though in that if it were truly of Paul or Peter its teachings would be consistent with scripture. The Confessions require that we treat it as nothing more than good advice and wisdom from saints of old.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 5, 2012)

Michael said:


> So if a third letter from Paul to the church in Corinth were discovered today it would not be accepted into the cannon because that would be unconfessional?



Michael, the Holy Spirit who inspired the sacred autographs is not bound by our Confessions; our Confessions speak to what He has revealed to the Church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 5, 2012)

There's an unspoken premise or assumption included in the view that an authoritative letter by Paul the Apostle, should for that reason alone be considered canonical Scripture--even if discovered after being lost for nearly two millenia.

Which is: that "Providential preservation" of God's Word means something other than, "preserved by God for the Church's constant benefit and use."

The Word of God _preserved_ is an intrinsic element of the doctrine of inspiration and canonicity. It is an indispensable part of our confidence in the deposit of revelation for the maintenance of the Faith. If the church has been left without some piece of the Word, which last period of special Divine Speech coincided with the last period of special Divine Work, then it would also have to be said that the church had not even been employed as *subsidiaries* to the divine intention, respecting the function of preservation. That would be unprecedented. God never hid his Word only in a cave someplace (in Christian belief), to be brought forth by a non-inspired agent of revelation in some late period of relevance.

God does extraordinary and different things at times. But he also acts predictably and regularly when such patterns would be most helpful for his people's confidence. And it is hard to fathom him giving a "public Word" of revelation that is "out-of-time," when such a deliverance would be scarcely distinguishable from a forgery.

Sure, God can give an infallible deliverance, and make sure we do not miss it as such, despite its unusual or even frightening characteristics. Case in point: his order to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But, again, the benefit held by the NT Bible is that it was accompanied by the "signs of the Apostles," who themselves played at least an early and initial part in the role of preservation (as the prophets surely did before them). Peter speaks of (certain!) of Paul's letters as "Scripture." That's pretty significant. Did Paul fail to instruct Corinth to save a letter the whole church needed?

The hypothesis that a new (old) letter known to be from Paul's hand, for a deliverance unto the whole church, should come to light only centuries after it was written--besides being a breathtaking improbability--also demands a new miracle. The miracle that the whole faithful church should unstintingly and instantly "receive it as it really is, the Word of God." But doesn't the Bible promise us* but one more period only* of Deed and Word revelation, namely the Second Coming?


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 5, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> There's an unspoken premise or assumption included in the view that an authoritative letter by Paul the Apostle, should for that reason alone be considered canonical Scripture--even if discovered after being lost for nearly two millenia.
> 
> Which is: that "Providential preservation" of God's Word means something other than, "preserved by God for the Church's constant benefit and use."
> 
> ...



Amen, and thank you Bruce! That is as clear and to the point as anything most of us could put together. May our Lord's Church never be without such steadfast shepherds!


----------



## Michael (Jan 5, 2012)

Thank you Bruce for that helpful response.


----------

