Is the Bible Complete?
One of the standard charges of many anti-Mormons is that unfixed. During this period in Jewish history, there was no
the Bible constitutes a closed-set of scriptures; that the Bible is universal agreement on which books were scriptural.5 What
complete and infallible (perfect) and that no other scriptures Paul says is that “all scripture is given by the inspiration of
can be added to the Word of God. Proponents of this claim God,” a statement with which Mormons agree. And even if
often cite Revelation 22:18–19: Paul was claiming that “all scripture” had already been given,
what does that do to the rest of the New Testament written
For I testify unto every man that heareth the after Paul made this statement?
words of the prophecy of this book, If any man
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto In about 200 A.D. the church at Rome began to compile
him the plagues that are written in this book: writings that church leaders deemed as authentic scripture.
And if any man shall take away from the words Many of the books today contained in our King James Bible
of the book of this prophecy, God shall take were included in that first New Testament. Others, however,
away his part out of the book of life, and out of were excluded. Some of the books found in our New
the holy city, and from the things which are Testament today, were not included in this first New
written in this book. Testament. Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John were not in the
first Roman New Testament, for example, while books such
Most scholars date the Revelation of John to around 95–97 as the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon were.
A.D., about the same time (or perhaps prior) to other New Many books were the subject of debate. The emerging church
Testament books such as James, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, and the was often unsure which books should be included as scripture
gospel of John.1 Many scholars believe that 3 John was written and which should not.
after the book of Revelation.2 Since the Bible was not
compiled until approximately 200 A.D., it seems logical that About fifty years later in Alexandria, Egypt, Origen was using
John was warning against adding contents to his Revelation, yet a different version of the New Testament, which excluded
not to the Bible as a whole. It is more likely that John was the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, but also
concerned with the manipulation of his writings by others, excluded James, Jude, and 2 John (as well as those disputed by
and warned against such alterations. He was referring to his Rome) while adding 1 Peter. It wasn’t until 367 A.D., after
book, not the New Testament. Protestant professor Dr. Craig the Council of Nicea, that our current New Testament was
L. Blomberg, of the Denver Seminary, agrees that “John’s established, adding Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3
words at the end of Revelation refer to that book only.”3 Even John, and Jude, while rejecting the Revelation of Peter, and the
if, however, John were referring to the (as yet) un-compiled Wisdom of Solomon which were included in the earlier
Bible, his warning is against “man” adding to the book, not version.6 The Bible also makes mention of several books
God—which He surely could do by way of a prophet. As Dr. which are no longer available, including an earlier epistle of
Nibley notes, some non-LDS scholars find evidence that Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), an epistle to the Church
“until the third century the Christians had no objection at Laodicea (Col. 4:16), and possibly an earlier epistle to the
whatever to the idea ‘that someone might still add revelations Ephesians (Eph. 3:3).
to the writings of the Gospel.”4
Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ricks note that the New Testament
In Deuteronomy 4:2 we read a passage similar to the one in itself suggests an expanded canon by drawing on books not
Revelation: included within the Bible.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I The Epistle of Jude, for instance, draws heavily
command you, neither shall ye diminish ought on non-canonical books such as 1 Enoch and the
from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Assumption of Moses. Indeed, as an eminent
the Lord your God which I commanded you. contemporary scholar says of 1 Enoch, “it
influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans,
By the logic of our critics, we should conclude that no 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1
scripture was to be added after Deuteronomy. Another and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1
scripture often used by those who wish to confine God is John, Jude (which quotes it directly), and
Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16. Revelation (with numerous points of contact).
There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and influential in molding New Testament
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah,
correction, for instruction in righteousness. the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom,
demonology, the future, resurrection, the final
The phrase “all scripture is given” is used to argue that there judgement, the whole eschatological theater,
can be no more scripture except the Bible. When Paul wrote and symbolism.” When Matthew the evangelist
this, however, what were the scriptures? There was no “Bible” says (at 2:23) that Jesus “came and dwelt in a
(as we know it) in Paul’s day, and the Jewish canon was city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be
called Nazarene,” he is citing a prophetic text
unknown to the Bible as we have it. When, at
Acts 20:35, the apostle Paul exhorts the elders
of the Ephesian branch “to remember the words
of the Lord Jesus, how he said, I t is more
blessed to give than to receive,” he is pointing
their minds toward a famous statement that
does not occur in the New Testament books
that we posses today. To put it bluntly, both For more details on this topic see
Matthew and Paul seem to accept a canon of http://www.mormonfortress.com or
scriptural materials broader than that accepted http://www.fairlds.org
today by the critics of Latter-day Saints. This
hardly bothers the Mormons, but it should give Written by Michael R. Ash for the Foundation for
real pause to our detractors. How can they Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR),
denounce us for receiving scriptures beyond Copyright © 2004. www.fairlds.org
their limited canon without simultaneously
condemning Jude, Matthew, and Paul?”7
Even Martin Luther did not accept every book of the New
Testament as fully inspired. Luther particularly disliked the
1.
Epistle of James, which he called a “‘an epistle of straw’ Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City:
having ‘no gospel quality to’” for disagreeing with his teaching Bookcraft, 1992), 46.
2.
of justification by faith alone. He denied that James’ Epistle See http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating_the_NT.htm
3.
had apostolic authorship and claimed that it was ‘“worthless.’” Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the
Divide?, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 39.
Luther declared: “‘I hold that some Jew wrote it who probably 4.
Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets (Salt Lake City: Deseret
had heard about Christians but had never run into any.’” Book and FARMS, 1987), 278.
Neither did Luther trust the Revelation of John.8 If Luther, 5.
Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Sustaining and
Matthew, Paul, Jude, and other early Christians could accept Defending the Faith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985), 42.
more of less of the Bible (as we know it) and still be 6.
See http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM
7.
“Christian,” then Latter-day Saints are certainly in good Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word:
company. How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints
(Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1992), 121–122.
8.
Ibid., 125–126.
