No Canonical Book of the Old Testament Has Been Lost
On this subject, there has existed some diversity of opinion Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine. as saying, “That many of the writings of the prophets had porished, which may readily be proved, from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent; and not only negligent but impious, so that some books were lost through carelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed.”
In confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made to 1 Kings iv. 3:2, 3J, where it is said of Solomon, That he spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five. Jlnd he spake of trees from the cedar in Lebanon, even unto the hyssop, that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. All these productions, it is acknowledg d, have perished.
Again it is said in I Chron. xxix. ‘i, 30. Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the hook of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer. JVith all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over hJtn and ooer Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries. The book of.Tasher, also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x. 13, J2nd the sun stood stilly and the rnoon stayed until the people had avenged themselves on their enemies. Is not this written in the hookof Jasher? And in 2 Sam. i. IS, nd he bade them teach the chidren of Israel the use of the bow: behold it is written in the hook of Jasher.
The book of the Wars of the Lord, is referred to, in Num. xxi. 14.
But we have in the Canon no books under the name of Nathan and Gad: nor,any book of Jasher; nor.of the wars of the Lord.
Moreover, we frequently are referred, in the Sacred history, to other Chronicles or Annals, for a fuller account of the matters spoken of, which Chronicles are not nov extant.
And in 2 Chron. ix. 2y, it is said, Now the rest of the cts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Natha7i the prophet, and in the prophecy ofJlhijah the Shilojiite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam the son of Nehat. Now it is u ell known, that none of these writings of the prophets are in the Canon j at least, none of them under their names,
Ii is sai ’ also in 2 Chron. xii. .5, Now the acts of Behoboam, first and last, are they not written in flie book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer, concei ning genecUogies? Of w hicls works notiiins; remains, under the names of these proplicis.
1. The first observation which I would make on this subject, is, that every book referred to, or quoted, in the Sacred writings, is ni’t necessarilv an inspired, or Canonical book. Because Paul cites passages from the Greek poets, it docs not follow, that we must receive tlwir poems, as inspired,
2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neitlicr inspired nor Canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the prophets,but was occasioniil. and for particular, important jnuposes. In common matters, and especially in things noliow connected with religion, it is reasonable to suppose, that the prophcis and apostles were left to the .same guidance of reason and common senpic, as other men. A man, therefore, inspired to deliver some proj)hecy, or even to write a Canonical book, might write other books, with no greater assistance than other good men receive. Because S domon was inspired, to write some Canonical books, it docs not follow, that what he wrote on NaturaJ History, was also inspired. The Scriptures, however, do not say, that his Three thousand provei’bs, and his discouiscs on Natural History were ever committed to writing. It only says, that he spake these things. But supposing that all these discourses were committed to writing, which is not improbable, there is not the least reason for believing that
t 4
‘• they were inspired; any more than Solomon’s private letters to his friends, if he ever wrote any. Let it be remembered, that the prophets and apostles were only inspired on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all difficulties resptscting such works as these will, vanish. How many of the books referred to in the Bible, and mentioned above, may have been of this description, it is now impossible to tell; but probably several of them belong; to this class. No doubt there were many books of Annals, much more minute and particular in the narration of facts, than those which we have. It was often enough to refer to these 5/«/ejo«/7£’r.S’, or public documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to the facts on account of which the reference was made. There is nothing derogatory to the word of God, in the supposition? that the books of Kings and Chronicles, which we have in the Canon, were compiled by the inspired prophets from these public records. All that is necessary for u?, is, fhnt the facts are truly related; and this could be as infallibly secured on this hypothesis, as any other.
The book of the Wars of the Lord, might, for ought that appears, have been merely a muster-roll of the army. The word translated hook, has so extensive a meaning in Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose, that it was a writing at all. The book of Jasher, (or of Rectitude, if we translate the word,) might have been some ust-ful compend taken from Scripture, or composed by the wise, for the regulation of justice and equity, between man and man.
Augustine, in his City of Ood, has distinguished accurately on this subject. “I think,” says he, “that those books which should have authority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men composed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by inspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is only by those written by inspiration, that we are t suppose that God, through them, is speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulnes of knowledge; the other for authority in religion j in which authority the Canon is preserved.”
3. But again, it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the completeness of the Canon, that there may have been inspired writings which were not intended for the instruction of the church in all ages, but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. These writings, though inspired, were not Canonical. They were temporary in their design, and when that was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We know, that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to the people, of which we have not a trace on record. Many true prophets are mentioned, who wrote nothing that we know of; and several are mentioned, whose names are not even given. The same is true of the apostles. Very few of them had any concern in writina: the Canonical Scriptures, and yet ih. y all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they wrote letttrs, on special occasions, to the cliurehes plaiit( d by them; yet these were not designed for the perpetual instruction of the universal church. The: (fore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan and Gad, might have written some things by inspiration, which wire never intend d to form a part of the Sacred Volume. It is not asserted, that thfre certainly existed such temporary, inspired writings: all that is neces’^ary to be inainiained, is, that supposing such to have existed, which is not in’probabie, it does not follow thiit the Canon is incomplete, by reason of their loss. As this opinion may be startling to some, who have not thoroughly considered it, I will call in to its support, the opinions of some distinguished Theologians. “It has bien observed,” says Francis Junius, “that it is one thing to call a book Sacred, another to say that it is Canonical; for every book was sacred which was edited by a prophet, or apostle; but it does not follow that every such sacred book is Canonical, and was designed for the whole body of the church For example, it is credible that Isaiah the Prophet wrote many thmg, as a prophet, which were truly inspired, but those lritings only were Canonical, which God consecrated to the treasure of the church, and which by special diiection were added to the public Canon. Thus, Paui and the other apostles, may have written ma.- ny thinsjs, by divine inspiration, wliicli arc not now extant; but those only are Cmiunical, which were placed in the Sicred ‘olunie, for the use of ilie universal church: which Canon received the approbation of the apostits, especially, of John, who so long i;re3ided over the churches in Asia.”*
The Kvangelical VVirsius, of an age somewhat later, delivers his opinion on this point, in the following nfianner; “No one, 1 think, can doubt, but that all the apostles in the diligent exercise of their office, wrote frequent letters to the cijurclies under their care, when they could not be present uith them; and to whou) they might ofien wish to communicate some instruction necessary for them in the circumstances in which they were placed. It would seem to me to be injurious to th. reputation of those faithful and assiduous men, to sui)|)osc, that not one of them ever wiole any epistle, or addressed to a church, any writing, except thwSe ff;w, whose Kpislles are in the Canon. Now, as Peter, and Paul, and James, and John, were induced to write to the churches, on aocount of the need in which the) Stood of instruction, why would not the same necessity induce the otner apjsilesfo write to the cliurclies under their care. Nor is there any reason why we should complam of the great loss which we have sustained, b< cause these precious ilocunients have perished; it is ralnur mat-
“■ Explic. Ill ilum. xxiter of gratitude, that so many have been preserved by the pr *•- i:lent benevoitiiice of God towards us, and so abu-idantiy sufficient to instruct us, in the thitgs pertaining to salvation.”*
Although I have cited tins passage from this excelknit and orthodox thei logian, in favour of the sentiment advanced; el 1 do not f el at liberty to go the whole lens’th of his opinion, here expressed. There is no reason to ihink, th;tt any of the other apostles co•.p(led such works, as those which constitute the Canon of the New Testament. If they had, some of them would have been pr served; or at least, some memorial of such writings would have been handed down, in those churches to which they were adi.li’essed. These churches received and preserved the Canonical books, of those whose writings we have, and why should they neglect, or suffer to sink into oblivion, similar writings of apostles, from whom they first received the Gospel?
Indeed, after all, this argument is merely hypothetical, and wouM be sufficient to answer the objections which might be made, if it could be proved, that some inspired vvriti gs had perished; but, in fact,tliere is no proof that any such ever existed. It is, therefore, highly probable, that we are in acuial pi ssession of all the books penned under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
-* Meletem. De Vita Pauli.
4. The last remark which I shnll make in relation to the hook« of the Old Testament suppt.sed to he lost, is, that it is hi2;hly probable, that we have several of them now in the Canon, under another name. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a succession of prophets.
There is reason to believe, that until the Canon of Sacred Scripture was closed, the succession of prophets was never interrupted. Whatever was necCvSsary to be added, by way of explanation, to any book already received into the Canon, they were competent to annex; or, whatever annals or histories, it was the purpose of God to hive transmit’ed to posterity, they would be directed and inspired to prepare. Thus, different par’s of these books, might have been penned by Gad, Nathan, Iddo Shemaiah,, &c.
That some parts of these histories were prepared by prophets, we have clear proof, in one instance; for, Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy, several chapters, which are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt, were originally written by himself. *
The Jewish doctors are of opinion, that the book of Jasher, is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole Law.
* See 2 Kings xviii. .yx. .xx. Compared v.ilh Isaiah xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii.
The book of the wars of the Lovrl, has by many, been sMppused, to be no other than the book of Numbers.
Thi’S I think, it sufficiently appears, from an examination of particulars, that there exists no evidence, that any Canonical bo. k of the Old Testament has been lost. To hi;h we may add, that there are many general considerations of great weight, which go to prole,that no pn-tof the Scriptures f (he Old Testament hnve been lost.
The first is, th:it God by his providence would preserve from destruction, books given by in>-piratiiln, ai’d interded for the perpetual instruction of his church. It is reasonable to think, that he would not suffer his gracious purpose to be frustrated: and this argument, apriorl, is greatly strengthened by tl’C fict,1hat a remarkable providential cnre hns lieen exercistd, in the preservation of the Sacred Scripturtis. It is trulv w.indeiful, that so many books should have befn preserved unmutilated, throuij;h hundreds and thousands of years; and during vicissitudes so great; and especially, when powerful tyrants were so desirous of annihil.Tting the religion of (he Jews, and used their utmost exertions to destroy their sacred books.
Another consideration of great weight is, the reli;*;i’us, and even scrupulous care, with which the Jews, as far as we can trace the history of the Sacred Scriptures, have atched overtheir preservation. There can, I think, be’ little doubt, that they exercised the same vigilance during that period of their history, of which we have no monuments.
The translation of tlicse books into Greek, is sufficient to show, that the same books existed, nearly two hundred years before the advent of Christ.
And above all, the unqualified testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his Apostles, ought to satisfy us, that we have lost none of the inspired books of the Canon.
The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and quoted as itilallible authority, by them, as we have before shown. These oracles were committed to the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they are never charged with unfaithfulness, in this trust. The Scriptures are declared to have been written for our learning; and no intimation is given that they had ever been mutilated, or in any degree corrupted.