Latter-day Saints often appeal to “missing books” of the Bible to show
that the Bible itself is not formally sufficient. I have a brief discussion of
this apologetic in my book-length critique of Sola Scriptura:
Andrew Edward Breen, a 19th century Roman Catholic scripture scholar, agreed with many
authors (including
Robert Bellarmine) that the Bible not only mentions missing books that many
of these books were inspired—in other
words, the Bible itself is missing inspired, not secular, books:
THE LOST
BOOKS OF BOTH TESTAMENTS
It is the common
opinion of theologians that an inspired book may perish, and that some de facto have perished. As authorities
for this opinion we may cite Origen, Chrysostom, St. Thomas, Bellarmine,
Serarius, Pineda, Bonfrere, and nearly all later theologians (Orig. in Cant
Prol. c. fln. [M. 13, 84]; S. Chrys. in
1. Cor. hom. 7, 3 [M, 61, 58]; S. Thom.
Comm. in ep. S. Paul. ad 1 Cor. 5, 4 et Col. 4, 16; Bellarm. de verbo Dei IV. 4; Serar.
Prolog. c. VII. qu. 14. 15; Pineda alom.
praev. I.1; Bonfrer. Praeloq. VI. 2,
etc).
Salmeron strove to
set aside this opinion by the following arguments: “The Providence of God,
which gave a book to teach men, will preserve that book. Moreover, if the
Church, even in its preparatory state in the Old Law, should allow a book to
perish, which had been committed to her care, she would be unfaithful to her
trust.” In response we say first that two questions are confused here. It is
one thing that a book divinely inspired, not yet canonized by the Church,
should perish; another that a book delivered to the Church by canonization
should perish. This latter fact has never happened. Franzelin, in response to
Salmeron, argues that it is possible that even a canonical book should perish,
for the reason that such book is not the sole or absolutely necessary means of
teaching men the truth. The Church is only infallible and indefectible in furnishing
an adequate means to impart truth to man, and her teaching power would not be
hampered by the loss of a book, or portion thereof, of Holy Scripture. The argument
of Salmeron that God, who gave the book, would preserve it, is feeble, for the
book may be superseded by another, or it may not be necessary or succeeding
ages.
The common opinion
is, therefore, that an inspired book may perish, and that some have perished.
Many proverbs and canticles of Solomon and writings of Prophets, spoken of in
the Scriptures, have certainly perished, and some, at least, of these were inspired.
In the Old Testament
we find mention of the following works: The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num.
XXI. 14); The Book of the Just (Jos. X. 13); The Book of the Words of the Days
of Solomon (II. Sam. XI. 41); The Book of the Words of the Days of the Kings of
Juda (III. Kings, XIV. 19); The Book of the Words of the Days of the Kings of
Israel (III. Kings XIV. 20); The Book of Samuel the Prophet (I. Chron. XXIX.
29); The Words of Nathan, the Prophet (l.c.); The Book of Gad the Prophet
(l.c.); The Books of Ahias (II. Chron. IX. 29); The Version of Addo, the
Prophet (l.c.); The Book of Semeia the Prophet (II. Chron. XII. 15); The Book
of Jehu, the Son of Hanan (II. Chron. XX. 34); The Discourse of Hosai (II. Chron.
XXXIII. 19); The Deeds of Ozias by Isaiah (II. Chron. XXVI. 22); three thousand
Parables o Solomon (III. Kings IV. 22); five thousand Canticles of Solomon
(l.c.); the treatise of Solomon on Natural History (l.c.); certain writings of
Jeremiah (II. Maccab. II.1); The Book of the Days of John Hyrcanus (I. Maccab.
XVI. 24); The Book of Jason, the Cyrenean (II. Maccab. II. 24).
We hold it undoubted
that a person inspired, in one production, may write another without such
influence of the Holy Spirit. We admit that some of the mentioned works were
not inspired; but there are others whose titles clearly prove that they were
inspired works, and we no longer possess them.
Of the New Testament,
nearly all admit that one of Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians (I. Cor. V. 9),
and the Epistles to the Church of Laodicea (Coloss. IV. 16), have perished. Who
will deny that in these Paul also was inspired?
Wherefore we conclude
that the opinion which maintains the possibility and the actuality of the loss
of inspired writings, rests on convincing data. (Andrew Edward Breen, A General and Critical Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture [Rochester,
N.Y.: John P. Smith Printing House, 1897], 377-79)
