Are there "lost books" or "lost passages" of the Christian Bible?

[Crazy Liz]

Stranger, are you saying that if a book that is considered scripture makes any reference to any other literature, the literature referred to must also be defined as scripture and part of the Bible?

How do you reach that conclusion?

 

[stranger]

Stranger, are you saying that if a book that is considered scripture makes any reference to any other literature, the literature referred to must also be defined as scripture and part of the Bible?

How do you reach that conclusion?

Nah, you said that, not me, I only said that the scripture refers to and gives authority to many other 'books' [scrolls] soemof which we have corrupt copies of, some we have good ish copies of, some have just been lost [to date anyways]

so the so-called 'canon' is not only demonstrably incomplete [and historically rather hastily assembled and arbitrary] but also incompletable to present best knowledge [even if one bases this purely on the scriptural evidence of existing 'canons'

Again reading the scripture itself is not such a bad way to answer such questions and it can even come 'alive' if one chooses to read it in 'innocence' and humility of unknowing "as a little child", asking God in yearning for its truth instead of using the presumptions of [sinful] men as a guide

I can even reccomend this approach to knowing God as the one advocated by scripture itself [which Jesus himself studied too, using the words of God to astound people with his understanding of scripture even as a child]

 

[CryptoKnight]

Nah, you said that, not me, I only said that the scripture refers to and gives authority to many other 'books' [scrolls]

I'd be interested in an example where a writing is given any spiritual authority. I know of at least one reference to a scroll considered part of the Mishra, but it is for factual information, not spiritual information.

Similarly, truth can come from many places, even the Father of Lies.

To comment on another item, the selection of the canon seemed to be anything but arbitrary. If one studies the rules set forth at that time, and examines the known history of the works, and examines the church leaders at the time, I think the Holy Spirit did an admirable job of helping flawed men put together documents identifying the critical principals of Christianity.

One does not need scholars to interpret the primary messages of the Bible. The Spirit is more than sufficient for someone to get the gist that Jesus is The Way, and that God is love. However, for those who are interested in the history and nuances would be well served to listen to those who have gone before them. When I hear a fundie say things like "go the extra mile", I think to myself "you really don't know what that means, do you?"

 

[Shekinahs]

Lost books? Or not placed in the Bible? If everyhting that mentioned God was to be in the bible, it would be enormous. Just because God didn't have it included in the Bible doesn't mean it's a lost book..... Just as every writing by Tolkien was not meant to be in lord of the Rings, it doesn't mean those were lost chapters.

Well put

I've often felt that people misunderstand that the Bible is a collection of "books" that were voted upon to be included into one bound edition. And that there was a list of choices on which books to include and some didn't make the cut. Then there were books written by prophets that were not known at the time of the vote and were found centuries later. And there are still books out there that probably will be found much later. Books we may not live to see the discovery of since they may be found 100 or 200 years from now. The teachings God gave his prophets is a number we do not yet know. So there may be more "books" or letters or revelations that are buried that we have yet to find. If we really think that in all of history that the only words God EVER spoke to humankind and her prophets are in the Bible we do not understand our God at all.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

When the original Christian Chruch first got around to cannonizing their writings, there was a whole boatload of gospls out there, and other books and writings that were in use at the time. The Gnostic Gospels are just one example of this. But, when the chruch no longer had to hide itself, and got around to cannonizing their writings, they cannonized them for accuracy. The writings within the bible were chossen because they A)presented views and ideas agreed upon by the people doing the cannonizing, and B) for consistiancy, so that the different writings agreed with one another.

When this happened, all other writings were Declared Heretical by the church, and nearly all the other writings were destroyed. Some were hidden, and a few have resurfaced today. If you go to any local library, look for the titles: Nag Hanhdi Library, and the Gnostic Bible. These are the works that have been re-relised to the public, after beeing hidden for centuries. Though, keep in mind that they are not the cannonized version of the bible, and on many points, actually disagree with what is writen in the bible of today.

A note on the dead sea scrolls. Did you know that they are not being realieased to the public, at least not now. I have heard and read that it is either because the writings again contradict what we have in the bible today, and the researchers don't want to open up a contraversy, or that they arenot sure of their translation. Of course, if the second is true, then we have some major problems with other works and historical documents.

 

[billwald]

WRONG QUESTION. Try "Does the current practice of the Christian religion accurately describe what Jesus origionally had in mind?"

 

[Davebuck]

The thing is, if they aren't in the Bible, they aren't books of the Bible.. Therefore there cannot be any books of the Bible that have been lost...

Lyle,

Those books in your bible were written at different times in history. Some editor (probably king james and his buddies) sat down with all the different books they had and decided which should go 'in' and which should be left out of 'their' bible. So, why did king james leave out, for example, the gospel of Thomas? Obviously this gospel was used by some early christians. It contains some supposed sayings by Jesus that aren't in the other gospels (i.e., some say it helps you understand Jesus even more). Maybe you'd be a better christian if you read it.

I suspect , though, you never thought about this and figured that the bible always existed as a whole or at least that the new testiment was completely compiled right after Jesus died. That is patently incorrect.

Oh, and a side note: do a google search on King James and you'll see that there is evidence that he was a homosexual. While that's no big deal for me, some hard core christians like Gary Bauer (president of family research council) have serious questions about a bible put together by one. As a result, some have decided to go back to all the original manuscripts and do their own interpretations. makes you wonder which version is right, eh?

http://www.christianforums.com/t84125 Here's a great link in these forums about the king james version of the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England This link will give you an encylcopedia account of the evidence supporting his homosexuality.

 

[CryptoKnight]

WRONG QUESTION. Try "Does the current practice of the Christian religion accurately describe what Jesus origionally had in mind?"

None of it does completely, most of it accurately describes most of what Jesus had in mind, some of the current practices are not even close.

In many cases, you can even come close to identifying where they are off. Maybe a fundamental church is right on...excpet you know Jesus wouldn't be so exclusive and rigorous (wasn't that what he was fighting...that very same legalism to the law?)

Even my church, the Methodist Church, is wrong. We are either wrong for ordaining a gay minister, or for fighting over the issue!

The apostle Paul says that churches will struggle to stay inline, and his letters indicate that a church can fall away a *little* so long as they are striving to reach for the truth.

As such, I have no qualms with my Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalean, E-Free, Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters.

 

[Arthra]

Over the years I've collected a lot of books claiming to be various gospels such as the Essene Gospel of Peace, the Aquarian Gospel, Urantia and others.... Most of these are spurious and imaginative in my view but it amazes me how some people really want to hold on to them! Usually they are written by one person who claims to have some channeling or similar experience. It doesn't take a very close examination of them to uncover their inadequacies....

Secondly, i think it's fascinating to consider how the Bible developed as scripture over time.... Consider that the earliest texts were written in one case letters mostly without punctuation or separated by verses and chapters as we have today...

Canonization of scripture was really fairly late so as someone else noted here the Dead Sea Scrolls were sealed at a time before the scriptures were canonized.

In some ways i also think the Nag Hammadi scrolls add to the study of the New Testament as for instance the similarity of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas to the Synoptic Gospels.

- Art

 

[stranger]

The point that seems to be still being missed is that, when one actually reads the bible, that it refers to some twenty or so other books ... now some of these we have some kind of copies of, but many simply aren't on public display, may not even exist any more... that means that the canon is by definition incomplete at best... who has read the prophet of God, Iddo, for instance... many people do not even understand that he was a prophet !

Another problem for the canon, the differing accounts of many events in the gospels , having four to compare, but Jesus said that the holy spirit would reveal testify what he had done.... clearly at least some of the history of Jesus' life in at least three [if not four] gospels is the work of men WITHOUT the spirit of truth... this is a very serious first beginning to the now rampant apostasy of the divided churches when the gospel itself is unsure because it is surrounded with fabrications of mens minds, not being the SINGULAR truth of the one spirit of the one truth of God ...

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
1John 5:6 ... And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth

---- even more damning of modern churches , where is the spirit of truth guiding them into ONE truth of God, all we see is division BECAUSE MEN FOLLOW MEN'S WORDS , the churches are FULL of divisive following of traditions [which MUST only have come from mens minds guided by Satan, not fronm Christ] ... we see no reproving from sin, still less any righteousness and thus true judgment , just masses of hypocrisy not dissimilar yo the Pharisees of Jesus' time...

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

--- Thus it is very clear that despite many church dogmas to the contrary, that the pouring out of the spirit on all flesh has not yet occurred, even though it was poured out on a FEW of the 144,000 [Rev 7:3-8] who were part of the early Hebrew chritsian church before it was taken over to become a hierarchical Roman state religion and all the pagan practices were brought in to replace the holy things of God written about in scripture [but no longer observed by modern christians]

---- we see then eventually perhaps that the scripture describes the pouring out of the spirit FIRST on Jesus, then in this AGE upon the 144,000 remnant of tribal Israel who become the new covenant priests, and only then [after death resurrection and judgment] upon all flesh :-

Ezekiel 39:29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.
Proverbs 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isa 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

Joe 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

Zec 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

It is a very different picture in scripture than that painted by the apostate churches... unsurprising since the apostasy is prophesied [e.g. 2 Thess 2]

But the question is, why do christians not notice that what they call 'their faith' is apostate, that they are not believing in and on the Jesus Christ of scripture, but upon false traditions of men that are corruptions of paganism with christianity, not the teachings of the Hebrew Jesus and the prophets of God...

 

[jgarden]

There are lost biblical books in the Old Testament and quotes from books outside the canon in the New Testament.

OLD TESTAMENT

The Book of Wars - (Numbers 21:14) - “That is why the Book of Wars of the Lord says .......... “

The Book of Jashar (Upright) -( Joshua 10:13) - “So the sun stood still, till the nation avenged itself on the enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.”

The Book of Jashar - (2 Samuel 1:18) - “ .......... and ordered that the men of Judah be taught his lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar).”

NEW TESTAMENT (references to quotes in books found outside the canon)

Aratus - (Acts 17:28) - “As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’”

Menander - (I Corinthians 15:33) - “Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.”’

The Assumption of Moses - (Jude 9) - “”But even the archangel when he was disputed with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!”

1Enoch - (Jude 14-15) - “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousand upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone , and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”’

 

[stranger]

There are tens of books mentioned in the existing bible which are not included in it, thus they are given authority as scripture by the reference, but are missing from it...

Simply read the scripture instead of claiming that it is complete without checking whether that is true by the scripture itself ...

some examples:

Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, {What…: or, Vaheb in Suphah}

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. {Jasher: or, the upright?}

2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) {of Jasher: or, of the upright}

1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? {acts: or, words, or, things}

1 Chronicles 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, {book: or, history: Heb. words}

2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? {book: Heb. words}

2 Chronicles 9:29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? {book: Heb. words}

2 Chronicles 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually. {book: Heb. words}

2 Chronicles 16:11 And, behold, the acts of Asa, first and last, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.

2 Chronicles 20:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel. {book of Jehu: Heb. words, etc} {is mentioned: Heb. was made to ascend}

 

[Blackmarch]

Are there "lost books" or "lost passages" of the Christian Bible?
I have read several books claiming that there had been lost/missing books in the Bible (which recent digs had disclosed). Is this true?

Yes there are references in the bible, namely the OT to other books that should have been in it but can't be found in the bible. However there are some books that have had the same name as the lost books in the early years of the church, but by the the translators got them, they could tell from the content that either they had been changed or substituted, or had lost so much doctrine (as to what they understood) that they decided to leave those books out when they compiled the bible. The apocrypha is supposed to be a few of those books, but for the reasons stated it can't be as trusted as the bible can (e.g. the bible is more correct, at least in this one's opinion).

 

[MoonlessNight]

I have to admit I'm a bit lost about all this discussion regarding books quoted in the Bible yet not part of them. Why does an authority quoting a source necessarily entail the same level of authority in that source? That doesn't seem to be the way that it works in scholarship. For example, Aquinas bases his work in Aristotle and quotes him quite frequently. He certainly views Aristotle as an authority, since he quotes him frequently in the rebuttal ("on the contrary") sections and refers to him as "The Philosopher." But he disagrees with him at points, such as on the question of whether nemesis (as in an indignation at someone receiving more riches and other temporal goods than he actually deserves) is a sin. Aristotle believes it is indicative of good morals, Aquinas labels it a sin. (This is in the Summa part II of II Question 36 article 2 if you are wondering). Should Aquinas abandon Aristotle as an authority because he believes he got a few things wrong? No, since for the most part Aquinas believes he is right. Can't it be the same way with these extra-curricular books? Couldn't they be right in the parts that were quoted, but not authoritative enough to warrant being placed in the Bible?

 

[stranger]

[moonlessnight] "Couldn't they be right in the parts that were quoted, but not authoritative enough to warrant being placed in the Bible?"

That could be the case for a [very] few of the references to other 'books' [scrolls]from the bible, but consider that one is either a prophet of God or one is not, thus the references to other prophets not included in the bible does in fact authorise what they said for inclusion ...

the question also is why, having permitted the mention of them in the canon, why God would then allow many of these books to be lost or corrupted... a telling question ...

 

[JLovesUSo]

A site I use quite frequently and has quite a bit of good apologetics information on it is the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and it has a good link to the "lost books" that you can actually click on each of them and read the translation of that book.

I did a lil studying some of the Dead Sea scrolls and my impression has been that some of these books may have a few words God gave to some of the writers and those blessed me (because I would love to know every single word Jesus spoke), but IMO they didn't change the doctrine of the gospel our Lord Jesus proclaimed and was fulfilled through the OT.

Some of the other books, like the Gospel of Thomas, might have been written by a guy named "Thomas" but I doubt it was THE Thomas (but cannot prove this..) that was with Jesus - because IMO, there is conflicting doctrine with the 4 gospels and Paul's writing in there.

I think the bottom line is that if your seeking God and want to know him, that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide you to all truth. I think GOD always directs those who seek him with all their heart and that should be the focus of someone wanting to seek the truth about him.

It's essential IMO that we be lead by the Holy Spirit. Because remember Satan quoted scripture to Jesus and twisted it just a wee bit - but Jesus rebuked him every time with the truth of the scriptures.

Hope this helps and may God Bless all you who seek Him...

 

[Minowa]

...of course, what is coming around again are claims by Gnostics and other heretics that "their" writings are also inspired of God. These claims were rejected by the historical visible Christian Church from the start. These false claims are resurfacing in an attempt to fool even the elect, if this were possible. (But, it is not possible.)

Unlike the Gnostics, the Orthodox felt their Church had the authority to tell the Christians what they should believe. If Christians "believed" the same, Constantine said it would bring "harmony" to the church and Empire. So Bishops and Constantine met in Nicaea. The Nicene Creed became the official doctrine that was to define "Christianity." The vote was unanimous as Constantine exiled those who disagreed. Constantine ordered "heretics" to surrender their church's properties to what was beginning to be called the Catholic/universal church.

Some say almost half of Christians had a gnostic way of thinking. Orthodox Bishops (all men) and Constantine supposedly knew the exact interpretation of Jesus and His teachings. Constantine then said that those who agreed with him and his Bishops were the "true" Christians. And, amazingly, understanding himself as the "vice regent of God", he and the Bishops were able to silence others such as the Gnostics who saw the meaning and purpose of Christ differently. Constantine's Council did help Christianity to be the state religion and one voice. Gaining state and ecclesiastical power, the patriarchal Orthodox Church was able to judge for Christ, for God, who was and wasn't a true Christian by what one "believed." Therefore the war cry against the poorly organized Gnostics, was "HERETICS."

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Unlike the Gnostics, the Orthodox felt their Church had the authority to tell the Christians what they should believe. If Christians "believed" the same, Constantine said it would bring "harmony" to the church and Empire. So Bishops and Constantine met in Nicaea. The Nicene Creed became the official doctrine that was to define "Christianity." The vote was unanimous as Constantine exiled those who disagreed. Constantine ordered "heretics" to surrender their church's properties to what was beginning to be called the Catholic/universal church.

Some say almost half of Christians had a gnostic way of thinking. Orthodox Bishops (all men) and Constantine supposedly knew the exact interpretation of Jesus and His teachings. Constantine then said that those who agreed with him and his Bishops were the "true" Christians. And, amazingly, understanding himself as the "vice regent of God", he and the Bishops were able to silence others such as the Gnostics who saw the meaning and purpose of Christ differently. Constantine's Council did help Christianity to be the state religion and one voice. Gaining state and ecclesiastical power, the patriarchal Orthodox Church was able to judge for Christ, for God, who was and wasn't a true Christian by what one "believed." Therefore the war cry against the poorly organized Gnostics, was "HERETICS."

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the Orthodoxy was right, and the gnostics were in error. Since the gnostics were preaching secret "teachings" and the Orthodoxy the Gospel as recorded, I choose to believe the correct interpretation prevailed.

 

[Minowa]

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the Orthodoxy was right, and the gnostics were in error. Since the gnostics were preaching secret "teachings" and the Orthodoxy the Gospel as recorded, I choose to believe the correct interpretation prevailed.

The reason why Gnostic teachings were considered "secret" could have been for two reasons. One, that it was considered secret after Constantine and his decision to unite a nation using religion and they had to keep their gospels from being destroyed (which weren't entirely destroyed).

Or two, it is "secret" in the sense that their view of experiencing God is to find the wisdom that lies within every soul. "The kingdom of God is within you", is the only secret. It is secret because you cannot find it out in the open. And since the faith needed very little reliance on someone to dictate to them how to pray and worship, it provided a threat to Constantine who wanted control of the country by using religion as a puppet.

 

[Nathan David]

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the Orthodoxy was right, and the gnostics were in error. Since the gnostics were preaching secret "teachings" and the Orthodoxy the Gospel as recorded, I choose to believe the correct interpretation prevailed.

In other words, the winners write the history books. The Orthodoxy were only preaching the "Gospel as recorded" because they decided what the Gospel was. The gnostics and others' teachings were only "secret" because the Orthodoxy persecuted them.