The missing books

[joshuanazar]

I was reading about these so called missing books of the Bible. I heard that they were not included by some christian council as divinely inspired. I decided not to base my judgement on what other men have approved. So I decided to look into these books myself. Since I could see that the 66 books that we call the Bible are infallible and the Spirit has vouched for their authenticity, I decided that I would use God's Word and Spirit as the perfect test. The first book that I looked into was the Book of Enoch since the name appears in Jude. However, I quickly came to the conclusion that this was not the same book that Jude was referring to. I have likewise concluded that the Gospels of Thomas and Judas are likewise wrong and therefore not divinely inspired. I have also concluded from Scripture that the books that you find in the Catholic Bible are not divinely inspired.

I merely said all of this because I was bored.

 

[BryanW92]

Wow. Your gift of discernment is off the charts! The early church could have really used you.

 

[dayhiker]

In general most of the missing books have been known to the church thru history. The early church fathers commented on them and what they thought about them.

I've read most of them over the years and to me they aren't on par with the books that are in the NT.

 

[pescador]

In general most of the missing books have been known to the church thru history. The early church fathers commented on them and what they thought about them.

I've read most of them over the years and to me they aren't on par with the books that are in the NT.

I agree that they aren't on a par with the sixty-six "books" of the Bible, Old and New Testaments.


However these books aren't "missing" since they obviously exist. The early church chose not to include them in the canon of scripture because they could not be shown to be of apostolic origin, not because of their content. There is disagreement about this which is why there are different "books" in the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic bibles .

 

[joshuanazar]

I agree that they aren't on a par with the sixty-six "books" of the Bible, Old and New Testaments.


However these books aren't "missing" since they obviously exist. The early church chose not to include them in the canon of scripture because they could not be shown to be of apostolic origin, not because of their content. There is disagreement about this which is why there are different "books" in the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic bibles .

I can vouch that the content of the books that I read is against scripture.

 

[1watchman]

There is also a danger of changing words every few years to suit the reasoning of some men. Any important changes of words have already been identified many years ago and shown in the margins of sound Bibles ---such as the Old Scofield Edition of the KJV (NOT CHANGING TEXTS). One will surely be on safe and sound ground by holding to a good rendering of KJV (also general readings in NKJV). Pray much for help!

 

[St Antony]

Not sure which "missing books" are being discussed here? 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Chapters 10-16 of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees were included as a part of the canon and Holy Scripture by every church council and all Christians from the beginning up to the 16th century. There was no dispute in the early centuries of the Church about these being Scripture, the same as any other Scripture.

If you are referencing books like the Gospel of Thomas, these are different because they were determined to contain heresy by the early church. These weren't 'left out"; they were intentionally excluded and condemned by the Church.

 

[joshuanazar]

They are not scripture. Let's look at other reasons why they are excluded from the Bible.
1. They were not written by or approved by any prophet, or spokesperson for God.
2. They were not even recognized by the Jews as part of scripture.
3. They were no quoted by Christ or any apostle (Paul quoted heathen poets twice, but no one quote any of these books)
4. Some contain states that are contradictory to scripture and some even contradict themselves.
5. They were not apart of the ancient versions of scripture. They weren't added until after 300AD and were later rejected in 363ad for being uninspired.
6. They do not claim divine inspiration and in maccabees' case it basically states that there is none (2 Macc. 2:23;15:38).
7. The famous Jewish historian Jospehus, who lived during the time of the apostles didn't even regard them as scripture.(Look at his first book section 8 for the list of the books that he considered scripture.)

All that said, I only care about reasons 1,3,4, and 6.

 

[St Antony]

They are not scripture. Let's look at other reasons why they are excluded from the Bible.
1. They were not written by or approved by any prophet, or spokesperson for God.
2. They were not even recognized by the Jews as part of scripture.
3. They were no quoted by Christ or any apostle (Paul quoted heathen poets twice, but no one quote any of these books)
4. Some contain states that are contradictory to scripture and some even contradict themselves.
5. They were not apart of the ancient versions of scripture. They weren't added until after 300AD and were later rejected in 363ad for being uninspired.
6. They do not claim divine inspiration and in maccabees' case it basically states that there is none (2 Macc. 2:23;15:38).
7. The famous Jewish historian Jospehus, who lived during the time of the apostles didn't even regard them as scripture.(Look at his first book section 8 for the list of the books that he considered scripture.)

All that said, I only care about reasons 1,3,4, and 6.

I agree with you that Jews did not regard them as Scripture. However, this decision was taken in the late First Century, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70. After destruction of their Temple, the Jews turned inward, toward the Talmud and the Synagogue, and rejected anything that smacked of the prevailing Graeco-Roman culture. These books were most certainly written by Jews, just Jews who spoke Greek as their primary daily language. Moreover, these books were written, not in 300 AD but anywhere from the 1st to 4th century BC. How would Josephus be able to reject them if they were written in 300 given that he was a contemporary of the Jewish revolt of 66-70?

For Christians, on the other hand, these books were always considered part of Scripture. If there is a church council or church father who rejected these books prior to the Reformation, please cite the council or passage.

 

[joshuanazar]

I agree with you that Jews did not regard them as Scripture. However, this decision was taken in the late First Century, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70. After destruction of their Temple, the Jews turned inward, toward the Talmud and the Synagogue, and rejected anything that smacked of the prevailing Graeco-Roman culture. These books were most certainly written by Jews, just Jews who spoke Greek as their primary daily language. Moreover, these books were written, not in 300 AD but anywhere from the 1st to 4th century BC. How would Josephus be able to reject them if they were written in 300 given that he was a contemporary of the Jewish revolt of 66-70?

For Christians, on the other hand, these books were always considered part of Scripture. If there is a church council or church father who rejected these books prior to the Reformation, please cite the council or passage.

The Laodician council 636AD. And if they were apart of Christian scripture than how come the apostles and Jesus ignored them? Why would the Jews reject God's word, even if it was from Greek Jews, when they need it most? Why would Jesus reject them? You see the Jews rejected those books as scripture before 70AD. All of the 66 books were quoted by either Jesus or an apostle, but not a single book that you are trying to pass for scripture was ever quoted? Are you saying that Jesus and the divinely inspired writers of the New Testament purposely ignored these writings because they "smacked of the prevailing Graeco-Roman culture"? Why would Paul the apostle sent out to this culture ignore these books? Come on! He quoted heathen poets twice, but not once did he or anybody else quote these false books.

 

[jargew]

Hi Josh,

Interesting thread. I am a protestant evangelical and a fan of history and apologetics. I am pleased the Apocrypha has been left out of our bible, but much about the seven books remains a mystery to me, some of the reasons I state below. I will say that I am a fan of Roman history and we need to realize the Catholic church was really the first cohesive iteration of the church and God used the this church to spread the gospel throughout the ancient world. I feel protestants have lost touch with our history in some respects, and simply think the church started up around 1500 and didn't hit it's stride until 1900. This is silly. The catholic church was used for God's purpose for many centuries. But seems to have become very, very corrupt....

Please note:The principle format of the bible until the reformation was the Catholic bible. To the best of my knowledge, these apocryphal books were considered canonical by several councils throughout the ages. eg In 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon.

If you make claims such as these below, you should cite your source. I would encourage you to be wary of American evangelical websites for information on history. These sites have great intent, but tend to have limited historical accuracy and an obvious agenda.

You say "5. They were not apart of the ancient versions of scripture. They weren't added until after 300AD and were later rejected in 363ad for being uninspired."
OR
claim the The Laodician council 636AD rejected these books as cannon.

The council of Laodician was very minor council (only 30 members present !) They ruled the canon comprised the traditional 27 books of the New Testament, minus Revelation; and the 39 books of the Old Testament, plus the book of Baruch and its extended ending, the Epistle of Jeremiah.

Next-
Many books of the old testament are not cited in the NT, which according to your argument, would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

Also, surprisingly -
Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament.

 

[joshuanazar]

I am going to be honest. I got all of that from the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Some asked for proof and I gave what Dake said, I believe he is right. As for the Council of Laodicia, I don't believe being small disqualifies their decision. In fact, since the majority go down the broad path to destruction, I would say being few works in their favor as far as I'm concerned. But as I said in my earlier posts. I don't care what council said what. The proof that I base my belief on is that I found that the Spirit did not agree with them when I read them. That simple proof is all I need. I don't even care to look for other proof. I don't know if what you said has any truth to it. I'm not even going to check. I just know that they are not scripture. Now they might be books of beautiful poetry or wise sayings or accurate historical documents, but they are not scripture and that is the whole point. That is probably an unsatisfactory answer.

Now first you say that you are glad that they are not in the Bible, then you try defending them. How do you really feel about them? If you do not think that they are scripture then why do you think that. What proof convinced you that they are not scripture?

 

[Sketcher]

I don't think either of the three books you mentioned belong in the Bible, but for different reasons. The "gospels" of Thomas and Judas are known forgeries and Gnostic works. Enoch doesn't really belong in the same category as they do.

 

[joshuanazar]

I don't think either of the three books you mentioned belong in the Bible, but for different reasons. The "gospels" of Thomas and Judas are known forgeries and Gnostic works. Enoch doesn't really belong in the same category as they do.

I came to my beliefs in a place where I couldn't do research. All I had was the books themselves to read. That was all I needed.