Lost Bible Books

[Chad]

Are there lost books of the Bible?
by Matt Slick

There is much talk these days about lost books of the Bible. From cults to the New Age, people make all sorts of claims about how the Bible is missing books, books that help justify what they hope to believe. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature.

The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place (see: Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible).

The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons:

• They were not referenced by Jesus. Jesus directly referenced the entire Jewish canon of Scripture by referring to Abel (the first martyr in the Old Testament) and Zacharias (the last martyr in the OT) (Matt. 23:35). He also never quotes directly from any of the apocryphal writings, but makes numerous references to the Old Testament books.
• They lacked apostolic1 or prophetic authorship.
• They did not claim to be the Word of God.
• They contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) or the condoning of magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
• They have serious historical inaccuracies (For more information, see "Errors in the Apocrypha").

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic church has added certain books to the canon of scripture. In 1546, largely due in response to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church authorized several more books as scripture known as the apocrypha. The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

The Pseudepigraphal books are "false writings." They are a collection of early Jewish and "Christian" writings composed between 200 BC and AD 200. However, they too were known and were never considered scripture.

The deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible. The recognized deuterocanonical books are "Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach or Ben Sira), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees, and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The canon of the Greek Orthodox community also includes 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix."2

• 1.Every book in the New Testament was either written by an apostle or someone who knew an apostle (i.e. Luke, who was not an apostle, knew Paul; Mark, who was also not an apostle, knew Peter). One characteristic of an apostle was someone who had seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1).
• 2.Harper's Bible Dictionary, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985.

 

[Lamar]

Thank you for this!

 

[Last Things]

I find the author confusing. Usually lost refers to Gnostic books, not books that were used by faithful Jews.

He recognizes that the Jews actually had two bibles: The Hebrew and the Greek. The Hebrew served the Jews of their homeland. The Greek version served the Jews outside of it - the Greek and Latin speaking world. They included the Aramaic books (the books Catholics 'added'. The author says that the Orthodox include these books - but says the Catholics added them. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches were separated long before the 16th Century. All the there ancient Churches, those that participated in the Ecumenical Councils (Catholic/Orthodox/Coptic) use those books. In 393 they created a list of scripture, which included the books. 1200 years later Catholic reaffirmed those books.

They were even included with the KJV originally. The Reformation choose to go with the books of 393, but use only the Hebrew bible as their OT.

 

[B-A-C]

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches were separated long before the 16th Century.

The reformation didn't really have much to do with the Orthodox church. (Which I agree, was already well seaparated from Rome) It was the beginning of Protestantism. The word protestant, comes from "protest". They are protesting many things about the Roman Catholic church.
The Septuagint is simply the Hebrew (old testament) Bible translated from Hebrew to Greek.
None of the large protestant churches recognize the books of the apocrypha. As Chad mentioned, Jesus didn't recognize them even though they were written before he came to earth. Also in order to be recognized in the Protestant canon, you had to be a leader of Israel (Moses), a king of Israel (David, Solomon ), a prophet of Israel (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah), a judge of Israel (Samuel), or the book had to reveal the divine nature of God. (Ruth). I have read the books of the apocrypha, for the most part there is nothing wrong with them, there is some good history contained in them.
But on the other hand, I can't say reading them really reveals God's character in any way.

 

[Brad Huber]

The new testament has a couple of instances of repeating info from the book of Enoch. I can find and list them if you wish. The jews and Christians did see it as holy to begin with, and then changed their minds later on, when they found parts of it that made them look bad.

 

[Last Things]

The reformation didn't really have much to do with the Orthodox church. (Which I agree, was already well seaparated from Rome) It was the beginning of Protestantism. The word protestant, comes from "protest". They are protesting many things about the Roman Catholic church.

I was pointing out that the author was not making sense to me. He says that Catholics added books in the 16th Century, but this does not make sense to me as the Catholics and Orthodox both use those books, so they would have been used at last sense the 11th Century when they were divided. Furthermore, these books were determined in the 4th or 5th Century, I do not remember which Ecumenical Council it was. The books were reaffirmed at Trent, as protestants were saying they were not inspired. This is sometimes incorrectly cited as the point when the Catholic Church added them, but they were already using them at the time.

The Septuagint is simply the Hebrew (old testament) Bible translated from Hebrew to Greek.

The Septuagint contains those books protestants do not use. It translated and contained both the Hebrew texts and the Aramaic texts.
The article itself recognizes this: "The deuterocanonical (apocrypha) books are those books that were included in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) but not included in the Hebrew Bible." Which is all the more confusing to me. It's contradictory, because he goes on to say those books which were included in the Greek bibles were not recognized by the Christians and Jews who used them.

None of the large protestant churches recognize the books of the apocrypha. As Chad mentioned, Jesus didn't recognize them even though they were written before he came to earth.

Just to be clear, Chad was posting an article. I do not see any evidence that Jesus did not recognize them.

Also in order to be recognized in the Protestant canon, you had to be a leader of Israel (Moses), a king of Israel (David, Solomon ), a prophet of Israel (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah), a judge of Israel (Samuel), or the book had to reveal the divine nature of God. (Ruth). I have read the books of the apocrypha, for the most part there is nothing wrong with them, there is some good history contained in them.
But on the other hand, I can't say reading them really reveals God's character in any way.

That supposes that those books were actually written by those figures. I think Moses authored the Torah, but did not write it, as it records his own death. Isaiah has three books that refer to three different times he could not have been alive in.

 

[james1523]

Quotation does not equal canonicity, and lack of quotation does not mean it is not truthful.

Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. However because they were part of a larger collection which were quoted from, we know that these 5 books are also inspired.

Apocrypha is not inspired? Then why does Jude 14-15 quote 1 Enoch chapter 2 which is part of the Apocrypha?

This puts doubt on any suggestion that the apocrypha was unknown to the early church and unworthy of consideration as Scripture.

Jesus quoted the deuterocanon which was part of the Septuagent. Both were in circulation amongst the Jews at the time and Jesus was familiar with all of them. The Septuagint version of Scripture that Christ quoted includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly added by Rome in the 16th century. They were not added, they were in there to begin with.

"None of the large protestant churches recognize the books of the apocrypha."
The Anglican church, largest protestant denomination in the world, recognizes certain books of the apocrypha and sometimes reads from them during the service.

 

[B-A-C]

"None of the large protestant churches recognize the books of the apocrypha."
The Anglican church, largest protestant denomination in the world, recognizes certain books of the apocrypha and sometimes reads from them during the service.

Hmm.. well Wikipedia and Christ facts both put several churches larger than the Anglican church.
But even if they were the largest, most protestant denominations (other than themselves) do not consider the protestant as many of them believe and
practice many of the Roman Catholic liturgies and traditions.