Missing Books of the Bible!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are these 18 books, and why are they missing?

1. The Book of the Wars of the Lord: We can read about this book in (Bible) Numbers 21:14.

2. The Book of Jasher: We read about this book in Joshua 10:13. This book is also mentioned in II Samuel, 1:18.

3. Three books of Solomon: The first book contained one thousand and five Psalms, the second described the history of creation, and the third consisted of three thousand Proverbs. This book is mentioned in I Kings 4:32.

4. The Book of Manners of the Kingdom: We find the mention of this missing book in I Samuel 10:25.

5. The History of Samuel the Seer: (6) The History of Prophet Nathan & (7) The Book of Gad the Seer: These three missing books (5, 6, & 7) are mentioned in I Chronicles 29:29.

8. The Book of Shemiah, the Prophet: (9) The Book of Iddo, the Seer: Both (8 & 9) books are mentioned in II Chronicles 12:15.

10. The Prophecy of Ahijah (11) The Visions of Iddo, the Seer: These two books (10 & 11) are mentioned in II Chronicles 9:29. The books of Iddo and Nathan are also mentioned in this verse.

12. The Book of Jehu, the son of Hanani: This book is mentioned in II Chronicles 20:24.

13. The Book of Isaiah, the Prophet: This book consisted of complete accounts of Uzziah. It is mentioned in II Chronicles 26:22.

14. The Book of Visions of Isaiah: This lost book contained the complete accounts of Hezekiah and is mentioned in II Chronicles 32:32.

15. The Lamentation of Jeremiah: This lost book consisted of Jeremiah’s lamentation for Josiah, and is described in II Chronicles 35:25.

16. The Book of Chronicles: This missing book is mentioned in Nehemiah 12:23. (This book is not included in the present books. This is another book, which does not exist today)

17. The Book of Covenant of Moses: This missing book is mentioned in Exodus 24:7.

18. The Book of the Acts of Solomon: We find the mention of this book in I Kings 11:14.

Originally posted by saint4God

1 Esdras

An account of Jewish history from Josiah's reforms, through the return from exile and the public reading of the Law by Ezra. ...

I can hypothesize on why this one was left out (Assuming this is the same book that I read online). It talks about the law, and it's effects on man, and how no one can be saved by the law, and the need for a redeemer. It also answers a lot of questions about the afterlife, judgment, and how evil can be allowed in the world.

It was a very interesting read, and I didn't find anything in my CURSORY initial read of it that would be "anti-biblical", so one IS left to wonder why it was left out.

On the other hand, I can tell you without a doubt as to why the Book of Enoch was left out. It very CLEARLY depicts why the flood occurred. This ties in with Jesus saying that the end times would be just like in the days of Noah. In other words, by reading the Book of Enoch, you would know what additional signs to look for as the end of days approaches. BTW, this book was quoted by James (brother of Jesus), and (unless I am mistaken) by Jesus himself. It is most certainly quoted in the Book of Jude.

The interesting thing is that one of the early church fathers (can't remember who it was) said that the Book of Enoch was kept out by the very "people" it was describing, who had infiltrated the church, and didn't want that knowledge public.

I do believe that the KJV is a direct revelation from God; however, I also believe that there have been numerous deletions from that bible. Come on! I mean, how does a long list of "this person begat that person" make it, but not a book like Enoch that tells EXACTLY AND IN DETAIL the reason for the flood?

Some of the "books" left out, the Gospel of Thomas being the most notorious, were left out because they are, in fact, heretical to the Christian Faith. Others....... not so much.

I have read Esdras, and the Book of Enoch. In them, I don't see ANYTHING that is contrary to the core elements of Christianity (the law and the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as redeemer of mankind). Perhaps I've overlooked something, but it seems more likely that the forces of darkness and evil don't want you knowing those things. Sadly enough, it also seems that certain people in historic Christianity aligned themselves with said forces, but that is not to be unexpected.



[edit on 5-9-2008 by sir_chancealot]

Originally posted by jhill76

sacred-texts.com has all of the books online...

My biggest question is why do people not mention these books or not preach upon them?

because the Judeo-Christian Bible is the whole act...designed for public consumption.

think of the story from Genesis to Revelation as the 'epic' Theatrical Play and Opera...
we cannot deviate from the 'Playbill' too much or the production would no longer be 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'.

so, the lesser prophets with specific, localized, individualized, or timely admonishments can only be seen as 'fractals', with little meaning to the larger community especially over the centuries.


next.... many of those 'prophets' & their 'books' are only worth a footnote into the larger story... one reason is that there are 3 types of 'prophets',
one type are 'raah' = 'seers'...sorta self explanatory
then there are 'chozeh'= who have spiritual internal visions
then there are 'naiby' = who are inbibed by the Spirit
(ADD: source "... write the vision.org/")

now there would be great difficulty explaining these varieties of inspired individuals to the unenlightened masses....
only the initiates into divinity schools and priestly orders need be studied on these other individuals and 'books'

thanks

[edit on 5-9-2008 by St Udio]

I appreciated you post, it was an interesting read. One comment I wanted to make was regarding the following:

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Some of the "books" left out, the Gospel of Thomas being the most notorious, were left out because they are, in fact, heretical to the Christian Faith. Others....... not so much.

I'm not sure what it heretical about it. I've heard the analysis of someone who have read it that sounded like a gross misinterpretation, but the book basically sounds like a sermon any pastor would give. I think the gospel was removed because it did not provide an eyewitness account like the book of 1 Peter nor provided any additional information that wasn't previously presented.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by saint4God]

Removed on second thought.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by saint4God]

Hi all,

Originally posted by xianh
The new testament was standardized by in 382AD by Pope Damasus I.

This is not very accurate.

The canon formed over the 4th century at various councils - Hippo, Carthage, Rome.

The FIRST canon to be like ours was from Athanasius in 367CE.

Damasus did not have authority to standardise the canon. It's just that the list associated with his name is from the first local council to list our canon.


Iasion


[edit on 6-9-2008 by Iasion]

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm not sure what it heretical about it. I've heard the analysis of someone who have read it that sounded like a gross misinterpretation, but the book basically sounds like a sermon any pastor would give. I think the gospel was removed because it did not provide an eyewitness account like the book of 1 Peter nor provided any additional information that wasn't previously presented.

Thomas is a book that cannot be easily pegged. The infamous line about immanence (I am the light that is over them all; I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me; split a piece of wood and I am there) seems evocative of John 1, and the statement is rather antithetical to the Gnostic viewpoint that God was entirely transcendent of the material universe.
The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen in its Thomas form more closely parallels a dream vision in the Book of Enoch, which does lend it some legitimacy as an early text; Irenaeas used this parable to refute Marcion's idea that Jesus' Father was a separate deity from the God of the Jews.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by xianh
The new testament was standardized by in 382AD by Pope Damasus I.

This is not very accurate... The canon formed over the 4th century at various councils - Hippo, Carthage, Rome... The FIRST canon to be like ours was from Athanasius in 367CE.[edit on 6-9-2008 by Iasion]

Iasion is correct for the New Testament writings. The Canonicity of Old Testament writings is not clearly established; the Protestants use the books established from the Jewish Council of Jamnia, as I understand; The Roman Catholics have a more expansive Deutero-canon (the so-called Old Testament Apocrypha), and the Eastern Orthodox a still more expansive one.

As for New Testament writings, several of the books now considered Canonical were actually quite controversial, as stated explicitly by Eusebius in his book The History of the Church:
* II Peter
* II John
* III John
* James
* Hebrews
* The Apocalypse of John (i.e., Revelation -- a highly contested book)

Eusebius comments on which he considers genuine Apostolic writings from those he considered to be un-genuine (often translated as spurious). He also distinguished between the canonical and spurrious books which were controversial but still read in the Churches from those which were blatantly false or heretical. Thus, all of the books considered Canonical now were not in the false/heretical category.

Some books were not included in the Canon, but were used in many Churches around the world (meaning they were read in the congregations, not as a "Bible study" or comparative literature), including: I Clement and The Shepherd (Hermas). I Clement is relatively benign, but The Shepherd is quite a theological work (I have read it and do not myself understand why it is not in the Canon).

Eventually, the books considered Canonical were loosely derived from various Councils of Bishops, and as Iasion clearly states, the first list of New Testament books that agrees with the modern Canon is found in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius of Alexandria, c. 367 C.E. The idea that Apostolic writings were "Holy Scripture" and revelations had ceased was largely in reaction to early heresies, most notably the Montanist heresy. The Canon was not set even after the first Ecumenical Council in the year 325 A.D., as evidenced by the writings of Eusebius, but earlier canon lists and authors do not agree, including:

* Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 120-200 C.E.) -- quoted from I Clement and The Shepherd

* Clement of Alexandria (180-200 C.E.) -- quoted from I Clement, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, Preaching of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter

* Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 C.E.) -- omits the Apocalypse of John (and states explicitly that any Gospels other than the 4 now accepted were false)

* Codex Sinaiticus (300's C.E.) -- includes Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd

* Codex Claromontanus (300's? C.E.) -- includes the Acts of Paul, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, but omits Hebrews, James

* Cheltenham Canon(~300's C.E.) -- omits Hebrews, James

* Synod of Laodicea (~363 C.E.) -- omits the Apocalypse of John

* Apostolic Canons (~380 C.E.) -- omits the Apocalypse of John

* Gregory of Nazianus (329-389 C.E.) -- omits the Apocalypse of John

* Pesh-itta (400's? C.E.) -- omits II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, the Apocalypse of John

* Amphilochius of Iconium (after 394 C.E.) -- specifies that the omissions and inclusions were not universal including listing Hebrews, and omitting II Peter, II John, III John, the Apocalypse of John


The selection criteria for scripture was two-fold:

1. The Church held traditionally that these writings were of genuine Apostolic authorship

2. The contents of these books agreed with the oral, written, and liturgical tradition of the Church.

So, ironically it was Church tradition that identified the Christian Scriptures. I suspect that this may make some ATS readers uncomfortable... but it is nevertheless true. Anyone who wants to debate these points, I can provide references (but they were too numerous for this posting).

Originally posted by Eleleth
I'm not sure what it heretical about it... Thomas is a book that cannot be easily pegged.

The Gospel of Thomas was either unknown/not cited by early Christians, or explicitly identified as heretical, as in the case of Origen, Eusebius, and Cyril of Jerusalem.

Several early authors identify that the only Gospels that were genuine were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They said that all others were forgeries or mislabeled. Many/most of these were from heretical sects, especially the Gnostics, who were identified as non-Christian by very early writers (in the first 100-200 years of Church history).

That is why.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Many/most of these were from heretical sects, especially the Gnostics, who were identified as non-Christian by very early writers (in the first 100-200 years of Church history).

That is why.

This could explain why the Gnostics I've spoken to here adamantly defend these extra books. I'm curious as to how they were identified. Was it something in the writting? Or something they said or did in their life?

Originally posted by saint4God
This could explain why the Gnostics I've spoken to here adamantly defend these extra books. I'm curious as to how they were identified. Was it something in the writting? Or something they said or did in their life?

Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote quite harshly against the Gnostics. Others included: Origen, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria. The basis of their arguments is that the Gnostics were not within the Apostolic tradition, and their scriptures were fraudulent.

One of the key Gnostic teachings were that there was knowledge outside of the scriptures that was an oral tradition of their own that was hidden from most of the Church as a whole. It was mixing Christian teachings with Greek philosophy to create something that was foreign to the Churches that could trace their Bishops directly to the Apostles.

In many ways, Protestantism has many similarities with Gnosticism in terms of rejecting Church tradition.

Does that answer the question?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote quite harshly against the Gnostics. Others included: Origen, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria. The basis of their arguments is that the Gnostics were not within the Apostolic tradition, and their scriptures were fraudulent.

Usually when someone calls 'fraud' they have specific reasons for doing so. I suppose what I'm looking for are a list of reasons as to why it would be considered such. In reading the books themselves (and perhaps I'd missed something while doing so), I hadn't seen anything that out-and-out said "no way! This goes against the Bible that says this..."

Originally posted by ScienceDada
One of the key Gnostic teachings were that there was knowledge outside of the scriptures that was an oral tradition of their own that was hidden from most of the Church as a whole. It was mixing Christian teachings with Greek philosophy to create something that was foreign to the Churches that could trace their Bishops directly to the Apostles.

This is a very good explanation. Perhaps it's a very subtle mixing that seems to slip by the eyes of a lot of people. I'd done some reading about it, but your answer is well composed here. I appreciate it.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
In many ways, Protestantism has many similarities with Gnosticism in terms of rejecting Church tradition.

Whoa, hey, one second please. Wouldn't Catholicism be closer to Gnosticism than Protestantism since Catholicism included extra-canonical books whereas Protestantism did not include them? I am totally not saying Catholism is anywhere close to Gnosticism, merely that if this is the comparison being drawn then Protestantism seems to be the furthest point, not the nearest. To the credit of the Catholic church, when something is declared a "heresy" it is dropped like a hot brick. Protestants seem to deliberate it like a frog disection.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Does that answer the question?

It did give me some good answers and am interested in your perspectives. I feel like we can have a meaningful and progressive dialogue.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by saint4God]

This will likely be a series of "machine gun" posts. But it is difficult to deal with all of it in one setting. I look forward to the dialogue.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote quite harshly against the Gnostics. Others included: Origen, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria. The basis of their arguments is that the Gnostics were not within the Apostolic tradition, and their scriptures were fraudulent.

Usually when someone calls 'fraud' they have specific reasons for doing so. I suppose what I'm looking for are a list of reasons as to why it would be considered such. In reading the books themselves (and perhaps I'd missed something while doing so), I hadn't seen anything that out-and-out said "no way! This goes against the Bible that says this..."

Yes, but that is not the way the early Christian writers primarily combated heretics. Part of this was because "scripture" as we know it was not a concept that they recognized in the way Protestants do. It is anachronistic to think this was their approach.

The reality is that the early Church made the main arguments against heretics this way: your teachings are not those that were passed down through the Apostles through Christ himself, so they are an innovation on the tradition of the Church. The concept that something was "scriptural" in the early Church (at least for the first few hundred years of Church history) meant that it was in the Old Testament. Other quotes from Apostles or Christ himself would be used to make arguments, but so would arguments from Greek philosophers, other Church fathers, and even from what are now considered to be heretical texts.

What constituted New Testament "scriptures" in the Early Church was based on what texts were read during worship. This was not uniform throughout the Churches. However, the most consistent view of Scripture is not found in either the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Church, but rather among the Eastern Orthodox.

Writers have identified some of the false gospels by name. For example, Origen in his commentary on the Gospel according to Luke explicitly states that the Church only has four Gospels, and identifies that any others are not recognized by the Church, specifically naming some examples:
* Gospel according to the Egyptians
* Gospel of Basilides
* Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles
* Gospel according to Thomas
* Gospel according to Matthias

His reason is that the Church is not deficient having only the four genuine Gospels "because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these."

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 C.E.) states categorically that there are only the four genuine Gospels, as does Eusebius of Caesarea (~260-340 C.E.), who also identifies these as frauds explicitly:
* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Matthias

The reasoning for rejecting these Gospels is not given because they are not "scriptural" but rather because the Church Tradition did not include these works, so absence from the Tradition was evidence of fraud.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
In many ways, Protestantism has many similarities with Gnosticism in terms of rejecting Church tradition.

Whoa, hey, one second please. Wouldn't Catholicism be closer to Gnosticism than Protestantism since Catholicism included extra-canonical books whereas Protestantism did not include them? I am totally not saying Catholism is anywhere close to Gnosticism, merely that if this is the comparison being drawn then Protestantism seems to be the furthest point, not the nearest. To the credit of the Catholic church, when something is declared a "heresy" it is dropped like a hot brick. Protestants seem to deliberate it like a frog disection.

Protestantism is largely a knee-jerk reaction against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church; as such, it has only a derivative existence and as such, only takes away from the Christian faith in a sort of minimalist approach. In trying to reform the Church and purge the corruption, they threw the baby out with the bath water and attempted to make the Christian Scriptures into a sort of Qu'ran. Doing this was not Christian, and it broke with the faith handed down once for all to the saints. Ideas like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were foreign to the early Christians and the Apostles, or the five points of Calvinism. It is for this reason that I state that Protestantism has a lot in common with Gnosticism. Generally, Protestant holiness relates to how much time you spend reading, studying, and learning "The Bible."

Defending such a position is really impossible to do successfully, because "The Bible" is not a mimeograph or a "download" from heaven written through an automaton. It is a collection of books that the Church recognizes through the Christian Tradition as genuine Apostolic writings, or writings that Christ and his Apostles recognized from the Tradition of Israel as bearing witness to the truth.

Originally posted by saint4GodWhoa, hey, one second please. Wouldn't Catholicism be closer to Gnosticism than Protestantism since Catholicism included extra-canonical books whereas Protestantism did not include them? I am totally not saying Catholism is anywhere close to Gnosticism, merely that if this is the comparison being drawn then Protestantism seems to be the furthest point, not the nearest. To the credit of the Catholic church, when something is declared a "heresy" it is dropped like a hot brick. Protestants seem to deliberate it like a frog disection.

The problem with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is that many of the claims to Tradition cannot be verified, or can be traced to later times. This is often what Protestants react to, which is often a reasonable argument. However, to ignore the Tradition which is evidenced by the Early Church is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that "scripture" was not even defined or identified for 300+ years after Christ.

Thus, to hold to Sola Scriptura is circular reasoning and not Christian in the sense that it is the Faith in Christ as attested to by the Apostles.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
What constituted New Testament "scriptures" in the Early Church was based on what texts were read during worship. This was not uniform throughout the Churches. However, the most consistent view of Scripture is not found in either the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Church, but rather among the Eastern Orthodox.

I did gather from your last post that you were "going there". Good to see my perceptions haven't dulled yet . "Here is the gem, all others are fakes". Mhmmm. I appreciate how delicately it was said though, and as always, welcoming the proofs.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The reasoning for rejecting these Gospels is not given because they are not "scriptural" but rather because the Church Tradition did not include these works, so absence from the Tradition was evidence of fraud.

Surely you realized as I do that this would not hold up in any court, then or now. The church of course, being considered a more supreme court on this issue than mere legalistic matters.