http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=66
Are There Lost Books of the Bible?
Q.
I have heard that there are certain “lost books” mentioned in the
Bible—books to which we no longer have access. Is this true? And if so,
what impact does this have on the biblical text itself, or on a
Christian’s faith?
A.
In a manner that is somewhat similar to a modern research paper,
citations appear in both the Old and New Testaments. The inspired
writers sometimes referred to certain works that no longer exist—a fact
that has caused some people to question the accuracy and completeness of
the Bible. Atheists and skeptics claim that if it was truly God’s Word,
then it would not lack any composition cited. Massimo Franceschini, an
Italian convert to Mormonism, has suggested that the biblical text is
more than sixty-five percent incomplete,
due, in part, to the “lost books” cited within the Bible itself
(Franceschini, 2002). If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent
complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that.
Duane Christensen, in the October 1998 issue of
Bible Review,
listed twenty-three referenced books that have been lost in antiquity
(14[5]:29), to which we can add seven additional works mentioned in the
Bible. Such compositions as the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel
1:18), the Acts of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29), and Paul’s
previous Corinthian letter (see 1 Corinthians 5:9) are among the thirty
cited works—twenty-eight from the Old Testament era, and two from the
New Testament era—that are not included in the canon of Scripture, and
that are missing from secular history. The contents of these books are
known only by the fact that they are cited or quoted. Upon further
examination, however, it appears that some of them actually may exist in
another form.
Some scholars argue that a large number of these citations probably refer to the
same
composition. For example, the references found in 1 and 2 Kings to the
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel,
and the Acts of Solomon, possibly denote a single work (Christensen,
14[5]:29). It is a common practice, even in modern society, to refer to
one thing by several different names. For example, a person may refer to
Josephus’ work,
Wars of the Jews, as “Josephus,” “Josephus’
Wars,” “
Jewish Wars,” “
Wars of the Jews,” “Josephus’
Jewish Wars,”
etc.—all of which designate the same composition. In similar fashion,
the many works cited throughout Kings and Chronicles very possibly refer
to different sections of a single work. If there was a single original
(one referred to by several names), it was likely a highly detailed
record of the reigns of the kings in Israel and Judah. As a king lived
and died, the records of his reign were added to this work by a scribe,
prophet, historian, record keeper, or even by the administration of the
next king, making it a composite work of many writers. The various names
for this single account might have designated certain sections that
made up the composite work. The differences between Kings’ and
Chronicles’ naming and citing of the sections of the original, can be
understood by the differences that exist among modern citation styles.
The style of citation, list of works cited, and information provided
vary widely, for example, among such modern-day guides as the
MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,
The Chicago Manual of Style, and Kate Turabian’s
A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations.
Nevertheless, each one of these provides sufficient information to
refer the reader to the original source. Similarly, the writer of Kings’
style of citation, and the writer of Chronicles’ style of citation,
both mentioned the original, but did so in a different manner.
Nevertheless, both provided the reader with enough information to locate
the section referenced in the source.
The idea of a composite source makes sense when applied to Jewish oral
tradition. The Talmud—a collection of Hebrew oral law and legal
decisions (the Mishna), along with transcribed scholarly discussions and
commentary on the Mishna (the Gemara)—holds that Jeremiah wrote Kings,
and that Ezra wrote Chronicles (Rodkinson, 1918, V:45). [NOTE:
There is no internal evidence for Jeremiah’s authorship of Kings, but 2
Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are almost identical, which supports
Talmudic tradition of Ezra’s authorship of Chronicles.] One theory
regarding the citation of lost books is that they were source material
for the writers of Kings and Chronicles. Jeremiah possibly edited and/or
condensed the original source (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) into
the book of Kings, sometime before or during the Babylonian exile. This
new, inspired book of Kings provided a summary of the histories of
Israel and Judah for the captives to carry with them—a much smaller,
lighter book than the original detailed work. After returning from the
Babylonian exile, Ezra composed another history of the Hebrew
nation—Chronicles. According to this theory, he used the same original
work as Jeremiah for his primary source, but referred to the sections by
different names than the ones used by Jeremiah. To this, he added parts
of Samuel, Isaiah, possibly Lamentations, and some non-extant works.
Like Jeremiah’s compilation, Ezra did this
by inspiration. While the original source no longer exists, a condensed form of it survived through the inspired writings.
However, it also is possible that the original work to which Jeremiah
and Ezra referred was not a source for their books, but was an
uninspired composition of historical significance to which the reader
could look for additional information. Under this theory, Jeremiah and
Ezra received everything for the composition of their respective works,
but also were inspired to include a reference for “extra information.”
God did not require every single detail to be preserved in the biblical
accounts of the history of the Jewish people, so He revealed what the
authors of Kings and Chronicles needed to know, while guiding them to
insert a “for more information, please see...” in the text.
Both of these theories allow for verbal inspiration. The first theory
suggests that God inspired Jeremiah and Ezra to look at the single
historical work as a source, and then He guided them (via the Holy
Spirit) to include exactly what He wanted from that source into
Scripture. According to the second theory, God revealed to Jeremiah and
Ezra the necessary history, and then guided them to place a citation in
the biblical text in order to refer the contemporary reader to a
then-extant historical book. Some of the “lost books” are references to
sections of this source, and others are different names for books that
are not lost, but currently reside within the canon of Scripture.
Work Cited
|
Cited In
|
The Book of the Wars of Yahweh
|
Numbers 21:14
|
The Book of Jashar
|
Joshua 10:12-13;
2 Samuel 1:19-27
|
The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah
|
1 Kings 14:29; et al.
|
The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel
|
1 Kings 14:19; et al.
|
The Acts of Solomon
|
1 Kings 11:41
|
Book of the Kings of Israel
|
1 Chronicles 9:1-2;
2 Chronicles 20:34
|
Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel
|
2 Chronicles 16:11; et al.
|
Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah
|
2 Chronicles 27:7; et al.
|
Acts of the Kings of Israel
|
2 Chronicles 33:18
|
Acts of Samuel the Seer
|
1 Chronicles 29:29
|
Acts of Gad the Seer
|
1 Chronicles 29:29
|
Acts of Nathan the Prophet
|
1 Chronicles 29:29
|
History of Nathan the Prophet
|
2 Chronicles 9:29
|
Prophesy of Ahijah the Shilonite
|
2 Chronicles 9:29
|
Visions of Iddo the Seer
|
2 Chronicles 9:29
|
Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer
|
2 Chronicles 12:15
|
Acts of Jehu Son of Hanani
|
2 Chronicles 20:34
|
Acts of the Seers
|
2 Chronicles 33:19
|
Midrash of the Prophet Iddo
|
2 Chronicles 13:22
|
Midrash on the Book of Kings
|
2 Chronicles 24:27
|
Book by the prophet Isaiah
|
2 Chronicles 26:22
|
Vision of Isaiah the prophet
|
2 Chronicles 32:32
|
Book of the Chronicles
|
Nehemiah 12:23
|
Some additional writings, referenced in the Old Testament
and New Testament, can be added to Christensen’s list:
|
Book of the Covenant
|
Exodus 24:7; et al.
|
The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia
|
Esther 10:2
|
Book by Samuel
|
1 Samuel 10:25
|
Laments for Josiah
|
2 Chronicles 35:25
|
Chronicles of King David
|
1 Chronicles 27:24
|
Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans
|
Colossians 4:16
|
Paul’s previous Corinthian letter
|
1 Corinthians 5:9
|
List of the “lost books”/“lost writings” of the Bible (per Christensen, 1998, with additions)
|
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and Acts of Solomon (non-extant)
These names probably refer to sections of the original, detailed source
either used by Jeremiah (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to
compose Kings, or mentioned by Jeremiah as a source for additional
information. The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is cited in 1 Kings
14:29; 15:7; 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kings 8:23; 12:19; 14:18; 15:6; 15:36;
16:19; 20:20; 21:17; 21:25; 23:28; and 24:5. The Chronicles of the Kings
of Israel is mentioned in 1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5; 16:14; 16:20;
16:27; 22:39; 2 Kings 1:18; 10:34; 13:8; 13:12; 14:15; 14:28; 15:11;
15:15; 15:21; 15:26; and 15:31. However, the Acts of Solomon is referred
to only in 1 Kings 11:41. This compilation probably contained the
records of each king’s reign, official decrees, judgments of the court,
census reports, taxation records, etc.
Book of the Kings of Israel, Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel,
Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Acts of the Kings of Israel, and
Chronicles of King David (non-extant)
These five titles possibly were Ezra’s references to sections of the
same source from which Jeremiah wrote Kings. According to the two
theories, either he used this single historical work (again, through
inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to compose Chronicles, or he referenced
it as additional, uninspired information. The Book of the Kings of
Israel is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 20:34. The
Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel is cited in 2 Chronicles 16:11;
25:26; 28:26; and 32:32. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah is
referred to in 2 Chronicles 27:2; 35:27; and 36:8. Finally, the Acts of
the Kings of Israel, and the Chronicles of King David, are alluded to in
2 Chronicles 33:18 and 1 Chronicles 27:24, respectively.
Acts of Samuel the Seer, Acts of Gad the Seer, and Acts of Nathan the Prophet (1 & 2 Samuel)
The only citation to these works is found in 1 Chronicles 29:29. This
probably refers to 1 and 2 Samuel, which Talmudic tradition says was
written by Samuel until his death (see 1 Samuel 25:1), and was finished
by Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet (Rodkinson, 1918, V:45-46). With
this explanation, it stands to reason that Ezra was referring to one
work (Samuel) by its composite authors—Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. So these
three “lost books” probably cite a single, currently existing work,
known to us as 1 and 2 Samuel. [NOTE: In the
Hebrew Bible, 1 and 2 Samuel were one book (Samuel), as were 1 and 2
Kings (Kings) and 1 and 2 Chronicles (Chronicles). Also, Nehemiah was
added to the end of Ezra in the Hebrew text, and Hosea through Malachi
were one book—which resulted in the Hebrew Bible being twenty-four books
(Josephus combined two of those, making a total of twenty-two), instead
of the thirty-nine in our present-day Old Testament.]
Book by the Prophet Isaiah and Vision of Isaiah the Prophet (Isaiah)
The two “lost books,” cited in 2 Chronicles 26:22 and 2 Chronicles
32:32, respectively, are said to have contained the records of King
Uzziah and King Hezekiah. Isaiah lived during the reigns of these men
(Isaiah 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 36:1-39:8), so these citations likely refer to
the book of Isaiah that exists in our current canon.
Lament for Josiah (Lamentations 3)
In 2 Chronicles 35:25, it is recorded that Jeremiah composed a lament
at the death of Josiah, who was the last unconquered king of Judah, and
wrote it “in the Laments.” The book of Lamentations was the work of
Jeremiah that mourned the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred not
long after the death of Josiah. It is highly likely that the lament
mentioned in 2 Chronicles 35:25 is included in Lamentations. It is
perhaps in chapter 3, where the tone of the lament changes. There seems
to be continuity between 2:22 and 4:1. Chapter 2 talks of God’s anger
toward Jerusalem and the result of it, a thought that is continued in
chapter 4. Chapter 3 takes on a more personal tone, which could be
indicative of the personal grief experienced by Jeremiah at the death of
Josiah. It is very possible that, in lamenting the destruction of
Jerusalem (Lamentations 1-2), Jeremiah’s grief at the death of Josiah
came freshly to his mind, and he digressed in his lament over Jerusalem
to include the sorrow of Josiah’s passing (Lamentations 3). Following
this digression, his thoughts returned to Jerusalem (Lamentations 4-5).
Book of the Chronicles (1 & 2 Chronicles)
Nehemiah mentioned a record of the Levites, which was kept in the Book
of the Chronicles (Nehemiah 12:23). Since Nehemiah and Ezra were
contemporaries, it is probable that Nehemiah was referring to the
Chronicles written by Ezra—our 1 and 2 Chronicles. It appears that
Nehemiah may have been citing 1 Chronicles 9:10-22 specifically, which
contains a record like the one mentioned by Nehemiah.
Book of the Covenant (The Pentateuch)
Four places in the Old Testament refer to the Book of the Covenant:
Exodus 24:7; 2 Kings 23:2; 23:21; and 2 Chronicles 34:30. This is
another name for the Pentateuch, which is sometimes called the Law (see
Deuteronomy 30:10; 31:26; 2 Kings 17:13; et al.) or the Law of Moses
(see Joshua 8:31; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; et al.).
The Book of Jashar (Non-extant)
Recently, certain scholars have written about the Book of Jashar,
especially in light of its “rediscovery.” There are only two quotations
from the Book of Jashar: Joshua 10:12-13 and 2 Samuel 1:18-27. From
these references, it appears that the Book of Jashar was either a book
of songs or poems compiled throughout the ages by the Israelite nation,
or a record of upright individuals among the Israelites (see McClintock
and Strong, 1968, 4:785). The word “Jashar” is commonly translated
“just” or “upright,” but some scholars contend that it may be a
corruption of the Hebrew word for “song” (Christensen, 1998, 14[5]:27).
Currently, five works claim to be the Book of Jashar, but all are
spurious or recent compositions. The most popular of these is a
manuscript forged by the Rosicrucians, a secret society dating back to
the seventeenth century. The original supposedly was “found” by
Alcuin—an Anglo-Saxon from Northumbria—in Gazna, Persia, and translated
at some point during the eighth century A.D. The
translation, which is the manuscript that is extant today, was
“rediscovered” in 1721 and printed in London in 1751. This writing—which
continues to be published despite the lack of evidence for its
authenticity—is viewed to be a forgery produced no earlier than the
eighteenth century (see Christensen, 14[5]:30; McClintock, 4:768-788).
The Book of Jashar was used as source material by Joshua, as well as by
Gad and Nathan. It no longer exists in its original form, and the five
different recent works are almost universally rejected as forgeries.
The Book of the Wars of Yahweh (Non-extant)
Also called the Book of the Wars of the Lord, this composition is
quoted in Numbers 21:14. The quotation is in lyrical form, so it is
possibly a book of poetry or a hymnal. Some have suggested that the Book
of Jashar and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh are the same work
(Christensen, 14[5]:30). Moses quoted it, so the date of its composition
must have been prior to the completion of the Pentateuch, perhaps
during the wanderings in the wilderness. Nothing else is known about it,
and it survives only in Moses’ quotation.
Other Old Testament Works (Non-extant)
Many of the “lost books” actually exist either in a condensed form or
under another name. However, some compositions now exist as mere
citations in the Old Testament. The History of Nathan the Prophet,
Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and Visions of Iddo the Seer are all
cited together (2 Chronicles 9:29). If this is a form similar to the 1
Chronicles 29:29 reference to Samuel (using the composite authors for
the citation), then it is possible that this was a single compilation
cited by mentioning its authors. The same can be said of the Acts of
Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 12:15). Another
possibility is that these, along with the Acts of Jehu Son of Hanani (2
Chronicles 20:34), are all sections in a single work titled Acts of the
Seers, which is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:19. Since the authors were
prophets or seers, their works could have been gathered into a single
book of prophetic revelation, similar to the manner in which the works
of the twelve minor prophets were gathered into a single book (the
Twelve Prophets). It is possible that Ezra used the composite work (if
they were placed together), or the individual works, as additional
source material in composing Chronicles, or that he cited them in the
same manner as the single historical work. So far as we know, these
books no longer exist, except in name.
Two other non-extant, but cited, works are commentaries on certain
books. The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22) was a
commentary on a specific writing that contained the record of King
Abijah of Judah. [NOTE: A midrash is a Jewish
commentary, sometimes translated as “annals” or “commentary.”] Perhaps
the work on which Iddo wrote his commentary was the original source used
by Jeremiah and Ezra to compose Kings and Chronicles, respectively.
Another possibility is that it was Kings itself. The Midrash on the Book
of Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27) was possibly a commentary on either
Jeremiah’s Kings or the original source for Kings and Chronicles. These
midrashim could have been a single work, with the two citations
referring to different parts of it. Ezra used these midrashim either as
sources for his inspired composition of Chronicles, or as places to look
if the reader wanted more information—but the originals have been lost.
Two remaining Old Testament-era books no longer exist except through
citations: the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia, and a book
by Samuel. The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia is mentioned
in Esther 10:2. This is not considered a “lost book” of the Bible,
because it was the official record of the Persian Empire, not an
inspired source. It seems to be referenced in Esther 2:23 and 6:1, where
the King of Persia is shown placing records in the book and reading
from it. The Book of Esther mentions this contemporary Gentile source in
order to point the early reader to further details about the Persian
Empire, similar to Paul’s quotations from the Cretan poet Epimenides and
the Cilician poet Aratus to make his point in Acts 17:28 (Bruce, 1977,
p. 44). The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia is a lost
secular historical record. It is not a lost
biblical record.
Recorded in 1 Samuel 10:25 is Samuel’s writing of a book concerning the
“behavior of royalty.” The biblical record said that he had “laid it up
before the Lord,” but nowhere do we find anything that bears the
markings of this book. The citation possibly could be a reference to the
part of Samuel composed by the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1-24).
To summarize, eight of the “missing” Old Testament books probably are
referring to Samuel, Isaiah, Chronicles, the Pentateuch, and
Lamentations. Eight others appear to refer to sections of a single
source used by the inspired Old Testament writers, making it only one
“lost” historical record. Six others were written by prophets and seers,
and might have been sections in a non-extant prophetic work known as
the Book of the Seers. Two more were commentaries, which also could have
been a single work, and two more were books of hymns or poetry.
Therefore, the original number of Old Testament-era “lost books,”
twenty-eight, actually numbers only a half-dozen. However, along with
the “missing” books of the Old Testament era, there are two epistles
referred to in the New Testament that some consider “lost books.”
Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans
Paul, in Colossians 4:16, mentioned an epistle that he sent to the
church at Laodicea. Since an epistle by this name is not found in our
New Testament, some have claimed that it is non-extant. While this is
one option, there are other possibilities. Some scholars say that it may
actually exist in the canon of the Bible, but under a different name.
According to this theory, Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians was written as
an encyclical letter, meaning that it did not have one single
destination. There is internal and external evidence to support this
theory. Certain characteristics of the letter (like the omission of the
phrase “in Ephesus” from Ephesians 1:1 in certain reliable manuscripts),
the fact that some early Christians were not aware of the “in Ephesus”
for verse 1, and a heretical reference to Ephesians as Paul’s epistle to
the Laodiceans, appear to support this theory (Metzger, 2000, p. 532).
Yet, the possibility remains that Paul’s letter to Laodicea was lost
somewhere, perhaps in Asia Minor, before it could be copied (or the
copies were destroyed or lost as well). [Passing mention should be made
of a spurious epistle from the fourth century that claimed to be Paul’s
letter to Laodicea (Bruce, 1988, pp. 237-240). ]
However, there is another possibility. The text never stated that the epistle was
from Paul
to
Laodicea. It simply says that the Colossian church was to procure a
certain letter in the possession of the Laodicean church. This would
mean that the church at Laodicea probably had some canonical writing
that Paul wanted the Colossian church to read, which would mean that
there is no missing Laodicean letter. Of the three explanations (lost
Laodicean letter, encyclical Ephesians, or canonical epistle in the
possession of the Laodiceans), the latter appears to make the most
sense. Most likely, the “missing” epistle to the Laodiceans was just a
canonical epistle in the possession of the church in that city.
Apparently, there was a section of it that Paul desired the Colossian
brethren to read, and so he gave them directions for its procurement.
Paul’s First Corinthian Letter
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to Paul’s missing previous
Corinthian letter. Technically, the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians
could be called more properly 2 and 3 Corinthians, because Paul actually
did write an earlier letter to the church in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians
5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with
sexually immoral people.” While some would argue that Paul is referring
to a previous section of 1 Corinthians (perhaps 5:1-8) rather than
referring to a previous epistle, he then continued (in verse 10) to
explain exactly what he meant by that statement, which is not what is
said in 5:1-8. After explaining what the statement from the previous
letter meant, Paul continued in 5:11 by showing the contrasting point,
“But now I have written to you...”—explaining the difference between the
statement from the previous epistle and the one from our 1 Corinthians.
What are we to say? This truly is a lost writing of the apostle Paul,
and nothing is known about it except that it existed, it was sent to the
Corinthian church, and it dealt with sexual immorality. With this book,
and with the other “lost books,” we now must ask the question...
Do We Really Need These Books?
When mentioning the “lost books” of the Bible, many people wonder, “Why
do we no longer have these books?,” and “Do we really need them?”
First, some of the so-called “lost books” probably are references to
inspired books that still exist, but by another name. Others were
historical references used as sources for inspired books, such as Kings
and Chronicles, and so the Jews saw no need to treat them with special
reverence, nor to strive to preserve them. Some were books of poetry or
song that were uninspired, but served as a record of Hebrew culture.
Others were non-Hebrew sources, making them non-biblical compositions
and therefore not canonical writings. Many of these “lost books”
probably are references to sections of the same work, making the actual
number of non-extant books cited in the Bible less than a dozen.
However, we must face the fact that some compositions cited by the Old
and New Testament writers no longer exist.
While under subjugation to the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman
empires, the Jews ultimately were able to preserve only those books that
were holy and inspired—everything else was destroyed or lost. While
this is unfortunate, it should not affect our faith adversely. The books
we have are inspired, and came from inspired men who sometimes
mentioned non-inspired sources for recording historical fact, giving
places to find additional information, or simply to make a point. These
men, like modern researchers, felt compelled to cite their sources, but
did not intend these sources to become writings on a par with Scripture.
The missing books that are cited in the Old Testament apparently did
not bother the Jews, who recorded in the first century A.D.
that their writings consisted of only twenty-two to twenty-four works
that correspond exactly to our thirty-nine, except for a difference in
order and division (Josephus, 1987,
Against Apion, 1:38-40;
Bruce, 1988, pp. 28-34; Rodkinson, 1918, V:44-45). Obviously, the “lost
books” did not present a problem to Jesus and the apostles, who accepted
the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) as all they needed. They quoted
from none of these books, and the only things they quoted as Scripture
were the books of the Old Testament. To accept that God allowed the
inspired writers to employ sources in composing historical books of the
Bible does not negate inspiration by the Holy Spirit. If these men used
sources, God still guided them by the Holy Spirit to correct, compile,
and add to the uninspired source material. One of the gospel writers
(Luke) apparently consulted various sources in compiling his letter
(Luke 1:1-4). As was previously mentioned, Paul quoted Epimenides and
Aratus in Acts 17, and quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12. It was not
uncommon for the authors of the Bible to use or quote, by inspiration,
either uninspired works or inspired works that no longer exist.
God obviously did not intend certain works to be preserved, because His
hand would have guided their perpetuation, just as He guided the
continuation of the canonical books. Like the lost Corinthian letter, it
is likely that other inspired books were written that God intended for a
particular
historical setting, but did not intend to be preserved in the
canon
of the Bible. God has given us “all things that pertain to life and
godliness, through the knowledge of Him” (2 Peter 1:3), and our
knowledge of Him is complete through the revealed Word. None of the
books God intended to be in the Bible is lost, and the phrase “lost
books” refers only to those books of which no record exists. Whatever
these “lost books” contained is irrelevant, because we have the Word of
God exactly as He wanted us to have it—nothing more, and certainly
nothing less.
REFERENCES
Bruce, F.F. (1977),
The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bruce, F.F. (1988),
The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Christensen, Duane (1998), “Lost Books of the Bible,”
Bible Review, 14[5]:24-31, October.
Franceschini, Massimo (2002), “Lost Books,” [On-line], URL: http://www.bibleman.net/Lost_Books.htm.
Josephus, Flavius (1987),
The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint),
Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Metzger, Bruce M. (2000),
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), second edition.
Rodkinson, Michael L. (1918),
New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society), [On-line Version], URL: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm, ed. J.B. Hare.
It
is very common today to hear people say something like, “We just need
to preach Jesus and not trouble each other with the Bible’s peripheral
teachings.” Or, “We mustn’t get caught up in the details, just in
Jesus.” Oftentimes, such things are said in an attempt to avert
controversy. “Since all professed Christians believe in Jesus, but not
all are united upon His doctrine, let’s just talk about Jesus, and leave
the secondary issues alone.”
Christians believe that Jesus worked miracles for two primary reasons: (1) a supernatural Creator exists (see 
I’m
typing this article on a personal computer. You are most likely reading
it on some form of one, whether a desktop, laptop, smartphone or tablet
(which are really just small computers). These amazing devices are all
around us. Brilliant researchers have spent billions of dollars
designing the most functional computers to help people all over the
world achieve their goals. You may well know, however, that one computer
is more powerful than any that humans have been able to design—the
human brain. As LiveScience writer Charles Choi stated, “The most powerful computer known is the brain” (2013).
One
of the “big myths” of society that surely will go down in history as a
significant contributor to the moral decline of America is the incessant
clamor by liberals for “tolerance” and “diversity.” They insist that
those who oppose same-sex marriage are “intolerant” and lack basic human
“compassion.” They maintain that “diversity” and “tolerance” (code
words for acceptance of homosexuality) are healthy for society, and that
those who oppose homosexuality are merely “demonizing people for
political advantage” and “perpetuating division” (Obama, 2004).