Posted on 11/23/2005 7:17:03 AM PST by truthfinder9
Any Lost Books? By Gregory Koukl
Many bookstores carry titles in the religious section suggesting the discovery of lost books of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas, unearthed in the Nag Hammadi library in Upper Egypt in 1945, serves as a well-known example of one such lost-and-found ancient manuscript. The idea that lost books of Scripture may exist excites some people and jars others. It certainly raises questions: “Have archaeologists uncovered ancient biblical texts that cast doubt on the current canon of Scripture?” “Is it possible that the Bible is incomplete?”
These questions can be answered without ever doing any research. No ancient tomes need to be read, no works of antiquity perused. Curiously, the entire issue can be answered by careful consideration of one word: Bible.
The whole question of allegedly lost books of the Bible hinges on what the word Bible means. When asked what the Bible is, a Christian would likely say, "The Bible is God's Word." Pressed for a more theologically precise definition, he or she might add that God superintended the writing of Scripture so that human authors, using their own style, personalities, and resources, wrote down word for word exactly what God intended them to write in the originals. This verbal plenary inspiration is a critical part of the Christian definition of the word Bible.
A common objection to the notion of inspiration is that the Bible was written by men, and men make mistakes. However, it does not logically follow that because humans were involved in the writing process, the Bible must necessarily be in error. Mistakes are possible, but not mandatory. To assume error in all human writing is also self-defeating. The humanly derived statement, "The Bible was written by men, and men make mistakes," would be suspect by the same standards. Human beings can and do produce writing with no errors.
Further, the challenge that men make mistakes ignores the main issue—whether or not the Bible was written only by men. The Christian accepts that humans are limited, but denies that man's limitations are significant in this case because inspiration implies that God's power supersedes man's liabilities.
So the first definition of the word Bible necessarily includes God's authorship (by inspiration) and supernatural preservation. The divine inspiration of the Bible automatically solves the problem of human involvement. Since God insures the results, it doesn't matter who did the writing. Supernaturally inspired by God, the Bible is both adequate and complete, 66 books compiled under one cover, preserved and protected by his power.
The second possible definition of Bible concedes no supernatural ground. According to this view, the Bible is not God's inspired and inerrant word. Rather, it is merely a statement of human beliefs adopted as creed by early Christian leaders.
This view says that while Christians treated the Scriptures as divinely inspired, they were mistaken. The Bible merely represents a consensus, a collection of books chosen by the early church to represent its own beliefs. A book that didn't make the cut was rejected for one reason: early Christians didn't accept its theology. The cause was human and political, not divine and supernatural. Christianity is no different from other religions that have collections of authoritative writings. Even individual professions identify certain books as official representations—“bibles”—of their respective fields.
So, the options are these: Either the Bible is divinely inspired, or it's merely a human document representing the beliefs of a religious group known as Christians. Given these two definitions, could any books of the Bible be lost?
Whether the supernatural claim is accurate or not, the first definition of Bible allows for no lost books becauseGod cannot lose something. The lost books thesis would be reduced to this: "Certain books that almighty God was responsible to preserve got lost." God cannot be both almighty and incapable at the same time. If the Bible is in fact the inspired Word of God (the first definition), then the almighty power of God himself guarantees that no portion of it could ever be lost.
Could there be lost books given the second definition? If the Scriptures were merely a product of human design, then the term Bible would refer not to the Word of God (the first definition) but to the canon of beliefs of the early church leaders (the second definition). The lost books thesis would be reduced to this: "Early church leaders rejected certain books as unrepresentative of their beliefs, that they actually believed reflected their beliefs." The contradiction is obvious. If the Bible is a collection of books that early church leaders decided would represent their point of view, then they have the final word on what is included. Any books they rejected were never part of their Bible to begin with, so, even by the second definition lost books of the Bible would be a misnomer.
"Lost books" advocates often point out that rediscovered texts were missing because the fathers suppressed them. Bible critics think this strengthens their case. Instead it destroys their position by proving that the "lost books" were not lost, but discarded. The early church acted fully within its authority when it rejected as noncanonical the Gospel of Thomas, for example, and other similar books. The leaders rightfully decided which writings represented their beliefs.
Another approach to Scripture is worth mentioning. Some academics, like those of the Jesus Seminar, reject the idea that the Bible has supernatural origins. Since the Bible is only man's opinion, the text can be amended to fix what is now considered defective or out of step with the times.
Such a reshuffling of the biblical deck—tossing out some books and including others to reflect what the church currently believes about spiritual truth—certainly creates an alternative view of Scripture. If the Jesus Seminar wants to include the Gospel of Thomas in its bible, it can do so. However, their action would not restore a lost book of the Bible, but merely redefine the canon to fit their tastes.
Has archaeology unearthed previously unknown ancient texts? Certainly. These books may be interesting, noteworthy, and valuable. The rediscovery of manuscripts such as the Gospel of Thomas is significant. Such books might be lost books of antiquity, great finds, even wonderful pieces of literature––but they are not lost books of the Bible.
Gregory Koukl, founder and president of Stand to Reason, hosts a radio talk show advocating clear-thinking Christianity and defending the Christian worldview. He is coauthor of Relativism—Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Baker).
God is always in control and knows EXACTLY what He is doing. Had He wanted these "lost books" to be a part of the Bible - they would have been part of the Bible as we know it today.
I totally agree.
They weren't lost to God. He knew where they were and made sure they stayed put.
**Any Lost Books of the Bible?**
Yes, do you know what they are?
A coincidental Vernon Meyer - Gospel of Thomas - ping. .....hmmm.
Any Lost Books of the Bible?
It depends on if you are a Catholic or a Protestant. Did God hide books from the Protestants or did the Protestants lose them? If the argument is that God doesn't make mistakes, then the Catholic Bible must be God's preferred version as its the older of the two.
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm
"The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees."
LOL!
For once, I agree with you.
Regards
In reality the Catholics and Orthodox churches don't pay much attention to these extra books. Some Protestant churches include them in their Bible for "good reading."
Inplicit in the validity of the lost Q Gospels or the Gospel of Thomas is the notion that God is not perfection and He doesn't think things through, loses things and isn't very good at proofing or bookbinding.
The thread that binds every DavInci Kook or Gnostic groupie is UNbelief.
"The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint.
Yet, the Septuagent found in the 1840's, used today as the basis of the RSV and other translations, had THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS in them. I don't see a shepherd of Hermas in today's Catholic versions.
It is good that you try to follow the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies this closely. Your statement however is not true, at least as far as the Catholics are concerned. I follow the daily mass readings and Old Testament readings from Wisdom, Sirach and the Maccabees are very common. We did a good part of the martyrdom of the Maccabees just a week ago.
November 14, 2005
November 15, 2005
November 16, 2005
November 17, 2005
November 18, 2005
November 19, 2005
The books usually regarded as Lost by some are those writings contemporary to the accepted Gospels and Epistles, such as the Gospel of Mary.
Sorry I posted too soon. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that there are no lost books of the New Testament.
I have never thought of the Apocrypha as the so-called lost books, being as they are not lost, just not included in the various canons of the Bible.
I understood the lost books were those referenced in other scriptures in such a way that the writer evidently accepts them as scripture but those books are no longer in the Bible (or maybe just renamed). Such references are in Numbers 21:14 (Wars of the Lord), Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18 (Book of Jasher), 1 Kings 11:41 (Book of the Acts of Solomon), 1 Chronicles 29:29 (Book of Samuel the Seer, Book of Gad the Seer, and Book of Nathan the Prophet), 2 Chronicles 9:29 (another reference to Book of Nathan, Book of Prophecies of Ahijah, Book of Visions of Iddo the Seer). There are more references to the Book of Shemaiah, Book of Jehu, Sayings of the Seers, all in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 5:9 alludes to an earlier epistle of Paul, same as Ephesians 3:3, which indicates an earlier epistle to that church, and Colossians 4:16, another earlier epistle to the Laodicea Church. Jude referred to prophecies of Enoch (Jude 1:14). Then there are references in Matthew, for example, where he notes the prophecy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23) but there is no such prophecy in the Bible. (However, some have speculated that the term Nazarene is mistranslated here from a term for the Root of Jesse [Netzer], the same source of the word Nazareth and Nazarene.)
This doesn't mean that the Lord intended these books to be part of the present-day canon. It just means that the writers of our Bible had other records which they accepted as scripture and/or history and we no longer have these books available to us. To that end, they are lost books but it can't be proved that they are "lost books of the Bible".
Check your FRmail.
Most of the so called "lost books" are new age type writings that in my opinion have nothing to do with the Bible. I have read some of them, and it is not the same spirit.
huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.