Lost Books of the Bible

[pelham]

:scratch: :prayer: I was watching the History channel and saw a historical peice on the development of the Bible. The bottom line was that there were a total of over 79 books found originally but that only 66 were chosen to go into the King James Verson of the Bible and Other versions which are newer translations of it. The reasoning being that the books were too controversal and some simply were not believable. So books like the book of Enoch, Nicodemus, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, Revelations of Peter, Mary(Magdelane) and others were intentionally left out.

Other Bibles like the Catholic bible and the Koran are said to include these books and could explain why they think that Christians are ignorant of the truth. " You Jesus we like, but your Christians we do not" One Muslim quoted as saying."
What are your feeling on this and do you think that at this date and time these other books should be read and or concluded by Christians today?

[Iron Lion]

these books were left out because they are not believed to be devinely inspired by the church. The catholic bible does have more books in it and it was the prodestant church who wanted to take them out and did. (they also wanted to take out hebrews and reverlation from the NT) as for muslims they dont use any books other than the Koran as a testment to their faith.

here is a list of most the early christian writtings that are known

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
100-200 Odes of Solomon
101-220 Book of Elchasai
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
110-140 Polycarp to the Philippians
110-140 Papias
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
111-112 Pliny the Younger
115 Suetonius
115 Tacitus
120-130 Quadratus of Athens
120-130 Apology of Aristides
120-140 Basilides
120-140 Naassene Fragment
120-160 Valentinus
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
120-180 2nd Apocalypse of James
120-180 Trimorphic Protennoia
130-140 Marcion
130-150 Aristo of Pella
130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness
130-160 Ophite Diagrams
130-160 2 Clement
130-170 Gospel of Judas
130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum
140-160 Ptolemy
140-160 Isidore
140-170 Fronto
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
150-160 Martyrdom of Polycarp
150-160 Justin Martyr
150-180 Excerpts of Theodotus
150-180 Heracleon
150-200 Ascension of Isaiah
150-200 Acts of Peter
150-200 Acts of John
150-200 Acts of Paul
150-200 Acts of Andrew
150-225 Acts of Peter and the Twelve
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
150-250 Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra
150-300 Authoritative Teaching
150-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Paul
150-300 Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth
150-300 Melchizedek
150-400 Acts of Pilate
150-400 Anti-Marcionite Prologues
160-170 Tatian's Address to the Greeks
160-180 Claudius Apollinaris
160-180 Apelles
160-180 Julius Cassianus
160-250 Octavius of Minucius Felix
161-180 Acts of Carpus
165-175 Melito of Sardis
165-175 Hegesippus
165-175 Dionysius of Corinth
165-175 Lucian of Samosata
167 Marcus Aurelius
170-175 Diatessaron
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
170-200 Muratorian Canon
170-200 Treatise on the Resurrection
170-220 Letter of Peter to Philip
175-180 Athenagoras of Athens
175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons
175-185 Rhodon
175-185 Theophilus of Caesarea
175-190 Galen
178 Celsus
178 Letter from Vienna and Lyons
180 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
180-185 Theophilus of Antioch
180-185 Acts of Apollonius
180-220 Bardesanes
180-220 Kerygmata Petrou
180-230 Hippolytus of Rome
180-250 1st Apocalypse of James
180-250 Gospel of Philip
182-202 Clement of Alexandria
185-195 Maximus of Jerusalem
185-195 Polycrates of Ephesus
188-217 Talmud
189-199 Victor I
190-210 Pantaenus
193 Anonymous Anti-Montanist
193-216 Inscription of Abercius
197-220 Tertullian
200-210 Serapion of Antioch
200-210 Apollonius
200-220 Caius
200-220 Philostratus
200-225 Acts of Thomas
200-250 Didascalia
200-250 Books of Jeu
200-300 Pistis Sophia
200-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Peter
203 Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
203-250 Origen

[KennySe]

:scratch: :prayer: I was watching the History channel and saw a historical peice on the development of the Bible. The bottom line was that there were a total of over 79 books found originally but that only 66 were chosen to go into the King James Verson of the Bible and Other versions which are newer translations of it. The reasoning being that the books were too controversal and some simply were not believable. So books like the book of Enoch, Nicodemus, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, Revelations of Peter, Mary(Magdelane) and others were intentionally left out.

Other Bibles like the Catholic bible and the Koran are said to include these books and could explain why they think that Christians are ignorant of the truth. " You Jesus we like, but your Christians we do not" One Muslim quoted as saying."
What are your feeling on this and do you think that at this date and time these other books should be read and or concluded by Christians today?

I am not here to debate. I am not allowed to debate. I am not debating.
I can, however, ask questions.

You have seen a Catholic Bible with the above underlined books in it?

You consider the Koran a Bible?

[Philip]

here is a list of most the early christian writtings that are known

You should check your sources carefully. The first two on the list are not even books. They are hypotheticals suggested by some authors. Many of the others are decidedly Gnostic and not Christian.

[FreeinChrist]

:scratch: :prayer: I was watching the History channel and saw a historical peice on the development of the Bible. The bottom line was that there were a total of over 79 books found originally but that only 66 were chosen to go into the King James Verson of the Bible and Other versions which are newer translations of it. The reasoning being that the books were too controversal and some simply were not believable. So books like the book of Enoch, Nicodemus, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, Revelations of Peter, Mary(Magdelane) and others were intentionally left out.

Other Bibles like the Catholic bible and the Koran are said to include these books and could explain why they think that Christians are ignorant of the truth. " You Jesus we like, but your Christians we do not" One Muslim quoted as saying."
What are your feeling on this and do you think that at this date and time these other books should be read and or concluded by Christians today?
This site may help you:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/apocrypha.htm

[kermit the toad]

these books were left out because they are not believed to be devinely inspired by the church. The catholic bible does have more books in it and it was the prodestant church who wanted to take them out and did.
There were also a number of books that the 1st century church (catholic) chose not to use.

As far as the lost books go, I'm not sure what to say. I've read what we have of the Gospel of Mary Magdelene and I find it very interesting, particularly a verse where Jesus allegedly says:

"38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it."

As for whether or not to believe it and accept it, I'm really not sure. For now, I tend to ignore non-canonical texts as anything more than an interesting read.

[Church Punk]

I think a God that is so full of power that could make everything in 6 days could make sure that the books He wanted in His bible would be in His bible. Lost books? I don't think so! To be in the bible, the book had to be inspired by God. Just because I am a faithfull believer and write something doesn't mean it should be in the holy word of God.

[Chadwickboy]

I think a God that is so full of power that could make everything in 6 days could make sure that the books He wanted in His bible would be in His bible. Lost books? I don't think so! To be in the bible, the book had to be inspired by God. Just because I am a faithfull believer and write something doesn't mean it should be in the holy word of God.

Ok, then, the books that are in the Bible, what made the "faithful believers" who wrote them so much more special than the others for God to say "You're special enough to become permanent church doctrine."? By the time the Catholic Church decided on what books to canonize, most - if not all - of the people who had actually written them(who, btw, often had a specific message to a specific group of people in the region in mind when writing them) were long dead.

[Philip]

By the time the Catholic Church decided on what books to canonize, most - if not all - of the people who had actually written them.

You can safely say 'all'. The New Testament was not canonized in the Catholic Church until at least AD 390.

[Serapha]

You can safely say 'all'. The New Testament was not canonized in the Catholic Church until at least AD 390.
However,


The same 27 books of the New Testament, were in a collection of their own, well before 390 AD. The Christian scholar, Origen (185-254) accepted the 27 books of the New Testament as we have it today.


Eusebius (264-340) lived at a time when the Rome was attempting to eliminate all Christian Scriptures. Constatine, on coming to reign ordered that 50 Bibles be prepared under the direction of Eusebius. Surprise, the Sacred Scriptures contained the same 27 books.

These 27 books may not have been "canonized" until 397 but they certainly were already "grouped" and used as the Christians Scriptures.





~serapha~

[Church Punk]

[QUOTE=Chadwickboy]what made the "faithful believers" who wrote them so much more special than the others for God to say "You're special enough to become permanent church doctrine?QUOTE]

UMMM GOD!
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[Chadwickboy]

[QUOTE=Chadwickboy]what made the "faithful believers" who wrote them so much more special than the others for God to say "You're special enough to become permanent church doctrine?QUOTE]

UMMM GOD!
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

YEs, but doesn't God love *all* his believers? What qualities would've stood out in the ones who wrote the canonical books as opposed to other believers who were just as faithful to God?

[pieman3141]

The non-canonical books (27) have less to do with Christianity. I accept their omission, and I will read them/treat them as non-Bible books (ie. less than the 66 books version, which remains as my reference point).

[Church Punk]

YEs, but doesn't God love *all* his believers? What qualities would've stood out in the ones who wrote the canonical books as opposed to other believers who were just as faithful to God?
GOD ONLY KNOWS BROTHER :)

[theartist87]

I believe that the bible has ended up how God wanted it to be.

[kimber1]

question is... which Bible? :)

[sad astronaut]

I think a God that is so full of power that could make everything in 6 days could make sure that the books He wanted in His bible would be in His bible. Lost books? I don't think so! To be in the bible, the book had to be inspired by God. Just because I am a faithfull believer and write something doesn't mean it should be in the holy word of God.
So, in other words, I should stop working on my Brand New Testament. :)

[Jay2004]

At the Council of Nicea..

Clement 1
and Clement 2 were almost made part of the new testament cannon.

Clement was a bishop of Alexandria

The Ethiopian Broad version of the bible still contain these epistles..

I do not know the reason why the council decided against these epistles..

[Jay2004]

At the Council of Nicea..

Clement 1
and Clement 2 were almost made part of the new testament cannon.

Clement was a bishop of Alexandria

The Ethiopian Broad version of the bible still contain these epistles..

I do not know the reason why the council decided against these epistles..
alot of the books, though are of Gnostic origen...

[Church Punk]

So, in other words, I should stop working on my Brand New Testament. :)

YUP! LOL
Love your pic by the way! lol

[Philip]

At the Council of Nicea..

Nope. Nicea did not establish a canon. The canon was not set for nearly another 100 years

Clement 1
and Clement 2 were almost made part of the new testament cannon.

Clement was a bishop of Alexandria

Yes, St Clement of Alexandria was Bishop of Alexandria. However, he did not write these epistles. 1 Clement was writen by St Clement of Rome. It is not clear who wrote 2 Clement.

I do not know the reason why the council decided against these epistles..

They were not writen by an Apostle or under the authority of an Apostle.

[Iron Lion]

You should check your sources carefully. The first two on the list are not even books. They are hypotheticals suggested by some authors. Many of the others are decidedly Gnostic and not Christian.

they all come from a site that deals with "early Christian writtings"

[Lotar]

At the Council of Nicea..

Clement 1
and Clement 2 were almost made part of the new testament cannon.

Clement was a bishop of Alexandria

The Ethiopian Broad version of the bible still contain these epistles..

I do not know the reason why the council decided against these epistles..
1st Clement almost made it into the canon, 2nd Clement was almost entirely ignored. And considering that it quotes a gnostic gospel, I'd say that's a good thing. ;)

I like 1st Clement though, it's an interesting read. :)

[Southtown]

YEs, but doesn't God love *all* his believers? What qualities would've stood out in the ones who wrote the canonical books as opposed to other believers who were just as faithful to God?

They were Spirit filled. And that is who moved them, btw, the Holy Spirit. And they were chosen, for whatever reason, because God does not need everyone to write scripture, otherwise why would anyone need to read it?
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.

Anyone who really walks with God knows that He places wisdom inside us and a breezy peace of Spirit to interpret it for us, hence the term walk with and its implications of us working to accomplish or arrive together.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

[Lotar]

However,


The same 27 books of the New Testament, were in a collection of their own, well before 390 AD. The Christian scholar, Origen (185-254) accepted the 27 books of the New Testament as we have it today.




But he seperated them into two groups, Homologoumena and Antilegomena, books which where universally accepted and books which had objections raised against. Universally accepted books were the four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, etc. The books that were not universally accepted were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.


Eusebius (264-340) lived at a time when the Rome was attempting to eliminate all Christian Scriptures. Constatine, on coming to reign ordered that 50 Bibles be prepared under the direction of Eusebius. Surprise, the Sacred Scriptures contained the same 27 books.

These 27 books may not have been "canonized" until 397 but they certainly were already "grouped" and used as the Christians Scriptures.




As above, you will find that many had a NT that differed from today's 27.

[wrp]

[Origen]But he seperated them into two groups, Homologoumena and Antilegomena, books which where universally accepted and books which had objections raised against. Universally accepted books were the four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, etc. The books that were not universally accepted were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
True. Note that he does not accept anything not now in the NT in either category.

Books of the NT were written by apostles or apostolic men, and delivered to the churches they founded. These being widely separated, some were known in one area rather than another.

The Christian church was an illegal organisation, and could not organise a global council to harmonise the lists, and no-one had authority to decide which books were or were not authentically apostolic; all they could do was compare uncertain works against the known teaching of the apostles (they had advantages over us in this) and listen to the testimony of churches as to how the books came to them. Harmonisation comes gradually in the 4th century as churches become legal, and swap books.

Aside from these, forgery of 'gospels' has been a cottage industry from the 2nd century to our own. They are usually written to propagate some opinion or heresy, and can always be recognised because they propagate some opinion or heresy. Another category of texts is novelisations of 'missing stories' -- e.g. the infancy of Jesus, etc, sometimes orthodox. These came into fashion in the 4th century, and were tolerated by the church if not much liked.

In the first century there were quite a number of texts other than those known to us which recorded the sayings of Jesus. Nothing certain is known about them, however.

As above, you will find that many had a NT that differed from today's 27.

That seems misleading to me. The uniformity of the New Testament is apparent, allowing for fuzziness at the edges, from Tertullian (ca. 200AD) on.

All the best,

Roger Pearse