Is it true there are lost books of the bible?

Question

Is it true there are lost books of the bible but the "church fathers" deemed them not holy enough for the bible? Why are none of the books in the bible written by women?

I never said we should drop it all together.
I just asked if there were lost books and why are there no women authors. I did not know I Billy Graham would be reading my question. Thought this was Yahoo "quiestions" no need to be snarky although I guess that is you right as I asked a question and you gave an answer, but I was not saying I don't like the bible I just wanted to know about the early writers.

Answer 1

I forgot to address the 'books by women' part. There is good evidence to suggest that parts of the Bible were written by women. Some scholars, for example, maintain that a good part of Genesis was written by a woman. Church tradition maintains that Mary (mother of Jesus) dictated much of the Gospel of Luke, and may have had a hand in some of the Catholic Epistles of John. Other "Lost" books (that were never really lost) were supposedly written, or at least influenced, by women. Example include the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Protoevangelion of James. The New testament mentions many prominant women in the early Church, including Phoebe (listed as a Deacon, or Minister) and Priscilla (listed as an Apostle!) The early history of the Church abounds with stories of female saints. One of the greatest Christian martyrs in the early Church was a 12 year old girl who endured sustained torture at the hands of the Romans over a two week period. Eusebius of Caesarea says that she endured persecution better than any man. The Empress Irene is venerated as one of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church for her stand against Iconoclasm. Hellena is also venerated as a great saint, and is credited with liberating Christianity from Roman tyranny by convincing Constantine to issue the Edict of Toleration.



The books of the Bible were selected in the early 4th century. Far from leaving out some books, the bishops of the Church included every single book that was read publicly in any congregation known to man, and then some. In printed editions, they went ahead and included several non-Biblical books for good measure (i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas, letters of Clement, letters of Ignatius, Apocalypse of John, etc.)!

Many other books were still read and studied by the Churches, especially in the eastern half of the Roman Empire.

The myth of "Lost Books" comes from several misconceptions. One is a volume called the "Lost Books of the Bible" compiled by William Hone. None of the Books in the volume were 'lost' to begin with - every single one of them were (and are) read in Churches and seminaries across the world.

Another problem was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before scholars dated the scrolls to the 1st century BC, many people (of dubious education) assumed that they were the remnats of a "lost Christianity." The truth is that they were Jewish works produced decades before the advent of Christianity. "Scholars" like Barbara Theiring and Robert Eisenman perpetuate this myth with new books every few years.

Yet another problem was the discovery of the Nag Hamadi library, a collection of Gnostic documents uncovered in Egypt in the 40's. As with the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars like Hans Jonas and Elaine Pagels immediately touted the documents as remnants of a lost (and possibly 'original') form of Christianity. On the contrary, many of the documents were simply the product of Coptic paganism, and have no connection to Christianity. Those that do use Christian terminology have little or nothing to do with the Christian religion, and simply put pagan doctrines in the mouths of prominant Christian figures. The earliest manuscripts in the Nag Hamadi Library were written centuries after the development of the Christian lectionary, and were never read (or even heard of) in Christian circles.

Another problem is the Protestant denial of the Catholicity of the early Church. In an attempt to prove that the early Church was NOT Catholic, Protestant scholars ascribed late dates to early manuscripts, and carefully omitted any reference to the pre-Augustinian writings of the early Church. This prompted many Protestants to assume that Constantine (or Theodosius, or some other figure) had deliberately "Catholisized" the early Church. Unfortunately, this 'black hole' in the history of Christianity has created an urban myth suggesting that the nature of early Christianity is essentially a mystery, and that what we know of the ancient Church was fabricated in the later centuries of the Roman Empire. The truth is that the birth of Christianity, its early history, its doctrines, its practices, and its rituals were heavily documented by contemporary witnesses (both Christian and non-Christian), and fill volumes. Just the highlights of Christian writings spanning the first 1000 years of the Church fill over 30 volumes in Schaff's Early Church Fathers!

Finally, another problem is the new Protestant view of the Bible. In the ancient Church, doctrine was ALWAYS established by two criteria: 1) What do the other Churches think about this issue? and 2) Can your Church provide a list of bishops going back to an Apostle? The Bible was consulted as a reference work, or as a means of substantiating pre-existing doctrines. It would have never occured to the early Church to alter Scripture as a means of substantiating one doctrine over another. In the last few centuries, Protestant denominations have abandoned ecclesiaology as the arbiter of orthodoxy, and instead tout Scripture as the sole source of faith and doctrine. If you could slip a change into modern Bibles, you could justify a change in doctrine in many Protestant Churches. But that was certainly not the case in the ancient Church. You could have pulled out a Scriptural reference supporting any doctrine on earth - the ancient Church would have subjected the doctrine to the opinion of the Church, not to the Bible. There was literally no motivation whatsoever to add or subtract controversial passages of Scripture prior to the Reformation. The opinion of a well-established theologian or an obscure canon would have carried infinitely more weight than an overt Scriptural reference.

Answer 2

Well...I believe the bible is the word of God.

When the Dead sea scrolls were found (I'm not sure how old they are, so you can look that part up)

It was very close to the bible we have today....scary close.

Out of sixty six books only one was off. we have the book of esther, they didnt.

as for your "why no women" question, we dont know for sure who all of the books of the bible were written by, (maybe a woman)! But really, it was all God. The writers had little to do with what was in the bible.

Answer 3

No,there are not any 'lost books'.These 'lost books' were hundreds of years fter Jesus,by Gnostic pretending to be associates of Jesus and the disciples.None of the early Christians believed these 'lost books' to be inspired (or part of the canon),and didn't even give them a mention.
In the Council of Nicea,the canon was made official.The early Christians,however,had already settled on a canon centuries earlier,and these 'lost books' were never a part of it.These 'lost books' were not thrown out of the Bible (or the Council) because they were never even there in the first place.
There is no conspiracy to repress any books,or anything of that sort.
As for women writing books,I don't really know.Why does everything always have to turn into a battle of the sexes?Can't we just realise that teh books were written by men,and that there is no hiddne sexism in that?

Answer 4

I suppose that it depends on what you mean by "lost books." For instance, Moses did not have one book of the Bible, as far as we know. Moses might have had Job, since it is supposed to be the oldest book, and he might have had books written by Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, or Abraham or someone that we do not have today. If they exist, they might belong as part of the Bible which we do not have.

At the time of Jesus, who had the New Testament?

No matter how one looks at it, for most of time, most people did not have most of the Bible! Why should we assume that we have it all now?

While that is true, that does not mean that the 66 books of the "protestant" Bible is not the Word of God, it simply means that this is what we have now.

It is very unlikely that the other books which were not placed into the Bible were holy, or of God. Even the additional books of the apocrypha that are found in the catholic bible are not considered part of the Word of God. They are understood to be helps or aids in understanding God's Word (personally I believe that they are not very helpful and in fact can be harmful in understanding God's Word).

It is my opinion that any "lost books" are lost for a reason. God has a plan that works, and apparently we do not need the rest of them in at this time, just like Moses did not need the prophets or the New Testament.

Will other books be revealed? Will more books of the Bible be written? Maybe. The bible refers to scores of other books, maybe some of them are holy and written by God, but we just do not have them now, because we do not need them, or maybe they are good books, but not good enough to be the perfect Word of God.

However these are the last times and John seems to have been the last prophet. There is an indication in the Bible itself that there could be more to come. In both Daniel and Revelation things are sealed up. Twice this happens in Daniel and in the second time it says that it is to sealed until the end times (but this might be after the Tribulation). The first part of Daniel and the part in Revelation, it does not say exactly when those parts will be revealed (but I believe they will be revealed in Heaven during the Tribulation).

In John and Daniels' books it tells us about the sealing up of these things -- but what if we were not told about the sealing up of the information in other revelations? This seems to be hinted at in Daniel (see Daniel 12:4). Other prophets hint at the same thing, Habakkuk for example. These could be the revelation of what the prophecies mean, or it could be the revelation of additional evidence, perhaps in the form of a book or whatever (and not necessarily a book that belongs in the Bible).

One argument against additional books being necessary is the gift of the Holy Ghost which will last until the time of the Tribulation. Through Him, we can know whatever it is that we need to know.

Assuming or wanting new revelations can be dangerous. It can open one's mind to lies, deceit, misinformation, and/or can call into question the truth of God. Any and all new information must match what is known in the Word of God, that is, it should not be contrary to what we have known. God is consistant, He is the same today as He was yesterday as He will be tomorrow.

God is the one who determines whether or not He writes a book and gives it to man -- man cannot determine this.

Why are none of the books in the bible written by women? It is possible that Esther wrote some or all of Esther, but we do not know. Also it is possible that one of Solomon's wives wrote part of the book of Song of Solomon, but again, we do not know. Miriam and Deborah may have originally wrote their songs, and they were ultimately written down by men.

Most of the books were written by men for two primary reasons. One was that man was given physical and spiritual authority over the woman by God. Secondly, being a scribe, priest, or prophet, was usually a man's job. Women were forbidden to teach publically and were to learn of spiritual matters from their husbands. In Proverbs 31:10-31 we see what a virtuous woman is like.

Answer 5

They were not so much lost as rejected. The early Christian church never intended to have scriptures in addition to the Hebrew Bible because Jesus was expected back within a few months or years. But as time went on and the original apostles began dying off, they saw the need to record the story of Jesus.

The first works collected, the letters of Paul, had no details about Jesus at all. He died and was raised, that's it. No teachings, no miracles. Mark's was the first attempt to describe the ministry of Jesus. But people wanted more. Where did this Jesus come from? Who were his parents? Was he the "son" of God and when did that happen? Matthew and Luke tried to fill in these gaps, but in very different ways. About all they agreed on was that he was born in Bethlehem. By the time John's gospel was written, a sophisticated theology had developed that determined that Jesus had to have always been God. It wasn't obvious all at once.

Other people had different ways of explaining who and what Jesus was. The Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalen described a mysterious Jesus who was always hinting at deeper mysteries than what could be seen in the ordinary world. The world of mater was a place of corruption, made by an inferior sub-god who had lost his way. The true God was represented by Christ, showing the way to the pure, enlightened world of the spirit. The humanity of Jesus was merely a disguise for a Christ who could not be subsumed in mortal flesh or die like a human being. The writers of these gospels were Gnostics who believed that true salvation was not about sin debts but about learning how to cleanse oneself of filthy, carnal desires and habits. There was always a deeper level for the individual to master as he sought the way to transcendence. The majority of Christian leaders felt this theology was contrary to the idea of service and compassion Jesus represented to them. Gnosticism created no sense of community.

Other books were written to satisfy the curiosity of new Christians, filling in more and more of the background. The Protoevangelium and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas described the youth of Mary, and the boyhood of a Jesus who was gradually coming to terms with his powers, breathing life into clay pigeons, alternately striking playmates dead, then resurrecting them, creating childish mischief that he rights with a gratuitous miracle. They were adventure stories, empty of meaning and inspiration. Other figures were treated similarly. The Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc. all provided miracle-studed adventures that added nothing to the understanding of the faith. These books were never seriously considered as sacred.

Some books were taken seriously. Letters of Barnabas and Clement, the vision-filled Shephers of Hermas, and others, because these were thoughtful, instructional and meditative. Some of them were included in some people's lists. Others seemed too full of ambiguous symbolism (like Revelation) are were of uncertain authorship (Hebrews).

But the final list was drawn up and approved in council in the 4th Century, based on what the bishops understood about their faith.

As for books that women wrote, it was a time when women didn't write much of anything. It was not considered their role. The number of identifiable women authors up to that time, and some time after, was negligible. Still, there is some serious evidence that women palyed a strong role in the growth of the Church during its first two centuries. After Christianity was legalized, there was a definite purging of unorthodoxy and some works were destroyed or hidden. Perhaps some writings by women were among them. But such works truly would be lost and not likely to be found again.

Answer 6

There are no "lost books of the Bible" or books that were taken out of the Bible. There are many legends and rumors of “lost books” but there is no truth whatsoever to these stories. Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible. There are literally hundreds of religious books that were written in the same time period as the books of the Bible. Some of these books contain true accounts of things that genuinely occurred (1 Maccabees for example). Some of them contain good spiritual teaching (the wisdom of Solomon for example). However, these books are not inspired by God. If we read any of these books, the Apocrypha as an example, we have to treat them as fallible historical books, not as the inspired, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).



The gospel of Thomas, for example, was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the Apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. The early church fathers almost universally rejected the gospel of Thomas as being heretical. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true. The Epistle of Barnabas was not written by the Biblical Barnabas, but by an imposter. The same can be said of the gospel of Philip, the apocalypse of Peter, the book of Enoch, etc. The Bible is the complete Word of God. Why would God allow a book that He inspired to not be included in the Bible for 2000+ years?

Answer 7

Yes this is true, way back when there was to much to put into the Bible, so they decided on what to keep in the Bible. And there was a library fire way back when, and that's where the lost books, information was kept, and lost.

Answer 8

Lost not quite. discarded yes for the reason that you gave.
None of the books are claimed to be written by females because the bible was put together and interpreted by a patriarchal society.

Answer 9

just checked my cupboard, no lost books? well there not here so they must be lost. I'm going up the road to local church and ill ask the local preacher if he has seen them. goodluck..
p.s. if i find them i'll inform you via angel instant message, direct flight messenger service..

Answer 10

The books cannot be onfirmed that they were written by the apostles themselves or some letters were written by Paul but do not contain the theology that the books we have int he bible contain, they are just letters, I have read about the prelife of jesus in the lost books how he met the theif on the cross in his youth before he died and how he met Judas in his youth and Judas hurt him were he was suppose to be cut with the sword after being taken down from the cross, also his bath water when he wwas a baby was suppose to be able to heal and his swaddling cloth could as well, because they were on his person at one time, these sound a little farfetched and so wer enot included int he bible. Mary has a book and tells how she served in the temple until she married Joseph and Joseph has a book, and then their is the virgin who could heal who was a martyr before steven that is not included in the bible either, imagine a female martyr before steven, and other such things, other later apostles have books I found their theology boring so I sold the book.