Lost Bible Books, anyone have sources?

I know there were missing bible books from being destroyed or lost but does anyone have any links or books I can buy that can translate what has been found?

Thanks

No "books of the Bible" have ever been lost or hidden. All the books ever included in it are still included in it.

However, prior to the collating of scriptures together into the Bible (a gradual process beginning with assessment of wich "Gospels" were correct by Irenæus (c.185AD?), through to the final layout two hundred years later) there had grown up a fairly large number of different religious writings. When it came to collating the documents for the Bible, the question was as to which ones of this multiplicity were (a) historically authentic and (b) orthodox in doctrine.

The writings that were eventually deemed either not historically authentic, or which were assessed as being contrary to the orthodox doctrine that the compilers felt had been passed from generation to generation were not included. The church leaders, naturally, having deemed works as being contrary to the faith, desired that Christians would no longer use the discarded documents. Bishops took steps to remove the documents from use, and most ended up destroyed. I guess rather like throwing away and destroying out-of-date textbooks. No general purge as such was undertaken. But in some cases possession of the "heretical" documents was punishable by excommunication (or more phyiscal punishment). But through the vagueries of history, many of the documents survived.

These writings are still readily accessible, and have been studied by scholars. The range from the aparrently authentic Didache (excluded presumably becuase it is not a work of "Testament" as such, but a manual of Christian practice instead) to the blatant forgeries of the Gnostic sect.

I would soundly avoid any books on the subject which seem as if they have an agenda to push (eg. titles like "The Books the Church Suppressed", books which claim to be "revealing" things for the first time, books talking about "secrets" and all such tabloid-spin idioms) and go for something much more objective and even academic. Most of the books out there make no critical assessment of the texts and present them as if they were as historical as those in the Bible (which, indeed, also require critical assessment as well). A good collected edition of translations, along with critical historical commentary is this one:

The Apocryphal New Testament
A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Edited by J. K. Elliott

This has brief introductions to each document, and refers you to modern critical editions of them in the bibliography (which you will probably also need to read before you can assess the document itself).

I think it is beneficial to read the documents, not because they contain some kind of hidden truth (some passages are in fact rather moving and sound very pious), but rather to understand why they were excluded. Knowing that allows one to try and see the reasons why the books that finally ended up in the Bible were included there. It sheds light on the distinctions between what was considered true and what was considered false.

Cheers.

Rob.

Nice Rob Thanks I'll look those up and read up on them.

I reccomend a site called sacred-texts.com
It's a fairly "neutral" site, good for just plain ol' research. It has many of the gnostic/apochryphal books, the supposed "lost" gospels, and wealth of info on other religious texts as well.

Like Rob said, I wouldnt go searching for some "hidden truth", but rather, just see why certain books didnt make the "final cut".

Texts that were left out of the Bible and that could have been included are numerous.

When the Christian sects were in their earliest forms, their teachings did not always agree with each other (which is still evident in the New Testament as it stands) but this did not pose a big problem until the more popular Christian sects were in the position of having to defend their beliefs when up against more powerful religions. It was at this point that Christian leaders had to make their religion more formal, and this was not an easy task due to the very many differing texts and teachings that were all pigeon-holed as being of the same 'Christian' beliefs (you can still see that in evidence today, when you see people referring to 'Gnostics' as if they were just one group, when in fact there were very many, who had very different beliefs and collections texts)

...The major controversy among Christians of the beginning of the third century was framed in terms of the differing views of Arius, the deacon of the church in Nicomedia, and Athanasius, the deacon of the bishop of Antioch.

Re the difference between Arius and Athanasius,

the doctrine of Arius seemed more vulnerable to the charge by pagans that Christianity worshipped more than one God. That difference was an important one, and the controversy raged during the first decades of the third century.
When Constantine became the undisputed ruler of the entire empire in 324 CE, his immediate goal was to politically unify the empire. His intended means was to use Christianity as the institution through which ideological unity would be achieved. However, Christianity was, itself, divided in its theology.
Constantine then decided to have this controversy resolved once and for all by convoking a general council of the church at Nicea (in what is now called Turkey) in 325 CE. Of an estimated 1800 bishops throughout the empire, about 318 attended the council. Their mandate from Constantine was to achieve a consensus about the Christian doctrine of the Father and the Son. Constantine himself arrived on the fourth or fifth of July and greeted the assembly, urging them to find unity and eliminate the discords that existed among them. Their problem was to determine how to reconcile the divinity of the Son with the belief in one God.
In the end, the views of Athanasius carried the day, and the creed that was accepted by all but the hard-core supporters of Arius became the cornerstone of the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

The divisions between the eastern and western churches continued for another sixty-seven years, before the Athanasian view was finally dominant. In fact, there were periods in which the Arian view seemed as if it might once again become the established theology. It was not until 392 CE that Arianism was finally put to rest. Until that time it was quite uncertain which view would actually become the established orthodoxy.

Arius and his followers were deemed 'heretics' and persecuted as Arius himself wrote:

We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know.

So don't believe anyone who tells you that anything outisde the Bible is out of date, or that 'Gnostics' or 'heretics' forged anything - the contrary is more true...the 'Bible' was forged by force, by those who wished to become more powerful and set the dogma in place that is still thought of as having being 'original' and 'fact' - far from it!!

Read everything you can get your hands on and make up your own mind why things were left out

See here www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Nebankh

The quotes I used above were from this page

cc.usu.edu...

If you do your own search on the creed of Athansius and the dispute between he and Arius, please beware of any websites that are Christian or Catholic or else you will be given a very defensive and biased view (naturally, as anything else is still deemed heretical!)

Yours heretically

Nebankh

Originally posted by Nebankh

So don't believe anyone who tells you that anything outisde the Bible is out of date, or that 'Gnostics' or 'heretics' forged anything - the contrary is more true...the 'Bible' was forged by force, by those who wished to become more powerful and set the dogma in place that is still thought of as having being 'original' and 'fact' - far from it!!

Read everything you can get your hands on and make up your own mind why things were left out

Nebankh

I'm afraid you need to do a little research beyond the crumbs you are meant to find. I think it would be wise to understand that the Gnostic writings are an attack on the truth and were written outside the circle of the apostles. And yet they have names like the Gospel of Thomas even though it can be proven that they were written later. In summary, they baited the hook and you bit hard. Wake up.

Originally posted by eyes2see
I reccomend a site called sacred-texts.com
It's a fairly "neutral" site, good for just plain ol' research. It has many of the gnostic/apochryphal books, the supposed "lost" gospels, and wealth of info on other religious texts as well.

Like Rob said, I wouldnt go searching for some "hidden truth", but rather, just see why certain books didnt make the "final cut".

Eyes2see is right, sacred texts.com is an excellent place for finding, reading and downloading related material. I thought I'd add that link (and a few others).

www.sacred-texts.com...
www.esotericarchives.com...

Another good site for old texts...
www.gutenberg.org...

And for some 'out in left field research...
www.theosophical.ca...

I'm afraid you need to do a little research beyond the crumbs you are meant to find. I think it would be wise to understand that the Gnostic writings are an attack on the truth and were written outside the circle of the apostles. And yet they have names like the Gospel of Thomas even though it can be proven that they were written later. In summary, they baited the hook and you bit hard. Wake up.

Who baited any hook that I bit? Have you any idea of the research I have undertaken, or do you assume I have only read crumbs because you believe you've read a whole loaf that I am not aware of or capable of finding?
How very presumptious

I think the fact that you wrote that the Gnostic Gospels were an attack on truth and were 'written outside the circle of the apostles' shows just how ignorant of what is being discussed here, Sun Matrix, and also completely ignores the significance of the context of the non-canonical writings. The Christian writings people are taught today were written yesterday by comparison to the original comparative and non-comparative texts that are still being translated today, and the current 'Bible' being published today was re-written many times by a small number of people with an agenda. But I have no agenda to promote any Gnostic or early Christian texts - if I had I would be constantly disagreeing with myself as they are so very different, as you would know if you had researched them, surely?

You seem only to refer to one set of texts like the Gospel of Thomas - the gospels with names that sound familiar to the gospels the general public know, and that you presume is all people want to know about - so may I be presumptious and conclude that you've only read those?

I would advise the person who began this thread to look for the hidden truths. They are only hidden from the blind, so naturally people who can't see them will tell you there's nothing to see


I woke up 15 years ago and have no agenda, and all I wish for, is for other people who still have a mind of their own to wake up. Nothing more.

Originally posted by sun matrix
I'm afraid you need to do a little research beyond the crumbs you are meant to find. I think it would be wise to understand that the Gnostic writings are an attack on the truth and were written outside the circle of the apostles. And yet they have names like the Gospel of Thomas even though it can be proven that they were written later. In summary, they baited the hook and you bit hard. Wake up

you seem to think you know what you're talking about when it comes to real gospels
tell me
where can I fidn the Gospel according to Jesus
or even
the Gospel according to Nimrod
because apparently they are the same person


Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Nebankh


Who baited any hook that I bit? Have you any idea of the research I have undertaken, or do you assume I have only read crumbs because you believe you've read a whole loaf that I am not aware of or capable of finding?
How very presumptious

I didn't presume anything. I see your conclusion and understand its error. No presumption was needed. No matter how much research you do, if you look in the wrong place on the crumb trail left for you, you will draw the wrong conclusion.

I see your conclusion and understand its error

Once again Sun Matrix you are making a statement without anything to support your words, presuming I have drawn conclusions and proclaiming they are in error?

What a strange posting style you have from your high tower. If you 'understand' some error, it would be the decent thing to say what that error is and why you believe it to be so.

if you look in the wrong place on the crumb trail left for you, you will draw the wrong conclusion.

so wheres the right place to look
can you tell us that o great and wise sage

and can you answer my earlier question

where can I find the Gospel according to Jesus
or even
the Gospel according to Nimrod

[edit on 10-2-2007 by Marduk]

leafer,


find a site that presents all those "dead sea scrolls"
a lot of ancient texts on scrolls, buried in a cave for +2000 yrs.

i understand that many if not most of the old testament writings/Books are found among these scrolls.....
but there are other religious, spiritual writings found there as well-->
and that indicates there are 'Lost' books,,,but the Bible is complete as it is,

any other books or scriptures or whatever- -will forever be kept on one side,
so that theology students and such can augment their faith,
and the text of the current Bible meanings/interpetations can be re-affirmed/ or emphasis added or reduced,
by using these newly researched spiritual texts as an adjunct to the Bible message

Originally posted by Nebankh

The Christian writings people are taught today were written yesterday by comparison to the original comparative and non-comparative texts that are still being translated today, and the current 'Bible' being published today was re-written many times by a small number of people with an agenda.

I'm not quite sure where you have come up with this poppycock.(Da Vinci Crock possibly) Are you saying that the Jewish Old Testament writings are inaccurate? You say the books have been rewritten? How so. Can I not go back to the original Hebrew and translate it right now?

Ah, I see you are not student of theology Sun Matrix, my mistake.

The comic book you referred to (which has hi-jacked the minds of the sheep) follows a long line of books written by misguided authors who have also dabbled but not been able to accept the simple truths. I see you think this book has influenced my opinions? You couldn't be more further from the truth my friend.

Anyway, Leafer only needs to follow the link I posted to Eartly Christian Writings and read through as many texts as they wish.
The numbers on the left are for an estimated range of dating.
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

ran out of space....

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

There are further instructions: ""Take a look at the e-Catena project for many references from the Ante-Nicene writings to particular New Testament passages.

Go to the Online Books page for many classic scholarly works.

I have launched a new web site called Early Jewish Writings for documents from antiquity by Jewish authors.

You may also be interested in the Theories of the Historical Jesus web page. Also, for some later Church Fathers, go to the Church Fathers Outside the ANF-NPNF Collection web page. "

Once again, the link is here:
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

You can go and translate as many as you wish Sun Matrix

Peace

Nebankh

Leafer may wish to visit this site also www.gnosis.org...

'The library includes over a thousand documents related to the Gnostic tradition, including all major Gnostic writings and anti-Gnostic patristic texts. Using the Archive search function, students and researchers can easily find just about any anything relating to the Gnostic tradition.

The sacred-texts site is rather good, yeah. The problem is that it has very few of these documents on it.

This thread is likely to run pointlessly partisan. Even a bald listing of real and hypothetical documents along with dates is woefully uncritical. Not an attack on anyone, but if the OP wants a handle on these things properly, they ought to read the detailed crticial assessments produced by academics. No good just listing things, you have to know the arguments, pros/cons behind the listing, see what is certain, what is less certain, and was is hypothetical. And why.

Some people want to believe that some books were edited to conform to a politiclly-controlling mentality, destroying others and "hiding" the truth; others want to believe that the books were sifted through with good faith in search of the doctrine passed on by apostolic tradition. It really doesn't matter what you want to believe at this juncture. You have to know the background before you come to a conclusion. You want someone to lay out the facts, not their conclusions. That's why books such as the one I mentioned will do you far better service than this forum will.

Although the "early christian writings" link above does seem to be a fair introduction to the topic. Good one.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain anything convincingly like apocryphal books not known from anywhere else . Check Wikipedia, which briefly mentions certain writers who have attempted to find such things there, but whose theories have not been accepted in general (except by conspiracy theorists of course, who in this topic seem to abandon the very critical apparatus they ought to be applying). A few narratives exist, which are published, but appear to be of insular origin. I think they're on the early xstain writings site.

I dunno, so much of what goes on on this site seems no longer to be about searching for the truth and denying ignorance, as it is about denying everying and adopting revisionism as the only truth.

Cheers.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by d60944]

[edit on 11-2-2007 by d60944]

Hi Rob,

Even a bald listing of real and hypothetical documents along with dates is woefully uncritical.

If you had followed the link, you'll see it is not a bald list I posted, but that on the site there is a list of translations and commentaries on each item on the list. You refer to the site as a good place to start?

On the site you can click on each of these and read the various translations. What is being discussed in this thread is the Bible, what went in and what stayed out. It is important to realise that the Bible as people read it today is not the original and that alternatives have existed which have been revised.

So let's take 2 Corinthians from the site - if you click on 2 Corinthians you get a new page:
Estimated Range of Dating: 50-60 C.E.
Chronological List
Online Text for 2 Corinthians (clickable links)

* American Standard Version
* King James Version
* World English Bible
* Bible Gateway (NIV/KJV/NASB/RSV/NIV-IBS/DARBY/YLT/WE/NKJV)
* Perseus NT (English/Greek/Latin)
* Blueletter Bible (English/Greek)
* HTML Bible (Greek/YLT/KJV/ASV)
* The Online Greek Bible (various Greek fonts)

Online Resources for 2 Corinthians

* e-Catena: 2nd Corinthians 1
* Edgar Goodspeed: The Second Letter to the Corinthians
* NAB Introduction
* Daniel Wallace's Introduction
* Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistles to the Corinthians
* IVP Commentary

Offline Resources for 2 Corinthians

* Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1996), pp. 125-137.
* Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 541-558.
* Udo Schnelle, translated by M. Eugene Boring, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 75-92.
* Gerald Bray, 1-2 Corinthians (Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers 2000).

Information on 2 Corinthians

Second Corinthians is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted to contain authentic Pauline correspondence.

Werner Georg Kummel would like to view the letter to be a whole composed by the apostle Paul on one occasion (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 287-293).

However, there are difficulties that have suggested to several commentators that 2 Corinthians has been compiled from several pieces of correspondence. Since the "sorrowful letter" mentioned in 2:4 does not describe 1 Corinthians, we know that Paul had written at least three letters to the Corinthians. A quite reasonable suggestion is that the last four chapters contain the "sorrowful letter" that is mentioned in 2:4.

Other evidence bears out this view. Edgar J. Goodspeed notes a few considerations that suggest disunity in 2 Corinthians (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 58-59). On the one hand, "From the beginning through chapter 9 it is pervaded by a sense of harmony, reconciliation, and comfort." On the other, "With the beginning of chapter 10 we are once more in the midst of personal misunderstanding and bitterness, and these continue to dominate the letter to the end . . . This undeniable incongruity between the two parts of II Corinthians naturally suggests that we have in it two letters instead of one - one conciliatory and gratified, the other injured and incensed. And as the early part of II Corinthians clearly looks back upon a painful, regretted letter, the possibility suggests itself that we actually have that letter in chapters 10-13."

Norman Perrin offers the following solution with five Pauline fragments and one non-Pauline interpolation (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 104-105).

There's more but that's enough. People who want to stop discussions such as this, or who claim it is pointless are actively promoting ignorance, and are no better than a frog stuck down a well protesting loudly that there is nothing outside the well worth seeing.