lost bible books

[Diceman]

I understand that there are also at least two letters by Peter which have been lost.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Harborwolf]

While chatting with someone on the Gospel of St. Thomas, that oh so famous lost book of the bible, he informed me about the "lost book of japher." It is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and in Samuel II, 1:18. I have thus far been unable to find any info on it. What is it? What is it about? All rumors and/or conjecture are of course welcome as I have nada myself.

------------------
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come back, set them on fire."----George Carlin

[Harborwolf]

sorry, i misspelled. It is the book of Jasher. That is what i am looking for. sorry for the inconvinience. Again, the book of Jasher

[moriah]

From the Holman Bible Dictionary:

The Book of Jashar (or Upright) A book quoted twice in the Old Testament: Joshua’s poetic address to the sun and the moon (Josh. 10:12-13) and David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17-27). Others would include Solomon’s words of dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8:12-13), which the earliest Greek translation attributes to the book of song (Hebrew shir), a transposition of letters of Hebrew jshr or ishr for Jashar. Deborah’s song (Judg. 5), and Miriam’s song (Ex. 15:20-21) are sometimes seen as part of Jashar. The “Book of Jashar” probably consisted of poems on important events in Israel’s history collected during the time of David or Solomon. The “Book of Jashar” is often compared to or identified with the “Book of the Wars of the Lord” discussed above.

So, yes, it is lost to history. Scholars have identified many passages of scriptures which most likely once belonged in a previously written document. This is a rare instance where the quoted document is given attribution. Most of those precursor documents, when once incorporated into a larger work, were no longer deemed necessary to keep around or to continue to copy (unless a document is copied at least once every generation, it is usually too decayed to last any longer than about 100 years).

Peace.

[Pickman's Model]

There are a ton o'books that are now lost to us, many of which are mentioned in the Bible. Some of them are:

The Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:14)

The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)

The Book of Nathan the Prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29)

The Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29)

The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29)

The Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29)

The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15)

The Chronicle of Jehu, Son of Hanani (2 Chronicles 20:34)

It would be nice to know where we could get copies of these books. The stuff they contain would be priceless. Ah, well---maybe someday somebody will dig up another cache like Qumran. We can only hope.

[RealityChuck]

I understand that there are also at least two letters by Peter which have been lost.

Showing that the post office hasn't improved much in 2000 years.

[Sofa King]

Long ago, before I had the option to skip church, I saw a Methodist preacher give a sermon on the "lost books of the New Testament." According to this guy (and my undoubtedly faulty memory) there were something like six books, or maybe six subsections, that were left out of the King James edition.

Apparently these omitted sections are not lost to history, they just were not incorporated into the "modern" New Testament. I dimly remember only two specific factoids from these omitted parts: the first is a story about a very young Jesus who impresses his friends by turning a mud-ball into a dove; the second is foggier, but I think Jesus strikes a man blind for some indiscretion.

Was this guy just some sort of wacko who was making all this up? Do I remember this even remotely correctly? Probably not, so don't be bashful about showing me up.

[moriah]

The Corinthians did write back. The Second Letter to the Corinthians mentions it.

With regard to the wakko (not the poster, the person the poster heard) who claims the KJV suppressed lost books of the New Testament: There are several reasons why a section of an old scriptural manuscript are not included in a modern translation. The most important reason is that there are other documents in agreement with each other that do not have that same passage.

What happens is that later, non-canonical Gospels are written (e.g, The Gospel of Thomas) that contain bits of the canonical gospels and some rather far-fetched legendary material. Then, centuries later, some monk who doesn't know better thinks that the legendary material of an apocryphal gospel should be inserted into the next copy of the canonical gospel.

Luckily, such large scale alterations of the canonical gospels are rare. And a comparison of all the ancient copies still extant clearly show the parts that don't belong.

What's not so easy is trying to weed out all the little changes that copyists made, like 'corrections' of grammar or one-line glosses.

Peace.

[AWB]

Did the Corinthians ever write back? :)

[John W. Kennedy]

KJV has nothing to do with it. The canon of the New Testament was about 90% established as far back as we can trace, and has been just as it is today since the days when there was still an Emperor in Rome.

The particular books mentioned are real; I've read 'em. They're also brainless crap.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Sofa King]

JWK, was I right about it being something like six chapters? How about the magic trick thing? I alway thought that one was a pretty funny bit, but I've never seen it refered to in print.

[Northern Piper]

Sofa King,

your Methodist minister may have been referring to the Apocrypha - they are accepted by the RC church, but not by most Protestant denominations, and are not in the KJV.

[moriah]

jwk -- While the canon was mostly set by the early generations of Christians, there are still a few ancient texts with a few very aberrant additions. Those 'additions' don't make it into modern translations that keep an eye on all the ancient sources.

jti -- It definitely can not be the apocryphal(or deuterocanonical) books that the OP was referring to -- they're all Old Testament books and do not have any references to Jesus.

Peace.

[Polycarp]

The dove bit was from something called "The Protevangelium of James" that had a whole lot of improbable events happening to Mary and her parents prior to Jesus's birth.

As for Methodists and the Apocrypha books, they have the same item in their Articles of Religion as do the Episcopalians/Anglicans: they can be read (in church) for moral conduct and edification, but no doctrine can be founded on them. Mostly they don't get used at all, although I think the standard course of Sunday Scripture readings has one or two passages in it from the Apocrypha.

[Nickrz]

Cecil on the Corinthians writing back:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_086.html

[Pickman's Model]

KJV has nothing to do with it. The canon of the New Testament was about 90% established as far back as we can trace, and has been just as it is today since the days when there was still an Emperor in Rome.

I recall a debate I got into with a Protestant friend of mine about whether the church was originally based on the Bible alone or Sacred Tradition. He said the Bible, and when I asked him what the Church was operating on for its first 90 years or so, seemed rather confused until I pointed out that Revelation wasn't even written until approximately 90 A.D. He seemed positively shocked when I told him that the Bible didn't even come into existance in its present form until nearly 400 years after Christ was born---i.e., 393 A.D., at the Council of Hippo.

The particular books mentioned are real; I've read 'em. They're also brainless crap.

Yes, they are. I've read them, too.

your Methodist minister may have been referring to the Apocrypha - they are accepted by the RC church, but not by most Protestant denominations, and are not in the KJV.

Negatory. The Apocrypha are Old Testament writings, produced long before the Christians came along. Uncanonical books from the New Testament era are usually referred to as "pseudepigrapha", or "false writings". These include things like the aforementioned Protoevangelium of St. James, the Harrowing of Hell, the Gospel of Pontius Pilate (big snort there), and two completely different Gospels of St. Thomas.

The dove bit was from something called "The Protevangelium of James" that had a whole lot of improbable events happening to Mary and her parents prior to Jesus's birth.

Not to open a can of worms, but...
You mean more improbable than water being changed into wine, demons being cast into swine, and people coming back from the dead (Lazarus, Jesus himself)?

This book I've gotta read...

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Diceman]

You mean more improbable than water being changed into wine, demons being cast into swine, and people coming back from the dead (Lazarus, Jesus himself)?

He's got a point. Do you mean physically improbable, or improbable in a morality/personality sense?


------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[John W. Kennedy]

(Sigh!)

We Xtians know the miracles in the Gospels are improbable events. That's why they're called "miracles", which is Latin for, "stuff that makes you go 'Wow!'"

On the other hand, the miracles in the Protevangelium, etc., are "improbable" because they're stupid. Stuff like:

Another kid was running, and bumped into Baby Jesus, and Baby Jesus said, "You shouldn't bump into the Son of God," and waved His hands and the other kid fell down dead. And then Baby Jesus waved His hands again and the other kid came back to life. And then Baby Jesus said, "See, I told you you shouldn't bump into Me," and waved His hands one more time and the kid fell down dead again.

Bxyqrsttfsk!!

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[pldennison]

JWK, that's actually a pretty funny story. It reminded me of The Simpsons; on one of the Halloween episodes, Mr. Burns is a vampire. Homer kills him with a stake through the heart (after a misplaced shot to the crotch). He dissolves into dust, then rapidly reincorporates, sits up and yells, "You're fired!" and once again decomposes.

[Northern Piper]

moriah, Pickman's - you're right - I read the post too quickly.

[moriah]

Not to open a can of worms, but... You mean more improbable than water being changed into wine, demons being cast into swine, and people coming back from the dead (Lazarus, Jesus himself)?

This book I've gotta read...

Ditto for what jwk said.

Also, even in the canonical gospels, many mainline scholars distinguish between miraculous events that are likely to be 'real' and events which are most likely legendary (a religious urban legend).

For example, all the gospels report that Jesus was a reputed faith healer and exorcist. Even his enemies give him credit on that account.

However, what the demons said, or even if they were actually demons (rather than manifestations of epilepsy or hallucinogenic schizophrenia) may be legendary.

The resurrection account has the attestation of all the gospels and all the New Testament writings. Paul even says:

1 Cor 15:3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (NRSV)

Now, most historians (religious or secular) would stand on their heads and spit nickles in order to get such an attestation to a historical event. And don't think Christian apologists aren't quick to point these verses out. (The life and times of Jesus have a better historical attestation than that of Socrates. The problem is that most people are skeptical of religious sources, as if certain philosophers {coughPlatocough} don't have their own agendas.)

However, when it comes to the raising of Lazarus, some scholars part company and think that this is a legendary story that developed from the parable found in the other gospels regarding the Rich Man and Lazarus. (The Rich Man in hell wanted Lazarus in heaven to 'come back to life' to warn his family.)

So, my point is that even in the canonical gospels, scholars and learned individuals of faith can sniff out what may be legendary from what was truly a historically miraculous event.

When they sniff these non-canonical gospels, all they smell is shit. (E.g., baby Jesus clapping his hands in delight at some clay toy pigeons and then those pigeons coming to life and flying away. In the canonical gospels, Jesus' neighbors didn't think there was anything special about him, which sort of puts a damper on the historicity of boyhood miracles.)

Peace.