The
Book of Jashar is just one of nearly two dozen referenced works
mentioned in the Bible that have been lost to history. Here's what
Apologetics Press has to say about this controversial subject:
In a manner
that is somewhat similar to a modern research paper, citations appear in
both the Old and New Testaments. The inspired writers sometimes referred to
certain works that no longer exist—a fact that has caused some people to
question the accuracy and completeness of the Bible. Atheists and skeptics
claim that if it was truly God’s Word, then it would not lack any
composition cited. Massimo Franceschini, an Italian convert to Mormonism,
has suggested that the biblical text is more than sixty-five percent
incomplete, due, in part, to the “lost books” cited within the Bible itself
(Franceschini, 2002). If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent
complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that. Duane
Christensen, in the October 1998 issue of Bible Review, listed
twenty-three referenced books that have been lost in antiquity (14[5]:29),
to which we can add seven additional works mentioned in the Bible. Such
compositions as the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the Acts
of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29), and Paul’s previous Corinthian letter
(see 1 Corinthians 5:9) are among the thirty cited works—twenty-eight from
the Old Testament era, and two from the New Testament era—that are not
included in the canon of Scripture, and that are missing from secular
history. The contents of these books are known only by the fact that they
are cited or quoted. Upon further examination, however, it appears that some
of them actually may exist in another form.
Some
scholars argue that a large number of these citations probably refer to the
same composition. For example, the references found in 1 and 2 Kings to the
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and
the Acts of Solomon, possibly denote a single work (Christensen, 14[5]:29).
It is a common practice, even in modern society, to refer to one thing by
several different names. For example, a person may refer to Josephus’ work,
Wars of the Jews, as “Josephus,” “Josephus’ Wars,” “Jewish
Wars,” “Wars of the Jews,” “Josephus’ Jewish Wars,”
etc.—all of which designate the same composition. In similar fashion, the
many works cited throughout Kings and Chronicles very possibly refer to
different sections of a single work. If there was a single original (one
referred to by several names), it was likely a highly detailed record of the
reigns of the kings in Israel and Judah. As a king lived and died, the
records of his reign were added to this work by a scribe, prophet,
historian, record keeper, or even by the administration of the next king,
making it a composite work of many writers. The various names for this
single account might have designated certain sections that made up the
composite work. The differences between Kings’ and Chronicles’ naming and
citing of the sections of the original, can be understood by the differences
that exist among modern citation styles. The style of citation, list of
works cited, and information provided vary widely, for example, among such
modern-day guides as the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers,
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association,
The Chicago Manual of Style, and Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers
of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Nevertheless, each one of
these provides sufficient information to refer the reader to the original
source. Similarly, the writer of Kings’ style of citation, and the writer of
Chronicles’ style of citation, both mentioned the original, but did so in a
different manner. Nevertheless, both provided the reader with enough
information to locate the section referenced in the source.
The idea of
a composite source makes sense when applied to Jewish oral tradition. The
Talmud—a collection of Hebrew oral law and legal decisions (the Mishna),
along with transcribed scholarly discussions and commentary on the Mishna
(the Gemara)—holds that Jeremiah wrote Kings, and that Ezra wrote Chronicles
(Rodkinson, 1918, V:45). [NOTE: There is
no internal evidence for Jeremiah’s authorship of Kings, but 2 Chronicles
36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are almost identical, which supports Talmudic
tradition of Ezra’s authorship of Chronicles.] One theory regarding the
citation of lost books is that they were source material for the writers of
Kings and Chronicles. Jeremiah possibly edited and/or condensed the original
source (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) into the book of Kings, sometime
before or during the Babylonian exile. This new, inspired book of Kings
provided a summary of the histories of Israel and Judah for the captives to
carry with them—a much smaller, lighter book than the original detailed
work. After returning from the Babylonian exile, Ezra composed another
history of the Hebrew nation—Chronicles. According to this theory, he used
the same original work as Jeremiah for his primary source, but referred to
the sections by different names than the ones used by Jeremiah. To this, he
added parts of Samuel, Isaiah, possibly Lamentations, and some non-extant
works. Like Jeremiah’s compilation, Ezra did this by inspiration. While the
original source no longer exists, a condensed form of it survived through
the inspired writings.
However, it also is possible that the original work to which Jeremiah and
Ezra referred was not a source for their books, but was an uninspired
composition of historical significance to which the reader could look for
additional information. Under this theory, Jeremiah and Ezra received
everything for the composition of their respective works, but also were
inspired to include a reference for “extra information.” God did not require
every single detail to be preserved in the biblical accounts of the history
of the Jewish people, so He revealed what the authors of Kings and
Chronicles needed to know, while guiding them to insert a “for more
information, please see...” in the text.
Both of these theories allow for verbal inspiration. The first theory
suggests that God inspired Jeremiah and Ezra to look at the single
historical work as a source, and then He guided them (via the Holy Spirit)
to include exactly what He wanted from that source into Scripture. According
to the second theory, God revealed to Jeremiah and Ezra the necessary
history, and then guided them to place a citation in the biblical text in
order to refer the contemporary reader to a then-extant historical book.
Some of the “lost books” are references to sections of this source, and
others are different names for books that are not lost, but currently reside
within the canon of Scripture.
|
Work Cited
|
Cited In
|
|
Book of the Covenant
|
Exodus 24:7
|
|
The Book of the Wars of Yahweh
|
Numbers 21:14
|
|
Unnamed "poets" |
Numbers 21:27-30 |
|
The Book of Jashar
|
Joshua 10:12-13
|
|
Book by Samuel
|
1 Samuel 10:25
|
|
The Book of Jashar
|
2 Samuel 1:19-27
|
|
The Acts of Solomon
|
1 Kings 11:41
|
|
The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel
|
1 Kings 14:19
|
|
The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah
|
1 Kings 14:29
|
|
Book of the Kings of Israel
|
1 Chronicles 9:1-2
|
|
Chronicles of King David
|
1 Chronicles 27:24
|
|
Acts of Samuel the Seer
|
1 Chronicles 29:29
|
|
Acts of Gad the Seer
|
1 Chronicles 29:29
|
|
Acts of Nathan the Prophet
|
1 Chronicles 29:29
|
|
History of Nathan the Prophet
|
2 Chronicles 9:29
|
|
Prophesy of Ahijah the Shilonite
|
2 Chronicles 9:29
|
|
Visions of Iddo the Seer
|
2 Chronicles 9:29
|
|
Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer
|
2 Chronicles 12:15
|
|
Midrash of the Prophet Iddo
|
2 Chronicles 13:22
|
|
Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel
|
2 Chronicles 16:11
|
|
Acts of Jehu Son of Hanani
|
2 Chronicles 20:34
|
|
Book of the Kings of Israel
|
2 Chronicles 20:34
|
|
Midrash on the Book of Kings
|
2 Chronicles 24:27
|
|
Book by the prophet Isaiah
|
2 Chronicles 26:22
|
|
Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah
|
2 Chronicles 27:7
|
|
Vision of Isaiah the prophet
|
2 Chronicles 32:32
|
|
Acts of the Kings of Israel
|
2 Chronicles 33:18
|
|
Acts of the Seers
|
2 Chronicles 33:19
|
|
Laments for Josiah
|
2 Chronicles 35:25
|
|
Book of the Chronicles
|
Nehemiah 12:23
|
|
The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia
|
Esther 10:2
|
|
Paul’s previous Corinthian letter
|
1 Corinthians 5:9
|
|
Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans
|
Colossians 4:16
|
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the
Kings of Israel, and Acts of Solomon (non-extant)
These names probably refer to sections of the original, detailed source
either used by Jeremiah (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to
compose Kings, or mentioned by Jeremiah as a source for additional
information. The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is cited in 1 Kings 14:29;
15:7; 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kings 8:23; 12:19; 14:18; 15:6; 15:36; 16:19; 20:20;
21:17; 21:25; 23:28; and 24:5. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is
mentioned in 1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5; 16:14; 16:20; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kings
1:18; 10:34; 13:8; 13:12; 14:15; 14:28; 15:11; 15:15; 15:21; 15:26; and
15:31. However, the Acts of Solomon is referred to only in 1 Kings 11:41.
This compilation probably contained the records of each king’s reign,
official decrees, judgments of the court, census reports, taxation records,
etc.
Book of the Kings of Israel, Book of the Kings of
Judah and Israel, Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Acts of the Kings
of Israel, and Chronicles of King David (non-extant)
These five titles possibly were Ezra’s references to sections of the same
source from which Jeremiah wrote Kings. According to the two theories,
either he used this single historical work (again, through inspiration of
the Holy Spirit) to compose Chronicles, or he referenced it as additional,
uninspired information. The Book of the Kings of Israel is mentioned in 1
Chronicles 9:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 20:34. The Book of the Kings of Judah and
Israel is cited in 2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 28:26; and 32:32. The Book of
the Kings of Israel and Judah is referred to in 2 Chronicles 27:2; 35:27;
and 36:8. Finally, the Acts of the Kings of Israel, and the Chronicles of
King David, are alluded to in 2 Chronicles 33:18 and 1 Chronicles 27:24,
respectively.
Acts of Samuel the Seer, Acts of Gad the Seer, and
Acts of Nathan the Prophet (1 & 2 Samuel)
The only citation to these works is found in 1 Chronicles 29:29. This
probably refers to 1 and 2 Samuel, which Talmudic tradition says was written
by Samuel until his death (see 1 Samuel 25:1), and was finished by Gad the
seer and Nathan the prophet (Rodkinson, 1918, V:45-46). With this
explanation, it stands to reason that Ezra was referring to one work
(Samuel) by its composite authors—Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. So these three
“lost books” probably cite a single, currently existing work, known to us as
1 and 2 Samuel. [NOTE: In the Hebrew
Bible, 1 and 2 Samuel were one book (Samuel), as were 1 and 2 Kings (Kings)
and 1 and 2 Chronicles (Chronicles). Also, Nehemiah was added to the end of
Ezra in the Hebrew text, and Hosea through Malachi were one book—which
resulted in the Hebrew Bible being twenty-four books (Josephus combined two
of those, making a total of twenty-two), instead of the thirty-nine in our
present-day Old Testament.]
Book by the Prophet Isaiah and Vision of Isaiah the
Prophet (Isaiah)
The two “lost books,” cited in 2 Chronicles 26:22 and 2 Chronicles 32:32,
respectively, are said to have contained the records of King Uzziah and King
Hezekiah. Isaiah lived during the reigns of these men (Isaiah 1:1; 6:1; 7:1;
36:1-39:8), so these citations likely refer to the book of Isaiah that
exists in our current canon.
Lament for Josiah (Lamentations 3)
In 2 Chronicles 35:25, it is recorded that Jeremiah composed a lament at the
death of Josiah, who was the last unconquered king of Judah, and wrote it
“in the Laments.” The book of Lamentations was the work of Jeremiah that
mourned the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred not long after the
death of Josiah. It is highly likely that the lament mentioned in 2
Chronicles 35:25 is included in Lamentations. It is perhaps in chapter 3,
where the tone of the lament changes. There seems to be continuity between
2:22 and 4:1. Chapter 2 talks of God’s anger toward Jerusalem and the result
of it, a thought that is continued in chapter 4. Chapter 3 takes on a more
personal tone, which could be indicative of the personal grief experienced
by Jeremiah at the death of Josiah. It is very possible that, in lamenting
the destruction of Jerusalem (Lamentations 1-2), Jeremiah’s grief at the
death of Josiah came freshly to his mind, and he digressed in his lament
over Jerusalem to include the sorrow of Josiah’s passing (Lamentations 3).
Following this digression, his thoughts returned to Jerusalem (Lamentations
4-5).
Book of the Chronicles (1 & 2 Chronicles)
Nehemiah mentioned a record of the Levites, which was kept in the Book of
the Chronicles (Nehemiah 12:23). Since Nehemiah and Ezra were
contemporaries, it is probable that Nehemiah was referring to the Chronicles
written by Ezra—our 1 and 2 Chronicles. It appears that Nehemiah may have
been citing 1 Chronicles 9:10-22 specifically, which contains a record like
the one mentioned by Nehemiah.
Book of the Covenant (The Pentateuch)
Four places in the Old Testament refer to the Book of the Covenant: Exodus
24:7; 2 Kings 23:2; 23:21; and 2 Chronicles 34:30. This is another name for
the Pentateuch, which is sometimes called the Law (see Deuteronomy 30:10;
31:26; 2 Kings 17:13; et al.) or the Law of Moses (see Joshua 8:31; 23:6; 1
Kings 2:3; et al.).
The Book of Jashar (Non-extant)
Recently, certain scholars have written about the Book of Jashar, especially
in light of its “rediscovery.” There are only two quotations from the Book
of Jashar: Joshua 10:12-13 and 2 Samuel 1:18-27. From these references, it
appears that the Book of Jashar was either a book of songs or poems compiled
throughout the ages by the Israelite nation, or a record of upright
individuals among the Israelites (see McClintock and Strong, 1968, 4:785).
The word “Jashar” is commonly translated “just” or “upright,” but some
scholars contend that it may be a corruption of the Hebrew word for “song”
(Christensen, 1998, 14[5]:27).
Currently, five works claim to be the Book of Jashar, but all are spurious
or recent compositions. The most popular of these is a manuscript forged by
the Rosicrucians, a secret society dating back to the seventeenth century.
The original supposedly was “found” by Alcuin—an Anglo-Saxon from
Northumbria—in Gazna, Persia, and translated at some point during the eighth
century A.D. The translation, which is the
manuscript that is extant today, was “rediscovered” in 1721 and printed in
London in 1751. This writing—which continues to be published despite the
lack of evidence for its authenticity—is viewed to be a forgery produced no
earlier than the eighteenth century (see Christensen, 14[5]:30; McClintock,
4:768-788).
The Book of Jashar was used as source material by Joshua, as well as by Gad
and Nathan. It no longer exists in its original form, and the five different
recent works are almost universally rejected as forgeries.
The Book of the Wars of Yahweh (Non-extant)
Also called the Book of the Wars of the Lord, this composition is quoted in
Numbers 21:14. The quotation is in lyrical form, so it is possibly a book of
poetry or a hymnal. Some have suggested that the Book of Jashar and the Book
of the Wars of Yahweh are the same work (Christensen, 14[5]:30). Moses
quoted it, so the date of its composition must have been prior to the
completion of the Pentateuch, perhaps during the wanderings in the
wilderness. Nothing else is known about it, and it survives only in Moses’
quotation.
Other Old Testament Works (Non-extant)
Many of the “lost books” actually exist either in a condensed form or under
another name. However, some compositions now exist as mere citations in the
Old Testament. The History of Nathan the Prophet, Prophecy of Ahijah the
Shilonite, and Visions of Iddo the Seer are all cited together (2 Chronicles
9:29). If this is a form similar to the 1 Chronicles 29:29 reference to
Samuel (using the composite authors for the citation), then it is possible
that this was a single compilation cited by mentioning its authors. The same
can be said of the Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer (2
Chronicles 12:15). Another possibility is that these, along with the Acts of
Jehu Son of Hanani (2 Chronicles 20:34), are all sections in a single work
titled Acts of the Seers, which is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:19. Since
the authors were prophets or seers, their works could have been gathered
into a single book of prophetic revelation, similar to the manner in which
the works of the twelve minor prophets were gathered into a single book (the
Twelve Prophets). It is possible that Ezra used the composite work (if they
were placed together), or the individual works, as additional source
material in composing Chronicles, or that he cited them in the same manner
as the single historical work. So far as we know, these books no longer
exist, except in name.
Two other non-extant, but cited, works are commentaries on certain books.
The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22) was a commentary on a
specific writing that contained the record of King Abijah of Judah. [NOTE:
A midrash is a Jewish commentary, sometimes translated as “annals” or
“commentary.”] Perhaps the work on which Iddo wrote his commentary was the
original source used by Jeremiah and Ezra to compose Kings and Chronicles,
respectively. Another possibility is that it was Kings itself. The Midrash
on the Book of Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27) was possibly a commentary on
either Jeremiah’s Kings or the original source for Kings and Chronicles.
These midrashim could have been a single work, with the two citations
referring to different parts of it. Ezra used these midrashim either as
sources for his inspired composition of Chronicles, or as places to look if
the reader wanted more information—but the originals have been lost.
Two
remaining Old Testament-era books no longer exist except through citations:
the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia, and a book by Samuel. The
Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia is mentioned in Esther 10:2.
This is not considered a “lost book” of the Bible, because it was the
official record of the Persian Empire, not an inspired source. It seems to
be referenced in Esther 2:23 and 6:1, where the King of Persia is shown
placing records in the book and reading from it. The Book of Esther mentions
this contemporary Gentile source in order to point the early reader to
further details about the Persian Empire, similar to Paul’s quotations from
the Cretan poet Epimenides and the Cilician poet Aratus to make his point in
Acts 17:28 (Bruce, 1977, p. 44). The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and
Persia is a lost secular historical record. It is not a lost biblical
record.
Recorded in 1 Samuel 10:25 is Samuel’s writing of a book concerning the
“behavior of royalty.” The biblical record said that he had “laid it up
before the Lord,” but nowhere do we find anything that bears the markings of
this book. The citation possibly could be a reference to the part of Samuel
composed by the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1-24).
To summarize, eight of the “missing” Old Testament books probably are
referring to Samuel, Isaiah, Chronicles, the Pentateuch, and Lamentations.
Eight others appear to refer to sections of a single source used by the
inspired Old Testament writers, making it only one “lost” historical record.
Six others were written by prophets and seers, and might have been sections
in a non-extant prophetic work known as the Book of the Seers. Two more were
commentaries, which also could have been a single work, and two more were
books of hymns or poetry. Therefore, the original number of Old
Testament-era “lost books,” twenty-eight, actually numbers only a
half-dozen. However, along with the “missing” books of the Old Testament
era, there are two epistles referred to in the New Testament that some
consider “lost books.”
Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans
Paul, in Colossians 4:16, mentioned an epistle that he sent to the church at
Laodicea. Since an epistle by this name is not found in our New Testament,
some have claimed that it is non-extant. While this is one option, there are
other possibilities. Some scholars say that it may actually exist in the
canon of the Bible, but under a different name. According to this theory,
Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians was written as an encyclical letter, meaning
that it did not have one single destination. There is internal and external
evidence to support this theory. Certain characteristics of the letter (like
the omission of the phrase “in Ephesus” from Ephesians 1:1 in certain
reliable manuscripts), the fact that some early Christians were not aware of
the “in Ephesus” for verse 1, and a heretical reference to Ephesians as
Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans, appear to support this theory (Metzger,
2000, p. 532). Yet, the possibility remains that Paul’s letter to Laodicea
was lost somewhere, perhaps in Asia Minor, before it could be copied (or the
copies were destroyed or lost as well). [Passing mention should be made of a
spurious epistle from the fourth century that claimed to be Paul’s letter to
Laodicea (Bruce, 1988, pp. 237-240). ]
However,
there is another possibility. The text never stated that the epistle was
from Paul to Laodicea. It simply says that the Colossian church was to
procure a certain letter in the possession of the Laodicean church. This
would mean that the church at Laodicea probably had some canonical writing
that Paul wanted the Colossian church to read, which would mean that there
is no missing Laodicean letter. Of the three explanations (lost Laodicean
letter, encyclical Ephesians, or canonical epistle in the possession of the
Laodiceans), the latter appears to make the most sense. Most likely, the
“missing” epistle to the Laodiceans was just a canonical epistle in the
possession of the church in that city. Apparently, there was a section of it
that Paul desired the Colossian brethren to read, and so he gave them
directions for its procurement.
Paul’s First Corinthian Letter
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to Paul’s missing previous Corinthian
letter. Technically, the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians could be called
more properly 2 and 3 Corinthians, because Paul actually did write an
earlier letter to the church in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I
wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral
people.” While some would argue that Paul is referring to a previous section
of 1 Corinthians (perhaps 5:1-8) rather than referring to a previous
epistle, he then continued (in verse 10) to explain exactly what he meant by
that statement, which is not what is said in 5:1-8. After explaining what
the statement from the previous letter meant, Paul continued in 5:11 by
showing the contrasting point, “But now I have written to you...”—explaining
the difference between the statement from the previous epistle and the one
from our 1 Corinthians.
What are we to say? This truly is a lost writing of the apostle Paul, and
nothing is known about it except that it existed, it was sent to the
Corinthian church, and it dealt with sexual immorality. With this book, and
with the other “lost books,” we now must ask the question...
Do We Really Need These Books?
When mentioning the “lost books” of the Bible, many people wonder, “Why do
we no longer have these books?,” and “Do we really need them?” First, some
of the so-called “lost books” probably are references to inspired books that
still exist, but by another name. Others were historical references used as
sources for inspired books, such as Kings and Chronicles, and so the Jews
saw no need to treat them with special reverence, nor to strive to preserve
them. Some were books of poetry or song that were uninspired, but served as
a record of Hebrew culture. Others were non-Hebrew sources, making them
non-biblical compositions and therefore not canonical writings. Many of
these “lost books” probably are references to sections of the same work,
making the actual number of non-extant books cited in the Bible less than a
dozen. However, we must face the fact that some compositions cited by the
Old and New Testament writers no longer exist.
While under subjugation to the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman
empires, the Jews ultimately were able to preserve only those books that
were holy and inspired—everything else was destroyed or lost. While this is
unfortunate, it should not affect our faith adversely. The books we have are
inspired, and came from inspired men who sometimes mentioned non-inspired
sources for recording historical fact, giving places to find additional
information, or simply to make a point. These men, like modern researchers,
felt compelled to cite their sources, but did not intend these sources to
become writings on a par with Scripture. The missing books that are cited in
the Old Testament apparently did not bother the Jews, who recorded in the
first century A.D. that their writings
consisted of only twenty-two to twenty-four works that correspond exactly to
our thirty-nine, except for a difference in order and division (Josephus,
1987, Against Apion, 1:38-40; Bruce, 1988, pp. 28-34; Rodkinson,
1918, V:44-45). Obviously, the “lost books” did not present a problem to
Jesus and the apostles, who accepted the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) as
all they needed. They quoted from none of these books, and the only things
they quoted as Scripture were the books of the Old Testament. To accept that
God allowed the inspired writers to employ sources in composing historical
books of the Bible does not negate inspiration by the Holy Spirit. If these
men used sources, God still guided them by the Holy Spirit to correct,
compile, and add to the uninspired source material. One of the gospel
writers (Luke) apparently consulted various sources in compiling his letter
(Luke 1:1-4). As was previously mentioned, Paul quoted Epimenides and Aratus
in Acts 17, and quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12. It was not uncommon
for the authors of the Bible to use or quote, by inspiration, either
uninspired works or inspired works that no longer exist.
God
obviously did not intend certain works to be preserved, because His hand
would have guided their perpetuation, just as He guided the continuation of
the canonical books. Like the lost Corinthian letter, it is likely that
other inspired books were written that God intended for a particular
historical setting, but did not intend to be preserved in the canon of the
Bible. God has given us “all things that pertain to life and godliness,
through the knowledge of Him” (2 Peter 1:3), and our knowledge of Him is
complete through the revealed Word. None of the books God intended to be in
the Bible is lost, and the phrase “lost books” refers only to those books of
which no record exists. Whatever these “lost books” contained is irrelevant,
because we have the Word of God exactly as He wanted us to have it—nothing
more, and certainly nothing less.
Bruce, F.F. (1977), The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press).
Christensen, Duane (1998), “Lost Books of the Bible,” Bible Review,
14[5]:24-31, October.
Franceschini, Massimo (2002), “Lost Books,” [On-line],
URL:
http://www.bibleman.net/Lost_Books.htm.
Josephus, Flavius (1987), The Works of Josephus, trans. William
Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), Cyclopaedia of
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker).
Metzger, Bruce M. (2000), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), second edition.
Rodkinson, Michael L. (1918), New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud
(Boston, MA: The Talmud Society), [On-line Version],
URL:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm, ed. J.B. Hare.
