L | A
By Jacob Edson
I wrote in a recent post that most questions about the Bible have complicated answers. Well, here’s one that doesn’t: of course there are books missing from the Bible.
How do we know? The Bible itself mentions them, for one thing.
But here’s where it does get more complicated. Because when people ask this question, there are a number of things they might mean. Sometimes they’re simply looking for the Apocrypha, which is easy — those aren’t missing at all. Other times they’re curious about the so-called “Gnostic gospels,” which is another matter entirely.
Depending on which type of “missing” book you’re talking about, the real questions are why certain books were “left out” of the Bible, how close they came to being included, and ultimately how we ended up with the canonical list of 66 that make up today’s Protestant Bibles.
Although there are many kinds of texts that are related to — but not included in — Biblical canon, the major categories include the Apocrypha, the Antilegomena, works mentioned or alluded to in the Bible, and “rediscovered” extra-Biblical books.
This is an easy one: these books aren’t lost or missing at all.
The Apocrypha, also called the Deuterocanonical books, are a collection of writings from the Intertestamental Period — that is, the period between the finalizing of the Hebrew Old Testament and the New Testament. They were mostly written in Greek or Aramaic.
The Deuterocanonical books are included in Catholic Bibles (which adds seven whole books and some additional sections to others) and Orthodox Bibles (which add another three or four beyond that). But they are not in Jewish Bibles or Protestant Bibles.
Why?
Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments use the Septuagint — a Greek translation of the Old Testament from a few hundred years before Christ. Jewish and Protestant Bibles, however, use the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament, which contains only the earlier Hebrew books (and a few Aramaic passages).
Antilegomena is a Greek word meaning “disputed” (literally, “spoken against”). These are books that were hotly debated in the early church, before New Testament canon was finalized in the late 4th century AD.
Some antilegomena were ultimately included in the Bible. These include the Epistles of James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and the book of Revelation. These books were ultimately deemed authentic revelation from God. Even today, though, some ambivalence remains: the Orthodox Church still does not permit Revelation to be used liturgically, and Martin Luther famously despised the book (and several others).
Other books were deemed inauthentic — though some of them were still considered spiritually edifying and worth reading outside of a church context. These include the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Acts of Paul, among others.
In the Old Testament, disputed books that narrowly made it into the canon include Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther, while books that were considered but rejected include the book of Enoch and the Apocryphal books mentioned above.
There are a great many books mentioned, referenced, or otherwise alluded to in the Bible that are not included in the canon, either because they have been lost to the sands of time, or because, even though they were highly influential, they were ultimately determined not to have been divinely inspired (or both).
Some of these books in the Old Testament include:
- Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18)
- Annals of the Kings of Judah and Annals of the Kings of Israel, both mentioned frequently throughout the books of 1 & 2 Kings (cf. 1 Kings 14:19 and 14:29, etc.)
- Books of various prophets (e.g., Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, and Jehu) mentioned throughout 1 & 2 Chronicles
And in the New Testament:
- The Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14-15)
- Lost letters of Paul, including the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16), a previous letter to Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9), and a previous letter to Ephesus (Eph. 3:3)
Two major troves of ancient Biblical and extra-Biblical literature were discovered in the mid-20th century, one (the Dead Sea Scrolls) in Israel and one (the Nag Hammadi library) in Egypt.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls (ca. 300 BC to 100 AD) belonged to an extremist Jewish sect called the Essenes. They include many of the earliest existing Biblical scrolls (such as Isaiah) as well as a large number of noncanonical material. Among these were the book of Enoch, which describes the fall of the angels in the time of Genesis. Although Enoch was not determined to be canonical, it was immensely popular, and was quoted and referenced numerous times throughout the New Testament.
- The Nag Hammadi Library (ca. 400s AD) consists of a variety of documents that have come to be called “Gnostic,” including the so-called “Gnostic gospels.” A few of these (such as the Gospel of Thomas) seem to have been early, popular, and share overlapping material with canonical gospels. But most were probably later works and/or had a limited audience, and ultimately fell out of favor.
There are several reasons books might not have made it into the canonical Bible, including simple practical issues like space and time — but in most cases it comes down to careful selection by a range of ecclesial (or rabbinic) authorities.
Here’s a closer look at the reasons certain books didn’t make it into the Bible:
In the ancient world, when paper was expensive and literacy was rare, there were very few copies of even the most important texts. Sometimes they were transmitted orally and written down much later, as scholars believe was the case with many of the prophets.
But other times, they were sadly lost before they could be saved, and we can only speculate what they might have contained. Many of Paul’s letters suffered this fate.
Imagine you’re traveling somewhere for a long time — let’s say into 70 years of exile in a foreign country — and you have to choose what to bring. There’s only so much you can fit, and you might be forced to leave some favorites behind.
This point is closely related to the one above. If, for example, the “Annals of the Kings of Israel” was the massive government record it sounds like, it probably had to stay behind in Samaria instead of being carted into Babylonia — and there was probably only one copy. When the exiles returned decades later, it may have been lost. (Fortunately, the books of Kings and Chronicles retained the most important parts.)
This gets to the heart of the matter.
For both the Old and New Testaments, it took a long time (we’re talking centuries) for the final canons to form. It was partly an organic process: these were the books that people were using liturgically in worship, so it was natural that they would be included.
But sometimes serious disagreements arose between different factions over whether something could or should be used in worship settings — and somebody had to make a call. Much like we do today in certain situations, they had to decide: Is this from God? Is it not from God, but still spiritually beneficial? Or is it neither, and perhaps even leading people astray?
- These were questions the rabbis asked when they finalized the books of the Hebrew Bible.
- When Greek rabbis compiled the Septuagint, they decided there were some other, newer books that warranted inclusion (now called the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books).
- By the time of the early church, the Old Testament (with Apocrypha) was formalized into tradition. But they had to make the same choices about the New Testament.
- And finally, when Protestants began translating the Bible into vernacular in the early modern period and rediscovered the Hebrew Old Testament, they had to decide whether or not those Greek OT (Septuagint) books belonged. (In most cases they concluded “no,” thus rebranding them “Apocrypha.”)
In every case, these choices were not made lightly, but were very carefully considered — and argued — by dozens of educated authorities. It was an enormous responsibility, and the stakes were astronomically high: after all, they were answering to a much higher Authority.
Thanks to recent media like The Da Vinci Code, the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi discoveries — particularly the “Gnostic gospels” — have taken on a legendary significance, not so much for their academic value (which is indisputable), but because they feed into fanciful notions of secret knowledge suppressed by conspiratorial church authorities.
Here’s the problem with that: the Gnostics weren’t really a thing.
“Gnostic” is simply a Greek word meaning “of knowledge” — and what we refer to as the Gnostics were really a scattered variety of groups and texts all promoting the acquisition of some kind of spiritual wisdom.
They disagreed on what this wisdom was, exactly, but it typically included that the God of the Old Testament was a different, inferior being to the God of the New Testament, and that only certain types of people were capable of being saved.
They also tended to invent elaborate cosmologies of many divine beings, which acolytes had to understand in order to progress spiritually. But the structure of these pantheons differed from group to group.
Because of this, they failed to unify into a comprehensible rival vision to mainstream Christianity. Though some of them were briefly popular in certain places, they were unable to justify the inclusion of their favorite books in Biblical canon. And most of them eventually fell apart as conciliar orthodoxy coalesced.
I began this article saying there are obviously books missing from the Bible, and this is true. We know about them from the Bible itself, and from church and rabbinic authorities who talked about them.
But there’s a greater truth, too: God’s hand working in history, helping the humans responsible to shape his Word how he wants it to be.
Are we missing interesting details by not having access to the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel, or the lost letters of Paul? Almost certainly. Might we find things of interest — Biblical overlaps, or thought-provoking commentary — in books like Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Gospel of Thomas? Sure.
But are we missing anything critical to our salvation? No.
And as for the lingering disagreements over the canonical status of the Apocrypha… well, as Max Lucado said in his recent, POWER-ful post on the end times, “We can be decisive but never divisive.”
Now, when it comes to the books that only barely did make it into the Bible… that’s another post entirely.
By Jacob Edson
I wrote in a recent post that most questions about the Bible have complicated answers. Well, here’s one that doesn’t: of course there are books missing from the Bible.
How do we know? The Bible itself mentions them, for one thing.
But here’s where it does get more complicated. Because when people ask this question, there are a number of things they might mean. Sometimes they’re simply looking for the Apocrypha, which is easy — those aren’t missing at all. Other times they’re curious about the so-called “Gnostic gospels,” which is another matter entirely.
Depending on which type of “missing” book you’re talking about, the real questions are why certain books were “left out” of the Bible, how close they came to being included, and ultimately how we ended up with the canonical list of 66 that make up today’s Protestant Bibles.
Types of Books Missing From the Bible
Although there are many kinds of texts that are related to — but not included in — Biblical canon, the major categories include the Apocrypha, the Antilegomena, works mentioned or alluded to in the Bible, and “rediscovered” extra-Biblical books.
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books
This is an easy one: these books aren’t lost or missing at all.
The Apocrypha, also called the Deuterocanonical books, are a collection of writings from the Intertestamental Period — that is, the period between the finalizing of the Hebrew Old Testament and the New Testament. They were mostly written in Greek or Aramaic.
The Deuterocanonical books are included in Catholic Bibles (which adds seven whole books and some additional sections to others) and Orthodox Bibles (which add another three or four beyond that). But they are not in Jewish Bibles or Protestant Bibles.
Why?
Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments use the Septuagint — a Greek translation of the Old Testament from a few hundred years before Christ. Jewish and Protestant Bibles, however, use the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament, which contains only the earlier Hebrew books (and a few Aramaic passages).
Antilegomena: Disputed Books
Antilegomena is a Greek word meaning “disputed” (literally, “spoken against”). These are books that were hotly debated in the early church, before New Testament canon was finalized in the late 4th century AD.
Some antilegomena were ultimately included in the Bible. These include the Epistles of James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and the book of Revelation. These books were ultimately deemed authentic revelation from God. Even today, though, some ambivalence remains: the Orthodox Church still does not permit Revelation to be used liturgically, and Martin Luther famously despised the book (and several others).
Other books were deemed inauthentic — though some of them were still considered spiritually edifying and worth reading outside of a church context. These include the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Acts of Paul, among others.
In the Old Testament, disputed books that narrowly made it into the canon include Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther, while books that were considered but rejected include the book of Enoch and the Apocryphal books mentioned above.
Lost Books Mentioned in the Bible
There are a great many books mentioned, referenced, or otherwise alluded to in the Bible that are not included in the canon, either because they have been lost to the sands of time, or because, even though they were highly influential, they were ultimately determined not to have been divinely inspired (or both).
Some of these books in the Old Testament include:
- Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18)
- Annals of the Kings of Judah and Annals of the Kings of Israel, both mentioned frequently throughout the books of 1 & 2 Kings (cf. 1 Kings 14:19 and 14:29, etc.)
- Books of various prophets (e.g., Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, and Jehu) mentioned throughout 1 & 2 Chronicles
And in the New Testament:
- The Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14-15)
- Lost letters of Paul, including the Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16), a previous letter to Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9), and a previous letter to Ephesus (Eph. 3:3)
Rediscovered Books
Two major troves of ancient Biblical and extra-Biblical literature were discovered in the mid-20th century, one (the Dead Sea Scrolls) in Israel and one (the Nag Hammadi library) in Egypt.
- The Dead Sea Scrolls (ca. 300 BC to 100 AD) belonged to an extremist Jewish sect called the Essenes. They include many of the earliest existing Biblical scrolls (such as Isaiah) as well as a large number of noncanonical material. Among these were the book of Enoch, which describes the fall of the angels in the time of Genesis. Although Enoch was not determined to be canonical, it was immensely popular, and was quoted and referenced numerous times throughout the New Testament.
- The Nag Hammadi Library (ca. 400s AD) consists of a variety of documents that have come to be called “Gnostic,” including the so-called “Gnostic gospels.” A few of these (such as the Gospel of Thomas) seem to have been early, popular, and share overlapping material with canonical gospels. But most were probably later works and/or had a limited audience, and ultimately fell out of favor.
Why Are There Books Missing From the Bible?
There are several reasons books might not have made it into the canonical Bible, including simple practical issues like space and time — but in most cases it comes down to careful selection by a range of ecclesial (or rabbinic) authorities.
Here’s a closer look at the reasons certain books didn’t make it into the Bible:
Mists of Time
In the ancient world, when paper was expensive and literacy was rare, there were very few copies of even the most important texts. Sometimes they were transmitted orally and written down much later, as scholars believe was the case with many of the prophets.
But other times, they were sadly lost before they could be saved, and we can only speculate what they might have contained. Many of Paul’s letters suffered this fate.
Space Constraints
Imagine you’re traveling somewhere for a long time — let’s say into 70 years of exile in a foreign country — and you have to choose what to bring. There’s only so much you can fit, and you might be forced to leave some favorites behind.
This point is closely related to the one above. If, for example, the “Annals of the Kings of Israel” was the massive government record it sounds like, it probably had to stay behind in Samaria instead of being carted into Babylonia — and there was probably only one copy. When the exiles returned decades later, it may have been lost. (Fortunately, the books of Kings and Chronicles retained the most important parts.)
Canonical Disagreements
This gets to the heart of the matter.
For both the Old and New Testaments, it took a long time (we’re talking centuries) for the final canons to form. It was partly an organic process: these were the books that people were using liturgically in worship, so it was natural that they would be included.
But sometimes serious disagreements arose between different factions over whether something could or should be used in worship settings — and somebody had to make a call. Much like we do today in certain situations, they had to decide: Is this from God? Is it not from God, but still spiritually beneficial? Or is it neither, and perhaps even leading people astray?
- These were questions the rabbis asked when they finalized the books of the Hebrew Bible.
- When Greek rabbis compiled the Septuagint, they decided there were some other, newer books that warranted inclusion (now called the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books).
- By the time of the early church, the Old Testament (with Apocrypha) was formalized into tradition. But they had to make the same choices about the New Testament.
- And finally, when Protestants began translating the Bible into vernacular in the early modern period and rediscovered the Hebrew Old Testament, they had to decide whether or not those Greek OT (Septuagint) books belonged. (In most cases they concluded “no,” thus rebranding them “Apocrypha.”)
In every case, these choices were not made lightly, but were very carefully considered — and argued — by dozens of educated authorities. It was an enormous responsibility, and the stakes were astronomically high: after all, they were answering to a much higher Authority.
Out of Fashion
Thanks to recent media like The Da Vinci Code, the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi discoveries — particularly the “Gnostic gospels” — have taken on a legendary significance, not so much for their academic value (which is indisputable), but because they feed into fanciful notions of secret knowledge suppressed by conspiratorial church authorities.
Here’s the problem with that: the Gnostics weren’t really a thing.
“Gnostic” is simply a Greek word meaning “of knowledge” — and what we refer to as the Gnostics were really a scattered variety of groups and texts all promoting the acquisition of some kind of spiritual wisdom.
They disagreed on what this wisdom was, exactly, but it typically included that the God of the Old Testament was a different, inferior being to the God of the New Testament, and that only certain types of people were capable of being saved.
They also tended to invent elaborate cosmologies of many divine beings, which acolytes had to understand in order to progress spiritually. But the structure of these pantheons differed from group to group.
Because of this, they failed to unify into a comprehensible rival vision to mainstream Christianity. Though some of them were briefly popular in certain places, they were unable to justify the inclusion of their favorite books in Biblical canon. And most of them eventually fell apart as conciliar orthodoxy coalesced.
Conclusion: Are Books Missing From the Bible? Yes and No.
I began this article saying there are obviously books missing from the Bible, and this is true. We know about them from the Bible itself, and from church and rabbinic authorities who talked about them.
But there’s a greater truth, too: God’s hand working in history, helping the humans responsible to shape his Word how he wants it to be.
Are we missing interesting details by not having access to the Annals of the Kings of Judah and Israel, or the lost letters of Paul? Almost certainly. Might we find things of interest — Biblical overlaps, or thought-provoking commentary — in books like Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Gospel of Thomas? Sure.
But are we missing anything critical to our salvation? No.
And as for the lingering disagreements over the canonical status of the Apocrypha… well, as Max Lucado said in his recent, POWER-ful post on the end times, “We can be decisive but never divisive.”
Now, when it comes to the books that only barely did make it into the Bible… that’s another post entirely.
