Are They Lost And Are They Valid?
In recent years there has been much written and published on the lost books of the Bible. Along with these publications come sweeping statements and claims that they were either removed or suppressed. Findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls add to an existing buildup of questioning the canonical version of the Bible.
To help find answers I wish to use a modern comparison for minds today. In this way hopefully I can bring understanding to how and why things happened the way they did in history. Let’s look at how the Early Church used references to other books building a foundation for what would be called canonical books.
The Canonical Reference Test
Our modern technology uses a similar system for building references. We are all familiar with Google. One of the building blocks of Google is understanding references. If a website makes reference to questionable sources through its structure the validity to that site is then questioned. If this continues through time the value of that site is hurt and it falls out of favor.
This is a natural occurrence that takes place as its information is measured against valid sources. Our modern algorithm performs the same function as the minds of those within the Early Church. There is no bias to it.
To perform this test we need to look at the commentary of the people not canonical sources. In other words which books did the people refer to as valid for information? That is why we need their commentary.
As this article cannot capture every early commentary I will use a summary. This will come from another article who drew information from a book that was dedicated to this purpose. The article was written by Michael J. Kruger. The book he uses for his information is from Questions of Canon.
Clement of Alexandria is a good example of Barton’s point. Clement cites apocryphal gospels 16 times. That may seem like a lot until you compare it with how often he cites the canonical gospels: Matthew 757 times, Luke 402 times, John 331 times, and Mark 182 times.
Canon Fodder
So who was Clement of Alexandria? First lets not confuse this man with the author of the Epistle of Clement which is a “lost book”. This Clement was an Early Church leader who lived between 150 AD to 215 AD that would fall after the writing of the so called epistle.
He spent a good deal of time battling false teaching of the Gnostics which began to invade the Church. The interesting part is that books such as the Gospel Of Thomas come as a forgery written between the 3rd and 4th Century after the time of Clement.
Likewise it is interesting to note that he did cite the former author of the Epistle of Clement as an apostle, yet this does not define the letter as a canonical source.
We are building a general reference to the most cited sources. Within the works of the latter Clement we see that he has referenced present day canonical books of the Bible far more often than any reference to non canonical sources. In our modern day reference test his “link value” would be quite high.
The leaders of the Early Church could recognize forgery and fraud. They lived side by side with those who produced these false teachings which made claims to that of Christ and His life as well as His teaching. While the reference test is not totally conclusive in its own right it is easy to see authoritative sources.
Despite the claims to conspiracy surrounding this topic we do know that the people of the time would want to use more trusted sources of information. This does not mean that Clement was 100% accurate in this endeavor or his work. It speaks nothing to his doctrinal beliefs nor views. It does give insight to where he drew information from that was trusted.
Other Early Church leaders would do the same as Clement. We find consistency across the board. This in turn reveals that this Early Church already had a loose knit standing canonical version of the New Testament.
There was no conspiracy nor suppression. These so called lost books were not lost at all. They were simply of little to no value to the people of their time with the exception of cult followings.
Why Call Them Lost Books?
It is great modern marketing for old heresy. The fact is that there is nothing new in Scripture. God stated that He declares the end from the beginning. In other words He did not hide anything from us. Indeed our understanding of things has become more clear on some topics while more divided on others. This is due to interpretation.
Likewise we have gained more insight on prophecy as we have witnessed time progress. An example of this can be found in Israel coming back to this world in 1948. Before this there was thinking among some Churches that either the Church had replaced Israel or that Revelation was more metaphorical. Preterist concepts still have a stronghold within many Christians today and is dangerous.
The ideas presented today with heresy in prophecy is neither new or something which was found. Rather it is repackaging of older ideas which have been proven incorrect with time and further understanding. While our perception can be changed based on more accurate understanding there is nothing new to be found.
These books were never lost. They were rejected by the people of their time. This leaves us with the claims of suppression stemming from a conspiracy to keep the truth from people. Allow me to present one idea to this claim. Christ died in front of the entire population on a hill called Golgotha. There was nothing hidden.
Christs ministry was in front of hundreds of thousands where many tens of thousands were saved. Here there was also nothing hidden. Every action within the life of Christ was made public. The private teaching of the disciples were carried forward in the book of Acts. There we begin to see the foundations of the Early Church.
Within their lives and actions we see complete consistency with that of the life of Christ. Each book we could go to will show this including those of Paul’s ministry although he was not a disciple. Yet neither was John Mark who wrote the book of Mark. He was a student under Peter and later Paul as he was received after some time passed into the writing of Timothy.
With these lives we can see consistency. This consistency reaches across these texts which also in turn reach across time. This is the real definition of canonical in creating a valid source.
Indeed the who, when, and where a text is written matters. This alone would eliminate books such as the claim to the writing of Thomas. None of these “lost books” hold any rich deep value in context to the Early Church.
What About Old Testament Lost Books?
I will give the common referenced books pertaining to the Old Testament that many cite as being lost or suppressed:
- The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan,
- The Secrets of Enoch 3) Psalms of Solomon
- Odes of Solomon
- Letter of Aristeas
- Fourth Book of Maccabees
- Story of Ahikar
- Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Here we begin to dive into more old school validation. The who, what, when, and where become critical. When a book is deemed canonical it is for more than someone finding it in a hidden pot deep in a cave.
Each of those listed books fail to meet criteria for being authentic. Often the source is undetermined and deemed illegitimate. Additionally with the source of who wrote it the time frame in which it was written is muddled. Where they came from in cases is not even known but rather assumed. Yet there is one other qualifier which must be passed.
The four W qualifiers could possibly be overlooked if an additional qualification was met. We presently have books within the Bible which do not have all of those W’s answered. Job is one such book. With Genesis as well there is not 100% accuracy as to who wrote it and some claim more than one author.
Nevertheless at the end of the day the real measure is the content and context of a book with its historical records in keeping. First the content must be measured against existing canonical texts. If it were to pass this test then it also much be measured by history.
How many copies of the text exist? How many references to it are made? Was it kept by the Scribes and copied as tediously as they did the Torah? There are many questions which must be answered. Ultimately the books in my above list did not pass these tests.
This does not mean that they have absolutely no value. Rather they are not to be used as the Bible. Do not trust them for spiritual insight. Rather in terms of historical references they have given a lot of insight at times. There have been gaps of history which were filled that otherwise would not have been known.
How Valid Is The Bible?
If you wish to put the Bible to the test I hope you are up for the challenge. I would recommend anyone to begin where others have failed to disprove it rather than stand on those who claim to have done so. If you can disprove where others failed it removes the presupposition that those who claim success were accurate to begin with.
Here is a great place to begin with one man who failed in his attempt. To disprove the Bible is to disprove Christ. Yet realize you are attempting to disprove something that is equally as valid as the recognition to the life of Julius Caesar. So all you must do then is prove that Christ is not God knowing you cannot disprove His life. That is your challenge.
Is The Bible A Metaphor Or Literal Read?
There is no doubt that metaphors and symbols exist within any writing. My writing here already has contained them within this document. Yet this does not mean to treat all I say as a metaphor or example to something else.
The Bible is not a metaphor. It is to be read literally. When the context is clear to a metaphor, a symbol, or a parable then it is such. The danger in recent years has been to take entire books as a metaphor such as Revelation. They would do better to treat the entire book of Enoch as such.
The real measure of the Bible and its authenticity is based upon its sources and history. It is clear that the books which reside within the Bible have passed these tests to be what they are. Arguments to make non canonical books a part of the Bible story is done so to dilute its authenticity rather than help it.
Stepping into alternative sources is dangerous even as a curiosity if one does not first know the authentic sources.
How Is Revelation Canonical?
First and foremost we know its author. Additionally we know the time it was written in conjunction with the location. This is the area where the book is attacked more often than anywhere else. There is one other test it passed which cannot be ignored.
The study of Revelation will require knowing every Old Testament source in prophetic events down to the detail. References are constantly made within the book to these sources and at times in small ways. An example of this is Revelation 4 and possessing the keys of hell and death.
The reference in Revelation 4 will not be recognized by many who have not studied it. Indeed it is making reference to Old Testament prophecies as well as New Testament fulfilled events. It ranges from Genesis to Isaiah and to the Gospels. It tells a story in a single snapshot in this vision.
It is an image among other images that one man could not paint alone, yet John included it. When seriously studied it does not take one long to realize that this book could not be faked.
This becomes more compelling knowing the location and time he wrote it. Without divine inspiration there is no way he could have written this without an exhaustive library. The problem with the library is that he was prisoned on an island in exile.
John was a fisherman, not a theologian. For him to do this would have required memorization of the entire Old Testament including books that were not recognized as the Jewish canon of their time. Had it been written by Paul there would be a better argument to accessing memory. Yet this is not true for John.
Much to the dismay of most in the world Revelation is not a metaphor but rather a description of future events. Why was it written in the way it was? Imagine for a moment that you were tasked with writing the story of World War 2 in 22 Chapters and only used 11,952 words. That would be tough.
Now imagine you had to place context on the subject from both heaven and on Earth. Let’s add to this that you are an author writing on this context two thousand years ago.
It is for these reasons that John was given visions. It is also further why the writing style is not exactly the same as his other writings. He was giving a description as an observer for he did not understand what was taking place.
The canonical Bible exists for the reason that it is not a metaphor. Indeed there are visions in it that do not have clear explanation such as Revelation. This does not discredit its authenticity.