What are the lost books of the Bible?

The name given to those Books which were attached to the MSS copies of the LXX, but which do not form a part of the canon of scripture. The term itself signifies, 'hidden,' 'secret,' 'occult;' and, as to any pretence of being a part of scripture, they must be described as 'spurious.' There are such writings connected with both the Old and the New Testament, but generally speaking the term 'Apocrypha' refers to the O.T. (for those connected with the N. Test. see APOSTOLIC FATHERS. The O.T. books are: 1 I. Esdras. 2 II. Esdras. 3 Tobit. 4 Judith. 5 Chapters of Esther, not found in the Hebrew nor Chaldee. 6 Wisdom of Solomon. 7 Jesus, son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus; quoted Ecclus. 8 Baruch, including the Epistle of Jeremiah. 9 Song of the Three Holy Children 10 The History of Susanna. 11 Bel and the Dragon. 12 Prayer of Manasseh. 13 I. Maccabees. 14 II. Maccabees.

The Council of Trent in A.D. 1546, professing to be guided by the Holy Spirit, declared the Apocrypha to be a part of the Holy Scripture. The above fourteen books formed part of the English Authorised Version of 1611, but are now seldom attached to the canonical books. Besides the above there are a few others, as the III., IV., and V. Maccabees, book of Enoch, etc., not regarded by any one as a part of scripture. It may be noticed

The Apocrypha.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

In the first place, the Church of Rome boldly declared that it was only 'the church' that could decide what books were canonical: as early as the Council of Carthage (about A.D. 400) lists of the books were made out, and at the Council of Trent they dogmatically settled what books constituted the scripture. They decided to include the books now known as the APOCRYPHA (q.v.), as may be seen in the Latin Vulgate, which is the version used by that church. Now the scripture informs us that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3:2, and as is well known they most carefully guarded the O.T. scriptures for centuries before there was any christian church. The books were written in the Jews' language — the Hebrew — with which the Apocrypha never had a place. They were written in Greek, and were first added to the LXX. The above principle — that the scriptures require to be accredited by the church — is false. Surely God could make a revelation that would in no wise need to have the seal of a body of men placed upon it, be they ever so holy. But the Church of Rome was not holy, nor was it universal, so that even if the alleged principle were correct, that corrupt section of the church would be the last to be taken as an authoritative guide.

The N.T. has also had its perils. With the Greek MSS apocryphal books are found, parts of which were read in the churches in early days. Later on several of the Fathers of the church so called had their doubts respecting some of the Epistles. Even as late as the Reformers it was the same. Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and set them apart at the end of his version. Calvin doubted the authenticity of James, 2 Peter, and Jude. In modern times many portions of books in the O.T. and N.T. are being called in question. But the Bible needs not to be accredited by man. It carries its own credentials to the heart and conscience of the Christian in the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man is not competent to judge of such a question. The Bible has the stamp of God upon it, and the more it is studied by the Christian the more perfect it is found to be — no part redundant, and no part lacking.

The Roman Catholics include within the covers of their Bible the books commonly known as "The Apocrypha." These books were never received as canonical by the Jews; they do not afford the internal evidences of divine inspiration as do the books of "the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets"; they are never quoted either by the Lord Himself or the apostles: so that we have very good reasons for not regarding them as divinely given, however authentic as histories some of them may be.

From this it follows that every canonical book must be recommended by some one, who carried the Divine authority along with him, — some one to whom Jehovah had actually appeared, and given the commission to execute his office. It is not, of course, needed that the writer should himself have received his mission from Jehovah; but some such an one must have seen and sanctioned the work. The books of the prophets in the Old Testament are all published, as containing the words which Jehovah spoke to the Prophets. And the other books received the sanction of such prophets, before they were accepted as containing the rule of faith, or as being canonical.

In the case of the books of the Old Testament our inquiry is really enclosed within narrower limits than might at first sight appear: for the very greatest authority we could possibly have is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was indeed Jehovah incarnate. He frequently refers to the Old Scriptures, as containing the word of life; and as being a certain collection of books, then accounted sacred by the Jews. If we can ascertain what the recognised Canon of Scripture among the Jews was in his time, we know at once what we are to receive as canonical. Now there is no doubt whatever upon this point. We, and all reformed churches, are quite in agreement with the Jews here. It is a matter undisputed by any one, that those books of the Old Testament which we venerate as canonical, were the only Scriptures known to the Jews, when our Saviour preached in Judea.

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

They never were in the Hebrew Scriptures—the Old Testament. They were written in Greek, mostly in Alexandria, long after the Old Testament was completed, and none of them pretend to have God's authority, and never say, “Thus saith Jehovah.”

Though the Apocrypha is supposed to have been written not later than B.C. 30, the Lord never in any way alludes to any part of it; nor do any of the writers of the N.T., though both the Lord and the apostles constantly quote the canonical books.

The Jews did not receive the Apocrypha as any part of scripture, and to 'them were committed the oracles of God.'

As some of the spurious books were added to the LXX Version (the O.T. in the Greek) and to the Latin translation of the LXX, some of the early Christian writers were in doubt as to whether they should be received or not, and this uncertainty existed more or less until the before mentioned Council of Trent decided that the greater part of the Apocrypha was to be regarded as canonical. Happily at that time the Reformation had opened the eyes of many Christians to the extreme corruption of the church of Rome, and in rejecting the claims of that church they were also freed from its judgement as to the Apocryphal books.

With this total absence of divine dignity in the contents of the Apocrypha, could you with any truth assert that the choice of books now included in the Bible was in any sense arbitrary? The Jews knew far more than we do of the Old Testament, and they had no doubt very good contemporary reasons for not accepting these books. But Christ did not recognise them: that is enough for me.

The inspired Volume carries its own credentials with it. It speaks for itself. It comes to us with an overwhelming body of evidence, both internal and external. The Apocrypha, on the contrary, carried its own condemnation. It contains passages which you have only to read to be convinced that they were never inspired by the Spirit of God. We reject it on the ground of evidence, both internal and external.

Now it will be seen from the above that of the early Greek copies which are complete all contain additional books, though of those which have other writings appended to them, no two copies agree in selecting the same books. Neither do those few here named comprise nearly the whole of the rejected books. There are about a score of different "Gospels," a dozen "Acts," a dozen "Epistles," and four or five "Revelations." Of the mass of these we suppose there can be no doubt among sober Christians as to their being uncanonical though most of them profess to have been written by one or other of the Apostles or their immediate successors.