Lost books of the Bible?

[maklelan]

Dan, I think that it is you who does not understand the evolution of the Hebrew canon. This is from another site, and I cite it because the piece references the Bible itself as the primary source : http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

The formation of the Old Testament canon was gradual, and was composed of the writings which spread over many centuries.

Moses commanded that the books of the law be placed in the ark. This--with the addition of the book of Joshua--was done, and the sacred books were kept there during the wilderness journey, and also were in the ark during its permanent residence in Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 31:9,26, cf. 2 Kings 22:8; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25.)

Then were gathered and placed in the temple the historical and prophetical books from Joshua to David's time. On the construction of the temple Solomon deposited in it the earlier books (2 Kings 22:8, Isaiah 34:16), and enriched the collection with inspired writings from his own pen, and also some prophetic writings. So we find Daniel (9:2, R.V.) referring to "the books," Isaiah to "the book of the Lord" (29:18, 34:16).

After Solomon's day a succession of prophets arose, Jonah, Amos, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, and Habakkuk. These all flourished before the destruction of the temple, and enlarged the collection of existing sacred books by valuable additions.

After the Babylonian capture, when the temple was rebuilt and worship re-established, then doubtless were added the writings of Haggai and Zechariah.

About fifty years after the temple was rebuilt Ezra made a collection of the sacred writings (Neh. 8:2,3,14). To this collection were added the writings of Nehemiah, Malachi, and Ezra. It is a fact of history that Nehemiah gathered the "Acts of the Kings and the Prophets, and those of David," when founding a library for the second temple, 432 B.C. (See 2 Maccabees 2:13).

I am not calling this apocryphal book Scripture, OK?

Nevertheless, it is a fascinating history

.

The canon of the Old Testament in the form we now have it, was the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue. This fact is borne witness to in the most ancient Jewish writings. The Great Synagogue was composed of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. There is no doubt but that such a collection of books existed in the time of our Lord and the apostles (Luke 24:27,44).

No, I don't misunderstand. Your website appeals to a rather uninformed and uncritical view of the biblical text.

I never heard that before.

You don't appear to have heard of most of what biblical scholarship says.

Please CFR

You're asking me for references? You've never responded to a single one of my CFRs, and you've even had threads shut down because of that. You've really got a lot to learn about respectable debate. The Septuagint includes the books of the Maccabees, Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, the Odes of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, an additional Psalm, and expansions in the books of Daniel and Esther. The Septuagint version of Jeremiah, on the other hand, is significantly shorter. By the time of MT several books had gotten shorter, some got longer, and several were tossed out. I'm not necessarily arguing that they all should be considered part of the canon (I don't think Chronicles should be part of the canon either), but the assertion that the canon has not ebbed and flowed is simple naivety.

[volgadon]

How about the Mishnah?

Not part of scripture for Jews.

[Rob Bowman]

Nicolas,

I apologize for my offensive tone.

Just how did I "exclude the orthodox churches"?

I don't appreciate your condescending tone, it is not conducive to an intelligent conversation.

I obviously know that Judaism and Samaritanism are not part of christendom, I only included them to see if, in excluding them from the argument (which you rightly do), you would also exclude the orthodox churches (which you wrongly do).

[LeSellers]

I don't think Chronicles should be part of the canon either

I love Chronicles if for no other reason than this verse:

9 And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

We should also be thankful for the discrepancies between I Samuel~II Kings and I~II Chronicles, for they offer us an unimpeachable source for demonstrating that the "Bible" is internally inconsistent and that God most certainly has allowed His word to deviate from its original perfection.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

Several Mormons here have objected to my opening post by asserting that there was no such thing as the Bible, and no such thing as the canon, until well after the first century AD. They conclude that the books listed in the LDS Topical Guide were never part of the Bible or the canon and so were never rejected or excluded from or taken out of the Bible or canon. Let me give these LDS responses in their own words:

Contrast the above-quoted statements with the following comment from a Mormon in another thread:

I didn