Have you ever wondered why we have
the books that we do in our Bibles?
You know, sometimes people are
troubled by questions like,
“Why does the Catholic church
have extra books in their Bible?”
“What about the 'so-called'
lost books of the Bible?” and
“Why does the apostle Paul sometimes
reference epistles that we don’t have today?”
That’s what we’re going
to do this session.
We’re going to answer the question,
“Why do we have the books we do in the Bible?"
And secondly, "Are we missing
any books from our Bibles?”
Now, I don't want you to get bored,
but I want you to hang on a minute
because I need to lay out some
definitions as we begin this study.
When we talk about what
books belong in the Bible,
you will sometimes here people
use the term “canon” or “canonicity.”
It’s important that you understand these
terms to understand this discussion.
The Greek word “kanon” referred to a
measuring device, a staff, or a ruler.
It was a standard for measuring.
Of course,  it wasn’t a very far jump from that
to the way that we use the word today.
We use the word "canon" or "canonicity"
today to refer to something that is a standard.
Today, when you talk about a book
being in the canon--or being canonical--
what we mean is
it is a book inspired by God.
We mean that it belongs in the Bible.
A non-canonical book,
on the other hand,
is an un-inspired book.
We mean that does not belong in the Bible.
Canon is inspired Scriptures.
Canonical is inspired. It belongs in the Bible.
Non-Canonical: Not inspired,
does not belong in the Bible.
And I want to make this
very important point as we begin:
Friends, the canon is
determined by God, not by man.
Sometimes men talk about determining
if a book belongs in the canon.
What they mean by that is,
we're going to examine the book
to see if it is one
of God’s inspired books.
Not that men determine what is
Scripture and what is not.
Second Timothy 3:16 says,
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”
If it’s not inspired,
then it’s not Scripture.
One book I was reading
summed this up very well.
They said, “A book is not inspired
because men made it canonical;
it is canonical because God inspired it.”
And that's very well said.
Maybe you’ve had
an experience like this:
You’ve sat down with a friend who is a Catholic
and you're going to have a Bible Study.
You're going to talk about
the Bible together.
And in the process of your discussion,
your friend makes reference to a book
of the Bible that
you’ve never heard of.
You look at his Bible, and it contains, in fact,
numerous books that your Bible does not.
You’re stunned.
You don’t know what to say.
You don’t know how to answer this.
These extra books that the Catholic Bible
has are known as the Apocrypha.
Sometimes they are grouped with what is called
"the lost books of the Old Testament.”
Now with that background,
what we want to do is two things:
First, we want to
discuss the Apocrypha.
What is it? Why does the Catholic Church
defend it? Does it belong in the Bible?
Secondly, we’re going to examine the question,
“Is there such a thing as lost books of the Bible,
and if so, is this a problem
for Bible believers?”
Should this effect our faith?
First, what is the Apocrypha?
The word “apocrypha" means “hidden.”
And when you hear someone talking about
the Apocrypha, they’re talking about these
extra books that some Bibles have
added to the end of the Old Testament.
I should also mention that
there are some additions to
the normally accepted 39 books
of the Old Testament.
For example, at the end of the book of Daniel,
it adds a story called, “Bel and the Dragon.”
All of these Old Testament
Apocryphal books are believed to have
been written sometime between
the time of Malachi and the life of Jesus.
Now friends, that is very important
because that is after
the time that the Old Testament
had been completed.
In fact, it's time period commonly
known as the 'Silent 400 Years'
because no prophets of God
were writing during this time.
The Catholic Church accepts seven
of these apocryphal books.
And so, their Old Testament contains 46 books,
rather than the 39 that we have.
And they--the Catholic church--
declared these books to be canonical
at their Council of Trent.
That is, they said,
“We’re putting these books
in our Bible because we
say they belong there.”
And since that time, translations of the
Bible done by the Catholic Church--
such as the Jerusalem Bible
and the New American Bible--
have included the Apocrypha.
There are some other translations that you
can get that contain the Apocrypha.
The Revised Standard Version was put out
in two forms--one with and without the Apocrypha.
And it’s interesting that when
King James had his translation done,
it originally included the Apocrypha,
but later it was removed.
Some translation committees didn’t translate
it at all including the American Standard,
the New American Standard,
and the New King James.
I have a copy of the Apocrypha in my library.
It's a stand-alone version.
I want to list for you the table of
contents from this stand-alone Apocrypha
so that you’ll at least be familiar
with the books contained in it.
First and Second Esdras. These are not
accepted by Catholics or Protestants.
Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther,
The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch (that is attached
with the Epistle of Jeremiah),
The Song of the Three Children,
the History of Susanna (that is added to Daniel),
Bel and the Dragon
(also added to Daniel),
The Prayer of Manasses.
Let me say something about that one.
One of the most wicked
kings of Judah was Manasseh.
Because of his sin,
God determined to send Judah into captivity.
Second Chronicles 33:12-13 tells us
something that Second Kings does not
tell us about Manasseh--and that is
at the end of his life, he repented.
In fact, he prayed to God.
This book--The Prayer of Manasses--
attempts to provide that prayer.
Apocryphal books oftentimes seek to satisfy
curiosity and to fill in gaps in our knowledge.
And this book is one of those.
This particular book incidentally is not
accepted by Catholics
or Protestants.
And then finally, there are the
books of I and II Maccabees.
Now let’s turn our thoughts
for a moment and ask,
"Why does the Catholic church
defend the Apocrypha?"
Friends, I believe that the main reason the
Catholic Church defends the Apocrypha
so vehemently is not because of
any evidence showing it to be valid,
but rather because it supports
some of their doctrines.
For instance, the Catholic Church
teaches the doctrine of praying for the dead
and that sacrifices
can be made for the dead.
That is, they believe that once a person
has passed from this life
and they go into Torment--
they go into suffering--
they believe that prayers could be made,
money could be paid and actually effect
the person's eternity and move them
from suffering into a place of reward.
But friends, of course, the inspired
Scriptures nowhere teach that.
In fact, the Bible teaches
just the opposite of this.
The Bible teaches that a man’s eternal
destiny is sealed when he dies.
In Luke 16, we have an account
there of the rich man and Lazarus.
And the Bible tells about two men:
the man named Lazarus--
who was a very poor but righteous man--
and a rich man who was wicked.
The rich man dies
and goes to Torment.
And Lazarus dies and goes to
be with Abraham in Paradise.
But listen what the Bible says.
In Luke 16:25, Abraham is speaking
to this rich man who is in Torment.
And he says,
'Son, remember that in your lifetime
you received your good things,
and likewise Lazarus evil things;
but now he is comforted
and you are tormented.
And besides all this..."
Now listen to this part:
"Besides all this, between us and you
there is a great gulf fixed,
so that those who want
to pass from here to you cannot,
nor can those from
there pass to us.”
Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed unto men
once to die and after this the judgment.”
Friends, the Bible teaches
when a person dies and he goes to
reward or he goes to Torment,
he is there to stay.
People living on this earth can't pray for him,
they can't pay for him to change his destiny.
Listen to this from the Apocrypha:
Second Maccabees 12:45,
seeking to justify this false doctrine says,
“Wherefore he made the
propitiation for them that had died,
that they might be
released from their sin.”
Let me read that again.
"He made propitiation for them that had died,
that they might be released from their sin.”
Bertrand Conway, seeking to justify the
Roman Catholic doctrine of praying for the dead,
pointed to this passage
in II Maccabees and he said,
“It's true that the Protestants consider
the book of Maccabees apocryphal,
but they rest upon the same
authority as Isaias or St. John--
the divine, infallible witness
of the Catholic Church.”
Friends, of course he’s wrong about that.
We don’t believe that John and Isaiah
are inspired because of the
witness of the Catholic Church.
Of course, he's also wrong about
this idea that prayers can be made
that can effect the eternity
and the destiny of the dead.
The Apocrypha also suggests that a person
may atone for his sins by the giving of alms.
That is, he can pay money
to have sins forgiven.
Tobit says, “It is better to give
alms than to lay up gold..."
Now listen to this part:
"Alms doth deliver from death,
and it shall purge away all sin.”
Here lies the Roman Catholic doctrine of
“so much pray for so much pay.”
Okay, let’s get to the most important question,
“Why is the Apocrypha not in my Bible?”
And in reality,
“Does the Apocrypha belong in my Bible?”
My Old Testament has 39 books.
And I’ve always taught
that there are 66 books in the Bible.
Twenty-seven in the New Testament.
Thirty-nine in the Old Testament.
In truth, should there be more?
Friends, the answer to that question is “No.”
What I want to do os to show you why
the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible.
I want to give you four reasons
to support the statement:
"The Apocrypha does not
belong in the Bible."
Number 1: The Apocrypha does not
belong in the Bible because the Jews
never recognized the Apocrypha as
part of the inspired Scriptures.
The Jews of Jesus’ day, they did not recognize
these extra books that we’re talking about
as being a part of the Hebrew canon.
Josephus--the famous Jewish Historian--wrote this.
He said, “We (the Jews) have not
10,000 books among us disagreeing with
and contradicting one another."
He meant like the Greeks have.
"But only 22 books, which contain the records of
all time, and are justly believed to be divine.”
And then he breaks this down:
Five of them are the books of
Law written by Moses.
Thirteen of them cover the time
from Moses to King Artaxerxes.
The remaining four contain hymns and precepts
for the conduct of human life.
Now, if you're listening closely,
you might want to say, “Wait a minute!
Why did Josephus say they
recognized the Old Testament
as having only 22 books when we have
39 books in the Old Testament?”
And friends, it’s because of the way
the Jews counted their books.
They counted the Minor prophets
as one book known as “The Twelve”
rather than counting them as
12 separate books as we do.
That brings the
number from 22 to 33.
They combined I & II Samuel
into one book called Samuel.
That brings us to 34.
They combined I & II Kings, making 35.
Same with I & II Chronicles, 36.
Ezra and Nehemiah were counted as one work.
Ruth was joined to Judges.
Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah.
And that brings us to 39 books.
Friends, when you understand how the
Jews grouped their books,
you see that they had the same books that
you and I have in our Bibles today.
Their 22 books was exactly
the same as our 39 books.
The Jews did not
accept the Apocrypha.
And incidentally, Josephus and numerous other
sources indicate that the Jews rejected any
writing after the time of King Artaxerxes,
which is the time of the book of Malachi.
The Babylonian Talmud stated,
“After the latter prophets departed
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.”
Ok. That's reason Number 1.
Secondly, we reject that the
Apocrypha should be in the Bible
because Jesus did not recognize
the Apocrypha as being Scripture.
In Luke 24:44, Jesus said,
“These are the words which I spoke
to you while I was still with you,
that all things must be fulfilled
which were written in the
Law of Moses and in the Prophets
and the Psalms concerning Me.”
This phrase used by Jesus “the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms”
is the same phrase that Jewish writers used
to refer to the whole of the Old Testament,
which we just noticed consisted of:
5 books of Law, 13 books of Prophets,
and 4 books of Psalms. And so, what's the point?
Friends, the point is Jesus endorsed
their view on this matter as being correct.
He was saying,
"This is the complete Hebrew Canon."
I also want you to notice a second
passage of Scripture with me, Matthew 23:35.
Jesus there pronounced this
upon the wicked Pharisees:
He said, “That on you may come all
the righteous blood shed on the earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel
to the blood of Zechariah, son of Bereciah,
whom you murdered between
the temple and the altar.”
This passage is very significant because it
covers from the first book of the Bible--
Genesis, when it mentions Abel--
to the last book of the Hebrew Bible--
which was Chronicles, when he mentions
Zechariah--which chronologically is the
time of Malachi as we
have our Bible laid out today.
And so, here's the point:
Jesus recognized as Scripture
from Genesis to the time of Malachi,
which incidentally excludes the books
of the Old Testament Apocrypha.
Number 3: We reject the Apocrypha
as belonging in the Bible because
the New Testament nowhere validates
these Old Testament Apocryphal books.
You know there are some passages
and some characters which we know
to be genuine because of their
inclusion in the NT.
For instance, some people have questioned
the account of Jonah and whale--
Jonah and the great fish--
as to whether that really happened.
But Jesus confirms it for us in the
New Testament in Matthew 12:40,
when He says, “For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of the great fish,
so will the Son of Man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth."
But what is very interesting is that out of the
many references in the New Testament
back to the Old Testament,
there is not one single reference
to something in the Apocrypha
in a sense that it validates it
or says that it is inspired
or "Thus sayeth the Lord."
Someone who has counted has said that
there are 263 quotations and 370 allusions
in the Old Testament that
are found in the New Testament
and not one of them validates
or in any sense gives
credibility to the Apocrypha
as being inspired from God.
Number 4: We reject the Apocrypha
as belonging in the Bible
because the Apocrypha itself
shows itself to be uninspired.
First, the Apocrypha
does not even claim inspiration.
Many, in fact, most of the inspired books
of the Old Testament claim inspiration.
I think it’s most telling that the Apocrypha
itself doesn’t even claim to be inspired.
Some of the Apocryphal books
even acknowledge non-inspiration.
In the prologue to the book of Ecclesiasticus
you find these words:
“Ye are intended therefore to read with
favour and attention..." Now listed to this.
"And to pardon us,
if in any part of what
we have laboured to interpret,
we may seem to fail in some of the phrases.”
That is very interesting that it is written
in such a way that there is going to be errors,
such is not the case
with the inspired Scriptures.
The Apocrypha is filled with mistakes--
historical mistakes, geographical mistakes,
chronological, and moral errors.
Clearly the Apocrypha is not the
same quality as the inspired Scriptures
which have stood the test of time
with no contradictions.
Friends, the Apocrypha is filled
with scribal tradition and myths.
Let me give you some examples
of historical inaccuracies in the Apocrypha.
In Tobit 1:4, Tobit claims to have lived
during the days when the Jewish Kingdom divided.
Later, he claims to have been
taken away into Assyrian captivity (1:10).
But you see, these two events were
separated by more than 200 years.
Which by the way, is 43 years longer
than Tobit supposedly lived.
The Apocryphal book of Judith
has the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar
ruling in Nineveh over Assyria (Judith 1:1).
Clearly inaccurate.
Rather than having the creation resulting
from nothing by the Word of God,
the Apocrypha has God creating the world
out of “formless mass” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
The Apocrypha contains two contradictory accounts
of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.
One account says that he was
“cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea
by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests”
(II Maccabees 1:13-16).
The other says he was
“taken with a noisome sickness”
and so ended "his life among
the mountains by a most
piteous fate in a strange land"
(II Maccabees 9:19-29).
The Apocrypha is also
filled with doctrinal errors.
We already mentioned that the Apocrypha
teaches that prayers can be made for the
dead in hopes of influencing
their eternal destiny.
The Bible doesn't teach that.
Clearly, that is a contradiction to
plain verses of the inspired Scripture.
We mentioned previously the fact
that the Apocrypha suggests that
a man may atone for his sins through money--
by the giving of alms.
Clearly, the Bible doesn't teach that.
The Apocrypha also teaches the erroneous
doctrine of the preexistence of the soul.
It suggests that the kind of body
a person has is determined by
the character of his soul in a previous life
(Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20).
Tobit 5:15-19 teaches that
angels can have families.
Of course, that directly contradicts
what the Bible says in Mark 12:25.
With regard to its moral tone,
the Apocrypha is far below that of the Bible.
You see, the Apocrypha applauds suicide
as a noble and manful--a manly--act.
In II Maccabees, it tells us of one Razis who,
being surrounded by the enemy,
fell upon his sword,
choosing “rather to die nobly”
than to fall into the hands of the enemy.
And since he wasn’t mortally wounded,
he threw himself from a wall and “manful”--
in a manly way, they're saying--
died among the crowds (14:41-43).
The book of Tobit describes magical potions
which are alleged to drive away demons.
Tobit 6:1-7 talks about incense--
that is fish hearts or perhaps livers--
cooked on live coal, that's reportedly
efficient to drive away the devil.
And one can anoint
with fish gall to heal.
The murder of the men of Shechem which is
condemned as an act of violence in the Bible
(Genesis 49:6-7) is commended in the Apocrypha
and said to be of God (Judith 9:2-9).
And friends, we could go on and on.
But the point is the Apocrypha
has no business being included in the Bible.
The Jews never included it.
Jesus did not accept it.
And, the fact is, it was hundreds of years
after the establishment of the church
before men tried to give these books--the
Apocrypha--a place in the canon.
Okay, let’s move on
to our second question.
“Are there really 'lost books’ of the Bible,
and if so, is this a problem for Bible believers?”
Should this in any sense shake our faith?
Well, friends, it certainly is the case
that the Bible sometimes references
works and books that no longer exist.
As a matter of fact, this fact has caused
some people to doubt their Bibles.
It has been a tool that's used by
atheists and skeptics to attack the Bible.
And in light of this, it becomes
a very important question.
First, let me say this, the answer that I’m
about to give is a very short one.
For a more detailed and thorough explanation,
I want to refer you to one my sources.
I would suggest that you go to
ApologeticsPress.org and search for the question:
“Are There Lost Books of the Bible?”
and they will give a more detailed answer.
For now, let me say this:
it is the case that there are times
when the Bible references
books that we no longer have.
In fact, there are at least
30 different works mentioned
in the Bible that we no longer have today.
Twenty-eight of these are in the Old Testament
and two are in the New Testament.
So, what’s the explanation for this?
Is this a cause for concern?
Let me give you several important points
to help with these questions.
First, as we consider these 30 references--
or 30 supposed missing books--
some of them may be
references to the same source book,
but referred to
by different names.
For example I and 2 Kings mention two works
“the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel”
and “the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.”
Likely, these are references to
the same source and not two separate ones.
Maybe different sections of that same source.
But these type of cases would actually
make the number lower than 30.
Secondly, as we consider these
30 missing books or 30 references,
Bible scholars believe that some
of these may actually be references
to other books of the Bible.
So in actuality, they’re not missing at all.
Thirdly, it’s likely that some of the
“missing books” are actually references
to secular history books.
(Chronicles, if you will).
That being the case, they
don’t actually represent
any missing portions of
inspired Scriptures.
Fourthly, some of the "missing books"
or references are non-Hebrew sources,
making them non-biblical compositions
and therefore they're not canonical writings.
When you eliminate the
“missing books” that fall
into the four categories
we've just mentioned,
the number that remains is not 30.
In fact, it's much, much lower than that.
But someone says,
"Still, what about that number?
Even though it's a smaller number,
are you suggesting that there
are some missing references?"
There are two instances in the
New Testament when the apostle Paul
references epistles
which we do not have today.
One of those accounts is in I Corinthians 5:9.
Paul writes there,
“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep
company with sexually immoral people.”
In this statement, Paul seems to be
implying that he had previously written to
the Corinthians specifically mentioning
fornication or the sexually immoral.
Where is that epistle?
We don’t have it.
The second time is in Colossians 4:16.
Paul writes to the Colossian brethren,
“Now when this epistle is read among you,
see that it is read also
in the church of the Laodiceans..."
Now listen to this:
"And that you likewise read
the epistle from Laodicea.”
Now, where is the epistle from Laodicea?
We don’t know.
It was the practice in the first century when
a church received a letter that they would
pass it on to other congregations for them
to read.  That's evident from this verse.
Some people have speculated
that the epistle of the
Laodiceans is actually the
letter to the Ephesians,
and that it had been passed on to them,
and they were to pass it on to the Colossians.
The language in the Greek can mean the epistle
that is in the possession of the Laodiceans,
and thus this is a distinct possible
explanation for this account.
But what about the previously
mentioned example in I Corinthians?
What about the epistle that Paul mentions
that he had written to the Corinthians?
Some theories have been put forth to explain this,
but I think in reality, it does appear that there
was a letter that Paul wrote,
which we don’t have today.
Now, the question is, “Is that a problem?
Should that shake our faith?”
Friends, I want you to get
this one very important point,
If there were inspired letters or epistles
that were written, that God chose not to preserve,
it’s because we don’t need them.
John 20:30, the Bible says, “Many other signs
truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples,
which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that you might believe…”
The point being, there were a lot
of other things that took place,
that God chose not to preserve,
because they weren’t necessary for us.
Second Peter 1:3 says that God has given
us all things that pertain to life and godliness.
In other words, we have everything
that we need to serve the Lord.
There may have been another letter to the
Corinthians that God did not choose to preserve.
But if that’s the case, it’s because God
intended it for a particular historical setting,
but it wasn’t necessary for
mankind for the rest of history.
I want to conclude our study with this quote
from Apologetics Press. They write,
“None of the books God
intended to be in the Bible is lost.
The phrase 'lost' refers only to
those books of which no record exist.
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.”
