What evil corporations don't want you to read: the unpublished books of the Bible

Not exactly.

I think many people have a hard-wired reaction towards believing in danger and deceit over reason and trust, so that's why books labelled similarly to this blog post provoke interest (a cheap trick, I know, but I got you to read it, didn't I?)  This is a separate topic, and one that may be addressed later, but for now, let's see what these authors are touting about when they say "these are the scriptures that you are missing out on and should follow".

These "lost books of the Bible" typically fall into two categories: books that have doubtful authenticity (called apocrypha pronounced "ah-pa-creh-fah"), and the Gnostic writings (pronounced "nos-tik").  Let's start with the apocrypha.

If you start doing some research about the Bible, or come from a Catholic background, you'll eventually hear about books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, and Judith.  I'll shy away from why I think these writings were considered divinely inspired by at the Council of Trent (in year 1546), but I will say that there are several factors as to why I don't believe they are pertinent to spiritual cultivation.

The first is that none of the early Jewish scholars or historians regarded them as divinely inspired.  Josephus (37-100 CE) was a famous Jewish historian,  and he directly said that there were only 22 books of the Jewish canon.  Taking into account that Protestants divided (among other things) singular Hebrew books, like Kings, Samuel, Chronicles and the Minor Prophets, into more than one book, we come up with the same number of books that Josephus spoke about: 22.  Adding apocryphal books to the OT would... raise a few eyebrows among the Jewish community, to say the least.

Next is that the books tend to be hit-or-miss when it comes to historical accuracy. While the Bible has been noted to be so historically accurate that it outstrips the Egyptian and Mesopotamian histories, 2 Maccabees goes as far as apologizing for not getting all of its details right.  This is in sharp contrast to  the Bible's constant assertion to its accuracy, and that it is the direct word of God. Don't believe me? Read Amos and count how many times it says "This is what the LORD says".

Personally, I think the biggest proof that the apocrypha are not "lost books of the Bible" is because none of the NT writers, Jesus, or the early christians ever quoted from them.  When addressing the Pharisees, Jesus mentions the Jewish Canon of Scripture the Pharisees studied, saying “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Lk. 11:51, cf. Mt. 23:35), which conforms to the order Jewish scholars studied their scriptures, and that order didn't include the apocrypha.  So to Jesus and his early followers, none of them regarded the apocrypha as coming from God.

The second major collection of writings described as "lost books of the Bible" are the Gnostic writings.  The first thing you need to know about the Gnostic writings is that it was based on this Greek idea that anything spiritual was pure, and that anything physical was corrupted and sinful.  Add a sprinkle of Christian elements added to it, and POOF! You have Gnosticism. 

Unfortunately, Gnosticism faces a serious problem when dealing with the fact that Jesus physically existed on Earth.  If everything physical was sinful, and Jesus was physical, how could he be without sin?

The Gnostics got out of this conundrum by claiming that Jesus didn't physically appear on the Earth, but that he came "in Spirit".  In order to legitimize their claim, they wrote their own gospels and said that they were the inspired and revealed word of God.  The early Christians were quick to point out that these "Hidden-Until-Now" gospels weren't written by any early Christians, much less the apostles, and that most of the information contradicted the already established teachings.  One example is that the "Gospel of Thomas" contains passages which are meant to be kept secret, which doesn't makes sense because there are numerous passages in both the Old and New Testament encouraging people to make sure everyone knows about God.

Aside from that, the Gnostic "gospels" runs in direct contradiction to what we know about the real gospels.  At the very least, how could Thomas Didymus put his hands in Jesus's wounds unless Thomas could physically put his hands inside a physical body?  I could bring up several other instances in which denying Jesus's physical appearance on the Earth runs grossly contra to the biblical narrative, but let me just say that several early Christian writers knew that Gnosticism was a false teaching (some theories say that Jude was written in direct response to this), and universally rejected it.

In the end, modern Bibles aren't missing anything, and for your day-to-day, practical use, you aren't missing out on "hidden" or "lost" teachings by not reading the apocrypha or Gnostic writings.

Next week we'll talk about why your Bible makes a lengthy note about John 7:53-8:11, and other scriptures.

Sources used:

https://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Judas.html