Lost Books of the Bible?

By COGwriter

Are there books that should have been in the Bible that are lost?

Are there some books that the Bible mentions that are lost?

Are any true?


What are pseudepigrapha?

The pseudepigrapha are books that attempt to imitate scripture that were written under false authorship. The term pseudepigrapha comes from the Greek pseudo, meaning “false,” and epigraphein, meaning “to inscribe.” Basically, a pseudonymous writing is one where an author is falsely claimed to have written it, when in truth someone else wrote it and tries to deceive by putting a (normally) famous person’s name on it.

For example, it is not possible that the biblical patriarch Enoch could have possibly written the Book of Enoch (more details will be shown later than should prove that). 

There are many ancient books that fall under the category of pseudepigrapha. Those some have tried to associate with the Old Testament/Hebrew scripture include the Testament of Adam, Books of Enoch, Secrets of Enoch, Book of Noah, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Job, Prayer of Joseph, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Apocalypse of Moses (also called the Book of the Jubilees), Assumption of Moses, Psalter of Solomon, Odes of Solomon, Testament of Hezekiah, Vision of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe according to Jeremiah 36:4), Rest of the Words of Baruch, Apocalypse of Ezra, Elijah the Prophet, Zechariah the Prophet.

These books were written with the intent to deceive. Now with deception, normally you need to include some truth. Generally speaking the pseudepigrapha contain truth and error.

Because there is some truth in them, some claim that they are inspired.

But since, for example, Satan has been shown to both quote scripture and mislead at the same time (cf. Luke 4:3-11), as well as use truth and error to tempt Eve (cf. Genesis 3:1-13).

Between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. numerous pseudepigraphal works appeared also among the Essene Jews.

Although they are claimed to be “lost books” no book of the Bible has been lost. They are fraudulent.

Book of Jasher

Some, like “The Book of Jasher” popped up much later and sometimes has been claimed to be the Book of Jasher referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. It was not. Here is information about it from the old Radio Church of God:

Did God intend for the Book of Jasher to be preserved for us today?

Some people have assumed that one or another of the books that today fraudulently bear the title “The Book of Jasher” might be the same book called by that name in Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18. This is not true!

The spurious books that today exist under the false title “The Book of Jasher” can be historically traced to recent fraudulent origins.

Here is the proof that these are recent frauds. In the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, volume II, in the article “Jasher,” we read: “The [original] volume itself has perished.... There have also been several books written which pretended to be the Book of Jasher, or, at all events, bore this title. Three of these are of Jewish origin. One is a moral treatise, written in A.D. 1394 by Rabbi Shabbatai Carmuz Levita, and exists in manuscript in the Vatican Library. Another, by Rabbi Tham (died 1171), is a treatise on the Jewish ritual. It was published in Hebrew in Italy (1544) ... The third, which is a fabulous history or the events of the Hexateuch, was probably written by a Spanish Jew of the thirteenth century, and has been published at Venice (1625) ... A fourth Book of Jasher was a palpable and malicious fraud, perpetrated by Jacob Ilive, an infidel printer and type-founder of Bristol, and published at London, in 1751, [as] The Book of Jasher, translated into English from the Hebrew by Alcuin of Britain, who went on a Pilgrimage into the Holy Land.”

Notice that all these volumes are recent and spurious!

Now let us examine another work which speaks authoritatively on this same subject. In the Davis Dictionary of the Bible, in the article, “Jasher, in A. V. Jasher,” we read: “In 1751 there appeared a volume which professed to be an English translation of The Book or Jashar (Jasher), alleged to have been found, but the production was an in, impudent forgery.” (emphasis ours).

Other authorities have equally proved the fraudulent qualities of these books. In the Encyclopaedia Biblica, volume II, in the article, “Jasher,” we also read: “In later Christian times the Book of Jasher' is the title of a ritualistic treatise by Jacob B. Meir (died 1171), and of one or two forgeries which are only remarkable for the undeserved success they obtained....”

The fraudulent volumes deceptively labeled “The Book of Jasher” contain error and contradict Scripture. They were written one or two thousand years after the authentic “Book of Jasher” had become lost. In order to cloak their fraudulent works with respectability and make them look innocent — so that readers would trust the lies and hypocrisy contained in those books — the authors of these forgeries gave them a respected Biblical name.

No one need be concerned about any fraudulent book that claims to be a part of the Bible. God has not left us in doubt. There are ample records, both in the Bible and in secular sources, to show us which books are Scripture and which are not. God wisely allowed the original Book of Jasher to disappear because it, like many other contemporary works of the judges, was not needed for our instruction today. If God had wanted us to have The Book of Jasher as a part of the Bible, we would have it in the Bible today. God, however, purposed that only a few brief excerpts from it be quoted in His inspired revelation, the Bible.
The Book of Jasher referred to in the Bible was never destined to be Scripture. Any book claiming that title today is a deliberate fraud! (L920, 1960)

Although some have claimed that the Book of Jasher does not contradict the Bible, that is not so. Notice a partial list of contradictions:

Jasher 13:5 says that Abram went to the land of Canaan at the age of 50 then back to Haran and back to Canaan at age 75, Genesis 12:4 states that Abram was 75 when he departed Haran.

Jasher 18:9 states that one of the angels tells Abraham that Sarah will have a son, but Gen. 17:16 says that God told Abraham.

Jasher 22:44-45 says the Lord got the idea of presenting Isaac as an offering from Isaacs boast to Ishmael. We know, of course, that God is sovereign and as it says in Gen. 22:1-2 & 12 that the Lord was testing Abraham.

Genesis 28:5 states that Isaac sent Jacob to Padan-aram unto Laban but Jasher 29:11 says that he fled to the house of Eber and hid there for 14 years.

Jasher 47:9 says Isaac dies, according to the chronology of Jasher, Joseph was in Egypt but in Gen. 35:29 Isaac died before Joseph had his dreams. ...

In Jasher 42:30-41, Rachel talks to Joseph from the grave. This is of course necromancy and is an abomination unto the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:11-12).

According to 53:18-22 Benjamin used a “map (or chart) of stars” to find Joseph. Deuteronomy 18:10 forbids this. It is an abomination to be “an observer of times” (astrologer). …

Jasher 81:3-4 claims that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt for 210 years whereas the Scripture says in Exodus 12:40-41 it was 430 years.

Jasher 81:40-41says that all but Pharaoh perished in the Red Sea. Pharaoh thanks the Lord and the Lord sends an angel who casts him upon the land of Ninevah where Pharaoh reigned for a long time. Scripture (Exodus 14:23 & 28) states that all perished.

Jasher 32:1-40 -- Esau comes to harm Jacob but angels of the Lord scare Esau, v.55 Esau fears Jacob. Genesis 33:3 Jacob bows seven times to Esau.

Jasher 43:35 -- Isaac went from Hebron to comfort Jacob, his son, because Joseph is dead (sold). Gen. 35:27-29 Isaac died before Joseph even dreamed his dreams.

Jasher 81:38 -- “And the Waters of the sea were divided into twelve parts.” Exodus 14:22 “And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left.” (Schaub D. AN OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK OF JASHER (CALLED THE UPRIGHT BOOK) COMPARED TO THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES BIBLE. Logos Research. © 2012 - 2015)

So, no, the mainly claimed version “Book of Jasher” was not inspired by God. It is not sacred scripture.

Book of Enoch

Having read the Book of Enoch, this author will attest that it is not scriptural nor could Enoch of the 4th and 5th chapters of the Book of Genesis possibly have written more than part of the first chapter.

Beyond that, the Book of Enoch contains a variety of falsehoods.

For example, here is some of what the Book of Enoch claims:

Chapter VI

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' 4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.'

Chapter VII

1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, 4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. 6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

Now an 'ell' is a length of 45 inches or 1.14 meters. So, according to the Book of Enoch, these giants were about 11,000 feet tall or a little over 3 kilometers. This is absurd.

Here is another translation of the height of the giants that supposedly came from angels breeding with human females:

7:12 Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;

With a cubit about 1.5 feet, this would make those giants 450 feet tall. This is also absurd. For more on giants, see the article Did Angels Marry Human Women?

Let me state that Enoch was NOT on the earth by the time of the flood according to the Bible (Genesis 5:24) and did NOT write much of what is attributed to him. While there can be value in ancient non-biblical writings, doctrine should be based on them when they are in conflict with the Bible.

Notice something else from the Book of Enoch which conflicts with scripture:

Chapter XL

9. And he said to me: 'This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.' And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

While the Bible does mention Michael and Gabriel, it does NOT teach that there is an angel named Phanuel over repentance. The alleged Book of Enoch also has other flaws.

Some claim the following proves that the Book of Enoch should be considered as scripture:

14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Jude 14-15)

But, the reality is that statement was from an ancient Hebrew tradition and/or God in some other way (perhaps through James’ half-brother Jesus) conveyed this to James. But James did not get it from the false Book of Enoch.

The Book of Enoch is not sacred/canonical scripture.

Book of Jubilees (also called the Apocalypse of Moses)

A book that many, sadly, have been intrigued by is called the Book of the Jubilees. It seems to have been written in the second century B.C.  It essentially claims to have been written by ten or so authors, but is basically believed to have been written by a priest who was a Pharisee (Charles RH. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913).

Its many names also include Little Genesis, The Testament of Moses, The Book of Adam's Daughters, and The Life of Adam.

One of its problems is that it essentially claims to it contains a supplement to the laws in the Bible:

The author represents his book to be as a whole a revelation of God to Moses, forming a supplement to and an interpretation of the Pentateuch, which he designates 'the first law' (vi. 22). This revelation was in part a secret republication of the traditions handed down from father to son in antediluvian and subsequent times. From the time of Moses onwards it was preserved in the hands of the priesthood, till the time came for its being made known.

Our author's procedure is of course in direct antagonism with the presuppositions of the Priests' Code in Genesis, for according to this code 'Noah may build no altar, Abraham offer no sacrifice, Jacob erect no sacred pillar. No offering is recorded till Aaron and his sons are ready' (Carpenter, The Hexateuch, i. 124). This fact seems to emphasize in the strongest manner how freely our author reinterpreted his authorities for the past. (Charles RH. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913).

Anyway, the Book of Jubilees emphasizes adding extra “rules” and “laws” that seemed to be based upon traditions of the Pharisees. Jesus condemned the reliance on those traditions above the true word of God (Mark 7:9-13). The Book of Jubilees is not part of the true Bible.

One of the other things it attempts to do is to assign specific dates to various events in the Old Testament without biblical support. Furthermore, the author of the Book of Jubilees advocates a solar calendar based on days and months rather than on the biblical, lunar-based calendar. Some scholars have speculated that the book was written exactly for that purpose—to push its author’s idea that the solar-based calendar more accurately represents the Jubilee and provides for a better understanding of prophecy. Those who rely on it will be misled prophetically also.
The Book of Jubilees is considered to be part of the pseudepigrapha by the Continuing Church of God as well as Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Yet, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church believes it is inspired scripture. But without going into all the details, that church does not “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Furthermore its canon consists of 81 books, including additional New Testament ones that are not accepted by the Continuing Church of God as well as Protestant, Roman Catholic, and the other Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The Book of Jubilees is not canonical scripture.

The Deutero-Canonical Books Are False

Despite being parts of the canons of certain Greco-Roman churches, the claimed deutero-canonical books are false--they contain biblically-clear falsehoods

Looiking at part of what they teach is another way to determine that the Apocrypha should not be considered as scripture is by comparing what it teaches to the Bible.

For example, notice something from the fifth chapter of the Apocryphal Book of Tobit:

4 Tobiah went out to look for someone who would travel with him to Media, someone who knew the way. He went out and found the angel Raphael standing before him (though he did not know that this was an angel of God).

5 Tobiah said to him, “Where do you come from, young man?” He replied, “I am an Israelite, one of your kindred. I have come here to work.” …

11 Tobit asked him, “Brother, tell me, please, from what family and tribe are you?”

12 He replied, “Why? What need do you have for a tribe? Aren’t you looking for a hired man?” Tobit replied, “I only want to know, brother, whose son you truly are and what your name is.”

13 He answered, “I am Azariah, son of the great Hananiah, one of your own kindred.”

An angel of God would not lie about his ancestry. But this is what is happening in this book.

Now, this lying angel later told Tobit to get fish entrails:

7 Then the young man asked the angel this question: “Brother Azariah, what medicine is in the fish’s heart, liver, and gall?”

8 He answered: “As for the fish’s heart and liver, if you burn them to make smoke in the presence of a man or a woman who is afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, any affliction will flee and never return. 9 As for the gall, if you apply it to the eyes of one who has white scales, blowing right into them, sight will be restored.”

The Bible does not enjoin anything like burning fish entrails for removing demons—this is not something that Jesus did (Matthew 5:8; 17:18)—nor the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:18). Jesus also did not apply gall to eyes for healing (cf. Matthew 20:34; John 9:6-7).

Another false book is called Wisdom (or the Wisdom of Solomon). Its third chapter teaches:

16 But the children of adulterers will not reach maturity, the offspring of an unlawful bed will disappear.

17 Even if they live long, they will count for nothing, their old age will go unhonoured at the last; 18 while if they die early, they have neither hope nor comfort on the day of judgement, 19 for the end of a race of evil-doers is harsh.

So, in other words, if you are born out of proper wedlock, you will perish and there's nothing you can do about it! This is against scriptures in the New Testament such as Mark 3:28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and John 3:16-17—as well as some in the Old Testament like Ezekiel 18:19.

The sixth chapter of the Book of Wisdom contains the following lie:

24 In the greatest number of the wise lies the world's salvation, in a sagacious king the stability of a people.

The wisdom of the world IS NOT salvation (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:19-29)—salvation only comes through Jesus (1 Corinthians 30; Acts 4:12).

Notice the first several verses of the 12th chapter of Sirach:

1 If you do good, know for whom you are doing it, and your kindness will have its effect.

2 Do good to the righteous and reward will be yours, if not from them, from the LORD.

3 No good comes to those who give comfort to the wicked, nor is it an act of mercy that they do. 4 Give to the good but refuse the sinner; 5 refresh the downtrodden but give nothing to the proud. No arms for combat should you give them, lest they use these against you; Twofold evil you will obtain for every good deed you do for them.

These passages clearly go against the teachings of Jesus in passages such as Matthew 5:43-48, 6:3, and Luke 6:27-36.

Sirach takes a negative stance against women (cf. Sirach  22:3) as well as scripture:

24 With a woman sin had a beginning, and because of her we all die. (Sirach  25:24)

On this, let us look at some of what the New Testament teaches:

21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

The New Testament is blaming Adam, not Eve (cf. Romans 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 2:14).

Sirach is obviously opposed to the Bible and no one should consider it as part of the Old Testament Canon.

There are many other passages from the Apocrypha that could be cited here to show that they should not be scripture. Hopefully, enough are cited here to provide you sufficient proof of that.

Note: The version of the Apocrypha shown in this section is that used at the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2017 (http://www.usccb.org)--lest any feel that a translation bias distorted their meaning.

There are more, but these passages should help prove to anyone who loves the truth that the OT apocrypha is not to be considered as part of the word of God.

More on them is in the article The Old Testament Canon (as well as the at http://www.atruechurch.info/apocrypha.html).

Lost Books of the New Testament

There are many books falsely claimed to be scripture for the New Testament. A list of them includes: Father of John, Gospel According to the Egyptians, Gospel of the Birth of Mary, Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of the Virgin, the Itinerary of Paul, the Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Paul, Gospel of Peter, Itinerary of Peter, Itinerary of Thomas, Gospel According to Thomas, the History of James, the Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel According to Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Philip, and the Epistles of Barnabas. These works were nearly all pseudepigrapha.

There were also other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, while not pseudepigrapha, were also not scripture.

Why did the Greco-Roman-Protestants take so long to finalize their canons?

Part of the reason is that they considered some people to be true Christians who cited books not part of the true canon.

In addition to the Old Testament Apocrypha (the so-called deuterocanonical books), there were other books that some early Greco-Roman writers cited (for more on the Old Testament apocrypha, check out the details in the article The Old Testament Canon).

For example, Origen and Clement of Alexandria frequently cited the Jewish pseudepigrapha. They wrote of these books assisting with mysteries or “deeper principles” (Adler W. The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church. In: The Canon Debate. Baker Academic, 2002).

Various Gnostics also cited those books. While the Greco-Romans have tended to distance themselves from the early Gnostics, it is widely admitted that Clement of Alexandria often blended Gnosticism with his version of Christianity. And his influence, as well as Origen’s, affected the churches in Rome and Egypt.

There were also problems that the Greco-Romans had with books like the false Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel of Peter This book was never accepted by the true Church of God in Asia Minor or Antioch, but was accepted for a time by the Greco-Roman churches in Rome and in Alexandria.

Origen of Alexandria even called what I consider to be the “demonically-influenced” Shepherd of Hermas as “divinely inspired” (Cited in Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987, p.140).

Origen seems to possibly have accepted the falsely titled Gospel of Peter (see Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Verse 17.  In Roberts and Donaldson). Perhaps it should be mentioned that while Origen was from Alexandria, he did visit Rome and spent time with a Bishop of Rome named Zephyrinus. Let me also add that it is believed that in the second century the apostate, Justin (who went to Rome from Asia Minor) cited the false Gospel of Peter in one of his writings (First Apology, Chapter 36, verse 6; see also Bruce FF. The Canon of Scripture. InterVarsity Press, 1988, pp. 200-201).

Eusebius records that Serapion of Antioch went to see a group that he thought was Christian in the seaside port of Rhossus, which is located southwest of Alexandria. When he got there he was disappointed to learn that they were reading this “Gospel of Peter” and thus he realized that they were not all part of the “true faith” so Serapion stated:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely inscribed with them, knowing that such were not handed down to. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith…(Eusebius.  The History of the Church, Book VI, Chapter XII, verses 3-4, p. 125-126).

Notice that Serapion is teaching that the proper books were "handed down to us" (or "received" as it has alternatively been translated, see article Serapion of Antioch for the Greek and more details)--they were accepted by the faithful long before any canonical Greco-Roman council.

Thus, items such as the false "Gospel of Peter" show there was canonical confusion within the Greco-Roman churches—confusion that we did not see in the churches in Asia Minor nor Antioch for that period. This canonical confusion is probably because historical records show that Asia Minor and Antioch communicated with each other until the early third century, yet they did not seem to try to communicate much with Alexandria or Rome (they tried with Rome twice—once when Polycarp tried to get the Roman Bishop Anicetus to change and second when Polycrates wrote the Roman Bishop Victor that he did not recognize Victor’s authority over the word of God).

Also the fact that the Gospel of Peter, Sections 12-14, suggests that the resurrection of Jesus was on the last day of unleavened bread—which is clearly in conflict with the canonical gospels—may have also have been a major factor in Rome and Alexandria finally rejecting that book. But again, the faithful did not rely on it from the beginning.

The Da Vinci Code, Gospel of Philip, and Gospel of Mary Magdalene

The popular book The Da Vinci Code claimed Jesus was married and cited some false books.

Various so-called historical proofs of Jesus' alleged marriage seem to be related to gnostic accounts. Yet, while claiming them as proof, The Da Vinci Code states:

The Gnostic Gospels...The earliest Christian records. Troublingly, they do not match up with the gospels in the Bible (The Da Vinci Code, pages 245-246).

The last statement is is true, which is part of why they were rejected from being considered as part of the Bible. Yet, The Da Vinci Code fails to mention that the gnostic gospels do not agree among themselves either. The gnostic accounts do not read like the biblical accounts, nor do they have the harmony of the biblical accounts. The Da Vinci Code also fails to point out that nearly all of them were not written until well after the last book of the New Testament (Revelation, which was written towards the end of the life of the oldest of the original apostles) was written--hence they are not truly "The earliest Christian records."

When Jesus was dying, He made provisions for the Apostle John to take care of His mother Mary:

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"  27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:25-27)

If He was married to Mary Magdalene and/or He had young children, Jesus obviously would have tried to make provisions for them, but He did not.  Jesus did not have any children nor was He married to Mary Magdalene.  The gospels record that people like Peter had a wife, and it would be logical that if Jesus had one that this would have been mentioned.

The biggest single "proof" in The Da Vinci Code that Jesus was married is this passage from the so-called Gospel of Philip. The Gospel of Philip, however, was apparently not written until the end of the second century (and some scholars believe that it was not written until the third century), hence it was written AFTER the books of the New Testament were all known. Hence to call it part of "The earliest Christian records," which The Da Vinci Code, is historically inaccurate.

Anyway, here is the passage from it cited in The Da Vinci Code to attempt to "prove" that Jesus was married:

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary (The Gospel of Philip. Translated by Wesley W. Isenberg. THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY. James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990, http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html 5/10/06).

The Da Vinci Code suggests that the so-called Gospel of Philip was rejected for that passage.

The truth is that it was rejected because it was written over a century after the Apostle Philip died (thus Philip did not write it), and no one in or even affiliated with the true Church ever accepted it.

A related claim in the book was:

More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (The Da Vinci Code, page 231).

The above may have some truth as far as the Roman and Orthodox Catholics are concerned (as they and many secular scholars prefer to believe in the late canonization theory, as they do not realize that the true Church Of God knew them by the end of the first century), but not as far as the true Church is concerned. The true Church knew all the books of the Bible (including the gospels) by the time of the death of John. Almost none of those eighty gospels were even written by then.

Even Irenaeus recognized that there were only four gospel accounts, no more, no less by 180 A.D. (Adversus haereses. Book III, Chapter 11, Verse 8), and the so-called Gospel of Philip (which appears to have been written after Irenaeus wrote) was not among them (please see the article The New Testament Canon).

Notice that even this spurious account simply says that some CALLED Mary Magdalene His companion. That is simply not the same things as stating that this was Jesus' lawful spouse.

Since the Bible, in Hebrews 4:15, records that Jesus did not sin, any sexual partner would have had to have been a lawful spouse. Jesus did not have some type of consort or concubine, nor a daughter (which The Da Vinci Code claims was named Sarah, page 255).

If Jesus did have a wife and daughter, it would have made more sense that He would have made provisions for them when He was dying--instead He only made provisions for His mother Mary (a photo at the location where it is believe Mary last lived is available at the Ephesus photo page), according to the Bible (see John 9:26-27).

My reading of the so-called Gospel of Philip suggests to me it is simply called the Gospel of Philip because it allegedly quotes the Apostle Philip in ONE passage:

Philip the apostle said, "Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross."

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest, or even hint, that the above is true. Nor is there any indication in the Bible that Philip ever said anything about a cross.

The fact is that the Bible records that there was an apostle named Philip (John 1:45-48). In the late second century, Polycrates records that the Apostle Philip kept the Passover on the 14th, and he and the other followers of Christ, did what the scriptures said.

Furthermore, the so-called Gospel of Philip has virtually nothing in common with the canononical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The so-called Gospel of Philip simply does not read like a gospel account. It does not have the narrative of Jesus' death and resurrection, does not discuss miracles, nor does it even much discuss His teachings.

It reads like a Gnostic account of mystic knowledge. Here is one such passage:

Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect (The Gospel of Philip. Translated by Wesley W. Isenberg. THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY. James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990, http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html 5/10/06).

Another problem with the so-called Gospel of Philip is that it clearly contradicts the biblical accounts in various areas. Here is one such contradictory passage:

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error (ibid).

Yet, the Bible itself teaches:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible." Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her (Luke 1:26-38).

Hence it is clear that no one who professes Christ and believes in the virgin birth, as taught in the Bible, could possibly accept the claims in the Philip "gospel" account. Hence, there is no reason for any to consider that Jesus was married based upon someone's impressions of the so-called "Gospel of Philip."

Perhaps it needs to be mentioned that the so-called gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, James, Peter, Philip, or Barnabas were not written by the famous people in their titles.  Nor were they accepted by faithful Christians as inspired by God (though some Greco-Roman types accepted some of them for a while).

The Gospel of Thomas is held by certain scholars to be the earliest of the "gnostic" gospels composed. Scholars generally date the the Gnostic 'gospels' text to the early-late 2nd century (Ehrman B. Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. xi–xii.).

Most scholars do not believe that any of them were written until after John, the last of the original apostles, died (e.g. Ibid). For more on The Da Vinci Code, check out the article The Da Vinci Code: Some Good, Most Bad

Some moderns falsely have claimed that the reason that many of the 'lost books' were not accepted by the Church of Rome is because of bias against women and other doctrinal concerns. While doctrinal flaws were a reason to reject them, that is not mainly why they were rejected.

They were rejected because nearly all of them were written later than the first century A.D. and the New Testament canon was in place by the end of the first century. It was complete when the Book of Revelation was penned.

Consider the following

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19):

There were no more sacred books after then. While God may choose to add others later, no human should. Yet, many deceivers have added many false writings.

Do not fall for them.

For more information on the true books of the Bible and when they were known, check out the following:

The Old Testament Canon This article shows from Catholic accepted writings, that the Old Testament used by non-Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox churches is the correct version.
The New Testament Canon - From the Bible and History This article, shows from the Bible and supporting historical sources, why the early Church knew which books were part of the Bible and which ones were not.

Thiel B. Lost Books of the Bible? COGwriter (c) 2017 http:/www.cogwriter.com/lost-books-of-the-bible.htm 2017 0624

Back to home page