Author: Keith King
Summary: Can the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Didache actually be considered lost books, or was there another reason they weren't included in the Bible?
Whether a book is considered “lost” depends on how we define the Bible. If it is a supernatural book inspired by God and preserved by God, then there cannot be any “lost books.”
Obviously, if God inspired His Word it would be up to Him to preserve His Word so that human beings would be able to read it and benefit from it. It would be counter to His character that God would produce a supernatural message for all humankind, and then allow parts of that message to be lost. The idea of “lost books” is not valid if we accept that God inspired and preserved His Word.
What if we think the Scriptures are merely a human invention of the early Church? Then the so-called “lost books” would be excluded by the early Church—but the early Church would be those who have the most right to define what Christianity is, because they are the original believers. So from a purely human perspective, if the early Church rejected a book from Scripture, it would have to be because that book does not teach what the early Church believed.
If the Bible is a purely human invention, then those who assembled it have every right to include or exclude whatever books they felt would express what they truly believed. The idea of “lost books” is not valid if we accept that the early Church assembled the Bible according to their beliefs.
So our inescapable conclusion is simply this: there are no such things as truly “lost books.” Both according to faith or logic, the concept cannot be supported.
The books that are being uncovered and promoted today as “lost” books usually support the heretical doctrines of various groups The Lord has inspired and preserved His Word down through the centuries, and continues to do so. The “lost books” are lost for good reason—they should never have been considered in the first place.