Missing Biblical Manuscripts Quoted From; Where Did They Go?

[Norman]

Manuscripts Missing from the Bible

Exodus:24:7.........Book of the Covenant
Numbers 21:14.......Book of Wars of the Lord
Joshua 10:13........The Book of Jasher
1-Kings 11:41.......Book of the Acts of Solomon
1-Chronicles 29:29..Books of Nathan and Gad
2-Chronicles 9:29...Prophecy of Ahijah and visions of Iddo
2-Chronicles 20:34..Book of Jehu
2-Chronicles 26:22..Acts of Uzziah
2-Chronicles 33:19..Sayings of the Seers
1-Corinthians 5:9...An earlier epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
Ephesians 3:3.......Another epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
Colossians 4:16.....An epistle of Paul from Loadicea
Jude 3..............Former epistle of Jude
Jude 14.............Prophecies of Enoch

What happened to these other missing manuscripts? They were important enough to quote from or the letters from Paul that is missing. Why do we not have them now?

 

[John_Stewart]

What happened? They dropped out of use or were otherwise lost - through weather, war, or weariness.
"important enough to quote from" - so what. I believe you are equating those missing "books" and letters with Scripture, is that correct? And as Scripture, we should be desperate to find them, read them, and learn doctrine and proper behavior from them, is that correct?
If that is correct, then do you feel the same way about Epicurus, Menander, Epimenedes, and the Stoic poet of Stoli, whose teachings and writings are referenced in the New Testament? If you feel the same way, have you been seeking to read and understand their teachings as much as you have the Bible and/or Book of Mormon? And if you have not been applying yourself to their teachings with any significant amount of devotion, than why should anyone believe you when (if) you propose that the alleged "lost" books of the Bible deserve devotion equal to legitimate scripture? Why do you not use them now, considering that we have them now?

 

[McBell]

What happened? They dropped out of use or were otherwise lost - through weather, war, or weariness.
"important enough to quote from" - so what. I believe you are equating those missing "books" and letters with Scripture, is that correct? And as Scripture, we should be desperate to find them, read them, and learn doctrine and proper behavior from them, is that correct?
If that is correct, then do you feel the same way about Epicurus, Menander, Epimenedes, and the Stoic poet of Stoli, whose teachings and writings are referenced in the New Testament? If you feel the same way, have you been seeking to read and understand their teachings as much as you have the Bible and/or Book of Mormon? And if you have not been applying yourself to their teachings with any significant amount of devotion, than why should anyone believe you when (if) you propose that the alleged "lost" books of the Bible deserve devotion equal to legitimate scripture? Why do you not use them now, considering that we have them now?

Actually, the Nicene Counsel decided to exclude them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

They probably existed for many years, but no one thought it worth copying them as they wore out. The same thing happened to the Didache. But one monk thought it worth while to make another copy for their library, so one complete one came down to us. As well a a few fragments from other sites.
It is possible that other of the missing books could still be in existance. Probably not in any major library that has been fully indexed. But may be amongst private papers or small official libraries in the back aand beyond. Or even sewn in amongst other books as the Didache was.

 

[John_Stewart]

Actually, the Nicene Counsel decided to exclude them.

Well, as I had written, "They had dropped out of use" - or otherwise been ignored. However, it is misleading to say the Nicene Council was somehow the agent of excluding more than a couple (if indeed any) of them. As far as I am aware, there were no Book of the Covenant, no Book of Wars of the Lord, and no epistle to the Corinthians, or legitimate epistle from Laodicea, under consideration. In addition, I would point out that the Council was not deciding to eliminate anything from the Bible, but was affirming that those books which were generally approved were accepted, and those which were generally disapproved, or approved among a limited minority, could be only deuterocanonical at best, and anathema at worst. In other words, it was making a statement on what was already generally believed.