Jump to content

Lost Books of the Bible: The Great Rejected Texts


Guntis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lost Books of the Bible: The Great Rejected Texts by Joseph B. Lumpkin.

ISBN13: 9781933580661. © 2009 Joseph B. Lumpkin. Contact Fifth Estate Publishers, Post Office Box 116, Blountsville, AL 35031.

 

This book contains:

 

 

The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of Enoch
Introduction to The Second Book of Enoch:
The Book of Jubilees
Jasher
The Story of Ahikar
APOCALYPTIC WRITINGS AND THE END OF DAYS
The Apocalypse of Abraham
Apocalypse of Thomas
4 EZRA / 2 ESDRAS
2 Baruch - History
Conclusion
The War Scrolls - The War Between the Sons of Dark and the Sons of Light
The War Scroll
LOST SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Introduction to Gnosticism
History of the Gospel of Philip
History of The Gospel Of Mary Magdalene
History of The Apocryphon of John
The Apocryphon of John
History of The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel Of Thomas
The Question of Judas
* The Gospel of Judas
The 29th Chapter of Acts
I think these could be good materials for the Bible students. I already found several interesting references.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so Acts 29 is not just a ubiquitous ministry name?



(no offense intended to anyone on the forums who is part of any Acts 29 ministry)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that English translations of some of these books would be welcome additions to Accordance, these translations are quite dated and have been superceded by modern scholarship. I would suggest the standard editions of Old Testament pseudepigrapha and New Testament apocrypha: Charlesworth's The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha. Each work is a two-volume set that includes most of the ancient writings usually included in these categories, along with copious introductions and notes.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I delayed writing a response to the original posting after I checked the website of the publisher. I might describe their output as "esoteric" and (probably unfair) comparisons to the National Inquirer and other sensationalist works came to mind.

 

I would like to see a serious scholarly publisher behind such works, such as those suggested by Matthew.

 

(No insult to any individual or publisher intended.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both Alistair and Matthew.

 

In fact, I have been advocating Charlesworth's two-volume set for some time (as it is more in my area), though Schneemelcher's New Testament Apocrypha would be equally welcome.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how it relates to the other works mentioned, I have a paper copy of The Apocryphal New Testament by Montague Rhodes James (OUP 1955). Is that any good? Has it been revised or updated since?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been pursuing Charlesworth for a long time (the work, not the scholar who treated us to a delightful dinner recently).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how it relates to the other works mentioned, I have a paper copy of The Apocryphal New Testament by Montague Rhodes James (OUP 1955). Is that any good? Has it been revised or updated since?

 

This is a standard translation of New Testament apocrypha that originally appeared in the 1920s. It was widely used until the appearance of more modern editions, such as R. McL. Wilson's edition of Hennecke-Schneemelcher (the work I mentioned above). Specifically, it has been superceded by J. K. Elliott's The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Elliott's introduction describes his work as a successor to James.

 

Elliott's work would also be an excellent addition to Accordance, but I've heard through the grapevine that OUP can be difficult to work with at times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Chuckle] Matthew, I think I've been listening to the same grapevine! :unsure:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Of course these are no lost books of the Bible. Pseudepigrapha is not scripture. Still they are interesting. But why leave out the Dormition of Mary (which has a very interesting instance of apostasia for a literal [non-doctrinal] departure)?

 

As to OUP, why didn't Scofield & the NSRB folk, have trouble working with them? Or did they?

 

Isn't RH Charlesworth (1913) public domain by now?

Edited by Enoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlesworth's OTP was published in 1983…not public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't RH Charlesworth (1913) public domain by now?

 

This is surprisingly tricky, since the two major translations of Old Testament apocrypha and pseudepigrapha have been edited by scholars with very similar names! The two-volume edition edited by R. H. Charles was published in 1913, and is now in the public domain. PDF editions are freely available through websites such as archive.org. (An Accordance module is also available. See here.) The two-volume edition edited by James Charlesworth was published in 1983 and 1985. Although Charles' edition retains some value, Charlesworth's edition is now the scholarly standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this will make someone smile. As I'm not in academic circles, I have to ask where Bart Ehrman fits in with his lost christianities (2003) and lost scriptures (2003), both OUP? I had assumed the latter is his translation. How do they equate with those mentioned above? ( not asking for them to be added to accordance) just wondered how they are regarded amongst scholars. ;o)

Edited by ukfraser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this will make someone smile. As I'm not in academic circles, I have to ask where Bart Ehrman fits in with his lost christianities (2003) and lost scriptures (2003), both OUP? I had assumed the latter is his translation. How do they equate with those mentioned above? ( not asking for them to be added to accordance) just wondered how they are regarded amongst scholars. ;o)

 

Ehrman's Lost Scriptures, like some of the other works mentioned above, is a compilation and translation of primary sources. Some have been translated by Ehrman himself; others are taken from standard translations of New Testament apocrypha. (For example, the translations of most of the Nag Hammadi documents are those that appear in James M. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library in English.) I haven't heard of any serious objections to the translations themselves. When I was in college, we used the book in a class on New Testament apocrypha.

 

Ehrman's Lost Christianities, on the other hand, is a monograph on the development of early Christianity, not a collection of primary texts. Some scholars buy his conclusions; others don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Ah, so Acts 29 is not just a ubiquitous ministry name?

 

(no offense intended to anyone on the forums who is part of any Acts 29 ministry)

None taken.

 

I find the Sonnini Manuscript to be a very interesting work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just come across this thread.

 

As M. R. James died in 1936, and anything published by him would almost certainly have been first published in England and Wales, his The Apocryphal New Testament should be safely out of copyright - as should be his ghost stories and his Old Testament Legends. These are available on Project Gutenberg, but as far as I know, nobody has converted The Apocryphal New Testament for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...