We saw in the first article in this series that the LDS Church accepts the same books in the Old Testament that are in the Jewish canon of Scripture and in the Protestant Old Testament. Yet they deny the inspiration of one of those books (Song of Solomon) without dropping it from their scriptures, while they fault the Old Testament for lacking other books. We will explore this criticism about missing books here.
The Mormon Argument about “Lost Books”
The premise of the argument is that the Old Testament itself contains references to books not found in the Old Testament. The LDS Church’s own Bible Dictionary, in an entry on “Lost Books,” describes these books as “those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following. . . .” The entry then lists eleven of these “lost books.”[1]
The statement that the books are “sometimes called missing scripture” is soon clarified to be the LDS Church’s own position. The entry thus goes on to assert that the Old Testament references to these books are “rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible.” It further states that these references “attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.”
The significance of this argument in the context of the LDS religion is that the supposedly missing scriptures of the Bible are precedent for the production of new scriptures, including other lost books, especially the Book of Mormon. As Kristian S. Heal and Zach Stevenson put it, “The canon had once been bigger, so why not again?”[2]
This argument has been part of Mormon apologetics going back to Joseph Smith himself, who commented on the “lost books” as early as 1833, just three years after publishing the Book of Mormon.[3] In 1842, Benjamin Winchester published a Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures that was a precursor to today’s LDS “Study Aids,” with a list of “books mentioned in the Bible that are not to be found among the sacred writings” that is very similar to the current entries on the topic.[4] The argument was repeated with virtually the same list of “missing scripture” by LDS apostle James Talmage in his popular books Articles of Faith[5] and Jesus the Christ.[6] The Encyclopedia of Mormonism cites some of the same references to support the claim that the Bible “testifies to its own incompleteness” because it “mentions sacred works that are no longer available.”[7] Likewise, LDS apologist Matthew Brown also claims, “The Bible itself provides clear evidence that it is not complete since it mentions scriptural texts that are now missing.”[8] Suffice it to say that this argument is standard fare in Mormon teaching.
What Would Count as “Lost Books of the Bible”?
Let’s be clear as to what the issue is here—and what it is not. First, everyone agrees that at least some of these books (more precisely, scrolls) are “lost” in the sense that they are not extant (i.e., no copies of them are available today). That is an entirely noncontroversial claim.
Second, not everything spoken or written by a prophet was inspired. Nathan’s initial statement that God approved of David building a temple was not inspired, because God then revealed to Nathan that he wanted David’s son to build it instead (2 Sam. 7:1–17). Obviously, David’s letter to Joab arranging for Uriah to be killed in battle (2 Sam. 11:14–15) was not inspired!
Third—and this point may be surprising to Mormons and perhaps some Christians—the traditional Jewish and Christian views of the canon of the Bible (here, specifically what Christians call the Old Testament) do not entail the idea that all inspired writings ever produced during the period of the Bible are, or should be, still extant and included in the Bible. Perhaps God inspired some prophets to write things strictly for their own immediate situation and that were never meant to be included in future collections of scripture.
This leads to my fourth point: The issue is whether any of the lost books were indeed lost books of the Bible, or more precisely lost books of Scripture. That is, were these books that are no longer extant at one time part of a corpus of texts regarded by any group of Jews or Christians as their authoritative collection of inspired writings? That is the real question. If the answer is “no,” then the Bible is not “missing” any books. If a book was never included in a collection of scripture texts used by Jews or Christians, then it was never “lost” from the Scriptures.
Hypothetically, then, texts might have existed that were inspired but were never part of a collection of scriptures. Being inspired is a necessary but not a sufficient criterion for belonging in the Scriptures (or of “the Bible”). This point is often expressed in connection with the concept of the canon of Scripture. As James Sanders states in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, “the concept of inspiration is a broader one than that of canon.”[9] John Peckham puts it this way:
Revelation and inspiration are, therefore, prerequisites of canonical writings. However, not every inspired writing is thereby canonical. In numerous instances, the Bible refers to prophetic and apostolic writings that are not part of the canon. Other books, such as Shepherd of Hermas, were considered by some to be inspired but were not recognized as canonical because they did not meet other criteria, such as apostolicity. Inspiration is, then, a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of canonicity.[10]
In short, we need to ask three questions about each of the biblical texts cited by Mormons as references to “lost books of the Bible.” (1) Are the books indeed missing from the Old Testament? If they aren’t, then of course they aren’t lost at all. (2) Were those books that are lost inspired texts? Hypothetically, we might be able to answer yes, no, or maybe, depending on what information we have about them. According to Mormon apologist Richard Hopkins, “The context of the references indicates that many, if not all, were inspired.”[11] However, Hopkins makes no attempt to show that the context supports this assessment. (3) If they were (possibly) inspired, were they ever considered scripture? We need to look at these references carefully to answer these questions on a case-by-case basis.
The “Lost Books” entry in the LDS Bible Dictionary lists the following examples of books lost from the Old Testament:
. . . book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19). . . .[12]
A similar list of references appears in the LDS Church’s Topical Guide (also bound with its standard works) in its entry “Scriptures, Lost.”[13] We turn, then, to examine these references.
The Book of the Wars of the Lord and “the Book of Jashar”
Numbers 21:14a introduces a short quotation of a song or poetic text (found in 21:14b–15) as coming from “the Book of the Wars of the Lord.”[14] The passage goes on to quote two more pieces of poetry (21:17b–18, 27b–30), introducing them with the statements, “Then Israel sang this song” (21:17a) and “Therefore the ballad singers say” (21:27a). Because these three quotations are all poetic, all come in the same context, and all deal with Israel’s actions at specific locations, there is a very good chance, even if we cannot be sure, that they all came from the same “Book of the Wars of the Lord.”[15]
In the famous passage in the Book of Joshua about the sun standing still, another bit of poetry is quoted, followed by the statement (as usually translated), “Is it not written in the Book of Jashar?” (“Jasher,” KJV; Josh. 10:12–13). The word translated “Jashar” (Heb., yāšar) means righteous, just, or upright, leading most commentators in recent years to understand the title to mean something like “the Book of the Just” (NJB) or “the Scroll of the Upright One” (NET; cf. the marginal readings in CSB, NLT, and REB).[16]
The issue gets even more complicated. The ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, commonly called the Septuagint (LXX), does not have this reference here to a book at all. 2 Samuel 1:18 also introduces a song or poem—David’s lament over the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:19–27)—as being “written in the Book of Jashar” (ESV) or “in the scroll of the Upright one” (NET). Here the LXX does refer to the book, calling it “the book of the righteous one” (epi bibliou tou euthous). The LXX rendering of 2 Samuel 1:18 supports understanding both references to refer to “the righteous one” rather than to an unknown person named Jashar.[17] Duane Christensen concludes: “Thus, it is commonly assumed that the title refers either to the heroic individuals who are the subjects of its contents or perhaps to all Israel as the upright people. If the latter is the case, the title may be related to the term Jeshurun, a variant form of the name Israel (cf. Deut 32:15 and 33:5, 26).”[18]
No indication or hint is given that the Book of the Wars of the Lord or the Book of the Upright (or Jashar) were inspired or were ever considered scripture. Commentator Trent Butler observed, “What is noteworthy is that the Hebrew tradition understood its scripture as based on even more ancient sources.”[19] One may reasonably view David’s lament as inspired, but this does not imply that the book that contained it was inspired as a whole. Rather, both books appear to have been treated as historical source material that in one instance contained a text that was inspired.
Book of the Acts of Solomon
The book of 1 Kings concludes its account of the reign of Solomon as follows: “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?” (1 Kings 11:41). It then notes that Solomon reigned 40 years, died, and was succeeded by his son Rehoboam (11:42–43).
Curiously, a Google search for information about Mormon perspectives on this book generated the following AI statement: “There is no indication in the Bible Dictionary or standard LDS teachings that this book is considered scripture or necessary for salvation.” Yet the Bible Dictionary includes this book in a list of books it says are “sometimes called missing scripture” and that are “rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible.” In addition, the LDS Church’s Topical Guide (also published with its “standard works” includes the book in its list such texts in the entry “Scriptures, Lost.”[20] Thus, although the LDS Church does not consider the Book of the Acts of Solomon to be “necessary for salvation” (which would be awful even for Mormons if the book doesn’t exist!), it does consider it to be lost scripture.
The fact is that 1 Kings 11:41 treats the Book of the Acts of Solomon simply as an historical source, not necessarily as inspired or as scripture. The point being made is that the account of Solomon’s reign given in 1 Kings was based on an earlier source (at least closer to the time of Solomon), which contained further information than what we find in 1 Kings.[21] “The royal annals of Solomon contained a more complete record of the events surrounding his administration, but the account recorded in Scripture is God’s inspired message, given for the instruction and benefit of the reader.”[22]
Historical Sources
The Book of the Acts of Solomon is just one of the sources that the Old Testament historical books reference for their accounts of the kings. There are about fifty citations to historical sources in Kings and Chronicles (and one in Esther). The LDS works cited earlier ignore almost all of these references, presumably because the LDS authors viewed the books as just historical source materials and not inspired or scriptural texts.
In 1–2 Kings, its sources are called “Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” and “Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19, 29). The Hebrew word translated “Chronicles” in these texts, dabar, has a broad range of meanings including words, acts, deeds, and so on. Indeed, it is the word translated “Acts” in 1 Kings 11:41. In none of these texts does the term refer to what we call 1 and 2 Chronicles. These sources for 1–2 Kings may have included court documents, such as annals, that gave chronological and historical information about the reigns of the various kings.[23] The books of 1–2 Chronicles, which everyone agrees were written after 1–2 Kings, cites sources called “Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel” and variations thereof (e.g., 2 Chron. 16:11; 20:34; 35:27). These references to the “Book of the Kings” may very well refer to what we know as 1–2 Kings and provide further insight into its sources, as we shall explain next.
The Books of Samuel and Kings Written by Prophets
We know that some of the prophets during the period of the divided kingdom wrote historical accounts, some of which have come down to us in the Old Testament historical books. This is stated most explicitly regarding Isaiah: “Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, from first to last, Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz wrote” (2 Chron. 26:22). There are several other references in 1–2 Chronicles to historical writings by various prophets. The first of these references concerns David:
“Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer” (1 Chron. 29:29).
There has been much academic debate about the specific texts to which this statement refers. A common explanation is that it probably refers to the books of Samuel and Kings. Most of the prophets mentioned in source citations in Chronicles are found in Samuel and Kings, and what Chronicles says about those prophets can all be found in those books.[24] Evidently, “many or all of the prophetic sources are actually passages from the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, cited by their main content, a format known from elsewhere in antiquity.”[25] Since this explanation is at least plausible, references in Chronicles to historical writings by prophets do not prove that prophetic writings are missing from the Old Testament canon.
We discussed earlier the statement in 1 Kings about the “Book of the Acts of Solomon.” This statement closely parallels one in Chronicles:
“Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?” (1 Kings 11:41).
“Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chron. 9:29)
We already know from 1 Chronicles 29:29 that Nathan, who was prominent in David’s reign and in the transition to Solomon’s reign (2 Sam. 7, 12; 1 Kings 8), was one of the sources behind Chronicles, and probably behind the relevant sections of Samuel and Kings. Nathan might even have been the principal figure responsible for the “Book of the Acts of Solomon” cited as the source in 1 Kings 11:41. This wouldn’t make the Book of the Acts of Solomon an inspired book, but even if it was, it was never part of a collection of scriptural texts.
Ahijah first appears in the Old Testament in 1 Kings 11:29–30, shortly before the statement in 11:41 about the Book of the Acts of Solomon. Ahijah appears several times throughout 1 Kings 11–14, making him a plausible source of at least some of that textual material. An unnamed prophet’s vision and his interaction with Jeroboam is narrated in 1 Kings 13:1–10, and this might well have been Iddo, the prophet named in connection to Jeroboam in 2 Chronicles 9:29. Thus, a good case can be made that this text was referring to the narratives about Solomon and his successors in the early half of 1 Kings.[26] Likewise, “the Chronicles of the Seers” (“sayings of the seers,” 2 Chron. 33:19) probably refers to “the biblical book of Kings as coming from prophetic sources.”[27]
In short, quite a few of the references cited by the LDS Church to support its claim about “lost scriptures” most likely are not referring to lost books at all, but to what we call the books of Samuel and Kings. Again, these books in turn clearly drew on earlier sources, but we have no reason to think those earlier sources were ever regarded as scripture.
Conclusion
There are books cited in the Old Testament as historical sources that are no longer extant, but these books were never regarded as scripture. There are also books cited in the Old Testament as written by prophets, but these books are what we know as 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings or that are sources embedded in those books. We do not know of any books authored by prophets during the Old Testament era that are lost.
Again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that we have all of the inspired words produced by prophets in Old Testament times. There may have been songs or other compositions from prophetic figures that were inspired but were never incorporated into the texts of the Old Testament books. We are told that Solomon spoke three thousand proverbs and sang over a thousand songs (1 Kings 4:32). We don’t have all of this prodigious output of Solomon, nor should we be concerned that we don’t.
Since the Old Testament Scriptures consist of inspired writings regarded by Jews as belonging in their collection of sacred texts, books and other inspired compositions that were never part of such a collection were never part of the Bible and in that context were never “lost.”
The bottom line is that the Old Testament contains no clear references to lost books that were ever considered scripture, and thus there are no “lost books of the Bible.” Ironically, Joseph Smith made no attempt to “restore” any of the supposedly lost books of the Bible. Instead, he produced supposedly ancient scriptures never mentioned in the Bible. Biblical references to such works as the so-called Book of Jashar (lost but not scripture) or the “Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel” (scripture but not lost) do nothing to establish the need or even the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham.
NOTES
[1] The Holy Bible . . . Authorized King James Version, with Explanatory Notes and Cross References to the Standard Works (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013), 681–82 (also available on churchofjesuschrist.org).
[2] Kristian S. Heal and Zach Stevenson, “How the Book of Mormon Reads Ancient Religious Texts,” BYU Studies Quarterly 61.3 (2022): 104 (103–21).
[3] See Heal and Stevenson, “How the Book of Mormon Reads Ancient Religious Texts,” 105–6.
[4] Benjamin Winchester, Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures, and concordance, in which the synonymous passages are arranged together.—Chiefly designed to illustrate the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints (Philadelphia: United States Book and Printing Office, 1842), 23.
[5] James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith: Being a Consideration of the Principal Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 13th ed. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1924), 501.
[6] James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission according to Holy Scriptures both Ancient and Modern, 6th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1922), 119–20.
[7] Robert A. Cloward, “Lost Scripture,” in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 845.
[8] Matthew B. Brown, All Things Restored: Confirming the Authenticity of LDS Beliefs (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2000), 185.
[9] James A. Sanders, “Canon: Hebrew Bible,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman, editor in chief (New York: Doubleday, 1992; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, reprint), 1:850. Sanders pits this distinction against conservative evangelicals, but his own example of John Calvin shows that there is nothing inherent in the evangelical view of Scripture that militates against the distinction between inspiration and canonicity.
[10] John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 38–39.
[11] Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1994), 249.
[12] The Holy Bible . . . Authorized King James Version, with Explanatory Notes and Cross References to the Standard Works (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013), 681–82.
[13] Holy Bible, 438.
[14] Biblical quotations taken from the ESV unless stated otherwise. For a list of English Bible versions and their abbreviations (with brief descriptions), see Robert M. Bowman Jr., “English Bibles: 25 English Versions of Scripture,” Academia.edu, 2025.
[15] Alice H. Hudiburg, “Wars of the Lord, Book of the,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1366; James R. Davila, “Quotations from Lost Books in the Hebrew Bible: A New Translation and Introduction, with an Excursus on Quotations from Lost Books in the New Testament,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, edited by Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 674.
[16] E.g., Davila, “Quotations from Lost Books in the Hebrew Bible,” 674.
[17] Scholars have also speculated that the LXX refers to this same book when it cites “the Book of the Song” (1 Kings 8:53 LXX, not in the Hebrew text). They point out that the Hebrew word for “song” (šyr) has the same three letters as the word for “righteous” (yšr) but in a different order, and they suggest that the first two letters were transposed. See, e.g., Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Revised Edition), vol. 3, 1 Samuel–2 Kings, edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 302.
[18] Duane L. Christensen, “Jashar, Book of,” in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 3:646.
[19] Trent C. Butler, Joshua, WBC 7 (Dallas: Word, 1984), 117.
[20] The Holy Bible (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2013), 438.
[21] Davila, “Quotations from Lost Books in the Hebrew Bible,” 677–78.
[22] Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Revised Edition), 3:736.
[23] Mordechai Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 10 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 90.
[24] Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 12A (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 958.
[25] Davila, “Quotations from Lost Books in the Hebrew Bible,” 681.
[26] Martin J. Selman, 2 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 11 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 375; see also Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles: A Commentary, Hermeneia ed. Paul D. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 148.
[27] Klein, 2 Chronicles, 485–486; cf. Selman, 2 Chronicles, 545.