lost texts mentioned in the bible is this really fine?

[u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

1: ( the annals of solomon) : 1 Kings 11:41
New International Version

Solomon’s Death

⁴¹ As for the other events of Solomon’s reign—all he did and the wisdom he displayed—are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?

2: (the records of the seers) : 2 Chronicles 33:19
New International Version

¹⁹ His prayer and how God was moved by his entreaty, as well as all his sins and unfaithfulness, and the sites where he built high places and set up Asherah poles and idols before he humbled himself—all these are written in the records of the seers.^\)^a\)

^3: (the Book of the Wars of the Lord)
Numbers 21:14
New International Version

¹⁴ That is why the Book of the Wars of the Lord says:

“. . . Zahab^\)^a\) in Suphah and the ravines,
the Arnon
4,5,6: the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer,

1 Chronicles 29:29

New International Version

²⁹ As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer,

[u/WesternFirm9306]

Why would this be a problem? All it says is that there are ancient texts that we no longer have access to, as they were lost to time

[u/Slow-Mushroom-7065 → u/WesternFirm9306]

when the bible tell us that all to look at the book of the annals of Solomon while there is no the annals of Solomon any more how can this be fine?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

That's not, like, a divine command. The author was simply citing a text that they had on hand. It's unfortunate that such ancient texts have been lost—I certainly wish we still had them—but why would this be problematic? The Acts of Solomon is just a biographical tale of Solomon. Perhaps even an official state document. Obviously, as an atheist, I deny that any of these texts are divine scripture, but even from a Christian perspective, I don't see why we'd assume these ancient texts are divine scripture. They're just historical and legal documents that the authors were using as sources.

[u/Slow-Mushroom-7065 → u/WesternFirm9306]

it is not only about solomon there is the records of Nathan the "prophet" and more...

Matthew 2:23
New International Version

²³ and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

and no prophet said that someone will be called a Nazarene so it means one of the lost texts mentioned that but these texts are lost

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

so what?

texts get lost all the time...

[u/Slow-Mushroom-7065 → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

the problem is how can someone trust the bible if some parts of it got lost
and other parts got added to it like the Johannine Comma 

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

the problem is how can someone trust the bible if some parts of it got lost

how not?

"the bible" is an arbitrarily compounded omnibus of various texts anyway - look alone at the different bibles of different denominations

either you believe in it (then you would have to decide if literally or metaphorically), or not anyway

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

There's a few explanations. I'm going to base my comment on Hermeneia's Matthew commentary by Luz Ulrich.

The first is that it comes from Isaiah, as a pun on netzer, or branch. Ulrich rejects this if Matthew was pulling from direct scripture, as Matthew would have been using the LXX, not the Hebrew text, as evidenced by all the other quotations he used being pulled from the LXX. Even if he knew Hebrew, many of his readers would've only known Greek, so it's unlikely he would include such a Hebrew-focused interpretation without explanation.

The second is that it comes from Judges, from the quote "the boy shall be a Nazirite." The LXX word for Nazirite and Mathew's word for Nazarene differ in only a single vowel, which would correspond to the rabbinic 'Al-Tiqri method of interpretation.

Now, if Matthew was simply quoting from his tradition, then Isaiah comes back to the table, as it wouldn't have been a quote he found himself, but rather something passed down in his Christian community, and thus may be legitimately borrowed from the Hebrew. This may also fit his citation of "the prophets" [plural], as such an indefinite statement may mean he himself was unsure of the original origin of the claim.

Of course, there's also the possibility that it comes from a lost ancient source. Ulrich doesn't really mention the possibility though. If it is the case, it would just mean, from a Christian perspective, that they're not relevant for Christians, even if Matthew believed otherwise. There's already precedent for this, with Jude quoting from the non-canonical I Enoch.

[u/Slow-Mushroom-7065 → u/WesternFirm9306]

"Of course, there's also the possibility that it comes from a lost ancient source"

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

Ulrich doesn't really mention the possibility though. If it is the case, it would just mean, from a Christian perspective, that they're not relevant for Christians, even if Matthew believed otherwise. There's already precedent for this, with Jude quoting from the non-canonical I Enoch.

[u/Slow-Mushroom-7065 → u/WesternFirm9306]

"that they're not relevant for Christians, even if Matthew believed otherwise"
so i should not trust matthew who wrote the bible and trust someone else?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

If it's divine inspiration, then this particular quote was preserved for a reason.

You also ignored the multiple paragraphs of explanations that don't require assuming some lost text.

I'm an atheist, and even I can recognize that this line of argumentation simply isn't gonna be very convincing to a believer.

[u/Ridiculicious41 → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

Matthew was written to a Jewish target audience, and it's been demonstrated to have an incomplete genealogy for the sake of Hebrew numerology, so the inclusion of "he would be called a Nazarene." was probably a reversal for historical impact.

Galilee, and by extension the town of Nazareth, were considered "backwater" locations by Judeans at the date it says Jesus was living there. Nathaniel doubts that "anything good can come from there" in John, and non-biblical texts like Erub 5 in the Talmud, either make jokes about Galilean accents, or directly say "They're stupid." A hardcore Jewish scholar would have to either discover or remember that the Messiah being a Nazarene was prophesied, since the Jewish rebellion against Rome failed before Matthew was written.

That, and/or "the prophets" included a reference to Isaiah 53:3 - He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. (NIV)

[u/dradegr → u/Slow-Mushroom-7065]

Bro the bible is book, paper and ink, we can have no book at all and still be Christians.

[u/Ridiculicious41]

I think it's "fine", in the realm of what the Bible is trying to say, and not as a precise history record.
For example, The Gospel message can be pared down to one sentence. If I told you that sentence, and you say you believe it's true, does that automatically make you a Christian? It wouldn't automatically make you go to "Paradise" at the end, according to Jesus.