NT texts inspired outside the protestant canon

Here is my list of NT texts outside the protestant canon that are inspired. I believe the internal dates, and claims of authorship of all these texts.

The follow internally date to before 70 AD:

Gospel of Nicodemus
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Protoevangelium of James
Didascalia Apostolorum Teaching of the Apostles.
Acts of Barnabas (not epistle of Barnabas or Gospel of Barnabas)
3 Corinthians (letter only)
Didache
Apocalypse of Peter
Revelation of the Magi.
2 Clement

The following have no internal date but I believe they were written pre 70 AD, and are therefore inspired:
Pseudo gospel of Matthew (Jerome said written by Mathew the apostle).
Acts of Peter, and Paul (different than apocryphal acts of the apostles). I believe was written 65/66 AD.

Possible
Infancy gospel of Thomas. Some manuscripts say written by Thomas the Israelite which I assume to be Thomas the apostle.
Gospel of Barthelemew : uses gamatria references wisdom of Solomon which internally is written by Solomon, and also uses gematria. If one is real I assume the other one is too I am just skeptical of gematria. I like both.

All are on audiobook on YouTube.


Daniel 9 gave a series of events to happen, and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and one thing that was going to happen by then was vision, and prophecy would be sealed up aka inspired scripture would stop then so that is why NT texts with internal dates before 70 AD are essentially claiming to be inspired, and some have prophecies of 70 AD associated phenomena in which case they are automatically claiming to be inspired. I'd recommend listening to all of the above on audiobook or they are all on websites as text or annas archive is the free e book website. These texts are incorrectly labelled as pseudepigrapha, and a lot are in the multi volume books called NT apocrypha which contains a lot of books I do not believe were written pre 70 AD.

For OT ones the most important ones are 1 Enoch, Assumption of Moses, Life of Adam, and Eve, and there are a lot more.

ARBITER01 said:

- Any text that is considered to be possibly inspired will not disagree with the rest of canon. It will not create a contradiction.

- Any text that is considered to be possibly inspired will have the imprint of The Holy Spirit in it and create a quickening effect when read.

Click to expand...

that is good thanks for the comment

ViaCrucis said:

We don't get to just decide something is Scripture because we want it to be.

The Bible is the result of two thousand years of Christian consensus. There isn't a 100% universal consensus--that's why there continues to be disagreement over the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. But where there do exist disagreements of significant note, these are always over the same books--not just any book. For the Old Testament debates continue over the Deuterocanonicals. In the past there were debates over the New Testament Antilegomena. The Antilegomena were the "disputed books", these include some books which are no longer disputed (such as 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, James, and the Revelation of John) and also includes books which ultimately did not gain broad consensus and are recognized as outside the Canon: e.g. the Shepherd, the Didache, Clement's Epistle (aka 1 Clement), and Epistle of Barnabas.

Just because a text is not Scripture doesn't make it worthless. Even if the Deuterocanonical books are non-inspired and non-Canonical doesn't prevent them from being important. Martin Luther, who we can credit for giving us the modern Protestant Old Testament, while rejecting the Deuterocanonicals' status as Scripture in the proper sense, nevertheless believed these books should continue to be read and used by faithful Christians because they are helpful, beneficial, and good. In the same way, the Didache may not be Scripture, but it is certainly a good and helpful text that reflects ancient Christian faith and practice.

So while the list of texts the OP mentions are definitely not Scripture, that doesn't mean they are all bad texts. They can provide information about how early Christians thought about certain subjects, e.g. the Protoevangelium of James provides us with ideas about Mary and Jesus' infancy that were around in the 2nd-3rd centuries; and so while not Scripture, not inspired, does have usefulness. Now was Mary a Temple virgin? Unlikely, the concept of temple virgins was normal in pagan Greco-Roman culture and religion (e.g. Vestal Virgins) but has no basis in Jewish religion and practice, neither in Old Testament period nor in the 2nd Temple period. But we can see traditions and ideas about Mary, for example Mary's parents of Hanna and Joachim are given here, reflecting early Christian tradition. There is also obviously a desire to explain Mary's virginity as part of a religious responsibility she carries, hence presenting her as a Jewish counter-part to the pagan temple virgin motif: to highlight Mary as important, and so she was set on the path to receive God's favor to bear the Messiah from an early age, so this does reflect early and emerging honor toward the Lord's mother. Some may see this as a good thing, others as a bad thing: I'm merely presenting it as neutral--it is what it is. Early Christians wanted to know more about the lives of important people, and obviously the mother of Jesus is an important person in the history and story of Christianity--even if the details given in the Protoevangelium of James are ahistorical and fictitious, it does reflect that interest, it reflects early Christian respect given toward Mary as a saint chosen by God to give birth to Jesus, and likely does preserve old Christian traditions already extent (such as the names of Mary's parents).

The Protoevangelium is certainly not Scripture. Nobody ever thought it was. But that doesn't make it useless--for the reasons explained above.

Click to expand...

If ant any point you want to provide any evidence of your claims maybe study this a bit first


1/2 or so of the "deuterocanon" books are internally written before 400 BC just so you know, and in the LXX, and vulgate are interspersed throughout the other OT books. It only got the name 'deuterocanon' due to Luther. Yes they are inspired too but only for the wise like the other books I listed.

Reluctant Theologian said:

As this list is a lot larger than the Protestant Canon .. what were your criteria to consider these 'inspired', and does 'inspired' to your understanding also mean 'infallible' ? In other words, what led to your understanding as such?

Click to expand...

good question

#1 inspired scripture stopped 70 AD. Daniel 9 ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and said vision, and prophecy would be sealed up by then aka inspired scripture would stop. so for something to possibly be inspired it has to internally date before then or I just have to believe it was written before then if it has no internal date.

If the text has a prophecy of something that came true it is inspired. Eg Tobit internally is written in the 700s, and 600s BC, and prophecies the day of Pentecost therefore it is inspired. The oldest manuscripts are from 100 BC so that adds more weight to it I suppose although I personally do not necessarily need very old manuscripts to believe the internal date or claims of authorship of a text

2 Maccabees (no internal date or claim to authorship) quotes a prophecy from 4 Baruch (internally written by Baruch 500s BC) about Pentecost therefore both are inspired.

As for just the NT ones I listed the ones that have an internal date pre 70 ad contain just that- eg the preface of Gospel of Nic says a Christian around 400 AD retrieved texts that had been deposited with Pilate and translated them rom hebrew into greek . section 1 of gospel of nic is the letter from Pilate to Claudius Caesar. section 2 claims to be written by Simeons 2 sons that were some of the people that raised from the dead the day Jesus was killed. The author of the preface says Nicodemus the believing pharisee that in the text itself gives testimony recorded the events in hebrew. Nicodemus possibly gathered the texts, and translated them into hebrew as the letter from Pilate would of been in Latin likely maybe Greek and the writings of the 2 sons well that may of been in hebrew as well dont know. Nicodemus may of collated the two into one volume of work though.

History of Joseph the carpenter at the start says

His whole life was one hundred and eleven years, and his departure from this world
happened on the twenty-sixth of the month Abib, which answers to the month Ab. May his
prayer preserve us! Amen. And, indeed, it was our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who related
this history to His holy disciples on the Mount of Olives, and all Joseph's labour, and the
end of his days. And the holy apostles have preserved this conversation, and have left it
written down in the library at Jerusalem. May their prayers preserve us! Amen


Proto James gives all the evidence needed to assess the text in one sentence at the end

And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history. And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory to ages of ages. Amen.

It was likely Jesus step brother. He tells future audiences who wrote it, where they wrote it, when it was written, and it is inspired. My dream text as there is no ambiguity of any of those claims. Herod the great died 4bc -1bc. The riots continued all the way up until 70 AD Josephus said but they must of quieted down at some point. The narrative ends with Jesus still a baby so if Herod dies 2 BC Jesus born 1 BC the text is written sometime between say 1 BC, and 10 AD. Or whatever numbers someone wants to use based on the information in the text.

Teaching of the apostles internally claims to be written by the apostles. Not much early witness to this text until the 300s AD when a Christian epiphanius salamis. believes it was written by them

Acts of Barnabas- I can't remember how I dated it would have to loo kat it again.

3 Cor is a letter from Paul

Didache has a prophecy of something to do with 70 AD like the normal NT has therefore puts the internal claim to authorship before 70 AD

Apoc of Peter claims to be written by "I Peter", and has a prophecy of 70 AD related phenomena like in Peter in the NT

Rev of the Magi internally written by the Magi. Doesn't appear until the chronicles of Zuqnin 700s AD, and that is the oldest manuscripts of it too.

2 Clement- I can't remember how I dated it would have to look again at it.

The normal NT is well attested to in hand written manuscripts from before 1400s AD invention of the printing press. 6000 or so in greek 10,000 in latin, 1000s in other languages. because the texts I listed were held in less high regard by early christians they did not transmit them as much/make as money copies of them so there would be expected to be more variants between them (especially in numbers) or in some cases fragmentary (like assumption of moses ). what does infallible even mean? i dont know. one of the biggest variants in bible manuscripts is numbers eg age of the earth in genesis 5 and 11 4000 bc or 5500 bc and 5500 bc is correct from the gospel of nicodemus. that answers that question definitively. i believe they are inspired meaning God breathed whatever it means. Does it mean the author had to be an israelite faithful to the God of Abraham or in AD times a Christian to write inspired scripture? not necessarily because I believe the sibylline oracles are God breathed prophecies about Jesus, and events in the OT (and are not pseudepigrapha) that God gave to pagan sybils- what seemed like demon possessed women that ranted and raved all kind of nonsense and would of worshipped a large amount of gods by the sound of them but every now, and again God would have them give genuine prophecies about Jesus so that people in whatever nation they lived in in BC times could get a chance to hear about the God of Abraham. that was the way he revealed himself to people in BC times to non Israelite nations. I don't know if the letters from Pilate are inspired or not.. although I believe they are historically accurate.

Genesis 2:7 — God breathes → Adam lives

Psalm 33:6 — by God’s breath the heavens exist

Ezekiel 37 — breath gives life to dead bones

Inspired Scripture does not mean:

Dictation in a mechanical trance

Authors lost consciousness

Style or personality erased

Paul, Moses, Isaiah, Luke all write as themselves — but:

What they write is what God intends to be written

This is why Jesus can say:

“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

Authority flows from breath, not later approval

Scripture is authoritative because God breathed it, not because:

a council voted on it

later believers liked it

it survived manuscript transmission

The breath happens at origin, not at canonization.

5️⃣ Why “Scripture” matters in Paul’s statement

Paul says “All Scripture” — not “all religious writing.”

In his context:

Scripture = writings already recognized as from God

Includes Torah, Prophets, Psalms

By extension, apostolic writings received the same status (cf. 2 Peter 3:16)

So inspiration is a category, not a genre label.

6️⃣ Practical implications

If Scripture is God-breathed, then:

It is true (God does not lie)

It is authoritative

It is binding

It is life-giving

It judges us — we do not judge it

This is why Scripture is used for:

teaching

correction

reproof

training in righteousness
(2 Tim 3:16–17)

7️⃣ One critical clarification

“Inspired” does not mean:

“Everything written about God is inspired.”

Only writings that originate from God’s breath qualify.

This is why:

ancient dating

authorship claims

prophetic authority

matter when discussing inspiration.


that was chat GPTs definition of inspired scripture
and

Here is the biblical (not later ecclesiastical) way to recognize inspired—God-breathed—Scripture, using Scripture’s own criteria. This keeps the standard internal and objective, not based on councils or popularity. 1️⃣ It claims to come from God (explicit divine origin) Inspired Scripture speaks in God’s voice, not merely about God. Examples: “Thus says the LORD …” — prophets “The word of the LORD came to me …” — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel Jesus speaking with divine authority in Luke, Matthew Apostles speaking by command, not opinion (1 Cor 14:37) Deuteronomy 18:18 “I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” Inspiration begins with divine self-claim, not later recognition. 2️⃣ Prophetic / apostolic authority (authorized speaker) God-breathed Scripture comes through prophets (OT), Christ, apostles / apostolic circle (NT). 2 Peter 1:21 “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Not everyone who speaks religiously is inspired; office and calling matter. 3️⃣ Accuracy and truthfulness (no false prophecy) Inspired Scripture does not fail in what it asserts. Deuteronomy 18:22 “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass … the LORD has not spoken.” This applies to historical claims, prophetic claims, theological claims. Inspiration is binary: true or false, not “mostly inspired.” 4️⃣ Coherence with prior revelation (non-contradiction) God does not contradict Himself. Isaiah 8:20 “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them.” Inspired Scripture deepens earlier revelation, fulfills it, never overturns God’s character or covenantal truth. 5️⃣ Recognized by other inspired Scripture (internal confirmation) Inspired texts recognize other inspired texts. Examples: Daniel cites Jeremiah as Scripture (Dan 9:2) Jesus cites Torah, Prophets, Psalms as a closed category (Luke 24:44) Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:16) This is Scripture validating Scripture, not councils validating Scripture. 6️⃣ Covenantal authority over God’s people Inspired Scripture commands obedience, judges God’s people, defines covenant faithfulness. Joshua 1:8 John 10:35 “Scripture cannot be broken.” If a writing asks to be evaluated instead of doing the evaluating, it is not Scripture. 7️⃣ The “God-breathed effect” (not emotional, but spiritual authority) Hebrews 4:12 “The word of God is living and active … judging the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Inspired Scripture exposes sin, humbles the reader, brings repentance, produces obedience. This is authority, not inspiration-as-feeling. 8️⃣ Bounded historical window (very important) Biblically, inspiration occurs in defined covenantal periods: Moses → Prophets, Christ → Apostles. Hebrews 1:1–2 Once the covenant is fully revealed and judged (your 70 AD framework), inspiration ceases, not because God stops speaking—but because Scripture is complete. 9️⃣ What does not determine inspiration Age alone Manuscript quantity Popular use Church councils Emotional impact Those may recognize Scripture—but they do not create it. Clean biblical definition Inspired Scripture is writing that originates from God’s breath, spoken through authorized prophets or apostles, proven true, coherent with prior revelation, recognized by other Scripture, and exercising covenantal authority over God’s people. One-line takeaway Inspired Scripture is recognized not by later approval but by divine origin, prophetic authority, truth, internal consistency, and covenantal power—the marks Scripture itself gives.

I see in all those extra texts they fill in the details of things mentioned in the protestant canon but not elaborated on eg what is the deal with this ?Matthew 27:52
52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
Gospel of Nicodemus has more details on that.

The ultimate metric for the bible is 1 Enoch, and after that the Torah, and after that the 4 gospels. Jesus references law psalms and prophets which is this Josephus: Historical Evidence of the Old Testament Canon but he also references 1 Enoch about the angels in heaven not marrying, and calls it scripture, and the Jude 7th from Adam thing so if someone wanted to follow Jesus definition of scripture they end up back at 1 Enoch pre flood, and that becomes the starting metric to judge other texts by.

Also about authors that are not faithful to the God of Abraham

Balaam (Numbers 22–24): a pagan diviner who worshipped other gods, yet spoke true, God-given prophecy, including a messianic star (Num 24:17).

Cyrus of Persia (Isaiah 45:1): a pagan king explicitly called God’s “anointed.”

Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4): speaks God’s truth after divine revelation.

Caiaphas (John 11:49–52): prophesies the saving death of Jesus without understanding it.

Although Cyrus may of been. and Nebuchadnezzar sounds like he was as well.

last chapter of Didache CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache has the same kind of prophecies the normal NT does about things that were going to happen 70 AD https://www.christianforums.com/threads/jude-and-1-enoch.8338493/ so that is how the Didache can be dated to before 70 ad

Yeh I was wrong about Luther, and the word deuterocanon


Sixtus coined the term deuterocanonical to describe certain books of the Catholic Old Testament that had not been accepted as canonical by Jews and Protestants but which appeared in the Septuagint, and the definer for the Roman Catholics of the terms protocanonical and the ancient term apocryphal.[3]

You might want to read this



You transferred authority to Jerome or other early Christians to decide what is inspired, and what is not for you, and then assumed everything else like proto James is pseudepigrapha. After reading my two posts above if you want to provide proof proto James is pseudepigrapha go for it. I will help you out a bit- proof would be internal evidence eg a historical anachronism of some sort eg it mentions Hadrian as emperor of Rome or something else that could not be in the life of the claimed author James (presumably step brother of Jesus), or contemporary external evidence eg someone within a few hundred years of the internal date of claimed authorship said this text claims to be written by so and so but it was not. Jerome never said anything about authorship of the text but he said it was anti Christ- it has Jesus being born of a virgin fulfilling messianic expectations to Abraham. Proto James has the magi arriving the same day Jesus is born pseudo Mathew has them arriving 2 years later, and the normal NT allows for either one to be right. So there is a problem with one of those accounts. As for 1 Enoch if it was written pre flood like it says then it means it is the most important book in history, and the most important inspired bible book in history, and all the Christians teaching it is pseudepigrapha are massive false teachers doing the will of the devil.

Also the word apocrypha goes way back to the first few centuries AD ask chat gpt.

ViaCrucis said:

I'm not the one who decides what is or isn't divinely inspired Scripture. The Bible is not subject to me, I'm subject to the Bible.

The way I know what is and isn't Scripture is through the received faith of Christ's Church.



How about this.

You provide a reason why I should believe the Protoevangelium of James is divinely inspired Scripture. Why should I believe it was written by St. James? And even if it was written by St. James, why should I accept that it's Scripture?

It's not my job to prove it isn't Scripture, the burden of proof rests on you since you're the one making the positive claim.

Click to expand...

It says it was written by someone called James just after Herods death. this is the primary evidence. you need to show evidence it was not if you want to convince me otherwise. you have the burden of proof contradicting what the text says.

ViaCrucis said:

So your position is to believe what every and any text says?

Here is how the Gospel of Barnabas opens:

"Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ, to all them that dwell upon the earth desireth peace and consolation."

So according to you, I should accept the Gospel of Barnabas as Scripture?

Click to expand...

Gospel of Barnabas is medieval Islamic. well at least I thought.. maybe there is Islamic interpolations into it after the first part is actually written by Barnabas. Present your argument as to the history of the text if you think the early parts or some other parts are actually written by Barnabas. I assumed it was all medieval.

ViaCrucis said:

Oh, the Gospel of Barnabas absolutely is a late medieval/early modern forgery that clearly wears its Muslim inspiration on its sleeve.
But according to the standard you've already set, since it claims to be written by Barnabas then it must be written by Barnabas.

When I asked for evidence that the Protoevangelium of James was actually written by James your response was that it claims to be. Well, the Gospel of Barnabas claims to be written by Barnabas.

If we can't rely on the witness of the Church, or on scholarly analysis, and all we can go by is what the text claims for itself--then regardless of the fact that the Gospel of Barnabas appears very late in the early modern period and its clear internal evidence of Muslim doctrinal bias, then we must accept it as genuine. That's the standard you personally have established here.

It's not my standard. That's your standard.

Click to expand...

Proto James does not promote Islam lol. Proto James has nothing that contradicts things in the normal NT. Proto James oldest manuscripts are 300 AD that is only 290 or so years between internal date. I never set the standard you said. There is nothing novel in gospel of Barnabas Muslims took bits, and pieces from the NT claimed Barnabas said it then added all their Muslim stuff saying Jesus was not the messiah. It is Muslim pseudepigrapha not Christian pseudepigrapha. Your best argument is to use ascension of Isaiah which appears to have Christian interpolations making some parts pseudepigrapha.

You have the burden of proof to prove proto james which has manuscripts from 1700 years ago was not written when it says which was only around 300 years prior to the oldest manuscript.