Can I get a list of all the books that are NOT in the Protestant or Catholic Bibles?

[Michaelrh1325]

I was hearing a little bit about the Gospel of Judas yesterday and I'm very intrigued by all of the books considered not scriptural.

Also, where would one find these books?

 

[Yarddog]

I was hearing a little bit about the Gospel of Judas yesterday and I'm very intrigued by all of the books considered not scriptural.

Also, where would one find these books?

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

You can find many of the early writings at the above site, including scripture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

A list of books not found in the historic Canon?

There isn't enough space in this thread to list them all. That list covers everything from Hammurabi's Code, Homer's Odyssey, the writings of Julius Caesar, Cicero, or Virgil; the Tao Te Ching, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, A Game of Thrones, the Twilight Saga, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and sure the Gospel of Judas.

That's important to understand. The Gospel of Judas, as far as its possible inclusion or exclusion from the Bible was ever concerned is the same category as the list of writings I mentioned above.

There definitely are some books that were considered for inclusion at one point or another, but ultimately did not make it. But that list is fairly short, and doesn't include any of the more sensationalized writings of recent report such as the Gospel of Thomas or Judas. The Antilegomena or "Disputed" works include books both included today and not, such as the Revelation of St. John, the Epistle of James, 2 Peter, 3 John; but also the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd.

One could also throw in 1 & 2 Clement as well.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Going Merry]

I was hearing a little bit about the Gospel of Judas yesterday and I'm very intrigued by all of the books considered not scriptural.

Also, where would one find these books?

Gospel of Judas "It is believed to have been written by Gnostic followers of Jesus, rather than by Judas himself, and probably dates from no earlier than the 2nd century, since it contains late 2nd century theology."

From wikipedia. Though wikipedia is generally full of misinformation...

 

[chilehed]

I was hearing a little bit about the Gospel of Judas yesterday and I'm very intrigued by all of the books considered not scriptural.

Also, where would one find these books?

This site is far from all-inclusive, but I'm sure you can find a lot of them here: Library of Congress Home

 

[SummaScriptura]

I was hearing a little bit about the Gospel of Judas yesterday and I'm very intrigued by all of the books considered not scriptural.

Also, where would one find these books?

Sometimes the question can get in the way of the answer: is the moon made of bleu cheese or swiss cheese? Is hard to answer for instance.

Which books are not in the Protestant or Catholic Bibles? Well, "Moby Dick" for one, "The Wealth of Nations", for another.

So, how 'bout we narrow the question down a bit?

Which books of the Bible are not included in either the Protestant or Catholic Bibles? (for instance)

So, beyond the agreed-upon 39 books of the Old Testament (and the 27 books of the New) which everyone accepts, the Catholics and Orthodox have:

Tobit
Judith
8 chapters of Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
The Wisdom of Solomon
The Wisdom of ben Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah
3 chapters of Daniel

Beyond these, various regional expressions of Orthodoxy have one or more of the following:

The Book of Enoch
The Book of Jubilees
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (The Ezra Apocalypse)
3 Maccabees
Psalm 151
Psalms 152-155
The Ascension of Isaiah
The Rest of the Words of Baruch
The Apocalypse of Baruch

Historical Armenian Orthodoxy used to include:

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Joseph and Asenath
The Lives of the Prophets
The Psalms of Solomon

Another book included in some Bible appendixes is:

4 Maccabees

That's it. The Gospel of Judas never had acceptance among Christians whose faith was orthodox.

They're all here:

Summa Scriptura: For many believers an undiscovered treasure trove of blessing!

 

[SolomonVII]

This seems to be a list or some early texts not included in the various orthodoxies, but not entirely outside of orthodoxy either

The Apocrypha Index


Wiki also has a pretty good list of some early texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

Their external links may also be useful
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html

 

[New_Wineskin]

I was hearing a little bit about the Gospel of Judas yesterday and I'm very intrigued by all of the books considered not scriptural.

Also, where would one find these books?

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy isn't in either . Great books .

 

[Knee V]

Something that I found interesting to study is why the books that are in the canon are in the canon, and what the intention was behind putting those books there, particularly the New Testament.

 

[Mr Dave]

These are the two books I own;

This is a mix of the different genres, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament: Amazon.co.uk: Bart D. Ehrman: Books

If, like me, you're a language nerd, this is just the gospels, but a multilingual version, so has the original, be it Greek, Coptic, or Latin and then an English translation The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations: Amazon.co.uk: Bart Ehrman, Zlatko Plese: Books

 

[SummaScriptura]

Something that I found interesting to study is why the books that are in the canon are in the canon, and what the intention was behind putting those books there<snip>

Who's canon? There are at least five different Biblical canons in use in today's world.

When people speak categorically about "the canon", they really mean, "my canon", or "the canon of my faith tradition".

For me the organizing theme which is my starting point for the discussion of canon is the following truism:

There is not now, nor has there even been a single universally-agreed-upon canonical list of Biblical books to which all orthodox faith traditions adhered.

Then I work from there.

I believe "the canon" is closed.
I believe "the canon" can be discerned.
I believe "the canon" is inclusive and consists of the combined lists of canonical books (authored no later than Apostolic times) of the Bible of all the orthodox communions of faith.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

Just checked: Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno didn't make the cut either.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Can I get a list of all the books that are NOT in the Protestant or Catholic Bibles?

Better yet, why were books added/removed from the Bible.
There is an intersting discussion on that over on this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7243534-47/#post47224205
Why did Protestants removed books from the Bible?

.......

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Who's canon? There are at least five different Biblical canons in use in today's world.

When people speak categorically about "the canon", they really mean, "my canon", or "the canon of my faith tradition".

For me the organizing theme which is my starting point for the discussion of canon is the following truism:

There is not now, nor has there even been a single universally-agreed-upon canonical list of Biblical books to which all orthodox faith traditions adhered.

Then I work from there.

I believe "the canon" is closed.
I believe "the canon" can be discerned.
I believe "the canon" is inclusive and consists of the combined lists of canonical books (authored no later than Apostolic times) of the Bible of all the orthodox communions of faith.

Too confusing for my humble self

 

[Michaelrh1325]

It's fairly obvious what I meant by "which books aren't in the Bible." The sarcasm is this thread is astounding.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Just checked: Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno didn't make the cut either.

Funny guy.

I wonder if you could tell us which of the five "cuts" you subscribe to?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's fairly obvious what I meant by "which books aren't in the Bible." The sarcasm is this thread is astounding.

Can't have GT w/o a little sarcasm mixed in.

 

[Leggomyegolas]

Funny guy.

I wonder if you could tell us which of the five "cuts" you subscribe to?

I was just trying to be funny, but since you asked, the "cut" I subscribe to is the protestant Bible. I have read portions of Tobit and 1 Maccabees, but haven't studied them in any great detail.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Too confusing for my humble self

Not complicated.

I mean to say the "canon" is practical, not formal, ie, what has the Church worldwide come to use?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I was just trying to be funny, but since you asked, the "cut" I subscribe to is the protestant Bible. I have read portions of Tobit and 1 Maccabees, but haven't studied them in any great detail.

Fair enough.

You believe it took 16 centuries of practical usage of the Bible which was quite different than that of Martin Luther, to get to the time of Martin Luther in order to discard the common practice since the earliest times on record, in order to finalize the "cut" under his supervision.

Okay.