Non-canonical Books

[JohnR7]

http://www.new-life.net/faq013.htm

Here is a link that could help a little bit.

 

[isshinwhat]

From the link provided:

These books are never quoted by Jesus or the apostles (with this one exception by Jude).

Neither are many of the other Old Testament writings.

The Book of Enoch and other Apocryphal books were not considered inspired by the Jews.

Nor is the Book of Enoch believed to be Canonical by the Catholic Church. It is also not found in the canon of the Douay version, as is claimed in the article.

Also none of the Apocryphal books was included in the list of inspired Hebrew Scriptures by the Jewish rabbis who met at Jamnia between 70-100 AD.

The Council of Jamnia took place after some 60+ years after Pentecost. Among the other canonical texts not listed as canonical by the Council of Jamnia, but which were in existence; The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; none of Paul's letters, the Catholic Epistles, or Revelations.

Most of the early church fathers did not believe these books were inspired either. Melito, bishop of Sardis, drew up the oldest list of the Old Testament canon (around 170 A.D.). It includes only the Protestant/Jewish Old Testament.

This statement is incorrect. The following is the list drawn up by Melito of Sardis.

"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books."
Melito of Sardes,Fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiatical History,4:26(A.D. 177)

Many of the early church fathers spoke out against the Apocryphal books, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius.

This, too, is incorrect.

From Origen:

" 'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.' Farther on he says: 'The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ' These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel."
Origen,Canon of the Hebrews,Fragment in Eusebius' Church History,6:25[A.D. 244]

And from Cyril of Jerusalem:

"Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch[1-5] and Lamentations and the Epistle[of Jeremiah-Baruch 6]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:33(A.D. 350)

Here Athanasius does differentiate between the Hebrew Canon and those books added by the Fathers.

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament...But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
Athanasius,Festal Letters,39:4,7(A.D. 367)

And Jerome does seem to waver in his opinion. I suppose because of the weight given the deutero-Canon by the majority of the Fathers and Church Councils.

"What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us."
Jerome,Against Rufinus,11:33(A.D. 402)

No church council of the Christian church for the first four centuries recognized these Apocryphal works as inspired.

Now this would be a good argument if there had been any ecumenical Church Councils prior to the Fourth Century, but there weren't any. The first was Nicea in 325 A.D., and it in no way even discussed a Canon of Scripture.

The Apocryphal books contain historical and geographical inaccuracies.

As does Daniel...

 

[isshinwhat]

After the time of the Reformation most Protestants decided to follow the original Jewish Hebrew canon. This means they did not include the Book of Enoch and other books in their Bibles. The Roman Catholic Church, however, at the Council of Trent (1546), decided to affirm the Jewish canon PLUS fourteen Apocryphal books. These fourteen Apocryphal books contain verses, which can be used to prove there is a "purgatory" and that we can pray to saints -- issues that the Protestants used as attack points against the Catholic church.

This is partially correct. The correct term would be the Council of Trent set out to reaffirm the deutero-Canon, as those books had been affirmed by councils as early as the Fourth Century. For instance:

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."
Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382)

"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393),

"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397)

I hope these passages will correct any misinformation presented within the article which was linked to in the above post.


God Bless,

Neal

 

[SummaScriptura]

As far as the apocryphal books are concerned, don't you think it's interesting that neither Christ nor any of the apostles ever quote from one of them -not once, not ever.

In fact the apocryphal books weren't even added to the canon until 1546 I believe.

Wrong.

Another interesting thing is that they are supposed to be books of the old testament, yet they aren't written in the same language as any of the other old testament books. This doesn't mean that they don't have good ideas or aren't good books - Aristotle wrote great books with great ideas - but he wasn't inspired by God, and the evidence largely suggests the that whoever wrote the apocryphal books wasn't either.

A very rational response, but rationalizing the issue in this fashion leads to an erroneous conclusion. I suspect you've not read those books carefully. A pretty superficial reading of them should demonstrate some New Testament reliance upon content found in those books. Bear in mind, there are books in the Hebrew scriptures not quoted in the New Testament; should we toss those?

Speaking of tossing... once the books of the Bible were canonized, who authorized someone to come later and say we should drop Tobit or Sirach or Wisdom, etc?

To the original poster...

1 Enoch (The Book of Enoch) is a canonical book for the Church having been first considered scripture by the Jews from ancient times and then by the Orthodox Church in Ethiopia.

2 Enoch (Book of the Secrets of Enoch) and Jasher have never been in anyone's canonical list(s) of books of the Bible. Also, 2 Enoch and Jasher may not even be very old. Jasher may not be the Jasher quoted in the Bible. There is no truly ancient attestation to the manuscript. For instance, why was there no remnant of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[Canaan-84]

As far as the apocryphal books are concerned, don't you think it's interesting that neither Christ nor any of the apostles ever quote from one of them -not once, not ever. In fact the apocryphal books weren't even added to the canon until 1546 I believe. Another interesting thing is that they are supposed to be books of the old testament, yet they aren't written in the same language as any of the other old testament books. This doesn't mean that they don't have good ideas or aren't good books - Aristotle wrote great books with great ideas - but he wasn't inspired by God, and the evidence largely suggests the that whoever wrote the apocryphal books wasn't either.

Why is the format of this thread so weird?

Anyway, Jesus did not quote from other books in the OT and those are accepted. Anyway, you're wrong about the deutro books not being included until 1546.

The Council of Carthage 397 AD:

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[4] on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible restricted to: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Paralipomenon, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Machabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Judas, and the Apocalypse of John.

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

As you can see the books were considered scripture since the 300s.

Also, the books were not written in Hebrew because the people who wrote them decided to write them in Greek because as Jews spread out they began to lose their language and adopt the one where they lived. It's like Latin which eventually disappeared.

Here's more:

http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28

Prior to Jesus’ time, the Jews did not have a sharply defined, universal canon of Scripture. Some groups of Jews used only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch); some used only the Palestinian canon (39 books); some used the Alexandrian canon (46 books), and some, like the Dead Sea community, used all these and more. The Palestinian and Alexandrian canons were more normative than the others, having wider acceptance among orthodox Jews, but for Jews there was no universally defined canon to include or exclude the “deuterocanonical” books around 100 A.D.
The Apostles commissioned by Jesus,[5] however, used the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which contained the Alexandrian canon) most of the time and must have accepted the Alexandrian canon. For example, 86 percent of Old Testament quotes in the Greek New Testament come directly from the Septuagint, not to mention numerous linguistic references. Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint. In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen says that Jacob came to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 says “70,” while the Septuagint’s says “75,” the number Stephen used. Following the Apostles' example, Stephen clearly used the Septuagint.[6] (We also know from other ancient Christian documents, like the Didache[7] and Pope St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, that the apostles’ successors not only used the Septuagint, but quote from all of the books in the Alexandrian canon as the authoritative word of God.)

 

[lionroar0]

As far as the apocryphal books are concerned, don't you think it's interesting that neither Christ nor any of the apostles ever quote from one of them -not once, not ever. In fact the apocryphal books weren't even added to the canon until 1546 I believe. Another interesting thing is that they are supposed to be books of the old testament, yet they aren't written in the same language as any of the other old testament books. This doesn't mean that they don't have good ideas or aren't good books - Aristotle wrote great books with great ideas - but he wasn't inspired by God, and the evidence largely suggests the that whoever wrote the apocryphal books wasn't either.

Maybe some studying should be done before posting things as facts.

The books that are mentioned in the OP are not part of the Catholic Biblical Canon.

And the ones that are have never been added to the Bible but were taken away from the Bible by non-catholics.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

I have a question about Non-canonical books. Mainly three, Book of Enoch, The book of Secrets of Enoch, and the Book of Jasher.

I am currently studying the Book of Enoch and plain to start with the Book of Secrets of Enoch next. I am not sure to accept these books as belonging to the bible or not. I do though find some interesting subjects and ideas in the Book of Enoch. I truly believe in the Holy Spirit inspired Books of the Bible (KJV), but I am not sure about other books such as the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books.

Please if you don't mind. Everyone give me there opinions on the Book of Enoch, the Book of Secrets of Enoch and the Book of Jasher.

And please NO fussing like some people on other forums, lets just let this be a nice open discuss. I welcome everyone's thought's.

Your brother in Christ Jesus,

Anthony


 

 

They maybe helpful in study. They may provide insight to what people thought and wrote during those times. This could translate into a new way of reading the Bible with an insight that wasn't there before.

Peace

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>And please NO fussing like some people on other forums, lets just let this be a nice open discuss. I welcome everyone's thought's.<snip>

No fussing? You really think that's possible?