Books Omitted From The Bible

[SummaScriptura]

Your hsitorical recap falls down on a number of details.

The Old Testament books that Jesus and the Apostles used was the Septuagint (sometimes called the LXX). These old Testament books contain 39 books.

To say the O.T. of the Septuagint at that time was 39 books is incorrect. The O.T. of Protestants today is 39 books. But I will assume you meant to say the LXX had 46 O.T. books. That is also incorrect, or at best misleading. The use of bound copies of the Septuagint was not yet commonplace in the Apostolic Era. At that time the dominant medium for books was individual scrolls. To assume the assorted books of the Old Testament of the Greek speaking world was 46, is not warranted by the evidence. An "Old Testament" (an anachronism) at that time would have been a collection of scrolls and no historical source can determine how many books were accepted by Greek-speaking Jews (then Christians) in that period. It could have been 46, 47, 48 etc. or more likely, it was not set and its total number varied according to regional usages.

At the end of the First Century, the Jewish Council of Jamnia, which consisted of the Pharisees, got together and took out 7 books from the Old Testament and parts of Esther and Daniel. As a result, the Jewish Council of Jamnia produced the "Palestinian canon." The Apostles and the Early Christians, however, refused to follow the Jewish Council of Jamnia and continued to hold on and preserve the 39 books of the Old Testament in the Septuagint.

The COuncil of Jamnia is the stuff of legend. There was no council analogous to a Church council which met for the purposes of determining a canon. There was a governing body of a reforming Judaism which was centered in the city of Jamnia which left records of discussions about debating the validity of a few books, (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Song of Solomon come to mind) but no comprehensive record about a canon of Scripture exists. We do know that the Palestinian canon became the norm for Judaism in the Mediterranean during that era, but that is all. We do not know how many books, if any, were removed, though we might want to infer it.

Toward the end of the Fourth Century, the Church canonized the New Testament books. At the time of Reformation, the Protestants who split from the Roman Catholic Church decided to follow the Palestinian canon and proceeded to take out the 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel from their Bibles. Thus, the Protestant and Catholic Bibles are different in the Old Testament books. The Protestants followed the Palestinian canon, which the Jews canonized since the end of the first century. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, however, did not take out the books but continued to hold these books as "inspired" just as the Apostles and the Early Christians did. The Septuagint, which has the 39 books is known as the Alexandrian canon.

The Protestants and Catholics are certainly locked into a dance on this issue, however, to understand the problem in this way is to simplify it to the point of error. The canon of the O.T. as it is used in Orthodoxy is not the same as in Catholicism. If Catholicism is guilty of changing the number of books in the canon, it is an error of subtraction not addition becasue the oldest communions of the faith, Orthodoxy, each have differing numbers of O.T. books they accept, all of them MORE than any Western expression of Christianity, either Protestant or Catholic.

 

[Selene]

Your hsitorical recap falls down on a number of details.To say the O.T. of the Septuagint at that time was 39 books is incorrect. The O.T. of Protestants today is 39 books. But I will assume you meant to say the LXX had 46 O.T. books. That is also incorrect, or at best misleading. The use of bound copies of the Septuagint was not yet commonplace in the Apostolic Era. At that time the dominant medium for books was individual scrolls. To assume the assorted books of the Old Testament of the Greek speaking world was 46, is not warranted by the evidence. An "Old Testament" (an anachronism) at that time would have been a collection of scrolls and no historical source can determine how many books were accepted by Greek-speaking Jews (then Christians) in that period. It could have been 46, 47, 48 etc. or more likely, it was not set and its total number varied according to regional usages.The COuncil of Jamnia is the stuff of legend. There was no council analogous to a Church council which met for the purposes of determining a canon. There was a governing body of a reforming Judaism which was centered in the city of Jamnia which left records of discussions about debating the validity of a few books, (Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Song of Solomon come to mind) but no comprehensive record about a canon of Scripture exists. We do know that the Palestinian canon became the norm for Judaism in the Mediterranean during that era, but that is all. We do not know how many books, if any, were removed, though we might want to infer it.The Protestants and Catholics are certainly locked into a dance on this issue, however, to understand the problem in this way is to simplify it to the point of error. The canon of the O.T. as it is used in Orthodoxy is not the same as in Catholicism. If Catholicism is guilty of changing the number of books in the canon, it is an error of subtraction not addition becasue the oldest communions of the faith, Orthodoxy, each have differing numbers of O.T. books they accept, all of them MORE than any Western expression of Christianity, either Protestant or Catholic.

Yes, thank you for correcting the numbers that I got mixed up. The Septuagint contained 46 books - the same as the Catholic Bible. The Protestant Bible contained only 39 books of the Old Testament. Yes, there was a governing body of a reforming Judaism which was centered in the city of Jamnia and which left records of discussions about debating the validity of a few books, and THAT was the one I referred to as the Council of Jamnia. The result of that was the Palestinian canon. They rejected the Septuagint.

We already know that Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, and we know that the Early Christians continued to use those books and did not accept the Palestinian canon. The Apostles and Early Christians never accepted the Palestinian canon. The earliest Christian Bible was written in the 4th century. It was the Latin Vulgate, and it contained all 46 Old Testament books. Christians relied on the LXX books until the time of Jerome, when he wrote the Latin Vulgate, which was the first Christian Bible. The Old Testament books of the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are the same. There are only 2 additions in the Eastern Orthodox Bible, which the Roman Catholics do not accept. And the reason for this is mentioned in the weblink I provided below:

Not only are there inconsistencies between the use of the two different Canons, but there are also inconsistencies in the different Traditions of Orthodoxy on which books are to be included in the greater Canon. For example, the Russian Orthodox Tradition or the Slavonic Bible includes 2 Edras, whereas the Greek Orthodox Tradition of the Septuagint does not. This lack of uniform use led P. Bratsiotes to make the following observation (quoted by S. Agourides in his article The Bible in the Greek Orthodox Church, p. 240): "It is for this reason that the fixing of the Canon of the Old Testament is proposed as one of the subjects of a future Great Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church". So even today, the issue of the Old Testament Canon remains open for discussion.

http://www.orthodoxc..._testament.html

So, while the Eastern Orthodox Church canon of the Old Testament is still open for debate today, that matter was already settled a long time ago by the Roman Catholics back in the 4th Century when Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate.

The bibles of the Protestants, on the other hand, did not come out until after the reformation. They made the subtractions by following the Palestinian canon of the Hebrews.

 

[SummaScriptura]

You seem bent on preserving a certain church's reputation as always being right. Your free to have your opininions, but the facts are different than the way you detail them.

 

[mb27]

Ignoring the usual thoughtless answers to this, I've had a debate with this topic myself.

The most interesting book omitted, atleast to me, is enoch. Its recount of the fall is incredibly interesting.

In doing my research as to why it was eliminated from the bible, i found that according to history, its authenticity has been compromised.
Researchers think its contents has been so badly tampered with that most of it is fabricated or twisted in one light or another hence compromising its ability to be a book in the book of life.

Now, my personal peace with this topic is that God is the ultimate author of His Bible. Men were merely vessels. If God wants a book in the Bible that affects our salvation, i think the God of all creation would make it happen. If its ommited, its God's will for it to be. Perhaps satan is using the twisted versions of these books to question our faith or its as simple as God does not want us to know the contents of these books.
Either way, the Bible is perfect, sentence and punctuation, there is not one error in it. Man says there are mistakes or translation issues but i believe the most important thing on this earth is in no way imperfect. God has it exactly the way it should be.
There are things id love to know, but I just have to trust unless He reveals them to me, i shall ask a whole whack load of questions on the day of resurrection.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Ignoring the usual thoughtless answers to this, I've had a debate with this topic myself.
The most interesting book omitted, atleast to me, is enoch. Its recount of the fall is incredibly interesting.
In doing my research as to why it was eliminated from the bible, i found that according to history, its authenticity has been compromised.
Researchers think its contents has been so badly tampered with that most of it is fabricated or twisted in one light or another hence compromising its ability to be a book in the book of life.

Well, no serious textual scholar would put it that way, and lets face it, anybody can be a researcher.

The scholarly concensus on this question is that the complete copies of the Book of Enoch which survive in Ethiopic, represent an essentially faithful, formally-equivalent translation of the book made in ancient times. As such, the Book of Enoch which survives is essentially the same as the Book of Enoch which Jude quoted from and alluded to some seven times in his tiny epistle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Current Misinformation

Many of the old ideas that place doubt in the trustworthiness of Ethiopic Enoch, continue to have an extended life on internet discussion boards. For instance, one person posted the following,

“A number of somewhat different versions have been found including some with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The versions are different from one another and no one can agree which one is the original inspired word.”

The quote above is not an accurate portrayal of the facts. The only complete copies of the Book of Enoch, (also known as 1 Enoch, and Ethiopic Enoch), are in one Ethiopic language. The versions of the Ethiopic texts which we have are not widely different from each other. The process by which R.H. Charles arrived at a text for translation purposes did not differ significantly from the process which is used for other texts of the Bible.

Nevertheless, one continues to read online the concerns of posters that the “versions” of Enoch that are out there are very different from one another. I have tried repeatedly to discover why this myth is so persistent. Usually I find people are simply repeating what someone else has related to them. As it occurs to me, I can think of two reasons why this idea seems to have a life of its own and refuses to die.

Richard Laurence’s Misfire

In the early 19[sup]th[/sup] century, Richard Laurence was the first to publish a translation of the Book of Enoch into English. It was Laurence’s conviction that the Book of Enoch was greatly disordered and would best be served if his translation re-ordered the passages to the proper sequence he envisioned. He also renumbered the chapters and verses throughout. The result of this as well as his translation work, was less than satisfactory.

The Laurence translation is still widely available and his chapter numbering and versification are widely different from any other translation that has been published ever since. I have personally witnessed the confusion this can cause. If two persons are discussing and citing passages from Enoch, yet only one of them is using the Laurence translation the results can be confusing. The perception can be created that “there are different versions” of the Book of Enoch. This impression can be especially severe when those who refer to Laurence’s translation do not even realize the versification problem exists.

Other “Books of Enoch”

There is another element that causes confusion for some. There are two other compositions that bear Enoch’s name. There is an entirely different book referred to by scholars as 2 Enoch, also known as the Second Book of Enoch, Slavonic Enoch and The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. The oldest texts of the book are only available in Slavonic. There is no ancient mention of this book; the book was not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it is not the one alluded to repeatedly in the New Testament.

There is also a 3 Enoch. That book claims for itself to have been written by a Rabbi Ishmael, and it too is an entirely different book with no ancient mention.
It is possible the contents of these other books have been read by some and thought to be the Book of Enoch to which the Bible refers; this could be the source of some misunderstandings.

Other Obstacles

Once it has been determined that we are discussing the Book of Enoch referred to by Jude, and once we’ve eliminated the versification problem introduced by Richard Laurence, there sometimes can be resistance to accepting the book as being legitimate on any level. One poster wrote,

“Jude did not quote all of the material written in the Book of Enoch. Even a fraud may present some truth, and Jude recognized this. One quote does not mean Jude endorsed the entire Book of Enoch.”

There is an element of truth in that statement, however, there are some details not taken into account by this poster. It is true Jude did not quote the whole Book of Enoch. In fact, Jude didn't even say he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Jude says rather he is quoting Enoch the man, descended 7th from Adam. And where do we know Jude got that quote? Jude quoted Enoch 1:9. The idea that Jude under inspiration of the Holy Spirit would knowingly take one verse from a book written by someone other than Enoch, and quote that one verse as if it were the very words of Enoch, does not sit well with me.

For one thing, the brief little epistle of Jude does not merely refer to the Book of Enoch once, it quotes and alludes to the various sections of the book no less than seven times. That is not what one expects from a writer who is simply referring to a favorite passage from another book.

Also, Jude would have known the book to which he referred was very popular and in wide circulation. There is every indication from the textual evidence, Enoch was widely read in Israel and among Jews in the 1[sup]st[/sup] century. Jude quotes from the book to highlight a prophecy to be fulfilled at the 2[sup]nd[/sup] coming of Jesus Christ. Jude says he is quoting the ancient patriarch and prophet Enoch, when he quotes that book. Many of Jude’s readers would also no doubt be familiar with the book from which Jude was quoting. The unmistakable impression would be made by Jude, that the Book of Enoch was indeed a book written by the antediluvian patriarch, born the 7[sup]th[/sup] from Adam. There really is no way to wiggle out of it, Jude leads his readers to believe the Book of Enoch was written by the biblical Enoch.

Further, it has been demonstrated from the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the book from which Jude quoted, survives to this day. The version of the Book of Enoch which has survived has been demonstrated by modern scholarship to be a faithful rendition of the original book which was circulated among the Jews in the days of Jesus and the Apostles.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns All rights reserved

www.TheBookofEnoch.info

 

[neophyte]

[background=#fff]

Some books the Bible mentions were not inspired but are simply used as historical sources. This is the case when Paul quotes books by the pagan writers Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides (Acts 17:28, 1 Cor 15:33, and Ti 1:12, respectively) or when the Old Testament refers us to the book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia (Est 10:2).
The same is likely true of the book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19) and the book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah (1 Kgs 14:29), which may simply have been court records or secular histories of the periods they discussed. The same goes for the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chr 16:11), and the Memoirs of Nehemiah (2 Mc 2:13).
Other books contained genuine revelation, though the book as a whole was not inspired. This is the case with the book of Enoch, which is quoted in Jude 14, and possibly a book known as the Assumption of Moses, which appears to be quoted in Jude 9. A work of unclear status is the book of Jashar, which is twice quoted in the Old Testament (Jo 10:12-13, 2 Sm 1:18-27) and seems to be a book of songs concerning the history of Israel.
Among uninspired books mentioned in the Old Testament are the Records of Samuel the Seer, the Records of Nathan the Prophet, and the Records of Gad the Seer (1 Chr 29:29), the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the Seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat (2 Chr 9:29), the Records of Shemaiah the Prophet and of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr 12:15), the Annotations of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr 13:22; the references to works of Iddo may be different ways of referring to the same book).
In the New Testament, there are references to a third letter from Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9) and of a letter of his to the Laodiceans (Col 4:16; though many have thought this letter to the Laodiceans is the same as the letter to the Ephesians). Such books may have been inspired, but for some reason God chose not to have them passed down and included in the canon.
The fact that Jude (verses 14-15) quotes from the Book of Enoch mean that this book should be in our Bible?


No more than the fact Paul quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28) means their writings should be included in Scripture. A biblical author can cite a non-canonical writing as illustrative of a point he wants to make without suggesting everything included in that writing is authentic or from God.
Copied from Staff of Catholic Answers[/background]

 

[SummaScriptura]

drivel from a website

Do you realy think copy-pasting something from a website is how discussion boards are supposed to work? You do realize we all have Google, right? Are you a robot?

 

[Selene]

You seem bent on preserving a certain church's reputation as always being right. Your free to have your opininions, but the facts are different than the way you detail them.

These are historical truths. There were many books at that time. Some of those books were written by Gnostics. Christians were also reading books such as the Shepherd. But the matter was already settlted when St. Jerome wrote the first Christian Bible, which was the Latin Vulgate. Christians relied on the LXX and other books until the time of Jerome. That is historical truth. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is still debating today on what books of the Old Testament are inspired is their problem. As for the Protestant bible, taking out books by accepting the Palestinian canon was also their choice.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Honestly, I completely disregard the Catholic church's stance on the canon for a number of reasons:

1. They too, like the Protestants delete books from the Bible (I've heard their defense of this many times so don't bore me)
2. Jerome introduced a number of Biblical innovations which were flat-out wrong:

• Jerome was the first to create an "apocryphal appendix" by placing the major passages unique to Greek Esther at The Book of Esther's conclusion, thus confusing the book for ALL Western Christendom to this day
• Jerome created a "Frankenstein" version of Esther, never before seen by combining parts of Hebrew and Greek Esther together
• Jerome moved Paul's letters from near the back of the N.T. to after Acts, in order to priveledge the status of Rome
• Jerome created ugly, botched paraphrases of some of the deuterocanon, thus degrading them
• Jerome applied the derogatory term "apocrypha" to the books of the deuterocanon

3. The communions of Orthodoxy better preserve the traditional respect for the books of the Bible than either the Catholics or the Protestants
4. Both sides of the Catholic/Protestant argument over the canon are utter nonsense to me

 

[Sabitarian]

Rather than argue about the missing books, just judge for yourself.
http://www.thelostbooks.com/intro.htm
I have read many of them and found them very informative, even if the time lines do not always match up with scripture they add information that you did not have before and sometimes you need it.

 

[Foreigner]

Neophyte, you have done HUGE cut-and-paste posts from web sites where the scripture posted as support for their claims has nothing at all to do with the claims.

You really cannot with a straight face complain about "drivel from a web site."


As far as the "other books," if people wish to follow them, more power to them.
But if those books deviate from the Bible, add things not found in the Bible, or even contradict the Bible....one should be concerned about the impact - both on them and those they share with.


Aspen - also a Catholic - tried to tell me that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is an accepted book to study in your efforts to know God.

Yet that 'gospel' claims that when Jesus was a child He killed two children and struck a number of parents blind.
It also attributes a large number of quotes to Jesus that are not found in any of the four Gospels in the Bible.

How can this POSSIBLY increase your knowledge of Jesus or enhance your relationship with Him?




.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Neophyte, you have done HUGE cut-and-paste posts from web sites where the scripture posted as support for their claims has nothing at all to do with the claims.<snip>

Are you talking to me? I think probably not since I've never copy-pasted in any fora.

 

[Foreigner]

Are you talking to me? I think probably not since I've never copy-pasted in any fora.

-- Nope, I am not directing that at you. I am speaking of Neophyte, and by proxy, to Mungo.
Huge cut-and-paste posts from Catholic web sites that use Catholic "authorities" speaking on Catholic doctrine, using Catholic references.
The majority of of the actual scripture in their posts either extremely vague and questionable connections to the claims, are obviously taken out of context, or simply have nothing to do at all with what they are claimed to support.

 

[SummaScriptura]

-- Nope, I am not directing that at you. I am speaking of Neophyte, and by proxy, to Mungo.
Huge cut-and-paste posts from Catholic web sites that use Catholic "authorities" speaking on Catholic doctrine, using Catholic references.
The majority of of the actual scripture in their posts either extremely vague and questionable connections to the claims, are obviously taken out of context, or simply have nothing to do at all with what they are claimed to support.

I hate copy-pasters for the most part. ("Um, you shouldn't hate!) They act as if you cannot read a website, but reading their post is somehow different. Anyway, many Catholics might feel intimidated to speak on theological matters since teaching is reserved for the recognized teachers in their denomination.

 

[neophyte]

-- Nope, I am not directing that at you. I am speaking of Neophyte, and by proxy, to Mungo.
Huge cut-and-paste posts from Catholic web sites that use Catholic "authorities" speaking on Catholic doctrine, using Catholic references.
The majority of of the actual scripture in their posts either extremely vague and questionable connections to the claims, are obviously taken out of context, or simply have nothing to do at all with what they are claimed to support.

I'm far from being a Church historian , so , yes I have on occassion cut and paste from both historians and from ex-Protestant now Catholic apologists , because as you can see from my name being Neophyte I'm not as well informed on matters of the Christian faith along with its history, but I'm learning and actually amazed at how wrong you and other anti/non-Catholics are when it comes down to truly understanding the teachings of Jesus. Have you ever noticed that those who usually leave the Catholic Church know very little about the Bible or the teachings of Christ's Church, but those who enter by converting from the Protestants churches to the Catholic Church are very educated in both secular and Bible education.

 

[Mungo]

-- Nope, I am not directing that at you. I am speaking of Neophyte, and by proxy, to Mungo.
Huge cut-and-paste posts from Catholic web sites that use Catholic "authorities" speaking on Catholic doctrine, using Catholic references.
The majority of of the actual scripture in their posts either extremely vague and questionable connections to the claims, are obviously taken out of context, or simply have nothing to do at all with what they are claimed to support.

I don't make "Huge cut-and-paste posts from Catholic web sites that use Catholic "authorities" speaking on Catholic doctrine, using Catholic references."

All of scripture in my posts very much to the point at issue.

And Foreigner I do actually post scripture unlike you. :)

Why do you say I am a proxy to neophyte? That's a strange thing to say.

Do you get a kick out of slagging me off in threads I haven't posted in? That's a bit sneaky you know.

 

[mjrhealth]

Now, my personal peace with this topic is that God is the ultimate author of His Bible. Men were merely vessels. If God wants a book in the Bible that affects our salvation, i think the God of all creation would make it happen. If its ommited, its God's will for it to be. Perhaps satan is using the twisted versions of these books to question our faith or its as simple as God does not want us to know the contents of these books.

Yes God gets blamed for a lot of things that men do.

If they where not important Jesus would not have mentioned them. But then now we have Jesus, He sent us the Holy Spirit for in Jesus is the truth for He is the truth. So if you have the truth what else do you need, can the bible save you , has Jesus not already done that work, or was it when He said " it is Finished", it really wasnt.??

In All His Love

 

[jerzy]

many of these agnostic books were part of the early christion church and its canon (a couple 100 years after christ,s death) many are referenced in today's bible. they were taught and reverered until kinng james took them out.
that makes king james more religiously reverered than the earlier clergy. history does not refect that he was. if so, please direct.

There were few Bible translations prior to the KJV. You can compare.

 

[Mungo]

There were few Bible translations prior to the KJV. You can compare.

Another Protestant myth. There were loads of translations before the KJV.

 

[jerzy]

John 1
The Word Became Flesh

Can you prove that the "logos" means Jesus?

Can you disprove that John referred to Isa 55:11?

Colossians 1:16


16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

So this must be a lie:

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word (rhema-utterance, never Jesus) of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Or, perhaps the multiple meaning word “en” was rendered out of the context?

Another Protestant myth. There were loads of translations before the KJV.

Just prior KJV: Tyndale 1534, Bishops 1568, Geneva 1587.

Are you interested in older translations to?