I'm always wondering where the scriptures came from that didn't make it into the Bible -- why didn't they?

Answer 1

The church fathers got together in the fourth century, once Christianity became an established religion, to decide what materials to include in the Bible. They considered a few different criteria. First, the source. They included documents that were written by the Apostle Paul, the Twelve apostles or their disciples. Second, the content. They included documents that agreed with each other especially on doctrinal issues. Third, the age. They included documents that had been around since the very early days of Christianity and excluded documents that they considered to be written after the first century, or had fantastical or mythic elements.

BTW, to those who seem to think it was all some sort of conspiracy, the Church at that time had nowhere near the political power it grew to have in Europe's Medieval period. They were simply trying, to the best of their ability, to pass along the authentic teachings of Jesus and the apostles, the founders of the religion. They had every right to exclude writings that they felt contradicted Jesus' original intentions and/or statements.

Answer 2

They didn't make it into the Bible because they did not serve the purpose of the Church. Some of the scriptures that were rejected talked about the unimportance of the Church.

Early Christianity was made up of three sects, Jewish Christianity, Gnostic Christianity, and Pauline Christianity. Jewish Christianity died out rather quickly. Gnostic Christians saw the nature and purpose of Jesus in a different way than the Pauline Christians. Therefore, some texts are distinctly Gnostic and others are distinctly Pauline. Pauline Christianity formed the Church and the canon of the Bible, therefore it is no surprise that they rejected scripture that was Gnostic in nature.

BTW, some will try to say that Gnosticism did not come about until the 4th century CE, because their texts cannot be dated prior to that time. That is false. Early Church fathers were already writing against the Gnostics by 105 CE. Therefore, they had to of originated prior to that time.

Some will also try to say that God rejected those scriptures. If that were true then why did he not make sure they were wiped off the face of the earth? Instead they were preserved in the Egyptian desert sands for a time when they could see the light of day. If the Nag Hammadi library would have been found at an earlier time in history they would have surely been destroyed.

Answer 3

Many of the "scriptures" that did not make it into the bible at the Council Of Nicea were excluded because they didn't follow the lines in which the "framers" wanted it to.

If you look at the bible in its current form, it does a great job of following one thread. Meaning, it is a story that flows through easily from beginning to end. It basically follows one line. Many of the books not incoporated into the bible were excluded because they sort of went off thread too much. Basically, they were tangents, that if incorporated, would lead in a somewhat different direction.

Also, there were many gospels that didn't show the "divinity" of christ. They dealt more with the "humanity" of christ. They focused more on the man, rather than the "son of god". And, yes there were the ones that dealt with his possible marriage, conception, and the offspring that carried on his blood line.

The better question is what happened to all thos writings?

Answer 4

It's another perpetration by the powers that were in charge at the time to keep man from actually practicing what all of the great teachers proessed and practiced ( that's why they killed them ) so that they wouldn't lose the power they thought they owned.

Think about it, if God didn't want man to be able to utilize what the teachers taught God wouldn't have sent them to Earth in the first place But then again, whose4 to say that what was written is actually the truth anyway. INvestigate on your own and see if you can discover the truth instead of believing another is right. ALL of the great teachers, among them Christ, Krishna, Bhudda, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc, etc, etc, practiced the same methods and so can we.

Answer 5

the books in the bible, tho written by many different people all are in agreement and are focused on the same things. books that didnt were not in line with the apostles (NT) ...God directed people to make the decisions, thru discerment... if they didnt line up with God's word, they didnt become part of the bible...

Answer 6

Because they were false scripture in my opinion, and God intervened through inspiration in the men choosing the canon, or through causing manuscripts to be "misplaced" until Gods people knew His word and what did and did not agree with it.

Answer 7

The Bible has been "edited" many times to create a text that more adequately controls those whom the editor seeks to control.

Answer 8

The New Testament canon was gradually added to that of the Old Testament. But it was some considerable time after our Lord's ascension before any of the books contained in it were actually written.

The first and most important work of the apostles was to deliver a personal testimony to the chief facts of the Gospel history (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:21,22). Their teaching was at first oral, and it was no part of their intention to create a permanent literature. A cycle of selected representative facts sufficed to form the groundwork of their oral Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-10).

But in the course of time many endeavored to commit to writing this oral Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). So long as the apostles were still living, the necessity for written records of the words and actions of our Lord was not so pressing. But when the time came for their removal from this world, it became extremely important the authoritative records should be put forth. Thus the Gospels came into existence, two by apostles themselves, and two by friends and close companions of the apostles.

But already had arisen another kind of composition. Founders of churches, often unable to visit them personally, desired to communicate with their converts for purposes of counsel, reproof, and instruction. Thus arose the Epistles, which were put forth from time to time to meet special needs and emergencies.

The persecution of Diocletian (302 A.D.) brought to the front the question of the sacred literature of the church. The persecutors demanded that the Scriptures should be given up. This the Christians refused to do. Hence the question became urgent--What books are apostolic? The answer lies in our New Testament. There were at that time many false and spurious gospels and epistles. Careful, prayerful, and deliberate examination, however, proved which were genuine and which were false. The genuine were received by the church as the inspired writings of the apostles and others whose names the books bear. Thus arose the New Testament canon.


3. The books called "Homologoumena" and "Antilegomena."
In the study of canonics a word or two must be said regarding these terms, and what is meant by them.

At the time of the formation of the New Testament canon twenty out of the twenty-seven books were readily and universally accepted as genuine, and therefore called "Homologoumena" (i.e. acknowledged). These twenty books were the four Gospels, the Acts, the epistles of Paul (except that to the Hebrews), and the first epistles of John and Peter. The other seven books--Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Revelation--were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled "Antilegomena" (or disputed).

The question at issue with regard to the books called "Antilegomena," was not so much that of the canonicity of the writings, as whether they were really written by the men who were called their authors. Hebrews bore no name of its author, and differed in style from the acknowledged Pauline epistles; 2 Peter differed in style from 1 Peter; James and Jude styled themselves "servants," and not "apostles"; the write of 2 and 3 John called himself an "elder" or "presbyter," and not an "apostle"; Jude recorded apocryphal stories. For these reasons these books were not at once allowed their place in the canon. After a deliberate examination, however, they were at last received as genuine, the very delay proving the close scrutiny which their claims had undergone. At the beginning of the fourth century they were received by most of the churches, and at the end of that century they were received by all.


4. The Apocryphal Books.
These books derive their name from a Greek word, apokruphos, which means "hidden." They are so called because they are,--(1) hidden; (2) of unknown authority; (3) spurious. They were not recognized as inspired books by the Jews, who regarded them, however as having high authority, and held them in high esteem as being a valuable history of their nation. Although they were carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings. They were given a place by themselves in the sacred volume, but with the distinct statement that they were not to be regarded as of equal authority with the books of the canon, their position being between the Old and New Testaments. We find them in some Bibles to-day--especially in Roman Catholic Bibles, since they are regarded by the roman church as inspired books.

The Apocrypha contains fourteen books, namely, 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. it is true that by some of the fathers of the Christian church a few of these books have been quoted as canonical, but they were not looked on in this light; nor were their titles included in any list of canonical writings during the first four centuries after the birth of our Lord. It was not, indeed, until the Council of Trent, in 1545, that they were definitely declared to be an integral portion of Holy Scripture as acknowledged by the Romish church. "Philo," says Angus, "never quotes them as he does the sacred Scriptures; and Josephus expressly excludes them. The Jewish church never received them as part of the canon, and they are never quoted either by our Lord or by His apostles; a fact the more striking as St. Paul twice quotes heathen poets. It is remarkable, too, that the last inspired prophet closes his predictions by recommending to his countrymen the books of Moses, and intimates that no other messenger is to be expected by them till the coming of the second Elijah (Mal. 4:4-6) * * * Internal evidence, moreover, is against their inspiration. Divine authority is claimed by none of the writers, and by some it is virtually disowned (2 Mac. 2:23; 15:38). The books contain statements at variance with history (Baruch 1:2, compared with Jer. 43:6,7), self-contradictory, and opposed to the doctrines and precepts of Scripture."

For what, then, can the Apocryphal books be esteemed useful? In the Church of England some parts of them are read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." By no Protestant church are these writings held to be the rule of faith, and contrasted with the canonical books, they are utterly without authority. From a historical point of view they are of value in showing the condition of the Jewish people, and relating certain events that intervene between the closing of the Old Testament and the opening of the Christian era.

These facts sufficiently indicate the course of the argument by which the canonicity of the sacred Scriptures is proved. Let it be proven that these books were written by the men whose names they bear, and that these men wrote under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, and the canonicity of the Bible is a settled fact. We have, therefore, a right to believe that we have in our Bible a rule of faith and life--yea, the supreme and ultimate rule--by which we may govern our lives in order that they may be in accordance with the revealed will of God.