How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?

Question

Alternatively: How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed?

A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book'

There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations. (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author)

If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have?

This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version.

I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.

If there is someone that could suggust a better wording for my question, please do. Every time I read the question, the wording sounds awkward.. — meltdownmonk, Aug 31 '12 at 19:45
I think the problem is that you need to define "what was it removed from?" Also the council of Nicaea may be of interet to you. — unregistered-matthew7.7, Aug 31 '12 at 19:55
Ah, I guess i need a breakdown of the compiling history of the Bible.. — meltdownmonk, Aug 31 '12 at 20:02
The "How were the Books in the new Testament Chosen?" question seems to be close to what I'm looking for I think. I guess I should be asking, how many books didn't make the cut.. but i feel like i could end up getting a broad answer like... everything that isn't in the Bible we know today... — meltdownmonk, Aug 31 '12 at 20:05
What books did you see in the Catholic Bible's NT that weren't in the KVJ? Aside from Luther's Bible, I'm pretty sure the New Testaments have always been the same. It's just the 7 or so books and chapters in the OT that are different. — Peter Turner, Aug 31 '12 at 20:11
Quick answer: Thousands of books that death with the interaction of morality and 1st century Judean religious belief were not added. Many were purported as fiction (e.g. The Acts of Perpetua) many more were simply Gnostic Gospels (e.g. Gospels of Thomas, Judas), and still others were just plain silly (e.g.Gospel of Peter). These were neither "banned" nor suppressed. They simply never came to mind when Christians asked other Christians "What are the best books to read?". If you search canon tag, you'll find I've written a lot about the process and criteria already. — Affable Geek, Aug 31 '12 at 20:11
Thanks! Maybe the question just needs to be closed to edited. Too many variables... and @Peter, You are right, i didn't noticed a different in the New Testament — meltdownmonk, Aug 31 '12 at 20:35
You can find a wide selection of these books online at the Early Christian Writings website. — Bruce Alderman, Sep 04 '12 at 16:24
Christianity arose out of Second Temple Judaism, which, in late antiquity, had three main branches: Judaism proper, Samaritans, and Hellenized Judaism. The former employs the Masoretic Text, the second the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the latter the Septuagint. — , Oct 30 '19 at 05:51

score 13 · Accepted Answer · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:56

13

The "books" of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :)

Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by Peter's close friend. The point is, these are different books by different authors that are just assembled into a library of what, by consensus, has been agreed to be the best of the best.

To ask, "what books dind't make it in?" is answered by a simple statement: everything else.

There were all sorts of Gnostic Gospels at the time, but, of course, the main stream of Christianity rejected that. As such, there was never a "conspiracy" to keep out, say, the 115 proverbs that are the Gospel of Thomas, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel of Peter, or Judas, or any of the lot. There was simply a general agreement that all of these books had no more place in the Christian canon than Mitt Romney would in the Democratic Convention.

Additionally, there were several fictional works, in the same way that today people write historical fiction. Google "New Testament Apocrypha" for details.

Finally, one accepted criteria for canonicity was an apostolic claim. As such, important Christian works such as 1 Clement, the martyrdom of Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, or the Didache are highly important and good theology in them. They are worthy of study by Christians, but never made the criteria of canonicity.

In short, the Bible is really a lot like, say, the New York Times best seller list. It is a compilation of what's "best". What's not included isn't trash- its just not in the same league. The same is true of the canon. C.S. Lewis is amazing, but he isn't the agreed upon historical consensus.

edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:56

Community

1

answered Sep 01 '12 at 03:09

Affable Geek

64,044
28
189
354

Dumb question on my part: when Luke wrote Luke, had Paul been converted? – unregistered-matthew7.7 Sep 01 '12 at 03:55
2

Not dumb. But the answer is yes-Luke met Paul after his conversion, wrote Luke and Acts. – Affable Geek Sep 01 '12 at 07:27
1

To add that great list. "The Shepherd of Hermas" was consider for a while as well. – David Laberge Sep 04 '12 at 10:34
+1 for "everything else". My answer would have been, "every book ever written minus 73" – Ignatius Theophorus Sep 04 '12 at 12:53
@IgnatiusTheophorus - or "minus 66" if you do not count the apocrypha – warren Sep 04 '12 at 15:31
@warren But why would you want to leave out seven books of the Bible? – Ignatius Theophorus Sep 04 '12 at 17:23
1

@IgnatiusTheophorus - from a Protestant point of view, why would you want to add 7 to the Bible? :) – warren Sep 04 '12 at 18:15
@warren The Church used the apocrypha from its inception up until the protestant reformation. The Reformers removed the apocryphal books, plain and simple. – jackweinbender Sep 04 '12 at 19:03
1

@jackweinbender - they weren't viewed as canonical, though - indeed, the Catholic church calls it deuterocanonical – warren Sep 04 '12 at 20:33
@warren yes, they were—that distinction was only made after the Reformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books#History
– jackweinbender Sep 04 '12 at 20:40

How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?

1 Answers1

Linked

Related