What are the most likely books to be added to the Bible?

The way I see it, you have the current canonical Bible, then the Old Testament Apocrypha books accepted by the Catholic Church (and seen by other denominations- such as Lutheranism- as worthy of study), and then finally that whole glut of gnostic and gnostic-inspired apocrypha for the New Testament.

So supposing the Council of Nicea was a wee bit open for other books. However, they are still strongly against what they perceive as subversion, i.e. Gnosticism. So are there any other books at all that may be possible contenders to be added?

Personally, from what I know, most of the "Gospels" of NT Apocrypha all seem incredibly gnostic, and hence, not orthodox Christian. (Though that goes into question what orthodox Christian is, but I'm not going to open that can of words. I personally like what John Reilly wrote:

There was nothing arbitrary or tendentious about the choice in the second century of the Four Gospels for the canon. The class of Gnostic literature called "gospels" have, for the most part, no interest in a historical person called Jesus, or indeed in anything but their authors' apprehension of the Other World. Some of them are a little like those television commercials for the July 4 auto sales: the actors are dressed like the Founding Fathers and 18th-century fife music plays in the background, but the characters talk to each other about the merits of a certain brand of SUV. Similarly, the Gnostic literature simply appropriates Christian names and themes to talk about something else. All four of the canonical Gospels, in contrast, are pretty much about the same thing.

He also likens the gnostic gospels to Bible fanfiction, an analogy that amuses me to no end, though he's not the first to suggest it on the internet, apparently. Personally, this passage from a New Yorker review of the Gospel of Judas proves that in that particular apocryphon Judas is simply a Mary Sue:

It begins just before Jesus’ last Passover in Jerusalem, as the disciples are offering a prayer to God over the dinner table. Watching them, Jesus laughs. “Why are you laughing at us?” the nettled disciples ask, and Jesus says that he is laughing not at them but at their strange idea of pleasing their God. (One of the unnerving things about the new Gospel is that Jesus, who never laughs in the canonic Gospels, is constantly laughing in this one, and it’s obviously one of those sardonic, significant, how-little-you-know laughs, like the laugh of the ruler of a dubious planet on “Star Trek.”)

The disciples are furious at Jesus’ condescension, except for Judas, who thinks he knows what the laughter signifies. “I know who you are and where you have come from,” Judas says, standing before him. “You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.” Apparently startled by his insight, Jesus tells Judas, “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the Kingdom.”

The true mystery, as Jesus unveils it, is that, out beyond the stars, there exists a divine, blessed realm, free of the materiality of this earthly one. This is the realm of Barbelo, a name that gnostics gave the celestial Mother, who lives there with, among others, her progeny, a good God awkwardly called the Self-Generated One. Jesus, it turns out, is not the son of the Old Testament God, whose retinue includes a rebellious creator known as Yaldabaoth, but an avatar of Adam’s third son, Seth. His mission is to show those lucky members of mankind who still have a “Sethian” spark the way back to the blessed realm. Jesus, we learn, was laughing at the disciples’ prayer because it was directed at their God, the Old Testament God, who is really no friend of mankind but, rather, the cause of its suffering.
 
O
M
G
To save the eyes of all good devout Christians I shall behave and refrain from going on and on about what the Canonical Books/New Testament.
Nope..not even gonna make snide comments about the powers of the Omnipotent one...

See...i CAN behave;)
 

Philip

Donor
The way I see it, you have the current canonical Bible, then the Old Testament Apocrypha books accepted by the Catholic Church (and seen by other denominations- such as Lutheranism- as worthy of study),

By 'current canonical Bible' do you mean 'currently accepted Protestant Bible'? Bit biased. And why not mention the canons used in the East?

So supposing the Council of Nicea was a wee bit open for other books.

Nicaea did not establish a canon.

I've recently read the Didache and it seems like a good place to start. I can't believe it's not even in the Apocrypha.

The Didache is a good candidate for the NT. IIRC, it was not commonly accepted as NT Scripture because it was not circulated in the West. It is not in the Deuterocanon ('Apocrypha') because it was written after the time of Christ. The Deuterocanon is all BC.

Other good candidates are 1 Clement, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Protevangelium. They fit well theologically (at least for Catholics and Orthodox) with the rest of the NT.

The writings of Sts Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna might also be considered, but they are clearly written by second generation Christians -- more likely to be considered very important but not Scripture.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
Well, for a start, how about a retention of the Book of Jubilees?

I don't think there was really any support for Jubilees. It is accepted as Scripture in Ethiopia, but I don't think anywhere else. The Christian Fathers did have a favorable view of it, but its anti-Gentile slant and emphasis on Mosaic Law does not mix well with the NT. I don't think it was highly regarded by Jewish leaders either.

Edit: The biggest thing going for it might be the teaching that the Messiah would be from the House of Judah, not a Levite. Many Jews at the time expected the Messiah to come from the Maccabees
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
If that is so, then why was it in the Tanakh for so long? IIRC the Tanakh that Jesus would have been familiar with had the Book of Jubilees in it.

Can you provide a citation for that? Do either Philo or Josephus mention it? Is it included in the MT?
 
I'm a Christian. I'm currently studying the early history of the Church and our tenuous knowledge of what was going on at the time. I like the Didache because it's an actual how-to booklet rather than a Gospel or Epistle or Revelation. The only jarring problem I saw was that the eschatology is kind of iffy, but that's the only last section anyways.

By 'current canonical Bible' do you mean 'currently accepted Protestant Bible'? Bit biased. And why not mention the canons used in the East?

Nicaea did not establish a canon.

I wrote the OP over a year ago. You'll have to forgive me. Also, I know that the RCC and possibly the Eastern Orthodox accept the Apocrypha as part of canon. I have no idea what the Oriental Orthodox are into.
 

Philip

Donor
I like the Didache because it's an actual how-to booklet rather than a Gospel or Epistle or Revelation.

Yes. It is commonly believed to be a document used to instruct new converts. Some claim that it is the letter sent out by the Council of Jerusalem, but that seems unlikely. Such a document would almost certainly be considered Scripture.

The only jarring problem I saw was that the eschatology is kind of iffy, but that's the only last section anyways.

Interesting. I always thought it was rather consistent with the thoughts of the time.

I wrote the OP over a year ago. You'll have to forgive me.
No problem.

Also, I know that the RCC and possibly the Eastern Orthodox accept the Apocrypha as part of canon.

Eastern Orthodox do not have an truly official canon. Most commonly it includes all of the Catholic books (but the translations vary since the Orthodox exclusively use the LXX) plus 1 Esdras*, Psalm 151, Manasseh, and 3 Maccabees. Some also include 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees.

1 Esdras was widely quoted by the Church Fathers as well as Josephus. I think the CoE includes it in its Apocrypha. It is a good candidate for wider acceptance as OT Scripture (or even NT, depending on your view of its authorship).

I have no idea what the Oriental Orthodox are into.

Again, it varies. The Ethiopians accept the largest canon (80+ books), including Enoch, Jubilees, and Didascalia Apostolorum (which appears to be based on the Didache).



*The numbering of the books of Esdras is confusing. For example, 1 Esdras to the Orthodox is 3 Esdras (IIRC) in the Vulgate.
 

Philip

Donor
Why is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's canon so inclusive, anyways?

I'm not entirely sure. Both the Ethiopian Jews and Christians have wider canons than their brethren. Maybe it has to do with being (at least partially) isolated from the wider religious community -- they just didn't get the word that a certain book was out.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
I've always wondered why Ecclesiasticus is not accepted by more denominations. We have it in multiple versions, including (since the discoveries in Cairo and the Judean desert) the Hebrew. Technically speaking, it isn't really apocryphal.

Can you provide a citation for that? Do either Philo or Josephus mention it? Is it included in the MT?
For what it's worth, Jubilees was certainly part of the Qumran canon. Besides, as you're no doubt aware, Philo and Josephus mention the existence of a canon, but they're rather coy about which books they consider to be part of this canon.
 
I guess an objective criterion for inclusion is probably out of the question. According to Wikipedia (well, it's Wikipedia, so...) the Apocalypse of Peter is considered not particularly heretical, but it sounds to be even wilder than Revelation. The Didache still sounds nicely authoritative to me, though. I wonder which of these extracanonical works are the least theologically offensive other than the ones Philip mentioned. Perhaps they are the only ones.
 
Last edited:
We can invoke the butterfly effect and postulate new books.
Emily Post comes to mind...:):rolleyes:
Is there any way the works of Milton could have been added to some Protestant sect's canon? Or the Catholics'? :D:rolleyes:
 

Philip

Donor
We can invoke the butterfly effect and postulate new books.

Butterflies from what event?

Is there any way the works of Milton could have been added to some Protestant sect's canon?

No. Even if we skip the fact that nothing written that 17th Century will be considered part of the Bible, we still have to deal with the fact that Milton rejected the Trinity and embraced a form of neo-Arianism. The best you could hope for is that his works are seen be some sect as a new/recovered revelation like the Book of Mormon.

Or the Catholics'?

Have you read Milton's works? He was decidedly anti-Catholic.
 
Actually all 27 books of New Testament are accepted by Ecumenical Councils and Major Synods... It would be a sacrilege to add or remove anything from what Church's Fathers accepted as canonicals...
 
Top