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

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;)

You also seemed to have refrained from writing in complete sentence(s). :p
 

Philip

Donor
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...

I think the idea would be to place the PoD sufficiently far back that the additional books would have always been included.
 
I'm annoyed to note that while I can find loads of excellent information about the various apocryphal, pseudepigraphical, deutorocanonical, and otherwise lost books of Scripture (and various confusingly conflicting ways of categorizing them), I couldn't really find any reviews as to why the "most authenticky" books mentioned before were excluded, other than this. It's a site from a Christian apologetic so I think it's pretty biased, but I like the info.

Epistle of Barnabas. If this book was truly by the companion of Paul, then there might be reason to consider it for the canon. But there is insufficient proof of this, and its late date (c. 90-130) makes it unlikely to have been written by Barnabas [MacD.FormCB, 146]. It also makes use of numerology.
Shephard of Hermas. Reading this book, which Von Campenhausen describes as "more jejune and superficial than the Johannine Revelation," [VonCamp.FCB, 216] brought to mind another book - Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. It is, like that work, self-evidently allegorical, and perhaps indeed inspired; but it was obviously written too late (2nd century) to be attributed to the Apostles.
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans. Metzger notes that this work was finally, once-and-for-all excluded from the canon in the mid-1400s. Now of course it should be easy to see why this work hung around for as long as it did: if it truly is a work of Paul, then it meets the criteria of apostolic authority and deserves to be considered for the canon. But there is nothing to assuredly connect it to Paul, and even if there were, it is in content "almost entirely a compiliation of extracts from the Pauline Epistles." [Black.Marc, 61] In other words, without Laodecians, we ain't missin' nothin' anyway!
1 Clement (also consider 2 Clement). It comes as no surprise that the works of Clement (or works allegedly by him - 2 Clement's authenticity is questionable) were considered by some as worthwhile, for he was a disciple of Peter. Hence, under the criterion of apostolic authority, his works could have entered the canon under the same principles as Luke and Mark did, but he is disqualified by other criteria. In particular, 1 Clement refers to a phoenix as an actual living creature!
Preaching of Peter. Although recognized (by ONE PERSON that we know of!), a late date makes this document unlikely to have been written by Peter.
Apocalypse of Peter. Same as the above. This work was written around 125-50 AD [Metzg.NT, 184], too late for Peter. It bears a haunting resemblance to works like Dante's Inferno, and thus may be inspired in the same category as the Shepherd.
Gospel According to the Egyptians. This work was written around 150 AD (ibid., 169) and was accepted as canonical only in Egypt (naturally). It appears to have been written to promote the doctrines of the Encratites.
Gospel According to the Hebrews. We have no current translation of this work (ibid., 169) so we cannot evaluate it, other than to say that it was probably written in the middle of the second century.

I'm wondering what any other texts would have been feasible.
 

Philip

Donor
I couldn't really find any reviews as to why the "most authenticky" books mentioned before were excluded,

I think part of the problem is a lack of primary sources. The Early Fathers did not comment much on why one book was accepted and another was excluded. Once you get a few generations into Christianity, the attitude seems to be 'Well, we've always used this one, so it must be Scripture.' Edit: That wasn't supposed to sound so sarcastic.

other than this. It's a site from a Christian apologetic so I think it's pretty biased, but I like the info.

The information (IIRC) is correct but presented in a somewhat inconsistent manner.

I'm wondering what any other texts would have been feasible.

Seeing the mention of Laodiceans brought something to mind. St Paul does mention an Epistle to the Laodiceans (in 2 Corinthians maybe). The letter we have today is almost certainly a fake, but it is reasonable to have a PoD where it is not lost. Of course, what it would contain is pure speculation. I think Paul also mentions some other letters to the Corinthians and Ephesians. He also quotes or alludes to a large number of texts, including Jannes and Jambres (Pharaoh's magicians)

Others mentioned in the canonical NT: (There is a plethera of lost books mentioned in the OT.)

St Jude mentions an earlier letter and alludes to the Assumption of Moses.
St John mentions some letters that seem to be lost.

Some others that I have thought of:

Acts of Paul and Thecla: More of Paul's teachings in Asia Minor. I don't think anyone accepted the text as canonical, the story contained in it is well received in the East. Thecla is considered a saint by the Orthodox.

Acts of Pilate: Again, I don't think anyone accepted this as Scripture, but much of the material is well received. It includes a description of the Harrowing of Hell.
 
Top