Note: This is part two of a two-part series on the Antilegomena, or “disputed” books of the Bible. This article examines the books that the rabbis and church fathers narrowly rejected from inclusion in the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Part One looks at the books that rabbinic and church authorities narrowly approved.
Think about your spiritual library for a minute — all your favorite theological and inspirational books, in any genre — the ones that have had the greatest influence on your faith, your ethics, the way you see the world (outside of the Bible, of course).
If you were going to make a list of the most profound and important selections — ones that should be read by every Christian (or even every person) — what would you pick? (I might have Augustine’s Confessions and Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling on mine, for example.)
Now, imagine you and everyone in your church had to share your lists with one another — and you all had to reach an agreement. Probably you would have some overlap. Others that are deeply meaningful to them might seem unimportant or even nonsense to you, and vice versa. (Did either of my picks make your list?) What criteria do you use to narrow it down? How do you determine what’s going to be most universally valuable?
These are the sorts of questions that the compilers of the Biblical canons had to reckon with.
Of course, this is an imperfect analogy: at the end of the day, all of our picks above were written by people, regardless of how wise or saintly — not by the Holy Spirit. The stakes were considerably higher for the canons: they had to determine what was genuinely divine revelation, not merely what was spiritually edifying.
But you see the problem: How do you collectively determine what belongs in the Bible’s library of sacred Scripture (even if it might be controversial), and what doesn’t (even if it might be widely loved)?
Fortunately, the people who made these decisions didn’t have to do it alone. For the most part, it was an organic process guided by the Holy Spirit. But even so, the Spirit is not always easy to discern, and there were certainly some disagreements along the way.
We’ve talked about the books that almost weren’t included in canon because their authenticity or spiritual benefit was in doubt. Now let’s take a look at the books that nearly were included — books that were popular, spiritually beneficial, maybe even somewhat inspired — but were ultimately determined unfit for canon.
It’s important to note that — for the most part — these are not considered heretical books. We’re not talking “gnostic gospels” or Marcionite commentaries. There is some questionable doctrine to be found in the antilegomena, to be sure. But they are generally orthodox works, and many of them are still read and revered even today. They were simply determined to be written by regular (if wise) people, not inspired by the Spirit, and are therefore subject to human flaws and foibles.
Books That Almost Made It Into the Old Testament
There were in fact many, many books that the rabbis rejected from the Hebrew canon, most of which are now lost to us. But there were still a few close exclusions that still managed to resonate throughout the early centuries of the church.
Apocrypha/Deuterocanon
The most important of the Old Testament “antilegomena” basically come down to the Deuterocanon. These books were, of course, included in all Christian Bibles up until the Reformation, and are still found in Orthodox, Catholic, and some Protestant Bibles (mainly Anglican). Most Protestants and Jews today do not consider them Scripture, though.
The Deuterocanonical books are a collection of writings from the Intertestamental Period — that is, the period between the finalizing of the Hebrew Old Testament and the New Testament (roughly 400-100 BC, with a few approaching the time of Christ).
Most were written in Greek, with a few in Aramaic. Because of this, they became popular in the Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora throughout the Roman empire, and were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that also became the de facto Old Testament version for most Christians until Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in the 4th century AD (and remains the default version in most Eastern Orthodox churches).
But they were never accepted by the rabbinic assembly in Jerusalem, which continued to exclusively use the Hebrew books (with a few Aramaic passages). It’s those books that make up the Jewish and Protestant Old Testament today.
Enoch
Other than the Apocrypha, the book that was most narrowly rejected from the Old Testament is probably the Book of Enoch (technically 1 Enoch, as there are two other books bearing his name as well).
Enoch was written sometime between 300 and 100 BC, probably (like Daniel) in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic. But the rabbis quickly dismissed it as heretical because it contains material that contradicts the Torah, yet wasn’t old enough (like Ezekiel) to have established its prophetic credentials.
The rabbis’ concerns weren’t unfounded. Enoch has indeed often been used in heretical contexts, particularly among gnostic groups who came to see angels as part of the fallen world order created by an evil demigod rather than the Lord of Heaven.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in Part I, the book achieved wide popularity and influence by New Testament times, and was even referenced several times by the apostles (e.g., in Jude and 2 Peter). It was also instrumental in the development of the doctrine of Satan as the prince of the fallen angels (which is hinted at but never explicitly said in the Bible itself).
Books That Almost Made It Into the New Testament
There is a long list of books that were at one point considered Scripture by some early Christians. Most were either determined to be spurious or, as I’ve written elsewhere, simply weren’t widely accepted and fell out of favor by the time canon became more consistently established. A few, however, remained widely regarded as “spiritually edifying” and perhaps even inspired, but were not sufficiently apostolic to warrant inclusion in Scripture.
Gospel of the Hebrews
One of the last books to be rejected from the New Testament (Eusebius names it alongside Revelation), this gospel is lost to us except in quotations from church fathers. It appears to focus to some extent on pre-incarnation matters, including suggesting that the Holy Spirit is Jesus’s Divine Mother.
Acts of Paul (and Thecla)
Essentially a sequel to Acts, this book details the rest of Paul’s missionary work, including his martyrdom by beheading, as well as the acts of Thecla, a widely venerated early saint who allegedly baptized herself at what she expected to be her martyrdom before being saved by multiple miracles (one of which involved the divine electrocution of a pack of man-eating seals — seriously, look it up).
The Acts of Paul (sometimes called “Acts of Paul and Thecla,” a testament to the latter’s appeal) was a highly popular book throughout the early church but never caught on strongly with church authorities. Much of the book has been preserved and translated into English, though with considerable lacunae (gaps) in the available manuscripts.
Shepherd of Hermas
Dense with visions, commandments, parables, and allegories, the Shepherd was quoted as an authority by many of the fathers and was even included in some early Bibles.
Despite having a very strong influence on the developing church’s moral theology, it also promotes a low Christology of Jesus as a mortal man adopted into divinity, and thus fell out of favor after the Council of Nicaea anathematized that view in 325 AD.
Nevertheless, it retained an important place in church history, and is relatively easy to find even today.
Apocalypse of Peter
Like the Apocalypse of John (aka Revelation), Peter’s Revelation provides visions and predictions of Christ’s Second Coming, the rewards of the righteous in heaven, and the torments of the wicked in hell. It was actually accepted as Scripture in some circles before Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter.
Though it was controversial for many of the same reasons as John’s Revelation, it appears to have been ultimately rejected because it suggested both that the holy in heaven could rescue the damned from hell with their prayers, and that in the end all souls might be restored in such a manner (a widespread though hotly contested view in the early church that was formally rejected at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD).
Epistle of Barnabas
Ascribed throughout the early church to the Barnabas mentioned in Acts (e.g., Ac. 4:36), this treatise (not actually an epistle) enjoyed almost universal acceptance as authentic and authoritative in the early church.
Barnabas argues that the Jews had misinterpreted their Scriptures — a common argument among early Christians, which in its more extreme articulation was ultimately condemned as a heresy. It also divides between a “Way of Light” and “Way of Darkness,” with explicit descriptions of each path. (The Didache, below, contains the same material almost verbatim, and it’s difficult to tell which one is earlier.)
The book was most likely rejected as Scripture because (even if it was authentic, which some had begun to doubt) it was not by one of the original apostles.
1 & 2 Clement
These two letters were recognized fairly early as not being by the same author, and indeed the second is not even a letter, but the name stuck anyway.
1 Clement, written by Bishop Clement of Rome in the first century AD, addresses divisions in the church in Corinth, much as Paul had done a generation or so earlier.
2 Clement is an exhortation to repentance, probably deriving from a community of converted pagans — judging by its self-reproach for “worshipping stones and pieces of wood … made by humans.”
Probably the earliest known Christian text not included in the New Testament, 1 Clement was and remains well-loved and respected, but was not included in canon simply because it is not by an apostle.
Didache
Also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the Didache is the earliest known Christian catechism, most likely dating from the late first century.
Though brief, it is remarkably comprehensive, providing first an ethical guide in the form of the “Two Ways” virtue-and-vice lists also found in the Epistle of Barnabas; then ritual instructions for sacraments such as baptism, prayer, and Eucharist; and finally some advice on church organization.
The Didache was influential and often cited among the church fathers (and continues to garner appreciation today, especially among Orthodox and Catholics), but few considered divinely inspired Scripture.
Conclusion: The Closing of Canon
In our opening thought experiment I asked what the core criteria would be for making the final call on our canon of spiritual texts.
Ultimately, the church fathers’ primary criterion ended up being a simple one: how reliably could the book in question be connected to one of the original apostles?
This very sensible, conservative approach allowed them to sidestep the worst of the controversy. Writings like 1 Clement, the Didache, or even the Epistle of Barnabas could still be accepted, read, and appreciated — just like our own list of “spiritual classics” — while acknowledging they are not divine revelation.
What then are we to make of all this? I’d suggest two things.
- First, as I said in Part I, is simply how deeply God desires to be in conversation and relationship with us. The Holy Spirit didn’t just plop a finished Bible in our laps, but revealed it gradually, through many hands and voices, over many centuries. More than that, the Spirit is present in Scripture not merely as lightning in a bottle — not only through the course of composing all these books — but also of compiling them. And of course, even today, as readers, the Spirit is with us, guiding us through God’s Word into deeper relationship with the very Word through whom it was written, Jesus Christ.
- Second, Scripture is closed (if still somewhat disputed between denominations, particularly with regards to Deuterocanon) — but engagement is not. The Bible is there not just to look upon and appreciate but to mutually interact with. What is engagement if not close relationship — and what is close relationship if not the whole complexity of experiences you might have with someone you love?
I like to think that, through this whole process of canonization, God was saying, hey, it’s OK to have favorites and least favorites in my Book — and favorite non-scripture books that help you connect with and make sense of Scripture — and those might change over time. But ultimately the Bible is the Bible, and as long as you continue to return to it, it will continue to be a lamp to your feet and light for your path.
Catch up on Part I of the Antilegomena, “Books That Almost Made It Into the Bible.” If you want to learn more about the history and content of the books that did make it into the Bible — and how they relate to extrabiblical texts — you can try Bible Gateway Plus free for 14 days and get access to dozens of top resources for studying the Bible and deepening your relationship with God’s Word.
Jacob Edson is Editorial Director of Bible Gateway. He holds a Master of Theological Studies in Early Christian Thought from Harvard Divinity School, and a Bachelor of Arts in Religious History from Memorial University of Newfoundland, though with most of his coursework from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. His work has previously appeared in Ekstasis and Geez Magazine. He lives with his wife and children in New England.
