{"id":5525,"date":"2025-02-03T07:07:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-03T12:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/learn\/?p=5525"},"modified":"2026-05-26T15:09:27","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T19:09:27","slug":"antilegomena-books-that-barely-made-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/learn\/bible-101\/about-the-bible\/antilegomena-books-that-barely-made-it\/","title":{"rendered":"These Are the Books that Barely Made It Into the Bible: Meet the Antilegomena, Part I"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Note: This is part one of a two-part series on the <\/em>Antilegomena, or \u201cdisputed\u201d books of the Bible. This article examines the books that the rabbis and church fathers narrowly agreed were divinely inspired in the Old and New Testaments, respectively. Part Two<\/a> takes a look at the books that rabbinic and church authorities narrowly rejected.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everyone has favorite books of the Bible \u2014 and most people have least <\/em>favorite books, too. So it should come as no surprise that the people who compiled the canons of the Old and New Testaments had their own opinions on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve written before<\/a> about how, for the most part, these canons formed organically, based on the most commonly used and agreed-upon books. But that doesn\u2019t mean there wasn\u2019t some contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the long (centuries-long, in fact) process of discerning which texts were genuinely inspired by God; which were not inspired, but still spiritually edifying; and which were spurious and even dangerous, both the Old and New Testaments had some close calls. These are known as the antilegomena \u2014<\/em> Greek for \u201cspoken against,\u201d or \u201cdisputed\u201d \u2014 and this is their story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or rather, the first half of the story \u2014 the books that ultimately got included, by the skin of their teeth. The other side of the story is the books that almost<\/em> made it into the Bible<\/a>, but were determined not<\/em> to be divinely inspired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Establishment of Biblical Canon<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Bible didn\u2019t spring out fully formed, plopped into the lap of the temple authorities or apostles. That\u2019s not God\u2019s way. (This is the God who made the universe gradually, over seven \u201cdays,\u201d and who came to earth as a baby and lived and grew and wandered about for 30 years before he began his ministry.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we now know as the Bible developed gradually<\/a>, over many centuries, and required faithful Jews and Christians to carefully analyze and determine which books qualified for inclusion in Holy Scripture \u2014 even, in some cases, when they wished they didn\u2019t!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Old Testament Canon<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

With a few exceptions, such as the five books of the Torah and Jeremiah\/Lamentations, each book of the Old Testament was written by a different author<\/a> (sometimes several authors), sometimes hundreds of years apart from one another (roughly 1400-400 BC, though many of these dates are disputed).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over time these books (or scrolls) became unified into a canon<\/em>: a widely agreed-upon collection of writings deemed to be inspired by God. In the case of the Old Testament, this matter had been largely settled by the time of Jesus, though in (at least) two different forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jews in the Holy Land, who spoke Aramaic and could still read Hebrew, used all of the books now contained in Protestant Old Testaments<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outside of Judaea, Greek-speaking Jews across the Roman empire relied upon the Septuagint<\/a>, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that also contained a variety of books written in the intervening (\u201cintertestamental\u201d) period. These became known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon, and are included in Catholic, Orthodox, and some Lutheran and Anglican Bibles, but not used today by Jews or most Protestants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New Testament Canon<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The books of the New Testament were compiled in a much shorter time frame than the Old Testament. The earliest books were written down around 50 AD, and they were mostly all completed by the early 2nd century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In those early years after Jesus\u2019s resurrection, most Christians passed on the Gospel orally, or occasionally through letters (many of which made their way into the New Testament). It wasn\u2019t until later, as the first generation of apostles passed away, larger communities started to form, and believers began to realize it could be a long wait until Christ\u2019s second coming, that they began compiling these stories and letters into books (or codexes) to preserve them for the long haul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Banner<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

When deciding what to include, there were some disagreements (that lasted for decades or even centuries), but they ultimately played it safe, falling back on two primary criteria: 1) whether the book could be plausibly connected to a disciple of Jesus who knew him directly (even, in the case of Paul, post-resurrection); and 2) which books were most widely in use by church communities throughout Christendom. This wasn\u2019t a simple popularity contest: if the Spirit was leading these communities, they reasoned, it would lead them generally to the same core texts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were, however, some texts that many Christians \u2014 bishops, priests, and theologians \u2014 did not want to include, for various reasons. And there were some they thought were very useful for personal study, even if they didn\u2019t qualify for inclusion in the Bible \u2014 just as we believe today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Books That Barely Made It Into the Old Testament<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

By the time of Jesus, the Old Testament was well established \u2014 but there were still a few books that that the rabbis were suspicious of, and only grudgingly included. These include Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and surprisingly, Ezekiel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Esther<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the most hotly contested books both by the rabbis and, much later, by the Protestant Reformers, Esther<\/a> almost wasn\u2019t included in the Old Testament for one reason above all: it is the only book in the entire Bible that never once mentions God. There was also some doubt about the historical veracity of the story, which didn\u2019t line up with other historical records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these concerns, the rabbis of the Great Assembly of the Second Temple period (post-Babylonian exile) ultimately determined Esther was worth including as an undeniably powerful narrative of cultural unity in the face of injustice and oppression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ecclesiastes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ecclesiastes<\/a> paints a stark picture of reality as being fundamentally hevel<\/em> \u2014 a Hebrew term usually translated as \u201cvanity,\u201d \u201cfutility,\u201d or \u201cmeaningless,\u201d but most literally meaning vapor<\/em> or smoke<\/em>. Some authorities worried this borderline-nihilistic perspective would confuse or corrupt readers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end they chose to include it \u2014 perhaps because they saw in it, as in Job<\/a>, an acknowledgment of the inscrutability of God\u2019s will in the face of real human suffering. It remains a book that believers are both powerfully drawn to and sometimes disturbed by.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Song of Songs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Why is there an (at times shockingly explicit) erotic love poem in the middle of the Bible? Jewish and Christian interpreters have wrestled with that question in many different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some have found in the Song of Songs<\/a> an allegory for God and Israel, or Christ and the Church, or the Spirit and our souls. More recent interpreters have chosen to interpret it more straightforwardly as an affirmation of romantic yearning and sexual union in human relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s easy to see why rabbinical and church authorities were uncomfortable with it \u2014 but also easy to see how its rich layers of meaning demanded it finally be included.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ezekiel<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Although Ezekiel<\/a> was less controversial than the other books in this section, some of the rabbis were suspicious of it because the temple rituals the prophet describes are sometimes at odds with Mosaic law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also \u2014 among both Jewish and Christian authorities \u2014 some discomfort with the wildly strange imagery of burning wheels and many-eyed beasts. In what would become a pattern for these sorts of apocalypse books, they were concerned about the mystical speculation such outlandish themes might inspire. And not without justification: many apocalyptic sects drew on just these sorts of passages to justify their theologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, they acknowledged that Ezekiel\u2019s visions were genuine, and that we would simply have to wait until the \u201cDay of the Lord<\/a>\u201d to reconcile such concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Books That Barely Made It Into the New Testament<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Despite its shorter length and smaller collection of books, there was even greater dispute over what to include in the New Testament \u2014 perhaps because there wasn\u2019t a unified authority to make such decisions until centuries after the Resurrection. Most of the \u201ccatholic epistles\u201d (i.e., the ones not by Paul) were debated \u2014 and Revelation most of all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hebrews<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As I mentioned above, one of the core criteria for canonical inclusion in the New Testament ended up being association with a named apostolic authority. Early church fathers were therefore hesitant to include Hebrews because of its anonymity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was an early tradition of Pauline authorship, but it was widely disputed from the beginning, and today almost no one believes Hebrews to have been written by Paul. Many other possibilities have been suggested, including Priscilla, Apollos, and Barnabas, but none have proved thoroughly convincing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless the letter\u2019s carefully constructed and sound theology earned its inclusion by the fourth century AD.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

James<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Epistle of James doesn\u2019t appear in many of the earliest sources, and some of the later church fathers were skeptical of its authenticity. Still, enough believed its authenticity was possible \u2014 and were understandably concerned about leaving it out if was indeed by Jesus\u2019s own brother \u2014 that it became increasingly accepted as time went on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jude<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In some ways opposite to James, Jude was commonly accepted by early fathers like Clement, Tertullian, and the Muratorian fragment (the first full list of New Testament canon). But it garnered controversy due to a particular problem: its reliance on the Book of Enoch, which had been rejected from Old Testament canon and even from the Apocrypha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enoch described the fall of the angels and their coupling with human women, producing the Nephilim<\/a> mentioned in Genesis. Despite its formal exclusion from canon, Enoch was immensely popular in the time of Jesus and informed some of the religious thought of the time; indeed, Paul seems to allude to it in 1 Corinthians 11:10<\/a>. Jude, however, quotes it directly in verses 14-15<\/a> and references it throughout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 Peter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Second Peter<\/a> is a curious case because it is stylistically quite different from 1 Peter and features a large amount of overlapping content with the Letter of Jude. Even so, it was never rejected by the fathers (even if some were a bit puzzled by it), and was formally included by Jerome in his Vulgate translation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2 and 3 John<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The first letter of John was never disputed, but there were some initial doubts in the Eastern Church about the second letter, and more about the third. The Latin West accepted them as being from the same apostle, however, so the Eastern Church soon followed suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Revelation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Of all the books in the New Testament, Revelation was by far the most contentious, and even to this day is rejected by some Eastern churches, at least for liturgical use. In general (which is to say, as an oversimplification), it caught on more quickly in the Latin West than in the Greek and Syriac East \u2014 but there appears to have been a lot of back-and-forth about it until at least the 5th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, Eusebius (the church historian who chronicled these matters in depth and was a major source for this article) said around 330 AD that Revelation was both accepted and<\/em> disputed. Various church fathers, councils, and synods either listed or omitted it from their canons throughout the next few centuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The hesitation appears to have been caused by a combination of factors, including the vastly different writing styles of this John from the John of either the Gospel or the Epistles \u2014 suggesting this was not the apostle John and therefore not able to be trusted, at least as the Word of God (though many fathers who rejected it as canon still believed it was inspired).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also the concern, as with Enoch and even Ezekiel before it, that Revelation\u2019s wild imagery and dense symbolism would cause dangerous theological error \u2014 as indeed it did, encouraging some such as Montanus to believe the age of prophecy was not yet ended and that individual revelations from the Holy Spirit could supersede Scripture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even today the meaning of Revelation and how it should be interpreted is hotly debated<\/a> among Christians the world over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martin Luther\u2019s Antilegomena: Books That Were Almost Removed from the New Testament<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Although the New Testament canon had been almost universally established for a millennium before the Protestant Revolution<\/a>, it was (perhaps amazingly) never formally codified by the Church until the Council of Trent in 1546 \u2014 as a direct response to the Reformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That gave the reformers an opportunity to reevaluate the authenticity of the canon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The obvious result of that analysis was the removal of the Deuterocanonical books from most Protestant Bibles (or at least their relocation to the end of the Old Testament, rather than mixed in throughout), since they were not part of the Hebrew Bible affirmed by Rabbinical Judaism. Outside of that major change, they were much more cautious, accepting both the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament as they had been passed down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, that doesn\u2019t mean they had no opinion on the matter, and Martin Luther in particular \u2014 never one to mince words \u2014 was sure to make them clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There were four books Luther clearly wished <\/em>he could remove from canon, even if he reluctantly admitted he could not. The list should look familiar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n