I was flipping through channels last night, looking for something interesting to watch, when I came across the History channel.  The program was on books of the Bible that were excluded from it during the 15th century.  In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls are believed to be based on one of these (Enoch, I believe).  Has anyone ever heard this?  What do you think?


Many of these are included in the Roman Catholic and Hebrew versions of the Bible.  Some are included in the Ethiopian version of the Bible and some in the Qa'ran.  Here is a listing of many of the "missing books":
Book of Nathan the Prophet
Book of Gad the Seer
Book of Jasher
Book of Jehu
Book of Acts of Solomon
Book of the Wars of the Lord
Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite
Visions of Iddo the Seer
Baruch
Gospel of the Egyptians, I & II,
II Esther
Book of Wisdom
Gospel of Nicodemus
Judith
Gospel of Phillip
Tobit,
Gospel of Thomas
Esdras
Gospel of Bartholomew
The Secret Gospel of Mark
II Revelation
Gospel of the Hebrews,
Thomas the Contender
Gospel of the Ebionites
The Odes of Solomon,
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Fourth Book of Ezra
Infancy Gospel of Matthew
II Baruch, III Baruch, IV Baruch,
Infancy Gospel of James
Vision of Ezra,
Gospel of Mary
Melchizedek
The Secret Book of John, I, II,& III
The Letter of Aristeas
The Secret Acts of the Apostles
Basilides,
The Acts of John
Idol Bel and the Dragon
I Enoch, * II Enoch, * III Enoch,
I Maccabees, * II Maccabees, * III Maccabees,* IV Maccabees
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul
Creation of the World,
The Acts of Andrew
Ecclesiasticus
The Acts of Thomas,
Testament of Moses
Testament of Solomon,
The Prayer of Joseph,
The Book Of Jubilees
Prayer of Manasseh
Dialogue of the Savior
The Life of Adam and Eve, I & II
Book of Seth
Aristabolus,
The Three Steles of Seth
Artapanus
Second Book of the Psalms of David
Eldad and Modad
Epolemus
Ezekiel the Tragedian
The Lives of the Prophets
History of the Rechabites
Sirach

Some of these books tell of Jesus as a child, some of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary, basically, most of them "fill the gaps" that are left in the "Christian Bible" and complete some references in other books.

I was raised in a mixed marriage, father Catholic, mother Episcopal, so very early
on I developed a healthy scepticism of what was being taught, as opposed to
what was actually practised in the name of christianity.  I wondered who this
King James was, and why did we read his version of the Bible?  Were there other
versions?  Why would one version be different from another?  Shouldn't the
word of God be the same no matter who was translating it?  There are different
interpretations of the Bible, and there seem to be agendas that accompany each.
The different translators included, and excluded, texts that they decided the masses
of people should, or should not, be exposed to.  Faith should not prevent you from
seeking knowledge of what is being taught and why.  Questioning the leaders of
your faith is not a faithless act. 

I was raised in a mixed marriage, father Catholic, mother Episcopal, so very early
on I developed a healthy scepticism of what was being taught, as opposed to
what was actually practised in the name of christianity.  I wondered who this
King James was, and why did we read his version of the Bible?  Were there other
versions?  Why would one version be different from another?  Shouldn't the
word of God be the same no matter who was translating it?  There are different
interpretations of the Bible, and there seem to be agendas that accompany each.
The different translators included, and excluded, texts that they decided the masses
of people should, or should not, be exposed to.  Faith should not prevent you from
seeking knowledge of what is being taught and why.  Questioning the leaders of
your faith is not a faithless act.   






King James refers to King James I of England (son of Mary Queen of Scots) -who reigned 1603-1625. There were many versions of the Bible out there but he commisioned a translation of the Bible in English. He changed some things to suit his own beliefs and deleted others that didn't support them.




Cat

Yes, that is what I found out when I began to question the of the church. The Episcopal church,
offshoot of the Anglican, was premised on King Henry VIII wanting a divorce, the inbred hierarchy of the Vatican and the crowned heads. the divine right of kings. Pagans(those who were not Christian, idol worshipers, etc) were slaughtered for praying to their gods and goddesses, but aren't those other names for saints.  Then followed the question of who became a saint and why.  It doesn't paint a pretty picture once you get into it, especially for women. 

Yes, that is what I found out when I began to question the of the church. The Episcopal church,
offshoot of the Anglican, was premised on King Henry VIII wanting a divorce, the inbred hierarchy of the Vatican and the crowned heads. the divine right of kings. Pagans(those who were not Christian, idol worshipers, etc) were slaughtered for praying to their gods and goddesses, but aren't those other names for saints.  Then followed the question of who became a saint and why.  It doesn't paint a pretty picture once you get into it, especially for women. 




There is more to the story then just Henry wanting a divorce. Normally the Pope would have granted it to him (or an annulment) because Catherine of Aragon (Henry's first wife) didn't concieve a male heir. But, Catherine's nephew was Charles V-the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope didn't want to p!ss off his boss. So, as they say, the rest is history-we now have the Episcopal Church (otherwise known as "Catholic-Lite").


BTW, my mother, too is an Epicopalian. I was baptized in the Epicopal Church but today, I am a Pagan.  ;D



Cat

I have actually read many of the "Apocryphal books" of the Bible.

Apocryphal Book means one that for one reaon or another was not included in the Bible.  One of the most known ones is the "Book of Jubilees".  It is also known as "The Little Genesis" and "The Apocalypse of Moses".

This was an extension of the story of Genesis.  It has Satan much more evident (and named), and the featuring of Adam's first wife.  And there are other things that made it different from the other ancient books that were adopted into the "Canon" of the Jewish Bible.

Most scholars believe it was written between 135-98 BCE, around the time of the Maccabean revolt.  It was also written by a Pharisee, because of some of the wording and references fiven.  Because of this, it was not included in the Bible.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is another one which is gaining popularity.  It is purported to have been written by Mary, and tells a much different view of the Ministry of Jesus then the one we read about in the New Testament.  It (and other Apocryphal books, "The Gospel Of Thomas" and "The Gospel Of Philip") strongly suggest that Mary was actually the wife of Jesus.  It was also a book that was not included.

For anybody interested, this link gives the entire surviving parts of the "Gospel Of Mary":

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

Most notibly, look at Chapter 5, and see how it compares to how it is in the accepted Bible.  Mary is far from a "mere woman", but is obviously (at least in this text) a strong force in the early Ministry.

Other books were not included for various reasons.  "The Gospel Of The Baby Jesus" talks of events documented noplace else, and even events which would stand opposed to events in other books.  It was long considered a "Passion Play", and not an actual history.

I am now (still) trying to read the Chronicles Of Nicodemus.  It was not included for obvious reasons.  Nicodemus is a HUGE book, bigger then the Bible itself.  It is also not a religious book, but a history book.  Written in the late 1st early 2nd century CE, it is actually the oldest independent mentions of the New Testament, including John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.  But because it is Historical and not Religious, and that it is just so huge, it was not included.

A great many of the Apocryphal books are available.  Some like the Gospel Of Mary are readily available on-line, because of their size.  Others are available in contemporary books.  I found The Gospel Of Thomas in a B. Dalton bookstore several years ago.  I found Nicodemus last year at a Walden Books.

I am certainly no biblical scholar, but I read widely, and have read a few books on the early origins of the "official" bible and the excluded texts.  What struck me about those books was that they stressed the situation in which the believers found themselves, and their need to adapt their beliefs to the situation.  An example is "the cult of the virgin" in Celtic areas where Goddess whorship dominated.  Admittedly, I'm looking at all thius as an agnostic, which to me means, God opr Goddess, if you are there, show yourself and I'll believe, otherwise, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.  We can talk at the pearly gates - If you are there, and there are pearly gates.

I mean no disrespect, but I think Believers need to account (discount?) those gosples (testimonies) that have been excluded from the "word of God".  After all, King James most definately WASN"T GOD (or the GODDESS).

None of this, of course, shgould be construed as an attack against believers, I could care less.

Fascinating thread!
:)
I would like to learn more about apocryphal literature.  There are soooo many ancient texts out there.

This is the trouble I have with modern Christian fudamentalists.  They want to tell us that the Bible is complete, absolute, and infallible, when the Bible in all its present forms (King James, Greek, Ethiopian, and so forth) is a canon of texts selected from hundreds of texts by ancient scholars.  These scholars labored under the social and political pressures of their day.  In other words, the Bible was built on political biases. 

Fascinating thread!
:)
I would like to learn more about apocryphal literature.  There are soooo many ancient texts out there.

This is the trouble I have with modern Christian fudamentalists.  They want to tell us that the Bible is complete, absolute, and infallible, when the Bible in all its present forms (King James, Greek, Ethiopian, and so forth) is a canon of texts selected from hundreds of texts by ancient scholars.  These scholars labored under the social and political pressures of their day.  In other words, the Bible was built on political biases. 


Yes, in part, especially the more modern translations.  Many of the "excluded books" as I understand it (and I haven't read any of this stuff for quite a while) was written much closer to the life of Jesus than things that were included (sorry, I can't give details, nor sources, since I gave them all to my sister, who has much more interest in religion than I).  One book I read, though, was called The Origins of Satin, which I don't remember much, except that it was interesting.  All this is why I find it strange that even the most devout believers in the Judeo-Christian God blindly accept King James as "the true bible" without any reflection.  It is obviously and edition of an edition of an edition.... of what could have been the word of God (or the Goddess).