Non-Canonized Biblical Texts

  • Thread starter Thread starter amcintosh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

amcintosh

Guest
I’m relatively new to the Catholic faith and haven’t been keen on reading Scripture, although I have been reading about Scripture and the Apostles lately. I just have a question that’s probably not simple and out of sheer curiosity: are non-canonical Biblical texts valuable for the faithful Christian, and why exactly are they excluded from the Canon? The latest example I read about was the works of Barbaras; his Epistle, Gospel, and Acts are not canonized and apparently sound more Islamic than they do Christian.

The non-canonized texts are definitely assessed case-by-case, but are there any of value, even if not divinely inspired and comprehensive within the larger scripture? I’m a curious man and if I choose to study theology in graduate school, this type of information would be useful.
 
I just read the non-canon ancient books like if I was picking out a book to read on the shelf. It’s a potentially interesting book but it’s not scripture and it shouldn’t be viewed as scripture. It’s slightly scrupulous imo to deliberately avoid them as a matter of principle.

Peace.
 
I would caution against them.
I’m sure that some of the texts are better than others, but as for the one I had the misfortune of ever learning about (I didn’t read it, but the details were laid out in a documentary), it was just a blasphemous conspiracy theory which even years later distract me whenever I read the related parts of the Gospels.
 
Some ancient texts like the Book of Enoch or the Protoevangelion of James are interesting reads that contain some truths but ultimately don’t have the authority as the Canon of Scripture. There is a reason the Church in her wisdom excluded them from canon. The study and reading of them is fine as long as you recognize their place. Some people take a gnostic approach to texts like these and act as if they are some hidden knowledge that Holy Mother Church is trying to suppress. This is an unfounded conspiracy theory.
 
A few of them are nefarious but the majority of non-canon books are religious books written by pious, orthodox Jews who loved God. People wrote books back then just like they do today, although it was far more time-consuming and expensive.

The non-canon books simply didn’t become canon, for one reason or another. The Didache isn’t part of the canon of scripture but I would still recommend that a person read it.
 
Last edited:
The Canon of scripture is the tool of our official apostolic teachers, and we read along as they open the Scriptures to us.

As we learn all that was Sent to us to be known as truth, we will be able to recognize that our official apostolic teachers do not teach us, reprove us, correct us, nor train us in righteousness from the texts cited as not part of their apostolic “toolkit”. They have a well defined set of texts they trust.

If we are good students of our priests and bishops, of our Church, our Lord, then we will see truth or error or fantasy wherever we read it, and realize we are students of our official apostolic teachers, rather than students of the writers of texts, and rather than students of any text itself.

I reverence the bible because my bishop and priest and Pope carry it as their guide. Anything contradictory is not from them - I don’t consider to be truth anything that is simply stimulating to read nor advocated by one who is not my superior in the Faith.

A student knows only as much as his teacher.
A person teaching himself is only as wise as before he began teaching himself.
The Ethiopian Eunuch replied to Philip, “how can I understand [scripture] unless it be explained to me?”
Another teacher: “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.” Without Him teaching them they were as wise as before they began in not knowing, but with Him teaching they knew scripture as He, their Teacher knew; now they were like their Teacher and could see him for Who He IS.
After Philip, the Ethiopian rode away rejoicing.

Who is teaching is most important.
 
Last edited:
One of the criteria for texts to make it into the canon was their universality. There are interesting reads among apocrypha which just weren’t known widely enough to be integrated. Some just barely didn’t make it, like the Didache, which already was mentioned, or the Shepherd of Hermas (which was hugely popular in the 2nd and 3rd century and is featured in some NT codexes, like the Codex Sinaiticus).

On the other hand, some apocrypha are of more dubious origins. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is an interesting read if you have an interest in how ancient Christianity developed, but it is clearly unorthodox (gnostic).

Edited to fix a typo
 
Last edited:
amcintosh said:
are non-canonical Biblical texts valuable for the faithful Christian, and why exactly are they excluded from the Canon
Click to expand...
It depends on the particular text. Letters like 1 Clement are extremely valuable, as they support earlier inspired writings, but they are not in the NT, because - unlike the NT writings - they contain errors & contradictions with previous Scripture. If you are interested in an in-depth book on this subject, “Why Protestant Bibles are smaller” cites Catholic resources, including Catholic Answers & the Vatican, to address these issues.
 
amcintosh said:
The non-canonized texts are definitely assessed case-by-case, but are there any of value, even if not divinely inspired and comprehensive within the larger scripture? I’m a curious man and if I choose to study theology in graduate school, this type of information would be useful.
Click to expand...
There are some Protestant Apochrypha - included in Catholic Canon…

Such as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus

I suggest to Protestants who may have them as Apochrypha in their Bibles - to check them out.

That said - IMO
  • we’ve already enough on our plates - to try to stick with what we have -
    and still retain Faith in these growing trying times…
    than to concern ourselves with e.g., Barbaras…
 
There are some Catholic duterocanonical books included in the Protestant Apocrypha.

Fixed that for you 😉
 
M.R. James (Victorian Bible scholar by day, horror writer by night) collected two compendiums of short apocrypha, one for the Old Testament and one for the New. Pretty fun, if you like reading oddities.

Just don’t take stuff too seriously, and you may learn a lot about the way people thought back then. The fictional letters of Paul and the philosopher Seneca are pretty cool as a counterfactual.
 
Some books contain material that might well be true, but not rising to the level of certainty to be Scripture. other books contradict either Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

Some books are being pushed today by people with an agenda, such as implying Mary Magdalene was an apostle. Others choose books that de emphasize either Christ’s humanity and crucifixion, or his divinity, his uniqueness.

A common theme is that "these are the books that the “authorities” tried to ban, they don’t want you to read them.

The moderns who are pushing this have a very real anti Magisterium bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top