Do you know of any “books” named in the “Bible that are not in the “Bible”?

Do you know of any “books” named in the “Bible that are not in the “Bible”?
If so, will you share what books they are and why they are not included.

Thank you and please no bashing.
Wonderful research leads roccopaperiello. Thank you. Thumbs up.
Rocco – Can I a least make a donation in your name? Please.

Best answer:

Answer by CHANCE
Enoch..the Book of Enoch

Add your own answer below.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Do you know of any “books” named in the “Bible that are not in the “Bible”?”

  • addicted2christ says:


    Catholic, Orthodox: Baruch & Letter of Jeremiah · Additions to Daniel (Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel & the Dragon) · Additions to Esther · Judith · 1 Maccabees · 2 Maccabees · Sirach · Tobit · Wisdom · Orthodox: Prayer of Manasseh · 1 Esdras · 2 Esdras · Orthodox: 3 Maccabees · 4 Maccabees · Odes · Psalm 151 · Syriac Peshitta only: 2 Baruch · Psalms 152–155 · Ethiopian Orthodox only: 4 Baruch · Enoch · Jubilees · 1-3 Meqabyan

  • Panda bear returns again says:

    There are more gosepls that were written that just the four in the goseple

    This is the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas

    And there is also the dead sea scrolls

  • c'estmoi says:

    Thomas and Judas.

    There are a lot more, and I really don’t know why they weren’t included. There’s a lot of theories about it though,

  • roccopaperiello says:

    What Protestant Christians have called “the Bible” in fairly recent history is short a number of books which were part and parcel of what believers considered “the Bible” for over a thousand years, and remain an integral part of the Jewish and Catholic versions of what they consider “God’s Word”, namely the books of
    One Maccabees
    Two Maccabees
    Ben Sirach
    Wisdom of Solomon
    parts of Daniel parts of Esther

    For an excellent comparison of fhe official Hebrew, Catholic & Protestant “canons” of the bible, see

    A Brief History of the Bible [ as reported by Robert Boyd]

    “There are some things that we must consider when we try to declare one Bible translation better than another, as some people try to do when asked which is their favorite. Lets look at a few of these considerations. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. No original manuscripts exist, and there are distinct differences – though often minor – between the various manuscripts that have survived.
    There are many Bibles which differ not only because of different translations but also because of including different selections of writings (e.g., apocryphal books or other books that are not considered canonical by everyone). It therefore becomes difficult to accept the idea that the Bible is an infallible, perfect document when it is not clear which documents really belong in the Bible or which varying manuscripts should be used in the translation, not to mention the inherent uncertainties and problems that arise in translating any of the existing early manuscripts. The Bible is inspired, but there is no denying that it has been touched by human hands! To understand the large variety in canons, we need to look back in history. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus, which is the oldest New Testament collection available, a fourth century manuscript found in a monastery on Mount Sinai, contains two writings which are excluded in the modern New Testament, the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas. And yet even in the other books of that Codex, there appears to be a tendency to omit passages, leading to some shorter versions of Bible verses than we have in the King James text.
    In A.D. 200, a Christian in Rome wrote a list of books considered to be canonical. This list is now known as the Muratorian Canon, named after the man who discovered it in Milan. The list does not include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or 2 Peter, and includes only two of the letters of John. The canonical works did include the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.
    We must keep in mind that the earliest Christians had no New Testament cannon. Their Bible, and that of the Jews to this day, consisted of the Old Testament; this was the Canon of Holy Writ accepted by Jesus Himself, and referred to simply as “the scriptures” throughout the New Testament writings. It was not until A.D. 393 that a church council first listed the 27 New Testament books now universally recognized. There was thus a period of about 350 years during which the New Testament Canon was in process of being formed.
    Early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation . . . contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called “deuterocanonical” (or “apocryphal”) books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon. In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books – although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today.
    When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament. first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) . . . Most early Christian churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament.
    One of the most important of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, known as D or Codex Claramontanus, contains a canon list for both the Old and New Testaments. The manuscript itself is a product of the sixth century, but most scholars believe the canon list originated in the Alexandrian church in the fourth century. This canon omits Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews, but includes the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul (not our Acts), and the Apocalypse of Peter. Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian canon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian’s Diatessaron. The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos of Qalementos (both attributed to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (which includes a post-resurrection discourse of the Savior), and the Ethiopic Didascalia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch (cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude) and the Ascension of Isaiah.
    Part of the problem may have been the rarity of authoritative writings, which had to be copied by hand. Few churches had a complete set of apostolic letters, and it was undoubtedly difficult to tell a correctly written copy from a forgery or an errant copy. Many members might be unfamiliar with a given work cherished by other saints in a different area. New or unfamiliar writings might have been rejected or questioned, and many controversies are easy to imagine.
    In more recent times, Martin Luther called the Epistle of James “a right epistle of straw” (ein rechte stroern Epistel) because it has “no Gospel quality to it” [D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar: Böhlaus, 1929), Ser.3:6:10. Elsewhere he branded it as worthless [Luther (1906): Ser.1:32:299]. In the forward to his early translations, he challenged the apostolic origin of James and also said that Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation did not belong among “the true and noblest books of the New Testament” [see W.G. Kümmel, “The Continuing Significance of Luther’s Prefaces to the New Testament,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 37 (1966): 573-581. Some later editions of Luther’s translations even labeled Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation as apocryphal or non-canonical. Even more surprising, Luther was unhappy with the Sermon on the Mount, calling it a masterpiece of the devil: “Das heist ein meister stuck des Teuffels [sic]” [Luther (1906): Ser.1:32:299] since it gives so much emphasis on works and behavior rather than Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone.
    The popular concept of Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency (in which it is asserted that the Bible as is contains no flaws and is a complete and perfect canon) is hard to square with the centuries-old uncertainty and controversy over what should be in the Biblical canon in the first place. If Martin Luther openly attacked the canonical status of some books in the Protestant Bible, it seems odd that his followers would later claim that the Bible is infallible, complete, and perfect. The Bible makes no such claim for itself.
    Technically, the concept of Biblical inerrancy should mean that the words originally written by prophets and apostles under inspiration of God are correct. However, when many people speak of biblical inerrancy, they have extended a rather reasonable concept to mean that a particular modern translation (esp. the King James Bible) is absolutely perfect and infallible, a proposition that is simply untenable. Unfortunately, since we have absolutely none of the original scriptures as penned by the prophets and apostles, the possibility of inerrancy in the original texts has only limited bearing on the accuracy of the book that you may have in your home.
    Once we understand that there is not just a single, original manuscript to work with, but many different ancient texts, all of which are removed from the originals by many years, then it is easier to understand the genuine complications that we face in dealing with the Bible as a divine document that still has been through human hands. We can understand that outright contradictions might exist between the different ancient sources we have for the Bible. For example, their are contradictions about the ages of the Patriarchs at the birth of their successors when we compare the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. We find that the Masoretic Text offers 720 years as the length of time from Abraham’s birth to the Exodus, while the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch give 505 years. There are may similar examples, all pointing to the obvious fact that different ancient Bibles don’t all give the same text. And even different translations from a common ancient manuscript will differ in many ways. So if the Bible is to be infallible, then we must begin with the question, ‘Which Bible?’ And then we must ask, is that really all there is?”
    Paul’s letters, written around 55-65 CE, fail to mention any Gospel miracle, act or major event concerning Christ’s life, apart from the Eucharist and some vague references to the crucifixion and resurrection. He also fails to accurately quote any of Christ’s teachings, as depicted in the Gospels. Clement, writing some 30 years later, does little better than Paul.

  • BibleChooser says:


    Note, though, that you need to be careful here. Some of these books are *quoted* by the bible but not mentioned, and at least one is theoretical. *Most* of the ones in these “lost” lists are actually mentioned by name in the bible. They are not included *because* they are literally “lost”. No known copy exists.


Leave a Reply

Article Categories
Most Popular Articles