The Reason Why some Extra Biblical books were Excluded from the Canon of Scripture

One of my friends on facebook posted this challenge to me: “When the book was comprised, man constructed the book in its entirety. Why were the specific books that are present in the book today, chosen over the hundreds of other books available? For example, Abraham had many writings and teachings which were not included. Who made these decisions, and what motivated them? Even in the end of the debate over the literature, which was annotated and assembled by man into the novel it is today, we have no proof beyond paper with ink affixed to it.”

I take it you are referring to the Bible. Yes, men of God were used to put the Bible together as we have it today (see 2 Peter 1:20-21). 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, which gives us the 66 books that comprise the Bible we have today. You ask why such books were chosen to be in the Bible, while others were rejected. Especially in light of so many other books available? According to the so called Jesus Seminar, there are around 20 Gospels written around the time of the early Church, such as the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Philip, Peter and Mary Magdalene, etc. Why were not such gospels included in the Bible we have today?            

It is important to note that early in Church history many counterfeit gospels were circulating in many of the Eastern Churches. Like wheat and chaff that look the same but are not. Wherever real wheat was, chaff was sure to be found there as well. So it is with the true gospels that were circulating in the Churches. The false gospels were making their rounds as well. As early as 140 A.D. a heretic by the name Marcion was writing his own counterfeit scriptures and propagating it much like modern day Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons do. The early Christians during this time realized that something had to be done to stop this. The church needed to counter his influence by collecting all the books of the New Testament Scripture. This called for a decision concerning the canon of Scripture. Of course, this meant the early Christians had to decide what gospels and books would be chosen and rejected from the canon of Scripture.            

Here are four reasons given for excluding the Old Testament apocryphal books from the Hebrew canon:

(1.) They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.
(2.) They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are at variance with inspired Scripture.
(3.) They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
(4.) They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.[i]           

Here is the historical testimony of why such apocrypha books were excluded from the Bible:

(1.)  Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

(2.)  Josephus (A.D. 30-100), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the Old Testament as twenty-two. Neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.

(3.)  Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the Old Testament.

(4.)  The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

(5.)  No canon or council of the Christian Church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.

(6.)  Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha—for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

(7.)  Jerome (A.D. 340-420), the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. Jerome said that the church reads them “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine.” He disputed with Augustine across the Mediterranean on this point. At first Jerome refused to even to translate the apocryphal books into Latin, but later he made a hurried translation of a few of them. After his death and “over his dead body” the apocryphal books were brought into his Latin Vulgate directly from the Old Latin Version.

(8.)  Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha.

(9.)  Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

(10.) Not until A.D. 1546, in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.[ii] 

As per example, let’s briefly examine the gospel of Thomas.  In verse 14 it says, “Jesus said to them, ‘If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. …’” Since Jesus often went aside to pray alone. Do you honestly think this is something Jesus would say? Next, verse 108, “Jesus said, ‘Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.’” First, why would Jesus say such an absurd command as ‘drink from my mouth?’ Secondly, an equally as foolish, why would Jesus say that person ‘will become like me; I myself shall become that person?’ Verse 114 says, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’” Does this mean that females actually have to become males to enter the kingdom of God? Do you honestly believe these are the words of Jesus?       

In the beginning of the gospel of Mary Magdalene It says, “Peter said, ‘As you’ve told us almost everything, tell us this also: what is the world’s sin?’ Jesus replied, ‘There’s no sin in reality! It is you who create sin, when you do deeds, such as adultery, that are called sinful. That’s why Good enters your heart to turn you back to your source. This is why you get ill and eventually die.’” Why would Jesus say that there is no sin in reality, when that was the very purpose in why He came into the world to die for our sins?  

 Now as for the supposed writings of Abraham, the same rules for exclusion from the canon of Scripture as mentioned above would also apply to the writings of Abraham as well. If it really was written by Abraham from the book of Genesis, perhaps it would have been included in the canon. The fact that it isn't, speaks for itself as not originating from him. Now as for your further comment, "Scribbles of men's perceptions. There is no way to prove the presence of this god. We can only discuss lost events and debate about events which have been covered by the elite, to form the truth they see fit for the blind masses. You think ink can flow from the construct of the Supreme Being?" If the Holy Scriptures were just the mere perceptions of fallable men. Its truths would have been exposed as false within the first hundred years of its existence. Now as for having no proof of the presence of God. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:19-22). As for the elite in the church choosing to form the truth of the scriptures as they see fit for the blind masses. If you truly knew your history well about the church, you would know how truly absurd such a comment is. Finally, as for ink flowing from the construct of the Supreme Being. Again, God chose man as His vehicle to convey His written message to the world. Even Jesus never wrote books to include in the canon of Scripture, but left that responsibility to His disciples to carry out. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21).

---

[i] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Updated, 1999),  pgs. 29-30.

[ii] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, pgs. 31-32.