Talk:Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible

message: I removed this from the page,"Several works of Solomon: 2,135 proverbs; 1,003 songs; and a manual on botany. 
Referenced at 1Kings 4:32. "
Whoever posted this may be referring to another verse, so I thought I'd quote it so you can check what verse it was. However, there is no verse 4:32, as chapter 4 of 1 kings ends with verse 20. Abdishtar (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Several lost works of Solomon

message: Hypostasis of the Archons features a number of ideas that don't appear until the second century CE, when Gnosticism got into full swing.  The Gospel of John was more likely than not written between 90-100 CE.  It is unlikely that it is Hypostasis of the Archons quoted, but the Gospel of John.  Hypostasis of the Archons quotes plenty of other works throughout it.
; "Hypostasis of the Archons features a number of ideas that don't appear until the second century CE, when Gnosticism got into full swing."
; Do you see how silly your reasoning is?  OF COURSE second century AD makes sense if you discount earlier works.  You win infinite cake.73.213.142.170 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I deleted Hypostasis of the Archons from the New Testament references section

message: I've gone ahead and boldly merged Lost books of the New Testament & Lost books of the Hebrew Bible here.  I realize there was no consensus from this discussion to do so, and this will probably be somewhat of a contentious action, but let me explain why I did it.  As I've stated numerous times already, "Lost books of the New Testament" & "Lost books of the Hebrew Bible" are absolutely misnomers as far as titles are concerned.  These books are lost works, but those titles denote they are lost works of the NT and HB, i.e. they were at one time included in those collections.  This is simply not the case and there is no verifiable, reliable scholorship to suggest that is so.  Even if these articles were renamed to Lost Books Referenced in the Hebrew Bible (or NT as the case may be), it still necessitates a separate article for Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible to cover pseudepigraphy.  What I am trying to achieve here is a bit of "one-stop" shopping.  These so-called "lost books" do fit under the canopy of "non-cannonical" (as they were never included in the cannonical Tanakh or New Testament) better that pseudepigraphal books fall under the moniker of "lost".  Philo raised the issue of naming between "Bible" and "Hebrew Bible" in his move of Lost books of the Old Testament to Lost books of the Hebrew Bible.  This is a legitimate concern and I can see a case being made to split this out into Books referenced in the New Testament and Books referenced in the Hebrew Bible (or Books referenced in the Tanakh.  But either way the term "lost" should be left out of the title as it is misleading does not correctly depict the status of the books listed here.--Isotope23 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go even further, and point out that at least two entries on this least could well be canonical books of the Tanakh, for all we know. So it is POV even to say that the books are "non-canonical". Ben Standeven 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can source this, go ahead and boldly remove them from this page.--Isotope23 13:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than boldly removing, I suggest including the dissenting opinion in a footnote. CaliforniaKid 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boldly Merged

message: Perhaps "texts" would be a more accurate term than "books."  Just a thought.  I also recommend changing the subheaders.  Some texts (like 1 Enoch) do not fall into clear-cut Christian-related or Jewish-related categories.  How about, "Texts Mentioned in the Hebrew Bible" and "Texts Mentioned in the Christian New Testament"?  There should also be a footnote for the Book of Enoch to the effect that while it is non-canonical for most modern Christian groups, it is included in the Ethiopian Coptic canon.  CaliforniaKid 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Suggestion

message: Note: The URL redirects from "Lost Books" ie., "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_books_of_the_New_Testament&redirect=no" to this page "Non-canonical books" can be used, by other websites, to mislead since non-canonical books cannot be lost from a canonical collection.
Wiki example below: The supposed Earlier Epistle (Epistle just means a letter) to the Ephesians Referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4. The assumption: If it's referenced in the canon then it must have been lost.
Rebutal by John Calvin: It would be highly probable that he (Paul, the writer to the Ehpesians)would write many epistles, both of a public and private nature, to various places. Let us rest assured, that what is left is enough for us, and that the smallness of the remaining number is not the result of accident; but that the body of Scripture, which is in our possession, has been adjusted by the wonderful counsel of God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved commentary from main page

message: This particular piece of apocrypha is extensively utilized in the New Testament. Yet it isn't mentioned here, or in any of the articles on non-canonical/apocryphal works. Fuzzform (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Can you give an example of one way it's utilized? StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: No. The Acts of Pilate is a more recent work.  It's oldest portions probably are written a century later than the gospels, and those were greatly embellished over time.  Such works often were romantic extrapolations of minor characters found in the canonical texts.  Often, they were used to justify or correct various heresies.  Frequently, they borrowed passages from the older works to give them an air of authority.98.204.177.2 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gospel of Nicodemus]]/Acts of Pilate 

message: The single half-sentence, "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." cannot be proof enough that the "Life of Adam and Eve" was referenced.128.192.147.188 (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Life of Adam and Eve not clearly referenced by 2 Corinthians 11:14

message: The phrase "whats up cracker" appears in a few places on the page if you view the page without signing in. If you sign in the phrase disapears.
Is this a strange kind of vandalism of Wikipedia?
--Terrencemorgan (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Some of these references to non-canonical books have expanded discussions elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to make links from here to those discussions (and back from those discussions to here)? I would just go ahead with a couple of them that I know about, but I would undoubtedly not be able to find all of them, and I wouldn't want to go through the effort of a systematic search-and-update if the results are not welcome. I intend to make a couple of those links just to see how it looks to others. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to expanded discussion 

message: For the sake of completeness, there should be a section for appropriate references in what is variously called the Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. Unless someone has a better idea, I will start this off with the rather tedious chore of going through the marginal notes in the Jerusalem Bible. I would appreciate help, not only because it is tedious, but also because I am confident that I will make errors of omission and commission. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added in several "references" from the A-D books to "non-canonical" books. In following the pattern of the other references, I used the "bibleref" template. Unfortunately, this template is incomplete with respect to the A-D books. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better template? I find this template totally unsatisfactory. I notice that Wikisource has several English versions of the Bible, most of which are not shy about including the Apocrypha. Is there some way that a person can link to all of these? If so, I'd be tempted to replace all of the uses of the "bibleref" template with that. Or at least to use that in some other articles that I'm interested in where there is no link given. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical 

message: What good is Wikipedia as a resource if it just directs you to the Greek New Testament? It should cite the Greek New Testament as justification for a complete list. --134.193.184.133 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List the 132 references! 

message: I am not an apologist for the LDS, but ISTM that it is appropriate to mention the belief of the LDS about the Book of Jasher. There is a difference from saying that a significant number of people believe such and such and saying that that belief is credible. I hope that the ordinary reader of Wikipedia could tell the difference.     TomS TDotO (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS & Jasher 

message: Beth Allison Barr's recent book The Making of Biblical Womanhood draws a connection between Paul's discussion of women being silent in the church to Livy's contemporary work History of Rome. Barr makes a case that Paul responds to a Corinthian application of Livy/Cato by quoting a preceding letter (now lost) in 1 Cor 14:34-35 then responding in opposition in verse 36. I only have Barr's book on an eReader and have only accessed Livy online, so I am hesitant to make this addition to the "Pagan authors" list without all the right references.
History of Rome by Livy, quoting Cato's speech regarding the Oppian Law, may be paraphrased in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. "What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women's husbands! Could you not have asked our own husbands the same thing at home?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.135.202.41 (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cato via Livy in 1 Corinthians 14 

message: An unknown messianic prophecy possibly from a non-canonical source, quoted in Matthew 2:23 that states "...he will be called a Nazorian." ... "Nazorian" is typically rendered as "Nazarene" ("from Nazareth"), as in Acts 24:5, where Christians are referred to as "the sect of the Nazorians/Nazarenes"...."
This is completely off base. The reference is to Zechariah 3:8 & 6:12. The name "Nazareth" means "city of the Branch."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnatFriend (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown Messianic Prophecy