For the first 74 years of the KJV (including most notably the 1611 version) the KJV included the apocryphal books. So if the 1611 version is inspired why don't the Protestant KJV-1611-Only crowd consider them canonical?

In the Gospel of John, the term "Jews" appears significantly more often than in the Synoptic Gospels — 66 times in John compared to 5 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, and 4 in Luke. In the Gospel of John, there are about 31 verses in which Jews are portrayed in a negative light, such as in John 8:42-56: > 42 Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love > me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, > but he sent me. > > 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my > word. > > 44 **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye > will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the > truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. > > 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. > > 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do > ye not believe me? > > 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, > because **ye are not of God**. > > 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that > thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? > > 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and > **ye do dishonour me**. > > 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and > judgeth. > > 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall > never see death. > > 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. > Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my > saying, he shall never taste of death. > > 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the > prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? > > 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my > Father that honoureth me; **of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 > Yet ye have not known him;** but I know him: and if I should say, I > know him not, I shall be a **liar like unto you**: but I know him, and > keep his saying. > > 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was > glad. The occurrences are detailed below: Note: If you edit the question, please keep the numbered list Matthew 1) Matthew 2:2 2) Matthew 27:11 3) Matthew 27:29 4) Matthew 27:37 5) Matthew 28:15 Mark 1) Mark 7:3 2) Mark 15:2 3) Mark 15:9 4) Mark 15:12 5) Mark 15:18 6) Mark 15:26 Luke 1) Luke 7:3 2) Luke 23:3 3) Luke 23:37 4) Luke 23:38 John Note: Negative verses are reproduced 1) John 1:19 2) John 2:6 3) John 2:13 4) John 2:18 5) John 2:20 6) John 3:1 7) John 3:25 8) John 4:9 9) John 4:22 10) John 5:1 11) John 5:10 12) John 5:15 13-n1) John 5:16 "And therefore did **the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him**, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" 14-n2) John 5:18 "Therefore **the Jews sought the more to kill him**, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 15) John 6:4 16-n3) John 6:41 "**The Jews then murmured at him**, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." 17) John 6:52 18-n4) John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because **the Jews sought to kill him**." 19) John 7:2 20) John 7:11 21-n5) John 7:13 "Howbeit **no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.**" 22) John 7:15 23) John 7:35 24) John 8:22 25) John 8:31 26-n6-n11) John 8:42-48 "Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, **ye believe me not**. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, **why do ye not believe me?** He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because **ye are not of God**. Then **answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?**" 27-n12) John 8:52 "**Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.** Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 28-n13) John 8:57-59 "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **Then took they up stones to cast at him**: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 29-n14) John 9:18 "**But the Jews did not believe concerning him**, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight." 30-n15) John 9:22 " These words spake his parents, **because they feared the Jew: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue**." 31) John 10:19 32) John 10:24 33-n16) John 10:31 "Then **the Jews took up stones again to stone him**." 34-n17) John 10:33 " **The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy**; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 35-n18) John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, **the Jews of late sought to stone thee**; and goest thou thither again?" 36) John 11:19 37) John 11:31 38) John 11:33 39) John 11:36 40) John 11:45 41-n19) John 11:53-54 " **Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews**; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." 42) John 11:55 43) John 12:9 44) John 12:11 45) John 13:33 46-n20) John 18:12 "**Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him**," 47-n21) John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, **which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people**." 48) John 18:20 49-n22) John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. **The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death**:" 50) John 18:33 51-n23) John 18:35 "Pilate answered, **Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me**: what hast thou done?" 52-n24) John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, **then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews**: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 53-54-n25) John 18:38-40 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, **he went out again unto the Jews**, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that **I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?** **Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas**. Now Barabbas was a robber." 55) John 19:3 56-n26) John 19:7 "**The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die**, because he made himself the Son of God." 57-n27) John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: **but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend**: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 58) John 19:14 59) John 19:19 60) John 19:20 61-n28) John 19:21 "**Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews**." 62-n29) John 19:31 "**The Jews therefore**, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) **besought Pilate that their legs might be broken**, and that they might be taken away." 63-n30) John 19:38 "**And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews**, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus." 64) John 19:40 65) John 19:42 66-n31) John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when **the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews**, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

We read about the introduction to Annunciation in Lk 1:28-29: > And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. Note the words "she was troubled at his saying". Luke does not say that Mary was taken aback to see a male stranger suddenly standing in front of her. Now, most of the images depicting the Annunciation show Mary kneeling down in contemplative prayer in a room, purportedly her at home. But, wouldn't she be startled to see a man appearing before her in the safety of her home? Is it possible that she was outside, tending the garden, or drawing water, or caring for the domestic cattle, or even shopping? Out of her home, she had the chances of meeting a stranger and not getting afraid. Or, is it possible that Mary had an intuition of the ensuing Annunciation, on account of which she was spending time in prayer and contemplation, remaining mostly at home? My question is: Are there any extrabiblical writings on where Blessed Virgin Mary was, at the time the Angel addressed her before the Annunciation?

For Christians who believe 1 Enoch is pseudepigrapha what internal evidence do you have? A professor saying "trust me bro I'm a professor" is not evidence. In other words, for Christians who believe that 1 Enoch was first written 300 BC, and then deliberately deceptively backdated to make it look like it was written by Enoch 7th generation from Adam before Noah's flood -- as that is what internal authorship claims -- what evidence do you have of this? In case someone does not know what pseudepigrapha means, here's the [origin and history of *pseudepigrapha*](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudepigrapha) from the *etymonline* website: > **pseudepigrapha**(n.)
"books or writings of false authorship," 1620s (implied in *pseudepigraphical*), especially of spurious writing professing to be Biblical in character and inspired in authorship, from Modern Latin use of Greek neuter plural of *pseudepigraphos* "with false title," from *pseudos* "a lie" (see [pseudo-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudo-)) + *epigraphē "a writing" (see [epigraph](https://www.etymonline.com/word/epigraph)) . **Note**: I mean what internal evidence in 1 Enoch do you have that it was first written 300 BC, and not pre-flood by Enoch 7th from Adam? I know a lot of people like to refer to authority figures, and majority to get their opinions, but for this question I am asking for *internal evidence*. Actually you can use evidence from archaeological writings/inscriptions from the Ancient Near East to argue against it if you want, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls.

One of the common criticisms of *Sola Scriptura* (meaning that Scripture is the only infallible rule for Christians) is that the canon list is not found in the Bible itself, so Protestants rely on Scripture being infallible without infallibly knowing what is infallible. I hear this especially from Catholics, but I also hear it from Eastern Orthodox. Anyway, I don't want to debate that point here; I'm just mentioning it to give context. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that in addition to Scripture, the ecumenical councils are also infallible. As I understand it, local synods and councils are not regarded as infallible by either tradition. For the Catholics, this doesn't threaten the integrity of the canon of Scripture, as it was defined for them by the Council of Trent. However, regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, the canon was not defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils. Instead, they follow the decision of the Council in Trullo (692), a.k.a. the Quinisext Council, which was reaffirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672). However, neither of these is one of the seven ecumenical councils. I know that the Quinisext Council may be seen as an emendation of the decisions of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, but is it therefore regarded as infallible despite not being itself an ecumenical council? This canon list is different from those of the Council of Laodicea (364) and the Council of Rome (382), both local councils (though admittedly the provenance of the preserved canon lists from those councils is disputed). So my question is: **Despite not being defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils, does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a belief in an infallible canon list for Scripture?** If so, how is it known to be infallible?

What Roman Catholic doctrines are based only in the 7 books canonized by the Roman church, but not accepted by Protestants. (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the additions to Daniel and Esther, etc...)

When I was researching about the deuterocanon (or the apocrypha, as most Protestants call them) I stumbled upon the notion that God was silent during a period of 400 years between the end of the Old Testament (after the Prophet Malachi) and the beginning of New Testament time (namely the appereance of John the baptist). From a Protestant point of view where the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are not considered scripture, there is indeed a 400 year gap in revelation -- no prophets, no inspired writings, nothing. From a Catholic, Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, point of view however there is scripture written and inspiration taking place during that period and there is no gap (at least not that long) in Gods revelation. Now, when looking for reasons why christians consider the deuterocanon/apocrypha inspired or not I am sometimes told that those writings originated in a period where God was silent and thus cannot be considered scripture (like here , here or here ). To me this is: 1. A circular argument (apocrypha are not scriptural -> God was silent 400 years -> in those 400 years no inspired scripture was written -> apocrypha are not scriptural) or 2. There must be another reason to believe God was silent for that period. This reason would break the circle in (1) and make the stated argument valid. **My Question: What biblical basis give adherents of a large time of Gods silence between the Prophet Malachi and John the Baptist beside the (perceived) fact of missing inspired scripture in that period?** A best answer could simply cite the prophet X in saying: "Listen, God will be silent for 400 years before the fulfillment of time." and then stating that this fulfillment of time has come with Christ. But there may be more to say to that matter ...

Regarding the Old Testament canon, Protestants follow the Jewish canon based on the assumption that this is the canon accepted by Jews before the coming of Christ. However, the historical evidence that the canon of the Hebrew Bible was decided before Christ is far from conclusive. There are some ancient claims (as can be found in Justin Martyr for example) that the Jews altered their OT in order to elide the parts that might look Christian, and I have heard some Catholics say that the deuterocanonical books were left out of the Jewish canon for the same reason. I guess I'm a little skeptical that this makes sense. **Is there anything in any of the deuterocanonical books that would be objectionable to Jews?** To be clear, I am asking specifically about the *contents* of the books. The well-established fact of their late authorship (relative to the protocanon) and the fact that many of them were not composed in Hebrew were probably also factors influencing the Jews' decision not to canonize the Apocrypha. However, I am wondering whether there are additional reasons related to what the books actually say. I don't need an example from each of the deuterocanonical books, I would be satisfied by just one or two examples of statements from them which Jews would disagree with but not Christians would not.

In *Systematic Theology* chapter 3 "The Canon of Scripture", Wayne Grudem says > It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). (This is on page 59 in the 1st edition.) What does he mean by this? He is certainly not unaware of the Council of Carthage (397), because he cites this just 5 pages later for its decision on the NT canon. However, the Council of Carthage's Old Testament canon includes all of the Apocrypha found in modern Catholic Bibles (except Baruch). Is this an oversight on Grudem's part? Or is there some qualitative difference between the decision of the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent that makes the latter an official declaration while the former not? *Note:* Grudem also does not mention the Council of Rome (382) anywhere that I can find, which was the first council to discuss the canon and included the Apocrypha as well, but he may be following the scholarship which regards the canon list of the *Decretum Gelasianum* not to be genuinely derived from the Council of Rome. If so, then he would have no reason to mention it as no direct evidence of the Council of Rome's decisions exist.

In doing research primarily online, I have been seeing conflicting claims about how deuterocanonical books were inserted into the Vulgate by Jerome. * Some say that in the original manuscripts of the Vulgate, Jerome put the deuterocanonical books into their own section. * Other sources say that Jerome interspersed the deuterocanonical books and segments into the rest of the Bible, similar to (but maybe not exactly as) the Catholic Bible integrates them now. This question is **not** asking what Jerome's opinions were on the deuterocanonical texts or if he "approved" of the Apocrypha or anything like that. This question is **strictly about how the deuterocanonical texts were placed in the original Vulgate.** Thanks!

One gets to read in [National Catholic Register](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/is-the-legend-true-did-jesus-write-a-letter-to-king-abgar) , the text of a letter alleged to have been written by Jesus in response to the letter from King Abgar of Edessa requesting the Lord to heal him : > Blessed are you who have believed although you have not seen me. For it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, and that those who have not seen me will themselves believe and shall be saved. But regarding what you wrote me, to come to you, I must fulfill all things for which I was sent, and, after thus fulfilling them, be taken up to Him who sent me. And when I have been taken up, I shall send you one of my disciples to heal your suffering and to give life to you and those with you.”. I wish to know if the Catholic Church has made any formal study on the said correspondence reported to have been made between King Abgar and Jesus ?

Did Ellen White say that the book of Hebrews was written by Paul? According to the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary, the book of Hebrews has many differences compared to Paul's other writings.

Can Jesus encourage someone to commit sin? And furthermore, can Jesus hasten someone to commit a sin? In John 13:27 it reads: > And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, > That thou doest, do quickly.

We read in Matthew 4 how Jesus was tempted in the desert. First temptation goes like this: > The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”. > Note the usage 'these stones'. Satan was not pointing to the dusty stones lying somewhere. Most likely, he picked a stone or two, dusted them and placed them in Jesus' hands before making the suggestion (Satan is traditionally believed to have extended the forbidden fruit to Eve in Eden). In the second and third temptations, we see Satan 'taking' Jesus to places. He was acting friendly with Jesus, and may have guided him with a hand on Jesus' shoulder, just as a person helps a friend climb a hill. At last Jesus says " Get away from me.." implying that Satan was in close proximity. The Gospels do not state in what form Satan tempted Jesus, and in what proximity he was. Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views available on the subject?

We hear Jesus saying in Lk 4:18: > The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. We see a number of chosen persons in OT getting anointed for specific purposes, for instance, Aaron in Exodus and David in 1 Samuel. There was a prescribed procedure for the anointment. Now, the name Christ or Messiah literally means 'anointed'. But we do not see the Gospels mentioning his physical anointment, though his Baptism is narrated. **Was Jesus physically anointed by someone?** Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views available on the topic?

In an example of exceptional cases, NIV of Mtt 27:17 reads: > When the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”. < The Gospels sometimes use the nick- names of persons, for instance, Thomas which literally means 'the twin '. Now, Barabbas is a prominent figure in the Passion . The literal meaning of the name is ' Son of the Father, implying that his father was equally or more notorious as a criminal. But, then he was not born a criminal, and the nick-name Barabbas was probably imposed on him after he started showing his true colours! So, what was his given name ? In case Jesus shared his given name with the person nicknamed Barabbas, Pilate in the capacity of the judge in the capital punishment proceedings had to be extremely careful in identifying each of the two convicts before him. Is that the reason why he used the attribute of Messiah for Jesus ? Are there any apocryphal writings or scholarly views on the topic ?

Do pseudepigraphical books such as the testaments of the patriarchs or the gospel of Thomas still contain accurate historical information about the biblical era even if they contain some false doctrine?

The Book of Enoch is famous for being quoted quite a few times in the New Testament. [This wikipedia page lists dozens of books that bible quotes that aren't canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible) . I've seen arguments for why these books aren't included, but I've never seen anyone explain why the bible quotes them then. If the Book of Enoch isn't canon for instance, then why is Jude when it quotes it 4 or 5 times? What about all the other books the page lists? To be clear again, I'm not asking why these books aren't canon. You can find plenty of explanation for them. I want to know why books that quote it are considered canon. Wouldn't this invalidate them? Some of these are pretty major claims, like mentioning 'the watchers' from the book of Enoch. On top of this, there's also the common assumption that demons are fallen angels, but I've heard this isn't mentioned in any canonical book other than The Book of Enoch! Why is it such a common belief when its only mentioned in a non-canonical text. And yes, I know the Ethiopian church accepts it as canon, but that doesn't fix all the other less famous non-canonical books. What's the justification? As far as I'm aware, no bible verses defend these non-canonical books, they just take them for granted. Its also well-known that the infamous Book of Enoch heavily influence Christianity in its earliest years, thus why its quoted so many times. Regarding this, I do know that some books are simply lost. The letters mention other letters that are considered lost. Famously one of them is nothing but a reply to a letter that was sent to Paul mainly questioning his authority. This doesn't explain most books though, namely the ones that are 'historical' in nature.

We read in Mtt 26:14 : > Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests... On a number of occassions including the Last Supper, 'the twelve' are referred to as 'disciples'. Other than the twelve whom we know as Apostles, Jesus also had 72 disciples . After the Lord's ascension, the hierarchy would become prominent with the Apostles having exclusive meetings and decision making . But, how did the apostles and other disciples distinguish between themselves during the time of Jesus' public ministry ? For instance, were they addressed as Apostle Peter, Disciple Mark etc ? Are there any apocryphal writings available on the subject ?

We read in Mtt 26:3-5(NIV); > Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembles in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” < But we see Jesus getting arrested on a day of Passover and getting crucified on the Day of Preparation ( Jn 19:14) Apparently, the Jewish leaders had a change of mind vis- a- vis their original apprehension in Mtt 26: 5. The Gospels do not record the reason for the shift. Are there any apocryphal writings on the subject ?