Talk:Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several lost works of Solomon[edit]

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)[reply]

Why I deleted Hypostasis of the Archons from the New Testament references section[edit]

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) .

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose that the information in Lost books of the Old Testament and Lost books of the New Testament be merged into Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible as these articles are duplicates of each other. Besides, the title "Lost books of the Old Testament" implies that the works were at any time canonical books, an assertion for which there is no proof.

Besides, the "Lost books" list could do with a cleanup. The Book of Esther is not historical, it is a work of fiction, and the soporific "Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia" would be properly classified as a fictional book, not a lost book. Dr Zak 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non canonical books was within 30 seconds of having a merge proposal the other direction. The NCBRITB article has only fragmentary info, and should be not merged, but redirected, to this article, which is heavily footnoted and cross referenced.
DZ sez: "title implies one-time canonicity." The title "Lost books" cannot imply that they were ever canonical, given that the very concept of canon post-dates by centuries every word of the Old Testament.
DZ sez: "list could do with a cleanup." But then offers as evidence an item that isn't even on the list. Perhaps you could clarify what you believe needs to be cleaned up?
DZ sez: "Book of esther fictional." Clearly POV. There are millions, perhaps billions, of people who would fight you to the mat over this assertion. Besides which, it's irrelevent to this page, so why bother making the assertion at all?
DZ sez: "soporific chronicles of the kings..." Astonishing that one can fall asleep reading a book that's been lost for centuries. This assertion of "fiction" is POV, and is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Whether or not a book is "soporific" or "fictional" should be argued on the dedicated page for that book, not a page where that book is merely included in a list of books referenced by, but not found in, the Bible.
Thanks! --The Editrix 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Lost books of the Old Testament" implies that those works were at some time part of the Old Testament. The preposition "in" wouldn't carry such an assertion, but then there is the older article "Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible", whose title doesn't make any assumption about canonicity either. Really, there was no pressing need to fork. Yes, I know that the canon was settled in the time of [[Rabbi Akiva]. One can however safely assume that even before the Council of Jamnia there was some consensus about the quality of the works available, and the destruction of the Temple merely was a call of urgency to gain some greater consensus and preserve the Jewish faith.
If you insist the article to be called "Lost books" the books had better be lost. Scholarly consensus is that Ester is ahistorical, a work of fiction, like Job (but perfectly acceptable as Scripture), thus the "Chronicles" that King Artaxerxes has himself to read from in a sleepless night shouldn't be in. Dr Zak 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, DZ, you're at least as well read on Biblical scholarship as I am. While I respect your learning, I must point out that the historicity of Esther is interesting, but tangential to this discussion. The article specifies texts "referenced by, but not found in, the Bible." Whether anyone finds Esther ahistorical doesn't impact the fact that Esther is part of the Bible, and therefore, books described therein qualify for this article.
To pick over the list with esoteric debates about whether any or all of the bible is ahistorical is probably a worthwhile article, but the discussion doesn't go HERE. This article has a simple definition: If the reference is in the Tanakh, the reference belongs on the list.
Secondly, I strongly disagree with using the preposition "in." Using "in" WOULD imply canonicity; using "of" implies only that they're described by the Bible.
Lest this discussion turn nasty, and since you and I are apparently the only people obsessed by the topic <grin>, perhaps we could reach a scholarly consensus of our own: If you want to go to the dedicated pages for the Esther-referenced texts and carefully note the historicity debate there, I won't get into a revert war. By the same token, I would appreciate your making a concession on the prepositions used in the title of this article, and allowing me to redirect the fragmentary NCBRITB here without further ado. Thanks for engaging in a civilized discussion! It's a rare experience on WP, and I appreciate your tact. --The Editrix 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: In fact, I just saved you the trouble. The dedicated pages for both Esther-referenced articles now include language acknowledging the historical debate over Esther. See Chronicles of King Ahasuerus and Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia to see how this concern has been resolved. --The Editrix 08:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm against is unneeded content forking - it doubles the effort needed to maintain articles. I wish you would work within the framework of articles that already exists and help to improve those. For the same reason I'm also not convinced of the wisdom of having stubs for each and every "book" mentioned somewhere in the Bible when those could be redirects to a collective page - preferably Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible as it was there first. Dr Zak 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lost books of the New Testament should most definitely be merged here as the very name is a misnomer. These books were never a part of the New Testament when it was compiled (whether it is because they were unknown at the time or simply did not fit into the Christian Church's worldview at the time is irrelevent), hence they cannot really be "lost" from it. "Non-canonical" is a better term and it can be enumerated in the specific articles if prevailing scholarly and historical views see the individual books as left out be design (as was done with many gnostic texts) or simply left out because those compiling the New Testament were unfamiliar with them.--Isotope23 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that the title is NOT "Books lost FROM the New Testament." This objection is without distinction. They are books mentioned in, but not found in, the New Testament. The title is accurate. Other objections are made, responded to, and repeated. --The Editrix 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ask this: what is wrong with expanding the older, established article "Non-canonical books mentioned in the Bible"? Why must we have two extra ones of title "Lost books of the Old/New Testament"? Dr Zak 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can argue semantics if you want The Editrix... "of" is defined as "Derived or coming from; originating at or from" or "from the total or group comprising", hence your usage of "of" in the title would denote that these books were at one time a sub-set of the New Testament" and therefore this is a logically incorrect title.--Isotope23 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several points:
1. I. says: "These books were never a part of the New Testament when it was compiled." Note that the title is NOT "Books lost FROM the New Testament." They are books mentioned in, but not found in, the New Testament. The title is accurate. This objection is without distinction.
I've tagged both the New/Old Testament article for factual inaccuracy based on the titles... whether you use "of" or "from", there is no appreciable semantic difference in meaning.--Isotope23 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've proposed a redirect, not a merge, the other direction, both because the current articles have numerous individual links, and because the current articles correctly distinguish Tanakh and Christian testaments. "I was here first" is not a legitimate counter.
3. DZ complains: "Work within the existing framework." Surely you're not suggesting that it is a prerequisite of WP participation to be intimately acquainted with each of 1.x million articles on WP. Had the existing article not been obscure, incomplete, neglected and virtually unlinked, I might have worked within it -- though I would still have split it into two articles. But since it was all of those things, and I discovered it only AFTER the other articles were fully written and heavily linked, I'm at a loss as to your complaint. Evidently you, yourself, had never seen the older article, either. I can't be held to a different standard.
4. DZ's other objections made, responded to, and repeated. Please see original responses, which still stand. --The Editrix 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this goes over my head and I have no opinion regarding the issue of article names. However, I do think that any stubs that have been created should be kept. Sure, it seems insignificant now, but a stub is the seed from which an article grows. If it's not causing any harm--and it's not--then leave it and let people add to it. --Username132 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the AfDs that you have been asked to vote on [1] are elsewhere. This is a merge proposal. But seriously, don't you find it a bit degrading to your own dignity to say "I couldn't understand what I have been called out to vote on, I haven't even read it, but as ever my purpose is to vote KEEP"? Dr Zak 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Dr Zak and Isotope23 on the merge proposal. "Lost Books of/in the ..." clearly implies to the reader that these books were at one point considered canonical Judeo-Christian scriptures. However, the LDS view that these books were in fact part of the Scriptures at one point should be given due weight. JChap 18:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with merging Lost books of the Old Testament and Lost books of the New Testament into this article. In fact, I propose merging this article into the other two. Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible. Bible in the title indicates a christian bias. In fact, I have redirect Lost books of the Old Testament into Lost books of the Hebrew Bible (see the article Hebrew Bible for why I have redirected it.). --Philo 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGAINST the merge. Non-canonical books refer to books that obviously exist but were not included in the canon. The Lost books refer to book that are refered to internally by the canonical scripture but are not known to currently exist. A third catagory are fraudlent non-canonical books that pseudographically pretend to be the missing "lost book". Hopquick 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would change the title to something more NPOV like: Texts refered to in the Judeo-Christian Canon that No Longer Exist.Hopquick 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Boldly Merged[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
If you can source this, go ahead and boldly remove them from this page.--Isotope23 13:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than boldly removing, I suggest including the dissenting opinion in a footnote. CaliforniaKid 06:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Suggestion[edit]

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)[reply]

moved commentary from main page[edit]

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).[reply]

Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate[edit]

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)[reply]

Oh really? Can you give an example of one way it's utilized? StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Life of Adam and Eve not clearly referenced by 2 Corinthians 11:14[edit]

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)[reply]

In the Life of Adam and Eve 9:1 it reads "Satan ... transformed himself into the brightness of angels" and its a pretty important part of the story. The pseudopigraphical Life of Adam and Eve was older than the New Testament, and the idea of Satan appearing as an angel of light does not appear in the Old Testament ("Lucifer" was Halel, a title for a Babylonian King, the rest of Isaiah 14, as well as the surrounding chapters, makes this perfectly clear). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

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)[reply]

Are all of these references really non-canonical?[edit]

Does a reference to a non-canonical book exist just because there is similar language? Some of Paul's so-called references seem to be little more than his borrowing of a turn of phrase. In at least one case, a supposedly non-canonical source seems canonical to me. Chronicles refers to a "book of Samuel, the seer" describing the deeds of King David. Last I checked, there was a book in the bible accredited to Samuel, who was a seer, and that book was largely about the deeds of King David. That got me wondering whether the book of Kings (like Chronicles and Samuel, usually published as two books in most modern bibles) records any of the other writings referenced in Chronicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.177.2 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert. But it is a big, complicated topic. For instance, agreement of what "books" (and what was the actual technology in those days?) constitute the Hebrew Bible probably was not fixed until the Council of Jamnia (c. 100 AD give or take a couple of decades). What we know as 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings are probably compiled from various earlier sources. And 1 & 2 Chronicles may be regarded as belonging more to a grouping with Ezra and Nehemiah, rather than with Sam/Kings. It is likely that the 1 Chron 29:29 reference to "records/books of Samuel the Seer" was to documents that bore some relation to the development of 1 & 2 Samuel. But it might not be safe to assume that this was to 1 & 2 Samuel as we now know them. (But, as I say, I'm no expert.) To get a flavour of the complexity, see if you can borrow "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church" by Roger Beckwith. I hope that is of some help. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it should perhaps be mentioned that Sirach is not universally considered non-canonical (e.g. the Catholic Church and (if I am not mistaken) the Orthodox Churches consider it canonical). Perhaps this could be mentioned in the footnote? --Belegdal (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with "Preceding unsigned comment", just because two verses have similar wording, does not imply a direct quote. For instance, take this line from Orson Scott Card's The Crystal City, 307:

"Look", said La Tia. "Do you see what I see?"

To say that Paul in Galatians 6:15 and Mary in Luke 1:52 are quotes are like saying that this line is a direct quote of John Adams when he writes:

Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?

Also I seriously doubt that Paul's conversion to Christianity (Acts 9 & 20) has anything to do with Plato's Dialogues on Atlantis. I also find it hard to imagine exactly how can Ephesians 5:14 can be a reference to both The Apocryphon of Jeremiah And The Apocalypse of Elijah. Jude 3 says: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." This is simply not a reference. As to these so-called, "lost Pauline letters", I find it necessary to remind you that Paul wrote 14 Epistles, thus, when he mentions in 2 Corinthians of an "earlier letter" he probably means 1 Corinthians. And when 1 Corinthians mentions an "earlier letter", he could mean any number of previous letters which are certainly not lost. Same thing applies to 3 John 1:9. last time I checked, there is a 1 & 2 John, as well as the Gospel of John written earlier. With these and countless other points in mind, I AM READY TO DELETE THIS SECTION! --Nate5713 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a list like this ought to be as inclusive as possible. We can trust the readers to determine for themselves whether any particular instance is properly treated as a reference, so including a few problematic cases does not lead to irreparable harm. (Or, if you are concerned about a particular case, why not just make an annotation, rather than remove it?) But if we err in the other direction, excluding some cases which have been suggested as references to non-canonical literature, is something which the readers cannot easily detect or correct on their own.
I can imagine a situation in which someone wonders, "I recall hearing that there was a reference to Plato the the Acts - I wonder what that was about." We can present them with the supposed reference and let them decide for themselves. They might decide, "Oh, if that's all there is to it, then there's nothing to it." But if we make the decision for them to exclude it, then they will remain uninformed. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled by this section (New testament references). It even has the gall to say, "There are numerous references to the Testament of Abraham, Psalms of Solomon, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, Apocalypse of Ezra, and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs", without any biblical references. (by the way, there already are psalms of Solomon in Psalms 72 & 127.) Moreover, none of my suggestions have carried over at all. Therefore, if there are no further questioning, I shall drastically edit this section. --Nate5713 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I object to eliminating these references without leaving a trace. If you want to go through them on a case-by-case basis, pointing out how they are questionable instances, of course I would have no objection. I agree that the statement that "There are numerous instances ..." should be backed up by specific Bible quotations (or, at the very least, a citation of a secondary source). And I would not object to eliminating alleged references which are frivolous. But this list has value, even for those who question the legitimacy of particular instances, as I suggested above.
In brief, count this as the "further questioning" which you said would block your drastic action. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must not have made myself clear. The "questioning" I require is "conviction by scripture, and plain reasoning" to quote Martin Luther. That is to say, you do not disagree with any of my proofs. Therefore, I am forced to conclude, ALL of this section is "frivolous".--Nate5713 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand what you are saying is that because this somehow disagrees with your private view of the Bible, that it is not worthy of consideration? I hope that you have not made yourself clear, and that you mean something else. Anyway, I think that you are rather rushing into this massive deletion: How soon do you expect to get responses to your demand for "further questioning"? I think that it would be appropriate to let things rest for a day or two and see what others may think. I'm not going to revert this again right now, but I'm not letting this drop without discussion about the issues. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section is like writing a List of Kennedy conspiracy theories. There are too many to list. And almost all of them are automatically ruled out by any reader. The same thing applies here. Considering all the times anyone has ever claimed an ancient reference in the New testament, it becomes ridiculous. Now, what would a list of conspiracies do? They would say something like: "the most commonly used is" or "they generally include". So that's what I used in my editing.
By the way, I already gave proof and consideration in the above discussion.--Nate5713 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads:

Referenced can mean direct quotations, paraphrases, or allusions.

Which is clearly violated by this section.--Nate5713 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to expanded discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List the 132 references![edit]

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)[reply]

LDS & Jasher[edit]

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)[reply]

Cato via Livy in 1 Corinthians 14[edit]

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)[reply]

Unknown Messianic Prophecy[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible&oldid=1195694012"