Why Were Some Books Left Out Of The Bible?

[@Crown149]

Amen 🙏🏽so many people are being deceived and turned away from the faith by this...Yehweh makes NO mistakes. His power goes beyond our low understanding and if He wanted these books in the Bible, He would put them there. Imagine how many times throughout history that Satan tried to destroy the Word and the legacy of Jesus all together. He Murdered Jesus, lies on him, Outlawed the Bible, making the reading of Yehwehs Word punishable by death. Yet Here the Word stands. Fully alive and In tact. Hallelujah🙌🏽. Yehweh has the First and Final Say!

[@Pervy]

Fantastic video Dr.Brown. Don't stop making things like this.

[@callalilymoon2650]

Thank you for your teaching... I have been reading Enoch and Jasher and find them both fascinating and Illuminating, as they add much depth to some of the stories in the Bible and background information. I realize they may not be worthy of Canon but I for one was very glad to have read them!

[@davidbrainerd1520]

I wonder if Jasher is not just Josephus backtranslated into Hebrew and then from Hebrew to English though, because they're so similar. Or maybe Josephus actually translated Jasher to Greek, because in his preface he claims to be "only translating" from books the Romans took from the temple.

[@callalilymoon2650]

@@davidbrainerd1520 i am not an antiquity scholar... has anyone else ever shared your theory?

[@davidbrainerd1520]

@@callalilymoon2650 Not that I know of

[@TheSoughtOut2025]

His justification for books being removed does not make any sense. Paul quoted a poet and we can clearly reference the poet why not Enoch. I have been reading the book of Jasher and Enoch and i sense the power of the HolySpirit as i read them. The Jasher has legit historical references.

[@jaredmarc]

Thank you for this amazing explanation. God bless you and God bless everyone else. 🙏🙏🙏

[@MosheHaMayim4591]

Many false teachers need the rejected books to just take a verse or 2 out to support an erroneous doctrine they are pushing. If one verse is true, then the entire book must be treated as true. In the first few centuries, there were 100's of spurious gospels and epistles floating around and even being preached and taught from. I own books containing these rejected "scriptures" and you do not have to read very far before understanding why they were tossed away and rejected. Trust what you have in your hands today. The one who stretched out the heavens of the heavens of the heavens is surely able to get what He wanted us to have in our hands. After 40+ years of scripture study and reading, I am still learning wonderful new things all the time and I have plenty enough in my bible to keep me busy without adding anymore to it.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

You don't have to read far in Romans to see it should be rejected too. In Romans 3 he's misusing Psalm 14:1 by leaving off the opening "The fool has said in his heart there is no God: they are corrupt, they have done abominable works" so he can pick up the quotation with "and there is none [of them] that doeth good no not one" and pretend its talking about everyone when it in fact is talking EXCLUSIVELY about atheists. If we honestly applied the same criteria of perfection that we do to these apocryphal texts when we toss them to Romans, Romans would be a lost book.

[@SilvaSight]

@@davidbrainerd1520 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalms 14:1 NIV) The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. (Psalms 14:2 NIV) All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalms 14:3 NIV)

[@renzgrand]

Thank You Dr. Brown great explanations put my mind at ease to mal intentions for leaving books out just didn’t correlate with correct intentions

[@robertpapiedoe1773]

Thanks Dr. Brown for that clear explanation, may God continue to bless you and protect you and your family..

[@roncarnino8313]

Lord Please deliver this truth to every Spirit filled Christian! AMEN!!!

[@Vern_Levine]

Very well produced and fantastic content! Great stuff!

[@KeithHiew]

I somehow still think Enoch 1 should be in the Bible. It would clear up certain questions. Jasher was okay until I got to the part where Isaac was supposed to be sacrificed by Abraham, and then you see a different narrative emerging from the one in Genesis.

[@johnhaslett6714]

I thought it just gave more details.

[@waynehampson9569]

I believe Polycarp quoted from 24 of the 27 books and he was a disciple of the apostle John.

[@Ni1234ckA]

AND THAT'S THE POINT. HE WASN'T AN APOSTLE AND WE RATHER FOLLOW APOSTLES INSTEAD OF THEIR STUDENTS.

[@theodore8178]

Polycarp was a disciple of John and his letter is good reading for Christian's. Bit we did not put it in the canon because it is by a disciple of an apostle and not an apostle. I suggest reading 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius too. Not scripture but edifying for Christian's and a good source for church history too.

[@theodore8178]

@@Ni1234ckA We should follow both. Doesnt make the letter of polycarp part of the bible. Would be absurd if we included the entire chain of teachers from the apostles to today in our holy book. It's not bible but polycarp's letter and his martyrdom are good books for Christian's to read

[@Danny-BigD]

How can so many Christians that say JESUS IS REAL! Have SO many questions? Where is this CHRIST right now? In YOU! Did He not say my sheep hear my voice? Even as its written the sweet sweet holy Spirit talks. And we READ we can ask the Father anything.. we can ask Christ anything.. we read if you know He aka GOD hears you then you know you have the petitions you prayed for. His will is His word. And if we doubt let not that man think he will get ANYTHING from God. So... ASK HIM.. we say OH JESUS I LOVE YOU..we raise our hands we tell people.. is HE REAL or not? Is He a friend? A best friend? A brother? A savoir? YOUR GOD? How you would like to be with some one day and night.. ALWAYS with them.. they NEVER talk or just to ask (Hello me).. talk to Him.. good morning.. good afternoon..good night.. what ever.. He cares about EVERY part of your life. He is NOT like man. Lost your keys. He would be the 1st every time to help look. Lost them 80 times.. He would just laugh and make if fun.. this GOD! Loves.. you TALK TO HIM! And then.. as you treat others? Yeah..give HIM time to answer.. as you wait on the lord.. your strength is renewed.

[@levantateyora9317]

Amen

[@briidanielle_]

I genuinely wondered why some books were left out of the Bible, and questions indeed give space for the truth! if God wanted these books in the Bible, He surely would have made a way-it's not hard for Him, the Maker of all the universe! thank you, Dr. Brown 🫶🏽

[@GenevaPilgrim]

professor Rachel Elior has given several lectures on this topic and she would disagree. In her article for the Jerusalem post she said: "To many of the Jews of the first millennium BCE, all the texts had been equally holy," she says. "The [excluded] Book of Enoch or Book of Jubilees were certainly not considered less sacred than the [canonical] Book of Judges or Esther or Daniel." Yet the excluded texts - close to a dozen major works - were not just abandoned but excised as if they were a malignant growth. "Whoever reads them," declared Rabbi Akiva, one of the foremost sages involved in the process, "will have no place in the world to come."--------------end of quote She also pointed out that if it were not for Hanania son of Hezekiah (not the bible Hezekiah) that the book of Ezekiel wouldn't be in the Bible either and she quotes from talmudic tractate Shabbat (13b) where it says this and I did look it up just to fact check her and she is correct. Her reason is that the extra books refer to the priestly calendar-the exact same one that was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. She also claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls were likely the library of the sons of Zadok and not the Essenes as was previously thought by a Catholic monk who declared them to be an Essene library long before they had even found many of the scrolls they have now. Today based on the scrolls that were found, the new man that is in charge of the dead sea scrolls is convinced there is no way it was an Essene library. You say Enoch is out because we can't prove it was him who wrote it. Interesting, because there are other books in the Bible that we can't prove who wrote them either. Even Dr Michael Heiser has pointed this out. Also, you said no one in the Bible referred to the book of Enoch being scripture. That is incorrect. When the Pharisees confronted Jesus about who's wife the woman who had several husband's would be in heaven and Jesus said "You err because you do not know the SCRIPTURES for they neither marry or are given in marriage in heaven, but will be like the angels." That idea and statement cannot be found anywhere in the OT at all and when Jesus said that, there was only the OT and the extra books like Enoch, Jubilees etc. But in the book of Enoch it does state that in heaven there is no marriage because marriage is strictly an earthly thing given to humans while on earth. Enoch also refers to humans becoming like angels in heaven. SO if it's not in the OT and it IS in the book of Enoch and Jesus tells the Pharisees that they don't know the SCRIPTURES or they would know this, then what scriptures is he speaking about? And truth be told, the word "scriptures" in Greek is actually translated from the word "Graphas" in Greek which means "writings" and Enoch is certainly a writing.

[@carmenoneal1228]

dead sea scrolls Enoch, for the last generation and why iy has gained such popularity

[@markalexander2242]

I'M PROUD OF U SIR,U R MY ONE OF THE FAVORITE APOLOGISTS 😇

[@pastorart1974]

Excellent! Please, Dr. Brown, do a video about the 16 books of the Apocrapha. Why do Protestants reject all of them, but Roman Catholics accept 7 of them?

[@defendthesaints847]

I have information.Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide) but his followers did not generally accept Luther's personal judgment in this matter. By Gary Michuta The short answer is this: When Luther was cornered in a debate over Purgatory, his opponent, Johann Eck, cited 2 Maccabees against Luther’s position. Luther was forced to say that Second Maccabees could not be allowed in the debate because it wasn’t canonical. Later in the debate, Luther appealed to St. Jerome for rejecting Maccabees (the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence all included Macabees as canonical Scripture).  By appealing to Jerome, he also rejected all the other books Jerome rejected (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Daniel 13, and sections of Esther). From then on, Luther (and all Protestants) have been trying to justify this removal. Luther in 1534 thought Baruch was “too skimpy” and not lofty enough to be from the scribe of Jeremiah. He also had problems with certain historical elements in Baruch. But in the long run, it really came down to Jerome’s rejection. As a side note, Jerome rejected it because he thought that a Hebrew manuscript tradition, known as the Masoretic Text, was identical to the inspired originals and all other copies were made from this text. Since the Deuteros were not part of the MT, he rejected them as not being of the canonical Scripture. What Jerome could not have known was that there were many different Hebrew manuscripts in circulation during the first century and that the Greek Septuagint, a translation made by the Jews around 200 BC, at least in parts, appears to be a very literal translation of a more ancient Hebrew text tradition that is now lost. This means that Jerome’s idea of “Hebrew truth” (I.e., only that which is found in the Hebrew MT is true) has been demonstrated to be an error. With Jerome’s position no longer tenable, Protestantism really doesn’t have a historical leg to stand on in regards to their OT canon. On the early church 107AD See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God: But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. -Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5

[@RaeiFlames]

Thanks for the video Dr. Highly appreciated

[@stephaniechochotte434]

Jacob Ilive was NOT sent to prison for forging the Book of Jasher. His name was not ever credited or connected in any way to his Book of Jasher as he anonymously published it. It was many years after Ilive's death when his assistant finally admitted the truth about it's authorship. However Ilive was condemned for blasphmy and was sentenced two years imprisonment at Clerkenwell Bridewell for another publication he wrote and printed titled “Remarks On The Excellent Discourses By A Searcher After Religious Truth” where he attacked Bishop Thomas Sherlock's recent publication of his sermons. During his imprisonment, Ilive wrote “Reasons offered for the Reformation of the House of Correction in Clerkenwell” which helped start the movement for reformation of the corrupt prison system. Ilive also did some real service to Biblical statistics in 1747 by publishing a second 4 volume edition of “Calasio's Concordantice Sacrorum Bibliorum” Ironicly, Ilive's Book of Jasher, also known as “Pseudo-Jasher”, is recognized by the Rosicrucian Order and is still in publication today. Another Book of Jasher, probably much more famous book, which was first Printed in Hebrew in Venice in 1625. Supposedly there had been a version printed in Naples in 1552 but no trace has ever been found. The original printer from 1625, Yosèf ben Samuel, claimed the work was copied by a scribe named Jacob the son of Atyah, from an ancient manuscript whose letters could hardly be made out. When the 1625 Venice book was first published it was heavily criticized as a forgery by Jewish Scholar Leon Modena. It was eventually obtained and translated to English in 1828 by a Hebrew scholar in Liverpool named Moses Samuel, However, after a second publication of Ilive's Jasher was printed in 1829 just before Samuel had finished it, so to avoid confusion he decided not to publish it. A few years later Samuel sold the rights to Mordecai Manuel Noah, a prominent Jewish writer and newspaper editor-publisher in New York who published it in 1840. Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints, acquired a copy of the “Sefer ha Yashar” (Book of Jasher 1840 translation) around 1841 or 1842 and wrote in the September 1, 1842 edition of the Times and Seasons, in reference to the patriarch Abraham: "the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldeans". In 1886, Joseph Hyrum Parry of Salt Lake City acquired the rights to the translation from Mordecai Noah's estate. It was published by J. H. Parry & Company in Salt Lake City in 1887 and this Book of Jasher has become accepted by the Mormons and the Church of the Latter-Day Saints. In the preface to the 1625 version still claims that its original source book came from the ruins of Jerusalem in AD 70, where a Roman officer named Sidrus allegedly discovered a Hebrew scholar hiding in a hidden library. The officer Sidrus reportedly took the scholar and all the books safely back to his estates in Seville, Spain (in Roman times was known as Hispalis, the provincial capital of Hispania Baetica). The 1625 edition then claims that at some uncertain point in the history of Islamic Spain, the manuscript was transferred or sold to the Jewish college in Cordova, Andalusia. The 1625 edition further claims that scholars preserved the book until its printings in Naples in 1552 and in Venice in 1625. Apart from the preface to the 1625 work, there is no evidence to support any of this story. Whether this Book of Jasher is real scripture or not, it is quite an interesting read with many details about Abraham and Nimrod that are not found in the Written Torah, much like a Midrash or the writings from an Oral Torah. Much more interesting than Ilive's Pseudo Jasher.

[@orbislacteusbrahman6276]

They Said, "Write All These Things that you have Seen in a Book and Hide them" The Book of Jasher Mentioned in Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18 The Book of the Wars of the Lord Numbers 21:14 The Book of the Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41 The Book of Nathan 1 Chronicles 29:29, 2 Chronicles 9:29 The Book of Gad 1 Chronicles 29:29 The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite 2 Chronicles 9:29 The Book of Iddo 2 Chronicles 9:29, 2 Chronicles 12:15, 2 Chronicles 13:22 The Book of Shemaiah 2 Chronicles 12:15 The Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34 The Account of the Chronicles of King David 1 Chronicles 27:24 The Story of the Book of Kings 2 Chronicles 24:27 The Acts of Uzziah 2 Chronicles 26:22 The Vision of Isaiah, the Son of Amoz 2 Chronicles 32:32 The Sayings of the Seers 2 Chronicles 33:19 The Book of the Kings of Israel 2 Chronicles 33:18 The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia Esther 2:23, Esther 6:1, Esther 10:2 The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel 2 Kings 8:23, 2 Chronicles 16:11, 2 Chronicles 27:7 Book of Enoch Quoted in Jude 1:14 - 15 Psalms 151 Septuagint Wisdom of Solomon Codex Sinaiticus Tobit Codex Sinaiticus Judith Codex Sinaiticus Baruch Septuagint Bel and the Dragon Septuagint Prayer of Azariah Septuagint 1 Maccabees Codex Sinaiticus 4 Maccabees Codex Sinaiticus Sirach Codex Sinaiticus Barnabas Codex Sinaiticus Shepherd of Hermas Codex Sinaiticus

[@jesussaves1875]

Have you read some of those? Some of them are full of mysticism... not the Word of God.

[@jesussaves1875]

See Ezekiel Chapter 8 if you want to know what I am talking about. As Dr. Brown said, many of these were completely lost and fakes came up in their place.

[@1erinjames]

Imo Enoch was taken out as the description of the creation and workings of earth, stars, seasons, etc, do not support things impressed upon the people.

[@mouselim72]

Agree on all except the book of Enoch. The true Author of the Bible is God. We read the Bible to understand the teachings of God. Yet isn't it often the case that we kept talking about the Bible yet failing to actually listen to the Author who is truly well and alive? Read the Bible, yes and be a scholar of God. However, do not neglect listening to God. He is everywhere for us - sit by his feet, listen to Him. His teachings did not end with the Bible. He is teaching us daily. Yet so often, we are so focus on the book (Bible) that we neglected the Author.

[@IAmisMaster]

Enoch (or at least part of Enoch) is the closest to deserving canonicity, and even that one wouldn't change any fundamental doctrine of the faith. Thomas on the other hand...lol

[@davidbrainerd1520]

@Noé André When did God promise a "Bible"? The scriptures were a library, a multi-volume set, in ancient times. The idea of a "Bible" comes from the invention of the printing press which enabled putting the whole library in one volume.

[@IAmisMaster]

David Brainerd But Jesus and the Apostles referred to "the scriptures" generically to settle things. You obviously would have to know what qualifies and what doesn't qualify as scripture before you use it as the category of authoritative writings from God. Read Michael J. Kruger's books on canon and why it's not as convoluted as some claim.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

@@IAmisMaster Jesus was wrong when he told the Sadducees that the scriptures teach we will be sexless like the angels in the resurrection. Scripture doesn't teach a resurrection to begin with, and certainly doesn't teach this. But he felt the force of their argument (That the resurrection would cause sexual immorality, since this woman was married 7 times and would long to cheat on whichever spouse would be hers in the resurrection with one of the others) and so he dephysicallized the resurrection temporarily to avoid losing the argument. Ultimately, he didn't defend the resurrection since his defense required making it spiritual by removing the resurrection of the sex organs.

[@IAmisMaster]

David Brainerd Jesus was right. He was not saying the specific doctrine of nonmarriage in the resurrection was found in the OT, but resurrection is. He even goes on to explain which scriptures He was rerring to in Mark 12. He criticized the sadducees for not understanding the scriptures about the resurrection of the dead and therefore thinking that some supposed contradiction of multiple marriages invalidates clear OT on the resurrection.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

@@IAmisMaster But even there he is wrong, since he thinks the burning bush teaches the resurrection, and it doesn't. His assumption is that God could not call himself God of Abraham if Abraham was not still alive. I don't think that's true, as it could mean "God Abraham worshiped when he was alive" but even if we grant that Abraham is still alive (his soul) that does not automatically imply a resurrection, as he could be a disembodied soul in heaven rather than awaiting a resurrection. The passage Jesus uses does NOT bear out his claim.

[@fla-bushcraftprepper941]

Agree. I have read Enoch several times. I tell people about it and suggest they read it if they are interested(because they asked about it), but to only accept parts of it as valid, what aligns with scripture in the bible. I follow this rule for all books in the bible. If there is anything in the book of Revelation or the Letters to the Churches that questionably does not fully align with Jesus' teachings, I stick with what Jesus said and recommend the same to people. If Paul is told to tell a group of Christians something, it does not necessarily apply to all humans. Just as Jesus judged people differently in different conversations and circumstances, I do the same. Jesus did not live to please or appease people's nature or doctrinal differences. He called some of the religious leaders Blind Guides, but others he talks with openly like Nicodemus. Jesus lived how he was told to live and said what he was told to say... in each situation. Peter, Paul, James and the rest all did the same things. Some they showed mercy, some they showed compassion and some they judged with patients and some they judged harshly with expeditiousness. Paul dealing with the woman fortune teller and Peter dealing with the deceiving husband and wife who sold their house, Timothy sent by Paul to deal with some causing division in the body of Christ. I always looked at the books in the bible as individual books, bound in one cover. The ones in the bible are there for convenience of being readily available for study. I seen a bible with just the Four Gospels, Psalms and Proverbs. I seen another bible with the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. The word Bible means Books, some have more and some have less. What matters is Truth. Anyone who starts spinning that the books in the bible are not valid or half the books are questionable, I am usually short and brutal towards them. Their either stupid, deceived or hateful. People tend to get three or four tries with me and then they get the same short and to the point dealings Jesus gave to the same type. Jesus gave them two or three answers and then sent them packing.

[@krillejonasson]

"Well established canon" there was no well established canon in the second century at all. There is alot of agreement on books but almost everyone had their own list. Lists that included books that aren't in the NT today.

[@fikir-fikir1938]

"Well established *core* canon." It seems that you missed one word there.

[@krillejonasson]

@@fikir-fikir1938 what's the difference between a canon and a core canon? And there was still no agreement on such a thing. No one sat down and had such a discussion before 382 in Rome.

[@fikir-fikir1938]

@@krillejonasson "Core" canon consist of books that are not in dispute. I give this quote by Michael J. Kruger, _For Eusebius, these are the books that are universally recognized as canonical and have been for a long time. These include: the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation (though he acknowledges the last one has some detractors). Put another way, Eusebius acknowledges that there has been a “core” canon (22 out of 27 books) in Christianity for some time._ _What misconceptions does this refute? Some scholars continue to claim there was no canon until the fourth or fifth century. But the existence of this “core” of recognized books shows that is simply not the case. These books had been established for generations and there was never any meaningful dispute about them._

[@005rmac]

@@krillejonasson Look up the Muratorian fragment (dated to 170 AD) for a list of most of the current NT texts that were used and respected in the early church. This can be cross referenced with Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian and you get a picture of a serious consensus. Sure there was a little disagreement about two or three of the texts that were eventually accepted, but like Dr. Brown said, there was a consensus on core of what would be the canon very early on. Like the early theological controversies, there was a consensus that needed to be, and was, articulated more clearly in the face of challenges and heresies in the first centuries before being confirmed in church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. Doctrine and canon weren't static and fully or clearly articulated right out of the gate in the first century, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit wasn't at work in the church, and there was no orthodox consensus until later councils.

[@aaronhaskins9782]

Sirach was left out because it teaches free will. It was always in the bible, until the 15th Century. Now it's in every single orthodoxy except western Augustine influenced Churches.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

It wasn't removed in the 15th century. The KJV still had the Apocrypha between the two testaments until 1885 when the British and Foreign Bible Society took advantage of the English Revised Version of 1881 (NT was 1881, OT was 1885) and declared if they put the apocrypha in they would not distribute it, and they also had enough clout to get most KJV publishers to take it out.

[@E.P.1]

Are the Dead sea scrolls fake? Why is Enoch in the Ethiopian bible? Thank you for your input

[@defendthesaints847]

Again I'd like to say. Defend The Saints I have information.Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide) but his followers did not generally accept Luther's personal judgment in this matter. By Gary Michuta The short answer is this: When Luther was cornered in a debate over Purgatory, his opponent, Johann Eck, cited 2 Maccabees against Luther’s position. Luther was forced to say that Second Maccabees could not be allowed in the debate because it wasn’t canonical. Later in the debate, Luther appealed to St. Jerome for rejecting Maccabees (the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Florence all included Macabees as canonical Scripture).  By appealing to Jerome, he also rejected all the other books Jerome rejected (Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Daniel 13, and sections of Esther). From then on, Luther (and all Protestants) have been trying to justify this removal. Luther in 1534 thought Baruch was “too skimpy” and not lofty enough to be from the scribe of Jeremiah. He also had problems with certain historical elements in Baruch. But in the long run, it really came down to Jerome’s rejection. As a side note, Jerome rejected it because he thought that a Hebrew manuscript tradition, known as the Masoretic Text, was identical to the inspired originals and all other copies were made from this text. Since the Deuteros were not part of the MT, he rejected them as not being of the canonical Scripture. What Jerome could not have known was that there were many different Hebrew manuscripts in circulation during the first century and that the Greek Septuagint, a translation made by the Jews around 200 BC, at least in parts, appears to be a very literal translation of a more ancient Hebrew text tradition that is now lost. This means that Jerome’s idea of “Hebrew truth” (I.e., only that which is found in the Hebrew MT is true) has been demonstrated to be an error. With Jerome’s position no longer tenable, Protestantism really doesn’t have a historical leg to stand on in regards to their OT canon. On the early church 107AD See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. -Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God: But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. -Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5

[@theophilusmokgehle9961]

Good answer👏

[@julius5466]

Keeping the book of Enoch out of the bible theres alot more to it I think cause the book of Enoch goes with other part of the bible like in The Book of Enoch talks about giants and it also does in Genesis 6:4

[@jesussaves1875]

I thought they found fragments of the book of Enoch amongst the dead sea scrolls and compared it to the Enoch in the Ethiopian canon.

[@ry9640]

Thank you!

[@moodberry]

So, Dr. Brown, how is a Christian supposed to know what to believe if he or she reads the non-scriptural books, like Enoch? You said that they aren't "prohibited" from being read. So, if something isn't specifically mentioned as being true in scripture, but is mentioned in a non-canonical book, what should a Christian believe to be true? And, if a non-canonical book "explains" something that is unclear in scripture, should it be accepted as true?

[@Mk21Diver]

Didn’t the 1611 KJV have most of the Apocrypha in it? There is so much conflicting info about this. Also, Jesus says to the Saudecees roughly “do you not know the Scriptures, do you not know that angels do not marry?” This fact is only in Enoch. But yes I agree the entire book is maybe not original.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

Up until 1885 KJVs still had the Apocrypha in there. The British and Foreign Bible Society took advantage of the Revised Version of 1881 (OT completed 1885) to extort publishers to remove it.

[@FrankPCarpi]

Good answers Doc Brown. So I have a legitimate question. Did any of the books of the Bible get removed by the RCC at the council of Nicea?

[@tonyabbott1062]

To be fair, I am pretty sure that the writer of Genesis (possibly Moses, possibly not) was not there when Adam or Noah or Abraham was alive or received instructions or blessing verbatim from God. Or that Job was the writer of the Job. We r told that scripture is given by inspiration of Gods spirit, so if u truely believe in a living God, it doesnt really matter who wrote which book. One thing I will say about the book of Enoch (which the Rabbinic Jews left out of the canon along with the book of Daniel in some), it paints a pretty convincing story of Jesus, the son of man, the annointed one with the Lord of spirits in heaven. I would pull it out of the Tanakh too if my people (Pharisees etc... of that time) were blamed for denying Jesus and trying to shut down the spread of Christianity and the death of Judaism. Never the less, its not essential for Salvation or for having faith in the words Of Jesus in the new testament.

[@alingagodber867]

What about The Book of Maccabees? What is this? I've heard it mentioned before by others. I would love if you could clarify this for me. 😊❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@davidbrainerd1520]

Keep Hannukah but don't read Macabees that its based on. Talmudic logic. But seriously, the reason Macabees was removed from the Jewish canon was that the rabbis took a dim view of Judah Macabee after the last attempt to imitate him led to the end of the nation, i.e. with Bar Kochba's failure to overthrow Rome.

[@alingagodber867]

Thank you all for explaining. The summary of what I read is to NOT concern myself with it. 😊❤

[@johnhaslett6714]

@@alingagodber867 this book is a great future foreshadowing.

[@EdwinMendez91074]

The book of Macabees (I believe the 1st book) itself states that there were no prophets when it was composed. This makes it invalid as scripture since in Old Testament times a prophet was needed to confirm whether a book was valid and deserving to be in the canon. Like a commenter said above, 1 Enoch is the closest to be recognized as part of the canon, but then again that is hotly debated, especially since it was composed in 5 parts and so it's entirety may not be inspired, as is the portion that Jude quotes from. A commenter below further explains why 1 Enoch wasn't accepted into the canon by early Hebrews.

[@yishislassieswaiting4748]

Thank you!!!

[@robinleslie8066]

I understand what your saying but sometimes u ask yourself in Jude when he says also Enoch prophesied saying quote n qoute.. but when u look for those quotes in the Canon it's no where to be found? Makes u wonder if some scripts were really tampered with..

[@johnhaslett6714]

You have to be familiar with Enoch. It is all through the old and the new testament. I believe the old testament prophets read it. I believe Jesus read it as well.

[@jcortizrojas]

Really nice quality video production!! really nice!! I commend the work of the videographer or editor! #RoundOfApplause

[@Shadow-vu7tq]

I believe Enoch has valuable information it describes the preflood world an earth and society very different from ours this guy is trying to be the voice of reason , I don't accept it just because the books weren't found doesn't mean anything Jude referenced Enoch because it's true in math if you torture the numbers enough they'll confess to anything starting to believe that in religion

[@sm2z24]

The first and second book of Adam and Eve,and other new and old testament apocryphas.

[@mrsteveinsandiego]

None were. The Scripture we are privileged to read today was ordained by the Triune God! Amen and Amen!

[@ChiknEatnBaptist]

The books of enoch are the only apocryphal books that have any legitimate validity. I still don't believe it is necessarily inspired but definitely an important Christian source.

[@jolanda9947]

yup

[@Sara-ky5nf]

They were not left out they were taken out. i find it interesting you are making fun of it and claiming conspiracy theory. Almost seems like you are for reforming Bible information.

[@danielhall7586]

Books with teaching from under the law shouldn't be after the Book of Roman's where Paul teachers about freedom through God's grace.

[@elhirba]

If the Book of Enoch never belong to the traditional Tanakh ( Torah, Prophets and writings) it's because it talks about notions not accepted by traditional Judaism: - It talks about Rebellious Angels instead of Fallen Angels ( in Gen 6:2) - Some parts are similar to Christian eschatology which you can find in for Dead Sea Scrolls written by the Essenes, a cult rejected by main stream Judaism at the time - It uses a Solar Jewish calendar while Jews used a Lunar mixed with Solar calendar These are some of the reasons why it was not incorporated in the Tanakh and accepted by mainstream jews.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

Is there anything in Enoch that's really important though? I've read it, but barely remember what was in it other than some angel(s) taking Enoch around a tour of space and showing him various hells and stuff. I don't get why people put so much emphasis on it.

[@elhirba]

David Brainerd People like novels describing fantastic worlds plus the similarities with some Christian themes might trigger their interest. Don't forget that the Book of Enoch was cited many times in the History Channel ”Ancient Aliens” especially the first season...people saw it as the description of UFOs and extraterrestrial being instead of Angels. If you go to the Wikipedia page of the Book of Enoch, you will read a good summery of the story.

[@michio5422]

I would love to know, what Dr Brown thinks about books like Sirach, which are in the OT apocryphs. If the bible is literally "the word of GOD", why are identical scriptures like Sirach not the word of GOD, as some people say? To me, they are all just written by men, or, whatever is in the essence the same, is inspired by GOD and in that way "the word of GOD".

[@patlacey5574]

Please tell us why Song of Solomon and Esther were left out of some sources.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

Because Song of Solomon is just pornography and Esther is a joke fiction story about Maduck (Mordecai) and Isthar (Esther) saving the Israelites from the Babylonians rather than God doing so, not to mention how Esther is raised by Mordecai to be a whore and sleep with the king in a beauty contest. Its also obvious fiction as the king would not have allowed the Jews to arm themselves to fight against their enemies. Those ancient empires didn't let citizens arm themselves like that, lest they try and rebel against the empire.

[@NathanH83]

What about Maccabees?

[@TheZebbedee12]

Dr. Brown, can you please explain why the Protestant fathers cut out Sacred Scripture from the bible, namely the Deuterocanon? These books were part of the canon for around 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation. Some people give the reason that, at the time, there were no Hebrew versions of those books. However, Hebrew versions of those books have been found. Did Martin Luther and other Protestant fathers receive sacred authority to alter Sacred Scripture?

[@melindabloom7281]

TheZebbedee12 ...I am not Dr Brown obviously, but hopefully can help answer your question. The apocryphal books were written during the intertestamental period of time when there was no prophet on the scene for 400yrs btwn the testaments. In keeping with 2Tim 3:16 which says that all Scripture is God-breathed, there needs to be a prophet on the scene in active ministry to declare “thus sayeth the Lord”. Because the “age of the prophets had ended” the Jews didn’t accept the apocryphal books, & neither did the Protestants at the time of the reformation.

[@TheZebbedee12]

@@melindabloom7281 Where does it say that in the Bible? The Septuagint (which included the Deuterocanon) was the commonly used canon at the time leading up to Jesus' birth, through his life, and after his death until the destruction of the temple and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. The first Christians' Scritpural texts were the Septuagint. For the next 1500 years they were canon, until Martin Luther apparently altered Sacred Scripture. So again I ask Dr. Brown, was Martin Luther given holy authority to alter Sacred Scripture? I ask this in good faith and Christian charity. God bless you all.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

The RCC removed 3rd and 4th Macabees and a few others that the Russian Orthodox have.

[@TheZebbedee12]

@@davidbrainerd1520 Sorry, David, but 3&4 Maccabees were never included in the divinely inspired canon to begin with. The RCC could not remove what was not there already. It is true that there are some additional books (such as 3 & 4 Maccabees) which are commonly (but not necessarily formally) found in modern, published Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. The Orthodox Church does not have what we would consider a "formal, universally-approved Biblical canon". Rather, there is some confusion among Eastern Orthodox as to which books properly constitute the canon of the Bible.

[@johnathanjackson7165]

Whoever removed the books will be cursed.

[@choncha23]

The book as a whole. Just some quotes. Make that make sense.

[@jean-boscoclaudine3913]

How about the books of Tobia, Judith, Maccabees,...catholics have and not christians?

[@billswan359]

Lisa Myhre needs prayers for good health blood work came back not good

[@twalker8020]

1 Enoch confirms how the Nativity Star could specifically pinpoint a specific structure in Bethlehem and how stars can fall to Earth.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

what? Prove it. I mean I've read Enoch before, but I barely remember any of it.

[@emmanuelsoto2476]

It is easy to write a book and write things already know and say that the book was written in a period before people knew about it. It's like if I made a book today talking about "the future" and saying that Donald Trump will be the president of the United States of America and after completing the book I say that I discovered that book in the desert and that it was written 300 years before Donald Trump was president and the truth is that it was written in 2019.

[@joyofmomentsr144]

What about the testament of Ruben?

[@donn07]

AMEN 🙏🙏🙏

[@uliseslopez8907]

Hey, Brown do a vid about mount sinai

[@defendthesaints847]

The early christians belived I'm the eucharist. Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

[@stephanieh6482]

What is the name of the person who went to jail? Jacob ???

[@timiaenglish6183]

I get the joke, even though it is nothing to laugh about.

[@doctordishes2es]

In the cepher Bible the books are there

[@Travel2BA]

Mr. Brown, thank you for this excellent clarification. So my question is, is the actual official book of Enoch to be trusted as a true scripture?

[@esthermahu8601]

No because it was not preserved therefore was not taken as the word of God. I (a Christian) could write a book today. Though I am of God that doesn’t mean my writing is suddenly God’s word.

[@aronbrook2316]

Why not put all books in..and let the people decide?

[@uliseslopez8907]

From Waukegan

[@cryptodomain5486]

Let me ask you sire (do u accept the council of the Jews that removed the 7 deutrocanonical books from their canons) and if yes do u also accept the fact that same council also rejected all the NT books and called it all uninspired.

[@younoob6693]

To say God didn't preserve it is a cop out excuse. Humans didn't preserve it ....

[@cryptodomain5486]

How do I know if it is right for a Jew at Jesus time to name his child his own name. Like I'm a Jew and my name is Judah. Is it normal and in the tradition of the Jews that I name my son Judah as my name is Judah ?

[@jrt1776]

The writings of Enoch

[@davidbrainerd1520]

what's important in Enoch?

[@jrt1776]

@@davidbrainerd1520 Enoch was thought to be evil/ devil possesed , so his telling/wtiting of the time of Noah's Ark were purposely cut off.

[@jolanda9947]

is there 70 books or more

[@chrisandaprilcastille6019]

Mr. Brown, this is a bit off topic but did the Catholic church create Purgatory?

[@michielvdvlies3315]

i got an off-topic question what do you think about the term "abrahamic religions" because some regard islam as an ibrahamic religion, but islam goes straight against the Most High!

[@ellobo4211]

Catholics left the books in..not out..martin Luther took them out..

[@paulmaguire3155]

This is where your wrong....but I love what you do

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

In what way is he wrong?

[@hectorestrada4744]

@@EssenceofPureFlavor read all the books, form your own opinion. You'll know why hes wrong. There are no shortcuts to the truth of this matter.

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

@@hectorestrada4744 Why don't you just tell us?

[@mjunited9]

If God didn't want it in the Bible, and the Bible is written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit... it doesn't make sense. I honestly believe books that were left out of the Holy Bible were left out with a bigger plan in mind.

[@GTX1123]

None of the gnostic gospels and other gnostic writings have the deep intrinsic Jewish nature of the N.T. (New Testament) hiding in plain site of the Greek language the N.T. was written in - especially the four canonical Gospels. This is a huge issue which Christian apologists should tout in debates as one of the greatest proofs of the New Testament's authenticity. If you compare the many Hebraic idioms, colloquialisms, prose, sayings etc. of the N.T. writings to the very non-Jewish later Greco-Roman gnostic writings which lack any Jewish identity, it's not even close. In addition, when you consider the supersessionism and virulent anti-Semitism which permeates much of the early church father's writings, it takes far more faith to believe that the N.T. is a hoax written by non-Jewish 2nd century Greco-Roman forgers than it does to just accept the N.T. and it's authorship at face value.

[@bln24]

What about the book of Maccabees?

[@davidbrainerd1520]

Keep Hanukkah but don't read the book its based on. Perfect Talmudic logic.

[@uilium]

☝️Jesus wasn't an acsetic, he he didn't teach heavy things, seemingly against his mother because family is a distraction to deep Jesus level spiritual practice? People didn't reject the deeper ascetic teachings that didn't fit the ordinary person's grasp? So, he just died on the cross for our sins and we don't have to understand how to transcend sin like Jesus did? That's pretty darn convenient but it's necessary because 99% of us laypeople could never understand the simplicity of Christ's ascetic teachings.

[@linak7155]

Lol! 'Gazna' means Goose in Spanish. I have satisfactorily learned that the book of Jasher is a fake. Bible scholar, Nehemiah Gordon, has found many discrepancies with in its pages as it pertains to dates, places and names.

[@creepytime979]

This explanation relies a lot on the hope that the viewer in Christian and if they aren’t (which I’m not) then how does the expiation they aren’t in the Bible because god said they shouldn’t be a valid answer to problem? It isn’t because there is not definite answer which means I can say something like I feel like they got left out because they oppose the Christian religion and it’s core beliefs like the gospel of Judas and history is wrote by victors and not losers which would make the more popular books stay and the less popular books be removed

[@creepytime979]

Side note my explanation is based of facts of time and not a belief that can’t be proven to be real

[@MYMINDism]

This is pure opinion, right but still opinion read St Thomas aquinas on what opinion is

[@Danny-BigD]

Huh? Pure opinion? You can SEARCH this on your own. Better yet.. is YESHUA/JESUS real? WHERE is He right now? If you believe in Him.. ASK HIM! Is JESUS real or not? Can you ask HIM ANYTHING.. ask the FATHER anything? Read Matt-John.. really. Ask the Father to open your eyes. Now.. read Thomas. Something is missing.. one seems ALIVE the other.. something is missing

[@MYMINDism]

Brother read st Thomas aquinas, you can have the right opinion but it is not faith,faith is from the father

[@MYMINDism]

In the age of Google, ignorance is a choice, I said read what st Thomas aquinas said what faith is and what opinion is.....then talk

[@trenton9]

Not opinion. You can get all sorts of opinion on Google but Dr Brown is well studied on these issues.

[@yohjonny]

Hold on, there was a Gospel of Thomas?!??!?!

[@EdwinMendez91074]

It's a gnostic heretical book. There were many gospels in the first 150 years after Christ's resurrection. St. Irenaeus, who was a 3rd generation disciple of John the apostle, (under Polycarp) had to clear things up around 180 A.D. and state that only 4 gospels were valid, that is, the four that we have transmitted to the church now.

[@montezuma3143]

.says who I am Montezuma father or Adam and Eve and what?🤷

[@angelacrocker5606]

interesting

[@charlesmangum3108]

AMEN. I know some who use Enoch, and they are into some strange teachings and practices.

[@hunterhughes9]

How u get ran over by a bus

[@lifexscape3195]

I have two questions why do you teach the Bible from a Catholic Jewish perspective but not a African Hebrew perspective . And why are the disciples names not in Hebrew but in Greek or Roman names third question sorry thought I had only two what is Isaiah 53 + 10 point to Psalms 2 + 7 confirmed by Psalms 89 verses 22 through 37 all leading to David in the words of God anointed the way God anoints Kings you say Jesus is a king he never sat on the throne of David nor was he anointed the same boy he was baptized and anointed by a female which is totally opposite of the way God would have wanted it

[@W1LDWESLEY]

🤔

[@ellobo4211]

Yeah martin luthers beliefs didnt fit right with the bible..so he threw them out

[@uschmidt1011]

The book Hiob has nothing to do with OUR REAL GOD JEHOVA AND JESUS! JEHOVA AND JESUS DON'T BET ABOUT SOULS WITH THE satan!

[@sm2z24]

Why Mr.Brown not spoken about the other apocryphal books? like the gospels of Barnabas and Judas.

[@zakariyarazi8247]

Gospel of Barnabas? 1500 century forgery by Muslims where Jesus is paying 5 times a day like Muslims and fasting like Muslims. Read it. Study a little before copy/pasting Muslims or Atheists bullshits.

[@sm2z24]

@@zakariyarazi8247 Hey it is a gnostic Gospel.It says Jesus is not crucified he ascended to heaven directly.But in place of Jesus Judas crucified.This is the main Eror of this gospel.and i think the writer is not barnabas but a muslim taking the name of barnabas wrote this to disprove Jesus.I dont like this gospels as they are gnostic.

[@davidbrainerd1520]

Why are you on about those two, when you could be reading the Gospel of Nicodemus? or the Gospel of Pilate? There are way more apocryphal gospels than people who only listen to trendy internet infidels know of. And I've read a bunch of them. They're all clearly derivations from the canonical gospels.

[@eduard7624]

Jesus is LORD! Anything is FALSE

[@gammabravo1654]

Conspiracy theories have gone too far

[@jackp492]

Accept Christ or be a Jew, as Gentile to them are you

[@theveteran765]

If you want to know the TRUTH about the Bible, Jesus and the one TRUE God read the book: God's Laws of Life and the Ten Commandments Fully Explained! It will open your eyes like NEVER before!

[@emmanuelsoto2476]

No if people want to know the Truth about the bible, Jesus Christ and the only God what they need to do is read the bible itself not any other book talking about the bible. Reading the Bible from Génesis to Revelation full it's the only way to know the truth because if people start to read a book that talks about the bible they risk the chance to fall on false teachings. Catholic Church is full of false teachings and abominations and they have books that talk about the bible; but is it good? No it is full of false teachings it's a little truth mixed with a lot of lies. Reading the Bible from Génesis to Revelation full is the best and only way to really learn the truth and find Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is the truth and he is the word of God.

[@emmanuelsoto2476]

The book your talking about I haven't read it so I don't know if it actually fully explains the bible like you say but there is no better book that fully explains the bible than the bible itself.

[@theodore8178]

Thomas is just contrary to Christianity. Enoch is in the Ethiopian bible. Not anyone elses. But the book is okay. Doesn't make it scripture. Obviously the book was never suppressed by Christian's but enjoyed. Now what books like Sirach or the books of Macabees? Why did the protestants reject them? The rest of us Christians view them as scripture. Surely you know what's in them and dont have any theological objections!

[@piggymalone1]

They were left out of the Bible for one simple reason - the Holy Spirit excluded them, (for whatever reason). All scripture as we have it today in the canon of scripture that was carefully pieced together by the Holy Spirit; man was just used as an instrument of that process. Nothing in the Bible is a mistake or was written haphazardly. No, each word was specially chosen by the Holy Spirit and carefully preserved to what we have today as the Bible - God's holy, precious, written Word.

[@rickyt3961]

Thank you!