Words in a canonical biblical text substantially match material in the ancient writing.
← Bible Studies
Bible background & canon study
Other Ancient Writings
Exploring writings connected to Scripture and the biblical world.
Why these writings are here
These writings are included for historical and biblical study. Their presence here does not erase the differences between Christian traditions or automatically identify every work as Scripture. Each resource explains how the writing has been received and why it matters for understanding the biblical world.
Evidence key
Not every connection is the same.
The biblical text names a work, person, or tradition directly.
The connection is supported by early Jewish or Christian tradition, but the exact source may be lost or disputed.
Similar language or ideas may be related, but direct literary dependence has not been established.
The writing helps illuminate the world, ideas, events, or interpretive environment around Scripture without being quoted.
1 · Canon and reception
Writings Preserved in Other Christian Canons
These works are received differently across Christian traditions. “Canonical” is therefore identified by tradition rather than treated as a single universal category.
Direct quotation in Jude
1 Enoch
- Date & setting
- A composite collection developed in stages during the Second Temple period, roughly from the fourth/third centuries BCE into the first century BCE/CE.
- Canonical status
- Canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition; not part of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Greek/Slavonic Eastern Orthodox biblical canons.
- Biblical connection
- Jude 14–15 contains material corresponding to 1 Enoch 1:9.
- Connection type
- Direct quotation for Jude 14–15; broader proposed parallels elsewhere should be evaluated individually.
Why it matters: It provides important evidence for Jewish apocalyptic thought, angel traditions, judgment language, and the interpretive world in which parts of the New Testament emerged.
Caution: Jude’s use of Enoch does not by itself establish the canonical status of the entire Enochic collection.
Historical background
Jubilees
- Date & setting
- A Jewish rewriting of Genesis and early Exodus from the second century BCE, with strong interest in covenant, law, sacred time, and a 364-day calendar.
- Canonical status
- Canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition; not part of Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Greek/Slavonic Eastern Orthodox canons.
- Biblical connection
- Retells material from Genesis through Exodus 1–20 and preserves interpretations also discussed in Second Temple Jewish literature.
- Connection type
- Historical and interpretive background, not a direct quotation claim.
Why it matters: It shows how some ancient Jews reread Torah, calendar, covenant, angels, and patriarchal narratives before the New Testament period.
Caution: A retelling may expand, interpret, or reshape biblical material; those expansions should not be silently read back into Genesis or Exodus.
Canonical in some traditions
Wisdom of Solomon
- Date & setting
- Commonly dated near the turn of the era, often around the first century BCE, and usually associated with Greek-speaking Judaism in Alexandria.
- Canonical status
- Canonical in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions; not part of the Protestant Old Testament canon.
- Biblical connection
- Shares themes and vocabulary with biblical wisdom traditions and later Jewish and Christian reflection.
- Connection type
- Canonical reception in some churches and historical/theological background; specific New Testament parallels require case-by-case evaluation.
Why it matters: It is a major witness to Greek-speaking Jewish wisdom, righteousness, immortality, and the interpretation of Israel’s story.
Caution: NLDG should not label it “apocrypha” without explaining that Catholic and Orthodox Christians receive it as Scripture.
Canonical in some traditions
Sirach (Ben Sira / Ecclesiasticus)
- Date & setting
- Composed in Hebrew by a Jerusalem sage in the early second century BCE, completed around 175 BCE; translated into Greek by the author’s grandson after 117 BCE.
- Canonical status
- Canonical in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions; not part of the Protestant Old Testament canon.
- Biblical connection
- Extends Israel’s wisdom tradition and contains themes and sayings often compared with later New Testament teaching.
- Connection type
- Canonical reception in some churches and historical/theological background; proposed verbal parallels should be labeled as parallels unless dependence is demonstrable.
Why it matters: It preserves a named Jewish sage’s teaching on wisdom, worship, friendship, ethics, community, and Israel’s ancestors.
Caution: Similarity to a later biblical saying is not automatically proof that the later author quoted Sirach.
Historical background
1 and 2 Maccabees
- Date & setting
- Both arise from the Hellenistic Jewish world and recount the crisis surrounding Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt. 1 Maccabees is generally placed in the late second century BCE; 2 Maccabees is an epitome of an earlier work by Jason of Cyrene and is commonly dated in the late second/early first century BCE range.
- Canonical status
- Canonical in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions; not part of the Protestant Old Testament canon.
- Biblical connection
- Provides historical background for the period between the later Old Testament era and the New Testament, including persecution, Temple rededication, martyrdom, and Jewish responses to Hellenization.
- Connection type
- Historical background, not a claim that New Testament authors directly quote these books.
Why it matters: The books help readers understand the political and religious world that shaped later Jewish life, including the background to Hanukkah and resistance to forced Hellenization.
Caution: 1 and 2 Maccabees are distinct works with different structures and emphases; they are not two consecutive volumes by one author.
Ethiopian canon
Ethiopian Meqabyan
- Date & setting
- The three Meqabyan books are preserved in the Ethiopian tradition. Their precise composition history and dating remain less securely established in widely available English-language scholarship than Enoch, Jubilees, or the Greek Maccabean books.
- Canonical status
- Received within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo biblical tradition.
- Biblical connection
- They belong to a distinct Ethiopian scriptural tradition and share themes such as faithfulness, idolatry, judgment, and obedience.
- Connection type
- Canonical reception and historical background within Ethiopian Christianity; not a direct quotation claim.
Why it matters: Meqabyan demonstrates why discussions of “the Ethiopian Bible” require more precision than simply adding familiar Western apocryphal books.
Caution: Ethiopian Meqabyan is not the same text as Greek 1 and 2 Maccabees. English resources sometimes conflate them, and unverified modern “Ethiopian Bible” editions may mislabel texts.
2 · Quotations, references & traditions
Writings Quoted or Reflected in Scripture
This section distinguishes a direct textual quotation from an ancient tradition that may lie behind a biblical passage.
Direct quotation
1 Enoch and Jude 14–15
- Date & setting
- 1 Enoch is a composite Second Temple Jewish collection developed over several centuries before and around the New Testament era.
- Canonical status
- 1 Enoch is canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo tradition; it is not part of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Greek/Slavonic Eastern Orthodox biblical canons.
- Biblical passage
- Jude 14–15.
- Connection type
- Direct quotation corresponding to 1 Enoch 1:9.
Connection: Jude 14–15 corresponds closely to 1 Enoch 1:9. The USCCB note explicitly identifies the passage as a citation from 1 Enoch.
Why it matters: It is a clear example of a New Testament writer using material known from a non-Protestant-canonical Jewish work.
Caution: Quotation establishes use of the material, not automatic acceptance of every part of the quoted work as canonical.
Ancient tradition
The Assumption / Testament of Moses Tradition and Jude 9
- Date & setting
- A Jewish Moses tradition from around the first century CE survives only incompletely in a Latin manuscript and early quotations.
- Canonical status
- The surviving Testament/Assumption tradition is not a separate canonical book in the major modern Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox biblical canons.
- Biblical passage
- Jude 9.
- Connection type
- Ancient literary tradition reported by early Christian writers; the precise source relationship is disputed.
Connection: Jude 9’s dispute between Michael and the devil over Moses’ body was associated by early Christian writers with a work called the Assumption of Moses.
Why it matters: It shows Jude drawing on a wider Jewish interpretive world beyond the narratives preserved in the Old Testament.
Caution: The surviving Testament/Assumption text is incomplete and does not preserve the dispute scene. The precise title and textual relationship remain debated, so this should be described as a tradition rather than a fully recoverable quotation.
Ancient tradition
Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8
- Date & setting
- The naming tradition is attested by the first century CE in 2 Timothy; its earlier origin is uncertain, and surviving Jannes-and-Jambres literary material is fragmentary.
- Canonical status
- No separate Jannes-and-Jambres work belongs to the major modern Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox biblical canons.
- Biblical passage
- 2 Timothy 3:8, against the background of the unnamed Egyptian magicians in Exodus.
- Connection type
- Ancient naming tradition; direct dependence on a particular apocryphal text is not established.
Connection: 2 Timothy names Jannes and Jambres as opponents of Moses, while Exodus leaves Pharaoh’s magicians unnamed. Jewish and later Christian traditions preserve these names, and fragments of an apocryphal Jannes-and-Jambres work survive.
Why it matters: The passage illustrates how a biblical author could draw on a traditional identification familiar in the wider Jewish world.
Caution: It is not certain that 2 Timothy directly quoted the later-reconstructed apocryphon rather than a broader oral or literary tradition.
3 · Named but no longer extant
Lost Writings Named in the Bible
The Bible sometimes names sources or records that have not survived as identifiable works. Their titles matter, but modern books cannot simply claim their identity without evidence.
Named source
Book of Jashar
- Date & setting
- The work was known to the biblical writers who cite it, but its date, authorship, and final extent are unknown because the original has not survived.
- Canonical status
- Named inside canonical Scripture but not preserved as a separate extant biblical book in the major Christian canons.
- Biblical passages
- Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18.
- Connection type
- Explicit reference to a named source.
Biblical references: Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18.
What can be said: The biblical references point to an older source containing poetic or heroic material. The original work has not survived as an independently identifiable manuscript.
Why it matters: It reminds readers that biblical writers could draw on earlier songs, records, and literary sources.
Caution: Modern publications titled Book of Jashar must not be presented as unquestionably identical to the lost work named in Joshua and Samuel.
Named source
Book of the Wars of the Lord
- Date & setting
- An early Israelite collection already known to Numbers; its precise date, authorship, and original scope are unknown because the work is lost.
- Canonical status
- Named inside canonical Scripture but not preserved as a separate extant biblical book in the major Christian canons.
- Biblical passage
- Numbers 21:14.
- Connection type
- Explicit reference to a named source.
Biblical reference: Numbers 21:14.
What can be said: Numbers cites this title before a poetic fragment. The USCCB note describes it as an ancient collection of Israelite songs that is now lost.
Why it matters: The reference offers a glimpse of older Israelite poetic collections that may have circulated alongside the traditions preserved in the Pentateuch.
Caution: Because the collection itself has not survived, its full contents, extent, and authorship cannot be reconstructed with confidence.
Named records
Records of Nathan and Gad
- Date & setting
- Associated by Chronicles with the reign of David; the date and form of the underlying records cannot be established because no independent copies survive.
- Canonical status
- Named by canonical Chronicles but not preserved as separate extant biblical books in the major Christian canons.
- Biblical passage
- 1 Chronicles 29:29.
- Connection type
- Explicit reference to named historical or prophetic records.
Biblical reference: 1 Chronicles 29:29 names records associated with Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer in connection with David’s reign.
What can be said: Chronicles presents these as historical/source records, but no independent copies securely identifiable as those works survive.
Why it matters: The notice helps readers see that Chronicles openly situates its narrative within a broader documentary and prophetic source world.
Caution: Later writings attributed to biblical figures should not automatically be equated with the specific records named by Chronicles.
Named records
Royal Chronicles and Other Named Records
- Date & setting
- Kings cites royal records in connection with Israel’s and Judah’s monarchies; their precise composition dates, authors, and surviving identities are unknown.
- Canonical status
- The cited royal records are not the canonical books of 1–2 Chronicles and do not survive as separate identifiable books in the major Christian canons.
- Biblical passages
- Examples include 1 Kings 14:19 and 1 Kings 22:39, alongside many similar source notices.
- Connection type
- Explicit references to royal or historical records.
Biblical references: Kings repeatedly refers readers to records such as the “book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” and corresponding records for Judah. Chronicles also names several source works no longer extant.
What can be said: These notices indicate that biblical historians knew or invoked other royal and historical records. They are not the same thing as the canonical books of 1–2 Chronicles.
Why it matters: They help readers understand ancient historiography and the Bible’s own acknowledgment of source material beyond the final canonical narratives.
Caution: Similar titles do not prove that a modern or later work is the ancient source being cited.
Built for future lesson connections
Contextual cross-links are ready.
Future canonical Bible lessons can point to a specific entry without treating the ancient writing as part of the normal Old Testament or New Testament sequence.
Related Ancient Writing
Learn about 1 Enoch and its connection to Jude 14–15.
Open 1 Enoch overview →
Research standard
Sources used for this first phase
Overview cards favor primary biblical texts, church canon sources, and academic reference works. Complete translations are intentionally deferred until text, translation quality, provenance, and copyright status can be verified.
USCCBBooks of the Bible and Catholic canonical order
Orthodox Church in AmericaLonger Old Testament canon
Oxford Academic1 Enoch and the Qumran Scrolls
Oxford AcademicBook of Jubilees
Oxford AcademicWisdom of Solomon
Oxford AcademicSirach
CambridgeTestament / Assumption of Moses
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo ChurchReference library including Enoch
Oxford AcademicEthiopian Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon
Yale / Oxford Academic1–3 Meqabyan in the Ethiopic Bible