Judy's question:

When King James had “the books” transcribed, what happened to the ones he chose not to put into the Bible? Where are they? What became of them?

Don's answer:

Let’s begin with some mistakes within your question itself and the erroneous premise upon which it is obviously based.

Although the word “transcribed” can mean “to translate,” it can also mean “to make a written copy,” “to paraphrase,” “to summarize,” or “to represent by means of phonetic symbols.” Since the King James Version of the Bible is a translation of Scripture rather than a copy, paraphrase, summary or representation of Scripture, I suggest that we refer to it as a translation rather than a transcription. Otherwise, others may be confused by our terminology into mistaking the King James Version of the Bible for something other than what it is—an English translation of the Bible from the original languages of the biblical text.

King James did not pick and choose which books to include in the King James Version of the Bible. Apart from authorizing forty-seven translators to translate the Bible from its original languages into English, King James had very little to do with the translation that bears his name. Indeed, his authorization of the translation at the Hampton Court Conference appears to have been a political move designed to ease frictions between the quarreling Puritans and Church of England. Seeing himself as above such trivial matters as doctrinal disputes, King James hoped to end all doctrinal bickering in his realm by producing a Bible acceptable to all factions in the church.

Contrary to the thinking of many, the King James translation is not the first translation of the Bible into English. It is the ninth English translation. The books contained in the King James Version of the Bible are those that had been commonly accepted as comprising the Holy Scriptures for centuries. Thus, neither King James nor his authorized translators had anything to do with deciding what books to include in the Bible. This decision had been made long before any of them were ever born.

The books that makeup our Bible are called the “cannon of Scripture.” The word “canon” comes from a Greek word that was used to signify a “measuring rod” or “standard” to measure by. Therefore, the “canonical books”—the books of the Bible—are those that have “measured up” as divinely inspired and serve as “a standard” for faith and practice.  Although many other books were written besides those that comprise our Bible, they all failed to measure up as divinely inspired for one reason or another; consequently, they were excluded from the biblical canon.

Of all of the non-canonical books, the best known are found in the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha is a collection of books written during the four hundred years between the Old and New Testaments. These books were excluded from the canon of Scripture because there was no succession of prophets during this period, a period which began with the conclusion of Malachi’s ministry and ended with the voice of John the Baptist crying out in the wilderness.

Your question is obviously based upon an erroneous premise made popular by imaginative conspiracy theorists like Dan Brown, the author of the New York Times record-breaking bestseller The Da Vinci Code. According to Brown and other whimsical modern-day Bible-detractors, the books of the Bible were handpicked by prejudiced church councils determined to gut the Christian faith of its original diversity and restrict it to a narrow-minded fundamentalism. As a result, it is alleged that many other “sacred writings,” which these “Brownite” Bible-bashers like to refer to today as “the lost books of the Bible,” were unjustly excluded from the biblical canon.

The problem with these popular conspiracy theories—theories obviously designed by enemies of the Christian faith to undermine the credibility of the Bible—is that they have no basis in fact. They are pure fabrication, without one iota of historical evidence to corroborate them. For instance, the books of the Bible were never determined by any church council.

It is true that the canon of the Old Testament was formerly acknowledged by the Council of Jamnia, which was a gathering of Jewish rabbis following the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It is also true that the canon of the New Testament was formerly acknowledged by the Synod of Hippo—an early church council convened in northern Africa in 393 AD. Yet, neither the Jewish rabbis at the Council of Jamnia nor the church leaders at the Synod of Hippo determined the books to be included in the Old and New Testaments. Instead, they merely confirmed what was already long-standing public opinion.

Most of the Bible was judged canonical soon after it was written. For example, the writings of Moses were placed in the Ark of the Covenant while Moses was still alive (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). Also, the Prophet Daniel acknowledged the Book of Jeremiah as canonical and the Prophet Ezekiel acknowledged the Book of Daniel as canonical (see: Daniel 9:2 and Ezekiel 28:3).

The Old Testament canon was authenticated by no less of an authority than Jesus Christ Himself. In Luke 24:44, Jesus explains to His disciples, “These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.” Unlike today, in Jesus’ day, the Old Testament was divided into twenty-four books and three divisions: (1) The Law (2) The Prophets, and (3) the Writings or Psalms. Notice, Jesus declares the whole Old Testament canonical by referring to all three divisions.

When it comes to the books of the New Testament, their authors understood that they were writing with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13; 7:40). They also recognized each others books as canonical (2 Peter 3:15-16). Not only were all of the books of the New Testament already in existence by the beginning of the second century AD, but the four Gospels had already been placed in a collection called “The Gospels” and the Pauline Epistles had already been placed in a collection called “The Apostle.”

The first known list of all twenty-seven books of our New Testament appears in a letter by Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. However, long before Athanasius’ letter, Polycarp, a young friend and follower of the Apostle John, quoted from the Gospels of Matthew and John, as well as from ten of Paul’s epistles. Justin Martyr (150 AD), a contemporary of Polycarp, considered all the Gospels inspired and made mention of most of the books that makeup our present-day Bible. Irenaeus, who lived around 170 AD, was a disciple of Polycarp who quoted from twenty-three of our New Testament’s twenty-seven books. Finally, around 200 AD, Clement of Alexandria, recognized almost every book of our New Testament as canonical.

As you can easily see, the fallacious notion that the books of the Bible were handpicked by prejudiced church councils comprised of narrow-minded fundamentalists flies in the face of historical facts. Furthermore, the idea that today’s so-called “lost books of the Bible” are “sacred writings” unfairly excluded from the Scripture is just plain balderdash. Far from being equivalent to the books included within the sacred Scripture, these books were excluded because they are obviously profane rather than sacred.

While there are a few exceptions, such as the books of the Apocrypha, these other “sacred writings” or “lost books of the Bible” are heretical documents written for the most part by Gnostic heretics. They are also so loony that it doesn’t take “spiritual rocket science” to figure out that they’re totally void of divine inspiration and undeserving of a place in the Bible.

Some of these books record ridiculous stories about Jesus’ childhood. In one of these stories, Jesus is making mud pies with the other children. However, unlike the other children’s mud pies, Jesus’ become doves and fly away when He tosses them into the air. In another story, Jesus kills another kid by pushing him off the top of a house. Once accused of the other child’s death, the boy Jesus clears Himself by raising the dead child back to life. Obviously, these stories are false, their authors frauds, and anyone who believes them is a fool.

Along with loopy stories, these books also contain ludicrous teachings. For instance, consider some of these gems from the Gnostic gospels:

• Jesus [Yeshua] said, “Blessings on the lion if a human eats it, making the lion human. Foul is the human if a lion eats it, making the lion human.” 

• There are many animals that exist in the world which are in human form. 

• Jesus [Yeshua] said, “Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy.” 

• Winter is the world, summer the other realm. It is wrong to pray in winter.

• God is a dyer. The good dyes, true dyes, dissolve into things dyed in them. So too for things god has dyed. His dyes are imperishable because of their colors. What god dips, he dips in water.

• Jesus [Yeshua] said unto them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make the male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be the male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in the place of a hand, a foot in the place of a foot, an image in the place of an image, then you will enter the Kingdom.”

Obviously, these books are unfit for inclusion in the “Good Book,” but more suitable for inclusion in a goofy book. All who insist that they belong in the Bible may be qualified to compile material for a comic book or the funny pages, but they certainly shouldn’t be taken seriously when it comes to their opinions concerning the composition of the biblical canon.

Permit me to conclude my answer to your question by summarizing the particulars:

1. The King James Version of the Bible is a translation of the Bible into English from the original languages of the biblical text. 
2. Apart from authorizing the translation, King James had little else to do with it. 
3. Neither King James nor the forty-seven translators of the King James Version of the Bible had anything to do with deciding the canon of Scripture. 
4. The canonical books were easily deemed divinely inspired shortly after they were written. 
5. The non-canonical books are for the most part heretical documents written by heretics in contradiction of the canonical books. 
6. The non-canonical books that have survived till our day—a few in full and many only in fragments—are being used disingenuously by the Dan Browns of our world to deceive people into questioning the credibility of the Bible.
7. Finally, don’t you be deceived. Your eternal destiny will be determined by whether or not you believe in the Word of God, both God’s written Word—the Scripture—and God’s living Word—His Son, Jesus Christ.