[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NT cannonical expansion
Donald Harrison writes,
>I am writing a book that attempts to systematically argue that the NT must
>be expanded to included material from recent discoveries such as the Gospel
>of Thomas. I am particularly
>intrested in any comments on this idea so that I can polish my position. In
>particular I am intrested in anyone who feels that they can defend the four
>gospel structure established by Irenaeus. I have found in the Bible no
>scripture indicating that the NT should be limited to four gospels
>and 27 books; nor have I found a way to justifiy such a limit. The limit
>imposed by Irenaeus comes from the late second century and is a part of the
>Orthodox/vatican tradition, but not a part of the tradition of the earliest
>Church or those who were condemned as heretics. Ireneaus's attempt to
>justifiy this structure on the basis of
>numerology rooted in the book of Revelations is feable (however it held
>sway within the tradtion he asserted) . Numerological attempts using the
>book of Revelations should point to the number seven, not four. In addition
>the best numerological calculations should suround the number one (i.e
>Q or the Diatesseron) or three (the trinity) seven (Revalations), or twelve
>(the apostles). Ultimately there is no
>specific number that can be used as the guide for determining the amount of
>gospels or books in the NT. Those who feel that even insinuating Biblical
>revision is satanic, should take into consideration that the Protestant
>reformation resulted in the removal of LXX material from the OT to produce
>the 66 book canon used by Protestants. While some such as the Anglican
>Church simply marginalize the material into apocryphal status (a word that
>carries a stigma in theological circles but rarely in historical ones).
>
>Who has any thoughts of the issue? I am intrested in comments for or
>against,
>particularly in favor. I have already met with criticism for even mentioning
>the subject. Has anyone ever considerd the possibility that the early
>orthodoxy excluded material that should have been admited? I have never read
>any literature that even tried to address the possiblity, thew most I have
>seen is a paragraph or two that dismisses the idea as silly, or worse yet as
>incompatible with "tradition" (take note that the tradition of the four
>gospel structure is Ireneaus's not God's). Has anyone ever
>read an argument seeking to justify the expansion of the Bible, if so please
>inform me of it I have looked very hard. In addition any one who can give
>scriptural refrence that indicated a four gospel 27 book structure please
>enlighten me.
>
>donald.harrison.jr@umich.cc.edu
I accept that the "original" "Reformation" canon of 66 books is
divine revelation. I accept this by faith, because I want to and I have no
other choice. The only proof that there is a written Word of God is
circumstantial. If the 66 books were to be added to, I would require
nothing less than empirical proof that the additional materials were
transmitted by God to the human writers.
I believe that your position will require more than just some
"polishing."
Warren Doud