In a new book called The New New Testament, a certian group of more liberal minded scholars proposes a new canon of the New Testament. In this canon, the following books are included:
- The Prayer of Thanksgiving
- The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
- The Thunder: Perfect Mind
- The Gospel of Thomas
- The Gospel of Mary
- The Gospel of Truth
- The Acts of Paul and Thecla
- The Letter of Peter to Philip
- The Secret Revelation of John
- The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Books of the Odes of Solomon
Have not ever heard of them? Read Dan Wallace’s review and his reminder of what criteria should always be used when establishing the canon of the New Testament.
Dan’s conclusion:
In short, the New New Testament is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The council that put these books forth is a farce. It has nothing to do with the councils of old, yet implicitly seeks to claim authority on the basis of concocted semblance. The books were selected by those who, though certainly having a right to scholarly examination of the Christian faith, are not at all qualified to make any pronouncements on canon. That belongs to the church, the true church. Outsiders may address, critique, and comment on the New Testament. They have that right—a right given them by the very nature of the Bible: this book is the only sacred document of any major religion which consistently subjects itself to historical inquiry. Unlike the Bhagavad Gita, the Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha, the Qur’an, or the Gospel of Thomas, the Bible is not just talking heads, devoid of historical facts, places, and people. It is a book that presents itself as historical, and speaks about God’s great acts in history, intersecting with humanity in verifiable ways. This is where orthodoxy and heterodoxy should meet, dialoging and debating over whether the Bible is in any sense true. But to suspend the discussion by a sleight of hand is both cowardly and bombastic.
2 replies to "Dan Wallace on "The New New Testament""
Love this line by him:
“Orthodoxy meant that those books considered for canonical status needed to conform to what was already known to be orthodox. Orthodoxy was known even before any writings were accepted as scripture. It was known through hymns, the kerygma, and the traditions passed down by the apostles. If there never had been a New Testament, we would still have enough to go on to guide us as to what essential Christianity looked like.”
And what is this “true church” Dan Wallace speaks of that has authority to make pronouncements on canon?
The Vatican? The editors of Touchstone? Who? I’m kind of curious what the criteria were at Nicea that constituted a “true church” and whether that could ever be duplicated today.
That said, I certainly feel some agreement with Wallace’s observation that it’s rather convenient which books made the cut and which were excluded. It does seem to speak to a bit of an agenda among the scholars involved.