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 
>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.  

        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

        Warren Doud