Re: NT expasnsion or reduction?

In response to ...

> In regard to the (rather strange) suggestion that the canon of the NT should be
> expanded - it seems to me that scholarship moves in the other direction -
> REDUCING the canon by rejecting the historicity of parts of the Gospels
> or of books (for example, concluding that the Gospel of John is not
> historical). In the same way, some scholars suggest that Paul did not write
> certain books traditionally attributed to him.
..., I think it is inherently misguided to take away from the NT canon.  
I don't argue this from the viewpoint that the NT is inerrant or similar 
grounds.  My argument is based simply on the evidence.  Take for example the 
Gospel of John.  Although I don't necessarily believe that the Apostle  
authored the document, two thousand years of church tradition supports it 
as authoritative.  In addition, our knowledge of the events of Jesus' 
life, especially his ministry, is incredibly limited.  Thus, our 
objections to the historicity of John are suspect, and with this in 
mind, the document deserves the benefit of the doubt.

--John L. Moody
  Palm Beach Atlantic College