---

Steve Tomkins leafs through a new translation of the Bible
IF SOMEONE WERE TO GIVE YOU the job of getting as many Christians as possible foaming at the dog collar with outrage (and I can't think of anyone likely to offer such employment, but if you can, please drop me a line), I don't see how you could do better than Good as New, with the possible exception of filming Jesus as a transvestite....

...Isn't it obviously blasphemous presumption to take books in and out of the Bible?

Historically, no. If you have 66 books in your Bible, that's because the Protestant reformers threw seven books out of the Old Testament already. What's more, it took the first churches 20 generations to agree which books to include in the New Testament.

The Gospels and Paul's letters were accepted from century one, but 400 years later vast numbers of churches rejected Revelation. Rome long used the Apocalypse of Peter instead of Hebrews or James. They finally agreed, but what reason have we to assume they got it right?

So if a precise 66 (or 73) book Bible is the heart of your faith as God's ultimate communication with humanity, you have a problem. If, however, Jesus is the heart of your faith as God's ultimate communication with humanity, you have a solution. The point of the New Testament is to preserve Jesus' life and teaching, and what his followers said about him. It is those writings which are closest to Jesus which are most biblical. There is no reason to assume that no book outside the 66 can reveal Jesus as well as those within.

Here's a question to test Christian attitudes to the Bible. Assume the Gospel of Thomas genuinely preserves the words of Jesus as well as the biblical Gospels. Should they shuffle over to make room for it in the holy scriptures?

If one cannot accept the possiblity, the Bible as it stands is more important to one's religion than Jesus – a good example of idolatry. Say what you like about Good as New (as I'm sure you will anyway), it has its priorities right.