What do you think?
Rate this book
A New New Testament: A Bible for the Twenty-first Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts
"Important both historically and theologically. Readers will not be able to see the New Testament in the same way again."—Marcus Borg, author of The Heart of Christianity
“A New New Testament does what some of us never dreamed possible: it opens the treasure chest of early Christian writings, restoring a carefully select few of them to their rightful place in the broad conversation about who Jesus was, what he did and taught, and what all of that has to do with us now.” — Barbara Brown Taylor, author of Leaving Church and An Altar in the World
There are twenty-seven books in the traditional New Testament, but the earliest Christian communities were far more vibrant than that small number might lead you to think. In fact, many more scriptures were written and were just as important as the New Testament in shaping early-Christian communities and beliefs. Over the past century, many of those texts that were lost have been found and translated, yet are still not known to much of the public; they are discussed mainly by scholars or within a context of the now outdated notion of gnostic gospels. In A New New Testament Hal Taussig is changing that. With the help of nineteen important spiritual leaders, he has added ten of the recently discovered texts to the traditional New Testament, leading many churches and spiritual seekers to use this new New Testament for their spiritual and intellectual growth.
“Remarkable . . . Not meant to replace the traditional New Testament, this fascinating work will be, Taussig hopes, the first of several new New Testaments.” — Booklist
“A New New Testament does what some of us never dreamed possible: it opens the treasure chest of early Christian writings, restoring a carefully select few of them to their rightful place in the broad conversation about who Jesus was, what he did and taught, and what all of that has to do with us now.” — Barbara Brown Taylor, author of Leaving Church and An Altar in the World
There are twenty-seven books in the traditional New Testament, but the earliest Christian communities were far more vibrant than that small number might lead you to think. In fact, many more scriptures were written and were just as important as the New Testament in shaping early-Christian communities and beliefs. Over the past century, many of those texts that were lost have been found and translated, yet are still not known to much of the public; they are discussed mainly by scholars or within a context of the now outdated notion of gnostic gospels. In A New New Testament Hal Taussig is changing that. With the help of nineteen important spiritual leaders, he has added ten of the recently discovered texts to the traditional New Testament, leading many churches and spiritual seekers to use this new New Testament for their spiritual and intellectual growth.
“Remarkable . . . Not meant to replace the traditional New Testament, this fascinating work will be, Taussig hopes, the first of several new New Testaments.” — Booklist
640 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
617 people are currently reading
798 people want to read
About the author
Hal Taussig
22 books13 followersA founding member of the Jesus Seminar, HAL TAUSSIG is a pastor, professor of Biblical literature at Union Theological Seminary in New York, and professor of early Christianity at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. He is the author of In the Beginning Was the Meal; The Thunder: Perfect Mind; A New Spiritual Home; Reimagining Life Together in America (with Catherine Nerney); Jesus Before God; Reimagining Christian Origins (with Elizabeth Castelli), and others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
February 24, 2013
[Citation Needed]
The most striking thing about this outsized tome is not its size but its complete lack of citations. To be fair I got a reviewers' copy and maybe footnotes will be added to the final version--if so that's a pretty huge omission for us reviewers to have to work around. Again and again Taussig makes assertions that beg for a citation for me to check out--novel claims I have never heard before, claims that contradict what I have learned from other scholars, claims that contradict other claims in this same book--and there is nothing. I began to feel irate about this, as though perhaps Taussig does not trust his reader enough to empower us with the ability to check up on his reasoning and his facts. It felt high-handed, especially at points where I knew that he was stating something as being "the scholarly consensus" when it, in fact, is no such thing. If I picked up on that here and there, and I am no scholar or expert, what else was he keeping from me?
This is especially ironic considering that again and again he trumpets that this book represents a big deal first time opportunity for the lay person to see what scholars already know about and that some "bubble of secrecy" has been burst. I don't know what bubble. Nag Hammadi is old news at this point and, despite the fact that Newsweek seems to rediscover it the week of Easter every year to sell magazines (RIP to that, I guess) I don't think the fact that these outre sorts of alternative "gospels" are out there shocks anyone anymore. If you were curious about them, no doubt you have already looked at them by now. Perhaps in one of the many blockbuster nonfiction titles that have come out since the late 1980s. Perhaps free, online, where you can access any of these "hidden" titles in half a second, with Google.
Taussig never really makes a compelling case for why we need a new New Testament. He cites vague "spiritual crises" and implies that church-goers are bored and unmoved by the current canon. He talks with a lot of purple prose about how emotional or pretty some of the new texts are. But he does not hold them to any kind of test of truth, consistency, or authenticity. He does not defend them where they depart--often radically--from the whole of Christian orthodoxy. He doesn't directly debunk the orthodoxy he seeks to unseat, even, but kind of shrugs it off. He doesn't seem to care about the truth either way, shockingly. He just likes what he likes, and he thinks these books are thrilling and exciting and new. I kept thinking of the way some of his generation argue against monogamy, as I read his superficial justifications on the basis of "needing to change things up a bit."
The Ultimate Boredom of Heresy
I know we're not supposed to say heresy--or gnostic, Taussig has a whole section on why he objects to the term "gnosticism." But really, there is such a thing. Orthodox Christianity has been defined for thousands of years by the ecumenical creeds. The various denominations are further defined by their confessions and catechisms, written or understood. There's a lot of heresy in this book, which is, no shock to anyone, why these noncanonical books were left out of the canon. Much of it is very boring heresy, nothing particularly shocking or countercultural. A lot of it is straight up nonsense. One gnostic (I keep using that word, because it means something) text is simply a string of contradictory statements such as "I am a holy woman and a whore." It reminded me of that Meredith Brooks song from 1999, "I'm a b**** I'm a lover," etc. There's nothing new or profound about this, it is simply nonsense that sounds "deep." Much of the stuff Taussig marvels over as "poetic" is similar strings of doggerel and nonsense. The Church Fathers showed good sense in leaving dubious, boring, badly written books out of the canon.
Oh a word about fathers...and men...and women...gender is a preoccupation of this book, and I am sure they would all say they are feminists. Yet the preoccupation with women's rights has a curious set of blind spots. They zero right in on things like 1 Timothy "oppressively" affirming the traditional Greek and Jewish household structure. But when the much-vaunted "Gospel" of Thomas asserts that "women are not worthy of life" and puts the words in Jesus' mouth that he will "make Mary Magdalene male" so that she is so worthy...not a word to be said about that! Not one single word about this appalling misogyny that far outweighs the gravity of any of Paul's statements, nor any of the similar woman-hating proclamations that are a known and unsurprising characteristic of gnostic writings. Gnosticism hates the body and the earthly life, and women are often equated with these things. Why is this preferable to Pauline Christianity for women? Don't ask me, ask Taussig. But he gives no clues in this book.
And a further word about councils. The committee or "council" that put this show together consists of some Christians, yes, some of them are even scholars. They ignore a lot of other scholars who don't agree with them, and there's nothing like a peer review, but I think Taussig suspects his readers are idiots and won't pick up on that. Anyway, there are also two rabbis (fair enough, I guess, if they have expertise in early Rabbinic Judaism, which neither of them appear to have) and a "yogic practitioner." Really? What a mockery this is of the real Christian councils, or anything like "scholarly consensus." And to add to the ridiculousness, they are all American. Even though most Christians in the world, well, are not.
If you want really wacky heresy, though, just skim to the very end where in the "Secret Revelation of John" (a very obvious work of gnosticism!) we learn about no fewer than three goddesses and a couple of gods. Including the old gnostic chestnut, the "demiurge."
Weirdly enough for a guy who works at a rabbinical school, Taussig never addresses the antisemitism implicit in the gnostic theologies in these works, where the Old Testament God is cast as wicked. Then again he approvingly references, of all people, MARCION! Without a word about how his heresy is at the root of much Christian antisemitism in history, how it has haunted us like a bad smell, and how it is, sadly, revived unwittingly by many a liberal Christian "reformer" in the present day who rails against the "violent God" of the Old Testament in contrast to the lamb-like meekness of Christ.
Appeal To The Emotions
Again and again, Taussig talks about feelings. What is the object of this quest? Theology, I thought, was meant to be a search for the truth about God, and how to articulate it and apply it to this world. For Taussig, it's a search for sensations and feelings and stimulation. Again and again he talks about "lush language" or the like being the criteria for a dubious work being included. But the better question is never asked--is it true? Is it faithful? Does it tell the truth about God? Those questions appear to be beside the point to Taussig. He does not want to enlighten us, he wants us to feel "delight" and "clap our hands" and feel thrilled and emotionally effusive. I got the impression he was thinking of us readers as a lot of silly toddlers, who would shriek with innocent delight when he peek-a-booed from behind the divan holding an ancient scroll.
In addition to repeatedly getting the impression that Taussig thinks the reader is insipid and worthy of nothing better than a superficial, insipid religious experience, I got tired of his need to compulsively repeat himself on certain seemingly unimportant points. A perfect example: how he again and again and again beats us over the head with the point that "apostle" isn't the best word for Paul, a better translation would be "ambassador." Honestly: so what? Why does he keep saying this? He seems to think every tiny preconceived notion he can debunk is a victory against the unseen enemy--American GOP fundamentalist Protestants--but it really is only very silly and childish.
Why Not Be Jewish?
The editor of this ambitious tome--as well as Crossan, who wrote the foreword, and some of the panel members who put it together--are familiar to me from the time in the 1990s when I was introduced to the work of the Jesus Seminar. I was a teenager with little to no religious instruction or guidance, but an earnest if bare bones Christian Protestant belief set. I will always credit the Jesus Seminar--in particular the work of Funk and Borg--with my decision at age 16 that I should convert to Judaism. The logic was like this: the Jesus Seminar convincingly made their point, that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, never rose from the dead, and was just a nice rabbi with good ideas about how to live, and that all that supernatural stuff was wishful thinking tacked on by credulous later people with agendas. (Convincingly to me then, as a teenager with no religious instruction--not so convincingly to me now that I am more well-read.) Furthermore, these Christian scholars pointed out that Paul was the one who put together most of what is now called Christianity, and he was a misogynist and not very nice by their tally. Why struggle with Paul and the scarier parts of the New Testament, though, if Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah and never rose from the dead? It seemed quite logical then to cling to the strong ethical monotheistic tradition of Judaism, from which the nice rabbi came forth, rather than persist in calling myself a Christian.
I am today a Christian and not a Jew, despite spending a very enriching span of my teens and early 20s exploring and learning about Judaism. I have gained immense respect for the Jewish tradition and helpful knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. But I wonder, every time I pick up a book by one of these guys, many of whom not only persist in clinging to Christian institutions and labels like UCC and United Methodist but are actually ordained ministers with pulpits, why they are not Jewish by choice? It still seems to me the only logical and reasonable thing to do, once you believe Jesus is not Divine but that the ethical tradition he represented was just swell.
Why is Hal Taussig Christian? I would love to ask him. He even teaches at a fine rabbinical school! If not Christ the Redeemer, the Trinity, the Nicene creed, the resurrection--if all of that is just dross, as he implies again and again--then what keeps him holding onto that collar and cross? Sentimentality? Ethnic affiliations? What?
Though I guess perhaps "Christian" isn't the word he would prefer, as he studiously and awkwardly avoids it in this text. Again and again he replaces the natural, commonly used term "Christian" with formulations like "Christ assemblies" and even "Christ people." This just seems plain contrarian to me, and frankly a bit childish--as does the whole overdone, played-out faux rivalry between vaguely humanist-unitarian "liberals" and raving literalist "fundamentalists." As though those really were the only two possibilities for believers.
Has Taussig, in all his years in ministry in a mainline denomination, really stopped believing in Christians like myself--a member of a moderate, mainline Protestant denomination who actually holds fast to the Nicene Creed and the Lutheran Confessions like the good ole ELCA website says we all do? Or am I the last one out on some terrible in-joke?
This book is not even worth the price of admission to view the curiosities contained in it. Since Taussig refuses to cite his sources even for the most outlandish claims and elsewhere is just baldly wrong (for instance when he asserts some obscure manuscript is innovative in that it uses a feminine metaphor for God, when in fact such metaphors are in, oh, Isaiah for one) he is not a reliable narrator or guide, and I don't trust his novel translations. This book is clearly meant for an echo chamber of greying baby boomer liberal Protestants and lefty Catholics who will, the publisher clearly assumed, ooh and ahh over the daring slaying of frumpy orthodoxies and tipping of freedom-impinging sacred cows. But it fails even to shock, these cows having long since been tipped by Funk, Spong, et al. He even gets in the usual dig at Augustine and Luther being "fixated on sin" and sails along to a groove only his generation has ever cared to dance to at length, about "sin being an illusion." So very, very tired and boring and a dead end.
It strikes me that while Taussig anticipates us swooning over his gnostic finds, he neglects to remove any of the books he regards as problematic. Why not? If you can include something about the "Mother" and "Father" bringing forth other deities, why not take out the Timothy bit you so obviously hate? This speaks, I think to his motivation--to continue using Christian infrastructure to enrich his life and reputation, while also thinking he's some great iconoclast because he points out that the New Testament didn't fall out of the sky but was selected by councils.
In the end the high-handedness, the arrogance, and the bald hypocrisy made me angry and sad. Clearly Taussig does not respect his readers, and does not respect the Christian canon, and does not have any sense of humbleness about any of this. He delights in "proving" everything an orthodox Christian believes is somehow outmoded and mistaken, but persists in his pastorate, and again, I just have to ask: why? Is it for the pension, the social cachet, the nifty uniform? It defies all reason.
The most striking thing about this outsized tome is not its size but its complete lack of citations. To be fair I got a reviewers' copy and maybe footnotes will be added to the final version--if so that's a pretty huge omission for us reviewers to have to work around. Again and again Taussig makes assertions that beg for a citation for me to check out--novel claims I have never heard before, claims that contradict what I have learned from other scholars, claims that contradict other claims in this same book--and there is nothing. I began to feel irate about this, as though perhaps Taussig does not trust his reader enough to empower us with the ability to check up on his reasoning and his facts. It felt high-handed, especially at points where I knew that he was stating something as being "the scholarly consensus" when it, in fact, is no such thing. If I picked up on that here and there, and I am no scholar or expert, what else was he keeping from me?
This is especially ironic considering that again and again he trumpets that this book represents a big deal first time opportunity for the lay person to see what scholars already know about and that some "bubble of secrecy" has been burst. I don't know what bubble. Nag Hammadi is old news at this point and, despite the fact that Newsweek seems to rediscover it the week of Easter every year to sell magazines (RIP to that, I guess) I don't think the fact that these outre sorts of alternative "gospels" are out there shocks anyone anymore. If you were curious about them, no doubt you have already looked at them by now. Perhaps in one of the many blockbuster nonfiction titles that have come out since the late 1980s. Perhaps free, online, where you can access any of these "hidden" titles in half a second, with Google.
Taussig never really makes a compelling case for why we need a new New Testament. He cites vague "spiritual crises" and implies that church-goers are bored and unmoved by the current canon. He talks with a lot of purple prose about how emotional or pretty some of the new texts are. But he does not hold them to any kind of test of truth, consistency, or authenticity. He does not defend them where they depart--often radically--from the whole of Christian orthodoxy. He doesn't directly debunk the orthodoxy he seeks to unseat, even, but kind of shrugs it off. He doesn't seem to care about the truth either way, shockingly. He just likes what he likes, and he thinks these books are thrilling and exciting and new. I kept thinking of the way some of his generation argue against monogamy, as I read his superficial justifications on the basis of "needing to change things up a bit."
The Ultimate Boredom of Heresy
I know we're not supposed to say heresy--or gnostic, Taussig has a whole section on why he objects to the term "gnosticism." But really, there is such a thing. Orthodox Christianity has been defined for thousands of years by the ecumenical creeds. The various denominations are further defined by their confessions and catechisms, written or understood. There's a lot of heresy in this book, which is, no shock to anyone, why these noncanonical books were left out of the canon. Much of it is very boring heresy, nothing particularly shocking or countercultural. A lot of it is straight up nonsense. One gnostic (I keep using that word, because it means something) text is simply a string of contradictory statements such as "I am a holy woman and a whore." It reminded me of that Meredith Brooks song from 1999, "I'm a b**** I'm a lover," etc. There's nothing new or profound about this, it is simply nonsense that sounds "deep." Much of the stuff Taussig marvels over as "poetic" is similar strings of doggerel and nonsense. The Church Fathers showed good sense in leaving dubious, boring, badly written books out of the canon.
Oh a word about fathers...and men...and women...gender is a preoccupation of this book, and I am sure they would all say they are feminists. Yet the preoccupation with women's rights has a curious set of blind spots. They zero right in on things like 1 Timothy "oppressively" affirming the traditional Greek and Jewish household structure. But when the much-vaunted "Gospel" of Thomas asserts that "women are not worthy of life" and puts the words in Jesus' mouth that he will "make Mary Magdalene male" so that she is so worthy...not a word to be said about that! Not one single word about this appalling misogyny that far outweighs the gravity of any of Paul's statements, nor any of the similar woman-hating proclamations that are a known and unsurprising characteristic of gnostic writings. Gnosticism hates the body and the earthly life, and women are often equated with these things. Why is this preferable to Pauline Christianity for women? Don't ask me, ask Taussig. But he gives no clues in this book.
And a further word about councils. The committee or "council" that put this show together consists of some Christians, yes, some of them are even scholars. They ignore a lot of other scholars who don't agree with them, and there's nothing like a peer review, but I think Taussig suspects his readers are idiots and won't pick up on that. Anyway, there are also two rabbis (fair enough, I guess, if they have expertise in early Rabbinic Judaism, which neither of them appear to have) and a "yogic practitioner." Really? What a mockery this is of the real Christian councils, or anything like "scholarly consensus." And to add to the ridiculousness, they are all American. Even though most Christians in the world, well, are not.
If you want really wacky heresy, though, just skim to the very end where in the "Secret Revelation of John" (a very obvious work of gnosticism!) we learn about no fewer than three goddesses and a couple of gods. Including the old gnostic chestnut, the "demiurge."
Weirdly enough for a guy who works at a rabbinical school, Taussig never addresses the antisemitism implicit in the gnostic theologies in these works, where the Old Testament God is cast as wicked. Then again he approvingly references, of all people, MARCION! Without a word about how his heresy is at the root of much Christian antisemitism in history, how it has haunted us like a bad smell, and how it is, sadly, revived unwittingly by many a liberal Christian "reformer" in the present day who rails against the "violent God" of the Old Testament in contrast to the lamb-like meekness of Christ.
Appeal To The Emotions
Again and again, Taussig talks about feelings. What is the object of this quest? Theology, I thought, was meant to be a search for the truth about God, and how to articulate it and apply it to this world. For Taussig, it's a search for sensations and feelings and stimulation. Again and again he talks about "lush language" or the like being the criteria for a dubious work being included. But the better question is never asked--is it true? Is it faithful? Does it tell the truth about God? Those questions appear to be beside the point to Taussig. He does not want to enlighten us, he wants us to feel "delight" and "clap our hands" and feel thrilled and emotionally effusive. I got the impression he was thinking of us readers as a lot of silly toddlers, who would shriek with innocent delight when he peek-a-booed from behind the divan holding an ancient scroll.
In addition to repeatedly getting the impression that Taussig thinks the reader is insipid and worthy of nothing better than a superficial, insipid religious experience, I got tired of his need to compulsively repeat himself on certain seemingly unimportant points. A perfect example: how he again and again and again beats us over the head with the point that "apostle" isn't the best word for Paul, a better translation would be "ambassador." Honestly: so what? Why does he keep saying this? He seems to think every tiny preconceived notion he can debunk is a victory against the unseen enemy--American GOP fundamentalist Protestants--but it really is only very silly and childish.
Why Not Be Jewish?
The editor of this ambitious tome--as well as Crossan, who wrote the foreword, and some of the panel members who put it together--are familiar to me from the time in the 1990s when I was introduced to the work of the Jesus Seminar. I was a teenager with little to no religious instruction or guidance, but an earnest if bare bones Christian Protestant belief set. I will always credit the Jesus Seminar--in particular the work of Funk and Borg--with my decision at age 16 that I should convert to Judaism. The logic was like this: the Jesus Seminar convincingly made their point, that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, never rose from the dead, and was just a nice rabbi with good ideas about how to live, and that all that supernatural stuff was wishful thinking tacked on by credulous later people with agendas. (Convincingly to me then, as a teenager with no religious instruction--not so convincingly to me now that I am more well-read.) Furthermore, these Christian scholars pointed out that Paul was the one who put together most of what is now called Christianity, and he was a misogynist and not very nice by their tally. Why struggle with Paul and the scarier parts of the New Testament, though, if Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah and never rose from the dead? It seemed quite logical then to cling to the strong ethical monotheistic tradition of Judaism, from which the nice rabbi came forth, rather than persist in calling myself a Christian.
I am today a Christian and not a Jew, despite spending a very enriching span of my teens and early 20s exploring and learning about Judaism. I have gained immense respect for the Jewish tradition and helpful knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. But I wonder, every time I pick up a book by one of these guys, many of whom not only persist in clinging to Christian institutions and labels like UCC and United Methodist but are actually ordained ministers with pulpits, why they are not Jewish by choice? It still seems to me the only logical and reasonable thing to do, once you believe Jesus is not Divine but that the ethical tradition he represented was just swell.
Why is Hal Taussig Christian? I would love to ask him. He even teaches at a fine rabbinical school! If not Christ the Redeemer, the Trinity, the Nicene creed, the resurrection--if all of that is just dross, as he implies again and again--then what keeps him holding onto that collar and cross? Sentimentality? Ethnic affiliations? What?
Though I guess perhaps "Christian" isn't the word he would prefer, as he studiously and awkwardly avoids it in this text. Again and again he replaces the natural, commonly used term "Christian" with formulations like "Christ assemblies" and even "Christ people." This just seems plain contrarian to me, and frankly a bit childish--as does the whole overdone, played-out faux rivalry between vaguely humanist-unitarian "liberals" and raving literalist "fundamentalists." As though those really were the only two possibilities for believers.
Has Taussig, in all his years in ministry in a mainline denomination, really stopped believing in Christians like myself--a member of a moderate, mainline Protestant denomination who actually holds fast to the Nicene Creed and the Lutheran Confessions like the good ole ELCA website says we all do? Or am I the last one out on some terrible in-joke?
This book is not even worth the price of admission to view the curiosities contained in it. Since Taussig refuses to cite his sources even for the most outlandish claims and elsewhere is just baldly wrong (for instance when he asserts some obscure manuscript is innovative in that it uses a feminine metaphor for God, when in fact such metaphors are in, oh, Isaiah for one) he is not a reliable narrator or guide, and I don't trust his novel translations. This book is clearly meant for an echo chamber of greying baby boomer liberal Protestants and lefty Catholics who will, the publisher clearly assumed, ooh and ahh over the daring slaying of frumpy orthodoxies and tipping of freedom-impinging sacred cows. But it fails even to shock, these cows having long since been tipped by Funk, Spong, et al. He even gets in the usual dig at Augustine and Luther being "fixated on sin" and sails along to a groove only his generation has ever cared to dance to at length, about "sin being an illusion." So very, very tired and boring and a dead end.
It strikes me that while Taussig anticipates us swooning over his gnostic finds, he neglects to remove any of the books he regards as problematic. Why not? If you can include something about the "Mother" and "Father" bringing forth other deities, why not take out the Timothy bit you so obviously hate? This speaks, I think to his motivation--to continue using Christian infrastructure to enrich his life and reputation, while also thinking he's some great iconoclast because he points out that the New Testament didn't fall out of the sky but was selected by councils.
In the end the high-handedness, the arrogance, and the bald hypocrisy made me angry and sad. Clearly Taussig does not respect his readers, and does not respect the Christian canon, and does not have any sense of humbleness about any of this. He delights in "proving" everything an orthodox Christian believes is somehow outmoded and mistaken, but persists in his pastorate, and again, I just have to ask: why? Is it for the pension, the social cachet, the nifty uniform? It defies all reason.
July 15, 2020
In 1945, over fifty ancient Christian documents were discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, though they only became available to a wider audience in the 1980s.
In 2011, theologian Hal Taussig brought together nineteen fellow scholars (9 women, 10 men) in New Orleans to see if any of these documents might reasonably sit within the existing New Testament to refresh its spiritual message for the 21st century. They chose ten that aligned with contemporary values, such as gender equality, whilst agreeing not to edit the original books even where they expressed unpalatable values. They have done a stellar job, greatly enhanced by Taussig’s excellent companion chapters and introductions for each book.
For the record, I am not religious but I was church raised. Reading the New Testament with ten additional chapters has been a bit of a marathon yet it allowed me to see the whole more clearly. The new chapters shift away from the traditional Christian narrative of an external god up in heaven with independent decision-making authority who will be met in the afterlife. This is replaced with a divine realm to be experienced during earthly life by seeking and finding spiritual light and truth within. The similarities to Buddhist philosophy are unmistakable. One advocates prayer in order to find light and truth, the other meditation in order to find enlightenment. It is very interesting to reread the teachings of Jesus through this lens.
Whatever image of a divine realm Jesus held in his head, it is clear that he struggled to convey it to his followers who were, by and large, baffled by his teachings. His recourse to allegory – houses on sand, seeds on rocks, etc – simply deepened their confusion. The new Gospels of Thomas and Mary, plus the original John, confirm just how new and esoteric his message was. He was singled out, of course, by all those miracles, not least the ultimate one of reappearing in the flesh three days after being executed. Whatever the underlying truth of this, it galvanised terrified disciples into going abroad, at great risk of persecution, to spread the good news. Taussig has placed The Acts of The Apostles immediately after Luke in this version in order to emphasise this.
Then Paul - a difficult, flawed human being who held patriarchal views often inconsistent with the egalitarianism of Jesus, whom he never met. This man wrote of the equality of all humans before God but then, literally in the next paragraph, that women must submit to their husbands and slaves obey their masters. It seems likely that many early Christ sects had female leaders. Paul wanted them silenced and is petulant and sulky when receipt of a rebuff is implied by his second letter to the Corinthians. Personally, I think it a shame that his writings so heavily influenced the development of the Church.
One wonders what Paul would have thought of this New New Testament for it transforms the role of women and the divine feminine. It seems that Mary Magdalene was not just one of the disciples but the one closest to and most beloved by Jesus, the one he sought out and confided in, incurring the jealousy of the others, especially Peter. And then there is Thecla (The Acts of Paul and Thecla), a young woman obsessed with Paul’s teaching who tags after him wherever he goes, suffering brutal persecution as a result. When Paul demurs, she baptizes herself and becomes an ambassador of Christ in her own right. It seems a great disservice to Christian women across the ages that these women should have been so comprehensively airbrushed out of the traditional biblical canon.
There is more. In an astounding piece of writing, The Thunder: Perfect Mind, we hear the powerful voice of the divine feminine, omnipresent in all opposing forces of the world. This is reiterated in The [new] Secret Revelation of John where Jesus and God are portrayed as the divine Mother. In this I was reminded of the Taoist yin-yang, where nothing can exist without the contrast of its opposite, but also of Hinduism where the divine unity can only exist as equal parts of male and female. It is an understatement to say this is a departure from traditional Christianity.
One can only guess what kind of Christianity might have risen up from this different set of books, not just with regard to the role of women but for spiritual practice itself. It is impossible to do justice to this remarkable book. It has been a hugely significant reading experience and it will stay with me for a long time.
In 2011, theologian Hal Taussig brought together nineteen fellow scholars (9 women, 10 men) in New Orleans to see if any of these documents might reasonably sit within the existing New Testament to refresh its spiritual message for the 21st century. They chose ten that aligned with contemporary values, such as gender equality, whilst agreeing not to edit the original books even where they expressed unpalatable values. They have done a stellar job, greatly enhanced by Taussig’s excellent companion chapters and introductions for each book.
For the record, I am not religious but I was church raised. Reading the New Testament with ten additional chapters has been a bit of a marathon yet it allowed me to see the whole more clearly. The new chapters shift away from the traditional Christian narrative of an external god up in heaven with independent decision-making authority who will be met in the afterlife. This is replaced with a divine realm to be experienced during earthly life by seeking and finding spiritual light and truth within. The similarities to Buddhist philosophy are unmistakable. One advocates prayer in order to find light and truth, the other meditation in order to find enlightenment. It is very interesting to reread the teachings of Jesus through this lens.
Whatever image of a divine realm Jesus held in his head, it is clear that he struggled to convey it to his followers who were, by and large, baffled by his teachings. His recourse to allegory – houses on sand, seeds on rocks, etc – simply deepened their confusion. The new Gospels of Thomas and Mary, plus the original John, confirm just how new and esoteric his message was. He was singled out, of course, by all those miracles, not least the ultimate one of reappearing in the flesh three days after being executed. Whatever the underlying truth of this, it galvanised terrified disciples into going abroad, at great risk of persecution, to spread the good news. Taussig has placed The Acts of The Apostles immediately after Luke in this version in order to emphasise this.
Then Paul - a difficult, flawed human being who held patriarchal views often inconsistent with the egalitarianism of Jesus, whom he never met. This man wrote of the equality of all humans before God but then, literally in the next paragraph, that women must submit to their husbands and slaves obey their masters. It seems likely that many early Christ sects had female leaders. Paul wanted them silenced and is petulant and sulky when receipt of a rebuff is implied by his second letter to the Corinthians. Personally, I think it a shame that his writings so heavily influenced the development of the Church.
One wonders what Paul would have thought of this New New Testament for it transforms the role of women and the divine feminine. It seems that Mary Magdalene was not just one of the disciples but the one closest to and most beloved by Jesus, the one he sought out and confided in, incurring the jealousy of the others, especially Peter. And then there is Thecla (The Acts of Paul and Thecla), a young woman obsessed with Paul’s teaching who tags after him wherever he goes, suffering brutal persecution as a result. When Paul demurs, she baptizes herself and becomes an ambassador of Christ in her own right. It seems a great disservice to Christian women across the ages that these women should have been so comprehensively airbrushed out of the traditional biblical canon.
There is more. In an astounding piece of writing, The Thunder: Perfect Mind, we hear the powerful voice of the divine feminine, omnipresent in all opposing forces of the world. This is reiterated in The [new] Secret Revelation of John where Jesus and God are portrayed as the divine Mother. In this I was reminded of the Taoist yin-yang, where nothing can exist without the contrast of its opposite, but also of Hinduism where the divine unity can only exist as equal parts of male and female. It is an understatement to say this is a departure from traditional Christianity.
One can only guess what kind of Christianity might have risen up from this different set of books, not just with regard to the role of women but for spiritual practice itself. It is impossible to do justice to this remarkable book. It has been a hugely significant reading experience and it will stay with me for a long time.
July 29, 2019
I was not, as an atheistic gay Jew, interested in Christianity before reading this book. I remain an atheist, gay, and Jewish; but I now love Jesus and am fascinated by Christianity in general. Make of that what you will.
Read
April 1, 2015I'm really enjoying this text more now that I'm actually into reading it and not just the prefatory material. The voting mechanism for inclusion criteria initially seemed haphazard, but the further explanations in the introductions to each work gave a bit more of a feel for how they reached a consensus on which 'new' texts to include, and why. Each introduction also include a bit on 'Why should this text matter to a 21st century reader', which revealed a little more of the 'why?' of inclusion. The careful arrangement of the texts to put genres and schools of authorship together was effective, though some works (like the Odes of Solomon) are deliberately split up and placed through the work. Some of the most interesting works to me were the more 'liturgical' pieces like prayers and hymns that showed how some early Christian communities may have worshipped. Though I'd read some of these works before individually, it is nice to have them put in a volume alongside the traditional new testament.
December 21, 2020
It’s a mess. The purpose is either to confuse us into following Gnosticism or to break Christianity.
Mixing the New Testament with Gnostic gospels creates a situation where you have, at least, two contradictory doctrines, two opposing theologies.
One is Christian and the other is Gnostic.
These two approaches are very different. Roughly said : one says God the Father is good, our Father in Heaven who loves us - while for the other, the Gnostic doctrine, the Father is a false god, the Demiurge.
We don’t need a “new” New Testament.
Soon we’ll have a New New New New New Testament. Because ... why stop ? Let’s add some Buddhist sutras, a bit of Sufism, a piece of the Satanic Bible and recipes of a vegan cookbook.
Mixing the New Testament with Gnostic gospels creates a situation where you have, at least, two contradictory doctrines, two opposing theologies.
One is Christian and the other is Gnostic.
These two approaches are very different. Roughly said : one says God the Father is good, our Father in Heaven who loves us - while for the other, the Gnostic doctrine, the Father is a false god, the Demiurge.
We don’t need a “new” New Testament.
Soon we’ll have a New New New New New Testament. Because ... why stop ? Let’s add some Buddhist sutras, a bit of Sufism, a piece of the Satanic Bible and recipes of a vegan cookbook.
September 11, 2024
this book have been a wonderful companion on my healing journey. i was raised Christian, in my early adulthood i had some experiences that created distrust that lead me on a journey of exploring most of the worlds religions. this version of the new testament includes some of the newly discovered texts in a complete way. everything is presented in a thoughtful manner. i especially enjoy the purports which help encourage a more liberal viewport of these ancient teachings and doesn't further encourage the mistreatment of race, gender and other frequently misinterpreted sections, yet helps us understand the intentions on a deeper, less fear based level
November 19, 2020
I want to be clear — I am fascinated by the noncanonical writings of early Christians and by the development of the New Testament canon. I loved the idea of what Taussig and his council of contributors are doing here.
I really wanted to like this book.
I just think perhaps the group contributing to these selections was too close to the process, too enamored of their own pet projects and ideas, to assemble a clear-eyed and coherent collection of works.
Personally — and I'm a lay person, but widely read on this topic — I absolutely agree that there are books just outside the canon of the New Testament that are beneficial, fascinating, and instructive to read. Many early canons held works such as 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, and others to be just as important and sacred as what would become the official New Testament, and even included them in ancient manuscripts along with the others.
None of those works are included here.
What has been included is a mix of genuinely intriguing documents — the Gospel of Thomas is a great choice, and despite its flaws the Gospel of Mary at least inspires curiosity — and then... forgive me... a bunch of mystical Gnostic nonsense.
I read the appendices and so I know that the author and his colleagues dislike the category 'gnosticism'. Were any of them to read this humble review I assume they would be upset. But whatever Taussig, King, and others want to believe, there actually is a parallel, wholly separate belief system that operated in early Christianity that is very different from that espoused in the more normative works. Archons, spheres of the heavens, secret rulers, rebellious gods, True Gods and Demiurges... call it 'gnosticism' or don't, but this is not the same religion that Paul and Clement and the gospel writers are part of. You can place the Secret Revelation Of John or the Gospel Of Truth in a collection with the regular Christian documents but it's like throwing Jolly Ranchers into a fruit salad and claiming they belong side by side. They don't, and it's distracting and weird.
I would have loved to see a collection like this that included the books that really did almost make it into the New Testament. The letters of Clement, the Didache (which was apparently excluded solely because the council had political axes to grind that it did not align with), the gospel of Peter... these could slot in between the existing New Testament books in a compelling way, and be truer to the development of the canon and which books were just barely outside it.
Bizarre mystical poetry about real gods and fake gods and Mothers in rebellion against the Creator are not a natural bedfellow for these other texts, no matter how earnestly the author tries to spin them.
I'm a liberal myself, but there are also clear biases at work here. It feels like every ancient text with strong female figures was thrown in, whether it belonged or not (The Thunder: Perfect Mind was a terrific read, but does not even appear to be a Christian work), and other similar ones were excluded for vague reasons. Paul and Thecla was included, despite being a clear piece of early Christian fan fiction, because Thecla is a strong female figure; but the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Infancy Gospel of James, infinitely more influential pieces of storytelling that still ring through our culture today, are... missing. The notes on how texts were excluded indicate that fragmentary ones were declined, but Gospel of Mary, which is a couple of pages surrounded by gaping holes, made it in somehow.
Overall I found the selection process here baffling, many of the chosen texts bizarre or tedious, and the author's promises in the beginning and end matter just wildly overstated and going well beyond the evidence. Maybe I don't see what the council saw in some of these books, but they were certainly far from a life altering experience of spiritual joy.
I really wanted to like this book.
I just think perhaps the group contributing to these selections was too close to the process, too enamored of their own pet projects and ideas, to assemble a clear-eyed and coherent collection of works.
Personally — and I'm a lay person, but widely read on this topic — I absolutely agree that there are books just outside the canon of the New Testament that are beneficial, fascinating, and instructive to read. Many early canons held works such as 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, and others to be just as important and sacred as what would become the official New Testament, and even included them in ancient manuscripts along with the others.
None of those works are included here.
What has been included is a mix of genuinely intriguing documents — the Gospel of Thomas is a great choice, and despite its flaws the Gospel of Mary at least inspires curiosity — and then... forgive me... a bunch of mystical Gnostic nonsense.
I read the appendices and so I know that the author and his colleagues dislike the category 'gnosticism'. Were any of them to read this humble review I assume they would be upset. But whatever Taussig, King, and others want to believe, there actually is a parallel, wholly separate belief system that operated in early Christianity that is very different from that espoused in the more normative works. Archons, spheres of the heavens, secret rulers, rebellious gods, True Gods and Demiurges... call it 'gnosticism' or don't, but this is not the same religion that Paul and Clement and the gospel writers are part of. You can place the Secret Revelation Of John or the Gospel Of Truth in a collection with the regular Christian documents but it's like throwing Jolly Ranchers into a fruit salad and claiming they belong side by side. They don't, and it's distracting and weird.
I would have loved to see a collection like this that included the books that really did almost make it into the New Testament. The letters of Clement, the Didache (which was apparently excluded solely because the council had political axes to grind that it did not align with), the gospel of Peter... these could slot in between the existing New Testament books in a compelling way, and be truer to the development of the canon and which books were just barely outside it.
Bizarre mystical poetry about real gods and fake gods and Mothers in rebellion against the Creator are not a natural bedfellow for these other texts, no matter how earnestly the author tries to spin them.
I'm a liberal myself, but there are also clear biases at work here. It feels like every ancient text with strong female figures was thrown in, whether it belonged or not (The Thunder: Perfect Mind was a terrific read, but does not even appear to be a Christian work), and other similar ones were excluded for vague reasons. Paul and Thecla was included, despite being a clear piece of early Christian fan fiction, because Thecla is a strong female figure; but the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Infancy Gospel of James, infinitely more influential pieces of storytelling that still ring through our culture today, are... missing. The notes on how texts were excluded indicate that fragmentary ones were declined, but Gospel of Mary, which is a couple of pages surrounded by gaping holes, made it in somehow.
Overall I found the selection process here baffling, many of the chosen texts bizarre or tedious, and the author's promises in the beginning and end matter just wildly overstated and going well beyond the evidence. Maybe I don't see what the council saw in some of these books, but they were certainly far from a life altering experience of spiritual joy.
April 26, 2016
"A New New Testament"? Seriously? Even Martin Luther wasn't daring enough to touch the New Testament. He confined himself to chopping up the old. The fact that this book was composed by "Christians" is even worse. The book claims to have been organized by a group of individuals "modeled on early church councils of the first six centuries," (p.555) but missing a one crucial ingredient - the successors of the apostles. Indeed, only one Catholic is on the list of editors (a sister involved with the LCWR) and not a single Orthodox Christian.
So this isn't just a collection of the traditional Christian texts plus a few new ones recently discovered. It's a theological claim to authority - the authority to re-write scripture. At least the Old Testament canon of the Reformation was based in some conciliar authority, vague as it was. This is just a load of nonsense. I haven't yet read the editorial comments, but I will, and will hopefully edit this review in accordance.
It's also of note that the collection includes only gnostic texts, and seems to deliberately exclude other, more orthodox though non-canonical texts like the Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Protoevangelium of James.
So this isn't just a collection of the traditional Christian texts plus a few new ones recently discovered. It's a theological claim to authority - the authority to re-write scripture. At least the Old Testament canon of the Reformation was based in some conciliar authority, vague as it was. This is just a load of nonsense. I haven't yet read the editorial comments, but I will, and will hopefully edit this review in accordance.
It's also of note that the collection includes only gnostic texts, and seems to deliberately exclude other, more orthodox though non-canonical texts like the Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Protoevangelium of James.
May 14, 2013
A new canon that places recently-discovered 1st/2nd c. CE Christian writings (mostly Nag Hammadi) in among the traditional books of the New Testament. The result is eye-opening and refreshing.
Hal Taussig provides useful commentary on the history of NT canon formation. He also advances the view that the term "Gnostic" should be retired as having no real doctrinal significance relating to the newly added material, and as being tainted by an unfair association with heresy.
Among the most popular additions will be the Odes of Solomon, celebratory Christian psalms. Originally in Coptic, the manuscripts were apparently "discovered" in the office of a professor who couldn't remember where he'd acquired them. Soon to be a movie starring Harrison Ford.
Hal Taussig provides useful commentary on the history of NT canon formation. He also advances the view that the term "Gnostic" should be retired as having no real doctrinal significance relating to the newly added material, and as being tainted by an unfair association with heresy.
Among the most popular additions will be the Odes of Solomon, celebratory Christian psalms. Originally in Coptic, the manuscripts were apparently "discovered" in the office of a professor who couldn't remember where he'd acquired them. Soon to be a movie starring Harrison Ford.
May 3, 2013
Goodreads First Reads Giveaway Book.
------------------------------------
This is a controversial book involving Christianity. I’ve been told that it’s best to keep quiet about certain topics. Fortunately, the author didn't follow this advice since religion is one of them. One can easily view the numerous reviews about this book and believe that anyone reading it will suffer the wrath of God Almighty, risking eternal damnation of brimstone and hellfire in the afterlife. But that shouldn’t stop you from reading it. This author invites us to read with an open mind and common sense, diehard Christians of many structured religions might have a difficult time with this book. It's a brave soul to inform us of additional information regarding Jesus.
A New New Testament is a recent book that challenges us to consider other ancient Christian documents when assessing the Christian faith. The editor, Hal Taussig, bravely suggests that we should “lean forward with interest and engagement” with a “new way of thinking.” He chose to add ten books, two prayers, and one song, which were recommended by a council of nineteen religious scholars, including a couple of rabbis.
The non-canonical books included were selected by qualified experts capable of providing a scholarly examination of the Christian faith. But, that doesn’t mean they were qualified to develop canonical decisions. So implying this is another official New Testament is inappropriate. A better title, such as Early Christian Writings, would have been a better choice.
I have no doubt that these non-canonical book additions are important ancient books that show both continuity with the early church and discontinuity. Although they date back to the earliest days of Christianity, they were rejected by the early church. Yet, let me remind you that we live in the 21st century which has a vastly different worldview than that of the 1st or 2nd centuries. If one believes that the Holy Spirit is continually working in the world, then why must our sacred texts be never-changing?
As we are well aware, the basis of Christianity comes from the Bible, mostly the New Testament. The Bible is really a collection of dozens of separate books written by authors from all walks of life ranging from kings to laborers, and from military leaders to professional workers. Yet, these authors, who mostly never met one another, wrote them over a time span of more than a thousand years and were originally written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic – not English. Regrettably, biblical words have been used to justify killing, including justifying violence to racial minorities, women, Jews, and homosexuals.
To understand the Bible, we must understand why the contents were included. These were decisions made by men, not God, though. True, we can say that the contents were inspired by God. But, God didn’t make these decisions, and He definitely didn’t personally write the books. After spending countless hours looking through Scriptures, I couldn’t locate anything indicating that God wanted a complete, closed, never-changing, single collection of books for a Bible. Nor, could I find anything written that He inspired the Bible, let alone telling us that our current Bible is both infallible and accurate. Scriptures are inspired; the Bible isn’t.
From 50 through 100 CE, the New Testament books were written. However, other books were written during this period that could have been included, such as Didache in 70 CE and the Epistle of Barnabas in 100 CE, which weren’t even selected for Taussig’s book. As for the official selection of New Testament books, there were many who challenge the list chosen and recommend the inclusion of other books.
Can we learn from reading these non-canonical books? At least, reading them provides us more insight into the environment of the times and into additional literature that could supplement our further understanding of the canonical books.
I firmly believe that only God has complete knowledge about the teachings of Jesus. Christians, who are mortal humans, should remain open-minded and grow in their faith, even if it means replacement of previous beliefs. Otherwise, faith will be nothing more than blind credulity, retrospective backwardness, and idle superstition. Close-minded faith prevents Christians from becoming wise, making it difficult for them to develop a closer relationship with God. Sadly, most people today prefer to be intellectually lazy and let others assess the data for them and tell them what it means. Furthermore, we tend to interpret information based solely upon our own biases and frame of references. As such, most Christians are biblically illiterate, meaning they don’t know what their religion is about. This book offers us the opportunity to understand more about Jesus and the early Christians who followed Him.
Sadly, most Christians treat the Bible as a holy relic, something to worship. Definitely not something to read or understand. Why? We live in a world where people prefer simple sayings, such as quick sound-bites of single scriptural verses such as John 3:16, instead of hard work to understand the context and meanings of biblical sources to discover the truth. The New Testament as an example isn’t really about Jesus being a god and defining our life’s purpose as found in His death. Instead, our life should be found in His example of “accepting the excluded, healing the sick, strengthening the weak, loving the despised, and challenging the powerful. Consequently, the acid test of Christianity is whether its followers are people who do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly on the Earth.
If you’re closed-minded and don’t want to learn more about Jesus, then don’t waste your time and effort with this book. It’ll just completely frustrate you and create un-Christian judgmental feelings of hate and contempt towards this council of scholars. Otherwise, it’s definitely worth the read.
------------------------------------
This is a controversial book involving Christianity. I’ve been told that it’s best to keep quiet about certain topics. Fortunately, the author didn't follow this advice since religion is one of them. One can easily view the numerous reviews about this book and believe that anyone reading it will suffer the wrath of God Almighty, risking eternal damnation of brimstone and hellfire in the afterlife. But that shouldn’t stop you from reading it. This author invites us to read with an open mind and common sense, diehard Christians of many structured religions might have a difficult time with this book. It's a brave soul to inform us of additional information regarding Jesus.
A New New Testament is a recent book that challenges us to consider other ancient Christian documents when assessing the Christian faith. The editor, Hal Taussig, bravely suggests that we should “lean forward with interest and engagement” with a “new way of thinking.” He chose to add ten books, two prayers, and one song, which were recommended by a council of nineteen religious scholars, including a couple of rabbis.
The non-canonical books included were selected by qualified experts capable of providing a scholarly examination of the Christian faith. But, that doesn’t mean they were qualified to develop canonical decisions. So implying this is another official New Testament is inappropriate. A better title, such as Early Christian Writings, would have been a better choice.
I have no doubt that these non-canonical book additions are important ancient books that show both continuity with the early church and discontinuity. Although they date back to the earliest days of Christianity, they were rejected by the early church. Yet, let me remind you that we live in the 21st century which has a vastly different worldview than that of the 1st or 2nd centuries. If one believes that the Holy Spirit is continually working in the world, then why must our sacred texts be never-changing?
As we are well aware, the basis of Christianity comes from the Bible, mostly the New Testament. The Bible is really a collection of dozens of separate books written by authors from all walks of life ranging from kings to laborers, and from military leaders to professional workers. Yet, these authors, who mostly never met one another, wrote them over a time span of more than a thousand years and were originally written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic – not English. Regrettably, biblical words have been used to justify killing, including justifying violence to racial minorities, women, Jews, and homosexuals.
To understand the Bible, we must understand why the contents were included. These were decisions made by men, not God, though. True, we can say that the contents were inspired by God. But, God didn’t make these decisions, and He definitely didn’t personally write the books. After spending countless hours looking through Scriptures, I couldn’t locate anything indicating that God wanted a complete, closed, never-changing, single collection of books for a Bible. Nor, could I find anything written that He inspired the Bible, let alone telling us that our current Bible is both infallible and accurate. Scriptures are inspired; the Bible isn’t.
From 50 through 100 CE, the New Testament books were written. However, other books were written during this period that could have been included, such as Didache in 70 CE and the Epistle of Barnabas in 100 CE, which weren’t even selected for Taussig’s book. As for the official selection of New Testament books, there were many who challenge the list chosen and recommend the inclusion of other books.
Can we learn from reading these non-canonical books? At least, reading them provides us more insight into the environment of the times and into additional literature that could supplement our further understanding of the canonical books.
I firmly believe that only God has complete knowledge about the teachings of Jesus. Christians, who are mortal humans, should remain open-minded and grow in their faith, even if it means replacement of previous beliefs. Otherwise, faith will be nothing more than blind credulity, retrospective backwardness, and idle superstition. Close-minded faith prevents Christians from becoming wise, making it difficult for them to develop a closer relationship with God. Sadly, most people today prefer to be intellectually lazy and let others assess the data for them and tell them what it means. Furthermore, we tend to interpret information based solely upon our own biases and frame of references. As such, most Christians are biblically illiterate, meaning they don’t know what their religion is about. This book offers us the opportunity to understand more about Jesus and the early Christians who followed Him.
Sadly, most Christians treat the Bible as a holy relic, something to worship. Definitely not something to read or understand. Why? We live in a world where people prefer simple sayings, such as quick sound-bites of single scriptural verses such as John 3:16, instead of hard work to understand the context and meanings of biblical sources to discover the truth. The New Testament as an example isn’t really about Jesus being a god and defining our life’s purpose as found in His death. Instead, our life should be found in His example of “accepting the excluded, healing the sick, strengthening the weak, loving the despised, and challenging the powerful. Consequently, the acid test of Christianity is whether its followers are people who do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly on the Earth.
If you’re closed-minded and don’t want to learn more about Jesus, then don’t waste your time and effort with this book. It’ll just completely frustrate you and create un-Christian judgmental feelings of hate and contempt towards this council of scholars. Otherwise, it’s definitely worth the read.
February 16, 2021
Don't let the stars fool you - I DO recommend this book.
I want to clarify that two stars isn't a bad review. According to GR it means I thought the book was OKAY, but didn't particularly like it. I did find it interesting, however, in particular the companion at the end which explains the origins of the New Testament, as well as this New New Testament. Overall, I thought this was an interesting read from a historical standpoint, and I also think it would a good book for anyone to read because it will get you thinking.
Ultimately, even with a two star review, I recommend this book. It may be exactly what you've been looking for.
I want to clarify that two stars isn't a bad review. According to GR it means I thought the book was OKAY, but didn't particularly like it. I did find it interesting, however, in particular the companion at the end which explains the origins of the New Testament, as well as this New New Testament. Overall, I thought this was an interesting read from a historical standpoint, and I also think it would a good book for anyone to read because it will get you thinking.
Ultimately, even with a two star review, I recommend this book. It may be exactly what you've been looking for.
November 23, 2022
I call this finished as much as you can ever say you finish the Bible. But the specific Bible study I was doing with my sister, using this version of the Bible, is finisished. I am not comfortable reviewing any version of the Bible, and the four stars are because some of the 'books' that are 'new new' in my opinion didn't belong in the Bible at all and that is why they were left out to begin with. Some of them are downright pagan and not at all "People of the Book" books. But this edition is more than well worth it for the introductions to each book, which are filled with historical data and contextual information that really enriched our study.
Read
September 18, 2020I thought I was never going to finish this book.
The main thing I've learned is that I want to do more research on which books made it into the NT and which ones didn't. I find it odd to believe in a literal translation of scripture when not a one of these was written at the time of Jesus, and there's no rhyme or reason to what was included and what wasn't.
Well, there is one criteria that merits further investigation: it would appear that anything that referred to God or Jesus in feminine terms or any story about/from women were excluded. I doubt that's a coincidence.
The main thing I've learned is that I want to do more research on which books made it into the NT and which ones didn't. I find it odd to believe in a literal translation of scripture when not a one of these was written at the time of Jesus, and there's no rhyme or reason to what was included and what wasn't.
Well, there is one criteria that merits further investigation: it would appear that anything that referred to God or Jesus in feminine terms or any story about/from women were excluded. I doubt that's a coincidence.
September 22, 2018
Enrich and Expand Your Heart and Your Mind
Here is a collection of early Christian works discovered in the past two centuries. Reading these other voices enhances our understanding of the works which were originally selected for inclusion in what we know as “The New Testament.” We can only delight and marvel at the light these works shed on the familiar texts. Enjoy!
Here is a collection of early Christian works discovered in the past two centuries. Reading these other voices enhances our understanding of the works which were originally selected for inclusion in what we know as “The New Testament.” We can only delight and marvel at the light these works shed on the familiar texts. Enjoy!
June 11, 2022
I appreciate the added books though some of they are difficult to understand being more mystical than the canonical books or is it that they are just not as familiar. Definitely will take some rereading.
December 18, 2022
Fascinating! There is so much scholarship, wisdom and spiritual growth found within these pages. Thank you to Taussig and the many who helped bring these works together with all the analysis that accompanies their inclusion.
July 7, 2017
Need a scripture background to follow. Not an easy read.
December 23, 2018
A refreshing translation of The New Testament. The treatment of women is especially welcome.
January 15, 2024
A beautiful collection of the traditional and gnostic gospels.
December 16, 2015
This is a collection of the books of the canonical New Testament interspersed with many newly discovered texts over the last century which date back to the origins of the Christ movement. Some are similar to the New Testament books, some contain new information/ideas, some are downright bizarre. At any rate, the purpose of the collection is to show that there were many texts reflecting the diversity of thinking & lives of early 1st & 2nd century followers of the Jesus movement, many of which were destroyed or lost over the centuries. Perhaps the book is more useful for Scripture scholars. I didn't find it particularly helpful beyond the exposure to some new writings from that era.
March 21, 2013
Going into this book skeptical of translations already, I was not too impressed. I was interested in the historical value of comparing the various canonical and non-canonical texts, but there were deficiencies in the translations. I could recognize a loose translation in familiar texts which made me not trust some of the other texts. On the plus side, the introductions to the various books were helpful and they did provide some other reading. I would recommend this book with a nuance. It did make certain text more available, but the translation can be a bit sketchy.
August 12, 2013
I enjoyed the commentaries on both the new books added to the New Testament and the standard ones. I had always assumed everyone agreed on what was in the Bible but I learned that wasn't true. Didn't think the 10 books added by the Council of New Orleans were great additions. Also was thrown by the gender nuetral changes made to the standard New Testament books such as "Child of Humanity" instead of "Son of Man".
Got me into God's Word again which is always a good thing though.
Got me into God's Word again which is always a good thing though.
March 11, 2013
*I won this book from Goodreads' First Reads
This is an interesting (and certainly EXTENSIVE) read, but don't treat it as a continuation/rewrite of the Bible; instead, read it objectively as a companion. This guide combines all of the old Christian and "gnostic" writings, and gives insight to many different perspectives of the New Testament.
This is an interesting (and certainly EXTENSIVE) read, but don't treat it as a continuation/rewrite of the Bible; instead, read it objectively as a companion. This guide combines all of the old Christian and "gnostic" writings, and gives insight to many different perspectives of the New Testament.
March 17, 2013
Interesting look at early christian texts and how some of the pro-feminist and female celibacy chapters were replaced by anti-female letters that were never authored by Paul, but substituted years later.
September 23, 2017
Excellent study volume with insightful notes and suggestions for comparison reading and class study. The new books included in this collection are interesting and many inspire further comparison study with "standard" scripture, especially with Old Testament writings. Heartily recomment this book.
May 8, 2013
I won this in a Goodreads Giveaway.
I've seen better versions.
I've seen better versions.
July 25, 2013
I thought it would contain all of the apocrypha but it does not.
February 7, 2014
Did not finish,
May 28, 2014
A must read for the biblical scholar or for anyone interested in how the diversity of early Christian thought solidified into the church we know today.
October 9, 2015
This is not a book to read cover to cover. It is a reference book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews