08-28-2008, 09:02 PM
Shlama Akhi Mike,
I'll try to be short and brief in my answers, forgive me and remind me if I miss the opportunity to address any of your questions to your satisfaction.
Number one: I'm a big fan, personally, of the book of Revelation. I love it. Very well written, inspiring and obviously Orthodox. I enjoy it as much as I do the Odes of Solomon, an Aramaic hymnal from the 1st or early 2nd century. No, we do not use it for readings during the liturgy, and no we do not consider it inspired. But that does not mean that I cannot enjoy it and obtain spiritual benefit from it, regardless of whether I am reading it in the English translation or the Aramaic translation.
Number two: I have, believe you me, over the 10 years or so here made no secret of the fact that I, along with a 2,000-year old Christian community, do not consider these 5 books to be canonical. I have never claimed anywhere that the Aramaic translations of these books are the original. So Mr. Lancaster and everyone else is well aware of my, and my church's, position on this matter. I have stated in the past that there may be an Aramaic original to these works, and God-willing that they may very well be found one day in a desert somewhere like the DSS were.
Number three: Yes, all of our sister churches are Apostolic in nature. Rather than concentrate on the differences between a 22, 27 or 35 book canon - let's concentrate on the fact that the 22 books in the Aramaic canon are universally accepted. No Apostolic community disputes any of these 22 books. I pray that you continue in your study of the early and formative years of the Graeco-Latin canon. I think you may be surprised to find out that Revelation was not included by many of the Western Fathers, like Eusebius. These books made it in very late even in the "western" canon.
Number four: The CoE is not lacking in anything, theologically speaking, by not recognizing the canonicity and apostolic authorship of these books. As you said, the themes in Revelation are found in previous works like Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel.
Number five: in the statement about our common Apostolic founding, yes we did have the same Apostles which is why I think we have the same 22 books in common - whether we are Greek, Assyrian or Ethiopian. Now having said that, again, in your study of the formation of the various canons (African, Persian, Greek, etc.) you will have a clearer picture of how these canons formed and which books made it into a canon by the "skin of their teeth", so to say.
Number six: in regards to the CoE and it's reception of these books: when these came to us, again MUCH later than the Apostolic age, they were in a language that was foreign to us and they were in a language other than that which Christ and His disciples spoke. Actually, the CoE was so isolated in Persia that even in the 18th-19th century, when Asahel Grant visited them in the wild mountains of Turkey, they were unaware of the existence of these works.
Having said all that, the CoE has not officially declared any of these works either "apostolic" or "non-apostolic", it simply has never had them. Just like we've never had "Clement" or the "Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans."
Again, we were traditionally very isolated from you as we were in the Persian empire. Not until we were decimated by the Turks in 1915 did we start to emigrate here to the west and become exposed to these issues.
Take care,
Shamasha (deaconos) Paul
I'll try to be short and brief in my answers, forgive me and remind me if I miss the opportunity to address any of your questions to your satisfaction.
Number one: I'm a big fan, personally, of the book of Revelation. I love it. Very well written, inspiring and obviously Orthodox. I enjoy it as much as I do the Odes of Solomon, an Aramaic hymnal from the 1st or early 2nd century. No, we do not use it for readings during the liturgy, and no we do not consider it inspired. But that does not mean that I cannot enjoy it and obtain spiritual benefit from it, regardless of whether I am reading it in the English translation or the Aramaic translation.
Number two: I have, believe you me, over the 10 years or so here made no secret of the fact that I, along with a 2,000-year old Christian community, do not consider these 5 books to be canonical. I have never claimed anywhere that the Aramaic translations of these books are the original. So Mr. Lancaster and everyone else is well aware of my, and my church's, position on this matter. I have stated in the past that there may be an Aramaic original to these works, and God-willing that they may very well be found one day in a desert somewhere like the DSS were.
Number three: Yes, all of our sister churches are Apostolic in nature. Rather than concentrate on the differences between a 22, 27 or 35 book canon - let's concentrate on the fact that the 22 books in the Aramaic canon are universally accepted. No Apostolic community disputes any of these 22 books. I pray that you continue in your study of the early and formative years of the Graeco-Latin canon. I think you may be surprised to find out that Revelation was not included by many of the Western Fathers, like Eusebius. These books made it in very late even in the "western" canon.
Number four: The CoE is not lacking in anything, theologically speaking, by not recognizing the canonicity and apostolic authorship of these books. As you said, the themes in Revelation are found in previous works like Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel.
Number five: in the statement about our common Apostolic founding, yes we did have the same Apostles which is why I think we have the same 22 books in common - whether we are Greek, Assyrian or Ethiopian. Now having said that, again, in your study of the formation of the various canons (African, Persian, Greek, etc.) you will have a clearer picture of how these canons formed and which books made it into a canon by the "skin of their teeth", so to say.
Number six: in regards to the CoE and it's reception of these books: when these came to us, again MUCH later than the Apostolic age, they were in a language that was foreign to us and they were in a language other than that which Christ and His disciples spoke. Actually, the CoE was so isolated in Persia that even in the 18th-19th century, when Asahel Grant visited them in the wild mountains of Turkey, they were unaware of the existence of these works.
Having said all that, the CoE has not officially declared any of these works either "apostolic" or "non-apostolic", it simply has never had them. Just like we've never had "Clement" or the "Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans."
Again, we were traditionally very isolated from you as we were in the Persian empire. Not until we were decimated by the Turks in 1915 did we start to emigrate here to the west and become exposed to these issues.
Take care,
Shamasha (deaconos) Paul