Posts: 483
Threads: 118
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
0
What evidence do we have that the early Persian/mesopotamian Church was quite separate from the Churches within the Roman Empire?
How do we know they were not in collusion with them in deciding what books were genuine apostolic works?
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
Shlama Akhi Michael,
The question of the independence of the Church in the Persian empire from the one in the Roman empire is a matter of public record. No Persian bishops were signatories, nor even present, in the councils held in the Roman empire. For instance, at the council of Chalcedon you don't find any signatories from Babylon or Nineveh.
Likewise, no Roman bishops were signatories, nor even present, in the councils held in the Persian empire. For instance, at the council of Markabta you don't find any signatories from Rome or Alexandria.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
Posts: 2,812
Threads: 271
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
2
That's another good point, Akhi. Also, it is well documented that the theology of the CoE is missing Hellenisms present in the Western branch of the Church by the 3rd-4th century. (i.e., the archaic meanings of technical terms like Kyana and Qnuma are preserved in the eastern church, but altered towards Hellenistic understanding in the western branch.)
The border is the strongest argument, in my opinion. For the earliest decades of the faith, of course, the church leadership on both sides of the border was the same...the apostles and their immediate disciples. But by the time you are talking about the setting of canons and the like, the leadership was already established on both sides of the border....a border that was the scene of constant war.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan