Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Church of the East position on non-canonical Books
#1
Could someone please tell me which books that the church of the East would consider as non-canononical but yet genuine, and in what language these orignals were written in??(I mean, letters that did not make the canon of the New Testament in the CoE but are not considered "psuedo" letters and whose authorship is without dispute) Maybe I can give an example: 2 John; considered nocanononical by the CoE but genuine and author was John: language - Greek.

In answering me one need not give me an exhaustive list but maybe just give me list of books from the Ethiopic Church's canon. I believe they have a 35 book canononicle New Testament. You caould also give me a list of the "biggies." By that I mean those books that were given serious consideration by the CoE that came close to making it in the NT canon.

Thank you for much. I will also take any leads or links to help me get a pretty good backround in answer to this question.

Kindly,

Mike karoules
Reply
#2
Verses from the 5 "disputed books" dont appear in early COE writings. Aphrahat, for example, does not quote them. They do not appear in the COE liturgy.
There is no evidence that the COE ever had any of these writings in Aramaic.
All we know is that as early as we can go, as early as we have actual evidence, the COE just had 22 books they considered canonical.
The western Church independently arrived at a similar canon, but they after much debate it seems, accepted some other writings as canonical.
The COE later on, perhaps in a display of unity with their western brothers, accorded these 5 books some status and translated then into Aramaic.
This is as I understand it, but am open to correction.
Reply
#3
Mike Kar Wrote:[b][i]Could someone please tell me which books that the church of the East would consider as non-canononical but yet genuine, and in what language these orignals were written in??(I mean, letters that did not make the canon of the New Testament in the CoE but are not considered "psuedo" letters and whose authorship is without dispute) Maybe I can give an example: 2 John; considered nocanononical by the CoE but genuine and author was John: language - Greek.

In scholarly circles I think that the authorship of 2 &3 John is in dispute. Certainly 2 Peter is thought by some to not be written by the same hand as 1 Peter. Even in greek 2 Peter is thought to be quite different stylistically and linguistically.

See here for example.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm">http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm</a><!-- m -->

Or the wikipedia article. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[2] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).

A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position and forwarded reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. They argue that the letter did not fit a specific pattern of what they consider pseudepigraphy.

If 2 Peter was not written by the same hand as 1 Peter then it explains why the peshitta excludes it.
Reply
#4
Thank you Judge,

I know some of the opinions of the Western scholars on 2 Peter is. There is some dispute as to its authorship. I have never heard, though, any dispute (even among western scholars of who authored 2 John and 3 John. Seems clear from what I have read that these are accepted as being written by the hand of John; the same author of 1 John and the Gospel of John even among some liberals. Again, as far as 2 Peter goes, among the western CONSERVATIVE scholars - it is widely accepted that Peter authored this as well.

But what I had more in mind is the Church of the East METHOD to their canon. Was the original language factor the primary method in deciding what books of the New Testament were canonical??

Also, the CoE maintains that the 5 disputed books have no basis as having Aramaic originality. What about 1 Clement?? the epistles of Ignatius?? The epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians?? Do they have a view one way or another as to their authenticity (even though not canonical)??

And, does the CoE hold the same for 2 John, 3 John, and Jude?? I mean, do they hold or maintain that these books are authentic even though not canonical or have they fully accepted the decision of Western tradition and scholarship??

All in all, is the 22 book Aramaic Peshitta the only books of the New Testament era (through about 300 A.D.) that the CoE holds to as having Aramaic originality??

Not trying to be too complex here, I hope.

Mike Karoules
Reply
#5
Kaloston. Ti kanis Mikhali?

About the "Western 5":

Paul would probably be the best person to ask but from how I understand it, the CoE didn't include those 5 books not only because they didn't receive the Aramaic originals from the Apostles; but also because they didn't receive them before they closed their cannon. Apparently the CoE closed their cannon very early - before the turn of the 2nd century, and that was that. For the CoE, it didn't take centuries of debate to decide which books were canonical like the case of the west. For them (from what I've heard), the criteria for a canonical book were:

1) book must be penned in the original language (Aramaic)
2) book must bear the author/scribe's seal
3) book must be hand-delivered to them by an immediate associate of the Apostle who wrote it, if not the Apostle himself

So you can see why their cannon wouldn't have been closed any later than the end of the 1st century. By this time nearly all (if not all) the Apostles and their immediate associates were dead, so they were not going accept anything presented to them as authentic after this. I don't know when the W5 were first presented to them, but by that time, the Aramaic originals were lost and so they were presented with Greek translations and couldn't accept them, this could only have happened some time after the 1st century, but perhaps before they were accepted into the western canon.

But again do remember as Mike (Judge) stated, that the authenticity of those 5 books were doubted by many for centuries, there were Church Fathers (eg: St. John Chrysostom) who rejected them, here's a quote from the Eastern Orthodox Bible about Revelation:

EOB Wrote:Already in the mid-third century, St. Dionysius of Alexandria could write:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 7.25.1-16 Wrote:Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. They say that it is not the work of John or a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. [They affirm that its author is Cerinthus, who, desiring a reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name...]

However, I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. Indeed, if I do not understand, I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words. I do not measure and judge them by my own reason... I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it.

Therefore that the author was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written. For I judge from the character of both and the forms of expression, as well as the entire execution of the book, that it is not his.

For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle??? In fact, he did not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, or the one who lay on his breast, or the brother of James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord. Certainly he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to reveal himself plainly.

However, he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen and heard the revelations. So, I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, and because they admired and emulated him, and desired to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or Peter. For example, there is also another John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles... But that it is he who wrote this, I would not say... I think that he was some other one of those in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John.

Note that St. Dionysius says "the Catholic Epistle" / "Epistle" (singular), so this would be what the west calls "1st Epistle of John" but what the CoE calls "the Epistle of John" as they (like St. Dionysius) didn't accept 2nd & 3rd Epistles of John.

Now we cannot know for certain if Aramaic originals ever existed for these books, but they sure read like LXX translational Greek to me; I think I've said before that they have variants and those variants had to come from somewhere. Even so, should Aramaic mss of those books (dating no later than the end of the 1st century) surface someday, they still have to meet the 2nd criteria before the CoE can even consider to add them to their cannon.

As for NT "Apocrypha" like 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, ect. I haven't delved too much into this area so I have no idea, though I would argue for an Aramaic original for the Didache.

BTW here's a list of Ethiopian NT cannon:

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. The Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. I Thessalonians
14. II Thessalonians
15. I Timothy
16. II Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. I Peter
21. II Peter
22. I John
23. II John
24. III John
25. James
26. Jude
27. Revelation
28. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
29. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
30. Gitsew
31. Abtilis
32. The I book of Dominos
33. The II book of Dominos
34. The book of Clement
35. Didascalia

And here's their OT canon:

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Ruth
9. I and II Samuel
10. I and II Kings
11. I Chronicles
12. II Chronicles
13. Jublee
14. Enoch
15. Ezra and Nehemia
16. Ezra (2nd) and Ezra Sutuel
17. Tobit
18. Judith
19. Esther
20. I Maccabees
21. II and III Maccabees
22. Job
23. Psalms
24. Proverbs
25. Tegsats (Reproof)
26. Metsihafe Tibeb (the books of wisdom)
27. Ecclesiastes
28. The Song of Songs
29. Isaiah
30. Jeremiah
31. Ezekiel
32. Daniel
33. Hosea
34. Amos
35. Micah
36. Joel
37. Obadiah
38. Jonah
39. Nahum
40. Habakkuk
41. Zephaniah
42. Haggai
43. Zechariah
44. Malachi
45. Book of Joshua the son of Sirac
46. The Book of Josephas the Son of Bengorion

81 books in all, phew! <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html">http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/englis ... books.html</a><!-- m -->
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#6
Shlama Akhi Mike,

I would agree with Christina, it's more of the date than what language they were written in. For instance, if Thomas or Peter had given the congregation in Babylon a Greek copy of Revelation I'm sure they would have included it as canonical. Whether or not anyone there would have been able to translate is another story!

It may seem that the CoE has the most restrictive criteria for canonicity, however believe it or not there has never been a synod or council declaration on the matter. Consider it just a matter of practice, really. They just never had these books. As late as the 19th century there were still remote mountainous areas in modern-day Turkey that had never heard of these 5 books, and this area had been a Christian stronghold until the early 20th century before the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide.

See below URLs for some nice info.

http://www.shlama.be/shlama/content/view/212/178/
http://www.shlama.be/shlama/content/view/213/179/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakk%C3%A2ri
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Hey,

Thanks for your replies. Ahhhhhhhhh, still a little confused. From what I am reading the CoE has really no opinion of these books one way or another (W-5, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Ireneaus, maybe handful of others outside the New Testament canon) ??

(1) Am I correct on this??

Further, the CoE has not come to a clear conclusion of these EXTRA CANONICAL books and, (not trying to be rude here) does not seem to really care one way or the other about these. In other words , from what you are telling me -

(2)they are nuetral about this??

I say this because from this discussion I have not come to a clear conclusion from your answers.

What the CoE does assert for sure is that the 22 book NT Aramaic Peshiita is for sure of Aramaic origins. There is no dispute about this within the CoE. Yes, on this??

(3)And, as for the rest, they seem indifferent as to what the original language these were written in?? Am I close??

I just thought that there was some clear and solid consensus within the CoE as to the original language of the books outside of the 22 book Peshitta.

BTW, there seems to me a contradiction. Paul, if I am understanding you correctly there was never an official council or "meeting" as to the final list of the 22 book Peshitta. IOW, you can't point to a specific date and time (like the Western tradition does - you know, the council of Carthage in 397 closed the NT canon in the West) that the CoE made an announcement that proclaimed the decision that the 22 book New Testament is decided and closed. Yet, Christiana said that the CoE closed its canon out right before the turn of the 2nd century (before 200 A.D ??). You are saying that this decision of the CoE's canon was gradual and eventually clearly accepted w/o any council or meeting of important bishops??

Thank you for your time.

Trying not to get too complicated.

Kindly,

Mike
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Mike,

No, there was never a Council of Carthage for the CoE. No Synodal decree has ever been issued to declare what the NT canon consists of, nor what language the books inside that canon were originally written in (let alone, any books they were unaware of.)

The only witness we do have is the books that were quoted from in the CoE's patrimony and liturgical texts.

The only comparable situation I can think of is the state of the Hebrew canon pre-Jamnia.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Shlama all--

If I may weigh in here a bit. As Lamsa himself pointed out some 70 years ago, there were something like ten COE councils, and the thing to realize is that Scriptural books by title, author or number were NEVER part of those discussions. It didn't come up simply because they had always had that aspect taken care of from apostolic times. It is only in the West that we find the need to deliberate via Imperial edict what was in, what was out and why. Even there, the books we call "The Western 5" had a a tough time getting in, especially Revelation. But the 22 book canon of the East has NEVER had any serious opposition for any major assembly of believers, unless you count a few protests against the "too Jewish sounding" James and Hebrews--and in both cases those critics admitted to their "near universal reception".

Bottom line is this: The reason the east and west agree on the 22 is because their attestation and ancient custodial pedigrees are so strong in the first place.

When you explain these things the typical rebuttal is the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea. But I would argue that a written record of the COE's processes in developing NT canon has survived. It's called---The New Testament!

Within the NT's pages we learn about different early assemblies in Antioch, in Babylon and in Rome, among other places. We learn about where the disciples went or ministered to, and we get the manuscript tags that give more info as to who brought what letter to what assembly.

From my research using these clues and the most ancient and reliable eastern and western sources, we can kind of roughly figure out several clusters of NT books and where they could have come from. Here are some examples:

1) John's Gospel, 3 Epistles, Ephesians and (possibly) Revelation.
Reasoning: Long standing tradition in and out of the NT has the apostle living in Ephesus just before relocating to Patmos. Paul's letter to the Ephesians could hardly have escaped the apostle's notice as they circulated there right at the same time. Paul visited "pillars" in Jerusalem and elsewhere--why not John? The legendary debate between Justin Martyr and Rabbi Tarfon is said to have happened in Ephesus, and the rabbi actually mentions Revelation in his responses to Justin.

2) Mark's Gospel, Romans, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Philemon.
Reasoning: Early tradition says that Mark died in Alexandria and Peter finished his Gospel, which was mostly derived from Peter's preaching anyway. This scenario, in great detail that I won't get into, also explains the varying lengths of the ends of Mark's Gospel. In any case, after travelling East, Final Mark would have been read at Rome very early, and some of Paul's "prison epistles" could have easily found their way to these assemblies, including by Onessimus' hand who lived there.

3) Matthew's Gospel, James, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Corinthians and (maybe) Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter.
Reasoning: Matthew's Gospel is the most Jewish, and quotes from Tanakh 128 times. Both James and Hebrews refer to Hebrew assemblies 'tribes scattered abroad". The locations match up with known synagogues where Paul could targum or have his work targummed from Aramaic into Greek. The areas of the exiles mentioned in these sources also have a high concordance geographically. James actually uses the work KNOOSHTA (synagogue) rather than "church". 1 Cor uses an Aramaic phrase to authenticate the mss (Maran atha) that surely most native Corinthians would not have understood. "Galatian" may in part also be a remez to the GALOOT, the Hebrew word for "exiles", although the spelling is not the same. 2 Peter also seems to imply that Paul's letters could have circulated substantially as we know them (whether ALL of them is a matter of debate but MANY of them is likely) a group along with 1/2 Peter, so that Peter's report to the assemblies assumes their knowledge of Paul's writings.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. It would take a very long time for even all 4 Gospels to be gathered together, and in the meantime various collections seemed suited for different assemblies in different locations.

But for the COE, Abdiabne was a kind of central meeting hub through which apostles and their associates passed through, and in that process, they dropped their mss off at the COE's door. When those original witnesses though all died off, the COE saw no need to accept future mss (even if it could be shown they were autographs) from second generation witnesses. Truth be told, if I were around back then, I would have acted in the same way. The best way to know I have the REAL Gospel of John is to talk to John who wrote it.

So by the middle of the 70's more than half these original witnesses were gone. That means guys like, Mattthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter and Paul--about 17 NT books right there. Is it any wonder then that buy the end of the first century the COE's canon would have been just about a done deal, if not totally completed? That is why I put an approximate year of 80 CE as for when their canon probably closed, although the patriarchs of that day may well have had an open mind about the possibility of other books coming their way so long as say an apostle like John was still alive, and he died about the age of 100.

This may not seem ironclad to some, but I think it explains most of the evidence of what was left behind. I am writing for speed here though and give a lot more details in my books.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#10
Mike Kar Wrote:Hey,

Yiasou,

Mike Kar Wrote:Thanks for your replies.

Parakalume.

Mike Kar Wrote:Ahhhhhhhhh, still a little confused.

I answered your post just when I was about to go to bed, so it was a bit rushed, signomi. I'll try explain a little better, an prolaveno!

BTW I posted a question on the Assyrian Church forum regarding their OT canon and I'm still waiting for an answer (Shamasha can help me out here?).

Mike Kar Wrote:From what I am reading the CoE has really no opinion of these books one way or another (W-5, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Ireneaus, maybe handful of others outside the New Testament canon) ??

(1) Am I correct on this??

Further, the CoE has not come to a clear conclusion of these EXTRA CANONICAL books and, (not trying to be rude here) does not seem to really care one way or the other about these. In other words , from what you are telling me -

(2)they are nuetral about this??

I say this because from this discussion I have not come to a clear conclusion from your answers.


Well the CoE is a "sacramental" church, like the Copts, Catholics & Greek Orthodox so they would consider these extra canonical books on par with say - the writings of the Church Fathers. Remember that these kind of churches view canonicity differently to the Protestants. The Protestants believe in the doctrine of Solas Scripture (Scripture Only), they don't view "Church Tradition" as authorative. But for the "liturgical" churches Tradition is as important as Scripture.

The CoE does make use of the W5 and other extra Biblical writings (like the homilies & commentaries of Mar Ephraim & Mar Aphrahat), just like the other Traditional churches. The CoE do study these writings and but they never read them during the Qurbana Qadisha. I don't know what their exact position is on the Didache or the Epistle of Barnabas, but I do know that they consider the W5 free from doctrinal errors and fit for study, so they do study them and teach from them. But because their Apostolic authorship cannot be verified for certain like the other 22, they can never use them in the Eucharist. (It is also noteworthy that Revelation is not part of the Greek Orthodox lectionary, it's never read during the Divine Liturgy).

So I wouldn't say that the CoE is neutral on these other writings, just because they don't consider them canonical it doesn't mean they don't consider them authorative - They just don't use them in the church services but they do have other uses for them.

I hope this was a bit more helpful? Consider getting a copy of akhan Andrew's book Ruach Qadim: The Path to Life, which goes into quite a lot of detail about the W5, I found it very helpful.

Mike Kar Wrote:What the CoE does assert for sure is that the 22 book NT Aramaic Peshiita is for sure of Aramaic origins. There is no dispute about this within the CoE. Yes, on this??

Apparently there are a few CoE members who are Greek primacists but this is due to recent western influence. Aramaic primacy is the CoE's historical & official position:

Mar Eshai Shimun Wrote:"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East

April 5, 1957

Mike Kar Wrote:(3)And, as for the rest, they seem indifferent as to what the original language these were written in?? Am I close??

I just thought that there was some clear and solid consensus within the CoE as to the original language of the books outside of the 22 book Peshitta.

This is something only Shamasha Paul can answer where the CoE specifically is concerned. But from an Aramaic primacy position, the W5 is a much greater challenge than the 22. The reason is because we still haven't uncovered Aramaic originals for them. The Greek texts are written in Semitic grammar just like the Greek texts of 22 and the LXX, so they are translations of Aramaic originals whether they're Apostolic or not. While we can see that there are mistranslations, we can't actually show how they were derived because we don't know what the original Aramaic words were. There are variants in the Greek texts of the W5, just like there are variants in the Greek texts of 22 - those variants had to come from somewhere, but right now we can't point to the source because we don't have the source.

The Aramaic primacy school (in the west at least) is still pretty young, and we're are still discovering new things everyday just with the 22. A great deal of development in Aramaic scholarship needs to happen before we can really tackle the W5, this is why we're not really concentrating on them too much yet. Once we are confident we can refute anything the Zorbans can throw at us about the 22 (whether the choose to accept their defeat or not) then we can move onto the W5, then stuff like Didache, ect. This is round 1: establishing that Aramaic is the original language of the 22, from there we go onto round 2, and hopefully by that time we may have found Aramaic originals for them or at least stronger evidence to that they did indeed exist.

Mike Kar Wrote:BTW, there seems to me a contradiction. Paul, if I am understanding you correctly there was never an official council or "meeting" as to the final list of the 22 book Peshitta. IOW, you can't point to a specific date and time (like the Western tradition does - you know, the council of Carthage in 397 closed the NT canon in the West) that the CoE made an announcement that proclaimed the decision that the 22 book New Testament is decided and closed. Yet, Christiana said that the CoE closed its canon out right before the turn of the 2nd century (before 200 A.D ??). You are saying that this decision of the CoE's canon was gradual and eventually clearly accepted w/o any council or meeting of important bishops??

The CoE never held an official Council or Synod to seal their canon simply because they never needed to. The western churches had to do this because there was dispute over which books were authored by the Apostles and which ones were not. And even after the Council of Carthage, some of the books (especially Revelation) were still debated whether or not they were really Apostolic, and so there were a few minor Councils to confirm their place in the canon, which was decided at in 397, whenever such disputes arose.

The CoE's story is different. The Apostles' immediate associates hand-delivered to them signed copies of their Aramaic originals, the last of these was Hebrews which was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and it remains the last book in their NT canon to this day. In his book, akhan Andrew explains in great detail how Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70 was a significant turning point, not only in Jewish history but also in Church history, which is something most Christian historians overlook:

The See of Jerusalem was the "Mother Church" for the 1st century believers, Jerusalem was where the Church was born because Yeshua was crucified there. It was also about the same time (AD 70) that the Qasha (Bishop) of the "Mother Church", Mar Ya'aqub (St. James) was martyred. It's almost certain that the See of Jerusalem was the place where all the Apostles' writings were sent to from wherever they were written - It was there where copies were made and signed, then dispatched to be delivered to all the churches in both the Roman and Persian empires. The W5 (save perhaps Revelation) were written at around this time too.

Can you now see why the Aramaic originals would've had trouble getting to the See of Babylon (CoE)? The See of Babylon was in the rival Persian empire, and the Apostles wrote in the square "Hebrew" script. When the Romans destroyed the Temple, they also destroyed as many Jewish writings they could get their hands on - Which included anything that looked like Jewish writing - But Greek translations that were made in Antioch, Ephesus or Rome before the originals were sent to Jerusalem survived.

When news reached Persia that "Mother of Church" and her Qasha were no more, the See of Babylon must've reasoned: "I guess we won't be receiving anymore Apostolic writings". And don't forget that Mar Keepa (St. Peter), the Qasha of the entire Church as well as many of the other Shlikhaya (Apostles) were also martyred at around this time. And so the CoE canon was closed.

Mike Kar Wrote:Thank you for your time.

Trying not to get too complicated.

Kindly,

Mike

Things are a little less complicated now elpizo?

Cheretismata,
Christina.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Mike Kar Wrote:(concerning Aramaic Primacy)...There is no dispute about this within the CoE. Yes, on this??

Actually believe it or not I've had many arguments with CoE Bishops, Priests, Deacons as well as Congregants about this topic. In the CoE there are, indeed, Greek Primacists....especially here in the U.S. and in other countries outside of the middle east. When I was giving the Video-Conference presentation on the topic to the parish in Detroit, one of the Shamashe there stood up and openly challenged my views during the Q/A session.

Like any other institution, there are as many opinions as there are people. Unless it's a cult, of course! =) I would be lying to you if I told you every single person in the CoE is an Aramaic primacist. And I would be lying to you if I said Aramaic Primacy was somehow codified by a Council or Synodal Decree.

Most people in the CoE (clergy and laymen) I've met and spoken to are Aramaic primacists, but not all. Both Qashe I've served with at St. John (Qasha Charles Klutz, and Qasha Antwan Latchin) are Aramaic primacists. But they never mention these topics in their sermons, other than an occasional "The Aramaic text says this" kind of statement.

I've found that it's usually the younger clergy here in the West, particularly those who have studied in Western institutions like the Vatican, who are Greek primacists.

There is no debate on this topic within the CoE, simply because it's not really something the Church places emphasis on. We as a body are like any other branch of the Church - primarily interested in preaching the Gospel of our Lord, ministering to the faithful and sick, and feeding the poor. The Great Commission has nothing to do with what language the scriptures were penned in, right? =)

Within the CoE, especially since after the Patriarch Mar Eshai was assassinated, there really has been no emphasis whatsoever on this topic. Personally I have never heard anything from the pulpit, in a sermon, epistle or any other communication about it.

Hard to believe from how much emphasis we place on the topic here, but being an Aramaic primacist is not a requirement to be a card-carrying member of the CoE.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
Okay folks,

I have pretty quickly read your responses and now have a clearer picture of this stuff now. I thnk you and I browsed through it but I will have to read these again 2 or 3 more times. Thanks, but this clears things up better.

Kindly,

Mike

Se agapo poli.. Kai ego, eime kalo. Doxa Theos!!

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)