05-05-2009, 05:41 PM
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
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