Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27 books mentioned in Nestorian tablet (?)
#16
27 Books are 27 Books.

Yes, I used the word "Canon".

Do I have proof that it was a 27 Book Canon to these folks?

No.

Do you have proof that it was NOT a 27 Book Canon to them?

No

Straining at gnats, because we can't prove it either way.

Syriac Questioner
Reply
#17
SyriacQuestioner Wrote:Do I have proof that it was a 27 Book Canon to these folks?

No.

Ok, all I am trying to do is to see whether the theory can hold up to testing, in the same way that any "scientific" theory holds up. If a theory cant be poked and prodded a little and hold up then it probably shouldn't be accepted too hastily.
Reply
#18
Shlama Khulkon:
All that I have seen is a single Chinese character of the number 7, on a stelle which dates to the 8th Century. There is no corroborating evidence in support of a 27 book canon originating with the Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. The extra 5 books are most likely referring to the Western Five (II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation.

A Nestorian monk, Olopen came to China in 635 A.D. during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.). The Nestorian faith was known to the Chinese as 'Qing Jiao'. Olopen built a temple in Changan, called the Da Qin Temple. The stone monument, measured 2.36 meters tall, 0.86 meter wide and 0.25 meter thick was carved in 781 A.D.

The stone carving was produced 146 years after this so-called Olopen. Olopen sounds a lot like ????????????, (yolpan) "teaching, instruction, doctrine" in Aramaic/Hebrew to me. There was a lot of time for a branch of Westernized Assyrians to establish a 27 book canon and thus influence the number of books recorded on the stone monument. Perhaps the Chinese mission was persuaded to compromise and record 27 instead of Olopen's 22. 146 years is a long time and Olopen was not there to see what group did the actual carving.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#19
Shlama Stephen,

I was thinking something along these lines myself, though not quite as detailed. I think more surrounding history is needed for me to understand it.

I know that at some points they were a bit isolated (so I read) it was certainly far away from their Mother Church.

Thanks for all the responses, I think whatever you take from it, its really interesting and gives you more perspective on the issue, I don't think its reasonable to assume that the canon was ever 27 books just from this one carving, since it is only one point in time in one place, but it is interesting.

Sami
Reply
#20
Shlama alokhun,

I think I have a very plausible explanation to this "issue". As a church established with Semitic roots, we all must remember to think as Semites! Now, it is common knowledge that the 22 books of the New Covenant was the "standard" for the CoE. But what about the Old Covenant?

Well, last year (on another forum) I had some people ask me what the CoE accepts as canonical, and so I actually had a discussion with two of my priests to get information for them. I was under the impression that it was essentially the same as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and they said "yes" but we group, name and number our canon differently. Moreover, one of them also mentioned that we revere 5 books more so than the rest. I think he mentioned that this is what we use to teach our theology. Mind you, that conversation was brief.

What are those 5 books? I want to say it is the Torah (which I believe actually means teaching or instruction).

So, as far as the stone this can mean:

5 (Torah) + 22 (New Covenant) = 27

NOT... 22 (New Covenant) + 5 (Western Books) = 27

Does this make more sense in perspective?

That might make sense as to why the stone reads:

Twenty-seven sacred books have been left, which disseminate intelligence by unfolding the original transforming principles.

and

...and Persians observing the splendor came to present tribute; the ancient dispensation, as declared by the twenty-four holy men [the writers of the Old Covenant]

Push b'shayna,

-Nimrod Warda-
Reply
#21
I've had this book for quite a long time:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Sutras-Rediscovering-Scrolls-Christianity/dp/0345434242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265650782&sr=1-1">http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Sutras-Redi ... 782&sr=1-1</a><!-- m -->

If Martin Palmer is right, then there was at some early point, a kind of synthesis between Syriac Christianity, and Daoism.
The scrolls are there to show that this is true.
I'm not saying that I endorse it, I'm saying that it's historically true.

Perhaps these Nestorian Christians were trying to Evangelize by meeting the Daoists at a kind of half way point.

"Here's Jesus (Yeshua-Yesu) and He's the REAL (and only) Immortal One".

Could have been as simple as that.

Shlama, S.Q.
Reply
#22
I think that Metzger in the his book on the formation of the NT canon writes that there is some uncertainty about which books made up the 27, though IIRC he does not go into detail.

If you scroll down in this link you can find what he wrote and see his references.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZiX5d09931UC&dq=metzger+formation+canon&q=nestorian+monument#v=snippet&q=nestorian%20monument&f=false">http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZiX ... nt&f=false</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#23
Shlama Akhay,

I think it's important to take a step back here. The Church of the East has never declared a "canon" in the sense that the Western Church has. By 22 books being considered "canonical", we mean that they are read from during the liturgy - by the deacons primarily as the Qasha reads the Gospel only. The appointed readings during each reading of the "Shawaye" ("sevens"), which are the major divisions of our calendar, only come from the 22 books of the ancient manuscripts. We have no appointed readings from these other books.

Having said that, every one that I know has a 27-book copy of the modern printed Peshitta that we actually buy in the church bookstore. We are actively encouraged to read, and teach, from all 27 books. While they are not considered to be equal to the 22 in the sense of their standing in liturgical practice, they are nevertheless considered "pious" works and we are very respectful of them.

The CoE liturgical cycle was fixed prior to the translation of these 5 books from Greek.

I think everyone is getting a bit too hung up on the idea of a "canon." To my knowledge the CoE has never declared a canon for either the Old or the New Testament.

For someone in China to say 27 books were left behind is not so surprising.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#24
Shlama alokhun,

I do digress on my use of the word "canon". Shamasha Paul is correct. Instead, I should have said something more along the lines of "traditional readings" or "normative readings".

I do want to mention though that it has only really been within the last two centuries that the Church of the East has had machine printed versions of the Bible in Aramaic. Most of them that are in circulation are productions of the Chaldean Catholic Church or Protestant groups.

Peace,

-Nimrod Warda-
Reply
#25
Paul Younan Wrote:I think it's important to take a step back here. The Church of the East has never declared a "canon" in the sense that the Western Church has. By 22 books being considered "canonical", we mean that they are read from during the liturgy - by the deacons primarily as the Qasha reads the Gospel only. The appointed readings during each reading of the "Shawaye" ("sevens"), which are the major divisions of our calendar, only come from the 22 books of the ancient manuscripts. We have no appointed readings from these other books.

I agree with what Paul said. Catholic and Orthodox as far as I know never closed the canon. In the Acts of the Council of Trent, there is a discussion on whether or not the canon should be closed? It was agreed that the canon should not be closed. It happens because the Church Fathers distinguish between canon for liturgical reading and canon of scripture. The later is only recognizing the inspiration of Holy Spirit without closing the canon. This is why in Eastern Orthodox to this day the book of Revelation is never read during the divine liturgy because it's never canonized for liturgical reading.

This article might help
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html">http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)