peshitta canon

I saw a tradition that said that the Church of the East recieved their canon in 80 ce by Thadeus and that it did not contain any pseudaprigraphy or the 5 disputed books. This to me seems an extremely early time for a completed compiled NT when the western churches didn't hash out the problem of which books to include in the canon until the 4th century ce.
I was wondering which books were included in the canon in 80 ce when the church received the texts from Thadeus.

In reply to message #0
 
Dear Shane,

I agree with what brother Dan has said in his reply on the ABS board. You have to distinguish between when books are "received", and when an official "canon" is set (usually several hundred years later.)

The setting of a "canon", as with any other theological or ecclesial decision, is usually the result of some sort of controversy or on-going battle that threatens the unity of the Church.

When different books began to be circulated, like the Diatessaron of Tatian, the "Gospel" of Thomas, the "Acts" of this person or that, the Church would respond by summoning a council (in the Apostolic tradition of the first council of Jerusalem) to settle the dispute.

In the case of the Church of the East, they chose to strictly limit the Canon to the 22 accepted books which were received from the hands of the Apostles Addai and Mari themselves, in the Aramaic original.

Along this same line, once a Canon is "closed", there is no more room for debate on the issue. This means that even today, say, if a Gospel of Peter was found.....and by all indications is seemed to be in agreement with the rest of the authentic scriptures, and orthodox in it's theology.....even that would not be reason enough to "revise" the Canon.

The reason behind this is obvious:

God would have made sure that the Church, from the beginning, had what it needs. There is nothing lacking in todays Canon, in other words.

There would be no reason why God would have decided to give us a long-lost book that the generations prior to us were not privy to. It just doesn not make sense given how the Church, and humankind in general, has observed to be the way God "operates" (for lack of a better term).

I am often asked, "If the Church of the East does not accept Revelation, then how does it understand eschatology?"

The answer is, that there is plenty of references to the same concepts in Revelation in the rest of the Canonical books (with less "detail"), for instance in the words of our Saviour (Paruqan) Himself. And in the OT (Daniel, etc.)

Anyway, back to your question. No Canon was set in 80 AD.....the books were just received then. A few hundred years later (I forget which council it was exactly, but it was just 20 years or so before the Western Canon was set), the Canon was set and 'closed'.

Blessings and Peace,
Paul

In reply to message #1
 

Thankyou for your reply. I understand that most of the books in the canon were written and circulating
prior to 80 ce so this does not surprise me that the Church of the East could have received them at this
time. However, there are a few points I wish clarification on. The Gospel of John, by most modern
scholarly and historical accounts, was written about 90 ce. This appears to be the time frame that Johns
group of early christians were being separated from the jewish synagogue. Also it would surprise me
greatly if the early church never used any pseudaprigraphy. So my question is, did the early church use
any pseudaprigraphy and how is the later date attributed to John by historians accounted for?

Given Pauls reply that the final church canon was set a mere 20 years or so before the western churches
what were the books disputed at that time? Were they simply the 5 disputed books or were various
pseudaprigraphy disputed as well? And, if they were disputed, were they used by early church leaders?

In reply to message #2
 
... there are a few
>points I wish clarification on.
>The Gospel of John, by
>most modern
>scholarly and historical accounts, was written
>about 90 ce.
Shane, that date is used for Revelation, and not for the Gospel. True, some "scholars" did date the Gospel very late, because of the dating of Revelation, but now we know the Gospel was early and a true apostolic work

>This appears
>to be the time frame
>that Johns
>group of early christians were being
>separated from the jewish synagogue.
We can't be certain of this. Jewish believers did not separate from non-Messianc Jews all at once. For instance, in Duro-Europas both seemed to share facilities well into the third century.%

In reply to message #2
 
Please pardon the previous post it was in error.
... there are a few
>points I wish clarification on.
>The Gospel of John, by
>most modern
>scholarly and historical accounts, was written
>about 90 ce.
Shane, that date is used for Revelation, and not for the Gospel. True, some "scholars" did date the Gospel very late, because of the dating of Revelation, but now we know the Gospel was early and a true apostolic work

>This appears
>to be the time frame
>that Johns
>group of early christians were being
>separated from the jewish synagogue.
We can't be certain of this. Jewish believers did not separate from non-Messianc Jews all at once. For instance, in Duro-Europas both seemed to share facilities well into the third century.

>Also it would surprise me
>
>greatly if the early church never
>used any pseudaprigraphy. So my
>question is, did the early
>church use
>any pseudaprigraphy?
Yes, we have the story of King Abgar, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and a few others to which we can add some of the disputed books, BUT these were not used for doctrinal formation. This is easy to understand, given our strict adherance to Antiochene theology. Some aspects of these teachings did have implications on our practices; for instance the Teaching of the Twelve contains a rubric that the Bread of the Offering be used on the day of the Offering and we still do that today.
>
>Given Pauls reply that the final
>church canon was set a
>mere 20 years or so
>before the western churches
>what were the books disputed at
>that time? Were they simply
>the 5 disputed books or
>were various
>pseudaprigraphy disputed as well? And, if
>they were disputed, were they
>used by early church leaders?
>
It would be hard to say when and if we ever really set a difinitive canon. Our OT was largely a Jewish work, so it lack much of the Apocrypha, although we had it and used much of it. Our concept of the OT seems to have been along the lines as the same divisions as the Jews used. The five "disputed" books seem to be disputed in the West only; we have no history of disputing them, they simply weren't added to our earliest completed NTs. Please note as well, in our liturgical usage, only the Epistles of Paul (included is Hebrews) are ever used.

Now, as to whether or not these five disputed books were ever used by our Fathers, perhaps, but not by direct quotation. Revelation is a largely liturgical work and its imagery is repeated often in our liturgy. But that does not mean that our liturgy is dependent upon the book. Antiochenes, such as Theodore and Cyril of Jerusalem and even John Chrysostom, seldom, if ever, use these "disputed books."

Hoping this helps,
FrDimitri

In reply to message #4
 
Hi Qasha,

Where does our tradition of the "Bukhra", or the continuity of the Body of Christ, originate from?
Do we have any mention of it in early patristic literature?

Shlama w'Burkate,
Paul

In reply to message #4
 
thank you for taking the time to reply. This most certainly helps.

In reply to message #6
 
Hi Shane,
what sources do you use in translating Aramaic into English?Do you have Codex Sinaiticus in Greek Electronic format?
Please write to me st67@yahoo.com" target="_top">ost67@yahoo.com
God bless you. Ivan.