Hey Dave:
1)OK. Quite a few problems here. First, because we are talking about fourth and fifth centuries, we need to try to visualize the state of Christianity at that time, not so much the way it Christianity structured now. Many of the divisions and subdivisions, ultimate unions with Rome, etc. are much, much later developments. (Although it is I guess interesting that these churches can be in union with Rome but have differing biblical canons!) Anyway, you’re taking the contemporary state of affairs and retrojecting them back to the fourth century (e.g, there was no Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem or Constantinople in the fourth century, no Britain, no France in the fourth century etc.) This is probably not helpful to the discussion.
I agree; we need to try to visualize the state of Christianity at that time period. No retrojecting going on; I simply do not know the state of affairs regarding those Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Catholic Churches, in the 4th century, so it’s difficult for me to visualize the state of Christianity vis-a-vis those specific Orthodox and Oriental Catholic CC’s, at that time. Any (name removed by moderator)ut would much appreciated?
- Your list of patriarchates within the Roman world seems fine, but you’ve omitted the ones outside the Roman World, particularly major centers like Selucia-Ctesiphon (later moved to Baghdad) and of course patriarchates in places like Armenia and Ethiopia–i.e., outside the Roman empire. See previous post.
Ethiopia (Coptic) and Armenia (Georgia) - I counted; they are part of the 22 in union with the bishop of Rome, today that is. Of course, they were not in union with Rome, for a good many years, which again, begs the question: why now? Your thoughts?
Never heard of Selucia-Ctesiphon; I’ll check it out.
- The Churches of the East (sometimes referred to as the “Assyrian churches”) did not accept the Council of Ephesus. I think they are also not included in your list.
That too is an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church. That Syriac Orthodox Church, according to history, derives its origin from one of the first Christian communities, established in Antioch, by the Peter. Most people are aware of that fact.
- The Great Schism is not really relevant at all to this discussion–it seems to me that you’re not reading what I’m posting(?)–which is a little frustrating. Or is it still unclear why it’s irrelevant?
You are right, and I don’t care about the schism either; we are on the same page. The consensus, regarding the New Testament, among these worldwide churches, leading up to the schism, is what I see as relevant.
- No, I’m not aware of any synods within the individuals churches of the East to discuss the biblical canon–they may or may not have occurred, I just don’t know. However, as I recall there were discussions between the Western Syriac churches and the Byzantine church regarding the composition of the New Testament. I don’t know that this discussion occurred within the context of a synod of bishops. Some Syriac churches initially omitted some of the later letters in the canon of the NT in the Peshitta (as I believe was also the case in the Byzantine church for a period–and mentioned by Eusebius as I recall) but then later worked to conform their biblical text to be closer to the Greek text. I’m not aware that they ever accepted any books that were rejected by other churches, but this is possible. Most of the spurious Gospels came out of Gnostic groups, which were further to the West. But the point is that whatever objections or questions or disputes that arose regarding the NT were ironed out over the course of time, one way or another. It does seem that having a consistent NT was a greater concern and that consistent OT canon, but that’s just my impression.
I looked, as best I could, and there doesn’t seem to be any recorded consensus among the Roman CC, the Eastern Orthodox CC and the Oriental CC, (or any other churches for that matter) - regarding the New Testament, in the early church.
- You can read more about Peshitta manuscripts here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta. I haven’t read the article closely, but it’s clear that these early manuscripts include OT books that are not in the Roman Catholic canon.
Look forward to it.
- Universal and ecumenical mean the same thing so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there.
Drop the universal part then; my bad. Should have stated it as: can you show me where each of these Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Catholic Churches, at anytime, in the 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th century, held local synods to determine their respective canon of scripture, just as the Roman Catholic Church did, at their various local synods? It would be helpful if in fact we are looking for a consensus among all of the 4th worldwide century churches, as opposed to just a local synod, regarding one of these churches.
- I don’t think we can tell which books were “jettisoned” (if any) and I’m guess I’m not sure why that matters. If we want to know which books were included, it’s likely that the best we can do is look at ancient manuscripts and try to back into the list.
It was phrased as a hypothetical; thanks for answering it below.
- If theoretically a significant number of churches had and maintained differing NT canons, then I guess we would say that the Tradition of the universal church is that they can differ. But that’s not the case.
Seems reasonable…
Just a simple question I asked myself when I too was a protestant.
I am aware of all of the eastern and oriental CC’s that existed in the 4th century, but unaware of any protestant churches/denominations, back then. Little help please?