Timeline for What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 16:15 | comment | added | ScottS | @GrzegorzAdamKowalski: I gathered from those links that there were two Peshittas, and from the second link that canon was still the 22 book version ("Eastern One") for ACoE. What was a bit confusing was whether the "Western One" was used at all within ACoE, like Bloch noted for the CCC perhaps as "apocrypha" (which seems to be at least what the first link implies). Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know which version the CCC branch of CoE uses? | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 15:49 | comment | added | Grzegorz Adam Kowalski | And about Church of the East: it certainly WAS a major branch in the past - it represented christianity in great majority of lands of Asia (even Mongolia and China!). European Churches were small communities in times when CoE was in his best historical condition. | |
| Dec 4, 2014 at 15:46 | comment | added | Grzegorz Adam Kowalski | @ScottS, the page you linked about Aramaic Church and the Peshitta contains false (or incomplete) information. There are TWO New Testament "Peshittas": original aramaic one and so called "western one" which is a translation of Greek texts. "Western One" contains Revelation and the "Eastern One" does not. The latter is used by ACoE. | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 16:00 | comment | added | Bloch | I don't think full communion entails ending the Nestorian schism! I don't know, but I expect that BoR is apocrypha for them, and they still reject consubstantiality. | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 15:34 | comment | added | ScottS | @Bloch: Ok, another 500,000 is still small. If in "full communion," then do they hold Revelation as canon? This page indicates that both the Chaldean Catholic Church and the ACoE have included Revelation in the Peshitta now (see 2nd paragraph), but it does not seem that it is yet canon based on this page (table footnote), at least for ACoE. But the note does not mention the CCC, so about Revelation, can CCC be considered aligned with ACoE or rather other branches? | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 9:27 | comment | added | Bloch | @ScottS - You can double that figure for current congregation if you say that the ACoE and the Chaldean Catholic Church are schisms within one church. The latter is in full communion with the Vatican. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:00 | comment | added | ScottS | Yes, but historical numbers would then have to be added to other groups, which numerically would still tend to overshadow. Islamic conquest started in the 600's in that area, and at that time total world population was only estimated at just over 200 million. So I can easily grant "literally millions" have followed that branch historically, but still would question how "major" its impact in comparison to other branches historically and geographically (worldwide). So it depends on defining "major." | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 16:11 | comment | added | Grzegorz Adam Kowalski | @ScottS, you're referring to population of Church of the East today, while it could have literally millions of members in the past, before the rise of Islam. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 15:54 | comment | added | ScottS | @Bloch: I guess it depends on what is meant by "major branches" since the reported membership of the Assyrian Church of the East is ~500,000. Not the multiple millions of other denominations (even many subgroups within denominations), so I probably would not have classified it as "major" either. Nevertheless, that it was an early split in Christianity, one that continues today, and happens to have relevance to the discussion regarding canonicity of Revelation, it might be considered "major" in this context. | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 14:29 | comment | added | Grzegorz Adam Kowalski | @Bloch, christians from Assyrian Church of the East believe that they have all of the original manuscripts of NT and that they have revieced them straigth from the hands of the Apostles in ancient aramaic language. Because there is no BoR in these ancient manuscripts and also all known european BoR manuscripts are written in Greek then they simply see it as some invention made by western christians. | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 13:28 | comment | added | Bloch | Thanks: (1) Wikipedia-depth research tells me that with I am excluding from "major branches of Christianity" something very significant over a long period of history; excuse my ignorance; (2) The table you link to at ntcanon.org does begin to give me a picture of how the consensus formed: did the Syrians reject BoR because of the doubts of Eusepius (that the oethers considered cleared up)? | |
| Nov 28, 2014 at 12:02 | history | answered | Grzegorz Adam Kowalski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |