Other christian writing not in the bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
Why didn’t the Early Church Fathers or other early christian authors that were all orthadox make it into the bible? Thanks and God bless.
 
One of the standards for books that made it into the Bible were that they had to have been written during the time of the apostles, because, if I remember correctly, public revalation ended when the last apostle died. Thus the writings of the ECF, while useful for determining what the Early Church taught, couldn’t have been divinely inspired.

Of course, that’s if I’m remembering it right! Maybe someone else will be more helpful. 😃
 
Rawb said:
One of the standards for books that made it into the Bible were that they had to have been written during the time of the apostles, because, if I remember correctly, public revalation ended when the last apostle died. Thus the writings of the ECF, while useful for determining what the Early Church taught, couldn’t have been divinely inspired.

Of course, that’s if I’m remembering it right! Maybe someone else will be more helpful. 😃
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever published a good and relatively definitive collection of all of the Early Church Fathers with a solid Catholic commentary, similar to a study Bible? What about all of the other apocraphyal, gnostic, etc. writings (one that examines them from a Catholic perspective, discussing what’s wrong with them and any bits of accurate history that might be of interest within them)?
 
I want to know to. A “bible” of the ECFs with a commentary and concordance would be very useful.
 
I once saw for sale a collection of the Church Fathers. It was about 20 volumes and each volume 1.5". So it took a lot of shelf space.

This was without commentary.

Maybe you just want the pre-nicene fathers. Or the apostolic fathers.

Most of what they write is commentary on scripture or on church teaching. So a commentary on their commentary would seem excessive for the entire collection of writing.

Just to get a taste of what they write try reading Jurgens “Faith of the Early Chruch Fathers” 3 volume collection (no commentary)

Try reading the fathers on line at www.newadvent.com. I recommend Justin Martyrs “Dialog with Trypho the Jew” or John Chyrsosdom’s commentaries on the Gospel of Mathew.
 
Montie_Claunch said:
Why didn’t the Early Church Fathers or other early christian authors that were all orthadox make it into the bible? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
This gives you a good introduction to the bases for inclusion in the canon, (see Irenaeus, in particular), and a read through some of the texts in here will soon show you why they were not included. In essence, there was a lot of stuff around, some of it deeply weird, and some rule for inclusion had to be found. newadvent.org’s collection of the Fathers, as already mentioned, is definitely worthwhile.
 
Rolltide said:
Has anyone ever published a good and relatively definitive collection of all of the Early Church Fathers with a solid Catholic commentary, similar to a study Bible? What about all of the other apocraphyal, gnostic, etc. writings (one that examines them from a Catholic perspective, discussing what’s wrong with them and any bits of accurate history that might be of interest within them)?
Click to expand...
While I completely understand the desire for a Catholic commentary on the Fathers so as to list their relevance to later Catholic doctrine, a Catholic perspective on history is, by definition, a perspective which is inflected with a Catholic world-view. As such, it will tend to interpret the data according to that preconception. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this will produce ‘accurate’ history, and every reason to believe the opposite. This is not because ‘such a view is Catholic, and Catholic things are bad’, or any such rubbish, but rather because any analysis of any data which is undertaken in the presence of dominating preconceptions, e.g., any strong religious or other ideological persuasion, will necessarily be biased by those preconceptions.

I would strongly suggest drawing your historical sources from the widest possible base, including Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, other religious and most especially secular sources, as that is the method which demonstrates the greatest accuracy.

This cannot represent any threat to your belief-system if what you believe is actually true, because the more-thorough survey of the data will merely serve to demonstrate that truth.**
 
Mystophilus said:
While I completely understand the desire for a Catholic commentary on the Fathers so as to list their relevance to later Catholic doctrine, a Catholic perspective on history is, by definition, a perspective which is inflected with a Catholic world-view. As such, it will tend to interpret the data according to that preconception. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that this will produce ‘accurate’ history, and every reason to believe the opposite. This is not because ‘such a view is Catholic, and Catholic things are bad’, or any such rubbish, but rather because any analysis of any data which is undertaken in the presence of dominating preconceptions, e.g., any strong religious or other ideological persuasion, will necessarily be biased by those preconceptions.

I would strongly suggest drawing your historical sources from the widest possible base, including Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, other religious and most especially secular sources, as that is the method which demonstrates the greatest accuracy.

This cannot represent any threat to your belief-system if what you believe is actually true, because the more-thorough survey of the data will merely serve to demonstrate that truth.**

As a professional historian, I’m fully aware of where to find ALL of the above writings, apocraphyal works, and sources from a very wide range. I’ve got a great reading list, in fact. Who said I wouldn’t take a look at them? What I would like to start with though is Catholic commentary as the baseline and go on from there, since I have zero experience studying them. As a Protestant, would you study something using Mormon or Orthodox sources first? No, you would read your faith’s own teachings, and THEN examine it from a critical point of view. And you are correct, it wouldn’t pose any threat to my belief system if what I believe is true.
Click to expand...
 
Rolltide said:
What I would like to start with though is Catholic commentary as the baseline and go on from there, since I have zero experience studying them.
Click to expand...
My apologies; I thought that you were seeking Catholic sources instead of others, not pursuing that endless task of filling in the gaps. I jumped to that conclusion, I am sorry to say :(.

For someone in your position, someone who has already studied a range of views on the subjects, I have no excuse for saying any such thing, but the comment stands as advice to others.
As a Protestant, would you study something using Mormon or Orthodox sources first? No, you would read your faith’s own teachings, and THEN examine it from a critical point of view.
Click to expand...
Mormon sources, except on Mormonism, I will always find doubtful. I have a deeply-rooted suspicion of their epistemology. With the Orthodox, I have no such problem.

Nevertheless, given the choice, I always prefer secular sources. While the authors do adhere to ideologies and are, consequently, biased, they tend to be biased in ways which do not interfere overmuch with their handling of data about religion.

In part, this attitude of mine is result of training, and, in part, it is the result of the endless schisming of Protestantism: we tend to feel a lot less allegiance to our denomination than other branches of Christianity do. Thus, when I am reading about one of the Latin Fathers, I prefer a secular source first, a Catholic one second (because the level of detail is likely to be high), and then others. With a Greek Father, it is secular first, Orthodox second, then others.
 
Rolltide said:
Has anyone ever published a good and relatively definitive collection of all of the Early Church Fathers with a solid Catholic commentary, similar to a study Bible? What about all of the other apocraphyal, gnostic, etc. writings (one that examines them from a Catholic perspective, discussing what’s wrong with them and any bits of accurate history that might be of interest within them)?
Click to expand...
You mean, other than Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens?

If you don’t have a copy of this series (it’s three books) in your library, then do get it - I would consider it absolutely essential.
 
You mean, other than Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens?

I second jmcrae response. 👍 I have this set and it is really, really good. There is a section in the back of the book were everything is divided up nice and neat. There is even a section on the sacraments - general. A listing for specific sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, etc. It has a section on the primacy of Peter, a section on Mary and the list goes on and on. Definitely get this set if you do not buy anything else!
 
Sabda said:
You mean, other than Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens?

I second jmcrae response. 👍 I have this set and it is really, really good. There is a section in the back of the book were everything is divided up nice and neat. There is even a section on the sacraments - general. A listing for specific sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, etc. It has a section on the primacy of Peter, a section on Mary and the list goes on and on. Definitely get this set if you do not buy anything else!
Click to expand...
First, Mystophilus, apology accepted, and I appreciate you comments.

Second, I did look up this set and indeed it looks fantastic. I heard someone say though that the only fault they found was that the texts are abridged. Is that true, and if so, is there then another set that would have the complete texts? Regardless, that definitely looks like the place to start!
 
Rolltide said:
First, Mystophilus, apology accepted, and I appreciate you comments.

Second, I did look up this set and indeed it looks fantastic. I heard someone say though that the only fault they found was that the texts are abridged. Is that true, and if so, is there then another set that would have the complete texts? Regardless, that definitely looks like the place to start!
Click to expand...
It is abridged - a priest friend of mine has the entire unabridged set (that is, the stuff that has actually been found and translated into English - apparently there is still a ton of stuff that has yet to be translated, and even more stuff that they know exists, but they haven’t found it yet - probably still at the bottom of a pile of paper in a monastery somewhere that hasn’t been looked at in more than 600 years, or whatever), and it takes up two walls of bookshelves in the rectory basement.

But it has all of the stuff that is most often quoted, and he has really good notes on where to find the whole text, as well, so if you find yourself interested in something specific, he leads you right to it. 🙂
 
Does anyone have any comments about the 4-volume set “Patrology” by Johannes Quasten?
 
Rolltide said:
Does anyone have any comments about the 4-volume set “Patrology” by Johannes Quasten?
Click to expand...
I’m glad you asked this. I’ve been wondering about this set myself. I got a catalog from Leaflet Missal. They have this set advertised as well as William Jurgen’s set. When I was checking Patrology out on Amazon I noticed it has more pages in it. Is it not abriged like William Jurgen’s set is? Is there more in it, as far as works go, that is not in William Jurgen’s set?
 
Rawb said:
One of the standards for books that made it into the Bible were that they had to have been written during the time of the apostles, because, if I remember correctly, public revalation ended when the last apostle died. Thus the writings of the ECF, while useful for determining what the Early Church taught, couldn’t have been divinely inspired.

Of course, that’s if I’m remembering it right! Maybe someone else will be more helpful. 😃
Click to expand...
You are correct in regards to the canon of the Bible. The early Church Fathers, though, were actually taught by the apostles, in particular, St. John who lived longer than any of the other apostles until almost 100 A.D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top