Christian Historical Source Texts

[StrugglingThinker]

Hello Guys:

I will begin studying church history a lot more seriously. The main way I intend to do this is by going to source texts.

So far, I have "The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine" by Eusebius, & "Early Christian Writings" by Maxwell Stanifoth. I can't post links to amazon yet...

I know there are many more. I'm looking for source tests republished, compilations, anthologies...etc. I tend to shy away from "selections". I'm looking for unabridged works. Tell me what you guys have.

Thanks.

 

[pshun2404]

Hello Guys:

I will begin studying church history a lot more seriously. The many way I intend to do this is by going to source texts.

So far, I have "The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine" by Eusebius, & "Early Christian Writings" by Maxwell Stanifoth. I can't post links to amazon yet...

I know there are many more. I'm looking for source tests republished, compilations, anthologies...etc. I tend to shy away from "selections". I'm looking for unabridged works. Tell me what you guys have.

Thanks.

I recommend this book called "The gospel according to Matthew" which he constructed from his day to day notes while with Jesus, and another called Luke-Acts (a history confirmed by many - see former atheist Sir William Ramsey)....the ones you mentioned are great witnesses but are NOT source texts...these are!

In His love

Paul

 

[StrugglingThinker]

I recommend this book called "The gospel according to Matthew" which he constructed from his day to day notes while with Jesus, and another called Luke-Acts (a history confirmed by many - see former atheist Sir William Ramsey)....the ones you mentioned are great witnesses but are NOT source texts...these are!

In His love

Paul

The entirety of the new testament can full under the banner of church history. I thought that reading the new testament would have gone without saying. But I guess I will iterate here that I do read the new testament and will continue to do so. However, there are other issues that are important to the history of the church that aren't covered in the new testament.

For example, how was the Bible canonized? From my understanding there were a host of difference councils that took place. What were these councils? When and where did they happen? What was decided and why? How did the various doctrines evolve overtime...or in other words....why do we see the doctrinal differences between different orthodox churches and the catholic church? How did the church spread, work together, and promulgate the gospel in ancient times? How did Christians deal with persecution prior to Constantine? There are a host of questions of a historical nature that can't be completely answers by just reading the gospel and acts.

And the texts that I mentioned in my post above are source texts for church history immediately following acts.

Thank you

 

[alasthai]

How much detail do you want? How well do you want to understand it?

If you really want to understand it properly, step 1 is to learn Biblical Greek, step 2 is to learn Church Latin, and step 3 is to read everything written by Christians from the time of Jesus to the time of the Great Schism. That should take you several decades. (What? You had something else which you wanted to do with your life?)

If you want something shorter on canon formation, this site has a few references. As for East-West differences, I cannot recommend anything other than source material (i.e. nothing by a later historian): everything which I have seen in English is too thoroughly enmeshed in the dispute to be of great value, and so I would recommend going back to the Fathers for that. CCEL has English versions, including introductions, as well as all 38 volumes of Schaff.

 

[StrugglingThinker]

Its interesting that people seem somewhat hostile over my request. I thought my request for source documents was perfectly clear and reasonable. Telling me to go read the Bible when I am asking to learn about church history is obviously missing the point. Telling me to go learn ancient languages is also missing the point given the examples I listed in my original post. The questions I raised in response to pshun2404's post were meant to be illustrative in nature, not an exhaustive or exclusive list.

Let me rephrase the question. Can anyone suggest any books written by people alive in between the ascension of Christ and lets say the 5th century, which discuss the workings of the church, the life of Christians, theological issues, or other issues relevant to the development of Christianity, that are translated into English (whether they are stand-alone works or compiled into an anthology)?

 

[alasthai]

Its interesting that people seem somewhat hostile over my request.

It's curious that you should imagine the response to be hostile, since neither pshun2404's nor mine has any indication of hostility in it.

Telling me to go learn ancient languages is also missing the point given the examples I listed in my original post. The questions I raised in response to pshun2404's post were meant to be illustrative in nature, not an exhaustive or exclusive list.

Actually, no, it is not missing the point. Your description of the scope of what you want has been far from clear: on the one hand, you said that you wanted unabridged works, which suggests a desire for clarity of understanding; on the other, you seem to be fine with translations, which contradicts the previous impression.

Can anyone suggest any books written by people alive in between the ascension of Christ and lets say the 5th century, which discuss the workings of the church, the life of Christians, theological issues, or other issues relevant to the development of Christianity, that are translated into English (whether they are stand-alone works or compiled into an anthology)?

Apart from the few dozen volumes already provided in the last link which I gave you and the several dozen individual texts already provided in the first link which I gave you? Once again, it is rather difficult to work out what you are seeking if they are deemed unsuitable.

 

[StrugglingThinker]

It's curious that you should imagine the response to be hostile, since neither pshun2404's nor mine has any indication of hostility in it.


Actually, no, it is not missing the point. Your description of the scope of what you want has been far from clear: on the one hand, you said that you wanted unabridged works, which suggests a desire for clarity of understanding; on the other, you seem to be fine with translations, which contradicts the previous impression.


Apart from the few dozen volumes already provided in the last link which I gave you and the several dozen individual texts already provided in the first link which I gave you? Once again, it is rather difficult to work out what you are seeking if they are deemed unsuitable.

It seems that you want to argue, so why not. I'll respond in kind.

1) When I ask for original source texts, and explicitly provide examples I can't possibly imagine what would possess a person to tell me to go read "The Gospel According to Matthew" and "The Acts" in a very sarcastic way, as if I had never heard of it before. Go read his post again and put yourself in my shoes. And then you come along and quote me, tell me to go learn original languages and that it should take several decades and that I should have something more productive to do with my life. How is that not hostile?

2) Unabridged works suggests "completeness" of the work. That is the nature of an unabridged work vs. an abridged work. Abridged works are incomplete. As far as understanding goes, yes the original languages would yield are going to be more accurate than English translations. However, given the examples I listed, English translations, and the general understanding of the word "unabridged", I believe it is in fact "clear" what I was asking for. A complete original source translated in English.

Under what circumstances would I state that I wanted to study church history more seriously, knowing full well that the history is not in English, and then reasonably expect to be told that I have to go learn the original languages before I would be referred to the titles of the source texts? Telling me to go learn the ancient languages thus completely misses the point, and you know that.

 

[alasthai]

1) When I ask for original source texts, and explicitly provide examples I can't possibly imagine what would possess a person to tell me to go read "The Gospel According to Matthew" and "The Acts" in a very sarcastic way, as if I had never heard of it before.

You asked for source texts on church history, and what he did provide are, indeed, the very earliest source texts on church history.

Try imagining that pshun2404 is your friend. Reread his comment in that light. He is, at most, being mildly sarcastic, not hostile.

And then you come along and quote me, tell me to go learn original languages and that it should take several decades and that I should have something more productive to do with my life. How is that not hostile?

It is not hostile because, first, it follows an initial inquiry regarding the degree of understanding which you want to achieve. That inquiry is developed in the course of action initially proposed being prefaced by the condition "If you really want to understand it properly". The logically-necessary complement to that condition is that there are other means of understand the topic less properly. No claim is made of its being the only path.

Second, that non-exclusive path is then identified, both by my comment about time scale and by my then questioning the relative value of spending that sort of time on such a pursuit as being unrealistic. Advice tells someone what they should do, representing that action as valuable. That is not advice: it's an ironic comment on the cost of attaining a thorough understanding, and thus a preface to the subsequent suggestions for attaining a less-thorough understanding, whilst also being something of an in-joke for students of Church history.

However, given the examples I listed, English translations, and the general understanding of the word "unabridged", I believe it is in fact "clear" what I was asking for. A complete original source translated in English.

It would have been clear had I not supplied you, in my first comment, with several dozen complete, original, translated sources which you have persistently ignored. Thus, yet again, it is rather difficult to work out what you are seeking if they are deemed unsuitable.

So, here is the question: how are all of the already-suggested dozens of volumes unsuitable?

 

[StrugglingThinker]

Now that I've reviewed them, I'm not sure that they are unsuitable in all fairness. I'll have to take time and go through them on my own.

On another note, you are desperately trying to win this argument by slicing up what you said into tiny pieces and reading emphasis into the language. For example it doesn't logically follow that a statement isn't hostile for absolutely no reason other than it begins with an inquiry. I could ask you "How can you be so stupid?" and then go on to suggest you learn to speak Mandarin or Cantonese in order for you to learn true Maoism, because I think you're making an irrational request to study Maoism in the English language and I'm going to stress that by making a suggestion that is patently sarcastic. Because the statement began with an inquiry doesn't mean that the following suggestion isn't hostile.

As far as your second point, I have no idea what you're even trying to stretch here. You made a suggestion to me that I wasn't asking for, it couldn't have possibly been implied that I was asking for it given a close reading of my original post, and then you make a statement to the effect of the value of it and how its unrealistic and probably pointless? What was the value of making the suggestion if it wasn't a serious one? The only conclusions I can think of is that you were being a sarcastic or you were joking. It certainly didn't sound like you were joking when your comment was read in context with everything else, especially when it was made responding to my previous post.

 

[alasthai]

You're welcome.

 

[pshun2404]

The entirety of the new testament can full under the banner of church history. I thought that reading the new testament would have gone without saying. But I guess I will iterate here that I do read the new testament and will continue to do so. However, there are other issues that are important to the history of the church that aren't covered in the new testament.

For example, how was the Bible canonized? From my understanding there were a host of difference councils that took place. What were these councils? When and where did they happen? What was decided and why? How did the various doctrines evolve overtime...or in other words....why do we see the doctrinal differences between different orthodox churches and the catholic church? How did the church spread, work together, and promulgate the gospel in ancient times? How did Christians deal with persecution prior to Constantine? There are a host of questions of a historical nature that can't be completely answers by just reading the gospel and acts.

And the texts that I mentioned in my post above are source texts for church history immediately following acts.

Thank you

I see...I thought you were not considering the gospels to be reliable historical sources...in this case all you have is the Ante-Nicene fathers...and the few comments from the extra-biblical references that are commonly known...

 

[pathfinder777]

Hello Guys:

I will begin studying church history a lot more seriously. The main way I intend to do this is by going to source texts.

So far, I have "The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine" by Eusebius, & "Early Christian Writings" by Maxwell Stanifoth. I can't post links to amazon yet...

I know there are many more. I'm looking for source tests republished, compilations, anthologies...etc. I tend to shy away from "selections". I'm looking for unabridged works. Tell me what you guys have.

Thanks.

Here is a good resource for you to guide some of your studying.

Bibliographies for Theology

 

[Radagast]

CCEL has English versions, including introductions, as well as all 38 volumes of Schaff.

I strongly endorse that.

The books by Augustine (also widely available in paper form) are particularly good.

But as well as reading primary sources, I'd start with a good modern church history book, just to give you a "roadmap" of who's who. That will better help you to choose primary sources.

 

[Exodus20]

To the O.P. --- Hello. Since you mentioned the volume by 'Eusebius" , I will not repeat that title.

There is some very good things out there both on the internet ( such as ccel.org , as someone mentioned ) and 'Google books' and 'Open Library'. Don't forget to visit Used Book shops , 'Friends of the Library sales" , Thrift / Goodwill / Salvation Army / 2nd hand stores , e-bay or 'Alibris' or 'Abe books' or amazon has used titles also. "Seek and ye shall find!"

Try these links: Sketches of Church History, from AD 33 to the Reformation - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
( click the bar section with the word 'next>>' two times to get to the book. ) Rev. J.C. Robertson was Canon of Canterbury. Book was written/published (?) about the early 1900's.

Index Page - Sketches of Church History - From AD 33 to the Reformation

Per the Canon of Scripture: There are sources which you might already have on you bookshelf. "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell has a section on the 'Canon'. "Halley's Bible Handbook" has a section about what is canonical , and what was not.

My copy of the "The Open Bible" by Thomas Nelson publishers has a section on 'How we got our Bible'. There is also a section about the Origins of the Bible in the rear/index area of the "Thompson-Chain-Reference Bible".

For more History texts try "Christendom' by Roland Bainton ; "Christianity thru the ages" by Kenneth S. LaTourette , or "Christianity Through the Centuries' by Earle E. Cairns .