Did the reformers have access to all writings of the Pre Nicene Fathers?

[zoidar]

Did they?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Edited: just realized this could cause some confusion after reading replies - I was answering the question as stated whether they had access to ALL the pre-Nicene Fathers - not saying they had nothing at all.

Extremely doubtful - especially if they weren't fluent in the Greek of that period and didn't travel to the locations where they were kept. We don't have access to all of them translated yet. And back then, paper copies would have been needed.

 

[tdidymas]

Did they?

It's easy to see that Calvin had access to Augustine's commentaries, since he plagiarized some of it in his own commentary. I've read some history they had access to others, but I'm no expert on the matter.
TD

 

[~Zao~]

It seems to boil down to the reformers being the rise of humanism (which is no surprise ) and they had much access to the ECF writings.


Humanism and the Reformation History

 

[dzheremi]

Extremely doubtful - especially if they weren't fluent in the Greek of that period and didn't travel to the locations where they were kept. We don't have access to all of them translated yet. And back then, paper copies would have been needed.

Mostly this, but it seems likely that they could have had access to some version of the sayings of the Desert Fathers via people like John Cassian, who was after all a native Latin-speaker and founded the Abbey of St. Victor in Marseille in the early fifth century (probably the first of its kind in the West). Granted, at least some of the reformers regarded monasticism with suspicion (and some were former RC monastics themselves, like Luther, who was an Augustinian friar), but it seems at least possible given what would've been available by their time for many centuries that they were not without at least some link to these writings, even if they ultimately dismissed them.

As to the Greek fathers, or Syriac fathers, or any others, it really depends on what was found in Latin and when, and who if any was doing the translating. It is important to note/remember, for instance, that sometimes the translators had their own biases or traditions regarding a given figure, as when Arabic translations presented to be of the works of the 5th century Galician priest Orosius began to appear in Muslim North Africa in the 14th century, done by Muslims who remembered him as the writer of a work they dubbed Ayyam al-Masih (the Days of Christ), which is apparently not recorded in any Christian record as being a work he authored (he authored others works against Pagans, Origenists and others, but not this "Days of Christ" work). So I would wonder just what was receivable by that time in a language that they could actually read.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The fathers weren't utterly unknown the Reformers, but they didn't have access to all of them. Even where access existed, many of the Fathers and Church documents remained obscure as, they weren't always quoted or used. No one really quoted Iraneaus all that much for instance when compared to Augustine or John Chrysostom or Gregory Nazianzus. This was true East and West. Some Fathers were just very popular when compared to others.

Some Fathers that the Reformers probably had next to no access to would be people like Maximos the Confessor. We also have to remember not all of the works of Chrysostom would have been available to the Reformers, even though they clearly referenced and knew of him and his homilies. The best answer to this question is to suggest the Reformers had just as much access to the Fathers as the Catholics did. Though both placed different emphasis on their importance.

It should be pointed out, that while the Orthodox East had access to the Greek Fathers it had barely any knowledge of the western Fathers. Augustine simply hasn't been read within the Orthodox Church historically. Only recently have we begun to grapple with Augustine and his theology.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Right, and forgive me I should not have spoken as if the only language used was Greek.

I'm sure they had access to some writings.

But I read it as whether or not the reformers had access to ALL writings of the pre-Nicene fathers. And what I meant is that (just knowing basic info from today) ... it would have been very unlikely anyon would have traveled to AND been able to read ALL of the Greek Fathers, for example. They did have more access to Latin writings I'm sure. And some other writings as well.

But it's nearly impossible they could have been able to access ALL of it.

 

[zoidar]

Right, and forgive me I should not have spoken as if the only language used was Greek.

I'm sure they had access to some writings.

But I read it as whether or not the reformers had access to ALL writings of the pre-Nicene fathers. And what I meant is that (just knowing basic info from today) ... it would have been very unlikely anyon would have traveled to AND been able to read ALL of the Greek Fathers, for example. They did have more access to Latin writings I'm sure. And some other writings as well.

But it's nearly impossible they could have been able to access ALL of it.

Maybe I should rephrase the question. How much access did the reformers have of the writings of the ante-nicene Fathers?

 

[The Righterzpen]

How much access the reformers had, depended on the individual's willingness / ability to travel to dig up that access. The Renaissance brought a lot of knowledge that there was more information to be had into Europe. Now going to the source to find that information was obviously fraught with more complications than us getting on our laptop and looking it up on the internet! LOL

Then of course you have issues of things lost to history and things buried in archives that no one knew they were there. Most of our "scholarly understanding" of Scripture has only been obtained in about the past 150 years and that's basically because of the advent of archeology.

On top of this, was of course how willing would the Roman Catholic Church be to allowing people considered heretics to look into their historical archives.

So, given all these complications; I would conclude their access was rather limited.

That being said though, because there were fewer articles in general to be had for scholarly research, those who had the scholarly education, usually had some access to it. Early church documents were generally written in Greek and Latin, and people who were educated generally knew Latin. So "access" was more an issue of physically getting the source than it was of being able to understand the language it was written in.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Erasmus brought out edited editions of the works of Jerome, Augustine and Hilary of Poitiers as for Latin fathers; and Chrysostom, Origen and Irenaeus for instance in Greek. These circulated widely thanks to printing as part of the Northern Renaissance.

Certain Church Fathers, notably Augustine, were highly influential in the Reformation. The Reformers while not having everything, had a sizeable chunk, and thanks to efforts of people like Erasmus, even of the Greek fathers.

To say they were ignorant of the Church Fathers is simply false, though of course less available than in later times. In fact, exposure to Church Fathers like Jerome helped argue for the narrower Canon of Scripture, as an example, or some Universalist Socinians cited Origen.

The fact is that the Renaissance scholars of Christian Humanism worked tirelessly to spread knowledge on Church Fathers, as people like Erasmus thought this was the key to reforming the Church and returning it to Apostolic virtue. This is why his critics later said Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched, or that Erasmus Lutheranises and Luther Erasmianises. In many ways, increased knowledge of Patristics helped partially spark the Reformation in the first place, on the grave of Scholasticism.

 

[JM]

Well, yes, the Reformers did read the fathers. East, West, Apostolic and Ante Nience fathers.

If anyone has read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion he cites the early church fathers everyone other page. The single volume is a cheaper edition but the two volume edition contains all of the footnotes and translations from the Latin. The entire institutes follows the same theological pattern of the Apostles Creed! On the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Calvin remains in line with the early church and was declared "orthodox" on this doctrine by a Roman Catholic Bishop no less. Calvin departs from St. Thomas Aquinas and his view of divine simplicity, preferring the thought and method of the Cappadocian Fathers. On this doctrine alone he cites Justin, Ignatius, Basil, the Council of Nicaea, Augustine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandrea, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I'm sure they are more but that's all I have written down in my notes.

If one looks at the work of Calvin you just can't deny he read the church fathers and used their work to build upon. Check out the Lutheran Confessions as well, their Reformation was much, much more conservative, they cite the fathers more liberally. Prosper of Aquitaine comes to mind.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: There is an entire book titled, "John Calvin Student of the Church Fathers" by Lane

 

[Radagast]

Did the reformers have access to all writings of the Pre Nicene Fathers?

The whole point of the Reformation was that the Reformers felt that the Catholic church had run off the rails over the previous few centuries.

This actually caused an increase in interest in the Early Church Fathers (people like Tertullian and Cyprian, as well as later writers like Eusebius, Augustine, Gregory, Chrysostom, Jerome, Fulgentius, Cyril, and Cassiodorus).

The Reformers felt that it added to their arguments, on topics like the Eucharist, that the Early Church Fathers agreed with what they were saying.

There was probably incomplete access to the Ante-Nicene Fathers specifically. The Reformers would have been restricted to what was available in Western libraries.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The whole point of the Reformation was that the Reformers felt that the Catholic church had run off the rails over the previous few centuries.

This actually caused an increase in interest in the Early Church Fathers (people like Tertullian and Cyprian, as well as later writers like Eusebius, Augustine, Gregory, Chrysostom, Jerome, Fulgentius, Cyril, and Cassiodorus).

That and the flight of educated Greeks in the previous 80 years from the fall of Constantinople who brought a lot of texts with them.

 

[Hawkins]

Did they?

Do Catholics have access to the original books (ancient scrolls) used to canonize the NT?

It's irrelevant as long as God is in lead. Perhaps that's something the Catholics never learned.

 

[tz620q]

Do Catholics have access to the original books (ancient scrolls) used to canonize the NT?

The original scrolls perished long ago; but it is possible at the time of the canonical councils that they knew of the existence of the Codex Vaticanus.

 

[DamianWarS]

Did they?

I've wondered about the influence of a post byzantine empire and subsequent diaspora had on the reformation. Weren't they the keepers of many of these texts? it's curious to see that not far after the fall is the reformation. Other factors that contributed to the success of the reformation is without a doubt the invention of the printing press and then subsequent printed Greek text. These same mechanisms increased all kinds of "kept-in-the-vault" texts that would normally not be available for outsiders so at the very least they probably had the most access to various church father writings than they had ever had before.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Dear Damian,
The fall of the Byz Empire in 1453 pretty much sparked the Renaissance. A lot of educated Greeks and clergy fled the area into Italy, bringing with them a lot of Greek scrolls and codices. With all this new information, the arts and sciences had new sources of material rather than just Latin translations. Erasmus, Luther, Melachthon and other Reformers were now studying the original Greek rather than just the Vulgate. Artists had new forms to work with. Even philosophy was changed. Medieval Latin philosophers were working with just a handful of Latin translations of Aristotle and Plato. For example, only Plato's Timaeus had been translated into Latin. Now for the first time, their entire works were being translated from Greek. Now they had access to the Republic, Meno and everything else that Plato wrote. Aristotle was pretty much the same way.

https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_the_Fall_of_Constantinople_change_the_Renaissance_in_Italy?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe I should rephrase the question. How much access did the reformers have of the writings of the ante-nicene Fathers?

The answer is, some. It depends a lot on who. Augustine's writings are and were very accessible. The well-known ones, obviously. Even now, we don't have some writings of a lot of them.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

The answer is, some. It depends a lot on who. Augustine's writings are and were very accessible. The well-known ones, obviously. Even now, we don't have some writings of a lot of them.

Hence, why Augustine was so important to the reformer's (also Luther having been an Augustinian monk).

 

[JM]

Well, yes, the Reformers did read the fathers. East, West, Apostolic and Ante Nience fathers.

If anyone has read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion he cites the early church fathers everyone other page. The single volume is a cheaper edition but the two volume edition contains all of the footnotes and translations from the Latin. The entire institutes follows the same theological pattern of the Apostles Creed! On the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Calvin remains in line with the early church and was declared "orthodox" on this doctrine by a Roman Catholic Bishop no less. Calvin departs from St. Thomas Aquinas and his view of divine simplicity, preferring the thought and method of the Cappadocian Fathers. On this doctrine alone he cites Justin, Ignatius, Basil, the Council of Nicaea, Augustine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandrea, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I'm sure they are more but that's all I have written down in my notes.

If one looks at the work of Calvin you just can't deny he read the church fathers and used their work to build upon. Check out the Lutheran Confessions as well, their Reformation was much, much more conservative, they cite the fathers more liberally. Prosper of Aquitaine comes to mind.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: There is an entire book titled, "John Calvin Student of the Church Fathers" by Lane