When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

[OzSpen]

I meant two things:

1) Some of them - like Tertullian or Origen - were (it seems) more wrong on certain issues than the others.

This is (of course) a very hard matter to judge. OTOH, those Fathers are still worthy of respect, and still well worth reading & studying; Origen is an excellent instance of this. St Cyprian’s admiration for Tertullian (who became a Montanist) is well known.

One can be wide of the mark on certain issues and still be of great value and be a standard of accuracy in others. I think this is a matter of degree. For instance, Saint Augustine is (deservedly) of great authority in the Western Church; even in those Churches that do not accept his teaching on double predestination.

(2) Taken as a group, throughout the whole period from about 70 AD to about 750 AD, the Fathers, whatever their individual errors of whatever kind, are rightly honoured and valued as witnesses to orthodox Christian doctrine and piety.

It is an act of piety to recognise their service to Christendom. Just as God-breathed Scripture can be useful in the Church without being totally inerrant, so also can they. The final judge (under God) of their fidelity to the Faith to which they witnessed, is not any one of their number nor them as a body, but the Church Universal of which they were members.

One can acknowledge their value for theology, doctrine, and Christian practice, without supposing that there is nothing more to be learnt in the interpretation of the Bible than they have supplied. One can regret the fondness of many of them for allegorisation (as in St Augustine of Hippo, St Gregory the Great, or Origen) while accepting their doctrinal conclusions. And they remain of value, even though most of the Western Fathers had no Greek or Hebrew, & most of the Easterners, no Hebrew.

The Reformers had some advantages the Fathers lacked; & their successors in 1950 knew much more about the Biblical world than either. All have their limitations - and so do expositors and scholars now, & of any time.

That the Fathers and their mediaeval and later successors, including ourselves, had & have all sorts of limitations, is simply a fact. It is not in any way to depreciate them, or their successors.

Jamie,

We have the advantage of comparing our reading and writing with the whole canon of Scripture, an advantage which Tertullian, Origen, and other Early Church Fathers did not have.

I find great benefit in reading the ECF, without agreeing with Origen's allegorical method of interpretation.

I pray that God will use the principles of Irenaeus's Against Heresies to evaluate the heresies of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. I completed my PhD in 2015, which examined the presuppositions of Crossan that led to his conclusion that Jesus' resurrection was an apparition. My first book, based on a portion of the dissertation, is coming off the press in the new year, published by Wipf and Stock - How to Ruin Your Education and TV Viewing: Five Lessons from Crossan.

I expect to write another book with a tentative title, Crossan's Crushers of Contradiction, in which I deal with some of the heresies Crossan promotes in his "philosophical crushers" (Ben Meyer's language).

Oz

 

[jamiec]

Jamie,

We have the advantage of comparing our reading and writing with the whole canon of Scripture, an advantage which Tertullian, Origen, and other Early Church Fathers did not have.

I find great benefit in reading the ECF, without agreeing with Origen's allegorical method of interpretation.

I pray that God will use the principles of Irenaeus's Against Heresies to evaluate the heresies of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. I completed my PhD in 2015, which examined the presuppositions of Crossan that led to his conclusion that Jesus' resurrection was an apparition. My first book, based on a portion of the dissertation, is coming off the press in the new year, published by Wipf and Stock - How to Ruin Your Education and TV Viewing: Five Lessons from Crossan.

I expect to write another book with a tentative title, Crossan's Crushers of Contradiction, in which I deal with some of the heresies Crossan promotes in his "philosophical crushers" (Ben Meyer's language).

Oz

The part of the City of God that I recall, is the (allegorising) discussion of the Primeval History.

Most of my reading of Origen is of the Contra Celsum. I wish all apologists quoted the works they criticise so fully. I also wish that Catholics in particular had the serenity of St Thomas Aquinas, who (so far as I have read him) never indulges in personalities, but always sticks to the questions he is discussing.

I far prefer his tone & manner to that of some of the NT authors, some of whom are too ready to call their opponents bad names; and since we hear only one side of the argument, indulging in name-calling is doubly unfortunate. St Paul may be correct in his criticisms of St Peter’s conduct in Galatians 2 - but we hear only St Paul’s side of the matter.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jamie,

We have the advantage of comparing our reading and writing with the whole canon of Scripture, an advantage which Tertullian, Origen, and other Early Church Fathers did not have.

I find great benefit in reading the ECF, without agreeing with Origen's allegorical method of interpretation.

I pray that God will use the principles of Irenaeus's Against Heresies to evaluate the heresies of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. I completed my PhD in 2015, which examined the presuppositions of Crossan that led to his conclusion that Jesus' resurrection was an apparition. My first book, based on a portion of the dissertation, is coming off the press in the new year, published by Wipf and Stock - How to Ruin Your Education and TV Viewing: Five Lessons from Crossan.

I expect to write another book with a tentative title, Crossan's Crushers of Contradiction, in which I deal with some of the heresies Crossan promotes in his "philosophical crushers" (Ben Meyer's language).

Oz

Actually Origen had access to vastly more Scripture than we have. Not only did his library, which he later sold to give alms to the poor, contain every book in the canonical New Testament, it also contained several works that almost made it into the canon. And in the case of the Old Testament, Origen authored the Hexapla, the world’s first Parallel Bible, which compared the Septuagint and five distinct Hebrew editions, most of which, like Symacchus, are lost or exist only in untraceable fragments amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would gladly forfeit an actual arm and a leg and become a paraplegic for access to Origen’s library and also a complete collection of his writings and the other Patristic texts he and the Greek fathers had access to.

The Latin fathers up to and including Pope St. Gregory Diologos, who developed Gregorian Chant and the Presanctified Liturgy used in the Eastern Orthodox church, and until 1955, in the Roman Catholic Church, and his immediate successors, also had very good libraries and most of them spoke Greek. Indeed, the Church in Rome used the Greek language exclusively for worship until the reign of Archbishop Victor in the mid 2nd century, who introduced a vernacular liturgy and a vernacular Bible, the Vetus Latina, portions of which you have almost certainly heard, for instance “Gloria in excelsis deo.” The Vulgate translated this as “Gloria in altissimus deo”

Now, the Syriac fathers had a rougher time of it, except for those who also spoke Greek, until the appearance of the Peshitta translation in the fourth century, but after that point, there was a massive amount of translation from Greek into Syriac, so interestingly enough, the Renaissance happened because the Western Europeans, who during the dark ages did lose most of their books, with a monastery being lucky if it had more than a Vulgate Bible, the prerequisite liturgical books, and St. Augustine, obtained Latin translations of Arabic translations of Syriac translations of Aristotle, Plato and the other Greco-Roman philosophers (Archimedes, Euclid, Galen, etc), which were prepared by Syriac Orthodox monks at the Syrian Monastery in Egypt, which still exists but is inhabited by Coptic Orthodox monks, and the Monastery of St. Matthew in the hills above Mosul, Iraq, which miraculously survived ISIS and remains in operation, and some monasteries associated with the Assyrian Church of the East which are sadly long gone.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Actually Origen had access to vastly more Scripture than we have. Not only did his library, which he later sold to give alms to the poor, contain every book in the canonical New Testament, it also contained several works that almost made it into the canon. And in the case of the Old Testament, Origen authored the Hexapla, the world’s first Parallel Bible, which compared the Septuagint and five distinct Hebrew editions, most of which, like Symacchus, are lost or exist only in untraceable fragments amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would gladly forfeit an actual arm and a leg and become a paraplegic for access to Origen’s library and also a complete collection of his writings and the other Patristic texts he and the Greek fathers had access to.

The Latin fathers up to and including Pope St. Gregory Diologos, who developed Gregorian Chant and the Presanctified Liturgy used in the Eastern Orthodox church, and until 1955, in the Roman Catholic Church, and his immediate successors, also had very good libraries and most of them spoke Greek. Indeed, the Church in Rome used the Greek language exclusively for worship until the reign of Archbishop Victor in the mid 2nd century, who introduced a vernacular liturgy and a vernacular Bible, the Vetus Latina, portions of which you have almost certainly heard, for instance “Gloria in excelsis deo.” The Vulgate translated this as “Gloria in altissimus deo”

Now, the Syriac fathers had a rougher time of it, except for those who also spoke Greek, until the appearance of the Peshitta translation in the fourth century, but after that point, there was a massive amount of translation from Greek into Syriac, so interestingly enough, the Renaissance happened because the Western Europeans, who during the dark ages did lose most of their books, with a monastery being lucky if it had more than a Vulgate Bible, the prerequisite liturgical books, and St. Augustine, obtained Latin translations of Arabic translations of Syriac translations of Aristotle, Plato and the other Greco-Roman philosophers (Archimedes, Euclid, Galen, etc), which were prepared by Syriac Orthodox monks at the Syrian Monastery in Egypt, which still exists but is inhabited by Coptic Orthodox monks, and the Monastery of St. Matthew in the hills above Mosul, Iraq, which miraculously survived ISIS and remains in operation, and some monasteries associated with the Assyrian Church of the East which are sadly long gone.

Would Origen have read the missing letters of Paul. Two to Corinth, the one to Laodicea and one to Ephesus? Maybe writings of Timothy and Apollos...?

 

[The Liturgist]

Would Origen have read the missing letters of Paul. Two to Corinth, the one to Laodicea and one to Ephesus? Maybe writings of Timothy and Apollos...?

Well, the third letter of Paul to the Corinthians is in the Armenian lectionary, and his letter to the Laodiceans is in the Vulgate, so I would assume so. The authenticity of both is questioned. The epistles were not universally preserved, unfortunately, but Origen had access to more material than we ever will, because so much was later lost, for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews.

 

[TedT]

And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

Though I have studied pre-conception existence for some 40 years, I was asked to not discuss it in this forum as it is too controversial. You might apply and receive the right to discuss it in the forum for Alternative theologies and I would gladly address your interest. There is always private messages, I guess, sigh.

 

[OzSpen]

Would Origen have read the missing letters of Paul. Two to Corinth, the one to Laodicea and one to Ephesus? Maybe writings of Timothy and Apollos...?

Would Origen have included the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas in the canon? I haven't done enough study on Origen and those 2 books of the pseudepigrapha.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually Origen had access to vastly more Scripture than we have. Not only did his library, which he later sold to give alms to the poor, contain every book in the canonical New Testament, it also contained several works that almost made it into the canon. And in the case of the Old Testament, Origen authored the Hexapla, the world’s first Parallel Bible, which compared the Septuagint and five distinct Hebrew editions, most of which, like Symacchus, are lost or exist only in untraceable fragments amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would gladly forfeit an actual arm and a leg and become a paraplegic for access to Origen’s library and also a complete collection of his writings and the other Patristic texts he and the Greek fathers had access to.

The Latin fathers up to and including Pope St. Gregory Diologos, who developed Gregorian Chant and the Presanctified Liturgy used in the Eastern Orthodox church, and until 1955, in the Roman Catholic Church, and his immediate successors, also had very good libraries and most of them spoke Greek. Indeed, the Church in Rome used the Greek language exclusively for worship until the reign of Archbishop Victor in the mid 2nd century, who introduced a vernacular liturgy and a vernacular Bible, the Vetus Latina, portions of which you have almost certainly heard, for instance “Gloria in excelsis deo.” The Vulgate translated this as “Gloria in altissimus deo”

Now, the Syriac fathers had a rougher time of it, except for those who also spoke Greek, until the appearance of the Peshitta translation in the fourth century, but after that point, there was a massive amount of translation from Greek into Syriac, so interestingly enough, the Renaissance happened because the Western Europeans, who during the dark ages did lose most of their books, with a monastery being lucky if it had more than a Vulgate Bible, the prerequisite liturgical books, and St. Augustine, obtained Latin translations of Arabic translations of Syriac translations of Aristotle, Plato and the other Greco-Roman philosophers (Archimedes, Euclid, Galen, etc), which were prepared by Syriac Orthodox monks at the Syrian Monastery in Egypt, which still exists but is inhabited by Coptic Orthodox monks, and the Monastery of St. Matthew in the hills above Mosul, Iraq, which miraculously survived ISIS and remains in operation, and some monasteries associated with the Assyrian Church of the East which are sadly long gone.

Liturgist,

You wrote: "Actually Origen had access to vastly more Scripture than we have."

That is not my view. He had access to many more books that are not included in the authorized canon of Scripture.

Oz

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Well, the third letter of Paul to the Corinthians is in the Armenian lectionary, and his letter to the Laodiceans is in the Vulgate, so I would assume so. The authenticity of both is questioned. The epistles were not universally preserved, unfortunately, but Origen had access to more material than we ever will, because so much was later lost, for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews.

I tried vulgate.org but cannot find the letter to the Laodiceans. Have you got a link? Also, there is scepticism about it's validity.

 

[The Liturgist]

I tried vulgate.org but cannot find the letter to the Laodiceans. Have you got a link? Also, there is scepticism about it's validity.

Indeed there is skepticism, so Jerome placed it and 4 Esdras in an appendix “lest they perish entirely.”

The Lost Books of the Bible: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Laodiceans

 

[The Liturgist]

Would Origen have included the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas in the canon? I haven't done enough study on Origen and those 2 books of the pseudepigrapha.

No he would not. He had access to all of the canonical books and primarily wrote about them, although his anti-Pagan polemic Contra Celsus is also famous.

 

[OzSpen]

I tried vulgate.org but cannot find the letter to the Laodiceans. Have you got a link? Also, there is scepticism about it's validity.

GKG,

See, "What is the epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:16?" See also: "Laodicea, Epistle to."

You'll find a translation of the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the Pseudepigrapha.

Oz