Duvduv

I found it to be a bit of surprise that John Chrysostom is know as the first commentator on the Book of Acts from the beginning of the 5th century.

I also found it surprising how others who wrote commentators were newcomers into the religion and were now seen as major contributors to the new teachings.

Commentators on the epistles came out of Rome at the end of the 4th century (Marius Victorinus, Pseudo-Ambrose and Palagius). Yet the common view that the NT texts originated so long before would require that commentaries would be plentiful long before the end of the 4th century.

Similarly, major commentators on the subject of the trinity were in the same late time period, i.e. Gregory of Nazanzius and Gregory of Nyssa.

sotto voce

It's perhaps not so surprising when one looks at the contents, which demonstrate the democracy of the church, that made its imperial caricature unrecognisable as having origin in the same concept.

Duvduv

I am not sure how this responds to my observation, Sotto Voce.

sotto voce

Rome was not built on amity and freedom of expression. The church was.

DCHindley

Perhaps Acts, which is presented as a historical account, didn't require commentary.

On the other hand the epistles, which were full of theological statements (many contradictory), required a certain amount of unpacking.

DCH

Duvduv

Well, as we discussed a few days ago, Chrysostom said that Acts was hidden and virtually unknown. According to the standard interpretation of GLuke being connected with Acts, that would mean that Luke was also unknown. But if it wasn't, then it wasn't the first volume of a two volume set. Besides, there are many contradictions in Acts and between Acts and the epistles.

But according to the standard view of the gospels having been produced in the first or second century, it sure took a LONG TIME to unpack them if the commentaries of religious leaders didn't appear for another couple of centuries......

sotto voce

Acts contains a great deal of theology that occurs nowhere else, passim.

The apostolic letters, that are in total agreement (hence their recognition by the church) required a great deal of mendacity if they were to be used by the empire.

DCHindley

Is this a revival of a Sept 2010 thread started by aa5874?

This is what I had to say then:

According to the 1889 revised American Edition of the Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 1 Volume 11, edited by Philip Schaff (the original edition was published 1851), Chrysostom says:

Ca. 387 CE, Antioch, In Principium Actorum, Homily I: "We are about to set before you a strange and new dish.…strange, I say, and not strange. Not strange; for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture: and yet strange; because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known (πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it: thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect……We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject: and why it is ordered (νενομοθέτηται) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end." [This work is not translated into English, it seems, but is in Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (CPG) 4371, ed. E. L. Von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1839 and 1851). The translation above was in a footnote to the citation below, so it likely dates to the 1851 edition of N&PNF. It indicates that in Antioch, where Chrysostom was first ordained Bishop, Acts was liturgically read throughout the entire year].

Ca. 400 CE, Easter season, Constantinople, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily I: "To many persons [here in Constantinople - dch] this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight. For indeed it may profit us no less than even the Gospels; so replete is it with Christian wisdom and sound doctrine, especially in what is said concerning the Holy Ghost. Then let us not hastily pass by it, but examine it closely." [Comments by the translators indicate that they believe Acts was not regularly read in Constantinople, except in the Easter season, something Chrysostom set about to change his 3rd year as Bishop there].

DCH

Duvduv

No, DCH, I wasn't involved here a year and a half ago.
However, were there other sources deemed to be in Constantinople who mentioned the hiddenness of Acts, or was Chrysostom the only one? And even if he were, how could a book allegedly known 200 years earlier as part of the official Christian canon simply disappear?

DCHindley

It's OK, I know you weren't here then. I thought you might have been looking through old threads.

Personally, I think that the info in my re-posted post should have made it clear that Chrysostom was originally ordained in Antioch, where the book of Acts was read regularly through the year, and moved to Constantinople where it was only read around Easter. He made the comment as a way of introducing the fact that he planned to have it read more in the church.

I figure if it is regularly read in Antioch as part of the church service, it hadn't disappeared. That the church of Constantinople hadn't been reading it much only shows that different bishops favored some books over others.

DCH