Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RomanNiucumir · 08-16-2002, 06:05 PM

There's been debate about manuscript evidence on this board recently, but I am curious as to how much of the new testament is attested to by the Church Fathers; it is an argument by apologists that between the manuscripts, the Fathers, and Jewish and Pagan sources, almost all of NT can be reconstructed with a more or less certain level of accuracy. What patristic evidence do we have? What manuscript evidence do we have for the fathers themselves? I know that the first letter of Clement of Rome had a few sayings that resembled those of Jesus, but that's it.

Also, how many Fathers, both east and west, are there? Are we talking about the scale of dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or...? Peter Kirby has an impressive list of some of them at his site; and there are also those 'Ante-Nicene' and 'Post-Nicene' volumes, but I don't know if those volumes are exhaustive of all Christian writing during that time. Note that Encarta defines "Fathers of the Church" as those who were around during the first eight centuries of Christianity.

Anyone care to help me out? CX? Peter Kirby? Bede? I wish Cowboy X were still here; he might have been able to help.

Peter Kirby · 08-16-2002, 07:23 PM

RomanNiucumir writes:

There's been debate about manuscript evidence on this board recently, but I am curious as to how much of the new testament is attested to by the Church Fathers; it is an argument by apologists that between the manuscripts, the Fathers, and Jewish and Pagan sources, almost all of NT can be reconstructed with a more or less certain level of accuracy. What patristic evidence do we have? What manuscript evidence do we have for the fathers themselves? I know that the first letter of Clement of Rome had a few sayings that resembled those of Jesus, but that's it.
Also, how many Fathers, both east and west, are there? Are we talking about the scale of dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or...? Peter Kirby has an impressive list of some of them at his site; and there are also those 'Ante-Nicene' and 'Post-Nicene' volumes, but I don't know if those volumes are exhaustive of all Christian writing during that time. Note that Encarta defines "Fathers of the Church" as those who were around during the first eight centuries of Christianity.

Anyone care to help me out? CX? Peter Kirby? Bede? I wish Cowboy X were still here; he might have been able to help.

CX is Cowboy X.

My site currently restricts itself to writers before 201 CE.

If we allow the Fathers of the Church to encompass the orthodox ecclesiastical writers of the first eight centuries, then we should number the church fathers on the order of a thousand. J. P. Migne, in his mid nineteenth century editions, produced 221 volumes of the Latin Fathers and 161 volumes of the Greek Fathers, with some volumes in multiple parts. So we could say fairly that the literature is massive.

As for the Ante-Nicene Fathers, most if not all the patristic authors can be found in the ten-volume Roberts-Donaldson translation presented by the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/" target="_blank">Christian Classics Ethereal Library</a>. You may count them if you like. There are a few ante-Nicene documents that have been found since then (e.g. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus), but not many new orthodox writers. The editors of this series did an enormous service to the English-speaking world, just as did the electronic scribes, as many of these documents exist in English translation only in these volumes.

The manuscript evidence for the church fathers is certainly no better than that for the New Testament, and in most cases it is worse. The only complete manuscripts of church fathers before the eighth century of which I know are thoes which were accepted as canonical by some, such as Clement's letter or the Shepherd of Hermas. But I have not studied the matter very deeply, and most of the details of the manuscript traditions of the patristic authors is not easily accesible, as it is an area for few specialists. You may be able to find some material on Tertullian's manuscripts at the [url=http://www.tertullian.org/]Tertullian.org</a> web site.

But, though the manuscripts of the patristic authors are late, the general reason for basic integrity that applies to the classics will usually apply here (as the classics are attested just as poorly as the church fathers), specifically that the motive was not intense for modification because these writings were not the words of God. Although certain quotations of the New Testament will very likely have been copied with reference to the scribe's memory of the scriptural passage, I do not believe that the insertion of passages with quotes that did not exist at all at the time of the patristic author would have been a very common occurence.

If you would like to study the matter with reference to the English translations, which will give you a sense of which fathers quoted which passages if not the precise original wording, the CCEL library has convenient footnotes indicating scriptural allusions and quotations.

I am told that someone who has written about this, with the aim of showing that the NT is corrupt, is the author of the book The Patchwork Gospels. I have no additional information on this book.

best,
Peter Kirby

CX · 08-19-2002, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RomanNiucumir:
There's been debate about manuscript evidence on this board recently, but I am curious as to how much of the new testament is attested to by the Church Fathers

FYI as Peter points out I am Cowboy X. I changed my name a while back because it's easier to type.

Anyway, as of yet I have not done a comprehensive analysis of the ante-nicene fathers with respect to attestation of the NT. Part of the problem is that such analysis is much more subject to interpretation because it is offten difficult to discern whether the language used is specifically derived from NT documents or is just a reflection of ideas that were floating around. Furthermore the MSS evidence for the fathers is not that great so we face the same problem we face in analyzing NT MSS only we are another step removed from the documents in question. I do know that the earliest Church Fathers are somewhat later than the earliest NT MSS and as such may not add much weight to the NT MSS evidence. I am working on a comprehensive essay at the moment that outlines the first 3 centuries of MSS evidence. Perhaps when I'm done with that I'll move on to the church fathers, but I am starting Grad school next month and won't have as much time to devote to purely personal academic pursuits.

godfry n. glad · 08-19-2002, 12:57 PM

Just a passing question here....

If those patristic writers prior to Nicaea are referred to as Ante-Nicene, and those afterwards are referred to as Post-Nicene, are those who actually attended the Nicaea in 325 CE referred to as the "Trans-Nicene fathers"?

Stated alternately, was Eusebius of Ceasarea Ante-Nicene or Post-Nicene, or are he and his contemporaries referred to in some other manner?

godfry n. glad

Peter Kirby · 08-19-2002, 01:22 PM

Oh good, an easy one.

Eusebius and co. are customarily called "Nicene Fathers," as in the name of the series A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edited by Philip Schaff.

Also, the period between Niceae in 325 and Chalcedon in 451 is sometimes called the "Golden Age" of patristic literature.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Typo: The council of Chalcedon was in 451.]

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-22-2002, 01:01 PM

Greetings,

I have studied this area in some detail, and I would just like to warn the people that there's a major deception that's taking place currently in this area.

You see, the overwhelming majority of our Text Critical specialists assure us that the Alexandrian text of the gospels was the earliest. But the problem is that our Alexandrian text (Nestle/Aland's) is not attested in the writings of _any_ of the Church dads before 200 CE! OTOH, they all cite from the Western (i.e. Syro-Latin) text.

Origen, who was active way after 200 CE, is the first Christian writer who's beginning to cite from the Alexandrian text in earnest (but also citing plenty of Syro-Latin variants). So this means that our Alexandrian text really originated only after 200 CE.

Today's Textual Criticism is full of deceptions. It's because I was saying things like this that I was expelled from TC-List recently -- after being a member there for 4 years.

All the best,

Yuri.

Tercel · 08-22-2002, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky:
Origen, who was active way after 200 CE,

? Origen lived c185-232. How is that "way" after 200?

Yuri Kuchinsky · 08-23-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>? Origen lived c185-232. How is that "way" after 200?</strong>

Sorry about that. I should have dropped that "way" there.

Regards,

Yuri.

08-16-2002, 06:05 PM	#1
RomanNiucumir Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 102	Manuscript evidence and testimony of the Fathers. There's been debate about manuscript evidence on this board recently, but I am curious as to how much of the new testament is attested to by the Church Fathers; it is an argument by apologists that between the manuscripts, the Fathers, and Jewish and Pagan sources, almost all of NT can be reconstructed with a more or less certain level of accuracy. What patristic evidence do we have? What manuscript evidence do we have for the fathers themselves? I know that the first letter of Clement of Rome had a few sayings that resembled those of Jesus, but that's it. Also, how many Fathers, both east and west, are there? Are we talking about the scale of dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or...? Peter Kirby has an impressive list of some of them at his site; and there are also those 'Ante-Nicene' and 'Post-Nicene' volumes, but I don't know if those volumes are exhaustive of all Christian writing during that time. Note that Encarta defines "Fathers of the Church" as those who were around during the first eight centuries of Christianity. Anyone care to help me out? CX? Peter Kirby? Bede? I wish Cowboy X were still here; he might have been able to help.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2002, 07:23 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	RomanNiucumir writes: There's been debate about manuscript evidence on this board recently, but I am curious as to how much of the new testament is attested to by the Church Fathers; it is an argument by apologists that between the manuscripts, the Fathers, and Jewish and Pagan sources, almost all of NT can be reconstructed with a more or less certain level of accuracy. What patristic evidence do we have? What manuscript evidence do we have for the fathers themselves? I know that the first letter of Clement of Rome had a few sayings that resembled those of Jesus, but that's it. Also, how many Fathers, both east and west, are there? Are we talking about the scale of dozens, hundreds, or thousands, or...? Peter Kirby has an impressive list of some of them at his site; and there are also those 'Ante-Nicene' and 'Post-Nicene' volumes, but I don't know if those volumes are exhaustive of all Christian writing during that time. Note that Encarta defines "Fathers of the Church" as those who were around during the first eight centuries of Christianity. Anyone care to help me out? CX? Peter Kirby? Bede? I wish Cowboy X were still here; he might have been able to help. CX is Cowboy X. My site currently restricts itself to writers before 201 CE. If we allow the Fathers of the Church to encompass the orthodox ecclesiastical writers of the first eight centuries, then we should number the church fathers on the order of a thousand. J. P. Migne, in his mid nineteenth century editions, produced 221 volumes of the Latin Fathers and 161 volumes of the Greek Fathers, with some volumes in multiple parts. So we could say fairly that the literature is massive. As for the Ante-Nicene Fathers, most if not all the patristic authors can be found in the ten-volume Roberts-Donaldson translation presented by the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/" target="_blank">Christian Classics Ethereal Library</a>. You may count them if you like. There are a few ante-Nicene documents that have been found since then (e.g. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus), but not many new orthodox writers. The editors of this series did an enormous service to the English-speaking world, just as did the electronic scribes, as many of these documents exist in English translation only in these volumes. The manuscript evidence for the church fathers is certainly no better than that for the New Testament, and in most cases it is worse. The only complete manuscripts of church fathers before the eighth century of which I know are thoes which were accepted as canonical by some, such as Clement's letter or the Shepherd of Hermas. But I have not studied the matter very deeply, and most of the details of the manuscript traditions of the patristic authors is not easily accesible, as it is an area for few specialists. You may be able to find some material on Tertullian's manuscripts at the [url=http://www.tertullian.org/]Tertullian.org</a> web site. But, though the manuscripts of the patristic authors are late, the general reason for basic integrity that applies to the classics will usually apply here (as the classics are attested just as poorly as the church fathers), specifically that the motive was not intense for modification because these writings were not the words of God. Although certain quotations of the New Testament will very likely have been copied with reference to the scribe's memory of the scriptural passage, I do not believe that the insertion of passages with quotes that did not exist at all at the time of the patristic author would have been a very common occurence. If you would like to study the matter with reference to the English translations, which will give you a sense of which fathers quoted which passages if not the precise original wording, the CCEL library has convenient footnotes indicating scriptural allusions and quotations. I am told that someone who has written about this, with the aim of showing that the NT is corrupt, is the author of the book The Patchwork Gospels. I have no additional information on this book. best, Peter Kirby

08-19-2002, 12:57 PM	#4
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Just a passing question here.... If those patristic writers prior to Nicaea are referred to as Ante-Nicene, and those afterwards are referred to as Post-Nicene, are those who actually attended the Nicaea in 325 CE referred to as the "Trans-Nicene fathers"? Stated alternately, was Eusebius of Ceasarea Ante-Nicene or Post-Nicene, or are he and his contemporaries referred to in some other manner? godfry n. glad

08-19-2002, 01:22 PM	#5
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Oh good, an easy one. Eusebius and co. are customarily called "Nicene Fathers," as in the name of the series A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edited by Philip Schaff. Also, the period between Niceae in 325 and Chalcedon in 451 is sometimes called the "Golden Age" of patristic literature. best, Peter Kirby [Typo: The council of Chalcedon was in 451.] [ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

08-22-2002, 01:01 PM	#6
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Greetings, I have studied this area in some detail, and I would just like to warn the people that there's a major deception that's taking place currently in this area. You see, the overwhelming majority of our Text Critical specialists assure us that the Alexandrian text of the gospels was the earliest. But the problem is that our Alexandrian text (Nestle/Aland's) is not attested in the writings of _any_ of the Church dads before 200 CE! OTOH, they all cite from the Western (i.e. Syro-Latin) text. Origen, who was active way after 200 CE, is the first Christian writer who's beginning to cite from the Alexandrian text in earnest (but also citing plenty of Syro-Latin variants). So this means that our Alexandrian text really originated only after 200 CE. Today's Textual Criticism is full of deceptions. It's because I was saying things like this that I was expelled from TC-List recently -- after being a member there for 4 years. All the best, Yuri.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.