Early Church Writings

Status
Not open for further replies.
alexandermsmith

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
What volumes would people recommend as an introduction to early church writings? Has anyone read any of the Desert Fathers? There's a volume of their writings by Penguin (I think). Are these guys to be avoided because they are the proto-monks or is there good stuff in them?
 
Good and bad. I've read probably about 20,000 pages of church fathers and related stuff.

Christopher Hall's work is the best intro, hands down. Pick any volume.

The Desert fathers were monks. No getting around that. Some of their comments on the mind, soul, distractions, passions are quite good and spiritually (and even scientifically sound). They basically anticipated neuroplasticity.

Is the Penguin volume edited by Benedicta Ward? That's one of the standards.
 
It is indeed. Do you think it worth a read?

Which of the Hall volumes would you recommend beginning with? Is it better to approach the material in that way rather than going to a volume of original sources?
 
It is interesting, if read with a critical eye.

Hall volumes in this order:

Learning Theology with the Church Fathers
worshipping with the Church Fathers
Living Wisely with the Church Fathers

As to primary sources,

Athanasius, Life of St Anthony
John Cassian, Conferences
 
BayouHuguenot said:
It is interesting, if read with a critical eye.

Hall volumes in this order:

Learning Theology with the Church Fathers
worshipping with the Church Fathers
Living Wisely with the Church Fathers

As to primary sources,

Athanasius, Life of St Anthony
John Cassian, Conferences
Click to expand...

Thanks. Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony is in the volume Early Christian Lives. Do you know that volume? I can tolerate their being (desert) monks I just don't want to be reading lots of proto-romanism or stuff like that. Not looking exclusively at the desert fathers but any from that time period. Hall's volumes look very interesting. What tradition is he coming from himself?

In terms of Augustine does City of God still hold up? I would like to read his Confessions and would do so first but it's very hard to find, in print, an edition with the older English translation. All the modern translations use "you" instead of "thee" and in that text especially it's very offputting. There is an edition which has the older translation but it stops before the final three books.

Thanks for all the help.
 
alexandermsmith said:
Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony is in the volume Early Christian Lives. Do you know that volume?
Click to expand...

My copy is in the Schaff Nicene and Pro Nicene Fathers.
alexandermsmith said:
I can tolerate their being (desert) monks I just don't want to be reading lots of proto-romanism or stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I think many people joined the desert monasteries back then because it offered a stable way of life when much of the rest of the world was troubled with disease and famine. I wouldn't call it proto-Romanism, because that gives Rome a claim to antiquity that I don't grant.
alexandermsmith said:
Hall's volumes look very interesting. What tradition is he coming from himself?
Click to expand...

I think he is a consevative Anglican. Some of these talks are informative.
https://iws.edu/2012/08/june-2012-worship-seminar-audio/

alexandermsmith said:
In terms of Augustine does City of God still hold up?
Click to expand...

It's the foundation of much of Western civilization, both secular and Christian.
 
Also, knowing the desert fathers explains a weird cause-effect relationship that started with some random monk in Egypt getting corrected because he had wrong views on God, which led to John Chrysostom getting exiled in Constantinople hundreds of miles away.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Also, knowing the desert fathers explains a weird cause-effect relationship that started with some random monk in Egypt getting corrected because he had wrong views on God, which led to John Chrysostom getting exiled in Constantinople hundreds of miles away.
Click to expand...

Intriguing...
 
alexandermsmith said:
*looks around*

So no then.
Click to expand...

Well it depends, Augustine's comments on the mind, soul, nature of God's simplicity....well, pretty much everything, shape the way we think about God today.

Even an atheist like Bertrand Russell admitted we really can't improve upon Augustine's discussion of "time."
 
alexandermsmith said:
In terms of Augustine does City of God still hold up? I would like to read his Confessions and would do so first but it's very hard to find, in print, an edition with the older English translation. All the modern translations use "you" instead of "thee" and in that text especially it's very offputting. There is an edition which has the older translation but it stops before the final three books.
Click to expand...

The translation of the Confessions by E.B. Pusey is readily available in print from amazon.co.uk, and should meet your requirements. The City of God in the Marcus Dods translation is also available, and eminently worthwhile.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
It is far more important to read Augustine for the content than whether the translator uses "thee."
Click to expand...
Is that looking for the mouse in the room rather than the elephant? :) I wondered too about "thee" in the earlier post. Is there any help in having a distinction in reference (personal vs. higher level of station accorded?) I'm truly asking as I do not know. Given that these are not originally early modern English works it seems doubtful.
 
jwithnell said:
Is that looking for the mouse in the room rather than the elephant? :) I wondered too about "thee" in the earlier post. Is there any help in having a distinction in reference (personal vs. higher level of station accorded?) I'm truly asking as I do not know. Given that these are not originally early modern English works it seems doubtful.
Click to expand...

The way it is being used in Augustine, no difference
 
How do you (plural) interpret Saint Antony's wrestling with demons and such as recounted in Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony? Was he actually battling demons or was this a figment of his imagination?
 
Relztrah said:
How do you (plural) interpret Saint Antony's wrestling with demons and such as recounted in Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony? Was he actually battling demons or was this a figment of his imagination?
Click to expand...

Since I believe the spiritual world is real, I have no reason to think he was just making all this up.

It is hypothetically possible that he is deluded. A more charitable (and more consistent with the NT) reading is that demons really battled with him.
 
Relztrah said:
How do you (plural) interpret Saint Antony's wrestling with demons and such as recounted in Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony? Was he actually battling demons or was this a figment of his imagination?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to one of the accounts such as the following?

"Afterwards, on another occasion, having descended to the outer cells, he was asked to enter a vessel and pray with the monks, and he alone perceived an exceedingly unpleasant smell. But those on board said that the stench arose from the fish and salt meat in the ship. He replied however, the smell was different from that; and while he was speaking, a youth with an evil spirit, who had come and hidden himself in the ship, cried out. But the demon being rebuked in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ departed from him, and the man became whole. And all knew that the evil smell arose from the demon."
 
Reformed Bookworm said:
he was asked to enter a vessel and pray with the monks, and he alone perceived an exceedingly unpleasant smell.
Click to expand...

JP Moreland, a man whose analytical abilities far exceed what we can even dream of, and thus he isn't one easily manipulated, describes a similar experience with some Satanists who tried to infiltrate one of his prayer-groups.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
It is far more important to read Augustine for the content than whether the translator uses "thee."
Click to expand...

BayouHuguenot said:
The way it is being used in Augustine, no difference
Click to expand...

I do not address God with the plural and irreverent "you" and find it extremely offputting, to say the least, to read what is essentially a book length prayer using such an address. That is why I would prefer the older translation.
 
alexandermsmith said:
I do not address God with the plural and irreverent "you" and find it extremely offputting, to say the least, to read what is essentially a book length prayer using such an address. That is why I would prefer the older translation.
Click to expand...

I was actually talking about Augustine's works like City of God, which are not addressed to God.

And I wonder if Latin has a "thee" form, since grammatically-historically, Augustine was using Latin and we have to ask what the Latin would have meant to him.

I also wonder how we say "thee" and "that" and "Abba" at the same time.
 
Last edited:
BayouHuguenot said:
I was actually talking about Augustine's works like City of God, which are not addressed to God.

And I wonder if Latin has a "thee" form, since grammatically-historically, Augustine was using Latin and we have to ask what the Latin would have meant to him.

I also wonder how we say "thee" and "that" and "Abba" at the same time.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. Yeah with most works I would put up with it. It's the Confessions particularly that I'd want the older translation, and I've found a cheap edition with that translation so all good.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
And I wonder if Latin has a "thee" form, since grammatically-historically, Augustine was using Latin and we have to ask what the Latin would have meant to him.
Click to expand...
My professor of Classical Latin taught me that the Latin second-person pronoun tu had no connotation of either politeness or casual speech. It was simply a matter of number. As medieval Latin developed, the second-person plural form vos came to be used to address individuals, and carried a strong sense of politeness (ie. "Pax vobiscum.") This trait survives in modern Romance languages (cf. French vous or Castilian Spanish vosotros).

That tu would be the Latin equivalent of the early modern English thou, or of the modern English singular you. Latin Vos, meanwhile, is the equivalent of the English you (plural in early modern English, and both singular and plural in modern English).

I'm not sure if this helps with anything, but there you go.

I have no idea why the English you would be considered irreverent, or necessarily plural. But never mind.
 
alexandermsmith said:
I do not address God with the plural and irreverent "you" and find it extremely offputting, to say the least, to read what is essentially a book length prayer using such an address. That is why I would prefer the older translation.
Click to expand...
In historic English, "you" is formal and "thou" is informal. "Thou" was disused when its informality became so extreme that it came to be perceived as perjorative. Take a look a Shakespeare. Insults with "thou" are common. Insults with "you" are absent. "Thou" was the form used for addressing God precisely because of its familiarity. This is something of a linguistic universal, and languages with a T-V distinction (tu-vous) consistently use the 'tu' form (informal) for the address of God. This is the case in Spanish, French, Russian, and German. Moreover, neither 'you' nor 'thou' is plural; 'ye' is the plural form of both (although it is true that 'you' is the accusative form of 'ye'). Your disgust is therefore very misguided.
 
Charles Johnson said:
This is something of a linguistic universal, and languages with a T-V distinction (tu-vous) consistently use the 'tu' form (informal) for the address of God. This is the case in Spanish
Click to expand...

While "tu" is much more common for God in Spanish, among some Chilean evangelicals and occasionally from another source you will hear God addressed as "Usted" -- which is formal for 2nd person singular.
 
Charles Johnson said:
In historic English, "you" is formal and "thou" is informal. "Thou" was disused when its informality became so extreme that it came to be perceived as perjorative. Take a look a Shakespeare. Insults with "thou" are common. Insults with "you" are absent. "Thou" was the form used for addressing God precisely because of its familiarity. This is something of a linguistic universal, and languages with a T-V distinction (tu-vous) consistently use the 'tu' form (informal) for the address of God. This is the case in Spanish, French, Russian, and German. Moreover, neither 'you' nor 'thou' is plural; 'ye' is the plural form of both (although it is true that 'you' is the accusative form of 'ye'). Your disgust is therefore very misguided.
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top