Philip Schaff

[Fogetaboutit]

I know many people on this board like Philip Schaff and often refer to his work on Church history. Does it bother anybody that he had an audience with Pope Gregory XVI and kissed his feet (The Life of Philip Schaff p.53).

I haven't done extensive research on him and I don't want to falsly accuse him, but I'm I missing something? I know there are other posts on PB who questioned his orthodoxy but this to me was shocking.

 

[Wayne]

A fuller exposition of Schaf's shortcomings can be found here:

Antidote to the poison of popery in the writings and conduct of Professors Nevin & Schaff, professors in the German Reformed Church in the U. S. of America : Janeway, J. J. (Jacob Jones), 1774-1858 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Rev. J.J. Janeway actually wrote several critiques of both Schaf and Nevin.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

A fuller exposition of Schaf's shortcomings can be found here:

Antidote to the poison of popery in the writings and conduct of Professors Nevin & Schaff, professors in the German Reformed Church in the U. S. of America : Janeway, J. J. (Jacob Jones), 1774-1858 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Rev. J.J. Janeway actually wrote several critiques of both Schaf and Nevin.

thanks

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Having not read any of Schaff's material, how does his vue of church history differ from J.A. Wylie's for example. Does his papist inclination manifest itself in his interpretation of history?

 

[jwithnell]

It really depends on your context. Schaff, for church history, is like Perry Miller is for American Puritan history -- in academic circles you almost can't write or speak about the subject without including the citation. For your own interest or edification, you likely can find someone who is far more empathetic with a reformed perspective.

 

[Rufus]

I appreciate the fact that Schaff introduced (or reintroduced) a more traditional view on the Sacrament, and on other matters, while many Presbyterians/Reformed were starting to act like Baptists*.


*No offense to Baptists.

 

[CharlieJ]

To modern scholars, Schaff would have a Protestant bias, if any at all. Also, it's not bad to read Schaff, but he's really not considered scholarly standard anymore. You would almost certainly not read him in any top-tier academic program. Also, concerning his editions of the church fathers, most are in newer translations based on more critical texts. I use Schaff only when I can't find something more recent.