Loading...Since I often get asked about topics I’ve written about, I have been doing a long thread discussing the various books I’ve published. For the next several posts I’ll talk about my edition of the “Apostolic Fathers Volume 1” and “Apostolic Fathers Volume 2” for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press, 2003). The “Loeb” series provide bi-lingual editions of ancient Greek and Latin writings. “Bi-lingual” means that the original (Greek or Latin) text of the writing is on one side of the page with an English translation on the other side. These are designed for students and scholars who know the ancient languages at least to some extent, as a way of helping them study the texts even if their knowledge of the languages is not as good as it could be (when is it ever?).
So these volumes are probably not for most blog readers! But the General Introduction I provided to the two volumes is reasonably accessible and explains what these writings are, where they came from, and why they are important. So I thought I’d give an excerpt here, for those interested! They are indeed interesting writings, and regrettably not as widely known among general readers as they should be!
This is the first part of my Introduction, to give you a sense. As you’ll see, it goes at the topic at a deeper level than most blog posts — for good or ill, depending on your predilection!
******************************
The Apostolic Fathers: General Introduction
The Apostolic Fathers represent a disparate collection of early Christian writings whose authors were traditionally believed to have been followers or companions of the apostles of Jesus, and who were thought, then, to have produced their works soon after the books of the New Testament were completed. These historical judgments are no longer widely held, but the collection continues to serve a valuable purpose in providing the earliest non-canonical writings of authors who were forebears of what was to become, some centuries after their day, Christian orthodoxy. Even so, the utility and contents of the collection continue to be matters of debate among scholars of Christian antiquity.
The term “apostolic father” first occurs in the Hogedos of Anastasius, the seventh-century anti-monophysite abbot of St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai,[1] who spoke of the writings of the apostolic father Dionysius of Areopagite.. Somewhat ironically, the works of this Dionysius the Areopagite, allegedly the convert of the apostle Paul (Acts 17:34), have never been included in modern collections of the Apostolic Fathers: since the sixteenth century they have been recognized as forgeries of later times (possibly the early sixth century). In any event, neither Anastasius nor any other author prior to the seventeenth century referred to an entire corpus of writings (or authors) as the “Apostolic Fathers.”
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you so much for all the knowledge you put out over the internet for everyone.
Been reading 1 Clement this month. Looks like to me, Clement is combining Isaiah 6:3, Daniel 7:10, Revelation 4:8, and Luke 6:5 Lord of Sabbath. Clement is possibly creating a prophecy with the overall context of Isaiah 6 and Daniel 7 that a second destruction of Jerusalem would be the fulfillment and end of it all. Hmm.
1Clem 34:6
For the scripture saith, Ten thousands of ten thousands stood by
Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him (Daniel 7:10)
and they cried
aloud, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is
full of His glory (Isaiah 6:3, Revelation 4:8, Luke 6)
1Clem 37:1
Let us therefore enlist ourselves, brethren, with all earnestness in
His faultless ordinances.
Does 1 Clement 37 suggest that the 1st century Christians were literally preparing to fight a messiah war? I think so, yes.
I don’t see him telling people to arm themselves, so it seems unlikelyto me.
Contemplating if those of the “sedition” that 1 Clement is writing about ended up leaving the church anyways and traveled south to Jerusalem to cause trouble there slightly before or during the Jewish Roman Wars.
A thought has just sprung to mind: is it possible that some of the forgeries you identify were created, like many modern forgeries of art, not for theological reasons but to make money? In ancient times was there a market for books purporting to be by apostles or Church fathers?
Some forgeries in antiquity were definitely to make money, but only in contexts where libraries or book stores were buying/selling books. That didn’t happen with the early Christian writings I deal with.
I have heard it said that the first time all 4 canonical gospels were named was Irenaeus c. 180AD, and before that Papias (c. 150) talks of Mark, Matthew, and the gospel of the Hebrews.
But do the earliest apostolic fathers (before 100AD, say) quote from the gospels? And are these quotes, clearly canonical, or are they different enough to be apparently a variant text, or even a non-canonical text?
If they don’t quote on this way, is that an indication that the notion of ‘scripture’ we subsequently inherited didn’t come from them?
Yes, the Gospels especially of Matthew and Luke are quoted by church fathers up to 150, and after that all four are quoted (say, by Justin martyr), but they are never named. And when Papias mentions these three Gospels we don’t know if he had the Gospels that *we* call Matthew/Mark/Hebrews.
Question about the dating of 1 Clement. I have a textbook written by Joseph B. Tyson, The New Testament and Early Christianity, IBSN 0-02-421890-1. On page 422 it says “The external witnesses tend to date 1 Clement to c. 95. The internal evidence confirms that date.”
However, I disagree with the textbook because this chapter suggests the Second Temple still exists, and the Second Temple was destroyed in 70AD.
1Clem 41:2
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the
court of the altar; and this too through the high priest and the afore
said ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath been
inspected for blemishes.
I think 95 is pretty secure; I lay out the reasons in my Introduction to 1 Clement in my edition in the Loeb Classical Library. It turns out that numerous sources (including rabbinic sources centuries later) speak of the temple as if still functioning. That’s because they are not talking about current events but about passages of Scripture.
If these were available in Kindle format, I’d buy them in a heartbeat!
Dr. Ehrman,
I picked up your 2-volume Apostolic Fathers a couple months ago and have been reading it recently. I had been using Michael Holmes’s edition for years and like it very much. I think your edition is just as good. Seeing the English next to the Greek makes it clear that you are a gifted translator. I will be using your edition going forward. Thank you for this top-tier work.
I have a question. I noticed in Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians that he instructed his readers to remind themselves of the letters (plural) that Paul had written. To me, this proves that Paul wrote multiple letters to the Philippian church. Do think our current version of Philippians contains portions of most or all of those letters, or do you think we have only one letter and the rest are lost? Do you think Paul wrote only a few more letters than we have in the NT (say, a dozen or so more), or do you think he wrote tons more letters and almost all have been lost?
Thanks. Mike and I go way back — we were Metzger’s final two graduate students.
Yes, I think Paul worte multiple letters probalby to all of his churches. I do think that our Philippians has portoins of two of his letters to them, and I don’t think it’s possible to know how long each of the originals was.
I’d guess Paul wrote two or more times a year to his various churches. Since his ministry lasted 30 years — do the math! Must’ve been a ton of letters. Of which we have … seven!
Thanks for the reply. It’s fascinating to think that Paul might have written so many letters, but it’s equally baffling that only seven have survived. Why do you think the churches only copied (and thus preserved) so few? I know we can only speculate here. Was it because they were not yet considered to be inspired Scripture, so there was less motivation to keep them? Did those early Pauline churches turn on him for some reason, and so lots of churches ended up discarding most of his letters? There does seem to be turmoil in some of Paul’s churches according to the Apostolic Fathers. How do you make sense of why we have only seven surviving letters?
My sense is they didn’t realize they would be of historical significance: they were letters someone had sent them, and as with most letters (think: email) they simply weren’t kept. If they had known there might later be a New Testament and that Paul would be considered one of the most important figures in the history of hte west, they probably woud have held on to them….