Customer Reviews

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"The study of the Church Fathers is central to an understanding of and appreciation for the history and content of Orthodox Christianity. ... It was these that produced the Scriptures, the formulations of the Councils,..." An Introduction to Patristics, Monachos.Net



Ancient study of scripture:
The study of the scripture with the company of early church fathers, is a great project, invigorating patristic hopes, that Nottingham's patrologist Dr. George Bebawi has proposed to translate the series into Arabic for the benefit of Christian readers in the Middle East. Chris. Hall, the coeditor of "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" has written a pleasant and useful introduction to the Commentary series and to patristic studies of scripture, in general, targeted for the curious American reader. He discusses in a logical sequence expected queries of the postmodern western mind, "why pursue an abandoned Eastern Church tradition, when they no more read the scripture, let alone studying it?" Hall uses here the authority of Robert Wilken and Thomas Oden's own journey home to the Fathers through PaleoOrthodoxy, to prove his case to patrology seekers. The desert fathers, says Burton-Christie, needed only scripture to sustain their spiritual life.

Fathers of the Church:
The Church Fathers are; "Ecclesiastical leaders and teachers who are accepted as authorities in matters of doctrine. In the early Church, Orthodoxy was determined by the so-called consensus patrum that showed general agreement among a set of Christian leaders distinguished by purity of faith, holiness of life, approval of the church, and antiquity." Nelson's New Christian Dictionary
None of first and second century fathers could make it to Hall's list of Church Fathers, neither Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Justin, Irenaeus, nor Polycarp. The master of all exegetes, Origen (6000 works) was covered only as representative of the Alexandrine school, and Dionysius the Great, pioneer of textual & redaction criticism was totally ignored.

Reading with the 'Doctors':
When evangelical biblical scholars discovered that their exegetical memory was far from adequate, they searched to confirm what the experts of Vatican II have learned about ancient Church leading figures; and their masterful command of Scriptural sense. In his 'Theology Reader,' Alister McGrath edited writings within a proposed study panel on interpretation of scripture (panel 5) that included: Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, and Bernard of Clairvaux, latest of the Fathers. Hall is also reading the scripture with the eight church teachers, including a sampler of their contributions to the early Church biblical thought, and Hermeneutical views. He also presents a birds eye view of the patristic thought on: allegory in the scripture, Christology, development of scripture, prayer, etc. He treated fairly well the basic church exegetical traditions in Alexandrian allegory and the Antiochene sticking to historical facts and moral interpreting methodology.

Father's Comparative deductions:
"When we trace the development of patristic literature we discover something of how the intellectuals thought," says RPC Hanson, who in his 'Introduction: Historical Theology,' reminded us of the fact that, "The Fathers placed the Bible in the context of the Christian life"
Dr. Hall seems to have intentionally avoided a systematic and extensive discussion of biblical exegesis, in favor of introducing the novice reader to a group of patristic figures defined by the Roman Church canons, as Doctors of the Church.
Even if recognized as exemplary in their approach to interpret the Bible devotionally, ecclesiastically, and morally (Chrysostom), works of great Biblical interpreters, including Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote the best on the Gospel of Luke, and Doctor of the Catholic Church, and Cyril of Jerusalem was left out.
While Dr. C. Hall gave enhancing applications, he could have elaborated on comparing Golden mouth with the brilliant reading of Gregory on priesthood, as masterfully exposed by Dr. Yanney, the founder of the first patristic review in North America; "Priesthood between St. Gregory and St. Chrysostom, Coptic Church Review, vol. 20, No. 4.
Dr. Chris Hall decided honestly that the meager exegetical crop of early Christian 'mothers' does not sustain the anti chauvinist title of "church mothers"

What do Patrologists say?
Dr. Chris Hall was reluctant to mention any of the contemporary masters of patristic studies: Bettenson, Sebastian Brock, H. Chadwick, Crouzel, Daniellou, De Lubac, or Hanson, let alone Sidney Griffith. Borrowing Fr. Griffith words, "One does not mean to complain immoderately, nor to appear ungrateful for what is on its own term a good study of a timely and an important topic; nor does one want to review a book the author never intended to write," adding there is room to expand this good introductory study. The best defense in favor for patristic studies is its overwhelming influence in restoring the Roman Church to Catholic originals by the above 'Nouvelle theologie' through the writings of the Church Fathers. I hope when he edits his reader friendly essay, that he may not overlook the recent monumental work by Charles Kannengiesser; "Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity", April 2004

A Qualified Book Review:
"Few observers would contest that the exegesis of the Bible has now fully entered a postcritical moment. The rules of the venerable historical-critical method no longer reign supreme, even in the academy. Readers lay and scholarly recognize that the text of the Scriptures is polyvalent and multicontextual, and that communities of readers to some extent determine its meaning." Robin D.Young

This is a good book for getting people interested in the church fathers. I recommend it for that purpose. Beyond that, it comes across as a bit shallow. The major theme of the book is the controversy between allegorical and non-allegorical interpretation of Scripture. In a book written by Protestants to Protestants we expect the non-allegorical camp to win, but the reasons for this are not really thought through in the book. Do Origen's allegorical hemeneutics eventually lead to contradictions? The danger of this is acknowledged, but there are no examples given. This and similar inadequacies of the exposition make this a frustrating book. I am encouraged, however, to seek out the primary literature to find out for myself, however.

Great book that was a welcome addition to my library. I feel that the author gave a strong review, explanation, and context for the selected church fathers that were covered. After reading the book, I came away with a deeper understanding of the fathers, the early church, and some of the stuggles that the church is going through now.

I very seldom believe that a book is a "must read," but this is one of those times. Over the past year-and-a-half I have been examining the Orthodox Faith. Coming from the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (Restoration or Stone-Campbell Movement), I was well-versed in Alexander Campbell's writings. The Church Fathers were looked at only to reinforce the Movement's views. Even any writer between Luther and Campbell was suspect.

This book helps to set right the overlooked Church Fathers. Mr. Hall helps open the doors in a very readable way for Protestants. With the strong basics he presents, the reader will be drawn to further study. I wish that I had used this book first in my studies on Orthodoxy.

The interest that Protestant theologians are showing to the church fathers is fascinating. It is an area they have struggled with in that it so often challenges the presupposition of sola scriptura and the authority of the church. It is good that they are exploring now this great well of faith so often overlooked. Dr. Hall's work will go far to providing the foundation these studies will require. He explains the fathers through biographical sketches of 8 ancient doctors of the church and with an overview of the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of hermeneutics. In the end his comments on what we can learn and apply from that background is thorough and good information. Key points are that the fathers knew the interpretation and teaching of scripture had to be done within the context of the church tradition/community and with the mind set on allowing scripture to work in the interpreter's heart. Without that context, we can never hope to plumb the depths of the scripture. The fathers knew and applied those ground rules in a way that seems foreign to our modern minds. But, Dr. Hall argues, those ground rules are essential and we do well to seek out the advice of the early fathers in light of their understanding of those concepts.

Very highly recommended. Perhaps a subtle Protestant bias comes through in the discussion of the context of sacred tradition as a guide in interpretation but otherwise an honest, informative, and entertaining introduction to the interpretive presuppositions of the church fathers.

Christopher A. Hall has written a interesting introduction to the church fathers which is exactly what I was seeking. I can recommend this to anyone since it is easy to read, concise and well written. It is my first reading on the church fathers and am continuing with Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. I just hope he continues the series with the planned, "Praying with the Church Fathers."

Hall does a fine job of touching on the some of the most salient points of patristic interpretation. It would do well as a secondary source for a Biblical Theology course, as he provides a great bibliography and direction for thinking about each of the fathers he covers.
One critique: Too much weight is given to the notion that Post-modernism is EVERYONE'S problem when it comes to understanding the Biblical text. Some of us got over that a long time ago, or never had the problem to begin with.
One thing lacking: direct examples of "how" the fathers did exegesis, the process of interpretation. This would be helpful for a furthering a sound Biblical method of hermeneutics based on their work. Otherwise, a great read.

I interviewed Hall on this book. He has done a terrific job in showcasing the insight, brilliance, and edification of the Church Fathers. A very good introduction to the whole series InterVarsity published.

I thought this book offers a good start to reading the church fathers with a biblical view. it a good place to start. it dealt with some deeper issues, but really covered the depth of the fathers.

I bought this book after attending the Oxford Patristics Conference. There I became very aware that the study of the Church Fathers was something that many Christians were interested in, but also that was being used as a tool for proselytism by Catholic and Orthodox people. It was at Oxford in the 1800's that the young evangelical-raised John Henry Newman started reading the Fathers, and as a result started the Oxford Movement and ended up a Roman Catholic Cardinal.

The Fathers could not easily argue from the authority of the newly composed New Testament against the earliest heretics, who were not above forging "gospels" in the names of one or the other of the apostles. Tertullian in De Praescriptione Haereticorum 8 warns that trying to do so will merely give the Christian a headache, as the heretic trickily ducks the issues and plays games with words. Instead they relied on the visible connection of each church with its founding apostle, a dangerous game which was to have unfortunate consequences in the medieval period. Of course today we cannot do the latter; and the authority of the NT is far greater.

The use of the tradition of the church was abused in the medieval church and led to endless additions to the Christian faith, based on the principle that "the Holy Spirit" speaks through the church and the fathers as well as the bible. The end result of this was a faith that was utterly unbiblical, and indeed anti-biblical. The burning of John Huss at the Council of Constance for seeking to return to the bible, after he was lured to attend under a false promise of safety. Martin Luther stated that among the teachings of Huss condemned at that council were teachings which were biblical and apostolic. The Fathers and Councils were men, fallible men, who could and did err. This observation, which was particularly obvious in 1520 in the aftermath of the Borgia Pope and a Papal Rome filled with brothels, is one of the founding pieces of the protest of the evangelicals, of the return to the bible of that period.

There is no reason why Christians should not see what other Christians have had to say about the bible, however. The early Fathers, living as they did in the ancient world, often have interesting insights to make into the meaning of the biblical text. Not infrequently their explanation is wrong! So it is with us all. But the fact that they thought so is often itself interesting and revealing, and explains a way of looking at the text that might otherwise pass us by.

There is, therefore, a real need for a guide to reading the Fathers for modern Christians, and particularly to help us locate useful and interesting material from them. That guide needs to warn against the tendency to medieval thinking.

So what does Dr. Hall have to say to all this? Not much.

Before we criticise a book, we must always ask who the intended audience is. This book is from IVP, so you would naturally presume that it was directed to Christians. But this does not seem to be the case. It seems to be directed to people studying theology for a degree at some semi-liberal institution. Few of us would be foolish enough to do such a course; and the book, in consequence, is nearly useless for the purposes mentioned earlier.

The first chapter is "why read the Fathers?" I have above indicated a few reasons. But Dr. Hall instead starts talking about the opinions of Robert Wilken and RC theologican David Tracy, as if most people will know either. The chapter gave me nothing that I could use.

The next chapter was worse: "the modern mind and biblical interpretation". I have no idea what this is doing in a book of this title at all, I'm afraid. Much of it was taken up with the journey of a liberal theologian who eventually worked out that the poisonous 60's hedonism might not be such a good idea, but seems to have discovered patristics rather than Jesus as a response. It is not my purpose to critique such a journey; but few of us will be interested in it.

The third chapter finally broke my patience. It is entitled "who are the fathers?" After five lines of nothing, we are confronted with "What of the 'mothers' of the church?" That piece of anachronistic political correctness ended my interest in struggling through this book.

I suppose it is possible that there is something useful in this book, although for whom I do not know. But I would avoid it.

Why read the Fathers? Firstly, they sometimes have interesting things to say about the bible, about how it came into being, about early heresies and how people go off the rails. Secondly they lived in the ancient world itself, and anyone who is a Christian and interested in the ancient world will find all sorts of useful snippets in fellow-Christians who lived there. It's like being able to read something written by someone living in Middle-Earth, who was a Christian, if you like! Thirdly, if you know your way around the patristic literature, you can avoid being deceived by a great deal of twaddle about early Christianity. On the other hand, most patristic literature is really boring. So you have to know what exists, and how to search it, and not get led astray by ideas that were harmless in embryo but had evil consequences 5 centuries later.

There is still a need for a book on this subject that someone educated, interested in history, but not a specialist, can read and enjoy.