Catalogue of Major Series Translations of the Pre-Nicene Christian Writings

    The mid to late 19th century saw the release of the much celebrated Ante-Nicene Fathers series, which, by its conclusion, comprised nine densely packed volumes as well as a volume of indices, bibliography, etc. In retrospect it has its pros and cons, the former of which have merited its withstanding the test of time, and the latter of which have made necessary various other series of primary patristic source material. I’ll briefly review these points before moving on to what the more recent series have to offer.

    Pros: The ANF translations are fairly literal and reliable. These translations are readily available to all both in print under various different publishers over the years and online with full transcripts on multiple separate websites (viz., Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Early Christian Writings, and New Advent). No other series to date has even come close to being as comprehensive as the ANF; indeed, even all of the combined volumes of the series catalogued below still do not include a considerable amount of what we find here.

    Cons: The ANF translations, aside from being in 19th century English as noted above, were furthermore directed to an academic audience and consequently its language isn’t as accessible to many 21st century laity as what we find in the later series. Some of the scholarly commentary in the footnotes and elucidations is now quite dated, the most notable of which being writings presented as genuine but subsequently being determined by patristic scholars as in fact being spurious. An example of this last point would be the Oration on Simeon and Anna, falsely attributed to Methodius, and thusly rejected: “Certainly Spurious works: (a) De Simeone et Anna (P[atrologia]G[raeca] 18.347-82), a sermon which may be as late as the ninth century.”1 Likewise the Declaration of Faith falsely attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus: “the Exposition of Faith is certainly inauthentic in its last part, which belongs to the trinitarian debate in the 2nd half of the 4th c[entury], and perhaps the whole work should be considered spurious.”2 Etc. Finally, many writings previously lost have been rediscovered since the close of the ANF series, which brings us to the offerings of the more recent series.

    The following series include many post-Nicene writings, but for the purposes of my own studies I have predominately limited my personal library to translations of the pre-Nicene Christian writings. Volume numbers listed in bold contain writings not to be found in the ANF.

    Popular Patristics

Volume 17: Irenaeus’ Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching.
Volume 20: Melito’s On Pascha.
Volume 22: Hippolytus’ On the Apostolic Tradition.
Volume 29: Tertullian’s On Prayer, Cyprian’s On the Lord’s Prayer, and Origen’s On Prayer (the writing of Origen being absent from the ANF).
Volume 32: Cyprian’s To Donatus, To Demetrian, The Fallen, and The Unity of the Catholic Church.
Volume 33: Selected letters of Cyprian (viz., 8, 13, 15-16, 21-24, 27, 33, 38-39, 43, 55, 59, 63, 72-73, 75, 80-81).*

Volume 41: The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, and Apostolic Church Order.

Volume 49: Ignatius’ letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and Polycarp. (Also contains the writings pseudonymously attributed to Ignatius.)
Volume 54: Hippolytus’ On the Apostolic Tradition. (Second edition.)
Volume 55: Melito’s On Pascha. (Second edition.)

    Ancient Christian Writers

Volume 1: Clement of Rome’s First Clement and Ignatius' letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and Polycarp.
Volume 6: The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, the Martyrdom of Polycarp and his epistle to the Philippians, the fragments of Papias’ lost writings, and Epistle to Diognetus.
Volume 7: Arnobius’ Case Against the Pagans, books 1-3.
Volume 8: Arnobius’ Case Against the Pagans, books 4-7.
Volume 13: Tertullian’s To His Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, and On Monogamy.
Volume 16: Irenaeus’ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.
Volume 19: Origen’s On Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom.
Volume 23: Athenagoras’ Embassy for the Christians and The Resurrection of the Dead.
Volume 24: Tertullian’s Treatise Against Hermogenes.
Volume 25: Cyprian’s The Lapsed and The Unity of the Catholic Church.
Volume 26: Origen’s Commentary on The Song of Songs and Homilies on The Song of Songs.
Volume 27: Methodius’ Symposium.
Volume 28: Tertullian’s On Penitence and On Purity.
Volume 39: Marcus Minucius Felix’s Octavius.
Volume 43: Letters of Cyprian, 1-27.*
Volume 44: Letters of Cyprian, 28-54.*
Volume 46: Letters of Cyprian, 55-66.*
Volume 47: Letters of Cyprian, 67-82.*
Volume 54: Origen’s Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue with Heraclides.
Volume 55: Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, book 1.
Volume 56: Justin Martyr’s First Apology and Second Apology.
Volume 62: Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel, books 1-14.
Volume 64: Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, book 3.
Volume 65: Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, book 2.
Volume 68: Origen’s Homilies on Isaiah, books 1-9.

Volume 72: Irenaeus’ Against the Heresies, books 4-5.

Volume 78: Cyprian’s To Demetrius and On Mortality.

    Fathers of the Church

Volume 1: Clement of Rome’s First Clement, the anonymously composed Second Clement, The Didache, Mathetes to Diognetus, Ignatius' letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and Polycarp, the Martyrdom of Polycarp and his epistle to the Philippians, the fragments of Papias’ lost books, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Letter of Barnabas.
Volume 6: Justin Martyr’s First Apology, Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, and the Pseudo-Justinian Discourse to the Greeks, Exhortation to the Greeks, and Monarchy of God.
Volume 10: Minucius Felix’s Octavius, and Tertullian’s Apology, To Scapula, On the Soul, and Testimony of the Soul.
Volume 19: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, books 1-5.
Volume 23: Clement of Alexandria’s Christ the Educator.
Volume 29: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, books 6-10.
Volume 36: Cyprian’s To Demetrian, To Donatus, The Dress of Virgins, Exhortation to Martyrdom to Fortunatus, The Good of Patience, That Idols Are Not Gods, Jealousy and Envy, The Lapsed, The Lord’s Prayer, Mortality, Unity of the Church, and Works and Almsgiving.
Volume 40: Tertullian’s Apparel of Women, The Chaplet, Flight in Time of Persecution, To the Martyrs, On Patience, On Prayer, and Spectacles.
Volume 49: Lactantius’ Divine Institutes.
Volume 51: Letters of Cyprian, 1-81.*
Volume 54: Lactantius’ Deaths of the Persecutors, The Phoenix, The Workmanship of God, and The Wrath of God.
Volume 67: Novatian’s Jewish Foods, letters, In Praise of Purity, The Spectacles, and The Trinity.
Volume 71: Origen’s Homilies on Exodus and Homilies on Genesis.
Volume 80: Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, books 1-10.
Volume 83: Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus.
Volume 85: Clement of Alexandria’s Stromatas, books 1-3 (book 3 being left untranslated in the ANF).
Volume 89: Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, books 13-32.
Volume 94: Origen’s Homilies on Luke.
Volume 97: Origen’s Homilies on Jeremiah and Homily on 1 Kings 28.
Volume 98: Gregory Thaumaturgus’ Address of Thanksgiving to Origen, Metaphrase on the Ecclesiastes of Solomon, Canonical Epistle, To Theopompus on the Impassibility and Passibility of God, and To Philagrius on Consubstantiality.
Volume 103: Origen’s Commentary on Romans, books 1-5.
Volume 104: Origen’s Commentary on Romans, books 6-10.
Volume 105: Origen’s Homilies on Joshua.
Volume 119: Origen’s Homilies on Judges.
Volume 120: Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen.

Volume 141: Origen’s Homilies on Psalms [15,36,67,73-77,80-81].

Volume 142: Origen’s Homilies on Isaiah.

Volume 146: Origen’s Homilies on Psalms [36-38].

    Oxford Early Christian Texts

Volume 1: Tatian’s Address to the Greeks.
Volume 11: Justin Martyr’s First Apology and Second Apology.
Volume 27: Origen’s On First Principles, books 1-2a.
Volume 28: Origen’s On First Principles, books 2b-4.
Volume 30: Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, books 10-17 (from the Greek; books 15-17 being lacking in the ANF).
Volume 31: Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, books 12-17 (from the Latin; books 15-17 being lacking in the ANF).

Volume 33: Origen’s On First Principles (Reader’s Edition).

Volume 36: Papias’ Exposition of Dominical Oracles (fragments).

Volume 40: The Philocalia of Origen.

    Oxford Early Christian Studies

Volume 11: Origen’s Commentary on Ephesians.

    Ancient Christian Texts

Volume 3: Origen’s Homilies on Numbers.

    Footnotes

1 Herbert Musurillo, Ancient Christian Writers 27:10

2 Manlio Simonetti, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2:188

* Note: The Cyprianic letters (i.e., his various correspondences with other church leaders, as opposed to his treatises) are far too numerous to name here individually, and have therefore been substituted by their numeric designations; said designations being harmonious between the more recent translations but differing to the numbering found in the ANF.

Calvinist Abuse of the Church Fathers to Eisegete their Soteriology into Church History

     When faced with the veritable nonexistence of their soteriology within the first few hundred years of Christendom, Calvinists I’ve had exchanges with have frequently taken to google searches in an effort to justify the historicity of their faith tradition. There are a number of websites that reproduce the same couple of sources which quote-mine the Fathers, such as A Puritan’s Mind (https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/). It can systematically be proven that each and every citation from the pre-Nicene Christians on such websites are brutal misrepresentations that have been taken out of context or even misquoted, and that is precisely why partial references, incorrect references, or even no references at all are given. Here’s a particularly egregious example to demonstrate the point, from the misquotation of Origen given under Total Depravity:

    “Our free will . . . or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner.”

    Now here’s the context of the latter portion from a Protestant translation:

    “For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no way able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him without the help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those who, after doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they need help from Him”1

    And so we see that far from teaching mongerism, Origen is instead teaching synergism here, and we see Origen reiterate this point in another of his writings:

    “For when we have done all that is within our power, God will make up whatever is lacking through our human weakness as he works together with those who love him for good in all things [Romans 8:28]”2

    And from earlier in the same writing, with an explanation of the relation of God’s foreknowledge to His predestination:

    “If, then, our free will is preserved, its future, with its numerous inclinations to virtue or to vice or toward what is fitting or toward what is improper, must, like other things, be known to God from the creation and foundation of the world. And in all that God prearranges in accordance with what he has seen with regard to each act of our free will it has been prearranged that what is fitting to each action under free will be met from his providence and in accordance with the succession of things to come. Yet the foreknowledge of God is not the cause of all things that are to come about, and of all the actions that are to be performed out of our desire and in our free will.”3

    And in case there’s still any lingering doubt that Origen taught synergism and libertarian free-will, this will end the matter:

    “Observe however how the prophet has said: ‘And now Israel, what does the Lord your God demand of you?’ [Deuteronomy 10:12] These words are an embarrassment to those who deny that human free-will plays a part in salvation. For how could God make demands from humanity, unless man had something in his power that ought to be offered to God, who is demanding it? So then, there are things that are given by God, and there are things that are offered by man.”4

    And far from being unique to Origen, all of the pre-Nicene Christians universally believed in the same libertarian free-will and synergism, deceitful efforts to misquote and misrepresent them not withstanding. After giving this presentation some Calvinists insist that with the sheer number of instances in which the Fathers have been cherry-picked that some must surely reflect their soteriology, and yet when I offer to let them select any one other instance on these websites which they feel to cogently make their point so that I can refute the efforts to abuse it, I’ve yet to have anyone take me up on the challenge. No, the Apostolic Tradition which was once for all delivered to the saints makes clear how the Apostles intended the Scriptures to be understood on these matters, as per the universal teaching of the pre-Nicene Church.

Footnotes

1 Origen, Against Celsus 7:42, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:629

2 Origen, On Prayer 29:19, in Popular Patristics 29:204

3 Origen, On Prayer 6:3, in Popular Patristics 29:126

4 Origen, Homilies on Numbers 12:3:2, in Ancient Christian Texts 3:67-68

The Early Roman Church's Polyepiscopate unto the Third Century

    The central truth-claim of the Roman Catholic Church is that it is a continuation of the primitive Church of the New Testament on account of its geographical right to authority as exclusively possessing the keys of the Apostle Peter passed down from one bishop to the next in an unbroken line of succession to the Pope today. Among various issues with this claim is that the consensus of patristic scholars generally agrees that early Rome, like many other Christian communities, originally had a polyepiscopate with no centralized authority:

    “The first witness to monepiscopacy (only one bishop at the head of each local church) is found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. . . . Ignatius’s reference to himself as ‘bishop of Syria’ (Rom. 2.2) probably means ‘from Syria,’ or it may be an indication that Antioch was the only church in Syria that had evolved a single bishop in his time. That monepiscopacy was a recent development is indicated by the tradition that he had only one predecessor at Antioch (Eusebius, H.E. 3.22). Furthermore, Ignatius may provide negative support for the evidence of Clement and Hermas (Vis. 2.4f.; 3.5.1) that monepiscopacy came somewhat later to Rome, for his letter to Rome makes no mention of church order, which is such a preoccupation of his other letters.”1     Nor should this scholar's status as a member of the Church of Christ be thought to have colored his perception of the matter; even modern Roman Catholic patristic scholars are inclined to agree on these points, and this despite the counterpoint of Roman Catholic apologists who appeal to the earliest bishop lists as indicative of a monepiscopate in early Rome:

    “At the time of the composition of the text titled Prima Clementis (i.e., the First Epistle of Clement—ca. 96), the communities of Rome and Corinth were directed by a college of presbyters, who were likewise called ‘bishops’ . . . .     “Birth of the monarchical episcopate. In the 2nd c[entury], the collegial form of government was disappearing; this phenomenon did not appear suddenly or simultaneously in every place. The type of organization that prevailed in the 2nd half of the 2nd c[entury] consisted of a community governed by one sole bishop, who was assisted by presbyters and helped by deacons. One of the first testimonies to the monarchial episcopate and the hierarchical gradation between bishops, presbyters and deacons are the letters of Ignatius of Antioch . . . The chronological list of bishops of Rome presented by Irenaeus of Lyons (Adv. haer. 3,3,3) around the year 185 is significant. Irenaeus traces the list of Roman bishops back to Linus, who was ordained as a bishop by the apostles Peter and Paul; the names that Irenaeus lists from Linus to Anicetus must correspond to noteworthy individuals of the presbyterial college that governed the Roman church in those years. The objective of this list was to demonstrate the authentic origin and the faithful transmission of the apostolic preaching in the church . . . .     “Strengthening of the monarchical episcopate. This institution reached its full formalization in the 3rd c[entury], as one learns from the Traditio Apostolica (Apostolic Tradition—ca. 215)”2

    This last point regarding the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus warrants deeper investigation. While many patristic scholars have previously hypothesized that Rome made the shift to a monepiscopate in the mid to late 2nd century, the theory alluded to here is that this didn't actually transpire until the early 3rd century. One of today's leading Hippolytean scholars elucidates on the current dialogue with his peers thusly:

    “The reconstruction of the growth of a monepiscopate at Rome has recently been undertaken by [Allen] Brent and [G. W. H.] Lampe; both chart a path within Roman Christianity which originates with a series of diverse Christian communities and ends with the unification of the Roman church under a single bishop, although they differ with regard to the date to be assigned to the final establishment of a monepiscopate. The reconstruction of Brent is of particular interest, as he correlates his reconstruction to the ordination rites to be found in Apostolic Tradition, which is for him a ‘crown witness’ in reconstructing the social setting and the history of the Hippolytean community. . . .     “That the origin of Christianity at Rome lay in a series of entirely independent communities is clear from the various greetings to different households to be found in Paul’s letter to the Roman churches. A similar picture of diversity is to be found in the frequent references which both Hermas and Clement make to the leaders of the church, and the constant appeals which Hermas makes that there should be unity among these leaders. The use of the plural, and the diversity of terms employed by both writers to refer to the leaders of the churches, indicate not only a variety of churches but a variety of understandings of the nature of office. Continued diversity is shown in the references made by Justin [Martyr] to the variety of different Christian communities to be found throughout the city, and in the diverse approaches to the keeping of Pascha at the time of Victor (on which see below). Roman Christianity thus consisted of a number of self-governed churches. Because the churches were self-governing individual communities, there was no single bishop with responsibility for a number of churches, but each church would have its own leader, probably known as an episkopos, a word generally translated as ‘bishop.’ . . .     “Brent suggests, the monepoiscopate at Rome cannot be said to be established until the time of Pontianus who, according to the Liberian catalogue, was martyred alongside Hippolytus, a presbyter, in 235. Brent points out that Pontianus is the first bishop in the Liberian catalogue whose dates are accurately given rather than simply being dated by consular years, which for him is decisive evidence in the settlement of a monepiscopate at Rome, and the common exile and martyrdom of these two figures, as well as the record of Hippolytus as a presbyter alongside the bishop Pontianus, is to be taken as evidence of reconciliation between the Hippolytean community and the wider Roman church under a single bishop. . . .     “If Brent's reconstruction is correct, then the dispute between the author of the Refutation and Callistus is to be understood as a dispute between two principal leaders, both bishops, in Roman congregations, and in no way a formal schism, which is the way in which it has been understood in the past. This has obvious consequence for any historian attempting to trace a life of Hippolytus or the life of the Hippolytean community. Thus Apostolic Tradition was dated by Dix with reference to this schism; indeed much of Dix's introduction is concerned to trace the schism between Hippolytus and the Roman church, to which we must reply that not only is the dating dependent on a schism which did not occur, but that such a schism could not have taken place because there was no single Roman bishop at this time from which 'Hippolytus' might secede. As [D. L.] Powell points out, there is nothing in the Refutation which points to a formal schism and, during the Novatian schism, which occurred in the third century, there is no reference to any precedent.     “What we can say positively is that the Hippolytean community at the time of Callistus was particularly opposed to the growth of monepiscopacy, and that this opposition is given voice in the Refutation. . . . According to this reconstruction, however, the author of the Refutation cannot be the same Hippolytus who was exiled alongside Pontianus. The former considered himself a bishop among others, the latter was a presbyter in communion with a single bishop in the city.”3

Footnotes

1: Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pp. 182-183

2: Albert Viciano, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1:361-362

3: Alistair Stewart, Popular Patristics 54:16-20