praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Relative to church history, what methodology do you use to try and identify a reputable source?
If you've ever spent much time trying to study church history, you know that there are many competing sources for the narrative. I don't know the times I've been absolutely frustrated to learn that something I believed was actually nothing more than a "choice" made between competing narratives. I could give many different examples but I will use just one here.
Many "Church Fathers" wrote in Latin. Old Latin is a very difficult language to translate and carried over in various editions among the early church. Latin changed from around 100 BC to 300 AD to the point that Jerome began his quest to reproduce the Scriptures from Greek to Latin. I don't know the times that I've reviewed competing sources that just badly translated these Latin sources into to English. There are literally men out that do not mind lying about the words they chose to use in the translation process. They will literally fabricate an alternate English translation of the source in an attempt to establish their desired position. This not only happened in early church writings among "fathers"..... it also happened in various extant manuscript evidence relative to the Scriptures.
There was great falling away that took place after the death of the apostles. This is why we have so little information originating in the first century and even the second century. There are sources that claim connections to apostles but it is nothing more than a claim. No evidence exists to establish such.
So I must ask, how do we identify the proper source? Many of these original writings have not survived to compare.
If you've ever spent much time trying to study church history, you know that there are many competing sources for the narrative. I don't know the times I've been absolutely frustrated to learn that something I believed was actually nothing more than a "choice" made between competing narratives. I could give many different examples but I will use just one here.
Many "Church Fathers" wrote in Latin. Old Latin is a very difficult language to translate and carried over in various editions among the early church. Latin changed from around 100 BC to 300 AD to the point that Jerome began his quest to reproduce the Scriptures from Greek to Latin. I don't know the times that I've reviewed competing sources that just badly translated these Latin sources into to English. There are literally men out that do not mind lying about the words they chose to use in the translation process. They will literally fabricate an alternate English translation of the source in an attempt to establish their desired position. This not only happened in early church writings among "fathers"..... it also happened in various extant manuscript evidence relative to the Scriptures.
There was great falling away that took place after the death of the apostles. This is why we have so little information originating in the first century and even the second century. There are sources that claim connections to apostles but it is nothing more than a claim. No evidence exists to establish such.
So I must ask, how do we identify the proper source? Many of these original writings have not survived to compare.