Talk:Apostolic Fathers

message: Will the editor who continues reverting my changes without discussion and adding unreferenced information to the article please discuss the matter on here on the talk page before conducting additional edits or reverts.  Continuing to revert the text may lead to a violation of the Three Revert Rule.  Thanks for discussing the content here.  Dgf32 (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not revert your changes until we are able to have a proper discussion here.  However, I am going to proceed to Wikify the text you have added.  Please refer to Wikipedia:MoS for details on how to include internal links in text that you might add. Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Clement of Rome

message: I think it is rather odd to have a section titled Apostolic Fathers and thier works. The works, as the article states, are not by any of the recognised Fathers mentioned. I propose changing the page so that section 1 deals with the fathers themselves, possibly with a 1.4 stating that there are others unamed who wrote works that are considered to be of the same lwevel of worth (yes clunky I'll think about it). Then in section 3 split into 3.1 works by the fathers and 3.2 works used by the Fathers.
any comments anyone johnmark† 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The structure of the article is fine, however the content is biased in some places and utterly wrong and misleading in others. There is general consensus among historians over which authors wrote which texts. I will update the article.  The article's structure is fine, but the text is misleading. I'll work on improving it. Dgf32 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comment Johnmark. It's good to have a fresh perspective on things. This article recenter underwent a series of edits that introduced a very strong POV. Your comment also points out the the article contained many factual errors, which I would like to correct. The section of St. Clement of Rome formerly strongly implied that he was not the author of 1 Clement, when that is generally considered to be correct. However, 2 Clement almost certainly had another author and was traditionally ascribed to Clement. I have updated the article to fix these probles. I hope to go through the other Apostolic Fathers and make corrections as needed. Dgf32 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown Church fathers 

message: Here's a misleading sentence with a reference. Since it has a reference, I can't change it change it unilaterally, because for all I know this is exactly what the reference says: "Tradition identifies the author as St. Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, and scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the letter's authenticity.[4]." Technically this is a true statement, but it gives the impression that scholars overwhelmingly accept that Clement was Pope #4. They don't. Does anyone have this reference to check? We already had a long discussion on Clement as Pope #4 on the Clement page. Can we just cut this sentence, since we can't edit it without the source? Leadwind (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clement, the 4th pope 

message: I cleaned up the existing references, but the list is not really complete. Perhaps a space should also be made for important English translations like those made by Lightfoot and Grant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.184.167 (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Texts 

message: The current scholarly usage of "Apostolic Fathers" refers to a collection of texts not a set of authors i.e. something akin to the function of "New Testament." Many of these texts are anonymous and have had famous names attached e.g. 1 and 2 Clement. Some refer to individuals completely unknown to us e.g. "Hermas" Some of these texts have clearly undergone redactional stages e.g. the Didache. In other words, this entire article needs to be rewritten. It is currently complete crap.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.184.167 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True: the term refers to the corpus, not to the authors (whether the actual authors or the people in whose name the texts would later be pseudonymously composed). The corpus was not produced in antiquity, but is a scholarly construct (which isn't to say that it's not useful in some respects). For this reason, and to the point of the comment below this one (made on 9 Feb. 2013), the works included in this corpus vary (sometimes, though, only slightly) based on the decision of the modern editor. Ehrman discusses the development of the collection nicely in the introduction to his Loeb edition, and these points are raised in Sailors' BMCR review.141.70.11.22 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Calling the article "complete crap" was an understatement. I've tried to clean it up a bit. It's still nowhere near good, but now it presents the Apostolic Fathers for what they are - a group of writings (though the good suggestion of the comment below about highlighting the artificial nature of the collection could be emphasized more). It seems like the old form had been written by someone with a theological axe to grind, so I've just deleted most of the pointless paragraphs on the "apostolicity" of the writings. Looks like whoever wrote the old version was keen on pointing out that some of these writers were "saints" and that they certainly weren't "Jewish Christian" - apparently they'd not read Barnabas or the Didache, etc.! Anyway, hopefully the article is not as bad now as it was.95.113.169.153 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current usage of "Apostolic Fathers" and why this article is terrible 

message: The Bible does not mention apostolic fathers. 71.227.121.45 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but do the Apostolic Fathers mention the Bible? Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion