Ecclesial Attributions of ACCS

On the websites, the Ancient Christian Commentary Series does not show up as either Orthodox or Catholic (they should show up as both). Some of the volumes are edited by Catholics, giving them extra claim to the Catholic label. (I haven't yet noticed any Orthodox editors.)

Would someone please fix this? Thank you.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dan Francis

I believe since the ACCS is spearheaded by an Evangelical Publishing house and the set doesn't even cover all catholic books it would seem unlikely to receive a Catholic label. I am not even sure if the all the AYB volumes are labeled as catholic when done by catholic authors.

-Dan

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/804632#Comment_804632

I believe since the ACCS is spearheaded by an Evangelical Publishing house and the set doesn't even cover all catholic books it would seem unlikely to receive a Catholic label.

Actually, it does cover the Deuterocanon, and that volume was done by a Catholic.

I am not even sure if the all the AYB volumes are labeled as catholic when done by catholic authors.

They are.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/804643#Comment_804643

Deuterocanon as accepted by catholics is broader than the one found in ACCS, there is no Judith, and no 1st or 2nd Maccabees, and nothing on the additions to Esther. I was disappointed that those were not covered. I mean I would love to have seen an even broader canon covered but when the entire catholic one was not done it really disappointed me.

-Dan

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/804655#Comment_804655

Deuterocanon as accepted by catholics is broader than the one found in ACCS, there is no Judith, and no 1st or 2nd Maccabees, and nothing on the additions to Esther. I was disappointed that those were not covered. I mean I would love to have seen an even broader canon covered but when the entire catholic one was not done it really disappointed me.

-Dan

Oops. I only glanced through the table of contents and failed to notice those omissions. They are indeed lamentable.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/804681#Comment_804681

If you read the introduction, the reason for the omission is the paucity of references in the church fathers. A scan of my library confirmed that.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/804687#Comment_804687

If you read the introduction, the reason for the omission is the paucity of references in the church fathers. A scan of my library confirmed that.

That makes sense.