Eastern Orthodox interpretation

Who are some of the most important ancient Eastern Orthodox Church fathers and interpreters of the Gospel of John? I’m looking for the period leading up to the New Testament to the 5th century AD. This is not my strongest area of expertise but I would like to know more about it

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Who are some of the most important ancient Eastern Orthodox Church fathers and interpreters of the Gospel of John?

There are no specifically Eastern Orthodox church fathers prior to 1054 just as there are not specifically Oriental Orthodox church fathers prior to ... chose your own date as they joined together under that name in the 1950's. The early church fathers are rather classified by the language in which they wrote, etc. Church fathers of prominence in contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy who wrote on the Gospel of John include:

Origen wrote a commentary
John Chrysostom has a series of homilies
Cyril of Alexandria wrote a commentary
Athanasius of Alexandria often draws on John
Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote a commentary which has survived only as fragments
Irenaeus of Lyons often draws on John
Cyril of Jerusalem often draws on John
Augustine of Hippo I would omit as more distinctly "Western" but his commentary could easily be included.

Fos Zoe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313059#Comment_1313059

I know from being a long time lurker, that MJ posts a lot of useful info.

However, strictly speaking as an Orthodox Christian, Origen is not a Church Father as a condemned heretic.

That doesn't mean his writings aren't valuable, but one distinction between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is recognized Church fathers are Saints.

Tertullian is another one that is recognized as a Church father in Catholicism but not by the Orthodox.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313064#Comment_1313064

However, strictly speaking as an Orthodox Christian, Origen is not a Church Father as a condemned heretic.

You are absolutely correct. However, many in the forums fail to distinguish between "church fathers" and "early Christian authors" so I answered as I thought the poster intended rather than answering accurately. I should have made the distinction so as to not mislead others.

but one distinction between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is recognized Church fathers are Saints.

Can you explain a bit further?

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313068#Comment_1313068

There are no specifically Eastern Orthodox church fathers prior to 1054 just as there are not specifically Oriental Orthodox church fathers prior to ... chose your own date as they joined together under that name in the 1950's. The early church fathers are rather classified by the language in which they wrote, etc.

I had forgotten this tidbit of information. Thank you for reminding me about it. My professors always told us to think in terms of East, West, North and South.

many in the forums fail to distinguish between "church fathers" and "early Christian authors"

I do that often and it is not right. It is a failure of mine.

Can you explain a bit further?

Tradition, including the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, is considered a living transmission of the faith. The Orthodox Church views these teachings as inseparable from the faith itself, with the Church Fathers serving as authoritative guides to interpreting Scripture and maintaining doctrinal purity. Tradition is balanced with the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority). The Catholic Church holds that the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, has the final say in matters of doctrine, though the teachings of the Church Fathers are still highly revered and influential.

The theology of the Orthodox Church is heavily influenced by the writings of the Church Fathers. The Orthodox Church often views itself as preserving the original teachings of Christianity as articulated by these early theologians, with little deviation over the centuries. While the Church Fathers are influential in Catholic theology, Catholicism has also developed its own theological traditions over time, including scholasticism and other medieval and modern theological developments. The Catholic Church believes in the development of doctrine, where the understanding of the faith can grow and be expressed in new ways, though always in continuity with the early Church.

In Orthodoxy, the term "Saint" is applied to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional holiness and have made significant contributions to the faith. Many Church Fathers are canonized as Saints due to their deep theological insight and virtuous lives. For example, figures like St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, and St. John Chrysostom are venerated as Saints for their roles in defending and defining Orthodox Christianity. This is what I remember from my class on Orthodox theology of the Atonement.

Fos Zoe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313068#Comment_1313068

Sure. And I am no expert or scholar so I could certainly be wrong. Catholics have some recognized Church fathers that are not canonized Saints. All Orthodox Church fathers are Saints. This was a takeaway from a Bible study with an Orthodox professor who teaches at a Catholic University.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313059#Comment_1313059

Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote a commentary which has survived only as fragments

This is the only one of the above I was not acquainted with in my studies. What verses were covered in the fragments?

Augustine of Hippo I would omit as more distinctly "Western" but his commentary could easily be included.

Did Augustine write a commentary on John's Gospel? I have never seen it.

Catholics have some recognized Church fathers that are not canonized Saints. All Orthodox Church fathers are Saints.

Great takeaway and very concise.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313074#Comment_1313074

Tradition, including the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, is considered a living transmission of the faith.

First, it is Apostolic tradition not tradition and second, this is a point of complete agreement between the Catholic and the Orthodox. Please don't follow in the footsteps of the few in the forum that I haven't gotten trained not to speak of Catholic doctrine unless they actually know it.

Can you explain a bit further?

Tradition, including the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers,. . .

This comment was directed to Foz Zoe regarding a very specific comment made that I either do not understand or do not find a factual basis for. It was not intended as an opportunity for you to comment extensively but not directly to the question at hand - the perceived difference between the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodoxy on the saint-status of early church fathers.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313075#Comment_1313075

Catholics have some recognized Church fathers that are not canonized Saints.

Ah, the handful of exceptions that prove the rule. I can come up with a few who made significant contributions to some topics in theology while being/becoming heretical in others - Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea being the only ones I can find. Clement of Alexandria is a bit more complex being recognized as a saint in some rites but not all. Thanks for bringing the anomaly to my attention.

Fos Zoe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313080#Comment_1313080

No problem. I knew of Clement but had forgot about Eusebius.

If Eastern Orthodox would not have been in the title and Eastern Orthodox Church Fathers in the first post, I would not have even bothered to reply.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313081#Comment_1313081

I would not have even bothered to reply.

Do stay involved in the forums. We have very slim representation of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. I step in based on Eastern rite Catholics which is close but not identical to the "real thing." At least I am considerably better than nothing.

Off topic: the first syllogism I learned as a child (from Readers' Digest):

[quote]A donut is better than nothing.

Nothing is better than heaven.

Therefore, a donut is better than heaven.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313074#Comment_1313074

Tradition, including the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, is considered a living transmission of the faith.

The present volume on sale for $4, Tertullian Against Praxeas is an ironic presentation of a recent heretic (Tertullian in his early Montanist years, and Montanist acceptance recently reversed), against Praxeas, recently advocating a singular Father (judged heretical and wrecking havoc with the more correct view). Tradition is a slippery word atvits inception.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313074#Comment_1313074

My professors always told us to think in terms of East, West, North and South.

Whereas I was taught East (Syriac), Central (Greek), West (Latin), and the rebels (Protestants and heretics).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313077#Comment_1313077

Did Augustine write a commentary on John's Gospel?

in the form of homilies/tractates - old translation available at New Advent or Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313077#Comment_1313077

Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote a commentary which has survived only as fragments

This is the only one of the above I was not acquainted with in my studies. What verses were covered in the fragments?

Theodore of Mopsuestia was posthumously caught up in the Nestorian controversy and his works were judged to be heretical. In the East Syrian (Nestorian) tradition however he is considered to be "the exegete" par excellence. Logos carries an English translation of his commentary on the Gospel of John based on an early Syriac translation: https://www.logos.com/product/162576/commentary-on-the-gospel-of-john?queryId=c19e72bea1c3236a461e5d58f1fb4dc2

At least I am considerably better than nothing.

I would also like to add the commentary of St. Ephraem Syrus on the Diatessaron.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1313163#Comment_1313163

I was taught East (Syriac), Central (Greek), West (Latin), and the rebels (Protestants and heretics).

That is a great classification. One I will start to use in my studies.

in the form of homilies/tractates

Thank you for prompting me.

https://www.logos.com/product/162576/commentary-on-the-gospel-of-john?queryId=c19e72bea1c3236a461e5d58f1fb4dc2

Does this volume cover the prologue? I did not see it in the TOC.