Subject: The Fathers' articles

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:21:05 -0400

I am confused:  We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English,  Quasten's
and Altaner's.  Neither is expensive (Quasten has been reissued in paper;
my Altaner in English was picked up for < $5 at a secondhand store years
ago).  If anyone is *really* interested in textual criticism and the
Fathers, why not use these sources?  If anyone is a *serious* amateur and
has the money for a computer, then they certainly can afford a
*Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography.

For those who wonder why others do not "better" the Fathers' page:  (1)
Professional academics have better things to do.  We try to do *original*
research.  (2) Professional academics also see no need to reinvent the
wheel:  We already have two very satisfactory *Patrologies*, hundreds of
pages in length, and giving articles on each father;  why duplicate what has
already been done?

Finally, one other note:  in his post on 22-7-97 @ 10:22, the author of the
site obseved that "The information on the site should all be accurate; it is
taken from reputable sources."  Now, however, in his post on 24-7-97 @
10:09, the same individual writes, "...This has led, inevitably, to some
errors [in the articles]."  What a difference two days makes!

One of the great challenges of scholarship is to distinguish between
"reputable" sources which are correct and reliable, and "reputable" sources
which are incorrect and unreliable.  And good scholarship is not ephemeral:
it stands not just for days, but for centuries.

The beginning of scholarship is digging in the original sources and
secondary literature one's self.  Sell the computer;  use the money to buy
good books.  Sit and study.  Examine the arguments and evidence.  Then form
an opinion.  There is no other way.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: Dave Aiken <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:41:19 -0400

I'd like to second William Petersen's comments with regard to Robert
Waltz's article on the church fathers. I constantly turn to Quasten's
four-volume "Patrology" as a reliable source of information about the
lives, theology, editions, and translations of the fathers. Until Waltz can
provide material that matches Quasten in quality and comprehensiveness, I
would encourage him to remove this material from his web site.

Just because one has the physical or financial ability to put something on
the internet does not mean one should necessarily do so. The web is
cluttered with useless information and data. Let's make sure we are using
only the finest resources in our text-critical research. (Here's an idea:
what about getting permission to keyboard Quasten's "Patrology" and putting
it on your website?)

David Aiken
Editor, Academic and Reference Books
Baker Book House
[email-masked]
http://www.bakerbooks.com
616-682-8388 ext. 132
616-676-2315 fax

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:38:18 -0500 (CDT)

>*Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography.

I don't know if I should get into this, but there is a comment I would
make here: I, for one, have a computer for work. I could not afford
one for personal use.

And I would make a point: The article at the web site is not by
any means intended as a substitute for a patrology. Rather, it
is intended to give information of use to textual critics. It's
not the same thing, though the two are related.

I am not expert in this part of the field (as I keep saying!),
but it seems to me that there is no work which really approaches
the Fathers from the text critic's viewpoint. If we (not necessarily
me!) can offer such a tool, even a brief one, I think it would
be very helpful.

>Professional academics have better things to do.

Surely you don't mean that you have better things to do than supply
information to the next generation of textual critics. And if that
*is* what you mean, then how can you object if I -- in my admittedly
limited way -- attempt to do what I can.

>We try to do *original*

As noted, I do not think this is a duplication.

For that matter, the whole point of an "Encyclopedia" is to summarize
information. An encyclopedia never covers a subject in complete
detail. But encyclopedias still exist -- not because they supply
complete information, but because they supply a place to start.

I will concede that it would be good to supply bibliographic information
for the patrologies. I hadn't thought of it.

>errors [in the articles]."  What a difference two days makes!

Yes, it does. Kind people have offered me information about errors
and oversimplifications in certain sources. Problems not mentioned
in any reviews I have seen. I concede the error. I am trying to
correct it in the best way possible.

>it stands not just for days, but for centuries.

You mean no one ever makes discoveries in TC? Then why is anyone doing
research? :-)

Enough. I'm getting rabid here.

***

>what about getting permission to keyboard Quasten's "Patrology" and putting

I don't have that much web space. :-)

I agree that this would be wonderful. But is anyone going to volunteer
to retype it? I may not have a life, but my carpal tunnels aren't
up to the job.

And again, the Encyclopedia article is devoted, as best I can, to
the needs of the textual critic. I'm willing to take the page down
if it has enough problems, or to remove the biographical information
that seems to be generating the controversy. But before we make a
choice, let's try to decide what the real issues are.

I do find it interesting that, of the responses so far, the lay people
like the idea of the site, and the professionals do not. That may
reflect on the site -- but it probably reflects also on the tools
available. Sounds like *somebody* needs to write a book on the
Fathers devoted to the needs of the textual critic.

And I promise it won't be me. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:51:09 -0500

> *Patrology*--which has an extensive bibliography.

    This is true but for several factors.  As one of those "serious
amateurs" andas a layman, my personal library is extensive, however, my
"books to buy" list
grows in leaps and bounds beyond my book budget.  We serious amateurs
are
consumers of the products of Professional academics.  We have no grants
or
university funds from which to draw.  Your position seems to dismiss the
value
of the WWW as a resource every bit as useful as the print medium.

> pages in length, and giving articles on each father;  why duplicate

    Resources in print are static.  As you develop more information from
your*original* research, publishers do not send out "updates" to the
books that are
no longer quite as accurate.  Instead, you publish in the peer-reviewed
journals.

    WWW Articles, such as Bob Waltz's, can be updated from those
articles, therefore
it is not a reinvention of the wheel but a new wheel altogether.  It is
more "alive"
than the print medium.

> errors [in the articles]."  What a difference two days makes!

    He also said that it was a rough draft.  Even those precious printed
tomesstarted out as such.  Dr. Waltz also points out that the site is
directed
particularly at those such as I, moreso than the "professional
academic."
The site has to have a beginning and I, as a serious amateur, am
delighted
that Dr. Waltz (also with "better things to do") finds the time to
consider
the serious amateurs in his labors.

> it stands not just for days, but for centuries.

    Again, this is an article in a new medium that is coming into its
own asan academic tool.  Unlike many of the books on my shelves, it is a
medium
that allows constant "reprinting" without additional cost to the
consumer.
Familiar as well with the printed publications you cite, I see no
glaring
"incorrect and unreliable" information which if overlooked can be easily

corrected with the help of those professional academics who appreciate
the value of this new medium.

> an opinion.  There is no other way.

    Again you dismiss, even disparage, the use of the computer and
thevalue of a "living" WWW as a resource in addition to the works in
print.
I have, on my hard disk, and printable, 38 volumes of the works of the
Patristics downloaded from a url...at no cost, thanks to the efforts and

labors of the site owners who, like Bob, offer information (the wares
of the academic) to us "serious amateurs."

Jack Kilmon
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 17:10:21 -0500 (CDT)

In his recent post, Jack Kilmon (<[email-masked]>) referred
to me several times as "Dr. Waltz." So I'd better remind people
that I don't have a doctorate -- and certainly not in theology
or textual criticism or the like. Whatever I know I know from
books, occasional conversations, and some thousands of hours
with critical apparati and manuscript databases.

But I'm not an official expert. If anyone was operating under
the assumption that I was -- well, either learn to disrespect me
now or forever hold your peace. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:10:32 -0700 (PDT)

> >I am confused:  We have two excellent *Patrologies* in English,  Quasten's

Hear, hear!  Let me my whole-hearted agreement with the opinions now
repeates so often in this thread that QUasten's Patrology is an excellent
book, a vital reference for English speaking students of Patristics,
whether they study for TC reasons or not. 

> not the same thing, though the two are related.

Well, I hope you will make much use of Quasten's Patrology while writing
your own article.  Even if you are not trying to write a Patrology
yourself, there is so much in Quasten's book you should know when trying
to write even just an encyclopedia article. 

> me!) can offer such a tool, even a brief one, I think it would

Actually, there is quite a bit of work on various Fathers that analyzes
their texts.  But most of it seems to still be only in journal articles.
You will find references to quite a number of such articles if you dig
through the archives for this mailing list. 

Besides, "such a tool" is helpful only if it is not misleading. One of the
reasons so many are asking to have it removed is that they fear that any
"encyclopedia" article on this topic _will_ be misleading. 

> detail.

Which is exactly why an encyclopedia is such a poor forum for discussing
the text of the Fathers.  Let's not forget that when Diderot first
conceived of the idea of writing a modern encyclopedia he was subject to
the same criticism, not without good cause.  Even the best encyclopedias
can be horribly misleading.  Try looking up the different ways of
computing the date of Easter/Passover in the encyclopedias "Encyclopedia
Americana" and "Encyclopedia Brittanica" for a good example. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:35:47 -0400 (EDT)

I couldn't let this pass without comment.

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Dave Aiken wrote:

> cluttered with useless information and data.

True, true.  And so are books (and I speak as someone who works for a
publisher!).

CLearly Bob's online articles are no substitute for Quasten, nor do they
claim to be.  As I understand it, what he is trying to do is to provide a
convenient online location where one can gather a little bit of general
information about the church fathers, and I think there is validity and
value in that.  Even leading scholars in a particular field write books
and articles that are aimed at the non-professional, and they sometimes
even write about topics that they do not claim to be experts in!  Should
Bob's online articles be used as though they were authoritative statements
of a leading patristic, or even textual, scholar?  Of course not.  They
have not been through the peer-review process and thus cannot claim to be
"scholarship" in that sense.  If they are taken as I think they are
intended, however, as sources of general, widely accepted information
about various fathers (providing, of course, that Bob has done a good job
of choosing reliable sources and has accurately reflected their points of
view), I think they can be useful resources, especially if references to
the sources of the information are provided.

To give one example of a setting in which these articles might be of
value, a teacher might assign students to do some elementary research on a
church father of their choice.  Finding Bob's information online, the
student might read the brief information in the articles, choose a church
father that is of interest on the basis of what he/she reads, and do
further research in the library, perhaps on the basis of the sources Bob
cites in the article.  Since many students nowadays are so well-versed in
using the Web and enjoy doing so, why not use that interest to advantage
in teaching?  Yes, students will need guidance about which Web pages are
valid sources of information and which are pure garbage (the same can be
said, again, for printed books), so maybe teachers should include in the
bibliographies they hand to their students Web sites that contain useful
information.  Who knows, maybe some interested student will actually enjoy
an assignment that involves a little Web surfing, and might learn
something in the process!  

I think Bob is to be commended for his work, and we should encourage his
efforts, and those of other people who are attempting to perform a public
service by putting good, high quality information on the Web.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:50:58 -0700

> service by putting good, high quality information on the Web.

Jim, you took the words right out of my mouth! I agree wholeheartedly
with this statement, as I am one among very many net users who will
profit greatly from this kind of electronic articles.

Bob, thank you for your effort in making such articles available to net 
users.

Such efforts should be commended, not discouraged!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen