“An Overview of the Influence of the Publication of Patristic Literature Upon the Reformation” by Paul Strawn

16th c. Lutheran Martin Chemniz... perhaps worth another look, to say the least.

16th c. Lutheran Martin Chemniz… perhaps worth another look, to say the least.  Go here to start doing that.

[NOTE: You can download Paul Strawn’s paper featuring groundbreaking research on the Reformation, “An Overview of the Influence of the Publication of Patristic Literature Upon the Reformation”, which this post summarizes, here]

In a previous post published at my personal blog theology like a child, countering the Eastern Orthodox apologist Father Stephen Freeman, I wrote, in part…

“Actually, as a child of the Lutheran Reformation – which I submit was in fact a revival of patristic theology (a sneak peek at this below with more later this week) – I of course agree with some of Father Freeman’s key points…..

what’s this about the Lutheran Reformation being a revival of patristic theology? You’d better believe it. If Pastor Weedon’s remarks are widely true about the 21st century Eastern Orthodox church (where they are more “about venerating the icons of the fathers vs. actually reading what they wrote”) this really cannot be said about the 16th century Lutheran reformers and many of the faithful who followed in their train. Stay tuned for more soon…

In the meantime, here is a hint of what we are talking about. It is jaw-dropping stuff.”

I then posted this amazing image:




The image above is from a paper delivered by my pastor at a recent conference discussing Lutheranism & the classics (you can read another post here which contains the abstract, or summary, of the paper – or scroll down and see the starred footnote below*). The image simply makes clear in visual form something important it seems most historians of the Reformation – including Lutherans – have missed, namely, that in terms of publishing at least, the 16th century featured a great revival in the interest of patristic literature (specifically, it shows when editions of various father’s complete works were published in which cities and when).

I will now post some choice morsels from Strawn’s paper, which you can read in full here. Strawn’s paper starts like this (all bold are mine).  From the paper’s introduction (which I will quote at some length):

“In his groundbreaking work on the Italian monk and theologian Ambrose Traversari (1386-1439) Charles L Stinger, professor of history at Buffalo University, describes the revival of patristic studies at the beginning of the 15th century.[1] According to Stinger, significant catalyst for that revival was the desire on the part of humanists to confront Aristotelian scholastic theology with what they considered to be a superior alternative.[2] While Stinger’s treatment of the topic ends with the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-47), he makes the somewhat startling claim that a revival in patristic studies would continue all the way into the 17th century as a discernable conflict between patristic and scholastic theology, a conflict that would only come to an end when Protestant theologians “began to return to [Aristotelian] dialectics to analyze the orthodox creedal formulations of the Augsburg Confession and Heidelberg Catechism.”[3] This assertion, that a renewed interest in patristic studies emerged in the Renaissance and remained an important element of the theological development of the 15th and 16th centuries—even without a consideration of the conflict between scholastic and patristic theology—deserves consideration. For the role of patristic literature in the Reformation has been generally accepted either as a peculiar interest of 15th and 16th century humanists, or as a source for quotations from the tradition of the church which were duly deployed by Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians in long lists or chains—catenae—to support favored theological positions.[4] Such catenae are not generally believed to be taken from and compiled in the 16th century from the actual writings of the church fathers, but instead, so it seems, were somehow passed down from the late medieval period in manuscript form, or taken from other available sources. In other words, general perception appears to be that the writings of the church father were not readily available in printed form in the 16th century. But, as it will be somewhat tediously demonstrated below, they most definitely were. In fact, a significant portion of Jacques Paul Migne’s (1800-1875) Patrologia Graeca (first published in Latin (85 vols., 1856-1857) and Latina (221 vols. (1844–1855)) actually stem from this period, containing exact copies of works first printed in the 15th and 16th centuries.[5] While the usage of such catenae—whatever their origin—cannot and should not be ignored, Stinger’s assertion, and the presence of so much printed patristic material in the 16th century both beg the question as to the veracity and import of the revival of patristic theology for the Reformation of the church. Although Stinger’s analysis is not without difficulties, it does intrigue. Simply put: Was a significant aspect of the Reformation a revival of patristic theology?

Not surprisingly, Stinger’s work seems to have been hardly noticed by theologians, perhaps because, as it could be assumed, his efforts have been geared toward those with a general interest in the Renaissance. Hardly enough time has passed—relatively speaking—for the academic world to grasp the import of his work as far as Renaissance and Reformation history is concerned, let alone, Reformation theology…”

Strawn continues:

“Stinger himself, after the appearance of his volume on Traversari, turned his attentions to the Renaissance in Rome,[6] and as far as I know, has not continued to with his research to more fully develop his sketch of the role of patristic literature in the 15th and 16th century.[7] That task has fallen to another professor of history, Irene Backus, professor of Reformation history at the University of Geneva, who since the time of the appearance of Stinger’s work, has made the reception of patristic theology, especially among the Calvinist Reformers, a continuing focus of research.[8] Her work has begun to fill a hole in our understanding of the Reformation in general, pointing out the interconnectedness of the Reformation in Geneva and the interaction of its Reformers with the writings of the church fathers they, in many cases, edited and published. A first fruit of Backus’ efforts within the Lutheran tradition is the monograph of H. Ashley Hall, published just this year, entitled Philip Melanchthon and the Cappadocians: A Reception of Greek Patristic Sources in the Sixteenth Century.[9] This work, along with Backus’ exemplary scholarship over the last thirty years, still simply scratches the surface of what eventually must be accepted generally to be its own field of Reformation research….”

Strawn then presents the outline of the paper:

“As a matter of introducing the subject, this paper begins where the main point of Stinger’s research ends (ca. 1460). It presents an overview of the first century of the publication—that is the actual printing!—of patristic literature (ca. 1460-1569). No attempt, however, will be made to illuminate the proposed point of contention between scholastic and patristic theology.[10] Instead, by means of a simple overview of the first century of printed patristic literature, the idea will be supported that patristic theology in general exerted a meaningful influence upon the development of the Reformation.[11] Since Stinger’s work is relatively unknown in theological circles, the first part of this presentation contains a short history of the revival of patristic study during the Renaissance, upon which his research is chiefly based.[12] The second part contains an overview of the history of printing of patristic literature during the first century of its production (ca. 1470-1570). The final section examines the influence of the first century of printing of patristic literature upon the Reformation.”

So there are three sections to the paper from this point on:

  • The revival of patristic studies
  • The first century of the printing of patristic literature
  • The influence of the first century of the printing of patristic literature upon the theology of the Reformation

I will now share clips that stand out to me from each of those sections, and then, from the paper’s summary.

From “The revival of patristic studies”, or part 1:

“In the writings of the fathers, Petrarch believed he had found a synthesis of classical learning, Ciceronian eloquence,[13] and Christian piety. Petrarch’s death did not signal the end of such an interest in patristic literature, but a beginning, as the city of Florence became and remained a center for patristic study well into the 16th century.”

…. According to Stinger, the meaning of patristic literature forwarded at that time was primarily as a defense of a humanist education and secondarily, as a source for an answer to the spiritual necessity of the city culture of the Renaissance.[14]

…. an interest in patristic literature—especially of the Greek fathers—was awakened during the first half of the fifteenth century in Florence and elsewhere. The translation of the fathers of the Eastern church was in many instances undertaken in order to provide the theological support for a specific idea.

…. Many other examples of the revival of interest in patristic literature in the first half of the 15th century could be given, so what follows is limited to what was most important for the further development of patristic studies for theological purposes. For the Renaissance interest in the thought world of ancient Greece produced a “change of opinion” of the Greek fathers in the west, and therewith provided one of many reasons for a renewed attempt at the reunion of the Eastern and Western churches at the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-47). Since for both groups patristic literature was (apart from Holy Scriptures) the only theological foundation they shared, an intense theological discussion concerning the content of various church fathers would only awaken a greater interest in patristic theology.

…. When Cosimo de Medici (1389-1464) gained control of Niccolo Niccoli’s library, he arranged for Parentucelli to oversee the 800 ancient manuscripts it contained.[15] Parentucelli also played an active role at the council of Basel-Ferrara-Florenz. As Nicholas V, in his role as pope, he began to collect patristic literature especially from the Eastern church, and translate the texts into the language of the west. The result of his efforts is clearly shown in the fact that the Vatican collection of Greek patristic literature became the largest in the western world at that time.[16]

…. In summary, shortly before the advent of the printing press in Europe a rather large number of patristic works were accessible from both the Western and well as the Eastern church, and there would presumably be a market for their publication. The problem of finding a Latin translation of a work written in Greek which had not already been translated by Jerome or Rufinus and others during the patristic period,[17] was to a certain extent solved by the Florentine humanists such as Traversari and Nicolaus V. Both had attempted to make the Greek fathers accessible to the Latin west.

In part 2, “The first century of the printing of patristic literature”, Strawn begins:

“Twenty years after the introduction of printing in Europe (ca. 1440) the writings of the church fathers began to come off the presses. An overview of the first one hundred years of their printing provides one basis (among many) upon which the question as to their meaning for and influence upon the Reformation can be answered. The reason for their printing would not be a surprise to any modern publisher: Apart from special circumstances, printers and editors of the Renaissance and Reformation produced only works with which they could make money. One can assume, therefore, that when a particular work was printed by a printer—who often was also the distributer—that an interest in that work existed. If a work were published frequently, then interest in it at that time is certain.[18] It is generally known, that besides the basic fact of publication, the size of a work, the language in which it was printed, introductory remarks and dedicatory letters, the names of editors and translators etc., provide a whole host of reasons as to why a book was printed. When such attributes of many books on a specific theme during a certain time-period are known, a picture of a general interest in that theme at that time emerges. Such work is normally not that of theologians, but of bibliophiles and historians. In the case of the first one hundred years of the printing of patristic literature it remains for such a picture to be created.[19]

Please note I was tempted to bold that entire paragraph above.

After some demonstration of what we know about the printing of the fathers in the 15th c, Strawn summarizes at one point “it is apparent, that the latter half of the 15th century witnessed a limited but meaningful production of patristic literature.

Good observations:

…. Another aspect of the production of patristic literature in the 15th century must also be noted. In general, the printers in Italy seem to have dominated the field. The appearance of Concerning Ecclesiastical Writers (De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis) by the German Benedictine abbot John Trithemius (1462-1516) in 1494, a 460 page biographical bibliography of 1014 authors from the history of the church, which already at that time had been printed or whose works were still in manuscript form, gives us a good impression of what patristic literature was generally known at that time. Also other works must be mentioned here, which provided access in one way or another to patristic literature or theology. Of note are works like the Sentences (Sententiarum libri quattuor)[20] of Peter Lombard (1096-1164), which appeared first around 1150, and is a work filled with citations of the works of the fathers.[21] It most probably was dependent upon a similar lesser-known work Concerning the Orthodox Faith (De fide orthodoxa) of the Syrian monk John of Damascus (675-749), a summary of the dogmatic works of the church fathers, which Berndt Hamm has described as predominantly nothing other than “a skillfully assembled Augustine florilegium supplemented with ample additional authorities.”[22] (Generally unknown is that Damascus’ work was made available in Latin translation in the west shortly before Lombard’s appeared, and the structure and content is quite similar.) The 12th century collection of canon law compiled by the obscure jurist (John) Gratian known as the Harmony of Discordant Canons (Decretum Gratiani or Concordia discordantium canonum) and the Golden Chain (Catena Aurea) of Thomas Aquinas both contained massive amounts of patristic citations and were printed frequently.[23]

Seems quite important:

In summary, the publication of western fathers dominated patristic printing in the 15th century, even though the eastern fathers were available in Latin translation in manuscript form and were printed to a limited extent. The works of Augustine were published the most frequently, followed by Jerome, Lactantius and Ambrose. The only works from eastern fathers that were printed frequently were Basil’s Oration to Young Men and the Church History of Eusebius.

Since the number of printed patristic works climbed dramatically during the first quarter of the 16th century, the general structure of that production can only be given. The most important tendency, and also the only that will provide a brief overview, is the emergence of the production of collected-works editions of patristic literature.[24] Great effort was made at that time, to collect and publish all the writings of a single father—a tendency which had begun already in the last decade of the 15th century.[25] The first of such editions would often contain one or more works which would later be attributed to a different father or source. This was, at that time already, not an unknown problem. As the 16th century progressed the identified inauthentic works were either attributed to another father or source, described as inauthentic but still profitable for study, or simply left out of new editions. As what might be expected, as new works of a church father were obtained, or new translations, these would be added to later editions. An editorial dilemma, with which the printers were confronted, were the editions of the Greek fathers. Because of the difficulties, which were encountered with the translation of works of larger size and other factors, it was not uncommon, that Latin translations from the patristic period, the 15th century, and the 16th century, would all appear together in one volume.[26] Editions printed in Greek, appeared gradually over time, usually only after they had appeared first in Latin translation.

A compilation of the collected-works editions of twenty church fathers[27] which are found in the national catalogs of Great Britain, France and the United States, demonstrates together with the catalogs of 16th century editions at the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel and the Bavarian State Library in Munich that between the years 1500 and 1569 over 200 complete collected works editions of church fathers were printed….

So here is what the image above summarizes…..

There is much more in part 2, but I must limit myself!

Part 3, “The influence of the first century of the printing of patristic literature upon the theology of the Reformation”.

He begins like this:

So at this point the question is raised as to whether or not patristic literature exerted some sort of theological influence upon the theology of the Reformation. Apart from the influence of Augustine upon various reformers this question has not been frequently asked.[28] This is somewhat of baffling situation, especially if the number of patristic works published in the first seventy years of the 16th century is known. If the Reformation is understood to be a battle between the reformers with the Bible on the one side, and the Roman Catholic church with tradition on the other, then it is no surprise that the influence of the earliest part of that tradition upon Protestant theologians remains to this present day a neglected field of study. It is also understandable, that a significant amount of the research has been dedicated to the use of patristic citations in the works of the Reformers, specifically in view of the question whether the claim made by the Reformers to be remaining within the tradition of the church was truly valid. Certainly this aspect of the influence of patristic literature of the 16th century upon the theologians of that period—upon both the Protestant and Roman Catholic side—is important to study. But this is not the only aspect of the influence of the published patristic literature at that time. For even when such a question is investigated more closely, of who remained in the “true tradition” of the church and who did not, it must also be asked, whether only one method of usage of patristic materials is valid for the entire era—a theologically very complex era—or whether there were in fact a number of different methods which must be understood in order to answer the question.[29]

He goes on to make several interesting points about how various Reformers (he spends some time on Martin Chemnitz in particular) used the Fathers and had different methods – and asks challenging questions that any studying this phenomenon would need to consider.

Particularly interesting to me is when he points out that that…

  • most of the work in the 20th c. on this topic attempted “not to detect the influence of patristic theology upon the Reformation, but how patristic works were used as rhetorical weapons during that period….”
  • “At the beginning of the 20th century, the attempt to discover the theological sources of the Reformers was deemed irrelevant”…

From the Summary:

“Such an overview can also not demonstrate the reason for such a large number of editions other than that the printers at that time thought that they would be purchased by the public. The astounding fact is simply, as the table shows, that up until the year 1545, a steady increase in the printing of collected works editions of the church fathers of both east and west occurred. Certainly the effect of the calling of the Council of Trent (1545-63) upon the printing of a few patristic works has already been noticed, but until now, not yet, as I believe, so graphically illustrated….

The inclination, to understand the citation of patristic sources in the works of the Reformers as rhetorical tools, instead of as witnesses to a possible interaction of the Reformers with the writings of the ancient church, remains somewhat the norm. Surely the analysis of “patristic as rhetoric” can offer many new insights in to the interaction of a Reformer with patristic literature—as Peter Fraenkel has shown. But the question, as to the influence of patristic theology, which was to be found in the patristic literature printed at that time, upon the theology of the Reformers, remains open. Of special interest are the works of the Greek fathers which were first printed and disseminated in the early part of the 16th century. Only when the assertion of Charles Stinger becomes more well known, that in the Renaissance a struggle between patristic and scholastic theology began and continued unto the period of orthodoxy in the17th century, can other themes beside “patristic as rhetoric” be discussed. In such discussions, the influence of patristic theology upon the Reformation can venture beyond the writings of Augustine to those of the entire patristic period.”



* Abstract of paper: “A common understanding of the usage of patristic sources during the Reformation period is that brief quotations were copied mechanically from the Sentences of Peter Lombard (1096-1164) or late medieval patristic anthologies. Relatively unknown is the fact that by the beginning of the 17th century, over 1600 volumes had been printed that contained the writings of the church fathers of both the west and the east. It is these works that provided the content for Jacques Paul Migne’s (1800-1875) massive 386 volume Patrologiae cursus completes. But even more startling, by delving into the question of the publication of just the collected-works editions of the church fathers that appeared between the years of 1460 and 1570, the distinct impression is made that the works of the church fathers in their entirety must have been much more influential in the Reformation period than has up until now been acknowledged. Simply an awareness of the common availability of the writings of the ancient church in the 16th century thus affords a new vista from which the theological developments of the period can be assessed.”

[1] Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrocio Traversari (1386-1439) and Christian Antiquitv in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, State University of New York Press, 1977).

[2] Cf. Charles G. Nauert, Jr., “The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: an Approach to Pre-Reformation Controversies,” Sixteenth Century Journal IV. 1 (April 1973), pp. 1-18; John F. D’Amico, “Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation: A Humanist’s Critique of Scholasticism,”Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXXI (1980), pp. 37-63; Peter Manns, “Zum Gespräch Zwischen M. Luther und der Katholischen Theologie. Begegnung zwischen patristisch-monastischer und reformatorischer Theologie an der Scholastik vorbei,” in Thesaurus Lutheri. Auf der Suche nach neuen Paradigmen der Luther-Forschung ed. Tuomo Mannermaa, Anja Ghiselli und Simo Peura (Helsinki, 1987) (Veröffentlichungen der finnischen theologischen Literaturgesellschaft 153 (1987) in cooperation with the Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, Schrift A 24). pp. 63-154.

[3] Stinger, p. 227.

[4] For example: “Even so, accessibility to the early Fathers for the Middle Ages was mostly through collections of excerpts from patristic sources on various topics known as florilegia….Roman Catholics and Protestants alike made use of these anthologies, endeavoring to show by citing different Fathers or different excerpts from the same Father how their doctrine presented the patristic and therefore true teaching of the church.” Cf. Daniel H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans: 1999), p. 181. Williams bases his assessment on Irene Backus, “The Early Church in Renaissance and Reformation,” in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600, ed. by I. Hazlett (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991).

[5] Cf. R. Howard Bloch, God’s Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Irregular Commerce of the Abbe Migne, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).

[6] The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, Indiana University Press: 1984) and in a revised and expanded edition (Bloomington, Indiana University Press: 1998).

[7] See also his “Greek Patristics and Christian Antiquity in Renaissance Rome,” in Rome in the Renaissance. The City and the Myth ed. P. A. Ramsey (Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, 1982) Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies XVIII, pp. 152-169.

[8] Cf. esp. Lectures humanistes de Basile de Cesaree: Traductions latines (1439-1618) (Collection des etudes augustiniennes, 1990); The disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the early Church (Studies in reformed theology and history), (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993); ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists 2 vols., (Leiden: Brill, 1997);ed. Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378-1615), (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions) (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

[9] Refo500 Academic Studies 16 (Göttingen/Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).

[10] For more on the interaction between humanists and scholastics throughout this period see the works of Erika Rummel, esp. her The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).

[11] The author realizes that he may be stating the obvious, but the appearance of works that shy away from this understanding of the role of patristic writings in the sixteenth century necessitates that it here be clearly stated.

[12] Cf. N. G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1992); John Monfasini, Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and other Emigres (Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995) and Colin Wills, Sailing From Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World (New York: Delacorte, 2006).

[13] The concept of eloquence in the Renaissance encompassed an extensive matrix of ideas. See Hanna H. Gray, “Renaissance Humanism: The Pursuit of Eloquence,” Journal of the History of Ideas XXIV (1963), pp. 497-514.

[14] Ibid., p. 13.

[15] Ibid., p. 187.

[16] Ibid., p. 154.

[17] Cf. J. T. Muckle, “Greek Works Translated Directly into Latin Before 1350,” Mediaeval Studies IV (1942), pp. 33¬42; V (1943), pp. 102-114.

[18] Since most records detailing the number of copies printed in a single edition have not survived, and those that do exist demonstrate that the number of copies produced for an edition varied greatly from work to work, the best indicator of a work’s popularity is the number of times it was printed. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, the number of books printed for any one edition generally ran between 150 and 2000 copies. See Rudolf Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550, 2nd ed., (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), pp. 66-68.

[19] The following is based upon the works of twenty church fathers (Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyril, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Leo I, Origen, Tertullian, and Theodoret) printed between 1459 and 1569. The reference works used contain a majority of works still existing in Germany, France, England and the United States: G.W. Panzer, Annales Typographici ab Artis Inventae Origine ad Annum MD, Nuremberg 1797 (PAN), Ludovicus Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, 4 vols., Stuttgart-Tübingen 1826-1838 (HAI), Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Karl W. Hiersemann, Leipzig 1938 (GW), Catalogue General des Livres Imprimes de la Biblioteque Nationale, Paris 1897-1981 (CGL), The British Library General Catalogue of Printed Books to 1975, London since 1979 (BLG), The National Union Catalogue: Pre-1956 Imprints, Washington 1968-81 (NUC), and the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, since 1983 (VD 16). Unfortunately, a work containing the titles of books printed in Italy from 1500 to 1599 apparently does not exist. The primary source for the bibliography of the works of Gregory of Nazianzus printed in the sixteenth century is Agnes Clare Way, “Greogorius Nazianzenus,” in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries Vol II, eds. Paul Oskar Kristeller, F. Edward Cranz (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1971), pp. 43-192, (WAY). Helen Brown Wicher’s article, “Greogorius Nyssenus,” in the same series (Vol V, eds. F. Edward Cranz, Paul Oskar Kristeller, (WashingtonD. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), pp. 1-250) provides the bibliography of Gregory of Nyssa for the same period (WIC). Irena Backus excellent bibliography of the Renaissance and Reformation editions of Basil, Lectures Humanistes de Bastle de Cesaree. Traductions Latines (1439-1618), (Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes, Serie Antiquite-125), (Paris: Institut d’Etudes Augustiniennes, 1990), was not available.

[20] NUC 453 lists the following editions: Strasbourg before 1468 (p. 577), Strasbourg ca. 1472 (p. 577), Speier 1477 (p. 577), Nuremberg 1481 (p. 577), Basel 1482 (p. 577), Basel 1484 (p. 577), Basel 1486 (p. 577), Venice 1486 (p. 577), Basel 1487 (p. 577), Basel 1488 (p. 577), Basel 1489 (p. 578), Venice 1489 (p. 578), Venice 1490 (p. 578), Nuremberg 1491 (p. 578), Basel 1492 (p. 578), Freiburg 1493 (p. 578), Basel 1498 (p. 578), Lyons 1499 (p. 578), Nuremberg 1500 (p. 578), and then strangely enough Paris 1536 (p. 578).

[21] Cf. L. Ott, “Lombardus, “ RGG3 V, 254.

[22] Hamm, p. 135. This is also close to Luther’s opinion of the work. See Lawrence Murphy, “The Prologue of Martin Luther to the ‘Sentences’ of Peter Lombard (1509): the Clash of Philosophy and Theology,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXVII (1976), p. 55.

[23] Cf. A. N. S. Lane, “Early Printed Patristic Anthologies to 1566: A Progress Report,” Studia Patristica 18 (1989), pp. 365-370.

[24] “Collected-works editions” are here defined as those works appearing with the title of opera omnia, or those works appearing in the book catalogs under the title “Collected Works.” This then does not include works of church fathers that contained more than one work from a specific father, of which there were many. It is not assumed that the collected works editions contained only the works of one church father (the collected works edition of BasiI, for example, is attributed only to BasiI, although many editions contain works of Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus), or that all of the works attributed to a specific church father continue in the present day to be attributed to that father. Significant, however, is merely the fact that such editions appeared. It should also be noted that the term “editions” here includes editions and reprints.

[25] Cf. the collected works of Ambrose, Basel 1492 (BLC 7, p. 5).

[26] For example, A 1545 edition of Origen’s works (Basel, VD 16, 0 909), contains translations of Jerome, Rufinus, Christophoro Persona and a few presumably from the editor, Erasmus.

[27] See above note 40.

[28] An incomplete list of various treatments of the influence of Augustinian theology upon the Reformers includes: Luther: Auguste Humbert, Les origines théologie modern: La Renaissance de L’Antiquite Chrestienne (l450-1521),(Paris: Librairie V. Lecoffre, J. Gabalda & Cie, 1911); A. Hamel, Der junge Luther und Augustin, ihre Beziehungen in der Rechtfertigungslehre nach Luthers erste Vorlesungen 1509-1518 untersucht (Gutersloh, 1934-35); Léon Christiani, “Luther et Saint Augustin, ” in Augustinus Magister, vol. II (Paris, 1954), 1029-1038; Leif Grane, “Augustins “Expositio quarundarn propositionum ex epistola ad Romanos” in Luthers Römerbriefvorlesung,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 69 (1972), 304-330; “La Reforme Lutherienne, ses Origines Ristoriques et son Caractere Theologique,” Positions Lutheriennes XX (1972), 76-96; “Divus Paulus et S. Augustinus interpres eius fidelissimus. Über Luthers Verhältnis zu Augustin,” in Festschrift für Ernst Fuchs, ed. G. Ebeling, E. Jüngel and G. Schunack (Tübingen, 1973) 133-46; Heiko Jürgens, “Die Funktion der Kirchenväterzitate in der Heidelberger Disputation Luthers (1518)” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXVI (1975), 71-78; Joachim Beckmann, Vom Sakrament bei Calvin, Die Sakramentslehre Calvins in ihren Beziehungen zu Augustin (Tubingen, 1926); H. Barnikol, Die Lehre Calvins vom unfreien Willen und ihr Verhältnis zur Lehre der übrigen Reformatoren und Augustins, Theol. Arb. wiss. Prediger-Ver. Rheinprov., t. XXII, 1926, (Neuwied, 1927); l. Cadier, “Calvin et saint Augustin,” in Augustinus magister, vol. II, (Paris, 1954), 1039-56; Luchesius Smits,”L’Autorité de Saint Augustin dans l’Institution chrétienne de Jean Calvin,” Rev. Rist. eccl. XIV (1950),672-77; Institution Saint Augustin dans L’Oeuvre de Jean Calvin, 2 vols, (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp, 1957), F. Wendel, Calvin. The Origin and Development of his Religious Thought, trans. P. Mairet (London: William Collins, Sons and Co., 1963.),Jan. Marius J., Lange van Ravenswaay, Augustinus totus noster. Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin,(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1990), (Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte 45); Melanchthon: Wilhelm Maurer, “Der Einfluß Augustin auf Melanchthons Theologie,” Kerygma und Dogma ?? (1959), 165-199.

[29] Cf. Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. by David C. Steinmetz, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 85 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowiz, 1999).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “An Overview of the Influence of the Publication of Patristic Literature Upon the Reformation” by Paul Strawn

  1. Pingback: Debate and Polemic, Within and Without the “High Orthodox” | Reformation500

Comments are closed.