Thread: Reliability of Schaff's church history?

To the historians here...how generally reliable is Schaff's set of books on church history? I know I've seen it attacked by various parties (usually non-Protestants) as being overly polemical, but I don't know that I've seen anyone come out and accuse him of having any facts confused.

For example, when he states:

The first instance of the formal invocation of Mary occurs in the prayers of Ephraim Syrus († 379), addressed to Mary and the saints, and attributed by the tradition of the Syrian church, though perhaps in part incorrectly, to that author. The first more certain example appears in Gregory Nazianzen († 389), who, in his eulogy on Cyprian, relates of Justina that she besought the virgin Mary to protect her threatened virginity, and at the same time disfigured her beauty by ascetic self-tortures, and thus fortunately escaped the amours of a youthful lover (Cyprian before his conversion).But, on the other hand, the numerous writings of Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and Augustine, furnish no example of an invocation of Mary. Epiphanius even condemned the adoration of Mary, and calls the practice of making offerings to her by the Collyridian women, blasphemous and dangerous to the soul.The entire silence of history respecting the worship of the Virgin down to the end of the fourth century, proves clearly that it was foreign to the original spirit of Christianity, and belongs among the many innovations of the post-Nicene age.

In the beginning of the fifth century, however, the worship of saints appeared in full bloom, and then Mary, by reason of her singular relation to the Lord, was soon placed at the head, as the most blessed queen of the heavenly host.

Is there any reason to expect other historians to say this is incorrect? I ask because it's generally believed in both RCC and EO circles that prayer to Mary started right away, but it would seem unfounded if Schaff is correct. Would other notable historians (i.e. Pelikan, Oberman) be regarded as more or less reliable?

I don't want to whip out historical facts if I'm not sure they're reliable, but I've never heard anything to suggest that Schaff is anything but reliable. He obviously does write from a polemical Protestant viewpoint though.

Adam gives some helpful insights here . . . Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1

I'm not sure that we can attribute to any uninspired historian absolute objectivity and accuracy, but generally speaking with respect to this instance you've cited from Schaff, he is spot on with respect to Mary. It's beyond me how non-protestants can pretend that they approach history with unbiased objectivity.

Schaff deserves to be read, as do other historians, and it is our responsibility as students of history to compare and collaborate the sources of history from which we seek to learn. For example, I have encountered Romanists time and time again who have charged Schaff with Protestant bias in his historical assessments, but these allegations are almost always tossed out without any proof for them. Generally, the Romanist polemicist seems to regard himself as occupying the moral high ground any time he is able to play the martyr for a communion he believes is always misrepresented by Protestants. If Schaff's assessments of history can be substantiated from other sources, then the charges against him as that of a hostile witness are without foundation.

But personally, in order to free myself from having to deal with such nonsense from non-Protestants, I do my best to collaborate my points against them from members of their own respective communions.

DTK

Go to Google Books and search on the author J.J. Janeway for his work Antidote to the Poison of Popery in the Writings and Character of Professors Nevin and Schaff.

It's a little known work by a close friend of Dr. Samuel Miller of Princeton.

Originally Posted by Wayne

Go to Google Books and search on the author J.J. Janeway for his work Antidote to the Poison of Popery in the Writings and Character of Professors Nevin and Schaff.

It's a little known work by a close friend of Dr. Samuel Miller of Princeton.

Wow. That title leaves little doubt as to the author's position

-----Added 7/28/2009 at 10:21:28 EST-----

Originally Posted by DTK

I'm not sure that we can attribute to any uninspired historian absolute objectivity and accuracy, but generally speaking with respect to this instance you've cited from Schaff, he is spot on with respect to Mary. It's beyond me how non-protestants can pretend that they approach history with unbiased objectivity.

Schaff deserves to be read, as do other historians, and it is our responsibility as students of history to compare and collaborate the sources of history from which we seek to learn. For example, I have encountered Romanists time and time again who have charged Schaff with Protestant bias in his historical assessments, but these allegations are almost always tossed out without any proof for them. Generally, the Romanist polemicist seems to regard himself as occupying the moral high ground any time he is able to play the martyr for a communion he believes is always misrepresented by Protestants. If Schaff's assessments of history can be substantiated from other sources, then the charges against him as that of a hostile witness are without foundation.

But personally, in order to free myself from having to deal with such nonsense from non-Protestants, I do my best to collaborate my points against them from members of their own respective communions.

DTK

Thanks DTK,

It's beyond me how anyone can claim to approach history in an unbiased fashion. Some do. I have encountered Protestants who believe (and quite sincerely) that because they aren't bound to obey some nebulous tradition, they are free of bias and just look at Scripture objectively.

My question was mainly "was Schaff's history factually accurate?" I haven't found anything so far on any side to say that his facts are wrong, although Catholics attack him for being anti-Catholic and some Protestants attack him for being too Catholic. Some seem to feel that to offer any benevolent assessment of the church between the 2nd and 15th centuries is to submit oneself to "popery."

I thought I'd ask because I've been engaged in some very interesting discussions with EO believers (almost all of whom are converts, and including one who holds degrees from Gordon-Conwell but later become Orthodox after doing a doctoral dissertation on Clement of Rome). What strikes me as odd is their tidy view of church history, much more so (it seems) than Rome's. They attack Rome's rather novel doctrine of "development of doctrine" for what it is--an implicit admission that Rome's "Big-T" tradition is not identical to what was held throughout history. Kudos to the East, I suppose, but then they claim that their doctrine has never undergone "development" but only clarification, and mainly only on those points relating to the 7 Councils. Yet if Schaff's figures are right, that prayers to Mary (together with claims of sinlessness) cannot be traced any earlier than the late 300's, then clearly something developed that was not there before. I think the same goes for the episcopal structure of the church. It arose early, yes, but it still arose. That does not prove that episcopal government is right or wrong, but does prove that Christianity didn't sprint out of the starting gate with fully robed bishops. If I respond to them historically I want to be sure that at least the facts are correct.

I agree 100% that it's our responsibility to read histories with discernment and to read the original sources when we can, but reading 400 years of church writings isn't on my schedule quite yet. It might take me 400 years to read Schaff's 8 volumes!

Originally Posted by wturri78

Kudos to the East, I suppose, but then they claim that their doctrine has never undergone "development" but only clarification, and mainly only on those points relating to the 7 Councils. Yet if Schaff's figures are right, that prayers to Mary (together with claims of sinlessness) cannot be traced any earlier than the late 300's, then clearly something developed that was not there before. I think the same goes for the episcopal structure of the church. It arose early, yes, but it still arose. That does not prove that episcopal government is right or wrong, but does prove that Christianity didn't sprint out of the starting gate with fully robed bishops. If I respond to them historically I want to be sure that at least the facts are correct.

Eusebius does cite Polycrates writing to Victor Bishop of Rome, the Apostle John the apostle "who became a priest wearing the miter" probably after 180 ad (Maier's translation of Eusebius, b.24, pg 179). Which shows that even early sources were not unaffected.

And I just came across this tidbit about Dionysius the Areopagite on the OCA's website:

When the holy Apostle Paul preached at the place on the Hill of Ares (Acts 17:16-34), Dionysius accepted his salvific proclamation and became a Christian. For three years St Dionysius remained a companion of the holy Apostle Paul in preaching the Word of God. Later on, the Apostle Paul selected him as bishop of the city of Athens. And in the year 57 St Dionysius was present at the repose of the Most Holy Theotokos.

During the lifetime of the Mother of God, St Dionysius had journeyed from Athens to Jerusalem to meet Her. He wrote to his teacher the Apostle Paul: "I witness by God, that besides the very God Himself, there is nothing else filled with such divine power and grace. No one can fully comprehend what I saw. I confess before God: when I was with John, who shone among the Apostles like the sun in the sky, when I was brought before the countenance of the Most Holy Virgin, I experienced an inexpressible sensation. Before me gleamed a sort of divine radiance which transfixed my spirit. I perceived the fragrance of indescribable aromas and was filled with such delight that my very body became faint, and my spirit could hardly endure these signs and marks of eternal majesty and heavenly power. The grace from her overwhelmed my heart and shook my very spirit. If I did not have in mind your instruction, I should have mistaken Her for the very God. It is impossible to stand before greater blessedness than this which I beheld." ...

The written works of St Dionysius the Areopagite are of extraordinary significance in the theology of the Orthodox Church, and also for late Medieval Western theology. For almost four centuries, until the beginning of the sixth century, the works of this holy Father of the Church were preserved in an obscure manuscript tradition, primarily by theologians of the Alexandrian Church. The concepts in these works were known and utilized by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius the Great, pre-eminent figures of the catechetical school in Alexandria, and also by St Gregory the Theologian. St Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to St Gregory the Theologian a Commentary on the "Areopagitum." The works of St Dionysius the Areopagite received general Church recognition during the sixth-seventh centuries....

(trans. note: although many scholars suggest that the "Areopagitum" was actually written by an anonymous sixth century figure who employed the common ancient device of piously borrowing an illustrious name, this in no way diminishes the profound theological significance of the works.)

So, they're saying, it doesn't matter that this was a totally fictitious work; it says the right things, and so we'll incorporate it into our "tradition".

Bill, Schaff is generally recognized as being a historian of the highest caliber. Pelikan and Latourette are also great reads.

Just thought someone should answer your question.

Originally Posted by johnbugay

So, they're saying, it doesn't matter that this was a totally fictitious work; it says the right things, and so we'll incorporate it into our "tradition".

So it would seem--kind of like a liberal saying it doesn't really matter if the resurrection never happened, we can still celebrate Easter because it has meaning to us.

I found the following on the Q&A of that same site: "The author to whom the works of Dionysius are ascribed is most likely a Syrian living at the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries who used Dionysius the Areopagite as a pseudonym for writing Mystical Theology, the Divine Names, and other works. While his writings are highly influenced by the Neoplatonism of his time, they are also influenced by Saint Clement of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Origen, and others."

The article you referenced says that the supposed writings of Dionysius had great influence on Origin and others--this guy says the writings of Origin and others had an influence on whoever wrote Dionysius.

It would seem you'd have to have a lot of hand-waving going on to be able to admit that a pillar of "Holy Tradition" never really existed, yet you can't remove it or your system will fall.

Pay no attenion to the man behind the curtain!

-----Added 7/29/2009 at 09:29:14 EST-----

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Bill, Schaff is generally recognized as being a historian of the highest caliber. Pelikan and Latourette are also great reads.

Just thought someone should answer your question.

Thank you! It seems I can't even stay on my own topic!

I've read bits and pieces of Pelikan, mainly as quoted by other people, and his writing seems very dense. I find Schaff and Kelly to be much easier to read and retain. Never heard of Latourette.

Thanks for the suggestions!

I read some Pelikan in Seminary and I agree with the comment about the density of his prose.