What do you think?
Rate this book
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible: A Short Introduction
Read the Scriptures with the insight of our forebears. Christians live in the house built by the church fathers. Essential Christian doctrines were shaped by how figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine read the Bible. But appreciating patristic interpretation is not just for the historically curious, as if it were only a matter of literary archaeology. Nor should it be intimidating. Rather, the fathers gleaned insights from Scripture that continue to be relevant to all Christians.
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible is an accessible introduction to help you read Scripture with the early church. With a clear and simple style, Gerald Bray explains the distinctives of early Christian interpretation and shows how the fathers interpreted key Bible passages from Genesis to Revelation. Their unique perspective is summed up in seven principles that can inspire our Bible reading today. With Bray as your guide, you can reclaim the rich insights of the fathers with reverence and discernment.
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible is an accessible introduction to help you read Scripture with the early church. With a clear and simple style, Gerald Bray explains the distinctives of early Christian interpretation and shows how the fathers interpreted key Bible passages from Genesis to Revelation. Their unique perspective is summed up in seven principles that can inspire our Bible reading today. With Bray as your guide, you can reclaim the rich insights of the fathers with reverence and discernment.
184 pages, Hardcover
Published April 13, 2022
12 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
About the author
Gerald L. Bray
99 books39 followersGerald L. Bray (Ph.D., University of Paris--Sorbonne) is director of research for the Latimer Trust, based in London, and a research professor at Samford University, teaching in the Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama. A priest of the Church of England, Bray has also edited the post-Reformation Anglican canons. He has edited several volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture and Ancient Christian Texts, as well as volume one of the Ancient Christian Doctrine series, all for IVP Academic. General EditorTimothy George (Th.D., Harvard University) is a renowned Reformation historian and author of Theology of the Reformers, as well as many other theological and historical works. He is founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and an executive editor of Christianity Today.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
October 10, 2022
With all due respect to Dr. Bray, I found this introduction pretty disappointing. In a book titled How the Church Fathers Read the Bible, I was surprised to find the first 52 pages taken up with nit-picky questions about just who counts as a “father,” why we should care about certain figures whose orthodoxy came under suspicion, and a much-too-detailed discussion of the LXX and other linguistic issues. Now, are these interesting and important questions for a scholar? Of course! But in a 187-page introduction to how the church fathers read the Bible, it was way too much detail on issues that could’ve been mentioned in a footnote or in a couple sentences.
That was only the beginning of my disappointment, though. Once he actually got around to saying something about how the church fathers read the Bible, Bray’s answer was generally “not very well.” Time after time, Bray displays a truly surprising dose of what can only be termed “chronological snobbery.” For example, commenting on the exegetical battle over Proverbs 8 during the Arian crisis, Bray claims: “In fact, as we now know, [Prov. 8:22] is not about the Son at all but about the divine wisdom” (29). On the facing page, he criticizes Augustine’s Christological & ecclesial reading of the Good Samaritan, claiming that although Augustine had the right doctrine, that’s not what the parable is about, and Augustine was mistaken (28). These are only two examples of a pattern that runs through the entire book. He criticizes Origen for trying to defend the Flood narrative as a historical event; he criticizes Basil’s literal reading of the creation story; he even suggests that there may be credibility to the idea that matter is eternal! (70). Tellingly, more than once, Bray indicates that the Patristic approach fails “to meet the standards of interpretation that we now expect” (103). He has a clear distaste for “allegory” (which he arbitrarily distinguishes from “typology”), stating over an over that even the greatest of the fathers couldn’t quite manage to totally free themselves from its grip. He even compares allegory to astrology as an art that relies on giving significance to arbitrary associations.
Even if Bray were right about all these points, what one would expect from an introduction to Patristic exegesis is, quite frankly, a more sympathetic account. Bray continually stands as judge over the fathers, rarely allowing them to speak for themselves, and often telling the reader what a modern reader can or can’t appropriate from the fathers. Why not let the fathers speak for themselves and let the reader decide? Bray seems to approach the book from a defensive position: assuming my readers and I both find little in the fathers’ approach that is helpful, how can I convince them that it’s still important to read the fathers? I, for one, was not convinced. If you want a book that may actually give you some interest in the church fathers, this isn’t it. Boersma’s Scripture As Real Presence is helpful, or O’Keefe & Reno’s Sanctified Vision. Danielou’s The Bible and the Liturgy gives a much better sense of the biblical roots of the fathers’ method. Maybe better yet, just read the fathers!
That was only the beginning of my disappointment, though. Once he actually got around to saying something about how the church fathers read the Bible, Bray’s answer was generally “not very well.” Time after time, Bray displays a truly surprising dose of what can only be termed “chronological snobbery.” For example, commenting on the exegetical battle over Proverbs 8 during the Arian crisis, Bray claims: “In fact, as we now know, [Prov. 8:22] is not about the Son at all but about the divine wisdom” (29). On the facing page, he criticizes Augustine’s Christological & ecclesial reading of the Good Samaritan, claiming that although Augustine had the right doctrine, that’s not what the parable is about, and Augustine was mistaken (28). These are only two examples of a pattern that runs through the entire book. He criticizes Origen for trying to defend the Flood narrative as a historical event; he criticizes Basil’s literal reading of the creation story; he even suggests that there may be credibility to the idea that matter is eternal! (70). Tellingly, more than once, Bray indicates that the Patristic approach fails “to meet the standards of interpretation that we now expect” (103). He has a clear distaste for “allegory” (which he arbitrarily distinguishes from “typology”), stating over an over that even the greatest of the fathers couldn’t quite manage to totally free themselves from its grip. He even compares allegory to astrology as an art that relies on giving significance to arbitrary associations.
Even if Bray were right about all these points, what one would expect from an introduction to Patristic exegesis is, quite frankly, a more sympathetic account. Bray continually stands as judge over the fathers, rarely allowing them to speak for themselves, and often telling the reader what a modern reader can or can’t appropriate from the fathers. Why not let the fathers speak for themselves and let the reader decide? Bray seems to approach the book from a defensive position: assuming my readers and I both find little in the fathers’ approach that is helpful, how can I convince them that it’s still important to read the fathers? I, for one, was not convinced. If you want a book that may actually give you some interest in the church fathers, this isn’t it. Boersma’s Scripture As Real Presence is helpful, or O’Keefe & Reno’s Sanctified Vision. Danielou’s The Bible and the Liturgy gives a much better sense of the biblical roots of the fathers’ method. Maybe better yet, just read the fathers!
June 8, 2022
Gerald Bray has written an engaging and concise introduction to the church fathers and their theological exegesis of Scriptures. The first chapter sets the parameters for what is/is not the patristic era. The second, third, and fourth chapter draws out the consensual themes seen across eight centuries of geographically and theologically diverse interpreters. The fifth chapter brings out these themes in seven “case study” examples. The final chapter brings the project together into seven “theses” that readers should take away from time spent with the fathers.
One unique feature of Bray’s survey is the extent of who he includes in “the fathers.” Bray’s first chapter defines the parameters of “patristic biblical interpretation” with reference to the well-known fathers like Augustine and the Cappadocians. Additionally, Bray’s survey also includes Armenian, Coptic, and Ethiopian fathers, too. He also extends the patristic era to the eighth century to include the Venerable Bede and John of Damascus. The opening chapter surveys historic definitions of “the Bible” from the Hebrew texts to the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint. The fathers primarily did their exegetical work from translation, which becomes a significant theme throughout the book. These surveys are necessarily short, but still offer helpful discussion on the history of these translations and their canonical organization. Some discussion here loses clarity for the sake of brevity. For example, Bray describes the role of the deuterocanon in the “original LXX” (20). What is the “original LXX”? Few canon lists or physical codices from the patristic era agree on what deuterocanonical books should be read alongside the OT and NT. If there isn’t agreement on deuterocanonical texts, how might this have influenced patristic interpretation?
The central chapters of the book examine characteristics broadly true of all church fathers that fall into Bray’s wide pool. Bray describes the development and adoption of the quadriga, the fourfold sense of the Scriptures. Origen’s role in the development of the quadriga follows, as well as Origen’s subsequent influence across patristic interpretation for the next several centuries. Next is Augustine’s adoption of Tyconius’ interpretive rules, which Bray develops into a fascinating discussion on the fathers’ comfort with adopting and promoting interpretive practices and conclusions from those whom they perceived as heretics and schismatics. If the methods were good, the fathers cared less about the source of those methods. The fathers also cared less about copyright infringement, creating a more carefree attitude to the reapplication of good content even from questionable authorities. These central chapters are a whirlwind tour of patristic themes and similarities; they would have benefited from more footnotes to primary sources for readers who might want to follow up the context of these themes with the authors themselves. Readers must wait until the penultimate chapter to be rewarded with extensive footnotes.
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible concludes with seven important passages annotated by patristic interpretation. For those familiar with the Ancient Christian Commentary series, this chapter is a fun “Greatest Hits” version of that series. Finally, Bray offers seven summary “theses” readers should take away from the fathers. His fourth thesis is especially significant for what it offers to modern exegetical discussion among many conservative camps. Bray concludes his earlier discussion on the role of translation in patristic exegesis with “the substance of the biblical message is more important than its form” (184). There is nothing like a strict adherence to “plenary verbal inspiration” in patristic exegesis. For the same reasons Qumran boasted multiple versions of Jeremiah, so the Church Fathers were aware of, and comfortable with, differences in wording and content across their copies of the (translated) Scriptures. Few fathers sensed a need to learn Hebrew. Few western fathers felt they needed Greek if they had Latin. For them, the translated Scriptures were every bit as much the Holy Scriptures as “the autographs” were.
Bray’s How the Church Fathers Read the Bible is an accessible and enjoyable introduction to the world of patristic exegesis. This introduction is of particular value to readers who think there is nothing to be gained from pre-reformation biblical interpreters. Bray does not idolize these interpreters, nor does he dismiss them out of hand just because their exegetical conclusions might differ so much from modern readers. They still have important work to offer to modern readers, and indeed modern Biblical exegesis stands on their shoulders.
Disclosure: I received a copy of the book for free from the publisher. I was not asked to provide a positive review, and this in no way affected my review.
One unique feature of Bray’s survey is the extent of who he includes in “the fathers.” Bray’s first chapter defines the parameters of “patristic biblical interpretation” with reference to the well-known fathers like Augustine and the Cappadocians. Additionally, Bray’s survey also includes Armenian, Coptic, and Ethiopian fathers, too. He also extends the patristic era to the eighth century to include the Venerable Bede and John of Damascus. The opening chapter surveys historic definitions of “the Bible” from the Hebrew texts to the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint. The fathers primarily did their exegetical work from translation, which becomes a significant theme throughout the book. These surveys are necessarily short, but still offer helpful discussion on the history of these translations and their canonical organization. Some discussion here loses clarity for the sake of brevity. For example, Bray describes the role of the deuterocanon in the “original LXX” (20). What is the “original LXX”? Few canon lists or physical codices from the patristic era agree on what deuterocanonical books should be read alongside the OT and NT. If there isn’t agreement on deuterocanonical texts, how might this have influenced patristic interpretation?
The central chapters of the book examine characteristics broadly true of all church fathers that fall into Bray’s wide pool. Bray describes the development and adoption of the quadriga, the fourfold sense of the Scriptures. Origen’s role in the development of the quadriga follows, as well as Origen’s subsequent influence across patristic interpretation for the next several centuries. Next is Augustine’s adoption of Tyconius’ interpretive rules, which Bray develops into a fascinating discussion on the fathers’ comfort with adopting and promoting interpretive practices and conclusions from those whom they perceived as heretics and schismatics. If the methods were good, the fathers cared less about the source of those methods. The fathers also cared less about copyright infringement, creating a more carefree attitude to the reapplication of good content even from questionable authorities. These central chapters are a whirlwind tour of patristic themes and similarities; they would have benefited from more footnotes to primary sources for readers who might want to follow up the context of these themes with the authors themselves. Readers must wait until the penultimate chapter to be rewarded with extensive footnotes.
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible concludes with seven important passages annotated by patristic interpretation. For those familiar with the Ancient Christian Commentary series, this chapter is a fun “Greatest Hits” version of that series. Finally, Bray offers seven summary “theses” readers should take away from the fathers. His fourth thesis is especially significant for what it offers to modern exegetical discussion among many conservative camps. Bray concludes his earlier discussion on the role of translation in patristic exegesis with “the substance of the biblical message is more important than its form” (184). There is nothing like a strict adherence to “plenary verbal inspiration” in patristic exegesis. For the same reasons Qumran boasted multiple versions of Jeremiah, so the Church Fathers were aware of, and comfortable with, differences in wording and content across their copies of the (translated) Scriptures. Few fathers sensed a need to learn Hebrew. Few western fathers felt they needed Greek if they had Latin. For them, the translated Scriptures were every bit as much the Holy Scriptures as “the autographs” were.
Bray’s How the Church Fathers Read the Bible is an accessible and enjoyable introduction to the world of patristic exegesis. This introduction is of particular value to readers who think there is nothing to be gained from pre-reformation biblical interpreters. Bray does not idolize these interpreters, nor does he dismiss them out of hand just because their exegetical conclusions might differ so much from modern readers. They still have important work to offer to modern readers, and indeed modern Biblical exegesis stands on their shoulders.
Disclosure: I received a copy of the book for free from the publisher. I was not asked to provide a positive review, and this in no way affected my review.
July 29, 2022
Bray gonna Bray
July 14, 2025
Frankly, a very disappointing book.
For a short introduction to this topic, Bray spends a staggering amount of time (about 50 pages) discussing exactly who we should count as a church Father (where he seems to argue that we should include those who were unorthodox or heretics on that list because some of their commentaries have survived?), and exactly what versions of what texts in what languages the Fathers had access to. This might be interesting to a specialist, but seems very excessive for an introductory text. Too much time spent on the 'Church Father' and 'Bible' parts of the title, and not enough spent on the 'How' and 'Read' bits.
Then when Bray finally gets to how the church fathers actually read the Bible, his basic answer seems to be - badly (but that we should respect them because they were Godly men who were attempting to be faithful, and who believed the correct doctrines). If true, this doesn't really seem like much of a reason to bother engaging with them. Now, Bray does have some nice positive things to say about the Fathers' reading of the Bible at the start and the end of the book: 'evaluating their interpretations of the Bible must therefore be a cautious exercise, undertaken in humility and respect for their world-changing achievement', 'their fundamental outlook was sound', 'we stand on the shoulders of giants', 'their legacy is one for which we must be forever grateful'; these positive things, however, are undercut by a consistently smug and condescending attitude towards the Fathers' reading of the Bible. I wrote the word smug at least 3 or 4 times in the margin as I read. A few examples will suffice. Bray accuses the biblical interpretation of the Fathers of failing 'to meet the standards of interpretation that we would now expect'. The phrase is used a couple of times, and betrays a chronological snobbery which assumes a modern (presumably grammatical historical) approach to the text is obviously the correct and best one, without arguing for it. A more specific examples is that he says 'as we now know, the verse is not about the son at all' when arguing against a christological reading of proverbs 8. Again, no argumentation, only the assumption of the confident conclusions of modern biblical interpretation. Finally, Bray compares Origen's interpretation of the Scriptures to astrology, which seems more than a little harsh on Origen.
Furthermore, there is a certain incoherence to Bray's argumentation. He condemns allegory for downplaying the historical events of Scripture, and then chastises Origen (the chief allegorist according to Bray) for defending the historicity of the flood, and Basil for his reading the creation story too literally. The definition of allegory seems to shift and change throughout the book.
The case studies section at the end of the book was a large part of the appeal for me in reading it, as a chance to see the Church Fathers in action. But again I was left disappointed, as Bray would give a surface level survey of a couple of readings of a text, and then ask, with now familiar condescension, 'How much of this can a modern Christian appropriate?'.
Overall, as another reviewer has noted, one would expect an introduction of this kind to have been written by someone who was at least a little more sympathetic to the interpretive method of the Fathers. Or if not, at least someone willing to present them at their most persuasive and let the reader make up their own mind. If you have considered picking this book up, I wouldn't bother.
For a short introduction to this topic, Bray spends a staggering amount of time (about 50 pages) discussing exactly who we should count as a church Father (where he seems to argue that we should include those who were unorthodox or heretics on that list because some of their commentaries have survived?), and exactly what versions of what texts in what languages the Fathers had access to. This might be interesting to a specialist, but seems very excessive for an introductory text. Too much time spent on the 'Church Father' and 'Bible' parts of the title, and not enough spent on the 'How' and 'Read' bits.
Then when Bray finally gets to how the church fathers actually read the Bible, his basic answer seems to be - badly (but that we should respect them because they were Godly men who were attempting to be faithful, and who believed the correct doctrines). If true, this doesn't really seem like much of a reason to bother engaging with them. Now, Bray does have some nice positive things to say about the Fathers' reading of the Bible at the start and the end of the book: 'evaluating their interpretations of the Bible must therefore be a cautious exercise, undertaken in humility and respect for their world-changing achievement', 'their fundamental outlook was sound', 'we stand on the shoulders of giants', 'their legacy is one for which we must be forever grateful'; these positive things, however, are undercut by a consistently smug and condescending attitude towards the Fathers' reading of the Bible. I wrote the word smug at least 3 or 4 times in the margin as I read. A few examples will suffice. Bray accuses the biblical interpretation of the Fathers of failing 'to meet the standards of interpretation that we would now expect'. The phrase is used a couple of times, and betrays a chronological snobbery which assumes a modern (presumably grammatical historical) approach to the text is obviously the correct and best one, without arguing for it. A more specific examples is that he says 'as we now know, the verse is not about the son at all' when arguing against a christological reading of proverbs 8. Again, no argumentation, only the assumption of the confident conclusions of modern biblical interpretation. Finally, Bray compares Origen's interpretation of the Scriptures to astrology, which seems more than a little harsh on Origen.
Furthermore, there is a certain incoherence to Bray's argumentation. He condemns allegory for downplaying the historical events of Scripture, and then chastises Origen (the chief allegorist according to Bray) for defending the historicity of the flood, and Basil for his reading the creation story too literally. The definition of allegory seems to shift and change throughout the book.
The case studies section at the end of the book was a large part of the appeal for me in reading it, as a chance to see the Church Fathers in action. But again I was left disappointed, as Bray would give a surface level survey of a couple of readings of a text, and then ask, with now familiar condescension, 'How much of this can a modern Christian appropriate?'.
Overall, as another reviewer has noted, one would expect an introduction of this kind to have been written by someone who was at least a little more sympathetic to the interpretive method of the Fathers. Or if not, at least someone willing to present them at their most persuasive and let the reader make up their own mind. If you have considered picking this book up, I wouldn't bother.
October 27, 2022
Bray’s accessible little book feels like the work of a scholar who has thoughtfully considered how to teach the subject at hand. He pinpoints some of the most important lessons the church fathers can teach us. In evaluating patristic interpretations of the Bible, he is critical without being dismissive, enthusiastic while remaining cautious. In responding to some of the misconceptions people have about the fathers, he is a trustworthy guide.
His approach to the topic is somewhat unique. With impressive brevity, chapter one discusses the history of patristic studies, the origin and development of the biblical texts as it relates to the fathers, an argument for widening the range of figures studied in patristic interpretation, and the interpretive methods and modes of communication developed by the early church. While some of this might seem tangential or unnecessary, the information is a helpful background for learning to approach the fathers and their writings.
In chapters two through four, Bray describes the clash of worldviews between the early church, Jews and pagans as well as the fathers’ varied hermeneutical approaches, which were often influenced by an attraction to or repulsion from the legacy of Origen. This is where the book overlaps with many other introductions to the fathers.
Chapter five brings together patristic interpretations of ten different biblical passages. Rather than focusing on one father’s interpretation, these sections attempt to convey several different perspectives in a few pages. Finally, Bray offers seven theses on patristic biblical interpretation.
For the church fathers, the Bible is the foundation of all knowable truth, the only source of Christian doctrine and a revelation from God to be read in the context of praise and worship and understood in the light of its main theme, Jesus Christ.
There is much more to learn from the fathers than Bray attempts to cover. He often criticizes them in the details (perhaps a consequence of including a wide range of interpreters), which could leave the impression they were not good readers of the Bible. However, Bray repeatedly affirms that the general patristic outlook was not only correct, but worth emulating. He presents the heart of the fathers in the spirit of the reformers.
Lexham Press was gracious and sent me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
His approach to the topic is somewhat unique. With impressive brevity, chapter one discusses the history of patristic studies, the origin and development of the biblical texts as it relates to the fathers, an argument for widening the range of figures studied in patristic interpretation, and the interpretive methods and modes of communication developed by the early church. While some of this might seem tangential or unnecessary, the information is a helpful background for learning to approach the fathers and their writings.
In chapters two through four, Bray describes the clash of worldviews between the early church, Jews and pagans as well as the fathers’ varied hermeneutical approaches, which were often influenced by an attraction to or repulsion from the legacy of Origen. This is where the book overlaps with many other introductions to the fathers.
Chapter five brings together patristic interpretations of ten different biblical passages. Rather than focusing on one father’s interpretation, these sections attempt to convey several different perspectives in a few pages. Finally, Bray offers seven theses on patristic biblical interpretation.
For the church fathers, the Bible is the foundation of all knowable truth, the only source of Christian doctrine and a revelation from God to be read in the context of praise and worship and understood in the light of its main theme, Jesus Christ.
There is much more to learn from the fathers than Bray attempts to cover. He often criticizes them in the details (perhaps a consequence of including a wide range of interpreters), which could leave the impression they were not good readers of the Bible. However, Bray repeatedly affirms that the general patristic outlook was not only correct, but worth emulating. He presents the heart of the fathers in the spirit of the reformers.
Lexham Press was gracious and sent me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
January 7, 2023
This might be the most difficult book for me to review in 2022. The reason is that I am just not sure what to think about it. Half of me loves it. Half of me hates. I really appreciate the goal of the author but the flaws in the book were so large that it should just be rejected altogether.
Or should I recommend it in spite of the flaws because I want more people to be exposed to the early church writers – I don’t know what to do here.
But if you have never read the Church Fathers yourself, especially the ones known as the apostolic fathers of those first couple of centuries – you should familiarize yourself with them. If you want to know them but don’t know where to start. Bray’s short book could be a good place to dip your toe into the waters.
But let me give you my thoughts with a few warnings first.
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible starts pretty slow if you are someone who is familiar with the church fathers. I’ve read every early church father through Clement of Alexandria. And I felt like the first 53 pages of what is already a short book was just a little too basic, but if you don’t know anything maybe the beginning is more helpful but my suspicion is that most people reading this book could skip the first chapter and not miss anything.
In the body of the book, Bray walks through what he saw as the principles of interpretation put forward by the church fathers in their understanding of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Not only their hermeneutics but also how they approached certain topics such as creation or the end times and he covered the places where they clashed against each other.
At times, I felt like Bray was right on according to what I have read. At other times, I felt like he coming out of left field and just giving his own opinions that were entirely divorced from anything the church fathers said.
Here’s an example [Origen] defended the historicity of Noah and the flood, going to great lengths to explain how so many animals could live together for forty days in such a confined space. This line of argument was no more persuasive in his time than it is in ours.
Really Bray, you have documentation that it wasn’t persuasive in Origen’s day? That it was common to reject it. I don’t know where that line comes from in the writings of the Fathers. Or when he claimed the church fathers knew much of Genesis was symbolic yet they calculated the years to creation literally. Now, I know the fathers would interpret much as typology but I am still convinced based on my own reading that they saw all of Genesis as genuine history which is why they calculated the years to creation. So how does Bray know they saw it as symbolic.
And here’s the problem for me. Bray rarely uses footnotes in this book, so there is no way to doublecheck about 95% of his claims. He says Pelagius believed it was possible for a person to save himself by his works. I read Pelagius’ commentary on Romans and I wholly disagree with that opinion on Pelagius. Pelagius rejected original sin but still believed people are saved by faith in Christ.
The hard part is that I think for the most part Bray got the church fathers right when he was talking about what they believed and how they approached the Bible. When he discussed how Augustine changed the way the church viewed the End Times – that was right on. Now while I think this was to the harm of the church, Bray thought it was to the benefit of the church. I just wish Bray could have presented Augustine’s shift without throwing in his own opinion on it.
The final chapter on Case studies which presented how the church fathers approached 10 passages was very good and I think it was because Bray was a little more careful to just present the views of the fathers and not mix in his own opinions as often. Although when he covered Revelation 20:1-6, you might think based on this book that there were not any church fathers who were premillennial as he doesn’t bring up any of the fathers who believed that Jesus would reign on earth for a thousand years. There were, in fact it was probably the dominate view for a couple hundred years but Bray didn’t quote from any of those fathers. I am guessing because none of them wrote a commentary on Revelation, but I’m not sure.
The hardest part of this book is trying to separate Bray’s own views from the views of the fathers. Which is all the more challenging when he presents views of the fathers and doesn’t even tell the reader which specific father(s) he is referencing.
I think there is a lot of good stuff in a book that is this small. He really does a great job tracking how different fathers approached the Bible from different philosophies and perspectives and how they changed from generation to generation and challenged each other. There is no singular view of the early church on really any topic or passage.
The difficulty in this book is separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. The one nice about this book is that it is relatively short so the positives to be gained won’t require you to do a ton of reading. I am glad I read this book but I am still struggling with my own recommendation for others. And I guess if I am being honest, that is just where it needs to be.
I don’t give this a strong recommendation. The addition of copious footnotes could have made this book far more impactful and important. I do think you will benefit from reading it, just be careful to look out for the places where Gerald Bray puts his views of the text right alongside the views of the church fathers and the reader can’t know what is from Bray and what is from ancient church history.
This is a transcript for a video review. You can watch the review at YouTube.com/revreads
Or should I recommend it in spite of the flaws because I want more people to be exposed to the early church writers – I don’t know what to do here.
But if you have never read the Church Fathers yourself, especially the ones known as the apostolic fathers of those first couple of centuries – you should familiarize yourself with them. If you want to know them but don’t know where to start. Bray’s short book could be a good place to dip your toe into the waters.
But let me give you my thoughts with a few warnings first.
How the Church Fathers Read the Bible starts pretty slow if you are someone who is familiar with the church fathers. I’ve read every early church father through Clement of Alexandria. And I felt like the first 53 pages of what is already a short book was just a little too basic, but if you don’t know anything maybe the beginning is more helpful but my suspicion is that most people reading this book could skip the first chapter and not miss anything.
In the body of the book, Bray walks through what he saw as the principles of interpretation put forward by the church fathers in their understanding of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Not only their hermeneutics but also how they approached certain topics such as creation or the end times and he covered the places where they clashed against each other.
At times, I felt like Bray was right on according to what I have read. At other times, I felt like he coming out of left field and just giving his own opinions that were entirely divorced from anything the church fathers said.
Here’s an example [Origen] defended the historicity of Noah and the flood, going to great lengths to explain how so many animals could live together for forty days in such a confined space. This line of argument was no more persuasive in his time than it is in ours.
Really Bray, you have documentation that it wasn’t persuasive in Origen’s day? That it was common to reject it. I don’t know where that line comes from in the writings of the Fathers. Or when he claimed the church fathers knew much of Genesis was symbolic yet they calculated the years to creation literally. Now, I know the fathers would interpret much as typology but I am still convinced based on my own reading that they saw all of Genesis as genuine history which is why they calculated the years to creation. So how does Bray know they saw it as symbolic.
And here’s the problem for me. Bray rarely uses footnotes in this book, so there is no way to doublecheck about 95% of his claims. He says Pelagius believed it was possible for a person to save himself by his works. I read Pelagius’ commentary on Romans and I wholly disagree with that opinion on Pelagius. Pelagius rejected original sin but still believed people are saved by faith in Christ.
The hard part is that I think for the most part Bray got the church fathers right when he was talking about what they believed and how they approached the Bible. When he discussed how Augustine changed the way the church viewed the End Times – that was right on. Now while I think this was to the harm of the church, Bray thought it was to the benefit of the church. I just wish Bray could have presented Augustine’s shift without throwing in his own opinion on it.
The final chapter on Case studies which presented how the church fathers approached 10 passages was very good and I think it was because Bray was a little more careful to just present the views of the fathers and not mix in his own opinions as often. Although when he covered Revelation 20:1-6, you might think based on this book that there were not any church fathers who were premillennial as he doesn’t bring up any of the fathers who believed that Jesus would reign on earth for a thousand years. There were, in fact it was probably the dominate view for a couple hundred years but Bray didn’t quote from any of those fathers. I am guessing because none of them wrote a commentary on Revelation, but I’m not sure.
The hardest part of this book is trying to separate Bray’s own views from the views of the fathers. Which is all the more challenging when he presents views of the fathers and doesn’t even tell the reader which specific father(s) he is referencing.
I think there is a lot of good stuff in a book that is this small. He really does a great job tracking how different fathers approached the Bible from different philosophies and perspectives and how they changed from generation to generation and challenged each other. There is no singular view of the early church on really any topic or passage.
The difficulty in this book is separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. The one nice about this book is that it is relatively short so the positives to be gained won’t require you to do a ton of reading. I am glad I read this book but I am still struggling with my own recommendation for others. And I guess if I am being honest, that is just where it needs to be.
I don’t give this a strong recommendation. The addition of copious footnotes could have made this book far more impactful and important. I do think you will benefit from reading it, just be careful to look out for the places where Gerald Bray puts his views of the text right alongside the views of the church fathers and the reader can’t know what is from Bray and what is from ancient church history.
This is a transcript for a video review. You can watch the review at YouTube.com/revreads
May 2, 2022
Recently there has been much interest in learning about the Church fathers and their writings. Certainly all those who start this noble and arduous task will find some challenges, such as numerous patristic writings, diversity of topics addressed and in some cases a different way of reading or interpreting the Bible in relation to ours. This short and concise book, written by Professor Gerald Bray, helps the reader in this latest challenge.
How the Church fathers read the Bible is an important issue not only to better understand their writings but also not to impose our contemporary forms, methodologies or thoughts.
This book is divided into six chapters, in the first presents the key terms and background in relation to the Church fathers (a very important chapter); in the second, the interaction of the Church fathers and their writings in the Greco-Roman and Jewish world. From chapters three to five, the author addresses issues related to interpretation, beginning with the four senses of interpretation (another master chapter). Finally, chapter six deals with seven theses that condense what the Church fathers affirmed regarding the interpretation of the Bible, considering as the author writes that “the fathers were not perfect, and not everything they had to say has stood the test of time, but on certain fundamental principles they remain authoritative guides for the church today.”
I personally find this to be a very valuable resource for those of us who want to learn about the Church fathers and their writings. What makes this book very different from others (apart from its focus) is that it provides the reader with a rich background, so that even if you know little or nothing about the church fathers, you can read this book very easily.
Let's continue knowing our Christian history and learning together with the voices of yesterday.
How the Church fathers read the Bible is an important issue not only to better understand their writings but also not to impose our contemporary forms, methodologies or thoughts.
This book is divided into six chapters, in the first presents the key terms and background in relation to the Church fathers (a very important chapter); in the second, the interaction of the Church fathers and their writings in the Greco-Roman and Jewish world. From chapters three to five, the author addresses issues related to interpretation, beginning with the four senses of interpretation (another master chapter). Finally, chapter six deals with seven theses that condense what the Church fathers affirmed regarding the interpretation of the Bible, considering as the author writes that “the fathers were not perfect, and not everything they had to say has stood the test of time, but on certain fundamental principles they remain authoritative guides for the church today.”
I personally find this to be a very valuable resource for those of us who want to learn about the Church fathers and their writings. What makes this book very different from others (apart from its focus) is that it provides the reader with a rich background, so that even if you know little or nothing about the church fathers, you can read this book very easily.
Let's continue knowing our Christian history and learning together with the voices of yesterday.
November 18, 2024
As I begin my dive into reading the Church Fathers, this was a book that came up a few times as a helpful material to begin getting into their writings. Overall this book was great. It is succinct, helpful, and easy to read. I only have 2 minor gripes with if (if you can even call them that). First, the opening chapters fly through some very large topics that could have been expounded on a lot more. Just beginning to read the church Fathers, I could tell I was a bit in over my head but Bray's attempt to lead the reader into these deep waters was definitely helpful and good, even if at times I felt I was too deep in the water. My second gripe, was that at times it was hard to tell whether he was speaking from his perspective or reiterating a certain father's position. This happens a few times in the early chapters in the book and left me a bit confused. However, in the second section of the book where he works through passages of scripture and early interpretations of them, he makes it very clear what are his thoughts, and what aren't. But the read was amazing and I'd highly recommend!
January 7, 2025
It's a fair summary. It is good that it gives a fair share of text to less known Fathers and did not let titanic figures such as St. Augustine take up the bulk of the text. The case study section is quite valuable. It would have been more helpful to elaborate on how some of these interpretations are so ubiquitous that they are not even associated with a particular Father but are taken almost as a commonsensical interpretation. It would have been interesting to see even a brief mention of the connection to first- and second-generation Protestant reformers.
November 7, 2022
The first half of the book was not that helpful, just a basic introduction, most of which I already knew. I did really enjoy the last chapter, "Case Studies," in which Bray looks at several passages through the lens of how a number of church fathers read the passage (including Genesis 1, the witch of endor, Song of Solomon, Romans 5, and Revelation 20). Fascinating.
January 1, 2023
A light read that gives some insight and overview to a vast topic. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but can give the reader some small taste and understanding. The last chapter on the Seven Theses is worth the read.
June 8, 2025
A decent start toward understanding such a vast subject. I thought some of the textual details were too long and, while they provided some helpful context, distracted from the primary purpose of the book. The cases and principles were strong, though the author was approaching many of the conclusions with a scholarly dismissiveness that I found off putting. It's good to not put the fathers on an untouchable pedestal, but in bringing them to a human level it seemed to also elevate modern scholarship as the superior approach without defending it. If all exegetical conclusions are going to be tested at the bar of modern scholarship for legitimacy anyway, what need is there for studying the fathers beyond historical curiosity? These objections aside, it was a nice primer and I'd recommend it as a place to start.
May 3, 2022
Good introduction. I wish Dr. Bray would be less hesitant to follow the allegory of some of the fathers he cites. Helpful introduction to test out the waters of patristics.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews