Apostolic Fathers Puns

Hello! The title pretty much says it all, but I was wondering if there were any good recommended books for researching the Apostolic Fathers.

I found the “Ante-Nicene Fathers” 10 Volume collection but I heard the translation and material may actually be out of date. Besides that I’ve found “The Apostolic Father’s” by Michael W Holmes, “Writings of Justin Martyr” by Alexander Roberts, and “Saint Irenaeus of Lyons: Against Heresies” published by the Ex Fontibus Company.

Those all seemed nice but I’m not sure if any of them have any significant shortcomings, or if they’re are better ones available. Good translations or commentaries are good so if you know of any feel free to share!

As per the title im seeking modern English translations of the apostolic fathers. Polycarp, Ignatius etc.

Any free online resources? Those i find only have old english translations which is frustrating. Surely someone has bothered to translate to modern english.

Are there word for word translations and thought for thought translations like scripture? Any idea on a modern word for word translation?

Cheers

I've been reading the Apostolic Fathers, and I have translations by Bart Ehrman, Rick Brannan, and Michael Holmes. Throughout the texts, they all translate episkipos to bishop, but leave presbyterios and deaconos untranslated and merely transliterate them.

I'm to understand episkipos today is thought to refer both to a church priest, and a bishop, who is a church priest with oversight responsibilities of a number of churches in a region.

I understand deaconos today is often translated overseer or sometimes elder, and presbyterios is generally elder or just more senior congregant.

Why do all three authors translate episkopos, but merely transliterate deaconos and presbyterios? What is your professional opinion on the proper translation of these terms?

In the context of 1st century Christianity and the Apostolic Fathers, what did these words actually mean? When they say bishop, are they referring to the administrative head of a region of local churches, like today? Are deacons and presbyters pretty much the same as in mainline reformed churches? I assume both are "no" but I'm open to being wrong

I have often heard the argument that before Augustine, none of the doctrines Calvin taught were found in the church. Now I know that before the Pelagian controversy there was almost no writing on Soteriology because all the fathers wrote extensively on Christology to counter the Arian controversy. This is not a valid argument against Calvin’s doctrines since their occasions are different, however whenever I say that’s not a valid argument I’m usually ignored. How have you and/or other theologians countered this argument against Reformed Doctrine?

Epistle to the Corinthians 58, "May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh—who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people—grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and sobriety, to the well-pleasing of His Name, through our High Priest and Protector, Jesus Christ, by whom be to Him glory, and majesty, and power, and honour, both now and for evermore. Amen."

I was watching the Apostolic Succession episode of ATP ("Ask the Pastor") and after he made the point that Apostolic Succession (as seen in Catholicism which states that only those ordained in the RCC can administer valid sacraments) isn't explicitly said to be a necessity within Scripture I began to wonder: Did any of the Early Church Fathers affirm this?

Do any of you know of Church Fathers who held this to be true? I can only seem to find Church Fathers who are on the affirmative when it comes to Apostolic Succesion.

I am looking to read the letters of the Apostolic Fathers any good sites to do that?

Wikipedia lists Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and the authors of the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Wikipedia goes on to date many of the works as being from the 1st Century or early 2nd Century.

I've seen people argue that Paul was a Roman collaborator and that James, not Peter was the leader of the Jewish faction and other claims about the lack of an internal agreement of the New Testament, were the Apostolic Fathers then "partisans" in that fight? I know Irenaeus claimed Polycarp as part of some kind of Johannine tradition, and Clement is traditionally seen as a Petrine successor in Rome but do their writings sound like John and Peter respectively?

Are there recommended readings on this? / Recommended translations into English?

I am aware that there is substantial doubt in the field as to who wrote the gospels or, rather, that the mainstream does not accept Mark/Matthew/Luke/John as authors of the gospels. Based on what I've read, I agree with this conclusion. However, I would like to know more about potential arguments for the traditional authorship.

From what I've understood, the strongest evidence for traditional authorship comes from the writings of Papias, who was the first to attribute the first two gospels to Mark and Matthew, in 110-120 C.E., and the writings of Irenaeus, who was the first to attribute the two latter gospels to Luke and John in his Against Heresies, 180 C.E. Both of these church fathers would've had direct access to Polycarp who, traditionally, had spoken to John.

My question is: based on what information did these early church fathers deduce the authors? Can we know, roughly, what sources they would have had available to them and to what extent this deduction makes sense? Is it reasonable to believe that Polycarp spoke directly with John, and thus passed this information on to Papias and Irenaeus?

Secondly, if I am mistaken in that this is considered the "strongest" evidence, what other evidence would point to traditional authorship?

Many thanks.