Dismissing the writings of the early Church Fathers as mere "biblical commentary" is unwise in the extreme. Their writings open a window into early Church history and provide a link to apostolic times. Their connection with the Apostles themselves was tangible.
Irenaeus, for example, heard the preaching of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) who was a disciple and student of the Apostle John who consecrated him bishop.
Whys that? I merely meant that Biblical commentary is useful ... not required for doctrinal formation.
Their connection with the Apostles themselves was tangible.
No one disputes that ... but getting insight from people who were 3 generations removed from the events is not as good as reading what the apostles themselves WROTE. When I study church fathers I study them the same way I would study a Biblical commentator alive today. Read them, understand their insights, COMPARE THEM TO SCRIPTURE, discard the junk, keep the treasure. The fathers are commenting on the text, I will read the text and determine if their commentary is in-line with the scripture; I'm being a Berean as I should.
What you appear to be saying is that since they lived within a few hundred years of the events their interpretation of them must be more accurate. That is simply an a priori assumption on your part.
Some of the worse heresy came from that time in history.