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.
Ahhhhhhhh............the personal magisterium.
No, I'm not saying that simply because they lived "within a few hundred years" (actually, 100 in this case) we should listen to them.
It's all about tradition!! For the umpteenth time!! Irenaeus' whole point is that the teaching of the Apostles has been carefully guarded and handed down.
Allow me to quote:
"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."
It's not just a question of time! It's a question of preservation of the faith.
The alternative notion, which you seem to be pushing is that every man must reinvent the wheel and discover it for himself. Ergo, the writings and thoughts of Irenaeus are of no more value than mine.
Utterly false.