The list could go on and on. For example I would have thought that Thomas Aquinas would be relevant. That is even if you don't agree with him on any or even every single point, still it seems that before I would speak about any topic, I might try to make it my business to be sure that I was familiar with the writings of people that had dealt with the exact same issues I wanted to speak about. Even more so. If you are in a classroom and the professor gives you a hard equation in Calculus to solve, and the smartest kid in the room comes up with a different answer than you, would that not give you a minute's pause? Would you not recheck your work? Would you not wonder if maybe you made a mistake?
But that is just one of many examples. For another, let's take the evangelical movement. How many people in that movement are even dimly aware of its history, or that it even has a history from Azusa Street? [They seem to think the movement was born in its full glory as Athena born from the forehead of Zeus.] [How many evangelicals today would even recognize the name Parham, arguably the father the evangelical movement? Or Seymour for that matter--the ipso facto founder of that movement which has altered the face of Protestantism.
There is the issue of the many writings of early Christians that seem relevant. I have not really formulated my thoughts about all this very well, and this is just a reminder to myself about some issues. There are plenty of issues in the printed NT also that are ignored:-- Christology for example. There are deep differences there between gospel writers about who and what they thought of Christ, and what kind of role they thought he fulfilled. Obviously the Antinomianism [anti Law] of Paul got into the early church deeply and it is a thread of Christian thought that continues until today.
[Marcion, Valentinus, Ebion church, Anabaptists, etc. The aspcet of anti Torah of Valentius was not apparent at first. It was seen he evaporate the meaning of the Law. But the immoral tendencies only became apparent when it broke off into two sects, the Marcosians and the Ophites.]
What to think of all this is not clear as I myself stand outside the church. It is relevant because of people like Avraham Abulafia the medieval mystic that saw in Jesus the messiah son of Joseph predicted in the Talmud Suka. And there is a mention of this in the Ari. That is at the end of the book of Genesis when the burial of Joseph is discussed by Reb Chaim Vital, there is a comment that shows his agreement with Rav Abulafia. [That is not the only place though in the Ari.] Rav Yaakov Emden came to the same conclusion, but I am pretty sure he did so on his own without knowledge of Rav Abulafia or the Ari. [Rav Abulfia's books were only printed a few years ago. And the reference in the Ari is kind of obscure.]
[The thing which bothers most people I think is the history of the church as it relates to Jewish people, and that is in fact a significant point. But it is no less significant that when you need a kindness nowadays you know the address to go to. That is a fact that has certainly not escaped people's attention when they are in need. And it is certainly forgotten about the minute they are no longer in need.]
[The simple fact of the matter is contained in the Ari in what he writes about the breaking of the vessels in which the light of kindness is contained in יסוד (foundation) after the tikun.]