# Older writers or newer writers?



## VilnaGaon (May 10, 2009)

Which do you prefer? Older writers or newer ones for doctrinal works, commentaries or Practical works? 
I generally prefer the older writers pre-1900s preferable 1500s, 1600s or 
1700s. They were usually far better read, men of deeper piety, more profound thinkers than us. They also were not infected with so much of the modern psycho-babble a lot of modern writers dish out. 
As far as commentaries --- what new discoveries in Hebrew or Greek has there been in the last 100 years that merits a new commentary? Better to reprint the old ones and to translate the old Latin ones like Musculus and others. 
When I study John Owen or any of the Puritans, I am amazed at the kind of mind that could produce works like that! It is tough enough for our generation to study much less compose works like these. One page of these guys is of more value than whole volumes of modern writers.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (May 10, 2009)

I mainly prefer the older writers. Their spiritual depth was magnificent, and, I agree, they could say more in one page than many modern writers say in entire books.


----------



## OPC'n (May 10, 2009)

I like the older ones too but I'll not throw out the new ones either. I think Sproul could have sat among them and conversed well!


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 10, 2009)

I prefer the Puritans. And, they're all long dead. I have great respect for men like John Piper but I keep telling the people who look up to him that even Piper himself tells his readers and listeners to read the Puritans. But many Christians these days prefer the newer guys. A friend once told me that that's because they're more relevant. Well, I used to not understand much of what Owen wrote, but it wasn't him who was irrelevant, it was me. I needed to get educated more in the English language and I did just that. Now, I can understand him a whole lot better than before.


----------



## ww (May 10, 2009)

> They were usually far better read, men of deeper piety, more profound thinkers than us.



And 200 years from now the same will be said of Sproul, Matthison, Horton, Gordon, etc. I value the writings of the Puritans but at the same time enjoy a contemporary vantage point especially as it relates to modern controversies. As already stated most write with the idea that there is nothing new under the sun and allude to the Puritan Divines anyway so there are times the bibliographies will encourage me to read a Puritan work based on its supporting role in a contemporary work.


----------



## Bern (May 10, 2009)

Me too. I discovered the puritans by listening to and reading more modern preachers. What I'm really interested in is finding the writings of the very early church leaders. Ideally as modules for esword, since that would help greatly with bible study.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 10, 2009)

I also prefer the older ones.


----------



## Idelette (May 10, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> I generally prefer the older writers pre-1900s preferable 1500s, 1600s or
> 1700s. They were usually far better read, men of deeper piety, more profound thinkers than us.



Yes, I couldn't agree more! I'm always so refreshed and greatly edified when I read the Puritans! They are far more profound than any modern writers that I know of! 

I love this quote:

"The venerable dead are awaiting me in my library to entertain me and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals" -Samuel Davies


----------



## Knoxienne (May 10, 2009)

In His Grip said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> > I generally prefer the older writers pre-1900s preferable 1500s, 1600s or
> ...



 I've heard someone say about this subject (maybe it was here on the PB on a quote or another thread!) The "deader" the better.


----------



## Idelette (May 10, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> In His Grip said:
> 
> 
> > VilnaGaon said:
> ...



LOL! That is too funny!


----------



## Whitefield (May 10, 2009)

Anyone who is older than me.


----------



## wturri78 (May 10, 2009)

Interesting that in a religion with 2,000 years of history, most of us think immediately of Puritans when we think of the "old" writers, or maybe John Calvin if we want the original. I'm trying to find the best way to wade into the writings of the post-apostolic writers myself, knowing full well that there's a huge gulf in culture and context between myself and them.

As to modern vs. Puritans, I do find much value in moving slowly through some of their writings, although beyond a few sermons I really have not read much of their works. I do not necessarily think that there's a detriment to making a point with fewer words, however...


----------



## jwithnell (May 10, 2009)

OK, how about a few 20th century folks who will show up on the PB 200 years from now as the preferred "older writers" including John Murray and Cornelius Van Tll ...


----------



## Brian Withnell (May 10, 2009)

Jean beat me to the punch. Van Til, Poythress, Murray, and others of recent vintage have made "discoveries" in theology that many say "how could we ever have missed it" after reading them. Old writers were not already on the shoulders of old writers, so there was little for them to explore beyond. (And give me a computer to cross reference every use of a word in seconds, and I can do more than an old scholar could in a week.)


----------



## py3ak (May 10, 2009)

There has obviously been a steady production of junk and mediocre performances all throughout the history of the church. Not every document of ecclesiastical antiquity is up to the level of the _Epistle to Diognetus_; not every medieval theologian was as acute as Aquinas; not every Puritan author was equally valuable.

We don't need to have another _Battle of the Books_. But that being said, in every field of endeavour there are times of great vigor and freshness, and there are men of stunning genius: the productions of those men and times unsurprisingly have a value that far outstrips most others. 

Those who have died have an advantage in that we can know they will not renounce the faith - not something that can be predicated of any living author. Those who died before the enlightenment have another advantage in that they can challenge some of our deepest and least conscious presuppositions.

My own experience is that while it may take as long to read a page of some Puritan as it does to read a chapter of a modern author, in general the older single page will have more intellectual content than the modern chapter - and often better style, too.

But I suspect a lot of our contemporaries would be the equals of somebody like Selden.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (May 10, 2009)

I prefer current writers because they use current language which is easier to read.


----------



## EricP (May 10, 2009)

Though I can't quote him verbatim, I think CS Lewis' comments about older writings is right on--somehow or other he said that whenever he read something less than 50 or 100 years old, the next 3 books he'd read would be over 300 years old, so that he could reset to a proper perspective and get the modern viewpoint out of his mind. The only way we can be freed up from modern perspectives, as well as an NT Wright-ish modernist prejudice ("I just discovered what Christians for 2000 years have been missing...") is to read books by folks far smarter than all of us who have been dead for a few centuries.


----------



## Rich Koster (May 10, 2009)

Old or new, I prefer factual, non emotional writers who effectively inspire me to move past mediocrity into something more excellent as per God's perspective.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (May 10, 2009)

If he ain't dead, I ain't read.

Well, that's not quite the case: I do love Sproul, Piper, White, MacArthur, Packer & gang, and I thank God for their active presence in the Church today.


----------



## Theogenes (May 10, 2009)

Definitely the older ones!


----------



## DMcFadden (May 10, 2009)

The chief disadvantage of older books is their difficulty due to differences in language and idiom. 

The advantage older books have over most modern books is that, by virtue of having been "out there" for hundreds of years, their relative merits have been sifted, sorted, and screened by others. Rather than picking up what is merrely "popular" today, one can read what has transgenerational value.

History cannot be written well or rightly until long after the events for the same reason that we are not in a position to evaluate the lasting value of an author immediately. Lots of what is popular today will never make it to the reading list of later generations.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> (And give me a computer to cross reference every use of a word in seconds, and I can do more than an old scholar could in a week.)



The only difference being that the old divine committed the scripture to memory and always had not only the scripture on hand at any moment but also his own Holy Spirit-guided meditations connected with it.

I read the 16th and 17th century writers for the formation of the reformed faith, the 18th for the confirmation, the 19th for the elucidation, and the 20th for "experimentation," by which I mean, they have generally wrestled with modern deviations and provided solutions which may or may not be agreeable to the old faith.


----------



## Skyler (May 10, 2009)

The major difference between the old and the new is that the older writings have been around longer, giving more opportunities to eliminate the poor books and leaving the best ones for us. The newer writings haven't gone through that process yet, which is why it seems as though newer writing is of lower quality. On average, it is, so it's harder to find the really good stuff. In my experience that really good stuff is still there, but there's also a lot of really bad stuff to hide it.

Give it a few decades to weed out the bad ones and we'll be all set. 

That said, my library is an eclectic mix of the new and the old--James White, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Stephen Charnock, Matthew Henry, and even John Wesley(used mainly for reference as to what, precisely, Arminians believe).


----------

