D
Deleted member 11889
Guest
Last year I finished up my Scripture reading a bit early so I took the rest of the year to read through the apocryphal writings. It was enlightening for several reasons: the books were historically fascinating, engagingly written, and oftentimes rather profound. (Ecclesiasticus, in particular, stuck out to me.) But it was also striking how different from the rest of the OT these book seemed.
This year I am doing the same but with the apostolic fathers. Again I'm struck by the difference between these writings and Holy Scripture. I'm trying to put a finger on it, but fear that I'm merely digging for arguments in support of a conclusion.
In one respect, it seems self-evident that these extracanonical books are subpar when compared to Scripture. The Spirit-led self-attestation of Scripture, and the correlatively implied lack of such self-attestation elsewhere, seems to be a key part of the argument made in our confessional standards. However, neither the WCF nor BC give any positive arguments for the non-inspiration of other writings. Here are some of my observations about my extra-Biblical reading so far:
1) Conciseness. I'm always amazed at how compact Scripture is. No other book packs as much into so few words. When I switch to the Fathers, I am struck by the wordiness - it's almost clumsy as they attempt to make a point.
1b) Quotations. The use of other passages of Scripture is ham-handed. The succinct OT quotations and compact explication are gone, replaced by block quotes of long passages with very little comment.
2) Specificity. I'm always amazed at how specific and yet universally applicable the epistles are. Think of all the doctrines plainly and explicitly unpacked in places like Rom. 5 or Eph. 1. The doctrinal presentation in the Fathers is always... well, generic. Anyone want to help me explain this better?
3) Platitudinousness. I eagerly await the OED's decision to include this new word, citing me as its originator. There is here (and this was strongly evident in the Apocrypha as well) a strongly moralistic tone - less of the message of salvation and more in terms of causal propositions relating human effort/choice and outcome.
4) Christ. Now I'm just at the beginning of my reading so will wait to see if this changes as I make my way through Diognetus and Ignatius, but Clement at least says much less of Christ. There is little talk of Christ's divinity and far less doxology than in the NT.
This year I am doing the same but with the apostolic fathers. Again I'm struck by the difference between these writings and Holy Scripture. I'm trying to put a finger on it, but fear that I'm merely digging for arguments in support of a conclusion.
In one respect, it seems self-evident that these extracanonical books are subpar when compared to Scripture. The Spirit-led self-attestation of Scripture, and the correlatively implied lack of such self-attestation elsewhere, seems to be a key part of the argument made in our confessional standards. However, neither the WCF nor BC give any positive arguments for the non-inspiration of other writings. Here are some of my observations about my extra-Biblical reading so far:
1) Conciseness. I'm always amazed at how compact Scripture is. No other book packs as much into so few words. When I switch to the Fathers, I am struck by the wordiness - it's almost clumsy as they attempt to make a point.
1b) Quotations. The use of other passages of Scripture is ham-handed. The succinct OT quotations and compact explication are gone, replaced by block quotes of long passages with very little comment.
2) Specificity. I'm always amazed at how specific and yet universally applicable the epistles are. Think of all the doctrines plainly and explicitly unpacked in places like Rom. 5 or Eph. 1. The doctrinal presentation in the Fathers is always... well, generic. Anyone want to help me explain this better?
3) Platitudinousness. I eagerly await the OED's decision to include this new word, citing me as its originator. There is here (and this was strongly evident in the Apocrypha as well) a strongly moralistic tone - less of the message of salvation and more in terms of causal propositions relating human effort/choice and outcome.
4) Christ. Now I'm just at the beginning of my reading so will wait to see if this changes as I make my way through Diognetus and Ignatius, but Clement at least says much less of Christ. There is little talk of Christ's divinity and far less doxology than in the NT.