Puritan vs. modern

Status
Not open for further replies.

rickclayfan

Puritan Board Freshman
How do the Puritan commentaries (e.g. Owen on Hebrews, Caryl on Job) stack up to modern commentaries? What are the strengths and weakness that each has as opposed to the other?

Also, I've observed that of all the modern commentaries I've encountered, Puritan sources are usually not referenced. Why is that? Were they simply not read or are they regarded as inferior?
 
Most modern commentaries proceed from thoroughly Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment presuppositions. They are typically analytical, often excessively so. While they benefit from the lexical discoveries that have emerged during the last 400 years, they tend to suffer from a refusal to interpret from the standpoint of the text as holy Scripture that bears witness to Jesus Christ.

My personal gripe with much modern scholarship is the tendency to affect the mien of a white-coated scientist who objectifies the text under consideration. In many cases, unencumbered by either the historical ecumenical creeds or the confessions of the Reformation/post-Reformation communions, they argue for just about any and every fool idea imaginable. Older writers wrote out of deep piety and subnmitted their own egos to the church catholic, seeking to be more faithful than novel. Today, they do not award many PhDs to people who seek to bear witness to the Word of God in fidelity. Instead, at times it seems that the more outlandish the idea, the easier it is to receive a hearing. How about that Anchor Bible commentary that maintains that John the Baptist wrote Revelation? Or, how about the many bestsellers by agnostic Bart Ehrman who labors evangelistically to cast doubt upon the Bible as the Word of God?

IVP has recognized the deep wisdom of the ancient fathers, publishing the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (29 vols). More recently, they have begun a series, Reformation Commentary on Scripure, now with 9 vols. in print. Somebody ought to propose that they follow up this excellent series with another one on the puritans.

In my limited experience, the cult of the now (cf. C.S. Lewis on the reading of old books) lies behind much of the bias against the puritans and the pre-modern commentaries in general. Scholars with PhDs from top secular universities may find the older style of commentary writing quaint, naive, and credulous.

Lewis recommended reading one old book for every new one you read. Perhaps we should do the same with commentaries!
 
There are a few people who will cite older commentaries - e.g., Ray Ortlund, Brevard Childs. But examples of respect especially towards a dogmatic, practical, devotional past are pretty rare.

Some older commentaries can be so focused on drawing out the implications of the text that its specific situation is underemphasized. Modern commentaries are sometimes more clearly organized and make it easier to look up a particular point or get discussion of a stylistic feature or something like that. But modern commentaries can also be very theologically inept and weak, in addition to the strong points Dennis makes above. Matters of literary criticism are often handled more deftly, but profound thought is rare. Modern commentaries mostly help with the mechanics of a text, whereas older commentaries are often most helpful with regard to its dynamics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top