Biblical Theology Research Pt. 3

Well, I started delving into some of the liberal methodology of the late 19th and early 20th century. I've reserved my reading for the Wellhausen school, and those who influenced him.
This biographical quote from Wellhausen is interesting. This quote is taken from The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 1998.

“In my early student days I was attracted by the stories of Saul and David, Ahab and Elijah; the discourses of Amos and Isaiah laid strong hold on me, and I read myself well into the prophetic and historical books of the Old Testament. Thanks to such aids as were accessible to me, I even considered that I understood them tolerably, but at the same time was troubled with a bad conscience, as if I were beginning with the roof instead of the foundation; for I had no thorough acquaintance with the Law, of which I was accustomed to be told that it was the basis and postulate of the whole literature. At last I took courage and made my way through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and even through Knobel's Commentary to these books. But it was in vain that I looked for the light which was to be shed from this source on the historical and prophetical books. On the contrary, my enjoyment of the latter was marred by the Law; it did not bring them any nearer me, but intruded itself uneasily, like a ghost that makes a noise indeed, but is not visible and really effects nothing. Evn where there were points of contact between it and them, differences also made themselves felt, and I found it impossible to give a candid decision in favour of the priority of the Law. Dimly I began to perceive that thorughout there was between them all the difference that separates two wholly distinct worlds. Yet, so far from attaining clear conceptions, I only fell into deeper confusion … At last, in the course of a casual visit in Gottingen in the summer of 1867, I learned through Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the Law later than the Prophets, and almost without knowing his reasons for the hypothesis, I was prepared to accept it; I readily acknowledged to myself the possibility of understanding Hebrew antiquity without the book of the Torah.”

Even within this short quote, one is able to see the beginnings of the critical method. Being respected abouve that of Graf, Wellhausen became very influential, particularly for his J, E, P, and D document theory and the hexateuch. What he attempted to do, was apply modern historical and scientific criticism to that of the Scriptures. What I hope to research a bit more, is how this evolutionary process of the critical method's thought was being influenced by airless presuppositions.
Great conservatives did not respond in favor to the critical method for obvious reasons. Green comments with a most verdant quote, "Kuenen and Wellhausen have shown us by what clever tricks of legerdemain they can construct castles in the air and produce histories which have positively no basis whatever but their own exuberant fancy.” Likewise Hodge and Warfield resisted saying, "The writers of this article are sincerely convinced of the perfect soundness of the great Catholic doctrine of Biblical Inspiration, i.e., that the Scriptures not only contain but ARE, THE WORD OF GOD, and hence that all their elements and all their affirmations are absolutely errorless, and binding the faith and obedience of men. Nevertheless we admit that the question between ourselves and the advocates of [modern criticism], is one of fact, to be decided only by an exhaustive and impartial examination of all the sources of evidence, i.e., the claims and the phenomena of the Scriptures themselves."
Both quotes above quoted in: Mark Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991).

What I hope to find, is the connection between liberal Biblical criticism and Vos' taking Biblical Theology from the heaps of liberal ashes, resurrecting it, and at the same time opposing historical criticism. What I simply mean to say, is that I am wondering why in the times of a great struggle between conservative and liberal views of theology (e.g. inspiration, etc.), did Vos bring Biblical Theology to the fore? Is there a connection, or am I missing something? I believe he was trying to present a Biblical history that responded to the Wellhausen (and future) critics... but was he successful at his attempt?

Biblical Theology II

Geerhardus Vos set his mark upon the Reformed tradition when he was invited to teach at Princeton seminary. In a (monumental) inaugural address, Vos prepared the seminary (and scholastic world) for a flavor of Reformed Biblical Theology. Teaching for nearly 40 years at Princeton, Vos left a legacy (all too ignored these days) on Biblical Theology as a theological science.
So what was this legacy? Vos contributed much to the Biblical Theology discussion of his days, especially through the writing of several books. Most notably is his work Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Reading through even the first couple of chapters, one learns quickly to appreciate Vos for several reasons:
1) He was an academic. He shows his thorough understanding of his times and works (especially the works of Wellhausen &c.) as well as a solid grounding in the Reformed tradition.
2) He “emancipates” as it were, Biblical Theology as a theological science for the school of criticism. Showing the weaknesses of the critic’s presuppositions, Vos not only diabolically opposes them, but he sets up a view that, at the very least, competes and undermines Biblical scholasticism in the field of Biblical Theology over the last century.
3) Vos’ aim (found in his inaugural address as well) is not only pointedly academic, but it is also largely practical – aimed at showing the glory of God as He has progressively revealed Himself in redemptive history.
4) What his study of Biblical Theology did, was show the place for Dogmatic (Systematic) Theology among the theological disciplines, but in a sense, he also wed together these two (opposing) disciplines.
5) One element of Vos’ thought that, perhaps, trumps above the rest, is that Vos showed people how to read their Bibles. Maintaining both unity and diversity within the covenant of grace, Vos gives people a methodology of reading Scripture as a “Divine Drama” of God’s self-revelation. Included in this, is Vos’ emphasis of eschatology; and understanding history through an eschatological lens.
Much more could, and should, be said about what Vos contributed to the discussion of Biblical Theology, but this will suffice for the present. Being thus appreciated, there are also several criticisms that not to be misplaced when discussion Vos’ view of Biblical Theology:
1) Contrary to some of Vos’ theological children, Vos was not working within a vacuum. Though Biblical Theology may have gained the notoriety and “science” from Vos, Vos relied heavily on the works of those who had been doing Covenant Theology for the previous three-hundred years.
2) Vos’ Biblical Theology of the Old and the New Testaments, is, unfortunately, an unfinished work. It is not as complete as a serious student of Biblical Theology would hope.
3) Throughout Vos’ work, much of his criticism is geared towards the Biblical critics – which reflects that Vos was a man of his time. Some of his writing seems a bit antiquated and out-of-date. However, it should here be noted as well, that such criticisms are largely appreciated and the Reformed thinker can, perhaps, attribute the triumph of the Gospel over Biblical criticism in part to Vos’ work.
4) There are other times, where Vos seems to have grown and developed his thought between his inaugural address and the publishing of Biblical Theology. There are certain areas where one is prone to agree more with him in his inaugural address than in his magnum opus (i.e. covenants, the protoevangelium, etc.).
5) Vos seems too driven and confined by a narrow definition of “covenant” that he doesn’t deal in any large degree with the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, or the Davidic Covenant. He also seems to too narrowly define a covenant dealing with redemption, that the Noahic covenant, because its sign is a rainbow, is not redemptive.
What I hope to trace out in subsequent posts, is the methodology of Vos’ Biblical Theology and how this helped to reclaim Biblical Theology from

Biblical Theology Research Pt. 1

Well... It's been about a year and I've picked up a new project. I'm currently going to be working on a paper dealing with Biblical Theology. I've decided to map my progress on the blog as I go about pick and narrowing my topic. For anyone who reads this blog, I would appreciate feedback, criticism, or questions. I've never mapped my thinking like this before, but I hope that it will in some way be valuable to myself as well as others.
I am currently researching and getting as many online articles as possible. I don't have access to many reasons outside of the internet (I live in Indonesia!) so if you know of other articles or databases I would love to get them. I'm currently researching: Monergism, Kerux.org, and BeginningWithMoses.org. I've seen a lot of Kline and Gaffin stuff appear and I am interested in knowing their distinctives and similarities. I've gotten some Goldsworthy, I hear he's the stuff in and around Sydney when it comes to BT.

I've also recently read: O. Palmer Robertson "Christ of the Covenants," Herman Witsius "Economy of the Covenants," "The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology," Geerhardus Vos, "Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament," John Owen, "Biblical Theology" (published by SDG), and Graeme Goldsworthy, "According to Plan." Please feel free to post thoughts on any and all of these authors.

As a last bit of interest, I've been doing some mulling around on the Center of Biblical Theology Study of St. Peter (or something like that). On this site, Dr. Scott Hahn has argued that Pope Benedict XVI takes a strong stance of BT within the Catholic tradition. Some introductory articles show that he has at least taken a strong stance against the critics, which leads to ignorance (perhaps a flavor even Vos wouldn't have minded 100%, but I'd rather read Vos). We'll see if this Catholic strain of BT develops any further and if it is of interest.