Too many books, anyone?

Andrew T. B. McGowan makes an interesting comment about Thomas Boston's federal theology:

The fact that Boston had so few books clearly meant that he devoured whatever came into his hand, and his treatises on the covenant of works and the covenant of grace display a familiarity with Witsius. (pg. 9)

I must confess that it's easy as a covenant theologian to run like gangbusters to the later half of McGowan's statement. And what's not to like about that! McGowan goes on to argue that the formative influences on Boston's covenant theology stem from those Reformed luminaries known as Ursinus, Beza, and Witsius. Pretty good company!!

However, it's the first part of McGowan's comment that really caught my attention. That is, the fact that Boston had "so few books"! McGowan footnotes this to something found in Boston's Memoirs (so lets assume for sake of argument that it's true). Without extrapolating into *why* Boston acquired "so few books," this struck an interesting personal chord into my own book-reading and buying habits.

Reformed theology has long been known for its love of reading books. With that often comes a love for collecting books and buttressing one's library. There may not be a blatant attempt to impress others with our vast collection of reading...but we certainly don't seem to mind when people think we are extremely well-read! I remember the vast array of books I started to collect as an undergraduate and then the year I took off before I started at Westminster. I was a book hound! The art of learning how to read through that process was immeasurable, especially going into seminary and then more graduate school, where you are forced to assimilate large amounts of data in a short period of time.

However, what I've learned through it all is simply this: at least 95% of the books being published out there in theology, Biblical studies, and the like are simply not worth much more than a quick glance, only to be filed away to the bin of the 'books that made it to print that probably should have gone into the doc shredder.'

When I moved to Canada in 2004, I sold (or gave away!) probably in the neighborhood of 80% of my library. It wasn't easy to part with a lot of those books that were part of the journey through college and seminary. At the time, my reason was largely pragmatic -- I didn't see the point in spending hundreds in shipping books postal rate, only to have them thrashed in the process!! Plus, I figured that most of these books I could re-purchase at some point in the future, if I decided that I really needed it again. And besides -- I had the Regent Library on hand to look up a reference or quote if really needed.

But the fact of the matter is that haven't missed hardly any of these books I gave away. In fact, I can't really think of one time where I've said to myself, "Why did I get rid of THAT book?" These were books that served their purpose along the way...but they were books that frankly would be filling space on my bookshelves, not to mention making it that much harder to move to and fro.

So my philosophy of book-buying has evolved quite a bit since I started seminary a decade ago. I still try to read as much as I can find the time....but the difference is that I am much more picky in the books that I will actually add to my personal library. Of course, there are other factors involved here, like the fact that I've had reasonably good theological libraries in Vancouver and now Berkeley to consult when needed. Perhaps wisdom taught me that you don't need to buy every book under the sun, when you can simply consult it down the street.

And that brings us back to Boston's "so few books"! Suddenly, the lack of books on the shelf doesn't seem like all that bad of an idea. On that rare occasion that a book is actually worth more than a single read, then perhaps you have a book worth purchasing for your library! Devour the really good books again and again....and skim quickly through the rest!

How many books on your shelf would you be willing to part with? What percentage of your books have not been touched on your bookshelves in the last 3 years? [Moving or re-arranging doesn't count!]

NOTE: I just discovered the top 10 things to say after returning home from a conference book plunder! Hilarious -- it proves my point exactly!

Random things around the web...

[HT: Upper Register]
***************************
Chris Tilling on the interesting hermeneutical connection between Joel Osteen and Rudolf Bultmann. For those wanting a more detailed analysis of Osteen's latest book, Mike Horton has one here.
***************************
From the Textual-critical garage of Dan Wallace:
Wallace's Pop Quiz (and the answer key)
AD or CE?
Pauline Scatology
***************************
Lee Irons helps us to understand what Dr. Kline really means. Lee also put one of his Ph.D seminar papers up dealing with Romans 2:13. An excellent exegetical critique and interaction with the New Perspective's reading of Romans! We really need more stuff like this.
***************************
Mark Jones (a guy who came in just after I left Faith PCA in Vancouver) has an excellent summary of John Owen's understanding of Justification by Faith Alone and judgment according to works. There's a lot of other good stuff mixed in here, especially in relation to Richard Baxter's erroneous understanding of Justification. Mark did his MA thesis on Owen and is currently working towards a Ph.D (Leiden Univ. in the Netherlands) on the topic of the pactum salutis in Thomas Goodwin. Congrats to Mark and his recently installation as the pastor of Faith.
***************************
Andrew Compton (Ph.D cand. in OT at Claremont Graduate School) summarizes nicely the problems of the diachronic, source critical methodology that has harangued so much of Old Testament studies for the last 120 years.

Vosian Prolegomena

Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)

The first published work from the 'giant' of Biblical Theology at Old Princeton was a manuscript entitled, The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes (1886). Remarkably, Vos wrote the work when he was only 23 years old, and he won the Hebrew fellowship award for the work at his graduation from Princeton in 1885.

Vos' work was a direct critique of Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1883), a bombshell-work that provided the first extensive 'blueprint' [while drawing extensively from Karl Graf's earlier Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1866)] of what would eventually become known as the 'documentary hypothesis' (DH) theory of the Pentateuch's origin. While virtually no one today would hold to the views as expressed by Wellhausen, the critical methodology employed would go on to dominate the academy of Old Testament and Semitic studies in the 20th century. Every time you read an OT book that speaks about a Jahwist ("J") , an Elohist ("E") a Deuteronomist ("D"), or a Priestly ("P") emphasis on any given text, it is all essentially a footnote to the well of Wellhausen. Gordon Wenham noted in 1996 that "[t]his hypothesis is expounded in every introduction to the OT."

Without summarizing here all the arguments that Vos mounts against the DH, his critique summarizes nicely the problem inherent in the whole trajectory of source criticism. From the outset, he recognized that this matter was no trivial concern of text-critical minutia; rather Wellhausen's ideas touch upon "...the [very] heart of the Christian conception of revelation" (Chapter 1). William Henry Green (Vos' OT professor at Princeton) notes in the book's introduction, "The issue involved is not merely that of the authorship of a given production, nor whether particular institutions took their rise in one century or in another. It is a question of the veracity of the sacred volume from first to last. The question is fundamentally that between rationalism and supernatural religion." Cornelius Van Til, a generation later, would no doubt be impressed with the kind of 'transcendental' critique from his fellow Dutchman and former teacher.

We shall quote the entirety of Chapter 4 here (the shortest chapter in the book, one paragraph in the original), entitled 'Incompleteness of the Codes':

"If we expect in the Mosaic Codes [i.e. Laws] a complete legislation in the modern sense of the word, we shall surely be disappointed. As modern society, or even Roman life, shaped itself, it presents many a feature in its legislation for which the Codes of ancient Israel have no correlative. But the principle of Israel’s constitution was radically different. The theocratic idea made every thing subordinate to itself; and the law presents this idea clothed in outward, ceremonial and civil forms. Accordingly, whatever is not so directly related to this one central conception as to be molded and transformed by it, is omitted, and left to existing usage or future provision. In this respect, the law does not preclude development or increase. It has a spirit as well as a letter, however the most recent critics may emphasize the latter, in order to substitute the notion of development for the former. On this point, diametrically opposite objections meet; for, whilst one finds fault with the law on account of incompleteness, another finds it far too elaborate and perfect for a nomad tribe just awaking to the first consciousness of a life of civilization. Both extremes may supplement and correct each other. We should constantly keep in mind, that the Mosaic legislation was intended for a peculiar people, that had a peculiar destiny. It was to live, to a large extent, isolated, and the more it could be protected against contamination by foreign influences, the better. There was no need of a Code that would provide for all the complicated relations that arise from a lively intercourse with surrounding peoples. On the other hand, the agrarian principle, on which the civil law proceeded, secured to every member of the Covenant-people an equal share in the promised inheritance of Canaan. It is obvious how largely this tended to simplify both public and private life among the chosen people. It would be historically wrong to institute a comparison between the Mosaic Codes and the Roman body of law. The Romans were the people of law par excellence: in Israel the law was a subordinate means to a higher and spiritual end, subservient and adapted to the peculiar position which the nation occupied, and to its unique calling in the history of God’s Church" (51-2, emphasis mine).

Here we see in condensed form what Vos will later expand on in his Biblical Theology. The basic warf and woof of Vos' covenantal structuring of redemption, particularly as it relates to the Mosaic Covenant, seems to be there from the very beginning.

A concise and yet devastating blow to the overarching theonomic approach to the Old Testament.

A Pinnock of Pitfalls

"Everyone who believes in God at all
believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow."

--C. S. Lewis

How to know you need to find a new 'Biblical counselor'!

[HT: Jody Morris]

A libertarian interlude....

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of extra time to follow every whim of the US political landscape. Perhaps that old joke -- Q: How do you know when politician is lying? A: His mouth is open! -- rings all too true in the current climate.

However, the more I hear blurbs and interviews here and there from Ron Paul, the more that I think he's exactly the kind of person to get the message of 'libertarianism' out to the masses.

Do I think he's going to win the Republican ticket? No. I think CNN, Fox, and every other network 'in between' will see to it that Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson get all of the press....and hence the ticket to square off against Hillary or Obama. But as Letterman noted the other night, you know things aren't quite right in the Republican party when "...Rudolph Giuliani had three wives and he's not the Mormon candidate." And does anyone seriously think any of the Republican's 'Big 3' can take down Obama or Hillary?

That's what makes Paul such an intriguing candidate. The Republicans know they have a monumental task ahead of them, with the general polls showing disapproval of Bush. Where do the Republicans go now? If they run on a 'Bush legacy' ticket, they know they are going to lose....and you can really sense that when you see Romney and Giuliani try to answer questions about what they would do the same and what they would change. They strike me as not really knowing what to say!

But Paul is very clear about where he stands....and (in rather strange turn of events) the Republicans have no idea what to do with him.

If you really want to put up a viable opponent to Hillary or Obama, I think Paul might be the only guy who's capable of doing so. If the Republicans don't know what to do with him now, the Democrats won't have a clue come next year! The tiring 'anti-Iraq occupation' rhetoric from Hillary and Obama simply won't work against Paul....since Paul is the only House Representative that didn't vote to send troops over in the first place!

Of course, the problem is that I'm not sure the Republican party is ready yet to embrace a truly anti-big government platform like that of a libertarian like Paul.

Before there were 4 Spiritual Laws....

No, you can't make this stuff up.....

[HT: Andy Naselli]

Random Tidbits...

*I concur with Simon Gathercole when he states that Stephen Westerholm is head and shoulders above almost everyone else when it comes to understanding the Apostle Paul. His 'Israel's Law and the Church's Faith' needs to be added to any and all classes dealing with Pauline Theology.

*If I were a Cal student, I think I would seriously consider starting a student club, 'Cut the Oaks'! Let's see how serious they really are about this whole free speech thing.

*Warning: N.T. Wright post coming up in the future....and it might not be exactly what you expect. Or maybe it will....stay tuned.

*I finally understand why new couches can be expensive. After a plethora of hand-me-down couches stretching back to 1999, we finally have a new couch and matching recliner....and they are actually comfortable to sit on!

Can you say....'etymological fallacy'??

Here's a great reason why I have absolutely no interest in being a seminary President some day!

Somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that Mark Noll and George Marsden are not going to receive any invitations to speak for the Vision Forum anytime soon!!

I'll be in the Gun store, thank you!

[HT: Purgatorio]