Aids to Scripture study...

Front matter

I m m m

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AIDS TO SCRIPTURE STUDY

Preface

Of late years the growth of interest in Biblical studies has been marked, and the increase of commentaries has been most noticeable. There has not been any corresponding attention given, in this country at least, to the systematic treatment of the principles of interpretation. In Germany many such treatises have heen published since the days of Ernesti, among the more recent of which may be mentioned those of Keil, Dopke, Pareau, Klausen, Lutz, Sehleiermacher, Liicke, Wilke, and Immer. Some of these have been translated, and have proved of great value, especially the " Hermeneutics of the New Testament," by Dr. A. Immer, translated and edited in America by Professor Newman. Something has also been done of the same kind in France in Cellerier's " Manuel d'Hermeneutique," and in Great Britain several treatises have appeared, among which may be mentioned those of David-

Vlll PREFACE.

son and of Fairbairn, besides the discussion of the subject in the course of more comprehensive works of introduction to the Scriptures. Miinscher's " Manual of Biblical Interpretation " witnesses that the matter has not been wholly overlooked in our own country. Most of these treatises have been upon the interpretation of the New Testament alone, and it is believed there is still need of a fresh work adapted to the habits of thought and study of the American scholar. The present volume is an attempt to supply this need. Its plan is so different from that of preceding works upon the subject, that it is likely to be marked by the imperfection of a venture in a new path ; but it is hoped that it may still be of use to the student, and may open the way for more perfect works to follow.

The Hermeneutics of the Old and the New Testaments have so much in common, the connection between them is so very close, and the details in which they differ may be so concisely treated, that it has seemed wise to include them both in one work. This plan has also the obvious and considerable advantage of bringing out more clearly the essential unity of Scripture.

PBEFACE. ix

The discussion in the Introduction renders it unnecessary to speak here of the view of inspiration taken in this work : suffice it to say that while the Bible is regarded as the word of God in the truest meaning of that phrase, it is yet written by men ; and to ascertain its meaning the ordinary laws of interpretation must be regarded. At the same time, while the historicogrammatical method must be everywhere employed to ascertain the sense of Scripture, it must be used in constant remembrance that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate Author of the Scripture teaching, and in view of the great object for which that teaching has been made known to men.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Part I. The Preparation For Interpreting

I. Preliminary ....... 64

II. General Knowledge of the Scriptures . 73

III. The Geography and the Physical Geog-

raphy of Bible Lands .... 87

IV. The General History of Scripture Times. 91 V. Archeology and Antiquities . . . 101

VI. Knowledge of Natural Science . . . 107

VII. The Religious Preparation of the Interpreter ....... 115

VIII. Knowledge of the Original Languages . 120 IX. Textual Criticism 129

1. Textual Criticism of the New Testament 130

2. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament 137

X. The Personal Qualifications of the Interpreter 149

1. Willingness to take trouble . 149 x ii CONTENTS.

2. A Judicial State of Mind . . 154

3. Common Sense and Sagacity . . 157

4. Reverence 159

Part II. The Art Of Interpreting

XI. Preliminary 163

XII. The Application of the General Knowledge of the Scriptures . . . .1(58

XIII. Knowledge of the Particular Book . 177

XIV. The Use of Geography 183

XV. The Use of History, General and Particular 192

XVI. The Use of Archaeology and Antiquities 209

XVII. The Use of Natural Science . . . 222

XVIII. The Use of the Original Languages, and

THE IMMEDIATE CONNECTION . . . 228

XIX. The Use of Textual Criticism . . . 254 XX. The Interpreter at his Work . . . 2G0

AIDS TO SCRIPTURE STUDY.

Introduction

In order to interpret the Bible aright, it is first of all essential to determine the nature and character of the Book with which we have to do. It is a book which is neither new nor unknown, and it is therefore entirely unnecessary to deal with it as if it now met our eyes for the first time. On the contrary, it has been before the world for so many ages, and a certain general interpretation of it has contributed so largely to the formation of Christian civilization and society, that many things may be considered as fixed by common consent. Certain points, however, still remain under discussion ; and as these materially affect our view of its character, it will be necessary to say something upon them before setting forth in detail the principles of its interpretation.

Two leading views have been and continue to be held among Christians : one, that the Bible is

INTRODUCTION.

the word of God, given indeed to men, and communicated through men, with all their individual peculiarities, but so guarded by the providence of God as to be absolutely reliable ; the other, that it is a collection of books written by men inspired of God, but yet expressing His truth and His will in such fashion as conceived by themselves, so as to contain many serious and important errors. In other words, these two views are commonly and tersely expressed by saying, one, that the Bible is the word of God ; the other, that it contains the word of God. It is plain that any system of interpretation must be greatly affected by whichever of these views lies at its foundation. It is proposed, therefore, to discuss this question as an introduction to the principles of Hermeneutics which are to follow.

The only way of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion in the premises is by examining the facts as they are presented in the Scriptures themselves, and basing our theory upon the result. 1

The first fact to be observed is, that the Scriptures have in them both something which is divine and something which is human. This is so generally admitted that it is not worth while i

The substance of this discussion has already been printed as an article on " Errors in the Scriptures " in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1879, and in a paper read before the Church Congress in Richmond, Va., in October, 1SS2.

to spend much time in its reexamination. That there is in them somewhat that is divine, and divine in a higher sense than Homer or Dante may be said to have a divine element, is abundantly shown by the work which they have done and are doing in the world ; that they have also somewhat which is human is sufficiently obvious from the idiosyncrasies of the several writers, and from the varying style and manner in which they have delivered the message entrusted to their care. Yet, inasmuch as both sides of this fundamental fact have been called in question by the advocates of opposite theories, it may be well to point briefly to a single and satisfactory proof of each of them.

That the Scriptures have in them something which is human is proved by the fact that both the Old and the New Testaments, as we have them, do contain undeniable errors. In the New Testament, errors of copyists — most of them of little consequence, but still errors — have been brought to light in great abundance. It may be replied that these are matters which human care can rectify, and that inspiration was never intended to take away from man the trouble of ascertaining what it really said. This does not matter. These errors remained in the text unsuspected for centuries, and some of them still, and probably always will, remain ; for no competent critic would pretend to say that the text is in all cases now definitely settled, or that it is ever likely to be. In the Old Testament, manuscripts of proportionate antiquity are wanting, and the best and oldest of the versions give but a poor apparatus for the criticism of the text. Nevertheless, we may become certain, by a comparison of parallel passages, that errors exist in one or other of them. For example, when the census of the captives returning from the Babylonian exile as given in Ezra ii. and in Neh. vii. is compared, it becomes plain that there must be several errors in one or the other or in both of them. Or, if we put the statement in 1 Kings iv. 26, that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses, by the side of that in 2 Chron. ix. 25, that he had four thousand, it is obvious that one of them has been either multiplied or divided by ten. This being admitted, another step may be taken, and an error assumed if absolutely impossible statements are found in the text ; as, when it is said (2 Sam. xv. 7) that "after forty years " Absalom did certain things in furtherance of his rebellious plans, while it is known from other parts of the story that Absalom's whole life was less than forty years. And this being granted, the critic will not hesitate to apply the same principle to other statements having such an extreme degree of improbability

INTBODUCTION. 5

as to amount to a practical impossibility ; as when it is. said that the Philistines mustered to battle thirty thousand chariots (1 Sam. xiii. 5). The errors thus far spoken of in both Testaments are, no doubt, mere lapsus of the scribes ; nevertheless, there they are, and often there is no other than conjectural means of correcting them. They prove that there are errors in the Bible, and make simply impossible the extreme theory of verbal inspiration, at least as far as the actual Scriptures in our possession are concerned. Only undeniable errors have been mentioned, that the evidence may be clear that there is a human element in the Bible. How far does it extend ?

On the other hand, it is equally clear that the Scriptures have in them somewhat that is more than human ; for they contain truth, which, outside of them, man has never discovered for himself ; and if any one is disposed to argue that man might ultimately have discovered it, yet he certainly did not, and could not, at the time at which it was revealed. It is not necessary here to appeal to prophecy, or to anything else to which a possible objection may be made ; it is enough to refer to the broad fact that the gospel has introduced into the world truths unknown, or at least unregarded, before, which when announced are recognized of all men to be

G INTRODUCTION.

true, and has given to these truths practical sanctions of sufficient power to transform the institutions, culture, and principles of action of those parts of the world in which it has been received. Nothing but religion has ever had such power over the minds and hearts of men, at least on any large scale ; and no other religion can compare with the Christian in the assurance it conveys of having been inspired from on high. The older revelation is distinctly recognized and made its starting-point by the new ; and besides this, mankind generally have not failed to recognize in such parts as some of the Psalms a spirit and aspirations breathed into them from a higher than human source, because they commend themselves as in harmony with all that is most divine, and no human compositions, except as based upon them, have ever reached so high a strain. The evidence in this case, being of a higher kind, is necessarily less tangible than in the former; it is sufficient for the present purpose that it is generally admitted by the common sense of mankind.

There are but three possible theories in regard to the Scriptures: first, that they are purely human ; secondly, that they are purely divine, even to their minutest detail ; and thirdly, that they are at once human and divine. The first two have already appeared untenable ; the third alone remains. Accepting this, a most interesting and important question arises as to the relations or proportions of these two elements in the Bible. It is a question which can never be entirely solved, any more than it is possible to draw a definite line in the complex action of the human and the divine spirit. The two elements are there, and their union has produced the actual result, without the possibility of assigning to each an independent part of the work. Both have cooperated in the whole. It may be compared to the doctrine of the church in regard to our Lord, in whom the two natures are inseparably (aStaiperws) united, though without confusion. Yet even in this case there are limitations in the activity of either nature ; the divine nature did not prevent Him as an earthly child from growing in wisdom as well as in stature, and the human nature did not hinder Him from speaking as never man spake. In regard to our present subject, it is of great practical importance to ascertain, as far as may be possible, such limitations as actually exist.

An obvious limitation to the divine element of the Bible is, that the inspiring Spirit has not seen fit to do away with the manhood and individuality of the various writers. The personality, the temperament, the habits of thought and culture of each particular writer are manifest in his writings. The same truth is taught by John, Paul, and James, but in such different guise that they have been imagined to contradict one another. No one can fail to recognize the differences in manner of utterance between the courtly Isaiah, the despondent Jeremiah, the priestly Ezekiel, and the princely Daniel. The Scriptures have certainly been given TroXvfxepus /cat 7roAvrpo7ra)5. It is one office of these differences to adapt the Scriptures to minds of every class and mode of thought ; it is essential to the life-like character of the sacred narrative; and it has become an important means of determining the genuineness and authenticity of the various books.

Our main question, however, is with the limitations of the human element. It has already appeared that there is no such limitation of this as to prevent errors of the copyists in the transmission of the sacred records. But the writers lived in times far apart, and all of them long gone by, and must themselves have shared in the crude and erroneous notions of their times concerning natural science, history, ethnology, archaeology, and many other matters. Have these errors become incorporated, through the human writers, in the Bible itself ? or has their humanity been so overshadowed, limited, and controlled by the inspiring Spirit within them, that the expression of such errors has been prevented ? This is a question simply of fact, and must be decided by an examination of the evidence.

First, let it be distinctly understood what is meant by error. It is something more or less false and wrong as proceeding from that imperfect knowledge of the truth — whether moral, mental, or physical — which belonged to the times in which the writers lived, and in which they unquestionably shared. Such errors are commonly alleged as abounding in the Bible ; and if this is true, there is in this respect no limitation of the human side of the Scriptures. But if it is not true, then it is obvious that there must have been such a limitation extending through many ages ; and the Bible, consequently, presents a prodigy quite equal to any of the miracles it records, and similarly makes a corresponding demand upon our faith.

The most serious errors thus alleged are moral contradictions, — instances in which words or deeds are commended, or even commanded, especially in the older Scriptures, which are inconsistent with the divine character as made known in later revelation. Some space will be devoted to these farther on. Meantime it is to be considered that the various writers speak freely of whatever comes in their way in the language and according to the ideas of their time, and that those ideas and that language were often wrong. It is argued by many, with apparent fairness, that this concludes errors upon the Scriptures ; because the writing must be interpreted according to what the writer meant to say, and in order to this his language must be examined in the light of the views and opinions he is known to have held. Is this reasoning valid ?

Take a few test cases. The Bible frequently speaks of the rising and setting of the sun, and its writers undoubtedly supposed that the sun went round the earth, and that this expression was literally true. It has proved to be untrue. Are the Scriptures so committed to this error that it may be cited as one of the scientific errors of the Scriptures? If so, the case may at once be given up ; but if not, it will certainly be hard to cite a clean nee. The language

of the Bible is in opposition to the facts of science, and the writers who used it were ignorant of those facts ; while the Copernican system was under discussion, and before its truth was established, it was generally held that the Bible was committed to the opposite view. Here, then, are all the elements of what is called an error ; it is acknowledged that the statement is false, and that the writers who used it believed it to be true ; it is notorious that when its truth was first called in question the interpreters of the Bible with one voice assured the world that the point had been definitely pronounced upon in holy writ, and that no other view could be taken without a flat contradiction of the Bible. Nevertheless, the opposite view was established, and nobody's faith was disturbed. It was found that men still went on speaking of the rising and setting of the sun, although acknowledging themselves the disciples of Copernicus. The common sense of mankind has settled it that there is no error here. The Scripture writers merely used the popular language of their times, and of all times, in alluding to the natural phenomena around them ; Galileo himself would still have used the same language. This is a typical case.

Let us take another instance. Moses speaks of the coney (Hyrax Syriacus) as unclean, although he chews the cud, because he does not divide the hoof (Lev. xi. 5), and so of some other animals ; on the other hand, the swine (ver. 7) is accounted unclean, because he does not chew the cud, although he divides the hoof. All this is wrong. The coney does not really chew the cud, but merely has a way of moving his lower jaw which gives him the appearance of doing so ; and the swine does not divide the hoof,

INTRODUCTION.

because, anatomically, he has four toes. In the same connection it is said (ver. 4) that the camel chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; but anatomically he does divide the hoof, only he has a large pad which comes down behind the hoof, and on which he treads ; so that the description of Moses, while right to the eye, is scientifically wrong. In general, this whole distinction is wrongly taken. Chewing the cud and dividing the hoof are correlated developments, so that, as far as science has yet observed, all animals which do the one do the other also, although it is very possible that exceptions may hereafter be discovered to this law. Now was this an error on the part of Moses ; and is it an error of the Bible ? Technically and superficially, of course it is, but not really. Moses himself may very likely have been but an indifferent comparative anatomist; but this cannot be determined simply from this use of language. He was giving a law for popular observance, and must necessarily mark his distinctions according to appearances, or expose the people to be continually involved in transgression. The same thing would happen now. Suppose a modern legislature wishing to pass a law for the protection of blackberries, raspberries, and other small fruit ; would it not describe them as herries ? Yet, botanically, those named are not berries, while the grape and the tomato, which undoubtedly would require separate provisions in the law, are scientifically berries. So in this case ; it does not matter what was the extent or the deficiency of Moses' own private information. The exigencies of the time and the circumstances required that the law should be expressed as it is, and it would have failed of its purpose had it been set forth in the technicalities of modern science. Shall we then say that such errors were unavoidable, and therefore Scripture must contain errors which betray the imperfection of human knowledge, and show that the human element was not so limited as to prevent error? Or shall we conclude that before the highest tribunal these are really no errors at all, but merely the condescension of infinite knowledge in making itself comprehensible to men of limited information ? For ourselves, we prefer the latter alternative, in view of the fact that Cuvier or Owen, or even Mr. Huxley himself, with whatever superior knowledge, must still have used substantially the same language, if giving a law under similar circumstances, and with the design of having it observed. But really the question is merely one of words, whichever we choose ; since if these are to be called errors, they are yet errors which indicate neither faulty knowledge nor the neces-

INTRODUCTION.

sary restriction of the source of the Scriptures to the human imperfection of the period in which they were written. There is nothing in these to show that the writings containing them may not have been inspired by perfect knowledge, adapting its revelation to the imperfections of the human knowledge of the time.

Once more, to take an instance which has been the occasion of endless discussion — the cosmogony of Genesis. Here both the main fact and the subordinate details are necessarily beyond the scope of human observation ; and both the one and the other must either have been revealed, or else must have been the conclusion of speculative thought. It is not uncommon to explain one of them in one way, and the other in the other, — to say that the main fact is that all things originate from a divine source ; this was revealed and intended to be taught ; but it was left to the writer to communicate this as best he could ; and he actually did communicate it as best he could, in accordance with such knowledge as he had, or in such way as he could best imagine, and after the lapse of several thousand years his information has proved to be faulty. Now, it must be admitted that, under any possible exegesis, the account itself, if pressed to minutiae, is scientifically inaccurate. The word " day " may be understood (if this be exegetically allowable) of periods never so indefinite, or it may be taken to indicate only a series of pictorial visions ; the phrases " Let the earth bring forth " and " Let the waters bring forth " may be taken, with Augustine and many others, in a causative sense, in accordance with a theory of spontaneous generation ; still, the palpable fact will remain that the introduction of the higher forms of vegetation upon our planet was not completed before animal life began, while it is certainly implied by the story of the third and fifth days in Genesis that it was ; nor were the highest developments of aquatic life known before terrestrial animals appeared. 1 Here, then, as in the former cases, there is error. It is not sufficient for our present purpose to say that this error is in a secondary detail, and

1 It is scarcely worth while to stay to notiee some alleged minor errors, such as that God is said to have set the sun and moon in the firmament, as if he had permanently fastened them to a solid vault. There is no proof whatever that the Hehrews shared in the conception of the classical nations of the expanse (such is the meaning" of the He Drew word) ahove being solid ; but whether they did so or not, it is certain that Moses, or any one else of sufficient intelligence to have written this narrative, must have known of the motion of the moon relatively to the sun. He could not therefore have meant that both were fixed or attached to a solid foundation, but must necessarily have used the Hebrew word in its ordinary sense of put on placed, and not in the technical meaning of the English word set.

is comparatively unimportant. It is necessary to ascertain whether the detail containing the error is the outgrowth of human ignorance, or whether it belongs to the divine revelation. There are reasons for thinking that it could not have come from merely human reasoning or imagination. The account is too good, it is too nearly scientifically accurate, to admit fairly of this supposition. Among all the cosmogonies of which we know it is unique in this respect. The best accounts of the creation found elsewhere have probably either come originally from the same source, or have been modified by this. The nearest approach to it is the Etruscan, of which, at present, we know only through the account given of it by a Christian writer of the tenth or eleventh century ; 1 and this, such as it is, differs exactly in the point of being less in harmony w r ith the teachings of science. The Chaldean legends of the creation — not to speak of their being overlaid and interpenetrated with a mass of mythological absurdity — have plainly been derived originally from the same source with the story in Genesis, and cannot, therefore, help us to account for its truth. 2 Even Knobel,

2 Of the "Chaldean Genesis" it has well been said by an able writer that " though corresponding in some interesting particulars with the Biblical narrative, [it] lacked precisely this after recounting these and various other cosmogonies, says, " Of all these, the prize belongs by universal acknowledgment to the simple and natural, dignified and sublime Hebrew narrative." It is so difficult to suppose that such a cosmogony should have been the result of merely human speculation in the remote ages to which it belongs, that it would be much easier to consider it a divine revelation throughout, but for. the errors mentioned above. Let us, then, look more narrowly at those errors before deciding that they are inconsistent with a revelation from the Omniscient.

The general order of creation is given with entire accuracy, — first chaos, then light, then a fluid mass, then a separation of the dry land from the waters, then life beginning in its lowest vegetative forms and advancing through aquatic

worth and reformatory power, [viz. : in purifying countries of idolatries, and sweeping away superstitions ; in keeping fresh and fruitful faith in one God and the common parentage of man]. " These traditions of the creation never became powers of a growing religious history. They are like stagnant pools of water, themselves choked with corruptions, — not flowing fountains of life. They did not stir and cleanse the moral stagnation of Babylon. The vital power of truth to create a purer and growing life is the characteristic virtue of the very first words of inspiration. A thoughtful man, with the Biblical truth of the Creator working as a moral force in his soul, became the father of a nation whose end is not yet." — Old Faiths in New Light, by Newman Smyth, p. 74.

animal life to terrestrial, all finally culminating in the appearance of man. The celestial bodies, sun, moon, and stars, are mentioned just when they must have first shone through the murky atmosphere of the cooling earth. The only difficulty is, that when the beginning of vegetation has been mentioned its story is continued without break to its culmination ; and the same thing is done, also, with marine life. Is there any way of accounting for this consistently with the supposition that the whole story emanated from Omniscience ? AVe think it is not merely accounted for, but necessitated by the circumstances of the revelation. For this revelation must be given in such wise as to be comprehended by a rude people, and therefore must be given without the vise of scientific terms ; and in accordance with the proportion of revelation it must be given very briefly. Its purpose is not to teach natural science, but to show that all things come from God. 1 Whether the revela-

1 And thus to prepare for the possibility of future science. " If we may suppose the existence of a Divine Instructor whose intention it was in the course of time to open to the knowledge of man the secrets of the earth, and to educate the world at length into a thorough conception of the order of nature ; then we may say that he gave one of the first conditions of that knowledge, and provided one of the necessary preparations for that future education, by freeing the mind of man from subjection to the powers of nature, and setting the human soul above the world, as itself made in the divine image, tion was made by vision, or by whatever other method, its object could hardly be otherwise accomplished than in the way it has been, by mentioning in succession the great features of the world, and saying that God made each of them. To have said that He made first the humbler forms of vegetation, particularizing them ; and then the humbler forms of animal life, particularizing these too ; and then the higher forms, first of the one, and then of the other ; and lastly the highest of each of them in succession, would but have introduced prolixity and unnecessary confusion of mind. No wise man now would be likely to adopt such a method of teaching his child. He would tell him that God made all things, — the earth and the sky, the sun, moon, and stars ; He made the grass, too, and the trees ; the fishes and the birds and the animals ; and last of all He made man. This is precisely what the Omniscient taught those who were in their spiritual infancy. In this teaching there is no evidence of the error of imperfect knowledge, but only of an adaptation to the exigencies under which the revelation must be made. It leads men at once to the great fea-