Inspiration and Interpretation Part 7

(i) "It is a strange, though familiar fact,"--(such are the opening words of his Essay,)--"that great differences of opinion exist respecting the Interpretation of Scripture." (p. 330.)--'Familiar,' the fact is, certainly; but why 'strange?' A Book of many ages,--of immense antiquity,--of most varied character,--treating of the unseen world,--purporting to be a mysterious composition,--and by all Christian men believed to have G.o.d for its true Author: a book which has come into collision with every form of human error, and has triumphed gloriously over every form of human opposition:--_how_ can it be thought 'strange'

that the interpretation of such a book should have provoked "great differences of opinion?" ... Surely none but the weakest of thinkers, unless committed to the a.s.sumption that _the Bible is like any other book_, could ever have penned such a silly remark.

(ii) "We do not at once see _the absurdity_ of the same words having many senses, or free our minds from _the illusion_ that the Apostle or Evangelist must have written with a reference to the creeds or controversies or circ.u.mstances of other times. Let it be considered, then, that this extreme variety of interpretation _is found to exist in the case of no other book, but of the Scriptures only_." (p. 334.)

But the "phenomenon" which Mr. Jowett represents as "so extraordinary that it requires an effort of thought to appreciate it," (_Ibid._,) does not seem at all extraordinary to any one who does not begin by _a.s.suming_ that the Bible is "like any other book."--If _the Bible be inspired_,--then all is plain!

(iii) "Who would write a bulky treatise about the method to be pursued in interpreting Plato or Sophocles?"--asks Mr. Jowett. (p. 378.)--No one but a fool!--is the obvious reply. Plato and Sophocles are ordinary books; and therefore _are to be interpreted_ like any other book. The Bible not so, as we shall see by and by. Again,--

(iv) "Each writer, each successive age, has characteristics of its own, as strongly marked, or more strongly, than those which are found in the authors or periods of cla.s.sical Literature. These differences are not to be lost in _the idea of a Spirit from whom they proceed, or by which they were overruled_. And therefore, ill.u.s.tration of one part of Scripture by another should be confined to writings of the same age and the same authors, except where the writings of different ages or persons offer obvious similarities. It may be said, further, that ill.u.s.tration should be chiefly derived, not only from the same author, _but from the same writing, or from one of the same period of his life_. For example, the comparison of St. John and the 'synoptic' Gospels, or of the Gospel of St. John with the Revelation of St. John, will tend _rather to confuse than to elucidate the meaning of either_." (pp. 382-3.)--But really, in reply, it ought to suffice to point out that the result of the Church's experience for 1800 years has been the very opposite of the Professor's. "_The idea of a SPIRIT from whom they proceeded_," is, to the thoughtful part of mankind, _the only intelligible clue_ to the several books of Holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation! Hence "the marginal references to the English Bible," (to which Mr. Jowett devotes a depreciatory half page,) so far from being the dangerous or useless apparatus which he represents, we hold to be an instrument of paramount importance for eliciting the true meaning of Holy Writ.--In a word, he is reasoning about the Bible on _the a.s.sumption_ that the Bible is _like any other book_.

(v) "To attribute to St. Paul or the Twelve the abstract notion of Christian Truth which afterwards sprang up in the Catholic Church ... is the same error as to attribute to Homer the ideas of Thales or Herac.l.i.tus, or to Thales the more developed principles of Aristotle and Plato." (p. 354.)--_Not if St. Paul and the Twelve were inspired._

(vi) He bids us remark, with tedious emphasis, that although the same philological and historical difficulties which occur in Holy Scripture are found in profane writings, yet "the meaning of cla.s.sical authors is known with comparative certainty; and the interpretation of them seems to rest on a scientific basis.... _Even the Vedas and the Zendavesta_, though beset by obscurities of language probably greater than are found in any portion of the Bible, are interpreted, at least by European scholars, according to fixed rules, and beginning to be clearly understood." (p. 335.)

But at the end of several weak sentences, through which the preceding fallacy is elongated into distressing tenuity, _who_ does not exclaim,--The supposed "scientific" basis on which the interpretation of books in general rests, is simply this; (=1=) that being _merely human_, and (=2=) _not professing_ to have any other than their obvious literal meaning,--they are all interpreted in the obvious ordinary way!

For (=1=),--If any book were even _suspected_ to be Divine, the manner of interpreting it would of course be different. Not that the "basis" of such Interpretation would therefore cease to be "scientific!" Take the only known instance of such a Book. The Bible has been suspected (!) for 1800 years to be inspired. How has it fared with the Bible?

The Science of Biblical Interpretation is one of the n.o.blest and best understood in the world. It has been professed and practised in every country of Christendom. The great Masters of this Science have been such men as Hilary of Poictiers, Basil and the two Gregories in Asia Minor, Epiphanius in Cyprus, Ambrose at Milan, John Chrysostom at Antioch, Jerome in Palestine, Augustine in Africa, Athanasius and Cyril at Alexandria. The names descend in an unbroken stream from the first four centuries of our aera down to the age of Andrewes, and Bull, and Pearson, and Mill. These men all interpret Scripture in one and the same way.

Their principles are the same throughout. They were all Professors of _the same Sacred Science_.

But (=2=),--If a book even _professes_ to have a hidden meaning, it is interpreted by a special set of canons. Thus Dante's great poem[146] may not be read as Hume's History of England is read.--To proceed, however.

(vii) Sophocles is perhaps the most subtle of the ancient Greek poets.

"Several schools of critics have commented on his works. To the Englishman he has presented one meaning, to the Frenchman another, to the German a third; the interpretations have also differed with the philosophical systems which the interpreters espoused. To one the same words have appeared to bear a moral, to another a symbolical meaning; a third is determined wholly by the authority of old commentators; while there is a disposition to condemn the scholar who seeks to interpret Sophocles from himself only and with reference to the ideas and beliefs of the age in which he lived. And the error of such an one is attributed not only to some intellectual but even to a moral obliquity (!) which prevents his seeing the true meaning." (p. 336.)

It has fared with Sophocles therefore, (according to Mr. Jowett,) _in all respects as it has fared with the Bible_. "It would be tedious," (he justly remarks,) "to follow the absurdity which has been supposed into details. By such methods," Sophocles or Plato might "be made to mean anything." (p. 336.)

But who does not perceive that the obvious way to escape from the supposed difficulty, is to remember that _neither Sophocles nor Plato was inspired_!... Mr. Jowett's difficulty is occasioned by his a.s.sumption that _the Bible stands on the same level as Plato and Sophocles_.

(viii) Again,--"If it is not held to be a thing impossible that there should be agreement in the meaning of _Plato and Sophocles_, neither is it to be regarded as absurd, that there should be a like agreement in the interpretation of _Scripture_?" (p. 426.)--The whole force of this argument clearly consisting in the strictly equal claims of these books to Inspiration.--Elsewhere, Mr. Jowett expresses the same thing more unequivocally:--The old "explanations of Scripture," (he says,) "are no longer tenable. They belong to a way of thinking and speaking which was once diffused over the world, but has now pa.s.sed away." Having quietly _a.s.sumed_ all this, the Reverend writer proceeds:--"And what we give up as a general principle, we shall find it impossible to maintain partially; _e.g._ in the types of the Mosaic Law, and the double meanings of Prophecy, at least _in any sense in which it is not equally applicable to all deep and suggestive writings_." (p. 419.)

(ix) "Still one other supposition has to be introduced, which will appear, perhaps, _more extravagant than any which have preceded_.

Conceive then that these modes of interpreting Sophocles (!) had existed for ages; that great inst.i.tutions and interests had become interwoven with them; and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches;--is it too much to say that, in such a case, they would be changed with difficulty, and that they would continue to be maintained long after critics and philosophers had seen that they were indefensible?" (pp. 336-7.)

I suppose we may at once allow Mr. Jowett most of what he asks. We may freely grant that if the Tragedies of Sophocles _had_ exercised the same wondrous dominion over the world which the Books of the Bible have exercised:--if Oedipus and Jocasta and Creon; if Theseus and Dejanira and Hercules; if Ajax, Ulysses and Minerva;--_had_ done for the world what Enoch and Noah;--what Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;--what Joseph, and Joshua, and Hannah, and Samuel, and David;--what Elijah and Elisha; what Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and the rest;--what St.

Peter, and St. John, and St. Paul;--what the Blessed Virgin and her name-sakes, have done:--In a word: had Homer's G.o.ds and heroes altogether changed the face of society, and revolutionized the world; _so that "great inst.i.tutions and interests had become interwoven with them, and in some degree even the honour of Nations and Churches_;"

(p. 336;)--if, I repeat, all this _had_ really and actually taken place;--_great_ "difficulty" would, no doubt, (as Mr. Jowett profoundly suggests,) be experienced, at the end of 2000 years, in getting rid of them.

But since it unfortunately happens that _they have done nothing of the kind_, we do not seem to be called upon to follow the Regius Professor of Greek into the supposed consequences of what he admits to be an "extravagant supposition;" and which we humbly think is an excessively foolish one also.

When, however, the Reverend Author of this speculation establishes it as _a parallel with what has taken place with regard to the Word of G.o.d_, we tell him plainly that his insinuation that "critics and philosophers are maintaining the present mode of interpreting Scripture _long after they have seen that it is indefensible_"--is a piece of impertinence which seems to require a public apology. A man may retain Orders in the Church of England, if he pleases, while yet he repudiates her doctrines: may declare that he subscribes her Articles _ex animo_, and yet seem openly to deny them. But he has no right whatever to impute corresponding baseness to others. The charge should be either plainly made out, or openly retracted[147].

By such considerations then does Professor Jowett attempt to shew that we ought to "interpret Scripture like any other book." The gist of his observations, in every case, is one and the same,--namely, from _a priori_ considerations to insinuate that _the Bible is not essentially unlike any other book._

Now, quite apart from its Inspiration,--which is, obviously, THE one essential respect wherein the Bible is wholly unlike every other book in the world; (inasmuch as, if it is inspired, it differs from every other book _in kind_; stands among Books as the Incarnate WORD stood among Men,--_quite alone_; notwithstanding that He spoke their language, shared their wants, and accommodated Himself to their manners;)--_apart_, I say, _from the fact of its Inspiration_, it is not difficult to point out several particulars in which the Bible is _utterly unlike any other Book which is known to exist_; and therefore to suggest an _a priori_ reason why _neither should it be interpreted_ like any other book.

1. The Bible then contains in all (66-9=) 57 distinct writings,--the work of perhaps upwards of forty different Authors[148]. Yet, for upwards of fifteen centuries those many writings have been all collected into one volume: and, for a large portion of that interval, on the writings so collected the Church Universal has agreed in bestowing the name of _the Book_,--?at' ??????,--THE BIBLE.

2. The Bible is divided into two parts, which are severed by an interval of upwards of four centuries. On these two great divisions of the Bible, respectively, has been bestowed the t.i.tle of the Old and the New Covenant. And, what is remarkable,--_The same phenomena which are observable in respect of the whole Bible, are observable in respect of either of its parts._ Thus,

(=1=) The several writings of which the Old Testament is composed,--(39-3=) 36 in all[149], are by many different hands: those of the New Testament, in like manner,--(27-6=) 21 in all, are by eight different authors.

(=2=) Those many writings of the Old Testament are found to have been collected into a single volume about four hundred years before the Christian aera; when they were denominated by a common name, ?

??af?,--"_The Scripture_[150];" and the supreme authority of the writings so collected together, was axiomatic[151]. One arguing with His Hebrew countrymen was able to appeal to a place in the Psalms, and to remind them parenthetically that "the Scripture _cannot be broken_[152],"--that is, might not be gainsaid, doubted, explained away, or set aside.--Precisely similar phenomena are observable in respect of the writings of the New Testament.

(=3=) Although the books of the Old Covenant are scattered at intervals over the long period of upwards of a thousand years, the writers of the later books are observed to quote the earlier ones, as if by a peculiar secret sympathy: now, incorporating long pa.s.sages,--now, simply adapting one or two sentences,--now, blending allusive references. For some proof of this a.s.sertion, (as far as I am able to produce it at a moment's notice,) the reader is referred to the foot of the page[153].

The self-same phenomenon is observable with regard to the New Testament Scriptures. Although all the books were written within so short a s.p.a.ce as about fifty years, the later writers quote the earlier ones to a surprising extent. In the Gospels, the Gospels are quoted times without number. In the Epistles, the Gospels are cited, or referred to, upwards of sixty times. The Epistles contain many references to the Epistles.--The phenomenon thus alluded to will also be found insisted upon in a later part of the present volume[154].

"The fact, I believe, on close examination, will be found to stand thus:--The Holy Bible abounds in quotations, even more perhaps than most other books; but they are introduced in a way which is peculiar to Revelation, and its own. When a Prophet or Apostle mentions one of his own holy brethren, as when Ezekiel names Daniel, or Daniel Jeremiah; when St. Peter speaks of St. Paul, or St. Paul of St. Peter, or of St.

Luke the Physician; _when they mention them, they do not quote them; and when they quote them, they do not mention them_[155]."

(=4=) The later writer in the Old Testament who quotes some earlier portion of narrative is often observed to supply independent information,--entering into minute details and particulars which are not to be found in the earlier record.--Now, "with the same Almighty SPIRIT for their guide, what was it to be expected that the historians of our Blessed LORD would do? What, but the very thing which they have done?

that they would walk in the path, which the holy Prophets of old had marked out? that they would often tread full in each other's steps; often relate the same miracle, or discourse, or parts of it, in the words of the same prior writer; sometimes compress, sometimes expand; always shew to the diligent inquirer, that they did not derive their information, even of facts which they relate in another's words, from him whom they copy, but wrote with antecedent plenitude of knowledge and truth in themselves; without staying to inform us whether what they deliver is told for the first time, or has its place already in authentic history[156]."

(=5=) It may be worth remarking that though _the Inspiration_ of no part of either Testament has ever been doubted in the Church, there do exist doubts as to the _Authorship_ of more than one of the Books of the Old Testament; and _one_ Book in the New, (the Epistle to the Hebrews,) has been suspected by some orthodox writers _not_ to have been from the pen of St. Paul, but to have been the work of some other inspired and Apostolic writer.

(=6=) History, Didactic matter, and Prophecy,--is found to be the subject of either Testament.

(=7=) In the New Testament, as in the Old, we are presented with the singular phenomenon of more than one Book being in a manner _copied_ from another,--yet with the addition of much independent original matter. It is superfluous to name Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, on one side,--and the Gospels on the other. To the Gospels may be added the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude.

(=8=) Lastly, the same _modest_ use of the Supernatural is to be found in either Testament.--In both, the writers are observed to pa.s.s without effort, and as it were unconsciously, from revelations of the most stupendous character, to statements of the simplest and most ordinary kind[157].--In both, there is the same prominence given to individual characters[158]; the same occasional minuteness of detail where it might have been least expected[159].

3. But by far the most remarkable phenomenon remains to be noticed; namely, the immense number of quotations, (so far more numerous than is commonly suspected,)--extending in length from a single word to nearly a hundred and fifty[160],--together with allusive references, literally without number, which are found in the New Testament Scriptures; _the writings of the elder Covenant being in every instance, exclusively[161], the source of those quotations,--the object of those allusions_.

4. When the nature of these quotations, references, and allusions is examined with care, several extraordinary phenomena present themselves, which it seems impossible to consider without the deepest interest, surprise, and admiration. Thus,--(i.) The New Testament writers, on repeated occasions, display _independent knowledge_ of the Old Testament History to which they make reference[162]. The following instances occur to my memory:--All the later links in our LORD'S Genealogy[163]; the second Cainan[164]: Salmon's marriage with Rahab[165]: the burial-place of the twelve Patriarchs[166]: the age of Moses in Exod. ii. 11[167]: that in the days of Elijah the heaven was shut up for three years _and six months_[68]: that it was _the Devil_ who tempted Eve[169]: the contest for the dead body of Moses[170]: the names of Pharaoh's magicians[171]: how Abraham reasoned with himself when he prepared to offer up his son Isaac[172]: the golden censer, mentioned in Heb. ix. 4: Abraham's purchase of Sychem[173]; and a few other things[174].

(ii.) The same New Testament writers are observed to handle the Old Testament Scriptures with an air of singular authority, and to exercise an extraordinary license of quotation; inverting clauses,--paraphrasing statements,--abridging or expanding;--and always without apology or explanation;--as if they were conscious that they were dealing with _their own_.

(iii.) Most astonishing of all, obviously, as well as most important, is _the purpose_ for which the Evangelists and Apostles of our LORD make their appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures; invariably in order _to establish some part of the Christian Revelation_. "Every thoughtful student of the Holy Scriptures has been struck with the circ.u.mstance which I now allude to: the freedom, namely, with which the inspired Writers of the New Testament appeal back to the Old; and see in it, as its one proper theme, the Christian subject. They find themselves in that place, at length, to which former intimations had pointed, and recognize the connexion which they themselves have with their ancient forerunners[175]." ... It is as if for four hundred years and upwards, a mighty mystery,--described in many a dark place of Prophecy, exhibited by many a perplexing type, foreshadowed by many a Divine narrative,--had waited for solution. The world is big with expectation. The long-expected time at last arrives. Up springs the Sun of Righteousness in the Heavens; and lo, the cryptic characters of the Law flash at once into glory, and the dark Oracles of ancient days yield up their wondrous meanings! "G.o.d, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets,"--in these last days speaks "unto us by His SON:" and lo, a chorus of Apostolic voices is heard bearing witness to the Advent of "the Desire of all nations!" ... Such is the relation which the New Testament bears to the Old: such the true nature of the many quotations from the earlier Scriptures, which are found in the later half of the One inspired Volume.

5. And thus we are led naturally to notice the extraordinary connexion which subsists between the two Testaments. "For what is the Law," (asks Justin, A.D. 140,) "but the Gospel foretold? or what is the Gospel, but the Law fulfilled[176]?" "The contents of the Old and New Testament are the same," remarks Augustine: "_there_ foreshadowed, _here_ revealed: _there_ prefigured, _here_ made plain." "In the Old Testament there is a concealing of the New: in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old[177]."--Mr. Jowett's inquiry,--"If we a.s.sume the New Testament as _a tradition running parallel with the Old_, may not the Roman Catholic a.s.sume with equal reason a tradition parallel with the New?"

(p. 81.)--shews a truly childish misapprehension of the entire question. The New Testament is not a "parallel tradition" at all; but a _subsequent Revelation from Heaven_.

6. Now I might pursue these remarks much further: for it would be well worth while to exhibit what an extraordinary sameness of imagery, similarity of allusion, and unity of purpose, runs through the writings of either Covenant;--phenomena which can only be accounted for in one way. This subject will be found dwelt upon elsewhere; and to what has been already delivered, I must be content here to refer the reader[178].

(Mr. Jowett himself has been struck by the phenomenon thus alluded to: but after hinting at "some natural a.s.sociation" as having suggested the language of the Prophets, he proceeds: "We are not therefore justified in supposing any hidden connexion in the prophecies where [the prophetic symbols] occur. _Neither is there any other ground for a.s.suming design of any other kind in Scripture; any more than in Plato or Homer._"

(p. 381.) ... And thus our philosopher, a.s.suming at the outset that the Bible is an uninspired book, is for ever coming back to the lie with which he set out. But to proceed.)

7. Still better worthy of notice, in this connexion, is the singular fact (which will also be found adverted to in another place[179],) that the Old and New Testaments alike profess to be a History of _Earthly_ events from a _Heavenly_ point of view. The writers of either Covenant claim to know _what G.o.d did_[180]; how characters and events appeared _in His sight_[181]: they profess to find themselves in a familiar, and altogether extraordinary relation with the unseen world[182]. Thus, Moses begins the Bible with an august account of the great Six Days,--when G.o.d was alone in Creation; the unwitnessed Agent, and Author of all things:--while St. John the Divine, concluding the inspired Canon, relates that he was "in the Spirit on the LORD'S Day;" and heard behind him "a great Voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last[183]." ... "The general design of Scripture," (says Bishop Butler,) "may be said to be, to give us an account of the World, in this one single view,--_as G.o.d'S World: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, as far as I have found, except such as are copied from it_[184]."

8. And _yet_ the grand external characteristic feature of the Bible remains unnoticed! The one distinctive feature of the Bible, is _this_,--that the four-fold Gospel, _as a matter of fact_, exhibits to us, the WORD "made flesh:" and, (O marvel of marvels!) suffers us to hear His voice, and look upon His form, and observe His actions. It does more. The New Testament professes to be, and is, the complement of the Old. The promise of CHRIST, solemnly, and repeatedly,--"at sundry times and divers manners,"--given in the one, is fulfilled in the other.

Henceforth they are no more twain, for they have been by G.o.d Himself joined together; and the subject of both is none other than our SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST.

Enough surely has been already adduced to warrant a reasonable man in refusing to accept Professor Jowett's repeated a.s.severation that the Bible is "to be interpreted like any other book." A Book which proves on examination to be so _wholly unlike every other book_,--so entirely _sui generis_,--may surely well create an _a priori_ suspicion that it is not to be interpreted either, after any ordinary fashion. But the grand consideration of all is _still_ behind! The _one_ circ.u.mstance which effectually refutes the view of the Reverend Professor, remains yet to be specified; namely, that THE BIBLE PROFESSES TO BE INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. The HOLY GHOST is again and again declared _to speak_ therein, d??, "_by the instrumentality_," "_by the mouth_," of Man. In other words, _G.o.d, not Man, professes to be the Author of the Bible_!

That the Bible _does_ set up for itself such a claim, will be found established at p. 53 to p. 57 of the present volume. Professor Jowett's a.s.surance that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration, _there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles_,"

(p. 345,)--must therefore be regarded as an extraordinary, or rather as an unpardonable oversight on his part. One would have thought that a single saying, like that in Acts iii. 18 and 21, would have occurred to his memory, and been sufficient to refute him. Other places will be found quoted at p. cxcvii.