Continuation of the subject of the preceding Chapter--Combined
influence of Rabbinical and figurative Interpretations--German
method of Hebrew study--Preposterous notion of the inadequacy of
Language as a vehicle of Thought.
There is a view of the ill effects of the combined influence of the
education and Rabbinical example and prescription under which our
translation was produced, which would confirm the foregoing observations,
were it competently traced in connection with the no less imposing and
effective influence of the system of allegorical, mystical, and figurative
interpretation which prevailed from and after the days of Origen. Had our
translators not been spell-bound by the influence first above-mentioned,
they would have been impelled by their Protestantism, their piety, and
their good sense, to discard the latter. Had they discerned the real
meaning, official reference, and literal import of the designations above
considered, and of the references, manifestations, and acts ascribed in
connection with them to the Messiah, and recognized him as the One often
visible and always acting Administrator and Revealer, they could not have
failed to give a translation with which allegorical, mystical or tropical
interpretations of the literal language of the historical, and the literal
announcements of the prophetic portions of the Scriptures, would have been
palpably incongruous and inadmissible. But the one influence, by keeping
the Messiah personally, and in respect to his offices and agency, out of
sight, or as nearly so as possible, was not repugnant to the other
system, which contemplated Him only as foreshadowed by types and figures,
prophetic symbols and mystical allusions, as though the first
manifestation of his official agency was not intended to occur till his
incarnation.
Unlike the fixed and imperative rules which governed the use of the
Masoretic points, this figurative system was subject to no conditions or
restraints other than such as might exist in the imaginations of
individuals. It furnished no just discrimination or definition of the
different figures of speech, of their object, or of their legitimate
use, nor pretended to give a reason why any word was in any given case
said to be used figuratively, or to have a figurative instead of a
literal import. It neither descended to such particulars, nor was in any
way dependent on them. The fact that every word in a given sentence was
employed by the writer in the most strictly literal sense, was no sign
that it must of course be construed literally, nor hindrance of Origen
or his followers, orthodox or Swedenborgian, down to the present day,
from giving the whole or any portion of it a figurative meaning, and,
maugre its obvious literal import, making it refer to something or any
thing, past, present, or future, which the fancy of the expositor might
suggest.
Under this system, it is easy to see how the literal designations and
literal statements of the Old Testament relating to the Messiah, the
visible appearances, special interpositions, and various acts ascribed
to him; and the literal announcements of the prophecies concerning his
yet future manifestations, the descendants of his ancient covenant
people, Jerusalem, the millennium, &c., &c., may be obscured, mystified,
misconstrued, or wholly explained away.
Under the hitherto unrestrained predominance of these two fountains of
influence, the current of Hebrew learning has for the most part been
restricted to the grammatical study of the text and its real or fancied
difficulties and defects. The Germans, who lead the way, set out with
the assumption that the student is to regard the Bible as differing in
no respect from other books. He is to take it in hand just as he would
if he had never heard of its claim of inspiration or of Divine
authority, of the attributes and perfections of its Author, of his works
of creation and providence, or any thing of the religion which it
teaches. With no guiding theory of the great scheme of the Creator and
Ruler of the world, and of his method of carrying it into effect; with
no conviction that in a volume inspired by Him, that scheme and method
must constitute the leading and pervading theme, and be so prominent as
to render the petty difficulties and obscurities he may meet with of no
account; they seem to enter upon the study as we may suppose one of the
natives of our ancient forests, with no other knowledge of art than was
required in the construction of his cabin, would enter upon the task of
learning the architectural theory which governed the construction of an
immense and complicated edifice, with the objects and uses of the whole
and of each constituent part, by examining separately and in detail
duplicates of each particular brick, stone, timber, nail, hinge, clamp,
latch, and every other material and element of the finished structure.
After wearying himself with this undertaking, he would be apt either to
abandon it, content with what he had learned of the disconnected
elementary materials, or to form an erroneous theory of their relations
and uses, if united in conformity with the model; or else to conclude,
despite the model before him, that the separate pieces could not be
combined in one harmonious whole; that no theory would account for such
a result, and that all that could be done was to study them separately,
ascertain their separate uses, and discover their defects; that though,
to superficial observers, apparently united in the stately edifice, they
were not really united, but were of diverse natures and different ages,
fashioned and added by many different builders at widely distant
periods; and that the structure was but a mass of patchwork, the result
of what the successive builders added to the work of their predecessors,
each bringing his own peculiar materials, and pursuing the style of
architecture prevalent in his own day; and therefore to comprehend it
the student must take the portion of each builder separately, and make
it his object to investigate and criticize the materials and style
employed by him, compare each with all the others, enumerate their
defects, and in the end show that, viewed collectively, the whole is but
a mass of discordant materials, clumsily arranged, with innumerable
defects, inconsistencies, superfluities, erroneous combinations, and
objects as diverse and various as the capacities, tastes, and
circumstances of the several builders.
If this, as an illustration of the modern German method of studying the
Hebrew Scriptures, is in any degree exaggerated, it is yet probably
exact enough to account for the worse than Rabbinical, worse than
Popish, worse than Mohammedan results--neological infidelity, both with
respect to the Old and the New Testaments, and atheism with respect to
their Author. Doubtless there are exceptions--here and there a Lot
escaping for his life from this critical Sodom. The reference is to the
general and notorious results.
The system virtually begins with a denial of the Divine origin and
authority of the Scriptures, and a degradation of them to the level of
the works of heathen authors, and as a system, pursued under the
influences above referred to, is no better calculated to lead the
student to a right apprehension and knowledge of the great theme and
connected chain of things revealed, than the study of insects, under the
name of the science of entomology, is calculated to enable the student
to conceive, understand, and comprehend the doctrines of the Newtonian
philosophy.
Among the results of this course of things, it is obvious to notice the
wide-spread, notorious, and effective sentiment of doubt and uncertainty
as to the claims of the Scriptures in respect to the most important facts
and doctrines, among the learned, scientific and professional men
extensively on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence the origin, popularity,
and influence of the geological doctrines concerning the antiquity of the
earth, successive creations or developments, diversity of origin of
different families of the human race, and various kindred matters. The
excited minds of scientific men, unsatisfied, unestablished, and misled by
the results of Rabbinical and neological study and criticism, have
appealed from the Scripture records to the fossil relics of what they
fancy to have been a world of immeasurably higher antiquity than that of
whose creation Moses is the historian. They seek there, and imagine that
they discover, engraven on the rocks, an earlier revelation, a more
correct chronology, a higher and more intelligible theory of the origin,
progress, uses, and ends of the earth, its changes, and its families of
rational and irrational inhabitants. And finally the better portion of
this great school, as the only means left of guarding the rising
generation from blank atheism, recommend the institution of professorships
of Natural Theology, that, by a due exhibition to them of the evidences of
geological and other natural sciences, they may, if possible, be convinced
that there is a God!
Another result is obvious in the still more extended influence among
all classes, learned, religious, ignorant and skeptical, of the
discovery--made, probably, or adopted, alike by the Talmudists and
Origen though not openly professed as a clue to their productions--that
language is a very inadequate, imperfect, indeterminate vehicle of
thought; an uncertain, incompetent, unreliable means of expressing
men's ideas. The incautious, half demented inheritors of this
discovery, however, apprehending, in the present condition of things,
no danger of injury to their intellectual, professional, literary or
religious reputation, proclaim it as boldly and unreservedly as if it
were universally admitted and confirmed by universal experience. Out of
charity or out of hypocrisy towards their readers, indeed, or because
they consider themselves exceptions to a general rule, applicable, in
their view, even to the penmen of the sacred writings, they directly
profess and apply this fancied discovery only in relation to the
language of Scripture and to that of orthodox creeds and confessions.
In this they feel secure of the acquiescence of the great majority of
all descriptions, and, but for their heresies in other relations, and
having other bearings, would feel in other respects, as well as in
this, secure of the learned among the orthodox.
It is obvious how, by this device, the Arch-enemy wins and secures his
prey among those who have the oracles of God; as of old among the
heathen by his own oracles, the responses from which were ever capable
of several meanings, from among which the consulting party might adopt
the one most agreeable to his wishes, feelings, and emotions.