"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
assumption 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 passed away." Having quietly
_assumed_ 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 institutions 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 gods and heroes
altogether changed the face of society, and revolutionized the world;
_so that "great institutions 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 GOD_,
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 _à
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 _à 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_,--=kat' exochên=,--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 title 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 æra; when they were denominated by a common name, =hê
graphê=,--"_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 passages,--now, simply adapting
one or two sentences,--now, blending allusive references. For some proof
of this assertion, (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 space
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 pass 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 circumstance
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! "GOD, 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 assume the New Testament as _a
tradition running parallel with the Old_, may not the Roman Catholic
assume 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 association" 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 assuming design
of any other kind in Scripture; any more than in Plato or Homer._"
(p. 381.) ... And thus our philosopher, assuming 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 GOD 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 GOD 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 GOD'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 GOD 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 asseveration 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 _à 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_ circumstance 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, =dia=, "_by the instrumentality_," "_by the mouth_," of Man. In
other words, _GOD, 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
assurance 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.
Very much is it to be feared however that the same gentleman has
overlooked a consideration of at least equal importance; namely, the
inevitable _inference_ from the discovery that the origin of the Bible
is Divine. He informs us that,--"It will be a further assistance (!) in
the consideration of this subject, to observe that the Interpretation of
Scripture has _nothing to do with any opinion respecting its origin_."
(p. 350.) "The _meaning_ of Scripture," (he proceeds,) "is one thing:
the _Inspiration_ of Scripture is another."--True. But when we find the
Reverend Author insisting, again and again, that "it may be laid down
that Scripture has _one_ meaning,--_the meaning which it had to the mind
of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered, or wrote it_,"
(p. 378,)--we are constrained to remind him that, "To say that the
Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or
farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or
wrote them; is evidently saying, _that those persons were the original,
proper, and sole authors of those books_, i.e. THAT THEY ARE NOT
INSPIRED[185]." So that, in point of fact, _the origin_ of Holy
Scripture, so far from being a consideration of no importance, (as Mr.
Jowett supposes,) proves to be a consideration of the most vital
importance of all. And _the Interpretation_ of Scripture, so far from
having "_nothing to do_ with any opinion respecting its origin," is
affected by it most materially, or rather depends upon it altogether!
On a review of all that goes before, it will, I think, appear plain to
any person of sound understanding, that Professor Jowett's _à priori_
views respecting the Interpretation of Holy Scripture will not stand the
test of exact reason. To suggest as he has done that the Bible is to be
interpreted like any other book, on the plea that it _is_ like any other
book, is to build upon a false foundation. His syllogism is the
following:--
If the Bible is a book like any other book, the Bible is to be
interpreted like any other book.
The Bible is a book like any other book.
Therefore,--
But it has been shewn that the learned Professor's minor premiss is
false. It has been proved that the Bible is NOT a book like any other
book.
Nay, I claim to have done _more_. I claim to have established the
contradictory minor premiss. The syllogism therefore will henceforth
stand as follows:--
If the Bible can be shewn to be a book like no other book, but
entirely _sui generis_, and claiming to be the work of
Inspiration,--then is it reasonable to expect that it will have to
be interpreted like no other book, but entirely after a fashion of
its own.
But the Bible _can_ be shewn to be a book like no other book;
entirely _sui generis_; and claiming to be the work of Inspiration.
Therefore,--
$2.$ It remains however, now, to advance an important step.--Mr. Jowett,
in a certain place, adopts a principle, the soundness of which I am
able, happily, entirely to admit. "Interpret Scripture from
itself,--like any other book about which we know almost nothing except
what is derived from its pages." (p. 382.) "_Non nisi ex Scripturâ
Scripturam interpretari potes._" (p. 384.)
Scarcely has he made this important admission however, and enunciated
his golden Canon of interpretation, when he hastens to nullify it. His
very next words are,--"The meaning of the Canon is only this,--'That we
cannot understand Scripture without becoming familiar (!) with it.'"