1.01 Part I. Principles
Part I.
PRINCIPLES.
1. Be careful to work on a correct text
If we possessed the Bible in the form of Egyptian hieroglyphics cut in the granite rock of the desert, or in the form of the Babylonian brick libraries which have recently been exhumed, and large instalments of which are now deposited in the British Museum, of course no question of the correctness of the text could arise; when once the experts had deciphered the monuments we should be certain we had what had been originally written by the inspired authors. But the several books of Scripture were first written on skins of animals, and some of them, perhaps, on paper (see 2Jn 1:12), perishable materials which have long since disappeared. Since, then, in no case we can have access to the original autographs, we are wholly dependent on copies, on copies of copies, obtained through a succession of scribes. No doubt most of the copyists were honest men and conscientious in the performance of their laborious tasks; yet errors frequently crept in unawares— it could not have been otherwise; and in some cases the too officious scribes employed their ingenuity on what they regarded as improvements of the text. If there are disputes as to the exact reading of many passages in the works of Shakespeare, although the great dramatist lived in the age of printing, but three hundred years ago, and wrote in the English language, is it at all surprising that errors should appear in books the most recent of which are six times more ancient than Shakespeare’s works, all of them composed in what have long since become dead languages, and all only preserved, for at least fourteen centuries before the invention of printing, and some for a much longer time, by the pen of the copyist? The fact becomes the less remarkable when we consider that in the most primitive ages the sanctity of the text was not sufficiently recognized to secure that scrupulousness in avoiding all inaccuracies, not to mention deliberate alterations, which is requisite for any work of literature to be transmitted intact.
We do not meet with so many variations in the Old Testament as in the New. That, however, is not merely because the Hebrew Scriptures have been preserved with greater care than the Christian, although the rabbis have shown their reverence for the sacred text by cherishing it with pious devotion. It is also due to what happened in the early ages of the Christian era, when what is called the “Massoretic” (i.e. “traditional”) text was fixed, for from this time all previous variations disappeared. The work of the Massoretes, as the rabbis who undertook this determination of the text were called, was a loyal attempt to register what they believed to be the traditional reading. Still, it is clear that in some cases they unwittingly registered errors, and at the same time deprived their posterity of the means of correcting them by permitting the destruction of all various readings. Originally the Hebrew had no vowels; the Massoretes supplied vowel points according to traditional pronunciation, together with numerous suggested emendations, which appear in the margin of the modern Hebrew Bible. This Bible is printed from quite late manuscripts. It may be brought nearer to the Massoretic text by reference to older and better manuscripts. It is difficult to go behind that text, though attempts are now being made to do so by comparison with the Septuagint and other Greek versions. The case is quite otherwise with the New Testament.
Among the 2000 and more known manuscripts, as far as these have been collated, there have been found as many as 182,000 various readings. The bare statement of this fact may strike us as very alarming, seeming to suggest that we could have no certainty as to a genuine New Testament. A careful examination of the facts, however, should dispel any sense of alarm. There is no question whatever about seven eighths of the words of the New Testament, these being contained in all the manuscripts. Questions, therefore, can only be raised concerning the remaining one eighth. Then it is found that the vast majority of the variations are of no serious importance, being perfectly trivial matters of spelling, the position of words, etc. Moreover, by far the larger proportion of the various readings are only found in one manuscript or a few inferior manuscripts, and are at once to be set aside on the unanimous testimony of the best manuscripts. Dr. Hort calculated that there remains only one sixtieth of the readings concerning which there can be any real uncertainty.
Since the standard editions of the Greek Testament were edited by Erasmus and his fellow- workers at the “revival of letters” and since our Authorized Version, which was founded on some of these texts, was published, the means for obtaining a correct text have immensely improved. The earlier editors did not possess any of the best old manuscripts, such as those known as the Vatican and the Sinaitic, both of which date from the fourth century a.d, nor a great many others that are of valuable supplementary use in settling the text. The study of these manuscripts, together with early translations and quotations in the fathers, has led to the development of a complete science known as “textual criticism.” It is only reasonable that the judgment of experts in this science should be treated with some respect, just as the judgment of the experts in any other science is treated. While some uncertainty still remains, we may rest assured that the results of research and study have brought us much nearer to what was originally written by the apostolical authors of the New Testament than was possible to the people of the sixteenth century— in fact, that we now have substantially restored the actual text itself. “In the variety and fullness of evidence on which it rests,” writes Dr. Hort, “ the text of the New Testament stands absolutely alone among ancient prose writings.”
Under these circumstances, does it not show grievous negligence for any serious student of Scripture to continue to read and quote the Bible in the older form, without ascertaining where it has been corrected? For though, as has been stated, the majority of the variations are insignificant, some are very important. For example, where the standard Hebrew Bible and the Authorized Version read, “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy” (Isa 9:3), a text that seems to invite to a sermon against overpopulation, a note of the Massoretes removes the “not” and thus evidently restores the sense which is in harmony with the context; a corrected text removes the final verses of Mark (all after 16:8), or, at all events, throws grave doubt on their genuineness, and so prevents us from honestly citing verse 16 in any baptismal controversy y the passage, about the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53; John 8:1-11), though very likely founded on a true legend, is lacking from most ancient authorities, and must not be reckoned as part of the Bible; the sentence, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one ’’ (1Jn 5:7), is absent from all manuscripts written before the fifteenth century, and therefore must not be appealed to as an argument concerning the Trinity, since it is a manifest forgery; at Luk 13:31, instead of “the same day” we should read “the same hour,” a correction that makes the situation more intense; in Mat 19:17, our Lord’s question, which stands in the Authorized Version, “Why callest thou Me good I” when correctly given as in the best manuscripts becomes, “Why askest thou Me concerning the good?’’ Similar illustrations abound throughout the Bible, but perhaps these few specimens even may suffice to show how essential it is to be assured that we are working on a genuine, correct text. The readiest way for the English student to obtain a substantially correct text is to use the Variorum Bible, in which the corrections, with their principal authorities, are supplied by foot-notes. The Revised Version is based on most of the more important textual emendations, and in this respect, as well as in the matter of translation, is much more accurate than the Authorized Version. For more advanced study, reference must be made to a critical Greek Testament, such as Westcott and Hort’s, or Tischendorf’s (eighth edition), which gives the authorities. Weymouth’s Resultant Greek Testament is valuable for comparing the texts arrived at by the chief critical authorities and for obtaining the general result of all their opinions. Further examination of the correctness of the text may be helped by the use of a good critical commentary.
2. Endeavor to understand the exact meaning of the words and phrases studied.
We can make no progress unless we have first of all ascertained the plain grammatical sense of the passage under study. The most thorough process is to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek. Where that is out of the question, it is important to make use of a good translation. For this reason the Revised Version is invaluable to the English Biblical student. It is sometimes said that the older version is more suitable for devotional purposes; but even this may be questioned if, as cannot be doubted, it is less accurate, for surely, since God is to be worshiped “in truth,’’ it is desirable that all ideas entering into devotion should be as correct as possible. Here, indeed, sentiment comes in, and the touching associations of the old book, that have been familiar to us from our childhood and that link it with memories of those who have gone before, lend a sacredness to every turn of expression, so that we are disconcerted at any change in a well-known and often used phrase, the variation jarring on the nerves like a discord in music. The noble English of the Authorized Version has made the book, quite apart from its religious value, a classic of the first rank, and any attempt to tamper with its language must be for the worse. This was to be expected when the revision was undertaken. That the revisers have been sometimes unhappy in their phrases, regarded simply from a literary standpoint, cannot be denied. This is especially the case with the New Testament, but the difference is principally owing to the fact that the revision of this portion of Scripture was more thorough than that of the Old Testament. One could wish that the two companies had called in the help of Lord Tennyson or Mr. Ruskin as a referee for the quality of their English. But when the hardest things that the most fastidious criticism can say have been said, the unquestionable fact remains that we have a genuine improvement of incalculable value in the more accurate rendering of the original.
Now, seeing that the chief use of the Bible is not its contribution to the pleasures of literature, but a practical and spiritual service of far greater moment, is it not a little childish to be neglecting a version that is fitted to aid us in coming nearer to the meaning of the divine revelation, simply because that version does not altogether agree with the taste of literary estheticism? For example, in the Authorized Version we read, “Take no thought for your life” (Mat 6:25), a precept that seems to encourage recklessness, although it would not have conveyed that meaning in the sixteenth century, as the word “thought” then had the meaning of “care”; in the Revised Version this is correctly rendered, “Be not anxious for your life.” The “bottles” of Mat 9:17 in the Authorized Version become “wine-skins” in the Revised Version, and thus the parable in which the word occurs becomes intelligible. In Mat 16:25-26, according to the Authorized Version, we read of a man saving or losing his life,” and in the very next sentence of his saving or losing his “soul,” as though two separate entities were referred to, although the very same word is employed in the Greek for both passages; in the Revised Version the one word “life” is used throughout. In the account of St. Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17:16-34) some of the best points of St. Luke’s very careful and exact narrative are missed in the Authorized Version. They are not all seized in the Revised, but the improvement is conspicuous. According to the Authorized Version, the apostle’s spirit was “stirred in him” (Acts 17:16) at the sight of the many idols with which the city perfectly swarmed. The Greek means irritated J stung the Revised Version has “provoked.”
Then, both versions have the epithet “babbler”’ (Acts 17:18). The word in the original is a very peculiar one, meaning primarily a picker-up of seeds; and in this sense it ¥/as applied to small birds, whence it came to stand for a ne’er-do-well, one who picks up his living anyhow; and finally, in the university town of Athens, as Professor Ramsay has shown, it became a nickname for a pretentious person of no real culture who set up as a scholar. The Authorized Version has “Areopagus” in Acts 17:19 and “Mars’ hill” in Acts 17:22 for the same Greek word. The Revised Version has “Areopagus” in both cases, an improvement not only for the sake of uniformity and as a close rendering of the original Greek, but also because the word may not be used here for the hill at all 5 very possibly it stands for the council, named after the hill from having originally assembled there, which had the duty of determining, on the arrival of any foreign professor, whether he should be permitted to lecture in the university. The phrase “too superstitious” (Acts 17:22) in the Authorized Version does not represent St. Paul’s meaning; and the rather milder expression “somewhat superstitious” in the Revised Version is but a slight improvement. The word “religious” in the margin of the Revised Version comes nearer the apostle’s intention. He was not so foolish and ungracious as to begin his address by scolding his audience; his speech is a model of courtesy and conciliation throughout, molded with great tact to suit the very unusual audience before which it was delivered. He acknowledged the religiousness of the Athenians exhibited in the multitude of their idols. They were not really devout; he could not call them “spiritual-minded”; but evidently they paid court to religion —they were “somewhat religious.” In the Authorized Version St. Paul is made to say, “As I passed by, and beheld your devotions” (Acts 17:23), an expression suggesting the sight of people praying in public after the manner of the Pharisees rebuked by Jesus Christ, or like the Mohammedans of our own day. But the sparkling, witty Athenians were by no means notorious for such solemn acts of devotion. The phrase is corrected by the Revised Version into “the objects of your worship,’’ i.e. the idols already mentioned. It is a mistake of the Authorized Version to represent the altar observed by St. Paul as dedicated “to the unknown God” (Acts 17:23), as though the one true Divinity, unrevealed to the heathen world, had been deliberately indicated by the author of the inscription. The Greek is simply “to an unknown God,” and so it is rendered in the Revised Version. Considering its technical meaning in later theology, “Godhead” is not a happy word in Acts 17:29. “The divine,” as suggested in the margin of the Revised Version, is more suitable and better represents St. Paul’s idea in this discourse of his among philosophic pagans. Lastly, “winked at” (Acts 17:30, A. V.) is an unworthy expression to be used for God’s treatment of man’s failings. The Revised Version substitutes “overlooked,” a much better rendering.
Accuracy of translation being secured, we have still to be sure that we understand the result. There may be difficulties or obscurities in the original text, in which case too smooth a translation would even be delusive.
Here is the opportunity for the science of exegesis. In approaching a difficult passage, the first requisite is to clear our minds of all prejudices as to what we may happen to wish it to mean. It is important, also, to banish from our thoughts any associations of the words with subsequent theological speculations. Our one aim must be to get at the natural sense of the passage, just as we should do in dealing with any other literature than that of the Bible. It is the business of the commentator to explain the difficulties, but too often the commentator is not without his bias. At all events, it is not desirable to read the Bible through another man’s spectacles. We can best feel the freshness and force of it when we look straight at it without any media between the reader and the sacred page. Certainly it is desirable in the first instance to wrestle with the difficulties ourselves. When every effort to find a way through the tangled thicket has failed, it becomes necessary to seek a guide -, and even when we think we have solved the problem, it may still be wise to compare notes with the results of the investigations that have been carried on by other people; for we can scarcely venture to assume that our judgment is infallible, or that, like Job’s comforters, we are the only wise men. With Scripture study, as well as with practical affairs, it is sometimes found that in a multitude of counselors there is wisdom. The solitary Bible student is apt to develop fads and crotchets, which would be to a large extent eliminated by conference with fellow-students in a class for common Bible study. But even then it is reasonable to suppose he would be able to obtain invaluable assistance from a reference to the judgment of the great scholars who have proved themselves to be experts in Biblical exegesis. For this reason the modest Bible student cannot afford to dispense with his commentary, though he should be careful not to become a slave to it and should never resort to it in the ffi’st instance.
3. Bead every passage in the light of its context The common custom of handling the Bible is not merely to treat it as a string of bead texts 3 it is to cut the string and scatter the beads. If ever we are to escape from this absurd and misleading abuse of Scripture, it must be by a clear recognition of literary continuity. Serviceable as the division into chapters and verses is for purposes of ready reference, it has lent itself to the encouragement of a fatal process of disintegration. It may be well, therefore, to note that this twofold method of division is not part of the original structure of the books in which it is now found. Our verse division is not much more than three hundred years old. It was the work of Robert Stephens, the editor of the text of the Greek Testament on which our Authorized Version is for the most part founded, who, as his son tells us, hastily jotted down the numbers of the verses in the margin of his Greek Testament as an occupation to beguile the tedium of a journey from Paris to Lyons, on the basis of a similar division of the Hebrew Bible made in the preceding century. The convenience of this arrangement was at once recognized 5 it was adopted by the editors of the Geneva Bible and thence it passed into our present Bibles. The chapters are older, dating from Cardinal Hugo, a schoolman of the thirteenth century. For 1500 years the whole Bible existed without verses, for more than 1000 years without chapters. Earlier divisions, however, were known and used as marginal references among the church fathers, but none of them go back to the original composition of the books of Scripture.
These were written, as we may see from the earliest extant manuscripts, continuously, without any breaks whatever corresponding to chapter and verse divisions.
Attention to this very elementary fact would entirely abolish many of the most serious misapprehensions of Scripture that still flourish among us like green baytrees. Thus Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (Eze 37:1-10) has been taken as a prediction of the resurrection of the body, in total disregard of the express application of it by the prophet himself, in the words that immediately follow, to the national restoration of the Jews after the virtual death of the nation at the Captivity. This has arisen from the habit of reading the account of the vision by itself. If the reader would simply finish the passage he could not fail to see the meaning of it. Or take our Lord’s commandment, “Be not anxious for your life,” etc. (Mat 6:25), which is commonly read by itself as a consolatory recommendation only suggested for our own personal comfort. When we turn to the context we find that Christ is expostulating with His hearers for the sinful worldliness of anxiety concerning temporal affairs, since the precept is preceded by the warning, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” and the whole subject of worldly anxiety concludes with an exhortation to those higher pursuits which it hinders fatally, and for the sake of which it must be suppressed, in the words, “But seek ye first His [i.e. your heavenly Father’s] kingdom, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you’’ (Mat 6:33). Again, how common is it to see the text, “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest “ (Mat 11:28), taken as a self-contained aphorism, displayed upon chamber walls as a cheering word for the weary, without the least recognition of the fact that it is a mutilated fragment, a mere torso, beautiful, it is true, and heart- winning, but still not rightly intelligible until it is reunited to its qualifying and explanatory context! When the whole passage in which it occurs is read, we discover that, though coming to Christ is the way to rest, rest is not promised on the sole condition of approach, that submission and discipleship are essential conditions; for our Lord continues, “Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Mat 11:29-30). The whole passage shows that rest is to be got by (1) coming to Christ, (2) taking on His yoke, (3) learning of Him. It is simply a misquotation to give the first of these conditions as though it were the only one laid down, absolutely ignoring the two that follow.
Once more, selections from our Lord’s prophecy of the overthrow of the Jewish state and the establishment of His kingdom are frequently torn out of their setting and applied to the destruction of the world at the end of the ages, notwithstanding the positive statement near the conclusion of the predictions, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished” (Mat 24:34).
It is clear, then, that we cannot be safe in our interpretation of a sentence or a phrase when we read it by itself. To come to a fair and reasonable understanding of it we must “look before and after,” tracing the line of thought that leads up to it, and seeing whether it is the end of a passage or whether it is linked on to subsequent statements which are intended to qualify it or to give it some special application. Read thus, with a careful regard for its setting, many an isolated phrase may be taken up and prized as a jewel of thought.
Nevertheless, it is a mistake to be only on the lookout for such phrases when we read the Bible. It is important to keep our eye more on the course of the history or argument which we are reading, for undoubtedly, while the sacred writers drop precious thoughts by the way their main purpose is not to supply us with these valuable hints; they are more concerned with presenting some large picture of divine truth, in which the details take their places and so minister to the perfect idea of the whole, but in which they are not to be studied too minutely to permit of our grasping the main lesson while we are distracted with the minor interests.
Scripture is like a gallery of great Turner landscapes with infinite skies, not a collection of minute Dutch interiors.
4. Note the distinctive character and purpose of each hooJc of Scripture,
One of the disadvantages of a slavish regard for the division of the books of the Bible into chapters is that we are continually pulling up at what might be called artificial dikes, intercepting the broad fields of revelation, often with little or no regard for the natural lay of the land, and sometimes in violent contravention of its original boundaries, formal canals into which the streams have been diverted from their primitive courses.
Occasionally, with an odd perversity, a chapter division will cut right through a narrative or an argument.
Thus we have two accounts of the Creation, given in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. One would have supposed the sensible arrangement would have been to devote an exact chapter to each. Instead of this we find the first account cut short at the thirty first verse of chapter 1, and resumed in the first three verses of chapter 2, the second account beginning at the fourth verse of this chapter. With a similar fatuity, the conclusion of our Lord’s prediction of His return, in Mark 8:1-38, is carried over to a new section as the first verse of chapter ix, with the further disadvantage that an entirely false meaning is suggested for it. The words are, “And He said unto them. Verily I say unto you. There be some here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.’’ Immediately following a prediction of the coming of the Son of man in glory, they evidently refer to that event» But set at the head of the next chapter and thus in close connection with the account of the transfiguration, they are made to point to this occurrence — a wholly wrong turn of thought. Even when, as it must be allowed is more frequently the case, the chapter divisions do not thus violently rend the Scriptures and wrest them to unnatural meanings, too much respect for them will still effectually hinder an adequate appreciation of what we are reading. It is well to leap the dikes boldly and course the land through its length and breadth. In so doing we are not disregarding the ancient landmarks.
These petty allotments are comparatively modern innovations, and they invite to a peddling style of study that belittles Scripture. “Cribbed, cabined, and confined” in narrow chapters, we miss the swing and sweep of great arguments and stately narratives. The present day habit of obtaining literary refreshment in the fragmentary paragraphs of the lighter journals favors a similar use of Scripture, but it is fatal to all serious study.
Out of the multitudes of conscientious Bible readers, probably only a small minority have ever read a single book of Scripture straight through, and very few indeed have ever done so at a sitting in the case of any but the shortest books. The consequence is a complete failure to perceive the distinctive aims and characters of the several books. Accordingly, when a person who may have been quite familiar with his Bible, but only in the old way of reading it in scraps and fragments, breaks loose from the shackles of the chapters and begins to read the books, he finds himself in a novel world. The old words are lit up with a new meaning now that they appear as parts of a much larger whole. In coming, then, to study a book of Scripture, first of all its general character must be inquired into. Is it poetry or prose? imaginative writing or argumentative? history or prophecy or gnomic wisdom? Is it a sober narrative or a passionate drama or a personal letter? Does it contain a code of laws, an assortment of old sayings, a collection of lyrics? How different are these various forms of literature! and yet they are all included within the covers of the Bible, which we commonly regard as one book. It is impossible to ascertain the true meaning of a passage culled from writings of these widely divergent orders until we have considered what is the peculiar character of the book in which it is found. To apply grammar and dictionary, for example, to the daring imagery of the Psalms, just as we would to the narratives in the books of Kings, would be to land ourselves in absurdities of our own careless creation. When we read in a poem of God riding on a cherub (Psa 18:10), it would be out of reason for us to endeavor to get at the meaning of the assertion in the way in which we should examine the statements about the carved cherubim in Solomon’s temple. In the next place, for the right understanding of a book we must ascertain its aim and purpose. In this way we shall discover “the messages of the books.’’
Even a narrative may be written with a certain distinctive purpose. Thus we read in St. John’s account of the appearances of the risen Christ, ’’ Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written “that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing ye may have life in His name’’ (John 20:30-31)— a statement which shows that, since the apostle did not aim at composing an exhaustive narrative, but deliberately limited himself to a selection of incidents which he considered adequate for establishing the foundations of faith, it would be distinctly contrary to what he says to assume that he has given us all the testimony to the resurrection that it was within the range of his experience to furnish. Where books are evidently divided into sections— as in the case of the different “burdens’’ of a prophet, it is obviously reasonable to consider each section by itself.
5. Make a separate study of the works of each Scripture writer, and in reading any passage consider it especially with regard to the rest of the writings of its author. With any theory of inspiration short of the extravagant notion— derived from the rabbis— that the “inspired penman ’’ is as blind and involuntarily a tool as the pen he handles, some room must be found for the human element in Scripture. While perceiving— as surely we must perceive it — the purifying and uplifting, the enlightening and guiding, influence of the Spirit of God, which conveys the revelation of truth, of the very word of God, unless we wilfully close our eyes or unless we are simply infatuated with prejudices we must also see the distinctive traits of the various writers of the books of the Bible. On the surface of the subject we may detect the same difference of style that we find among the authors of all other literature, though within a somewhat narrower range of variations. Just as Sophocles differs in style from Homer, Dante from Petrarch, Milton from Spenser, so the author of Job differs from Jeremiah, and the author of the Chronicles from the author of the Kings. In the New Testament each of the four evangelists has his own style. There are certain clear-cut features characteristic of the writings of St. Paul, of St. James, of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and there is the perfectly unique “Johannine style.” But when we have recognized this we must go further. The style is the man. The form of language being no mere mannerism, but the true expression of the thought that lies behind it, strong differences of style suggest strong differences in ways of thinking. It cannot be denied that the various writers approach their subjects from different standpoints and view them through the media of different mental atmospheres. Isaiah and the author of the Fifty-first Psalm have quite a different way of looking at sacrifices for sin from that of the author of Leviticus. St. Paul, though in essential belief and doctrine quite at one with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has a very different manner of handling the relation of the law to the Gospel. It has been shown that there is no real contradiction between St. Paul and St. James in their conceptions of the sphere of faith; yet how different are their ways of treating the subject! — so different as to have given rise very easily to the erroneous notion of a radical contradiction. The personal element being present, it cannot be ignored without occasioning grave misapprehensions.
We have not so much to “eliminate the personal equation” as to bring all the characteristic ideas of each writer to a focus. It is well, then, to study all that we possess of any particular writer by itself — to read, for example, all the epistles of St. Paul consecutively in the order of time, and to observe what the apostle teaches on the great truths of Christianity, taken one by one in clear distinction. This is a double process. The chronological reading of the epistles helps us to discover the development of the teaching y the topical study enables us to classify the principal items of it.
Both must be pursued, and each with a view to the other, if we would comprehend the whole subject. In such a study as this, next to perceiving exactly what St. Paul teaches, it is most important to note what he does not teach. In view of the voluminous dogmatism of later theology— church doctors rushing in where prophets and apostles fear to tread— the silences of Scripture are eloquent with significance. The particular silences of each individual writer are of serious weight in determining the limits of his teaching. On the other hand, it is to be borne in mind, since no writer in the Bible professes to set before us the perfect orb of truth, we must not rush to the conclusion that the segment which any one has occasion to present to us is all he knows, much less that it is all that exists.
When, for example, we find St. James in his one brief practical epistle silent on most of the great ideas which fire the enthusiasm of St. Paul, we should be illogical in concluding either that he was ignorant of such truths as redemption by the cross of Christ and salvation by living union with Christ, or that knowing of them he deliberately rejected them. All we can say for certain is that he did not allude to them in this one writing. At the same time perhaps we should add that if St. Paul were discussing similar practical themes no doubt he would bring in more of the deeper truths to enforce his exhortations. We must be cautious in dealing with the negative evidence of silence ] still, we must not fail to note the silence where it exists, and, above all, we must avoid the careless blunder of attributing to a writer in the Bible anything that we have not found in his own works, simply on the vague ground that we believe it to be “Scripture teaching.” The blurring of features that results from a neglect of the characteristic differences of the writers is like one of those confused pictures that are produced by taking photographs of several people successively upon the same negative.
Immediately we study each author by himself we begin to perceive a crispness of outline and a vividness of coloring that add immensely to the interest of our reading.
Having made this separate study of the separate writers, we must not forget the results of it when we are reading any particular portion of the Scriptures.
We are told that “’ Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture” and that we should “interpret Scripture by Scripture “—proverbial advice which is based on a broad foundation of good sense. There is a true unity in the Bible. The languages— the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New— are best illustrated from those books respectively. There is a certain common character in all ancient Hebrew literature, and a certain common character in all primitive Christian literature, and a certain Biblical character belonging to the two. The development of one religious revelation throughout, under the guidance of the one divine Spirit, involves an essential unity. Nevertheless, when we come to details we must learn to interpret Isaiah by Isaiah, Paul by Paul, John by John, if we would obtain exact and definite results. In considering the meaning of a peculiar word or phrase, it is not enough to learn what is the “general usage of Scripture.’’ There may be no one “general usage of Scripture.” Grievous mistakes may be made by a mechanical application of “reference Bibles.’’ When a certain word is hunted up in several widely separated books of Scripture, and the scattered passages in which it is found brought together to throw light on its meaning in the particular passage under study, the rough-and-ready process may be most delusive, because the word may be used with quite different relations by different writers. The trouble about St. James’s epistle has risen chiefly out of a mistake of this sort. People bringing to the reading of it notions about “justification” and “faith” derived from other parts of the Bible, principally from St. Paul’s writings, first read those alien notions into the epistle and then judge the author for what he never meant. To understand the very special sense in which the two words are used by St. James we must study them in his own work. When we do so we shall find that he is writing about an entirely different justification fromthat of the Epistle to the Romans,— St. Paul dealing with God’s forgiveness of the sinner at the beginning of the Christian life, St. James with His approbation of the saint at the end,— and that he is writing about an entirely different faith — indeed, mentioning two kinds of faith: the “living” faith, of which he approves, and which corresponds to the only faith referred to by St. Paul, and the “ dead” faith, which is another name for a barren intellectual assent. It is absolutely necessary to study the writer by himself in order to discover these distinctive ideas.
6. Study each part of the Bible in connection with the period when it was written and take into account the circumstances of its origin.
We are reminded in the Epistle to the Hebrews that God spoke to the fathers in the prophets “by divers portions’’ and “in divers manners” (Heb 1:1). This twofold diversity, numerical and qualitative, the plurality of the writings and their differences of form and character, is the necessary consequence of the fact that divine revelation was not confined to one brief moment of time. The inspired utterances are spread over a period of about a thousand years, and by no means equally. The divine light is concentrated now and again into foci, brilliant epochs of revelation, separated by times when “the word of the Lord was rare.”
Each of these epochs has its own special characteristics, and the writings belonging to it naturally form a group by themselves. Therefore for purposes of fruitful study it becomes necessary to sort out these groups and take the members of each group together so that they may throw light on one another. This is invariably acknowledged to be the correct way of studying any national literature. What we have to see is that the Bible, or rather the Old Testament, is the national literature of Israel. It differs from other literature in its wonderful inspiration, but it is none the less subject to the general laws that obtain in all other national literature. In this respect it is utterly different from the Koran, which is the creation of one mind at one point of time. The many minds in many ages that have wrought at the formation of the Bible have left on it the stamp of each of their own peculiar periods. In English literature we distinguish certain glorious ages when the tide ran strong and free— the period of Chaucer, the Elizabethan age, the times of Queen Anne, the Victorian era. Similarly, in the course of the literature of Israel, we have marked ages of especial productiveness, such as the. eighth century B.C, the time of the Exile, the age of the Return, the apostolic era.
It is desirable, therefore, to map out the whole field of Scripture in order to see clearly where the great demarcations are to be found, and then to arrange the several books accordingly. This should be the main course of study, a study of epochs in their entirety. Then, if we have occasion to fix our attention on an isolated passage of Scripture, we must attempt to assign its place in the epoch to which it belongs. When we have succeeded in doing this we have struck off at one blow a good half of the common misapprehensions of Scripture. These misapprehensions are for the most part egregious anachronisms. The cure for them is chronology. When this is observed it will appear as absurd to look for the Christian sacraments in the law of Moses as to assign cannon to the battle of Actium, and conversely as unreasonable to define Christian doctrines in terms of the Levitical sacrifices as to furnish out our modern soldiers with the chain-armor and battle-axes of the crusaders. We shall cease to read the ideas of the later period into the writings of the earlier, and we shall no longer cramp the meaning of the fuller revelation by endeavoring to bring it within the forms of the earlier — what is that but to put new wine in old bottles? Let us treasure the old wine in the old bottles for its own sake; we shall learn to appreciate its fine flavor all the better, so long as we abstain from the barbarity of an unnatural mixture.
7. Trace the historical development of revelation. This process of study— one of the most important and fruitful in the whole range of Scripture subjects is closely associated with the previous one. If the contents of the Bible fall into a number of successive periods, it is clear that an orderly and progressive consideration of those periods must yield better results than one that is irregular and casual. It is a great step to have come to recognize the several eras of revelation and to have allotted each portion of Scripture to its own age. The miserable confusion that comes of the neglect of chronology is thus avoided, and the grouping of all the works of a period together, aided by a collection of any available information about that particular period, is certain to issue in a wonderful illumination of the Scripture studied. But having attained that object, we are prepared to take another step of equal importance, and, arranging the periods in the natural order of time, to consider their relation one to another, and the character and issue of the whole course of revelation through these successive periods. This is the only way in which we can ever hope to sum up the total teaching of the Bible, or, since the wealth and spiritual depth of Scripture are inexhaustible, at least to map out the main outlines of its ideas.
Working under the guidance of a good chronological arrangement of the books of the Bible, for our present purpose we begin with what have come to be regarded as the earliest books, and so work on through the Old Testament. Then it is desirable to see how the old revelation was leading up to the new— how much, for example, Jeremiah prepared the way for Christ. In the New Testament we begin with the life and teachings of Christ, for, though the Gospels were not written till after most of the epistles, the contents of the Gospels are concerned with the events and teachings of the very dawn of Christianity. Passing on to the epistles, we shall find it wise to read them in chronological order. St. Paul’s epistles should certainly be read in this way, that we may follow the course of the apostle’s mind and teaching.
Similarly we may trace out the course of some one particular line of teaching. Thus it is a very valuable study, though one of peculiar difficulty, to endeavor to see how the doctrine of God was treated in successive ages by prophets and apostles: to trace the perception of the unity of God in advance of the simple notion of the tribal divinity then to see how the idea of the holiness of God, from meaning little more than an awful separateness from man, deepened its moral content; to see the growing perception of the spirituality of God; and, lastly, to reach the wonderful thought of the love of God as this is revealed in Christ and explained by St. John. Another very fruitful study is that of the doctrine of the Messiah in the Old Testament, and the more spiritual treatment of the idea by Jesus Christ. In connection with this there is the idea of the suffering “servant of the Lord” in Isaiah, and a few kindred thoughts in the Old Testament, which may be traced on to the full doctrine of the cross in the New Testament. Then the germs of the doctrine of a future life may be detected in the Old Testament, and the whole course of the earlier ideas concerning the state of the dead examined and traced out in their development through successive ages, till we reach the full Christian revelation of eternal life in Jesus Christ. The subject of Biblical ethics may well constitute a branch of study by itself; and if so, it will call to be treated in a similar chronological order. The negative character of most of the Decalogue, the savage vengeance of the denunciatory psalms, the worldly wisdom of some of the maxims in Proverbs, will all take their right places, neither to be quoted as representing an absolute standard of conduct for all time, nor to be denounced as inferior and in some cases immoral, but to be studied in the order of their development, a development which only reaches its perfection in the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount.
Note.— This study is somewhat complicated by the question of the reediting of books, or of their original composite character.
Thus the same book may contain passages of various ages. It is scarcely possible for any but the most advanced Biblical students to follow out these fine critical distinctions. For a beginning we must be content to take the fairly established results as given by the soundest critics.
8. Study the Bible in sympathy with the spirit in which it was written.
There is a profound truth in the familiar statement that a simple, pious soul will reach the heart of Scripture, while the keenest critic who is out of touch with its spiritual ideas must fail to understand the deepest truths of the book. But this should not discourage a thorough critical study, for his piety will not prevent his simplicity from landing an unenlightened person in ridiculous errors, as the absurd notions about the Bible entertained by some very good people show us very clearly. It should rather point to the combination of the spiritual with the intellectual qualifications. For the practical use of the Bible as a guide to life, undoubtedly the spiritual is the qualification of first importance. It is scarcely less essential for a right understanding of the book in the severe process of critical study. The student who is not conscious within himself of the spirit that breathes through the divine ideas of Scripture can never grasp those ideas in their fullness of meaning. This principle is not peculiar to the study of the Bible; it applies to the study of all literature, and in its widest bearing to the study of all truths and facts. A literary sympathy is essential to literary appreciation. Certain kinds of literature appeal to certain orders of mind only. It is simply impossible for a man who has no poetry in his soul to understand the poetry that is in books; and among the lovers of verse there are differences of temperament and culture that determine limitations in appreciation. The growing love and veneration for Wordsworth are still necessarily limited to the disciples who have drunk of the spirit of the prophet of nature. Browning’s bracing verse will never appeal to any but minds which may be compared to those constitutions that thrive on the east wind.
Pope’s Essay on Alan could only be appreciated by people who would breathe best in the clear, thin air of the eighteenth century. Similarly it is the scientific temper that best perceives the merits of Darwin. In philosophy there are born Platonists; and Hegel appeals to a different order of mind from that in which John Stuart Mill found his disciples.
We must not suppose, however, that a peculiar literary temper is needed for the enjoyment of the Bible. That were to treat it as no longer the book of the people, nay, to relegate it to the library of the pedant, considering what a book it is! The Bible was written for the people, and it has not missed its aim. Its broad, simple treatment of great themes of universal human interest is just the prime necessity for a book of worldwide and continuous popular interest.
Where, then, does this comparison with other subjects of study come in? It consists in the spiritual, the religious character of the book, not in its literary form or tone. This is the most wonderful fact about it. To miss this is to miss everything. Therefore it is but applying the general condition for the successful pursuit of all study to the special qualities of this study to say that, as a kindred spirit of poetry in the soul is requisite for the understanding of Wordsworth, and a mind in harmony with Plato is necessary for an appreciation of the great Dialogues so, not a poetic, not a philosophic, but a religious, spirit is essential to a right comprehension of the Bible.
We may put it thus: the secret of the Bible’s greatness is the inspiration of its authors. Then the key to the choicest treasures of the book must be the inspiration of its readers. This idea was very clear to the Reformers, and it was very definitely expressed by Calvin in his Institutes. When we remember what is the chief characteristic of Scripture, we shall see how eminently reasonable it is, how entirely in accord with the necessary conditions of all kinds of study, that this study should only be undertaken in the mental attitude of prayer, with a devout effort to bring our minds into harmony with the divine thought, with a distinct seeking of the aid of the Spirit of God in our hearts for the perception of His word in the sacred book.
What we have to see in the present day, in view of the peculiar problems that face us and with regard to the newer way of reading the Bible, is that the two lines of approach to the book— the intellectual and the spiritual— in no way interfere with one another; that, on the contrary, they assist one another, and therefore must both be followed with whole-hearted thoroughness. The conclusion may be stated in two ways for its two aspects:
(1) The critical study of the Bible in no degree supersedes the devout study, but even requires spirituality in order to reach its own ends.
(2) The devout study of the Bible by no means precludes the critical, but, after helping to make this the more keen and penetrating, profits by the rich results of research.
9. Use common intelligence in the reading of Scripture.
It seems almost an insult to the reader to offer him such a precept as this; but unfortunately there is no precept that is more needing to be insisted on. It is not, of course, that Bible students are unintelligent persons, but that so many people seem to lock up their intelligence whenever they approach this one subject of study. The mind, indeed, is at work, in some respects a little too freely, but not the intelligence; and the results of this comparatively unintelligent mental activity are not a little curious. They are seen in the quaintest inventions, linked to the most unbounded assumptions —ideas as fantastic as the fairy fancies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream wedded to a stern dogmatism worthy of the papacy. This riot of undisciplined thinking is met with especially in two regions— its two favorite hunt-ing-grounds. One is the region of typology. The Old Testament is ransacked to furnish analogies for Christian doctrine in the smallest details of its narratives, and especially in the minutest regulations of the tabernacle worship— a procedure inherited from the early fathers, some of whom were great offenders in this particular, they in their turn treading in the wake of the Jewish allegorists of schools both in Alexandria and at Jerusalem. The other is the region of eschatology, or the doctrine of the last times, with a special reference to the second coming of Jesus Christ. It cannot be denied that much devout thinking has been applied to each of these subjects; and yet as a rule it has been at sea, for the want of that simple intelligence in which some of the people who most frequently handle them are not found wanting when engaged in any other pursuit. What is needed is more lucidity of perception, more breadth of grasp, more calmness of judgment — in a word, more sanity.
There is an appeal to common sense which indicates a terrible narrowness of mind— the appeal which will admit nothing outside the range of a very limited, mundane experience. In the Bible we are approached by a world of wonders far above our every-day life. It is not to be supposed that a sound commercial judgment, which may be quite adequate for settling bargains in the market, is competent to give a final decision on questions that touch the eternal verities. But then, a wild, undisciplined fancy is no more competent to settle them. While all the cautions already referred to need to be borne in mind, and while it is well to tread softly, knowing our own littleness and dimness of vision before the light of divine truth, it is at least wise, if we use our minds at all, to use them sensibly. The subjects brought before us are many of them far above the plane of our every-day life. But that is no reason why we should, so to speak, go up in a balloon to chase them. It is rather a call for the preservation of the greatest reasonableness in the thinking that we venture to employ upon them— not in order to rationalize them, but to preserve our own reason in our comprehension of them. When we are tempted to adopt an interpretation of any passage which seems to strike our imagination as fresh and interesting, or which appears to chime in with some of our cherished notions, we should do well to ask ourselves, in the most absolute sobriety of judgment, with a stern regard for truth and honesty, “Is this really what the passage means?”’ and abide by the answer even when it is not to our mind, like him who “sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.” This does not mean that we are to be tied down in every case to the barest literalism, which would often be false to the intention of the sacred writers. It is important to discover what language is historical and what symbolical, and to read every passage according to its actual character in these respects. The mistake is when the historical is converted into the symbolical, or the symbolical assumed to be historical. Here it is that the largest sanity of judgment is called for.
There is still, however, room for the perception of analogies and what are technically called “types.” The Epistle to the Hebrews is our great authority for this subject; there we see how the facts of the Old Covenant are shadows of those which belong to the New Covenant.
We have no justification for reading the full scheme of Christian doctrine into the earlier revelation to do so would be to neglect the lessons that are taught us by the history of revelation. The shadow does not contain the substance; it gives us but a faint and vague suggestion of the object it represents. Moreover, we must not press the illustration too far. In reality the object must be present at the same time as the shadow it produces. But the Old Testament type precedes the Christian fact. To talk of “a shadow thrown back” is a confusing style of speech; no shadow can be thrown back in order of time. What we really have in the type is the imperfect— and therefore in a sense the shadowy —presence of what we have more fully and perfectly in the accomplishment by Jesus Christ. It is interesting to trace these faint beginnings. In their very imperfection they are evidences of the striving after a fuller realization, and therefore to faith mute prophecies of that realization.
Lastly, a sober intelligence may apply the ancient lessons of revelation to the circumstances and needs of to-day. After all, this is the supreme use of that revelation to us. We do not study the Bible merely with the interest of the curious in the antiquities of the Jews.
It is to be the lamp to our feet, the light to our path. In order that it may be this we must first of all ascertain the meaning which is brought out by a process of genuine historical interpretation. Then we are free to discover the lessons of the ancient history for modern times, and the eternal truths expressed in the ancient words, that speak to our age, as they speak to all ages, of Him “in whom is no variableness, neither shadow cast by turning.” In this way all the Bible leads up to Christ, and in Him becomes the revelation of God for all time, because He is “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever”. For Biblical study one of the various Bible helps may be found very serviceable, such as the following: Bagster’s, the Cambridge, or the Oxford “Helps”; “The Bible Reader’s Manual,” international teachers edition; “The Variorum Aids to the Bible Student.” Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible” is valuable for reference. For the discussion of questions concerning the inspiration and other characteristics of the Bible, see Briggs, “Biblical Study,” and “The Bible, the Church, and the Reason”; Horton, “Inspiration and the Bible” and “Revelation and the Bible”; Myers, “Catholic Thoughts on the Bible.”