The Biblical companion, or, An introduction to the reading and study of the holy Scriptures

year. But, in addition to these larger sections, | Stephens, who is said to have done it during a the Parashim were distributed into Siderim, or journey from Paris to Lyons, about the middle of orders; and the whole divided into Pesukim, or the sixteenth century. verses, by means of two great points (:) called soph-pasuk.

5. The custom of reading the New Testament publicly in the Christian assemblies, would, of course, soon suggest the propriety of some such divisions being made in this as had already been introduced into the Jewish Scriptures. This, in fact, took place. At a very early period, a division was made of the text into church lessons. The books thus divided, were called lectionaries, and the sections themselves, titles and chapters. In the lectionaries there were other distinctions, of great use, for the purposes of comparison and quotation. The author of these sections, in the gospels, is supposed to have been Ammonius, of Alexandria, whence they derived the name of Ammonian sections; those in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles, were introduced by Euthalius, of whom we have already spoken.*

6. The inventor of our present chapters was Cardinal Hugo, who flourished about 1240. Having projected an alphabetical index of all the words and phrases in the Latin Vulgate, Hugo found it necessary, in order to facilitate references to the text, to divide it into distinct sections, which were substantially the same as the chapters now commonly adopted. Instead of subdividing the chapters into verses, however, he effected a secondary division, by placing in the margin, at an equal distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters, the first seven letters of the alphabet, or as many of them as the length of the chapters would admit of. Towards the middle of the fifteenth century, Rabbi Nathan, a learned Jew, undertook to provide for the Hebrew Scriptures a Concordance, similar to that which Cardinal Hugo had completed for the Latin Vulgate. But although he followed Hugo in his division of the text into chapters, he improved upon the Cardinal's sub-division, by numbering in the margin every pasuk or verse.

7. The first editor of the Old Testament who enumerated the verses by subjoining to each verse a figure, according to our present method, was Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam, who, in the years 1661 and 1667, published two very correct editions of the Hebrew Bible, having the verses distinguished in this manner. His plan was followed by Vatablus, in an edition of the Latin Bible printed for him by Stephens, and has since been adopted in most editions of the Scriptures. The division of the New Testament into verses is attributed to Robert

* See Hug's Introduction to the New Test., vol. i., chap. v.

IV. We have now noticed all the divisions and notes of distinction occurring in the sacred writings. They form, as the reader has seen, no part of the original text, but are mere human contrivances, adopted for the purpose of facilitating references to the text, and of aiding our conceptions of its sense. That they are of great utility is undoubted; but it cannot be denied, that they are sometimes attended with serious inconvenience and evil.

1. The punctuation is often very faulty. In some of the early printed editions the points seem to have been put in almost at random, and even in the present Greek text, as well as in the English Version, the sense and beauty of many passages are marred by injudicious and inaccurate punctuation. The misplacing of a comma will not unfrequently alter the sense of a passage; and the improper insertion of a full stop or a note of interrogation, must, it is evident, be still more subversive of its real sense or meaning. Hence it is plain, that we should not blindly follow and adopt the decisions of those to whom we are indebted for the punctuation of the text: our own judg ment and understanding should be employed; and where a passage appears to be obscure or difficult, we may with propriety substitute such a mode of punctuation as will render it perspicuous and intelligible. To do this with propriety, will, of course, demand attention to the laws of criticism and interpretation.

2. The inconvenience attendant upon our divisions into chapters and verses is, that the sense is often interrupted, and sometimes destroyed, by the disjoining of what ought to be connected, and the connecting of what ought to be disjoined. The division of the chapters is frequently improper, but that of the verses is often much more so. There is in many places a full periodical distinction where there should not be so much as the smallest pause. Nominatives are separated from their verbs, adjectives from their substantives, and even letters and syllables are cruelly divorced from the words to which they naturally belong. By these means the chain of reasoning is broken, the sentences mangled, the eye misguided, the attention bewildered, and the meaning lost.

3. But independently of these evils, the divisions both of chapter and verse often exert an unfavourable influence on the attention, and induce, almost unconsciously to the reader, an idea of completion, or the contrary, very unfavourable to an accurate perception of the meaning of the sacred writings. Most persons are in the constant habit of reading the Bible in separate chapters,

one or more at a time, without any regard to the continuity of the subject, or the completion of the sense. It sometimes happens, that, in reading the epistles, the opening of an argument is read on one day, its proofs and illustrations on the next, and its inferences and application on the third or a more distant day still. The consequence of this may be easily conceived. No person thus reading the Scriptures can ever enter thoroughly into the sense and spirit of the sacred penmen, or duly appreciate the powers of argument and illustration they frequently exhibit in the prosecution of their

high object. For the purposes of study, a Bible with an unbroken text, or divided only into sections, according to the real divisions of the subjects, having an enumeration of the verses in the margin, is greatly to be desiderated.* If this is not to be had, the student should be constantly upon his guard against the evils to which we have adverted.+

the student. The verses are to be found in the margin, and the * Wesley's Testament may be most advantageously used by subjects are generally divided into paragraphs.

+ See Carpenter's Guide to the Scriptures, pt. I., ch. v.

CHAPTER III.

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

THE preceding chapter has been devoted to a review of the several topics connected with the art of criticism; the present one will comprise a description of the principles of interpretation, and point out the application of those principles to the sacred text.

methods which they obviously prescribe for an investigation into their principles, that order will be introduced into study, and the mind be preserved from confusion. In the following pages we shall not lose sight of this necessity, for the purpose of securing the lucidus ordo.

SECTION I.

TION OF THE BIBLE.

Sources of Biblical Difficulties -Advantages derivable from an Acquaintance with the Principles of Interpretation-Commentaries on the Bible- Evils arising from the too early Use of them-Suggestions for studying the Scriptures.

If the reader has carefully attended to what has been said in the preceding sections, the distinction between criticism and interpretation will have been DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH THE INTERPRETAclearly perceived. The object of the former is the genuineness and purity of the text; the object of the latter is the sense of the text:-the one is conversant with the mere letter of Scripture; the other, with its import. It is the province of criticism to ascertain what an author wrote; of interpretation, to determine what he meant. This distinction has not always been observed by writers upon biblical science; albeit, it is of great importance, and almost indispensable to ensure a luminous view of the subject in its several details. Like every other science, this has its natural boundaries and divisions, and it is only by a clear perception of these, and a rigid adherence to the

The science explaining the rules of interpretation is called Sacred Hermeneutics, which, when marked as a part of theology, is called Exegetical Theology. From this is distinguished what is called exegesis, or the art itself of interpreting the sacred volume. Seiler says, “Hermeneutics, which is employed in the discovery and explanation of the sense of a speech or writing, is, objectively considered, a collection of rules, through the application of which the sense of the speech or writing is found and accurately expressed. Subjectively considered, it is the knowledge of these rules, and the ability to apply them judiciously to the discovery and expression of that sense. This ability, obtained by exercise in explaining according to rules, constitutes a interpreter. The individual who, without the aid of fixed rules, but by the practice of reading and reflection only, has learned to explain the Bible, is an empirical interpreter. Hermeneutics is then the theory of interpretation-exegesis is the practice. Both are included under the name of Exegetical Theology."-Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 26, 27.

I. It would be unwise, as well as unjust, to attempt to conceal from the novice the numerous difficulties which he will have to encounter in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and the large amount of labour he will be called upon to expend in his efforts to remove them. For a person to remain ignorant of these facts, is to be exposed to the constant danger of resting satisfied with the mere dicta of others, instead of applying at once to the source of scriptural knowledge, for the discovery of those truths, upon the immediate perception and personal appropriation of which depend his personal safety and happiness. Let us at once premise, therefore, that in the interpretation of the Bible we have to encounter difficulties of no ordinary magnitude, and such as will call forth all the energies of the mind in a successful of this remark, we must advert somewhat more attempt to surmount them. To justify the truth particularly than we have hitherto done, to the character of those documents, of the interpretation of which we are here speaking.

1. In discussing the object and principles of biblical interpretation, we must view the Scripture

and salvation depend, are conveyed in language too intelligible to be mistaken by any humble and teachable mind, however destitute of adventitious knowledge. What we wish to impress upon the reader's mind is this, that there is in the sacred writings much beyond what is indispensable to salvation, which it is desirable to know and to understand; that there are heights and depths of know

in its most simple and obvious character; that is, as a literary document, possessing properties in common with every other work of a like description; but having some properties peculiar to itself. 2. In the first place, it must be recollected, that the Bible is composed of a number of separate and independent writings or books indited by different persons, unknown to each other, living in different places, and at different periods of time, and treat-ledge, the discovery and comprehension of which ing on the subjects of which they wrote in a great variety of style; the last-mentioned fact arising out of the mutability of human language and other facts, to which we shall presently more particularly advert. Now, as all human languages are composed of arbitrary signs, between which and the ideas they are intended to represent there is no real analogy or connexion, the difficulties arising out of the circumstances just enumerated may be easily conceived. "These difficulties, issuing in different ways from their common source, become apparent in the simple radical meaning of terms, or in the changes induced upon that meaning by the metaphorical application of them; by idiomatic expressions, by peculiarities of style, by difference of subject, and by the different species of composition in which the same subject is treated." *

3. But, in addition to the difficulties emanating from these sources, there are others equally embarrassing. We are not only far removed from the authors of the Bible by distance of time, in consequence of which we have to contend with the difficulties inseparable from written language, in a greater degree than otherwise we should have to do, but we are separated from them, also, by distance of place and circumstance. Their laws, manners, customs, and modes of thinking, were very dissimilar to every thing with which we are now conversant; and their references and allusions to then existing circumstances are sometimes so slight, but so intimately connected with an argument or an illustration, as to call for a large measure of previous information and knowledge, on the part

will greatly conduce to our moral, intellectual, and religious perfection. The more we discover of the beauties of Scripture composition, and of the harmony and symmetry of divine truth, the more the heart will be expanded in love to God, and the more will the energies of the mind be directed to the attainment of his.great purposes in the revelation of his will. But around these subjects are thrown the difficulties to which we have adverted; and nothing but great fixedness of purpose, and close application to study, can succeed in surmounting them, and introduce us into that sacred temple where the Divine Majesty sits in all the effulgence of his glory, and dispenses the rich favours of His beneficence.

5. It may be that the view we have now taken of the magnitude and difficulties of the subject upon which we are about to enter, has startled the minds of some of our readers, and tended to discourage them from the prosecution of that purpose they had previously formed. Should this be the case, we shall have defeated the object for which our observations were made. Our purpose has been, to place the nature of those studies comprehended within the science of Scripture interpretation in such a light, as to fortify the mind of the student against those feelings of despondency to which it could not fail to be subjected, upon encountering difficulties of which it had previously no conception. Let these be in some degree foreseen and understood, and a moderate amount of diligence and perseverance be brought to the subject, and we may safely promise the student a rich harvest of reward. If he do not speedily become 4. Let us not be misunderstood, however, in a profound critic himself, he will become so far thus speaking of the difficulties inseparable from the acquainted with the principles of interpretation as interpretation of the Bible. It is not intended to to be capable of forming a sound judgment upon affirm that the Scriptures are so obscure, and their the criticisms and interpretations of others, and of meaning so difficult to be ascertained, that multi-reading the Scriptures with pleasure and advantage tudes of persons in whose hands they are placed to himself.

of their readers.

must be deprived of the advantages they tender, II. This seems to be the proper place for offerand remain destitute of all interest in those bless-ing a few observations upon the use of commentaings which it was the great design of their divine Author to communicate. By no means. Those great truths of revelation upon which man's faith

ries and expositions of the Bible; because those persons who are contented to remain ignorant of the elementary principles of biblical interpretation, on the ground of the difficulty with which such knowledge is to be attained, are necessitated to be* Cook's Inquiry into the Books of the New Testament, p. 49. take themselves, in their Scripture reading, to the

constant use of expositors-if they do not, as we | matter what violence it requires; and by the same fear is often the case, substitute these for the text itself.

standard all other authors and interpreters must be pronounced good or bad, orthodox or heretical. An opinion is first formed of the sense of Scripture, and a system of doctrine is adopted, and the Bible is then resorted to for arguments to support and defend them; with what success we need not say. Is it surprising that infidelity should exist and triumph, when it is found that sects the most opposite, and principles the most discordant, are supported by an appeal to the same Scriptures? The writer to whom we have just referred, has trans

2. Rica, having been to visit the library of a French convent, writes thus to his friend in Persia concerning what had passed. "Father," said I to the librarian, "what are these huge volumes, which fill the whole side of the library?” "These," said he, "are the interpreters of the Scriptures." "There is a prodigious number of them," replied I; "the Scriptures must have been very dark formerly, and very clear at present. Do there remain still any doubts? Are there now any points contested?" "Are there!" answered he, with surprise,

are

1. Let us suppose a person about to commence a course of Scripture reading, with a view to his personal edification, and who is, therefore, desirous to comprehend the meaning of the Bible, to at least the same extent as he would be desirous to comprehend the meaning of any human composition. He is, however, supposed to be almost totally ignorant of those historical matters to which the sacred writers so frequently allude, and which, in fact, give a character to the whole of their com-lated a passage from the Persian letters, to which munications; of those common principles of lite- we request the reader's attention.— rary composition by which every judicious and correct writer is governed in the construction of his work; of those general laws of our nature which, under the various circumstances of life, govern the human mind; and of those peculiarities of time and circumstance, which, of necessity, characterize every work of antiquity. But, if he is ignorant on these matters, can he be capable of forming a right judgment on the contents of the sacred volume? Assuredly not; and it is because he has a consciousness of this inability to judge for himself, that he adopts a commentator as his infallible guide. Can any thing be more preposterous, however, than such a mode of proceeding? Can any thing tend more effectually to shut out the light of Heaven, and perpetuate those lamentable differences which exist among men who profess to take the same word as the ground of their faith, while each stands at antipodes with the rest? Let us ask, How is it possible that persons thus implicitly adopting the judgment of others should have any judgment of their own? We have as many descriptions of commentaries as we have shades of religious belief; and every exposition of Scripture is written in accordance with some system of religious opinion, which it is designed to support and recommend. Now, if a commentary be adopted as a guide, by a person who has not studied the Scriptures for himself, and who is therefore incompetent to decide on the justness of the interpretations proposed, it is clear that he is wholly at the mercy of his expounder, and will, in every thing, be disposed to adopt his explications and

solutions.

Thus it is, that instead of a Biblechristian, he is made a sectarian; and his faith, instead of being founded on the word of God, is built on the speculations of men. His vacant mind, like what the lawyers call a derelictum, is claimed in property by the first occupant; and, as Dr. Campbell has justly remarked, that author, and others of the same party, commonly keep possession ever after. To the standard set up by them, every passage in Scripture must be made conformable, no

there!

There are almost as many as there are lines." "You astonish me," said I; what then have all these authors been doing?" "These authors," returned he, "never searched the Scriptures for what ought to be believed, but for what they did themselves believe. They did not consider them as a book, wherein were contained the doctrines which they ought to receive, but as a work which might be made to authorize their own ideas. For this reason, they have corrupted all the meanings, and have put every passage to the torture, to make it speak their own sense. It is a country whereon people of all sects make invasions, and go for pillage; it is a field of battle, where, when hostile nations meet, they engage, attack, and skirmish in a thousand different ways." 3. It may be thought that this representation is too highly coloured; we hope that it may be so; but who can deny that it is substantially true? Who will assert that such a method of treating the Bible has not been very generally adopted, and that our own times do not witness the lamentable evils that have thence resulted? But make as many deductions from the extent of the evil, thus affirmed, as we may; let it be circumscribed by bounds as narrow as can be desired; it will even then fully justify the purpose for which it has been cited, namely, to caution the student against the habitual use of commentaries and expositions, until after he has rendered himself competent to decide upon the justness of their pretensions. The sacred writings are given to mankind for the dis

less,—a thing inconceivable,—he will then only be guilty of having preferred the report of a man-one who, it is admitted, would not willingly deceive him, but who is himself open to deception-of having preferred the report of an erring creature, to the direct and actual communications of God himself! This will be the extent of the evil,— no trifling one, surely,-even if there should be nothing defective or erroneous in the character of those compositions which are in this way substituted for the Bible. In so far as they are absolutely false and erroneous, the evil will, of course, be proportionately greater.

4. In every point of view, therefore, the early use of these works is prejudicial to the mind. In

covery of truths which human reason could never | authoritative compositions. Should they be faulthave discovered, and can now only apprehend in so far as they are herein revealed. But is this object likely to be answered, if persons go to the reading of the Scriptures under the circumstances to which we have now adverted? By adopting these human expositions, they go to the Bible with the most inveterate prejudices and prepossessions; they take it for granted, before even looking into its pages, that such and such is the religion it propounds, and their only object in reading it-whether conscious of the fact or otherwise is to accommodate it to their notions, and adapt it to the support of their previously formed system.* Being predetermined in favour of certain notions, before they read the pages of inspiration, passages of Scripture are strained, and tortured, and dark-dependent of the influence which they exert in ened, by unnatural comments, because they are read, not to find out the sense, but to make them speak that sense which had been previously imposed upon them. The result may be readily conceived. The Scriptures are to such a person a sealed book; he understands them not, but as they are meted out to him by his spiritual guides: where these fail, he also must fail; where these misinterpret the language of the Bible, he, of necessity, must adopt, if not that which is really false, yet that which has no foundation in the words upon the supposed testimony of which he receives and adopts it. But what is worse than this, such a person is displacing the word of God, by the substitution of human compositions; good in themselves, perhaps, but still human, and therefore un

*Selder. has quaintly said, "In interpreting the Scripture, many do as if a man should see one have ten pounds, which he reckoned by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten; meaning four was but four units, and five, five units: the other that sees him, takes not the figures together as he doth, but picks here and there, and thereupon reports, that he hath five pounds in one bag, and six pounds in another bag, and nine pounds in another bag, &c., when, as in truth, he hath but ten pounds in all. So we pick out a text here and there, to make it serve our turn; whereas, if we take it altogether, and consider

what went before, and what followed after, we should find it meant no such thing." (TABLE TALK, article BIBLE) The practice here condemned, two hundred years since, is still too prevalent in the Christian world.

Stillingfleet quotes it as the declaration of Socinus (de Servat. l. iii. 6.) That if our doctrine "were not only once, but frequently mentioned in Scripture, yet he would not therefore believe the thing to be so as we suppose." "For," saith he, "seeing the thing itself cannot be, I take the least inconvenient interpretation of the words; and draw forth such a sense from them as is most consistent with itself and the tenor of the Scrip. ture." Can we be at all conversant with the theological writings of our own time, and yet deny that many who would start with horror at the idea of being charged with the least approach towards the sentiments of Socinus, do, in truth, imitate too closely the method which he adopted, to support and give currescy to those sentiments?

forming the theological sentiments of the student, says Dr. Campbell, they have a necessary tendency to prevent the exercise of the judgment and the discursive faculty; the person who takes them as his guides is ever learning, and never comes to a knowledge of the truth; he is confined within the limits which his teacher prescribes, and, in most cases, is unacquainted with the grounds on which his opinions are formed. To the advanced student, such works have their use, and by him they may be consulted with advantage. Having made some progress in scriptural science, he is provided with the principles by which their pretensions are to be tried; having acquired some insight into the spirit and sentiments of holy writ, he is capable of forming a judgment of the conformity or contrariety of these authors to that infallible standard; and therefore their authority or value is not likely to be over-estimated, while all the advantages they furnish will be effectually secured. We repeat, therefore, that with such human compositions the studies of the theologian ought not to be commenced; his object, on the contrary, should be an acquaintance with the principles of interpretation, so that he may apply them for himself, that the decisions of inspiration alone may control his judgment, and that with regard to merely human teachers, he may apply to them the words of the poet :

Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.

Ernesti judiciously recommends the student to fix upon some one or at most two, of the most celebrated interpreters of Scripture, and those which are designated grammatical, becanse the true sense of the subject must be derived from the true sig nification of words. Having fixed upon the commentators he intends to use, the student ought, by the repeated and careful perusal of them, to form himself by degrees to their manner of reasoning. While thus occupied, he ought only occasional y, or of necessity, to consult other commentators.

« Previous Continue »