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