- Aug 23, 2002
- 4,215
- 916
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Rather than interrupt reddog's thread on the King James I will post a section of N.N. Whiting's book Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology here. The book itself is more like a booklet than a book as it is only about 50 pages in length. It was published in 1844 and at that time Mr. Whiting was a Millerite. He never became an Adventist to my knowledge. I'll try to post a good share of the book in increments of several pages.
Whiting starts out by attributing most of this to the German church, but later you will see the French influence in this, and it is the French influence that made rationalism so popular.
From this point onward Whiting goes into a study on Daniel and how Jahn tried to destroy the understanding of the book.
I posted this much of the book to show how what Westcott and Hort, in the quotes reddog posted from them show they are under this same influence. I will quote from it here to show how similar Westcott and Hort were in relation to neologists/rationalists.
Whiting starts out by attributing most of this to the German church, but later you will see the French influence in this, and it is the French influence that made rationalism so popular.
PREFACE
The following pages are designed to present, in a clear and concise manner, the rise and progress, in the church, of Neology and kindred fruits of the German schools of Theology, with their effect on the churches of our own land.
It was not until the blessed hope of the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ was presented, as an immediate event, to the professed followers of Him, who promised to come again, and was rejected by such with scorn, that it was even dreamed that the great body of the church had departed so far from the belief of our fathers, and from "the faith once delivered to the saints." But the strong neological ground which the anti-Adventists have been obliged to assume, to ward off the doctrine of the immediate appearing of Christ, and the manner in which such views have been received, unrebuked by the great body of the church, have served to exhibit the extensive spread and deep root which the philosophy of Germany has, attained among the churches of our own land.
These principles have crept in so insidiously-till now almost unnoticed-that their sudden maturity has caused a great call for information respecting their origin and progress, with the causes of so extensive a reception of them by the church. This call has here been most successfully met; and we cheerfully recommend it to all, as a work worthy the serious perusal, not only of those who love the appearing of Christ, but also of those who have drank deeply at the poisoned fountain.
J. V. H.
Boston, March 1, 1844.
ORIGIN, NATURE, AND INFLUENCE OF NEOLOGY
The term Neology, or Rationalism, has been applied to the actual creed of a large portion of the members of the German church, who profess a nominal adhesion to the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, while they reject its fundamental principles, and maintain tenets which the Saxon reformers would have regarded as "damnable heresies." Like many other forms of error, Neology did not make its first appearance among the common people. In all countries, the simple faith of this class in the book of God, and their reverence for its instructions, have made them the well known conservators of truth. It is seldom that their course of life is such as to drive them to the necessity of impugning the authority of the Scriptures. Neology had its birth among those, who held the part of "watchmen on the walls of Zion;" among professors of theology, whose rank, learning, and talents gave them a controlling influence over the opinions of the religious world. These were the men, who applied their strength to rend down the pillars of the temple of truth, who labored by every insidious art of false interpretation to pervert and render
4
powerless that book, which its Author designed to be "a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, until the day should dawn and the day-star arise in our hearts." All experience proves that heresy is rather the offspring of the heart than of the head. When the moral condition of the soul is such, that man has nothing to fear should all Scripture be, in very deed, the word of Jehovah; no ordinary strength of temptation will lead him to wish it untrue; still less will he wish to persuade others that it is not entitled to full credit. He, who has felt the power of divine truth, as applied to his conscience by the Holy Spirit, convincing him of sin, and leading him to the Lamb of God,-will not lightly esteem the book which embodies that truth, nor wish to shake the confidence of others in "the law of the Lord," which "is perfect, converting the soul."
Unhappily, in the case before us, the German church was a national establishment. The public authorities patronized the church, because they supposed its influence would give stability to political institutions. Princes paid an external respect to the Bible because they appreciated the commandment,-"Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's," rather than that, which with equal clearness says, "and unto God, the things which are God's." Both in the Protestant and Catholic states civil rulers exercised a control in the appointment of preachers, pastors and professors of theology. Thus a door was opened for the admission of unconverted men into religious offices. While the magistracy insisted on high literary qualifications in all candidates for the ministry, and demanded those still more elevated
5
from men who aspired to theological professorships, the most important of all requisites, vital piety, attracted but little attention. The results are obvious. Men, who were accurately acquainted with the sciences, familiar with the varied topics of biblical literature, with the history, languages, customs and antiquities of the East, might be found occupying the station of teachers in theology, though destitute of the first elements of religious experience, and strangers to the power of godliness. Such men as they knew nothing of the influence of the Spirit on the soul, despised and ridiculed the very language by which God describes that influence, as the mystic phraseology of enthusiasm.
It could not be expected that such guides would quietly acquiesce in the popular belief that all scripture was given by inspiration of God. Disliking the moral restraint which the Bible imposes, so long as it is regarded as a revelation from heaven; chafed in the false position into which they had blindly thrown themselves; often obliged, especially if pastors, to perform duties entirely foreign to their tastes, and yet fettered by the force of public opinion, and restrained from an open avowal of their sentiments, they were compelled to wait for a more convenient season, when their principles might be exhibited, without hazard, in the face of the world. Before that season had arrived, the metaphysical skepticism of Hume, and other authors of the English deistical school, had found its way to the continent. The writings of these authors attracted the attention of numerous readers in the ranks of the German ministry. They were often translated
6
and published with pretended refutations, in which the author allowed himself to defend truth with sophistical arguments, and thus effectually betrayed the cause which he appeared to defend. The unwary reader was led to suppose that what he had heretofore deemed to be truth, was error which could not be logically sustained. In some cases, these writers asserted that a proposition might be true according to the principles of sound philosophy or metaphysics, yet, when examined theologically, it was very questionable. The reader was left to infer that sound philosophy and religious truth could hold no alliance-that Christianity was not based on facts-that a sincere Christian, of course, could hold his position only by believing without evidence, and at the very best, must be but a sorry philosopher. At a later period, the productions of the French encyclopedists obtained an extensive circulation in Germany. The lively style and sparkling wit of these writers enchanted many of the Germans, who had hitherto been content to plod along the beaten path usually taken by men, who confine their attention to plain matters of fact. The want of solid thought, so characteristic of the French school, was overlooked in the admiration paid to eloquent phraseology and flights of imagination. At this disastrous era, vital piety was rapidly declining in Germany. With the exception of a few favored spots, the life-giving influence of the Holy Spirit was hardly felt. In the church, the form of godliness existed, but its power was gone. German pastors, instead of searching the Scriptures with prayer, that they might learn and follow the Divine
7
will, toiled in composing elegant disquisitions on some point of ethics. "Christ crucified" was more rarely the theme of their sermons. Men, who had not known what repentance was by personal experience, ceased to call on the; sinner to turn to God and do works meet for repentance. Philological dissertations, critical essays on oriental archaeology and languages, took the place of those plain, pungent addresses to the conscience, which, in a happier age, rendered the preaching of Luther and Justus Jonas so effective in warning sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
An event now burst upon the world, which was destined to give public sentiment an impulse which it had not felt since the fall of the Roman empire. It was not a reformation, but a revolution. A convulsion commenced in France, which tested the stability of every institution, creed and opinion known to the civilized world. That its final results were not unmingled evil, can never be ascribed to the virtues of those who directed the storm. It is a consolation, amidst the wildest outbreaks of human extravagance, that still "the Lord reigneth," that he can "restrain the wrath of men, and cause the residue of that wrath to praise Him." The example of an entire nation, which arose as one man, to vindicate its freedom, and proclaimed itself the champion of the oppressed and the supporter of liberal sentiments, enlisted the best wishes and the warm admiration of all who paid more attention to words and acts than to principles. The actors in this drama were equally impatient of political and religious control. Making no distinction between
8
the corruptions of the Papacy and the religion of the Saviour, they assailed both with the same blind fury. Those who could wield the pen, deluged Europe with pamphlets and volumes filled with the bitterest attacks on Divine Revelation. The ruling powers of the new republic, which sprang to light like the prophet's gourd, however inconsistent with themselves in everything else, remained constant in their enmity to the word of God. The unsparing boldness of French skeptics was communicated to "kindred spirits" among the more cautious Germans. Public sentiment received a shock from the revolution, which went far to destroy its conservative power. Lax sentiments on the subject of religion were hardly considered as a reproach to the clergy: still, while the members of this order received salaries for the avowed purpose of teaching the truths of the Bible, some respect for appearances must be preserved-a sort of conventional decorum, in the treatment of that book, was yet necessary. The time had not arrived when a religious instructor might announce that he believed in no other religion than that of nature. Some latitude might be allowed, on the ground that though he was not a believer of Luther's school, yet he was a rational Christian, as might naturally be expected of one, who lived in "the age of light." He might be a skeptic in heart and life, so long as he pretended to be a disciple of Christ. He must profess to believe the Bible, while he was allowed, by every art of fallacious criticism, to explain away all those doctrines, which hold a vital alliance with the redemption of man. However revolting such
9
hypocrisy may seem to men of integrity; in Germany, multitudes were found, men of varied condition, possessing talents which gave currency to their opinions, who would stoop to such hypocrisy. By acting thus, they have given a memorable lesson to the world. They have proved, that in the cause of divine truth, genius and learning are worse than useless, if their possessor is destitute of an upright and humble heart-if he does not fear God and tremble at his word.
Such was the origin of Neology. Its form has varied with the changing breath of public opinion and the exigency of circumstances. At one period, it boldly took the field against evangelical religion, and hardly sought a disguise. In the writings of Fichte and Forberg, and some others of the transcendental school, it would have received the name of atheism, in our land. In the hands of other artists, it has assumed the shape of the Pantheism of the Greek philosophers. Now it is "liberal Christianity," or "Rationalism"-again it is marked by an icy indifference to all revelation. Like the demons of Milton, its votaries, turning from the promised land lit up with the beams of the sun of righteousness, survey their congenial domain-
"A frozen continent Lies dark and wild, beat with perpetual storms Of whirlwind and dire hail."
The influence of the moral condition of the heart on the interpretation of the Scriptures has long been a subject of familiar remark. As the preacher, destitute of vital piety, will not appreciate the spiritual element in truth, because he
10
has not experienced its power-so he will not present it in its living energy, and will be at the test, a mere "hewer of wood and drawer of water for the congregation of the Lord." Thus it is with the interpreter. In all that addresses itself to the conscience of man, he is sure to fail, because, in his own conscience, there is no chord that responds to the touch of truth. If, perchance, he should feel at all, he will be offended with those declarations which announce his danger as a sinner, and his entire dependance on God. "That blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," is a strange thing to him, one that excites no aspiration for the rest that awaits the saints. With a temper of mind, which is "earthly and sensual," his expositions will bear the stamp of the mould through which they pass. That which belongs to this present world, that which is earthly, he may appreciate, but the "new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness," lies beyond his ken. The writings of neologists afford lamentable illustrations of this principle.
It might naturally be expected, that, in the war waged against the holy writings, the inspiration of the prophets would be the earliest point of attack. If it be questionable whether they predicted events, (which they continually claim to have done,) we are driven, on the most favorable supposition, to class them with the dreaming enthusiasts of later ages, who have been deluded by imagination into a belief, that they uttered the word of the Lord, while, in truth, he was far from them. As the Saviour and the apostles often appeal to prophecy as the infallible truth of Jehovah,
11
it will follow, that they did this, not because such was the fact, but merely that they might not shock the prejudices of the Jews, with whom a confidence in the inspiration of the prophets was a fundamental article of faith. If, on the other hand, the prophets themselves did not believe that the word of the Lord came to them, then they must be classed with those deceivers, who have led the world astray, while pretending to maintain a cause, in which moral integrity is a vital element. The extent to which neological writers succeeded in destroying the belief of the German church in the inspiration of the Scriptures cannot be viewed without the deepest pain. It must be left to eternity to declare the consequences in their full extent. The results which crowned this unholy enterprise, emboldened neologists to assail the integrity and authenticity of nearly all the canonical books. The tale is soon told. Multitudes, who styled themselves Christians, were led to believe that the only inspiration actually possessed by the Jewish seers was that which is claimed by all poetic writers. The celebrated W. Gesenius, as we have been told by one who heard his lectures on Isaiah, often compared the inspiration of that prophet and the inspiration of the Grecian Homer. In point of genius and strength of imagination, he represented the two poets as nearly on a level, though he would coolly remark, that as Isaiah was compelled to use a language less copious and harmonious than that of Homer, it was not surprising that the palm must be awarded to the latter. He would not allow, that the Hebrew had any more prescience of the future, than the Greek. He especially
12
labored to impress his large auditory with the idea, that inspiration, in the sense of the older theologians, was a thing impossible in itself. Passages, which in former times were supposed to have a marked reference to the Messiah, or to the glories of his kingdom, according to Gesenius were merely patriotic aspirations, couched in glowing language, which Isaiah never imagined could be applied to anything higher than a splendid reign of some crowned mortal, and a prosperous state of the Hebrew common-wealth. Neologists have called in question the miracles of the Old and New Testament, explained away, or resolved them into attempts of mystagogues to deceive the spectators, by means similar to those employed by jugglers, who can produce effects, which may seem supernatural to those not versed in legerdemain. In its progress, neology has not been confined to Protestants. Several Catholic writers have given sad proof that they too have imbibed this subtle poison, though from the rigid authority exercised by the Papal hierarchy, they have been less bold in expressing their sentiments. Among these, may be numbered J. Jahn, late Professor of Oriental Languages and Biblical Archaeology in the University of Vienna. Occasion will soon be presented for noticing some of his views, which have been borrowed, adopted and advocated by American divines.
For some years past it has been deemed necessary in our country, for those who aim at a thorough theological education, to cultivate an acquaintance with German writers. Their language is studied in our theological institutions,
13
and where this is not the case, translations, which are rapidly multiplying, can be substituted for the originals. A tour to Germany, and an introduction to her religious lights, has become as common and as fashionable with American Professors and students of divinity, as a visit to the continent has been with the English nobility. As in the latter case, it has been deemed important to add a French polish to a fashionable education, so in the former, it would seem that a German polish is equally important, that an American may complete his theological training, and be enabled to understand a book, which its author has designed to be read by every nation under heaven, and to he equally the guide of the sage and the peasant. It could hardly be expected, that a familiar acquaintance with the tomes of Rationalism would produce no effects on the minds of our countrymen, who toiled to master their contents. The effects have already begun to develope themselves in the productions of our writers and the sermons of our preachers. They may be traced in the expositions of our divines, in discourses which are valued as specimens of clerical talent and proofs of deep research. In reference to these sermons, our older readers have often had occasion to notice the paucity of scriptural quotations. It would seem that the authors of these productions were apprehensive that they might vitiate their style or betray a want of taste if they employed scriptural language to convey religious ideas. They forget that the great mass of their hearers are more familiar with biblical phraseology, as a medium for religious thought, than with any other, and that holy men of old,
14
who preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, employed a plain, unadorned style, when urging eternal truths on the minds of men; that in this, they followed the example of Him, whose discourses are a perfect model of simplicity. The preachers to whom we refer, would do well to recollect that the Saviour and his apostles made a free use of quotations from "Moses and the prophets and the book of Psalms." Experience shows that men readily and naturally quote those authors, whose language most frequently mingles with their trains of thought, though the reverse is the fact in reference to writers who are only consulted occasionally.
In proof of the correctness of the portrait of Neology, which we have sketched, we shall adduce some testimony from the well-known letters of Professor Stuart, addressed to Dr. Channing, in 1819. In this work, the Professor (page 442) makes the following remarks, many of which, time has fully verified in reference to some American theologians, although we are not aware that Dr. Channing arrived at "the conclusion," which the professor here noticed. "I am well satisfied," says the professor, "that the course of reasoning in which you have embarked, and the principles now in question, by which you explain away the divinity of the Saviour, must lead most men, who approve of them, eventually to the conclusion that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obedience."-"Deeming what you have publicly
taught them, to be true, viz., that it is no crime to believe with Mr. Belsham," who declares, that the Scriptures are not the word of
15
God; feeling the inconsistency, (as I am certain some of them will and do feel it,) of violating the rules of interpretation, in order to make the apostles speak, as in their apprehension they ought to speak; and unable to reconcile what the apostles say, with their own views; will it not be natural to throw off the restraints which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them simply on the ground on which they place any other writings of a moral and religious nature?" "For myself, I regard it as more desirable, in many points of view, that the authority of the Scriptures should at once be cast off, and its claims to divine inspiration rejected, than that such rules of exegesis should be introduced, as to make the Scriptures speak, against their obvious meaning, whatever any party may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine authority of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would fain believe, in the present day of light and examination. Such a state of things may pass away with the generation who act in it. But it is a more difficult matter to purge away the stain which Christianity may contract by violated laws of interpretation. Those who do thus violate these laws, may obtain, and hold, for a long time, great influence over the mass of people, who are not accustomed to examine, in a critical manner, the minor points of theology. If opponents to this method of interpretation, lift up the voice of warning, they may not be heard. They are liable to the, imputation of bigotry, or ignorance, or illiberality. But when men professedly cast off their respect to the authority of the Scriptures,
16
the case becomes different, and the great body of plain and sober people will revolt. In making these observations, of the nature and probable consequences of that exegesis, which explains away the deity of Christ, I cannot think that I am building castles in the air, to amuse my own imagination. For ten years past, I have been called, every week, to duties which necessitated me to be conversant with the history of interpretation, as it has appeared in Germany; a country, which, in half a century, has produced more works on criticism and sacred literature, than the world besides. About fifty years since, Semler, Professor of Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and publish on the subject of interpretation, in a manner that excited the attention of the whole German empire. The grand principle by which he explained away whatever he did not think proper to believe, was that which has been called accommodation. He maintained that the apostles and the Saviour often admitted representations and doctrines into their instructions, which were calculated merely for the purpose of persuading the Jews, being accommodated to their prejudices; but which were not intended to be a real directory of sentiment. In this way, whatever was inconsistent with his own views, he called accommodation; and thus, at once, expunged it from the list of Christian doctrines." "The more recent method of exegesis, however, in Germany, has been to solve all the miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considerations which are affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and ignorance of antiquity in general, and in particular of the sacred writers themselves. Thus with
17
Eichorn, the account of the creation and fall of man, is merely a poetical, philosophical speculation of some ingenious person, on the origin of the world and of evil. So, in regard to the offering up of Isaac by Abraham, he says, 'The Godhead could not have required of Abraham so horrible a crime; and there can be no justification, palliation or excuse, for this pretended command of the divinity.' He then explains it. 'Abraham dreamed that he must offer up Isaac, and according to the superstition of the times, regarded it as a divine admonition. He prepared to execute the mandate which his dream had conveyed to him. A lucky accident (probably the rustling of a ram who was entangled in the bushes) hindered it; and this, according to ancient idiom, was also the voice of the divinity.' The same writer represents the history of the Mosaic legislation, at Mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Moses ascended to the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, (how he found wood on this barren rock, or raised it to the top, Eichorn does not tell us,) a fire consecrated to the worship of God, before which he prayed. Here, an unexpected and tremendous thunder storm occurred. He seized the occasion to proclaim the laws which he had composed in his retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah; leading the people to believe that Jehovah had conversed with him. Not that he was a deceiver, but he really believed that the occurrence of such a thunder storm was a sufficient proof of the fact that Jehovah had spoken to him, or sanctioned the work in which he had been engaged. The prophecies of the Old Testament, are, according to him, patriotic wishes,
18
expressed with all the fire and elegance of poetry, for the future prosperity, and a future deliverer of the Jewish nation. In like manner, C. F. Ammon, Professor of Theology at Erlangen, tells us, in respect to the miracle of Christ's walking on the water, that, 'to walk on the sea, is not to stand on the waves, as on the solid ground, as Jerome dreams, but to walk through the waves so far as the shoals reached, and then to swim.' Thiess, in his commentary on the Acts, explains the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii.) in the following manner: 'It is not uncommon,' says he, 'in those countries, for a violent gust of wind to strike on a particular spot or house; such a gust is commonly accompanied by the electric fluid; and the sparks of this are scattered all around. These float about the chamber, become apparent, and light upon the disciples. They kindle into enthusiasm at this, and believe the promise of their Master is now to be performed. This enthusiasm, spectators assemble to witness; and instead of preaching as before, in Hebrew, each one uses his own native tongue, to proclaim his feelings.' The case of Ananias, falling down dead, is thus represented by the same writer: 'Ananias fell down terrified; but probably he was carried out and buried while still alive.' Heinrichs, however, who produces this comment of Thiess, relates another mode of explaining the occurrence in question, viz., that Peter stabbed Ananias; 'which,' says Heinrichs, 'does not at all disagree with the vehement and easily exasperated temper of Peter.' Numerous systems of Hermeneutics, i. e., the art of Interpretation,
19
have been written and published in Germany, on this plan. Meyer, in a very labored system of Hermeneutics of the Old Testament, in two large octavos, has a body of rules, by which everything miraculous is to be explained away. He concedes that there is the same objection to admitting any one miracle, as to admitting all. He therefore rejects the whole.
"At present, the leading German critics (rejecting accommodation, and casting off all ideas of the divine origin of the Scriptures) are disputing with great zeal, the questions, whether a miracle be possible? Whether God and nature are one and the same?-(Schelling, a divine, is at the head of a great party, which maintains that they are the same)-and whether the Jews ever expected any Messiah? Some time ago, many of their critics maintained, that no Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament; but now, they question even whether the Jews had any expectation of one. It would seem, now, that they have come nearly to the end of questions on theology."
We have made these long extracts from Professor Stuart, because his candor is a guaranty for the accuracy of the remarks which he has made on the subject of Neology,-because he is well acquainted with writers of this school,-because we believe he has never been considered a fanatic. He says of these writers, (page 152,) "The person, who reads their works, will see what the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do, in respect to the Book of God, and where it will carry the men who entertain it. It is indeed a most affecting and awful lesson. But is there no reason to fear that we are to learn it by sad experience?"
20
Time has answered the professor's question. Recent publications show that the neologic system of interpretation, which he so forcibly condemned in the year 1819, has gained a currency in our land, and this, among divines who exercise a powerful influence on the opinions of the church. But we will not anticipate the proofs of this fact.
When the neologists had, as they thought, demolished the confidence hitherto reposed in the inspiration of the biblical writers, and left men to decide by their own acumen, what portions of the Scriptures were worthy of regard, and to cast away those which were at variance with their philosophic or religious standards, their task was by no means ended. The unholy propensities of their hearts were still active, and the cry of those hearts, like that of the disobedient Jews, still was, "Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." Although the Bible was regarded merely as a historical document, it presented too many proofs of the moral government of God,-too much of his interference and control over the conduct and destinies of men,-not to offend those who wished "to walk after the sight of their own eyes." Another effort must be made. It was made with a boldness which astonished the reflecting portion of mankind. The assertion was hazarded, that the books of the canon had been grossly corrupted. De Wette maintained that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch; that it was much later than the age in which he lived; and the following assertion was offered as a proof:
21
"The analogy of the whole history of the language and literature of the Hebrews, contradicts the supposition that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch; it is inconceivable that one man should create the whole literature of a nation in all its extent, both as to matter and as to language." Augusti, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, gravely tells us, "that there is such a coherence in the whole Pentateuch, as proves the book to be an epic poem!" Some of the Germans have taken the position that "Moses wrote nothing more than the laws which are contained in the Pentateuch, and that the historical parts have been added in later ages, from traditions." This position is defended on the ground that miracles are impossible. Says De Wette, (in his introduction to the Old Testament,) "Common sense determines that miracles are impossible. It may, however, be inquired, whether some events did not really happen, which, to eye-witnesses and contemporaries, seemed to be miraculous. This, also, receives an answer in the negative, as soon as we inspect the narration with any degree of closeness. The result is already obtained, that the narration is not contemporary, nor derived from contemporary sources."
Having disposed of the claim of Moses to thy authorship of the Pentateuch, these critics are unable to agree as to the real author. Rosenm¸ller, enumerates no less than twelve theories on this single point, all different, and many contradictory.
Jahn, who, according to the modern standard, is thought to be untainted with Neology, makes the following remarks-(Introduction to the Old
22
Testament, translated by S. Turner and W. R. Whithingham, page 230)-respecting the miracle in which the sun and moon are said to have stood still, Josh. x. 12-15: "The celebrated passage (x. 12-15) is poetical; for which reason, it is to be poetically interpreted, namely, thus: that the Hebrews inflicted a defeat upon the Canaanites as great as if the sun had stopped his course, and had prolonged the day to a double length!" Yet, Jahn's Introduction is a text-book in most of our theological institutions.
This author thus notices the preternatural strength of Samson (page 243.) "The connexion of Samson's strength with the preservation of his hair, (Judges xvi. 16-19,) was merely his own supposition. Hence, when his hair was shorn, his courage forsook him, and he did not dare to try his strength; but, with the growth of his hair, his courage returned, and he was capable of exerting his former strength." It is due to the translators of Jahn, to say, that in a note, they express their dissent from this hypothesis.
Eichorn furnishes a curious specimen of the respect in which a neologist may hold "the sure word of prophecy." "All ecstacies and visions, are, in my opinion, mere poetic fiction."
From this point onward Whiting goes into a study on Daniel and how Jahn tried to destroy the understanding of the book.
I posted this much of the book to show how what Westcott and Hort, in the quotes reddog posted from them show they are under this same influence. I will quote from it here to show how similar Westcott and Hort were in relation to neologists/rationalists.
Now here is some of the ideas that show the bent of these men:
Hort:
1. Was a follower of Darwin...in other words, he believed in Evolution.
2. Did not believe in blood atonement. What a surprise that the NIV removes 'through his blood' in Col.1:14.
3. Doubted angels were for real.
4. Was pondering several degrees of salvation. Thats why the newer versions always say 'are being saved' or 'were saved' but unlike the KJB which says we 'ARE SAVED'.
5. Rejected an eternal hell. Maybe thats why 'hell' is taken out 40 of the 53 times in the NIV.
Wescott:
1. Did not believe in a literal heaven...much like the pope today.
2. Said there is no second coming of Christ. My friends, Titus 2:13 says, 'Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ'.
3. He believed the writings of mystics was profitable to read.
4. Thought the first three chapters of Genesis could not possibly have given a literal history.
5. Rejected the infallibility of scriptures.
6. Claimed it was improbable that the miracles of the Bible really occurred.
Westcott & Hort
Here is comment from Wescott, quote: 'As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but many'.
Catholics hold La Salette as special as the place in France where two young children said they saw and talked with an apparition of the Weeping Virgin.
From their letters:
Westcott: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."
We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:
"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providente' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it; but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."
And further commented to a colleague:
"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."
Regarding Hort's fascination with Darwin, the following quote sheds some light.
Hort:
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. . . . My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period."
