21 September 1900 A.D. Rev. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson’s Inaugural Address—Princeton Seminary
21 September 1900 A.D. Rev. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson’s Inaugural Address—Princeton Seminary
Wilson, Dick. “INAUGURAL
ADDRESS.” PCA Historical Center. 21
Sept 1900. http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/wilson/inaugural.pdf.
Accessed 11 Oct 2014.
INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
[delivered on 21 September 1900]
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Let me thank you for the great honor which you have conferred
upon me in calling me to take a part in the succession to the labors of those
illustrious men who, in their day, made the name of Princeton known and revered
throughout the world, and whose memory still is blessed. May the portion of
their mantle which has fallen upon me, cause me to be filled with the same
spirit which was in them, and make me worthy of a place among my learned and
distinguished confrères in the present faculty of this mother of Presbyterian
Seminaries.
It gives me especial pleasure and comfort, in leaving a city
which for nearly a quarter of a century has been my home, to see among you here
so many of the old familiar faces of those who in College and Seminary were my
professors or fellow students, and to receive a charge from one whom I have
always deemed one of the dearest of my Seminary friends.
Will you pardon my for expressing the hope that those of you
who have known me for so many years and yet have esteemed me fitted for this
place, may never be disappointed in your choice.
Before discussing the subject which I have chosen for my
inaugural address, a few definitions may be necessary. By Lower Criticism I
mean grammar, lexicography and textual criticism; by Higher Criticism, any literary
criticism of the text or any systematic statements of truth, which may be
derived from the purest possible The
Lower Criticism of the Old Testament 4 text, in strict accordance
with the rules of grammar and the most probably results of lexicography.
Following these definitions, we restate the theme of our discourse as follows:
A thorough knowledge of the principles of grammar, lexicography and textual
criticism is necessary as a preparation for the critical study of the
Scriptures along any line of thought, literary, historical or theological.
Before passing to the discussion of our subject, let us
remark that the three branches of Lower Criticism are not mutually exclusive
nor logically distinct. Indeed, there is a sense in which both lexicography and
textual criticism may be looked upon as parts of grammar, while on the other
hand, no part of grammar or lexicography can be considered without reference to
the criticism of the text.
After these preliminary remarks by way of definition and
limitation, I proceed to the discussion of the kind and amount of lower
criticism which are demanded by the times, and which it shall be the endeavor
of the incumbent of the Chair of Semitic Philology and Old Testament Criticism
to impart. The first department of Lower Criticism is that which is commonly
called grammar. For convenience of treatment Hebrew Grammar may be divided into
three parts, Phonics, Graphics and Morphics, or sounds, signs and forms. The
study of sounds, in their relation to Higher Criticism, is important only
because of its bearing upon the derivation and the variations of the forms of
words, and upon the errors of text arising from the confusion of consonants of
similar sound. The study of Graphics, especially in MSS. and in palaeography,
is necessary in order to understand the transmission of the text, and in
particular the variations arising from mistakes in reading letters which, at
some time, have been similar in form. And when we come to the first part of
Morphics, which is commonly called etymology, it is not sufficient to study the
forms As a Preparation for the
Higher Criticism 5 of words as they are embodied in the
traditional punctuation of the Massoretes. The origin of the sounds back of the
written forms, the inflection and meaning of the forms, the ability to change
forms in accordance with the demands of exegesis, this must be thoroughly
learned before one is prepared to advance with steady tread by the paths of
syntax and textual criticism to the higher regions of history, theology and
literary criticism. But if the origin, inflection and meaning of single words
is indispensable, what shall we say of the more complex forms of syntax? You
will agree with me, that this is one of the most difficult tasks in the
learning of any language. You will agree with me, further, in my belief that no
part of a theological education was formerly more neglected than the study of
Hebrew Syntax. In fact, it was scarcely taught at all in our theological
seminaries a generation ago. If you will look at an old Hebrew grammar, you
will find that very little space is given to it. One was expected to know it by
intuition, or to pick it up. The advance in the importance attributed to a
special knowledge of Hebrew syntax, may be gauged by comparing the different
editions of Gesenius’ Grammar which have appeared in the last fifty years, or
the translation of Conant with the last editions of the English version of
Kautzsch’s Gesenius. We are convinced that the reason why so many of our
ministers have neglected the independent exegesis of the Old Testament, has
been that they were ignorant of syntax. Certainly no one acquainted with the
subject would suppose for an instant that a knowledge of that difficult and
varied instrument for the expression of thought, the Semitic verb, could be
gained otherwise than by thorough and protracted study. The Hebrew imperfect is
as varied in its usage as the Greek Aorist, the Hebrew genitive and article as
the Greek, and the exegete who The
Lower Criticism of the Old Testament 6 attempts to expound the Old
Testament, without being master of these, is just as insensible to the
requirements of the case as is he who would try in like ignorance to expound
the Greek of the New.
The second division of Lower Criticism is lexicography, the
science or art of determining the meaning of words. By most students of the Old
Testament, this department of research is given over entirely to the
dictionary makers. What appears in a standard current dictionary is considered
final and decisive. I remember that when I was in the Seminary two great
theologians carried on an important discussion, which depended upon the meaning
of a single word, and neither of them thought it necessary to appeal to other
authorities than the English edition of Gesenius. Who was Gesenius, that our
Presbyterian ministers and professors should appeal to his dictionary as the
final court in linguistic matters? Should a rationalist of his type, whose
opinions in Higher Criticism would be rejected as untenable, shall the work of
such a man be accepted as the standard in the field of lexicography? Do a man’s
views of God not enter into his definition of miracles and prophecy and
holiness and sin? Those of you who are conversant with Gesenius’ dictionary
will remember the frequently recurring note: See my Commentary on Isaiah, in
loco; and there we find the discussion of the reasons for defining the word
as it is given in the dictionary. In short, a dictionary is but the dicta of
the writer on the words defined. The exegete should be prepared to go back of
the dictionary so as to examine the reasons for the definition. As my learned
colleague, in his masterly review of the meaning of the word theo-pneustoi (inspired), so every searcher
after truth should, so far as possible, be prepared to search out the meaning
of any disputed term and to thoroughly investigate his premises before arriving
at a conclusion. But it is a pertinent question here to ask, whether this is
ever in the range of possibility for the ordinary theological student? To
which I answer : Yes; in large part.
Every theological student learns enough Hebrew to use a
concordance. Now, a concordance of a language like the ancient Hebrew, whose
entire literature is found in a single book, gives a comprehensive survey of
the usage of a given word. If the construction in which the word occurs is
always exactly the same, little information can be gained in this way ; but if
the word is of frequent occurrence, and is found in several or many different
connections, a tolerably accurate definition of most words may be made without
further help than a concordance. If there is profit in using Cruden’s and
Young’s concordances in the explication of the text, much more might one argue
the utility of using those in the original languages in which the Word of God
was written, as “The final appeal in all questions of faith and practice.” The
Greek and Hebrew concordances are the airbrakes on hasty conclusions, the
safety-valves of the Church against the rash judgments of professional
dictators or ignorant enthusiasts.
A second aid which the ordinary student may find in
determining the meaning of words, is that to be derived from the meaning of
forms. If it be true that forms have meaning, then a knowledge of the usual
meaning of these forms will enable the student to demand that the lexicon shall
give a sufficient reason for any departure from the customary meaning of a
form.
A third aid which the ordinary student can use in the control
of the dictionary is to be found in the ancient versions into Greek and Latin.
These versions are fortunately within the reach of all, and their daily use
in the interpretation of the original is to be most highly commended. It will
not merely keep up and increase a knowledge of those languages upon which so
much time has been expended, but it will certainly call attention to matters of
grammar and exegesis which would otherwise be entirely overlooked. But as to
the point in question, it will be immediately perceived that when there is a difference
between one or more of the ancient versions and the lexicon as to the meaning
of a word, that there is a subject worthy of the investigation of the exegete.
To my mind no better method for mastering the ancient He-brew, and at the same
time for retaining and perfecting our knowledge of the classics, can be found
than the study of the ancient versions in connection with the original text,
discovering and seeking to explain every slightest variation of thought or
expression. As tests of dictionaries and suggesters of new ideas they are
invaluable and unsurpassed. While ordinary students must remain satisfied with
the study of the Greek and Latin versions, the extraordinary student will
acquire Syriac and Aramaic in order to make use of the other great primary
versions, that he may derive a full benefit from these great master-pieces of
interpretation of the word of God which have been handed down from antiquity.
A fourth aid in the control of lexicons is not open to the
ordinary student. It is that to be derived from the cognate languages. Its
value in correcting the errors of citation and logic on the part of
lexicographers can scarcely be overestimated. I shall never forget the shock
which went through my frame when upon looking at an Arabic dictionary in
confirmation of a statement made by that imperial scholar, Ewald, with regard
to the meaning of a word, I found the facts to be the very opposite to that
which he had stated to be the case. It caused a revolution in my methods ; I
have never since accepted the references to the cognate languages in the
commentaries and dictionaries without first making an investigation for myself,
and even then often with the admission to my-self that the inductions of
meanings in the dictionaries at hand may be incomplete or misunderstood. Some
of the commentaries and lexicons cannot be comprehended with-out a partial
knowledge of Arabic and Syriac at least. Would that every one who had the
opportunity of perfecting himself in the use of all the means which God has
given us for ascertaining with as much fulness as possible the meaning of every
word which the Holy Scriptures contain would avail himself of the advantages
which this institution may afford of learning these sister tongues of the
inspired.
The third department of Lower Criticism is Textual Criticism,
the purpose of which is to discover the original text. One would suppose that
the first endeavor of all students of the Bible would be to discover the very
words which were written through the inspiration of God. It is only lately,
however, that any critical apparatus, approximating in any suitable degree
what it should be, has been prepared. The publication of the Polychrome edition
of the Hebrew bible and the amount of textual changes suggested in many of the
latest commentaries, such as Klostermann’s, and in religious magazines, like
the Expository Times, have rendered it necessary for the intelligent and
conscientious reader to gain as good as possible a knowledge of the correct
principles of Old Testament textual criticism. While Old Testament books are
costly, every man can have at least one polyglot which will give most of the
data upon which the conclusions of the critics are based. As to the methods of
textual criticism, this is neither the time nor the place to enter into a full
statement of what they are. Let it suffice to say that they should be
objective rather than subjective. The purpose of the critic should be to find
out what the author said, not what he would like him to have said, nor what he
thinks he ought to have said. Such a method, moreover, must be scientific, i.e., it
must seek to secure a complete induction of the facts without selection or
exclusion, because of preconceived opinions or tendency theories of any kind
whatsoever. What the men of God wrote, that is the task of the critic to
discover and to pass on to the exegete, the historian and the theologian, that
they may have correct premises on which to base the conclusions in their
commentaries, histories and theologies.
Here let me guard against two common misconceptions. One is
the supposition that the Hebrew original of the Old Testament has been so
preserved as to render all revision objectless. No one can hold such a theory
in view of the evidences of the Hebrew MSS. and the parallel passages alone. No
more will any one who accepts the evidences of the New Testament quotations in
their bearing upon the text of the Old, and who recognizes the need for a
revision of the New Testament, have a locus
standi in
defending the impeccability of the text of the Old.
The other error is that the ancient translators or the later
revisers of their versions were so characterized by prejudices and tendencies
that their translations were intentionally inaccurate and biased from the start,
so as to render them largely useless in enabling us to re-establish any
original Hebrew text. In answer to this it may be said that (except in isolated
instances and books) no sufficient proof of these intentional variations from
the original text has as yet been produced. My own conviction is (and this is a
conviction based upon a more or less extensive study of all the versions),
that all of them, primary and secondary, by whomsoever made, bear undeniable
evidence of having been designed to be faithful to their original. Had we the
original texts of the versions, we could doubtless, with the aid of the Hebrew textus receptus,
reconstruct in most instances the originals from which they were translated. As
it is, the first question to be asked when we find a variation in a version is,
why this variation? Was the original of it different from the textus receptus? Did
the translators misunderstand the original? Do we misunderstand either the
original or the translation, or is either one or other text corrupt? It will
be seen that before one is fitted to answer these questions with anything like
accuracy, he must be acquainted with all the departments of grammar and
lexicography mentioned above. Phonics, palaeography, the concordances,
versions and cognates will all contribute their portion toward the settlement
of every question of text. The failure to use any one of these factors may
cause an error in the result.
Such, then, are the three great divisions of Lower
Criticism—text, grammar, lexicon—and knowledge of all three is indispensable to
any one who will rightly divide the Word of Truth. A correct view of the
possibilities and attainments of textual criticism, a thorough know- ledge of
all the parts of grammar, an intelligent control of lexicography – these must
be the possession of him who would understand the biblical literature of the
day ; these give the logical premises for all conclusions based upon the Word
of God. These are the foundations upon which are to be built the stately
structure of literary criticism, history and theology.
We shall seek to lay the foundations deep and broad and firm
in the minds of our students, that all men may admire the uprightness and
strength and beauty of the superstructures which they shall build.
You will all have noticed that throughout this dis-course I
have emphasized the study of the cognates, and of the primary versions, at
least, for those who would fully master the details of Lower Criticism. Only
after having learned these will they be fully furnished for the more attractive
but not more important work of Higher Criticism. Not forgetting that the
primary object of the Theological Seminary is to train men for the Gospel
min-istry, I should like to see Princeton, and I think that the Church would
like to see Princeton, offer to young men of the Presbyterian faith facilities
for the acquisition of any branch of knowledge that will help them to discover
and defend, in its full meaning, every word of God. It shall be my aim and
ambition, with the hoped for hearty aid of the faculty and directors of this
institution, and of our Alma
Mater across
the way, to present to every student the opportunity of acquiring any language
which, as cognate to the Hebrew, throws light upon its gram- mar and lexicon,
or any language in which a version of the Bible was made before the Sixth
Century, A.D. Some of my fellow professors have kindly offered to assist in
this plan, which is only an extension of what has hitherto been offered. With
the assistance which the University can render, and which we are happy to
believe it will be glad to render, we hope that soon it will not be necessary
for any of our students to go abroad to perfect themselves in any branch of
theological science.
In my plans for the offering of increased facilities for the
more thorough understanding of the Old Testament, I have projected a number of
works and series of works which seem necessary to fill out the apparatus criticus. In the
completing of these works, I shall invoke the assistance of the students whom I
expect to train, the advice of my fellow professors, and, when needed, the
financial aid of the friends of this Seminary.
And may God grant His grace and His strength that all our
labors may be well done and fully done, to the increase of knowledge and faith,
to the honor of His Word and the glory of His name.
Comments
Post a Comment