Download Biblical Hermeneutics - A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments djvu

Milton Spencer Terry (1840-1914) was a professor of Hebrew, Old Testament exegesis, and Theology. He wrote/translated other works such as The Prophecies of Daniel Expounded,The Shinto Cult; A Christian Study of the Ancient Religion of Japan and The Sibylline Oracles. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 782-page paperback reprint edition.]

He wrote in the Preface to the Second Edition (1890) of this 1883 book, “The bare enunciation of principles, with brief references to texts in which they are exemplified, is too dry and taxing to the mind to develop a taste for exegetical study; it has a tendency rather to repel. In arranging the plan of the present treatise, it was accordingly designed … to make it … a ‘thesaurus of interpretation.’ The statement of principles is introduced gradually, and abundantly illustrated and verified by means of those difficult parts of Scripture in the real meaning of which most readers of the Bible are supposed to be interested… the student… learns by practice and example rather than by abstract precept.”

He explains, “Biblical or Sacred Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments… many writers have deemed it preferable to treat the hermeneutics of each Testament separately… But it may be questioned whether such a separate treatment … is the better course…the whole Bible is a divinely constructed unity, and there is danger that, in studying one part to the comparative neglect of the other, we may fall into one-sided and erroneous methods of interpretation… [Hermeneutics] aims to establish the principles, methods, and rules which are needful to unfold the sense of what is written. Its object is to elucidate whatever may be obscure or ill-defined, so that every reader may be able… to obtain the exact ideas intended by the author. Exegesis is the application of these principles and laws, the actual bringing out into formal statement… the meaning of the author’s words.” (Pg. 18-19)

He notes, “Some scholars have supposed that, since the Hebrew became a dead language, the ancient pronunciation is so utterly lost that it is therefore impossible now to discover or restore its ancient metres. But… There is every reason to believe that the Masoretic pronunciation now in use is in the main correct, and substantially the same as that of the ancient Hebrews.” (Pg. 90)

He asserts, “Happily, there is little room for dispute as to the approximate dates of most of the books of the Old Testament. A large amount of controversy has turned upon the books of Job and Ecclesiastes… This fact shows how uncertain and misleading are the attempts to ascertain the age of a Hebrew writer solely from the language… The same author may use a very different diction in two different works, treating on different themes, and written twenty years apart.” (Pg. 105)

He suggests, “We may well believe… that the use of Hebrew, Chaldee [Aramaic], and Greek, as the original languages of the Scriptures, was … a particular providence… The fact that they have all ceased to be living languages… is truly significant… [the] well-known forms of speech … can never again be disturbed by linguistic changes or the revolutions of empire.” (Pg. 128)

He asserts, “Our appreciation of the Holy Scriptures will necessarily be influenced by our views of their claims as divinely inspired. Critical and exegetical study will be more or less serious and painstaking as the student feels a deep conviction that he is handling the very word of God.” (Pg. 137) He adds, “The words of the Lord Jesus must be accepted by every devout Christian as of absolute authority… large portions of the Scriptures are records of matters which the writers could have ascertained without supernatural aid. Yet we are told that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. The final question, then, is reduced to the nature and degree of inspiration.” (Pg. 143)

He argues, “The fact that different writers vary in recording what purports to be particular sayings is often urged as an argument against divine inspiration. But under all this argument is the tacit assumption that each of the writers is aiming to give the [exact words], whereas, in fact… the [original words of Jesus] were Aramaic, not Greek; each New Testament writer furnishes his own free and independent version of them, and all report correctly the essential sentiment of our Lord… If we are not able always to see a reason for such verbal differences, neither are we competent to say that there was, and could have been, no reason, and no care for them in the divine mind.” (Pg. 147) He concludes, “As for alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and errors of the Bible, we deny that any real errors can be shown.” (Pg. 148-149)

He explains, “we may name the Grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully commends itself to the judgment and conscience of Christian scholars… It applies to the sacred books the same principles, the same grammatical process and exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to other books. The grammatico-historical exegete… will investigate the language and import of each book with fearless independence. He will master the language of the writer, the particular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote, the manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he had in view.” (Pg. 173)

He asserts, “the miracles of the Bible are recorded as facts, actual occurrences… and the writers give no intimation that their statements involve any thing but plain literal truth.” (Pg. 205) He adds, “The narratives of the resurrection of Jesus admit of no rational explanation aside from that simple grammatico-historical sense in which the Christian Church has ever understood them.” (Pg. 207)

He suggests, “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a world by themselves… taken altogether they are a self-interpreting book. The old rule, ‘Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture,’ is a most important principle of sacred hermeneutics. But we must avoid the danger of overstepping in this matter. Some have gone too far in trying to make Daniel explain the Revelation of John… In general we may expect to find the most valuable parallels in books of the same class. Historical passages will be likely to be parallels with historical, prophetic with prophetic, poetic with poetic, and argumentative and hortatory with those of like character. Hosea and Amos will be likely to have more in common than Genesis and Proverbs…” (Pg. 222)

He points out, “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity. It should be observed, however, that this principle, when reduced to practice, becomes simply an appeal to every man’s rational judgment. And what to one seems very absurd and improbable may be to another altogether simple and self-consistent… it seems impossible to establish any fixed rule that will govern all cases… By a careful and judicious discrimination the interpreter should aim to determine the character and purport of each individual trope, and explain it in harmony with the common laws of language, and the author’s context, scope, and plan.” (Pg. 247-248)

He interprets Daniel’s vision of the four empires [Dan 2 & 7]: “advocates of the Roman theory [as the fourth empire]… urge that Rome was too important to be left out of sight in such a vision of world-empire… But such presumptions cannot properly be allowed to weigh at all. It matters not in the least how great Rome was, or how important a place it occupies in universal history. The sole question with the interpreter of Daniel must be, What world-powers, great or small, fell within his circle of prophetic vision?... geographically and politically that later [Roman] empire had its seat and centre of influence far aside from the territory of the Asiatic kingdoms. But the Grego-Macedonian Empire, in all its relations to Israel… was an Asiatic, not a European, world-power. The prophet, moreover, makes repeated allusion to the kings of Greece, but never mentions Rome… The Greco-Macedonian power broke up the older civilizations and trampled in pieces the various elements of the Asiatic monarchies more completely than had ever been done before… we may safely say that the conquests of Alexander, and the blasphemous fury of Antiochus Epiphanes, in his violence against the chosen people, amply fulfilled the prophecies of the fourth kingdom.” (Pg. 420-421) He adds, “With this view all the prophecies of Daniel readily harmonize… No ingenuity of critics has ever been able to make these representations of the second kingdom tally with the facts of the Medo-Persian monarchy.” (Pg. 423-424)

He says of the Olivet Discourse [Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21], “…the disciples’ question: ‘When shall these things be?’ The whole prophecy purports to be an answer to that question, and no affirmation in it is more emphatic than the words: ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished.’ On what valid hermeneutical principles, then, can it be fairly claimed that this discourse of Jesus comprehends all futurity? Why should we look for the revelations of far distant ages and millenniums of human history in a prophecy expressly limited to the generation in which it was uttered?... it is argued, the end here contemplated must be in the far future, after all nations have been evangelized. But a comparison of Luke 2:1 shows that all this same world was to be enrolled by a decree of Caesar. In Col 1:23 the Gospel is said… to be ‘preached in all creation under heaven.’ The Gospel, therefore, uttered its testimony to all the nations of this same world before the ruin of the temple and the end of the Jewish aeon.” (Pg. 443-444)

He adds, “There is no valid reason for presuming … that we should anywhere find a literal description of the last judgement. On the contrary, there is the analogy of … apocalyptic prophecy, to show that great catastrophes of divine judgment are foretold mainly in figure and by symbol…” (Pg. 446) He also asserts, “We understand that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 is now in progress. It dates from the consummation of the Jewish age. It is a round definite number used symbolically for an indefinite aeon.” (Pg. 487)

He also admits, “It is easy to perceive how, in the course of ages, numerous little errors and discrepancies would be likely to find their way into the text by reason of the oversight or carelessness of transcribers… A comparison of genealogical tables often exhibits discrepancies in names and numbers But the transcription and repetition of such records though a long period of time, and my many different scribes, would naturally expose them to numerous variations.” (Pg. 514)

He comments on the contrast between Paul in Romans 4:3 and James 2:23-24: “The solution of this apparent opposition is to be had by a study of the personal religious experience of each writer, and their different modes of thought and fields of operation… We should first remember that Paul was led to Christ by a sudden and marvelous conversion… James, on the other hand, had been more gradually indoctrinated in Gospel life. His conception of Christianity was that of the consummation and perfection of the old covenant… Such different experiences and fields of action would naturally develop in these ministers of Jesus Christ correspondingly different styles of thought and teaching. But when… we analyze their respective teachings, we find nothing that is really contradictory. They simple set before us different aspects of the same great truths of God.” (Pg. 528-530)

Of the “long day” of Joshua 10:12-14, he observes, “commentators have been slow to note the fact that the passage in question is professedly a quotation from the Book of Jasher. That book appears to have been a compilation of national songs… and such a quotation should no more be pressed into a literal interpretation than … Ps 19:4-6…. Considered therefore as a poetical quotation, the passage is not to be literally understood, and all supposed conflict … [with] scientific facts is at once set aside.” (Pg. 540-541)

He supports the “local flood” interpretation: “The doctrine of a universal flood is beset with insuperable difficulties. The shells and corals found in deposits at the tops of high mountains… are seen upon closer inspection to be results of geological action older than the age of Noah. They are not scattered over the surface, as would have been the case if they had been carried there by a flood of waters, but deposited deep in the layers of the mountains as well as near the surface… the salt waters of the fountains of the great deep, in overflowing the land, must have destroyed, in the course of nearly a year, all freshwater fish, and plants and seeds of the land… The animals of the polar regions and those of the tropics could not long live together except by a protracted miracle… The considerations briefly indicated above have led nearly all recent expositors to abandon the notion of a universal deluge.” (Pg. 541-543)

Of differences between accounts in the Gospels, he says, “Great variety is noticeable in the different accounts of the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection, but no man has ever been able to show a real discrepancy or contradiction. In the absence of particulars we may not be able to detail the exact order of events, but when it is shown… that it was possible for all the events to take place, the diversity of statements becomes an undeniable evidence that they are all true.” (Pg. 565)

He summarizes, “The teacher of Scripture should not cite his proof-texts … at random… The character of the whole book or epistle, and the context, scope, and plan are often necessary to be taken into consideration before the real bearings of a given text can be clearly apprehended… The real meaning intended by the author, and that only, is to be set forth.” (Pg. 595-596)

This book is one of the “classics” of biblical hermeneutics; while not all modern Christians will agree with all of his interpretations, Terry’s book is nevertheless a seminal book for those studying biblical interpretation.

Nothing like this treatise elsewhere.

This thick book is a reprint of an 1883, so be aware that it doesn't interact with the last fifty years of biblical scholarship. Terry emphasizes the usus loquendus, i. e., the use of words in their historical context, which can be very different from their use in modern parlance. He then advocates the historico-grammatical approach to interpretation. He clearly states that this doesn't necessarily mean a literal interpretation, but rather interpreting according to the literary context, which may be literal, or allegorical, or typological, or figurative, depending on that context and the comparison with other scriptures. This approach leads him to advocate a strongly-orthodox view of the inerrancy of the Bible, a Calvinist soteriology, and a preterist eschatology (though it is unclear whether he is full- or partial preterist). That much falls within Protestant orthodoxy. However, he also advocates interpreting the Creation and Flood accounts as describing a small area, perhaps an island, not a worldwide event. He also explicitly states that the Creation did not occur ex nihilo (i. e., "from nothing"), but was a creation out of previously-existing matter, without dealing with Hebrews 11:3: "Things which are seen were not made out of things which are visible." He also explicitly accepts the theories of the geological age of the earth, other than on his "island" of Genesis 1-11.

Thus, I can recommend the book for his descriptions of Hebrew poetry, the usus loquendi, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and his warnings against an overly-rigid literalism. However, I must warn of the presuppositions that led him to some unorthodox conclusions. Readers should also be prepared for some anti-Catholic statements. Also, there are some short quotations from Greek and Hebrew, but not intrusive.

The best book on the subject. Look at the table of contents alone and see that. I sold many of these when I worked for a Christian book store in 1980 and 1981.

Great purchase. Thank you.