Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:31:38.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of “Common Sense” In the Hermeneutics of Moses Stuart

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Mark Granquist
Mark Granquist
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first decades of the nineteenth century saw a resurgence of interest in critical biblical studies in the United States. Though many colonial religious leaders were well trained in the area of biblical studies because of their European educations, this field of study declined to a very low state in America in the eighteenth century. The nineteenth-century revival of biblical studies in America, led by scholars such as Edward Robinson, William E. Channing, Andrews Norton, and Moses Stuart, was a homegrown, broad-based movement that ran the gamut of theological positions from conservative Calvinist to Unitarian. One unique feature of this movement was its interest in the biblical criticism of German writers; indeed, many works of German scholarship were translated into English by these American writers long before they achieved circulation in England. The resulting American biblical scholarship flourished not only at seminaries and divinity schools, but also on more practical levels. Edward Robinson, for example, led an expedition to the Middle East to study the geography and antiquities of the Holy Land. This scholarship was also tied to the prevalent missionary impulse, resulting in the translation of the Bible into many additional languages, especially those of the Middle and Far Eastern missionary fields.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 305 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a more complete study of this phenomenon see Brown, Jerry W., The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America, 1800–1870 (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

2 Stuart's translation of Ernesti's Principles of Interpretation is one, as well as early translations of the work of DeWette, Eichhorn, Hengstenberg, Gesenius, Winer, Buttman, and Jahn. The Biblical Repository and Bibliotheca Sacra ran many articles translated from the Gennan.

3 See, for example, Adams, William, A Discourse on the Life and Services of Professor Moses Stuart (New York: John Throw, 1852) 59–60Google Scholar , for a list of the students of Moses Stuart and their translations.

4 Williams, Daniel D., The Andover Liberals (New York: King's Crown, 1941) 17.Google Scholar

5 Stuart, Moses, “Letter to the Editor on the Study of the German Language,” The Christian Review 6 (1841) 450.Google Scholar

6 For complete bibliographic information see Giltner, John Herbert, “Moses Stuart: 1780–1852” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1956).Google Scholar

7 Park, Edwards A., Discourse Delivered at the Funeral of Professor Moses Stuart (Boston: Tappan and Whittemore, 1852) 36–37.Google Scholar

8 Stuart, Moses, “Lectures on Hermeneutics” (unpublished) Moses Stuart papers, Andover-Newton Theological Library, Newton Center, MA, Manuscript CollectionGoogle Scholar . Also a micro-filmed copy of these papers is available at Yale Divinity School Library, New Haven, CT.

9 Andover-Newton Papers.

10 , Giltner, “Moses Stuart,” 243–44.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., 243–62.

12 , Brown, Rise of Biblical Criticism, 45–59, 95–110.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 110.

14 This analysis of Commonsense Realism is indebted to the following sources : Graves, S. A., The Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960)Google Scholar , and Ahlstrom, Sydney, “Scottish Philosophy and American Theology,” CH 24 (1955) 257–72Google Scholar.

15 , Ahlstrom, “Scottish Philosophy,” 257–62.Google Scholar

16 Park, Edwards A., “New England Theology,” BSac 9 (1852) 191–92.Google Scholar

17 Bainton, Roland H., Yale and the Ministry (New York: Harper and Bros., 1957) 97–98.Google Scholar

18 White, Morton, Science and Sentiment in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972) 62.Google Scholar

19 Adams, William, Discourse on the Life, 31.Google Scholar

20 Stuart, Moses, Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy (Andover, MA: Allen, Morrill, and Ward well, 1842) 9.Google Scholar

21 Stuart, Moses, Miscellanies (Andover, MA: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1846) Letter 3, p. 78.Google Scholar

22 Stuart, Moses, Dissertation on the Importance and Best Methods of Studying the Original Languages of the Bible, by Jahn and Others, Translated from the Originals, and Accompanied with Notes (Andover, MA: Flagg and Gould, 1821) 91.Google Scholar

23 , Giltner, “Moses Stuart,” 258.Google Scholar

24 Stuart, Moses, “Are the Same Principles of Interpretation to be Applied to the Scriptures as to Other Books?” Biblical Repository 2 (1832) 124.Google Scholar

25 , Stuart, “Lectures on Hermeneutics,” Lecture 2.Google Scholar

26 , Stuart, Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, 17.Google Scholar

27 Stuart, Moses, “Notes,” in Elements of Interpretation. Translated from the Latin of J. A. Ernesti, and Accompanied by Notes and an Appendix Containing Extracts from Morus, Beck, and Keil (Andover, MA: 1822) 30–31.Google Scholar

28 , Stuart, “Lectures on Hermeneutics,” Lecture 1.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., Lecture 2.

30 Ibid., Lecture 1.

31 , Stuart, “Study of the German Language,” 446–71.Google Scholar

32 , Stuart, “Letters to Dr. Charming on the Trinity,” Letter 1, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

33 , Stuart, “Lectures on Hermeneutics,” Lecture 2.Google Scholar

34 , Giltner, “Moses Stuart,” 247–48.Google Scholar

35 Stuart, Moses, “The Imperfection of Religious Knowledge,” Sermon 6Google Scholar , Andover-Newton Papers.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Stuart, Moses, “Remarks on Jahn's Definition of Interpretation,” Biblical Repository 1Google Scholar (1831). See also a similar argument in “Are the Same Principles of Interpretation to be Applied to the Scriptures as to Other Books?,” 124–25.

39 , Stuart, “Lectures on Hermeneutics,” Lecture 2.Google Scholar

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid., Lecture 6.

42 Ibid.

43 For a full description see Stein, Stephen J., “Stuart and Hodge on Romans 5:12-21: An Exegetical Controversy about Original Sin,” Journal of Presbyterian History 47 (1969) 340–58.Google Scholar

44 Alexander, Archibald, “The Early History of Pelagianism,” The Biblical Repository and Theological Review 2 (1830) 77–113Google Scholar . For a full description of the debate and bibliography see Stein, “Stuart and Hodge on Romans 5:12-21.”

45 Stuart, Moses, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Andover, MA: Flagg and Gould, 1832) 576.Google Scholar

46 Hodge, Charles, “Stuart on Romans,” Princeton Review (07 1833)Google Scholar , reprinted in Essays and Reviews (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1857) 49–86Google Scholar , and idem , A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Grigg and Elliot, 1835)Google Scholar.

47 Stuart, Moses, “Have the Sacred Writers Anywhere Asserted that the Sin or Righteousness of One is Imputed to Another?” Biblical Repository 22 (1836) 241–331.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., 291–92.

49 Ibid., 316.

50 Ibid.

51 , Stein, “Stuart and Hodge on Romans 5:12-21,” 345.Google Scholar

52 , Stuart, “Imperfection of Religious Knowledge,” Sermon 7Google Scholar , Andover-Newton Papers.