Benjamin+Jowett's+On+the+Interpretation+of+Scripture

In their thorough biography of Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893) included in the //Oxford Dictionary of National Biography//, historians Peter Hinchliff and John Prest highlight his life as a British theologian, translator, and influential administrative and educational reformer at Balliol College, Oxford. His academic career at Balliol College (an Honours school of Literae Humanitoires or “greats”) began when he gained scholarship there in 1835. He remained an important part of the university until his death, and was appointed to the following roles: 1838 became fellow and tutor, 1842 received MA and was ordained as a deacon, 1855 became Regius Chair of Greek, 1865 became the first Official College Preacher, 1870 elected Master of Balliol, 1882-1886 served as Vice- Chancellor (Hinchliff and Prest par. 25). These positions made Jowett a central figure in British society at the time. He had a large network of friends including Florence Nightingale and George Eliot (Ibid. par. 19). His extensive academic career enabled him to initiate and create progressive changes at Balliol by supporting its religious background but making it increasingly “undogmatic,” “liberal,” and accessible to the emerging “middle classes” (ibid. par. 17).

By 1840, his Evangelical and traditional background became quite radicalized. In 1855, he published commentaries on the Pauline epistles where he demonstrated extremely radical views (for the time) on the subjectivity of atonement. For his views, the vice-chancellor, “R. L. Cotton,” required him to subscribe to the “Thirty-Nine Articles” afresh (ibid. par. 9). Despite this punishment, Jowett continued to share his radical views, publishing “On the Interpretation of Scripture” only five years later.

Benjamin Jowett’s “On the Interpretation of Scripture” is an essay included in the controversial church volume //Essays and Reviews// edited by John William Parker and published in 1860. Associate Professor of English at the University of Tennessee, Glenn Everett, notes in his article for //The Victorian Web// that this collection of essays included works authored by six Church of England churchmen and one layman, referred to after this publication as the “Seven Against Christ” (par. 1). The essays focus on religion, covering such topics as the “Biblical researches of German critics, the evidences of Christianity, religious thought in England, and the cosmology of Genesis” and attempt to sum up a century long challenge of historic critiques by theological philosophers and scientists working in new fields (ibid. par. 1). In the editorial notes of their edition of //Essays and Reviews// (2000)//,// Victor Shea and William Whitla state that the essays sold over “20,000 copies” from 1860 to 1862 (25). This was more than Darwin’s //Origin of Species// soldin 20 years (ibid. 26). Its earliest editions were published as a “demy octavo” volume in a run of “1000 copies,” selling at a relatively expensive price of “10 shillings and sixpence” (ibid. 14). The tenth edition used a smaller and cheaper “foolscap octavo” format that was much more accessible, yet still pricey for some, at “five shillings” (ibid. 19). The original copy of //Essays and Reviews// begins with a note “To the Reader” which clarifies that the “authors of the ensuing essays are responsible for their respective articles only” and have written in “independence” (Parker i). Parker possibly uses this note as a disclaimer to warn readers of the radical nature of its contents, as well as ensure blame for content is to be individually distributed.

Jowett took //Essays and Reviews// as an “opportunity to challenge the way conservatives were trying to coerce liberals into hiding their opinions” (Hinchliff and Prest par. 13) perhaps fueled by his having to re-subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles. Jowett’s “On the Interpretation of Scripture” is arguably the most controversial of the essays included in //Essays and Reviews//. He demonstrates and uses his learnedness to his advantage using rhetorical devices such as allusion and repetition to better his argument. He often references classical texts by “Plato and Sophocles” (Jowett 370) and repeats that the Bible should be “interpreted and translated” like such texts (ibid. 371). Jowett questions the “authority and inspiration of the Bible” by expounding a “rational explanation” of its creation (Hinchliff and Prest par. 13). As in many of his lectures before this publication, Jowett emphasizes that the Bible should be treated as any other book, particularly of classical Greek and Roman texts (of which his studies had made him most familiar with). He argued that biblical writings should be read as far as possible in the sense in which they had been intended without the overlay of traditional and sometimes forced meanings often rhetorically “exaggerate[d] and amplify[ied]” at sermons (Jowett 370). Hinchliff and Prest highlight that the centre of Jowett’s argument is “the concept of progressive revelation so that the books of the Bible should be placed in a continuum, which came to its climax with Christ, and to which climax the epistles and other New Testament writings look back on” (par. 11). Jowett suggests that “the revelation was still ongoing and that each generation should interpret Holy Scriptures afresh”, without the layers of “history” and “interpretation” upon it (ibid. par.11).

//Essays and Reviews,// specifically Jowett’s contribution to the publication, was quite scandalous for the Victorian period. The contemporary historian Frederic Harrison argued in the //Westminster Review// that “//Essays and Reviews// was neither religious nor rational” which was a great disappointment to its authors who found themselves as “proponents of rational religion” (ibid. par. 14). According to the //Waterloo Directory of English Newspapers and Periodicals 1800- 1900//, the //Westminster Review// was a quarterly journal that sold for “6 shillings” (par. 2) ran by the “Philosophical Radicals”, a liberal group known for its Utilitarian ideals (Shea and Whitla 30). Harrison argued the authors had a “cynical insincerity” and “shallowness” to their writings (ibid. 30). On the note “To the Reader,” Harrison questions the sincerity of the author’s independence based on the coherent discussion of German methods stating “it is no work of a single or isolated thinker” but rather an “outline of the principles of a new school of English Theology” (ibid. 31).

Harrison’s work provoked an immediate national outrage against //Essays and Reviews//. In January of 1861, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce of Oxford wrote anonymously in the //Quarterly Review//. In Linda K. Hughes' assessment of this January 1861 issue of the //Quarterly Review//, she describes the periodical a very sober and conservative periodical that “averaged at 250 pages per issue and cost between four to six shillings” (23). Hughes also points out the fact that this particular issue was so popular that “it had to be reprinted five times” and “circulated around forty thousand copies,” selling twice as much as //Essays and Reviews// in two months (24). This kind of periodical circulation, as well as //Essays and Reviews’// best-selling status, shows how preoccupied middle class and more affluent Victorian readers were with religion, specifically Christianity. Wilberforce’s “fifty-two page” long article systematically set forth its arguments and concluded that the views of //Essays and Reviews//, particularly Jowett’s, were contrary to Christian dogmas and accused the authors of “moral dishonesty” (ibid. 25). In his argument against Jowett, Wilberforce claims that the “proper way to read and interpret the Bible is through the lens of faith”, placing God as the true speaker behind the words and to receive his words as the truest meaning (ibid. 25). The depth Wilberforce includes in his argument indicates how directly he believed //Essays and Reviews// would “threaten Oxford and Church authority” (ibid. 25).

Defamed by speaking his mind and “sharing his views,” Jowett’s career was threatened again by the possibility of having to subscribe to the “Thirty-Nine Articles” (Hinchliff and Prest par. 15). In 1863 Jowett was set before the “vice-chancellor’s court” for “teaching contrary to the doctrines of the Church of England” (ibid. par. 14). However, the court “refused to proceed with hearing the case” (ibid. par. 14). At this time, there was a great decline in liberal activity at Balliol, and Jowett was made an outcast. Convinced that the theological debate was unproductive, he began to focus his “academic attention” on educational reform, translating and creating commentaries on “Plato,” and becoming Master of Balliol in 1870 (ibid. par.16). EH/Engl387/UVic/Fall2014

Works Cited Everett, Glenn. “Essays and Reviews.” //The Victorian Web.// Providence, RI: The Victorian Web, 2004. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.

Hinchliff, Peter and John Prest. “Jowett, Benjamin (1817–1893).” //Oxford Dictionary of National Biography//. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004.Online ed. Ed. Lawrence Goldman. Jan. 2006. 12 Oct. 2014.

Hughes, Linda K. “The January 1861 //Quarterly Review// as Genre, Media Event, and Research Heuristic.” //Victorian Review// 38.2 (2012): 23-27. Project Muse. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.

Jowett, Benjamin. “On the Interpretation of Scripture.” //Victorian Prose 1832-1901.// Ed. Mary Elizabeth Leighton and Lisa Surridge. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2012. 369-75. Print.

Parker, John W. Ed. //Essays and Reviews 2nd edition.// London: Savill and Edwards, Printers,1860. Google Books Digital File. 30 Oct. 2014.

Shea, Victor, and William Whitla Eds. “Introductory Notes.” //Essays and Reviews: the 1860 text and its reading//. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000. Print.

The Waterloo Directory. //The London and Westminster Review//. //The Waterloo Directory of English Newspapers and Periodicals: 1800-1900.// Ed. John S. North. WDENP, 2002. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.