Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 42:168 (Oct 1885)
Article: Remarks On Biblical Psychology
Author: William Henry Cobb

BSac 42:168 (Oct 1885) p. 663

Remarks On Biblical Psychology1

Rev. WM. Henry Cobb

The question “What is man?” remains, as it has ever been, the chief problem of philosophy; a problem which may be attacked by three different methods. The first is the method of experiment, which groups together the facts given in physiology, in the individual consciousness, and in the history of our race. The second is the method of intuition, which determines a priori the essential idea of the constitution of humanity, thence deducing what the facts must be. The third is the method of revelation, which gathers authoritative statements of the facts of human nature from the pages of Scripture. These three methods give rise respectively to empirical, rational, and biblical psychology. The first answers the question, What do we find man to be? the second, What do we prove man to be? the third, What does God declare man to be? This last science would transform the ancient maxim “Know thyself” into a humble prayer, “Lord, teach me to know myself.”

The early Christian Fathers have left several attempts in the direction of biblical psychology; but science, in the modern sense, was unknown then, and it is an open question, even yet, whether the scattered materials found in the divine Word are capable of systematic arrangement. It must be granted, doubtless, that whoever would thus present them should have a single eye to the unforced

BSac 42:168 (Oct 1885) p. 664

sense of the many terms and texts involved. He must not start, for example, with the avowed intention of discovering nothing contrary to the Lutheran creed, nor be constrained to apologize for many unproved theories.2 There is a place for ingenious human speculations, and their value should not be depreciated; but they should have no place in a professed system of biblical psychology. It is a light thing to incur the censure of Dr. Delitzsch against “the exact critics who have no taste for a gnosis exercised in biblical paths;” for we deny that gnosis plus exegesis is equal to scriptural synesis. Still, the work of this author (whose title is given above) remains the chief attempt at a system in the science before us, and it certainly deserves a careful review, a compliment it has not yet received, I think, on this side the Atlantic.’3 The two other books mentioned are much slighter, Dr. Beck’s in quantity, Mr. Heard’s in quality also. With the latter it would be needless to detain ourselves, were it not that an honorable position has been sometimes accorded to it (for instance, in B...