Examines the extent to which DDC’s subtitle is accuration with concern to Milton’s “suppressed memory” of other reformation thinkers

“I have attempted to verify Milton’s avowal of complete and necessary independence in his theology as against indebtedness to the various sources suggested by contemporary critics.” pp i.

Description of the history of Christian literary criticism. Grammatical analysis was considered heretical by some, and what is DDC if not that lol

“Allegory, mystic paraphrase, tropology, and the whole formal literature of interpretation were uncompromisingly attacked as doctrinal irrelevancies by syntax and lexicography. Grammar, not speculation, became the greatest heresy of the Christian world, and unhappily no fires could be kindled to consume the rudimenta linguae of Hebrew and Greek. The old rhetorical axiom, est accentus velut anima vocis, became a pivotal question of theology; for what was at stake now was not vocis but Scripturarum.” pp 2

Fire quote about who Milton is w.r.t. DDC authorship

This can be inserted or paraphrased in the sentence about what he would've taken most offense to in Lycidas chapter

“Puritan in orientation, independent by instinct, Humanist and scholar by training, Milton, in his “diligent perusal” of Scripture, quite fully demonstrates the philological dilemma of his age. The heterodoxies that resulted from his theory and practice of Biblical criticism (liberal Puritan hermeneutics2 plus philological exegesis) seem an inevitable corollary of that medium rather than a potpourri of directing influences from his catholic and constant reading.” pp 3

Relevance of Calvin vs. the less accessible reformation theologians of the 16th century (who are described alongside him in this chapter)

Need to expand upon Reformation critics leading up to Calvin's doctrine

“Admittedly foremost of all the Reformation critics, though not the equal of Erasmus or Melancthon in matters of purely textual and philological analysis, was John Calvin. His style and method of exegesis, rather than singular syntactic discoveries, make his commentaries famous in the critical literature of Biblical study—not to say in the whole field of theology. Calvin is the great exponent of the plain and simple sense of Scripture theme (which we shall observe to a marked degree in Milton) in direct antithesis to the labored gloss of any sort.” pp 9

Good paragraph about Calvin’s influence as a theologian

“Calvin’s method was first to establish the plain sense and context of a passage. Little of other commentators and no mystical, allegorical, or forced exposition are interposed between commentary and Scripture. Brief and largely free from digression, the clarity of Calvin’s exegesis did much to establish the notion of the essential simplicity of God’s word and a corresponding suspicion of all elaborate glosses. Though perhaps closer to Grotius in actual method and to Chillingworth in conception, Milton’s commentaries strongly resemble the tone of Calvin’s in logical concision and assumption of textual clarity. Like Calvin and, unlike some of the later philologists, Milton in his examination of Scripture found nothing mystic in the text and followed consistently Calvin’s dictum of interpretation which held that the first duty of an interpreter is to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.3” pp 10

“The grammatical exegetes were those who applied the philological approach to the scriptural text to the exelusion of mysticism or spiritual apologetics. They followed varied creeds and believed in different theological tenets; but in their attack on the Bible text, the exposition of accurate and literal meaning was their characteristic modus operandi, as grammar and philology were their apparatus criticus. Their importance lies in their assumption that theology is derived from Scripture and that, fundamentally, true theology depends upon accurate exegesis.” pp 17

C.f. to Aereo + obedience. In light of the fact that Milton would have been intimately familiar with Chillingworth’s stance here

“Chillingworth advances the idea of individual exegesis: … From this premise Chillingworth advances, in a magnificent passage, the proposition of freedom of religious opinion:” pp 25

Mysticism implies a hidden but ascertainable meaning which Milton would disagree with

“Significant, here, is Chillingworth’s conception of belief in the irrational, the things “incomprehensible to human reason.” Because of Milton’s identical position it is important to understand that this in no way opens the door to mystic or fanciful interpretation. The word of God is final and may at times transcend comprehension, but the “judgment of discretion” through which the rule of Scripture is manifested is a wholly rational process.” pp 26

Sounds like Raphael/Michael’s warnings against Adam’s “understanding”

“Owen goes on at great length to demonstrate the necessity of skill and knowledge of the original for those who are called unto the interpretation of Scripture in order to guide others less gifted in languages. But in so doing he warns (completely paralleling Milton’s attitude) of the dangers of “noisome elations of mind” and the vanity of overannotation for “this skill and faculty where it hath been unaccompanied with that humility, sobriety, reverence of the author of the Scripture, and respect unto the analogy of faith, which ought to bear sway in the minds of all men who undertake to expound the oracles of God, may be, and hath been greatly abused unto the hurt of its owners, and disadvantages of the church.” pp 29

Which is kind of a funny stance to take: “why all the interpretations if scripture alone is sufficient to attain salvation? Anyways, here's my interpretation”

Quoting form DDC: “I resolved not to repose on the faith or judgment of others in matters relating to God; but on the one hand, having taken the grounds of my faith from divine revelation alone, and on the other, having neglected nothing which depended on my own industry, I thought fit to scrutinize and ascertain for myself the several points of my religious belief, by the most careful perusal and meditation of the Holy Scriptures themselves.” pp 31

Elsewhere in DDC, Milton goes on to admit to rewriting the whole bible + competing treatises of theological interpretation

“At length I resorted with increased confidence to some of the more copious theological treatises, and to the examination of the arguments advanced by the conflicting parties respecting certain disputed points of faith. But, to speak the truth with freedom as well as candor, I was concerned to discover in many instances adverse reasonings either evaded by wretched shifts, or attempted to be refuted, rather speciously than with solidity, by an affected display of formal sophisms, or by a constant recourse to the quibbles of the grammarians .... According to my judgment, therefore, neither my creed nor iny hope of salvation could be safely trusted to such guides .... I deemed it therefore safest and most advisable to compile for myself, by my own labor and study, some original treatise which should be always at hand, derived solely from the word of God itself, and executed with all possible fidelity, seeing that I could have no wish to practice any imposition on myself in such a matter.” pp 31

“No forensics” – thir internal guide only to be from the guidance of the holy spirit

thir internal guide

“Further, Milton’s whole conception of divine revelation is dependent on the Scripture alone thesis. Christian doctrine, Milton argues, is the divine revelation disclosed by Christ concerning the nature and worship of God for the promotion of God’s glory and the salvation of man.28 And, Milton concludes, this divine revelation can only be obtained from the Bible alone by means of the guidance of the Holy Spirit: “This doctrine, therefore, is to be obtained, not from the schools of the philosophers, nor from the laws of man, but from the Holy Scriptures alone, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”” pp 33

“Whatever was necessary for the diligent searching out of the true doctrine trom the pure original of God’s word (perpetuae diligentiae verique reperi endi indefesso studio, non credulitati supinae proposita esse a Deo etiam in religione omnia, turn facile perspexi) was part of the Lord’s intention. We shall see, as a matter of fact, that Milton frequently agrees with the grammatical analyses of scriptural passages by various theologians, while completely disregarding their doctrinal conclusions.” pp 34

“He recognizes too that the historical books of the Old Testament are of uncertain authorship and that there are contradictions on points of chronology; but he hastens to add that this in no way destroys the integrity of their doctrinal parts.38 He conjectures what the purpose of Providence could be in committing the writings to such uncertain guardianship and decides that the purpose must be to teach reliance on the Holy Spirit. This tack, in the face of the difficulty, Milton adopts for resolution of the problem. The process of belief for Milton becomes mainly a reaffirmation of dependency on the Holy Spirit coupled with thinternal evidence implied in the general tenor of the whole of Scripture.” pp36

W.r.t. Evaluation of his command of Hebrew. By this metric, I’m not qualified to speak english

“So far as exegesis is concerned, the only thing of ccnsequence is that he knew enough Greek and Hebrew to read with ease the Biblical original and certainly enough to make intelligent and proficient use of the works of the professional philologists available. To say more than this, as in the case of the rabbinical readings, is speculation.”42

“Says Mr. Fletcher: Milton’s commentators have almost wholly called attention to the reading of the Authorized Version as the source of Milton’s usage, and have been content with having done so [infra!].” pp 47

Very cool lore on “brooding” will need to dig up the hebrew word if I reproduce – including in Book I

“The antiquity and frequent occurrence of this conception have long been known by Milton scholars; Du Bartas. a& well as the rabbis, has been singled out as a possible source within the enormous range of possibilities.42 It is well known that “brooding” is a literal translation of nsmn (need to check), and Milton’s adherence to the Hebrew rather than the Authorized Version “ moved” has been noted by Milton editors. Whatever nuances were suggested by other sources for his poetic usage, Scripture, it seems reasonable to assume, was most certainly the source for Milton’s understanding of the creation process. Whatever his final decision as to the role of the Holy Spirit in creation,43 in discussing Genesis i :2, whether considering spirit as the Son44 or as a manifestation of God’s divine power,45 the functional verb is rendered by Milton incubabat.” pp 50

Lmfao at Sumners mistranslating Milton’s latinate translation of the hebrew. Literally lost in translation.

Subfootnote about the delicacies that are opinionated translation see Tolkein and Nabokov

“Bishop Sumner in his English translation of the De Doctrina fails to translate Milton’s original properlv, substituting the Authorized Version’s “moved” in every instance of Milton’s incubabat. Of this rendition, which Milton would have found in most lexicons, and which was frequently mentioned by well-known commentators, Milton has to say (describing the Spirit as the divine breath by which all things are nourished): “quomodo loco ilium Gen. 1:2 spiritus Dei incubabat, multi intelligunt et ayitiqui et recentiores,”” pp 50

Conklin seeks to evaluate the extent to which Milton could be considered a Greek/Hebrew Scholar

Smectymnuus as evidence for his influence from Rabbinical translations

“In An Apology against a Pamphlet against Smectymnuus occur the first references in Milton’s prose to rabbinical exegesis, and from them Mr. Fletcher has found indubitable indication that Milton was reading the rabbinical commentary of the Buxtorf Rabbinical Bible. The passage in the Apology has: [lengthy passage] Milton here is arguing that he can justify the violence of his language (which in his more aggressive pamphlets is not noted for delicacy of expression) by appeal to Scripture. He has stated that in a passage in the Book of Numbers5 the rabbinical explanation contains a more obscene word than the text itself. The reference, however, to what ‘the Rabbines expound” causes Mr. Fletcher to observe: No translation of the Old Testament will aid us here. The English translations, including his favorite, the Authorized Version, in neither text nor in commentaries, provides an ex¬ planation of what Milton has said here. Nor will any text clarify his statement. If Latin commentaries are invoked, and Milton has elsewhere suggested a number of them, they yield nothing to the point here. But Milton did not say that some commentary had explained the passage “not without an obscene word.” He specifically stated that he was speaking of “rabbis.”” pp 54-55

Characterization of Milton as a neoplatonist. Include in discussion of his creation

“For Milton’s position, despite the similarities of Plato, Lucretius, Philo, Eriugena, Servetus, Gerson, Ibn Ezra, Fludd, Boehme, and others, is uniquely his and was independently derived from his exegetical conclusions alone.2 No precise parallel can, in fact, be found between Milton’s conception of the creation and that of any other.3” pp 67

Expands in DDC - see also the endnote

“The inevitable starting point for Milton—and for our analysis—is the meaning of the original text of Scripture. As against those who uphold the ex nihilo position, Milton’s exegesis of the opening phrase of Genesis (O’n^N N”13 IVtPN"l3) defines the all-important verb (create) as signifying on the contrary creation out of matter: Most of the moderns contend that it was formed from nothing, a basis as unsubstantial as that of their own theory. In the first place, it is certain that neither the Hebrew verb NH3, nor the Greek xti£tiv, nor the Latin create, can signify to create out of nothing. On the contrary, these words uniformly signify to create out of matter” pp 67-8

Include in the discussion of the mists rising to expel A&E from creation in XII (or X)

“However the climax of Milton’s doctrinal aberrations from orthodoxy is reached when he finds it necessary to limit the power of God: [excerpt from DDC]” pp72

Neoplatonists, zohar, Socinian, see Völkel

“Uncertain as he was on this latter question, it appears, from his treatment of matter in Paradise Lost that he never discarded the idea of what Mr. Lovejov has called the Great Chain of Being. Raphael s famous description seems clear” pp 72

Milton’s whole MO for DDC is employed selectively, case in point of how he bends scripture or adjust his exegetical methods to suit his needs

“Milton examines various passages of Scripture used to uphold the opposite doctrine and, in disproving them, sometimes descends to mere cavil. Some passages he refutes linguistically either by appeal to a separate text21 or recourse to Biblical idiom,22 but most of them are labored. Two of them, however, are extremely interesting because of the similar exegesis of Socinians. The first is concerned with punctuation of the text. Milton says of Luke 23 :43 (Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise), a difficult text to refute” pp 81

Worth quoting this entire passage when itnroducing DDC in relation to PL

“In his heretical opinions, mortalist and pantheistic, which he addressed to the learned with the qualification to accept or reject them only by the clear testimony of revelation, Milton has followed strictly his professed Protestant method of adherence to Scripture alone—without recourse to any other judges or interpreters—under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the full title of his treatise, John Milton, an Englishman, His Christian Doctrine, Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone, is completely indicative of its contents. The results, theologically, are subject to various evaluations, but in terms of his hermeneutics, his independent logical analyses and linguistic proficiency, the stature of Milton as a first rate student of Scripture and a competent Biblical critic is fully established.” pp 85

Delineation between hermeneutics and exegesis: Although the terms “hermeneutics” and “exegesis” have become practically interchangeable, as used in this study, “hermeneutics” will refer to the theory of Biblical criticism and “exegesis” to the actual practice of textual criticism. Under exegesis, too, I have included the general field of isagogics or Biblical introduction.

Masson’s assertion that “There was not in the whole university, I believe, a more expert, more cultured, or a nobler Latinist than Milton, whether in prose or verse I.208

related