Moses Stuart

Jump to Comments

One on my favorite scholars of the 19th century is Moses Stuart. Many are unaware of his contributions during this formidable time period of biblical studies.
Moses Stuart was born in Wilton Connecticut in 1780, and graduated from Yale in 1799. Initially, his intentions were far from theological pursuit. Teaching for two years following graduation, Stuart decided to exchange the classroom for the courtroom and become a lawyer. While tutoring and pursuing further legal studies at Yale, he was greatly influenced by Timothy Dwight, son of Jonathan Edwards who was the institution’s president. Dwight’s revivalist preaching persuaded Stuart to reenter Yale College for divinity study. After three years of study, he began pastoring and was considered to have a promising future in New England Congregationalism. His stay in a church pulpit did not last long. Andover Seminary hired him away from pastoral ministry in 1809 to chair the sacred literature department. Moses was twenty-nine at the time he took over at Andover and remained there for forty years.
Moses Stuart was a trailblazer with regard to his writings. North America was not known at this time for producing scholarly discussions on Biblical topics. This did not impede Stuart from continually contributing well-researched articles for journals such as American Biblical Repository and Bibliotheca Sacra. Topics included in these journals were well rounded and included hermeneutics, Old and New Testament exegesis, and Hebrew and Greek lexicography. Stuart also published six books on Hebrew and one on Greek grammar and syntax. He wrote commentaries on some of the most hermeneutically difficult books of the Bible, which include Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation. Moses Stuart mastered more than just the biblical languages. He translated at least five works from Latin or German bringing the total works that bear his name to over twenty-four.
With his mastery of language, Stuart is best known for his biblical interpretation. McKim notes three priorities throughout his professional lifetime shaped his biblical scholarship (McKim, 369-370). First priority was pedagogical. The apologetics and doctrinal system building of the eighteenth century had left a void in biblical philology and theology. Stuart had not escaped this void himself, as he was deficient in Hebrew upon taking the position at Andover. This deficiency might well have been a blessing in disguise. With the aid of Gesenius’ grammar, Stuart sought to develop an inductive approach to language replacing the rote learning previously required before biblical translation. After developing this approach for Hebrew, Stuart then applied the same methodology to Greek relying on Bultmann, Matthiae, and Winer.
The second priority was apologetic. With the advent of the Second Great Awakening also came contempt for learned clergy. He also was cognizant of the post-Enlightenment views of those such as Unitarianism proclaimed by William Channing. Stuart wrote a lengthy polemic letter against Channing’s rejection of the trinity in response. The apologetics proclaimed by Stuart were generally in response to German rationalism of which he had first hand experience. Much of his work contains implicitly the correction of these beliefs emanating from Germany. Even among this strong apologetic against German rationalism, Stuart seemed to carry a balanced approach. He refused to reject all European scholarship finding value through discernment of even the works he wrote against.
The third priority was biblical exposition. Stuart sought to propel the Gospel to the greatest heights possible and realized that language learning and teaching were foundational to reaching this end. Being an educator himself he sought to equip ministers of the Gospel to this end. He sought to develop expositional resources that would help students and pastors such as his six commentaries.
Moses Stuart should be remembered as a balanced scholar of biblical studies. He sought to make biblical studies a reality for all that wished to pursue it by developing cutting edge approaches to language learning of that period. Stuart also understood the value of discernment. He, unlike many of his contemporaries, engaged European scholars to understand them. Therefore, He was able to take all that was helpful in biblical hermeneutics while refusing all that was in conflict with doctrine held by him. Stuart was also balanced in his approach to life long learning. He did not specialize in one area of biblical interpretation; rather he sought to acquire a breadth of learning. His approach enabled him to understand the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament in a way others of his time could not. Many attributes of Stuart’s life might well be a mold to be pursued by those that follow him in academics today.

3 Comments

Filed under General