1Reading 10-1READING 10-1H.N. Moldenke and A.L. Moldenke. 1952. Plants of the Bible, Ronald Press, New York.Historical SketchPopular interest in the botany of the Bible dates from very early times. Plants and plant products are referred to in so many hundreds of verses of both the old and new testaments, as well as in the books of the Apocrypha, that it is not at all surprising to fi nd early theologians, divines, and scholars exceedingly interested in them. Theological literature, from its very beginnings, is fi lled with references to and com-ments upon the plants of the Bible and of Biblical lands. There was, of course, a long period of time when no one dared to challenge any of the translations or interpretations of Biblical passages by the leaders of the church then in authority. The time came, however, when questions were asked and various sects or denominations appeared-at fi rst persecuted and suppressed as “heretics”. Translations were questioned and even the canonicity of some of the chapters and of entire books was challenged. There naturally followed heated and often bitter discussions and arguments among scholars and theologians concerning the transla-tion and interpretation of certain Hebrew or Greek words or phrases in the various passages referring to, or thought to refer to, plants or plant products. No attempt has been made by us to review the huge theological literature on this subject, or to list it in our bibliography, primarily because these writers were not botanically trained and their arguments, while in many cases interesting to read, are largely metaphysical, philosophical, moralistic, or philological in nature.Passing over the incidental-though none the less important-contributions to the subject made by AR-ISTOTLE, PLATO, PLINY, DIOSCORIDES, HERODOTUS, THEOPHRASTUS, and even PLUTARCH and JOSEPHUS, we fi nd that the fi rst book (of which we have a record) that dealt entirely with the plants mentioned in the Scriptures was that of LEVINUS LEMMENS in 1566 (206). This was a 161-page work with the imposing title of “Herbarum atque arborum quae in Bibliis passim obviae sunt et ex quibus sacri vates similitudines desumunt, ac collationes rebus accommodant, dilucida explicatio; in qua narratione sin-gula loca explanantur quibus Prophetae observata stirpium natura, conciones suas illustrant, divina oracula fulciunt.” It was reissued, in 1568, with another title, as “Similitudinum ac parabolarum quae in Bibliis ex herbis atque arboribus desumuntur dilucida explicatio...” Then followed THOMAS NEWTON’S “An herbal for the Bible” in 1587, with 287 pages, which was actually only a translation, albeit with alterations, of LEMMENS’ work. The only other noteworthy contribution to the subject in the 16th century was F. VALLES’ “De iis, quae scripta sunt physice in Libris Sacris; sive, de sacre philosophia”-a 978-page work fi rst issued in the year 1588.The 17th century was ushered in by L. RUMETIUS’ “Sacrorum Bibliorum arboretum morale”, with 118 pages, published in 1606, but later (in 1626) expanded into a 3-volume and 901-page work, and by CLEMENS ANOMOEUS’ “Sacrorum arborum, fruticum et herbarum”, in 1609, with 223 pages. These were followed by a Portuguese work of 582 pages in 1622 by F.I. DE BARREIRA, by JOHANNES MEURS’ “Arboretum sacrum” in 1642, and by A. COCQUIUS, two books-”Historia ac contemplatio sacra plantarum arborum. & herbarum quarum fi t mentio in Sacra Scriptura” in 1664 and his “Observationes et exercitationes philologico-physiologicae” in 1671. E. CASTELLI produced in 1667 a book on the plants mentioned in the Bible, and there were smaller tracts on various single plants by DU PAS (lily of the fi eld), MUNDELSTRUP (apple of Sodom), RAVIUS (mandrake), and MEYER (sycomore). In 1663 the fi rst of the many editions of J.H. URSINUS’ extremely popular 638-page “Arboretum biblicum” was printed, to be followed, in 1694, by the “Scripture herbal” of WILLIAM WESTMACOTT.In the 18th century there appeared the numerous and very important works of CELSIUS, HILLER, SCHEUCHZER, SHAW, OEDMAN, HARRIS, and TAYLOR. In the year 1740 the fi rst edition of J.B. ROHR’S “Phytotheologia” was published, and, in 1745 and 1747, the two volumes Of CELSIUS’ “Hiero-botanicon”. The latter are usually regarded as being among the foundation-stones of this study.There is no other branch of botany in which so very many persons have spoken, argued, and written2 Reading 10-1without ever bothering to investigate the con troversial matters by direct observation,-in other words, without applying the scientifi c method! It seemed entirely unnecessary—and even irrelevant—to these older writers, chiefl y the theologians, divines, and classical scholars, to inquire as to what plants actually were growing in Biblical lands in their day. Even scholars with a fair knowledge of natural history were slow to realize that the plants of one region might differ considerably from those of another region. For centuries scholars and even herbalists attempted to identify in Germany, France, England, or Scandinavia the plants described by THEOPHRASTUS or DIOSCORIDES from Greece. That a plant described from Greece might not be also native to Sweden or England or South Africa apparently never occurred to these writers. Conversely, for centuries herbalists searched the writings of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Arabs for descriptions of the wayside plants of Great Britain and Holland, rarely, if ever, realizing the futility of their task! So it is not surprising that most of the early writers on the plants of the Bible should have based the greater portion or even all of their arguments on such lines of evidence as furnished by comparative philology, etymology, the opinions of the “Church Fathers”, and the “internal evidence” of the Scriptures themselves. That they should have arrived by these means at various often extremely divergent and in not a few cases completely erroneous conclusions was inevitable. KITTO has quite aptly summed up the situation in the following words: “The Natural Histories of the Bible form a class by themselves, having less connection than any other with the science of nature. They are rather works of criticism than of natural history—rather the produc-tion of philologists than of natural historians. Whatever learning could do on such subjects has been done; and
View Full Document
Unlocking...