Some Further Reflections on Ancient Landmarks - Glenn Conjurske
Some Further Reflections on Ancient Landmarks
Introduction: The Importance of Conservatism
I address this subject again for several reasons. In the first place, I regard it as one of the more important themes which I shall have occasion to treat in these pages, for what I am here contending for is conservatism. What I am contending against is the liberalism which has completely carried away Neo-evangelicalism, and very largely permeated Fundamentalism also. I was not able to say as much as the subject calls for in one short article. I believe also in repetition, for it is seldom that anyone will much understand a principle upon his first reading of it.
The Old Landmarks and Their Significance
The Bible says, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14). The landmarks were set by men of old time, before we were born, and before we entered the land of our inheritance. Restless liberalism is never content with anything which “they of old time” have done, always supposing itself competent to do better. Sometimes that supposition may be true, for what “they of old time” have done is never perfect. But as a plain matter of fact, experience, and history, the changes which liberals make are most often for the worse, for they are commonly too rash, too shallow, and too bent upon change to make judicious changes. They know how to prove all things, but not to hold fast that which is good. The changes which solid conservatives make are more likely to be for the better, for they are not impatient of the work of their fathers, and move slowly and deliberately in any alterations which they make.
The Case for Conservatism in Old Landmarks
When we are dealIng with anything which has acquired the status of an old landmark, we really have no business to change it at all, though I will grant there may be exceptions to this, as there are to most everything. If an old landmark is so intolerably misplaced as to cause more confusion and trouble where it is, than would be caused by its removal, we may be justified in removing it. Such cases are doubtless very rare, but I shall mention one a little further down.
First, however, I wish to enlarge a little upon the nature of those things which may be properly regarded as old landmarks. In my former article, I spoke primarily of the old terminology, but the principle may apply to many other things as well. I believe it applies to everything in every sphere which “they of old time” have set, and which by long and universal usage has become the standard and customary practice.
Examples of Old Landmarks in Everyday Life
Take for example music notation, as it is written and printed. The symbols are all arbitrary, certainly having no divine origin or sanction. It is perhaps possible that some precocious brain could improve all of this, but the improvement would introduce such confusion in the realm of music as to be simply intolerable. The names of the notes, their shape and position on the score, the signs of the bass, tenor, and treble clefs, the symbols for rests and flats and sharps, and indeed the score itself—all these are old landmarks. Their retention gives stability and ease to all who know music. To alter them, for any reason whatsoever, would introduce intolerable confusion, and for the sake of a gain which would be infinitesimal or nonexistent.
The typewriter keyboard is another old landmark, which “they of old time” have set. To alter it now would introduce so much confusion into so many spheres that it is simply impracticable. We would not pretend that the typewriter keyboard is perfect, or that it has any divine sanction. Quite the reverse. It was designed purposely to prevent speed. To type too fast on the old typewriters resulted in tangling up the keys. There was room for only one key at a time in the striking position, and there must be time for the last key to be out of the way before the next key arrived. The keyboard was thus designed to prevent speed. We must reach for the “e” and the “i,” while the little-used “j” and “k” occupy the positions of honor on the “home” keys, under our best fingers on our right hand. This is not to facilitate speed, but precisely to prevent it. Now, with electronic typing, the need to prevent too much speed has entirely passed away, but the old keyboard remains, a relic, as the liberal would say, of the stone age. I understand that some attempts have been made to replace it, but these have met with little success. Those who would amend the typewriter keyboard must re-educate all of our heads also. They will find it easier to straighten the leaning tower of Pisa.
The Case for Stability in Written Language
The spelling of words, and the shapes of the letters of the alphabet are further examples of old landmarks. Though spoken language is doubtless of divine origin, we cannot pretend to any divine origin for written language, and certainly not for the letters of the alphabet or the spellings of the words. Each language has its own alphabet, and its own manner of spelling. These are old landmarks, which “they of old time” have set, and to attempt any alteration of them now could only produce endless confusion. Various liberals from time to time have set on foot various attempts to “reform” the spelling of English, but those attempts have failed. Liberals in the public schools in our own day have even advocated “creative spelling.” Such a plan is extremely foolish, the product of shallow heads which obviously understand nothing of the issues involved, and were it ever to succeed, the result would be confusion confounded. When the alphabet and the spelling are “reformed,” stability and ease must give place to confusion and difficulty, and all of our ties with the past must be greatly weakened. This is true whenever ancient landmarks are removed, in any sphere whatsoever.
Old Landmarks in Literature and Religious Context
To read a book from “front” to “back,” and from left to right, is another example of an old landmark. It has no divine sanction. Hebrew and Syriac read from right to left, and the “front” and “back” of the books are just the reverse of Latin, Greek, and English. Yet to alter these, in any language at all, would produce no end of difficulty and confusion. Besides being obliged to re-educate our heads, all typewriters would require to be remade also.
The old landmarks were not set by God, but by the men of old time. We ought to retain them, not because they are of God, nor because they are incapable of improvement, but because they are old, and therefore familiar and customary and standard. If we remove many of the old landmarks, we must remake our minds and souls also, for our souls are not blanks, but are the repositories of a thousand thousand impressions and habits. The world itself seems generally conscious of this, and generally acts upon it. But here again, “The children of this world are wiser in their own kind than the children of light.” The world in general retains its old landmarks, while the Christians of the present liberal generation are determined to remove those of the church. We fear that the real reason for this is that the souls of the liberals and intellectuals of our time are indeed blanks in all the deep things of God. It is little inconvenience to them, therefore, to remove any or all of the old landmarks. But why do not more of the solid saints of God rise up in indignant protest?
An Exception to the Rule: The Calendar Reform
But I will speak of one ancient landmark which has been removed, and that evidently to the satisfaction of all. I speak of the calendar. The calendar as it exists is surely an old landmark. Its year is essentially a solar year, though the calendar itself has no divine sanction, but is arbitrary in its beginning, in the length of its months, in their names, etc.—and in all this far removed from the calendar of the Bible. Yet arbitrary as much of it is, to change it at all would necessarily introduce almost incalculable confusion. Yet the calendar which we have today is not the same calendar which was in use a few hundred years ago. It has been altered, and we can hardly regret the alteration, for the calendar which formerly existed was itself the source of so much confusion and error that its reform became a simple necessity. The need for its reformation was universally felt. It was reformed therefore, and though this created a good deal of confusion over a long period of time, yet the gain in the reform was great enough to justify the difficulty. The calendar, then, I regard as one of the rare exceptions, in which it was advantageous and proper to remove and replace an old landmark. It would be altogether improper, however, to attempt a further reform of the calendar today, for the flaws which remain in it are small and inconsequential, so that it is better on all accounts to live with them than to attempt to mend them. This is generally true of all old landmarks, and that even when their faults are much more significant than those which remain in the calendar.
The Bible’s Landmarks: Chapter and Verse Divisions
The value of ancient landmarks may be best illustrated by a reference to the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible. These constitute one of the most obvious examples of what may be properly regarded as old landmarks. Aside from the Psalms and some other portions, as the Lamentations, these divisions have no divine origin or sanction. They are purely human. They are not the land, but only the landmarks. They exist independently of the substance of Scripture, and for the most part in no way affect that substance. They are merely reference points, to aid us in finding our way and keeping our bearings. Many of them could be improved upon. Yet who would dream of altering them now? To change them now would cause endless confusion of the most serious sort. Every Bible and concordance would require to be recast. Every doctrinal, devotional, and exegetical work written before this date would be a maze of confusion. Surely none but the most restless and thoughtless of liberals could be rash or foolish enough to desire any change whatever here, though none but the most shallow and bigoted traditionalists would attach any divine sanction to the divisions which now exist.
Other Old Landmarks: The Order of the Books of the Bible
The names and order of the books of the Bible constitute another example. The names of most of the books of the Bible are not of divine origin. They are human appendages, and in some cases could be improved upon. The same is true in many cases of the order of the books. The order of the English Old Testament differs greatly from that of the Hebrew. The order of the English New Testament differs from that of the Greek manuscripts.
Various attempts have been made to re-arrange the books of the New Testament, but the re-arrangers cannot agree among themselves as to how it ought to be done. F. W. Grant, in his Numerical Bible, and Christopher Wordsworth, in his Greek New Testament, have each re-arranged the epistles of Paul, with the following result:
These men obviously proceeded upon different principles entirely, principles, no doubt, which were of some importance to themselves, but it is evident that any gain which may accrue from either man’s arrangement is entirely cancelled by the other man’s. Whatever that gain may be supposed to be, it will not be apparent to ordinary readers, while they will all feel a great loss, in the confusion and inconvenience which the new arrangements force upon them. And if the customary arrangement is really so defective as to call for revision, why cannot the new arrangers agree as to the new arrangement? Once grant that the old arrangement must needs be altered, and I suppose we shall have as many arrangements as we have arrangers. Westcott and Hort put the Catholic Epistles before those of Paul, and Hebrews between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, with the same obvious loss, and no gain which is apparent to anybody. All this is upsetting old landmarks, and, to say the least of it, is very unwise. The old arrangement is adequate. There is no apparent gain in any of the new arrangements, and great loss in all of them, in casting away the ease and convenience of familiar ground. This is an evil which always attends the removal of old landmarks. Their removal ought therefore never to be so much as contemplated, unless there are reasons for it so compelling as to over-rule all the advantages of the convenience and stability which belong to old and familiar associations.
Conclusion: The Importance of Retaining Old Landmarks
A very interesting example of the unintentional removing of an old landmark came under my notice some years ago. I have a copy machine which was made in Japan. Not being very well able to afford a hundred dollars for a service call, I paid a hefty price for a service manual. In looking over some of the electrical schematics in this book, I frequently met with the word “earth.” This meant nothing, and only puzzled me, until I realized that this is what in English we commonly call ground. The book was doubtless first written in Japanese, and translated into English by a native of Japan, who was not familiar with English connotations, and was perhaps a little too self-confident besides. “Earth” and “ground” may bear essentially the same sense, but “ground” means something to those familiar with the terminology of electronics, while “earth” means nothing. We cannot remove the old, settled, and familiar terminology without introducing confusion. This is true in every sphere.
Every field has its own standard terms, terms which by long usage have become familiar to all, and associated with themselves a well-defined meaning. The simple mention of the term calls forth all the mental associations which belong to that term. It may call to mind historical events, or doctrines, or principles. More importantly, it will arouse suitable emotions. To replace that terminology with any other, on the pleas of accuracy or intelligibility, or any other plea whatsoever, is simply foolish.