Thoreau's Biblical Content in "Walden"

 

picture from mass.gov

 



            The Bible is a unique text. It tells the reader they either accept it as the living word of God, or they reject it: there is no middle ground. And yet, a slew of critical thinkers throughout the ages continue to pick and choose what they will accept or reject from its pages. And this essay will not attempt to prove, in a few paragraphs, whether the Bible is or isn’t divinely inspired; it will simply show how Henry David Thoreau is one of the critical thinkers who chose to utilize biblical passages as evidence to support certain pros and cons of his alternative ideology.

            Some critical thinkers attempt to retain the concept of God within the biblical text, while down playing the role of the Trinity: specifically the role of Jesus as the only begotten son of God. Ralph Waldo Emerson appears to fall into the believers of God sans Christ: the divinity of Christ. Thoreau, on the other hand, belongs to a different group of thinkers, who profess the classification of “God,” but without association to any solitary entity: seeing god in nature, in man, but not a personified character or being, simply a force with which to attribute the creative energy. And yet, while professing such a belief, Thoreau, like many alternative thinkers before and since, opted to use the Bible for both pros and cons with regard to explanations of his own contentions.

            The average individual in America cannot read Walden without noticing the text is inundated with biblical references, and an even greater number of biblical symbols. There are seven full or partial biblical passages within the first fifty pages of the book: from the use of Matthew 6:19 on page 7 to the use of John 5:8 on page 49. But then the passages cease for nearly a hundred pages, though the biblical symbols continue throughout the text. And the final eighty-plus pages see nearly double the biblical passages, twelve: from the use of Ecclesiastes 12:1 on page 141 to the final reference of Ecclesiastes 9:4 on page 219. And some of the main symbols eluded to throughout the text include the following: water as baptism, cleansing, renewal or rebirth; omnipresence in the symbol of eyes, overseeing, reflections, illumination, etc, along with the sky, birds, air, and other terms in connection to heaven or the heavenlies. There are also direct symbols, such as swaddling and Creator.

            The polarity issue brought out in class attaches itself to the biblical passages and symbols. For instance, on page 190, Thoreau proclaims “Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads;” yet, on the following page he states, “They give up their watery ghosts, like a mortal translated before his time to the thin air of heaven;” all of which contradicts another claim where he says thoughts of heaven are foolish. Likewise, on page 7, Thoreau refers to Matthew 6:19 which states the following:

                                    Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,

                                    where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where

                                    thieves break through and steal.

 

The author uses it to emphasize his belief that man labors under a mistake or misconception. He claims, “The better part of man is soon ploughed into the soil for compost.” And yet, he specifically calls the Bible “an old book,” in a demeaning fashion; and within a couple more pages Thoreau lambasts all things old, from previous generations, claiming, in fact, to have never learned anything from an elder. And yet, he continues to use that “old” book in an effort to strengthen his contentions throughout the text.

            Polarity, complexity, opposites: a person might conclude the apparent contradictions weaken Thoreau’s contentions. Another person may see it as evidence for his contentions: nature, ecology, culture, the body and soul all intertwined. And the biblical symbols and stories were solidified in the culture of his day – and still are to varying degrees – and the culture is part of the ecology in Thoreau’s contentions; thus, a part of nature, and the body and soul, and, inevitably, that makes it all acceptable to use when talking to the masses (or anyone). As long as Thoreau believes the Bible has no divine attachment it is acceptable to use as part of the culture/ecology/nature to prove any point he deems relevant. However, if he attributes any form of divinity or divine nature to the Bible, even with respect to his nature-god assumption, his contentions immediately fail: for the obvious reasons. The primary reason it would fail is that any belief that accepts a divine attribute in an intelligent Creator must assume that any Creator who can create not only living creatures but intelligent beings would have the ability to communicate with those creations in some form. Thus, with that fact established, than no other god could be the god of the Bible, except God, who is claimed in the Bible, because no other god would create or inspire the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other form of communication with its creations that would promote a false god. Therefore, any critical thinkers like Thoreau, as well as those like Emerson who claim some belief in a divine god, show by their actions that they do not truly believe in a divine or supernatural nature attached to the biblical God, or they would need to accept it as a divine word inspired by the same God. After all, there are only two other alternatives: a belief in no intelligent god, or a belief in a bumbling god that cannot communicate with its “intelligent” creations. I just find it interesting that many notable thinkers try to remove divinity from an intelligent god, or attribute divinity to a non-intelligent force. And yet, they continue to use the Bible, which professes the God they removed the divine nature from, as a means to prove the pros and cons of their beliefs.