ISIS The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029272840 Cornell University Library BS476 .133 1877 Hermeneutics of the New Testament. Trans olin 3 1924 029 272 840 ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS. W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS. Among the Andover Publications will be found choice and valuable books for intelligent readers ; also works for the special use of Theological Students and Clergy- men. The Catalogue embraces works on the Evidences and Defences of Christianity, Devotional books, Essays, in Philosophy and Theology, Church History, Discrep- ancies of the Bible, Hermeneutics, Commentaries on various books of the Old and New Testaments, Har- monies of the New Testament in Greek and in English, Grammars of the New Testament Greek, etc. Descriptive Catalogues sent free on application. Any book sent by mail or express prepaid, at the prices annexed, with special discounts to clergymen and theological students. ADDRESS W. F. DRAPER, Publisher, a ANDOVER, MASS. ANDOVEK PUBLICATIONS. W. P. DIIAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS. * Abbot Academy, History of, $2.00 *Same, illustrated, 3.00 Angel over tile Right Shoulder, .40 AppletoD, Jesse, "Works of, 2 vols, in one, 3.00 Lectures and Occasional Sermons, boards, 1.00 Augustinism and Pelagianism, 1.25 Bascom's Political Economy, 1.50 Bateman's Questions on Kuhner's Greek Grammar, .40 Buttmann's Grammar of the N. T. Greek (Thayer), 2.75 Carlyle's Latter-Day Pamphlets, 1.00 Cary's Introduction to New Testament Greek, .75 Chalybaeus's History of Speculative Philosophy, 1.50 Doederlein's Latin Synonymes, 1.25 Dorney's Contemplations and Letters, 1.00 Duff's Use of the Old Testament, paper, .25 ELLICOTT, Bishop C. J., Commentaries, viz. — Galatians, 1.25 Ephesians, 1.25 Thessalonians, 1.25 Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, 1.75 Pastoral Epistles, 1.75 The same complete in 2 vols., black cloth, 6.75 First Corinthians, (New) 2.75 Life of Christ, Hulsean Lectures, 1.50 Edwards, B. B., Writings of, with Memoir, 2 vols. 3.00 Erskinc's Internal Evidence, .50 Feuling's ®u>kv\i&ov IloCti/xa NoutfeTticdV, paper, .30 Same, translated, paper, .30 Grotius's Satisfaction of Christ, Transl. by Prof. Foster, 1.50 GARDINER, Prof. F. : Greek Harmony,- 2.50 English Harmony,- 175 Life of Our Lord (Diatessaron),- .80 Principles of Textual Criticism, cloth,- .75 Principles of Textual Criticism, paper,- .50 12 ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS. * Haley's Discrepancies of the Bible,- 12mo. $1.25 The Hereafter of Sin, 12mo. .75 The Book of Esther, New Translation, with Notes, 1.50 Harris's Kingdom of Christ, 1.50 Haven's Studies in Philosophy and Theology, 1.50 HENDERSON, E., Commentaries, viz.— Minor Prophets, 3.00 Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2.25 Ezekiel, 1.75 Hebrew-English Psalter, parallel columns, 1.00 Hill's Natural Sources of Theology, cloth, .80 „ „ „ paper, .60 Homer, W. B., Writings of (with Memoir by Prof. Park"), 1.25 Howe's Redeemer's Tears, etc., 1.00 Historical Manual of the South Church, Andover, 1.50 Hymns and Choirs. By Park, Phelps, and Purber, 1.25 Immer's Hermeneutic's of the New Testament, 1.75 Jones, A. D., Elementary Hebrew Grammar, 1.50 Kelly's Proverbs of all Nations, 1.25 Kennedy's Life of Christ (Messianic Prophecy), 1.25 Lewis. The Debate between the Church and Science, etc., 1.25 Lightfoot on Galatians, 3.00 Marsh. The Shadow of Christianity,- 1.00 McCnrdy. Aryo-Semitic Speech 8vo. 2.00 Mitchell's Principles of Hebrew Grammar, paper, .15 Monod's Discourses on St, Paul, revised, 1.00 Morrison, C. R., Proofs of Christ's Resurrection, from a Lawyer's Standpoint. Revised edition, 1.25 MURPHY, Prof. J. G}., Commentaries, viz. — Genesis, 3.00 Exodus, 2.50 Exodus, crown 8vo. 1.25 Leviticus, 2.25 Psalms, 3.50 Daniel, 16mo. 1.25 New Testament, Polymicrian, .45 Park's Discourses on some Theological Doctrines, 2.50 Perowne on the Psalms, 2 vols. 6.75 Phelps, Prof. A. The New Birth, 1.00 Ministerial Culture, paper, .10 t3 ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS. Plutarchus de Sera Numinis Vindicta, $0.60 Pond's Pastoral Theology, 1.25 Panchard's Congregationalism, 2d edition, .60 Renbelt's Person of Christ, 1.50 Riggs's Suggested Emendations of the O. TV- .75 Suggested Modifications of Revised Version of the N.T., .60 Both works in one vol., flexible cloth, 1.25 Russell's Pulpit Elocution, 1.25 Schodde. The Book of Enoch, 1.75 SHEDD, Prof. W. G. T., Works, viz.— Discourses and Essays, 1.25 Theremin's Rhetoric (Eloquence a Virtue), 1.00 Guericke's Ancient Church History, 2.75 Guericke's Modern Church History, 1.25 Augustine's Confessions, 1.25 Smith, Worthington, D.D., Sermons and Memoir, 1.25 Smyth, E. C, Value of the Study of Church History, paper, .25 STUART MOSES, Commentaries, viz.— Romans, 1.75 Hebrews, 1.75 Proverbs, 1.50 Ecclesiastes, 1.25 History and Defence of the Old Test. Canon, 1.50 Miscellanies, 1.25 Sullivan. Mediation. The Function of Thought,- 1.00 Swain's God's Ownership of the Sea, paper, .25 Taylor's Classical Study. Its Value, etc., 1.50 Taylor. A Memorial of Samuel Harvey Taylor, 1.75 Theologia Germanica, 1.25 Tyler's Theology of the Greek Poets, 1.50 Vibbert's Guide to Reading the Hebrew Text,- 1.00 WHATELY, Archbishop, Essays, viz.— Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, 1.50 Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, etc., 1.50 Historic Doubts, cloth, .40 Winer's New Testament Grammar, Thayer's translation, 4.00 Wright's Logic of Christian Evidences, 1.50 Studies in Science and Religion, 1.50 *Wonder- Working Providence, 10.00 14 HERMENEUTICS THE NEW TESTAMENT. " Intelligere scriptorem is dicendus est, qui idem quod ille dum scribehat, cogita-srit, legena cogitat." — A. Kuerten. HERMEMUTICS OE THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY DR. A.^MMER, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THB UNIVERSITY OF BERNE. (fetrslatsfr from % t&zmm bg ALBERT H. NEWMAN. %n)aabtvt WARREN F. DRAPER. MAIN STREET. 1890 /t-2#£?f C0t^iNt,LL sj \ yrccj'r \ mi UB : :A:" J Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1877, by WARREN F. DRAPER, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. AKSOVaft: l-RlOTBD BY WASfifoN ». DSASEB. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. The translation of Dr. Immer's Manual of the Her- meneutics of the New Testament is now offered to the public not as in all respects an authoritative guide in the interpretation of the New Testament, but rather as an exposition of the principles that have guided the German exegesis of the present generation, and that have done so much for the ascertaining of the exact historical sense of the sacred writings. Like the exe- gesis itself, this exposition of the principles of recent critical exegesis contains, side by side with much that is of the greatest value, much that is in the highest degree erroneous ; and as in the former, so in the latter, we must, if we would gain profit from its perusal, bring to bear upon it a sound criticism of our own. rejecting what is erroneous, while we learn from it, and accepting gratefully what commends itself to us as true. In many cases we have expressed in the notes dissent from statements in the text ; yet it is not to be inferred that we accept as our own all that is not thus expressly rejected. To have criticised all the views that are suh- ject to criticism would have required more space and more labor than could have been bestowed, a* (v) vi translator's preface. With regard to the work of translation, it has been attempted, as far as practicable, while adhering rigidly to the original, to reproduce the meaning in idiomatic English. In some instances, to avoid circumlocution, slightly Teutonic expressions have been admitted. The German language, like the Greek, possesses a number of light particles that have no precise equivalent in English, and seem sometimes better untranslated. In some instances such words have been omitted ; in most instances they have been rendered into their nearest equivalent, even when slight awkwardness was in- volved. The author frequently employs glaubig sneer- ingly to describe the conservative theologians of the present time. The designation has usually been ren- dered " orthodox." Tendenziose is a term that has become very common in Germany to describe the Tubingen criticism, and has arisen from the lengths to which theologians of this school have shown them- selves ready to go, to establish the hypothesis that the New Testament writings arose out of conflicting ten- dencies in the early church and efforts to bring about compromises between these factions. The word has been transferred in the translation under the form " tendential." The paragraph headings and the side summaries were introduced at the suggestion of Professor Thayer, and of Mr. Draper, the publisher. For this and other suggestions the translator is deeply indebted to both these gentlemen. translator's pbepacb. vii * While he has labored for correctness, the translator can hardly hope that he has absolutely avoided over- sights, to say nothing of infelicities. For the pointing out of such oversights he will, of course, be grateful. In the references given in foot-notes the object has been, for the most part, to direct the reader to trea- tises in which more conservative views than those in the text are presented. Prom the frequent reference to this work the reader cannot fail to observe the high estimate that the translator puts upon Smith's Diction- ary of the Bible, especially the greatly improved edition of Hackett and Abbot. It is a pleasure to know that Herzog's illustrious and invaluable Real-Encyklo- padie is being brought out in a greatly improved edition. The English-reading world is being over- whelmed with Commentaries. In addition to the trans- lations that have appeared and are appearing of the Commentaries of Olshausen, Tholuck, Keil and De- litzsch, Lange, Meyer, Godet, etc., the Bible (or Speak- er's) Commentary, proceeding from the highest Church of England authorities, exceedingly conservative, and in many respects very valuable, is appearing. A Com- mentary of high character on the whole of the New Testament, to be edited by President Alvah Hovey, D.D., LL.D., and to be prepared by the ablest Baptist scholars in America, is announced for publication by the American Baptist Publication Society. All this, together with the numberless individual enterprises, shows an immense activity among the English and Till Americans in biblical studies. May the time soon come when the scholars of these countries shall cease to be borrowers more than lenders. In the notes in which the names of some American scholars are mentioned it was not meant to depreciate those that are not mentioned. A number of others just as able — some who are known by their writings, some who are not thus known — might have been added in each instance. In conclusion, the book is sent forth with the hope that the truths that it contains may contribute to the progress of biblical learning in our land, and that the errors may be useful by being brought out clearly and without disguise. To combat errors successfully in their concrete form, it is highly important that we know the abstract principles on which they rest. A. H. NEWMAN. Eoohmstbb, N. T.. May 1877. PREFACE. Whether a work on New Testament Hermeneutics, such as I here offer to the scientific public., is, after so many performances of this kind, a desideratum, and whether this work corresponds to the desideratum and to the cherished expectations, others will decide. After what has been accomplished in this department since Ernesti, by Keil, Dopke, Pareau, Klausen, Lutz, Schleiermacher (ed. Liicke), Liicke himself, Davidson, and Wilke, — not to speak of Olshausen and R. Stier — a work like mine might in fact be designated as something superfluous. It might even be shown that on the principles and the methods of biblical exegesis perfect unanimity has long prevailed among all respec- table interpreters. On the other hand, I will not refer to the unnum- bered differences in the conception of many passages ; for despite all that the best hermeneutics may ever accomplish, men will never come to perfect certainty and unanimity ; but I will point to the great questions still continually in dispute, whether the so-called theo- logical or the grammatico- historical interpretation should have the precedence in the exegetical pro- fix) X PREFACE. cedure, whether in the exegetical procedure a definite theory on Scripture should or should not be made the basis. As regards the literature in this field of inquiry, the treatises of Schleiermacher and Lutz, as is well-known, are opera posthuma, and the excellent men, if they had wished to commit these works to publicity, would have found many things to be filed down, some to be expressed more clearly and unambiguously. Never- theless, the hermeneutical writings of these two men have their great value ; that of Schleiermacher is full of genial thoughts and brilliant aperqus, as is everything that proceeded from this great theologian ; that of Lutz, my never-to-be-forgotten teacher, is distinguished for phi- lological accuracy, theological depth, and practical sub- stantiality. 1 But as the former is defective in accurate proofs and in substantiality, so the latter — apart from the faultiness of form — bears in itself the coloring of its time, inasmuch as it could have regard only to the phenomena of the first four decades of the present cen- tury. The same may be said of Liicke's Hermeneutik, which took a decidedly anti-rationalistic attitude with- out being able to have regard to the opposite errors that have since come forward. 2 With Klausen the history of hermeneutics takes up so much space, that hermeneutics itself can be treated only in a sketchy 1 It gives me pleasure to have found in Diestel (Gesch. des A.T., 632) a full recognition of the work of my honored teacher. 2 This latter Liicke did accomplish to some extent at a later period in his Christmas Programme of 1853. PREFACE. XI and formal way. Finally, with reference to the two works of Wilke (" Neutestamentliche Ehetorik " and " Hermeneutik des Nenen Testamentes "), it may be said that they are both noted for rich materials and great rigor; yet the "Rhetoric" suffers from an almost hair-splitting subtlety, and the " Hermeneutics " in its doctrinal part lacks substantiality, and has entered too little upon fundamental questions. Attempting, as I now do, to supply the defects men- tioned, and to obviate the errors and distortions that have appeared in this department, especially in more recent times, and which even now lay claim to a sort of monopoly, I owe the reader an account of the prin- ciples that have guided me. The history of Scripture interpretation from the beginning down to the present day teaches that all differences in the treatment of Scripture have proceeded from different views of Scrip- ture itself, and that these may be reduced to two fun- damental aspects — the dogmatic and the historical. Proceeding now as, according to my firm conviction, we must proceed from the historical aspect, and hence regarding exegesis as in the first instance a historical- science, we do not wish to be understood as implying that in the Scriptures we have to do merely with the opinions of the Hebrews and of the early Christians, but that the eternal and saving truth itself, appearing as it does in national, temporal, and individual forms, has a, history, and that the revelation from which the Scriptures sprung, as well as the Scriptures themselves, Xii PREFACE. in their totality as in their individual parts, are a his- torical fact. To understand this fact, to think himself into the same, renouncing all traditional or subjective prepossessions, is the interpreter's task, and to make this task plain in its various aspects -was my endeavor. But if the various methods of interpretation may be referred to the various views of Scripture, these views themselves rest — as I am convinced — on the differ- ence of opinion on the question : how the religious interest is to be related to the scientific work of the interpreter. Hence, on the one hand the demand that the Scriptures be regarded as a holy book, 1 to the neglect of the historical realities that yet meet the interpreter at every step ; on the other hand, the demand that the latter moment should constitute the interpreter's essential work, and that the religious contents should either be entirely neglected or be brought forward as a mere idea of the time. It seemed justifiable to me, therefore, to devote a section to the fundamental question as to the relation of the religious to the scientific in the treatment of Scripture. But if, now, a hermeneutical treatise resting on this principal point of view is to be fruitful, it must not move on the field of mere theory, nor bring mere abstract recepta to the treatment of this or that critical or exegetical difficulty, but it must be as substantial as possible, and this not only through collecta on the lin- guistic usage of the different New Testament authors, 1 Gotterfullt — God-filled, through and through divine. — Tr. PREFACE. Xlll * such as have been made with approximate complete- ness by Wilke, but also and chiefly through practical attention to the application of the most important exe- getical rules. These examples could have been multi- plied, but I refrained from adding to them not merely with a view not to allow my book to swell to too great a bulk, but also in order to leave room for the young exegetes to apply the hermeneutical principles inde- pendently to other passages. The design to make my text-book useful even for beginners in exegesis necessitated the introduction of much that is self-intelligible to more practised theolo- gians, and to those that have made a specialty of this department. In general to students and to practical clergymen it offers much, as I hqpej that they can use, but to professional theologians very little. For the former, therefore, is my book chiefly intended. I regret that Weiffenbach's " Zukunftsgedanke Jesu," Gebhardfs " Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse," Hausrath's, continuation of his New Testament History under the title " Die Zeit der Martyrer und das nachapostolische Zeitalter," as well as Binwris " L' Antichrist," came too late to be of service in the preparation of this work. I shall be criticised, moreover, for having made so little special reference to the literature of my subject ; but it will at least be found that the clumsiness, which would thus have arisen, has been avoided. Defects and imperfections, doubtless, adhere to my work, — such as I myself recognize, but cannot now CONTENTS. Introduction, . 1 Part I. — The General Principles of Hermenewtics, 5 1. The Office of the Interpreter in General, .... 6 2. The Right View of Scripture, 12 3. The Interpretation of Scripture in General, and of the New Testament in Particular, 28 a) History of Scripture interpretation in con- nection with the present idea of Scripture, 29 P) Results from the history of exegesis for the nature and the principles of Scrip- ture interpretation, . . . .83 Review of the various exegetical methods, 83 The right exegetical stand-point, . 90 The exegetical statement, . .100 Part II— The Single Operations of the Scripture Interpreter, 104 1. The Criticism of the Text, 104 2. The Grammatical Explanation, 124 A. The Linguistic Character of the New Testament, . 124 a) The character of the New Testament language in general, 124 6) The linguistic peculiarities of the various New Testament writers, 132 xv XVI CONTENTS. 2. The Grammatical Explanation — continued. B. Helps to the Explanation, a) The internal helps, • • a) The connection, .... y3) The parallel passages, Old Testament citations, . 6) The external helps, .... a) General helps, .... fi) Special helps, C. The Exegetical Judgment, .... 8. The Logical Explanation, a) Explanation of the connection of the single thoughts among themselves, The rhetorical, .... The dialectic, .... Conjunctions, .... Participial relations, , V) Ascertaining the course of thought of an entire section, ...... c) Discovery of the intention and the fundamental thought of a section, .... a) Discovery of the fundamental thought of a parable, ..... j$) Intention of other doctrinal sections, •y) Intention of prophetical sections, . 4. The Keal-explanation, a) The physical and the geographical, 6) The historical and the chronological, c) The influence of the ideal on the historical, a) Influence of the religious popular spirit on the historical representation, . . 298 f$) Influence of the individual spirit of the author on the historical representation, 308 CONTENTS. ^TU 5. The ascertaining of the Object and the Intention of an entire Writing, 810 a) The intention of doctrinal writings, . .312 V) The intention of historical writings, . . 323 c) The intention of the Apocalypse, . . . 330 Fart III. — The Religious Understanding, • • 389 1. The Religious Interest as motive to Scripture Study, . 341 The religious interest, . . . 341 The laic understanding, . . . 345 Motive to Scripture study, . . 346 2. . The Relation of the Religious Interest to the Exegetical Work, ."349 3. The Theological Understanding (as product of Religious Interest and Scientific Labor), 360 a) The theological understanding proper, . . 3C0 b) The impartation of the theological understand- ing to others, 370 Scientific, 370 Practical, . . . ; . .872 Conclusion, 376 Appendix. — A Summary of the Leading Peculiarities of New Testament Greek Grammar, from Notes of Dr. J. A. Broadus, 378 Index of Scripture Passages treated of, 383 General Index, 385 INTRODUCTION. I. Importance of Spiritual Intercourse. The most important means of intellectual and moral progress is spiritual intercourse. Undoubtedly immediate and daily in- tercourse with other men guards us from narrowness and one- sidedness, enriches our store of ideas and thoughts, and tones down the asperities of our characters. Especially is this the case if he with whom we associate is a choice spirit. Such association may have for its object either general enrichment objects, and elevation, or only special instruction. Both are necessary, special, and the more the special instruction received passes over into our general culture, and, vice versa, the more our general cul- ture culminates in one sort of knowledge, or in one qualification, the more perfectly is the object of that enriching fulfilled. Our spiritual intercourse will consist fully as much in reading Reading. as in personal association. And, indeed, intercourse with eminent spirits of the past, and of antiquity, is very important, for the reason that we are thereby compelled to lose sight of the interests of the present, and to become absorbed in an altogether different circle of conceptions and interests. The interests of the present, indeed, have also their claims, and it is our duty to be concerned in these. But if he alone is worthy to be called cultivated who is not entirely absorbed in the in- terests of the day, but who understands remote times and interests as well, then it is a requisite of culture lovingly to associate with the great spirits of the past. This, indeed, con- Value of stitutes in general the educating value of history, that it trans- poses us into various and in part remote times, and makes us, 1 INTRODUCTION. tures. so to speak, universal men. But there is still another interest besides the general one of culture, that requires us to occupy ourselves with the spirits of the past ; many of these have exer- cised a strong influence on succeeding history, and will continue to exercise such an influence to the end of time. Think of the ,. influence of Hellenism upon our aesthetic culture, of the influ- ence of Eoman law on our views of law, and the consequent influence of importance of the sources of Eoman law. No kind of litera- the scrip- ture hag exerc ; sed so general and so efficient an influence on the Western nations as the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, and this influence is permanent. Hence the great importance of understanding these writings. 2. Difficulty of perfect Comprehension. But important as is this understanding, it is in many respects very difficult. Even in personal intercourse comprehension is occasionally imperfect; this imperfection arises now from diver- sity of individualities in general, now from obscurity of expression in particular ; and yet tone and gesture here aid comprehension not a little. Still more difficult is it for persons of different degrees and kinds of culture to understand each other ; the uneducated often fail to understand the educated because the latter have at their disposal a multitude of conceptions, thoughts, and expressions foreign to the former. So also it is of ten with great difficulty that the man of practical education and the man of liberal education understand each other perfectly, not merely because each lacks certain positive information which the other possesses, but because each is at home in a different circle of thoughts. Precise understanding also is often difficult between persons of different nationality. Here, of course, the chief difficulty is usually the language; and even if the one has learned and understands the language of the other, yet it is very seldom that he possesses it as completely as his vernacu- lar. He will often understand the other only from the point of view of his own idiom. But this is only a mediate and therefore imperfect understanding. Every linguist knows that a good translation from one language into another is no easy Diversities of culture, in degree, in kind; of nation- ality. Transla- 'ion. INTRODUCTION. 3 matter, and that many apparently equivalent words in different languages are yet not precisely identical. Take, for example, Finer the French " esprit," and the German " Geist " ; the French mauling;' " raison " and the German " Vernunft." We see this prin- ciple exemplified also in certain ideas in ecclesiastical Greek and Latin, which are indeed analogous, but which do not per- fectly coincide, as fn.vo-Trjpi.ov and sacramentum, fieravoia. and poenitentia, even irums and fides. No man has a right to claim a true understanding of a foreign idiom who is not famil- iar'with these finer distinctions ; who, in general, is not familiar with the different genius of the two languages. All these Antiquity, difficulties are multiplied when we have to do with an ancient author, since here with the differences of language and of nationality are united the differences of the time, its concep- tions and interests. We meet much, indeed, that is not foreign to us, but which, on the contrary, seems so familiar that we are tempted to transfer it in toto to the ideas of our time, or to conceive of it from our own stand-point, even when it rests upon different conditions, and stands in connection with dif- ferent conceptions. 3. Interpretation! a removing of Differences. Every interpretation, therefore, accepts as its task, to re- move the differences between us and the author. This may be Tw0 , . . , methods, done either by transferring the author into our time, language, and modes of thought, so that we let him speak and think as if he were one of us ; or by abstracting ourselves from our con- ceptions, from our modes of speech and thought, and by trans- posing ourselves into his time and his spirit. It is easy to see ^ he i de =-Uy that the latter is the true method ; yet we cannot possibly dis- pense with the former. Every translation, indeed, is a trans- ferring of the author from his own language into ours ; and not only into our language, but where it is possible into our methods of thought ; but translations aside, how otherwise can we transpose ourselves into the author and his world than in thought ? and thinking- we conduct in our own language. It Orderof era ° ° ° ° ployment. follows, that both methods must be combined, but so that we 4 INTRODUCTION. begin with the first, and continue thus only until we are in a condition to avail ourselves of the second. Yet how are we to proceed in order to remove the differences between ourselves and a given author ? Every one who has any experience in exegesis knows too that it is nowise a matter of indifference which road is taken. And since in most cases it is incumbent upon the interpreter to arrive at an understanding of the author (especially of the New Testament), not for himself only, but also for others, it is doubly necessary that he be in possession of Eiso of Her- the right method. From this need the science of Hermeneutics has arisen. Yet Hermeneutics did not then first begin to exist. Practice has always preceded theory ; just as preaching was prior to Homiletics, reasoning to Logic, poetry to Poetics, so Exegesis existed before exegetical Methodics. Every sound theory presupposes practice, and is either the abstraction from the present ideal practice, as e.g. the Poetics of Aristotle, or it is the negation, drawn from manifold errors and misconceptions, of these false methods, and the setting up of their opposites. But as practice precedes every theory, so also practice precedes all understanding and all usefulness of the theory, and accord- ingly only those can derive real benefit from Hermeneutics, wjo already possess some experience and discipline in Exegesis. PART I. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. 4. Controversy concerning Interpretation. Since Ernesti there has been much controversy as to whether Scripture is to be interpreted according to the same principles as other literature, or whether, in consideration of the fact that the Bible is a holy and inspired book, we must here proceed according to another method. In this general form the question is not to be answered. Granted that the Tne s P irit , , ^ different. spirit of the Bible is thoroughly different from that of the Greek and Roman classics, and that the former is related to the latter as the Holy Spirit to the spirit of the world, yet no one can claim that the sacred writers could express the divine thoughts any otherwise than in human language, and The that, too, in the language of their times and of the people for human, whom their writings were intended. Accordingly, the language in which the sacred authors wrote must be examined in the same way as the language of related authors. The interpreter of the Pauline Epistles, no less than the interpreter of Thu- cydides, Plato, and Demosthenes, needs, first of all, the gram- mar and the dictionary, and, as the latter, so the former, must depend upon the linguistic usage and the connection for ascer- Linguistic taining the sense in particular cases. Again, the 7 sacred writers connection lived — it may be that they were also so inspired — in certain national and historical relations ; and no less than the inter- National and his- preter of Demosthenes does the interpreter of Isaiah or of toricai reia . . . tiona. Paul require for the right understanding of his author a knowl- 1* 5 6 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. edge of the national and historical relations under which he lived. Then he must, of course, search out the peculiar spirit Order of that animated his author. It is asked, Which ought to have eequence. p rece( j ence w j^ tae interpreter, the knowledge of the spirit or the knowledge of the human and the temporal in his author? "We answer, that, although with the author the spirit and the thought were first and the human representation second, with the interpreter the human expression and the temporal repre- sentation is the first, and the spirit can only be the second Human ele- matter that he has to investigate. As regards the human merits. _ ° ° elements, he is bound by precisely the same laws as the inter- preter of a profane author, and so far the interpretation of Scripture is only a species of the genus " interpretation." But then it is indispensable to penetrate into the circle of thought Spirit of the and the spirit of the writing under consideration, hence it is in- dispensable to penetrate into the essence and spirit as well as into the external phenomena of the Bible ; and thus may be shown as well what Scripture interpretation has in common with all other interpretation as what it has that is peculiar. Divisions. Accordingly we treat, 1) of interpretation in general;' 2) of the nature of Scripture as a special object of interpre- tation, and 3) of the interpretation of Scripture and its office, how this has been discovered only gradually and after manifold experiments and failures, and how it may be most successfully protected from further errors. 1. The Office of the Interpreter in general. 5. Differences to be removed. To explain an author is, to remove the difference between Language, him and us. This difference is, a) the difference of lan- guage. To know the language of the author in its difference from our own, as well as its relationship, is the first necessary qualification of an exegete. But language, now, is partly a national possession, partly an organ which the given author manipulates in his own way, and finally modifies it according to the individual thought that is about to be expressed. But as a THE INTERPRETER'S WORK IN GENERAL. 7 national possession language has a history, and it is therefore necessary to have an insight into this history, as particularly into that stage of it to which the author belongs. But every author uses this common property in a peculiar way, the more so the more genius he possesses. This imposes upon the interpreter the duty of familiarizing himself with the special linguistic usage Linguistic of his author. Finally the expression is modified according to the individual thought, according to the object that the author has in view. Hence the importance of attending to the connec- tion. But the difference to be removed is, b) a difference Tjme and ' historical also of time and of historical relations. This imposes upon the relations. interpreter the duty of making clear these historical relations themselves, and especially the attitude of the author towards the national, political, and religious relations. The difference which the interpreter has to remove, is c) that of the Views and r ' ' conviction* views, convictions, and manner of thinking. It may well hap- pen that the interpreter entirely agrees with certain thoughts and instructions of his author, that he feels himself addressed and carried along, or that he finds therein a support for his own views. But the interpreter, at least in the first instance, Personal r , feelings to should not pay too much attention to these feelings, and in no be disre- . garded. case, if the word of the author seems to him a welcome con- firmation of his own view, must he forthwith interpret the author according to this view. The interpeter must, above all, never forget that the sense of the author is a historical fact, and that the interpretation is properly nothing else than a piece of historical inquiry. Lastly, d) the interpreter has to remove the A priori difference between the work of the author and his own view of the matter. The work of the author in its totality is just a historical fact, and is to be treated as such. In this, the more perfectly the interpreter can abstract himself from his own opinions or knowledge, and, by virtue of his historical information, can throw himself into his author and his time, the more successful will he be. The task is to understand the Fundamen- tal thoughts author according to his fundamental thoughts and according and compo- to his composition. This is the highest and most difficult office 8 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. iffinity with tlie author. Apparent contradic- tion. of Scripture interpretation. To this one attains only by degrees, ascending, in the first instance, from the understanding of the individual parts to that of the totality, and then de- scending from the aggregate impression to the individual parts, — a process that is to be several times repeated. But as only kindred spirits understand each other, so also there must be a certain affinity between the interpreter and his author, in order that the difference may be really removed, i.e. that a true understanding may be attained. He who has no poetical sense will not understand a Homer or a Pindar; he who has no philosophical spirit will not understand a Plato or an Aristotle ; just as little will a Demosthenes or a Cicero be understood by one who has no understanding for political relations and agitations. So also the New Testament is to be understood only by him who has the religious sense, and indeed religious sense of a particular kind, — who knows from experience the feeling of sin and the need of forgiveness and grace. This re- quirement, now, seems to stand in contradiction with that laid down above — that the interpreter is to regard and treat the object to be interpreted entirely as a historical fact. This ap- parent contradiction disappears when we consider that this spir- itual kinship cannot exist previously, and can only appear when the author to be interpreted is already, in a general way at least, well-known, and that this spiritual relationship works a love, which far from drawing the author to itself, resigns itself rather to the author. 6. Methods of procedure! These are only the general offices and requirements of the interpreter. But how, now, is the investigation itself to be Helps to be performed ? a) It is self-evident that it cannot be done usea.yetnot 7 7 slavishly, without helps; but never must the exegete lose himself in these, nor is he to make himself too dependent on them ; they are to be to him not sources, but mere helps. His centre of gravity must never be in anybody's commentary, but in the author himself. This independence of exegetical helps can be attained only by accustoming oneself to examine every thought of the THE INTERPRETER'S WORK IN GENERAL. 9 author first without a commentary, and by exerting oneself to the utmost to understand these thoughts. Only thus can he know why he takes counsel of his commentary, and upon what questions he seeks information. Only thus can he judge how far the exegetical help consulted really affords informa- tion. 6) Since we get at the thoughts of the author only Grammatt- through the medium of linguistic expression, and since this rests on grammatical laws, we are never to give place to in- vestigations and discussions with regard to the subject-matter, before the grammatical sense has been ascertained. The im- patience to enter immediately upon the subject-matter itself must be restrained and put under the discipline of the spirit. Exceptional cases may of course occur, where it seems that if one knew what the author means he would also know what he says. But these exceptional cases are to be regarded as such, and even there all grammatical and lexical means are to be first applied, before it is attempted to approach the author from another side. c) In general the different kinds of Order in , . mvestiga- investigations — the grammatical, the real, and the logical — tion. should not be mixed with each other. The helps sometimes give occasion to such mixing, suggesting, as they do, many questions at once. But for the fruitful study of a difficult passage it is especially important that there be order in the investigation. d) Not unfrequently one may be led away into more extended Side ques investigations on a critical, a linguistic, a historical, or archaeo- logical question. Such investigations are not to be avoided, but yet the principal matter is to be kept always as much as possible in view. In such investigations it may happen that 1 the object is not reached, but a discovery is made in another direction. Such a discovery, even if it does not just now sub- serve any purpose, is not to be let slip, because it may be of value on another occasion. e) Sometimes a light seems Flash of to flash upon a .difficult point, or we have else anticipated a plausible opinion on such a point. Such a flash of genius may, under circumstances, solve a difficulty which all our endeavors could not otherwise have solved. But the correctness of 10 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HEEMENEUTICS. such a flash must be confirmed through investigation. Every- thing will thus be summoned up in order to establish that ; and if it is established, it affords to the exegete a source of the greatest satisfaction. But this is not always the case ; and if the pre-conceived view is not confirmed, the exegete must- possess love for truth and self-denial enough to be able to part with a darling opinion. The attempt to sustain such an opin- Se^ete th9 10n at a11 hazards is not exposition but imposition. /) All single investigations must labor towards the goal of the most perfect possible understanding of the whole. Single special investigations also which offer themselves may be never so important and interesting ; to the interpreter as such they are valuable only as they contribute to the knowledge of the author and his work. On the other hand, they may serve for the enriching and clearing up of another department. 7. Exegetical impartation. Exegetical inquiry has for its principal object exegetical impartation or exhibition. This is a skill to be attained only through practice. Yet some principles and instructions are by Clear appre- no means superfluous. a) Before all things the writing to hension. L ' ° -,. „ be interpreted, or at least that part of it an understanding of which he wishes to communicate to others, must have become Arrange- as clear and transparent as possible to the exegete. /3) He must be not only in mental possession of the essential helps, but he must have so arranged them in his mind as that his exegetical apparatus may be at his disposal always, in the right Character p] ace . y) He must know the nature of the public to which ence. be is about to communicate the understanding of a writing or a passage, and what knowledge he may presuppose in it ; since if he is to impart to it something not familiar, and to be un- derstood of itself, he has, on the other hand, to give it every- thing of which he may assume that it knows either not at all or Classes. no t aright. 8) If therefore the public is a learned one, or on a level with the interpreter, he has much to presuppose that he cannot presuppose in other hearers. Does the audi- ence consist of young men just entering upon the science lie THE INTERPRETER'S WORK IN GENERAL. 11 • is to presuppose, indeed, all elementary knowledge, but yet not much that is to be presupposed in hearers of the former kind. If there the procedure may have an eye simply to the furtherance of the science, the principal aim here must be to introduce the hearers into exegetical praxis and methods. In an illiterate public, on the other hand, no knowledge, indeed, must be presupposed ; yet others than theologians will hardly have to deal with such a case, and then the object is usually the practical one of edification. 1 e) But be the audience what What to \m it may, the interpreter is to impart to it not all the work that he has gone through with, not all his special investigations, not his fruitless efforts, etc., but only that which ministers to his object. £) Just as unnecessary is it to load the explana- ^^o^. tion with the whole ballast that the exegetical helps furnish. False and perverse explanations are to be entirely set aside. A certain completeness is desirable only in very vexed and difficult places, yet even here we are to have an eye to the essential. However rich the exegetical apparatus may be, we should always see to it that the author himself is not over- whelmed thereby. 17) The explanation itself must be so ^e made" *° ordered that first the grammatical structure and the verbal transparent sense is established and that from this the interpreter may advance to the explanation of the subject-matter and to the logical explanation. The sense of the author must become to the hearer through the explanation, as it were, transparent. 6) The ideal of the explanation is this : that the hearer be led ™ e •*»! step by step, and in an inventive way, to the perfect under- standing of the author, so that he may believe, as it were, that he has found it out himself. True exegesis is a dialectic pro- cess that conducts to the object with a sort of inner necessity. It must be known not only what the right sense is, but also. why it is so. These are the principles and rules that the inter- preter of Scripture has to observe in precisely the same manner as the interpreter of the so-called profane authors. Cf. G. Hemann.i diss.ertatio de officio -interpretis, 1833. » Hence this matter, \a tie antlio^s view, wo,i#d belong more naturallj to HomUetics. — Tr. 12 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. 2. The right View of Scripture, and especially of the New Testament} 8. Radical views of Scripture. Whatever further definitions the general office of the exegete receives through its special object, the Scriptures, must result Opposite from the conception of the latter. The views that men have views. r had of Scripture have at all times exercised an essential influ- ence on the treatment and the explanation of Scripture. If the Church regarded the Scriptures as through and through an Plenary in- inspired book, and its authors as merely God's amanuenses and spiration. . . calami, to whom the Holy Spirit dictated all and everything — contents and expression ; if, accordingly, the whole Bible, from the first verse of Genesis to the last of Revelation, was re- garded as of absolute and infallible authority; so in more recent times an opposite view has come into vogue, viz. that ration" 81 "" the Bible is altogether a human book, and in just the same way a literary product of the ancient Hebrews and of the primitive Christians as the writings of the Greeks and the Romans are literary products of these peoples, and that there- The truth f re it is to be treated no otherwise than these. The truth is above both. neither on the one side nor on the other, nor indeed does it lie between the two, but rather above both, so that the one view as well as the other turns aside from the proper conception. This can only be won in a religio-historical way. 9. Idea of Revelation. Revelation. " Scripture " presupposes a revelation. But revelation is a new truth of surpassing importance, that so seized upon and filled the mind of a man that he was conscious, not of having discovered it or brought it forth himself, but of having received it from above. Such a revelation it was, when in the midst of peoples, which were given to a sensuous nature-worship, the primitive consciousness of the one God, different from the world, all-efficient and holy, was awakened with new power, — the consciousness of an " I " above all other " I's," — and this l Cf. Cell&ier, Manuel d'Hermenentique Biblique, p. 188 sqq. — Tb RIGHT VIEW OP SCRIPTURE. 13 • not as an esoteric doctrine, but as a possession designed for the whole people. Through this the descendants of Abraham An ideal became the possessors of an ideal good of infinite worth ; they were in an altogether especial sense the people of God. Yet only potentially were they so (Ex. xix. 4-6). Their task was now to become actually what they were already according to their destination, "a holy people" (Lev. xi. 43-45 ; xix. 2). This so happened that the development of the idea of the people of God was viewed as altogether the work of God, the difficulty of this development as entirely the fault of the people : in en- tire opposition to the history of other peoples, here all honor is g'ven to God alone. This viewing of God as the invisible King of the people, and of this latter as the object of his guid- ance and his discipline, could be no merely human thought ; it must, as the revelation of the invisible and yet all- efficient God, be itself, in turn, a divine revelation. A revelation, or Divine rev- - . . elation. rather a whole series of revelations, it was, when prophets found themselves called and impelled to hold up before the people its sins, to proclaim God's penal judgment, and behind this the glorious time of grace, when God would again have compas- sion upon his people, and both theocratically and morally re- store it. Thus the prophetic revelation represented the history History of ■ ,■ ■ ■-• ■, t ^ ^ ■, thepeoplea of the people as a divine guidance, as a battle of God as tutor divine guid with his stiff-necked people. To this prophetic revelation, to this speaking and struggling of God with his people, corres- ponds, with the pious Israel, a speaking with God, which as a rule could have happened no otherwise than in poetical form — whether the pious man did homage to God in the song of praise, or in still, religious satisfaction, sang of his safety under the protection of his God, or struggled in a hard battle of faith and an ardent longing for his salvation, or sought an answer to the deepest enigmas of life. So the whole history of this people struggling in the light of the revealing Spirit, — on the one hand as a dis- the people. ciplinary struggling of God with the people(see especially Hosea and Jeremiah), on the other hand as a prayerful struggling of the of the people with God, — seems prefiguratively announced & d. 2 14 GENERAL PENCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. Spirit of in Gen. xxxii. 24-32 coll. Hos. xii. 4, 5. This Holy Spirit of revelation. . . , revelation, ruling over and in the people Israel, is tne presup- position of all holy Scripture. 9. Revelation not necessarily written. In such divine revelation is involved no necessity, indeed, of written records. Eevektion is revelation altogether indepen- Soripture dently of its literary fixing. In general it does not belong to theocracy, the idea of revelation to be written ; but it does belong to the essence of the theocracy. The most fundamental document for and in Israel is the two tables of the law, written at the first The law. constitution of the people of God. Of no other document, as of this, is it said, it was written with the finger of God (Ex. xxxi. 18 — xxxii. 16). If later still many laws were added, — and "the book of the law" is already in the Pentateuch many times mentioned, — these laws ministered less to the object of revelation, and in a higher degree to the unique object of the theocracy. To the theocratic interest even the oldest historical records (Ex. xvii. 14; Num. xxxiii. 2 ff.) already ministered. Revelation In the prophetic revelation it is perfectlv clear that it was recorded for . . " , posterity, written down not so much because it was revelation, as because it was to be a testimony for the following generations. The commands of God to the prophets to record the revelations they received had no other object (so Isa. viii. 1 6 ; Hab. ii. 2, 3 ; Jer. xxxvi. 2, 3 coll. 32). If, then, whole collections of prophecies were recorded — nay, if such as the visions of Eze- kiel and the utterances of the Babylonian Isaiah from the time of the Exile were, as is probable, only written — the reason Poetry. of this lay simply in the circumstances of the times. It was otherwise with the writing down of songs and other poetical pieces. These were understood to be not so much revelations as effusions or products of meditation on divine and human affairs. So then, revelation proper, in which the individual receiving was seized and held by the higher truth, at the time Oral utter- of its bIoomm g was not confined to writing, but writing was the mitten subordinated t0 revelation. Inspiration had to do much more word. with the oral utterance than with the written document, and EIGHT VIEW OP SCRIPTURE. 15 • the form in which the songs were set forth was singing and music ; a form which was also in part regarded as a gift of ^"l? ! S*ft God, but which for us is entirely lost. It is self-evident that the divine suggestion which had to do first of all with the oral word, and only in a derivative way with the writing, came by no means equally to all the discourses and to every writing. In the time of the Exile, and in the succeeding time, Scrip- Purees of 1 to ' * inspiration ture, as Scripture, received a greater and greater importance ; since the restoration of the theocracy was attended by a greater legality, and in the place of free, inspired prophecy, by little and little, biblical learning made its appearance. There can Biblical be no doubt but that this increasing exaltation of Scripture, as such, betokened, not the flourishing life, but rather the decay of the higher spirit in the nation. 10. Scripture Idolization and the Theocracy, But for precisely the maintenance of the theocracy this idol- izing of Scripture was of incalculable importance. Upon the productive time followed, as ever, a conservative. Yet where, Conserva- .,,-,. ..... . tive time. in a time given to scribbling, were to be the limits ; and what was to be the criterion for the inviolability of these limits ? Already the author of the Koheleth laments that of making many books there is no end (Eccl. xii. 12). It would doubt- less be a false presupposition if we should assume that they were immediately clearly conscious of such a criterion, and that an accurate separation was instituted from the beginning. The The Canon 1 to & longindef- prologue of " The Son of Sirach " shows us clearly enough the inite. indefiniteness of these limits. As is well known, the Alexan- drine Jews had a more extensive collection than the Palestinian. It is worth while to inquire which books the New Testament authors quote, and which not ; which they quote frequently, and which only seldom. The standard designation, as is well known, for the collection of the books of the Old Testament was the expression, 6 vo/^os /cat ot Trpo(j>yJTai, or 6 vo/aos, ol Trpo- (prjrai, kou ot \j/d\ft,oi. The various values which, at the time of Estimate of Jesus and the Apostles, were ascribed to individual books of the apostlea the Old Testament, is shown from the circumstance that the 16 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENETTTICS. Pentateuch, Isaiah, and the Psalms are cited most frequently of all ; certain canonical books, as Proverbs and Job, relatively seldom ; the Song of Solomon, the Book of Esther, and the Chronicles very seldom ; the Books of Kings, on the other hand, are cited pretty frequently, the Books of Ezra, Nehemiab, and Allusion to Ecclesiastes not at all. On the other hand, allusion is made uncanomcal ■ i i, 1 books. here and there, though very seldom, to uncanomcal books, as the Book of Tobias, 2 Maccabees, and perhaps also to the Book of Wisdom. The Epistle of Jude, indeed, refers even to the pseudepigraphic book, Enoch. All this is clear proof that the limits between sacred books and those not sacred Josephus's was not yet so firmly established as later. Josephus, in the enumera- well _ known p assage ( c . Apion. I. 8), 'enumerates twenty-two sacred books of the Hebrews, and then adds that since the time of Artaxerxes books have been written on all hands, but have not been considered trustworthy, 8ia to jtiij yeveuOai -rqv A temporal T Ssv Trpotfyqruyv aKpifirj SiaSd^v. This temporal limit, viz. the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, agrees not ill with that where the expiration of prophecy is usually assumed ; but the ground which Josephus adduces for the meaner authority of these Tradition, later writings is put not in inspiration, but in tradition. On the details, as well as on the history of the text, the Introduc- tions to the Old Testament are to be compared [De Wette, Bleek, Keil, Davidson]. II. The New Testament and Revelation. Now with regard to the writings of the New Testament, these likewise presuppose a revelation. This revelation is the mani- The God- festation of the God-man, i.e. of a man who is not separated man. from God, but united with God, and who has opened up the possibility and the actuality of a union of man with God. The relation of man to God is to be no mere judicial relation ; it is to be, and may be, a relation of love. And because man is destined to become united with God and a child of God, a Respect for respect for man, an estimation of man, is also here disclosed, as in no other religion and in no ancient philosophy. In one word — over against the Old Testament servant of God — the EIGHT VIEW OF SCRIPTURE. 17 son of God is here revealed. Over against the inseparable unity of the kingdom of God and the Israelitish people, of the blessing of God and earthly prosperity, a kingdom of God is A kingdom revealed which is just for the poor and the oppressed ; a king- dom of God independent of worldly power and earthly pros- perity ; a kingdom of God in which the contradiction between merit and fate reaches its culmination, but is precisely through this means overcome. And not only were Christ's life, words, and acts a revelation, but also his death. In this, to the 9 hr A st ' s - ' death an in- receptive mind, on the one hand, was made known the world's cents™ to 1 m repentance. guilt and enmity to God, and an incentive given to repentance which no doctrine and no law could ever have given ; on the other hand, a resignation and a suffering which, by the faithful mind, could only be viewed as the fulfilment of the deepest Old Testament idea (Isa. liii.j, i.e. as a suffering and dying for us. Nay, as from this death went forth a life, from this Yi S^l° ua fall a new power, a genuine victory, so to the enlightened eye, not only his own destination to resurrection and to life was revealed, but also the mystery of the world became clear, that truth in general appears in the form of a servant, and that it must mount to life and to victory through suffering and humilia- tion. Such ideas as " never have entered into the heart of man" are manifest in Christ and through Christ, and have become the impulse to a new moving of spirits, to a new civ- Love, ilization, whose principle is love (2 Cor. v. 17). 12. Mediateness of New Testament Revelation. Upon this revelation rest the writings of the New Testament, yet' by no means immediately. Still less than to the essence of the Old Testament revelation does it belong to the essence of the New Testament revelation that it be written. It is Writing significant already that Christ himself neither wrote nor by Christ; directed others to write. Nay, so definitely is his image im- pressed upon our souls that we can scarcely think of him as writing. Even by his immediate disciples, even by his earliest hy his church, writing- was neglected 1 precisely because to them his 1 This is perhaps a groundless assumption, and is at variance with the 2* 18 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. words and deeds, because to them his life and death, were so freshly and vividly in remembrance. The motive which the prophets of the Old Covenant had to record their prophecies and to seal them as a witness for future generations, must moreover have failed them, believing, as they did, that they Idea of the we re living in the last time, and expecting the Parousia soon arousia. ^ arr j v e. When, indeed, the Apostles went forth to proclaim abroad the gospel of Christ, oral K-qpvyfia was the medium of their missionary activity ; oral preaching it was through which Christian churches were established. Nothing is more certain The Epistles than that the Apostolic Epistles were written, not in order to confirma- A L tory. found churches, but to confirm them in Christian faith and life, as the writers often refer in their Epistles to personal and oral activity among the readers (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 1-12 ; 2 Thess. iii. 10 ; Gal. iv. 13-15 ; 1 Cor. ii. 1-5 ; iii. 1 sqq.). Not until the Apostle to the Gentiles had founded churches in various and remote regions did the need arise of letters of exhortation for the confirming of the churches in the faith. But important as these Epistles must have been, alike for the Apostle himself and for his readers, Paul was convinced, nevertheless, that the New Covenant and the office in the gospel are not a covenant The letter and office of the letter, but of the spirit (2 Cor. iii. 6 sqq.). If Bpirit! 16 we view the Epistles of the Apostle -from the stand-point of their time, as we should, we shall find in them, side by side with many great, profound, and imperishable thoughts, some Rabbinical which are due simply to his Rabbinical culture. We reckon among these principally the now literal, now allegorizing, ex- Fallibility, planation of Old Testament passages. We find that he by no means claims for himself infallibility, but distinguishes between his own opinion in certain things and the word of the Lord (1 Cor. vii. 25, 40) ; l that he now and then lost his temper ; that a lapsus memoriae could befall him (1 Cor. i. 14-16) ; best results of modern science. Cf. Dissertations in Godet's Commentaries on Luke and John; per contra, Westcott, Intr. Ch. iii. sub fin. — Tn. 1 The fact that the Apostle thus distinguishes on one or two occasions has been regarded as an implied claim of infallibility for the rest of hi« writings. Cf. Stanley, Commentary in loco. — Tb. EIGHT VIEW OP SCEIPTUBE. 19 that dogmatic correctness in the later ecclesiastical sense is not to be thought of in him (cf. 1 Cor iii. 23 ; viii. 5 ; xi. 3). As regards the form, we feel, of course, the overpowering tonent of his discourse and the power of his inspiration ; but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that many Hebraistic expressions and turns occur, many defective propositions, and, in general, that his Greek is very far from classic purity. If these Defects of J . s 'yte and Apostolic letters of exhortation ministered immediately to the language. need of the churches, and arose directly from the relation of the Apostle to them, the Gospels, which certainly arose some- TaeGospeis. what later, ministered to a mediate and a more far-seeing need. Gradually were the immediate witnesses passing from the stage, and with them the immediate and faithful remembrance of the words, deeds, and fate of the Lord threatened to be extinguished. Then there appeared a gospel literature, in part, as it seems, by uncalled men ; and from this gospel literature arose, first, a Gospel which sprung from the Aoyia of Matthew ; next, one which seems to have arisen under the authority of Peter ; finally, one which was designed for a Christian of note in Italy and which sought to combine Pauline views with the greatest possible completeness. At a later period, in the out- side limits of the Apostolic age, arose a fourth Gospel which takes a higher stand-point above Judaism and Paulinism, and aims to raise jncras to yvwo-is. 1 These Gospels afford irrefragable Differences proof that at the time of their writing, differences in the his- torical tradition had already arisen, and that the different views and reflections of the Evangelists had likewise an influence on the representation. This is especially the case with the fourth Gospel. Yet even earlier pressing conflicts of the Christian churches with the heathen peoples, yes, even with the heathen magistrates, had set in ; Christians passed here and there as a ^S^" 8 despised sect ; the Apostles must exhort them to patience an * perse- (cf. Jas. and 1 Pet.). But the cruel Neronian persecution had also broken out, which appeared to the faithful to be i On this whole subject of the rise of the Gospels, see the dissertations in GoiJet's excellent commentaries on Luke and on John. — Tb. 20 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTICS. the beginning of a decisive battle between God and the world, between Christ and the adversary ; in this agitation, moreover, something of the old prophetic spirit, nourished chiefly by images from Daniel, beamed forth anew. Thus arose the Apocalypse. Johannean Apocalypse, as encouragement in calamities, as ex- hortation to steadfastness in the expectation of the early coming of the Lord. No New Testament author, as the Apocalyptic, has added to his book the threat, " If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life," — a threat which was a stumbling- block to Luther, and which can be explained only from the excited tone of this book. 13. Uncanonical Christian Writings. The first Christian century witnessed the rise of many writings : gospels, pre-eminently apocalypses, but also histories of apostles and epistles or tractates, mostly pseudepigraphs, Maroion's that gained acceptance only in single heretical parties. By " ' the middle of the second century Marcion had a canonical col- lection, consisting of one Gospel and ten Pauline Epistles, and, by about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, most of the writings which we possess in our New N.T. Canon. Testament Canon had already attained to a canonical authority (cf. Fragm. Muratori, Peschito, Citations in Iranaeus). Only with reference to the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the two small Epistles of John, the Epistle to the Doubtful Hebrews, and the Apocalypse did doubt still exist, and so, books. indeed, that in the Eastern church the Apocalypse, and in the Western the Epistle to the Hebrews, were especially disputed. On the other hand, in the first centuries there was a disposition here and there to adjudge canonical authority to the Epistle of Barnabas, Barnabas and to the first Epistle of Clement as also to the and Her- Shepherd of Hernias. (The first and a fragment of the second Epistle of Clement are appended to the Cod. Alexandr., the Ep. of Barnabas and the Pastor Herm. to the Cod. Sinait. Origen RIGHT VIEW OP SCRIPTURE. 21 mentions the latter book with great respect. Tertullian, per contra). The doubts with reference to second Peter, second and third John, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse continued into the fourth century ; on the other hand, the " Shepherd " and the Epistle of Barnabas are already regarded as voOoi (Euse- bius, H. E. III. 25). From these facts it is manifest that a , long time passed before the limits between sacred books and I those not sacred was established. But what now were the Criteria of criteria according to which some books were recognized as sacred and others not ? In the case of second Peter it was, without doubt, because its genuineness was doubtful ; in the case of second and third John it was the smallness of their compass and the unimportance of their contents. It is more difficult to see why the Western church struggled so much against the recognition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It could not have been the contents, at least not the passage that has been appealed to, vi. 4-6, since neither Tertullian nor Novatian, who yet had abundant cause to appeal to this passage, makes any use of it. It may therefore have been affected rather by the fact that the Epistle was not regarded as a work of the Apostle Paul, to which, perhaps, the observation of Origen (in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 25) contributed something. Genuineness and canonicity Genuine- ' b J ness and do not seem to have been discriminated. The case was dif- canonicity, ferent with the Apocalypse, since this enjoyed the earliest recognition ; Justin Martyr quotes it ; Irenaeus makes distin- guished mention of it, and Origen speaks of it as a holy book. First, in consequence of the Chiliastic agitation (Nepos), the Eastern church became estranged from the book. Here, there- internal ~ character, fore, it was the contents and character of the book that occa- sioned the aversion of the Orientals towards it. If some hesitated to admit the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to Philemon into the Canon, it was for the reason that they are private Epistles. This ground was urged especially against the Epistle to Philemon, and was accompanied, indeed, by the observation : non semper Apostolum omnia Christo in se loquente dixisse. (See Jerome, Comment, in Ep. ad Philemon, in 22 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. Gospel of John. Apostoli- city and congenial contents. Ecclesiasti- cal conser- vatism. praef.) In order to attain to as complete a view as possible of the grounds of the acceptance or the non-acceptance of certain books, still another book must be considered, which was never objected to by the ancient church, the Gospel of John. It is well known how sharp-sighted the ancient church was for everything heretical, and how mistrustful of everything that seemed to lend a support in any way to the heretics ; but the Johannic Gospel found acceptance and authority first among the followers of the Valentinian Gnosticism, the Valentinian Heracleon, indeed, having written a commentary on the book (cf. Orig. Tom. in Job., opp. IV. 220, 234) ; nevertheless, from the close of the second century onwards this Gospel had author- ity in the church as a genuine and canonical book. What was it, now, that overcame the scruples that might have been enter- tained against this writing on account of its Gnostic contents and use ? Was it the conviction of the Apostolic authorship of this writing ? Was it the lofty and, to the Christian con- sciousness, so congenial contents ? Probably both together. So much we gather from it all, that the judgment of the ancient church on the canonicity and the non-canonicity of individual books rested not on strict critical principles, but on a general, and for the most part tolerably correct, feeling. But what, now, were the grounds on which, in the fourth century, second Peter, second and third John, and Jude, furthermore the so-called Pastoral Epistles, together with the Epistle to Philemon, the Epistle to the Hebrews, as a writing of the Apostle Paul, and, finally, the Apocalypse, were altogether pronounced to be can- onical writings ? Was it, indeed, discovered after the time of Eusebius that second Peter is genuine ; that the Epistle to the Hebrews, everything to the contrary notwithstanding, is a work of the Apostle Paul; that the Apocalypse, although Chili- astic, has a right to a place in the sacred collection ? By no means ; but it was the ecclesiastical conservatism, combined with the need of a many-sided ecclesiastical constitution, that pro- cured for these waitings acceptance into the canon. (Cf. Cyrill. Hierosol. ncpl run/ 0«W ypa5>v, Athan. Ep. fest. 365. — Can. EIGHT VIEW OP SCRIPTURE. 23 # 60 of the Council of Laodicaea, Can. 36 of the Council of Hippo, etc.) "With the canonicity ascribed to the sacred boc ks was naturally joined their inspiration (cf. e.g. Cyrill. Hierosol., as above : Ik irvevfrnToi dytov rj tu>v d.yi(a irvevjaari XaXrjOei- trSiV 6tiu>v ypa^imv ipfL-qvela oweTeAcii-o) . Yet, at first, inspira- tion was ascribed only to the Old Testament writings ; not until a later period, especially after the uniting of the New Testament into a sacred collection, was inspiration likewise extended to it. 14. Corruptions of the Text. A proof how little the Apostles dreamed that their writings, after centuries, would be honored as sacred books, is the cir- cumstance that the autographs of the New Testament authors Autographs ° L soon lost. were lost so early that even the most ancient Fathers betray no knowledge of them ; whether it be that they were written on very perishable material, or that the first Christian genera- tions attached no special value to them. Not the form, the original, but the contents was to them the important thing. But if only they, or yet the oldest transcripts, had been so written as to have left no room for misunderstanding ! But, as is well known, the ancients wrote in the scriptio continua, Scriptio and — although in the schools of the grammarians the marks of punctuation were known — without punctuation, without breathings, and without iota subscript, which latter, indeed, was not in general applied in the Uncial writing. Hence many uncertainties and differences among the old Fathers as to how a sentence should be read and how it should be connected. (Cf. e.g. John i. 3, 9; Romans vii. 11 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 33.) If, then, in the fifth century stichometry was introduced by Euthalius stichome- of Alexandria, if later the stichoi were separated by points, this can, of course, prove nothing as to the divisions which the New Testament authors themselves had in mind. The same holds true with reference to the greater divisions (KetpdXaia), which appeared as early as the second century, and of which Matthew contains 355, Mark 234, Luke 342, and John 231. At all events our present system of inter-punction is of very 24 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HEBMENEUTICS. Chapters^ i ate origin, and dates from the sixteenth century ; our division into chapters proceeds from Cardinal Hugo of St. Caro (t 1263), and our present division into verses, from Eob. Stephanus (1551). But not only in the external form did the text of the New Testament afford many an uncertainty, but also in its inner nature. That in the process of copying, mistakes could slip in, is self-evident to every unprejudiced mind. But not only accidental, but also deliberate, alterations of the text came in — most frequently and most freely of all in the first centuries, when men did not dream that with the sacred text Classes of every word is of importance. What was offensive or con- corruptions. J . tradictory was obviated ; faults of language were corrected ; expressions and thoughts that seemed not sufficiently favorable to orthodoxy were made more so ; in a liturgical interest, e.g. doxologies were added; from tradition, still vivid, additions were made, as John vii. 53-viii. 11 ; v. 4; Mark xvi. 9 to the end ; so also in the interest of orthodoxy passages like 1 John v. 7, were interpolated. Such additions were at first merely written in the margin, and not until a later period were they incorporated into the text itself. If we consider all the cir- cumstances through which the biblical text suffered alteration, Uncertainty jt might well seem as if we were left in total uncertainty as to as to the ° J original. the original, and as if we must renounce any possibility of arriving at the bottom of the matter, especially when we remem- ber that even in Griesbach's time thirty thousand variations had already been counted. The orthodoxy of the seventeenth century contented itself with denying the facts of the case; maintaining that the divine Providence could not have per- mitted the word of God to be changed or adulterated. Such an assertion has, at the present day, when the weight of un- deniable facts speaks out, become an impossibility ; and ortho- doxy, to be consistent, must turn around and say : the divine Providence not having attended to the unadulterated preserva- tion of the biblical text, has shown that it did not intend to bind the saving truth in the biblical letters. Notwithstanding this, it must still be very important for us, in the theological EIGHT VIEW OP SCRIPTURE. 25 * interest, to press through this forest of variations, and to ascer- tain the original condition of the text with the greatest possible probability. But this is not impossible ; and to this textual criticism, practised according to correct principles, leads. 15. Results for a Conception of Scripture. But what results from what has been said for a conception of Scripture, as a foundation for a sound and thorough ex- egesis? 1) The Scriptures proceed from a previous reve- Dependence Jation. By revelation we understand not only such truths as t 1 ™- Ae receiver, correctly or incorrectly, regards as supernatural ; but rather partly such thoughts as in the life of the individual or of the people are ideal new creations, and partly such events as, full of ideal worth, produce an enlightening and inspiring effect ; in one word, ideas that are facts — facts that are ideas. Of such is the Bible composed, therefore it is the holy Scripture, the book of books. The difference between the writings of the Old and New Testament and other books is not only, and not chiefly, that the spirit of the former is related to the spirit of the latter as the general to the spe- cial ; still less as the educated spirit to the uneducated, but as the new man to the old ; as one that gives all honor to God, that seeks and finds perfect satisfaction in communion with God alone. 2) Yet we are to distinguish, indeed, between Revelation revelation and the record of revelation, or holy Scripture. In record of revelation man sustains always a receptive relation — hearing (1 Sam. iii. 10), or beholding (Isa. vi. 1 sqq.). In the com- munication (oral or written), he sustains an active relation. The more immediately the revelation has promulgation in view (as Num. xxiii. 12-xxiv. 4 ; Amos iii. 7, 8 ; Acts iv. 20 ; 2 Cor. iv. 6), the more the word of promulgation is itself a revelation. But this is not always the case as, e.g. in the writing of history, where the revelation has passed through tradition, and the author relates what has been handed down ; or in reflection, when the revelation is mediated through the national and tem- poral view and through the individual thinking. This accom- Accommo- modation is found far more in written than in oral discourse. In 26 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENETJTICS. the Scriptures are found all shades, from the most immediate effusion to the most mediate tradition and human reflection. Author not 3) The biblical author, as the organ of revelation, is, therefore, gan. never merely and purely an organ ; but as he is rooted in his national and temporal views and interests, so also he is con- cerned, both actively and passively, in his common and individual interests ; but while, without being entirely destitute of the revealing Spirit, so much human limitation and impurity may adhere to the author, yet he stands always passively or actively, consciously or unconsciously, under the influence of this Spirit. That divine and eternal, and this human and temporal, are so blended in Scripture that the divine receives through the human its coloring and bodily form, the human through the divine, its sanction. Thus, then, the discrimination between Scrip tura sacra and Verbum Dei is just as proper as the sep- Eeiation of oration of the two is inadmissible. a) The relation of the the Is ew ' Test, to the New Testament to the Old is in part a relation of unitv, in Old Test. . L •" part a relation of diversity. The unity consists not only in the idea of the one almighty and holy God, but also in the idea (more limited or more spiritural) of a people of God as the object of his revelations and guidance, as also of the mutual relation of promise and fulfilment. The difference consists partly in the spiritualizing of the divine law into love, and in the realization of love to God in love to man ; partly in the discrimination and the separation of the kingdom of God from worldly powers and conditions, and in the elevation of mar- tyrdom to the highest dignity ; but, in general, in the revelation of the relation of sonship, first of all in the person of Jesns, but then also in the faithful. In some New Testament writings the unity with the Old Testament, in others the difference individual- from it, is made more prominent. b) But besides this the lzatiou in . . ' the New spirit of the New Testament becomes individualized to such lest. an extent, that not only do Paul and James, but also John and Peter, differ among themselves, but also from both the others, and even in Paulinism unmistakable shades of opinion occur. Even between earlier and later Epistles the difference is EIGHT VIEW OP SCRIPTURE. 27 observable, that in the latter the progress from irums to yvUxTK, from the simpler to the more elaborate ecclesiastical constitution, is manifest. 1 Hence it follows that the spirit of the New Testament, in general the spirit of revelation, is not a statical, but a developing spirit. c) It is, furthermore, undeniable Mode of tb« r " r J rise of New that the New Testament writings arose, not as a result of a Test, writ- special divine commission, but as they were called forth by the conditions and needs of the churches. If a divine commission is here to be spoken of, it consists in the apostolic longing for the spiritual welfare of the churches ; cf. especially, Rom. i. 9-12 ; 1 Cor. i. 10 sqq, ; xv. 1-3 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ; vii. 5 sqq. ; Gal. i. 6, 7 ; iv. 12 sqq. ; John xix. 35 ; xx. 31 ; 1 John i. 1-4 ; ii. 1, 26; iv. 1 ; v. 13. d) No careful reader can have failed to observe that the authors of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are dependent, at least partially, on tradition, and that apostolic men often in their letters make use of such Scriptural arguments for the confirmation of the truth as from New Test. . -. writers de- the point of view of an accurate exegesis will not stand the pendent on test, as also of such rational grounds as would now seem scarcely tenable; so, e.g. Gal. iii. 15 sqq. ; iv. 21-31 ; 1 Cor. xi. 1-15 ; xv. 29 sqq. ; Eom. iv. 20-25 ; vii. 1-6, and other passages. As here the Apostle is frequently dependent on his rabbinical education, so, not seldom, he allows himself in bursts ^ of indignation ; as, especially, in Galatians and in second Corinth- ians. These are human elements which mar, indeed, the purity of the divine truths, but, at the same time, show us by so much the more clearly the Apostle in his historical embodiment. e) Although the New Testament authors — even the author of the Apocalypse — never dreamed that they were writing holy Scriptures for remote centuries, yet their writings became such, as the result of a necessary ecclesiastical development. Eeolesiasti- " . . , cal develop Not, indeed, that no Christian church could have maintained ment. an existence without a firm canon of sacred writings ; yet the need of a stable authority, which the church connects with its l This difference is doubtless attributable in part to different degrees of culture on the part of the readers. (Cf. Galatians with Ephesians.)— Tr. 28 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTICS. divine origin, was, and is, the consequence of ecclesiastical unification and fortification. "What proceeded from the fulness of the consciousness of the revelation of salvation in Christ, Icequaiity has, for all times, a refreshing and sanctifying power. jQ As in the first centuries of the Christian church equal value was not attached to all the New Testament writings, so it must.be permitted to us also to esteem them unequally. Nay, we have a right to go beyond the judgment of the ancient church, knowing as we do, that it could not yet have proceeded ac- cording to firm principles and deep insight, and that to us, who are in possession of these requisites, it is permitted to subject as well their, favorable judgments as their doubts to a thorough Need of tex- test. g) Still more pressing must, we regard, the need of cism. textual criticism ; for, since through the corruptions and varia- tions of the text, the basis from which the exegetical explana- tion has to proceed is made uncertain, textual criticism must , form the foundation of interpretation. Yet here, in a thousand cases, only a probability, not a certainty, is reached. h) Through all the human elements of national and temporal con- ceptions and modes of thought, through the undeniably very different value and merit of the individual parts of • Scripture, through the unclassical language, and through all the uncer- tainties and corruptions of the text, beams clearly and unmis- Divine con- takably the unparalleled and divine contents of the New Tes- tament. Little as we are to be blind to these things ; much as we are to bestow our full attention on these, as the body in which this divine soul dwells, we are just as little to turn away from the soul of this body, the divine contents, because it is given to us in the form of a servant. 3. The Interpretation of Scripture, and of the New Testament in particular. 16. Impartiality the Result of Conflict. What has been said of the nature of Scripture, and of the New Testament in particular, may be regarded as a sure ac- quisition of theology, and as the property of all theologians of HISTORY OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 29 the present. But this acquisition is the record of a hard two- hundred-years battle ; nay, we see the forerunners of it even in the fourth and fifth centuries; Even the age of the Refor- mation, for reasons easy to understand, was not yet able to attain to complete impartiality. It was necessary rather that Necessity of r r _ ' J extremes, there should be first a one-sided and unnatural deification and ossification, then just as one-sided and shallow a humanization,; and finally a battle between the two, before the true impartiality and thoroughness of the view of Scripture could be wrought out. All these various conceptions exercised their influence on Scripture interpretation, and are reflected therein. It is there- fore instructive to recognize in the history of Scripture inter- pretation the distortions and errors, as also the so often fruitless efforts for something better ; but, especially, the battle between 1 the sound sense and a consecrated tradition, or " orthodoxy," falsely so called, and from the long course of error to extract the truth. This seems By so much the less superfluous, that even at the present day the sound and correct view is not altogether unattacked and free from detraction. a) History of Scripture Interpretation in connection with the present idea of Scripture} 17. The Allegorical Interpretation. Interpretation takes its rise whenever there arises an opposi- tion that needs to be reconciled between the spirit of Scripture and the spirit of the time. The first and most distinct ap- pearance of such an opposition was with the Jews of Alexandria, -fiexan- r 1 L J ' dime Jewi of whom Philo must be regarded as the representative. The unconditional veneration of the Old Testament Scriptures on the one hand, and the influence of the Hellenistic and especially of the Platonic culture on the other, could not but bring about a breach, to be composed only through the allegorical interpreta- tion of Scripture. The naivete 1 with which the Old Testament 6peaks of God, the downright realism of many Old Testament ideas and expressions, stood in direct antagonism to the idealistic 1 Cf. Celterier, pp. 7-30; 0. W. Meyer, Gesch. d. Schrifterlriarnng.— Tit. 30 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTIOS. If "thecal tnou g nt of tne current culture. The allegorical interpretation oc- Test. cupied itself with the idealizing of the Old Testament expressions and conceptions, especially with the removal of the anthropomor- phic and the anthropopathic, with the reduction of theophanies and other contacts of God with men to mediating powers. Although Philo bowed to a rigid idea of inspiration, and although he did not deny the historical nature of the Old Testament narratives and persons, these are yet to him little more than pictures (rpoTroi) of the soul. Adam becomes with him the avOpanros yijycFiJs or Xoikos ; Cain is self-seeking ; Abel, devotion to God ; Noah is the picture of righteousness ; Abraham is the symbol of a soul grown wise through discipline ; Isaac the picture of a soul wise by nature ; Jacob of a soul grown wise through practice ; Moses, finally, is called 6 Xoyos TrpocprJTr]?. Egypt, according to Philo, is the emblem of the body ; Canaan of piety ; the wandering of Abraham from Chaldaea denotes his conversion from the worship of the stars to God, etc. Yet Philo regards the allegory only as an esoteric doctrine, which is not for carnal, but for spiritual men. But the allegorical and typical treat- ment of the Old Testament was also in vogue among the Palestinian Palestinian Jews, here less in the interest of an idealizing Jews. ° philosophy, although the purism of the idea of God had even here dislodged the old anthropomorphic conceptions. Side by side with the allegorical and typical interpretation a literal interpretation was also in vogue ; a pressing of single sentences and words without reference to the original sense — a result of the legalistic method of thought. 18. Allegorizing of the New Testament Writers- It was this method also that the New Testament writers, Paul's aiie- especially the rabbinically educated Paul, practised. With them allegorizing and typologizing arose not from the need of reconciling the sacred word with the philosophy of the time, but from the relation of the former to Christ and to Christian truth. The arguments from Scripture which they frequently employ along with rational arguments are, in part, passages that are adduced merely with reference to the language, and HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 31 as may suit the writer's convenience from the most various places of the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul, to prove s J?e°imens that the true sons of Abraham are not slaves, but free children legorizing. of God, refers the two wives of Abraham to the old and new covenants (Gal. iv. 22 sqq.). In the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea he finds an allusion to Christian baptism, and in the eating of the manna an allusion to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. x. 1-3). The rock from which Moses caused the water to flow is to him a picture of Christ (1 Cor. x. 4). The collective singular, cnrcp/xa (Gen. xxii. 18), Paul presses to prove that thereby only the one Christ can be meant (Gal. iii. 16). 1 The deluge from which the sons of Noah were saved by the ark, Peter so applies as to make the water of the and'th'e au- flood a symbol of baptism, where the Sid, through a play upon * h0 £ of He - the word, is used in the local sense, " through," as well as in the instrumental sense, "by means of" (1 Pet. iii. 20). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews make much use of the allegory and the type, in which respect the Epistle of Barnabas goes, to be sure, still farther. 19. The Alexandrian School. Accordingly, when Christianity had extended itself to Alex- andria, and had established there a catechetical school, the need must have been felt in a high degree of accommodating Christi- anity and the Old Testament, which was still ever regarded as the source of knowledge and the source of proof for Christianity, Christianity with the culture of the time, especially with the Platonic nism. philosophy. The allegorical interpretation could not fail to come thus into great prominence. According to Clement the verbal sense is merely for elementary faith, the allegorical sense alone leads to the gnosis. In justification of the employ- ment of the allegory, the propriety of which seems still to have been questioned by many, he appeals to Ps. lxxviii. 2 ; 1 Cor. ii. 6, and other passages. But the chief allegorist of the Christian church is Origen. This great teacher devoted the Origen, greater part of his life to the critical and exegetical study of the 1 See EUicott and Lightfoot, Comm., in loco. — Tb. 32 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTICS. Scriptures. Of his critical labors his works, the Hexapla and the Tetrapla (portions of which, to be sure, are lost), furnish proof. His exegetical works were of three kinds : scholia (all lost), commentaries proper (rofnoi), and religio-ethical homilies. Pre-eminent among his commentaries must that on the Gospel of John be placed. His Christian Platonism, which was arrayed as well against empty Ebionism as against unbelieving heathen speculation, is everywhere noticeable. In the place of the view previously in vogue, of a twofold sense of Scrip- ture, he adopts, after the manner of the Platonic trichotomy of man into crfi/m, i//v^, and Adyos (we5/xa), a threefold sense of Scripture. The literal sense he did not despise, but re- garded it as merely the shell of the higher sense, just as the earthly nature of Christ was the shell of his divine nature. It was partly his exaggerated idea of inspiration, partly his Platonism, that led him often into phantastic, over-refined ex- planations. While in Origen the grammatico-critical, as well as the mystico-speculative, tendency was represented, the later Later Alex- Alexandrian school, with its most famous representatives, andrian ,-v 8ohooi. Athanasius and Cyril, abandoning the former, gave itself, m opposition to the Antiochian exegesis (see below), entirely to the allegorical. The chief monument of this one-sided ten- dency are the Homilies of Cyril. Cyril wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch, on the Prophets, and on the Gospel of John. He may be regarded as the representative of the Scripture in- terpretation of his time in which the dogmatizing was joined with the allegorizing tendency. 20. The Antiochian School. In opposition to this tendency stood the exegesis of the Antiochian school, as whose first representatives Theophilus, Julius Africanus, and Lucian are to be mentioned. To the mystico-idealistic — at a later period more and more dogma- tizing — character of the Alexandrian school, the historieo- TheAnti- critical character of the Antiochian school formed an antago- ochian t v : school, his- nism as sharp as can be conceived of. Lucian of Samosata torico-criti- . cai. (f 311) was the founder of this school and was celebrated HISTORY OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 33 lihiefly for his contributions to the critical purging of the bib- lical text. But the Antiochians who exhibited most sharply the peculiarity of this school in exegesis are Diodorus of Tarsus (fc. 394), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (f c. 428). The former Wrote a work entitled ris Sicwjiofia #eu>pias koll aXX-qyopias, and many commentaries, in great part lost. The latter explained his- torically most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and had no sympathy for the mystical conception of the Song of Solomon. In general they did not condemn all allegory with- out distinction, but only the manner and extent of its employ- ment by the Alexandrians. But the barrenness of the Anti- Barrenness J ... ofAnti- ochiari exegesis, especially as it was practised by Theodore, ocMan exe» did not meet the requirements of the time. His writings were condemned to the flames by the command of Theodosius and of Valentinian ; yet his Commentary on the Minor Prophets was preserved. Theodore was very highly treasured by the Syrian Nestorians, and was called the efijyij-njs kclt l^o-^v. Yet his method was not retained entirely even by the orthodox Antiochians themselves, and Joh. Chrysostom and Theodoret The labors . ™ of Chrysos- of Cyrus, iustly the most celebrated interpreters of Christian torn and ,..,.,, , . / , • , . Theodoret antiquity, deviated from the emptiness of their teacher in as far as they treated the Scriptures, as a divine book, with the greatest reverence. Yet they also made the verbal sense their starting-point, and regarded this as the foundation of all exe- gesis. Joh. Ohrysoslom (347-407) is the author of about six hundred and fifty homilies, in which the grammatico-historical is combined With practical edificatory explanation. He does not reject entirely the allegory and the type. Pie distinguishes correctly between prophesying and prognostication. 1 With reference to the New Testament, his explanations of the Para- bles and of the Pauline Epistles are especially prized. The difference between Theodore and Chrysostom has been stated as follows : Theodore interpreted grammatically, Chrysostom, theologically. Like Chrysostom, Theodoret also (f c. 457) made the literal sense his starting-point, but did not stop there. He i Weissagung irnd 'Wahrsagung. 34 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HEBMENEUTICS. assumes a a8d, or the Book of the Advent of the Lord." 6* 66 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENETJTICS. accomplished little, indeed, in practical Scripture interpretation ; his mistaking of the importance of the Old Testament is uni- versally recognized as an essential defect of his theology. But His "Her- hj s « Plermeneutics," published after his death by Liicke is rich meneutics." *• J in profound and brilliant thoughts. He was the first to call attention to the fact that the New Testament language, side by side with the Hellenistic basis and the Hebrew- Aramaic elements, contains a new specifically Christian element. He established fundamentally and vigorously the boundaries between the dog- matic and the philosophical explanations, and threw light on the vexed question — in how far the Scriptures, and especially the New Testament, are to be treated as an organic whole or as a multiplicity of independent writings. Already, during his life-time he inspired and furthered source-criticism in particu- lar, through his pioneering investigations on the writings of Luke, and on the First Epistle to Timothy. In general, there proceeded from Schleiermacher an impulse that could not fail to exert an important influence on Scripture interpretation, tucke. "We must speak next of F. Liicke (1791-1855), who labored first in Berlin, then at Bonn, and from 1828 at Gottingen. The first edition of his Commentary on the Gospel of John, which suffered yet from a certain mystical and passionate one- sidedness, was followed by a second and a third edition. In his youthful production, " Die Hermeneutik und ihre Ges- chichte," x he set forth his entire and full conviction with refer- Hi8 view of ence to the relation of theology to Scripture. He condemns the preters view that Scripture requires of the interpreter nothing more than any other ancient writing ; he requires of the interpreter, before everything else, love for the one word of God. To seek and to find this in Scripture he holds to be the. work of the exegete. Notwithstanding this he would relinquish nothing of the fundamental conditions of all exegesis, viz. the discovery of the grammatical and the historical sense and character of the writing and of its individual parts. This he proved in his elaborate introduction to the Apocalypse. Among those ex- 1 Hermenentics and its History. HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. Q.7 egetes who stand under the influence of the new believing spirit, and who seek to further the same, Aug. Tholuch, of Tholuck. Halle, must be mentioned. Through his Commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount, on the Gospel of John, on the Epistle to the Romans, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he has gained for himself a name among Scripture interpreters. Meritorious in this relation is his fruitful use of the Fathers, as well as his liberal position with reference to inspiration — a position which, however, he has not held consistently. On the other hand, his exegesis leaves much to be desired in gram- matical accuracy. Friedr. Bleeh, on the contrary (1793-1859), Bleek. first at Berlin, from 1829 onward at Bonn, made his appear- ance furnished with all the acquisitions of the earlier and the more recent time. After having published in 1828 his elaborate Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he brought out his Commentary on this Epistle (1886-1840), which in grammatical and critical accuracy and circumspection, in correct and profound insight into the course of thought, and in the theological estimate of the religious contents of this Epistle, leaves nothing to be desired. Of his valuable biblical treatises that appeared in the " Theol. Studien und Kritiken " we may here mention that on the ■yXwo-o-ais XaXeiv, observations on the dogmatic use of O. T. expressions in the N. T., on the age of Zechariah ix.— xiv., on the position of the 0. T. Apocry- pha in the Christian Canon, on the Messianic prophecies in the Book of Daniel. His " Beitrage zur Evangelienkritik" 1 (1846) are very excellent. From his literary remains, Kampfhausen and J. F. Bleek have prepared : " Einleitung in das A. T.," " Einleitung in das N. T.," " Synopt. Erkliirung der drei ersten Evangelien," 2 ed. Holtzmann, and his Lectures on the Apoca- lypse. 3 With Bleek we may classW.M.L.deWette (1780-1849), DeWetta 1 " Contributions to the Criticism of the Gospels." 2 " Introduction to the Old Test.," — " Introduction to the New Test., — " Synoptic Explanation of the first three Gospels." The first two have been published in English. So also have Tholuck's works and De Wette's Introductions, above named. 8 A greatly enlarged edition of Bleek's Introductions, edited by Mangold, 68 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTIC9. University teacher first in Heidelberg, then in Berlin, and from 1822 onward in Basel. After the publication of his somewhat prosy Commentary on the Psalms, he gained an imperishable name as a critic and exegete, chiefly through his " Historico-criti- cal Introduction to the Canonical and Apocryphal Books of the O. T." (first published in 1817), through his " Introduction to the N. T." and through his " Concise exegetical Hand-book to the N. T." (1836-1848, recently edited by Bruckner). Though a friend of Schleiermacher, he had yet imbibed more of the spirit of Herder, in as far as he viewed religion and its records rather from the aesthetic side, but he surpassed Herder by far in scientific rigor and thoroughness. Bold as a critic, he became later in life always more and more circumspect. On the appearance of Strauss's " Life of Jesus," he explained him- self in such a way as to give the preference to the mystical explanation of miracles over the so-called natural explanation, but he attached a far greater importance to the historical per- sonality of Jesus than did Strauss. In the preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, finally, he made the following - confession : " Whatever may be the fate of our Protestant i. J church, I know that in no other name is salvation than in the name of Jesus Christ the crucified." As the organ of these strivings, inspired chiefly by Schleiermacher, the " Theol. Studien und Kritiken," founded by Schleiermacher, DeWette, and Liicke, has contained many valuable articles, both in an exegetical and in a biblico-theological point of view. By the side of DeWette's Hand-book stands worthily the Commentary of Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer 1 (begun in 1829 and con- was published at Berlin in 1875. His Lectures on Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, edited by Nitzsch, appeared in 1865. 1 The critical and exggetical works of Meyer are, 1 ) A critically revised Greek text with a German translation (1829), never carried beyond the first edition, and now almost forgotten. It is now of scarcely any value, so great has been the advance in this department of theological science. 2) Commentaries, including the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. Most of these reached the fourth, some of them the fifth, and one of them (on Matthew) the sixth,edition. On Meyer and his works, compare Art. by Mr. H. S. Burrage, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January 1875, and Art. by HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 69 # tinued in new editions, and with the assistance of Lunemann, Huther, and Diisterdieck, till his death in 1873), through gram- matical accuracy, through a, for the most part, excellent con- ception of the sense and connection, through discreet use of materials, a work in the highest degree useful, nay indispensable. Finally, Sam. Lute (1785—1844), Professor at Bern, takes an Lutz. honorable position in this category of exegetes. He published indeed, no exegetical work, and is, therefore, little known in wider circles ; but as academic teacher, through his philological accuracy, through his never wearying — rather always in the highest degree inspiring — exegetical dialectics, through his profound comprehension of the biblical spirit in the individual parts and in the whole, he made a lasting impression upon his hearers. From his literary remains Ad. Lutz edited his " Hermeneutics " and R. Eiietschi his " Biblical Dogmatics " (1847). If we would state succinctly the fundamental char- Character- acteristic of this* class of exegetes, especially in its relation to class of ex- that of the preceding epoch, we might say : that it consists in the fact that, in a general theological point of view, it does not mediate between Rationalism and Supernaturalism, but stands, and desires to stand, above them both as a mediation of faith and knowledge ; and that, in its relation to Scripture interpretation in particular, it consists in its free appropriation of, nay its improvement upon, the philological helps and ac- quisitions of the preceding period, regarding as it did the work of interpretation as incomplete so long as the religious sense and spirit of the biblical author has not also been ascertained. In relation to the New Testament .this has been done especially by Liicke, Tholuck, Bleek, DeWette, and Lutz. This may be the most proper place to mention the services which Griesbach, Malthai, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf have rendered to Textual Criticism. 1 Griesbach, in his critical Critics. the translator in the Baptist Quarterly for October 1874, republished in Dickinson's Theological Quarterly (London) for January 1875. These Commentaries are now in course of translation and publication in English, by Messrs. T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh. — Te. i It will be noticed that our author here, as throughout this section, 70 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. edition of the New Testament 1796 (new edition of the first part by D. Schulz 1827), not only collected a richer critical apparatus than his predecessors, but also set forth the correct principles of criticism. An entirely new system was introduced by Lachmann. "While even Griesbach, making the Textus Eeceptus his basis, only received into his text variations to be accepted on external and internal grounds, Lachmann sought to restore the oldest possible text, namely, that of the fourth century, which then might serve as a firm foundation for crit- ical operations. This procedure met with much opposition, in- asmuch as Lachmann, aiming to give the Oriental text, and giving weight to the Occidental testimonies only where the Oriental differ (as often), did not, in consequence, altogether exclude arbitrariness. The greatest service for Textual Crit- icism has been rendered by Constantine Tischendorf (fl874), as well through his enriched and verified critical apparatus as quietly ignores what has been done in recent times towards the promotion of biblical science outside of the Continent of Europe. He does not think it worth his while to mention the brilliant and considerate efforts of Tre- gelles in Textual Criticism, the less brilliant, the too conservatiYe, but yet extremely careful, and hence very useful, work of Scrivener, and the pro- gressing labors of Westcott and Hort, which last seem destined to result in by far the best and most correct edition of the New Testament, — as correct, perhaps, as in the present state of science it is possible to attain to. We may here mention the fact that Tregelles is the father of a great school in Textual Criticism, which is constantly gaining ground in Europe and in America; and that Westcott and Hort belong to this school. Com- pare on Tischendorf an elaborate Article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for Jan- uary 1876, by Mr. G. E. Gregory, an Article in the Unitarian Review for March 1875, by Prof. Ezra Abbot, and an excellent Article, unhappily published only in a weekly paper, and hence not very generally read, by Prof. John A. Broadus. A good popular exhibition of the Textual Crit- icism of the Tregellesian school is to be found in the little work of Ham- mond, "Textual Criticism applied to, the New Testament;" and in the Article of Dr. Gardiner in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1875, since published in book form. See also an Article on Tregelles, in the New York Inde- pendent for July 1, 1875, by Prof. Ezra Abbot ; and an interesting Article by Milliyan, in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1876 : " Tischendorf and Tregelles as Editors of the Greek New Testa- ment." Among the ablest Text-Critics in America — and they compare very favorably with the English Critics mentioned above — are Prof. Ezra Abbot, Prof. John A. Broadus, Prof. J. H. Thayer, and Ex-President Woolsey. — Tit. HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 71 m through his numerous editions of the New Testament (among which we may call special attention to the Editio VIII. critica major, etc. 1 ) ; as well as also through his editions of single important manuscripts, especially of the Sinaitic. The prin- ciples of Textual Criticism also were still more accurately determined by Tischendorf than by Griesbach. 32. A Revival of Orthodoxy. But the religious awakening which followed upon the German war of liberty took still another form. Side by side with the philosophizing, brilliant theology of Schleiermacher and Hegel, there existed still a popular realistic, religious need 2 The popular rGlisrious which was attracted and satisfied far more by the fresh and need, vehement manner of a Luther. The purest and freshest representative of this tendency was Klaus Harms, who at the Klaus Reformation festival 1817, as a second Luther, in his ninety- five theses, threw down the gauntlet to Rationalism. Men looked with longing for the old unbroken faith and its symbols. Hand in hand with this popular need went a politico-ecclesias- tical restoration and a theology which regarded the whole Therestora- scientific development of the eighteenth century as apostasy og7. and looked for the salvation of the world only in the greatest possible renewing of the old faith in the Bible and the creed. The great leader of this apologetico-polemic restoration-theol- ogy was W. Hcngstenberg, from 1826 Professor at Berlin, and Hengsten- from 1827 editor of " Die Evangelische Kirchenzeitung." One- sided as his theology must be called, however much impurity 3 attaches to this name, yet as a biblical investigator he has an 1 Unfortunately Tischendorf died before preparing Prolegomena to the eighth critical edition. The Prolegomena to the seventh edition have to do service, albeit very imperfectly, also for the eighth. Mr. Gregory states in the Article referred to above, doubtless on good authority, that the work of preparing Prolegomena to the eighth critical edition from Tischendorf 's materials has been intrusted to a Dr. Gebhardt. We unite with Mr. Greg- ory in the hope that he may be enabled to do a thorough piece of work, worthy of Tischendorf himself. Mr. Gregory gives what seems to be a well-nigh complete exhibit of Tischendorf 's published works. — Tit. 2 Glaubeusbediirfuiss. 3 Moral impurity is, of course, not intended. — Tb. 72 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HEEMENEUTICS. indisputable merit. His " Christology of the Qld Testament," — returning in the first edition to the Old Protestant view of prophecy, but admitting in the later editions essentially modern ideas — made an epoch, in that it brought to the consciousness, in its importance and eternal truth, the prophetical contents of the Old Testament. Here, indeed, as well as in his " Contri- butions to the Introduction to the Old Testament," he strives to repudiate as much as possible the results of historico-critical inquiry as " Rationalism," and to save, e.g. the genuineness of the Book of Daniel and of the second part of Zechariah, as well as to obliterate and remove the incongruity between the Old Testament citations in the New Testament, and the gen- uine sense of these passages. For this work a rich arsenal of modern learning stood at his command. His theology has, therefore, justly been called " repristination theology." The correctness of this designation rests chiefly upon Hengsten- berg's fundamental pre-supposition of the essential identity of the contents of Scripture with the contents of the confessional writings and the doctrines of the church. In the same path KeiJ, my- walked his pupils Keil, Havernih, and W. Steiger. Here also er, an'dTho- we must not forget Tholuch, who through Pietism is connected with the " Evangelische Kirchenzeitung," but through his free-thinking with Schleiermacher and Neander. The Appen- dix to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, " The Old Testament in the New," is more nearly related to the former. In still another than the Orthodox way the newly awakened religious need also manifested itself in theology, viz. Si theology as m y st ^ ca ^ theology and Scripture interpretation. Here are oishausen. Olshausen and Stier to be mentioned. Hermann Olshausen (1766-1839), Professor at Konigsberg, and afterwards at Erlangen, through his two writings on " The Deeper Sense of Scripture," and through his " Commentary on all the Writings of the New Testament," 1 exerted a very wide influence. He wished to emancipate Scripture study from the shackles as well 1 The best English edition of Olshausen's Commentary is that edited by Dr. A. C. Kendrick. — Tk. HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 73 ♦ of the dogmatic as of the grammatical interpretation, and to bring to recognition the divine revelation in Scripture and its central point Christ, in their living unity with God as well as with humanity. Olshausen was in so far opposed to the ordi- nary Supernaturalism as he found the mystery of the Scripture revelation paralleled by the mystery of the spiritual corporeal nature of man. True religious life was to him, therefore, the condition of a correct understanding of Scripture. Kindred, and yet different, is the theological character of Rudolf Stier stier. (1800-1862). A romantically adjusted nature, but led, partly through the religious feature of the time, partly through inner experiences, to a decisive faith in Christ, satisfied with neither Neander nor Liicke, he labored princfpally as a practical cler- gyman. But as a thoroughly biblical theologian, he has devel- oped, even in an exegetical relation, a fruitful and inspiring activity, principally through his " Words of the Lord Jesus." 1 Besides this, he has done important service through his revision of Luther's translation of the Bible. His Scripture interpre- tation may be characterized as the dogmatico-mystical. The Holy Spirit is to him so much the auctor primarius of Scrip- ture, that the human author recedes entirely into the back- ground. Yet he does not return to the old Orthodox doctrine of inspiration, since not in the letters but in the contents of Scripture does the Holy Spirit bear witness. The principal defect of his Scripture interpretation is the lack of sharpness of conception, a result of the deficiency of his scientific prepar- atory education. 33. The Critical-Speculative Tendency. Yet side by side with the specifically religious and the mani- fold mystical-pietistic direction, which dominated in theology from the third decade of the present century, is still another element not to be overlooked, which for a long time maintained dominion in theology ; it is the critical-speculative. The emi- nent philosophical activity, which having had in Kant its great cai'activity 1 This work is accessible in a reasonably good translation, and, though frequently wild in its " spiritualizing," is always worth consulting. — T.E. 7 74 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENETJTICS. Strauss's Life of Jesus. Tubingen school. Iiaur. inaugurator, in Fichte and Schelling, to some extent also in Schleiermacher, its promoters, had found in Hegel its final shaping. Especially was it this thinker's logical construction of history, from which proceeded an important inspiration, The influence of the Hegelian philosophy was first of all a restraining influence, promotive rather of Orthodoxy, as was to be seen in Daub and Marheineke. The oneness of faith and science was the pre-supposition of this school, and their oppo- sition was regarded as a vanquished stand-point. As long as Hegel lived, the question among his disciples was only who among them had most correctly understood their master. After his death, however, emancipated from this authority, they fixed their attention on the consequences only of the system. The Hegelian pre-supposition, that the idea is developed only in humanity and not in one individual, entered in Strauss' " Life of Jesus " as a revolutionary elemerrf. into the theological world. The novelty of this work consisted not in the fact that legends and myths were admitted in the Gospel history ; but in the fact that this view was carried out and expressed with the most reckless consistency. Strauss exhibited excellently the insuf- ficiency and the defectiveness of the supernaturalistic, as well as of the so-called natural explanation of miracles, and pro- pounded, as the only admissible explanation, the mythical. In general, from this time forward the so-called Baurian or Tubingen school permeated by the Hegelian spirit, was the supporter of the critical study of the Scriptures. Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), the head of this school, had earlier applied himself far more to the most fundamental in- vestigations in the history of doctrines than to biblical study. 1 In this direction he had already developed an epoch-making literary activity, when through the controversy occasioned by Strauss' " Life of Jesus " he was led to his investigations on the New Testament. Besides his ingenious hypothesis on the occasion and object of the Epistle to the Romans, his most im- 1 His " Dogmengeschichte" (History of Christian Doctrines) is really a very valuable work. — Ta. HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 75 * portant works in this department are : " The Apostle Paul " (1845), and " Critical Investigations on the Canonical Gospels" (1847). Besides these, his smaller works on the Pastoral Epistles, and on the Gospel of Mark are also to be mentioned. All these labors were supported by the thought, that primitive Christianity is to be conceived of in a purely historical manner, and in the dialectic agitation of its elements ; in which not so much depends on the persons as on the idea. In addition to the keenness of his criticism, the sometimes excellent develop- ment of the course of thought of the New Testament writings in his principal works is to be made prominent. The results of this criticism : the limiting of the genuine Epistles of Paul to the four principal ones, the bringing down of most of the other New Testament writings, especially of the Gospel of John, to an advanced period in the second century ; the main- taining that the latter is no historical, but a dogmatic writing, — but especially the proving that the primitive Christianity, mak- ing Ebionism its starting-point, developed through the opposition of the latter and Paulinism, until, through accommodation of the opposition, the " catholic " Christianity was formed, and that to this accommodation the greater number of our New Testa- ment writings belong — these results are familiar enough. 1 Yet it was not Baur himself, but, after Strauss, A. Schwegler, who Sohwegler. with his writing on Montanism, and then especially with his work on "The Post-Apostolic Times" (1846), had broken the ice. More prudently has JS. Zeller, through his treatise on the Zeller. " Testimonies for the Gospel of John," on the writings of Luke, and especially through his writing on the Acts of the Apostles (1854), furnished contributions to New Testament criticism. The organ of the "Tubingen School" since 1842 was the " Theol. Jahrbiicher," founded by Zeller, afterwards undertaken by Baur alone. Ad. Hilgenfeld's " Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- migenfeid. liche Theologie," side by side with the periodical referred to, 1 It is difficult to see whether the author in speaking of Baur's results means to be understood as endorsing them as scientific and well-founded or not. If so, we cannot, of course, agree with him. — Tb. 76 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. Volkmar. Hengsten- berg. held an important place in this direction, which, as at that time Hilgenf eld himself, was engaged less, it is true, in fathoming the apostolic than the post-apostolic literature. Especially have his works on the Gospels of Justin Martyr, of the Clementines, and of Marcion, and his "Novum Testamentum extra Can- onem receptum," as also Volkmar's New Testament Apocrypha, become very valuable mediately for the historico-critical inves- tigation of the New Testament writings also. For a long time this critical theology maintained to a considerable extent the predominance, but the shipwreck of the Hegelian school, and the events of the year 1848 disclosed a deep precipice, and spread such a terror of the true and supposed consequences of the Hegelian criticism and view of the world, that a reaction also in the province of biblical study was unavoidable. 34. Reaction against the Critical-Speculative Theology. As champion on this field of reaction against the critical and speculative theology, Hengstenberg again meets us. With still greater justice than formerly against the Rationalismus vulgaris, he now comes forward to battle against a system which had brought forth such fruits. The enhanced consciousness of sin, and, in connection with this, submission to the authority of Scripture, hostile to criticism and unconditional ; belief in abso- lute inspiration, and the infallibility of the biblical Canon, — in short, the melting together of Orthodoxy and Pietism, this was the imposing stand-point adopted by Hengstenberg and a host of theologians against that " destructive " theology. Far more decidedly still than heretofore, theology, and not least Apologeti- biblical study, assumed an apologetical character. The com- ter of the patibility of the Mosaic cosmogony with natural science, of the ec ioo , Bible w Jth astronomy, the unity of Genesis, the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, and of the second part of Zechariah, the identity of the author of the fourth Gospel with that of the Apocalypse, etc., were defended with a zeal such as if the salvation of the world depended upon them. To a remarkable extent, on the con- trary, were the material questions of Christianity neglected by HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 77 this party, and the contents of Scripture were disregarded as compared with the form. The Scriptures were looked upon as a stronghold, where the city exists for the sake of the fortifica- tions, and where duty demands before everything else that the weak places be defended, i.e. that what is untenable or pre- carious be held as more important than the eternal truth itself. Hand in hand with this formal apologetical striving went an- other theological tendency, viz. the Ghiliastic. Both form the The natural reaction against a theology and a philosophy that had tendency, seemed in part to dissolve the foundations of the Christian faith ; that in part had given up the world to come in proud self-sufficiency in the present. Still the school of Bengel sur- vived, yea, just at this time it had a new revival, since so many phenomena of the time seemed to prepare for an ever greater and more fundamental separation between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the world and of falsehood. In Rev. xiii. was seen the connection of Anti-Christianity with false philosophy, in 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, the dominant self -deifica- tion was unequivocally pointed out. In the momentous phe- nomena of the time, forebodings of the judgment of the world were found. Such a frame of mind led men to read with avidity the prophetical and eschatological parts of Scripture, especially the Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse, since there a wide field of interpretation was opened up to those who com- bined with their antagonism towards all historical criticism a love for the mysterious. Add still farther the phantastical ten- dency of the time, and it is natural that men should turn away from the clear and simple parts of Scripture to those writings that are mysterious and capable of endless interpretations. Those theologians who subscribe to this apologetics for that reward, and who embrace this Chiliastic tendency are, for the most part, religious, learned, and clever men, as Christ. K. v. ffofmann, in his work, " Prophecy and its Fulfilment," Franz Hofmann, Delitzsch in his " Biblico-prophetical Theology," Kurtz (" lext- and Auber. book of Sacred History,") J. P. Lange (" Positive Dogmatics," en " pp. 1271 £E.), and pre-eminently K. A. Auberlen (" The Prophet 78 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. Daniel and the Revelation of John.") This last writer gained a very profound insight into the religious spirit and value of prophecy ; so much the more is it to be regretted that he opposed his " theocratic " explanation to the " secular," 1 as the " ration- alistic," as if the ideal and the real history were incompatible ; thereby removing the Apocalypse from its historical ground. With this Chiliastic direction is combined in many the realistic- theosophical. In opposition to an old and new philosophizing and dogmatizing Scripture interpretation, which feels obliged to Botha spiritualize and subtilize the thoughts of the Bible, R. Eothe (Preface to Auberlen's " F. Ch. Oetinger"), says with perfect justice : " Our traditional exegesis mates Scripture intelligible to me ; but it does not suffice to make it entirely and purely intelligible. The general contents of the thoughts it knows well how to draw out ; but the peculiar form in which these thoughts present themselves there it knows not how to account for. In fact, if the Lord and his Apostles mean to say only and precisely what the interpreters make them say, they expressed themselves very awkwardly and incommodiously, or, to speak more properly, very extravagantly ; " and farther on, " The sys- tem of biblical fundamental ideas, not expressly stated, but only pre-supposed in the Scriptures themselves, is wanting to us ; it is not by any means that of our schools at the present day, and so long as we practise exegesis without this system, the Bible must remain to us a half-closed book. With other fundamen- tal ideas than those current with us, which we are wont to re- gard as the only possible ones, we must enter upon the study of the Bible, and whatever these ideas may be and wherever it may be proper to seek them, this one thing at least is absolutely certain, in accordance with the whole sound of the melody of Scripture in its natural fulness, that these must be more real- istic, more ' massive.' " Since it was recognized, that between our conceptions and forms of thought and those of the biblical authors there exists a difference, and that for a perfect under- standing of Scripture, an understanding not only of the truths 1 "Reichsgeschichtlichen," and " Zeitgeschichtlichen." HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 79 # taught by them, but also of the forms of thought presupposed by them, is requisite ; men ought to have been content with this insight, and to have confined themselves to this, viz. to appro- priate these conceptions to exegetical use and understanding itself. But when men, now going farther, sought to reconcile Source of that antique biblical conception with modern conceptions and cat- egories, and thus underlaid the biblical writings with a theosoph- ical system, they fell into error which could not but falsify Scripture interpretation. The aversion to the simple and the natural, the propensity towards the mysterious, and the pre- supposition that our reveries must also be those of the sacred authors, this, from the Alexandrines until the present, contri- buted unspeakably to the corruption of exegesis. (For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Hupfeld's " The Theo- sophical and Mythological Theology and Scripture Interpreta- tion of To-day." 1861). 35. Exegesis In the Netherlands. If, by way of supplement, we make a brief survey of the his- tory of exegesis in the Netherlands, this is justified by the fact that the church and the theology of the Netherlands, in modern General times also, holds an honorable place, and not least in matters of biblical study ; that just here the science has had a develop- ment very different from the German. Holland has had no Schleiermacher, no Strauss, no Tubingen School. Besides, the Dutch theology has exercised an immediate influence on the church and through the church upon the people and the state. The year 1787, the year of the founding of the Haager Society Haager for the defense of Christianity, is to be regarded as an epoch of the more recent Dutch theology. As Ernesti had done, Kantelaar showed that the Bible, while it contains the divine Kanteiaar. revelations, was written by men who, however much they may have been illuminated, did not cease to be men ; and that it must be explained with the help of those means usually applied to books written in dead or living languages. Bosveld (1756- Bosveid, 1809), the most important Scripture interpreter of this period, was prominent in the last decades of the eighteenth century. 80 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. Amerg- voordt. This is evident from his explanation of 1 Cor. xv., of the Epistle to the Galatians, in which he was the first to subject the expression maris 'Iijo-oC X/dio-toC to a thorough discussion, decided in a negative sense the relation of Gal. ii. 1 ff., to the Apostolic convention, and also first explained accurately the disputed expression to. o-Toi^aa tov noo-pav, in which he answers affirmatively the question, whether the Apostles erred in their belief in the nearness at hand of the Parousia, appealing to Marls xiii. 32. His explanation of the avOpunros ttjs d/napi-ias (2Thess. ii.) is also a proof of his strictly historical method. Scarcely an exegetico-dogmatic question of any importance occurs in the Pauline Epistles to which Bosveld with his grammatico-historical method did not bring light. Yet at that time in Holland this method was in its first beginnings. For the Dutch theology, the year 1815 was so far a decisive one as that, in the place of a uni- versity regulation, according to which every theological teacher was obliged to lecture on dogmatics, a complete separation of the courses of study was introduced. This could not but redound to the advantage of exegetical theology. The most recent time likewise is fruitful in able works in this department. "We note Pqrcan's " Hermeneutica Codis Sacra" (1846), Kuenen's " Crit- icae et Hermeneuticae Librorum Novi Foederis Lineamenta," and Gobet's writing " De Arte Interpretandi." Excellently does Kuenen, namely, say in the work referred to : " intelligere scriptorem is dicendus est, qui idem quod ille dum scribebat cogitavit legens cogitat." In the matter of Textual Criticism Mill and Wetstein had already done excellent work. In the path thus beaten followed Doedes and Heringa, while Scholten especially, with his free and sharp conjectural criticism, partic- ularly with reference to the Gospel of John, aroused much opposition. With regard to exegesis itself, that of the Old Testament received already in the Netherlands more attention than that of the New ; yet until 1815 the freer investigation of this part of Scripture [the O. T.] seems to have made very little progress in the Netherlands. Since that time also more impartial inquiries have come into vogue. Jac. Amersvoordt, HISTORY OP SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 81 # van der Palm, Hamaker, Kuenen, Hoehstra, are here to be Palm, ,.,,,,. TT Hamaker, mentioned with distinction ; yet Hamaker through his free Kuenen, view of prophecy, as in general through his academical activity, has incurred the reproach of forming rationalists. In New Testament exegesis, theology, and criticism, Seringa, van Hengel, Oosterzee, Niermeyer, and ScJwlten are conspicuous. For Heringa, exegesis, it is true, was only a means for dog- Heringa. matics, as is attested by his " Opera Exegetica et Hermen- eutica," and still more his academic lectures, 1 "Animadversiones de locis Novi Testamenti, quorum praecipuus est usus in pro- bandis doctrinae Christianae capitibus." Perhaps the most important Netherlandian exegete in recent times is W. Alb. van Hengel, teacher in the high schools at Franeker, at Amsterdam, Hengel. and at Leyden. His method of interpretation is the grammat- ico-objective, and his prudence has advanced with his years. His " Annotatio in loca nonnulla," compared with his " Com- mentarius perpetuus in Epistolam ad Philippianos," and espe- cially with his " Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos,'' furnish abundant proof of this improvement. His investiga- tions in biblical theology on the distinction between crS/m and crapf, between jx.era.voia and hno-rpo^ri prove him a master in this field also. By as much as verbal explanation is with him the principal thing, is the service which van Hengel, precisely through this verbal explanation, has rendered to the dogmatic understanding of the Epistle to the Romans in particular, a substantial service. Niermeyer has devoted himself principally Niermeyer. to those parts of the New Testament that, after the inquiries of the school of Baur, seemed to be in need of a new examin- ation. Especially are his investigations on the Apocalypse a thorough performance. Much would still have been to be hoped for from him had not death called him away (1855). Van Oosterzee, Professor at Utrecht, like Hengstenberg, sought Oosterzee. in his " Christology of the Old Testament," to prove that all the passages cited in the New Testament as Messianic, even Isa. vii. 14, are really Messianic, even in the minds of the 1 " Dictate," dictated lectures. — Tk. 82 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. authors themselves ; in which he is governed by the presup- position that the Hermeneutics of the New Testament writers is in complete accord with the fundamental principles of the grammatico-historical interpretation. This he has set forth, indeed, in popular articles. "We must confess," says the author of the " Pragmatic History of Theology in the Nether- lands," " that on a stand-point like that of Van Oosterzee all discussion loses its worth." Yet his " Theology of the New Testament," e.g. is less biased than might, according to what has been said, have been expected, and if he maintains the genuiness of the Pastoral Epistles, he at least has "behind him all the voices of the church, with the single exception of the heretic Marcion, up to Schleiermacher and Baur. As an opponent of Oosterzee, and as head of the liberalistic theology Sohoicen. in Holland, J. H. Scholten, born in 1811, since 1843 Professor at Leyden, is to be especially mentioned. Besides his princi- pal dogmatic work, " De Leer der Hervormde Kerk in hare Grondbeginselen," etc., and his work on " The Freedom of the Will," we may here mention as characteristic, his work on " The Gospel according to John," his " Study on the Apostle John in Asia Minor," and his writing directed against Tischen- dorf, " The Most Ancient Witnesses concerning the Writings of the New Testament." Scholten has, of course, the solid majority of the conservative theologians, as Da Costa, Doedes, Oosterzee, and others, against him. We mention, finally, Alb. E<§yiiie. Seville, pastor of the Wallonian church at Rotterdam, who has furnished to the Review of Colani, besides other important critical articles : " Jean le Prophdte et Jean l'Evangeliste," Concluding and " Ne>on F Antichrist." From this poor enumeration it will have been seen that biblical studies have been pushed for- ward in Holland with zeal and thoroughness, that the influence of German theology upon the Dutch is a very important one; but that notwithstanding this, the latter has maintained an independent position ; that the opposition between the conser- vative theology and the theology of progress is very outspoken, yet so that the former is to be conceived of not as the result REVIEW OP THE EXE6ETICAL METHODS. 83 • of a politico-ecclesiastical restoration, but rather as a result of the inflexible character of the Dutch Reformed Church ; the liberal theology, on the other hand, as a reaction against the old dogmatism and traditionalism. Utrecht is distinguished as the seat of the conservative theology, Leyden as the seat of the advanced theology. Cf. Christ. Sepp, " Johannes Stinstra en zijn tijd," Amsterdam, 1865. Idem, " Proeve eener pragma- tische geschiedens der Theologie in Nederland, von 1787 tot 1858," Amsterdam, 1868. 1 Conclusions from the History of Exegesis for the Nature and the Principles of Scripture Inter- pretation. a) Review of the various Eecegetical Methods. 36- The Exegetical Methods Compared. Various as the methods of interpretation have been, great as have been the distortions and the errors of exegesis ; yet nearly 1 Is it true or is it not that in recent times England and America can boast of no names worthy to be put alongside of those that have been mentioned as figuring prominently in the history of Scripture interpreta- tion ? If we have an eye simply to the influence that Scripture interpreters in these countries have exercised, we may say with confidence that a score might easily be here mentioned ; but if wo consider them from the point of view of real merit, we will not be inclined to chide our author for pass- ing them by without mention. If we will look at the matter calmly we shall see, that in the department of biblical exegesis, English-speaking people in the present century are, indeed, strangely deficient. We shall see that the few men that have stood highest in biblical exegesis have been men that derived not their inspiration simply, but also their material, so directly and to so large an extent from the Germans, that the Germans cannot but regard them as mere satellites of themselves. Without going much farther into the past than our own generation, let us call to mind the names that stand pre-eminent in exegesis in England and in this coun- try, and we shall see that so far as they are not simply reproducers of the exegesis of the ancient and the mediaeval church (as Wordsworth, Pusey, and others), their indebtedness to the Germans (usually most ingenuously acknowledged) is to bo traced page by page. This statement is not to be understood as an imputation of a blind and unreasoning following of au- thorities on the part of the honored men whose names are to be mentioned. They have done, indeed, a most important service to the cause of biblical study; most of them have done more or less work in some sense original; 84 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTICS. all have proceeded from a more or less right feeling. In order to derive from the history of exegesis the true method, it is re- quisite that we always recognize the true in error, and then Allegorical ascertain where truth and error separate. The Allegorical in- lion! pre a " terpretatioh, the oldest of all, presupposes that the Scriptures contain the truth ; but since between the spirit of the Scrip- tures and that of the interpreter a considerable difference exists, the allegorist seeks to remove this difference by regard- ing what opposes him in Scripture as mere form, as external a-Zpa, and searches behind this for the deeper sense, which must be identical with that of the interpreter. The element of truth in this method is, that the Scriptures have a sense and spirit which does not always lie upon the surface, but must be sought for. But the error is the presupposition that this sense and spirit must be in accord with that of the interpreter and his time. The allegorical interpretation rests also upon a dualistic separa- tion of the verbal sense and the deeper sense, instead of con- ceiving both in their unity. The allegorical interpretation is, in one word, the product of an unconditional respect for Scrip- ture and a deficiency in historical appreciation. The interpre- tation according to the fourfold sense of Scripture, which prevailed throughout the Middle Ages, aims to correct the allegorical interpretation by vindicating to the verbal sense (the littera) a right of its own, but otherwise it agrees with the first entirely, only that it is still worse, in that it holds not to ; but that they have been dependent for their high attainments on the Ger- ; mans none would be more ready to admit than themselves. Ofsuchmenwe may mention, in England, Ellieott, Lightfoot, Alford, Stanley, and David- son ; in America, Stuart, Alexander, and Hackett. There are, of course, scores of others that would deserve to be mentioned in an extended notice pf English and American exegesis. "We could find in English and Ame- rican exegesis worthy representatives of all the various methods of inter- pretation. Nay, we could show that at the present time all the various methods exist side by side. "Where, even in the Middle Ages, can be found, for instance, a more nonsensical piece of allegorizing than that presented to the learned in England and America by Dr. Kay in Ms recent Com- mentary on Isaiah (in the Bible Commentary) ? It is a sad reflection on the public opinion in these countries, that such a wqrk should meet with acceptance. — Tk. REVIEW OP THE EXBGETICAL METHODS. 85 * one only, but to various deeper senses, and still less than the simple allegorical does it know how to conceive of these senses in their organic unity with the verbal sense. If in the allegorical method, as the old Alexandrines practised it, wide scope was given to arbitrariness, in the application of the method of the four- fold sense this was incomparably more the case. The Doqmatic The Dofj- . matic inter interpretation, as it prevailed especially in the Protestant pretation. Church at the time of the domination of Orthodoxy, proceeded from the true view that Scripture will teach truth, and indeed divine truth. To seek and to find this it regarded as its work. But it erred not only in manifoldly misjudging and disregard- ing the ways and means through which alone the truth is to be arrived at, but chiefly in starting from definite dogmatic pre- suppositions, in interpreting according to these, and in settling beforehand the result which must or must not be arrived at. The principal dogmatic presupposition was the mechanical in- spiration of Scripture, and as a result of this its infallibility in even the minutest and most external matters, as also the view that the whole Bible is an organic Codex of Revelation. What now, did not accord with this presupposition must be exeget- ically pressed until it said nothing else than what was pre-, supposed. With this was joined another perverted striving, viz. to make Scripture minister to the polemics of the ecclesi- astical confession. Accordingly nothing must be found in Scripture which could favor the view of an opponent, and where such was really lighted upon it must be manipulated with exegetical artifices; while all passages that seemed to support the opinions of the party itself were digged out, and the whole of Scripture was regarded as an arsenal for the com- bating of opponents. This use of Scripture exercised a ruin- ous influence on exegesis, not only by pressing this into the strait-jacket of ecclesiastical Orthodoxy, but also by causing the Scriptures to be regarded as an atomistic collection of dicta probantia. The Pietistic interpretation, therefore, opposed ™^^ eti J" itself to the Orthodox with justice so far as it proceeded from tation. the correct view, that the Scriptures are designed not so much 86 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. for the instruction of the understanding as for the awakening of the heart and the sanctification of the life. It was perfectly right also in placing the Scriptures above ecclesiastical symbols, and in not holding a priori, that the sense of Scripture could not, and must not, contradict these. But a degrading and a flattening of exegesis was the consequence of the fact that Pietism, misjudging, not less than Orthodoxy, the historical character of the biblical writings, neglected, nay, in part despised, the grammatical, historical, and logical helps through which the genuine sense of Scripture must be found. Pietism overwhelmed the Bible with edificatory reflections and prac- tical applications, and thus confounded Scripture explanation with Scripture application. It threw itself also with avidity not unfrequently upon such writings as the Song of Solomon, the " spiritual " interpretation of which furnished endless The Ration- material for amatory intercourse 1 with the Saviour. The pretetionf" Rationalistic explanation stood in a certain connection with the Pietistic, in as far as it also was opposed to the dogmatic and regarded moral amelioration as the aim of Scripture. The Eationalistic explanation proceeded from the correct view that, above all, the Scriptures must be conceived of and interpreted historically. This historical interpretation could take either of two roads ; it could either, in opposition to the fetters which hitherto the church had laid upon human thought, cast aside the opposing thoughts and conceptions as merely local and temporal, as Judaizing opinions, in place of which the flattest human understanding was then frequently taken as the norm ; or it could proceed from the presupposition that the Bible proper means to teach nothing else than the " religion of reason," and accordingly make the sense of Scripture accord as nearly as possible with " reason." In this was overlooked the fact that "reason" is nothing finished and unchangeable, but varies according to the age, popular spirit, and individuality ; varies according to the relation of the human heart to God. Pre- cisely for the profoundest and most Christian thoughts, for the i " Liebestimdeleien," not easy to render; but the meaning ia clear.— Tb. REVIEW OP THE EXEGETICAL METHODS. 87 thoughts that have renewed the world, and that have power at all times to renew the human heart, the Rationalistic " reason " had no appreciation. The Grammatico-historical interpreta- The Gram- tion is not, as is so often maintained, identical with the Ration- toricalin- alistic. This stands unconditionally on the correct presupposi- e pr tion that the Bible, as well in its totality as in its parts, is a historical product ; and, however divine it may be according to its final origin and essential contents, was written by men in human languages and under human relations ; and that, there- fore, it is to be interpreted with similar helps and according to the same principles as other books of antiquity. These inter- preters thus bestow upon the study of the language, as the organ of the thoughts of the author, the same industry as upon the language of the so-called profane authors, convinced that this is the only correct and possible way of ascertaining the genuine sense of the sacred author. They study the person of the author and his time, the relation in which he stood to the agitations of his time, the occasion and the object of his writ- ing. If now in all this the grammatico-historical interpreters held unconditionally the right position, it is not to be ignored that the grammatico-historical inquiries and the historico- critical researches may be made so much the chief thing that what is properly the chief thing, the sense and spirit of the author, may be altogether neglected. It is not to be denied that the purely objective position of the interpreter with refer- ence to his author could easily degenerate into indifference to what he says, and this into inability to understand. The The critical Critical interpretation is very closely akin to the historical. tion - Without Criticism no historical, and hence also no exegetical, inquiry is possible. Besides Textual Criticism, Historical Crit- icism is also necessary. The critical treatment of Scripture often comes now into conflict with certain traditional opinions which it is its business to test ; nay, it is itself in great part nothing else than the testing of traditional opinions with refer- ence to the author, the . age, and the relations under which the writinor under consideration arose. From this cause it has 88 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. come into disrepute with believers in tradition. Criticism and Revelation have been set up as antagonists, unjustly ; not Revelation and Criticism, but Tradition and Criticism, are an- tagonistic. Now it is certainly not to be denied that in this prov- ince, where combination and conjecture have to do their best, a wide field is opened for arbitrariness and fancifulness. Not as if critical conjecture or hypothesis were in itself inadmissi- ble ; there may be even here a Copernicus, a Kepler, or a Newton ! But every hypothesis, even the most brilliant, must be verified, i.e. all essential phenomena must be found explica- ble by it, or at least must not contradict it. Yet only the smallest number of hypotheses are so fortunate, and if never- theless, despite contradictory phenomena, a hypothesis is to be held fast at all hazards ; if one has eyes only for what favors his hypothesis, no eyes for what is unfavorable ; criticism, to- gether with the exegesis that rests upon it, has got upon a wrong road. If then, moreover, such a conjecture has been given out as a dogma, an unverified result as the watchword of a party, all scientific discussion is at an end. Diametrically opposed to the critical treatment of Scripture stands the Apol- ogetic. In the face of an arbitrary and tendential ' hypercri- ticism it is in the right, when it in turn subjects this hyper- criticism to criticism, and vindicates the grounds that may be adduced in favor of the traditional view. But so far as this Apologetical treatment of Scripture seeks to sustain the tradi- tional view at all hazards, even at the sacrifice of subjective truth and scientific conscientiousness, it also becomes tenden- tial, and has no right to complain of the tendential criticism. If it be tendential to be willing to see only what makes against the usual view, it is no less tendential to be willing to see and to give due weight to that only which is favorable thereto. Thus, viz. it is only at the sacrifice of scientific accuracy that men have sought to support by all the artifices of an ingenious Bible interpretation the complete accord of the sense in which the New Testament writers employ certain Old Testament 1 See Translator's Preface. — Te. REVIEW OP THE EXEGETICAL METHODS. 89 # passages with the original sense of these passages, or the har- mony of the Mosaic cosmogony and conception of the world with the results of geology and astronomy ; or that they ex- plain away historical contradictions, which are manifest to every unprejudiced mind. If then, moreover, such a hyper- conservative treatment of Scripture is put forth as the only " believing '' one ; yet by this means scientific and honorable dis- cussion is just as much cut off as by a critical conjecture set forth under the name of liberality. We conclude with the Spirit- The Spirit- .. . . uahstic in- uahstic (Pneumatic) interpretation. This rests upon the true terpreta- presupposition, that the divine spirit of Scripture can be un- derstood only by means of the divine spirit. In fact, Scrip- ture must be read and explained in the spirit in which it was written, since only the related can understand the related. But it is a great misapprehension and an arrant misuse of the Pneumatic interpretation, if one, in proud contempt of the human means which condition a thorough and assured under- standing, supposes that he has in his " devoutness " 1 the only true and infallible key to knowledge, and from this his stand-point, as from a tripod, maintains instead of investigating. So also it is a great perversion of the Spiritualistic interpretation if — not content with the simple and assured sense of the author — one underlays him with one's own profound system and makes him utter mysteries which only an artificial explanation can interpret into him. As an opposition to the flat intelligence of the Rationalistic exegesis this Spiritualistic interpretation has its historical authorization ; it has also its exegetical author- ization in as far as the words of Christ and his apostles con- tain in fact mysteries which only the initiated can understand (1 Cor. ii. 6 ff.). But as far as the interpreter goes to work not so much to ascertain what the author says and means as what he himself desires that he may say and mean ; so far as he from private aversion to the clear and the simple, catches at mysteries, the spiritualistic interpretation is on a dangerous by-path. To this hankering after the mysterious, a province i " Glaubigkeit." 8* 90 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. in which the phantasy of the interpreter has the freest play, rhe the Chiliastic tendency, and especially the aversion to the his- Chiliastic .,. ' , . , , tendency, toncal interpretation of the Apocalypse, are also in great part to be ascribed. Over against such an exposition (or rather im- position) the rule of the Reformers is to be remembered, that the obscure in Scripture is to be explained by the clear, and not conversely. /}) The Right Exegetical Stand-point. 37. The true View of Scripture. In recent times everything in exegesis and Scripture study seems to move around the question, whether the Bible is to be regarded and treated as a divine or as a human writing. But the way in which the question is put is thoroughly wrong, since The Bible as even he that regards the Scriptures as a divine book, cannot book. deny that they were written by human authors, however much they may have been inspired, in human language and under human and temporal relations ; that, for example, the language of the New Testament writings is impure, that many of their presuppositions and conceptions are current Jewish opinions, and not eternal truths ; as also that the text of the Bible has come down to us through countless and varying copies, and hence partially in an uncertain and corrupted form. On the As a human other hand, he who regards the Bible as a human book, will acknowledge that it contains divine thoughts and eternal truths, and that it has exerted an influence on humanity such as no other book has exerted. Accordingly, the former, unless he shuts himself up in narrow obstinacy against the most notorious facts, will see that the understanding of the Scriptures cannot be reached without linguistic and historical help. The latter, in turn, cannot but regard exegesis as then first complete, when his critical, grammatical, and historical investigations have re- vealed to him the se?ise and the thoughts of the sacred author ; since otherwise he would have no understanding at all for these things. Not thus, therefore, is the principal question to be put, whether the Bible is a divine or a human book, but REVIEW OP THE EXEGETICAL METHODS. 91 whether the interpreter is to go to his work with or without The correct presuppositions. The old exegetes answered this question of the ques. emphatically in the first sense. See, e.g. in M. Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae. But confessional writings also, as the Con- fessio Helvetica Posterior (c. 2), set forth the principle that in- terpretation must agree with the regula fidei. If by the regula The regula fidei is understood the Apostolicum or some other ecclesias- tical symbol, the rule is thoroughly objectionable ; since, to say nothing of the utter insufficiency of this norm, it is altogether impracticable to explain the original by the derivative. But, if by the regula fidei is understood certain general principles which are themselves drawn from Scripture, this comes nearer to the truth, but everything depends on whether these prin- ciples have been really drawn from Scripture and according to correct exegetical insight. The setting up of these principles as regula fidei et norma interpretandi presupposes already, therefore, a thorough exegesis. More correctly will these principles be so conceived of, that that is to be set up as the norma interpretandi which differentiates the biblical religion from other religions, in which, however, a historical study of Js „ g he ; u ? ity religions is presupposed. The presupposition is here, above to be P™- all, the unity of Scripture. The question reduces itself there- fore, to this, Whether the exegete must presuppose the unity of Scripture ? Not so, at all events, that on account of the unity he should under-estimate the diversities, and seek to bring out, e.g. the doctrine of justification through faith even in the Synoptic Gospels, which can be no otherwise accomplished than through the most forced exegesis. The doctrinal unity of the Scriptures can rather be only the abstraction from rightly apprehended distinctions ; therefore not so much the presupposition as the goal of exegesis. This holds, however, only of scientifically determined unity ; but from this the general impression is to be distinguished, which the unlearned The general ,, „ , „ . . impressiott. as well as the learned reader of the Scriptures receives, that everything in the Bible is directed to the glory of God, and not to the glory of man, and that man is throughout assumed to 92 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF HERMENEUTICS. be a dependent, sinful being, in need of salvation. This is so much the case that he who sees men, and first of all himself, only in the great and the beautiful, is to such an extent desti- tute of an understanding for the Scriptures, that the Scriptures must present themselves to him rather as foolishness ; while to him alone is the sense of the Bible disclosed, who through a living experience and a self-knowledge has arrived at the con- sciousness of his own sinfulness and need of salvation, and of that of the whole human race. Thus, not a doctrinal pre- Need of in- supposition, but an inner affinity on the part of the interpreter ' with the. general spirit of Scripture, is indispensable to the understanding of Scripture. Usually, however, this condition is found insufficient and another condition set up, viz. uncon- ditional belief in the authority and inspiration of Scripture must be the key to the right understanding. With regard to yiews of in- inspiration we refer to what has been said above (§ 8 ff.). Plere we enter only upon the question, "Whether this unconditional reverence, to which the Bible is a sacred thing not to be ^ touched, or spiritual kinship and love, conditions the right un- derstanding ? Now it is, of course, true that respect for the Bible, and especially for the word of God contained in the Bible, is the attitude towards Scripture with which we, as a rule, begin ; but nobody would maintain thkt this respect, so long as it remains mere respect and doesnot advance to posi- tive interest and to believing desire for knowledge, is a means to the understanding of Scripture. To be convinced that the Orthodox contrary is the case one has only to appeal to the Orthodox exegetes of * ' • tneirthcen- exegetes of the seventeenth century, and to ask, whether they Reformers, understood and interpreted Scripture better than the Beformers? Still less advantageous to interpretation than this general respect is the respect which has advanced to the dogmatic belief in inspiration, and which has thus become petrified. The belief in inspiration is originally nothing else than the dog- matic reflection on the impression which Scripture makes upon the reader. This impression is still very freshly and vividly described by Calvin (Instit. I. 8, 1), although he had elsewhere REVIEW OP THE EXEGETICAL METHODS. 93 already (ibid. 7, 4 at beginning) laid down the premises of the unconditional belief in inspiration. If this unconditional belief in inspiration is, as a result, of doubtful value for interpretation, as a irpo\rj\l/iook, related to the demand, that they be ex- pnon y p] a ined under recognition of their difference from other books ? Which claim is entitled to the priority ? It will be remembered that Scripture interpretation is only a particular species of in- terpretation, and that the general principles of interpretation must take precedence of those that are a special modification or enriching of the same. If a question arises with reference to the exegetical procedure, to the common principles and rules the priority must be unconditionally yielded. Not as if the interpretation should be conducted first according to these gen- eral principles, and then according to the special considerations and principles ; but the exegete is rather throughout to proceed from these general principles, to make use of the special con- siderations only when these latter make a modification of the former really necessary. Does a question arise with reference to the end and aim of Scripture interpretation, whether it be a purely philological or a theological one ; special stress is to be laid upon the peculiarity of the biblical writings and the con- sequent peculiarity of the exegetical direction. y) The Exegetical Statement. 39. Method and Order of Procedure. In general we must here refer to what has been said above (§ 7) on the exegetical impartation. The exegetical process in the case of a biblical book or section is essentially no other Importance than in any other ancient book, a) It is not enough that of aright .,..,,,. , . S order. every individual thing that is said be correct ; neither is it enough that every correct thing be said, but what is correct REVIEW OF THE EXEGETICAL METHODS. 101 must also be said in the right order, i.e. so that, as far as pos- sible, one thing may lead to another, and this be conditioned by that. The hearer must be so introduced into the essential parts of the investigation, that thereby he may be led step by step to the object, and may seem to have found this at the hand of the interpreter himself. The object to be attained is the understanding of the thought of the author. The inter- preter is, therefore, to begin with giving a brief synopsis of the Synopsis, contents of the passage to be explained, or if the passage in hand has been taken from the midst of a whole, he is to show the connection. If the passage to be explained is of consider- Connection able extent, then are the articulation and the grouping of the whole to be pointed out. Having now informed his hearers in this way, he may go on to the explanation of details. As, now, the first condition to this explanation is, that we have at hand as nearly as possible the ipsissima verba auctoris, the first thing Criticism of in order will be, in case the Text varies, to determine upon the correct reading. The second thing in order must be the ascer- Terbal S6QSB tainment of the grammatical or verbal sense, where in the first place the construction or the organism of the sentence — first of all the subject and predicate, then descending step by step, the subordinate parts of the sentence — comes up for dis- cussion. More difficult expressions are to be explained accord- ing to linguistic usage and the connection. In the grammati- cal explanation the logical is naturally included. Archaeolo- Archaeol- gical, historical, and geographical matters are first to be ex- ' plained after the verbal sense has been determined ; whether the discussion is to be detailed or not depends on the difficulty and importance of the matter. Finally, on the basis of the verbal sense, of the logical and real explanation, — the thought of Connection the author is to be so developed and illustrated, that the hearer ° oug may be put in a position, to think what the author thought, and to think it as he thought it. How rich and complete the exe- How much getical material is to be, which the interpreter is to impart, to be em- depends upon the hearers or the readers for whom his explana- p oye tion is designed. Almost never will he parade the whole 9* 102 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP HERMENEUTICS. apparatus of his own investigation, but will rather impart only what is essential to the securing of his aim. The method that begins with determining the sense, and then for the first time brings in the exegetical material, is to be unconditionally char- acterized as the inventive method, since in every case the result appears, as it were, to have been shot from a pistol, and the apparatus afterwards adduced, to be a superfluous ballast. Character The exegete's business is not to maintain, but to discuss and to dience. prove, b) A principal consideration with the exegete must' The learned be the nature of his audience. If his explanation is designed for the learned, which will only be the case when the locus or section under consideration is difficult or disputed, or the explan- ations that have previously been given leave something essential still to be desired, the interpreter has much to presuppose as well- known and acknowledged ; but he must be so much the more exhaustive and thorough where the matter is disputed and he is Xeamers. conscious of being able to furnish something new. But if his explanation be designed for learners and students, the better the condition of the knowledge of his hearers is known the more successfully will he explain. To this he must accommo- date himself. In any case he cannot here presuppose so much ; he must here aim at a certain completeness, and especially must he show through his methods how exegesis is to be con- ducted, bringing out occasionally a hermeneutical rule or call- ing attention to a hermeneutical fault that happens to come Class exer- before him. If there are exercises of young exegetes before ' teachers, it should be seen to that the most important exegetical materials be conscientiously used, that the exegetical judgment have been formed and be formed, that the one explaining select from the materials used or discovered for himself, and impart what is of importance. Exegetical talent is shown pre-eminently in this : that the judgment in individual matters is independent, and the whole explanation is thorough, clear, and transparent, c) Finally, the exegetical method is deter- Objeot in mined through the object which one has in view. This may. naturally, be either purely exegetical or it may be critical, dog- REVIEW OP THE EXEGETICAL METHODS. 103 # matical, or practical. If the object be purely exegetical, the case is met by simply what was said under a). Is the object a Critical, critical investigation, the normal exegetical process undergoes a modification only in as far as the explanation has to hold in view that chiefly, which may throw light upon the question concerning genuineness, authenticity, and the like; and hence, the principal attention is to be directed to the linguistic charac- ter, to the diction, to the historical marks, to the circle of thought, so far as this furnishes points of comparison. If, on Dogmatic, the other hand, the object be a dogmatic one, whether it be the ascertainment of the doctrinal idea of the given author or of part of the same ; or the biblical proof and grounding of a doctrinal proposition, the passages under discussion are to be first explained individually according to the verbal sense, the connection and the intention, and then they are to be compared with each other. The chief attention is to be directed to the intention of the author. If, finally, the object be a practical Practical, one, all learned apparatus should, of course, be dispensed with. At the same time it will depend upon the education of the hearers, how much or how little general knowledge is to be presupposed in them, how much or how little capacity for thought is to be expected of them. But whatever may be the degree of culture in the hearers, the practical interpreter must always direct his attention to the religious contents and kernel, must have had an inner experience of the relation thereof to human life, and must know how to present it clearly and im- pressively to others. "Whatever may be the nature of the pub- lic for which the explanation is designed, and whatever may be the object of the explanation, the exegete can never dispense Self-preps- with, at least, what is essential to previous investigation of his own, viz. textual criticism, verbal explanation, explanation of the subject-matter, and logical explanation, together with reli- gious comprehension of the thought. PART II. THE SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE SCRIPTURE INTERPRETER. 1. The Criticism of the Text} I. Ceneral View. From the history of the New Testament literature, and especially from the history of the text we learn how, after the Mode of early loss of the autographs, the multiplication of manuscripts Hon c&mss. was at first performed without diplomatic accuracy, but later passed through purging hands, which, however, aimed in no way merely at the restoration of the original. Involuntary oversights and true or supposed emendations on linguistic, dogmatic, or ritualistic grounds, found place and have so in- creased with time, that at last the number of variations amounted to many thousands. These are, indeed, in part only orthographical or, in general, not such as greatly to affect the sense ; but in part they are essential, and of great impor- 1 The best helps for the textual criticism of the New Testament are : Teschendorf, Editio Till. Critica Major (with Prolegomena of the Ed.VII.). This work furnishes abundant materials; though Tischeudorf 's own opin- ions are not particularly valuable. In many instances he seems to follow almost blindly the readings of his darling Codex Sinaiticus ; Tregelles, New Testament, — not so rich in materials as Tiscbendorf, but more trustworthy as a text; Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (2d ed.); Hammond, Textual Criticism applied to the New Testament; Gardiner, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1875, Art. Textual Criticism, since published in book form, and as an Appendix to his Greek Harmony of the Gospels. — Tb. 104 THE CRITICISM OP THE TEXT. 10 # 5 tance to the sense. Had we only one manuscript which No absolute / norm. reached back nearly to the Apostolic or the post-Apostolic times, we should have simply to hold to this ; but such does not exist. ■ We know that the oldest manuscripts which we possess date from the fourth and fifth centuries. Accordingly, it Monuments ° J of the Text, would be important to have monuments of the text from ear- lier times. Such have been preserved in some old translations, as, e.g. in .the Peschito, in the Egyptian translations, and in the ancient Itala. 1 But, from the nature of the case, transla- tions are only mediate witnesses of the text of their time, to say nothing of the vitiating circumstance that translations them- selves, as especially the Itala, have come down to us in cor- rupted texts. The citations of those Church Fathers, that are Versions . -.i • , ,. sl • \. also corrupt more ancient than our oldest manuscripts, seem to rurmsn a more certain attestation ; but many of these citations are not verbally accurate ; only the exegetes among them, especially Origen and Chrysostom, have cited verbally. But already in those ancient times the variations are not unimportant. At the Most im- same time the ancient manuscripts, as the Vatican, the Sinaitic, Mgs . the Alexandrine, the Cantabrigian, etc., are always of great weight, and where they agree among themselves, or where some principal codices are supported by still other testimonies, as by the Peschito, by the best Codd. of the Vulgate, or by Origen, the reading is to be regarded as assured. 2. Means of attaining to the Original Text. This is by no means frequently the case, however, but often the preponderance of testimonies is not decisive. On the other hand, it is of great consequence, if a reading is authenti- cated through testimonies of different hinds, as e.g. by Alexan- Witnesses drine, Constantinopolitan, and Western, or if one or two impor- kinds. 1 Compare on the Versions the-excellent Articles in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, on the Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, Egyptian, Gothic, and Syriac versions, by Tregelles ; on the Latin versions by Westcott. See also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf and Tregelles to their editions of the Greek New Testament, and the works on Textual Criticism referred to above. References to all the valuable literature up to the time of publica- tion, will be found in the Articles in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible refer- red to. — Tk. 106 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. tant manuscripts are supported by one or more versions, or by quotations from the Fathers. Yet even thus the. desired certainty is often not attained, since the distinction between an Alexan- drine, Constantinopolitan, and Occidental text cannot be rigidly carried through, and since not seldom agreements stand against Critical agreements. Therefore, in most cases, critical conjecture is indispensable ; only this must be based upon knowledge of the history of the text, and especially of the causes of the rise of false readings. The emendation of the text must, in a certain measure, be the reverse of the rise of the traditional (cor- rupted) text, i.e. the criticism of the text must draw from the readings at hand — having regard to the influences which then contributed to the alteration of the text — a conclusion upon the probably original reading. Upon the probably original read- ing ! since we are never to forget that we have to do here not with exact science, but in most cases only with conjectures or grounds of probability, and that the results of our efforts take in the whole scale of historical certainty even to the com- plete non liquet. The principles to be followed in this con- jectural criticism are set forth in Prolegomena or Excursuses to all critical editions from Griesbach to Tischendorf, and, indeed, Textual it is self-evident that the more, as well the apparatus as the Criticism a ..... , .... , , progressive insight into the principles improves, the more accurately will they be formulated. In the brief guide to textual criticism, which we here give, these principles cannot be dispensed Involun- with. The corruptions of the text are, a) involuntary, i.e. tary corrup- , , . .„, .„ tions. such as have arisen uirough aberration of the eye or imperfect hearing ; here belong all kinds of errors of the pen, especially the permutations of <=i and t, of at and e, etc., that arose through Itacism ; 1 also the oversights that have arisen through i By Itacism is meant the corruption and assimilation of the vowel sounds which certainly began not very long after the beginning of the Christian era, and which resulted in the assimilation of », i\, o, e», ot, vi, as the continental i, and of e and cu as the continental d. This system is seen in its full development in the ancient Syriac versions in the trans- ference of proper names, etc., and is that now followed in Romaic or Modern Greek. The late Dr. H. B. Hackett was of the opinion that this THE CRITICISM OP THE TEXT. 107 • the Scriptio continua and the Homoioteleuton, the errors that have arisen from palaeographic causes, e.g. the confounding of © and O, KC (/cupios) and KC (/onpos), etc. As examples of Example.! : such involuntary variations we adduce only the following : Of those that have arisen from Itacism, Matt. xi. 26 (erat'pois and From v Itacism. frepois) ; Matt, xxvii. 60 (kcuvw and «ej<<3) ; Rom. ii. 17 (ti Si and iSi) ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 (el /j,rj and 17 firj) ; 1 Pet. ii. 8 (xPV a " r °' i and XpiorosV Of those that have arisen from Homoioteleu- From Ho- ' ' moioteleu- ton, the repetition of the first member of Matt. x. 23 ; the tou. omission or transposition of 1 Cor. xv. 26 ; the omission of kv aKaTao-Tdcrtais in 2 Cor. vi. 5. From palaeographic abbre- From ab- viation, the confounding of os and #eds 1 Tim. iii. 16, the con- founding of ™ KvpLio SoiAeuovres and r. Kaipa> SovX. in Eom. xii. 11, et al. Cf. for other examples, Reuss, " History of the New Testament Scriptures," § 364. In reference to these acci- dental corruptions scarcely any rules can be given, yet it is to be said that a meaningless reading must be regarded as a false Meaning- lsss rGndiiiji reading, and as having arisen through oversight ; that readings false. " which yield indeed a sense, are yet to be regarded as exception- able, if they are supported by one manuscript only, or by few testimonies, and these of subordinate authority, b) Arbitrary Arbitrary- alterations of the text. First of all it is to be observed that in the first centuries there was for a long time not that importance attached to the exact reproduction of the text as later, that, e.g. there was no hesitation about writing first in the margin, and Incorpora- then incorporating into the text itself certain traditional ad- ginairead- ditions, as John v. 4 ; vii. 53 ; viii. 11 ; Mark xvi. 9 ff. ; as also glosses or liturgical formulae, or doxologies, the word 'A/mji/, and such like. Later, when the text came to be dealt with more accurately, the authority of the church had already be- come so great that such readings as were more favorable to the opinion and practice of the church were preferred and diffused, pronunciation represents more accurately than any other that followed by the sacred writers themselves; accordingly, he introduced it into his, classes. So far as I can learn, however, this system has not met with the approval of scholars in general, and it is fraught with so many disadvan- tages that it cannot be recommended. — Tk. 108 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. at the expense of those that seemed rather to favor an heretical view ; although it is not to be denied that the heretics on their Harmony, side did the same. Very frequently, especially in the Gospels, differences are equalized in the interest of harmony, just as frequently inaccurate and free citations from the Old Testa- ment (the LXX) are made more conformable to the language of the LXX. And not in material points alone, but also in formal matters, the so-called emendations were undertaken, and Grammar, expressions that appeared to be bad Greek were replaced with more correct. 3. The Most Important Critical Helps. This knowledge of the history of the text is, indeed, an indis- pensable condition of textual criticism ; but it must be com- bined with the knowledge of the most important critical helps, Sources of and of their relative value. On this subject the Prolegomena n orma ion .^ Q r i es bach, Scholz, and Tischendorf, as also the so-called hand-books of Isagogics give information. The necessity for the consultation and knowledge of these helps rests upon the fact, that in general no literary-historical investigation is pos- sible without knowledge and criticism of the sources. Again, it is not to be assumed, that a genuine reading has been entirely lost, and has not been preserved in some ancient witness or Mostimpor- other. But it is necessary in the mass of manuscripts and other witnesses, to know the most important, for which we refer to the helps mentioned above, and especially to the Pro- legomena to Tischendorf 's seventh critical edition. In these Prolegomena attention is called to the importance of the Codd. Vaticanus (B), which however is defective from Heb. ix. 14 onwards ; of the Sinaiticus (n), the Alexandrinus (A), Eph- raemi(C), very defective, Cantabrigensis (D), for the Pauline Epistles also the Cod. Claromont. (D Paris.) ; then also to the importance of the most ancient versions as the Peschito, the two Egyptian, the Vulgate, of which Codd. Amiat. 1 and Fuldens. are the oldest and most important ; and, finally, to the citations 1 A good edition of the Cod. Amiatinus, edited by Tischendorf, ha* appeared, — T#. THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT. 109 4 of Origen. But side by side with these most important critical attestations, there are others in no way to be neglected, and even the Minuscule [Cursive] manuscripts may be of value Cursives, for the support of a reading. 1 But, finally, it is indispensable to know the nature and the relative critical worth of the most important manuscripts, on which subject also the helps referred to contain what is necessary. We may only call attention here to the facts, that the Cod.Vaticanus, the most important of all, 2 is free from a multitude of additions which most of the later manuscripts contain, and that in a linguistic point of view it is characterized by a certain preference for the Perfect (instead of the Aorist) ; that the Cod. Sinaiticus as regards the omis- sion of the later additions, as also in the majority of the read- ings, agrees with the Vat., but is disfigured by a host of errors of the pen. The Cod. Cantabrigensis, important for the Gos- pels and the Acts, and containing a very ancient and as yet inedited text, contains here and there peculiar additions, among which that to Luke vi. 4 is the most noteworthy. Codd. Vat. and Sina'it. have an important support in the fact that they very frequently agree with the citations, of Origen. From these con- critical siderations we deduce the following critical rules : 1. No crit- rules- ical conjecture is admissible, that is not supported by at least one ancient attestation. 2. The most ancient readings, even if accredited by few attestations, deserve, as a rule, the prefer- ence over later readings, even though more strongly accredited. 3. The more these readings are supported by attestations of a different kind (as Codices, Versions, and Fathers), or by testi- monies of different origin (as, e.g. Oriental and Occidental), the more assured they are. 1 The mss. noticed above NABCD, and many others are written in large characters like capitals, and are called Uncials (uncia, an inch). This method of writing was gradually superseded by the Cursive, correspond- ing with the characters used in printed Greek texts. These Cursive mss. though very late, are often valuable from the fact that they may have been copied accurately from » very ancient Uncial, and may, therefore, represent an earlier text than some of the later Uncials themselves. — Tr. 2 This view was strongly contested by Tischendorf, who regarded the Cod. Sinaiticus as the most important of all. — Tb. 10 110 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. 4. The Critical Procedure, The critical procedure must, accordingly, consist partly in consultation and comparison of the attestations, partly in con- Conjecture, jecture to be arrived at by way of exegesis. The latter is the more necessary, the less decisive the external confirmation is. This may be seen first of all in those examples, in which inter- 1 John v. 7. polation can be proved with great probability. 1 John v. 7 (" the three witnesses in heaven ") has against it all Greek Codd., with the exception of three Codd. of the period from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, all ancient versions even the more ancient Codd. of the Vulg. (as particularly the Amiat. and the Fuld.), all the Greek Fathers until in the eleventh cen- tury, and all the Latin Fathers to Vigilius of Thapsus. This unanimity raises the spuriousness of these words to absolute certainty, and makes all conjectural criticism superfluous. The interpolation arose in the Latin Church, probably in the sixth century ; Vigilius of Thapsus is the first who cites it, aDd thence it passed over into the more modern Codd. of the Vul- gate, and into several very late manuscripts, whence' it was received into the editions of R. Stephanus and the Elzevirs. Had this interpolation a dogmatic ground, so especially the Matt. vi. 13. Doxology, Matt. vi. 13, proceeded from a liturgical ground. It is wanting in Codd. Vat., Sinait., Cantabr., and several Minusc, in several Verss., as e.g. in the Vulg. (Codd. Amiat., Fuld., etal.), and in several Greek and Latin Fathers. Besides this, it is attested through scholia to many manuscripts, that these words are wanting in many ancient Codices. The spuriousness of this Doxology is, therefore, by so much the more indubitable as its rise is explicable. Far more important is the absence of Mark xvi. Mark xvi. 9-20 in Codd. Vat. and Sinait., to which is to be 9-20 added the fact that Cod. D. gives an entirely different and Cod. L. again still a different text of this section from the Textus Eeceptus. To this, moreover, we are to add the great host of variations that even those manuscripts contain, which have this passage in substantially the same form with the Ed. Eecepta. Still further, Eusebius (Ad Marinum Ep A. Mai. THE CRITICISM OP THE TEXT. Ill * nov. collect. IV.), Jerome (Ep. ad Hedibiam, Ep. CXX.), and others, testify to the absence of this section in the most accurate, in the greatest number, of the Greek manuscripts. The oldest witness, who has this conclusion, is Irenaeus ; after him it is found in Codd. AC(D)EGHK(L)MS etc., and in the following Verss. : in the ancient Syriac Verss., the Coptic, the Vulg., the Gpthic (which, however, is defective from vs. 12 onwards). It is accordingly not certain, but very probable, that this appendix did not proceed from Mark himself ; * on the other hand, it must be very ancient, and must date back at least into the second century. It owes its origin probably to a legend from the multiform history of the resurrection. A similar origin, it is in the highest degree probable, has the account of the adul- teress, John vii. 53— viii. 11. In the Codd. Vat. and Sina'it. Johnvll. ■ ■ ii • • a t /-i i • -viii. 11. it is altogether wanting ; m A and (J some leaves are wanting along here ; but from an accurate estimate it appears that it can- not have been contained in these. Still other mss., as L and A (SangalL), have instead of this an empty space. Many others which have the section, characterize it as doubtful. Among the versions, it is wanting in most manuscripts of the Peschito, in several of the Philoxenian, and in the Gothic. Finally, most of the Fathers pass over the section : Origen, Apollinaris, Theod. Mops., Chrysost., et al. On the other hand, the account is sustained by Codd. KM, and not a few others ; further by Rufinus, perhaps also already by Papias, if the notice of Euse- bius (Hist. Eccl. IH. 39), iKridtLTai, Se /cat aXXrjv lo-Topiav irepl ywatxbs «rt 7roX\ats d/iapTiats SiafiifiXrjdeLcrYj'i iirl tov Kvpiov, rjV to koB' 'E/Spaious tiayy£\wv 7repte^et, has reference to this ; which, indeed, is doubtful, for the reason that the history to which he alludes is taken from the " Gospel according to the Hebrews." To these external grounds of doubt may be added two internal grounds, — the disproportionate multitude of 1 For an able defense of the genuineness of these verses, see Bleek, Synoptische Erklarung, in loco. See also a monograph on the subject by Burgon, and an Article by Dr. J. A. Broadus, in the Baptist Quarterly for 1869.— Tb. 112 SINGLE OPEEATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. variations and the un-Johannic language (iiropevOrj, opOpov vs. ■n-poit, Xaog vs. ox^os, ypa/A/Aareis, SiSacrKaAe VS. 'Pa/3/Ji, etc., and such forms of speech as Ka0i'o-as iScSaaKeu avrovs, iva e^taa-iv Kar-rryoplav. ■ . ■ , eh kol8' £19, airo, twv TrptcrfivTipmv Icos tusv ecrvaTov, etc.). But how can this section have come here into the text ? Probably in much the same way as Mark xvi. 9 ff., viz. as a piece of the still somewhat plastic Gospel tradition. John v. 4. The interpolation John v. 4 (of the angel at the pool of Beth- esda), which is not found in Codd. Vat., Sina'it, Ephraemi (prima manu), 1 Cantabrig., and in several ancient versions, has Kom.viii.i. also a legendary origin. The case is different with Bom. viii. 1, where the editions of Stephanus and the Elzevirs read p,r) Kara crapKa mpnraTovcnv, aXKa Kara irvevp-a. But these words are wanting in Codd. Vat., Sina'it., Ephr. (prima, manu), et al., and further in several versions. Codd. Alexandr. etClarom. (secunda manu), the Peschito, the Vulg., the Gothic, etc., have only fj.yj koto. a-dpKa. TrepnraTova-iv. Clarom. (tertia manu), Basil, and many others, have the whole addition. The addition is evi- dently a gloss, having its origin in the reflection that verse 1 might be practically dangerous, if to the words oiSev apa vvv KaraKpifm a limitation were not added. Yet it might be that it was a mere oversight occasioned by a deviation of the eye upon Matt. 7.11. verse 4 (?). It is more uncertain whether ^EuSojuer/oi in Matt. v. 11 is a mere gloss. Judged according to the grounds of in- ternal probability, it must be regarded as such, since it removes the moral stumbling-block of the briefer reading, as if every wicked, lying mouth were a joyful proof of our belonging to the kingdom of God. But since it is supported by the most important manuscripts, as the Vat, Sinait, Ephr., and many others, as well as by very ancient Verss., as both the Syriac and both the Latin, it is ventured to vindicate this reading. "With Matt. 7.22. more ground is in Matt. v. 22 the word ei/d}, although very well attested by Codd., Verss., and Fathers, regarded as a gloss, 1 Many of the most, ancient mss. have been several times renewed (having faded) and corrected. Such experts as Tischendorf and Tregelles have been able by great diligence to distinguish the original mss. from the corrections, and ail of the latter from one another. — Tb. THE CRITICISM OP THE TEXT. 113 # since in addition to the fact that the shorter reading makes the impression of representing all anger as worthy of condemna- tion, whereas the longer reading removes this offence, euoi; is wanting in Codd. Vat. and Sinait., et al., in almost all manu- scripts of the Vulg., also in Origen and some other ancient Fathers ; and some Greek and Latin witnesses say expressly that eiKrj does not stand in the old and accurate manuscripts. This word is, therefore, with great probability to be regarded as a gloss. What has been said is to be summed up in the following critical principles : 1) we are to hold every passage Critical to be a traditional addition, which a) is omitted or in a positive manner designated as doubtful by the oldest and most impor- tant witnesses ; if it /3) presents an extraordinary number of variations ; y) if it shows a break, interrupts the connection, or at least could be omitted without injuring the connection ; and if, again, 8) it shows a linguistic character deviating from that of the author under consideration. 2) A word or sen- tence is to be regarded as a gloss, if the expression under con- sideration, a) has not in its favor the oldest and best witnesses ; and if, indeed, it is expressly attested that it is not found in the oldest and most accurate manuscripts ; (3) if it removes a moral or dogmatic stumbling-block, and y) if it explains and alleviates a difficult thought. Therefore, in such a case, even with stronger external confirmation, the more offensive or harder reading is to be preferred to the inoffensive and easier. 5. Additional Examples. Cf. further the variations in John vii. 8 and 1 Cor. xv. 51. JotaTii.a In the first passage the words run according to the ordinary text : i/xets avdj3rp'e ets rty eoprrjv, iyS> ovttoi avo.f3a.lvw e?s t. iopr. tout. This reading has exceedingly strong confirmation, since the passage runs thus in Codd. Vat., Basil., and most of the other Uncials ; and to these are to be added some manuscripts of the Vulg., the Gothic, Upper Egyptian, and other versions. But in Codd. Sinait., Cantabr., and some others, also in many versions, as in most Codd. of the Vulg., in the Lower Egyp- tian, in the Syriac according to Cureton, stands ovk avaftaivu) . . . ; 10* 114 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. and this reading is also attested by Jerome, who mentions (Adv. Pelag. 2, 17), that Porphyry, supported by this passage, has accused Jesus of inconsistency ; further by Epiphanius and Chrysostom, who, however, cites the passage as if it read o-uk avafiaivm vvv . . . According to the reading ovk o.va/3. the passage is very difficult, and the conduct of Jesus very enig- matical ; even the Fathers mentioned have striven to vindicate Jesus from the appearance of wavering. How now would this difficult and offensive reading have arisen if ovwio had been the original ? On the other hand, the reading ovtt is quite easily explained, precisely from the offence which the ovk dra/J. coll. ICor.xv.Bi. with verse 10 must have occasioned. 1 Cor. xv. 51 runs ac- cording to the ordinary text thus : Trdi/Tes /j.Iv oi Koi\i.t]Qt]o-6ji.tBa., Trdvres Se aXKayqa-o^Oa, which reading is confirmed by the Vat., Clarom. (by the second hand), and many others, also by both Syriac Verss., the Coptic, Aethiopic, Gothic, and by several ancient Fathers and exegetes. On the other hand (so Griesbach in the margin and Lachmann), the Codd. Sinait., Alexandr., Ephr., Boerner., have the passage in the following form : 7ra.VT£v ?) The relation of testimony is otherwise in Mark, where Alexandr., Ephr., and the great majority of the rest of the Uncials read VaSapTjvuiv, while Vat., Sinait., Cantab., and both Latin Verss. have Tzpao-qvuv, and other witnesses Tepyecrq- vS>v. In Luke the Textus Receptus, supported by a great num- ber of Uncials and some Verss., reads Va^ap-qvSiv ; Vat., Sinait., Cantab., both Latin Verss., the Upper Egyptian Vers., and the Philoxenian have Tepaa-qvuiv, very much the same wit- nesses in Luke as in Mark have Tepyearjv&v. In Mark and Luke the reading TepaarjvZv appears to be critically assured, while TepyearjvZv appears to have arisen from the geographical notice of Origen, that the place of the occurrence cannot be Gadara, because there is no sea in the neighborhood of this place ; while Gergesa is an ancient town on the sea of Gen- nesaret, and has a precipice from which the swine could hurl themselves. Tepyecrrjv&v must accordingly be regarded as a correction, while TaSaprjvwv and Tepacrrp/Zv are more original, but perhaps attributable to ignorance on the part of the very 116 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Incorrect citation. Mark i. 2. ancient copyists. It is a difficulty that the author of Matthew, who was presumably familiar with the country, has the geo- graphically incorrect, but critically assured, TaSapyvStv. But we know not how our canonical Matthew is related to the original Hebrew [Aramaic] Matthew, whose author was, at all events, familiar with the country. At other times the varia- tion is occasioned by a really or apparently incorrect citation. An example is Mark i. 2. Here the Received Text, supported by the great majority of Uncial manuscripts, some versions, and by Iranaeus, reads : KaOwg yeypan-Tiu iv rots Trpofyrp-avs. On the other hand, Codd., Vat., Sina'it., Cantabr., and other Uncials, as also the majority of the ancient versions, and several Fathers have : iv (tw) 'Hcraia to irpcxpyrrj. But now the passage : " Behold I send my messengers before thy face," is found not in Isaiah but in Malachi (iii. 1), as already Euse- bius, for instance, saw. Since now it is not at all clear how the reading, iv r. 'Ho-. tc3 Trpo. could have arisen and have found its way into precisely the best Codd., if iv tois irpcxp. had been the original reading, the latter must be regarded as a cor- rection. Just such is the case with the incorrect citation in Matt.xxvii. Matt, xxvii. 9 (to pifiiv Sia. tov 7rpotp^Tov 'Iep€|«W), since the 9 ' passage stands not in Jeremiah, but in Zechariah (xi. 13). Nevertheless, the reading 8ia tov irpos kcu iv ™ irpu>T. On the other hand, ovSe is omitted by Cod. Clarom., by Iranaens, Tertullian, and Codd. in Jerome. In Jerome's time, in general, most of the Greek manuscripts seem to have read ovSi ; most of the Latin to have omitted it. How, now, could it happen that a variation arose which said precisely the contradictory of the original ? It could be said on exegetical grounds against the genuineness of ovSi, that — after it had been said (v. 3) i Cf. Godet, Tholuclc, and Meyer in loco Joh. — Tr. THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT. 11& aXK ovSk Titos . . . yjvayKaarOri ■Ki.pnp.-xfirpa.i — what follows is connected with Se, and requires as a counterpart a positive proposition. But such were not at all, as a rule, the grounds and considerations according to which the ancient copyists and correctors proceeded. Bather, it was either regarded as more suitable to the situation, to suppose that Paul momentarily- yielded (see Tertullian Adv. Marcionem, V. 3), or an incon- sistency was found in the fact that Paul, according to Acts xvi. 3, circumcised Timothy for the sake of the Jews present ; and now, in similar circumstances, has not yielded to those who desired the circumcision of Titus. Through the omission, then, of ovSe the inconsistency is completely removed, not, to be sure, to the advantage of the intention of the whole passage, ia which the Apostle evidently means to show that he has main- tained his independence over against his Jewish -Christian opponents. That the 8e (vs. 4) requires a positive antithesis is indeed no constraining ground, since to say nothing of the fact that Si here may be merely metabatic, there is no lack of examples, especially in Paul, where after a negative proposition the antithetical 8e again stands at the head of a negative pro- position ; so Rom. iv. 20. But we find not only a striving for conformity of the subject-matter, but also for verbal conform- ity. Cf. Mark i. 16 with Matt. iv. 18. The passage in Mark Marki. 16; according to the Ed. Elzev. runs thus : UepLTrariov 8k Trapa ttjv 6a\d7//,ias (Codd. Alex., Ephr., Basil., Aug., and several versions), and tiovtos ovtu>s XaXei; /SXao-^jtiei (Vat., Sinait., Cantabr. ; Verss. Vulg., Copt., et al.), in which no internal ground is decisive for the one or the other reading, and the external testimonies also are divided, unless we follow the often confirmed authority of the Cod. Vat. 7. Old Testament Citations and the LXX. Almost oftener still it occurs that Old Testament citations, which are frequently merely citations from memory or are otherwise inaccurate, are made to conform to the original lxx Text passage (i.e. to the LXX). Here, of course, circumspection is corrup . necessary, because the text of the LXX is exceedingly corrupt, and not seldom, conversely, the Old Testament passage under consideration has been assimilated to the New Testament cita- tion. Yet in the following passages, e.g. the critical judgment Luke xxiii. can hardly be doubtful ; Luke xxiii. 46 coll. with Ps. xxx. 6 46 coll. with , T ,,„. „. - „ T t. . t Ps. xxx. 6 (LXX). I he words of Jesus run according to the ordinary text : eh ^etpas aov Trapadijcrofji.ai to 7rvev/j.d /xov, a reading sup- ported by a considerable number of manuscripts. On the other hand, the Vat., Sinait., Alex., Ephr., and not a few others, have 7ra/DaTt#eyu.ai . . . , for which the weight of testimony, as well as the deviation from the LXX, bears favorable witness. See Rom. ix. 27 further, Rom. ix. 27 coll. with Isa. x. 22, where the {nroXAjtim COll. With . . „ T irir isa. x. 2a. deviating from the LXX, but supported by Codd. Vat., Sina'it., Alex., is certainly to be preferred to the ordinary reading KaTaXelfx.jj.a, from the fact that no manuscript of the LXX reads Rom. ix. 33 woXet/i/^a. A precisely similar case seems to be Eom. ix. 33 coll. THE CRITICISM OP THE TEXT. 121 Isa. viii. 14. The Ed. Elzev., namely, has the passage in Romans coil, with tnus : . . . K.a.1 7ras o 7n.orv ' Ke °"' a for iK£T€ta, /jLicrdaTroSoarLa for /uo-0o8oo"ia, p.ov6(p8a.\fji,ot9aA/j,os, vovOeata for vovOirrjaus, OTrrao-ia for 6'i/as, rj op/coyuocn'a for to. op/c., 6 TrX-fjcnov for 6 ir£\a<;, TroTa7ros for 7roScm-ds, etc. Especially frequent become verbal forms in -i£co, in -co pure instead of in -pi (e.g. 6/utjco instead of ofivvfu), formed from the perfect, as cmj/cto, substantive in -fm. c) Words entirely New words. new, mostly words formed through composition, make their appearance, as aVTikvTpov, aAeKTopoc/xoi'ia, a.7TOK£^>aki^u>, dya9o- Troteo), atx/naAcoTeixo, w^O^fJ-epov, o-iTO/jieTpiov, et al. d ) Words New mean* long familiar and current receive new meanings, as dvaKkivuv words. and dj/aTrurTetv to recline at table, airoKpi6rjvai to answer, airoTacrcrerTdai to take leave, Sat/imv or Saipoviov evil spirit, evxapicrOuv to thank, i;v\ov tree, irapaKaXeiv to pray, crreyetv to endure, to bear up, 8dveiv to come, to arrive, xPW aT ^ uv to be called, i/ro/u£av to eat, to nourish, et al. In a grammatical point of view the following may be observed, a) Inflections of nouns Peculiar and verbs occur which at an earlier period were either entirely 126 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. unknown or peculiar to a single dialect, e.g. the Doricism afyirnvrai for d<£eoj3eio-6ai airo instead of viro and Accusative et al. e) Weakening The weakening of Iva in the formulae, 6e\a> Iva, Xiyto Iva, afios ha, and many others. /) Use of the Subjunctive instead of v". Optative the Optative after Preterites, etc. A still greater degradation Iva with in- of the language finds place in the construction of iva with the Indicative, and not with the Future only, but even with the dyeiv (VTj\ bit*) to partake of a meal, at/m e«x«"' ,tm TJSttJ) . to kill, avio-Tyvau cnripfjio. nvi. ("i S^| BipFi) to raise up posterity to any one, e« KoiA.t'as judo's (liaK 1W?) from one ' s birth U P' i^epxetrOai Ik •rijs ocrc/n>os Ttvds ("S isbr.B SOT?) to spring fiyom any one, firrelv ^dx 1 ?" Ttvos O 25 ?.? ^B^) to seek an y one ' s life > irotetv eXeos /xera tivos (ds "iGtl !"it8S) to show favor to any one, TTpoo-anrov Xapfidvew (oi:5 xtoj) to be a partaker of any one's Hebrew f avors, vufs Oavdrov (nia-ia) having incurred death, y) Hebrew to Greek meanings are transferred to Greek words, e.g. yXdao-a (as ^B)b) nation, Sd£a (as Tiss) brightness, Suva/us (as rriWS) miracle, ipiorav (as ^XO) to beg, e^o/ioAoyeio-tfai Tin (as ITjifl) to praise or to thank any one, eiXoyetv (as 7(^5) to bless, ivimiov tov 8eov ("bik ^sb) according to the judgment of God, eis (=*irix) the first, vvfKprj (as fifes) daughter-in-law, 6Sos (as Tp^i) manner of life, ireporaTelv (as Tannin) of personal conduct, Trorrjpiov (as 013) lot, fate, irao-a crapf (as "itoa-is) every living creature, Hebraizing etc. S) Hebraizing construction of verbs especially with pre- tion of positions, where the Greek has simply the Accusative or the Dative, e.g. aKo\ov9eiv oirtirw twos, eti/cti eis Tt (as ? ""'"i" 1 ), KpviTTUv Tt d-iro two's instead of two. Tt, o^vvew ev tivi instead of tl or rtva, ofjioXoyelv ev twl to confess any one, Tropiv^ eadai oiriato two's, Trpocricvvew ivimiov (i/JLirpocrOev) two's et al. e) imitation Imitation of the Hebrew relative pronoun in the casus obli- of Hebrew , * , , , - \ , - Uelative. quus with suffix following, as ov to ittvov ev tt; x et P' ivrou, Formula for ois iS69rj . . . avrovs, ottov . . . e«ei etc. £) The Hebraizing formula for an oath with et, e.g. dfirjv Xiyio v/uv, et So&jereTai . . . shall by no means be given. An ellipsis, as is well-known, lies at the basis of this formula, which in Hebrew is now and then supplied : " God do to me this and that, if . . . see 1 Sam. iii. 17, et al. ; but in the New Testament never. rj) The *al iyepero extraordinarily frequent /cat eye'veTO = "ifi"»1 . The extremely frequent occurrence of Kat belongs as well to the Shemitic idiom as to popular language in general, where other authors avail themselves of a more definite conjunction or of the parti- ciple (co-ordination instead of subordination), see e.g. Matt. xi. 25 ; xxvi. 45 ; Mark xv. 25 ; Luke xxiii. 44; John ii. 13 ; v. THE N. T. LINGUISTIC CHARACTER IN GENERAL. 129 # 1, et al. Only conditionally are we here to class the construc- tion of a verb with a Particip. Pres. or with the Dative of the substantive of the same root, corresponding to the Hebrew Infln. Absol., as iwiOvfilq. lTr€0vixrjo-a, X a P^ X a W ei > Gava.no rcXev- ra.Tu> ; since a similar construction occurs in the best Greek authors ; yet especially in those writings that are strongly Hebraistic it is far more probable that the formulae were taken from the Hebrew than from the Greek linguistic usage. Not Aramaisma Hebraisms but Aramaisms are, on the other hand, snch forms of expressions as yeveaOai 6a.vd.Tov (KPia DSB) , 6i\ia, faXavtiponria, which is not the same. But even in the LXX dyaVr/ and aya.Trdu> are comparatively rare. One of the most characteristic marks of the difference between the New Testament and the profane Greek is the word Xdpts : the meaning " agreeableness, gracefulness," is entirely x^p«. foreign to the New Testament ; on the other hand, it means constantly " friendliness, favor," but especially " (divine) grace." Cf. on the subject generally Zetzschwitz, Profangracitat und biblischen Sprachgeist. 1859. H. Gremer, Biblisch - theolo- gisches Worterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Gracitat, 1 2. Aufl. 1872. [ Trench, New Testament Synonyms. Grimm's edition of Wilke's N. T. Lexicon, of which an English translation by Prof. Thayer of Andover is soon to be published. See also the Syllabus of Dr. J. A. Broadus appended to this volume!. 1 Cremer's " Biblico-fheological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek (1st ed.), has been published in English by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh- While it is extremely valuable, even in that form, the new edition is very greatly improved, and treats one hundred and twenty additional words. It is hoped that a second edition of the translation will not be long in appearing. — Tk. 132 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. b. The Linguistic Peculiarities of the different Neia Testament Writers^ 15. General Survey. If the general linguistic character of the New Testament may be compared with the warp of the texture, the linguistic - peculiarities of the individual authors may be compared with its The cogni- woof. The cognizance of the latter is quite a modern affair, zanceoflin- . . . guistio pe- and is still capable of much enriching and correction. What culiarities ._ . . of individ- has up to the present time been accomplished m this depart- a modern ment, has been rather in the interest of criticism than of exe- gesis. The proof of the linguistic peculiarities must, of course, furnish its principal support to criticism, but the cognizance of the grammatical, lexical, and stylistic particularities of the indi- vidual writers is also important for exegesis and conditions insight into the spirit and the circle of thought of the writers. Nature of The linguistic differences of the New Testament authors are by differences. ° . J no means limited to the greater or smaller number of Hebra- isms, to the greater or smaller degree of the purity of their Greek, but have regard also to peculiar expressions, modes of speaking, constructions, and turns that have nothing to do with Accidental Hebraisms and Aramaisms. But to the linguistic peculiarities expressions t ° x not Unguis- of an author belong not such expressions and turns as may be tic peculiar- . . • , ... jties. considered accidental, having their ground, as they do, in the plan of the given writing, or in the subject to be treated, or Soofacci- in the circumstances under which the author wrote. Just as faults. little are the accidental faults of an author to be regarded as Linguistic linguistic peculiarities. But what do come under this head are peculiar!- ° # * ties proper, expressions, modes of speech, and turns, of which 1) it can be shown that in such a case the other author would, as a rule, * On the linguistic peculiarities of the various New Testament writings, cf. the very able Articles in Smith's Diet, of the Bible. Though in some instances, perhaps, clinging too fondly to traditional views, and not allow- ing due weight to the results of modern criticism; yet they form a valuable safeguard against much of the criticism of recent German writers, who are too prone to regard every traditional view against which can be established the slightest suspicion, as utterly set aside, and put beyond prpfitable djscussion. -r- Tjs. THE LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES. 133 •» have used different ones ; which 2) stand in connection with the peculiar circle of thought and the peculiar doctrinal idea of the author under consideration, and which 3) furnish a proof of the author's special form of thought. Such peculiarities are importanca especially there to be established where several undisputed icism. writings of the same, author, or at least one writing of greater compass, is at hand ; or where an important and definite origin- ality is to be vindicated. A practised eye will also know how to observe more minute and more delicate differences of style. We adduce here only what is more essential, leaving the rest for further investigation. 16. The Linguistic Character of Paul. The linguistic character of the Apostle Paul is most certainly Undisputed determined, if we confine ourselves at first to the writings of pls undisputed genuineness, viz. to Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, and then compare the other Pauline writings with these. a) "What strikes the reader of the Pauline writ- Dialectic ings most forcibly of all is the dialectic character and the flow of the discources. Hence the frequent occurrence of such formulae as rl ovv lpovp.a> or merely rt ovv; ipeis ovv and aXX' ipei tk, tC yap, wis ovv, apa ovv, \iyo> Se or dAAa Xiym and tovto Se \iyo>, e? yap and el Si, the logical ovKen, ov /jlovcv Se . . . aXXd, ovk olSare on . . . , etc. Here belong also the frequent introduction of possible objections, as in Rom. vi. 1, 15 ; ix. 14 ; xi. 1, 19 ; 1 Cor. ix. 4 f . ; x. 19, 22 ; xv. 29, 80 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 ; xi. 7, et al. ; further, the frequent arguments ex absurdo, as in Eom. ii. 17 ff. ; vi. 1 ff. ; ix. 14 ; xi. 1 ; 1 Cor. xii. 15 ff. ; xiv. 23 ; xv. 12-19, 29 if. ; Gal. ii. 14. b) There are, furthermore, Farorite to be observed certain favorite turns, as yvu>p[£a> Si vplv and u ™ 3 ' ov 6i\u> Se i/j.a.'i dyvoetf, 3>o~irep with ovtws, \oyi£pp.ai yap . . . , oi)( olov Si . . . , Ka8 avdponrov (avOpunrwov) Xiyoi, etc. c) Strokes of wit and play on words, as 96vorj Aeyei, ko.#(Ss yeypcnrrai, or Mawijs ('Ho-ai'as) Xeyu are with him usual formulae for citations. Often he joins various passages of Scripture together, which are then united merely by the subjective intention of the Apostle, as 2 Cor. vi. 16-18; Eom. iii. 9-18; is. 25-29; x. 16-21, et al. Finally, it is not to be overlooked that Paul, more than any other New Testament writer, reveals in his discourses his per- sonal experiences and relations to his readers ; cf. Gal. i. 23, 24 ; ii. 1-10, 11 ff. ; iv. 12-16 ; vi. 17 ; 1 Cor. i. 14-17 ; ii. 1-4 ; iii. 1, 2; iv. 3, 4, 6-13, 15-20; ix. 1-6, 11-23; xv. 9, 10; 2 Cor. i. 8 ff., 23, 24 ; ii. 1-4, 12, 13 ; iii. 1-6 ; iv. 7 f. ; vi. 1-10, 11, 12 ; vii. ; x. 1-6 ; xi. 5-12, 16-33 ; xii. 1-10, 11-21 ; Rom. i. 9-13, et al. 17. Linguistic Character of the Pastoral Epistles. The linguistic character of the Pastoral JUpistles — whatever may be thought with reference to their Pauline authorship — differs very observably from all the rest of the Pauline Epistles. Without giving here a complete catalogue of the Pauline ex- Pauline and the un-Pauline expressions and turns, we adduce of both kinds those that are most characteristic. Pauline, or at least chiming in with the Pauline, are the following ex- pressions and modes of speech : Xpioros 6 Sous iambv lirep yjp.Siv 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; kottiouh of the apostolic work, 1 Tim. v. 17 ; ttXovtciv iv epyois ayaOols 1 Tim. vi. 18 ; aSiaAeiVrov %-xziv f-veiav 2 Tim. i. 3 ; lirnroOw ere tSetv 2 Tim. i. 4 ; ov urai/iia SeiAetixs, aXka Suvd/xews 2 Tim. i. 7 ; eTraicrxyveo-Ocu to p-aprvpiov tov Kvpiov 2 Tim. i. 8 ; ov Kara to, epya, dAAa Kara ttjv irp66eo-iv 2 Tim. i. 9 ; r/ X"P" V oofeicra rjplv Iv Xpicrra) Irjtrov ibid. ; to Ivolkovv Iv v/mv irrtv/jLa 2 Tim. i. 14 ; 'lyo-ovs Xpioros €/c oTrcpiiaTos AavtS 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; ro evayyeXiov fiov 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; the antithesis o~wa.iroQv(\- o-Keiv and o-o'Crpr 2 Tim. ii. 11 ; in the greeting IlaiJXos d-7rdo-ToXo9 Sid #e\?j/AaTOs . . . , and elprjvq ctaro 6eov TraTpos k. Itjctov XpttTTOV and in the closing benediction 6 xvpios /xeTa tov ■Trvevfi.aro'; a-ov. Expressions and turns, that are not Pauline, or are decidedly 136 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Un-Pauline un-Pauline, occur, on the other hand, very frequently ; among these only the most striking need here be brought forward: irepoSiSaaKaXelv, t) vyivaiovaa. 8i8a.o-Ka.Xeia and vyiawoVTes Xoyoi, the frequent eiW/3eia, epyov in the sense of office or calling, fnapTvpia repute, fiaOpxiv iavrm TreparoieZo-Oan, the eK/cA^cna as otvAos k. iSpaiaifxa t?}s aXrjOe.ia's, to fXvcTTripiov ttJs evo-efieia's, rj koXo. SiSao-KaXia, 6Vtr], al ovtcos %ripai; IwaKoXovdeiv epyta ayaBSf, fj ko.t evo-e/3eiav StSao"- KaXia, rrjpeiv ttjv evroXrjV ao-iriXov, a.7ro6r]0-avpi£eiv iavrS) 6ep.eXi.ov, ■n-apaOrjur] faith that has been delivered over, especially the Absence of often recurring 7rtoros 6 Ao'yos, and many others. Not less re- genuine li-iii- Pauline markable than the presence of so many un-Pauline expressions pression. and turns is the absence of all [?] genuine Pauline forms of expression, and of the dialectic and rhetorical peculiarities of the Apostle, see § 16. 18. Linguistic Character of Hebrews. The linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews l is in Purity of another respect different from the Pauline Epistles. The the Greek. .-,,.. breek is in general purer and more periodical than that of most of the other New Testament authors. The style is more discursive than that of the Pauline and other Epistles. In Lexical pe- particular is to be observed a) in a lexical point of view : culiarities. , . , , , . „ , r ayeveaAoyryros, aynvpa (metaphorical), ayvorjpa, aO\rjo-ios, Sdp^aAis, SeKarovv, Si^ye/c^s, and els to Smjvckc's, Svcrepp.^vevTO';, eyyvos, e/A7rv KTi.o-jia.TUiV, aoTriAos ano . . . , Bpvuv, 8e\ea£ecr8ai, Sii/zu^os, eraXtos, i-niKT]crp.ovr], evyr) t?}s TrtWeus, io-6rjio-ews, TrpavTrji croavepow (never a7roKciA.-i;7rT£6v), cpais metaphorical and preg- nant, y) Frequent turns, as the weakened use of iva not Weakened only after verba jubendi et orandi, but also after outos, after ™^_° "' fiet^oiv, etc. : the elliptical dXX' Iva, frequent continuation of the narrative through ovv, especially in such turns as wovqa-aTe avairto-eLV, aveirecrov ovv ; o-vvaydyere, crvveyayov ovv and the like ; frequent Asyndeta, frequent casus absoluti, etc. 8) Peculiar collocations of words, such as the following : ouSev Peculiar usually after the verb, -17877 as a rule before; Xiyei likewise pre- of words, ceding, especially in lively conversation ; aXr]6rjs usually before the verb, a\rj65>s after it. e) Peculiar forms of expression, Peculiar , o ' v / - ' \ a- formsofex- e.g. avapaj.vf.Lv ew tov ovpavov (7rpos tov ■Kare.pa), yevvrjurjvaL pression. &vut9ev (e/c tov deov), £yd> et/xi (pregnant), eTvtu eju.os, dycm-oucris, aimpyr], u.7roStScWi, apviov (never ap.vos), dp^atos, auros pleo- nastically after os, frequently recurring ap^i, SeLiryeiv, SiaOyKr], BvvafiK (frequently), e'Umv, etScoXoAdrp^?, tins . . . , Ik as "pa (vikSv Ik et al.), IkSlkelv, iKKXrjo-[a, opwueiv iv • . • , ayopd^uv iv . . . , hi rats fj/JLepais e/cetveus, i^ojXoXoyelo-8ai, i-7n@vp.eiv, ippedr], eiayyiXiov, eiXoyia, ei-^apio-Tia, l^^pos, 6 0eos /cai iro.T-qp, Oepcnreia, ISov (never ffie as in the Evangelist), 'lepovaaXyp. (never 'Iepotrd- Xvp.a), lo~xye.iv and icr^vs, /cat in the apodosis, KaraKaUiv (never Koueiv), KarvrBUiv, kotoikHv, Krjpvo-o-'iv, vivuv (never Tapcuraew), KXrjpovopieiv, kXtjtos, KOii'ds, KTiif.LV and ktio-ls, iv Kvpiia, Xarp-veiv, paprvpuv to suffer death as a martyr (cf. the Gospel xxi. 19 8o£d£av tov 6eov), /xap-rus (Gospel never, although ii.aprvpe.lv and jxapTVpla often), /jLaprvpiov, pieravo-Lv, fnvo-Trjpiov, £vXov tree, tov before the Infinitive, o'tKov/j.evi] (Gosp. only koV/aos), o8rjvai (Gosp. SwTecrdai), ocrios, ocpeXov utinam, Trapd8eicro~, 7retpacr/ids, irevOeiv (Gosp. never, but /cAaiW, Bprjieiv, Xv-?eio-6ai) , Trams (Gosp. never, often as irurreua" occurs), iroL/xaivav (is not even found Gosp. x.), -roielv manage one's affairs, Trpocrevxfi, irpovwwov, wpcuTOTOKos (Gosp. never, but /zovoyev^s), o-KOTi%eiv (Gosp. never, though o-Koria or o-ko'tc; occur so often), o-ovrj, £i//ijAos and ifyos, cpovevs (Gosp. and 1 Ep. only avOpumoKTovo-), \jw\V person; finally the characteristic self-designation iyu l- ttov with an infinitive with tov following, awoSta, o/3r]Tp6v, XiroXrjTTrr)s, irpuy T00-Td.T7]S, TTVpd, 0-ljJ,lKLv6lOV, CTKAlJpOTpa^AoS, CTKwXTjKOppoyTOS, tnrtpinoXoyos, avvSpojj.-^, avv6pvine.iv, crwojaopeu', 0-vvuijx.oaia, 142 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. vpov, rerpaStov, Tpieria, r? ?,. ■* etc. lexical relation : a.Koveo-vai eis ra (ma two's, areviQeiv oiten ana exica . j n y ar j ous constructions, Siavoiyeiv (ras ypaipas, rijv KapSiW, iw voSv also without the Accusative followed by on exegetical, Acts xvii. 3), Imo-Ta/ra. is used regularly in the Gospel in addressing Jesus, instead of Kvpit or Pa/3/3t, Ipunav Iva. or oVws, ^ k^ojxivq sc. rjfxipa, ucavds (ikch/oi) considerable (not only ctKoAou^owTes ixavot, ^pdvos iKavds, but also KX.av6p.bs Ik. Acts xx. 37 and s iKavdv Acts xxii. 6), \a\tlv eh ras axoas toG Xaov, 6/i,o(fyu.aSdv (often in Acts, once indeed in the bad sense : xix. 29), oTrracrla, ovk okiyos (-ol), 7rapaxprjp,a subito, the very frequent iropeveo-6ai (in the Gospel 50 times, in the Acts 38 times), the Hebraistic Trt>peu6p.a/os for "gradually, more and more" (Gosp. viii. 14 cf. Gen. xxvi. 13 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 19), the graphic o-Tpa6fiov, cm-6 ^apSs, £ts for iv (frequently, most clearly in Gosp. iv. 44 ; ix. 61 ; Acts viii. 40), the converse occurs only Gosp. vii. 17; «=: num before a direct interrogation (9 times) ; i( airmv for rives airmv (Gosp. xi. 49 ; xxi. 16 ; Acts ii. 30) ; rjv (rjcrav) with the Present Participle pointing out continuous action (27 times in the Gospel, and 19 times in Acts) ; more frequently than in the other N. T. writings, the oratio variata, e.g. a transition from the oratio directa to the oratio obliqua Gosp. v. 24 = Matt. and Mark ix. 3, or from the oratio obliqua to the oratio directa Acts i. 4 ; xvii. 3. Transition from the Inf. c. Accus. to on Gosp. ix. 19 ; from ottcos c. Subjunc. into the Infin. Acts xxiii. 23, 24 ; the Accus. Partic. instead of the Genit. Acts xxvi. 2, 3 ; the striking attraction Acts x. 36 ; finally the frequent to before whole clauses, even before a dependent interrogative clause Acts xxii, 30, etc. 23. Linguistic Character of Mark. The language of Mark has likewise many peculiarities. "We THE LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES. 14& call attention a) to peculiar expressions : d\zKTopo<$>ovLa, Peoi.tf»,r avaXov ylvzcrQai (Matt. /JLupaiveaOai) . avacrreva^ew, api£uv, Xiyetv ' iv Trj SiSaxg, €is kcl6 €is (cf. John viii. 1—11) ; iKdafx^ucrOai, i£dmva, eTTLdvuTpe^eLv, ev6vs (very frequent var. ev#e'eis, cwrocrTei/d^as, avafiXiij/ai;, e/x/JA.ei/'as, Kadio-as, etc. ; also of appositional collocations, such as eiirovros avrov, eWvs . . . , Stora-curds, vuktos kcli ^/iepas, eau>6iv Ik t^s /cap- Sias, S8e iir epiy/Aias, vvv iv t<3 Ktupco t outgo, cnjp,epov Tavrrj rfj vvkti, etc. He is fond of expressing the emotions of astonishment, unwillingness, and the like, hy a reduplication of the questions and the exclamations : i. 24, 27 ; ii. 7, 8 ; iv. 39 ; vi. 2, 50 ; viii. 17, 18, et al. Compared with Matthew (in part also with Luke), his expression has often a certain breadth, see iii. 27 coll. Matt. xii. 19 ; iii. 34, 35 coll. Matt. xii. 49, 50 ; vi. 3 coll. Matt. xiii. 25 ; vi. 8, 9 coll. Matt. x. 9, 10 ; vi. 15 coll. Matt. xiv. 2 ; 55 coll. Matt. xiv. 34 ; viii. 31 coll. Matt. xvi. 21 ; 36 coll. Matt. xvi. 26 ; ix. 18 coll. Matt. xvii. 15, et al. Other pecu- other pecu- liarities, as that he often cites certain names and formulae in ian ies- the original language, that he is fond of more accurate temporal and local designations, and often introduces special features, which the other Evangelists do not have, — belong less to the linguistic character than to the historical representation. 24. Linguistic Character of Matthew. Matthew has fewer peculiarities. "We mention the om-af recuiiari- Xeyo/Jieva : a#coos cnro . . ., aKpvrjv (Interj.), ftaTToXoyeLV, curdy- ativelyrew. \ea-8ai, 6 SeZva, Sund^av to doubt, 8ivX[t,eiv, eyepcris, iTTiyap.j3p^v- eiv, cjuotj/xos insignis (in malam partem), evSia, evvov^f^av. 144 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. KapSia tt}s yfjs, Kwvonj/, oik€t<=«x (Luke OepaTreLO.) , TrayiSevuv h> Aoyu), Trpo of the nature of heaven. To the predominating linguistic usage of Matthew belongs also the pleonastic avBpumo's, e.g. avOp. ftaaikev's, avOp. oiKoScoTroT^s ; /3ao-iAeia tuiv ovpav&v (rarely fi. tov 6eov), the formulae for citations iirXepwBrj to prjOev and Iva (oVus) TrXrjpuidrj ; /car ovdp, KovcrroSta (5 times, not elsewhere in the New Testament), o-oji,- fiovXiov Xaix.pa.vuv (Mark aviifH. ttoiuv) , awapai Xoyov, especially the frequent tote (in Matthew 91 times, in Mark only 6 times, and in the writings of Luke 14 times), pdl,av to expound, to explain, and the like. B. Helps to the Explanation, a) Internal Helps, a) The Connection. 25. Importance of attending to the Connection- Antiquated The notion that the Scriptures are a collection of individual notions. ... oracular deliverances which retain their sense without reference to their connection, or that they are an arsenal of " sedes doc- trinae," may be regarded as antiquated, although in certain circles, and for edificatory purposes, it may still often enough be applied. Without condemning unconditionally the latter use, it must yet be s^id, that it nerely ministers to a subjective need, and can lay claim to no sort of ecclesiastical authority. A use of Scripture which pretends to a more general value must be based upon a consideration of the connection. The neglect of this essential help to the explanation has given rise to unnum- Causes of bered incorrect explanations. The causes, however, may be error Dogmatic various. a) One of the most fruitful causes of false explan- i > Um'. 0SSeS " ations is dogmatic prepossession. See Matt. vii. 16-20. This Matt- vii. passage has been thus understood by Luther and other old Protestant exegetes in an anti-Catholic interest : The tree must first be good, before it can bring forth good fruit, i.e. man must through faith be regenerated before he can perform good works. But this contradicts the connection and the clear in- THE CONNECTION. 145 « tention of the passage. Immediately before Jesus has warned his disciples against false prophets, who appear outwardly- like innocent and pious sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves. He now gives them the criterion by which they may distinguish the false and the good teachers from each other, viz. their fruits, i.e. good$ works, conduct corresponding to the words of Jesus. [Bengel ; Porro fructus sunt gnorismata veritatis aut falsitatis prophetae, adeoque etiam doctrinae a propheta propinatae. Igitur ioctrina non est fructus, ex quo propheta cognoscitur : sed est forma, quae ei dat esse veri falsive prophetae]. Here, there- fore, nothing, at all is said as to what is requisite in order that men may be enabled to do good works, but as to the means by which false and genuine teachers may be distinguished, viz. good works ;. hence an inference from the external to the internal. This inference is now vs. 17, 18 justified, the argument being .reversed, and it being shown that a corrupt tree necessarily brings forth corrupt fruit, and a good tree, good fruit. That this is the true sense and connection is clear from vs. 20, which sums up and confirms what has preceded. In the following verses (21-23) the same criterion is given for the confessors of Jesus, as for the prophets and teachers : Not fine words, not single works of power and great results, furnish the means of distinguishing genuine and spurious disciples of Christ, but the doing of the will of the Heavenly Father. To this thought is joined now the simile vs. 24-27, as already the language (see vs. 24 and 26), and not less the connection, shows. It could, therefore, again, only be dogmatic prepossession that could underlay the simile of the house built upon the sand and that built on a rock, with another sense ; as when it is attempted, namely, to find therein the doctrine, that only the house which is built upon the rock of Christ is secure, i.e. that only he who grounds his faith (otherwise, his hope of happiness), upon nothing else than Christ, has found a firm ground of his faith and life. A glance at the connection and the intention of these words shows the conception to be an incorrect one, since in vs. 24 (coll. 2<5) Jesus says expressly : Whosoever heareth these words of mine (that 13 146 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. immediately precede) , and doeth them, T will liken him to a wise man etc. This shows as clear as day that not the object on which the house is built is the ground of comparison, but the subject, or the performance or non-performance of the words of Christ. He who merely hears the words of Christ and depends on the fact that he has heard them, builds his house on the sand, etc. On the false application of the parallel passage, Rom. xiT. 1 Pet. ii. 4, see below. Cf . further, Eom. xiv. 23. This pas- sage has been thus understood by all old Protestant theolo- gians : "Whatever does not spring from a heart-renewing faith in Christ is far from being a good work, is rather sin. But the connection shows plainly the groundlessness of this explana- tion. The Apostle insists throughout this whole chapter, that the anxious ones, who still make the enjoying of certain meats a matter of conscience, shall not judge others ; and those that have risen above such scruples are not to despise the anxious ones, and still less to occasion them to do anything against their conscience, since " he that doubts whether an action is allowable, and yet does it, commits sin.'' The irums of which mention is here made as the condition of the unsin- fulness of an action is, therefore, not beatifying faith in Christ, but the special conviction of the allowableness of a particular Matt. xvi. action. See further, Matt. xvi. 17-19. This passage, as is well-known, is the locus classicus on which from the beginning the papacy has based its justification, inasmuch as Peter is here declared by Christ to be the prince of the Apostles, the foun- dation of the church, and judicial power in the church is deliv- ered to him ; and just as the primacy and the ecclesiastical power of the keys were delivered to Peter, so this must also hold true of his successors, the bishops of Rome. With justice have the Protestants, on the other hand, set forth the historical groundlessness of the assumption that Peter established the church in Rome, or was the first bishop thereof ; with justice also it has been observed, that the power of binding and loosing, which Christ here confers upon Peter, was bestowed upon all the Apostles (xviii. 18). But the old Protestant exegetes did THE CONNECTION. 147- not stop here, but sought in a dogmatico-polemic interest to explain away the obvious sense of the words, and to underlay this with the thought, that Christ founded his church not on the person of Peter, but only .on his faith ; as if in Jesus's words Peter's person and faith would be discriminated. But Luke vii. 47 has remained in dispute to the present day. While Lukevii.47 in the Catholic-Protestant polemics the Catholics laid weight upon it in order to prove that the forgiveness of sins is not based upon faith alone, but on love, the Protestants strove to deprive the Catholic theology of this proof-text, by trying to show from vs. 50, that what in the yvvrj a/j.apro)Xo5 was properly faith is in vs. 47 called by Jesus "love" (Melanchthon), or by trying to show from the parable of the two debtors (vs. 41, 42), that love is designated not as the cause, but as the proof (a posterori), that the forgiveness of sins has been received, and therefore on (fiyaTn)£U)VT8upeu> rbv vaov tov 8eov nothing else than the corruption of James i. s the church through bad doctrines. Cf. besides, James i. 3 with and 1 Pet. ° i. 7. 1 Pet. i. 7. In both places the word Soki/xiov occurs, and apparently in very similar connections, and it might therefore be supposed that both passages have the same meaning, since in both the proving of believers is spoken of. But if we look at the connection more carefully, we shall find yet a difference of meaning. In James i. 3 temptations are spoken of by which the readers, far from having been overcome, rather have cause for rejoicing, because temptations bring about the wholesome vTrofjiovrj. When it is said, therefore, to SoKip.iov v/jlwv Karep- ya&Tai {nro/jLovrjv, So/a/uov must here designate a means of con- firmation, a touch-stone (see also Dionys. Hal. Rhet. 11). But if we attend more carefully to the sense and connection of 1 Pet. i. 7, we shall see that there God is thanked for the sal- vation which has befallen the readers, which in the last time is to come to full revelation. The words that now follow, ev to ayaWiacrBe, o\Lyov apTL el Scov XvwqOivTei ev ■KoiKikois irupao~- /iots, wa. to SoKifiLov i/xuiv rijs Trttrrccos iroXwipLOTtpov ypvaiov . . . eiped-Q, iv aTTOKaXvxjjei 'Vqaov Xpiorov, show clearly that SoKipuov designates here not what confirms, but the confirmation. THE CONNECTION. 153 * Substantives in -tov have in general now an active, now a pas- sive signification, e.g. oipovvov vegetables, but also the place where vegetables are sold, ahroXiov herd of goats, but also goat-pasture. (See Soki/juov in Herodian. II. 10, 12). See also John v. 25 ; this passage seems to speak of the eschato- John v. 25. logical awakening from death, a sense which seems also to be confirmed through vs. 28, 29, where this meaning is entirely beyond doubt. But observe the connection of the former passage. It is said, immediately before, that he who attends faithfully to the word of Jesus, and believes in Him who sent him, does not come into judgment, but has eternal life. Now it appears from the Johannean meaning of the word k/di'ctis (iii. 19 , v. 22 ; xii. 31 ; xvi. 8, 11), as well as from that of £mJ; auovios (iii. 36 ; vi. 54 ; x. 28 ; xii. 50 ; xvii. 3), that not merely something in the world to come, but already something in this world, is designated thereby. That this is applicable to our passage also is clear from the preceding words, (.p^rai 3>pa koX vvv Io-tw. When now it is said, " The hour cometh . . . in which the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and live," something to occur already in this present life must also be meant, and by the veKpois the spiritually dead must be understood, as in Luke ix. 60 ; xv. 24, 32 ; Eph. ii. 1, 5. Therefore, the spiritual quickening through the awak- ening voice of the Son of God is meant. But is not vs. 28, 29 against this ? No, but the contrary ; since what is here spoken of the corporeal awakening from death, is intro- duced by the fir] #at)/*a£ere tovto, referring back to the earlier, which would be altogether nugatory, if vs. 25 had said the same thing as vs. 28, 29. Eather the ixy) 6avft,dt,ere tovto introduces a confirmation by means of a still greater. The thought is this : Marvel not that I ascribe to myself such a power of spir- itual restoration to life, since that awakening at the last day and the final judgment will also be consummated by the Son of God. See further, James i. 17. The sense seems to be this : jamesi. 17. All good gifts come from above, and we are, therefore, to receive them thankfully from God. But this sense corresponds 154 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. by no means with the connection. Immediately before goes the warning against the deterministic view, which was wont to ascribe the yielding to opposition and temptations, that arise from within, to God ; it is rather our own lust that arises in the heart and brings forth sin and its consequence, death. And now, to prove that the matter in hand is a warning against a ruinous error, and not an encouragement to thankfulness, the sentence : irao-a Sdcris ayaO-q ... is introduced by a fuq irXavacrOe, Consequently, this also must have reference to that error, and must contain the opposite truth : " Only a good gift (nothing but a good gift) comes from above,'' etc. Cf. iratrav xapav ■fiyr/cmcrSe vs. 2, which Luther already translated correctly, Matt. vii. 8. " esteem it an idle joy . . . ." See also Matt. vii. 8, where iras 6 avrSiv Xajx.pd.vn etc. is more correctly rendered " only he who prays receives," than " every one who prays receives." Only with the help of the connection can, finally, the passage Gal. iii. 19, Gal. iii. 19, 20, celebrated as a crux interpretum, be explained. The connection with what precedes is as follows : Paul means to show, in general, that salvation comes from the promise, hence from grace, and not from the law. Then the objection presses upon him, to what end then was the law, which is a divine ordinance, given ? This leads him to the relation of the law to the divine promise and grace, viz. : 1) The law is an institution rendered necessary on account of transgression, but still temporary (vs. 19) ; 2) The law was promulgated through mediators (sc. angels vs. 19), wherein evidently not a glorifica- tion of the law, but its inferiority is designed to be expressed ; since the angels are here mentioned not as a revelation of God in opposition to non-revelation, but as mediated revelation in opposition to the immediate. Now follow the disputed words 6 Se jxzo-iTqs Ivbs ovk Zotiv, 6 Se 6ebs ets eo-nv. These words mark evidently no progress in the thought, but contain merely an elucidation of the words . . . iv x«/« /acctitov. But wherein does this elucidation consist ? Here the circumstance tha'u vs. 20 contains an antithetical parallelism comes to our aid. The antithesis rests upon eVos ovk Zcrriv and els ecrriv, but also upon THE CONNECTION. 155 • fico-iTijs and 0eos. The ^ecrmys presupposes not only one, but two persons, between whom he is to mediate. The expression here is quite a general one, and designates neither the angels specially nor Moses specially. Paul means to say : The in- feriority of the legal dispensation to the dispensation of grace is clear from the fact that the former rests on a mediate, but the latter on an immediate, revelation; that, therefore, presup- poses merely a mediate, but this an immediate, relation between God and man. 28. Doubtful Passages. But we may be in doubt, whether there is any connection or not. In the Gospels at least, this is not seldom the case ; and it is not to be denied, that there are cases where no connection can be found, and where any endeavor to establish a connection would be unexegetical trifling. Cf. Luke xvi. 1, where every Luke xvi. 1 effort to find an internal connection between the parable of the Prodigal Son and the parable of the Unjust Steward, must be thwarted. See likewise vs. 18, where we certainly have before us an apothegm wrested from its connection ; cf. Matt. v. 32, where it stands in its natural connection. Just as little are we to think of a logical connection of Luke vi. 39 with the fore- Luke vi. 39. going, while this expression in Matt. xv. 14 stands precisely in its right place. Now and then an expression, figure, and the like seems to be joined merely according to the association of ideas, as Matt. xiii. 24 f ., the parable of the Tares to the para- Matt. xiii. ble of the Sower. Perhaps, also, the word Siao-Kop7n'£u) (Luke Luke xv, 13 xv. 13 and xvi. 1) gave occasion to join the parable of the and XT1 ' *' Prodigal Son and the parable of the Unjust Steward, so fun- damentally different, to each other. But often we may be really in doubt whether there is a connection. It appears fre r quently, from a superficial glance, as if there were none, and yet a more profound examination establishes the fact that there is a connection. See, e.g. Luke xvi. 13 : " No man can serve Luke xyi.ia two masters," etc. These words are regarded by some exe- getes as separated from the foregoing, while others recognize a connection. Without entering into an explanation of the para* 156 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. ble of the Unjust Steward, we may make here only the follow- ing observations. To the parable of the Steward from vs. 8 to vs. 12, inclusive, three sentences are appended, of which the first is very intimately connected with the figure, while in the following there is a progress from the special to the general, so that 1) To the saying, "the children of the world are wiser than the children of the light," the direction to the dis* ciples as to the children of the light, how they, as such, are to exercise prudence, is added, and 2) in vs. 10-12 to the ex- pression, " Make for yourselves friends with the unrighteous mammon . . . ," is appended the apothegm, " He that is faith- ful in the least things, is faithful also in much," etc. The transition from prudence to fidelity is here formed by the " making of friends with the unrighteous mammon," which is as well an act of prudence as of fidelity ; of prudence, so far as it leads to the goal — to admittance into the eternal mansions ; of fidelity, so far as charitableness is the true and divinely ordained administration of mammon. In fidelity with refer- ence to these worldly and external possessions it must appear whether one will be faithful over the heavenly and inalienable possessions. And now, vs. 13 : " No man can serve two mas- ters " . . . ? The connecting thought is that of fidelity, fidelity, that is to say, with reference to the aXrjOwov or ifi.ere.p6v. This consists in serving the same undividedly and .without thinking of what has been left behind. Here, evidently, as already in what precedes, the idea of charitableness is entirely dropped, and only the idea of fidelity is retained. It is a difficult ques- Lukeavi. tion, whether the account of the rich man (Luke xvi. 19 ff.), Stands in connection with what precedes. The answer cannot be given without an examination of the parable itself, on which see below. Here only the following : There is evidently no connection with vs. 18 ("whosoever shall put away his wife . . ."). On the other hand, it is well connected with vs. 14 and vs. 15, since vs. 16-18 are detached apothegms, as no one can deny. Jesus having spoken depreciatingly of earthly goods (vs. 1-^13), the rich Pharisees turned up their 19 ff, THE CONNECTION. 157 # noses at him, the pauper, and thought : hinc illae lacrymae ! It is very remarkable that hereupon follows on Jesus's part not immediately a denunciation of their worship of mammon, but only of their self-righteousness. Possibly the Evangelist here has not put this denunciation in the right place. But if the connection is correct, or at least was designed by the Evange- list, the matter may be thought of thus : the rich have in the world the prepossession of merit, of righteousness, and of piety ; every good action in them is more observed and more highly appreciated than if a poor and obscure man performs it, and so it comes about that they themselves set a higher estimate on their righteousness. This now Jesus urges only against the usual over-estimate of oneself (v. 15). To this, now, vs. 19 ff., might be joined more naturally by as much as this shows, with- out any reference to the moral worth of the rich and the poor, how, ceteris paribus, a good lot will fall to the part of the poor man and a bad lot to the part of the rich man in the world to come. Only the intercalated apothegms (vs. 16-18) make this connection somewhat uncertain. Very uncertain also is the con- nection of Matt. vii. 6 : " Bestow not what is holy upon the dogs," Matt. vii. a etc. The exhortation not to judge and not to see the mote in the brother's eye precedes. What congruity now has the expres- sion cited with this ? This seems, indeed, precisely to presup- pose and to demand a Kpivav. If any one would regard this expression as misplaced, this could hardly be repelled as an impropriety. Yet we are to examine still more closely, whether this want of connection is not merely apparent. In fact Bengel here seems to have struck upon the right view, when he observes on this passage : Hie occurritur alteri ex- tremo. Extrema enim sunt : judicare non judicandos et cani- bus sancta dare : nimia severitas et nimia laxitas. Not unfre- quently may the connection be doubtful, when the expression under consideration shows in a parallel passage another and a more suitable connection. See e.g. Matt, xviii. 12-14 (the Matt, xvin parable of the Lost Sheep), which is here referred to the chil- Lukexvi-e dren, while in Luke xv. 4-6 — far more suitably, apparently — 14 158 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Matt. xi. 25 it is applied to sinners. Further, Matt. xi. 25 (the rendering coil^Luke of tijauts by Jesus for the truth revealed to the vrpriois), which passage stands here pretty abruptly ; or, if it stands in any sort of connection with the foregoing denunciation of the impenitent cities, still the connection is very loose, while the words in Luke x. 21 seem to be far better prepared for through what Matt. xii. 38 precedes. So also the expression, Matt. xii. 33 (17 ■Kovqcra.Ti vii!'i6f att ' to SivSpov Kakbu . . .), appears, in the apologetical discourse against the Pharisees, who had attributed his healing of a demoniac to a covenant with Beelzebub, far from being so suitable as in Matt. vii. 16 f. But we must here repeat, that The inter- the first question with the interpreter of the Gospels is not, question, whether Jesus himself spoke the words under consideration in this connection, but whether the Evangelist has aimed at a connection, and what. Now, with reference to the passages just cited, a connection may without difficulty be shown ; Matt, xviii. 12 f., joins the simile to the warning, not to despise the little ones, nor to give them a o-icavSaAov, since precisely they are in esteem with God. Matt. xi. 25 does not, to be sure, con- nect with the preceding as well as does Luke x. 21, yet it is difficult to overlook the fact, that as the thanksgiving is in a general way opposed to the denunciation, so the mprLoi are opposed to the cities, which " are exalted to the heavens." Matt. xii. 33, finally, forms an integral part of the apologetical discourse ; since after Jesus had up to vs. 32 made special refer- ence to the contumelious speech of the Pharisees, his discourse is now generalized, referring, as he does, their reviling to its root, their corrupted sense, and saying : from this, to be sure, can no other than bad fruit, perverse words, proceed. What has been said may be summed up in the following princi- Principies. pies : 1) No passage is to be explained otherwise than from its connection. 2) If no connection is manifest, and the passage appears isolated, we must first examine carefully whether there is not such a connection after all ; but in this we are to guard against substituting a connection- unthought of by the author. 3) Whether the connection formed is really PARALLEL PASSAGES. 159 « present, and whether it is the right connection, is to be ascer- tained only by a special examination of the conjunctions, and by a general consideration of the intention of the whole course of thought. /}) The Parallel Passages. 1 29. General View of the Subject. The employment of parallel passages must go hand in hand with attention to the connection. The mere explanation accord- ing to the connection often fails to secure the certainty that is desired, at least in cases where the linguistic usage under con- sideration and the analogous thought cannot at the same time be otherwise established. Parallel passages may be such, yariom either according to the mere language, or according to the sub- parallels. ject-matter, or both at the same time. Verbal parallels estab- Terbal t . „ -,. . . -*T ■ i parallels, hsh points of linguistic usage. JNow various cases may here Tw0 case8 occur : a) Either the meaning of a word arrived at through the parallel passage agrees with that demanded by the connec- tion, or not ; /3) Either the meaning of a word is sufficiently supported by linguistic usage, but does not suit the connection ; or in general the word is rare (either in Greek generally, or at least in biblical Greek). Is a rendering otherwise sufficiently known and assured, but unsuitable to the connection ? Then we are not to be content simply with the sense demanded by the connection, but we must ascertain whether this sense is corroborated by parallel passages. If so, the rare rendering may be regarded as assured. As evidence for the meaning of a word such parallel passages are often also of importance for the thought. Only we must not be satisfied, without further investigation, with what the lexicons afford. The ultra lexica sapere is incumbent upon the exegete. If an unusual render- ing is under consideration, the passage must be studied with especial thoroughness. To illustrate : "Waal's Lexicon gives Hlustra- -,„.. ».nv,< • ii i tions from among the definitions of ao£A.<£os, consanguineus, ana bases the Wahl's Lexicon. J Cellerier, Manuel d'Hermeneutique Biblique, pp. 115-117 and 205-227, very valuable, as well for the principles set forth as for the abundant ex- imples of the application of the principles. — Tk. 160 SINGLE OPEEATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. rendering on Matt. xiii. 55, 56 ; John vii. 1 ; Acts i. 14. But an attentive examination of these passages makes this render- ing extremely doubtful. The error comes evidently of clinging too fondly to the traditional supposition that Jesus had no brothers according to the flesh. Again, obsequium Evangelio debitum is adduced as a meaning of aKo-q 1 with a reference to Gal. iii. 2, 5. The groundlessness of this rendering appears, on a closer examination of the passage, from the well-known Hel- lenistic usage transmitted through the LXX into the N. T., according to which aKoyj means "tidings" (rWBUJ). Just as little will the scientific exegete rest content with Wahl's defini- tion of k\7JP& v stands intransitively, has not place in you. 30. Hapax Legomena. This example of an extremely rare rendering of an expres- sion brings us to the question — how we are to deal with aVa£ XeyojueVois, and indeed, first of all, with expressions which are not in themselves strictly era-. Key. but whose meaning in the The first given passage is altogether singular. Here we are first to ascertain whether a rendering supported by the linguistic usage is not really admissible in the connection in question. Some- times this only appears to be the case, and the " inadmissibility" rests only on the fact that the word taken in its usual meaning does not give the sense which the exegete expected before- hand. But if the familiar rendering really gives no tolerable sense, we have to depend entirely on the connection, yet so that we adhere as closely as possible to the analogy of an established rendering (see above). This does not, of course, Distinc- apply to air. Aey. proper. But we are to distinguish be- tween era-. Xey. which are such merely in the New Testament, and air. A.ey. which are such altogether. The former, if their meaning is not clear in itself, find their parallels in other Hel- lenistic literature, i.e. in the LXX and other Greek translations of the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha, or in the Pseudepi- graphs, in Josephus and Philo, or finally in the kolvok 1 But with regard to the absolute era-. Xey. for which no parallel passages are to be found, in the nature of the case, we are to have recourse for the establishing of their meaning partly to the etymology and partly to the ancient Greek interpreters. The most noted and the most disputed example is imovenos, Matt. vi. 11 ; Luke xi. 3. Cf. also ttlo-tikos, Mark xiv. 3 ; John xii. 3. 31. What are Genuine Parallels? We have seen earlier how often interpreters have allowed themselves to be led astray by apparent parallels, i. e. by simi- larity of an expression: The question, therefore, arises : What, 1 See § 11. PARALLEL PASSAGES. 16% then, are genuine parallel passages ? In this relation different Genuine t . . /■ r> 'l-i parallels. kinds and degrees are to be distinguished ; (a) Cases in which Pa8sages the same subject is undoubtedly spoken of, even if not in the JjjJJ^ 1 m same terms. Cf. Luke xiv. 26. Here the expression os . . . ov l.uke xix. „ * / 3 . £ -„ T-. 26 col. Matt, nicei tov iraTepa ci-utou ... is pamlully severe. JJoes a passage x.37anavi. 24 perchance occur elsewhere, in which Jesus speaks of the same matter ? To be sure ; cf. Matt. x. 37 : " He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." Therefore not a positive hatred is spoken of in the first passage, but only a disregarding or not loving. But can such a meaning of fuo-£v be sustained ? Cf. Matt. vi. 24 : OiSeis SwaTai Svo-l icvplois Sov- Xeveiv, rj yap tov kva fiio-rjau *. tov erepov dycwnjcrei k.t.X. Here fiiv ovpavdv. This passage has likewise given much offence by reason of its severity. However objectionable, now, it may be to allow our subjective aversion to weaken down the meaning of the words, yet must a parallel passage be welcome which explains at least that harsh expression. Such a passage is Mark x. 24 : 7ro>s Suo-koAoV eoriv tows TrerroiOoToss em ^pTjixaxriv eis tyjv /3aai\elav tov 6eov elo-eXduv. Without doubt the words stand in Matthew in their original form, while the passage in Mark has somewhat the nature of a gloss. But however much everything that smacks of glossing is ex- posed to criticism, it is still often very welcome in an exegeti- cal relation. Here we have really an explanation of the words of Jesus reaching up hard on to the Apostolic age. Yet we must in such cases guard against defacing the brusque origin- ality of Christ's words. We sometimes meet with an expression TJnintelligi- not offensive, but only unintelligible, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 5. Here the siona. readers are exhorted, aveviyKai 7rveup, with /JoSvtos, as in the New Testament passage. If we inquire now concern- ing the application, it is clear that the " preparing of the way," which in the passage in Isaiah has its literal meaning is here transferred to the spiritual. But the transference is very ap- propriate, the point of comparison being the preparatory and preliminary work to be accomplished here, namely, through John's preaching of repentance, which is to prepare for the coming Redeemer an entrance into the hearts of men. Another passage in point is Luke iv. 18—21 coll. Isa. Ixi. 1, 2. This Luke iv. . . . ,. ,..-,, 18-21 coll. passage is very important irom the tact that it is made by Isa. lxi.1,2 Jesus a text for the discourse that follows, and his own com- ing is regarded as the precise fulfilment of that expression. Deutero-Isaiah l declares that he has been inspired by the 1 It is now the prevailing opinion among scholars, based chiefly upon internal grounds, that the latter part of Isaiah (from chap. xl. to the end) was written not by Isaiah, but by a " great unknown " (Ewald) during the Exile. In favor of this view are such writers as Ev:ald, Bleek, ct al ; per contra, see Smith's Diet, of the Bible, Art " Isaiah." — Tit. 168 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Spirit of the Lord to bring joyful tidings to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, etc. This word of assurance to the Israel- ites in captivity and languishing in wretchedness, Jesus now applies to himself and to his hearers. They, indeed, are not in captivity, not in the dark dungeon, and are not to expect an emancipation in the politico-theocratical sense ; neither is the word of Jesus, any more than the similar expression in Luke vii. 22, to be limited to the individual acts of healing performed by Jesus, but it has a broader import as the words 7ri-u>xo<, rfay- yeXilovTcu and iviavrbq Kvpiov Se/cros show. And if the prophet felt himself impelled by the Spirit of God to such a proclama- tion, in a still fuller sense Jesus himself felt impelled to an- nounce redemption from a Babylon of sin, and a time of salva- Eom. xi. tion. The citation from 1 Kings xix. 10, 18 in Rom. xi. 2-4 is, l Kings 'xix. also very appropriate. In the section chs. ix.-xi. Paul inquires into the extent to which the Israelites are excluded from salva- tion in Christ, and having shown from Old Testament types that salvation is purely a matter of grace, but that Israel, through its offence at salvation bestowed of grace, has itself deserved exclusion, he comes now to the principal question, Whether God has really, as apparently, cast Israel away. This he denies, and adduces' in support of his position an analogous case in the history of Elijah : Just as Elijah, when he fled from Ahab and Jezabel, believed that the people had fallen away from the true God, but through the divine oracle received the answer, I have yet reserved unto myself a kernel of seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal, — so is it also now ; now also the whole people seems unbelieving and shut out from the salvation in Christ, but now also there exists a holy kernel of faithful ones. Now it is, indeed, undeniable that the historical sense in the two passages is not the same ; in the Old Testament passage the reference is to the falling away from the true God into idolatry, in the passage in Romans, on the other hand, it is to the rejection of the Gospel ; there it is fidelity to the old God, here it is faith in the new salvation. Of this the Apostle takes no account at all, but confines, him- PARALLEL PASSAGES. 169, self simply to what is in fact the principal thing : that among the mass estranged from God, there is left a holy and faith- ful kernel. Thus regarded the citation is exceedingly appro- priate. But there are 2) Citations which seem unsuitable citations and arbitrary, but which as regards the thought are entirely uSttafiie, just. Cf. Matt. xxii. 31, 32 and parall. ; The Sadducees seek ju S t. rea y to confound Jesus by an insidious question, designed to reduce ^ a j* ^j 1 belief in the resurrection ad absurdum. Jesus in his rejoinder Ex - '"• 6 - reproaches them with their ignorance of Scripture, and cites as a proof-text Ex. iii. 6 : " I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob " ; a passage apparently very far from the ques- tion, while other Old Testament texts, as Isa. xxvi. 19 ; Ezek. xxivii., would have been far more obviously appropriate. How, now, are these words applied as proof of the resurrection ? On this matter the words that follow throw light : " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living," i.e. when God calls himself the God of the patriarchs, he presupposes that he continues in union with them. But he can be in union only with those who exist and live. The nerve of the thought is the indissolubility of union with God. We find this fundamental thought added in Luke xx. 38 : " For all live unto him." But we see also that it is not meant to prove here the resurrection of the body, but that rather all too carnal conceptions of the future life are excluded (cf. vs. 30) . What Jesus would prove from the passage in Exodus is, rather, the persistent life of those whose God he has been. Cf. further, Matt. xiii. 14, 15. Jesus having set forth Matt. xiii. the parable of the Sower, his disciples ask him why he speaks isa. vi.9,10 to the people in parables. He answers : " To you it is given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not," etc. Cf. Isa. vi. 9, 10 : "Ye will hear indeed, but perceive not, for the heart of this people has become fat (unsusceptible), etc. The sense of these words from Isaiah seems far less suitable here than in John xii. 40 and Acts xxviii. 26, 27 ; since here the people have given as yet no evi- dence at all of insusceptibility and unbelief. Besides, even if 15 170 SINGLE OPEBATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. this were the case, the circumstance mentioned seems to he no ground for the words in the parable. Moreover, even his dis- ciples failed to understand that parable, cf. vs. 18 and Mark iv. 10, 13. In order to understand the saying of Jesus we must make the passage in Isaiah on which it is based our starting- point. Isaiah after having received his consecration as prophet is sent forth to the people ; but instead of his prophesying's find- ing receptive ears, eyes, and hearts, the result is the opposite; nay, this miscarriage is the effect of his preaching itself, only greater blindness and greater obduracy ! How so ? The word of God cannot be treated with mere indifference, it cannot remain in- effectual, but it either enlightens and awakens or else it blinds and hardens. This is the tragic appeal of the prophet to "the blind and stupid people. What now in Isaiah's time was the fate of the prophet and that of the people, this is, in general, the fate of the Messiah, that he must preach to deaf ears, yea that his preaching makes the people's ears deafer than before ; and this is the fate of the people, that as their fathers were hardened through the preaching of Isaiah, now also, only still more, they are hardened through the preaching of Jesus, and so the word of Isaiah must be fulfilled in the late posterity. This result is so much the more surely brought about through the veiled parabolical sayings ; since he who thinks that he understands and understands not, is by so much the blinder and more stupid. But was it really Jesus's purpose, that the people should be in- durated ; and was parabolical language the means to the accom- plishment of this purpose (cf. Mark iv. 12 ; Luke viii. 10: iva pXeTtovTK jj.r] pXiirwcri) ? Here we must observe the biblical teleology, by virtue of which the result is represented as designed so far as it really lies in the ordering of God that evil be punished by evil, stupidity by stupidity ; nay, that what should have been a means of salvation, must serve as a means iinm. i. 17 of destruction. Cf. further, Rom. i. 17 with Hab. ii. 4. Paul c '11 Ileb. u. i, ha3 said in the prologue, that he has long desired to preach the gospel to believers in Rome also, forasmuch as it is a power of God for Jews as well as for Gentiles, and this is grounded PARALLEL PASSAGES. 171 on the fact that in the gospel is revealed the righteousness proceeding from God (6eov Genit. auctoris, cf. iii. 25, 26), i.e. that in the gospel it is shown how God would stand to men not in the relation of anger, but in the relation of righteousness or justice (StKaiocrwi; in opposition to opyrj, cf. vs. 18) ; and this proposition is now fortified by the passage from Habakkuk. Now, to be sure, in this passage something altogether different from the Pauline justification through faith is meant. The connection there is as follows : After a bitter lamentation over the Chaldaean oppression, the prophet ascends the watch-tower in order to receive the answer of Jehovah. The answer comes, and is to be written down, since the fulfilment must still be waited for ; it attests, on the one hand, the truth of the lamen- tation, i.e. the arrogance of the Chaldaeans, but exhorts, on the other hand, to steadfast endurance : " Behold, his soul (i.e. the soul of the Chaldaean), which is lifted up, is not upright in him ; but the just shall live through his faithfulness ; '' since finally — and he who faithfully perseveres shall live to see it — the deserved punishment shall fall upon the Chaldaeans. Per- severing trust in Jehovah, in whom is life, is therefore meant. But Paul speaks of the tuotis as trust in the salvation revealed in Christ. With the prophet, therefore, the trust relates to salvation from the theocratic distress to be expected only in the far future ; with Paul, to the salvation already completed in the present, from the condition of sin and wrath, in which the whole human race is found. A further question is, whether Paul also connected Ik Trio-reus with f^o-erai. The LXX, according to whom he cites, have 6 Succuos Ik 7n,'oreuJs fiov £iyo-ETai, because they probably read inMasa instead of insiosja . But of this Paul has taken no account ; either, it may be, because he had no pov in his manuscript, or because he cited merely from memory. But there can be no -doubt but that the LXX connected the e/c irurrews (fi-ov) likewise with Irja-erax. But whether Paul also thus connected it is not certain, and can be ascertained only from the connection. But this makes it more probable that the Apostle meant to say : He that is jus- 172 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. tified by faith shall live, than : The just shall live by faith ; since the question is not so much, whence life is to come to the just man as whence righteousness is to come, or on what kind of SiWios life is promised in the gospel. But however differ- ent may be the situation and the local sense of the passage in the prophet and the passage in Paul, they yet agree not merely in language, but also in the fact, that they speak of the deliv- erance from a condition of evil and disgrace, and of trust as a condition of this deliverance ; since the theocratic deliverance appears everywhere as a type of the Christian salvation, and the trust in the (future) theocratic salvation, as faith in the salvation in Christ, is a steadfast striving after the ideal state of happiness revealed by God. 33. Citations that treat the Old Testament arbitrarily. But far more numerous are those citations which treat the Old Testament text arbitrarily, and in which either no relation- ship, or only a very remote one, can be found between the thought of the New Testament writer and that of the original Three passage. We distinguish citations in which the agreemehtis c asses. on jy a pp arent an( j res t s on the mere language; citations in which agreement is attained only by the pressing of a single word contrary to the sense ; and, finally, citations in which the Old Testament passage could be drawn to the present thought only through the application of an unlimited allegorizing and Citations in typologizing. a) Citations, in which the agreement rests agreement upon the mere language. One of the most familiar, but also verbid? 17 most disputed examples is Matt. i. 23 coll. Isa. vii. 14. 1 This Matt. i. 23 Evangelist, who is in general more careful than any other to coll. Isa. vii. & ' & J 14. find in individual circumstances of the history of Jesus the ful- filment of Old Testament words, sees fulfilled in the birth from the virgin the prophetic utterance : The maiden (young woman, tvsbsff) shall conceive and shall bear a son and shall call his name " God with us." The connection in Isaiah is as follows : i See Fairbairn, Hermeneutical Manual, 456 ; Plumptre, Biblical Studies, 45-52; Meyer, Comm., in loco, Matthew; Smith's Diet, of the Bible (Am ed.), Art. " Immanuel." — Te. PARALLEL PASSAGES. 173 In view of the danger threatening from Syria, Ahaz receives the promise that the plan of the hostile power shall be frus- trated ; he is now invited to ask for the confirmation of the promise a sign, and Ahaz declining this receives the reply : Jehovah himself shall give you a sign ; the frobs shall con- ceive, etc. Now rrais by no means always means a virgin {irapOevos) but also " young woman," for the most part, it is true, an unmarried person, but not virgo illibata for which the Hebrew has the word Siberia ; ftais corresponds rather to the Greek veavfe, as, indeed, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus so translate the word. But even if rmbs could be shown to mean irdpOevos, it is clear from the connection that the passage is not at all Messianic ; since the birth of the Immanuel is to be only a sign of deliverance in the. immediate future. This is the simple exegetical relation of the matter, which no apologet- ical elaboration can change. Cf. also Matt. ii. 15 coll. Hos. Matt. il. 15 xi. 1. Matthew, the only Evangelist who recounts the legend xi. i. of the flight of the infant Jesus to Egypt, sees in his return the fulfilment of the passage referred to in Hosea. But that in this passage by )Z is meant not the Messiah at all, but the people Israel, must be clear even to the simplest reader. Hosea speaks of the love wherewith Jehovah has drawn the people to himself, in that he has called it out of Egypt. It is, there- fore, only the words vto's p.ov that could have occasioned the Evangelist to refer the passage in Hosea to Jesus. But would one still bring out and maintain the unifying idea that the true Israel has appeared in Christ, it may be replied, that Israel as the son of God and its calling out of Egypt is mentioned only with a view to show forth its unfaithfulness and unthankfulness towards God, which certainly finds not the shadow of an ap- plication in the infant Jesus. Cf. further, Rom. ix. 15 coll. Rom. ix. is Ex. xxxiii. 15 (LXX iXerjcrw ov av eAeS, /cal oiKTCi/DTjcreo ov av xxxiii. 16. oiKTupoi). These words are cited by Paul in confirmation of his assertion that God always proceeds freely in the bestowal of his grace. The emphasis lies, therefore, with him on ov, and the sense is : I have mercy only on whom I will have m^rcy. 174 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Citations In which single words are pressed. Gal. iii. 16 coll. Gen. xxii. 18. But the original passage has quite a different sense : Moses has besought God to show him his face in order that he may know that God is gracious to him. Jehovah answers him : No mortal, indeed, can behold his face ; but to him, Moses, he will reveal himself, since " to whom I am gracious, to hiji I am gracious," etc. The emphasis here lies evidently not on the object, but on the predicates eXe^o™ and olKTeiprjo-a and the sense is : " To whom I am merciful I am very merciful." /?) Citations, in which a single word of the Old Testament passage is so pressed, as to be made to subserve the end in view. In Gal. iii. 1 6 Paul urges the sing, rnrepfia (SHJ) in Gen. xxii. 18, in order to prove that the word cnrepp.a cannot point to many but to one, viz. to Christ. But o-Trep/ta, as is well-known, is a collective, and even if it may refer to one, it can never do so in opposition to many, and the singular as such can never have this argumentative weight. If it should be said that the {riripfia, the posterity of Abraham, has reached its culmina- tion in the one Christ, this is a dogmatic reflection on the word of Genesis, and not the sense of the passage itself. A similar urging of a single expression in a sense far remote from that Heb.xii.26, of the original passage, is found in Heb. xii. 26, 27 coll. Hag. ii.6°f.' ag ' ii- 6 f. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews presses the airat; to imply only once, and thenceforth no more, God per- mitted a changing of things in order that the rest may remain. He means to show, that is to say, that the New Testament kingdom of God has an immovable stability, and that we should be so much the more careful not to sin against it through unbelief. But Haggai speaks of something quite dif- ferent ; the Lord declares, namely, to Zerubabel and to the high-priest Joshua, who were grieved at the smallness of the new temple ; after a little while (e^fi nsa Mix "list) he will cause a general shaking of the world, as a result of which the foreign peoples shall do homage to the God of Israel, and shall offer to the temple their treasures, which properly belong to him. The en cbraf is, therefore, an incorrect translation of the Hebrew expression, and this translation has been used by the PARALLEL PASSAGES. 175 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews for his own object. y) (.stations i Citations in which an unlimited use is made of the allegory and allegory the type. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 4 coll. Ex. xvii. 6. 1 Paul applies the "used. yl circumstance that the Israelites on their journey through the 1 9? r j. x " i wilderness drank water from the rock allegorically to the xvii - s - spiritual drinking of the people, and the rock to the spiritual rock Christ, who accompanied them on the journey, — a strange idea which has not the slightest ground in the Old Tes- tament account, but finds its analogue in the Chaldaean para- phrast Onkelos (on Ex. I.e.), and against whose Rabbinic origin Meyer should not have expressed himself with so much aversion. A piece of exegetically weak argument and arbi- trary allegorizing, just as much appealed to at least, and observed already by Luther and Calvin, is Gal. iv. 22 ff. 2 coll. Gai.iy.-22: J J coll. Gen. Gen. xxi. 2 ff. Paul applies the fact that Abraham had two xxi.2ff. sons, the one born of a free woman, the other of a slave, alle- gorically to the two covenants, of which the one is the legal covenant, concluded on Mount Sinai, the other the covenant of liberty and of the heavenly Jerusalem. Here not only is the application of Hagar to Mount Sinai and the connecting of the latter with the earthly Jerusalem entirely arbitrary, but also the referring of Hagar to the legal covenant, while not Hagar at all, but Sarah, is the mother of the people of the law. Paul's fundamental thought, it is true, lies in the opposition between . the servitude under the law and the freedom of the state of adoption, vs. 23. But this thought, true in itself, is here based upon an unexegetical allegorizing and typologizing, an argu- ment convincing for the Apostle, and perhaps for his first readers, but for us proving nothing at all.. Another example is 1 Cor. ix. 9 coll. Deut. xxv. 4. There is not the least doubt l Cor. ix. but that the direction in Deuteronomy, " thou shalt not muzzle xxv. 4. the ox when he treadeth out the corn," was given with a view to promoting humanity towards the beasts. And who at the present day would regard this thought as unworthy of the l Cf. Weiss, Lehrbuch d. Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., 270. — Tk. 1 Cf. the Commentaries of Meyer and Lightfoot in loco. — Te. 176 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Bible ? Not so Paul ; he holds it unworthy of God and of the Scriptures that he should have given a command relating to oxen, and applies the passage to laborers in the kingdom of God. But this explanation also has its origin and finds its analogy in the Jewish theology. Thus Philo says (De Sacrif. p. 251) : ov yap vTrep rusv akoyoiv 6 vop.os, aXX iirep twv vow Reflestion kcu Xoyov Ix&vtusv. These are all human elements that cleaved ' to the New Testament writers as sons of their time arid of their people, and to close the eyes against which, or to deny which, is only a matter of weak faith and of perverted conscience. 34. The Allegory and the Type. The estimation of the Old Testament passages parallel to the New Testament, require of course an examination of each individual citation, but also an insight into the ground and the a feeling of nature of the allegory and the type in general. However bottom of much arbitrariness and trifling have thus crept in, still it is and the not to be denied that a feeling of truth lies at the bottom of ype- the employment of the allegory and the type. 1 This truth lies in the embodiment of the idea, which is at first veiled and, as it were, in the bud, but then comes to the light unveiled and in full bloom. This incarnation of the idea the allegory and the Allegory type have in common ; they differ in this, that the allegory is distin- a conscious idea, and therefore distinguishes the picture from gms e . ^ thing, whereas the type is the idea unconsciously embodied in a person or fact ; that in the latter the distinction of time comes into consideration, which is not necessarily the case with Legitimate the former. But how are we to distinguish true and legitimate and arbi- . . ° ° trary. allegorizing and typologizing from the false or arbitrary ? Here we must lay down a general principle, and this can be no other than that which we have laid down for distinguishing true Genuine from false parallels : genuine allegories are such only as fall allegories. ^ J under the category of parallels in subject-matter, i.e. which show a unity of -idea between the res significans and the res signiQcata. "When Abraham is designated as a type of the 1 On this subject, cf. Fairbairn, Typology, passim. — Te. PARALLEL PASSAGES. 177 * Christian believer, the prophets as types of Christ, — when the calling of Abraham is represented as a preflguration of the divine calling in general, the deliverance from Egypt as a picture of redemption through Christ, the taking possession of the land of Canaan as a type of entrance into eternal rest ; when circumcision is represented as a symbol of purification of the heart (Deut. x. 16 ; xxx. 6 ; Jer. iv. 4 ; Phil. iii. 3), the high-priesthood as a preflguration of Christ's redeeming work, and the Levitical sacrifice as a preflguration of his atoning death ; these are true types, and prefigurations. We must also Prophecy in this matter draw a clear line between prophecy and typology : ogy distin- Not prophecy, but a type of Christ is the suffering servant of God (Isa. liii.) ; not prophecy, but a type of John the Baptist is the voice of the crying one in Isa. xl. 3, etc. All those pre- Spurious figurations, on the other hand, are spurious and arbitrary, rest- ing on no unity of the idea, which only through the mere lan- guage suggest the subject-matter, or have merely an external resemblance to the matter itself. The employment of a type may also be unsuitable, if in a matter which is in a certain respect really prefigurative, a feature is brought forward which is. not, as, e.g. in Noah's Ark, the water of the deluge as a preflguration of baptism (1 Pet. iii. 19), in the water from the rock, the rock itself (1 Cor. x. 4), and in the two wives of Abraham, Hagar as a type of the covenant of the law (Gal. iv. 24, 25). The true guide in judging of a proper or an arbi- The conneo ..... . ... /, 7 . . 77.7 tion the trary citation is the connection alike of the citing and the cited true guide. author. Whether in general a parallel passage is a real par- allel passage can only be ascertained from the connection on both sides. 35. Cases of Extraordinary Difficulty. These two elements, the connection and the parallel passages, are the most important aids to the explanation. But how if either the linguistic usage to be established by means of the parallels is not constant and the connection not clear, or if, in- deed, each in itself is clear and indubitable, but the two are mutually contradictory ? These are the difficult cases, where 178 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPEETEB. the dissensions of the exegetes is great, and the result a non liquet. Hermeneutics would show its impotence if it were unable to Cases in g* ve ! at l east i some assistance in these difficult cases. Let us euageand" consider a) cases in which neither the linguistic usage is are obscure cer(a ^ n nor the connection clear. Cf. first of all the vexed Bom. v. 7. passage, Rom. v. 7 : jU.oA.ts yap wrep Slkcuov tis antoQavurai, inrep yap tov aya6ov ray(a tis to\/aS ko.1 airodaveiv. Here not only the connection with the foregoing is difficult, but also the relation of the two members of the verse to each other, inasmuch as they seem to stand in a contrast ; but in this case we should expect not yap but Se, and moreover an antithesis of St'/caios and ayaOos is something altogether unusual. Let us seek first of all to clear up the connection. It has just been said, that Christ died for the godless, and in what follows the love of God is spoken of (vs. 8) , which was shown in the death of Christ for us sinners. The intervening verse (vs. 7) must also express the thought, that dying for the godless is something altogether ex- traordinary. If now we examine vs. 7, we shall see that it is introduced by yap as a reason for the preceding thought, and the reason indeed consists, first of all, in the fact that a man not only will not die for a godless person, but scarcely even for a SiKaios (airoOavuTai, future of ethical possibility). The second member is introduced by yap as a reason for the first, but con- tains at the same time, as it seems, an antithesis to it, which must lie in ayaOov (coll. SiKaCov). Now an antithesis may of course be treated as a reason (namely, as argumentum e con- trario), cf. Rom. iii. 6 ; Gal. iii. 10. But how, now, is this antithesis to be conceived of ? It must have its ground in the words hmalov and ayaOov ; but this can be the case only if, on the one hand, 6Ykouos is here employed not in the general but in the special sense, and ayados here means not as usual, probus, but benignus. Is this meaning based on linguistic usage? Yes; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 18; Matt. xx. 15. The sense of the passage is, therefore, this : (" Christ died for the godless ; yet how extraordinary this is). Since for a just man — one who is merely upright — one will scarcely die ; the proof for PARALLEL PASSAGES. 179 this is, that for a good man (a beneficent man), to be sure, one would easily undertake to die." Cf. further, the extremely difficult passage, James i v. 5 : l ^ SoKelre ore KevSs f/ ypo-^ James ^ • " Xeyei IIpos cpdovov hniroBdi to wveufxa o KaTitiK-qtrev b/ rjfuv ; We pass over for the present the difficult fj ypcuprj Ac-yet, which cannot be explained in a grammatical way, and confine our- selves merely to the words wpos 66vos something like fijAos (n^pp Deut. xxxii. 16; Ex. xx. 5) ; but 66vos never occurs in such a sense, but always in malam partem, to which the interrogative conception of the expression, requiring a negative answer, corresponds. Strange also is iwnroOelv 7rp6s . . . , which verb never elsewhere occurs thus, but is always construed with the Accusative or with the Infinitive ; irpbs v, on iav KarayivwcrKr) fjfjLmv fj /nxpSta, on HelEfav icrTiv 6 6cos rijs KapSias fjfiwv Kal yivoxTKa iravra. The 1 Cf. Weiss, Lehrb. d. Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., 188. — Tr. 2 Cf. Weiss, 658 ; DiisterdiecJc, HutJier, and De Wette, Comm. in loco.— Tb. 180 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. connection seems to require something consolatory, and yet the words run as if the meaning were : if our conscience condemns us, God is still holier and more omniscient, and knows our shortcomings and transgressions still better. Accordingly the connection already is in so far not clear, as it may be a matter of dispute whether the words k here means to con- vince or to appease. In the first case, the first on in vs. 20 would be an objective particle ; in the second case, a causal particle, unless one prefers to make it dependent on h> rovra •ytvuJo-Ko/xev. The meaning " appease " for ireWoi is rare indeed, but not unheard of, cf. Matt, xxviii. 14 ; Joseph. Arch.'VI. v. 6, and seems more suitable to the intention (undoubtedly consola- tory) of the entire passage and especially as an antithesis to KarayivditTKUv. But then, on account of the repeated on in vs. 20, the construction is doubtful ; but we will reasonably disregard that which makes ical ywwo-Kti iran-a the apodosis, since by reason of the antithesis of KapSia ^ufij> and 0eos the emphasis lies on p.ei£ there in the sense " to convince " or " to appease," On the other hand, it would be an arbitrary explan-* ation, if we were to refer puljixv merely to God's forgiving love, which would be altogether incommensurate with the k. yivai- «a iravra. Bather must /Kifov relate to the fact that — while our heart takes cognizance only of single states (the present) — God is acquainted with our whole being, not only with that for which our conscience reproaches us, but also of our inmost (better) willing. When, then, it is said further in vs. 21 : "If pur heart condemn x\s not, we have a joyful assurance before PARALLEL PASSAGES. 181 * God," — this forms no antithesis to what precedes, but only a climax ; first an appeasing and then a joyful assurance of the conscience is spoken of. In cases of such obscurity alike of the connection and of the meaning of an expression we are to pro- ceed 1) from the clearer : if the connection is clearer, from SummaryoJ the connection ; if the verbal meaning is clearer, from the verbal meaning ; 2) In the former case the disputed rendering is to be examined in the light of the best possible confirmation of the connection and the construction, — in the latter case the connection is to be examined in the light of the confirmation of the linguistic usage through parallel passages. 36. Conflicting Results. But what if regard to the linguistic usage and regard to the connection give different results ? Something of this sort has been exhibited in the last examples ; but for the further eluci- dation of the task and its performance we will present some other examples. Cf . 1 Cor. vii. 16: ri yap oiSas, yivai, el tov 1 Cor. vii. acSpa 6opdv, 6 Se (nrupusv eh to 7rv£i!/ia £k tov ■Kvevfj.a- tos &07JI/ alw/iov. According to the language the first member of the verse seems to speak of carnal sins and their results, since what else can o-iretpeiv eh ttjv o-dpKa mean ? But the con- nection leads to something altogether different ; in vs. 6 the Apostle had, namely, exhorted to liberality towards teachers, and that he has not abandoned this thought, vs. 9 and 10 are a 16 182 SINGLE OPEEATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. proof, where again the exhortation is to well-doing. Now it might be objected that the expressions cnrelpew and 6tpi£,uv are also elsewhere used of well-doing, 2 Cor. ix. 6. But cnreipew eh rrjv crapKa cannot possibly be referred merely to well-doing. How are we to resolve the opposition between the require- ment of the verbal sense and the requirement of the connec- tion ? Evidently in the Apostle's mind lies liberality first towards teachers, then in general, but the figure a-ireipav and Oepitfiiv is used as well of charitableness as of course of conduct and its results in general. But that the thought about benefi- cence and its counterpart has not been entirely dropped is clear from o-dpKo. iavrov, which has reference to selfish interests, as well as from vs. 9 and 10. The sense is accordingly as fol- lows : " Let him that is being instructed share with his teachers . . . (and not shut himself up in selfish interests against them) ; since in general God is not mocked with impunity ... for he that thinks only of his own interests and welfare, will receive as the fruit thereof, corruption, — and he that is devoted to spiritual interests (to which belong thankfulness towards teachers and beneficence in general) will receive as the fruit thereof, eternal life. By this thought alone is the recurrence to Obscurity beneficence explicable. The particles also, especially preposi- of particles, tions and conjunctions, make difficulties now and then, since the sense seems to demand a different one from that actually en> ployed, and this comes in apparent conflict with the linguistic John vi. 67. usage. Cf. John vi. 57, where the words £G Sia rbv iraripa seem unsuitable, and either Sia with the Genitive or Ik seems, on the contrary, rather to be required ; since Jesus means yet to designate the Father as his own source of life, while Sia with the Accusative merely points out the causal ground which does not correspond with the intention of the discourse. But Sia with the. Accusative points out not only the causal, but also now and then Rom. viii. the effectual ground, cf. Bom. viii. 11, where (at least according to Codd. DEF, and most other uncials, also several ancient ver- sions and many patristic citations) Sia. to Ivoikovv iv vp.iv irvevpji stands apparently for Sia tov Ivoikowtos . . . wveuyxaTos (which. EXTERNAL HELPS TO THE EXPLANATION. 183. indeed, Codd. ABC and others have). That yap is often put for Se, and vice versa, is well-known, and (to say nothing of the variations of the Codd.), is explicable from the fact that it often lies in the choice of an author, whether he will express a thought as the ground of what precedes, or only simply join it by means of the transitional Se. So also there are cases, where an antithetical thought properly to be introduced by 8e is intro- duced by yap as an argumentum e contrario, see, e.g. Rom. v. 7. Bom. v. 7. Where, therefore, the linguistic usage and the connection seem to come into conflict with each other the following rules, deduc- ible from the illustrative examples, are to be observed : 1) Whether the connection or the linguistic usage is to prevail, can- SummaryoJ . " r principles, not be determined on general principles or beforehand, but must be determined in each particular case. 2) Is the connection clearer than the verbal meaning — the connection is to deter- mine the interpretation ; but is the linguistic usage and the verbal sense more certain — then this is to decide. 3) Yet in the former case the doubtful linguistic usage is to be consid- ered as much as possible in the light of closer or more remote parallel passages — and in the latter case the connection also is yet to be attended to. 4) An explanation is, then, first to be regarded as assured, when it is confirmed as well through the connection as through suitable parallels. b) External Helps to the Explanation. 37. Traditional Helps. We have with reason treated first the internal helps, i.e such as are found in Scripture itself, for it may be laid down as an axiom of interpretation, that every author is, first of all, to be explained by himself ; and it is only the simple consequence of this axiom if the Protestant theology has postulated the prin- ciple, Scriptura Scripturae interpres. This cannot, of course, scripture mean that Scripture ■ — this object of the explanation — is also^rprS* in the proper sense the subject of the explanation ; but only this, that the most essential means of the explanation are to be drawn from Scripture itself. This, however, presupposes ex 184 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. haustive linguistic knowledge. In the absence of this, recourse is naturally had, more than to anything else, to external, espe- cially to traditional helps. Language is, indeed, in general a traditional possession, and the knowledge of it is chiefly to be derived from such vouchers as stood in the tradition itself, as the ancient Greek interpreters and the ancient lexicographers. From these, indeed, modern interpreters have been obliged also Contro- to a greater or less extent to draw. The controversy between Catholic Catholic and Protestant exegetes moves rather about the ques- and Pro- testant tion, whether with regard to the sense also, Scripture is to be 6X6ffGtSS. explained according to tradition or not ? In favor of the tradi> Catholic tional interpretation it is argued, 1) that the spirit from which the writings of the New Testament emanated, was propagated in the church, and that therefore the church as the possessor of this spirit, possesses the key to the understanding of Scripture, and 2) that if ecclesiastical tradition, this given medium of in- terpretation, is rejected, reliance is put upon the mere subjec- Protestant tive judgment of the interpreter. "We may reply, ad 1) The replies. S pj r it of the Apostles and their disciples was, it is true, propa- gated in the church, but by no means to all times, for the degeneration and the partial disappearance of this spirit in the later centuries is a recognized fact ; that it was not propagated in full measure is clear from the abatement and the partial alteration of the primitive Christian spirit already in the Apos- tolic Fathers and in the oldest Church Fathers, as Irenaeus, I Clement, Tertullian, etc. But even granting that in general the spirit of the Apostolic men and the understanding of their writings have been' preserved in the church, yet it is by no means to be proved that this understanding has been propagated in reference to particulars ; and yet the Catholic view would come to this. But that a certain traditional understanding of' Scripture is to be derived from the ancient Fathers, and espe- cially from the Greek interpreters, among whom Chrysostom and his followers are especially to be mentioned, Protestant exe- gesis has never denied. The Conf. Helv. II. c. 2 says : Proinde non aspernamur sanctorum Patrum Graecorum Latinorumqua GENERAL HELPS. 185 * interpretationes, neque reprobanms eorundem disputationes ac tractationes rerum sacrarum cum Scripturis consentientes : a quibus tamen recedimus modeste, quando aliena a Scripturis aut his contraria adferre deprehenduntur." Ad 2) That for the interpreter who does not hold himself to tradition, only sub- jectivism of exegetical judgment is left is to be denied outright, for the reason that the internal helps, — the connection and the parallel passages, — to which we have given the precedence as the most essential, — are just as substantial and objective as eccle- siastical tradition, and if in a thousand cases the exegete is still thrown back on his own judgment, the same, indeed, is true also of the traditional exegete in all those cases in which exe- getical tradition is discordant, or where it leaves him in the lurch. "With the general traditional helps — dictionaries, gram- matical treatises, etc. — only he must, therefore, begin, to whom the necessary preparatory knowledge for the interpretation of the New Testament are wanting ; and it is self-evident that the acquisition of this preparatory knowledge must precede all consultation of the internal media of interpretation. But of this we need not' here speak, but only of the operations belong- ing to exegesis itself ; and it is by no means to be denied that after the application of the internal helps the external also must come into consideration. These are partly general, which relate to the language of the New Testament in general, and, partly special, which have for their object the explanation of details (commentaries). a) General Helps. 38. Later Creek Authors, Grammarians, Lexicographers, etc. The linguistic knowledge which one brings to the interpreta- tion of his author, resp. of the New Testament, is never so perfect as not to need in this or that regard enriching and con- firmation. The more inexperienced the 'exegete is, the more is this the case. Such enriching and confirmation is chiefly to be derived from the later Greek authors — a Polybius, a Dionysius LaterGreel Halic, a Diodorus Siculus, a Dio Cassius, an Arrian, a Herodian, ' 186 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP TEE INTERPRETER. Jewish a Plutarch, an Aelian ; and especially the Jewish authors, who authors. wrote in Greek — Josephus, Philo, the Old Testament Apocry- pha and Pseudepigraphs. Yet the New Testament writers have drawn their Greek in part from the Alexandrine version of the Old Testament. Partly on this account and partly because the native language of most of the New Testament authors importance was Hebrew, or rather Aramaic, the knowledge of Hebrew, as edge of He- it is drawn from the Old Testament, is indispensable. The more the given New Testament author Hebraizes, the more necessary is this knowledge. In particular are those more recent works of essential use, which treat of the peculiarities of the Greek language, and especially of the New Testament Greek : the New Testament Grammars of Winer and Alex. Buttmann (editions as referred to above) ; " Vigeri de praeci- pes Graceae dictionis idiotismis 1. ad G. Herm," ed. 4, 1834; Phrynichi eclogae,ed. Lobeck, 1820 ; Devarii liber de Graecae linguae particulis, ed. Reinh. Klotz, 2 vols. 1835-1842 ; finally the more recent dictionaries of the New Testament by Bret- schneider, Wahl, and pre-eminently Wilib. Grimm, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Libros N. Testamenti, 1 1868. For the Hebrew language the helps are well-known ; the larger and smaller Grammars of Gesenius and Ewald, Gesenii Thesaurus philol.-criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldaeae [completed by Eodiger], 1829-1858, and the smaller Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary that has appeared in various editions [the more recent works of Fiirst, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, while they are exceedingly learned, are yet so full of wild theorizing that they can scarcely be reckoned as of high authority, though thus reckoned by many. Girdlestone's " Synonyms of the Old Testament" is a work well worthy of consultation, though perhaps too much influenced by the theological views of the author]. 1 This work, which is'of rare merit, has been translated by Prof. Thayer, and will, it is hoped, soon be published, by Mr. W. F. Draper, Andover. Robinson's N.T. Lexicon, which has been extensively used in this country, has its value, but unless revised soon by an able hand, it is likely to be superseded. — Tk. SPECIAL HELPS. 187* 39. Time and Order in the Use of Helps. The use of these helps is various : some, as the Greek and Hebrew authors, are not, as a rule, to be applied then first, when needed for the explanation of the New Testament, since such an employment would amount to nothing. They are rather to be used previously and independently of the reading of the New Testament. Of course the reading of the whole The rea ling ° of the whole mass of the literature under consideration is not to be thought mass o.f lit- erature re- of ; but even he who has read only some one of the authors ferred to im- ...... practicable. referred to, has laid a good foundation for the explanation of the New Testament. Moreover, the collections of Raphelius, Kypke, Krebs, may still always be used with profit — the more profit, the more notices one has himself collected from these Greek authors. Other helps, as Hermann ad. Vig., Lobeck ad Phryn., Klotz ad Devar., and especially the grammars and dictionaries, are applied in behalf of the reading and the interpretation itself. If the beginner is still in great part importance dependent on these helps, and especially on the dictionary, it is tag inde- his duty the longer he works the more independent to make lexicons, himself, and, on the other hand, to attain to a self-dependent judgment. To this end there is no other means than to dig out and examine the passages in question. The expenditure of time which this requires is richly rewarded by the personal insight which is thus gained ; this is of far more value than mere memory knowledge of words, and the more rapid progress otherwise, certainly, attainable. 1 /3) Special Helps. 40. Ancient and Modern Commentaries. What are meant hereby are chiefly the Commentaries, and, indeed, pre-eminently those that are of importance in a philo- logical relation. Very worthy of consideration, however, are Ancient already the ancient Greek interpreters, especially Chrysostom, terpreteri Theodoret, and Theophylact, for whom the original language of the New Testament was still a living language. In these in- 1 Oh, that this thoueht mieht take firm hold on American students ! — Tb. 188 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. terpreters also, earliest of all, may an exegetical tradition be Ancient spoken of. The ancient versions also, as far as their language versions. . . . , . ... is accessible to the exegete, come into consideration, especially Exegetes of f r the more difficult passages. Furthermore, the better exe- the Kefor- . . . mation getes of the Reformation period, especially Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, W. Musculus, Bened. Aretius, Theod. Beza, are still always of importance. The most distinguished exegete of the Calvin. Reformation epoch, however, is Calvin. While we grant that he dogmatizes too much, and sometimes in the wrong place. ; that he dissects rather than explains the thoughts of the. author; but, above all, that neither sufficient critical helps to the restoration of the pure, text nor an exhaustive knowledge of the original languages were yet at his command ; yet his exer getical impartiality and soberness, his gift for discovering, as if by divination, the connection, his exegetical tact, are very remark- Exegetes of able for his time, and useful even for us. Then, of the time of matte the dominance of dogmatism those interpreters are to be used pen0 ' with profit who emancipated themselves from dogmatism, as Hugo Grotius, Clericus, and, in general, the interpreters of the latter part of the seventeenth century, classed together under the name " Critici Sacri." In the eighteenth century Bengei. J- ■&•. Bengel ranks foremost through his immediate religious understanding of the sense, and his often remarkably excellent and concise expression of the same : only one must not allow himself to be misled by Bengel's seeking and finding of em- phases. Bengel is more excellent in the setting forth of the sense of single words and clauses than in the explanation of the Exegetes of connection. From the early years of the nineteenth century, yeaxTof'W we mention especially G. Ch. Enapp with his Scriptis Varii century?** 1 Argumenti, and the exegetical treatises in Fritzschiorum Opus- culis, but in general Fritzsche's Commentaries on Mark, on single passages of 2 Corinthians, and on Romans. Exegetical treatises on single difficult passages are given in the " Theol. Recent Studien und Kritiken.'' The most noted exegetes of more exegetes. recent times are; ji Lilche, F. Bleeh, M. L. Be Wette, H. A. W. Meyer, and his continuators, Lunemann, Huther, and Duster SPECIAL HELPS. 189 ♦ dieck. (Cf. in general the History of Scripture Interpretation, §§ 31-34). 41. Familiarity with the Characteristics of Commentators. In order to avail one's self of the exegetical helps to advantage an acquaintance with these helps is indispensable, and, indeed, with the peculiar merits and defects of those better known among them. One must know, in general, for what questions Peeuilari- this or that commentary is to be consulted with the best results, commen- iiiriGS Olshausen's Commentary, e.g. which in fact contains much that is excellent, may be pre-eminently congenial to one ; but should he suppose that he has in it a sure guide for a purely philo- logical question, he would be often disappointed. Or suppose that one has become especially attached to the commentaries of Fritzsche on account of their philological value ; should he now seek in him information about the true sense of a passage in Matthew he would for the most part find himself at a loss. That the exegetes of the sixteenth century are not to be depended upon with reference to a difficult word, as a airat; Xeyd/ievov, is self-evident. One must, in general, guard against orthodox letting his religious and ecclesiastical position exert a determin- taries not ing influence in the choice of exegetical helps, or preferring or "hemost ! rejecting a commentary principally according to the theological useful - position of its author, as if " orthodoxy '' (Glaubigkeit) were a guaranty for the correct explanation of a participial clause, or " free-thinking " a warranty for the correct conception of a ha or for the best explanation of a om-a£ Xeyofievov. Only the tyro in exegesis can suppose that we are met at every step and turn by a vital religious question, where the theological ten- dency of the author must decide. How little this is the case two facts, by way of examples, may serve to prove, that 1) the Rationalist, Paulus, and the firm believer in Examples revelation, Olshausen, agree in the explanation of not a few passages, and 2) that Fritzsche, who yet is regarded as a Eationalist, in his Commentary on Romans is led simply by means of his philological conscientiousness and thoroughness to the correct explanation — to an explanation which even the 190 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTEEPBETEE. "orthodox" (glaiibig) interpreters must accept. Not the theologico-ecclesiastical " direction,' 7 but exegetical thorough- 1 ness and conscientiousness should determine the value of a commentary. But even if an exegete has been found to be trustworthy and excellent, one must not yield himself uncon- ditionally to his authority and swear by his words, but must The exegete always keep his eyes open. The indispensable condition here is, study the as has been already observed (§§25-36), that the exegete fndepen- first study the author by himself, without commentaries, and dently, etc. 7 „ 7 . . strive to become conscious oj the questions that are to be put to his exegetical helps. Only in this way will a man be truly profited by commentaries, and only in this way does the exe- getical judgment remain clear and uncorrupted. C. The Exegetical Judgment. 42. Importance of an Accurate Method. In order to arrive at a judgment as sure and well-grounded as possible, it is essential that we follow a correct and accurate method. This is of special importance in difficult passages. Precedence And, indeed, we must here repeat with emphasis that, after the maticaUx-" determination of the text, the grammatical explanation must p ana ion. j iavg ^ g p rece g ence J a ll real-explanation, and of all 'theologi- cal explanation. We could adduce examples where the circum- stance that this rule has not been observed has hindered the correct and assured exegetical result ; but we prefer to show positively by some examples, how the following of a correct exegetical method renders possible a sure exegetical judgment. This may be best illustrated by difficult constructions. Of. Eom. v. 12 ff. 1 We have here a protasis introduced by oWc/d. ni: Where is the apodosis ? It is clear, that — if, indeed, we do not find it in vs. 12 — it cannot follow in the verses imme- diately succeeding, for there must be a outojs to correspond to the aWep. But a ovtids follows in vs. 15, and again in vs. 18, yet not without a new protasis with <5s. Accordingly, if we say provisionally that vs. 15 is the sought-for apodosis, we have in 1 Cf. PhiHppi, Meyer, Bodge, Lange (Sehaff's ed.), Comm. in loco— Tk. Eom. t. THE EXEGETICAL JUDGMENT. 191 vs. 13, 14 a parenthetical interposition, and — as introduction to the apodosis — a protasis, similar to vs. 12, which could then be regarded only as a resumption. How can we now determine whether the words in vs. 15, ovtuh ko.1 to ^apttr/ia are really the apodosis sought for or not ? -Answer : By proving whether the supposed resumption, dAA' ovx & to trapairrwiw., logically corresponds to vs. 12, as well as whether the supposed apodosis in vs. 15 logically corresponds to the thought which we must really expect after &o-rrep. . . . eurijXOev, etc. (in vs. 12). This test gives a negative result, since the resumption does not correspond to what is to be resumed, and just as little does the apodosis correspond to that expected ; for this, to correspond with the protasis in vs. 12, could only run thus : " So also through one man, Christ, justification and life have come into the world." Verse 18 seems more suitable as an apodosis, since here in fact the protasis conceived as a resumption, cos Si' ivbs ■7rapa.irrwixa.Tos eh TravTas avOpunrovs cts KaraKpipa, corresponds already to the protasis in vs. 12. as well as also the words ovrcos Kai oi ivbs SiKaiuj/mros ets 7ravTas avdpdrrovs ets Sikcucoo-iv £unjs to the expected apodosis. To this is to be added the fact that the apa ovv seems to introduce a real resumption and con- clusion. Yet the long interruption may awaken doubt, and the sense of vs. 18 diverges from that demanded by vs. 12 to the extent that the predicate in the two places is different ; in vs. 12 el(ri}\6ev, in vs. 18 lyivero (to be supplied). Furthermore, in vs. 18 protasis and apodosis correspond so accurately to each other both in form and contents, while the analogy with vs. 12 is, at least formally, so inexact, that it is hard to suppose an immediate reference of vs. 18 to vs. 12. Or is, perhaps, the missing apodosis in vs. 12 itself ? If so, it must be given in the words Kai. ourcus ets Wvtcis av6pu>7rovi StrjXdev, and kcu must mean " also," which even at the head of an apodosis introduces no difficulty. But do protasis and apodosis here correspond to each other ? Not thoroughly, since the former demands not a simple sequence, but an antithesis. Therefore, we find the J :_ i_ v > ^\/l :j.t :„ „„ ik „^ — ;„ Tr „ iq 192 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. and still less in vs. 12 ; but we have here an anacoluthon} A passage which can only be explained by the correct application of the exegetical method, and where the non-observance of which method may cause inexperienced exegetes to miss the mark Gal. iii. 20. entirely, is Gal. iii. 20, cited above (§ 27). Whoever should begin immediately with the consultation and comparison of the various explanations, would fall into endless chaos, and would either arrive at no judgment at all, or at least at no independent and sure judgment. Just so, if he should begin with the mean- ing of the single difficult expressions. We are rather to begin with the accurate tracing of the connection. But now it is, in- deed, very possible that other exegetes have viewed this differ- ently, and generally in such cases still other elements come ih;fc> Other ex- consideration. The other explanations, therefore, at least the to bo con- more important ones, must be compared. But these other ex- planations are legion. How, now, are we to arrive at an inde- Ciassiflca- pendent exegetical judgment? The process is facilitated by planations. classifying the explanations, and comparing the different classes with the result at which one has arrived independently through an examination of the connection. With reference to vs. 19, the difference among interpreters consists principally in the fact that some find in the words Stara-yet's Si' ayyekmv a glorifying predicate of the law, and in general reject the supposition that Paul meant to express in this verse the inferiority of the law ; Grounds of but the others maintain this. If we would know the grounds former visw of the former view, they are as follows : 1) It is a most important consideration that where angels are mentioned in Scripture they serve for the glorification of God as well as of the matter with which they are connected, Matt. xxiv. 31 ; xxv. 31 ; John i. 52, and of the law itself, Deut. xxxiii. 2 (LXX) ; Acts vii. 53 ; 2) neither is iv x eL P<- ^o-ltov a degrading ele- ment, since even the gospel was given through Christ and oven Christ is called jueo-mys, 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Heb. viii. 6 ; ix. 15 ; xii. i The explanation here given is probably the correct one, and is coming to be adopted by scholars who do not think it unworthy of an inspired Apostle to fail to complete a sentence. Such cases are not infrequent in the writings of Paul. — Tr. THE EXBGETICAL JUDGMENT. 193 * 24 ; and 3) That a degradation of the law here, in general, did not lie at all in the intention of Paul. On the contrary, the others observe : ad 1) this is, indeed, granted ; but a distinction Answers, is to be made between passages where angels are simply joined to God ( Christ) and those, where as a result of a puristic idea of God, instead of conceiving of God as the only cause, angels are mentioned as mediators ; ad 2) this is very questionable, nay rather to be rejected, since by ju.eo-m7s Moses is here un- questionably meant (see Deut. v. 5 ; Philo, De Vit. Mos. II. p. 678 et al.), and since Moses as /uto-iti;; is here opposed to the one God, therefore kv x* l P l f^a-vrav can here point to noth- ing else than something subordinate, as compared with the promise ; ad 3), finally, it is observed : this is just the ques- tion ; or rather there is no question at all, but that the connec- tion and the intention of the passage demand a subordination of the law to the promise ; since from vs. 15 onwards, Paul Bhows that the covenant of the promise cannot have been made of no avail through the law which came so much later (vs. 15- 17), and the inheritance is bestowed not by virtue of the law, but by virtue of the promise (vs. 18). Now in vs. 19 the objection is raised : Why, then, was the law given, and immediately there- upon it is answered, rusv irapa/Sacremv X°-P lv ^ r ^ r I — & thought that is found also in Pom. v. 20 ; vii. 13 ; and, indeed, by no means as an excrescence, but as an integral part of the Pauline teaching. When, now, there immediately follows : Starayei's Si' ayyeXosv, kv x el P L pto-lrov, the law can here be designated 1) only as a temporary institution (d^t's ov eXdt] . . . ), and 2) only as an antithesis to the promise, which is also confirmed by the words that follow. Whoever — as he should — has first of all, without bias, plunged into the Apostle's course of thought, will find this last ground in particular convincing, and will not permit himself to be led astray by the counter-arguments. And now, vs. 20 ? We here refer in the first place to the proof given above of the connection (§ 27). But much as the Due regard exegete must bear this in mind, he must be careful not tp t o th e e ^e W8 exclude the possibility that others have viewed the matter nf otllers - 194 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. otherwise, and perhaps better than himself. What, now, do the exegetes say ? And how are we to find our way among the two hundred and fifty explanations ? 1) By eliminating the explanations inconsistent with the connection, as, e.g. those that refer the fieipii lva (Matt, xviii. 6), i/jwv PpHfia icrnv lva . . . (John iv. 34), iroOev pot tovto lva . . . (Luke i. 43). But even with the Kolvom, such constructions occur, as in Arrian. Epict. 0i\u> lva. (1.18, 14), irpwirov ia-Tiv lva (id. I. 10, 8), etc. "lva seems to have been put also now and then eK/Stm/cus as wore. But it is rather to be said, that design and result not rarely pass over into each other, and that which appears as mere result could be teleology. c ° nc eived of by the author as design, and by the biblical author, in accordance with his teleology, could be put as a divinely ordained object, as, e.g. John ix. 2 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 13 ; Gal. v. 17, as already John of Damascus (De orthod. fide IV. 20) says: Woi rfj ypav eis tov koXttov tov watpbs eKeivbs CONNECTION OF INDIVIDUAL THOUGHTS. 205* cfipyTjo-en-o. Here the question is, whether 3>v is to be under- stood as present or as imperfect. Grammatically, as is well- known, either is admissible ; but for the sense it makes an essential difference whether we render " who is in heaven " or "who was in heaven." The matter is to be decided only through an ascertaining of the sense of the passage as a whole. Does the Evangelist mean to say, the only-begotten Son, who in his pre-existence was in intimate communion with the Father, he has revealed, etc. ? This might be recommended by the doc- trine of the Logos of the prologue ; iii. 13 might also be adduced in favor thereof. But from the connection we ascertain that after vs. 14 the transcendent history of the Logos is no longer spoken of, but the experience that believers have of the incar- nate Logos : and with regard to the passage iii. 13, 6 &v hi ™ ovpav would be imperfect if it were said 6 hi to ovpavw ko.1 Ik tov oipavov Kara/Jas, but not if 6 u>v iv to ovpavZ is appended, as it is. But the view also, by virtue of which 6 wv is taken as present, indeed, but is referred to his state of exaltation in heaven, has the connection against it. Rather, it is meant to express the general relation of the incarnate one, and tsv is therefore to be conceived as present. (So already Chrysostom referred the word to the o-vyyeveia ko.1 Jvonjs). Still more difficult is the temporal relation of the participles in Phil. ii. Phil. ii. 6-i 6-8. The matters in question here are, 1) whether hi popfj 6eov map-)(u>v, etc., or whether i-n-apx^v is to be conceived of as imperfect, and his iv p-op^rj 6eov elvai as Christ's condition in his pre-existence. (The same question prevails in regard to the passage 2 Cor. viii. 9) ; 2) whether fx.oprjv &ov\ov Xa/Smv was understood by the Apostle as preceding the exeVwo-ev, or as contemporaneous therewith ; in other terms, whether by the iKevmcrev kavrov it is intended to designate his activity during his earthly existence, or the act of emptying himself of the heavenlv life as Lop-os for the limited earthlv life. The first 206 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. Grammati- thing to be done is, to inquire into the grammatical usage. "With regard to the first question the rule holds good, that the present participle construed with the principal verb in the preterite indicates a contemporaneous action or state, cf. Luke ii. 47 ; iii. 18 ; Hi. 14 ; xxiv. 44 ; Acts v. 5, et al. With regard' to the second question the usage preponderating by far is, in- deed, that the aorist participle construed with the principal verb in the preterite expresses a, preceding action or state ; yet it is not rarely the case that a contemporaneous action or state is indicated thereby ; cf. Luke viii. 54 ; xi. 40 ; Acts x. 39, eta Connection g mce) therefore, the grammatical linguistic usage is not decisive, we are to take counsel of the connection. In vs. 5 f., Christ is represented as an example of unselfishness and resignation; this resignation consisted, according to vs. 6 f., in the fact that he ■ — although in the form of God — considered likeness to God not as something usurped, 1 but emptied himself, etc. This vTrdpxuv hi fioptjyfj 6eov is (see above) contemporaneous with the oi)( d.p7rayfji6v rjyutrOai and Kevovv iavrov, which are appli- cable as well to his pre-existence as to his earthly life. More important, accordingly, is the temporal relation of the participial clause jAopr]v BovXov \a/3u>v to c/cei/Mcre iavrov, and it is decisive for the whole. And here the circumstance already, that the participle stands after the principal verb, is favorable to the contemporaneousness of the two actions, since such a participle, as a rule, indicates the way and manner in which the principal action happens ; cf. Luke xxi. 12 ; Acts v. 30 ; vii. 24 ; ix. 25 ; Thucydides, I. 23. Now, to be sure, the specification of the way and manner may be also temporal, and this temporal determination may consist in a foregoing action, as Luke xxiv. 47, but this is then indicated through the contents of the parti- 1 On apira-y/ios : substantives in -p-os express, as a rule, the intransifve meaning of the verbal stem, while substantives in -ins express the tra is- itive (cf. Kiihner, Gram. Gr. I, § S70). If in the later Greek, and particu- larly in the New Testament, this distinction is no longer observed, so ayLa$effp.6s, xpiip.a.Turp.6s, yet all these words have also the transitive meaning, and when in doubt we are to make this our starting-point, CONNECTION OP INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT. 207* cipial clause. Such is not the case in our passage ; and we have every reason to understand the words p.opcj>T]v SovXov Xa/3u>v as a designation of the manner in which iKevoxrev iavrov, and accordingly as contemporaneous therewith. The Kivaaii of Christ consisted, therefore, in the assumption of the form of a servant ; and since the expression p-op^y BovXov stands on the one hand in unmistakable contrast with p*op4>r, 8eov, and on the other hand is more definitely explained through the iv 6fx,ouL- fian avOpmirmv yevofievo's which follows ; the sense is accord- ingly this, that Christ is our example in self-renunciation, in that he emptied himself of the pLopr] deov, which he had in his pre-existence, and assumed, in exchange therefor, the form of a servant, i.e. the simple human form. (Thus already the whole body of ancient Greek exegetes understood the passage). These examples may suffice to show how the grammatical and the logical explanation stand in the closest connection, and condition one another. Cf. moreover, what has been said above (§ 25 f.) on the connection as a means of explanation. 48. Lack of Connection, seeming or actual. But the connection is often questionable and difficult from the absence of any conjunction or other grammatical annexa- tion. This occurs not only in rhetorical do-wSerois, but it is not seldom quite uncertain whether there exists a connection or not. Now it is certainly altogether perverse to wish to subtilize out a connection where there is none. So would it be, for example, quite idle elaboration to seek to bring out a con- nection between the sentences Luke xvi. 15-18, while these Lukexv 1R 1ft expressions are evidently only detached apothegms ; cf . vs. 1 6 with Matt. xi. 12, 13, where the expression stands in a good connection ; further, vs. 17 with Matt. v. 18, and vs. 18 with Matt. v. 32. In other cases the matter is, in fact, questionable, in that even if a connection is to be accepted, yet doubt prevails as to what connection ; cf. the macarisms of the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v. 3-12. That these are connected among ^i&' T ' themselves may be regarded as acknowledged. But what is the 208 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. has come forth, a different light accrues to vs. 8 in particular. If we observe first of all the situation, we see that these macar- isms are not directed to the 0^X01, whom he much rather ^voidsj but to the disciples. Accordingly, it is evident from the ar- rangement in Matthew, that the Sermon on the Mount forms, as it were, Jesus's Messianic programme, and the macarisms ,the introduction to the same. If we compare now this situation with the contents of the macarisms themselves, we gain the conviction that Jesus here declared what sort of men are fitted for the kingdom of heaven which he brings. Erom this fundamental thought, as from the extended concluding macarism, it follows that those can scarcely have view ( ed the matter correctly, who would find in vs. 3-6 the negative, and in vs. 7 and the follow- ing verses the positive attributes of those that are fit for the kingdom of heaven. That not positive virtues, but suscepti- bility and fitness for the kingdom of heaven are here treated of, is evident not only from the last macarism, which refers back to the first, but also from the pervasive relation between the felicitated subjects and the promises. So are the ZXerjiMoves not only the compassionate in general,, but those w ( ho are compas- sionate in. the consciousness how much they themselves need compassion ; the Ka.6a.pot ry KapBia not the sinless (cf. on the other hand, Matt. is. 12, 13 ; Luke xv.), but those whose heart is sincere and true, and the dp-qvoTvoioL not.merely those who are pacific in general, but those who are pacific in the longing for peace with God. It is darker and more disputed, whether, the Mattvil. expressions Matt. vii. 1-14 are organically connected with each other. Verses 15-17 form, evidently, a connecting link, hence only the connection of the first fourteen verses can be matter of dispute. We are to take as our starting-point that which is without doubt, and this is the grouping of this section. Verses 1-5 form one group, and treat of judging ; vs. 6 appears to stand there isolated; on the other hand vs. 7—11, which treat of the effect of prayer, form in turn a group, while vs. 12, again, appears to stand without connection, and just so between vs. 12; and the two following verses, which treat of the narrow and CONNECTION OP INDIVIDUAL THOUGHTS. 209* broad gates, no connection is established. The question is, therefore, more definitely to be expressed, thus : Is there a con- nection between vs. 5 and 6, between vs. 6 and 7, between vs. 11 and 12, and, finally, between vs. 12 and 13 ? If we take the more certain as our starting-point, vs. 12, whose con- tents yet appear to stand in no connection with the foregoing, yet is connected with the foregoing through ovv, and is, accord- ing to the design of the Evangelist, the consequence of what precedes. What consequence ? The combining thought is pray- ing and being heard : just as we ourselves pray and desire to be heard, so shall we fulfil the desires of those that beg of us. This combining, which here has to be supplied, Luke gives (vi. 30, 31). If now the Evangelist intends a connection between vs. 7—11 and vs. 12, where there appears to be none, the probability is, that the other expressions also, although connected through no conjunctions, do not stand without connection : between vs. 1-5 and vs. 6, the combining thought seems to be, " one is first to judge himself before he judges others, but then are others also to he judged, in order that what is holy be not bestowed upon dogs." Between vs. 6 and 7 ff ., the correspondence of giving and receiving forms the connection. Finally, between vs. 12 and 13 f., the combining thought is the serious task and difficulty that are involved in the foregoing expression, in opposition to all those who would make their life-work easy, and their way of life comfortable ; cf. further on in the chapter vs. 21-27. In Principles all such passages, where the connection is difficult and doubtful, the following rules apply : 1) We must always take the clearer and more certain as our starting-point, and seek thence to gain light for the darker and more doubtful ; 2) We must attend to the conjunctions ; but we must also never neglect a survey of the dark passage as a whole ; 3) We must guard against underlaying the author with a heterogeneous or modern nexus. 210 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Methods. b) Ascertaining the Course of Thought of an Entire Section. 49. Methods and Difficulties, The course of thought of a section admits of being explained in two different ways : a) by proceeding from the individual parts, and, as it were, advancing from below upward to the un- derstanding of the intention and of the fundamental thought, and b) by proceeding from the fundamental thought, and from these gradually descending to the individual parts. Strictly taken, these two methods must supplement each other ; but, as a rule, we are to begin with the first-mentioned ; therefore, we give to the ascertaining of the course of thought the precedence Difficulties, of the ascertaining of the fundamental thought. The course of thought becomes difficult chiefly in the following cases : a) when the individual thoughts stand apparently isolated and without connection, cf. § 48 ; /?) when on the contrary the individual thoughts seem to be by no means adequately dis- criminated, but, as it were, are blended with one another, as in the Johannean writings, and y) when in the details a clear connection of thought is present, but the whole exhibits an in- ternal incongruity. For the illustration as well of the task as of its accomplishment, we give once more some examples, relating to the cases mentioned under /3 and y. 50. The Johannean Logic. Most of the Johannean discourses have the peculiar difficulty, that the thoughts seem to run not at all according to logical laws, and therefore the logical explanation sees itself robbed, as it appears, of the logical categories as means of explana- tion. Is this course — mocking at all logic — only an appear- ance ? or do other than the usual determinations of thought stand at the command of logical exegesis ? The answer to these questions can only be found in concreto. Cf. the conversa- tion of Jesus with Nicodemus, John iii. 1—21. The first 'hing here also is attention to the connection with the foregoing. Just before it was recounted, that during Jesus's sojourn in Jerusalem many believed in him for the sake of the signs, but that he did Inquiry. Answer. John iii. 1-21. COURSE OF THOUGHT OP AN ENTIRE SECTION. 211* not commit himself to them, because by virtue of his acuteness he penetrated their thoughts. Now one of those that believed in him for the sake of the signs was Nicodemus (vs. 2). In the unexpected, and on its face somewhat dark, answer of Jesus every one understands at once that Jesus means to make him feel the insufficiency of this faith for entrance into the kingdom of God. Why insufficient ? Doubtless, because anybody may have such a faith without having undergone any moral or spir- itual change. Therefore, it comes about, that one must become another man, must begin his life, as it were, anew (cf. Matt, xviii. 3). The nature of this new birth now is discussed to vs. 9, between Nicodemus, disconcerted in religious stupidity, and Jesus, standing over against him in divine superiority. The avu>6ev (" from above,'' cf. iii. 31 ; xix. 11) was completely unintelligible, and Nicodemus remained sticking in the literal conception of the yevvrjOTJvai. Jesus aims at giving Nicodemus a better understanding, 1) through a repetition of the sen- tence, only with a more definite explanation of the avmBev through the words e£ vSoros koX Trvoj/xaros ; 2) by showing that a fleshly birth can by no means be meant by the yewrjOrfvai (vs. 6), and 3) that this is a thing just as little to be appre- hended by the ordinary reason as is an analogous process in nature (vs. 7, 8). When Nicodemus shows himself still always incapable of understanding what has been said, Jesus gives his discourse another turn : he takes now as his point of departure just this inability to understand on the part of Nicodemus, and in contrast herewith that which he had to reveal, in order not at all to let himself down to Nicodemus's deficient power of concep- tion, but, on the contrary, to raise himself to the revelation of the divine purpose of salvation to be realized in him (vs. 10-15). In making prominent, to his shame, namely, Nicode- mus's lack of comprehension as a lack of faith, and the contrast between his official position and his insensibility, and in setting over against Nicodemus's insusceptibility the truth and the higher certainty of his own witness, Jesus brings Nicodemus to feel, hv an aroniTnentnm a minori ad maius (Vs. 12. cf. vi. 61. 212 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. 62), how mean his faith's perception is, since he not even un- derstands the occurrences that are taking place on the earth, in man, while he (Christ), and he alone (vs. 12, 13), can yet make known by virtue of his heavenly origin what is going on in heaven — the divine purposes. What are these iirovpdvia ? They are already prefigured in the brazen serpent (Num. xxi. 8, 9), just as, namely, Moses lifted up upon a stake the brazen serpent as a symbol of healing ; so must, according to the divine purpose, the Son of Man be lifted up upon the cross, in order, that every one that believes in him may have eternal life. The tertium comparationis is, not only the external lifting up upon the cross, but the healing and animation through the one lifted up (cf. Num. xxi. 9). From this point the discourse takes anew another turn, and it is a greatly vexed question, whether, what follows (vs. 16-21) are still words of Jesus, or not rather words of the Evangelist. But this question is of interest only un- der the pre-supposition that the foregoing contains the ipsissima verba of Jesus. But even if the Evangelist made the genuine words of Jesus (cf. vs. 3) his starting-point, there is yet no doubt at all, but that he passes over more and more from these into his own reflection and representation. The question here, therefore, is simply this : "What is, according to the intention of the Evangelist the connection of vs. 16ff. with> the foregoing? Immediately before it was said, that the Son of Man is to be lifted up upon the cross, and that through faith in the one lifted up mankind is to have eternal life. This bestowal of his Son for the purpose of the salvation and the eternal life of the world is now shown forth as an act of love on the part of God, and to this is annexed the explanation that the Son of Man has: come into the world not, as the Jewish opinion would have it, for Messianic penal judgment, but for the saving of the world (vs. 17). A Kplxrii certainly is to be accomplished through him, but not a /cpuns that he himself makes, but one that consists in the revelation of those that are incapable of salva- tion or afraid of the light and insincere, and those that rejoice in the light and are sincere (vs. 18^21). This entire discourse COURSE OF THOUGHT OP AN ENTIRE SECTION. 213 * consists, therefore, of three parts : the adducing and the dis- The three -^ & parts of thi cussing of the yevvrjdfjvai, avwdev (vs. S— 9) ; the advancing from discourse. the e-jTiyeta, which Nicodemus does not understand, to the iirovpavia of the divine purpose of salvation, which he under- stands still less (vs. 10—15) ; and the representing of the divine Counsel and will as love, and judgment only in so far as the sincere and the insincere separate spontaneously in the " light of the world" (vs. 16-21). 51. Examples exhibiting Greater Difficulty. In other Johannean discourses the course of thought is still more difficult ; cf. John v. 19-47. The connection and the John v. 19-47. occasion are as follows : The healing on the Sabbath at the occasion, pool of Bethesda has just taken place, and is condemned by the Jewish guardians of the law. In justification of himself, Jesus replies : " My father worketh hitherto, namely, preserving and restoring, i.e. this maintaining activity of his knows no Sabbath, and so — namely, preserving and restoring life — I also work." This expression having been understood by his opponents as a presumptuous usurpation of equality with God on his part, there follows now that apologetico-polemic discourse. Jesus Explsna- begins his defence by declaring that his activity does not pro- P rerogativ< ceed from usurping arbitrariness, since as Son he can do noth- ing else than what springs from filial communion with the Father (vs. 19, 20). This godlike activity of the Son now is in no way limited to instrumental action, but is- explained (yap) by the fact that it consists in Kpiveiv and Ijixm-oieiv, which, in- deed, are the most peculiar acts of the Father, and it is added how the Kpii/av and the tfuoTroiuv on the part of the Son are to be understood (vs. 21-27). Since now this claiming of divine prerogatives might awaken indignant astonishment, the speaker meets this astonishment through an argumentum a minori ad majus, which is at the same time an argumentum e concessis, that the awakening from the dead and the final judgment will, indeed, be also his work (vs. 28, 29). From this point the discourse takes, apparently, a more general turn, yet with the thought still kept in view, from which it started out, so that — 214 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. instead of characterizing his activity more definitely — only his divine trustworthiness and the truth of his testimony are made prominent (vs. 30 ff.), which then, from vs. 37 onwards, gradually passes over into polemics against his adversaries. Proof of hia His trustworthiness he proves, 1) through the witness of the thiness. Father (vs. 31, 32), 2) through the witness of John the Baptist, which even they must know and recognize, of which, however, he had no need for himself (33-35), since his epya constitute the proper proof of the truth of his testimony. Here the discourse gradually glides over from the apologetic into the polemic (vs. 37 ff.). This polemics consists in his reproaching his adversaries with ignorance of the Father who bears wit- ness for the Son (vs. 37, 38), ignorance or rather a dead knowl- edge of the Scriptures (vs. 39, 40), and especially — with all their zeal for God's honor — deficiency in love for God, and hence in ability to appreciate purely unselfish speaking and Conclusion, acting (vs. 41-44). In conclusion, it is maintained against them that precisely Moses, upon whom they always prop them- selves, and yet in whom, at bottom, they do not believe, will No clear be their accuser (vs. 45-47). This discourse admits of no res- dmsions. olrxtion into different parts, but exhibits only more or less observable turns ; these are found chiefly in vs. 30 ff., when the apologetic tone passes over more and more into the polemic, yet so that in vs. 30-36 the apologetic still predominates, in vs. 37 to the end, the polemic. (On the fundamental thought, see below). 52. Apparent Incongruities. But the course of thought may also offer a peculiar difficulty from the fact that the discourse at the end seems to presuppose another object or reference to other persons than in the begin- Johnviil. n i n g » c ^ - J°hn y i n - 31-44. The difficulty here may be more 81 ' 4i * accurately defined by remarking, that while the discourse at its beginning is directed to believers (cf. vs. 30, 31), in its progress and at its end it is directed to the most decided opponents, without any intimation having been given of a change of the audience. (We confine ourselves to vs. 31-44, not as if the COURSE OF THOUGHT OP AN ENTIRE SECTION. 215 mrse ended with vs. 44, but because there .'t attains to its mic climax). The difficulty would be, in fact, insupera- if we did not know that Trioreveiv with our Evangelist is a ' elastic idea, cf. ii. 23 f. ; x. 38 ; xiv. 11. At all events ■eu'av here in vs. 30 and 3 1 cannot have the usual pregnant ning. The dispute itself first receives this character through opposition of the Jews, vs. 33 and 39. The beginning 31, 32) contains as yet nothing polemic, but only the ex- atioD to continue in his word, because only thus will they w the truth that makes free, etc. Jesus, therefore, really irds it as uncertain whether the impression of his words u these irema-TevKom is fundamental and permanent, and supposes that, although now believing, they may not yet e known the truth and not yet have been emancipated •eby. But the implication that they are first to become free, njurious to their theocratic self-esteem, and this injured onal pride goes so far, that they maintain, in the face of all the s of the case, that they need not to become free, since they e. never been in bondage. Since they understand bondage freedom only externally, Jesus explains to them (vs. 36) what kind of bondage and freedom he means. But f follows the difficult expression: . . . IQqr&rL fx.e airoKTUvai, The difficult t \ > t » \ 3 ~ » e ~ fr\ i i ■ expression o Ao-yos o c/ios ov x^P* 1 ev "/""■ (.Un the latter expression |29). How can it be said to those who have yet at least a beginning of faith fafrebri /xe airoKrelvat ? x According :he Evangelist a divine knowledge, penetrating the hearts nen, belongs to Jesus, cf. i. 48, 49 ; ii. 24, 25. By virtue his knowledge he knows not only their insusceptibility, but i the consequences thereof: aversion towards that which f do not apprehend, the enhancing of this aversion to posi- hatred and to murderous thoughts ; cf. 1 John iii. 15. Since, 'efore, the Jews had appealed to their derivation from aham, Jesus holds before them the contradiction between To the critic it is very convenient here to say, that the difficulty is to ttributed entirely to " thoughtlessness" on the part of the Evangelist ; 'is incumbent UDon the exe^ete to sro to his author with the presup- 216 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. their sonship to Abraham and the murderous thoughts slum- bering in them, and refers these thoughts to another pater- nity, which he does not yet name, but still keeps in petto, vs. 37—41. Not until the Jews in blunt misunderstanding of Jesus's expression represent themselves not only as children of Abraham, but also as children of God (vs. 41), does he have every reason to show them the contradiction, much greater still, between their affirmed filial relation to God and their dis- position. This contradiction consists, first of all, in the fact that they — the pretended children of God — do not under- stand at all the divine words of Jesus (vs. 42, 43), a failure to understand which can spring only from opposition to God, from the devil ; and now the word is uttered, which he has been long preparing for : " You are of your father the devil," etc. In this scene, therefore, it is shown how even " faith," if the impure motive in the heart is discovered, is changed into its opposite. 53. Another Example- Gal. ii.l±-2l Another example of disputed course of thought is Gal. ii. statement 14-21. The difficulty consists in the fact that — while vs. 14 ouity. and 15, the words of Paul spoken in Antioch, evidently refer to Peter — the discourse at a later point passes over entirely into the track of the explanation to be given to the Galatians of justification through faith, without the slightest break being visible. We must disregard entirely the dogmatic interest Connection which now and then has mingled in the explanation. The connection, an understanding of which is here of special impor- tance, is as follows : Peter had visited the Gentile Christian church in Antioch, at whose head Paul and Barnabas stood, and — although a Jew (vs. 14), and an apostle to the Jews (vs. 9) — yet had not scrupled to sit at meat with the Gentile Christians, which seems to have been a concession on his part. But now came emissaries of the James party from Jerusalem, rigorous Judaists, who so awed Peter with their Judaistic consistency, that he withdrew and separated himself from the Gentile Christians. Here in the eyes of the Jacobine party COURSE OP THOUGHT OP AN ENTIRE SECTION. 217 Peter's inconsistency and vnwpto-is had consisted in the fact that he had associated with the Gentile Christians, who to them were essentially Gentiles; but to Paul Peter's inconsistency and hypocrisy consisted in the fact, that he now separated himself from the Gentile Christians, who to him were essen- tially Christians, and through his apostolic authority with this scrupulous separation of his had awed even Barnabas. This is the situation, an understanding of which is necessary for the explanation of what follows. First of all, now, we are to take The apos. what is undisputed as our starting-point, namely, the apos- pSerf trophe to Peter (vs. 14, 15) : If thou, says Paul, though a Jew, livest as a Gentile, i.e. sittest at meat with those born Gentiles, without giving place to Jewish scruples, with what right dost thou compel (i.e. morally, through thine example) those born Gentiles to Judaize, i.e. to believe, that the distinc- tion between Jew and Gentile, and the observance of this dis- tinction, is the principal thing ? Now we expect after the negative something positive, and this follows in fact ; but the question is whether what follows belongs to the address to Peter or not. If it does, then everything that follows must also be understood in the same way, since, if there is a break anywhere, it is between vs. 14 and 15. If not, then the apos- trophe to Peter seems to be broken off abruptly, and to lack the positive filling out. First of all, it is to be seen which of the two explanations gives the better sense. Under the first xhe Eens8i presupposition we gain from vs. 15 and 16 the following sense : supposition "We — thou and I— although by nature Jews (= legally ^ e t r v t s 15ff - righteous), and not Gentile sinners, yet convinced, that man is 1>eter - not justified by means of the works of the law, — nay even we (emphatically resuming), i.e. thou and I, have become believers in Christ," etc. In other terms, the fact, that we have become believers in Christ, is proof of our conviction, that justification springs not from the works of the law (as, e.g. the observance of the distinction between Jew and Gentile is such a work) . A very good thought ! only it is decisive against it 1) that vs. 15 begins without any conjunctions, not even with Se ; 2) that 218 SINGLE OPESATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. we Lave to bring much into the text ; and 3) that vs. 17 is closely connected with vs. 16, and likewise what follows with vs. 17, while no further reference at all appears to person and occa- The sense sion. If we make the attempt to explain the discourse under the supposition pre-supposition that vs. 15 ff. no longer belong to the discourse refertothe' of Paul directed to Peter, the proposition receives a general, Ga a mns. more <3 gmatic sense, although by virtue of an often occurring ji.eTacr)(i7 i itaTia-/u.os, expressed as Paul's personal experience. This explanation has in its favor, 1) that — if the discourse of Paul to Peter is to be broken off anywhere — here is the only suitable place ; 2) that nothing needs to be brought into the proposition, vs. 15 and 16, and 3) that in this case vs. 17 ff. are connected with what precedes. Against this view, however, is always the abruptness of the words vs. 14, and the Athirdpos- st 'H always undeniable absence of a clear break. But there is ability. st j]j a thircl possibility, viz. that the discourse to Peter con- tinues to vs. 21. Thus is a far closer connection not only between vs. 14 and 15, but also between vs. 16 and 17 ff., sup- posed ; vs. 17 : " if we — thou and I — who seek to be justi- fied through Christ, ourselves also be found as sinners (i.e. as Gentiles), then would follow the blasphemous proposition that Christ would be not a minister of righteousness, but a minister of sin. Vs. 18 : Since if I set up again as steadfast and valid that which I have proved to be invalid (the Mosaical law), I constitute myself a transgressor, i.e. one who condemns his former actions." Now follows in vs. 19 and 20 an argumen- tum ex eventu : (" I do not set up again the abolished law), for I have died to law, but so that a new life, the life of Christ in me, has begun. 1 Vs. 21 : I do not set aside the grace of God (which would be the case if I set up the law again as efficacious), for if righteousness before God comes from the observance of the law, then the redeeming and justifying death of Christ has been in vain (groundless, cf. John xv. 25 ; LXX, Ps. xxxiv. 7)." This third view has in its favor, that 1) a clear break 1 The Greek literally translated reads : " For I through law died to law, that I might lire to God." — Tb. COURSE OP THOUGHT OF AN ENTIRE SECTION. 219 * is nowhere to be shown, and 2) in chap. iii. 1 there is an energetic resumption of the address to the Galatians. It has against it 1) that vs. 15-21, but particularly vs. 17 ff., ex- hibits no personal reference to Peter, and has not at all the character of an apostrophe. The most probable conclusion is, Conclusion therefore, either that the apostrophe to Peter ends with vs. 14, or, that it reaches to vs. 21, in which latter case the unobserved transition to the didactic tone is explicable from the fact that what Paul had to say to Peter is applicable also to the Galatians. 54. Concluding Remark, We see, accordingly, there are examples in which the inquiry as to the course of thought designed by the author is not to be answered with perfect certainty. In that case the exegete has to hold himself to the correct method, i.e. to the following rules : 1) Rules. First of all he must pay close attention to the connection, i.e. to the persons who come into consideration, to the situation that is presupposed in the disputable discourse ; 2) attention must be paid to the sections, or if such are wanting, to the turns of the discourse, and the discourse must be grouped ac- cording to these, in which procedure we are to guard against applying categories or points of view that are foreign to the author ; 3) If the discourse shows incongruity either in its contents or in its tone, or finally, in the presupposed situation, we are to ascertain whether anywhere a break, or if not, a turn of discourse enters, and where such is found, and wherein it consists ; 4) there are, finally, cases where, even after the application of all exegetical means, no undisputed result can be attained ; in such cases we are never to set up a plausible result as if it were quite assured, to be adhered to at all hazards, but we are to be content to set up what is most probable under the confirmation appertaining thereto. 220 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. c) The Discovery of the Intention and the Fundamental Thought of a Section. a) The Discovery of the Fundamental Thought of a Parable. 55. Errors In the Explanation of Parables. Many parables, as, e.g. that of the Sower, that of the Servant who would not forgive his fellow-servant, that of the entrusted Talents, that of the Mustard-seed and the Leaven, are clear enough. Others, however, are either altogether or in particular parts of more disputed interpretation, or have received erroneous Sources of interpretations. The most important blunders in the explana- blnnclsrs tion of the parables are : that the object of the parable is deter* mined merely according to one part ; that the explanation of the single features is carried too far (more seldom is the neg- lect of such a feature) ; that too much effort has been made to explain the personalities of a parable or the parable itself his- torically ; that men have not been content with the clear and simple intention, but have sought behind this still a hidden The inten- sense. These and other errors in the explanations of the para- Bought out W es nave tne i r ground in the fact that the intention of the first of all. p ai . a -bi es has not been sought out first of all, and from this as a basis the single parts and features explained. Only from the intention and the fundamental thought, moreover, are the difficulties with which the explanation of several parables is beset, to be removed. From these alone is the question to be answered, What in a parable belongs to the doctrinal contents, and what to the mere delineation ? From these it is to be determined how far in general one should go in the explanation of a parable, and what oversteps the lawful measure. From this is light to be gained for cases in which there seems to be a gap between the contents of the simile and the given explan- ation, or where the simile itself seems to be devoid of unity. 56. Media for ascertaining the Drift, But how are the drift and the fundamental thought of a parable to be ascertained ? An important help is the state- 1 Cf. Trench, Parables. — Ts. FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OP A I ARABLE. 221 » ment of the occasion, where there is such. This is pre-emi- Occasion, nently the case with Luke, who not only gives parables with an intimation of the occasion, which are wanting with the other Evangelists, as the account of the merciful Samaritan, of the Lazy Friend, who yet finally yields to entreaty, of the Judge and the poor Widow, of the Prodigal Son ; but also furnishes occasions of parables that stand in Matthew without such occa- sions, as in the parables of the Feast to which many were invited and that of the Talents entrusted to servants. Another im- The appen- portant medium of explanation is either the interpretation potation" given, or in default of such, the concluding sentence. An indi- chiding 00 "" cation or explanation proper is found in the case of the parable sentence - of the Sower, in that of the Tares among the Wheat ; an ex- planatory or inferential concluding sentence in the parable of the Lazy Friend (Luke xi. 5-13), of the Rich Man, whose fields brought forth plentifully (Luke xii. 13-21), of the Unjust Stew- ard (Luke xvi. 1 ff.), of the Debtor who would not forgive his fellow-servant (Matt, xviii. 23 ff.), of the Laborers in the Vine- yard (Matt. xx. 1 ff.), of the Treacherous Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33 ff., Par.), of the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1 ff.). But cases also occur where neither an explanatory connection nor an explanatory concluding aphorism is given, as in the account of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19 ff.), not to mention those that are clear enough in themselves ; or where an incongruous relation seems to exist between the appended concluding sen- tence and the parable itself, as in the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke xvi. 1 ff.). In many cases, therefore, we are thrown back simply upon the contents of the parable itself. But Contents of in all cases the contents themselves are an essential factor for itself, the discovery of the fundamental thought, along with the con- nection, indeed, or the occasion, the most indispensable factor. Where it is possible, all three helps — the connection, the contents, and the concluding explanation — must be applied. Where one or the other of these is wanting, we must, at least, neglect no one of the means that are given. 19* 222 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. The occa- Bion given in one Gos- pel not ne- cessarily to bo applied to another. Parable of the Feast. Parable of the Itoyal Marriage. Parable of the Talents. 57, Application of the Media. How these media of explanation are to be applied to the discovery of the fundamental thought a few examples will show. The occasion or the connection is chiefly determinative, yet regard" must be had at the same time to the contents and the explanatory application. Yet we are not to conclude with- out further examination from the fact that Luke furnishes, e.g. an occasion for the parable of the Feast and that of the Talents, that the corresponding parables in Matthew have the same drift. The parable of the Feast (Luke xiv. 16-24), accord- ing to the connection in Luke, — where the exhortation precedes, not to invite rich friends and neighbors, but the poor and the wretched, — is meant to show how the same arrangement prevails in the kingdom of God, that precisely the needy and neglected, and not those that appear to be especially called thereunto, become partakers of the good things of the house of God. It is otherwise in Matthew in the corresponding parable of the Eoyal Marriage (xxii. 1-16). Here the parable of the Treach- erous Husbandmen and the threat against the Jewish theocrats, that the kingdom of God shall be taken away from them and given to others, had preceded. The parable agrees with that in Luke in the essential feature, that those first called show themselves unworthy, and on the other hand that the lowly and despised become partakers of the feast. But while in Luke the reference is to the distinction between rich and poor, iD Matthew it applies more definitely to the contrast between the unworthy theocrats and the publicans and heathen. But the most essential difference lies in the fact that in Matthew there is found even among the guests of the Lord an unworthy per- son. The self-exclusion of those first called, as well as the ex- clusion of the unworthy guest, illustrates the truth spoken as a concluding sentence : Many are called, few are chosen. The parable of the entrusted Talents stands in Matthew (xxv. 14-30) without especial occasion, merely as a part of the eschatological discourses, but in Luke (xix. 11-27) an occasion is furnished, viz. that much people followed Jesus on his jour- FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OP A PAEABLE. 223 ney from Jericho to Jerusalem, in the expectation that the kingdom of God was about to appear. The parable which in both places contains the general doctrine, that in the kingdom of God fidelity is the chief thing, has in Luke the more definite intention, to show that the kingdom of God is not reward and luxury, not the presence of carnal hope, but fidelity in little" things. How important the consideration of the connection is, Parable of in conjunction with the concluding sentence, may be illustrated gal Son. most clearly by the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv. 11-32). Many have thought, on the ground of the first part, that the " mercy of God towards lost sinners " must be taken as the fundamental thought. In this case the second part of the parable (vs. 25-32) would be a mere appendix, which, especially on account of the emphatic conclusion, "... we should make merry and be glad ; for this thy brother was dead," etc., is extremely improbable. This conclusion clearly refers to the beginning and the occasion (vs. 1,2): " Then drew near unto Jesus publicans and sinners ; but the Pharisees murmured." To this relate the two little parables of the Lost Sheep and of the Penny, together with the applicatory aphorism ; " There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth." And that the parable of the Prodigal Son relates to sinners and the self- righteous Pharisees, — and has no other fundamental thought than this : that the conversion of a lost brother should much more be made a matter of rejoicing, as the father rejoices — the connection, in conjunction with the concluding sentence, proves. Sometimes interpreters have not been content with the sense spWtuaiiz- of a parable that is clearly apparent, but have thought to find jjjfg 01 Para ' behind this still a deeper sense, as in the account of the Com- passionate Samaritan (Luke x. 30-37). The one who fell The GooA among thieves has, namely, been referred to those that have Samaritan, fallen under the destructive power of sin, the priests and the Levites to the law, which has no help for the unfortunate, and the Samaritan to Christ. But the connection leaves us not a moment in doubt as to the true intention of the narrative : A doctor of the law, having inquired of Jesus as to the way 224 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. Cases in which occa- sion and connection are obscure. Parable of the La- borers. Parable of the Hus- bandmen. Parable of the Eoyal Marriage. Parable of Dives and Lazarus. to eternal life, had, in reply to his counter-question, correctly defined the sum of the law as love to God and one's neighbor ; since, now, Jesus had replied that he has the right knowledge, and that if he will also carry out his knowledge into action he will become partaker of the eternal life, the doctor of the law, who would not let this confounding answer rest upon himself, rejoins : This is the question, Who is the neighbor that is to be loved ? The parable thus has no other intention than just to show this. This is also perfectly confirmed by Jesus's con- cluding question : " Which of these three was the neighbor of him that fell among thieves ? " Not always, however, is the occasion definite and the connection clear. For example, the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16) is joined with the preceding simply by the aphorism, " Many first shall be last," etc. (cf. xix. 30 with xx. 16) ; but this sentence evidently has not in both places precisely the same sense : the former passage relates to the foregoing promise, and contains a limiting definition ; the latter passage, similar in language, is, on the other hand, a confirmation of what was said in the parable, that those called first and apparently worthiest shall be treated in the reckoning as the last, and those called later and who have less claim to make shall be treated as the first. The parable of the Treacherous Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33 ff. Par.) is motived only in a general way through the foregoing discussion with the Pharisees ; so also the parable of the Eoyal Marriage, whose parallel in Luke moreover has another setting, is connected, in- deed, by means of the foregoing inferences with the parable of the Treacherous Husbandmen ; but this connection is only general, and refers not at all to precisely what is specific in the foregoing parable. Most questionable of all is the connection of the otherwise difficult account of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19-31). That there is no connection with ,what immediately precedes is clear as noon-day. To find any- thing corresponding we must go back to vs. 14 and 15. The detached aphorisms vs. 16-18 may, of course, be passed over, and the parable may be annexed to vs. 15. In this case we FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OP A PARABLE. 225 * get the following connection : After Jesus Lad said (vs. 13) that men cannot serve God and mammon, the rich Pharisees, who — as often happened — knew how hest of all to unite the service of God with the service of mammon, turned up their noses at him, the pauper, and thought : hinc illae lacrymae ! In order now to put a damper on their pride of wealth — which had a support in their pretended piety — and their spiritual pride — which had a support in their opulence — he relates this parable, in which wealth and future blessedness are brought into the sharpest opposition. Cf. below. 58. Cases of Appended Interpretation, etc Often no occasion is given, not even any connection that could be of service to the explanation, but, indeed, an appended interpretation, an inferential or parenetic concluding sentence. We rarely find, indeed, a statement of the fundamental thought, Explain , ' . „.,..,,,,. „ Hon of lead- but rather an explanation of individual leading features or per- ing features sonalities, as in the parable of the Sower and the Tares : Matt xiii. 24-30 coll. 37-43. But from the explanation of these individual features the fundamental thought is to be derived, viz. that the separation of the good and the bad is not to be rashly accomplished by men, but is to be first accomplished in the time of the consummation of all things through the mes- sengers of God. Often a brief, inferential or exhortatory con- Concluding eluding sentence is appended, which, indeed, is not the funda- mental thought itself, but may point back to the fundamental thought, as in the parables of the Treacherous Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33-39 Par.), of the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1-13), Examp ie3. of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30-37), which, however, is already sufficiently motived through the occasion given (see above) ; and also in the parables of the Laborers in the Vine- yard (Matt. xx. 1-16) and of the Eoyal Marriage (Matt. xxii. 1-16). But not unfrequently this concluding sentence ex- Partial ex- presses not the whole object or fundamental thought of the parable ; e.g. the drift of the parable of the Fishing-net (Matt, xiii. 47-50) is not exhausted by the thought, that at the end of the days the good and the bad shall be separated, since the 226 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. mingling of the good and the evil is not here, as in the par- able of the Tares, accomplished by the adversary, but by the action of the net, i.e. of the soul-winning gospel itself. Neither is the drift of the parable of the Royal Marriage (Matt. xxii. 1-16) exhausted in the aphorism, "Many are called, few are chosen," since the parable treats not of calling in general, but of the calling to the good things and joys of the kingdom Seeming in- of heaven. Sometimes the concluding sentence seems incon- gruous with the intention of the parable. Cf. the concluding proposition in the account of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 86), " Which of the three seems to thee to have been the neigh- bor of him that fell among the thieves ? " "We should rather - expect the question " To whom among the three is he that fell among the thieves the neighbor? " For the question of the law- yer was : " Who then is my neighbor,' 7 sc. to whom am I required to show love ? But this sceptical question is transmuted by Jesus into a practical question of conscience, as if he meant to say : " Spend no time in ashing who thy neighbor is, but act — like this Samaritan — as a neighbor ! Even in the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1-13), the concluding exhortation to watching does not seem entirely in accord with the contents, since not the foolish alone have fallen asleep, but also the wise. The word yprjyopeire cannot thus refer to mere waking, but must contain a negation of that through which the foolish have differed from the wise, i.e. forethought and readiness must rather be meant thereby ; yet at the same time, doubtless, refer- ence is also made to the danger of sleeping in momentous Cases where times. But what if several applications or concluding sentences pirSons" are given, as in the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke xvi. are given. 1 _ 8 ^ p Here ; t ia sa j d first f a]1 that the children of the world are wiser than the children of the light ; secondly, the exhortation follows, to make friends with the unrighteous mammon (vs. 9) ; then it is said, he that is faithful in little is faithful also in much (vs. 10-12), and finally, the aphorism is appended : " No man can serve two masters " (vs. 13), which some separate from what precedes. Here arises the question, FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OP A PARABLE. 227 which -among these appended aphorisms contains the true teaching of the parable, in other words, whether the parable is intended as a discussion on prudence or on fidelity ; if the former, how is the exhortation to fidelity related to this ? But what is particularly offensive is the fact that the steward, who not only squandered his master's goods, but also through open deceit insinuated himself into the favor of his master's debtors, is set up as a model for emulation. If only the context con- tained something explanatory, or the contents itself were clearer ! but in both these respects we are left completely in the dark ; for with regard to the context, there is no logical connection at all between the parable of the Prodigal Son and the one under discussion ; only the indication (vs. 1) that the latter is addressed to the disciples is a hint worthy of notice. Of the appended inferences, the first (vs. 8) must at all events be most immediately connected with the parable itself, and must express most accurately its fundamental thought, while the fol- lowing contain only applications and inferences. The most immediate thing is the praise of prudence, and in this the un- just steward is certainly given to the disciples as a model. But the steward is prudent as a child of the world ; the disciples, however, are to be prudent as children of the light. The par- able contains an argumentum e contrario, as the parable of the Unjust Judge and the Widow (Luke xviii. 1-8), and that of the Lazy Friend (Luke xi. 5 ff.), and the meaning intended is : If the unjust steward, as a child of the world, is praised on account of his prudence, how much more should you, just stew- ards and children of the light, be prudent ! But wherein consists the prudence which the children of the light are to practise ? First, like the unjust steward, in making themselves friends with the mammon, i.e. in bestowing this for benevolent objects (vs. 9) ; secondly, in being faithful in little and exter- nal things, otherwise than the unjust steward, because only then can they be entrusted also with great and spiritual things (vs. 10-12). How, now, is vs. 13 connected? "Ye will show yourselves faithful in little as in great things only by not serv- 228 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. ing two masters, by considering little things, mammon, only as entrusted to your keeping, not as your true good, but him that is in heaven." 59. The Contents of the Parable Itself. The fundamental thought is, of course, never to be derived from the mere context, nor from the mere concluding applica- tion, but always at the same time from the contents of the para- The con- hie itself. Often this is altogether adequate, as in the parables adequate, of the New Patches and the Old Garment, of the New Wine and the Old Bottles, of the Mustard-seed and the Leaven (Matt. xiii. 31-34), of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. xiii. 44—46), of the Hard-hearted Creditor (Matt, xviii. 23-35), of the Rich Man whose field was productive (Luke xii. 16-21), of the Unfruitful Fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9), of the Seed that grows unobserved (Mark iv. 26-29), of the Talents Apparent entrusted to servants (Matt. xxv. 14-30). But now and then ousnesf. it is just the contents that makes the difficulty, whether it be that it contains features that seem heterogeneous or that the parable in general is wanting in unity. In the parable of the Eoyal Marriage in Matthew, features occur that seem to be foreign to the principal drift thereof, viz. that the guests first invited not only declined the invitation, but killed, indeed, the servants, as a punishment for which act their cities are burned ; so also the affair of the guest that had not on the wedding garment, — two features that are wanting in the corresponding parable in Luke. 1 As regards the first feature, which evidently refers to ! the Jerusalemites, murderers of the prophets, and to the destruction of the city, this is one of those sharp polemic thrusts against the Jewish hierarchs. The other feature would certainly be heterogeneous if the intention of the parable were the same as in Luke ; but while in Luke the fundamental thought is the calling of the lowly and despised, in Matthew the fundamental thought is this, that in general not all that are 1 In such cases it is the critic's work to prove whether two different parables hare not flowed together. But the exegete as such has to take what lies before hirn, and explain it as it is. FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OF A PARABLE. 229 . called to the good things of the kingdom of heaven are chosen guests. The parable of the Prodigal Son, among others, Apparent appears to want unity, since it consists evidently of two parts, unity, of which the first (vs. 11-24) relates the history of the younger son, and the second (vs. 25-32) that of the elder son. Even although the fundamental thought is that expressed in vs. 32 (see above), yet the younger appears to be the principal character. This is also really the case, and this also contradicts neither the fundamental thought nor the unity of the parable, for the fun- damental idea of the parable is not " that one should not mur- mur about the brother that was lost and was found again," but that it should be made a matter of rejoicing ; and the motive of this joy is given in the first part, in the wretchedness and the conversion of the lost one. Most clearly of all does lack of unity appear in the parable of the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19-31), and this is not the least among the sundry difficulties with which this parable is beset. Is the lot of the poor man and that of the rich man in the world to come the principal thing ? or is instruction with reference to this future life itself the essential feature (vs. 23-26) ? or is the intention of the parable expressed in the conclusion (vs. 31) ? The second must be entirely withdrawn, since every- thing that is said about the future life in a descriptive way, is said with reference to the lots of the rich man and the poor man, and since the expression vs. 25 has a somewhat determin- ative and exclusive character. There remains, therefore, only the question, whether the true intention of the account is con- tained in the first part or in the last. The latter view seems to be supported by the concluding sentence, " If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced in case one should rise from the dead." But how would the Jlrst part be related to this ? As the prayer of the rich man says that his brothers would be converted through a miraculous resur- rection, so the objection of Abraham says substantially, that Moses and the prophets are sufficient for conversion and for warning against the place of torment ; in other terms, that 20 230 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. they cannot excuse themselves on the ground of ignorance if the same fate should befall them as their brother. But what is here said of the brothers applies to the rich man himself : neither has he from ignorance and undeservedly come into the place of torment. What now is the object of this ? In the first part it had appeared as if the rich man undeservedly, merely because he was rich, had come into the place of tor- ment ; the ethical element was entirely in the back-ground ; in the second part, now, this is brought up, and the fate of those that are in this case, or come into this case, is shown to be deserved. But the principal thought is still retribution, as ex- pressed in vs. 25. That this retribution, however, is not merely a passive compensation, but a compensation conditioned by failure to listen to the word of God, is the thought of the concluding sentence. GO. Attention to the Personalities. Only after the intention of a parable has been ascertained, especially in difficult cases, can we infer the significance of the personalities, as well as answer the important question : What in a parable belongs to the doctrinal contents, and what is mere Personal!- delineation ? The personalities are difficult only in a few only in a cases. In the parable of the Prodigal Son it is clear that the younger son represents "sinners," the elder son, the self- righteous ; in the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard there can be no doubt but that those first called, and who prop themselves on their rights, are the Jews, and those culled late and enjoying freely the goods of the Lord are the Gen- tiles ; that in the parable of the Royal Marriage those first invited and malignant refer to the hierarchs, the poor and neglected afterwards called, to the publicans and sinners and Personal- to the Gentiles, is also perfectly evident. The determination Parable of of the personalities in the parable of the Unjust Steward is Steward.* more difficult. But just here much error has arisen and the confusion has been increased by the circumstance, that — in- stead of making the determination of the fundamental thought the starting-point — men have taken as the starting-point FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OP A PARABLE. 231 hypothetical determinations of the personalities. Under the assumption of the intention of the parable given above the view must be given up that the irXovo-ws is God, since not only is the word ttXo-uo-ios scarcely ever used in a good sense in the New Testament, but the o'lkovo/j.o'; as vlas tov alZvos tovtov and the guardian of the /ia/uovas t^s aSiiaas cannot be represented as the steward of God. One of the most important and most delicate questions, regarding the explanation of the parable, is : What in the parables belongs to the doctrinal contents and Doctrinal 77. o ■ i • contents, what to the mere delineation i — a question that is not to be and delin& t ■ • i ation. answered according to mere caprice or subjective taste, but on the ground of the intention of the parable. No passage is in parable of this relation more instructive than that of the Prodigal Son. ga i son. The fundamental thought that one should rejoice over the brother that was lost and is found again, presupposes the going astray and the being found ; and, in the elaboration of the parable, a description of the way and manner of both these occurrences. What, therefore, serves to illustrate, how a man goes astray, belongs to the doctrinal contents : thus not only the departure from the paternal roof and the squandering of his inheritance, but also the circumstance that just when he had consumed his property a famine sets in, and that he is dependent on a citizen of that country, and has to keep the swine, but withal suffers bitter hunger, i.e. that the sinner be- fore he can persuade himself to return to the father seeks for help in the world, but in the service of the world must perform the most menial service, and thereby come only into deeper and deeper distress, is an integral element of the doctrinal contents. To the return and the being found belongs the fact, that only when he has come into the greatest distress he meditates upon his condition and determines to return to the father, but in the feeling of his unworthiness, lays claim merely to the position of a day laborer ; to this also belongs the fact that the father goes to meet him, and before he has time to speak, embraces him in his arms. Neither is the circumstance mere delineation that the father has him arrayed in his best garments and 232 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. with a finger-ring, for it belongs to the father's joy over hiir that was found again, that he should establish him again in all his filial dignity. On the other hand, it is an extreme Parable of perversion to refer the slaughtered calf to Christ. In the par- bandmen. able of the Treacherous Husbandmen, it is not a mere matter of delineation, when it is said that the possessor of the vine- yard, before he delivered it to the husbandmen, enclosed it with a hedge and built a tower upon it, since it is thus shown that the landlord was careful that the vineyard of the kingdom of God might be worked in all security. On the other hand, it would be going too far to refer the hedge specially to the law and the tower to prophecy, since it only lay in the intention of the parable to tell us that he was careful for the security and protection of the kingdom of God, but not through what means Parable of this was accomplished. In the parable of the Hidden Treasure the Hidden . . L Treasure, it is not a mere matter of delineation, that the treasure is found accidentally, and that it was discovered by the finder in the field in which he was working, as also that he must buy the Parable of land in order to come into possession of the treasure. On the the Mus- . tord-eeed. other hand, it would be a perversion, in the parable of the Mustard-seed, to refer the birds that nestle in the tree to the converted heathen, while they are merely intended as an illus- Parabie of tration of the greatness of the growth. In the parable of the Steward. Unjust Steward it is not a mere matter of delineation, but an essential point, that the oikoVo/aos seeks to free himself from embarrassment, and that the means that he embraces have for their object to win over the poor as the possessors of the " ever- lasting habitations.'' But the special way and manner in which he seeks to win them, belongs not at all to the doctrinal con- tents of the parable. The question, What belongs to the doc- trine and what to the delineation in a parable, is, therefore, to Rule. b e answered thus : What ministers to the fundamental thought or the intention of a parable belongs to the doctrinal contents ; but what does not minister thereto is mere delineation. 61. Parables Seemingly Incomplete! Now and then a parable still leaves room for a question. FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT OP A PARABLE. 233 E.g. in the parable of the Sower, the wayside, the stony ground, the thorn seeds, and the good soil are given in an absolute way, and it appears, therefore, as if insusceptibility, inconstancy, etc., were a mere fatality. To show whether and how far Parable of these defective conditions are deserved, lay not, however, in e ° wer " the intention of the parable. These conditions for Jesus, the Sower, kot e£, were certainly something granted, and also for the hearers they had become fatality, cf. v. 14, 15 and Par., which, to be sure, was grounded in their dispositions. The Parable of concluding sentence of the parable of the Royal Marriage Marriage. (Matt. xxii. 16), -- Many are called, but few are chosen," leaves unanswered the question in what sense the word ZkXcktoi is here to be taken. The word itself appears to point to an orig- inal divine purpose, as if the contemptuous rejection of the in- vitation, as well as the wedding garment wanting to one of the guests, were something foreseen and designed by the lord of the house. But this is incongruous with the whole contents of the parable : not only is any reference of this kind wanting in the whole course of the parable, but such a thought would alter the whole intention thereof. The word £kX€ktoi is rather to be understood ex eventu, and designates those that have proved themselves worthy of the calling. The same sense also would this aphorism have in chap. xx. 16, where the Textus Eeceptus and Lachmann have it, but Tischendorf, on the authority of Cod. Vat., Sinait., and some other witnesses, omits it. With reference to the parable of the Prodigal Son, it has parable oi often been wondered why the acceptance and the pardon of ga ison. the prodigal son is not represented as mediated through Christ. But on the one hand, it lay outside of the intention of the par- able to show how, and in what way this pardon took place, since merely the return of the son and the joy of the father were to be set forth ; on the other hand, a glance at the occa- sion and at the parables of the Lost Sheep and Penny, teaches that Jesus regarded the coming to him eo ipso as a coming to the Father, and his acceptance of the sinner eo ipso as the acceptance of the sinner on the part of the Father. In gen- 20* 234 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. Euie. eral it may be observed, that what seems to be missing in a parable is either to be understood of itself, or else lies without the intention of the parable. 62. The Johannean Parables. The Johan- There still remain to be treated the altogether differently bies, allego- formed Johannean parables. These differ from the synoptic parables in the fact that they are allegories, i.e. delineations, and not narratives, and that they have for their contents Christ Allegory of himself in relation to his people. The clearest of all is the Shepherd, allegory of the Good Shepherd (x. 11-18) where the tertium comparationis is the faithful and sacrificing care for his own. Christ as More difficult is the allegory that immediately follows, of of the Christ as the " door of the sheep." These are regarded as sheep." enclosed in a fold, therefore, as an aggregate whole. But the leading thought is the difference between those that come to the shepherd's office in the right way and those that come in the wrong way and with evil intent. Likewise, in the parable of the Good Shepherd, the difference between him and the hire- ling is the principal thought. But what is now the tertium comparationis between Christ and the door ? Evidently, Jesus means by the eyu> not so much his person as his disposition, Allegory of which is clearly set forth in the antithesis. The allegory of and its the Vine and its Branches, finally (xv. 1-6), is distinguished by es. ^ e £ ac ^ t ^ at j .j ie re j at j on between Christ and his own is repre- sented not merely as an ethical communion, but as a physical connection. The question then arises, whether this physical communion is meant to be taken literally, or whether it is only a figurative representation of the ethical communion. But there is sufficient ground for understanding literally that essential connection between Christ and his people. In this we are con- firmed, namely, by the allegory itself ; for if we understand this connection figuratively, there would be no reason why Jesus, if he meant to speak of the relation between himself and his disciples would have delineated this relation precisely thus. The parenetic element of the allegory also (vs. 4, "Abide in me," etc., and vs. 5, " Without me ye can do nothing," just aa INTENTION OP OTHER DOCTRINAL SECTIONS. 235 * vs. 6) points to just this kind of communion. In conjunction with the intention of the allegory to be derived from the lan- guage itself, the fact that the Evangelist elsewhere also, though in another relation, represents this union as a mystical one (iv. 14; vi. 35, 48 ff.), has the same bearing. |S) The Intention of other Doctrinal Sections. 63. Method of Procedure. We can here treat only of such passages as exhibit more or Kind of less an organic whole. But whether this is the case must, after treated in the ascertainment of the fundamental thought (§ 49-54), be the first question. Neither is a single pervasive fundamental thought to be maintained in a given section at all hazards, especially if we are compelled, to this end, to apply definitions of thought foreign to the .author ; nor are we in a superficial manner to renounce a unity of the fundamental thought, if this does not readily appear. Thus also it would be an error, if Confound- the critical question, e.g. whether Jesus delivered a given dis- ical and course in this place, in this manner, and under these circum- questions, stances, and the exegetical question as to the sense of the discourse in question should be confounded. The two investi- gations are rather to be kept distinct, and the more correct procedure is, to begin with the exegetical investigation, since in most cases the decision of the critical question depends on the sense and the course of thought of the discourse. So also it is one question, in what connection and in what form Jesus originally pronounced a discourse, and another question in what connection the Evangelist has taken it and reproduced it. For the exegete the latter question is the first. The most instruc- Sermon on tive example of this kind, perhaps, is the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, v.-vii. ; Luke vi. 20 to the end). Inasmuch as the two Evangelists display so many and so great differences in this passage, in the first instance each is to be explained and its sense and connection studied independently of the other ; only after this has been done are the two to be compared with each other and to be tested according to their mutual relation. The 236 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. first procedure leads to the result that Matthew, even though he has not reproduced the discourse of Jesus in its originally more limited compass, but in conjunction with many other ex- pressions, yet in chap. vii. 28, 29 he seems to indicate that he means to represent the whole as a unity ; that, on the other hand, Liike,who reproduces the discourse later and in a shorter form, but by no means in a better connection, has also meant to give this as one discourse. The latter procedure shows that the two discourses agree as to their principal contents, and therefore, were originally identical, but difEer as to time and place, and also as to the details of the contents. It follows, that so far as the intention and fundamental thought are con- cerned, the two discourses need not be identified. How, now, is the unity of intention of the two discourses to be ascertained ? Here, as everywhere, we are to proceed by way of induction, i.e. we must ascend from the particular to the general. In In Matthew Matthew the discourse shows the following course of thought : in chap. v. 3-12 it is shown what kind of men have part in the kingdom of heaven; in vs. 13-16 their proper relation to the world is given ; hereupon, in vs. 17-48, the law of the king- dom of heaven is explained ; in chap. vi. 1-18 the practice of virtue in the kingdom of heaven is explained according to its usual categories, almsgiving, praying, fasting; these likewise are given in vs. 19-34 according to their fundamental bearing. After, now, in chap. vii. 1-14, several ethical commands have been given in loose connection, there follows (chap. vii. 15-20) a warning against false prophets, together with a specification of the criterion by which they are to be recognized ; and finally, vs. 21-27, a warning against self-delusion, together with a specification of the criterion by which genuine and spurious citizens of the kingdom of heaven maybe distinguished. Now so far as this whole discourse is to be regarded as a unity, the fundamental thought can only be in general : " The regulation of the kingdom of heaven, in contrast with the evil nature In Luke, and morale of the Jewish world." In Luke, where the dis- course has another setting and a less programmatic significance, INTENTION OF OTHER DOCTRINAL SECTIONS. 237 it shows the following course of thought : in chap. vi. 20-26 we have a declaration of the beatitudes and the woes of those that belong to the kingdom of heaven and of those that do not, respectively ; hereupon (without an explanation of the law) the fundamental law of love according to its various relations is given, with which also the special command, " Judge not ..." (vs. 39), is fittingly joined ; in vs. 39^42 we have instruction for those that would teach and guide others ; in vs. 43-47 the cri- teria of the ayaOo's and the 7rov»jpds as a transition to the parable (agreeing with that in Matthew) of the house built on the sand and that built on a rock (vs. 48, 49). The fundamental drift is here similar, indeed, to that in Matthew, yet there are differences by no means insignificant : a) In Luke not only Differences are several macarisms wanting, but also the assurance of the eternal validity of the law, the interpretation of the law directed against the Pharisaic externality, the whole exhibition of the right practice of virtue, together with the warning against earthly striving and earthly care, contrasted with the Pharisaic hypocrisy ; furthermore, some aphorisms, as that of the broad and the narrow gate, and finally the warning against false prophets ; but what is most essential is the absence of the polemics against the Pharisaic interpretation of the law and practice of virtue. b) Luke has some things that are want- ing in Matthew, the " woe " against the rich and prosper- ous of this world ; furthermore, the aphorisms, " Can a blind man be a guide for the blind ? " etc., and " The disciple is not above the teacher," etc. (vs. 39, 40), as also "The good man out of the good treasury of his heart bringeth forth good ..." (vs. 45), a saying that is found in Matthew in an altogether different discourse (xii. 34, 35). c) Much that both have in common is otherwise in Luke than in Matthew : through the absence of the interpretation of the law, the command of love to enemies and the forbidding of revenge receives a different coloring from that in Matthew ; not only are several aphorisms misplaced, as the command of love to enemies and the forbid- ding of vengeance, but several aphorisms stand in a different 238 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. EeBult. Nature of the difficulty. John vi. 26-69. connection, as, e.g. "Judge not" (vs. 37), "Good measure, pressed down . . . shall men give to you, and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again " (vs. 38), the aphor- ism of the mote and the beam (vs. 41, 42), and the figure of the good and evil tree (vs. 43-45), which here is not connected with the warning against the false prophets. If we add further that the discourse in Luke contains two very noticeable breaks, viz. between vs. 26 and 27, and between vs. 38 and 39, we arrive at the result that the two discourses are, indeed, identi- cal at bottom, cf. the agreement of the beginning, the conclu- sion, and the most essential elements of the contents ; but yet that, in consideration of the different temporal setting and situation of the discourse, and in consideration of the many dif- ferences, the intention cannot be the same ; that the discourse in Luke, 1) has not the programmatic character that it has in Matthew, 2) does not contain polemics against Pharisa- ism, and on the other hand, 3) gives a more exclusively positive statement of the rules that prevail in the kingdom of God. 64. Intention of the Johannean Discourses. The work is more simple when we have to do with a dis- course without parallels, as, e.g. the Johannean discourses} The difficulty is here of a different kind, and consists essentially in the fact that the connection of the thoughts is so indistinct and seemingly accidental (cf. §§ 49-54), that we may sometimes be in doubt as to a pervading thought. Most certainly such a per- vading thought is to be followed in the discourse, chap. vi. 26-59. The connection of the discourse is as follows : After the mirac- ulous feeding Jesus had withdrawn himself from the pressure of the people, and had betaken himself to the other (the western) shore of the sea ; but the people sought him, and found him at last, after his arrival at Capernaum. Yet Jesus, discerning the sensuous motive of this throng, refers those that have come to a i Cf. Beyschlag, Beitrage zur Johartnaishen Frage, reprinted from the " Theol. Studien und Kritiken," 1876; Luthardt, The Authenticity of r}(ri, to prj/j-a 6 crWraf e Kvpios." If now Philo declares the Logos to he the true manna, if according to John Christ is the Logos, and INTENTION OF OTHER DOCTRINAL SECTIONS. 241 * if the Johannean Christ — in reference to the manna — calls himself the true bread of heaven, we shall not go astray if we find here the application of the Alexandrine idea of the Logos to Christ. 1 Ad 3) There is no doubt but that the Evangelist — in view of the Judaizing paschal and eucharistic festivals — meant to divest the idea of the eucharist of its historico-empir- ical form, and to idealize it. This idea, which must be com- pletely unintelligible to the o^Xos, is not historical, but is expli- cable from the intention of the Evangelist, to which precisely the showing forth of the contrast between the knowledge of Jesus and the dullness of the people (we call to mind also the discussion with Nicodemus) essentially belongs. 2 65. Intention of the Epistles. The consideration of the connection is of decisive weight for importance the ascertaining of the intention of a passage in quite an espe- tion. cial manner in the New Testament Epistles, since here the in- dividual sections form in most instances so integral a part of the whole, that not only what immediately precedes, but not unfrequently the design and economy of the Epistle, have to be 1 This observation would more naturally come into the province of the Real-Explanation, but this irpoX^i|/is was here unavoidable. [See on the Pliilonian doctrine of the Logos, Beyschlag, as above; Bleek, Introduction to N. T., section on the Gospel according to John; Dorner, Person of Christ, Vol. i. — Tr.1- 2 This is one of the instances in which our author displays a leaning towards the position of Baur. The conclusion reached appears to rest upon at least three unwarranted assumptions: 1) that the Philonian and the Johannean doctrines of the Logos are identical. The contrary has been most clearly shown by Dorner, Beyschlag, and others; 2) that in his brief narrative the author of the fourth Gospel has intended to set forth all the circumstances connected with the discourses that he attributes to Christ, or even the whole of the discourses as delivered. If we knew more of the circumstances we should doubtless understand better than we do why Jesus spoke in each instance just as he did; 3) that it is incom- patible with Christ's nature to speak to men with any other view than that they should at once understand his teachings in all their height and depth. His object may have been, and doubtless was in many cases, to arouse the dormant faculties of men's souls, to induce thought, to awaken curiosity ; and who shall say that it was beneath the dignity of Christ to utter things mysterious, even incomprehensible, as a means to an end ? — Tk. 21 2i2 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. Adiffiouity. taken into account. But here enters a difficulty: on the one hand, the rule holds good, that the exegete must take as his siarting-point the understanding of the details in order to arrive at an understanding of the whole ; but here the requirement is set up, that the whole must first be understood in order to A solution, attain to the understanding of the individual parts. The solu- tion of this contradiction consists in the fact that the under- standing of the whole, as of the individual parts, is only to be attained through repeated operations, and that — though we must begin in every case with the first method — a succeeding procedure must have reference to the reverse. These two methods, from the parts to the whole and from the whole to the parts, must often be repeated, and must supplement each other. But if it should be urged against the first demand, that in the beginning we are to take as our starting-point the individual parts, that indeed in the higher schools the teacher begins with imparting to his pupils a general idea of the author and his work before he commences with them the reading of the work itself ; it may be replied : 1) that the teacher himself must have arrived at the general idea in the first way, before he can impart it to his pupils, and 2) that the pupil also, if at a later period he do not merely swear to the words of the master, but wishes to gain an independent knowledge of the whole, must arrive at this in the same way, from below up- wards, in order to get the idea received from the teacher either confirmed or corrected. But the knowledge of the whole attained in this way must now, in turn, be the medium for arriving at an insight into the meaning of the individual parts. 66. An Important Example (Rom. vil. 7-24). "We illustrate what has been said by one of the most vexed statement examples, viz. by Rom. vii. 7-24. The question is, whether tion. eqU8S " Paul meant in this section to describe the condition of the regenerate or that of the unregenerate ; or more exactly, whether the iyd> is the Christian iyu> or the ante- Christian. Ante-An- Almost all the ante-Augustinian theologians, with the excep- ffew. maU tion of Methodius, regarded this section as a description of the UrTENTION OF OTHER DOCTRINAL SECTIONS. 243 • arefe-Christian condition of Paul. Nay, Augustine and Jerome themselves, before the Pelagian controversy, were of the same opinion. Abelard, Thos. Aquinas, and Erasmus followed these. But in the controversy with the Pelagians Augustine and Augustine's Jerome changed their opinion, and explained the passage of the condition of the regenerate. Most of the "Western teachers followed now the authority of these great Fathers, especially the Reformers and the old Protestant exegetes. Only W. Modem de- Musculus, Castellio, F. Socinus, and the Arminians were of a the Ante- A. u ff u s tin " different opinion. But just in opposition to the Socinians and ian view, the Arminians, the Augustinian view was held so much the more zealously, and this view always held its place as the orthodox view, even in more recent times, against the Ration- alists. But not only Socinians, Arminians, and Rationalists, but also A. H. Franke, G. Arnold, Buddeus, and Bengel did homage to the ante-Augustinian view. This view now grew more and more in favor, the more exegesis was freed from the fetters of dogmatics and was established upon correct hermenu- tical principles,. and was adopted and defended by the most ap- proved exegetes, such as De Wette, Riickert, Baumgarten- Crusius, Meyer, Tholuck, Fritzsche, van Hengel. Only in the Recent, de- most recent time the theologians related to the old orthodoxy, the Augus- Delitzsch (not Hofmann), Kohlbriigge, and especially Philippi, have returned to the Augustinian explanation. The grounds Philippi's for the latter, according to Philippi, are as follows : a) vs. 7-13 evidently describe the condition of the unregenerate, as is clear from the preterite ; but from vs. 14 onwards, the dis- course passes over into the present, and describes, therefore, a present condition ; /?) what is said in vs. 17 (irvfj-ip-rjixi ™ vofxw), in vs. 19 (ov yap 6 6e\u> ttolu> a.ya&ov . . .), and especially in vs. 22 ((TwrJSo/ixai t<3 vo/xa> . . .), an unregenerate man could not say of himself; y) vs. 25 contradicts completely the view of the unregenerate condition (evxapiaruy ™ 0e£ . . .); 8) Gal. v. 17 is evidently a parallel passage to the one under dis- cussion, and there can be no doubt that the converted condition is meant. This is the state and the interest of the question. 244 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. How to at- In what way now are we to arrive at the right result ? 1) true result. Through an examination of the individual, parts, especially of Examma- tne e xegetical factors on which stress is laid by those that details. maintain the Augustinian view. The first question is : who is the iyd> ? does Paul speak of himself alone, or does he speak — Kara. /jLeracrx'lp-aTio-p.ov — of a whole class of men ? That the latter is the case is clear from all that is predicated of the iyd, which is not merely individual, as well as from the analogy of similar /x.£Taa-^ijyu.arto-/xot, cf. Gal. ii. 19, 20 ; 1 Cor. iv. 3, 4 coll. 6. a) But it is especially in dispute, whether with vs. 14 a change of the situation is introduced, as has been declared. The reading, indeed, varies between yap (nBCFGK, Verss., and Fathers), and 8e (ADEL, Verss., and Fathers), but yap has the greater probability in its favor, not merely on account of the importance of Cod. B and n, but also because Se seems to be more suitable, and would, therefore, be substituted for the yap rather than vice versa. But if yap is to be read, the view of a passing over from the unconverted to the converted state is inadmissible, not only on account of the yap, but also because vs. 14 is not a narrative or descriptive thought, but a reflection on what precedes. The change from the aorist to the present is also explicable enough from the change from description to reflection, and by virtue of the p.eTa is read does not at all affect the main question. As regards the connection, vs. 25 is evidently a transition from vs. 24 to viii. 1. Verse 25 would, therefore, be a support of the Augustinian explanation only if this verse still belonged entirely to the foregoing, and the pres- ent division into chapters were determinative. Finally, y) Gal. v. 17 is cited as -a support for the Augustinian explana- tion, but there the opposition between Trvevfux and crdpi, while here that between voBs and y]Ttveiv from the •yAwcro-ais AaXeiv ; cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 5, 22-24. So far as the discourse of the prophet relates to the future, prophecy 1 is sometimes uncon- ditioned (Num. xxiii. 19 ; Isa. liv. 10 ; Jer. xxxi. 36, 37 ; xxxiii. 19-26), — and, indeed, unconditioned prophecy of penal judg- ments (Jer. v. and vi. ; xi. 1-17 ; xv. 1-9 ; Amos i. 4—8 ; v. etal.), as well as of promises (Joel iii. and iv ; Amos ix. 11— 15 ; Hob. ii. 14-23 ; Isa. viii. 23 to ix. 6, 11, 35, 40 fE. ; Jer. xxxi., etc.) ; and sometimes conditioned through the relation of the people (Joel ii. 12-14; Jer. vii. 5-7 ; xv. 19 ; xviii. 5-10; Prophecjr xxvi. 3, 13 ; xxxvi. 3; Ezek. xviii. 11-27). But prophecy onhistori- S always rests on the historical ground, where the prophet lives, «ai ground. and hag th j g for itg p resU pp OS i t i on . Cf. Joel iii. coll. ii. 21-27 ; Amos i. and ii. ; Hos. iv. ff. ; Isa. vii. ; viii. 23 to ix. 6, 11, especially vs. 11 ff. ; xl.-lxvi., especially xlv. et al. Even 1 The Germans have a word to represent the utterances of prophets in general — Prophetie, and a distinct word to represent such utterances as relate to the future — Weiisagung. We cannot make the distinction with- out circumlocution. — Tk. INTENTION OF PROPHETICAL SECTIONS. 249 * Daniel, cf. especially, chap. xi. (on which see Jerome) and cf. the connection with the foregoing. In the New Testament : Matt. xxiv. and Par. ; 2 Thess. ii. 1-9, especially vs. 6 and 7; Eev., especially vii. 14; xi. 1, 2; xvii. 9-11. Lastly — and this is one of the most important points — the drift of Drift of t. • , , . . . . prophecy, prophecy is not so much to minister to curiosity as to arouse the people to repentance, to faith, and to steadfastness. Just as the biblical monotheism is not a speculative monotheism (as that of the Brahmins and the Eleatics), but a practical mono- theism (cf. Ex. xx. 3 f. ; Deut. vi. 4 f. ; Isa. xli. 1-4 ; xlii. 8; xliv. 6ff. ; xlvi. 1-11 ; Jer. ii. 13; xvii. 5-8), so is the prophecy of the one God, according to its whole intention essentially practical (cf. especially Joel i. and ii. ; Amos iii. ; Hos. v. 1-6; xi. ; xiv. 2-10; Mic. vi. 1-8; vii. 1-6; Isa. i. 2-31 ; v. ; xl.-lxvi. ; Jer. ii. 1-3, 5 ; iii. 6-vi. 30 ; vii.-ix., etc. This is only a synopsis of the features, for the further Literature, elaboration of which see Knobel, Der Prophetismus der He- braer, 1837. Hitzig, Einleitung zum Propheten Jesaja, 1833. B. Koster, Die Propheten des Alten und Neuen Testamentes, 1838. H. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, 1840, and later. Bunsen, God in History. F. Bleek, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. ii. pp. 1-31. For views different from the one here advanced, see Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 2 ed. Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfullung. Au- oerlen, The Prophet Daniel and the Book of Revelation, 2 ed. Cf. on the other hand, Bertheau, in the Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1859, pp. 314 ff., and pp. 593 ff., against whom again Oehler, Art. "Weissagung in TIerzog's R. E. ; H. Schulz, Alttestamentliche Theologie, I. 147 ff. See also Oehler' s pro- gramme " TJeber das Verhaltniss der Alttestamentlichen Proph- etie zur heidnischen Mantik," 1861. 1 68. Difficulties in interpreting Prophecy. But even if the interpreter has the right view of prophecy, he may yet stumble upon difficulties. The principal are the 1 See also the elaborate Article, " Prophet," in Smith's Diet, of the Bible, where a foil exhibit of the literature of the subject, Latin, German, and English, may be found. — Tr. 250 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Uncertainty of time. Figurative language. Doubtful- ness as to tense. Seeming in- congruity between prophecy and fulfil- ment. Partial dis- agreement of the same. Lack of per- spective. following : a) It may occur that the time in which the prophet wrote, and hence the historical foundation, is obscure and disputed, e.g. in the Old Testament in Obadiah, in the New Testament in 2 Thess. ii. 1-12. b) The poetical or rhetori- cal form of the prophecy may leave it uncertain, what belongs to the contents and what to the figurative form, — a difficulty which certainly belongs to the explanation of the New Testament prophecy less than that of the Old Testament, c) Sometimes it may be doubtful whether the prophet speaks of a future or of a present matter, as, e.g. in the Old Testament in Nah. iii. 1 ff., in the New Testament what is said in 2 Thess. ii. 5 f., of the avTiKecjj.evo's and Kare^cov. d~) It may occur that between the prophecy and the fulfilment a remarkable incongruity can be established, and that, too, not only in the details but in the prophecy as a whole, as between the words of triumph of the Babylonish Isaiah 1 and the miserable result of the Jewish Restoration ; cf. Hag. ii. 3 ; Neh. i. and ii. ; Joseph. Arch. 1. XL Cf. furthermore, the Messianic prophecies Isa. viii. 23- ix. 6; xi. 1-10, etal., with the issue; in the New Testament the prophecy of the Parousia as near at hand (Matt. xvi. 27, 28 ; xxvi. 64, and Par. ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51) with the history. e) Frequently a certain agreement between prophecy and its fulfilment cannot be denied ; but facts appear connected in the prophecy, that afterwards lie far apart histor- ically, as Matt. xxiv. ; Mark xiii., the destruction of Jerusalem and the o-uvreXeia tov auovos. /) Finally, the time of the con- summation appears at one time close at hand, e.g. Matt. x. 23 ; xvi. 28 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51 ; Rev. i. 3 ; xxii. 7, 12, 20, at another time it recedes into the distance; cf. Matt. xiii. 31-33 ; xxiv. 14 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2-4, lastly, the whole line of events that are to take place, according to the Apocalyptic, between his time and the Parousia. Each of these passages is i Our author takes for granted here what most but not all authorities admit as to the authorship of the second part of Isaiah. He also assumes, quite unnecessarily, that the return of the Israelites from the captirity exhausts the prophecy. — Tk. INTENTION OF PROPHETICAL SECTIONS. 251 . to be explained first of all from its connection ; yet certain general points of view are necessary, without which the most essential difficulties cannot be solved. Referring to the fore- Alleviation going paragraphs (a, b, etc.), we call special attention here to going dif-" the following : a) The historical situation and basis cannot, ' ' it is true, be always established with certainty, but sometimes the difficulty is not so much contained in the text itself as brought forward through a theological interest. It cannot be too strongly emphasized, that this interest must recede entirely behind the exegetical-historical matter-of-fact. b) With reference to the relation of prophecy to fulfilment, it is clear, from the preceding paragraph, that an enlightened glance into the future of the kingdom of God was, indeed, vouchsafed to the prophets, but that prophecy neither related to all the de- tails nor could or would foresee the future, even as a whole, with the exactness and infallibility of chronicles, but that it is essentially conditioned through the politico-religious situation prophecy in which the prophet lived, and in its expressions was figura- through the tively and rhetorically colored ; that in general the Divine Spirit, religious by which the prophet was seized, wrought not with mechanical 6ituatl0n - or magical necessity, nor dispensed with the human in him, but rather consecrated and elevated it. From this authorship by men with minds thus exalted is the incongruity between the sanguine prophecy and the poor fulfilment ; from the national and temporal limitation of the prophet is the contradiction between the nationally and politically colored contents of prophecy and the universal and spiritual issue, to be explained, c) That the end appears now to be near at hand and now far remote is explicable from the fact that the prophetic illumina- tion has reference essentially only to the general and real development of the kingdom of God, but not to local and tem- poral matters. Over against the vulgar opinion, theologically The divinity defended even in this century, that the divinity of prophecy is Sotstow? shown chiefly in the coincidence of particular things, must be rncMences!" set as the true view, that the more prophecy relates to the particular and empirical, to the local and temporal, the more 252 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. The ques- tion at issue jprincipal difficulty. Two alter- natives. .tion of the two elements. Idealizing. uncertain it is, and on the other hand, the more it is directed to the general and the ideal, the more certain and divine it is. 1 69. Jesus's Eschatological Discourse. For the illustration of what has been said the eschatological discourse of Jesus Matt. xxiv. (coll. Mark xiii ; Luke xxi), may serve. The discourse, as regards its eschatological didac- tic part, has a strong Danielic coloring, especially in Matthew, where Daniel himself is expressly mentioned (vs. 24). Essen- tially Danielic are the following features ; vs. 15 coll. Dan. ix. 27 ; vs. 21 coll. Dan. xii. 1 ; vs. 30 coll. Dan. vii. 13. How, in general, at the time of Jesus and the Apostles the idea of the Messiah assumed a Danielic form, such expressions as Matt. xiii. 43 coll. Dan. xii. 3 ; Matt. xvi. 27 f. ; xxvi. 64 coll. Dan. vii. 13; furthermore, 2 Thess. ii. 4 coll. Dan. xi. 36, and the whole Book of Revelation, show. The relation of the destruc- tion of Jerusalem and the temple to the o-wrcAeia toC atwro; and to the Parousia in the specifically eschatological part, is a matter of dispute. The express mention of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem is found, indeed, only in Luke (vs. 20- 24) ; but with the first two Evangelists also the connection of the two events is, at least, presupposed ; (cf. Matt. vs. 3 ff. ; Mark vs. 3 ff. ; Matt. vs. 15, 1 6 ; Mark vs. 14). Here the prin- cipal difficulty is this, that Jesus 1) has represented his personal and heavenly return as impending in the near future, and 2) as closely connected with the judgment on Jerusa- lem, — both of which, as is well-known, are contradicted through the history. Either, therefore, Jesus has erred and indulged in reveries, or we must understand this prophecy otherwise. Yet how are we to understand it ? "We may a) seek yet to separate the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusa- lem from that of the Parousia, but this would be an act of exe- getical violence, and, as such, has long since been condemned ; or we may /3) idealize the so plastic prophecy of the Parousia and say: Jesus has expressed his spiritual ideas in sensuous ] TJjis statement will probably not strike most readers as axiomatic. — Tb, INTENTION OF PROPHETICAL SECTIONS. 253 images, but did not intend that these should be understood literally. But what ideal sense are we to attach to these sen- suous images? That his kingdom, his truth in the immediate future shall be manifested in glory, of which the destruction of Jerusalem, the ruin of the Jewish theocracy, is the preliminary condition. But for this there is no exegetical justification at hand either in this eschatological discourse itself, or in any other discourse or expression of Jesus whatsoever. Or y) atisunder- it may be assumed that the disciples and especially the Evan- theparf of" gelists had misunderstood the Lord. For this view there seems j is fg_ van se- to be irrefragable grounds, but especially the conflict with such passages as Matt. xiii. 31-33 ; Mark iv. 26-29, according to which the kingdom of God is not to appear as a Deus ex maehina, but is to be developed from small and hidden begin- nings ; furthermore, in Matt. xx. 25-28, et al., according to which the essence of the kingdom of Christ is not external power and glory, but ministering love. Nevertheless the sup- what the position of such a misunderstanding, which would have been gttion'fn- " participated in by all the disciples and Apostles, even by Paul TolTes> (1 Cor. xv. 51 ; 1 Thess. xv. 15-17), is extremely hazardous and arbitrary. What assurance should we have after such a universal and profound misunderstanding that they had under- stood aright any of the Master's words whatever ? And so far as the inconsistency with the other expressions of Jesus cited is concerned, it is by no means unthinkable that Jesus did really regard its silent and gradual development as the immediate destination of the kingdom of God, but as its conclusion, a great manifestation and catastrophe. 8) Accordingly, the The correct only view left to sober and fair exegesis seems to be, that Jesus Tlew ' really — in substance at least — said what we read, namely, in Matt. xxiv. and Mark xiii, and said it as we there read it. The same prediction of his Parousia to be expected in the near future is found also, indeed, in Matt. x. 23, especially in Matt, xvi. 27 f. ; xix. 28 ; xxvi. 64. But how does it help the matter to remove exegetically this expectation in the great eschatolo- giral 'itifc?ourse, if the other expressions, that say the same 22 254 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. thing in substance, remain standing ? And how should we account for the fact that the Apostle Paul, otherwise so acute a thinker, has the same downright sensuous conception of the Parousia and the final judgment (1 Thess. iv. 15 f. ; ICor. xv. 51, 52) ? But how, then, are we to escape as a result the supposition that Jesus erred, that he spoke as an enthusiast? e) A method There seems to be still one method of escape left, viz. to suo- of escape. r pose that the discourse with reference to the future (Matt. xxiv ; Mark xiii.) is spurious, or has at least been strongly interpolated in a Jewish interest. This view is not entirely- destitute of support ; first of all, it is remarkable, that the dis- course which yet takes as its starting-point the definite expec- tation of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. vs. 2 ; Mark vs. 2), does not speak of this, but only of the f38£\vyna ipy/niba-etas of the temple (Matt. vs. 15) ; then vs. 20, " Pray, that your flight may not take place on the Sabbath,'' does not seem at all in harmony with Jesus's way of thinking about the Sabbath and his relation thereto (cf. Mark ii. 27, 28 ; iii. 1-5, al.). But then this would necessitate an impeachment also of the genuineness of the other passages with reference to the Parou- sia, and thus would follow the evil state of things pointed out under y. ~Q Finally, an explanation seems to have much in its favor, which after suggestions by Schleiermacher and Weisse, Wiffenbach (Der Zukunftsgedanke Jesu, 1873) has very recently developed: only the prediction of his return as near at hand is properly authentic in this discourse with reference to the future, since this thought was neither imme- diately nor mediately indicated in Judaism. The rest is made up by a mingling partly of collected expressions of Jesus spoken on other occasions, partly of thoughts that do not belong to the Master himself. Thus vanishes the appearance of a connection of the Parousia with the destruction of Jerusalem. That this is not to be referred to the Master himself, is con- firmed by the other expressions as to the Parousia, which say nothing of the destruction of Jerusalem ; cf. especially, Malt. xvi. 27 f. On the other hand, Jesus expressed Parousia! INTENTION OP PEOPHETICAL SECTIONS. 255 , thoughts in connection with his resurrection, and that too in Buch a way that the thought about his death formed for him the transition to the Parousial thought (= thought as to his resurrection) ; cf. especially Luke xvii. 24, 25, and Mark viii. 27 to ix. 1 Par. But how, then, is it to be explained, that Jesus expresses the thought of his return as near at hand so con- stantly in the words of Daniel, which, indeed, have nothing at all to do with the thought of the resurrection. The most cer- Thetrueex- tain thing of all that is certain in Jesus's discourses as to the future seems rather to be, that he beheld the thought of his activity extending far beyond his death in the light of the pas- sage in Daniel (vii. 13). With this was undoubtedly connected in his mind the prophetic foreboding of a great catastrophe, espe- cially of the divine judgment on Jerusalem. As to his Israelitish conception Jerusalem represented the theocratic centre of the world, so also the ruin of Jerusalem represented the centre of the catastrophe of the world. Not the temporal, but the ideal connection of the judgment on Jerusalem with his manifestation in glory is here the principal thing. When we say that Jesus Jesus, as an , -,,.,, , . , ,• . Oriental, has expressed his thoughts as to the future in the realistic thought and t~» • i i i7 r\ • i spoke as an manner ot Daniel, we simply say that he, as an Oriental, an oriental. Israelite, did think of it thus ; but we Occidentals, we children of the nineteenth century, cannot thus think of it. This is the stand-point that an honest, truth-loving exegesis must take. Was the intention of this discourse essentially theoretical, to intention . of the enlighten his disciples with reference to the last things, or prac- discourse. tical, to exhort them to watchfulness and steadfastness ? In the former case the exhortation from vs. 43 (Matt.), or vs. 28 (Mark) onwards would contain merely inferences ; in the latter case the entire foregoing exposition of the oiSivcs and of the Parousia would be mere assignment of motive to the exhorta- tion to watchfulness. This must be determined partly from the occasion and partly from the course of thought of the discourse itself. The discourse is occasioned according to all the Synoptics, Occasion, most clearly of all according to Mark, through the circumstance that his disciples (according to Mark one of the disciples) called 256 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. their Master's attention to the great and gorgeous structure of the (Herodian) temple, whereupon he answered, that no stone should remain upon another, — and through the question, "When shall this happen, and what will be the signs of the Parousia and of the time of consummation ? Here it is remarkable already, that the interrogators (according to Matthew, not according to Mark), as it appears, go far beyond the observation of the Master ; for he had spoken merely of the destruction of the temple, but they talk of the Parousia and o-vvreXaa tov aifivos. This question is grounded on the idea of the rraa "'ban (Dan. ix. 27 ; xii. 1 f.), of which the destruction of the temple will be a part. Jesus accepts this conception, since he not only foresees the overthrow of the city and of the temple, but him- self also brings the destruction of the holy city into connection with the Messianic o>Sive9 and the owreXeia tov aifivos. (On Theinten- this, see above). This is the connection, which points to the struo'tion" f act i that the intention of the passage is instruction with refer- theia™ mS ence to the last things. But everything depends on the con- thmgs. tents and character of this instruction, and this is to be learned Course of from the course of thought. Now it is already worthy of oug ' observation; that Jesus begins his instruction with the practical exhortation : [$\ewe.T£ jiA] ns v/tas Trkavqo-rj (Matt. vs. 4 ; Mark Didactic vs. 5). Now this exhortation is motived, certainly, through the following instruction with reference to the coming of the false Messiahs (Matt. vs. 5 ; Mark vs. 6) ; with this is connected the prophecy of wars and political revolutions (Matt. vs. 6, 7), and these phenomena are (vs. 8) designated as a.pxq mhtviav, with which the first group of thoughts concludes. The second now speaks of the bodily and spiritual calamities by which they themselves will be affected, and concludes with the aphorism : 6 Be vTro/J-uvas ets riXo'S, outos aruiOrjaerai (Matt. vs. 13 — Mark has not the same course of thought) and with the prospect of the spread of the gospel over the Gentile world (vs. 14). This group ends with the words kol Tore rj£a to reXos. The principal group (Matt. vs. 15-28) is divided into the recommendation of rapid flight from the destruction (to vs. 20 inclusive), and the part. INTENTION OF PROPHETICAL SECTIONS. 257 * grounding of this exhortation through the unheard-of greatness of the calamity (to vs. 28). The following group (vs. 29-31) contains the Parousia itself, which is to appear in connection with great commotions of the heavens — the decisive factor, which is delineated according to Dan. vii. 13. Thus far the predom- inantly didactic part extends. With vs. 32 the practical part Practical of the discourse begins, and goes to the end of the chapter, nay, even beyond this point, for the parable of the Ten Virgins is closely connected with that of the servant expecting the arrival of his lord. This practical part may be analyzed as follows : vs. 32-35 speaks of the certainty of the prophecy, declared through the ay£iv to Trao-^a (John xviii. 28) may mean anything else than to eat the Paschal lamb ; since Deut. xvi. 2-8 (LXX) proves nothing for the view that that expression may also stand for the eating of unleavened bread. 5) A greater stone of offence are the differences and contradictions in the history of the resurrection. We discuss here only the more History of considerable : o) According to Mark (xvi. 8) the women re- reetion. turning from the sepulchre by reason of their fear said noth- ing [ouSev &irov~\ ; but according to Luke (xxiv. 9-11) they recounted everything to the eleven disciples, but found no cre- dence; /3) The risen Jesus appeared according to 1 Cor. xv. 5 (coll. Luke xxiv. 34) first of all to Peter ; but according to John (xx. 14 ff.) and, according to the appendix in Mark (xvi. 9), first of all to Mary Magdalene ; y) in general, between the time, the places, and the persons to whom the risen Jesus appeared, there is no agreement ; especially astonishing is it, that of the five hundred brethren to whom he appeared, according to 1 Cor. xv. 6, the Evangelists seem to know nothing at all ; finally, 8) in one and the same Evangelist there is a contradiction in reference to the corporeality of the risen Jesus, cf. Luke xxiv. 31 with 39, and John xx. 19 and 26 with 27 f. But to conclude from this contradiction that Christ did not arise is, to say the least, hasty ; and to infer from John xx. 14 and Mark xvi. 9 that the Apostles' faith in the resurrection is to be referred to the hallucination of the nervously excited 1 Cf. Godet, Comm. in loe., John and Luke ; Robinson and Gardiner, Greek Harmonies, in loo.; Andrews, Life of our Lord; Farrar, Life of Christ. — Tk. 24* 282 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Mary Magdalene [B&ian] is a frivolity against which wa cannot express ourselves emphatically enough. But it is a frivolity of another kind, in the service of a dishonest apolo- getics, to deny the contradiction or to reduce it to an unim- portant dimension. An unprejudiced exegesis and criticism must say : However it may be with the appearance of the Risen One, two facts remain firm and unassailable; the one, that on the first day of the week, early in the morning, women (whether only one, or two, or three) came to the grave, and found it empty ; the other, that some time afterwards, the dis- ciples, previously in consternation, became full of courageous faith that Christ has risen. What lies between these two points we shall indeed never know with perfect clearness. 1 6) In the history of the Apostle Paul there is a contradiction in the fact that, according to Acts ix. 26 f., Paul travels, soon after his conversion, from Damascus to Jerusalem, and goes in and out with the original Apostles, while he himself asserts (Gal. i. 17, 18) that he journeyed not at once to Jerusalem, but first to Arabia, and not until three years afterwards visited Peter in Jerusalem. 2 The interpreter will now, perhaps, endeavor so to interpret the account in the Acts, and so to extend the time between Damascus and Jerusalem that the contradiction may dwindle as much as possible ; but the con- scientious exegete will allow the idleness of this endeavor, and will be obliged to acknowledge the inaccuracy of the account Principles, in Acts. In general, in view of such difficulties and contradic- tions, the following principles cannot be sufficiently impressed Modesty, upon the exegete and critic : 1) modesty, in that in many cases no absolutely certain results, but only a greater or less degree of probability, is attainable, and, after all attempts at explanation, a Socratic ignorance is very becoming to the Veracity, investigator ; but, especially, 2) veracity, to which not ingenious contrivances, but simply the subject-matter is im- 1 Cf. on all the passages concerned Meyer's Commentaries, on those In Luke and John, Godet's remarkably clear discussions. — Tk. 2 Cf. on the passage in Acts, Haekett and Meyer ; on the passage in Galatians, Lvjhtfoot, EUkott, and Meyer. — Te. THE HISTORICAL. 283 f portant, and which does not wish to save at all hazards the traditional and " orthodox " view, and does not do violence to the text and to history " in majorem Dei gloriam," since here, as elsewhere, the principle is to be rejected, that the end sanctifies the means. 80. Passages requiring special Investigation. If the general knowledge of the post-exilian history, and of the history of the New Testament time must precede all ex- egetical explanation, so very many passages of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles require special investigations and explana- tions. 1) A knowledge of the political personages and Political relations, of which mention is made in the New Testament, is necessary ; as of Herod the Great, who meets us, indeed, only Herod the . Great, in the preliminary account m Matthew, but who exercised a great influence on the development of Jewish affairs. On Herod the Great, Josephus, and especially his excellent char- acterization (Ant. XVI. 5, 4), is to be compared. In the same preliminary account mention also is made of Archelaus, the Archelau* son and successor of Herod ; and, casual as this mention is, yet confirmation and illustration is received from Josephus, Ant. XVII. 11, 4; 13, 2; Bell. Jud. II. 7, 3. Herod Antipas is Herod ' ' .... Antipas. immediately embraced in the gospel history (Luke iii. 19 ; ix. 17 f. ; xiii. 31 ; Matt. xiv. 1 ft ; Luke xxiii. 6f.) and on him also is Josephus (Ant. XVHI. 4, 5) to be compared. Josephus (I.e. § 2) is of special interest with reference to the imprison- ment of John the Baptist and the grounds of it. But the most important personage * in the Gospel history is Pontius Pilate, Pontfaa the sixth procurator of Judaea (Luke iii. 1 ; xiii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke xxiii. ; John xviii. and xix.), on whom also Josephus (Ant. XVIH. 3, 1 ff. ; 4, 1 ; Bell. Jud. II. 9, 2) is to he compared. For unlike estimates of this man, see, among others, Tholuek on the one side and Olshausen on the other. Of his successors only Felix (Acts xxiii. 26 f. ; xxiv. 22, 24—26) and Felix. Portius Festus (Acts xxiv. 27 ; xxv. 1 ff.) are mentioned, cf. Festal Joseph. Ant. XX. 8, 5, et al. The testimony of Tacitus about 1 P )litical personage is of course meant. — Tb. 284 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Herod Agrippa I. Publicans. Judas Galilaeus. Theudas. Religious relations. High-priest Felix is important (Hist. V. 9, also Annal. XII. 54) : "... per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio ex- ercuit" On Portius Festus cf. besides Acts xxiv. 27 ; xxvi. 31, also Josephus, Ant. XX. 8, 9, 11 ; 9, 1. Of Jewish rulers, besides Herod Antipas, are mentioned still, Herod Agrippa I., on whose mortal sickness cf. Acts xii. 23, with Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8, 2 — and Herod AgrippaU. (Acts xxv. 13, 26 ; Joseph. Ant. XIX. 9, 2 ; XX. 1. 1 ; 5, 2, and especially 7, 1 ; Bell. Jud. II. 12, 8). Besides these principal political personages of the history of the New Testament time, others still occur, which though they play no principal role, yet help to charac- terize the political relations : such are pre-eminently the pub- licans (TeXSvai), who, though Jews, are ranked as a despised class with the a/x.apro)\ois. On the political position and the functions of these Roman subordinate officials, cf. Livy, XXV. 3; XXXII. 7; XLV. 18; Tacitus, Annal. XIII. 50; Dio Cassius XLII. 6, also Lightfoot, Horae Hebraeicae, p. 286, 396. Of the religio-political fermentation, that broke out from time to time, Judas Galilaeus (Acts v. 37), or Gaulonites (Joseph. Ant. XVHI. 1, 1, 6; 2, 1 ; Bell. Jud. II. 17, 7-19) gives a striking proof. Gamaliel, indeed, speaks of this up- rising (Acts v. 37) as long since and promptly suppressed ; but from Josephus (I.e.) we learn that Judas the Gaulonite left behind him a party which persisted till the Jewish war, and played an important part in the breaking out of this war. The YaXiXaioi also, of whom Luke makes mention (xiii. 1) probably belonged to this party. On the other hand, the mention of Theudas (Acts v. 36) is difficult, for Josephus, indeed, also speaks of a rebel leader Theudas (Ant. XX, 5, 1), but this one was active far later. We must, therefore, either suppose that there were two of this name, and that Josephus has failed only through accident to mention the earlier, or that an anachronism is found in Acts v. 36. 2) Still more essential is the knowl- edge of the religious relations. The high-priest, as is well known, takes the first place in the hierarchical organism, and hence the knowledge of his office, of his functions, etc., accord- THE HISTORICAL. 285. big to the Old Testament declarations (Ex. xxviii. ; Lev. xvi. ; Numb. iii. 32 ; xx. 28 ; Deut. x. 6) is to be presupposed. But in the New Testament the expression dp^iepeis in the plural frequently occurs (Matt. xxi. 45 ; xxvi. 3, 14; xxvii. 1, 20, 62; xxviii. 11, al.). How is this to be understood? It must be borne in mind that in the Syrian, Herodian, and Koman periods much arbitrariness concerning the choice and the deposition of the high-priest found place (cf. Joseph. XV. 3, 1; XX. 10; 1 Mace. vii. 9 ; Joseph., Bell. Jud. IV. 3, 6, 8), so that instead of the one that was invested with the office, there were several who had been invested with the office ; and although no longer in the office, yet still stood in authority. The Sanhedrin Sanhedrin. (Talm. 'p'flroD) as the highest theocratical tribunal is, as is natural, frequently mentioned in the New Testament, by no means always under this name indeed, but as ol apxupels «ai oi Trpeo-fivrepoi, or ol a-px- (p &PX-)> °' 1 ypo/i/iOTCts kcu ol 7rpeo~f3v- repoi tov Xaov (Matt. xxvi. 3, 57 ; Mark xiv. 53 ; xv. 1 ; Luke xxii. 66). By Josephus this institution is mentioned for the first time, Ant. XIV. 9, 3, 4. On the constitution and the prerogatives of this tribunal the Talmud (tract. Sanhedrin) is especially to be compared. See Selden, De Synedriis et Prae- fecturis Vet. Hebr. Relandi, Antiq. Sacrae l II. 7. Winer's Bibl. Bealworterbuch s. v. Leyrer in Herzog's E. E., where also the literature is exhibited. A new phenomenon, furthermore, for one that comes immediately from the Old Testament to the New is the synagogue worship (cf. Matt. xiii. 54 ; Mark Synagogue vi. 2 ; Luke iv. 16, in Nazareth ; Mark i. 21 ; Luke iv. 33 ; W ° rs lp- Matt. xii. 9 ; John vi. 59. But according to Acts ix. 2 in Damascus also; xiii. 14 at Antioch in Pisidia; xiv. 1 in Ico- nium ; xvii. 1 in Thessalonica ; xvii. 10 in Beroea; xviii. 4 in Corinth ; xviii. 19 in Ephesus). As regards the origin of this institution no credit, of course, is to be given to the Jewish tradition which, on the ground of Deut. xxxi. 11 f., and Ps. lxxiv. 8, refers it to Moses. Josephus makes mention of it first Bell. Jud. VII. 3, 3; but from this we need not decide upon so late an origin ; the probability is rather, that the need 286 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. of such worship arose in the Exile, and that the institution itself was formed in the period succeeding the Exile, on the ground of the standing custom of reading the law (Neh. viii. 1 f.) and on account of the Staa-iropa of the Jews. On the order of the synagogue worship the Talmud (Jerusalem Megill. 75, 1) and Philo (Opp. II. 458, 476, especially 630 and 631) inform us. The summum opus on the synagogue is Camp. Vitringa, De Synag. Veterum. Franek. 1696. Cf. further, IheScribes. Winer 1. c. and Leyrer 1. c. In the Gospels we meet frequently also the so-called scribes (ypafi/j-aTeLS, vo/xoStSacrKaXot, vojukoi), yet the expression "iBD occurs already frequently in the Old Tes* tament, and the matter itself Ezra vii. 11, 21. After the Exile, as is well-known, the more genial and popular "wisdom" (nasn) gave place more and more to legal learning, and " scribes " took the place of prophets and popular orators. On the subject and the manner of this legal learning cf. Josephus, Ant. XVII. 6, 2 ; XVIII. 3, 5. The aggregate results of this learning have been recorded in the Talmud. But the old proverbial, pop- ular and apothegmatic wisdom also still maintained its place, cf. the Pirke Aboth. 1 The contrast is remarkable between the picture which the "New Testament sketches (Matt. v. 20 ; vi. Iff.; xv. 1-14, especially vs. 23; Luke xi. 39-52) and the pictures which the Jewish writers sketch of the " scribes," especially of the most distinguished among them, Schammai and Hillel, Simon the Just, Juda the Holy, and others. The contrast is explicable from the fact that Jesus judged this class from the point of view of the simple and original word of God, or from the stand-point of the people and what the people need ; the Jewish authors, on the contrary, judged it from the stand-point of the national learning and dignity. Cf. Winer as above, and Leyrer, s. v. in Herzog. Importance The knowledge of the Jewish sects is also important for the of & kiiowl* *dgeofthe understanding of the New Testament. Misled, on the one Jewish eeots. j A n English translation of the Pirke Aboth (Ethics of the Fathers) together with an unpointed text has been recently published in England. There is also a German translation, with pointed text by Ewald. It will be found very instructive from a religio-historical point of view. — Tk. THE HISTORICAL. 287 » hand, by a one-sided consideration of many passages in the New Pharisees, Testament ; on the other hand, by Josephus (Ant. XIII. 5, 9 ; XVTIL 1 ; Bell. Jud. II. 8) men have formed an incorrect idea of the Pharisees, as if they had been all either conscious hypocrites, hypocrites by profession, or as if they had been religious philosophers, because they are compared by Josephus with the Stoics. But we know that the descriptions of the Jewish historian are to be taken cum grano salis, inasmuch as he has striven to make the Jewish customs and opinions as acceptable as possible to his Greek-Boman readers. As regards then the reproach of hypocrisy, a knowledge of the rise and development of this sect is, before everything else, necessary for the proper characterization thereof. That they were zealots for the ceremonial law is clear from all the principal passages of the New Testament, cf., besides, Matt. xv. and xxiii., also Acts xxiii. 3 ; xxvi. 5, coll. Gal. i. 14. But this fundamental feature may be traced back to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ix. f. ; Neh. viii. f.). This tendency received a new impulse, in opposition to the Greek innovations, through the Maccahaean uprising, which was nothing else than the heroic reaction of the zealous legalistic national spirit against the pen- etrating heathen character, cf. 1 Mace, ii., esp. vs. 27. Josephus mentions the Pharisees for the first time Ant. XIII. 5, 9 (about B.C. 145), but it is not to be concluded from this that they at that time first made their appearance. Pharisaism is nothing else than the consequence of the post-exilian, legalistic Judaism ; and from this fact is to be explained, to be sure, as well the interpretation of the law and tradition losing itself in casuistic minutiae, as the ascetic piety degenerating more and more into externality: hence the not unfounded reproach of hypocrisy which they have incurred. Cf. Schnekenburger, Beitrage, p. 69 ff., Winer, R. W. B., s.v. and Leyrer, in Herzog, b.v. The counterpart of the Pharisees formed the Sadducees, Sadduceea who are represented in the New Testament as deniers of the existence of the spiritual world and of the resurrection (Matt. xxii. 23 ; Mark xii. 18 ; Luke xx. 27 ; Acts xxiii. 8). But 288 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. the fundamental difference between them and the Pharisees consisted less in this than in their rejection of oral tradition. From the fact that they held themselves strictly to Scrip- ture, and deemed of no account the development of doctrine through the post-exilian theology (Joseph. Ant. XIII. 10, 6) is to be explained as well their rejection of the resurrection and of immortality, nowhere clearly taught in the older hooks of the Old Testament (cf. also, Joseph. Bell. Jud. II. 8, 14), as of the post-exilian development of the doctrine of angels Essenes. and demons. The Essenes- are nowhere mentioned by name in the New Testament, but inasmuch as Col. ii. really refers to Essenean customs and opinions, and, inasmuch as the Epistle of James is an Ebionitic product, and the Ebionites proceeded from Essenism (cf. Oredner, Ueber Essaer und Ebioniten und einen theilweisen Zusammenhang derselben, and Baur, De Ebionitarum origine et doctrina, ab Essenis repetenda), a knowledge of the Essenes is necessary to the interpreter of the parts of the New Testament named. The sources are Joseph. Ant. XIII. 5, 9 ; XVIII. 1, 2-6, esp. Bell. Jud. II. 8, 2-13. Philo on the Therapeutae in his writing " Quod omnis probus liber." Coll. Pliny, Hist. Nat. V. 17. Cf. also, besides Credner and Baur, Uhlhorn s.v. in Herzog. The Samaritans, mention of the Samaritans in the New Testament necessitates also a knowledge of the history of this mixed people, and of the relation of the Jews thereto. On this point are to be compared Ezra iv. ; Joseph. Ant. XI. 1, 2 ; 4, 3 f., 9 ; XII. 5, 5 ; XIII. 9, 1 ; 10, 2 ; XIV. 5, 3 ; Ewald, History of Israel; Winer, E. W. s.v., and the elaborate article by Petermann in Countries Herzog. The explanation of the Acts of the Apostles and of of Asfa P e3 the Pauline Epistles requires also a knowledge of the countries and peoples of Asia Minor, especailly of Galatia (cf. Strabo XII. 566 f.; Livy, XXXVII. 8, and XXXVIII. 12, 18; Justin. XXV. 2; Dio Cass. 53, p. 514; Joseph. Ant. XVI. 6), of Ephesus (cf. Strabo XIV. 632, 640 f., al. Winer's E.W. s.v.), of Greece in general in the last centuries before the rise of Christianity, especially of Corinth since its overthrow by THE HISTORICAL. 289 • Mummius (b.c. 146, cf. Livy, Epit. 52; Strabo, VIII. 378 ff., Pausan. II. IS.). 1 From the examples adduced it is clear, bow from the comparison of the extra-biblical accounts with the New Testament accounts a new light is spread over the latter, and how important the more comprehensive and thorough knowledge of these things is for the New Testament interpreter. 81. Importance of Knowledge of Jewish Customs. Furthermore, the knowledge of Jewish customs is of im- portance and interest. a) Of specifically religious customs Keiigious and usages the feasts, especially the Passover (Matt. xxvi. 17 ff. ; Mark xiv. 12 ff. ; Luke xxii. 1 ff. ; John. ii. 13 ; xiii. 1 ff.), the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 2f.), and the Feast of Pen- tecost (Acts ii. 1 f.) are the most important. On these the Old Testament is the most valuable source of information; on the Passover (Heb. h&S , Aram. Stnes), or the feast of un- Passover, leavened bread (^ ioprrj rusv alvjiMv niXBri Sri), Ex. xii. 1—28; Lev. xxiii. 4—14 ; Numb, xxiii. 16 ff. ; Deut. xvi. 1-8), farther- more, Joseph. (Ant. XVII. 9, 3 ; Bell. Jud. VI. 9, 3) and the , Talmud (Tract. Pesachin. ch. 5) are to be compared. On the Feast of feast of Tabernacles (o-K7jvo7nyyi'a, niBBri 5n) cf. Lev. xxiii. 33 ff. ; Num. xxix. 12 ff. ; Deut. xvi. 16 ff. ; Joseph. III. 10, 4 ; XIII. 8, 2 ; 13, 8. On the feast of Pentecost (TrevTrjKoo-Tij iis^n sn or nisaffi sn) cf. Ex. xxiii. 16 f. ; Lev. xxiii. 15 f.; Numb, xxviii. 27 ff. ; Deut. xvi. 9 ff. ; Joseph. Ant. III. 10, 6 ; XIV. 3, 4 ; XVII. 12, 2 ; Bell. Jud. II. 3, 1. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 7) allusion is also made to the Great Day of Great Day Atonement, on which cf. Lev. xvi. 23, 26 ff. ; Num. xxix. 27 ff., merit, coll. Joseph. Ant. III. 10, 3 ; XIV. 6, 4, and the Talmud (Tract. Joma, in Mischna II. 5). But most important of all for the explanation of the Gospels, especially on account of the frequent conflicts of Jesus with the hierarchs (Matt. xii. 1-8 ; Luke vi. 6-11 ; xiii. 10-17 ; xiv. 1-6 ; John v. 10 ff. ; vii. 1 On the places mentioned in the text, cf. Conybeare and Hbwson, Life and Epp. of St. Paul, and the various articles in Smith's Diet, of the Bible (Am. ed.). — Tb. 25 290 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. Sabbath. 22, 23; ix. 16) is the ordinance of the weehly Sabbath, on which, besides the Old Testament principal passages (Ex. xx. 8-11 ; xxxi. 12-17 ; xxxv. 1-3 ; Lev. xxiii. 3 ; Num. xxviii. 9; Deut. v. 12-15 ; Jer. xvii. 19 ff. ; Neh. xiii. 15-22) Joseph. Cont. Ap. II. 39, and the Talmud, especially Mischna, Schabbath Purificatory 22 and 24, are to be compared. As in the observance of the Sabbath so in their rites of purification, the Pharisees were very micrological and casuistical, a circumstance which likewise gives occasion for conflicts (cf. Mark vii. 3 ff. ; Matt. xv. 2 ff. ; xxiii. 25 f. ; Luke xi. 39 f.) On this point, likewise, the Rabbins are to be compared, see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. p. 366 ff., in which, however, it is not to be forgotten that the rites of purification of the Egyptians (cf. Herod. II. 37), of the Persians (cf. Vendidad, 3d-9th Fargard), and of the Indians (the Laws of Manu) were just as rigorous and minute as those of the Jews, yea, even more minute. That Jewish piety, as for the rest, consisted chiefly of the three parts, alms-giving, praying, and fasting, is evident from Matt. vi. 1-18. Alms-giv- On alms-giving cf. Prov. xxii. 9 ; xxviii. 27 ; then Sirach vii. ing, fasting, ,. and prayer. 32 f., pre-eminently Tob. xii. 9 ; xiv. 11 ; Acts x. 2, 31. There is no ordinance of -prayer in the Pentateuch, yet, as in all religions, the custom is to be understood of itself. But in the Sermon on the Mount the polemics of Jesus is directed against the opus operatum of praying, and against the ostentation practised in connection therewith. The opus operatum seems to have crept in very soon after the Exile ; at least it appears, e.g. in Dan. vi. 11 ; Tob. xii. 9 ; Judith iv. 12, as an essential part of piety, and was performed not only on all important occasions, but also at stated times ; in which, moreover, other peoples also agree with the Jews, e.g. the Egyptians (cf. Porphyr. De. Abst. 4, 8). But the most culpable thing was the ostentation practised in connection with prayer (Matt. vi. 5), on which the Rabbins in Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. p. 292; Wetst. I. 321, are to be compared, and the notion that long prayers are pleasing to God and efficacious (Matt. vi. 7) coll. Jerusalem Talmud, Taanith. f. 67, 3 ; Babylonian Talm. Berach, THE HISTORICAL. 291 * 32, 2 ; 54, 2), which is reproached by Jesus as heathenish. For examples of heathen litanies see in Lightf. p. 295, coll. Etym. M. and Suid. ad v. Ban-os, /SarroXoyctv. Neither with regard to fasting does Jesus condemn it per se, but likewise, only the ostentation (Matt. vi. 16), and the thoughtless opus opera- turn in connection with fasting (cf. Matt. ix. 15 f.). That this general Oriental custom, very commendable and well-founded in its principle, had likewise come, little by little, to be regarded as an opus operatum and a meritorious work, with which also parade was sometimes practised among the Pharisees, is in part self-evident and in part is proved by witnesses outside of the New Testament, cf. e.g. 1 Mace. iii. 47 ; Talmud Tr. Joma 8, 1 ; Babyl. Taanith 12, 2 ; 13, 2. Cf. Winer's R. W. and Herzog's R. E. s. v. V) Of civil customs and usages we civil adduce only the divorce and funereal mourning. The expres- sions of Jesus, Matt. v. 31 and xix. 3 fE., are directed against a reprehensible laxity in the matter of divorce. What were Divorea. the Jewish ordinances and usages in this relation ? Accord- ing to Deut. xxii. 13-19 and 28, 29 a man could not separate himself from his wife either if he had unjustly given her a bad reputation, or had cohabited with her as a maiden. On the other hand, he may separate himself from her, if he find any- thing disgraceful (^M rY)"W, LXX acr^/xov 7rpay//.a) in her; only he is to furnish her with a letter of divorcement (1BD nni'is, LXX f}i/3\iov d7roo-rao-tou, Deut. xxiv. 1-4). On the idea of the la^i rrns now, at the time of Jesus, the schools of ft - : ••• ' Hillel and of Shammai were in controversy, the former ex- tending this expression to everything displeasing to the man, 1 but the latter limiting it to what is disgraceful and unseemly (not just to adultery merely). On this matter the Talmud is very prolix and sets forth a host of micrological distinctions (Tr. Ghittin and Seder Nashim, cf. Lightf oot, p. 273 f.). To the lax interpretation and custom the question of the Phar- 1 A man might divorce his wife if she burned his food, in preparing it. Cf. Selitzsch's polemical tract, Jestis und Hillel, written against Geiger and Renan. — Tr. 292 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. isees (Matt. xix. 3), whether it is allowable to put away one's wife Kara -nacrav alriav, relates ; but Jesus not only sets forth the more rigorous principle of Sbammai, but he even goes back of the Mosaic, to the original idea of the connection between man and woman (Gen. ii. 24). In Matt. ix. 23; Mark v. 38 ; John xi. 19, 31 allusion is made to the Jewish Mourning, custom of funereal mourning, yet without furnishing us with data for a "clear picture of the custom. Illustrations from Jewish authors would be, therefore, very welcome. There are such illustrations also with regard to the postures of the mourners and the duration of mourning. Matt. I.e. in par- ticular is elucidated by Jer. ix. 16 (mourning women niisipa) coll. 2 Chron. xxxv. 25, and especially by passages in the Talmud (Chetuboth ch. 4 ; halac. 6 ; Bava Mezia ch. 6 ; halac. 1 in Lightf. ad loc). That, moreover, among the Greeks and Romans similar customs also prevailed the passages cited in Wetstein prove (I. 362). John xi. 19, 31 refers to a burden- some custom which is confirmed and elucidated by passages from the Talmud, cf. Lightf. p. 1070. Thus we see that many passages which either might remain unobserved, or which from prepossession we should be inclined to regard as unhistorical, find their explanation through acquaintance with the Jewish customs. 82. Knowledge of Jewish Doctrines and Opinions, Almost more essential still to the understanding of the New Testament is the knowledge of Jewish doctrines and opinions at the time of Jesus and the Apostles. So far as they rest upon the Law and the Prophets, these customs and opinions receive their explanation from the Old Testament, and hence the knowledge of the Old Testament religious ideas is an indispensable foundation for the exegesis of the New Testa- Mostimpor- ment. The most important helps for acquiring this knowledge e ps ' are : De Wette, Biblische Dogmatik des A. und N. T., 3 Aufl. 1831. L. F. 0. JBaumgarten-Crusius, Grundziige der bib- lischen Theologie, 1828. D. Von Colin, Biblische Theologie, Bd. I. ed. D. Schulz, 1836. Ewald, History of Israel, es- THE HISTOEiOAL. 293 , pecially the Antiquities of the Israelites. S. Lutz, Biblische Dogmatik, ed. Eiietschi, 1847. Steudel, Vorlesungen tiber die Theologie des A.T., ed. Oehler, 1840. Havernick, Vorlesungen iiber die Theologie des Alt. Test., ed. Hahn, 1848. Oehler, Artt. Jehova, Messias, Prophetenthum, Weissagung, Unsterblichkeit, in Herzog's E. E. — especially H. Schulz, Alttestamentliche Theologie, 2 vols. 1869. On Old Testament prophecy we are to compare especially : JEKtzig, Der Prophet Jesaja, introduc- tion (1833). Khobel, Der Prophetisrhus der Hebraer, 1837. Koster, Die Propheten des A. lind N. T., 1838. Hengsienberg, Ohristology of the 0. T. K. A. Auberlen, The Prophet Daniel and the Eevelatioh. of John, Hofmann, "Weissagung und Erfullung, 1841 and 1844. Ewald, Die Propheten des A. Bundes, (Introd.). Bertheau, Die Alttestamentliche "Weis- sagung von Israels Eeichsherrlichkeit, in the Jahrbuchern fiir deutsche Theologie, 1859. Per contra, Oehler in the Art. Weissagung in Herzog. Bleek, Introduction to the 0. T. Bunsen, God in History, part I. [ Tholuch, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen ; B. Payne Smith, Prophecy a Prep- aration for Christ]. It is to be borne in mind, that the con- change of ceptions, as well as the national relations, of the Jewish people eeptions, changed. The contact with the Chaldeans, hostile indeed, but still cognate, with Parsaism (whose influence has, to be sure, been overestimated) ; then the ever more antagonistic ex> clusiveness with regard to everything heathen, which, however, could not always be entirely shunned ; the dividing up of Judaism into exclusive Palestinians and Hellenists, into those that believed in tradition and ascetics, into deists and mystics ; furthermore, the learning and its schools, and finally, the pressing in of Greek, especially of Platonic ideas — all this must affect essentially the religious consciousness of the Jewish people. "We must know how to transpose ourselves into this world of later, but to us so entirely foreign views, in order to understand the New Testament in this aspect also. The sources of information are, 1) the post-exilian books of the Old Testament Canon; 2) the Apocrypha and 25* 294 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. Pseudepigraphs, 3) the writings of Philo, and 4), with restriction, the Talmud and the Rabbins. For exegetes of the New Testament the knowledge of the following ideas and Fully devei- conceptions is of especial importance : a) the more oFogyinthe thoroughly wrought out doctrine of angels, which is evident from many New Testament passages, e.g. Luke i. 19, 26; Jude 9 ; Rev. vii. f ., coll. Dan. xii. 1 ; Tob. v. 4, as also the developed belief in Satan and in demons ; for as the Jewish theology of that time taught a whole hierarchia coelestis of angels under their chief, the archangel Michael (Dan. I.e. ; Rev. xii. 7), who, at the same time, is the guardian angel of Israel; so there was also according to this theology a hierarchia infer- nalis, under BeeA£e/?oijA., the ap^cov 7w Saipovitw, cf. Matt. xii. 24 on which Lightf. and Wetstein may be compared. On the one hand, we find Satan or the Adversary, no longer, as in the Book of Job, as a member of the council of God, but, in an almost dualistic way, over against God ; on the other hand, there are the gods of the heathen that are thought of as existing but as evil spirits, as the name Beelzebul (Beelzebub) indicates, and 1 Cor. viii. 5 coll. x. 19-21 shows more clearly, coll. Deut. xxxii. Doctrineof 17 (LXX); Ps. xcv. (Heb. xcvi.) 5; Baruch iv. 7. /?) The Alexandrine doctrine of the Logos, to which the prologue of John immediately, Heb. i. 1-3 and other passages mediately, refer. On this cf. Gfrorer's Philo, 1. 168 ft, also Luche's Com- mentary on John, Introduction. 1 y) But most important of all for the understanding of the New Testament is the insight into Messianio the Jewish Messianic expectations, and their relation to Jesus's expecta- -»»-., 4 t z tions. idea of the Messiah. In the first instance they were based upon the Old Testament prophecies, cf. Matt. i. 23 with Isa. vii. 14; Matt. ii. 2 with Num. xxiv. 17 ; Matt. ii. 5, 6 with Mic. v. 1 ; Matt. ii. 15 with Hos. xi. 1, etc. If in the earlier- time the Messianic expectation, as far as it was general, was based on such passages as Joel iii.; Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Isa. xxxv. 5ff.; jcl. 1 ff. ; lx. ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27, etc. ; and, as far as it was personal, chiefly upon Mic. v.; Isa. ix. 1-6; .xi. 1-10; Jer. 1 Cf. also Godet, Meyer, Neander, and Tholuck, Coram, in loo. John.— Tr. THE HISTORICAL. 295 * xxiii. 5-8 ; Zech. ix. 9 ; since the oppression under Antiochus Epiphanes, and under the influence of the Book of Daniel, a change had taken place in this expectation ; that is to say, that the Messiah is to be a shoot of David (nas Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Zech. iii. 8 ; vi. 12), and is to go forth from Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 5, 6 ; John vii. 42). But, first of all, it was expected that the advent of the Messiah would be preceded by a time of great calamity (rns n» or (n^BSi ">hzn), cf. Dan. xii. 1 ; 4 Ezra ii. 27 ; xvi. 12. According to Mai. iii. 1 ff. a forerunner of the Messiah was expected, and, indeed, in the person of Elias, but in part also in the person of Jeremiah (cf. 2 Mace. ii. 1 ; 4 Ezra ii. 18 coll. Matt. xvi. 14), or of Isaiah (cf. 4 Ezra ii. 18). On the Two ideas on tbe ap- appearance of the Messiah himself two ideas were current : pearance of the old Davidic and the supernaturalistic or apocalyptic, based on Dan. vii. 13, 14, cf. Matt. xvi. 24 ; xxiv. 30, 31 ; xxvi. 64; 4 Ezra xiii. 32. The Messianic salvation was to consist in the deliverance of the Israelites from their enemies (coll. Luke i. 67-71 ; Acts i. 6 ; 4 Ezra xii. 34), in the restoration of the worship and customs, in the bowing down to the God of Israel by all nations (Mic. iv. 1-4 ; Isa. Ix. ; Zech. viii. 20-23), and in the remission of the sins of the people (Jer. xxxi. 34 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Isa. xliv. 3, coll. Matt. i. 21 ; Luke i. 74, 75). With this was the resurrection of the dead connected (4 Ezra ii. 10-16, 30, 31) ; at the blast of the judgment trumpet they shall come forth from the graves (4 Ezra vi. 24, 25 coll. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 ; 1 Thess, iv. 16). The righteous shall be clothed in shining robes and shall partake of the feast of the Lord (4 Ezra ii. 37-41 ; Dan. xii. 3, coll. Matt. xiii. 43 ; viii. 11 ; Rev. xix. 9). But this kingdom shall last only a thousand years, then Satan shall be loosed again ; a war shall be waged against the Messiah by the land of Magog (Targ. Jonath. ad Num. xi. 26 coll. Eev. xx. 7-10), but the Messiah shall con- quer. Hereupon, amid the sounding of trumpets, follow the second resurrection and the judgment (Sepher Ikarim, ch. 31 fol. 147; Beresch. Eabba ad Gen. xlix. 10; 4 Ezra xiii. 26). All of these ideas were not, however, diffused among the 296 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. All these people ; many of them may well have been merely the prop- popular, erty of the learned. It is a matter of dispute whether there was in the Jewish people the belief that the Messiah must suffer and die. According to Isa. liii. and Ps. xxii. there appears to be no room for doubt ; but, first of all, the explana- tion of these passages is itself disputed ; then the consternation of the disciples at their Master's death would be inexplicable, if the belief that the Messiah must suffer and die had been the popular belief. Cf. also Matt. xvi. 22 ; Mark ix. 82, and other passages. 83. Connection of the foregoing with Exegesis. These and other investigations that relate to the real ex- planation, appear to lie far from the main object of exegesis — the ascertaining and the reproduction of the sense and the spirit of the author. But only a simple consideration is neces- sary to correct this appearance, and to estimate the necessity of this knowledge and its connection with the spirit of the author. Every individual, and hence every writer, however original and enlightened he may be, belongs at the same time Relation of to his age and nationality. These two factors form, as it were, to the age. the maternal ground, from which he has grown, and which he can never entirely outgrow. Even the language in which he writes is the product of this soil ; not less the ideas and con- ceptions in which consciously or unconsciously he moves, the customs and relations in which and out of which he has grown The inter- up. The task of the interpreter, now, is to seize upon these task. relations, customs, and views in their connection with the sense and spirit of the author. Only when we can transpose ourselves into the relations and moods of him whom we wish to under- stand, is a true understanding possible. At the same time the other task — to ascertain and understand his personal peculiari- ties, which indeed never entirely rise above or sink below the relations temporal and local, and especially to ascertain and to understand the way and manner of his intercourse with God — is not excluded. The task of the exegete in this respect is now, in brief, the following : 1) the general knowledge THE HISTOKICAL. 2$T » of 'real' matters, as was remarked above (§ 72), is to be Relative \ ' ■' . - • ;. position of acquired freely and independently of all special explanation, the ' real/ ■ • t p ■ i ' 11 ii i • cxpisiifltion but the exegesis itself has never to take the ' real explanation, or presuppositions that belong to this, as its starting-point. The explanation of the parable of the Unjust Steward, e.g., has suffered much from the circumstance that men have some- times taken as their starting-point certain realistic hypotheses. All explanation has rather to take as its starting-point the grammatical and logical sense, and only from this to seek the 'real' understanding of the author, or of the given pas- sage. 2) If the sense of a passage is clear in itself, we Neediesshy. , „ ,-.--'-'.,.'■, i. ■, . i potheses to must beware of trying to touch it up by means ot physical be avoided. or archaeological hypotheses, as e.g. with the supposition of a nocturnal storm just rising, in John iii. 8, which, indeed, is sufficiently clear from the Hellenistic double meaning of the word m/ev/ia ; or through the supposition of a herd of sheep just passing by in the allegory of the Good Shepherd ; or in the allegory of the Vine, through the superfluous supposition that Jesus with the disciples on the way to Gethsemane had just come past a vineyard, or that the wine reminded him of it. Such, unnecessary employment of realistic hypotheses is not only insipid, but also bears witness to the incapacity of the exegete to transpose himself into the world of conceptions and thoughts of the speaker or writer. 3) On the other hand, Cases in unnumbered passages of the Old and New Testaments receive is thrown through the more accurate knowledge of the Holy Land and fieuitpas- people and its history an excellent, and not seldom an unex- > real ' pected, light. Thus, many a passage, which to Occidental now e e ' soberness and to Northern book-men either escaped observation or seemed well-nigh senseless, has become clear and lifelike through the knowledge of the Holy Land and the character and customs of its inhabitants, as these have been made known to us through the noble labors of learned and appreciative Palestinian travellers. So also, through the knowledge of the historical and the archaeological is an understanding rendered possible, through which the grammatical and the logical first 298 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. Connection receive tone and coloring. 4) But no ' real knowledge ia betweenthe , . , . . , 'reai'reia- fruitful for exegesis until the interpreter has an insight into the spirit of the connection between the ' real ' relations and the spirit of ' an author. The Divine Spirit dwelling in the biblical writer is always influenced by the national and temporal relations and dispositions, and the writer's individuality, nationality, and temporal direction is transfigured by the Divine Spirit dwelling in him. On the insight into this mutual relation depends the right application of the ' real ' knowledge to the explanation of the author. Exact his- tory un- known to antiquity. c) The Influence of the Ideal on the Historical. a) Influence of the Religious Popular Spirit on the Historical Re-presentation. 84. Character of Oriental Historiography. He that should seek in the biblical historians exact history, as it is called, would find himself disappointed. To antiquity such historiography as we now demand was, in general, little known. Neither Herodotus, nor Thucydides, nor Xenophon, neither Livy nor Tacitus, give " exact " history. With the Oriental writers especially, what we call critical-historical investigation is scarcely in its beginnings. An employment of sources, indeed, naturally found place, and we are often put in the position to cast a look into these. The author of the Books of Kings drew from the public annals of the kings of Israel and Judah ; other sources were the monuments, popular songs, or collections of songs (cf. Josh. x. 13 and 2 Sam. i. 18, also Num. xxi. 14), furthermore, genealogical registers, but par- ticularly oral tradition. This contains, it is true, information with reference to actual events, but information that has already passed through the more or less accurate remembrance, and through the phantasy of the people. In general, in hoary antiquity, or, if the popular spirit is unusually moved through great occurrences, even later, poetically colored legends and history can be distinguished by no means strictly. As a rule INFLUENCE OP THE IDEAL ON THE HISTORICAL. 299 there was no critical sifting and working over of the materials according to the various sources. If about one and the same fact two or more different traditions were in vogue, as, e.g. about the changing of Jacob's name (Gen. xxxii. 28 and xxxv. 10), about the birth and childhood of Jesus (Matt. ii. and Luke ii.), it might happen either that the historians only knew of the one, and reproduced this one, as, e.g. Matthew alone speaks of the magi, and Luke alone of the shepherds of Bethlehem ; or that they knew both and (without harmonizing them) reproduced both (cf. Gen. I.e.; Luke i. 26-38, coll. iii. 23 f.). 1 But the religious popular spirit has exercised an influence not only on the sources themselves, but also on the elaboration of the same. Hence in the biblical historiography we are to distinguish, 1) the transmitted and given material, and 2) the religious pragmatism. In the Old Testament this Religions pragmatism is theocratic, and this not only in the sense that the religious and the national were identified, but also in the sense that not so much man as God is the acting person. The God the act- national theocratic pragmatism, through which the given gp ^ material is more or less modified, is found in by no means an equal degree in all the historical books of the Bible ; in the four last Books of the Pentateuch and in the Book of Joshua more than in Genesis ; in the Books of Kings more than in the Book of Judges and in the Books of Samuel, etc. "We meet it also now in a purer, now in a less pure form ; the latter, either so that the theocratic dominates at the expense of the historical or at the expense of the moral, or so that the theocratical has begun to petrify into the hierarchical, as in the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles ; or finally, so that the religious has passed entirely into the national, as in the Book of Esther. More important still is the other side of the immediate biblical pragmatism, viz. the immediate derivation of all things of all things from God, the one exalted above all creatures, the almighty 1 For explanations of the phenomena discussed, more in harmony with the usual view of inspiration, see on the passage in Genesis Delitzsch, Comm. j on the passages in the Gospels Godet and Lange, Comm. — Tn. 300 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER, Creator, the just and holy King and Lord of his people and kingdom, the compassionate Leader and Saviour of his own, and the referring of all things to him as the highest and only- good (see, among many passages, Ps. xxiii. ; lxiii. ; Ixxiii. 25,26 ; xci. et al.), and the One to whom all honor is due (cf. Isa. xlii. 8 ; xlviii. 9 ; Ps. xxiii. 4 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 22 et al.). From this theo- cratic point of view, and not simply and sblely from ignorance of the laws of nature, are the miraculous accounts to be explained. Miracles. The miracle is to the biblical writers an event in which the judging or saving power of God is revealed in an extraordinary way — " the hand, the outstretched arm, of the Lord," " some- thing new which God brings about in the world " (cf . Isa. xlii. 9 ; xliii. 19 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 26, coll. the Kawrj ktutk 2 Cor. v. 17). Our distinction of natural and supernatural was, in a great measure, foreign to the biblical writers ; to them everything was supernatural in which the power of God impressed itself upon their consciousness ; a miracle was to them everything in which the salvation of God was revealed to them. Hence Jesus adduces among the divine signs by which it might be known that the Son of Man had come, also, and not least of all, the preaching of the gospel to the poor (Luke vii. 22 ; iv. 18). This religious pragmatism underwent in the post- exilian and ante-Christian period more than one change; in part it was altered through the fact that God's matters were identified with the priestly and Levitical interest, in part it degenerated into the legendary (beginning in the Book of Daniel, culminating in the Book of Tobias) ; in part, lastly, it was lost in the national (1 and 2 Mace), and historiography drew near to the so-called profane. Through the appearance of Christ, the religious spirit, and with it the religio-poetical legend, as well as the religious pragmatism was again powerfully The Chris- awakened ; only in the place of the general theocratic idea the Katie Idea, special theocratic idea came in, by virtue of which it is, on the one hand, the concrete spirit of Christ from which all saving influences proceed ; on the other hand not a whole nation, but pnly the elect believers out of the same, nor the believers INFLUENCE OF THE IDEAL ON THE HISTORICAL. 301 , merely of one people, but of all kinds of people, are the special object of the redeeming and saving God. This is the point of view from which the biblical, and in particular the New Testament, history is to be considered and explained. 1 85. Legendary Element in the M, T. That there is also a legendary element in the New Testament comes of the fact that the Christian spirit, even in the writing of history is not merely receptive but also productive. The Criteria question arises, to be sure, as to the criteria by which an account may be known to be legendary. Since between legend and history there are an infinite number of gradations, and the religious phantasy can run through the whole scale from the greatest possible activity to perfect tranquillity, we can rarely determine With absolute certainty what is legendary and what is purely historical. But this must, once for all, be observed that the spirit which produces fables and legends, or that embellishes the historical in a poetical and legendary way, is itself a fact, and testifies mediately to the facts by which it has been awakened. Still more, we may suppose, as a rule, that the historian, even when he relates what is improbable, means to narrate the historical. From this presupposition the exegete is to proceed, and as long as it is practicable, is to suppose at least, a historical basis; he is not to pronounce at once the improbable to be impossible ; he is rather to seek to reconcile the contradictions. But he is not to seek to remove the con- tradictions at all hazards, or to palliate the improbabilities ; since it does not follow from the fact that the author meant to tell the truth, that he could tell it. Although the limits between legend and history are often hard to be drawn, — and not least of all in the biblical history, — yet there are certain characteristics by which, with great probability at least, a nar- ration may be recognized as fabulous or legendary. 1) The Deviation surest criterion would be, if on one and the same event, side thentfeate* by side with the traditional we had still an authentic account, the deviation of that from this. But for this there is in the 1 The reader must be careful here to pick out the grains of truth.— Tb. 302 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. New Testament only a single sure example at our command, viz. Acts ix. 29 f. coll. Gal. i. 16-19. Other instances are uncertain, as, e.g. Acts xv. coll. Gal. ii. 1-1 0. 1 Still less is this criterion applicable to the gospel narratives, where, indeed, one and the same faot is narrated by two, three, or even four Evangelists, of whom, however, no one is to be regarded with certainty as an eye-witness. But from the one certain example, now, it is clear that the reporter of Acts ix. knew, indeed, that Paul journeyed to Jerusalem some time after his conversion, but that — probably on the authority of his informer, or of tradition — he erroneously makes Paul to journey to Jerusalem, and to associate with all the Apostles soon after his conversion, and immediately from Damascus (against which Gal. i. 19). 2) But a comparison may be instituted be- tween parallel accounts even if no one of them rests upon Ihe more immediate eye-witness. In this case we will not err if we embellished , *— "— of two par- regard the more embellished account, especially if it borders counts more on the miraculous, as the more legendary, and the simpler and legendary, more unassuming as the more historical. Examples are, Luke iii. 22 (coll. Matt. iii. 16) ; Luke xxii. 43, 44 (coll. Matt. xxvi. 37 f. ; Mark xiv. 34) ; cf. also Luke vii. 2-10 (coll. Matt. viii. 5-10). The account of the speaking with tongues on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4-11) may also be compared with Paul's declaration with reference to yXaxro-ais XaXelv (1 Cor. xiv.), 2 according to which latter the speaking with tongues is not a miraculous speaking in foreign languages, but an ecstatic and Cases that to others unintelligible praying. 3) But it happens very special frequently that such a comparison either leads to no result, because the various accounts are not related to each other as the simpler or more original and the derived and more embel- lished, or because, in general, no comparison at all is possible. Indices. In such cases the following indices of the legendary are the 1 See, per contra, Hackett, on the passages in Acts ; and Lightfoot, on the passage in Galatians. — Tk. 2 There ia no necessity for supposing that the phenomena of the Pente- costal " speaking with tongues" wero identical with those mentioned by Paul. — Tk. INFLUENCE OP THE IDEAL ON THE HISTORICAL. 303 # surest : a) multiplied revelations in dreams ; we say " mul- tiplied " ! since it is not to be denied that especially with plain men who have not yet quite outgrown the life of nature, or in certain important moments, apocalyptic dreams may occur ; but a multiplication of these, as in Matt. i. and ii., indicates a legend. /}) Angelic apparitions. As the idea of angels belongs to the childlike, poetical form of the religious conscious- ness, so a narrative embellished with angelic apparitions is to be put to the account of the involuntarily poeticizing legend, as, e.g. Luke ii. 8 ff. Angelic apparitions also, as a rule, disappear in proportion as the traditional account passes over into the authentic. The Acts of the Apostles is an instructive proof of this. y) Miracles are a sure sign of a fabulous or legendary narrative. Miracles are distinguished from wonders, 1 by the circumstance that the religious element recedes while the strange, unnatural becomes prominent. Yet there are transi- tions. The Scriptures themselves are not entirely free from miracles ; we call attention to only 2 Kings xiii. 21 and Matt, xvii. 27. 8) Furthermore also, the narratives or features are to be attributed to legendary development, which — even if something historical lies at the basis — betrays itself as formed after a prophecy or typical account in the Old Testa- ment, as Matt. ii. 13-15 coll. Hos. xi. 1 ; Matt. ii. 16-18 coll. Jer. xxxi. 15 ; or, if of several parallel representations the one is more like an Old Testament type, as e.g. Matt, xxvii. 34 coll. Mark xv. 23, in such case that representation which is most unlike its type is to be regarded as the more historical, e) Finally, such accounts have suffered the influence of the legend, as are pre-eminent for contradictions and obscurities. (Con- tradictions, especially in the history of the Resurrection ; obscurity, e.g. in the history of the Transfiguration, most of all in Luke). 2 1 We hare usually rendered " Wunder " by the English word " miracle." The word " Mirakel " has a had sense which does not attach to the Eng- lish word. For a good classification of phenomena of this sort see Trench on Miracles. — Te. 2 If it were a made-out case that the New Testament has a legendary 304 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTESPKETEB. 86. Explanation of Miracles. The explanation of miracles (Wunder) belongs also to tils province of the historical interpretation. For general observa- tions we refer to what has been said in § 84. Here the various TheOrtho- methods of explaining miracles are to be tested. a) The aSonf P a "~ Orthodox explanation accepts the miraculous accounts, as they are given, as wonderful (supernatural) as well as as historical events. It is in so far in the right as the sacred authors mean to recount the miraculous as having happened, and what has happened as miraculous, and exegesis, conceived in its narrow and strict sense, has no other task than to explain the sense and the thoughts of the author as they are given. Accord- ingly it does not, in fact, seem to be allowable to the exegete to conceive of a miraculous account otherwise than as the author gives it. But the interpreter of historical writings is, eo ipso, also a historical investigator, and has, as such, the task to in- quire, how the account lying before him is related to the fact itself. This applies to all historical narratives, not to the miraculous narratives alone ; but these, of course, are not ex- The natural eluded from such investigation. /3) The natural explanation. »xp ana ion ijij^ n0W) acce pts as its task just the clearing up of the rela- tion of the reporter to the facts. It proceeds from the — not incorrect — assumption that a discrimination must be made between the pure facts and the conception of the witnesses or reporters. Since, now, belief in the miraculous was character- I istic of that time, and men were accordingly inclined to regard as supernatural facts that transcended their power of conception, it is according to this assumption the work of the interpreter to separate everything miraculous or supernatural, and to put it to the account of the reporter or of the first witnesses. Hence the natural explanation proceeds partly from the assumption that, in general, there can be nothing miraculous, partly from the other assumption, that the fact, even though related from the stand- element the classification in the text might he of value. But after all the acuteness that has been employed by Baur and his followers to put tha matter beyond doubt, many learned men refuse to be convinced. — Tb. INFLUENCE OF THE IDEAL ON THE HISTORICAL. S05 # point of the reporter, is yet related so precisely that the pure fact may be separated with certainty from its husk. The fact, then, is commonly shown to be an altogether ordinary and trivial occurrence, in which the only miracle is that it could have been regarded as a miracle. y) The mystical explan- The mystt ation has this in common with the natural, that it also recog- nation, nizes only a mediate influence of God on the world of nature and of man, but this mediation is brought about through hidden and secret powers, through animal magnetism, through the polarity of natural forces, through the mysterious connection hetween spirit and nature. Thus the mystical explanation thinks to free the biblical miracle from its unnatural tang, and at the same time to save it as mystery. The judgment of this method need in no case be influenced by the fact that in this the Orthodox see a concession to Rationalism, and the Eationalists a concession to Orthodoxy, but both parties see an incompleteness in it. Not the relation of an explanation to the parties just dominant, but simply and alone its relation to the sense of the author and to the facts should here deter- mine our judgment. Now many mystical explanations, as, e.g. the explanation of the miracle at Cana (and the miraculous feeding), in favor since Augustine, are certainly entire failures ; but some cures, as those through the laying on of hands, through active and passive touching, appear susceptible of explanation from magnetic powers. In any case it must be granted that there are " mystical phenomena in nature," which the common human understanding can neither explain nor believe. Tet the mystical explanation, even in the most favorable cases, is insufficient, so much the less as, according to Matthew, most of the miraculous healings were accomplished not through contact, but through the mere word. 8) The mythical explanation. Themythi- „, „ ,°. . , „ , . , , , . oal explan- Ihis finds its support in the fact that it has exposed the m- ation. sufficient and the fallacious in the other explanations, in partic- ular of the natural. It is further supported by the fact that it recognizes the importance and the influence of the religious legend, and has consistently carried out this view. That the fun- 26* 306 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. damental facts of Christianity were for a long time propagated through oral tradition, that this was pervaded by rejigious phantasy and received manifold embellishments, that it belongs to the essence of pious phantasy to regard the facts as miracu- lous, and as having taken place through the immediate dis- pensation of God, — with regard to these things at the present day there can be no reasonable doubt. 1 But the mythical ex- planation errs in that it does not properly distinguish between historical facts which are only modified and embellished through the legend, and myths or legends which are according to their very essence embodiments of the ideal, in general, products of the religious phantasy. Particularly has it gone much too far in the derivation of New Testament narratives from Old Testament ideas and types, as the forced nature of so many of Strauss's explanations of miracles sufficiently proves. With reference to these various explanations of miracles it must rather be said, that the biblical miracles are too heterogeneous, for one No one method of explanation to be applicable to them all. We call pUcabie to attention only to the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, which is represented as a miracle of God, and yet as ren- dered possible by a strong east wind (Ex. xiv. 13 coll. 21) ; to the standing still of the sun at Gibeon, which is expressly borrowed from a poetical book, the Book of the Upright (Josh. x. 14) ; to the highly embellished account of the ascension of the prophet Elijah (2 Kings ii.) ; further, to the casting out of demons on the part of Jesus, which are in part explicable psychologically (cf. esp. Mark i. 21-28) ; to the cures, in which the faith of those concerned comes into consideration as a recipient factor (cf. esp. Mark v. 25-34) ; and the cases in which no miraculous healing could take place on account of the lack of faith (Mark vi. 5). We may, further, distinguish the cures through touch (Mark i. 41 ; v. 27) ; through spittle and other manipulations (Mark vii. 33 f. ; John ix. 6) ; and the cures performed at a distance (Matt. viii. 5-13 ; xv. 22-28). Of special difficulty 1 Yet many who have some claim to be regarded as "reasonable" men do doubt them. — Tk. all. INFLUENCE OP THE IDEAL ON THE HISTOEICAL. 307 are the awakenings from the dead; yet here we find the peculiar circumstance that the greatest miraculous awakening seems to have been entirely unknown to the three synoptists, and that the two first Evangelists only know of one case (Matt. ix. 23-25 ; Mark v. 35-42), which Jesus himself did not regard as an awakening of a dead person (cf. Matt. ix. 24 ; Mark v. 39). 1 Furthermore, the miraculous influences on unconscious nature are a source of difficulty, as in the stilling of the tempest, in the miraculous feeding, etc. From these examples it is There are , _ ■ i -xt miraculona clear, 1) that neither in the Old lestament nor m the JNew accounts . _ . „ . that admit are miraculous accounts wanting that admit oi a natural ex- of natural planation. This is the case, either when the reporter himself ex P ar ' Jl "'' gives an intimation in the miracle that some means have been employed, or when an effect that was inexplicable at that time, is explicable according to our insight into physics and anthro- pology. Only we are not to forget that if the Evangelists, e.g. mention means which Jesus employed, these were either symbolical, or in general insufficient to have produced the given effect in a natural way ; and if the matter is explicable psycho- logically, yet an unusual spiritual power on the part of Jesus must always be supposed. In any case, if a New Testament miracle is to be explained naturally, the hiatus between the cause and effect must be filled up through a supposed medium. 2) The mystical explanation may be here and there applicable The mysti- and, e.g. the healing power of Jesus may have been mediated ation some- through magnetism ; only no other than a moderate and con- cable. PP siderate use can be made of this explanation, if we would not lose ourselves in untenable hypotheses. That the laying on of hands, and indeed the touch, of certain persons under certain circumstances may produce cures is attested through credible examples, and that a special power of this kind dwelt in Jesus, which, however, could produce its full effect only under 1 For reasons why the synoptists, though they may have known of the raising of Lazarus, should have failed to mention the event, see Godet, Tholuck, and iMthardt, Com. in loc. John. To lay stress on Jesus's ex- pression, at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, " the maid is not dead, but sle-epeth," seems, to say the least, unscientific. — Te. 308 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. the condition of the subjective factor, faith, seems to be beyond doubt. But to extend the mystical application farther is haz- The mytu- ardous and arbitrary. 3) The mythical explanation is appli- ationTwhen cable in many cases, as when a miraculous account is explicable applicable, e ^ er from the religio-poetical conception and its involuntary- translation from poesy into the prose of actual history, or from the legend's receiving continual additions ; or finally, from the There involuntary embodiment of an idea. But even although the main/aTCo» best method may have been applied, there usually remains yet liquet. an { rra f{ ona i residuum or a non liquet, whether it be that the narrative gives no clear insight into the connection of events, or that the historical nature of the event is disputed ; or in general, that the narrative defies all explanation, as the awak- enings of the dead. The interpreter is to apply, indeed, all media of explanation sanctioned by science, he is also not to despair of the possibility of an explanation ; but he is also to he modest and truth-loving enough to confess his ignorance. 1 jS) Influence of the Individual Spirit of the Author on the Historical Representation. 87. Idiosyncracles of Biblical Writers. That by no means all the peculiarities of the biblical nar- ration are to be laid to the account of tradition and the religious spirit, but many of them to the individuality of the authors, is certain. But what is to be ascribed to that and what to this, it is in many cases impossible to determine with certainty. Are there criteria by which we may decide with probability that a given feature is the product not of tradition (oral or written), but of the individual thoughts of the author? Un- Criteria for doubtedly so. The surest criteria may be the following: mination of 1) The combining of two different accounts, as Luke iii. 23, thoughts of of the genealogy, the object of which is to show the Davidic descent of Jesus, and the supernatural conception through the 1 Is it not probable, that after the "natural," the "mystical" and the " mythical " explanations have " had their day, and ceased to be," the so- called "Orthodox" explanation will maintain its place? — Tk. INPL^NQB OF THE IDEAL ON THE HISTORICAL. 309 observation (a>v uios) koX iv vjjllv Ka8u> Xptords, and this under the pretence of a higher knowledge, against which the readers are armed through the remembrance of the ^ptcr/ia dwelling in them (ii. 20, 27), and by the fact that they are in possession of the truth and of the divine life (ii. 12 ff. ; iii. 1 f., 7f., 14; iv. 4f. ; v. Iff., 18-20). But the readers seem to have been subjected to still another, viz. a moral, danger, an antinomian laxity and self-deception (i. 6, 8; ii. 1, 4; v. 18) and a cooling of their love (ii. 9 ; iii. 10-12, 18; iv. 7 ff., 20, 21). According to v. 21 this antinomian tendency seems to have brought with itself a certain laxity with regard to the heathen worship. But whether this antinomianism was con- nected with the Gnosticizing heresy of the avn^pto-Toc is not clear from the Epistle ; but so much the more certain is the emphasis which the author puts upon the fact that he that is born of God sins not, but keeps himself pure from the world (i. 7; ii. 15-17; iii. 3, 4, 9, 10; v. 18), and loves his brother (ii. 9, 10; iii. 10-12, 14, 15 ; iv. 7-21). y) How, now, the Develop- n • a 3 • men t Of author's object expressed in i. 3, 4 coll. v. 13 is confirmed m thoughts, the development of his thoughts ! To bring about " joyfulness in communion with God and with the children of God," is thus the author's object. The whole Epistle now is occupied with 322 SINGLE OPERATIONS OF THE INTERPRETER. the conditions to this joyfulness in God ; this is not wrought out, however, with logical consequence, but in such a way that from section to section a fundamental thought dominates, around which then the others group. Therefore, also, no sharp transitions occur, but the thoughts flow over into each other. First part. The first condition to that joyfulness, as follows from God's nature as light, is moral integrity ; hence in this first part everything moves about the opposition between light and dark- 1 Becondpart.ness (i. 5— ii. 11). In the second part (ii. 12—28) two warnings are given under the assumption that the readers, by virtue of their position under grace, have overcome the evil one : not to love the world and to beware of the heretical teachers, who sunder the man Jesus from the heavenly Christ, — a self- Xhird part, preservation that is rendered possible by the ^pttr/ia. In the third part, to which ii. 29 forms the transition, the filial relation to God is set forth as a ground of the xapd, and the discussion motes now about the opposition between children of God, whose characteristic is ttolziv ttjv SiKaioo-uvrjv = brotherly love, and the children of the Devil, whose mark is iroietv ttjv afiapriav Fourth part. = hatred (ii. 29-iii. 11). From this point the discourse glides into the fourth section, which begins with iv. 1. The passage iii. 19-24 seems to be intended as a conclusion of the Epistle, since here already, as in v. 13 ff., is set forth the x a P^ as Tappr/a-la, confidence in prayer, which is conditioned through Tt\p€w ras ivrokoM. But now the danger of seduction to which the readers are subjected is before the author's soul, and the work of the fourth part (iv. 1-v. 1 2) is to impress upon their hearts the notes of the Spirit from God. This is so treated that in chap. iv. 1-13 the two notes are set forth — faith in Christ as having appeared in the flesh, and brotherly love as the reflex of the love of God in Christ, and thence the different factors of this fundamental thought are set forth in a free manner, so that the discourse returns, in the conclusion, to the idea of the h-peS/io, true and genuine (v. 6-12). The conclusion finally marks anew the object of the Epistle, but with an amplification with regard to confidence in prayer (vs. 13-17), and with some INTENTION OF HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 323, energizing thoughts, which are derived from the intention of the Epistle. 1 J) The Intention of Historical Writings. 93. Presuppositions! The question may be raised whether we are justified in Do sacred ascribing to the biblical historians an object ulterior to the have any statement of the facts. In every case we are to proceed from objects? the supposition that the author means to give history. Only when either he himself gives an intimation of an ulterior intention, as Luke (i. 1—4), and the fourth Evangelist (xx. 30, 31), or when his writing exhibits peculiarities that are explicable only from the special tendency of the author, are we authorized to inquire after the intention of his writing. But where neither of these is the case, as in Mark, this is not allowable, and this designless character of the second Gospel is confirmed by the well-known testimony of Papias (Euseb. H. E. III. 39). But Somepecn- not all the peculiarities of an Evangelist, for example, are to to the be reckoned to the account of his intention, but many of them spring rather from his sources. What thoughtful interpreter would, e.g., ascribe it to the intention of the author that Luke gives a long section (ix. 51-xviii. 14), which is peculiar to him in part absolutely, in part in this connection ; that the Evan- gelist names the publican that was called, Matthew, whom both the other Synoptists name Levi ? etc. But then we meet with not a few peculiarities with regard to which it is uncertain whether the author has found them in his (oral or written) sources, or whether he has transformed the given account in the interest of the object that he pursues. Without going into particulars, we mention, in Matthew the primordial polemics of Jesus against the Pharisees (v. 20 ff), in Luke the many sections and touches with regard to Jesus's compassionate love towards sinners (particularly vii. 37 ff.; xv. ; xix. 1-10), in Acts the statement that Paul soon after his conversion journeyed 1 Th9 essential agreement of our exposition with that of Stockmeyer (The Structure of the First FJpistle of John) will be readily observed. 324 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. from Damascus to Jerusalem, and there associated with the original Apostles (ix. 26 if.), et al. In such phenomena soma will always be inclined to attribute these features to the " tendency " of the author, while others, in order to save his historical fidelity, refer these features to his (assured) sources. &. presump- Here we can only reiect the presumption that sets forth one or lion to be , . , , . . rejected. the other view as a made-out case, and as a criterion either of the " scientific " or the " orthodox.'' Nevertheless, there are yet many phenomena that indicate a peculiar stand-point, or a definite intention on the part of the historian. Thus, there can be no doubt but that such passages as Luke iv. 26, 27 ; x. 30 ff. ; xvii. 15 f. (the Samaritans) and the special prominence given to the mission of the seventy, point to the Pauline universalism, and such expressions as Luke xvii. 7—10 point to the specifically Pauline doctrine of justification by faith.. The more accurate exhibition of the method of procedure will be furnished by two examples. 94. Intention of Acts. Since Schneckenburger's writing " Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte," 1841, and Zeller's writing: "Die Apos- telgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch unter- Actsof the sucht," 1854, this book (Acts) has been the subject of manifold much dfs- discussions ; some, in proportion as they have thought that a fate. 6 ° " tendency " must be recognized in the book, have cast doubt upon the historical character, or at least the historical fidelity, of the author, but others, in the same degree as they have sought to defend this historical fidelity, have been inclined to deny a definite intention of the book. We must here confine ourselves to the determination of the general point of view. Material of First of all, there can be no doubt but that the author of Acts drawn from drew the material for the first part of his work from tradition, "■■' and that, too, from Petrine tradition, and that only for the second part (xvi. ff.) could he have used Pauline tradition, and, indeed, probably for Paul's last journey to Jerusalem, but cer- tainly for the deportation journey, an autoptic source. Now, §p far as the author holds liiinself to his sources or relates what INTENTION OF HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 32% he himself experienced (as, especially, xzvii.) we are not to inquire after an ulterior intention, but his historical narrative is to be accepted simply as such. But if it can be shown that many of his statements vary from the authentic history ; if in these variations, indeed, a certain agreement and direction is , to be established, then we may be assured that the author has combined with his historical narrative a certain intention. But Cases in on what is the view based that the book of Acts deviates in intention is many points from the authentic history, and that too, in part, consciously ? It is an axiom in all historical investigation that immediate testimonies for a fact are to be preferred to mediate. Now there are at our command immediate testimonies for Panl's own some important facts and relations in the life of the Apostle in the Ems- Paul, in particular with regard to his relation to Peter and the tians. other original Apostles (Gal. i. 17 ff. ; ii. entire). From these testimonies it chiefly appears that Paul was absolutely inde- pendent of the latter, that he was conscious of having been called by God to be an Apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. i. 16 ; ii. 7, 9 ; Rom. i. 5), that he himself, when he sought to establish an understanding with the Jewish Apostles, yielded nothing to the Judaistic zealots, that as Apostle to the Gentiles he main- tained his conviction and his right, and compelled the original Apostles to recognize the same ; that he vindicated with energy against Peter his fundamental and vital principle, that man is not justified through the works of the law, but through faith (Gal. ii. 11 to the end). How, now, does this agree with the assertion of the author of Acts, that it was Peter who inaugu- rated the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts x. and xi. 1-18), that at the Apostolic convention, at which precisely the ques- tion with reference to the chief difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians is discussed, Peter is not only the principal speaker, but also expresses himself altogether in a Pauline way (xv. 7-11); that, on the other hand, Paul as a matter of course, turns in his missionary journeys first of all to the Jews, and only through the opposition of the latter is driven to the Gentiles (xiv. 1 ff. ; xvii. 1-5, esp. xviii. 1-6 and xxviii. 24^28), 28 326 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. that, in order to conciliate the Jews, he circumcises Timothj (xvi. 1-3), that he subjects himself to Jewish observances (xviii. 18 ; xxi. 20-26) ? Some of these differences may have flowed from traditional sources, which Luke followed; but most of them point to an intention, and nothing confirms this Acts&Ae- so clearly as the significant conclusion (xxviii. 24-28). From rauiinemis- all this it follows, that the author combined with his historical Gentiles, account an apologetic object, i.e. a defence of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles. This is justified, 1) by showing that Peter, indeed, had already inaugurated %> mission to the Gentiles, 2) by proving that Paul always remained true to Judaism, therefore that he cannot be accused of apostasy from his paternal religion, and chiefly, 3) that it was simply the unbelief and the opposition of the Jews that forced him to go to the Gentiles. 1 95. Intention of the Gospel of John. Another example is the Gospel of John ; and here also we have the phenomenon that some, in just the measure in which they ascribe a definite intention to the writing, deny its his- torical nature, while others, in proportion as they maintain the historical character of the book, throw the "tendency" into the background. With no writing of the New Testament is it so necessary as with this so extraordinarily disputed book, without any prepossession, to hold rigidly to the historical and Author's hermeneutical rules. 1) As is well-known, the author gives statement , . . , of his object the object of his writing (xx. 30, 31) m the words: IIoAAa fiev ovv (cat aAAa oT^eia iiroirjtrev 6 'I^croSs evunriov tuiv ixadr/ruiv a ovk eo-Tiv yiypa-ixfiiva iv tw ySiySXta) rovrm ■ raCra Se yiypairrai 6i/a irurrevcrrjTe on. I^crovs ioriv 6 Xpurrb's 6 mos tov 6eov, /cat ira TricTTevovTes ifiyqv ix r l Te *" T V ov6/jt, iyS>, Ka6ibs e'iprjKiv /tot 6 Trarqp, ovtuk AaXil). This thought, that he does not speak and act of himself, but of commission and of the mind of the Father, is the principal thought of this Gospel, cf. v. 19, 20; vii. 17; viii. 28. The second part closes with the following words of the departing prayer : «at iyv&pio-a. avrots to ovop.6. crov, Iva f) ayanrj r/v rjya- irrjo-ds /tie, iv avrois rj Kayo) iv avrots. Thus also here his work is the revelation of the Father, but for the purpose of the inner communion of his people with him and, through him INTENTION OP HISTORICAL WRITINGS. 329 » with the Father. TJiis is the Jesus of our Evangelist, and this, according to him, is the meaning of believing in him, and in belief having eternal life. But this view is so different from the traditional one that it needs to be confirmed to the readers, and this confirmation is also given. "We are therefore 3) to direct our attention especially to this attestation. No Anther's _ . „ attestation. New Testament writer represents himself (i.e. the /ta&jrijs ov ayaira o IijcroBs or the fuoBtfrip 6 iirl to orrjOos tov 'Irjcrov dixMreow) in equal measure as one accurately informed, as one consecrated. These predicates, indeed, intimate this sufficiently. It is expressed still more definitely xix. 35 and xxi. 24. How- ever much occurs that is improbable and strange in this Gospel, 1 it is not to be denied that this Evangelist knew how to legit- imate his claim as an accurately informed man through many peculiar traits — traits that make the impression of a precious remembrance, i. 37 f . ; xiii. 4 ff., 23 ft. ; traits that indicate eye-witness, iv. 6 if. ; xi. 17 ff. ; xii. 20-22; xiii. entire; xviii. 15, 16 ; traits in which the Synoptic tradition is to be cor- rected, iii 24 coll. Mark i. 14 ; xi. 2 coll. Mark xiv. 3 ff. (Lukevii. 37 ff.) ; xiii. 1 and xviii. 28 coll. Matt. xxvi. 17-20; Mark xiv. 12 ff. ; Luke xxii. 7 ff., 15 ; finally xviii. 13 coll. Matt. xxvi. 57 and Parall. Neither are we to overlook those features in which a great delicacy (xi. 27 ; xiii. 27-30) , and a tenderness of feeling just as great (xi. 3, 21, 22; xxi. 15 ff.), are expressed. All this points to the intention to represent the Christ whom he paints as the true one, authenticated through accurate knowledge and eye-witness. But we are to attend 4) to the relation in which the Evangelist represents Relation to himself (and Jesus) to Judaism : He makes Jesus, indeed, — as does no other Evangelist — during three years to attend all high feasts in Jerusalem ; but it is very peculiar that the hearers are designated throughout as 'IouSatot, and these for the most part as stupid opponents of Jesus ; that the Mosaic 1 Here belong obscurities, as iv. 51, 52; vi. 16-21; ix. 40; xviii. 24, 25 coll. 13-17. Improbabilities, as ii. 6; iv. 43, 44; vi. 64, 70; viii. 5S; xviii. 6. Strange sayings, as vii. 8; xi. 6. Surprising retorts, as vii. 21-23; xiii. 83, e! al. 28" 330 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. law is designated, so to speak, as something foreign (vii. 22 ; viii. 17; x. 34; xv. 25), to which also is to be added the peculiar relation in which 6 aAAos fia.0r]Trjs appears to Peter (xiii. 23-25 ; xviii. 15, 16 ; xx. 3-8 ; xxi. 7, 20 f.) Apparently he represents Peter as the energetic one, the "other disciple" as the consecrated one. He places himself outside of Judaism and above it, showing as he does a universalism at least as decided as that of Paul (iv. 21-24, 40-42 coll. 48 ; x. 16 ; xi. 52 ; xii. 20 f. ; xvii. 20 f.). Yet our Evangelist also differs from Paul through his whole view as to form and contents ; since, besides the single, but of course important, passage i. 17, there breathes throughout another spirit ; we call attention only to the very important idea, so fundamentally different in the two, of ivroX-i] (cf., on the one hand, Rom. vii. 8-13 ; Eph. ii. 15, and on the other hand, John x. 18; xii. 49, 50; xiii. 34; xv. Conclusion 10-12; 1 John ii. 7 ; iii. 23). Hence we obtain as the object and inten- and intention of the Gospel of John the following : the Evan- gelist does homage to a gnosis which stands above the Judaistic- Pauline opposition, and is related to the Alexandrine theosophy, 1 yet in such a way that this is raised to the higher Christian potency. By means of this Christian gnosis he means to rep- resent Jesus to his readers as Son of God, not in the Jewish- Messianic nor in the physical, but in the ideal sense, as the light and life from God, and he designs to lead the readers to faith in this Son of God, i.e. to the living recognition of him ; and in order to be able to do this rightly, and to prove this Son of God to be the genuine, he authenticates himself as con- secrated and accurately informed. c) The Intention of the Apocalypse. 96. Ceneral View of Biblical Prophecy, Otherwise than in the historical writings doubt may arise in reference to prophetical books, and particularly the Apocalypse, whether we are here to inquire after an intention or after an 1 This is admitted by few conservative scholars, and there is much to be said per contra. — Tk. tion. INTENTION OP THE APOCALYPSE. 331 * object. "An object," it may be said, "presupposes rational reflection ; but this is precisely the opposite of inspiration, from which the prophecy has proceeded. To seek an intention in a prophetical book is nothing else than to lose sight of the divine, and to bring the human into undue prominence." But this objection, so far as prophecy in general is concerned, rests upon a misunderstanding of the nature of prophecy, — and as regards -the Johannean Apocalypse in particular, upon a mis- understanding of this book itself. a) The biblical prophecy, Biblical and as all prophecy, has of course proceeded from divine inspiration, prophecy but is distinguished from analogous heathen phenomena pre- e d. cisely by the fact that it is not ecstatic and unconscious, but conscious. Cf. in general Oehler, on the relation of the Old Testament prophecy to the heathen divination (Gratulations- programm, 1861). If, then, even in the Christian church ecstatic prophecy occurred, and the ecstasy was regarded by the Montanists, indeed, as essential to prophecy, this phenomenon and opinion has been rightly regarded by the church as abnormal. The true Israelitish and primitive Christian prophecy is of another kind ; in reference to the latter, expressions of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xiv.) are clear and decisive, distinguish- ing, as he does, between precisely the ecstatic glossolaly and prophecy as conscious and considerate discourse, cf. esp. vs. 2—4, 14 f£., 23-25. But even supposing that the condition of the seer while receiving the revelation had been ecstatic and un- conscious, yet the conclusion would be inapplicable to the Apocalypse as a writing, inasmuch as the Apocalyptic designates indeed his inspired condition (i. 10; iv. 2: rjv — eyevo/ujv hi m/eu/ua-i) as a thing of the past. We will not here enter more minutely into the artistic arrangement, the symbolical numbers, etc., — things that presuppose rational reflection. B) Further- Basis of bib- '.,,., V r . , -, , . licalproph- nore, biblical prophecy as conscious, and not least that ot our ecy in eon- ... . r 1 ,. . j. , sciousness Apocalyptic, rests upon a consciousness oj the condition oj me of the con- people or of the church. This is so certain that precisely the people, most of the biblical prophecies are the best sources for the knowledge of the Israelitish history. The same, also, may be 332 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP TflE INTERPRETER. maintained with regard to the Johannean Apocalypse (see below). On these conditions, which the prophet finds, and by which he is moved, the prophetical discourses also rest as their basis. Now and then, it is true, they go to remote times, yel always to such as lie within the horizon of the seer and stand in Prophecy connection with his present. A new temporal development prediction called forth new prophecies, cf. Jer. xxvi. 18-19; Isa. xliii. 18, Son°*but°" 19- y) Because, finally, all prophecy, even though divinely mcuication. effected, yea, just because divinely effected, proceeds from the religious consciousness of the condition of the present, and from the divine counsel in relation thereto, prophecy had never merely the meaning of a prediction and was never directed merely to instruction, but always mediately or immediately to a practical end, to conversion, to exhortation or encouragement. All the prophetic discourses of the Old Testament have such an aim, and that precisely the Johannean Apocalypse by no means least has such an end in view, is clear not only from the seven epistles, but also from the beginning and conclusion of the book (cf. i. 4-8 ; xxii. 12 ff.). But this practical object presupposes in the prophet a reference to Ms readers and to his time and the time standing in connection therewith. Hence it is per- fectly justifiable, yea, necessary, indeed, to the understanding thereof, to search for the object or the intention of this pro- phetic book. Cf . above § 67 f. 97. Application of the Categories. Haa the au- a) The first question here, as everywhere, is : Has the author cated his himself anywhere expressed himself with reference to the intention of his writing ? This must appear either in the introduction or in the conclusion. Now a particular object is given in neither place, but, indeed, a significant thought, which we may regard as the theme of the whole (i. 3) paKapios 6 avayivScTKwv kcli oi aKovovres Tois A.oyoi;s rrjv veeXS>v k Epp^ou . . . and finally vs. 20 : Aeyei 6 p.apTvpS>v Toura Nat, 'ip-yopai Toyy. Ap.yjv, tpx ov mipie 'hjaov. The fundamental thought of the book, expressed alike in the introduction and in the conclusion, may therefore be embraced in the words, "Be ready, for the Lord is coming." Cf. Matt. xxiv. 42 ; Luke xii. 40. j3) But what could have Condition caused the Apocalyptic to place this emphasis on the judgment church in trump ? This question leads us over to the condition of things time, in which the seer lived ; only from this is the character of the book to be understood. On the condition of affairs, and especially of the Christian church, the Apocalyptic gives us unmistakable information. Cf., first of all, vii. 9-14; where an innumerable multitude of martyrs from all nations is ad- duced, who " came out of great BXfyii " and " have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb." This evidently refers Persecution to a great persecution of Christians ; and it appears from the manner in which it is spoken of, that the impression thereof is still tolerably vivid. What persecution ? Cf. xvii., esp. vs. 9-11, coll. 18. " The seven heads of the beasts are seven hills, upon which the woman (the iropvrf) sits." Here by Rome, the Rome, city of the seven hills is designated as clearly as possible, of which it is said in vs. 18 that she (the woman, " the great city") has dominion over the kings of the earth. Further (vs. 10), "There are seven kings; five of them have fallen Seven kings (died), one is (present), the other is not yet come, and when he shall have come, he will remain a short time," etc. The five kings are evidently five Roman emperors (/3ao-tA.ei;s"of Roman emperors also 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; 1 Pet. ii. 17 ; Joseph. Bell. Jud. V. 13, 6), Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero. 334 SINGLE OPERATIONS OP THE INTERPRETER. The one who now is can only be Galba — and the one still to be expected and to remain only a short time, can only be Otho. Finally, vs. 11 : "And the beast that was and is not is the the beast, eighth, and is one of the seven, and goes into destruction." The beast is, therefore, likewise a Roman emperor, " that was and is not," who hence must belong to the five fallen (dead) ones. When, then, it is said : " he is one of the seven " (instead of "one of the five"), it seems that it is in order that the mys- terious " beast " may by no means be designated too precisely. From all this it is clear, that the Tropvq, who has dominion over the kings of the earth, and " is drunk with the blood of the saints" (vs. 6), is Rome, the capital of the heathen world, and the beast that was and is not, and is one of the seven, is no other than Nero. But how in this case can it be said, " ml avrbi oySoos eoriv"? As the eighth it would seem that he must be Vitellius ; but because he is at the same time one of the seven, and an object of fear and abomination, he also must Christian be Nero. But that he is yet designated as the eighth is ex- as to Nero, plicable from a notion at that time spread in the Roman em- pire, and especially in Christian circles, that Nero was not dead, but only mortally wounded, but had been healed again (cf. xiii. 3), and that he would return for consternation and destruction. Cf. on this expectation Tacit. Hist. II. 8, 9 ; Sueton. Nero 57 ; Dio Cass. LXIV. 9 ; Dio Chrys. Orat. 20. So great was the terror of Nero, especially among the Christians! and so deep was the impression of the Neronian persecution ! for no other can be meant by the 0A.u//is /AeyaA.^, chap. vii. 14. But in chap. xiii. this abominated and dreaded 6rjpwv is still spoken of, and is designated in vs. 18 by the mysterious number 666 The myste- (xft"')- Of all explanations of this number, that have been her 666. given from ancient times till now, only those have claim to consideration which, in accordance with the intimation of the author himself that it is apifyxos av6pu>7rov, refer this to a person , and, indeed, there are only two explanations that can come Solutions, into account, viz. either Aari^os or Niptov. The first explana- tion has against it, that it must in that case be Aarew'os, because INTENTION OP THE APOCALYPSE. 335* only this form gives the full numerical value 666. 1 Yet this would be no insuperable barrier, inasmuch as this extension of the penultimate syllable of Roman names in -inus now and then occurs in the Greek. On the other hand, this nomen gentilitium does not seem entirely in keeping with the authentic observation of the author, that it is the " number of a man " (of a person). The following explanation, discovered almost simultaneously by four scholars, commends itself much better : Numerical symbolics (Ghematria) was an art practised much by the Jews. Now the Apocalyptic thought in Hebrew, as he wrote in Greek. So the number is explained by the value of the Hebrew letters iD IDp. fns.; viz., 5 = 50 ; -i = 200 ; i = 6 ; j = 50 ; p = 100 ; D = 60 ; 1 = 200, sum 666. The correct- ness of this explanation is clear from the fact that through it at the same time the old reading 616 (x'O — familiar already to Irenaeus — is explained. The explanation is this : a reader of the Apocalypse who already knew the key to the number, put in the place of the Greek expression Nepajv the Roman Nepu) (ill), and thus the number came out 50 less =616. From all this it is clear, that under the dAu/ris the Neronian persecution, under the Tropv-q the heathen capital of the world and persecutor of the Christians, Rome, and under the 6-fjpiov Nero is to be understood. 2 Against the latter explanation, Objection, especially so far as it rests on xvii. 11, it is objected from the " orthodox " side ; that expectation of the return of Nero was an error, and according to this explanation the author of the Apocalypse would have participated in this error, which it is unsuitable to suppose. But the claim that no sort of errors can occur in the Holy Scriptures, is a dogmatic postulate, and such in exegesis — as first of all a historical science — is inadmissible. Not infallibility, but plenitude of religious spirit, is the charac- 1 Aarixos analyzed into its letters gives the numerical value : A = 30, o'= 1, t' = 800, i'= 10, v'= 50, o'= TO, ayuv Ik tov £v\.ov t^s £<">}s, o icrriv iv to 7ra.pa.Beio- • ra yap aopara avrov a.7r6 KTio-ecos koo~/j,ov tois 7rourjp.a.o~iv voovjxeva koBo- parai, tj tc ai'Sios airov Swa/us kcu Oeiorrj'S . . . and ibid. ii. 14, 15, omves ivSeiKvvvTcu to epyov tov vojxov ypairTOV h> Tats Ko.p8i.ai';, crvjxp.apTvpovo~r]^ avr&v t^s o-ui/etSijcrews k. t. X. Coll. Tertull. De Testimonio Animae, c. 5 : " Haec testimonia animae quanta vera, tanto simplicia, quanto simplicia, tanto vulgaria, quanta vulgaria, tanto communia, quanto communia, tanto naturalia, quanto naturalia, tanto divina." Clem. Alex. Cohortatio ad Gent. : yjv Se rts cjnoiuTos dp^ata 7rpos ovpavbv avOpumois Koivuivia, 1 The best discussion of this subject with which I have met is that of Ulrici, Leib und Seele, 688 ff. — Te. RELIGIOUS INTEREST AND SCRIPTURE STUDY. 343 * ayvoux phi lvu> Si 7rou SieK6po')crKOvcra rov ctkotous k