CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 -iJiWi 
 
 «J^&?^!H^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mti^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 P 
 
 
 9J97.qc 
 
 
 ^HW^ 
 
 'WSSSE' 
 
 ''^WW 
 
 
 hJcf" a// 
 
 TnW 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. 5. A. 
 
 (Of 
 
 NO. 23233 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BS500 .G46 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 274 945 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029274945 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 A SHORT HISTORY 
 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK • BOSTON ■ CHICAGO 
 ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 
 
 LONDON • BOMBAY ■ CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 
 
 TORONTO 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 .;0i. t; 
 
 A SHORT HISTORY"^^'^^' 
 
 I |! h l: Y 
 
 BY 
 GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT, Ph.D., D.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 "THE STUDENT'S LIFE OF JESUS," "THE REVELATION OF 
 JESUS," "THE student's LIFE OF PAUL," "A HIS- 
 TORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC 
 AGE," ETC. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 1908 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
5 3 :to o 
 
 Copyright, igoSJ 
 By the MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 
 Set up and electrotyped. Published February, 1908. 
 
 Kotinaotr $ress 
 
 J. S. Cashing Co. — Berwick it, Smith Co. 
 
 Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This book surveys a great but neglected field. The 
 greatness of the field is not easily overestimated, whether 
 we regard its extent and complexity, or its importance. 
 It stretches back through twenty centuries; it toiiches 
 both the intellectual and the religious life of Jew and Chris- 
 tian on many sides ; and it brings us into immediate con- 
 tact with those processes which underlie all historic creeds 
 and all our religious institutions. Coleridge has some- 
 where remarked that the history of a word is often more 
 interesting and significant than the history of a campaign. 
 That is most true, also, of the history of the interpretation 
 of a word, and especially a word of the Scriptures. Out 
 of their sound interpretation have come beneficial enfran- 
 chising influences, which have been promotive of the best 
 civilization, while out of their misinterpretation has flowed 
 the inspiration for the crudest wrongs in Christian history. 
 
 But this wide field of the history of interpretation has 
 been neglected. The English language has but one origi- 
 nal work on the subject, and even that, with all its ex- 
 cellences, practically omits one of the most fundamental 
 sections in the history of interpretation, viz., the inter- 
 pretation of the Old Testament in the New.' The 
 
 ' F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, 1886. 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 poverty of other languages in the literature of our subject 
 is quite as great as that of our own. The French writer 
 Simon in his Histoire Critique (1693) treats the history of 
 interpretation incidentally, the German work of Meyer ' 
 more comprehensively indeed, yet by no means as one 
 would treat it to-day, and both these works have long since 
 been forgotten except by the special student. 
 
 Whatever reason there may have been in the past for 
 the neglect of this field, — lack of materials, lack of the his- 
 torical spirit, lack of reUgious freedom, or other causes, — 
 there appears to be no excuse for it at the present time; 
 and, moreover, the unparalleled progress of the last half 
 century in biblical research lends new emphasis to the need 
 of fresh investigations in this neglected field. 
 
 What the history of interpretation is capable of con- 
 tributing to a more intelligent use of the Bible will, it is 
 hoped, be suggested at least by the present volume, though 
 it is not here adequately shown. The praise of such a 
 finished achievement must be reserved for some yet un- 
 written work. 
 
 ^ Ceschickie der Schrifterkldrung, 1802-1809. — A number of works 
 on Hermeneutics, particularly German, devote some space to the history 
 of interpretation. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. ' PAGE 
 
 I. Classical Jewish Interpretation of the Old 
 
 Testament i 
 
 II. Philo of Alexandria as Interpreter of the 
 
 Old Testament 35 
 
 III. The Old Testament interpreted in the New . 58 
 
 IV. Scripture Interpretation from Clement of 
 
 Rome to Iren^us 88 
 
 V. The Alexandrian Type of Exegesis . . . 108^/!^ 
 
 VI. The Syrian Type of Exegesis . . . . 132 v "^ 
 
 VII. Biblical Interpretation in the Middle Ages . 146 ^ 
 
 VIII. Interpretation of Scripture by the Reformers 181 
 
 IX. Interpretation of Scripture in the Seven- 
 teenth and Eighteenth Centuries . . 224 
 
 X. The Scientific Era of Biblical Interpreta- 
 tion 260 
 
 INDEXES 293 
 
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE 
 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTA- 
 MENT 
 
 As the Old Testament holds a unique place in the 
 creative literature of the world's religions, so the inter- 
 pretation of the Old Testament by that people to whom 
 it was originally given holds a unique position in the vast 
 literature devoted to the interpretation of the Christian 
 Scriptures. It is the only portion of that literature which 
 was orally transmitted for generations ; it is also the only 
 portion of that literature which has determined the very 
 existence of an entire people, and completely dominated 
 their intellectual development; finally, it is the portion 
 of that literature which surpasses all others in its almost 
 incredible industry and ingenuity. 
 
 This Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament must 
 form the first chapter of our survey of the interpretation of 
 the Bible ; for though its chief literary products are much 
 later than the New Testament and Philo, and even than 
 the early Fathers of the Church, its essential spirit and 
 
2 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 method, and probably also no inconsiderable part of its 
 material, antedated the Christian era. It is not needful 
 for our purpose to attempt even a cursory survey of the 
 entire course of Jewish interpretation. It was only the 
 earlier period, the classic age of this interpretation, that 
 exercised a wide and abiding influence upon the Christian 
 Church. This classic age, when we have regard to its 
 literary deposit, terminated with the fifth century. Illus- 
 trious Jewish scholars arose from time to time in subse- 
 quent centuries, such as Saadia (j about 942), Maimonides 
 (t about 1204), and Kimchi (f 1240), and these, indeed, 
 were not without great influence on Christian exegesis, 
 but they are not to be reckoned with the founders of the 
 Mishna and Talmud. 
 
 The period in which the classic Jewish literature of 
 the Old Testament was produced began with Ezra in the 
 fifth century B.C. and ended with the Talmud about 500 a.d. 
 The political history of the Jewish people during these 
 more than nine centuries is summed up in four periods of 
 dependence — the Persian, the Egyptian, the Greek, and 
 the Roman — and a brief period of independence under 
 the Hasmonean dynasty.' The religious life and develop- 
 ment of the people during the first four centuries of this 
 period is lighted up only at a few points and then in a par- 
 tial manner. We are aware, indeed, that a powerful reli- 
 gious current flowed down through Jewish history from 
 
 ' That part of the Persian period which was subsequent to Ezra was 
 about a century and a quarter, 458-332 B.C. ; the Egyptian period of 
 about the same length, 320-198 B.C.; the Greek 198-142 B.C.; the Has- 
 monean 142-63 B.C. ; and the Roman 63 8.0.-455 ^-D- 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 3 
 
 the time of Ezra to the beginning of the Christian era, but 
 it cannot be traced in detail from generation to generation. 
 It is for the most part as a stream that flows underground. 
 We know, indeed, something of its origin and its initial 
 character, we see its tremendous force in the heroic history 
 of the Maccabees, and we have yet fuller knowledge of it 
 when it reaches the days of Hillel and Schammai. 
 
 The religious current of which we speak, which mani- 
 fested itself in the creation of the synagogue, the institution 
 of scribism, and the elaboration of a great legal system 
 on the basis of the Pentateuch, plainly had its origin with 
 Ezra, a great-grandson, apparently, of Hilkiah (Ezra 7: 
 1-5; 2 Kings 22 : 4), whose finding of the "book of the 
 law" in 621 B.C. made the reign of King Josiah forever 
 memorable. This Ezra, a Babylonian Jew who had "set 
 his heart to teach in Israel statutes and judgments" (Ezra 
 7 : 10), returning to Judea in the seventh year of Artaxerxes 
 (Ezra 7:7), was with Nehemiah the author of a profound 
 moral reformation, and succeeded in making the little 
 remnant of the captivity a compact people of the law. His 
 pulpit of wood that stood in the broad place before the 
 water gate, from which, during all the days of the feast of 
 Tabernacles from early dawn until midday, he read to 
 men and women the law of Moses (Neh. 8 : 3, 18), was, in 
 its significance for the future of the Jewish people, second 
 only to Mt. Sinai itself from which the great lawgiver 
 had descended with his ten fundamental "words." All 
 who had "knowledge and understanding" (Neh. 10 : 28), 
 the priests and nobles and leaders of the people, "entered 
 into a curse and into an oath to walk in God's law which 
 
4 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 was given by Moses, the servant of God, and to observe 
 and do all the commandments of the Lord and his judg- 
 ments and his statutes" (Neh. lo: 29). Here then was a 
 solemn "league and covenant" of the Jewish remnant to 
 order their Uves strictly according to an external law. 
 This covenant was made about the year 444 b.c' Simul- 
 taneously with this adoption of the law arose the necessity 
 of having teachers and interpreters who should instruct 
 the people in the law and determine its application to the 
 new and varied needs of the present hour. Ezra brought 
 some teachers with him from Babylon (Ezra 8: 16). At 
 the time of the historic reading of the law, to which we 
 have referred, he had thirteen helpers who are mentioned 
 by name (Neh. 8:7), besides certain Levites who were 
 able to make the people understand the teaching of the 
 law. He also had authority from Artaxerxes to appoint 
 as magistrates and judges those who knew the laws of God 
 (Ezra 7:25), which ordinance manifestly made his atti- 
 tude toward the law and his type of interpretation domi- 
 nant for his time. 
 
 It is natural, almost necessary, to suppose that Ezra 
 and the men associated with him left some sort of organized 
 court to continue their authority, but we have no certain 
 knowledge of such an institution. The "Great Syna- 
 gogue" is a shadowy institution, supposed to have existed 
 from the time of Ezra to that of Simon the Just (221 B.C.). 
 According to the Pirqe Aboth and the Ahoth of Rabbi 
 Nathan ' it was an important link in the chain of authori- 
 
 ' See Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 407. 
 
 ^SeeTaylor, PirjeXftoife, pp. iio-iii; /IM/tofR. Nathan, i; Weber, 
 Jildische Theologle, pp. 3, 6, 7. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 5 
 
 ties by which the traditional law was handed down from 
 Moses. To this body were ascribed the significant sen- 
 tences, "Be circumspect in judgment; raise up many 
 scholars ; make a hedge about the law." The first of these 
 sentences may have had a special reference to the preserva- 
 tion of colonial freedom under the Persian yoke, which 
 might be forfeited through the acts of incompetent judges. 
 The third sentence is our earliest illustration of a tendency 
 which came to be of very great significance ; that is, the 
 tendency to guard against the transgression of the law by 
 the enactment and enforcement of a multitude of protec- 
 tive ordinances. The conception of the law which is 
 involved in this injunction is like that which is attributed 
 to Simon the Just,* who said that the world rests on three 
 things — the Torah, the temple service, and good works.^ 
 This teaching makes an acquaintance with the law and ob- 
 servance of its statutes the matter of supreme importance, 
 and such, no doubt, it was already in the time of Ezra. 
 The central element in his observance of Tabernacles 
 was the reading of the law, as has been noted above ; and 
 on the day when the wall of Jerusalem was dedicated, the 
 book of Moses was read in the audience of the people 
 (Neh. 13:1). This was a sign of a new era in the history 
 of Israel, an era in which the scribe, the professional 
 interpreter of the sacred law, was to occupy a position of 
 
 ' High priest 221-202 B.C. according to Jost, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 
 p. 36, or identical with Simon I, who was high priest at the beginning of 
 the third century B.C., according to Schiirer, The Jewish People in the 
 Time of Christ, 2. i. 355. 
 
 ' See Pirqe Aboth, 2. 
 
6 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 great authority, and in which the voice of a prophet was 
 not to be heard. 
 
 From the institution of a legal form of religion under 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, we must pass on to the uprising under 
 the Maccabees two hundred and sixty-six years later before 
 we have another opportunity to study the inner life of the 
 Jewish people and to take the measure of the new forces 
 that had been set in operation by the cup-bearer of Arta- 
 xerxes and the scribe of the house of Aaron.' 
 
 The struggle of the Maccabees was distinctly reUgious. 
 It was a war waged for the law and the sanctuary (i Mace. 
 6 : 59). The men who led in it did not seek for poUtical 
 independence, but only for freedom to observe their own 
 religious laws in their own way. At the outbreak of this 
 desperate conflict a thousand men and women of the Jews 
 suffered death rather than defend themselves on the 
 Sabbath (i Mace. 2 : 67). And yet many of the people 
 soon fell away to the enemy, caring more for life and 
 comfort than for their ancestral worship (i Mace. 2 : 44). 
 Furthermore, there had long been Jews, especially of the 
 aristocratic priestly famiUes, who had been favorable to 
 Greek civilization.^ During the struggle of the Maccabean 
 period these men became more pronounced in their liberal 
 tendencies, and consequently at the same time more 
 opposed to the stricter Jews (the chasidim). Under the 
 name of Sadducees they played an important role until the 
 
 ' A suggestive glimpse of earlier date is afforded by i Chron. 2 : 55, 
 from which it appears that there were families or "guilds" (Weber) of 
 scribes as early as the date of this book; that is, shortly after 333 B.C. 
 (Driver) . 
 
 ' See Schurer, Jewish People, 1.1. 194-199. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 7 
 
 destruction of Jerusalem, which was also their own de- 
 struction as a party. But the men who fought the battles 
 and won the victories over the Syrian generals put the 
 strict observance of the law above all other things. They 
 were the true descendants of those people who in the days 
 of Ezra had entered into a solemn covenant to keep all the 
 statutes of the Lord. Their ultimate triumph and the 
 estabUshment of the Hasmonean dynasty (completed in 
 142 B.C.) are evidence that the cultivation of the law, how- 
 ever erroneous its interpretation may have been, was at 
 least not devoid of power over the wills and hearts of men. 
 In our introductory survey we may pass on at once from 
 the Maccabean uprising to Hillel, who, according to the 
 Talmud,' flourished a hundred years before the destruc- 
 tion of the temple.^ In him and in his scarcely less famous 
 contemporary Schammai, whose work may be dated in 
 round numbers four hundred years after Ezra, we have 
 teachers — perhaps the first — who are to be reckoned 
 among the makers of the classic Jewish Uterature of inter- 
 pretation. It is true, their immediate instructors. Sche- 
 mata and Abtalion, are called in the Talmud great inter- 
 preters,' and a hne of eminent predecessors can be followed 
 
 ' See Schurer, Jewish People, 2. i. 357. 
 
 ' " HiUel had 80 disciples, of whom 30 were worthy, as Moses, that the 
 Shekinah should rest upon them; 30, that the sun should stand still for 
 them, as for Joshua ; and 20 were of medium capacity. The least was 
 Jonathan ben Zakkai ; the greatest Jonathan ben Uzziel, whose fire in 
 the study of the Torah burnt up the birds that flew over him." See 
 Taylor, Pirqe Aboth, pp. 20-21. 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 1. 4. This work and Die 
 Agada der Amoraim are frequently cited in this chapter as source-books 
 for the teaching of the rabbis. 
 
8 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 back to the middle of the second century before Christ,* 
 yet their combined contributions to the Talmud, at least 
 under their own names, is very slight.'' It is plain that the 
 times preceding Hillel had not been lacking in authoritative 
 Scripture interpreters, for he is credited with having made 
 a collection of halachoih^ (ordinances to be observed), 
 and some of these, as, for example, those concerning the 
 Sabbath, had probably been in force many generations. 
 The two centuries following the era of Hillel, or, more 
 exactly, the four generations between the destruction of 
 Jerusalem and the death of Juda the Patriarch, a descend- 
 ant of Hillel (192 A.D.),^ witnessed the production of a 
 number of very important works, chief of which were the 
 Aramaic translations or paraphrases (targums) of Onkelos 
 and Jonathan, the Mishna, Mechilla, Siphra, and Siphre? 
 The Targums reflect the religious views of the times in 
 which they originated, and are valuable for the light which 
 they throw on the theology of the Jews and on their 
 
 ' See Schurer, Jewish People, ^. x. 357. 
 
 ' Bacher, op. cit., i. 15-16, points out that it was only after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem that special effort seems to have been made to preserve 
 with the traditional teaching the names of its authors. 
 
 ' See Zunz, op. cit. , ■p. ^^. Every interpretation which was not halachah 
 was called agada or haggada. The Mishna is almost exclusively made up 
 of halachoth, while the Gemara contains a large amount of agadoth. The 
 halacha was likened to an iron fortification around Israel ; the agada to a 
 labyrinth of flowerj' paths within this fortification. Karpeles, Geschichte 
 der jiidischen Literatur, p. 152. 
 
 * Schurer, Jewish People, 1. i. 129. 
 
 ^ Onkelos wrote about 50 a.d. (Zunz, op. cit., p. 62), Jonathan a little 
 later. Schurer, Jewish People, 1.1. 157-158, following Geiger, puts these 
 Targums in the third or fourth century, but thinks the material is largely 
 as old as the time of the apostles. The Mishna was completed by Juda 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 9 
 
 method of interpretation. The Mishna is the codification 
 of the oral law; Mechilta, Siphra, and Siphre are the 
 earliest commentaries — • Mechilta on a part of Exodus, 
 Siphra on Leviticus, and Siphre on Numbers and Deuter- 
 onomy. 
 
 In the three centuries after the death of Juda the 
 Patriarch, the Mishna expanded into the Talmud, or rather 
 into two Talmuds — one, the Palestinian, compiled at Ti- 
 berias on the Lake of GaHlee, and the other, the Baby- 
 lonian, compiled at Sura.' The latter, called the "sea," 
 is about four times as large as the former. The Talmud, 
 though based on the Mishna and professing to be its 
 completion (Gemara), is extremely miscellaneous and en- 
 cyclopedic in character. It refers to about five hundred 
 authorities, contains some ten thousand ordinances, and 
 forms a codex by the side of which all other codexes are 
 Lilliputian.^ 
 
 To the same period in which the Talmud was committed 
 to writing belongs the Tosefla, a work that supplements 
 the Mishna (put by Weber at the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury), and the Bereshith Rdbha, a catena of rabbinic 
 
 the Patriarch, who died 192 A.D. Mechilta, Siphra, and Siphre, which, 
 according to Zunz, reflect the older Midrash, are put by Weber {Jjidische 
 Theologie, pp. xxv-xxvii) in the third century. 
 
 ' Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. xxxii, puts the completion of the 
 Jerusalem Talmud about 400 a.d., the Babylonian about 500 A.D. 
 Schurer, Jewish People, 1.1. iig-163, puts the Jerusalem Talmud in the 
 period 200-400 a.d., and the Babylonian Talmud in the period 400- 
 600 a.d. Schiller-Szinessy in Ency. Brit., article " Talmud," holds that 
 neither Talmud was written before the close of the sixth century. 
 
 ' See Delitzsch, Jildisches Handwerkerleben, p. 35. 
 
lO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 opinions on the book of Genesis (sixth century, according 
 to Zunz). 
 
 The writings which have now been enumerated may 
 perhaps be allowed to include all the productions, or all 
 that are of primary importance, constituting what I have 
 called the classical Jewish literature of interpretation.' 
 
 From this preliminary survey of the field we proceed 
 now to consider certain facts of a comprehensive character 
 that condition all Jewish interpretation of the Old Testa- 
 ment. And we note, in the first place, that there was an 
 oral law of immemorial standing and of great authority 
 before the period of the earliest known teachers. It is 
 impossible to fix the origin or determine the exact extent 
 of this law. That it goes back through the time of the 
 Sopherim^ as far as Ezra is altogether probable. The 
 state of dependence upon heathen rulers, and the influ- 
 ence of the Exile, to mention no other facts, made the rise 
 of an oral law natural. Early Jewish opinion attributed 
 this law to Moses. We read in Pirqe Aboth that Moses 
 received the oral law from Sinai, that he delivered it to 
 Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, 
 and these to the men of the Great Synagogue.' Now this 
 attempt to derive the oral law from Moses is clear evidence 
 
 ' There are other writings which may well contain very ancient mate- 
 rial, as the Pesikta of Rab Kahana, which Theodor (Jewish Encyclopedia, 
 article " Midrash ") classes with Bereshith Rabba, and the Tanchuma, the 
 oldest connected Midrash on the Pentateuch. 
 
 'A designation of the teachers from Ezra to Simon the Just. The 
 period of the Tannaites extends from Hillel to about 200 A.D., and the 
 subsequent period to about 500 a.d. is called the period of the Amoraim. 
 
 8 See Babylonian Talmud, Fourth Order, Ninth Tractate. A Roman 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION ll 
 
 that this law was felt to be more or less unlike the written 
 law. Had it been self-evident that the oral law was in- 
 volved in the written, and so essentially identical with it, 
 this tradition that it was given to Moses on Sinai would 
 have had no ground of existence. And it would also have 
 been unnecessary for the rabbis to assert again and again, 
 generation after generation, that the oral law was of the 
 same value as the written, or even of greater value.' This 
 assertion and the tradition both imply a wide and manifest 
 dissimilarity between the two laws. It is well known that 
 one of the distinguishing marks of the Sadducees was their 
 rejection of the traditional law. 
 
 If now the unwritten law was supposed to have been 
 derived from Moses, it was natural that it was believed to 
 be in harmony with the Pentateuch. It became, therefore, 
 one of the great tasks of the scribes to prove that the oral 
 law was based on the Scripture.^ Most of it was thought 
 to be proved out of the law,' and that which could not be 
 thus proved was nevertheless declared to stand on the 
 authority of the teachers who had transmitted it from 
 the first. Thus the interpretation of the Pentateuch was 
 hampered by the existence of a sacred oral law, even as, in 
 later times in the Christian Church, the interpretation of 
 
 officer is said to have asked Hillel how many laws the Jews had, and he 
 replied, "two — an oral and a written" (see Bacher, Agada der Tannaiien, 
 I. 82). 
 
 ' See Weber, Jildische Theologie, p. 105 ; Karpeles, Geschichte der 
 jiidischen Literatur, pp. 153—154. 
 
 ' See Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. 125. 
 
 ' See Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud, p. 98; Mielziner, Introduc- 
 tion to the Talmud, pp. 1 20-121. 
 
12 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Scripture has been constantly and seriously hampered by 
 the acceptance of an authoritative tradition (Roman Catho- 
 lic Church), or, none the less effectually, by the sway of a 
 system of theology which has long enjoyed ecclesiastic 
 approval (Protestant as well as Roman Catholic Church). 
 Again, Jewish interpretation, not only of the Law, but also 
 of the Prophets, was conditioned by the belief that the law 
 was the absolute and perfect revelation of God. The 
 rabbis held that this belief was justified by the Pentateuch 
 itself. Thus Moses was thought to have proclaimed it 
 when he said of the commandment, "It is not in heaven," 
 for he thereby taught that nothing pertaining to the law 
 had been left in heaven; in other words, that it was in 
 itself the perfect revelation of God's will.^ As such it was 
 one of the seven things which were created before the world.^ 
 Jonathan ben Zakkai declared that the very purpose for 
 which man was created was that he might learn the law,^ 
 and the Babylonian Talmud hands down a saying of 
 Simon ben Jokkai (second century) that God gave three 
 good gifts to Israel — the law, the promised land, and the 
 world to come.^ It was because of this conception of the 
 absoluteness of the law that Akiba {cir. 50-132 a.d.), 
 the greatest of the Tannaite scholars, regarded all the 
 details of it as of equal value.' This conception of the 
 
 ' See Weber, Jildische Theologie, p. 18. 
 
 ' The other six were repentance, paradise, hell, the throne of glory, the 
 temple, and the name of the Messiah. See Taylor, Pirqe Ahoth, p. 104; 
 Winter and Wiinsche, Die jiidische Literatur, Tract Pesachim. 
 
 ' See Bacher, Agada- der Tannaiten, i. 29. 
 
 * See Schwab, Le Talmud, p. 236. 
 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., 1. 310. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 13 
 
 Law caused the other divisions of the Old Testament — 
 Hagiographa and Prophets — to be relatively overlooked. 
 It was impossible to give them due regard when they were 
 ranked as imperfect by the side of the Law. 
 
 With this belief in the absoluteness of the revelation of 
 the law, there was coupled a belief in the uniquely super- 
 natural character of its origin. Probably this belief con- 
 cerned at first only the Decalogue,' but it was early trans- 
 ferred to the entire Pentateuch. We read in the Talmud 
 that all the ten words were spoken superhumanly with a 
 single utterance, and even all the words in the Torah were 
 spoken with a single word.^ Moses wrote the entire 
 Pentateuch, even the description of his own death, at the 
 dictation of God, as Baruch wrote at the dictation of 
 Jeremiah.^ In comparison with the law thus super- 
 humanly produced, the writings of prophets and psalmists 
 were thought to have only a secondary degree of inspira- 
 tion.^ The proper medicine for the soul, that alone which 
 gives life to the world, is the Law. In the parable of Simon 
 ben Jokkai it is the Torah, not the Scriptures as a whole, 
 which is the daughter of God, whose dwelling is God's 
 dwelUng, and an insult to whom is as an insult to God in 
 His heavenly habitation.' The tenor of these statements 
 regarding the unique relation of God to the law is frequently 
 illustrated in classic Jewish literature. That such a 
 
 ' See Schurer, Jewish People, 2. i. 307. 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Abotk, p. log. 
 
 ' See Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, u. 49. 
 
 * See Weber, Judische Theologie, p. 82 ; Schurer, op. cit., i. 1. 311. 
 
 ' See Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, 2. 135 ; Taylor, Pirqe Aboth, p. 76, 
 
14 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 dogma as this must have deeply influenced all Jewish 
 interpretation of the law is too obvious to need 
 proof. 
 
 We come now to a somewhat closer and more detailed 
 view of our subject. And in the first place we shall 
 endeavor to point out and illustrate the elements of weak- 
 ness in classical Jewish interpretation. The business of 
 pointing out what appear to be the elements of weakness in 
 any literature of interpretation is simply historical. We 
 are not concerned to defend or to censure the rabbinic 
 interpreters whom we are at present to consider, but only 
 to present the characteristics of their work. 
 
 We find then, in the first place, that the classic Jewish 
 interpreters of the Old Testament were ignorant of the 
 origin and scope of the various sacred writings. They 
 appear to have given but Uttle thought to these matters, — 
 a circumstance which throws on them an unfavorable 
 light, — and what thought they did give to them led chiefly 
 to erroneous results. The entire Pentateuch, as we have 
 seen, was attributed to Moses, even the last chapter of 
 Deuteronomy, which not only describes his death and 
 burial, but also remarks that "no man knoweth of his 
 sepulchre unto this day." The "book of the covenant" 
 (Ex. 24 ; 7) which Moses read to all Israel was, accord- 
 ing to Jose ben Juda' (second century), the book of. 
 Genesis and the book of Exodus as far as this passage, 
 while, according to Juda the Patriarch ^ {dr. 135-220 a.d.), 
 it consisted of the commandments which God gave to 
 
 ' See Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, 2. 419. 
 ^ See Bacher, op. cit., 2. 477. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 15 
 
 Adam, to Noah and his descendants, to Israel in Egypt, 
 and various other precepts. 
 
 The book of Esther was thought to have been com- 
 posed by Mordecai and indeed composed in the Holy 
 Spirit, for it is said in chapter 2 : 22 that the plot of 
 Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, to 
 lay hands on Ahasuerus, became known to Mordecai; 
 and obviously, if it became known to him, it must have 
 been through the Spirit, and therefore the entire book 
 must have been written in the Spirit and must be in- 
 spired.' 
 
 Again, Eleazar of Modaim (first and second centuries) 
 ascribed the Hallel Psalms to Deborah and Barak, Joshua 
 ben Hananiah {dr. 70-120 a.d.) dated them from the 
 time when Joshua faced the kings of Canaan, and Eliezer 
 ben Hyrcanos (first and second centuries) put them back 
 even farther, to the day when Israel crossed the Red Sea.' 
 Rabbi Meir (second century), the distinguished pupil of 
 Akiba, ascribed all the Psalms to David, and did this on 
 the ground of a conjectural reading of a single word in 
 an early footnote to Ps. 72.^ Some later teachers 
 of distinction ascribed some of the Psalms to Abraham 
 and some even to Adam ! * 
 
 Of these citations which have been made, some illus- 
 trate both the ignorance of Jewish teachers in regard to 
 the origin of various sacred writings and also their failure 
 
 ■ See Bacher, of. cit., z. 49. 
 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., i. 155, 201. 
 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., 2. 49. 
 
 * See Bacher, Die Agada der Amoraim, 1. 260. 
 
1 6 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 to appreciate the scope of these writings. The scope of 
 Genesis, for example, can hardly have been understood 
 when it was regarded as part of the "book of the cove- 
 nant" which Moses read to Israel at Sinai. As little was 
 the scope of Job known to men who, Uke Juda the Patri- 
 arch, said that if the book contained nothing else than an 
 account of the sin of the generation who were overtaken by 
 the Flood, and their punishment (!) it would have fulfilled 
 its purpose.' One is constantly reminded when reading 
 the Talmud, or such special writings as Mechilta, Siphra, 
 and Siphre, that their authors had not studied the separate 
 books of the Pentateuch each as a whole, and so did not 
 interpret the details in the light of the entire work. And 
 one may go further and take an illustration of the point 
 under discussion from the fact that the scope of the Proph- 
 ets as a division of the Old Testament, or the scope of 
 the Hagiographa, was not understood. These writings 
 were regarded merely as an interpretation of the Law, not 
 as an independent revelation which is often fundamentally 
 opposed to the Law.^ 
 
 One may say that the classical Jewish interpretation 
 of the Old Testament failed to measure the significance 
 of the Prophets as completely as Philo did. We cannot 
 say that they truly apprehended the scope of the Law, but 
 it is clear that their failure to understand the Prophets 
 was still more complete. 
 
 Another widespreading and fruitful source of weak- 
 ness in Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament was 
 
 ' See Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, 2. 473. 
 ' See Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. 81. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 17 
 
 its extreme license in dealing with the text. This license, 
 as regards the text o§>"the Law, was indeed inconsistent 
 with the dogma that the Law had come down from heaven, 
 and that Moses had not spoken so much as a single verse 
 of his own knowledge; nevertheless it was practised. 
 There was already in the Targums a notable freedom in 
 dealing with the Old Testament text. Thus, for example, 
 Onkelos, in translating the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49), 
 departs in numerous instances from the literal meaning 
 of the Hebrew. The "hands of the Mighty One of 
 Jacob " disappear entirely in this rendering (vs. 24) ; 
 instead of "Shiloh" we have "Messiah" (vs. 10); the 
 "ruler" or "lawgiver" becomes a " scholar" or scribe 
 (vs. 10), and the next verse speaks of those who occupy 
 themselves with the "teaching," that is, the Law, though 
 the Hebrew text has no suggestion of this ; and finally, 
 in the verses concerning the tribe of Dan (16-17) Onkelos 
 twice introduces the " Philistines," though the original 
 has no allusion to them. 
 
 In Jonathan's Targum of the Prophets we have as great 
 or even greater license in dealing with the text. Thus 
 for the second verse of Isaiah: "Hear, O Heavens, and 
 give ear, O earth," we have in Jonathan : — 
 
 "Hear, O ye heavens, that quaked when I gave my 
 teaching to my people, and listen, O earth, that trembled 
 at my words." The fifteenth verse of this chapter of 
 Isaiah, — "When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide 
 mine eyes from you" is changed into this: "When the 
 priests spread out their hands to pray for you, I will take 
 away from you the face of my Shekinah." This intro- 
 
1 8 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 duction of the " priests " as making supplication for Israel, 
 and the substitution of the "face of the Shekinah" for that 
 of God, is representative of a large class of changes in 
 Jonathan, and sufficiently illustrates his freedom in 
 handUng the text. 
 
 Another form of license in the treatment of the text by 
 Jewish interpreters was the habit of regarding the letters 
 of a word as initials of a Hke number ' of words to be dis- 
 covered.^ Bacher gives a Ust of thirty-eight instances of 
 this species of so-called interpretation from the teachers 
 of the Tannaite period.^ The most distinguished rabbis, 
 hke Akiba, Eleazar of Modaim, Joshua ben Hananiah, 
 and EUezer ben Hyrcanos, did not hesitate to make use 
 of this method. As we should expect, there were the 
 widest differences in the results which different men 
 obtained from the same word. For, obviously, the pro- 
 cedure was pure guesswork. It seems to have been 
 resorted to, as a rule, only in the case of difficult words, 
 but the only Ught it ever shed was on the exegetical in- 
 capacity of the interpreters. It would be quite super- 
 fluous to discuss this method at length, and it may be 
 dismissed with one or two illustrations. Ismael ben 
 Elisha (first and second centuries), one of the first genera- 
 tion of teachers after the destruction of Jerusalem, re- 
 
 ' Not always a like number. See illustration from Akiba in Bacher, 
 Agada der Tannaiten, i. 312, where a word of five letters is resolved into 
 three words. 
 
 ^ This method was called notarikon (Jlpiioj), which Jost connects 
 with the Latin notarius, a rapid writer. See Weber, Judiscke Theologie, 
 p. 123. 
 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., 2. 378. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 19 
 
 solved the Hebrew word ethhen in Lev. 20 : 14 (|nnxi) 
 into two parts, the second of which was the Greek word 
 for one (ev)} This guess was apparently determined 
 by a similarity of sound between the Hebrew suffix and 
 the Greek numeral. Another illustration is from 
 Ps. 77 : 21: — 
 
 " Thou leddest thy people like a flock 
 By the hand of Moses and Aaron." 
 
 The word nachithah {im)> having four letters, was 
 taken to mean wonder, life, sea, and law; and Weber 
 gives the rabbinic thought as follows : "Thou hast worked 
 a wonder for thy people; thou hast given them life; 
 thou hast divided the sea; thou hast given them the 
 law." ^ 
 
 This form of license in handling the text of Scripture 
 was equalled by another called gematria (yewfJ^eTpia). 
 This was in use as early as the close of the first century 
 (see Rev. 13 : 17, 18). It consisted in manipulating the 
 numerical values of the letters of any word, quite inde- 
 pendently of its proper meaning. Thus by adding the 
 values of the several letters of a word, striking prophecies 
 were sometimes discovered, as when, on the basis of the 
 word radav (-m) in Gen. 42 : 2, it was calculated that 
 the Eg)^tian bondage was to last 210 years; ' or as when 
 Nachman ben Isaac (fourth century) deduced from 
 
 ' See Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, i. 255. 
 
 ' See Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. 124. For other striking examples 
 of noiarikon, see Bacher, op. cit., 1. 312; ^. 257. 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Aboth, p. 62. i = 200, t = 4, j = 6. 
 
20 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the word deliverances (mKain) in Ps. 78 : 20 the result 
 that there are 903 different kinds of death for man.* 
 From the name Satan (jaton), which has the numerical 
 value 364, it was inferred that Satan had power over 
 Israel all the days of the year but one, that is, the 
 great day of atonement ; ^ and in the oldest collection of 
 opinions on Genesis, the ladder which Jacob saw is identi- 
 fied with Mt. Sinai because the two words have the same 
 numerical value.' 
 
 But notarikon and gematria were not the only ingenious 
 devices with which the rabbis, even in the classical age of 
 Jewish interpretation, sought to discover hidden mean- 
 ings in the sacred text. The thirty-two rules which 
 Eliezer laid down for the interpretation of Scripture, 
 which Schwab reduces to thirteen, are all merely different 
 ways of extracting from a given word or passage some 
 remote sense,* but our point is sufficiently illustrated with- 
 out going further in this direction.^ What we have said 
 shows that there was an amazing license in the treat- 
 
 ' See Berachoth, i. 8*. »• 
 
 ' See Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. 121. 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Ahoth, p. 62. 
 
 * See Schiller-Szinessy in Ency. Brit., article " Talmud " ; Schwab, Le 
 Talmud, Introd., p. liii; Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, p. 123. 
 
 ' A common means of reaching an uncommon interpretation of a word 
 was the change of its vowels. For a list of such instances, see Bacher, 
 Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2. 577. A notable instance is seen in Pirqe 
 Ahoth, 6. u. In Ex. 32 : 16, where we read that the writing was the word 
 of God " graven (charuth) upon the tables," we are told to read cheruth 
 which raenns freedom, "for," the interpreter adds, "thou wilt find no 
 freeman but him who is occupied in learning of Torah." See Taylor, 
 Pirqe Ahoth, p. 100. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 21 
 
 ment of the text even by the early Jewish interpre- 
 ters/ 
 
 A third element of weakness in the classical Jewish 
 interpretation of the Old Testament was the very common 
 failure to distinguish between the essential and the inci- 
 dental. This is doubtless to be seen in all periods of 
 Christian interpretation, even in that of the present day, 
 but probably no considerable body of the hterature of 
 interpretation is so strikingly pervaded by this element 
 as is that which we are now considering. It matters 
 little to what part of the Talmud we turn, or which of the 
 commentaries or midrashim one consults : on every page 
 one finds abundant evidence of this failure of the ancient 
 interpreters to distinguish between that which is central 
 and essential in a passage or book of Scripture, and those 
 things which are of quite subordinate value, indeed, in 
 multitudes of cases, of no independent value whatever. 
 
 In illustrating this point we turn first to Mechilta, the 
 commentary on Exodus. From the words of Ex. 19 : 2, 
 "They pitched in the wilderness," that is, the wilderness 
 where the Law was given, it was concluded that the Law 
 was divinely purposed /or all nations. This is argued, not 
 from the scope and character of the Law itself, but from 
 the wholly irrelevant detail that it was given to Israel in 
 an uninhabited region. In Siphra, the commentary on 
 Leviticus, the statement that one should rise up before 
 the hoary head is interpreted to mean that one should rise 
 up before the wise man only ; and thus the essential truth 
 
 ' This element became still more pronounced in later Jewish writing^ 
 as in the Kabbala. See Zunz, GottesdienstUche Vortrdge, p. 157. 
 
22 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of the text — reverence ^or age — is exchanged for some- 
 thing quite different. In Gen. 47 : 29 Jacob's request 
 is recorded, that he should not be buried in Egypt. "Why 
 not ? " it is asked in Bereshith Rabba. Because, says the 
 unnamed author, the land was to be smitten with vermin, 
 and his body might feel them. Another rabbi was of the 
 opinion that Jacob did not wish to be buried in Egypt lest 
 the Egyptians should make an idol of him. 
 
 We read in 2 Kings 2 : 11 that the Prophets EUjah and 
 Elisha "talked as they went," and the Talmud asks the 
 weighty question what they were talking about. One 
 rabbi said that they talked of the Shema (Deut. 5 : 4-5), 
 another that they talked of the creation of the world.* 
 The schools of Hillel and Schammai discussed the ques- 
 tion whether the heaven was created before the earth or 
 the earth before the heaven.^ Later a rabbi rose up and 
 proved that both were created at the same time.' The 
 commentary on Exodus, explaining the gracious word of 
 the Lord, "I am thy physician," says that it is the words 
 of the Torah which are Ufe.* Thus the great truth of the 
 text — the personal relationship of God to the soul — 
 is lost sight of, and a cold servitude to the letter is all that 
 is left. 
 
 As illustrations of the manner in which the Psalms are 
 employed in the Talmud, we may take the following cases : 
 The word of Ps. i : 2, "And in his law doth he meditate 
 day and night," is cited in proof that the ritual shall be 
 
 ' See Berachoth, 5. 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, i. 17. 
 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., i. 18. 
 
 ' See Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. 20. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 23 
 
 equally divided between daylight and dark.* The ful- 
 filment of Ps. 4:5, " Commune with your own heart 
 upon your bed and be still," was seen in Samuel ben 
 Nachman (third century), who repeated the Shema until 
 he fell asleep.^ "The wicked walk on every side" (or, 
 round about) (Ps. 12 : 8) is cited to show that a man who 
 prays behind a synagogue is worthy of being called im- 
 pious.* From the words "The law of the Lord is per- 
 fect" (Ps. 19 : 8) the Talmud argues that it must be 
 presented in a perfect maimer; that is, always with the 
 same number of benedictions preceding and following the 
 reading of it.* 
 
 This habit of the Jewish interpreter to fasten on some 
 unimportant detail of the text in question is that which, 
 in no small measure, makes the Talmud a book of learned 
 trifles, a book in which the mountain labors and brings 
 forth only a mouse, a book in which, as has been said, 
 you shall search two bushels of chaff to find two grains of 
 wheat. 
 
 A fourth element of weakness in classic Jewish inter- 
 pretation was the assumption of a hidden meaning in 
 the words of Scripture. This was by no means universal.' 
 
 ^ See Berachotk, i. 8. ' See Berachoth, i. 10. 
 
 ' See Berachoth, 5. i. * See Berachoth, J. 4. 
 
 ' It cannot be said, in general terms, that the Jews saw a fourfold 
 meaning in Scripture corresponding to the terms peshat, remez, derush, and 
 sod (see Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 95 ; Schiirer, Jewish People, 
 2.1. 348, who ascribes this to "later Judaism") ; nor can we say that they 
 found in all Scripture a twofold sense, though the Talmud speaks of at 
 least two methods of interpretation, and though a mystic interpretation 
 of Gen. I and Ezek. i goes back to early times. See Mielziner, Intro- 
 duction to the Talmtid, pp. 11 7-1 18; Briggs, Biblical Study, pp. 300-301. 
 
24 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The Talmud, for example, illustrates both the tendency 
 to go behind the natural sense and the tendency to literal- 
 ism. Joshua ben Hananiah, to take a single case, pre- 
 ferred a highly artificial interpretation, but his contem- 
 porary, Eleazar of Modaim, held, as a rule, to the obvious 
 meaning of the text.* But the leaven of the notion that 
 there is a hidden meaning in Scripture was strong, and 
 most of the illustrious rabbis were more or less influenced 
 by it. Jonathan ben Zakkai, in whose exegesis Bacher 
 says the best traits of the Agada are to be found, was one 
 of the founders of the secret teaching, which was based on 
 the first chapter of Genesis and the first of Ezekiel.^ 
 Akiba, who died as a martyr in the revolution under 
 Bar-Kochab, regarded the Song of Solomon — which he 
 interpreted allegorically — as the most holy of the Hagi- 
 ographa, and a tradition of the second century represents 
 him as the only one of his generation who entered the 
 garden of secret teaching and came forth unharmed.^ 
 Simon ben Jokkai (second century), though, like Ismael, 
 he held that the Scripture speaks the language of men, 
 departed not infrequently from the natural sense, as when 
 he taught that the bush in which Moses saw the flame of 
 fire was a symbol of Egypt, or when, from the words of 
 Deut. 33 : 2 : " At his right hand was a fiery law for them," 
 he taught that the law went forth from the right hand of 
 God, made a circuit around Israel, and returned to the 
 left hand of God, who then graved it on tables of stone.* 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, i. 204. 
 
 ^ See Bacher, op. cit., l. 30, 43. 
 
 ^ See Bacher, op. cit., 1. 318, 340. 
 
 * See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, i. 117, 118. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 25 
 
 The arbitrary manipulation of the separate letters of 
 a word, which has already been discussed, implied, of 
 course, the belief in a hidden sense. This was implied, 
 also, when the interpreters resorted to allegory, a point 
 to which we may now make brief reference. Jewish 
 interpreters made much less use of allegorical interpreta- 
 tion than did some of their contemporaries in the Christian 
 Church. It was resorted to in exceptional cases where 
 the Scripture itself leads the way, or where the text ap- 
 peared to be especially difficult. Thus the vine with three 
 branches in Gen. 40, which Joseph interpreted symboli- 
 cally, was variously explained by different rabbis. 
 Eliezer ben Hyrcanos said that the vine was humanity, 
 and the three branches were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
 Joshua ben Hananiah held that the vine was the Law, 
 and the three branches Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. 
 It does not appear that these scholars denied the correct- 
 ness of Joseph's interpretation, but they evidently thought 
 that the symbols which the butler saw had other mean- 
 ings.* It seems likely that the allegorical method was 
 most frequently applied to difficult texts. Such is the 
 Song of Solomon, which Akiba and Resch Lakisch {dr. 
 200-275) treated as an allegory. Rabbi Ismael, who held 
 firmly to the natural sense of the sacred text, admitted 
 that there were three passages which could be understood 
 only in an allegorical manner (viz. Ex. 21 : 19; 22 : 3; 
 Deut. 22 : 17). In these cases the natural sense was 
 set aside altogether. In like manner the seeming difficulty 
 of Ex. 17 : II probably led Eliezer ben Hyrcanos to adopt 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 1. 149. 
 
26 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 an allegorical explanation. He said that the holding up 
 of Moses's hand signified the future observance of his 
 teaching, and the sinking of his hand signified the neglect 
 of the Law in Israel.' We need not dwell longer on this 
 point. Though the tendency to go behind the natural 
 sense of the text was strong among the early Jewish in- 
 terpreters, resort to allegory was not characteristic of 
 their method. 
 
 Finally, as an element of weakness in the Jewish inter- 
 pretation of the Old Testament, we must count its highly 
 conjectural and speculative character, an element which 
 was largely responsible for the uncertainty of Jewish 
 exegesis. A few illustrations will indicate the nature and 
 limits of this feature of the subject. One of the 316 
 controversies between the school of Hillel and the school 
 of Schammai was that concerning the order of the resur- 
 rection. The school of Schammai, arguing from Ezek. 37, 
 held that the order would be the reverse of the order of 
 nature, while the school of Hillel, arguing from Job 40 : 10, 
 held that in the resurrection man would be developed 
 from less to more as in his earthly origin.^ But neither of 
 these passages of Scripture can reasonably be said to refer 
 to the order of the resurrection, and one does not even 
 touch the general subject at all. Again, Ex. 24 : 9 tells 
 how Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu with seventy elders went 
 up to Moses on the mount. Only three names are given, 
 the elders not being personally designated. This was to 
 indicate, says the Talmud, that whenever there should be 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiien, 1. 108. 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiien, i. 19. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 27 
 
 in Israel a court of three men, it would have equal honor 
 with the court of Moses himself — a very important con- 
 clusion, but resting on a wholly conjectural foundation. 
 
 In Prov. 6:2, which speaks of the commandment of 
 the father and the law of the mother, it is said : — 
 
 "When thou walkest, it shall lead thee; 
 When thou sleepest, it shall watch over thee; 
 And when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee." 
 
 Here is the interpretation of it by Josua ben Qisma : The 
 first line refers to the present world, the second to the 
 grave, and the third to the world which is to come.* It 
 is obvious that the interpreter found a suggestion of death 
 in the word "sleepest" and of the future world in the word 
 "awakest." Another representative case is furnished by 
 Pirqe Ahoth, 3, 9. "When ten sit and are occupied 
 with words of the Torah, the Shekinah is among them, 
 for it is said, 'God standeth in the congregation of the 
 mighty.'" The proof that ten are a "congregation" was 
 found in the fact that this term was applied to the twelve 
 spies when Caleb and Joshua were absent.^ Thus the 
 wholly irrelevant circumstance that the word "congrega- 
 tion" was once used of a company of ten men is the basis 
 of the teaching that when ten men are engaged in studying 
 the law, the Shekinah is with them.' 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Ahoth, p. 103. 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Ahoth, p. 46. 
 
 ^ Resch Lakisch said that Shinar (Gen. 11:2) was so called because the 
 dead of the Deluge were there cast down (scheninaron) {Berachoth, 4: i). 
 In the Babylonian Talmud (^Berachoth, 9 : 9) the evil desire is said to re- 
 
28 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Finally, it is taught in the Tosefta (Tract Joma) that 
 the sin of one who has profaned the name of God may be 
 partly atoned for by repentance, by the Day of Atonement, 
 and by the sufferings of life, but not wholly. Only three 
 quarters of the sin can thus be covered. The remaining 
 quarter is atoned for by the day of death, as is written in 
 Jer. 22 : 14: "This iniquity shall not be purged from you 
 until ye die." "This passage," it is said, "teaches that 
 the day of death completes the atonement." But it 
 hardly needs to be pointed out at present that the 
 prophet is not speaking of the power of death to atone 
 for sin, not to say its power to atone for just one 
 quarter of a particular sin, but that he simply afi&rms 
 in a rhetorical manner that a certain iniquity is un- 
 pardonable. 
 
 This element of Jewish exegesis may be yet a little 
 further illustrated. Thus in the fact that there are 
 six hundred and thirteen letters in the Decalogue was 
 found a proof that the oral law should contain six hundred 
 and thirteen commandments.' Ground for the prohibi- 
 tion of exactly thirty-nine kinds of labor was discovered in 
 the fact that the construction of the Tabernacle called for 
 thirty-nine sorts of labor, also in the fact that the word 
 "work" occurs thirty-nine times in the Pentateuch.^ 
 Jonathan ben Eliezer (third century) said that there were 
 eighteen benedictions in the liturgy because of the eighteen 
 
 semble a grain of wheat (nian) because in Gen. 4 : 7, when it is said to 
 couch at the door, the word riNon is used, and the two words are closely 
 similar. 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Abolh, p. 108. 2 See Schabhath. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 29 
 
 times repeated saying in Exodus, "as the Eternal com- 
 manded," ' while Rabbi Levi II (third century) taught that • 
 it was because the sacred name occurs eighteen times in 
 Ps. 29.' 
 
 Such was the element in Jewish interpretation which 
 we have called conjectural and speculative. If it ever led 
 to the truth, it was by pure accident. It was as unscien- 
 tific as the manipulation of the letters of a word by 
 notarikon and gematria. 
 
 It remains now to speak of the elements of strength in 
 Jewish interpretation, for such elements were manifestly 
 present. There were, in the first place, some sound prin- 
 ciples of exegesis. The seven ' rules of Hillel, though not 
 fundamental for the determination of the sense of the text, 
 were good as far as they went. They enunciated great 
 truths, and had they been consistently applied to the in- 
 terpretation of the Old Testament, the result would have 
 been much better than what the Talmud and other early 
 writings offer us. Some of these principles, as that a 
 word must be explained in the light of its context, are 
 recognized and applied in all scientific interpretation. 
 It was also a step in the right direction when the teacher 
 of Akiba, Nachum of Gimzo (first century), drew atten- 
 tion to the significance of particles, as the article and 
 
 '■ See Bacher, Die Agada der Amoraim, i. 64. 
 
 ' See Berachoth, 4. 3. 
 
 ' These were increased to 13, perhaps by Ismael. They are found in 
 the prayer-book of the Jews, and were repeated in the daily prayer (see 
 Weber, Jiidische Theologie, p. 109). These rules of Hillel are discussed in 
 detail by Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, p. 123 ff., and by Weber, 
 op. cit., pp. iog-ii8. 
 
30 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 adverbs, even though he pressed the point to extremes.' 
 Again it was a great utterance of Ismael that Scripture 
 speaks the language of the children of men^; that is, that 
 Scripture is to be read and interpreted as other books. 
 Thus, he argued, when the Lord said to Joshua: "This 
 book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth and 
 thou shalt search in it day and night," that is not to be 
 taken literally, for then all other activities of life would be 
 excluded. We cannot say that this principle of Ismael 
 was very widely or intelligently held by the rabbis, but its 
 recognition and even partial application by this teacher 
 stamps him as one of the most illustrious interpreters of 
 the early centuries. 
 
 But far more important than this acquaintance with 
 certain sound principles of exegesis, considered as an ele- 
 ment of strength in the Jewish Uterature of Old Testa- 
 ment interpretation, was the spiritual insight of some of the 
 rabbis. It is this that constitutes the saving salt of the 
 Talmud and other classic memorials of rabbinic activity. 
 There were no scientific interpreters, as we use that term 
 at present, but there were among the rabbis men who, in 
 spite of their exegetical deficiencies, often saw into the 
 heart of Scripture. It is only fair that we should illustrate 
 this aspect of our subject as fully as we have the weakness 
 of Jewish exegesis. This may be done both by reference 
 to the interpretation of individual Scripture verses and 
 by the maxims handed down from different teachers, for 
 
 ' Thus he took dn in Deut. 34 : 6 reflexively, and hence made Moses 
 bury himself! See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 1. 61-63, 248. 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., j.. 247. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 31 
 
 these maxims, though not connected with particular texts, 
 contain in most cases a wisdom derived from the Scripture. 
 They are, as it were, the residuum from long and deep 
 meditation on the Law and Prophets of Israel. It was 
 Hillel who gave as a free rendering of Ps. 113:6-7 this 
 sentiment which we find also in the teaching of Jesus : 
 " My humiliation is my exaltation, and my exaltation my 
 humiliation." ' When a pupil of Jonathan ben Zakkai 
 said to him, weeping, "Woe to us because of the destruc- 
 tion of the place of offering" (i.e. the temple), the master 
 replied, "Weep not; we still have a means of reconcilia- 
 tion ; that is, the practice of works of love, for it is writ- 
 ten, I desire love and not sacrifice." ^ The story of 
 King Munbaz contains not only good ethical teaching, 
 but also apt use of Scripture.' This king divided all his 
 goods among the poor. His relatives sent word to him, 
 saying, "Thy ancestors added to that which their fore- 
 fathers had saved up, but you give away both what you 
 and your fathers possessed." He replied, "My fathers 
 gathered treasures on earth, but I gather treasures in 
 heaven, as is written in Ps. 85:12: 'Righteousness looks 
 down from heaven.' They gathered treasures which 
 yielded no fruit, but I gather such as bear fruit, as is 
 said in Is. 3 : 10: 'Say of the righteous that it shall be 
 well with him, for they shall eat of the fruit of their 
 doings.' They heaped up treasures in a place where the 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, i. 8. 
 ' See Bacher, op. cit., i. 39. 
 
 ' See Tractate Pea in Winter and Wiinsche, Geschichte der judischen 
 Literatur, p. 188, 
 
32 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 hand had power over them, but I lay them up in a place 
 where the hand has no power over them, as is said in 
 Ps. 97 : 2 : ' Clouds and darkness are round about him, 
 righteousness and judgment are the foundation of his 
 throne.' They gathered gold and goods, but I gather 
 souls, as is written in Prov. 11:30: 'He that is wise 
 winneth souls.'" 
 
 The motto of Hillel, "Be of the disciples of Aaron, lov- 
 ing peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and bring- 
 ing them nigh to the Torah," is a worthy expression of deep 
 principles of the Pentateuch;' and his rigid opponent 
 Schammai, so strict in the observance of the Law that 
 when his daughter bore a child on the day of the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, he had the roof over the bed broken through 
 and a booth of green branches erected that the child might 
 keep the feast — even Schammai's motto contained much 
 wisdom of head and heart: "Say little, do much, and 
 receive every one in a friendly manner." ^ Eliezer ben 
 Hyrcanos had this motto: "Let the honor of thy neigh- 
 bor be as dear to thee as thine ovra; be not easily pro- 
 voked; and repent the day before thy death." When 
 his scholars asked him whether a man knew beforehand 
 the day of his death, he replied: "All the more will he 
 repent ; for perhaps he will die on the next day ; thus he 
 repents all his days." ^ Of Meir * the following utterance 
 has been preserved, which, as he attributed it to God, 
 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Aboth, p. 21. 
 
 ' See Karpeles, Geschichte der jildischen Literatur, p. 165. 
 ^ See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, i. loi. 
 
 ■•Called in Berachoth, 2. 7, "grand homme, saint homme, homme 
 modeste." See Schwab, Le Talmud, op. cit. 
 
CLASSICAL JEWISH INTERPRETATION 33 
 
 may be taken as his summing up of the teaching of Scrip- 
 ture: "Purpose with thy whole heart and soul to know 
 my ways and zealously to wait at the doors of my teaching ; 
 lay up my teaching in thy heart, and let my fear be before 
 thy eyes; keep thy mouth from every sin, purify and 
 cleanse thyself from every sin and transgression ; then will 
 I be with thee at all times." ^ " On three things the world 
 stands," said Simeon ben Gamaliel II (second century), 
 "on judgment, on truth, and on peace," ^ and the son of 
 Juda the Patriarch was in the habit of saying, "Do his 
 will as if it were thy will, that he may do thy will as if it 
 were his will. Annul thy will before his will, that he may 
 annul the will of others before thy will." ^ 
 
 These bits of interpretation and these summaries of 
 the wisdom of men who fed on the Scripture are sufficient 
 to illustrate the claim that the most considerable element 
 of strength in the classical Jewish literature of Old Testa- 
 ment interpretation is the deep spiritual insight of some of 
 the rabbis. That literature, as a whole, is pervaded by 
 a deadly literalism and an unbounded arbitrariness. It 
 is literature of the Pentateuch rather than of the whole 
 Old Testament, and its dominating conception even of 
 the Law to which it is so largely devoted is at variance 
 with fundamental moral and spiritual principles of the 
 Law itself. It is an unparalleled monument to the religion 
 of strict legahty, and therefore as an interpretation of the 
 Old Testament religion in its entirety it is a monument of 
 
 ' See Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, 2.12. 
 ' See Taylor, Pirqe Aboth, p. 23. 
 ' See Taylor, op. cit., p. 29. 
 D 
 
34 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 pathetic misinterpretation. And yet it enshrines the 
 names of a considerable number of teachers who, in spite 
 of the heavy servitude of a religion of the letter and against 
 the weight of age-long false opinions regarding the Scrip- 
 ture, established a good claim to our grateful remembrance 
 by their fragments of exegetical wisdom and still more by 
 their gift of spiritual insight. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT 
 
 The two most influential Jewish contemporaries of 
 Jesus were Saul of Tarsus and Philo of Alexandria. Both 
 were Jews of the Dispersion, both were men of great natural 
 abihty, both enjoyed the best educational advantages of 
 their respective lands. The former became a Christian, 
 and did more than any other of his generation, not only for 
 the extension of the Church, but also for the determination 
 of its theological views; the latter, so far as we know,' 
 had no acquaintance with Christianity, and yet, through 
 his writings and especially by his method of interpreting 
 the Old Testament, he wielded a profound influence over 
 the leaders of the Christian Church in the early centuries. 
 
 Both Paul and Philo were animated, though not with 
 equal intensity, by a lofty missionary purpose. One 
 devoted his life to the proclamation of the Gospel among 
 all nations, the other labored to commend the Jewish 
 religion to the Greek world. The master of Paul was 
 Jesus, the master of Philo was Moses. 
 
 'The tradition recorded by Eusebius (Church History, 2. 17) that 
 Philo became acquainted with Peter in Rome is wholly without support 
 and is almost universally rejected. 
 
 35 
 
36 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Now just as Paul can be truly estimated only when he is 
 studied in the light of this animating missionary purpose, 
 so also is it in the case of Philo. To understand his method 
 of interpretation and to appreciate its significance for the 
 history of Christianity, it is needful, first of all, to consider 
 his aim, what he was seeking to accomplish. 
 
 Philo was an heir of two distinct civilizations. He was 
 a Jew, a member of one of the first families of Alexandria,' 
 and loyal to the religion of his fathers. He saw in Moses 
 the supreme interpretation of the will of God,^ a man 
 whose ideas regarding the creation of the world "surpass 
 the power of speech and hearing, being too great and 
 venerable to be adapted to the senses of any mortal." ^ 
 The Jewish people he regarded as surpassing all others in 
 love of God, and they seemed to him to have received the 
 offices of priesthood and prophecy on behalf of all man- 
 kind.* Philo was proud, therefore, of his Jewish heritage. 
 
 But he was also an appreciative heir of the best in Greek 
 civilization. Greek was his mother tongue, and, next to 
 
 ' According to Josephus {Antiq. 18. 8. i ; 19. 5. i ; 20. 5. 2) Philo was 
 a brother of Alexander the alabarch, who was a man of great wealth, a 
 friend of the Emperor Claudius and steward of the emperor's mother 
 Antonia. Some scholars, e.g., Ewald and Zeller, reject the statement of 
 Josephus, and on the basis of De ratione animalium, 1. 72, suppose Philo 
 to have been Alexander's uncle. But Josephus {Antiq. 20. 5. 2) speaks 
 of a son of Alexander who bore the same name, and Schiirer supposes that 
 the passage in De ratione animalium refers to the son. See Jewish Peo- 
 ple, 2. 3. 323. 
 
 ' See De praemiis et poenis, 9 ; De opifioio mundi, 2. My citations are 
 from the Leipsic edition of Philo, 185 1. 
 
 ' De opificio mundi, i. 
 
 * De Abrahams, ig. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 37 
 
 the Pentateuch, Greek literature was the especial "pasture" 
 of his soul. His writings abound in quotations from the 
 classic poets and the great philosophers.' To him Plato 
 was the man of "sweetest voice," and the Pythagorean 
 philosophers were a "most sacred band."^ It was when 
 looking back on his study of Greek philosophy, no less than 
 upon his study of the Pentateuch, that he uttered those 
 memorable words: "I appeared to be raised on high and 
 ever borne along by a certain inspiration of the soul, and 
 to follow the sun and moon, the whole heaven and the 
 cosmos." ' 
 
 Now these two civilizations which with almost equal 
 power had fascinated the soul of Philo were, for him, in 
 their highest elements, identical. Greek philosophy was 
 the same as the philosophy of Moses. Heraclitus and 
 Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, had derived their teach- 
 ings from the Old Testament.^ And the aim of Philo was 
 to set forth and illustrate this harmony between the Jewish 
 religion and classic philosophy, or, ultimately, it was to 
 commend the Jewish religion to the educated Greek world. 
 This was the high mission to which he felt called, the pur- 
 pose with which he expounded the Hebrew laws in the 
 language of the world's culture and philosophy. 
 
 ' Siegfried, in his Philo von Alexandrien als Ausleger des AT., i. 137, 
 counts sixty-four classic writers from whom Philo made citations. 
 
 ^ Quod omnis probus liber, 2. i. 
 
 » De spec, legum, 3. 1. 
 
 ' Legis alleg., i. 33; Quod omnis probus liber, 8. This thought that 
 the Greek philosophers had borrowed from Moses was not original with 
 Philo. It is found as early as the time of Aristobulus, who lived about 
 150 B.C. See Zeller, Geschichte der griech. Phil., 3. 2. 347. 
 
38 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The way for Philo's work had long been prepared in the 
 translation of the Old Testament into Greek. This was 
 his forerunner and in an important degree the basis of his 
 labors. His own knowledge of Hebrew was evidently 
 slight/ for his writings show no trace of a literary appre- 
 ciation of the Old Testament, neither does he seem to have 
 been aware of the serious imperfections of the Greek ver- 
 sion. He regarded it as the work of "hierophants and 
 prophets to whom it had been granted, with their guileless 
 minds, to go along with the most pure spirit of Moses." ^ 
 He declared that they agreed in the employment of the 
 same nouns and verbs as though an invisible prompter 
 had suggested words to each one. Philo attributed the 
 translation of the law to King Ptolemy Philadelphus (283- 
 247 B.C.), and says that it was carried out by men sent down 
 from Judea by the high priest. It was made, he thought, 
 on the island of Pharos, where stood the celebrated light- 
 house of Alexandria, and he says that down to his own day 
 an annual festival was held on that island, participated in 
 both by Jews and Gentiles, which, with thanksgiving to 
 God, commemorated the work of the translation of the 
 law — "that ancient piece of beneficence which was 
 always young and fresh." ^ 
 
 This account is mainly free from those marvellous 
 details which we find in Aristeas,* in Josephus,' and later 
 
 ' See Siegfried, op. cit., i. 144. 
 
 ' Vita Mosis, i. 7. s Iha., 2. 5-7. 
 
 * See Schvirer, Jewish People, ^i. 3. 306-312. Swete (Introduction to 
 the O. T. in Greek, p. 12) thinks that the Alexandrian tradition which 
 is represented in Philo may have been originally independent of the letter 
 of Aristeas. « See Antiq., 12. 2. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 39 
 
 in the Church Fathers,' and doubtless has a historical 
 basis. We may regard it as evidence that the Law was 
 done into Greek at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus,^ though it seems more probable that the 
 initiative was taken by the Jews than by the king.' Of the 
 translation of other parts of the Old Testament little is 
 known beyond these two facts, that the work was done with 
 varying degrees of excellence and that it was completed in 
 the second half of the second century before Christ.* 
 Thus in the time of Philo^ the Greek version of the Penta- 
 teuch was hallowed by an usage about as long as that which 
 was enjoyed by our King James Bible (1611-1881 a.d.). 
 Without it the work of Philo would have been impossible. 
 There was another and equally important preparation 
 for this "greatest of uninspired Jewish writers of old." 
 He had not only the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek, but he 
 
 ^ See, e.g., Augustin, De civ. dei, 18. 42. 
 
 ^ Frankel {Ueher den Einfiuss der paldstimschen Exegese auf die 
 alexandrinische Hermeneutik) extends the period in which the Penta- 
 teuch was translated as far as the close of the reign of Ptolemy Philopator 
 (204 B.C.). 
 
 ' Comp. Buhl, Kanon und Text des A.T., p. 116. 
 
 * The Prologue of Ben Sirach, about 130 B.C., makes it plain that the 
 Law, the Prophets, and part of the Hagiographa had been translated. 
 Swete (^Introduction to the O.T. in Greek) thinks it possible that some of the 
 Hagiographa may have been translated much later. See Nestle, article 
 " Septuagint," in Hastings' Bible Dictionary; Volk's article in the Schaff- 
 Herzog; Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, and Schiirer, 
 Jewish People, 2. 3. 159-168. 
 
 5 The only tolerably certain date of Philo's life is that of his mission to 
 the Roman emperor Caligula, which was probably in the winter of 39-40 
 A.D. He was then an elderly man (see Legatio ad Caium, i), whence is 
 inferred that he was born 30-20 B.C. (Zeller), or 20-10 B.C. (Schurer). 
 
40 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 had ready to hand a recognized principle of interpretation 
 by which, as elaborated and used by him, he was able to 
 make Moses and Plato teach the same doctrines. This 
 was the principle of allegorical interpretation. 
 
 The Stoic philosopher Heraclitus (dr. 500 B.C.) defined 
 allegory as the form of speech which says one thing, but 
 means another.^ He did not utterly set aside the literal 
 meaning of texts which he interpreted allegorically, but 
 regarded the hidden meaning as the all-important one. 
 By means of this method of interpretation the Greek philos- 
 ophers explained the poems of Homer and Hesiod. By 
 its aid they removed from the text all contradictions and 
 whatever seemed to them unworthy of the gods, and 
 derived from it their own philosophical views. Thus they 
 harmonized their philosophy with their sacred poets. 
 It was this venerable mode of handling ancient writings 
 and adapting them to later times which Philo used in his 
 great endeavor to interpret the Jewish religion to the Greek 
 world. 
 
 It is well known that Philo was not the first to put an alle- 
 gorical interpretation on the laws of Moses. Aristobulus, 
 who also was a Jewish philosopher and lived in Egypt 
 (150 B.C.), was put by Origen^ in the same class with 
 Philo as an allegorical interpreter of the Law ; and Pseudo- 
 Aristeas, whose letter to his brother Philocrates is regarded 
 by Gfrorer as much older than Philo ' and which Schurer 
 
 ' 6 yip aXXo /liv &yopeiav rpiiros, Irepa Si Sv Xfyei ariimlvuv, iiruviims 
 iXKifyopla fcaXeirai. 
 
 ' See Contra Celsum, 4. 31- 
 
 ' See his Philo und die jiidisch-alexandrinische Theosophie, 2. 61-71. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 41 
 
 confidently dates about 200 B.C.,' explained the law alle- 
 gorically. Thus he said that the unclean birds, whose flesh 
 was prohibited by Moses as a food, signified not only birds, 
 but also violent men, and that the passage about animals 
 that part the hoof taught that the Israelites should keep 
 themselves separate from the wicked.^ In the Wisdom 
 of Solomon, also, which was probably written in Egypt in 
 the first century B.C.,' we find an occasional allegorical 
 interpretation, as when the pillar of cloud and the pillar 
 of fire are said to have been manifestations of wisdom,^ 
 and the high priest's robe is regarded as a symbol of the 
 universe.' Siegfried held that allegorical interpretation 
 of the Old Testament was everywhere current among the 
 Hellenists in the first century before Christ." But though 
 Philo was not the first to read the Old Testament alle- 
 gorically, he was the first to do it on a large scale and with 
 distinguished ability. The principle long recognized and 
 widely current was given its most conspicuous illustration 
 in his writings. 
 
 There is yet another point which may best be noticed 
 here, before we consider somewhat more closely Philo's 
 interpretation of the Old Testament, and that is his view 
 
 ' See Jewish People, ^. 3. 310. 
 
 ' See Drummond, Philo Judaeus, i. 239. 
 
 ' See Schiirer, Jewish People, 2. 3. 230-237. 
 
 * Wisdom of Solomon, 10. 17. 
 
 ^Ibid., 18. 24. 
 
 ' On the relation of Philo to Palestinian interpretation, see Ritter, 
 Philo und die Halachah; Lauterbach, Philo's Relation to the Halakah, 
 Jewish Encyclopaedia ; Edersheim, Life and Timss of Jesus the Messiah, 
 vol. 2, Appendix 2 ; and Frankel, Einfitiss der paldstinischen Exegese 
 auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. 
 
42 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of inspiration, for this clearly conditioned the results 
 at which he arrived. Philo nowhere formally discusses the 
 subject of inspiration, nor does he intimate that his own con- 
 ception differed from that of his fellow-believers. It had 
 two conspicuous features. First and most important of 
 these was the passivity of the person inspired. Such a 
 person was thought to be in a kind of trance or frenzy ; all 
 that he said was strange to himself ; he was merely the 
 sounding instrument of God's voice, invisibly struck and 
 moved to sound by him.' The other conspicuous element 
 in Philo's view of inspiration was that its natural result 
 seemed to be the prediction of future events.^ Thus 
 Moses became inspired at the Red Sea that he might 
 foretell what was soon to befall the Egyptians and Israel, 
 and shortly before his death he became inspired and 
 foretold admirably what should happen to himself after 
 his death, relating how he died, though not yet having 
 died, how he was buried with no one present, plainly not 
 by mortal hands but by immortal powers, and how the 
 whole nation mourned for him with tears a whole month.' 
 As a consequence of the complete suppression of the 
 personality of the one inspired, all his words were wholly 
 true and without any imperfection. They were also filled 
 with a divine and infinite significance. This was most 
 clearly the case with Moses, whom Philo set apart by 
 
 ' See De migratione Abrahami, 7. 15 ; Quis rerum div. haeres, 52 ; and 
 De monorchia, 1.9. 
 
 ^ Gfrorer, op. cit., i. 54, seeks to distinguish two kinds of inspiration 
 in Philo, — ipiitiveia and Trpo^ijreio, — but no dear ground for the dis- 
 tinction appears. 
 
 ° Vita Mo sis, 3. 39. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 43 
 
 himself far above all other prophets. He was thought 
 to have been the most pious of men, and in return to have 
 been peculiarly honored by God, being made king, law- 
 giver, priest, and prophet.* Philo's estimate of the 
 uniqueness of Moses appears not only in the lofty epithets 
 applied to him, but also in the fact that the greater part of 
 his numerous works are based on the Pentateuch." It 
 nr-ed only be added that Philo regarded the Greek transla- 
 tion of the Hebrew original as no less fully inspired than 
 that. 
 
 Having now seen how the way for Philo's work was 
 prepared and how he thought of inspiration, we come to a 
 nearer view of his interpretation of the Old Testament. 
 It may be said, in general, that every word of Scripture 
 had for him two meanings, the literal and the allegorical." 
 There are instances where the literal meaning is rejected,* 
 and there are passages of the Law to which no allegorical 
 meaning is attached ; but the former are relatively few in 
 number, and the latter do not prove that Philo regarded 
 them as utterly devoid of allegorical significance." 
 
 These two meanings, the literal and the allegorical, were 
 in Philo's thought like the body and the soul;" and though 
 
 ' Vita Mosis, 3. 1, 24, 39. 
 
 ' It appears from Ryle's collection of Old Testament quotations in the 
 works of Philo that about -^ of them are from Genesis and all but -^ are 
 from the Pentateuch. See Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture. For a list 
 of Philo's works, see Schiirer, Jewish People, 2. 3. 327 f. 
 
 ' Quod deus sit immutabilis, 1 1 . 
 
 * Legis alleg., 2. 7. 
 
 ' See Zeller, Geschichte der griech. PhU., 3. 2. 347, note 6. 
 
 • De migratione Abrahami, 16. 
 
44 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 he did not ignore the former, his chief interest was plainly 
 in the latter. He tells us that he had a natural love of the 
 more recondite and laborious knowledge,' and this love 
 was deepened by his conviction that the sacred oracles 
 themselves urge the reader on to the pursuit of the alle- 
 gorical meaning.^ 
 
 Philo rejected the hteral sense of a Scripture text when 
 it appeared to be contradictory or unmeaning. Thus, 
 commenting on Gen. 2:1, he says that it is "altogether 
 silly to think that the world was created in six days, or 
 indeed in time at all." We must understand that Moses 
 is speaking not of a number of days, but that he merely 
 takes six in a symboUcal sense, as appropriate to the crea- 
 tion of mortal beings.' Thus he did away with the six 
 days of creation as completely as have modem scientists, 
 though in a more arbitrary manner. 
 
 A second illustration of the point under discussion is 
 afforded by Philo's treatment of Gen. 2 : 21-22, the story 
 regarding the origin of Eve. He declares it to be im- 
 possible to hold the literal s nse. "For how," he says, 
 "can any one beheve that out of the rib of a man there was 
 made a woman, or a human being at all ? What hindered 
 the Creator from making woman out of the earth as he 
 had made man? The one who made was the same, and 
 the material was almost interminable."* 
 
 Thus Philo regarded the literal sense of these words 
 as being inherently improbable. In this point, indeed, 
 modern scholars are in agreement with Philo — they 
 
 » De decalogo, i. » Legis alleg., 1. ij. 
 
 ' De plantatione Noe, 9. * Legis alleg., 2. 7. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 45 
 
 reject the literal sense. But they go with him no further. 
 They do not treat the passage in an arbitrary manner, nor 
 admit that its meaning is hidden. 
 
 To take yet another illustration. Philo declares that 
 the literal sense of the statement in Gen. 4: 17, that Cain 
 built a city, is "not onlystrange, but contrary to all reason." 
 For, in the first place, there were only three human beings 
 in existence at that time. They had no need of a city; 
 a small cave was a suf&cient abode. And then, indeed, Cain 
 could not have built the most trifling portion of a house 
 without the assistance of other men. Was he able alone to 
 cut stones and wood, to work in iron and brass, and to 
 throw the vast circumference of walls around the city? 
 Was he able to build up propylaea and temples and sacred 
 precincts and porticoes and docks and houses and all the 
 other public and private buildings which one is accustomed 
 to find in a city?* 
 
 Philo often rejected the literal sense of a passage of 
 Scripture not only because, as in the preceding instances, 
 it appeared to him irrational in itself, but also when it 
 seemed to be unworthy of God. Thus, he says it would be 
 "impiety," as well as "incurable folly," to suppose that 
 God literally planted a garden in Eden. For why should 
 he have done so ? That he might have pleasant dwelling 
 places? But even the whole world cannot be considered 
 a dwelling sufficient for God, the All Ruler. ^ Therefore 
 Philo rejected the literal sense of all anthropomorphic 
 
 • De posteritate Caini, 14. 
 
 ' Legis alleg., i. 14; De planlatione Noe, 8. 
 
46 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 language which is used of God in Scripture, and saw in it 
 only an allegorical meaning. 
 
 We have noticed the reasons which led Philo utterly to 
 set aside the obvious meaning of certain passages of the 
 Old Testament. It is to be added that, although the literal 
 sense of the text is usually allowed to stand, it is practically 
 lost sight of, because the hidden meaning is considered 
 far more glorious. The historical Abraham and Sarah, 
 Isaac and Jacob, even the Samuel of history, are all more 
 or less ghostly and unreal in Philo's writings, while the 
 allegorical ideas behind those names are brought vividly 
 forward. 
 
 It is plain that in his treatment of the Uteral sense of 
 Scripture Philo was a law unto himself. The same is true 
 of his allegorical interpretation. For though he speaks of 
 the rules and laws of allegorical speech,' it is quite evident 
 that we must take these terms as having had a very elastic 
 significance. Different allegorists derived from the same 
 text the most unlike meanings. Thus the tree of Ufe in 
 the garden clearly signified goodness to Philo, but others 
 said that it meant the heart.^ Some interpreters said that 
 the cherubim whom God set on the east of the garden of 
 Eden were symbols of the two hemispheres, which are 
 placed opposite to each other,' but according to Philo 
 they were symbols of God's creative and kingly power. 
 The emeralds on the shoulders of the high priest were 
 
 'De somniis, i. 13, 16-17. Siegfried, op. cit., makes out more than 
 twenty "laws" which governed Philo's interpretation. 
 ' Legis alleg., i. 18. 
 ' Vita Mosis, 3. 8. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 47 
 
 thought by some to mean the sun and moon, while Philo 
 saw in them the two hemispheres.^ 
 
 Another evidence of the vagueness of Philo's "rules" of 
 allegorical speech is the fact that they allowed him to 
 discover in a single word or passage of Scripture a 
 considerable number of wholly unrelated meanings. 
 To illustrate : Adam was told that he might eat freely of 
 every tree in the garden except one. Now this expression 
 "to eat freely" means either to take food as a wrestler 
 does, thoroughly masticating it, or it means to honor the 
 parents with understanding, or again it means to honor 
 God properly.^ Siegfried ^ has collected passages which 
 show that the name " Joseph" was interpreted by Philo in 
 no less than six ways, meaning, in one passage, "states- 
 man," in another "sophist," and in a third "materialist." 
 To the word "sun" are given such varying significations 
 as "human mind," "sensibiUty," the "divine word," 
 and the "invisible God."^ Yet one more illustration. 
 The words addressed to Adam, "Where art thou?" 
 admit, according to Philo, of being interpreted in many 
 ways. By altering the accent on the Greek particle ttou 
 (where), we get the positive statement "thou art some- 
 where," which teaches, by implication, that God is every- 
 where, while man is in some particular spot. Again, the 
 words may mean, "Where hast thou been?" i.e. "what 
 evils hast thou chosen?" And finally, the words may be 
 a simple question, to which the proper answer would be. 
 
 ' Vita Mosis, 3. 12. ' Op. cit., j.. 193. 
 
 * Legis alleg., i. 37. * De somniis, i. 13, 14, ij. 
 
48 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 "Nowhere," for "the soul of the wicked man has no place 
 to which it can go." ' 
 
 In view of these facts it is clear that Philo's "laws" of 
 allegorical interpretation were not of the nature of definite 
 scientific principles. This will appear further as we con- 
 sider his laws in detail. They are nowhere presented by 
 themselves ; Philo did not write on the science of inter- 
 pretation ; but they may be gathered from various parts of 
 his works. It will be sufficient to advert to the more 
 important of these so-called laws. 
 
 It has already been observed that, in Philo's thought, the 
 sacred oracles themselves most evidently conduct us toward 
 allegory. They are supposed to do this, in the first place, 
 by the repetition of a word or thought. Thus when a 
 heavenly voice called Abraham's name twice, it was to 
 turn him from the completion of the sacrifice,^ and when 
 the name "man" is spoken twice, it indicates that the 
 virtuous man is meant.' The pecuUar Hebrew expression, 
 "to die the death" means, according to Philo, the death of 
 the soul, which is accomplished when vice is admitted 
 into it.^ 
 
 Again, anything unexpected, whether in the form of a 
 word, or in its choice, or its position in the sentence, is a 
 plain indication to the wise man that we should search out 
 some hidden meaning. Why, e.g., since Cain was older than 
 Abel, is Abel mentioned first in Gen. 4:2? The answer is 
 plain to Philo. Moses wished to teach in this manner 
 that wickedness is older than virtue in point of time, but 
 
 ' Legis alleg., 3. 17. ' De gigantibiis, 8. 
 
 ^ De Abrahamo, 32. ■> Legis alleg., i. 33 ; De profugis, 10. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 49 
 
 younger in power and rank.' Further, when God changed 
 the name of Abraham's wife, it was only by the doubling 
 of a single letter,^ at which slight alteration, says Philo, 
 some foolish persons might laugh ; but one letter in this 
 case has the numerical value of one hundred, and this 
 number, he declares, has "begotten all harmony, for the 
 small it has made the great, for the particular the general, 
 for the mortal the immortal." "By a total change, God 
 transforms the part into the whole, the species into the 
 genus, the corruptible into the incorruptible."' 
 
 With this last illustration we have touched a third 
 important "law "of allegorical speech; namely, that num- 
 bers have a deep hidden meaning. Philo derived this doc- 
 trine from the Greek philosophers, in particular from the 
 Pythagoreans.^ True, he considered Moses the master 
 in this department of knowledge as in all others,^ and 
 doubtless thought that he was disclosing the lawgiver's 
 deeper meaning in his explanation of the numbers of the 
 Law; but, in reality, the hidden meaning of numbers is 
 wholly foreign to the Old Testament." Certain numbers 
 have there, it is true, a kind of sacredness, as seven, ten, 
 twelve^ and forty, but the sole ground of this sacredness 
 
 ' De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 4. 
 
 ^ Philo has the Greek forms in mind — oi K\n0'/i<reTai. rb Svo/ia aiTrjs 
 Sipa, dXXd 'S&ppa iarai, tA dco/io airijs. 
 
 ' Quaest. et sol. in Gen., 3. 53. 
 
 *See Zeller, Geschichte der griech. Phil, i. i. 343; 3. 2. 120, 391. 
 
 ' See, e.g., De opificio mundi, 43. 
 
 ' See Ed. Konig in Hastings' Bible Dictionary, article " Number.'' Sieg- 
 fried, op. cit., I. 16, thinks there is a slight basis for the allegorical inter- 
 pretation of numbers in Ezek. 4 : 4-8 and Dan. 9 : 24. 
 
50 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 is historical. It is not mathematical or philosophi- 
 cal.' 
 
 The investigation of numbers appealed to Philo most 
 deeply, and he never tired of drawing forth new and won- 
 drous thoughts from their Scripture use. He was the 
 equal, as Zeller says, of any Pythagorean. Yet he did not 
 altogether adopt the views of these philosophers. He 
 evidently did not regard ' number as the essence of all 
 things, the very substance and material of which all things 
 consist, or as the original thought of God ; and, naturally, 
 he could not consider numbers as gods and goddesses. 
 His monotheism forbade this. Yet he agreed with the 
 Pythagoreans in the meaning of many numbers, in the 
 significant relation of numbers to figures,^ and still more 
 in the arbitrary method of handling them. These points 
 will be illustrated as we proceed. There is perhaps no 
 element in Philo's interpretation which appears to us in 
 this age more utterly irrational and absurd than this 
 allegorizing of Scripture numbers, but there was certainly 
 none on which he himself dwelt so fondly. 
 
 Another of Philo's "laws" of allegory was to use the 
 etymologies of proper names. He usually started from 
 the Greek rendering of the Hebrew names, and proceeded 
 with the utmost freedom. His method and its results 
 may be sufficiently indicated by his handhng of the names 
 of the four rivers mentioned in Gen. 2 : 11-14. "Pishon" 
 he derives from a Greek verb (^etSo/uat) meaning to 
 spare, to abstain from, and he takes the word in the sense 
 
 'See Keil, Biblical Archmology, 1. 127, 133-137. 
 * See, e.g., De opificio mundi, 32. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 51 
 
 of prudence, for prudence abstains from iniquity. From 
 the name of the second river, "Gihon," Philo obtained, 
 by some unknown etymology, the two meanings chest 
 and hutting with the horns; and then taking these as 
 symbols, he interpreted Gihon to mean courage. Out of 
 "Tigris," the name of the third river of Eden, he derived 
 the meaning temperance, and in the following singular 
 manner. He took the word as identical with the Greek 
 for "tiger" (nypi^). The tiger he regarded as a symbol 
 of desire. Now as temperance has to do intimately with 
 desire, he concluded that the river denoted temperance. 
 The name "Euphrates" he derived from the Greek verb 
 to be glad (ev^paivco), and gave it the meaning fer- 
 tility, and from this he passed to the idea of "justice," 
 since this is most truly a fertile virtue.' Thus the four 
 rivers of the old record became, under the hand of Philo, 
 the four cardinal virtues — prudence, courage, temper- 
 ance, and justice ! 
 
 One other illustration of Philo's use of proper names 
 may be added for the sake of its ingeniousness. The 
 name "Terah," he says, means "the investigation of a 
 smell." Hence Terah, the father of Abraham, died, as was 
 fitting, in "Haran," which signifies the metropolis of the 
 outward senses, for he was merely an explorer of virtue, not 
 a citizen. He was not able to fill himself with wisdom, nor 
 indeed even to get a taste of it, but only to smell it.^ These 
 illustrations of Philo's treatment of proper names need not 
 be increased. They show that his method was fanciful 
 
 ' Legis alleg., i. 20-21. 
 ' De somniis, 9. 
 
52 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 and arbitrary in the extreme, and wholly without scientific 
 value. 
 
 There is yet one feature of Philo's allegorical interpre- 
 tation which we may suppose that he included when he 
 spoke of "laws." It is that all objects whatsoever have 
 each one its hidden meaning or meanings. Thus heaven 
 denotes mind ; earth, sensation.^ A field is the symbol of 
 revolt and contention, because battles usually take place 
 on open ground ; ^ irrational passions are symboUzed by 
 sheep ; ' a ring denotes, among other things, the form which 
 God stamps on the individual soul ; * a well is an emblem of 
 knowledge, for its nature is not superficial, but very deep ; ^ 
 the garment which was to be restored to a debtor before 
 sunset (Ex. 22:26) signified speech, for as a garment 
 is a kind of defensive armor, so speech is a most "im- 
 pregnable protection."" To these might be added scores 
 of illustrations, usually ingenious, sometimes suggestive, 
 always arbitrary. 
 
 Having now spoken of the most important "laws" of 
 allegorical interpretation to be found in the writings of 
 Philo, we will next cite a few instances of their practical 
 apphcation, that we may clearly see what the Old Testa- 
 ment became in his hands. On the fourth day of creation, 
 says Philo, after God had embellished the earth, he 
 diversified and adorned the heaven, and it is a matter of 
 endless significance to the interpreter that this was done 
 
 ' Legis alleg., 8. * De somniis, 2. 6. 
 
 ' De eo quod, det. pot. insidiatur, i. * Ibid., 1. .i. 
 ' De plantatione Noe, 10. " Ibid., i. 17. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 53 
 
 on the fourth day.' This number is the origin and source 
 of the "all-perfect decade," for the numerals from one to 
 four, when added together, make ten. Four comprehends 
 the principles of the harmonious concords in music; 
 four displays the nature of the solid cube; it is the first 
 number which is a square; it was the foundation of the 
 creation of the whole heaven and the whole world; the 
 four elements and the four seasons flowed from it "as 
 from a fountain." 
 
 Again, the most weighty detail in the entire account of 
 creation was, according to Philo, the statement that God 
 hallowed the seventh day. More than one-fifth of his 
 treatise is devoted to an unfolding of the meaning of this 
 number. Philo doubts whether any one is able to celebrate 
 its nature in an adequate manner.^ It has "great sanc- 
 tity"; it is the only thing free from motion and accident; 
 it displays a "great and comprehensive power"; it im- 
 proves all terrestrial things and even the periods of the 
 moon.' Man's Ufe falls into divisions of seven years; 
 the constellation of the Bear has seven stars, which guide 
 the sailor by innumerable paths across the sea ; the Pleiads 
 are seven; the dominant part of the mind is divided into 
 seven parts ; the external members of the body are seven, 
 likewise the internal members ; there are seven changes of 
 the voice, seven motions of which we are capable, and 
 dangerous diseases are decided about the seventh day.* 
 In view of such facts this number was honored by the 
 greatest of the Greeks and of the barbarians who were 
 
 ' De opificio mundi, 14, 15, 16. ' Ibid., 33, 34. 
 
 ' Ibid., 30. * Ibid., 35, 39, 40, 41. 
 
54 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 devoted to mathematics. Moses, too, held it in highest 
 esteem. 
 
 In his Life of Moses, after describing the dress of the 
 high priest, Philo explains its meaning substantially as 
 follows : The whole is a copy of the world ; the tunic is the 
 air ; the flowers are the earth ; the pomegranates are water ; 
 the bells are an emblem of the harmony that exists between 
 the foregoing things ; and the mantle over the shoulders 
 is an emblem of heaven. For this last item in his interpre- 
 tation the author says that he is able to bring forth twenty 
 probable reasons.^ In Gen. 7 : 9 the water of the Flood 
 is said to have covered the highest mountains to a depth of 
 fifteen cubits. This statement, says Philo, must be taken 
 allegorically. The loftier mountains represent the senses, 
 because they are allowed to occupy the abode of stabiHty 
 in the lofty region of the head. Now there are five of the 
 senses, and each is threefold ; thus we get the fifteen 
 cubits. And the overwhelming of the mountains signifies 
 that the senses are destroyed by the influx of vice.^ 
 
 Again, the question is asked why the woman first ate 
 of the tree and the man afterwards, receiving the fruit from 
 her, and it is answered in this manner : The letter, by its 
 own intrinsic force, asserts that it was suitable that immor- 
 tality and every good thing should be represented as under 
 the power of the man, but death and every evil under that 
 of the woman. Understood symbolically, the woman is 
 sense, the man is intellect. Now as the senses touch those 
 things which are perceptible by them, and as the intellect 
 
 ' Vita Mosis, 3. 12. 2 Quaest. et sol., 2. 21. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 55 
 
 is influenced by the senses, so it was necessary that the 
 woman should eat first -and man afterwards, receiving the 
 fruit from her/ 
 
 These illustrations of Philo's exegesis must suffice, and 
 we proceed to some general concluding remarks. And, 
 in the first place, it must be said that this exegesis is 
 characterized by an utter lack of the sense of proportion. 
 This is seen, e.g., in the fact that what is incidental is 
 treated as essential, and the essential is often utterly ignored 
 or is treated as incidental. Philo does not see the forest 
 for the trees. The historical significance of great charac- 
 ters, like Abraham, is lost in a multitude of fanciful details. 
 An insignificant number receives more attention than a 
 moral principle or the creation of the universe. Again, the 
 lack of proportion is seen in the fact that Philo took almost 
 no account of the devotional parts of the Old Testament, or 
 of the Prophets. For him Moses was the perfect inter- 
 preter of the divine will. He had no appreciation of a 
 growth of revelation after the time of Moses. If he men- 
 tioned the Prophets, it was simply as disciples of the law- 
 giver. It is obvious, therefore, that, as an interpreter of 
 the Old Testament, Philo was extremely partial and frag- 
 mentary. 
 
 In the second place, his exegesis was characterized by 
 two presuppositions, either one of which alone must have 
 seriously detracted from its value, and which, taken 
 together, made it quite impossible for him soundly to in- 
 terpret the vmtings of the Old Testament. These pre- 
 suppositions were, first, that the words of Scripture have a 
 
 ' Quaest. et sol., i. 37. 
 
56 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 twofold sense, and second, that they were miraculously 
 inspired. In working out the first of these presuppositions, 
 Philo became the master of all who, abandoning the plain 
 sense of the text or slighting it, have substituted for it a 
 sense purely imaginary.' The second presupposition was 
 not more conspicuous in his writings than in the aver- 
 age Christian commentator during the next fifteen cen- 
 turies. 
 
 And finally, Philo's exegesis was everywhere strongly 
 colored by his philosophical conceptions. As has been 
 said already, he beUeved that the Greek philosophers 
 derivM their true doctrines from Moses. Therefore his 
 interpretation of Moses is full of views borrowed from 
 classic writings. Philo is the master of all who have read 
 into the Bible what they have brought from elsewhere. 
 To show how fully he did this would require a survey of 
 his entire philosophical system, but a very brief statement 
 will sufiice to establish the fact itseK. We have shown 
 above that the Greek doctrine of the hidden significance of 
 numbers was regarded by Philo as a part of the excellent 
 knowledge of the Hebrew lawgiver. The same is true of 
 the Platonic doctrine of ideas. Before God created the 
 visible world, he created one which is perceptible only by 
 the intellect, an incorporeal model of the world which is 
 seen.^ Accordingly, every object perceived by the senses 
 was made in the image of a preexistent invisible pattern. 
 Before God created man upon the earth, he fashioned an 
 archetypal heavenly man in whom there was no corruptible 
 
 ' Comp. Zeller, Geschkhte der griech. Phil., 3. 2. 351. 
 ' De opificio mundi, 4. 
 
PHILO AS INTERPRETER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 57 
 
 element.^ Or take the many-sided Logos doctrine of 
 Philo. Whatever kinship there may be at certain points 
 between this doctrine and "wisdom" in Proverbs or the 
 "Memra" of later Jewish writings, it certainly has no 
 clear starting-point in the Pentateuch. But Philo uses this 
 conception freely in his interpretation of Moses. Thus 
 he represents the lawgiver as teaching that the human mind 
 was made in the similitude of the Logos; ^ that the Logos 
 is the interpreter of God ; ' that he is an archangel, neither 
 created nor uncreated, an ambassador from God to the 
 subject race of mankind, and a suppliant to God on behalf 
 of mortals.* In this doctrine, though something may be 
 attributed to the speculative mind of Philo, we have in the 
 main Greek conceptions. 
 
 For the present purpose it is not necessary to continue 
 these illustrations. In his doctrine of God and the soul, 
 and in his ethics, Philo's interpretation of the Pentateuch 
 has been fructified by Greek philosophy. For this 
 reason, therefore, as well as for the two fundamental 
 reasons previously mentioned, the work of the famous 
 Alexandrian, whose vast influence on the Christian Church 
 we shall notice in subsequent chapters, was without real 
 value as an aid to the understanding of the Old Testament. 
 
 ' Quaest. et sol., 1.4; Legisalleg., 1. 12. ' De nominibus, 3. 
 
 ' Quaest. et sol., 2. 62. * Quis rerum div., etc., 42. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 
 
 /. The Interpretation of the Old Testament by Jesus 
 
 The scene in the Temple at Jerusalem where Jesus, 
 now twelve years of age, sat among the leading Jewish 
 rabbis, both hearing them and asking them questions, and 
 amazing them by his understanding of Scripture, clearly 
 indicates that here was a boy on whose mind the Old 
 Testament had exercised a very unusual power. For 
 before the curtain falls on this striking scene in the Temple, 
 we hear certain words of Jesus spoken to his mother, 
 which plainly suggest that his knowledge of the Old 
 Testament was not simply an acquaintance with its letter, 
 but was rather a spiritual understanding of its content 
 (Luke 2 : 46-50). He speaks of being engaged in the 
 things of his "Father" — an intimation, surely, that as 
 he had read the Old Testament by the hght of his pure 
 heart, he had found there the fatherhood of God, that 
 truth which was to determine his entire career. Thus 
 this early scene suggests what the pubUc ministry of Jesus 
 abundantly confirms, that the knowledge which surprised 
 the great doctors was a knowledge which penetrated 
 beneath the letter of Scripture into its vital revelation. 
 If this be true, then the glimpse which Luke gives into 
 
 58 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 59 
 
 the boyhood of Jesus justifies us in anticipating that this 
 same person, grown to manhood and appearing as a 
 religious teacher in Israel, will inaugurate a new epoch 
 in the interpretation of the ancient writings of his nation/ 
 
 The personal attitude of Jesus toward the institutions 
 of the Law is a valuable source of information regarding 
 the method and results of his exegesis, for his interpretation 
 was never professional, but altogether practical. From 
 the point of view of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus, dur- 
 ing his pubUc ministry, certainly appeared to be in large 
 measure a lawless man. That part of the religious ordi- 
 nances that he kept was much less than that which he 
 did not keep. This latter class of ordinances were not 
 found in the written law, it is true, but they were regarded 
 as its authoritative interpretation, and hence as absolutely 
 binding on the conscience. It had come to pass that the 
 "hedge" was more sacred than the Law around which it 
 was set, the words of the wise sweeter than the wine of the 
 Torah. The authority of the scribe had become superior 
 to that of the written law.^ 
 
 By Jesus, however, this oral law was sharply discrimi- 
 nated from Scripture. He referred to it as a plant that 
 his heavenly Father had not planted, and which for that 
 reason should be rooted up (Matt. 15 : 13). In some 
 instances he regarded the traditions as diametrically 
 
 ' This prophecy of Jesus' boyhood was fulfilled, as we shall see, and 
 yet to this day his exegesis of the Old Testament has been almost entirely 
 ignored. It has been treated indiscriminately with that of the New Testa- 
 ment writers. 
 
 ^See Weber, Mdische Theologie, pp. 105-109, 125-134; Mark 
 7 : 11-12. 
 
6o THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 opposed to the commandment of God, so that the trans- 
 gression of the commandment was a necessary conse- 
 quence of loyalty to the tradition {e.g. Matt. 15 : 3-6). 
 He spoke of the rites imposed by the scribes and Pharisees 
 as a heavy burden and grievous to be borne (Matt. 23 : 4; 
 comp. Acts 15 : 11). The typical' Pharisee was a man 
 whose religion he rated very low {e.g. Luke 18 : 9-14; 
 Matt. 23 : 13-36). Thus Jesus stood forth even from 
 the beginning of his ministry as one who made a sweep- 
 ing and fundamental discrimination between the current 
 interpretation of Scripture and the Scripture itself. He 
 claimed the right to go to the sources. In this procedure 
 he was doubtless guided, not by any critical knowledge 
 of the unlike origins of the oral and the written law, but 
 solely by his spiritual insight. The significance of this 
 appeal of Jesus to the Old Testament itself, rejecting the 
 immemorial traditions of the Jewish Church, is not to be 
 underestimated in any attempt to judge of him as an 
 interpreter of the sacred writings of his people. The fact 
 of this appeal raised him far above all the rabbis of his 
 nation, and was the first step toward a valid estimate of 
 the Old Testament. The movement in the modern 
 Church to turn away from all traditional theology and to 
 go back to a fresh study of Scripture as the basis of its 
 belief, though not directly due to the example of Jesus, 
 is certainly in full accord with it. 
 
 ' In Berachoth seven classes of Pharisees are described, of which only 
 one is wholly commended, viz., the class who, like Abraham, fulfil the 
 law out of love. There may well have been some men in the time of Jesus 
 who belonged to this class. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 6l 
 
 But the bold act of Jesus in disregarding the oral law 
 was hardly less striking than the character of his inter- 
 pretation of the written law. Consider first that inter- 
 pretation which is conspicuously made known in his life. 
 Jesus recognized, indeed, the divine institution of the 
 Sabbath, but took at the same time such a liberal view 
 of it that a deadly hostility toward him was the result. 
 He held quite positively that man is greater than the 
 Sabbath (Mark 2 : 27), therefore he did not hesitate to 
 continue his ministry of healing on that day, nor did he 
 restrain his disciples from plucking heads of grain to 
 satisfy their hunger. This act he thought to be well 
 within the scriptural understanding of Sabbath obser- 
 vance. For the story of David (i Sam. 21 : 1-6), who ate 
 the shewbread contrary to the letter of Lev. 24 : 9, teaches 
 that human need, such as his disciples had experienced, 
 is of more importance than the statute regarding the 
 shewbread, and so by parity of reasoning of more impor- 
 tance than the statutes regarding the Sabbath. And, in 
 the judgment of Jesus, his disciples were also sheltered 
 by the Old Testament principle that God prefers mercy 
 to sacrifice (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; Hos. 6:1); in other 
 words, that the law of the Sabbath is plainly subordinated 
 to the higher law of mercy.' 
 
 Not without significance in its bearing on the exegetical 
 method of Jesus is the argument with which he justified 
 his healing of a cripple on the Sabbath, for which act the 
 
 ' Even the critics of Jesus recognized the validity of this principle (e.g. 
 Luke 14: 1-6; Matt. 12 : 11-12), but were not consistent in its applica- 
 tion. 
 
62 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Jews were persecuting him (John 5:9-18). On this 
 occasion he insisted on an interpretation of the Sabbath 
 law in the light of God's own example. "My Father 
 worketh even until now," said he, "and I work," that is 
 to say, the Father works on the Sabbath.' Thus the 
 revelation of God in Nature and life furnished, at least 
 in one instance, a guide for the interpretation of a writ- 
 ten statute; and the fact that Jesus appealed to this 
 revelation is one of the evidences that his interpreta- 
 tion of the law rested on profound and comprehensive 
 thought. 
 
 Noticeable in this connection is Jesus' treatment of 
 lepers. On two occasions (Mark 1:44; Luke 17:14) 
 he directed persons whom he had cured of leprosy to go 
 to the priests and perform the statutory rites. They were 
 not to imagine that the extraordinary method of their 
 cure released them from their ordinary obligations as 
 Israelites. It should be noticed, however, that, while 
 Jesus here recognized the statute regarding leprosy, he 
 did not rebuke that leper who, contrary to the law, had 
 come into the house where he was lodging, nor did he 
 rebuke the Samaritan leper who, before he had been 
 ceremonially cleansed of his leprosy, came into his pres- 
 ence, which also was against the statute (Lev. 13:45-46; 
 14). We may suppose that, in one case, the man's trust, 
 in the other, his gratitude, atoned in the sight of Jesus 
 for an infraction of the letter of the law. 
 
 ' The rabbis in their glorification of the Torah went so far as to affirm 
 that God observes all the statutes of the Sabbath. See Weber, Judiscke 
 Theologie, pp. 17-18. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 63 
 
 Thus it appears ' that Jesus recognized the institutions 
 of the Law as clothed with sacred authority, but that his 
 interpretation of the statutes regarding them was in a 
 remarkably broad and liberal spirit.^ He supported his 
 interpretation not only out of the Scriptures, recognizing 
 there a higher and a lower, and interpreting Scripture by 
 Scripture, but he supported it also by appeals to the 
 reason, the experience, and the moral instincts of man. 
 
 The method of interpreting the Old Testament which is 
 thus reflected in the life of Jesus also runs through his 
 teaching. It is to be noticed here at the outset that Jesus 
 regarded the Law and the Prophets, that is, the entire 
 Old Testament (Matt. 7:12; Luke 16:29), as con- 
 stituting a true unity. He summed up the ethical teach- 
 ing of both in the single principle that we should do to 
 others as we would have them do to us (Matt. 7:12); 
 and again, in regard to the two commandments enjoining 
 love to God and love toward the neighbor, he declared 
 that all the prophets, no less than the entire law, hang 
 upon them (Matt. 22:40; Deut. 6:4-5; Lev. 19:18). 
 According to this declaration, the main divisions of the 
 Old Testament were unified, in the thought of Jesus, 
 by a common ethical teaching. We may also say that 
 they were unified for him by a common Messianic element, 
 for it is plain that he found such an element both in the 
 Law and in the Prophets {e.g. Matt. 5 : 12 ; Luke 24: 27 ; 
 John 5:46). 
 
 ' For further illustrations, see Matt. 17: 24-27; Mark 14 : 12-25. 
 
 ' Dr. Sanders, in his introduction to MacFarland's Jesus and the 
 Prophets, well says of Jesus that he was "the first free spiritual ex- 
 pounder of the Scriptures." 
 
64 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Thus, notwithstanding the wide differences between 
 law and prophecy, which Jesus surely appreciated more 
 fully by far than any other student of the Bible has ever 
 done, and notwithstanding the ethical imperfections of 
 the Law, which he pointed out, especially in the Sermon 
 on the Mount, the Old Testament was to him an organic 
 whole. 
 
 Again, the Old Testament, taken as a whole, was re- 
 garded by Jesus as containing a divine revelation. Moses 
 and the Prophets, he said in the parable of the Rich Man 
 and Lazarus, were sufficient to teach mercy and to show 
 one the way to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:29). His 
 own instruction often echoed that of the Old Testament. 
 Thus what he said of the meek and of those who mourn, 
 of the merciful and the pure in heart, has parallels more 
 or less complete in the Psalms and the Prophets.' 
 The principle of love which he recognized as the culmi- 
 nation of Old Testament teaching was fundamental in 
 his own life and words. Even Moses' seat he recognized 
 as a seat of authority (Matt. 23 : 2), and warned men 
 against imagining that he had come to antagonize the 
 old order, as though it were not of God (Matt. 5: 17). 
 The fact that he represented his own teaching as a 
 development or fulfilment of the old order, implies that, 
 in his thought, Moses and the Prophets were channels of 
 divine revelation, even as he was. 
 
 But though Jesus recognized a certain unity in the Old 
 Testament, and saw in it a divine revelation, he did not 
 regard it as a homogeneous book, each part of which was as 
 
 ' See, e.^., Ps. 37: 11; Is. 61:1-2; 2 Sam. 22:26; Ps. 24:4. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 65 
 
 good and as true as any other part. Superior to all the 
 ceremonial commandments, such as circumcision, sacri- 
 fices, tithes, and feasts, was the injunction to love God and 
 the fellow-man. This same broad distinction between the 
 ethical and the ceremonial elements in the Old Testament 
 is seen in Christ's arraignment of the Pharisees (Matt. 23). 
 He charged them with hypocrisy because they were 
 scrupulous in tithing even mint, anise, and cummin, while 
 at the same time they neglected justice, mercy, and faith. 
 These things were "weightier," he said, than the others, 
 and their observance therefore more important. 
 
 And Jesus not only distinguished between the ethical and 
 the ceremonial, but also between various ethical elements. 
 While there were some precepts, as we have already seen, 
 which he wholly welcomed, there were others which he 
 unhesitatingly set aside as affording no adequate standard 
 for the members of his kingdom (e.g. Matt. 5 : 31-32). 
 The practice of divorce, sanctioned by the law in view of 
 the hardness of man's heart, he condemned as immoral 
 (Matt. 5 : 32), and a principle not found in the legislative 
 part of the Pentateuch was declared to be the true stand- 
 ard (Gen. 2 : 24). Hatred of enemies, which seemed to 
 be involved in Lev. 19 : 18 and which was also contained 
 in "the spirit of the Israelitish law" in general, he not 
 only discountenanced, but taught that it was the exact 
 opposite of what God wished for man. In the Sermon 
 on the Mount he clearly asserted that the ethics of the 
 Decalogue were quite too rudimentary to be suitable for 
 his kingdom (e.g. Matt. 5: 21-26, 27-28, 33-37). 
 
 In view of such facts as these, it admits of no question 
 
66 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 that, if an infallible book is one that contains no imper- 
 fections in its teaching, Jesus cannot be cited as a witness 
 for the inf alhbiUty of the Old Testament ; and if an inspired 
 book is one whose statements are all true and all fit together, 
 forming a symmetrical whole, then he cannot be cited as 
 a witness for the inspiration of the Old Testament. This 
 doctrine of inspiration and infalhbility, so long and so 
 vigorously supported as a corner-stone of the Christian 
 religion, is flatly against the conception of Scripture which 
 Jesus entertained. 
 
 It remains to speak of Jesus' interpretation of. the 
 Messianic element in the Old Testament. This was as 
 widely different from the current views, both in method 
 and result, as was his interpretation of Old Testament 
 law and ethics. He saw in the Scriptures a foreshadowing 
 of his life and work, but he saw no predictions. He saw 
 a Messiah foreshadowed who was not a king on David's 
 throne, but an itinerant prophet, a man with no other 
 authority than the authority of the truth, one who was to 
 sacrifice everything to bring home to men the love of 
 God. 
 
 The nature and extent of this Old Testament fore- 
 shadowing appears when we consider some of the words 
 of Jesus. On a certain occasion Jesus read, in the syna- 
 gogue at Nazareth, the opening verses of Is. 6i and 
 declared their fulfilment in him (Luke 4: 18-21). Now 
 it is obvious that the Old Testament author of this passage 
 was himself divinely anointed to preach glad tidings unto 
 the meek. His words prove that the Spirit of Jehovah 
 rested abundantly upon him. They cannot, therefore, 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 67 
 
 have referred in any exclusive sense to the coming Messiah, 
 and there is no indication that Jesus saw in them such a 
 predictive reference. He simply knew in himself that he 
 could translate the old vision into life as it had never yet 
 been translated. In this sense he was conscious of ful- 
 filling it. 
 
 It is a fact full of significance that when the Baptist 
 sent from his prison to ask Jesus whether he was indeed 
 the coming one, the Master gave him an indirect answer, 
 telling the messengers to inform John of what he was 
 doing and leaving him to draw his own inference (Matt. 
 11:2-6). But that which Jesus was just then doing 
 corresponded in a marvellous manner to certain visions 
 of Isaiah {e.g., chap. 35) regarding the blessing which Jeho- 
 vah would some day bring to his people. We cannot say 
 that it corresponded as face answers to face in a glass, for 
 the realization was far more glorious than the vision. It is 
 to be noticed also that there was nothing in the corre- 
 spondence that could compel belief in the Messiahship of 
 Jesus even on the part of one who, like the Baptist, was 
 longing for certainty. "Blessed is he," said Jesus, 
 "whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbhng in me." 
 It was possible, therefore, for any one to see these works 
 of Jesus, even any one who was acquainted mth the 
 Messianic hope of the Old Testament, and yet not to 
 accept him as the Messiah. 
 
 The Messianic fulfilment which Jesus gave was plainly 
 not of the nature of a rigorous demonstration. One man 
 might see in him a convincing realization of certain Old 
 Testament pictures of the coming Dehverer, and another 
 
68 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 might discover an equally convincing lack of such a realiza- 
 tion. To the Jews of Jesus' own day, with the partial 
 exception of a small circle of followers, he did not answer 
 to the Old Testament expectations. This fact clearly 
 indicates that the prophetic pictures of the Messianic 
 deliverance were various in character and susceptible of 
 widely varying interpretations, and it indicates also that 
 the ministry of Jesus was not a Uteral fulfilment of any 
 of these various pictures. 
 
 The most frequent Messianic references which Jesus 
 made to the Old Testament are found in connection with 
 the thought of his death.^ And yet the allusions of Jesus 
 to his death do not all have Messianic associations. He 
 sometimes spoke of his death as the ordinary fate of a 
 prophet. The " beloved son " in the parable of the Wicked 
 Husbandmen is but the last of a series of messengers who 
 have been wounded or killed (Mark 12 : 1-8). And 
 again, when Jesus said that a prophet could not perish 
 out of Jerusalem (Luke 13 : 33), he evidently thought 
 of his death at the hands of his countrymen as being 
 only that which the bitter experience of a long line of 
 prophets might lead him to expect. 
 
 Of those allusions which have a Messianic color some 
 are general, not pointing to any particular Old Testament 
 
 ' Hiihn, Die alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im N.T. 
 p. 269, counts fourteen passages cited by Jesus as Messianic, four of which 
 are in John, but says that he applied directly to himself only six of these 
 at the most, viz., those which speakof "the acceptable year," the "corner 
 stone," of being "hated without ground," of being "reckoned with trans- 
 gressors,'' of the "shepherd," and "David's Lord," 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 69 
 
 passage.' No one of these goes beyond the simple thought 
 of rejection and suffering. The four Old Testament 
 passages concerning the Messiah's fate, to which Jesus 
 alluded in such a manner that we are able to identify them, 
 are all likewise general in character. Two of them contain 
 the idea of rejection, but not necessarily of death.'' The 
 others when taken with their context imply death.' No 
 one of these four is of the nature of a prediction regarding 
 the Messiah. 
 
 The passage in Psahns in regard to the rejected "stone" 
 records an experience, primarily, though it is uncertain 
 whose experience. It is Messianic in the sense that what 
 the psahnist said of himself, or of Israel, or of the faithful 
 in Israel, was appUcable in the highest degree to Jesus. 
 He also was rejected and was afterward made the corner- 
 stone of God's living temple. In like manner, the narra- 
 tive of Jonah describes an experience (in the main imagi- 
 nary, if not entirely so). It tells what befell a certain 
 prophet, and the unique fate of this man was taken by 
 Jesus as in some sense parallel to his own. The sign which 
 should be given to his generation was to be a Jonah-sign. 
 But what was that ? Luke gives no answer to this question, 
 nor does Matthew in 16:4. In Matt. 12:38-42 the 
 sign is made to consist in the episode of the sea-monster.' 
 
 'There are perhaps only five of these, viz., Mark 9:12; 14:21; 
 8:31; Matt. 26:54; Luke 24:44. 
 
 ^Ps. 118; Jonah 1:17. — Matt. 12:38-42; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32; 
 Matt. 21 : 42. 
 
 ^Is. S3; Zech. 13. — Luke 22:37; Matt. 26:31. 
 
 * Clemen, Der Gebrauch des AT. in den neutestamentlichen Schriften, 
 p. 24, defends this explanation. 
 
7o THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Had these words, however, been a part of the original tradi- 
 tion, it would be strange that Luke did not incorporate 
 them in his narrative. But further, the wholly spiritual 
 use which Jesus uniformly made of the prophets increases 
 one's inclination to seek the meaning of the "sign" else- 
 where than in the passage about the sea-monster. Jesus 
 may well have seen a general parallel between his mission 
 and that of Jonah. As this prophet had been sent to 
 preach to Nineveh, so he, too, had been sent to men with a 
 message of repentance and pardon. Now the apparent 
 failure of the divine purpose in the case of the elder prophet 
 and the ultimate realization of that purpose, may have 
 suggested to Jesus — when, through the increasing hostiUty 
 of the Jews, the time was ripe for such a suggestion — that 
 his own temporary defeat would be followed by triumph. 
 In this manner, at least, the use of the "sign" would be 
 intelligible. But even if Matthew's words be adopted as 
 giving the thought of Jesus, it is plain that they are not 
 predictive, for Jonah in the story did not die, but the 
 Jesus of history did. 
 
 The prophecy in Zechariah (13: 7) was cited by Jesus 
 in illustrative justification of what he had just said about 
 the scattering of his disciples. It was not adduced as a 
 Scripture foreshadowing of his own death. The fifty-third 
 chapter of Isaiah appears to have been alluded to when 
 Jesus said that he must be numbered with transgressors. 
 Yet he cited this word as one that might apply to many 
 others as well as to himself. How Jesus regarded this 
 chapter of Isaiah as a whole, in what sense he thought 
 it prophetic of himself, we cannot infer from this citation. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 7 1 
 
 Such were the words of Jesus regarding a Messianic 
 element in the Old Testament. He saw there foreshadow- 
 ings of his work and fate, but these foreshadowings were 
 general in character. He saw them in the unrealized 
 aspirations of the great teachers of Israel, in the unfulfilled 
 visions of God's reign among men. He saw them in the 
 fate of the prophets in whose line he was conscious that 
 he himself stood. But there is no evidence that Jesus 
 saw a predictive element in the Old Testament; no evi- 
 dence that, in his thought, any Old Testament author had 
 foreseen his historical appearance, the circumstances of his 
 ministry, his death and resurrection. According to his 
 view, the Messianic foreshadowing was altogether unlike 
 the idea of prediction. It was spiritual, not outward and 
 mechanical. It belonged to the ancient revelation in its 
 entirety, to the Law and the Psalms as well as to the 
 Prophets: it was by no means Umited to a number of 
 specific sayings which mentioned the coming one, or were 
 supposed to give details of his ministry. 
 
 The Messianic foreshadowing of the old revelation, 
 according to Jesus, consisted in its imperfection coupled 
 with its longing for a more perfect manifestation of God ; 
 and therefore, as Jesus was the conscious possessor of a 
 perfect knowledge of the divine will, he was able perfectly 
 to appreciate this foreshadowing. His new interpretation 
 of the Messianic element in the Old Testament was not 
 based on a historical knowledge unlike that of his day 
 and superior to it, but rather on his spiritual vision. 
 He knew the prophets because he was himself a prophet ; 
 he understood their aspirations, for his own were Uke 
 them, only deeper and more pure. 
 
72 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 And what qualified Jesus to interpret the Messianic 
 element in the Old Testament, let it be said in conclusion, 
 was his chief qualification also for the interpretation of all 
 besides this element. He did not have a critical knowledge 
 of Hebrew or Greek, or the origin of the Old Testament 
 writings. He apparently accepted the current Aramaic 
 and Greek translations of the Old Testament, even as others 
 did. Of what in modern times is regarded as technical 
 qualification for scientific exegesis, he had, of course, no 
 more than had the generation to which he belonged. But 
 the lack of critical knowledge was more than outweighed by 
 his unique spiritual penetration, by his perfect compre- 
 hension of the scope of the entire Old Testament, and by 
 his unerring judgment of moral values.^ With this spirit- 
 ual equipment he gave, even in the midst of an uncritical 
 and unhistorical age, an interpretation of the Old Testa- 
 ment, of the great and vital questions of revelation, which, 
 in its proportion, its appreciation of the past, and in the 
 certainty of its results, still furnishes to Christian scholar- 
 ship an unapproached ideal. 
 
 ' This spiritual equipment saved the interpretation of Jesus from the 
 errors of the rabbis. Clemen, op. cit., p. 60, asserts that there is not a 
 single instance of artificial rabbinic exegesis, or a historically false ap- 
 plication, in all the quotations of Jesus from the O. T. Some may regard 
 this statement as a little too sweeping in view of Matt. 22 : 37 (comp. Toy, 
 Quotations in the N. T., pp. 59-60), but it is hardly possible to lay too 
 much emphasis on the true exegetical value of the equipment of Jesus. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 73 
 
 //. Interpretation of the Old Testament by the Writers of 
 the New 
 
 The authors of the New Testament may be represented, 
 for our present purpose, by Paul, the first and fourth evan- 
 geHsts, and the unknown man or woman who composed 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. These four make by far the 
 largest use of the Old Testament,' and since we judge of 
 the exegesis of New Testament writers chiefly by their 
 quotations from the Old Testament, the writers designated 
 afford ample ground for a satisfactory view of the earliest 
 Christian interpretation. There are no characteristics 
 of that interpretation which are not found in them. 
 
 These writers whose exegesis we are to consider, and all 
 other New Testament writers as well, interpreted the Old 
 Testament at second hand, through the Greek translation, 
 probably to some extent also through an Aramaic version, 
 and not directly from the Hebrew original.^ It is doubtful 
 whether any New Testament writer except Paul was ac- 
 quainted with Hebrew, and in seven cases out of eight 
 
 ' Swete, Introduction to the O. T. in Greek, p. 386, counts approximately 
 160 quotations from the O. T. in the New, and of these much the larger 
 part are found in the four writers mentioned above. To Paul are ascribed 
 78 quotations, to Matthew 46, to John 12, and to Hebrews 28. Hiihn, Die 
 alttestamentlichen Citate, etc., p. 269, with a somewhat different standard, 
 counts 286 quotations, of which he ascribes 88 to Paul, 52 to Matthew, 15 
 to John, and 36 to Hebrews. Bohl, AUtestamentliche Citate im AT. T., 
 finds but 1 7 quotations in the Catholic Epistles and one in the Apocalypse. 
 
 ^ On the literary significance of this dependence on the Septuagint, see 
 Swete, op. cit., p. 404. 
 
74 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 he followed the Septuagint,' sometimes even when that 
 rendering is seriously defective. This fact brings out one 
 broad difference between the exegesis of Paul's day and 
 that of the present. No interpreter of that time seems 
 to have thought it questionable to depend on a translation 
 of the Old Testament, while at present no interpreter 
 would have weight who did not go to the original sources. 
 The historical sense was practically wanting in New Testa- 
 ment times. As one has said, scientific interpretation is 
 as truly a human and modem science as astronomy or 
 chemistry.^ But we cannot demand of the New Testament 
 writers that their exegesis should be in advance of their 
 times. It is to be regarded as a product of the first century 
 and estimated simply at its intrinsic worth. 
 
 One other general remark should be made in this place. 
 The New Testament writers, with perhaps only one ex- 
 ception, were Jews, yet their exegesis was not just the same 
 as that of their Jewish contemporaries who did not accept 
 Jesus as the Messiah. The New Testament writers were 
 not deeply influenced, as will appear in the course of this 
 chapter, by Jesus' own method of using the Old Testament, 
 but still their general point of view was radically changed 
 by him. He was the fulfilment of the promise made to the 
 
 ' Sanday, International Critical Com. on Romans, following Kautsch, 
 counts some eighty-four O. T. quotations in Paul and regards seventy of 
 these as taken directly from the Septuagint, or as diflfering from it in a very 
 slight degree. Variations would be natural if he quoted from memory. 
 Vollmer, Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus, p. 38 f ., assumes that 
 Paid made use of some sort of a collection of Scripture texts, and if he did 
 this, his deviation from the Alexandrian version would be explained. 
 
 ' Toy, Quotations in the N. T., p. xxv. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 75 
 
 fathers, and it was inevitable that his appearance should 
 affect their reading of the Old Testament. They had also 
 become charged with a practical religious spirit through 
 their contact with Jesus, and it was natural that this gave to 
 their interpretation of the Scriptures greater directness, 
 sanity, and spirituality than belonged to contemporary Jew- 
 ish interpretation. If, technically speaking, their method 
 showed no advance upon that of their day, yet its practical 
 use was so tempered and directed by the realities of the 
 Christian revelation that they formed a group by themselves, 
 practically far in advance of their most gifted Jewish con- 
 temporaries. 
 
 In attempting now to characterize New Testament 
 interpretation, we begin with what is perhaps its most con- 
 spicuous feature, viz. its disregard of the original context 
 and purpose of the various Old Testament passages with 
 which it deals. This disregard was common to all who 
 used the Scriptures both in the Jewish and the Christian 
 Church. It went naturally with the ancient conception of 
 an inspired writing, a conception that separated it from the 
 life of those among whom it made its appearance. If a 
 book is regarded as a collection of oracles, then the rela- 
 tion of its different utterances to each other and their 
 meaning for those who first heard them can be quite neg- 
 lected. And this was done in a large measure by New 
 Testament writers. 
 
 Consider first the usage of Paul in this particular. In 
 his argument that the call of the Gentiles into the king- 
 dom of Christ was according to the divine purpose, he 
 cited the words of Hosea which were spoken not concern- 
 
76 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 ing the Gentiles, but concerning the Jews (Rom. 9 : 24- 
 26). The language, taken apart from the context, is 
 indeed quite appUcable: "I will call that my people, 
 which was not my people. And her beloved, that was not 
 beloved"; but obviously the original context must be 
 completely ignored to make the passage suit the argument 
 of the apostle. Nor can we say that Israel at the time when 
 Hosea wrote had turned from Jehovah, and was not better 
 than the Gentiles. For Paul argues (Rom. 11 :i) that, 
 even in his own time, when the great majority of Israel 
 had refused to hearken to the Gospel, they were still 
 God's people. He had not cast them off. They were 
 beloved for the fathers' sake, and called with a calling of 
 which God did not repent (Rom. 11:28-29). 
 
 Again, in Rom. 10:6-8, Paul quotes and comments 
 upon Deut. 30:12-13. The Deuteronomist, in illustrat- 
 ing the thought that God's commandment was not too 
 hard for the people, said : " It is not in heaven, that thou 
 shouldest say, Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it 
 unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it ? Neither 
 is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say. Who will 
 go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us 
 to hear it that we may do it?" Here we have simply a 
 figurative expression of the thought that the command- 
 ment is not impossible. But Paul, while retaining the 
 thought of the nearness of the word, apphes the passage 
 to the Gospel. The ascent into heaven was to bring Christ 
 down, not the Law; the descent into the abyss was to 
 bring Christ up. 
 
 It is to be noticed that Paul substituted a descent 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 77 
 
 into the abyss for a going "beyond the sea," which 
 the original has. It is trae that in the Old Testament 
 the sea is an "abyss,"* but the change from a journey 
 across the sea to a going down into the sea must appar- 
 ently be regarded as a free modification by Paul to suit 
 the passage to Christ's descent into Hades (Eph. 4:9). 
 Further, while the original in Deuteronomy contemplates 
 the doing of the Law, Paul finds in it the contrasted thought 
 of faith. Thus his use of the passage appears to be quite 
 foreign to its primitive sense. It is plain that there was a 
 certain parallelism between the situation of the ancient 
 Jews in relation to the Law and that of the Jews in Paul's 
 day in relation to Christ; but his language appears to 
 affirm more than a mere parallelism. 
 
 Or consider Paul's use of Is. 45:23 in Rom. 14:11. 
 The prophet represents God as calling all men to 
 look unto him for salvation, and not unto idols. He sol- 
 emnly affirms that every knee shall at length bow unto him, 
 and every tongue shall swear, i.e. shall swear by him, and 
 not by other gods. The apostle, however, uses the language 
 in an entirely different sense. He quotes it in proof that 
 all men shall give account of themselves unto God in the 
 last judgment. It is transferred from this age and world 
 to the coming age, and is made to teach not the con- 
 version of men to God, but their final confession ^ to him 
 of the deeds done in the flesh.^ 
 
 ' Toy, Quotations in the N. T., p. 149. 
 
 'The Hebrew has "swear" (y^m). Whether Paul himself sub- 
 stituted "confess" (^so/toXoy^o-crai), or followed an Aramaic version 
 (the Septuagint has ^/iefTai), it is not possible to say. 
 
 ' Other passages in Paul illustrating his disregard for the context of the 
 
78 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 If we turn now to the evangelists and the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, we find that they also were indifferent to the 
 original purport of the passage that they quoted. They 
 dealt with the words of the Old Testament rather than its 
 ideas. This disregard of the historical meaning of Old 
 Testament words is particularly striking in the applica- 
 tion of various passages to Christ, especially by Matthew. 
 Thus it is said that the infant Jesus was taken to Egypt 
 and remained there till the death of Herod, that the word of 
 Hosea might be fulfilled : "Out of Egypt have I called my 
 son" (Matt. 2:15). But Hosea was referring to a fact 
 of the distant past, the calling of Israel out of the house of 
 bondage. He made no allusion to the future. There was 
 in his simple historical statement nothing to be "fulfilled." 
 Moreover, the parallelism between Israel's departure out of 
 Egypt and the incident recorded by Matthew is quite 
 superficial and incidental. Jesus was dehvered from the 
 wrath of man by being taken into Egypt, while Israel was 
 delivered from man's wrath by being called out of Egypt. 
 The one single point of resemblance was geographical — 
 both came out of Egypt. 
 
 Again, the evangelist evidently approved of the answer 
 given to Herod by the scribes when they were asked 
 where the Christ should be born. They said it should be in 
 Bethlehem, and cited in proof a verse from the prophet 
 Micah (Matt. 2 : 5-7). Now the essential point with Mi- 
 cah was that the coming Deliverer would be of the house 
 of David. From his point of view, therefore, if that was 
 
 original are, e.g., Rom. 1:17; 2:24; 10:19; 11:9-10; i Cor. 2:9; 
 14:21; 15:54- 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 79 
 
 realized, it made little or no difference where he was born. 
 But the town of Bethlehem was naturally mentioned by 
 the prophet, because that had once been David's home. 
 Thus the scribes based their answer upon an unimportant 
 detail of the prophecy. 
 
 A single further illustration may be added from Matthew. 
 He says that Judas took back to the chief priests the money 
 he had received for the betrayal of Jesus, and cast it into 
 the sanctuary. Then the priests, since this was blood- 
 money, declared that it might not be used for sacred pur- 
 poses, and bought with it the potter's field as a burial-place 
 for strangers. This, he says, was the fulfilment of the 
 words of Jeremiah.* Now, according to the original, the 
 prophet received thirty pieces of silver from unfaithful 
 Israel as pay for the instruction he had given from God. 
 This was appropriately cast back by the prophet into the 
 treasury of the house of Jehovah, whose guardians thus 
 lightly esteemed his word. The points of resemblance 
 between the Judas incident and the scene in Zechariah 
 are the number "thirty" and the word "potter."^ The 
 prophet does not mention the " potter's _/?e/</," or say what 
 use was made of the money. In one scene, it is God's 
 own prophet who receives the money, and he casts it into 
 the treasury out of proper regard for the dignity of God ; 
 in the other case, it is the betrayer of Jesus who receives 
 the money, and he casts it into the treasury out of remorse. 
 In Zechariah the money is represented as the shameful 
 estimate of the value of Jehovah's instruction on the part 
 
 ' The passage is found in Zech. 11 : 13. 
 
 ^ Marti, Hand-Kommentar, reads "treasure" instead of "potter." 
 
8o THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of Israel ; in Matthew it is the price of blood, the sum paid 
 for the betrayal of a man who was supposed to be an 
 enemy of God. It is difficult, in view of these facts, to 
 think that the passage in Zechariah would have been used 
 by the evangelist had it not been for resemblances between 
 it and the Judas incident which seem to us now to be alto- 
 gether superficial. 
 
 To the illustrations which have been given, a single one 
 may be added from the Epistle to the Hebrews. The 
 author of this cites from Is. 8 : i8. The verse reads 
 as follows: "Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah 
 hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel 
 from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in Mount Zion." 
 The "children" are the two sons of the prophet, Shear- 
 jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Is. 7:3; 8:1). 
 The author of Hebrews cites merely the subject of the 
 sentence, the words "Behold, I and the children whom 
 God hath given me." He quotes these words to show 
 the oneness of Jesus and his followers, and on the basis 
 of that to argue that he partook of flesh and blood (Heb. 
 2 : 13-14). It is impossible to discover any Messianic 
 allusion in the original, or any reference to the disciples 
 of Christ, or any foreshadowing of the relation between 
 Christ and his followers, and least of all to discover any 
 basis for an argument for the incarnation. Disregard of 
 the historical connection and significance of Scripture could 
 not well go to greater lengths than in this case.' 
 
 Yet, as has already been intimated, this feature of New 
 Testament exegesis is not surprising. Paul and the 
 
 ' Comp. Heb. 1 : 8-9 ; 2:6-8; 3:7-11. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 8 1 
 
 other New Testament writers were "true children of their 
 age, who thought and wrote in accordance with the stand- 
 ards and the point of view which were then recognized." 
 The simple fact to be noted is that this feature of their 
 exegesis would be surprising if reproduced in our day. 
 
 The interpretation of the Old Testament by the writers 
 of the New is marked, in the second place, though in a 
 less striking manner, by a tendency to depart from the 
 primary meaning of the text and find its chief significance 
 in a hidden sense. As compared with Philo's interpreta- 
 tion, the adherence of New Testament writers to the 
 literal sense is most remarkable. It was also much more 
 constant and close than that of the Palestinian rabbis or 
 the early Church Fathers. Nevertheless, their exegesis 
 was by no means free from a tendency to go behind the 
 obvious meaning of the letter. Thus, e.g., in the humane 
 precept of the Law that an ox when treading out the corn 
 should not be muzzled (Deut. 25 : 4), Paul found an 
 argument that the Christian minister was entitled to sup- 
 port from those whom he served (i Cor. 9 : 8-10). Indeed, 
 he appears to have thought that this ancient precept was 
 written altogether for the use to which he put it. At any 
 rate, he saw in it another meaning than the primary and 
 literal one. 
 
 Once, but once only, Paul confessedly allegorizes a 
 passage of Old Testament history. Sarah and Hagar, 
 thefreewoman and the handmaid, are two "covenants" — 
 one the covenant of works from Mt. Sinai, under which 
 covenant were the Jews of his day who rejected Christ ; 
 the other the covenant of faith, under which were all who 
 
82 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 accepted the Gospel. Paul did not reject the historical 
 sense of this passage in Genesis, but found in it another 
 also, of present and extensive import. This is, indeed, 
 allegorical interpretation, the same in principle as that of 
 Philo or that of the Greek philosophers, but it is character- 
 ized by naturalness and sobriety. It is suggestive as a 
 historical comparison, but the apostle does not appear to 
 me to give it as a mere comparison. It is rather as a part 
 of the divinely purposed teaching of a certain historical 
 incident. 
 
 Since Paul explained one historical event of the Old 
 Testament allegorically, it seems likely that he admitted 
 the possibility of applying the principle of allegory else- 
 where ; but the fact that his letters show no other unmis- 
 takable illustration obviously suggests either that he did 
 not feel himself competent to unfold the allegorical mean- 
 ing of Scripture, or, what is more probable, that he was 
 better satisfied on the whole to give his readers the plain 
 primary sense of the text.' 
 
 This going beneath the obvious sense of the Old Testa- 
 ment text after a hidden meaning is abundantly illustrated 
 
 ' Cone, Gospel Criticism and Historical Christianity, p. 314, says that 
 Paul "throughout his epistles treats the Old Testament allegorically 
 and typologically.'' VoUmer, Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei Paulus, pp. 
 57, 6g, in saying that Paul " appealed to a pneumatic sense of the text 
 instead of the grammatical," and in the statement that Paul regarded 
 the interpretation of Scripture as the result of a special charism, pos- 
 sessed only by the " perfect," appears to occupy about the same ground as 
 Dr. Cone. This view appears to be extreme, as, in the opposite direction 
 and in a lesser degree, that of Sanday, Commentary on Romans, pp. 
 302-307, who says that Paul almost invariably takes the literal meaning 
 of Old Testament language. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 83 
 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thus the reference in 
 Genesis to Melchizedek, who appears suddenly for an 
 hour in the history of Abraham and then disappears utterly, 
 was regarded as mysteriously significant. It had been so 
 regarded by the author of the iioth Psalm.' To the 
 writer of Hebrews, the everlasting permanency of Melchiz- 
 edek's priesthood followed from the fact that he has, 
 in Scripture, "neither beginning of days nor end of life" 
 (Heb. 7 : 3), and his appearance was regarded as predic- 
 tive of Christ and of his eternal priesthood (Heb. 7:11, 15). 
 Again, the injunction to Moses to make the tabernacle 
 and its furniture according to the "pattern" which had 
 been shown to him in the mount was taken by the author 
 of Hebrews as fraught with a most profound meaning 
 (Heb. 8 : 5, 59). He found in it a doctrine similar to 
 Plato's doctrine of ideas. It taught him that there is a 
 heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9:11), supplied with the vari- 
 ous articles which were copied in the earthly house 
 (Heb. 9 : 23), and into the holy place of this upper taber- 
 nacle Christ entered in a manner exactly corresponding 
 to that of the high priest on earth when he entered in to 
 make an offering for Israel (Heb. 9:12, 24). Out of 
 the hidden sense of these two passages in Genesis and 
 Exodus, the author of Hebrews drew the most charac- 
 teristic part of his thought regarding the priesthood of 
 Christ.^ The Gospels and Catholic Epistles afford no 
 
 ' Probably Maccabean, second century before Christ ; Duhm and some 
 other scholars regard it as addressed to Simon. The first four verses are 
 an acrostic and give this name. 
 
 * Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 480, says that the writer of 
 the Epistle everywhere assumes a spiritual meaning in the whole record 
 
84 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 parallel to the allegorizing or spiritualizing of the Old 
 Testament by Paul and the author of Hebrews. 
 
 Before passing to the last conspicuous feature of New 
 Testament interpretation, brief reference may be made 
 to a matter of subordinate importance, viz. the affinity with 
 rabbinic exegesis in its use of Jewish tradition or legend. 
 The most striking illustrations of this affinity are found in 
 Paul. Thus the "rock" from which Israel had water in 
 the wilderness is said to have followed them from place to 
 place and to have been the Messiah (i Cor. lo : 4). The 
 Law, Paul says in Galatians (3 : 19), was ordained through 
 angels, and the magicians who withstood Moses were 
 Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8).' The significant thing 
 is not that Paul's writings show traces of the influence 
 of Jewish legend, but that these traces are so extremely 
 few. 
 
 It was said at the outset that the New Testament writers 
 as interpreters of the Old Testament were practically far 
 in advance of their Jewish contemporaries by virtue of 
 the religious influence of Jesus. They grasped its main 
 purport. They ceased to put an undue estimate upon 
 the Law {e.g. Gal. 4:9). They tested the Old Testa- 
 ment ethics by the new spirit within them.^ In so far 
 they proved themselves worthy disciples of Jesus. But 
 
 of the O. T. Of the quotations in Hebrews he says (p. 481) that "they 
 are not brought forward in order to prove anything, but to indicate the 
 correspondences which exist between the several stages of the divine pur- 
 pose from age to age." But it seems obvious that the author saw much 
 more than an historical illustration in Ex. 25 : 40. 
 
 ' Comp. Acts 7: 20, 22. 
 
 * See Drummond, Hibberi Lectures, 1894, p. 74. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 85 
 
 in another department — the Messiahship of Jesus — 
 their use of the Old Testament departed in a most strik- 
 ing manner from that of the Master, and it was their use, 
 not his, which influenced the interpretation of the Church 
 in subsequent centuries. He saw a foreshadowing of 
 himself and his work ; they saw predictions. The fore- 
 shadowing which he saw was general and spiritual in 
 character ; the predictions which they found were particular, 
 and included minute external circumstances. His allu- 
 sions to a Messianic element in the Old Testament never 
 suggest the Messiah's preexistence, and never tend toward 
 a blending of the Messiah and Jehovah; but in their 
 treatment of the Messianic element both these things are 
 done. While, therefore, the New Testament writers agree 
 with Jesus in regarding his revelation as a fulfilment of 
 the Old Testament, their departure from his view of the 
 Messianic element and his fulfilment of it is one of the 
 most significant and least appreciated features of their 
 interpretation of the Scriptures. To a brief illustration 
 of this point we turn now in concluding the present 
 chapter. 
 
 In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul gives us a 
 glimpse into the character of his argument for Christ. 
 "I delivered unto you," he says, "first of all that which 
 also I received; that Christ died for our sins according 
 to the Scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he 
 hath been raised on the third day according to the Scrip- 
 tures" (i Cor. 15:3-4). We are not told in what pas- 
 sages of the Old Testament he found proof that Christ 
 died for our sins and that he was raised on the third day. 
 
86 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 but it is plain that he was in the habit of appealing to the 
 Scripture in support of these points. We may well say 
 that the first of these points is foreshadowed in the account 
 of the "suffering servant" in Is. 53, but the second, a 
 particular external circumstance, appears not to have even .1 
 a clear foreshadowing in the Old Testament, not to say 
 prediction. That the apostle went to the Old Testament 
 for proof that Jesus was raised on the third day rather 
 than to historical evidence of the fact, illustrates in a strik- 
 ing manner the importance which he attributed to the 
 current method of demonstrating the Messiahship of 
 Jesus.' 
 
 Again, the author of Hebrews in setting forth the 
 superangelic dignity of Christ, ascribes to him certain 
 words which in the Old Testament were addressed to 
 Jehovah (Heb. 1:10; Ps. io2:25f.). In this he de- 
 parted from the Old Testament usage, where the name 
 Jehovah is never given to the Messiah,* departed also 
 from the usage of Jesus, who never referred to himself 
 an Old Testament word which in the original concerned 
 Jehovah.' 
 
 In Matthew and John this departure from the Messianic 
 interpretation of Jesus is still more conspicuous than in 
 Paul and the author of Hebrews. They speak of various 
 things as done in the case of Jesus, or as done by him, 
 in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled {e.g. Matt. 
 
 ' See Gal. 3:13; Eph. 4:8-10 as further illustrations of the point in 
 hand. 
 
 ^ This departure was made easier by the Greek translation of the Old 
 Testament, where the Hebrew tetragram (nin') is rendered by Kiipios. 
 
 * Comp. also Heb. 10:5-7. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETED IN THE NEW 87 
 
 2:15; 8:17; 21:5; John 19 : 28). Accordingly, they re- 
 garded certain words of Scripture as predictive, and 
 believed that the circumstances of his life were divinely 
 overruled to the end that these predictions might be 
 fulfilled. And these circumstances included such details 
 as the cry "I thirst" (John 19:28), the lance-thrust 
 (John 19 : 37), and the distribution of the garments of 
 Jesus (John 19:24), also the circumstance that his legs 
 were not broken (John 19 : 36). 
 
 This conception of Messianic prophecy is obviously 
 altogether unlike the conception that Jesus had. His 
 fulfilment was from within, spiritual, and quite inde- 
 pendent of the outward details of his career. What the 
 evangelist regarded as fulfilment was something external 
 and unspiritual. We may liken the demonstrative power 
 of Jesus' fulfilment to the sun shining in its strength. 
 This power is original, self-evidencing, and eternal. By 
 the side of this, the demonstrative force of the kind of 
 arguirient which was current among the disciples is a 
 sort of will-of-the-wisp. 
 
 It is not strange, indeed, that they failed to rise to the 
 high level of the thought of Jesus. Even the Church of 
 later centuries has failed, though having fuller knowledge 
 than they possessed. We are not concerned, however, to 
 explain their departure from the Messianic interpretation 
 of Jesus, but only to record it. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION FROM CLEMENT OF ROME 
 TO IREN^US 
 
 A LETTER written in the name of the Church at Rome 
 in reply to a request for counsel, written probably by the 
 bishop of the Church about the year loo a.d., may be 
 taken, as far as it bears on the subject of interpretation 
 at all, to reflect the views which were then current among 
 the Christians of that city. It is more significant than 
 a simple private epistle. The author of this letter (the 
 so-called First Epistle of Clement) intimates that the in- 
 terpretation of Scripture, by which he usually means the 
 Old Testament, depends upon a divine gift of knowledge 
 (yvaxTK. See 40, 41). He and his readers and all 
 Christians are assumed to share in this gift, this ability 
 to discover the will of the Lord for the Christian Church 
 in the teaching of the Old Testament.' The method by 
 which Christians come into the possession of this knowl- 
 edge is not indicated. The Old Testament, according 
 to Clement, is a Christian book by virtue of its predictive 
 character, and also by virtue of the fact that Christ him- 
 self is thought of as speaking in it. The variety and 
 extent of its predictive element seems to be almost un- 
 limited. Even the harlot Rahab was a prophetess, fore- 
 
 ' See Wrede, Untersuchung zum i Clemenshrief, p. 81. 
 88 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN^US 89 
 
 telling by the scarlet thread from her window that re- 
 demption should flow through the blood of the Lord to 
 all who believe and hope in God ; * and Isaac in yielding 
 himself as a sacrifice knew what was to come.^ 
 
 Again, in the judgment of Clement, the offices of bishop 
 and deacon were no new thing; for even Isaiah (60: 17) 
 had written concerning them.' It is plain from this 
 passage, as from many others, that Clement read his 
 Old Testament in the Greek translation, for the original 
 does not refer to ecclesiastical offices in particular, and 
 therefore has, of course, no suggestion of bishops and 
 deacons. 
 
 Moreover, it seems probable that Clement modified his 
 Greek text somewhat to suit his need, for even this has 
 the word "rulers" {dpxovTa<s) instead of "deacons," 
 that is, servants. 
 
 But the Old Testament was not only predictive of Christ 
 and the Church ; it was also, in the thought of Clement, 
 which was indorsed by the Roman congregation, an 
 utterance of Christ himself, at least in part. Thus he 
 ascribes directly to Christ the words of the Psalm (22:6), 
 "I am a worm and no man," and also the words, "Come, 
 ye children, hearken unto me" (34:11). It was quite 
 natural, therefore, in view of this supposed relation 
 between Christ and the Old Testament, to cite Habakkuk 
 in proof of the Lord's speedy coming rather than to cite 
 words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels.^ 
 
 ' See I Clement, chapter 12. 
 
 2 See chapter 31. ^ See chapter 42. 
 
 * Clement cites words of Jesus only twice (chapters 13, 46), while he 
 
90 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 In further illustration of the interpretative ability of the 
 author and of the Roman Church of his day, or, we may 
 better say, their abundant lack of the historical sense, it 
 may be noticed that he regarded Ps. 3:5: "I laid me 
 down and slept; I awaked; because thou art with me" 
 (Septuagint rendering), as a proof of the doctrine of a 
 resurrection; and at the same time he gave in full the 
 fable of the phoenix as a valid support of the same belief.' 
 
 But though Clement's attitude toward the Old Testa- 
 ment was biassed by weighty presuppositions that ren- 
 dered anything like accurate critical interpretation impos- 
 sible, it is to be noticed that he was untouched by the 
 mania to allegorize ' the Scripture, and that he generally 
 made a correct use of historical incidents. His defect 
 
 cites more than a hundred times from the Old Testament. The only 
 New Testament book that he seems to have quoted directly is Hebrews 
 (chapter 36). 
 
 '■ " Let us consider that wonderful sign which takes place in Eastern 
 lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a 
 certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, 
 and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws 
 near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh 
 and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. 
 But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being 
 nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, 
 when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones 
 of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into 
 Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And in open day flying in the sight 
 of all men, it places them on the altar of the Sun, and having done this, 
 hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers 
 of dates and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year 
 was completed." (i Clement, 25.) 
 
 ' Wrede, op. cit., p. 80, with a somewhat broad definition of allegory, 
 finds illustrations of it in chapters 12 and 31. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN.EUS 91 
 
 was not that he emptied Old Testament history of its 
 meaning by allegorical interpretations, but that he con- 
 stantly read into it the ethical and religious views of his 
 own time. 
 
 In the Church at Rome and perhaps contemporaneously 
 with Clement lived Hermas/ author of The Shepherd, a 
 work which we mention here in passing because of a cer- 
 tain negative value that it possesses. It has no formal 
 quotations from the Bible, and naturally so, inasmuch as 
 the author simply narrates what he saw and heard in his 
 visions. Its value for our present purpose consists in 
 the fact that, although it is full of dull allegories and 
 prolix moralizings, it was exceedingly popular for two 
 centuries and longer, was read in meetings for worship 
 by the side of the Scriptures, and was thought to be 
 inspired even by such men as Clement of Alexandria and 
 Origen. We judge, then, that the standard of inspiration 
 was notably different in those times from the standard 
 at present.^ What Clement of Alexandria and Origen 
 regarded as a sacred writing would now be thought very 
 commonplace, and to claim that it is inspired would seem 
 to every one ridiculous. 
 
 From Rome we pass now to Alexandria, from the 
 romance of Hermas to the general Epistle of Barnabas. 
 This also may date from the closing years of the first 
 century.' It is found with the New Testament in the 
 
 ' Kruger, History of Early Christian Literature, gives as an approximate 
 date for Hermas 100 a.d. 
 
 ^ Comp. Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity, i. 121. 
 
 ' Harnack, Altchristliche Literatur, i. 1. 416, assigns it to the period 
 80-130, more specifically to the close of this period. 
 
92 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Codex Sinaiticus, and was ranked as a sacred writing by 
 the great teachers of Alexandria. Who its author was 
 is unknown, but he claimed to be an interpreter of Scrip- 
 ture, and as such he had an influence which survived for 
 centuries. Ability to interpret was regarded by him as 
 a "gift," 1 a faculty of reading riddles. The Old Testa- 
 ment ^ was looked upon as a book of parables. Some of 
 these, according to the author of Barnabas, it was impos- 
 sible for the Jews, in Old Testament times, to understand, 
 and others, he declares, would be unintelligible even to 
 his Christian readers.' Therefore he did not unfold 
 these passages to them. 
 
 It appears that the author of Barriabas, sometimes at 
 least, quite set aside the meaning of the Old Testament 
 text. An example of such treatment is his interpretation 
 of the law concerning clean and unclean animals. He 
 says that Moses intended to teach a purely spiritual doc- 
 trine, or rather three doctrines, but the people did not 
 understand him. David, however, comprehended his 
 meaning, as we see from the first Psalm, for the "ungodly" 
 of whom he there speaks are the "fishes" forbidden to the 
 Israelites in the law, the "sinners" correspond to the 
 "swine" and other unclean animals, and the "scorners" 
 are the "birds of prey." The author thinks that Moses 
 legislated well, though he admits at the same time that 
 it was not possible for the Jews to understand what his 
 laws meant. Their true meaning, he held, was deep 
 
 ' Barnabas, i, 8. 
 
 ' The author quotes but once from the New Testament, viz. in chapter 4. 
 
 " Barnabas, 9, 1 7. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN^US 93 
 
 down beneath the Hteral sense; it was a "mystery" and 
 designed for the Christian Church. We will give two 
 illustrations of these hidden mysteries. It will be noticed 
 that in both cases the key to the mystery was borrowed 
 from rabbinic exegesis. We read in Genesis that God 
 finished his work in six days. This implies, says the 
 author, that he will finish all things in six thousand years, 
 for a day is with him a thousand years (Ps. 90:4).' 
 But the author seems to have regarded as his happiest 
 piece of interpretation the solution of the mystery of the 
 three letters; that is, the mystery of the number 318 
 which is found in the story of Abraham and Lot (Gen. 14 : 
 14). This "mystery," which, of course, has no existence 
 whatever except in the imagination of the interpreter, is 
 solved as follows: Ten is the numerical value of the 
 Greek letter iota, and eight the value of the letter eta. 
 These two are the first letters of the name" Jesus" (Ij/o-ov?). 
 Three hundred is the numerical value of the Greek letter 
 tau (t), which is the sign of the cross. And thus the 
 author proved that Abraham, when he circumcised the 
 318 ^ men of his household, did it with a thought of re- 
 demption by the cross of Jesus ! 
 
 The author of Barnabas was the first Christian writer 
 of whom we know who found in the Old Testament an 
 elaborate typological element. That his types were purely 
 fanciful, one need not read far to discover. Take one or 
 
 ' Ibid., I. 
 
 ' It is not said in Genesis that the number circumcised was 318. In- 
 deed, it seems to be implied that there were more than 318. Comp. Gen. 
 14:14; 17:26-27. 
 
94 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 two illustrations. The goat sent into the wilderness 
 (Lev. i6 : ip) was a type of Christ, and for that reason 
 one of a goodly aspect was chosen. The scarlet wool 
 with which it was crowned pointed to the scarlet robe 
 which was put on Jesus at his trial. The wool taken 
 from the goat and put on a bush in the wilderness — 
 this supposed to be a prickly bush from which one could 
 not take the wool without suffering — was a type of Jesus 
 set before the Church, and it taught that one who would 
 have the kingdom of Jesus must be willing to suffer for 
 it.* So again the red heifer (Num. 19 : 2) and the brazen 
 serpent (Num. 21 : 8) were types of Jesus,^ and the death 
 on the cross was figured forth by Moses when his arms 
 were stretched out during the battle with the Amalekites 
 (Ex. 17:12).' 
 
 It need scarcely be pointed out that all this typological 
 interpretation is quite foreign to the thought which Jesus 
 had of the Old Testament; nevertheless the author of 
 Barnabas was only the first of a large and distinguished 
 company of Christian students who have found comfort 
 in it. 
 
 One point remains to be considered. We occasionally 
 find the author of Barnabas applying to the interpretation 
 of Scripture a method which may be called the logical. 
 Thus he derives from Is. i : 13 a proof for the duty 
 of observing the Christian Sunday instead of the Jewish 
 Sabbath. When God said to Israel, "Your new moons 
 and your Sabbaths I cannot endure," that means, your 
 present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, and this lan- 
 
 ' Barnabas, 7. * Ihid., 8, 12. ' Ihid., 12. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IRENiEUS 95 
 
 guage is thought to imply clearly that God had another 
 Sabbath in mind, even "the beginning of the eighth day," 
 when he should have given rest to all things. This 
 acceptable eighth day, the author holds, is obviously the 
 Christian Sunday. But he missed, in the first place, the 
 evident meaning of the prophet, who does not represent 
 God as finding fault with his own institution of the day 
 of rest, but only with a false observance of that day ; and 
 having missed this, he proceeded to draw out what he 
 thought was involved in the criticism. His conclusion, 
 however, is plainly illogical. For even if God had found 
 fault with the Sabbath itself, the seventh day of the week, 
 it would not follow that he desired the observance of the 
 next day. 
 
 It may be remarked in conclusion that the citation 
 of Scripture in Barnabas is very loose and inaccurate, a 
 fact quite in contrast with what we find in the letter of the 
 Roman Clement. 
 
 In the letter of Polycarp ' to the Philippians, while it 
 furnishes no specific material for the history of interpre- 
 tation in the early part of the second century, we have the 
 first Christian document which quotes almost exclusively 
 from the New Testament, and that quotes at the same 
 time in an apt and simple fashion. So to quote implies, 
 indeed, a knowledge of the general purport of the Scripture 
 quoted, and with reference to the source of the quotations 
 it indicates that the author put the New Testament above 
 the Old. 
 
 It is at just this point that the letters of Ignatius, who 
 
 ' Polycarp wag bishop of Smyrna, and died a martyr in 155 a.d. 
 
96 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 is reputed to have been the second bishop of Antioch and 
 to have suffered martyrdom in Rome under Trajan 
 (98-117 A.D.), are of most interest for our subject. The 
 author makes only the slightest direct use of Scripture, 
 and offers perhaps only one independent interpretation, 
 viz. that the blood of Jesus signifies incorruptible love 
 and eternal life,' but he shows at least one quality of an 
 interpreter ; that is, a sense of historical development, for 
 he recognizes the superiority of the Gospel to the Old 
 Testament. "Jesus Christ," he says,^ "is in the place of 
 all that is ancient ; his cross, and death, and resurrection, 
 and the faith which is by him, are undefiled monuments 
 of antiquity"; and again, "The Gospel has something 
 transcendent, to wit, the appearance of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." ' If this truth, of which Ignatius showed at 
 least some slight appreciation, had been clearly grasped 
 by the leaders of the early centuries, the literature of 
 interpretation and also the doctrines of the Church would 
 have been very materially afifected. 
 
 The second century apologists, especially Justin, 
 Theophilus, and Athenagoras, are important in the history 
 of interpretation because, in the first place, they brought 
 into the Church the classical conception of inspiration. 
 Thus Athenagoras describes the prophets as men who 
 spoke in an ecstasy, being raised above the natural opera- 
 tion of their minds.' As a flute-player breathes into his 
 
 ' Epistle to the Romans, 7 ; comp. John 6: 51. 
 
 ^ Epistle to the Philifpians, 9. 
 
 » IhU., 9. 
 
 ' Plea for the Christians, 9. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN^US 97 
 
 flute, SO, he says, the Spirit of God breathed into them. 
 The figure is different in Justin, but the idea is the same, 
 for he likens the prophet to a lyre and the Spirit to a 
 plectrum.^ Theophilus also speaks in the same manner, 
 thinking of the inspiration of the prophets exactly as men 
 thought of the inspiration of the Sibyl.^ According to 
 this conception of inspiration, the prophets themselves 
 did not speak ; it was the divine word,' or the Holy Spirit,^ 
 who spoke. The miracle is heightened by affirming that 
 the prophets were illiterate.' If, then, they were the pas- 
 sive instruments of the Spirit of God, it was naturally as 
 easy for them to speak of the creation of the world or of 
 the consummation of all things as to speak of what lay 
 near to them, of that which their eyes had seen and their 
 hands had handled. 
 
 Again, the second century apologists affected the inter- 
 pretation of Scripture in a vital manner by the introduc- 
 tion into the Old Testament of the doctrine of the Logos, 
 which had already been applied to Jesus in the Prologue 
 of the Gospel of John. Who first of Christians read the 
 Logos into the Jewish Scriptures we do not know. Tatian, 
 in his Address to the Greeks," says : "We have been taught 
 that the beginning is the power of the Logos, and that the 
 Logos begat the world," and his language suggests that he 
 traced the teaching farther back than to his master Justin. 
 It is in Justin, however, that we first find it elaborated.' 
 
 ' Address to the Greeks, 8. ' Ad Autol., 2. 9. 
 
 ^ See Justin, First Apology, 36; Theophilus, Ad Autol., 2. 10. 
 * Ad Autol., z. 9. ' Ihid., i. 35. ' See chapter 5. 
 
 ' See, e.g., Dialogue with Trypho, 61. 
 H 
 
98 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Identifying " wisdom " with the Logos, he found in Proverbs 
 (8:22-31) a clear declaration that the Logos was before 
 all things, and that God had counselled with him from 
 the beginning. It was to him that God spoke when he 
 said, as we read in Genesis (i : 26 ; 3:22), "Let us make 
 man in our image," and again, "The man has become as 
 one of us, to know good and evil." ' When this identifi- 
 cation was once made, the Logos or Christ was found 
 throughout the entire Old Testament. Thus it was he 
 to whom reference is made when the Scriptures speak of 
 the "glory of God," the "Son," "Wisdom," "Angel," 
 and not infrequently also when the title used is "God" or 
 "Lord."^ In short, when the Old Testament says that 
 God manifested himself, this took place, according to 
 Justin, through Christ or the Logos. Thus the Father 
 recedes into the background. 
 
 This significant step in the history of interpretation was 
 simply the application of Greek philosophy to the solution 
 of the problem of the sacred writings in use among Chris- 
 tians. What Philo did from his Jewish point of view 
 was done from the Christian point of view by Justin. 
 It was a step to which a long development of thought 
 among the Greeks naturally led the heirs of that thought, 
 especially a converted philosopher like Justin. It was a 
 step fraught with almost unlimited consequences which 
 were to show themselves in the Scripture interpretation 
 of subsequent centuries. 
 
 The second century apologists, it is to be noticed fur- 
 ther, saw the heart of the Old Testament in its supposed 
 
 ' See Dialogue with Trypho, 62. * Dialogue, 62. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN^US 99 
 
 predictive element. They not only found the Logos active 
 in the Old Testament, but they also made the Old Testa- 
 ment largely a book whose authors had the historical 
 Christ in view. Thus Justin says that it is the work of 
 God to tell of a thing before it happens,' and he frequently 
 speaks as though, in his judgment, the sole business of 
 the prophets was to predict future events.^ From the 
 fulfilment of these predictions both Justin and Theophilus 
 argued the divine character of the new religion. This 
 was the line of evidence which they thought would be of 
 the greatest weight with their readers. In this point they 
 proceeded in harmony with the authors of the first and 
 fourth Gospels, though they pushed the argument to 
 greater extremes. The length to which Justin, for ex- 
 ample, carried the predictive element in the Old Testa- 
 ment may be seen from such instances as the following: 
 Two advents of Christ are predicted by Jacob (Gen. 49) ; ^ 
 this patriarch, no less than the prophet Zechariah (9 : 9), 
 foretold that Christ would enter Jerusalem riding on an 
 ass ; * and Ps. 24 predicts the ascension of Christ into 
 heaven.' 
 
 It is not needful to dwell on the facts that this argument 
 was based on a complete misunderstanding of the function 
 of the Old Testament prophet, that it failed to take account 
 of the multitude of points in the supposed predictions re- 
 garding Christ for which no fulfilment in his history was 
 even claimed, and that it missed altogether the underlying 
 spiritual reality. 
 
 ' First Apology, 12. ' See, e.g., Dialogm, 7. 
 
 'Ibid., 52. * Ibid., 14, 53. ^ Ibid., 36. 
 
lOO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The writings of Justin, which exceed those of all other 
 second century apologists which have come down to us, 
 which make more use of Scripture than the others, and 
 which had a paramount influence on the interpretation 
 of the Bible by subsequent generations, furnish material 
 for a yet further illustration of his exegesis. And first, as 
 to its scholarly character. Although Justin had studied 
 the system of the Stoics, the Pythagoreans, and the Pla- 
 tonists,' this study had not made him accurate as an in- 
 terpreter, nor had it developed an historical sense in him. 
 He speaks of Christ as having been predicted 2000, 3000, 
 and even 5000 years before he came.^ He thinks that the 
 Jews had a lawgiver and king of their own up to the time 
 of Christ, and that the Roman rule in Palestine began 
 after Christ came.' He says that Moses took brass and 
 made it into the figure of a serpent, and set it in the holy 
 tabernacle.* 
 
 Again, the exegesis of Justin, like that of the author of 
 Barnabas, spiritualizes the Old Testament. No Chris- 
 tian writer before him, whose works are extant, did so 
 much in this direction. He did not set aside the literal 
 sense of the text, as did Philo, but he often found in it a 
 symbolical or allegorical meaning. If he did not descend 
 to such trivial, cabalistic interpretations as some which 
 we have in Barnabas, he yet was not behind the author of 
 that writing in the arbitrariness which characterized much 
 of his exegesis. Let the following instances be justifica- 
 
 ' See Dialogue, z. ' Ibid., 32 ; Dialogue, 52. 
 
 * See First Apology, 31. • First Apology, 60. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN/EUS loi 
 
 tion of this statement. The words of Jacob concerning 
 Judah (Gen. 49 : ii) — 
 
 " Binding his foal unto the vine, 
 And his ass's colt unto the choice vine, 
 He hath washed his garment in wine. 
 And his vesture in the blood of grapes " — 
 
 are a prophetic allegory, and were fulfilled in Christ's 
 entry into Jerusalem and in his passion.' The foal and 
 colt were those which were brought to Christ as he was 
 about to go into Jerusalem, and Justin says that this 
 foal was bound to a vine — a detail not found in the 
 Gospel. In another place,^ Justin treats the foal and colt 
 as symbols — the foal, which he assumes to have been 
 harnessed, as a symbol of the Jews, and the colt as a 
 symbol of the Gentiles. " Washing his garments in the 
 blood of the grape " was predictive, says Justin, of the 
 passion of Christ, the cleansing by his blood of those 
 who believed in him.' When his blood is called "blood 
 of the grape," that signifies that it was to be "of the power 
 of God," for it is God, not man, who makes the blood of 
 the vine. Thus Justin succeeded in reading into the old 
 song of Jacob not only certain historical facts in the 
 earthly career of Jesus, but also the doctrine of his in- 
 carnation. 
 
 Again, the roasting of the paschal lamb (Ex. 12:8) was, 
 according to Justin, a symbol of Christ's suffering on the 
 cross, for when a lamb was prepared for roasting, there were 
 in it two spits in the form of a cross ! * The fine flour which 
 
 » Ibid., 32. ' First Apology, 32. 
 
 ' Dialogue, 53. * See Dialogue, 40. 
 
I02 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 was used in purifying from leprosy (Lev. 14:10) was a 
 type of the bread of the Eucharist, and the sacrifices which 
 the prophet Malachi (i:ii) declares shall be offered to 
 Jehovah's name among the Gentiles, are nothing else than 
 the bread and wine of the Supper.' 
 
 To these illustrations of an utterly fanciful and 
 worthless exegesis may be added yet one more which 
 brings out another aspect. The Septuagint rendering 
 of Lam. 4:20 contains the unintelligible statement, "the 
 breath before our face is the Lord Christ." Justin took 
 this erroneous and obscure translation of the Hebrew and 
 deduced from it a meaning quite as impossible as the 
 translation itself. The passage alludes, he says, to the 
 fact that there is a cross on man's face made by the nose.^ 
 But how the "breath" can be identified with the nose, 
 and the nose be said to make a cross on the face, and how a 
 possible cross in the structure of the human face can be 
 identified with the Lord Christ or be thought to refer to 
 him — these all are points which, one would suppose, 
 ought to have seemed questionable even to an interpreter 
 of the second century. We cannot imagine a writer of the 
 New Testament, not excepting the author of Hebrews, as 
 indulging in such fancies. 
 
 Irenffius, the Asiatic bishop of southern Gaul, who 
 survived Justin some twenty-two years, marks in some 
 respects an exegetical development beyond the apologists. 
 We know his interpretation of Scripture only from his 
 famous polemic against the Gnostics. It was doubtless 
 determined in some measure by their views. The Gnostic 
 
 ' Dialogue, 41. 2 p^^^i Apology, 55. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN^EUS 103 
 
 teachings, if Irenasus correctly represents them, were 
 plainly refuted by him, but this was accomplished in the 
 main by the use of reason. It was seldom necessary to 
 go into their interpretation of Scripture in detail in order 
 to show the absurdity of their views. Occasionally the 
 Gnostic exegesis which Irenaeus cites for the purpose of 
 refuting it was right, and his attempts to overthrow it were 
 unavailing. Thus he tried in vain to show that Paul in 
 2 Cor. 4:4 does not speak of Satan as "the god of this 
 world," ^ and again endeavors, without success, to prove 
 that the "flesh and blood," which Paul says cannot inherit 
 the kingdom of God (i Cor. 15 : 50), are not to be taken 
 physically, but are to be interpreted as meaning men who 
 have not the Spirit of God.' But apart from a very few 
 exceptions of this sort, his use of Scripture appears to be 
 overwhelmingly more forcible than theirs. His argument, 
 for example, that the Old Testament and the New do not 
 proclaim two different Gods, also that Jesus and Christ 
 were not two different beings, as the Gnostics affirmed, is, in 
 the main, valid. His general Scripture proof is sufficient. 
 Thus, with reference to this practical end — the refutation 
 of the false teaching of the Gnostics — the exegesis of 
 Irenaeus was adequate. 
 
 It is to be said, further, that Irenaeus gives expression 
 here and there in the course of his work to sound principles 
 of interpretation. Thus, for example, he wants words 
 taken in their natural sense and with attention to their 
 context.^ The heretics, he says, disregarded the order 
 
 ' See Against Heresies, 3. 7. ^ Ibid., 5. 9. i. 
 
 ' Ibid., i. 9. 4. 
 
104 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 and connection of Scripture, and carried this so far that 
 the result was as though one should take a beautiful image 
 of a king, constructed by a skilful artist out of precious 
 jewels, and by rearranging the jewels should make the 
 form of a dog or of a fox, and should declare that to be 
 the king/ 
 
 Again, he recognized the importance of steering one's 
 course through the Bible by the clear and unambiguous 
 teachings which it contains. The interpreter is not to 
 appeal for light on hard questions to passages which may 
 be explained in a different way by every one who ap- 
 proaches them.^ When he speaks of characteristic teach- 
 ings of Scripture, he appears to have in mind what he 
 calls the rule of truth,' or the tradition received from the 
 apostles.* Thus we understand how he can say at one 
 time that the entire Scriptures can be clearly, unambigu- 
 ously, and harmoniously understood by all,° and can speak 
 elsewhere of the impossibihty of explaining all that is in 
 the Scriptures." What all can understand is, in his thought, 
 that there is one God, the Creator of all things, and one 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of a virgin, cruci- 
 fied, and riseu from the dead, who is to be the judge of men. 
 
 But though Irenasus wanted men to take the words of 
 Scripture in their natural sense, it will be shown that he 
 was far from doing this himself. He desired to have the 
 order and connection of Scripture regarded, but often 
 failed to regard them himself. And while there was an 
 
 ^ Against Heresies, 3. 12. p. * Ibid., 2. 9. i; 3. 2. 2; 3. 1-2; 4. 1. 
 ' Ibid.., 2. 27. I. 5 JJM., 2. 27. ^. 
 
 "Ibid., I. 22. I. 'Ibid., i. 28. 2-3. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN/EUS 105 
 
 element of truth in his claim for tradition, there was also a 
 subtle error in it. To accept this tradition as a correct 
 summary of Scripture teaching and vow loyalty to it was 
 obviously to surrender in so far one's own right to search 
 the Scriptures for one's self. It is probable that Irenseus 
 did as much to hamper exegesis in subsequent centuries 
 as the apologists had done by their theory of inspiration. 
 
 When we come to details of the exegesis of Irenseus, we 
 find that he was virtually in line with Justin. Like him 
 he found the Son implanted everywhere in the Old Testa- 
 ment.^ Like him he regarded the Old Testament as full 
 of minute predictions regarding Christ.^ His freedom in 
 ascribing a mystical and symbolical meaning to the text 
 was not less than Justin's, as the following illustrations 
 show. Thus the three spies whom Rahab hid with the 
 stalks of flax upon her roof (Josh. 2 : 4) were types of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.^ The fact that the 
 stone which Daniel saw in his vision (2 : 34) was cut out 
 of the mountain without hands indicated that Joseph was 
 not the father of Jesus.^ Balaam's ass was a type of the 
 body of Jesus, upon whom all men, resting from their 
 labors, are borne as in a chariot.^ 
 
 Irenseus applied to the New Testament also this typo- 
 logical method of exegesis. Thus the magi offered Jesus 
 gold because he was a king, myrrh because he was to die 
 and be buried, and frankincense because he was God." 
 
 - ' Against Heresies, 4. 26. 1. 
 
 ' See, e.g., Against Heresies, 4. 6; 3. 20. 4. 
 ' Ibid., 4. 20. 12. ' See Fragment, 23. 
 
 * Ibid., 3. 21.7. ' Against Heresies, 3. 9. 2. 
 
Io6 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The act of washing the disciples' feet meant that Jesus 
 cleansed the disciples themselves from sin, and giving the 
 disciples food when they were in a recumbent posture 
 indicated that his mission on earth was to those who were 
 spiritually dead/ In thus allegorizing New Testament 
 history, Irenaeus took a step which no one before him, ex- 
 cept the Gnostics, had taken. 
 
 In conclusion, as illustrating Irenaeus' style of reasoning 
 as an interpreter, we advert to the fact that he argued from 
 the four winds and the four faces of the cherubim that 
 there must needs have been just four Gospels ; ^ that Jesus 
 could not have been the son of Joseph, for then he would 
 not have been greater than Solomon, Jonah, and David ; ' 
 and that when Jesus said that Moses wrote of him (John 
 5:46), this is the clearest indication that the writings of 
 Moses are Christ's own words I* 
 
 The course of interpretation from Clement of Rome to 
 Irenaeus, which we have now followed in some detail, 
 may be briefly summarized. It reveals no tendencies 
 which are not to be seen in New Testament writers, at 
 least in germ. Its relationship to the Epistle to the He- 
 brews is closer than to any other canonical vmting. The 
 four great features which, though adumbrated in the New 
 Testament, go far beyond it, are the doctrine of inspiration, 
 the finding of the Logos throughout the Old Testament, the 
 identification of the heart of the Old Testament with its 
 supposed predictive element, and the spirituahzation of the 
 Scripture text. The most apt use of Scripture is found in 
 
 • Against Heresies, 4. 22. i. ' Ibid., 3. 21. 8. 
 
 ' Ibid., 3. II. S. * Ibid., 4. 2. 3. 
 
FROM CLEMENT TO IREN/EUS 107 
 
 Polycarp and Ignatius, and in these writers alone do we 
 see the New Testament put above the Old. The feature of 
 second century interpretation which departs farthest from 
 the New Testament type is its arbitrary spiritualizing of 
 the Old Testament, whether by finding in it types of Christ 
 or by regarding it as mystical and allegorical in its nature. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 
 
 The "school of the faithful" in Alexandria, over which 
 Clement and Origen presided at the close of the second 
 century and in the earlier part of the third, may have been 
 established some years before the death of Irenaeus,^ whose 
 work as an interpreter was considered at the close of the 
 last chapter. At this ancient seat of science and philoso- 
 phy, we see the first systematic attempt to train men to be 
 teachers and preachers of the new rehgion. The origin of 
 the institution that undertook this work is lost among the 
 shadows of the second century, but the school was flourish- 
 ing when Eusebius wrote his history, that is, in the first 
 quarter of the fourth century. The men who made this 
 school famous had a greater influence in the Christian 
 Church as philosophers than as interpreters of Scripture, 
 and yet their influence in this latter department far ex- 
 ceeded that of any earlier interpreters. It is our purpose 
 in this chapter to speak of the bibUcal work of Clement and 
 Origen, and to follow the influence of their type of exegesis 
 
 * See Eusebius, Church History, $. lo. 1-4. Kriiger, History of Early 
 Christian Literature, p. 160, speaks of this school as having existed long 
 prior to 180, but that cannot be inferred from the indefinite language of 
 Eusebius. Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Schule, p. 9, re- 
 gards it as dating from the middle of the second century. 
 
 108 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 
 
 109 
 
 through the century and a half immediately subsequent to 
 Origen's death. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, like his favorite teacher Pan- 
 taenus, whom he succeeded as head of the catechetical 
 school, was a pagan philosopher before he became a Chris- 
 tian, and was probably a native of Athens.^ Of his life 
 before he came to Alexandria, and of the last ten years ^ 
 subsequent to his departure from that city on the outbreak 
 of persecution, we know almost nothing. Clement was a 
 philosopher by training and choice. In him, says Harnack,' 
 ecclesiastical Christianity reached the stage that Judaism 
 had attained in Philo. It was as a philosopher, whose ideal 
 of the Christian was that he should become "a perfect 
 Gnostic," * that he read and interpreted the Scriptures. 
 His general conception of Christianity is given in these 
 sentences from the Stromata. Philosophy, he says, was a 
 schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the Law the 
 Hebrews, to Christ.' Philosophy, therefore, was a prepara- 
 tion for the Gospel ; it paved the way that men might be 
 perfected in Christ. "The way of truth is one," says 
 Clement, "but into it, as into a perennial river, flow streams 
 from all sides." 
 
 As an interpreter of Scripture, Clement stood on essen- 
 tially the same ground as Philo ; but in the application of a 
 common method he showed better judgment than his great 
 Jewish predecessor, and did not often go to such excesses in 
 
 ' See Bigg, T-he Christian Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 44-45. 
 2 Clement died about 213 A.D. (Bigg), or before 216 (Zahn). 
 'History of Dogma, -z. 325. 
 ^ See Stromata, 6. g-12. ' Hid., 1. 5. 
 
no THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 his interpretation. He looked upon the Scriptures, even 
 the New Testament, as a book of enigmas, and he held that 
 allegory is the one key to this book.* It is said that Clem- 
 ent accepted allegorism as a part of ecclesiastical tradition, 
 and it is plain that he gave it no such philosophical basis 
 as did his pupil Origen;^ and yet Clement's use of allegory 
 differed not a Uttle from any tradition with which we are 
 acquainted. It is no longer incidental, as in Justin and 
 Irenseus, but fundamental. Clement, in holding that 
 Scripture has three' senses, — Uteral or historical, moral, 
 and spiritual, — obviously held that, in order to be fuUy 
 understood, it must be allegorized. Now this was a radical 
 step in advance of the ecclesiastical tradition, and it gives 
 to Clement's exegesis its one conspicuous feature. 
 
 It will be easy to show that the allegorizing of Clement 
 was more recondite and elaborate than that of Justin. 
 Take, e.g., his treatment of the tabernacle and its furniture.^ 
 The four colors of the covering — blue, purple, scarlet, and 
 white (Ex. 26:1) — suggest, he says, that the nature of 
 the elements which these colors symbohze, contains the 
 revelation of God. Again, the position of the various 
 articles has great significance. The altar of incense 
 placed in the Holy Place before the veil (Ex. 30 : 6) is a 
 symbol of the earth in the middle of the universe. The 
 
 ' Stromata, 5. 6. ^ See Bigg, op. cit., p. 134. 
 
 ' For the view that Clement found a fourfold sense in Scripture, and 
 wrote in Stromata, 1. 28, rerpoxiSs instead of Tpixfis, see Davidson, 
 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 79, and Bigg, op. cit., p. 57, note. But the con- 
 text is against this reading, as is also the fact that Clement's pupil, Origen, 
 held a threefold sense. 
 
 * Stromata, 5. 6. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS ill 
 
 lamp is an enigma of Christ, and its position on the south 
 of the altar shows the motions of the seven planets, which 
 perform their revolutions toward the south. The ark 
 signifies the properties of the world of thought, and the 
 twelve stones in four rows are the signs of the zodiac in the 
 four seasons. Another typical instance is this from the 
 Pcedagogus} The prophet speaks of the coming deliverer 
 as riding into Jerusalem upon an ass and a young colt 
 (Zech. 9:9). It was not enough, says Clement, to have 
 said "colt" alone, but he added to it also "young," to 
 show the youth of humanity in Christ, and the eternity of 
 simplicity which shall know no old age. Then with a 
 personal application to his readers, he continues, "We who 
 are little ones, being such colts, are reared up by our divine 
 colt-tamer." 
 
 The allegorizing of Clement is not only more recondite 
 and elaborate than that of any of his Christian predecessors ; 
 it also extends to the New Testament. Now while it may 
 be said that the Platonic maxim, "Nothing is to be 
 believed which is unworthy of God," lay at the root of 
 allegorism as applied to the Old Testament,^ the allego- 
 rizing of the New Testament cannot appeal to this maxim. 
 Yet Clement allegorizes even here. In the fragment of a 
 sermon on the Lost Son,^ he speaks of the robe which was 
 put on the returning prodigal as the robe of immortality) 
 and says that it was given to him the moment he obtained 
 baptism. Of the "shoes" he says that they are "buoyant, 
 and ascending, and waft to heaven, and serve as such a 
 
 ' Padagogus, 1. 5. ' See Bigg, op. cit., p. 51. 
 
 ' See Ante-Nicene Fathers, Coxe's edition, 2. 581-582. 
 
112 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 ladder and chariot as he requires who has turned his mind 
 toward the Father." The "calf" of the parable is Christ, 
 well grown and to such size that he fills those who eat him. 
 
 Even the two fishes and five barley loaves with which 
 Jesus once fed a multitude are allegorically explained by 
 Clement. Taken together, they indicate the preparatory 
 training of the Greeks and Jews, for barley is sooner ripe 
 than wheat. The "fish" signify the philosophy that is 
 produced in the midst of the Gentile billows.' It would be 
 far easier to multiply illustrations of this sort than to find 
 an instance of sober interpretation. But it is not necessary 
 to dwell longer on Clement's method. The best that can 
 be said of its application is that it was measurably controlled 
 by the author's fidelity to certain fundamental Christian 
 truths. 
 
 When Clement fled from Alexandria, his mantle as 
 head of the catechetical school fell upon Origen, a native 
 Alexandrian of Christian parentage, but of Coptic blood, 
 who was then about eighteen years old. This position 
 he held for twenty-eight years with only one brief interrup- 
 tion during the persecution under Caracalla. He spent 
 this interval in Jerusalem and Csesarea. When finally 
 deposed from his office in Alexandria in 231 or 232 a.d.,^ 
 he continued his labors in Caesarea, where he founded a 
 biblical school. He died in Tyre in 254 a.d. as a result of 
 tortures to which he had been subjected during the Decian 
 persecution. 
 
 Origen achieved greatness not simply in the specific 
 
 ' Stromata, 6. 11. 
 
 ^ See Kruger, History of Early Christian Literature, p. 176. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 1 13 
 
 work of interpretation, but also as a text critic, and it is 
 necessary to bear this fact in mind in order to explain such 
 apparently conflicting statements regarding him as, e.g., 
 that he laid the foundations of scientific criticism of the 
 Old and the New Testament, and also that he read his 
 own ideas into whatever passage of Scripture he chose for 
 interpretation ; ' or, that mediaeval interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture was inspired by him,^ and yet that he was the greatest 
 teacher of the Church after the apostles (Jerome). 
 
 As an interpreter, Origen was a greater Clement ; as a 
 text critic, he was a pioneer. As an interpreter, he illus- 
 trated the Alexandrian type of exegesis most systematically 
 and extensively ; as a critic of the text, it is true of him 
 that he introduced a new epoch. As an interpreter, he 
 represents the culmination of a fatal method ; as a critic 
 of the text, he was qualified to be a valuable witness 
 rather than a judge ; ' he called attention to new lines of 
 investigation rather than laid sure foundations on which 
 later workers might build. He produced a New Testa- 
 ment text which attained currency in his own time,* and 
 in the Hexapla ^ he presented the materials for a compari- 
 son of the Hebrew text and the various Greek versions. 
 This first attempt to establish the true text of Scripture in 
 a documentary manner has long since perished. 
 
 While the qualifications of Origen for critical work 
 doubtless surpassed, on the whole, those of any other 
 
 'See Harnack, Ency. Brit., article "Origen." 
 ' See Westcott, Diet, of Christ. Eiog., article "Origenes." 
 ' See Westcott, op. cit. 
 
 * See Bigg, op. cit., pp. 123-124; Kruger, op. cit., p. 179. 
 " See Eusebius, Church History, 6. 16. 
 I 
 
114 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 scholar of his century, it is plain that he was hampered 
 by some serious deficiencies. Thus his knowledge of 
 Hebrew was not thorough and independent,' his historical 
 sense was little developed, and in critical power he was not 
 the equal of his contemporary Africanus.^ 
 
 As an interpreter, Origen was regarded by his pupils 
 as inspired,^ and subsequent generations have drawn 
 largely from his writings. Yet it seems obvious that the 
 salient features of this interpretation were dogmatic pre- 
 possession and allegory. The former is well seen in a 
 statement from the Commentary on John * where it is said 
 that the Gospels are the first-fruit of Scripture and John the 
 first-fruit of the Gospel, because no other "plainly de- 
 clared" the Godhead of Christ, "as John does." 
 
 Now, that the Gospels are the first-fruits of Scripture 
 was a true Christian conclusion, for which he might have 
 adduced ample grounds; but that John is the first-fruit 
 of the Gospels on account of its plain declaration of the 
 Godhead of Christ is a statement which savors not of the 
 student of Scripture, but only of the theologian. When 
 such a statement is made at the outset of a commentary, 
 we know how the interpretation will fall out. Again, we 
 have the same principle laid down in the Preface of the 
 De Principiis, for Origen here declares that nothing is 
 to be accepted as truth which differs in any respect from 
 ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition. Since then tradition 
 
 ' See Elliott, Diet, of Christ. Biog., article " Hebrew Learning among 
 the Fathers"; Bigg, op. cit., pp. 125-126; Westcott, op. cit. 
 ' See his Letter to Origen regarding the History of Susanna. 
 ° See the Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
 * Commentary on John, x. 6. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 115 
 
 found Christ throughout the Old Testament, Origan did 
 the same. His view of inspiration was also in essential 
 harmony with that of tradition, as it appears in men like 
 Justin. Inspiration, he held, extended to the whole of 
 Scripture," and was of such sort that the admission of a 
 discrepancy in the Gospels ^ would require us to give up 
 our trust in them. 
 
 A statement like that quoted above in reference to the 
 preeminence of the Gospels seems to imply that Origen, 
 in common with some of the rabbis, saw differing degrees 
 of inspiration in different parts of Scripture,' but on this 
 point one can speak only in a general way. He does not 
 seem to have associated inspiration in an essential manner 
 with the content of the sacred writings. 
 
 But the dogmatic bias in Origen as an interpreter was 
 not by any means peculiar to him, nor more prominent 
 than, for example, in Irenseus. Not so the completeness 
 with which he set forth the method of allegory. In this 
 particular, his work marked a distinct development. Like 
 Clement he accepted the doctrine of a threefold sense in 
 Scripture, but he established this doctrine out of Scripture 
 itself,^ viz., out of the Septuagint rendering of an uncertain 
 Hebrew word in Prov. 8 : 20. In following the Septuagint 
 without warrant from the Hebrew, in building a great 
 superstructure on a text which even in Scripture is obscure, 
 and in extending to all Scripture a word which obviously 
 applied only to a part of the single book of Proverbs, 
 
 ' De Principiis, 4. 1. 7. * Commentary on John, 10. 2. 
 
 ' See Harnack, History of Dogma, 2. 348; Bigg, op. cit., p. 147. 
 • De Principiis, 4. i. 11. 
 
Il6 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Origen afforded in his proof of the threefold sense of Scrip- 
 ture an admirable illustration of the utter inconclusiveness 
 . of his reasoning. 
 
 Of the three meanings of "the divine letters," the his- 
 torical sense, which is primarily for the edification of the 
 simple, may be called the "body" of Scripture. Not all 
 texts have this bodily sense, according to Origen, but the 
 majority have.^ Those who can see deeper than the 
 historical sense are edified by the "soul" of Scripture; 
 and those who are perfect perceive the spiritual law itself. 
 They attain to the pneumatic sense. All Scripture has 
 this spiritual meaning.^ 
 
 Origen found confirmation of the doctrine of a threefold 
 sense in the supposed constitution of man as a being con- 
 sisting of body, soul, and spirit — a confirmation worth 
 about as much as the verse in Proverbs. For even if it 
 were established that man consists of body, soul, and spirit, 
 one sees no reason for assuming that the historical sense of 
 Scripture is designed for the redemption of man's body, its 
 psychic sense for his soul, and its mystic meaning for his 
 spirit. The supposed analogy is without force. It has 
 no more connection with the thought of Scripture than has 
 Origen's explanation of the water-jars which are mentioned 
 in the story of the marriage at Cana. The expression 
 "two or three firkins" is a dark intimation, says Origen, 
 that the Jews were purified by the psychical and spiritual 
 sense, sometimes also by the addition of the corporeal. 
 Since, moreover, the world was made in six days, it was 
 
 ' De Principiis, 4. i. ig-20. * Ibid., 4. i. 20. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS I17 
 
 appropriate that there should be six jars for the water of 
 purification.' 
 
 Origen appeals, in support of his doctrine, to the obvious 
 irrationality of taking some statements of Scripture in a 
 hteral sense,^ and notes that certain passages are treated 
 allegorically or figuratively even by the sacred writers;^ 
 but the first of these facts is not an argument that Scripture 
 has more than one sense, and as for the second, it of course 
 does not suggest that any passage has more than two 
 senses, and it would be quite unsafe to argue from it that 
 every passage of Scripture has even two meanings, a his- 
 torical and an allegorical. 
 
 It is plain that Origen as an interpreter found his chief 
 satisfaction in drawing out the pneumatic sense of Scrip- 
 ture, and that his method of accomplishing this end was 
 as arbitrary and worthless as was his doctrine that every 
 Scripture has a pneumatic sense as distinguished from an 
 historical and a moral sense. As an illustration of this 
 statement, take the words of the Baptist in John 1:26:* 
 "There standeth one among you whom ye know not." 
 This statement scarcely seems to call for any comment, 
 but as in many other cases the very simplicity of the text 
 appears to have been to Origen evidence of an unusually 
 deep meaning. These words, he says, indicate that Christ 
 has "such virtue as to be invisible in his Deity, though 
 present to every man and extending over the whole uni- 
 verse." The historical impossibility of attributing such a 
 thought to the Baptist did not occur to Origen. 
 
 ' De Principiis, 4. 1. 12. ' Ihid., 4. i. 12. 
 
 ' Ibid., 4. I. 16-18. * Commentary on John, 6. ij. 
 
Il8 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 In the next verse of the same chapter of John we have 
 another very simple statement, "The latchet of whose shoe 
 I am not worthy to unloose." Origen sees strange mys- 
 teries in the "shoe." The author, he says, conveys, as in a 
 riddle, that he is not fit to solve and to explain the argu- 
 ment about Christ's assuming a human body, an argu- 
 ment "tied up" and hidden from those who do not under- 
 stand it. Then he dilates on the fact that only one shoe 
 is mentioned in John, while in the other Gospel the plural 
 is used. One shoe signifies Christ's taking human flesh, the 
 other his descent into Hades.^ The Baptist mentioned 
 only one, because at the time he was in doubt whether Jesus 
 was to enter Hades.^ All this is as utterly fanciful as the 
 exegesis of Philo. The difference between them as alle- 
 gorists is that Philo was not bound as closely by a living 
 tradition as was Origen. We know at the outset that while 
 Origen 's method of exegesis allows him to deduce from a 
 text of Scripture some heretical doctrine of Valentinus or 
 Basilides, the doctrine which he will actually bring forth 
 will be consistent with the Catholic faith. But this is 
 absolutely the only certainty that one can feel in regard to 
 the result of Origen's study of a given Scripture text. 
 
 The Alexandrian type of exegesis which we have seen 
 in Clement and Origen dominated the Western Church 
 through the period of the great Theologians. It was thus 
 vitally related to the doctrinal statements which have 
 continued in force to the present day. It will be sufficient 
 for our purpose to trace the Alexandrian influence on the 
 great men who moulded ecclesiastical doctrine; but first 
 
 ' Commentary on John, 6. i8. ' Ibid., 6. 21. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS lig 
 
 we may notice briefly the relation between Origen's work 
 and some less distinguished Church leaders. 
 
 Of the immediate pupils of Origen, no one registered an 
 advance on the exegetical method of their master. Dio- 
 nysius, the greatest of them, allegorized even the vinegar, the 
 sponge, and the hyssop which are mentioned in the account 
 of the crucifixion.^ The school which Origen founded at 
 Cassarea may have continued the better tendency in his 
 biblical method, that is, the critical, and may have rejected 
 allegorism,^ or at least may have refused to give it promi- 
 nence. And yet the great bishop of Csesarea, Eusebius, 
 who succeeded to this office between fifty and sixty years 
 after the death of Origen, stands, as an interpreter, in 
 general agreement with the Alexandrians, though the 
 historical sense sometimes assumes greater practical im- 
 portance in his sight than in that of Origen. 
 
 In Jerome ' the critical element assumes as large propor- 
 tions as in the work of Origen, and in this department his 
 achievement was of the greatest influence, far surpassing 
 that of the Alexandrian pioneer. He was the first to reject 
 the tradition regarding the Septuagint translation, the first 
 to go with adequate or at least respectable knowledge to 
 the Hebrew original, the first to make a critical translation 
 of the Bible, and the first to acquire a considerable archaeo- 
 logical knowledge of the Scriptures. All these distinguished 
 achievements suggest that Jerome is to be classed with the 
 school of Antioch rather than with that of Alexandria, but 
 
 ' See Ante-Nicene Fathers, Coxe's edition, 6. 114 f. 
 
 ^ See Chase, Chrysostom, p. 4. 
 
 ' Born 340-342 A.D. (Zockler) ; died about 420 A.D. 
 
I20 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 these achievements do not show us the exegete. In this 
 department he belongs, in the main, with Origen and the 
 Alexandrians. Thus, for example, he declares that every 
 sacrifice in Leviticus, every word that it contains, the 
 description of Aaron's vestments, and all the regulations 
 connected with the Levites, are symbols of things heavenly.* 
 He sees mysteries in the figures of the book of Numbers 
 and in the names of the camping-places.^ Joshua's de- 
 scriptions of boundaries mark out the realm of the heavenly 
 Jerusalem; that is, of the Church.^ The shipwreck of 
 Jonah shows in a figure the passion of the Lord.^ In every 
 word of the Apocalypse manifold meanings lie hid.° If 
 he did not accept Origen 's threefold sense of Scripture, he 
 yet distinguished two senses, which amounted to much 
 the same thing. He aimed, says Zockler,' to steer between 
 the historical and the allegorical, as between Scylla and 
 Charybdis. This may have been his aim, but it seems, 
 nevertheless, to have been particularly easy for him to 
 fall into the Charybdis of allegorizing. 
 
 About one hundred years after Origen fled from Alexan- 
 dria, Athanasius became bishop of the Alexandrian Church. 
 If Eusebius of Csesarea was, as an interpreter, an Origenist 
 with a leaning toward a more historical method, Athana- 
 sius was an Origenist with a leaning toward a more logical 
 method. He was, indeed, a theologian rather than an 
 exegete, but the dominance of his theology in some sec- 
 tions of the Church gives a special interest to his exegetical 
 method, and especially as he was distinguished among early 
 
 ' See To PauUnus, 8. = Ibid. ^ Ibid., 9. 
 
 ^ Ibid. * Ibid., 8. • JSieronymus, p. 370. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 12 1 
 
 theologians for the constancy and variety of his appeal to 
 the word of God. His view of inspiration was that of 
 Origen, though perhaps somewhat more rigid. The 
 Bible, he says, was spoken and written by God in such 
 manner that it contains no disagreement whatever.* To 
 admit a disagreement would be the same as admitting that 
 the Father can lie. Fortunately for this presupposition, 
 Athanasius was as deficient in the critical sense, as incapable 
 of seeing the disagreements, as were the other early theo- 
 logians. Athanasius saw no development of truth through 
 the ages of biblical history, and no differences of doctrinal 
 type. All parts of the Bible were equally good, in his 
 judgment, as sources of proof -texts. As he lived a century 
 later than Origen, during which time the Church had 
 gone through a great conflict for its faith, we are not sur- 
 prised to find that his exegesis was more conspicuously 
 subordinated to the creed. 
 
 A few typical illustrations of Athanasian exegesis will 
 support the statements just made about it. In his book 
 Against the Heathen ^ Athanasius discusses Gen. i : 26, 
 "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness." 
 " Some one was with God," says Athanasius, " to whom he 
 spoke when he made all things. Who then could it have 
 been save his Word? For to whom could God be said 
 to speak except his Word ? Or who was with him when 
 he made all created existences except his Wisdom, which 
 says, when he was making the heaven and the earth, I 
 was present with him ? " Note tlie steps in this Athanasian 
 exegesis. The Hebrew suggests that God, when about to 
 
 ' Festal Epistle, ig. 3. ' Contra Gentes, 46. 
 
122 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 create man, made known his purpose to one or more other 
 beings. Athanasius assumes that the passage refers to 
 only one besides God, and then declares this one to have 
 been the Word. " To whom could God be said to speak 
 except to his Word ? ' ' Athanasius treats his interpretation 
 as self-evident. However, he finds confirmation of his 
 view in Prov. 8 by assuming that "wisdom" is the same 
 as the Son of God. 
 
 In The Incarnation of the Word ^ Athanasius answers 
 the question why the death of Jesus was a death on the 
 cross, and this is his biblical argument. Jesus came to bear 
 the curse which was laid on us, and how else could he have 
 become a curse except by receiving the death set for a 
 curse? That is the cross, as it is written, "Cursed is he 
 that hangeth on a tree " (Deut. 21:23). ^^t it is of course 
 well known at present that the cross was not a Jewish 
 mode of capital punishment, and hence was not contem- 
 plated in Deut. 21 : 23. Again, Athanasius says that if 
 the Lord's death is the ransom of all, and by his death the 
 middle wall of partition is broken down, and the calling of 
 the nations is brought about, how would he have called 
 us to him had he not been crucified ? For it is only on the 
 cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Finally, 
 he argues that a death on the cross, that is, in the air, was 
 fitting in order that the Lord might clear the air of the 
 malignity of the devil and of all kinds of demons. 
 
 It is quite obvious that all this exegesis is in the true 
 Alexandrian fine — mystical and wholly inconclusive. 
 The same must be said of Athanasius' interpretation of 
 
 ' De Incarnatiojie, 25. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 123 
 
 Is. 6:3, which is found in the short treatise on Luke 
 10:22.^ The words to be explained are those on the 
 holiness of Jehovah by the seraphim in the temple. The 
 word "holy," thrice repeated, proves, says Athanasius, 
 that the three subsistences are perfect, just as in saying 
 "Lord" they declare the one essence. Thus it is assumed 
 that the triple repetition of the word "holy" has a mystical 
 theological significance. It is also assumed that the par- 
 ticular mystery to which it points is that of the Christian 
 Trinity. But further, the repetition of the word "holy" 
 doesnotiaeiely suggest ; it proves that the three subsistences 
 (i.e. for Athanasius, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit) are perfect. And then, finally, the fact that the 
 seraphim spoke the word "Lord" but once, after a three- 
 fold repetition of the word "holy," declares that these three 
 subsistences are "one essence." Thus out of a simple 
 poetical acknowledgment of the hoUness of Jehovah there 
 is spun the most abstruse of theological doctrines ! 
 
 The masterpiece of Athanasian exegesis is the discussion 
 •of Prov. 8:22.^ It is highly and variously characteristic 
 of patristic exegesis that its great christological proof -text 
 was taken from Proverbs. Athanasius does not raise the 
 question who or what was meant by "wisdom" in this 
 famous passage. He simply assumes, as others had long 
 done, that it was the Word, Christ. After this assumption 
 had been made, the way was plain and easy. The state- 
 ment with which the passage began in the text of Athana- 
 sius was " The Lord created me," but since it was a fore- 
 gone conclusion that the passage concerned the Son, 
 
 ' In illud omnia, 6. 6. ' Oratio, .:. 44-72. 
 
124 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Athanasius declared that the word "create" meant to 
 "beget." Such was the sovereign manner in which he 
 removed obstacles ! Now since Christ was begotten, — 
 this is the main contention of the writer, — he was an 
 offspring, but not, as the heretical Arians affirmed, a 
 creature. But these illustrations must suffice for Athana- 
 sius. 
 
 There was one theologian of greater influence in the 
 ancient Church than Athanasius, and whose writings have 
 had far greater power in subsequent centuries, to wit, 
 Augustin, bishop of Hippo, born just a hundred years after 
 the death of Origen. 
 
 Augustin studied the Scriptures in a Latin translation. 
 He had no knowledge of Hebrew,^ and did not deem 
 such knowledge necessary. The Greek translation of 
 the Old Testament was for him as truly inspired as 
 was the original itself. The translators were themselves 
 prophets.^ Their work differed somewhat from the origi- 
 nal, he knew, but he regarded these differences as divinely 
 suited to an edition of the Scriptures for the Gentiles.^ 
 For this reason he urged Jerome to translate from the 
 Greek rather than from the Hebrew.* 
 
 Augustin, like Origen, found his chief pleasure in Bible 
 study in the search after a hidden sense. He tells us in 
 his Confessions that he heard Ambrose with delight as he 
 argued from 2 Cor. 3:6 that we are to go back of the 
 literal meaning of Scripture, and seek a spiritual sense. ^ 
 
 • Civitas Dei, 11. 5. ' De doctrina Christiana, 2. 15. 
 
 ' Ibid., 18. 43. * Epistola Ixxi. 2. ' Confessions, 6. 6. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS lag 
 
 He declares that he holds the strict truth of Bible history/ 
 and he regards those persons as very daring who say that it 
 is all to be understood allegorically;^ but nevertheless he 
 makes relatively little use of the literal meaning. His 
 teaching is usually that which has been discovered by the 
 allegorical method. The test by which he determines 
 whether a passage is to be taken Uterally or is to be allego- 
 rized is practical : would the proposed interpretation tend 
 to establish the reign of love?' If the literal meaning 
 seems perverse, it is to be abandoned.* 
 
 Augustin held that a very large part of Scripture is to be 
 understood both Uterally and figuratively. Nearly all the 
 transactions of the Old Testament are to be taken both as 
 histories and as allegories.' His chief interest, as has been 
 said, lay in the allegorical interpretation, and this inter- 
 pretation was fruitful largely in proportion to the initial 
 difficulty in extracting any spiritual meaning whatsoever 
 from a passage.* As with Origen, so with Augustin, the 
 simpler a thing is, the more difficult he made it.' 
 
 AU that has now been said of Augustin's method will be 
 illustrated by the instances of interpretation which follow, 
 and these will also serve to show what the Alexandrian 
 type of exegesis could accomplish with the aid of great 
 intellectual ability. 
 
 In Augustin's day some people made the account of 
 
 ' Civitas Dei, 13. 21. ^ Ibid., 17. 3. 
 
 ' De doctrina Christiana, 3. 23. * Confessions, 6. 6. 
 
 ^ De doctrina Christiana, 3. 32 ; De mendacio, 36. 
 
 ' De doctrina Christiana, 2. 7; Contra Faustum, 22. 94. 
 
 ' Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 132. 
 
126 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Eden wholly allegorical. This was distasteful to him. 
 He declares that there was a real terrestrial paradise 
 wherein were rivers and trees. But having affirmed this 
 point, he continues as follows: "No one denies that para- 
 dise may signify the life of the blessed ; its four rivers, the 
 four virtues ; its trees, all useful knowledge ; its fruit, the 
 customs of the godly ; its tree of hfe, wisdom herself, the 
 mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of 
 good and evil, the experience of a broken commandment." 
 But even this is not all that paradise means. These 
 things, says Augustin, can also and more profitably be 
 understood of the Church, so that they become prophetic 
 foreshadowings of things to come. " Paradise is the 
 Church; the four rivers are the four Gospels; the fruit 
 trees are the saints, and the fruit their works; the tree of 
 hfe is the Holy of Holies, Christ ; the tree of the knowl- 
 edge of good and evil, the will's free choice." And he 
 concludes, "These and similar allegorical interpretations 
 may be suitably put upon paradise without giving offence 
 to any one." ' Here we have an illustration of the ex- 
 tremely elastic nature of the allegorical principle. The 
 four rivers of paradise may be taken to signify the four 
 cardinal virtues, or the four Gospels; the tree of Ufe as 
 wisdom or as Christ, and so forth. Thus it appears that 
 any passage of Scripture which is to be taken in a spiritual 
 sense may have an almost unlimited number of meanings. 
 Another characteristic illustration of Augustin's inter- 
 pretation is furnished by the ark. This is regarded as a 
 figure of the city of God sojourning in this world, that is 
 ' Civiias Dei, 13. 21. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 127 
 
 to say, of the Church, which is rescued by the wood on 
 which Christ hung. Its very dimensions represent the 
 human body in which he came. For .the length of the 
 human body is six times its breadth and ten times its depth 
 or thickness. Therefore the ark was made three hundred 
 cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high. The door in its 
 side certainly signified the wound in the side of the crucified 
 one, for by this those who come to him enter.^ Augustin 
 modestly concedes that another man might give a better 
 exposition of the ark than his, but he is certain that, how- 
 ever its details are understood, it must be referred to the 
 Church. 
 
 The writings of Augustin on the Psalms would fill a 
 volume with allegories hke those which have been cited. 
 It is well worth noting that he gave relatively more atten- 
 tion to the titles of the Psalms than to the Psalms them- 
 selves, probably because the titles are so obscure, for he 
 testifies that the more obscure the Scriptures are, the more 
 wonderful are their secrets. According to this valuable 
 principle, the titles as given in the Greek translation of the 
 Psalms are far more attractive than they are in the original, 
 for they are far more unintelligible. Let us notice a few 
 instances of his treatment of these titles. The ninety- 
 seventh Psalm, which in the Hebrew text has no super- 
 scription, had the following in Augustin's Bible : " A Psalm 
 of David when his land was restored."^ This restoration 
 of David's land, says Augustin, is the resurrection of the 
 flesh, for after Christ's resurrection, all those things which 
 are sung in the Psalms were done. In the title of Ps. 8 
 
 ' Civitas Dei, 15. 26. ' Enarrationes in Psalmos, xcvii. 
 
128 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Augustin had the word "wine-presses," and he interpreted 
 it as signifying "churches," because in them the good are 
 separated from the bad, even as in the wine-presses the juice 
 of the grape is separated from that which is thrown away.' 
 The title of the seventy-third Psalm assigns it to Asaph, but 
 Augustin discovers that this word means "synagogue," 
 and accordingly, in an elaborate introduction, he endeavors 
 to show that the Psalm is the voice of the synagogue.^ 
 But enough regarding his treatment of the titles. 
 
 Now as to the content of the Psalms. No Psalm wholly 
 escapes allegorical interpretation. Even the twenty-third 
 is an allegory. The speaker in it is the Church; the 
 shepherd is Jesus. The water of refreshing is the water of 
 baptism. Other details are similarly treated.' Psalm 8 
 was rather more fruitful in spiritual meaning than Ps. 
 23. Thus the reference to a "glory above the heaven" 
 signifies the exaltation of Christ. The heavens which the 
 psalmist says were the work of God's finger are interpreted 
 as the Old Testament and the New. The moon is the 
 Church, and the stars are individual local churches. "All 
 sheep and oxen" are the holy souls both of men and angels. 
 Thus runs his entire interpretation of the Psalm. 
 
 Augustin allegorized the New Testament as well as the 
 Old, but of this treatment a single example must suflB.ce. 
 Jesus bade the Samaritan woman go and call her husband, 
 and Augustin finds a hidden sense in the word "husband." 
 What the woman was sent to call was her understanding. 
 But if this is the meaning of husband, how about the five 
 husbands whom the woman has already had? AugustiJ 
 
 ' Enarrationes in Psalmos, viii. ' Ibid., Ixxiii. ' Ibid., xxiii. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 129 
 
 replies that these are possibly the five books of Moses, but 
 more probably the reference is to the five senses. As these 
 senses have ruled over her body, they are called "hus- 
 bands.'" 
 
 Again, to Augustin as to Philo, the numbers of Scripture 
 were an inexhaustible mine of spiritual meaning. Knowl- 
 edge of numbers he held to be among the essential things 
 which an interpreter should possess.^ It mattered not 
 whether a number stood in a poem or in a plain historical 
 statement; in any case it might yield a spiritual sense. 
 Thus, e.g., he saw a "great mystery" in the number of fish 
 taken by the disciples, as recorded in the last chapter of 
 John. Here is his solution of the mystery. Ten is the 
 number of the Law, but since the Law must be aided by 
 grace, that is, the Holy Spirit, and since the Spirit is de- 
 noted by the number seven, we add this to the number of 
 the Law and get seventeen. Now if we add together the 
 numbers from one to seventeen, we have the number of 
 fish which the disciples took, namely, 153. 
 
 It is to be noted further that this number 153 contains 
 the number 50 three times with a remainder of three, and 
 thus it is seen to have a double reference to the mystery of 
 the Trinity ! ' 
 
 It may be said in concluding this statement on Augustin's 
 interpretation that in him the tendency to read Christ into 
 the Old Testament has its most striking illustration. Pre- 
 dictions of him are everywhere discovered, and discovered 
 
 ' See In Johan. Evang., Tractatum 15. 
 
 ' De doctrina Christiana, ;;. 25. 
 
 ' In Johan. Evang., Tractatum 122. 
 
130 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 as easily in the mere numbers of some unimportant chron- 
 icle of remote times as in the deep longings of the great 
 spiritual teachers of Israel. The genuine Messianic 
 element in the Old Testament was thus buried out of 
 sight in a vast sea of fictitious predictions. The simple 
 history of the Old Testament was obscured or totally 
 eclipsed by the "spiritual truth" which was juggled. out of 
 its letter, and development in the history of redemption 
 was made impossible. 
 
 It is obvious that Augustin's view of prophecy is as 
 certainly condemned by Jesus' conception of the Old Tes- 
 tament as it is by modern scholarship. For Jesus did not 
 treat the Old Testament allegorically ; Jesus did not di- 
 vorce Messianic prophecy from Old Testament life; and 
 Jesus did not make development in the history of redemp- 
 tion impossible by his view of prophecy. 
 
 A fact may here be cited which illustrates at once Au- 
 gustin's method of finding Christ in the Old Testament 
 and also his way of reasoning. It is this. In the titles of 
 thirty-seven Psalms the Greek translation had the word 
 "end" (TeXoi) where the Hebrew as rendered by the 
 American revisers has the words "chief musician." Now 
 Augustin took this word "end" to mean Christ, on the 
 ground that Paul calls Christ "the end of the law" 
 (Rom. 10:4).' Therefore Augustin referred these thirty- 
 seven Psalms directly to Christ. Some of them he re- 
 garded as addressed to Christ; in some he heard Christ 
 speak, either in his own person (Ps. 22) or in that of 
 the Church (Ps. 25), and in others he thought that the 
 ' See Enarrationes in Psaimos, iv, vi, viii, ix, xi, etc. 
 
THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 131 
 
 psalmist spoke about Christ, though not addressing him 
 (Ps. 19). 
 
 Such, then, was the exegesis of Augustin and such the 
 Alexandrian type. The work of Augustin had, however, 
 one great merit, its moral and spiritual wholesomeness. 
 He might go to the extreme in torturing Scripture, and 
 utterly destroy its historical sense, yet that which he 
 brought forth, especially if it lay in the sphere of daily 
 hfe rather than theology, was usually in line with 
 truth. His practical Christian feeling and balance of 
 judgment neutraUzed to some extent the errors of his 
 method. 
 
 To what extent the dominance of the Alexandrian type 
 of exegesis in the Western Church was due to the influence 
 of the great writers of Alexandria, and to what extent it 
 was the result of other forces, need not now be considered. 
 That it was not purely an importation from the illustrious 
 city on the Nile is sufficiently evidenced by Tertullian 
 (died about 220 a.d.) and Hippolytus (236 a.d.), who, 
 though contemporaries of Clement of Alexandria, inter- 
 preted the Scriptures in a thoroughly allegorical manner.' 
 Neither, on the other hand, can it be doubted that the 
 influence of Origen, who was acknowledged to be the 
 master of allegorical interpretation, was a potent force in 
 establishing the Alexandrian type in the Church of the 
 West. 
 
 ' See, e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 10; De anima, 7. 43; Contra 
 Marcionem, 4. 13; De resurrectione carnis, 13; Hippolytus, Christ and 
 Antichrist, 6-13; IIe/)i Uapoi/iluv, 30. 21-23. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 
 
 When Origen fled from Alexandria in the reign of 
 Caracalla he went to Palestine, and at the request of Theo- 
 ktistus, bishop of Ceesarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jeru- 
 salem, expounded the Scriptures publicly for a season in 
 Ceesarea.' Later, when he had been deposed from ofi&ce 
 in Alexandria, he made Caesarea his home, and laboring 
 as a teacher attracted pupils not only from Palestine but 
 also from other lands. Among the latter class was the 
 celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus.^ Pamphilus, a pres- 
 byter of Caesarea who died in 309 a.d.,' and who may there- 
 fore have sat at the feet of Origen, founded an exegetical 
 library in Caesarea in which the Hexapla and other works 
 of Origen were preserved. 
 
 This school at Caesarea, the earhest Syrian Bible school 
 of which we know,* may have perpetuated the critical spirit 
 of Origen, in which case it was a true forerunner of the 
 more famous school of Antioch.' 
 
 ' See Eusebius, Church History, 6. 19. 16-17. ' Ibid., 6. 30. 
 
 ^ Harnack, Altchristliche Literatur, 1. 2. 543. 
 
 * Kihn, Bedeutung der antioch. Schule, p. 10, says, on the authority of 
 Moehler, that Clement of Alexandria founded a school at Jerusalem in 
 209 A.D. 
 
 ' Lucian studied in the school at Csesarea. See Kihn, op. cit., p. 72. 
 
 132 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 133 
 
 Of the origin of this school at Antioch no definite infor- 
 mation has been preserved. Dorotheas, a presbyter of 
 Antioch, who, Eusebius tells us, was devoted to the study 
 of Hebrew and able to read it with facility,' and Lucian, 
 famed for his sacred learning,^ who also was a presbyter at 
 Antioch, though born at Samosata and educated in Scrip- 
 ture at Edessa, were influential teachers, and are perhaps 
 to be regarded as the founders of the Antiochian school or 
 method.^ The work of Lucian of which the influence sur- 
 vived longest was his recension of the text of the New 
 Testament and of the Septuagint. Jerome says that in his 
 day certain copies of the Scripture (i.e., apparently, of the 
 Septuagint) bore Lucian's name. Of his pupils the most 
 famous were Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. 
 
 Greater than the name of Lucian was that of Diodore, 
 who was a presbyter in Antioch and after 378 a.d. bishop 
 of Tarsus. Jerome says that he enjoyed a great reputa- 
 tion while still a presbyter,* and Basil in acknowledging 
 the loan of two of Diodore's own works, commends the 
 abihty of both, and says that he has retained one for the 
 
 ' Church History, 7. 32. .!. 
 
 ' Jerome, De viris illustribus, 77; Eusebius, Church History, 9. 6. 
 
 ' Lucian died in 312 A.D. Dorotheus flourished 280-300 a.d. See 
 Hamack, op. cit., 1. 2. 532. Suidas, quoted in Harnack, op. cit., i. 2. 528, 
 ascribes the origin of the school to Lucian. Kihn, op. cit., regards Theo- 
 philus, bishop of Antioch (168 A.D.), Serapion, successor of Theophilus 
 (190 A.D.), and Malchion, a presbyter, as forerunners of the school. The 
 exegesis of Basil the Great of Cappadocia, who went to the extreme of 
 literalness and rarely allegorized, shows that some features of the Antio- 
 chian method at least were found in writers of the Eastern Church who 
 had not felt the influence of Antioch. Basil was educated at Athens. 
 
 * De viris illustribus, 119. 
 
134 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 purpose of transcribing it.' Diodore is said to have written 
 commentaries on the Epistles^ and to have written a 
 treatise on principles of interpretation,' the first work of 
 the sort by a Christian scholar ; but probably his greatest 
 monument was his two famous pupils, Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia and John Chrysostom. In the works of these men 
 we become acquainted with the best that was accomplished 
 by the West Syrian school of Bible study. 
 
 Of the East Syrian school, with centres at Edessa and 
 Nisibis, the most illustrious son, Ephrem,^ was a poet 
 rather than a biblical critic, and though his influence on 
 the Eastern Church may have exceeded that of any other 
 scholar of his century, his significance for the history 
 of interpretation is not great. There were differences be- 
 tween the western and the eastern Syrian interpreters, the 
 latter, e.g., being more largely controlled by sentiment and 
 the former by reason ; but they were one in opposition to 
 the allegorization of Scripture which prevailed at Alex- 
 andria.^ 
 
 We turn now to the chief representatives of the West 
 Syrian school, Theodore and John. Both were natives of 
 Antioch and Greek in race. John was born about 347 a.d. 
 and Theodore about 350 a.d. Theodore was ordained as 
 a presbyter in Antioch in 383 a.d., was made bishop of 
 
 ' See Letters, 135. * Jerome, De viris illustribus, 119. 
 
 ' The title in Suidas is oris Staippi, Jo-ropios Kal AWrf/oplas. See Chase, 
 Chrysostom, p. 10. 
 
 * See Jerome, De viris illustribus, 115; Sozomen, Church History, 
 3. 16. Bardesanes and Harmonius, contemporaries of Lucian, attained 
 eminence among the scholars of Edessa. 
 
 ' See Dorner, Christologie, z. 30-31. 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 135 
 
 Mopsuestia about 392 a.d., and died in 428 a.d. John 
 became a presbyter in 386 a.d., bishop of Constantinople 
 in 398 A.D., and died in exile in 407 a.d. Both had been 
 pupils in the school of Libanius, a sophist, and on con- 
 version both came under the influence of Diodore, the head 
 of a monastery near Antioch.* Both were ascetic in their 
 manner of life and remained unmarried. John was 
 richly endowed as a preacher ; Theodore as a critic and 
 interpreter. The writings of John have been largely pre- 
 served ; those of Theodore have largely perished. 
 
 The great significance of these men for the history of 
 interpretation is that they went far toward a scientific 
 method of exegesis. The commentary of Theodore on 
 the minor epistles of Paul is the first and almost the last 
 exegetical book produced in the ancient Church which will 
 bear any comparison with modern commentaries. Chrysos- 
 tom did not write commentaries, but much of the inter- 
 pretation of Scripture in his homiUes is sound and adequate. 
 
 Theodore and John had predecessors indeed in men like 
 Diodore and Lucian, and in others no doubt whose names 
 have not been preserved ; but still their works are for the 
 historical student essentially a new phenomenon. Exe- 
 gesis has at last come down out of the clouds, and has 
 planted its feet firmly on the earth. For the first time there 
 is here a wholly serious and determined effort to find out 
 what the sacred authors meant. For the first time, also, 
 there is a resolute stand made against the ancient, univer- 
 
 ' Both Theodore and John used the Septuagint in their Bible study, 
 though the former, at least, had some knowledge of Hebrew. See Kihn, 
 op. cit., p. 99. 
 
136 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 sal, and ecclesiastically sanctioned method of allegorical 
 interpretation. The potential importance of this step was 
 comparable with the act of Luther. The Syrian school did 
 not maintain itself, and the waves of the old false method 
 gradually buried it entirely out of sight and out of the mem- 
 ory of the Church ; but nevertheless it contained the germ 
 of a higher and purer knowledge of divine truth, and there- 
 fore the germ of a better Christianity and a better civiUza- 
 tion than were attained in the next thousand years. 
 
 There were several important points in which Theodore 
 and John, and the school which they represented, ap- 
 proximated a scientific method of treating the Bible. Of 
 Theodore, at least, if not of John, it can be said that he 
 was less hampered in his interpretation by the inherited 
 view of inspiration than any scholar before him had been. 
 He occasionally criticises the language of Paul,' and even 
 denies that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are divinely in- 
 spired.^ He shows a freedom in discussing the canon both 
 of the Old and the New Testament which is irrecon- 
 cilable with the traditional mechanical theory of inspira- 
 tion.^ Chrysostom appears to have been less completely 
 emancipated from the old view. For though he knows 
 of something higher than the written word, namely, having 
 God speak directly to the soul as he did to Noah and 
 Abraham,* he yet uses the figure of the lyre in setting forth 
 his conception of man's relation to the Spirit in thepro- 
 
 ' See, e.g., Ad Galatas, 16. ' See Kihn, op. cit., p. 104. 
 
 ' According to ICihn, op. cit., p. 91, he rejected from the Canon, Song 
 of Songs, Job, the titles of the Psalms, and possibly also Chronicles. 
 * See Homilies on Matthew, 1. 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 137 
 
 duction of the sacred writings/ and seems to have held 
 both to the inspiration of the Greek version of the Old 
 Testament ^ and to the view which was shared by Origen 
 that Ezra was divinely inspired to reproduce the Old 
 Testament writings after they had been for the most part 
 destroyed.' It is hardly possible then to think of Chrysos- 
 tom as having reached a view of inspiration which was 
 essentially less harmful to a true exegesis than was that of 
 the Alexandrian school. It is, however, to be said that 
 little stress is laid by him on the supernatural inspiration 
 of the Scriptures. He continually urges men to read the 
 Bible,* but evidently does so in the belief that the truth 
 will commend itself to them as from God. 
 
 Again, Theodore and John may be said to have gone far 
 toward a scientific method of exegesis inasmuch as they saw 
 clearly the necessity of determining the original sense of 
 Scripture in order to make any profitable use of the same. 
 To have kept this end steadily in view was a great achieve- 
 ment. It made their work stand out in strong contrast by 
 the side of that of the Alexandrian school. Their inter- 
 pretation was extremely plain and simple as compared 
 with that of Origen. They utterly rejected the allegorical 
 method. Chrysostom does indeed occasionally use it, as 
 when, e.g., he explains the tombs in which the demoniacs 
 hid as signifying the "resorts of harlots"; ^ but in Theo- 
 
 • Homilies on John, i. ^ Homilies on Matthew, 5. 
 ' Homilies on Hebrews, 8. 
 
 * See Chase, Chrysostom, p. 151. "I do not understand the apostle 
 (Paul) by reason of any intellectual ability or acuteness of my own, but 
 because I keep continually in his company and love him much." 
 
 ' Homilies on Matthew, 28. 
 
138 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 dore I have found no single instance of allegorizing.' Thus 
 their break with the characteristic principle of all Chris- 
 tian exegesis since Clement of Alexandria was practically 
 clear-cut and complete. We find, especially in Theodore, 
 a biting sarcasm poured upon those who allegorize the 
 word of God, who say that "Adam is not Adam, nor para- 
 dise paradise, nor a serpent a serpent," and who call 
 their folly "spiritual interpretation."^ 
 
 There is yet one salient feature of Theodore's inter- 
 pretation of the Old Testament that marks his affinity 
 with modern scientific exegesis, and that is his view of 
 prophecy. His break with ecclesiastical tradition at this 
 point was radical. He did not read the New Testament 
 into the Old. He did not find the Old Testament per- 
 meated with predictions of Christ and the Church, as did 
 Origen, for example, or Augustin. His position approxi- 
 mated that of Jesus, though apparently without his knowl- 
 edge of this fact. He saw a Messianic element in a very 
 few Psalms, as, e.g., the iioth, but the great majority of 
 those which had long been referred to Christ he referred 
 to various kings of Israel. He maintained that his view 
 "secured for prophecy a historical basis, and magnified 
 the Christian economy as that which converted into sober 
 fact the highest imagery of the ancient Scriptures." ' 
 But this protest against a false view of prophecy, even as 
 the Antiochene protest against the method of allegorical 
 
 ' Theodore held that Paul's use of allegory in Galatians was merely an 
 illustration. See Swete, Diet, of Christ. Biog., artide "Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia." 
 
 '^ Ad Galatas, Swete's edition, pp. 73-73- 
 
 ' Quoted by Swete, Diet, of Christ. Biog. 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 139 
 
 interpretation, was destined to be overwhelmed by the 
 many advocates of the old view. 
 
 It remains to notice the shadows which lie across the 
 brilhant record of Syrian interpretation. Chase in his 
 admirable study of Chrysostom as an interpreter says that 
 his "besetting sin" was perhaps his love of combining 
 different interpretations,^ thus leaving the hearer uncertain 
 what a particular text meant, while his merits were com- 
 mon sense, vigor, and clearness. The weakest point in 
 Theodore's work, according to Swete,^ was his textual 
 criticism. This editor bestows high praise on Theodore's 
 genius and expository power.' 
 
 Now without questioning that the works of John and 
 Theodore have the weaknesses which have been enu- 
 merated, I will mention what impresses me as the most 
 serious defect in aU their interpretation. It is their bond- 
 age to dogmatic presupposition.* It is a defect which 
 they share indeed with their predecessors and their contem- 
 poraries, but this fact does not alter its character. It is 
 more noticeable in them than in an Origen or an Augustin 
 because of its sharp contrast with their grammatic-his- 
 torical principle. One who sets out to discover an author's 
 meaning is as much at fault if he approaches him with a 
 dogmatic bias as he is if he allegorizes what his author 
 says. Both Chrysostom and Theodore sacrificed their 
 
 ' See Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Bible Interpretation, p. 193. 
 
 ' Introduction to his edition of Theodore's Commentary, p. 70. 
 
 ' IIU., p. 78. 
 
 * Chrysostom says that the apostles plainly did not hand down all 
 their teaching in a written form but much of it oraUy, and that both forms 
 are equally tnistworthy. See Kihn, op. cit., p. 142. 
 
140 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 fundamental principle again and again, and read the eccle- 
 siastical creed into the Old Testament and the New with 
 the same ease with which it was done by Clement or Atha- 
 nasius. 
 
 In the case of Chrysostom the following illustrations will 
 estabhsh what has been said. It was Christ, he declares, 
 who gave the laws of the Old Testament.* He simply 
 assumes this as self-evident. Again, he takes for granted 
 that the title "Son of God" is to be understood metaphysi- 
 cally. He does not investigate its meaning as used by 
 Jesus or by New Testament writers.^ Had he not ac- 
 cepted the traditional view as unquestionable, he would 
 hardly have argued as he does from Matt. 16:16-17. 
 The similarity between the words of Peter to Jesus, "Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and the words of 
 Jesus to Peter, "Thou art Simon, son of Jonas," shows, 
 says Chrysostom, that Jesus " is so Son of God as the other 
 son of Jonas." ' Had Chrysostom been capable of divest- 
 ing himself of the inherited beliefs, and capable of esti- 
 mating christological texts as impartially as he did many 
 others, he would have recognized that this basis was al- 
 together inadequate for the support of his great conclu- 
 sion. 
 
 Once more, it is the traditionalist and not the scholar who 
 sees a sign of the Godhead of Jesus in his forgiveness of 
 sins,^ who takes the frankincense and myrrh of the magi 
 as evidence that they regarded Jesus as God,° and who 
 
 ' See Homilies on Matthew, 16. 7; 29. 3; 82, i. 
 ^ Ibid., 41. * Ibid., 29. 2. 
 
 ' IbU., 54. « Ibid., 8. ■^. 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 141 
 
 assumes that the same doctrine is established by the fact 
 that Jesus told the secrets of men.* In like manner, in 
 another place, he argues from the words "who is in the 
 bosom of the Father" that Jesus must be of the same es- 
 sence.^ The Father, he says, would not have in his bosom 
 one of another essence. 
 
 These illustrations might be increased to a great number. 
 Whatever freedom Chrysostom may show in other fields, 
 when he comes to Scriptures concerning Christ, he is bound 
 hand and foot by the theology of the Church. 
 
 If Chrysostom sacrificed his fundamental principle under 
 the influence of dogmatic presupposition, so also did 
 Theodore, though the latter, as we have seen, showed a 
 good deal of freedom in dealing with the Messianic ele- 
 ment in the Old Testament. Speaking of Phil. 2:7: 
 "Who being in the form of God," Theodore adds this 
 comment: "That is to say. Lord and Ruler and Author 
 of the universe, for all these things which have been 
 named truly appear to follow the name of God." ' But 
 this is rather an expression of the Church's belief regard- 
 ing Christ than an elucidation of the words of Paul. A 
 little later, when speaking of the words, "Wherefore also 
 God highly exalted him," Theodore says he does not 
 know that any one can be found so foolish as to think that 
 the Word of God was exalted after the passion.'' What 
 was exalted then must have been the humanity of Christ. 
 
 » Homilies on Matthew, 41. i. ^ Homilies on John, 15. 
 
 ' " Nuncupalionem Dei subsequi videntur veraciter." 
 * Swete's edition of Theodore's Commentary on the Minor Epistles of 
 Paid, 1. 222. 
 
142 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Thus Theodore explained the passage in Paul by the 
 creed of the Church, just as Athanasius did. The his- 
 torical student is lost in the theologian. 
 
 On the words that "every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord," Theodore's comment is this: 
 "that all should adore him, and that all should confess 
 that Jesus Christ is God (Deum)." But Paul said 
 dominus, not deus (icvpioi, not ^eo'?). Theodore super- 
 imposes on the text the ecclesiastical doctrine of the 
 person of Christ, though in so doing he clearly denies 
 his fundamental principle of interpretation. Again, take 
 his comment on Eph. 4 : 5-6: "One Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism, one God and Father of all." It is evident, says 
 Theodore, that in saying "one Lord" (unus dominus) 
 he does not deny the Lordship of the Father, and in saying 
 "one God" (unus Deus) he does not deny the Godhead 
 of the Son.' This conclusion was "evident" to Theodore 
 simply because he read Paul's words in the light of the 
 orthodox theology. 
 
 These illustrations, to which others need not be added, 
 show that the Syrian type of exegesis was only partially 
 historical in practice. The principles of the school were 
 not consistently carried out. To this end it was probably 
 necessary that the school should have been continued 
 some generations, and that other men in the spirit and 
 with the ability of John and Theodore should have built 
 on their foundation and have popularized their method. 
 This, however, was not to be. Instead of an advance and 
 
 ' " Evidens est quoniam neque unus dominus dicens, ad interceptionem 
 Patris dicit, neque unus Deus dicens, ad interceptionem Filii dicit." 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 143 
 
 a perfecting of the type, a decline set in with the next 
 generation, for Theodoret, the ablest pupil of Theodore, 
 was a much less consistent advocate of the historical 
 method than his master.^ The star of hope that had 
 risen so auspiciously began to be darkened, and the 
 Church was soon content to go the old way. 
 
 When we reach John of Damascus, the last of the Greek 
 Fathers (born about 7ooA.D.),all independence in the treat- 
 ment of Scripture has disappeared. The interpretation of 
 the great men of the past is now regarded as inspired 
 and authoritative.' Where that is wanting, the tradition 
 handed down from the apostles supplies the need of the 
 Church.^ The Bible has ceased to be a living book, 
 warm and vital, instinct with human interests, and has 
 become a mere congeries of texts which are useful to prove 
 the current theology. 
 
 Of the Syrian type of exegesis the Western Church 
 furnished no conspicuous example. The unknown author 
 or authors of that commentary on the Epistles of Paul 
 which, until the Reformation, was ascribed to Ambrose, 
 though opposed to allegory * and in this respect at one 
 
 ' Comp. Chase, Chrysostom, p. 21; Swete's edition of Theodore, 
 Introduction, p. 78. Kihn, op. cit., pp. 64, 65, 155, 190, puts Theodoret 
 and even Polychronius above Theodore. This judgment, however, ap- 
 pears to have been due not so much to any exegetical defect in Theodore 
 as to his freedom in setting aside traditional views. 
 
 ^ See John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2. 11. 
 
 ' Ibid., 4. 16. 
 
 * They use it occasionally. See on i Cor. 13:2. According to Ezek. 
 28:13, t^6 devil was once in paradise and learned celestial doctrines; 
 for the "precious stones" there mentioned signify, according to i Cor. 
 3 : 12-15, mysteries of divine teaching. 
 
144 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 with the Syrian scholars, were, however, so completely 
 dominated by the traditional theology of the Church that 
 their exegesis is at a wide remove from that of Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia. This commentary has been characterized 
 by the editor of Theodore's work on Paul's Epistles as 
 "briefer and weightier" than that.' "Briefer" it cer- 
 tainly is, and "less discursive," but inasmuch as it approxi- 
 mates the grammatic-historical method far less closely than 
 does Theodore, and inasmuch as it is always concerned to 
 justify the doctrines of the Church, it is hardly possible to 
 regard its explanations as "weightier" than those of the 
 eastern bishop. Moreover, its brevity is not altogether 
 to be commended. It often passes over points in the 
 text which need explanation, as, e.g., the important and 
 difficult verses, Phil. 1:12-17 or Eph. 6:13-17, and in 
 general all biographical and geographical references. It is 
 relatively full on all passages which are or were imagined 
 to be theological in character,^ but is quite fragmentary on 
 all other aspects of the text. It seldom investigates words, 
 or takes notice of grammatical details. Its explanations 
 are very often presented without grounds of support, as 
 though thought to be self-evident.' It rarely refers to the 
 views of other scholars, and rarely also to such Scriptures 
 as might throw light on the passage under discussion. Its 
 characteristic feature is its interpretation of doctrinal pas- 
 sages, especially those which concern Christ, and this 
 
 ' Swete, op. cit., Introduction, p. 78. 
 
 '^ In Theodore's commentary on Philippians about ^ of the entire space 
 is given to the passage 2 : 5-1 1, which passage amounts to only ^ of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 « See, e.g., Ad Rom., 3. 26; 8. 13; Ad Ephes., 6. 11. 
 
THE SYRIAN TYPE OF EXEGESIS 145 
 
 interpretation is most obviously not historical, but dog- 
 matic. Thus, e.g., when the author comes upon the double 
 name "Jesus Christ," he affirms that it is employed to 
 indicate that he is both God and Man.' He is so intent 
 on emphasizing this idea, that in the explanation of a 
 doubtful passage, as, e.g., Rom. 9:5, he quite forgets 
 to present both possible renderings. Moreover, the ac- 
 cepted Church doctrines are so sure in his thought that he 
 finds their derivation from Scripture a matter altogether 
 too easy. In this point his commentary is a conspicuous 
 illustration of what we meet henceforth in the writings of 
 the Church for a thousand years. 
 
 We conclude, then, that the Syrian type of exegesis found 
 no sympathetic representative in the Western Church. 
 The explanation of this sad fact may perhaps be found 
 partly in the hold which Augustin had taken upon the 
 thought of the Church, and partly in the domination of 
 ecclesiasticism. 
 
 ' Ad Philippensios, i. i ; 2. 5; Epistula l ad Tim., 4. 
 
 22. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 BIBLICAL INTEEPEETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 
 
 From the death of Augustin to the birth of Wyclif 
 was in round numbers nine hundred years. During this 
 vast period one type of exegesis is found throughout the 
 Church. As that type began to give place to another 
 in Wyclif and the German mystics of the fourteenth and 
 fifteenth centuries, the survey of the present chapter will 
 not include them, though they doubtless fall io the Middle 
 Ages. 
 
 When the greatest of the Western Fathers passed away 
 from earth (430), the Roman Empire had already been 
 divided for a generation, with Constantinople the centre 
 of the eastern part, and the long period of Gothic and 
 Vandal invasion and erasion had begun.* Twenty-five 
 years later (455) Rome was sacked, and in the next cen- 
 tury the barbarian flood swept repeatedly over Spain, 
 Italy, and North Africa. War and desolation character- 
 ized the Merovingian period (481-751) in western Europe, 
 desolation and war characterized also the later Carlo- 
 vingian period (752-994) in ever increasing measure. 
 The Lombards in North Italy, the Angles and Saxons in 
 Britain, filled the sixth and seventh centuries with blood- 
 
 ' Gaul was desolated by the Goths in 407, and in the next year Rome 
 was besieged. 
 
 146 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 147 
 
 shed and confusion. At the beginning of the eighth 
 century the sword of Mohammed crossed the Strait of 
 Gibraltar, and conquered Spain. Through this century 
 and the ninth, the ruthless hordes of Northmen devastated 
 the shores of Germany, the Netherlands, and France. 
 Charlemagne on the continent and Alfred in England 
 lighted up a brief period, and brought in by their wisdom 
 and personal power a measure of order and security ; but 
 the decline of the house of Charlemagne was speedy and 
 disastrous, while the century after Alfred saw England 
 divided xmder his weaker successors, and at its close the 
 land was harried and subjugated by the Danes. Then 
 came the eleventh century with its Norman invasion, the 
 twelfth and thirteenth with their crusades to the Holy 
 Land, carrying off to eastern graves millions of the young 
 men of Europe. 
 
 Thus the nine centuries with which we are now con- 
 cerned were, when outwardly regarded, a period of war 
 and tumult, of physical violence and conquest, of political 
 narrowness and discord, a period unfavorable to any edu- 
 cation save in the arts of ruling or killing one's fellow-men. 
 Here and there in the general darkness, usually at wide 
 intervals from each other, little candles of knowledge 
 were kept burning. We know of a school that was main- 
 tained in the fifth and sixth centuries in a monastery on 
 the little island of L^rins,^ near Cannes, and in far-away 
 Ireland there were monasteries in the sixth century 
 where Greek and Latin classics were read,^ whence men 
 
 ' See J. B. Mullinger, The Schools of Charles the Great, p. 30. 
 ' John Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics, s. 243. 
 
148 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 like Columban went forth to England and the conti- 
 nent. 
 
 In the seventh and eighth centuries the English monas- 
 teries of Wearmouth and Jarrow maintained an intel- 
 lectual life of no mean order, as we see in the Venerable 
 Bede, whom Green calls "the first great English scholar," 
 and in the latter part of the eighth century the monastery 
 of Fulda in Germany became an important centre of edu- 
 cation. The annals of the monastery of Clugny, founded 
 in the tenth century, are adorned with the name of Hilde- 
 brand, the greatest pope of the Middle Ages (1073-1085), 
 and with that of Bernard, the sweetest singer of the period.* 
 
 In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, among the 
 monastic institutions where great leaders were trained, 
 none were more famous than St. Victor near Paris and 
 Clairvaux in southern France. 
 
 To the monastic institution, which was the most widely 
 spread ^ and most persistent educational force in the 
 period with which we are concerned, the State is to be 
 added, especially as represented by Charlemagne, who as 
 an educator still more than as a statesman deserved to be 
 called, as he was by one of his contemporaries, "the 
 lofty beacon of Europe." He sought education for him- 
 
 ' Among the best known of Bernard's hymns is that which begins 
 "Hora novissima, tempera pessima sunt vigilemus," and the "Laus 
 patriae coelestis," from which we have — 
 
 " Jerusalem the golden, 
 With milk and honey blest." 
 
 ' There were some fifty monasteries in England in 1066 according to 
 Cutts, Parish Priests and their People in the Middle Ages in England, 
 P- 37- 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 149 
 
 self, and even in advanced years acquired the art of 
 writing.' It was also one of his deepest desires to have 
 his clergy and nobility educated. To this end he sum- 
 moned Alcuin from England in 782 to be the head of his 
 palace school, and his grandson, Charles the Bald, gave 
 the same position in his household to Erigena, an Irish 
 monk and the most eminent thinker of his century. King 
 Alfred also knew the value of education, and by his trans- 
 lations laid the foundation of English prose literature. 
 
 Approaching now somewhat nearer to our subject, let 
 us take a brief survey of the intellectual and moral con- 
 dition of those who stood as teachers and exemplars of 
 the Christian religion in the period which we are con- 
 sidering. 
 
 In the Rule of St. Benedict, which was most widely 
 adopted in the mediteval monasteries, there was no place 
 for independent study. The Bible was to be read, and 
 with it, as a final explanation, the exposition of the Fathers. 
 
 Aversion to classic literature was early and general. 
 Alcuin rejected Vergil as made up of "lying fables.'" 
 Knowledge of Greek nearly perished in the West from the 
 sixth century, and the Latin style, formed according to 
 late models and carelessly cultivated, was prevailingly 
 bad. Gregory of Tours, who died at the close of the sixth 
 century, bewailed the universal decay of letters in Gaul, 
 and illustrated it in his own writings, e.g., by confounding 
 the accusative case with the ablative absolute. In the 
 
 ' Gibbon, 5. 47; Emerton, Mediteval Europe, p. 436. 
 
 ^ For the text of the Rule, see Henderson, Documents, p. 266. 
 
 ' MuUinger, The Schools of Charles the Great, p. no. 
 
150 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 early part of the eighth century Charles Martel gave 
 Church offices to those of his soldiers who had distin- 
 guished themselves in war/ a fact that helps us to under- 
 stand why it was thought necessary by the Council of 
 Tours in 813 to recommend that bishops — nothing is 
 said about the lower clergy — should read the Gospels 
 and the Epistles of Paul.^ At about the same time bishop 
 Freculf of Germany wrote to Rabanus Maurus of Fulda 
 that he had not found in his bishopric copies of the Old 
 Testament or even of the New, still less commentaries on 
 them.' It was ordered by bishop Atto in the tenth cen- 
 tury that all presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons in his 
 bishopric should commit the creed to memory on pain of 
 suffering a forty days' abstinence from wine,* and we read 
 in the Itinerary of Ratherius that in the same century very 
 many of the clergy of Verona did not know the Apostles' 
 Creed.^ According to Pope Victor III, who succeeded 
 Hildebrand, the clergy, almost without exception, bought 
 and sold the gift of the Holy Spirit." It is not probable 
 that such men were very diligent in the study of Scripture, 
 or earnest in the acquisition of any useful Imowledge.' 
 At the Council of Cologne in 1250 it was decreed that 
 
 ' Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, i. 2. 491. Hincmar of Rheims says 
 Christianity was nearly destroyed in Germany, Belgium, and Gaul in the 
 time of Charles. 
 
 ^ Fisher, The Medieval Empire, 2. 485. 
 
 ' For the text see Gieseler, op. cit., i. i. 87. 
 
 * D'Achery, Spicilegium, p. 402. 
 
 * For the text see Gieseler, op. cit., 2. 1. 264. 
 ' Montalembert, Monks of the West, 5. 243. 
 
 ' Fisher, The Mediceval Empire, 2. 86. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 1 51 
 
 the clergy who could not read and also sing the ritual 
 must employ suitable persons to perform these services 
 for them.^ The testimony of Roger Bacon written in the 
 second half of this century is of great interest. He declares 
 that the entire clergy were given to pride, luxury, and 
 avarice. Where they congregated, as at Paris and Oxford, 
 their vices and riotings were such that the laity were scan- 
 dalized. Theological students were banished from Paris 
 and France because of gross vices. And another statement 
 of Bacon's which throws a strong light on the condition 
 of the clergy in the thirteenth century is that thousands of 
 mere boys from ten to twenty years of age were allowed 
 to study theology, though they had received no adequate 
 preliminary training.^ Again, Bacon tells us that the 
 Bible was degraded, being deliberately put below the 
 Sentences. "One who reads the Sentences disputes and 
 is held as a master ; one who reads the text {i.e. the Bible) 
 is not able to dispute — which is absurd.'" But in con- 
 nection with this terribly dark picture of the ignorance 
 and baseness of the clergy in general, it is comforting to 
 read in the same work of Bacon that he knew a humble 
 student who had spent forty years in correcting the text 
 of Scripture, and still more comforting to think of the 
 heroic labors and great achievements of Bacon himself, 
 though it is pathetic that he died wholly unappreciated. 
 
 The general state of the clergy seems to have grown even 
 worse in the century following Bacon's death. Studies 
 
 ' On the ignorance of the clergy in this period, the conclusions of a 
 Church historian may be seen in Schaff, Church History, 4. 400, 608, 616. 
 
 ^ Bacon, Opera quaedam hactenus inedila, edited by Brewer, 1. 398. 
 
 ' See Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, 28. 574. 
 
152 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 declined in the monasteries, and men who could not even 
 read were placed over churches, who henceforth spent 
 their time in gaming, or feasting, or in yet worse ways.' 
 
 It is to be remembered that, although a large part of 
 the most distinguished clergy were monks, the greater 
 part of the monks were not clergy. The sketch we have 
 given of the educational state of the clergy would not be 
 altogether applicable to the generality of the monks. 
 Church offices, indeed, might be filled with common soldiers 
 by Charles Martel, and century after century they might 
 be filled by the men who could pay their price; but life 
 in a monastery was not a political reward or a prize ob- 
 tained with money. Furthermore, the monk had more 
 quiet than the prelate, and his whole environment was 
 naturally more favorable to study. Yet the life of the 
 monasteries, both intellectual and moral, seems not to have 
 been, save for short intervals, on a much higher level than 
 that of the secular clergy. No rule was able to keep the 
 lust of power and wealth outside the walls of the mon- 
 asteries. Again and again throughout the entire period 
 which we are considering, it was necessary to reform the 
 life of the monks and to rekindle the flame of learning. 
 Books were more abundant in the monastic libraries than 
 elsewhere, but that was largely because monks were the 
 chief manufacturers of books. They could neglect them 
 also, and they did. Classic knowledge perished within 
 the monastery as well as outside, though somewhat later, 
 and its revival in the sixteenth century did not proceed 
 from the monastery. 
 
 ' See Gieseler, op. cit., is. 3. 184. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 153 
 
 After this preliminary survey of the period from Augus- 
 tin to Wyclif, especially of the education of priests and 
 monks, we come to the special subject of mediaeval inter- 
 pretation of the Bible. To appreciate and understand 
 this, we must, of course, go to the sources. For the earlier 
 centuries of our period these are few, for the later centuries 
 very numerous. 
 
 Monte Cassino, where the Rule of Benedict was drawn 
 up in the first half of the sixth century, has been not in- 
 appropriately styled "the Sinai of the Middle Ages." 
 By nothing is the justice of the title better illustrated than 
 by its utterance regarding interpretation. It looks upon 
 the exposition of the Fathers as all -sufficient. How widely 
 and deeply that conviction determined the Bible study 
 of the Middle Ages, we shall have frequent opportunity 
 to observe. The exegesis practised by the author of this 
 influential ordinance is suggested by the fact that the 
 psalmist's joyful cry, "Seven times in the day do I praise 
 thee," was made the mathematical basis of the order of 
 daily service, and further by this fact that the Pauline 
 utterance, "Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby 
 we cry Ahba Father," was regarded as proving that the 
 abbot of the monastery is Christ's representative, and is 
 called by his name.* 
 
 Of the exegesis of the Church in the hundred years 
 following the death of Benedict, we must judge from the 
 writings of three men, all Romans by birth, all worthily 
 filling high offices. These are Gregory, bishop of Tours 
 
 ' See Benedict's Rule, 2 and 16. Article 4 has 72 quotations from 
 Scripture. 
 
154 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 (t 596), Isidore, bishop of Seville (f 636), and Gregory 
 the Pope (t 604). Of the attitude of Gregory of Tours 
 toward the Bible and his ability to interpret it, we have 
 at least a suggestion in the fact that he wrote eight 
 books on post-bibhcal miracles, a work on the miracles 
 of the apostle Andrew, and a third on the passion of the 
 " Seven Holy Sleepers." By virtue of these works we may 
 well call him the founder of that most popular and in- 
 fluential branch of mediaeval Uterature, the miracles of 
 saints.^ The quality of his bibUcal work may be briefly 
 indicated from his treatise on the titles of the Psalms — a 
 field which Augustin found very fruitful. Thus the title 
 of Ps. 9 announces the advent of the Son of God, that 
 of Ps. 65 announces his resurrection, and all those 
 Psalms whose titles contain (in the Vulgate) the words 
 infinem show the perfection of good works .^ 
 
 Gregory the Great, like Gregory of Tours, was extremely 
 credulous, and was more interested in the reports of 
 miracles than in the close study of Scripture.^ Bede tells 
 us that he wrote a mystical interpretation of Job "with a 
 wonderful system of exegesis" (exposiiionis miranda ra- 
 tione), and this statement we can readily believe after 
 reading his Pastoral Rule, which seeks to buttress sensi- 
 
 ' Voragine's Aurea Legenda of the thirteenth century and BoUand's 
 Acta sanctorum of the seventeenth, which contains some twenty-five thou- 
 sand names, are the great repositories of this literature. 
 
 ^ See Monumenla Germaniae Historica : Scriptorum Rerum Merovin- 
 gicarum, i. 874. 
 
 ' Gregory blamed St. Dizier of Vienne for teaching grammar. Guizot, 
 History of Civilization, i. 102. See also Mason, The Mission of St. 
 Augustine, p. 63. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 155 
 
 ble instructions with the most fanciful interpretation of 
 Scripture.* 
 
 Isidore of Seville taught that the Bible is to be under- 
 stood in three ways — according to the letter (secundum 
 liter am), figuratively (secundum figuratam intelligentiam), 
 as Ezekiel and the Song of Solomon, and mystically (mys- 
 iica raiione), as the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple.^ 
 
 It was a century lacking a year from the death of Isidore to 
 that of the Venerable Bade (about 735), whom a German 
 writer calls the most learned man of the Occident of his 
 time. It is quite certain that we have in his writings the 
 best that was accomplished in his century in the interpre- 
 tation of Scripture. Bede did not lay claim to any origi- 
 nality in his method of interpretation. If his notes were not 
 culled from the Fathers, it was at least his aim to write 
 nothing at variance with them.^ Plummer gives a list 
 of more than a hundred writers whom Bede quoted.^ 
 Some of his commentaries consist almost exclusively of 
 excerpts from the Fathers. 
 
 Bede found a mystical sense in all Scripture, even in 
 its most obviously historical portions, but his unfolding 
 of this mystical sense was characterized by great sobriety.^ 
 
 'See, e.g., Regula Pastoralis, 1. $. 11; ki. 11; 3. 39. 
 
 ' D'Achery, Spicilegium, 1. 225. 
 
 ' See Plummer, Ven. Baedae Opera Historica, p. x. 
 
 * Op. cit., p. 1. 
 
 ' At the same time, in Bede's case as in that of Philo, it is misleading to 
 speak of "fixed laws" of interpretation when a mystical sense is assumed. 
 Mystical interpretation has aly/ays been arbitrary. When we come to 
 the number three, we may, according to Bede, see a reference to the 
 Trinity; to heart, soul, and strength; to faith, hope, and charity; to 
 
156 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 This was perhaps his chief merit. He made no advance 
 upon the Fathers, but he used them and their method 
 with good sense. The tone of Bede's exegesis, like that 
 of all ancient interpretation, is magisterial. The meaning 
 is declared, not deduced. Thus, for example, as to the 
 personahty of Jude, it is simply affirmed that he was 
 the apostle whom Matthew and Mark call ThaddcBus} 
 The twelve tribes of the Dispersion in Jas. i : i are said 
 to be those Jews who were scattered at the death of 
 Stephen.^ The comment on the injunction, "Be not 
 many teachers," is that James thereby removes from the 
 office of the word those who had gone from Judea to 
 Antioch, and who were teaching the Gentiles that unless 
 they were circumcised, they could not be saved. These 
 three instances illustrate not only the magisterial tone of 
 Bede's exegesis, but also its very inadequate historical 
 knowledge. 
 
 Bede, like the early Fathers, was apt to introduce the 
 theological teaching of the Church at points where the 
 text can be quite satisfactorily explained without it. Thus 
 when commenting on the words "Our only Master and 
 Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4), he says: "Our only Master 
 is our Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit, as our only Master is the Father with the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit, as also our only Master is the Holy Spirit 
 
 almsgiving, prayer, and fasting; to resurrection on the third day; to the 
 married, the continent, and the virgins, or to the three continents. See 
 Plummer, as above, p. lix. 
 
 ' See In II Epistolam S. Petri, Migne's Palrologia Latina, vol. 93. 
 
 ' Super divi Jacobi Epistolam, Migne, vol. 93. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 157 
 
 with the Father and the Son. Our only Master is the 
 entire Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." And he 
 goes on at considerable length setting forth this dogma 
 of theology. 
 
 It is noteworthy that Bede emphatically rejected the 
 ancient notion of inspiration. Speaking on 2 Pet. 1:21 
 he remarks that it is ridiculous to think that the prophets 
 in declaring what the Spirit gave them were Uke pipes 
 through which, by breathing, one makes sounds. 
 
 In the century and a half between the death of Bede 
 and that of the greatest of the Irish monks, John Scotus 
 Erigena (about 880), a period which included the reign 
 of Charlemagne and nearly all of Alfred's, there lived a 
 considerable number of men whose biblical work has come 
 down to the present day. Alcuin, the first of these writers 
 to be considered, went forth from the school of York over 
 which a pupil of Bede had presided. His fundamental 
 canon of Scripture interpretation was not different from 
 Bede's. It was to teach what the Fathers had taught.' 
 He spoke of Augustin as beatissimus, other Fathers as 
 beatij' Like Bede he had some knowledge of Greek, 
 and if we may judge from a letter to the Irish monks, he 
 did not despise the knowledge of secular hterature.' He 
 appears to have regarded the mystical sense of Scripture 
 as the most important, and dwelt with pecuhar fondness 
 
 ' Mullinger, Schools of Charles the Great, p. 89. 
 
 ' D'Achery, Spicilegium, 1. 63. 
 
 ' Ibid., I. 437. This letter is assigned to the period 792-804, and we 
 may suppose that Alcuin's attitifde toward classical literature was less 
 severe than it had been at an earlier day. 
 
158 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 on the significance of numbers. When he spoke on this 
 subject, as in a letter to Arno, bishop of SaKsbury, it was 
 manifestly out of a full heart.' In a letter to a certain 
 Daphnus, he wrote as follows regarding the sixty queens 
 and eighty concubines of Solomon (Song of Sol. 6:8): 
 " They are the rulers and guides of Holy Church. Those 
 who work for love of Christ are sixty, those who follow 
 earthly ambition are designated by the imperfect number 
 eighty, and are called concubines." ^ In a letter to GaUi- 
 cellulus he discussed the ground of numbers as used in 
 the Bible. A passage from this letter will give a vivid idea 
 of the way in which Alcuin handled Scripture. There 
 were ten precepts of the law, he says in substance ; in like 
 manner Christ gave ten pounds to the preachers of each 
 people. To the ten plagues of Egypt correspond the ten 
 persecutions with which the Christian Church is crowned. 
 On the tenth day of the month the paschal lamb was to 
 be chosen ; at the tenth hour Christ breathed out his hfe on 
 the cross. Then as to the number nine. The archangel 
 who fell from heaven was covered (adorned) with nine 
 stones ; and to this corresponds the fact that nine orders 
 of angels remained in heaven. Passing eight and seven, 
 we read that on the sixth day man was created out of 
 the immaculate earth, and in the sixth age the Son of 
 God was made man from the immaculate virgin. He sees 
 a divine correspondence between the four rivers which 
 flowed from the one fount of Paradise to water the earth 
 and the four gospels that proceeded from the one fount, 
 i.e., Christ, to water dry souls that they may bloom with 
 
 ' D'Achery, i. 388. ' Ibid., i. 200. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 159 
 
 the flowers of virtue. Unto the two cherubim in the 
 temple correspond the two parts of knowledge — one of 
 which is to leave the devil, the other to love God. 
 
 Hardly less distinguished in his own time than Alcuin 
 was his pupil, Rabanus, abbot of Fulda and later arch- 
 bishop of Mainz. He revived the theory of a fourfold 
 sense of Scripture held by Cassian in the fifth century. 
 The four senses, says Rabanus, are the four daughters of 
 wisdom. The historical sense is milk for babes, the alle- 
 gorical sense is for those who are advancing in knowledge, 
 the tropological is strong meat, and the anagogical is wine 
 for those who despise earthly pleasures and whose affec- 
 tions are fixed on heaven.^ If the historical sense of 
 Scripture is "milk for babes," there is ground for the 
 suspicion that Rabanus, like many other allegorical inter- 
 preters, greatly neglected that large and needy division 
 of mankind. Rabanus does not make it clear how the 
 tropological and the anagogical sense differ from the 
 simple allegorical meaning. Here are specimens of what 
 he meant by anagogical interpretation. The fringe of 
 Christ's garment denotes the incarnation. The basket 
 in which Moses was placed denotes the Virgin Mary. 
 The "hook" in Job 41, with which it is suggested that 
 Job might draw out leviathan, denotes Christ's humanity. 
 The sea of glass before the throne of God signifies baptism, 
 and the frogs mentioned by the psalmist are heretics.^ 
 
 Rabanus found the sacraments of the Church and 
 Christian teaching in the most unlikely sections of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. Thus the commentary on Esther, 
 
 ' See Mullinger, op. cit., p. 146. ^ Ibid., pp. 146-147. 
 
l6o THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 which he sent to the Empress Judith (834), shows that 
 book to be full of Christian truth. The spiritual sense of 
 the books of Chronicles pertains to the grace of Christ, 
 as he showed in an exposition dedicated to Ludwig (834- 
 838), and in a letter to the same king Rabanus speaks of 
 the acts of the bibhcal saints as having a mystical signifi- 
 cance, also the places in which they Hved, some of which 
 he translated from Hebrew into Latin in order to bring 
 out more clearly this mystical sense.^ In a commentary 
 on the Pentateuch which Rabanus prepared at the request 
 of bishop Freculf, he says that nearly all the sacraments 
 of the Church are figuratively expressed in Exodus, as, 
 for example, the sanctification of the Spirit and the mystery 
 of sacred prayers in what is said of holy ointment and 
 incense. In the book of Joshua he saw the entire career 
 of Jesus prefigured.^ Thus we may say that if Alcuin took 
 Augustin as his guide in the interpretation of Scripture, 
 Rabanus was somewhat more influenced by Jerome. It is 
 interesting to notice that in the dedication of his com- 
 mentaries he is careful to say that he has plainly marked 
 the additions which he, "out of his poverty," has made to 
 the exposition of the Fathers.' 
 
 From the monastery at Fulda we turn for a moment to 
 that of Corbey in North France, where Radbertus was 
 abbot in the first half of the ninth century and Ratramnus 
 
 'D'Achery, Spicilegium, i. 473. ''Ibid., i. 401. 
 
 ' Another resident at Fulda, William of Bamberg, says in his Introduc- 
 tion to Canticles, "I have added nothing of my own, but have com- 
 pressed all I could find in the expositions of the Fathers." See Maitland, 
 The Dark Ages, p. 218. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES l6l 
 
 was a monk. They were the first mediseval writers to 
 make the Lord's Supper a subject of controversy, and the 
 former was the first conspicuous writer on the birth of the 
 Virgin Mary. Radbertus had some knowledge of Hebrew, 
 and refers in his writings to the various translations of the 
 Old Testament into Greek. Here is a single specimen 
 of his exegesis. The birth of Jesus was not according to 
 the law of nature, for if it had been, then, according to 
 Gen. 3 : i6, it would have partaken of the curse. But when 
 the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, she was holier than the 
 stars of heaven, and her bringing forth of Jesus cannot have 
 been with sorrow, affliction, and suffering, which things 
 were incidental to the curse.^ It is hardly necessary now 
 to point out that, while Genesis records a curse upon the 
 serpent and upon the earth, it does not curse the woman, 
 and also that holiness may coexist with suffering and 
 sorrow. 
 
 Ratramnus argued that Jesus was miraculously born 
 of a virgin from the words of Jer. 31:22: " Jehovah 
 hath created a new thing in the earth; a woman shall 
 encompass a man," ^ and from the vision of Ezekiel where 
 he speaks of a " door of the sanctuary " looking toward the 
 east (43:1-2; 44:1)- 
 
 Certain letters of the early part of the ninth century 
 afford us interesting glimpses of the way in which the Bible 
 was then interpreted.' Thus the Congregation of the 
 
 ' D'Achery, Sficilegium, i. 44. 
 
 ' I have noticed somewhere in the Diary of Samuel Pepys that he 
 heard a London clergyman use this passage in the same manner. This 
 was some eight hundred years after the time of Ratramnus. 
 
 'See Epistolae KaroHipi Aevi, 3. 65, 93, 114, 153. 
 
 M 
 
1 62 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Mount of Olives in a letter to Pope Leo III in 809 adduce 
 John 21:17 ^•s Scripture proof that to Peter and his suc- 
 cessors the Lord had given the entire world.' The same 
 Leo in a letter to Charles I answers with quotations from 
 Jerome three questions of interpretation which the em- 
 peror had submitted to him. Bishop Einhard, a pupil of 
 Alcuin, in admonishing Lothair I, appealed to Deut. 21 : 21 
 in proof that a disobedient son should be stoned. This he 
 regarded as a divine sentence of perpetual vaUdity. Ago- 
 bard, the archbishop of Lyons, in writing to his clergy and 
 monks regarding Church rule, cited a large number of 
 Scripture passages, about half of which are from the Song 
 of Solomon and the Apocalypse. Such a fact throws a 
 strong light on the lack of literary and historical apprecia- 
 tion of the Scriptures prevalent in that age. 
 
 We complete our survey of exegesis in the Carlovingian 
 age with some remarks on the work of Erigena (dr. 833- 
 880). The fact that his writings were anathematized by 
 Honorius III and again by Gregory III, and the further 
 fact that he was murdered by his own pupils in Oxford, 
 suggest that there may have been an element of originality 
 in him, and perhaps of heterodoxy ; but this originality did 
 not manifest itself in his method of interpretation. "It is 
 not for us," he says in his great work, De divisione naturae,^ , 
 "to pass judgment on the meaning of the holy fathers, but | 
 to receive them with pious and reverent feeling." This ! 
 was the attitude characteristic of his predecessors for four 
 
 'Comp. Hildebrand's interpretation of Matt. 16:19 in Article 22 
 of the Dictaitts Papae. 
 
 ' See Migrie, Patrologia Latina, vol. 122. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 163 
 
 /hundred years. Erigena's originality was in the depart- 
 ment of philosophy, not in that of biblical interpretation. 
 In this he was an extreme allegorist, not unlike Origen in 
 the combination of speculative genius with disregard for the 
 historical value of the Scriptures^ Let us transport our- 
 selves into Erigena's world of thought for a few moments 
 by following his comments on some passages of John. 
 
 The Baptist said to the priests and Levites that he was 
 not worthy to unloose the latchet of the Messiah's shoe 
 (John I : 27). This shoe, says Erigena, signifies the 
 flesh of the Word, which he had assumed from the Vir- 
 gin. For as a shoe is made out of the skin of a dead animal, 
 so the flesh of Christ was made mortal for our sakes.' The 
 latchet of the shoe means "the investigable perplexities of 
 the mysteries of the incarnation ! " 
 
 Again, commenting on the two Bethanys implied in 
 John 1 : 28, Erigena says that the Bethany beyond Jordan 
 prefigures in a mystical manner human nature before it 
 sinned, which was then a "house of obedience" — the 
 meaning he gave to the word "Bethany." The Bethany 
 near Jerusalem denotes the same nature freed through the 
 incarnation of the Word and the streams of divine grace, 
 which are at first distributed as it were into Judea through 
 the sacrament of baptism. It was fit, therefore, that John 
 should baptize beyond Jordan because he did not yet have 
 that true baptism which delivers the entire human nature 
 not only from original sin, but also from sins of individual 
 origin. 
 
 We are told at the beginning of the fourth chapter 
 
 • Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 122. 
 
164 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of John that when Jesus left Judea it was necessary that 
 he should pass through Samaria. This is explained as 
 follows: Samaria is the natural law, and is established 
 between Judea, which signified the law of the letter, and 
 Galilee, which is a figure of the eternal divine laws. Since 
 therefore Christ took the foundations of his Church from 
 the law of the letter, it was necessary that he should pass 
 through the nations which were placed under the law of 
 nature. It was thus that the foremost scholar of his age 
 dealt with simple geographical designations. 
 
 Again, Erigena says that the woman of Samaria denotes 
 the Church that is gathered out of those nations which 
 desire to drink of the fountain, i.e., Christ, and her coming 
 forth out of the city indicates that human nature naturally 
 seeks the fountain of reason. This statement is highly 
 interesting, not for any light it throws on the text, but only 
 for that which it throws upon the interpreter himself. 
 It suggests that he regarded Christianity as supremely 
 reasonable, and that reason, not dogma, is the highest 
 authority. 
 
 Yet one other passage. The lad with five loaves and 
 two fishes (John 6 : 9) points mystically to Moses, who is 
 not unfittingly called a little boy, because the law given by 
 him led no one to the mature age of justice. The five 
 loaves are the five books of Moses, and are not improperly 
 called barley because carnal man fed upon them. The 
 much grass where the five thousand men sat down signifies 
 the letter of the law, which was manifested in symbols. 
 The disciples are commanded to make the men recline, 
 because teachers of truth, unless first they begin to instruct 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 165 
 
 their pupils in the simplicity of the letter, are not able to 
 raise them to the heights of contemplation. The fragments 
 of the barley loaves are the subtile and difficult understand- 
 ing of the holy Scriptures and the visible sacraments. 
 
 But these specimens of Erigena's interpretation must 
 suffice. He died almost on the threshold of the tenth 
 century, ten years before the death of King Alfred. This 
 century offers nothing significant to the student of biblical 
 interpretation. As far as Bible study and Christian life 
 are concerned, it was the darkest of the Dark Ages.* The 
 eleventh century was more fruitful. The Homilies of 
 Mlfric, archbishop of York, illustrate the exegesis which 
 was then current in England. The biblical background 
 in the Homilies is very often obscured by legends and a 
 multitude of stories of strange or fantastic miracles. When 
 that background is allowed to appear, the exposition fre- 
 quently falls below the average of the Fathers and never 
 rises above it. Here are a few illustrations of eleventh 
 century exegesis from this collection of sermons which 
 were prepared by the highest authority for the use of the 
 clergy. 
 
 The eighth day after birth, on which a Jewish child 
 was circumcised, betokened the eighth age of the world, 
 in which we shall arise from the dead. The stone knife 
 with which circumcision was accomplished betokened 
 that stone of which the apostle said, "The rock was 
 Christ." ^ When Jesus said that many from the east and 
 
 ' Lecky (op: cit., z. 239) regards the seventh and eighth centuries as 
 the darkest period of the Middle Ages. Oman, The Dark Ages, gives 
 that preeminence to the ninth century. 
 
 'Homilies of Mfric, edited by Benjamin Thorpe, 1844, 1. 99. 
 
1 66 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the west should sit down with Abraham in the Kingdom 
 of God, he signified by the east part those who should turn 
 to God in their youth, and by the west part those who 
 should turn when old.* The homily on the Lord's Prayer 
 explains the "daily bread" as meaning three things, — sus- 
 tenance of the body, sustenance of the soul, and the par- 
 taking of the "holy housel." ^ In the comment on the 
 word of Jesus, that he would meet his disciples in Galilee, 
 after he should have arisen from the dead, we are informed 
 that Galilee signifies "passing over," so that the promise 
 meant that he would meet them when he should have 
 passed over from death to life. The incident of Jesus 
 riding into Jerusalem on an ass is treated very much 
 as it was by the Alexandrian allegorists. The two dis- 
 ciples who were sent for the ass are the teachers whom 
 God sends to instruct mankind. They are two because 
 a teacher should have learning and good works. The ass 
 and its foal betoken the Jews and the Gentiles. The 
 fact that they were tied signifies that all mankind are bound 
 with sins. The- garments spread upon the ass are works 
 of righteousness, and the people who cast their garments 
 under the feet of the ass are the martyrs who for Christ's 
 sake give their bodies to torments. 
 
 From the Homilies of Mlfric, which represent the popu- 
 lar exegesis of the time, we pass to the most eminent theo- 
 logian of the century, Anselm (1033-1109), archbishop of 
 Canterbury, simply noting on the way a sample of the 
 biblical interpretation of his master Lanfranc. In his 
 Elucidarium he describes some of the many members 
 
 " ^Homilies, i. 81. 'Ibid., 1. 265. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 167 
 
 which constitute the one body of Christ. Prophets are the 
 eyes of this body, the obedient are the ears, doctors, that 
 is, doctors of theology, are the mouth, and expositors of 
 Scripture are the teeth.' Anselm, the most distinguished 
 pupil of Lanfranc, is described by one of his biographers 
 as a man whom Aristotle would have worshipped.^ The 
 significance of this word will appear as we follow him for 
 a little in his use of Scripture. For this purpose we will 
 take his Cur Deus Homo? We find Anselm's general 
 view of Scripture in these words: "Christ originated the] 
 New Testament and approved the Old. Since Christ is j 
 true, no' one can dissent from anything contained in these 1 
 books."* The form of this utterance is logical, but the 
 content is scarcely a half-truth. Christ did not originate 
 the New Testament as Anselm used that word, nor did 
 he wholly approve of the Old. 
 
 The method of Anselm's exegesis is indicated by the 
 following passages from his most elaborate work. The 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that Christ learned 
 
 ' See Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, 2. 102. Another 
 bit of contemporary exegesis is afforded by a letter of John, abbot of 
 Feschamps in Normandy, to the Empress Agnes, whose husband had 
 recently died. From the account in Genesis that Eve was created out 
 of a single rib of Adam, the abbot argued the propriety of maintaining the 
 glorious excellence of single wedlock. See Maitland, The Dark Ages, 
 
 P- 3S2. 
 
 ' See Martin Rule, The Life and Times of St. Anselm, i. 124. 
 
 ' Weber, History of Philosophy, p. 204, neatly characterizes the relation 
 of Scholasticism — of which Anselm was one of the most conspicuous 
 exponents — to the dogma of the Church. Dogma, he says, af&rms 
 " Deus Homo," but Scholasticism asks " Cur Deus Homo ? " 
 
 * Cur Deus Homo, 2. 22, edited by Sidney Norton Deane. 
 
l68 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 obedience from the things which he suffered (5:8). This is 
 rather a hard saying for one who holds the orthodox Chris- 
 tology, and Anselm's treatment of it is notable. The word 
 " learned " (didicit), he says, can be understood in two 
 ways. We can say either that Christ caused others to 
 learn obedience, or that he learned by experiencing what 
 he had had an understanding of before.^ It is evident that 
 each of these interpretations quite sets aside the obvious 
 meaning of the text. Again, note Anselm's treatment 
 of the difficult passage in Philippians. Paul says that 
 Jesus humbled himself, and then asserts, "Wherefore 
 also God highly exalted him." Anselm comments 
 thus: "It is not meant that he could not have attained 
 his exaltation in any other way but by obedience unto 
 death, nor is it meant that his exaltation was conferred on 
 him only as a reward of his obedience ; but the expression 
 is used because he had agreed with the Father and the 
 Holy Spirit that there was no other way to reveal to the 
 world the height of his omnipotence except by his death." 
 In the same connection Anselm explains a passage in 
 the Gospel (Luke 2 : 52). Here is the text with the com- 
 ment: "The Lord increased in wisdom and in favor with 
 God ; not that this was really the case, but he deported 
 himself as if it were so." With what sovereign ease the 
 difficulty of the text — difficult only for one whose doctrine 
 of Christ is not drawn from the New Testament — is put 
 out of the way ! 
 
 I add yet another passage from Anse'lm for its value 
 in presenting the almost infinite gulf between the scholastic 
 
 ' Cur Deus Homo, i. 9. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 169 
 
 method of dealing with sacred persons and relations, and 
 the method of the Bible. Anselm asks why the Son rather 
 than the Father or the Spirit became incarnate.' "If 
 one of the other persons had become incarnate," he says, 
 "there would have been two sons in the Trinity — the 
 Son before the incarnation and the Son by the incarnation. 
 Likewise if the Father become incarnate, there will be 
 two grandsons in the Trinity ; for the Father by assuming 
 humanity will be the grandson of the parents of the Virgin, 
 and the Word, though having nothing to do with man, will 
 yet be the grandson of the Virgin, since he will be the 
 Son of her Son." 
 
 Whether Aristotle would have worshipped Anselm we 
 perhaps cannot be quite sure, but it appears reasonably 
 certain in view of such passages as the foregoing that one 
 cannot look to Scholasticism as represented by Anselm 
 for light on Scripture. 
 
 Fifty-one years after the death of Anselm appeared 
 the Sentences of Peter Lombard (f 1164), on which it is 1 
 said that more than four thousand commentaries have j 
 been written and which dominated the theological schools j 
 for three centuries.^ In this famous work the Fathers | 
 very largely take the place of Scripture. Thus, e.g., the 
 author's proof of the dogma that the Son is always begotten, 
 is taken from the writings of Hilary." The entire work, 
 which professes to deal systematically with the Christian 
 
 ' Cur Deus Homo, ^.9. 
 
 2 See Trench, Medianial Church History, p. 272; and Lecky, History 
 of European Morals, 2. 226. 
 
 ' See Libri Quatuor Sententiarum, p. 528, in Migne's edition. 
 
I'JO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 religion, has nothing on the subject of the Scriptures. 
 They are not once mentioned as a topic which a theologian 
 ought to consider. They are indeed occasionally cited in 
 proof of doctrine, but the system of Lombard would not 
 be really affected if these occasional references to the Bible 
 were expunged. There is little in common between the 
 Bible and Lombard's Sentences except names. The work 
 begins with forty-eight chapters on the Trinity, but in all 
 this the revelation of God in Jesus has no part. They, 
 afford no glimpse of the fatherhood of God. Their con- 
 nection with Scripture is highly artificial. The same is 
 true of the rest of the work — of its forty-four chapters 
 on Creation and its forty chapters on the Incarnation. 
 The pages are filled with the discussion of questions such 
 as these : Were the angels created perfect or imperfect ? 
 Have all angels bodies? Did the Father beget the Son 
 freely or of necessity? Can God make anything better 
 than he makes it ? Is it right to say that the divine nature 
 was bom of a virgin? Was it possible for God to have 
 become incarnate in a woman ? 
 
 Let us notice now a few specimens of Lombard's exegesis. 
 In Is. 65:17 we read: "Behold, I create new heavens 
 and a new earth; and the former things shall not be re- 
 membered nor come into mind." This text is interpreted 
 as teaching that the redeemed when risen from the dead 
 will not remember the evil deeds of their earthly life, but 
 only the good deeds. Again, from Eph. 4 : 13, where Paul 
 speaks of attaining unto the measure of the stature of the 
 fulness of Christ, Lombard concludes that all the saints, 
 whatever may have been their age at death, will each be 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 17 1 
 
 thirty years old in the resurrection, for that was the age 
 of Christ when he died and rose. 
 
 The historical sense of Lombard may be judged from 
 his treatment of baptism. Christian baptism, he says, 
 was instituted when Christ was baptized in Jordan. For 
 he was not baptized because he wished to be cleansed, 
 since he was without sin, but he gave to the waters regen- 
 erating power by contact with his flesh, in order that those 
 who should henceforth be immersed in the name of the 
 Trinity might be purged from their sins.* 
 
 Lombard's Commentary on the Epistles of Paul is 
 altogether in harmony with the sort of exegesis that we 
 have in the Sentences. The index to this commentary is 
 an index of mediaeval theology. The real apostle to the 
 Gentiles does not speak here. What one hears who puts 
 one's ear to the book is the echo of an echo of a man who 
 was originally misunderstood and forced to serve a system 
 of theology which he had little part in creating. 
 
 But we need not Judge the exegesis of the ele^giith cen- 
 tury scholastics by Lombard alone. He had contempo- 
 raries no less famous than himself. Among these was 
 Abelard, whom Professor Emerton calls "the most attrac- 
 tive and brilliant figure in the whole scholastic period." ^ 
 With a spirit akin to that of Erigena, who preceded him 
 by three centuries, he dared to question the truth of the 
 dogmas of the Church.' Herein lay his significance for 
 the history of the interpretation of Scripture. But he did 
 
 ' Libri Quatuor Sententiarum, p. 844. 
 ^ Emerton, Medieeval Europe, p. 453. 
 ° Comp. Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics, i. 262. 
 
172 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 not proceed against ecclesiastical error from the standpoint 
 of a better understood Bible : he proceeded against it as 
 a philosopher. As an exegete he offers nothing new.* He 
 is an advocate of the old threefold sense of Scripture,^ 
 and his exposition is seldom more than a reproduction 
 of the Fathers.' He differed from the Church in regard 
 to the person of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, but the 
 establishment of his new view was by a use of the Bible 
 no less untenable than that with which the older view was 
 supposed to be justified. Thus, e.g., his discussion of the 
 Trinity, like that of Lombard, contains not the faintest 
 idea of the revelation of God in Jesus.'' He finds the doc- 
 [trihe of the Trinity "diligently expressed" at the begin- 
 ining of Genesis — a fact that illustrates the unhis torica l 
 character of his exegesis. In his "moral" explanation of 
 (the story of creation he says that the primal confusion of 
 heaven and earth denotes man, who consists of a higher 
 and a lower substance, and in his "allegorical" interpreta- 
 tion of the same story he explains the six days as meaning 
 the six ages, of infancy, childhood, adolescence, youth, 
 age, and the period of decrepitude. In this interpretation 
 the luminaries of the fourth day signify the light of the 
 Prophets after the Law.^ 
 Bernard of Clairvaux, the successful antagonist of 
 
 ' It is difficult to take seriously the remark of Tholuck who said, after 
 reading Abelard's Commentary on Romans, that he hesitated whether 
 it would not be sufficient to republish it instead of writing another. 
 
 ^ See Abaelardi Opera, edited by Cousin, 2. 723. 
 
 ' He appealed chiefly to Augustin and Jerome. 
 
 * See Theologia Christiana in Cousin's Opera, 2. 357 f. 
 
 ^ Expositio in Hexaemeron, Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 178. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 173 
 
 Abelard, did not rise above him as an interpreter, though 
 his letters show that he was wonderfully familiar with 
 the letter of Scripture and often quoted it with great 
 aptness and force.' He held that the teaching of the 
 Pope could not possibly suffer defeat, for Jesus said 
 to Peter: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
 fail not." Like all the other exegetes of the .period, 
 Bernard was an allegorist. Thus, in his explanation, the 
 hippopotamus that in Job (40:15-24) serves to illus- 
 trate the power of God denotes Satan. The swelling river 
 at which he does not tremble is the human race, and the 
 Jordan over which he is confident is the elect. 
 
 Bernard was an effective preacher, but how far his 
 preaching was from being an interpretation of the Gospel 
 is strikingly shown in the fact that its chief result was a 
 crusade to recover the empty grave of Jesus. 
 
 Turning from Bernard, the ecclesiastic, to the German 
 Hugo of St. Victor, we find essentially the same exegetical 
 ability. If one is surprised and made expectant by the 
 remark of Hugo in the Introduction to Homilies on 1 
 Ecdesiastes, that he does not make much use of the alle- 
 gorical sense because of the common abuse of it,^ one soon 
 discovers elsewhere in his numerous writings that he 
 was an habitual and even extreme allegorist. The proph- I 
 ecy of Joel is allegorized throughout. The "garments " of 
 which the prophet speaks in the words, " Rend your hearts 
 
 * See The Life and Works of St. Bernard, edited by Dom. John Mabillon, 
 translated and edited with additional notes by Samuel J. Eales. 
 
 'See Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 175. iiS- It is, however, to be 
 said that Hugo sometimes abides by the natural sense of a passage, as 
 Gen. 49, which every one for a thousand years had allegorized. 
 
174 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 and not your garments " (2 : 13), denote the examples of the 
 saints. When the prophet promises that God will give the 
 former and the latter rain, the ' ' former rain ' ' denotes the elo- 
 quent words of Christ and his apostles, and the "latter rain" 
 is the expositions of the spiritual fathers together with the 
 canons and decrees. In the words, ' ' The sun shall be turned 
 into darkness and the moon into blood " (2 : 31), the "sun" 
 is Christ, and the "moon" is the Church. The sun was 
 turned into darkness when Christ was fixed to the cross ; 
 the moon is turned to blood when the Church imitates 
 the passion of Christ. 
 
 As an illustration of the critical value of Hugo's work, 
 the fact may be mentioned that he treated as Scripture 
 written in the time of Ahab a compilation of the eighth or 
 ninth Christian century, which bears the name of Abdias. 
 
 This turgid stream of scholastic exegesis ran on through 
 another century and a half, but we need not follow it 
 farther than can be done in a few remarks on Bonaventura 
 and Aquinas. Both these men were canonized, and the 
 writings of the former were published by order of the Pope. 
 Bonaventura's exegesis maybe judged from two passages — 
 one from a work on Daniel,* the other from a sermon.^ 
 The Ancient of Days in Dan. 7 : 9-10 is seen by the prophet 
 seated on a throne. This attitude indicates, says Bona- 
 ventura, eternity and immutability. According to the 
 Latin translation, the tenth verse reads: "A fiery and 
 rapid stream proceeded from his face." This is said to 
 
 ' 5. Bonaventurae opera omnia edita studio et cur a PP. CoUegii A.S, 
 Bonaventura, Tomus I. 
 
 ^ Op. cit., T. 5, De triplici testimoniae sanctissimae Trinitatis. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 175 
 
 mean the plenitude of love and the plenitude of virtue — 
 plenitude of virtue in the Son, therefore the stream was 
 "rapid" ; plenitude of love in the Holy Spirit, and therefore 
 the stream was "fiery." In the sermon referred to, the 
 spiritual heaven is said to be threefold, corresponding to 
 the material heaven. There is the supreme heaven, which 
 is the divine nature, of which it is said in the Psalm, "His 
 going forth is from the highest heaven (Ps. 19. 6)." Then 
 there is the middle heaven, which is the assumed nature 
 of Christ, concerning which the Psalm says, "The Lord's 
 seat is in heaven (Ps. 11. 4)." This is also designated in 
 Gen. I : "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the 
 waters." Finally, there is the lowest heaven, which is 
 the present Church, of which it is frequently said in the 
 Gospels, "The Kingdom of heaven is like" this or that. 
 
 So far Bonaventura. More famous still was Aquinas, 
 who has been called the greatest and profoundest teacher 
 of the Middle Ages. By two works is he chiefly known — 
 the Aurea Catena j'- a mosaic of quotations from twenty- 
 three Latin and fifty-seven Greek writers in exposition 
 of the four Gospels, and the Summa Theologica. The 
 Aurea Catena ^ is a monument of astounding industry, 
 the Summa ' a monument of the subtlety of Aquinas. 
 But neither of them, as regards its exegesis, shows original- 
 ity or independence. By the Catena, Aquinas is simply 
 shown to be the greatest of the compilers.^ It is not likely 
 
 ' The original title is Expositio contmua super quatuor Evangelistas. 
 
 ^ I have used the edition df Nicolai, 1851. 
 
 ' My quotations are from the edition of 1763, 16 vols. 
 
 * Exegetical collections in Greek had been made by five writers from 
 
176 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 that he would have made the book had he not believed that 
 the exposition of the Fathers was practically final. The 
 stately Summa of Aquinas is more deeply influenced by 
 Aristotle than by Christ, for its form is throughout due to 
 the "philosopher," and as for its content, that is simply 
 the theology of the mediaeval Church. Take such a sec- 
 tion as that on the love of God ; ' even this does not appeal 
 in any manner to the revelation of divine love in Christ. 
 Indeed, it does not refer to him at all except in one article, 
 and then not as showing God's love. It quotes but three 
 biblical books or authors and five non-biblical. 
 
 A single representative paragraph of the Summa will 
 sufficiently indicate the strength and weakness of the exe- 
 gesis of Aquinas. He raises the question whether the new 
 law is contained in the old. Then, according to his cus- 
 tom, he adduces reasons, scriptural or otherwise, for the 
 affirmative. He says first, that the new law consists in 
 faith ; that many things in the new law are to be believed 
 which are not in the old, and that, therefore, the new law 
 is not in the old. Second, we read in Matt. 5: "Break 
 not one of these least commandments," the reference being 
 to the old law. But if the commandments in the old law 
 are "least," the commandments in the Gospel are greater. 
 The greater, however, cannot be contained in the less, and 
 therefore the new law is not contained in the old. But, 
 on the contrary, — and now comes the Scripture proof that 
 the new law is contained in the old, — we read in Ezek. 
 
 Procopius of Gaza to Euthemius Zigabenus, and in Latin there were 
 at least seventeen such collections before Aquinas. 
 ' See I. 204-211. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 177 
 
 1 : 16 that the prophet saw a wheel within a wheel ; that 
 is, the New Testament was in the Old. Thus having 
 given Scripture proof both for the affirmative and the nega- 
 tive of his proposition, he proceeds to his solution, which 
 is that the New Testament is in the Old as a tree is in a 
 seed — a very ancient but also very pernicious half-truth.' 
 
 In conclusion, we may cite as applicable to the exegesis 
 of Aquinas what Windelband says of the later Scholasti- 
 cism : "With its distinctions and conclusions it was carry- 
 ing on to a certain extent a juggler's game in the open air, 
 which indeed set the formal mental powers in beneficentl 
 motion, but which in spite of all its turns and windings | 
 could lead to no material knowledge." ^ ! 
 
 In passing rapidly to the conclusion of our survey of 
 mediaeval exegesis, we must note two of the noblest men of 
 the entire period — Robert Grosseteste (bishop of Lincoln 
 1235-1253) and Roger Bacon (1214-1292). Both had 
 a knowledge and appreciation of Greek and Hebrew 
 far above that of their century.' Both were in advance 
 of their times in the stress they laid on the study of the 
 Bible.* But Bacon's advanced ideas regarding the value 
 of Greek and Hebrew to an interpreter, which might have 
 
 ' Archbishop Vaughan, in his Life and Labors of St. Thomas Aquinas, 
 p. 398, gives the following example of the exegesis of Aquinas: "Note 
 with regard to these words ' there shall come forth a rod' (Is.ii:i) that 
 the Blessed Virgin is here called a rod." She is that, "first, as consoling 
 in tribulations ; secondly, as fructifying; thirdly, as satiating; fourthly, 
 as scourging; and fifthly, as crushing!" 
 
 ^Windelband, A History of Philosophy, p. 272. 
 
 ' Comp. DoUinger, Studies in European History, p. 178. 
 
 * Bacon held that children should be carefully taught to read the 
 Bible. See Opus tertium, p. 54, in the edition cited above. 
 
 N 
 
178 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 wrought a beneficent change in Bible study, were unpub- 
 lished for centuries, and Grosseteste, with all his indepen- 
 dence, did not depart essentially from the ecclesiastical 
 method of interpretation,' even as he shared the ecclesi- 
 astical superstition.^ He went to the Old Testament for 
 types of present ecclesiastical officers and relations. Adam 
 and Eve he regarded as types of Christ and the Church. 
 Moses was the typical prelate; Abel, Noah, Abraham, 
 Jacob, and Joseph were types of the bishop ; and he used 
 the Scriptures regarding these men to support his plans for 
 the reformation of the clergy of his diocese in the thirteenth 
 century. 
 
 Soon after the death of Bacon and shortly before the 
 birth of Wyclif, Pope Boniface VIII issued the famous 
 Bull Unam Sanctam (1302)' from which we will cite our 
 final illustration of mediaeval exegesis. This Bull seeks 
 to prove from Scripture that the Church is one, and that 
 out of it no salvation is possible. This is accomplished 
 by three passages. The first is from the Song of Solomon 
 (6:9):- 
 
 "My dove, my undefiled, is one." This is taken to 
 
 ' Grosseteste regarded Philo as the most subtle of all doctors in the 
 knowledge and interpretation of Scripture. See Letter 127 in The Chron- 
 icles and Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland in the Middle Ages. 
 
 ^ He defended the genuineness of the blood of Christ which had been 
 sent to the King and by him had been presented to Westminster. See 
 Letter 127. 
 
 " Henderson, Documents, p. 435. A few years after this Bull was issued, 
 the Council of Vienne (1311) made a dogma against usury, based upon an 
 erroneous translation of Luke 6 : 35, where they read nihil unde sperantes 
 instead of nihil desperantes. See Dollinger, Studies in European History, 
 p. 176. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 179 
 
 mean the mystical body of Christ. The second passage 
 is from Genesis (6 : 13-16). The aric of Noah symbolized 
 the Church, and as there was but one ark, so there is but 
 one Church ; and the fact that the ark was finished " in 
 one cubit" meant that one Noah (i.e. the Pope of any par- 
 ticular age) was the hehnsman. And, finally, when the 
 psalmist says (22 : 20) : — 
 
 "Deliver my soul from the sword, 
 My darling from the power of the dog,'' 
 
 he means by "soul" Christ himself, and by "darling" 
 he means the Church, whose oneness is also plainly sig- 
 nified by the seamless garment of Jesus. 
 
 It remains now to sum up in a few words the significance 
 of the long period in the history of Christian interpretation 
 which we have all too briefly considered. It furnishes 
 a striking parallel to the history of Old Testament inter- 
 pretation in the Jewish Synagogue. The Fathers of the 
 early centuries answer to the Elders from Ezra's day down 
 to Christ. The traditions of the Elders, which not in- 
 frequently eclipsed and abrogated the law of God, have 
 their counterpart in the expositions of the Christian Fathers 
 from the second to the fifth century, which expositions, 
 during the mediaeval period, obscured and even annulled 
 the sense of the divine word. To the compilation of the 
 two Tahnuds the Catenae correspond, which, beginning 
 in the sixth and seventh centuries, grew up to the propor- 
 tions which we see in the Aurea Catena of Aquinas. In 
 both cases the Bible is treated as a book of mysteries, which 
 are to be unfolded by mystical interpretation. In the 
 
l8o THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 mediaeval period of the Church, as in the Tahnudic period 
 of the Synagogue, an orthodox theology, resting on tra- 
 dition which was interpreted and backed by ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority, discountenanced or anathematized indepen- 
 dent investigation of Scripture. As among the Jews in 
 the Talmudic period the Old Testament was to be read by 
 the Ught of the authorized interpretation, so in the mediaeval 
 period the entire Bible was to be read, if at all, through 
 the eyes of the Fathers. And so it came to pass that the 
 influence of the Fathers on the conceptions of Christian 
 theology immeasurably surpassed the influence of Christ 
 and his apostles. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY THE REFORMERS 
 
 In passing from the mediaeval type of interpretation to 
 the modern, one must not neglect those writers of the four- 
 teenth and fifteenth centuries whose use of the Bible fore- 
 shadowed in some degree the coming advance. Among 
 these an honorable place belongs to that man who leads 
 the company of great modern translators of the Scriptures. 
 
 John Wyclif (1324-1384) fills a larger place in the history 
 of ecclesiastical reform than he does in the history of inter- 
 pretation. As a bold and powerful critic of papal abuses and 
 as a mighty champion of the principle that the authority 
 of the Bible is higher than the authority of the Church, — 
 a principle which had been buried since the very earliest 
 Christian times, — it can be said of Wyclif that he has 
 profoundly affected the entire spirit of the Western world.* 
 His blow struck a spark from the flint, Hus applied the 
 spark to the coals, and Luther, having lighted the torch of 
 the Reformation at those coals, bore it aloft until all 
 Europe saw its light and felt its heat.' The German re- 
 former himself, apparently without knowing of the depen- 
 dence of Hus on Wyclif, exclaimed, after he became 
 
 ' Buddensieg, Johann Wiclif und seine Zeit, p. 3. 
 ' These are the parts assigned to the three refonneis in a woodcut of 
 the year 1572. See Buddensieg, op. cit., p. 3. 
 
 181 
 
1 82 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 acquainted with the principles of the Bohemian martyr, 
 "We are all Hussites without knowing it !" According to 
 the investigations of Loserth,' it now appears that, in rec- 
 ognizing his indebtedness to Hus, Luther was in reahty 
 recognizing his indebtedness to Wyclif. 
 
 But though Wyclif's significance as a reformer is greater 
 than his significance as an interpreter of Scripture, which 
 is true also of Luther and Luther's age, we are not to sup- 
 pose that, even in this latter capacity, his work was without 
 abiding influence. It is true, his method of exegesis was 
 thoroughly mediaeval. Thus, with the Fathers, he found 
 Christ active in the Old Testament,^ and saw there minute 
 prophecies of New Testament events.' Like the mediaeval 
 interpreters, he was almost entirely ignorant of Greek,* 
 and, what is more significant, was a slave to the allegorical 
 method of interpretation. Simple historical events, hke 
 Christ's sleeping in the boat,' and material objects like 
 Solomon's temple,' were mystically understood. WycUf 
 treated plain narratives in the genuine Alexandrian way. 
 Thus, for example, commenting on Mark 7:31, which 
 says that Jesus went out from the borders of Tyre and 
 came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the midst 
 
 ' WicUf and Hus, English translation. Loserth shows conclusively 
 that Hus (1369-1415) was completely dominated by Wyclif. 
 
 ^ See Select English Works of John Wyclif, edited from Mss. by 
 Thomas Arnold, 3. 82, 85, 87, 89. 
 
 'See, e.g.. Select Works, 3. 222: "The Holy Ghost saith of Judas 
 Iscariot (Ps. 109 : 7), ' His prayer be made into sin.' " 
 
 * See Capes, The English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth cen- 
 turies, p. no; and Buddensieg, Johann Wiclif und seine Zeit, p. 177. 
 
 'See Select Works, i. 107. 
 
 ° See Tractatus de ecclesia, edited by Loserth, p. 125. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 183 
 
 of the borders of Decapolis, he interprets the going from 
 the land of Tyre as referring to Christ's going from the 
 bosom of the Father, by virtue of a fanciful etymology 
 of the word "Tyre"; the coming to Sidon was fulfilled 
 when the angel Gabriel came to Mary, this notion being 
 derived from a double etymology of the word "Sidon"; 
 the going to the Lake of Galilee meant going to men, for 
 the word "Galilee" means "a wheel whirling," which is 
 said to be an appropriate symbol of mankind after the fall.' 
 It will thus be noticed that the deeper meaning of this pas- 
 sage is all derived by Wyclif from the supposed etymologies 
 of the geographical names contained in it, — an exposition 
 worthy of Philo. Again, explaining the parable of the 
 Merciful Samaritan,^ Wyclif says that the man who went 
 down from Jerusalem to Jericho signifies our first parents. 
 The thieves were fiends ; the priest stood for the patriarchs ; 
 the Levite for the prophets and other saints. These all 
 passed by as knowing that they could not help one who 
 had fallen into sin through the temptation of the fiend. 
 The Samaritan was Jesus, who is appropriately represented 
 as a Samaritan stranger because of his Godhead ! The oil 
 poured on the wounds meant the hope of heaven, and the 
 wine was sharp words "to prick men from sin." Setting 
 the wounded man on his own beast was accomplished when 
 Jesus made his own manhood to bear our sin. "The 
 following day," when the Samaritan left his charge at the 
 inn, signifies the time after the resurrection, and the 
 
 ' See Select Works, i. 29. Wyclif held the theory of a fourfold sense. 
 See Works, 4. 277, where it is presented in a sermon. 
 ' See Select Works, i. 31 f. 
 
l84 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 "twopence " which he gave for the care of the wounded are 
 his "Godhead and manhood, to feed mankind till the day 
 of doom." The innkeeper is all whom God has chosen to 
 feed his Church. 
 
 Plainly, this interpretation utterly obscures the simple 
 and practical teaching of the words of Jesus ; and like this 
 there is much in Wychf's writings.* 
 
 But there is, fortunately, another aspect of Wyclif's 
 activity in its bearing upon the Scripture. There are 
 two points in which, notwithstanding his false method of 
 exegesis, his biblical work was of value. In the first place, 
 he magnified the Bible — a great event after a thousand 
 years of neglect. "If there were a hundred popes," he 
 said in a strain that reminds us of Luther, "and if all friars 
 were cardinals, one ought not to trust them in matters of 
 faith, except as they agree with Holy Scripture." "In 
 a single word of Peter there is more profitable doctrine 
 than in all decretals and bulls." ' The depth and power of 
 his conviction of the infinite importance of Scripture was 
 manifested in his translation of the Bible into Enghsh. 
 This translation, though circulated in manuscript, was, more 
 than any other single force, the means of maintaining spirit- 
 ual life in England during the century and a half that inter- 
 vened between Wyclif's death and Tyndale's translation. 
 
 There was also a second feature of Wyclif's work that is 
 noteworthy in the history of interpretation. He had some 
 sense of the historical development of Scripture. This was 
 
 ' See De ecclesia, pp. 472 f. The "worthy woman" of Prov. 31 is 
 elaborately explained as the Church. See also i. 4, 12; 2. 258, 305, 
 2 Buddensieg, op. cit., pp. 179, 196. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 185 
 
 doubtless very imperfect, perhaps an instinctive feeling 
 rather than an intellectual perception, yet it was a most un- 
 usual phenomenon ; a gleam of a truth that was to emerge 
 into clear manifestation in coming time. It was this sense 
 of development which led Wyclif , unlike any preacher who 
 had gone before him for many centuries, to find the almost 
 exclusive material of his preaching in the Gospel. Of the 
 two hundred and ninety-four sermons in Arnold's edition 
 of Wyclif 's English works, three only are on Old Testament 
 texts, fifty-two on texts from the Epistles, and two hundred 
 and thirty-nine on the Gospels. 
 
 It is true that WycUf, influenced by the Fathers, saw 
 Christ personally active in the Old Testament, for example, 
 uttering the words of the Decalogue ; ' yet in his preaching 
 he gravitated steadily to the Gospel as the full and final 
 revelation of Christ. 
 
 Quite different from Wychf as interpreters, and yet like 
 him belonging to the coming age, in some measure, were 
 John Gerson (1363-1429),^ and John of Goch (11475). 
 Both were deeply convinced of the necessity of setting up 
 the literal sense of Scripture as the absolute standard for 
 the Church. Gerson belonged to the Middle Ages in one 
 fundamental point ; namely, that he made the authority of 
 the Church supreme in determining the sense of Scripture. 
 The literal sense is to be judged, he says, according as the 
 Church, inspired and governed by the Holy Spirit, has de- 
 
 ' See, e.g.. Select Works, 3. 87, 89. 
 
 ' Gerson, "doctor christianissimus," was born near Rheims, became 
 chancellor of the University of Paris, and was prominent at the Councils 
 of Pisa and Constance. 
 
l86 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 termined, and not according to the judgment and interpre- 
 tation of any individual/ The rigidity of Gerson's convic- 
 tion on this matter is apparent when he declares that those 
 who deny the literal sense of Scripture as determined and 
 received by the Church ought not to be treated with curi- 
 ous ratiocinations (curiosis ratiocinationihus), but with fixed 
 punishments.^ In harmony with this principle he voted for 
 the burning of Hus. John of Goch, though allowing the 
 fourfold sense of Scripture, was in advance of his age in his 
 preference for the Uteral sense, and yet more in his insist- 
 ence that, in theological argumentation, the exclusive ap- 
 peal should be to the literal sense.' 
 
 Of greater influence on interpretation than Gerson and 
 Goch were the unknown author of the Theologia Germania 
 and Thomas k Kempis (I1471). The Theologia Ger- 
 mania ^ (probably of the fifteenth century) was deeply 
 influenced by Tauler ^ (f 1363), the mystic of Strassburg, 
 and was in turn a serious force in moulding Luther's 
 belief .° It shares mth the Imitation of Christ by k Kempis 
 
 ' See Propositiones de sensu Ktterali sacrae scri-pturae in the Opera 
 omnia, edited by Du Pin, Antwerp, 1706, Propositio 3. Gerson appears 
 to have been the first writer to treat of the literal sense of Scripture in a 
 systematic manner. His twelve propositions are of very unequal value. 
 
 ^ See op. cit., Propositio 7. 
 
 ' See Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, i. 54. 
 
 * The first published title of the book was Bin deutsch Theologia. 
 
 ' It quotes from Tauler forty times, from Boethius fifteen times. See 
 the translation of S. Winkworth. 
 
 "Luther, in his Vorrede to the book (1518), says, "Und das ich nach 
 meynem alten narren riime, ist myr nehst der Biblien und S. Augustino 
 nit vorkummen eyn Buch, dar auss ich mehr erlernet hab und will, was 
 got, Christus, mensch und alle ding sein." See Bohlau's edition of Lu- 
 ther's Werke, i. 378-379. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 187 
 
 the honor of being one of the two most widely circulated 
 writings of the fifteenth century. Both the Theologia 
 Germania and the Imitation are remarkably free from alle- 
 gorical interpretation of Scripture, more so than the writ- 
 ings of the German reformers. They make little formal 
 use of the sacred text, as compared with the writings of the 
 Schoolmen, e.g., Bernard of Clairvaux, or the writings of 
 the Carlovingian times, and yet, far beyond any of the 
 Schoolmen or any preceding mediaeval writer, they impress 
 on the reader the truth of Scripture. They are not so much 
 an interpretation of the letter of Scripture as an incarnation 
 of its spirit.^ Their interest in the Bible is altogether prac- 
 tical. They move among the great moral and spiritual 
 passages whose main purport is clear. More than any 
 writings for a thousand years prior to WycUf they find their 
 sustenance in the New Testament rather than in the Old. 
 No writing of the mediaeval period is to be compared with 
 the Imitation in its spiritual apprehension of Jesus.^ 
 Thus these writings, in spite of their mediaevalism at many 
 points, afford a noble illustration of practical exegesis. 
 They do not belong to the scientific literature of interpre- 
 tation, but they are splendid monuments of the reaction 
 from barren scholastic exegesis, and bear abiding witness 
 to the general intelligibility of the Bible.^ 
 
 ' Every intelligent reader of the Imitation knows that its conception of 
 Christianity has some rather serious defects, as, for example, its devotion 
 to the monastic ideal of life. 
 
 ' See, e.g., Book 2, chapter 8. 
 
 ' John Wessel (f 1489), a pupil of \ Kempis and said to have taught 
 Reuchlin the elements of Hebrew (see MayerhofF, Johann Reuchlin 
 und seine Zeit, p. 2), put the authority of Scripture above that of the 
 
1 88 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 When now we pass from the exegesis of Wyclif and even 
 from that of the Imitation and the Theologia Germania 
 to that of the early part of the sixteenth century, we are at 
 once aware of the presence of a new force. Men are no 
 more deeply in earnest to know what the Scriptures teach 
 than were h, Kempis and Wyclif, but their earnestness has 
 a new direction. No longer do they stop at the Vulgate, 
 as had been the universal custom for centuries, but with 
 grammar and lexicon at their side they are poring over the 
 Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. 
 This was an event which both for that time and for the future 
 was quite worthy to be placed side by side with the discov- 
 ery of the New World. It was an event which in its sig- 
 nificance for the interpretation of Scripture was without 
 parallel since the composition of the New Testament. 
 
 This new method of studying the Bible stood in closest 
 connection with the reformation of the Church, yet was not 
 the cause of that reformation. The real cause is suggested 
 by Luther in his Table Talk, when he says that Wyclif 
 and Hus attacked the immoral conduct of the papists, and 
 that he himself had chiefly resisted their doctrine} That 
 is to say, the Reformation was caused by the intolerable 
 abuses of ecclesiastical authority which everywhere pre- 
 vailed. The reformers of the sixteenth century did not 
 become such through a new method of interpreting the 
 Scripture, though they had from the beginning a more 
 
 Church and advocated a natural interpretation. See Kettlewell, Thomas 
 4 Kempis, 2. 334. 
 
 ' See The Table Talk or Familiar Discourse 0/ Martin Luther, Hazlitt's 
 edition, p. 413. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 189 
 
 spiritual apprehension of its great truths than was to be 
 found among the leaders of the Church ; but, being impelled 
 to be reformers by the reaction of a sound moral and reh- 
 gious nature against the corruption of the Church, they 
 eagerly seized on the new method of approach to revealed 
 truth as a providential instrument with which to fortify 
 and defend their position. 
 
 This new method of approaching the Bible was a part 
 of the "new learning," that broad intellectual movement 
 of which Luther wrote in 1525: "I am convinced that 
 pure theology cannot exist without knowledge of the 
 sciences, as hitherto it has lain prostrate with their fall. 
 Yea, I see that a revelation of the divine word would never 
 have been made but for the rediscovery of languages (i.e., 
 the cultivation of Greek and Hebrew) and sciences." ' 
 
 The new learning arose in Italy in the fifteenth century, 
 and had there its most brilhant period at the close of that 
 century and in the first quarter of the next.' It was 
 fostered by the highest ecclesiastics, as Alexander VI 
 (t 1503)) Julius II (t 1513), and Leo X (f 1521), uncon- 
 scious, of course, that what they vied with one another in 
 promoting would one day help to shake their power 
 to its very centre and rob them of a large part of their 
 income. 
 
 North of the Alps, England and Germany were the first 
 to transplant the new learning and to show a development 
 
 ' Quoted by Holstein in Die Reformation im Spiegelbilde der drama- 
 tischen Litteratur des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, p. 14. See Schriften des 
 Vereins fiir Reformationsgesckichte, Nos. 14-15. 
 
 ^ See, in general, on this period, Cambridge Modern History, vol. II ; 
 Medicean Rome, chapter i. 
 
1 90 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 that affected the interpretation of Scripture. Groc)ai 
 taught Greek at Oxford in 1490, Linacre, who was famous 
 in 1500, was one of the teachers of Erasmus, and Colet 
 lectured at Oxford on the Epistles of Paul in 1497.' All 
 these had studied in Italy. Among the Germans Agricola 
 taught Greek at Heidelberg in 1483/ Pelhcan pubhshed the 
 first help to the study of Hebrew in 1503,^ Erasmus pub- 
 lished his Praise of Folly in 1511, and Reuchlin was pro- 
 fessor of Greek and Hebrew at Ingolstadt in 15 19. 
 
 The desire to learn Greek and Hebrew was Uttle less 
 than a passion.* Reuchlin (1455-1523) had private pupils 
 in Hebrew many years before the estabhshment of a 
 professorship in this language. Melanchthon at Witten- 
 berg in 1 518 was thronged by students eager to learn 
 Greek.' Two years earlier Erasmus wrote that the 
 generality of the scholars whom he met in Basel under- 
 stood Hebrew,' and a little later Zwingli reports of his 
 colleagues in Zurich that many of them knew Hebrew and 
 Greek.' The curriculum of certain grammar schools in 
 
 ' See Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in England, pp. 30-39. 
 
 ' A professorship was not established there till 1498. See Mayerhoff, 
 Johann Reuchlin und seine Zeit, p. 35. On the religious aim of the Ger- 
 man Humanists see Maurenbrecher, Geschichie der Katholischen Refor- 
 mation, ±. 65. 
 
 ' The title of this booklet was De modo legendi et intelligendi hebraea. 
 
 ' This intensity characterized the entire intellectual movement. Hut- 
 ten exclaimed, " O Age, O Science, it is a joy to live !" See Roth, Willi- 
 bald Pirkheimer, in Schriften des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte, 
 No. 21. 
 
 ^ See Hugo Holstein, op. cii., p. 13. 
 
 ° See Hagenbach, History of the Reformation, i. 69. 
 
 ' See Jackson, Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli, p. 57. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 191 
 
 Germany, as Isnyand Ilfeld, included the study of Hebrew.^ 
 Erasmus met men at Strassburg and elsewhere who 
 thought that if they only knew Hebrew, they might neglect 
 all other languages and the sciences.^ There were ten or 
 more Hebrew grammars and lexicons published in the 
 first half of the sixteenth century in Germany and Switzer- 
 land — an amazing number when one considers the labor 
 necessary to such a work at that time and the great expense 
 of printing books in Hebrew.^ 
 
 The awakened interest in Greek was largely directed 
 toward the Bible. It was studied as the key to the under- 
 standing of the New Testament. Hebrew in like manner 
 was pursued for the sake of the Old Testament. Reuch- 
 lin's aim in all his Hebrew studies was to promote the 
 knowledge of God.^ And yet the pupils of the new 
 learning did not directly promote the science of interpre- 
 tation. Reuchlin, its foremost Hebrew scholar, was a 
 believer in the extreme form of mystical interpretation,^ 
 and Erasmus, its most distinguished representative, held 
 Origen to be the incomparable exegete.' He classed 
 Origen with Jerome, and both with Paul.' It is not 
 
 ' See Geiger, Das Studium der hebr. Sprache in Deutschland vom Ende 
 des XV. bis zur Mitte des xvi. Jahrhunderts, p. 128. 
 
 ^ See Geiger, op. cit., p. 5. 
 
 ' Boschenstein, Capito, Cellarin, Fagius, Forster, and Munster put 
 forth grammars or lexicons or both, in addition to Pellican and Reuchlin. 
 See Geiger, op. cit. 
 
 * See Mayerhoff, Johann Reuchlin und seine Zeit, p. 45. 
 
 ' Of his De verba mirifico (1495) nine editions were published in the 
 sixteenth century. See Mayerhoff, op. cit. 
 
 ' See his Ratio seu methodus compendia perveniendi ad veram theolo- 
 giam, T. 5 of the Opera omnia, 1704. 
 
 ' See the Enchiridion, 2 and 8. 
 
192 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 strange, then, that his own exegetical writings show every- 
 where the leaven of the mystical principle. The letter of 
 Scripture, he says, is often barren or even absurd, and 
 is to be despised. David's adultery, Samson's love of a 
 harlot, the sin of Lot's daughters, and a thousand similar 
 things are illustrations of this class of Scriptures, and 
 must all be understood allegorically. Not only by its 
 adherence to the allegorical method but also by its dog- 
 matic character, the exegesis of Erasmus is seen to be 
 essentially mediaeval. It maintains the traditional dog- 
 mas of the Church."^ 
 
 But Humanism helped to lay foundations for a better 
 interpretation of Scripture, though itself unable to build 
 thereon. Luther looked up to Reuchlin as a father, 
 and used his lexicon in the translation of the Old Testa- 
 ment. Aleander, the papal nuntio, writing from Worms 
 in 1 52 1, calls Erasmus "the great corner-stone" of the 
 German heresy,^ and though this was not true in the sense 
 in which he thought it true, for Erasmus remained in the 
 fold of the Church, yet in an important sense it was true. 
 The writings of Erasmus doubtless did more than any 
 other single agency for the promotion of the study of 
 
 ' See, e.g., the Paraphrasis in evangelium secundum Joanneum, Basileae, 
 1523. In the rendering of chapter t : i we read, "Nee sic adhaerebat 
 patri, quemadmodum accidens adhaeret substantiae, sed deus erat ex 
 deo, deus erat in deo, deus erat apud deum.'' And see also the para- 
 phrase of vs. 10. 
 
 ^ See his letter to Reuchlin, 1518, in Holstein's Die Reformation im Spie- 
 gelbilde der dramatischen Litteratur des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, p. 15. 
 
 ' See Kalkoff, Die Depeschen des Nuntius Aleander, p. 48, in Schriften 
 des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte, No. 17. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 193 
 
 Greek and Hebrew,' and for the creation of an atmosphere 
 in which the Reformation might reahze its aims. Because 
 he did this fundamental work, the word of Aleander con- 
 tained much truth. But it is scarcely possible to justify 
 the statement of a modern writer who says that "the spirit 
 of Erasmus is the life of scientific criticism, the breath 
 of modern scholarship."^ Erasmus was not a critical 
 scholar,' and was not a progressive interpreter. His great 
 service for interpretation, like that of Reuchlin, was 
 indirect. How the reformers used the new learning, what 
 they accomplished for the interpretation of Scripture with 
 the instruments which Erasmus and Reuchlin and their 
 fellow-laborers made ready to their hand, we have now to 
 consider.* 
 
 Martin Luther at the age of twenty-two began to study 
 the Bible seriously, especially the prophets and Paul ; ' at 
 
 * For exhortations to the study of Greek and Hebrew see, e.g., the 
 Apologia, third edition, 1522, and the Ratio perveniendi ad veram theo- 
 logiam. 
 
 * See Beard in The Hibbert Lectures for 1883, p. 73. 
 
 ' On the character of his Greek New Testament see Nestle, Introduction 
 to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. 
 
 * Through Reuchlin and his fellow -laborers the great mediseval Jewish 
 scholars — Saadia (892-942), Rashi (1040-1105), and Kirachi (1160- 
 ^235) — became a power in the Christian Church. Nicolas de Lyra was 
 influenced by Rashi (see Morris Liber on Rashi in the Jewish Encyclo- 
 pcedia) and in turn influenced Luther (see Table Talk, p. 234). Pagninus' 
 grammar is said to be merely a reproduction of Kimchi's (see Levias in 
 Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Kimchi"), and Reuchlin published a revised 
 edition of Kimchi's Hebrew grammar in 1520. His own Hebrew gram- 
 mar followed Kimchi's. See Geiger, op. cit., p. 56. Paul Fagius pub- 
 lished Kimchi's commentary on the first ten Psalms. 
 
 'See Gieseler's Kirchengeschichte, 3. 1. 11; Table Talk, p. 15. 
 o 
 
194 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the age of twenty-nine, with a sHght knowledge of Greek 
 and Hebrew, he was expounding the Scripture at Witten- 
 berg ; ' at thirty -five he was studying Greek with Melanch- 
 thon ; ^ at thirty -eight he began his translation of the New 
 Testament ; at forty-four he published his commentary on 
 Genesis, and seven years later his translation of the Old 
 Testament. It will be seen from this outline that Luther's 
 knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was chiefly acquired 
 after he had passed thirty, and when he was plunged in the 
 heat of controversy and the thousand distractions of his 
 reformatory work.' In the study of Greek he was helped, 
 as we have seen, by his younger colleague, Melanchthon, 
 but in Hebrew he appears to have been thrown almost 
 entirely on his own private study.^ It is also important 
 to notice that, when he began his exegetical publications,' 
 he was engaged in the overthrow of papal doctrine. It 
 would be strange, indeed, if his intense polemical interests 
 had not warped his exegetical faculty. 
 
 In approaching Luther as an exegete, while it is interest- 
 ing to know that he had at hand philological aids for ascer- 
 taining the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words, it is no 
 less interesting to know his attitude toward the Fathers. 
 
 ' See Kostlin, Martin Luther, sein Lehen und seine Schriften, i. 115. 
 
 ^See Kostlin, op. cit., i. 293. 
 
 'The Theses were nailed up October 31, 1517, and the Bull burned 
 December 12, 1520. 
 
 * Luther had a Hebrew lexicon while at Erfurt (1501-1508) (see 
 Kostlin, I. 115), and while in Wittenberg he may have received instruc- 
 tion from Boschenstein and others who, with a good many interruptions, 
 taught Hebrew in the University. 
 
 'His Latin commentary on Galatians was published in 1519, the 
 Operationes in Psalmos, 1519-1521. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 195 
 
 He appears not to have realized how deeply he was de- 
 pendent upon them, whether as interpreter or as theo- 
 logian. In principle, he rejected allegorical interpretation, 
 and declared that he had based his teaching upon the literal 
 sense of Scripture.^ Origen, whom Erasmus exalted so 
 highly, was to Luther naught but foolishness.^ It was 
 doubtless because of their allegorizing, as well as because 
 of their failure to teach his doctrine of justification, that 
 Luther said of the teachers of the early Church: "When 
 God's word is expounded and glossed by the Fathers, it is 
 as when one strains milk through a coal-sack."' We shall 
 see when we come to examine some of Luther's exegetical 
 work whether his practice agreed with his theory in this 
 matter of allegory, or whether, after all, the Fathers were 
 not a great constraining force with him. 
 
 We are not concerned with the theology of Luther except 
 as it has a bearing on his interpretation of Scripture. 
 Now it is plain from his writings that, although he often 
 criticised the Fathers and depreciated their teaching of 
 Christianity, as, for example, when he said regarding 
 Melanchthon's Loci Communes that all the Fathers and all 
 the writers of sentences were of less worth, ^ he nevertheless 
 was, as Hamack has said, "the restorer of the old dogma," 
 who unconsciously "gave new life to the formulae of Greek 
 Christianity." ' His deep aversion to papal doctrine which 
 
 ' See Table Talk, p. 6. In Bohlau's edition of Luther's Werke, 3. 11, 
 Luther says : " In scripturis nulla videlicet allegoria, tropologia, anagoge 
 nisi alibi historice idem expresse dicatur. Alioquin ludibrium fieret 
 scriptura." 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 328. * Ibid., p. 21. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 228. ' See History of Dogma, 7. 173. 
 
196 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 virtually exalted the teaching of the Fathers above the 
 Scripture itself led him to strong utterances on their weak- 
 ness and inadequacy/ and yet their conceptions are his 
 conceptions. The sphere of his reform was divine wor- 
 ship, not bibUcal theology.^ When he was at Erfurt he 
 often read the works of Augustin, and he says that he 
 remembered them well.^ The fundamental ancient con- 
 ceptions entered into his very blood, and he never a ked 
 whether they were according to Scripture. When he 
 broke away from the Fathers in the doctrine of inspiration, 
 his view was uncertain. At one time he advocated the 
 right to use reason in the investigation of Scripture, and 
 his own practice shows that he felt himself free to criticise 
 not only the canon but also the comparative value of vari- 
 ous biblical books ; * but in principle he clung to verbal 
 inspiration. We ought not to criticise the Scriptures by 
 our mere reason, he says, but the Holy Ghost must be our 
 only master.' He identified the Scriptures with the word 
 of God.° Thus he wavered between two irreconcilable 
 principles, though in his later years he was increasingly 
 hostile to reason, which he even styled "the all-cruelest 
 and most fatal enemy of God." ' 
 
 ■ See, e.g., Table Talk, pp. 530, 534, 539. 
 ' See Harnack, History of Dogma, 7. 191. 
 ' So Melanchthon, quoted by Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, 3. i. 12. 
 
 * Thus he admitted the existence of errors in Scripture (see Romberg, 
 Die Lehre Luther's von der heiligen Schrift, p. 16); he rejected certain 
 books which the ancient Church accepted, and accepted some which were 
 rejected of old (see Romberg, op. cit., pp. 22-23). 
 
 * See Table Talk, pp. 2-3. 
 
 ' See Harnack, op. cit., 7. 246; Romberg, op. cit., p. 20. 
 ' Quoted by Beard, The Hibbert Lectures, p. 163. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 197 
 
 Having taken this preliminary survey of Luther's exe- 
 getical qualifications, we now proceed to a closer acquaint- 
 ance with his exegetical work. 
 
 We notice at the outset that, much as Luther exalted 
 Christ and the Gospel, the biblical books on which he 
 bestowed the most labor were Psalms, Genesis, and the 
 Epistles of Paul. For the exaltation of Christ it hardly 
 mattered to him what part of the Scripture he chose to 
 expound. Galatians and Romans were to him the purest 
 Gospel, though they are in reaUty but a human interpreta- 
 tion of the Gospel. The Psalms he regarded as a "short 
 Bible," "almost as a summary of the whole Bible," and 
 Genesis was held by him to be a liber sanctissimus} There- 
 fore, since his "right touchstone" for testing all biblical 
 books was to observe whether they witness to Christ, we 
 know at the start that he found abundant witness of this 
 character in Genesis. 
 
 Luther published a commentary on the Psalms in 1519- 
 1521.^ Erasmus in acknowledging a copy from the author 
 said that it pleased him exceedingly, and Justus Jonas 
 declared that the book was by the Holy Spirit.^ If this 
 judgment of the admiring Jonas was a true one, then 
 Augustin's commentary on the Psalms was also ex spiritu 
 sancto, for Luther's work is fundamentally the same. 
 
 'See Romberg, op. cit., p. 12; Bohlau's edition of Luther's Werke, 
 vol. 24. 
 
 ' The Dictata super Psalterium were published in 1513-1516- 
 
 ' See Bohlau's edition of Luther's Werke, 5. 2-3. Kostlin, however, 
 
 says (see Martin Luther, 1. 112), "Seine Anmerkungen zum Psalter haben 
 
 fiir uns weniger die Bedeutung einer eigentlich exegetischen Leistung als 
 
 einer Darstellung seiner neu gewonnenen dogmatischen Uberzeugungen." 
 
198 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Its most characteristic feature is its attempt to refer the 
 Psalms to Christ. Thus Psalm i is said to speak literally 
 of Christ. He is the man who walked not in the counsel of 
 sinners. The "leaf" that shall not wither is Christ's 
 word, of which he said that, though heaven and earth should 
 pass away, it should not pass away. Though at the be- 
 ginning of his book ' Luther says it is best to learn the 
 sense of Scripture from the letter, yet when he comes to 
 the words in Ps. i : 
 
 " The unrighteous are not so, 
 But are like the chaff which the wind driveth away," 
 
 he quite unnecessarily leaves the letter, and declares that 
 the wind is the impetus of the anger of the Lord, and he 
 refers the " chaff " (Luther has "dust ") to the Jews. They 
 are also the "sinners" who, the psalmist says, shall not 
 stand in the "council" of the righteous, i.e., in the Christian 
 Church. The third Psalm is spoken, says Luther, in the 
 person of Christ's assumed humanity ; the fourth is spoken 
 in the person of the assumed human nature and is ad- 
 dressed to the entire Trinity ; the sixth is composed prin- 
 cipally of words of Christ; the eighth concerns Christ's 
 ascension and glorification; in the fifteenth the prophet 
 asks who is worthy to dwell in the Church of Christ, and 
 it is the Lord Jesus who replies ; the twenty-fourth prophe- 
 sies that Christ as Lord of all will receive whomsoever he 
 pleases without respect of person; the twenty -fifth is a 
 prayer of Christ to the Father; in the thirtieth we hear 
 
 ' See Bohlau's edition of Luther's Werlie, 3. 11. This reference and 
 some of the following ones are to the Dictala, not the Operationes, 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 199 
 
 Christ exult concerning his glorious resurrection from 
 death and the grave; and in the forty-sixth the Church 
 praises Christ for his protection and for the extermination 
 of all its enemies. This may suffice to indicate the most 
 characteristic feature of Luther's exposition of the Psalms. 
 If we inquire on what ground Christ is thus read into these 
 ancient Hebrew lyrics, these words from the author's 
 Preface may in part suggest the answer : "If the Old Testa- 
 ment can be expounded by human sense without the New 
 Testament, I shall say that the New Testament is given in 
 vain." * Thus we have the general assumption that the 
 Old Testament is a book of mysteries, to which the New 
 Testament alone offers a key. In his exposition of the 
 third Psalm Luther gives us a striking illustration of the 
 sort of difficulty that led him to refer the Psalms to Christ. 
 In the fifth verse of that Psalm are these words : — 
 
 " I laid me down land slept ; 
 I awaked; for Jehovah sustaineth me." 
 
 It is absurd, says Luther, to suppose that these words refer 
 
 to natural sleep, and if they do not, then of course they 
 
 refer to the resurrection of Jesus, and therefore the entire 
 
 Psalm is to be regarded as spoken by him.^ Again, how 
 
 easily Luther reached the conclusion that any particular 
 
 Psalm was to be ascribed to Christ, is seen in the fact that, 
 
 because Christ is said to have voiced his distress on the 
 
 cross in words from Ps. 22, therefore the entire Psalm was 
 
 spoken by him. 
 
 It is obvious to-day that any historical interpretation of 
 
 ' See Bohlau's edition of Luther's Werke, 3. 12. 
 ^ Ibid., vol. S, Operationes in Psalmos. 
 
200 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the Psalms is made utterly impossible by this fundamental 
 assumption. One might as well speak of an interpretation 
 of Roger Bacon as historical which proceeded on the as- 
 sumption that the science of the twentieth century is to be 
 found hidden in him. 
 
 The extremely arbitrary character of Luther's interpre- 
 tation of details in the Psalms, due in part to the false 
 assumption regarding their relation to Christ, in part to the 
 ancient tendency to find everywhere in Scripture a profound 
 sense, may be briefly illustrated. The poetical designation 
 of the eastern sky as "the womb of the morning," in 
 Ps. I lo, is said to point to the supernatural birth of Christ, 
 for Mary is in many places of Scripture called the "dawn" 
 (Morgenrothe) because she brought in the true day and 
 eternal Ufe.^ Unfortunately the interpreter does not tell 
 us where Mary is so designated. Again, in Ps. 67, in the 
 words " God, even our own God, will bless us, God will 
 bless us," Luther sees the Christian Trinity. The first 
 time that the Psalm mentions God, the Father is meant; 
 then by "our God" it means the Son who was made ours 
 through the assumption of the flesh ; and finally, when it 
 says "God shall bless us," it speaks of the Holy Spirit.^ 
 "Let God arise," cries the author of Ps. 68; "let his 
 enemies be scattered!" The God of this verse, says 
 Luther, is Jesus Christ, and the rising is his resurrection. 
 When we read in the same Psalm, "He bringeth out the 
 prisoners into prosperity," that means the fathers whom 
 Christ brought out of hell. The mountain which God 
 
 ' See Bohlau's edition of Luther's Werke, vol. i. 
 * Ibid., vol. 3. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 201 
 
 hath desired for a habitation (Ps. 68 : 16), which the 
 psalmist identifies with the mountain of Bashan, is said by 
 Luther to mean the humanity of Christ/ 
 
 Turn for a moment to Luther's exposition of Genesis, 
 which Kostlin ^ calls "the most comprehensive and richest 
 of his exegetical writings." This, says Luther, is almost 
 the noblest book of the Old Testament. It contains more 
 figures of Christ and his kingdom than any other book. 
 By word and example it teaches nothing else than the one 
 Christ.^ Being convinced of this, Luther makes it his aim 
 to show that Christ is everywhere taught. He finds the 
 Trinity with an "unspeakable and unfathomable" Christ 
 in the first verses of the first chapter ; ^ the ark signifies the 
 Christian Church, and the story of Joseph is full of teach- 
 ing about the kingdom of Christ.' 
 
 Strangely enough, in the midst of this purely fanciful 
 exposition, we meet the great principle that a teaching of 
 Scripture which is to form an article of faith must be so 
 grounded and sure that "a man would rest his life upon it." 
 This truth is stiU far in advance of the practice of the 
 Church, but the exposition in which it stands is thoroughly 
 mediaeval. 
 
 In Bohlau's critical edition of Luther's works the volume 
 on the Minor Prophets is said to show us Luther at the 
 high level of his independence as an interpreter, more 
 under the influence of Reuchlin than under that of Nicolas 
 
 ' See Jast reference. 
 
 ' See Martin Luther, sein Leben und seine Schriften, 2. 433. 
 
 ' See the Bohlau edition, 24. 710. 
 
 ♦ Ibid., 24. 29. ' Ibid., 24. 176, 615. 
 
202 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 de Lyra. He sometimes recognizes the connection of 
 thought, and sometimes appreciates the historical back- 
 ground. But still it is admitted that he makes the proph- 
 ets think and speak New Testament thought.' This is 
 the most fundamental and all-pervasive evil of Luther's 
 exposition of the prophets as of all his Old Testament 
 exposition. Note two or three instances. In the last 
 chapter of Hosea a new day is pictured for Israel. Luther 
 refers this at once to the Christian dispensation and 
 allegorizes all the numerous details. Thus when it is 
 said that Israel's beauty shall be as the olive tree, this 
 signifies that Christians will be a people of mercy and grace. 
 The good name of Christians is indicated when it is said 
 that Israel's smell shall be as the smell of Lebanon.^ 
 Jonah's entire experience was parallel to that of Christ, and 
 the speaker in Mai. 3 is said to be Christ himself.' 
 
 Although Luther as an expositor was more largely oc- 
 cupied with the Old Testament than with the New, it is 
 obvious that the spirit of the New was more deeply grasped 
 by him than was that of the Old. He knew it by a pro- 
 found experience of its saving truth — an experience which 
 shed something of its glory over the pages of his translation ; 
 but his exegesis of the New Testament has no greater 
 scientific worth than that of the Old. It is marked by 
 failure to realize the historical situation of a given text and 
 also by a tendency to let the feelings or polemical interests 
 determine the sense. Thus "daily bread" in the Lord's 
 Prayer is said to signify the word of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, 
 
 ' Compare Kostlin, Martin Luther, 2. 433. 
 
 ^ See the Bohlau edition, vol. 13. ' Ibid., vol. 13. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 203 
 
 and in confirmation of this view the language of John is 
 quoted, "I am the living bread.'" This is plainly an 
 utter failure to grasp the simplicity of the gospel narrative. 
 There is no indication in Luther's words on the Lord's 
 Prayer that he thought of bodily needs at all as included 
 in the Master's petition for daily bread. Again, when any 
 one prays from the heart the words "Our Father who art in 
 heaven," he confesses himself wretched on earth, says 
 Luther, and far from God. But can that possibly have 
 been the thought of Jesus? Did he think of himself as 
 far from God because he spoke of God as in heaven? 
 Did he not rather think of God as present with him, and of 
 himself as being for this reason supremely blessed ? 
 
 But we refrain from giving further detailed illustration of 
 Luther's New Testament exposition, and add a few words 
 by way of summing up both his strength and his weakness 
 as an exegete. His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, 
 though considerable for his day, was not sufficient to give a 
 distinctively hnguistic value to his exegetical work. His 
 break with traditional conceptions of the Scriptures and 
 with the ancient theology was not so deep as to give an es- 
 sentially new character to his exposition. He partially 
 grasped some true and radical principles, as the place of 
 reason in the interpretation of Scripture and the insuffi- 
 ciency of allegory as a basis of Christian doctrine, but his 
 appUcation of these principles did not constitute a marked 
 feature of his exegetical work. He said that teachers 
 should take good heed not to make a Moses out of Christ 
 
 ' See fhe Bohlau edition, vol. 2, Auslegung deutschdes Vater unnser 
 filer dye einfiUigen leyen. 
 
204 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 nor to make a Christ out of Moses,* yet he himself found 
 all fundamental Christian doctrines in Genesis, and pre- 
 ferred the Gospel in the semi-dogmatic form in which it 
 appears in Paul's Epistles rather than in the simple, un- 
 theological words of Jesus. 
 
 Butzer of Strassburg, a younger contemporary of Luther 
 who acquired a wide reputation as a theologian both on 
 the continent and in England, says that Luther used the 
 Scriptures better and more skilfully than any one had done 
 for some hundreds of years.^ To this judgment we readily 
 assent. His exposition does mark progress as compared 
 with that of the mediaeval period, notably in its good sense 
 and practical character, but the best, most original ele- 
 ments in his views of Scripture are found throughout his 
 writings as almost wholly unapplied truths. 
 
 By the side of Luther stood Melanchthon, younger by 
 fourteen years, who, until he came under the influence of 
 the great reformer, was a Humanist pure and simple. His 
 first publication was a Greek grammar (1518), his most 
 important one the Loci Communes (1521), "an invincible 
 book," according to Luther, and worthy of reception into 
 the canon.' It follows from this judgment that Melanch- 
 thon's conception of Christianity and his principles of 
 exegesis were not widely different from Luther's. 
 
 In Melanchthon, as in Luther, there was a conspicu- 
 ous contrast between exegetical principles and exegetical 
 practice. In principle he advocated a grammatical inter- 
 
 ' See Table Talk, p. 289. 
 
 ' See Baum, Capita und Butzer Strassburgs Reformatoren. 
 ' See Sell, Philip Melanchthon'm Sckriftendes VereinsfUr Reformations- 
 geschichte, No. 56. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 205 
 
 pretation and was opposed to any sense save the literal. 
 What he was in practice we can learn from the Loci.^ 
 Like Luther, he made a Christian book out of the Old 
 Testament, and was always controlled, or at least greatly 
 influenced, in his exposition by the traditional doctrines 
 of the Church. Thus, for example, when he advances 
 Scripture proof of the resurrection of the dead and their 
 subsequent state, he gives three passages from the New 
 Testament and seventeen from the Old.^ When discuss- 
 ing the baptism of infants, he declares that there is no 
 salvation outside the Church,^ the reason being that outside 
 the Church there is neither word nor sacrament, as though 
 the sacraments were to be placed on a level with the Bible, 
 and as though the Bible and sacraments were absolutely 
 necessary to salvation. The law was not given to Israel, 
 he says, that the people might be righteous in the sight of 
 God, but to separate Israel from other peoples, and /or the 
 preaching of Christ.* 
 
 In the Lord's Prayer, the words "who art in heaven," 
 mean, says Melanchthon, that God is everywhere truly 
 present, and the petition "Forgive us our debts" teaches 
 that in every prayer that faith is to be exhibited which 
 believes the remission of sins and apprehends Christ as 
 mediator and intercessor, so that we may know that we 
 draw near to the Father through this high priest and are 
 
 ' My references are to the edition of 1533. 
 ' See the chapter De resunectione mortuorum. 
 
 ' "Non est autem extra ecclesiam salus, ubi nee verbum, nee sacra- 
 mentum est." 
 
 * See under De discrimine veteris et novi testamenti. 
 
2o6 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 heard on account of him.' This exegesis is a perfect illus- 
 tration of the subjection of Scripture to traditional doctrine. 
 It is true that the text is not allegorized, but its plain sense 
 is as completely ignored as it could be by the most refined 
 allegorization. 
 
 Melanchthon, then, both in exegetical principle and prac- 
 tice, stands by the side of Luther. Though more deeply 
 influenced by Humanism than he, and in turn contributing 
 more to the study of Greek,^ both as expositors of Scripture 
 were irresistibly swept along by the deep exegetical and 
 theological current flowing down from past centuries. In 
 one point Melanchthon was plainly far superior to Luther. 
 His exegesis is somewhat less dogmatic. Kant's judgment 
 of the reformers in their attitude toward the Bible is less 
 fitly applied to Melanchthon than to Luther. Their sup- 
 posed freedom of investigation he characterizes as follows : 
 "Draw your conclusions from the Bible, but take care that 
 you do not discover anything in the Bible except what we 
 find there." ^ "A man," says Luther, "must be able to 
 affirm, I know for certain that what I teach is the only word 
 of God, and whatsoever agrees not with this doctrine is 
 altogether false and spun by the devil." * But when a 
 man reaches this point, which Melanchthon never did 
 
 ' "Haec petitio docet semper in omni precatione fidem adhibendam 
 esse quae Credat remissionem et apprehendat Christum mediatorem et in- 
 terpellatorem, ut sciamus nos accedere ad patrem per hunc poutificem et 
 propter eum exaudiri." 
 
 ' See Schaflf-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, sub "Me- 
 lancthon." 
 
 ' Quoted by Lilly, Renaissance Types. 
 
 * See Table Talk, p. i8. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 207 
 
 reach, there is little probability that he will ever advance 
 further in his knowledge of Scripture. 
 
 Zwingli (1484-1531), the reformer of Zurich, was a Hu- 
 manist ^ like Melanchthon, but with a strong practical bias. 
 He began Greek at the age of twenty-nine, that he might 
 understand the teaching of Christ,^ but it was not the study 
 of the Bible that made him a reformer. It was the cor- 
 ruption of his countrymen by foreign gold.' He had some 
 knowledge of Hebrew, and was so impressed with its value 
 that he offered to instruct the youth of Zurich who should 
 first become acquainted with the elements of the language.* 
 And yet it does not appear that Zwingli's knowledge of 
 Greek and Hebrew gave any distinctive and valuable 
 quality to his exegesis. Like Wyclif, he preached the New 
 Testament rather than the Old, and, unlike Luther, he did 
 not treat the Epistles of Paul as the purest gospel.' His 
 exposition was less completely dominated by the past than 
 was Luther's. The Spirit of God, he said, is |S0 abundant 
 in the Scriptures that every humble reader, without the 
 aid of human authorities, can learn its teaching.' Like 
 John Knox, Zwingli was a preacher rather than a writer 
 of books, and partly for that reason his exegesis was not an 
 important force beyond his own Swiss canton. 
 
 ' On Zwingli's education, see Stahelin, Huldreich Zwingli, in Schriften 
 des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte, No. 3. 
 
 ' See Gieseler, Kirchengeschickte, 3. i. 135. 
 
 ' See Pollard in Cambridge Modern History, vol. II. 
 
 * See Eine Kurze Erklarung des christlichen Glaubens in Christoffel's 
 Huldreich Zwingli. 
 
 ' See, e.g., Jackson, Selected Works of H. Zwingli, p. 106. 
 
 ° See Christofifel, Huldreich Zwingli, chapter i. 
 
208 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Not SO with the Genevan reformer John Calvin (1509- 
 1564). He was not only the theologian of his century, but 
 also the expositor. His exegetical writings became the 
 standard not only in Switzerland, but also in the Reformed 
 Churches of Germany, in England, Scotland, and in other 
 places.' To him alone among his contemporaries was 
 the honor to be accorded that after three centuries 
 his entire expository writings should be translated into 
 English. 
 
 In the Dedicatory Epistle of the commentary on Romans, 
 Calvin tells us what he and Grynseus, his tutor in Hebrew in 
 Basel, agreed was the most excellent quality in an inter- 
 preter, namely, brevity combined with clearness. Now 
 while one will readily allow that these qualities are ex- 
 cellent, one can scarcely regard them as the most excellent. 
 For both might be possessed by an interpreter whose 
 knowledge was quite inadequate, or by one who held such 
 views of the origin and purpose of Scripture as made it 
 impossible for him ever to give a true interpretation. 
 Indeed, we think that even Calvin himself possessed 
 exegetical qualifications of vastly greater importance than 
 the ability to write clearly, we will not say briefly, for his 
 commentary on Isaiah and that on Jeremiah extends to 
 four volumes, while those on Psalms and the Minor Proph- 
 ets have each five volumes. But though Calvin sadly 
 missed the goal of brevity, he attained something more 
 
 ' In this connection it is interesting to note the cosmopolitan charac- 
 ter of the dedications of Calvin's exegetical writings. Galatians was 
 dedicated to the Duke of Wirtemberg, Genesis to the Duke of Vendome, 
 Isaiah to Edward VI of England, the Minor Prophets to Gustavus of 
 Sweden, etc. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 209 
 
 desirable. For the first time in a thousand years he gave a 
 conspicuous example of non-allegorical exposition. One 
 must go back to the best work of the school of Antioch to 
 find so complete a rejection of the method of Philo as is 
 furnished by Calvin. Allegorical interpretations which 
 had been put forth in the early Church and indorsed by 
 illustrious expositors in all the subsequent centuries, like 
 the interpretation of Noah's ark and the seamless garment 
 of Christ, are cast aside as rubbish. This fact alone gives 
 an abiding and distinguished honor to Calvin's exegetical 
 work. What led him to reject allegorical interpretation 
 as something peculiarly satanic,' whether it was his legal 
 training at Orleans and Bourges or his native judgment, 
 it is not possible to say, but the fact is clear and is the most 
 striking feature of his interpretation. 
 
 Was it Calvin's repugnance to allegorical interpretation 
 which led him to read biblical poetry as prose? Was it 
 his deep conviction of the importance of holding to the 
 literal sense of Scripture that made him blind to the 
 character of so much of the sacred text? This seems 
 not improbable. In the recoil from the unprofitableness 
 of allegory, it was natural to go to an extreme position in 
 regard to literalness. At any rate, to such an extreme 
 Calvin did go, and this insistence on the literal sense, 
 especially in the explanation of the Old Testament, is 
 a marked weakness of his interpretation. Thus, for 
 example, he takes the stories of the early chapters of Gen- 
 esis as pure history. Satan entered into the serpent that 
 
 'See Commentary on Genesis, 1. 114. All references to Calvin's 
 commentaries are to the edition of the Calvin Translation Society, 
 p 
 
2IO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 tempted Eve, and caused it to speak a human language.' 
 Lions, wolves, and tigers meekly entered Noah's ark with 
 lambs.^ And to pass to the New Testament for another 
 illustration, the words of Mark, that the heavens were 
 opened at the baptism of Jesus, can have, says Calvin, 
 no other meaning than that a cleft was made in the visible 
 heavens so that John could see something beyond the moon 
 and the stars.' 
 
 This failure to distinguish between prose and poetry, 
 between folk-lore of hoary antiquity and the record of 
 current events, was perhaps made more easy for Calvin 
 by his view of inspiration. This was essentially the old 
 orthodox view, according to which the evangelists were the 
 "clerks" of the Holy Spirit and wrote what he dictated.* 
 Even the Roman Pilate in preparing an inscription for the 
 cross wrote what was dictated to him by God, and knew 
 not the meaning of what he wrote.^ This conception of 
 the origin of sacred writings, which exhibits none of the 
 freedom which often marked Luther's utterances on the 
 subject, would naturally strengthen the tendency to reduce 
 them to one common level. But however it was brought 
 about, Calvin combined with the singular merit of reject- 
 ing the time-honored principle of allegory an extreme 
 insistence on the letter, which, at times, made his exposi- 
 tions as worthless as though he had been of the school of 
 Origen. 
 
 ' Commentary on Genesis, i. 139. ^ Op. cit., i. 269. 
 
 ' See the Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, 
 and Luke, i. 203. 
 
 * See op. cit., i. 127. » See op. cit., i. 227. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 21 1 
 
 The fact that Calvin often interpreted poetry as though 
 it were prose may be considered as an illustration of a 
 broader fact, viz., a lack of the historical sense which is 
 variously manifested throughout his writings. It is true 
 that his work is worthy of some praise even in this respect. 
 It is to his credit that he passed lightly over the titles of the 
 Psalms, out of which Augustin and a multitude of later 
 writers had juggled impossible meanings,* and to his credit 
 also that he inferred from the style and manner of Hebrews 
 that Paul could not have written it.^ It is likewise to the 
 praise of his exegetical sense that he immensely reduced 
 the number of prophetic psalms. But there are certain 
 other facts which one must not overlook. Is there not 
 manifested a serious lack of historical insight when Calvin 
 declares, for example, that in the Psalms there is nothing 
 wanting which relates to the knowledge of eternal salva- 
 tion,' and when he teaches in his Catechism that the Deca- 
 logue is the rule of life given us of God ? * Historically 
 considered, the Decalogue is a rule given to the Jews, and 
 from the Christian point of view it is obsolete as a standard, 
 its truth being taken up and expressed in an entirely 
 different manner in the revelation of Jesus. Lack of 
 historical appreciation is seen also in the sweeping declara- 
 tion that the Prophets derived their doctrines from the 
 Law, and were the Law's interpreters.^ It is now recog- 
 nized, on the contrary, that both in matter and in manner 
 
 ' See, e.g., Commentary on the Psalms, i. 93. 
 
 ' See Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 35. 
 
 ' See Commentary on the Psalms, vol. i, Preface. 
 
 * See Tracts, .1. 56. 
 
 ' See Commentary on Isaiah, vol. i, Preface. 
 
212 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the prophetic message affords a striking contrast to the 
 legislation of the Pentateuch. The Prophets are to be 
 classed with the Gospel rather than with the Law. 
 
 To mention yet one more illustration of the point in hand. 
 The Holy Spirit, says Calvin, appears purposely to have 
 regulated the style of the evangelists in such a manner 
 that they all wrote one and the same history, with the most 
 perfect agreement, but in different ways.* Now without 
 marvelling that it was possible for Calvin to make this 
 statement, — for we must remember the age in which he 
 lived, — we may yet safely affirm that it reveals a lack of 
 critical sense. When an honest man, after a careful study 
 of the first three evangelists, declares that they write "with 
 the most perfect agreement," it is obvious that he does not 
 understand that whereof he speaks. There are facts, and 
 many of them, which he does not see. 
 
 We pass now to what we regard as the most conspicuous 
 and fatal defect in Calvin's exegesis, viz., its subjection of 
 Scripture to the authority of the traditional orthodox 
 dogmas. In the details of much of his exegesis, Calvin 
 was independent. He was the most striking contrast which 
 his generation offered to the catenists of earlier times; 
 yet in the main features of his theology, he held what the 
 Church of the fourth century had held, and in supporting 
 this out of Scripture he became an arbitrary manipulator 
 of texts. In this he went no further than some of his con- 
 temporaries, no further than Athanasius and Augustin had 
 gone. But we are not here concerned to judge the exegesis 
 of Calvin by the standard of the sixteenth century ; we are 
 
 ' See Commentary on a Harmony, etc., i. 127. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 213 
 
 looking at it in the light of the present, for the benefit of 
 the present, and not for the condemnation of the past. 
 In this light we hold that the exegesis of Calvin was fatally 
 defective in that it subordinated Scripture to the dogmas 
 of the Church. As Calvin said of Luther that he was not 
 very desirous to get the sense of the words or the events of 
 the history in his exegesis of Scripture,' so we may say of 
 Calvin that he was much too desirous to get from Scripture 
 the doctrines he had been taught at Paris or had later 
 learned from the writings of Augustin. 
 
 In illustration of this momentous feature of Calvin's 
 exegesis we shall confine ourselves to a single point, viz., to 
 his use of Scripture in support of his doctrine of the person 
 of Christ, and we will consider his argument as set forth 
 in the Institutes, the edition of 1559, the maturest product 
 of his thought. In this work he cites and discusses eight 
 passages from the Old Testament and six from the New — 
 as though the Old Testament which raerely foreshadowed 
 the Messiah were a more important source of the doctrine 
 of Christ's person than the New in which he is revealed! 
 He says in regard to the Old Testament proof that he 
 omits "testimonies innumerable," which remark shows 
 that he, as well as Luther, found Christ everywhere in the 
 ancient Scriptures. It is highly significant that his New 
 Testament proof contains no word of Jesus. To the teach- 
 ing of him who said, "No one knoweth the Son save the 
 Father"; to him who said, "In this place is one greater 
 than the temple," to this one no appeal is made. Calvin 
 finds proof in the ancient story that tells how Jacob wrestled 
 ' See Henry, Das Leben Johann Cahiins, i. 345. 
 
214 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 with an angel, but none in what Jesus Christ said of 
 himself ! 
 
 It is not necessary to consider in detail all the eight Old 
 Testament passages which Calvin uses to prove that Christ 
 is "eternal God." We will notice only the first four and 
 in the order in which he takes them up. He begins his 
 demonstration with Ps. 45 : 6.' He regards this Psalm 
 as addressed to the Messiah on the ground that the 
 title "God" is never given to a creature without some 
 qualifying word. But this statement is refuted by Ps. 
 82, which Jesus quoted in John 10:35 in his refutation 
 of the charge of blasphemy. Again, Calvin says of this 
 same verse ^ that "no passage of Scripture erects an 
 eternal throne for a creature," but this passage erects an 
 eternal throne, and therefore the one for whom it is erected 
 must be God. This statement of his, however, is clearly 
 refuted by Scripture, for God directed Nathan to say to 
 David, "Thy throne shall be established /or ever" (2 Sam. 
 7 : 16), and of the redeemed it is said, that they shall share 
 the Lord's throne unto the ages of ages (Rev. 22 :5). 
 
 Finally, it is to be noted that Calvin — and how many 
 have followed him to this very day ! — snatched a single 
 verse out of an ancient lyric and applied it in a way totally 
 inconsistent with the greater part of the song. If the sixth 
 verse is addressed to the Messiah and proves that he is 
 
 ' See Institutes, i. 13. 9. 
 
 2 "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; 
 
 A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom." 
 
 As this verse is translated by recent O. T. scholars {e.g., Briggs 
 Cheyne, Duhm), the address on which Calvin built disappears entirely. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 215 
 
 "eternal God," then to him we must apply also the 
 words : — 
 
 " All thy gannents smell of myrrh and aloes and cassia; 
 Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad. 
 Kings' daughters are among thy honorable women : 
 At thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir." 
 
 And a little later a king's daughter, whose splendid cloth- 
 ing is described, is brought as bride into the king's palace. 
 If all this, according to a natural exegesis, has no applica- 
 tion to Jesus, then we should hesitate to find in any verse 
 of the Psalm a dogmatic teaching in regard to him. 
 
 Calvin's second text is Is. 9:6': "His name shall be 
 called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God." Calvin 
 appeals only to the thought of power in the last of these 
 names. "Supreme power," he says, "is the prerogative 
 of God alone, and the fact that such power is ascribed to 
 Christ proves that he is God." Now the interpreter 
 certainly ought to have noticed that the prophet said 
 "mighty," not almighty. He ought also to have noticed 
 the next title, "Everlasting Father." According to the 
 New Testament, Jesus cannot be called the "Everlasting 
 Father" and this impossibility ought to have restrained 
 the interpreter from the dangerous business of using 
 poetical language as though it were the language of tech- 
 nical theology. 
 
 The third text, Jer. 23 : 6, is said to be so plain that 
 
 nothing plainer can be required.^ Here the desired king is 
 
 called "Jehovah our righteousness," from which it is 
 
 inferred that he is "the one eternal God." But to argue 
 
 ' See Institutes, 1. 13. 9. ^ Ihid., 1. 13. 9. 
 
2l6 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 thus is certainly to walk in slippery places. Even the 
 translation of the two Hebrew words in question is uncer- 
 tain. They may be rendered " Jehovah is our righteous- 
 ness,"' in which case they are no longer at all applicable 
 to the purpose of Calvin. Moreover, even if we translate 
 with him, we cannot draw his conclusion, for if Jerusalem 
 could be called by the name of Jehovah because of his 
 presence in Jerusalem (see Ezek. 48 : 35), surely the 
 Messiah might be called by his name for the same reason. 
 
 The last Old Testament text to be considered is Judg. 
 13 : 2-25, the story of Manoah and his wife who beheld 
 an angel. The interpreter seems to infer that, since the 
 angel disappeared in the flame of the sacrifice which was 
 offered to Jehovah, therefore he himself was Jehovah.^ 
 But no reason is given why this mode of disappearance 
 proves such a stupendous truth. Surely the fact that the 
 angel vanished in the flame of the offering is no proof that 
 he regarded the offering as made to himself. The angel 
 refused to give his name, but it cannot be thence inferred 
 that his name was Jehovah. It is easy to conceive of other 
 reasons for the desire to keep his name secret.* 
 
 We turn now to Calvin's New Testament argument.* 
 Of his six texts, three should have been thrown out at once 
 as unavailable because of their obscurity .' It was as much 
 
 ' So rendered by Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 1906. 
 
 ' See Institutes, i. 13. 9. 
 
 ' The other O. T. passages used to prove the deity of Christ are Gen. 
 32:22-32; Zech. 2:3-5; 13.25:9; Mai. 3. i. 
 
 * See Institutes, 1. 13. 11. 
 
 ' These are Rom. 9 : 5, which, grammatically, may refer to God as 
 well as to Christ; i Tim. 3: 16, where the best Greek text has not the 
 word "God"; and Acts 20:28, which is uncertain in two points. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 217 
 
 the duty of an interpreter in the sixteenth century as it is 
 now to be sure that he had clear foundations for great 
 doctrines. Calvin's fourth text was the latter part of i 
 John 5:20, "This is the true God and eternal life"; 
 but who is "this"? Modern scholars refer it to God, not 
 to Christ. It seems almost impossible to suppose that 
 Calvin did not see the doubtfulness of the reference to 
 Christ, but if he saw it, it was not right that he should use 
 the passage as he did, and it is safe to say that he would not 
 have so used it had he come to it without a previous and 
 final acceptance of the system of doctrine of the early 
 Church. His two remaining texts are the exclamation of 
 Thomas when he saw the risen Saviour (John 20:28) 
 and Phil. 2 : 6. That these famous passages appear to 
 give some support to the traditional doctrine cannot be 
 denied; and as we are concerned here simply with the 
 exegesis of Calvin, not at all with the absolute truth or 
 error of his views, we will not enter into a criticism of his 
 use of these texts. Even if one wholly approves of his 
 explanation of them, his biblical argument as a whole, 
 which has been reviewed, abundantly confirms the assertion 
 that his radical failing as an exegete was his subjection of 
 Scripture to the dogmas of the Church. 
 
 It may be added at this point that Calvin's use of all these 
 fourteen texts is strictly as texts, as isolated utterances, 
 without the slightest reference to their large background of 
 individual or national thought and life. Paul's word in the 
 letter to the Philippians is not explained out of a compre- 
 hensive study of Paul's conception of Jesus, neither are the 
 Old Testament passages interpreted in connection with the 
 
2l8 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 habitual views of the times in which they originated. 
 From the point of view of the present day, this proof-text 
 method is quite unhistorical. It is easy to believe that a 
 broad study of the same fourteen texts would lead to a 
 conclusion quite the opposite of Calvin's. 
 
 Finally, there is another point that ought not to be for- 
 gotten. As a man trained in law, Calvin knew well the 
 importance of looking at both sides of a case. Any student 
 of common intelligence recognizes that, as regards the 
 establishment of many doctrines of the Church, there are 
 two sides to the biblical evidence. An interpreter, there- 
 fore, who explains certain selected biblical texts as though 
 they constituted the sum of the evidence, who virtually 
 suppresses more or less evidence that bears on the case, 
 though he may not be dishonest, is surely disqualified for 
 the high business of interpretation. That is what Calvin 
 has done in the case of the doctrine that we chose to 
 illustrate his exegesis. He has presented only one side 
 of the evidence, and has presented it as though it were all. 
 That is an easily besetting sin of every dogmatic inter- 
 preter. 
 
 It has often been remarked that the Reformers opposed 
 to the infallibility of the Pope the infallibility of the Scrip- 
 tures,^ but this statement should be qualified. To the 
 infallibility of the Pope and a corrupted Church they 
 opposed the Scriptures as infallibly interpreted and cast 
 
 ' See, e.g., Pollard in the Cambridge Modern History, vol. II, and 
 Guizot, St. Louis and Calvin, p. 182. Guizot says, "Calvin's special 
 work was to replace the authority and infallibility of the Church by the 
 authority and infallibility of the sacred monument of divine revelation, 
 i.e. to put the Bible in the place of the Pope." 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 219 
 
 into a system of doctrine by the early Church. They never 
 trusted themselves wholly to the Scriptures. They used 
 it triumphantly against the abuses of the later Church, but 
 always read it in the light of the theology of the early 
 Church.* Of this exegetical error Calvin's writings afford 
 by far the most disastrous example of the last three cen- 
 turies. 
 
 We have already had occasion to notice that Humanism 
 in England at the beginning of the sixteenth century was 
 distinctly religious. It gave promise of a new and better 
 interpretation of Scripture by English scholars. This 
 promise, however, was not signally fulfilled. For though 
 the sixteenth century saw an extensive transformation of 
 the Church in England in the rise of Puritanism, though it 
 saw there the first circulation of the Bible in the EngUsh 
 tongue, and produced a number of eminent churchmen, 
 it produced no original interpreter. There was no strong 
 inner force in the English Church proceeding from a fresh 
 contact with the truth of Scripture. Its interpretation of 
 the Bible came from the continent. Tyndale (1484-1536) 
 was a Wittenberg student. The Matthews Bible (1537) 
 of John Rogers based its Prefaces and Notes on those of 
 Luther's Bible.' Theologians were sought and received 
 
 ' The testimony of Latimer (f I5SS) shows that an Englishman could 
 be a reformer without a consciousness of any break with the patristic 
 exposition of Scripture. He said, "I have never preached anything 
 contrary to the truth, or contrary to the decrees of the Fathers, nor, as far 
 as I know, contrary to the Catholic faith." Quoted by Tulloch, Luther 
 and other Leaders of the Reformation. 
 
 ' See Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, i. 117. 
 
220 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 from abroad.' The most popular commentaries, general 
 theological works, and even homilies were by foreign writers.^ 
 True, the religious and poUtical conditions under Henry 
 VIII and Mary were more favorable to the development 
 of martyrs than of scholars, and then the immense fame 
 and authority of Luther and Calvin as theological teachers 
 might, for a time, check rather than stimulate original 
 exegetical work; but however one may explain the fact, 
 its existence is obvious, and we shall not stop long for its 
 illustration. We glance only at some of the leading biblical 
 writers. Myles Coverdale (1488-1569), whose translation 
 of the Bible was published in 1535, only a year later than 
 the completed translation of Luther, and who, like Luther, 
 prized God's "unoutspeakable gift," ' gave an exposition 
 of Ps. 23 in which the simple sense is well-nigh lost. 
 Thus the shepherd of the Psalm is Christ, and the shep- 
 herd's voice is the holy Gospel. David is said to give thanks 
 to God in this Psalm for his principal benefit, even the 
 preaching of his dear and holy word.^ Cranmer (1489- 
 1556), whom his seventeenth century biographer calls a 
 "great scripturist," ° was such in an indirect rather than 
 
 ' As Butzer and Fagius who were called to Cambridge, Peter Mar- 
 tyr, Ochino, and others. Melanchthon was four times invited to England, 
 but always declined. See Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, i. 600. 
 
 ^ On Calvin's influence in England, see Fisher, History of the Christian 
 Church, p. 372; Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, j.. 608. Strype, 
 Annals of the Reformation, u. ^, regarding Bullinger's Decades, translated 
 in IS77- 
 
 ' See Works, edited by George Pearson, p. 298. 
 
 * See op. cit., p. 282 f . Coverdale translated the fides antiquissima et 
 vera religio of Bullinger, which did not give him a very high ideal of inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 " See Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, 1. 637. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 221 
 
 direct manner, for though he labored with success for the 
 publication of the Bible in EngUsh and for its more thor- 
 ough study at the universities, he made no contribution to 
 the exposition of Scripture.' The first valuable discussion 
 and defence of the view that the Bible is to be taken accord- 
 ing to its Uteral sense, as well as the first elaborate argu- 
 ment in support of the right of private judgment, is that 
 of William Whitaker (1547-1595), who, it may also be 
 noted, put a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek next to 
 prayer, as a means of ascertaining the sense of Scripture.^ 
 William Tyndale's great service for the Church, in which 
 D'Aubigne sees the conquest of England by the Refor- 
 mation,' was of significance for the history of interpretation 
 only in a secondary sense. By his translation of the Bible 
 into Enghsh (N. T. in 1526) it may well be that he aided 
 many a ploughboy to a better knowledge of Scripture than 
 was possessed by some of the bishops ; and his version 
 with others of the sixteenth century helped to prepare the 
 way for an advance in biblical exposition. His desire to 
 deliver people from false interpretations of Scripture by 
 putting the text itself into their hands was a desire that un- 
 doubtedly had a large measure of fulfihnent in his own time. 
 Tyndale's own exposition, however, reproduced the defects 
 
 ■ He was decidedly not progressive as a " scripturist." He never 
 could break with the ancient doctors. See letter to Vadian, Original 
 Letters relative to the English Reformation, edited by Hastings Rob- 
 inson. 
 
 ' See A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, etc., trans- 
 lated and edited for the Parker Society by William Fitzgerald, pp. 408, 
 447-466, 467-473- 
 
 ' See The Seformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, J. 259. 
 
222 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of Luther's method.' He warns his readers to beware of 
 subtle allegories. "Scripture," he says, "has but one 
 simple literal sense whose light the owls (i.e. the papists) 
 cannot abide." ^ Tyndale was also as genuinely opposed 
 to the scholastic handling of the Bible as was Luther or 
 Calvin. Every priest, he said, had his own doctor, and to 
 uphold him he corrupted the Scriptures. "Of what text 
 thou provest hell, will another prove purgatory, another 
 limbo patrum, another the assumption of our lady, and 
 another shall prove of the same text that an ape hath a 
 tail." ' But, on the other hand, in sharp contrast vyith his 
 theoretical rejection of allegory, he found Christ described 
 in the ceremonies, riddles, and parables of the Old Testa- 
 ment,* being fully persuaded that God showed Moses the 
 secrets of Christ and the very manner of his. death ; he 
 regarded the Epistle to the Romans as "an epitome of the 
 whole learning of Christ's gospel" ; and his exposition was 
 never independent of "the common articles of faith," i.e. 
 the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Church.' Thus 
 Tyndale as an expositor stood under the influence of Lu- 
 ther, and his example was typical. English Christians of 
 his century went to school to foreign teachers. 
 
 We may now bring the present chapter to a close with a 
 swift glance at the salient points with which it has been con- 
 cerned. The more vital exegesis of the fifteenth and six- 
 
 ' How deeply he was influenced by Luther may be seen from his Pro- 
 logtie to Romans. See Doctrinal Treatises, edited for the Parker Society 
 by Henry Walter. 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 393. * See op. cit., p. 144. 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 158. ' See op. cit., pp. 167, 422, 508. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE BY REFORMERS 223 
 
 teenth centuries had its rise in a profound spiritual reaction 
 against the barrenness and inefficiency of Scholasticism, 
 and more especially against the corruption of the Churdh. 
 Contemporary with this spiritual reaction, and promoting 
 it, came Humanism, from which exegesis, particularly that 
 of the sixteenth century, received a new element. Reaction 
 against Scholasticism gave new prominence to the early 
 interpreters, — the Fathers of the third, fourth, and fifth 
 centuries, — but Humanism with its grammars and lexicons 
 introduced a force which was destined ultimately to carry 
 exegesis to a higher level than that of the Fathers. This 
 new method of exegesis, though very imperfectly appUed 
 in the sixteenth century, and the popularization of the 
 Bible through numerous translations, were those contribu- 
 tions of the Reformers to a better interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, which possessed great and abiding significance. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 
 
 While no clear line marks off the exegesis of the seven- 
 teenth century from that of the Reformation, or, on the 
 other hand, from that of the eighteenth century, and while 
 also there is no clear boundary separating the exegesis of 
 those two centuries from that of the nineteenth, yet the 
 exegesis of that period from 1600 to 1800, when one has 
 regard to its main features, does not allow itself to be mis- 
 taken for that of the sixteenth century, still less is it to be 
 confused with that which has been developed in more 
 recent times. 
 
 It may tend to clearness of apprehension of the exegetical 
 movement throughout this period, if at the outset we glance 
 at two facts which in a more or less fundamental manner 
 determined the direction of the movement and affected its 
 results. 
 
 The Reformation had two centres, Wittenberg and 
 Geneva, which, though not far apart on the map of Eu- 
 rope, were so widely sundered in some matters of theology 
 that the age of Luther and Calvin, in which war had been 
 waged against the errors and abuses of the CathoHc Church, 
 was followed by a century of more bitter and far more des- 
 
 224 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 225 
 
 picable warfare between the divisions of the Protestant 
 Church. This began even before the Fathers had fallen 
 asleep. One of the reasons which Melanchthon gave why 
 he would welcome death was that he should thereby be 
 set free from the rancor of theologians. The bitter feeling 
 between Lutherans and Calvinists increased, until at the 
 outbreak of the Thirty Years' War (1618) there were 
 Lutherans who would rather come under Catholic rule 
 than have the poison of Calvinism disseminated among 
 them.' 
 
 Hardly less intense was the spirit of intolerance in the 
 Netherlands at this time between Calvinists and Armin- 
 ians, when Grotius was sentenced to imprisonment for life, 
 or in France, where Protestantism was finally crushed and 
 exterminated by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 
 1685 ; and across the Channel the conflict between Presby- 
 terianism and Episcopacy from James I to Charles II 
 absorbed the interest of theologians, and even demanded 
 the sacrifice of not a few Uves. We cannot doubt that the 
 ■theological strife and intolerance which prevailed in the 
 seventeenth century was a serious check on the normal 
 development of bibhcal studies.^ 
 
 The condition of Catholic lands was no less discourag- 
 ing to rehgious scholarship. The Decrees of the Council 
 of Trent (1546) had made it unsafe for any one to study 
 the Bible except by the light of Church doctrine, and thus 
 had erected an impassable barrier against the spirit of the 
 Renaissance. 
 
 ' Comp. Planck, Geschichte der Prot. Theologie von der Konkordien- 
 formel, etc., p. 46. 
 
 ' Comp. Meyer, Geschichte der SchrifterUdrung, 4. 3. 
 Q 
 
226 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 A second fact that affected interpretation in the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries was the rise of modem 
 philosophy and the consequent abandonment of Aristote- 
 lianism and the Ptolemaic system. Giordano Bruno was 
 burned at the stake in Rome in 1600. Francis Bacon died 
 in 1526, Kepler in 1630, GaUIeo in 1642, Descartes in 1650, 
 and Spinoza in 1677. Bruno, Kepler, and Galileo, build- 
 ing on the work of Copernicus, established a new concep- 
 tion of the universe, to which Newton somewhat later made 
 his contribution. The earth was shown to be a globe re- 
 volving on its axis and revolving around the sun, and not the 
 stable and important centre of the universe which it had 
 long been supposed to be. Bruno held as a philosopher 
 what Galileo with his telescope helped to demonstrate, 
 viz., that the universe is endless. Bruno laid down the 
 principle, now widely accepted, that the Scriptures do not 
 discuss natural phenomena from the scientific point of view ; 
 that their aim is wholly practical, and that therefore they 
 were obliged to use popular speech. 
 
 Lord Bacon, by his doctrine of the true method of knowl- 
 edge, contributed to the ultimate advance of scientific in- 
 terpretation of the Bible, though in his own attitude toward 
 the Scriptures and his attempts at interpretation, he did 
 extreme violence to his own theory, showing a true mediaeval 
 willingness to subject reason to the authority of tradition.' 
 
 That the philosophy of Descartes had immediate bear- 
 
 ■ See, e.g., The Advancement of Learning, Book I: "We are to believe 
 God's word, though we find a reluctation in our reason" ; and " I do much 
 condemn that interpretation of Scripture which is only after the manner 
 as men use to interpret a profane book." 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH 'CENTURIES 227 
 
 ings on theology, and therefore on the current interpretation 
 of Scripture, is manifest in the fact that both Protestants 
 and Roman Catholics were largely hostile to it. Within a 
 few years of his death it was forbidden to teach his doctrines 
 in France ; in Holland, also, no follower of his could teach 
 or preach. Nor was the fear of his influence on the Church 
 groundless, for by its exaltation of reason his philosophy 
 was inimical to tradition, and by its appreciation of doubt 
 as a factor in the attainment of truth, it certainly was hostile 
 to the doctrine of the supreme authority of the Church.* 
 
 Spinoza's thought also had immediate bearings on reli- 
 gion and the Bible. Some of his criticisms we shall con- 
 sider in another connection. Here we refer to his general 
 significance for interpretation, which consisted in his ad- 
 vocacy of absolute freedom of religious belief, and in his 
 doctrine that God is the immanent, not the external, cause 
 of all things.^ 
 
 Locke and Hume, not to mention other successors of 
 Descartes and Spinoza, influenced the interpretation of 
 Scripture, not simply in the general way of stimulating 
 theological thought, but also by promoting a rational 
 method of dealing with all religious questions. 
 
 With this preliminary glance at two facts which, in widely 
 different ways, influenced interpretation in the period with 
 which we are dealing, we come now to a closer yiew of our 
 subject. We shall consider first the general exegesis of 
 the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the normal type 
 to be found among the leading divines and scholars, 
 
 * See Hoffding, History of Modern Philosophy, i. 242-243. 
 'See Hoffding, op. cit., i. 311, 314-315. 
 
228 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 and then study those few thinkers who departed from the 
 normal type and whose labors marked the way of true 
 progress. 
 
 There were, indeed, departures from the normal type of 
 exegesis in those centuries which did not contribute to the 
 progress of the science of interpretation. Such was the 
 departure of George Fox (1624-1690), who, in the second 
 half of the seventeenth century, founded the Quaker com- 
 munion, and the departure of Emanuel Swedenborg 
 (1688-1772), who, about a century later, founded the Church 
 of the New Jerusalem. Fox went to the extreme of Uter- 
 alism, and Swedenborg to the extreme of mystical inter- 
 pretation. Both appealed to an inner light or revelation 
 in support of their interpretations ; both ignored grammar 
 and lexicon. Fox tells us that he dissuaded a man from 
 founding a college in which men were to be fitted for the 
 ministry by the study of Greek and Hebrew, and that he 
 dissuaded him by showing from the Apocalypse that it is 
 the "beast" and the "harlot" who have power over lan- 
 guages ! ' In the case of his refusing to take an oath, his 
 exegesis seems to have put his adversaries to confusion, 
 though it did not keep him out of prison. When asked to 
 kiss the Bible and make oath, he opened to Ps. 2 and Matt. 
 5. We are bidden, he said, to kiss the Son, and the Son 
 says, "Swear not at all." How comes it then that this 
 look is at liberty among you, while one who keeps it is 
 thrown into prison ? ^ 
 
 Swedenborg held that the word in every part of its 
 literal sense contains two interior senses, one called 
 
 ' See Fox's Journal, i. 351. ' See Journal, ■^. 57. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 229 
 
 spiritual and the other celestial, and that because of these 
 interior senses — not because of the literal — the word is 
 holy in every syllable.^ 
 
 The movements of Fox and Swedenborg may illustrate 
 the departures from the normal type of exegesis in the 
 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which did not pro- 
 mote exegetical science.^ Looking now at that normal 
 type of exegesis, we observe that it is not a new phenomenon. 
 We have met it before, notably in the writings of Calvin. 
 Here and there in the hands of some exceptionally strong 
 character, a Milton or an Edwards, it may take on this or 
 that new feature, but still it persists essentially unchanged. 
 The good elements of sixteenth century interpretation are 
 rarely improved in the two following centuries ; the bad are 
 sometimes more pronounced. It is to be said to the 
 credit of the period under consideration that its normal 
 type of exegesis regards the literal sense of the text. The 
 words of Richard Hooker (1553-1600) have a wide ap- 
 plication throughout the period. " I hold it," he says, " for 
 a most infaUible rule in exposition of Sacred Scriptures that 
 when a Uteral construction will stand, the farthest from 
 the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more 
 dangerous than this deluding art which changeth the mean- 
 ing of words as alchymy doth or would do the substance of 
 metals, making of anything what it listeth, and bringeth in 
 
 ' See The True Christian Religion, pp. 251, 318. 
 
 ' The Quietism of Molinos (1627-1696) and Madame Guyon (1648- 
 171 7) affords a similar departure, but it did not issue in an organization. 
 The exegesis of the Quietists was like that of the Mystics of the fourteenth 
 and fifteenth centuries. 
 
230 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the end all truth to nothing." ' In general, the example 
 of Calvin in rejecting allegorical interpretation was fol- 
 lowed by the leading divines and scholars of the next two 
 centuries. There were, however, some conspicuous ex- 
 ceptions to this rule. Thus Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) 
 regarded the Old Testament as written in a cipher, which 
 Jesus and his apostles were the first to unlock.^ The law, 
 sacrifices, and the kingdom are regarded by him as only 
 figures. If one takes them as realities, they are at once 
 seen to be full of contradictions, and meaningless. 
 
 With Pascal we may associate, in this point, the greatest 
 of the theologians of the following century, Jonathan Ed- 
 wards (1693-1758). There are a multitude of things in 
 the Old Testament, he says, which the Church did not then 
 understand, but which were reserved to be unfolded in the 
 Christian Church, such as most of their types and shadows 
 and prophecies, which make up the greatest part of the 
 Old Testament.' The Scriptures were "made mystical," 
 he says, that God's people might have "exercise for their 
 pious wisdom and study." * What hidden meaning the 
 "pious wisdom" of Edwards was able to bring forth out 
 of the Old Testament, the following instances of his exege- 
 sis will sufficiently suggest. We read in Gen. 5 : 29 that 
 
 ' See Works of Richard Hooher, edited by Isaac Walton, 2. 7-8. 
 
 'See Pascal, Thoughts, Letters, and Opuscules, translated by O. W. 
 Wight, p. 303. 
 
 ' See The Works of President Edwards, edition of 181 7, 8. 180. 
 
 * Conip. Owen, The Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ, pp. 
 138-142; "The meanest believer may now find out more of the work of 
 Christ in the types of the Old Testament than any prophets or wise men 
 could have done of old." 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 23I 
 
 Lamech, at the birth of a son, gave him the name Noah, 
 saying, "This same shall comfort us for our work and for 
 the toil of our hands." How was this done? , First, says 
 Edwards, he comforted them as the ancestor of the Re- 
 deemer; second, as the inventor of wine, which was a 
 remarkable type of the blood of Christ and his spiritual' 
 benefits ; third, as one who had leave to eat flesh — another 
 type of our feeding on Christ and having spiritual life and 
 refreshment in him; and fourth, Noah comforted his par-, 
 ents by means of the promise which God gave to him, 
 that there should be no more a flood upon the earth.' 
 
 Again, Edwards regarded the book of Esther as "very 
 probably a history that is a shadow of Gospel things and 
 times." Thus the great feast that Ahasuerus made is the 
 Gospel feast. Vashti is the Church of the Jews, Esther 
 the later Church, Mordecai the Gospel ministry, and Ha- 
 man is, of course, Antichrist ! Thus Edwards went with 
 Rabanus Maurus and other mediseval writers to an extreme 
 in reading the New Testament into the Old.'' 
 
 Edwards treated the New Testament also as having a 
 mystical sense. Thus, in speaking of the genealogy in Matt. 
 I, he observes that the only women mentioned as belonging 
 to the ancestry of Jesus were harlots or Gentiles. These 
 are taken notice of, he says, because Christ's descending 
 from several harlots or Gentiles intimates unto us that all 
 
 ' See op. cit., 8. Ji- 
 
 ' Comp. also John Owen, The Glorious Mystery of the Person of 
 Christ, pp. 461-462; John Wesley (1703-1791), who declares that there 
 is "no contrariety at all between the law and the Gospel" (Works, edition 
 of 1839, 1. 223); Jonathan Edwards, op. cit., 8. 21 f. ; and Isaac 
 Barrow, Works, 6. 473 f. 
 
232 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 who are saved by Christ were sinners.' Thus the construc- 
 tion of a genealogy of Jesus had in view a point of Chris- 
 tian teaching, and indeed a point which no Christian ever 
 called in question. It is not quite clear how the fact that 
 some of the ancestors of Jesus were harlots or Gentiles 
 should intimate that all who were to be saved by him were 
 sinners. With as good ground might one argue that the 
 fact that most of the ancestors of Jesus were Jews, not Gen- 
 tiles, and law-abiding people, not harlots, intimated that 
 those who were to be saved by him were not sinners. The 
 truth is that neither conclusion is of the slightest value. 
 
 But Pascal and Edwards, in the point under considera- 
 tion, are exceptions to the rule. Allegorical interpretation, 
 even of the Old Testament, received such a blow in the 
 sixteenth century that in the next two centuries it was 
 rarely conspicuous in men of recognized ability. Indeed, 
 the aversion to it was so deep-seated that it appears to have 
 hindered the recognition of the true nature of some portions 
 of Scripture, as, for example, the early chapters of Genesis. 
 
 It was natural that, with the rejection of allegorical 
 interpretation, the view was maintained that the Scriptures 
 are intelligible. The men who drew up the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith (1647) held the view of the Antiochian 
 school in the early Church, that all necessary truths of 
 Scripture are plain, and with this they held the principle 
 that the Scripture itself is the only infallible rule for the 
 interpretation of Scripture.^ The earnestness with which 
 these assertions were made and defended was due to the 
 
 ' See op. cit., 8. 285. 
 
 * See Confession, chapter i, sees, vii and ix. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 233 
 
 reaction from the dominion of the Catholic doctrine of the 
 necessity both of tradition and of the Church to any trust- 
 worthy interpretation of Scripture. In view of that in- 
 tellectually destructive dominion, this earnestness was fully 
 justified. Moreover, there are probably few scholars at the 
 present day who will not agree with the declaration of John 
 Milton, who, in refuting the claim that the Scriptures are 
 obscure and need the interpretation of the Fathers, said 
 that the Scriptures, even at their worst, are plainer than the 
 Fathers.^ 
 
 But while the doctrine of the intelligibility of Scripture 
 marks an advance upon the Roman Catholic position, the 
 language of the Westminster Symbol, that Scripture is 
 an infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture, must 
 now be regarded as an extreme and unwarrantable over- 
 statement of an important exegetical principle. 
 
 The relation of the normal type of exegesis in the 
 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to the inspiration of 
 Scripture may be seen at its best in the Symbol which has 
 just been mentioned, and we may well pause for a moment 
 to consider, not the doctrine itself, but its alleged Scripture 
 foundation. That the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures were 
 "immediately inspired" by God was inferred as certain 
 from four New Testament passages.^ In the first of these 
 (Luke 16:29, 31) Abraham is represented by Jesus as 
 
 ' See his Tract Of Reform in England. 
 
 ' See chapter i, sec. 2. SchaflF, The Creeds of Christendom, i. 767, says 
 of the entire chapter regarding the Scriptures: "No other Protestant 
 symbol has such a clear, judicious, concise, and exhaustive statement of 
 this fundamental article of Protestantism." 
 
234 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 telling the spirit of the rich man that his brothers on earth 
 have Moses and the prophets. If they give heed to these 
 teachers, they will escape the place of torment. In the 
 second passage (Eph. 2 : 20) the Ephesian Christians are 
 said by Paul to be built on the foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief corner-stone. 
 The third passage is that one in Revelation (22 : 18-19) 
 which gave so great offence to Martin Luther, viz., those 
 closing words which threaten grievous woes to any one 
 who should add aught to the book or take aught from it. 
 The fourth and last is Paul's well-known word to Timothy 
 (2 Tim. 3 : 16) about the profitableness of " inspired " 
 Scripture. Now of these four passages, the first obviously 
 has to do only with the practical value of the Old Tes- 
 tament : Moses and the prophets teach the duty of mercy. 
 The second afiirms the religious value of the Old Testa- 
 ment and the New, which value is most manifest in Jesus. 
 The third applies to the Apocalypse only, and simply 
 affirms its importance. Thus three of the four alleged 
 proofs of "immediate inspiration by God" do not at 
 all concern inspiration, immediate or mediate. They 
 merely affirm the value of Scripture, but leave quite un- 
 touched the peculiar mode of its origin. There is one 
 passage out of the four, or rather one single word in one 
 passage, which, in a general manner, associates Scripture 
 with God.^ 
 
 What follows in reference to the exegesis of the West- 
 minster divines ? This, at least, that they, like many theo- 
 
 ' Compare the Westminster support of the point that the Scriptures 
 have been "kept pure in all ages." Matt. 5: 18. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 235 
 
 logians of other times, when they had a doctrine to estab- 
 lish out of Scripture, had little difhculty in establishing it. 
 The exegetical support of their view of inspiration suggests 
 that they proceeded from without inward rather than from 
 within outward. They appealed to Scripture rather than 
 listened to it. 
 
 We pass on to note that the normal type of exegesis in 
 the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was characterized 
 by great regard for the doctrines of the early Church. It 
 was true in this respect to the example of the Reformers. 
 It proceeded from the Fathers to the Bible, not to, the Bible 
 independently of the Fathers. The main doctrines of the 
 third and fourth centiuries were held much as axiomatic 
 truths. It was taken for granted that they were funda- 
 mental in the Scriptures. Therefore the Bible was not 
 searched for its teaching, but rather for proof of what was 
 assumed to be its teaching. Take as an illustration of this 
 point, the paraphrase which Joseph Hall (1574-1656) 
 wrote on the " hard texts " of Scripture. He counted 
 Rom. 1 : 3 such a text, in which the apostle says that the 
 promise of God in the Prophets concerned his son, "who 
 was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh." 
 The explanatory paraphrase runs as follows : " Concern- 
 ing his only and eternal Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who, 
 taking upon him our nature, was miraculously conceived 
 by the Holy Ghost, and took flesh of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary, who was of the seed of David." ' Thus the par- 
 aphrase neatly superimposes the current orthodoxy upon 
 the text, and makes it indeed a " hard text." 
 
 ' See Joseph Hall, Works, Oxford, 1837-1839, 4. 288. 
 
236 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Thomas Goodwin (1600-1679), speaking of the blessing 
 of Aaron in Num. 6, comments as follows on the fact that 
 Jehovah is there thrice mentioned : "the three Persons and 
 their blessing of us are intended, though not explicitly 
 mentioned." ^ 
 
 John Milton, though more independent than most theo- 
 logians of his century, found the doctrine of the Trinity in 
 Gen. I, and held that the question of man's redemption 
 was discussed by the Father and the Son before the fall 
 of Adam.^ 
 
 Lord Bacon remarks in The Advancement of Learning: 
 "If the choice observations upon texts of Scripture which 
 have been made dispersedly in sermons in the past forty 
 years had been set down in continuance, it had been the best 
 work in divinity which had been written since the apostles' 
 times." But there seems to be large ground for modifying 
 this opinion and saying that such a work, though expanded 
 to cover also the entire century after Bacon's death, would 
 remind us less often of the apostolic writings than of those 
 which were produced in the third and fourth centuries. 
 Its "choice observations" upon texts of Scripture are very 
 often too theological to remind us at all of the writings of 
 apostles, and they as often lack that freedom which so 
 largely characterized the first age of the Church. 
 , Under the normal type of exegesis of the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries, we must place the first Christian trea- 
 
 ' See Goodwin, Works, edition of 1861, 1. 20. 
 
 ' See Paradise Lost, Book iii and vii. In his Tract on Church Doctrine, 
 Milton held the existence of the Son before the world, but denied that the 
 Scriptures represent this existence as eternal. Illustrations of this point 
 might be greatly multiplied from every branch of the Church. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 237 
 
 tise on the chronology of the Bible and the first English 
 Life of Christ. Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) was one 
 of the most learned men of his time in England, and Jeremy 
 Taylor (1613-1667), "the Shakespeare of English prose," 
 one of the most interesting and influential men in the An- 
 glican Church. And yet Ussher's chronology, which has 
 been the standard for two and a half centuries, and which 
 was not dropped from the pages of the Bible itself until the 
 new edition of 1881, soberly put the creation of the world 
 in the night before the twenty-third of October 4004 B.C., 
 and treated the poetical stories of Genesis, in some of which 
 men are reputed to have lived eight and nine centuries, 
 as though they were statistical tables compiled by con- 
 temporary experts.^ 
 
 In Jeremy Taylor's Life of Christ ^ the normal type of 
 exegesis of the period which we are considering is some- 
 what exaggerated. He magnified the miraculous element 
 almost like a mediaeval legend-writer. Thus the story of 
 the star that appeared to the Magi becomes a prodigy of 
 the first order, an angel in a pillar of fire, under the sem- 
 blance of a star, which stood when the Magi stood and went 
 forward when they were able.' Taylor accepted the most 
 extravagant fictions of antiquity, as that of Gregory Turo- 
 nensis, who relates that the creek of the river in which Jesus 
 was baptized was ever after endued with healing power to 
 cure leprosy.'' He also dealt with the details of the Gospel 
 regarding the childhood of Jesus in such a manner as 
 
 ' See Annates Vet. Test, in vol. 8 of his Works, p. 13. 
 
 * See vol. 2 of Heber's edition of Taylor's Works. 
 
 ^ See op. cit., pp. 47-48. * See op. cit., p. 1S5. 
 
238 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 utterly to destroy its naturalness. Thus he says that Mary, 
 when searching for Jesus, went into the temple to pray, 
 and there found her twelve years' old boy "discoursing up 
 to the height of a prophet, with the clearness of an angel 
 and the infallibility of inspiration." The strength of his 
 discourse was "the strength of argument, and science of the 
 highest mysteries of religion, and secret of philosophy." ^ 
 This language may now move a smile, but it is only a rhe- 
 torical expression of the view that was commonly read into 
 Luke's story of Jesus among the rabbis in the temple, and 
 which is still to be met with even in so-called exegetical 
 works. 
 
 Thus far we have spoken of the normal type of exegesis 
 in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and we now 
 turn to the more important task of estimating the work of 
 those few men who, not content with the principles and 
 results of exegesis in the past, had the vision to discover 
 and the courage to enter new fields of research, and whose 
 labors laid the secure foundations of yet more fruitful and 
 more scientific investigations in subsequent times. 
 
 Of seventeenth-century scholars, or scholars whose chief 
 work fell in that century, we shall speak of six who, in 
 very unlike ways and with widely different degrees of suc- 
 cess, contributed to the advance of interpretation. Of 
 these six men, Grotius (i 583-1645) and Cocceius (1603- 
 1669) were Dutch; Spinoza (1632-1677), a Jew who 
 revered Jesus; Simon (1638-1712), a Frenchman and Ro- 
 man Catholic; John Lightfoot (1602-1675) and Richard 
 Bentley (1662-1742), English and of the English Church. 
 ' See op. cit., p. 142. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 239 
 
 Three were preeminent as critics — Spinoza, Simon, and 
 Bentley. Spinoza, in his relation to the Bible, was a philo- 
 sophical critic ; Simon and Bentley critics of the historical 
 and literary types. Of the others, Grotius is the best 
 representative of the seventeenth-century annotator, Coc- 
 ceius was the precursor of the discipline of biblical theology, 
 and Lightfoot^ one of the pioneers in the department of 
 rabbinical learning. 
 
 Grotius laid the foundation for his exegetical studies 
 in a critical knowledge of the classics, and was a human- 
 ist somewhat of the Erasmian type.^ We have introduced 
 him as the best representative of the seventeenth-century 
 biblical annotator, but it ought to be said that he also 
 served the cause of exegesis as a noble peace-maker be- 
 tween the Protestants and the Catholics. He opposed, both 
 as a Christian and a scholar, the view which had been 
 widely held since Luther's time that the Pope was Anti- 
 christ.' 
 
 The annotations of Grotius on the Gospels and Acts * 
 had value largely because they turned from the dogmatic 
 type of exegesis toward the historical. The work is cum- 
 brous and diffuse like the expository sermons of contem- 
 
 '■ Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629) preceded Lightfoot and was more 
 famous as a rabbinic scholar. His service, however, was in the department 
 of philology. See Keil, Introduction to the Old Testament, translated by 
 Douglas, 2. 168-177. 
 
 'See Vie de Grotius by De Burigny, i. 33. 
 
 ' See De Burigny, op. cit., 2. 166. 
 
 * Annotaiiones in quatuor Evangelia et Acta Apostolorum, London, 
 1679. Simon says of this work: "II surpasse les autres commentaires 
 qui ont dcrit avant lui sur le N.T." See Hist. Crit. des principaux 
 Commentateurs du N.T., p. 803. 
 
240 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 porary Puritan divines.' It is adapted only to the learned. 
 It explains and illustrates many points that appear to us 
 to need no explanation, but does not touch the great critical 
 problems of the text. Yet it aims throughout to discover 
 the meaning of the sacred writers, and collects from Jewish 
 and especially from classical sources a large amount of 
 illustrative material. 
 
 The contribution of Lightfoot to the interpretation of 
 Scripture, which was supplemented in the next century by 
 the labors of Schottgen (1687-1751),^ was the opening of 
 the hitherto little-known rabbinical writings. As Reuchlin 
 in the preceding century had made the grammars of the 
 mediaeval Jewish grammarians the basis of his own Hebrew 
 text -books, so Lightfoot laid the rabbis of all the past ages 
 under tontribution for the explanation of the sacred text. 
 
 As a commentator, Lightfoot did not rise above the gen- 
 eral type which we have found in the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries. His exegesis is arbitrary in method, 
 and everywhere loyal to the traditional theology. Thus 
 in the word Elohim in Gen. i : i he finds the Trinity so 
 clearly expressed that he does not stop for a word in jus- 
 tification of the view.'' Again, when speaking of the ap- 
 pearance of three men to Abraham at the oaks of Mamre, 
 his comment is that "the three Persons of the Trinity dine 
 
 ' Thus Thomas Goodwin published a volume of 564 pages on 
 Eph. I, and Sibbes a volume of above 500 pages on 2 Cor. 1. 
 
 ^ Schottgen's work, Horae Hebr. et Talmud., published in 1733, repre- 
 sents the same dogmatic tendency that we see in Lightfoot. See, e.g., 
 pp. gi6 f. 
 
 ' See The Works of the Rev. and Learned John Lightfoot, D.D., London, 
 1684, 1. J. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 24 1 
 
 with Abraham, and foretell the birth of Isaac." * His deal- 
 ing with the New Testament was equally notable. Thus 
 in Luke's statement in the prologue of his Gospel that he 
 had traced the course of all things accurately /row the first 
 (a,vw0ev), Lightfoot takes this word avmdev as meaning 
 from above, and thus makes Luke claim divine inspiration 
 for his narrative, which his predecessors are assumed 
 to have lacked \^ 
 
 The biblical chronology of Lightfoot, like that of Ussher, 
 was definite on points which have since been regarded as 
 unknown, if not unknowable. Thus, for example, it is 
 said that Adam's fall was about noon of the day on which 
 he was created ; John the Baptist was born in the same 
 month in which Abraham was circumcised ; and Jesus was 
 baptized in September.' 
 
 While Lightfoot was laboriously searching the rabbinical 
 writings for passages that might elucidate the biblical text, 
 the Jew Spinoza was rendering a very different service by 
 an independent study of the text itself. Of all the writers 
 of the seventeenth century who gave attention to the in- 
 terpretation of Scripture, Spinoza is the one whose attitude 
 is most thoroughly modern. His biblical criticism, how- 
 ever, seems to be generally unknown,* and for that reason 
 it will be somewhat more fully noticed in this place. 
 
 The true method of interpreting Scripture is, according to 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 13. 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 201. ' See op. cit., pp. 2, 13, 208. 
 
 * Reuss, History of the New Testament, 2. 584, barely touches the gen- 
 eral significance of Spinoza, but see James Martineau, A Study of Spinoza, 
 1883, p. 367. 
 
 R 
 
242 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Spinoza, perfectly harmonious with the method of inter- 
 preting Nature. As the naturaUst studies the phenomena 
 of Nature, seeking to make a faithful history of them, so 
 the biblical interpreter must first get a fund of data regard- 
 ing any writing, — its author, date, occasion, aim, and so 
 forth, — from which data he may at last deduce the thought 
 of the author. He must note its leading features, and be 
 able to take a view of it as a whole. And all the time 
 when he is doing this, he is to remember that what he 
 seeks is the sense of the words, not the truth of their state- 
 ment, which are two wholly different things.* 
 
 As to the divinity of Scripture, Spinoza holds that the 
 only way of proving it is by showing that Scripture teaches 
 true virtue.^ 
 
 It is plain from what has been said that Spinoza relied 
 upon reason for the understanding of Scripture. To the 
 claim that Scripture is to be interpreted only by means 
 of supernatural illumination, he rephed that such illumi- 
 nation is given only to the faithful, while the words of the 
 prophets were spoken to unbeUevers and were spoken 
 with the manifest expectation that they would be under- 
 stood. 
 
 Spinoza's view of prophecy marked a definite advance. 
 He notes that the Jews in Old Testament times never 
 mentioned second causes, but attributed their gains, their 
 desires, and their conceptions immediately to God. Hence, 
 he says, it is not necessary, when Scripture affirms that 
 God spoke, to think that supernatural knowledge was 
 
 ' See Oeuvres de Spinoza, translated by Emile Saisset, 2. 125 f. 
 2 See op. cit., p. 128. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 243 
 
 always given to the prophet.' The fact of divine revela- 
 tion must be expressly indicated. Spinoza does not deny 
 that the Old Testament contains such revelation. He 
 thinks that God spoke to Moses in a veritable voice, and 
 that Jesus received revelations immediately, without words 
 or images. 
 
 As to the statement that the Spirit of God was in the 
 prophets, Spinoza holds that it signifies their exceptional 
 virtue (virtutem singular em), that they practised piety 
 with superior constancy {pietatem eximia animi constantia 
 colebant), and, finally, that they perceived the mind or 
 thought of God {mentem sive senteniiam dei)? They 
 differed among themselves, and God suited his revelations 
 to their varying intelligence and opinions, perhaps also to 
 their varying powers of imagination, for Spinoza held that 
 superior power of imagination characterized the prophets. 
 Since, then, the prophets received revelations according to 
 their intelligence and opinions, we are called to believe 
 them only in those things which are the object and ground 
 of their revelation.' As to all other points each is free to 
 believe what he pleases. 
 
 Spinoza lays great stress on the importance of distin- 
 guishing between faith and philosophy, or religion and 
 theology. He declares that this was the principal object 
 of his Tractatus Theologico-politicus. He insists that, the 
 sole end of Scripture is to teach obedience. It does not 
 contain sublime speculations and philosophical questions, 
 
 ' See op. cit., pp. 18 f. * See op. cit., p. 32. 
 
 ' Qitod finis et substantia est revelationis. See the Tractatus theO' 
 logico-politicus, edition of Van Vloten and Laud, 1. i. 
 
244 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 but only the simplest things which any one can under- 
 stand. In this point he undoubtedly went too far. Such 
 books as Job, Ecclesiastes, and Second Isaiah contain 
 both philosophical questions and sublime speculations, 
 but the distinction is in general a true one and of im- 
 measurable significance.' 
 
 In the department of literary criticism of the Old Testa- 
 ment Spinoza's most important departure from orthodox 
 teaching was his attributing to Ezra the composition of the 
 books from Genesis to 2 Kings. He held the unique dig- 
 nity of Moses, yet did not regard him as the author of the 
 Pentateuch. In this he anticipated the position of modem 
 scholarship, but his theory of the composition of the first 
 twelve books of the Bible has, of course, not found accept- 
 ance. 
 
 We pass from Spinoza, who lived in retirement in the 
 Hague, to Cocceius, a lecturer at Leyden. In his twelve 
 foUo volumes there is httle which is of interest at the 
 present day, and yet he deserves honorable mention 
 among those who promoted biblical science in the seven- 
 teenth century. For he at least conceived of a theology 
 which should be legitimately derived from the Bible, and 
 be an orderly historical presentation of the content of 
 Scripture.^ A characteristic illustration of his use of the 
 Bible is afforded by the sermon on the Ways of God which 
 he preached in February, 1669, on the occasion of his laying 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 222. 
 
 ' That Cocceius saw something of the truth of the historical method of 
 exegesis is further shown by the fact that his pupil Vitringa (1659-1722) 
 is regarded by Delitzsch as the founder of the historical interpretation of 
 Isaiah ; see Kommentar iiber Jesaia, p. xxxiii. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 245 
 
 down the office of rector of the university. In this sermon, 
 which is not longer than those of our day, he quotes or 
 alludes to three hundred and seven passages of Scripture 
 from forty-five different books. Manifestly he believed 
 that the ways of God are to be authoritatively understood 
 from the words of God.' And yet Cocceius did not grasp 
 the principle of development in Scripture, and his exe- 
 getical method was mainly that of his times. He often vio- 
 lated his good principle that interpretation should bring out 
 something from the Scriptures, not put something into 
 them.^ It was said that he found Christ everywhere in 
 the Old Testament, while Arminius found him nowhere,' 
 and Reuss is of the opinion that his exegetical method 
 might be fitly characterized by the words "verba sacrae 
 Scripturae significant id omne quod possunt."* 
 
 Richard Simon, the fifth of our seventeenth-century 
 leaders in the general field of bibUcal science, was not 
 himself an interpreter of Scripture nor a writer on the the- 
 ory of interpretation. He rendered his service as a critical 
 historian of the Bible. 
 
 To a reader of the present day it appears somewhat 
 remarkable that the first edition of Simon's work on the 
 Old Testament was destroyed in Paris as heretical, with 
 the exception of a few copies, and that when he published a 
 second edition, it was at Rotterdam and anonymously .° 
 
 ' See Opera, 7. 147. 
 
 ' See Opera, 7. 4: " Interpretatio Scripturarum est efferenda ex Scrip- 
 turis, non inferenda in illas." 
 
 ' See Fisher, History of the Christian Church, p. 439. 
 * See History of the New Testament, p. 577. 
 " Histoire critiqiie du V. T., Rotterdam, 1685. 
 
246 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The author, it is true, held that only a part of the Pentateuch 
 was written by Moses, but he regarded the rest as being 
 of equal authority because written by those whom Moses 
 had appointed for this very work. These and other 
 similar public writers (ecrivains publics), whom, it is 
 assumed, the Israelitish State never lacked, are thought to 
 have been inspired no less truly than were the prophets or 
 Moses himself. 
 
 The New Testament, says Simon, recognizes nothing in 
 all Scripture which is not prophetic and truly inspired.^ 
 
 Moreover, Simon shared the Roman CathoUc view of the 
 importance of tradition. He says that if the truth of 
 religion were not deposited in the Church (i.e. if there were 
 not a tradition supplementing the Scriptures), it would 
 be in vain to seek it now in books which have been sub- 
 jected to so much change. He emphatically rejects the 
 Protestant view that Scripture is clear in itself. There is 
 almost nothing in religion, he says, of which one can be 
 certain unless one associates tradition with Scripture. 
 
 The views just noticed constitute perhaps the weakest 
 part of Simon's critical position. A permanent order of 
 £crivains publics in Old Testament times is unknown. 
 The idea that tradition is necessary to certainty in religion 
 because the biblical writings have been subject to great 
 changes in the course of time is open to serious objection 
 on two sides. It implies, in the first place, that the central 
 purport of Scripture is obscure, a view against which the 
 character and words of Jesus, to mention only a single 
 point, must ever stand as an unanswerable argument ; and 
 
 ' See op. cit., Preface. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 247 
 
 it assumes also that the Church has always had an under- 
 standing and a spirit capable of testing and conserving the 
 revelations of God — an assumption too deeply discredited 
 by Christian history to be worthy of consideration. 
 
 The work of Simon was published between 1685 and 
 1693. Six years later (1699) Richard Bentley pubUshed 
 his Dissertations upon the Epistles of Phalaris, a work 
 which has been called "the most valuable of all critical 
 essays." Its value is not due at all to the importance 
 of its subject. Neither Phalaris, tyrant of Agrigentum in 
 Sicily in the sixth century B.C., nor the epistles falsely 
 ascribed to him, have any particular historical significance. 
 Nor does the value of Bentley's dissertation consist in the 
 enunciation of any formal principles of literary criticism, 
 which can be applied to the criticism of biblical writings. 
 Its significance lies in two things: it shows the value of 
 internal evidence for the criticism of ancient writings, and 
 its treatment of that evidence in a particular case, viz., 
 the Epistles of Phalaris, furnishes a high order of dis- 
 cipline for the critical faculty. 
 
 As a specimen of literary criticism, Bentley's essay was 
 a new phenomenon in history, and had no parallel until 
 the day of scientific criticism of the Pentateuch. Bentley 
 himself did not enter deeply into the literary criticism of the 
 Bible. In 1717, when he became professor of divinity at 
 Cambridge, he read a paper on the famous text of the three 
 heavenly witnesses (i John 5:7), — not known to be 
 extant, — which text he rejected as spurious, but the 
 particular character of his criticism is unknown.' In his 
 
 ' See Monk, Life of Richard Bentley, 2.17. 
 
248 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Phileleutherus Lipsiensis * he defended the criticism of the 
 biblical text against scholars Uke Whitby, who saw in it 
 the undermining of faith and even of religion itself. Here 
 his service to biblical criticism, if less important than in his 
 famous Dissertations, was more direct and more imme- 
 diately fruitful. 
 
 In the works of Simon and Bentley we have, if not the 
 very beginning, at least the first permanent monuments of 
 that discipline to which in later times has been given 
 the much misunderstood name of the Higher Criticism.^ 
 To a contemporary of Bentley may be given in the same 
 relative sense the honor of having founded the depart- 
 ment of Lower Criticism. Bentley himself might have 
 been a co-founder of this branch also, had not Parliament 
 refused to allow the importation of paper for his projected 
 Greek New Testament free of duty.' There were other 
 obstacles in the way, but this was the decisive one. 
 
 Lower or textual criticism of the Bible prepares the way 
 for the interpreter. It may lighten the task of exegesis, as, 
 for example, when it shows that i John 5 : 7 is spurious 
 and so to be discarded, or when it simplifies the text by the 
 removal of perplexing variations ; and, on the other hand, 
 it may render the task of exegesis more difficult by showing 
 that of several diverse readings of a passage the most ob- 
 scure is likely to have been the primitive one. But in 
 any case it is plainly a scientifically necessary handmaid of 
 interpretation. 
 
 ' Published in his volume of Boyle Lectures, 1692. 
 ' Contemporary hostility to criticism as practised by Bentley and others 
 is seen in Swift's Tale of a Tub and Battle of the Boohs. 
 ' See Monk, op. cit., 2. 148. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 249 
 
 The eighteenth century was as noted for its labors in 
 behalf of a purer text of the New Testament as the seven- 
 teenth had been for its zeal in collecting classical and Jewish 
 parallels to biblical utterances.* This labor was chiefly 
 contributed by German scholars, who come forward more 
 prominently in connection with biblical studies in the 
 eighteenth century than the Dutch and English had done 
 in the century before. Mill (1645-1707) was English, 
 but the other great names — Wetstein (1693-1754), Ben- 
 gel (1687-1751), Semler (1725-1791), and Griessbach 
 (i 745-1812) — are all German. The best service of Mill 
 and Wetstein was in comparing and collating Mss. ; that 
 of Bengel, Semler, and Griessbach was in developing valid 
 principles by which to ascertain the primitive reading. 
 These five men probably contributed a total of one hundred 
 and twenty-five years of expert labor to the task of ascer- 
 taining the purest possible New Testament text. They 
 did not finish the task, but they laid all future laborers 
 under heavy obligations to them. 
 
 The formal science of interpretation was more widely 
 and studiously cultivated by the Germans in the eighteenth 
 century than ever before, and found in the Institutions ^ 
 of Rambach (1693-1735) its first worthy presentation. 
 Exegesis is here treated as a branch of human learning, 
 not as a supernatural gift. There is appreciation of its 
 
 ' On Kennicott's work for the Old Testament, see Introductions to the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 ' Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae, editio octava, 1764. The work 
 of A. H. Francke, Manuductio ad lectionem scripturae sacrae, published 
 in 1693, suffers from a multiplication of rules and a lack of clear 
 principles. 
 
2 so 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 complexity, and the consequent variety and breadth of 
 qualifications demanded for its successful practice. Yet 
 the author's own view of Scripture was still too much in 
 bondage to the past. Thus, for example, he speaks of the 
 perpetual agreement of Scripture,' based on the fact that 
 it all has one supreme Author who suggested the very words 
 that should be used. This is the ground of his doctrine of 
 the analogy of faith, which doctrine, though he would not 
 have it encroach on the use of reason, nevertheless virtually 
 does this. The interpreter cannot assume at the outset 
 that the common scope of all Scripture is Christ, as this 
 writer does. No such assumption is to be made. That 
 there is a common doctrine in all biblical writings, and that 
 this is the "Lydian stone" to which obscure passages are 
 to be brought, is not a principle with which a scientific 
 student can operate unless he first establishes it either for 
 a particular book or group of books, or for the entire body 
 of sacred writings. 
 
 But no eighteenth-century treatise on interpretation was 
 so notable, no treatise had so great exegetical influence in its 
 own time or so great interest for the next century, as the 
 specimen of actual interpretation afforded by the Gnomon 
 of Bengel, whose name has already been mentioned in 
 connection with text-criticism. This work published in 
 Latin in 1742 still possesses fresh interest and value. Its 
 most conspicuous qualities are not accuracy and consist- 
 ent adherence to sound principles of interpretation. The 
 author speaks of the Scriptures as exhibiting "one entire 
 and perfect body, unencumbered by excess, unimpaired by 
 
 ' See op. cit., pp. 242, 278. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 251 
 
 defect." ' Equally deficient is his general conception of 
 the Gospels, of which he says that "each supplies the omis- 
 sions of the preceding." ^ The genealogies of Matthew and 
 Luke are accepted not only as historical documents, but 
 also as having theological significance, for Bengel finds in 
 them various proofs of the divinity of Jesus.^ He is also 
 an easy harmonizer of difficulties in the Gospels. Thus 
 when Matthew places the sermon of Jesus on a mountain 
 and Luke on a plain (Matt. 5:1; Luke 6:17), Bengel 
 says that Jesus came half-way down the mountain ; and, 
 as he was coming down with his disciples, he met the 
 people coming up, and sat down there to teach. Or take 
 the case of the " staff." According to Matthew, the apos- 
 tles, when sent out, were told by the Master not to take 
 certain things, among them a staff, while in Mark's ac- 
 count the staff is specified as something which they 
 might take (Mark 6:8; Matt. 10 : 10). Bengel blends and 
 harmonizes the conflicting texts as follows: "He who had 
 no staff was not to care about procuring one ; he, how- 
 ever, who possessed a staff might take it with him, for 
 convenience, not defence!"* 
 
 The Gnomon is also at times extremely fanciful. Thus 
 the indefiniteness of the statement that the Magi came 
 from the east intimates "the unrestricted universality of 
 salvation." ' Still more noteworthy is the lack of a critical 
 literary sense. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the 
 following statement. " The evangelists have transcribed 
 
 ' See Fausset's edition of the Gnomon, i. 5-6. 
 
 2 See op. cit., i. 71. * See op. cit., p. 239. 
 
 5 See op. cit., pp. 82-108. ' See op. cit., p. 121. 
 
252 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 at full length two discourses of our Lord as models of all 
 the rest ; the one delivered pubUcly at the commencement 
 of his ministry, the other privately at its conclusion " 
 (Matt. 5:7; John 13 : 16).' But we have no evidence 
 whatever that these two discourses are reported at their 
 original length. The mere fact that they are longer than 
 the other recorded utterances of Jesus does not prove that 
 they preserve all that he said on the respective occasions. 
 They may not preserve half or a quarter ; we have abso- 
 lutely no means of determining the point. As little right 
 have we to infer that these two discourses are models of 
 all the rest. Indeed, the Gospels themselves show clearly 
 that Jesus did not always speak after the fashion of the 
 Sermon on the Mount or of the Farewell Discourse in 
 John. The parables furnish a distinct type, and yet 
 another more common is that of the dialogue. 
 
 Hence we say that the conspicuous quahties of Bengel's 
 great work are not scientific accuracy or adherence to 
 sound exegetical principles. In the first place, Bengel 
 realized, as no one before him, what Calvin aimed at but 
 did not attain, viz., brevity. He wrote less on an entire 
 Gospel than some of the Puritan divines of the preceding 
 century on a single chapter. Scarcely less conspicuous 
 than his brevity is his lucidity, while underneath these 
 more formal qualities the reader is always aware of a whole- 
 some spiritual personaUty, and usually of good sense. The 
 most noticeable lack of this last quality is furnished by the 
 exposition of the Apocalypse, that book which has injured 
 the reputation for sanity, not only of its author, but also of 
 ' See op. cit., p. 161. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 253 
 
 most of its expounders. It is a singular illustration of the 
 inability of great men to estimate truly their own work that 
 Bengel, who made a Church almanac out of the poetical 
 imagery of the Apocalypse, attached to this greater value 
 than to any other part of his commentary. Posterity has 
 judged otherwise. 
 
 Besides Bengel there arose no other great commentator 
 in the eighteenth century. The next illustrious biblical 
 work was in the department of historical criticism,' and 
 was done by Astruc in France (1684-1766), by Semler and 
 Ernesti (1707-1781) in Germany. In his Conjectures on 
 Genesis, pubhshed anonymously in 1753, Astruc, who was a 
 professor of medicine in Paris and physician to Louis XV, 
 set forth the now universally accepted documentary theory 
 of the origin of that book. From the repetitions in the 
 text, from the use of the divine names, from the differences 
 between Genesis and other books of the Pentateuch, and 
 from the chronological disorder, he was led to the recogni- 
 tion of two chief sources and two more of secondary im- 
 portance. In all he postulated twelve documentary sources, 
 but allowed that the limits of a number of them are not 
 fixed.'' 
 
 Of these ancient sources it is interesting to notice that 
 Astruc thought that some may have been outside of Hebrew 
 history' — a conjecture whose truth has been abundantly 
 illustrated in later times. 
 
 • Schultens (1686-1750), by the cultivation of Hebrew through Arabic 
 and other cognate dialects, gave a highly important turn to the philologi- 
 cal study of the Old Testament. 
 
 ' See Conjectures sur la Genese, chapters 1-3. 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 322. 
 
254 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The contribution of Semler was not so sharply defined 
 as that of Astruc. It was a spirit rather than a new hy- 
 pothesis — a spirit of doubt regarding the things once 
 believed, a spirit also of freedom in theological investiga- 
 tion. In his opposition to tradition and dogma, he was a 
 rationalist. In regard to the function of doubt, he was a 
 Cartesian, and his conception of the Bible as a book whose 
 various parts are of unequal value — a conception star- 
 tlingly hostile to the traditional view — was in line with the 
 thought of Spinoza. His treatise on the literal interpreta- 
 tion of the New Testament ' marked an advance on the 
 exegetical principles of his predecessors in the clearness 
 with which it set forth the necessity of reading a text in the 
 light of the times with which it deals, the necessity, also, of 
 discovering the historically important moment in a narra- 
 tive and of subordinating minor points. 
 
 Ernesti was the first to set forth in an impressive manner 
 that principle which gave offence to Lord Bacon, viz., that 
 the sense of the Bible is to be ascertained as that of any 
 other book.^ Therefore he set aside the distinction of 
 Francke between the Uteral sense and the sense of the 
 letter, and rejected the view of Cocceius that the words of 
 the sacred writings signify all that they can (quantum 
 fossint)? Yet the work of Ernesti was not altogether free 
 from erroneous presuppositions. Thus he denied that 
 there can be real contradictions in the bibUcal writings, on 
 
 ' Apparatus ad lileralem Novi Testamenii interpretationem, 1767. 
 ^ See Institutio interpretis N. T., editio altera, 1765, p. 12. 
 ' See op. cit., p. 1 1 : Nullus alius sensus est nisi grammaticus, eum- 
 que grammatici tradunt. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 255 
 
 the ground that the writers were insph-ed.* Apparently he 
 did not see that this presupposition was at variance with 
 his fundamental principle. 
 
 In the last half of the eighteenth century biblical study 
 was permanently enriched by the labors of three men 
 who were, first of all, Uterary critics and men of poetic 
 sensibility. One of them — the most fascinating of 
 German rationalists — gave utterance to a multitude of 
 acute criticisms on the writings and the religion of the New 
 Testament, some of which have not yet been duly appre- 
 ciated in the Church; the other two virtually opened 
 for the first time a splendid department of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, and contributed in no slight degree to secure 
 for the Old Testament its true position among the master- 
 pieces of the world's literature. 
 
 The first of these men, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729- 
 1781), is known among us rather by his dramas and essays 
 than by his criticisms in the department of New Testament 
 literature and religion, though in this, also, his thought 
 was brilliant and suggestive. We are concerned with that 
 criticism here chiefly as it bears upon the interpretation of 
 Scripture. 
 
 Lessing was perhaps the first to gain a hearing for the 
 view that neither the miracles of the New Testament nor 
 the prophecies of the Old are a proof of Christianity.^ 
 Regarding the latter point he appears to have gone too far, 
 rejecting the good with the bad, yet his discussion of the 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 15. This statement appears to be modified by that on 
 
 P-73- 
 
 ' See his Sdmmtliche Werke, edited by Karl Lachmann, 13, 3-8. 
 
256 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 subject was the most stimulating that had been heard up to 
 his day. 
 
 Lessing was the first, so far as I am aware, to bring out 
 the truth that the objections which reason may bring against 
 the Bible are not necessarily objections to the biblical 
 religion.' Christianity existed before the New Testament 
 was written, and might therefore, conceivably, continue 
 without it. It is not true because the evangelists and 
 apostles taught it, but they taught it because it is true. 
 
 In his criticism of the Gospels, it is now plain that 
 Lessing was often in error, but also plain that he was often 
 in the right. He seems to have had no conception of the 
 pecuUar character of the Fourth Gospel,^ and few will 
 agree with him that Jesus expected the Levitical law to be 
 permanently observed in his Kingdom,' or that this King- 
 dom was to be earthly, in the thought of Jesus.* But he 
 was the first to suggest that an important distinction is to 
 be made between the teaching of the apostles and that of 
 Jesus ; ° the first to suggest that the words of Jesus afford 
 no basis for the doctrine of the Trinity ; " and the first to 
 advance arguments more or less valid against the genu- 
 ineness of Matt. 28 ; 19.' 
 
 The men who turned an entirely new page in the history 
 of interpretation were Lowth (1710-1787) and Herder 
 (1744-1803), the former a bishop of the English Church, 
 the latter court-preacher at Weimar. Lowth's Lectures 
 on Hebrew Poetry, given at Oxford, were pubhshed in 
 
 ' See op. cit., p. 99. * See op. cit., p. 238. 
 
 ' See op. cit., pp. 245 f. * See op. cit., pp. 277-279. 
 
 ^ See op. cit., p. 223. ' See op. cit., p. 238. ' See op. cit., p. 252. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 257 
 
 1753, and Herder's Spirit of Hebrew Poetry was published 
 in 1782. 
 
 The English writer was hampered in his work by his 
 view of inspiration. Hebrew poetry, he thought, " was not 
 so much the offspring of human genius as an emanation 
 from heaven." But, naturally, if a poem is regarded as 
 primarily "an emanation from heaven," there can scarcely 
 be a free criticism of it, neither can it have an absorbing 
 human interest as a Uterary product. Yet it was much to 
 have called attention to the poetry of the Old Testament, as 
 bishop Lowth did, and to have asserted, however imper- 
 fectly, its claim to be considered as beautiful and sublime 
 literature.* 
 
 Herder was rarely gifted both with literary insight and 
 power of literary expression. To him Hebrew poetry was 
 a fresh divine revelation that stirred his soul to its depths, 
 £ind made him an enthusiastic interpreter. He was free, 
 too, from dogmatic bias. He moved through the Scriptures 
 with the dehght and wonder and glad sense of liberty with 
 which a normal soul attuned to Nature moves through the 
 fields or woods in the freshness of some June morning. 
 The Bible, he said, is a garden, not a prison ; a world of 
 change and fruitfulness, not a workhouse. It was written 
 by men and for men, and must be read as a human book.^ 
 Nature-poetry, such as we have in Job and elsewhere in the 
 Old Testament, is the beautiful interpreter of Nature as 
 God made it.' It enlarges the heart as also the mind; 
 
 ' Milton, in his Tract Against Prelacy, speaks of the incomparable 
 lyrics of the Bible, but, unfortunately, never wrote at length on the subject. 
 'See Sdmmiliche Werke, edited by Suphan, 11. 5-10. 
 ' See op. cit. 11. 292. 
 
2S8 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 makes this quiet and observing, that active, free, and glad. 
 It creates love, appreciation, and sympathy with all that 
 lives. Herder was, I think, the first to point out the poetic 
 character of the early chapters of Genesis, and thus to 
 point at last to a satisfactory interpretation of them.' 
 He regarded the book of Jonah also as a poem, and asked 
 the pertinent question : "If it is beautiful, fit and profitable 
 as a poem, why should we rack our brains to construe it as 
 history?"' 
 
 We are now come to the limit of the period which we set 
 out to consider, and shall seek to indicate in a few closing 
 words, not the value of the normal type of exegesis which 
 left its stamp on a multitude of now mostly forgotten books, 
 but the steps of progress, fewer in number than the decades 
 of the long period itself, by means of which we ourselves 
 are the richer and more assured in the knowledge of the 
 truth. 
 
 The first sign of exegetical progress in the seventeenth 
 century was a reaction against the tyranny of dogma, and 
 this reaction was promoted throughout the entire period, 
 not only by the results of the most eminent biblical 
 scholarship, but also by philosophy. The materials for 
 the explanation and illustration of Scripture were largely 
 increased in this century, especially through the investiga- 
 tion of the rabbinical literature. The close of the seven- 
 teenth century saw the beginning of a scientific historical 
 criticism in the department of biblical introduction and 
 
 ' See op. cit., lo. i6; ii. 381 f. 
 ' See op. cit., 10. 102. 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 259 
 
 saw the erection of the first conspicuous monument of 
 purely literary criticism. 
 
 The eighteenth century was distinguished by its work 
 for a purer text of the New Testament, by the beginning 
 of a formal science of interpretation, by the production of 
 one of the few great commentaries, by the establishment 
 of the documentary hypothesis to explain the origin of 
 Genesis, by the weakening of the traditional doctrine of 
 inspiration, by general progress in the rationalization and 
 humanization of Scripture, and, last of all, by the discovery 
 that the Bible is not only a divine guide for the heart and 
 the will, but is also a thesaurus of immortal poetry, which 
 fascinates and uplifts the imagination. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE SCIENTiriC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 
 
 At the close of the eighteenth century the science of 
 biblical interpretation had reached the foot-hills of the 
 "promised land," but no one saw or could see the 
 heights that rose in majesty just ahead. The progress 
 of the past three centuries — yes, of the past thirteen — was 
 to be more than duplicated before the nineteenth century 
 should have given way to the twentieth. A simple enu- 
 meration of the discoveries affecting Scripture interpreta- 
 tion, and of the changes in the dominant conceptions of the 
 Bible which were to come in the next hundred years, would 
 have seemed to the men of that day stranger than fiction, 
 and by the great majority even of thinking people would 
 doubtless have been regarded as heralding the final and 
 irremediable collapse of true religion. 
 
 The outlook for progress in the biblical world at the 
 beginning of the nineteenth century continued essentially 
 unchanged for about a generation. Not that the period 
 was barren and without promise, for De Wette (f 1849) 
 and Schleiermacher (f 1834) in Germany, and Coleridge 
 (f 1834) in England, were forces as stimulating to a better 
 knowledge of revelation as Lessing and Herder had been 
 
 260 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 261 
 
 at the close of the eighteenth century,* while Gesenius' 
 Hebrew Lexicon and Grammar (1812, 1813) and Winer's 
 Grammar of New Testament Greek (182 1) marked a great 
 advance on all similar works of the earlier time ; but still 
 the period as compared with the following was one of 
 preparation rather than of fulfihnent. In the second 
 quarter of the century arose the great critical movement 
 in Germany, led by Strauss (f 1874) and F. C. Baur 
 (t i860), a movement destructive of tradition and pro- 
 ductive of an immense and more scientific activity in the 
 investigation of Scripture. In the same years began the 
 Romance of the Spade, the uncovering of long-buried civ- 
 ilizations in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates.^ 
 In the third quarter of the century came the message of 
 Natural Science, notably in England, which indeed at the 
 time appeared to be more dangerous to the Bible than even 
 German criticism, but which has nevertheless entered 
 deeply and helpfully into all subsequent literature of inter- 
 pretation. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century 
 and in the opening years of our own, there has been a wide 
 and fruitful application of the new principles to the inter- 
 pretation of Scripture. 
 
 As one surveys this modem era of biblical study which 
 has continued now about three quarters of a century, two 
 general facts of great though unequal significance are seen 
 
 ' De Wette's BeitrSge zur Einleiiung ins AT., were published in 1806- 
 1807, Schleiermacher's Reden uber die Religion in 1799, and Coleridge's 
 Aids to Reflection in 1825. 
 
 ' The palace of Sargon was discovered by Botta in 1843, that of Shal- 
 maneser by Layard in 1846, and Lepsius in the same decade opened a 
 large number of tombs at Memphis. 
 
262 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 to characterize it. These facts are new freedom of re- 
 search and new points of view. The new freedom has not 
 been equally shared by all Protestant lands. Germany, 
 which has led all other countries in biblical research, has 
 had, as we should expect, the greatest measure of freedom ; 
 then follow Holland, England, France, and America. 
 In general, there has been an increase of freedom for bib- 
 lical scholarship as the century has passed. A modem 
 Strauss or Scherer would not lose his university chair in 
 Germany or France;^ a second Bishop Colenso could 
 freely set forth his views within the English Church with- 
 out fear of removal ; ^ and in the United States, at least in 
 the greater universities, scholars are unhampered in the 
 pursuit of truth. Outside the Church and the academic 
 sphere, freedom of utterance on religious as on political 
 subjects has come to be nearly absolute in Protestant 
 lands. Here, indeed, the word of Phillips Brooks spoken in 
 1883 is true, that now for the first time in many centuries 
 the hand of external restraint is absolutely taken off from 
 theological thinking. But not yet is this word true where 
 its truth would be of the highest value to men, viz., in 
 institutions for the training of the ministry.' But in spite 
 
 ' Strauss was called to Zurich in 1836, but was not allowed to teach. 
 Scherer resigned his chair at Geneva, in 1849, on account of his view of 
 inspiration. 
 
 ' Colenso, bishop of Capetown, was removed from office in 1863 for 
 his views on the Pentateuch. In 1864 the Privy Council of Great Britain 
 gave a deliverance which established theological liberty for clergymen 
 in the Church of England. 
 
 ' Within ten years after the utterance of Phillips Brooks the Presby- 
 terian Church suspended from the ministry her best-known O. T. scholar, 
 Professor Briggs, and removed Professor H. P. Smith from his chair 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 263 
 
 of denominational narrowness and that spirit of persecu- 
 tion which, when backed by ecclesiastical authority, still 
 hinders the progress of truth, it is perfectly obvious that 
 there has been greater freedom for bibUcal study in the 
 past half century than in any former period since biblical 
 study began. That this fact has been essential to recent 
 progress is almost self-evident. 
 
 The other fact that has fundamentally affected recent 
 biblical interpretation is the establishment of new points 
 of view. These are two — the point of view of Natural 
 Science and the point of view of Comparative Religion. 
 The former was effectively pressed upon thoughtful stu- 
 dents of the Bible by the pubUcation of Darwin's Origin 
 of Species in 1859, and the latter by George Smith's dis- 
 covery of the Assyrian Flood-tablets in 1872. From these 
 two new points of view have proceeded the most radical 
 external influences that are aiding Historical Criticism. 
 
 The essential thought of Mr. Darwin was very soon 
 applied in the religious sphere. When the brief period of 
 consternation had passed, the conception of Evolution as 
 a method of divine action was welcomed, yes seized, as 
 affording a more adequate solution of many problems. 
 Men began to speak of the evolution of the Old Testa- 
 ment as hterature, the evolution of religion, the evolution 
 
 at Lane Seminary ; and in the next decade the Methodist Church removed 
 Professor Mitchell from his chair at Boston University, and the Board of 
 Chicago Seminary (Congregational) removed its professor of N. T. 
 Interpretation. The removal of these men was due in every case, not 
 to any disloyalty to the Word of God, but solely to their departure, 
 in varying degrees, from the doctrines of the several denominations to 
 which they belonged. 
 
264 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of Christianity, the evolution of the conscience, and so 
 forth. At the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago 
 in 1893, Henry Drummond ' could declare without contra- 
 diction that "evolution as a category of thought was the 
 supreme word of the nineteenth century" ; and nine years 
 later an Oxford professor wrote that "no section of the 
 Church that counts for much now denies the facts of 
 Geology, and Darwinism is no longer regarded as the foe 
 of the Christian faith." ^ The uniformity of Nature has 
 come to be looked upon as an axiom.' 
 
 This point of view of Natural Science was in accord with 
 the literary and historical criticism of Scripture. Natural 
 Science, though a foe of unscientific traditional theology, 
 was an ally of Criticism, and hence from the first exercised 
 on it and through it a potent influence. 
 
 The second new point of view, that of Comparative 
 Religion, though by no means independent of the hypothe- 
 sis of evolution, has, nevertheless, its own place and worth. 
 Tiele puts the beginning of this science about the middle 
 of the nineteenth century, but it was more than twenty 
 years later before it came into vital contact with bibUcal 
 interpretation. In the cuneiform tablets which had been 
 accumulating in the British Museum since the days of 
 
 ' See The World's Parliament of Religions, 2. 13. 16. The statement 
 of Drummond that Science gave the scientific method to religion is hardly 
 historical. Sie Smith, Life of Henry Drummond, y. 2^. That method 
 was developed among scholars of the Bible. 
 
 ^ See Contentio Veritatis, 1902, Preface. 
 
 ^ See Lodge, Hibbert Journal, i. ■^. On the theological significance 
 of our enlarged view of Nature, see W. N. Clarke, Christian Theology, 
 ninth edition, igor, pp. 50-51- 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 265 
 
 Rawlinson and Layard, there were discovered Assyrian 
 parallels of certain passages of Genesis which dated from 
 a time long prior to the composition of that book. This 
 was the opening of a new and most important chapter in 
 the history of biblical interpretation. From the discovery 
 of these Flood-tablets by George Smith down to the present 
 day, the stream of information flowing from the literature 
 of ancient Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt has steadily in- 
 creased. The study of other religions, as those of Persia 
 and India, has not been without its influence on the inter- 
 pretation of the Bible, but from the nature of the case no 
 religions and no civilizations could be of so great value to 
 the interpreter of the Old Testament as the religions and 
 civilizations of those peoples with whom the Hebrews 
 stood in close contact and whose history can be traced 
 back many centuries before the time of Abraham.' 
 
 We proceed now from this general survey of the unique 
 factors that have entered as a new leaven into our modern 
 interpretation of Scripture to a somewhat narrower view 
 of the subject. It will be the aim in what follows to con- 
 sider the new method of interpretation at work and in its 
 more comprehensive aspects. Not to lose one's self in the 
 details of this modern era of interpretation, of which the 
 mass is almost infinite, but to keep aloft where events and 
 forces can be studied in their broader relations to each 
 other, seems plainly the end to be kept in view. 
 
 ' Professor Jastrow says that "an understanding of the Hebrew reli- 
 gion is impossible without a constant consideration of the religion and 
 culture that were developed in the Euphrates valley." Hastings' Bible 
 Dictionary, article "Religion of Babylonia.'' 
 
266 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 The newmethod of interpretation is Historical Criticism.* 
 Its sole aim is to get at the facts and to learn their meaning. 
 It is a scientific method, for it involves, as Adeney has said, 
 "a rigorous exclusion of mere assumptions, a full and care- 
 ful induction of all the evidence, a strict, unbiassed process 
 of arriving at conclusions, and an orderly arrangement 
 and classification of the knowledge thus attained." ^ 
 This method is so unlike that which had prevailed for 
 centuries, and has withal such an uncompromising aspect 
 and tone in relation to tradition, that it has gained its 
 victories only in the face of much opposition. When it 
 began to be known in England a half century ago, it was 
 one of the forces that led to the Tractarian Movement with 
 its exaltation of ecclesiastical authority in its most abso- 
 lute form.' Near the close of the nineteenth century a dis- 
 tinguished president of a New England college spoke of 
 criticism as "a great movement against the trustworthiness 
 of the ancient Scriptures." * And still later, in 1905, 
 
 ' The theory of interpretation (Hermeneutics) has been practically 
 reduced to the one precept of Jowett (Essays and Reviews, p. 416): 
 "Interpret the Scripture like any other book." This principle is funda- 
 mental in the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher (SdmmtHche Werke, Band 
 7) and of Immer {Hermeneutik des N. T., 1873), the two chief writers on 
 the subject during the past century. 
 
 ^ A Century's Progress in Religious Thought and Life, 1901, p. 59. 
 Comp. Briggs, The Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, p. 78. 
 
 ° Newman, the leader of the Tractarian Movement, stood at the farthest 
 distance from Historical Criticism. This is well illustrated when he 
 claims that the miraculous oil of St. Walburga still flows, and also when 
 he says that after he entered the Roman Church he had no difficulty in 
 believing the doctrine of Transubstantiation. See Apologia pro vita 
 sua, pp. 251, 300 f. 
 
 * Bartlett, The Veracity of the Hexateuch, 1897, Preface. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 267 
 
 Sir Robert Anderson, in a widely circulated book for which 
 the bishop of Durham wrote the Preface, characterized 
 Higher Criticism as "a sceptical crusade against the Bible, 
 tending to lower it to the level of a purely human book," 
 and declared that it "systematically ignores the science of 
 evidence." ^ We have had in the United States the spec- 
 tacle of a numerous conference of ministers and teachers 
 of theology gathered together for the purpose of protesting 
 against Higher Criticism.^ Such protests,' however, rarely 
 win the approval of a scholar. They appeal mainly to 
 those whose devotion to the Bible contains a large element 
 of unwholesome sentiment or downright ignorance, or both 
 together. 
 
 But the critical method, though spoken against and even 
 forcibly opposed, has been accepted by the author of nearly 
 every marked contribution to bibhcal interpretation dur- 
 ing the past three decades in all Protestant lands. It has 
 rightly been recognized as the chief "charism" of our age,* 
 and the special gift of God to the modern Church.' "His- 
 torical Criticism," said W. Robertson Smith, "is a reality 
 and a force, because it unfolds a living and consistent picture 
 
 ■ The Bible and Modern Criticism, fifth edition, 1905, pp. 43, 254. The 
 author regards Harnack as an "arch-heretic," finds "blasphemy" in 
 Schmiedel's article on Jesus in the Bncy. Bibl., and declares that it is 
 "shockingly profane" to say that Abraham was a "lunar hero.'' 
 
 ' See Anti-Higher Criticism, 1894, to which volume even Professor 
 W. H. Green contributed. 
 
 ' To these must now be added the Pope's Encyclical against " Mod- 
 ernism," September, 1907. 
 
 * Delitzsch, quoted by Grant in the American Journal of Theology, 
 January, 1902. 
 
 ' Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament, p. 14. 
 
268 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 of the Old Dispensation," ' and what he said of criticism 
 in relation to the Old Testament is none the less true in 
 relation to the New. 
 
 This scientific method has at length raised Bible study 
 out of its provincialism, and has opened it to all light from 
 every quarter. With the aid of its new allies — Natural 
 Science and Comparative Religion — it' is slowly reconstruct- 
 ing, from its foundation, not T)nly our conception of the 
 origin of the Bible, but also every one of the great doctrines 
 of the Church. Since we are in the midst of this process 
 of reconstruction, it is impossible to record final results, 
 at least on most subjects; but we can note the trend of 
 thought, and can see what definite gains the new interpre- 
 tation has made, and what problems are emerging into view. 
 
 It is to be noted, in the first place, that Criticism has 
 wrought a profound transformation in the general concep- 
 tion of the origin and character of the Bible, a transforma- 
 tion as radical as that which the conception of the Church 
 underwent at the beginning of the sixteenth century. It 
 is coming to be recognized widely and clearly, what Grotius 
 perceived long ago, that revelation is not to be identified 
 with the Bible, that it belongs rather in the lives of the men 
 who produced the Scriptures, and that the Bible is sacred 
 because the underlying history was sacred.^ Historical 
 
 ' The O. T. in the Jewish Church, second edition, 1902, Preface. 
 
 ^ See Bruce, Apologetics, pp. 300 f. ; Abbott, The Evolution of Chris- 
 tianity, p. 66: "The Bible is the History of the Growth of man's con- 
 sciousness of God"; Sabatier, The Religions of Authority and the Reli- 
 gion of the Spirit, p. 208. Sabatier's idea of revelation — "God carrying 
 on the progressive education of humanity " — is like that of Lessing. Also 
 Ewald, Revelation, English translation, 1884, p. 432. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 269 
 
 Criticism does not deny that the Bible makes us acquainted 
 with a true revelation of God, but it teaches that we can no 
 more identify the book and the revelation than we could 
 identify the book and the spiritual experiences of Isaiah 
 and Paul and the rest. 
 
 Not only has revelation been separated from the Bible, 
 but the idea of revelation has grown wider as the impartial 
 study of other religions has progressed.' We are coming to 
 think of our Bible as the supreme part of the great Bible of 
 humanity, even as we are beginning to see in the Gospel 
 of Jesus the supreme part of our Bible. We recognize that 
 the Bible, Old Testament and New, teaches that God 
 has revealed himself to other peoples besides the Hebrews, 
 and therefore that religions cannot be divided into the true 
 and the false. The difference between the Bible and other 
 sacred books, wide though it is, is yet one of degree, not 
 one of kind.' 
 
 The content of the word "inspiration" is no less changed 
 than that of the term "revelation," and changed primarily 
 
 • Pusey's Declaration, which afifirms that the Scriptures are the word 
 of God rather than contain it, was, in 1864, signed by eleven thousand 
 clergymen in England and Wales out of twenty-five thousand to whom 
 it had been sent. These figures would be greatly changed were a vote 
 taken there to-day. See Carpenter, Interpretation in the Nineteenth Cen- 
 tury, pp. 38-39. 
 
 Already in Essays and Reviews (i860) this thought was expressed by 
 Jowett, and since then it has come into ever clearer recognition. 
 
 ' Impartial reading of other sacred books side by side with the Bible, 
 or of some writings of the Greeks and Romans not regarded as sacred, 
 affords the best confirmation of the above statement. 
 
 Comp. Simon, The Bible an Outgrowth of Theocratic Life, 1886, p. 39; 
 Matheson, The Distinctive Messages of the Old Religions, 1893. 
 
270 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 in consequence of a more scientific study of the Scriptures 
 themselves. If revelation is seen to be a flexible term, so 
 also is inspiration. If there are degrees of fulness in the 
 revelation of God to different peoples, it is equally obvious 
 that there are degrees of inspiration. We judge of the 
 alleged revelation by the writings which make it known, 
 and by the writings, also, we judge of the inspiration of the 
 writers. For inspiration, it is now widely agreed,' does 
 belong to the writer, not to the writing. Whether any clear 
 . distinction is to be made between revelation and inspiration 
 is not yet settled.^ They are at least close correlatives, 
 parts of one and the same spiritual process. But the im- 
 portant points on which scholars are coming into agreement 
 are, first, that there are degrees of inspiration in the differ- 
 ent writers of Scripture, ranging from the very low to the 
 very high ; and second, that the test of inspiration is spirit- 
 ual experience. The thought of Coleridge — vihsA. finds me 
 is thereby shovm to be from the Holy Spirit, what finds me 
 at the greatest depths of my being is most fully inspired' — 
 indicates the most important trend of the modern mind 
 on this subject. It has had its most striking recent ex- 
 pression in the words of Martineau : "We never acknowl- 
 edge authority till that which speaks to us from another 
 
 ' See e.g., Sanday, Inspiration, fifth edition, 1903, p. 399 (the critical 
 view of inspiration makes it something " living") ; Fairbairn, The Place 
 of Christ in Modern Theology, 1903, pp. 497 f. 
 
 This view of inspiration accords with what has been called " the most 
 fundamental theological thought of the age." Comp. King, Reconstruction 
 in Theology, 1901, p. 155. 
 
 ' See Schultz, Christian Apologetics, English translation by Alfred B. 
 Nichols, igoj, p. 77. 
 
 ' Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, 1840, Letters I-II. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 27 1 
 
 and higher strikes home and wakes the echoes in our- 
 selves." ' 
 
 This conception of varying degrees of inspiration is not 
 altogether new. We have seen in an earlier chapter that 
 the ancient Jews made such a distinction, and have noted 
 it here and there in the history of the Christian Church. 
 The new element in the modem conception is its spirituahty. 
 Inspiration is carried back beyond the material writings, 
 where it used to stop, into human minds and hearts ; and 
 these among the Hebrews, as among other peoples, were 
 unequally receptive of divine influences. 
 
 A natural and inevitable conclusion from historical study 
 is the fallibility of the Bible.^ Criticism did not set out, 
 as did Mr. Huxley in a certain volume of essays,' with the 
 avowed purpose to destroy the doctrine of the infallibility 
 of Scripture. It, of course, proceeded in its work quite 
 independently of this doctrine, and for this reason its 
 conclusion has scientific value. That conclusion is very 
 generally held and is perfectly definite. The literal iner- 
 rancy or infallibihty of the Bible is a doctrine as completely 
 superseded as is the biblical cosmogony. Every one of the 
 sixty-six books of the Bible is a witness against it, and not 
 unwillingly but vnllingly, for the doctrine of infallibility 
 has injured the Bible more than all the assaults of its pro- 
 fessed enemies. 
 
 ' The Seat of Authority in Religion, 1890, Preface. 
 
 ' The declaration of Dean Burgon, quoted by Carpenter, Interpreta- 
 tion in the Nineteenth Century, p. 7, sounds like an echo from the Middle 
 Ages : " Every book of it (the Bible), every chapter of it, every verse of it, 
 every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance 
 of the Most High." 
 
 ^ Science and Hebrew Tradition, 
 
272 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Again, the impartial scholar of the present rarely 
 claims that the Scriptures, though admitted to be 
 falUble in unimportant details, are nevertheless infaUible 
 in all matters pertaining to faith and life.' As Dr. Dods 
 says in his Lake Forest Lectures, there are certain ir- 
 reconcilable discrepancies even between the accounts of 
 some of our Lord's sayings.^ There are points in his teach- 
 ing which are obscure and uncertain.' 
 
 Now this fact alone forbids our speaking of the Bible as 
 absolutely infallible in all matters of faith and life. It is 
 doubtless quite sufficient unto salvation, — which is the one 
 practical concern, — but it is not infallible, nor does it claim 
 to be. Christian history abundantly supports the state- 
 ment of Professor Bowne ^ that we need no infaUible au- 
 thority, whether of book or of Church, and Criticism 
 demonstrates, as regards the book, that we certainly have 
 no infallible authority. Many will agree with Dr. Abbott 
 that an infallible book is an impossible conception.^ 
 
 Thus it is seen that our general conception of the origin 
 and character of the Bible has been radically transformed. 
 And we are immense gainers by the transformation. 
 Historical Criticism, like all true science, destroys only 
 
 ' See Briggs, The Study of Holy Scripture, p. 75. McFadyen, O. T. 
 Criticism and the Christian Church, pp. 268-312, though strongly asserting 
 inspiration, shows that the Bible is not always morally and religiously true. 
 
 ^ The Bible, its Nature and Origin, 1905, p. 135. 
 
 ' Consider, for example, the whole subject of Eschatology. What 
 did Jesus really teach ? In particular, what did he say about a second 
 coming? This is a matter that pertains to " faith and life." At least, 
 Paul so regarded it. 
 
 * The Immanence of God, 1905, p. 112. 
 
 ' The Evolution of Christianity, p. 36. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 273 
 
 error. The Bible has been humanized, given its place 
 among the religious literatures of the world, and thereby 
 its divine character is being for the first time truly appre- 
 ciated.* The attainment of this new conception of the 
 Bible as a whole, since it conditions the understanding of 
 all the separate parts and teachings of the Bible, is perhaps 
 the most important event in the entire history of inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 Again, it is to be noted that Criticism has made of the 
 Pentateuch a practically new book. The traditional view 
 of it, going back to Philo and even to earlier generations, 
 has been proven to be wide of the truth. The speculation 
 of Spinoza, who assigned the Pentateuch and the seven 
 following books to Ezra the scribe, was at least a remark- 
 ably prescient guess. Historical Criticism agrees with 
 Spinoza that the Pentateuch was not composed by Moses, 
 and that in its present form it was not earlier than the time 
 of Ezra.' The book of Deuteronomy, or at least the 
 greater part of it, was indeed composed some two hundred 
 years before Ezra, being identical with that "book of the 
 law" which Hilkiah found in the temple in the eighteenth 
 year of Josiah.' Other documents which were later incor- 
 porated in our Pentateuch may have originated as early as 
 
 ' Criticism does not lower the Bible to the level of other books, even of 
 the best, as it does not reduce Jesus to the stature of other men, even 
 of the best. On the contrary, it indicates the only way by which what is 
 really of God in either case can be found. 
 
 ' For the critical view and for references to the extensive modern litera- 
 ture, see Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ninth 
 edition, 1899. 
 
 ' This the view of Graf, published in 1865. See Kuenen, The Hexa- 
 teuch, English translation, 18S6, 
 
274 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 the ninth century.' The interval, therefore, between Moses, 
 the reputed author of the Pentateuch, and its earliest 
 written portions, was about equal to that between Colum- 
 bus and our day, while the interval between Moses and 
 the completed Pentateuch was as long as the period that 
 stretches from us to the Norman Conquest. 
 
 Some scholars find nothing whatever in the Pentateuch 
 which can be assigned to Moses, not even the Decalogue f 
 others think that this fundamental code, at least in its 
 earlier form as found in Ex. 34, perhaps also some further 
 elements, came from the great lawgiver.' But the main 
 position that the production of our Pentateuch was cen- 
 turies after the time of Moses is established on the most 
 solid basis. Thus the true chronological order is not Law 
 and Prophets, but Prophets and Law, and Historical 
 Criticism points to the writings of Hosea and Amos as 
 the earUest parts of the Old Testament. This reversal of 
 ancient judgments is of great significance as regards the 
 literature and history of the Hebrews. If it detracts some- 
 what from the traditional versatility of Moses, it gives light 
 and consistency to the picture of the reUgious development 
 of Israel. 
 
 The book of Genesis, which from very ancient times had 
 been the especial favorite of allegorical interpreters and 
 which, on the false assumption that it is an authoritative 
 teacher of science, was quoted for centuries against scien- 
 
 ' The composite character of the Pentateuch has parallels in the 
 literature of Egypt and Babylonia. Sayce, The Higher Criticism and 
 the Monuments, sixth edition, 1901, pp. 30-34. 
 
 ' For example, Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, 1899, p. 32. 
 
 ' For example, Professor Barton, Semitic Origins, 1902, p. 295. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 275 
 
 tific progress, has been read anew by Historical Criticism, 
 and this new reading is another conspicuous achievement 
 of the modem era. The first eleven chapters of Genesis, 
 in particular, have been reinterpreted. It has been shown, 
 for instance, that scientific accuracy is not an attribute of 
 the first chapter ; that while it expresses the religious behef 
 that the visible universe was created by God, the method 
 and order of this creation cannot be reconciled with the 
 discoveries of science. Thus, for example, creation was 
 not accomplished in six days, nor was there light and a 
 vegetable kingdom before the creation of the light-giving 
 bodies, nor were primitive men and the primitive animals 
 vegetarians. The traditional view of this chapter as rep- 
 resented by Mr. Gladstone was driven from the field by 
 Mr. Huxley.' 
 
 Chapters 2-1 1, containing the narrative of the creation of 
 Eve, the narrative of the Fall, of the tower of Babel, of the 
 Flood, and others, are regarded now as mainly unhistori- 
 cal.^ The chronology which they contain is manifestly 
 untenable. The Hebrew text allows only 4219 years be- 
 tween the first man and Christ, which period the Greek 
 translation of the Old Testament increased to 5408 years ; 
 but the discoveries of the last half century in Egypt and in 
 the vaUey of the Euphrates prove that there were populous 
 nations at as early a period as that, and nations, too, whose 
 intellectual and social development imply an existence of 
 
 ' See Articles in the Nineteenth Century for December, 1885, and Feb- 
 ruary, 1886. 
 
 ' See G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the O. T., 
 1901, p. 90; Burney, Contentio Veritatis, pp. 169-170; Dillmann, Die 
 Genesis. 
 
276 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 many centuries.' The investigations of ethnologists and 
 the doctrine of evolution suggest that man's presence on the 
 earth is to be measured by tens or even hundreds of thou- 
 sands of years.^ What Professor Driver says of the entire 
 book of Genesis is apphcable, as regards its main thought, 
 to chapters 2-1 1: "As a result of the archaeological and 
 ethnological researches of the past half century, the beliefs 
 of the Israehtes about the origin and early history of the 
 world, their social usages, their civil and criminal law, their 
 religious institutions, can no longer be viewed, as was once 
 possible, as differing in kind from those of other nations, 
 and determined in every feature by a direct revelation 
 from heaven ; all, it is now known, have substantial analo- 
 gies among other peoples, the distinguishing characteristic 
 which they exhibit among the Hebrews consisting in the 
 spirit with which they are infused, and the higher principles 
 of which they are made the exponent."^ 
 
 But though chapters 2-1 1 have lost in historical charac- 
 ter, they have gained immeasurably in spiritual value. It 
 does not lessen their worth to discover that they are the 
 refined product of centuries, perhaps of millenniums, of 
 brooding over the questions with which they deal. 
 
 ' Professor Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 1906, i. 30, holds on 
 astronomical grounds that the Egyptians introduced the calendar in 
 4241 B.C., which he regards as the oldest fixed date in history. He puts 
 the accession of Menes at 3400 B.C., which Miiller, Encyclopaedia Biblica, 
 assigns to about 4000 B.C., and Petrie carries back to 4777 B.C. See Au- 
 thority and Archceology, p. 215. Hommel puts the beginning of Babylo- 
 nian history " considerably earlier than 4000 B.C." See Hastings' 5i6/e 
 Dictionary, article " Babylonia." 
 
 * See Fiske, Miscellaneous Writings, 7. 33-67. 
 
 "See Authority and Archceology, edited by D. G. Hogarth, 1899, p. 7. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 277 
 
 To the remaining chapters of Genesis criticism allows 
 somewhat greater historical value,' yet cautions us against 
 rating it too high. 
 
 We pass now from the Law to the Prophets, but only to 
 take notice of two points. From the time of Eichhorn 
 (t 1827) and Gesenius (f 1842) it has become more and 
 more manifest that the book called Isaiah comes from at 
 least two writers who were separated from each other by 
 about two hundred years. Some scholars increase the 
 number of authors and also the period in which the several 
 component parts were written. Professor Cheyne dates 
 the last eleven chapters from the time of Nehemiah, and 
 puts the redaction of the entire work not less than five 
 centuries after Isaiah, the son of Amoz.* Thus, instead of 
 one great prophet as sole author, who Uved in the latter part 
 of the eighth century B.C., we have at least three, one of 
 whom lived in the second half of the sixth century ; and 
 instead of regarding chapters 40-66 as in large part a su- 
 pernatural prevision of exilic circumstances, we see in them, 
 or at least in chapters 40-55, a message that originated 
 in the very time with which it is concerned. 
 
 The interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is a 
 subject on which there is still not a little difference of views. 
 One thing, however, is obvious, viz., that the present age is 
 making far less apologetic use of prophecy than was made 
 in the early centuries. The proof of the divinity of Christ 
 out of the prophets, which was once universal and unques- 
 
 • Professor McCurdy, Recent Research in Bible Lands, 1896, edited by 
 H. V. Hilprecht, regards the whole of Gen. 14 as history. Cf. Driver, 
 Authority and Archwology, p. 44. 
 
 ' Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, iSgJ. 
 
278 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 tioned, is at present little employed, and then in a greatly 
 modified form. The influence of Historical Criticism has 
 been to lessen, if not entirely to destroy, the traditional 
 predictive use of isolated texts of the prophetic writings. 
 The prophets are no longer thought to have value in pro- 
 portion to the extent and clearness of their references to a 
 coming dehverer. They are beginning to be read and un- 
 derstood in the light of their own times, as men zealous for 
 the God of Israel, as ardent patriots, as practical reformers, 
 as the foremost spiritual leaders of their respective ages. 
 Some of them saw beyond the struggles and the sufferings 
 of the present a divinely sent and righteous King, but 
 more of them make no reference to any other intervention 
 than that of Jehovah, the God of Israel.' 
 
 Historical Criticism is abandoning the orthodox inter- 
 pretation of even the classical texts in Isaiah. Thus the 
 argument for the divinity of Christ from the names in 
 Is. 9:6, once supposed to be invincible, is quietly set 
 aside even by a writer on Apologetics. "Historical 
 exegesis," says Dr. Bruce, "may not justify us in treating 
 Isaiah's list of wondrous attributes as personal charac- 
 teristics and so arriving at the conclusion that the Saviour 
 of the latter days is to be not merely a great man, but 
 God Almighty."^ In like manner, George Adam Smith' 
 discovers no reference to a supernatural birth of Jesus in 
 
 ' According to Stanton we do not find references to the Messiah as a 
 unique personality, in distinction from the Davidic Kings, until we come 
 to the post-canonical writers, with the possible exception of Dan. 9 : 24-26. 
 See Hastings' Bible Dictionary, article " Messiah." 
 
 ^Apologetics, p. 259. 
 
 ' Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the O. T., 1901, p. 160. See 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 279 
 
 Is. 7 : 14 — a text which from the days of Justin Martyr 
 even to the present has been forced into the service of a 
 theological doctrine undreamed of by its author. 
 
 Thus Historical Criticism is approaching (apparently 
 without recognizing it) that view of Messianic prophecy 
 which, as we have shown in a former chapter, was held by 
 Jesus. 
 
 When we turn from the Old Testament to the New, we 
 find that here also Historical Criticism, in many instances, 
 is overturning the conclusions of centuries. The problems 
 it encounters in this field are no less difficult than those of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, while the attitude of the Church 
 toward the apphcation of criticism to the New Testa- 
 ment, especially to the Gospels, has been decidedly more - 
 reserved and suspicious than it was in the case of the Old 
 Testament.^ 
 
 The initial event of this modern era of New Testament 
 study — the publication of Strauss' Leben Jesu in 1835 — 
 was of a character to beget a deep and lasting antipathy 
 toward the critical handling of the Gospels, for it reduced 
 the story of Jesus to unconscious poetry and myth, and 
 declared that the historical Jesus is quite unknown to us. 
 The second great event of the era — the publication of 
 Baur's reconstruction • of the Apostohc Age,^ though far 
 less negative in character than the work of Strauss, and 
 
 also Marti, Das Buck Jesaja, p. 76. Marti says that Alma does not 
 refer to a definite woman, nor Immanuel to the Messiah. 
 
 ' On the incorrectness of this attitude, see Moffatt, The Historical 
 New Testament, 1901, pp. ^^■~^S■ 
 
 ' Die Christliche Gnosis, 1835 ; Paulus, 1845. 
 
28o THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 not incorrectly described as "a fundamental achievement 
 for all future investigation of Christianity," yet so human- 
 ized, not to say vulgarized, the constructive motives and 
 forces at work in the production of Acts and the apostoUc 
 epistles that it gave the Church a shock from which it has 
 been long in recovering. But Strauss and Baur rendered 
 at least one immeasurable service, viz., that they forced the 
 Church to a critical study of the New Testament, which 
 has continued with increasing fruitfulness to the present 
 hour. Its results come home to Christian faith in a more 
 vital manner than results in the field of Old Testament 
 investigation; and it is therefore both natural and right 
 that they should be held off at a distance until their claim 
 to acceptance has been made abundantly good. When 
 that shall be done, they must of course be received, and the 
 former views will pass away. 
 
 In the interpretation of the New Testament during the 
 modern era, the results of Historical Criticism have borne 
 a striking analogy to those reached in the study of the Old 
 Testament. Thus the Gospels, Uke the Pentateuch, have 
 been shown to be composite ; their dates and the dates 
 of not a few other writings of the New Testament have 
 been brought down considerably farther from the time of 
 Jesus than the traditional dates, just as many writings of 
 the Old Testament have been demonstrated to be younger 
 than was formerly supposed;^ and as the prophetic ele- 
 
 ' Bacon, Introduction to the N. T., 1900, assigns Mark to the early 
 years after the destruction of Jerusalem ; Matthew to the period 80-90 ; 
 Luke and Acts to the later part of Domitian's reign (81-96) ; Hebrews 
 to the closing years of the century. Schmiedel puts Luke in the period 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 281 
 
 ment in the Old Testament has come into new historical 
 significance, the Law in the meantime taking a subordinate 
 place, so the teaching of Jesus, his prophetic activity, has 
 assumed greater prominence in comparison with the sacri- 
 ficial and institutional elements in the Gospels. Again, 
 as the Old Testament has been broken up into parts whose 
 spiritual value is seen to be very unlike, — the earlier, 
 prophetic part showing the high- water mark, and the later, 
 priestly portion registering a decline, — so in the New Testa- 
 ment field the conceptions of the apostles are beginning to 
 be seen to be on a lower level than those of Jesus.^ And 
 finally, to the legendary element in the Old Testament, 
 which flowers out in the book of Genesis, it is now recog- 
 nized that the New Testament is not entirely lacking in 
 parallels.^ 
 
 Of the greater features of New Testament interpretation 
 in the modern era, the first to be noticed is the partial ' 
 solution of the literary interrelation of the first three 
 Gospels. A long series of scholars beginning with Wilke 
 and Weisse in Germany, whose views on this subject were 
 pubUshed in 1838, have come to the same conclusions on 
 
 loo-iio, and Matthew before 130, perhaps about 119. See Encyclo- 
 padia Biblica, article " Gospels." 
 
 '■ This fact has scarcely begun to be appreciated. The remark of 
 T. H. Green that Jesus and Paul are the "two parents of our faith," 
 and the thought of another English writer that Paul was raised up to ex- 
 press what Jesus was obliged to leave unexpressed, illustrate a very gen- 
 eral view on the subject. 
 
 ' See, e.g.. Dr. Bruce, article "Jesus" in Encyclopedia Biblica; and 
 especially Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, 1895. 
 
 ' For the latest survey of the question as relates especially to Mark, see 
 Holtzmann, Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, 1907, Nos. 1-2. 
 
282 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 some general points; first, that Mark was the earliest of 
 our Gospels; and second, that Mark and a document 
 which contained chiefly words of Jesus were the two main 
 sources both of Matthew and Luke. The material of each 
 of the Synoptics goes back ultimately to oral tradition,' 
 for no one of them was composed by an eye-witness. 
 Each is the result of processes of transmission which have 
 not been traced and probably never can be. The un- 
 profitable attempt to harmonize their differences has now 
 given place to an endeavor to understand each in the 
 light of its own manifest aim. It is coming to be recog- 
 nized that even the first three Gospels, and particularly 
 Matthew, have a considerable interpretative element; 
 that their motive was primarily reUgious ; and that they 
 reflect to some extent the views current in the Church at the 
 time of their origin. The interpreter must therefore seek 
 through a comparison of the sources and a critical study of 
 each by itself to get back of these earliest interpretative 
 accounts and to see the initial facts for himself. And this 
 is possible now as it never was before. 
 
 Again, Historical Criticism is slowly moulding a new 
 conception of the Gospel of John. This writing, it is true, 
 is still the Sphinx of New Testament criticism, and schol- 
 ars differ widely regarding its origin and historical value. 
 Some still think that it was written by the apostle John,' 
 
 ' Schmiedel, in the article just quoted, thinks it probable that the writ- 
 ten sources of Mark and the Logia may themselves have rested on other 
 written sources, and possible that the earliest written source of both may 
 have been Aramaic. 
 
 * See, e.g., Dods, The Bible, its Nature and Origin, p. 186; Drum- 
 mond, A n Inquiry into the Character and A uthorship of the Fourth Gospel, 
 1903; and Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, 2. 244. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 283 
 
 though of these most allow that it is largely an interpreta- 
 tion of the life and teaching of Jesus rather than a history. 
 Other scholars find a historical element in the book, genu- 
 ine memoirs of the apostle, but deny that the writing can 
 possibly have come from his hand/ And finally, there are 
 competent investigators ^ who do not discover in this Gos- 
 pel any independent value as an authority for the history 
 of Jesus. Yet in spite of all this divergence of view among 
 scholars, it is. plain that Historical Criticism is changing the 
 traditional conception of this book. The time seems to be 
 past when it can be ranked with the Synoptics in respect to 
 its historical value. Even if apostolic authorship has not 
 already been made too improbable to be longer entertained, 
 yet the boldly interpretative and speculative character of 
 the book is too clear to allow its use as a source of the life 
 and teaching of Jesus which has equal value with the 
 earlier and more objective sources. Therefore instead of 
 continuing, as it has been through all the centuries, the 
 chief Gospel authority with theologians, it is coming to be 
 set after the Synoptics. 
 
 Through this critical study of the Gospels, at the course 
 of which we have glanced, a new conception of the charac- 
 ter and work of Jesus is in process of formation. There is 
 much reason to believe that this new conception, when 
 
 ' E.g., Wendt, The Gospel according to St. John, English translation, 
 1902 ; and E. A. Abbott, article " Gospels " in Encyclopadia Biblica. 
 
 ' E.g., Jiilicher, Introduction to the N. T., p. 422. 
 
 Professor Bacon thinks the direct internal evidence of the Appendix 
 of the Gospel lacks both antiquity and authority, and that the general 
 external evidence is as capable of an interpretation against as for the 
 Johannean authorship. See Hibbert Journal, 1. 3; 2. 2. 
 
284 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 complete, will differ from that of the orthodox theology as 
 widely as the new view of the Bible differs from the old. 
 Certain phases of this new conception have been so vividly 
 realized that some writers speak as though the process of 
 criticism in this direction were already finished, or at least 
 were nearing completion. Thus Dr. Fairbaim not only 
 says that we stand face to face with Christ "in a sense and 
 to a degree unknown in the Church since the Apostolic 
 Age " — a statement to which no serious exception can be 
 taken, but he goes farther and treats the recovery of the 
 historical Christ as an accomplished fact.' This is surely 
 unwarranted. And one is hardly able to take at their full 
 value, much as one would desire so to do, the words of 
 Dr. Hall that "Historical Criticism has brought to pass 
 what may almost be described as a second advent of the 
 Incarnate Lord."^ 
 
 The historical Jesus is indeed being recovered, and if we 
 have regard only to the reading of his character and the 
 appreciation of his teaching, one is justified in the use of 
 very strong terms to describe what has been accompUshed ; 
 but the subject is broader, and while such questions as the 
 birth of Jesus and his resurrection are unsettled,' we can- 
 not say that the process of historical recovery has reached its 
 end. And these two questions, not to mention others, as 
 the miracles of Jesus and his Messianic consciousness, are 
 
 ' The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, pp. 294-295. 
 
 ' The Universal Elements of the Christian Religion, 1905, pp. 207-255. 
 
 ' Arnold, God and the Bible, 1893, says, indeed, that "the important 
 thing is not whether Jesus rose, but whether his disciples believed that he 
 rose." We do not think so. The important thing is to ascertain in 
 •what sense they believed that he rose. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 285 
 
 obviously not yet settled. We can speak of a decided trend 
 of criticism upon them, but not of final conclusions. What 
 this trend is with regard to the birth and the resurrection of 
 Jesus is suggested by the fact that few scholars of the pres- 
 ent day, if any, would venture to say what was said only a 
 few years ago, that these two alleged facts are the two 
 fundamental miracles of Christianity.' The evidence for 
 both alleged facts, in the sense in which they have been 
 understood in the Church from time immemorial, is seen 
 to be, when critically considered, quite insufficient. This 
 insufficiency, however, is not the same in both cases. The 
 evidence for a supernatural birth of Jesus is less strong than 
 that which the New Testament affords for a bodily and 
 material resurrection. Thus, for example, the words of 
 Jesus and the circumstances of his Ufe not only offer no 
 confirmation of the story of his supernatural birth, but, on 
 the contrary, are full of what seems to be a very definite 
 impUcation that his humanity was perfectly normal, while 
 as regards his resurrection the Gospels directly ascribe 
 to him language which positively announces his resurrec- 
 tion, and then they give, though with much obscurity, a 
 considerable number of circumstances confirmatory of the 
 words of Jesus taken in a hteral sense. It is impossible, 
 therefore, from the standpoint of Historical Criticism to 
 regard the supernatural birth of Jesus and his material 
 resurrection as resting on equally conclusive grounds. 
 
 ' Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, eleventh edition, 1899, says, 
 p. 331, that "the essential miracles may be said to be three — the Birth, 
 the Person, and the Resurrection. These all stand indissolubly together; 
 partition is impossible." 
 
286 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 Again, this sketch of modern interpretation as regards 
 the record of Jesus' Ufe may not omit this further fact, viz., 
 that in this modern era, in spite of serious doubt regarding 
 the alleged supernatural birth and material resurrection, 
 there has been such an acquaintance with him, such an 
 appreciation of his teaching, that Professor Peabody can 
 declare that the exaltation of the character of Jesus is 
 "the most conspicuous aspect of contemporary Christian 
 thought." ' What does this indicate if not that Christian- 
 ity is capable of vigorous development, even though the 
 supernatural birth and material resurrection of Jesus be 
 relegated to the domain of "poetical mythology"? To 
 say that they will yet be finally relegated to that sphere 
 would be to make an unwarranted statement, but it is 
 surely a most significant fact that Historical Criticism, 
 which casts doubt on both these articles, is yet affirmed — • 
 and we believe truthfully affirmed — to have made Jesus 
 better known than he had been since the days of the 
 apostles. 
 
 There are other questions in connection with Jesus on 
 which Historical Criticism is uttering views quite foreign 
 to those held in earUer times and still held by the Church 
 at large. Thus the nature and place of the miraculous in 
 the ministry of Jesus is still a subject of earnest debate. 
 Dr. Arnold was sure that miracles would be given up al- 
 together as man's experience widens and as he sees how 
 
 ' Hibbert Journal, 1.4. — Ritschlianism has contributed to this end, 
 whatever may be said in criticism of the exegesis of Ritschl himself, 
 and in so far at least this theological school has been in accord with 
 Historical Criticism. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 287 
 
 they arose,' while Dr. Bruce regarded them as "of the very 
 essence of revelation." ^ There is, however, an increasing 
 agreement among scholars on two points, viz., first, that 
 some of the alleged miracles in the Gospels, for example, 
 the resurrection of many saints at the time of the resurrec- 
 tion of Jesus (Matt. 27: 52), lack adequate support; and 
 second, that many events which appeared to be miracu- 
 lous in New Testament times would not be so regarded at 
 present, being expUcable on known laws of Nature.' It is 
 also manifest — and this too is important for our final 
 judgment of the matter — that the evangeUsts laid far 
 greater stress on the value of the miraculous than is justi- 
 fied by the words of Jesus himself, or by the facts of his 
 ministry.* 
 
 Once more. Historical Criticism is altering the concep- 
 tion of the divinity of Jesus. The earliest portrait of him 
 recovered by analysis of the Gospels and in particular by 
 the study of his inner life is incompatible with the philo- 
 sophical conception which has prevailed in the Church since 
 the second century. Historical Criticism teaches that we 
 know much of the character of Jesus, more indeed than 
 we know of the character of any other person of history, 
 
 ' Literature and Dogma, p. 116. 
 
 * The Chief End of Revelation, p. 168. 
 
 ' But if the " laws " of Nature are simply God's mode of action, then 
 plainly a miracle is no more divine than any event that takes place ac- 
 cording to known laws. 
 
 * Consider, for example, how frequently Matthew seeks to establish a 
 connection between the works of Jesus and Old Testament prophecy, 
 which Jesus never did in a formal manner, and perhaps but a single time 
 even in a general way (Matt. 11 : 2-6). 
 
288 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 but that we know as little of his nature or essence as we do 
 of our own. Criticism has withdrawn all standing ground 
 from beneath the metaphysical view. The divinity of 
 Jesus remains, but it is the divinity of character. Hence, 
 it is wholly like the divinity of the heavenly Father, as far 
 as that may be judged from the revelation of Jesus, for his 
 revelation is rigidly limited to God's character. He made 
 no disclosures whatever in regard to the being of God. 
 
 Since the divinity of Jesus is such as man is capable of, 
 it is consistent with intellectual, no less than with physical, 
 limitations.' 
 
 Thus if the conclusions in regard to the Gospels which 
 Historical Criticism has either reached or toward which it 
 points be found valid, we are approaching a thorough 
 reconstruction of the traditional doctrine of Christ, and so 
 also of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 We have now considered the great influences at work in 
 the modern era of interpretation, and have endeavored to 
 set forth the nature and importance of Historical Criticism 
 by passing in review some of the more notable of its results, 
 particularly those in the field of Bible history and exegesis. 
 But the critical method has equally characterized other 
 departments of the general subject of the interpretation 
 of Scripture, as a hasty glance will show. 
 
 Thus the text of the New Testament, enriched by the 
 discoveries of Tischendorf on Mt. Sinai,^ has been brought 
 
 ' That Jesus was conscious of such limitations is made quite plain by 
 the Gospels. See the author's The Revelation of Jesus, pp. 169-174. 
 
 ^ Fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus-were discovered in 1844, the main 
 part in 1859. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 289 
 
 to a high state of perfection by Hort (f 1892) and other 
 great continuators of the work of Griessbach and Bengel. 
 The philological study of the Old Testament, especially 
 the meaning of its separate words, has flourished under the 
 stimulus afiforded by the discovery of the nearly related 
 language of Babylonia-Assyria, and its results are already 
 being registered in lexicons * far richer and more exact 
 than could possibly have been produced a hundred years 
 ago. 
 
 Historical Criticism, utilizing the results of the excava- 
 tions, has rewritten BibUcal Archaeology ^ from a broader 
 point of view, while the Geography of the Holy Land has 
 for the first time received scientific treatment within the last 
 generation.^ The discipline of Biblical Theology, which 
 traces the development of behef from the earlier and lower 
 to the later and higher forms, and which is the culmination 
 of the entire process of interpretation, is the product of 
 the last half century, an inspiration of the scientific age.^ 
 
 From this branch, as it shall be perfected more and more 
 with the perfecting of the entire preceding work of inter- 
 pretation, there may come, one feels there ought to come, a 
 new springtime of Theology proper, in which the old Greek 
 
 ' That of Francis Brown, aided by Driver and Briggs, was published 
 1891-1906, and a new edition of Gesenius, edited by Buhl, 1905. 
 
 ' The works of I. Eenzinger and W. Nowack under the title He- 
 brdische Archaologie were published in 1894. 
 
 ' For details of this recent work, see G. A. Smith, Historical Geography 
 of the Holy Land, third edition, 1895, Preface. 
 
 * The literature of this discipline is already extensive, showing works 
 that cover the entire O. T. or the entire N. T., and yet more that deal with 
 some single writer or some brief period, 
 n 
 
290 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 system, which has long outlived its usefulness, will vanish 
 away, and the Spirit of God interpreting the history of 
 Israel and the work of Jesus in the light of the present will 
 make the deep elements of their permanent revelation the 
 substance of a new and vital teaching for a new and ex- 
 panding Church. 
 
 We observe in concluding this chapter that toward this 
 springtime — already announced here and there ^ — many 
 are looking to-day, and are waiting for it as watchmen wait 
 for the morning. But we must not be deceived as to the 
 nearness and ease of its coming by the unexampled prog- 
 ress of interpretation in the last three quarters of a century. 
 What Historical Criticism aided by Natural Science and 
 Comparative Religion has achieved contrasts strongly with 
 the achievements of the earlier ages, yet this achievement 
 is imperfect, and when we have regard to the great mass 
 of the Christian Church, — Protestant, Roman Catholic, 
 and Greek Catholic, — we must admit that it is a door 
 through which but few have yet entered into the larger life 
 of the revelation of God. 
 
 The achievement itself is still imperfect. The method 
 indeed is scientific, but none who employ it are wholly 
 free from prejudice and bias, neither are they trained to 
 the needed largeness and clearness of view. The last gen- 
 eration has produced two classes of commentaries on the 
 Bible, the technical and the popular, in each of which 
 numerous volumes have been written that eclipse the best 
 work of the fourth, the sixteenth, or the eighteenth cen- 
 
 ' See, e.g., W. N. Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology, and W. A. 
 Brown, Christian Theology in Outline, 1907. 
 
SCIENTIFIC ERA OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 291 
 
 tury;* but is there one of these books that satisfies its 
 author, one that can be regarded as wholly adequate to 
 the present state of knowledge, least of all one that by 
 any stretch of imagination could possibly be looked on as 
 final? There is only one answer to these questions from 
 any person who understands the nature of Historical Criti- 
 cism and who appreciates at all the influence of ancient 
 dogmas intrenched behind the visible institutions of 
 Christianity and hallowed by the usage of countless noble 
 and true lives. Historical Criticism is an ideal which, 
 though grasped and its real nature apprehended, is nowhere 
 consistently applied. It is indeed, as has been said, the 
 special gift of God to this age, but it is not for this alone : 
 it is for all the future, to be cultivated so long as there shall 
 be spiritual development upon the earth, and to be per- 
 fected from generation to generation. 
 
 And then, even this partial and imperfect dawn of a new 
 era of interpretation is as yet seen and felt by only a few 
 in the wide Church of God. Few even in the Protestant 
 Church know what God has wrought and is now working 
 for the understanding of his ancient Scriptures. There 
 are great denominations in which the method and results 
 of Historical Criticism are not openly tolerated ; numerous 
 influential schools of theology and other educational 
 institutions in which the traditional view of the Bible is 
 
 ' Such volumes may be found, e.g., in the Meyer series on the N. T., 
 in Holtzmann's Handcommentar zum A. T., Marti's Kurzer Hand- 
 commentar zum A . T., in The Expositor's Bible, and in The International 
 Critical Commentary, not to mention works of equal value on single books 
 of Scripture. 
 
292 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE 
 
 zealously, and on occasion almost fanatically, defended as 
 though it were the very Ark of God ; books of alleged inter- 
 pretation of Scripture, ecclesiastically sanctioned, whose 
 method is more mediaeval than modern; and, finally, 
 a great host of preachers who either do not know what 
 Historical Criticism has done for the Bible or who are very 
 successful in concealing the truth from those whom they are 
 set to guide. And all this is within that branch of the 
 Church in which biblical science has been most largely 
 fostered. The more numerous ritualistic branches of the 
 Church stand practically untouched by this momentous 
 work of the Spirit of God. 
 
 It is not, therefore, for those who cherish the gift of a 
 disenthralled Bible and who appreciate the method of its 
 disenthrallment to think of the achievement of the modern 
 age in the interpretation of Scripture as other than a new 
 germ planted in the Church, which they, as children of the 
 fuller light, are to water and nourish ; to water and nourish, 
 moreover, in the sure and steadfast conviction that this 
 fuller light will sometime dawn throughout the entire 
 Church. 
 
 As the revelation of God to Israel grew from less to more 
 until it culminated in the perfect Sonship of Jesus, so the 
 interpretation of that revelation, both the intellectual and 
 the vital, is subject to the law of gradual development. In 
 the history of this development the modern scientific era 
 of Scripture study will always stand as a notable way- 
 mark. The light which rests upon it is the light of God, 
 and we believe it to be the harbinger of a far more glorious 
 day. 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURES REFERRED TO 
 OR QUOTED 
 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 49 : 1°. 
 
 16-17 
 
 17 
 
 I : I 
 
 
 
 240 
 
 49 =24 
 
 
 17 
 
 I 
 
 23. 24, 172, 
 
 17s. 
 
 236 
 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 I : 26 
 
 
 98, 
 
 121 
 
 12:8 
 
 
 lOI 
 
 2-1 1 
 
 
 27s, 
 
 276 
 
 IS : 26 
 
 
 22 
 
 2 : I 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 17 : II 
 
 
 25 
 
 2 :8 
 
 
 4S. 
 
 126 
 
 17 : 12 
 
 
 94 
 
 2:11- 
 
 14 
 
 
 SO 
 
 19 : 2 
 
 
 21 
 
 2:21- 
 
 22 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 2 :24 
 
 
 
 65 
 
 21 : 19 
 
 22 :3 
 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 3:9 
 3:16 
 
 
 
 47 
 161 
 
 22 : 26 
 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 98 
 
 48 
 
 24:7 
 
 
 14 
 
 3:22 
 4:2 
 
 
 
 24:9 
 26 : 1 
 
 
 26 
 no 
 
 4:7 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 3° 
 
 
 160 
 
 4:17 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 30 : 6 
 
 
 no 
 
 S =29 
 
 
 230-231 
 
 32 :i6 
 34 
 
 
 20 
 
 6:13- 
 6:15 
 
 16 
 
 179 
 126-127 
 
 
 274 
 
 7 -9 
 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 LEVITICUS 
 
 
 II : 2 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 II 
 
 
 92 
 
 II =32 
 
 
 
 SI 
 
 13 : 4S- 
 
 46 
 
 62 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 237 
 
 14 
 
 
 62 
 
 14 :i4 
 
 
 
 93 
 
 14 : 10 
 
 
 102 
 
 17 :iS 
 
 
 
 49 
 
 16 : 10 
 
 
 94 
 
 17 : 26-27 
 
 
 93 
 
 19:18 
 
 
 63,65 
 
 22 : 9 
 
 
 
 89 
 
 20 : 14 
 
 
 19 
 
 32 : 22- 
 
 32 
 
 
 216 
 
 24:9 
 
 
 61 
 
 40 :2s 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 42 :2 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 
 47:29 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 6 : 24- 
 
 26 
 
 236 
 
 49 
 
 
 99. 
 
 173 
 
 19 : 2 
 
 
 94 
 
 49:11 
 
 
 
 lOI 
 2 
 
 21:8 
 ?3 
 
 
 94 
 
294 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 CHAPTER 
 5:4-5 
 6:4-5 
 
 21 : 21 
 
 21 -.23 
 
 22 : 17 
 
 25 :4 
 30 : 12-13 
 
 33:2 
 34:6 
 
 1 :8 
 
 2 -.4 
 2 :i8 
 
 13 : 2-25 
 
 JOSHUA 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 
 
 I SAMUEL 
 
 21 
 
 •1-6 
 
 2 SAMUEL 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 
 22 
 
 26 
 
 2 KINGS 
 
 22 : 4 
 
 I CHRONICLES 
 
 2:55 
 
 7:1-5 
 7:7 
 7 : 10 
 8:16 
 
 EZRA 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 7:25 
 8:7 
 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 8 : 3, 18 
 
 
 3 
 
 22 
 
 10 :28 
 
 
 3 
 
 63 
 
 10 : 29 
 
 
 4 
 
 162 
 
 13:1 
 
 
 5 
 
 J22 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 ESTHER 
 
 
 81 
 
 I-IO 
 
 
 159-160 
 
 76 
 
 2 : 22 
 
 
 IS 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 3° 
 
 
 JOB 
 
 
 
 40 : 10 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 40 : 15-24 
 
 
 173 
 
 3° 
 
 41 
 
 
 159 
 
 i°5 
 
 
 
 
 89 
 
 
 PSALMS 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 92, 198 
 
 
 I : 2 
 
 
 22 
 
 216 
 
 2 
 
 
 228 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 198 
 
 
 3:5 
 
 
 90, 199 
 
 61 
 
 4 
 
 
 130, 198 
 
 
 4:5 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 198 
 
 214 
 
 8 
 
 127 
 
 -128, 198 
 
 64 
 
 9 
 
 
 154 
 
 
 II :4 
 
 
 174 
 
 
 12 :8 
 
 
 23 
 
 22 
 
 15 
 
 
 198 
 
 3 
 
 19 
 
 
 130 
 
 
 19 : 6 
 
 
 174 
 
 
 19 ;8 
 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 22 
 
 
 130, 199 
 
 
 22 : 6 
 
 
 89 
 
 
 22 : 20 
 
 
 179 
 
 3 
 
 23 
 
 
 128, 220 
 
 3 
 
 24 
 
 
 99. 198 
 
 3 
 
 24:4 
 
 
 64 
 
 4 
 
 25 
 
 
 130, 198 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 3° 
 
 
 198 
 
 4 
 
 34:11 
 
 
 89 
 
 4 
 
 37:11 
 
 
 64 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURES 
 
 29s 
 
 45 -6 
 46 
 
 65 
 
 67 
 
 68 
 
 68:i6 
 
 72 
 
 73 
 
 77 = 21 
 
 78 : 20 
 85:12 
 90:4 
 97 
 
 97 
 100 
 
 102 : 25 
 no 
 
 113 : 6-7 
 118 : 22 
 iig : 164 
 
 PAGE 
 
 214 
 199 
 
 154 
 200 
 200 
 201 
 
 15 
 128 
 
 19 
 20 
 
 31 
 
 93 
 
 127 
 
 32 
 . 200 
 86 
 83, 138 
 31 
 69 
 
 153 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 6:2 
 
 8:20 
 
 8: 22-31 
 11:30 
 31 
 
 27 
 
 115 
 98, 122, 123, 124 
 
 32 
 184 
 
 SONG OF SOLOMON 
 
 6:8 
 6:9 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 i: 13 
 
 3:10 
 
 6:3 
 
 7:3 
 
 7:14 
 
 8:1 
 
 8:18 
 
 158 
 178 
 
 17 
 94 
 31 
 
 123 
 80 
 
 279 
 80 
 80 
 
 HAPTER 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 9:6 
 
 
 215. 278 
 
 11: I 
 
 
 177 
 
 25:9 
 
 
 216 
 
 35 
 
 
 67 
 
 40-66 
 
 
 277 
 
 45:23 
 
 
 77 
 
 53 
 
 
 69, 70, 86 
 
 61 : 1-2 
 
 
 64 
 
 65:17 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 170 
 
 22: 14 
 
 
 28 
 
 23:6 
 
 
 215 
 
 31:22 
 
 
 i6i 
 
 LAMENTATIONS 
 
 4: 20 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 
 I 
 
 
 23. 24 
 
 1:16 
 
 
 176-177 
 
 4:4-8 
 
 
 49 
 
 28:13 
 
 
 143 
 
 37 
 
 
 26 
 
 43:1-2 
 
 
 161 
 
 44:1 
 
 
 161 
 
 48:3s 
 
 DANIEL 
 
 216 
 
 2:34 
 
 
 105 
 
 7 : 9-10 
 
 
 174 
 
 9:24 
 
 
 49 
 
 9 : 24-26 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 278 
 
 6:1 
 
 
 61 
 
 6:6 
 
 
 31 
 
 11: 1 
 
 
 78 
 
 14 
 
 JOEL 
 
 202 
 
 2:13 
 
 
 173-174 
 
 2:31 
 
 
 174 
 
296 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES 
 
 
 JONAH 
 
 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ;hapter 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 16: 16-17 
 
 140 
 
 1:17 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 16: 19 
 17:24-27 
 
 162 
 63 
 
 
 MICAH 
 
 
 
 21 : 42 
 
 69 
 
 5=2 
 
 
 78-79 
 
 21 : i-ii 
 
 166 
 
 
 
 
 
 21:5 
 
 87 
 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 
 
 22:37 
 
 72 
 
 2 = 3-5 
 
 
 
 216 
 
 22:40 
 
 63 
 
 9:9 
 
 
 99, 
 
 III 
 
 23 
 
 65 
 
 11:13 
 
 
 
 79 
 
 23:4 
 
 60 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 23:2 
 
 64 
 
 13:17 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 23:13-36 
 26: 26 
 
 60 
 
 106 
 
 
 MALACHI 
 
 
 
 26:32 
 
 166 
 
 I : II 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 26:31 
 
 69 
 
 3:1 
 
 
 
 216 
 
 26^S4 
 
 69 
 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 
 
 MARK 
 
 I 
 
 
 231 
 
 -232 
 
 I : 10 
 
 210 
 
 2:5-7 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 I :44 
 
 62 
 
 2: II 
 
 loS. 
 
 140, 
 
 237 
 
 2 : 27 
 
 61 
 
 2:1s 
 
 
 78,87 
 
 6:8 
 
 251 
 
 5:1 
 
 
 
 251 
 
 7:31 
 
 182 
 
 5:7 
 
 
 
 252 
 
 8:31 
 
 69 
 
 5:12 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 9 : 12 
 
 69 
 
 5:17 
 
 
 
 64 
 
 12 : 1-8 
 
 68 
 
 S:i8 
 
 
 
 234 
 
 14 : 12-25 
 
 63 
 
 5:19 
 
 
 
 176 
 
 14 : 21 
 
 69 
 
 5:21-37 
 
 
 65, 
 
 228 
 
 
 
 6:9 
 
 166, 202- 
 
 -203. 
 
 205 
 
 LUKK 
 
 7:12 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 2 : 46-50 
 
 58 
 
 8:11 
 
 
 i6s- 
 
 -166 
 
 2:48 
 
 238 
 
 8:17 
 
 
 
 87 
 
 2:52 
 
 168 
 
 9:13 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 4 : 18-21 
 
 66 
 
 10: 10 
 
 
 
 251 
 
 6:17 
 
 251 
 
 11: 2-6 
 
 
 67, 
 
 287 
 
 10 : 22 
 
 123 
 
 12: 11-12 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 10 : 3°-35 
 
 183-184 
 
 12:7 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 II : 29-32 
 
 69 
 
 12:38-42 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 13:33 
 
 68 
 
 15:3-6 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 14 : 1-6 
 
 61 
 
 15:13 
 
 
 
 59 
 
 15:11 
 
 111-112 
 
 16:4 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 16 : 29 
 
 63-64 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURES 
 
 297 
 
 'HAF 
 
 TER 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 PAGE 
 
 16 
 
 : 29. 31 
 
 
 
 233 
 
 9 = 5 I4S 
 
 216 
 
 17 
 
 :i4 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 9 : 24-26 
 
 76 
 
 18 
 
 9-14 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 10 : 4 
 
 130 
 
 22 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 173 
 
 10 : 6-8 
 
 76 
 
 22 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 10 : 19 
 
 78 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 II : I, 28-29 
 
 76 
 
 24 
 
 44 
 
 JOHN 
 
 
 69 
 
 II : 9-10 
 14 : II 
 
 78 
 
 77 
 
 I 
 
 :i8 
 
 
 
 141 
 
 I CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 I 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 117 
 
 2:9 
 
 78 
 
 I 
 
 .27 
 
 
 118, 
 
 163 
 
 2 : 12-15 
 
 143 
 
 I 
 
 :28 
 
 
 
 163 
 
 9 : 8-10 
 
 81 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 116 
 
 -117 
 
 10 : 4 84 
 
 i6s 
 
 4 
 
 = 4 
 
 
 163 
 
 -164 
 
 13:2 
 
 143 
 
 4 
 
 ■1 
 
 
 
 164 
 
 14 : 21 
 
 78 
 
 4 
 
 .18 
 
 
 128 
 
 -129 
 
 15 =3. 4 
 
 8S 
 
 S 
 
 :9-i8 
 
 
 
 62 
 
 iS:S° 
 
 103 
 
 S 
 
 : 20 
 
 
 
 217 
 
 IS =54 
 
 78 
 
 5 
 
 ■46 
 
 
 63, 
 
 106 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 
 112, 
 
 164 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 6 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 I 
 
 240 
 
 10 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 214 
 
 3:6 
 
 124 
 
 13 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 106 
 
 4:4 
 
 103 
 
 13 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 252 
 
 GALATIANS 
 
 
 19 
 19 
 19 
 
 24 
 28 
 36,37 
 
 
 
 87 
 87 
 87 
 
 3 :i9 
 
 4 '■ 9 
 
 86 
 
 84 
 84 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 217 
 
 4 : 21-31 8 
 
 1-82 
 
 21 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 17 
 
 ACTS 
 
 
 162 
 
 EPHESIANS 
 I 
 2 : 20 
 
 240 
 234 
 
 7 
 
 20-22 
 
 
 
 84 
 
 4:S-6 
 
 142 
 
 IS 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 60 
 
 4 : 8-10 
 
 86 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 ROMANS 
 
 
 216 
 
 4:9 
 4:13 
 6 : 13-17 
 
 77 
 170 
 144 
 
 I : 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 23s 
 
 
 
 I : 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 PHILIPPIANS 
 
 
 2 : 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 I : 12-17 
 
 144 
 
 8: 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 2:6 
 
 217 
 
298 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 JAMES 
 
 
 2:7 
 
 141 
 
 -142 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2 :5-ii 
 
 144. 
 
 168 
 
 I : I 
 3:1 
 
 
 
 156 
 
 I TIMOTHY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3:16 
 
 
 216 
 
 I : 21 
 
 
 2 PETER 
 
 157 
 
 2 TIMOTHY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3:8 
 
 
 84 
 
 
 
 
 
 3:16 
 
 
 234 
 
 5:7 
 
 
 I JOHN 
 
 247> 
 
 248 
 
 HEBREWS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I :8-9 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 JUDE 
 
 
 I : 10 
 
 
 86 
 
 Vs. 4 
 
 
 
 156 
 
 2 : 6-8, 13-14 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 : 7-11 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 5:8 
 
 167- 
 
 -168 
 
 
 REVELATION 
 
 
 7:3, II. IS 
 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 : S, 59 
 
 
 83 
 
 13 •• 17, 
 
 18 
 
 
 19 
 
 9 : II, 12, 23, 24 
 
 
 83 
 
 22:5 
 
 
 
 214 
 
 10 : 5-7 
 
 
 86 
 
 22 : 18- 
 
 ■19 
 
 
 234 
 
INDEX OF THE EARLIER SOURCES USED 
 AND OF THE MORE IMPORTANT RECENT 
 WORKS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE 
 
 Abbott, The Evolution of Chris- 
 tianity, 268, 272. 
 
 Abelard, Opera, 172. 
 
 Ahoth of Rabbi Nathan, 4. 
 
 D'Achery, Spicilegium, 150, 155, 
 IS7, 158, 160, 161. 
 
 Adeney, A Century's Progress in 
 Religious Thought and Life, 
 266. 
 
 ^Ifric, Homilies, 165, 166. 
 
 Africanus, Letter to Origen, 114. 
 
 Agada der Amoraim, 15, 29. 
 
 Agada der Tannaiten, 7, 8, 12, 13, 
 14, IS, 16, 18, 19, 20-22, 24, 
 
 25. 26, 3°. 3i> 32. 33- 
 Anderson, The Bible and Modern 
 
 Criticism, 267. 
 Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, 167, 168, 
 
 i6g. 
 Aquinas, Expositio continua super 
 
 qttatuor Evangelistas, 175. 
 Arnold, Literature and Dogma, 
 
 287. 
 Astruc, Conjectures sur la Genese, 
 
 253- 
 Athanasius, Contra Gentes, 121. 
 De Incarnatione, 122. 
 Festal Epistle, 121. 
 In illud omnia, 123. 
 Oratio II, 123. 
 Athenagoras, Plea for the Chris- 
 tians, 96. 
 
 D'Aubign^ Reformation in Europe 
 in Time of Calvin, 221. 
 
 Bacon, B. W., Introduction to the 
 
 N. T., 280. 
 Hibbert Journal, 283. 
 Bacon, F., The Advancement of 
 
 Learning, 226. 
 Bacon, Roger, Opera quaedam 
 
 hactenus inedita, 151, 177. 
 Baedae, Opera Historica, 155. 
 Bartlett, The Veracity of the Hexa- 
 
 teuch, 266. 
 Barnabas, Epistle, 92, 93, 94. 
 Barton, Semitic Origins, 274. 
 Baum, Capito und Butzer, 204. 
 Baur, Christliche Gnosis, 279. 
 
 Paulus, 279. 
 Benedict, St., Rule, 153. 
 Bengel, Gnomon, 231, 252. 
 Bentley, Epistles of Fhalaris, 247. 
 
 PhileleiUherus Lipsiensis, 248. 
 Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, 
 
 289. 
 Berachoth, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 32, 
 
 60. 
 Bereshith Rabba, 22. 
 Bigg, The Christian Platonists of 
 
 Alexandria, 109, no, in, 113, 
 
 114, 125. 
 Bohl, Ahtestamentliche Citate im 
 
 N. T., 73. 
 
 299 
 
300 
 
 INDEX OF SOURCES 
 
 Bona Ventura, Opera Omnia, 174. 
 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 
 
 276. 
 Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, 
 
 272. 
 Brown, F., Hebrew Lexicon, 272. 
 Brown, W. A., Christian Theology 
 
 in Outline, 290. 
 Bruce, Apologetics, 268, 278. 
 The Chief End of Revelation, 
 
 287. 
 Budde, The Religion of Israel to 
 
 the Exile, 274. 
 Buddensieg, Johann Wiclif und 
 
 seine Zeit, 181, 182, 184. 
 
 Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 
 209, 210. 
 Commentary on Harmony, 210, 
 
 212. 
 Commentary on Psalms, 211. 
 Commentary on Hebrews, 211. 
 Commentary on Isaiah, 211. 
 Institutes, 214, 215, 216. 
 Tracts, 211. 
 Cambridge Modern History, 189, 
 
 207, 218. 
 Capes, The English Church in the 
 Fourteenth and Fifteenth Cen- 
 turies, 182. 
 Carpenter, Interpretation in the 
 Nineteenth Century, 269, 271. 
 Chase, Chrysostom, 119, 134, 137, 
 
 139. 143- 
 Cheyne, Introduction to the Booh of 
 
 Isaiah, 277. 
 ChristofFel, Huldreich Zwingli, 207. 
 Chronicles and Memoirs of Great 
 
 Britain, etc., 178. 
 Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 
 
 136. 137. 140, 141- 
 Homilies on John, 137, 141. 
 Homilies on Hebrews, 137. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 
 109, no, 112. 
 
 Ptedagogus, in. 
 
 Fragment on Lost Son, in. 
 Clement of Rome, First Letter, 89, 
 
 90. 
 Cocceius, Opera, 244, 255. 
 Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, 261. 
 
 Confessions, 270. 
 Contentio Veritatis, 264, 275. 
 Coverdale, Works, 220. 
 
 Darwin, Origin of Species, 263. 
 
 Dictatus Papae, 162. 
 
 Dillmann, Die Genesis, 275. 
 
 Dionysius, 119. 
 
 Dods, The Bible, its Nature and 
 Origin, 272, 282. 
 
 DoUinger, Studies in European 
 History, 177, 178. 
 
 Driver, Introduction to the Litera- 
 ture of the Old Testament, 273. 
 
 Drummohd, Philo Judaeus, 41. 
 
 Edwards, J., Works, 230, 231, 232. 
 Einstein, The Italian Renaissance 
 
 in England, 190. 
 Epistolae Karolini Aevi, 161. 
 Erasmus, Ratio seu methodus, etc., 
 
 191, 193- 
 Apologia, 193. 
 Enchiridion, 191. 
 Paraphrasis, etc., 192. 
 Ernesti, Institutio Interpretis, 254, 
 25S- 
 
 Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in 
 Modern Theology, 270, 284. 
 Studies in the Life of Christ, 285. 
 
 Fisher, G. P., History of the Chris- 
 tian Church, 245. 
 
 Fisher, The Mediceval Empire, 150. 
 
 Fox, Journal, 228. 
 
INDEX OF SOURCES 
 
 301 
 
 Francke, Manuductio ad lectionem 
 scripturae sacrae, 249. 
 
 Frankel, Einfluss der patdstinischen 
 Exegese auf die alexandrin- 
 ische Hermeneutih, 41. 
 
 Geiger, Das Stitdium der hebr. 
 Sprache, etc., 191. 
 
 Gerson, Propositiones, 186. 
 
 Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, 150, 
 152. 193, 196, 207. 
 
 Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus, 
 288. 
 
 Goodwin, T., Works, 236, 240. 
 
 Gregory the Great, Regula Pas- 
 tor alis, 155. 
 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pane- 
 gyric, 114. 
 
 Gregory of Tours, Monumenla 
 Germaniae Historica, etc., 153, 
 IS4- 
 
 Hagenbach, History of the Reforma- 
 tion, 190. 
 
 Hall, C. C., Universal Elements 
 of the Christian Religion, 284. 
 
 HaU, J., Works, 235. 
 
 Henderson, Documents, 149, 178. 
 
 Henry, Das Leben Johann Calvins, 
 
 213- 
 Herder, Sdmmtliche Werke, 257, 258. 
 
 Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, 257. 
 Hippolytus, Christ and Antichrist, 
 
 13^1- 
 Hipi liapoifuaiv, 131. 
 
 Hoffding, History of Modern Phi- 
 losophy, 227. 
 
 Hogarth, Authority and Archceology, 
 276, 277. 
 
 Holstein, Die Reformation im Spie- 
 gelbilde, etc., 189, igo, 192. 
 
 Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of 
 Canterbury, 167, 
 
 Hooker, R., Works, 230. 
 
 Huhn, Die alttestamentlichen Ci- 
 tate, etc., 68, 73. 
 
 Huxley, Science and Hebrew Tra- 
 dition, 271. 
 
 Ignatius, Letters, 95, 96. 
 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 103- 
 106. 
 Fragment, 105. 
 
 Jerome, Epistolae, 134. 
 
 De viris illustribus, 133, 134. 
 
 To Pdulinus, 120. 
 John of Damascus, Exposition of 
 
 the Orthodox Faith, 143. 
 Jonathan, Targum of the Prophets, 
 
 17- 
 Jowett, Essays and Reviews, 266, 
 
 269. 
 Jiilicher, Introduction to the N. T., 
 
 283. 
 Justin, Address to the Greeks, 97. 
 First Apology, 97-102. 
 Dialogue with Trypho, 97-102. 
 
 Kalkoff, Die Depeschen des Nuntius 
 
 Aleander, 192. 
 Karpeles, Geschichte der judischen 
 
 Literatur, 8, 11, 32. 
 Kempis, Imitation of Christ, 187, 
 
 188. 
 Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antio- 
 
 chenischen Schule, 108, 132, 
 
 133. ^3i^ 136, 139. 143- 
 King, Reconstruction in Theology, 
 
 270. 
 Kostlin, Martin Luther, etc., 194, 
 
 197, 201, 202. 
 
 Lessing, Werke, 255, 256. 
 Lightfoot, J., Works, 240, 241. 
 Lilly, Renaissance Types, 206. 
 
302 
 
 INDEX OF SOURCES 
 
 Lombard, Libri Qtiatuor Senten- 
 
 tiarum, 169, 171. 
 Loserth, Wiclif and Hus, 182. 
 Lowth, Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, 
 
 256. 
 Luther, Werke, 186, 197, 198, 199, 
 
 200-203. 
 Table Talk, 188, 195, 196, 204, 
 
 206. 
 
 Mabillon, Life and Works of St. 
 
 Bernard, 173. 
 Martineau, Seat of Authority in 
 
 Religion, 271 
 Mayerhoff, Johann Reuchlin, etc., 
 
 187, 190, 191. 
 McCurdy, Recent Research in Bible 
 
 Lands, 277. 
 Mechilta, 21. 
 Melanchthon, Loci Communes, 205, 
 
 206. 
 Meyer, Geschichte der Schrifter- 
 
 kldrung, 225. 
 Migne, Patrologia Latina, 156, 162, 
 
 163, 172, 173.. 
 Milton, Of Reform in England, 233. 
 Against Prelacy, 257. 
 Church Doctrine, 236. 
 Paradise Lost, 236. 
 Monk, Life of Richard Bentley, 247, 
 
 248. 
 Montalembert, Monks of the West, 
 
 ISO- 
 Monumenta Germaniae Historica: 
 
 Scriptores, 151, 154. 
 Mullinger, Schools of Charles the 
 
 Great, 147, 149, 157, 159. 
 
 Nestle, Introduction to the Textual 
 Criticism of the Greek New 
 Testament, 193. 
 
 Newman, Apologia pro vita sua, 
 266. 
 
 Nowack, Hebraische Archdologie, 
 289. 
 
 Onkelos, Targum, 17. 
 Origen, Commentary on John, 114, 
 IIS, 117. "8. 
 De Principiis, 115—117. 
 Owen, Evenings with the Skeptics, 
 
 147. 171- 
 Owen, John, The Glorious Mys- 
 tery of the Person of Christ, 
 230, 231. 
 
 Pascal, Thoughts, Letters, and 
 
 Opuscules, 230. 
 Peabody, Hibbert Journal, 286. 
 Philo, De praemiis et poenis, 36. 
 De plantatione Noe, 44, 4s, 52. 
 De posteritate Caini, 45. 
 De profugis, 48. 
 De migratione Abrahami, 7, 43. 
 De nominibus, S7- 
 Legis alleg., 37, 43, 44-48, 50, 52, 
 
 56. 
 De gigantibus, 48. 
 De eo quod, etc., 52. 
 De decalogo, 44. 
 De Abrahamo, 32, 36, 43. 
 De opificio mundi, 36, 49, 50, 53, 
 
 56. 
 Quaest. et sol., 49, S4-S7- 
 Quis rerum div., etc., 42, S7. 
 Quod deus sit immutabilis, 43. 
 Quod omnis probus liber, 37. 
 De spec, legum, 37. 
 De somniis, 46, 47, 50, 52. 
 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 49. 
 Vita Mosis, 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 
 
 S4- 
 Pirqe Aboth, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, .13, 19, 
 
 20. 27, 28, 32, 33. 
 Planck, Geschichte der Protestant. 
 
 Theologie, etc., 225. 
 
INDEX OF SOURCES 
 
 303 
 
 Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 
 9S- 
 
 Rambach, InstiitUiones hermeneu- 
 ticae sacrae, 249, 250. 
 
 Reuss, History of the New Testa- 
 ment, 245. 
 
 Ritter, Philo und die Halachah, 41. 
 
 Robinson, Original Letters relative 
 to the English Reformation, 221. 
 
 Romberg, Die Lehre Luther's von 
 der heiligen Schrift, 196, 197. 
 
 Rule, The Life and Times of St. 
 Anselm, 167. 
 
 Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, 43. 
 The Canon of the Old Testament, 
 207. 
 
 Sabatier, Religions of Authority, etc. 
 
 268. 
 Sanday, Inspiration, 270. 
 Sayce, The Higher Criticism and 
 
 the Monuments, 274. 
 Schabbath, 28. 
 Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 220, 
 
 233- 
 Schleiermacher, Reden iiber die 
 
 Religion, 261. 
 Hermeneutik, 266. 
 Schultz, Christian Apologetics, 270. 
 Schwab, Le Talmud, 12, 20, 32. 
 Sell, Philip Melanchthon, 204. 
 Semler, Apparatus ad lUeralem 
 
 Novi Teslamenii interpreta- 
 
 tionem, 254. 
 Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, 
 
 etc., 37, 38, 46, 49. 
 Simon, Histoire Critique, 239, 245, 
 
 246. 
 Siphra, 21. 
 Smith, G. A., Modern Criticism 
 
 and the Preaching of the O. T., 
 
 27s, 278. 
 
 Historical Geography of the Holy 
 
 Land, 289. 
 Smith, W. R., O. T. in the Jewish 
 
 Church, 207. 
 Spinoza, Works, 242, 243. 
 
 Tractatus theologico-politicus, 
 
 243-244. 
 Stahelin, Huldreich Zwingli, 207. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, 279, 
 Strype, Memoirs of Cranmer, 219, 
 
 220. 
 Annals of the Reformation, 220. 
 Swedenborg, The True Christian 
 
 Religion, 229. 
 Swete, Theodore's Commentary, 
 
 139, 141, 143, 144- 
 
 Taylor, Worhs, 237, 238. 
 Theodore, Ad Galatas, 136, 138. 
 
 Ad Rom., 144. 
 
 Ad Ephes., 144. 
 
 Ad Phil., 145. 
 
 Epistola ad 1 Tim., 145. 
 Theologia Cermanica, 186, 188. 
 Theophilus, Ad Autolycum, 97. 
 Toy, Quotations in the N. T., 72, 
 
 74, 77- 
 Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, 222. 
 
 Ullmann, Reformers before the 
 
 Reformation, 186. 
 Ussher, Annates Vet. Test., 237. 
 
 Vaughan, Life and Labors of St. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, 177. 
 Vollmer, Die alttestamentlichen Ci- 
 
 tate bei Paulus, 74, 82. 
 
 Wendt, The Gospel according to 
 
 St. John, 283. 
 De Wette, Beitrdge zur Einleitung 
 
 im AT., 261. 
 
304 
 
 INDEX OF SOURCES 
 
 Wesley, J., Works, 231. 
 Westminster Confession, 232, 234. 
 Whitby, Disputation on Holy 
 
 Scripture, 221. 
 Windelband, History of Philosophy, 
 
 177. 
 Winter and Wiinsche, Die judische 
 
 Literatur, 12, 31. 
 
 Wisdom of Solomon, 41. 
 
 Wrede, Unterstichung zum 1 Cle- 
 
 mensbrief, 88, 90. 
 Wyclif, Select English Works, 182, 
 
 183. 185. 
 Tractatus de ecclesia, 182, 184. 
 
 Zwingli, Select Works, igo, 207. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Abelard, his significance for inter- 
 pretation, 171-172; relation to 
 the Fathers, 172. 
 
 Miiiic, relation to the Fathers, 165- 
 166. 
 
 Agobard, use of Song of Solomon 
 and Apocalypse, 162. 
 
 Agricola, study of Greek, 190. 
 
 Allegorical interpretation: in Jew- 
 ish writers, 24-26, 40, 41 ; in 
 classical antiquity, 39-4r ; among 
 the Hellenists, 41 ; in Philo, 43- 
 55 ; in Paul, 81-82; in The 
 Shepherd, gr ; in Barnabas, 92- 
 93; in Justin, 100-102; in 
 Clement of Alexandria, 1 09-11 2; 
 in Jerome, 112; inOrigen, 115- 
 118; in Dionysius, 119; in Eu- 
 sebius, 119; in Athanasius, 120- 
 124; in Augustin, 124-129; in 
 Bede, 155; in Erigena, 163-165; 
 in Abelard, 172; in mediaeval 
 writers in general, 179-180; in 
 Reuchlin, 191 ; in Erasmus, 191- 
 192; in Luther, 198-199, 201- 
 203; in Melanchthon, 204-205; 
 in Coverdale, 220; in Tyndale, 
 222; in the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries, 230, 232; 
 in Pascal, 230; in Edwards, 
 330-232. 
 
 Allegory, Heraclitus' definition, 40. 
 
 Anselm, general view of Scripture, 
 167; dogmatic method of exege- 
 sis, 167-169. 
 
 Antioch, relation to Origen, 132; 
 origin of the school, 133. 
 
 Aquinas, chief biblical works, 175; 
 relation to the Fathers, 175-176; 
 to Aristotle, 176; his exegetical 
 method, 176-177. 
 
 Astruc, the documentary hypothesis 
 of Genesis, 253. 
 
 Athanasius, general character as an 
 interpreter, 120; his conception 
 of the Bible, 121 ; an Alexan- 
 drian in exegesis, 121-124. 
 
 Athenagoras, 96-97. 
 
 Augustin, exegetical qualifications, 
 124, 131 ; an Alexandrian in 
 exegesis, 124-129; regard for 
 the literal sense, 125; on the 
 titles of the Psalms, 127-128; 
 interpretation of numbers, 129. 
 
 Bacon, F., 236. 
 
 Bacon, R., 177-178. 
 
 Barnabas, influence on exegesis, 
 92 ; sense of Scripture hidden, 
 92-93; O. T. a book of types, 
 
 93-94- 
 
 Baur, the critical movement, 261. 
 
 Bede, relation to the Fathers, 155; 
 allegorized all Scripture, 155; 
 the magisterial tone of his 
 exegesis, 156; bound by tradi- 
 tion, 156-157. 
 
 Bengel, defects in his exegetical 
 method, 250-252 ; excellences, 
 
 232-253- 
 Bentley, significance for exegesis, 
 
 2'47-248. 
 Bernard, 172-173. 
 Bonaventura, 174-175. 
 
 30s 
 
3o6 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Calvin, his view of exegetical quali- 
 fications, 208; his great merit, 
 209; reaction from allegorical 
 interpretation, 209-210; view of 
 inspiration, 210; lack of his- 
 torical sense, 21 1-2 12; his fatal 
 exegetical defect, 212-219; "^S" 
 lect of context, 217-218; special 
 pleading, 218. 
 
 Christ as speaking in the O. T., 88, 
 89, 98, 182, 185, 198, 201, 204, 
 20s, 213, 220, 222, 231. 
 
 Chronology, 237, 241, 275-276. 
 
 Chrysostom, general view of his 
 relation to exegesis, 134-135; 
 relation to the traditional doc- 
 trine of inspiration, 136-137; 
 his chief exegetical merit, 137- 
 138; dogmatic presuppositions, 
 139-141. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, equipment 
 as an interpreter, 109 ; relation 
 to Philo, 109-110; threefold 
 sense of Scripture, no; allego- 
 rized the N. T., 111-112. 
 
 Clement of Rome, the O. T. a 
 Christian book, 88; Christ in 
 O. T., 89. 
 
 Cocceius, 238, 244, 245. 
 
 Coleridge, 260. 
 
 Colet, 190. 
 
 Comparative Religion, 263, 264. 
 
 Coverdale, 220. 
 
 Cranmer, 220. 
 
 Criticism, Historical, aim and 
 method, 266; opposition to, 
 266-267; estimates of, 267-268; 
 important results of, 268-290; 
 still imperfectly applied and only 
 partially appreciated, 290-292. 
 
 Diodore of Antioch, 133-134. 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, 119. 
 
 Edwards, 230-232. 
 
 Einhard, 162. 
 
 Ephrem, 134. 
 
 Erasmus, his attitude toward Ori- 
 gen, 191 ; his exegesis mystical 
 and dogmatic, 192; his signifi- 
 cance for interpretation, 192- 
 
 193- 
 Erigena, relation to the Fathers, 
 
 162-163. 
 Ernesti, the literal sense alone to be 
 
 accepted, 254-255. 
 Excavations, 261. 
 Ezra, significance for interpretation, 
 
 3-S- 
 
 Fathers, influence on exegesis, 146, 
 149. 153. iSS. 157. 162, 163, 165, 
 169. 17s. 176, 182, 19s, 212-219, 
 
 223. 235- 
 Fourfold sense of Scripture, 159. 
 Fox, 228-229. 
 Freedom of research, 262-263. 
 
 Gematria, 19-20. 
 
 Gerson, 185-186. 
 
 Gesenius, 261. 
 
 Gnostic interpretation, 102-103. 
 
 Goch, John, 185-186. 
 
 Goodwin, Thomas, 236. 
 
 Greek, beginning of modern study 
 
 of, 190-19 1. 
 Gregory the Great, 154. 
 Gregory of Tours, 154. 
 Griessbach, 249. 
 Grocyn, 190. 
 Grosseteste, 177-178. 
 Grotius, 238, 239, 240. 
 Guyon, 229. 
 
 Haggada, 8. 
 Halacha, 8. 
 Hall, Jos., 235. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 307 
 
 Hebrew, beginning of modern 
 study of, 190-191. 
 
 Hebrews, the author's disregard of 
 the contejrt in his use of the O. T., 
 80-81 ; seeks a hidden sense in 
 the O. T., 82-84; his interpreta- 
 tion of the Messianic element in 
 the O. T., 86; influence on the 
 exegesis of the second century, 
 106. 
 
 Herder, significance of, for exegesis, 
 257-258. 
 
 Hermas, gi. 
 
 Hooker, R., 22g. 
 
 Hugo of St. Victor, 173-174. 
 
 Ignatius, 95-96. 
 
 Inspiration, Philo's view of, 41-43; 
 in Athenagoras, 96-97; in Theo- 
 philus, 97; in Origen, 115; in 
 Athanasius, 121 ; in Theodore, 
 136; in Chrysostom, 136-137; 
 in Bede, 157; in Luther, 196; 
 in Calvin, 210; in the West- 
 minster Confession, 233-235; in 
 modern interpretation, 269-271. 
 
 Intelligibility of Scripture, 232, 233, 
 246. 
 
 Irenaeas, principles of mterpreta- 
 tion, 103-104. 
 
 Isidore of Seville, threefold sense 
 of Scripture, 155. 
 
 Jerome, general survey of his rela- 
 tion to exegesis, 119; the his- 
 torical and allegorical elements 
 in, 120. 
 
 Jesus as an interpreter of the O. T., 
 significance of the scene in the 
 temple, 58-59 ; interpretative 
 significance of his personal atti- 
 tude toward the oral law and 
 O. T. institutions, 59-60; toward 
 
 the written law, 61-63 ! inter- 
 pretation of the written law as 
 seen in his teaching, 63-66; 
 interpretation of the Messianic 
 element in the O. T,, 66-72; 
 qualifications for interpretation, 
 72- 
 
 Jewish interpretation, significance 
 of, I ; classic age of, 2 ; mediaeval, 
 2, 193; on the origin and scope 
 of Scripture, 14-16; its license 
 in dealing with the text, 17-21; 
 the rules of Eliezer, 20-21; 
 change of vowels, 20 ; the essen- 
 tial and the incidental, 21-23; 
 the assumption of a hidden mean- 
 ing, 23-26; fourfold sense, two- 
 fold sense, 23; conjectural and 
 speculative, 26-29; rules of 
 Hillel, 29; regard for the con- 
 text, 29; particles, 29-30; Scrip- 
 ture to be interpreted as other 
 books, 30; spiritual insight, 
 30-34- 
 
 John, the apostle, interpretation of 
 the Messianic element in the 
 O. T., 86-87. 
 
 John of Damascus, 143. 
 
 Justin, the Logos in the O. T., 97- 
 98; the predictive element in 
 the O. T., 99; spiritualizing 
 exegesis, 100-102. 
 
 Kabbala, 21. 
 
 Kempis, exegesis in, 186-187. 
 
 Lanfranc, 166-167. 
 
 Law, oral, 10-14, 28-29; bear- 
 ing of, on the interpretation 
 of the Pentateuch, 11-12; 
 Jesus' relation to, 59-60. 
 
 Law, written, an absolute revelation 
 of God, 12-13; its origin, i3-i4' 
 
3o8 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 Leo III, 162. 
 
 Lessing, significance for exegesis, 
 255-256. 
 
 Lightfoot, J., 240-241. 
 
 Linacre, 191. 
 
 Logos read into Jewish Scriptures, 
 97-98. 
 
 Lombard, Sentences, 151, 169, 170; 
 dependence on the Fathers, 169- 
 171. 
 
 Lowth, 256-257. 
 
 Luther, relation to Reuchlin, 192; 
 his equipment, 193-194; rela- 
 tion to the Fathers, 194-196; 
 on inspiration, 196; favorite 
 biblical books, 197 ; commentary 
 on Psalms, 197-201 ; on Genesis, 
 201 ; on the Minor Prophets, 
 201-202; interpretation of Lord's 
 Prayer, 202-203; strength and 
 weakness as an exegete, 203-204. 
 
 Lyra, 193. 
 
 Matthew, disregard of the context 
 in his interpretation of the O. T., 
 78-80; interpretation of the 
 Messianic element in the O. T., 
 86-87. 
 
 Matthews Bible, 219. 
 
 Mediajval interpretation, general 
 estimate of, 179-180. 
 
 Melanchthon, teacher of Greek, 
 190; general exegetical position, 
 204-205; interpretation of the 
 Lord's Prayer, 205-206; dog- 
 matic character of his exegesis 
 compared with that of Luther, 
 206. 
 
 Mill, 249. 
 
 Molinos, 229. 
 
 Moses, author of Pentateuch, 13- 
 14; Philo's conception of, 42- 
 43; authorship of Pentateuch 
 
 rejected by Historical Criticism, 
 273-274. 
 
 Notarikon, 18-20. 
 Numbers, symbolism of, in the 
 O. T., 49-50. 
 
 Origen, general survey of his rela- 
 tion to exegesis, 112-113; equip- 
 ment, 113-114; dogmatic bias, 
 114-115; development of alle- 
 gorical method, 115; threefold 
 sense of Scripture established, 
 1 1 5-1 17; allegorical tendency 
 limitedby tradition, 118; relation 
 to Antiochian school, 132. 
 
 Pascal, 230. 
 
 Paul, disregard of the context in his 
 interpretation of the O. T., 75- 
 77; use of allegory, 81-82; in- 
 fluenced by Jewish legends, 84; 
 interpretation of the Messianic 
 element in the O. T., 84-86. 
 
 Pellican, 190. 
 
 Philo, general survey of his equip- 
 ment and purpose, 35-37; his 
 conception of Greek philosophy, 
 37; dependent on the Septua- 
 gint, 38-39; on the classical 
 principle of allegorical inter- 
 pretation, 39-41 ; view of in- 
 spiration, 41-43; two senses of 
 Scripture, 43-46; the allegori- 
 cal sense, 43-55; laws of alle- 
 gorical speech, 46-48; interpre- 
 tation of numbers, 49-50; sig- 
 nificance of etymologies, 50-51 ; 
 symbolism of natural objects, 
 52-55; sense of proportion, 55; 
 presuppositions, 55-56; exegesis 
 conditioned by philosophical 
 views, 56-57. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS 
 
 309 
 
 Philosophy, modern, influence on 
 
 exegesis, 226-227. 
 Predictive prophecy, 88, 89, 98, 99, 
 
 100, 105, 129, 130, 182, 277-279. 
 
 Radbertus, i6o-i6i. 
 
 Rambach, 249-250. 
 
 Ratramnus, 160-161. 
 
 Reformers, general relation to 
 interpretation, 188-189 • signifi- 
 cance for exegesis, 222-223; 
 English reformers dependent on 
 the exegesis of the continent, 
 219-220. 
 
 Renaissance, general relation to 
 interpretation, 189-193. 
 
 Reuchlin, teacher of Hebrew, 190; 
 mystical interpretation of, 191. 
 
 Revelation and the Bible, 268-269. 
 
 Rule of St. Benedict, 149, 153. 
 
 Schleiermacher, 260-261. 
 
 Science, 261, 263. 
 
 Semler, contribution to exegesis, 
 
 254- 
 
 Septuagint, 38-39; dependence of 
 N. T. writers upon, 73-74. 
 
 Simon, composition of Pentateuch, 
 246; importance of tradition, 
 246. 
 
 Spinoza, in general, 238-239; in- 
 terpretation of Scripture analo- 
 gous to that of Nature, 241-242 ; 
 on the divinity of Scripture, 242 ; 
 view of prophecy, 242-243; the 
 aim of Scripture, 243-244; com- 
 position of the Pentateuch, 244. 
 
 Strauss, 261. 
 
 Swedenborg, 228-229. 
 
 Synagogue, the Great, 4, 5, 10. 
 Syrian type of exegesis in the West- 
 ern Church, 143-145. 
 
 Talmud, 9. 
 
 Tatian, 97. 
 
 Taylor, Jeremy, 237-238. 
 
 Theodore, general survey, 134-135 ; 
 view of inspiration and canon, 
 136; chief merit as an inter- 
 preter, 137-138; view of proph- 
 ecy, 138; dogmatic bias, 141- 
 142. 
 
 Theologia Germanica, significance 
 for exegesis, 186-187. 
 
 Theophilus, 97. 
 
 Titles of the Psalms, 127-128, 154. 
 
 Trent, Council of, 225. 
 
 Tyndale, 219, 221, 222. 
 
 Typology, in Barnabas, 93-94; in 
 Irenjeus, 105-106; in Owen, 
 230; in Edwards, 230-231. 
 
 Unam Sanctam, its exegesis, 178- 
 
 179. 
 Ussher, 237. 
 
 Westminster Confession, Scripture 
 an infallible rule of interpreta- 
 tion, 233; inspiration, 233-235. 
 
 De Wette, 260-261. 
 
 Wettstein, 249. 
 
 Whittaker, 221. 
 
 Winer, 261. 
 
 Wyclif, method of exegesis, 182- 
 184; exaltation of the Bible, 
 especially the N. T., 184-185. 
 
 Zwingli, 207. 
 
'By the same author 
 A Ptimer of 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 
 
 Based on the Teaching of Jesus, 
 its Founder and Living Lord. 
 
 By GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT, D.D. 
 
 Formerly Professor of New Testament Literature and 
 Interpretation, in the Chicago Theological Seminary 
 
 Cloth, i6mo, $1.00 net ; by mail, $1.07 
 The book is unique in its [acid simplicity. 
 
 Its assumption is that as a doctrine Christianity is neither less nor more 
 than the teaching of Jesus. 
 
 Its range covers the great events in the life of Jesus and the facts in his 
 teaching. 
 
 Its language is that of common life, free from technicality and theory. 
 
 Its whole aim is to present the essentials of Christianity and the practi- 
 cal interests of religion — the facts of Christ's teaching rather 
 than inferences from it. 
 
 It is helpful and stimulating to those who are trying to listen in the 
 babel of doctrinal teaching for the clear voice of Christ. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 PTJBLISHEES, 64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
Earlier 'Publications by the 
 Rev. GEORGE HOLLEY GILBERT 
 
 Each, cloth, i2mo, ii.25 net 
 
 THE REVELATION OF JESUS 
 
 " This is the most noteworthy historical study of the New Testa- 
 ment Sources of Christian doctrine that has appeared in English 
 since the publication of Professor McGiffert's ' The Apostolic 
 Age.' " — The Outlook. 
 
 THE FIRST INTERPRETERS OF JESUS 
 
 " Nothing could be fairer than the effort made by Professor 
 Gilbert to draw out the thought of the first interpreters of Christ 
 without injecting his own predilections ; and the result is illu- 
 minative and helpful." — The Independent, 
 
 THE STUDENT'S LIFE OF JESUS 
 
 " Acuteness, candor, and conspicuous fidelity to its purpose are 
 the notable characteristics of this . . . useful book." 
 
 — Congregationalist. 
 
 THE STUDENT'S LIFE OF JESUS 
 
 " We unreservedly and heartily commend this volume." 
 
 — Zion's Herald. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 PTJBLISHEBS, 64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
 
TOUCHING THE RELATIONS OF CHRIST 
 TO OUR MODERN LIFE 
 
 These books are of special 'aatae : — 
 By JOSEPH ALEXANDER LEIGHTON, Ph.D. 
 
 Professor of Philosophy and Psychology in Hobart College 
 
 JESUS CHRIST AND THE 
 
 CIVILIZATION OF TO-DAY 
 
 Cloth, i2ino, $1.50 net 
 
 The aim of this work is to set forth the ethical teaching of Jesus 
 as furnishing a moral and spiritual foundation for the life of mod- 
 ern culture. It considers the attitude of Jesus, both towards the 
 world of nature and towards the human will, and examines the 
 moral principles of Jesus in their application to the individual life 
 and to society. The significance of Jesus' personality as an ethical 
 leader is also considered. 
 
 By HENRY S. NASH 
 
 Professor of New Testament Interpretation in the Episcopal 
 Theological School at Cambridge 
 
 ETHICS AND REVELATION 
 
 Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 
 
 " This is a great book. It is a poem in prose, a study in English 
 — felicitous and forcible, a study in history and sociology, in the 
 subjective spiritual life and in ecclesiastical fundamentals. The 
 author is a rare rhetorician and guides one through gardens of 
 beauty, but they are gardens among the mountains. . . . Every 
 word of the six lectures should be read by thoughtful men of the 
 day, ministers and laymen, believers and sceptics." 
 
 — John H. Vincent. 
 
 By the Rev. R. J. CAMPBELL 
 
 Minister in the City Temple, London 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND 
 
 THE SOCIAL ORDER 
 
 Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 net 
 
 An effort to show that the so-called " modernism " is a return to 
 the primitive Christian evangel. 
 
By the REV. WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH 
 
 Professor of Church History in Rochester Theological Seminary 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND 
 THE SOCIAL CRISIS 
 
 Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 net 
 
 " It is of the sort to make its readers feel that the book was 
 bravely written to free an honest man's heart ; that conscientious 
 scholarship, hard thinking, and the determination to tell the truth 
 as he sees it, have wrought it out and enriched it ; that it is written 
 in a clear, incisive style ; that stern passion and gentle sentiment 
 stir at times among the words, and keen wit and grim humor flash 
 here and there in the turn of a sentence ; and that there is a noble 
 end in view. If the hope be too confident, if there be once in 
 a while a step taken beyond the line of justice into indignation, if 
 a quaint old prejudice or even animosity bustles to the front in an 
 emergency — no matter. It is a book to like, to learn from, and, 
 though the theme be sad and serious, to be charmed with." 
 
 — iV. Y. Times' Sat. Review of Books. 
 
 By the REV. SHAILER MATHEWS 
 
 Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation in the 
 University of Chicago 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE 
 
 CHANGING ORDER 
 
 Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 net 
 
 "... a most interesting and valuable contribution to the litera- 
 ture of a subject that is growing in popular attention every day. 
 While among the deeply, really religious and genuinely scientific 
 there is no conflict or antagonism where even there is not accord, 
 this unfortunately is not commonly the case among the masses who 
 have only caught the forms of religious and scientific knowledge 
 without their spirit. This book is addressed much more it seems 
 to the religious than the scientific, possibly because the latter 
 have the less need for repentance. Those who are troubled in 
 any way at the seeming conflict between the demands of faith, on 
 the one hand, and the experiences of their own reason and the 
 problems of modern social and industrial life will And here much 
 sage, illuminating, and practical counsel." — Evening Post. 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 FUBLISHDBS, 64-66 FIFTH AVENITE, NEW TOKE