MANUAL OF HERMENEUTICS FOR THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. / ''^' J. J. DOEDES, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, UNIVERSITX OF UTRECHT. S^ranslalcb from tin ^ntch By G. W. STEGMANK Jux. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEORGE STEEET. MDCCCLXVII. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB F(;K T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.; SIMPKIX, )[ARSHALL, .VND CO , LONDON. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE, In order to supply tlie want, so often experienced by students, of a ^Manual' of Sacred Hermeneutics, the translation now offered to the public was undertaken. If it is not calculated to supersede any of the existing treatises on the subject, it will at any rate afford the student the means of obtaining a clear and more con- cise view of the subject than is offered by any other compendium at present in general use. It recommends itself, moreover, by being full of many very suggestive hints thrown out in the author's peculiar way. The method adopted in the treatment is perfectly natural, and, comprising as it does as much as could be ex- pected within its limited space, we are emboldened to lay it before the public as an excellent compendium of Sacred (New Testament) Hermeneutics. I have been led to speak thus in recommendation of the book, by the consideration that it is from the pen of an author hitherto unknown to the English public. Dr. Doedes is Professor of Divinity in the University of Utrecht. In the struggle between Rationalism and Orthodoxy, that but lately distracted Holland and called forth such able advocates of revealed truth, we IV TRA NSLA TOR'S PRE FA CE. find Professor Doedes taking a prominent pai't. Throughout, we find him maintaining the dignity, earnestness, zeal, and accuracy, which are the special characteristics of our author; and but lately one of the most noted assailants of Christian truth bore tacit witness to his powerful reasoning and dialectic skill. His pamphlets on the possibility and credibility of the miracles as related in the New Testament, assign him a high place among the defenders of gospel truth. In the province of textual criticism, too, he appears as the author of a voluminous and valuable treatise. This may suffice as an introduction of the author of this manual to his English readers. The translator only hopes, that whatever blemishes may attach to his work, they may not be of such a nature as to obscure the merits of the original, or prevent indulgent readers from finding an excuse for defects in the always diffi- cult work of translation. G. W. S. Edinburgh, July 1867. CONTENTS, INTRODUCTION. PAGE Definition and Limits of Hemieneutics for the Writings of the New Testament, § 1-5, 1 Its Object and Necessity, § 6-8, 8 History, § 9, 13 Method of Treatment, § 10, 16 FIRST PART. REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT EXEGETICAL SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE EXERCISED AN INFLUENCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, § 11, 17 CHAPTER L The Three Different Exegetical Schools as they Existed BEFORE THE REFORMATION IN THE SIXTEENTH CeNTURY. The Unrestrainedly Arbitrary, § 12, 19 The Slavishly Fettered, § 13, 22 The Legally Free, § 14 26 VI CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. PAGE The Three Different Exegetic-\l Schools as they have Existed since the tijie of the Reformation in the Six- teenth Century. The Unrestrainedly Arbitrary, § 15, 29 The Slavishly Fettered, § IG, 34 The Legally Free, § 17, 39 Observation — Methods of Interpretation which do not claim our attention here, . . . . . .46 SECOND PART. THEORr OF THE EXEGESIS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, § 18, 51 CHAPTER I. The Task the Interpreter of the Writings of the New Testament has to Perform, § 19-25, . . . .51 CHAPTER II. The Method by which the Interpreter of the "Writings OF the New Testament can attain his Object, § 26, 27, 70 Preparatory Labours, § 28, 76 The Gr.vsimatical Interpretation — (The words — Idiom — Connection — Parallel passages — Sayings to be literally understood or not — Par- ables), § 29-36, 79 The Historical Interpretation — (The light of history — The individuality of the writer or speaker — The historical relations of the writings of the New Testament), § 37-39, .... 1U9 CONTENTS. VII PAGE The Dogmatical Interpretation — (Things viewed in connection with the writer's or speaker's entire way of thinking — The analoyia doc- trmx), § 40, 41, 118 Independent study of the New Testament, § 42, . . 123 Translation, § 48-45, 126 CONCLUSION, § 46, 47, 132 HERMENEUTICS FOR THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. INTRODUCTION. Sect. I. Hermeneutics, or the theory of the art of interpreta- tion, sets forth the method of procedure with regard to the exegesis or interpretation of a person's words. Ohs. Hermeneutics, yj sp[j(j7]VBvri%,r]j viz. rs^v;?, from i^(i,rivzvcoy I set forth, explain, interpret, translate;, also, to express one's thoughts in writing or orally. Her- meneut (one who instructs others in Hermeneutics, or the theory of interpretation), ipfjurji^evr/jg, an inter- preter, one who explains. Hermeneutical (herme- neutical standpoint, hermeneutical laws), Ipfjb7]i^svriz6cj belonging to, suited to interpretation or explanation. 'Y^piJU/ji/eicC) properly, expression of the thoughts by means of words ; explanation, interpretation ; also, a commentary on a writing. So also htspffjTjHvcoy etc. 2 HERMENEUTICS. While Hermeneutics is thus properly the art of to ipf/jrjvsvsiv, or of ^ ipfjuj^mcc, the word is now generally used to indicate the theory of that art, or the doctrine of what is to be observed in ro ipfjj'/ivsvziv. Exegesis, l^7jy7i(jig, from l^yjysofjjoct, to lead on, be a leader, conduct, point out ; to set forth, explain, nar- rate, — especially used of diviners and priests. 'Ef??- ypyrfe, one who points out anything, explains anything, interprets it, — specially used of a guide who points out to strangers the noteworthy objects of a place. At Athens lt,yjyr}ra] were those who had to observe signs and portents, and give instruction in the sacred rites. 'Yl,riy7iri}Cog (exegetical, exegetics = the art of to k^f]- ys7(T0cci, the theory of that art), pertaining to i^'/]yy](rig : ra i^'/iyyjTtzcif books on the interpretation of omens : e^riyyj(7ig, explanation, interpretation ; also, the inter- pretation of a book, a commentary. In the New Testament one meets with ipfjbTjvsvao (to translate), John i. 39, 43, ix. 7, Heb. vii. 2 ; ipfjjrjmoc (interpretation or explanation), 1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 26. Further, hizpfjjy]vsvM (to translate), Acts ix. 36; (to inter- pret or explahi), Luke xxiv. 27, 1 Cor. xii. 30, xiv. 5, xiii. 27 ; hisp(JbJ^vsvT^g (interpreter), 1 Cor. xiv. 28. ^Yl,7iyiO[/jai (explahi) occurs in John i. 18; (narrate), Luke xxiv. 35, Acts x. 8, xv. 12, 14, xxi. 19. Sect. II. In order to be able to explain any one's words to others, one must understand them himself, otherwise INTRODUCTION. 3 he cannot render them intelligible to others. One understands another's words, when by means of them he thinks as did the speaker or writer, and as he wished one should think. Thus one explains another's words rightly to others, when he enables them to think pre- cisely what the speaker or writer thought and wished to be thought. Oh8. 1. In order to understand any one's words, to comprehend a writer or speaker, one must explain to himself his words. For which purpose, one stands in need of Hermeneutics as much as when one would explain anything to others. Ohs. 2. In the interpretation of any writing, it has not to be inquired, what the readers for whom it was destined thought, but what, according to the intention of the writer, they should have thought in reading it. The object of the interpretation is, the thoughts of the writer or speaker, in as far as he has expressed them in words for others. This does not take aw^ay, that it often is of great importance to the interpretation of one or more sayings, to inquire how the hearers understood them. But this has not to be considered here. Ohs. 3. What is subsequently said with regard to the understanding and explaining of any writing, of the words of any writer, applies also to the under- standing and explaining of the words of a speaker, who in any written document is introduced as speaking. HERMENE UTICS. Sect. III. If it be inquired whether in Hermeneutics a distinc- tion has to be made between explanation and interpre- tation (between explicare, ityiym^ai, and interpretari, ipfJbTjvsvsiv), the answer is ; that to explain properly signifies the unfolding of what is contained in the words, and, to interpret, the making clear of what is not clear by casting light on that which is obscure. Very often one interprets by means of explaining, namely, when, by unfolding the sense of the words, light is reflected on what is said or written ; but it cannot be said that one explains by interpreting. While explaining generally is interpreting, interpret- ing, properly speaking, is not explaining. But we do not usually observe this distinction in making use of these terms, and may without harm use them promis- cuously. Ohs. 1. As regards ipfju'/jvevoo and l^r,yio[Loti, both verbs signify to explain, and to interpret; but k^fjjrjvwco is also, to translate, and l^?)yso[Jbcct also, to narrt^te ; k^l^yivivrrig and s^j^yTjTrjg are both used of one who ex- plains and interprets, and spfjbrjvsia as well as ll^yp^c/c is used of a commentary on a writing. One might accordingly employ the term Exegetics instead of Her- meneutics. (^ Hermeneutice, ars interpretandi, non differt ab Exegetice :' Clarisse.) Strictly to distinguish between these two is perfectly arbitrary. Obs. 2. While explanation cannot well be conceived INTRODUCTION. 5 of otherwise than as interpretation, the latter can easily be conceived of without explanation. The 2|?jy^r^? explains and interprets, according as either is required, with the object of rendering the words intelligible. But often explanation without interpretation, or inter- pretation without explanation, would not be satisfactory, and their combination becomes necessary. — Cf. Matt, xxvi. 39 ; John i. 18. Sect. IY. The doctrine of interpretation (Hermeneutics) of the books of the New Testament is the theory of the art of interpretation expounded with a view to those books, and applied to them. It teaches what has to be specially observed in the interpretation of the books of the New Testament. What is prescribed by the general doctrine of interpretation continues to be of force in the Hermeneutics of the books of the New Testament ; wdiatever is peculiar in it must be ex- plained out of the peculiarity of those books, that, viz., which distinguishes them from other writings. This difference, however, does not consist in this, that the authors of those writings thought in an entirely dif- ferent way, and expressed then- thoughts (as regards the form) quite differently from other men. If such were the case, we would needs have to despair of a true interpretation being given by any one else but the writers themselves. That this, however, is not the case, appears from the fact that they have adhered 6 • HERMENEUTICS. to the universallv established laws of speaking and writing. Ohs. 1. Since Hermeneutics for the writings of the New Testament is the application of the general doc- trine of interpretation, and so the application to a particular case of tliat which is universally established, it is not to be expected that the Hermeneutics for the writings of the New Testament will approve what the general doctrine condemns, or condemn what it rightly prescribes. The general doctrine is carried into prac- tice, more or less, every day in common intercourse, by every one who endeavours to understand others, and comprehend their meaning. No social intercourse, no conversation witli our fellow-men would be possible without a notion of, and respect for, what is laid down by the general doctrine of interpretation. Ohs. 2. To the question, whether the Hermeneutics for the writings of the New Testament cannot suitably be combined with that of the Old Testament, it may be answered, that no insuperable objection to the union exists. But as the w^ritings of the New Testament differ from those of the Old Testament in more than one respect (language, kinds of books, views, partly also historical circumstances, etc.), and as neither the Hermeneutics of the books of the New Testament nor that of the writings of the Old Testament suffers when separately treated, it is preferable so to treat the Her- meneutics of the books of the New Testament. Ohs. 3. Christopher Wolle was the first who treated INTRODUCTION. 7 the Hermeneutics of the books of the New Testament separately, in his Hevmeneutica N. F, acroamatico- dogmatica certissimis defecatce ijhilosophice principiis Gorroborata eximiisque omnium Tlieologice Christianoe pay^tium usihus inserviens, Lips. 1736, 4to (as an ap- pendix to Blackwall's Auctores Sacri classici defensi et illustrati, s. Critica Sacra N. T,^ translated by him from the English). Sect. V. While the doctrine of interpretation of the books of the New Testament has to treat of the method of in- terpretation, the w^ay in which a writing has to be explained, it has by no means to give instruction in all those branches of science, with which the interpreter must be acquainted in order to accomplish his task according to the requirements of the case. To the matters to be treated of by Hermeneutics, those ac- quirements cannot be reckoned, which are indeed otherwise to be considered as indispensable for the interpreter, but cannot be considered as requiring to be placed in the foreground when we treat of the methodological "preparation for the interpreter and for exegesis. Hermeneutics is nothing else indeed, but also nothing less, than this. Ohs. Hermeneutics bears the same relation to exe- gesis as Catechetics to catechising, Homiletics to preaching, Apologetics to the apology, and in general, as theory to practice. HERMENE UTICS. Sect. VI. The methodological preparation for the exegesis of the books of the New Testament is intended : a. To point out to the interpreter, of whom it is to be supposed that he is provided with the requisite knowledge, the way of explaining those writings to others in such a manner as the authors themselves would have done it for them. h. And accordingly to acquire such a method of treating those writings as shall ensure the rendering of perfect justice to their authors, — nothing foreign being imputed to them, and no violence being done them. 6'. And thus to guarantee them, on whose behalf these writings are interpreted, that the thoughts ex- pressed by the authors in their writings are fully developed for them. Sect. VII. The preparation intended by the Hermeneutics of the New Testament is necessary for those who profess themselves interpreters of the writings of the New Testament : a. Because much that seems to be natural enough, and to lie on the surface, still is often forgotten or lost sight of by not a few ; h. Because a difference continues to exist between some interpreters with regard to the hermeneutical INTRODUCTION. 9 principles and method, and between many interpreters touching the interpretation of numerous places, as may be seen from the different interpretations given of not a few passages ; c. Because the authority ascribed by many to the writings of the New Testament does not imfrequently tempt the interpreter to attach a sense to the words not possessed by them, so that he does not educe the sense, but introduces his own. Oh^. 1. Without due training in the school of Hermeneutics, the task of an interpreter cannot be properly performed. That it be properly performed is of great importance for theology, as well as for the Christian church. In textual criticism, exegesis is indispensable ; for often the context has to determine the value of readings. In historical criticism, thorough exegesis is of great importance. The authenticity of a book, the credibility of an account, can often not be decided without accurate exegesis. In writing the biography of Jesus, one is constantly busy with exe- gesis. In the so-called Biblical theology, it is exegesis all through. Any one imperfect in exegesis cannot possibly treat Biblical theology properly. For he must reconstruct the results of the exegesis ; and how could he give a good representation of the type of doctrine of Jesus and the apostles, if the New Testa- ment has not been thoroughly interpreted? The minister of the gospel has constantly to act in the church as interpreter of the sacred writings, in his 10 HERMENEUTICS. preaching of the gospel and catechetical instruction, as well as where he has with discretion to correct the almost numberless erroneous opinions in the congrega- tion on various passages of the New Testament. How could he properly interpret the New Testament unless, provided with the requisite acquirements, he be also hermeneutically well trained ? Ohs. 2. That the way is not so readily found, but has to be pointed out, appears from the different in- terpretations given to many passages of the New Testament ; which different interpretations, with a few exceptions, go to prove that all do not occupy the same standpoint, or are not strictly obedient to the rules of Hermeneutics. A review of the schools to which in- terpreters, by their interpretation of the writings of the New Testament, belonged, will show that not all rendered themselves a perfect account of the duty of an interpreter, and of the justice he should do the writer. Such a review is necessary for the hermeneut in order to direct attention to the bye-ways that must be avoided, and to the chief cause of the conflict in which one sees the interpreters of earlier and later times involved with regard to the interpretation of numerous passages. 01)8. 3. It is by no means surprising that they who ascribe great authority to the sacred writings of the New Testament, take most pleasure in finding those Avritings in accordance with their own views and ideas. The temptation is then very strong — not to adapt them- selves to those writings; that is, indeed, too seldom INTR OD UCTION. 1 1 done by those who are so zealous for the authority of the sacred writings ! — but, to give an interpretation of the sacred writings, by means of which they bring the Scriptures into harmony with their own notions and ideas. In other words : one does not in that case modify his dogmatics according to the Scriptures, but allows himself to be governed in his interpretation of Holy Scripture by his own dogmatics. Had we not to deal with writings to which such high, such decisive authority — thougli some rather decide for themselves — is assigned, we would, as a rule, be more free, far less partial, and far less prejudiced with regard to them. It cannot be denied, that if no one has any interest in what a writer says or does not say, one would much less think of making him declare something^ that one wishes him to say, than when one himself assures us that he will certainly respect his sayings as truth. The so-called ^believing exegesis' is, forsooth, not always the most faithful and unprejudiced exegesis ; and to the interpreter who sets out with the assurance, that what is written in the New Testament, on that very account is truth for him because it is written there, and who so solemnly declares that he finds and honours God's word in the Scriptures, to him espe- cially we may say : Be very careful, then, lest you make those Scriptures say what you would like to find in them. The honour of beino; considered the norma credendoTum has often proved to the Scriptures the honour of martyrdom. What have people not ex- tracted from that New Testament ? i.e. what have 12 HERMENEUTICS. people not introduced into it? That which entitled Werenf els to say of the Bible : ' Hie liber est, in quo sua quserit dogmata quisque,' paved the way for what entitled him to add : ' Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua.' This also that has just been discussed must be con- sidered in Hermeneutics. Sect. YIH. The place that must be assigned to the Hermeneu- tics of the writings of the New Testament in the Encyclopaedia of Christian Theology, or rather, the place it occupies there, is to be sought under Literary Theology. The period at which one should begin its study, is the commencement of the theological course ; Avhile one must never suppose that it will not be neces- sary afterwards to be reminded in the school of Her- meneutics what are the task and duty of the interpreter. Ohs, 1. Plermeneutics must be brought under the head of Literary (exegetical, philological) Theology, or the science of the sources of our knowledge of Chris- tianity, that is, if it be granted that the entire organism of Christian theology consists of Literary, Historical, Dogmatical, and Practical Theology. Of course, they who combine Literary (exegetical) and Historical The- ology, range it under Historical Theology. Others, again, differently. Ohs, 2. Only he can be a good interpreter, who. INTRODUCTION. 13 while prosecuting his other stucliesj does not neglect the study of Hermeneutics. Sect. IX. The Hermeneutics of the writings of the New Testament is by no means a science of very recent date. Though it received a separate treatment only since the first half of the eighteenth century, it never- theless has a history that commences much earher, as, before that period, it was combined with the Her- meneutics of the Old Testament, and was embraced in the so-called Sacred or Bibhcal Hermeneutics. Its commencement is to be sought in the first centuries of the Christian church. The history of Hermeneutics for the New Testament may be divided into three periods : that of preparation ; that of the first efforts ; that of increasing scientific treatment. First Period, — Here special mention should be made of : Origen (4th book of his work -rsp/ h^yjav)^ Jerome {Ep. CI. ad Pammachium, de optimo genere interpre- tandi), Augustine (particularly in his work de doctrina Christiana, the 2d and 3d books, cf. Institutionem herm.-homil. ex August, lihris IV. de doct. Christ, con- quisitam, illustj^atam atque ad usuin accomm., edidit J. J. Breithaupt, 1685) ; of later date, Nic. de Lyra (the Prolegomena to liis Fostillce perpetiLce s. 'commentaria brevia in univer. Bihlici) en Joh. Gerson (Propositiones de sensu literali S. S. et de causis errantiimi). Second Period. — In which we meet with the labours 14 HERMENEUTICS, of Matt. Flacius Illyricus {Clams Script. Saci\ 1567, best edition 1675, the 2d vol. of it), Joli. Gerhard (Tractatus de legitima Saij). S. interpretatione, 1610, behind his Loci Theologici), W. Franz (^Tractatus theol. novus et perspicuus de interpretatione Sacr. Script, maxime legitima, 1619), Andr. Kivetus (Isagoge ad Script, S. Vet. et Nov. F. 1627, partly), S. Glasius (Philologia Sacra, 1623, later inter al. in 1776, espe- cially the 2d book), D. Chamier (1629), J. C. Dann- hauer, A. Pfeiffer {Hermeneut. sacra, 1684), and others. Besides A. H. Fran eke en J. Lange, special mention must here be made of J. J. Eambach (Institutiones liermeneuticce, 1723), J. A. Turretinus {de S. S. inter- pretandce metliodo tractatus hipart., published without the author's knowledge in 1728, by W. A. Teller in 1776; specially with a view to the Old Testament); and besides the above mentioned Chr. Wolle, S. J. Baumgarten {Ausfiihrl, Vortrag der hihl. Hermen. (1742), 1767), J. J. Wetstein (Libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem Nov. Test., edited by Semler, with a preface and notes, in 1766), J. S. Semler (particularly in his Vorhereitung zur Theol. Hermeneutik, 1st part, 1760), not to mention others. Third Period. — To which must be reckoned : J. A. Ernesti {Institutio Iiiterpretis N. Test. 1761, reprinted several times), S. F. N. Morus {Super Hermeneutica N. Test, acroases academical, 1797, — ^lectures on Ernesti's Institutio), G. L. Bauer (1799), G. F. Seiler (Biblische Hermeneutik, 1800, translated into Dutch with addi- tions by J. Heringa E. Son, 1804), Chr. D. Beck INTRODUCTION. 15 {Monogrammata Herm. 1803), W. G. Bretsclmeider (1806), C. A. T. Keil (1810), J. J. Griesbach (1815), F. Liicke (1817), G. Ph. C. Kaiser (1817), W. Stark (1817), F. H. Germar (1828), G. C. E. Matthai (1831), F. Schleiermaclier (Hermeneutik unci Kritih mit he- soiiderer Beziehung auf das N. Test., edited by Liicke, 1838), M. Nicolas (1838), H. N. Klausen {Hermeneutica des N. Test., translated into German from the Danish 1841, important chiefly on account of the historical part), C. G. Wilke (1843), L. G. Pareau {Hermeneutica Codicis Sacri, 1846), J. E. Cellerier (Manuel dJHer- meneutique hihlique, 1852), W. A. van Hengel {de hetrehking van liet gevoel tot het uitleggen van den Bijhel inzonderheid van de Schriften des N. Test. 1853), A. Kuenen (Critices et Hermeneutices lihrormn N. F. lineamenta, ed. 2da, 1859). Of Roman Catholic theologians of later times, men- tion may here be made of : J. Jahn {Enchiridion Her- meneuticce generalis tahularum Vet. et N. F. 1812), J. B. Gerhauser {Bihl. Herm. 1829), J. Ran older {Herme- neut. hihliccE gen. jyrincipia rationalia, 1839), V. Eeichel {Introd. in Hermeneut. hihl. 1839), J. M. A. Loehnis (1839), J. Kohlgruber (1850), J. B. Glintner (1851). Obs. 1. On the history of Hermeneutics for the New Testament and its literature, we may consult: The preface of H. C. A. Eichstadt to the Acroases Aca- demiccB of ]\Iorus, pp. 9-48 ; G. W. Meyer, Geschichte der SchrifterHdrung seit der WiederhersteUung der TVis- senschaften, 1802, etc., 5 vols., espe'cially those sections 1 6 HERMENE UTICS. which treat of the history of the theory of Scripture interpretation, or of Hermeneutics ; J. L. S. Lutz, Bihl. Hermen. pp. 15-35; E. Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heil Schriften N. Test, 4th Edit., sec. 501, etc.; G. B. Winer, Handh. der Theol Lit. i. p. 104, etc. ; K. R. Hagenbach, Encyclopcedie, sec. 52, etc.; J. Clarisse, Encyclop. pp. 272, etc. Ohs. 2. The history of Hermeneutics for the writ- ings of the New Testament must be distinguislied from the history of the exegesis of those writings, as well as from the history of the various exegetical schools to be met with in the province of exegesis. The history of exegesis teaches, what interpretations have been given. The history of the exegetical schools teaches, what principles have been adhered to or not. The history of Hermeneutics teaches, how the theory of the art of interpretation has been treated scientifically ; while Hermeneutics itself teaches, how one has to act as interpreter. Sect. X. In order that the hermeneut may set forth the doctrine of the interpretation of the ^vritings of the New Testament agreeably to the demands which Her- meneutics must satisfy, he must do so keeping in view the exegetical schools that have arisen in the interpre- tation of the writings of the New Testament. It is therefore necessary first to review those exegetical schools, so as after that to expound the doctrine of the interpretation of the writings of the New Testament. FIRST PAET. REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT EXEGETICAL SCHOOLS WHICH HAVE EXERCISED AN INFLUENCE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Sect. XL The history of the writmgs of the New Testament shows that different courses have been adopted in the interpretation of those writings — that interjjreters have diverged in various directions. The different ten- dencies (or schools) may, as regards their common character, be reduced to three. They who must be con- sidered as belonging to the first of these three, have this in common, that they do not allow themselves to be fettered by what is written, and of which they have to give the interpretation that accords with the intention of the author, but treat it (though they do not intend it) arbitrarily, as if they had not. merely to confine themselves to the inquiry as to what the author wished to communicate in his writing. By not restricting themselves to what is written, they are unrestrainedly arbitrary. They who belong to the second class have this peculiarity, that they are not free with regard to 1 8 HERMENE UTICS. what is written, but allow themselves to be governed by a foreign influence, and not by the writing itself which they have to interpret. They are not free with regard to it, are not prepared to surrender themselves entirely to what is expressed in it, without introducing anything foreign. They are the slaves of a system which determines beforehand what the writing more or less contains. These are, with regard to what is written, slavislily fettered. They who belong to the third class consciously refuse to be bound in the interpretation of those WT-itings by anything than what is written, and which they desire to interpret without being governed by any external influence, and without any caprice whatsoever. They may be considered to be legally free , being fettered by no bond whatever from without. Ohs. 1. While we have to distinguish between an unresti-ainedly arbitrary, a slavishly fettered, and legally free tendency in the exegesis of the writings of the New Testament, we must at the same time keep in mind, that by no means all interpreters, not even those of earlier times, can be considered as belonging exclusively to one of these tendencies ; for sometimes it happens that we find one and the same interpreter fol- lowing now this and then that tendency, or belonging in theory more to one, and in practice more to another, j Ohs 2. In the consideration of these three tendencies, we shall proceed so as to review them first in the period preceding the Eeformation of the sixteenth century, and then in that following it. CHAPTER I. THE THKEE DIFFEEENT EXEGETICAL SCHOOLS AS THEY EXISTED BEFOEE THE KEFOEMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTUEY. Sect. XII. We meet the unrestrainedly arbitrary tendency before the Eeformation, there where men apphed the alle- gorical mode of interpretation, or in general, held a plurality of senses. That exegetical school is to be represented as unre- strainedly arbitrary, which does not consider itself restricted to the only plain sense that the writer or speaker himself attached to the words, but allows an allegorical interpretation, i.e, treats as allegory what is no allegory. The allegorical method of interpretation formerly adopted, not only by the Greeks, but also by the Jews with regard to the writings of the Old Testa- ment, was even in early times applied by the Christians to the writings of the New Testament. Besides the literal sense, apparent to all, men held with Clemens Alexandi'inus a deeper sense, not apparent to all, not accessible to all, and mystical. The allegorical mode of interpretation met with favour especially in the 20 HERMENEUTICS. Alexandrian school, and was greatly promoted by it, altliough it by no means neglected the true gramma- tical interpretation. Origen held a threefold sense. Just as a distinction was made in man between body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. v. 23), so he thought he ought to distinguish in Holy Writ betw^een the literal or historical sense (to pT^rov, ro aooiLccrizov), the moral sense (^ TpoTrokoyia), and the mystical sense that un- veiled itself only to believers, the rikuoi (to aTropprjToi^, 7} aXkriyopia, n amycoyn). In allegorizing, the most arbitrary imaginable mode of interpretation, since there are no limits fixed, and every one's inventive faculties have ample scope, we find indulging, among others, Hilary Pict., Ambrose, Augustine (whose hermeneutical rule, ^quidquid in sermone divino neque ad morum honestatem, neque ad fidei veritatem proprie referri possit, figurate dictum esse censeas,' necessarily opened the flood-gates to the most unlimited caprice), and Cyrillus Alex. Gregory the Great also held a three- fold sense (historical, typical, and moral; ^primum,' he says, ^ f undamentum historige ponimus, deinde per significationem typicam in arcem fidei f abricam mentis erigimus, ad extremum per moralitatis gratiam sedifi- cium colore vestimus'). We may, however, by no means here forget, that some of those just mentioned did not entirely neglect the grammatical interpreta- tion. But that does not take away that they must, on account of having held more than one sense, be con- sidered as having afforded ample scope to exegetical caprice. But ere long a threefold sense became THE FOURFOLD SENSE. 21 insufficient. While holding a mystical sense, they generally added a distinction between the allegorical and anagogical sense. In the fifth century, if not earlier, a foui'fold sense had been acknowledged — the historical, allegorical, tropological (ethical), and ana- gogical, — the meaning of which becomes clear to us from the well-known ' Litera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.' (^ Triplex modus intelligentise — viz. besides the modus historicus — ut per tropologiam habeamus notitiam agendorum moraliter, per allegoriam credendorum veraciter, per anagogiam desiderandorum delectabiliter.' Bonavent.) A later age provided the justification of this fourfold sense, when the doctrine of the Trinity was adduced (Scripture must have this sense. ^ Deus est trinus et unus. In essentia unus, in personis trinus. Ideo Scriptm-a, quge est de ipso, habet in unitate lit- terse triformitatem intelligently.' Thus, among others, Bonaventura), in order to sliow that there is one literal, and a ^Ar-ee-fold spiritual sense, of which the anagogical refers to the Father, the allegorical to the Son, and the tropological to the Holy Spirit. Bonaventura even arrived at a sevenfold sense (besides the four already mentioned, also the symbolical, synecdochal, and hyper- bolical), to which, according to him, the seven seals in the Apocalypse of St. John alluded. At such a rate of progress, there would of course be no difficulty in arriving at a twelvefold sense, which could be supposed 22 HERMENEUTICS. to be indicated in the twelve apostles. Perchance we may expect this discovery from the future. Sect. XIII. The slavishly fettered school we meet before the Reformation tliere, where men either were governed in exegesis by ecclesiastical tradition, or clung so closely to exegetical tradition that they no longer judged for themselves, but followed a traditional interpretation without independent examination. We must consider that exegetical school to be slavishly fettered which is not free from every restraint with regard to that which is written, but, burdened with a foreign yoke, interprets it according to a pre- viously established opinion. The way for such a slavishly fettered exegesis was paved in early times already, by those who appealed from the excesses of the allcgorists, specially the heretics, to what might be considered the general doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, the general doctrine of the truth, the regula veritatis, by which at first was meant the main substance of the Holy Scnptm'es, but which in reality gradually became a sort of epitome of the truth laid down in the Bible. A single step further, and men assumed as the test of exegesis, something not to be found in the Scriptures, but that held a place at its side. Such was the case in the west. Ecclesiastical tradition ere long became embodied as it wxre in the regida Jidei, the sTjmholum apostolicumj and more extended in what was called SLA VISHL Y FETTERED SCHOOL. 23 ecclesiastical tradition. Instead of an open dis- cussion on the sense of the Scriptures with those whose exegesis was held to be entirely erroneous, men entrenched themselves more and more behind that which they held to be the hitherto generally acknow- ledged truth in the church. With this, it was averred, the writings of the New Testament must agree, and according to it men therefore interpreted. If heretics departed from it, they could not be considered to have rightly interpreted the Scriptures. The rule of faith, the regula fidei, had thus become the test of the accu- racy of interpretation. This was the case especially in the Latin Church. Here Cyprian and Yincentius Lerinensis took the lead, treading in the footsteps of Tertullian, beside whom Irenseus may well be named. Well known is the saying of Vincent. Ler. : ' Necesse est, propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus, ut pro- pheticse et apostolic^ interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastic! et catholici sensus normam dirigatur.' Others followed. But while men increasingly denied themselves the liberty of a free exegesis, they adhered more closely to what others had previously contributed to the interpretation of the Scriptures, and at last clung entirely to exegetical tradition, which was now handed down as if the fathers had decided everything satis- factorily in the province of exegesis. Independent study became well-nigh the greatest rarity, while acquiescence in the wisdom of the fathers became customary. Men set about compiling, and at last satisfied them- 24 HERMENEUTICS. selves entirely mth that. They prepared series of extracts from older exegetical works (catence)^ and so gave a kind of select readings, not in order to interpret verse by verse, but to let it be interpreted; they gathered from the works of the old interpreters short observations on particular passages, so as thus to repose in the light of earlier times. When these observations were placed in the margin or in the text, they were called glosses {glossce extrinsecce or marginalesy glossce intrinsecce or interlinear es). So a traditional exegesis obtains authority specially in the Latin Church, from which at last no deviation is made, and in which scarcely any use is made of what Greek interpreters had formerly contributed, least of all of what could have been borrowed from the so-called school of Antioch, only it had suffered too much from the suspicion of not being orthodox. The exegetical tradition thus origi- nated and established, found support and furtherance in the labours of Beda Venerabilis, Alcuin, Ehabanus Maurus, Paschasius Eadbertus, Notker Balbulus, Lan- franc, Bruno of Segni, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas (renowned for his Catena aurea in IV evan- gelia and Expositio in Epistola D. Panli), and in the Greek Cliurch in the catence of Procopius of Gaza, and later of CEcumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus. Characteristic of this school is the saying of Alcuiu : ' Magis horum omnium (Ambros., August., and others) scnsibus utens et verbis, quam meas quid- piam prgesumtioni committens, cautissimo stylo provi- dens, ne quid contrariam S. Patrum sensibus ponerem.' ^ RESULTS OF THIS SYSTEM. 25 With regard to the glossce, Walafridus Strabo and Anselm of Laon claim special attention. The work of the former, afterwards known under the title of Glossa Ordinaria, dictated to many for a long time, and was quoted by Petrus Lombardus as the ^ auctoritas,' while the Glossa interlineans of the latter was placed beside it. At length the interpreter had no liberty over against the church; and the lofty panegyrical tone became all the more surprising, the less men looked for themselves into the riches and the depths of the sacred writings. Declarations concerning the Scriptures such as the following of Bonaventura served to excite their minds — ^ Est ejus inattingibilis altitudo propter auctoritatem inviolabilem, inexhaustibilis plenitudo propter profunditatem inperscrutabilem, infallibilis certitudo propter processum irrefellibilem, inpretiabilis valetudo propter fructum in^stimabilem, incontami- nabilis plenitudo propter puritatem inpermixtibilem,' — without ridding them of the habit of letting them- selves be initiated into the Scriptures almost entirely by others. At length liberty was lost, and they had to conduct themselves according to the saying of Joh. Gerson : ^ Sensus Scripturse literahs judicandus est, prout ecclesia, a Spmtu S. inspirata et gubernata, determinavit, et non ad cujuslibet arbitrium vel interpretationem ;' while this in conclusion was added for the encouragement of all friends of true freedom : ' sensus literalis si et dum expugnatur temporibus nostris in his, quae sunt jam aperte per ecclesiam determinata ac recepta, non oportet agere curiosis ratio- 26 HERMENEUTICS. cinationibus adversus impugnatores sed statutis puni- tionibus uti.' Sect. XIV. The legally free school is met before the Eeforma- tion, where men as little indulged in every land of frivolous ingenuity with regard to the sacred writings, as allowed themselves to be guided by an influence foreign to exegesis, so as consequently to become in- capacitated from rendering justice to the Scriptures ; but where men, with the sincere resolution to be guided only by the distinctly apparent sense of what is written, endeavoured to let it say that which was originally thought by the writers or speakers. We must hail that exegetical school as legally free, which held no deeper, no manifold sense, but would acknowledge only one sense as that intended by the writer or speaker, and who on that account set the highest value on grammatical interpretation, so as afterwards to elucidate, as much as possible in the spirit of the author, that which is said or written. Great injustice would be done to Origen if he were passed by here without even being mentioned. Al- though his allegorical interpretation must be considered as a deviation from the right path, yet his merits with regard to the interpretation of the sacred writings may not be overlooked. Ernesti has very rightly called attention to this in his treatise, ^ de Origine interpreta- tionis librorum S. graimnaticcG auctore' (Ojmsc. Phil. ORIGEN, PELAGIUS, AND OTHERS. 27 Crit. p. 288), in which he well remarks : ' fatendum estj Hermeneuticen librorum S. legitimam Origeni veluti parenti suo plurimum debere, eumqnej si suis temporibus magnus et admirabilis visus fuit in alle- gorica ratione, nobis non minorem in grammatico genere videri debere.' Quite as unfair would it be not to mention Pelagius, though it may not be for- gotten that his peculiar doctrinal views caused him frequently to err in regard to the true sense of the words. But specially conspicuous is here the so-called school of Antioch, as the representative of the en- deavour to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, interpret themselves, and elucidate themselves (cf. among others, Ph. Hergenrother, die Antioch. Schule und ihre Bedentung auf exeget. Gehiete, Wurzburg 1866). Honourable mention is deserved by men such as Diodorus of Tarsus, Chrysostom (although not averse to allegorizing), Theodore Mopsuest., Theodoret. Nor w^ould it be just not to name Jerome and Chris- tian Druthmar (Grammaticus), and Eupertus, and Nicolaus Lyranus (Postillge Perpetuge ; ' si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset '), though we are not unmindful of his having advocated the fourfold sense. But of later times, Laurentius Yalla deserves special mention, whose Annotationes in N. T. ex diversorum utriusque linguce codicum coUatione, viewed in the light of his own times, present a refreshing contrast to the sickliness and narrow-mindedness which had so long been rampant before him. In general, all these have done homage to the principle of neither forcing 28 HERMENEUTICS, anything upon a speaker or writer, of wliicli it is not apparent that he thought, nor of allowing themselves to be fettered by any tradition in a work that demands such an entire and perfect surrender of oneself to that which is written. CHAPTER 11. THE THREE DIFFERENT EXEGETICAL SCHOOLS AS THEY HAVE EXISTED SINCE THE REFORMATION IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Sect. XV. It cannot be denied that the unrestrainedly arbitrary school, as we saw it existing before the Keformation, has not manifested itself in its former excesses after the Reformation. But just as there were still now and then those who spoke in favour of the allegorical interpretation or a deeper sense, so also have men in other ways indulged in exegetical liberties, which in principle must be condemned as decidedly arbitrary. Since the Reformation, the unrestrainedly arbitrary tendency has revealed itself under various aspects. The old allegorical interpretation was recommended by some in the Roman Cathohc Church. They were for ha\ang recourse, with Augustine, to a figurative interpretation, should the literal interpretation not prove subservient to morality, or the ^ fidei veritatem.' The mystical sense, which is not to be sought in the words, but in things (non per verba, sed per res ipsas significatus), is highly valued (mysticus sensus est 30 HERMENEUTICS. nucleus suavissimus, says S antes Pagninus. Sixtus of Siena : ^ non minores utilitates continet mysticum ex- positionis genus, tarn ad fidei integritatem, quam ad morum institutionem longe utilissimum '), — and that not only among Eoman Catholics ; among Protestants too, allegorizing and penetrating beyond the letter (which, properly understood, is also necessary, but here is equal to not restricting oneself to what is written) finds much favour under various forms. It stood in high honour among the followers of Coccejus in the latter half of the seventeenth and in the com- mencement of the eighteenth century, and with Camp. Vitringa the elder, and others, who allowed them- selves the liberty of indulging in all sorts of profound abstractions, without being entitled to it in the very least. Down to the latest times, this tendency to seek for a deeper sense, and therefore to find it (for what an interpreter seeks for, with a fixed resolution to find, he is sure to find !), has propagated itself among Pro- testants. A. H. Francke, for instance, held a literal and spiritual sense; J. J. Rambach, a grammatical, logical, and mystical sense ; S. J. Baumgarten, an immediate (literal), and, in addition to that, in many places, a mediate sense (mystical). Allegorizing is disapproved of later, but otherwise — H. Olshausen has exerted himself in modern times on behalf of the so- called deeper sense of the Scriptures, the so-called sub-sense, or that which lies deeper {vTrovoia). He declared himself decidedly against a double sense, against an entirely different sense from that which D C TRINE OF EMPHA SIS. 3 1 the words express. He gave the assurance, that he meant no other than the simple literal sense ; but one that lay under that, intimately connected with it — the same sense, but more deeply understood. He gave up the expression first chosen, ' allegorical interpretation,' for that of ' biblical interpretation.' Still, he must be considered to have advocated a method that tempts us to force a sense upon what is \\T:itten, which did not lie in the intention of the writer; which temptation, E. Stier, for instance, was not always able to resist, when strenuously protesting against ' das Yerkennen des Tief- und Yollsinnes ' of the words of the Lord. Under a different form, the Pietists in earlier times likewise promoted exegetical caprice, by means of their doctrine of the emphasis (s[jij(pa(Tig, power, force of expression, indicating more than what is really expressed), in which they were preceded by A. H. Francke, and confirmed by J. J. Eambach, who treated of it fully in his Hermeneutih. According to this doc- trine, the words of Scripture often signify much more than they express, and we are constantly required to suppose a signi/icantior sensus representatio. It was affirmed : ' fundamentum emphasium sacrarum in eo positum est, quod non solum res, sacris paginis compre- hensoe, sed ipsa etiam verba a sapientissimo numine inspirata fuerint, sanctisque scriptoribus suggesta ; unde merito vocibus tanta significationis amplitudo tantumque pondus assignatur, quantum per rei sub- stratge naturam sustinere possunt' (Eambach). By this method the way was paved for the mystical sense, 32 HERMENEUTICS. by means of which all kinds of mysteiy were discovered in the persons or things forming the subject of discourse. But men also indulged in caprice in an entirely different quarter from that where protection was afforded to the allegorical or emphatical or deeper-lying sense. The Socinians (cf. Fock, der Socinianismus, p. 372, etc.) subjected the divine revelation to reason, and intei-preted the Scriptures according to the sana ratio. According to them (F. Socinus, Joh. Crell, Jon. Slichting, Joh. Lud. von Wolzogen, Sam. Przipcovius, and others, cf. Bihliotheca Fratrum Folonorum), revela- tion might indeed contain much that surpassed reason and human powers of comprehension, but nothing that was in conflict with reason and the common sense of man. (^Multa quidem supra rationem et humanum captum, nihil tamen contra rationem sensumque ipsum communem.') They laid it down as a rule : ^ ne quid statuatur, quod ipsi sanse rationi repugnet sen contra- dictionem involvat.' According to their doctrine, therefore, the interpretation of Holy Scriptute might produce nothing that they deemed to be in conflict with the sana ratio. No less arbitrary was the so-called philosophical interpretation (not to be confounded w4th what w^as afterwards so called by Stiiudlin, 1807) which sprung from the school of Spinoza in the seventeenth century, and is represented by the treatise of L. Meyer, Philoso- phia ScripturcB interpres, e.vercitatio paradoxa, in qua veram pMlosopldam infallihilem S. literas interpre- tandi normam esse, apodlctlce demonstratur, etc., 1666. MORAL & HIST.-PSYCHOL. INTERPP. 33 The author affirmed that the true sense of the sacred writings always must contain a truth, and that there- fore every interpretation standing in opposition to a truth of the understanding was to be considered in- correct. A similar judgment must be pronounced on the so- called moral interpretation, recommended afterwards by Kant {Religion innerhalh der Grenzen der hlossen Vernimft. iii. Nr. 6; Werhe x. pp. 130-132). Accord- ing to this method, the sacred writings are to be so interpreted, that the sense accords with the general practical laws of a purely rational religion. This mode of interpreting did not stop to inquire whether the literal sense suffered by it ; but also left it undecided, whether the Scriptm'es themselves would allow of being understood in such a sense. Arbitrary in a no less degree was the so-called liistorico-psychological interpretation of Prof. Paulus of Heidelberg (by no means inaptly called a Christian Euhemerus by Strauss, Lehen Jesu i. 24), and of the naturalists, of a kindred spirit. He explained every- thing that in the narratives of the evangelists deviates from the usual course of nature, quite naturally^ i.e. in such a way as if nothing that at all resembled a miracle occurred in the narrative. It hardly needs reminding, that in carrying this out, much violence was done ; that a new dictionary for the meanings of words, and a new grammar, especially for syntax, be- came necessary. It was especially Strauss (Lehen Jesu, former edition) who prepared the grave for these 34 HERMENEUTICS. deforming tactics and practice, and who endeavoured to arrive at the same results as the naturahsts, only by a very different way — by his so-called mythical inter- pretation. Everywhere in this school caprice is prevalent, or the way is paved for it, as a sense not originally in- tended is forced upon what is written, or at least they, as well as others, are tempted to force such a sense upon it. Sect. XVI. After the Reformation, too, the slaA^shly fettered school continues to make its appearance in the Roman Catholic Church ; for a time also among Protestants. But while it is merely transitory among the latter, it is made permanent among the former. And while thus Protestant exegesis must end with the acknow- ledgment of the legally free school in all its rights, that of the Roman Catholics continues to fetter its hands, and will not be able to breathe freely, until Rome shall have become open to the truly liberating influence of the Reformation. Ecclesiastical and exegetical tradition had gradually obtained greater and greater authority. The saying of Gerson, before quoted, was uttered in the spirit of many of his contemporaries. The Council of Trent confirmed his sentence. It decreed: 'ut nemo, suae prudentife innixus, in rebus fidei et morum S. Scrip- turam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet Sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est ROMAN CATHOLIC STANDARD. 35 judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum, aut etiam contra nnanimem consensum patrum — ipsam Scripturam S. interpretari audeat.' The church, then, judges by means of the Pope and the council of bishops. The analogia jidei and the Fatrum consentiens interj)retatio (which was supposed to exist) were the test of the correctness of an inter- pretation. Whatever is not in accordance with them, is for that very reason condemned. Does it seem incredible, that even in our age such bondage could be considered bearable, Ave have but to listen to the language of Prof. Loehnis, for instance, in his Tlev- meneutih (Giessen, 1839) : ' Wie ein Diplomat im Geiste und im Interesse seines Fiirsten alles deuten und auffassen muss — so auch der Katholische Interpret in Ansehung der Katholische Kirche. Was die Kirche in den rechtmassigen Concilien, in ihren achten litur- gischen Biichern, in ihren symbolischen Urkunden u. s. w. in Betreff der Auslegung gewisser Stellen der heiligen Schrift bestimmt entschieden hat, das muss auch der Interpret in dieser Art fest halten.' The assurance is next given, that under the guardianship of the Holy Ghost, the church cannot make any de- crees that are at variance with other revelations, since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict himself; that the interpreter can safely proceed upon that ; that he must ever take into consideration the expressed opinions of his church, as otherwise he could not be a minister of that church ; that he would be opposed to his own church, — and whatever else there be of a similarly re- 36 HERMENEUTICS. pulsive nature. And as if this at length were not suffi- cient, all access to the original text was seen to be cut off. For the accredited Latin version, the Vulgate^ was indicated as the starting-point of all exegesis. (S. Synodus statuit et declarat, ut hgec ipsa vetus et Yulgata editio, quae longo tot sgeculorum usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputa- tionibus, prasdicationibus aut expositionibus pro authen- tica habeatur, quam nemo quovis prgetextu rejicere audeat vel prsesumat. Cone. Tiident.) Thus it was certainly impossible to bring to light what, in the writings of the New Testament, was really to be con- sidered the meaning of the writers and speakers ; and no better times are to be looked for in the Roman Catholic Church, before these menial bonds are loosed, and free respiration has become possible by the acknow- ledgment of the rights and the duty of interpreters. Among Protestants, indeed, authority was not ascribed, in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, to church fathers and ecclesiastical councils ; still, it was a matter of difficulty to many — especially in the seven- teenth century — to interpret those writings quite inde- pendently of the doctrine of the church. This was placed in the foreground — and is well deserving of credit — that the Scriptures should be explained by themselves. (Scriptura per Scripturam explicetur.) It was then specially meant, that obscure passages should be explained by means of the more lucid, — the Scrip- tures, therefore, according to what is palpably their general contents or main substance (analogia Scrip- THE REGULA FIDEL 37 turse S.). The main substance, tlien, here meant, was to be found in the lucid passages, and consisted of the sum total of the principal articles of faith. According to this sum of the contents of the Scriptures, accord- ing to what was the general doctrine of faith (analogia fideij Eom. xii. 6), they had to be interpreted. (Qui sunt interpretes Scripturse operam dent, ut interpre- tatio sit analoga fidei, h. e. congruat cum fundamen- talibus fidei articulis, sive cum principalibus Christianas fidei capitibus ex luculentissimis ScriptursB testimoniis collectis. Hollaz.) It was necessary to be guided by the regula fidei (the ' articulorum fidei nexus et con- sensus.' Ex perspicuis illis Scripturse locis colligitur regula fidei, quae est summa qusedam coelestis doctrinae ex apertissimis scripturse locis collecta. — Contra banc fidei regulam nihil quidquam in Scripturae interpre- tatione proferendum. Sedulo cavere debemus, ne quidquam contra fidei analogiam proferamus. Gerhard. — Caritatis fideique regula moderante. Conf. Helvet.) But as men soon came to find the main substance of the doctrine of Scripture conveyed in the symbolical writings of the church, they accordingly found the regula fidei in the symbolical books, to which the in- terpreter was, by reason of the foregoing, confined; and — in that way the doctrine of the church, in the end, determined the results of the exegesis. The inspiration theory, also, of the older Lutheran and Reformed systems of doctrine, made no small in- roads on the liberty of the interpreter. Scripture should interpret itself. But it was considered to be so 38 HERMENEUTICS. entirely inspired by the Holy Ghost, that the supposi- tion of actual variance between two passages was nowhere permissible. Now this last w^as not the result of exegesis, but held, as result of the doctrinal system, a decided precedence. The sacred penmen were ' ab omni errore immunes,' and it had now every- where to be believed that what was written was truth. So that then every interpretation according to which, for instance, one passage of Scripture appeared to be at variance with another, was to be rejected. That one Gospel could have recorded anything, wdth wdiich the account of another could not be reconciled ; that in one of the Epistles of one apostle anything could be taught at variance with the contents of the Epistle of another apostle ; that an apostle could have taught something in one Epistle, with w^hich it was impossible to reconcile something else out of another of his Epistles ; all that had to be rejected a priori by the interpreter. It was indeed conceded, that havrio(pavri occurred in the Scriptures, but denied that havria were to be found in them. It w^as taught, that the 'apparent contradictions' should be removed, and in- sisted on, that, if the effort did not always succeed, still actual conflict was not to be supposed. It was prescribed to the intei-preter, w^hat his result might not be. A lawful and necessarily free research with re- gard to the sense of what was written, was entirely out of the question in this method. Happily Protestantism presents something better also to our ^dew in the pro- vince of exegesis. THE LEGALL Y FREE TENDENCY. 39 Sect. XVII. Especially after the Reformation, the legally free tendency developed itself in all its power, and caused its influence to be felt without wishing to appropriate to itself any liberty that did not belong to it, without fettering itself by a bond, from which it should remain free, if it was to continue to educe from what was written, absolutely nothing but what it really con- tained. They who belong to this school perceive it more and more clearly, that the purely grammatical, historical, and dogmatical (logical and psychological) interpretation, in its widest sense, is absolutely neces- sary, and besides, the only one by means of which justice can be done to the entire contents of the wiut- ings of the New Testament. The Reformers carried on what in early times had been commenced especially by the ancient school of Antioch, and had been promoted by the revival of the study of classic literature. Heralds of the legally free tendency were principally Faber Stapulensis and Erasmus, whose labours rendered much assistance to the Reformers in the province of exegesis. These last, and in accordance with them the symbolical books of the Reformed, declared themselves distinctly against the caprice of an allegorical interpretation and of a mani- fold sense, as also against an acknowledgment of the authority of ecclesiastical or exegetical tradition. The Reformers made it their chief study to interpret the 40 HERMENEUTICS. Scriptures freely by themselves, and, in addition, to acknowledge but one sense as valid. In this school it was said, with Erasmus, ^ nullius auctoritati debet esse addictus qui veritatis agit negotium, neque par est hoc cuiquam hominum tribuere quod neque ipsi sibi postulant et si postularent tanto minus esset tribuen- dum.' Plere it was taught, with Melancthon, ' unam ac certam et simplicem sententiam ubique qu^rendam esse juxta prsecepta grammatics^, dialectical et rhetoriciP.' In this spirit Calvin and Beza laboured, with whom a place is occupied in the foreground by Hugo Grotius, who afterwards received the just praise of being ' illustris humanorum et divinorum N. T scriptorum interpres ' (from Prof. C. Segaar, in his Oratio de Hugone Grotio, illustri — interprete. Traj. ad Rhen. 1785). In speaking of this tendency, the ofttimes misjudged Coccejus deserves mention, who pointed out to the interpreters of his day the necessity of consider- ing each passage in its connection, and of explaining it out of the entire organism of which it constitutes a part. He defines his meaning in these words, amongst others : ' filum Scripturse sequimur, non hinc inde car- pentes ejus particulas, sed totos libros ab initio ad finem ordine considerantes neque nostras conjecturas — neque, ut autumo, nostras cupiditates afferentes, ut illis accommodemus verba Scripturse ; sed spiritualia spiri- tualibus (h. e. tum sermonibus Spiritus ipsius sermones, tum eis quno docet ea qua? docet) comparantes, atque ita hvoCKoyiav rrjg Ti(Trscug conservantes.' {Prcef. in Ep. ad Galat. iv. p. 866.) This hermeneutical rule has THE RULE OF COCCEJUS. 41 been imputed to him : ' Verba omne id significant quod significare possunt.' It was overlooked that he had said, ^ id significant verba, quod possunt significare in integra oratione, sic ut omnino inter se conveniant.' He had in view the ' tota compages sermonis,' the in- terpreting of an author out of his own words, the interpretation of the words from the context.^ It certainly cannot be denied, that he allowed himself to be guided by his doctrinal views. But in that he is indeed not the first, nor yet the last, among those who may be regarded as belonging to the legally free ten- dency. Even in the middle of the nineteenth cen- tury, those might be named who, as regards exegetical principle and aim, undoubtedly must be numbered among its representatives, who notwithstanding, are striking proofs of the truth, that an interpreter free from all dogmatical prejudice is but rarely to be met with. In this school, however, it has been the ever increasing endeavour to become and to remain inde- pendent of everything that may not exercise an influence on the interpretation of the New Testament ; and not a few responded to the saying of J. A. Tur- retin: ' de mente Sacrorum Scriptorum non judicandum est ex hodiernis placitis ac systematibus, sed est animus in ea, quibus scribebant tempora et loca transferendus, 1 In Holland, Coccejus has been brought into estimation again by Dr. G. van Gorkom, Spec, de Joanne Coccejo., S. Cod. interpreter 1856 ; and by Dr. A. van der Fher, Spec, de Joli. Coccejo anti- scholastico, 1859 ; in which reference is made to De NederlandscJie Stemmen, iv. 149, and to Tholuck, das Acad. Lehen des lien JaJirh., 2d sect. p. 230. 42 HERMENEUTICS. et qu^enam in eorum, qui turn vivebant, animo oriri potuerunt ideae videndum.' But especially since the latter half of the eighteenth century we see this school prospering increasingly, under the influence of J. A. Ernesti and J. S. Semler, though it be true, that they rather indicated the true method by hints, than pos- sessed a perfect acquaintance with, or gave a full de- scription of it. But notwithstanding the truth of this, Ernesti might still be called (by J. van Voorst, Oratio de J. A. Ernestio, 1804), ' optimus post H. Grotium dux et magister interpretum N. T.,' and certainly will ever be held in high estimation in this school. After him the grammatical interpretation was perma- nently established in the foreground, just as the his- torical interpretation was after Semler, according to which, the writings of the New Testament should be interpreted in the light of the times from which they descend, and particularly, too, of the way of thinking of the writers' or speakers' contemporaries. It is certainly to be regretted that Semler and others made a wrong application, too, of the principle, which in itself was true enough ; but that does not affect the truth of the fundamental position. The attention of interpreters being once directed (also by Storr, Keil, and others) to the necessity of a grammatical inter- pretation, and with a desire to guard against partiality, the endeavour was constantly made to combine what- ever was of value in both these methods, and so the grammatico-historical interpretation was permanently installed. The writings of the New Testament were PROGRESS IN THIS TENDENCY. 43 now accui-ately interpreted according to the laws of Philology, and in the light reflected upon them by History. It became more and more the endeavour of many, to penetrate into the spirit of the writers or speakers, to place themselves entirely in their sphere of thought, and interpret them out of that, each one considered independently, and yet, as far as was per- missible, out of each other too. Much was afterwards done for the grammatical, specially true philological interpretation, by G. B. Winer (Grammatik des N. T. Sprachidioms, 1st ed. 1822, 6th ed. 1855). Others, again, directed the attention of interpreters more than was formerly done to the particular in the general, by an accurate consideration of the peculiarity in the type of doctrine and mode of expression, which is characteristic of the various writers of the New Testament. It was, moreover, more clearly understood, that the interpreter should occupy an independent position with regard to the sacred writings, being as little under the necessity of considering himself responsible for the communica- tions made and the doctrine taught in them, as pos- sessed of the right of in any way disputing or mutilating what he finds related or taught in them. Men have come to understand, that exegesis must be objective, that it must interpret and explain that which is written, i.e. the object of the exegesis, as accurately as possible ; while the interpreter himself must stand in the back- ground as a neutral party, however deeply he must have penetrated into the spirit of what is written. In many respects Protestant Germany has taken the lead 44 HERMENEUTICS. in this path, wliere commentaries as those of Winer, Fritzsche, Bleek, of Llicke, Tholuck, Kiickert, of de Wette, Meyer, and others, equally deserve to be men- tioned with gratitude, as various works that endea- voured to explain the type of doctrine of Jesus and the apostles. Protestant Holland has not remained behind, and points with pleasui'e — to mention only the earlier writers — to the exegetical works of Borger, van Hengel (of great value specially with regard to purely grammatical interpretation), Bouman, and others. Here a large number of more or less extensive writings, treatises, and essays, on portions, passages, and words, has cast much light on particulars of every kind. Here men have proved, and we trust will continue to prove, that they understand that it is just by means of a thorough treatment of such particular portions, passages, and words, that the exegesis of the New Testament is advanced. With Protestant Germany, Protestant Holland may pride itself, that, taken as a whole, it is as little a stranger to the true exegetical method, as it is unacquainted with the true hermeneu- tical theory. Pleasing signs in this tendency have been manifested also in France. EnHand does not lag behind, but proves that, even as where in North America scientific theological life flourishes, she has a willing ear for the hermeneutical rules held by the Reformers already, but which are not actually applied everywhere where they are declared to be highly valued. It is pleasing, moreover, that men do not confine themselves to the grammatico-historical inter- RESULT OF FREE EXEGESIS. 45 pretation, but do more and more justice also to that interpretation which, under the name of logical and psychological, is recommended by some. While men do not seem to be agreed with regard to what is meant by the theological interpretation, the time may be at hand, when, by means of the dogmatical interpre- tation, the wishes of all parties will be satisfied, and all reasonable demands be fully met. And even if, here and there, without perhaps perceiving its con- sequences, favour is bestowed on the unrestrainedly arbitrary tendency, or a step is taken that puts us in mind of the slavishly fettered, the commencement of the latter half of the nineteenth century gives us reason to hope that the legally free tendency in the interpretation of the Avritings of the New Testament has among Protestants obtained a permanent ascen- dancy. Supported by the unwearied progress of the study of textual criticism, armed vd\h good lexicons and grammars, and lighted on our way by a thoroughly treated archasology, in the widest sense of the term, the time is also seen approaching when Protestant countries will possess an as accurate translation of the writings of the N-ew Testament as is possible in their ow^i tongue, elucidated by notes and illustrations on each verse or word, or by continuous commentaries. Such, then, is the grand result of the increasing labom's of an exesesis that has once for all bid farewell to caprice, that has thoroughly rid itself of the shackles of imnatural restraint, that has applied itself with heart and soul to the interpretation of the sacred 46 HERMENEUTICS. writings of the New Testament according to the same liermeneutical principles and rules by which every other writing must be interpreted, proving in that way that it holds those Scriptures sacred indeed, in which we have to respect the oracles of Christianity. Ohs. 1. On the different exegetical tendencies that have obtained in the interpretation of the books of the New Testament, compare, moreover, the Avorks men- tioned, sect. 9, obs. 1. Ohs. 2. In this review^ we were not under the neces- sity of pausing purposely to consider : a. The so-called historical interpretation of Semler, in as far as it stood in connection with his accommo- dation theory, according to which the words of Jesus and the apostles would have to be explained out of the views of their contemporaries in such a way, that they themselves should be considered to have adapted them- selves to them, without always giving us the right of concluding from thence to their own convictions. ' For Christ and the apostles,' so he expresses himself, * having to do with people of their own times, spoke as these w^ere accustomed to speak ; and the word was preached to them according to their capacity for re- ceiving it, and not as perfect truth at all times de- manded it. Some allowance had to be made for the disciples also, as they could not yet enter into their Master's spiritual mode of thinking.' On this stand- point it is therefore no longer the question, icliat thoughts Jesus and the apostles have expressed in VARIOUS OTHER METHODS. 47 their words, but iclietlier they themselves were indeed convinced of the truth of what they taught. This does not belong to the sphere of exegesis, but of biography. h. The so-called cestJietical interpretation, advocated, amongst others, by Prof. Pareau {Hermen. Cod. S. p. 431 sqq.), in which it is set forth, why the writer said just that and not something else, and expressed himself so and not otherwise, in that form, in such a way. Inasmuch as this cannot be said to belong to historical interpretation properly so called, it does not belong to the province of exegesis, but to that of the study of individual character, or to that of an assthetical criticism of what is written. c. The so-called mythical interpretation, given in later times by Strauss in particular. According to him and others, a portion of the historical accounts of the evan- gelists, especially that portion in which miracles occur, is to be considered as being mere myths, notwithstanding that they themselves really intended to relate history. Now it is not the question here, what that which is written pretends to be, or how the writings should be interpreted ; but ivhether we have to consider it as credible histoiy, in as far as it recounts facts. This, however, does not belong to the province of exegesis, but to that of historical criticism. d. The so-called religious interpretation of J. G. Rtitze {die hOchsten Priyicipien der SchrifterJdiming, 1824), according to which the highest law of Scripture interpretation is to be sought in a Christian rational 48 HERMENEUTICS. principle of faith, viz. in the absolutely divine love, life and work of Christ, which must be called the highest rule for the validity and strictly religions sense of the peculiar teachings, historical narratives, and facts of the New Testament. No doctrine, no narra- tive of the New Testament, may be acknowledged as Christian, unless their contents be in perfect accord- ance with the principle of Christian wisdom, holiness, and love. This religious interpretation, therefore, judges of the Christian character of what is communi- cated in the writings of the New Testament. This, however, does not belong to the sphere of exegesis, but to that of the criticism of biblical, in particular. New Testament theology. e. The so-called pneumatical interpretation of J. T. Beck {Versuch einer pneumatiscli-hermeneutischen Entwichelung des 9 Kapittels im Br. an die Bomer, 1833; Zur theol. Auslegung der Schrift, at the end of his Einleitung in das System der Chr. Lehre, 1838), which sets out from the organic connection of the entire Scriptures. It searches out the features of the Messianic theological character in the individual phy- siognomy, and brings them to light in the single passages. So it determines its real significance in the internal economy of the divine working of the Spirit. It too, therefore, judges of what is communicated in the Holy Scriptures as Christian truth. Now this does not fall within the range of exegesis, but that of the criticism of biblical, particularly New Testament theolog};. VARIOUS OTHER METHODS. 49 / The so-called panliarmonic interpretation of F. 'H. Germar (Die panharm. Interpretation der H. Schrifty 1821), which has its foundation in the endeavour to obtain universal harmony (panharmony — general agree- ment) as the characteristic of tonith. It lays down as principle, that the substance of the ideas of the revela- tion of God in Christ, contained in Scripture, is rightly understood in proportion as it is in the most perfect accordance with the various sayings of Christ mutually, and with everything else that is undoubtedly true and certain, while nothing may be acknowledged as divine revelation that does not agree with that. (Compare, besides, Beytrag zur allgem. Hermeneutik, 1828.) The object is, to form a purely Christian type of doctrine. Now this does not fall within the sphere of exegesis, but of systematical theology on a Christian basis. g. The so-called theological interpretation (Klausen, Landerer, and others), which proceeds on the supposi- tion that Scripture is inspired; i.e. that by the operation and effectual penetrating energy of the divine Spirit of truth, human individuality was elevated in the apostles to pure knowledge of revealed truth, and to the ability of communicating it ; that that operation is expressed in the writings which they have left behind, so that we have in them that truth in unblemished purity and midiminished power. This, then, is placed in the foreground, that the contents of Holy Writ pro- fess to be eternal and universally valid trutlij — and that the particular must be considered in connection with the general, while the endeavour is made to penetrate D 50 HERMENEUTICS. into the life and being of the dogma itself. Inasmuch as something more is here intended than an expla- nation of particulars out of the known opinions and views of the speakers or writers, it does not belong to the province of exegesis, but to that of Christian dogmatics. h. The mystical interpretation, no matter under what form or name it be recommended and defended. In as far as it has no regard to the words, but to some thing or occiuTence related in those words, by which God would have to be considered as wishing to reveal or communicate something, it no longer falls within the sphere of exegesis, but that of history, that surely of the estimation of facts, with which not the inter- preter but the historical inquirer has to occupy himself. There was no necessity for making any mention whatever of the typical interpretation, as it could only come into consideration in the exegesis of the Old Testament. SECOND PART. THEORY OF THE EXEGESIS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Sect. XYIII. The Hermeneutics for the writings of the New Testament should, in order to be faithful to its calling, accurately set forth loliat the interpreter of those writ- ings properly has to do, and liow he ought to perform it. It must accordingly enlighten him with regard to the task he has to perform, and the icay in which he can attain his object. CHAPTER I. THE TASK WHICH THE INTERPRETER OF THE WRIT- INGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS TO PERFORM. Sect. XIX. The interpreter of the writings of the New Testa- ment has to consider it as his task, fully, faithfully. 52 HERMENEUTICS. and clearly to develop the sense of what is written, and properly to illustrate it on every side. He must enable others, as far as this is possible, in reading what is written, to think the same that was originally thought by the writer or speaker, and also was really intended to be thought by others. So he renders that which is writfen intelligible or comprehensible. Ohs. ' As far as this is possible.' It might happen, either that we are not acquainted with the original reading, or that the author had written somewhat of which we must now declare, that to the words as they stand there at present, we can really attach no good sense, or that we lack the requisite knowledge of his- torical particulars, in order properly to illustrate what is said or written. (Compare here Dr. J. H. Hol- werda, de hetrehking van het verstand tot Jiet uitleggen van den Bijhel^ inz. van de Schriften des JV. Testaments, Gorinch. 1853 ; Uitlegh aanteekeningen op eeiiige plaat- sen uit het N. T. 1853 ; By drag en tot de uitlegging van het N, T., Leiden 1855.) Sect. XX. Since, in order to be able to accomplish the task of interpreter properly, one must himself understand that which he has to explain to others, one must first over- come all the difficulties that present themselves in the interpretation of the books of the New Testament, — difficulties, in particular, that arise, on the one hand. REQUISITE QUALIFICATIONS, 53 from the language in which those books are written, and the subjects of Avhich they treat; and on the other, from the vieics and opinions that one has him- self, in distinction from those that are found in those writings. Ohs. And therefore it is required of an interpreter of the New Testament, that he possess a thorough knowledge of the Greek language in general, and of the Greek in which the New Testament is written in particular ; an accurate acquaintance with the times whence those writings are descended ; and moreover, that he entirely set aside what he himself believes and knows in distinction from the writers or speakers, whose words he has before him. Without this last, confusion and misunderstanding will constantly arise ; without the first, he judges just as a blind person does of colours. Sect. XXI. To be able to treat the writings of the New Testa- ment properly, one must, setting aside as yet their contents, be well acquainted with them, that is, must be properly enlightened with regard to their origin and mutual relation ; in other words, one must be initiated into the history of the books of the New Testament, or the so-called particular and general introduction to those books. The interpreter must have acquainted himself with the way in which those books originated 54 HERMENEUTICS. and were united to each other : the first, in order to keep in view that they had their origin in very nearly the same period, and with like-minded writers, but still different persons, — that they were composed on different occasions, in different places, and to satisfy different wants ; the second, so as not to forget that they were united to each other, not all at once, but gradually, through the co-operation of various influ- ences, so that we have not before us here one book, but a collection of writings, which, together with much conformity, still possess their own peculiarities of lan- guage, form, contents, way of putting things, tendency and object, on which peculiarities the interpreter has continually to fix his attention. Ohs. 1. It may not be overlooked by any one, that the five historical books of the New Testament must be distinguished from the twenty-one Epistles, and that from these togetlier the Kevelation of St. Jolni differs considerably, as partaking more of a propheti- cal nature. And as regards the historical writings in particular, since they are of different authorship, we may not consider them as if they were various accounts by the same hand (the fourth Gospel is de- cidedly distinguished from the three synoptical Gospels in more than one respect) ; and as regards the twenty- one Epistles, it may never be forgotten that they are as little the work of one "writer, as written in the same year or for the same readers. Ohs, 2. We cannot be sufficiently warned against AUTHORSHIP OF THE N. T 55 the standpoint of those interpreters of the New Testa- ment, who look upon it as similar in every respect to any other book that indeed consists of various parts, but still is the work of one hand. But now the vari- ous books of , the New Testament are not from the same hand, and have, just as their authors, their own peculiarities. We have no right constantly to suppose that what one author relates was known, though he does not say it, to the others too, as little as we may assume, that the not mentioning of something or other itself involves ignorance of it. So we have no right to suppose, in general, that what one teaches must have been the conviction of the other, though he does not say a word about it. Their silence proves something only when it distinctly appears from elsewhere, that what is related must have been universally known, and what is taught must have been universally acknow- ledged as truth in the circle to which those \ATiters belonged. Ohs. 3. The interpreter of the writings of the New Testament would be blind indeed, were he not struck by the great similarity which exists, e.g., between the three synoptical Gospels, between the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Komans, between those to the Ephesians and Colossians, between the Gospel and Epistles of St. John, and more such like. But he must needs be blind, too, did he not notice any difference whatever between the Epistle of James and that of Paul to the Eomans, between the Epistle to the Ephe- sians and that to the Hebrews, between the synoptical S6 HERMENEUTICS. Gospels and that of St. John ; bhncl, were he not to notice any difference between the type of doctrine of James, of Peter, of John, of Paul. This difference should never be overlooked by the interpreter ; and this difference is overlooked by what some have called the theological or biblico-theological interpretation, in as far as it considers and treats the books of the New Testament combined as an organic unity, and con- stantly interprets one author by another, or ascribes to one what is said by another. What is in the end rightly aimed at and brought prominently forward by the so-called theological interpretation, is for the rest the work of comparative biblical theology. ^ In dog- matical representations' (says Klausen, Herm. p. 442) ^ which seem to be at variance with other certain sayings in the Scriptures, or with the fundamental truth of Christianity in general, it is an axiom for Christian faith, that it must be possible to reduce the contradiction to a difference in the way of apprehending the same truth. To point out this is the task of the theological interpretation, and that by bringing back the particular passages to the dogmatical point of union, which embraces the various ways of representa- tion, and thus makes the apparent contradiction resolve itself into a difference of standpoint and form of de- velopment.' With regard to this last, Hermeneutics is satisfied, when it is conceded that the interpreter must acknowledge the difference of standpoint and form of development, there where it is distinctly noticeable ; while it further continues to insist that the task of THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION. 57 interpreters be duly kept separate from theirs by whom the results of exegesis have to be rewrought for biblical theolog}", though both one and the other be performed by the same person. And finally, as regards that axiom, it will have to vindicate itself before the tribunal of pure historical inquiry, and needs not, if it has been justified there, become an axiom for Chris- tian ' faith,' as it then simply is a component part of ^ science.' In conclusion, while it is the main object of the so-called theological interpretation to point out how the particulars in the \\Titings of the Ncav Testa- ment, viewed as an organic whole, stand in connection with the whole, and find their satisfactory explanation in that connection, it is, as we shall afterwards see, the dogmatical interpretation that is called to consider and explain the particulars in the various -vsT-iters in con- nection with their type of doctrine (their dogma or system, if we wish to call it so). Sect. XXII. In the interpretation of these writings, the inter- preter has in no wise and in no case to consider himself responsible for what is said, told, or taught in them. In interpreting the historical portions, he must simply examine what the narratives wish to be taken for, not, whether what is there represented as ha\^ng really occurred, actually took place. This last, indeed, belongs to the province of historical criticism, which ought to be well distinguished from 'that of exegesis. 58 HERMENEUTICS. He lias accomplished his task as interpreter, when he has made it perfectly clear what must, according to the account before him, be considered as having taken place ; while he must then previously have examined whether what is written is to be understood as an historical narrative properly so called, or as a parable, for instance. In the so-called doctrinal portions of the books of the New Testament, the interpreter is not called to examine whether that which is there taught be truth. He need not appear there as apologist, and ought to consider it unsuitable to communicate his reasons for agreeing to, or differing from, what is there taught. In exegesis no importance whatever attaches to his approval or disapprobation, while everything de- pends upon the accurate exposition of what is taught. Nor has the interpreter to hold himself responsible for the way in which anything is developed, proved, or refuted in those writings. He has to take the A\Titers and speakers as they present themselves, and objectively to render that which is written. He has accordingly to unfold, without partiality or prejudice, whatever is contained in that which is written, without concerning himself about the impression his interpretation (if it be correct) will make, in case others should have read something totally different in that which is written from that which, it now appears, is actually to be read. The interpreter of the books of the New Testament may not be a flatterer, may not seek to please men, may not make allowance for prejudice, or favour any party. He, in particular, must deeply impress upon THEORY OF THE TASK. 59 himself the question of the Lord, ^How read ye?' and hold in readiness for every one who is not satisfied with his interpretation — if, namely, it can vindicate itself as true — this one word as final : 'It is written !' Ohs. 1. No excuse is ever to be found for any one who, in the interpretation of the New Testament, forces his own views, his conception of the world (Welt- anschauung), his own doctrinal system, on the writer or speaker. Nor can it be carried out for any length of time, as that which is written stedfastly protests against every perversion of its sense, and sooner or later vindicates its rights. The naturalistic interpreta- tion has been exposed for good in all its absurdity. By introducing his own doctrinal views into the text, the interpreter himself is at last exposed. Of what avail is it, for instance, to ' explain away ' out of John i. 1-14 the real personal pre-existence of the Logos ? Every one who interprets this passage historico-gram- matically draws up his shoulders at that ^ ideal pre- existence of the Logos' which men have extracted from it after having inserted it. Let the New Testa- ment teach what it teaches ; and if men do not agree with it, let them have the courage to say so. If men do not agree with it, it certainly is because they think that they know better. Well, be it so. But let the New Testament have its own views. The task of the interpreter is verily not of such a nature, that when he does his duty, he needs ever make himself anxious while employed upon it. But he must needs become 6o HERMENEUTICS, anxious, if he hold himself responsible for what is written there. This then, however, is a cross that he lays on his own shoulders, and, alas ! a source of tor- ture to the writings which he has to interpret. Ohs. 2. Exegesis must be and remain objective. This we must ever bear in mind, even where we can with difficulty conceal it from ourselves that we would have ado])ted another mode of argument, or made a different use of a certain word or saying. This must be specially remembered with an eye to the numerous places in the New Testament where use is made of some passage or other out of the Old Testament. (Comp. J. C. C. Dopke, Hermeneutik der Neutesta- mentL ScJiiiftsteller, i. Leipzig 1829; Jul. Wiggers, de interpretat, genere, quo i\^. F. Scriptores usi sunt, Kost. 1837.) The interpreter must once for all make this his rule in considering such passages, — to examine : 1. Whether he has to deal with a quotation, properly so called, from the Old Testament, by means of which something has to be proved, or whether only a free use is made of some passage, without its being the question, wlielt was originally meant by those words. 2. Wliether the writer or speaker himself translated the original (Hebrew) into Greek, or made use of the Lxx. 3. Whether he has translated the original freely or not, or else, quoted the lxx. literally or not. 4. Whether the passage, explained according to the rules of grammatical, historical, and dogmatical interpreta- tion, could be used as it has been; and here no one must be obliged to apply another method of inter- FURTHER REQUIREMENTS. 6i pretation to the Old Testament than that which is prescribed by HermeneuticSj either in general, or in particular for the New Testament, as the only lawful one. Sect. XXIII. Just as it is the prescribed duty of the interpreter of the books of the New Testament to proceed quite impartially in their interpretation, so as carefully to abstain from every endeavour to harmonize that which is written with ideas and notions of which he himseL is possessed, so also is it required of him, that he pos- sess a heart for those writings, for their contents, for the ground-tone, the spirit, the tendency, by which they are characterized. It will do him no harm to rank them above, to value them more highly than, all that has ever appeared within the sphere of religion. He will not be the best interpreter of the New Testa- ment who treats it with extreme coldness, and holds up to view the contents of its treasuries without the slightest sympathy for them ; but we may expect much for exegesis from him who, furnished with the requisite knowledge, esteems it highly on account of its contents, and treats it with reverence on account of the subjects to which it bears testimony. Ohs. He who treats the books of the New Testa- ment with frivolity, brands himself as unfit to do justice to their contents, though for the rest he might 62 HERMENEUTICS. be far superior to others in point of attainments. The writings of the New Testament demand an earnest treatment. Their main ideas are the most earnest conceivable. Sect. XXIV. It is absolutely necessary that the intei-preter should place himself entirely witliin the sphere of thought, the way of thinking, and the frame of mind of the writers or speakers whose words he has to explain. He requires to have penetrated into their spirit, so as to do justice to their mode of thinking and represent- ing things, — to have placed himself entirely on their standpoint ; he must be willing to see as they did, in order to be able to think and feel, to live and speak as they. Then only will he be able to explain their words out of themselves, and so give that psychological inter- pretation which has so often been insisted on. But as every one will not be equally successful in becoming so entirely one with the various New Testament writers as to be equally suited thoroughly to treat the waitings of all (as this also depends upon the natural bent, development, and taste of the interpreter), it will be necessary for every one to consult himself, in order to know what may be undertaken by him in particular with greater or less prospect of success. Ohs. 1. Attention has been rightly directed, from various quarters and in different ways, to the duty of TR UE PS YCHOL OGICAL INTERP. 63 the interpreter to place himself in spiritual contact with the writer whose work he is considering. Now whether this be called philosophical (Staudlin) or psychological interpretation, or aims at the same thing under a different form, by pointing out that the inter- preter of the New Testament should be filled with the Holy Ghost {vid. ex, gr, C. Wordsworth, The Inter- jjretation of the Bible, London 1861, and others), the thing is virtually the same. The interpreter must have entered entirely into, have become spiritually one with, him ; otherwise he is a stranger to him, and understandeth not his speech. Ohs, 2. Llicke somewhere (in his Grundriss der Neutest. Herm .) justly remarks : ^ Wenn sich doch Allen ins Herz schreiben liesse, was D. Martin Luther aus vollem Herzen zwey Tage vor seinem Tode auf einen Zettel geschrieben : Virgilium in Bucolicis nemo potest intelligere, nisi fuerit quinque annis pastor. Virgilium in Georgicis nemo potest intelhgere, nisi fuerit quinque annis agricola. Ciceronem in epistolis (sic prgecipio) nemo integre intelligit, nisi viginti annis sit versatus in republica aliqua insigni. Scripturas sanctas sciat se nemo degustasse satis, nisi centum annis cum prophetis, ut Elia et Eliseo, Joanne Bap- tista, Christo et apostolis, Ecclesias gubernarit.' If an author is to be interpreted well, he must be reflected in the interpreter. Ohs, 3. Sufficient attention is perhaps not always paid to the fact, that every one is not equally suited to the interpretation of all the books of the New Testa- 64 HERMENEUTICS. ment. Tliougli one be well calculated to interpret the Epistle to the Hebrews, he is not so on that account with regard to the Gospel of John ; and one might be able to treat the Epistle of James well, who would still on that account not be the fit person for the Revelation of John. The synoptical Gospels and the Epistle, for instance, to the Ephesians or Colossians, not only demand a different preparation, but also sup- pose other peculiarities in the interpreter. But above all things, sympathize with the writer. Otherwise spare us your mediation as interpreter. If we listen to you as interpreter, then we must listen to the friend of the author whose work is to be given us to under- stand and enjoy. Sect. XXV. Resuming everything, we say, that the interpreter of the books of the New Testament has to develop the sense of what is written there, so that nothing originally thought in them by the writer is wanting in the exposi- tion of the sense, or changed in its development. While the interpreter himself has, in doing so, to retire into the background, he mtist let the author speak entirely for himself, and must do full justice to the author's individuality. Nothing else is of importance but the meaning of what is written by that particular author, and the development of the thoughts expressed in his words. But if much depends on the sense, and if it is the task of the interpreter to develop that sense. FUNDAMENTAL RULE. 65 then lie must also set out from, and adhere to, the supposition that only one sense is laid down and ex- pressed in the words of the author. We may not suppose a deeper, or double, or manifold sense, or whatever that sense be called, which some hermeneuts and interpreters have held besides the one so-called grammatical sense. One sense, no matter whether the author spoke in metaphorical language or not, one sense only is everywhere to be supposed, — one sense, because every one wishing to be understood by others, will have laid down but one sense in his discourse. Only then, when it distinctly appears that the author intended a certain ambiguity, when it is apparent that we are obliged to adopt more than one sense in order to do justice to the author, is it lawful to deviate from the rule, from which the interpreter may other- wise upon no account depart : that everywhere, and at all times, the words have but one meaning, and that but one thought is expressed in the sense of a discourse. Ohs, 1. All interpreters, and particularly those of the books of the New Testament, might well remember the saying of Jesus : ^ All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' Who would find it pleasant to think, that after his deatb more than one meaning would be given to his words? Let us never forget, that we are accustomed, in speaking or writing, to use every word in one definite sense, and to express one definite thought in each 66 HERMENEUTICS. sentence, when we wish to be understood. We will purposely avoid all ambiguity when we wish others to comprehend our thoughts. If we do not desire this, then we will be ambiguous on purpose, but then unin- telligible too. In conversation, just as in reading books, we always proceed upon the supposition that the words have but one meaning. Why, then, must the writers of the New Testament, or they who are there introduced as speaking, be condemned to lie under suspicion of an ambiguity that would verily not be to their credit % Let a single sense be supposed in the exposition of the thoughts contained in their words, excepting where it distinctly appears that we must give up that supposition. But this does not appear there, where a certain ambiguity or uncertainty remains to our mind, on account of the peculiar forms or the peculiar idiom of Greek; where thus the (apparent) ambiguity is not to be imputed to the w^riter or speaker, but to the language which he employs. It is known, for instance, that the genitive can have more than one signification (e.g. as genitivus subjectivus or objectivus; apposit., partitivus, etc.) ; that in different moods and tenses of verbs, the same forms occur. The connec- tion must then determine the intention of the writer or speaker. So e.g. with regard to John v. 39, Ipsvvars (indie, or imperat. ?) ; xiv. 1, Tianvirz — TrKxrevSTi (in like manner) ; Eom. v. 5, ^ ccyccTrrj rov Qsov (genit. subj. or obj. ?) ; Rom. \dii. 23, r;jf ccTrapx^u rov 'TTVivfJMTog lyj)VTzg (genit. appos. or partitivus f) ; the expression t/W/? 'Irjtrov Xpiffrov, Rom. iii. 22, Gal. NO MANIFOLD SENSE. 67 ii. 16, etc., Kev. ii. 13, xiv. 12 ; IrA^iaiv, John xix. 13 (intransit. or transit.?), and other passages. Ohs. 2. In defence of a manifold sense, it is of no avail to appeal to the peculiar character of the sacred writings as the ' word of God,' or of the sacred pen- men as ' inspired by the Holy Ghost.' In whatever way we may view the details, it by no means affects the truth of the position, that the authors of the books of the New Testament must be considered to have been subject to the common laws of thought, or rules of speaking and of writing. Though we form the most mechanical notion possible of the inspiration of the sacred penmen, — though we see ' the word of God' in the writings of the New Testament, quite in the same way as, for instance, in Matt. iii. 176, a word of God, in Luke xv. 4, etc., a word of Jesus, and in Rom. i. 1 a word of St. Paul is found ; still, we do not on that account obtain a right to the position, that we are not to proceed, with regard to those writings, on the same supposition which is allowed in the interpreta- tion of the words of every one who is considered desu'ous of being understood and comprehended by men. Ohs. 3. It is remarkable, that men constantly again declare themselves in favour of a manifold sense; remarkable, too, that in order to maintain it, they take refuge in arguments that never prove what they should. It has to be proved, that the writers of the New Testa- ment themselves attached more than one meaning to their words — and therefore are an exception to the 6S HERMENEUTICS. general rule. But this is not proved — and ever less asserted. The second sense — so much at least is per- ceived — is nothing of the author's. A remarkable attempt to rescue the ' double sense of Scripture' has lately been made by H. Schultz ( Tlieol. Stud, und Krit, 1866, 1), with a view to the Messianic portions of the Old Testament. Beside the historical sense, which was intended by the authors, and Avith which exegesis has to deal, they obtained, so he affirms, a second sense in the estimation of believing Israel, which second sense must also be reckoned to the series of God's revela- tions. This, then, is the secret sense of the Holy Spirit, which also originated historically, but belongs to a period of revelation entirely different from the first. The writer wishes this double sense of Scripture to be admitted only for the Old Testament. It is, however, not clear why then the Christian congregation also may not be considered as privileged with a con- tinuous revelation, by which the writings of the New Testament, too, have obtained, besides that intended by the authors, yet another sense, which also must be received into the series of divine revelations. But as it is acknowledged, that the authors in no case intended such a second sense, and that thus exegesis has nothing to do with it, we can let this matter rest now, leaving it to them who take pleasure in similar theories. The interpreter of the books of the New Testament must adhere to what has been so well said, in the spirit of many, by Keil (Elem. Herm, N. T. p. 12) : ^ Jam, quum quivis scriptor, nisi insanus sit, et aut consulto SA YING OF KEIL. 69 lectores ludere, aut iis de industria sensum libri sui in ambiguo relinquere velit, verbis suis unum modo sensum subjicere soleat, illudque omnium minime in scriptores N. T. cadat, sequitur, singulis horum librorum locis non nisi unmn sensum esse tribuendum, simulque inter plures explicandi rationes qu^ iniri possint, unam tantum rectam et veram esse posse.' CHAPTER 11. THE METHOD BY WHICH THE INTERPRETER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CAN ATTAIN HIS OBJECT. Sect. XXVI. The object which the interpreter of the books of the New Testament must endeavour to attain is : the accomplishment of the task treated of in the foregoing. We have now to point out, in its details, the way that leads to that object; and that in such a manner as that it may recommend itself as natural, simple, and suitable. Sect. XXVII. No difference of opinion worthy of mention exists with regard to the necessity of grammatical or literal interpretation. As a rule, it is conceded that, after some needful preparatory inquiries, we must begin by examining the tvords, separately as well as in connec- tion with each other, in order so to pass on to the explanation of things. It may also be considered as decided, that the interpreter may not stop there, — that LOGICAL AND PS YCHOL. INTLRP. yi he must devote all attention to the historical interpre- tation, which is to be distinguished from the gramma- tical. But as no less certain must it be considered, that the interpreter has to proceed further, and to consider that which has been duly illustrated, both grammatically and historically, in connection with the entire way of thinking of the writer or speaker whose words he interprets. We may call this the dogmatical interpretation. This accomplished, the interpreter has attained his object. Ohs. 1. The meaning given to the word historical, gave rise to an opinion formerly held, that the gram- matical might also be called the historical interpretation. Since in later times historical interpretation is defined as the interpretation of what has already been gramma- tically considered, by means of the light supplied from elsewhere by history, it is evident that historical inter- pretation must be distinguished from the grammatical. As regards the logical and psychological interpretation advocated by many (id agit, says Kuenen in his Crit. et Herm. Lineam. p. 67, ut quomodo cogitata inter se (logice) et cum ipsius auctoris animo (psychologice) cohaereant, aliis tradat), the former considers the words in their connection and in the context to which they belong, the latter explains them out of the spirit of the writer. But as regards the former, it properly belongs to the grammatical interpretation, as it is not possible to interpret the ivoixls, if we do not consider them in connection with each other, and with the context of 72 HERMENEUTICS. which they constitute a part. As regards the latter, it belongs partly to historical interpretation, inasmuch as the individual whose words are being interpreted, must be considered, just as the other historical particulars, as constituting a part of the historical material which the interpreter has at his disposal in the historical in- terpretation. But it still remains — namely, where it is to the purpose — that the ^mter's entire way of thinking and mode of viewing matters be compared, in order to bring into connection with it that which has been grammatically and historically interpreted, to illustrate it by means of it, and so show that the interpretation given is correct. This might be called the dogmatical (or systematical) interpretation, because in it the aid of the dogma (or system) of the author (so to speak) is called in in the interpretation. Some mean this in part by the so-called logical and psychological interpretation ; as also those do who insist on a theological or panhar- monic interpretation, in so far, viz., as they wish to have the particular brought into connection with the general, and explained by it. To prevent misunderstanding, we call to mind in a few words, that a ^dogmatical' interpretation has been spoken of in quite another sense than that intended above. That part of the interpreter's work (cf. Landerer, art. Hermeneutik, in Herzog's Real Encyclop. v. 794) was then intended, by which he points out the value of some one or other properly interpreted passage, or the use that may be made of it in Systematical Theology. That, it has been justly observed, is properly speaking DOGMATICAL INTERPRETATION. 73 not the task of the interpreter, but of the dogmaticus, as the one by whom the results of the exegesis must be rewrought for Systematical Theology, and who thus must receive into and incorporate with the entire system (Dogmatics) the particular passage properly interpreted by exegesis. It accordingly soon strikes one, that dogmatical interpretation should not be spoken of here, but dogmatical reconstruction. We pass by at present, that Dogmatical Theology is here confounded with what should be well distinguished from it. Biblical Theology. And, moreover, as regards the dogmatical interpre- tation, not words but things are our object. From what has been said on the logical and psychological interpretation, it clearly appears, that they cannot be strictly kept apart from either the grammatical or historical interpretation. That which they have homogeneous with the grammatical or historical in- terpretations should rather be classed with them, and what remains may then, no doubt, be reckoned to the dogmatical interpretation. For the rest, the grammatical, historical, and dogma- tical interpretations are to be considered as intimately connected with each other. We might here speak of three phases through which interpretation passes, in order to attain to its evpri;c(z. Ohs. 2. Not uninteresting is it to call to mind here the distinction which is observed in Juridical Henne- neutics with regard to interpretation. Quite customary is the distinction between authentic and usual (com- 74 HERMENEUTICS. bined ^ interpretatio legalis') on the one hand, and grammatical and logical (combined ^ doctrinal ' ) inter- pretation on the other. Hermeneutics has, properly speaking, to do only with the latter. As regards, then, the grammatical and logical interpretation, ' ilia sensum verborum ex usu loquendi declarat, hsec ex scripto id, quod non est scriptum, per ratiocinationem inducit' (Eckhard, Herm. Juris. — ' Deren erste den Sinn des Gesetzes nach den Worten, die zweite aber die Worte nach dem sinne deutet.' Von Vangerow, Lehrh. der Pand. 7e. Aufl. i. p. 50). Both are intimately connected with each other. In addition to this, we are reminded that the logical interpretation is the same as the his- torical of theologians. ^Beachten wir,' says J. J. Lang {Beitrdge zur Hermeneutih des Rom, Rec/its, 1857, p. 60), ^ausser dem Sprachgebrauch den innern Zusammenhang des Gesetzes selbst, die Geschichte seiner Entstehung, sein Verhaltniss zum Kechte, in welches es eingreift und seinen Zusammenhang mit lem ganzen Eechtssystem, anderweitige Aeusserungen les Gesetzgebers, die Griinde auf welche das Gesetz gebaut ist, Yerhandlungen, welche dem Gesetze voraus- gingen, die Quellen, welche der Gesetzgeber beniitzte, und andere Einfliisse, unter denen er stand, so legen wir nicht bios grammatisch aus; ob wir aber dieses Verfahren historische, ob wir es logische Auslegung nennen, erscheint gleichgiiltig.' We should say that it is not so entirely indifferent. For the rest, what is here called logical interpretation is not quite the same as the historical interpretation of theologians, but in- JURID. HERMENEUTICS. 75 eludes, besides that, a part of the grammatical too, and moreover, the dogmatical interpretation presently to be treated of by us. It is called logical interpretation, chiefly, because it properly is ' eine logische Operation.' V. Savigny {^System des heutigen Rom. RecJits, i. p. 212 sq.) has, instead of the division into grammatical and logical interpretation, distinguished between a gram- matical, logical, historical, and systematical element in the interpretation of law, of which, however, it has been justly said, that the historical and systematical elements are equal to the logical interpretation, while the logical element occupies an intermediate position, and belongs to both. J. J. Lang himself proposes to distinguish six elements in Juridical Hermeneutics, viz., the lexical, syntactical, logical, stylistical, historical, and systema- tical. We should say, that jurists, just as theologians and all other interpreters, cannot well distinguish in- terpretation otherwise than as grammatical, historical, and dogmatical (systematical). In whatever w^ay we may judge of those elements of interpretation, it can- not be denied, that the Juridical as well as the so-called Biblical Hermeneutics, is nothing else than general Hermeneutics, applied there to laws, heo^e to the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments, and that, if a grammatical, historical, and dogmatical (systematical) interpretation be necessary for the books of the Old and New Testaments just as for all other writings, jurists cannot well have another division in the inter- pretation of law. Comp. moreover, with regard to the literature of Jurid. Hermeneutics, K. A. von ^6 HERMENEUTICS. Vangerow, loc. land. i. p. 46. Witli respect to that systematical element which v. Savigny wishes to be acknowledged in juridical interpretation, he justly remarks (p. 214): ^das systematische Element bezieht sich auf den innern Zusammenhang, welcher alle Hechtsinstitute mid Rechtsregeln zu einer grossen Einheit verkniipft. Dieser Zusammenhang, so gut als der historische, hat den Gesetzgeber gleichfalls vorgeschwebt, und wir werden also seinen Gedanken nur dann vollstandig erkennen, wenn wir uns Klar machen in welchem Yerhaltniss dieses Gesetz zu dem ganzen Rechtssystem steht, und vAq es in das System wu'ksam Eingreifen soil.' This is, as regards the main idea, equally applicable to the interpretation of the books of the New Testament, for which reason the dogmatical interpretation also receives a place here: PEEPARATOEY LABOUES. Sect. XXVIII. Before the interpreter can proceed to the gramma- tical interpretation, he must institute a preliminary examination, without which he would easily be led astray, even at the very commencement of his labours, — yes, in many cases, really be unable to accomplish anything whatever. He must previously examine with regard to the words which he has to interpret : from whom they are descended, to tvJiom they are adcb:essed, PRE PARA TOR V LABOURS. yy hy what tliey were elicited, ichen and with icliat object they were spoken or Avritten. And with regard to the first : we must acquaint oui'selves as much as is requi- site, with the person who speaks, with the history of his Hfe, his way of thinking and pecuharity. It is by no means immaterial to the interpretation, to whom the words are to be ascribed. Here especially we must hear who it is that speaks, as words often have just by means of their author a very definite signification. To whom they are addressed. Sometimes we do not at all understand what a word or saying signifies, if we do not know to whom it was adcbessed. A speaker or writer adch^essing himself to certain persons, most likely expressed himself precisely thus and not otherwise, because he spoke to no others than just those for whom his words were intended. By what they were elicited. This we must endea- vour to ascertain, because also by the inducement to speaking or writing, the contents as well as the form may have been determined or supplied. When and wath what object. The circumstances under which, particularly the object with which, some- thing is said, frequently place the words in a peculiar light. The inquiry on all this must take place beforehand, if we are not completely to grope in darkness in the grammatical interpretation, and be obliged to confess ourselves at a loss with regard to the words. Ohs. What has here been mentioned, is generally 7^ HERMENEUTICS. reckoned to the historical interpretation. It certainly does belong to the province of history. But it is tlie general^ that must come into consideration at the very outset abeady, in distinction from tlie 'particulai^^ the aid of which is only called in when we come to the historical interpretation. A few instances may further confirm what is stated above. 'Very difficult of explana- tion are the words, ^Have thou nothing to do with that just man' (Matt, xxvii. 19), if we do not know who utters them, and to whom they refer. Even the signi- fication of that hi'/^aiog cannot be determined without additional light. Who can properly explain the words, ' Evermore give us this bread' (John vi. 34), without knowing who utters them, and to whom they are ad- dressed ? With regard to the words, ' Give me to drink,' and ' Give me this water' (John iv. 7, 15), as also, ^I am tormented in this flame' (Luke xvi. 24), and, ' Remember me when Thou comest into thy king- dom' (Luke xxiii. 42), just as in the following verse (43), we are in a similar case. If it be said that such instances indeed prove that historical interpretation is indispensable, but not that it is necessary that a pre- liminary inquiry should precede ; our answer is, that without this inquiry, the grammatical interpretation will very often have to be suspended halfway, because we grope in darkness. This is decidedly proved by the adduced instances, and many others might be added. GRAMMATICAL INTERP. 79 GRAMMATICAL INTERPEETATION. Sect. XXIX. After the preliminary inquiry tliat lights us on our way, we commence our exegetical labours with the grammatical interpretation, i.e. with the interpretation of the words, so as to pass on to the development of what is contained in the words. Those words are considered in themselves, in their mutual relation, in connection with the context of which they constitute a part. With this we do not as yet enter the province of history, properly so called, where the light of history is laid under contribution. The limits of grammatical interpretation may be considered to be there, where light is supplied from a quarter beyond the mere con- nection of the discourse. Sect. XXX. In the first place, we have to do with the words as such. With the greatest attention and accuracy we must examine what there actually is to be read, of what words the author really made use, and in what order he arranged them. And here the necessity of a pure text becomes obvious. As long as it is not settled what was originally written, we cannot proceed to the unfolding of the sense originally intended by the 8o HERMENEUTICS. writer. If we can make sure of having the genuine text before us, we can proceed to examine the sense in which each word is used. Ohs. 1. We cannot sufficiently urge the necessity of an accurate and repeated reading of tlie original text to be interpreted. Very easily something escapes the interpreter, either because he has in his mind a trans- lation, but which is not quite accurate, or allows himself to be swayed by a temporarily fashionable in- terpretation, which should be discarded, or still holds by some traditional interpretation. We should begin with reading well what is actually written. For instance : Matt. xvii. 4, Luke ix. 33 : ^ It is good for us to be here,' English version {x,a\ov lanv '/jfj^ag ah sivui = it is fortunate that, etc., not, it is good for us = how happy we feel, etc., of which we read nothing whatever). Lul^e xv. 8 : hpaxfJ^'/j (^ originally bearing the image of Caesar,' etc. etc., it is said, — and accord- ingly denarius instead of drachme is read). Luke xv. 10 : ^ Joy in the presence of the angels of God ;' this is sometimes translated, ' before,' etc., but it is in Greek as in the English version (luco'Trtou tojv ayy. r. 0.) : thus not = joy which the angels feel, but which they see before them, viz. in God. The words spoken by Jesus at the institution of the Last Supper, ' This is my body,' are not to be considered as if there were written, ^This is my flesh ;' and John vi. 51, etc. (^ my flesh'), is not to be considered as if Jesus had there spoken of his ^ body.' If both John vi. 48 sqq. and the TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 8i words of the institution of the Last Supper be read rightly, then indeed several points of difference will be found, but not such an agreement as would give us a right to think of the Lord's Supper in John vi., and of John ^A, in the institution of the Supper. Rom. v. 16 : z^i(jjcc, not = guilt (as in the Dutch version). Rom. viii. 23 : ^not only — but ourselves also;' so that ^we who have the first-fruits of the Spirit' are not reckoned to the zricfig which is spoken of there. To read accurately, however, is no easy matter. Hence it happens that men can rest satisfied for years with a given interpretation, until some one comes forward and exclaims : ' See ! actually something else is wi'itten than we have hitherto supposed ! ' Remember, for instance, John xix. 25, where in modern times men have again learnt to find four instead of three women mentioned (Wieseler). Ohs. 2. We must be certain of havino; the orimnal text before us. As a general rule, we cannot exliume it from the various readings without exegesis. Then we must set out from what, apart from the difference of reading, is already estabHshed. It is absolutely neces- sary that the interpreter of the New Testament should study the criticism of the text of the New Testament; for he may not rest satisfied with what is presented as the genuine or most ancient reading, by this or that critical edition of the New Testament. He must himself be able to use the critical apparatus. ^luch help is afforded in this by the following works {inter ah): 82 HERMENEUTICS. The critical editions of the New Testament, by C. Tischendorf (7th ed. Leipz. 1859 ; 8th ed. Leipz. 1865, etc.); S. Prideaux Tregelles (London 1857, etc.); H. Alford (4th ed. London 1859, etc.), and others. If we wish to obtain a speedy review of the most im- portant various readings of the text of the New Testa- ment, then, for instance, C. E. Stuart, Textual Cnticism of the New Testament for English Bible Students, etc., London 1861, is to be highly recommended. The critical commentaries of J. J. Griesbach (on Matthew and Mark, 1798, 1811), of J. G. Eeiche (on the Pauline and CathoHc Epistles, 3 vols., 1853, etc.); the valuable work of Th. Sheldon Green, A Course of Developed Criticism on Passages of the New Testament materially/ affected by Various Readings, London; the critical notes in the best exegetical commentaries of later times, — in particular, too, in the Exeg. Handhuch of Meyer; the works on textual criticism by F. H. Scrivener {A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 1861) and others, and the earlier pub- lished work of S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, 1854 ; while the Pro- legomena of the critical editions of the New Testa- ment by ^lill, Wetstein, Griesbach, especially that by Tischendorf, always remain worthy of reading. Nor do we read without profit the Praefatio of Professors Kuenen and Cobet to the Novum Testamentwn adfdem Cod. Vaticani, pubhshed by them, Leiden 1860. Since the publication of my treatise on tlie textual criticism of the books of the New Testament (in the Werken DIVISION OF THE TEXT. 83 van Teylers Godgeleerd Genootschap, xxxiv. vol.), in 1844, several things have been brought to light in the province of textual criticism of the New Testament, that make it high time that it should appear in a new form, as ' Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Books of the New Testament.' Great praise is due also to that portion of the Geschichte der Schrifteri N. T. of E. Reuss, which treats of the ^ Geschichte der Erhal- tung der H. Schriften N. T. (Geschichte des Textes),' sect. 351, etc. The editions of ancient uncial MSS. of the New Testament by Woide, Kiphng, Matth^ei, Rettig, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, and others. Thorough study of the history of the text of the New Testament is to be strongly recommended to the inter- preter, because w^ithout it he would find difficulty in tracing the cause of the difference of the ancient witnesses. Obs. 3. The intei'preter need by no means be re- stricted to the di\asion into chapters and verses, to the accentuation and punctuation, of any critical edition whatever, but must himself examine how the text has to be divided, accented, and punctuated. It is known that the usual division (in the textus receptus), and the accentuation and punctuation formerly most adhered to, are not irreproachable. It will have to be conceded that it is just exegesis that must bring about improve- ment here. The interpreter has to decide how we must arrange the division into chapters, for instance, in Matt. iv. 25 and v. 1, xix. 30 and xx. 1 ; Mark viii. 38 84 HERMENEUTICS. and ix. 1 ; John vii. 53 and viii. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 33 and xi. 1 ; 2 Cor. vi. 18 and vii. 1 ; Eph. iv. 32 and v. 1, 2 ; Rev. xii. 18 and xiii. 1 ; — into verses : Mark viii. 18, 19; Acts ix. 28, 29; Rom. viii. 33-35; Eph. i. 4, 5; Tit. i. 1-4; Heb. xii. 22, 23; 1 John iii. 9, 10; Rev. x\di. 9, 10; — what we have to lay do"\vn with regard to accents and breathings, for instance, in John vii. 34, 36 (o'Trov) BtfJbt syco, or slfjui lyo)-, John viii. 58, lyoj dfjji (I am) or lyoo ilfjbi (I exist) ; 1 Cor. iii. 14, fjuim or (jbsm; 1 Cor. xv. 8, rco or ro) l%,rpcoiJjart ; Heb. i. 12, rivsg or rmg ; Jas. iii. 6, rpoy^og (wheel) or rpo^og (course) ; Matt. iii. 16, stt avrov or s(p' avrov; — and as regards punctuation, for instance, in Mark ix. 23; Rom. ix. 5 ; 1 Cor. vii. 34, etc. etc. Obs. 4. The interpreter as such has something else to do than the lexicographer. He need not, unless by way of exception, engage in etymological research ; for, as a rule, the words are employed in the sense which they have obtained in common usage. Attention must be paid to etymology, only where the writer has formed new words, or made use of newly formed ones. That the lexicographer must be a good interpreter, is self- evident. A dictionary for the New Testament must, in order to be good, be the result of thorough exegesis. As regards dictionaries for the New Testament, where we need them, good service is rendered, not only by the best dictionaries of Greek in general, but also by : C. G. Bretschneider, Lexicon Mamiale Gr.-Lat. in lihros N. T. ed. 2da, 1829 ; C. A. Wahl, Clavis N. T. philologicay ed. 3a, 1843 ; C. G. Wilke, Lexicon Gr.- DICTIONARIES FOR THE N. T. 85 Lat. in lihros N. T. (ed. V. Loch.), 1858, a new edition of which is pubUshed by C. L. W. Grimm, 1862, etc.; S. Ch. Schirlitz, Gr,-Deutsch Worterhuch zum N. T. 2e Aufl. 1858 ; D. Harting, Gr.-Nederd. Woordenhoeh op het N. T., 1861 ; E. Eobinson, Greek and English Lexicon of the N. T., revised by A. Negris and J. Duncan, 1857 (pubhshed in 1839 abeady by S. T. Bloomfield) ; to which may still be added, S. T. Bloomfield, A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, 3d ed. 1860. Comp. also, J. A. H. Titt- mann, de Synonymis in Novo Testamento, libr. ii. 1829-32; E. Ch. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testa- ment (new edition), Lond. and Cambr. 1865. Comp. also, Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon; consisting of an alphabetical arrangement of every occurring in- flexion of every word contained in the Greek New Testament Scriptures, with a grammatical analysis of each word and lexicographical illustration of the meanings, etc. London, Sam. Bagster & Sons (more remarkable than just salutary). Ohs. 5. Under the influence of philologists such as Gottfr. Hermann (' de emendanda ratione grammatico', grceG