Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/783

 EXEGESIS

705

EXEGESIS

d. de Montfaucon (d. 1741), P. Sabatier (d. 1742), and Jos. Blanchinus (d. 1764), while Calraet (d. 1757) and Bossuet (d. 1704) are noted for their exegetical work. Bukentop (d. 1710) has recourse to the origi- nal texts in order to explain dovibtful or obscure read- ings in the Vulgate. If one compares this period with the preceding, one is struck with its poverty in great Biblical scholars; but textual criticism is fairly well represented by Houbigant (d. 1784) and de Rossi (d. 1831).

(7) Recent Times. — The perturbed state of the Church at the beginning of the nineteenth century interfered with the peaceful pursuance of any kind of ecclesiastical study. After peace had returned, the study of Sacred Scripture flourished more lustily than ever. In three respects, the modern commentary surpasses that of any past age: First, the interpreter attends in our times not merely to the immediate con- text of a phrase or a verse, but to the whole literary form of the book, and to the purpose for which it was written; secondly, he is assisted by a most abundant wealth of historical information practically unknown in former days; thirdly, the philology of the sacred tongues has been highly cultivated during the last century, and its rich results are laid under contribu- tion by the modern commentator. It would lead us too far here were we to rehearse the history of all the recent excavations and discoveries, the contents of the various tablets, papyri, and ostraka, the results of lit- erary criticism, archaeology, and history of religion; it must suffice to say that the modern commentator can leave none of these various sources of information un- noticed in so far as they bear on his special subject of investigation. It would be invidious to mention only some names of modern scholars, excluding others; still, they cannot all be enumerated. We may draw attention, however, to the French series of commen- taries entitled " La Sainte Bible avec (,'ommentaires"; the Latin "Cursus" published by Fathers Cornely, Knabenbauer, and von Hummelauer; the "Revue biblique" published by the Dominican Fathers; the " Biblische Zeitschrift " ; the " Biblische Studien " ; and the " Dictionnaire de la Bible ". While the two series of commentaries offer the main points of information on each particular book of the Bible, as far as it could be ascertained at the time of their respective pub- lication, the periodicals keep the reader informed concerning any new investigation or result worth knowing.

(b) Protestant Exegetes. — It will be found conven- ient to divide Protestant exegesis into three periods. The first embraces the age of the so-called Reformers, 1517-1600; the second reaches down to the beginning of rationalism, 1600-1750; the third embraces the subsequent time.

(a) Early Reformers. — The early Reformers did not introduce any new principles of interpretation. They may .speak, at times, as if they admitted only the lit- eral sense, but Melanchthon and Flacius Illyricus in- sist also on the importance of the allegorical. Their teaching concerning the multiplicity of the literal sense finds practical expression in their interpretation. The principle of free inquiry is claimed by the Re- formers themselves, but neither theoretically nor practically granted to their followers. Both Luther's (il. 1546) and Calvin's (d. 1564) principles rest in the end on subjective considerations.

(/3) From the Reformers to the Rationalists.^In order to secure some unity of interpretation, the first followers of the Reformers introduced the " analogy of faith " as the supreme hermeneutic rule. But since they claimed that Scripture was their rule of faith, they experienced difficulty in properly applying their canon of hermeneutics. Finally, they were forced to regard the contents of their .symbols as first principles which needed no proof. But the writers of this period produced some noteworthy treatises on Biblical an- V— 45

tiquities. Thus Lightfoot (d. 1675) and Schottgen (d. 1751) illustrated New Testament questions from rabbinic sources; Reland (d. 1718) WTote on sacred geography; Bochart (d. 1667), on natural history; the two Buxtorfs, father (d. 1629) and son (d. 1664), Goodwin (d. 1665), and Spencer (d. 1695) investigated certain civil and religious questions of the Jews. Among those who explained the sacred text, the fol- lowing are worthy of mention: Drusius (d. 1616), de Dieu (d. 1642), Grotius (d. 1645), Vitringa (d. 1722), Cocceius (Koch, d. 1669), and Clericus (d. 1736). Brian Walton (d. 1658) is celebrated for the edition of the London Polyglot, which easily surpasses all pre- vious works of the same kind. The "Critici sacri" (London, 1660; Frankfort, 1696; Amsterdam, 1698), collected by John and Richard Pearsons, and the "Synopsis criticorum" (London, 1669; Frankfort, 1709), edited by Matt. Polus, may be regarded as fairly good summaries of the exegetical work of the seventeenth century.

(7) After the Rise of Rationalism. — The .\rminians, Socinians, the English Deists, and the French Ency- clopedists refused to be bound by the " analogy of faith " as their supreme hermeneutic rule. They fol- lowed the principle of private judgment to its last consequences. The first to adhere to the principle of Biblical rationalism was Semler (d. 1791), who denied the Divine character of the Old Testament, and ex- plained away the New by his " system of accommo- dation", according to which Christ and the Apostles only conformed to the views of the Jews. To discover the true teaching of Christ, we must first eliminate the Jewish doctrines, which may be learned from the books of Josephus, Philo, and other Jewish writers. — Kant (d. 1804) destroyed the small remnant of super- natural revelation by his system of " authentic inter- pretation"; we must not seek to find what the Bibli- cal writers said, but what they should have said in order to remain within the range of the natural Kan- tian religion. — But this did violence to the historical character of the Biblical records; H. E. G. Paulus (d. 1851) apparently does justice to the historicity of the Bible, but removes from it all miracles by means of his " notiologico-philological " or "psychological" system of interpretation. He distinguishes between the fact or the occurrence to which the witnesses testify, and the judgment of the fact or the particular view which the witnesses took of the occurrence. In the New Testament, e. g., we have a record of the views of the Disciples concerning the events in Christ's life. — This explanation left too much of Christ's history and doc- trine intact. Hence David F. Strauss (d. 1875) ap- plied to the New Testament the system of Biblical mythicism, which Semler, Eichhorn, Vater, and de Wette had employed in their explanation of part of the Old Testament; about thirty years after its first appearance, Strauss's system was popularized by E. Renan. A great many Protestant commentators now began to grant the existence of myths in the Sacred Scriptures, though they might adhere to the general outlines of the Jewish and the Gospel history. 'The principles which are at least implicitly maintained by the mythicists, are the following: First, miracles and prophecies are impossible; secondly, our religious sources are not really historical; thirdly, the history and religion of all nations begin with myths, the Chris- tian religion not excluded; fourthly, the Messianic idea of the New Testament was adopted from the Old, and all the traditional traits of the Messias were attri- buted to Jesus of Nazareth by a really myth-forming process. — But as it was hard to explain the growth of this whole Christian mythology within the narrow space of forty or fifty years. Ford. Christ. Baur (d. 1860) reconstructed the origin of the Christian Church, making it a compromise between judaizing and uni- ver.salistic Christians, or between the Petrine and the Pauline parties. Only Rom., I and II Cor., Gal. are