Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 07.djvu/406

* EXEGESIS. 358 EXEGESIS. 1851), scholars more extreme In their views, whose New Testament commentaries and her- meneutical writings, while marked by learning and critical skill, were thoroughly committed .to a naturalistic exegesis and even sympathized with the mythical principles of Strauss (died 1874). Fritzsehe (died 1846), whose commentaries on tthew (1826), Mark (1830), and Romans (1836-43) are" characterized by great philolog- ical ability, alone seems to have been uninfluenced by this rationalism, unless with him might be classed the earlier writer Koppe (died 1791), whose contribution (Galatians, Ephesians, Thes- salonians, and Romans) to the Greek New Testa- nieni with Annotations, projected by Heinrichs and Pott, but not completed (Gijttingen, 1783- 98), is a piece of careful and impartial exegetical work; while Herder (died 1803) shows in his Explanations of the New Testament (Riga, 1775), Letters of Tuo Brothers of Jesus (Lemgo, 1775), and Apocalypse (London, 1821), a com- bination of rationalistic and mystical elements that makes him a forerunner of the Sch*leier- maeher school, to which school should be as- signed the later scholar de Wette (died 1849), whose Exegetical Handbook on the New Testa- ment (Berlin, 1836-48) is remarkable for its religious convictions and its naturalistic results. Naturally this rationalistic movement aroused orthodoxy to protest ; but orthodoxy's dying pow- ers were not equal to anything more than a feeble effort. In fact, the scholarly work of such men as Ernesti (died 1781), Institutes of the New Testament Interpreter (Leipzig, 1761); Aca- demic Lectures on Hebrews (ib., 1815) ; his pupils, Morus (died 1792) and K. A. G. Keil (died 1818) ; and of J. D. Michaelis (died 1791), Paraphrase of the New Testament, with Annota- tions (GSttingen, 1790-91), all of whom belonged to orthodoxy, and sought to defend it, proved silent confessions of the hopelessness of the cause, and added rather to the rationalistic im- pulse. Ernest i's New Testament work, indeed, formed an epoch in hermeneutics by establishing the principle that Scripture has but a single sense — a literal one — and that this sense can be discovered only by the same means as are appli- cable to an ordinary human book ; but this princi- ple, derived really from Wetstein (died 1754), was in fact more opposed to the mysticism of pietistic interpretation than it was to the real- ism of rationalistic exposition. It was the founda- tion of the subsequent school of grammafico- historical exegesis, which was developed more fully by his immediate pupils, Morus and Keil. As a consequence, the latter members of this de- fensive group, J. G. Rosenmiiller (died 1815), and especially KtihnSl (died 1S41). were more in sympathy with rationalism than they were with orthodoxy. The defense of the older Tiibingen school dif- fered from this weak effort of orthodoxy, inas- much as its purpose was to support a supernal ural Christianity rather than an authoritative eonfessionalism. Its best representatives in New Testament exegesis are Storr (died IS(I.">). Com- mentary on Hebrews (Tiibingen. 1789); his pr.pil -l. I' I latl (died 1S2I). Commentaries on Most of ti,< Epistles (Tubingen, 1825-31), and i (died 1828), Commentary on Arts (Zurich, I77.">i ; Life of Jesus (ib., 1781). But here, too, 11 . i hi members of the ~rlm.il -e.g. the younger Bengel (died 1826) and Steudel (died 1837)— became more independent, and .were allied rather with the naturalism against which they were supposed to stand. What an orthodox and even a supernaturalis- tic exegesis were not able in themselves to effect against rationalism, however, was being brought about by the critical philosophy of Kant (died 1804), which in its unconscious emphasis of skep- ticism destroyed the confidence in reason as the criterion of revelation. The destructive efforts of this philosophy were supplemented construc- tively by the school of Schleiermacher (died 1834), who, standing in the midst of the ration- alistic and evangelical struggle, seemed to partake of both tendencies and yet belonged really to neither. His New Testament exposition, limited in amount (Commentary on Timothy, Berlin. 1807; Hermeneutics, ed. by Liicke, ib., 1838; Life of Jesus, ed. by Rutenik, ib., 1864), is not the most valuable part of his work; but its in- fluence on subsequent exegesis was pronounced. This is evident in the exegetical writings of Olshausen (died 1839; Commentary on tin New Testament, continued by Ebrard and Wiesinger, trans., Edinburgh, 1847-49; A Word onthe Deeper Sense of Scripture, ib., 1824; The Biblical Expo- sition of Scripture, Hamburg, 1825) ; Neander (died 1850; Commentary on I. John, Philip- pians, and James, trans., New York, 1859; Life of Jesus, trans., London, 1848) ; Liicke (died 1855; Commentary on the Writings of Joint, trans., Edinburgh, 1837; Elements of New Testa- ment Hermeneutics, ib., 1816) ; Riickert (died 1871; Commentary on Romans, Leipzig, 1839; Qalatians, ib., 1833; Ephesians, ib., 1834; Corin- thians, ib., 1836-37) ; Tholuck (died 1877; Com- mentary on Romans, trans., Edinburgh, 1848; John's Gospel, trans., ib., 1836; Sermon on the Mount, trans., ib., 1860; Hebrews, trans., ib., 1852). It is true that none of these writers ex- actly represented Schleiermaeher's position. They carried out his method of an organic interpreta- tion of Scripture, but they developed it to evan- gelical degrees which Schleiermacher would not have accepted. This is particularly true of Tho- luck, whose commentaries are deeply spiritual in tone and based on a profound conviction of the divine authority of Scripture, though free from any mechanical idea of inspiration. Yet even the power of this profoundly influen- tial school of exegetes was not sufficient to stop the skeptical impulses started by Kant's destruc- tive philosophy. Even before Schleiermaeher's. death these had worked themselves out into the systems of Fichte (died 1814) and Hegel (died 1831), the latter of which afterwards formed the background for the mythical theory of Strauss (died 1S74: Life of Jesus, trans., London, 1846) and the critical work of the later Tubingen school of I'.aur idicd I860; Paul the Apostle, trans.. London. 1873-75). This school devoted itself to Chinch history and criticism rather than to ex- egesis. Only the following adherents of Baur can be said to have contributed specifically to- We W Testament exposition: Yolkmar (died 1 S72 : Commentary on ipocalypse, Tiibingen, 1862; Romans, Zurich, 1875); Hoist en (died 1897; Commentary on Galatians, Rostock, 1859; expo- sition of Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans in his Gospel of Paul, part i. only finished, Berlin. 1880), At the same time, however, it carried Out to its results Sender's principle of the em phasis of the historical clement in ™ fests