ART. III. ON THE WANT OF AGREEMENT among InteRPRETERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. WITH A CRITIQUE ON THE VARIOUS EXPOSITIONS OF MATT. V. 3—5.

By Prof. Tholuck, of Halle. Translated by the Editor.

It is a matter of experience, that there is no greater source of disquiet to the young theological student, than the endless variety of opinions in respect to the doctrines of faith and the interpretation of Scripture, which are presented to him in the history of the church, and in the courses of exegetical lectures. Even laymen, when aware of the want of accord among theologians in this latter respect, are often not a little disturbed; and it has been a case of actual occurrence, that one and another have been ready to take refuge from this disquietude in the Pope; where, as they suppose, the solution of all difficulties is to be found. In the want of doctrinal perspicuity, which in our day is but too characteristic of many theologians, not a few have in reality so misunderstood the dogma of the Pope's infallibility, as to suppose that, in accordance with this doctrine, the temporal vicar of Christ must be able to impart infallible certainty to the decision of every disputed theological question, of whatever kind. They know not, or do not remember, the discrepancies of catholic interpreters, not merely with one another, but even with themselves; how Augustine, for instance, in four different passages of his works, has given four different expositions of one text, while no Pope has ever yet decided which is the correct one. Nor do they call to mind the cases, where, even in doctrinal questions, (such e.g. as that of the immaculate conception,) the temporal head of the church has left his followers without counsel, in spite of the most earnest enquiry and entreaty.

But who is there, who would not at the first glance be justly disquieted, and even despair of any certain way to the understanding of the Scriptures, when on a single passage not less than TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE expositions are placed before us? as is done by Weigand in his work on Gal. 3:20.†

* From the "Theologische Studien und Kritiken," by Ullmann and Umbreit, Jahrg. 1832, 2tes Heft, p. 325 sq.

+ Now a mediator is not of one; but God is one.

To these the author subjoins the two hundred and forty-fourth, which also has since been eclipsed by later attempts. It were well worth while, thoroughly to weigh the causes of so enormous a discrepancy of opinion in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, a discrepancy of which the whole range of classic literature no where affords so portentous an example. This, however, would require a separate work; for such a treatise, in order to handle the subject fully, must embrace the whole field of the history of exegesis. The interpreters themselves must be divided into classes and schools; and then, in each case, the cause of their perverted exegesis be shewn from their history, and especially from their doctrinal errors; as might easily be done in respect to the followers of Origen, the schoolmen, mystics, Socinians, Arminians, the rigidly orthodox among the Lutherans, the disciples of Cocceius, etc. On the other hand, regard must also be had to the unavoidable want of exegetical helps, under which some periods have suffered; and also to the studied neglect of all such helps, arising from false principles; as for instance in the almost exclusively edifying commentary of the Halle school. And finally, it would be desirable, that on some passages of Scripture which have been particularly the objects of strife, as on Gal. 3:20 above cited, the causes of the different expositions should be pointed out; and, what in this instance would be especially necessary, the deviations themselves properly classed; by which means the enormous amount of two hundred and forty-four would at once be very considerably diminished. Indeed, we have as yet historico-exegetical essays or monographs on only two passages of Scripture; viz. that of Schreiter on the parable of the unjust steward, Luke c. 16, which alas! is unsatisfactory, both in regard to the classification (although Keil was here consulted) and in other respects; and those on Gal. 3:20, by Anton, Keil, Bonitz, Zäuner, and Weigand. With these writings may also be ranked the essay of Gurlitt on the epithet Boanerges; to which in regard to man

2

1 In this passage, the so called "philosophical" classification of the various interpreters, defended by Baumgarten, Gabler, Zäuner, viz. according to the conjectural aim of the apostle's argumentation, seems to be quite too uncertain. We regard the classification of Koppe, Bonitz, and others, according to the signification and reference of μsoins, as being much more certain and appropriate.

2 Theologische Studien und Kritiken, IIter Jahrg. 4tes Stück. VOL. III. No. 12.

88

ner we must assign the first place, and which also exhibits the conciliating method proposed to be followed in the present essay.

Our purpose is not here to give a treatise which shall embrace the subject in all its interesting and instructive relations. We will regard it only in one point of view, viz. A very large number of different interpretations are not CONTRADICTORY to each other, but present only a RELATIVE diversity; so that one by no means excludes the others. This is a position we wish to establish by some examples.

The richer the mind, the richer the discourse. This is the very essence of rich and spirited discourse, that it casts on every side a peculiar light, like the diamond with its many faces. When Hamann said: "Vox populi, vox dei; the gods of the earth say schismam,"* this, like most of his words, was an apophthegm, which, whether read upwards or downwards, forwards or backwards, always gives a meaning. Rich yet simple; a water in which the elephant may wade and the lamb not drown, as one of the Fathers says,-this is the character of the Scriptures. Like nature they present variety in unity. Who, in reading John's Gospel, has not involuntarily been struck with the deep significance of language in this contemplative disciple! and through him with that of the Master, who is reflected in the mirror of his spirit! When the Master says, John 11:9, 10, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If a man walk in the day he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, be stumbleth, because there is no light in him; "-and when the disciple affirms, 1 John 2: 10, 11, "He that loveth his brother, abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth bis brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth;"-who does not at once recognize the amphibology and deep significancy of these words? But this character of significancy does not belong to John alone, but to the whole of Scripture; yea, even to the Hebrew language, and to the Greek of the New Testament, which has derived a colouring from it. And one main source of the discrepancy of interpreters, has lain in their failure to perceive and appreciate this

The emperor Charles V, as is well known, made as little scruple about the accusative schismam, as Frederic the Great did about his German orthography of the French language.

peculiarity of scriptural language. Many have not been wanting in the acuteness, which separates that which seems alike; but many have been destitute of that deeper penetration, which again searches out unity in that which has been separated. They have been satisfied with bringing forward several senses as admissible; but have neglected to search out the fundamental idea, in which these all flow together. It is natural to suppose, that this isolation of different senses and expositions of Scripture, would be most likely to take place in connexion with certain doctrinal tendences; with those, namely, in which there is in general a deficiency in the power of intuitive vision, dread of a sound and holy mysticism, and a dead intellectual abstraction. It has indeed become common to name, as the representative of this latter tendency, Aristotle; and of the former, Plato,-but whether justly, we must doubt. We would rather say with Hamann : "If the outline belongs to the former, the colouring is from the latter." But however this may be, the designation has become established; and we cannot refrain from quoting here the language of Goethe, where he subjoins to his description of these two representatives, just what we also would say of these two tendencies in the interpretation of Scripture.

"Plato," says Goethe,* "is in relation to this world, like a blessed spirit, who chooses for a time to take up his abode here. His object is not so much to become acquainted with the world, because he knows it before, as kindly to communicate to it that which he brings with him, and which is so necessary to it. He penetrates the depths, more to fill them with his own essence than to explore them. He mounts upwards with longing to partake again of his original. All that he utters, has reference to one single principle-perfect, good, true, beautiful; the love of which he strives to enkindle in every bosom. Whatever of earthly science he acquires in particulars, melts, yea we might say, evaporates, in his method, in his discourse. Aristotle, on the contrary, is in relation to the world like a man, a master-builder. He is once here, and he must work and build. He inquires about the soil; but no further than till be finds a firm foundation. From that point to the centre of the earth, all the rest is indifferent to him. He marks out a vast circuit for his building, collects materials from every quarter, arranges them, piles them one upon another, and thus rises in regular pyramidical form into the air; while Plato shoots

* Farbenlehre II. p. 140.

up towards heaven like an obelisk, yea like a pointed flame. When a few such men appeared, who in a manner distributed themselves through human nature as the separate representatives of noble, but not easily compatible qualities; when they had the good fortune to express fully all their views, and this not merely in short laconic phrases, like oracles, but in extensive, complete and diversified works; when these works remained for the good of mankind, and continued ever onward more or less to be studied and observed: it follows naturally, that the world, so far as it can be regarded as thinking and feeling, was necessitated to yield itself to the one or to the other, to acknowledge one or the other as its master, teacher, guide.

"This necessity shews itself most clearly, in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. These, in the independence, wonderful originality, variety, totality, yea immeasurableness, of their contents, furnished of themselves no standard by which they could be measured; this standard must be sought from without and applied to them; and the whole choir of those who assembled for the purpose, Jews and Christians, saints and heathen, fathers of the church and heretics, councils and popes, reformers and opposers, all, so far as they attempted to interpret or explain, to counsel or supply, to prepare for use or put to use, did it either consciously or unconsciously in the Platonic or Aristotelian method; as we may be convinced, to mention only the Jewish school, by the talmudistic and cabbalistic mode of treating the Bible."

The tact of the great poet, however little he might be acquainted with the details upon which his judgment of the whole is founded, has not led him wrong, when he finds in the Talmudists and Cabbalists the types of that two-fold method of interpretation of which we speak ; only that, to speak with historical exactness, it is precisely in the interpretation of the Old Testament that both these tendencies often run together; as is shewn, for instance, by the Rabboth on the Pentateuch. Were we to designate those schools of Christian exegesis, which would belong to the side of the Talmudists; or, to speak so as not to be misunderstood, in which abstract intellect, a lifeless logic, with no power of intuition,* predominates; we should

*The word intuition is here and elsewhere to be understood in its primitive meaning, viz. immediate mental vision. It thus corresponds to the German Anschauung.—ED.