NUQ,

THE LIBRARY

of

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY Toronto

Cbe ambem T5ook«

ESSAYS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

ESSAYS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

BY

HENRY PRESERVED SMITH

DAVENPORT PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND THE COGNATE LANGUAGES IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

T/ENRWS

//'//'/ I I \ 1 \\\ \V

RR'ADIiEN.T

LONDON: GEORGE ALLEN y UNWIN, LTD.

RUSKIN HOUSE: 40 MUSEUM ST., W. C. I

COPYRIGHT • IQ2 I • BY MARSHALL JONES COMPANY

3 6 33

THE PLIMPTON I'RESS-NOUWOOD-MASS'C-S'A

PREFACE

THIS book does not claim to be a history of Biblical inter pretation. It is an attempt to illustrate certain ways in which the Old Testament part of our Bible has been treated in the course of the Christian centuries. Since almost every theologian, Jewish or Christian, has directly or indirectly com mented on the Scriptures, a complete history of this branch of science would seem to be beyond the powers of any one man. The index to Diestel's work, a work to which I have often referred, shows that he consulted nearly fourteen hundred differ ent authors. The result is to bewilder rather than to help the inquirer. Some account of the main currents of thought in this department can be gathered, I venture to hope, from the following pages.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. HEBREW LITERARY METHODS 3

II. LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION I4

III. THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 33

IV. SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT 59

V. LUTHER'S APPEAL 73

VI. PROTEST AND REACTION 84

VII. ATTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL SCHOOL 94

VIII. RISE OF A MORE HISTORICAL VIEW 102

IX. THE INFLUENCE OF PIETISM 112

X. ENDEAVORS AFTER A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 120

XL THE BISHOP'S PROBLEM 128

XII. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WELLHAUSEN 136

XIII. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 143

I. THE PLACE OF WORSHIP 144

II. SACRIFICIAL WORSHIP 149

III. THE PRIESTHOOD 153

IV. ORIGINALITY OF THE PROPHETS 158

V. SIN AND ATONEMENT l6l

XIV.-SoME SURVIVALS 168

XV. APOCALYPTIC VAGARIES 176

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 193

INDEX 195

ESSAYS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

ESSAYS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

i

HEBREW LITERARY METHODS

IN DEALING with an ancient book we need to enter into the author's mind. This means that we must know his environment, his habits of thought, and his purpose in writing. Where the object of our study is a collection of writings, like the one we know as the Old Testament, we must endeavor to understand each of the contributors. To under stand the whole movement of which this collection is the monu ment we must bring the separate parts into their proper rela tions of time and space. The process thus indicated is criticism.1

These truisms so plainly imply the need of criticism for a correct understanding of our Old Testament that the necessity might be taken for granted. As a matter of fact, however, opposition, often bitter opposition, has been made to critical investigation of this Book, and this on two grounds. In the first place a tradition has attached itself to it, and this tradi tion is interwoven with certain religious experiences. To dis turb the tradition seems to threaten religion, and religion is rightly regarded as one of man's most precious possessions. In the second place, Hebrew literary methods are so unlike those to which we are accustomed that when described by the critic they are met with incredulity. It is thought to be absurd to affirm that men made books in the way in which the critics

1 Criticism of the text of an ancient document, which aims to recover its original wording is of course of primary importance, but it is not here under discussion.

3

4 ESSdrS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

discover the Hebrew books to have been made. What this is is now a matter of common knowledge. For one thing it is pointed out that the ancient author was so careless of his reputation that he took no pains to attach his name to his work. Unless Ezekiel be an exception, no one of the Old Testament writers is known to us by name. To us, to whom the fame of authorship is dear, this is almost incomprehensible. We should place the crown of laurel on the head of the poet of the book of Job as readily as we place it on the brow of the poet of the Iliad. He has cheated us of the opportunity, and himself of a monument more enduring than bronze, by preserving his anonymity. Moreover, when the Bible is pre sented to us as an authoritative code we are tempted to think that its authorship should be certified in some official way. A Protestant theologian advanced the theory that the various books of the Old Testament as soon as they were written were posted in a conspicuous place in the temple that all the people might take knowledge of them, and that when sufficient oppor tunity had been given they were taken down by the priests and carefully preserved in the archives. Needless to say, the theory has no support in the documents themselves, which are as careless about notarial authorization as they are about authorship.

In answer to the not unnatural demand for some sort of security on this head a tradition early arose which endeavored to assign the Biblical books to certain men whose names are made known to us in the books themselves. A post-biblical Jewish document' affirms that Moses wrote his own book, the section concerning Balaam, and Job; Joshua wrote his own book, and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch, which relate Moses' death, though some of the Rabbis thought that Moses wrote this also at the divine dictation; Samuel wrote his own book, Ruth, and Judges; David wrote the book of Psalms at the hands of the ten elders — Adam the first, Mel- chizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah; Jeremiah wrote his own book, Kings,

- Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batlira, i^b and 153.

HEBREW LITERART METHODS 5

and Lamentations; Hezckiah and his company wrote Isaiah. Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Koheleth; the men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and Esther; Ezra wrote the genealogies in Chronicles down to his own time.

It is obvious from the date of this document, as well as from the absurdity of some of its statements, that it rests on no historical data. What could be less rational than to say that David wrote Psalms 'at the hands' of Adam, Abraham, Mel- chizedek, and Moses, all of whom lived long before his own time? The absurdity is a little less if we suppose the Rabbis meant that the books were edited rather than written by these worthies, and something of the kind may have been in their thought. In any case the tradition is simply the product of a desire to give the Hebrew books authority by attaching them to the names of men prominent in the history of their own people. The only result of our study of it is to throw us back onto the internal evidence of the books themselves.

Examination of the books and their comparison with each other brings one fact to light almost at a glance. This is that at least some of the books are the result of a compilatory process. Putting the two parallel narratives of Kings and Chronicles side by side we see that the later author has bor rowed freely from his predecessor. He did not do what a mod ern writer would have done — work up the material taken from his sources into a homogeneous story. He took considerable blocks of the history of Kings, copying word for word. Be tween these sections he inserted other material, the most of it quite different in style and tone from the earlier matter. In other words, the Chronicler follows the method which the critics think they discover in other Old Testament books, the method which has met with objurgation and ridicule as if no sensible man would use it. Undoubtedly it is difficult for a modern author to recognize this method as legitimate. But we must remember that the idea of literary property was unknown, that is, it had not dawned on men's minds that the originator of a book had a right to forbid any one's making what use of

6 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

it he pleased. The book was the property of the man who bought it, and it never occurred to the Chronicler that any objection could be raised to his treating the earlier narrative as he thought fit. What he actually did is visualized in the Polychrome edition of the Hebrew text, where the blocks of red color show the material taken from the earlier source, the Chronicler's additions being left white. Any one can produce the same effect by using a red pencil on the passages parallel to the book of Kings.

The question naturally suggests itself whether if the book of Kings had perished we could still be sure that the Chron icler had followed this method of compilation. The answer cannot be doubtful. The sections inserted by him differ markedly from those which he borrowed. The rule is the general rule of literary criticism, namely, that difference of style indicates different authors. It is indeed true that in some cases a single writer uses different styles. But it is also true that each of his styles has the marks of his own person ality. We can think of no reason why the Chronicler should use two different styles in adjacent paragraphs of his narra tive. Had the book of Kings perished we should have been able to point out with certainty the material taken from it.

Any one who has doubts on this head should look carefully at the concluding chapters of the book of Judges, and compare the story in chapters xvii and xviii with the one that follows in xix and xx. The whole tone and atmosphere of the first is un like what we find in the second. In each case there is a wrong committed. But Micah when he loses his sacred objects has no recourse. A few friends and kinsmen are all that he can rally to his aid. In the other case the whole na tion rises as one man to punish the wrong-doer. Four hun dred thousand warriors assemble, lose twenty-two thousand in one battle and eighteen thousand in another without being discouraged, and in their turn kill twenty-five thousand Ben- jamites. In the story of Micah on the other hand a band of six hundred warriors are all that one of the tribes can muster for a foray. With the historicity of either account we are not

HEBREW LITERARr METHODS 7

now concerned. The sole point is that the contrast in tone is sufficient to convince us that the two narratives were written by different men.

Moreover a little consideration will show that neither one of these stories fits into the scheme of the book to which they are appended. The author or rather compiler of the book of Judges had a very distinct motive in putting his book into shape. He was teaching his people a lesson of loyalty to their God. His theory of history is that as long as Israel was faith ful to its God it was prospered, but that when it fell away to the worship of the local Baals and Astartes the people were delivered into the hand of the oppressors. Deliverance came when they repented, and it came in the person of a divinely commissioned leader and hero. The hero-stories in the book are the examples to prove the thesis. But whatever we may think of the force of these hero-stories, it is clear that the two incidents we have been considering do not fit into the scheme. Neither in the case of Micah nor in that of the Levite and his concubine is there any question of the Baals and Astartes, nor is there any mention of backsliding and de liverance.

What we have discovered, without any special bias towards the higher criticism, is that at least four hands have been at work in this book of Judges. There was first the collector of the original hero-stories. Then came the theologian who made the stories tributary to his theory of backsliding and revival. Two appendices were added, each of which had its peculiar point of view. The book of Judges is not an isolated case. Most of the Hebrew books which have come down to us show similar phenomena. Even in the latest period we find that editors or copyists did not hesitate to treat the texts in their hands with great freedom. The books of Daniel, Esther, and Ezra, had sections inserted in them which are preserved in the Greek version, but which the Hebrew texts escaped. And lest we suppose that the Old Testament is peculiar in this respect we may notice that Arabic literatures gives conspicu ous examples of exactly the same procedure. We are told

8 ESSsirS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

also that in Europe in the Middle Age "authors borrowed lit erally with great freedom and embodied fragments of other writers or whole books in their own works." Further we read that they did not scrutinize closely the statements of their predecessors; what had once been handed down they usually accepted as good.3

That the books of the Old Testament were treated with great freedom, even after they were regarded as in some sense authoritative, may be illustrated by later writings. A book which is entitled Biblical Antiquities of Philo, though not by Philo Judaeus, is composed in the way illustrated by Chronicles. The author rewrites the history from Adam to the death of Saui, and in doing so he takes paragraphs from the Biblical text and fills in between them with other matter, either derived from tradition or the product of his own imagi nation. The process is visualized for us in the translation, by printing the Biblical material in italics, and the additional matter in Roman type.4 The result is quite similar to what we observe in the Polychrome edition of Chronicles. Equally striking is the lesson taught by the so-called Book of Jubilees. The author of this book was not satisfied with the history of the earlier times recorded in the book of Genesis, though doubt less he regarded that book as divinely given. For one thing he wanted a more exact chronology, and he carefully reckoned the Jubilee periods (of forty-nine years each) from the cre ation onwards, dating each event of the narrative by the years within its Jubilee period. In the second place, he sup plied information which he thought ought to be given in con nection with the events recorded by the Biblical writer. Thus he tells us that the angels were created on the first day of the creative week, Moses having neglected this item. He knows the names of Adam's daughters as well as of his sons, gives Abra ham's dying address, and a legend about his boyhood. He even goes so far as to justify those actions of the Patriarchs

3 Vincent, J. M., Historical Research (N. Y., 1911), p. m.

4 Biblical Antiquities of Philo, translated from the Latin by M. R. James, London, 1917.

HEBREW LITERARY METHODS 9

which the earlier narrative condemns. The slaughter of the men of Shechem now appears as a praiseworthy act, ordained in heaven, and it is made the occasion for enforcing the strictest prohibition of intermarriage with gentiles. The book in fact traces Levi's claim to the priesthood to his zeal in this matter, thus antedating a Mosaic ordinance. Pure Judaism is further favored by the statement that the two highest classes of angels were created circumcised. The Sabbath was observed by the Creator — so much we learn from the earlier narrative; but Jubilees makes the more definite declaration: "He gave us (the angels) the Sabbath as a sign that we should labor six days and rest from all labor on the seventh; and He enjoined upon all the angels of the Presence and all the angels of sanctity that they should observe the Sabbath with Him, both in heaven and on the earth." The post-exilic Jewish interest in the observance of the Law comes out in the recon struction of the lives of the Patriarchs. Since the author cannot think these fathers of the race less pious than their descendants he carries the Mosaic ordinances back into the earlier time. Noah observes Pentecost; Abraham keeps both this feast and Tabernacles; the Day of Atonement is known to the sons of Jacob. Most significant is the introduction of the evil spirit Mastema to relieve God of responsibility when Abra ham's faith is to be put to the test. The evil one, we read, came before God and said: "Abraham loves his son Isaac and delights in him above all things; command him to offer him as a burnt-offering and thou wilt see whether he will carry out thy command." The tendency is the same which induced the author of Chronicles to make Satan incite David to sin, instead of attributing the temptation to the God of Israel.''

Other examples might easily be found to show the Hebrew method even down to the Christian era. Note also that the authors of this period do not hesitate to attribute their writ ings to ancient worthies. Thus the book of Enoch claims to

5 The Book of Jubilees, translated from the Ethiopic text by R. H. Charles, London, 1917. Although the complete book is preserved only in Ethiopic there is no doubt that it was originally written in Hebrew.

io ESS^rS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

have an antediluvian patriarch as its author, and the book of Jubilees claims to have been revealed to Moses by an angel Our judgment of the writers may easily be too severe. The underlying motive was sincerely religious. This is true both of the post-biblical writings and of the Biblical books them selves. Interest in history as history was unknown. The aim was to edify the reader. But the religious motive has two sides. For one thing, it seeks its justification in the past, and on this side it is conservative. But on the other hand religion cannot exempt itself from the law of change. Perhaps it would be more exact to say that the forms of thought with which religion associates itself change from generation to generation. Abraham was a sincere worshipper of God. But the idea which he had of God was certainly different from that of a twen tieth century Christian or Jew. The religious teacher has a double task; he wishes to preserve the monuments in which religion has expressed itself in the past, and at the same time to make them teach lessons appropriate to the present. The Chronicler, to whom we may return for a moment, is an illus tration. He wished to preserve the history of his nation be cause it was the nation favored by God. The part favored by God, however, was Judah alone. He therefore preserved the earlier narrative so far as it related the story of Judah, but left out all that concerned the northern kingdom alone. At the same time he found the history defective in that it did not bring out more clearly the matter which was to him of prime importance. This was the temple and its services. The most significant of the insertions which he makes in the narrative are those which tell of the Levites. In contrast with the book of Kings he emphasizes the presence of this guild at the re moval of the Ark. He describes at length their complicated organization, and ascribes it to David — something of which the earlier narrative is ignorant. He makes Jehoshaphat send them out as teachers of the Law, and they even furnish the army of the priest Jehoiada when he secures the coronation of the young king Jehoash and the death of Athaliah — in this case in flat contradiction to the earlier narrative.

HEBREW LITERARY METHODS 11

The Chronicler is adduced here not because he was an ex ception to the rule, but because he illustrates a tendency which we can trace in almost, if not quite all, the historical books We have already seen that the author of Judges has his own re ligious thesis to establish, and that he did it by using earlier material which came to his hand. In some cases it is plain that a story has been rewritten to correct what the author regards as an erroneous view. Thus in the books of Samuel we have two accounts of the coronation of Saul. In one we read that the king was a gift of God's grace for the deliverance of the people (I Sam. ix and x). But another writer judged that this could not be, since Saul turned out to be a failure. He therefore wrote another account and represented the demand for a king as evidence of the incurable waywardness of the people (I Sam. viii and xii). Any one who will com pare the two sections will convince himself that they cannot come from the same hand. And if it be said that, if the con tradiction in point of view is as clear as it seems to us, an editor would not have combined the stories, we reply that this is where religious conservatism comes in. A devout man who possessed both documents could not bring himself to let either one be lost and therefore combined them. Probably if he reflected on the discrepancies he was able to satisfy himself with harmonistic hypotheses such as commentators delight in to the present day.

Another example would seem to be even more convincing, were it not for the spell laid upon us by traditional views. This is the story of the creation. We can hardly doubt that an early writer began his story with the statement: "In the day that Yahweh made earth and heaven no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for Yahweh had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground" (Gen. ii:4b, 5). He then went on with the delightful account of the Garden. To him there was nothing unworthy of the divinity in supposing Him to plant a garden, to mold man of clay, to experiment with the animals before discovering the right companion for man,

12 ESSAYS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

to walk in His garden in the cool of evening, to cross-question the man to find out what he had done, and to be jealous of the man's becoming "like God" in knowing good and evil. But in later times this anthropomorphic God was not appreciated, and the work of creation had to be represented differently. For this reason we have the account which we now read in the first chapter of the Bible. According to this the divine fiat is enough to bring the light into being, to separate land and water, to make the land produce plants, and the sea bring forth its swarming inhabitants. It is altogether probable that the writer of this cosmogony would have been willing to see his account displace the other. But again religious conserva tism, for which we cannot be too grateful, refused to let either one perish, and combined them in the form in which they have been read for more than two thousand years.

It is not the purpose of the present essay to trace this process through the Old Testament. The delicate work of analysis has, however, been done by many scholars, and although they differ in detail, the results are in their main lines well estab lished. What is of present interest to us is that the Old Testa ment literature was up to a certain point of time in a fluid state. Editors and copyists did not hesitate to supplement and revise their text in order to suit it to the time in which they lived. But there did come a date when this rewriting of ancient material and compilation from the various elements stopped. Apparently it was only after the fall of Jerusalem in the first century of our era that the scribes awoke to the danger of having the sacred volumes treated in the old irrespon sible way. The Canon was then closed; that is, the collection of books was set apart as something sacred, which could not be increased or diminished. To prevent contamination, rules were drawn up for the copyists so that at least the copies officially authorized for use in the public service should con tain the text handed down by the fathers. But although the conservative tendency seemed thus to triumph, religious ideas continued to change under the influence of the spirit of the age. How then could the ancient document continue to edify

HEBREW LITERARY METHODS 13

the new generation? The answer is given by the commentaries. The text of the Book is sacrosanct. It must be handed on in the form which it has assumed. But it can be explained in a new sense so as to fit the ideas of a new time. The history of interpretation shows the interplay of the two forces which wrought in the compilation of the books. Conservatism at tempts to hold onto the tradition embodied in the text, and progressive thought endeavors to read new meanings into the old words. The process had already begun in the Biblical period, for the Chronicler refers to the Midrash of the book of Kings. But Midrash, as we shall see, was the technical term for a commentary. To give some illustrations of the method in which the commentators have done their work is the pur pose of these essays.

The icsult of our study will undoubtedly be to show that many attempts to explain the sense of an old Testament pass age have really explained it away; and we may be tempted to accept the statement sometimes made that the Church has never really understood its Bible. In this sweeping form the declaration goes too far. Since the interest of Jewish and Christian scholars has not been primarily in history, in the sense in which we understand the word, it is not surprising that they have not taken our point of view. Their interest has been in religion, and religion has a permanent element which is above the considerations of time and space on which the historian dwells. The twenty-third Psalm appeals directly to the devout soul, and whether it was written by David in the tenth century B. C., or by an unknown believer in the fifth, is a matter of subordinate importance. A large part of the Old Testament appeals directly to the religious sense in this way, and it is this part which gives the Book its hold on Christians down to the present time. But it remains true that the historic process by which the great movement which we know as Judaism came to be what it was in itself, and what it was as a preparation for Christianity, has been clearly apprehended only in recent times.

II

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION

A EARLY as the Maccabean period there existed among the Jews a party called the Asideans, or in the Hebrew form Hasidim, the Pious. Their principle was to obey the Law at all costs, but not to meddle with political affairs. Under great provocation indeed, when their religion was threatened, they took up arms. But as soon as they were allowed the free exercise of their customs they with drew from the conflict, thus separating themselves from the nationalists who fought for the independence of their coun try. Their belief was that in His own good time their God would introduce His rule on earth. Until then the faithful had only to obey His will as laid down in the Law. The party which we know as Pharisees agreed with them in ob servance of the Law and for the most part in submission (though with no good will) to the gentile power.

The fall of Jerusalem in the year 70, and the failure of the desperate effort made in the next century under Bar Kochba, convinced the remnant of the people that the Asidean prin ciple was right. Henceforth the energies of the Jew were directed to the observance of the Law. No doubt the motive was the belief, expressed in fact by some of their authorities,

\

that if the Law were perfectly observed for a single day the

Messiah would come. It is to be remembered also that the Law was the only thing to which the patriotism of the Jew could rally. His temple was destroyed and access even to its site was denied him; his sacred city was in the hands of strangers; his land was no longer his; the nation was scat tered to all parts of the known world. One thing was com mon to all who remained loyal — the sacred Book. And in

14

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 15

i this Book the fundamental part was the Pentateuch, the Tora given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Its own claim is that it is the final and perfect direction for those who would live so as to obtain the favor of God. The other books of the Hebrew Bible were valued indeed, but they were looked upon as commentaries on the Law, rather than as co-ordinate sources for the religion of Israel.

An elaborate Law (613 precepts are contained in the Penta teuch according to rabbinical computation) needs study and interpretation, all the more when, as in this case, it is in a language no longer commonly spoken by the people. The synagogue, which was a well-established institution in New Testament times, was organized to give the people instruction in the meaning of the Code, for obedience to the Code in every detail was obligatory on every Israelite as soon as he reached years of discretion. Even as early as the time of Nehemiah, we are told that when the Law was read in the public assembly, the Levites caused the people to understand the sense. The testimony is good at least for the time of the Chronicler to whom we owe the notice (Neh. viii:7f.), that is for the third century B.C. Whether at so early a date translation of the Hebrew text into Aramaic was customary we do not know. Aramaic was the language of common life to the Jews in Asia as Greek was to those in Egypt. In Egypt the Jews had a translation of their sacred Book into Greek certainly as early as 150 B.C., and it would not be strange if the Aramaic-speaking section of the nation had their need met in a similar way. The tradition is that at a later time translators were appointed for the synagogue and that when a small section of the Hebrew text was read, from one to three verses, the translator gave the sense in Aramaic. A prejudice existed against writing down these versions, so that in their earliest form they are not preserved to us. But after a time the Targums, as they are called, were put into written form. Their value for our present purpose is the testimony they give to the law of religious change working on a fixed text. They are in fact the earliest commentaries. Even the one which adheres most

16 ESSJrS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

closely to the original, that of Onkelos, does not hesitate to read the ideas of its own time into the text. It avoids anthro pomorphisms, softens expressions which in the view of the translator give an unworthy idea of the Patriarchs, and intro duces matter not thought of by the sacred writer. For example, it refuses to allow that man by his disobedience became "like one of us" (divine beings, that is), and only declares that man has become a being unique in kind in that he knows good and evil. According to the Hebrew text Abraham says on one occasion: "When God made me wander from the house of my father." The Targum expands: "When the people went astray after the works of their hands, and the Lord brought me near to Him from the house of my father." Evidently the translator has in mind the tradition known to us later in its fuller form, and which has passed over to the Muslims. According to this story Abraham was obliged to flee from Mesopotamia be cause his family were idolaters. Where the Hebrew Law gives the prohibition, somewhat difficult for us to understand, against boiling a kid in its mother's milk, the Targum replaces it by the traditional formula: "Thou shalt not eat flesh and milk together."

The other Targums are much more free in their treatment of the text. A single example must suffice. In the Song of Deborah we have the verses rendered in our version: "They chose new gods; then was there war in the gates: was there shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel? My heart is towards the governors of Israel that offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless ye Jehovah." 1 The Targum has the following: "When the Sons of Israel were willing to serve new idols that were worshipped by their neighbors, with which their fathers had had no dealings, there came upon them the nations and drove them from their cities, but when they turned to the Law they had no power over them, until Sisera, the enemy and oppressor, came with forty thou sand captains, fifty thousand swordsmen, sixty thousand lance-

1 Judge v: 8f. Whether the Hebrew text is sound does not concern us. It was certainly the text which the translator had before him.

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 17

men, seventy thousand bearers of shields, eighty thousand archers, besides the nine hundred chariots of iron which he had, and his own chariot. All these thousands and all these troops were not able to stand before Barak and the ten thou sand men with him. Deborah said in her prophesying: I am sent to praise the scribes of Israel who, when that trouble came, did not cease from interpreting the Law. And how beautiful of them that they sit in the synagogues with uncovered heads, and teach the people the words of the Law, blessing and prais ing the Lord."

Comment is almost unnecessary. The homiletic aim has outweighed every thought of accurate adherence to the text. The fondness for exaggerated numbers which we have reason to suspect led to some of the statements of the Chronicler is here distinctly in evidence. The Rabbinical point of view has changed the heroes of Israel from warlike leaders, who threw themselves into the fight on behalf of their people, into scribes whose virtue consisted in continuing their work even in times of persecution. Doubtless this sort of heroism has been often enough exemplified in the long period of persecution through which the scattered nation has gone, and we need not under value it. But that it is of a different sort from that praised by Deborah is clear. The change in point of view between pre-exilic and post-exilic times is what interests us here. But let us look a little more closely at the situation.

The theory of the final redactor of the Pentateuch was that he had compiled a complete code for the regulation of life - for the Jew, that is; the gentile did not concern him. But a complete code of ethics cannot be put clown in black and white. The exigencies of life are too manifold, and changed conditions must be met by new rules, or new interpretations of the old ones. Every written law gives rise to casuistry. Some one must decide whether a given case comes within the meaning of the law. Moreover the ethos of a community contains more and also less than is specified in the statute. Along two lines therefore Jewish anxiety to conform to the divinely given code gave rise to a tradition which grew in bulk

18 ESS^TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

as the centuries rolled on. The immediate task was to define what came under a specific rule. The Law strenuously for bids work on the Sabbath. The question at once arises: What is work? Is writing work? Is it work to carry a parcel from one house to another? The earnestness with which such ques tions were discussed led often to what we consider trivialities, but it attests the sincerity of the motive. Doubtless the desire to display intellectual acuteness led to the posing of questions in thesi, but that is inevitable where an ancient document is made the object of study.

Besides the necessity of defining what the Law requires, there arose new conditions not foreseen by the legislator. The growth of law may be observed in any community, and this growth often takes place by a fictitious assumption that the new case can be brought under an already existing statute. The exigency laid upon the Jews was more exacting than in the case of other communities. Their legislator was providing for a state of things which no longer existed. He had in mind a priestly nation with its temple as its capital. His main in terest was in having that temple kept from pollution, and its services carried on without interruption. But the Jews had lost their temple and their land. How difficult was the adjust ment to life in the dispersion may be illustrated by an anecdote preserved in the Talmud. This relates that after the destruc tion of Jerusalem many Jews refused to eat flesh or drink wine. The reason was that the flesh could not be consecrated by sac rifice, nor the wine by libation. In other words, the meat and drink were unclean — a point of view already expressed in the earlier time (Hos. ix:3). The Rabbi who convinced these men of their error did it by a reductio ad absurdum. He showed that the same reasoning would apply to bread, for the grain could not be consecrated by the offering of the first sheaf, and also to fruits, because in this case also it was im possible to bring the first fruits, as was commanded.2 The result would be suicide by starvation which was not only a crime in itself, but which would result in the extermination

- Baba Bathra, 6ob.

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 19

of the nation, and of course the frustration of all their hopes of a restoration.

Compelled to live in conditions which the Law did not con template, and yet constrained by their religious faith to hold fast to the Law, it is not strange that the people used all their ingenuity to apply the old rules to the new situation. The belief was that every verse of Scripture was of direct divine authorship, and not only the literal affirmation of the text was binding, but all that it logically implied. It is in fact difficult to put limits to the meaning of an inspired Scripture. As a loyal Jew states it: There is no science and no knowledge whatever that is not contained in the Tora.3 The result in later speculation, according to which every word of the Law has seventy faces or meanings, does not now concern us. Legalistic interpretation scanned the sacred text to find justi fication for customs which were not directly commanded. Thirteen rules were formulated by which this could be done. They attempt to classify the various methods of arguing a minori ad majus, a majori ad minus, from analogy, from the special case to the general rule.* But one limitation was insisted on; no deduction must conflict with the established tradition of the schools. A Rabbi says: He who interprets a verse of Scripture contrary to the Halaka has no part in the world to come.

Halaka, be it noted, is the technical term for a rule of con duct, that by which one should walk, regulate his life. These rules, the discussions concerning them, anecdotes in illustration and other material more or less related, make up the body of tradition called the Talmud. What is not directly contained in the Pentateuch is called the Oral Law, and it is legitimated by the theory that at Sinai Moses received not only the written Code but the whole body of traditions as well. These were handed down through faithful transmitters until they reached the Rabbis, who wrote them down. The specific assertion is

3 Manasseh ben Israel, The Conciliator, p. 213.

4 Friedlander, Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tannaiten und Amoraer (1879), p. 76f.

20 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

made that everything that a Rabbi was to inculcate in the future was contained in the revelation to Moses,5 and the reason is given that Moses himself declared that he received all the words that the Lord had spoken to him (Deut. ix:io). That this really makes the tradition superior to the written Law needs no demonstration, but this is a phenomenon that recurs in the whole history of Biblical study. And on this ground we can understand, if we cannot wholly justify, the saying recorded in another Midrash that the words of the wise are more precious than the words of Scripture. The Rabbi bases his declaration on the text "For thy love is better than wine." (Cant. i:2). The Scripture is wine, but there is something better and this must be the words of the teacher.6 As a single illustration of legalistic treatment let us take the opening of the Talmud. It begins with the question: At what time does one recite the Shema of evening? The question assumes that it is the duty of every loyal Israelite to recite the profession of faith, known from its opening word as the Shema, and that this should be done morning and evening. The text is the familiar verse in Deuteronomy: "Hear (Shema) O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee shall be in thy heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down and when thou risest up." 7 The Biblical author in his rhetorical way, is urging his readers or hearers to keep constantly in mind the exhortations and commands contained in his book. There is no indication that he expects these par ticular verses to be singled out for daily recitation. To inter pret the paragraph as a law is to put more upon it than it was intended to bear — and also less, for it is conceivable

6 Midrasch Koheleth (in Bibliotkeca Rabbinica, 1880), p. 18.

6 Midrasch Schir-ha-Schirim (Ibid.), p. 18.

7 Deut. vi: 4-7. I have translated according to the Jewish understanding, and have not thought it necessary to give the complete text of the formula.

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 21

that the recitation of the formula might become a mere exer cise of the memory, satisfying the conscience as an opus opera- turn, and interfering with the whole-souled devotion to the Law which the author was endeavoring to secure. It is easy to say of course that the danger of formalism is not confined to any one religion, and that the Jews are not sinners above others in this respect. We are not bringing an accusation, but making an historical study, and the example is cited simply to show how a particular command is derived from a particular text.

The sequel shows what is meant by casuistry, for the obliga tion to recite the formula being recognized, it is necessary to define what is meant by morning and evening. How late does the duty last, and how early does it begin? Rabbi Gamaliel's sons were at a banquet which kept them to the small hours. On coming home they asked whether it was too late to recite the evening Shema. His reply was: If the dawn does not yet show itself you are under obligation. Similarly, a decision on the morning hour is given; Morning begins as soon as one is able to distinguish a white thread from a colored one. The subsequent discussion turns on the words of the Biblical text: When thou liest down and when thou risest up. Since kings and wealthy men sleep late, the time for the morning exercise is extended to the third hour of the day.

This simple example illustrates what the Rabbis mean by putting a hedge about the Law. It was their duty, as they conceived it, to provide for all possible cases, and prevent the least infringement of the command. Much more elaborate examples might be cited. Especially where there was the slightest risk of defilement by contact with gentiles and gentile objects of worship, or with the things classed as abominations, all conceivable exigencies were considered. This is undoubt edly in line with the intention of the Law, for a large part of the Pentateuch is devoted to the subject of ritual defilement. According to the early distinction between sacred and profane, contamination of the two spheres must be prevented. The sacred building, the sacred persons, the sacred implements,

22 ESSJrS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

and the sacred community, must be protected. Since the world, especially the gentile world in which the Jews now live, is full of objects which, being in no connection with the God of Israel, are counted as profane, the number of problems with which the faithful Jew is confronted may be imagined. While the Talmud faithfully adopts the Penta- teuchal point of view, it goes more into detail. It classifies the objects which are to be avoided, and defines the degree of uncleanness that adheres to each. Some are not only taboo in themselves but the source of taboo in others, while some only contract uncleanness. It is not necessary to give ex amples, as we are concerned with the method of Biblical interpretation which in this matter offers few peculiarities.

As has been said, the Halaka deals with practical exigen cies, defining the rules by which the faithful Jew must live. But legalism could not absorb all the energies of the race. The synagogue was primarily a school of ethics, but it was also a place of worship and a social centre. The public speaker must interest and entertain as well as instruct. Hence there arose a literature which is not directly legalistic or casuistic. This is called Haggada,_and the documents in which it is embodied bears the name Midrash. The name itself testifies to the claim that the material is derived from the Scripture, for the verbal root from which the noun is derived means to search out, and it is applied specifically to searching the Scriptures for their hidden meaning. The Talmud contains both Halaka and Haggada, but the books which are entitled Midrash consist almost entirely of Hag gada. The material is really homiletic, and represents the method of the preacher who ostensibly bases his sermon on a text, but often enough departs far from his starting point. Here we see the play of fancy, willing to draw the attention by far-fetched or paradoxical deductions.

Allegory, to which the next essay is devoted, comes into play in the endeavor thus to edify the hearer, and in its fully developed form will be discussed later. But the premise from which it starts, namely that there must be more in the text

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 23

than appears on the surface, is exemplified in almost every chapter of the Midrash. For example, when Jacob is said to pray for bread to eat and clothing to wear, the religiously minded reader feels that the ancestor of the chosen people could not be thinking of mere material things. He must have meant the Tora (spiritual nourishment) and the sacred Prayer-shawl (the tallith). Since in a divinely given book there can be nothing superfluous or accidental, any deviation from the ordinary must have meaning. The word translated and He formed ClST^ Gen. ii: 7), is written, contrary to analogy, with two yodhs; this points to the fact that man is composed of two elements, earthly and heavenly. Eccle- siastes (ix:i4) writes of a little city with few men in it. He means the world of Noah's time; the great king who besieges it is God, the poor wise man who delivers it is Noah. The four streams of Eden represent the four world empires. Ja cob's meeting with the shepherds is thus expounded: The well in the field is Zion; the three flocks are the three sacred festivals; the great stone is the joy in the temple when the water is drawn for the feast of Tabernacles. The ground for such expositions (if we concede that name to them) is par allelism of a sort, though to our apprehension remote. The number jour of one passage is brought into connection with the same number in the other, and play with numbers is always attractive to the imaginative mystic. So in the second case just cited the number three gives the clue. Similarly the three branches of the vine which Pharoah's butler saw in his dream allude to the three characters prominent in the story of the exodus — Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The vine there fore typifies Israel. This identification is doubtless fortified by the figure of the vine applied to Israel in Psalm Ixxx. More remote, and to our taste, grotesque, is the assertion that the 'little sister' of Canticles (viii: 8) means Abraham.

The play on numbers is facilitated by the fact that the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were used as numerals, as was the case also with the Greek. What welcome aid this afforded the Christian Fathers we shall see later. Among the

24 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Hebrews a whole science or pseudo-science is based on the numerical value of the letters. The numerical value of the letters in the name of Shem amounts to 340, the years from the deluge to the confusion of tongues. The theory is that the correspondence cannot be accidental. The account of the creation begins with the second letter of the alphabet whereas we might have expected the first letter (aleph} to stand at the beginning. The reason is that two worlds were created instead of one, either the earthly and heavenly, or the two aeons, the present and the one to come. Or as an alternative we may suppose that there is an allusion to the two Laws written and oral. In fact the number of hypoth eses of this kind has no limit. This same letter opens the account of the creation, because it is, in Hebrew as in Eng lish, the initial of the word Blessing, whereas aleph is the initial of the word meaning cursed. An apparently super fluous H in the word meaning created is an indication that the world was created for the sake of Abraham. The anagram is taken seriously (DX"Gi"G = DJTlSXS)- IR Genesis i: 24 we read that the earth is to bring forth living beings, cattle, reptiles and beasts of the earth — four kinds. But the next verse, which relates the carrying out of the command men tions only three. The reason is (according to the Midrash) that the fourth kind is the demons. God had got so far as to create their souls and was about to give them bodies when the Sabbath intervened and they were left disembodied spirits.

Further examples of this play with numbers are easily found. The seven lambs of Abraham's covenant (Gen. xxi: 28) represent either seven generations of Abraham's descend ants, or the seven Israelites slain by the Philistines, or again the seven sanctuaries mentioned in Scripture, or finally the seven months that the Ark was in the land of the Philistines. The only reason for grouping these incongruous data together is the recurrence of the number seven. The 127 years of Sarah's life correspond to the 127 provinces ruled over by Esther. From David's sixfold lament over his son Absalom

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 25

the Targum concludes that the unhappy young men went through the seven gates that lead to the lowest hell. The first word of the Bible consists of six letters. What better reason can be found than that it contains a hidden allusion to the six classes of beings that were to be created? By ana gram this same word can be made to read "on the first of (the month) Tishri." This proves that this, the Jewish New Year, is the birthday of the world. A word in the account of Jacob's dream (Gen. xxviiiiiy), the sum of whose letters is eighteen, tells us of the distance between earth and sky." In Genesis xiv we read that Abraham armed 318 servants born in his house. But elsewhere we read that his house- born servant was Eliezer. Curiously enough the letters of Eliezer's name sum up to 318. The inference is that Abra ham's army consisted of this one man. Whether in fact the writer of Genesis xiv had this equation in mind we need not stop to inquire; our business is with the haggadic exegesis. By the same method every letter of Isaac's name is signifi cant because of its numerical value. The first means ten - the ten commandments; the second, ninety, gives the age of Sarah at the boy's birth; the third, eight, alludes to the eighth day on which he was circumcised, and the last letter has the value of Abraham's age at the time. Doubtless it would be a mistake to give much weight to material of this kind. The Bible was the student's textbook and every correspondence that could be pointed out not only stimulated interest but aided the memory. Theologically it might be well to notice that an apparently superfluous waw in Gen. 11:4, had the value of six, and this was the precise number of things which Adam lost by his fall, but which will be restored to him in the coming age.9 They are: his glory (Judg v: 31), his life (Is. lxv:22), his stature (Lev. xxvi:i3), the fruits of the earth, the fruit of the tree of life (Zech. viii:i2), and the luminaries (Is. xxx : 2 6).

The literal or historical sense is lost out of sight when the text is treated in this way. The theory of direct divine

8 Bereschith Rabba (Bibliotheca Rabbinical, p. 336. ° Ibid., p. 53.

26 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

authorship seemed to authorize the student to take each sentence -by itself as an oracle. That the Jews were not sinners above other men in this atomizing treatment of the. sacred Book we shall have occasion to notice. What results from taking each sentence or each frag ment as an oracle is to make every sort of deduction legitimate. In Job we read of the mountain falling and the rock removed from its place (Ch. xiv:i8). The falling mountain is Lot whose disastrous experiences account for the adjective, whereas the rock removed from its place is Abra ham who removed from his native land. The identification is helped by the fact that in one passage Abraham is referred to as the rock whence Israel was hewn (Is. li:i). The Song of Songs found a place in the Canon because it was expounded allegorically. We are not surprised therefore to learn that the sixty queens and eighty concubines of Solomon are not meant to tell us of the king's harem. The sixty queens are Abraham and his descendants as enumerated in one of the genealogies, and the eighty concubines are Noah and his descendants. The next verse in this same chapter says: "My dove, my undefiled, is one." This means Israel who pre serves his fidelity to God. As an alternative we are allowed to suppose that the dove means Abraham; the only child of her mother is Isaac; the choice one of her that bare her is Jacob; the daughters who saw her, are the twelve tribes of Israel; and she whom the queens and concubines praise is Joseph.10

The skeptical book of Ecclesiastes gave special opportunity for this sort of exegesis. Where the author recommends an epicurean philosophy: "There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and make himself enjoy good in his labor," the Midrash assures us that by eating and drinking the Scripture means increase in learning and good works. Where Solomon speaks of his great works, his houses, his vineyards, his gardens, and his trees, he means the tables of the Law, the synagogues, the rows of scholars, the

10 Bereschith Rabba (Bibliotheca Rabbinica), p. 439.

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 27

Mishna, and the Gemara. The Biblical author in his pessi mism declares that the crooked cannot be made straight. The Commentator hastens to limit the dictum to the present world, and actually finds in the verse assurance of a future life where all will be mad« straight. The poor but wise youth of iv:i3 is identified with the good impulse of the heart.11

Since all Scripture is the word of God, there can be no contradictions in it — an assumption that underlies the ex egesis of Christians as well as Jews. Since, however, there are apparent discrepancies, the labor of the expositor must be directed to their harmonization. The Rabbis were not negli gent of this department of study. Two large volumes con taining their endeavors were compiled by Manasseh ben Israel in the seventeenth century, and are accessible in an English translation. Examination shows that the discrepan cies discussed are due in reality to the fact, first brought into clear light by the higher criticism, namely that two or more different documents are combined in the Biblical books. Thus several of the instances endeavor to harmonize the two ac counts of creation contained in the early chapters of Genesis. Where one account dates the creation of the plants on the third day and that of man on the sixth, the other places the creation of man at the beginning and the plants are not made to grow until there is a man to take care of the garden. The Rabbis are compelled to suppose that the plants were really created on the third day, but remained hidden below the sur face of the soil until man appeared and prayed for rain. A crux was the verse: "Let us make man," since it was used by the Christians as an argument for the Trinity. It was there fore explained to mean that God took counsel with the heavens and the earth. The anthropomorphisms naturally gave trouble, being irreconcilable, if taken literally, with the more spiritual declarations of Scripture itself. One passage affirms that Yahweh came down to see what was going on in Sodom,

11 The examples are taken from the Midrasch Koheleth in the Bibliotheca Rabbinica translated by Wiinsche.

28 ESSsirS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

whereas Jeremiah declares that He fills heaven and earth. Or contrast Yahweh's own statement that He will pass over the houses of the Israelites and when He sees the Passover blood on the doors will not suffer the destroyer to enter, with Daniel's thanksgiving that God knows what is in the dark ness. Of course it was easy for the Rabbis, as it has been for later commentators, to say that such expressions were metaphorical, but the diffuse attempts at explanation make us suspect that this was not always found to be satisfactory. Even in the legislative portions of the Pentateuch it is not always possible to assert that the statutes are harmonious. The differences between Deuteronomy and the Priestcode therefore receive special attention. In the historical books the oft-debated problem of Saul's ignorance of David, whom nevertheless he has had as his trusty adjutant, strikes the reader, and the attempts at harmonizing what are really two accounts are much like those we read in later apologies. The ingenuity goes so far as to demonstrate, at least to the satis faction of the expositor himself, that Reuben did not commit incest, that the sons of Eli were not guilty of fornication, and that David was not an adulterer.12

These examples might be added to indefinitely and per haps they have already tried the reader's patience. What they show is that the ostensible explanation of the sacred text is in many cases only a way of reading into it the ideas of the expositor. Some sort of a curb to extravagant fancies was however found to be necessary, and it was declared that no one should expound Scripture contrary to the Halaka, that is, the tradition accepted in the schools.13 That this made tradition and not Scripture the rule is of course clear, but ought not to surprise us. In fact, as we have seen, the oral Law was quite on a level with the written Word. And when this is realized we are less astonished than we otherwise should be to find that the commentators venture on occasion

- The Conciliator of Manasseh ben Israel, translated by E. H. Lindo, Lon don, 1842.

3 This seems to be the meaning of Aboth 3: 12, repeated in Synedrin 9oa.

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 29

to change the reading of their text. The unvocalized text, which was in the hands of the Rabbis, invites speculation, for the consonants may be read in more than one way. But even the consonantal text was not exempt from tampering. Thus the Midrash suggests that by substituting a waw for a yodh in a word used in Psalm xlviii:i4, we get the information that God will lead the dance of His people. It must not be sup posed that the new reading was intended to displace the old. Both were accepted and the theory of inspiration was broad enough to cover both.

In the great mass of material .contained in the Talmud and the related books it is easy to pick out portions that seem to us trivial, absurd, or even immoral. Abundant use has been made of this opportunity by Antisemites to blacken the character of the Jewish community. Attacks upon the "hard ened and obstinate Jews" have been based on the Talmud from the time of Eisenmenger 14 down to the present day. Probably the judgment of Christian scholars would assent to Farrar's rhetorical peroration:

The methods radically untenable, the results all but absolutely valueless, the letter-worship and traditionalism which date their origin from the days of Ezra, the idolatry of the Law, the exaltation of ceremonial, the quenching of the living and mighty spirit of prophecy, the pedantry, the exclusiveness, the haughty self-exaltation of Rabbinism, the growth of an extravagant rev erence for the oral rules which form a hedge about the Law, are results in themselves deplorable. But they become still more deplorable when we see that meanwhile all that was essential, divine, and spiritual, was set at naught by human invention.15

These are very bitter words, and they show the danger we run in fastening our attention on one aspect of the great codex we are studying. We forget that Biblical exposition is not the main interest of the Rabbis. They were redactors of the traditions of their people. Their religious earnestness,

14 Entdecktes Judentum, 1711. The subtitle claims that the book is a thorough and truthful account of the way in which the stubborn Jews blas pheme and dishonor the Holy Trinity, insult the Holy Mother of Christ, and scoff at the Christian religion.

ir> F. W. Farrar, History oj Interpretation (Bampton Lectures, 1886), p. 105.

3o ESSATS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

their almost desperate determination to preserve the heritage of the fathers, and their constant faith that only by obedience to the oral as well as the written Law could they serve God, deserve to be kept in mind. Were pedantry, exclusiveness, and self-exaltation the characteristic notes of this literature, it is hard to believe that it could have kept its place in the affection of the Jews down to our own time. In fact there is in the Talmud much that breathes the spirit of religious trust and moral earnestness. Jewish apologists have gone so far as to claim that it is the original from which the Gospel de rives all that Christians value. So much we can hardly con cede. But to be fair we should recognize that if the Rabbis read into the Bible what was not there, they did no more than many Christian scholars have done. Even now it is difficult for many Christians to think of Abraham as in any way different from the men whom we of the twentieth cen tury regard as models. If the Jewish wise men supposed Adam, who was in direct communion with his Creator, to have been the wisest of men, similar theories have been enter tained and uttered by Christian commentators. The Jewish demonstration may not commend itself to us sober literalists, for it is based on one of those fanciful interpretations that we have already become acquainted with. The Rabbis say that Adam's work, which is described as dressing the garden and keeping it, was really to study the Tora and keep the commandments, since the text says "to keep the way of the tree of life." The Tora is the true tree of life, as we are told by Solomon (Prov. iii:i8), and this makes the demonstration complete.

That high moral earnestness lies behind many of these strange interpretations of the written word may be illustrated by the benediction pronounced on those who sow beside all waters and send forth the feet of ox and ass (Is. xxxii: 20). This means (says the Talmud): Blessed are you, Israel, that you study the Tora, and show kindness, for then you subdue (send forth) your evil passions, and not they you.10 The

16 Aboda Zara, sb.

LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION 31

interpretation is suggested, as in so many cases, by the re currence of the word sow in the phrase 'sow righteousness' (Hos. x:i2). Archdeacon Farrar's charge of self-exalta tion of the Rabbis is based on passages which are intended to emphasize the study of the Law. Since the real work of Israel is the observance of the commandments, and since hap piness in this world and the next depends on the observance, the importance of the teacher follows as a matter of course. God Himself, we are told, spends three hours a day in the study of His own Law,17 and even asks the help of leading Rabbis. The three pillars on which the world rests are the Tora, the ritual, and kindness.18 One should live on bread and water, sleep on the bare ground, live a life of self-denial and devote one's self to the study of the Law. Then it will be well with him in this world and in the one to come. He who learns a single paragraph, a single verse, a single letter of the sacred book from his neighbor must hold him in honor.19 If one's father and his teacher are both in captivity and he can ransom only one, the teacher should be the one chosen, for the father gives physical life only, while the teacher fos ters the spirit.-0 A Jewish scholar of the nineteenth century gives the orthodox point of view: "A sacred Book, any mis take about which involves temporal and eternal ruin, demands exposition more than any work of antiquity, especially when, as in this case, new conditions of political and social life modify men's convictions." From this point of view the honor in which the Rabbi is held in every Jewish community is intelligible.

Since the Law has this value, in the sight of God as well as in the minds of men, its gift to Israel is a sign of God's love. Far from being a burden, as Christians regard it, it is the glory of the chosen people. A question arises in the gentile mind just here: If the boon is so great why is it given to one small fraction of the race only and withheld from the mass of mankind? The Rabbis could of course take refuge in the

1T Aboda Zara. 3b. 19 Qinyan Tora, 4.

18 Pirqe Aboth, i, 2. -° Baba Mezia, 333.

32 ESSJl'S IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

incomprehensible decree of the Maker. But they were not all content with this as a sufficient answer. They assumed that the Law had actually been offered to all nations, but Israel was the only one that accepted it. When the nations are arraigned at the bar of God at the Judgment they will say: Lord of the worlds, has thou given us a Tora and did we refuse it? But, says the Talmud, how can they say this? It is written: The Lord came from Sinai, is gone forth from Seir, and shined out from Mount Paran; and again: God came from Teman and the Holy One from Mount Paran (Hab. iii:3, cf. Deut. xxxiii:2). Rabbi Johanan says that from these passages we see that God offered the Law to all peo ples and tongues, but all except Israel refused. Even Israel accepted on compulsion, for God lifted the mountain over them and threatened to crush them with it unless they would accept the Law. This statement is a deduction from the verse (Ex. xix:iy): They stood under the Mount. The tra dition that the mountain was lifted over the people passed over into Islam.-1

With this final example of exegesis we confirm our ob servation that Rabbinical ingenuity is a means of deducing from the sacred text that which the expositor wishes to find there.

-1 Aboda Zara, ab, and Quran, 2: 60.

Ill

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY

UNDER the successors of Alexander, Greek language and Greek culture made their way into Egypt and the East. The Jews could not remain unaffected. The sharp conflict in the Maccabean period shows how near the Jewish religion came to extinction. The conflict ended in establishing the right of the Jew to live according to his own customs, but the all-pervading western influence made itself felt nevertheless. Jews were already settled in the Greek cities of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and the Jewish community outside Palestine was larger than that in the land which Israel thought to be peculiarly its own. The Jewish quarter of Alexandria had more inhabitants than Jerusalem, and in this centre of Greek culture no one, African or Semite, could escape acquaintance with Greek thought. The result on those studies of the ancestral Law to which the loyal Jew devoted himself can be imagined, and is attested by the docu ments which have come down to us. In the first place the Scriptures were made accessible in something like a Greek dress. At what date the so-called Septuagint translation was made we do not know, but it is clear that the greater part of the Old Testament was translated before the beginning of our era, and the part most important to the Jew — the Penta teuch — circulated in Alexandria as early as 150 B.C.

The version, as we see, adheres closely to the Hebrew original — so closely in fact that parts of it would scarcely be intelligible to one using the language which we call classic. But being made for the Jewish community which still thought more or less in Semitic forms, it would there be intelligible. The difficulty to the man educated in the school of Plato would be quite as much in the thought as in what we may call the

33

34 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

jargon. Anthropomorphism is writ large in the Hebrew Bible. The writers do not hesitate to say that God appeared in hu man form, that He ate and drank, that He had a local habi tation, that He led his people to victory over their enemies, that He repented of things that He had done, that He became angry and was jealous. But to the Greek philosopher this would be strange, even repellent, for he thought of the Di vinity as without body, parts, or passions. The educated Jew who attempted to hold fast to the ancestral religion, and who at the same time was trained to think in Greek forms, would find himself in a strait betwixt two. Fortunately for him a way of reconciliation had been pointed out to him by the Greeks themselves.

The problem which confronted him was not unlike the one which the Greek thinker had encountered in his own religion. Early religion clothed itself in myths, in Greece as elsewhere. Anthropomorphism was here in evidence, and in a form even cruder than among the Hebrews. But refine ment had advanced to a point at which the crudeness and immorality of the stories of the gods shocked the more re flective, or the more sensitive, minds. The loves and hates, the quarrels and feastings, ascribed to the gods could not be true if taken literally. Yet the documents in which they were embodied had something of the sacred character which the Hebrew attached to his Bible. It may be an exaggera tion to call Homer the Bible of the Greeks, and yet the rev erence paid to his poems was only one remove from that with which the Jew regarded the Pentateuch. Antiquity has always, until our own iconoclastic age, carried weight, as is evidenced by the respect with which Plato, for example, men tions the Egyptians. It is plain that Greek thinkers argued in this way: The Egyptian nation is older than our own; the people must have learned more than we have, or even have drunk of the superior knowledge communicated to men in the golden age. Yet this wisdom is not openly revealed to us; there must be an esoteric teaching concealed in their mythology.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 35

It was evident that the Egyptian mythology, in the forms in which it was current, was puerile enough. There was all the more reason to suppose that it presented enigmas which the thoughtful student could solve. Some confirmation may have been found in the fact that the Greek oracles gave their responses in obscure or figurative language. What the theory led to is made evident by Ehitarch. and he will serve as our example, although he lived somewhat later than the period with which we are immediately concerned. In his well-known tract on Isis and Osiris he takes an Egyptian myth as his subject. The myth relates that Osiris and Isis were brother and sister, and also husband and wife. Their half-brother Typhon slew Osiris and tore his body into sixteen pieces, whereupon Isis sought the pieces throughout the land of Egypt and put them together. After recounting the story, Plutarch expressly warns his readers that they must not suppose these things to have happened as they are related, but must inter pret then symbolically. Just as the Greeks, he says, declare that Kronos is an allegorical symbol of time, Hera of air, and that the birth of Hephaistos is a picturesque representation of the transformation of air into fire, so also among the Egyptians are those who maintain that Osiris symbolizes the Nile, Isis the earth, and Typhon the sea into which the Nile falls to disappear and be scattered except such parts as have been ab stracted by the earth to make her fruitful.

Be it noted that even if Osiris was originally the spirit of the Nile, or the Nile itself considered as a divinity, Plutarch had no knowledge of the fact. The story as it came to him was a myth pure and simple, abstracted from its naturalistic basis, if such it had, and his attempt to rationalize it was an effort to harmonize it with his own philosophy or theology. To his thought the Egyptian priests "concealed a philosophy in myths and narratives containing dim hints and suggestions of truth."1 Another example is his treatment of the Egyptian worship of the crocodile. The crocodile he finds to be an apt symbol of the divinity, because alone of all animals it

1 Oakesmith, Religion of Plutarch (1902), p. 190.

36 ESS4rS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

has no tongue — the divine word has no need of the organ of speech to make itself understood. Again, the Egyptians do not really name the dog Hermes (he has in mind the jackal, Anubis), but they bring the animal's watchfulness, untiring- ness, and intelligence into relation with the most intelligent of the gods.' The fact that the Egyptians make sun and moon (divinities) travel across the sky in boats is explained not by the obvious fact that, the Nile being the Egyptian highway, boats naturally suggested themselves to the imagi nation rather than chariots; but by the alleged dogma that water is the primal element from which sun and moon, like all other things, take their rise. The taboo of onions is made the occasion of the following explanation: "In the sacred customs there is nothing irrational, fabulous, or superstitious, as some imagine. Some are founded on ethical or utilitarian reasons, others are not without historical or scientific subtlety, as is the case with the onion. For that Diktus, the foster- child of Isis, when picking onions fell into the river and per ished is unbelievable. The priests abhor and reject onions, because they grow and flourish only when the moon is waning. Moreover the use of the onion is good neither for those who fast nor for those who feast, in one case because it causes thirst, in the other because it induces weeping."3 Similar reasons for the taboo of swine are given, but need not be re produced here.

I have cited Plutarch because of the directness with which he asserts the validity of the allegorical method. But the method is earlier, as we gather from some allusions of Plato. It is not too bold to assume that when philosophy had ad vanced as far as it had when Socrates was questioning every body about the nature of man and of virtue, there were already three types of thought developed. On the one side conservative minds held onto the myths which had come down from antiquity, and accepted them in their literal sense. To criticize these venerable stories seemed to them to under mine religion and the social order. At the other extreme were

2 Isis and Osiris, n. 3 Ibid., 8.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 37

the radicals, who would reject the traditions and with them religion itself. These said: It is not possible that the gods, if gods there be, should be pleased with festivals and sacri fices, with victims torn in pieces, fastings and loud lamenta tions, even foul language, shrieks and dishevelled hair. Xeno- phanes asserted that the poets attribute to the gods all that is shameful and blameworthy among men. The disciples of Pythagoras related that their master had been admitted to Hades before his death, and had there seen Hesiod chained to a brass pillar and gnashing his teeth in pain; Homer also hung on a tree and surrounded with serpents. This was the punishment of the poets for what they had said concerning the gods. Plato, as we know, would exclude the poets from his ideal commonwealth for the same reason.

Between the two parties were the allegorists. They could not believe that authors so venerable could mean to attribute to the divinities the actions which they related. The sages, they thought, in order to keep their wisdom from the common herd had concealed it under figurative narratives. Children, the unlearned, the frivolous, could find delight in the story as it was told, but men of mature understanding would dis cover the deeper meaning, even the laws which govern nature and mankind. The theory was encouraged by the fact that certain religious rites were observed in secrecy, and partici pated in only by the initiated. Allegory was used at least as early as the time of Anaxagoras, and by the date of Philo was well established. The thorough-going way in which the method was applied to Homer may be illustrated from a treatise on the subject which has come down to us and from which I quote:

"The battle in which the gods took part — Poseidon against Apollo, Hermes and Athene confronting Artemis and Ares — could not be reconciled with any elevated idea of the gods. What the poet designed was to give us a theory of physics. Poseidon represents the element of water, Apollo that of fire. These two are opposed to each other and the battle is a symbolical represen tation of this fact." 4

4 Heraclidis Pontici Allegorise Homeri, edidit Gale (Opuscula Mythologica, 1688).

38 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

According to another hypothesis, Apollo is the sun, his arrows are the sun's rays, Hera is the air, Hephaistos the fire, the god Scamander the river of that name. Athene is prudence opposed to Ares, unrestrained passion. When the poet tells us that Athene descended from heaven at Hera's command and restrained Achilles from attacking Agamemnon, he means that the prudent brain of the hero checked the anger rising in his breast.

One of the myths which gave the most offence was the one alluded to in the first book of the Iliad, where Achilles re minds his mother Thetis, a sea-nymph, how at one time Hera and Pallas Athene with the help of Poseidon overcame Zeus and bound him. From his humiliating situation he was re leased by Thetis, who called to her help the hundred-armed Briareus. Doubtless the poet took the myth as he found it, without inquiring for any deeper meaning. To him it was a picturesque and welcome embellishment of his narrative. But to later thinkers it was inconceivable that Zeus, chief of the gods and ruler of Olympus, should have suffered such an in dignity. Hence the attempt to interpret it which found in it a picture of the conflict of the elements in nature. Poseidon, as we have seen, represents water, and Hera air; Zeus is now fire, and Athene earth. If fire prevailed over the other elements the world would be destroyed. Hence the other three con spire to hold it in check. They would, however, extinguish it altogether, did not Harmony (Thetis) call upon Force (Bria reus) to restrain the three and free fire from its bonds.

How forced and unnatural, and, we may say, unpoetic also, this exposition is, needs hardly to be pointed out. Another example is the attempt to interpret the well-known story of Prometheus, chained to the Caucasus and tortured by a vulture which constantly devours his liver, which as constantly grows again. This lasts until the sufferer is delivered by Heracles. Diodorus gets rid of the improbabilities of the myth by sup posing that Prometheus was governor of one of the provinces of Egypt. The Nile, violent as an eagle, broke through the dykes and devastated the country. Prometheus in despair

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 39

would have killed himself had not Heracles repaired the dykes and driven the river back to its bed. Thus the historian re moved the myth, and the poetry also.

The logical necessity of giving a symbolical interpretation to a sacred literature when its literal sense no longer meets the needs of its readers is thus illustrated in the history of Greek thought. The line between symbol, type, and allegory, is not always easy to draw. In its actual application the word type designates something which points forward to the future. The allegory is usually a narrative whose real mean ing is not that which appears on the surface. Bunyan's great work might be read by a child as the story of a man who travelled through the world and met various adventures. In the author's intent the experiences are those of the human soul, and the adventures are its trials and temptations. Our concern here is with the application of the method to the Hebrew Scrip tures. In fact it is used by the later Biblical authors. Thus the author of Daniel tells us of the four beasts he saw in a vision and of their combats. The interpretation which he receives shows that the history of the four world-empires is repre sented in this way. The same writer interprets Jeremiah allegorically, we may say, when he makes the prophet's seventy years mean seventy periods of seven years each. In the book of Enoch we have an extended allegory in the animal vision. The history of the world down to the author's own time is here recounted, only the human characters are represented by bulls, sheep and various ravenous beasts. The prevalence of picturesque embodiments of religious ideas in both the Greek and the Jewish community naturally led to the application of the method to the Old Testament.

The man who did this most thoroughly was Philo of Alex andria, whose life began a little before our era and extended well into the first century. That he was a loyal Jew admits of no doubt. He seems to have had no adequate knowledge of Hebrew', but was familiar with the Greek version, to which he ascribed the authority which the original possessed for the Palestinian schools. He repeatedly emphasizes the priestly

40 /iS&vyrs IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

character of the Hebrew people, a people called by God to be priest and prophet for the whole human race, to pray and sacrifice for all men. The Mosaic Tora he regards as of perpetual obligation. Moses is to him the only lawgiver whose laws remain permanent, unchanged, and unshaken, as though sealed by nature. Moses "combined in his person the qualities of king and philosopher not only, but also those of lawgiver, chief priest and prophet."3 He was inspired in the fullest sense of the word, and his laws are really divine. Holding these opinions Philo was yet thoroughly educated in the Greek learning of his time. He was prepared to mediate between two apparently opposed types of thought, not only by the allegorical method already in vogue, but by the Platonic view of inspiration. According to this "no man when in his wits attains prophetic truth and inspiration; but when he re ceives the inspired word either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep or he is demented by some distemper or possession. . . . And for this reason it is customary to appoint interpre ters to be judges of true inspiration. Some call them prophets, quite unaware that they are not to be called prophets at all, but only interpreters of prophecy."0 Since according to the Hebrew view also the prophet may be so "possessed" by the Spirit as to be beside himself — though this is not affirmed of the prophets whose books are included in the Canon - here was common ground. We may in fact say that Philo regarded himself as the interpreter of the divine oracles, such an one as Plato has in mind.

The task of reconciling the facts with the theory was not easy. Two problems presented themselves. The Hebrew Scriptures, that is the Pentateuch, to which Philo gives al most all his attention, contain a law, a rule of life with many specific injunctions for daily conduct. To justify these in a community which observed other customs came first. In the second place the Hebrew affirmations concerning God, anthro pomorphic as we have seen, must be reconciled with the

5 De Vita Mosis, n, 2f.

c Plato, Timceus, 494 (Jowett's translation).

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 41

Platonic theology, according to which the divinity is removed from the material world. Philo, like Plato, is sure that God exists. But His true nature is so far above our own that He is really incomprehensible. Fortunately for Philo the ear lier thinkers had posited a mediating being, the Logos. At the very outset of his discussions of the Law we find him having recourse to this hypothesis. The text says that man was made in the image of God. To Philo this cannot be true in the natural or material sense. The difficulty is overcome by supposing that man was actually made in the image of the mediating Logos. Even then the image is not corporeal but in the soul. The same difficulty occurred to the Rabbis, for they affirmed that what was meant was that man was made in the image of an angel.7 Similarly, the ideas which play so large a part in the theology of Plato are welcome to Philo. He affirms that at the creation first an incorporeal heaven and earth were made, and the idea of air and space, followed by the incorporeal substance of water.8 The way had been opened for such a statement by the author of Proverbs, to whom Wisdom is already a demiurge, active in the work of creation.

Philo nowhere denies the historicity of the narrative given in the sacred book, but his interest is altogether in the spir itual application. In fact he is a teacher of ethics and it is not unreasonable to suppose that his works represent the kind of sermon he was accustomed to preach to the cultivated Jews of Alexandria. Examples meet us on every page. Eden is to him the divine garden in which all the plants are gifted with reason and soul, for the fruits they bear are the virtues. The three Patriachs are types of Stoic ideals — Abraham, the man who learns virtue; Isaac, the one born virtuous; Jacob, the one who attains virtue by exercise. Enoch, Noah, and Enosh form a similar triad. The altar is the thankful soul of the wise man, compacted of perfect, uninjured, and undivided virtues — the altar it will be remembered is to be built of unhewn stones.

7 Bereschith Rabba p. 96. How far Philo's speculations have influenced Christian dogmatic teaching it is not now our purpose to inquire.

8 De Opificio Mundi, 29, cf. 36 and 129.

42 ESSATS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

On it burns the inextinguishable flame of wisdom, for wisdom is the light of the soul. According to the literal meaning of Scripture Abraham's migrations were made by a wise man, but according to the rules of allegory by the virtue-loving and God-seeking soul. The king of Egypt in the Joseph story is the human spirit, his officers are bread, dainties, and drink. These are eunuchs because the voluptuary devoted to them is unable to beget reflection, self-control, or any virtue. Isaac sacrificed by his father represents cheerfulness of soul (his name means Laughter) which the wise man sacrifices to God. The four kings who came against Sodom are desire, concu piscence, fear and melancholy. The five who resist them are the five senses. The four affections rule over the senses, but when age comes the senses can no longer pay tribute to the affections — the eyes become dim, the ears dull, and so with the others. But the wise man drives away the affections as Abraham conquered the invading kings, for when reason arms itself with the virtues and with the maxims of wise conduct it overcomes the desires and appetites.

Most far-fetched from our point of view is the interpreta tion of the garments of the Highpriest as a symbol of the uni verse. His tunic of blue which reaches from his neck to his feet represents the atmosphere, which also is blue and reaches from the heights to the depths. Over this is the breastplate, which has on the shoulders two jewels hemispherical in form; the two jewels are the two hemispheres of the sky, and the twelve precious stones on the breast are the twelve signs of the Zodiac. They are in four rows to represent the four seasons of the year. The whole is called in the Greek version Logeion, the Reasonable, because everything in heaven is arranged ac cording to reason, and mathematics. In connection with the breastplate the lawgiver ordered the Revelation and Truth (Urim and Thummim). By Truth he indicates that false hood cannot enter heaven, that in fact it is banished to earth and dwells in the soul of wicked men; by Revelation he in dicates that the heavenly bodies reveal to us events of earth which are in themselves unintelligible.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 43

These examples sufficiently show how the theology of the Greeks was read into the Hebrew Book. The other problem - the justification of the observance of the Law in all its de tails, was quite as urgent and perhaps more difficult. The peculiar social customs of the Jews, especially their segrega tion from their gentile neighbors, had early attracted the attention, and also the ridicule, of these same gentiles. Their refusal to eat many of the things which men of other faiths found both nutritious and enjoyable was a constant cause of remark. But to Philo, as we have seen, all the regulations of the Law were of divine origin, and however they might be spiritualized they must be obeyed in their literal sense. Not only was Moses inspired in the fullest meaning of the word, but the Law was the law of nature. Abraham obeyed the commands of God, not only those made known in word and writing, but also those revealed by nature in distinct signs; for he who considers the order which rules in nature learns to live a life conformed to the Law (the Hebrew Law is undoubt edly meant).9 Naturally the author is glad when he finds support for his theory in the customs of other nations, — the Sabbath for example, the universal festival and birthday of the world, is thought to be confirmed by the fact that in Greece the seventh day of every month is consecrated to Apollo. The sacredness of the number seven was in fact widely recognized by gentiles as well as Jews, and with this as a starting point Philo was able to introduce Pythagorean speculation concerning numbers into his system.

Evidence of a desire to justify those parts of the Law which to the gentile seemed irrational, is given by Philo in his discussion of clean and unclean fish, flesh, and fowl. He was not alone in this desire, as is evidenced by a pseudepi- graphic book which was apparently written by a contemporary of his. It is a sample of a considerable literature by which in this period the Jews sought to conciliate their gentile neigh bors. This book is the Letter of Aristeas, in which a Jew poses as a Greek officer at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus.

9 De Abrahamo, XIII.

44 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

In this disguise he gives an account of the origin of the Greek version of the Law, and takes occasion, not only to magnify the merits of that work, but to glorify the Jewish Temple and the Jewish religion as well. What now interests us is his explanation of the Mosaic law of meats. Writing to an alleged brother officer, he gives us the following:

You must not fall into the degrading notion that it was out of regard to mice and weasels that Moses drew up his Law with such exceeding care. All these ordinances were made for the sake of righteousness, to aid the quest for virtue and the perfecting of character. For all the birds we use are tame and distinguished by cleanliness, feeding on various kinds of grain and pulse, such as pigeons, turtle doves, locusts, partridges, geese also and birds of this class. But the birds that are forbidden you will find to be wild and car nivorous, tyrannizing over others. . . . And so by naming them unclean he (Moses) gave a sign by means of them that those for whom the Law was or dained must practice righteousness in their hearts and not tyrannize over others. . . . Wherefore all the rules he has laid down . . . are enacted with the object of teaching us a moral lesson. For the division of the hoof and the separation of the claws are intended to teach us that we must discriminate between our actions, with a view to the practice of virtue. ... All animals which are cloven-footed and chew the cud represent to the initiated the sym bol of memory. For the act of chewing the cud is nothing else than medi tating on life and existence." 10

The citation is only one evidence of the prevalence of the allegorical method in this period. The book of Wisdom, like Philo, allegorizes the robe of the Highpriest, affirming that in the long garment was the whole world (xviii:24), and Josephus takes the Mosaic tabernacle to be symbolical, its three divisions corresponding to the three divisions — sea, land, and sky. The twelve loaves of Shewbread indicate the months of the year, and the seven lamps of the candelabrum are the seven planets. The materials of the curtains are significant as well as the garments of the Highpriest.11 In this company of expositors, however, Philo was easily the chief, because of the thoroughness with which he carried out the principle. For this reason his influence on Christian scholars is of the first importance. The Christians brought

10 Epistle of Aristeas, 145-154, translated in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), II, p. 108.

11 Antiquities, III, 7.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 45

their sacred Book with them from Judaism, but their pur pose in studying it was not the same which we have found among the Jews. They believed the Law as law to be no longer binding. But as prediction it was important. With the faith that this was the main purpose of the sacred oracles they scrutinized every passage for adumbrations of the Christ. That the allegorical method gave them welcome help needs no demonstration. To a moderate extent it is discoverable in the New Testament. In the rock which, according to Rabbinical exegesis, followed the Israelites in their wander ings Paul finds a type of Christ, and the Apostle asserts in so many words that the story of Hagar and Sarah is an allegory of the two dispensations, Jewish and Christian. More thorough-going is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. By an elaborate argument he proves that Jesus, though not of priestly stock, was yet the true Highpriest, antitype of the one described in the Pentateuch, and that he was in fact specifically predicted by the Psalmist who brings him into the line of Melchizedek. The sacrifices of the Old Testa ment are therefore only shadows of the true sacrifice, that by which Jesus offered himself to God. The way to this appre hension had been already opened by the theory, made known to us by Josephus, that the tabernacle erected by Moses was a copy of the universe. The true Holy of Holies was there fore the heaven where God resides, and the Highpriest's en trance into the earthly sanctuary was an allegorical foreshad owing of Jesus' return to his heavenly Father. This has become so fully a part of Christian tradition that we do not readily see how startling it must have been to the strict Jew; for to him the sacrificial system was the appointed way of serving God, and was intended to be perpetual. On the other hand it undoubtedly gave relief to those believers who had a wider view, and who were already reconciling themselves to the fact that the destruction of the temple made the sacrifices no longer possible.

The allegorical system thus introduced to the Church be came the recognized method of dealing with the older Scrip-

46 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

tures. Justin Martyr, for example, denies that the literal sense of the Old Testament is valid; otherwise polygamy would be lawful. The cases where the Patriarchs are said to have more wives than one are intended to be interpreted allegorically. His exegesis enables him to find Christ where we should hesitate to look for him. He sees in the two goats which are brought into the sanctuary on the Day of Atone ment, types of the two advents of Christ. An Old Testament poet describes Judah as one who washes his garments in wine (Gen. xlix:n). To Justin this means that Jesus purifies his people by his blood.12 The Paschal lamb when prepared for roasting is pierced by two skewers at right angles with each other. This is taken to be a type of the cross on which Jesus suffered — naturally, we may say, for Paul had already called Christ our Passover. Jacob served Laban for sheep; so Jesus became a servant that he might purchase his flock. The ass and its foal used by Jesus at his triumphal entry into Jeru salem are symbols, one of the Jews under the yoke of the Law, the other of gentile Christians freed from it.13

That the sacrifices of the Old Testament point forward to Christ is a commonplace of these writers. But it is somewhat surprising to find the one which from its sex we should sup pose least typical applied in detail as it is by Barnabas. This is the sacrifice of a red heifer, and the use of its ashes to purify those unclean from contact with a dead body. The application deserves quotation and is as follows:

But what think you means the type where the commandment is given to Israel that those men whose sins are full-grown offer a heifer and slaughter and burn it, and that then children14 take up the ashes and cast them into vessels and twist the scarlet wool on a tree (see here again is a type of the cross and the scarlet wool) and the hyssop, and that, this done, the children should sprinkle the people one by one that they may be purified from their

12 Dialogue with Trypho, 54:1.

13 The examples are from the Dialogue with Trypho, and I have not at tempted to distinguish between allegory, type, and symbol. Further citations may be found in Fullerton, Prophecy and Authority (1919), a valuable dis cussion of the attitude of Christian expositors towards the Old Testament. The application of allegory to the New Testament is not here entered upon.

14 The children are not in the text, and must be taken from oral tradition.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORT 47

sins? Understand how in all plainness it is spoken to you. The calf15 is Jesus; the men that offer it, being sinners are they that offered him for slaughter. . . . The children who sprinkle are they who preach to us the forgiveness of sins and purity of heart, they to whom he gave power to preach the Gospel; and they are twelve as a testimony to the tribes, because there are twelve tribes of Israel. But wherefore are the children who sprinkle three? For a testimony to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because these three are mighty before God. And why the wool on the wood? Because the kingdom of Jesus is on the wood,1'5 and because they who hope in him shall live forever. And why wool and hyssop at the same time? Because in his kingdom there shall be evil and foul days in which we shall be saved; for he who suffers in the flesh is healed by the foulness of hyssop.17

The same author finds significance in the number of Abra ham's servants (318). By a play on the numerical signifi cance of the letters, quite similar to what we have found among the Rabbis, he finds that they point to the cross and to the name of Jesus."* This interpretation of the mystical number passed over to the Fathers and recurs in Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, Augustine and later. With reference to the animals forbidden for food, Barnabas follows the line marked out by Aristeas, but is more elaborate. According to him swine are prohibited because they are ungrateful, crying out for food when hungry, but silent when satisfied. The rule against birds of prey is to teach us to avoid robbers and violent men. Certain fish which lurk in the depths are types of wicked men who work in concealment. The hare and hyena are lascivious, according to popular natural history, and are to be avoided on this account. "Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees and uttered them in the spiritual sense. But they (the Jews) accepted them according to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating. But David received knowledge of the same three decrees and says: "Blessed is the man who has not gone in the counsel of the ungodly — as the fishes go in the darkness into the depths; and has not stood in the way of sinners — like those

15 It has changed its gender to meet the exigency of the interpretation.

16 Allusion to the cross.

17 Epistle of Barnabas, VIII.

18 Ibid., IX, 8.

48 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

who pretend to fear the Lord, but sin like swine; and has not sat in the seat of the scorners — like the birds who sit and watch for prey." After this we are not surprised to learn that Moses holding up his hands in the battle with Amalek is a type of Jesus on the cross, and that the declaration of God : "All the day long have I held out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people," is directly prophetic of the crucified Christ.

We should err if we emphasized these passages in such a way as to shut out of view many others in which the text of Scripture is rationally treated. There is no reason to doubt that in this period the greater part of the Bible was accepted in its natural sense. But this refers especially to the New Testament. The Gospels were studied as containing the correct account of the life and death of Jesus, and the ethical portions of the Old Testament were helpful for right living. The teachers of the Church were in fact more mod erate in the use of allegory than were the Gnostics. From the account of these sectaries which Irenaeus gives, we see how easy it was by allegory to make the Scriptures teach heresy instead of orthodox doctrine. Perhaps it would not be too much to say that the Gnostics gave the perfect example of the use of allegory, showing how to discover preconceived opinions in documents whose literal meaning was not accept able to the expositor. The Gnostic system attempted to combine elements drawn from Greek mythology, oriental speculation, and various mystic doctrines which were current in the Roman world. Its leaders were impressed by the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and found themselves obliged to take some position with reference to them. The allegorical method was a tool which they found ready to their hand. We learn from Irenaeus that they interpreted the thirty years of Jesus' life as types of the thirty Aeons posited by their system. An alleged failure on the part of the eighth Aeon was foreshadowed by Judas' betrayal of his Master. The healing of the woman who had an issue of blood, however, showed the recovery of this same Aeon. The thirty

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 49

are divided into two groups, one of twelve, the other of eighteen members. The first group corresponds to the twelve years of Jesus' age when he disputed with the doctors in the temple, also to the number of the Apostles. The second group is indicated by the eighteen months of Jesus' sojourn after his resurrection. The chief Tetrad is mentioned in the first verse of Genesis, God, Beginning, Heaven, Earth. It is in- dictated by the fourth day, on which the sun was created, by the fourfold material of which the Tabernacle was constructed, and by the four rows of precious stones on the Highpriest's breastplate — " and if there are other things in Scripture which can be dragged into the number four, they declare that these had their being with reference to the Tetrad." Similarly the Ogdoad is foreshadowed by the eight persons saved in the ark, by the eighth day, on which circumcision is performed, and by David's being the eighth son. This sort of play on numbers is already familiar and we need not multiply examples.

What is significant is that the Gnostics instead of rejecting the idea of revelation extended it so as to include their own cosmological speculations, as well as the traditions and myths of other religions. Allegory enabled them to overcome the discrepancies of these various elements, and they applied it thoroughly to the New Testament. Jesus is the Redeemer, because he is the supreme revealer of the mysteries, knowledge of which brings salvation. On this all the various sects could unite. But with reference to the Old Testament differ ences soon arose. Since knowledge brings salvation, or is salvation, the serpent which brought man the knowledge of good and evil must be regarded as a benefactor. He was so regarded by the Ophites, who found support for their view in the brazen serpent made by Moses. This sharp contra diction to the Hebrew view was carried further by the Cain- ites, who honored Cain, Esau, Korah, and others just because they opposed the Old Testament heroes. Marcion was logi cal in that he rejected the whole Old Testament. His ground was objection to the anthropomorphisms, for which he could

50 ESSJrS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

account only by supposing that the God revealed by the He brew writers was not the one made known by Jesus. He even believed that the sinners of the Old Testament record were delivered from Hades by Jesus, whereas the Patriarchs were left in limbo.

The debate with the Gnostics should have taught the Fathers the danger of allegory. A method which lent itself to specu lations so diverse could hardly be relied upon to demonstrate what the Christians had most at heart. But it was not easy to discard the interpretation which many thinkers had already attached to Old Testament passages. What Irenaeus did was to look around for some check to heretical exposition. This he found in the Apostolic tradition. His word is: "The true Gnosis is the teaching of the Apostles and the doctrine of the Church for the whole world. The body of Christ is known in the succession of Bishops whom the Apostles gave to the Church." This of course made tradition and not Scrip ture the authority, and it did not diminish confidence in allegory. Irenaeus is himself the proof. Although he val ued the literal sense and refused to allegorize passages which he regarded as directly Messianic, he does on occasion make use of the method. Elisha's miracle with the axe, for ex ample, is made to show that the sure word of God which we had negligently lost by means of a tree, and were not in the way of finding again, we should receive again by the dispen sation of a tree (the cross). He believed that 'the treasure hid in a field,' of the Gospel parable meant Jesus hidden in the Old Testament. He found the resurrection of Christ pre dicted in the Psalm (Ixxxv: n): "Truth is sprung out of the earth." He compares the four Evangelists to the four Cheru bim of the Old Testament, and finds the calling of the gentiles announced in Noah's blessing on Shem (Gen. ix:27). Moses' Ethiopian wife is a type of the gentile Church, chosen by Christ; and Lot's daughters foreshadow the two Churches (Jewish and gentile). Lot's wife, left behind by her husband and turned into a pillar of salt, prefigures the Church left on the earth by Jesus but still the incorruptible salt of man-

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 51

kind. It is unnecessary to multiply examples.19 Some of those cited were already current tradition, and as we shall see became stock examples throughout the whole history of theology. The underlying theory is that the Son of God is the revealer who appeared to the Old Testament saints, spoke to Noah, was Abraham's guest, pronounced judgment on Sodom, and directed Jacob on his journey. Christians are the true Israel, the seed of Abraham by faith, as had been in fact affirmed by Paul. To enter into the history of Mes sianic prophecy as thus developed, helped no doubt by the Greek rendering of the name Yahweh by Lord, is beyond the scope of the present essay.-0

Since every Christian writer gave some attention to the Old Testament, and the difference between them was not one of method, but simply of the degree to which the method was applied, it would be burdensome to attempt a complete sur vey of their activity. Some attention, however, should be given to the school of Alexandria, where we may say allegory came to full flower. Since Philo had lived there and since he was regarded as almost a Christian, if not in fact a disciple of the Apostles, it is not surprising that his method was there thoroughly carried out. Clement of Alexandria frankly adopted it, and his assertion that Plato borrowed from Moses simply put into Christian literature a belief already cher ished in Jewish circles. His explanation of the reason for the Mosaic prohibitions of certain foods is borrowed from Aristeas, turning it against the Jews, however, and asserting that those animals which chew the cud without dividing the hoof signify the Jews, who have the oracles of God in their mouth but have not the firm footing of faith.-1 He claims for his ecclesiastical gnosis that it is the tradition of the Church, and even that it is esoteric teaching communicated by Christ

19 All that I have given are taken from the treatise "Against Heresies" translated in the Antenicene Christian Library.

20 The early Christian argument from the Old Testament is discussed by Ungern-Sternberg in Theologische Studien Theodor Zahn zum 10 Oktober 1908 dargebracht (1908).

21 Stromateis, VII, 18.

52 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

after his resurrection. He says that for many reasons the Scriptures conceal their meaning "primarily with the aim of making us diligent and unresting in our study of the words of salvation. . . . For this reason the sacred mysteries of prophecy are veiled in parables and so reserved for chosen men, and for those who are selected for higher knowledge." On this theory the way is open for allegory and we find its application in such assertions as that the land of Egypt and the people of Canaan are types of passions and vices, and that when it is said: "The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea," the real meaning is that the impulsive passions bring man's nature into the turbulent waves of worldly disorder.22 The culmination of the allegorical method is universally acknowledged to be found in the works of Qrigen. Undoubt edly the impression made by emphasizing this element of his teaching is unjust to the greatest scholar of the ancient Church. Before dwelling on the allegories we should bear in mind that, in the words of Bishop Lightfoot, "in spite of very patent faults which it costs nothing to denounce, a very considerable part of what is valuable in subsequent commen taries, whether ancient or modern, is due to him. A deep thinker, an accurate grammarian, a most laborious worker and a most earnest Christian, he not only laid the foundation, but to a very great extent built up the fabric, of Biblical interpretation."23 This is of course especially true of his work on the New Testament. In expounding the Old Testa ment he was thoroughly under the influence of Philo. His debate with the Gnostics seems to have made him cling even more closely to allegory, if we may trust the statement that he borrowed from Heracleon's thoroughly allegorical com mentary on the Gospel of John, in which for example the story of the Samaritan woman was interpreted as a drama of the creation.24 With reference to the Old Testament he has no hesitation in confessing that the literal meaning is often

22 Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria (1914), II, pp. 302 and 213.

23 Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, p. 375.

24 E. dc Fayc, Gnostiqucs et Gnostidsme (1913), pp. 57 and 62.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 53

obscure, or absurd, or unworthy of a divine author. The Jewish Law as law is inferior to the laws or other nations.25 We must therefore search for an underlying spiritual sense. As the body has little worth, when compared with the spirit, so the literal sense is inferior to the spiritual. This he finds intimated in Scripture itself. In the Levitical law we read that the meal-offering may be baked in an oven, or fried in a pan, or toasted on a plate (Lev. ii:4-7). We cannot sup pose that God cares for such trifles. What the text intimates is that the meal which is offered is the Scripture itself; the oven in which it is prepared is the heart of man; and since the passage specifies an oven and a plate and a pan, the mean ing is that Scripture has a three-fold sense. Similarly the flaying of the sacrifice by the priest is intended to teach us that we must strip off the external husk of Scripture in order to discover the nourishment which it conceals. Thus allegory is made to justify the allegorical method.

On the Christian principle the divine and spiritual in the Old Testament came to light with the advent of Jesus. The reason why the Jews do not believe is because they look only at the literal sense and do not see the spiritual side. Certain stumbling blocks in Scripture are a part of the divine plan "so that we may not be borne hither and thither by the mere attractiveness of the style, and thus either forsake the doc trinal part because we receive no instruction worthy of God, or else cleave to the letter and learn nothing more divine."26 Here is an example of his application of the method. In Exo dus 1:4 we read: Joseph died and his brothers, and the chil dren of Israel multiplied exceedingly. The comment is: If Jo seph dies in thee, that is if thou receive into thyself the death of

25 Contrast with this frank confession the statement of a twentieth cen tury theologian: "They (the Scriptures) are free from the puerilities and espe cially from the abominations of the world-religions, because they were written by 'holy men of God who spake' not out of their own divinely created and sustained and directed religious nature even, but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

28 Philocalia, translated by Lewis (1911), p. 17. Cf. the strong expressions about the unreason of some laws and the impossibility of obeying others, p. 21.

54 ESS^rS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Christ, then the children of Israel, that is the spiritual graces, will be multiplied in thee. Further confirmation of the theory of a threefold sense is found in Plato's psychology, according to which man consists of body, soul, and spirit; so Scripture has a triple sense, literal, moral, and spiritual. This he finds confirmed by Prov. xxii:2i, which in the Greek version reads: Have I not written unto thee triply, in counsel and knowledge? The homily on Genesis i discovers the waters above the firmament to be the spiritual nature, the firmament itself our bodily substance, and the waters below are the sins and vices which we should separate from ourselves. The story of Noah teaches us that when evils rise like a flood, if one turns and hears the Word of God he constructs an ark of safety within himself. Rebecca coming to the well daily to draw water and being found there by Abraham's servant, thus to be betrothed to Isaac, is a lesson — we should come daily to the wells of Scripture, since Christ wishes us for his bride. These examples are taken from homilies, and per haps, like other preachers, the Father felt at liberty to use his imagination in a way to edify his hearers. We have found something of the kind in Philo. Yet the genuinely exegetical works of Origen sufficiently show his principles. From the book of Wisdom he takes the explanation of the Highpriest's garments which we have already considered, and he finds confirmation of his method in the declaration of Isaiah that to his hearers all vision has become like a sealed book. This he extends to cover all Scripture, which he finds to be full of riddles and parables and other obscurities, hard to be understood by men whose ears catch no more than faint echoes of the divine World.27

The method did not prevail without protest, and Origen himself alludes to some objectors. So far as these were heretics, he was of course prejudiced against them from the first. The Gnostics as we have seen allegorized the New Testament in such a way as to do away with the historic ground for the Christian faith. On the other hand by taking

27 Philocalia (translated by Lewis), p. 31.

55

the Old Testament literally they found reason for rejecting it, or for reversing the Christian judgment concerning its heroes and villains. On both counts they would be anti pathetic to Origen. The precarious nature of the allegorical argument from the Old Testament was evident to the author of the Clementine Recognitions also, which plainly assert that there are many things in Scripture which can be drawn to that sense which every one has preconceived for himself. This, the author affirms, ought not to be done, and he bases his argument on the literal sense, although he allows a cer tain force to tradition.28 The Clementine documents, however, lie outside the main stream of Christian literature, and this pro test, if such it was, had no appreciable effect. An interesting anticipation of later views is found in their statement that animal sacrifice was ordained by accommodation; the people being accustomed to it in Egypt could not have been induced to break with it at once.-9 This indication that the author did not allegorize the Old Testament may be brought into contrast with Origen's argument that if we insist on the literal sense we must continue to sacrifice animals. He is therefore driven to the conclusion that while all Scripture has the mystical sense, not all of it has the literal meaning. This he confirms by the New Testament verse which speaks of the water-pots containing two or three firkins apiece, for the purifying of the Jews. "The expression darkly intimates that those who are called Jews secretly are to be purified by the word of Scripture, receiving sometimes two firkins, that is the physical and spiritual sense, sometimes three firkins, since some have also the corporeal, that is, the literal sense."3 The examples might be multiplied but enough has been said to verify Professor Fullerton's remark that Origen attempted to give the method of allegory scientific elaboration. At the same time he too recognized the need of some check to the imagination of the expositor and he found this, as

28 Recognitions of Clement, X, 42 (Antenicene Fathers, Volume VIII, p. 203).

-° Ibid., I, 36 (p. 87). -" De Principiia, IV, i, 12.

56 ESSJrS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Irenaeus did, in the tradition received in the Church. The spiritual sense, he says, belongs to the praedicatio apostolica manifeste tradita.31 This loyalty to tradition did not prevent his being regarded with suspicion at a later time.

Philo, Origen and Plutarch certainly attest the allegorical method as something which met the needs of Jew, Christian, and Greek. It was not due to the influence of any one man, and having established itself its use in the Church was almost a matter of course. In the Western Church the outstanding figure is Augustine, and his position is made clear by his own statement: "I often rejoiced to hear Ambrose say: The let ter kills, the Spirit gives life, for that which in its literal sense seemed absurd he expounded spiritually, lifting from it the veil of secrecy." Ambrose, as we know, was a practical administrator rather than a competent expounder of Scrip ture, and what he gave was drawn from others. A large num ber of parallels have been pointed out between his expositions and those of Philo.32 It is not likely, however, that he usually borrowed directly from the Jewish author, for he was ac quainted with the works of Clement and Origen, and is thought to have taken material from Hippolytus and Basil. That neither he nor Augustine knew any Hebrew need not be urged against them, although it is to us somewhat strange that the greatest of the Fathers should have scruples against Jerome's more accurate version of the Old Testament based on the Hebrew text. His attitude is one more evidence of the strength of tradition.

With reference to Scripture, however, the fundamental prin ciple is that whatever in the divine Word does not, when taken in the literal sense, contribute to morality of life or tightness1 of belief, must be taken allegorically, since the Scriptures, being the Word of God, can have nothing superfluous or un- considered.

31 De Principiis, Preface, §2.

32 Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alien Testaments (1875), pp. 372-390. Siegfried's Book is still the most thorough discussion of Philo's exegesis that we have.

THE TRIUMPH OF ALLEGORY 57

To Augustine, as it seems, we owe the first clear declaration that each passage of Scripture has a four-fold sense. These are: the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogic. Thus the word Jerusalem is in the literal sense a city in Palestine; allegorically it designates the Church; morally it may mean the order of civil society; whereas anagogically it points to eternal life. Yet it is fair to say that Augustine's historical sense is superior to that of many of the Fathers, as is shown by his great work on the City of God. In it he at tempts to construct a history of the world on the basis of the literal sense of the Biblical narrative. His two common wealths — cities, according to the Roman conception — are the earthly and the heavenly. Cain, the first murderer, is the head of the earthly, Abel represents the other. In the family of Abraham, Ishmael, child of the flesh and of the bondwoman, carries on the one line, Isaac, the other: "Fitly, therefore, does Isaac typify the children of grace, citizens of the free city who dwell together in everlasting peace, in which self-love and self-will have no place, but a ministering love that re joices in the common joy of all, of many hearts made one, that secures perfect concord." This sentence shows as well as any that although he desired to construct an historical narra tive, the author was yet dominated by a theory. And it does not surprise us that to carry out the theory he must have re course to allegory. For many parts of the Old Testament, if interpreted literally, would have slight bearing on the theme.

Examples are not hard to find. The sons of Abraham by Ketura are said to have received gifts from their father. This means that the Jews and heretics, carnally minded, receive the ordinary gifts of God's providence, whereas Isaac, who is heir of the promise, represents the Church. The Church again is really meant by the verse which praises the bride in Canticles: "Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are shorn, which came up from the washing, whereof every one bears twins and none is barren among them." Holy men are the teeth of the Church, tearing men away from their errors and bringing them into the body of the Church with all their

58 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

harshness softened down. Where it is said that the elder (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob) the Scripture means that the Jewish will serve the gentile Church. It is an un worthy solicitude in Jacob when he directs the disposition of his dead body. The dead body is therefore sin, and its burial signifies forgiveness. The recurrence of certain words is thought to be significant. Thus the word 'remnants' in Gen. xlv:7 points to Romans xi:5, where we find the 'remnant' spoken of. Hence there is a mysterium. In the Tabernacle the Holy of Holies means the New Testament, the anteroom is the Old Testament.33

As in other cases, we must beware of the impression that the allegory was the leading thought of the theologian. The intense earnestness of Augustine in inculcating a Christian life of love and self-denial must impress every one who reads his works. "Whoever thinks that he understands Scripture or any part of it, but puts such an interpretation on it as does not tend to build up the two-fold love, does not under stand it as he ought." He even goes so far as to say that the interpretation which builds us up in love even if faulty is not pernicious. Along with the inspiration of Scrip ture there was the equally important inspiration of the Church. This it was which settled the Canon of Scripture: "With regard to the canonical Scripture we must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic Churches, espe cially such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an Apostle and to receive epistles." Scripture, therefore, asserts nothing but the catholic faith in regard to things past, present, and future. With this principle we see how in evitable was the use of allegory in the study of the Old Testament.

By common consent Augustine is the most influential thinker for Western Christianity between St. Paul and Luther. With his endorsement allegory may fairly be said to have triumphed.

33 The examples are taken from the treatise De doctrina Christiana, and the Questiones in Heptateuchum.

IV

SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT

THERE is no contradiction in speaking of allegory as triumphant and then of scholasticism as dominant. Allegory was the method of exposition which had es tablished itself in the Church's treatment of the Old Testa ment, and even to a considerable extent in its treatment of the New Testament. Scholasticism is the system of thought which used allegory as its tool. In the earlier period the ques tion discussed between Jews and Christians was whether Jesus was the expected Messiah. The Old Testament was viewed as a conglomerate of predictions, and where they, when literally construed, appeared to be something quite dif ferent, allegory was used to make the verses or the incidents point forward to Christ. But by the time of Augustine Mes- sianism was taken for granted. This Father had a much larger conception, namely that of a divinely established com monwealth, the City of God, which it was easy to identify with the Church. Here was a visible organization, having the sacraments in its charge, and the successor of St. Peter at its head. It had its sacred Book which Jerome had put into intelligible, almost classic, Latin. The whole stream of Christian tradition affirmed that what was patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament.

But an organized body, such as the Church had become, was confronted with a multitude of questions to which the simple congregations of earlier days were strangers. These problems became acute when western society seemed to be breaking up in the storms of barbarian invasion. Men clung to the organization which gave the promise of civil order, all

59

60 ESSArS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

the more that it claimed divine sanction. But the New Testa ment gave little light on questions of discipline, whereas the Old Testament presented a picture of an ecclesiastical com monwealth, completely organized from top to bottom. The ideal presented in the middle books of the Pentateuch was regarded as the divinely revealed pattern of what the City of God should be. In fact the authors, or compilers, of that code were wholly possessed by the ritual idea. According to this idea God was to take up his residence on earth in some visible form — His Shekina, or His Name; and the na tion of Israel was to be organized so as to serve Him in the most perfect manner. In the strictest sense of the word Israel was to be a priestly nation. Something of a sacred character will then inhere in every member of the community. But this sacred character is intensified in the servants of the sanctuary, one grade higher in each of the classes — Levites, Singers, Priests, and Highpriest. The necessity of preserving the sacred community from contamination required discipline, and the frequent threat that any transgression of the sacred Law would be followed by excommunication, or death, showed the severity visited upon sinners or scoffers.

In the Church from the time of Cyprian, the requirement of obedience to the duly consecrated bishop was emphasized, and the orders of Christian ministers were more and more assimilated to those of the Hebrew priesthood. In the one case there were bishops, priests, and deacons as in the other there were Levites, priests, and Highpriest. The equation of Pope and Highpriest naturally followed. The enemies of the Church were identified with the Canaanites and idolaters, and the severity of Deuteronomy was quoted as authority for their extermination. Even Augustine found in the Old Testament justification for compulsion in matters of faith. On the ritual side the idea of sacrifice was emphasized. The New Tes tament, to be sure, had asserted that the one sacrifice had been offered by Jesus, and that all believers had access to the Father through him. But this one offering seemed too far away to be effective, and the Church, as steward of the mys-

SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT 61

teries of God, assumed the right of perpetually repeating the sacrifice. The Presbyter thus became the sacrificing priest.

Economic questions force themselves upon the attention of every human society. They are treated in detail in the Pentateuchal legislation, and ample provision is there made for the support of the servants of the sanctuary. A tithe of the gross income of the Israelite is to be paid to the Levites, and from it a tenth is set apart for the priests. First-fruits, freewill offerings, and certain fines which inure to the benefit of the priests are added. The influence of this system on the development of the Canon Law cannot here be traced in detail. But we can see how the religio-political system set forth in the Old Testament would be used for the temporal advan tage of the clergy. Even the vestments of the priesthood were to a certain extent identified with those of the Levitical system, though the parallel is not exact. Undoubtedly the Church seriously undertook to instruct the people in faith and morals. Precedent would be found in the teaching of priests and Levites, alluded to in the Old Testament, and for casuistry there was abundant material in the Levitical food and police regulations. Where it suited the Church to interpret literally this method was used; where this did not meet the exigency resort was had to allegory. The threefold or fourfold sense recognized by Augustine was now fully established.

The extent to which exegesis was subordinated to the inter est of the Church may be illustrated by the rules of Tychonius, formulated by a Donatist writer, but fully approved by Au gustine. The specifications are as follows: Of the Lord and his body (that is, the church); of the twofold body of the Lord (that is, of true and false Christians); of the promises and the law (developing the theory that all the promises of the Old Testament have the Christians in mind); of species and genus (that is, what is said of particular cities, lands, or persons, in the Old Testament may be applied in a wider sense) ; of the times (opening the door to all sorts of play on the numerical data of Scripture); of recapitulation (the theory seems to be that of a double sense, so that a predictive

62 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

passage may have its fulfilment at one time and yet point for ward to a second and larger fulfilment still to come) ; of the devil and his body (that is, the reprobate or wicked).1 The rules show plainly enough how the literal and historical sense is submerged, according to the demands of ecclesiasticism. Not content with the fourfold sense some expositors posited a sevenfold, typified by the seven seals of the Apocalypse. They are: i, Literal or historical; 2, Allegorical; 3, Combi nation of both — the example is David's adultery, which com bines a warning against that sin, with an allegorical condem nation of the Jewish people, personified in Uriah; 4, Teach ing of the Trinity; 5, Parabolic, when the Scripture speaks of the same thing in different language in two passages (as where Abimelech is named, though from the parallel we find that Achish is meant); 6, Of the two advents of the Saviour; 7, In which we are instructed by the divine precepts.2 The arti ficial nature of this classification is plain and it only shows the tendency of the times.

Devotees of the mystical sense find the literal meaning hum drum, as is illustrated by theosophy in all its forms, including the Jewish Kabbala, which reached its highest development in the Middle Age. Allegorists are prone moreover to dwell on the more obscure passages rather than those which are clear. This is illustrated by the endeavor to discover a meaning in the Hebrew proper names; the alleged etymologies would reveal mysteries hidden from the unlearned. Amram, father of Moses, was interpreted Exalted-Father, and applied to Christ. Jochebed, Moses' Mother, was Grace-of-God, and signified the Church. From Christ and the Church was born Moses (the spiritual law) and Aaron (the true priesthood).' The fact that Scripture has both plain and obscure passages was defended as the divine purpose — the plain passages for the unlearned, the obscure to stimulate the ingenuity of

1 Burkitt, "Rules of Tychonius" (Texts and Studies edited by J. Arm- itage Robinson, III, No. i, 1894).

- Angelomus, "Enarrationes in Libros Regum," Prsefatio (Migne, Patrolo- gice Cursus Completus, Vol. 115, col. 24Sf.).

'•'• Walafrid Strabo. Glossa Ordinaria ad Ex. vi: 20.

SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT 63

scholars. Bede asks: What does it profit us to know that Elkana had two wives, us who now live the celibate life, unless we can find the allegorical sense which edifies and gives us comfort?4 Subordination of exegesis to the demand for edification has never been more distinctly set forth. Al though not confined to the Middle Age, it appears more prom inently there than later. Tradition and dependence on the Fathers were the order of the day. This may be illustrated by Isidore of Seville, who wrote a treatise on etymologies which is really a sort of encyclopedia of science as it was then taught. What interests us now is his treatment of the Old Testament, which is thoroughly allegorical. In fact he gathers up the allegories of earlier authors and gives us a condensed summary of what had been done or thought along that line. From his De Allegoriis we may note that Laban is a type of the Mosaic Law, since Jacob (Christ) took his two daugh ters (the Jewish and the gentile Church). Leah, the weak- eyed, is type of the Jews, Rachel the beloved, type of the gentile Church. Lot again is the Law, and his two daughters are Samaria and Jerusalem. Pharaoh, Sisera, Goliath, repre sent the devil. Pharaoh's daughter, Moses' foreign wife, the queen of Sheba, and Ruth, typify the Church. Going farther back we may note that Adam is a type, figura, of Christ, since he was created on the sixth day, and Christ took the form of a servant in the sixth world-period (this accord ing to the chronology of the Greek version), that he might re-create man into the image of God. Eve, made of the rib of the sleeping Adam, is a type of the Church created by the mystery of the blood and water which flowed from the side of the dying Christ. Abel, the good shepherd, Seth, whose name means Resurrection, Melchizedek, who gives bread and wine, Jacob as we have already seen, Job, Moses, Jephthah, Samson taking honey from the lion, as Jesus took his converts from the jaws of the devil, David — all these are types of Christ. On the other hand, the devil is represented among others by poor Uriah, the Hittite, whose wife (the Church)

4 Cited by Diestel from Bcde's In Samuelem Prophetam.

64 ESS^rS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

was desired by David (Christ). The boys who mocked Elisha are the Jews who derided Christ and were punished by the two bears — Vespasian and Titus. In the Old Testa ment no less than a hundred and twenty-nine personages are found to be figures of Christ, the Church, the Jews, or Satan.

This author has also a work entitled Questiones in Vetus Testamentum, from which a specimen may be given. It is in the form of a commentary, giving a few words of the text and then the alleged exposition, for example: "In the Begin ning: --The beginning is Christ, as he said to the Jews (John viii:25). In this beginning therefore, God made the heavens, that is spiritual beings, spirituales, who meditate on and seek celestial things, and also carnal beings who have not yet stripped off the earthly man. The earth was empty and void; - The earth of our flesh was empty and void before it re ceived the form of doctrine. And darkness was on the face of the deep; — because the blindness of sin and the obscurity of ignorance covered our hearts. And the Spirit of God was borne, jerebatur, upon the waters; -- The Spirit of God hovers over, super jerebatur, our dark and fluid heart, as over water, in whom we rest, by whose breath we are revived, and by whose waves we are washed." r> After this we are not sur prised to learn that the live coal of Isaiah signifies the hypo- static union of two natures in Christ, and that Jacob disguised by the skin of a kid is a type of Christ clothed with human nature.

Augustine and Isidore were the authorities relied upon in this period, and the strength of tradition is seen in the num ber of catenae that were compiled. The endeavor was to con serve the thought of earlier expositors. Even so original a thinker as Thomas Aquinas published a Catena Aurea on the Gospels, the nature of which is sufficiently indicated by its title. The interest of the age was turned to monastic piety, the sacraments, and the system of doctrine formulated in the creeds. The Old Testament was important so far as it could

r> Isidori Hispalensis, Qucestiones in Vetus Testamentum (Migne, Vol. 83, col. 209!.).

SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT 65

be made to confirm the accepted beliefs on these topics. Hugo of St. Victor will serve as an example. In his chapter on the allegories he cautions the student that he must be firmly established in the literal sense before proceeding to the allego ries which are strong meat. He compares the literal sense to the foundations of a building. On this foundation must be built up the structure of Faith. The first row of stones is belief in the Trinity; next the freedom of the will, then sin and penalty, followed by the sacraments instituted under the law of nature, and these by the sacraments of the Old Testa ment. The sixth row is the incarnation; the seventh the sac raments of the New Testament; eighth is the doctrine of the resurrection.0 In order to have a true understanding, there must also be humility of mind, docility, and retirement from the world. In the current evaluation of the monastic life it is not strange that the monk was held to be the best expounder of Scripture.

This is not the place to discuss the great intellectual move ment known as Scholasticism. Our concern is with its influ ence on the interpretation of Scripture, especially on the in terpretation of the Old Testament. We recognize at once that the Bible was only one of the sources for philosophy or theology — these two are in fact one. The fundamental principle was that the Church is the visible Kingdom of God. Its authority was already imprinted on the Augustinian the ology. The immediate task was to develop that theology in the light of the Aristotelian philosophy, rediscovered through translations from the Arabic. St. Thomas Aquinas is the one in whom the system came to full flower, and the extent of his influence down to the present day is known to every se rious student of history. His attitude towards Scripture is sufficiently set forth in the opening chapter of his Summa, where he says: "So far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical interpre tation. So far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to

0 Eruditionis DidascaliccK Libri Septem, VI. 4 (Migne, Vol. 176, col. 8o2f.).

66 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

do, there is the moral interpretation. So far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical inter pretation." And again: "The multiplicity of these interpre tations does not produce ambiguity or any kind of equivoca tion." 7

The passages make clear that in this, as in other respects, the Saint adopts the current theory of a threefold sense, although he is more sober in applying it than were some of the doctors of the Church. That he was thoroughly familiar with the Bible in the Latin is evident; that he knew no Hebrew and little Greek need not be urged against him. Where he alludes to the Hebrew he depends upon Jerome, and his idea of a commentary as we have seen is an anthology of the Fathers. His own commentaries on Job, Song of Songs, and Psalms 1-50 present little that is new. In truth his interest was elsewhere than in the Old Testament. The Bible was one of the sources of his system, and in the Bible the more important part was the New Testament. But as he himself says, the Church has summed up the contents of revelation in the Creed. His task is to explain the articles of the faith according to the current philosophy. All science is tributary to theology, and theology confirms the Catholic faith. The need of allegory if the Old Testament is made subservient to this end must be self-evident. So much is implied also in the declaration that the Church had deduced the truth of the creed from Scripture, for this means that the exposition of the Fathers is authoritative; and that they made abundant use of allegory we have already discovered. The complete identity of creed and Scripture has become an axiom.

No doubt the thought of Thomas appeals to the Christian mind. All of us would be glad to think that theology, that is the knowledge of God and His ways with men, is really the scicntia scientiarum to which all philosophy is tributary. The endeavor to realize this ideal must command our admira tion. It is only when we come to the logical deductions of the theory that we hesitate. What Thomas means is quite

7 Summa, Qu. I, i, 10.

6?

clear. In order to have a right view of the universe we must be persuaded of all the items of the creed. These he enu merates in one of his minor works. As they are the several articles of the accepted creed, they need not be repeated here; though we should notice that he affirms the seven sacra ments as equally important with the articles of faith. In connection with each item he enumerates the various heresies that have been entertained concerning that particular item. This faith he believes to have been held by the Old Testa ment saints, beginning with Adam. Moreover, it has been revealed to some among the heathen, Job being one and the Sibyl another. In this connection he relates a legend about a sepulchre opened in the time of Constantine. In it was found the body of a man on whose breast was a golden tablet with the inscription: "Christus nascetur ex Virgine, et ego credo in eum. O Sol, sub Irenac et Constantini tcmporibus itcrum me videbis."* He would have had no hesitation in attributing divine inspiration to Virgil, as was done by some of his contemporaries. In order to establish the belief, resort was had to allegory in his case also. One Fulgentius wrote a book in which he makes Virgil appear to him in a dream and reveal the hidden sense of his poems, beginning with the first line of the ^Eneid in which arma refers to what is physical, virum to what is intellectual, and primus to what is ornamental and artistic. No less an authority than John of Salisbury takes up the thought, and declaring that under the guise of legend Virgil expressed the truths of all philosophy, he traces the successive steps in the development of the human soul through the first six books of the JEncid?

Further discussion of the application of this method to other literature does not belong here. So far as the Old Tes tament is concerned we may say that the doctors of the Church were agreed in using the three-fold or four-fold sense. The prominent names of Abelard, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, and Bonaventura may be added to those of Hugo of

s Cited by Werner, Thomas von Aquino (1850), II, p. 146. 0 Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle Ages (1895), p. 117.

68 ESSATS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

St. Victor and Thomas Aquinas as adepts in this art. From the Roman Catholic point of view it is a merit that these writers buttress the doctrinal system of the Church with Scripture texts. Among them Thomas Aquinas is facile prin- ceps because of the thoroughly systematic manner in which he has carried out the theory. "Pope Clement XII in a Bull beginning with the words 'By the Word of God' makes men tion of fourteen Sovereign Pontiffs who in solemn decrees have passed magnificent eulogiums on the Angel of the schools," 10 and the number has been added to by Leo XIII, whose encyclical of 1879 urged the restoration of Christian philosophy according to the mind of St. Thomas, and who pointed out that at the Council of Trent "the Summa of Thomas Aquinas lay open on the altar with the Holy Scrip tures and the decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs, that from it might be sought counsel and reasons and answers." 1X From the modern point of view it is of course no merit that Scrip ture should be interpreted according to a doctrinal system assumed at the outset. Our purpose is not to praise nor to blame, but to understand. That Thomas was thoroughly conscientious in defending the system of doctrine which was to him the most important thing in the world, all must recog nize. And if this system of doctrine is the most important thing in the world, heresy is the thing most to be dreaded. St. Thomas indicates the state of mind when in the introduc tion to his commentary on the Psalms he mentions the con demnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia by the fifth General Council. Theodore had offended by insisting on the literal interpretation of the Messianic Psalms, and this was the heresy which Thomas warned against. In the dedicatory epistle prefaced to the Catena Aurea, he informs Pope Urban that he intends to give not only the literal sense of the Gospel but also the mystical sense, also to destroy error and to con-

10 Vaughan, Life and Labors of St. Thomas of Aquin (1890), p. 340.

11 Cited from the English translation prefixed to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, literally translated by the Fathers of the English Do minican Province, Volume I (1911).

SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT 69

firm the Catholic faith.12 If this was the common opinion we can understand the conclusion which the Church drew as to the need of suppressing heresy by the strong arm of the civil power. Enough has now been said to show in what sense we may speak of scholasticism as dominant. In the Roman Church the authors we have adduced are authoritative. When the Council of Trent affirmed the true doctrine to be derived from tradition as well as Scripture, and that Scripture itself is to be accepted in the sense in which the Church interprets it, the meaning is that these mediaeval authors have given the true exposition of the Bible. Allegory, therefore, is not only authorized, but we may say enjoined. The theory was temporarily shaken, though not overthrown, by the revival of learning, for the attention paid to ancient literature in its natural sense made the artificial method of treating the Scrip tures ridiculous. The attitude of the Humanists may be judged by the Epistolce Obscurorum Virorum, in one of which Magister Andreas Delitzsch is satirized as the man who lec tures on the Metamorphoses of Ovid "and explains all the fables allegorically and literally." Details are given in an other letter showing how the same book can be expounded quadruply, that is naturally, historically, literally, and spiritu ally. Thus the nine Muses allegorically signify the seven choirs of angels; Diana is the Virgin Mary, who goes hither and thither accompanied by her virgin nymphs; Cadmus seeking for his sister is Christ seeking the soul of man, and he builds a city, that is the Church. "Not without cause is it written that Bacchus was twice born, for by him is de noted Christ, who was born once before all worlds and a sec ond time humanly and carnally. Furthermore, the story of Pyramus and Thisbe is to be expounded allegorically and spiritually, thus: Pyramus signifies the Son of God, and Thisbe the soul of man which Christ loves, and concerning which it is written in the Gospel: 'a sword shall pierce thine own soul'; for in like manner Thisbe slew herself v/ith her lover's sword." 13

12 Divi Thomce Aqninatis Opera (1775), Tomus IV, p. 2. « Epistola XXVIII.

yo ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Although, as we shall see, Luther protested against the use of allegory, and Calvin even more emphatically, yet the method is so attractive to those who seek for mysteries in a sacred Book that its influence can be traced outside the bounds of the Catholic Church. Many Protestant theologians allow a typology which is not far removed from that of the Schoolmen. The most striking example is the exposition of the Song of Songs, for even to the present day this book is described as an allegory of the love of Christ and his Church. Whether this collection of love songs found its way into the Canon because it was interpreted allegorically, is not quite clear. In view of the prophetic representation of the relation between Yahweh and Israel under the figure of a marriage, this is not improbable, and both Targum and Mid- rash assume that the book is an allegory. From Origen down to the editors of our Authorized Version, the Christian inter pretation has seen in the bridegroom the type of Christ, and in the bride either the Church or the individual soul. That St. Bernard preached eighty-six sermons on texts from this book is a matter of common knowledge. That religious affec tion often uses the language of human affection is proved here again as it is by the whole history of mysticism. The matter is of interest in connection with our present discussion only because it shows the measures which the believer finds necessary in adapting a changed religious experience to a Book which took form in an earlier time. The sufficiency of Scripture was hotly debated between Protestants and Cath olics at a later date. A curious monument of the controversy is the pamphlet of Francis Hare on "the difficulties and dis couragements which attend the study of the Scriptures in the way of private judgment." 14 Whether this essay was pub lished in good faith is still a question. It certainly gives the Catholic argument though it was written by an Anglican bishop, for it roundly asserts that "the orthodox faith does not depend upon the Scriptures considered absolutely in them selves, but as explained by Catholick Tradition." A more

14 First published in 1714; eighth edition in 1721.

SCHOLASTICISM DOMINANT 71

modern statement is that of Newman that the doctrines of the Church "have never been learned merely from Scrip ture," 15 and the "Tracts for the Times" defend the Catholic interpretation at length.

As a supplement to this discussion, we may notice briefly some modern instances. One appears where we should least look for it, that is, in India. Among the myths of the Hindoos none is less acceptable to the western mind than that of Krishna. The career of this incarnation of Vishnu is a long series of murders, thefts, and adulteries. The god is the impersonation of unbridled sexual passion, having 180,000 wives and indulging himself immoderately with the women or goddesses whom he meets. Yet modern Hindooism is able to accept and worship Krishna and he has many warm ad herents among educated Hindoos. "Many regard him as the Supreme Being who in his wondrous condescension mingled in the affairs of human life, and naturally their one endeavor is to explain away and account for the stories of sensuality which stain the fair name of their deity." U1 This they do in the manner now familiar to us; the loves of Krishna and the milkmaids are represented as allegories of divine love. It is unnecessary to give details. The case only shows that we are dealing with a phenomenon common to more than one religion. It is even applied in justification of the recital of the Creed, as though the mystical interpretation, which really sublimates the historical statements of the ancient document into symbols of the believer's inner experiences, were con sistent with the intention of the Church. What is meant may be shown by a single paragraph: "Born of the Virgin Mary means that the dweller in the kingdom must be born of water as well as of the Spirit, not of the Spirit alone nor of the soul alone for Spirit is the life, soul supplies the form and body, and under this present dispensation all things are double, one against another, and the end will come when the man is as

15 The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. 20. There also we find a defence of the allegorical method (p. 33f.).

16 Martin, The Gods of India (1914), p. 140.

72 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

the woman and the woman as the man, neither male nor fe male." A little later in the same chapter we read: "When the soul, figured as Eve, listens to the seductions of sense, that is of life seeking to act apart from the whole, she becomes from generate degenerate, and must become regenerate, that is she must become purified or single-pointed and then perfect her purification by giving birth to the Christ through the Spirit, which is the true husband. Eve must become Mary, and her Son the St. George bruising the serpent's head. The soul is first the daughter, then the spouse, then the Mother of God." 17

The book from which the above is quoted reproduces also the elaborate symbolism of numbers which goes back to Pythagoras or earlier, another evidence, if any were needed, of the tendency we have been discussing. So far as our in vestigation has gone, we have found the art of exegesis to con sist in reading into the sacred text that which the expositor wishes to find there.

17 W. F. Cobb, Mysticism and the Creed (1914).

LUTHER'S APPEAL

IT HAS become a commonplace of Church History that there were Reformers before the Reformation. The fact is that a highly organized community, such as the Roman Church had become, will always have critics among its more thoughtful subjects. Equally true is it that a complicated system of doctrine like that which had official sanction in the Middle Age will provoke opposition in some minds. The crusade against the Albigenses shows how formidable opposi tion to the received social order and to the dominant theology might become. As early as the twelfth century Joachim of Floris had advanced the theory that the Pope is Antichrist. Whatever knowledge of Scripture there was must have sug gested to pious believers that the Gospel was something dif ferent from the theology of the Schoolmen. The revival of learning, as we have seen, gave men a new sense of literary values, and while Scripture was sometimes undervalued in comparison with the classic authors of Greece and Rome the importance of going back to the sources (in this case the He brew text of the Old Testament) was appreciated. Among the Jews there had come a reaction against the refinements of Rabbinical exegesis, and a more sober method of studying the text. Rashi became the standard commentator just be cause he gave attention to the literal meaning of the Bible. His influence on Christian exegesis has been considerable, mediated as it has been by Nicholas of Lyra.

That Nicholas had no intentfon of being an innovator is evident from his affirmation of the fourfold sense, and from his expressed willingness to submit his conclusions to the

74 ES&n'S IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

judgment of the Church. But he does emphasize the literal sense, and in this almost slavishly follows Rashi. Even when Christian exposition differs from that of the Jews, he often gives the preference to the latter. His influence on Luther has become proverbial. Increasing interest in the Bible in the fourteenth century is indicated by Wycliffe's translation. Wycliffe indeed is the most important of Luther's forerun ners, because of his desire to give the people the Bible in their own language. His emphasis was laid on the literal sense, and he warned against reading into the text that which the Holy Spirit does not mean. In Germany also there were editions in the vernacular before Luther's epoch-making work. Scholarly interest in the original text is indicated by the Com- plutensian Polyglot published just before Luther posted his Theses. Reuchlin's efforts to promote the study of Hebrew had given rise to an animated controversy in which the igno rance of the monkish agitators was ridiculed by men of learn ing. The careful observer must have seen signs of a new spirit in the universities and, in some of them at least, a revolt from the current scholasticism. Luther's hatred of Aristotle was probably not an isolated phenomenon. On the economic side the unrest was marked, and contributed to the desire for a change.

In Luther we can trace the gradual change which went on in the man trained in the scholastic theology, one who would like to have remained a loyal son of the Church, but who was driven to take one step after another away from tradition and into opposition to the organization with which he had been so closely connected. That he was trained in the scholastic theology is indicated by the fact that when first appointed to his professorship he was expected to lecture on Aristotle. Against this, however, he soon revolted, and then began his exposition of the Bible. His theology was still that which he had learned, and he was moved to anger when Eck accused him of being a heretic. His later attitude towards Aristotle is indicated by his declaration that there is more wisdom in one verse of the Psalms than Aristotle would express if he

LUTHER'S APPEAL 75

had written a thousand books of Metaphysics. And later: "In scholasticism I learned nothing of what sin, righteousness, grace and Christian life are. I lost Christ there, but found him in Paul." Here we have the criterion which he applied to Aristotle and the Schoolmen not only, but to the Bible itself. The Fathers also lost their standing with him as in fallible teachers, although he always valued Augustine. Here also we understand the motive. Luther was primarily a re ligious genius. He went through an experience similar to that of St. Paul, and among the Fathers none so nearly reproduced that experience as did Augustine. In his lectures he first gave a course on the Psalms and next took the Epistle to the Romans, the two books in which he found his religion most fully expressed.

It must be remembered also that he was pastor and preacher as well as professor, and it was here that the issue was joined. The sale of indulgences gave his confessants a false confi dence, and thus cut at the roots of a real religious experience. The famous theses were posted in order that by an academic discussion men's ideas concerning sin, repentance, and the power of the Church might be clarified. And it is noticeable that the first one of the series goes back to the text of the Gos pels in their literal meaning, as distinguished from the in terpretation which the Church authorities were putting upon the words. It reads: When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ says 'act penitence' (penitentiam agite, according to the Latin version) he means that all the life of the faithful should be penitent. And the next thesis carries out the thought: This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that is of the confession and satisfaction which are secured by the min istry of the priest. We see that the official interpretation of the Church, which found in the Gospel word 'repent' author ization for its demand of penance under the direction of the priest, is distinctly disavowed, because the text of the Gospel, taken in its literal sense, does not mean what the Church affirms. Almost more distinct is the declaration: Every truly penitent (compunctus} Christian has remission of pun-

76 ESSsirS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

ishment and guilt without letters of indulgence. And the ecclesiastical theory of a treasury of merits upon which the Pope could draw in favor of the purchaser of indulgences is contradicted in the sentence: The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

While an academic debate on abstract questions of doctrine might have been allowed to pass without hostile criticism, an attack upon the traffic in indulgences was a different matter. Tetzel saw the danger to his trade, and scented heresy at once. His claim was that the Pope who had authorized the indulgences had a right to interpret Scripture, and to decide questions of faith. The principle of leading Churchmen was that the customs of the Church were divine truth because they were the customs of the Church. "If a tradition, a text of Scripture or a dogmatic affirmation was inconvenient, the Church, that is Rome, had the right of interpreting." 1 Where the sources of the Papal income were endangered it is easy to see what line the interpretation would take. The Reformer, however, did not realize the full meaning of the step he had taken until the debate with Eck. It was the determination of his opponent there to prove him a heretic — to Luther's indignation, as has been said. But the debate showed that if the Pope or the Canon Law, or the Councils, or even the Fathers were accepted as infallible authorities, Luther was in danger of the judgment. His appeal must therefore be to the Scriptures, and this came to him with full force at Worms.

Reflecting on his experiences at the Diet, he began at once his translation of the Bible. It was his appeal from the Church authorities to the common people. It is sometimes affirmed that he gave the Bible to his people, and the sen tence is understood as if the Book had not been accessible to them before. But as we have seen, there were earlier versions in German and the printing press had sent forth several edi tions of the Latin. The truth is that the Bible had been known for the most part in the form in which the Church authorities had presented it — overlaid with legendary and allegorical

1 Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschkhte, III (1910), p. 665.

LUTHER'S APPEAL 77

material. Luther's own statement is that so many legends of the saints, passionals, edifying examples, and story-Bibles, had been circulated that the Psalter had been quite "thrown under the bench." But the Psalms are superior to the best of the legends, no matter how many they may be. What the legends tell us is what the saints have done; but the Psalms show us how they talked with God and prayed — so that the other examples appear as mere dumb saints, but those of the Psalms right active and living. "There you see into the heart of the saints, as into a beautiful, pleasant garden, nay into heaven, what beautiful flowers spring up out of all sorts of joyful thoughts of God on account of his goodness." That the man who could write thus knew how to reach the hearts of the people is evident, and we are not surprised to learn that his New Testament went through twenty-two edi tions in Wittenberg alone during his lifetime, and that in the same period there were eleven editions of the complete Bible.

Like many another genius, Luther was little concerned about consistency, and a little reflection will show why different and even apparently contradictory utterances can be cited from his numerous works. The most of those works were called out by special emergencies, each forced from him by a new crisis. He says himself that whether he wills it or not he is compelled to learn something new every day "since so many eminent men press upon me as though for a wager, and give me something to do." In this connection he regrets his earlier position concerning indulgences because at that time he judged too mildly. When Prierias took up the defence "I discovered that indulgences are a mere deception of the Roman flatterers by which they take away the people's money and at the same time their faith in God." Then came Eck and Emser, and began to instruct him about the Pope — "and not to be ungrateful to such learned men, let me confess that their writings brought me forward. For though I denied that the Papacy had divine right, yet I was willing to confess its

- Vorrede zum Psalter (1528).

78 ESS^rS IN BIBLIC4L INTERPRETATION

human right; but when I read the hairsplitting refinements of these coxcombs with which they support their idol, I realize that the Papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter." 3 Later he might have in cluded among his teachers the Anabaptists who compelled him to face another class of problems.

Our interest is in the Reformer's attitude towards the Bible, and we have seen how he was driven back to it as the infallible source of faith. His final position was that the Bible is superior not only to St. Peter and St. Paul, but even to all angels and to the humanity of Christ himself, because he declares that the word he speaks is not his own but His that sent him. But the question of interpreting the Word still confronted the inquirer. Or even more fundamental was the question of the Canon: What books are to be recognized as the Word of God? To this Luther's reply is well known. Starting from his religious experiences he gave the rule: What urges Christ (was Christum treibt) is Scripture, though written by a Judas; what does not stand this test is not Scrip ture though written by an Apostle. From this point of view it must be clear that not all parts of the Bible are of equal value. The New Testament is the primary source, and in the New Testament the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John have the preeminence. The oft quoted characterization of the Epistle of James is sufficient evidence of the freedom with which he approached what we should call questions of criti cism. What about the Old Testament?

Here we note first of all that in principle Luther rejected the allegorical method. In his introduction to his translation he says that some seek a spiritual sense in the Old Testament as Origen, Jerome and other prominent men have done. This he does not approve, but cites Jesus' word : Search the Scriptures for they are they which testify of me, and uses this as the touch stone for the reader. This he develops more at length, say ing: "If you will interpret well and securely, take Christ with you, for he is the man whom everything concerns." Whether

3 Von dcr Babylonisclicn Gtfongensckaft der Kirche (preface).

LUTHER'S APPEAL 79

the rule could be applied without some use of allegory we may doubt, but there is no doubt of Luther's intention. He says for example, that allegory is a dangerous thing, though the words read so smoothly, for there is nothing behind them. It may do for the preachers who have not studied much, and who do not know how to expound the history and the text — they resort to allegory by which nothing definite is taught. In his own commentaries he follows Nicholas of Lyra closely, and commends him because he does not allegorize but holds to the history, that is the literal sense. On the other hand, he criticizes this writer for too close dependence on the Jewish exegetes. In practice, moreover, he is not able to avoid allegory altogether — the Epistle to the Hebrews gives him the example, and to that extent authorization. But the cases are not very numerous. Correct principles of Bible study are set forth in the preface to his translation of Isaiah, where he urges the reader to study the history recorded in the books of Kings in order to understand the situation in which the prophet uttered his discourses. It is necessary, he says, to know how it stands in the land, what events transpired, what the people thought, what were the relations which they sus tained to their neighbors, friends or foes, especially their attitude towards their God and His prophets.

That the Reformer had his limitations is true, but it is not too much to say that he opened the way to a better under standing of the Bible. A really historical treatment must come later. But the germ of such treatment may be discov ered in Luther's affirmation of the difference between the two Testaments which he defines as the difference between Law and Gospel. Here the Apostle Paul had shown the way, for according to him the function of the Old Testament (here, as among the Jews generally, the Pentateuch was the im portant part) was to show the real nature of sin. This was the way in which it prepared for the Gospel, the message of deliverance. The theory fell in with Luther's own experience, for in the cloister his struggle against fleshly desire had con vinced him of the impotence of legalism, whereas the revela-

80 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

tion of grace in Christ gave the sense of forgiveness and led to newness of life. The application of the theory may be read in his introduction to the Pentateuch where he points out that the book of Genesis gives us fine examples of faith, but that Moses is the instrument for promulgating the Law. The mul titudinous commands in the Levitical Code serve to burden the conscience with a multitude of sins, and convince the man of his impotence to all good.

The Old Testament therefore was viewed in two aspects. It contained the Messianic prophecies, which were still inter preted according to the tradition of the Church, and it con tained the Law which was intended to convince men of sin. Melanchthon's Loci, which became the standard theological textbook for the new reformed Christian community, was based on the Epistle to the Romans and treated the Old Tes tament from this double point of view. The dawn of an historical understanding may be found in this instrument, especially in the Reformer's insisting on the original text as against the Roman exaltation of the Latin version. The reaction against this version extended to Jerome, its author, whom Luther criticizes severely, declaring that he says noth ing of Christ — "he writes only of fasting, meats, virginity." Jerome's emphasis on monasticism would naturally offend Luther, but his judgment on the Father seems justo durius as Rosenmuller says. Further evidence of the Reformer's historical sense may be found in his recognition of the fact that Moses included in his Law many things which had been held by his forefathers, such as sacrifices, circumcision, dis crimination between clean and unclean meats, some of these being even borrowed from heathenism. He boldly asserts that the Law of Moses does not concern us; the Gospel does not impose laws but teaches of the Spirit.

Although therefore Luther marks an advance, yet we are compelled to say that to approach the Old Testament with the determination to interpret it in the sense of the Reformers is similar to what we have found in the earlier period. That is, the temptation of the expositor is to read into his text what he

LUTHER'S APPEAL 81

desires to find there. The fundamental assumption that the sense of Scripture is one and that the obscure sentences must be interpreted by those that are clear — by the analogy of faith as the phrase was — put bonds upon the expositor. All that we are concerned to show is that Luther was far freer than his predecessors. His impatience with earlier commen tators was such that at times he was willing to throw away all commentaries and trust the common sense of the reader. He holds that the Holy Spirit is the clearest writer and speaker in heaven or on earth, and his words can have but one meaning, that which we call the literal testimony. This does not mean that there are no figures of speech discovered by the same common sense that we use in studying other books.

If from our point of view we find that history was very im perfectly apprehended by this great leader we may still agree that he opened the road to a sound historical exegesis "but his century and he lacked the means to follow the path." The strength of tradition showed itself more distinctly in his followers. They had the more mechanical view of faith which regards it as acceptance of a philosophic system, a view of the universe, resting on an infallible authority. The infallible authority was now no longer the scholastic tradi tion, but it was the Bible. The position accepted by the Lutheran theologians may be stated in the words of Melanch- thon's disciple, George Major, who in 1550 published an essay on the origin and authority of the Word of God. His state ment is: "One and the same doctrine had been in the Church from the beginning of the world to the present time; there is perfect agreement between prophets and Apostles, one voice in all." 5 Melanchthon himself affirmed a continuous suc cession of prophets, the first one being Adam. A certain gradation in rank was allowed, some being greater than others; but this made no essential difference in their teaching. How much* must be supplied by the imagination if this theory

4 Harnack, Lehrbnch der Dogmengeschichte, III, p. 867.

5 I owe the citation to Diestel (p. 233), not beins able to consult Major's book.

82 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

is to be carried through is made clear when we read the list of names of the prophets; it includes Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and so on.6 Whether such a theory did not really play into the hands of the Roman Catholics was a question, for it is evident that the revelations granted to some of these earlier chosen men had not come down in writing. The polemic as to the sufficiency of Scripture, however, does not seem to have considered this point.

An issue raised by the Council of Trent (besides the one on the necessity of tradition) concerned the extent of the Canon. Chemnitz, whose Examen became a standard work on the Protestant side, took occasion to discuss the origin of the Old Testament. His argument was that the revelation given to Adam was soon corrupted, just because oral tradition could not long remain true. This question, however, became acute a little later. The theory that orthodoxy was neces sary, was held by Protestants as well as Catholics, and if Scripture was the source of correct doctrine, this doctrine must be found in the Old Testament as well as the New. Melanch- thon set an example which was followed for a century, by demonstrating all the articles of the faith from the book of Isaiah. They are: The unity of God, the divine and human nature of the Messiah, as well as his birth from a virgin, his death and resurrection, the call of gentiles into the Church, the remission of sins, eternal life and future reward and pun ishment. He even finds numerical basis for a prediction of the time of the advent.7 The example only shows how far the leading theologian of the Reformation was from a really his toric view.

Perhaps the name of leading theologian of the Reformation belongs rather to Calvin. His clear and logical mind and his thorough scholarship enabled him to formulate a system which has not yet lost its power. As to Scripture, with which we are

6 Argumentum in Esaiam Prophetam (Corpus Reformatorum, XIII, Col. 794).

7 Ibid., col. 79Qf.

LUTHER'S APPEAL 83

here concerned, his position is quite clear. He energetically rejected all allegory, declaring it a commentum Satanx, and adding that it is something like sacrilege to turn Scripture one way and another and to indulge our fancies as in sport.8 He declares that God cannot be reconciled by sacrifice, basing his opinion on utterances of the prophets. The difficulty of ac counting for the elaborate legislation of Leviticus is met by the assertion that the ritual laws are a commentary on the Deca logue, which Calvin regards as of binding force.9 He even departed from the current of Protestant thought when he refused to find Messianic predictions in many passages, and in the Psalms seeks the historical background of those which had been referred to Christ. In his time the miraculous ele ment was no stumbling block, and the Copernican view of the universe had hardly begun to attract the attention of the more daring spirits. In exegesis Calvin was distinctly in ad vance of his time, freer than Luther in the rejection of alle gory and typology. But it was Luther who opened the road to a sound exegesis and the merit of leadership belongs to him.

8 De Optimo Methodo (Corpus Reformatorum, XXXVIII, 2, col. 405).

9 Corpus Reformatonim, LII, p. 7.

T

VI PROTEST AND REACTION

'HE REFORMATION was a protest against the Roman system. But the Reformers brought with them the idea of faith as the acceptance of a system of doctrine divinely taught. In the two centuries after Lu ther's death, the burning question with the theologians was how this system could be certified as in fact divine. Even in Luther's lifetime there were those who drew radical con clusions from his premises. He had shown the common man that the conscience has its rights, and that Scripture is so plain that private interpretation is justified. Since we can not have the blessings of liberty without having some risk of its abuse, it is not strange that individual vagaries soon showed themselves. How the peasants interpreted the new doctrine is well known, and among Luther's colleagues ideas which he regarded as heretical were held and published. The Old Testament gave occasion for difference of opinion. Since Moses allowed polygamy Miinzer practised it. The Old Tes tament commended heroes like Gideon who slew the enemies of the chosen people. But these new sectaries claimed to be the true Israel, and wielded the sword against the Canaanites, that is against all who refused to accept their doctrine. From the affirmation that the Law was no longer binding on the Christian it was easy also to infer the same antinomian prin ciples which gave the Apostle Paul trouble in some of his churches. Heresy was no new thing, but the Roman Church had been able to check it by calling in the help of the civil arm. It was difficult for the Protestants to defend the right of private judgment and at the same time punish those who exercised the right.

PROTEST AND REACTION 85

However, the leaders of the various churches were in the orthodox tradition, that is, they had brought with them a system in many respects identical with that taught by Thomas Aquinas. The Catholics could of course prove the system by tradition, and at the Council of Trent this was officially de clared to be binding. The same council made the Latin version, current in the Church, the authentic text in all con troversies. On these two points — the validity of tradition as against the sole authority of Scripture, and the accuracy of the Vulgate, as contrasted with the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament — the issue was joined. The Protestant creeds make strong affirmations on both points. In theory also, the allegorical method was rejected, although when the emphasis was laid on preaching, as the most important part of the public service, and when this preaching was avowedly based on Scripture, some lati tude was allowed, at least by way of illustration, and, as Luther said, of ornament. To prove the system of doctrine from the Old Testament was a matter of some difficulty, and it was not made easier when differences arose between the two Protestant communions, Lutheran and Reformed.

It is not a part of the present task to enter into the history of controversy. The Odium theologicum has never been more unedifyingly displayed than in the centuries we now have in mind. Common to the Protestant parties was the belief that the Pope was Antichrist, and that the Roman Church was the Whore of Babylon. As to the attitude of Lutherans on points on which they differed from Calvinists it will be enough to cite the title of one work: Absurda absurdorum absurdissima, Calvinistica absurda, hoc est invicta demonstratio logica, philosophica, theologica, aliquot horrcndorum paradoxorum Calviniani dogmatis. The same doughty fighter who con cocted this is said to have published a pamphlet, Bellum Jesu Chris ti et Jo. Calvini.1 The Socinians came in

1 The title of the Absurda Absurdorum is taken from Weber, Einfluss der Protestantischen Schulphilosophie (1908), p. 9, and of the other work from an article on Grawer, the author, in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic. I have not seen the publications.

86 ESS4rS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

for their share of objurgation and later the Arminians were treated in the same way. Doubtless our age is unable to appreciate the earnestness with which such dis cussions were carried on. The temper of the English Puri tans may give us some light. Moreover, we should not for get that a practical interest underlay the polemic. The pro fessors of theology were training men for the ministry in the several Churches. It was necessary to instruct them so that they would be sound in the faith. This faith was the faith of Luther or of Calvin, as the case might be. Melanchthon's Loci, which was the theological textbook of Germany for many years, was intended to explain and defend the simple faith of the Gospel. Its aim was to this extent practical. Men, sinners, must be brought to repentance and salvation. This Gospel was, to be sure, the Gospel of Paul, for the experience of the Reformers was distinctly Pauline, and Melanchthon's book originated in a course of lectures on the Epistle to the Romans. The examination of candidates for the ministry must be based on some such compendium. But as time went on and the polemic of which we have learned became more animated, the need of a metaphysical basis for theology made itself felt. The professors of theology in this period were also teachers of philosophy. Thus the Aristotelian system which was so energetically repudiated by Luther, came again into honor. We are here concerned with the influence of these move ments on the exposition of the Old Testament. The task of the exegete was a double one. He must prove the harmony of Scripture, for ex hypothesi, God being its author, there could be no inconsistencies. He must also bring out the dis tinction between Law and Gospel, for this also was an axiom of the Protestant leaders. Titles can be quoted on both topics, on the one side Althamer's Conciliationes Locorum Scripturae qui Specie tenus inter se pugnare videntur (1597), and on the other Artopaeus' Discretio locorum Legis et Evan- gelii (i534).2 A more elaborate Conciliation was Pfeiffer's

2 Artopaeus is cited from Heppe, Dogmatik des Deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten J ahrhundert (1857).

PROTEST AND REACTION 87

Dubia Vexata Scripturae Sacrae (1699), which marked the culmination of Harmonistic efforts. The Jews had set the example as we saw in discussing Manasseh ben Israel. All parties — Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed — would agree in the principle underlying such attempts, that is that God cannot contradict Himself. What the Catholics asserted was that the Scripture needed the interpretation of the Church embodied in tradition, whereas the Protestants affirmed the perspicuity of both Old and New Testaments. The question still remained: What is it that proves Scripture to be the W'ord of God ? To this the Catholic had a ready answer — the Church has authoritatively declared it. The Protestant found a triple answer. First was the Testimony of the Holy Spirit, and this is affirmed in the creeds. What it means is that the religiously minded man finds religion expressed in Scripture. As it was afterwards put by Coleridge: What finds me is in spired. Only the doubt might arise whether all parts of the Old Testament do actually appeal to the Christian believer in such measure that he can accept the whole volume as being, or even as containing, the Word of God.

A second line of argument was found in the testimony of the early Church, and on this ground the so-called Apocrypha were rejected, or at least pronounced to be of secondary impor tance by the Protestants. Thirdly, it was held that the authors of the Biblical books were attested as prophets by the miracles wrought in their favor. This again would not be objected to by the Catholics, only they claimed that the miracles were not confined to the early age. In the first period of Reformation thought there seems not to have been a dis tinct theory of inspiration, that is a theory of the inspiration of the writers of the Books, as distinct from that of the prophets whose words they recorded. In fact, Luther's free dom in acknowledging that some wood, hay, and stubble might have come into some of the Books along with the gold, silver, and precious stones, would seem to preclude such a theory. The lengths to which some theologians were willing to go is indicated by the controversy whether there were

88 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

solecisms in the New Testament. The stricter party denied that there could be any, since the Holy Spirit could not be supposed to make a mistake. Those who affirmed the con trary were accused of blasphemy. The final formulation was the theory of verbal inspiration, and, as if this were not enough to insure the authority so much desired, the hypothesis of Chemnitz was taken up and expanded. It was supposed that the prophets when they had pronounced their discourses posted up copies of the revelations at the door of the temple, and that when the people had had sufficient time to take cognizance of them the temple servants took them down and laid them away with the earlier parts of the sacred Book.3 The trouble with the hypothesis is that there is not the slightest historical evi dence for it, and that it goes directly against all that we know of the relations between prophets and priests throughout the preexilic period.

This theory, that an official sanction must have been given to the revelation, may be illustrated again from Carpzov, whose introduction to the Old Testament had a wide vogue. He maintains that in order that a book should be canonical, it was not enough that it be divinely inspired. There should be some certificate that it was divinely ordered and conse crated and handed to the Church as the rule of faith and morals.4 Undoubtedly the great folio volumes of commen taries published in this period prove that these scholars took themselves seriously, and there is no need to minimize their scholarship. The emphasis laid on the original languages of Scripture led to a minute examination of grammar and lexi con, and the controversy with opponents, whether liberals like Grotius, or Roman Catholics like Richard Simon, compelled careful attention to the meaning of each verse. All the scholarship, however, was made subservient to orthodoxy, and this was the orthodoxy of the particular communion to

3 Marloratus, Prophetia Esaice cum catholica Expositions ecclesiastica (1610), Argumentum.

4 J. G. Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros Historicos Bibliorum Veteris Tes- tamenti (Editio Secunda, 1727), p. 24.

PROTEST AND REACTION 89

which the scholar belonged. A new scholasticism seems to have mastered the Churches. Quenstedt's definition may be quoted to show the point of view. The Old Testament, he says, is the collection of books which by inspiration of God were written by prophets predicting the advent of the Mes siah, in the Hebrew language, were received by the Jewish Church, approved by Christ and the Apostles, and recognized by the primitive Church to be the perpetual rule of faith and life in the Church Universal. The prophets have become writers instead of speakers — the pens of the Holy Spirit. Differences of style in the different books are due to a gra cious accommodation on the part of the divine Author.

Since an authentic text was a need of the theologian, it was assumed that the original had been kept pure in all ages, and that the Hebrew vowel points were of equal antiquity with the consonants. The opposite opinion was the occasion of an animated debate in which the two Buxtorfs, father and son, took the leading part. The more historical view was broached by Ludovicus Cappellus, professor at Saumur. The Buxtorfs were soundly orthodox and defended the antiquity of the punctuation — a view now thoroughly discredited. De tails cannot be given here. The incident is interesting as a symptom of a dawning realization of the problems presented by the Old Testament. The Roman Catholic defence of the Vulgate as the authentic recension led scholars of this school to affirm the corruption of the Hebrew. It was easy to say that the malice of the Jews had led them to conceal originally Messianic passages in order to refute Christian claims. The best known exponent of this view is John_JVIorin, who held that it would be shameful for the Church to be in bondage to the synagogue. The polemic motive in his discussion is evident, but his careful examination of the text at least compelled the Protestants to take account of the facts. On this account Morin has been called the father of textual criticism.

Perhaps this honor belongs rather to Cappeilus, whom we have already met as an innovator on the subjecTof the vowel

90 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

points. His Critica Sacra gives a systematic discussion of the various readings found in parallel passages of the Hebrew, or suggested by the versions. A comparison of Kings and Chron icles brought to light a number of such variants, and in many cases the Greek version revealed an underlying Hebrew bet ter than the one preserved by the Jews. The book was bit terly attacked by the Buxtorfs and others, but again the facts were called to the attention of many thoughtful persons. Cap- pellus, it should be remarked, was a loyal Protestant and had no motive except recognition of the truth. In fact he took pains to show that the recognition of various readings in no way endangered faith and morals. British scholars kept in touch with those on the continent, and so conservative a scholar as Usher was candid enough to recognize that a sacred text was subject to the same laws of transmission as were other ancient documents. Dogmatic theologians were disquieted, however, by the suggestion, and the publication of various readings in Walton's Polyglot caused John Owen to utter a sharp attack on the editor, under the title "Oj the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Ap pendix to the late Biblia Polyglotta." 5 Walton replied in an equally animated publication, The Considerator Considered. Party feeling no doubt had something to do with this debate, but the cause of truth was advanced.

In the leading ecclesiastical circles the orthodox view still prevailed, and the subservience of exegesis to dogma is indi cated by the fact that almost every Biblical scholar was also professor of dogmatics. An example is the Lutheran Calovius (Calov) whose chief exegetical work was called out by his opposition to Grotius. Grotius, as we shall see, published Annotations to the Bible in which he emphasized the literal sense, illustrating it by parallels from secular writers, many of them heathen. Calovius, to counteract the dangerous ten dency of such a work, published a Biblia Illustra, in which he took up Grotius' Annotations one by one, and gave the cor-

5 Owen's Works, Vol. IV. The Epistle Dedicatory is dated 1658.

PROTEST AND REACTION 91

rective. His scholarship is indisputable, and his knowledge of literature extensive. Moreover, he insists on the literal sense. But the literal sense is everywhere made to support the dogmatic tradition. His title page, which is too long to quote, boasts that he has examined the readings of the ver sions and vindicated the purity of the Hebrew text, that he refutes the errors of Jews and heretics, and that he submits the depravations and false interpretations of Grotius to ex amination and explodes them.6 His prejudice against Cal- vinists, Catholics, and Socinians led him to deny the merits of all, and he declared that the Jews can teach us nothing concerning their own sacred Book. The work is prefaced by an elaborate discussion of Old Testament chronology, and by a treatise on weights and measures. In this period it became the fashion to supplement the notes on the Hebrew text by elaborate essays on questions that might arise. For exam ple, Pfeiffer, in the Dubia Vexata already referred to, takes occasion to discourse at length on Cain's dialogue with Abel.

The theory of perspicuity could not altogether hide the fact that there were some passages in the Old Testament not altogether plain. Why else should such elaborate commen taries be necessary? The answer given was the same that we have met before — that God was pleased at times to speak obscurely because if all were too easy the reader would feel a jastidium for the Book. John Gerhard, the greatest the ologian of the seventeenth century, gives this reason, and adds that the obscurity drives us to more earnest prayer, in cites our zeal for study, humbles our pride, keeps the profane from knowing the truth, and increases men's reverence for the ministry.7 The corollary of this emphasis on the more perspicuous passages was the selection of these passages as the basis for dogmatic treatises. Sebastian Schmidt of Strass- burg, one of the ablest Biblical scholars of the seventeenth century, gave a course of lectures on the Dicta Probantia, and these lectures were afterwards published with the title

3 Biblia Illustrata (1672). 7 Cited from Die?tcl, p. 375.

92 ESS4TS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

Collegium Biblicum* The result, which was not foreseen by those who followed the method, was that the conception of a Biblical dogmatic, distinct from the philosophical dogmatic on which the chief stress was laid, came into men's minds and prepared the way for a more historical understanding of the Scripture. It might indeed occur to some that if this part of the Bible was the important part, the rest might safely be neglected. This conclusion was hindered by the necessity of studying Church history, for the Roman Church must be shown to have departed from the primitive faith. Church history, however, began, as was held by all parties, in the earliest period. And until recent times a connected presen tation of Hebrew story was made the introductory portion of the history of the Church. To a certain extent, therefore, a corrective was applied to the atomizing method of the the ologians. But that the interest was not what we should call historical is evident. An example is the "Impartial Church History of Old and New Testaments from the Creation of the World down to the Year 1730." This work, published in two thick quartos, divides the whole history of the world be tween Old and New Testaments, the Old Testament being given 564 pages, the New Testament part covering all the rest of the time.

The theological interest of such works is indicated by the space allotted to the earliest ages, and the discussion of such questions as whether Adam knew of the Trinity. Since all three Persons took part in the creation, it was argued that Adam must have had knowledge of them. Heidegger's His- toria Sacra Patriarcharum devotes its first volume to the An tediluvians, and the second ends with the death of Jacob. One chapter is devoted to the Church and Theology of the Patriarchs, one to the polygamy of Lamech, another to the theology and idolatry of the Cainites. These are cited simply

8 The title is taken from Von Coelln, Biblisehe Theologie (1836), p. 19, where some other works of the same kind are mentioned.

9 Written by various authors but edited by Heinsius. Two supplementary volumes brought the history down to 1760.

PROTEST AND REACTION 93

as specimens. One author published a history of the Noachian Church; another gave a history of Paradise. A literary his tory of the antediluvian age was written by still another.10 Much attention was given to recondite questions, such as the date of the creation, whether the nineteenth or the twenty- sixth of October. The Rabbis as we know had settled the day to their satisfaction. Similarly: How long were Adam and Eve in Paradise? Was Abel married? Did Enoch go to heaven in his earthly body? Doubtless many of these discussions took the place of modern doctors' dissertations, and were simply tests of scholarship or of ingenuity. And we must recognize that important contributions to Biblical science were made by these students. Biblical geography. Biblical natural science, and Biblical antiquities were made to throw light on the sacred text, and some of the essays in these departments are still valuable. But it remains true of the professed expositors that they found in the text the ideas that they brought with them. In the eighteenth century a Swiss theologian put into an epigram the results of his obser vation, characterizing the Bible as the book in which each one sought and in which each one found his own dogmata.

10 Statements of Diestel, p. 461. Heidegger's Historic Patriarcharum (1683) is the only one of the group that I have seen.

VII ATTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL SCHOOL

IN THE multitude of theological parties which contended with each other in the seventeenth century, it seems im possible to choose one as more important than another. But the influence of what is known as the Federal School on Protestant thought has been so marked that it deserves some attention. We have seen that polemic was the order of the day, the official teachers in each branch of the Church claim ing to have the true doctrine and branding the others as here tics. All parties appealed to Scripture, and all agreed in the view that Scripture was a divinely given system of truth, a philosophy which was substantially the same in the Old Testament and in the New. No department of inquiry was allowed to escape from the bonds of dogma, and even the sciences which we should call secular were subordinate 10 the crown of the sciences, theology. Whether in fact a super natural revelation was necessary to establish the propositions which were fundamental in any religious system was a ques tion which was raised later. For the period we now have in mind so radical a departure as would be implied in the denial of the fact of revelation had not appeared in the theological world.

It is a recurrent phenomenon, however, in the history of human thought that sharp polemic leads to examination of the adversary's opinion, and usually to some concession. Rigid orthodoxy confronting heterodoxy may give way to a mediating school. Such a school arose in Holland, the coun try where there was the largest freedom of discussion. It was in Holland that the Arminians attempted to modify the

94

ATTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL SCHOOL 95

rigid doctrine of Calvin concerning an absolute predestina tion, and it was here that Grotius approached the Old Testa ment from a more liberal point of view, arousing the wrath of Calovius as we have seen. The merit of his work is that it emphasized the historical element in the Bible by bringing its affirmations into comparison with those of other literatures. Among Dutch scholars of this period there were others who contributed to the release of Old Testament science from the bondage of dogma and prepared the way for an independent Biblical scholarship.

The Federal School takes its name from the emphasis which it laid on the idea of a covenant as the foundation of theolog ical theory. In a sense the idea of a covenant between God and man was not new. It is found in the Bible and in fact in early society the covenant relation forms the only social bond except that of blood. It is not strange, therefore, that the Israelites regarded the relation between themselves and their divinity as the result of such a covenant as the one which bound their separate clans together in the larger social unit. The picturesque embodiment of this idea is the story of the agreement with Abraham, in which the two parties, God and the Patriarch, pass between the pieces of a slain animal, thus invoking on themselves blood revenge if they are unfaithful (Genesis xv). Later in the narrative we have the more important agreement between Yahweh and Israel at Sinai. In the mind of the narrator this was no doubt a confirmation and renewal of the pledge made to the Fathers of the nation. Jeremiah, or one of his disciples, believes that a new and regenerated society will be based on a new cove nant, more spiritual and more effective than the old. Among the Fathers of the Church we find that Irenaeus, at least, em phasized the idea, for he speaks of the covenants with Adam, Noah, Moses, and Christ, or according to another text, with Noah, Abraham. Moses and Christ1

Apparently the idea was not followed ur> until Reformation times, when we find it in Calvin, though his doctrine of elec-

1 Adversus Hoereses, III, xi, n (edition of W. W. Harvey, 1857).

96 ESSArS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

tion did not allow him to extend the covenant to the whole human race. In his mind the covenants became something different from treaties or agreements between parties. They were promises of grace on the part of the divinity who alone has perfect freedom, promises fortified by sacraments, circum cision under the Old Testament, baptism under the New, which were pledges for the fulfilment of the promise. In this form they appealed to the Reformer, because they were spe cifically described in the Bible itself — the stories of Abra ham and Moses. Later, however, the covenant was carried back to the beginning of human history. Olevian, a Swiss theologian, developed the idea somewhat more fully in a work published in 1585, strictly Calvinistic in that it emphasizes the covenant with the elect.2 That the subject was in the air, as we say, is indicated by another author, Eglin, whose work, DC Fosdere Gratice was published at Marbung in i6i3.3 The real founder of the school was Cocceius (Koch), professor at Leyden from 1650 to 1669. His life came at a time when the High Calvinists and the Remonstrants were carrying on their debate. He had no wish to favor the liberal party, but rather to give the orthodox a more rational basis for their interpreta tion of the Old Testament. To a very moderate extent he at tempted an historical interpretation by carrying the idea of the covenant back to the beginnings of the race.

According to the narrative in Genesis, God gave a command to the first man. This was now interpreted as a covenant, as though the Creator had said: Obey the commandment, and I on my part will give you eternal life. The disobedience which followed was therefore a breach of the covenant, and a new device must be found if men were to be saved. This was the covenant of grace, primarily between God the Father and His Son, according to which the Father pledged Himself

- De Substantia Fcederis Gratuiti inter Deum el Electos cited by Diestel, p. 288. The only work of Olevian accessible to me is his Expositio Symboli Apostolici, in qua summa Gratuiti F&deris ^Eterni inter Deum et Fideles trac- tatur (Frankfurt, 1576).

3 Not accessible to me, but discussed by Diestel in the Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theolo^ie. X. 214.

ATTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL SCHOOL 97

to redeem the elect because of the Son's self-sacrifice. In the Old Testament this covenant is effective as well as in the New, the only difference being that the Old Testament saints were saved by hope in a coming Redeemer, Christians by faith in one who has come. It is difficult to overestimate the influ ence which this theory has had on the Protestant Churches, both in Germany and Great Britain. Evidence is given by the Westminster Confession, in which the theory is dis tinctly set forth.

Criticism of the doctrine is easy. For one thing it reads into the Biblical narrative what is not there. In the mind of the narrator, the command to Adam is not conceived of as an agreement between parties, but simply as an act of the divine Ruler, who has a right to impose His will as He may choose. Even the alleged covenant with Noah is so called only by courtesy, for in form it is simply a promise, confirmed by a sign given. No condition is imposed, and there is no promise of a salvation to come. The covenant at Sinai indeed is for mally correct — it is an agreement between two parties, by which Israel is pledged to do certain things, and in return Yahweh will give the people possession of Canaan. But to read into the account a promise of the Messianic time is to abandon the literal interpretation, which is supposed by the Protestant principle to be the only correct method of treating the Scripture. At first sight therefore the alleged advance made by this school seems to be an illusion. But that there was some advance is made by the attitude of the orthodox party which at first denounced Cocceius as a Judaizer and a heretic. More clearly than had been done before he recog nized certain imperfections (dcfectus] in the Old Testament. One of these is the promise of earthly prosperity given to the Israelites, for this encouraged the desire for material goods. The forgiveness of sins also is less complete under the Old Covenant, and on this account Old Testament believers could have less perfect assurance of salvation. Their spirit was one of fear rather than the confidence of sonship. In this direc tion there was an approach to a more historical apprehension.

98 ESS4TS IN BIBLIC4L INTERPRETATION

Successive steps in the relations of God and men were discov ered — a rudimentary theory of evolution.

The idea thus broached was carried into more detail by the disciples of the great theologian. The covenant of grace was traced through three stages — that of the family in Abra ham, Isaac, and Jacob, that of the theocracy from Moses on ward through the history of Israel — and that of the universal Church from the time of Christ. One scholar finds it possible to divide each of the three periods into seven sections, and he discovers a certain correspondence in the three sets. This is of course over-refinement, but it remains true that the idea of a Biblical theology distinct from dogmatics was brought to view by these discussions. But that dogma still has much to say is 'made evident by a work which we may call the cul mination of the Federal system. This is the Oeconomia Foederum Dei cum Hominlbus of Witsius, first published in 1677, translated into English in 1771, in which language it went through several editions. After an introductory dis course in which the author treats the nature of the divine covenants in general he takes up the covenant of works and describes the contracting parties, the condition of obedience, the promises, the penal sanction and the sacraments. Of these the Sabbath is the chief. He then narrates the violation of the covenant on the part of man and its consequent abroga tion by God. The second book introduces the covenant of grace, tracing it to the earliest age, and making the agree ment between Father and Son the basis of the doctrine of the atonement. The third book is entitled : The Covenant of God with the Elect, and includes the dogmatic lod of election, vo cation, justification, and sanctification. The fourth book traces the historical development from the time of Adam to Moses. The doctrine of the prophets is dismissed in few words, on the ground that it has been treated elsewhere, but so much the more space is given to the types.

Here we come upon what is really a recrudescence of scholas ticism. The allegorical method had been rejected, but the Old Testament believers were dependent on the promises, and it

ATTEMPT OF THE FEDERAL SCHOOL 99

was necessary to find these promises in their Bible. Cocceius set the example, and his contemporaries commended him be cause he found Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, whereas Grotius was accused of finding him nowhere. Where direct predictions of the Messiah were not uttered, adumbra tions of him must be found. The resulting typology is not as extravagant as the old allegory, but points in the same di rection. It is not true, as has sometimes been said, that Coc ceius affirmed every text of Scripture to mean all that it can be made to mean, for he qualified his declaration by consid eration of the intention of the writer and the agreement of the context. Yet to us the artificial nature of an exposition which makes Adam and David types of Christ, the slain Abel a type of Christ in his death, Enoch a type of Christ in his exaltation, must be evident. The panegyric of Farrar, there fore, which says that "this theologian, almost for the first time, developed the fruitful conception of the progressiveness of revelation," cannot be taken at its full value. But it re mains