opposite schools, it soon revealed three distinct tendencies in the
2. THE HISTORICAL SCHOOL. The historical school originated with Semler. The son of pietistic parents, he became, more or less in spite of himself, the father of Rationalism. In his work on the Canon, he directed attention to the neglected truth of the human historical origin and composition of the Bible. And in a second work, on the interpretation of the New Testament, he laid down certain principles of interpretation. Semler stressed the fact that the various books of the Bible and the Canon as a whole originated in a historical way, and were therefore historically conditioned. From the fact that the separate books were written for different classes of people, he inferred that they contained much that was merely local and ephemeral, and that was not intended to have normative value for all men and at all times. Moreover, he saw in them an intermixture of error, since Jesus and the apostles accommodated themselves in some matters to the people whom they addressed. Hence, he urged the necessity of bearing these things in mind in the interpretation of the New Testament. And in answer to the question as to just what is the element of binding truth in the Bible, he pointed to "that which serves to perfect man's moral character," His teaching fostered the idea that the Scriptures are fallible human productions, and virtually made human reason the arbiter of faith. Semler did not originate these ideas, but simply made vocal the thoughts that were widely prevalent in his day.
3. RESULTANT TENDENCIES. While this period began with two opposite schools, it soon revealed three distinct tendencies in the field of Hermeneutics and Exegesis. A large number of interpreters developed the Rationalistic principles of Semler in a way that made him stand aghast. Others recoiled from the extreme positions of Rationalism, and either resorted to a mediating view, or reverted to the principles of the Reformation. Still others emphasized the fact that the Grammatico-Historical method of interpretation must be supplemented by some principle that would enable the expositor to penetrate into the spirit of Scripture.
a. Rank Rationalism. The seed sown by Semler was productive of rank Rationalism in the field of historical exposition. This may be seen from the following examples:
(1) Paulus of Heidelberg assumed a purely naturalistic position. He regarded "practical fidelity to reason" as the source of the Christian religion. Most notorious of all was his interpretation of the miracles. He distinguished two questions, viz., (a) whether they occurred, and (b) how whatsoever occurred may have happened. And while he answered the former in the affirmative, he replied to the latter by discounting all the supernatural elements.
(2) The theory of Paulus was laughed to scorn by Strauss, who proposed the mythical interpretation of the New Testament. Under the influence of Hegel, he taught that the Messianic idea, with all its accretions of the miraculous, gradually developed in the history of humanity. In the time of Jesus, Messianic expectations were in the air. And his work and teaching left such a deep impression on his disciples, that, after his demise, they ascribed to him all the wonderful words and works, including the resurrection, that were expected of the Messiah.
(3) But this view, in turn, was ridiculed by F. C. Baur, the founder of Tuebingen school, who taught that the New Testament originated according to the Hegelian principle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. He held that the hostility between the Petrine and Pauline parties led to the production of rival literature, and finally also to the composition of books that aimed at the reconciliation of the opposing parties. As a result, three tendencies are apparent in the New Testament literature. This theory has also had its day.
(4) At the present time, the Old Testament rather than the New Testament is the object of critical assaults. The Graf-KuenenWellhausen school aims at explaining the Old Testament in what is called "the objective historical" manner, i.e., in harmony with an evolutionistic philosophy. Its work is characterized by a minuteness
that excites admiration, and by great ingenuity; but there are even now signs that point to its passing character.
b. Twofold reaction to Rationalism.
Rationalism did not run its course without opposition. In course of time, a twofold reaction became apparent.
(1) The Mediating School. Though it can hardly be said that Schleiermacher founded this school, he was certainly its fountainhead. His posthumous work on Hermeneutics did not answer the general expectation. He ignored the doctrine of inspiration, denied the permanent validity of the Old Testament, and treated the Bible like any other book. Though he did not doubt the substantial genuineness of Scripture, he distinguished between essentials and non-essentials, and felt confident that critical science was able to draw the line between the two. With all his insistence on true piety of the heart, he followed, in his exegetical work, mainly the ways of Rationalism.
Some of his followers, such as De Wette, Bleek, Gesenius, and Ewald, had decided leanings towards Rationalism. But others were more evangelical, and followed a mediating course. Among these were Tholuck, Riehm, Weiss, Luecke, Neander, and others. They rejected entirely the theory of a verbal inspiration, but at the same time confessed to the deepest reverence for the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. Says Lichtenberg: "Without admitting either the infallibility of the canon or the plenary inspiration of the text, and while reserving the right to submit both to the test of historical criticism, the School of Conciliation does not the less proclaim the authority of the Bible in matters of religion" (History of German Theology in the Nineteenth Century, p. 470).
(2) The School of Hengstenberg. Naturally, the mediating character of the preceding school was also its weakness. It did not serve to check the course of Rationalism. A far more effective reaction
appeared in the school of Hengstenberg, who returned to the principles of the Reformation. He believed in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, and consequently defended its absolute infallibility. He took his stand squarely on the Confessional Standards of the Lutheran Church. It is true that he was somewhat violent in his polemics, rather dogmatic in his assertions, and that he occasionally reveals a tendency to allegorize rather freely. But, on the whole, his exegetical work gives evidence of profound philological and historical erudition, and of believing insight into the truth of divine revelation. Among his disciples and followers we find K. F. Keil, Hävernick and Kurtz.
c. Attempts to go beyond the Grammatico-Historical sense. The lasting result of this period is the establishment of the GrammaticoHistorical method of interpretation. We find this represented in such Hermeneutical manuals as those of C. A. G. Keil, Davidson, P. Fairbairn, A. Immer, and M. S. Terry. But gradually a tendency is becoming apparent that is not quite satisfied with the GrammaticoHistorical Interpretation, and therefore endeavors to supplement it.
(1) Kant held that only the moral interpretation of the Bible had religious significance. According to him, the ethical improvement of man must be the controlling principle in the exposition of the Word of God. Whatever does not answer to this purpose must be rejected.
(2) Olshausen put in a plea for "the deeper sense of Scripture." For him, this was not something apart from the literal sense, but something intimately connected with it, and even based on it. The way to find the deeper sense is to recognize "the divine revelation in Scripture, and its central point, Christ, in their living unity with God as well as with humanity" (Immer). This deeper sense is the kernel of God's revelation. While pleading for it, Olshausen warns against the old allegorical interpretation. To a certain extent, R. Stier followed in his wake.
(3) Germar espoused what he called the Pan-harmonic interpretation of Scripture. "He demands the thorough harmony of the meaning discovered in Scripture, insofar as it is to be regarded as a revelation of God, with the utterances of Christ and with all else which is true and certain" (Reuss). This principle is, of course, true as far as it goes, but leaves room for subjective speculation as to the extent to which the Bible is to be recognized as a revelation of God, and as to the things that are true and certain.
(4) T. Beck advanced the so-called pneumatic or spiritual interpretation. He demanded the spirit of faith in the interpreter. This spirit, according to him, would give birth to the conviction that the various parts of Scripture form an organic whole. And the separate parts of the Bible should be interpreted in the light of this general physiognomy, as it reveals itself in those parts of Scripture whose meaning is not in doubt. This is practically equivalent to saying that Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith.
The search for some principle of interpretation that will serve to complement the Grammatico-Historical sense is also characteristic of the works of Lutz, Hofmann, Klausen, Landerer, and others. We confidently expect that the future will bring greater unanimity in this particular among those who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God.
QUESTIONS: What is the difference between verbal and plenary inspiration? In what different forms is the theory of partial inspiration presented? Is it possible for an interpreter to be without prepossessions? Is the principle of accommodation recognized in the Bible; and if so, how? What serious objection is there to Semler's theory of accommodation? What is the main characteristic of Rationalism? Why are some German scholars called "mediating theologians"? Why is the Grammatico-Historical interpretation insufficient?
LITERATURE: Diestel, Geschichte, pp. 556–781; Farrar, History, pp. 397–437; Reuss, History, II, pp. 587–625; Gilbert, Interpretation, pp. 249–292; Immer, Hermeneutics, pp. 55–83; Elliott, Hermeneutics, pp. 29–34.
IV. The Proper Conception of the Bible,
the Object of Hermeneutica Sacra
A logical treatment of Hermeneutica Sacra requires, first of all, a description of its object, the Bible; for special Hermeneutics must always adapt itself to the class of literature to which it is applied. The unique character of the Bible will also, to a certain extent, determine the principles that are to govern its interpretation. This does not mean, however, that all the qualities of the Bible must be described, but only that those characteristics should be elucidated that bear, in one way or another, on its interpretation.
A. The Inspiration of the Bible
In discussing the character of the Bible, it is but natural to assign the first place to that great and all-controlling principle of which our Confession says: "We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the Prophets and Apostles, to commit his revealed Word to writing; and He himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures" (Art. III, Confessio Belgica).