exegesis made its appearance in the West. It harbored some
greatest monument consisted of his two illustrious disciples, Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom.
These two men differed greatly in every respect. Theodore held rather liberal views respecting the Bible, while John regarded it as being in every part the infallible Word of God. The exegesis of the former was intellectual and dogmatic; that of the latter, more spiritual and practical. The one was famous as a critic and interpreter; the other, though an exegete of no mean ability, eclipsed all his contemporaries as a pulpit orator. Hence, Theodore was styled the exegete, while John was called Chrysostom (the goldenmouthed) for the splendor of his eloquence. They went far towards the development of true scientific exegesis, recognizing, as they did, the necessity of determining the original sense of the Bible, in order to make a profitable use of it. Not only did they attach great value to the literal sense of the Bible, but they consciously rejected the allegorical method of interpretation.
In the work of exegesis, Theodore surpasses Chrysostom. He had an open eye for the human factor in the Bible, but, sorry to say, denied the divine inspiration of some of the Scriptural books. Instead of the allegorical, he defended the grammatico-historical interpretation, in which he was far in advance of his time. And though he recognized the typical element in the Bible, and found Messianic passages in some of the Psalms, he explained most of them zeitgeschichtlich The three Cappadocians belonged to this school.
3. THE WESTERN TYPE OF EXEGESIS. A mediating type of exegesis made its appearance in the West. It harbored some elements of the allegorical school of Alexandria, but also recognized some of the principles of the Syrian school. Its most characteristic feature, however, is found in the fact that it advanced another element, which had not asserted itself up to that time, namely, the authority of tradition and of the Church in the interpretation of the Bible. Normative value was ascribed to the teaching of the Church in
the sphere of exegesis. This type of exegesis was represented by Hilary and Ambrose; but especially by Jerome and Augustine.
The fame of Jerome is based on his translation of the Vulgate, rather than on his interpretations of the Bible. He was familiar with both Hebrew and Greek, but his work in the exegetical field consists primarily of a large number of linguistic, historical, and archeological notes. Augustine differed from Jerome in that his knowledge of the original languages was very deficient. This is equivalent to saying that he was not primarily an exegete. He was great in systematizing the truths of the Bible, but not in the interpretation of Scripture. His Hermeneutical principles, which he worked out in his De Doctrina Christiana, were better than his exegesis. He demands that an interpreter shall be philologically, critically, and historically equipped for his task, and shall, above all, have love for his author. He stressed the necessity of having regard for the literal sense, and of basing the allegorical upon it; but, at the same time, he indulged rather freely in allegorical interpretation. Moreover, in cases where the sense of Scripture was doubtful, he gave a deciding voice to the regula fidei by which he meant a compendious statement of the faith of the Church. Sad to say, Augustine also adopted a fourfold sense of Scripture: a historical, an aetiological, an analogical, and an allegorical sense. And it was particularly in this respect that he influenced the interpretation of the Middle Ages.
QUESTIONS: What was the character of the early catechetical schools? What gave rise to the allegorical method of interpretation? How can you prove that the method is faulty? How did the Alexandrian school distinguish between pistis and gnosis? Did the Alexandrians recognize the human element in Scripture? What was the fundamental difference between the school of Alexandria and that of Antioch? What was meant by the regula fidei in the early Church? Why is it a mistake to make the teaching of the Church the standard of exegesis?