If now it be one of the chief problems of a scientific, evangelical theologian, to ascertain for himself, and to prove to others, that the primitive, and consequently scriptural form of Christianity corresponds to the laws and to the wants of the human mind, and is therefore true and a source of good; it is then, consequently, and will ever remain his first object, to become acquainted with the original and simple form and character of Christianity, unadulterated by foreign additions, and not disguised by arbitrary alterations and corruptions. This object can only be attained by THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF THE AUTHENTIC RECORDS. Hence the question becomes so important: Which of the different modes of interpretation that are followed, and which of the hermeneutical theories that have been set up, is the right one? Accordingly, this question has of late, when so many are returning to the principle of the evangelical church, been brought forward in various quarters; but has nevertheless, contrary to what one would expect, been answered in several different ways. The writer of this essay does not suppose, that in the following pages he has deeply enough weighed this important question in all its bearings, nor that he has satisfactorily answered it in its full extent. He entreats the reader rather to consider these thoughts, in which he hopes very many will again recognize their own, only as a preliminary attempt to answer this question. If now we ask, among all the modes of interpretation that have been proposed and practised, which is the right one? the general answer can surely be no other than this: That the right interpretation is that one, which deduces from the Holy Scriptures the very sense which the writers of them intended to convey.† neither blind nor-credulous."-The evangelical church, in opposition to the Roman catholic, has always required fidem explicitam, and not fidem implicitam et coecam. This requisition, therefore, does not originate with rationalism; but it is an old evangel ical one, as well as in itself rational. *The principal thoughts in the following pages, and the literature that belongs here, may also be found in the author's Lehrbuch des christl. Glaubens, 28. p. 146-152. + This definition is expressed in the original with a peculiar felicity, which cannot be given in English: "Dass diejenige Erklä rung die richtige sey, durch welche der von ihren Verfassern in die heiligen Schriften gelegten Sinn ausgelegt wird." But the sense is the thought, or the sum of the thoughts, which one will express by his words. To understand a writing, therefore, is to connect with the words of it, the thoughts which the writer wished to designate by them; and to interpret a writing, is to exhibit, in a perspicuous manner, the thoughts which the author connected with his words, and intended to express by them. I. Characteristics of a correct Theory of Interpretation. 1. Such an interpretation as that above described, can only take place, when we understand the language of the writer, i. e. not only the language generally in which his work is composed, e. g. the Greek, but especially the dialect in which he wrote, e. g. the Hellenistic; and if possible also the style peculiar to him, e. g. that of Paul, John, etc. We must also have reference to the internal and external circumstances and relations, in which he was placed; to his mental character and education, as known from his history or deducible from circumstances; to the manners and customs, and to the opinions of the people or community to which he belonged. In this way we arrive at the grammatico-historical sense. This is what we must look for, in explaining the Holy Scriptures, as well as other books; and the more certain and perfect our knowledge of the language and of the particular idiom, and the more full the historical accounts, an acquaintance with which is presupposed by the writings or passages to be explained, so much the more sure is the interpretation. 2. These general remarks serve to render apparent the importance and necessity of another hermeneutical canon, for determining the true sense in each particular passage, viz. the canon which is founded on the assumption, that every writer best explains himself, and that no intelligent writer will, as such, be inconsistent with himself. This canon, in the hermeneutics of the New Testament, has often been called the analogy of faith; more correctly, the analogy of the Holy Scriptures. It is the relation of the various declarations of the Holy Scriptures to one another; according to which, no real and essential contradiction can have place in them; while, on the contrary, they illustrate and supply each other. Thus the more obscure passages receive light from those that are clearer and generally intelligible; the metaphorical from those that are literal and without metaphor. It is also said: Scriptura Scripturae interpres. 3. Since the writings of whose interpretation we are here speaking, are holy writings, i. e. composed by men of holy minds and lives; and since they profess to contain a divine revelation, respecting truth and the means of becoming truly good and happy; we must, in order to be or to become capable of fully understanding them, come to the reading of the Holy Scriptures with a holy feeling, or with a heart open and longing for all that is good and true and divine. Then will the true sense and meaning of the Scriptures reveal themselves to us. In the contrary case, or if we are already prejudiced against them, although they contain the word of God, they will yet address us in language to us unintelligible and without effect. Indeed it cannot be otherwise, even considered philologically. In order to understand and fully to enjoy the poets, and consequently in order to explain them, a poetical feeling is requisite, which shall be capable of following out the vast variety of the poet's creations, and of accompanying the flights of his fancy. Whoever will understand the works of a profound philosopher, must have inclination and capacity to trace the course of his ideas, and penetrate the depths of his investigations. In like manner, there is every where required for the understanding of a writer a kindred spirit, qualified by preparation. Just so a holy feeling is requisite for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. In acknowledgement of this truth, therefore, our older interpreters required, in an entirely correct sense, that the Scriptures should be explained in or cum Spiritu sancto, and that no one should enter upon the reading of them without prayer. * This theory of interpretation is (1) in its principles applied to all writings in the world; they must be explained in accordance with the usage of language, with the history of their time, and with their internal connexion and spirit; and (2) this theory alone affords a certainty of rightly understanding a work, because it is exercised according to certain rules, that are clear and of easy application. This holds true of no other mode of interpretation. * Even Origen, in his time, wrote to his pupil Gregory, that in addition to other learned helps, prayer was the most necessary: ἀναγκαιοτάτη γὰρ καὶ ἡ περὶ τοῦ νοεῖν τὰ θεῖα εὐχή. Declarations of later evangelical divines, see in the Lehrbuch des christl. Glaubens p. 146 f. II. Other modes of Interpretation. All modes of interpretation besides the grammatico-historical, are either exercised in a spirit foreign to the Scriptures; or under the influence of a material principle,* in like manner more or less foreign to them. In the first case, when the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures takes place in a spirit foreign to them, a spirit therefore not holy, and consequently profane, the Scriptures are not explained nor interpreted, but travestied; and the result of such an interpretation of the Gospels is, e. g. a life of Jesus, such as has lately been given to the world by Dr Paulus. In the other case, when the interpretation takes place under the influence of a material principle foreign to the Scriptures, their true sense is distorted or corrupted. This material principle may be of different kinds, viz. a) An historical or traditional element; e. g. some symbolical or dogmatic system,-a circle of doctrines, definite and exclusive as to both matter and form, which are alone regarded as the pure biblical doctrines, consequently a traditio dogmatica, which now becomes a criterion for the possible results of interpretation, and is therefore at the same time hermeneutica. Or this element may be a subjective partial mode of conceiving the biblical doctrines, which one already brings with him to the reading and interpretation of Scripture, and according to which the sense of the Scriptures must be modified, abridged, or enlarged. Now instead of this, if it be an object to obtain a pure and evangelical system of doctrines, corresponding to the principle of the church, the opposite course ought to be pursued; and the system or the tradition purified, and its deficiencies supplied, by means of the true original sense of revelation, to be ascertained by free and impartial interpretation, in the manner above pointed out. This historical, ecclesiastical, or dogmatical interpretation can also assume a critical character, viz. when all that does not coincide with the regula fidei, (the material principle,) and yet is undeniably contained in the holy records by the fair rules of grammatico-historical exegesis, is nevertheless, according to certain assumed principles, set aside as not essential, and is thrown out as being e. g. something local, temporary, symbolical, or mythological; as something, in short, merely accessory * This term is here employed simply in opposition to spirit. ED. and external.*-The historico-dogmatical interpretation in its strict and narrower sense, proceeds upon the assumption, that certain individuals or bodies of men (e. g. the Fathers at Trent, or Luther and Calvin with their assistants, or the authors of creeds and confessions, when they, as such, are held to be infallible) have already fully and completely understood and explained the contents of the Holy Scriptures. And now this received mode of understanding and interpreting Scripture, which must ever be partial, and certainly does not exhaust the subject, is employed to determine what the Scriptures in general can mean, traditio s. regula fidei Scripturae interpres. The friends of the historico-critical interpretation in the proper sense, also, do not admit all that the Holy Scriptures contain according to grammatico-historical exegesis; but the Scriptures serve to confirm to them so much only as they please, i. e. so much as can be united with their subjective conceptions of the essence of Christianity. In general, these interpreters are guided by some philosophical system or other, according to which they have more or less altered their regula fidei. Nevertheless, the material principle by which they are directed, is at least still made up of biblical elements; although a wide departure may already have taken place, through the influence of some system of contemporary philosophy. b) On the other hand, the material principle thus brought to the interpretation of the Scriptures, may be also a purely philosophical one, either subjective or objective, i. e. it may be either a philosophical system of one's own, or adopted from another; philosophia sacrae Scripturae interpres. The character of this interpretation is, as to form, the same with that above described; except that here the Holy Scriptures are not made to conform to a received dogmatical or symbolic system, but to some philosophical scheme or to the ideas of some thinker,—to some subjective ratio or other, which schemes or ideas are by preference held to be the true ones, and which therefore can alone * See Bretschneider, 'Die historisch-dogmatische Auslegung des N. T. Leipz. 1806.-De Wette prefers to call it historico-critical, and declares himself a follower of it in his Biblische Theologie, $57 ff. + It is often difficult to determine, whether such an interpretation is more historical or philosophical. |