OLD TESTAMENT
the NT method is right. The redemption ex- perienced in Christ is a fulfilment of OT promises.
(Ὁ) In the Early Church, to A.D. 600.—The OT of the early Church was the LXX, used also, though not exclusively, by the NT writers. Hence some of the Church Voshers refer to the toed Loe books as though forming a part of the OT Scriptures, and certain of them came to be canonized by the Council of Trent (see art. APOCRYPHA in vol. i. p. 120ff.). The NT view and treatment of the OT (see above) passed into the Christian Church.
An excess of disparagement of the OT a rs in the of Barnabas (who ed certain Jewish institutions as Οἱ origin) and in Gnostic heretical sects and that of Marcion (who entirely rejected the OT): a failure to recognize sufficiently the transient elements of the a 1 serniga in the views of the Ebionite and other Judaizing
The restraint exhibited in the NT interpretation of the OT was no longer continued. Jewish methods, especially the allegorical, prevailed to extravagance (although a literal interpretation along with an emphasis upon the authority of tradition, according to the Jewish notion, was advocated by Irenwus [+202] and Tertullian (te. 220] against allegorizing Gnostics). The OT was regarded not only as a book of prophecy foreshadowing Christ and the gospel, but even as a compendium of Christian doctrine, to be perceived through its spiritual or allegorical meaning. This view and method of interpreta- tion, appearing in the earliest Christian writers (Justin Mart. + 148-165, and the Apost. Fathers generally), prevailed especially through the influ- ence of Origen (tc. 254), who disparaged the literal sense and held to a threefold meaning of Scripture, corresponding to the body, soul, and spirit (de Prin, Ty. i. 11): the literal or grammatical mean- ing, the practical meaning or application, the mys- tical or spiritual, i.e. allegorical (cf. S. Davidson’s Hermeneutics, p. 98 ff.). y the last he resolved all OT difficulties. Any statements, whether of rap! or law, appearing absurd, were rejected in their literal meaning, and received only in their spiritual or allegorical interpretation (de Prin. Iv. i. 15, 16). Even so gifted a scholar as Jerome (+420), while he said in one instance that the alle- i interpreter is insane (Comm. Jer. 27, from
avidson), yet used this method, although not to the extent of rejecting the OT history as literally true. Augustine (+ 430), in spite of the sound rules of exegesis which he laid down in de Doc. Christ., expounded the OT allegorically, although not with- out reference to the historical meaning, which he defended, and whose difficulties he sought to re- move (as, for example, the six days of Creation, which he resolved into wons, de Civ. Dei. xi. 6 f.). He also, however, divided interpretation into four kinds, historical, etiological, analogical, and alle- gorical. Scriptural interpretation became after him entirely dominated (as it had been in a large degree before) by ecclesiastical tradition or doc- trine. An exception to this allegorical treatment of the OT appeared in the school of Antioch, where, br Ser by Theodore of Mopsuestia (+ 429), the allegorizing of the OT was rejected, a difference in degree of revelation between the OT and the NT was recognized, and historical interpretations were given. (He exhibited the tendencies of modern Biblical criticism. All the Messianic a except three he seoeted as referring to
ezekiah and Zerubbabel. Canticles he rejected
istle evil
from the Canon.
He found no Trinity in the OT). Owing to the Nestorian heresy this school of inter- preters died out (Basil, +379, also rejected the allegorical method).
(c) Middle Ages, 600-1500.—In this dark period the allegorical interpretation continued, assuming & mystical exposition for inner spiritual growth
OLD TESTAMENT
rather than instruction (cf. Bernhard of Clair- vaux’s [+1153] sermons on Canticles). Ecclesias- tical usages were found ef pe in the OT. But little original work on the OT appeared. Scholars contented themselves with copyyng the opinions of Church Fathers (‘ Catenz’). et the true char. acter of the OT began to be appreciated. Nico- laus de Lyra (+1340) in his Commentaries, from his regard to the literal meaning, although he insisted upon the fourfold meaning, made the beginning in the Christian Church of a new epoch in Bible study and of a school of natural exegesis. He was influenced by the Jewish interpreters of this period, especially Rashi.
(d) Period of the Reformation, 1500-1600.—The Reformers made an advance (1) in recognizing the Heb. OT as furnishing alone the authoritative in- spired text, (2) in insisting upon the natural mean- ing and discarding the allegorical method of inter-
retation, and (3) in interpreting Scripture by Rerigtnte instead of by tradition or ecclesiastical authority. They followed the NT writers in recognizing the unity of the OT and the NT, and also the difference between them. Here, however, they failed (Calvin, + 1564, less than others) to do justice to the OT stages of Divine revelation, and the stage separating the OT from the NT. NT beliefs were ascribed to OT persons. Calvin held that the Israelites ‘in the land of Canaan beheld as in a mirror the future inheritance reserved for them in heaven’ (/nst. 1. ii. 1). The notion was common (expressed by Melanchthon, +1560) that the doctrines of the Church began in Paradise, and continued through all time.