On the death of Baumgarten, in 1757, Semler became the most prominent memlier of the faculty at Halle, and enjoyed an uneqiutlled popularity despite the confusion, and even liarreiniess, of his deliveries. As he became bolder in the ]iresentation of his views, he was violently opposed by the orthodox party — periodicals were filled with invectives, and ministerial associations entertain- ed charges against him, but all this served only to in- crease his po|)ularity, until none of his colleagues could venture to dispute his pre-eminence, though the list in- cluded such names as J. G. Knapp, Nosselt, ami (iruner, J. L. Schulze, A. Frcylinghausen, (i. Chr. Knapp, and A. H. Niemayer. In 1779 he wrote a reply to the Wol- fenbiittel Fragmentist, however, and also a critique of Bahrdt's Confession of Faith {Antirort an f das Bahrdt- sche Gla ubensbekenntniss'), in which lie zealously contend- ed for the doctrines of the Church and thereby under- mined his position. His friends at once charged him with duplicity, and the government, acting through the minister Zedlitz (the patron of Bahrdt), deprived him of the directorship of the theological-pedagogical seminary, on the ground that his recent course had de- stroyed his hold on the confidence of the public. A innid>er of writings from his pen, devoted, on the one liand, to the promotion offree tlioiighf,and, on the oth- er, to the defence of churclily orthodoxy, were issued in the period immediately following, and did much to in- tensify the opposition raised against him from every side, and when he became a believer in alchemy, in the last years of his life, it was acce|)ted by many as a proof of impaired vigor in his mind. He died in 1791.
Sender's criticism was directed against two points: (1) the tradition.'il view with respect to the canon of the Piible; and (2) the ordinary treatment of t!hur<'h history, particularly that of the earlier jieriod. His merit consists in having destrove<l many errors in con- sequence of his investigations, and in having opened the way to more correct opinions.
1. Semler's Exposition of the Canon. — The traditional view regarded Ihe canon as constituting a unit which is everywhere e<|ually inspired ; and this view had been shaken in his own mind by the studies of \\. .Simon, (.'lericus, an*! Wetlstein, and also by his own investiga- tions. He became convinced that the opinions of re- cent times did not correspond with those of the earlier
SEMLER
523
SEMLER
ages, and that theological views are subject to constant clianges (his desultory mind was incapable of attaining to the idea of a progressive development in theology). With respect to the canon, he came to think that the original idea was not that of a fixed norm of doctrine whicli should be binding for all ages, but rather that of "a catalogue of the books which were read in the as- semblies of Christians." These books were brought to- gether tlirough the force of accidental considerations rather than in pursuance of a definite plan. The early Christians decided to accept as di\ine those books of the Old Test, (whose canon was already variously' es- tablished by the Palestinians, the Samaritans, and the Alexandrians) which should be found in the Septuagint translation, the latter being regarded as inspired; and as the enumeration of canonical books belonging to the New Test, varied in the early Church, the bishops, for the sake vf uniformity, agreed upon a definite number of booiis which should be used as a canonicu lectio in the worshii) of the Church. Semler's investigations into the character of the Old and New Test, texts likewise contributed to overturn the traditional idea of the inspiration of the Scriptures; for while that theory as- sumed that the text of the Bible had descended unalter- ed through the centuries to us, he urged that the Holy Spirit had himself caused a revision of the Scriptures by the liand of Ezra, and that it could not be supposed, in the face of historical and diplomatic data, that an ex- traordinary divine supervision had been exercised over copyists. He insisted, further, that the Scriptural writ- ings show on their face that they were not intended to be a norm of doctrine for all men, since the Old Test. was written for Jews whose religious apprehension was but limited, the Gospel by Matthew for extra-Palestini- an Jews, that by John for Christians possessed of Gre- cian culture. He argues that it was necessary to ac- commodate the teachings of Christianity to the needs of these various classes, which explains the appeal to miracles and the use of "stories" by Jesus and some of the apostles — the oap^, according to his opinion — and the emphasizing of the Trvtvua hy Paul. The latter apostle sought to adapt his writings to the Jewish moiles of thought so long as he entertained the hope of gaining over the Jews in considerable numbers to the new religion — the Epistle to the Hebrews being an illus- tration; but he eventually abandoned this hope, and so became the first to make Christianity a religion for the world. The Catholic epistles, finally, were intended to unite the two ancient parties of Christendom — the Jew- ish and the more liberal Pauline. The very beginnings of the historical criticism thus present in outline the results attained by the most recent Tiibingen school. With respect to the Apocalypse, Semler regarded it as a sort of Jewish mythology — "the production of an ex- travagant dreamer" — and wrote much to demonstrate its iMifitness for the place it holds in the canon.