BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION.
The Eighteenth Century (§ 7). The Nineteenth Century (§ 8). II. New Testament. 1. History of the Discipline. To the Reformation (§ 1). The Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries (§ 2). Michaelis (§ 3).
Semler, Schmidt, and Others (§ 4). Baur (§ 5). Later Work (§6). 2. The Conception and the Task. History of New Testament Scriptures (§ 1). History of the Canon (§ 2). Textual Criticism and Versions (§3).
I. Old Testament: The science of Old Testament Introduction, like that of Biblical Introduction in general, has developed from indefinite beginnings, and has not yet won the assured and universally recognized form which most other theological disciplines have assumed. The name eisagoge was used in the fifth century by the Syro-Greek monk Adrian, the terms introductory libri and introductory in the sixth by Cassiodorus. But these terms carried the meaning of a general and instructive direction how to read the Bible, a guide to its correct understanding, an exposition of the correct principles of exegesis. A complete under-
standing of the Bible involves, however, a number of auxiliary sciences — linguistics, exegesis, history of literature, general history, archeology, geography, Biblical theology, etc., all useful in 1. Nature obtaining a right apprehension of _an Scripture. But so large a conception
of the °^ ^ue science was n°t reached all at Discipline. once. It was J. G. Carpzov who first appreciated the comprehensive nature of the discipline and defined it as the precise setting forth of those matters a knowledge of which prepares the approach to the reading of the sacred books. Similarly De Wette understood by Intro-
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Biblical History Biblical Introductioa
duction all knowledge which contributed to the intelligent reading of the Bible, and which set it forth as a whole and in its parts in relation to history. Keil regarded it as an exposition of those matters the understanding of which prepares for a fruitful reading of Scripture, by which he understands only a history of the text, of the origin of the individual writings, the story of the rise of the canon, and of the general conception of Scripture. A new start was made by H. Hupfeld, who held that Introduction sought to discover what were the writings embraced in the Bible and how they had come to be what they are. In other words, what is sought are the extent and original character of the writings, and a knowledge of the vicissitudes through which they have passed in attaining their present form, unity, worth, and effectiveness. But care is needed in following such a formulation lest one make of Old Testament Introduction simply a history of Hebrew literature, a mistake made by Reuss, who included in his work the letter of Aristeas and the writings of Philo. The first consideration of this science must be its service to theology; its principal concern is with the books of the canon held by the Jews of Palestine, and only secondarily with the circle of writings derived horn Hellenistic sources. Care must also be taken not to limit the task of Introduction so as to take away its freedom and to bind it in effect to the pronouncements of tradition as to authorship. On the other hand, Introduction is not what Riehm would make it, the literary-historical characterization of the Bible as the authentification of a divine revelation. It has its own functions to perform in the service of theological science, and its usefulness must not be diminished by setting it at tasks which it may not undertake. Its work is a preparation for that of exegesis and for that of Biblical theology. As Reuss has well expressed the fact, the science of Introduction is not the house itself, but is the set of calculations and estimates necessary for the actual processes of building.
From the preceding it follows that the articulation of this discipline in the general science of theology is fixed. In the arrangement and handling of its subject-matter it demands and requires great freedom; on the other hand, certain lines are laid down along which it must operate. Thus, while the origin of the separate writings and the story of their transmission (history of the text) are its concern, it is a matter of choice whether consideration of the individual writings precede or follow consideration of their collection into a canon. „ Not unimportant is the question of
of me*hod of investigating the individual Treat- writhigs. Thus, the chronological orment. ^er certainly lies near to hand, as in the treatment by Wildeboer and Kautzsch; yet, illuminating as this method is, weighty considerations may be urged for another way of proceeding. If one is disposed to emphasize the theological character of the discipline, concentrating his attention upon the writings received into the canon, the chronological, historical-literary order assumes a complexion of incompleteness, since only a small part of Hebrew
literature found place in the canon and that part was not composed with the object of being gathered into a collection. By a simpler grouping the advantage is gained of awakening no expectations which are doomed to disappointment. Then, too, there are practical difficulties attending such a method. Over the origin of most Old Testament writings rests a darkness not yet dispelled and probably never wholly to be banished. Moreover, many of the writings, such as the historical books, are complex in origin, and refer to preceding compositions of which too little is known to admit of their being taken into a history of the literature. These same books also bear traces of being transmitted and worked over by hands the methods of operation of which are altogether uncertain. This historical method consequently leads frequently into a cul-de-sac. It is, therefore, not without reason that many have adopted the literary-historical method, following the grouping of the canon so far as to consider the historical books by themselves, the Prophets in another section, and so on, while the three departments of Introduction are history of the canon, of the separate books, and of the text. Whether a history of exegesis is to be included in this branch of study is debatable. For the history of the Bible in a narrower sense it is not important; yet in itself and its relationship it has such value that there is some justification for including in Introduction what properly belongs in hermeneutics.
The history of this science shows in all its phases the same marked trait; viz., that the Church, which would fain remain in restful 3. History, and thankful enjoyment of the Scriptures as handed down, has been compelled by outside pressure to take up the problems of the origins of those Scriptures and either to modify or discard the traditions regarding them. In the earliest times this pressure came partly from Jewish sources, later from linguistic science and philosophy, and later still from the Roman Catholic Church, which sought to undermine the Protestant principle. Only the salient points of the development of Introduction can be here given.
The beginnings are found in the treatment of the
canon in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, in Josephus
and the Talmud, and in the controversy between the
Jews and some of the Church Fathers respecting
the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canon. This
led up to the text-critical labors of Origen. The
next name is that of Jerome, about whose
time began work on Introduction, but with the
limits in treatment already referred to above,
by Adrian and Cassiodorus, the latter of whom
dealt briefly with the history of the
4. To the texf. and of the canon_ A slight
enais- a(jvance was macle in the work of
Junilius Africanus (about 550) called
Instituta regularia divince legis. This classified
the books according to their contents as history,
prophecy, proverbs, and simple teaching, and
according to their degree of authority as perfect,
medium, or of no authority; it distinguished also
between poetical and prose writings. In this
Biblical Introduction