THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
lish the sense is to explicate with the proper means as the case is conceived in the mind. Exegesis is to be differentiated from criticism, nearly related though they are. The former is inductive and analytical; the latter is synthetic. 2. Relations Exegesis asks what a thing means;
to Criticism criticism asks about its correctness and and truth. Exegesis seeks to know,
Philology, to interpret, to explicate; criticism to value and correct. But the conditions of serviceable and artistic comprehension lie partly in the general laws of human thought and expression, partly in the special quality of the material under examination. " He who would the poet know, must to the poet's country go " is a universal maxim. Sympathy gives the closest insight. So that for appreciation of a religious thought more than esthetic apprehension is required. In this criticism and exegesis are handmaidens, both are peerless schoolmistresses to lead to Christ, but only under the condition stated. Exegetical art is called out by material which, originating in the past, has by its inherent worth come down to the present instinct with, vital force. In early times, it dealt with Homer and the myths because they had meaning for religious and spiritual life. The type was philological, and had in view complete explanation from the standpoint of history, archeology, philosophy, and esthetics. Indeed, exegesis gains its individuality and completeness through the material with which it deals so far as this is a coherent whole and has relationship to the life of the present. Thus modern exegesis has attained definite form in two branches, jurisprudence and theology, working upon the Corpus juris and the Bible. In these two spheres the character of the material produces essentially different results. Jurisprudential exegesis expounds the rules and methods which Roman law embraced, hence the interest is largely historical.
Biblical exegesis deals with a work which was
the canon of the Church, the understanding and
the use of which has from the beginning been
vexed by religious postulates and dogmatic
claims. When, then, historical ex-
3. Exegesis planation of its facts brought ever and more clearly into view departure from
Dogmatics, dogmatic conclusions or even opposition to them, questions were raised about the Bible, its character and its authority, and about the right of exegesis and its methods, which must remain for each generation to solve, since the Bible is ever the religious source for the Christian Church. And then questions arise as to the functions of exegesis. Is it purely explicative or is it normative? Exegetical and ecclesiastical interests clash. When the latter prevail, producing the Roman Catholic type, exegesis is bound up with the tradition of the Church, and almost becomes supererogatory in the dogma that Scripture is its own interpreter. On the other hand, emphasis upon the historical element alone without reference to the religious character of the material makes of exegesis a mere discipline. Choice may be made between a purely historical and grammat-
ical type and one which is to have somewhat of a dogmatic character. If the canon is a historical development, the question appears to be decided. The function of exegesis is to know and discern the character of Scripture and why it has that character. Their own limitations require that exegesis and dogmatics work independently. Methodical and reliable exegesis guarantees that dogmatics is building not upon mysteries and fraud; while the necessity for a dogmatic formulation of the contents of Scripture produces in exegesis the consciousness of the seriousness of its task. Exegesis produces from the sources a Biblical history and theology which have no immediate relation to the task of dogmatics. > It works over the Scriptures independently and positively not merely to satisfy itself with certainty, but as a support to churchly theology by furnishing it its certainty. On this account there is required complete severance from all dogmatic postulates as furthering both scientific and ecclesiastical interests.
But if the purely historical character of exegesis
is maintained, does it not become an exclusive
discipline? The Old Testament contains the
remains of a national religious litera-
4. Exegesis ture which presents peculiarities of
and Theo- speech, special forms of religious
logical ideas, and having a purpose which is
Science, entirely different from that of the New Testament, which has by no means the character of a national literature and bespeaks a movement differing in type from that which produced the Old Testament (see Hebrew Language and Literature, II). These two parts of the Bible offer different problems to exegesis, both being religious sources, and through the origin of Christianity historically bound together. Must there be two kinds of exegesis? Here neither the postulates of a method alien to the essence of the testimonies to faith in Scripture itself nor ecclesiastical decisions regarding the nature of the canon determine the method, which is ruled alone by the contents of Scripture in its reciprocal relations. From a dogmatic truth exegetical verity does not follow, but one does proceed from exegetical truth to dogmatic verity. This makes clear one of the relations of exegesis to theological science. It has grown out of ecclesiastical needs and is security for the pure Christian character of the Christian organization, and so has vindicated its right to a place in theological science. It has in view not simply the history of Israel and the origin of Christianity, but definite testimony to the religious spirit which has bound together the Old and the New Testament. It employs the underlying disciplines of Biblical philology, introduction, archeology, history of the times, and criticism of the text. Trustworthy results are attained only when questions of the trustworthiness of the text are raised and settled, and so with other problems. As a result, the exegete, like the historian, has in his hand the power of palingenesis by educing 'i,nd strengthening the sense of the historically and psychologically possible.
II. The Method: The ultimate purpose of the exegete is reached when on the one side he under-