History of Interpretation

there is a want of living connexion between rows of facts and no definite principle on which to decide why some fats were to be regarded as typical and others a Lice all the ancient interpreters he lacked the cc.eption of Level prent, of a living growth and progress in the cler of revelation. Again-not to enter on the defects an errors of his theology-he does not rise superior to the infrace of "bias," which sometimes leads him to get rid of passages which tell against his special views. It is, further, true that he is not eminent as a textual critic, and sometimes chooses his readings on arbitrary principles Once more, his interests are intellectual and dogmatic rather than devotional and spiritual, so that in these respects he is far inferior to his friend St. Chrysostom. Photius blamed his style for its diffuseness, obscurity, and tautology, and we cannot but regret that he often attacks other commentators with scarcely merited derision. Some of his faults may be due to the self-reliance of an ardent and ingenious temperament ; others to the rhetorical training which he had received in the School of Libanius; others again to restless productiveness; others perhaps to some uncertainty as to the scope and issue of views in which he was far before his time. "His literary faults," it has been said, "were but the reflexion of mental imperfections which to some extent vitiate his work as well as his style, his theology no less than the form in which it is cast." But while his faults are thus freely admitted, it remains true that he was worthy of his title as "The

"according to some" the Syrian version renders the word by "peg"! Because the Apostles used the LXX. he seems always to assume that the LXX. is right, the Peshito wrong.

Thus on Eph. iv. 10 (8 karaẞàs autós éσri kal & àvaßàs he denies that this is true literally; and on Col. i. 13 persuades himself that Christ's "adoption" of manhood is involved in rns ayarns, that ev aur points to the second or spiritual creation, and that the Pleroma which dwelt in Christ was the Church, His Body. See Swete's edition of Theodore of Mopsuestia, i. lxxi.

In Eph. iii. 15 he reads pparpía for warpiά. In Eph. ii. 22 he comments on ἀφὴ not οἰκοδομή.

* Photius, Cod. 4, but he calls him ταῖς διανοίαις καὶ τοῖς ἐπιχειρήμασι λίαν πυκνός, καὶ ταῖς γραφικαῖς ἄριστα πλουτῶν μαρτυρίαις.

Swete, p. lxv.

Exegete" of the early Church, as Theodoret is the Annotator and Chrysostom the Homilist. His merits are so conspicuous that Theodoret does not shrink from calling him "The Master of the whole Church."

For Theodore was a man "of bold independence and masculine sagacity;" a leader of thought; a writer of rare acumen, of fearless honesty, of prodigious industry, of ardent sincerity, of unquestionable power. He was a Voice not an Echo; a Voice amid thousands of echoes which repeated only the emptiest sounds. He rejected the theories of Origen, but he had learnt from him the indispensable importance of attention to linguistic details1 especially in commenting on the New Testament.2 He pays close attention to particles, moods, prepositions, and to terminology in general. He points out the idiosyncrasies (idiμara) of St. Paul's style. He is almost the earliest writer who gives much attention to Hermeneutic matter, as for instance in his Introductions to the Epistles to Ephesus and Colossae. He enters into such collateral questions as Church organisation, early ecclesiastical history, the condition of slaves and women in the heathen world, and adds to the interest of his treatment by references to contemporary matters such as sacerdotal arrogance, false liberalism, and the spirit of persecution. His highest merit is his constant endeavour to study each passage as a whole and not as "an isolated congeries of separate texts." He first considers the sequence of thought, then examines the phraseology and the separate clauses, and finally furnishes us with an exegesis which is often brilliantly characteristic and profoundly suggestive.

But his crowning merit was the original yet unhappily fruitless stand which he made against the subtle fascination

1 Linguistic, but unfortunately not historical or geographical. Questions about Tarshish, Bothrus (1.XX. for 7 Am. ix. 7), &c., he flings aside as περιττὴ ἀκριβολογία.

2 Ambrose says that Origen was longe minor in Novo Testamento," but in spite of prolixity he is in fact better as a New Testament than as an Old Tes tament exegete, and his notes on the use of words (John i. 3; iv. 25, 44, &c.) are often excellent. See Dr. Sanday in Expositor, xi. 371.

3 Questions as to

“Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auspiciis, cur, quomodo, quando."

there is a want of living connexion between rows of facts and no definite principle on which to decide why some facts were to be regarded as typical and others not. Like all the ancient interpreters he lacked the conception of Development, of a living growth and progress in the order of revelation. Again-not to enter on the defects and errors of his theology-he does not rise superior to the influence of "bias," which sometimes leads him to get rid of passages which tell against his special views.1 It is, further, true that he is not eminent as a textual critic, and sometimes chooses his readings on arbitrary principles. Once more, his interests are intellectual and dogmatic rather than devotional and spiritual, so that in these respects he is far inferior to his friend St. Chrysostom. Photius blamed his style for its diffuseness, obscurity, and tautology, and we cannot but regret that he often attacks other commentators with scarcely merited derision. Some of his faults may be due to the self-reliance of an ardent and ingenious temperament; others to the rhetorical training which he had received in the School of Libanius; others again to restless productiveness; others perhaps to some uncertainty as to the scope and issue of views in which he was far before his time. "His literary faults," it has been said, were but the reflexion of mental imperfections which to some extent vitiate his work as well as his style, his theology no less than the form in which it is cast." 4 But while his faults are thus freely admitted, it remains true that he was worthy of his title as "The

"according to some "the Syrian version renders the word by "peg"! Because the Apostles used the LXX. he seems always to assume that the LXX. is right, the Peshito wrong.

1 Thus on Eph. iv. 10 (ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς) he denies that this is true literally; and on Col. i. 13 persuades himself that Christ's "adoption" of manhood is involved in rns ayarns, that ev aur points to the second or spiritual creation, and that the Pleroma which dwelt in Christ was the Church, His Body. See Swete's edition of Theodore of Mopsuestia,

if.

lxxi.

In Eph. iii. 15 he reads pparpía for maтpiá. In Eph. ii. 22 he comments on ἀφὴ not οἰκοδομή.

s Photius, Cod. 4, but he calls him ταῖς διανοίαις καὶ τοῖς ἐπιχειρήμασι λίαν πυκνός, καὶ ταῖς γραφικαῖς ἄριστα πλουτῶν μαρτυρίαις.

Swete, p. lxv.

For Theodore was a man "of bold independence and masculine sagacity;" a leader of thought; a writer of rare acumen, of fearless honesty, of prodigious industry, of ardent sincerity, of unquestionable power. He was a Voice not an Echo; a Voice amid thousands of echoes which repeated only the emptiest sounds. He rejected the theories of Origen, but he had learnt from him the indispensable importance of attention to linguistic details 1 especially in commenting on the New Testament.2 He pays close attention to particles, moods, prepositions, and to terminology in general. He points out the idiosyncrasies (idipara) of St. Paul's style. He is almost the earliest writer who gives much attention to Hermeneutic matter, as for instance in his Introductions to the Epistles to Ephesus and Colossae. He enters into such collateral questions as Church organisation, early ecclesiastical history, the condition of slaves and women in the heathen world, and adds to the interest of his treatment. by references to contemporary matters such as sacerdotal arrogance, false liberalism, and the spirit of persecution. His highest merit is his constant endeavour to study each passage as a whole and not as "an isolated congeries of separate texts." He first considers the sequence of thought, then examines the phraseology and the separate clauses, and finally furnishes us with an exegesis which is often brilliantly characteristic and profoundly suggestive.

But his crowning merit was the original yet unhappily fruitless stand which he made against the subtle fascination

1 Linguistic, but unfortunately not historical or geographical. Questions about Tarshish, Bothrus (1.XX. for TP Am. ix. 7), &c., he flings aside as περιττὴ ἀκριβολογία.

Ambrose says that Origen was "longe minor in Novo Testamento," but in spite of prolixity he is in fact better as a New Testament than as an Old Testament exegete, and his the use of words (John i. 3; iv. 25, 44, &c.) Jay in Expositor, xi. 371.

auspiciis, cur, quomodo, quando."

there is a want of living connexion between rows of facts and no definite principle on which to decide why some facts were to be regarded as typical and others not. Like all the ancient interpreters he lacked the conception of Development, of a living growth and progress in the order of revelation. Again not to enter on the defects and errors of his theology-he does not rise superior to the influence of "bias," which sometimes leads him to get rid of passages which tell against his special views.1 It is, further, true that he is not eminent as a textual critic, and sometimes chooses his readings on arbitrary principles. Once more, his interests are intellectual and dogmatic rather than devotional and spiritual, so that in these respects he is far inferior to his friend St. Chrysostom. Photius blamed his style for its diffuseness, obscurity, and tautology, and we cannot but regret that he often attacks other commentators with scarcely merited derision. Some of his faults may be due to the self-reliance of an ardent and ingenious temperament; others to the rhetorical training which he had received in the School of Libanius; others again to restless productiveness; others perhaps to some uncertainty as to the scope and issue of views in which he was far before his time. "His literary faults," it has been said, "were but the reflexion of mental imperfections which to some extent vitiate his work as well as his style, his theology no less than the form in which it is cast." "4 But while his faults are thus freely admitted, it remains true that he was worthy of his title as "The

"according to some "the Syrian version renders the word by "peg"! Because the Apostles used the LXX. he seems always to assume that the LXX. is right, the Peshito wrong.

1 Thus on Eph. iv. 10 (δ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ ἀναβὰς) he denies that this is true literally; and on Col. i. 13 persuades himself that Christ's "adoption" of manhood is involved in τns ayarns, that ev aur points to the second or spiritual creation, and that the Pleroma which dwelt in Christ was the Church, His Body. See Swete's edition of Theodore of Mopsuestia, i. p. lxxi.

In Eph. iii. 15 he reads pparpía for Taтpid. In Eph. ii. 22 he comments on ἀφὴ not οἰκοδομή.

Swete, p. lxv.

« Previous Continue »

Books

History of Interpretation: Eight Lectures Preached Before the University of ...