3. MedieVal Jeteish Interpretation. The Middle Ages, which brought no light from the Bible to the Christian church, were marked by distinct progress among the Jews in the interpretation of the Old Testament. Under the inspiration and example of the Arabs, whose language the Span ish Jews spoke, the study of Hebrew grammar at first flourished several hundred years in Spain, beginning with Jehudah Ibn Daud, or Chayuj, and closing with David Kimchi (died 1235), who wrote in Hebrew. Elias Levita (died 1549), a celebrated grammarian, belongs to the period of the Renaissance. Even Rashi (died io5) shows the influence of the new learning, although abid ing by traditional interpretations ; and Ibn Ezra (died 1167), who was in some respects a fore runner of the modern critics, is perhaps the most grammatical and historical of the medieval Jewish interpreters. David Kimchi, while subject to philo sophical presuppositions, also marks a distinct ad vance in the history of interpretation.
4. Interpretation by the Church Fathers. The process begun among the Jewish interpreters of putting their own ideas and speculations into the Old Testament, instead of drawing out the mean ing of the original writers, was continued by the Church down to the Reformation.
The effort made was to transform the Old Tes tament into a treasury of New Testament teach ing; the instrument used was allegory. In this respect the Church Fathers were following in the footsteps of New Testament writers, especially of Paul and of the author of the Epistle to the He brews. Clement of Rome (96 A. D.) sees in the scarlet cord, which Rahab was instructed to bind in her window. a symbol of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Barnabas (Epistle between t9,and 126 A. D.) finds in the three hundred and eight een servants of Abraham a symbol of the name of Jesus and the cross. Indeed, there is scarcely an allusion to Wood, or anything which can be tortured into a reminder of the cross, which is not seized upon by Barnabas and other Fathers as a symbol. Justin Martyr's dialogue with Try pho. the Jew 042-148), rests mostly on a use of the Old Testament, which we must consider invalid and superficial, and of which the Jew rightly complained. Such was the uncertainty and subjective character of interpretation in the ancient Church that Tertullian (born about 15o) maintained that argument with heretics was use less, because the issue was uncertain. He claims that Apostolic tradition is to be the test of the meaning of Scripture, thus foreshadowing the ac tion of the Council of Trent. Nor did the labors
of Origen (born 185, died 254), wonderful as they may be considered, produce sounder methods of interpretation. He sought, as the result of immense labor, through the preparation of his hexaplar text of the Old Testament, by placing the Hebrew text with the various Greek trans lations in parallel columns, to advance the knowl edge of the true text of the Old Testament. Through the errors of subsequent transcribers in disregarding the critical signs, the ancient text of the Septuagint fell into great confusion. Besides, Origen, who may be considered the leading repre sentative of the Alexandrian school, and a great admirer of Philo, sought to systematize the alle gorical mode of interpretation. He considered that Scripture had a threefold sense, consisting of body, or literal ; soul, or moral; spirit, or mys tical. The literal sense was useful for the most simple Christians. Through the allegorical inter pretation he found an easy refuge from all diffi culties in the Old Testament. The influence of Origen was permanent in the Church, although the Fathers who succeeded him did not go to as great lengths.
There were glimmerings of right principles of interpretation, as appears from the writings of Augustine (born 354, died 43o), the great theo logian, and Jerome (born 346, died 42o), the great Biblical scholar of the ancient Church ; but these principles, while recognized, had no controlling effect. Augustine adopted the seven exegetical rules of Tichonius, which were mostly harmful to right interpretation. While his exegetical works contain good comments on Old Testament pas sages, they are largely composed of fanciful inter pretations of Scripture. Among the Church Fathers, Jerome was the only Hebrew scholar worthy of the name. Besides him, with the ex ception of Origen, none could go back of transla tions of the Old Testament. Jerome enjoyed the best advantages for the study of the Old Testa ment that the time afforded. He spared" neither pains nor expense to master the Hebrew language. His Latin translation of the Bible was a work of great merit, which, after a test of centuries, dis placed its older rivals, and became the Vulgate of the Romish Church. While Jerome had much of the freedom and insight of the modern critic, he was not an original interpreter, and could not break loose from the faults of his time.