EXEGE'SIS (from Gr. eks, out of, and egeomai, I lead) properly signifies the exposition or interpretation of any writings, but is almost exclusively employed in connection with the interpretation of sacred Scripture, to which, therefore, the subjoined remarks specially apply. The expositor or interpreter is called an exegete. To interpret a writing, means to ascertain thoroughly and fundamentally what are the conceptions and thoughts which the author designs to express by the words he has used. For this purpose, it is necessary, in regard to books written in a foreign language, that the exegete should know well, first, the precise signification of the words and idioms employed by the writer. This is termed grammalico-philological exegesis. In the next place, lie mast be acquainted with the things denoted by these words, and also with the history, antiquities, and modes of thought of the nation. This is termed historico-anti ejuarian exegesis. Both together constitute grammatico-historical exegesis. When only an exposition of tile system of thought contained in a writing is sought after, this is termed doctrinal or dogmatic E.; while the investigation of a secret sense, other than that literally conveyed by the words of a writing, is termed allegorical exegesis. But if a writing is regarded from a practical point of view, and in reference to its bearing upon life and manners, the exposition is termed moral exegesis. The complete and coherent E. of a writing forins what is called a commentary, but, if restricted to certain difficult words or knotty points, the elucidations are termed scholia. The scientific exhibition of the rules and means of E. is called hermeneutics (q.v.). In the earliest ages of the Christian church, the allegorical method of E. prevailed. By the Alexandrian school in particular, it was greatly abused. Origen, however, the greatest of this school, deserves high credit for endeavoring to secure a basis for grammatical E., by a sharp separation of the literal, the moral, and the mystical sense of Scripture. Besides the Alexandrian school, the Syrian historico-exegetic school had many adherents in the east. Among these may be mentioned Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraem Syrtis, John Chrysostom, Theodorus of Mopsuestia. First, towards the end of the 4th,, and during the 5th centuries, a narrowing of the principle of the free interpretation of Scripture begins to be observable, through the rapid development of monkery and the hierarchical system; in consequence of which, the importance of the classic writers was undervalued, and the study of them ultimately abandoned in the western church, while a feeling of supersti tious reverence, wholly unintelligent and unscriptural, grew up for the letter of the " Word," and E., if employed at all, was employed simply to bolster up preconceived views. By and by, independent E. was suppbanted by the well-known Catena, consist-' ing of expositions of books of Scripture strung together from the writings of the older church fathers. In the east, the first of these was got up by Procopius, 520 A.D. ; in the west, by Primasius, 550 A.D. Although much was done for the E. of the Old Testa ment by eminent Jewish scholars, such as Solomon. Jarchi, Aben-Esra, and David Kimchi, Christian theologians for the most part, kno, fug only the text of the Vulgate, stuck, during the dark ages, to the interpretations of the fathers. First in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, efforts were made by individual scholastics, especially by Abe lard, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, and Nicholas of Lyra, to reintroduce
something like a grammatico-historical E. of Scripture. But it was mainly to the great revival of letters in the 15th c., and the humanistic scholars whom it produced, such as Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, etc., that an advance in E. was owing. The Complutensian polyglott also exercised a great and beneficial influence. Shortly after, the reformation gave an impulse to E., so powerful, that it is felt at the present day; and, indeed, its effect is far more visible in the recent biblical criticism of Germany than it was in the days of Luther himself. The desire for the unfettered E. of Scripture strongly animated the reformers, but, in fact, the long black night of ignorance—known as the dark and middle ages—has influenced them too, and disqualified them for framing at once a comprehensive exegetical science. It required a couple of centuries to recover from the effects of mediaeval ignorance. The more important Lutheran exegetes are: Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, Joach. Camerarius, Strigel, Chemnitz, etc.; of the reformed or Calvinistic school may be mentioned Calvin, Zwingli, Meolampadius, Bucer, Beza, Bullinger, Grotius, Clericus, etc.; and of the Roman Catholics, especially Paul Sarpi. During the 17th c., the E. of Scripture was for the most part at a stand still, but about the middle of the 18th c. it suddenly revived. This revival was due principally to Joh. Aug. Ernesti (q.v.), and J. Sal. Semler (q.v.), who established new principles of criti cism and hermeneutics, through which grammatico-historical E. once more began to make its appearance. The labors of Wetstehi and Kenuicott in regard to biblical MSS. were of immense service. Since their day, on to the present, criticism has been con stantly at work on the writings of the Old and New Testament. Cognate languages• have been more and more profoundly studied; the antiquities of the east, of Egypt, Assyria, Arabia, and other countries, have been investigated, and brought to bear on the subject; the manners and customs which prevail in these lands, and which, in some of them, have prevailed from time immemorial; the laws that determine the growth of civilization in nations, and enable us to enter into and comprehend the condition of mind peculiar to races in a primitive stage of development, and to appreciate their modes of thought, and to weigh the value of their literary and religious records—all these have received, and are still receiving careful attention at the hands of numerous scholars, so that it is not too much to say that we are at the present day better fitted—so far as out ward helps go—to understand the real meaning of Scripture, than those who have lived at any other period subsequent to its composition. Among the eminent names in the recent development of biblical E. are F. A. Wolf, J. Day. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Gese nius, Wahl, Bretschneider, Winer, Rosenmtiller, Hitzig, Hirzel, Ewald, •mbreit, De Wette, Knobel, Lucke, Paulus, Meyer, Olshausen, Hengstenberg, etc. The influence of the grammatica-critical, and critico-historical E. of modern Germany, is only beginning to make itself felt in this country. The most important contributions to the science recently made by British scholars, are those by Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Stanley, Jowett, Ellicott, etc.