Among the Latin Christians the word interprez had a wider range than the corresponding Greek term, and the Latins had no precise term for the exposition of the Bible which exactly corresponded with the Greek. The word interpretalio was ap plied only in the sense of OCCUPATION or ACT of an expositor of the Bible, but not in the sense of CON TENTS elicited from Biblical passaA,es. The words tractare, tractatm; and tractalus, were in preference employed with respect to Biblical exposition, and the sense which it elicited. Together with these words there occur commentarius and expositio. In reference to the exegetical work of St. Hilary on St. Matthew, the codices fluctuate between cons mentarius and tractatus. St. Augustine's Iractatus are w ell known ; and this father frequently men tions the arivinantm scripturarunz frac/a/ores. For instance, Retractationes 1. 23. divinorum lractatores elogniorum. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 6. orer..;iiii.f . . . qui tractator sacrarium peritissimus habe balm Vincentius Lirinensis observes in his Com. monitor/um on r Cor. xii. 28 :—tertio doctores qui tractatores num. appellantur ; quos hic idem apos tolus etiam prophetas interdurn nuncupat, eo quod per eos proplietarum mysteria populis aperiantur (compare Dufresne, Glossarium media et //spina Latinitatis, sub TRACTATOR et TRACTATUS ; and Baluze, aa' Serval. Lupin, p. 479)• However, the occupation of intcrpres, in the nobler sense of this word, was not unknown to St. Jerome ; as may be seen from his Pralatio in libros Samuelis (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ix. p. 459) :— Quicquid enim crebrius vertendo et emendando solicitius et didicimus et tenemus, nostrum est. Et quum intellexeris, quod antea nesciebas, vel interpretem me estimato si gratus es, vel irapa cbpao-ript si ingratus.
In modern times the word inlerprelatio has again come into repute in the sense of scriptural exposi tion, for which, indeed, interpretation is now the standing technical term.
The German language also distinguishes between the words auslegen and erkMrezz in such a manner that the former corresponds to eOricicrOat and in terpretati. The word aztslegen is always used in the sense of rendering perceptible what is contained under signs and symbols. Compare Dionysii Hali carnassensis Antiq. Rom. ii. 73 : Tois TE 18LWTaiS, 6700-01 p.3) kraPC 701)S trepl ra. Oda. crepaolsok, 471 -rind -yivorrat Kai rpoOijrae.
The word erkldren, on the contrary, means to clear up by arguments what has beets indistinctly un derstood, so that what was incomprehensible is comprehended.
The Erklisrer does not develope what is hidden and concealed, but explains what is unclear and obscure (see Weigand, Wdrterbuch der Dell/schen Synonymen, 1, Mainz 18.4o, p. 14o, seq.) Hence it follows that the Ausleger of tbe I3ible occupies a position different from that of the Erhldrer, al though these terms are frequently employed as they were synonymous. The Ausleger, 4Orynrbs, opens what is concealed under the words of the Bible. He unveils mysteries, while the Erkldrer, epwlvds, sees in the words of the Bible not merely signs for something concealed and hidden, but words the sense of Which is to be cleared up when ever it is obscure. The Erkl.irer stands on NATU RAL ground, but the Aus/eser on SUPERNATURAL.
From ancient times tbe church, or rather eccle siastical bodies and religious denominations, have taken the supernatural position with reference to the Bible, as, before the Church, the Jews did in respect of the O. T. The church and denomina tions have demanded Ausleger, not Erkliirer. They have supposed that in the authors of Biblical books there did not exist a literary activity of the same kind which induces men to write down what they have thought, but have always required from their followers the belief that the Biblical authors wrote in a state of inspiration, that is to say, under a peculiar and direct influence of the Divine Spirit.
Sometimes the Biblical authors were described to be merely external and mechanical instruments of God's revelation. But however wide, or however narrow the boundaries were, within which the operation of God upon the writers was confined by ecclesiastical supposition, the origin of the Biblical books was always supposed to be essentially diffe rent from the origin of human compositions ; and this difference demanded the application of peculiar rules in order to understand the Bible. There were required peculiar arts and kinds of informa tion in order to discover the sense and contents of books which, on account of their extraordinary origin, were inaccessible by the ordinary way of logical rules, and whose written words were only outward signs, behind which a higher and divine meaning was concealed. Consequently, the church and denorninations required Deuter, Ausleger, 1,Sn -riral, or interpreters, of the signs by means of which God had revealed his will. Thus neces sarily arose again in the Christian church the art of opening or interpreting the supernatural ; which art had an existence in earlier religions, but with this essential difference, that the signs, by the opening of which supernatural truth was obtained, were now more simple, and of a more intelligible kind, than in earlier religions. They were now written signs, which belonged to the sphere of speech and language, through which alone all modes of thinking obtain clearness, and can be readily communicated to others. But the Holy Scriptures in which divine revelation was preserved, differ, by conveying divine thoughts, from common language and writing, which convey only human thoughts. Hence it followed that its sense was much deeper, and far exceeded the usual sphere of human thoughts, so that the usual requisites for the right understanding of written documents appeared to be insufficient. According to this opinion a LOWER and a higher sense of the Bible were dis tinguished. The lower sense was that which could be elicited according to the rules of gramrnar ; the higher sense was considered to consist of deeper thoughts concealed under the grammatical mean ing of the words. These deeper thoughts they endeavoured to obtain in various ways, but not by grammatical research.
The Jews, in the days of Jesus, employed for this purpose especially the typico-allegorical inter pretation. The Jews of Palestine endeavoured by means of this mode of interpretation especially to elicit the secrets of futurity, which were said CO be fully contained in the O. T. (See Whner, Anti quitates Ifebrceorum, vol. i., Gotting 114.3, p. 34t, sq. ; Dopke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftseller, Leipzig 1829, p. SS, sq., 164, sq.; Hirschfeld, der Geist der Talmua'ischen Auslegung der Bike', Berlin IS40; comp. Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ; Justin Martyr, Apo/. i. pp. 52, 61 ; Bret. schneider, Historzirch-dognzatische Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes, Leipzig ISo6, p. 35, sq.) The Alexandrine Jews, on the contrary, endea voured to raise themselves from the simple sense of the words, T6 ifruxtto5v, to a higher, more general, and spiritual sense, rd z-vcvgarocov (see D'ahne, Geschictliche Darstellung der jiidisch-Alexana'rinis chen Religions-Philosaphie, Halle 1834, p. 52, sq. ; 11.17, 195, sq., 209, 228, 20). Similar prin ciples were adopted by the authors of the N. T. (see De Wette, Ueber die Syntbolisch-Typische Leh rart in Briefe an die Hebraer, in der Theologisthen Zeitschrift, von Schleiermacher und De Wette, part ; Tholuck, Beilage vim Commentar fiber den Brief atz die Hebriter, IS4o).
These two modes of interpretation, the ALLE