The defense of the older Tiihingen school dif fered from this weak effort of orthodoxy, inas much as its purpose was to support a supernat ural Christianity rather than an authoritative confessionalism. Tts best representatives in New Testament exegesis are Storr (died 1505), Com mentary on Hebrews (Tiibingen, 1759) ; his pi;pil .1. E. Hatt (died 1821), Commentaries on Most of the Epistles (Tfibingen. 1525-31), and Tfess (died S2S), Com mental?, on Arts ( Zurich, 1775) ; Life of Jesus (ib., 1781). lint here, too, the late members of the school—e.g. the younger (died 1826) and Steudel (died 1337)— became more independent, and were allied rather with the naturalism against which they were supposed to stand.
What an orthodox and even a supernaturalis tic exegesis were not able in themselves to effect against rationalism, however, was being brought about by the critical philosophy of Kant (died 1304), which in its unconscious emphasis of skep ticism destroyed the confidence in reason as the criterion of revelation. The destructive efforts of this philosophy were supplemented construc tively by the school of Schleiermacher (died 1834), who, standing in the midst of the ration alistic and evangelical struggle, seemed to partake of both tendencies and yet belonged really to neither. His New Testament exposition, limited in amount (Commentary on Timotlry, Berlin, 1807; Hermeneuti-es, ed. by Lucke, ib., 1833; Life of Jesus, ed. by Rutenik, ib., 1864), is not the most valuable part of his work; but its in fluence on subsequent exegesis was pronounced. This is evident in the exegetical writings of Olshausen (died 1839; Commentary on the New Testament, continued by Ebrard and Wiesinger, trans., Edinburgh, 1847-49; A Word on the Deeper Sense of Scripture, ib., 1824; The Biblical Expo sition of Scripture, Hamburg, 1825) ; Neander (died 1850; Commentary on I. John, Philip pians, and James, trans., New York, 1859; Life of Jesus, trans., London, 1848) ; Lucke (died 1855; Commentary on the Writings of John, trans., Edinburgh, 1837; Elements of New Testa ment Hermeneutics, ib., 1816) ; Ruckert (died 1871; Commentary on Romans, Leipzig, 1339; Galatians, ib., 1833; Ephesians, ib., 1834; Corin thians, ib., 1836-37) ; Tholuck (died 1877; Com mentary on Romans, trans., Edinburgh, 1343; Jol»gs Gospel, trans., ib., 1836; Sermon on the iloun-t, trans., ib., 1860; Hebrews, trans., ib., 1852). It is true that none of these writers ex actly represented Schleiermacher's position. They carried out his method of an organic interpreta tion of Scripture, but they developed it to evan gelical degrees which Sehleiermacher would not have accepted. This is particularly true of Tho luck, whose commentaries are deeply spiritual in tone and based on a profound conviction of the divine authority of Scripture. though free from any mechanical idea of inspiration.
Yet even the power of this profoundly influen tial school of exegetes was not sufficient to stop the skeptical impulses started by Kant's destruc tive philosophy. Even before Schleiermacher's. death these had worked themselves out into the systems of Fichte (died 1814) and Hegel ((lied 1831 ), the latter of which afterwards formed the background for the mythical theory of Strauss (died 1574; Life of Jesus, trans., London, 1846)
and the critical work of the later Tubingen school of Baur (died 1860; Paul the Apostle, trans., London. 1873-75). This school devoted itself to Church history and criticism rather than to ex egesis. Only the following adherents of Baur can be said to have eontrilmi(d specifically to New Testament exposition: Vollmer (died 1872: Commentary on A poentypse, Tiibingen. 1862; Romans, Zurich, 1375) ; Ilolsten (died 1807; Commentary on Galatians. Rostock. 1.859; expo sition of Galatians, Corinthians. and Romans in his Gospel of Paul, part i. only finished, 'Berlin, 1380). At the same time, however, it carried nut to its results Semler's prineiple of the em phasis of the historical element in New Testa meat interpretation, but with such a skeptical attitude of mind toward the New Testament itself us to arouse the definite and distinct hostility, not only of the closer followers of SchIciernmeher. but also of a group of exegetes who, while not so profoundly influenced by spirit, yet followed in the way of his organic treatment of Scripture. The better representatives of this group are: Winer (died 1858; Exegetical Studies, Leipzig, 1827; Commentary on Galatians, Leipzig, 1859) ; Bleek (died 185'J; Commentary on Ilehreics, Berlin, 1828-40; Lectures on the Apocalypse, ih., 1862; Colossians, Ephesians, Philenum, il)„, 1865; He brews, Elberfeld, 1868; Synopti•al Explanation of the First Three Gospels, Leipzig, 1862); B. A. W. Meyer ((lied 1873), editor of the Critical Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (trans., Edinburgh, 1873, sqq.), to which he per sonally contributed in the first edition Matthew, Nark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians; Beck (died 1878; Exposition of Epistles to Timothy, Outersloh, 1879; Apoc alypse, ib., 1883; Commentary on A pocalypse, 1884; Exposition of ib., 1884; Ephe sians, ib., 1801; Epistles of Peter, ih., 1896) ; Lange (died 1884), editor of the Commentary on Holy Scripture (trans., New' Testament portion, Edinburgh, 1861-65), to which he personally con tributed Matthew, Mark, John, Romans, .James, and Apocalypse; Lechler (died 1890; Commen tary on Acts, in Lange, Bielefeld, 1860) ; Ebrard (died 1888; Commentary on Reh•cuss, Klinigs berg, 1850; Apocalypse, ib., 1853; The First Three Gospels, trans., Edinburgh, 1853; Epistles of John, ib., 1859; Gospel of John, ib., 15'60) ; Beyschlag (died 1900; The Pauline Theodicy, Berlin, 1869; The Parables of Jesus, trans., Edinburgh, 1875; Commentary on Apocalypse, ib., 1876; Commentary on James, in the last edition of Meyer, Edinburgh, 1897) ; B. Weiss (Commentary on Philippians, Berlin. 1859; The New t Testament Text Critically Investigated with Exegetical Notes, ib., 1S94-1900 ; Com CO hinies On Matthew, Mark, Luke, Joltn, Ro mans, Hebrews, and Epistles of John in the last edition of Meyer, 1893-1901) ; Henrici (Com mentary on Corinthians, 1580-87 Corinthians in the last edition of Meyer, 1896-1900).