OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
The Bible of the Apostolic Church was, natu rally, the Scriptures of the Jews, and these Scrip tures mainly in the Greek form of the Septuagint translation, since the popular ignorance of the Hebrew language at that time rendered direct use of the original text impossible. Concerning the interpretation of these Scriptures by the immediate disciples of Jesus, we have no certain information. It may be inferred, however, from such documents as we possess that their exegesis of the Law did not differ materially from that of the earlier rabbis in the Alislma, while their haggadic interpretation of the Prophets and the Psalms such as to furnish them with proofs of the Messinhship of Jesus and with material for His life. This attitude was largely preserved. even beyond the middle of the second century. in the Ebionitish ((irides, whence the Clementine writings proceeded. But the identity of Judaism and Christianity could he maintained only at the sacrifice of certain parts of the Law that were declared unprophetical. and therefore un-Mosaie. In this connection, observations of style are in troduced in which the beginnings of literary criticism may he discerned. A fresh impulse in the direction of an allegorizing exegesis was given by Gnosticism. \Vhen men like Valentinus and his disciples, Ptolemy and Ileraeleon, Basi tides and Isidore, Saturninus and Ca rpoerates, Marc loll and Tatian embraced Christianity, it was impossible for them to be satisfied with even the most liberal attitude of the Christian Jew. No synagogue training prevented them from measuring 'the God of the Jews' by the standard furnished by the Christian revelation, and the commandments of the Law by standards of Chris tian worship and morals. An effective defense of the Catholic side could only he made by the chastened Gnosticism and allegorizing interpre tation that meet us in Hebrews, Ba maims, Colos sians. Ephesiaus, the Pastorals, and the Fourth Gospel. The same method and speet6tion were characteristic of .Justin (died c.I66), Pantiunus
(died c.190), Clement of Alexandria (died c.215), and Origen (died c.254). As a textual critic and as a thinker, Origen easily holds the foremost place among the early fathers, though his knowl edge of Hebrew was inferior to that of Jerome. His allegorical method was followed by Diony sins (died 265), and Gregory Thanmaturgus (died c.270) ; and, to a large extent, by Eusebius (died c.340), Athanasius (died 373), the three Cappadocians, Basil (died 379), Gregory of Nyssa (died c.395), and Gregory of Nazianzccs (died c.390) ; Ambrose of Milan (died 397), and Cyril of Alexandria (died 444). On the other baud. the foundations of a sound historico-gram tactical interpretation were laid by the school of Antioch, whose chief representatives were Theo dore of Beraclea (died 350), Ensebins of Emesa (died c.360), Diodorus of Tarsus (died 394), Chry sostom (died 407), Theodore of Mopsuestin (died 429), his brother Polvchronius, and Theodoret of Cyrus (died c.457). Especially the criticism of of Mopsue.stia was often very keen. Ephraem Syrtis (died 378) also devoted himself particularly to a grammatical explanation of the text, and the school of Nisibis seems to have been comparatively free from allegorizing tendencies, as maybe seen from the conception of the Bible which Junilius (died 552) declares that he has received from Paul the Persian. Through Jerome (died c.420) and Augustine (died 4:30), however, the interpretation that sought to discover a double or manifold sense became dominant in the Latin Church. Jerome possessed a deeper knowledge of Hebrew, acquired from Jewish teachers in Palestine, than any other patristic writer, and had great skill as a translator; while Augustine knew no Hebrew and little Greek, but often understood the meaning of the text better. Though he had neither the erudition of Jerome nor the genius of Augustine, Faustus of Mileve (born 344) was a greater critic than either, an ticipating some important positions of modern scholarship.