 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Johann Albrecht Bengel" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Johann Albrecht Bengel | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | 24 June 1687 |
| Died | 2 November 1752 (1752-11-03) (aged 65) |
| Nationality | German |
| Academic background | |
| Alma mater | University of Tübingen |
| Academic work | |
| Notable students | Jeremias Friedrich Reuß |
Johann Albrecht Bengel (24 June 1687 – 2 November 1752), also known asBengelius, was aLutheranpietistclergyman andGreek-language scholar known for his edition of theGreek New Testament and his commentaries on it.
Bengel was born atWinnenden inWürttemberg.[1] Due to the death of his father in 1693, he was educated by a family friend, David Wendel Spindler,[2] who became a master in thegymnasium atStuttgart. In 1703 Bengel left Stuttgart and entered theUniversity of Tübingen as a student at theTübinger Stift, where, in his spare time, he devoted himself especially to the works ofAristotle andSpinoza, and, in theology, to those ofPhilipp Spener,Johann Arndt andAugust Francke. His knowledge of themetaphysics of Spinoza was such that he was selected by one of the professors to prepare materials for a treatise,De Spinosismo, which was afterwards published.[3]
After acquiring his degree, Bengel devoted himself totheology. Even at this time he had religious doubts; it is interesting in view of his later work that one cause of his perplexities was the difficulty of ascertaining the true reading of certain passages in theGreek New Testament. Bengel entered the ministry in 1707 and was appointed to the parochial charge ofMetzingen-unter-Urach. In the following year he was recalled to Tübingen to undertake the office ofRepetent (theological tutor).[3]
He remained at Tübingen until 1713, when he was appointed head of a seminary recently established atDenkendorf as a preparatory school of theology. Before entering into his new duties he travelled through the greater part ofGermany, studying the systems of education which were in use, and visiting the seminaries of theJesuits as well as those of the Lutheran andReformed churches. Among other places he went toHeidelberg andHalle, and had his attention directed atHeidelberg to the canons of scripture criticism published byGerhard von Maastricht, and at Halle toCampeius Vitringa'sAnacrisis ad Apocalypsin. The influence exerted by these upon his theological studies is manifest in some of his works.[3]
For 28 years, from 1713 to 1741, he was master (German:Klosterpraeceptor) of theKlosterschule at Denkendorf, a seminary for candidates for the ministry established in a former monastery of theCanons of the Holy Sepulchre. To these years, the period of his greatest intellectual activity, belong many of his chief works.[3]
In 1741 he was appointed prelate (i.e. general superintendent) atHerbrechtingen, where he remained until 1749, when he was raised to the dignity of consistorial counsellor and prelate ofAlpirsbach, with a residence inStuttgart. He devoted himself to the discharge of his duties as a member of theconsistory. A question of considerable difficulty was at that time occupying the attention of the church courts: the manner in which those who separated themselves from the church were to be dealt with, and the amount of toleration which should be accorded to meetings held in private houses for the purpose of religious edification. The civil power (the Duke of Württemberg was aRoman Catholic) was disposed to have recourse to measures of repression, while the members of the consistory, recognizing the good effects of such meetings, were inclined to concede considerable liberty. Bengel exerted himself on the side of the members of the consistory. In 1751 theUniversity of Tübingen conferred upon him the degree ofDoctor of Divinity.[3] He died inStuttgart, aged 65.
Bengel carried on an 18-year-long controversy withNicolaus Ludwig, Count von Zinzendorf, leader of theMoravian Brethren fromHerrnhut inSaxony. This led to a break between the Moravian Brethren and the dour Pietism typical of Württemberg, represented by Bengel. With his determined certainty giving him systematic insight into the divine Plan of Salvation, Bengel dogmatically opposed the dynamic, ecumenical, missionary efforts of Zinzendorf, who was indifferent to all dogmatism and intolerance. As Bengel did not hesitate to manipulate historical calendars in hischiliastic attempts to predict the end of the world, Zinzendorf rejected this as superstitious "interpretation of signs."[4]
His reputation as a Biblical scholar and critic rests chiefly on his edition of the Greek New Testament (1734) and hisexegetical annotations on the same, which have passed through many editions in Latin, German, and English and are still highly valued by expositors of the New Testament.[5]
Bengel's edition of the Greek New Testament was published at Tübingen in 1734, and at Stuttgart in the same year, but without the critical apparatus. As early as 1725, in an addition to his edition ofChrysostoms De Sacerdotio, he had given an account in hisProdromus Novi Testamenti Graeci recte cauteque adornandi of the principles on which his intended edition was to be based. In preparation for his work, Bengel was able to avail himself of the collations of upwards of twenty manuscripts, none of them, however, of great importance, twelve of which had been collated by himself. In constituting the text, he imposed upon himself the singular restriction of not inserting any variant reading which had not already been printed in some preceding edition of the Greek text. From this rule, however, he deviated in the case of theApocalypse, where, owing to the corrupt state of the text, he felt himself at liberty to introduce certain readings on manuscript authority. In the lower margin of the page he inserted a selection of various readings, the relative importance of which he denoted by the first five letters of the Greek alphabet in the following manner: α was employed to denote the reading which in his judgment was the true one, although he did not venture to place it in the text; β, a reading better than that in the text; γ, one equal to the textual reading; and δ, readings inferior to those in the text.Robert Estienne's division into verses was retained in the inner margin, but the text was divided into paragraphs.[3]
The text was followed by a critical apparatus, the first part of which consisted of an introduction to the criticism of theNew Testament, in the thirty-fourth section of which he laid down and explained his celebrated canon,Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua (The difficult reading is to be preferred to that which is easy), the soundness of which, as a general principle, has been recognized by succeeding critics. The second part of the critical apparatus was devoted to a consideration of the various readings, and here Bengel adopted the plan of stating the evidence both against and in favor of a particular reading, thus placing before the reader the materials for forming a judgment. Bengel was the first definitely to propound the theory of families orrecensions of manuscripts.[3]
His investigations had led him to see that a certain affinity or resemblance existed amongst many of the authorities for the Greek text manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers: for example, if a peculiar reading was found in one of these, it was generally also found in the other members of the same class; and this general relationship seemed to point ultimately to a common origin for all the authorities which presented such peculiarities. Although disposed at first to divide the various documents into three classes, he finally adopted a classification into two: theAfrican or older family of documents, and the Asiatic, or more recent class, to which he attached only a subordinate value. The theory was afterwards adopted byJ.S. Semler andJ.J. Griesbach, and worked up into an elaborate system by the latter critic.[6]
Bengel's labors on the text of the Greek Testament were received with great disfavour in many quarters. LikeBrian Walton andJohn Mill before him, he had to encounter the opposition of those who believed that the certainty of the word of God was endangered by the importance attached to the various readings.JJ Wetstein, on the other hand, accused him of excessive caution in not making freer use of his critical materials. In answer to these strictures, Bengel published aDefence of the Greek Text of His New Testament, which he prefixed to hisHarmony of the Four Gospels, published in 1736, and which contained an answer to the complaints, especially of Wetstein, which had been made against him.[7]
The text of Bengel long enjoyed a high reputation among scholars, and was frequently reprinted. An enlarged edition of the critical apparatus was published by Philip David Burk in 1763.[7]
The other great work of Bengel, and that on which his reputation as an exegete is mainly based, is hisGnomon Novi Testamenti, orExegetical Annotations on the New Testament, published in 1742. It was the fruit of twenty years labor, and exhibits with a brevity of expression, which, it has been said, condenses more matter into a line than can be extracted from pages of other writers, the results of his study. He modestly entitled his work aGnomon or index, his object being rather to guide the reader to ascertain the meaning for himself, than to save him from the trouble of personal investigation. The principles of interpretation on which he proceeded were, to import nothing into Scripture, but to draw out of it everything that it really contained, in conformity with grammatico-historical rules not to be hampered by dogmatical considerations; and not to be influenced by the symbolical books. Bengel's hope that theGnomon would help to rekindle a fresh interest in the study of the New Testament was fully realized. It has passed through many editions, has been translated intoGerman and intoEnglish (by Charlton T. Lewis andMarvin Vincent in 1860), and is still valued by expositors of the New Testament.[7]Methodist founderJohn Wesley made great use of it in compiling hisExplanatory Notes upon the New Testament (1755), despite an initial inclination towards "consulting none but the inspired writers".[8]
Besides the two works already described, Bengel was the editor or author of many others, classical, patristic, ecclesiastical and expository. The more important are:Ordo Temporum, a treatise on the chronology of Scripture, in which he enters upon speculations regarding the end of the world, and anExposition of theApocalypse which enjoyed for a time great popularity in Germany, and was translated into several languages.[7] His fame was such that almost 200 years later,Hermann Hesse has the hero ofThe Glass Bead Game discuss Bengel's writings.[citation needed]
Bengel’s meticulous study of the Bible led him to believe that dates and time periods were related, all the way through from Genesis to Revelation, bringing him to the conclusion that June 18, 1836 would witness the start of the Millennium, to include the fall of the Antichrist, which he believed to be the Roman Catholic Church, the conversion of the Jews, the reign of Christ for 1000 years as promised in Revelation 20, and the final judgement.[9]
Bengel’s calculations regarding a date for the return of Christ and the end-times influenced not only his contemporary,John Wesley, but alsoJohann Heinrich Jung-Stilling, whose inclusion of Bengel’s date into his famous novel,Das Heimweh (Homesickness or Nostalgia) inspired many German Pietists at the time to emigrate towards the east, where they sought safety until Christ’s return. The great German theologian, inventor and astronomer,Philipp Matthäus Hahn (1739 - 1790), constructed an astronomical clock inspired by Bengel’s eschatological calculations, and his granddaughter, Pauline Beate,[10] was to marry Christoph Hoffmann, the founder of the Adventist group, theGerman Templers.
Bengel’s date for theSecond Coming and the final judgement were largely unknown by the English speaking Adventists during the early 19th century, partly due to the fact that he wrote in Latin, which was translated into German, and partly overshadowed by the popular writings ofWilliam Miller and his projected date of 1844.[11]
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Bengel, Johann Albrecht".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 3 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 736–737.
