Biblical Interpretation

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. - The science that studies and expresses the principles and norms for rightly understanding the Bible, and is called hermeneutics from the Greek ἑρμηνευτική (with τέχνη "art" or ἐπιστήμη "science" understood).

"Hermeneutics" calls to mind terms better known in profane and biblical literature: Ἑρμῆς is the herald of the gods who announces the divine counsels and wills, he is the god of eloquence (cf. Acts 14:12); ἑρμηνεύς or ἑρμηνευτής is he who translates and interprets his own or another's language, he is the interpreter of words, signs, dreams, etc. (cf. Lk. 24:27; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:26-28). Biblical i. is called "sacred" hermeneutics to distinguish it from profane hermeneutics.

From the terminological point of view, a synonym of hermeneutics is the word "exegesis" (ἐξήγησις, from the verb ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out, explain, set forth"; cf. Jn. 1:18). However, common usage distinguishes the two terms: hermeneutics denotes the theory of biblical i., exegesis the practice, that is, the application of hermeneutical rules. Thus hermeneutics is predominantly a science, which teaches the art of exegesis, the handling of the instruments with which to "draw out" the scriptural sense; the history of applied biblical i. is therefore called the "history of exegesis."

I. OBJECT

The proper object of hermeneutics is the meaning of the signs, actions and, especially, words contained in Sacred Scripture. A word, while objectively, that is, independently of the context and of a writer's intention, may have several meanings, recorded in the lexicons, in concrete use instead has, in the intention of the one expressing himself, only one meaning, so as to exclude any ambiguity or equivocation. Biblical meaning is "that determinate concept of the mind which the author intends to express either by means of the word or by means of the object in turn expressed by the word" (Perrella [v. bibl.], p. 247).

The necessity of biblical hermeneutics is all the more obvious when one keeps in mind the special and unique character of the Sacred Books, their divine-human nature (v. ISPIRAZIONE), the difficulty of understanding them well, because of their age, land of origin, language and content.

II. HERMENEUTICAL PHASES AND METHOD

According to St. Augustine, besides noematics (from vīgus, "thought"), which treats of the biblical senses, two parts are distinguished, corresponding to two functions of biblical hermeneutics: heuristics (from εὐφίσκειν "to find"), which gives the rules and norms of interpretation, the means suited to finding the scriptural sense; and prophoristics (from προφάρειν "to utter, to set forth"), which presents the different ways of expounding the scriptural sense once found (cf. De doctr. christ., 1, 1: PL 34, 19).

1. Heuristics

The prerogative of Sacred Scripture and its inspiration, rightly understood, lead one to consider in the Sacred Book the human element and the divine element. Hence in biblical interpretation there is a double task: common heuristics — human, rational, literary, scientific — and special heuristics — Christian-Catholic, "authentic." The former abstracts from, without denying, the divine inspiration and the consequent inerrancy of the Sacred Books, which it considers like any other human book; it insists on the letter and on history, applying the common hermeneutical rules. The latter, which considers Sacred Scripture as it truly is — a divinely inspired book, free from error, the source of divine Revelation, the depositum fidei entrusted to the Church — insists rather on doctrine, on dogmatic and moral truths.

a) Literary or rational heuristics. — Leo XIII, in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, summarizes these rules of biblical interpretation, distinguishing between literary criteria that are rather internal (the character of the book, etc.) and others that are external (the circumstances of its composition [cf. Enchiridion biblicum, Rome 1927, no. 92 ff.]), and Pius XII reaffirms this, observing that one must refer to the text, the context, parallel passages and the external historical circumstances of composition (encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, AAS, 35 [1943], p. 338).

c) The text. — That is: "quid ipsa verba valeant" (Leo XIII). Since the same word in different times, milieus and contexts can have different meanings, there is need, besides an assiduous reading of a given book in order to become acclimated to it, of a solid knowledge of the language in which it is written, of the peculiarities of style and language, of the idioms; one must know the manner of reasoning, speaking and writing of the author and of his contemporaries. The exegete must identify himself with the author, "he must, as it were, mentally return to those remote centuries of the East" (Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 342). This usus loquendi is the principal source from which to attain the sense intended by the author.

Therefore "contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio" (St. Augustine, De doctr. christ., 2, 11, 16: PL 34, 42), and the supreme pontiffs urge interpreters to study indefatigably the original languages of the Bible and related languages, their etymology and their development; the stylistic and linguistic character of Hebrew (temporal forms, parataxis, figurative language, anthropomorphisms, characteristic tropes), which is important not only for the books of the Old Testament but also for those of the New. And, after so many discoveries in the Eastern world, the study of the literary genres (v.) of the ancient East is today particularly necessary (Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 343).

β) The context. — That is: "quid consecutio rerum velit" (Leo XIII). Not infrequently, philology, examining a text by itself, is unable to find the genuine sense with certainty. Then it is indispensable to take account of the connection of a whole pericope and of its individual parts, antecedent and subsequent, of the tenor and mentality of the entire book. This rule is of the highest importance, for example, for the interpretation of passages taken from the Gospel or from the Epistles and proposed in the Missal (cf. G. Ricciotti, Bibbia e non Bibbia, 4th ed., Brescia 1946).

Four kinds of context are commonly distinguished: grammatical-logical, psychological, prophetic, historical. The logical one is of primary importance and of universal extent. The logical connection can be proximate or remote, according as it exists between the words of individual sentences (subject and predicate) or between the propositions and the different parts of the book. In the first case the grammatical rules prescribe how to join and separate words. In the second, the particles are of special importance — of which the Greek language is rich and the Hebrew language poor, a poverty that is also noticeable in the New Testament. The psychological context arises from the association of ideas which logically and objectively have no connection among themselves, but are spontaneously united for subjective reasons, and it is of particular importance in poetry. Connected with the preceding is the prophetic context, that is, "visionary, optical" (which, however, strictly speaking, cannot form part of the rational rules of hermeneutics): the prophets sometimes see together two things, two events, two persons that are separated in place and time, or they present future things as already present, indeed even as already past: they describe them as they saw them in their prophetic perspective. This is of importance especially for the Messianic prophecies or, in the New Testament, for the interpretation of the eschatological parts. The historical context, absolute or relative, takes account of the development of the historical-chronological order of events. It should be noted, however, that the historiographical concept of the ancients, of Orientals in particular, differs in not a few points from the modern concept of Westerners.

γ) Parallel passages. — That is: "quid locorum similitudo velit" (Leo XIII). Orientals, in their rather contemplative character, like to consider the same object and subject from different sides, under different points of view; circling around it they always discover new traits, they like to repeat the same phrase, with the same or similar terms, not without adding some new element. These similar or dissimilar elements, these various aspects must be gathered and organically joined together, as in a mosaic; this task is facilitated by verbal and real concordances and by real biblical lexicons.

First of all, what is at issue is parallel passages in the same author (for example, St. Paul, St. John). If the sense of a word remains obscure, if it is a hapaxlegomenon in an author, it is very helpful to consult other books, especially on the same subject. A distinction is made between verbal and real parallelism, according as the resemblance consists in the words or in the content. The former can be perfect (the same words or the same grammatical construction in different places) or imperfect; the latter, on the other hand, is either historical, if it concerns the same historical fact (for example, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the history of the Passion in the Synoptics), or didactic, if it concerns the same doctrine (for example, St. Paul to the Romans and to the Galatians).

δ) External criteria. — That is: "externa quoque appositae eruditionis illustratio" (Leo XIII). Knowledge of the circumstances in which a given book arose and which determined its composition contributes not a little to the right understanding and interpretation of the book or of an obscure passage in it. Such circumstances are first of all three: 1) who the author is, his homeland, his trade, his culture, his time, milieu, etc.; 2) who the recipients of the book are, their problems, their difficulties, their milieu, etc.; 3) what contact was established in the book between writer and recipients, that is, what was the occasion and the purpose that moved the author to write. These questions are set out in the special introduction (v.) to the individual books of the Old and New Testaments. Great advantage is further brought, besides biblical theology, by the auxiliary sciences: biblical and ancient Eastern history, biblical archaeology, biblical geography and topography, biblical chronology and natural history.

ε) Authentic, that is, Catholic heuristics. — Granted that Sacred Scripture is a book produced not only by human will and industry, but also and principally of divine origin (cf. II Pt., 1:21), it is obvious that it has its own and exclusive rules of interpretation. The true exegesis of the Sacred Books is not only the philological, critical, historical exploration of the text, but also and above all theology and fidelity to the Catholic Church (cf. Enchir. biblicum, n. 63; Pius XII, encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, loc. cit., p. 338; encyclical Humani generis, in AAS, 42 [1950], p. 569).

The Church is the legitimate and authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture. The very Gospel texts (e.g., Mk. 16:18 ff.; 28:19 ff.; Jn. 14:16 ff., 25 ff.; 15:26), which explicitly proclaim the magisterium of the Church, which infallibly teaches the revealed truths, implicitly claim for it the right to interpret faithfully Sacred Scripture, one of the sources of Revelation. And the Fathers of the Church, in the face of the heretics who abused the biblical texts interpreted in their own way, affirmed this exclusive right of the Church. Their doctrine is summed up by St. Vincent of Lérins: « Multum necesse est..., ut propheticae et apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum ecclesiastici et catholici sensus normam dirigatur » (Commonitorium, 1, 2: PL 50, 640).

The words « in rebus fidei et morum ad adificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium » (Councils of Trent and Vatican) caused controversies concerning the extent of the Church's exegetical magisterium. This right of hers is direct and positive « in rebus fidei et morum », indirect and rather negative in other matters. These the Church does not judge from the point of view of the profane sciences, but in their connection with a revealed truth (e.g., the problems of the Hexaemeron and of primeval history).

The sources of authentic interpretation from which the Catholic exegete must draw are: 1) the traditional explanations of the ordinary magisterium; 2) the solemn definitions, direct or indirect, positive or negative, of the extraordinary magisterium (as well as the declarations, although not infallible nor irrevocable, of the Pontifical Biblical Commission); 3) the exegesis of the Fathers, faithful and tenacious witnesses of the apostolic tradition and of the mens Ecclesiae. The Council of Trent and the subsequent ecclesiastical documents established two conditions for this: the consensus Patrum must be unanimous (not physically, but morally) and this in matters of faith and morals or at least in doctrines connected with these. When the sense has been declared neither by the ecclesiastical magisterium nor by the consensus of the Fathers, the interpreter must follow the analogy of faith (cf. Rom. 12:6), that is, conformity with the sum of the doctrine that the Catholic Church professes and teaches, the mutual harmony of the revealed truths by virtue of which they illuminate one another, indeed the one cannot contradict the other. Hence the urgent necessity that the exegete « omnem theologiam egregie teneat » (Enchiridion biblicum, n. 95).

The use of this hermeneutical rule is for the most part negative, that is, any scriptural interpretation that is found to be in contrast with the doctrine of the Church must without doubt be held false and rejected. When, on the other hand, as usually happens, different interpretations of the same biblical text correspond to this analogy of faith, then the true sense is determined either by the context or by parallel passages.

There remain, even today, grave questions, recently raised by the new discoveries of modern investigation, which agitate no little the minds of Catholics. Catholic interpreters must face them not only to refute the objections of adversaries, but also to attempt a solid explanation that loyally accords with the doctrine of the Church and in particular with the traditional conviction of the immunity of Sacred Scripture from all error, and at the same time gives suitable satisfaction to the well-established conclusions of the profane sciences (Pius XII, encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, loc. cit., pp. 344-46). Exegesis must therefore rest on the one hand on the faith that the Sacred Books are divinely inspired and free from error, and on the other on the knowledge of the philological, historical, and sometimes natural sciences. Before speaking of contradiction (antilogy) between faith and science, between the Bible and the profane sciences, the genuine sense of such a scriptural text must be well ascertained; on the other hand, the conclusions of the profane sciences must be certain, not merely probable. But even in the Bible itself there are passages which appear to contradict one another, e.g., in the genealogy of Christ, or as regards the day and hour of the Savior's death (Synoptics and John). V. INERRANZA; GENERI LETTERARI; CITAZIONI IMPLICITE.

2. Prophoristics

The sense of Sacred Scripture, established by the norms of literary-rational heuristics and of authentic-Catholic heuristics, can be proposed in different ways, according to the end that the interpreter sets before himself, scientific or practical-pastoral.

a) Scientific interpretations. — These are particularly the following: 1) the version, the most general and simplest method of proposing the sense of the sacred text. If it is faithful to the word and the spirit of the original, if it is at the same time clear and limpid, in a language intelligible to its contemporary readers, furnished with sound annotations, it is already by itself a precious commentary. 2) The commentary properly so called, that is, the literal-historical explanation of an entire sacred book, with the analysis of the text (prefacing it with the introductory questions, textual and literary criticism) and the synthesis of the doctrine. Philology must be accompanied by theology.

Between the simple version and the perfect commentary stand the partial expositions, today rather fallen into disuse, that is, the paraphrase (a freer and fuller version), the scholia, that is, brief grammatical, historical, etc. notes on an obscure passage (this method was famous among the Alexandrian grammarians, later adopted and applied to the Bible by Origen), the postils, that is, brief continuous explanations, added « post illa verba » (those of Nicholas of Lyra are famous), and finally the glosses, brief annotations placed either on the lateral margin of the biblical text (glossa marginalis) or between its lines (glossa interlinearis), taken from the Fathers and the ancient ecclesiastical writers, later collected in the glossae continuatae or « catenae », among which the Glossa ordinaria attributed to Walafrid Strabo and the Catena aurea of St. Thomas on the Gospels are famous.

b) Pastoral interpretations. — These are the following: 1) the sacred reading, which explains Sacred Scripture to the people, book by book, passage by passage, commenting on it with practical applications for the Christian life; 2) the homily, that is, the explanation of the liturgical Gospel during Holy Mass. All this and whatever else an apostolic zeal and a sincere love of the divine word will know how to find suited to the purpose will always be an effective help to souls (cf. Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 347).

Adalberto Metzinger

III. HISTORY

The question concerning the relationship between the literal sense and the typical sense can offer a suitable criterion in the study of the history of interpretation, because in it one notices tendencies that either sharply oppose one another or aim to coexist and merge, in search of an equilibrium. The two methods, literal and allegorical, are not an invention of Christianity, which inherited them from Judaism; they were known also to pagan scholars. Among Jewish exegetes the predominance of literal exegesis, or presumed such, given the sometimes fanciful or simplistic character of its expositions in the authors of the midrashic and talmudic treatises (v. TANNAITES), while a very pronounced allegorism is found in Philo (v.) of Alexandria and in certain Palestinian rabbis.

1. Patristic period

Even before the direct influence of Jewish scholars made itself felt (that of Philo on the school of Alexandria and particularly on Origen, that of the Palestinian rabbis on various Fathers who came into contact with them, particularly on St. Jerome), Christians already discerned in the inspired authors of the New Testament a tendency toward free interpretations, and even toward mere accommodations (cf. Mt. 2:15; 3:3; 13:14, 15; Rom. 10:18; II Cor. 8:15 etc.). This attitude was shared by the Apostolic Fathers and the earliest Christian writers. St. Clement I, pope (v.), St. Justin (v.), St. Irenaeus (v.), Tertullian, none of whom left true biblical commentaries, usually present a literal biblical interpretation in their citations, while the Pseudo-Barnabas and, in a much more attenuated manner, St. Theophilus of Antioch inaugurate free, allegorical biblical interpretation.

In the 3rd-4th centuries the two currents are expressed by two antagonistic schools. At Alexandria, especially through the work of Clement and Origen, allegorical interpretation reaches its greatest splendor, manifesting all its merits and its no lesser defects. Sometimes the term "Origenism" is taken as synonymous with "biblical allegorism"; the equivalence is unjustified, at least with regard to Origen, who, while showing himself fond of allegorical biblical interpretation in his innumerable Homilies on biblical books, also revealed himself a scrupulous student of the letter of the Bible, as appears from not a few passages of his Tomes and from his gigantic work of textual criticism (v. HEXAPLA). Origen's predilection for the "pneumatic" or spiritual sense is due to his asceticism and to the desire to react against the overly literal exegesis of certain heretics, particularly the millenarians. The Origenist method was followed by Didymus the Blind and St. Cyril of Alexandria, although in their commentaries, especially in those of Didymus, one notices a greater interest in the literal sense and the abandonment of the uncertain tripartite division of the biblical senses, and by authors sympathetic to the school of Alexandria, though without belonging to it, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and the three great Cappadocians, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Alexandrian allegorism was combated by St. Methodius, bishop of Olympus, and by St. Epiphanius, who, however, in his opuscule De duodecim gemmis on the breastplate of the high priest, could not escape its powerful influence.

At Antioch, on the other hand, a true school formed with its own orientation, often in antagonism with that of Alexandria, although at times the ideological contrasts between the two centers of study have been exaggerated. In the Antiochene school, famous for its literalism and for the application of "theory" in opposition to Alexandrian allegory, there distinguished themselves Apollinaris of Laodicea, Eustathius of Antioch, Theodore of Heraclea, Eusebius of Emesa and Polychronius of Apamea, who, however, almost disappear before the three major exponents: Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. John Chrysostom, who is rightly considered the greatest exegete of the Eastern Church for his attachment to the literal sense and for his admirable capacity to adapt biblical texts to practical life. Theodoret is a concise and penetrating exegete. The Syriac writers St. Aphrahat, St. Ephrem and numerous other later authors of the schools of Edessa and Nisibis can be considered emanations of the school of Antioch, given the near identity of their hermeneutical principles.

In the West the earliest exegetes, such as St. Hippolytus, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose, preferred allegorical biblical interpretation, but showing the great practicality of the Latin spirit. The Ambrosiaster reveals himself a good literal exegete. St. Augustine likewise appears allegorical in his Sermones and, with greater moderation, in his Explanationes in Psalmos and in the Tractatus on the Fourth Gospel, though he has left excellent literal observations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, particularly on Genesis, and in the work De consensu Evangelistarum. St. Jerome is rather eclectic; in his commentaries on the prophets, on Ecclesiastes and on the Pauline letters (Ephesians, Galatians, Titus, Philemon), to acute observations of textual criticism and history he joins very free allegorical explanations, which prevail in many ascetic and exegetical letters; a sense of great practicality he reveals in the Tractatus on the Psalms, while in the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim he reports not a few rabbinic explanations.

The patristic period closes with minor exegetes, who often repeat what the authors of the golden age (4th-5th centuries) had said. Somewhat more personal commentaries were published by Olympiodorus of Alexandria, Oecumenius of Tricca, Andrew and Arethas of Cappadocia, Theophylact of Ohrid and Euthymius Zigabenus. Among the Latins, at least a mention is deserved by St. Gregory the Great, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Bede the Venerable, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus and Walafrid Strabo, to whom the Glossa ordinaria, which had a wide diffusion, was attributed.

2. Medieval period

In the history of exegesis, the medieval period is made to coincide with Scholasticism (v.). Although works of value are not lacking, in general one notices a marked dependence on the great exegetes, such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine, and an exaggerated love of minute analysis according to the method proper to the Scholastic philosophers. Many apply to the Bible four senses: literal, allegorical, tropological and anagogical, expressed in the well-known distich of Augustine of Dacia.

Among the earliest exegetes it suffices to mention St. Bruno of Asti and Rupert of Deutz. In the school of St. Victor, in Paris, Hugh is rather eclectic, while Andrew prefers literal exegesis. St. Bernard is almost always felicitous in his ascetico-mystical applications, while Hugh of St. Cher is remembered with honor especially for his initiative of a biblical concordance. St. Thomas, detaching himself from his master St. Albert, who was too allegorical, revealed himself a profound and sure exegete, particularly in the excellent commentary on St. Paul. With Raymond Martini and with Nicholas of Lyra, philology and rabbinic exegesis come to be used again, at times in a masterly way. Lorenzo Valla, together with other humanists, brought to biblical interpretation the contribution of a knowledge of Greek. The period can be considered closed with two authors of allegorical tendency, Alfonso Tostado and Denis the Carthusian.

3. Recent period

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) constitutes a milestone. With it there begins in Europe the sad dissension between Protestant and Catholic exegetes, but also a marvelous rebirth in the study of the Sacred Book. G. Lefèvre d'Étaples (Faber Stapulensis), Erasmus of Rotterdam, G. Gagnée (Gagneus), S. Pagnini, famous for his interlinear version, F. Watebled (Vatablus), A. Steuco, Cardinal T. De Vio, known as Cajetan, can be considered initiators of this movement. The first Protestants, on the other hand, revealed themselves mediocre exegetes, including Luther, who nevertheless published the very well-known German translation of the Bible.

The golden age, prepared by the rise of auxiliary disciplines such as biblical introduction (v.) with Sixtus of Siena, textual criticism, and the geography and archaeology of the Bible, in addition to the study of Greek and Hebrew, begins toward the end of the 16th century.

Among the best-known exegetes of this golden period, the following should be remembered: F. de Ribera, A. Agelli, C. a Lapide, C. Jansens (Jansenius) of Ghent, G. Maldonato, E. Sa, B. Pereyra (Pererius), G. Hessel van Est (Estius), G. Sanchez, G. Lorino, G. Tirino, St. R. Bellarmine, etc.

Protestantism only in the 17th century began to produce notable exegetes, who however either sowed the seed of biblical rationalism or showed an exaggerated cult of the literal sense at the expense of the typical sense; nor were cases of pure allegorism or "figurism" lacking, for example,

Coccius. Some scholars of Hebrew philology were admirable, such as the two Buxtorfs, or of sciences auxiliary to the Bible, such as S. Bochart and L. Cappell.

Somewhat later, Catholicism too produced excellent Hebraists, such as F. Heubigant and G. R. De Rossi, and cultivators of auxiliary disciplines, such as R. Simon, B. Lamy, G. Bartolocci, C. Imbonati, G. Lelong, B. Ugolini. Among the exegetes properly so called, A. Calmet, Bernardino da Picquigny (Piconius) and G. B. Bossuet distinguished themselves.

Among the Protestants, a mention is deserved by the "figurist" Campeggio Vitriga, G. Le Clerc, G. E. Michaelis, G. Gottlob Carpzov for biblical introduction, A. Reland, G. Lightfoot, C. Schottgen for certain auxiliary disciplines. G. Wetstein and G. Bengel distinguished themselves as philologists and critics.

In the 18th century, first with Baruch Spinoza and A. Collins, then with J. S. Semler, systematic biblical rationalism arose in the Protestant field, in opposition to supranaturalismus. No attention is paid to the spiritual or typical sense of the Sacred Book; indeed, having denied inspiration and all faith in the supernatural, it sets out to explain the origin and the purely human meaning of the Sacred Books. The Bible, lowered to the level of an ordinary book, is subjected to a minute analysis in order to elucidate, by means of various historico-philosophical theories, the formation of the faith and of the accounts of miraculous events. It is right to acknowledge, however, that literal exegesis was often enriched with precious elements because of the great progress of philological, historical, archaeological and Orientalist studies.

The principal rationalist exegetes were, from the beginning of the 19th century to the present, F. Hitzig, H. Ewald (v.), J. Wellhausen (v.), K. Marti, W. Nowack, E. Renan (v.), A. Lods, H. Winckler, A. Jeremias, F. Delitzsch (v.), H. Gunkel, etc. These men, together with very many others, occupied themselves predominantly with the Old Testament, rejecting the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch.

In the New Testament, H. S. Reimarius concerned himself with explaining the enigma of Christ, as it results from the Gospels once the supernatural is denied. His example was followed, with somewhat different methods, by D. F. Strauss (v.), C. F. Baur with the very many authors of the so-called "liberal school", the eschatologists W. Wrede, A. Schweitzer, A. Loisy, E. Buonaiuti, A. Omodeo, the historians of comparative religion R. Reitzenstein, W. Bouset and the proponents of the "form method" M. Dibelius, R. Bultmann, G. Bertram. While these authors occupied themselves rather with fundamental or general problems, others, such as the two Rosenmüllers, H. Olshausen, E. W. Hengstenberg, composed commentaries notable for doctrine and for conservative tendency. After 1850, then, the great collections of commentaries, dictionaries and biblical encyclopedias began, whose list alone would require several columns. In such works one can usually note rich scientific information, especially on questions of archaeology and philology, but every element recalling the supernatural character of the Bible is missing. Nevertheless, alongside extremist rationalists, one notes moderate or "conservative" scholars, who maintain inspiration with rather uncertain concepts.

Among Catholics, the study of the Bible marked almost a standstill after the magnificent reflowering in the period following the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, accurate exegetes and courageous apologists of Scripture were never lacking, not even during the most clamorous triumph of rationalism. In recent times, moreover, an awakening of biblical studies is manifest. Besides exegesis properly so called, the auxiliary disciplines, of which the rationalists made such abuse, are also cultivated. Catholics too published important biblical commentaries in collaboration. It suffices to recall the Sacrae Scripturae cursus completus of Migne (28 vols.), the Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, conducted by various authors (R. Cornely, J. Knabenbauer [v.], Fr. Hummelauer), La Ste Bible of L. Cl. Fillion, Etudes bibliques due to distinguished scholars grouped around the great exegete M.-J. Lagrange, the Kurzgefasster wissenschaftlicher Commentar zum Alten Testament of B. Schäfer and the Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament directed by J. Nikel, the Die heilige Schrift of Bonn (begun in 1914), the Regensburger Kommentarwerk zum Neuen Testament. In France, La Ste Bible of L. Pirot (v.) - A. Clamer and the Verbum Salutis have a popular character, but with excellent information. In Italy there are La S. Bibbia commentaria of M. Sales and G. Girotti (Turin 1911 ff., incomplete), La S. Bibbia directed by Msgr. S. Garofalo (Turin 1947 ff.), while under the care of the Pontifical Biblical Institute an excellent translation from the original texts with brief notes is published (Florence 1943 ff.). Commentaries on individual books of the Bible are very numerous in all languages, especially in German.

Regarding the tendency of these modern exegetes, it is permissible to point out how some, in order to oppose a dike to the demolishing criticism of rationalism, neglect almost every investigation of the spiritual or typical sense in order to combat the adversaries with a method similar to theirs. Others, on the other hand, with the intention of presenting a more ascetico-mystical exposition, often leave something to be desired as regards the exactness of literal exegesis and the appropriateness of their applications. This latter tendency, which would like to be a just recall to the supernatural character of the Bible, is shared also by various Protestant authors representing the "pneumatic" school or exegesis. Among Catholics, especially in France, insistence is placed, and often exaggerated by some, on the necessity and the merits of the spiritual sense. But a sound harmony between literal and typical exegesis is the ideal inculcated by the latest encyclicals on biblical studies, in particular by Providentissimus Deus (1893), Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and Divino afflante Spiritu (1943).

BIBLI: In generale: R. Simon, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam 1693; J. G. Rosenmüller, Historia interpretatium Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesia Christiana, 5 voll., Heidelberg 1705-1814; W. Farrar, History of interpretation, Londra 1886; R. Cornely, Histories et critica introductio in utriquae Testamentum Librae Sacrae, I. Parigi 1894, pp. 617-763; A. Vaccari, Historia exegesea, in Institutiones biblicae, I, 5ª ed., Roma 1937, pp. 467-522; id., Biblia, in Enc. Ital., VI, pp. 911-15; L. Venard - J. Bonsirven - G. Bardy - A. Vincent - L. Vaganay, Histoire de l'exégèse, in Initiation biblique, 2ª ed., Parigi 1948, pp. 400-39; G. Perrella, Introduzione generale alla S. Scrittura, Torino 1948, pp. 308-24; H. Hupf-B. Gut, Introductions generalis in S. Scriptorum, 5ª ed., Roma 1950, pp. 551-85. - Periodo patristico: P. De Labriolle, St Ambroise et l'exégèse allégorique, in Annales de philosophie chrétienne, 155 (1907-1908), pp. 501-603; G. Bardy, Didymie l'Avangel, Parigi 1910; id., Recherches sur le Lucien d'Antioche et son école, ivi 1936; id., Commentaires patriotiques de la Bible, in Dibs. II, coll. 73-103; A. Vaccari, La braupia nella scuola esegetica d'Antioche, in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; J. Bonsirven, Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse panlinique, Parigi 1932; M. Pontet, L'exégèse de la Augustin prédicateur, ivi 1944; J. Guillet, Les exégèses d'Alexandrie et d'Antioche. Conflit ou malentendu?, in Recherches de science religieuse, 34 (1947), pp. 257-302; R. Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore de Mopsuette, Città del Vaticano 1948; H. De Lubac, Histoire et esprit. L'intelligence de l'Écriture d'après Origène, Parigi 1950; A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell'esegesi di s. Gerolsmo, Roma 1950. - Periodo medievale: C. Spicq, Esquisse d'une histoire de l'exégèse latine au moyen âge, Parigi 1944; S. Garofalo, Gli umanisti del sec. XV e la Bibbia, in Biblica, 27 (1946), pp. 338-67. - Periodo recente: W. Sanday, The life of Christ in recent research, Oxford 1907; M.-J. Lagrange, Le sens du christianisme d'après l'exégèse allemande, Parigi 1918; H. Frick, Wissenschaftliches und pneumatisches Verständnis der Bibel, Tübingen 1927; A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 5ª ed., Tübingen 1933; id., Geschichte der panlinischen Forschung, 2ª ed., ivi 1933; M. Jones, The New Testament in the twentieth century, 3ª ed., Londra 1934.

Angelo Penna