BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. – The science that studies and sets forth the principles and rules for rightly understanding the Bible; it is called hermeneutics, from the Greek ἑρμηνευτικὴ (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 divine counsels and wishes; he is the god of eloquence (cf. Act. 14:12); ἑρμηνεύς or ἑρμηνευτής is one who translates and interprets his own or another’s language, the interpreter of words, signs, dreams, etc. (cf. Lc. 24:27; I Cor. 12:10; 14:26–28). B. i. is called “sacred” hermeneutics in order to distinguish it from profane hermeneutics.
From a terminological point of view, “exegesis” (ἐξήγγειος, from the verb ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out, explain, expound”; cf. Io. 1:18) is synonymous with hermeneutics. Common usage, however, distinguishes the two terms: hermeneutics denotes the theory of B. i., while exegesis denotes its practice, that is, the application of hermeneutical rules. Thus hermeneutics is predominantly a science that teaches the art of exegesis, the handling of the instruments by which the scriptural sense is “drawn out”; the history of applied B. i. is therefore called the “history of exegesis.”
SUMMARY:
I. Object
II. Hermeneutical phases and method
III. History.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—it may have several meanings, recorded in dictionaries, in practice instead has, in the intention of the person expressing himself, a single meaning, thereby excluding any ambiguity or equivocation. The biblical sense is “that particular concept of the mind which the author intends to express either by means of the word or by means of the object itself expressed by the word” (Perrella [V. BIBLICA.], p. 247).The need for biblical hermeneutics is all the more obvious when one bears in mind the special and unique character of the Sacred Books, their divine-human nature (v. ISPIRAZIONE), and the difficulty of understanding them properly on account of their age, land of origin, language and content.
II. HERMENEUTICAL STAGES AND METHOD
According to s. Agostino, 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 provides the rules and norms of interpretation, the means suited to discovering the scriptural sense; and propheristics (from προφάρειν, “to utter, propose”), which presents the various ways of expounding the scriptural sense that has been found (cf. De doctr. christ., 1, 1: PL 34, 19).1. Heuristics. — The prerogative of Sacred Scripture, and its inspiration rightly understood, lead us to consider in the Sacred Book both the human and the divine element. Hence, in biblical interpretation, a twofold task: common, human, rational, literary, scientific heuristics, and special, Christian-Catholic, “authentic” heuristics. The former abstracts, without denying them, from the divine inspiration and 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 and 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 reiterates this, observing that reference must be made to the text, the context, parallel passages, and the external historical circumstances of the 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 may have different meanings at different times, in different settings and contexts, it is necessary, in addition to assiduous reading of a given book in order to become familiar with its setting, to possess a sound knowledge of the language in which it is written, of the peculiarities of its style and language, and of its idioms; one must know the author’s and his contemporaries’ manner of reasoning, speaking, and writing. The exegete must identify himself with the author; he “must almost return in mind to those remote centuries of the East” (Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 342). This usus liquendi is the principal means of attaining the sense intended by the author.
Therefore, “contra ignota signa propria magnum remedium est linguarum cognitio” (s. Agostino, De doctr. christ., 2, 11, 16: PL 34, 42), and the supreme pontiffs impress upon interpreters the tireless study of the original and related languages of the Bible, their etymology and development; and of 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 Oriental world, what is especially needed today is the study of the literary genres (v.) of the ancient Orient (Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 343).
β) The context. — That is: “quid consecutio rerum velit” (Leo XIII). Not infrequently, philology, when it examines a text by itself, is unable to discover its genuine sense with certainty. It is then indispensable to take account of the connection of an entire pericope and of its individual parts, both preceding and following, as well as of the tenor and mentality of the book as a whole. This is a rule of the greatest importance, for example, in interpreting passages taken from the Gospel or 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, and historical. The logical is of primary importance and universal scope. The logical connection may be proximate or remote, insofar as it exists between the words of individual sentences (subject and predicate), or between propositions and the various parts of the book. In the first case, grammatical rules prescribe how words are to be connected and separated. In the second, particles are of particular importance: the Greek language is rich in them, whereas Hebrew is poor, a poverty also noticeable in the New Testament. The psychological context arises from the association of ideas which logically and objectively have no connection with one another, but which spontaneously unite for subjective reasons; it is especially important in poetry. Connected with the preceding is the prophetic, or “visionary, optical,” context (which, strictly speaking, cannot form part of the rational rules of hermeneutics): the prophets sometimes see together two things, two events, or two persons that are separated in place and time, or present future things as already present, indeed even as already past; they describe them as they saw them from their prophetic perspective. This is particularly important for messianic prophecies and, in the New Testament, for the interpretation of the eschatological passages. The historical context, whether absolute or relative, takes account of the development and historical-chronological order of events. It should be noted, however, that the historiographical concept of the ancients, especially of Orientals, differs at many points from the modern concept of Westerners.
γ) Parallel passages. — That is: “quid locorum similitudo velit” (Leo XIII). Orientals, in their rather contemplative disposition, like to consider the same object and subject from different sides and under different points of view; as they move around it, they continually discover new features, and 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 collected 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, parallel passages by the same author are concerned (e.g., s. Paolo, s. Giovanni). If the sense of a word remains obscure, or if it is a hapaxlegomenon in an author, it is very useful to consult other books, especially those dealing with 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 may be perfect (the same words or the same grammatical construction in different passages) or imperfect; the latter, on the other hand, is either historical, when the same historical event is concerned (e.g., the books of Re and Paralipomeni, the account of the Passion in the Synoptics), or didactic, when the same doctrine is concerned (e.g., s. Paolo 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 substantially to a correct understanding and interpretation of the book or of one of its obscure passages. Such circumstances are above all three: 1) who the author was—his homeland, occupation, education, time, setting, etc.; 2) who the recipients of the book were—their problems, difficulties, setting, etc.; 3) what contact was established in the book between writer and recipients, that is, what occasion and purpose 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. In addition to biblical theology, the auxiliary sciences also offer great assistance: the history of the Bible and of the ancient Orient, biblical archaeology, biblical geography and topography, biblical chronology, and natural history.
ε) Authentic, or Catholic, heuristic. — Granted that Holy 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 proper and exclusive rules of interpretation. The true exegesis of the Sacred Books is not merely the philological, critical, and historical exploration of the text; it is 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 the Sacred Scriptures. The evangelical texts themselves (e.g., Mr. 16, 18 ff.; 28, 19 ff.; Io. 14, 16 ff. 25 ff.; 15, 26), which explicitly proclaim the teaching authority of the Church, which infallibly teaches revealed truths, implicitly claim for her the right to interpret Sacred Scripture faithfully, since it is one of the sources of Revelation. And the Fathers of the Church, confronted by heretics who abused biblical texts by interpreting them according to their own ideas, affirmed this exclusive right of the Church. Their doctrine is summarized by s. 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 » (of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican) gave rise to controversies concerning the extent of the Church’s exegetical teaching authority. Her right is direct and positive « in rebus fidei et morum », indirect and rather negative in other matters. The Church does not judge these from the standpoint of the profane sciences, but in their connection with a revealed truth (e.g., the problems of the Exaemerum and of primeval history).
The sources of authentic interpretation from which the Catholic exegete must draw are: 1) the traditional explanations of the ordinary teaching authority; 2) the solemn definitions, direct or indirect, positive or negative, of the extraordinary teaching authority (as well as the declarations, although neither 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 subsequent ecclesiastical documents established two conditions for this: the consensus Patrum must be unanimous (not physically, but morally), and this must concern matters of faith and morals, or at least doctrines connected with them. When the meaning has been declared neither by the ecclesiastical teaching authority 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 which the Catholic Church professes and teaches, the mutual harmony of revealed truths by virtue of which they illuminate one another, indeed one cannot contradict another. Hence the urgent necessity that the exegete « omnem theologiam egregie tenest » (Eschiridion biblicum, n. 95).
The use of this hermeneutical rule is most often negative: any scriptural interpretation found to be in conflict with the doctrine of the Church must immediately be deemed false and rejected. When, instead, as usually happens, several interpretations of the same biblical text correspond to this analogy of faith, the true meaning is determined either by the context or by parallel passages.
Even today there remain serious questions, recently raised by the new discoveries of modern research, which considerably agitate the minds of Catholics. Catholic interpreters must confront them not only to refute the objections of adversaries, but also to attempt a sound explanation that honestly accords with the doctrine of the Church and especially with the traditional conviction that Sacred Scripture is immune from every error, while at the same time providing appropriate 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, upon faith that the Sacred Books are divinely inspired and free from error, and, on the other, upon knowledge of the philological, historical, and sometimes natural sciences. Before speaking of a contradiction (antilogy) between faith and science, between the Bible and the profane sciences, the genuine meaning of such a scriptural text must first be firmly established; 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 that appear to contradict one another, e.g., in the genealogy of Christ, or concerning the day and hour of the Saviour’s death (Synoptics and John). V. INERRANZA; GENERI LETTERARI; CITAZIONI IMPLICITE.
2. Prophoristics
The meaning of Sacred Scripture, established according to the norms of literary-rational heuristic and of authentic-Catholic heuristic, may be presented in different ways, according to the purpose which the interpreter sets before himself, whether scientific or practical-pastoral.a) Scientific interpretations. — These are especially the following: 1) the translation, the most general and simplest method of presenting the meaning of the sacred text. If it is faithful to the word and spirit of the original, if at the same time it is clear and limpid, expressed in language intelligible to its contemporary readers, and furnished with sound notes, it is already in itself a precious commentary. 2) The commentary properly so called, that is, the literal-historical explanation of an entire sacred book, with an analysis of the text (preceded by introductory questions and textual and literary criticism) and a synthesis of its doctrine. Philology must be accompanied by theology.
Between the simple translation and the perfect commentary stand the partial expositions, now rather fallen into disuse: namely, the paraphrase (a freer and fuller translation); the scholia, that is, brief grammatical, historical, and other notes on an obscure passage (this method was famous among the Alexandrian grammarians and was later adopted and applied to the Bible by Origen); the postils, that is, brief continuous explanations added « post illa verba » (those of Nicolaus of Lyra are famous); and finally the glosses, brief annotations placed either in the side margin of the biblical text (glossa marginalis) or between its lines (glossa intellectuaria), drawn from the Fathers and ancient ecclesiastical writers and later collected in the glossae continuatae, or « catenae », among which the Glossa ordinaria attributed to Valdivia Strabo and s. Thomas’s Catena aurea on the Gospels are famous.
b) Pastoral interpretations. — These are the following: 1) the sacred lesson, which explains Sacred Scripture to the people, book by book and passage by passage, commenting on it with practical applications for Christian life; 2) the homily, that is, the explanation of the liturgical Gospel during Holy Mass. All this, and whatever else an apostolic spirit and a sincere love of the divine word may discover as suitable to the purpose, will always be an effective aid to souls (cf. Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 347).
III. HISTORY
The question concerning the relationship between the literal and the typical sense may offer a suitable criterion in the study of the history of interpretation, since one observes in it certain tendencies that either resolutely oppose one another or seek to coexist and merge in pursuit of a balance. The two methods, literal and allegorical, are not an invention of Christianity, which inherited them from Judaism; they were also known to pagan scholars. Among Jewish exegetes, there is a predominance of literal—or supposedly literal—exegesis, given the sometimes fabulous or simplistic character of its expositions among the authors of the Mishnic and Talmudic treatises (v. TANNAITI), whereas highly Philo (v.) of Alexandria and in certain Palestinian rabbis.1. Patristic Period. — Even before the direct influence of Jewish scholars became apparent (of Philo upon the school of Alexandria and particularly upon Origen, and of the Palestinian rabbis upon various Fathers who came into contact with them, particularly s. 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. S. Clement I, pope (v.), s. Justin (v.), s. Irenaeus (v.), and Tertullian, none of whom left genuine biblical commentaries, ordinarily present a literal biblical interpretation in their citations, whereas Pseudo-Barnabas and, in a much more attenuated manner, s. Theophilus of Antioch inaugurated free, allegorical biblical interpretation.
In the third and fourth centuries, the two currents were expressed by two antagonistic schools. At Alexandria, especially through the work of Clement and Origen, allegorical interpretation reached its greatest splendor, displaying all its merits and no fewer defects. The term “Origenism” is sometimes taken as synonymous with “biblical allegorism”; this equivalence is unjustified, at least with regard to Origen, who, although he showed himself devoted to allegorical biblical interpretation in his innumerable Homilies on biblical books, also proved a scrupulous student of the letter of the Bible, as is evident from not a few passages of his Commentaries 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 his desire to react against the excessively literal exegesis of certain heretics, particularly the millenarians. The Origenist method was followed by Didymus the Blind and s. Cyril of Alexandria, although their commentaries—especially those of Didymus—display a greater interest in the literal sense and an abandonment of the uncertain tripartite division of the biblical senses. It was also followed by writers sympathetic to the Alexandrian school, though not belonging to it, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and the three great Cappadocians, s. Basil, s. Gregory of Nazianzus, and s. Gregory of Nyssa. Alexandrian allegorism was opposed by s. Methodius, bishop of Olympus, and by s. Epiphanius, who nevertheless, in his short work De duodecim gemma on the breastplate of the high priest, was unable to escape its powerful influence.
At Antioch, on the other hand, a genuine school with its own orientation took shape, often in opposition to the Alexandrian one, although the ideological contrasts between the two centers of study have sometimes been exaggerated. In the Antiochene school, famous for its literalism and for the application of the “theory” in opposition to Alexandrian allegory, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Eustathius of Antioch, Theodore of Heraclea, Eusebius of Emesa, and Polychronius of Apamea distinguished themselves. They nevertheless almost disappear beside the three principal representatives: Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and s. John Chrysostom, who is rightly regarded as the greatest exegete of the Eastern Church because of his attachment to the literal sense and his admirable ability to adapt biblical texts to practical life. Teodoreso is a concise and penetrating exegete. The Syriac writers s. Aphraates, s. Ephrem, and numerous later authors of the schools of Edessa and Nisibis may be regarded as emanations of the Antiochene school, given the almost complete identity of their hermeneutical principles.
In the West, the earliest exegetes, such as s. Hippolytus, s. Hilary of Poitiers, and s. Ambrose, preferred allegorical biblical interpretation, while displaying the great practicality of the Latin spirit. The Ambrosiaster proves himself a good literal exegete. Likewise allegorical in his Sermons and, with greater moderation, in the Explanations in Psalms and the Treatises on the Fourth Gospel, s. Augustine nevertheless left excellent literal observations on the Pentateuch, particularly on Genesis, and in the work De consensu Evangelistarum. S. Jerome is rather eclectic; in his commentaries on the prophets, on Ecclesiastes, and on the Pauline letters (Ephesians, Galatians, Titus, Philemon), he combines acute observations on textual criticism and history with very free allegorical explanations, which prevail in many ascetic and exegetical letters. He reveals a strong sense of practical application in the Treatises on the Psalms, while in the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim he reports a number of rabbinical explanations.
The patristic period closes with lesser exegetes, who often repeat what had been said by the authors of the golden age (fourth-fifth centuries). More personal commentaries were published by Olympiodorus of Alexandria, Oecumenius of Tricca, Andrew and Arethas of Cappadocia, Theophylact of Acerida, and Euthymius Zigabenus. Among the Latins, at least s. Gregory the Great, s. Isidore of Seville, s. Bede the Venerable, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Walafrid Strabo deserve mention; the Glossa ordinaria, which enjoyed wide circulation, was attributed to the latter.
2. Medieval Period. — In the history of exegesis, the scholasticism (v.). Although valuable works are not lacking, one generally observes an increased dependence upon the great exegetes, such as s. Jerome and s. Augustine, together with an exaggerated fondness for minute analysis according to the method proper to scholastic philosophers. Many apply four senses to the Bible—the literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical—expressed in the well-known distich of Augustine of Dacia.
Among the earlier exegetes, it is sufficient to mention s. Bruno of Asti and Rupert of Deutz. In the school of S. Victor, in Paris, Hugh is rather eclectic, whereas Andrew prefers literal exegesis. S. Bernard is almost always successful in his ascetic-mystical applications, while Hugh of S. Caro is honorably remembered especially for his initiative in producing a biblical concordance. S. Thomas, distancing himself from his teacher s. Albert, who was excessively allegorical, proved himself a profound and assured exegete, particularly in his excellent commentary on s. Paul. With Raymond Martini and Nicholas of Lyra, philology and rabbinical exegesis were once again employed, at times masterfully. Lorenzo Valla, together with other humanists, contributed to biblical interpretation his knowledge of Greek. The period may be considered to have ended with two authors of allegorical tendency, Alfonso Tostado and Dionysius the Carthusian.
3. Recent Period. — The Council of Trent (1545–1563) constitutes a milestone. With it began in Europe the sad conflict between Protestant and Catholic exegetes, but also a marvelous renewal in the study of the Sacred Book. G. Lefèvre d’Étaples (Faber Stapulensis), Erasmus of Rotterdam, G. Gagnée (Gagneus), S. Pagnini, celebrated for his interlinear version, F. Watebled (Vatablus), A. Steuco, and Cardinal T. De Vio, known as Cajetan, may be considered pioneers of this movement. The earliest Protestants, on the other hand, proved mediocre exegetes, including Luther, who nevertheless published the famous German translation of the Bible.
The golden age, prepared by the emergence of auxiliary disciplines, biblical introduction (v.) with Sisto Senense, textual criticism, the geography and archaeology of the Bible, as well as the study of Greek and Hebrew, began toward the end of the sixteenth 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. Bellarmino, etc.
Protestantism only began to produce notable exegetes in the seventeenth century; yet they either sowed the seed of biblical rationalism or displayed an exaggerated devotion to 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, such as the two Buxtorfs, or of sciences auxiliary to the Bible, such as S. Bochart and L. Cappell, were admirable.
Somewhat later, Catholicism too produced excellent Hebraists, such as F. Heubigant and G. R. De Rossi, and practitioners of auxiliary disciplines, such as R. Simon, B. Lamy, G. Bartolocci, C. Imbonati, G. Lelong, and B. Ugolini. Among the exegetes proper, A. Calmet, Bernardino da Picquigny (Piconius), and G. B. Bossuet distinguished themselves.
Among the Protestants, the “figurist” Campeggio Vitriga, G. Le Clerc, G. E. Michaelis, G. Gottlob Carpzov for biblical introduction, A. Reland, G. Lightfoot, and C. Schottgen for certain auxiliary disciplines deserve remembrance. G. Wetstein and G. Bengel distinguished themselves as philologists and critics.
In the eighteenth century, first with Baruch Spinoza and A. Collins, then with J. S. Semler, systematic biblical rationalism arose in the Protestant sphere, in opposition to supranaturalismus. The spiritual or typical sense of the Sacred Book was not considered; rather, once inspiration and every belief in the supernatural had been denied, the aim was to explain the emergence and the purely human meaning of the Sacred Books. The Bible, reduced to the level of an ordinary book, was subjected to minute analysis in order to elucidate, through various historical-philosophical theories, the formation of faith and of accounts of miraculous events. It is only right to acknowledge, however, that literal exegesis was often enriched by precious elements as a result of the great progress of philological, historical, archaeological, and Oriental studies.
The principal rationalist exegetes, from the beginning of the nineteenth century to the present, were F. Hitzig, H. Ewald (v.), J. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS (v.), K. Marti, W. Nowack, E. RENNES (v.), A. Lods, H. Winckler, A. Jeremias, F. DELITZSCH, FRIEDRICH (v.) H. Gunkel, etc. These, together with very many others, dealt chiefly 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 emerges from the Gospels once the supernatural has been denied. His example was followed, by somewhat different methods, by D. F. STRAUSS, D (v.), C. F. Baur, together with the many authors of the so-called “liberal school”; the eschatologists W. Wrede, A. Schweitzer, A. Loisy, E. Buonaiuti, A. Omodeo; the historians of comparative religions R. Reitzenstein and W. Bouset; and the proponents of the “form-critical method,” M. Dibelius, R. Bultmann, and G. Bertram. While these authors dealt rather with fundamental or general problems, others, such as the two Rosenmüllers, H. Olshausen, and E. W. Hengstenberg, composed commentaries notable for their learning and conservative tendency. After 1850, moreover, the great collections of commentaries, dictionaries, and biblical encyclopedias began to appear, a list of which would in itself require several columns. Such works usually display extensive scientific information, especially on questions of archaeology and philology, but lack any element recalling the supernatural character of the Bible. Nevertheless, alongside extremist rationalists, moderate or “conservative” scholars can be found who maintain inspiration, though with rather uncertain concepts.
Among Catholics, the study of the Bible underwent an almost complete stagnation after its magnificent revival in the period following the Council of Trent. Yet careful exegetes and courageous apologists of Scripture were never lacking, not even during the most resounding triumph of rationalism. In more recent times, moreover, a revival of biblical studies has become apparent. In addition to exegesis proper, the auxiliary disciplines, which rationalists so greatly abused, are also cultivated. Catholics too published important biblical commentaries in collaboration. One need only recall Migne’s Sacrae Scripturae cursus completus (28 vols.), the Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, undertaken by various authors (R. Cornely, J. Knabenbauer [v.], Fr. Hummelauer), La Ste Bible by L. Cl. Fillion, and the Etudes bibliques produced by distinguished scholars gathered around the great exegete M.-J. Lagrange,
B. Schäfer’s Kurzgefasster wissenschaftlicher Commentar zum Alten Testament and the Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament directed by J. Nikel, Die heilige Schrift of Bonn (begun in 1914), and the Regensburger Kommentarwerk zum Neuen Testament. In France, La Ste Bible by L. Pirot (v.) - A. Clamer and the Verbum Salutis are intended for popular dissemination, but provide excellent information. In Italy there are La S. Bibbia commentaria by M. Sales and G. Girotti (Turin 1911 ff., incomplete), La S. Bibbia directed by Mons. S. Garofalo (Turin 1947 ff.), while the Pontifical Biblical Institute is publishing an excellent translation from the original texts with brief notes (Florence 1943 ff.). Commentaries on individual books of the Bible are extremely numerous in all languages, especially in German.
With regard to the tendency of these modern exegetes, it is fair to note that some, in order to erect a barrier against the destructive criticism of rationalism, almost entirely neglect investigation of the spiritual or typical sense in order to combat their opponents by methods similar to theirs. Others, on the contrary, with the intention of presenting a more ascetical-mystical exposition, often leave something to be desired in the accuracy of their literal exegesis and in the appropriateness of their applications. This latter tendency, which seeks to serve as a proper reminder of the supernatural character of the Bible, is also shared by several Protestant authors representing the “pneumatic” school or exegesis. Among Catholics, especially in France, emphasis is placed—and by some often exaggeratedly—on the necessity and 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, particularly 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