BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. — The science that studies and expresses the principles and norms for correctly understanding the Bible, called hermeneutics from the Greek ἐρμηνευτικός (understood as τέχνη "art" or ἐπιστήμη "science").
"Hermeneutics" recalls more familiar terms in secular and biblical literature: Ἐρμῆς ἐλλάδιον, ἐλλάδιον, ἐλλάδιον, ἐλλάδιον, ἐλλάδιον, ἐλλάδιον.
"Hermeneutics" recalls more familiar terms in secular and biblical literature: Ἐρμῆς ἐ
II. HERMENEUTICAL PHASES AND METHOD
According to St. Augustine, besides noematics (from μορφή, "thought"), which deals with the biblical senses, two parts corresponding to two functions of biblical hermeneutics are distinguished: heuristics (from εὐφορία "to find"), which provides the rules and norms of interpretation, the means suitable for discovering the scriptural sense; and proforistics (from προφέρεται "to declare, to propose"), which presents the different ways of expounding the scriptural sense found (cf. De doctr. christ., I, 1: PL 34, 19).1. Heuristics
The prerogative of Sacred Scripture and its inspiration, rightly understood, lead to considering in the Holy 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 divine inspiration and the consequent inerrancy of the Sacred Books, which it considers like any other human book, insists on the letter and history, applying common hermeneutical rules. The latter, which considers Sacred Scripture as it truly is—a divinely inspired and inerrant book, source of divine Revelation, deposit of faith 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 rather internal literary criteria (nature of the book, etc.) and external ones (circumstances of its composition [cf. Enchiridion biblicum, Rome 1927, no. 92 ff.]), and Pius XII reaffirms this by 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).
a) The text. — That is, "quid ipsa verba valeant" (Leo XIII). Since the same word can have different meanings in different times, environments, and contexts, besides assiduous reading of a given book to become familiar with it, a solid knowledge of the language in which it is written is required, including its stylistic and linguistic peculiarities, idioms; knowledge of the author’s and his contemporaries’ manner of reasoning, speaking, and writing. The exegete must immediately put himself in the author’s place, "must almost return in mind to those remote centuries of the East" (Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 342). This *usus loquendi* is the principal source for reaching 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 insist to interpreters on the unremitting study of the original languages of the Bible and related ones, their etymology and development; the stylistic and linguistic nature of Hebrew (tenses, parataxis, figurative language, anthropomorphisms, characteristic tropes), 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 literary genres (q.v.) of the ancient East is particularly necessary today (Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 343).
b) The context. — That is, "quid consecutio rerum velit" (Leo XIII). Often, philology that examines a text in isolation is not able to determine with certainty the genuine sense. Then it is indispensable to consider the connection of an entire pericope and its individual parts, antecedent and subsequent, the tenor and mentality of the whole book. This rule is of paramount importance, e.g., for interpreting passages taken from the Gospel or the Epistles and proposed in the Missal (cf. G. Riccotti, 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 can be proximate or remote, inasmuch as it exists between the words of individual sentences (subject and predicate) or between propositions and different parts of the book. In the first case, grammatical rules prescribe how to join and separate words. In the second, particles are of special importance, of which Greek is rich and Hebrew poor—a poverty also noted in the New Testament. The psychological context arises from associations of ideas that logically and objectively have no connection but spontaneously unite for subjective reasons, and is of particular importance in poetry. Connected with the preceding is the prophetic context, i.e., "visionary, optical" (which, strictly speaking, cannot be part of the rational rules of hermeneutics): prophets sometimes see together two things, two events, two persons that are separated in place and time, or present future things as already present, indeed as already past; they describe them as they saw them in their prophetic perspective. This is especially important for messianic prophecies or, in the New Testament, for interpreting eschatological passages. The historical context, absolute or relative, takes into account the development of the historical-chronological order of events. It should be noted, however, that the ancient historiographical concept, especially of the Orientals, differs in many points from the modern Western concept.
c) Parallel passages. — That is, "quid locorum similitudo velit" (Leo XIII). Orientals, in their rather contemplative nature, like to consider the same object and subject from different angles, from 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, as in a museum; this task is facilitated by verbal and real concordances and by biblical real lexicons.
First of all, parallel passages within the same author are considered (e.g., St. Paul, St. John). If the sense of a word remains obscure, if it is a *hapax legomenon* in an author, it is very useful to consult other books, especially on the same subject. Verbal and real parallelism are distinguished, according to whether 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 is either historical, if it concerns the same historical fact (e.g., the Books of Kings and Chronicles, the Passion narrative in the Synoptics) or didactic, if it concerns the same doctrine (e.g., St. Paul to the Romans and to the Galatians).
d) External criteria. — That is: “externa quoque apposita eruditionis illustratio” (Leo XIII). Knowledge of the circumstances in which a given book arose and which determined its composition is of considerable help for the correct understanding and interpretation of the book or of an obscure passage within II. Such circumstances are, first of all, three: 1) who the author is, his homeland, his profession, his culture, his time, his environment, etc.; 2) who the intended recipients of the book are, their problems, their difficulties, their environment, etc.; 3) what kind of contact was established in the book between the writer and the recipients, that is, what occasion and purpose moved the author to write. These questions are dealt with in the special introductions (v.) to the individual books of the Old and New Testaments.
Moreover, besides biblical theology, auxiliary sciences provide great advantage: biblical history and ancient Near Eastern history, biblical archaeology, biblical geography and topography, biblical chronology, and natural history.
e) Authentic, that is, Catholic hermeneutics. — Granted that Holy Scripture is a book not only produced by human will and industry but also—and principally—of divine origin (cf. 2 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, historical exploration of the text; it is also—and above all—an exercise in theology and fidelity to the Catholic Church (cf. Enchiridion Biblicum, no. 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., Mt 16:18, 19; 28:19, 20; Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:13–15), which explicitly proclaim the Church’s magisterium teaching infallibly the revealed truths, implicitly claim for her the right faithfully to interpret Sacred Scripture, one of the sources of Revelation. And the Fathers of the Church, faced with heretics who abused biblical texts by interpreting them according to their own whims, affirmed this exclusive right of the Church. Their doctrine is summarized in the words of Vincent of Lérins: “It is of the greatest necessity... that the prophetic and apostolic interpretation be guided according to the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic sense” (Commonitorium 1.2: PL 50, 640).
The words “in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium” (of the Councils of Trent and Vatican) gave rise to controversies regarding the extent of the Church’s magisterium. This right of hers is direct and positive “in matters of faith and morals,” indirect and rather negative in other matters. In these, the Church does not judge from the standpoint of secular sciences but in their relation to a revealed truth (e.g., the problems of the Examen and of primordial history).
The sources of authentic interpretation from which Catholic exegesis must draw are: 1) the traditional explanations of the ordinary magisterium; 2) the solemn definitions, whether direct or indirect, positive or negative, of the extraordinary magisterium (as well as the declarations, though not infallible nor irreformable, of the Pontifical Biblical Commission); 3) the exegesis of the Fathers, faithful witnesses and guardians of the apostolic tradition and of the mind of the Church. The Council of Trent and subsequent ecclesiastical documents have laid down two conditions: the consensus of the Fathers 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 meaning has not been clarified either by the Church’s magisterium or by the consensus of the Fathers, the interpreter must follow the analogy of faith (cf. Rom 12:6), that is, conformity with the whole 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 exegesis “hold theology in high esteem” (Enchiridion Biblicum, no. 95).
The use of this hermeneutical rule is most often negative, that is, any scriptural interpretation that is found to be in contrast with the doctrine of the Church must at once be considered false and rejected. When, however—as is usually the case—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, serious questions raised anew by the discoveries of modern research, which greatly disturb the minds of Catholics. Catholic interpreters must address these not only to refute the objections of adversaries but also to attempt a solid explanation that faithfully accords with the doctrine of the Church and, in particular, with the traditional conviction regarding the immunity of Sacred Scripture from every error, and at the same time gives due satisfaction to the well-established conclusions of secular 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 knowledge of the philological, historical, and sometimes natural sciences. Before speaking of a contradiction (antilogy) between faith and science, between the Bible and secular sciences, the genuine sense of such a scriptural text must be ascertained; on the other hand, the conclusions of secular sciences must be certain, not merely probable. Yet even in the Bible itself there are passages which seem to contradict one another, e.g., in the genealogy of Christ, or regarding the day and hour of the Savior’s death (cf. Sinoptics and John), V. INERRANZA; GENRES LITTÉRAIRES; IMPLICIT CITATIONS.
2. Prophetic interpretation
The sense of Sacred Scripture, established by the norms of rational-literary and authentic-Catholic hermeneutics, can be proposed in different ways, depending on the end the interpreter has in view, whether scientific or practical-pastoral.a) Scientific interpretations. — The principal ones are the following: 1) the translation, the most general and simplest method of presenting the sense of the sacred text. If it is faithful to the word and spirit of the original, and at the same time clear and limpid, in language intelligible to contemporary readers and accompanied by sound annotations, it is in itself already a valuable commentary. 2) The commentary proper, that is, the literal-historical explanation of an entire sacred book, with analysis of the text (preceded by introductory questions, textual and literary criticism) and synthesis of doctrine. To philology must be joined theology.
Between the simple translation and the perfect commentary stand partial expositions, which have rather fallen into disuse, namely, paraphrase (a freer and more ample version), scholia, that is, brief grammatical, historical, etc., notes on an obscure passage (this method was famous among the Alexandrian grammarians and then adopted and applied to the Bible by Origen), marginal notes, that is, brief continuous explanations added “after those words” (famous are those of Nicholas of Lyra), and finally glosses, brief annotations placed either in the margin of the biblical text (glossa marginalis) or between the lines of the same (glossa interlinearis), taken from the Fathers and ancient ecclesiastical writers, later collected in the glossae continuatae or “chains,” among which are famous the Glossa ordinaria attributed to Walafrid Strabo and the Catena aurea of St. Thomas on the Gospels.
b) Pastoral interpretations. — These are as follows: 1) sacred reading, which explains Holy Scripture to the people, book by book, passage by passage, commenting 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 apostolic zeal and sincere love of the divine word may deem suitable for this purpose will always be of effective help to souls (cf. Pius XII, loc. cit., p. 347).
III. HISTORY
The question regarding the relationship between the literal and the typical sense may offer a suitable criterion in the study of the history of interpretation, since it reveals tendencies that either resolutely oppose one another or seek to coexist and merge in search of 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, the literal or supposedly literal method predominates, given the at times fanciful or simplistic character of its expositions in the works of mystical and Talmudic authors (v. TANNAITES), while allegorism is very pronounced in Philo (v. d) of Alexandria and in certain Palestinian rabbis.3. Patristic period
Even before the direct influence of Jewish scholars (of Philo on the school of Alexandria and particularly on Origen, of Palestinian rabbis on various Fathers who came into contact with them, especially St. Jerome) was felt, Christians already discerned in the inspired authors of the New Testament a tendency toward free interpretations and even toward accommodations (cf. Mt 2:15; 3:3; 13:14-15; Rom 10:18; 2 Cor 8:15, etc.). This attitude was shared by the Apostolic Fathers and early Christian writers. St. Clement I, pope (v.), St. Justin (v.), St. Irenaeus (v.), Tertullian—none of whom left true biblical commentaries—usually present an interpretation, while the Epistle of Barnabas and, in a much more attenuated form, St. Theophilus of Antioch inaugurate the allegorical method.In the 3rd–4th centuries, the two currents are expressed by two antagonistic schools. In Alexandria, especially through the work of Clement and Origen, interpretation reaches its zenith, displaying all its merits and not a few 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 a fondness for allegory in his countless Homilies on biblical books, also revealed himself to be a scrupulous student of the letter of the Bible, as appears from numerous passages in his Tomes and from his monumental work in textual criticism (v. HEXAPLA). Origen’s preference for the “pneumatic” or spiritual sense stemmed from his asceticism and his 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, though in their commentaries—especially those of Didymus—a greater interest in the literal sense is noted, along with the abandonment of the uncertain tripartite division of biblical senses. Authors sympathetic to the Alexandrian school, though not belonging to it, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and the three great Cappadocians—St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Gregory of Nyssa—also followed this method. Opposing Alexandrian allegorism were St. Methodius, bishop of Olympus, and St. Epiphanius, who, however, in his treatise De duodecim gemmis of the high priest’s breastplate, could not escape its powerful influence.
At Antioch, on the other hand, a true school with its own approach formed, often in antagonism to that of Alexandria, though the ideological contrasts between the two centers of study have sometimes been exaggerated. In the Antiochene school, famous for its literalism and the application of the “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, though they were almost overshadowed by 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 his admirable ability to adapt biblical texts to practical life. Theodore is a penetrating and well-known exegete. Writers such as St. Aphraates, St. Ephrem, and numerous other authors from the schools of Edessa and Nisibis may be considered emanations of the Antiochene school due to the almost identical hermeneutical principles.
In the West, early exegetes such as St. Hippolytus, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Ambrose preferred the allegorical method, though displaying the great practicality of the Latin spirit. A good literal exegete is Ambrosiaster. Similarly, St. Augustine is allegorical in his Sermons and, with greater moderation, in his Expositions on the Psalms and Tractates on the Fourth Gospel; yet he left excellent literal observations in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, particularly on Genesis, and in the work De consensu Evangelistarum. St. Jerome is rather eclectic; in his commentaries on the prophets, the Epistle to the Galatians, and the Pauline epistles (Ephesians, Galatians, Titus, Philemon), he combines acute observations in textual criticism and history with very free allegorical explanations, which prevail in many of his ascetical and exegetical letters; a strong sense of practicality is evident in his Tractates on the Psalms, while in the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim he records not a few rabbinic explanations.
The patristic period closes with lesser exegetes, who often repeat what had been said by the authors of the golden age (4th–5th centuries). Among them who published somewhat more personal commentaries were Olympiodorus of Alexandria, Oecumenius of Tricca, Andrew and Arethas of Caesarea, Theophylact of Acrida, and Euthymius Zigabenus. Among the Latins, at least a mention is due to St. Gregory the Great, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Bede the Venerable, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Walafrid Strabo, to whom the Glossa ordinaria was attributed and who enjoyed wide diffusion.
2. Medieval Period
In the history of exegesis, the medieval period is generally identified with Scholasticism (v.). Although there are many valuable works, there is a marked dependence on the great exegetes such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine, as well as an exaggerated fondness for minute analysis according to the method proper to Scholastic philosophers. Many applied to the Bible the four senses—literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical—expressed in the well-known couplet by Augustine of Dacia.
Among the earliest exegetes, mention may be made of 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 successful in his ascetical-mystical applications, while Hugh of St. Cher is remembered with honor especially for his initiative in producing a biblical concordance. St. Thomas, distancing himself from his master St. Albert, who was too allegorical, proved himself a profound and reliable exegete, particularly in his excellent commentary on St. Paul. With Raymond Martini and Nicholas Lyran, philology and rabbinic exegesis were again utilized, sometimes in a masterly way. Lorenzo Valla, along with other humanists, contributed to the Italian Bible the knowledge of Greek. The period may be considered closed with two authors of allegorical tendency, Alfonso Tostado and Denis Cerrato.
3. Recent Period
The Council of Trent (1545–1563) marks a turning point. With it begins in Europe the unfortunate division between Protestant and Catholic exegesis, but also a remarkable revival in the study of Sacred Scripture. Among the initiators of this movement may be counted G. Lefèvre d'Étaples (Faber Stapulensis), Erasmus of Rotterdam, J. Gagnée (Gagnaeus), S. Pagnini, renowned for his interlinear version, F. Wattebled (Vatablus), A. Steuco, Cardinal T. De Vio, known as Cajetan. The first Protestants, however, proved to be mediocre exegetes, including Luther, who nonetheless published the 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, biblical geography and archaeology, as well as the study of Greek and Hebrew, begins toward the end of the 16th century.
Among the most notable exegetes of this golden age are: F. de Ribera, A. Agelli, C. a Lapide, C. Jansen (Jansenius) of Ghent, J. Maldonatus, E. Sa, B. Pereyra (Pererius), J. Hessel van Est (Estius), J. Sanchez, J. Lorinus, J. Tirinus, St. R. Bellarmine, etc.
Protestantism only in the 17th century began to produce notable exegeses, which, however, either sowed the seeds of biblical rationalism or displayed an exaggerated cult of the literal sense to the detriment of the typical sense; nor were there lacking cases of pure allegorism or "figurism," e.g., Cocceius. Admirable were some scholars of Hebrew philology, such as the two Buxtorfs, or of auxiliary sciences to the Bible, such as S. Bochart and L. Cappell.
Somewhat later, Catholicism also produced excellent Hebraists, such as F. Houbigant and G. B. De Rossi, and scholars of auxiliary disciplines, such as R. Simon, B. Lamy, G. Bartolocci, C. Imbonati, J. Lelong, B. Ugolini. Among exegetes proper, distinguished figures include A. Calmet, Bernardino da Picquigny (Piconius), and J. B. Bossuet.
Among Protestants, mention should be made of the "figurist" Campegius Vitringa, J. Le Clerc, J. E. Michaels, J. G. Carpzov for biblical introduction, A. Reland, J. Lightfoot, C. Schottgen for some auxiliary disciplines. J. Wetstein and J. 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 camp, in opposition to supernaturalism. No attention is paid to the spiritual or typical sense of Sacred Scripture; indeed, with the denial of inspiration and any faith in the supernatural, the aim is to explain the purely human origin and meaning of the Sacred Books. The Bible, reduced to the level of an ordinary book, is subjected to minute analysis to elucidate, through various historical-philosophical theories, the formation of faith and the accounts of miraculous events. It must be acknowledged, however, that literal exegesis often enriched itself with valuable elements due to the great progress in philological, historical, archaeological, and Oriental studies.
The principal rationalist exegetes from the beginning of the 19th century to the present day include: 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 scholars, along with many others, focused predominantly on the Old Testament, rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
In the New Testament, H. S. Reimarus sought to explain the enigma of Christ as presented in the Gospels once the supernatural is denied. Following his example, though with somewhat different methods, were D. F. STRAUSS, D (v.), C. F. Baur with the many authors of the so-called "Tübingen School," the eschatologists W. Wrede, A. Schweitzer, A. Loisy, E. Buonaiuti, A. Omodeo, the historians of comparative religion R. Reitzenstein, W. Bousset, and the proponents of the "form-criticism" method M. Dibelius, R. Bultmann, G. Bertram. While these authors dealt rather with fundamental or general problems, others, such as the two Rosenmüller, H. Olshausen, E. W. Hengstenberg, compared methods notable for their doctrinal and conservative tendencies. After 1850, large collections of biblical commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias began to appear, the list of which would itself require several pages. In such works, one usually finds rich scientific information, especially on questions of archaeology and philology, but lacking any element that recalls the supernatural character of the Bible. Nevertheless, alongside extreme rationalists, moderate or conservative scholars may be found who maintain inspiration with rather uncertain concepts.
Among Catholics, the study of the Bible experienced almost a standstill after the magnificent flowering in the period following the Council of Trent. Nevertheless, there were always careful exegetes and courageous apologists of Scripture, even during the most clamorous triumph of rationalism. In recent times, however, a revival of biblical studies has become evident. Alongside proper exegesis, auxiliary disciplines—which rationalists had so often abused—are now cultivated. Catholics too have published important biblical commentaries in collaboration. Suffice it to recall the *Sacrae Scripturae cursus completus* of Migne (28 vols.), the *Cursus Scripturae Sacrae* edited by various authors (R. Cornely, J. Knabenbauer [v.], Fr. Hummelauer), *La Sainte Bible* by L. Cl. Fillion, *Études bibliques* by distinguished scholars gathered around the great exegete M.-J. Lagrange, the *Kurzgefasster wissenschaftlicher Commentar zum Alten Testament* by 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, works such as *La Sainte Bible* by L. Pirot (v.) - A. Clamer and *Verbum Salutis* are popular in character but offer excellent information. In Italy, there are *La S. Bibbia commentata* by M. Sales and G. Girotti (Turin 1911 ff., incomplete), *La S. Bibbia* edited by Mons. S. Garofalo (Turin 1947 ff.), while under the direction of the Pontifical Biblical Institute an excellent translation of the original texts with brief notes is published (Florence 1943 ff.). Countless commentaries on individual books of the Bible exist in all languages, especially in German.
Regarding the trend of these modern exegetical methods, it is fair to observe that some, in order to oppose the destructive criticism of rationalism, almost entirely neglect any investigation into the spiritual or typical sense, fighting their adversaries with a method similar to theirs. Others, however, with the intention of presenting a more ascetical-mystical exposition, often leave much to be desired in terms of literal exegetical precision and the appropriateness of their applications. This latter tendency, which seeks to be a just reminder of the supernatural character of the Bible, is also shared by several Protestant authors, exponents of the so-called "pneumatic" school of exegesis.
Among Catholics, especially in France, there is insistence—often exaggerated by some—on the necessity and merits of the spiritual sense. Yet a sound harmony between literal and typical exegesis is the ideal advocated by the most recent encyclicals on biblical studies, particularly *Providentissimus Deus* (1893), *Spiritus Paraclitus* (1920), and *Divino afflante Spiritu* (1943).