Brown-Theory of Sens..

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR*
The sensus plenior has received great attention in postwar biblical periodicals. Although this new classification among the senses of Scripture
was definitely formulated some twenty-five years ago, only in the last five
or six years has it attracted wide attention from European scholars. The
present article will not take sides or attempt to add anything new to the
discussion; its only purpose is to present a systematic and chronological
study of the development of ideas on the sensus plenior. A serious attempt
at completeness has been made, although some of the latest articles may
not yet have come to the writer's attention.
The Beginnings
It is generally conceded that the first use of the term sensus plenior
as a definite title in a classification of scriptural senses was the contribution of Fr. Andrea Fernández 1 in the late 1920's. But the idea did not
come unheralded, for the turn of the century had seen some very important theologians suggesting a sense of Scripture very close to that
which we now call the sensus plenior. Comely,2 for instance, distinguished
two divisions of the consequent sense. The second is that which we
usually call consequent, i.e., the meaning derived through a syllogism
built on a scriptural text. But the first consists in a richer meaning which
a text assumes long after it has been written through a certain evolution
in the meaning of its words. Thus wisdom has a certain meaning when
spoken of as human wisdom, but an even fuller meaning when it is applied
to God. Although Comely calls this "accuratioreni et pleniorem sensutn"
a consequent sense, he admits that it does not go beyond the limits of the
literal sense.
Fr. Lagrange 3 proposed the hypothesis of a sense in some way <€supralittéral". He seems to mean by it that additional meaning which is
grasped from a scriptural text that has been placed in the context of the
* The Editor believes that this bibliographical article will be especially helpful
to busy readers who have been unable to follow this question because of lack
of time or availability of materials. Similar articles will be welcome.
1
A. Fernández, S.J., "Hermenéutica," Institutiones Biblicae Scholis Accommodate (2d ed., Rome: Biblical Institute, 1927), 306. We have been unable to
ascertain whether or not it is mentioned in the first edition of 1925.
2
R. Comely, S.J., Introductio Generalis (vol. I of the Cursus Sacrœ Scripture?,
Paris: Lethielleux, 1885), 527-30.
3
M. J. Lagrange, O.P., "L'interprétation de la Sainte Écriture par l'Église,"
RB 9 (1900), 141-2.
141
142
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
whole Bible, or that has been confronted with other and clearer passages on
the same subject. Fr. Pesch4 too sees the possibility of an "altiorem sensum" which the human author did not foresee, but which God intended to
express in the words of Scripture (therefore, not a typical sense which is
a sense of "things" rather than of words). After citing many authorities for this sense, he says, "These authorities teach that underlying
the words of Scripture there is frequently a deeper sense than that which
can be obtained by the common rules of interpretation, and that the
hagiographers themselves did not always understand in its full amplitude
the sense of the inspired words." 6
Prat 6 was another who insisted that we cannot confine the divine
message to those points of which the human author was fully conscious,
for the Church is justified in finding in obscure prophecies a hidden
sense which may not have been understood by the prophets themselves.
He confines this hidden sense to prophecies.
These authors prepared the way for the sensus plenior introduced by
Fr. Fernández. The first treatment of the new scriptural classification
runs only a page and a half. The sense is spoken of in words closely
akin to those of Pesch: God intends to express through the words of
Scripture a deeper meaning than that which the hagiographer understood and intended. However, this hidden meaning is not entirely different from the literal sense, but rather a fuller development of it, whence
the name. For Fernández this sensus plenior is especially found in
prophecies which had a literal meaning for the contemporary Jews,
but a fuller meaning for the Christians who saw the fulfillment of the
prophecies. The prophet, of course, may not have been aware of this
fuller meaning ; but then as St. Thomas says : "Since the mind of the
prophet is a deficient instrument, as has been said, even the true
prophets do not know everything which the Holy Spirit intends in their
visions, their sayings, or their deeds."7 Besides prophecy another example of the sensus plenior is that of certain Christian doctrines which were
4
C. Pesch, S J., De Interpretation
Sacrœ Scriptures
(Freiburg: Herder,
1903), 509-11.
5
Ibid., 510-11. Hae igitur auctoritates docent subesse saepe verbis scripturae
altiorem sensum, quam qui communibus interpretandis praeceptis inveniri possit,
et ipsos hagiographos non semper totam amplitudinem sensus verborum inspiratorum
comprehendisse.
6
F . Prat, S J . , "Les historiens inspires et leurs sources," Études 86 (1901),
494-6.
7
I I - I I , 173, 4. Sciendum tarnen quod quia mens prophetae est instrumentum
deficiens, ut dictum est, etiam veri prophetae non omnia cognoscunt quae in eorum
visis aut verbis aut etiam factis Spiritus Sanctus intendit.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
143
insinuated in the Old Testament, e.g., the Trinity as adumbrated in
the sapiential books.
Other authors were not slow to utilize the idea and terminology of the
sensus plenior. It is found already in the 1931 edition of the Simon-Prado
manual8 where the authors carefully distinguish between the sensus
plenior and the implicit (or consequent) sense. Once again the sensus
plenior is that additional meaning which God intends to express in the
words of a text unknown to the human author. Yet here God does not
intend a meaning objectively different from that of the human author;
it is only a case of subjective difference or of a development of the human
author's idea. In fact, between the literal sense and the sensus plenior there is
merely a subjective difference sine fundamenta in re since the fuller meaning is apprehended in a confused manner by the hagiographer. The consequent sense, however, is subjectively distinct cum fundamento in re;
in other words, by reasoning about the text we arrive at a new idea, not
a development of the old idea. In the consequent sense what the hagiographer was thinking about is formally different from the meaning we get;
but with regard to the sensus plenior, the hagiographer imperfectly foresaw the fuller meaning. Thus in their treatment of this new sense Simon
and Prado advance a step for already they are clearly positing some
understanding of the sensus plenior on the part of the human author.
The next year saw the publication of a very interesting article on the
senso letterale pieno by Fr. de Ambroggi,0 an article which is the first
complete treatment of our subject. He maintains that the literal sense
should be divided into two branches (the ordinary literal sense and the
full literal sense), according to the hagiographer's lesser or greater comprehension of the whole import of God's intent. The senso pieno then
is not a typical sense but a literal sense, for its basis is the inspired word
and not some object or person described in the text. 10 The author offers
us this definition of the full literal sense : "That aspect of the truth which,
although it can be grasped directly from the biblical text, was unknown
to the hagiographer, but was known by God, the Inspirer, who intended
8
H. Simon and J. Prado, Prœlectiones Biblica ad Usum Scholarum (voi. I,
Propœdeutica Biblica, Turin: Marietti, 1931), 207-10.
9
D. P. de Ambroggi, "Il senso letterale pieno nelle divine Scritture," Se Cat 60
(1932, 2), 296-312.
1ϋ
Yet he does say that sometimes in seeing the full literal sense of a prophecy
a type can be useful. P. 309: "Può accadere talora che, nel confronto del vaticinio
coli* adempimento noi scorgiamo una realtà intermedia, una figura reale, un
tipo insomma . . . " In view of future developments on the relations of the typical
sense and the sensus plenior, this passage is noteworthy.
144
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
to express it in these words." 11 The existence of this sense is conclusively
attested to in the history of noematics, Fr. de Ambroggi holds. He finds
a reference to it in the encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, where the Pope
speaks of a fullness and a hidden depth of meaning which the ordinary
laws of interpretation hardly warrant. But more significant, this full
sense was admitted by the prophets themselves who tell us that their
message was not completely understood, e.g., Dn 7, 16 and 28; Is 6, 9-10;
Jer 23, 20; Ez 33, 33. In practice, the New Testament writers, the
Fathers and the scholastics all employed the full literal sense in their interpretations (indeed, it is the key to the old question of the plural
literal sense).
What criteria may we use to determine the senso letterale pieno? De
Ambroggi says that merely human criteria are insufficient, for this sense
is properly God's and not that of the human author. Thus the Church,
the consent of the Evangelists and of the Fathers, and Catholic tradition
are the final criteria of the existence or non-existence of a fuller meaning in the text. By use of these criteria the author finds some examples
of the sensus plenior: the implicit Old Testament references to the Trinity
in Gn 1, 26 and 3, 22; and to the Holy Spirit in Gn 1, 2 and Mi 2, 7;
the Word of God mentioned in Is 55, 10-11 and Ps 107, 2 (Hebrew) ; the
messianic application of many psalms. In another article12 de Ambroggi
had already applied the "full sense" to the Protoevangelium.
For the next ten years very little of importance was added to the
literature on the sensus plenior, although it was not completely forgotten. In the second edition of his manual, Renié 13 added a paragraph
accepting the sensus plenior as a valid prolongation of the literal sense
which is uncovered through Christian revelation. Fr. Rivera,14 after a
detailed study of Ap 12, found that the only adequate term in which to
couch the Mariological interpretation of the passage is that of the sensus
plenior as presented by Fernández. His opinion was contested by Perrella15 who seems to admit the existence of the sensus plenior but says
that it is not applicable in this case.
11
Ibid., 299. Per senso letterale pieno intendiamo quell' aspetto della verità,
che, pur potendo essere compreso direttamente neir espressione biblica, non era
conosciuto dalP agiografo, ma sì da Dio inspiratore che per quelle parole volle
significarlo.
12
D. P. de Ambroggi, "Il senso 'pieno* del Protovangelo," Se Cat 60 (1932, 1)
193-205 and 277-88.
i* J. Renié, S.M., Manuel d'Écriture Sainte (2d ed., Lyon: Vitte, 1935), vol. I, 189.
14
A. Rivera, S.J., " 'Inimicitias ponam . . .' — 'Signum magnum apparaît*
(Gen 3, 15; Ape 12, 1)," VD 21 (1941), 188-9.
15
G. Perrella, CM., "Sulla terminologia circa il senso mariologico dell' Apocalisse XII," DTP 45 (1942), 100-03.
T H E THEORY OF A S E N S U S PLENIOR
145
Postwar Impetus
After this long period of relative inactivity Denis Buzy16 published an
article which, because of the trends that it insisted on, played an important role in the development of ideas on the sensus plenior. For Fr.
Buzy the discussion of the sensus plenior up to now had been too much
centered on the unawareness of the human author, something that we
can never be sure of. What is more important is that a certain passage,
independently of the hagiographer's consciousness, can be really said
to possess this fuller sense as its meaning. Now, does a text sometimes
undergo through the centuries a homogeneous evolution in meaning?
Fr. Buzy says that it does, and that is what the Fathers and the scholastics meant by saying that a passage could have a plural meaning. He
cites some of the examples we have already seen (although, in general,
he does not like de Ambroggi's examples), and adds the case of the
Canticle of Canticles applied to Christ's love for the Church, and that of
the "son of man" in Dn 7, 14. Also, when there are a group of texts
on the same subject, each one has a fuller meaning once we see the
whole picture. For example, any single one of Christ's remarks on the
Parousia is more understandable when we view His whole thought.
In his attitude on the relation of sensus plenior and the typical sense,
Buzy seems to have a new emphasis: ". . . the typical sense can be
grouped under the plural sense or sensus plenior of which it is an application or a species."17 There is a bond between the two: with the sensus
plenior, the text takes on greater comprehension; and with the typical
sense, it takes on greater extension being applied to two things, the type
and the antitype, instead of one. In all this Buzy cautions us not to use
the sensus plenior as a means of new exegetical discoveries; it is more a
justification of past exegesis.
When Buzy reacted against the insistence on the hagiographer's unawareness of the fuller meaning, he prepared the way for a movement
that has put more and more stress on the human author's awareness of the
sensus plenior. One of the first attempts to really establish and explain
such an awareness was that of the Benedictine, Jean Gribomont.18 In his
application of Thomistic psychology to the mentality of the hagiographer,
Gribomont's chief idea is that clear awareness is not the only kind of
16
D. Buzy, C.S.J., "Un problème d'herméneutique sacrée: Sens plural, plénier
et mystique," An Th (1944), 385-408.
*7 Ibid., 403. . . . le sens typique peut se ramener au sens plural ou plénier
dont il est une application ou une espèce.
18
J. Gribomont, O.S.B., "Le lien des deux Testaments selon la théologie de
S. Thomas," Eph Th Lov 22 (1946), 70-89.
146
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
awareness. For instance, when we are speaking, we may have a vague
idea which we cannot quite express. If someone else grasps our idea
more clearly and comments on it, we remark, "That's just what I
meant." In like manner we praise or criticize a philosopher for the
notions that were implicit in his system, but which were only clearly
evolved by his pupils.
We may attribute this vague or implicit consciousness of the fuller
meaning of their writings to the biblical authors precisely because they
were acutely cognizant of the messianic tendency of history. The com­
posers of the Scriptures knew that they had but an incomplete role in
the drama of God's redemptive action, and that their part would be
clearly seen only when the whole play had been enacted. For Gribomont
the three stages in the history of salvation (the Israelite, the Christian
and the eschatological) are in an ascending relation of imperfect to per­
fect. The explicit consciousness of the Jewish writer about the religious
value of history and about the imperfect nature of his own historical
stage was his implicit consciousness of future things. Thus the classifica­
tion of an authentic prolongation and development of the literal sense
(our sensus plenior) as a real sense of Scripture is justified and not
at all anti-psychological.
Fr. Gribomont surrounds these reflections, of which we have but
taken the essence, with a wealth of citations from St. Thomas. Nay,
going further back, he finds that such an outlook on the senses of
Scripture is in sympathy with patristic ideas. In particular he considers
the theoria defended by the Antiochian schoool of exegesis. 19 Without
going into detail, we may say that theoria is that perception of the future
that a prophet enjoys through the medium of the present circumstances
he is describing. In a sort of simultaneous intuition of shadow and
substance, the prophet attains not only to the literal sense of what he
is saying but also to the fuller meaning that its accomplishment will
give it. 2 0 Needless to say, Gribomont finds this ancient idea very
akin to his own. We might note that in all this discussion Gribomont
is not too precise in terminology, speaking of a fuller meaning, the
typical sense, and the spiritual sense almost interchangeably. As we
i» Ibid., 84-86.
20
The concept of theoria comes up so frequently in studies on the sensus
plenior that a thorough acquaintance with the following articles is almost im­
perative: A. Vaccari, S.J., "La θεωρία nella scuola esegetica di Antiochia," Bb
1 (1920), 3-36.; R. Devreesse, "La méthode exégètique de Théodore de Mopsueste,"
RB S3 (1946), 207-41.; J. Guillet, SJ., "Les exégèses d'Alexandrie et dAntioche,
conflit ou malentendu?" RSR 34 (1947), 257-302.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
147
shall see, he has since clarified his position on the interrelation of
scriptural senses.
About the same time as the article we have been summarizing,
Richard Kehoe, O.P., published in English a short study of the spiritual
sense of Scripture. 21 Although he does not deal with the sensus plenior
explicitly, he insists that the typical sense does not exhaust the spiritual
sense; for the words as well as the realities of Scripture take on further
meaning in the light of Christian revelation. This article offers some
very good thoughts which, when adapted to the relations of the sensus
plenior and the typical sense, complement Buzy's ideas.
In the midst of all this theoretical advancement, Fr. Van der Ploeg 22
brought forth an excellent practical application of the theory of the
sensus plenior by studying the exegesis of the Old Testament employed
in the Epistle to the Hebrews. He refuses to classify the general use
of scriptural quotations in this epistle as accommodation or typology;
rather it is often an exegesis which arrives at a sens plus plein of the
Old Testament. To demonstrate this he studies a whole list of biblical
citations and points out just when they are instances of a sensus plenior.
His article forms one of the richest sources of examples of the fuller
sense.
Thus far our readers may have noticed that the sensus plenior has
been closely connected to the literal sense. For de Ambroggi it was
the "full literal sense" ; many of the others regarded it as a homogeneous
development of the literal sense. Pierre Benoit,23 in the brief note
that he has dedicated to the subject in the appendage to his volume
of the French translation of the Summa Theologica, lists it rather as
a second sense of Scripture. There are two second senses of Scripture:
the typical sense dealing with things and the sensus plenior dealing
with words. Both differ from the literal sense because, unless God
gave a special revelation, they were unknown by the human author.
Since Benoit's time the question as to whether the sensus plenior is
better classified as a literal or a second sense of Scripture has not been
settled by its various proponents.
With the number of articles now being written on the subject, we
might well expect that not all the reaction to the sensus plenior would
21 R. Kehoe, O.P., "The Spiritual Sense of Scripture," Blackfriars 27 (1946),
246-51.
22
J. Van der Ploeg, O.P., "L'exégèse de l'Ancien Testament dans TÉpître aux
Hébreux," RB 54 (1947), 187-228.
23 P. Benoit, O.P., La Prophétie (II-II, qq. 171-8; Paris: Desclée, 1947),
Appendice II, pp. 356-9.
148
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
be favorable. The first to raise the banner of written opposition was
Fr. Rudolph Bierberg.24 He approaches the question from the twofold
aspect of inspiration and of revelation. From the viewpoint of inspiration,
he asserts that no single word or passage in Scripture has an objective
sensus plenior. For, as far as inspiration is concerned, what God
intended, the human author intended, and vice versa. The meaning
directly intended by the hagiographer (which is the literal sense) is
what is inspired; consequently if the sensus plenior goes beyond the
understanding and intention of the sacred author, it is not inspired.
Bierberg's second assertion reads: "It would seem that no single
word or sentence of strict revelation has, per se, an objective sensus
plenior"215 The problem of the sensus plenior arises about texts wherein
God has revealed supernatural truths. Now when God revealed those
truths directly, He intended them in their fullest sense and was so
quoted by the inspired hagiographer. Since the human author was only
quoting God and intended whatever God intended, the widest comprehension of the words is the literal sense and not the sensus plenior. Actually
we may come to understand that revelation better; but it is merely our
subjective development, not an objective development of the literal sense.
The case of mediate or indirect revelation is different. When a
prophet was the medium of God's revelation, often he did not understand
the full meaning of the revelation. Yet he made inferences as to what
God meant, and these inferences as conveyed in the Scriptures are
guaranteed to be true. But we now realize that the words of the sacred
writer can be taken in a sense fuller than that which he intended, namely,
the actual sense originally revealed and intended by God. In this
case, ". . . the revealed sense is a true and objective sensus plenior of
the inspired terms—though not as inspired."26 Thus Bierberg allows
the existence of the sensus plenior, but only in the one case of mediate
revelation ; and even there he feels that it is only per accidens and of little
practical importance. In the last analysis he finds that many of the
uses of this new scriptural sense by commentators are simply logical
implications flowing from subsequent revelation.
Such an article as this which strikes at the very heart of the theory
of a sensus plenior can be very useful to one who wishes to study the
problem, for it proposes questions that must be settled before we can
accept the new sense.
24
R. Bierberg, "Does Sacred Scripture Have a Sensus Plenior?" CBQ 10
(1948), 182-95.
2
5 Ibid., 189.
26 Ibid., 192.
THE
T H E O R Y OF A S E Ñ S U S
PLENIOR
149
New Contributions from Louvain
If one may be permitted to phrase it so, the theory of the sensus plenior
was growing up rapidly: it had encountered the first hard knocks of
opposition, and now it was to receive its most exhaustive study. In
1949 Canon Joseph Coppens of the University of Louvain published
an essay treating the different senses of Scripture in the light of the
unity of the two Testaments. 27 Showing an almost unlimited acquaintance
with past works on noematics as well as an ability for novel insights,
Coppens has given us in this book a really deep and thorough study
of the sensus plenior. One of the great merits of his work is to have
restudied the literal sense and the secondary senses of Scripture with
the possibility of the sensus plenior in mind. While hitherto the fuller
sense had been isolated for the purposes of investigation, Coppen succeeds
very well in showing its repercussions on the other scriptural senses.
We shall have to confine our comments to one chapter of the book,
that on the sensus plenior28 (and even here we choose only the main
ideas) ; nevertheless we warmly recommend the reading of the whole
work to anyone interested in the problem.
Coppens approaches the subject from the viewpoint of the harmony
and unity that should exist between the Old Testament and the New
Testament. The first and principal basis of this harmony is the literal
sense of the Scriptures. But some find that the accord between the two
Testaments established by the literal sense is not enough, and would
like closer and more numerous connections—yet without resorting to
the typical sense. This involves the sensus plenior.29
After a few remarks on its history, Coppens plunges right into
establishing the existence of the fuller sense. He discusses four proofs
that have been advanced: (a) The exegesis practiced by Christ, the
New Testament, and the Fathers. Although undoubtedly there is some
use of the sensus plenior in this early exegesis, Coppens cautions against
any universal statements in such a complex question, (b) The dogmatic
usage the Church makes of the Old Testament. Here again the author
is cautious, refusing to explain the obscure problem of the development
of doctrine by the more obscure one of the sensus plenior. (c) The
27
J. Coppens, Les harmonies des deux Testaments (Tournai-Paris: Casterman,
1949), 148 pp. The chapters of this book had been previously published as a series
of articles in the 1948-49 NRT. The abundant bibliography offered in this and
in Coppens* subsequent articles is invaluable.
28
Ibid., Chapter Two, 31-68, "Les apports du sens plénier".
29 Ibid., 30.
150
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
IS
harmony of the Testaments. Coppens sees the possibilities of the fuller
sense here. Yet, although there is but one principal author of the
Bible, He has not suppressed the individual characteristics of each
writer and book; consequently we cannot expect perfect harmony, (d)
The power to include a sensus plenior in the Scriptures cannot be
denied to God; therefore, why refuse to God the exercise of this power
since it seems perfectly in harmony with the divine pedagogic plan?
What more satisfying thought than that God has sowed in the Old
Testament the seeds of the magnificent growth which we witness in the
New Testament ! Then truly He would have established in the Scriptures
the fountains of living water springing up to life eternal.
Seemingly then for Coppens this last reason bolstered by the three
preceding ones should cause us to grant the existence of a sensus plenior.
He now turns to meet two serious objections. The first is the psychological one we saw raised in Bierberg's article: the problem of the
consciousness of the hagiographer.30 In his answer Coppens distinguishes
the cases of prophecy and non-prophecy. With regard to prophecy, if
we follow St. Thomas's axiom that the prophet is a deficient instrument,
Coppens maintains that we cannot restrict God's meaning to the understanding of the human author. Therefore in prophecies a sensus plenior
is possible, as even Bierberg partially concedes.
In this case of non-prophecy, the notion of inspiration does seem to
limit us to what the sacred author intended and understood. But
isn't it possible that the consciousness of the hagiographer stretched
out beyond the obvious meaning to a sensus plenior? (Notice that, unlike Bierberg, Coppens does not define the sensus plenior in terms of
unawareness by the human author.) Coppens mentions three possible
explanations of such a foresight: Origen's opinion that the hagiographers
received mystical experiences of the profundities of the New Testament;
Gribomont's explanation; and finally the theoria of Antioch. The latter
seems to him the most adequate.
The second objection concerns the ability of the text to bear such
a fuller sense.31 No matter what was in the author's mind, unless
the written words of the text are objectively able to be interpreted
more fully, we cannot posit the sensus plenior. Coppens' answer to
this difficulty lies in some reflections on semantics. First, the words of
an author seldom translate the richness of his thought. "The adaequatio
verbi et intellectus can be realized and actually is realized only very
so ibid., 46.
3i Ibid., 52.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
151
rarely." 32 And so there is nothing antipsychological about reading between the lines. Then secondly, and from almost an opposite viewpoint,
the terms that a writer uses are richer in objective value than the one
particular point that he is trying to convey; and once he puts them
down on paper, they acquire a sort of independent existence and can
be interpreted in their full value or plus-value. Especially is this true
of Hebrew with its small vocabulary and dynamic mode of thought.
From these two considerations, we may see that the words of a text : (a)
often contain in the mind of the author who uses them a subjective
connotation which they scarcely express on paper; (b) and often imply
other objective connotations which the author did not think about but
would not have rejected if he did. Therefore, being insufficient to
express fully certain ideas, they need a homogeneous complement in
meaning. The sensus plenior is this univocal and homogeneous complement; it does not form a second literal sense but merely the fullness of
the one sense.
Having advanced reasons for holding the sensus plenior and answered
the two thorniest objections, Coppens is now ready to study this new
sense more in detail. He first points out some misconceptions of the
fuller sense, and then presents what is perhaps his most original contribution: the three subdivisions of the sensus plenior.^ The first type
of fuller sense he calls périchoretique. It is that fuller meaning that a
passage or even a book of the Bible receives when placed in the context of the whole Bible. The whole of scriptural revelation gives more
meaning to any one part, just as the whole view of a tapestry gives meaning to the individual threads. The second division is the sens plénier
historico-typique. This occurs when there is manifest continuity between
an Old Testament and New Testament text because the objects of which
they treat are in a relation of figure to reality, and because through
a process of development the figure may be said to bring about efficiently
the reality. The first text anticipates the second; for it is at the beginning of a historical chain of events which leads to the second, and thus
it receives its full sense from the New Testament text. 34 The third
32
Ibid. "Uadœquatio verbi et intellectus ne peut se réaliser et ne se réalise
que très rarement."
33 Ibid., 58.
34 Personally we find the author's thought a bit obscure here. Later when
he speaks of the typical sense, Coppens accepts Patrizia idea that the typical
sense can be applied not only to persons and things but also to the text itself.
In other words, the text that describes a type is susceptible of a typical sense
too. The difference between this typical sense of words and the historico-typical
152
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
IS
division is the sens plénier prophético-typique—the fuller meaning that
we find in a prophecy once we have witnessed its realization.
At the end of his treatment of all the various senses of Scripture,
the author offers a table to sum up his ideas.30 Under the first large
division of the literal sense we find: (a) the strict or primary literal
sense, (b) the sensus plenior with its three subdivisions, (c) the consequent sense. Under the second large section which is the transposed
or spiritual sense, he places: (a) the typical sense, (b) the allegorical
sense. Thus for Coppens the sensus plenior is not a spiritual but a
literal sense.
This far too brief summary of Coppens* ideas on the fuller sense should
at least make clear the magnitude of his contribution to the subject as
well as the challenging nature of his innovations. Other scripture
scholars were not slow to meet the challenge. (In fact, with some reservations, we may say that much of the pertinent literature since 1949 has
concerned itself with the pros and cons of Coppens' suggestions.36) Fr.
de Vaux in his review87 agrees with Coppens on the existence of the
sensus plenior, but rejects the tripartite subdivision. De Vaux charges
Coppens with confusing the sensus plenior and the typical sense by the
introduction of the sens plénier historic o-ty pique. For de Vaux, "The
sensus plenior is that which God had in view when He inspired the
author in his choice of words . . ." 38 Thus he seemingly puts little emphasis on the consciousness of the hagiographer. The sensus plenior
is the homogeneous approfondissement of the literal sense; the typical
sense is heterogeneous to the literal sense, and has no fundamental connection with the text.
Coppens has since replied39 by accusing de Vaux of exaggerating
sensus plenior, if there is one, does not seem too clear. We recommend F. X.
Patrizi, S.J., Institutio de Interpretatione Bibliorum (2d ed., Rome: 1876), 204-6
and 213-7. This work contains some excellent insights; Fr. Coppens is to be
commended for "rediscovering" it.
35 Coppens, op. cit., 99-100.
36
We shall comment only on the reviews of Les harmonies that seemed to
us the most apropos. Other reviews that we might mention are those by: F. L.
Moriarty, S.J., Th St 11 (1950), 298-301; K. Prümm, S.J., Bb 31 (1950), 512-17.
37
R. de Vaux, O.P., review of Les harmonies des deux Testaments, "Bulletin,"
RB 57 (1950), 280-1.
38
Ibid., 281. "Le sens plénier est celui que Dieu a en vue lorsqu'il inspire à
l'auteur le choix de ses mots . . ."
39
J. Coppens, "Bibliographie," in Problèmes et méthode df exégèse théologique
by L. Cerfaux, J. Coppens, J. Gribomont (Analecta Lovaniensia, fase. 16, 1950),
87-88.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
153
the difference between the typical sense and the fuller sense. Fr. de
Vaux admits that the economy of salvation helps us to arrive at the
sensus plenior; yet, as Coppens points out, what is the economy of
salvation but the happenings and personages of the Bible ordered by
God towards salvation? And since typology is built up on these happenings and personages, it helps us to establish the sensus plenior of the
text, the sens plénier historico-typique. Nay, even in the prophetical
fuller sense types play an important role, for it was through the events
and people of their own time that the prophets were able to anticipate
the future (thvoria). And so Fr. Coppens defends his tripartite division
as originally proposed.
Another review of Les harmonies was that of Fr. Daniélou.40 This
author rejects the sensus plenior entirely. Either it was intended by
the author, and is simply literal; or it was not, and then it is a spiritual
sense. Coppens' prophético-typique is a literal sense; his históricotypique is a typical sense. There are only two scriptural senses for
Daniélou: the literal and the typical. It is dangerous to introduce this
new fuller sense which has no support in tradition and which only
confuses the issue. In fact, charges Daniélou, this whole movement
arises from a stubborn refusal of some exegetes to admit any sense
other than the literal which causes them to reduce even the spiritual
sense to the literal.41
In his answer,42 Coppens remarks that no Catholic adherent of the
literal sense seeks to deny the typical sense; however, Scripture just
is not that simple that we can afford to collect into the typical sense
every meaning which is not strictly literal. For, if the typical sense
is but a sense of objects and persons rather than of the text itself, then
it simply does not explain the interpretations of many passages. On
the other hand, should Daniélou want to admit (which apparently
he does not) that there exists, besides this typology of objects, a typology
of words, then he and Coppens might more or less agree. In short, it
40
J. Daniélou, S.J., review of Les harmonies, Dieu Vivant 16 (1950), 149-53.
Daniélou's views on the typical sense are both interesting and intricate; to understand all his nuances it is necessary to read his many articles on the subject.
Perhaps the most representative are: "Les divers sens de l'Écriture dans la
tradition chrétienne primitive," Eph Th Lov 24 (1948), 119-26; and "Qu'est-ce
que la typologie?" L'Ancien Testament et les Chrétiens (Paris: Cerf, 1951),
199-205.
41
Daniélou, review of Les harmonies, 150. "Ce qui en effet obscurit actuellement
la question, c'est que les exégètes littéraux, se refusant à admettre autre chose
que le sens littéral, s'enforcent de ramener le sens figuratif à celui-ci."
42 Coppens, "Bibliographie," 89-90.
154
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
would seem that Coppens feels that Daniélou has oversimplified the
problem.
Meanwhile all the work on the sensus plenior was not confined to the
rebuttal of arguments: Coppens and his Belgian confreres were advancing new and positive speculation on the subject. In September
1949 a biblical conference was held at Louvain on the subject of the
sensus plenior; and the following year some of the papers delivered
at that conference were collected and published. The resultant work,
Problèmkes et méthode d'exégèse théologique, contains two articles by
Canon Coppens, and one each by Canon Cerfaux and Fr. Gribomont.
The second of Coppens' articles43 discusses at length the exegesis of
the Protoevangelium and the possibility of classifying its mariological
and christological interpretation as a sensus plenior. The first article44
interests us more here because it studies once again the nature of the
fuller sense. Of course, Coppens treats the subject in a manner similar
to that of Les harmonies des deux Testaments; but occasionally he
seems to clarify a point that may have been a little vague before. (A
complete summation of the article would involve fruitless repetition;
we present only the new ideas that we found.)
One interesting point is that Coppens now admits that, instead of being
classed as a literal sense, the sensus plenior could be grouped under
the spiritual sense as a companion to the typical and allegorical senses.45
However, he adds the restriction that the fuller sense still differs from
the latter two senses which contain "a transposition of meaning." This
new grouping of scriptural senses, nevertheless, brings Coppens closer
to Benoit.
Another remark worthy of notice concerns the application of the
fuller sense to the Gospels. The author points out that the original
words of Jesus were very rich in meaning, and each Gospel attains to
particular aspects of the whole meaning. Consequently the Gospels may
be looked on as reflecting four successive stages in New Testament
theological thought, each one developing authentic nuances in the original
thought of the Master. Thus the Gospels present to us the sensus
plenior of Christ's words, and we are guaranteed by the charism of
inspiration that this development was faithful to the original.46
43
J. Coppens, "Le protoévangile. Un nouvel essai d'exégèse," Problèmes
et méthode, 45-77.
44
J. Coppens, "Le problème d'un sens biblique plénier/' Problèmes et méthode,
11-19.
45
Ibid., 17-18. Yet, as we shall see, he has recently changed his opinion again.
4
β Ibid., 18-19.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
155
Canon Cerfaux's article 47 studies the exegesis practiced by the writers
of the New Testament. In discussing the usage these primitive Christians
made of the various senses of Scripture, he finds that they were primarily
interested only in those sections of the Old Testament in which they
uncovered a Christian meaning, which is often the opposite of the carnal
or Jewish meaning. Yet in discovering this Christian meaning, they did
not dispense with the rules of exegesis. In fact, they often obtained a
literal sense especially in sections with a religious and prophetical value
("literal" at least in as much as they got the obvious meaning of the
words of the Septuagint, regardless of the author's intention). Fr. Cerfaux is very reserved in seeing in the New Testament the application
of allegory or typology to the Old Testament, but he does admit that
the early Christian exegetes found many parables in the Scriptures.
Cerfaux's summation is noteworthy:
Only in marked exceptions do they appeal to allegories or to types. Their
ordinary interpretation takes the text in its obvious and direct sense. Yet
there is in this style [of interpretation] a projection beyond what we call
the literal sense. God's purpose in inspiring the Bible with a view toward
Christian realities forces this adaptation and development of the strict literal
sense (our literal sense) to a Christian literal sense (our sensus pleniorf).48
Thus we may conclude that, in Cerfaux's opinion, there runs through
the bulk of New Testament exegesis a more profound and Christian
literal sense which at least bears some resemblance to the sensus plenior.
Fr. Gribomont has also presented us with an essay of great interest,40
an essay which complements his previous work on the subject. He begins
by studying the relations of the sensus plenior and the typical sense, rîe
points out that there is both a subjective and an objective continuity
in biblical revelation: subjective because the Christian religious attitude
is a development of that of Israel; and objective because many of our
institutions are the fulfillment of Judaic forerunners. The subjective
continuity is the justification for a sensus plenior, and the objective
continuity is the justification for the typical sense. Ancient exegetes
47
L. Cerfaux, "Simples réflexions à propos de l'exégèse apostolique," Problèmes
et méthode, 33-44.
48
Ibid., 44. "Sauf exceptions marquées, ils ne font pas appel à des allégories
ou à des types. La lecture ordinaire prend les textes au sens obvie et direct. Il
y a dans cette manière un dépassement de notre sens littéral. Le but de Dieu,
qui inspira la Bible en vue des réalités chrétiennes, entraîne cette adaptation et ce
développement d'un sens littral (sic) strict (notre sens littéral) à un sens
littéral chrétien (notre sens plénier?)."
49
J. Gribomont, O.S.B., "Sens plénier, sens typique et sens littéral," Problèmes
et méthode, 21-31.
156
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
IS
were more interested in the objective aspect, and naturally concentrated
on the typical sense. But the moderns, in this as in other fields, are
always interested in the subjective which has led them to the fuller
sense. The two senses, however, really cannot be separated, for they
are correlatives. Typology is not an attribute of objects or persons
considered in themselves and entirely abstracted from the faith of Israel;
rather it is the subjective religious attitude of the Jews that constituted
types. If the crossing of the Red Sea is a type of Baptism, it is so not
because of the historical fact itself, but because the Exodus later assumed
for the Jewish religious mentality the proportions of a liberation from
evil. And so, for Gribomont, the two categories of the sensus plenior
and the typical sense fuse into one whole. In this viewpoint he approaches close to the idea suggested by Buzy some years before, a
position differing from that of Coppens who holds for a distinction of
the two senses, and even more radically from that of de Vaux who sees
almost an opposition between them.
In the second part of the article,60 Gribomont compares the typical
sense and the literal sense. He begins with the notion that in New
Testament exegesis one looks in vain for the strict literal interpretation
of the Old Testament: there is always a certain dépassement. This
overflowing and development of the strict literal sense is our correlative
typical-fuller sense, the sens typico-plénier. To substantiate this he
tries to show that the sensus plenior and the typical sense had a place
in the intention of the author (which, after all, is the norm of the
literal sense). The sensus plenior offers Gribomont no difficulty; in
his 1946 article he had already explained how the hagiographer had
a vague awareness of the fuller meaning.51 As for the typical sense,
he suggests that the human author was using types as symbols to express
presentiments which defied language. Feeling that he has thus succeeded
in establishing the hagiographer's consciousness of both the fuller
sense and the typical sense, Gribomont reaches this conclusion: "The
sensus plenior and the typical sense are in effect only correlative aspects
of the organic development of the literal sense in the framework of the
progress of Revelation."52 And so he simplifies and harmonizes the
various scriptural senses, and gives a total outlook which tends to engulf
so ibid., 27.
si Cf. footnote 18.
52
Gribomont, "Sens plénier," 31. "Sens plénier et sens typique ne seraient
en effet que les aspects corrélatifs du développement organique du sens littéral,
dans le cadre du progrès de la Révélation."
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
157
the refinements of the technical vocabulary introduced by scholars like
Coppens.
Subsequent Developments
The work of Coppens, Cerfaux and Gribomont brought a great
advance in our appreciation of the sensus plenior. Yet there still remained much to be said both adversely and favorably about this new
sense. The Jesuit, Gaston Courtade, is another scholar whom the
protagonists of the fuller sense have yet to convince, as he demonstrated
in 1950 with an article attacking the existence of the sensus plenior.m
Unlike Daniélou, Courtade does not feel that the notion of a fuller
sense is a novelty, for he admits that it has its roots in ancient exegesis.
But he says that it gradually lost favor and was revived only at the
end of the last century; recently it has received the title of the sensus
plenior. Now what is this so-called sensus plenior? If we follow St.
Thomas' division, there can only be two classes of scriptural senses:
the literal sense flowing from the text, and the spiritual sense flowing
from the events and persons of the narrative. The proponents of the
sensus plenior agree that it is a meaning of the text; consequently, the
more logical (e.g., Fernández, Renié, Coppens, etc.) classify it as a
literal sense. Yet Benoit calls it a spiritual sense because it goes beyond
the author's intention and awareness.
In any case, Courtade says tjiat it cannot exist: its definition implies
a contradiction. When one speaks or writes, he expresses a thought.
Our work in exegesis is to find out exactly what that thought was ; anything we add to the original thought is accommodation, not exegesis.
The defenders of the sensus plenior reply that we must not forget that
the human author is but an instrument. True, but we may not attempt
some sort of vivisection ; no text can possess a sense which would entirely
escape the human author's intention and have its origin in God alone.
God is an author only in as much as He inspired the hagiographer to
write, and in no line of Scripture did He wish to say more to us than
His instrument wished to say. Otherwise we are reduced to holding
63 G. Courtade, S.J., "Les Écritures ont-elles un sens 'plénier'?" RSR 37
(1950), 481-97. Curiously enough, the year before Courtade had written "Le sens
de Thistoire dans l'Écriture et la classification usuelle des sens scripturaires," RSR
36 (1949), 136-41, where he found that the meaning given to biblical texts by
the ordering of the whole Old Testament toward Christ could not be classified
as either literal or spiritual. He says, "La classification habituelle des sens
scripturaires présente une lacune. Elle ne fait pas au sens de Thistoire biblique
la place qui lui revient de droit." (p. 141).
158
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
IS
some sort of verbal inspiration theory where God places ready-made
phrases in the uncomprehending mind of the hagiographer.
What about the prophets? Well, they were the oracles of Yahweh,
but not merely passive channels of His message. They prophesied from
their own soul under the inspiration of the Spirit. The charism of
prophecy is primarily a gift of knowledge which raises a seer to an
awareness of the future. Thus here once again we cannot distinguish
the meaning flowing from the human author and that flowing from
God; the prophet difïers from the other hagiographers only because
he learned his truths directly from God.
And so Fr. Courtade seems to deny absolutely any possibility of a
sensus plenior even in prophecies. Yet he terminates his article on a
curious note. Is the sensus plenior a pure aberration? Not exactly, for
it is true that there was a gradual development of revelation in the
Old Testament, and the teachings of the individual books do form an
organic whole. Therefore, the value of some texts cannot be found
/in isolating them, but rather by giving them their place in the ascending
progress of revelation, by showing how they complete previous ideas
and prepare the way for a further evolution. "Without any doubt the
words of Scripture frequently possess a sensus plenior which passed
beyond the horizon of their human author, if one understands thereby
that in the mind of God these words were aimed beyond the end to
which the human author destined them, to a more elevated goal which
he did not perceive."64 It is not a question of a new or fuller meaning,
but of the same meaning directed to another goal.
While Fr. Courtade was thus submitting the sensus plenior to the
cold and revealing light of criticism, other and more favorable authors
were penetrating different aspects of the problem. Some of the names
are familiar. While reviewing some works on Mariology, Fr. de Ambroggi 55 sharpened to a fine precision his terminology on the senses of
Scripture. Besides the ordinary literal sense which was perfectly understood by the human author, there is a subordinate literal sense. This
can be divided into the sensus plenior and the eminent sense. De Ambroggi
does not offer much clarification of the latter, but the senso pieno is
intended by God and only partially known by the hagiographer. This
54
Courtade, "Les Écritures," 496. "Sans aucun doute, les paroles de l'Écriture
ont fréquemment un sens plénier qui dépassait l'horizon de leur auteur humain, sì
Ton entend par là que dans la pensée de Dieu elles visaient par delà le but que
poursuivait cet auteur un but plus élevé, qu'il n'apercevait pas."
« Se Cat 78 (1949), 225-31. Also cf. "I sensi biblici. Direttive e studi recenti,"
Se Cat 79 (1950), 444-56.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
159
fuller sense differs from the ordinary literal sense only in degree and
can be obtained right from the literal sense.
Fr. Fernández 56 has also given us the benefit of his observations on
the recent progress of the sense which he endowed with its name. He
entirely rejects the nomenclature of plural sense introduced by Buzy:
the sensus plenior forms only one sense with the literal sense. It is
not a consequent sense, nor an indirect sense, for it is confusedly but
directly known by the hagiographer. Fernández finds Coppens' subdivisions of the sensus plenior ingenious but open to confusion.
A less speculative study is that made by Fr. Braun 07 on the possible
justification of the sensus plenior through the recent biblical encyclicals.
Many authors had been citing the ampliore et conditiore sententia of
Providentissimus Deus as referring to the sensus plenior; some had
found refuge in the deeper sense mentioned in Spiritus Paraclitus of
Benedict XV. However, according to Braun, neither of these two
encyclicals aims at the idea of the fuller sense; for the deeper senses of
which they speak do not surpass in any way the hagiographer's consciousness.
Divino Afflante Spiritu offers more interesting food for thought. Pius
XII explains the literal sense as that which the hagiographer intended,
while the spiritual sense is that which only God could know. The
spiritual sense can be a meaning both of the text and of events.58 Thus
the Pope appears to allow a meaning of the text unknown to the
human author, a meaning which Fr. Braun identifies with the sensus
plenior. The letter of Fr. Miller, the secretary of the Biblical Commission
(a letter that constitutes an interpretation of the biblical encyclicals)
goes even further than Divino Afflante Spiritu since it does not clearly
exclude the human author's consciousness of the spiritual sense of the
text. 59 Thus Fr. Braun finds that the official documents of the Church
are in no way hostile to the sensus plenior.
Subsequent to this advancement in what we may call the positive
56
A. Fernández, "Hermenéutica," Institutiones Biblicœ (6th ed.; Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1951), 380-5.
57 F. M. Braun, O.P., "Le sens plénier et les encycliques," R Th 51 (1951),
294-304.
58
Ibid., 296-7. The Holy Father says that, in addition to the literal sense,
God has ordained "what was said and done" in the Bible to take on a spiritual
significance.
59 Ibid., 298-9. Cf. A. Miller, O.S.B., "Institution May 13, 1950, AAS 52
(1950), 501: "Spiritalem quoque verborum significationem, dummodo earn a Deo
intendi . . . rite constet, debito modo explicare curet."
160
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
theology of the sensus plenior, there appeared another speculative essay
by Fr. Coppens.60 He opens with some remarks on each of the most
important non-literal senses of Scripture: the accommodated sense, the
consequent sense, the typical sense, and finally the sensus plenior. Discussing the latter, Coppens steadfastly refuses to identify the fuller
sense with a theory of multiple literal senses: the sensus plenior differs
from the literal sense qualitatively not quantitatively.
On the question of the hagiographer's awareness of the fuller sense,
Coppens offers these possibilities: (a) In certain cases the hagiographer
had a supernatural vision of the future, (b) Newman's solution: God
inspired the human author to choose unconsciously words apt to carry
a more profound meaning, (c) A knowledge analogous to that of the
typical sense: the writer was put in contact with divine realities, realities
which he knows surpass his literary portrait. In the final summation,
the sensus plenior is both like and unlike the consequent sense (the
fuller sense too goes beyond the strict literal sense; yet its basis is an
approfondissement, not a syllogism), and like and unlike the typical
sense (the fuller sense too proceeds not only from the text but also
from realities; yet it rests on the level of the literal sense).
Coppens then turns to answering objections.61 First, it is not his
idea that scientific exegesis should spend its time searching for examples
of the sensus plenior. The Magisterium can uncover these. But once
the fuller sense is uncovered, the exegete should be able to show how
it is harmonized with the literal sense. Second, the objection against
the fuller sense on the grounds that it conflicts with the Thomistic
notion of inspiration does not hold. The hagiographer is still but an
instrument, and the effect can surpass the action of the instrument.
Nor are we so sure that the prophets were not merely reporting the
message dictated by Yahweh. If we admit this for the Evangelists'
presentation of the words of Christ, why deny it to the words of Yahweh ?
Third, those who say that we would be looking for too many farfetched
examples of the sensus plenior exaggerate. The protagonists of the
fuller sense do not say that it is applicable to all passages. Fourth, some
ask why the sensus plenior cannot be reduced to the consequent sense.
Coppens admits that sometimes it is hard to distinguish the two senses,
especially where the consequent sense is derived from mere explanation
of the scriptural terms. But where the meaning is obtained by philosophical reasoning (to which cases we should perhaps confine the term
60
J. Coppens, "Nouvelles réflexions sur les divers sens des Saintes Écritures,"
NRT 74 (1952), 3-20.
ei Ibid., 12.
T H E THEORY OF A SENSUS PLENIOR
161
"consequent"), the difference is noticeable. Fifth, is not the sensus
plenior a meaning that we read into the text on the basis of New Testament revelation? No, new revelation does not create this sense; it
helps us to see something already existent but hitherto unknown.
At the end of this article,62 Coppens presents a new table of the
senses of Scripture which differs in several points from his preceding
ones. He now eliminates entirely the term "spiritual sense" as too
vague,63 and classifies the sensus plenior as an immediate literal sense.
There is also a mediate literal sense which is the consequent sense. A
third truly scriptural sense is the typical sense (but this must include
also a verbal typical sense). There are other senses which are not
properly scriptural but are attributed to Scripture, e.g. the allegorical
and accommodated senses, and we may include part of de Lubac's spiritual
sense here.
With all these articles in French by Coppens and the other authors
we have mentioned, we have perhaps created the notion that the theory
of the sensus plenior is rather confined in its international appeal. But
this is not true; for, especially in the last few years, the literature on
the subject has been growing steadily in many languages. Fr. Athanasius
Miller64 in a German article on the typical sense at least recognizes in
passing the sensus plenior. And only recently Fr. Coppens has published
some lectures on the sensus plenior in German.65 Spanish too has been
the vehicle of reflections on the fuller sense. M. de Tuya66 in treating
of the typical sense shows his acceptance of the sensus plenior. A
whole article was devoted to the fuller sense in Razón y Fe.67 And a
few months ago Fr. Fernández contributed a short essay in Spanish
β2 ibid., 19.
63
In studying de Lubac's use of "spiritual sense," Coppens finds a certain
ambiguity. Sometimes de Lubac seems to equate it with the typical sense; at other
times, with some sort of pious meaning attained to by an interior illumination of
the soul. For those interested in forming their own judgements on Fr. de Lubac's
theory, practically all his articles on the subject have been reprinted in Histoire
et esprit (Paris: Aubier, 1950).
β* A. Miller, O.S.B., "Zur Typologie des Alten Testaments," Antonianum 25
(1950), 425-34. Cf. p. 433: "Für gewöhnlich handelt es sich aber hier doch nur
um den sogenannten Vollsinn, der streng genommen zum Literalsinn gehört,
praktisch aber zu alten Zeiten auch unter den geistigen Sinn eingereiht wurde."
65
J. Coppens, Vom christlichen Verständnis des Alten Testaments (Louvain:
Folia Lovaniensia, 1952). In content it is similar to his other articles. This work
brings up to date Coppens' exhaustive bibliography on the senses of Scripture.
66 M. de Tuya, "El sentido 'tipico' es sentido biblico?" C Tom 78 (1951),
571-4.
67 J. Leal, "El sentido plenior de la Sagrada Escritura," R y F 144 (1951),
474-82.
162
T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
[Vol.
15
on the subject68 (only a repetition, however, of some pertinent remarks
from the latest edition of Institutions
Biblicae).
In English, interest is gradually being aroused on the question. At
the 1951 convention of the Catholic Theological Society, the senses
of Scripture and, in particular, the sensus plenior formed the subject
of one of the discussions.69 In the way of written work, recent book
reviews70 are about all we have to cite. We should like to call attention
to the review of Problèmes et Methode by Fr. Weisengoff71 of Catholic
University where the reviewer adds some personal comments. Fr.
Weisengoff is not entirely convinced by the case for the sensus plenior.
There is a harmony between the two Testaments, but we must not
forget that Old Testament revelation is piece-meal and incomplete.
Are we sure that in the Old Testament God intended to reveal the
additions in revelation that we find in the New Testament? There is
a difference between what God knows and what He intends to make
known. ". . . later revelation does not give us the fuller teaching of an
earlier text; it rather provides us with some of the 'more' which was
not excluded from the earlier text but which was likewise not included
in it." 72 Similarly on the question of the hagiographer's consciousness,
Weisengoff rejects any lack of full correspondence between God's intention and that of the human author, between God's teaching-intent and
the hagiographer's teaching-intent. Yet Fr. Weisengoff does not deny
that some case can be made for the theory of the sensus plenior. Admitting that his objections are of an a pi'iori nature, he commends the
protagonists of the fuller sense for their attempt to study the problem
a posteriori from the data of the Bible itself.
From the state of the present controversies on the sensus plenior it
should be apparent that the issue is by no means closed, and that we
can expect deeper insights into the problem.
RAYMOND E.
BROWN
St. Mary's Seminary
Roland Park
68
A. Fernández, S.J., "Sensus typicus, sensus plenior," Bb 33 (1952), 526-8.
E. A. Cerny, S.S., "The Senses of Sacred Scripture," Proceedings of the Sixth
Annual Convention (June 1951), 146-8. Fr. Bierberg was a member of the discussion. He still refuses to recognize the sensus plenior as a special category: it is
a new development of the past ten years, and should be reduced to one of the
traditional senses, preferably to the spiritual sense.
™ For example, F. L. Moriarty, S.J., "Bulletin of the Old Testament," Th St
12 (1951), 320-1. The winter issue of Theology Digest 1 (1953) has an English
summary of one of Coppens' articles on "The Senses of Scripture."
71
J. P. Weisengoff, review of Problèmes et méthode, CBQ 14 (1952) 83-85.
72 Ibid., 85.
69
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.