Review of Daniélou's From Shadow to Reality

Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers

Daniélou's main argument is that the Latin and Greek Fathers, from the second through the fourth century, were justified by Tradition in their typological exegesis of the Hexateuch. Daniélou supports his thesis by showing how Patristic typology was influenced, and legitimatized, by both Testaments, and Jewish typology. There is another argument that is almost as important which attempts to distinguish that which "belongs to ecclesiastical tradition and is strictly speaking typology and what has its origin in extraneous sources, especially in the allegory of Philo" (viii). It will be argued that Daniélou proves the legitimacy of Patristic typology admirably, but that his interpretation of allegory needs revision.

            Essentially, "Patristic exegesis is founded on the extension of the Messianic typology of the Old Testament Prophets"(287).  In the Apostolic age and the New Testament, the "main purpose [was] to show that these types had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ" (287). In the Gospel of Matthew, "the types [are] fulfilled in the details of the earthly life of Christ" (287) and in John's Gospel "in the Sacraments of the Church" (287). In the Fathers, "the eschatological typology of the Old Testament continues, especially in St. Irenaeus and Origen. The sacramental catechetical instructions continue the Johannine approach. A more restricted tradition, appearing at once in Jerusalem and the West, continued the approach of St. Matthew" (287).

             The Fathers used typology to defend the unity of the Testaments against the Gnostics, and to argue for the superiority of the New Testament against Jewish writers (1). Fundamentally, "in the liturgical and catechetical tradition of the early Church the Law is a text charged with mysteries, sacramenta, which figuratively reveal to us the whole plan of the Gospel and the future Kingdom" (11). There are even typological themes in the Prophets; for example, the return from the Captivity is the New Exodus: "superior to the old (Is. 43:16) and of a more spiritual character (Jer. 31:33)" (156).

            Daniélou states that "the three essential components of typology [are] the sacramental, the eschatological, the Christological" (286). Typically, the sacramental types refer to Baptism or the Eucharist, the eschatological to a New Flood or a return to Paradise, and the Christological to aspects of Christ. In general, "the ark of Noah, the crossing of the Red Sea, the Mosaic Law, and the entry into the Promised Land, are the four fundamental types of the Old Testament" (33). The  typology of Rahab is, unexpectedly, "the meeting place of some of the most important themes of biblical theology" (259). Daniélou provides a masterful summary of the typology of Rahab and how it connects to the redemption of sinful women throughout the Bible, the Flood, the Passover, the Church itself, and the Passion. Other examples are to be found in Adam, Isaac, and how the various aspects of their lives relate to the Church and to Christ.

            The typological significance of the interior life "takes on a marked development in the thought of the Alexandrines from Clement to St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Ambrose" (288). Daniélou views their weakness in the influence of Philo, who found "a symbolical meaning in every detail of Scripture" (288).  In contrast to this approach is the influence of Jewish exegesis which "saw the fulfillment of the types even in the events of the Old Testament" (288). This exegesis influenced the Antiochenes who, with the notable exception of Chrysostom, "discount over-much the Messianic interpretations" (288). However, "over and above all these diversities and deviations, we meet an agreement of all schools upon the fundamental types" (288).   

            The major strength of Daniélou's work is the way in which he exhaustively demonstrates the legitimacy, tradition, and unity of Christian typology and its varied connections to the two Testaments and Jewish typology itself. For the Prophets, for example, "the expected Messiah is a new Adam" (15). The New Testament expounds upon this theme and proclaims Christ as the antitype of Adam (16). In turn, the Fathers echo the New Testament, but also develop the theme.

            Daniélou affirms that "the exegesis of the Old Testament in the early Church is largely a continuation of Jewish exegesis such as one finds in the last books of the Old Testament and in the writings of Judaism just before the Christian era. But Christianity brings a completely new content to this exegesis when it sees there the figure of Christ" (121). In addition, "the Fathers have rightly insisted at all times that the types of the Exodus are fulfilled in the life of Christ and the Church, and in this they have but followed the teaching of the New Testament, which shows that these types are fulfilled in Christ. But the New Testament is itself only the continuation of the Old, and never fails to emphasize that the New Exodus foretold in the Old Testament has been realized in Jesus Christ" (153). Beyond these broad characterizations, there are many examples throughout the book as to how Patristic Tradition as a whole, while disagreeing at times, continued, and sometimes expanded, the historic typology of the Church.

            In terms of typology, Daniélou should be critiqued for ignoring the depth of the Real Presence in the Patristic understanding of typology. Throughout the book, there seems to be a consistent emphasis on the academic aspect of typology, as if it were a hunt for similes and metaphors. By ignoring the theological depth of Patristic typology, Daniélou has effectively neutered the Patristic mind in order to create a palatable facsimile for modern literalists.

            The most important weakness of this book is the treatment of allegory and how Daniélou artificially opposes allegory to typology. Daniélou has a profound distaste for Philonian philosophical allegory, but is charitable enough to recognize that "Philo's inspiration is truly biblical, for he was a devout and believing Jew" (202). In commenting upon the writings of Clement, Origen, Ambrose, and Gregory of Nyssa, Daniélou states that "in the realm of philosophy and theology they are of primary importance, but with them we have moved away from the realm of exegesis" (57). Indeed, according to Daniélou, "allegory is not a sense of Scripture at all: it is the presentation of philosophy and Christian morality under Biblical imagery" (61).

            Furthermore, Daniélou insists that "Origen gives us a psychological and moral approach to the narrative of Genesis. This double approach is Christian and valid, for it represents the initial stages of Christian philosophy: it is not, however, a development of the sense of the text, but rather an extraneous addition" (62-3). Most maddeningly, however, Daniélou concludes that "it would be an entire abuse of language to include moral allegory with typology under the one heading of the spiritual sense, as opposed to the literal sense: typology is a legitimate extension of the literal sense, while moral allegory is something entirely alien: the former is in truth exegesis, the latter is not" (64).

            What Daniélou does not do is explain his reasoning regarding the rejection of allegory as exegesis. If indeed the insights gleaned from allegory are philosophical or theological, and are important spiritually, what makes them Christian, if they cannot be legitimately based upon Biblical texts? Why is allegory "the presentation of philosophy and Christian morality under Biblical imagery" (61), but not exegesis? It would seem that Daniélou has forgotten his mentor de Lubac and his distinction regarding allegoria facti and allegoria verbi: some allegory is not typology but is legitimately based upon Scripture; some allegory is neither typology, nor legitimate. This weakness only strengthens the divorce between exegesis and theology that Louth lamented.

            On the other hand, "in Origen and Gregory of Nyssa the influence of Philo will give an 'interiorness', a reflective depth, which normal typology was inclined to overlook, though it was a legitimate development" (136). Elsewhere, "with Origen the allegory of Philo will be incorporated into Christian tradition and become part of the traditional typology. He is then a landmark in the interpretation of Moses" (219). Here we see some redeeming elements of Philonian allegory, but notice how these positive developments are related only to typology, not allegory.

            Origen and St. Ambrose sometimes express "private interpretations" (149), which Daniélou concedes "may be of great spiritual value, but cannot be considered as providing the authentic interpretations of the Bible" (149). Surprisingly, Daniélou doesn't seem to mention the bizarre allegorical interpretations that Origen originates, only those that "may be of great spiritual value" (149). However, St. Zeno writes that "there is nothing in the holy and divine Scriptures which has not a primarily spiritual meaning, either in revealing the past, or bringing out the meaning of the present or intimating what is to come" (180). For Daniélou, spiritual can only mean typology.

            It was argued, on the one hand, that Daniélou proves the legitimacy of Patristic typology admirably. Nevertheless, Daniélou should be critiqued for ignoring the depth of the Real Presence in the Patristic understanding of typology. It was also argued that his interpretation of allegory needs revision, as there are legitimate allegoria facti and illegitimate allegoria verbi.