Jean-Pierre Delville's Louvain dissertation is a valuable contribution to the history of sixteenth-century exegesis, particularly notable for its methodology. Delville deals with the problem of selection and arrangement of material by focusing on a single pericope (the labourers in the vineyard, from Matthew xx.1–16), and examining more than forty treatments of the parable, besides a wide range of Latin and vernacular translations. Delville's study covers most of the sixteenth century, beginning with Erasmus' Annotationes of 1516 and ending with Jerome Nadal's Adnotationes et meditationes in evangelia of 1595. Furthermore, he deals with the texts in more or less chronological order. This methodology makes his discussion rather clumsy and repetitive, but at the same time it allows him to break through stereotyped categories of Reformation theology and exegesis.

Delville's monograph is informed by French linguistic theory, particularly by the work of Paul Ricoeur and Tzvetan Todorov. In his lengthy introduction, Delville enunciates thirty hermeneutic ‘operations’ which will structure his examination of the sixteenth-century exegetes. These ‘operations’ fall into three categories: ‘enunciation’ (i.e. organisation, methodology and style); the ‘direct sense’ (attention to vocabulary, grammar, genre, historical context, the intention of the author, etc.); and the ‘indirect sense’ (irony, hyperbole, symbolism, theological framework, etc.). Delville's discussion of the indirect sense is sophisticated and thought-provoking. Especially helpful (and a dominant theme throughout the book) is his distinction between ‘lexical’ and ‘propositional’ symbolism. Lexical symbolism attaches a specific meaning to words and phrases within the text, while propositional symbolism assigns a meaning to the passage taken as a whole. Delville tells the story of the sixteenth-century exegesis of Matt. x.1–16 as a contest between lexical and propositional symbolism, with grammatical/philological exegesis as a third player. This paradigm bypasses the hackneyed terminology of ‘allegorical’ as against ‘literal’ exegesis, and avoids the bottomless quagmire that opens when one tries to define just what ‘literal’ exegesis is.

The first part of the book (chs i–iii, up to p. 155) consists of a detailed examination of the various versions of the biblical text available in the sixteenth century. Delville compares editions of the Vulgate, new Latin translations and vernacular translations in painstaking (if not painful) detail. A host of charts note every linguistic variation among the texts, however tiny, and Delville accompanies these charts with a classification of the different kinds of variants and a thorough discussion of their significance. This is the portion of the book where the results seem least warranted by the effort Delville has expended. His analysis of the various editions is certainly useful for his later discussion of the commentaries, but this does not warrant more than a fraction of the space devoted to it.

Delville's discussion of the commentaries themselves shows the same care and patience, but with considerably more substance to reward the reader's pains. Delville organises the commentaries into four chronological periods. The first (ch. iv), from Erasmus' Annotationes of 1516 to Lefevre's Épistres et évangiles of 1525, was dominated by humanist philology and the rise of ‘propositional symbolism’. Early treatments by Luther and Melanchthon show a movement away from multiple senses and toward a summa of the text, identified with the meaning intended by Christ and usually emphasising the free grace of God over against the vanity of human works.

Delville finds Martin Bucer to be the dominating figure of the second period (1527–42). His Gospel commentary stands in the tradition of Luther and Melanchthon (p. 262), but shows independence from it. Bucer synthesises propositional symbolism (to which he contributes the concepts of germanus sensus and status sermonis) with humanist philology to produce a learned and systematic reworking of the previous exegetical tradition. Other exegetes of this period are highly dependent on Bucer, or at least stand in the same developing tradition. Cajetan and (surprisingly) Zwingli mark exceptions to this rule, engaging in more traditional ‘lexical symbolism’ heavily informed by humanist scholarship.

The third period, from 1544 to 1563, marks a flowering of exegesis and a sophisticated dialogue among a wide variety of positions. Wolfgang Musculus’ meticulous commentary on the Gospels set the tone with its examination of the various interpretive strategies followed by previous exegetes, drawing on Luther, Bucer and Catholic exegetes alike (p. 328). Toward the end of the period, Calvin represents a quite different approach to the pericope, boiling it down to a moral exhortation addressed to the readers (p. 409).

In the final period (1564–98), Delville traces the confessionalisation of exegesis, paradoxically accompanied by a strong degree of methodological convergence (p. 552). Exegetes of all traditions tended to select a single interpretation as the primary scopus of the passage, while allowing for the legitimacy of others. In particular, Catholic exegetes of a strongly Augustinian bent (Hessels, Jansenius, Granata) adopted the Protestant emphasis on the sovereign grace of God as the primary meaning of the passage, integrating it into older traditions of exegesis. The Jesuit Maldonatus rejected both Protestant and Jansenist interpretations, marshalling a formidable erudition to present an overview of previous exegesis and a ‘propositional symbolism’ that interpreted the parable as an affirmation of reward proportional to the diligence of the workers (p. 529).

Delville concludes with a lengthy summary focused on the symbolism of the ‘denarius’ given to the workers. This section traces succinctly the various themes found throughout sixteenth-century exegesis of the parable, and readers wishing to understand the gist of that exegesis will do well to turn to this section directly rather than wade through the entire book. This underlines the major flaw of Delville's impressive accomplishment. His grim determination to let no aspect of his subject escape results in a highly rigid schematic for the book and a dismaying amount of repetition. Most of the book will have little interest for any but a small number of specialists in sixteenth-century exegesis. For them, however, it is indispensable. Delville has provided an excellent reference source for sixteenth-century editions and translations of the Bible; a sweeping chronological account of sixteenth-century exegesis of one significant biblical text; a highly fruitful theoretical approach that opens up new avenues for the discussion of symbolism in biblical interpretation; and a number of fascinating insights into the work of particular exegetes. Unfortunately, his attempt to combine all of these things in one book has resulted in an unwieldy work whose relevance is considerably more limited than it might have been. None the less, the scope of the project and the thoroughness of its execution justifies Delville's grandiose title and makes his monograph an invaluable contribution to the study of sixteenth-century exegesis.