Hahn’s work addresses the symbolic significance of beasts as they correspond to what he is analyzing. Thus, the Lamb’s Supper is an excellent analysis of the beasts in the Book of Revleation. I really loved that book because it made Revelation so accessible to me. I am sure there are other opinions, but I have only started with typology as a perspective.
And the serpent in the garden of Eden and its significance to the betrayal by Adam and Eve is elaborated in great lenghts in Hahn’s A Father Who Keeps his Promises. His interpretationof the story gave it much more depth for me, and opened my eyes to toher things in the Bible as well. Again, pary of the beauty of the Bible is that it speaks to different peopel in different ways as to meaning of God in their lives, depending on their spiritual needs and present condition. So I am sure the book is not everyone’s cup of tea.
I think a study of all of the possible typologies and allusiosn that coculd be read in the Bible would be mammoth in scope, and probably does not exist. Winzen looks at key aspects in each biblical book, such as how Moses’s actions prefigure Christ’s roles, and how the Apostles’ actions mirror much of Moses’s actions. He has an interesting bit about Exodus and how the ornamentation of the alater used by the Levite priests foreshadows the sacraments. But he does not cover everything.
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary contains much but some of the interpretations are very creative and offends some Catholics (on this forum I am sure there will be rails now that I emntion it) as not being Catholic, because it looks at all the possible ways that things can be interpreted and some are not in line with Catholic teaching. It is a collection of criticisms and some are form non-Catholic authors. I don’t own a copy myself and have only read snippets form it, because it is very expensive and much fo it also talks about interpreting criticisms of the Bible, and I don’t need that type of information. It is required reading for many seminary programs. I think many people don’t like it too, because Raymond Brown may have used himself as an impramatur.
Reading the Old Testament by the late Lawrence Broadt,C.S.P. is a common text book used for courses that analyze the Old Testament. He use to teach scripture at Washington Theological Union. It is a good handbook because it does explore typologies that exists, and it rpvodes many chapters on lives of the people who lived when the books were being written, as well as when the stories may have taken places. This kind of information may seem extraneous, but I likw thinking about what goes on in the backdrop; what influences the words used and how the actiosn were perceived in this time. I believe that this type of information also helps in interpreting the scripture according to the four senses, as instructed by the Cathechism.
*An Introduction to the New Testament *by Raymond Brown adopts a similar approach to the New Testament, but has less background chapters for the time, and more often includes this information when analyzing the text as the issues arise. It is the most thorough account I have seen of typologies in the New Testament, or any teaching of the New Testament. I have not read it cover to cover yet; I would like to at some point, but I use it to look up informationa about passages that give me questions. It has an imprimatur and nil obstat form different sources (meaning not Brown’s).
These issues (impramatur and nil obstat) on biblical commentaries never mattered much to me, because to be honest, if I had questions that really bothered me or were using interpretations of text to decide life decisions, then you better believe I would be consulting a priest too, and not just a book. Many people will differ on this opinion. But I look at many sources and use a Catholic bible that has notes as well.
