FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4283124532> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4283124532 endingPage "324" @default.
• W4283124532 startingPage "322" @default.
• W4283124532 abstract "Reviewed by: Interpreting the Gospel of John in Antioch and Alexandria by Miriam Decock Riemer Roukema miriam decock, Interpreting the Gospel of John in Antioch and Alexandria (SBLWGRW 17; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020). Pp. x + 255. Paper $40. In the last decades a curious fashion has been introduced into the research of patristic interpretation of the Bible, namely, downplaying the traditional distinction between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of exegesis, notwithstanding the opposition between the two that was felt by the Antiochene exegetes at least. In the context of this contemporary development Miriam DeCock has written a most useful monograph, which is a reworked version of her doctoral dissertation, defended at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario [End Page 322] (2019). In it she analyzes how five passages in the Fourth Gospel were interpreted by Origen of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Cyril of Alexandria. In a lengthy introduction she expounds the context of her research, the Greek sources, and the Latin and Syriac translations she used in cases where the Greek texts are lost or incomplete. In the first chapter, D.C. discusses the four authors' general view of the Gospel of John in relation to the other canonical Gospels. In chaps. 2–6, she examines the interpretations of Jesus's cleansing of the temple (John 2), his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4), his healing of the man born blind (John 9), his parable of the good shepherd (John 10), and his resurrection of Lazarus (John 11). In the four authors she finds expositions of the literal texts, in which she distinguishes between their usefulness for the audience's faith and behavior, on the one hand, and for doctrinal matters, on the other hand. In the former approach the authors demonstrate in which way the characters introduced by the evangelist may serve as examples for believers, whereas the interpretations in the latter approach mostly concern Christ's relationship with God the Father and the rejection of heterodox persuasions. In these matters the Alexandrian and the Antiochene exegeses of the four authors do not diverge markedly, except for Origen's occasional view of the implausibility of any literal meaning of a passage. In such cases, for example, when Jesus is said to angrily drive the merchants and many animals out of the temple, he resorts to an exclusively nonliteral, spiritual interpretation. Such an approach to the literal meaning would be unthinkable for an Antiochene exegete. Another difference between the two schools is that the Alexandrians pay far more attention to nonliteral, spiritual interpretations, which are rare—but not fully absent—in the Antiochene works. For example, Origen and Cyril apply Jesus's words about the temple not only to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem but also to the church, made by some into a house of merchandise (thus Origen), or viewed as having taken the place of the Jews (Cyril). In Origen's view, the Samaritan woman is an illustration of the soul's movement toward the Logos. For Cyril, Jesus's journey through Samaria refers to Christ's grace being given to non-Jews because the Jews rejected him. Although D.C. admits that the distinction between the two exegetical schools requires more nuance than has been given by older scholars, she concludes that the distinction still remains helpful. I fully agree with her and consider it amazing that this view needs to be substantiated. This is no criticism of her research, since too many scholars uncritically adhere to the alternative approach that I stated was currently in vogue. Yet even in a good book one may find some weaknesses. My least serious criticism concerns D.C.'s long footnotes, in which she pursues the argument of the main text. Why not include such additions in the main text itself? Another small point is that usually she does not explicate when one author likely borrows an interpretation from a predecessor, for example, when Theodore's comment is similar to Chrysostom's. She does note the similarities, but not the possibility of dependence. More importantly, it is striking that she usually refers to the existing English translations of the patristic texts, and less frequently to the editions..." @default.
• W4283124532 created "2022-06-20" @default.
• W4283124532 creator A5012057555 @default.
• W4283124532 date "2022-04-01" @default.
• W4283124532 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4283124532 title "Interpreting the Gospel of John in Antioch and Alexandria by Miriam Decock" @default.
• W4283124532 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2022.0064" @default.
• W4283124532 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4283124532 type Work @default.
• W4283124532 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4283124532 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4283124532 hasAuthorship W4283124532A5012057555 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C150152722 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C171190658 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C2781384534 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C507015567 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C516783827 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C124952713 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C138885662 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C142362112 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C150152722 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C166957645 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C171190658 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C27206212 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C2779343474 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C2781384534 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C41895202 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C507015567 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C516783827 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C527412718 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C74916050 @default.
• W4283124532 hasConceptScore W4283124532C95457728 @default.
• W4283124532 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4283124532 hasLocation W42831245321 @default.
• W4283124532 hasOpenAccess W4283124532 @default.
• W4283124532 hasPrimaryLocation W42831245321 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W1608766460 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W1981563805 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W2011141411 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W2032309291 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W2091986430 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W2318127711 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W4205539019 @default.
• W4283124532 hasRelatedWork W4283124532 @default.
• W4283124532 hasVolume "84" @default.
• W4283124532 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4283124532 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4283124532 workType "article" @default.