[Rezension von: Ondrey, Hauna T., The Minor Prophets as Christian scripture in the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria]
Consensus on early Christian commentary on the Bible is hard to come by. The nineteenth century bequeathed to us the ‘Alexandrian and Antiochene schools’ of biblical interpretation, though in recent decades this sweeping construct has been subjected to increasingly vocal critique. Some, such as the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Review |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2020
|
| In: |
The journal of theological studies
Year: 2020, Volume: 71, Issue: 2, Pages: 920-922 |
| Review of: | The Minor Prophets as Christian scripture in the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2018) (Martens, Peter W.)
The Minor Prophets as Christian scripture in the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria (Oxford : Oxford University Press USA - OSO, 2018) (Martens, Peter W.) The Minor Prophets as Christian scripture in the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2018) (Martens, Peter W.) |
| Further subjects: | B
Book review
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Consensus on early Christian commentary on the Bible is hard to come by. The nineteenth century bequeathed to us the ‘Alexandrian and Antiochene schools’ of biblical interpretation, though in recent decades this sweeping construct has been subjected to increasingly vocal critique. Some, such as the author of the book here under review, insist that this schema ‘should be abandoned entirely’ (p. 238). Others (I would count myself in this camp) are less confident in such a sweeping assessment, even though there are some very significant problems with this classification of early Greek commentary on the Bible. Hauna Ondrey ably documents some of these problems in her introduction and conclusion, most notably that anti-allegorical sentiments were not restricted to Antioch and that a variety of historical interests surfaced in both cities. But her real concern is with a more recent classification system that demarcates Antioch from Alexandria less in terms of method (the former associated with literal and the latter with allegorical exegesis) and more in terms of purported subject matter. According to this newer proposal, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria stand on opposite ends of a spectrum: the former provides ‘minimal Christological interpretation of the Old Testament’, whereas the latter is the ‘pre-eminently “christocentric” interpreter of the Old Testament’ (pp. 3-4). And just as the older dichotomy often harboured a judgement against Alexandrian allegory in favour of Antiochene literalism (whatever was meant by that term), so this newer dichotomy enforces a normativity that privileges the christocentric (whatever might be meant by this term) over the christoperipheral. This new schema predictably declares a different winner. Now with roles reversed, Alexandria in the person of Cyril is championed, whereas Antioch, represented by Theodore, is demoted. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4607 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The journal of theological studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jts/flaa142 |