[Rezension von: Lorrain, Agnès, 1979-, Le commentaire de Théodoret de Cyr sur l’Épître aux Romains : études philologiques et historiques]
Professor Lorrain’s monograph, of five chapters, deserves to be qualified as an excellent scientific work for having applied philological analysis with mastery to obtain a greater profundity and better understanding of the theological content of the work studied. After the first chapter, in which th...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Review |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2020
|
| In: |
The journal of theological studies
Year: 2020, Volume: 71, Issue: 2, Pages: 923-925 |
| Review of: | Le commentaire de Théodoret de Cyr sur l’Épître aux Romains (Berlin : De Gruyter, 2018) (Viciano, Alberto)
Le commentaire de Théodoret de Cyr sur l’Épître aux Romains (Berlin/Boston : De Gruyter, Inc., 2018) (Viciano, Alberto) Le commentaire de Théodoret de Cyr sur l’Épître aux Romains (Berlin : De Gruyter, 2018) (Viciano, Alberto) |
| Further subjects: | B
Book review
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Professor Lorrain’s monograph, of five chapters, deserves to be qualified as an excellent scientific work for having applied philological analysis with mastery to obtain a greater profundity and better understanding of the theological content of the work studied. After the first chapter, in which the Interpretatio in epistulam ad Romanos is presented in its historical context, especially novel is the second chapter, in which the theological terminology of Theodoret is rigorously analysed: words and expressions inherited from other authors, a personal lexicon from the author himself (frequent preferences and rarities), formulas that are characteristic of his exegesis, and formulas that express an aspect of doctrine. The language and style of Theodoret's work are characterized by their sobriety, required by the genre of the commentary, and by the desire for conciseness that the author has imposed on himself. The analysis of the lexicon does not shed specific light on the dating of the commentary, and Lorrain remains true to the hypothesis already established by the historiography: between 433 and 448, that is, between the Nestorian controversy (Ephesus, 431) and the Eutychian one (Chalcedon, 451). |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4607 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The journal of theological studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jts/flaa141 |