Barsanuphius, John, and Dorotheos on Scripture:

Torrance, Alexis

doi:10.2307/j.ctt17mcsbk.9

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

Torrance

2022

The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter opens by emphasizing that for the Orthodox, reading Scripture without the church fathers on at least some level would be unthinkable. The issue of looking at specific patristic exegesis of one or another text is distinguished from coming to terms with an overarching approach to the doctrine of Scripture as such in the church fathers. It is the latter that the chapter attempts to delineate, taking in turn the understanding of Origen (via the Cappadocian Philokalia), that of St. Maximus the Confessor, and that of St. Gregory Palamas. Each provides important and often unexpected insights that help shape a vision for reading Scripture that is centered on Christ, that insists on the import of the text for ethical or spiritual life, and that is attuned to the complexities and polyvalence of the text without losing sight of its crucial historical dimension.

show abstract

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

Torrance

2022

The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Patristic Exegesis: The Myth of the Alexandrian-Antiochene Schools of Interpretation

Slade

2019

SHERM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion that there existed a distinction between so-called “Alexandrian” and “Antiochene” exegesis in the ancient church has become a common assumption among theologians. The typical belief is that Alexandria promoted an allegorical reading of Scripture, whereas Antioch endorsed a literal approach. However, church historians have long since recognized that this distinction is neither wholly accurate nor helpful to understanding ancient Christian hermeneutics. Indeed, neither school of interpretation sanctioned the practice of just one exegetical method. Rather, both Alexandrian and Antiochene theologians were expedient hermeneuts, meaning they utilized whichever exegetical practice (allegory, typology, literal, historical) that would supply them with their desired theology or interpretive conclusion. The difference between Alexandria and Antioch was not exegetical; it was theological. In other words, it was their respective theological paradigms that dictated their exegetical practices, allowing them to utilize whichever hermeneutical method was most expedient for their theological purposes. Ultimately, neither Alexandrian nor Antiochene exegetes possessed a greater respect for the biblical text over the other, nor did they adhere to modern-day historical-grammatical hermeneutics as theologians would like to believe.

show abstract

Barsanuphius, John, and Dorotheos on Scripture:

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers

Patristic Exegesis: The Myth of the Alexandrian-Antiochene Schools of Interpretation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About