In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon
  • Robert L. Wilken
J. van Oort and U. Wickert, editors. Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. Pp. 226. $32.25.

The choice of topics in this collection of essays on fourth- and fifth-century biblical exegesis is arbitrary. There is, for example, an essay on Asterius (not the Sophist but the author of a collection of homilies on the Psalms edited by M. Richard) and another on Apollinaris of Laodicea, but none on Cyril of Alexandria, from whom we have more exegetical works than any other commentator from this period, none on Ambrose (Commentary on Luke) nor Hilary (Commentary on the Psalms, Luke), and none on the great Latin commentator Ambrosiaster. What is offered, however, is fresh and up-to-date, and the volume is prefaced by a thorough and informative bibliographical essay by Ulrich Wickert (Berlin). It is clear that the study of early Christian exegesis is burgeoning, particularly among European scholars.

Silka-Petra Bergjan writes on the "dogmatic function of exegesis according to Theodoret of Cyrus." Against the excesses of Theodore, Theodoret helped restore the place of dogmatic themes in Biblical exegesis of the psalms and prophets, while at the same time trying to preserve the historical and literary concerns of Theodore and Diodore.

Ralph Hennings discusses rabbinical elements and anti-Jewish polemic in Jerome's Epistle 121, a letter written to a woman in Gaul with eleven questions about points of New Testament exegesis. Jerome gives her the interesting answer that she doesn't understand the Old Testament, hence cannot understand the New. Focusing on Jerome's comments on Col. 2.16-19 ("do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink, or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths"), Hennings argues persuasively that Jerome's polemic is best understood in the context of actual Jewish practice of his time.

William Horbury's essay on demarcation and convergence in Jewish and Christian use of the Bible (does it make sense to say both communities were expounding the same book?) is intelligently argued and carefully researched. It is also a useful overview of present scholarly opinion on interaction between Jews and Christians on exegetical matters in this period. His conclusion, obvious but not for that reason insignificant, is that the differences between their respective exegeses lay not in conflict of exegetical methods but in the differences between Jewish and Christian customs and conviction.

Wolfram Kinzig provides a general overview of the exegetical work of Asterius, who lived, it is conjectured, in the vicinity of Antioch, ca. 400, and who in some ways resembles John Chrysostom (e.g., in the interpretation of Psalm 5). What makes Asterius unique is that he does not use the "prosopological method," i.e., the traditional literary device of designating a particular psalm as spoken "in the person of" David or Christ. His approach is rhetorical, not beholden to any particular exegetical tradition, and Kinzig dubs him the "rhetor among interpreters of the Psalms."

Ekkehard Muehlenberg, focusing on the fragments of the psalm commentary of Apollinaris of Laodicea, shows how theological questions arise in expositions of [End Page 288] the psalms when Christological considerations inform the exegesis, e.g., when a psalms is understood to be prayed by Christ. He concludes with some judicious comments on Apollinaris' exegesis of Rom. 7.7 and 9.14-21 (he does not miss Apollinaris' striking statement that the key to the text is to distinguish between "judging" and "showing mercy").

Christoph Schäublin returns to the theme of his 1974 study of the influence of pagan literary techniques on Christian exegesis, but extends the argument to include philosophical exegesis. Christian allegory, he contends, originates in the disjunction between text and idea (truth); in short, it is similar to philosophical allegory. This of course ignores completely the argument of Henri DeLubac in his Éxégèse médiévale that Paul is the source of Christian allegory. Indeed, it is surprising that in a volume on the history of Christian exegesis DeLubac's work is nowhere mentioned.

Christopher Stead surveys briefly Athanasius's exegesis (little allegory here!), with some astute comments on the...

pdf

Share