Clique em uma foto para ir ao Google Livros
|
Carregando... Greek commentaries on Revelation (edição: 2011)de William C. Weinrich
Informações da ObraGreek Commentaries on Revelation (Ancient Christian Texts) de Oecumenius
   Nenhum(a) Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.  deusvitae | Oct 19, 2013 |  sem resenhas | adicionar uma resenha
Pertence à série
The Eastern church gives little evidence of particular interest in the book of Revelation. Oecumenius of Isauria's commentary on the book is the earliest full treatment in Greek and dates only from the early sixth century. Along with Oecumenius's commentary, only that of Andrew of Caesarea (dating from the same era and often summarizing Oecumenius before offering a contrary opinion) and that of Arethas of Caesarea four centuries later provide any significant commentary from within the Greek tradition. William Weinrich has translated in one volume the two early sixth-century commentaries. Because of the two interpreters' often differing understandings, readers are exposed not only to early dialogue on the meaning and significance of the book for the faith and life of the church, but also to breadth of interpretation within the unity of the faith the two shared. --From publisher's description. Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas. |
Current DiscussionsNenhum(a)Capas populares
 Google Books — Carregando...GênerosClassificação decimal de Dewey (CDD)228.077Religions Bible Apocalypse Book of RevelationClassificação da Biblioteca do Congresso dos E.U.A. (LCC)AvaliaçãoMédia: (4)
É você?Torne-se um autor do LibraryThing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1
After an extensive introduction to the authors and their time, the commentaries of each are presented. Oecumenius is dated to the sixth century and Andrew of Caesarea somewhat later (late sixth-early seventh centuries). Both men are interested in understanding Revelation in light of the Christological controversies which had recently raged, Oecumenius more than Andrew. Oecumenius has some strange/idiosyncratic understanding of many of the typological interpretations of Revelation, and Andrew is quick to correct them. In general, both follow a typological construct; Andrew's commentary is quite good, and not for nothing was the standard commentary on Revelation among the Eastern Orthodox for generations.
The paucity of exposition on Revelation in the East might seem strange until one recognizes that many in the East maintained skepticism regarding the canonicity of Revelation on account of its abuse at the hands of heretics. These two are the substantive eastern commentaries on the text in the patristic period, and whereas they are good for the understanding of the history of interpretation of Revelation and associations between Psalms and Revelation, few if any today would follow the exegetical paths of these eastern authors.
Good resources for the history of interpretation of Revelation. (