Date sent: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:09:18 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: The Threatened Series - 13
From: Bill East <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
|
| Moreover,
| > Chrysostom's exegesis is highly tropological and NOT literal.
|
| I don't know about that - see the latest posting, no. 14
|
Bill:
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I should have added that
Chrysostom does not necessarily abandon the literal sense, and
your example is a good case in point. I had in my mind (faulty as it
is) his sermons the statutes, where indeed his exegesis engages
in tropology. This distinction between the two schools, like all
stereotypes, does have a grain of truth in it. My objection is that it
does not tell the whole story. Chrysostom, in particular, did not
restrict himself to the literal sense, but rather engaged in a
wholistic approach to exegesis. Indeed, his commentary on
Matthew provides for a certiain thirteenth-century English
theologian a wonderful way of dealing with the BVM's ignomious
heritage (traced back to Rahab the prostitute!), which is based on a
literal and spiritual reading of the text. Wonderful stuff, really.
Even the Alexandrians liked the literal sense, at least we can say
that of Cyril. You are quite correct to point out that Origen was
fully infatuated with the spiritual sense (although 'mystical flights of
fancy' seems more pejorative than warranted). The use of the
senses, I think, was far more sophisticated than we may have
thought in the past. It is not necessarily always a case of selecting
one exegetical path over another. This is particularly true, I think,
in terms of how biblical lemmata are employed in theological
argument.
Mind you, I have gained access to patristic exegesis through
Psalms commentaries, and there is a remarkable consensus
(along with the occasional difference--Theodore of Mopsuestia is a
fine example of difference, but even he shares the same ultimate
exegetical trajectory, namely that OT texts can be exploited by
Christian theologians, pace Aquinas). This has coloured my
thinking, I am sure, but it makes me think that the distinction is
well worth re-visiting.
I readily admit that I raise these points as an amateur, and not one
properly schooled in patristic exegesis. I'm the fool going where
angels fear to dance (on a pin). :-)
Cheers
Jim
PS BTW, did I miss the explanation for the series' title? Who has
been threatening it? -jrg
=====================================================================
Dr James R Ginther
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44.113.233.6749
Fax: +44.113.233.3654
-=*=-
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cms/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/rg **** NEW ****
====================================================================
"First up ther wor nobbut God. An 'e said, "Ee, lad, turn th'bloody
light on." -Yorkshire paraphase of Gen. 1.2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|