The Prophet Jeremiah in Islamic Thought

The Qur’ān (2:258) mentions a prophet-like figure who was variously interpreted by Islamic exegetical tradition and by Western studies. Some of these interpretations in Islamic literature identify him as Jeremiah and the events alluded to in the Qur’ān as taking place around the city of Jerusalem. Islamic post-Qur’ān literature has elaborated on this, including Jeremiah in the historical prophetical line and depicting him as a prophet who was unsuccessful and had to escape his town before its destruction, brought about by Nebuchadnezzar. Islamic literature added details and narratives to these stories and also in some cases connected Jeremiah to Arab genealogy and lore. Echoes of the biblical book of Jeremiah are also attested to, albeit not in relation to the description of his life and mission given in the Islamic exegetical sources.

Conclusion

The Conclusion revisits the principal findings of each chapter and reflects on the lasting achievements of Jerome’s opus Paulinum, especially vis-à-vis the interpretive work of contemporary Latin-language commentators on Paul. Through his four Pauline commentaries he set out to equip Christians in a single weighty reference work with every tool they might need, right at their fingertips, for the advanced study of Paul, and in adapting the form and substance of the Greek exegetical tradition to an entirely new cultural and linguistic context, Jerome effectively recalibrated and retooled Latin biblical exegesis and created what was for all practical purposes a new species of the Pauline commentary in Latin.

Between Political Legitimacy and Social Fabric of Society: Imamite-Shiite Interpretation of Qur’anic Verse 16: 90

This paper investigates the dialectics between “political legitimacy” and “social fabric of society”, as it develops in the Imamite-Shiite Qur’anic commentaries on Qur’anic verse 16: 90. It reveals the transformation and development of Imamite-Shiite exegesis pertaining to Q. 16: 90, ranging from classical to modern. It takes into a closer look into seven Qur’anic commentaries which may serve as examples of different typologies within Imamite-Shiite exegetical tradition. It argues that the Imamite-Shiite interpretation on this verse moves between these two poles (political legitimacy and social fabric of society) most notably due to the religious and political circumstances of the exegetes. From these Quranic commentaries, one may also notice the division and ecumenism between Sunnism and Shiism. This paper underlines a colourful nuance of Shiite exegesis and denies the simplified belief that Shiite exegesis is sectarian.

Remarks on Psellos’ Attitude Towards the Patristic Exegetical Tradition in his Theologica

"In this paper I explore Psellos’ attitude towards the Church Fathers’ exegesis with the focus on Theol. 1. 1 Gautier. Relative Theologica are also examined. His critical arguments and his enthusiasm for Proclus’ hermeneutics are analyzed systematic comparative and are contextualized through historical-comparative methods in the eleventh century’s conflict between philosophers and mystics. Keywords: Michael Psellos, Theologica, Hermeneutics, Proclus, Nicetas Stethatos. "

Hiding One’s Tolerance

Even though Cyril, fifth-century bishop of Alexandria, never explicitly mentions Philo, this article maintains that Cyril not only used Philo’s works, but was also aware of Philo’s Jewishness. Because of his antipathy toward contemporary Jews, however, Cyril did his best to conceal his theological debt to Philo, to hide his tolerance. Because of Philo’s prominent place in the Alexandrian exegetical tradition, Cyril could not simply dismiss him, but instead used Philo without acknowledging his own dependence.

On earth as it is in heaven? Reinterpreting the Heavenly Liturgy in Byzantine art

Compositions representing the Heavenly Liturgy - the liturgy that is presided over by Christ in heaven, of which the earthly liturgy is a reflection - first appear around the beginning of the fourteenth century in the decoration of Byzantine domes. Most scholars argue that such scenes depict an ancient concept, almost as old as liturgical exegesis itself. I contend that this view is based on a flawed reading of liturgical commentaries, of the biblical texts from which the commentaries draw inspiration, and of the Divine Liturgy itself. I argue that the scene of the Heavenly Liturgy represents both an exegetical stream independent of texts and an understanding of the eucharistic liturgy during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that existed in visual form in tandem with traditional textual interpretations of the rite. The scene, devised by painters and their patrons, therefore constitutes a concurrent exegetical tradition that both derived from the commentaries and deviated from them.

Theodoret of Cyrus and His Exegetical Predecessors: A Study of His Biblical Commentary Prefaces

In this article, I examine the biblical commentary prefaces of Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 458), particularly the exegete’s presentation of his self-image in relation to his predecessors in the Greek exegetical tradition. I contend that in addition to its introductory function, the biblical commentary preface provided the context in which the exegete could rhetorically style himself vis-à-vis the prior tradition, articulating his own skills, credentials, and distinctive interpretive approach. Of Theodoret’s nine biblical commentaries, I focus particularly on the prefaces of his Commentary on the Song of Songs, Commentary on Daniel, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Questions on the Octateuch, and Commentary on the Psalms, given that in these five, we find Theodoret remarking explicitly on the prior interpretive tradition. I demonstrate that at times Theodoret engages with the prior tradition with a critical tone, and at others, he shows respectful deference to his predecessors. In every case, however, his comments serve the rhetorical end of presenting himself as both an authoritative exegetical inheritor and curator of the prior interpretive tradition. The overarching argument of this article then is that Theodoret fashions his own identity as an exegete by making his relative late appearance on the exegetical scene work to his advantage, claiming that an authoritative interpreter of scripture is one who inherits and curates the exegetical legacy and traditions of the prior tradition. In other words, Theodoret overcomes the (rhetorical) problem that others have previously produced commentaries on the biblical book by claiming that the true authoritative interpreter is in fact one who knows both scripture and the prior tradition intimately, and that the exegete’s role at this stage in the tradition is to faithfully transmit the most fitting comments of others.