<\/p>
In her book on medieval Bible scholarship, Beryl Smalley notes that \u201cAlexandrian exegesis penetrated to the Latin middle ages, when knowledge of Greek had declined, by two main channels: indirectly through the Latin Fathers and directly through translations of Origen\u2019s works. Rufinus\u2019 translations of some of his homilies were used by the compilers of the Glossa Ordinaria. Hence the standard commentary of the middle ages familiarized generations of students with \u2018select extracts.\u2019\u201d Origen\u2019s commentaries were widely read; Bernard drew on them for his own work. <\/p>\n
By contrast, the Antiochene school exercised \u201cslight influence on the west.\u201d In part, this was due to the loss of much of Antiochene patristic literature, but \u201cenough material existed in the early middle ages to enable a Latin reader to learn at least the principles of Antiochene exegesis and to experiment with them for himself, if he wished.\u201d That they didn\u2019t is evidence that \u201cour Latin student preferred the Alexandrian method to teh Antiochene,\u201d and Smalley suggests that the latter must have \u201cstruck him as cold and irrelevant.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In her book on medieval Bible scholarship, Beryl Smalley notes that \u201cAlexandrian exegesis penetrated to the Latin middle ages, when knowledge of Greek had declined, by two main channels: indirectly through the Latin Fathers and directly through translations of Origen\u2019s works. Rufinus\u2019 translations of some of his homilies were used by the compilers of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-history"],"yoast_head":"\n