Fides quarens intellectum
Full list of academic publications available HERE.
L. Gregory Bloomquist and Alexandra Gruca-Macaulay, “What is sociorhetorical interpretation?" and L. Gregory Bloomquist and Peter Robinson,”The contribution of sociorhetorical interpretation to an understanding of Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in veritate,” in the monograph issue Sociorhetorical interpretation and Theology
Ed. by L. G. Bloomquist and A. Gruca-Macaulay.
"What is sociorhetorical interpretation?" provides an introduction to this important methodological tool for the rrhetorical study of texts. "The contribution of sociorhetorical interpretation to an understanding of Benedict XVI's encyclical Caritas in veritate," reveals ways in which SRI can reveal hitherto unnoticed features in texts, using the encyclical as a test case.
Introduction to 25th Anniversary Reflections on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: The Culmination of a Prophetic Century Viewed 25 Years Later, pages 5-21 in the monograph issue 25th Anniversary Reflections on "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Ed. by L. G. Bloomquist and J. Lamantia.
Theoforum 50.1 (2020)
An overview of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's document and an introduction to the 17 essays that explore the Pontifical Biblical Commission's document.
The legal art of Irnerius: The hermeneutics behind the medieval renaissance of Roman law
Studia Canonica 54 (2020): 31-45.
The principal figure in the renaissance of Roman law in the late eleventh twelfth century was Irnerius of Bologna (ca. 1055 - ca. 1130). Transcending the legal debates of his day, Irnerius sought to clarify fundamental legal principles by using available exegetical tools on the Justinian Corpus. In doing so he established the groundwork for the philosophy and theology of law that developed during the twelfth century. This article highlights key elements of Irnerius’s method and provides examples of his attention to legal principles of aequitas, iustitia, and ius.
Mark 14:51–52: A Sociorhetorical Reading of the Text and Conclusions Drawn from the History of Its Interpretation (with Michael A. G. Haykin), in Paul and Matthew Among Jews and Gentiles. Essays in Honour of Terence L. Donaldson, ed. Ronald Charles; Library of New Testament Studies; (London: T & T Clark Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021), 157-179.
In Mark 14:51-52 we read a seemingly inconsequential story of a young man, found in the garden at the same time as Jesus who is captured by Temple authorities. It is the only passage that is unique to Mark in the Passion account. If, in particular, Matthew was not alien to the language and themes found in Mark 14, why did he not include the story? In our presentation, we provide an answer to this question and thus help to understand both the Gospel of Mark and the other Gospels, including that of Matthew.
Aristotle as Critic of Plato’s Rhetoric: Some Conclusions, Questions and Implications.
Science et Esprit 72, no. 1–2 (2020): 49–72.
Plato is often understood to be an outspoken critic of rhetoric, but Plato’s criticism is of a particular (Sophistic) kind of rhetoric. Plato’s work actually evidences a keen desire to enshrine a true rhetoric, one that will enable instruction in truth to happen. Aristotle is neither a critic of Plato nor a systematiser of rhetoric. Aristotle seeks to provide a systematic approach to political discourse. Yet, in doing so, Aristotle does much more: he provides an embryonic analysis of human discourse per se and thus establishes the analytical groundwork for what will come to be called the analysis of “ordinary language.”
In The Oxford Handbook of New Testament Rhetoric, ed. Mark Given (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), forthcoming.
John’s Gospel is a rhetorical enigma. While one can see possible uses of Graeco-Roman rhetorical devices here and there throughout the Gospel, these are only common, basic devices, drawn from the elementary-level progymnasmata. Considerably more fruitful have been those attempts to see in the Gospel of John a narrative that contains poetic and literary devices. These attempts, however, create a poetic “feel” to the Gospel that may mislead. I suggest that sociorhetorical interpretation presents readers with a fruitful way to study texts, including texts such as John, by gleaning from classical rhetoric the key principles at work, and by combining these with insights from modern communication studies, building especially on insights from cognitive science. In the case of the Gospel of John, we are able to see a rich and troubling rhetorical presentation that casts doubt on the stability or even knowability of the very ground upon which humans walk. Though it focuses on the deception created by eyes focused on the Temple, it hardly ends there. In fact, one can only see in the Gospel of John by closing one’s eyes and becoming blind to worldly realities, including the Temple, and listening for the heartbeat of the Father and the Word that issues forth from the Father’s matrix.