{"title":"大马士革的约翰或者耶路撒冷的僧侣约翰","authors":"J. Pavlovic","doi":"10.2298/ZRVI1451007P","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most of original manuscripts wrongly claim authority of the treatise Adversus Constantinum Caballinum to John of Damascus. We applied the method of detailed linguistic analysis in order to check the hypothesis that Jerusalem monk John, the representative of three eastern patriarchs on the Second Council of Nicaea, wrote this iconophile work. Stylistic resemblance between the speech that John of Jerusalem held on the Second Council of Nicaea and sermon Adversus Constantinum Caballinum could indicate the same person as author.","PeriodicalId":53859,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","volume":"15 1","pages":"7-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"John Damascene or Jerusalem monk John\",\"authors\":\"J. Pavlovic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/ZRVI1451007P\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Most of original manuscripts wrongly claim authority of the treatise Adversus Constantinum Caballinum to John of Damascus. We applied the method of detailed linguistic analysis in order to check the hypothesis that Jerusalem monk John, the representative of three eastern patriarchs on the Second Council of Nicaea, wrote this iconophile work. Stylistic resemblance between the speech that John of Jerusalem held on the Second Council of Nicaea and sermon Adversus Constantinum Caballinum could indicate the same person as author.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53859,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"7-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/ZRVI1451007P\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/ZRVI1451007P","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Most of original manuscripts wrongly claim authority of the treatise Adversus Constantinum Caballinum to John of Damascus. We applied the method of detailed linguistic analysis in order to check the hypothesis that Jerusalem monk John, the representative of three eastern patriarchs on the Second Council of Nicaea, wrote this iconophile work. Stylistic resemblance between the speech that John of Jerusalem held on the Second Council of Nicaea and sermon Adversus Constantinum Caballinum could indicate the same person as author.