john damascene or jerusalem monk john
Clicks: 30
ID: 216561
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
8.7
/100
30 views
10 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #22 of 24 articles by views in mires and peat
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
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.
| Reference Key |
jovana2014zbornikjohn
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Pavlović Jovana |
| Journal | mires and peat |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.2298/ZRVI1451007P
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.