Stephen Fowl
- Co-authors
- L. Gregory JonesH. G. M. WilliamsonDavid J. A. ClinesStanley E. PorterGeorge A. LindbeckA. K. M. AdamKevin J. VanhoozerFrancis Watson
- Topics
- Biblical Studies and Interpretation (14 papers)Christian Theology and Mission (5 papers)Historical and Linguistic Studies (4 papers)
- Partner nations
- United StatesUnited Kingdom
In The Last Decade
Stephen Fowl
18 papers receiving 70 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 24
- Religious studies 96
- Sociology and Political Science 66
- Archeology 17
- Philosophy 12
- Development 8
Countries citing papers authored by Stephen Fowl
This map shows the geographic impact of Stephen Fowl's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Stephen Fowl with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Stephen Fowl more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Stephen Fowl
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Stephen Fowl. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Stephen Fowl. The network helps show where Stephen Fowl may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Stephen Fowl
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Stephen Fowl. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Stephen Fowl based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Stephen Fowl. Stephen Fowl is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | Ephesians: Being a Christian, at Home and in the Cosmos | 0 |
| 4 | Ephesians: A Commentary | 6 |
| 5 | The Theological Interpretation of Scripture | 10 |
| 6 | Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation | 5 |
| 7 | 7 | |
| 8 | 0 | |
| 9 | 2 | |
| 10 | Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation | 26 |
| 11 | The story-shaped church: Critical exegesis and theological interpretation | 4 |
| 12 | Feminist theological hermeneutics: Canon and christian identity | 1 |
| 13 | 3 | |
| 14 | 2 | |
| 15 | 12 | |
| 16 | Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life | 21 |
| 17 | 1 | |
| 18 | 1 | |
| 19 | 1 | |
| 20 | 2 |
About Stephen Fowl
Stephen Fowl is a scholar working on Religious studies, Classics and Archeology, having authored 21 papers that have together received 115 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Biblical Studies and Interpretation (14 papers), Christian Theology and Mission (5 papers) and Historical and Linguistic Studies (4 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Religious studies (96 citations), Development (8 citations) and Archeology (17 citations). Stephen Fowl has collaborated with scholars based in United States and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include L. Gregory Jones, H. G. M. Williamson, David J. A. Clines, Stanley E. Porter, George A. Lindbeck, A. K. M. Adam, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Francis Watson and Lewis Ayres. Their work appears in journals such as Vetus Testamentum, Theological Studies and New Testament Studies.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.