scholarly journals Херменевтични бележки за библейските псалми

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 20-31
Author(s):  
Регина [Regina] Койчева [Koĭcheva]
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
Verbal Expression

Some hermeneutical notes on the biblical Psalms The article examines two difficult to interpret verses from the Book of Psalms. The analysis compares the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, the Old Bulgarian text (along with its Church Sla­vonic version) and the Modern Bulgarian synodical translation of the psalms. The proposed reading is based on linguistic, literary and theological observations. In the first analysed verse (Ps. 4:2), semantic illegibility is interpreted as a result of the implicit presence of a specific Hebraism in the translations. In the other case (Ps. 5:9), verbal expression is highly elliptical because of the preference given to the phonetic structure of the verse in the Hebrew original. Hermeneutyczne uwagi o biblijnych PsalmachArtykuł prezentuje dwie różne interpretacje wersów pochodzących z biblijnej Księgi Psal­mów. Autorka porównuje przekłady Psalmów, pochodzące z tekstu hebrajskiego, Septuaginty, tekstu starobułgarskiego (wraz z jego cerkiewnosłowiańską wersją) oraz z pierwszego nowo­bułgarskiego przekładu synodalnego. Zaproponowane odczytanie uwzględnia perspektywę językoznawczą, literaturoznawczą i teologiczną. W pierwszym analizowanym wersie (Ps 4,2) semantyczna nieczytelność jest interpretowana jako wynik bezpośredniej obecności specy­ficznego hebraizmu w komentowanych przekładach. W innym przypadku (Ps 5,9) ekspresja słowna jest niezwykle eliptyczna z powodu zastosowania obecnej w hebrajskim oryginale fonetycznej struktury wersu.

scholarly journals Sidang Ilahi Elohim Dalam Mazmur 82:1

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marthin Steven Lumingkewas ◽  
Firman Panjaitan
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
Main Method ◽  
Religious System ◽  
Dialectical Theology ◽  
Ancient Israel ◽  
Divine Council ◽  
Religious Systems

In the Old Testament Yahweh is frequently called El. The question is raised whether Yahweh was a form of the god El from the beginning or whether they were separate deities who only became equated later. They whom uphold theory Yahweh and El were conceived as separate deities holds that Yahweh was a southern storm god from Seir and so on, which was brought by the Israelites and conflated with the Jerusalem patriarchal deity.On the other side there are scholars who hold and conceived Yahweh and El as one single deity. These scholars defend this position most commonly on the grounds that no distinction between the two can be clearly found in the Hebrew Bible. The methodology used in this paper is literary – historical and social interpretations, with the main method being the "diachronic and dialectical theology of Hegel". The simple Hegelian method is: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis). The author analyzes (thesis) by collecting instruments related to ancient Semitic religions; it includes data on El and Yahweh assembly obtained from Hebrew text sources and extra-biblical manuscripts which are then processed in depth. The antithesis is to analyze El's assembly development in Israel – especially in Psalm 82. While the synthesis appears in the nuances of the El’s assembly believe in ancient Israel. The focus of this paper's research is to prove 2 things: first, is Psalm 82: 1, is an Israeli Psalm that uses the patterns and forms of the Canaanite Psalms; especially regarding religious systems that use the terminology of the divine council. Second, to prove that El and Yahweh in the context of this Psalm are two different gods, of which this view contradicts several ANET experts such as Michael S, Heisser who sets El and Yahweh in this text as identical gods. The results of this study attempt to prove that Israel and the Canaan contextually share the same religious system, and are seen to be separated in the Deuteronomist era with their Yahwistic reforms.

Old Readings in 1 Esdras: The List of Returnees From Babylon (Ezra 2 // Nehemiah 7)

1969 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Walter Klein
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Text Type ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Many

In a recent study of the Greek text of 1 Esdras we argued that it frequently reflected an old, often nonexpanded Semitic Vorlage despite the many corruptions and secondary expansions peculiar to the “apocryphal” text. Esdras B [hereafter: G], on the other hand, was also found to differ from the received Hebrew text, but its variants were small enough that its underlying text-type could be called Proto-Massoretic. This analysis conflicts with that of Bernhard Walde, Wilhelm Rudolph, and others, who would assign the same geographical and chronological horizons and nearly identical Vorlagen to 1 Esdras and G. We shall test our interpretation, therefore, by studying the differences in the Hebrew texts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 on the basis of the translation of Ezra 2 in 1 Esdras 5. Although the latter has many omissions and doublets —in fact, it is in relatively poor shape —not enough attention has been paid to its alternation between Ezra-type and Nehemiah-type texts.

scholarly journals Orygenes i hebrajski tekst Pisma Świętego

Vox Patrum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 393-404
Author(s):  
Janusz Królikowski
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Hebrew Version ◽  
The One ◽  
Christian Writer ◽  
The Church

Origen is the exegete and Old Christian writer whose influence on the under­standing of the Bible has always been determinative. Undoubtedly, for ecclesiasti­cal reasons he deemed the Septuagint superior and regarded it as the Christian Old Testament. He thought highly of Hebrew text as well, which he often used for his research. An expression of this belief was among others the Hexapla worked out by Origen, which can be regarded as an exceptional manifestation of esteem towards the Old Testament and its Hebrew version. Origen’s attitude towards the Bible can be characterized by two approaches: on the one hand it is the ecclesiastical approach which gives the first place to the text commonly accepted in the Church namely the Septuagint, but on the other hand he is open to every other text Hebrew or Greek, trying to understand it and take it into account in his commentary.

Doubling Down: Zechariah’s Oracle, Judah’s Blessing, and the Triumphal Entry in Matthew

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tucker S Ferda
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
Good Sense ◽  
Exegetical Tradition

Abstract For centuries exegetes have struggled to explain why Matthew presents two animals in the triumphal entry—a female ὄνος and her πῶλος—while all the other Gospels only have one (a πῶλος). The question is further complicated by the fact that the Scripture Matthew cites as fulfilled in this action—Zech. 9:9—also presents only one animal in all extant versions. So what is the historical or exegetical reason for Matthew’s addition? While many have argued that Matthew’s presentation stems from a misreading of the poetic parallelism in Zech. 9:9, this essay contends that Matthew’s doubling of Mark’s single πῶλος is the result of messianic exegesis. The argument is that Matthew or Matthew’s tradition has read Zech. 9:9 alongside another famous messianic oracle, Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen. 49:10–11, and that the doubling of the donkeys stems from a likely mistaken—though completely understandable—reading of the Hebrew text. The essay further shows that Matthew’s use of Gen. 49 and Zech. 9 in the triumphal entry scene makes good sense in light of the interests of the Gospel as a whole as well as exegetical tradition that stems from these passages.

How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings

2011 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. Law
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
Greek Translation ◽  
1 Kings

AbstractThe authors of two recent monographs have attempted to discredit the view that the Greek translation of 1 Kings was based on a Hebrew text that differed from the MT. One argues that the translator was responsible, while the other suggests the divergences are the result of inner-Greek revisional activity. While these arguments are not entirely original, they are the latest attempts to challenge the more commonly held view that the Greek translator did in fact translate faithfully from a Hebrew text at odds with the MT. This article assesses these arguments, and concludes with a plea to scholars writing Hebrew Bible commentaries on the books of Kings.

Jerome’s Understanding of Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament

2013 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-315
Author(s):  
Teppei Kato
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Hebrew Text ◽  
The Other ◽  
First Case ◽  
The New Testament

Abstract Jerome compares Old Testament quotations in the New Testament with the Hebrew text and LXX in seven texts, for example in Ep. 57, written c.395. He adopts different opinions when the LXX disagrees with the Hebrew text and when the quotations disagree with the Hebrew text. In the first case, he demands a strict rendering of words, whereas in the second, he considers the quotations and the Hebrew text to have the same meaning even if their wordings differ. In other words, Jerome attributes more authority to the Evangelists and Paul than to the LXX translators. In this paper, I will explain two reasons—one negative and the other positive—for this dichotomy in Jerome’s approach.

Use of Contingent Social Reinforcement to Change the Verbal Expression of Motivation by Children of Differing Motivational Orientation

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 547-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Carl Haywood ◽  
Harvey N. Switzky
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Motivation ◽  
Extrinsic Motivation ◽  
Motivational Orientation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Social Reinforcement ◽  
Contingent Reinforcement ◽  
Verbal Reinforcement ◽  
Verbal Expression ◽  
Good For ◽  
Task Oriented

Ability to discriminate task-intrinsic from task-extrinsic sentences, and changes in choices of such sentences under differential verbal reinforcement, were investigated in 48 intrinsically motivated and 48 extrinsically motivated children. On each of 75 trials, two sentences were presented simultaneously to each. S. One of the sentences connoted task-intrinsic motivation and the other connoted task-extrinsic motivation. Ss' task was to choose one of the sentences in each pair and to read it aloud. One-third of the children in each group were socially reinforced (“good”) for choosing sentences indicative of intrinsic motivation; one-third were socially reinforced by choosing sentences indicative of extrinsic motivation; one-third were reinforced noncontingently. Children in the contingent reinforcement groups were able to discriminate the motivational statements, as reflected by significant effects of the contingent reinforcement on the frequency of their choices. Implications for a strategy for training persons to behave in a task-oriented manner are discussed.

scholarly journals NARRATIVES OF THE “OTHER” IN TIMES OF WORLDVIEW WARS: TRUE FACE, MASKED FACE

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Slukhaii
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Verbal Expression ◽  
Typical Function ◽  
Russian Media ◽  
Rhetorical Questions ◽  
Current Stage ◽  
Logical Semantic ◽  
Linguistic Means

Modern day worldview wars are distinguished by the extraordinary role that information and its suppliers play in building perceptions of war events, whether real, falsified or invented. The paper analyses the means by which modern pro-Russian media try to reach their targets in the hybrid/information war. The following narratives are specially noted as defining the current stage of the worldview war against Ukraine: narratives intending to humiliate the dignity of Ukrainian language speakers and the national idea, intending to raise malice and chagrin in speakers, intending to confuse and disorient, intending to involve into pre-meditated ideologems. As concerns linguistic means of recipient disorientation, the following are noted: simulacra, metonymies, resources of semantic-grammatical and semantic modality, logical, semantic and formal hybrids (chimeras), quotation marks and their verbal expression (the “so-called”), resources of sacral language, linguistic mind games, rhetorical questions. Receiver’s confusion is achieved by using linguistic means in a non-typical function, whereby the most common are simulacra, metonymies and the semantic-grammatical modality, and the most effective ones are hybrids of several kinds and mind games. The paper’s conclusion is that ideological tenets of old and new times presented in pro-Russian media in all their linguistic and semiotic variety are imprinted with means which are but missiles for a suggestive, non-rationally-controlled introduction and promotion of pro-Kremlin narratives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document