Repository index

The “Why?” question emerges inevitably whenever a tragedy or trauma happens in our human lives. The case was hardly different in prehistoric times, in the Old Testament, or in Jesus’s era. It is an intriguing question therefore what Jesus’ attitude and approach would have been to such unexpected disasters.

This article argues that Isaiah's so-called ‘refrain poem’ (Kehrvergedicht) in Isa. 9.7–20 is a composite text, going back to two early prophecies with different concerns. Isaiah 9.7–17* focused originally on the arrogant refusal of the divine word, while Isa. 9.18–20* reflected on the chaotic social circumstances in Samaria in the eighth century. The refrains in vv. 9,11cd, 16ef and 20cd were added to these two already connected prophecies at a later stage. The theological summary in v. 12 is yet another addition, closely affiliated with 5.24–25. Unlike v. 12, the refrains do not have the repentance of Israel in view, nor its final destruction, but the fall of Assyria in Isa. 10.5–15, 24–27. The refrains support the theory that the Isaianic collection was formed by means of reusing, restructuring and reinterpreting earlier material. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089216690385

In studies on the composition of prophetic literature, the larger textual layers reinterpreting earlier texts, the so-called Fortschreibungen, received much attention. It is well-known that beside these larger literary elaborations prophetic books also contain shorter explanatory interpolations, often called glosses, which intend to clarify a particular imagery of the prophecy (e.g., Isa 9:14). A systematic reading of these short annotations has been neglected, however, in studying the formation of prophetic books. The present article reconsiders the Isaiah-Memoir from this perspective. It identifies editorial interpolations in three distinct pericopes, Isa 8:2, 8:6-7a and 8:23b. It is argued here that the identification of such explanatory additions is the key to understanding notorious textual complexities. Moreover, it points out that these interpolations tend to expose recognisable patterns and common hermeneutical principles.

A 16-17. század történetét többnyire kudarcok jellemzik. Tragédiák követik egymást hűségesen. Ott a török, a tatár, egyik nagyobb nyomorúságot hoz, mint a másik. Érdekelt, hogyan éli meg ezt a kor embere? Hogyan hat ez magára a társadalomra, hogyan befolyásolja az életet, a gondolkozást? Hogyan élik meg a kudarcból kudarcba életérzést? Miben látják a nyomorúság okát? Így jutottam el a „bűneiért bünteti Isten a magyar népet” felfogáshoz. Erről hallva, a kíváncsiság útnak indított. A cím mellé akár kérdőjel is kerülhetett volna. A kíváncsiságból adódóan a dolgozat nem csak bizonygatja ezt a felvetést, hanem valamilyen szinten akarva-akaratlanul a kérdés is megfogalmazódik. A gondolat szűrőn megy végig, mire megszületik a tiszta igazság, mire határozott pontot vagy felkiáltójelet tehetünk a végére. Úgy gondolom ez így helyes, így van rendjén.