Repository index

Isa 8:16 is considered a key reference regarding the formation of the book of Isaiah and the role of prophetic disciples in this process. This article argues, however, that originally this verse had a more limited significance. The instruction to which v. 16 refers is to be identified with vv. 12-15 rather than an early ‘book’ of Isaiah. The expression ‘the instructed ones’ (of YHWH rather than the prophet) is applied to the prophet’s audience. This term reflects Isaiah’s characteristic view of prophesying as an act of instruction and prophecy as a form of teaching, and it does not presuppose the existence of any prophetic school. The view that sealing the instruction would allude to preserving prophetic teaching for the posterity is discounted here in favour of understanding the symbolic act as a metaphor from the legal sphere refering to authentication, with no inherent temporal significance.

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.

Pál apostol mindkét Thesszalonikai levélben hivatkozik az apostoli hagyomány átadására és átvételére. Milyen felvilágosítással szolgálnak ezek a hivatkozások az apostoli tradíció jellegzetes vonásaira nézve? Formailag és tartalmilag mennyiben hasonlított e folyamat a korabeli bölcseleti és vallási irányzatok tanítói gyakorlatához, illetve mennyiben tért el azoktól? Milyen témakörben hivatkozik az apostol a hagyományozás folyamatára? Milyen szerepe van a tradíciónak az igaz hit kialakulásában? Vajon a szóbeli és írásbeli hagyományra történő hivatkozás (2Thessz 2,15) alátámasztja-e a római katolikus egyháznak a tradícióról alkotott felfogását, vagy igazolja-e a protestáns egyházak tanítását? Ezekre a kérdésekre kívánok felelni az első és második Thesszalonikai levél vizsgálata rendjén.