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.

Rotterdami Erasmus ezt írta 1519-ben, Jacob Hoogstraetenhez címzett levelében: „Ha keresztényi dolog gyűlölni a zsidókat, akkor bőven keresztények vagyunk itt mindnyájan.” Ez a mondat olyan, mintha a reformáció századának görbe tükre lenne, amely az (ön)irónia sajátos torzításával mutatja meg, hogyan viszonyult a 16. század értelmiségének javarésze – némi anakronizmussal fogalmazva – a zsidókérdéshez. Erasmus szerint a zsidógyűlölet egyértelműen része a kereszténységnek, noha a humanista mester úgy gondolta – és az irónia jobbára ebben van –, hogy a hiteles kereszténység nem merülhet ki a zsidók gyűlöletében.

Jókai Mór valláshoz való viszonyulása kevéssé kutatott téma. Szinte minden regényében találkozunk különféle vallási utalásokkal, vallásos kifejezésekkel vagy egyszerűen csak a vallásos világképpel és szellemiséggel.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it sets the historical context in which Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations and deals with the interesting relationship between his writings, ‘against the Jews’ and the Sassanian persecution of Christians. It also treats his refutation of the Jewish charges. Secondly, it addresses his ‘unique’ view of christology which is not in line with the Nicene decision concerning one aspect yet at the same time it is congruent with it. The paper also tries to point out that his view on christology was ‘unique’ but not exceptional in the Early Church.