Repository index

The Book of Habakkuk is well-known for using a very sophisticated language in terms of semantics, poetics, or rhetorical structure, causing tremendous difficulties to later interpreters, both ancient and modern. For this reason, from a diachronic perspective, textual deviations from the canonical Massoretic tradition could be mere relics of the perplexity of confused translators or scribes. This study argues, however, that there are cases where the independent, divergent textual traditions coalesce into a reading that could be considered a historically more reliable variant than the reading survived within the Massoretic Text. This appears to be the case with בגוים in Hab 1:5 and היין in Hab 2:5, for which three independent traditions presuppose a common pre-Massoretic ancient alternative reading.

I invite the reader to take a journey into the theological world of two little treatises written by one of the most interesting ecclesiastical figures of the fifth century coming from the Antiochene tradition: Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus.

Ebben a tanulmányban két olyan vitatott szövegrészt vizsgálok meg Habakuk könyvéből (Habakuk 1,5 és 2,5), ahol a Masszoréta Szövegnél korábbi verziók egy, a masszoréta hagyománynál korábbi szövegvariánsba engednek betekintést. Az elemzésben Habakuk könyvének két legrégebbi tanúját hívom segítségül, a Septuagintát és a qumráni Habakuk pešert (illetve elemzem a hasonló irányba mutató szír Pesittát is). Az elemzésre kerülő szövegrészek esetében nagy valószínűséggel nem kései, hanem korai olvasatokról kell beszélnünk.

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.