Repozitórium index

The Camel and the Eye of the Needle. This paper examines Jesus’ challenging statement in the Gospels about the rich entering the Kingdom of God, likened to a camel through a needle’s eye. We explore variations in this saying across the Gospels and consider interpretations aided by literary parallels from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic sources. These examples highlight the “eye of a needle” as a metaphor for impossibility, contrasted with a large object like a camel or elephant. While the presented examples are post-biblical, the motif’s roots may be older. Regardless of the original animal (camel, elephant, or rope), Jesus emphasises God’s power compared to human limitations. This explains the disciples’ astonishment and Jesus’ reply: human limitations exist, but “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 18:27).

“Let the Dead Bury Their Dead”. Jewish Funerary Customs and Matthew 8:21–22. Funerary customs are inseparable from the fifth commandment. They impose strict obligations on relatives, lasting until the end of a one-year period. The practice of ossilegium, that is, the collection of the bones of the deceased, marks the conclusion of this process. When decomposition completes its cycle, the deceased is “survived”. The buried individual finds comfort in the expiatory disintegration he/she undergoes. However, this process causes pain and discomfort, which is why the commitment to the deceased is so crucial: the surviving relatives must care for the body to alleviate the discomforts of its decay. Rituals honouring the departed ensure final peace and secure the transition from the world of the living to the world of the “fathers”. Neglecting these duties results in pain, suffering, and shame—not only for the deceased but also for the careless and negligent kin.

Joseph, the father of Jesus, and Joseph, the son of Jacob. Observations on the Joseph figure in the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew (Mt) connects his texts with the Old Testament in various ways. Beyond the so-called reflexive quotations, Mt alludes to several Old Testament books and episodes with keywords, motifs, and compositional arrangement. This article investigates whether Mt uses a Joseph typology from Genesis in shaping his portrayal of Joseph, the father of Jesus. After a brief survey of the suggested links in this regard, the paper defines the concept of intertextuality at play here and evaluates the alleged parallels between the Joseph of Genesis and the Joseph of Mt. It seems that in the prelude, Mt presents his gospel as “the Book of the Genesis of Jesus Christ”, akin to a second Genesis.

Anthropological additions to the parable of the ten virgins Matthew 25:1–13 -- The parable of the ten virgins is generally considered to be as the most ambi-guous parable of Jesus in terms of its origin and meaning. Researchers wonder: can be viewed its context in Matthew’s little apocalypse as the very first interpretation of the early church? Is it a genuine, composite text or more a compilation of traditions at all? While these are relevant questions, this paper pays more attention to its final form. The research attempts to reasess its significance through anthro-pological interpretation. The analysis will address the five main issues of the parable: the relevance of the oil, the human choice, the time of man, the foolishness and cleverness of man, and virginity.

A minák, illetve talentumok példázata Istenről, illetve a mennyek országáról szól. De vajon ez kötelezően azt is jelenti, hogy Istenről is szól? Vajon a nemes ember, aki azt mondja magáról, hogy könyörtelen ember, mert behajtja azt is, amit nem fektetett be, és learatja azt is, amit nem vetett el, tényleg Istenre vonatkoztatandó allegorikusan? A példázatok jelenlegi kontextusát az evangéliumok eszkatologikus példázatai képezik, főként Máté evangéliuma esetében. De hogyan változik a példázatok olvasata, ha azokat az 1. század 30-as éveinek galileai paraszti társadalmának összefüggésében halljuk? Hát akkor, ha azokat Máté evangéliumának szegényekre és elnyomottakra néző anyagának kontextusában látjuk, ahol nem lehet egyszerre két urat szolgálni: mammont (pénzt) és Istent, profitot és Isten országát?