Repozitórium index

În Vechiul Testament, Regatul de Nord este adesea considerat o regiune vinova-tă în care poporul s-a îndepărtat de Dumnezeu. Cu toate acestea, este notabil faptul că în descrierea întemeierii cultului din 1 Împărați 12, zeul venerat nu este numit, ci doar definit prin faptul că el a fost responsabil de exod. Un alt aspect deosebit de important este că acest cult nu era centralizat, ci Ieroboam a ridicat altare pentru această divinitate în întreaga țară, inclusiv, foarte probabil, în capi-tală, Samaria, unde exista un templu pentru această divinitate. Bazându-ne pe faptul că exodul este atribuit în toate textele lui Iahve, zeul venerat în Israel nu poate fi altul decât Iahve. El era zeul național și dinastic, inclusiv în Regatul de Nord. Acest lucru este susținut de prezența elementului teoforic iahvist în majo-ritatea numelor regale. Cu toate acestea, cel mai probabil erau tolerate și alte zeități canaanite. De exemplu, regele Ahab a introdus altarul lui Baal în templul lui Iahve.

The thesis highlights the complex role of the masses in the New Testament. The synoptic tradition, namely Matthew, Mark, and Luke, depict the masses differently. Matthew is more sympathetic, while Luke maintains distance, portraying Jesus as a friend to the poor and oppressed. The analysis of three Greek words, all translated as 'masses' in English: 'πολλοί', 'λαός', and 'ὄχλος', is particularly important. 'πολλοί' is a general term for any large group, not just people. Luke uses it most frequently, while Matthew does not use it at all, indicating that for Matthew, people mean more than just numbers. 'λαός' in the Septuagint usually refers to the nation of Israel. Matthew, with a Hebrew mindset, uses 'λαός' in this sense, and does not equate it with 'ὄχλος', which means an anonymous crowd. The author points out that Matthew carefully chose his words, and this difference is especially important in Matthew 27,25, where the people take responsibility for Jesus' blood.

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.