Repozitórium index

The Textual and Redactional History of Genesis 46:8–27 -- Genesis 46:8–27 lists the names of those who went down along with Jacob to Egypt during the famine in Canaan. However, this passage has some features that inspire to further study. These include seemingly pointless repetitions, tensions within the text and contradictions with other verses in the book of Genesis, which lead us to conclude that the text of the pericope in question has undergone significant changes over time. In this study, we will attempt to deduce possible textual layers and reconstruct the sources used, starting from the canonical text and working backwards in time.

In his 1583 ritual entitled Agendarius, which was innovative in many respects in comparison to its Hungarian predecessors, Bishop Miklós Telegdi of Pécs, the administrator of the diocese of Esztergom, added sample-like sermons to the rituals of the administration of the sacraments accompanying the great turning points of life (viz. baptism, confirmation, wedding etc.). He was presumably guided chiefly by pastoral considerations. For the second edition of 1596 (published after Telegdi’s death), the editors added a second funeral sermon, clearly intended for a more educated, urban audience – judging from the scholarly Latin quotations and the general tone. A comparison of the structure and content of the two speeches provides useful conclusions as to what the ecclesiastical authorities of the time considered advisable to preach at the time of death to mourners lacking basic schooling and what to the more learned audience.

My study approaches Unitarian sermon literature from the perspective of church discipline. There are several reasons for this: 1) Historical records of reception are scarce because in the early modern age, only a handful of Unitarian sermons could be published. 2) it was uncommon among Unitarian preachers to use theoretical works (ars concionandi/praedicandi) until the end of the 17th century, they learned instead by observing the written and oral practices of their colleagues. 3) Because of the medium of the manuscript, most early modern Unitarian sermons did not survive beyond the 17th–18th century. Therefore, in our exploration of the rules and ideals of sermon literature as well as the attitudes of followers, preachers, and schoolmasters to the genre, we are forced to rely on inferences based on the norms, especially the offences recorded in (ecclesiastical) court protocols.

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.

Nagyon régi kérdés, talán egyidős az őskeresztyénséggel. Chrys0stomus, Hieronymus, Gázai Procopius már megjegyzik, hogy az a széfer hattorah, melyet Kr. e. 621-ben Hilkiás főpap a jeruzsálemi templomban megtalált, csak a debarim = a Deuteronomiam = (Mózes V. könyve) lehetett. Ez a megtalált törvénykönyv századokon át foglalkoztatja a kedélyeket. 1805—6-ban „Dissertatio Critica“ címen De Wette határozottan állítja, hogy az a törvénykönyv = thoragyűjtemény, melyet Josiás király kultuszreformja végrehajtásához alapul vett: a Deuteronomium volt. Majd Kuenen és Wellhausen munkái nyomán a Deut. kérdése az ótest. bibl. tudományok egyik pillérévé, kulcsává lett. Mások (strassburgi iskola: Vernes, D'Eichthal, Horst, Cullen) azt vallják, hogy a Josiás reformja jelentéktelen, Ezékiás király reformjánál is (719—691 Kr. e.) kisebb méretű, így a Deut. a Josiás reformjával nincs is összefüggésben. Ismét mások (Fries) a Josiás reformját jóval a Deut.