Repozitórium index

Az Exodus 4,24–26 egyike azoknak az ószövetségi történeteknek, amelyek a mai bibliaolvasóban kérdések sorozatát indítják el. Ez a rövid epizód egy félelmetes Isten képzetét tárja elénk, aki látszólag minden ok nélkül tör rá a néhány sorral előbb komoly feladattal megbízott Mózesre azzal a szándékkal, hogy megölje őt. Sem ez az epizód, sem annak közvetlen kontextusa látszólag nem ad magyarázatot erre a szokatlan isteni megnyilvánulásra. Ez a tanulmány amellett érvel, hogy e történet eredeti formája a 4,19.24-26 versekből állt, s Exodus 2,23a közvetlen folytatása lehetett. Eszerint az Ex 4,19.24–26 eredeti értelmét nem az aktuális összefüggésben, hanem az Ex 2 kontextusában kell keresnünk. Az ókorban (az Ószövetségben is) jól ismert „életért életet adj” elvet képviselő bűnarányos büntetési forma, az úgynevezett talió-törvény értelmében Mózesnek az életével kellene fizetnie az elkövetett gyilkosságért.

It is often argued that the sixteenth-century Reformation initiated a chain of events that ultimately led not only to religious pluralism within the body of the Western Christian Church, but also to the rise and dispersion of mutual acceptance among various religious groups. The fact, however, that these two things (i.e. religious pluralism and tolerance) did not emerge directly and immediately (almost as a matter of course) from the Reformation itself, is similarly undeniable. As we shall see below, we have sufficient evidence to claim that although the Reformers – including John Calvin, Theodore Beza and others, with whom this paper is partly concerned – at some point in their lives (mostly in their youth) advocated and invocated the cultivation of the spirit of tolerance, most of them refrained from upholding such positions once their situation as leaders within a newly emerged (both religious and political) community or realm became established.

Negative Aspects in the Picture about יהוה. Approaches of Three Writers of Old Testament Theology. Different modes of interpretation drive to different conclusions. This study examines these differences in the works by W. Eichrodt, G. von Rad- and W. Brueggemann of Old Testament theology. The two former authors use the historical interpretation, while the third one is the representative of the rhetorical and narrative theology. The theme of Yahweh’s negative aspects is always a stumbling-block not only for laymen, but also for the scholars of theology. Differences deriving from interpretation are illustrated through three biblical examples: the heavenly scenes in 1Kings 22 and Isaiah 6, Saul’s story, and that of the Book of Job.