Padlina i sępy. Czy logion Q 17,37 jest biblijnym cytatem (illud dictum), przysłowiem (proverbium) czy znakiem (signum)? Analiza egzegetyczno-teologiczna
The article proposes a detailed syntactic and semantic analysis of Mt 24:28 and Lk 17:37c for the purpose of hypothetical reconstructing of the original Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) form of the logion Q 17:37. Then it is offered the comparison between the three different hermeneutic opportunities in...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The biblical annals 2020-10, Vol.10 (67/4), p.563-598 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng ; pol |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The article proposes a detailed syntactic and semantic analysis of Mt 24:28 and Lk 17:37c for the purpose of hypothetical reconstructing of the original Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) form of the logion Q 17:37. Then it is offered the comparison between the three different hermeneutic opportunities in its understanding within the canonical context, as either biblical quotation/paraphrase (Job 39,30) or proverb or sign. This comparison helps to understand that Q 17:37 fits very well to its literary and theological context from these three points of view. It shows therefore a very great semantic flexibility and makes it difficult to establish its original meaning in the Document Q. However, the author of the article argues that the Semitic phrase Q 17,37 with a very high probability functioned both in the Document Q and in the canonical context as a quotation/paraphrase of Job 39:30 or as a sign (in the same way as the fig sign in Mt 24.32-33; Lc 21.29-31) rather than as a proverb. The article therefore undermines the classical view that would be consolidated in the modern exegesis on Mt 24:28; Lk 17,37c. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2083-2222 2451-2168 |
DOI: | 10.31743/BIBAN.11075 |