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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The biblical annals 2020-10, Vol.10 (67/4), p.563-598
1. Verfasser: Zawadzki, Arnold
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng ; pol
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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