Texts, Manuscripts, Versions, Canon

Texts, Manuscripts, Versions, Canon J. Edward Owens, OSST, Michael W. Duggan, Thomas Hieke, Timothy M. Willis, Christopher T. Begg, Fred W. Guyette, Brian J. Meldrum, Fred W. Guyette, and Juliane Eckstein J. Edward Owens, OSST University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio TX Michael W. Duggan Calgary AB, Canada Thomas Hieke Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz Timothy M. Willis Pepperdine University Christopher T. Begg Catholic University of America Fred W. Guyette Erskine College and Seminary, Anderson University Brian J. Meldrum Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit Fred W. Guyette Erskine College and Seminary, Anderson University Juliane Eckstein Johannes Gutenberg Universität, Mainz 1866. [The Use of the Collations of Kennicott and G. De Rossi in OT Text-Criticism] Claudio Balzaretti, "Sull'uso di Kennicott-De Rossi: da BHS a BHQ," RivB 69 (2021) 353-76. BHQ is an improvement on BHS in its presentation of the Masorah and sensitive treatment of the versions. Variants collected by B. Kennicott and G. De Rossi over two centuries ago are time-conditioned and selective. Textual witnesses and variants must be weighed, and none offers a clear path to the recovery of the original. B. examines recensions of 1 Samuel as an example. He suggests that a reader-oriented philology be given a place in text-criticial research in addition to an author-oriented one. Variants may indicate not a corrupt text, but rather living tradition. [Adapted from published abstract—J.E.O.] Google Scholar 1867. [Chronicles and the Canonization of the HB] Pamela Barmash, "A New Approach to the Canonization of the Hebrew Bible: The Case of Chronicles, Not Contested Yet Not Cited Often," Ve-ʾEd Yaʿaleh (Gen 2:6), Vol. 2, 949-69 [see #2546]. According to B., in the Council at Yavneh at the end of the first century c.e., the rabbis did not define the canon of Hebrew Scripture; rather, they commented on an earlier list of sacred texts that had already been formulated in the wake of the Jewish War (m. Yad. 3:5; cf. Josephus, C. Ap. 1.37-43). Various rabbis were suspicious of Qoheleth, Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ezekiel for inherent contradictions in the extant texts of these books, as well as their statements at odds with precepts or theological propositions of the Torah, and their preoccupation with sexuality. B. further notes that, by contrast, the rabbis had no such concerns about Chronicles, whose narratives feature the centrality of pentateuchal law codes, the Davidic monarchy, and the traditions of the prophets. The rabbis further viewed Ezra and Nehemiah as prophets who were the authors of Chronicles. Unlike the above three books, the composite work Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah reinforced traditional ethics and confirmed the coherence of the biblical tradition.—M.W.D. Google Scholar 1868. [The Doxologies of Amos (4:13; 5:8; 9:5-6) and Job (9:5-10; 26:5-24)] Jonathan Ben-Dov, "World Order in the Doxologies of Amos and Job," Ve-ʾEd Yaʿaleh (Gen 2:6), Vol. 2, 693-711 [see #2546]. Humans have a propensity to employ binary categories of day and night, earth and sky, and land and sea to depict natural forces as components of an orderly world. B.-D. [End Page 703] directs attention to doxologies in Amos and descriptions of creation in Job which employ such dyads to illustrate not the stability, but rather the instability, of the world. In Amos, the three doxologies (4:13; 5:8; 9:5-6) intrude into statements of divine judgment against Israel. Each doxology concludes with an acclamation of the Lord of Hosts, whose sovereignty over creation is evident in natural forces, whether destructive or benevolent. Reflections on creation as God's handiwork are central in the Book of Job, within which B.-D. focuses on Job 26:5-14 and 9:5-10. Job describes God's creative activity as a warfare against the powers of chaos (Job 26:5-14). He further asserts that the world comes into being through divine violence with the result that it basically hangs by a thread and God is hidden from view (26:7, 8-10). God likewise rules the world...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.