Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Řecké slovesné kategorie v knize Ámos

100%
Mackerle A.
Studia theologica
|
2015
|
vol. 1
18-44
EN
The Greek text of Amos has been studied thus far primarily from the point of view of the textual criticism and of the correspondence of words and expressions between the Hebrew and Greek texts. The present article concentrates on the verbal forms (Greek tenses and aspects) used by the translator. The first reason is to determine his strategy in applying these grammatical tools. The second reason is to use this study to better understand the nature of his translation, since the Greek verbal forms used by the translator mainly pertain to the translation process, and only in a lesser degree to the Vorlage. The author argues that the way the translator uses the Greek tenses reveals his fairly solid understanding of the Hebrew verbal forms in his Vorlage, but also a certain degree of negligence within the context of the entire book, especially in terms of what follows.
2
Content available remote

AM 7,10–17 JAKO STŘET POHLEDŮ NA SVĚT

100%
Mackerle A.
Studia theologica
|
2011
|
vol. 13
|
issue 2
1-17
EN
The text of Am 7:10–17 is primarily a dialogue, not a biographical narrative. Therefore, this article analyses the text of Am 7:10–17 as a dialogue between Amaziah and Amos. The former interprets Amos’ words in a worldly, horizontal way. He views Amos as a rebel preaching against the state. In the same way he also interprets his own ministry. As a priest, he is a royal official, a servant of the “king’s sanctuary”. Amos, in contrast, corrects his view. He affirms that he is not merely a prophet who prophesies in order to earn money, but that he prophesies because he has been called by God. The basic difference between both figures resides in their points of view, which are mutually incompatible and exclusive. This difference is the main reason for casting the prophet out of Bethel. Thus, Amos turns God’s word against Amaziah himself, and at the same time against all those who, like Amaziah, are not able take God into consideration any longer.
3
Content available remote

JOHANN JAHN, KATOLICKÝ BIBLISTA A ORIENTALISTA DOBY OSVÍCENSTVÍ

100%
Mackerle A.
Studia theologica
|
2012
|
vol. 14
|
issue 2
29–55
EN
The article acquaints the reader with the eminent catholic Austrian biblical scholar and orientalist Johann Jahn (1750–1816). Born in Moravia, he taught the Old Testament and oriental languages in Vienna. His brilliance was recognized throughout Europe by both Catholic and Protestant scholars. He faced various problems due to opposition from certain scholars in Hungary and also because of the new educational reforms imposed by the Emperors Joseph II, and Franz I of Austria. He influenced various generations of students of biblical theology in the Austrian empire.
4
Content available remote

Am 3,3–8: obhajoba proroka, nebo charakteristika Božího slova v knize Ámos?

100%
Mackerle A.
Studia theologica
|
2016
|
vol. 1
1-19
EN
The passage in the Book of Amos 3:3–8 is often understood as Amos’ apology for his own prophetic mission, arguing that Amos (like any other of God’s prophets) had no choice but to proclaim God’s message when the Lord talked to him. After a detailed analysis of the passage, its structure, words and especially its internal logic and also taking in consideration the context of the entire third chapter, the author proposes a somewhat different interpretation. The text from Amos characterizes the nature of God’s word of judgement present in the third chapter and in the Book of Amos as a whole. It explains the Lord’s decision to punish expressed in 3:1–2 and described in the remainder of the chapter. God always issues a warning before doing something and the words of Amos here are such a warning.
5
Content available remote

CO MAJÍ SPOLEČNÉHO MÉŠOVA STÉLA A 2 KRÁL 3?

63%
Mackerle A., Kučerová V.
Studia theologica
|
2011
|
vol. 13
|
issue 4
1-24
EN
The authors analyze both the Mesha inscription and the text of 2 Kings 3, and ask what role the Israelite-Moabite conflict plays in them. They argue that these texts mention a conflict, but otherwise have hardly anything in common; they differ both in terms of the literary genre and as concerns the historical details. Thus, they should not be harmonized, and when used for a reconstruction of Transjordan history in 9th century BC, their specific literary genres should be respected. In contrast, however, the authors compare the role of divinity in both texts, and came to the conclusion that divinity plays a distinctive, decisive role in both texts. In this respect, the Mesha stele is much closer to 2 Kings 3 than to other royal memorial (or dedicatory) inscriptions.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.