Search results

1

Śladami biblijnego marzēaḥ (Amos 6, 7; Jeremiasz 16, 5)

100%

Tryl F.

|

2008

|

vol. 55

|

issue 1

55-81

PL

The mysterious term „marzeah” occurs twice in the Old Testament. In the Book of Amos it stands for an aristocratic feast, whereas in the Book of Jeremiah we read about „the house of marzeah” meaning a place used for mourning for the dead. The texts from Ugarit provide us with more information. Thorough analysis of the texts implies that „marzeah” was an institution assembling people representing upper social classes. At least one of its aims was cult of the dead. It clearly resembles mesopotamian „kipsu” – a ritual feast where people called their ancestors to „eat bread and drink water”. In the Bible it is a clear example of the trait of pagan beginnings of Israel, whose elements in their fragmentary form lasted until VI century B.C.

2

Propozycja reinterpretacji tytułów Bożego pomazańca w Księdze Izajasza (9,5b-6a)

99%

Tobola Ł.

Poznańskie Studia Teologiczne

|

2010

|

issue 24

73-79

EN

The article suggests a reinterpretation of the titulary of God’s Anointed One in Isa 9,5b-6a. Based on a detailed analysis of the inscription of this text in the Qumran Isaiah scroll (QIsaa) and in the oldest Masoretic manuscripts also in their relation to biblical onomastics, a triple division of royal titulary, different from the hitherto accepted ones, is proposed which in the intent of the biblical author was to reflect the qualities of an ideal king. This triple division refers to the king’s wisdom as a mediator between God and the people („A Wonderful Counselor is God”), his role as a commander who fights in the name of the Divine protector („Mighty is the Everlasting Father”) and as a guardian who watches over the fate of the community entrusted to his care („The Divine Companion is the Master of Prosperity”). This image is confirmed by extrabiblical texts especially by the sources from Ugarit, where the kings used a similar titulary - both in the aspect of form as well as content.

3

Gniew bogów świata umarłych w wierzeniach starożytnego Bliskiego Wschodu

80%

Münnich M.

Verbum Vitae

|

2018

|

vol. 34

191-212

EN

The various Semitic peoples of the Ancient Near East all embraced similar beliefs concerning the anger of the deities of the underworld. Above all, such an anger was viewed as lethal to both people and to other gods. In the surviving textual sources one can find word-images of the deities themselves, of their demonic helpers, and even of the dead under their orders to devour their victims (gods or people). The anger of the divine rulers of the underworld is not presented as irrevocable, but can be appeased by offering sacrifices and prayers, or by praising particular gods. Some elements of this imagery, though modified to align with a monotheistic background, can also be found in the Bible.

PL

Semici starożytnego Bliskiego Wschodu w sposób dość podobny wyobrażali sobie gniew bóstw świata podziemnego. Przede wszystkim ów gniew miał być śmiercionośny zarówno dla ludzi, jak i dla bogów. W takim kontekście często używanym obrazem jest przedstawienie czy to samych bóstw, czy to ich demonicznych pomocników, czy wreszcie pozostających pod ich rozkazami zmarłych jako pożerających swe ofiary (bogów albo ludzi). Gniew boskich władców podziemia nie jest przedstawiany jako nieodwołalny i można go ułagodzić poprzez składanie ofiar, modlitwę czy też wysławianie konkretnych bogów. Pewne elementy tego obrazu, choć zmodyfikowane ze względu na monoteistyczne tło, można znaleźć także w Biblii.

4

Jumalad sojas: jumalik toetus ja sodade teoloogiline õigustamine muistses Anatoolias ja Pohja-Suurias

71%

Sazonov V., Töyräänvuori J.

Mäetagused

|

2022

|

vol. 82

147-174

XX

As we can see, divine support, divine intervention, and an ideology of (divine) warfare developed in the Hittite world throughout the whole of Hittite history and became better formulated and more complex with the passing of time, reaching their apex during the New Kingdom Period. If we can observe barely any divine support for Anitta’s deeds in the Text of Anitta, then Ḫattušili I, who ruled 100 years later, already elaborated this phenomenon more explicitly and referred to gods in support of his aggressive politics and military actions (The Annals of Ḫattušili I). The phenomenon of divine support for war can be found in an even more sophisticated and developed manner during the New Kingdom, in the Annals of Tudḫaliya I, in the Manly Deeds of Šuppiluliuma and in the annals written by Muršili II, etc. In some cases, we even have outright theological justification of wars. As we can see, ideology, religion, and theology played an insignificant role in conflict and warfare and especially in the divine support of war in Hittite Anatolia at the time of Anitta in the 18th century BCE. This, however, changed dramatically across the time, and in the Annals of Ḫattušili I, the role of gods increased considerably, and the king began to refer to the gods in justification for his actions (also in war). Later, in the epoch of the New Kingdom, since the time of Tudḫaliya I, and especially since Muršili II, the role of the gods became even more elaborate and sophisticated, and the kings mention several gods or a group of gods, instead of only two or three of them (as was done by Ḫattušili I) which helped them in wars and in military campaigns. We have several pieces of evidence from Hittite sources in which the ruler uses proper theological justification for his military campaign or for the invasion of another country, and the most elaborate of these are the annals of Muršili II. Similar themes of divine support and the occasional theological justification of war are also found in the texts of the vassal kingdoms of the Hittite Empire, with the exception that, on the ideological level, the Hittite kings were the representatives of the gods for the Syrian kings. This is a clear difference between the texts from the core area of the Hittite Empire and the texts from the kingdoms of the Hittite ambit. Many of the wars fought by the major international players of the Late Bronze Age were fought on the battlefields of North Syria, which is why war is a common occurrence in the texts of the peoples based there. Unlike in the Hittite texts, the petitioning of the gods before military undertakings is a common trope in the texts from Ugarit and Alalaḫ. The same may have been true of the other Syrian vassals of the Hittite kings, but fewer texts have remained from them. These petitions were also accompanied by rituals meant to ascertain good fortunes in war. The petitioned deities changed depending on the place of origin of the petitioner and the place that was attacked. Both one’s ancestral gods and the gods of the enemy needed to be respected for a campaign to be successful, and peace could also be made on behalf of the gods of both parties only. In the North Syrian kingdoms, proper conduct of war concerned not only the present but also the past and future generations. A victory or defeat could be decided by the conduct of one’s ancestors, and teaching one’s descendants the proper way to petition the gods for success in war was supremely important. While the storm god was likely the most important deity concerning the theological justification of war among the North Syrian kingdoms, this role of the god is not always clearly formulated in the texts. Goddesses were also petitioned for success in war, but there was a clear difference in how common soldiers and kings apprehended the gods, especially the widely popular warrior goddess Anat. While soldiers and warriors looked to the goddess for success in battle, she functioned as the nursemaid of the king. While the petitioning of divine support for military undertakings was likely shared by kings across the entire ancient Near East, Anatolia and North Syria formed a cultural ambit where influences were readily exchanged both from Anatolia to Syria and from Syria to Anatolia. In the texts from these areas, we can see details and motifs that are particular to either region but also themes that are shared by both areas. It is noticeable that the political relationship of overlord and vassal or subject kingdom can be seen not only in the political correspondence of the kingdoms but also on the ideological level, in the texts that the Hittites wrote for their own gods and the Syrians wrote for theirs. The hierarchical relationships of the kingdoms of Anatolia and North Syria are so ingrained that they influenced the very core of how the divine support of war was formulated in the texts.

5

Ugarycka idea boskiego gniewu

57%

Mrozek A. I.

Verbum Vitae

|

2018

|

vol. 33

129-152

EN

The idea of God's wrath – and in the Ugaritic religious tradition, the anger of the deities – is fairly widely attested and illustrated in ancient narrative texts. From the perspective of the ideological space, one can point to two different spheres in which it was situated: the theosphere, or the world of deities, and an anthroposphere, a set of ideas expressing the world of people. In this study, selected texts from the Baal Cycle and from the poems Kirta and Aqhat have been presented and analyzed, their division and order of presentation based on the distinction between the divine and human spheres. In scenes where the theme of divine anger appears, elements of this anger are examined as to its causes, through the stages of its implementation, to the consequences. An attempt was made to situate these motifs within the theological or mythological context proper to each. In the theosphere, the anger adopts connotations, above all the theomachia ones with a certain reference to cosmogonic aspects. Meanwhile, in the world of people, anger situates itself in a theophany-like context in the case of Anat, and a ritual context in the case of Athirat. The wrath of the deities expresses one aspect of the relationship between them but is also a special attribute of particular deities.

PL

Idea gniewu bożego, a w ugaryckiej tradycji religijnej gniewu bóstw, jest w miarę szeroko poświadczona i zobrazowana w tekstach o charakterze narracyjnym. Z perspektywy przestrzeni ideowej można wskazać na dwie odmienne sfery, w których idea ta została usytuowana. Jedną jest „teosfera”, czyli świat bóstw, a drugą „antroposfera”, czyli zespół idei wyrażających świat ludzi. W niniejszym opracowaniu zostały przedstawione i przeanalizowane wybrane teksty z Cyklu Baala oraz z poematów Kirta i Aqhat. Ich podział oraz kolejność są oparte na wzmiankowanym rozróżnieniu sfery boskiej i ludzkiej. Przywołane i przeanalizowane zostały sceny, w których pojawia się motyw boskiego gniewu. Na ich podstawie zostały wydobyte różne elementy tego gniewu, poczynając od jego przyczyn, poprzez etapy jego realizacji, aż po konsekwencje. Została również podjęta próba usytuowania tych motywów we właściwym mu kontekście teologicznym lub mitologicznym. W „teosferze” gniew przyjmuje konotacje przede wszystkim związane z walką bóstw, czyli teomachijne, z pewnym nawiązaniem do aspektów kosmogonicznych. Tymczasem w świecie ludzi gniew sytuuje się w kontekście, do pewnego stopnia, teofanicznym w przypadku Anat oraz rytualnym w przypadku Aszirat. Gniew bóstw wyraża jeden z aspektów relacji pomiędzy nimi i stanowi ponadto ważny atrybut wybranych bóstw.

Refine search results

2 Verbum Vitae

1 Mäetagused

1 Poznańskie Studia Teologiczne

1 The Biblical Annals

1 2022

2 2018

1 2010

1 2008

1 Mrozek A. I.

1 Münnich M.

1 Sazonov V.

1 Tobola Ł.

1 Tryl F.

1 Töyräänvuori J.

Śladami biblijnego marzēaḥ (Amos 6, 7; Jeremiasz 16, 5)

Propozycja reinterpretacji tytułów Bożego pomazańca w Księdze Izajasza (9,5b-6a)

Gniew bogów świata umarłych w wierzeniach starożytnego Bliskiego Wschodu

Jumalad sojas: jumalik toetus ja sodade teoloogiline õigustamine muistses Anatoolias ja Pohja-Suurias

Ugarycka idea boskiego gniewu