{"title":"尸体和秃鹫。Logon Q 17,37是圣经语录(illud dictum)、谚语(proverbium)还是符号(signum)?训诫神学分析","authors":"A. Zawadzki","doi":"10.31743/biban.11075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":52162,"journal":{"name":"Biblical Annals","volume":"10 1","pages":"563-598"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Padlina i sępy. Czy logion Q 17,37 jest biblijnym cytatem (illud dictum), przysłowiem (proverbium) czy znakiem (signum)? Analiza egzegetyczno-teologiczna\",\"authors\":\"A. Zawadzki\",\"doi\":\"10.31743/biban.11075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biblical Annals\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"563-598\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biblical Annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31743/biban.11075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biblical Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31743/biban.11075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 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.