{"title":"加洛林话语中纳粹分子的恢复","authors":"R. Lahav","doi":"10.1515/jbr-2020-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Carolingian exegetes Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus encountered a paradox in the sources available to them regarding the prophecy of Dan and its representative Samson, the archetypal Nazirite, “Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels that his rider may fall backward. I will look for thy salvation, O Lord” (Gen 49:17–8). While in some sources, the blessing given to Dan in Genesis 49:17 is interpreted as foreshadowing Christ, in others it is seen as reflecting the Antichrist. In this article, I explore how these Carolingian exegetes rose to the challenge of this conflict, by the examining the sources for both approaches available to them. I argue that both exegetes engaged with the sources in a manner that bypassed the paradox, each choosing a different way to do so.","PeriodicalId":17249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","volume":"48 1","pages":"61 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Recovery of the Nazirite in Carolingian Discourse\",\"authors\":\"R. Lahav\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jbr-2020-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Carolingian exegetes Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus encountered a paradox in the sources available to them regarding the prophecy of Dan and its representative Samson, the archetypal Nazirite, “Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels that his rider may fall backward. I will look for thy salvation, O Lord” (Gen 49:17–8). While in some sources, the blessing given to Dan in Genesis 49:17 is interpreted as foreshadowing Christ, in others it is seen as reflecting the Antichrist. In this article, I explore how these Carolingian exegetes rose to the challenge of this conflict, by the examining the sources for both approaches available to them. I argue that both exegetes engaged with the sources in a manner that bypassed the paradox, each choosing a different way to do so.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Bible and its Reception\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"61 - 78\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Bible and its Reception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2020-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Bible and its Reception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-2020-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Recovery of the Nazirite in Carolingian Discourse
Abstract Carolingian exegetes Hrabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus encountered a paradox in the sources available to them regarding the prophecy of Dan and its representative Samson, the archetypal Nazirite, “Let Dan be a snake in the way, a serpent in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels that his rider may fall backward. I will look for thy salvation, O Lord” (Gen 49:17–8). While in some sources, the blessing given to Dan in Genesis 49:17 is interpreted as foreshadowing Christ, in others it is seen as reflecting the Antichrist. In this article, I explore how these Carolingian exegetes rose to the challenge of this conflict, by the examining the sources for both approaches available to them. I argue that both exegetes engaged with the sources in a manner that bypassed the paradox, each choosing a different way to do so.