世界杯还是Qôs?哀歌4:21-22中失落的祷告和文字游戏

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Gard Granerød
{"title":"世界杯还是Qôs?哀歌4:21-22中失落的祷告和文字游戏","authors":"Gard Granerød","doi":"10.1163/15685330-bja10078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe article discusses the reference to Edom at the end of Lam 4. It makes two proposals. First, it argues that we should understand nearly all of the clauses in Lam 4:21–22 as volitive expressions that convey the speaker’s wishes or prayers. Second, it argues that the Hebrew text of Lam 4:21 contains a wordplay lost in the ancient Greek translation and, thus, lost in the subsequent tradition. When Lam 4:21 uses the Hebrew word כּוֹס (“cup”) together with the syntagma עבר עַל in a context of irony and concerning “Daughter Edom,” כּוֹס alludes to Qôs (קוֹס), the patron god of the Edomites and the Idumaeans. The Septuagint understood the Hebrew text’s volitive expressions as ordinary indicatives. It “quenched” the Hebrew text’s ironic pun and made an unambiguous expression of what originally was ambiguous.","PeriodicalId":46329,"journal":{"name":"VETUS TESTAMENTUM","volume":"160 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Cup or Qôs? Lost Prayer and Wordplay in Lamentations 4:21–22\",\"authors\":\"Gard Granerød\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15685330-bja10078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe article discusses the reference to Edom at the end of Lam 4. It makes two proposals. First, it argues that we should understand nearly all of the clauses in Lam 4:21–22 as volitive expressions that convey the speaker’s wishes or prayers. Second, it argues that the Hebrew text of Lam 4:21 contains a wordplay lost in the ancient Greek translation and, thus, lost in the subsequent tradition. When Lam 4:21 uses the Hebrew word כּוֹס (“cup”) together with the syntagma עבר עַל in a context of irony and concerning “Daughter Edom,” כּוֹס alludes to Qôs (קוֹס), the patron god of the Edomites and the Idumaeans. The Septuagint understood the Hebrew text’s volitive expressions as ordinary indicatives. It “quenched” the Hebrew text’s ironic pun and made an unambiguous expression of what originally was ambiguous.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"VETUS TESTAMENTUM\",\"volume\":\"160 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"VETUS TESTAMENTUM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-bja10078\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VETUS TESTAMENTUM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-bja10078","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了拉姆第四章末尾对以东的提及。它提出了两个建议。首先,它认为我们应该把Lam 4:21-22中几乎所有的从句理解为表达说话人的愿望或祈祷的意志表达。其次,它认为希伯来文的《利未记》4:21包含一个在古希腊翻译中丢失的文字游戏,因此在后来的传统中丢失了。当《利未记》4:21在讽刺和关于“女儿以东”的语境中使用希伯来词“永利”(“杯”)和语法“永利”(“永利”)时,“永利”暗指Qôs(“永利”),即以东人和以杜米人的守护神。《七十士译本》把希伯来文本的主观表达理解为普通的指示。它“熄灭”了希伯来文本的讽刺双关语,并对原本模棱两可的内容进行了明确的表达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Cup or Qôs? Lost Prayer and Wordplay in Lamentations 4:21–22
The article discusses the reference to Edom at the end of Lam 4. It makes two proposals. First, it argues that we should understand nearly all of the clauses in Lam 4:21–22 as volitive expressions that convey the speaker’s wishes or prayers. Second, it argues that the Hebrew text of Lam 4:21 contains a wordplay lost in the ancient Greek translation and, thus, lost in the subsequent tradition. When Lam 4:21 uses the Hebrew word כּוֹס (“cup”) together with the syntagma עבר עַל in a context of irony and concerning “Daughter Edom,” כּוֹס alludes to Qôs (קוֹס), the patron god of the Edomites and the Idumaeans. The Septuagint understood the Hebrew text’s volitive expressions as ordinary indicatives. It “quenched” the Hebrew text’s ironic pun and made an unambiguous expression of what originally was ambiguous.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
VETUS TESTAMENTUM
VETUS TESTAMENTUM RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Vetus Testamentum is a leading journal covering all aspects of Old Testament study. It includes articles on history, literature, religion and theology, text, versions, language, and the bearing on the Old Testament of archaeology and the study of the Ancient Near East. ● Since 1951 generally recognized to be indispensable for scholarly work on the Old Testament. ● Articles of interest in English, French and German. ● Detailed book review section in every issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信