加洛林话语中纳粹分子的恢复

R. Lahav
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加洛林王朝的注释家赫拉巴努斯·毛鲁斯和帕斯查修斯·拉伯图斯在他们所能获得的资料中遇到了一个悖论,关于但及其代表参孙的预言,参孙是拿细耳人的原型,“让但成为路上的蛇,路上的蛇,咬马的脚跟,使骑马的人向后跌倒。”耶和华啊,我要仰望你的救恩”(创49:17-8)。虽然在一些来源中,创世纪49:17中给但的祝福被解释为预示着基督,但在另一些来源中,它被视为反映了敌基督。在本文中,我将通过研究两种方法的来源,探讨这些加洛林学派的注释者是如何应对这种冲突的挑战的。我认为,两位注释者都以一种绕过悖论的方式处理资料,各自选择了不同的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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