Martin Prudký

Tzv. Jóašův nápis: epigrafický nález století?

Jindřich Halama

Křesťanská etika, eschatologie a utopické myšlení

Jaroslav Elijáhu Sýkora

Výrok “Všecho je pomíjivost”: v hermeneutice rabínských komentářů.

Helmut Zeddies

Bezkonfesijnost ve východním Německu: znaky a pokusy o výklad vývoje a jeho důsledků

Ota Halama

Jan Blahoslav o rozdíle mezi správci jednoty a luterským kněžstvem.

Recenze

Práce přijaté a obhájené v roce 2002

Autor:

Martin Prudký

Abstrakt:

THE „JOASH INSCRIPTION“ – THE EPIGRAPHIC DISCOVERY OF THE CENTURY?

In January this year, the report that a stone tablet with a royal inscription had been found, celebrating the repair of the Temple in Jerusalem by Joash in the 9th century B.C., received great publicity. Should the inscription be a genuine archaeological record, then it would indeed be of exceptional importance. This study presents a transcription, translation, and brief analysis of the entire text of the inscription. It critically evaluates the terminology, phraseology and syntax of the text, in particular the extent to which they are analogous to, or on the contrary inconsistent with, the related texts of the Hebrew Bible (2 Kings 12:5ff, 2 Kings 22:3ff, 2 Kings 25:8ff, 1 Kings 6–7, Ex. 12:14 et al.). Having ascertained that the inscription quotes biblical texts (to the extent of exact terminological and phraseological parallels, including the “hapax legomenon”) and presupposes conditions that are undoubtedly much later than would correspond to the time of Joash, and entertaining the suspicion that the phraseology of some formulations is infl uenced by modern Hebrew (Ivrit), the author comes to the conclusion that the fi nding cannot be a genuine epigraphic record, but is evidently a forgery.

Citace:

Martin Prudký . "Tzv. Jóašův nápis: epigrafický nález století?" Teologická reflexe. 9/1 (2003), s. 5-26.

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Autor:

Jindřich Halama

Abstrakt:

CHRISTIAN ETHICS, ESCHATOLOGY AND UTOPIAN THOUGHT

In spite of its many fateful failures and of the many criticisms made of it, utopian thought is still the most powerful motivating force behind human actions. Its attractiveness lies apparently in the promise it brings. Theologically this can be demonstrated in some features of liberation theologies. Christian ethics, particularly Protestant ethics, tends to lack motivation due to its „realistic“ complacent attitude towards the power of human sin. The eschatological grounding of Christian ethics should help us to maintain the necessary tension between utopian and conservative elements, between revolutionary zeal for unreal projects and resignation, knowing that we cannot create any elements of the coming Kingdom but we can accept something of it as a gratuitous gift.

Citace:

Jindřich Halama. "Křesťanská etika, eschatologie a utopické myšlení." Teologická reflexe. 9/1 (2003), s. 27-35.

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Autor:

Jaroslav Elijáhu Sýkora

Abstrakt:

THE STATEMENT “ALL IS VANITY” IN THE HERMENEUTICS OF RABBINIC COMMENTARIES t

One of the most widely discussed phrases in Kohelet’s vocabulary comes from his introductory statement, which used to be rendered as Vanity of vanities, said Kohelet, vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Some Christian scholars (Lohfi nk, Schoors etc.) argue that the all-is-vanity statement by Kohelet is to be applied anthropologically, and oppose others (Christianson, Yadin etc.) who believe it should be applied universally. My analysis enters their scholarly dispute and offers evidence coming from the Jewish post-biblical tradition. After careful analysis of several rabbinic commentaries (Targum, Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, J.Kara, Kitzur Alschich, Metzudat Sion, Metzudat David, Sforno), I aim to prove that the logos interior of the term (lb,h) and the object to which the (lKoh;) particle relates show clearly that the majority of rabbis applied the all-is-vanity statement in accordance with the author of the book of Kohelet. Thus the main contribution of this analysis is to support those scholars who defend the anthropological application of the term.

Citace:

Jaroslav Elijáhu Sýkora. "Výrok “Všecho je pomíjivost”: v hermeneutice rabínských komentářů." Teologická reflexe. 9/1 (2003), s. 37-52.

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Autor:

Helmut Zeddies

Abstrakt:

LIVING WITHOUT CHURCH AFFILIATION IN EAST GERMANY.

Theauthor attempts to trace the reasons why the hopes for a Church revival after the fallof Communism were not fulfi lled. One of the roots is to be found in the systematicefforts of atheist propaganda, which completely obliterated all thoughts about Godin a large portion of the population. Another influence is the “new religiosity” thatdevelops apart from any church affi liation. This, however, is not a mass phenomenonin East Germany. Far more people simply live without any religion, even if theysearch for some form of transcendence. This sheds new light on the question of therelationship between faith and religion and calls for a new type of mission, based ona very open dialogue.

Citace:

Helmut Zeddies. "Bezkonfesijnost ve východním Německu: znaky a pokusy o výklad vývoje a jeho důsledků." Teologická reflexe. 9/1 (2003), s. 53-69.

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Autor:

Ota Halama

Abstrakt:

JOHN BLAHOSLAV ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRIESTS OF THE UNITY AND THE LUTHERAN PRIESTHOOD

The literary legacy of the bishop of the Unity of Brethren Jan Blahoslav (1523–1571), the majority of which has never been published, is an eloquent witness to the contacts between the Unity and the disciples of the Lutheran Reformation in both the Czech and European contexts. In the short article “Treatise on the difference between the Unity of Brethren and the Lutheran Unity” written in 1558, which we publish here in edited form, Blahoslav attempts to present to the reader in a succinct and unbiased way not only what the two sixteenth-century Reformation movements are in agreement on, but in particular the points on which the teaching of the Unity of Brethren and the Lutheran Reformation diverge. Neither here nor in any of his other texts does Blahoslav see any of the articles of faith of the two denominations as fundamentally contentious or insurmountable. What does remain a thorn in his side, however, is the question of the practical application of church administration and discipline. Of all the texts from Blahoslav’s pen on this theme that have been preserved, this is the only one to be couched in a kindly and conciliatory tone, and is far removed from the invective that he had to resort to elsewhere. Indeed, the treatise demonstrates its author’s regret at how the Ref rmation, in which both the Lutherans and the Brethren are participating, is wearing itself out unnecessarily through disputes “in its own house”.

Citace:

Ota Halama. "Jan Blahoslav o rozdíle mezi správci jednoty a luterským kněžstvem." Teologická reflexe. 9/1 (2003), s. 70-86.

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Plný text

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).