Academic literature on the topic 'Bible – Criticism, interpretation, etc'

Many scholars have already considered the interpretation of the Bible in the works of I. Franko, including Vera Sulim, Larisa Bondar, Oksana Zabuzhko and others. However, these studies touch upon some aspects of Frank's vision of the Bible, or consider individual works of thinkers written on biblical subjects, such as "Moses," "The Death of Cain," "The Legend of Pilate," etc. Let us try here to show that the work of Ivan Franko demonstrates not only a deep philosophical understanding of the Bible, a new, not dogmatic reading of its ancient stories, but also an objective and scientific analysis of the knowledge about it that has accumulated in its time by world scientific criticism.

THE BIBLE & ANCIENT SCIENCE: Principles of Interpretation by Denis O. Lamoureux. Tullahoma, TN: McGahan Publishing, 2020. 218 pages. Paperback; $15.99. ISBN: 9781951252052. *"Simply stated, I believe the literary genre of Genesis 1-3 is an ancient account of origins. Notably, it is deeply rooted in ancient science" (p. 195). *Denis O. Lamoureux is Professor of Science and Religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta. He possesses three earned doctorates (dentistry, theology, and biology) and tells of an intellectual and spiritual journey out of atheism, through fundamentalism, and to his current position. Consequently, if there was ever a model voice that displays the academic and personal experience necessary to speak formidably about the hermeneutical issues associated with Genesis 1-3 and the other creation texts of the Bible, it is Lamoureux. *The study begins with what seems like a simple question, "Is the Bible a book about science?" However, before the opening chapters are completed, the reader understands that the question is anything but simple. In fact, the difficulty of the conversation is poignantly displayed when he offers answers to his leading question from two giant figures within the evangelical tradition. Henry M. Morris answers in the affirmative, but Billy Graham answers negatively. Yet, to his credit, Lamoureux does not dwell on this disagreement. He quickly emphasizes that a proper answer to his question requires an entanglement with issues of hermeneutics, or principles of interpretation (p. 13). Consequently, the remainder of the book is a journey through the wild and woolly world of biblical hermeneutics on the way to answering the question of whether the Bible is a book about science. *Lamoureux guides the reader toward his answer by discussing twenty-two hermeneutical principles that range from the mundane topics of "literalism," "literary genre," and "historical criticism" to the more complex, such as "cognitive competence," "accommodation," and "concordism." Each chapter is devoted to one principle, and all the chapters are organized similarly. They discuss the principle and then specific applications to the creation texts. This approach produces manageable-sized chapters that can be pondered without a fear of being overwhelmed by complex arguments; however, presenting an argument by a series of propositional statements can obfuscate how each proposition interacts with the others and how they all cooperate. In Lamoureux's defense, however, he does well to minimize any dissonance. *Ultimately, Lamoureux finds himself landing between Morris and Graham when answering his leading question. According to Lamoureux, the Bible contains science, but it's ancient science. And that qualification makes all the difference. The biblical writers are indeed talking about the origins of the universe, but they are doing so in terms of an Iron Age worldview while using Iron Age concepts. Therefore, their "science" is incompatible with the scientific inquiry and discourse of today. This conviction implies that concordism neither does justice to the text and its message nor frames a useful conversation. *In pushing back against any simplistic appropriation of the Bible's message upon the demands of modern scientific discourse, Lamoureux offers a very nuanced proposal. But at its heart is a respect for the ancient worldview of the biblical authors with all its frustrating peculiarities. For example, Lamoureux emphasizes how things such as the rhetoric and ahistorical symbolism of parables must be respected. Simple enough; however, Lamoureux also recognizes that ancient Israel perceived the universe through a three-tiered concept, a reality that finds itself alongside flat-earth theories in the hall of fame of modern-day cosmological ludicrousness. Similarly, ancient Israel's botanical awareness was clearly ignorant of the data we have today. Therefore, Lamoureux's discussions eventually bring the reader to a crossroad. How can a reader respect the Bible if it is invoking principles of, say, botany or any other field of science, in ways that run counter to contemporary scientific discourse? Is the reader confronted with the terrible situation in which they must support the Bible's claims despite the contradictory scientific evidence? Are they forced to abandon any notion of inerrancy? *It is at this point that the integrity of Lamoureux's argument reaches a critical point. His argument cannot work without certain hermeneutical principles. First, the principle of accommodation argues that God accommodates himself to humanity--through language, culture, concepts, etc.--in order to ensure effective communication. So, in the example of Israel's botanical awareness, God is "using the botany-of-the-day" to ensure that the audience would understand the message. Similarly, this should also be applied to Israel's three-tiered universe and other cosmological concepts. Second, the message-incident principle argues that the mode of communication is incidental to the core message. To be clear, "Incidental has the meaning of that which happens to be alongside and happening in connection with something important" (p. 46). Therefore, applied to the creation texts, ancient science is incidental but important to delivering spiritual truths (p. 47). Third, Lamoureux champions incarnational inspiration. According to Lamoureux, the incarnation, as understood in Jesus, becomes the analogy par excellence for understanding the nature of scripture. It is fully divine and fully human. The Bible, like Jesus, transcends time and history. And God's perfect message comes through finite and imperfect humanity. *Many of Lamoureux's arguments echo similar arguments made by biblical scholars in recent memory. For example, Kenton Sparks, in God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (2008), emphasized accommodation in his attempt to balance a conviction that the Bible contains factual errors but is also inerrant. Peter Enns systematically argued for incarnational inspiration, as in Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (2005). John Walton and Brent Sandy display affinities to Lamoureux's message-incident principle in their work The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (2013). Consequently, the pitfalls that face these scholars face Lamoureux as well. If accommodation explains the scientific ignorance of the biblical writers, is inerrancy the best description of scripture? Or, because the incarnation is unique to the realities of Jesus, how appropriate is it to invoke it as an analogy for something else? At what point does it break down (cf. Ben Witherington, The Living Word of God [Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007], 35-49)? *I wholeheartedly agree with Lamoureux that it is paramount for the interpreter to dutifully consider the text on its own terms, particularly since I take seriously the notion that God used ancient Israel to communicate his redemptive plan. Thus, the interpreter should yield to Israel's concepts, conventions, and philosophies on the way to understanding the message before they move to appropriation for theological discourse. Nevertheless, several elements in The Bible and Ancient Science could be fine tuned. These include Lamoureux's framing of the discussion of translating Genesis 1:1 (pp. 75-81) as a text-critical issue, when it is more of a translation problem. Lamoureux also presents a generic, almost flat, portrait of the classic criticisms of biblical studies (e.g., textual criticism, literary criticism, historical criticism) that does not support a nuanced understanding of their results for the creation texts. *A little more significant is Lamoureux's understanding of Paul's typological argument in Romans 5. He struggles with the possibility that Paul's argument appears historical in nature. He states, *"As a consequence, Paul undoubtedly believed Adam was a historical person and that the events of Genesis 2-3 really happened. However, it must be emphasized that Paul's belief in the reality of Adam and the events in the Garden of Eden does not necessarily mean they are historical" (p. 175). *Thus, he is forced to wrestle with the implications of his argument as it confronts the semantics of the text. He may well have been influenced by Enns in how he tries to navigate this, but a difficult tension remains (Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins [2012]). For Lamoureux, and Enns for that matter, it is difficult to advocate a framework-like typology which usually interprets historical figures in the context of history as, in this instance, functioning with a significant level of historical ignorance. *A deeper commitment to comparative investigations would also have enhanced Lamoureux's argument. He is certainly aware of non-Israelite texts and how they help us understand the concepts, conventions, and message of the biblical text, for he references them in his discussions of worldview and ancient conceptions of the universe. However, reading Genesis 1-2 in the shadow of texts such as the "Enuma Elish" and the "Memphite Theology" crystalizes the form and function of the genre as well as the Old Testament's theological emphases. *Nevertheless, overall Lamoureux gets far more right than wrong and this work is valuable. It makes potentially complicated concepts accessible and applies them to the very important debate about what "inerrant" means when describing the nature of scripture. *Reviewed by David B. Schreiner, Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Old Testament, Wesley Biblical Seminary, Ridgeland, MS 39157.

The interpretation of the Bible in the present continues to grow rapidly. This progress has both positive and negative effects in the realm of biblical interpretation. The positive impact that is with the progress of interpretation, it was found many truth values that were not understood and now start out one by one. The negative as the progress of biblical interpretation is the loss of boundaries. With the method of high-criticism interpretation makes the Bible originally believed to be the infallible Word, and now it is equated with another book of lesser value than the scriptures. The Bible is aligned with the ordinary book, even the authority of the Bible as God's Word is in doubt, denied and demeaned to an ordinary literary work.This is a challenge for Christianity today. It takes a firm stance in the face of the Higher Criticism interpretation movement. Christians need to determine a position to deflect any allegations that undermine the authority of the Bible and any allegations that cast doubt on the inspiration and revelation of the existing Scriptures. This paper is expected to give a little apologetic response to the Higher Criticism movement Keywords: Higher Criticism, Apologetic, Bible AbstrakPenafsiran Alkitab dalam masa kini terus mengalami perkembangan dengan pesat. Kemajuan ini memberikan dampak positif maupun negative dalam ranah dunia tafsir Alkitab. Positive karena dengan kemajuannya banak nilai-nilai kebenaran yang dul tidak dipahami mulai keluar satu persatu. Negatifnya saat kemajuan penafsiran Alkitab kehilangan batasan, dengan metode penafsiran higher Critism menjadikan Alkitab yang awalnya diyakini sebagai Firman yang tanpa salah, layaknya buku lain yang nilainya lebih rendah dari kitab suci. Aklitab disejajarkan dengan buku biasa. Bahkah otoritas Alkitab sebagai Firman Allah diragukan, disangkal dan direndahkan sebatas karya sastra biasa.Ini merupakan tantangan bagai kekristenan saat ini. Diperlukan sikap yang tegas dalam menghadapi pergerakan penafsiran Higher Critism. Orang Kristen perlu menentukan posisi dalam menangkis segala tuduhan yang merendahkan otoritas Alkitab. Segala tuduhan yang meragukan pengilhaman dan pewahyuan penulisan kitab Suci yang ada. Tulisan ini diharapkan memberikan sedikit sikap apologetika terhadap gerakan Higer Critism Kata Kunci: Higer Critism, Apologet, Alkitab

This article analyzes the reflection on the myth of Faust in the work of Eduardas Mieželaitis (1919–1997). The author’s initial hypothesis that the interpretation of this myth can be used as another argument for revealing the poet’s dramatic feelings and self-reflection of inauthentic Soviet existence is tested. Together with other signs of existential self-abuse (such as the metaphors of “the ringed bird” and “the masked word”), this could help answer the question of whether the description of the 1920s generation (Alfonsas Nyka-Niliūnas, Bronius Krivickas, etc.) as “tragic” would fit Mieželaitis. Intertextuality is the best way to describe the nature of the analysis and socio-criticism would describe the interpretation of the results.E. Mieželaitis was (and still is) one of the most intertextual Lithuanian authors. The use of the “alien word” in his texts was a conceptual position of the poet’s creative consciousness. For him the world’s culture has become a central topic, and his texts have been occupied by the masters of arts and sciences of antiquity, Renaissance, or New Age, as well as modern European authors, Oriental classics, Bible quotations, paraphrases, allusions and other forms of culture. For the poet, Goethe’s Faust is one of such foundational texts, even if the Soviet era did not favor the “myths of the great contemplation” (Vytautas Kubilius). The forever relevant myth of Faust raises a fundamental question of person’s life choice – what one is prepared to sacrifice for one’s purpose, and what the results of that “sacrifice” are. But in the Soviet times Mieželaitis did not focus on this myth as a “symbol of the duality of human’s nature” – his human is rather one-dimensional and monolithic, full of positive energy directed towards technological progress and an absolute belief in the cognitive powers of man. This is the exact aspect that Faust embodies in Mieželaitis’ works, as if it was his “new man”, the product of the Enlightenment era. Mieželaitis did not care about the moment of negotiations between Faust and Mephistopheles – for him there could easily be no Mephistopheles. However, in late works (Postskriptumai, 1986; Gnomos, 1987; Laida, 1992), where the poet reflects on his life and creative path, there are many signs of disillusionment with the myth of human omnipotence as the results of his labor have turned against him – he wanted to create a heaven, but got a hell in the form of Hiroshima. It is at this point that Mephistopheles dominates the duet with Faust, but in general they have both become a “common place” and their function is limited by the text’s aesthetic figurativeness.My conclusion is that eventually the rich allusions to Faust in Mieželaitis’ works did not translate into reflections on the essence or meaning of being – he was not concerned with the problematics of human’s choices, duality, or contradictions. Thus, my initial expectation that the interpretation of the Faust myth may be another argument for revealing the poet’s dramatic feelings and self-reflection of inauthentic existence in the Soviet times was essentially not confirmed. And that could have been another argument for adding him to the social group of the 1920s.On the other hand, looking from the distant present, it is my opinion that Mieželaitis is still a part of the tragic generation, as the whole generation – whether they retreated to the West, or remained in Soviet Lithuania, collaborated or resisted – became hostages of the Second World War and the Soviet occupation.

Abstract Modern historical criticism has disengaged understanding of the Bible from the long Christian tradition of interpretation, severing the bond between text and reader, between Scripture and the living church tradition. As a consequence, patristic and medieval interpreters are dismissed as serious commentators on the Holy Scriptures. This essay offers examples from classical Christian exegetes that illustrate how reading the Scriptures from within rather than against tradition deepens our understanding of the Bible.

Abstract Modern historical criticism has disengaged understanding of the Bible from the long Christian tradition of interpretation, severing the bond between text and reader, between Scripture and the living church tradition. As a consequence, patristic and medieval interpreters are dismissed as serious commentators on the Holy Scriptures. This essay offers examples from classical Christian exegetes that illustrate how reading the Scriptures from within rather than against tradition deepens our understanding of the Bible.

Textual criticism refers to the techniques used by biblical scholars in interpreting a given text of the Bible to ascertain its original wording, the nature of its composition, sources, date, and authorship. Textual criticism is an essential aspect of biblical interpretation, which some interpreters technically dodged from it thinking that the word “criticism” is negative. Far be it from this assertion, biblical criticism is relevant, and it remains relevant. Textual criticism is significant; it helps us understand that Scripture cannot be overestimated. It is vital to the understanding of Scripture as the Word of God. It seeks to investigate and understand the situation of the original recipients of the word to discover precisely what the original writers of the scriptures meant by their words. From this Spirit, the writer would shed light on the importance and relevance of biblical criticism, especially to the interpretation of the Bible. To achieve the aim of the writing, the writer uses the narrative-critical analysis method to present the paper’s idea.

<p>Bible as literature and Bible as religion are comparative. It is without doubt that Bible, as a religious doctrine, has played a great role in Judaism and Christianity. It is meanwhile a whole literature collection of history, law, ethics, poems, proverbs, biography and legends. As the source of western literature, Bible has significant influence on the English language and culture, English writing and modeling of characters in the subsequent time. Interpreting the female characters in the Bible would affirm the value of women, view the feminist criticism in an objective way and agree the harmonious relationship between the men and the women. </p>

Abstract Moberly discusses John Barton's Nature of Biblical Criticism and takes issue with Barton's portrayal of theological interpretation as hostile to the values of biblical criticism. After showing how Barton misrepresents theological interpretation, not least because of a failure to do justice to the changing frames of reference of critical scholarship, Moberly extends the discussion to include the preunderstandings that interpreters inevitably bring to the Bible in ways analogous to how one reads a classic; the way in which appreciation of deep literature relates to personal maturity; and the way in which theological dogma, rightly understood, can make truer one's perception of reality.

Abstract Moberly discusses John Barton's Nature of Biblical Criticism and takes issue with Barton's portrayal of theological interpretation as hostile to the values of biblical criticism. After showing how Barton misrepresents theological interpretation, not least because of a failure to do justice to the changing frames of reference of critical scholarship, Moberly extends the discussion to include the preunderstandings that interpreters inevitably bring to the Bible in ways analogous to how one reads a classic; the way in which appreciation of deep literature relates to personal maturity; and the way in which theological dogma, rightly understood, can make truer one's perception of reality.

Indian modernism is an endogenous structural causality that has used and continues to use exogenous discourses for its development. Linked to the Independence movement, it became a part of the project for national self-determination, and the artists and art historians asserted the endogenous cultural system over the Raj’s imposed cultural system on philosophical, historiographical, aesthetic, religious, and social grounds. The artists reached into India’s society, traditions, past, and folk and tribal practices to find their endogenous subject matter and to define their way of seeing. The tools and arguments contained in the exogenous discourses supplied by the Raj’s cultural systems and European modernism provided the discourses that combined with endogenous discourses and created Indian modem art. The study considers in detail the ways in which endogenous and exogenous discourses have been combined and translated (relativised) over half a century. The study’s focus is c.1890 to c.1947, though to provide a framing context it considers the breakdown of the arts under the autonomous Mughal courts after Aurangzeb (c.1700 onwards), and also considers Indian modem art of the 1960s. The study demonstrates that the course of Indian modernism was such that a period of domination by an art school was followed by a rupture, the rupture leading to a period of domination by another, which in turn was ruptured and re-ordered, the process repeating and bifurcating in time, and across the geographical regions of India. A ruptured school did not mean its elimination, often it continued. It is important to see the periods of domination, the nodes of rupture, and subsequent bifurcations and domination as occurring in parallel in space and time. The rupture and subsequent domination was due to a combination of endogenous and exogenous discourses. This discourse relativisation was an invariant aspect of the process. The manner in which the discourses relativised each other along the multiple dimensions (philosophical, social, political, cultural, aesthetic, historiographical) was different at different times and locations leading to differences, but the process of relativisation was a constant.

This thesis will investigate the extensive Graeco-Roman characteristics of the Lystra speech and in so doing convey some clarity in the otherwise widely differing opinions held about it. This will be achieved by showing that Lystra was a Hellenistic city of some importance with a varied population. It will be argued that the initial reaction of the Lystrians to the miraculous healing of the cripple is to be understood as representing typical Graeco-Roman notions. This will include Luke's use of a legend which not only adds local colouring to the narrative but also introduces Graeco-Roman themes such as the blurring of the distinction between humans and gods and the custom of sacrifice. This contextualization immediately portrays the Graeco-Roman nature of the Lystrians' behaviour and attitudes. In addition to these themes it will be argued that the Lystrians are shown to being reliant on secondary notions of God, which when exposed to the proclamation of the apostles will prove to be inadequate. It will also be argued that the speech of the apostles is structured in a typically Graeco-Roman rhetorical form, where the errors are first exposed before the truth is presented. In conjunction with this structure it will be argued that the philosophical concept of which Dibelius has shown to be clearly presupposed in the Areopagus speech, is not only present in the Lystra speech but forms the philosophical basis on which it is structured. This concept explains the insistence by the apostles that they are human and that God has no need of such worthless things as sacrifices. It also explains the presentation of God's activity in creation and providence as an antithesis to a god who is in need. The Graeco-Roman aspects are brought to a close with the discussion of idea that an awareness of God does not depend on secondary notions acquired from legends or customs but that the truth is grasped through a process of reflection on creation and providence. This is an important notion in the speech for it exposes the Lystrians as being in need of a reorientation of their beliefs in God, away from those which are secondary to those which are primary and compatible with the truth.

In chapter one of this work, as a preliminary to the formulation of the question that this thesis will attempt to answer, the changing understanding of the part played by the interpreter in the process of interpretation is discussed. This outline begins with the understanding of the role of the interpreter in liberal theology - where he is thought of as one who applies critical methods to the text in a detached and scientific way. After this the hermeneutic spiral is discussed - the formation of this model acknowledges to a greater degree the individual and human part played by the interpreter. This is followed by a brief examination of the most recent theories of interpretation in which meaning is regarded as residing not in the text but in the interpreter himself. The task of this thesis is to determine whether, as these recent theorists suggest, the reader creates meaning instead of reading out what somehow lies in the text itself. The task of this thesis is to ascertain, by studying the interpretationsof John's Prologue by Origen, Luther and Bultmann, whether the text does in fact operate as a series of sign-posts that pOint the interpreter to a destination within his own semantic universe. This may be determined by noting whether or not the contexts, i n the broadest sense, of these interpreters have played a formative part in their interpretations. contextual influences are regarded as existing wherever there is a procedure or meaning in the interpreter's commentary which one expe cts to find there as a result of one's knowledge of the interpreter's life and previous writings. Our research reveals that Orige n, Luther and Bultmann have produced three very different commentaries in which the common denominator is the formative influence of the interpreter's context. Each of these writers has produced an interpretation that is consistent, in both approach and theology, with their previous exegetical and theological thought. This indicates that contextual factors have played a significant part in determining their interpr etations of John 1 :1-18. It would appear that these interpreters have been led to find the meaning of John's Prologue not with reference to any new, unprecedented set of symbols, but with reference to their own, well-worn semantic universes. In the conclusion it is noted that this research appears to support what many modern theorists have said as to the locus of meaning in interpretation. In the conclusion it is also noted that many of the fears raised by these findings - that readers and writers, or speakers and hearers, may become so isolated and trapped in their own thought worlds that any real contact with the outside is impossible - may be groundless. These findings also point to a certain consistency between the interpreters and their communities. This refutes the fears as to the isolation and solitary development of the individual in that it points to a certain community or corporate aspect which plays a part in the development of the indivi dual's semantic universe .<br>KMBT_363<br>Adobe Acrobat 9.53 Paper Capture Plug-in

I began this investigation with the presupposition that the MT of Micah offered us a valid object upon which to apply the methodology of rhetorical criticism. The examination of the text proceeded along the lines of two emphases: (1) a structural analysis which studied the various blocks of material in order to describe a unity or cohesiveness in Micah, and (2) a thematic approach which identified underlying images which tend to enhance the coherence of the work. I used these two methodologies to address both pericopes and also larger units and even to discuss the book itself. Two other methodological strategies have also guided my analysis of Micah. In Chapter 1, I described two foci of the ellipse that is rhetorical criticism: first, those who emphasize the task of "listening" to the text, which I understand as more of an empathic approach, and second, those who utilize a quantifying style of investigation. Both these focal points are reflected in my structural and thematic analyses. Although no readily recognizable patterns such as A:B:A appears in describing the three parts of the book, there does seem to be a thematic development in Micah 1-7. Thus Part I (Micah 1-3) resounds with the words of witness followed by judgment and concludes with the destruction of Jerusalem. That scene of destruction gives way, however, to the restoration and encouragement of Part II (4:1-5:8), although the threats in 4:9-5:8 remind us that the restoration is not an accomplished fact. Part III (Mic 5:9-7:20) begins with what seems to be an assertion that the judgment will take place, especially with the appearance again of the witness/judgment model in 6:9-7:6. However, the final picture of restoration and covenant fidelity on the part of YHWH affirms that the judgment will be overturned. I have further suggested that echoes from the literary tradition of Israel enhance the movement from judgment to renewal in Micah. The conclusion to the judgment in Part I (Mic 3:1-12) has particular impact, because it is presented in the language of the judgment scene from the garden of Eden (Genesis 3). In fact, we see here again that theme and structure intermix in Micah. I suggest that the book begins with material which mimics and recalls older traditions (the theophany, David, and even Anat) and ends with similarly old recollections (David and Moses). Thus I posit that Micah comes to us wrapped in an envelope of ancient echoes.

The phenomenon of inner-biblical interpretation and inter-textual replication of scriptural material within the Old Testament is receiving significant attention in current scholarship. Two narratives which are repeated three times in the Hebrew Bible provide a particularly fruitful case study for this type of research: the Hezekiah narrative (2 Kgs 18-20; Isa 36-39; 2 Chr 29-32) and the account of the fall of Judah (2 Kgs 24-25; Jer 52; 2 Chr 36). This study extends the contributions of redaction-critical, literary-critical, and text-critical studies examining the narratives of 2 Kings 18-20//Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 24:18-25:30//Jeremiah 52 and emphasizes their subsequent reception in Chronicles. In addition, this investigation advances the discussion of the Chronicler's reliance upon and method of incorporating material from the Latter Prophets. It is the conclusion of this thesis that the Chronicler was familiar with the versions of the Hezekiah narrative and the account of the fall of Judah in both 2 Kings and the Latter Prophets. His method of handling these alternative accounts reflects both direct quotation (particularly in the case of 2 Kings) and indirect allusion to themes and idioms (with regard to the Latter Prophets). The result is a re-telling of Judah's history which is infused with hope for restoration as articulated by the Latter Prophets. By portraying an idealized account of Israel's past history which corresponds to prophetic descriptions of the nation's restoration, Chronicles illustrates the accessible, utopic potential held out to every generation of faithful Israel.

This thesis investigates an aspect of the first complete translation of the Bible into French. It shows how the study of the Gospels glosses, hitherto considered of secondary importance by scholars, increases our understanding of the date and context of this translation. This thesis takes two complementary approaches to the gloss material: (a) a study of the likely Latin sources for these glosses, and (b) an investigation into their recurring themes and rhetorical construction, as a way of showing how far they fit into the tradition of Latin exegesis. Chapter one surveys existing scholarship and presents the methodology of the thesis. Chapter two is a handlist of Latin commentaries consulted. In chapters three to six, the main body of the thesis, a comparison is made between Latin gloss material from these commentaries and corresponding glosses in the French Gospels, Chapter seven presents the broad patterns which have emerged from this study, discussing the use of material and rhetorical techniques, as well as identifying remaining problems, namely, those of other types of source-text, and the question of multiple translators. Chapter eight contains a summary of the conclusions reached, and discusses the implications of these for our knowledge of this Bible translation. The glossator is revealed as someone with access to exegesis from several different traditions, not just commentaries, and as a person trained in Latin commentary technique, which he adapted for writing in the vernacular. The glossator is shown not to have copied literally from commentaries or other texts, but to have used material thoughtfully, and reworked it for his own purposes. That the glossator was learned, and that his glosses fit into the Latin exegetical tradition, are the major findings of this thesis, challenging previously-held views as to the fundamental worthlessness of these glosses.

The epistle of James has been neglected in NT studies, caught between its relationship with Paul and the claim that it has no theology. Even as it experiences a resurgence of study, surprisingly no full-length survey exists on James as the epistle of “faith and works.” Approaches to James have neglected its soteriology and, in consequence, its theological themes have been separated or studied only in connection with Paul. As “moral character,” however, “faith” and “works” fit within a coherent theology of God’s mercy and judgment. This study provides a sustained reading of James as a Jewish-Christian document. Because James presents the “faith” and “works” discussion in context of “can such faith save?” (2:14), the issue becomes one of soteriology and final judgment. Both the “law of freedom” and the “word of truth” demand faithful obedience—the “works.” Moreover, God’s character and deeds in election form the basis for human “works” of mercy and humble obedience, while future judgment is in accordance with virtuous character. It has been established that James shares methodology and concerns with prior wisdom literature. This thesis therefore examines key ideas developing across the Jewish literature and Jesus’ teaching as presented by Matthew, and highlights developing views of God saving and judging his people. Within the first two chapters, James gives a high view of God’s work in calling and redeeming, providing wisdom to his people, and instilling the long-anticipated new covenant that they might live in obedience, humility and purity in accordance with his character and will. Because of God’s saving work, he justly judges those who fail to live mercifully, while his mercy triumphs for those who obey. God begins the work and sustains those who ask; but only those who submit to the “perfect law of freedom,” whose faith works, receive mercy when God enacts his final justice.

AbstractConsidering the emerging field of architecture and artificial intelligence, it might be necessary to contemplate the remodeling of the concept of authorship entirely. The invention of authorship is a complex historical process that can be traced back to the emergence of print culture in Europe in the 15th century. Prior to this period, most literary and artistic works were created anonymously or attributed to collective or anonymous sources, such as folklore or religious traditions. However, with the rise of printing, texts became more easily reproducible and marketable, and there emerged a need for individual authors to take credit for their works. The notion of authorship was closely tied to the idea of originality and ownership, as authors sought to assert their exclusive rights to their works and to distinguish themselves from other writers. This was supported by the development of copyright law, which granted legal protection to authors and their works, and helped to establish a market for literary and artistic works. The idea of the author as a singular, autonomous figure gained further prominence in the 18th and 19th centuries, with the emergence of romanticism and the cult of the individual. This period saw the rise of the idea of the artist as a genius, whose works were the product of their own unique creativity and imagination. This idea was further reinforced by the rise of literary criticism, which focused on the interpretation and analysis of individual works and their authors. However, as Michel Foucault and other scholars have argued, the notion of authorship is not a universal or timeless concept, but rather a historically contingent and culturally specific one. Different societies ad cultures have different understandings of authorship, and these have shifted over time in response to changes in technology, culture, and social values. As it stands now, authorship in its traditional form can hardly be applied in a context where automated collaborations provide more than 50% of the generated material. This is true for multiple art fields. Visual Arts (Mario Klingemann, Sofia Crespo, Memo Atken, Ooouch, etc.), Music (Dadabots, YACHT, Holly Herndon), Literature, etc. Very soon this will also be true for Architecture. The consequence is also an entire rethinking of the concept of the sole genius. This notion, developed by German Romanticists in the early 19th century, is, in the current context of AI-assisted creativity, completely obsolete, as we are drawing from the genius of hundreds of thousands of artists and artworks in order to interrogate the latent space for unseen artistic opportunities. More akin to an archeological dig leading to the discovery of a next-generation jet fighter plane.

Abstract I start with a disturbance, caused by the Bible translation, which occurred not in a colony in the British empire but in a city in Romanized North Africa in the fi fifth century. It took place in Tripoli (Oea) where the bishop of the diocese arranged for Jerome’s new version of Jonah to be read. When some Greeks heard a word which diff ered from the translation they were familiar with, they criticized the new wording and condemned it as false. Apparently the off ending translation was in Jonah 4: 6 where Jerome used ‘ivy’ instead of ‘gourd’. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, who was perturbed by the incident, wrote to Jerome that his Latin version was diff erent from the one which had been read for ‘so many generations’, and which had been ‘enshrined in the memory and hearing of all’ (White 1990:92).

Abstract Hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation: of what it is to interpret a text and of how that interpretation may validate itself. In the eighteenth and parts of the nineteenth centuries, the context for such issues was predominantly religious: hermeneutics meant, primarily, discussion of the possible methods of achieving a correct interpretation of a text, especially of the Bible. Today, the crucial questions in hermeneutics remain: what do we mean when we say that someone ‘understands’ a text? For instance, does understanding mean reproducing exactly what the text says on its own terms, or does it mean interpreting it in terms of its author’s life or its social or historical context? Alternatively, might it mean measuring the text against contemporary knowledge and finding it either wanting or valuable? Secondly, how can genuine understanding, however conceived, overcome the obstacles of both distance in historical time and often distance in culture between the text and its reader? In the twentieth century, questions about the nature of interpretation also increasingly overflowed traditional boundaries between intellectual disciplines, and took centre-stage in the question of the difference between kinds of understanding at work in the natural sciences and in the humanities.