Explore the vast range of titles available.

John 12,40, a quote from Isaiah 6,10 (albeit in a wording which differs from the Septuagint), has been acknowledged as . In order to make things easier to understand, some modern translations insert “God” as the subject of John 12,40a. This insertion is against all known Greek witnesses. Moreover, it is unnecessary and – since “God” is not the subject of John 12,40a – misleading. An analysis of syntax and semantics reveals the grammatical errors of the traditional view of John 12,39–40. The newly analysed text is the basis of a new translation. If this proposed new meaning of the text is used for interpretation, there is no

There are instances of the nominal sentence ἐγώ εἰμι in John without a predicate nominal phrase. These have been described as “absolute” ἐγώ εἰμι-phrases (cf. John 8,24). It seems that the construction breaks the rules of Greek grammar. It is commonly assumed, therefore, that these “absolute” ἐγώ εἰμι-phrases are connected with the revelation of God to Moses in Ex 3,14. However, this assumption does not take into consideration the occurrences of the ἐγώ εἰμι-phrases in other contexts. It can be argued that these short nominal sentences are in fact in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar, and that the words ἐγώ εἰμι in the Septuagint are in most cases a translation of the Hebrew personal pronoun in the first person singular. As such they can be translated in most cases as “It is I”. This analysis is important for Johannine theology; in particular, it shows that the use of these words by Jesus cannot be taken as a special revelation.

Sobre el valor Agente del sintagma ἐν + dativo las gramáticas de LXX y Nuevo Testamento ofrecen explicaciones contrarias: algunas lo aceptan mientras otras lo niegan. Al mismo tiempo, se considera imposible que este sintagma pueda llegar a alcanzar dicho valor desde el propio griego y se prefiere analizar esta posibilidad más como una influencia semítica, la preposición locativa be. Sin embargo, un análisis de la transferencia de ideas locativas a causales, instrumentales y de intermediario (transferencia ya existente en ático) permite establecer una lógica que habría llevado a los traductores de LXX a servirse de ἐν + dativo para expresar estas ideas y el agente cuando se expresaba con be

Of the fifteen examples discussed in this contribution, a different Vorlage is likely to underlie the Old Greek and the Peshitta in Ezekiel 10:1, 10:2 (second example), 11:7, 12:4-7 and 12, 16:23, 17:22, 21:17 and 23:43. For this last example, a new proposal is made for a reconstruction of the common Vorlage for the two versions. A different Vorlage is possible, but less certain, for Ezekiel 7:2, 11:2 and 12:25. The differences between the Masoretic Text, on the one hand, and the two versions, on the other, can be ascribed to a similar translation technique, or other factors in the case of Ezekiel 10:2 (first example), 11:15, 13:5 and 17:7, although a different Vorlage may be considered. In light of these examples, agreement between the Peshitta and the Old Greek against the Masoretic Text must be evaluated for every instance, bearing in mind the possibility of a different Vorlage.

The Letter of Aristeas tells the story of how Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt commissioned seventy scholars to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Long accepted as a straightforward historical account of a cultural enterprise in Ptolemaic Alexandria, the Letter nevertheless poses serious interpretative problems. Sylvie Honigman argues that the Letter should not be regarded as history, but as a charter myth for diaspora Judaism. She expounds its generic affinities with other works on Jewish history from Ptolemaic Alexandria, and argues that the process of translation was simultaneously a process of establishing an authoritative text, comparable to the work on the text of Homer being carried out by contemporary Greek scholars.The Letter of Aristeas is among the most intriguing literary productions of Ptolemaic Alexandria, and this is the first book-length study to be devoted to it.

John 12,40, a quote from Isaiah 6,10 (albeit in a wording which differs from the Septuagint), has been acknowledged as crux interpretum. In order to make things easier to understand, some modern translations insert “God” as the subject of John 12,40a. This insertion is against all known Greek witnesses. Moreover, it is unnecessary and – since “God” is not the subject of John 12,40a – misleading. An analysis of syntax and semantics reveals the grammatical errors of the traditional view of John 12,39–40. The newly analysed text is the basis of a new translation. If this proposed new meaning of the text is used for interpretation, there is no crux interpretum.

The aim of the article is to analyze different positions that have been defended within the debate regarding the linguistic background of the expression Kyrios in the New Testament. After presenting a critical analysis of the Imperial, Hellenistic and Aramaic positions, the possibility that the linguistic background of the expression might be found within the Septuagint is suggested and argued.

Helenistično besedilo Aristejevo pismo, ki je nastalo v 2. stoletju pr. Kr., je ključen dokument, ki opisuje nastanek grškega prevoda hebrejske Postave (Tore), imenovanega tudi Septuaginta, tega pionirskega prevodnega dela. Kot eno izmed redkih judovskih besedil tega obdobja, ki je nastalo v Aleksandriji, je ta vir izrednega pomena za razumevanje tamkajšnje judovske skupnosti in nasploh judovske duhovne elite, izobražene v helenističnem svetu v času Ptolemajcev.

This contribution briefly outlines some of the prominent problems encountered in Malachi 3:22-24 (Eng. 4:4-6). The question posed can be formulated as an investigation of the most important problems that confront research on this final part of the book of Malachi and, secondly, what possible prospects are there to solve (at least some of) the problems? This contribution argues that Malachi 3:22-24 (Eng. 4:4-6) should be viewed as two (Mal 3:22 and 3:23-24, respectively) later additions to the book. It is also argued that the reading of the Septuagint, where verse 22 is placed as the last verse of the book, should be accepted as the better reading. Verses 23-24 were initially added to serve as an update to the previous unit (Mal. 3:13-21).

The continuity of Scripture remains a topical issue, then, the variety of texts is evident, not even canonical, running through the historic course of the Scriptures themselves. The article aims to show that the texts of the Old Testament have their own continuity as a phenomenon and not just as necessary to move to the New Testament requirement. Initially, the article focuses on a historical argument about the Septuagint, then Is. 52, 13-53, 12 is examined by textual criticism, to conclude that an open canon allowed the continuity of Scripture before the full Revelation in the New Testament. Different interpretations and discussions, rather than obscure the sense of continuity of Scripture, affirms and enriches it.