Article Title: “Creation as a Cosmic Temple: Reading Genesis 1:1–2:4a in Light of Willie van Heerden’s Ecological Insights”

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem S. Boshoff
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Boshoff

Journal for Semitics 27 (1) 2018, #3010https://doi.org/10.25159/1013-8471/3010           When this article was originally published, Robert D. Holmstedt’s affiliation with the University of the Free State was accidentally omitted. The electronic version of the article has been corrected and can be located under the DOI specified above.


Canon&Culture ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-50
Author(s):  
Chong-Hun Pae

2020 ◽  
pp. 85-104
Author(s):  
Борис Тимофеев

Современная научная богословская мысль склонна к унификации терминов и явлений в сфере своих компетенций. Эта тенденция в современных исследованиях в некоторых случаях распространяется и на древние христианские памятники. Так, например, слово θεωρία многие учёные определяют как мистический метод духовного толкования Священного Писания. Это определение нередко применяется в качестве универсального технического определения при анализе экзегетических произведений древних авторов. При этом игнорируется узус самих экзегетов, которые употребляют это слово в иных значениях. В рамках данной статьи предпринимается попытка выявить и показать основные значения слова θεωρία в древней греческой экзегетической литературе. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fi but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document