Stimmenarrangement

POETICA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 266-291
Author(s):  
Susanne Reichlin
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Song Of Songs ◽  
The Voice

Abstract Frauenlob’s Marienleich has been studied primarily from the perspective of its elaborate metaphors and allegories. Scholars have identified the source of these metaphors in the exegesis of the Song of Songs as well as other Old Testament books and described the overlapping of diverse metaphorical traditions in the text. This paper argues that not only the metaphors, but also the voices of the Marienleich are artfully arranged. The essay shows how switching of the voice, echo effects, and multiplication of the voice create a polyphony that reflects the intertextual underpinning of Marian praise as well as Mary’s mediatory position between God and the faithful who praise her.

Notes on How to Read the Song of Songs

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Я. Эйделькинд
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Lyric Poetry ◽  
Song Of Songs ◽  
Widespread Belief ◽  
Female Voices ◽  
Speaking Voice

Эта статья содержит ряд соображений о том, как читать Песнь песней. Будучи сборником лирической поэзии, Песнь песней работает в первую очередь со звуком и не имеет сюжета. Важную роль играет принцип разнообразия и контраста. Серьёзный тон сменяется юмористическим, и наоборот. Гендерные стереотипы сохраняют свою силу в одних случаях, но подрываются в других. Сексуальная физиология, вопреки распространенному мнению, не находится на первом плане — гораздо важнее эмоции (факт, противоречащий как «духовным», так и «плотским» прочтениям). Отождествление читателя с лирическим голосом ведёт к субъективным интерпретациям. Последние вполне законны, пока не претендуют на то, чтобы быть единственно верными. Три контекста помогают понять Песнь песней: древний культурный контекст, более узкий контекст Ветхого Завета и контекст лирической традиции от древности до наших дней. This article is an attempt to formulate some principles of reading the Songs of Songs that would take into account its genre and poetic features. Being a collection of lyric poetry, the Song of Songs works primarily with sound and has no plot. An important role in its composition plays the principle of diversity and contrast. A serious tone gives place to a humorous one, and vice versa. Female voices alternate with male ones; gender stereotypes in some cases retain their power, but in others are subverted. Sexual physiology, contrary to a widespread belief, is not in the foreground — much more important are emotions. This fact belies both “spiritual” and “carnal” readings. The Song of Songs involves an identification of the reader with the lyrical speaking voice and provokes subjective interpretations. These are legitimate as long as they do not pretend to be the only true ones. Three contexts help to understand Song of Songs: ancient cultural context, a narrower Old Testament context and the context of the lyrical tradition from antiquity to the present day.

Hearing the ‘Voice’ of the Niphal: A Response to Ellen van Wolde

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-308
Author(s):  
Ethan C. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
External Argument ◽  
Middle Voice ◽  
External Agent ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Previous Volume

This article responds to the innovative and stimulating research by Ellen van Wolde in a previous volume of Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. She claims that the Niphal is middle voice and can be passive, ‘if (and only if) an external argument, coded as an external Agent, is present’. My research however, demonstrates that such a description of the passive is both inadequate in view of the world’s languages and incongruent with Niphal. In addition, my response lays bare how such a prescription of the middle voice to the Niphal in the Hebrew Bible is circulus probando and unconvincing.

Allegory or Literal Historical Interpretation?: Andrew Fuller’s Critique of Robert Robinson’s View of the Canonicity of the Song of Songs

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-288
Author(s):  
Jeongmo Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Song Of Songs ◽  
Historical Interpretation ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
In Christ ◽  
Exegetical Tradition

This study deals with Andrew Fuller’s (1754–1815) critique of Robert Robinson of Cambridge (1735–1790) with a particular focus on Fuller’s critique of Robinson’s view of the canonicity of the Song of Songs. Fuller’s defence of the canonicity of the Song of Songs and his interpretation of it evidently follows the mainstream Protestant view of the Reformation and the Post-Reformation eras in continuity with the patristic and medieval exegetical tradition. In particular, standing firm with the predominant exegetical tradition of previous centuries, Fuller takes allegory as the main exegetical method to interpret the Song of Songs. Even though Fuller emphatically rejects the use of vain allegory as a human invention, his interpretation of the Song of Songs indicates that if allegory may be able to connect appropriate features in an Old Testament passage with a greater truth revealed in Christ, he allows for the use of allegory to expose the meaning of the text.

The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity

Manuscripta ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-62
Author(s):  
Bernhard A. Asen
Keyword(s):  
Song Of Songs ◽  
Medieval Christianity ◽  
The Voice

scholarly journals Who are the “servants” (Psalm 69:36c-37b)? A contribution to the history of the literature of the Old Testament

2003 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alphonso Groenewald
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Special Group ◽  
Book Of Isaiah ◽  
Singular Form ◽  
Ancient Israel ◽  
Literary Heritage ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Shed Light

Psalm 69:37a refers to the "servants" in the composite "the offspring of his servants". This composite takes up a concept which already ap-peared as a self-indication of the supplicant of this Psalm, namely in its singular form "servant" (69:18a). The article aims to identify these "servants" (69:37a) who articulated themselves in the voice of the other "person" in Psalm 69. It is postulated that the connections which exist between the servants in Isaiah and the servants in the Psalter are far too distinct to simply regard them as a mere matter of coincidence. The article focuses on the book of Isaiah, as conclusions drawn from Isaiah can shed light on the identity of the "servants" in Psalm 69. Secondly, the focus shifts to the term "servants" in the Psalter, and specifically in book I and II. It shows that the term "servants" not only denotes the pious, but indicates a special group of people who played an active role in shaping the literary heritage of ancient Israel in post-exilic times.

scholarly journals Кириллический рукописный учебник древнееврейского языка (список XVI в.) и его учебно-методические приемы

2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-34
Author(s):  
Сергей Юрьевич Темчин
Keyword(s):  
Old Testament ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Song Of Songs ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Learning Material ◽  
15Th Century ◽  
Presentation Methods ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
High Level ◽  
Grand Duchy

В статье обосновывается характеристика недавно обнаруженного рукописного кириллического учебника древнееврейского языка, созданного совместными усилиями православных и иудейских книжников, как учебного пособия, с методической точки зрения значительно превосходящего иные восточнославянские двуязычные справочные материалы того же времени. С этой целью подробно описаны применяемые в нем приемы, направленные на такую подачу языкового и сопутствующего текстового (религиозно-культурного) материала, которая облегчила бы его усвоение потенциальным читателем. Методическую сторону рассматриваемого памятника письменности следует признать одним из результатов еврейского вклада в его создание.Ключевые слова: Великое княжество Литовское, кириллическая письменность, иудейско-христианские отношения, древнееврейский язык, руськамова, библейские переводы, жидовствующие....Sergei TemchinCyrillic 16th-century manuscript “Manual of Hebrew” and its teaching methods A concise Manual of Hebrew, recently discovered in a Cyrillic manuscript miscellany of the 3rd quarter of the 16th century (Moscow, the Russian State Archive of Early Acts, F. Mazurin collection (f. 196), inventory 1, No 616, f. 124–130) is very important for the history of the Ruthenian written culture in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Manual of Hebrew comprises material of three different kinds: a) some excerpts from the original Hebrew Old Testament text (Ge 2.8, 32.27–28; Ps 150; So 3.4 (or 8.2), 8.5; Is 11.12) written in Cyrillic characters; b) a bilingual Hebrew–Ruthenian vocabulary with explanatory notes; c) small quotations from the Ruthenian text of three Old Testament books (Genesis, Isaiah, Song of Songs).The meta-language used in the Manual of Hebrew is Ruthenian. The translations present in the Manual had been made directly from Hebrew. A comparison of the quotations from the Song of Songs found in the Manual and all the known Cyrillic and Glagolitic versions of this book (referring to both the manuscript and the printed sources of different periods) reveals their principal coincidence with the Ruthenian translation found in the Vilnius Old Testament Florilegium (Vilnius, Wróblewskie Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, F 19–262). The originals of the two manuscripts probably originated in the 2nd half of the 15th century in the circle of the learned Kievan Jew Zachariah ben Aaron ha-Kohen who is also known as Skhariya, the initiator of the Novgorod movementof the Judaizers (1471–1504).The Cyrillic Manual of Hebrew is a clear evidence of this language being taught/learned in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the late 15th–early 16th century. The learning material and its presentation methods reveal a quite elaborate (although inconsistently implemented) pedagogical approach which puts the Manual aside from the rest of early East Slavic glossaries of the same or earlier date. Thus, the Manual presents, among other features: a) a number of original Hebrew texts written in Cyrillic, divided into small portions (each with a Ruthenian translation) which are then put together to form a continuoustext; b) certain trilingual glossary entries where Hebrew, “Greek” (in reality Slavic borrowings from Greek) and Slavic words are juxtaposed, while in other cases double translations in two different Slavic languages (Ruthenian and Old Church Slavonic) are given; c) some long elaborated definitions, sometimes containing synonymous variants or alternative translations; d) information about the sources of variant Hebrew forms or their meanings; e) information on certain grammatical (gender, plural, possessive) forms and word formation (compounds), etc.It is beyond doubt that the Cyrillic manuscript “Manual of Hebrew” is a result of joint efforts of Jewish and East Slavic bookmen, but the relatively high level of pedagogical and linguistic sophistication of the joint result is to be ascribed to the Jewish compilers of the Manual rather than to their East Slavic co-authors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document