In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the theology of the different Septuagint (LXX) books. In an attempt to examine whether the LXX Proverbs attests a different theology than the Masoretic Text (MT), I have recently analysed the plusses in LXX Proverbs containing ὁ κύριος and ὁ θεός. The results of these studies have indicated that the LXX translation of Proverbs attests a more nuanced theology than its Hebrew counterpart. However, these studies only focus on the attestations (...) of κύριος and θεός in LXX Proverbs without a Hebrew counterpart in MT and do not examine the rendering of Hebrew divine names into Greek. It is generally accepted that the Greek equivalents of יהוה and אֱלהִים are, respectively, κύριος and θεός. However, in LXX Proverbs, יהוה is rendered 18 times by θεός and אֱלהִים three times by κύριος. In order to come to a more precise understanding of the translation technique of the LXX translator, this article tried to formulate an answer to the reason behind this variation in Greek translation equivalents by examining the usage of κύριος and θεός for יהוה and אֱלהִים in LXX Proverbs and especially those instances where the translator deviates from the standard procedure. This examination has indicated that both the divine names have been used interchangeably by the LXX translator and, contrary to the additional attestations of the divine name, do not reflect a nuanced theology vis-à-vis the MT. Contribution: This article fits perfectly within the scope of HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies because it focuses on the translation technique and theology of the LXX translator of Proverbs and thus contributes (a) to research regarding historical thought (textual transmission of biblical texts) and (b) source interpretation (because the LXX does not only reflect a translational but also an interpretative process, and this article in particular focuses on whether LXX Proverbs attests a different theology than its Hebrew counterpart). (shrink)

In exod. 752-782 the anonymous author of the „Heptateuchos“ closely paraphrases the Decalogue section of the Biblical book „Exodus“ (Ex 20, 1-17), while simultaneously accentuating the obligatory nature of the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament for Christian readers by cautiously reworking the underlying text. In pursuit of this goal, he opens up the exclusive contractual relationship between JHWH and his people (Israel) and proclaims a universal God who addresses His Commandments to the whole of humankind. Furthermore, the paraphrase (...) is more insistent than the Biblical base text on a personal internalisation of the Commandments promulgated in the Decalogue. This tendency is based on Jesus’ understanding of the Tora. This approach is deeply embedded in the text by the many references to the NT, and particularly to the Sermon on the Mount. (shrink)

Because of the impact of church doctrine and many documents explaining the official confession of many denominations in Christianity, Trinity was mostly defined in terms of static and substantial categories. The undergirding research assumption is that the latter reflects, in most cases, more abstract and rather positivistic metaphysical speculation than representing the vividness of God’s compassionate being-with as explained and revealed in the narratives of the biblical account on God’s graceful intervention with the frailty of human life. The relational dynamics (...) between the Father, the Son and the Spirit should be revisited. In this respect, the Rublev icon on Trinity could help establish the circular and spiral thinking of divine perichoresis as modes of God’s unpredictable, but faithful, covenantal and redemptive encounter with human misery. Trinitarian thinking should be directed by hospice-categories rather than by personhood-categories representing ‘substance’. It is argued that the trinitarian interplay should be re-interpreted in terms of compassionate categories stemming from the passio Dei in theopaschitic theology. This approach should be supplemented by the bowel categories of ta splanchna in order to qualify the infiniscience of the JHWH-Godhead: the being of divine interventions in terms of verbing terminology. (shrink)

Nachdem in Israels frühester Zeit JHWH zunächst als der eine Rettergott Israels verehrt worden war , Salomo aber dann die Verehrung der Götter anderer Völker in den israelitischen Staatskult eingeführt hatte, leitete das Efraimitische Geschichtswerk noch kurze Zeit vor Hosea die Rückbesinnung auf JHWH als den einen Rettergott Israels und damit den Kampf für die ausschließliche Verehrung JHWHs ein. Um 700 vC wurde diese JHWH-Monolatrie vom Ur-Deuteronomium und dem Hiskijanischen Geschichtswerk um die Forderung nach der – von (...) Hiskija eingeführten – Ausübung des Kultes ausschließlich an dem einen Ort ergänzt. Während in diesem hiskijanischen Anfangsstadium der Kultzentralisation der Kult außerhalb des Jerusalemer Tempels noch als jahwistisch galt, wurde er weitere 80 Jahre später im Zusammenhang mit der erneuten Kultzentralisationsmaßnahme Joschijas als idolatrisch gewertet.After the worship of YHWH as the one savior god of the Israelites in the earliest period of Israelite history, Salomo introduced the worship of gods of other peoples into the state cult of Israel. Shortly before the time of Hosea, the “Efraimite History” initiated the return to and reevaluation of YHWH as the only savior god of Israel and thereby the struggle for the exclusive worship of YHWH. Around 700 BCE, the demand for the YHWH-monolatry was expanded by the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy and the “Hezekianic History” to include the practicing of the cult only at the “one place” , a practise established by Hezekiah. In this early stage of cult centralization, the cult practised outside of the temple of Jerusalem was yet taken to be yahwistic, but 80 years later, in the context of the renewed cult centralization by Joschija, it was rejected as idolatric. (shrink)