Religion and Science in Abraham Ibn Ezra's Sefer ha-Olam

The thesis examines rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's (11096-1064) conceptions of the relationship between religion and science with special focus on his seventh astrological treatise Sefer ha-Olam (The Book of the World). The thesis includes an analysis of medieval arabic astrology and the concepts science and religion in the relevant period. The appendix holds a tentative english translation of the hebrew text.

The Proto-Lucianic Problem in 1 Samuel

The Lucianic text of the Septuagint of the Historical Books witnessed primarily by the manuscript group L (19, 82, 93, 108, and 127) consists of at least two strata: the recensional elements, which date back to about 300 C.E., and the substratum under these recensional elements, the proto-Lucianic text. Some distinctive readings in L seem to be supported by witnesses that antedate the supposed time of the recension. These witnesses include the biblical quotations of Josephus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, and the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint. It has also been posited that some Lucianic readings might go back to Hebrew readings that are not found in the Masoretic text but appear in the Qumran biblical texts. This phenomenon constitutes the proto-Lucianic problem. In chapter 1 the proto-Lucianic problem and its research history are introduced. Josephus references to 1 Samuel are analyzed in chapter 2. His agreements with L are few and are mostly only apparent or, at best, coincidental. In chapters 3 6 the quotations by four early Church Fathers are analyzed. Hippolytus Septuagint text is extremely hard to establish since his quotations from 1 Samuel have only been preserved in Armenian and Georgian translations. Most of the suggested agreements between Hippolytus and L are only apparent or coincidental. Irenaeus is the most trustworthy textual witness of the four early Church Fathers. His quotations from 1 Samuel agree with L several times against codex Vaticanus (B) and all or most of the other witnesses in preserving the original text. Tertullian and Cyprian agree with L in attesting some Hebraizing approximations that do not seem to be of Hexaplaric origin. The question is more likely of early Hebraizing readings of the same tradition as the kaige recension. In chapter 7 it is noted that Origen, although a pre-Lucianic Father, does not qualify as a proto-Lucianic witness. General observations about the Old Latin witnesses as well as an analysis of the manuscript La115 are given in chapter 8. In chapter 9 the theory of the proto-Lucianic recension is discussed. In order to demonstrate the existence of the proto-Lucianic recension one should find instances of indisputable agreement between the Qumran biblical manuscripts and L in readings that are secondary in Greek. No such case can be found in the Qumran material in 1 Samuel. In the text-historical conclusions (chapter 10) it is noted that of all the suggested proto-Lucianic agreements in 1 Samuel (about 75 plus 70 in La115) more than half are only apparent or, at best, coincidental. Of the indisputable agreements, however, 26 are agreements in the original reading. In about 20 instances the agreement is in a secondary reading. These agreements are early variants; mostly minor changes that happen all the time in the course of transmission. Four of the agreements, however, are in a pre-Hexaplaric Hebraizing approximation that has found its way independently into the pre-Lucianic witnesses and the Lucianic recension. The study aims at demonstrating the value of the Lucianic text as a textual witness: under the recensional layer(s) there is an ancient text that preserves very old, even original readings which have not been preserved in B and most of the other witnesses. The study also confirms the value of the early Church Fathers as textual witnesses.

Vanhurskautta, oikeutta vai uskollisuutta? : ṣdq -sanue vuoden 1992 Kirkkoraamatun Psalmien kirjassa

Righteousness, justice or faithfulness? The Hebrew Root ṣdq in the Psalter of the Finnish Church Bible of 1992 This study attempts to answer three questions. Firstly, what do the derivates of the root ṣdq mean in the Hebrew Psalter? Secondly, with which equivalents are these Hebrew words translated in the Psalter of the Finnish Church Bible of 1992 and why? And thirdly, how is the translation of the root ṣdq in the Psalter placed in comparison with the translations of the root ṣdq in certain ancient and modern Bible translations? The root ṣdq has a very wide semantic field in Biblical Hebrew. The basic meaning of the root ṣdq is ‘right’ or ‘to be in the right’. The traditional English equivalent of the root ṣdq is righteousness. In many European languages the equivalent of the root ṣdq has some connection with the word ‘right’, but this is not the case in Finnish. The Finnish word vanhurskaus has been present since the first Finnish Bible translation by Mikael Agricola in 1548. However, this word has nothing to do with the Finnish word for ‘right’. The word vanhurskaus has become a very specific religious and theological word in Finnish, and it can be a word that is not obvious or at all understandable even to a native Finnish speaker. In the Psalter of the earlier Finnish Church Bible of 1938 almost every derivate of the root ṣdq (132/139) was translated as vanhurskaus. In the Psalter of the Finnish Church Bible of 1992 less than half of these derivates (67/139) are translated as that. Translators have used 20 different equivalents of the Hebrew derivates of the root ṣdq. But this type of translation also has its own problems. The most disputed is the fact that in it the Bible reader finds no connections between many Bible verses that have obvious connections with each other in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in verse Ps. 118, 15 one finds a Finnish word for ‘saved’ and in verse Ps. 142, 8 one finds another Finnish word for ‘friends’, while in the Hebrew Bible the same word is used in both verses, ṣaddîqīm. My study will prove that it is very challenging to compare or fit together the semantics of these two quite different languages. The theoretical framework for the study consists of biblical semantic theories and Bible translation theories. Keywords: religious language, Bible translations, Book of Psalms.

Changing Paradigms in Biblical Criticism : 2 Kings 22:1 23:30 in the Flux of Discourses

The subject and methodology of biblical scholarship has expanded immense-ly during the last few decades. The traditional text-, literary-, source- and form-critical approaches, labeled historical-critical scholarship , have faced the challenge of social sciences. Various new literary, synchronic readings, sometimes characterized with the vague term postmodernism, have in turn challenged historicalcritical, and social-scientific approaches. Widened limits and diverging methodologies have caused a sense of crisis in biblical criticism. This metatheoretical thesis attempts to bridge the gap between philosophical discussion about the basis of biblical criticism and practical academic biblical scholarship. The study attempts to trace those epistemological changes that have produced the wealth of methods and results within biblical criticism. The account of the cult reform of King Josiah of Judah as reported in 2 Kings 22:1 23:30 serves as the case study because of its importance for critical study of the Hebrew Bible. Various scholarly approaches embracing 2 Kings 22:1 23:30 are experimentally arranged around four methodological positions: text, author, reader, and context. The heuristic model is a tentative application of Oliver Jahraus s model of four paradigms in literary theory. The study argues for six theses: 1) Our knowledge of the world is con-structed, fallible and theory-laden. 2) Methodological plurality is the neces-sary result of changes in epistemology and culture in general. 3) Oliver Jahraus s four methodological positions in regard to literature are also an applicable model within biblical criticism to comprehend the methodological plurality embracing the study of the Hebrew Bible. 4) Underlying the methodological discourse embracing biblical criticism is the epistemological ten-sion between the natural sciences and the humanities. 5) Biblical scholars should reconsider and analyze in detail concepts such as author and editor to overcome the dichotomy between the Göttingen and Cross schools. 6) To say something about the historicity of 2 Kings 22:1 23:30 one must bring together disparate elements from various disciplines and, finally, admit that though it may be possible to draw some permanent results, our conclusions often remain provisional.