The article by Sannikov Sergiy “History and Hermeneutic Horizons of the Bible Commentaries in the Slavic Context: Part 1. History and Practice of the Bible Commentaries in the Slavic Context” is the first part of the research of the history and hermeneutic horizons of the Bible commentaries in the Slavic context. The author surveys the history of the Bible interpretation in Eastern Europe, analyzes the diachronical interpretation principles progress, shows the hermeneutical methods used in the Evangelical (...) movement of in the 19th and 20th centuries and the correspondent hermeneutic approaches in the Orthodox tradition. The author distinguishes the main hermeneutic principles being the basis for the commentators of the 19th-20th centuries and the approaches to interpretation practiced in the Slavic context. A special attention is given to the Bible interpretation made by national authors who have been publishing their works during the last 20 years. The main emphasis is made on the literature on hermeneutics published in recent years and used in Evangelical educational institutions. (shrink)

The opening sections of some exegetical Midrashim deal with the same type of material that is found in introductions to medieval rabbinic Bible commentaries. The application of Goldberg's form analysis to these sections reveals the new form "Inner-Midrashic Introduction" as a thematic discourse on introductory issues to biblical books. By its very nature the IMI is embedded within the comments on the first biblical verse. Further analysis of medieval rabbinic Bible commentary introductions in terms of their formal, (...) thematic, and material characteristics, reveals that a high degree of continuity exists between them and the IMIs, including another newly discovered form, the "Inner-Commentary Introduction". These new discoveries challenge the current view that traces the origin of Bible introduction in Judaism exclusively to non-Jewish models. They also point to another important link between the Midrashim and the commentaries, i.e., the decomposition of the functional form midrash in the new discoursive context of the commentaries. Finally, the form analysis demonstrates how larger discourses are formed in the exegetical Midrashim. (shrink)

스피노자와 레비나스 사이 300년 정도의 간극은 철학의 패러다임을 바꾸기에 충분한 시간이었고, 실제로 이들 사유의 지향점은 양극단에 놓여있다. 그러나 헤브라이즘적 관점에서 고찰해볼 때, 윤리학이라는 학적 지평에서 이들이 정초시키고자 했던 내용이 전적으로 상반된다고 볼 수만은 없다. 두 철학자 모두 자신의 ‘윤리학’ 안에서 세계와 우주 속에서 인간과 교통하는 신의 존재방식을 살펴보는데, 소위 합리성과 비합리성이라 일컬어지는 ‘세속’과 ‘신’의 관념은 그들의 철학 안에서 동일한 논의의 층위에 양립하게 된다. 그들의 신론은, 신의 관념이 어떻게 인간의 역사 속에서 이 세계에 대해 창조적이며 내재적으로 존재하는지 제시하고, 신법을 따르는 것이 (...) 왜 인간에게 지복을 가져오는지를 윤리적 토대 위에 정초시킨다. 요컨대 그들의 작업은 헤브라이즘적 신학 담론을 끌어들여 자신들의 휴머니즘 윤리학을 완성하려는 시도라고 할 수 있다. (shrink)