Przeglądaj wg Autor "Janik, Marek"

Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 6 z 6

Azazel a zakazany kult w kontekście Dnia Przebłagania. Wzajemne przenikanie kultur i ich wpływ na motyw Azazela w Starym Testamencie
Janik, Marek (Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wyższego Instytutu Teologicznego w Częstochowie, 2016)
In the Bible, the term ʻazāʼzēl is used in Leviticus 16. The most popular view is that it is the name of a demon. Usually, wilderness and desert were believed to be the haunting place of demons in ancient religions. Besides the Hebrew Bible acknowledges, that the wilderness is the place of demons and demonic creatures. In intertestamental literature ʻazāʼzēl is a fully developed demon. In many case Azazel could be a name, however, does not imply it being a demon or evil spirit. What is important, Azazel has no part in the Sanctuary ministry on the Day of Atonement. Since Azazel’s blood has not been shed, he cannot be used for remission of sin, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Mesopotamian rituals the transfer impurity often see animal as a substitute for a man. A substitute that will now become the object of impurity. Similarly Hittite rituals feature the transfer of evil to an animal that is then sent away. Nevertheless such rituals was quite common throughout the ancient Near East. Such rituals sought to return to the demons the evil that was afflicted a person. The animal carried the evil away, and the intention was to return it to its place of origin.
Etymologiczne antynomie terminów śāṭān i diabolos w Starym Testamencie w kontekście kulminacyjnego obrazu Szatana w Mdr 2, 24
Janik, Marek (Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wyższego Instytutu Teologicznego w Częstochowie, 2017)
Word, “satan” is an Hebrew word which means “adversary” while “devil” is a translation of the Greek word “diabolos”, meaning a liar, an enemy or false accuser. The Biblical usage of the term “satan” shows that can be used as ordinary adjectiv, describing ordinary people. The word “satan” in the Bible is not regarded as referring to a supernatural, personal being but to any adversary and figuratively refers to human sin and temptation This fact makes it impossible to reason that the word satan as used in the Bible do in themselves refer to a great wicked person or being outside of us. Hovever, in the books of Samuel and Chronicles are parallels accounts of the same incidents describing of Satan, of the same events but using different language. The original word “diabolos” is derived from the word “diabebola” which is the perfect tense, middle voice of the word “diaballo”. Diaballo is compounded of “dia” (through) and “ballo”, therefore rendering the meaning to “dart or strike through”. He further explains that whenever the word is used in the figurative sense, it signifies to strike or stab with an accusation or evil report. Hovever the word “devil” is a general term and not used as a proper noun. It is a word that can be employed in any situation where slander, accusation and falsehood are present. Inciden tally, please note that the entire Old Testament is silent on the Devil. The word devil does not appear in the Old Testament, except deuterocanonical books. For the first time appears in the in the First Book of Maccabees. In the Book of Wisdom the devil is represented as the one who brought death into the world and he is the principal enemy of God.
Konotacje demonologiczne terminu פחד לילה w Ps 91,5-6
Janik, Marek (Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne Adalbertinum, 2017)
In the Ancient Near East, religious thought held that demons were drawn to humans in major life-transitions and crises. „The terror of the night”, „the arrow that flies by day”, „the plague” and „the scourge” are terms that are no methapors. They can be of Canaanite demons and of the sickness-demons typical of Mesopotamia (Ps 78,49c; 91,5-6). However, in neither passage, to be sure, have they any independence whatsoever. In Ps 78,49c they appear as emissaries of Jahweh. In Ps 91,5-6 they are denied any power over anyone who trusts in Jahweh. At one level, the term „the terror of the night” seem to be standard metaphorical description for danger, but some related terms reveal more. These dangers are utterly chaotic, casting the threat of death as personified powers of evil. Therefore in Ps 91,5-6 we will have to think not only of poetic personifications but also of demonic powers. While these demonic identities may be depersonalized in Israel’s theology, the same identities were not dismantled in the antecedent pantheons and practices surrounding Israel. These exorcism psalms are found in 11Q11. This scroll seems to comprise three extracanonical psalms plus Psalm 91, for four psalms in all. The extracanonical compositions are clearly exorcism psalms. Later rabbinic understanding of Psalm 91 and its quotation in the temptation of Jesus, the appearance of Psalm 91 in 11Q11 strongly suggests that this psalm was understood as an exorcism psalm not only at Qumran but among many Jews in the time of Jesus.
Lilit – między mitem a Biblią
Janik, Marek (Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne Adalbertinum, 2016)
In Jewish folklore, from ,,Alphabet of Ben Sira” onwards, Lilith becomes Adamʼs first wife, who was created at the same time as Adam. The idea in the text that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts, while Genesis 2:22 describes God's creation of Eve from Adamʼs rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made. Whereas there are five references to Lilith in the Babylonian Talmud. According to Talmud Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begot a son in own likeness, after his own image, from which it follows that until that time he did not beget after his own image. The only occurrence is in the Book of Isaiah 34, 14, describing the desolation of Edom, where the Hebrew word לִילִית appears in a list of eight unclean animals, some of which may have demonic associations. Since the word לִילִית is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. As it seems that Lilith was a demon of the night which would coincide with the possible references to the ,,lilītu” in Babylonian demonology. However, this view is challenged by some modern research such as by J.M. Blair who considers that the context indicates animals.
Nimrod – nawiązanie do gigantów? Próba identyfikacji
Janik, Marek (Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wyższego Instytutu Teologicznego w Częstochowie, 2019)
The biblical description of Nimrod is rather short. The Bible doesn’t directly say Nimrod built the tower of Babel. But certainly the inference that he did is clear. Babel was the “beginning” of Nimrod’s kingdom. Genesis 11 shows that it was here at Babel, during the first years of this city, that the great tower was built with the intention of reaching heaven. This effort would have been led by Nimrod himself. Only after God confounded the language of the builders did the people scatter across the Earth. This explains why Babel was only the beginning of his kingdom, and why he needed to later build further cities to accommodate and keep together the scattering peoples. Attempts to match Nimrod with historically attested figures have failed. Nimrod may not represent any one personage known to history. The identification of biblical Nimrod with a historical personage has proven to be a challenge. Proof of the difficulty of this task is found in the healthy number of candidates who have been presented as options. From ancient times, fantastical renditions of Nimrod’s deeds have fascinated many generations of readers of the Bible, some of which go beyond what the text strictly has to say about him, thanks in part to the doubt as to when and how he lived. Researches done in this article allows to statement that Sargon is the best candidate for historical Nimrod. It seems more important to point to Nimrod’s rebellious nature. It is about a man which represents, of a system that is epitomized in rebellion against the Creator, the one true God. Rebellion began soon after the Flood as civilizations were restored. At that time this person became very prominent. The main factor connecting Nimrod with the giants is the element of rebellion accompanying their actions.
Związek między בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים (bᵉnē-hāʾĕlōhīm) a נָפוּלים (nᵉpilîm) w kontekście interpretacji angelologicznej
Janik, Marek (Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne Adalbertinum, 2018)
“Sons of God” is the term applied in the Old Testament to supernatural beings both good and evil. However the general view is that the “sons of God” were the pious descendants of Seth and the daughters of men, the Cainitish offspring. In this article there are strong arguments against it. First of all, the term „sons of God” is never applied in the Old Testament to believers. Secondly, is no proof in the text that the daughters of men were only descendants of the Cainites. Thirdly, if the „sons of God” were simply pious Sethites, it is hard to understand why the offspring should be a special race. Besides, the giants were Nephilim, which means „the fallen ones”. That is why the term „sons of God” must mean supernatural evil beings. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renowned for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood New Testament (Jud 5-6; 2 Pet 2,4 i 1 Pet 3,18-20) hint on Gen 6,1-4. This Scriptures declares that the fallen angels are angels, which sinned and God did not spare them. The fallen angels left their own habitation and mixed with the daughters of men.