Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis: Commentary with Text, Translation, Sources and Analogues and Parallel Passages in Ælfric’s Works

The purpose of this article was to examine whether the parallel passages from The Canonical Scripture and Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsagi (甑山天師公事記 Records of the Reordering Works of Celestial Master Jeungsan), the first full-length record related to the life of Kang Jeungsan compiled by Lee Sang-ho, indicate the same chronology. A comparison of the contents between The Canonical Scripture and Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsagi revealed the following. The contents of The Canonical Scripture are categorized by a table of contents. By way of contrast, the contents of Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsagi, is organized year by year. When parallel passages appear, the two texts tend to indicate the same year for specific events, but the chronology of some events do not match. A comparison of the contents of The Canonical Scripture and the first edition of Daesoon Jeongyeong (大巡典經 The Canonical Scripture of the Great Itineration) shows the following. Once again, the contents of The Canonical Scripture are organized via a table of contents. The contents of the first edition of the Daesoon Jeongyeong are also indicated through a table of contents. When lined up for comparison, most of the passages show the same content to have occurred in matching years. However, new contents are contained in this record that were absent in Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsagi. All of these texts contain a summary of the life of Kang Jeung-san; however, they are organized differently. Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsagi presents that summary chronologically (year by year with some gaps in years). Daesoon Jeongyeong and The Canonical Scripture both feature a table of contents wherein chapters are based around specific themes. One key takeaway is that different passages appear in the contents of each text. Also, The Canonical Scripture and the first edition of the Daesoon Jeongyeong contain some parallel passages wherein the two texts disagree on what year some events took place. Despite the different style of organization, Jeungsan Cheonsa Gongsagi and The Canonical Scripture can still be compared and such comparison shows the same pattern as comparison between The Canonical Scripture and Daesoon Jeongyeong. As a result of organizing and comparing the contents of the table of contents with the chronological record, the parallel passages wherein chronology is disputed can be highlighted and the introduction of new passages can also be shown.

The purpose of this study is to clarify the meaning of Gwonji (權智, Authority and Foreknowledge) through the phrases contained in the section, Gwonji of the Jeon-gyeong (known in English as The Canonical Scripture), and to compare the changes that each verse from Gwonji underwent by juxtaposing it against the sixth edition of Daesoon Jeong-gyeong (which was published prior to the Jeon-gyeong) to explore the term’s literary meaning. In order to save the world, Sangje descended to human world and performed the Cheonjigongsa (Reordering Works of the Universe) for nine years with the power he exercises over the Three Realms of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. Based on the plan set by the Cheonjigongsa, Sangje’s teachings were spread to humanity and provided as the basis for building the earthly paradise. From this perspective, this study demonstrates its significance by providing a comprehensive approach to the Jeon-gyeong by highlighting the subject of Sangje’s authority and wisdom as recorded in the section titled Gwonji. There is also value in the variant verses from Gwonji that the study discovered by comparing and analyzing the phrases from chapters one and two of Gwonji as they appear in the Jeon-gyeong with their equivalents from the sixth edition of Daesoon Jeong-gyeong, which was published in 1965, nearly a decade before Daesoon Jinrihoe’s publication of the Jeon-gyeong in 1974. The results of this comparative study of parallel passages related to Gwonji are as follows: First, Gwonji can be understood as the authority and wisdom of Sangje, and this is the core element in realizing the Earthly Paradise through His Cheonjigongsa. Second, phrases related to Sangje’s authority and wisdom are spread out in the seven sections of the Jeon-gyeong, and they were written to emphasize the main purpose suggested in each section or chapter. Third, in sections other than Gwonji, the great power of Sangje is exercised to treat matters related to deities and social problems, whereas in Gwonji part, it is dedicated to the performance of Cheonjigongsa. Fourth, there are five sections of the Jeon-gyeong which are organized into chapters. All of these sections and their chapters indicate the year when key events transpired. Fifth, when passages from chapter one of Gwonji is compared to parallel passages from Daesoon Jeon-gyeong, there are several verses that vary in terms of their wording and also sentences that indicate a different dates or times for certain events.

Current scholarship on the history of the Hebrew Bible text sees the composition of biblical literature as a long, drawn-out scribal process of rewriting, to which many individuals contributed. This approach is in harmony with the evidence for variability in the scribal transmission of distinctive (less common) linguistic features in non-MT biblical manuscripts and parallel passages in the MT. The Text-Critical paradigm contrasts with the MT-Only paradigm which presupposes the composition of biblical books or identifiable parts of them by single authors at specific dates. This article focuses on the unusually well-attested text MT 2 Kings 25:1–12// LXX 2 Kings 25:1–12// MT Jeremiah 39:1–10// LXX Jeremiah 39:1–10// MT Jeremiah 52:4–16// LXX Jeremiah 52:4–16 where it is discovered that not a single distinctive linguistic feature is shared by all texts. It concludes with suggestions as to how the application of this approach can help reformulate some of the questions scholars ask in their study of ancient Hebrew.

The conflict story of Mark 7:1–23 between Jesus and the religious leaders over the issue of defilement is the meeting point of a variety of disciplines: Purity studies, Jewish studies, exegetical studies, Historical Jesus studies, and studies on Jesus and the law. The crux of the passage, the meaning of the parable in v. 15 and the ensuing “cleansing” in v. 19, has been interpreted very differently. Scholars doing exegetical studies and studies on the relationship between Jesus and the law have maintained that the Gospel writer correctly reflects in 7:19 the meaning of Jesus’ parable (7:15), abrogating the clean/unclean categories of Lev 11. Scholars doing purity, Jewish, and recent Historical Jesus studies have generally argued that Jesus could not have abrogated these food laws in the social and religious setting of his day. The controversial remark in a narrative aside must be Mark’s comment on Jesus’ saying to accommodate the Christian community in the later part of the first century. Chapter 1 introduces the narrative-intertextual methodology used in the subsequent chapters. This methodology allows a careful examination of the literary material in Mark’s Gospel in the first part of the dissertation and a careful examination of purity issues arising out of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Second Temple period in the later part. The narrative analysis in chapters 2–3 reveals that Mark uses space, time, props, movement, prefixes, verb tenses, and technical terminology meticulously and astutely to develop the themes in the pericope and build a cohesive literary unit. The central theme of the entire pericope is “touch defilement,” which is first introduced in the observation that the disciples eat with defiled (unwashed) hands. It is augmented with a conflict over authority. Chapter 4 examines the interrelationship of purity terms in biblical literature of the later Second Temple period. In the major reference works predating the 1970s, the purity terms κοινός (“defiled”), ἀκάθαρτος (“unclean”), and βέβηλος (“profane”) were more or less used interchangeably. Since the 1970s though, studies examining the topic of purity have differentiated these terms. An assessment of 1 Macc 1:47, 62; Mark 7:1–23; Acts 10–11; and the parallel passages of Acts 21:28 and 24:6 leads to the conclusion that κοινός/κοινόω is a term unique to the Second Temple period and distinct from other purity terminology. It is best defined as an intermediary defilement that a clean person/object acquires by coming in contact with an unclean person/object.