Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:37:43.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marc 11.14 et Tg. Gn. 3.22 les Fruits de la Loi Enleves a Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Michal Wojciechowski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 287 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Cf. ex. Schenk, W., Passionsbericht nach Markus. Untersuchung zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Passionstraditionen (Gütersloh, 1974) 162.Google Scholar

[2] Cf. Cortès, E., ‘El secamiento de la higuera a la luz de los profetas del A.T. y de sus Targumim (Mc Xl, 12–14; 20–21)’, Estudios Franciscanos 70 (1969) 13s.Google Scholar

[3] Cf. les observations de Klauck, H. J., Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, NTAbh NF 13 (Münster, 1978) 320Google Scholar, et de Telford, W. R., The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, JSNT Supplement Series 1 (Sheffield, 1980) 198Google Scholar; texte de cette légende dans Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, t. 4 (Philadelphia, 1913) 443s.Google Scholar

[4] Cf. Cortès, op. cit. 5s; elle est toujours très répandue. Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium, HTKNT 11.2 (Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1977) 195Google Scholar, la combat, mais en même temps ii met en doute les valeurs historique et symbolique de l'événement (‘Fluchwundergeschichte’).

[5] Cf. Münderlein, G., ‘Verfiuchung des Feigenbaums Mk X 12–14’, NTS 10 (1963/1964) 94sGoogle Scholar; Romaniuk, K., ‘Car ce n'était pas la saison de figues… (Mk 11, 12–14 parr.)’, ZNW 66 (1975) 277Google Scholar; Trautmann, M., Zeichenhafte Handlungen Jesu, FzB 37 (Würzburg, 1980) 328–30.Google Scholar

[6] Cf. Trautmann, op. cit. 338.

[7] Cf. Bartsch, H. W., ‘Die “Verfluchung” des Feigenbaums’, ZNW 53 (1962) 257s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[8] Cf. Macho, A. Díez, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestiniense, t.l, Textos y Estudios 7 (Madrid-Barcelona, 1968) 19.Google Scholar

[9] ibid.; Déaut, R. Le, Targum du Pentateuque, t.1, SCh 245 (Paris, 1978) 98sGoogle Scholar:le même dans Tg. Frg. Gn 3. 22 (ms. 440); Ex. 15.25 (ms. 110) et dans certaines recensions de Gn. Rab. 2,4 (93) à propos de Prov. 3. 18 (la sagesse est l'arbre de vie); cf. Ps. Sal. 14. 2s. Tg. Frg. 3. 24 (ms. 110): Torah, c'est le fruit de l'arbre de vie.