Search

Verse 7:17 from Isaiah presents its interpreters, both ancient and modern, with difficulties and ambiguities regarding the text that must be accounted for on the level of formulation (problematic grammar), content (uncertain meaning) and incorporation into the larger context of Isa 7:1-17. The Damascus Document from Qumran uses this verse twice (in CD VII & XIII) in texts of different types (Admonitions and Laws). The author of the Damascus Document resolves the ambiguities of the biblical verse and incorporates it into his two compositions for the benefit of his argumentation. This type of redactional work is possible due to a recognition by the author of a continuity between the biblical Israel and the current (Qumran) community. While resolving the problems inherent to the biblical verse, the author of the Damascus Document also creates a new tension between the ways in which this verse is incorporated into the two documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the function of Revelation 1:7 to the mission motif in the book of Revelation. The main thesis is that Revelation 1:7 sets the tone for this theme in the entire book. The placement of the conflated quotation of Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10 in the prologue introduces a deliberate dualism calling the nations to repent or receive the coming judgment. The difficulty is in the interpretation of the prophecy of Zech. 12:10. The notion that this prophecy delineates the future of the nations in foreseeing their eschatological mourning in repentance is not widely accepted by scholarship. In the OT context of Zech. 12:10 and in its use in the Second Temple Judaism literature, the tone of judgment is altogether absent. The eschatological mourning in repentance of all the tribes of Israel is then universalized to all the tribes of the earth in the NT quotations of Zech. 12:10. Rev. 1:7 introduces four important missional themes, namely, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic blessing, the final procession of the nations to Zion, the urgent call to repentance, and a dualistic tendency of a victorious and a suffering Church in the mission-to-the-nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This exegesis seeks to understand how to interpret biblical ambiguities, especially in narrative texts of the Old Testament. The author seeks to show how and why the text of Judges 19 has been greatly debated in academic circles by examining different ambiguities of the text. There are many omissions of the narrator of Judges 19 that might be confusing to the 21st century reader, such as: a subjective vagueness, the anonymity of the characters, and an apparent moral silence. Thus, the author also seeks to show subsequently that, by interpreting the text of Judges 19 with the principles of narrative selectivity and of the near and far contexts in mind, the ambiguities and omissions fit together perfectly in the intended meaning in a text that speaks primarily of the absence of a king for Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cooperation over transboundary environmental resources, water in particular, has been analyzed from various perspectives. Each study identifies the problems of cooperation differently and suggests different mechanisms to enhance it. Yet, the role of ambiguity, particularly significant in treaty design to resolve environmental disputes, has thus far been overlooked. Such a focus is warranted, since many international agreements regulating the use of natural resources are ambiguous in their schedule of resource delivery during crisis events or in their cost-sharing arrangements and may even include contradictory resource-allocation principles while remaining vague on how to settle the contradictions. This study aims to examine why, when, and how ambiguity is applied in agreements pertaining to natural resources, and water in particular. The lsraeli-Jordanian peace agreement, which includes an annex on water-use regulation, is used as a case study, it was found that, under asymmetric power relations, when both sovereignty costs and uncertainty are high, several types of deliberate ambiguity were intentionally incorporated into the treaty. Some ambiguities allowed each side to present the treaty differently at home, thereby defusing domestic opposition, while others provided leeway to adjust the resource allocation during a future crisis without the need to renegotiate the treaty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]