Adriano da Silva Carvalho

This article critically examines the interpretative methodology of Imran Nazar Hosein, evaluating whether his interpretations are grounded in a coherent epistemological framework or primarily driven by intuitive reflection. The analysis draws on Rudolf Bultmann's hermeneutic theory of demythology as a comparative lens, given its focus on reinterpreting mythological elements to address existential concerns, particularly in the context of discussions about the future rather than historical facts. The research employs a literature-based approach, utilizing primary sources such as Hosein's works on eschatology and Bultmann's writings on demythology, alongside secondary sources from relevant academic literature. The findings reveal notable methodological parallels between Hosein’s interpretations and Bultmann’s demythologization, particularly in their shared use of hermeneutic techniques. However, a key distinction lies in their epistemological foundations: while Bultmann approaches the New Testament through a Christian existentialist lens, Hosein’s interpretations are deeply rooted in Sufi epistemology and his perspective as a Muslim scholar interpreting the Qur'an.

The work of theologian Rudolf Bultmann is often judged without due consideration of the historical and personal circumstances in which it occurred. It is forgotten that theology is always carried out in a specific context. Thus, this article aims to do justice to this theologian by recognizing the relevance of his hermeneutical method. It will be demonstrated that demythologization is a powerful exegetical-apologetic operation, because, at the same time that it points to the mythological layer that covers the text of the New Testament, it emancipates it from myth. The next step will be to show that by recognizing a mythological envelope covering the text of the New Testament, Bultmann intended to prove that the mythological vision itself had a fundamentally existential purpose. This is because mythological language does not present an objective image of the world as it is; on the contrary, it seeks to communicate the understanding that man has of himself in the world in which he lives. Therefore, the myth should be interpreted not cosmologically, but anthropologically, or better still, existentially. It is, therefore, from this perspective that Bultmann seeks to highlight the relevance of the message of the New Testament.

The biblical passage from Luke 16, 19-31 is one of the most cited and discussed in the New Testament. However, when analyzed based on the relationships engendered following the narrated facts, a series of presupposed narrative programs contributes to the elucidation of the meaning of this text. This research, therefore, will analyze the aforementioned passage from the perspective of Greimasian semiotics. The method aims to reveal the generative path of meaning and highlight the intratextual elements, which make up the path of construction of the meaning of the passage. It allows you to analyze your superficial and deep structures: it goes from the simple to the complex, from the most abstract to the most concrete. It can thus highlight the semantic oppositions from which the meaning of the text and its fundamental semantic category are constituted. The method has the potential to represent the relational organization between the social conditions of the subjects of the narrative. Furthermore, it provides neutral methodological support that avoids a priori conclusions and bias. The analysis of intertextuality completes the process started with Greimasian semiotics. This is because a careful reading of Lc 16,19-31 will not ignore its immediate and broader context: Luke and Acts read sequentially. By placing the parable in this broader narrative, Luke's readers could perceive connective elements, linking the story told by Jesus to what was happening in the early church. Thus, in Jesus' mouth the story of the rich man and the beggar was told as a criticism of avarice, but in Luke's editorial plan it was used to challenge believers to get involved in caring for the poor.

Many commentators have understood Philippians 3:2 as a clear warning against Judaizers. This verse, however, admits of other interpretations. And indeed, some commentators have suggested new readings for this passage. For example, one author suggested that the apostle might have had the Cynic philosophers in mind. Others thought that Paul distinguished between three kinds of people. This article aims to contribute to this debate by presenting the viewpoint of Norman DeWitt, who provides (indirect) evidence that the Epicureans were among the main opponents of Paul and Christianity. And he assumes that after the evidence of certain symbols and elements in the language of the author of the letter, it can be seen that the infamous epithet in 3.2: "τοὺς κύνας" refers to the followers of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. In addition to Norman DeWitt, we sought to dialogue with other authors who deal with the subject and contribute to the reflection of this investigation. As methodology, a bibliographical study was carried out. As a result, it is emphasized that Philippians verse 3:2 is open to many identity possibilities.

The original New Testament documents disappeared very early, probably before the end of the first century, as they are not even quoted in the post-apostolic period and are not even mentioned as having been seen by anyone anywhere. The surviving manuscripts that have come down to us are copies of copies. And these copies have many errors. Therefore, textual criticism is used in order to restore the primitive form of the text before the errors and changes produced by the hands and minds of copyists. A Herculean effort has been made to arrive at the form of the text that circulated or was known in the early years of Christianity. Textual critics, for example, raised many hypotheses and theories such as textual types, with the aim of pointing to handwritten copies that could be closer to what was thought to be the first century text. Editions of "Novum Instrumentum Omne" by Erasmus of Rotterdam, which went on sale March 1, 1516, and "The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881)" by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort" represent the effort of scholars to give the public an edition of the Greek New Testament based on the best and oldest surviving Greek manuscripts. The present research intends to describe the beginning of the textual criticism of the New Testament with emphasis on the edition of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus of Rotterdam, in the researches of the scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort and in the theory of the textual types.

This research presents an analysis of the pericope of 2 Thessalonians 2 from the perspective of the linguistic phenomenon of deixis. And, in doing so, the theory of enunciation will be taken as a theoretical contribution, in order to highlight a small body of words that link the encoder to the enunciation situation. The asymmetry of the act of enunciation is recognized and, therefore, the interpreter's need to reconstruct its meaning from indications present in the enunciation. In the case of the epistolary text, the presence of the deictic device is essential, since the communication situation lacks anchorage. Thus, the objective of this work is to identify the enunciative coordinates of the author (enunciator).

The history of the interpretation of Psalm 46 has been articulated around the search for its context. Some commentators have sought to pin its historical circumstance to certain events in Israel's past, such as the siege of Sennacherib's army over Judah or a major geological event such as an earthquake. Others have asserted that the author of the Psalm did not have in mind a past event, but a future one, namely, a time of peace and cessation of wars. But is this search for the context of the author's day really essential for the modern reader? Shouldn't the diligent reading of any text culminate in merging the past with the present?And, finally, shouldn't the reader's horizons be called into question when interpreting a text? This research will seek to analyze these questions from the dialogue with authors such as Franz Delitzsch, Hermann Gunkel, Hans Georg Gadamer, G. Heinrich Ewald and Arie Folger; authors who contributed to the reflection of this research.

The reading of Genesis 18,20 does not make clear what the sin of Sodom is. The Hebrew text only says that the transgression of the inhabitants of that city was greatly aggravated: “וחַטָּאתָּם” –“vëchatåtåm” -“כָּבְ דָּה” –“khåvëdåh” -“מְ אֹד” –“mëod”. Even the passage in Gen 19,5 gives no clue to a specific sin: in this passage it seems more evident that the sodomites are violating the normal canons of hospitality. But then why do popular imaginations and some interpreters identify the sin of Sodom with homosexuality? This research will demonstrate that a number of factors led to this type of interpretation. First it was understood that Gen 19,5 gave an indication of the sexual orientation of the inhabitants of Sodom; then the passages of Leviticus 18,22 and 20,13 were invoked to regulate this opinion; the next step was to connect Gen 18,20 and 19,5 with Paul’s comments in Romans 1 in which the sin of Sodom was associated with homosexual sex. This connection was sustained by Augustine and also by the author of “Visio Sancti Pauli”. The coming together of these factors was the catalyst for later traditions in which the sin of Sodom is presented as homosexual sex.

Linguistic studies from discursive perspective emphasize the concept of semantic autonomy and deny the realist notion of language. They argue that knowledge of social meaning and the effects of language are important to understanding a text. For Michel Pêcheux, in a speech, the meaning of word scan be explained by the interrelationship between words, more specifically, by the words that were not said. Meaning is thought of as symbolic, neither fixed nor exact. But Eric Donald Hirsch argued that the text means what its author meant, and therefore the reader's aim is to retrieve the author's intended meaning. Only authorial intent can validate an interpretation. From the set who diverging points of view, some questions emerged, such as, for example, is language a neutral means of reflecting the world? Is a meaning by public consensus possible? Is textual meaning a matter of conscience or words? And more, can the reader benefit from an interpretive perspective that goes beyond the grammatical boundary? These are the questions that this work intends to explore.

This article aims to understand the meaning of the phrase: “Θεοὶ μὲν γὰρ εἰσίν” - “Surely the gods exist” in the context of the so-called letter about the happiness of Epicurus. And to this purpose, it will question the relationship of this enunciate with the program of the “Blessed life” of the philosopher of Samos. Epicuro was presenting his declaration of faith: Θεοὶ εἰσίν? Probably not. But it is true that he used theological language when he presented his plan of happiness. Why did he do it? This is the question that this article will seek to answer.

This research aims to contribute to the discussion on the subject of Abortion by analyzing the concepts of formed and unformed in the Septuagint in Exodus 21:22-23, and the opinions of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the social status of the fetus. The Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, which was translated in stages into Greek between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century BC, presents a different point of view than that found in the Hebrew text of Exodus 21:22-23. It introduces the notions of formed and unformed fetus. In other words, he understood the fetus (embryo) in a perspective of developing reality. Augustine and Aquinas, two important names in Christian theology, seem to have reflected a tradition that granted protection to the unborn child according to the stages of its development. The discussion around the topic of abortion is complex, very sensitive, but it should not be avoided. Bibliographical research was used as methodology. As a result, it will be pointed out that the biblical presentation of human beings does not begin with an explanation of conception or the fetal period. It does not discuss the point at which the embryo attains the full moral status of a human person. Thus, for this research, the discussion about abortion must necessarily take into account issues such as risk to the pregnant woman's life; fetal malformation etc. But, above all, it must be centered on the personality of the pregnant woman.