Patristic exegesis followed certain hermeneutical rules different from the modern principles of scientific interpretation of the Scripture. The main feature was christocentrism: Jesus Christ was the first hermeneutical key to understand the Bible. The second principle is the unity of the Scripture: the Old Testament is read and interpreted in the light of the New Testament. The third characteristic is the twofold way of reading the Word of God: literal and spiritual; both are complementary and need each other to achieve the full comprehension of the biblical message. The fourth is typology and symbolism: each literary motif of the Scripture (person, thing, event, etc.) can be a carrier of many meanings useful for spiritual purposes, exceeding the historical context. A special attention is attributed also to the tradition of the Church, the Eucharistic perspective and the fact that Church Fathers and ancient Rabbis interpreted and explained the Old Testament in the contexts of their communities of faith, independently but sometimes following similar intuitions.

This essay deals with, or rather attempts to explore, the problem of irony and humour (sensu largo) in the Bible. On the whole Polish theology, homiletics and academic biblical studies have hardly anything to say about it, and when they do mention it, it is done in a rather perfunctory and unsatisfactory manner. This article asks what may be reasons for this ‘exegetical retouch’ (tabooing?), i.e. why has the question of biblical irony, which is a staple of international scholarship, received so little attention in Poland? Why do contemporary Polish biblical and homiletic studies cultivate a staid and solemn tone, and steer clear of a direct and plain exposition laced with subtle irony and a touch of asteism, a sure sign of a wise sense of humour that characterizes ancient Judaism? For Gary Webster, Terri Bednarz and Yehuda Radday the recognition level of biblical humour, sophisticated wordplay or irony depends on the reader’s competence, his linguistic and cultural sensitivity, his ability to detect cognitive presuppositions, and his knowledge of relevant contexts. Yet even a thorough understanding of the biblical text and its cultural conditioning cannot rule out doubts, moot points and interpretative dilemmas that bedevil the work of every translator and hermeneutic analyst and stoke up unending debates.

This paper attempts to define the term, ḥikāyat ḥāl māḍiya, as it is explained by the Qur’ān commentators, who can be considered as the primary source for understanding this term. The term, ḥikāyat ḥāl māḍiya, is not a unique phenomenon of the Arabic language in general or of the Qur’ān in particular. ḥikāyat ḥāl māḍiya, a term typically translated in the research literature as the historical present, is a universal phenomenon used especially in narratives. Before examining the use of the term, ḥikāyat ḥāl māḍiya, in Qur’ānic exegesis, we first provide the Western definition of the term, historical perfect or, as it is also called, historic imperfect, historical present tense or narrative present.1 As will be shown in the first part of the paper, the Western definition is almost identical to the definition of the term, ḥikāyat ḥāl māḍiya, provided by the commentators on the Qur’ān. In both Western and Arabic sources these terms refer to verbs in the present tense used in order to provide a vivid effect and to evoke a past event recounted in a narrative. However, this traditional usage is criticized by Western scholars who propose, based on discourse-analysis, alternative explanations for the tense-switching between the simple past and the historical present. Alternative explanations for verbs in the imperfect which are considered to be cases of ḥikāyat ḥāl māḍiya are also mentioned by the commentators on the Qur’ān and are presented in the second part of this paper.

This study focuses on potential athletic language in Phil 3:12-16. The main focus is the question what the assumption of the presence of athletic language in this text contributes to understanding it and especially its theological meaning better. The study consists of three parts. In part 1, the author analyses the preceding and the subsequent context of Phil 3:12-16 joining the defenders of a concentric structure: 3:1-11 (A), 3:12-16 (B), 3:17-4:1 (A’). The two framing sections (A and A’) focus on the opposition between Paul and his opponents, but the main point is Paul’s command to the Philippian addressees to “stand firm in the Lord”. Part 2 contains a brief exegetical analysis of 3:12-16. Our analysis focuses on the most important words (gaining/attaining; movement; thinking) and the goal of heavenly perfection with which they are connected. In the third part we analyse the potential athletic images in 3:12-16 which finds its “anchor point” in the noun τὸ βραβεῖον in 3:14. Based on the acceptance of this noun as an agonistic terminus technicus, other verbs and nouns which are not in and of themselves referring to athletics are interpreted as having an athletic meaning in our context. The study concludes with the caution that Paul counterbalances the “effort-reward scheme” of athletic language with the “giving-receiving scheme” of his call language. In this way, Paul introduces an emphasis on the future-orientedness of the message which is characteristic of his preaching and living.

This paper focuses on three issues. First, it is about the context and environment of pre-Nicene theology. It is emphasized that pre-Nicene theology did not neglect ca-techetical and liturgical reflection (ad intra) while at the same time successfully ente-red into a critical and creative dialogue with both the Semitic and Greco-Roman world where first Christians lived (ad extra). For contemporary theology its means that it cannot reject historical reasoning, placed in space and time. The second part stresses that, in spite of different situations and all historical and cultural contexts, theology before Nicea was above all an understanding of Sacred Scripture to which the key is the Risen Christ as the source and definitive fulfilment of the inspired writings. Finally, the third part of the paper focuses on the existential and spiritual experience from which pre-Nicene theology originated. For this theology the Gospel of Christ is not just the rule of faith but also the rule of life. This leads to a conclusion that a contem-porary theologian is a to take up an existential-personalistic reflection on Revelation using the historical-hermeneutic method .