Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (133)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Book article / Book chapter (133) (remove)
Language
- English (133) (remove)
Keywords
- Animal Studies (23)
- Cultural Animal Studies (23)
- Cultural Studies (23)
- Ecocriticism (23)
- Environmental Humanities (23)
- Human-Animal Studies (23)
- Literary Studies (23)
- cultural studies (13)
- Kulturwissenschaften (12)
- Psychologie (11)
Institute
- Neuphilologisches Institut - Moderne Fremdsprachen (48)
- Institut für Psychologie (bis Sept. 2007) (23)
- Institut für deutsche Philologie (23)
- Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (14)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (14)
- Institut für Psychologie (8)
- Institut für Biblische Theologie (7)
- Institut für Internationales Recht, Europarecht und Europäisches Privatrecht (3)
- Neuphilologisches Institut - Moderne Fremdsprachen (bis 2007) (3)
- Institut für Mineralogie und Kristallstrukturlehre (2)
Schriftenreihe
- Cultural Animal Studies, Band 3 (23)
- Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies (1)
- Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (1)
- International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives internationales d’histoire des idées 242 (1)
- Methods in Molecular Biology 2533 (1)
- Methods in Molecular Biology; 2643 (1)
Sonstige beteiligte Institutionen
"...using different names, as Zeus and Dis" (Arist 16). Concepts of "God" in the letter of Aristeas
(2016)
The “Letter of Aristeas” recounts the translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Probably originating in the 2nd century BCE1, the book tells a legend of how the translation of the Torah into Greek came into being. This shows that translating a holy, canonical text or the first time needed explication. Notably, the translation of the godly nomos (Arist 3) comparatively takes up little space (Arist 301–307). And it has to be noted, that “God” is seldom a topic in the Book of Aristeas. The word (ὁ) θεός “God” is found in only three contexts: in the dialogue between king Ptolemaios and Aristeas (Arist 15–21), in the dialogue of the high priest Eleazar and Aristeas (Arist 121–171; above all 128; 130–141; 155–166; 168) and in the question-and-answer-speech during the symposium at the Ptolemaic royal court between the king and the Jewish scholars (Arist 184–294).
In analysing the different statements regarding God, the frame of the narrative is of decisive importance: In the Book of Aristeas, “Aristeas” (Ἀριστέας), who writes in Greek, presents himself as the author, but he is also part of the story. Accordingly, Aristeas is the narrator, who tells the story from his own point of view, and at the same time, he is a character in the ‘world’ of the text. This Aristeas presents himself as a Greek and a Non-Jew (Arist 16; 121–171), who already wrote a book (Arist 6) and plans further publications (Arist 322). In the double-role as narrator of the text and protagonist in the text, Aristeas has to be differentiated from the (real) writer/author of the Book of Aristeas, who possibly was Jewish. That means that the (real, probably Jewish) author of the Book of Aristeas presents (or invents) “Aristeas” and gives him the role of the narrator of his text.3 The author portrays Aristeas as a Greek, non-Jewish character, who is a servant of the royal court. This differentiation between narrator and writer/author is of crucial importance for the question of the different conceptions of God in the Book of Aristeas.
Starting with a terminological and phenomenological perspective on the question “What is an emotion?”, particularly as developed by Aaron Ben Zeʾev , the kiling scene in the book of Judith (Jdt 12:10–13:9 is analysed. This crucial scene in the book’s plot reports the intense emotions of Holofernes but nothing is said about any emotions on the part of of Judith. The only emotional glimpse occurs in Judith’s short prayers in the killing scene. The highly emotional Holofernes and the unemotional Judith together reveal that Holofernes is already made “headless” by his own emotions, whereas the unemotional Judith, unencumbered by emotions, is able to behead the “headless” Holofernes.
Memory development
(1994)
Hierarchical structures among male individuals in a population are frequently reflected in differences in aggressive and reproductive behaviour and access to the females. In general social dominance requires large investments which in turn may have to be compensated for by high reproductive success. However, this hypothesis has so far only been sufficiently tested in small mating groups due to the difficulties of determining paternity by classical methods using non-molecular markers. DNA fingerprinting overcomes these problems offering the possibility to determine genetic relationships and mating patterns within larger groups. Using this approach we have recently shown (Schartl et al., 1993) that in the poeciliid fish Limia perugiae in small mating groups the dominant male has 100% mating success, while in larger groups its contribution to the offspring unexpectedly drops to zero. The reproductive failure under such social conditions is explained by the inability of the ex-male to protect all the females simultaneously against mating attempts of his numerous subordinate competitors.