The Feigned Ignorance of Judas. Rhetorical Question from the Category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα in Matt 26:25

The article analyzes the utterance made by Judas in the Cenacle (1) in the context of his efforts to hand Jesus over to the chief priests (Matt 26:14–25). The fact that his question (Matt 26:25) includes the particle μήτι which assumes a negative response from the interlocutor (1–2) suggests that the disciple was unaware that he was betraying Jesus. Consequently, there is no shortage of positive opinions about Judas, expressed both in the past and today. Matthew’s narrative, however, says something different in this regard. The research problem is therefore seeking an answer to the question: how to interpret Judas’ words? The referenced various biblical translations (3.1) and claims of exegetes (3.2) quote the words of the apostles (Matt 26:22,25) and explain them in an ambiguous manner. The attempts to solve the problem shown in sections 2 and 3.1–2 do not provide a satisfactory conclusion. In the last section (4), the grammatical rules and narrative logic – which are clearly in contradiction – are supplemented with a rhetorical perspective, which leads to a definitive resolution of the dilemma. The synchronic approach applied to the pericope Matt 26:14–25 allows one to draw the conclusion that in Judas’ utterance one should identify a rhetorical question from the category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα whose function in Matt 26:25 is auferendae dissimulationis (“misleading pretense”). Many exegetes have decrypted Judas’ dishonest conduct, but it is only this article that precisely defines this rhetorical phenomenon

Una portaina non ostile (Gv 18,17)

In the passion narrative by St. John, Peter, after having arrived at the high priest’s house, is confronted with three questions of rhetorical nature concerning his identity as a disciple. Some exegetes pay attention to the grammatical complexity of the first two questions since they presuppose a negative response that substantially coincides with the denial of Peter, but appears to be incongruous with the context. The authors of the note, instead, uphold the perfect coherence of the three questions narrated in John 18,15:2.En la narración de la Pasión según Juan, a Pedro, tras pasar el umbral del palacio del sumo sacerdote, le hacen tres preguntas retóricas sobre su identidad como discípulo. Hay exegetas para quienes las dos primeras preguntas son problemáticas desde el punto de vista gramatical, dado que presuponen una respuesta negativa, que coincide sustancialmente con la negación de Pedro, pero que, por otra parte, no concuerda con el contexto. Los autores de esta nota sostienen, sin embargo, que hay una perfecta coherencia en las tres preguntas narradas en Jn 18,15-27

Iatrogenic injuries to the trachea and main bronchi

INTRODUCTION: Iatrogenic tracheobronchial injuries are rare. AIM: To analyse the mechanism of injury, symptoms and treatment of these patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of hospital records of all patients treated for main airway injuries between 1990 and 2012 was performed. RESULTS: There were 24 patients, including 21 women and 3 men. Mean time between injury and initiation of treatment was 12 hours (range: 2-48). In 16 patients the injury occurred during tracheal intubation, in 1 during rigid bronchoscopy, in 1 during rigid oesophagoscopy, in 1 during mediastinoscopy and in 5 during open surgery. Mean length of airway tear was 3.8 cm (range: 1.5-8). In 1 patient there was an injury to the cervical trachea and in the remaining 23 in the thoracic part of the airway. The treatment included repair of the membranous part of the trachea performed via right thoracotomy in 10 patients (in 1 patient additionally coverage with a pedicled intercostal muscle flap was used), a self-expanding metallic stent in 1 patient, suture of the right main bronchus and the oesophagus in 1, left upper sleeve lobectomy in 1, right upper lobectomy in 1, implantation of a silicone Y stent in 3, mini-tracheostomy in 1, and conservative treatment in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intubation is the most frequent cause of iatrogenic main airway injuries. Patients with these life-threatening complications require an individualised approach and treatment in a reference centre

A case of an adenoid cystic carcinoma of trachea in a young female

A case of an adenoid cystic carcinoma of trachea is presented. A 30-year-old non-smoking woman with strong inspiratory dyspnea at rest was admitted to the Dept, of Pulmonary Diseases. At auscultation a respiratory murmur was more silent at right lung and stridor over trachea was heard. CT scan revealed tumor at the bifurcation of the trachea. Bronchoscopy was made and biopsy established the diagnosis: adenoid cystic carcinoma. The tumor was partially removed with rigid bronchoscope and radiotherapy was started. Clinical improvement occurred; in control CT scan tumor vanished. The trachea cancers are rare. Symptoms often mimic asthma or chronic bronchitis. Thus in every patient with chronic cough and dyspnea bronchoscopy should be made. A treatment of choice is primary resection and postoperative radiotherapy

“Jerusalem, for all your songs i am a «Harp»”. The semantic field of the Hebrew substantive נּוֹרִכּ (kinnôr)

What was the instrument played by the king David (cf. 1 Sam 16:16,23)? What kind of musical instrument did the exiles hang upon the willow in Babylon (cf. Ps 137,2)? Such a questions could be multiplied, and the first association which often comes on one’s mind is that very probably it was a “harp”. But the research done on the Hebrew substantive kinnôr (this is the original word expressing the musical instrument being in question) brings to a conclusion that also “zither”, “lyre” and “lute” should be taken in consideration. This substantive (rather frequent in the Old Testament: 42 occurrences in the Masoretic Text) inspired the translators of the Holy Scripture and the authors of the biblical lexicons, dictionaries and encyclopedias to a vast (and, consequently, sometimes quite complicated) interpretation of this word: it is not so easy to decide, which instrument actually represents the noun kinnôr. It seems to be rather sure that “zither” has not too high probability to be a designatum of this Hebrew word (and much more “lute” should be refused). A “lyre” is the most famous interpretation of kinnôr given by modern authors, but a “harp” which is also a very popular opinion is our favourite rendition, regarding kinnôr. That is why the title of this article is as follows: “«Jerusalem, for all your songs I am a harp». The semantic field of the Hebrew כִּנּוֹר (kinnôr)

Jesus as a Witness in the Gospel of John

Jesus is usually an object of someone’s testimony in the Gospel of St. John, but there are a few texts speaking of Jesus as the One who gives or bears His testimony to something. Accepting as a criterion the occurrences of the terms marture,w („to bear testimony”) and marturi,a („testimony”) – the noun ma,rtuj („witness”) does not occur in the Fourth Gospel – it is possible to distribute them into four categories: (1) Jesus “testifies about what he has seen and heard” (3:32-33), which means He reveals His Father to the world. (2) Jesus testifies about Himself (5:31.[36]; 8:13-14.17-18; [10,25]) – and He is supported in this by His Father – that He did nothing wrong healing a sick man at the Bethesda pool, even though it happened on the Sabbath (cf. 5:1-9); (3) Jesus “is testifying about the world that its deeds are evil” (7:7) seeing as – some Jews even wanted to kill Him (cf. 7:1.19.25.30.44); (4) Jesus testifies to the truth (18:37), which ultimately means the definitive revelation of God which Jesus brings to the world and with which He identifies Himself (cf. 14:6). Sentenced by Pilate, dying on the cross, Christ – in the most credible way – testified to love: This truth about God – obligating Jesus’ disciples to also assume this attitude in their lives (cf. 13:14.34-35) – can be expressed by a principle: “no one has greater love than this – that one lays down his life for his friends” (15:13)

Rhetorical question figures of speech in the first part of the Passion Narrative in the gospel according to St. John (18,1 – 27)

There is a general agreement among the exegetes that the language of the Fourth Gospel is very simple. But surprising is the accusation against St. John regarding his knowledge of the rhetoric: „John did not know many of the rhetorical techniques described by Aristotle, Cicero, and other later rhetoricians” (Ellis).The purpose of this article is to challenge this opinion by presentation of the rhetorical questions, present in the first part of the Passion Narrative according to St. John. As it turns out, each one of nine questions encountered during the reading of Jn 18,1–27 represents a concrete rhetoric question (usually of the category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα, but twice also of the category quaesitum/πύσμα) and each one of them performs a definite function in the text. Therefore, in spite of the simplicity of St. John’s narration, the Evangelist displays quite great literary craftsmanship and demonstrates a very good knowledge of the classical rhetoric andthe ability of its application