Recherche – Detailansicht






Altes Testament


Schart, Aaron


Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse.


Berlin-New York: de Gruyter 1998. XI, 342 S. gr.8 = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 260. Lw. DM 178,-. ISBN 3-11-016078-1.


James D. Nogalski

Schart offers a redaction historical study on a topic of developing interest, the nature of the unity of the Book of the Twelve (XII). The introductory chapter of this Habilitationsschrift, written under the supervision of Jörg Jeremias, discusses the ancient evidence for treating for the XII as a single corpus. S. then summarizes and evaluates the relatively few works of this century which deal with this question (Wolfe, Schneider, Lee, Bosshard, House, Collins, van Leeuwen, Nogalski, Coggins, Jeremias, and Jones), most of which have been published since 1990. S. explains his own use of a redaction historical approach which concentrates on the literary growth of the corpus from two starting points: the beginnings of the twelve writings (chapter two) and a literary critical analysis of Amos (chapter three).

Chapter two analyzes the beginnings of the XII as the most basic organizational system in the XII. He notes the essentially chronological character of the XII results from the dated superscriptions, as well as the non-dated superscriptions which introduce books whose position coincides with the chronological structure (Nahum, Habakkuk, Malachi). He sees two writings (Joel and Obadiah) as problematic within this structure, suggesting they owe their position to a phase of the literary process that was uninterested in the historical frame. S. turns his attention to a literary critical analysis of the superscriptions with date elements (2.3.1.), then proceeding to those without dates (2.3.2.). S. also distinguishes between the dated and undated superscriptions and the writings whose titles begin in narrative fashion (Haggai, Zechariah, Jonah). S. concludes that the XII developed from smaller collections. Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah follow the same pattern, and constitute the earliest collection, which S. labels as the "D-Corpus." Nahum and Ha-bakkuk contain massa’-type superscriptions, while Haggai-Zechariah are redactionally linked to one another. S. argues that the remaining four writings were added subsequently, but argues that Jonah and Malachi should be differentiated because their position reflects cognizance of the historical framework.

The remainder of S.’s work looks at the relationship between the changing shape of Amos and the developing corpus of the XII. Chapter three presents a literary critical analysis of the major blocks of Amos (1:1; 1:2; 1:3-2:16; 3-6; 7-9). This analysis emphasizes the identification of expanded material, based upon critical consensus, recent investigations, and/or his own arguments. S. concludes that the expanded material can be coordinated into essentially six identifiable layers and a few isolated additions: the earliest collection of speeches in 3-6*; the tradent’s version of 1-9* (which incorporates the oracles against the nations and the vision cycle); the D-layer (which shares a broad-based affinity with Deuteronomistic stream of tradition); the hymnic layer which combines hymnic fragments (4:13; 5:8; 9:6) with material taking up the Amos context (4:12; 5:9; 8:8; 9:5); the salvific layer (9:11, 12b, 13aa’, 14-15); and the eschatological layer (9:13ab’.b, 4:9; and perhaps 9:12). S. considers the following as isolated additions: 2:7bb’; 2:14b,15ab’; 4:10b; 5:6, 13; 8:9-10.

Having established his redactional model for Amos, S. examines the remaining writings of the XII to determine whether one can recognize cross-references to these layers in the other writings. Chapter four concentrates upon the earliest significant cross-references in the numerous lexical and thematic ties binding the tradents’ version of Amos with Hosea. S. concludes that the Amos tradents knew an early form of Hosea. Based upon the frequency and intricacy of these associations, S. concludes that both Hosea and Amos must have been transmitted on a single scroll at this point, although he leaves open the question of whether a seminal form of Micah could have concluded this early corpus of multiple writings.

Chapter five looks at the D-layer of Amos and three other writings (Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah), the four of which he labels as the D-corpus. S. proceeds in three steps: establishing literary cross-references from D-Amos to the other three writings, confirming that Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah also contained D-additions, and considering whether this redactional work intended to establish a multi-volume prophetic book. In the first step, S. demonstrates that the D-additions in Amos take up material from Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah (in that order of frequency). In the second step, S. argues that to varying degrees the remaining three writings manifest additions consistent with the language and perspective of the D-redaction in Amos. In conclusion, S. describes the characteristics of the D-Corpus, including its structure, the image of the prophets, its intentions.

Chapter six investigates parallels to the hymnic fragments in Amos. S. argues that a series of texts within the D-Corpus, Nahum, and Habakkuk show a literary relationship to these hymnic fragments. S. argues that the theophanic hymns in Nah 1:2-9 and Hab 3:3-15 coincide with this perspective and that their framing function indicates that they expand the D-Corpus by introducing two additional writings into the group of four.

S. devotes chapter seven to the salvific layer of Amos 9:11-15,* arguing that it coincides with the inclusion of Haggai and Zechariah into the multi-volume corpus. The removal of the punishment plays a central role in Haggai and Zechariah, including the direct citation of Amos 4:9 in Hag 2:17. S. also suggests that a series of texts demonstrating this salvific perspective entered the corpus with Haggai and Zechariah (excluding Zech 14). These texts generally appear at the end of major literary complexes: Hos 2:1-3; 2:18-25; Amos 9:11-15; Mic 2:12-13; 4-5; Nah 1:12b; 2:1; Hab 2:14; Zeph 3:14-20. This corpus shifts the theological perspective dramatically by incorporating salvific messages to the ends of all the books relating to YHWH’s people.

In chapter eight, S. argues that Joel and Obadiah constitute the next additions to the developing corpus. S. coordinates two additions in Amos (9:13ab’.b; 4:9) with Joel’s incorporation. He investigates the close relationship between Joel and Obadiah, as well as the manner in which they frame Amos. He argues that Joel’s deliberate placement before Amos introduces an eschatological Zion perspective as a means for reading Amos. He also discusses thematic and verbal references from Joel to Hosea and the other writings already in the corpus, including the addition of Zech 14.

In chapter nine, S. argues that Jonah and Malachi were appended to the developing multi-volume corpus simultaneously after the inclusion of Joel and Obadiah. S. bases this theory in part on the lack of direct parallels to Jonah and Malachi in the redactional layers of Amos, and in part on the unusual forms of Malachi and Jonah. S. interprets Jonah as a satire of Joel’s theological perspective, paying careful attention to the rationale for Jonah as the later text by analyzing the direction of dependence (especially for Jonah 4:2/Joel 2:13; and Jonah 4:11/Joel 1:18-20). Chapter ten summarizes S.’s conclusions about the redactional development of the XII, and suggests that the redaction history reflects a series of conflicts resolved by a series of compromises that build upon one another.

S.’s methodology is philosophically sound. By starting with a single writing (Amos) and moving outward into the redaction of the XII, S. provides an alternative to models which start with a specific phenomenon (e. g., catchwords) and then look at the individual writings. In so doing, S.’s model reaches several significant conclusions which coincide with other redactional treatments as well as some which differ. Both the similarities and the differences need to be evaluated to continue the discussion of the XII as a redactionally unified corpus.

The strength of S.’s work lies in the extent to which he demonstrates deliberate dependence of one text upon another within the XII (see especially his discussion on p. 133 ff). S. carefully considers not only the existence of literary references between the writings, but the direction of dependence and the effect of these references upon the reader of the developing corpus.

As a result, many of S.’s arguments of literary relationships between texts are quite convincing, and all deserve careful consideration. At times, relatively formal criteria (e.g., the superscriptions of Nahum and Habakkuk) or broad thematic correspondences (e.g., between Jonah and Malachi) would seem to require more consideration. However, S. has contributed a carefully considered treatment which places the idea of a redactional unity of the XII upon more solid footing, and provides reasoned theories which deserve careful evaluation in the ongoing discussion of the XII.