Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | Juli/August/2017 |
Spalte: | 756–760 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Baasland, Ernst |
Titel/Untertitel: | Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount. New Approaches to a Classical Text. |
Verlag: | Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2015. XXXI, 703 S. = Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 351. Lw. EUR 179,00. ISBN 978-3-16-154102-5. |
Rezensent: | Hans Dieter Betz |
As the evidence shows, a classical text is one which even after untold centuries continues to inspire readers, causing some to get new ideas and some to compose yet another substantial volume of studies. Professor (emeritus) Ernst Baasland (Oslo and Stavanger, Norway) has brought to fruition his long-time interest in the Sermon on the Mount (SM, Matthew 5–7) by focusing on its use of parables and application of rhetoric. His sizable work comprises three major parts: the first, an introduction into the methodologies and terminologies employed; the second, a detailed reader’s report about the current state of research on the text; and the third, concluding remarks about his findings and further interests. In addition, there are the customary bibliographical references and indices.
The introductory part observes that previous studies of the SM did not pay much attention to parables or rhetoric occurring in the texts. To the extent that this is the case, what is meant by »parable and rhetoric« has first to be clarified. He recognizes that the liter-ary concept of parable as presupposed is different from what is commonly meant by Jesus’ narrative parables, but the questions remain, in which way the notion of parable as a literary category is to be defined, and how it is to be distinguished from the broader category of metaphor as a quality of language.
Chapter 1 examines the category of »parable« in the history of New Testament research, especially the theories of A. Jülicher and his critics, and the differences between »allegory« and other forms and names of sayings. This is followed by a section on »rhetoric«, including genre and composition. The next section deals with the related issues of sources: hypothetical Q-sayings; relationships be-tween Matthew’s SM (5:3–7:27) and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (SP, 6:20–49); and a speculative »Inaugural Speech« (IS).
Chapter 2 turns to the analysis of the SM texts themselves. The first major segment is classified as the »Exordium« and covers 5:1–11 (or 12). Labelling the beginning of the SM in this way makes sense, but its function presents problems. A presumed audience is being addressed by a sequence of nine sententious statements introduced by μακάριοι without copula, followed by explanatory ὅτι-sentences. 5:11 is special in that it turns personal by adding a copula (ἐστε). The language of the set is transparent but does contain neither parables nor ordinary metaphors; instead, it is »theological,« so that the sequence as a whole combines a status description of being with points of theological doctrine and practical ethics. Whether v. 12 forms either the climax of vv. 1–11 or the beginning of the next section has been debated, with B. remaining undecided. If rhetoric consists mainly of stylistic and structural elements, v. 12 can go either way. If the address in the second person plural in v. 11 is repeated in v. 12, it sums up the real-life theology of the entire set.
Chapter 3 examines what is designated as the propositio (5:13–20), one of the richest and most impressive parts of the work. The careful weighing of a large number of exegetical proposals leads to the result that its two subsections (vv. 13–16 and 17–20) cover both, the whole of SM and the following section on the Torah. What is important to see is the step-by-step motion within the arrangement. After the exordium (vv. 3–12), the identification of those addressed comes next (vv. 13–16), with two sayings introduced by ὑμεῖς ἐστε (vv. 13, 14), having two powerful metaphors: the images of salt (v. 13) and light (vv. 14–16). Since the addressees are not named, the identity of ὑμεῖς is on the one hand given a universal domain to include every reader of the text, while on the other hand it is left to the individual recipient to decide. Even though historically the first addressees were Jesus’ disciples, the text avoids any allegorical identity of social institutions. Instead, the two parables are each provided with an impressive story. However, who they are is pointedly decided by the charge (v. 16): »Thus let your light shine before the people, that they may see your good deeds and thus give glory to your Father who is in the heavens.« Responding positively to the message of the SM as a whole is tantamount to a clear identity, an unfailing promise, and an awesome charge. The second subsection (vv. 17–20) is different in that, speaking in the first-person singular, Jesus offers a sequence of four hermeneutical principles concerning the Torah, by which he distinguishes between his own interpretation and that of his rivals, the »scribes and Pharisees.« Of central contention are the concepts of »justice« ( δικαιοσύνη) and »kingdom of the heavens« (βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, v. 20). The four principles are formulated in professional language of law and theology.
According to the rhetorical structure argued, Chapter 4 marks the first of four argumentationes, in which the criteria of the propositio are applied to concrete issues of central importance. The argumentatio I (SM 5:21–48) concerns the interpretation of the Torah and is presented by six exemplary cases set up according to the dialogical pattern of thesis and antithesis. This pattern covers exegesis of scripture, ethics, and theology, in each case distinguishing between »tradition« (»scribes and Pharisees«) and the teaching of Jesus, who speaks in the first person (»but I say to you«). The six cases are se-lected so as to develop toward the climax at the end, starting with Scripture quotations and leading to Jesus’ own conclusions. B. can only be admired for displaying in detail the multitude of ap-proaches by a large number of scholars working at different times and places, with different presuppositions, methods, backgrounds, and interests. The textual passages themselves reflect various older sources: the evangelist Matthew’s own contributions, the tradi-tions he reproduces, or hypothetical sources like Q. Whatever may be the points of the arguments depends on the general preferences of every scholar. Not surprisingly, the whole picture of B.’s report appears one of confusion, but it simply requires patience to move through a mass of data. As this reviewer assumes, the bulk of the work shows that Jesus’ goal was not to overthrow the Jewish Torah by issuing new and more radical Christian ethical orders, but to generate theological thinking. Based on the written Torah, the whole argumentative apparatus of parables, metaphors, examples, and indeed rhetoric intends to stimulate theological thinking. At the level of the historical environment of Jesus, it would be Jewish thinking, and lifted to the level of the Gospel of Matthew, it would then become Christian theology.
The first of the six case studies is devoted to the Decalogue’s prohibition, »You shall not murder« (Exod 20:13), and its root cause, »anger« (SM 5:21–26), juxtaposed to the climactic end (5:43–48), the »love of neighbor« (Lev 19:18). In between are placed four more cases: the prohibition of adultery (SM 5:27–30); the handling of divorce (5:31–32); the prohibition of swearing oaths (5:33–37); the prohibition of retaliation and the ius talionis (5:38–42); and summing it all up: the love of neighbor as love of enemy (5:43–48). As a whole, the set forms a finely woven specimen of Jesus’ Torah exegesis, in conformity with the guidelines of 5:17–20.
Clearly differentiated, Chapter 5 (argumentatio II) deals with three issues central to worship (SM 6:1–18): almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. Up for scrutiny are not legal or ritual orders, but attitudes in performing them. B. claims that the passages do not contain parables and only some strange metaphors of peripheral importance. It would have been important, however, to examine whether the issues of thesis and antithesis require an extension of the concepts of parable and metaphor to include the imagery of irony and caricature used in describing the performance of the three practices of religion. Ironically, however, biblical scholarship itself could easily come under satirical criticism because of its general preference for σκυθρωπία (»tristesse,« 6:16). It is known that Jesus himself attracted people by humorous aspects in not a few of his parables. A se-rious problem, however, is the omission of dealing with the Lord’s Prayer (6:9–13), except to say that it is the authentic centerpiece of the whole SM. The challenge here would be to explain how prayer language is related to parable, metaphor, and rhetoric.
Chapter 6 (Argumentatio III) turns without transition to the quite different secular world (SM 6:19–34), presenting an avalanche of commentary on parables, metaphors, and rhetoric. Four sections can be easily identified. While their composition is fairly clear, their thematic content and intended meaning are widely disputed. As B. points out in detail, interpreters have been struggling not only with rich and diverse content but also with ideological frustra-tions. In particular, two such issues have complicated traditional approaches: the verification of the two-source hypothesis and Q, and the dividing lines between Jewish and Hellenistic influences. As presupposed, the daily life occurs in a Hellenistic-Jewish world. If the SM reflects the Jewish teaching of Jesus, even he is seen addressing an audience living in a Hellenistic-Jewish environment. Therefore, as B. is elucidating by scores of references, influences by Greek philosophy and literary forms must be taken into consideration.
The section is made up of four independent sayings compositions, the first of which is the »Parable on Gathering True Values« (SM 6:19–21). Humans are shown to be »gatherers« (θησαυρίζειν) but uncertain about the true value of what they regard as »treasures« (θησαυροί). »Wisdom« to be learned is, para-doxically, that true treasures are heavenly matters of the heart. The second composition is the »Parable on Enlightening« (SM 6:22–23), a topic famous in Greek philosophy and doubtless of influence on the passage. The study of the human eye in enabling vision has had a long history in Greek thought in the Hel-lenistic world as well as in Judaism. Still, it is surprising to find it in the SM, where it offers also its own version. Strangely, however, B. here issues a warning against going too far and »overloading« the SM with Greek theories. The third composition is the »Parable on True Stewardship« (SM 6:24), a concise statement of theological ethics regarding politics. Identifying political power by the name of the demon Mammon was sharply provocative not only at that time. By comparison, the fourth composition is rather expansive: »Parables in the Diatribe on Anxiety« (SM 6:25–34). As a composition, the passage argues in a detailed way a standard topic of Greek and Roman philosophy, first recognized by G. Heinrici to be a diatribe. The argument is based on two parables describing examples observable in nature, the life of birds and plants (SM 6:26–27, 28–30). In comparison with these creatures, humans are criticized as »people of little faith« ( ὀλιγόπιστοι) in need of instruction about how the divine creation works (vv. 30–34). In this argument, topoi of philosophical ethics are brought in: the care for soul (ψυχή) and body (σῶμα), the perishable condition of it all, and the logical reduction of concerns for the day at hand. In contrast to pagan »inquisitiveness,« the wise conclusion is to cut worrying down to one day at a time, the famous carpe diem (v. 34).
Chapter 7 (Argumentatio IV, SM 7:1–12) deals with various issues of reciprocity. The amount of exegetical comments is as immense as these are controversial. In fact, there seems to be little agreement on anything among commentators. Apparently inspired by the confusion, B. reports a vast number of hypotheses, proposals, curiosities, and still open questions. In the end, his hypothesis makes sense that the major concern is the variety of reciprocity in human and divine actions, and their grounding in the Golden Rule. On the whole, the final argumentatio IV consists of three compositions of ethical instruction, each of them demonstrating thesis and antithesis by imperatives and acerbic parables.
The first composition analyzes the practices of »judging and measuring« (7:1–5). Both are related in that »judging« involves »measuring« in ways exposed as hypocrisy. Only by overcoming this hypocrisy »insight« allows for righteous judgment (7:5). The second composition (7:6) has been most hotly contested. As the wording indicates (»Do not give the holy to the dogs, and do not throw the pearls before the pigs. …«), the sarcastic parable is shockingly clear. The biggest problem of generosity in giving ( δίδωμι) is wasting precious gifts on the unworthy. Although some exegetes have even considered excising the saying from the New Testament altogether, its urgency is shown by the third composition on »Giving and Receiving« (7:7–11). As the three positive imperatives (»ask, seek, knock!«) reveal, generosity in making good gifts is »natural« among humans, who are otherwise identified as »being bad« (πονηροὶ ὄντες). How can this work as reciprocity? The paradox is demonstrated by the drastic parable in vv. 8–10. Behind the human paradox stands the incomparable generosity of the heavenly Father (v. 11).
In concluding the section, and indeed the entire body of the argumentationes I–IV, the SM cites the famous Golden Rule as the basic principle of ius talionis (7:12): »Thus, whatever you wish that humans would do to you, do so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.« In other words, the universal principle of reciprocity also undergirds the ethics of Jesus’ disciples (cf. SM 5:17–20).
Chapter 8: Carrying the title »Parables as Peroratio« (7:13–27) means that according to B.’s proposal, the end of the SM has been reached by offering another series of parables and metaphors. If so, the »body« of ethical argumentation of the SM would end on a note of »existentialist« carpe diem in 6:34.
Given the context of the SM, however, a different arrangement may be prefer-able. Ethical emphasis on facing future temptations is in fact presented by standard parables and metaphors as well. In 7:13–14, the imperatives continue with the parables of the two ways leading to two gates of the city. Coming next is the contrast between the true and the false prophets, the latter being like ravenous wolves disguised in sheep’s clothing (7:15), but recognizable like plants are by their fruits (7:16–20). Most treacherous are deceitful loyalists who may be unmasked only by the Lord in the Last Judgment (7:21–23). Clearly set apart by different formulations, the peroration proper would then conclude the entire SM by contrasting the desirable prudent fellow with the abject fool. The one is building his house upon the rock and the other upon the sand. The experiences to be encountered by each of the characters are described by the dramatic images of the survival and downfall of their houses (7:24–27).
Chapter 9 contains »Concluding Remarks: Parables as a Key to the Interpretation of the Sermon on Mount.« Having concluded the examination of the texts, the questions regarding the results are formulated and answered. B. admits that the difficulties in coming up with plausible answers are formidable, so that he limits himself to »remarks,« that is, preliminary and cautious reflections. What has been demonstrated so far is that parables and metaphors are playing major roles in the arguments of the SM. The category of the SM is that of advisory rhetoric, didactic in purpose and belonging to protreptic paraenesis. Clearly, the goal of the SM is to educate the readership to grow in their faith. In other words, the goal of the SM is to assist members of the Jesus movement in becoming »prudently« thinking and acting individuals (7:24).
The first of the major remarks concerns the sources of the SM. The following issues seem to be: (1) The SM consists of virtually independent sayings compositions, designed to provide learning experiences for adherents of the Jesus movement coming from a Jewish background. Regrettably, the parallel but different SP is not discussed. (2) The larger synopsis of the Gospels shows a substantial number of sayings outside of the SM/SP. These facts are sufficient as evidence for the Q-hypothesis and the two-source hypothesis of the synoptic tradition (also including Sondergut). (3) B.’s postulation of yet another source, which he names »Inaugural Speech,« is problematic in that evidence for a rhetorical genre of »inaugural speeches« is not attested prior to the late Hellenistic-Roman and early Byzantine periods.
The second major issue concerns the effectiveness of the rhetoric in the SM. Since it is of the protreptic kind, what are the means by which it is thought to reach its goals? If Jesus taught »with authority« (ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, Matt 7:29), he did not simply issue laws or moral directives, but presents »arguments« consisting of persuasive strategies. These arguments are based on agreeable principles and offer positive and negative options for ethical conduct. The decisions to be made are then to come from the learners who in this way develop their personal character and lifestyle. At the level of the evangelist Matthew, this lifestyle is the expression of Christian faith and ethics.
B.’s work as a whole is an impressive contribution to the interpretation of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. It answers a host of questions and evokes even more. As some footnotes indicate, the book is not all B. has to say. One thing comes through loud and clear: the powerful impact Jesus’ teaching had on his contempor-aries and still has on present readers.