Recherche – Detailansicht

Ausgabe:

Januar/2018

Spalte:

57–59

Kategorie:

Neues Testament

Autor/Hrsg.:

Adamczewski, Bartosz

Titel/Untertitel:

The Gospel of Luke. A Hypertextual Commentary.

Verlag:

Frankfurt a. M. u. a.: Peter Lang Edition 2016. 256 S. = European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions, 13. Geb. EUR 59,95. ISBN 978-3-631-66720-0.

Rezensent:

Dieter T. Roth

This monograph is yet another »hypertextual commentary« from the pen of Adamczewski who, despite highly critical reviews of this method (cf., to name simply one, the review of M. Hüneburg that appeared in ThLZ 137 [September, 2012], 921–924), apparently remains undeterred in continuing to publish works employing this »methodological approach« that he claims reflects the »recent discovery of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in numerous biblical writings« (13). It is rather striking that the footnote following this statement lists seven works, all of them penned by A. and all of them published by Peter Lang. This observation appears to underscore the fact that to my knowledge, no other publications have embraced the idea that such a phenomenon, in the manner posited by A., has truly been discovered or even actually exists.
Before his brief explanation of what »hypertextuality« is and how his commentary proceeds, A. provides a cursory overview of scholars and publications that have posited some (usually quite limited) knowledge of the Pauline epistles on the part of the author of the Gospel of Luke. He follows this summary by briefly stating that, in his view, Luke knew not only the Gospel of Mark but also that Luke »used not only Paul’s authentic letters, but also post-Pauline letters, including the Pastoral Letters, as well as the ethopoetic letters of James and Peter, Josephus’ writings, some Greek classical writings, and some texts known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls« (20, cf. 210). A. also claims that the implied author of the third Gospel is Titus so that the text should be called the Gospel of Pseudo-Titus and that the Gospel was written around 120–140 CE. Such rather idiosyncratic views on introductory issues set the stage for the truly fringe views of the commentary itself.
In setting forth his »sequential hypertextuality,« A. appeals to Gérard Genette’s concept of hypertextuality as the appropriate term for cases of »loose intertextual relationships« (24). This is the first time in the commentary that the reader is confronted with highly specialized jargon, mentioned again below, describing »various kinds of thematic, diegetic, and pragmatic transposition« including »sophisticated procedures« such as »transdiegetization,« »internymic deviation,« »transsexuation,« »transpragmatization,« »transvalorization« among several others (24–25). Though he pro-vides references to Genette’s work in footnotes, the uninitiated reader is not afforded any explanation of what these procedures actually entail. It is also curious that on the one hand A. contends that »with all due respect for the quest for methodological clarity, no-thing can substitute for imagination in analysing works of culture and art in which earlier motifs were reworked in highly creative ways« (26) but, on the other hand, polemically comments that »there is no other way for good exegesis than being curious and patient, and not being deceived by merely hypothetical, easily manipulable solutions offered by many scholars« including »lost sources,« »numerous redactional strata,« »not adequately proven events,« or »complicated narrative strategies« (32). Though there will undoubtedly always be a significant amount of subjectivity involved in assessing such things and A., with reference to Dennis MacDonald, claims to be applying criteria for detecting intertextual allusions (28–29), I would be hard-pressed to find any ostensibly scholarly work that advocates a more complicated narrative strategy or that is marked by greater hypothetical and manipulable so-lutions. If nothing else, A.’s endeavor is, without a doubt, »imaginative.«
Chapter 1 (34–111) sets forth the supposed sequential hypertextual reworking of Gal 1:1–3:1 in Luke 1:1–9:50 with chapter 2 (113–202) presenting Luke 9:51–24:53 as a sequential hypertextual rework-ing of Gal 1–6. In essence, A. argues that the author of Luke moved through Galatians sequentially in writing his Gospel and that the third Gospel is to be understood, at least in part, as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Galatians, though apparently in two passes. Why, exactly, the author of Luke worked through three chapters of Galatians and then restarted the sequential hypertextual reworking is not explained. The nature of the types of discussions found in the pages of this commentary can be illustrated most clearly simply citing an example. In the first pass through Galatians »the subsequent revelation concerning Mary’s conceiv­ing in her womb and bearing God’s son (υἱός: Lk 1:31–32.35) by means of the hypertextual procedures of interfigurality and transsexuation (in this case, feminization) illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that God revealed his Son in Paul’s human person (Gal 1:16a)« (47). The second time the author of Luke reworked this passage, »the Lucan scene Lk 9:61–62 conveys the same idea of not re-vealing one’s natural sonship, and consequently it illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that God revealed his Son in him (Gal 1:16a), having separated him from his parents (cf. Gal 1:15b)« (117).
Page after page of the commentary reads in this way with A. ultimately asserting that »in his reworking of the contents of the Letter to the Galatians the evangelist used many typically hypertex-tual procedures, such as transdiegetization, interfigurality, in-ternymic deviation, transsexuation, temporal translation, spatial translation, transpragmatization, transmotivation, transvalorization, elaboration, compression, conflation, substitution of images and ideas, and form-change« (205–206). Unfortunately, it is my dis­tinct impression that throughout this work, these terms are nothing more than fancy jargon employed in an attempt to justify flights of fancy. I must admit that I am at a loss to explain how such a work can be published in a supposedly scholarly series and by a purportedly academic press. I am not the first reviewer to express this sentiment regarding A.’s hypertextual commentaries and, unfortunately, if the past is any indicator of the future, I will not be the last.