Recherche – Detailansicht

Ausgabe:

Januar/2018

Spalte:

72–74

Kategorie:

Neues Testament

Autor/Hrsg.:

Schell, Vítor Hugo

Titel/Untertitel:

Die Areopagrede des Paulus und Reden bei Josephus. Eine vergleichende Studie zu Apg 17 und dem historiographischen Werk des Josephus.

Verlag:

Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2016. XII, 317 S. = Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe, 419. Kart. EUR 89,00. ISBN 978-3-16-154226-8.

Rezensent:

Karl Olav Sandnes

This investigation is a reworked edition of Vítor Hugo Schells Jena dissertation (2013), written under the supervision of Professor Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. The book starts with a citation of Martin Dibelius about the historian as an artist: »Die Kunst des Historikers …«. This becomes visible, particularly in the speeches that are designed and fitted into the piece of work in question. At the center of in-terest here is the Book of Acts, with particular emphasis on the Areopagos Speech in Chapter 17. This is the most rhetorical of Luke’s speeches, and hence, it is also the most fitted to investigate against the backdrop of ancient historiography, and also to com-pare with the speeches in Josephus’ Bellum and Antiquitates.
S.’s approach is characterized by three moves; the ideals and conventions of ancient historiography, the literary and theological embeddedness of the speeches in the larger story being told, and an extensive investigation of Josephus’ speeches. All these three as­pects shed light on the Lukan Paul’s speech at Athens. Together
these aspects shift the focus from historical figures and events to how the speeches work within their stories, and history and fiction merge. As for Acts 17, they imply that focus shifts from Paul to Luke. The speeches are designed by the author and laid in the mouth of protagonists serving the purpose of the story within which they are embedded.
Chapter One (Fragestellung) presents the problem and pro-cedure. Through a comparison with Josephus, who for sure draws on historiographical conventions in his speeches, new insight re­garding Acts 17 is awarded. The comparison aims at working out formal as well as thematic characteristics in the speeches of the two authors. Chapter Two (Die Apostelgeschichte und ihre Abfassung) ad­dresses introductory questions on the Book of Acts, such as authorship, sources, style, purpose, provenance, intended addressees, and genre. The chapter is a helpful and provides an up-dated presentation of these much-discussed issues, but they are loosely connected to the topic of the thesis itself. Chapter Three (Die Apostelgeschichte im Rahmen der antiken Historiographie) places the Book of Acts within the ideals of historiography in the ancient world. With reference to Paul Ricœur, S. distinguishes between three kinds of history writing: First, documentary history; second, history ex­plained, through e. g. social, economic or political reasons. The Book of Acts belongs within the third category, identity forming history (Gründungserzählungen), aimed at constructing or maintaining how groups conceive of themselves. S. also calls this »apologetische Geschichtsschreibung«. Chapter Four (Die Areopagrede nach Form und Thematik) gives detailed exegesis of the text in Acts.
Chapter Five (Die Reden bei Josephus) – certainly the most extensive chapter – presents speeches from Bellum and Antiquitates, eight from each of the two works. This is probably the most original contribution in this study; not so many have given an in-depth analysis of so many of Josephus’ speeches. The study is rich on information and observation and helpful for further studies. Chapter Six (Vergleich der Areopagrede mit den Reden bei Josephus) brings together findings and observations done so far in the study. For New Testament scholars, this is probably the most rewarding chapter in this investigation. The comparison applies to what the speeches are aimed at, their function in the overall composition, how the audience of the composition, not the event as such, are drawn into the scene, formal similarities, »Hellenisierung«, and thematic similarities. As for the latter, S. draws attention to the fol-lowing points of comparison: God Creator and Sustainer of the world, God who needs nothing from human beings (»Gott der Bedürfnislose«), God Lord of humanity, God calls for conversion and change, God the Judge. Worth pointing out in particular from S.’s observation is that both Luke and Josephus tell stories, aimed at guiding their readers or their audience to a new understanding. As for Paul, Luke wants to extend the traditional picture of Paul (with focus on righteousness and justification) to include dimensions suited to mission in the wider pagan world: »Ergänzung bzw. Erweiterung des traditionellen Paulusbildes …« (254). The traditional discussion on how Paul of the letters and Paul at Athens relate, if at all, is, therefore, somewhat, misplaced. Precisely at Athens, in the city of education and philosophy, Luke introduces this speech, thus in­dicating the importance of this for how he wants his story to be read.
Chapter Seven (Ergebnisse) gives the conclusions. The comparisons between Luke and Josephus concentrated on thematic and formal characteristics, as well as common topoi in philosophy and theol-ogy. Both authors aimed at presenting the »best philosophy« to their readers. Accordingly, both Paul and Moses appear as Greek philo-sophers. The speeches that are inserted at strategic places, work in accordance with historiographical ideals, in attaching the readers to the scenes told, as though they were present. Thus they are urged to take a stand: »Im Verlauf der Areopagrede ist deutlich zu erkennen, wie Lukas seine Leser beeinflusst, damit sie am Ende der Rede die ganze Lehre über den ›unbekannten Gott‹ annehmen können« (280). This means, to understand that what the philosophers have already said about God is »christlich«: »In diesem Sinne kann der lukanische Paulus die Auffassung vertreten, dass das, was die Philosophen schon früher gesagt haben, eigentlich ›christlich‹ sei.« (282)
S. has written an important book. I have some minor critical questions though. He leaves his readers in doubt about his selec-tion of speeches from Josephus: »Eine Auswahl der hier analysierten Reden nach weiteren inhaltlichen Kriterien wurde absichtlich vermieden, um subjektive Einflüsse auf den Vergleich mit der Areopagrede möglichst auszuschliessen.« (133) S. has made a selection, which, of course, was necessary, but his reasons for doing so are never spelled out. Furthermore, S. works out nicely how Luke and Josephus integrate Biblical motives in philosophical thinking, clothing it in respected garments, so to say. However, he seems to overlook that Paul in Acts 17:16 becomes upset because of idolatry. This brings some ambiguity into the text as well, S. is aware of this, as he points out on pp. 258–259 that δαισιδαιμονέστεροι (v. 22) may be translated »very religious« or »very superstitious«. I have the impression that Luke’s Paul is read too much in accordance with later Christian apologies here. There is an ambiguity in Luke’s text when it comes to the philosophical world, and this is not picked up in the conclusion of this investigation. As for the readers or audience, S. naturally construct them with references to history, but when he speaks about Luke’s aim to develop Paul of the tradition, he does not proceed from historical evidence, but from present-day debates among New Testament scholars. It is by no means obvious that the readers of the Book of Acts conceived of Paul in terms of »justification«, like modern research has done. I also raise a ques-tion concerning S.’s statement that the theme of Luke is »überhaupt kein ›politisches‹ Thema« (246). It is not hard to understand what he wants to say in this dictum, but when he some lines further down says that public recognition and respect (»öffentliches Ansehen«) is important for Luke, some more thought on what »political« means, is wished for.
The book has indices of subjects and historical names, as well as references and modern authors. An extensive and up-dated bibli-ography covers 14 pages altogether; I miss a reference to Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History – History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) though.
S. has written a well-researched book. Future studies on the speeches in Acts cannot ignore this book. The comparison with speeches in the works of Josephus serves to move the debate on the speeches in Acts forward.