Recherche – Detailansicht


1961 Nr. 1




Neues Testament


New Testament essays 1961


Burkill, Tom Alec

Ansicht Scan:

Seite 1, Seite 2

Download Scan:



Theologische Literaturzeitung 1961 Nr. 1


daß die neue Moral für Jesus im Mittelpunkt stand. Ich würde das
rundheraus bestreiten. Wie kann man bei diesem Dissensus noch diskutieren
? Nun, indem man ganz behutsam die späteren Traditionen
(deren Weiterbildung gar nicht bestritten werden soll) nach rückwärts
verfolgt. Dabei muß man dann aber sehr viele weitere Momente einbeziehen
, etwa den Glaubensbegriff oder die Verkündigung der basileia.
Man wird sehr genau zu ermitteln haben, wo und wie der Glaube an
Jesus entstand, ob er Anhaltspunkte in der Verkündigung Jesu
hat usw. Die Probleme Diskontinuität oder Kontinuität Jesus-Ur-
gemeinde?, implizite/explizite Christologie sind auch für das historische
Fragen relevant. Berücksichtigt man die aber, kommt niemals ein so
einseitiges Bild heraus wie das von St. gezeichnete. — Man wird ferner
zu fragen haben, ob man die nachösterlichen Weiterbildungen so einfach
ausscheiden darf, wie St. es tut. Er bestreitet zwar, daß er das
will (11), sein Verfahren läuft aber doch darauf hinaus, denn verkündigt
werden kann nach St. in der Kirche immer nur die Jesusverkündigung
. Die Frage ist aber noch grundsätzlicher zu stellen. Kann eine
historisch erhobene Verkündigung Jesu so unmittelbar in die Verkündigung
heute umgesetzt werden? Was bedeutet denn theologisch
Ostern? Hier liegt doch eine Fülle systematischer Fragen vor. — Daß
schließlich die Exegesen m.E. sehr oft an den Aussagen der Texte vorbeigehen
, habe ich oben schon angedeutet. Man könnte die Beispiele noch
weit vermehren.

St. hat größere Publikationen angekündigt, die Auskunft
geben, wie er über die bisherige Evangelienforschung denkt (11).
Die wird man abwarten müssen, bis man die methodische Diskussion
zu Ende fuhren kann. — Vorläufig hat er mich nicht davon
überzeugen können, daß er „Die Botschaft Jesu damals" in
seinem Buch dargestellt hat. Und darum bin ich natürlich auch
nicht davon überzeugt, daß die Botschaft der Kirche „heute" so
aussehen darf.

Bethel Willi Marxsen

[M a n s o n, T. W.:] New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of Thomas
Walter Manson 1893—1958, sponsored by Pupils, Colleagues and
Friends, ed. by A. J. B. H i g g i n s. Manchester: University Press
[1959]. XV, 327 S., 1 Porträt gr. 8°. Lw. 42 6.

This book was originally intended as a Festschrift
for presentation on Professor T. W. Manson's sixty-fifth birth-
day, and many of the articles had been received before the sad
news of his death in May 1958. The University of Manchester
and the Editorial Committee decided to continue with publica-
tion in the form of a memorial volume and to invite pupils,
colleagues and friends to subscribe to the work as a tribute to
such a greatly respected teacher and scholar.

The book contains twenty-one contributions by European
and American scholars, as well as a brief biographical note and
a select bibliography of Mansons published writings. As is
usually the case with s y m p o s i a, the constituent essays are
of unequal value. The contributors and titles are as follows —
C. K. Barrett: 'The Background of Mark 10. 45'; M. Black: 'The
Arrest and Trial of Jesus and the Date of the Last Supper';
G. H. Boobyer: 'The indebtedness of 2 Peter to 1 Peter'; J. W.
Bowman: 'The term G o s p e 1 and its cognates in the Palest-
inian Syriac'; R. Bultmann: 'Zur Frage nach den Quellen der
Apostelgeschichte'; H. Ciavier: '6 Xoyog rov i?soü dans
l'epitre aux Hebreux'; O. Cullmann: 'L'apotre Pierre instrument
du diable et instrument de Dieu: la place de Matth. 16, 16—19
dans la tradition primitive'; C. H. Dodd: 'The primitive catechism
and the sayings of Jesus'; A. J. B. Higgins: 'Son of Man — Forschung
since "The Teaching of Jesus"'; J. Jeremias: .Paarweise
Sendung im Neuen Testament'; G. D. Kilpatrick: 'Galati-
ans 1,18 iatogf/aai Krcpäv'; W. Manson: 'Notes on the argu-
ment of Romans (chapters 1—8)'; C. F. D. Moule: 'The intention
of the evangelists'; J. Munck: 'Paulus tanquam abortivus, 1 Cor.
15, 8'; B. Reicke: 'Some reflections on worship in the New
Testament'; H. Riesenfeld: 'Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur'; H. H.
Rowley: 'The baptism of John and the Qumran sect'; E. Schweizer
: 'The coneept of the church in the gospel and epistles of St.
John'; V. Taylor: 'The original order of Q ; W. C. van Unnik:
'Dominus vobiscum: the background of a liturgical
formula'; H. G. Wood: 'Didache, kerygma and evangelion'.

It is not possible here to comment on each of the essays in
detail, and so in the present review three are selected for special

Dr. Barrett's study of Mark 10,45 is of great interest, if
somewhat speculative in certain respects. In the first part he
examines the alleged linguistic allusions of Mark 10, 45 to Is. 53,
and in the second part he explores the background of thought on
which the ideas of Mark 10, 45 are to be understood. The first
main conclusion at which he arrives is that the wording of
Mark 10, 45 does not clearly point to Is. 53 rather than to any
other passage in the Old Testament and Jewish literature. In the
second part Dr. Barrett observes that there is very little evidence
anywhere eise in the gospels to suggest Is. 5 3 and that in the Old
Testament the idea of Service is to be found in many other
places than Is. 53 (e.g. Moses and the humble men of the psalms).
He does not think it possible to trace a more or less direct line
of development from an U r m e n s c h, or a Tammuz, ideology
through the cultic experiences of the Sacral King, to the humilia-
tion of the Servant in Is. 53, and thence to Dan. 7 — a view
aecording to which, suffering is inherent in the role of the Son of
Man, and has its roots in primitive mythological thought and in
ancient Israelite cultus.

Dr. Barrett proeeeds to argue that the Son of Man as an
apocalyptic figure arises first in Daniel, when Antiochus IV
sought to impose Hellenism upon Palestinian Jews. The tortures
inflicted were freely aeeepted by certain individuals. Those pre-
pared to abandon Judaism could avoid punishment and secure
advancement. Nevertheless the martyr's death was not a purely
personal matter: it was believed to influence the destiny of the
people as a whole, the martyrs being thought of as 'a ransom for
many'. Daniel is a book of martyrdom. The Son of Man, before
Coming into glory, experiences sufferings which are historically
the sufferings of the martyrs; and his triumph in heaven is a
mythological expression of the conviction that God will aeeept
the atoning sufferings of the martyrs, and because of them
deliver his people. The Original Man or the Archetypal Man
evidently Stands in a special relation to humanity as a whole.
He suffers in a representative capacity, so that what he suffers
isakappäräh.'a ransom for many'. Similarly, in I Enoch 71,
the representative of the elect people is exalted to heaven and
identified with the Son of Man. Thus it is perhaps against this
background of thought that Mark 10,45 is to be interpreted.

In his contribution Paulus tanquam Abortivus,
Dr. J. Munck investigates the significance of the much-discussed
phrase in I Cor. 15, 8. Of four possible meanings of hagaifia
Dr. Munck holds that only two merit serious consideration in
this connection. Firstly, if exzQm/in refers to the Statement in
v. 9 that Paul had persecuted the church, mane.QEi reo Ixiomfimi
must indicate that Paul is the most wretched of men, comparable
only to a Stillborn child. In this case we have an Old Testament
reminiscence (cp. Job 3, 16 and Eccles. 6, 3). The idea is also
found in Mark 14, 21 and Matt. 26, 24, where Jesus pronounces
woe upon the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed — it
would be better for him if he had not been born. Thus in
exTQODjua Paul ranks himself with Judas. Secondly, if it is assumed
that mytnxov de nnvrcov antieipates 6 IXäyinToc; rmv
djioaxoXcov, then exxQCOfxa may describe something eise in
Paul, as he was when the christophany was vouchsafed to him.
He was formed under the Torah, but nevertheless an EXTom/ia
because he had not yet been formed in Christ. That is, the
reference is to his pre-Christian education, and it is from the
Standpoint of the Iater grace that this first stage can be described
as an ExzQiofia.

In his essay on Q Dr. V. Taylor claims to confirm the view
that Luke preserved the order of Q, following it with great
fidelity, and to show that Matthew knew the same order, being
aware of it when he made editorial adjustments and conflated
Q with Mark and M. The hypothesis of Luke's dependence on
Matthew has to be rejected, and the result of a comparison of
the order of the sayings in Matthew and Luke demonstrates the
existence of Q. Q's earlier history can only be conjectured; it
is not excluded that earlier groups of sayings and parables have
been combined in it. But this stage was passed when the gospels
were compiled, and what can be recovered is the form in which
Q was current in the decade 50—60 A. D., and perhaps even
earlier. It is probable that some of the sayings peculiar to Luke