Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | 1973 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Titel/Untertitel: | Neuerscheinungen |
Ansicht Scan: | |
Download Scan: |
841
Theologische Literaturzeitung 98. Jahrgang 1973 Nr. 11
842
setzt, mufj man eben die Frontstellung des Paulus in Galatien
entsprechend bestimmen. Da5 3,21-23 zu streichen seien,
weil diese Verse sich mit dem sittlichen Fortschritt der Menschen
befassen, wird schwerlich jemanden überzeugen. Dafj
3,28 im Zusammenhang überflüssig ist, stimmt zwar; doch
liegt das offenbar daran, dafj Paulus in V.26f wie oft eine
vorgeprägte Formel vollständig zittert, obschon er im Zusammenhang
nur einen Gedanken der Formel benötigt.
O'Neills Behandlung des Galaterbriefes wird kaum viel
Freunde finden. Dennoch ist es gut, von Fall zu Fall drastisch
vor Augen geführt zu bekommen, dafj die Briefe des
Neuen Testaments über ein bis zwei Generationen hinweg
eine Überliefcrungsgeschichte gehabt haben, in deren Dunkel
mehr geschehen sein kann als eine archivalisch und editorisch
korrekte Pflege des literarischen Erbes eines großen
Apostels. Mit einzelnen Randglossen mu5 man rechnen, zumal
mit solchen, die am Rand des Originalbriefes standen
und in alle Abschriften eingegangen sind. 4,25a dürfte eine
solche Glosse sein, und mir ist beim Nachdenken über 2,15ff
- O'Neill scheidet ganz unglücklich ausgerechnet V. 17 aus -
aufgegangen, dafj auch 2,18 eine sekundäre Randbemerkung
sein mu5. G. Klein hat in einem schönen Aufsatz (in: Rekonstruktion
und Interpretation, 1969, S. 180ff) in überzeugender
Weise den Gedankengang von 2,15-17 dargelegt: Paulus
beschreibt die durch die Glaubenspredigt erfolgende Aufhebung
des bis zum Kommen Jesu Christi bestehenden Unterschiedes
zwischen den Juden und den ,Sündern', den Heiden
. V. 17 weist den Vorwurf zurück, dadurch, daß das Evangelium
auch die Juden zu Sündern macht, werde Christus
zum iSündendiener. Das entrüstete /it; yivoirn von V. 17 aber
bedarf direkt des Verses 19 als Begründung. V. 18 ist dagegen
die Randbemerkung eines Lesers, der den ganzen Abschnitt
zu unrecht unmittelbar auf das Verhalten des
Petrus in Antiochien bezogen wissen wollte und der aus
V. 17 entnahm, Petrus habe durch sein schwankendes Verhalten
Christus faktisch zum ,Sündendiener' gemacht. Erst
durch die Isolierung von V. 18 als Glosse gewinnt der Gedankengang
von 2,15-17.19ff seine Stringenz, V. 18 seinen
Sinn und die doppelläufige Argumentation in V. 15ff ihre
Erklärung.
poriin Walter Schmithals
Holtz, Traugott: Untersuchungen über die Alttestamentlichen
Zitate bei Lukas. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1968. XIV,
185 S. gr. 8° = Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichcn Literatur, 104. Kart. M 32 -.
The use of scripture in the Lukan writings has special
importance because of Luke's own high valuation of the Old
Testament. Although he does not reproduce the formula-
quotations which are so characteristic of Matthew and John,
he is most emphatic that the kerygma can be proved from
scripture. This is asserted in his presentation of the resur-
rection traditions in Luke 24, and is demonstrated in the
speeches of the apostles in Acts. Luke's use of scripture thus
merits careful investigation, and all students of the Lukan
writings will be grateful for the very thorough and compe-
tent study which Professor Holtz has provided in his Habilitationsschrift
.
The Chief conclusion of the book comes as a surprise. Luke
was not personally familiär with the text of the O. Testament.
The only books which he could quote from were the Minor
Prophets, Isaiah and the Psalms. Even these books he did
not know well enough to verify allusions which he found
in his sources. Luke's text of the Minor Prophets and Psalms
Stands close to the Septuagint A text, and so constitutes a
valuable witness to the currency of this recension in the
latter part of the first Century A. D. (Holtz rightly denies
that LXXA has been influenced by the NT text-form of quo-
tations). On the other hand his text of the Psalms, though
clearly Septuagintal, is not quite so close to A (which in
this case has been affected by liturgical usage).
It can be said at once that there is nothing impossible in
this conclusion. If Luke was a Gentile Christian, he would
not be soaked in the scriptures, like a Jew trained from
childhood in the synagogue. Moreover books were rare and
expensive, so that Luke may well have had access to only
a few of the scrolls of the OT, which were not yet commonly
bound together in codex form. It is not without significance
that those few which appear, on the showing of this study,
to have been available to him are precisely those books
which were most valued by the early church for its self-un-
derstandig as the eschatological Community, just as at Qum-
ran. This conclusion is reached in the first part of the book,
on the independent citations in Luke-Acts.
The second part of the book deals with the sizable amount
of quotation-material from the Pentateuch. As far as the
gospel is conoerned, much of this comes from Mark or Q.
Holtz is at pains to show that the Lukan variants, so far
from being corrections in aecordance with the OT text, actu-
ally prove that very offen Luke did not know the limits of
the quotation, or (in the case of allusions) that the OT was
being quoted at all. In both Luke and Acts some of the
Pentateuchal citations can be readily traced to catechetical
usage. The quotations in the speech of Peter in Acts 3 come
from a short collection of christological testimonia. In the
case of Stephen's speech in Acts 7 the Pentateuchal material
belongs to a (probably Jewish) historical retrospect, which
Luke has used as the main constituent of his composition,
although it is at variance with the point which he actually
wishes to make.
Finally, the third part of the book takes up the Suggestion
that Luke had at his disposal short collections of testimonia.
These are evident in Peter's speech of Acts 2 and Paul's at
Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13, but also occur elsewhere in
Luke-Acts. They were not primarily anti-Judaic collections,
but expressions of messianic expectation, such as appear
already in a pre-Christian Jewish form in 4QFlorilegium.
But it is questionable whether Luke was able to use such
collections creatively. Rather he reproduces sources in which
they have already been employed, and only lightly retou-
ches them for the purposes of his narrative. Not all scholars
will find themselves in agreement with Holtz at this point.
Too much seems to be credited to the sources, too little to
Luke himself. It moves the centre of interest away from
Luke, and so evokes the wish for a thorough investigation
of Luke's sources, which is not here given. In particular, it
makes the decision to exclude the infancy narratives of Luke
1-2 altogether from consideration regrettahle, justified
though it may be from the point of view of keeping the
book within reasonable limits. But it should now be clear
that Holtz's careful study of the Luikan citations has a most
important bearing on the most fundamental issues of the
current debate on Luke-Acts, which no future studies can
afford to neglect.
Cambridge Barnabos Lindars
Noack, Bent: Si passibilis Christus (SEA 37/38, 1972/73
S. 211-221).
Olsson, Birger: Rom l,3f enligt Paulus (SEA 37/38, 1972/73
S. 255-273).
Osten-Sacken und von Rhein, Frhr. Peter von der: Der erste
unter vielen Brüdern. Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer
Soteriologie (Theol. Habilitation, Göttingen 1973).
Reicke, Bo: Döparens förkunnelse enligt Lukas (SEA 37/38,
1972/73 S. 156-166).
Sahlin, Harald: Lasarus-gestalten i Luk 16 och Joh 11 (SEA
37/38, 1972'73 S. 167-174).
Schlier, Heinrich: Über die Auferstehung Jesu Christi (Del-
tion Biblikön Meietön 1, 1972 S. 353-363).