Recherche – Detailansicht

Ausgabe:

1979

Spalte:

109-111

Kategorie:

Neues Testament

Titel/Untertitel:

Style 1979

Rezensent:

Kilpatrick, George Dunbar

Ansicht Scan:

Seite 1, Seite 2

Download Scan:

PDF

109

Theologische Literaturzeitung 104. Jahrgang 1979 Nr. 2

110

allem von amerikanischen Gelehrten behandelt, unter denen
der an der Harvard University lehrende Vf. herausragt2. Die
vorliegende Studie ist Nebenfrucht seiner Arbeit an Salomo
Ibn Vergas 1507 entstandenen und bald nach dessen Exilierung
••>i)3 Portugal veröffentlichten Sefer Schebet Jehuda, der schon
früher ediert' und analysiert4 wurde. Sie gilt einem dort im
Schlußkapitel berichteten tragischen Geschehen, dem Massaker
von Lissabon im April 1506. Damals wurden über 3000 (?) zum
Christentum zwangsbekehrte Juden, sog. Neuchristen (Marra-
nen), Opfer eines Pogroms, das durch eine heimliche Passahfeier
und die abfälligen Äußerungen über ein angebliches Wun-
«leikruzifix ausgelöst wurde. Der Vf. rekonstruiert das Geschehen
aus den wichtigsten zugänglichen Dokumenten, der Flugschrift
eines deutschen Reisenden und den erhaltenen Schreiben
des Königs Manuel (S. 6—34), die im Anhang wiedergegeben
werden (S. 69—91). Aus ihnen wird zusätzlich deutlich, daß
König uud Gouverneur nach kurzem Zögern um die Niederschlagung
des Pogroms bemüht waren, der den Charakter einer
Hebellion annahm.

Im Schebet Jehuda, einem Buch, das in apologetischer Absicht
den Ursachen des jüdischen Exils nachgeht, wird die Rolle des
Königs direkter und positiver gesehen, ja sogar (entgegen den
anderen Quellen) seine persönliche Anwesenheit bei der Nieder-
«iilung behauptet! Diese Darstellung ordnet sich ein in eine
Linie, die das Gesamlwerk Ibn Vergas bestimmt: die bedrängten
(südeuropäischen) Juden werden durch die Könige (und Päpste)
beschützt. Man wird hier in der Tat eine bis in das Alexandrien
Philos zuriickzuverfolgcnde Konstante jüdischen Geschickes erkennen
dürfen: die Juden müssen sich mit den jeweils höchsten
Autoritäten verbünden, um ihren Gegnern auf unterer
Ebene gewachsen zu sein. Die vom Antisemitismus verkannte
Identifizierung der Juden mit dem modernen Nationalstaat, von
Hannah Arendt mit Recht herausgestellt, dürfte hier eine ihrer
Wurzeln haben.

Halle (Saale) Wolfgang Wiefel

1 M. Steinschneider, Die Geschichtsliteratur der Juden, Frankfurt 1905.
1 Hauptwerk: From Spanish Court to Italian Ghetto, New York 1971.
3 Ausgabe mit dt. über».: M. Wiener, Dal Buch Schevet Jehuda.
Hannover 1856.

* L Baer, Untersuchungen über Quellen und Komposition des Schebet
l'hudn, Berlin 1923.

Neues Testament

Moulton, .!. H., and others: A Grammar of New Testament
Greek. III; Syntax. By N. Turner. XXII, 417 S. £ 5.40. IV:
Style. By N. Turner. X, 174 S. £ 4.20. Edinburgh: F. & T.
Clark 1963 u. 1976.

These two volumes complete J. H. Moulton's A Grammar of
New Testament Greek. Volume 1 appeared in 1906 {190$*) and
>n German translation as Einleitung in die Sprache des Neuen
Testament! (1911). Volume H was completed in 1929 by W.
H. Howard.

One characteristic all four volumes have which lliey share
wilh Blass' work: they are not just compilations but depend On
Ine original work of their editors. This remains true for
volumes III—IV by Dr. N. Turner. His knowledge of the LXX
»nd of secular authors of the Hellenistic and Roman periods
's drawn on time and rigain to illuslrate or sei off the Greek of
the NT. This knowledge is hnsed on his own reading of the
Greek texts and reflexion on them.

We can noticc a difference of context at this point. When
Moulton began Iiis Grammar the discovery and pnblication of
Greek papyri of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, both
Hlerary and documentary, were making a great impact on the
sludy of the language of the Cireek Bible, and, while Moulton's
Grammar was für from being a Grammar of New Testament
Greek in the light of ihc papyri, the influence of the papyri
was obvious. In Dr. Turner's volumes ihe Semitic background
and ihe Greek lilcrary parallels to the Greek Bible are more

easily assessed, such has been the development of the study
of the language of these texts in the intervening years.

In one direction Moulton and N. Turner are on the same side
of the line. Linguistic studies have developed since Moulton's
day, but Turner's work seems mainly uninfluenced by them.
We may sympathize with him in this, but sometimes linguistics
can assist our investigation of the features of a language as we
may see from the treatment of the tenses of Revelation in
Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek (1971), chapters xi
and xii.

In the Syntax this fnmiliarity with the language shows itself
in the comparative material inlroduced for example in the
tnblcs for the use of the prepositions wilh different cases in the
Greek Bible and in secular authors. In this connexion the
discussion of word Order breaks new ground.

In the same way we have a thorough discussion of that
controversial subjeel, the force of the perfect in the NT. Turner
coneludes, „Although a very large number of perfects in the
NT cannot fairly be distinguished from aorists, there are still
some which retain true resultative, and some a present,
nieaning" (III. 85). We may Supplement this in one direction.
Bahlfs (Septuaginla-Studien, III. 177f) had noticed that in
3 Kingdoms the Lucianic witnesses had frequently the perfect
in discourse whero other witnesses had the aorist, but in
narrative agreed in having the aorist. In the same way in John
the perfect indicative active is probably used exclusively in
discourse. This has curious consequences for the past tense of
verbs like ytv(ooxu>.

Another significant feature is the frequent Variation in the
manuscripts between the aorist and the perfect. Various
explanations of this Variation are possible, but in any case
they suggest that at some time Iittle or no difference was seen
between ihe aorist and the perfect as tenses.

Volume IV continues the same tradition of first hand
knowledge of the texl not only of the NT but of the Greek
Bible as a whole, other early Greek Christian literature and the
corresponding secular authors. Time and again their evidence
is presented in clear and instrui'tive tables and in comprehensive
aunotation.

Surprise has been expressed in ihe presence of a volume on
style in a grammar of this kind. This is unjuslified. First, our
author's style can teil us mudi about him and his background,
culture and education. Frequently i! is one more consideration
ihal must be taken into aecount in the inlerpretalion of many
a passage. It is the recognition that each author has his distinet-
ive language.

Secondly, Dr. Turner has a preeedenl in Volume II. 18—33.
As we read the chapters on the style of the various NT authors
in Volume IV, we see the material of the discussion growing
out of the work of ihe earlier volumes. Frequently we can use
the evidence propounded in Volume IV to Supplement what
vi are told in the earlier volumes, especially in Volume III.

The assembly of material in ihe Iwo volumes can help us
lo fresh conclusions. For example, at III. 95—98, cp. IV. 33, 69,
we are given a gcneious assembly of material on oii firj
in Ihe Greek Bible. Taking aecount of lextual Variation we
can present ihe following piclure. With two exceplions in the
I.XX and one in the NT, ot; [ijj is used with the aorist
subjunclive. The first exception is with dvvtofiui where we
find the present subjunetive <?vt><o(Aat so used. We ask ourselves
wheter tho writers did not sometimes regard itüvväfj)^ as an
aorist indicative with the subjunetive dvvafjai despite the
existence of fjövi>ijä-r{>> etc. The second exception is Is. ii.
9 where we may conjecture ovx for ov fxfi. The NT exception
is Mt. xvi. 22 eateti (cp. Rev. xxii. 14) This use of od [irj
with the aorist subjunclive will aecord wilh Hellenistic practice
and the varianls wilh the future indicative will correspond to
dominant Attic usage.

Just miw and ihen we would welcome a liltle more precision
in the argument. For example, it would be nteful to have a
clear Statement of the criteria lo be used in determining an
author's level of style and to see these criteria consistently and
comparalively applied.