Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | 1985 |
Spalte: | 102-104 |
Kategorie: | Neues Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Friedrich, Gerhard |
Titel/Untertitel: | Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament 1985 |
Rezensent: | Delling, Gerhard |
Ansicht Scan: | |
Download Scan: |
101
Theologische Literaturzeitung 1 10. Jahrgang 1985 Nr. 2
102
in preferring the Palestinian Pentatcuch Targumim (now ineluding
Codex Neofili 1) to Targum Onkelos and thc Targum to the Prophets.
The haggadic material in the Palestinian Targumim shows us a free,
spoken Aramaic, whereas Onkelos is often far too close to the Hebrew
text to do so. Black also assigns an earlier date to the Palestinian
Targum tradition(s). Howevcr, (a)Onkelos itself has Palestinian traits,
(b) the fact that a Palestinian-type targum was current in Palestine in
the tenth Century AD does not mcan that Onkelos was unknown there
at that time. and (c) white Palestinian Pentatcuch Targum traditions
do preserve some halakot which seem to conflict with those of the
Mishnah. this does not mean that such hulukol or indecd thc Palestinian
Targumim are 'prc-Mishnaic': there is too much variety in
opinion and practice in Judaism, even in thc Mishnah, to allow this.
Black appeals to three other main sources for help: the Aramaic of the
Palestinian Talmud and Midrash, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, and
Samaritan Aramaic. The first has much in its favour: it is Galilean,
and perhaps morc importantly, sccms to reflect the spoken language.
Further, it appears in teaching-forms akin to those of the Oospcls,
e- g-, parables, sayings, 'cascs'. disputcs, and miracle-stories. Z. Ben-
Hayyim has demonstrated the value of Samaritan in assessing the age
and nature of Hebrew and Aramaic dialccts.2 However, all three sources
are rather later than the NT, and, as Fitzmyer and J. C. Greenfield
have insisted, we need First Century evidence if possible. Now, apart
from the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, Black seems to have
made little usc of such evidence, relying rather more on that of the
Palestinian Targumim. However, where the reviewer was able to
check Black's solutions against data from First and Second Century
Mss. and inscriptions. he found some striking support for them. For
example. the following words, crucial to Black's explanations, occur:
ra- 'to flee' and qr. 'root', verb. 'to uproot' (144-145); r'h.
'shepherd', verb, 'to herd'. and r'w, 'pleasure', 'will' (138); b'yr,
'beast', 'cattle' (168-169); syp, I. 'end', 2. 'sword' - both found
™ ' I QtgJob - (179); qds, 'ring' (200-202); skli. . Iphcl 1. 'to find', 2.
to be able' (133-134); and in Hebrew, ylwd 'Sh, 'born of woman',
IQS 11 .2 1 (298). This last wams us not to ovcrlook Hebrew.
Among the more convincing examplcs of Aramaism given are those
reflecting the ambiguity of the relative particle d/dy (70-81), the pro-
!eptic pronoun (96-100). the ethic dative (101-104), and the use of the
Participle (espccially in periphrastic tenses) as a linite verb (130-132).
The Problem here isthat most ofthese could also point toa Mishnaic-
type Hebrew like that now attested from First and carly Second Century
material. Black finds the origin of the awkward Greck in many
cases not so much in .Fehlübersetzung' as in conscious and legiti-
mate Interpretation; they are deliberate renderings of a meaning
Possible in the original (91). He agrees that thc Evangelists could even
have thought in 'Semitic' and written in Greck (92). However, even if
such cases were confined to the words of Jesus and John the Baptist,
'he consequences for thc Synoptic Documcntary hypothesis would
°e far-reaching. A striking example is Mk4,22par. Mt 10,26;
Lk 8,17 (76-77). The simple futures of Mt (apokalypiheselai) and Lk
whaneron .veneseiai) stand over against thc subjunetive of purpose in
Mk (jdianeroilie): all three might reflect an original Aramaic Imper-
fect [ytgiy), May this be a case not so much of translation as of 'targu-
mizing' - the use of meanings possible in the tradition (whether origi-
nally intendcd or not) to resolve a problem or argue a casc? We need a
thorough study of the ramifications of this problem. Again. elsewhere
H seems that the possibility of transmission in a bilingual environment
°ught to have bcen treated more scriously. Thus thc clearly Gentilc
C aptain ofCapernaum is shown as speaking to Jesus in Semitic poetic
form (Lk 7.6ff; 158-159). Here are two examplcs of the ways in which
thc book provokes basic questions.
Black's conclusions are modest enough. Thc only really firm one is
'hat behind the Synoptic Gospels there lies .eine aramäische Spruch-
luelle oder -Überlieferung . . . die manchmal wörtlich, meistens
Jedoch literarisch und interpretierend ist'; whether written or oral is
not clear from the evidence available (271). Aramaic infiuence, possi-
bly through sources, appears in thc Markan narratives and also in
John, especially in Jesus-Sayings (271-273). However, „die Evangelien
sind nicht einfach Interpretationen von Übersetzern; sie sind
zugleich auch .Targumim' von Evangelisten" (275). On the textual
question the more Aramaized reading is, other things being equal.
more probably original, and thc Bczan text seems to have preserved in
many places a less revised form of the primitive tradition than have its
rivals (277-280).
Of the Anhänge that by Vermcs merits special comment. He seeks
to document thc casc that the term 'Son of Man' was not a technical
term as Jesus used it, but refiected meanings possible in its. Aramaic
equivalents br ns/br ns namely: l. 'a human being', 2. 'someone',
and 3. T (as an oblique self-reference). His documentation is taken
from thc spoken form of the language so far as that is attainable from
our sources and thus cannot easily be drawn from First Century Mss.
and inscriptions. However, his conclusions fit well with the Gospel
evidence that Sayings of Jesus involving the phrase 'Son of Man' are
parallclcd in some places in thc tradition by similar Sayings using T
or 'me They also aecord with the fact that from the Apostolic
Fathers onwards there seems to be no hint that 'Son of Man" ever had
an eschatological reference. Vermes' arguments should not be set
aside merely because they may cause problems for established
views.
The translation is excellent, clear and - amazingly - follows the
pagination of thc English original almost perfectly. It also gives
Black's Semitic words and phrases in Hebrew type instead of translite-
ration. There are a few slips: (27, Z. 12) for Übersetzung read Abfas-
sung;(181,Z. 5 and 237,Z. l)Jbr Talmud Targum; (317, Z. 31)
for ist read ißt. These are the main oncs, but against this the translator
has touched up the original in some places.
The book is a most worthy addition to literaturc in German on this
vital issue.
Bangor, Wales MaxWilcox
' Oxford:Clarendon Press I967(lsted. 1946.2nded. 1954).
2 The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic among the Sama-
rilans (Hebrew). Jerusalem: 1957-77. 5 vols.; and, 'The Contribution of the
Samaritan Inhcritancc to Research into thc History ol'Hcbrcw', Proceedings of
the IsraelAcademyofSciences and HumanUies, 3(1969). 162-174.
Friedrich, Gerhard: Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen
Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchcncr Verlag 1982. 199 S.
8°= Biblisch-Theologische Studien, 6. Kart. DM 22,-.
G. Friedrich gliedert seine eindrückliche Darstellung und Beurteilung
der verschiedenen Modi der Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im
NT nicht nach Schriftcn(gruppen), sondern im ganzen nach Stichwörtern
. Zuvor führt er in Abschn. 1 (9^16) ein in „Die Diskussion
um die Bedeutung des Sterbens Jesu" (seit Harnack). Innerhalb dieses
Rahmens werden einerseits die Texte bzw. Schriften besprochen, in
denen der Tod Jesu als Heilsereignis zurücktritt (14-21); andererseits
werden vorpaulinische Texte innerhalb von Paulusbriefen erörtert,
die ihn als solches deutlich machen (22-24). Ferner wird aufgezeigt,
daß Jesus mit seinem gewaltsamen Sterben gerechnet hat (25-29;
auch nach dem Mahlwort „Das ist mein Blut" [13.35]). Die Anlange
des Nachdenkens über die Bedeutung des Sterbens Jesu in der Urchri-
stenheit werden skizziert (30-34), insbesondere im Gedanken des
stellvertretenden Sühnetodes, dessen palästina-jüdischcr Hintergrund
aufgewiesen wird (34-44).
In 2-12 werden dann die mannigfachen Weisen der Deutung des
Sterbens Jesu je gesondert betrachtet, zunächst unter Stichwörtern,
die auf Opfervorstellungen Bezug nehmen. Opferlamm (47-52), Bundesopfer
(53-56). Sühnopfer (Rom 3,23-26 [57-67]), Sündopfer
(68-71). „Der Opfertod Jesu" (77-81), von dem „abgesehen vom
Hebräerbrief kaum . . . gesprochen wird" (77), ferner unter den Stich-