Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | 1986 |
Spalte: | 885-888 |
Kategorie: | Altes Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | MacGregor, Leslie John |
Titel/Untertitel: | The Greek text of Ezekiel 1986 |
Rezensent: | Aejmelaeus, Anneli |
Ansicht Scan: | |
Download Scan: |
885
Theologische Literaturzeitung III. Jahrgang 1986 Nr. 12
886
angesehen, das diese interpretiert und von diesen interpretiert wird (S.
jetzt Mettinger: A Farewell to the Servant Songs, Lund 1983. Cf.
ThLZ I 10, 1985,661).
DI wird als "a theological giant" (2) beschrieben, der die Werke
seiner Vorgänger kannte, die literarischen Formen souverän handhabte
und zum Zweck der Variation einsetzte und seinem Volk Aufschluß
darüber gab, wie Gottes Plan in seinen eigenen Tagen Gestalt
gewann und in einzigartiger Weise im Leben Israels weiterwirken
wollte. "DI's great contribution to our biblical faith is his insistence
that the living Word of the living.God began to bc united-though still
in a proleptic sense - with the very flesh of God's son Israel at that
specific period in which DI himselfwas partieipating." (5)
Der Gottesknecht und der Erwählte Gottes bei DI sei das unterdrückte
und exilierte Volk Israels. Aber DI lege seine Betonung nicht
auf Israel selbst als erwähltes Volk, denn auch Babylon habe nicht
außerhalb der Sorge Gottes gestanden, sondern auf die Erwählung als
alleinige Aktion Gottes (30f zu Jes 41,80- 'srael komme nicht ein
Wert per se zu, sondern weil Gott es fest ergriffen habe, um seinen
Willen auszuführen, der darin besteht, .Recht' zu bringen. Deshalb
werde ihm Gottes Geist verliehen, "to create a kind of sacramental
union". DI verstehe unter dem .Geist' nichts von Gott Getrenntes,
sondern "God in action"oder "God in mission"(45 zu Jes 42,1). Die
Schwierigkeit, daß der Gottesknecht gleichzeitig Singular und Plural
sein kann, löst K. mit dem Konzept des "chosen people as a whole in
David" (44).
Das in Jes 53 gezeichnete Bild des Knechtes enthalte die beiden Elemente
des "very human Israel" und des "God in Israel" (171). "Thus
the extraordinary inference can bc made that it was 'God in Israel'
who became the Suffering Servant that Israel was elected to be, for
Israel could not fulfil her callingalone"( 172). Weil das Selbstopfer des
Knechtes das des in ihm wirkenden Gottes sei, werde es für die Erlösung
der Menschheit wirksam (178).
Die Klimax der Botschaft DI's werde mit K. 55 erreicht, in dem die
Folge der Absicht Gottes mit seinem Knecht offenbart wird. "That
purpose is the redemption not only of Israel herseif but of all mankind,
including even the earth on which mankind takes his stand." (189)
Die Absicht werde eingelöst in dem neuen Bund Gottes mit seinem
"Servant people" Israel, das die Aufgabe habe, Gottes Lehrer bei den
Völkern zu werden, denn "the basic reason for the very existence of
the new covenant that God was now offering was one of mission, and
thatalone"(193).
Die Übersicht über einige wesentliche Gedanken dieser Auslegung
zeigt, daß ihr manche Anregung entnommen werden kann, auch wenn
nicht allen Thesen der Widerspruch erspart bleiben wird. Der Kommentar
schließt mit einem Barth-Zitat, das auch hier den Schlußpunkt
setzen soll: "Israel is not a sick man who was allowed to reco-
vcr. but One risen from the dead" (Dogmatics in Outline, 1949,
p. 80).
I ,,;_,;„ Dietmar Mathias
McGregor, Leslie John: The Greek Text of Ezekiel. An Examtnation
of Its Homogeneity. Atlanta. GA: Scholars Press 1985. XV. 296 S.
8' = SBL. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, 18. Kart. $ 13.95;
Lw.$ 18.25.
The word "text" in the title of this Septuagintal study - a revised
Version of a doctoral thesis from Belfast 1983 - would seem to connect
it with textual criticism. Howcver. the main concern of this work lies
in the arca of translation technique and translation criticism. In Ez
this means taking up for closer scrutiny older theories concerning the
division of the book between several translators. The final Solution
suggested isa division of Ez into threesections-SI Chs. 1-25, S2 Chs.
26-39, and S3 Chs. 40-48 - of which the first and the third. although
suffering different textual histories. werc originally rendered by the
same translator.
The study opens with a history of research into the Greek Ez.
Various previous theories about the number of translators (1-3) and
the division of their work are presented, beginning with the original
Suggestion by Thackeray who divided the book between two translators
, one of whom rendered Chs. 1-27 and 40-48, the other one
Chs. 28-39. With the discovery of Papyrus 967. however, theories of
multiple translators lost much of their popularity, with Ziegler as the
most prominent Opponent. In the third phase of study, after Qumran,
the Situation has been further complicated by the introduetion of a
new alternative, partial revision, into the discussion.
The most important and far-reaching results in the work at hand are
obviously to be foutid in the following methodological discussion on
the different factors causing Variation between parts of a translated
text. The writer sueeeeds in revealing.how proponents of the theories
of division, even Thackeray himself. have used unreliable evidence in
support of their theories. Before suggesting several translators one
must exclude other causes of linguistic Variation. The writer lists six
factors whose influence must be taken into aecount: (1) the Vorlage
and Variation found in it, (2) context and subject-matter, (3) textual
integrity of the Greek evidence, (4) distribution and frequency of
terms, (5) vocabulary of the translator, and (6) progression of the translation
. All of these points deserve our attention, but some of them
could perhaps have been highlighted as more fundamental than the
others. It is naturally most important to discuss the LXX as a translation
and to pay attention to the original. Whether evaluating the
Greek usage or the various translators, it is not possible to work solely
on the Greek text. Actually, point (4) is part of point (I): if the pheno-
mena studied are unevenly distributed in the original, similar
unevenness is naturally reflected in the translation. When discussing a
translation it is also important to take notice of the particular features
of the target language (5): diffenrences in the struetures of the two
languages concerned naturally have an influence on the translation
technique, and different contexts call for different renderings (2).
However. McGregor is not the first one to emphasize the importance
of these factors in Septuagintal studies (cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die
Initiative in der Septuaginta, AASF B 132,1, Helsinki 1965.
pp. 7-16), nor to point out weaknesses in theories of bisection of
books (cf. op. eil. p. 170 and the present writer's Parataxis in the
Septuagint, AASF B Diss 31, Helsinki 1982, p. 169).
On the other hand, the six points include variants in the Greek text
(3). a problem which is on an entirely different level. The mere
existence of Greek variants should not be taken into aecount when
discussing the possibility of multiple translators, unless there is good
reason to read differently from the Göttingen edition. wich normally
forms an adequate basis for this kind of a study. The sixth point -
"that the translator may have changed his technique as the work
proeeeded" - is actually a truism. There is no reason to expect a rigid
System of translating from the LXX translators.
The writer calls his method "translation criticism" and defines its
aim as determining the significance of eventual changes in translation
technique. The method is concerned with discerning the work of
different translators, not describing. It has to do with the "psycho-
logy" and not the "philosophy" of the translators. One could argue
that the most significant differences are precisely those that depend on
a different attitude or "philosophy" on the part of the translator.
There is hardly any point in excluding description of translators from
translation criticism. For instance, the differences between the Penta-
teuchal books in their renderingofl by xa/'are significant, not because
of the numerical difference in percentages. but precisely because of the
different attitudes towards using other frecr renderings (see p. 52 and
Parataxis in the Septuagint pp. 13, 42-43, 124). The differences are
all the more significant if the close reproduetion of the original
produces incorrect Greek, whereas a correct Greek formulation is
arrived at through a freer rendering (cf. e. g. the apodotic xai vs.
Omission, Parataxis in the Septuagint, pp. 126-147).
After the methodological introduetion, the writer concentrates on