Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | 1986 |
Spalte: | 888-889 |
Kategorie: | Judaistik |
Titel/Untertitel: | Die Bergpredigt: jüdisches und christliches Glaubensdokument 1986 |
Rezensent: | Osten-Sacken, Peter |
Ansicht Scan: | |
Download Scan: |
887
Theologische Literaturzeitung III. Jahrgang 1986 Nr. 12
888
the Divine Names, which have served as an important argument for
the scholars advocating the division of Ez between several translators.
A special problem in Ez, as is well known, is posed by the double
name mrp 'JTK, which is found in the Hebrew text more than 200
times. In the majority of cases B, with partial support from 967 and
Bo, reads the Single xupioq, but in the middle section of the book half of
the time xupioq xupioq, and in the final section (Chs. 40-48) regularly
xupioq 6 Oerie. The possibility of the LXX reflecting Hebrew variants
found in the Vorlage is rejected by the writer. On aecount of the
numerous variant forms of the double Divine Name in the Greek
manuscripts, he concludes that the Greek text has suffered scribal
alterations and that each section had a different transmission history.
Consequently, the original rendering of the double Divine Name -
supposedly xupioq mn* - is no longer found in the manuscripts. This
means that the Divine Names cannot be used as an argument for the
distinguishing of various translators. This is probably correct, but the
fact that the writer resorts to a theory of scribal alterations to secure
this conclusion seems suspect. After all, he does later end up with two
translators and the division of Ez into three sections. If S2 is clearly
shown to be the produet of a different translator from Sl, ist would be
feasible to find the second translator using partly the double form
xupioq xupioq, although this detail would surely not be streng enough
to prove the existence of two translators or to help to draw the line
between them. As for the relationship between Sl and S3, the writer
seems to sweep under the carpet an argument that would speak for
their dissimilarity. The distinetion between translation differences
and transmission differences seems to become a most subtile one,
which raises the question whetherall or most of the supposed translation
differences could not be considered to be transmission differences.
The decisive evidence for the Solution offered seems to be that 967
deviates from B and often Stands alone with a Single xupioq or with xupioq
6 Oerie against the Single form in B. Although 967 is an invaluable wit-
ness to the prehexaplaric text, it should be bome in mind that it, too,
contains secondary readings, corrections aecording to the Hebrew as
well as stylistical alterations (see J. Ziegler ZA W 61, 1945/48, 76-94).
When it Stands alone, it should be treated with care when drawing con-
clusions about the entire transmission history ofthe book.
Translation differences are studied in three successive chapters. The
sections Sl and S2 are first compared with each other. That these two
sections are the work of two different translators and that the division
occurs between Chs. 25 and 26 seems to rest on fairly reliable
evidence. The number of translation features studied for this purpose
is 25. The evidence is cited case by case in both Hebrew and Greek to
avoid Statistical errors. It is the change at a certain point and
consistency on both sides that convinces most, particularly when
observed in several independent examples. On the other hand, it
would have been useful to include examples of a more grammatical
kind and with a higher frequency. Some of the example cases even
have less than ten occurrences. Of course, phenomena with great
frequency cannot easily be presented case by case, but in return the
results are more reliable. As for the principles laid out in the methodo-
logical introduetion, the writer cannot be said to be completely
faithful to them. For instance, the Variation between V and "?K after
has ought to have been taken into aecount as the background for the
Variation between the dative and npöq (cf. pp. 105-110). The normal
procedura was to render V by the dative and *?K by n/x>q, and only
deviations from this rule can be taken as proof of the translator's prefe-
rence for one or the other type of expression.
The following chapter ist concemed with the relationship of S3 to
S2 and Sl. Comparison of the three sections is rendered particularly
difficult by the different subject-matter and vocabulary of S3. Consequently
, several of the examples used are not frequent enough.
Grammatical words could have been helpful here. The differences
between S3 and S2 seem to be clear enough. However, the relationship
between Sl and S3 is more problematic. With 30 examples - 22 of
them showing less than 10 occurrences - the writer tries to show that
the differences between Sl and S3 are not significant but depend on
the different type of text. Differences not explainable by the change of
context are covered by the above-mentioned Solution of different
transmission histories. The supposed revision of S3, mainly built on
the evidence of 967, would have gained in credibility from a more
profound argumentation and description of its intentions.
The appendices include a most illustrative presentation of the
manuscript evidence concerning the use of the Divine Names.
Hyvinkää Anneli Acjmelaeus
Haag, Ernst [Hg.]: „Gott, der einzige." Zur Entstehung des Monotheismus
in Israel. Freiburg-Basel-Wien: Herder 1985. 192 S. 8' =
Quaestiones Disputatae, 104. Kart. DM 39,-.
Der Frage nach den Ursachen und nach der Entwicklungsgeschichte
des alttestamentlichen Monotheismus wird seit einigen
Jahren wieder öfter nachgegangen. Die Ergebnisse solcher Untersuchungen
sind einander ähnlich: Man nimmt als Vorstufe eine
geschichtlich bedingte Alleinverehrung Jahwes an, aus der dann über
verschiedene Zwischenpositionen in der Zeit des Exils ein universaler
Monotheismus wurde. Strittig ist vor allem die Ansetzung des Beginns
dieser Entwicklung. Die Autoren des vorliegenden Sammelbandes
vertreten die Auffassung eines sehr frühen Beginns der Entwicklungsgeschichte
des altisraelitischen Monotheismus. Es handelt sich um
Vorträge von der Jahrestagung der deutschen katholischen Alt-
testamentler, die im August 1984 in Würzburg stattfand. Folgende
Referate werden geboten:
N. Lohfink, Zur Geschichte der Diskussion über den Monotheismus im
Alten Israel (9-25); E. Zengcr, Das jahwistische Werk - ein Wegbereiter des
jahwistischen Monotheismus? (26-53); G. Hentschel, Elija und der Kult des
Baal (54-90); H.-W. Jüngling, Der Heilige Israels. Der erste Jesaja zum Thema
„Gott" (91-114); G. Braulik, Das Deuteronomium und die Geburt des Monotheismus
(115-159); J. Scharbert, »Jahwe im frühisraelitischen Recht
(160-183).
K.-H.B.
Judaica
Ginzel, Günther Bernd [Hg.]: Die Bergpredigt: jüdisches und christliches
Glaubensdokument. Eine Synopsc der Texte. Mit einer Einleitung
hg. Heidelberg: Schneider 1985. 159 S. 8' = Lambert Schneider
Taschenbücher. Serie: Tachless: Zur Sache, 3. Kart.
DM 19,80.
Jüdisches Verständnis der sog. Bergpredigt ist traditionell aufs
engste mit der Jesusfrage verknüpft. Äußerungen zu Mt 5-7 (als einer
Art Identitätskarte Jesu und des Christentums) begegnen deshalb vor
allem im Rahmen von Monographien über Jesus und in Arbeiten, die
sich systematisch mit dem Verhältnis von Judentum und Christentum
befassen. Als hermeneutisch wirksam haben sich dabei insbesondere
folgende Faktoren erwiesen: der polemische Ton der Bergpredigt und
ihre polemische Rezeption kirchlicherseits, die Situation des Judentums
als Minorität in einer vielfach feindlichen abendländisch-christlichen
Umwelt und die Notwendigkeit, die eigene Identität im Verhältnis
zum Christentum zu wahren und das Nein zu Jesus auch im
Bereich der Ethik zu begründen. Über lange Zeiten hin haben diese
Zusammenhänge - durchaus verständlicherweise - zu rein apologetisch
-polemischen Stellungnahmen zur Bergpredigt gefuhrt: Deren
auf Dauer förderlichen ethischen Weisungen stammten aus dem
Judentum und stünden dort selber in Geltung, ihr „Überschuß" hingegen
sei unjüdisch oder aber im Zusammenhang der Naherwartung
der endzeitlichen Gottesherrschaft zu verstehen und wie sie zeitverhaftet
und zeitbedingt. Ist als exponierter Vertreter dieser Sicht mit
nach wie vor relevanten Anfragen Gerald Friedlander zu nennen (The
Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount. 1911 u. 1969), so begeg-