Recherche – Detailansicht
Ausgabe: | November/2021 |
Spalte: | 1046–1048 |
Kategorie: | Altes Testament |
Autor/Hrsg.: | Kolani, Nicodème Bakimani |
Titel/Untertitel: | Le livre d’Amos. La place et la fonction des éléments supposés tardifs. |
Verlag: | Berlin u. a.: De Gruyter 2019. XIV, 395 S. = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 510. Geb. EUR 102,95. ISBN 9783110560954. |
Rezensent: | Göran Eidevall |
In this monograph, Nicodème B. Kolani studies the book of Amos from a synchronic point of view. In order to demonstrate that this prophetic book constitutes a coherent literary composition, K. focuses on the function of the following passages: Amos 1,9–10; 1,11–12; 2,4–5; 4,13; 5,8–9; 7,10–17; 8,4–14; 9,5–6; 9,11–15. As explained in the Introduction, these nine passages were selected because earlier Amos scholarship has tended to treat them as secondary (that is, as later additions and/or as displaced textual elements).
This book has two main parts. In the first part, consisting of chapters 1 and 2, K. offers a comprehensive Forschungsgeschichte, focusing on various theories concerning the book of Amos as a more or less unified composition. In the second part, comprising chapters 3–5, K. attempts to prove that each one of the nine selected textual units is well integrated in its literary context, and further, that it is of essential value within this prophetic book as a whole. The results of the investigation are summarized in the »Conclusion générale«.
The survey of the history of research (chapters 1–2) is well written and immensely informative. In these two chapters, K. manages to present the views of a large number of scholars in a systematic and pedagogical way. The main organizing principles are chronol-ogy, with a timeline spanning more than a century, and metho-dology (diachronic versus synchronic approach). According to K., the decisive turning point in the history of research on Amos, the point when diachronic approaches began to be seriously challenged by synchronic approaches, occurred in 1976, when Klaus Koch pub-lished a substantial form-critical and structural study in three volumes, Amos: Untersucht mit den Methoden einer strukturalen Form-geschichte (AOAT 30; Neukirchen-Vluyn). While chapter 1 covers Amos studies before Koch (»de Wellhausen à l’Approche Synchronique de Koch«), chapter 2 discusses developments after Koch (»de Koch à nos jours«). Arguably, this structural arrangement tends to exaggerate the importance of the analysis made by Koch (and his group of »Mitarbeiter«). In fact, as shown by K. (49–52), this study’s impact on subsequent synchronic research was very limited.
In chapter 1, K. discusses a row of representatives of various types of diachronic approaches. According to the title of the chapter, the time span should be from Wellhausen (in the late 19th century) until 1976. However, since diachronic analyses continued to emerge after 1976, the discussion actually includes several Amos studies that appeared in the 1990s (e. g., the influential commentary authored by Jörg Jeremias) and later. This is confusing. Similarly, chapter 2, dealing with synchronic approaches to the book of Amos from 1976 onwards, discusses some pre-1976 works, as well (including, notably, a study by C. F. Keil, originally published in 1866, which is cited from an English translation; see 76–78).
Apart from its somewhat strange structural arrangement, discussed above, the Forschungsgeschichte presented by K. is a truly impressive achievement. It is a treasure trove for students and young scholars who take an interest in Amos. In my opinion, one of the most interesting aspects of this survey is the discovery that each new theory concerning the overall structure of the book of Amos has almost immediately been thoroughly criticized, or even reject-ed, by other scholars. Due to the complexity of the task of assessing the coherence of a composition like Amos, there is no consensus about the criteria to be used: rhetorical strategies, grammatical features, structural patterns, recurring formulas, or thematic threads? As noted by K., with a succinct formulation: »Les marqueurs structurels privilégiés par un auteur sont constamment réfutés par les autres« (63). Another important observation made by K. concerns the nine passages that redaction critics usually regard as late additions (see above). He shows that they tend to be regarded as problematic by synchronically minded scholars, too. This applies in particular to the three hymn fragments (4,13; 5,8–9; 9,5–6) and the short narrative about the confrontation between Amos and Ama-ziah (7,10–17), because those textual units appear to be intrusive, in terms of both genre and topic.
In the second part of his monograph (chapters 3–5), K. presents provides detailed studies of the nine selected passages (Amos 1,9–10; 1,11–12; 2,4–5; 4,13; 5,8–9; 7,10–17; 8,4–14; 9,5–6; 9,11–15). As far as I can see, the exegetical analysis is, on the whole, performed with great care and skill. The translations offered are based on sound philological reasoning. However, other aspects of these chapters, relating to the aim of defending the coherence of this prophetic book, could be seen as more controversial. Thus, K. claims that, on a closer examination, passages containing distinct phraseology that is unparal-leled in the remainder of the book of Amos fit perfectly into their li-terary context. Quite often, the arguments adduced by K. fail to convince me. One of the main reasons is that the line of argumentation changes from one chapter to the next. Whereas the oracles against Tyre, Edom, and Judah (1,9–12; 2,4–5) are deemed essential because of their function within a certain rhetorical and pedagogical strategy governing Amos 1–2 (see 187–191), the three hymn fragments (4,13; 5,8–9; 9,5–6) are evaluated with the help of another set of criteria. The conclusion that these textual units should be seen as indispensable ingredients in the book is mainly based on their theological content (underlining that YHWH is omnipotent and omniscient; master of the universe and not only a national patron deity; see 247–249.336–337). In this way, K. manages to evade the difficulty posed by passages that seem to have very little in common with the rest of the book, such as the doxologies or the utopian ending (9,11–15) He turns this deficit into an advantage, maintaining that these textual units add important theological dimensions that otherwise would be missing. If the ultimate goal is to present Amos as relevant for a contempor-ary Christian readership, as a book with »un message unifié et essential pour l’homme d’aujourd’hui« (341), this rhetorical strategy is understandable. From a strictly exegetical point of view, however, it can be seen as problematic.
It is unlikely that redaction critics who read this book will change their minds concerning the secondary status of certain passages in Amos. Nonetheless, they might be impressed by parts of the argumentation. In my opinion, K. manages to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the editors who inserted, for instance, the third doxology (9,5–6) in its place knew exactly what they were doing. This monograph helps us appreciate the book of Amos as a coherent and carefully designed literary composition, in spite of (or, perhaps, in virtue of) its thematic and theological diversity.