Diskussion:Genesis 1/WenhamV2: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Aus Die Offene Bibel

Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
K
Zeile 3: Zeile 3:
 
Commentators are, however, agreed on the syntactic function of this clause. It parallels “the earth was total chaos” and “darkness covered the deep.” Indeed, “deep” and “waters” are virtually synonymous here. V 2 therefore consists of three parallel clauses describing the situation prior to the divine fiat in v 3. Since clauses 1 and 2 describe a situation of black chaos, a similar picture must be conveyed by the third clause, argue Westermann and Schmidt. A reference to the Spirit of God in such a context is inappropriate. Since {{hebr}}אלהים{{hebr ende}} can be used to express the superlative, the translation “great wind” is preferable.
 
Commentators are, however, agreed on the syntactic function of this clause. It parallels “the earth was total chaos” and “darkness covered the deep.” Indeed, “deep” and “waters” are virtually synonymous here. V 2 therefore consists of three parallel clauses describing the situation prior to the divine fiat in v 3. Since clauses 1 and 2 describe a situation of black chaos, a similar picture must be conveyed by the third clause, argue Westermann and Schmidt. A reference to the Spirit of God in such a context is inappropriate. Since {{hebr}}אלהים{{hebr ende}} can be used to express the superlative, the translation “great wind” is preferable.
  
However, reducing {{hebr}}אלהים{{hebr ende}} simply to a superlative seems unlikely in this chapter, which elsewhere always uses it to mean God. Furthermore, nowhere else in Scripture does the phrase {{hebr}}רוח אלהים{{hebr ende}} or {{hebr}}רוח יהוה{{hebr ende}} ever mean “great wind”: it always refers to the Spirit or Wind of God. Thus the phrase must be taken to involve some manifestation of God, whether as wind, spirit, or breath (cf. R. Luyster, ZAW 93 [1981] 1–10). This is not necessarily in total contrast to the first two clauses mentioning chaos and darkness, for darkness is ambivalent; as mentioned above, at times it is synonymous with all that is anti-God, but it may also be his hiding place. It is impossible to make a firm choice between “wind,” “breath,” and “spirit” as translations of {{hebr}}רוח{{hebr ende}} in this case, but the verb “hovering,” used in conjunction with it, does perhaps fit “wind” better than either “spirit” or “breath.” Admittedly מרחפת “hovering” has been used to justify some less probable views. For example, Syriac raḥep can mean “brood over” or “incubate,” so it has been suggested we have here a picture of the Spirit incubating the world egg, a notion found in some Phoenician cosmologies. But this seems unlikely. Deut 32:11 is the only other passage in the OT where {{hebr}}רחף{{hebr ende}} (piel) is found. Here it describes the action of an eagle hovering over its young before it flies off. rḫp is also found in Ugaritic to describe birds’ flight. Beauchamp (Création, 172–86) observes that רחף would also aptly describe the motion of the wind, and it is for this reason I have adopted the rendering “Wind of God” as a concrete and vivid image of the Spirit of God. The phrase does really express the powerful presence of God moving mysteriously over the face of the waters. Beauchamp helpfully compares the description of the divine chariot to “a stormy wind” guided by the spirit (Ezek 1:4, 12, 20) and the references to wisdom watching over God’s creative activity (Prov 8 and Job 38) to this passage in Genesis. Though it cannot be proved that this is exactly what Gen 1:2 intends to say, these interpretations could be evoked by the image of the Wind of God hovering and ready for action."
+
However, reducing {{hebr}}אלהים{{hebr ende}} simply to a superlative seems unlikely in this chapter, which elsewhere always uses it to mean God. Furthermore, nowhere else in Scripture does the phrase {{hebr}}רוח אלהים{{hebr ende}} or {{hebr}}רוח יהוה{{hebr ende}} ever mean “great wind”: it always refers to the Spirit or Wind of God. Thus the phrase must be taken to involve some manifestation of God, whether as wind, spirit, or breath (cf. R. Luyster, ZAW 93 [1981] 1–10). This is not necessarily in total contrast to the first two clauses mentioning chaos and darkness, for darkness is ambivalent; as mentioned above, at times it is synonymous with all that is anti-God, but it may also be his hiding place. It is impossible to make a firm choice between “wind,” “breath,” and “spirit” as translations of {{hebr}}רוח{{hebr ende}} in this case, but the verb “hovering,” used in conjunction with it, does perhaps fit “wind” better than either “spirit” or “breath.” Admittedly {{hebr}}מרחפת{{hebr ende}} “hovering” has been used to justify some less probable views. For example, Syriac raḥep can mean “brood over” or “incubate,” so it has been suggested we have here a picture of the Spirit incubating the world egg, a notion found in some Phoenician cosmologies. But this seems unlikely. Deut 32:11 is the only other passage in the OT where {{hebr}}רחף{{hebr ende}} (piel) is found. Here it describes the action of an eagle hovering over its young before it flies off. rḫp is also found in Ugaritic to describe birds’ flight. Beauchamp (Création, 172–86) observes that {{hebr}}רחף{{hebr ende}} would also aptly describe the motion of the wind, and it is for this reason I have adopted the rendering “Wind of God” as a concrete and vivid image of the Spirit of God. The phrase does really express the powerful presence of God moving mysteriously over the face of the waters. Beauchamp helpfully compares the description of the divine chariot to “a stormy wind” guided by the spirit (Ezek 1:4, 12, 20) and the references to wisdom watching over God’s creative activity (Prov 8 and Job 38) to this passage in Genesis. Though it cannot be proved that this is exactly what Gen 1:2 intends to say, these interpretations could be evoked by the image of the Wind of God hovering and ready for action."
  
 
: -- Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1–15, Dallas, zu {{hebr}}וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת{{hebr ende}}.
 
: -- Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1–15, Dallas, zu {{hebr}}וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת{{hebr ende}}.

Version vom 30. Juni 2014, 03:22 Uhr

"“And the Wind of God hovered over the waters.” There is deep disagreement among modern commentators as to the correct interpretation of this phrase. On the one hand von Rad, Speiser, Schmidt, Westermann, and neb see this as simply a description of the primeval chaos and therefore translate it “a mighty wind swept over the surface of the waters.” On the other hand, Cassuto, Kidner, and Gispen, as well as older commentators such as Gunkel, Skinner, and Procksch prefer the traditional translation: “The Spirit of God was moving …” while Ridderbos and Steck think “the breath of God” a preferable translation. The dispute centers on the two words in the phrase רוח אלהים.רוח can mean “wind” or “spirit.” אלהים almost always means “God,” but in a few passages it does appear to be used as an alternative to a superlative; hence the proposed rendering “mighty wind.”

Commentators are, however, agreed on the syntactic function of this clause. It parallels “the earth was total chaos” and “darkness covered the deep.” Indeed, “deep” and “waters” are virtually synonymous here. V 2 therefore consists of three parallel clauses describing the situation prior to the divine fiat in v 3. Since clauses 1 and 2 describe a situation of black chaos, a similar picture must be conveyed by the third clause, argue Westermann and Schmidt. A reference to the Spirit of God in such a context is inappropriate. Since אלהים can be used to express the superlative, the translation “great wind” is preferable.

However, reducing אלהים simply to a superlative seems unlikely in this chapter, which elsewhere always uses it to mean God. Furthermore, nowhere else in Scripture does the phrase רוח אלהים or רוח יהוה ever mean “great wind”: it always refers to the Spirit or Wind of God. Thus the phrase must be taken to involve some manifestation of God, whether as wind, spirit, or breath (cf. R. Luyster, ZAW 93 [1981] 1–10). This is not necessarily in total contrast to the first two clauses mentioning chaos and darkness, for darkness is ambivalent; as mentioned above, at times it is synonymous with all that is anti-God, but it may also be his hiding place. It is impossible to make a firm choice between “wind,” “breath,” and “spirit” as translations of רוח in this case, but the verb “hovering,” used in conjunction with it, does perhaps fit “wind” better than either “spirit” or “breath.” Admittedly מרחפת “hovering” has been used to justify some less probable views. For example, Syriac raḥep can mean “brood over” or “incubate,” so it has been suggested we have here a picture of the Spirit incubating the world egg, a notion found in some Phoenician cosmologies. But this seems unlikely. Deut 32:11 is the only other passage in the OT where רחף (piel) is found. Here it describes the action of an eagle hovering over its young before it flies off. rḫp is also found in Ugaritic to describe birds’ flight. Beauchamp (Création, 172–86) observes that רחף would also aptly describe the motion of the wind, and it is for this reason I have adopted the rendering “Wind of God” as a concrete and vivid image of the Spirit of God. The phrase does really express the powerful presence of God moving mysteriously over the face of the waters. Beauchamp helpfully compares the description of the divine chariot to “a stormy wind” guided by the spirit (Ezek 1:4, 12, 20) and the references to wisdom watching over God’s creative activity (Prov 8 and Job 38) to this passage in Genesis. Though it cannot be proved that this is exactly what Gen 1:2 intends to say, these interpretations could be evoked by the image of the Wind of God hovering and ready for action."

-- Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1–15, Dallas, zu וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת.

Ohne hier diverse Textstellen als Belege vollständig zu zitieren, möchte ich obige Ausführungen bescheiden ergänzen. Das bei allen christlichen Kirchen anerkannte trinitarische Glaubensbekenntnis hat seine Verwurzelung -wenn nicht sogar Begründung- im Dreiklang der ersten drei Verse von Genesis. In Vers 1 wird Gott Vater als Schöpfer von Himmel und Erde vorgestellt, Vers 2 beschreibt die Unterstützung des heiligen Geistes im Hintergrund (siehe wie erwähnt in obigem Kommentar Sprüche 8 ;22-30) und im Vers 3 wird der Sohn als Wort Gottes eingeführt, durch den Gott der Vater Alles geschaffen hat (siehe Prolog Johannesevangelium). Es stellt sich von daher die Frage, in welchem Maße spätestens bei der Erstellung einer Lesefassung auf eine Übereinstimmung einzelner Textstellen mit dem Gesamtzeugnis der Bibel und anerkannten Grundaussagen über christlichen Glauben zu achten wäre. Oder müssen diese Gesamtaspekte zugunsten von Wortanalysen außen vor bleiben? Was geschieht, wenn eine einzelne Wortanalyse den Ergebnissen der biblischen Gesamtaussage widerspricht? Was hat dann Vorrang? -Aaron- 12:13, 12. Jun. 2014 (CEST)

Deine Bedenken kann ich gut verstehen! Gerade die Trinitätslehre ist in der Kirchengeschichte ja von Zweifeln und Häresien betroffen gewesen. Auch ich mag auf die Trinität nichts kommen lassen. Von daher kann ich mich gut in deine Rolle versetzen - eine Belegstelle weniger würde der Lehre gewissermaßen ein Stück vom Boden unter den Füßen wegziehen.

Wenn wir aber mal überlegen, wie man in theologischer Arbeit aus der Bibel bestimmte Lehren begründet – da gibt es die Faustregel, dass man ein Dogma nicht aufgrund einer einzelnen Bibelstelle begründen sollte. Für Theologen ist es deshalb normalerweise möglich, bei der Exegese ohne Rücksicht auf die klassische systematische Theologie munter die im Kontext der Stelle wahrscheinlichste Auslegung festzustellen. Ich bin da gerne mutig und schaue zuerst auf die Stelle und erst im zweiten Blick darauf, wie sich meine Interpretation zum breiteren Kontext der christlichen Lehre verhält. Wenn dann Zweifel aufkommen, kann man die eigene Interpretation ja nochmal überprüfen.

Auch bei 1. Mose 1 bin ich völlig unbesorgt, was die Dreieinigkeitslehre betrifft. Für meine theologischen Überzeugungen spielt es keine Rolle, ob ich die Trinität nun schon im Schöpfungsbericht bezeugt finde oder nicht – sie ist ja an genügend anderen Stellen der Bibel auffindbar.

Zum Schluss lass mich noch eine exegetische Regel anführen: Man sollte sich bei der Exegese nicht von theologischen Positionen das Ergebnis vorschreiben lassen. Die Theologie speist sich ja aus dem Bibeltext und muss sich von ihm auch hinterfragen lassen. (In diesem Fall natürlich kein Problem.) Unsere Theologie darf uns nicht das selbständige Denken abnehmen. Ich hoffe, das kann deine Bedenken etwas entkräften. --Ben 23:37, 14. Jun. 2014 (CEST)

Du schreibst: Zitat "da gibt es die Faustregel, dass man ein Dogma nicht aufgrund einer einzelnen Bibelstelle begründen sollte." Zitat Ende Genau so habe ich es auch gelernt mit der erweiterten Faustregel, dass niemals etwas biblische Lehre sein kann, wenn es nicht von 2 oder 3 biblischen Autoren unabhängig voneinander bestätigt worden ist. Wenn wir -nur z.B.- aus einer einzelnen Bibelstelle exegetisch bewiesen hätten, dass es am Anfang der Schöpfung Gottes noch gar keine Erde gab, würde sich die Frage konkret stellen, wo die zwei oder drei anderen Bibelstellen sind, die eben diese Interpretation bestätigen. Wenn dann auch noch alle anderen bekannten Bibelübersetzungen anders übersetzen, stellt sich in der Tat die Frage, was zählt mehr. Ist es eine einzige Bibelstelle mit unserer speziellen Exegese oder das Gesamtzeugnis der Bibel? Auf diese Weise ausgeübtes selbständiges Denken -noch dazu im Gegensatz zu den Bibelübersetzungen aller anderen anerkannten Kirchen und Denominationen- kann ja auch dazu führen, dass man die Bibel nach der eigenen Denkweise frisiert (Beispiel die Bibelübersetzung der Zeugen Jehovas). Möglicherweise ist dieser ganze Fragenkatalog auch ein Thema für die Übersetzungskriterien. Trinitatis 2014 -Aaron-