Sárospataki Füzetek 20. (2016)
2016 / 2. szám - ARTICLES / STUDIEN - György Kustár: Ont he Slopes of Sinai - Some Hermeneutical Questions in Light of the Kabbalistic and Historical Critical Exegesis
On the Slopes of Sinai - Some Hermeneutical Questions tendencies and devices. That means that in spite of the discontinuous tendencies, on which the historical method building, the text is an independent and continuous universe which has its own strategies of meaning construction. His understanding of the tradition definitely brings a new perspective into the theological discussion. In this respect, his work is a mediating attempt between the historical and narrative hermeneutical models. Unfortunately, in his actual argumentation Dozeman did not succeed in reconciling the diachronic perspective with the canonical form of the texts. He uses the concept of repetition73 as a connecting and explanatory link between the traditions. According to his understanding of reduction, the stages of development are repetitions and enhancements. Making a distinction between two types of replication, “mimesis” and “ungrounded repetition”, he explains the core of the Sinai tradition as representative of the first type and the Deuteronomical (D) and Priestly (P) reactions as illustrative of the second type.74 Mimesis is a kind of repetition of which the repetitive elements are connected to a prototype that creates the commonality and also the ground of difference between them.75 The story of the oldest tradition represents a prototype for the D and the P tradition, and as such, the relation between the oldest and redactional traditions is mimetic. On the other hand, the P and D redactions in themselves are ungrounded repetitions as they do not represent a common tradition.76 In the final form of the tradition they are united though and their simultaneous co-existence creates the basis of connection. Overtly, his approach uses the concept of repetition in a double way, synchronically and diachronically in order to deal with the continuous and discontinuous character of the texts. The objectionable part of Dozeman’s argument is the fact that he applies a literary category decontextualized from its original function. His understanding of repetition is applied to units of traditions diachronically, and not for an organic textual unit, that is presupposed by his original definition of mimesis. Probably because of this, the models of repetition created for the understanding of the text do not coincide with the interpretative facts. He speaks about mimetic repetition as a model for the understanding of the oldest tradition. However, it turns out shortly, that the particular mountain (Zion) that is supposed to be the retraceable point of identity for the two traditions is, in its present form suppressed by the P and D redactions, and is “no longer constructive”.77 At this point the trajectory of the argument breaks as the literary category applied appears to be inapplicable for the actual subject. The point of identity between the mimetic model and the historical model is useful until the conclusion that the Zion tradition is the prototype of the other two. But the 73 Dozemann: op. cit., 147ff. 74 Ibid., 150-156. 75 Ibid., 151. 76 Ibid., 153ff. 77 Dozeman: God on the Mountain, 153. 2016-2 Sárospataki Füzetek 20. évfolyam 45
