按時序重編的聖經

[Daniel_Cheung]

Chronological Bible sparks debate
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-08-14-bible-chronological_N.htm

Bob Sanford wanted to create a Bible that would bring order and clarity to the text. Instead, he's waded right into one of the great debates of biblical scholarship.

The Chronological Study Bible will be released this fall in the midst of a Bible-publishing boom in the United States. In an industry that now as much to do with profits as with prophets, Sanford expects his new edition to have wide appeal.

"(Our challenge) is to take the scholarship and make it enjoyable to a readership that enjoys history," said Sanford, who oversees the Bible division for the giant Christian publisher, Thomas Nelson.

The company has carved out its share of the industry's estimated $500 million annual haul by cornering the market on niche markets, such as families and teenagers.

The latest edition rejiggers the order of books, psalms, and Gospels in an effort to provide a historical framework for a text most scholars consider chronologically challenged...

[Daniel_Cheung]

有點詫異那些反對聲音中，好像沒有一個在說，聖經的敘事有其編排上的價值，不應被合參式編排打破。我覺得這指向一個很深入的神學問題－－在甚麼意義下聖經是神的話語／真理？


坦白說，我歡迎有這樣一本聖經。我應該會買一本，並且認真讀一遍。

[wonggk]

有點詫異那些反對聲音中，好像沒有一個在說，聖經的敘事有其編排上的價值，不應被合參式編排打破。我覺得這指向一個很深入的神學問題－－在甚麼意義下聖經是神的話語／真理？


有啊，在文章中有一段說

The Bible's order is significant for other reasons as well. Some scholars worry that changing the order would impact the Bible's meaning and diminish the value of non-narrative elements, such as the book of Psalms.


不過我也想買來看一看。:rolleyes:

[Daniel_Cheung]

有啊，在文章中有一段說

The Bible's order is significant for other reasons as well. Some scholars worry that changing the order would impact the Bible's meaning and diminish the value of non-narrative elements, such as the book of Psalms.


不過我也想買來看一看。:rolleyes:

但那句很奇怪，原來他們擔心受影響的，是 non-narrative elements 。打亂原本編排，最受影響的應該是 narrative elements 嘛！

[Daniel_Cheung]

Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0718020685)只買 US$29.69 ，很吸引的價錢。（光顧 Amazon 前，請到 Christian Century (http://www.christiancentury.org)按連結進入，那就可以支持 Christian Century 。）

[sbchan]

新約可能易排一d，但有些舊約如約伯記，怎排呢？:confused:

[pilgrim]

It's a tricky business to produce a chronological study bible, and to be honest, I'm not sure of its value.

Biblical books were carried down from generation to generation in a community of faith. They did not come to us as a chronological history of Israel, though they certainly contain its history. I haven't read the chronological bible but I suspect it is simply a money making opportunity. Its target audience is the conservative Christians as can be seen by its choice of using the NKJV. These Christians think that if they can get to the striaght forward history of the Bible they would be closer to the truth. This is not unlike the people who did redaction, form and source criticisms believing that they would be closer to the truth / history when they could get back to the first layer of the original source.

[wilson]

按歷史時序而重編聖經次序的, 在華文方面已經有李保羅的那本, 由漢語聖經協會出版. 按時序看聖經事件, 並不是聖經作者或編者的意圖, 也並不是每段經文也可以確實肯定是那一個時候寫作的.

如創十一1-9當在十24-25之前, 可是依聖經脈絡而言, 十章的家譜與十一章10節後的家譜之間出現的巴別塔事件, 是有其寫作的目的. 如路得記在猶太人的聖卷中出現在箴言之後, 可以作為才德婦人的解說, 而波阿斯與路得含蓄的愛的表達, 又成為雅歌的伏筆, 公開地歌頌愛情. 如以士師記與撒母耳記之間出現路得記, 那麼路得記便成為大衛王的正統, 屬靈傳承的證據. 但是, 依歷史時序, 究竟要把路得記放在士師記前期或中期? 又或是, 按該書的寫作時間, 便可能在王國分裂後或甚至是被擄後的作品. 如士師記, 17-21章所發生的事件, 明顯在參孫時代之前, 為何要在書卷結束前記載呢? 若以猶太人的前先知書角度看, 或是歷史書角度看, 也有不同的意涵. 如以賽亞書36-37章該在38-39章之後, 按時序而言. 而王下19-20章的次序是抄錄以賽亞書的. 耶利米書很多段落是不按時序編輯的.

若按時序看聖經, 是按寫作的時序, 還是文本的時序呢? 如何安置箴言, 詩篇等的經文. 可能要粗暴地把約伯記放在亞伯拉罕或更早的時期, 把雅歌看為年輕的所羅門作品, 傳道書為年老的寫作. 可是雅歌與傳道書似乎不是所羅門的作品呢!新約可能更支離破碎, 四福音被分屍. 可能要重新思考為甚麼一個耶穌的故事要有四本福音書.

當然從多角度看聖經總有其益處, 不知你看一次聖經要多久, 如果你要按時序看聖經, 你希望看到甚麼呢? 不如你以你手上的聖經, 按猶太人的經典次序看舊約, 然後看新約. 可能益處還多. 當然, 錢在你手, 你要買多一本聖經, 支持出版界, 是值得鼓勵的.

說多了或是說重了的地方, 請見諒!

[Daniel_Cheung]

為甚麼重編時序就是一種不尊重或妨礙？背後理由是甚麼？問題始終是，聖經「真理」，偏向於其敘事抑或事實（史實）？以符類福音合參來說，這究竟是幫助人接近真理抑或令人遠離真理？誰界定甚麼才是真理？

另外，我有點擔心那本新編聖經沒有解釋編排時序背後的理論，以致讀者看不到一些次序的爭議性。

[維記wei_kei]

為甚麼重編時序就是一種不尊重或妨礙？背後理由是甚麼？問題始終是，聖經「真理」，偏向於其敘事抑或事實（史實）？以符類福音合參來說，這究竟是幫助人接近真理抑或令人遠離真理？誰界定甚麼才是真理？

另外，我有點擔心那本新編聖經沒有解釋編排時序背後的理論，以致讀者看不到一些次序的爭議性。
背後步及的一個基本問題是，重視歷史（時序）是現代性的一個重要向度及預設，然而，這不是聖經及其作者的視點及角度，也就是說，重新排（歷史）次序後，我們會和希望看到的，是我們（現代人）想看到的東西，而不是聖經及其作者想我們看到的東西。當然，作為一個入門，是無可厚非的，然而，這卻會強化了現代人的偏見（這不是負面義，而是中性的）。

[Daniel_Cheung]

背後步及的一個基本問題是，重視歷史（時序）是現代性的一個重要向度及預設，然而，這不是聖經及其作者的視點及角度，也就是說，重新排（歷史）次序後，我們會和希望看到的，是我們（現代人）想看到的東西，而不是聖經及其作者想我們看到的東西。當然，作為一個入門，是無可厚非的，然而，這卻會強化了現代人的偏見（這不是負面義，而是中性的）。
不一定要把重視時序看為「現代的偏見」，這太偏狹了。有些人可能純粹感到這事與那事的次序很混亂，覺得讀不明白。有些人又可能是為了查經，想了解某段時期的發展始末，好明白某書卷作者的寫作心境和背景，從而鞏固他對聖經作者想讀者看到的觀點，因為不了解背景，就難以了解某些作者意圖。

[維記wei_kei]

不一定要把重視時序看為「現代的偏見」，這太偏狹了。有些人可能純粹感到這事與那事的次序很混亂，覺得讀不明白。有些人又可能是為了查經，想了解某段時期的發展始末，好明白某書卷作者的寫作心境和背景，從而鞏固他對聖經作者想讀者看到的觀點，因為不了解背景，就難以了解某些作者意圖。
要再次強調，「偏見」這個字詞如我所說，是中性詞，而不是貶義，是銓釋學（特別是Gadamer的洞見）所表明的，是必然存在的視界（horizon）。所以這與偏頗無關。相反地，我正是想指出，感到這事與那事的次序很混亂，覺得讀不明白，或想了解某段時期的發展始末，都是現代人的特徵，是現代人獨特的欲求（desire），成為了現代人作為了解真理的前設；這不是說古人不會有這樣要求，但不會認為這是基本的，對了解真理是沒有必然性的。聖經的編排正是一例證：當宗教改革時，把希伯來聖經重新分類及編排次序，正是按聖代人的時序及分類要求，認為這樣才可以更明白及了解聖經，卻不知道，這樣卻失卻了一些重要的信息，如wilson之前曾提過的例子。

[Daniel_Cheung]

要再次強調，「偏見」這個字詞如我所說，是中性詞，而不是貶義，是銓釋學（特別是Gadamer的洞見）所表明的，是必然存在的視界（horizon）。所以這與偏頗無關。相反地，我正是想指出，感到這事與那事的次序很混亂，覺得讀不明白，或想了解某段時期的發展始末，都是現代人的特徵，是現代人獨特的欲求（desire），成為了現代人作為了解真理的前設；這不是說古人不會有這樣要求，但不會認為這是基本的，對了解真理是沒有必然性的。聖經的編排正是一例證：當宗教改革時，把希伯來聖經重新分類及編排次序，正是按聖代人的時序及分類要求，認為這樣才可以更明白及了解聖經，卻不知道，這樣卻失卻了一些重要的信息，如wilson之前曾提過的例子。

我說的「偏狹」，是指這不一定是現代人才（顯著地）有的特徵。我沒有把「偏見」看成「偏狹」。除非，你筆下的現代人是 by definition 任何有那些欲求的人，那末，叫不叫做「現代」人其實已意義不大。

[維記wei_kei]

除非，你筆下的現代人是 by definition 任何有那些欲求的人，那末，叫不叫做「現代」人其實已意義不大。
或許這樣說，我們都是時代之子，在這意義下我們都是現代人，而這時代特徵是已然烙印在我們身上，只是有人些多一點，有些人會少一點。因而若要回答何謂現代人作為時代之子會有時代烙印，我就會回答，重視歷史（時序）是現代性的一個重要向度及預設，是一種ontological status。

[pilgrim]

為甚麼重編時序就是一種不尊重或妨礙？背後理由是甚麼？問題始終是，聖經「真理」，偏向於其敘事抑或事實（史實）？以符類福音合參來說，這究竟是幫助人接近真理抑或令人遠離真理？誰界定甚麼才是真理？


If the bible needs to be read as history, literature and theology combined, to favour history by re-arranging the text in a "chronological order" will definitely destroy its literary construction, which will in turn change or even destroy its theology. (God Father II will be a very different movie with a totally different edge if the two periods of the story were told in series rather than in parallel.) I am not saying saying that there is no value in studying the biblical events in a more or less chronological order, just as the synopsis is a good tool for studying the (synoptic) gospels, but it has only a very narrow purpose. Thomas Nelson, it seems to me, is not promoting the chronological bible as a tool like the synopsis but rather as an enjoyable read for those who love history (USA Today quoting Bob Sanford, Aug 14, 08). What it will be is "history" out of its proper literary and therefore theological context.

There is of course the tough issues of how one goes about picking a chronology for events like the two accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and 2 without introducing ones prejudice in the whole process. Will the final product be "straight history" as the publisher intended, or is it somebody's view of how things went?

I admit I am a bit cynical about this project.

[clement]

要再次強調，「偏見」這個字詞如我所說，是中性詞，而不是貶義，是銓釋學（特別是Gadamer的洞見）所表明的，是必然存在的視界（horizon）。所以這與偏頗無關。相反地，我正是想指出，感到這事與那事的次序很混亂，覺得讀不明白，或想了解某段時期的發展始末，都是現代人的特徵，是現代人獨特的欲求（desire），成為了現代人作為了解真理的前設；這不是說古人不會有這樣要求，但不會認為這是基本的，對了解真理是沒有必然性的。聖經的編排正是一例證：當宗教改革時，把希伯來聖經重新分類及編排次序，正是按聖代人的時序及分類要求，認為這樣才可以更明白及了解聖經，卻不知道，這樣卻失卻了一些重要的信息，如wilson之前曾提過的例子。

我說的「偏狹」，是指這不一定是現代人才（顯著地）有的特徵。我沒有把「偏見」看成「偏狹」。除非，你筆下的現代人是 by definition 任何有那些欲求的人，那末，叫不叫做「現代」人其實已意義不大。

這樣說來，路加的欲求也很「現代人」了。

1:3-4 這 些 事 我 既 從 起 頭 都 詳 細 考 察 了 、 就 定 意 要 按 著 次 序 寫 給 你 、使 你 知 道 所 學 之 道 都 是 確 實 的 。

另外，編年史中國人也做了很久，不見得只有現代人才追求，不見得中國人只重視「演義」而忽略「史誌」。
　
　

[clement]

Originally Posted by 張國棟
為甚麼重編時序就是一種不尊重或妨礙？背後理由是甚麼？問題始終是，聖經「真理」，偏向於其敘事抑或事實（ 史實）？以符類福音合參來說，這究竟是幫助人接近真理抑或令人遠離真理？誰界定甚麼才是真理？

If the bible needs to be read as history, literature and theology combined, to favour history by re-arranging the text in a "chronological order" will definitely destroy its literary construction, which will in turn change or even destroy its theology. (God Father II will be a very different movie with a totally different edge if the two periods of the story were told in series rather than in parallel.) I am not saying saying that there is no value in studying the biblical events in a more or less chronological order, just as the synopsis is a good tool for studying the (synoptic) gospels, but it has only a very narrow purpose. Thomas Nelson, it seems to me, is not promoting the chronological bible as a tool like the synopsis but rather as an enjoyable read for those who love history (USA Today quoting Bob Sanford, Aug 14, 08). What it will be is "history" out of its proper literary and therefore theological context.

There is of course the tough issues of how one goes about picking a chronology for events like the two accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and 2 without introducing ones prejudice in the whole process. Will the final product be "straight history" as the publisher intended, or is it somebody's view of how things went?

I admit I am a bit cynical about this project.

似乎 Pilgrim 兄也沒有太確切回應到張兄的提問（不過這也非 Pilgrim 兄必要做的責任，請relax）。Re-arranging固然會disturb到現有的神學理解，但也可以產生新的神學理解。

進一步說，不見得跟時序排聖經就必定會破壞神學。反過來說，追求一定時序反而是神學反思的一個活動。談論上帝救世事工的人，例如過去的時代論者，也是排了一個時序出來。


另外，literary construction到底跟mythological construction（例如希臘史詩）怎樣區分呢？
　
我們一般說「真實」，就是按事情如何發生而言，而非事情如何被表述、被創作而言。「作野」的，我們一般稱為神話。



以前人們常說：基督教是一個「歷史的宗教」。現在為何又這麼害怕歷史，彷彿歷史是（可能比哲學更糟糕的）洪水猛獸，會破壞真理呢？

原來問題在於：因為基督教徒的歷史是Geschichte（發生史）意義上的歷史，不是Historie（史學）意義上的歷史。但問題恰恰就是：既然是Geschichte（發生史），它的含歷史量到底多少，到底重要不重要呢。99%事實1%的領受/解釋/構作可以叫做Geschichte（發生史），1%事實99%領受/解釋/構作也可以叫做Geschichte（發生史）；這樣會使得關於發生史的談論變得缺乏確定的認知意義。但在後一個情況下，「1%事實99%領受/解釋/構作」似乎不配稱為歷史，只能是神話故事。


　　
　

[clement]

為甚麼重編時序就是一種不尊重或妨礙？背後理由是甚麼？問題始終是，聖經「真理」，偏向於其敘事抑或事實（史實）？以符類福音合參來說，這究竟是幫助人接近真理抑或令人遠離真理？誰界定甚麼才是真理？

另外，我有點擔心那本新編聖經沒有解釋編排時序背後的理論，以致讀者看不到一些次序的爭議性。

根據某種後現代觀念，敘事重要過史實／事實，重複產生真理（而不是先有真理後有重複講述），重要的是身份認同。（其實我不喜歡用「後現代」這類坊間流行的字眼，這實在太籠統，而且太單一化。「後現代」根本沒有統一性，因此「後現代」這個詞也是多餘的，沒有確切認知意義的。）

這樣的話，前人說基督教是「歷史性」的「（客觀）真理」，這是美麗的誤會了。甚麼《神學大全》，更是偏離敘事真理之極致。

基督教真理是敘事性的，只能以這麼一種或者幾種既定的敘事次序來進行。所以，符類福音合參是沒有增益的，只是滿足現代人的興趣。
　
　
　

[維記wei_kei]

這樣說來，路加的欲求也很「現代人」了。

1:3-4 這 些 事 我 既 從 起 頭 都 詳 細 考 察 了 、 就 定 意 要 按 著 次 序 寫 給 你 、使 你 知 道 所 學 之 道 都 是 確 實 的 。

另外，編年史中國人也做了很久，不見得只有現代人才追求，不見得中國人只重視「演義」而忽略「史誌」。
　
　
路加這節經文是很有趣的，因為根據聖經學者的了解，這本福音書正好沒有根據耶穌生平的歷史時序寫成的，而是fit in某種神學目的而寫就的，於是成為了聖經學者研究皂重要課題之一。

至於中國人方面，我不太熟悉，不過正如我說過，問題不是說古人 不會有這樣要求，但不會認為這是基本的，對了解真理是沒有必然性的，按我理解，這種看法也大致符合中國人對義理追求的基本觀點。

[Daniel_Cheung]

不是說古人 不會有這樣要求，但不會認為這是基本的，對了解真理是沒有必然性的

這個必然性問題，你之前只說為「重視」，現在強烈得多。無可否認，現代思潮中有一種叫做歷史研究，在那裡，弄清楚時序是很基本和必然的要求。但把這個推而廣之，說現代精神視時序為了解真理的必然條件，似乎只是一種對「現代」的神話－－正如人們常說「後現代」在主張甚麼，但卻不理會「後現代」意指何物。

[Daniel_Cheung]

根據某種後現代觀念，敘事重要過史實／事實，重複產生真理（而不是先有真理後有重複講述），重要的是身份認同。（其實我不喜歡用「後現代」這類坊間流行的字眼，這實在太籠統，而且太單一化。「後現代」根本沒有統一性，因此「後現代」這個詞也是多餘的，沒有確切認知意義的。）

這樣的話，前人說基督教是「歷史性」的「（客觀）真理」，這是美麗的誤會了。甚麼《神學大全》，更是偏離敘事真理之極致。

基督教真理是敘事性的，只能以這麼一種或者幾種既定的敘事次序來進行。所以，符類福音合參是沒有增益的，只是滿足現代人的興趣。
　
你這裡的講法是 hypothetical 的，即假如某種「後現代」觀念為正確，則基督教沒有歷史性真理，並且，基督教真理是敘事性的。

但我仍有兩個回應：

一，了解時序，有時的確有助了解敘事，因此不能把前者的關懷強行分類為「只是滿足現代人的興趣」，強調真理有敘事性，不涵衍不理會時序可能會帶來的啟發。（下邊會提到，敘事性和歷史性並不是 mutual exclusive or exhaustive。）

二，其實，何謂真理是敘事性的呢？這話講就講得多，但最終究竟是怎樣，恐怕不是人人都明白。如果有實例就最好。

說起實例，我懷疑，很多人心裡所謂的重視敘事，只是以下這一類：某些舊約聖經故事只指國家政治問題歸咎在國王的道德敗壞上，若從時序史實看，這是很難看出來的。所以，為了保住那個道德教訓－－亦即聖經教訓，必須堅持敘事高於時序／歷史。但這種想法，其實尚未能直接被視作真理是敘事性而非歷史性的，因為他們既從那些故事裡找出了「某類道德是重要的，是神所喜悅的」，這已是把真理用一個非敘事手法說出來（但這非敘事手法亦不是歷史性的，只是抽象普遍化的命題表達）。

[維記wei_kei]

這個必然性問題，你之前只說為「重視」，現在強烈得多。無可否認，現代思潮中有一種叫做歷史研究，在那裡，弄清楚時序是很基本和必然的要求。但把這個推而廣之，說現代精神視時序為了解真理的必然條件，似乎只是一種對「現代」的神話－－正如人們常說「後現代」在主張甚麼，但卻不理會「後現代」意指何物。
我不是從某種歷史研究方式為基礎，推而廣之而主張現代性（或現代人）對歷史時序的重視或視之為理解真理的必然預設。我也壓根兒沒有論證或定義甚麼，我只是把觀察到甚麼是「現代」的特點說出來，算不上有甚麼理論，僅此而已。

[Daniel_Cheung]

想起另一問題：為何要基於 Nkjv ，而不用 Niv, Nasb 或 Rvs？

[clement]

想起另一問題：為何要基於 Nkjv ，而不用 Niv, Nasb 或 Rvs？

因為開放版權，不用申請？

* 聽說耶證的譯本也是拿了和合本舊約來用，詳情就不知道了。

[wonggk]

想起另一問題：為何要基於 Nkjv ，而不用 Niv, Nasb 或 Rvs？

多數是版權問題。

[pilgrim]

Re-arranging固然會disturb到現有的神學理解，但也可以產生新的神學理解。


Creating new theology is an interesting concept. Do we have the authority to create new theology today by cutting and pasting the biblical text in a new way is a deep theological issue. Evangelicals and those who hold a high view of scriptures tend not to allow this. Liberals of course see it differently. Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to brush you off but I -- someone with an evangelical leaning -- hesitate to create new theology by rearranging the text.

原來問題在於：因為基督教徒的歷史是Geschichte（發生史）意義上的歷史，不是Historie（史學）意義上的歷史。但問題恰恰就是：既然是Geschichte（發生史），它的含歷史量到底多少，到底重要不重要呢。

I understand that some tend to drive a wedge between Geschichte and Historie. But I don't see a clear distinction between the these two terms for "history." We do not have access to most of the bibilical events (i.e. history) other than through the biblical texts, which were written from a certain ideological perspective (i.e. theology) using different literary techniques (i.e. literature). We do not pretend to have access to "bare facts" of history, do we?

Having said that, the historicity of the biblical events can be assessed by doing historical investigations (e.g. archeology) to see how they match up to other known human artifacts and events. The findings may give us some qualitative way to say how probably an event in the bible is historical.


以前人們常說：基督教是一個「歷史的宗教」。現在為何又這麼害怕歷史，彷彿歷史是（可能比哲學更糟糕的）洪水猛獸，會破壞真理呢？


It is because we (at least I) believe in the historic Christian faith that we treat its history seriously as presented to us in the texts. Trying to arrange the biblical texts chronologically of course can be a good academic excercise as you said, but the final product will not have the same theological / literary significance as the texts presented to us. (For those of us who believe in the inspiration of scriptures, that's a pretty significant alteration.)

[Daniel_Cheung]

Trying to arrange the biblical texts chronologically of course can be a good academic excercise as you said, but the final product will not have the same theological / literary significance as the texts presented to us. (For those of us who believe in the inspiration of scriptures, that's a pretty significant alteration.)

我仍要問，為甚麼要相信重構後的「聖經」會失去它原有的神學意義？You simply assert instead of argue for it. 又，假如所謂福音派神學理解是十分強烈的命題式真理，請留意，重構並不會對命題構成甚麼損害。故此，問題先於 evangelical-leaning和liberal-leaning 。

[pilgrim]

我仍要問，為甚麼要相信重構後的「聖經」會失去它原有的神學意義？You simply assert instead of argue for it. 又，假如所謂福音派神學理解是十分強烈的命題式真理，請留意，重構並不會對命題構成甚麼損害。故此，問題先於 evangelical-leaning和liberal-leaning 。

I think we are from two different paradigms so we may not fully understood each other. Let me try to explain.

Roughly two-thirds of the bible is narrative. It is indeed too much to give up on if evangelicals don't study the biblical narrative in their own rights. You think that most evangelicals favour propositional truth over against narratives, and I agree many them do, but not all of them. The so-called chronological arrangement of scriptures will affect mostly the narrative sections I assume. Rerranging how a story is told will affect the punch line and the meaning of the story. I took that to be an obvious conclusion so I didn't argue for it.

Let's take the gospels as an example. The four gosepls have different outlooks and theologies, even though they all tell the story of Jesus. (I do not pretend to spell out a theology for each of the gospel here but I am sure you are aware of their existence.) Mark, Matthew and Luke portray a Jesus who only went up to Jerusalem once. Going to Jerusalem is the climax of Jesus' ministry for the synoptics, in which Jesus' most important message is the Kingdom of God / Heaven. John has Jesus going up to Jerusalem several times and each time Jesus revealed who he was according to a Jewish festival; Jesus according to John is the true Life and those who receive him will have this life. There is little mention of the Kingdom of God in John. Making the four quite different gospels into one "Life of Jesus Gospel" is helpful (everyone studying the NT or the historical Jesus will need to come to grisp with a "chronology" of the life of Jesus) and yet will lose the fundamental theology of each of them. This apparently poses a big problem for many Evangelicals who simply don't know and don't care what each gospel is trying to say. They simply lump everything together and state (i.e. extract the propositional truth) that Jesus' message is love and that he died on the cross for our sin and rose again. One, however, simply cannot get to that conclusion by reading Mark. The short version of Mark spends 2 or so verses to address the resurrection and the significance of which is not even addressed in the book! In fact, for these evangelicals, the proportional truth about Jesus didn't come from the gospel accounts but from Paul!

That brings me to the point that not all evangelicals favour proportional truth over against narratives. Doing theology out of the biblical narratives is what many evangelical biblical scholars / theologians are doing today. (It will be another thread to discuss the interaction between the biblical theology movement vs. systematic theology.) This way of doing theology requires studying the text using the historico-traditional methods (e.g. redaction, form, socio-historical criticisms) as well as other literary tools (e.g. rhetorical, reader-response criticisms, etc.) The point is try to understand what the text's implied author, who is an (divine) interpreter of the event and has a particular point of view, is saying (i.e. its meaning or theology)through story world of the text. (I'm assuming inspiration of course.) Therefore re-arranging the text will affect one's ultimate understanding of the text / narrative, and hence its theology.

I hope the above will start to clarify my position somewhat.

[Daniel_Cheung]

Pilgrim 兄好像有點捉錯用神。次序轉了，自然會影響敘事，這個的確不用論證和釋解，而聖經有大量敘事，改換次序當然也會對這些敘事有影響。然而，我的問題是，為甚麼要相信重構後、敘事改變後的「聖經」會嚴重地失去它原有的神學意義？所謂「真理在敘事裡，因此命題不重要」，甚至，「真理只能以敘事表達」或「真理只在敘事中」，太玄虛，我經常懷疑，當舉出實際例子後，這類聲稱會變得空洞。在我們未能理解這些主張的含義，貿然批評一本次序改換了的聖經改變了真理或改變了神學，是缺乏理據的。

再者，正如我在 #21 說，按時序理解聖經事件，然後回到敘事裡讀，可能會幫助讀者更明白那些敘事，如此，若這種重編的聖經沒有聲稱要取代原有聖經，我看不到有甚麼強烈反對的需要。

最後，我提福音派，純粹只是因為你之前說Do we have the authority to create new theology today by cutting and pasting the biblical text in a new way is a deep theological issue. Evangelicals and those who hold a high view of scriptures tend not to allow this. Liberals of course see it differently. 所以我才說，對於一些十分重視命題的福音派來說（我知道他們不是福音派全部，但我要提一提，他們是頗主流的），這樣的話是無根據的，因為敘事在他們的神學裡並不重要。即使你認為你的福音派信仰並非如此，我的話是指普遍的福音派（而你應該亦會認同），所以仍然成立，也因如此，你那句Evangelicals and those who hold a high view of scriptures tend not to allow this.就是錯的。

[Daniel_Cheung]

順便一提，有關書卷的次序（而非書卷裡故事的次序），反對改換時序的朋友也許要在他們的理論建構裡，兼顧到聖經的歷史裡曾經有改換次序的事情發生過的，例如今天的舊約的書卷次序就不是猶太人用的聖經的次序。若不能兼顧這些，只堅持改換次序會改變真理或神學，他們就要被挑戰，究竟哪一個聖經書卷的次序才是最神聖、最真的，理由何在？

[zhengzi]

至於中國人方面，我不太熟悉，不過正如我說過，問題不是說古人 不會有這樣要求，但不會認為這是基本的，對了解真理是沒有必然性的，按我理解，這種看法也大致符合中國人對義理追求的基本觀點。
中國史書，最早出現的就是編年體，如《春秋》，紀傳體（以人物為主軸）和紀事本末體（以事件為主軸）都是後起的。

[clement]

中國史書，最早出現的就是編年體，如《春秋》，紀傳體（以人物為主軸）和紀事本末體（以事件為主軸）都是後起的。

嘗試幫維記辯護一下：雖然他們實際上有這樣做，但他們沒有像現代人那樣，將這個（追求符合史實次序的）舉動提升到反思層次、理念層次，以這個理念來指導實踐。

[維記wei_kei]

嘗試幫維記辯護一下：雖然他們實際上有這樣做，但他們沒有像現代人那樣，將這個（追求符合史實次序的）舉動提升到反思層次、理念層次。
謝謝代答！我也會大致上這樣回答的。

[zhengzi]

嘗試幫維記辯護一下：雖然他們實際上有這樣做，但他們沒有像現代人那樣，將這個（追求符合史實次序的）舉動提升到反思層次、理念層次，以這個理念來指導實踐。
粗體句是甚麼意思？怎樣以追求次序的舉動來做反思？

[pilgrim]

然而，我的問題是，為甚麼要相信重構後、敘事改變後的「聖經」會嚴重地失去它原有的神學意義？

I believe you are thinking in terms of "systematic theology." In that case, I don't believe there will be any big changes (I am only guessing.) But I am thinking more in terms of "biblical theology." If you change or alter meaning of a biblical book or passage, you have changed its (biblical) theology. You can no longer have a theology of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Each of these theologies is a unique contribution to the overall biblical theology. (BTW, just to make sure we are on the same page... the chronological study bible, as far as I can tell from the promotes, doesn't just rearrange the books but also the passages and down to the verses. Hence there will be one Gospel on the Life of Jesus which is a product of all the verses written in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)

所謂「真理在敘事裡，因此命題不重要」，甚至，「真理只能以敘事表達」或「真理只在敘事中」，太玄虛，我經常懷疑，當舉出實際例子後，這類聲稱會變得空洞。

I am not saying propositional truth is unimportant. Paul's letters got quite a bit of that (though I must say that most of his propositions are based on his understanding of the story of Israel and his own experience with the risen Christ.) But I am saying that we should pay as much attention to the narratives for our theology as we do to the propositional portions. I believe we as human beings need both. God didn't leave us with a systematic theology textbook but a bible full of stories that invite people into the world created by the text.

再者，正如我在 #21 說，按時序理解聖經事件，然後回到敘事裡讀，可能會幫助讀者更明白那些敘事，如此，若這種重編的聖經沒有聲稱要取代原有聖經，我看不到有甚麼強烈反對的需要。

I totally agree with that. I am not saying that the chronological bible is of no value. I am only saying that it has a limited purpose and its readers need to understand that. But I am afraid the average reader may not fully appreciate this.

[維記wei_kei]

粗體句是甚麼意思？怎樣以追求次序的舉動來做反思？
舉一個例子，黑格爾正是以（哲學及人類）歷史的發現來建構其哲學體系的，而這類的哲思維方式，正是以時序發展為大前提的。後來馬克思也借此來建構其歷史唯物觀。

[Daniel_Cheung]

I believe you are thinking in terms of "systematic theology." In that case, I don't believe there will be any big changes (I am only guessing.) But I am thinking more in terms of "biblical theology." If you change or alter meaning of a biblical book or passage, you have changed its (biblical) theology. You can no longer have a theology of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Each of these theologies is a unique contribution to the overall biblical theology. (BTW, just to make sure we are on the same page... the chronological study bible, as far as I can tell from the promotes, doesn't just rearrange the books but also the passages and down to the verses. Hence there will be one Gospel on the Life of Jesus which is a product of all the verses written in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)



I am not saying propositional truth is unimportant. Paul's letters got quite a bit of that (though I must say that most of his propositions are based on his understanding of the story of Israel and his own experience with the risen Christ.) But I am saying that we should pay as much attention to the narratives for our theology as we do to the propositional portions. I believe we as human beings need both. God didn't leave us with a systematic theology textbook but a bible full of stories that invite people into the world created by the text.



I totally agree with that. I am not saying that the chronological bible is of no value. I am only saying that it has a limited purpose and its readers need to understand that. But I am afraid the average reader may not fully appreciate this.
問題一：

按您末段，您似是認同這新版聖經不是用來取代現有的聖經，那麼，這新版聖經憑甚麼可以改變現有的聖經神學？（By the way ，我知道它連章節都有次序更改。）難道您以為在這新版聖經出現前，數百年來的聖經學者沒有自己做過聖經合參等功夫？他們沒有考查過，究竟某書某章是否在另一書另一章之前麼？如果他們有做過，如果他們會參考那些成果，但他們至今仍然接受時序不順的聖經，為何今天出版一本順時序的聖經就會帶來那麼大的（壞）影響？您把那影響誇大得很嚴重！

問題二：

至於您的第二段，坦白說，您仍不明白我在問甚麼。我是在問，我們憑甚麼相信某些（甚至大部份）信仰或神學真理只能「生存」於敘事裡，脫離了敘事就甚麼都完蛋？這些，您從沒有回應。問題是，怎樣才是尊重聖經作為真理的表達的一部份？在甚麼意義下真理只能「生存」於敘事裡？我知道教會圈子－－尤其較前衛的福音派－－很愛這些聲稱，但這些聲稱究竟有甚麼根據？想表達甚麼思想？背後的神哲含義是甚麼？這會否是一種變相的 biblicism ，以一個不一定對的方式死守聖經，視之為尊重聖經？

補充：由始至終，我沒有說常被人與敘事相對的命題是否重要（說「常被人與敘事相對的命題」是因為我連這個對立二分都很有保留）。我只是在問問題。

[pilgrim]

問題一...

Good question. Need time to think this over before I reply... I will be in a tighter work schedule starting tomorrow so it may take a few days.

[chestnut tree]

問題一：

按您末段，您似是認同這新版聖經不是用來取代現有的聖經，那麼，這新版聖經憑甚麼可以改變現有的聖經神學？（By the way ，我知道它連章節都有次序更改。）難道您以為在這新版聖經出現前，數百年來的聖經學者沒有自己做過聖經合參等功夫？他們沒有考查過，究竟某書某章是否在另一書另一章之前麼？如果他們有做過，如果他們會參考那些成果，但他們至今仍然接受時序不順的聖經，為何今天出版一本順時序的聖經就會帶來那麼大的（壞）影響？您把那影響誇大得很嚴重！

問題二：

至於您的第二段，坦白說，您仍不明白我在問甚麼。我是在問，我們憑甚麼相信某些（甚至大部份）信仰或神學真理只能「生存」於敘事裡，脫離了敘事就甚麼都完蛋？這些，您從沒有回應。問題是，怎樣才是尊重聖經作為真理的表達的一部份？在甚麼意義下真理只能「生存」於敘事裡？我知道教會圈子－－尤其較前衛的福音派－－很愛這些聲稱，但這些聲稱究竟有甚麼根據？想表達甚麼思想？背後的神哲含義是甚麼？這會否是一種變相的 biblicism ，以一個不一定對的方式死守聖經，視之為尊重聖經？

補充：由始至終，我沒有說常被人與敘事相對的命題是否重要（說「常被人與敘事相對的命題」是因為我連這個對立二分都很有保留）。我只是在問問題。

During the latter half of the last century - especially during the last two decades thereof - biblical scholars - including those who still maintained the necessity of dealing with certain historical-critical questions concerning the biblical texts - began to accept the fact that biblical criticism is in a sense literary criticism. More and more theologians have also grown to feel comfortable with the theological plurality of the Bible thanks to literary approaches to it that attach most importance to the distinct voice of an individual literary text - and hence also with the tension among different biblical and other Christian voices.

What Pilgrim wrote implies that the Bible has to be read also - if not only - with the characteristic message of each of the biblical books in view. Whether the reader is a layperson or a systematic theologian (I therefore have reservations about putting "biblical theology"/"biblical theologians"/biblical scholars and systematic theology/systematicians in opposition), he or she has to take into consideration also of such message when reading or using the Bible, so as to do justice to the irreducible distinctness of each biblical book. Such message is partially retrievable through an analysis of the literary features or structures of a biblical book (it is in that sense that the "truths" contained in a narrative biblical book can only remain in the original form of the text). With a chronologically rearranged and thus structurally altered Bible, such features or structures cannot remain, and as a result the message inherent therein may not remain retrievable for the reader.

To treat each biblical book on its own terms is just one of the options the reader of the Bible can choose. Some biblical scholars contend that it is a necessary step towards understanding the Bible but by no means sufficient on its own. For one thing, with their varied theologies the biblical books bear witness to the same God and the same story about this God's relations with human beings and the rest of the creation, and to the one crucified and risen man whom we Christians believe to be the Messiah and Lord. Whereas a literarily adequate reading of the Bible requires the text of each biblical book being treated fully primarily on its own terms, a theologically adequate reading of the same text requires it being treated with both the text's canonical context (e.g., consider the canonical position of the book of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible and the Protestant one) and the reader's/reading community's theological concerns being taken into serious consideration.

[yingkit]

這個題目和大家的討論很有意思，前幾天教會忙碌未能參予。以下是我對這個題目的一些看法和回應，因回應太長，分兩帖：

我認為按時序重編的聖經應不會影響原本聖經的地位，大部份買這本聖經的讀者很可能只是有興趣知道聖經按時序的編排會是如何（就是如書名所標示的），好像買一本參考書。至於聖經神學的問題，可以分幾方面來談，一方面，假如我上面的假設是對的話，應該談不上對聖經神學有太大的影響，因為讀者不會以這本聖經為架構聖經神學（即對各書卷的神學分解然後再作整合）的基本材料，他們不會以這本聖經來論述馬可福音的神學或約翰福音的神學，然後再作整合，他們關注的只是事件的歷史次序。另一方面，到底時序聖經會不會產生另一種神學？這個問題也很難說，我懷疑編輯者最大的關注點可能只是時序問題，即在歷史中事情發生的先後次序，而不是神學問題（因未讀過該書，不知道編者有沒有說到這方面）。故此，編者期望讀者或critics討論點應是他編排時序的方法是否正確，而不是編排後的文本所產生的神學。退一步說，假如我們把這時序聖經作為神學的文本，它的神學跟原本聖經的神學距離有多遠呢？這當然不是三言兩語解釋得清楚，可能要另寫一帖，不過我想到一些有關的問題：現在教會的教導有多少是根据嚴格的聖經神學去教導，明析的分別馬可神學、馬太神學，然後整理溶合？舉例來說，我們是如何詮釋馬可和馬太描述的門徒的異同，告訴他們這些理解對神學整體的影响？而在教導方面，我們是否在某一程度上其實也是編排聖經，忽視聖經作者的文本？

[yingkit]

另一個問題，就是編者有沒有可能完全準確的按時序編聖經和它的價值如何？完全準確的按時序編聖經答案是顯而易見，就是不可能。當然有一些應該是較容易的，因聖經一些書卷本身就是按歷史順序寫的，如撒母耳記和列王記等，但其他一些書卷就較困難，這方面Wilson在他的回應已說過，不再重覆。不過想補充一點，有些聖經書卷作者本身並不很關注以歷史正確時序來編寫，如福音書的作者，雖然按各書卷的頭尾，似乎是有順序，耶穌的出生或出來傳道到耶穌釘十字架和復活，但中間部份的事蹟和講論應是作者按其寫作目的或結構而編排的，舉例來說，馬太福音中揀選十二使徒在耶穌門徒掐麥穗之前；但在馬可福音則倒過來。所以福音書是很難能以時序來編排的。我想時序聖經的編者應了解這些明顯的困難。我認為時序聖經的價值可能按書卷有所不同，譬如在舊約歷史書和先知書部份，這本聖經在一定程度上應該可以幫助弟兄姊妹更了解該段時間先知和王國的事件的關連，因大部份先知已知是大概屬於甚麽時代，不過一般弟兄姊妹讀這些書卷時都感到迷惑。至於福音書方面，雖然很難完全準確的按時序編，但有些事件，譬如有關耶穌復活所發生的事，能作大概順序的編排（這方面很多人做過，教會教導時也常作這方面的嘗試），可幫助弟兄姊妹了解一幅較全面的圖畫，至於應否作這種綜合則見人見智。而福音書其他一些事件和講論，時序聖經可能就沒有太大的價值。

[pilgrim]

問題一：
為何今天出版一本順時序的聖經就會帶來那麼大的（壞）影響？您把那影響誇大得很嚴重！


I was just cautioning the potential (bad) influence it could have on the average reader. Not that the product itself is bad.


問題二：

至於您的第二段，坦白說，您仍不明白我在問甚麼。我是在問，我們憑甚麼相信某些（甚至大部份）信仰或神學真理只能「生存」於敘事裡，脫離了敘事就甚麼都完蛋？

I have to ask what kind of Bible God has given us. To take the authority of the bible seriously I think we have to take into account the nature of bible and its composition. I just think that this is a reasonable thing to do. Do I have a knock down argument for believing in this? No I don't. If I want to hear what God has to say, I don't usually chop up his stories to fit my own agenda and interest, though I have to say again there is nothing wrong with chopping them up if I am doing some other things (e.g. historical studies), but I don't pretend that I will always find his messages as he intended me to receive when I chop them up.

I more or less adopt the view of Tom Wright as he writes here concerning how the bible can be authoritative:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

I can't write any better than Wright and I believe he is onto something.

[Daniel_Cheung]

I have to ask what kind of Bible God has given us. To take the authority of the bible seriously I think we have to take into account the nature of bible and its composition. I just think that this is a reasonable thing to do. Do I have a knock down argument for believing in this? No I don't. If I want to hear what God has to say, I don't usually chop up his stories to fit my own agenda and interest, though I have to say again there is nothing wrong with chopping them up if I am doing some other things (e.g. historical studies), but I don't pretend that I will always find his messages as he intended me to receive when I chop them up.

I more or less adopt the view of Tom Wright as he writes here concerning how the bible can be authoritative:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

I can't write any better than Wright and I believe he is onto something.

我沒空看 Wright 的觀點，但對你這番言論有點回應，如果碰巧 Wright 有談過我現在想談的，有勞您提醒。

任何人都有自己的神學，即使那些否認神學重要性的人，其實都有一套神學，只是他們不為意，不去檢視自己的思想怎樣看這個那個信仰課題。可能，有很多信徒相信他們領受真理時，必須用聖經原有的形式，但是他們 end up 對信仰的看法，卻不一定存在於某些聖經形式裡的敘事。舉例說，若您看看教會的 statement of faith ，就會發現它們不是用敘事寫的。我知道今天有很多人愛說，敘事裡才有真理，反對命題，反對系統神學，反對任何從敘事裡 abstract 出一些思想來的做法。然而，不喜歡和事實不是如此，卻沒有關係（尤其對那些沒有強烈哲學訓練的人而言）。請想一想，當一個信徒讀完一個敘事，他會得出一些教訓和反省，那些教訓和反省是 abstraction 的產品。好的，他不一定要很哲理地整理出一些思想體系來，但他有一些 abstracted thoughts ，並且他嘗試遵行的是那些 abstracted thoughts ，而不直接是敘事本身，卻是無可否認的。

若有人不至於那麼反系統神學，他們會有意識地承認這點。那麼，對他們來說，有一本聖經重新編排過，更配合某些角度（例如現代歷史意識），並不是甚麼一個問題。對於那些很反對系統神學的人，我會問：「你真的知道你在反對甚麼嗎？」

請不要以為有人可以只擁抱敘事，並以為他們的所謂領受真理和遵守真理，只是敘事本身，而不是透過敘事而達到其他。這始終回到我提出的問題，何謂真理？「我們憑甚麼相信某些（甚至大部份）信仰或神學真理只能『生存』於敘事裡，脫離了敘事就甚麼都完蛋？」留意，這問題不是問，為甚麼我們不能或不應透過敘事學習真理，而是為甚麼真理只「在」敘事裡。

[Daniel_Cheung]

或者以下這一點可以令我想說的更突顯。

請看看聲稱 holding a high view of the bible 的美國福音派。按照 Robert Webber 的分析（我同意那分析，也有很多人同意），早年的或今天那些強調自身傳統的福音派聲稱要在聖經裡尋找命題，然後建構出「福音派的」「系統神學」；但近年那些新一代福音派卻從所謂後現代思想裡學習裡敘事的重要性。

看來，強調 holding a high view of the bible 並不能解決究竟聖經真理是甚麼、真理是否只存在於敘事的問題。

[pilgrim]

任何人都有自己的神學，即使那些否認神學重要性的人，其實都有一套神學，只是他們不為意，不去檢視自己的思想怎樣看這個那個信仰課題。可能，有很多信徒相信他們領受真理時，必須用聖經原有的形式，但是他們 end up 對信仰的看法，卻不一定存在於某些聖經形式裡的敘事。舉例說，若您看看教會的 statement of faith ，就會發現它們不是用敘事寫的。

I acutally agree with almost everything that you said.

我知道今天有很多人愛說，敘事裡才有真理，反對命題，反對系統神學，反對任何從敘事裡 abstract 出一些思想來的做法。

Many of these "younger" generations of evangelicals (including Wright if he can be considered young!) are not opposed to systematic theology. I also affirm the need for systematic theology. I actually enjoyed studying it.

I guess our disagreement is on the role of what can be loosely considered "systematic theology" versus the biblical records -- the bible does not only contain stories but other forms of writing as well. (I don't like to sound like I am pitting systematic theology against the bible because I am not but I am not sure how to express this better. That's why I put quotes around the term.) I am not saying that truth can only come from biblical stories as we have them today. All truth is God's truth no matter how you arrive at it. "Systematic Theology" informs the way we read the bible. And reading the bible also informs the way we do "systematic theology." It is a hermenuitical spiral. I am only saying that it seems to me we are wrong-headed if we think studying "systematic theology" is the primary means to understand God's message for us today as the church rather than studying the biblical records that he has given us.

We are relational beings and, for some reasons, many people find who we are and our meaning through stories. This is not an argument but a general observation. Quite a few SHC members have expressed in another post (can't remember which one!!) they would rather read a novel / literature to find meaning than listening to a sermon. Literature, for some reasons, speaks to our existence and is closer to our hearts. The bible, it seems to me, should be read primary as such. Many churches and Christians are not doing that however. That's one of the reasons I find much preaching boring and lifeless; the preachers don't even understand the literature they are preaching on. They are preaching on "systematic theology!"

這始終回到我提出的問題，何謂真理？

It's a question that thinkers have been wrestling with since the beginning of time. I don't have any big answer. Jesus says he is the truth. So I guess truth is a person. Knowing the truth is to know this person. And he chose to reveal and relate to us primarily through the biblical records (among other things).

Sorry I cannot give a solid argument for my position. But I did the best I could. I highly recommend Wright's article (and his other writings) to you. See for yourself if they make any sense.