回應:簡覆〈聖經論:「受感子民觀」如何覆蓋(override/ include)「受感作者觀」?〉

回應:簡覆〈聖經論:「受感子民觀」如何覆蓋(override/ include)「受感作者觀」?〉

Source Link:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/199768383521390/permalink/533854726779419/

Austin Liang-wei Huang
最近接觸彭國瑋牧師對聖經的“受感子民”觀點,深深覺得比“受感作者”觀點好用很多。
因為我一直為一個問題困擾:
如果聖經作者是由收到上帝默示的作者所寫出來的,那麼探尋作者的原意就成為釋經時無比重要的環節。但矛盾的是,聖經人物在引用聖經時,比如新約作者在引用舊約時,往往跳脫原本的上下文,等於是不顧作者原意的解經。這種現象又如何看待?該說新約作者穿鑿附會嗎?
有一種解釋說,因為新約作者有聖靈格外的默示和授權,所以他們有權利這樣解經,但是後世的我們沒有。這會產生幾個難題:第一個是它忽略了這種解經法並非聖靈默示之下所產生的獨特現象,而是在當時的時空背景、文化背景之下,很普遍的現象。第二是它使得我們現代人的解經與過去產生斷裂:當我們宣稱聖經作者有額外的權威可以用不同於我們的方法解經,那麼他們的解經法便無法使我們效法學習,同時也使現代所提倡的歷史文本解經法找不到歷史傳承的根源,而失去在教會裡面合法使用的基礎。
另一種解釋,便是嘗試為新約作者辯護,說其實他們的解經法是有尊重舊約作者原意的,與現代人的歷史文本解經法的精神相符。例如卡森等人出版,最近由美國麥種翻成中文的“新約引用舊約”大全,似乎就是持這種觀點。(我還沒讀過,請讀過的版友賜教)另外網路上也可以找到零星文章,如陳濟民博士《我從埃及召出我的兒子來》,對該節經文的解釋便是如此進路。這觀點很值得研究,我未來會多讀這方面的著作。
至於彭國瑋的“受感子民論”則是用一個完全不同的角度在處理這個問題,甚至可以說,在彭的模式裡面,這個問題不存在。
“受感子民”的“子民”是指歷代全體信徒。有些人誤以為彭的“受感子民論”是背叛了新教,回到公教會“教會權威高過聖經權威”的觀點,消解了聖經本身所自證的權威,使得聖經的可信度與指導地位岌岌可危。但這些人未曾理解的是:“受感的作者”其實亦包含在彭所謂“受感子民”的範疇內。彭所強調的乃是:聖經是在信仰群體內部成書,也是在信仰群體內被辨認為權威,並在信仰群體內部流傳使用。
因此並不是說聖經的寫作過程沒有受到默示,而是不單單聖經的寫作過程,甚至是寫作之前的口傳過程、寫作完成之後的編修、流傳、詮釋,經卷取捨,全部都有聖靈感動;或者換個說法:並不是聖靈單方面啟示,而人被動接受,而是聖靈與信仰群體在這些過程當中不斷互動。因此,不單是聖經的原稿有權威性,就連聖經的抄本和譯本、也不應該因為和原稿有出入,就被說成是“有錯誤”或者“權威性不及原稿”。
相反,它們是被信仰群體不斷尊崇,並且不斷對信徒生活產生指導作用,因此它們的權威應該是合法的。並且,既然連經文的編修與使用也是受到聖靈保守的,那麼就不只有聖經作者(人)的原意可以作為文句合法的意涵。比如Xiwei Wu姐妹最近發表一篇部落格文章,提到:雅歌,最初可能是充滿情慾的民歌,但是在歷代教會裡面多半將之昇華,詮釋為耶穌與教會的關係,如此使得同樣的文本有多重意涵。我們難道要說只有情慾的解釋才對,而歷代教會都在強解經文、穿鑿附會?
又如創世紀裡面可能大量採用近東文化,我們難道要說這些神話作者的原意才是最該探究、最有權威的?不。因為“受感的子民”之說,讓我們重新尊重聖經經文對於歷代信徒的意義,而避免在歷史文本解經法的指導之下,將使徒、教父、經院神學的釋經斥為原始落伍沒有價值,或者將之尊為聖靈特別感動下的特別權威。
Xiwei 姐妹的文章聯結,附於下面:
http://seminary-students.blogspot.com/…/09/blog-post_15.html

我5年前一篇文章關於Bart Ehrman 《製造耶穌》(Misquoting Jesus) 中譯出版的一點迴響便是在談這件事。其實這套這套重整教會歷史後的詮釋學表述,在學界並不是彭博士先提出的觀點,而是算是George Linkbeck & Hans Frei 開啟的後自由神學。

問題是,評判傳統新教福音聖經論的不足,並不僅僅是上述原文提出的理由。我們首先必須更多地描繪前面這種說法的強大之處,才能知道為什麼後自由神學是建立在其不足之處-雖然作為網路回文,下面我要提出的,也只能是一個十分粗略的輪廓:

  • 「因為新約作者有聖靈格外的默示和授權,所以他們有權利這樣解經,但是後世的我們沒有。」
    這種解經法在當時已普遍,為何新約作者特大?傳統解釋:
  1. 他們有聖靈 inspiration,其他人沒有。
  2. 他們具有「使徒性」,是拿撒勒人耶穌交託啟示的對象。或換個更好說法,既然「人子滿足了律法」、基督比舊約大。—there is no question about this declaration— 在復活的基督完成他的工、聖靈降臨後,他們便是以「基督中心論」的視角詮釋舊約,而寫下新約的。
  • 這種解經法使我們現代人的解經與過去產生斷裂?傳統解釋:
  1. 不會。因為我們靠的是聖靈 illumination。基本上「受感群體」沒有充足考慮聖經作者跟聖經讀者的 inspiration 與 illumination 的不同層次「感動」。
  2. 簡單說:如果不區分,難道現代人還有資格寫新的聖經?

  • 聖經作者的解經法無法使我們效法學習?
    對也不對。
  1. 首先,後來者的我們只有 illumination,可以做的就是「以經解經」。「以經解經」就表示我們在仿效新約作者的方式解經了。至於什麼叫合法的歷史文本解經法,需要定義。

    一世紀的新約作者「以『他們腦中受感的知識』解『當時的聖經』」 = 新約 + 舊約 的啟示
    廿一世紀的我們「以『新舊約聖經』解『現在的聖經』」= 新約 + 舊約 的啟示

    換句話說,新約作者「腦中受感的知識」化成「新約文字」後,我們雖然只擁有比較弱的「解釋力」(從 inspiration 降低到 illumination ),卻擁有比較多的「啟示力」(多了一部啟示的文字) ,這樣我們只要按著新約作者理解啟示的內容(content)-而非形式(method),此消比長就能維持方程式答案的平衡。

  2. 某種程度來說,這個福音派詮釋學就是要藉著聖靈 inspire 作者 + 聖靈 illuminate 讀者的工作,達到兩面調和。大公教會追認新約聖經,與作者寫下聖經,就是完整的聖靈工作。
  3. 我們後來的讀經者,是被「邀請」到這個啟示/聖經論的框架限制中的。

**

上述基本上,是一個封閉而能在內部性自圓其說的聖經論。

問題在它的 implications,現在逐項來談:

  • 由於聖經的傳抄翻譯過程,顯然沒有嚴守 illumination 這個原則,而刪刪改改,增加了不少「人的私意解釋」、自己為有 inspiration。所以經文鑑別(textual criticism)當然要來一下,把後來一千多年加進來的雜質剔除掉,讓我們可以回頭看到原來被 inspired 的文本,這樣 illumination 才會準確。
    糟糕的是,鑑別到後來,卻進入了編修鑑別(redaction criticism) 的誤區,也就是遇上了編修者(editor/redactor)既是作者( author)、作者也同時是編修者的一種實際現象,以致於找不到「原稿-成書」的停損點(請見我所附的文章中說明),讓 inspiration / illumination  的二分法完全亂了套。
  • 經文鑑別之外,要靠「原文解釋」還原作者的原意(meaning)。然後才可以基於原意。發展應用(或有時並非基於原意的解釋,稱作「特殊領受」)。不論是應用或是領受,都是不具備神聖權威的意義(significance),可以允許相對性、多重性。糟糕的是,後來發現,很多經文作者的原意是不肯定的、甚至可能是多重底本、多重原意,以及開放意涵的,還有「原意」如謎一般可能只能未來才有解的。尤其經文鑑別的時候,一堆主觀人學的判斷方式涉入其中(請見我上面所附的同一篇文章中說明)。
    這些導致了「一個meaning 多個significance」的架構,在讀經和講道實踐中根本不務實,讓 meaning / significance的二分法完全亂了套。

***

所以,卡爾.巴特(Karl Barth)就在這上面做了一個很大的挑戰跟扭轉:

  • 首先,他當然認為正確地領受上帝的聖經啟示必須靠聖靈,但他不繼承上述二分法。反而提出道的三重性:基督、聖經、宣講。「耶穌是肉身之道,聖經是成文之道」,宣講是領受之道。
  • 然而基督當然是「成文之道」所指涉的對象。聖經的權威,絕對不是靠著自我指涉(self-referential)或經文循環論證(as if the Derridian phrase « il n’y a pas de hors-sacré texte »  could be said)。也就是說,聖經的意義和權威性在於「見證耶穌是基督」。
  • 這樣,運用「基督中心論」解釋新、舊約聖經,當然是不會錯的(我前面已說,新約作者的權威在於使用了「基督中心論」解經。)巴特開始學習使徒們實踐「基督中心詮釋學」。他的《羅馬書釋義》,還有《教會教義學》許多小字段落,都在運用了這種詮釋學後展現了磅礡奔放的神學視界,開啟了讓聖經神學對時代說話的國度倫理向度。

對於巴特來說,「肉身之道」(the incarnated Word)就是超越「成文之道」(written Word)和「領受之道」(preached Word)的手段;或是說:解決前述「領受之道」(illuminated Word)一直無法確實地回推跟對應「成文之道」(inspired Word)的問題。

然而,當然有人要問:

啊為什麼你巴特可以基督中心?阿你對基督的認識,難道有可能在任何程度上繞過新約作者寫下的「成文之道」?你怎確知你巴特對「基督」的論述,就是出於神的啓示,而非自己的想像?(c.f. 〈巴特主義「不可能的任務」:拒絕聖經無誤的「神」學?〉)

這當然就是關鍵所在,也就是實際上你必須承認:有些基督啟示之form並沒有被聖經白紙黑字原文掌握壟斷。以致於它們作為基督啟示之「縫」穿透到了所有聖靈隨己意啟示的介面當中。

什麼叫「聖靈隨己意啟示的介面」?用巴特的白話就是說:上帝也可以用一隻死狗讓以曉得牠的心意啦!死狗在這裡就是上帝選擇的這個介面/form。

到這邊還沒說完,巴特還是按照聖經一步步來的(不然馬上又要被亂黑):

  1. 首先,你可以承認,這些基督啟示之「縫」,早就存在於遇見基督的人當中。如以馬忤斯路上的門徒,他們不是聖經的作者,但誰說他們的領受與回憶,沒有基督自己的權威?而誰說這些權威的理解,沒有成為初代教會代代保存的口傳內容之一?
    如:把約翰福音加上「基督不丟石頭」那段的文士,他在福音書原抄本添上的這段記載,可是大公教會當初認納的新約正典一部份,也很能來自早期使徒地方教會口傳記憶的一支。當代經文鑑別學難道比他跟大公教會登還有屬靈權威,可以否認他的記錄出自基督啟示?
    又如,彼得後書 2:15 的早期抄本存在把巴蘭的身份名字誤植的錯誤,讓後來編修者改了回來,而我們現在都接受改過的版本正確,這難道不是某一種啟示之靈在使徒作者譜寫聖經原稿之後,繼續在「成文之道」上的主動工作?
  2. 做聖經的神學詮釋(theological interpretation of Scripture,從巴特、後自由神學後,現在也成為天主教後自由神學、福音派後自由神學、聖公會後自由神學後的活動),當然還是要通過「成文之道」這個終極測試。
    不可能有一種「基督中心」的詮釋成果,可以被允許聖經以經解經的結論相抵觸(約14:26)。
    一堆偽經不是正典,也因為過不了這關。
    啟示之「縫」是火種,聖經正典才是真正的柴火。

****

最後我補充:

為什麼稱這個詮釋學理解,比傳統更整全:

  • 傳統 Illumination / inspiration 的模式讓我質疑的第一點是:如果聖經正典是柴火,請問 Illumination 的「火種」是什麼東西? 馬丁.路德(Martin Luther)、湯瑪斯.芮德(Thomas Reid)會說,火種是「常識/理性」,或謙卑預備的平常心。但這「常識詮釋學」其實這套說法,並沒有比較神聖的地方啊!而實做上,也出現「常識」根本達不到「原意」,以及「原意」的探究變成一種高度技術化(原文、文法,以及各種鑑別)的活動等種種缺憾。
    說穿了,常識就是世俗理性,而技術更是世俗理性主義的產物。這些都導致了傳統詮釋充滿著偏離基督中心的解釋,高度地世俗卻往往不自知。
  • Illumination / inspiration 的傳統模式,其實實做上也根本不是只有這兩個東西,我們還是高度、大量仰賴神學和教義的幫忙:不論你是用大公會議的信經、教父的理解、Westminster Confession、加爾文(John Calvin)的 The Institute其實你還是跟著整個教會的歷史走,站在巨人的肩膀上領受啟示、讀懂聖經。
    只是有些人,明明有在使用某些巨人,卻又在解經理論上拒絕承認承認巨人存在,彷彿自己是直面聖經啟示,直擊聖經的inspiration。

巴特比很多人所知的更在乎探究字意和經文原脈絡(1915年前的他受的完全是「高等批判」的自由主義神學教育,且早期還有一篇創世記註釋論文,被ICC這種高度技術性的註釋書引用)。他在動筆前,已經跟一整排歷史神學的巨人摔過一場場而下庄-所以他的身影看起來是那麼巨大。

真正開始動筆時,他就是把自己當成巨人在跟上帝摔角了~。到他《教會教義學》停筆時,你就更發現:天啊,巨人寫的巨著果真有夠巨的!(從這個角度看,巴特的詮釋學並沒有一些人所以為得那麼架空或是唯信主義,而是把所有的(掃羅軍隊的?)鎧甲都穿上了。只是因為他的一直鴨子划水,才讓你誤以為他優雅輕盈、飄在空中。)

至此,我們就可以把剩下的問題繼續說明完畢:

  • 那巴特神學是說,聖經有誤,只有巴特的基督中心詮釋無誤?好大的口氣啊!
    答:
  1. 這是個非常誤導人的說法。我只能簡單說:如果所有在芝加哥聖經無誤宣言中算不得錯誤(error)的地方,都算不得錯誤,那巴特神學當然更不是聖經有誤論。
  2. 沒有誰的詮釋是無誤的。任何巨人都一樣,巨人是人,不是神。巴特的基督中心詮釋是否做到所宣稱的理解,最好的標準也只能是「以經解經」,看他是否有處理不到位的經文、或讓經文變成看起來自相矛盾的解釋。(而我閱讀多本巴特專著後,的確也有就一些經文提出幾個對巴特的質疑。有興趣者請見[文摘] Election, Free Will, and Divine Ontology in Barth’s Soteriology 巴特救恩論上的揀選、意志,和上帝本體的問題之文末最後一大區。)這背後意味的是,只要教會群體仍在,詮釋聖經就是一個永遠不會休止的活動。
    因為聖經所啟示的上帝,仍然在每一個時代對著祂的子民開口說話。
Publicités

[Muvi] Kevin Vanhoozer on biblical inerrancy at 2013 ETS

“Poorly-versed accounts of inerrancy- accounts that fail to understand the nature of language and literature- harm the cause of biblical authority and truth.” As most objections against biblical inerrancy arise from the impoverished state of its contour, “a well-versed Augustinian inerrancy is the way forward for evangelical biblical scholars and theologians,” argues Kevin J. Vanhoozer on the occasion of 2013 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting.

Vanhoozer agrees with J. I. Packer: inerrancy ought always to be held as an article of faith « not capable of demonstrative proof but entailed by dominical and apostolic teaching about the nature of Scripture. » Perhaps, in order to be at peace with as many evangelicals as possible, we could agree that inerrancy, if not essential, is nevertheless expedient.

To be well-versed is to have a literate understanding of the literal sense. Whereas the early Christians had « an addiction to literacy », Vanzooer’s primary concern about inerrancy today is that too many contemporary readers lack the literacy needed for understanding the way the words go, or for rightly handling (2 Tim. 2:15: Orthotomeo) the word of truth. Biblical inerrancy in the context of biblical illiteracy makes for a dangerous proposition.

In asking whether the Chicago statement is well-versed, Vanhoozer has four major concerns:

  1. whether its definition of inerrancy is clear;
  2. whether it gives primacy to a biblical-theological rather than a philosophical understanding of truth;
  3. whether it is sufficiently attentive to the nature and function of language and literature;
  4. whether it produced a theological novelty.

In contrast, Vanhoozer is much more willing to speak about Augustine as the patron saint of well-versed inerrancy, because

  1. his thinking was thoroughly theological and he judged Scripture to be entirely true and trustworthy, and
  2. he was not only familiar with but also proficient in the liberal arts, writing on the nature and interpretation of language, concerned for what he called the literal meaning of Genesis,
  3. but also alert and attentive to biblical figures of speech.

Vanhoozer is adamant that Augustine would agree with the judgment expressed by his definition of inerrancy: the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly).

By corollary, a well-versed Augustinian inerrancy pays special care

  1. first to speech-act content but also to form
  2. to the plurality of genres and various types of discourses in the Scripture
  3. more to the Speaker (the Author of the text)  than to « sentence meaning »
  4. and inevitably to the illumination of the Holy Spirit on the part of the reader

However, given the propensity of scribes to smooth-en textual wrinkles, our insistence on textual inerrancy can be called a well-versed one only if we are willing to bear the textual problems preserved in what we [scientifically] deem the most reliable text, by typically preferring of the more difficult readings, rather than by using inerrancy  as a cheap device to oppress the communicative integrity of God’s Word and circumvent hard sayings.

Now I have a question.

On the hermeneutic ethics of the discipline of textual criticism, Vanhoozer seems ambitious but becomes a bit ambivalent. What is implied yet remains unspecified here is an ethical evaluation of the scribal work:

In what way can Vanhoozer say the scribes/copyists are working along God’s communicative business in their interpretation/ »dynamic » preservation of the Scripture they receive? It seems their labors are excluded from our positive hermeneutic considerations because, on the one hand, by flattening textual problems they point to us an « easy hermeneutic road » uncharacteristic of the nature of the Cross of Jesus we are asked to bear.

On the other hand, they give our enemies a stock to hold against us that our Scripture is corrupted and unreliable (while without their works, we would never have had the chance to stand here as the people of the Word, either).

A pneumatology of textual transmission and textual criticism is thus wanted in our dealings with the doctrine of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, in my view.

Questions aside, Vanhoozer’s conclusion is a robust and ethically holistic one: that right-minded interpreters of the Scripture are necessarily its truthful witnesses that are willing to endure textual difficulties (on the intellectual/Sophia  level), as well as truth-seekers capable of responding to, loving, and participating in the calling of the Scripture (on the practical/Phronesis level)- they listen to God’s Word, comprehend it, and do it.

Now available for viewing, the video features Dr. Vanhoozer outlining and explaining his position, presented more fully in Five Views. A transcript of the video is also available for Download.

Appendix: Vanhoozer on Peter Enns in Five Views on Inerrancy:

I endorse Enns’ call to conform our doctrine of Scripture to the Bible that we actually have rather than the one we think God ought to have written. My own essay contrasts an “inerrancy of glory” (aka “perfect book inerrancy,” a cultural construct) with an “inerrancy of the cross.” I draw this distinction in order to urge an inerrancy of the cross that recognizes the wisdom of God in the surprising textual form he has given it rather than the form we may think it ought to have had. Enns simply identifies inerrancy with perfect book theology, however, and then devotes most of his essay to exposing its nakedness. I agree that perfect book inerrancy, “by placing on it expectations it is not designed to bear”, fails to do justice to Scripture. However, in my own chapter, I explore a constructive alternative. I wish Enns had tried to do this too.

Instead, Enns spends most of his chapter reacting to what I judge to be a caricature of inerrancy— what David Dockery, whom I discuss in my own chapter, calls “naive” rather than “critical” inerrancy. Enns would have been better off discussing the original drawing— namely, the definitions offered by John Frame or Paul Feinberg— rather than demeaning the assumptions and interpretive practice of anonymous inerrantists. Who are these faceless villains (“ is it I, Peter”)? Enns nevertheless makes a valid point: the doctrine of inerrancy has been hijacked by various bands of exegetical pirates who insist that the gold of true Bible knowledge is secure only in their own interpretive treasure chests.

Enns thinks the core issue is “how inerrancy functions in contemporary evangelical theological discourse”. Why should the function rather than the nature of inerrancy be the crux of the matter? We don’t throw away other doctrines, like divine sovereignty or the atonement, just because some people misunderstand or misuse them. No, we try to set them right. Curiously, Enns is not interested in definitions. Even his title focuses on function: “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What the Bible Does.” This is strange. Why should inerrancy— the claim that the Bible is without error— describe what the Bible does? Enns’ essay suffers from two confusions: (1) a failure to distinguish the nature of inerrancy from its use and (2) a failure to distinguish inerrancy’s right use from various abuses.

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) Zondervan, 2013, 83-4 [Kindle Edition]

[文摘] Kevin Vanhoozer’s Interview with Gospel Coalition
Photo by Mu-tien Chiou on the occasion of Wheaton Annual Conference 2010

[Book Review] 中文偽書評:The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto

10422979

S.D. Moore & Y. SherwoodThe Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto. Fortress Press, 2011 (ISBN 9780800697747)

這本書的一開始有點不知道怎麼歸類。不是聖經研究,也不是神學研究,應該算是文化現象學研究,並且積極運用了釋經學術領域和一般文學批評領域之間的比較,來帶出比較宏觀的倫理議程。

兩位作者Moore 和 Sherwood 提出了一個非常詭譎的論調:他們認為,今日的聖經研究已經變成啟蒙主義的奴隸,原因正在於聖經研究學界(e.g. SBL)之間除了幾乎不帶神學和道德指涉的〔歷史/文本〕批判學工具之外,已經再無共通的語言可用。(N. T. Wright 其實對此其實也談得很多,但視角遠遠不及此二君來得高明宏闊。)

歷史/文本批判學是不是夾帶了神學和道德的立場呢?當然。可是曾幾何時,我們基於聖經的神學和道德辯論,居然失去了「公開性」,以致於只能夠透過歷史/文本批判學(或其他被世俗理性包裝後的語言)打神學的代理戰爭(proxy war)!

在18世紀以前,情況並不是如此。釋經學就是一個把主體和焦點放在「神的話」的整合性閱讀。

然而當今的問題是,聖經學者們不僅已經沒有能力運用解經使上帝的良善或是聖經的倫理學升格為公共神學,許多人甚至不知道該如何處理聖經內部所蘊含的道德張力,只能作一些做一些細小而無關神學宏旨的文句訓詁,或是用來印證自身宗派教義的套套邏輯,連「神學家」的資格都算不上。

在近幾十年間,嘗試為聖經注入道德立場的人,幾乎清一色轉而直接用有色眼鏡讀經的「後現代神學」進路,例如:解放神學、女性神學、後殖民神學、同志神學、共和主義神學、讀者回應理論。

只是兩位作者認為,他們仍然沒有跳脫啟蒙時代思維,或說浪漫主義的巢臼。因為康德在論主體意識和客體之間的認識論交互關係時,就早已經為這種「主觀認識論」鋪好路了。

而比啟蒙時代更等而下之的是,這些「後現代聖經學者」,已經失去了跨界的說服力和影響力。換句話說,女性神學釋經,就只能跟女性神學詮釋者搞在一起。保守神學圈的觀念,也只能在保守神學圈中流通。人說德意志觀念論的黑格爾是近代最後「元敘事」意義上的形上學家,哀嘆的正是當今形上學的失語和認識論陣營的分裂。

在我的個人觀察中,後殖民處境的釋經學,這種只能「自己取暖」(self-empowerment at best),而無法在聖經學界取得公共地位的問題更為嚴重。

R. S. Sugirtharajah (ed.), Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World,Orbis, 2006 要算是這個「後殖民讀經」領域的代表作。我有幸在之前碩博連開的高階釋經學課中用到這本書。當中就有些極為優秀的論文,但很實際的情況就是,除了處境神學和後殖民神學之外,其他種類的聖經研究根本不會引用到它們。

只是既已分析聖經研究學界的現況,最後,兩位作者有意重新提倡改教家時期的神學詮釋學。這部分就無甚新穎,因為,雖然我也支持神學詮釋學,心中比較大的感腳(hunch)還是:

「瑞凡,我們已經回不去了。」

[文摘] Eerdmans 100 Interview Series: Anthony Thiselton

Cover of "Hermeneutics of Doctrine"
Cover of Hermeneutics of Doctrine

Source Link: Eerdmans 100 Interview Series: Anthony Thiselton

Matthew: Hermeneutics is a complex discipline that cannot be performed with an overly reduced concept of the term. Indeed, it draws on many fields for its practice and coherence. Will you, briefly, outline what hermeneutics is and explain its relationship to other disciplines both scientific and artistic?

Thiselton: Although it entails, first, biblical hermeneutics, it is vital that Biblical Studies is not isolated from Systematic Theology. This occurs all too often, to the impoverishment of both. Hence the second discipline is Theology. Third, Linguistics has to be studied for a serious Hermeneutic. Fourth, because modern Hermeneutics since Schleiermacher is “the art of understanding”, it must involve epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. The fifth essential discipline is sociology of knowledge, since all interpretation is not purely “objective”, but depends on pre-understanding, or what Habermas calls “interest”. Preliminary understandings (English, rather than German!) can be negotiated like “horizons”; they are not fixed like “presuppositions. Nowadays, sixthly, Literary Studies are indispensible, both for an understanding of genre (as in Umberto Eco), but also on “intention” and Reader Response Theory.

We might add, seventh, Reception History or Reception Theory, which has now become a sub-discipline in Biblical Studies, Theology, and Literary Theory. I cannot think of any of these eight which we can easily omit. It is tragic that some relegate Hermeneutics only to a branch of Biblical Studies or oh Church History. I have explored more on the Hermeneutics of Doctrine in my book, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Eerdmans, 2007).

Matthew: Postmodern thought has been preoccupied with the task of hermeneutics and the relationship of readers to texts. Yet, many in Christian circles have had a difficult time recognizing the value it might add to our reading of texts generally or to the Bible specifically. What positive contributions (if any), in your view has postmodernism made to hermeneutics?

Thiselton: I must confess that I suspect all “-isms” as overgeneralizations.  I speak to my students only specifically about Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty, Foucault, and others.  For the most part, I am grieved that many Evangelicals retreat from robust, rational discussion because many postmodernists say that I can say only how it is with me, i.e. testify to what has worked for me. But there are some positive features: (1) an attack on the standardization of knowledge, especially making everything correspond to technology (especially Lyotard); this applies to what is said above about “science”. (2) I share their dislike of generalities; but we need caution about rejecting all “meta-narratives”, of which the Bible may be one. (3) Roland Barthesearly work “Mythologies” is fascinating, and assists Ricoeur’s “Hermeneutic of Suspicion”, although this may be too early to call it “Postmodern”. (4) Jean Baudrillard exposes fantasy and simulacra, together the idolization of utility and media-created, and media-centred “celebrities”. But specifically on Hermeneutics I have some sympathy with Vanhoozer’s exposure of Derrida as too near to atheism, and I would add Lyotard on incommensurability and the plurality of “paganism” as negativeIn the U.S.A., I find it difficult to find merits in Rorty and Fish.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians

[書摘] Christ and Canon, theology and history—the Barth-Harnack dialogue revisited

Ary Scheffer: The Temptation of Christ, 1854
Temptation of Christ

Source:

Kimlym J. Bender, “Christ and Canon, theology and history—the Barth-Harnack dialogue revisited” in Theology as Conversation: The Significance Of Dialogue In Historical And Contemporary Theology: A Festschrift For Daniel L. Migliore, Bruce McCormack and Kimlym J. Bender eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 3-29

 

My summary:

Because of the diversity and heterogeneity of the books in the Bible, Harnack insisted historical knowledge and critical reflection on necessary to understand its content. Without these faith would advance an unchecked speculative fantasy at best and at worst a theological dictatorship that “seeks to culture the consciences of others with its own subjective experience”.

Barth responded to the criticism with an emphasis on unity [between Christ of faith and Jesus of history]. For Barth, the Jesus of Nazareth no much historical science fails to display Jesus true identity is abstracted from the confession of him as the risen Lord. If Christ is the Lord of history, any historical reconstructions are his earthly life that ignores his Lordship can at best be an abstraction.

Historical science alone is unable to move beyond speculative reconstruction to confession.

Indeed, the precise determination of the Christian canon’s development is in a large part lost to history. But the question of its subject matter is clearly shown to us to be the God to whom the canon witnesses and the contemporary confessions of faith profess.

It is the unity of the Lord that grounds the unity of Scripture and the makes it a unified witness. To understand Scripture rightly entails that one read it as a participant in its truth. (For Harnack, this emotional attachment risks of loss of scientific objectivity and responsibility.)

Barth’s commitment to a different kind of objectivity and the responsibility is expressed in his third edition of the Romans commentary where he insists that we must think not so much about Paul but after and with Paul towards the subject matter with which he himself was concerned. (For a discussion of what exactly Barth takes to be historical science positive and preparatory function, which Barth has only alluded to but never fully explains, see Burnett, Karl Barth‘s Theological Exegesis, pp.230-240)

However, Harnack score a point. While the exact genetic history of canonical development may ultimately be unanswerable, we are still left with the canonical question concerning its composition and the parameters, which is not solved by the ultimate definition of the canon’s theological and the Christological nature. For example, shall we be siding with Luther’s (and thus Judaism’s) version of the Hebrew OT or the Catholic Church’s (and thus the engine church’s) LXX OT? Whose canon? Whose Scripture? (the same question needs to be posed against Childs.)

Latter Barth is clearly in his mature reflections aware of the historical messiness of canonical development in the contested boundaries, is refusing all the way the [confessional] church any final authority. He deems that the revelation of God which comes through Scripture is the ultimate basis and criteria for the canon, which must overrides even historic usages and past decisions of councils. But paradoxically, if anyone today wants to challenge particular books of their canonical status or revelatory significance, Barth would give precedence to the Church’s past decisions by aligning them with the obedient hearing of God’s voice.

Barth views the Scripture through a single lens of Christology, whereas Harnack employs multiple lenses, including a Kantian universal rationalism modified in light of Schleiermacher, a modern Lutheran law and the gospel dichotomy modified by Ritschl, and his spiritual moralism alike. Though he still attempted to preserve the uniqueness of the person of Jesus against Troeltsch’s appeal for a more consistent/critical historicism, he is separating the message of Jesus from his own historical [i.e., Jewish rabbinical and first century eschatological] roots in favor of a universal moral message that it can be extracted from both Testaments. Barth on the contrary is classically orthodox—he sees Christ foreshadowed in the old and attested in the new (But still, in various fronts, he has been criticized for having not taken the Old Testament on its own terms).

In the end, if Barth really needs to be faulted in his open confessional position, it was in his ready acceptance of the findings of radical biblical criticism, telling to criticize not only its presuppositions but also its findings. This was due in no small part to Barth’s early liberal inheritance [from Hermann]: his early ambivalence toward history and a dialectic of contradiction that has only to be overcome in time with a dialectic of correspondence.

But no doubt, what intrigues many of us today in the Harnack/Barth dabate, is Barth’s  hermeneutics of trust and the canonical richness, rather than Harnack’s hermeneutics of suspicion and canonical reductionism.