新約歷史的可靠性
http://www.chineseapologetics.net/theology/NT-accurate.htm?fbclid=IwAR2AItuPIfGmICtpc0SyAvdtGSD_86f42jsDfDKaKX9RLPXc0uTUaieoXQQ
張逸萍譯自﹕“The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text: Part One-Four” The John Ankerberg Show | September 27, 2002 (https://jashow.org/articles/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text-part-1/ , https://jashow.org/articles/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text-part-2/ , https://jashow.org/articles/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text-part-3/ , https://jashow.org/articles/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text-part-4/ , )
從這個意義上說,批評家們正符合阿拉巴馬州蒙哥馬利麥克斯韋空軍基地航空大學(The Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.)軍事歷史副教授昌西·桑德斯(Chauncey Sanders)的警告。桑德斯在他的《英國文學史研究導論》中警告文學評論家一定要謹慎檢查與他的案有關的證據:
已故的曼徹斯特大學(University of Manchester)萊蘭研究中心(Ryland)的聖經批判學批評和釋經教授布魯斯(F. F. Bruce)博士斷言:「世界上沒有任何古代文學像新約那樣,擁有如此豐富的文本證據。」[viii] 布魯斯教授進一步評論說:「我們的新約著作所提供的證據,比古典作家的許多著作所提供的證據,要強大得多,其真實性是沒人夢想得到的。如果新約是世俗著作的彙集,那麼它們的真實性通常被認為是毫無疑問的。」[ix]
正是這些豐富的資料,使諸如華士葛和霍爾特(Westcott and Hort),阿勃(Ezra Abbott),史亞夫(Philip Schaff),羅拔臣(A. T. Robertson),賈思樂(Norman Geisler)和尼克斯(William Nix)之類的學者,能夠將原始文本的修復率提高到99%以上。[x] 因此,沒有其他古代文獻,比新約更準確地被保存了:
新約再次通過測試。例如,路加寫了新約的四分之一。前批評家威廉·拉姆齊爵士(Sir William Ramsay)進行了詳盡的個人考古調查,顯示了路加歷史著作的仔細。經過艱苦的研究,他說﹕「在可信賴性方面,路加寫的歷史是無與倫比的。」[xiii] 羅馬傑出的歷史學家謝爾文-懷特(A. N. Sherwin-White)這樣談到路加福音:「對於《使徒行傳》歷史性的確認,是排山倒海的。現在,任何拒絕其基本歷史性的嘗試,即使是在細節問題上,都顯得荒謬。」[xiv]
帕皮亞斯(Papias),使徒約翰的學生 [xv] 又是公元150年左右的希拉波利斯(Hierapolis)主教,觀察到使徒約翰本寫福音書時,他留意到使徒馬可﹕「準確地寫下……無論(彼得)所想起的,基督所說或所做的一切。 馬可沒有犯錯……因為他很謹慎,不要遺漏[彼得]所聽到的任何事情,也不要陳述錯誤。」[xvi] 此外,帕皮亞斯《聖言的論述》(Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,約公元140年(III,XIX,XX))的片段,肯定地說﹕馬太福音,馬可福音和約翰福音,都基於可靠的目擊者的見證(他論及路加福音的部分遺失了)。」[xvii]
猶太教和世俗記載,在很大程度上,確認了我們在新約聖經講的基督的樣子。學術研究,例如加里·哈貝馬斯(Gary R. Habermas)博士在《關於耶穌生活的古代證據》(Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus)中的研究,以及其他文獻都指出,可以從完全非基督教資料,合理和直接地推斷出“耶穌生平的大概輪廓”及其因被釘十字架而死。[xviii]
新約文件有詳細的考古學證據。[xxi] 克利福德·威爾遜(Clifford Wilson)博士是澳大利亞考古研究所(Australian Institute of Archaeology)的前所長,著有《新約書信新亮光》(New Light on the New Testament Letters)、《福音書新亮光》(New Light on the Gospels)、 《石頭、遺物和聖經的可靠性》(Rock, Relics and Biblical Reliability),共17冊,論及聖經考古證明聖經。他說:「現在知道事實的人都認識到,新約聖經應該被視為非常準確的資料。」[xxii] 最近的許多學術性著作都證實了這一點,例如蘭德爾·普萊斯(Randall Price)的《石頭呼喚》(The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible,Harvest House,1997年);豪珥( A. J. Hoerth)的《考古學與舊約》(Archaeology and the Old Testament ,1998年); 和麥韋(J. McRay)的《考古與新約》(Archaeology and the New Testament ,1991年)。
保守派(布魯斯,約翰·文納姆〔John Wenham〕)和自由派的(約翰·羅賓森主教〔Bishop John A. T. Robinson〕)都有寫作,辯護新約比較早的成書訂期,這事見證了定期早的數據的力量。例如,在《馬太福音、馬可福音和路加福音重新訂期》(Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke)中,著名的英國保守派學者約翰·文納姆John Wenham提出了令人信服的論點,即符類福音書的年代,要早於公元55年。他把馬太的寫作日期訂於公元40年(某些傳統說法是30年代初期);路加福音於公元45年,不遲於公元51-55年。[xxiv]
德國紙莎草學家卡斯滕·彼得·錫德(Carsten Peter Thiede)辯稱,瑪格達琳紙莎草紙(Magdalen papyrus)現存於牛津大學,包含馬太26章的三段摘錄,實際上是新約聖經中最古老的碎片,可追溯到公元70年左右。錫德的著作《耶穌的目擊證人》(Eyewitness to Jesus ,Doubleday,1995)指出,瑪格達琳紙莎草紙是用安色爾字體風格寫成的,在第一世紀中葉開始消亡。 此外,這些片段來自一個手抄本,[xxv] 紙莎草紙兩面都有文字,在一世紀,由於比紙捲更容易處理,因此可能在基督徒中已被廣泛使用。此外,在紙莎草紙上的三個地方,耶穌的名字寫成KS,是希臘詞“kyrios”(主)的縮寫。錫德認為,這種簡寫方式證明了早期基督徒認為耶穌是一個神聖的名字,就像虔誠的猶太人將上帝的名字簡稱為YHWH一樣。這將表明人們很早就相信基督的神性。
甚至是自由派的主教約翰·羅賓遜(John A.T. Robinson)在他的《為新約聖經重新訂期》(Redating the New Testament )中也指出,整個新約都是在公元40至65年之間成書並流通。[xxvii] 圖賓根(Tubingen)學派的自由神學家彼得·斯圖爾馬赫(Peter Stuhlmacher)受過布特曼(Bultmann)批評形式的批判方法的訓練,說﹕「作為西方聖經學者,我傾向於懷疑這些(福音)故事,但作為歷史學家,我有義務將它們視為可靠的……聖經文本現在的樣子,是我們能解釋真實情況的最好假設。」[xxviii]
當我們考慮到以下事實時,我們必須承認新約的歷史性:基於嚴格的法律證據,許多法律史上的思想家已經接受了《新約》作為可靠的歷史——更不用說的是﹕即無論是歷史上,還是今天,許多傑出的懷疑知識分子,都已因為歷史證據,轉向基督教。(大掃的掃羅,雅典那哥拉〔Athanagoras〕,奧古斯甸丁〔Augustine〕,利特爾頓〔George Lyttleton〕,華斯〔Gilbert West〕,路易士〔C. S. Lewis〕,莫禮遜〔Frank Morison〕,拉姆齊〔William Ramsay〕爵士,約翰·蒙哥馬利〔John Warwick Montgomery〕等。)。
當然,律師在評估證據方面受過了專業的培訓,他們也許最能勝任嚴格的數據衡量工作。歷來有如此眾多的人,得出的結論是站在基督教這邊。是偶然的嗎?雨果·格羅蒂烏斯(Hugo Grotius)是“國際法之父”,他寫了《基督教宗教的真相》(The Truth of the Christian Religion ,1627年?),你說怎麼樣呢?哈佛法學院教授西蒙·格林利夫(Simon Greenleaf)在19世紀英美習慣法律證據一領域,擁有最高權威,他撰寫了《傳教士證言》(Testimony of the Evangelists),在其中強有力地證明了福音書的可靠性,怎樣呢?[xxxi] 二十多年來擔任波士頓大學法學院院長的埃德蒙·H·貝內特(Edmund H. Bennett,1824-1898),他從律師的角度撰寫了《律師看四福音書》(The Four Gospels From a Lawyer’s Standpoint ,1899)。怎樣呢? [xxxii] 歐文·林頓(Irwin Linton)當時曾在最高法院代理過案件,並撰寫了《律師審查聖經》(A Lawyer Examines the Bible ),其中說:
最後,著名的總理大臣(Lord Chancellor)海爾舍姆(Hailsham)曾兩次為英格蘭的律師擔任最高職務(總理大臣),寫了《我進了哪門》(The Door Wherein I Went)一書,他堅持基督教為獨一真理。怎樣?[xxxiv] 在數百名當代律師中,基於嚴格的法律依據,認為新約在歷史上是可靠的。又怎樣呢?[xxxv]
[i] Source criticism, also known as literary criticism, attempts to discover and define literary sources used by the biblical writers…and answer questions relating to authorship, unity and date of Old and New Testament materials….Form criticism studies literary forms such as essays, poems, and myths, since different writings have different forms. Often the form of a piece of literature can tell a great deal about the nature of a literary piece, its writer, and its social context….Redaction criticism claims that subsequent editors (redactors) changed the text of Scripture. (Dr. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Book house, 1999, pp. 86, 87, 635) [ii] James W Sire, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All? (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), p. 221, citing Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), pp. 223-24. [iii] Chauncey Sanders, An Introduction to Research in English Literary History (New York: MacMillan, 1952), p. 160. His comments were specifically in reference to the authenticity or authorship of a given text. [iv] Chauncey Sanders, An Introduction to Research in English Literary History (New York: MacMillan, 1952), p. 160. [v] J. McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev. 1979, pp. 39-52; and Norman Geisler, William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), pp. 238, 357-367. [vi] McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 42; Robert C. Newman, “Miracles and the Historicity of the Easter Week Narratives,” in John Warwick Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe, 1991), pp. 281-84. [vii] Christian Scriptures in Greek were written in capital letters, separately formed often without spaces between words. These were called uncial letters. (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary) [viii] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, NJ: RevelI, 1963), p. 78. [ix] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), p. 15. [x] J. McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, pp. 43-45; Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), pp. 238-39, 365-66. [xi] Robert C. Newman, “Miracles and the Historicity of the Easter Week Narratives,” in John Warwick Montgomery (ed.), Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe, 1991), p. 284. [xii] See John Warwick Montgomery, Faith Founded on Fact (New York: Nelson, 1978); F. F Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity); John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity); Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), pp. 322-327. [xiii] William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1959), p. 81; cf. William F. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 177-179, 222 as given in F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, pp. 90-91. [xiv] A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965) from Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 326. [xv] Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (New York: Nelson, 1984), p. 66. [xvi] Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, eds., A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series, vol. 1, Eusebius: Church History, Book 3, Chapter 39, “The Writings of Papias” (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), pp. 172-173, emphasis added. [xvii] Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, pp. 66, 177. [xviii] Ibid., pp. 112-115. [xix] Ibid., p. 112. [xx] Ibid., pp. 112-113. [xxi] See our chapter on archeology in Ready With An Answer and F. F. Bruce, “Are the New Testament Documents Still Reliable?”, Christianity Today (October 28, 1978), pp. 28-33; F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, chs. 7-8; Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979); C. A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), ch. 2, New Light on New Testament Letters and New Light on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1975); Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures, Section II (New York: Lippincott, 1972). [xxii] C. A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), p. 120. [xxiii] See any complete concordance listing under “witness,” “eyewitness,” etc. [xxiv] John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, (Downers Grove, IL, 1992), pp. 115-19, 136,183, see pp. xxv, 198,147, 200, 221, 223, 238-39, 243-45. [xxv] “CODEX [COE dex]— the forerunner of the modern book. A codex was formed by folding several sheets of papyrus in the middle and sewing them together along the fold.” (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary) [xxvi] John Elson, “Eyewitness to Jesus?” Time, April 8,1996, p. 60. [xxvii] John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). [xxviii] In Richard S. Ostling, “Who Was Jesus?”, Time, August 15, 1988, p. 41, emphasis added. [xxix] See the chronological “Life of Christ” chart in The NIV Study Bible, red letter edition, Zondervan 1985, pp. 1480-1481. [xxx] F. F. Bruce “Are the New Testament Documents Still Reliable?”, p. 55, cf., Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), pp. 247, 253. [xxxi] Reprinted in J. W. Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 1975), appendix, pp. 91-140. [xxxii] Reprinted in The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, Vol. 1 (Orange, CA: The Faculty of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, 1981-1982), pp. 15-74. [xxxiii] Irwin Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible (San Diego: Creation-Life-Publishers, 1977), p. 45. [xxxiv] The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, vol. 4 (Orange, CA: The Faculty of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, 1984-1985), pp. 28-36. [xxxv] See our Ready With An Answer. [xxxvi] John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975), pp. 87-88. [xxxvii] 204. J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1970), pp. 13-14.