APPENDIX: CRITICISM AND "HIGHER CRITICISM" ｜ 附录：考据学与『高等批判』

ENCRITICISM AND "HIGHER CRITICISM." [We cite from "The Author's Closing Words" in the Bible-Work: "No attempt has been made fully to discuss the mooted points of interpretation or of literary criticism. With but few exceptions, the only form of antagonism to what may be regarded as error is a counter-statement of what is believed to be truth. One notable exception respects the theories of the self-styled 'Higher Criticism.' The main questions introduced by its leading advocates in Great Britain and America have been, in place, compactly but fairly presented, and as fairly refuted, throughout the Old Testament. The presentment and the refutation are mainly designed for the average student and teacher, and for the intelligent reader, with the single motive of guarding their faith against the difficulties and doubts that naturally spring from the many complicated and confusing theories of the modern divisive school. And in this place I cannot refrain from a passing reference to certain impressions which have resulted from the large study and comparison that I have been constrained to make between the two opposed schools of criticism. 1. Among equally advanced English and American scholars there seems to be an immense preponderance in numbers of conservative criticism over that which may reasonably be characterized as destructive. 2. The same preponderance appears in the superior quality of the personal judgment of leading critics—a fact which has a vital bearing upon the final issue of the conflict. The superiority of conservative criticism in this quality of judgment is strongly emphasized by the definite and harmonious conclusions of the one class, and by the utter diversity of view, the constantly shifting and altogether unsettled conclusions, of the other. 3. A further comparison, and a like contrast, is suggested by the spirit and method in which the discussion is conducted: on the one side, a modest and reverent carefulness, as dealing with divinely given words; on the other, a self-assertive boldness which seems to ignore the Divine source and element in those words. 4. But a far graver charge lies against the modern school of criticism: it is that from first to last, in its essential and distinguishing points, it exalts the form and framework far above the spirit and substance of the sacred writings; and that in all its theories and discussions it eliminates, and virtually rejects, the great spiritual truths whose embodiment in history, psalm and prophecy constitutes the single aim, the sublime scope and the supreme end of the entire Old Testament revelation."]

BSB2 Peter 1:21 For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

中考据学与『高等批判』。〔以下摘自《圣经工作》一书中的《著者结语》：『本书并未试图充分讨论解经或文学考据上那些聚讼未决的问题。除极少数例外，对于那些可视为谬误的说法，本书所采取的唯一对抗形式，就是把我们所信为真理的正面陈述出来。一个显著的例外，是关于那自称「高等批判」之学派的种种理论。其英美主要倡导者所提出的几个主要问题，本书在旧约各处相应之处，都作了扼要而公允的呈现，并同样公允地加以驳斥。这番呈现与驳斥，主要是为一般的学生与教师、以及有见识的读者而设；其唯一动机，是护卫他们的信心，免受那由现代分割学派种种繁复混乱之理论自然生出的难处与疑惑之害。在此我也忍不住顺带一提：我因不得不在这两派对立的考据学之间作大量研读与比较，由此所得的几点印象。一、在造诣相当的英美学者当中，保守派考据学在人数上似乎压倒性地多于那可以合理地称为破坏性的一派。二、同样的优势也表现在几位领军批评家个人判断力的品质高下上——这一事实对这场争论最终的结局具有关键影响。保守派考据学在判断力上的优越，由这一点得着有力的凸显：一派的结论明确而彼此协调，另一派的看法则彼此完全分歧、结论不断变动、始终未定。三、进一步的比较与同样的反差，还见于讨论进行时的心态与方法：一边是谦逊敬畏的审慎，因自知所处理的是神所赐的话语；另一边则是一种自我张扬的大胆，似乎全然不顾这些话语中神圣的来源与成分。四、然而对现代批判学派还有一项远为严重的指控：就是它自始至终，在其本质而具区别性的各要点上，都把形式与骨架抬举得远高于圣书的精神与实质；并且在它一切的理论与讨论中，把那些伟大的属灵真理排除掉、实际上加以弃绝——而这些属灵真理体现于历史、诗篇与预言之中，正构成整部旧约启示唯一的目标、崇高的范围与至高的归宿。』〕

EN[Principles involved and methods employed in the discussion. Freedom of thought and of speech is not to be repressed. Scholarly investigation must be suffered to range at will over all subjects which present themselves for inquiry; no fetters must be placed upon the human understanding in its search after truth. The sacredness of the subject is no bar to the most thorough search, if it be conducted in a reverent spirit, with candor and impartiality, and without the assumption of false principles or the employment of wrong methods. The historical truth of the Scriptures, and the genuineness and canonical authority of the several books, are not to be excepted from rigid scholarly examination. The basis of our faith, and the foundations on which revealed religion reposes, are not only open to scrutiny, but the momentous interests at stake demand that the scrutiny should be of the most searching kind. Here, if anywhere, it is of the utmost consequence that the exact truth should be known; that positive certainty should be attained; that nothing should be accepted which will not bear examination; that no doubt or obscurity should be suffered to remain which can by any means be removed. Biblical criticism—an inquiry into the facts concerning the Bible, the circumstances of its origin, the authorship of its several books, and their literary form and contents—is not only a legitimate study, but one of special value and importance; and it should be untrammeled in its investigations, unwarped by prejudice, and fearless in its quest of truth. Every attempt to interfere with freedom of inquiry, in this subject as in every other, should be frowned down, from whatever quarter it may proceed and by whatever motive it may be actuated. The truth is not to be upheld by timidly forbidding the application to it of even the sharpest tests: if it be genuine, it will come forth unharmed, and with clearer evidence, from the severity of the trial; and if the truth as commonly apprehended have an admixture of error, free discussion will discover the fallacies and weak points and remove them, leaving the truth in its integrity. Vigorous threshing will free the pure grain from the worthless chaff. But while scholarship has its rights, which must not be infringed, it has also its duties, for the neglect or violation of which it may properly be challenged. There is a Christian scholarship and an unchristian scholarship; there is a biblical criticism and an anti-biblical criticism. In the history of the Christian Church it is evident that the doctrinal controversies through which it has passed have in the end tended to clearer views, and to more lucid and exact statements of the truth: it is thus that the great historical creeds have been built up and gradually formulated in their present precision; and the antagonists of the faith have contributed to this result by their assaults.]

BSB1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

中〔讨论中所涉的原则与所用的方法。思想与言论的自由不可被压制。学术研究必须被容许自由驰骋于一切自行呈现出来供人探究的题目之上；人的悟性在寻求真理时，不可被戴上任何镣铐。题目的神圣性并不构成最彻底之查考的障碍——只要那查考是以敬畏的心、以坦诚与不偏不倚的态度进行的，并且不预设错误的原则、不采用错误的方法。圣经历史的真实性，以及各卷书的真确性与正典权威，都不该被排除在严格的学术检验之外。我们信仰的根基、启示宗教所立于其上的地基，不但可以接受审查，而且其中所系的重大利害要求：这审查必须是最彻底的那一种。若说何处最要紧，正是在这里：要知道确切的真相；要取得确凿的把握；凡经不起检验的都不接受；凡用任何方法可以除去的疑惑或含混，都不容它残留。圣经考据学——即对关乎圣经的种种事实、它成书的情境、各卷书的作者、以及它们的文体与内容所作的探究——不仅是一门正当的学问，而且是一门具有特殊价值与重要性的学问；它在研究中不应受束缚，不应被成见扭曲，在寻求真理时应当无所畏惧。凡试图干涉这方面（以及任何方面）之探究自由的举动，无论出自哪一方、出于何种动机，都应受到斥止。真理不是靠着怯懦地禁止人对它施用最锋利的检验来维护的：它若是真的，就必从这严酷的试验中毫发无损地出来，且带着更清晰的凭据；而假如人们通常所理解的「真理」中掺杂了谬误，那么自由的讨论必会查出其中的谬论与弱点、加以剔除，使真理完整无损地留存下来。用力打场，才能把纯净的麦子从无用的糠秕中分出来。然而学术固然有其不可侵犯的权利，也同样有其责任；若对这些责任疏忽或违背，它理应受到质问。有基督徒的学术，也有非基督徒的学术；有圣经考据学，也有反圣经的考据学。在基督教会的历史中，显而易见：它所经历的各次教义论争，最终都趋向使见解更清楚、使真理的陈述更明晰确切：那几大历史性的信经，正是这样被建立起来、并逐步锤炼成今日这般精确的措辞的；而信仰的对手们，也以他们的攻击对这一结果有所贡献。〕