APPENDIX: CRITICISM (CONTINUED) ｜ 附录：考据学（续）

EN[Both biblical criticism and biblical interpretation have been largely indebted to the scholarly researches of those who were foes to evangelical truth. We thankfully accept the gathered stores of learning contributed by their labors to the benefit of our common Christianity; but we are not prepared to surrender the ark of God to their custody. W. H. Green.] [Every man will be held responsible for his utterances; and if these utterances defy both fact and logic, the exposure will be made without recourse to apology. In all this there is no bitterness, as there is no persecution: it is simply the protest of manly, intelligent conviction. The critics must expect vigorous handling; free speech is not their monopoly, it is the divine birthright of every man. Truth has no personal controversy with any man; but arbitrary assumptions, imaginary facts, vicious methods, and wholesale charges of fraudulent handling cannot be permitted to go unchallenged—and in such a debate plain speech is the best. A. J. F. Behrends.] [No man comes to Christ by scholarship. Scholarship is no substitute for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches a man his sin, his treason against the holy and loving God, and points him to Christ, through whom alone he can be pardoned and accepted by God. When he has learned the grace of God in the forgiveness of his sins, every power within him stands quivering with gratitude, in hope of being used in the service of Christ. He would train all his mental powers to the most exact knowledge of the Bible; he would seek all learning, not as an end, but as one of the means to the great end of telling others of the love and grace and pardon of God in Christ. Scholarship to him is only the shoeing of his feet with the preparation of the Gospel of peace. While rationalism, for a century, has been occupying the chairs of universities to banish from the world the only cure for sin-burdened hearts, evangelical scholars of far better learning have gone to the habitations of cruelty, to the deserts of heathenism, to the homes and hearts of woe. They have borne the tidings of Christ to darkened souls; they have translated the Bible into hundreds of languages. And let no Christian doubt, in this age of doubt and unrest and speculation, that the results of a true and genuine scholarship will continue to agree in the future, as they have agreed in the past, with the teachings of Jesus and of Paul, and that the Gospel will continue to be the light of life to men. Howard Osgood.]

BSBEphesians 6:15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness of the gospel of peace.

中〔无论是圣经考据学还是圣经解释学，都大大受惠于那些与福音真理为敌之人的学术研究。他们的劳苦所积累起来的学识，惠及我们共同的基督教；对此我们心存感谢地接受。但我们不准备把神的约柜交到他们手中保管。格林（W. H. Green）〕〔每个人都要为自己所说的话负责；这些话若既悖于事实又悖于逻辑，那就要把它揭穿，不必先赔不是。这其中并无苦毒，也谈不上逼迫：它不过是一种堂堂正正、明白事理之确信所发出的抗议。批判学者必须预料到自己会被有力地对待；言论自由并不是他们的专利，它是每一个人从神而来的与生俱来之权。真理与任何人都没有私人恩怨；但武断的预设、想象出来的『事实』、恶劣的方法，以及不分青红皂白地指控别人作伪，这些都不能听任其无人质问——而在这样的辩论中，直白的言语最好。贝伦兹（A. J. F. Behrends）〕〔没有人是靠学问来到基督面前的。学问不能代替圣灵。是圣灵使人认识自己的罪、认识自己对那圣洁慈爱之神的背叛，并指他去看基督——惟有藉着基督，他才能得赦免、蒙神接纳。当他领会了神在赦罪之事上的恩典，他里面每一样能力都感激得发颤，巴望被用在基督的服事上。他愿意操练自己一切心智的能力，去取得对圣经最确切的认识；他愿意寻求一切学问，不是把学问当作目的，而是当作达到那伟大目的的途径之一——就是把神在基督里的慈爱、恩典与赦免告诉别人。对他而言，学问不过是『用平安的福音当作预备走路的鞋穿在脚上』。一百年来，理性主义一直占据着大学的讲席，要把这世上唯一能医治重担压身之心的良方逐出人间；与此同时，学问远胜于他们的福音派学者，却走进了强暴之地，走进了异教的荒漠，走进了愁苦的家庭与心灵。他们把基督的信息带给了黑暗中的灵魂；他们把圣经译成了数百种语言。在这怀疑、不安与思辨的时代，愿基督徒不要疑惑：真实而纯正的学问所得的结果，将来必如既往一样，继续与耶稣和保罗的教训相合；福音也必继续作世人生命的光。奥斯古德（Howard Osgood）〕

EN[It is to be regretted that so many of the biblical critics are wanting in exact and comprehensive historical knowledge. They look with some disdain upon the students of archaeology, and they minimize the established results. But problems of authenticity and of integrity cannot be determined by literary analysis alone: the problem is pre-eminently a historical one, and historical evidence alone can solve it. Literary criticism cannot possibly determine by whom a book was written; and if it ventures to cast doubt upon clear and unequivocal statements in the book itself—denying them altogether, or reducing them to a minimum—it simply buries us in hopeless bewilderment. Thus it is said that the Pentateuch does not claim to have been written by Moses; but the critics also grant that some things were written by him. And the frequent recurrence of the phrase "The Lord said unto Moses," which runs like an unbroken thread through the Levitical legislation, could have been warranted only because the tradition assumed authoritative form in his day: to discredit that testimony is to make the problem hopeless of solution. When it is denied that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah are from the pen of that prophet, the fact that the book of Isaiah has always contained them must be allowed to have some weight; and the most positive evidence must be produced that the natural and inevitable inference of a single authorship is not only unwarranted, but contradicted by the plainest facts. It is a suspicious circumstance that they who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and who declare Isaiah to be composite, can do no better than assign them to some great unknown, and cannot even fix the time when he lived. The result gives us only an indefinite number of Elohists and Jehovists and Deuteronomists and Redactors—shadowy and unsubstantial figures, whose number cannot even be determined. The once famous Fragmentary Hypothesis broke down under the weight of its arbitrary assumptions, and it begins to look as if the present theory would soon be involved in the same fate. The evident unity of the books contradicts the theory of a mechanical composite structure; the scissoring and patching become bewildering; and when a hopeless muddle is the only thing settled, the proposed solution is self-condemned. Behrends.]

BSBLuke 24:44 Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

中〔令人惋惜的是：如此多的圣经批判学者，缺乏确切而全面的历史知识。他们对考古学的研究者略带轻蔑，并把已确立的成果尽量说小。但『真确性』与『完整性』的问题，不可能单靠文学分析来判定：这个问题首先是历史问题，惟有历史证据才能解决它。文学考据根本不可能判定一卷书是谁写的；它若还要对书中清楚而毫不含糊的陈述加以怀疑——或全盘否认，或尽量缩小其范围——那就只是把我们埋进无望的困惑之中。譬如有人说，摩西五经并未宣称是摩西所写；然而批判学者也承认其中有些部分确是他写的。而『耶和华对摩西说』这一说法的频频出现——它像一条不断的线贯穿利未记的立法——之所以能站得住，只能是因为这一传统在他的时代就已取得权威形态：若把这一见证也否掉，这问题就再无解决之望了。当有人否认以赛亚书最后二十七章出自那位先知之手时，『以赛亚书历来都包含这些章』这一事实，总该被容许有些分量；并且必须拿出最确凿的证据，证明『单一作者』这一自然而无可回避的推论不但没有根据，而且被最浅显的事实所否定。有一点很可疑：那些否认摩西五经出于摩西、宣称以赛亚书是拼合而成的人，最多只能把它们归给某位『伟大的无名氏』，甚至连他生活的年代都定不出来。这样的结果，只给了我们数目不定的一堆『神名底本作者』『耶和华名底本作者』『申命记派作者』与『编修者』——一群影影绰绰、虚无缥缈的人物，连他们有几位都无法确定。当年名噪一时的『断片假说』，在它自身武断预设的重压下垮掉了；如今看来，眼下这套理论似乎也快要落得同样的下场。这些书卷显而易见的统一性，与『机械拼合而成』的理论相抵触；那种剪刀加浆糊的操作叫人眼花缭乱；而当唯一确定下来的东西就是一团无望的乱麻时，这个所谓的解法就是自我否定了。贝伦兹（Behrends）〕

EN[It has become the fashion to cast discredit upon tradition. But a traditional solution is better than one which leaves everything hanging in the air, which begins with guesses and ends in fog. The criticism of tradition is legitimate: a tradition may be exaggerated, and it may be false; but whether it is exaggerated or false must be historically determined. Modern criticism simply assumes that tradition is not a competent witness—its voice is silenced; and that is arbitrary, unscientific and unhistorical. Traditions are rarely, if ever, wholly fictitious and legendary: there is in them a kernel of historical truth; and the more widely traditions have gained currency, the longer they have held their ground, challenged or unchallenged, the more are they entitled to respectful treatment. Thus it is only by tradition that we assign the first three Gospels to the writers with whose names they are associated: judged simply by their contents, they are anonymous; the traditional account holds its ground for the simple reason that it cannot be discredited by equally good external evidence. So the Pauline Epistles have the Pauline signature stamped upon and into them, and to discredit their Pauline origin demands evidence of the most positive and overwhelming character. It is easy to deny authenticity and integrity, but the denial must be made good: the burden of proof is upon him who denies; he must show that, in detail and as a whole, the traditional view is false. The Pentateuch has always been credited to Moses, while not a particle of external evidence can be produced against the universal tradition. The synagogue is not infallible; but the synagogue from the first regarded Moses as the great author of the Pentateuch, so that from the time of Ezra down, this tradition is the only one invested with evidential authority. The tradition will hold its ground, and ought to hold its ground, until the critics do something more than substitute guesses for facts. Behrends.]

BSB2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

中〔如今流行贬低传统。但一个依据传统的解答，总胜过一个把一切悬在半空、以猜测开头、以迷雾收场的解答。对传统加以考据是正当的：一个传统可能被夸大，也可能是假的；但它究竟是被夸大了还是假的，必须靠历史来判定。现代批判学却干脆假定：传统不是一个够格的证人——于是它的声音被消音了；而这是武断的、非科学的、非历史的。传统极少（甚至可以说从不）是完全虚构和传奇性的：其中总有一粒历史真实的内核；并且一个传统流传得越广，站得住的时间越长（无论其间有无人质疑），它就越有资格得到尊重的对待。举例说：我们之所以把前三卷福音书归给那与之相联的三位作者的名字，靠的正是传统；单就其内容来判断，它们是无名的；传统的说法之所以站得住，理由很简单：没有同等有力的外证能把它推翻。照样，保罗书信上盖着、也内含着保罗的签名；要推翻它们出于保罗，就需要最确凿、最具压倒性的证据。否认『真确性』与『完整性』是容易的，但这否认必须被坐实：举证的责任在于否认者一方；他必须证明：无论就细节还是就整体而言，传统的看法都是假的。摩西五经历来被归于摩西名下；而反对这一普遍传统的外证，一丁点也拿不出来。犹太会堂并非不会错；但会堂从起初就以摩西为五经的主要作者，因此自以斯拉时代以下，这一传统是唯一具有证据权威的说法。这传统必将站得住，也理当站得住——直到批判学者拿出比『以猜测代替事实』更像样的东西为止。贝伦兹（Behrends）〕