APPENDIX: ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE "HIGHER CRITICISM" ｜ 附录：考古学与「高等批判」

EN[Let me state, as briefly as I can, the claims for which modern radical criticism is contending; the seriousness of that contention appears only when it is viewed as a whole. Moses, we are told, did not write the Pentateuch: some things may have been recorded by him, but not very much. The Ten Commandments, as they appear in Exodus, are certainly not in the form which he gave to them; and the whole story about the giving of the law from Sinai is a poetic invention of much later date, to give impressiveness to the Decalogue. The Pentateuch is declared to be, in its main intention, a law book, and its historical material is treated as worthless: the legislation is declared to be the core of the record, and the books were compiled solely with a view to enforce that legislation. An analysis of these laws is declared to prove that they could not have been enacted until about 450 B.C.—at least a thousand years after Moses; they constituted the priest-code of the second temple, and were for the most part unknown before. But to invest them with Mosaic authority, his name was freely used in the enactments, and the wilderness history of the tabernacle was invented to supply a popular historical coloring. The same thing, we are told, had been done on a smaller scale two hundred years before Ezra, under King Josiah, when the Book of the Law was said to have been found in the temple: that Book of the Law is assumed to have been our present Deuteronomy; and when the historian tells us that Hilkiah professed to have found it in the temple, we are told we must interpret this as a very polite hint that the priest had written it himself, in part or entire. Thus Deuteronomy becomes the literary invention of the seventh century B.C., and the Levitical legislation the literary invention of the fifth, while in both cases the history is supplied by way of artificial framework. Then there are supposed to be two other documents, older than either of these and independent of each other, belonging to the eighth and ninth centuries B.C.—one current in Northern Palestine, the other in Southern—known as the Elohist and the Jehovist. These four documents are said to have been reduced to their present shape by a Redactor, or by several Redactors, who arranged and altered the materials to suit their purpose; and the critics do not hesitate to charge these Redactors with both literary awkwardness and dishonesty. This review is enough to startle any one who has not lost all faith in the ordinary honesty of the writers of the Bible; but I have not overdrawn the picture. In detail, and as a whole, the history is discredited: some leave a little truth in the narrative, others leave none at all; even the reality of the Exodus is denied, and as for the narratives in Genesis, their historical reality is surrendered. Behrends.]

BSBJohn 5:46 If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me.

中〔请容我尽量简短地陈述现代激进批判学派所力争的主张；这一争论的严重性，惟有把它当作一个整体来看时才显得出来。他们告诉我们：摩西并没有写摩西五经；也许有些内容是他记下的，但不多。出埃及记中所载的十诫，肯定不是他当初所定的形式；而整段关于西奈山颁布律法的记述，乃是很晚以后的诗意虚构，为要给十诫增添分量。五经被断定为：就其主要用意而言是一部法典，其历史材料则被当作毫无价值；律例被断定为整个记载的内核，这些书之所以被编纂，唯一目的就是要推行那套律例。他们宣称，对这些律法的分析证明：它们不可能在约主前 450 年以前被订立——那已在摩西之后至少一千年；它们构成第二圣殿时期的祭司法典，此前大体不为人知。但为了给它们披上摩西的权威，摩西的名字就被随意用在这些条文里，会幕在旷野中的历史也被虚构出来，以提供一层民间的历史色彩。据说同样的事在以斯拉之前两百年、约西亚王治下也小规模地做过一次：当时据说在殿里发现了律法书；那卷律法书被假定就是我们今日的申命记；而当史家告诉我们希勒家自称在殿中『发现』了它时，我们被告知必须把这句话理解为一个很客气的暗示——即这位祭司是自己写的，或写了一部分，或全部写成。于是申命记成了主前七世纪的文学虚构，利未记的立法成了主前五世纪的文学虚构；而这两处的历史叙述，都不过是后加的人造框架。此外还假定另有两份文献，比上述两者都早，且彼此独立，属于主前八、九世纪——一份流行于巴勒斯坦北部，一份流行于南部，称为『神名底本』（Elohist）与『耶和华名底本』（Jehovist）。据说这四份文献由一位或数位『编修者』（Redactor）整理成今日的形态；他们按自己的目的编排、改动材料——而批判学者毫不迟疑地指控这些编修者既笨拙又不诚实。这一番综述，足以令任何一个尚未对圣经作者们起码的诚实完全失去信心的人吃惊；但我并没有把这幅图景画过头。无论就细节还是就整体而言，这段历史都被判为不可信：有人在叙述中留下一点真实，有人则一点也不留；连出埃及一事的真实性也被否认；至于创世记中的种种记述，其历史真实性更是被拱手放弃了。贝伦兹（Behrends）〕

ENIn the Contemporary Review of October, 1895, Professor A. H. Sayce of Oxford University makes and enforces the following very incisive points: ["First of all, we have learned not only that Moses could have written the Pentateuch, but that it would have been something like a miracle if he had not done so. Secondly, a study of the literature handed down to us by the Babylonian and Assyrian kinsfolk of the Israelites tells strongly against the disintegration theory of the biblical critics: we find in it no such slicing and fitting together of ill-assorted fragments as has been discovered in the Pentateuch. Thirdly, the narratives which the 'higher criticism' had pronounced to be unhistorical figments of popular tradition are being shown by archaeological discovery to be historical after all: contemporaneous monuments are continually coming to light which prove that in the story of the patriarchs and of the exodus we have truth and not legend. The 'higher criticism' was triumphant only so long as the scientific instrument of comparison could not be employed against it."] After presenting these counter-proofs of archaeology, Professor Sayce adds: ["And against the counter-evidence of archaeology, what has the 'higher criticism' to bring forward? Merely linguistic arguments. Lists of words and expressions have been compiled from the imperfect literature of an imperfectly known language, and interpreted by modern Europeans in accordance with certain documentary hypotheses. I have been a student of language and languages all my life, and the study has made me very skeptical as to the historical and literary conclusions that can be drawn from linguistic testimony alone. When we endeavor to extract other than linguistic conclusions from linguistic premises, we generally go astray."]

BSBLuke 16:31 Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

中在 1895 年 10 月号的《当代评论》（Contemporary Review）上，牛津大学的赛斯教授（A. H. Sayce）提出并论证了以下几点极其犀利的看法：〔『首先，我们已经知道的不只是摩西*可能*写了五经，而是：他若没有写，那才近乎是件神迹。第二，对以色列人的巴比伦与亚述亲族所留下的文献所作的研究，有力地反驳了圣经批判学者的解体理论：我们在那些文献中，找不到像人们在五经里所「发现」的那种把不相称的残片切开再拼合起来的做法。第三，那些被「高等批判」判定为民间传说之非史实虚构的记述，正被考古发现证明毕竟是史实：与之同时代的碑铭不断出土，证明在列祖与出埃及的故事中，我们所有的是史实而非传奇。「高等批判」之所以曾一路凯歌，只是因为当时还无法把「比较」这一科学工具用来对付它。』〕在陈明考古学这些反证之后，赛斯教授又加上一句：〔『面对考古学的反证，「高等批判」拿得出什么来？无非是语言学的论据。人们从一种认识本就不完全之语言的、本就残缺的文献中，编出一份份词汇与说法的清单，再由现代欧洲人按照某些文献假说去解释它们。我一生都在研究语言与诸语言；而这项研究使我对『单凭语言学证据所能得出的历史与文学结论』极为怀疑。当我们试图从语言学的前提中抽出语言学以外的结论时，我们通常都会走岔。』〕

ENProfessor Sayce concludes: ["The 'higher critics' never seem to me to realize that their conclusions are opposed to the great practical fact of the existence of traditional Christianity, and that against this fact they have nothing to set except the linguistic speculations of a few individual scholars. On the one side we have a body of doctrine which has been the support in life and the refuge in death of millions of men of all nationalities and grades of mind; which has been witnessed to by saints and martyrs; which conquered first the Roman Empire and then the barbarians who destroyed it; and which has brought a message of peace and good-will to suffering humanity. On the other side there is a handful of critics, with their lists of words and their polychromatic Bibles. And yet the 'higher criticism' has never saved any souls or healed any bodies."] [It is well known that the whole tendency of Assyrian archaeological investigation is toward a more conservative view of the origin and history of the oldest of the Old Testament books. It is beyond question that many of the extreme positions which the most advanced critics had taken—and held with a defiant arrogance which seemed to indicate the possession of absolute truth—have certainly been made untenable, when they have not been shown to be ridiculous; and that in the brief space of thirty years the literary critics have been forced, with respect to the message of the ruins of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, from a position of arrogance and ridicule into a position first of tolerance, then of recognition, and now of defense. But on the question itself, it is true that there is no necessary antagonism between a genuine literary criticism and a genuine archaeology. No more conspicuous contrast between the Divine permanence and human transitoriness can be imagined than that exhibited in the comparison of the critical estimates of the books of the Old Testament, as made by the critics for one hundred years past, with the books themselves—in the solid, permanent, uplifting and intellectually spiritual stimulus which they have afforded to the reverent students of the Bible during the same period. Bibliotheca Sacra.]

BSBIsaiah 40:8 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.”

中赛斯教授的结论是：〔『在我看来，「高等批判」的学者们似乎从未意识到：他们的结论与「传统基督教之存在」这一重大的实际事实相抵触；而针对这一事实，他们除了少数几位个别学者在语言学上的臆测之外，拿不出别的东西来与之相抗。一边，我们有一整套教义：它一直是千百万人生时的扶持、死时的避难所——这些人来自各个民族、各种心智层次；它有众圣徒与殉道者为之作见证；它先征服了罗马帝国，随后又征服了那些毁灭罗马帝国的蛮族；它给受苦的人类带来了平安与善意的信息。另一边，则是屈指可数的一小撮批评家，带着他们的词汇清单与他们那些彩印分色的圣经。然而「高等批判」从来不曾救过一个灵魂，也不曾医好过一个身体。』〕〔众所周知，亚述考古研究的整体走向，是趋向对旧约最古老诸书之来源与历史采取更保守的看法。毫无疑问：那些最激进的批判学者曾采取、并以一种仿佛握有绝对真理的挑衅式傲慢所坚持的许多极端立场，即便没有被证明为荒唐，也确实已经站不住了；并且在短短三十年间，文学批评家们对底格里斯—幼发拉底河谷废墟所传递的信息，已被迫从傲慢与讥笑的姿态，转为先是容忍，继而承认，如今则是为之辩护。但就问题本身而言，真正的文学考据与真正的考古学之间，其实并没有必然的对立。若要找出神之恒久与人之短暂之间最鲜明的对照，恐怕再想不出比这更鲜明的了：一边是过去一百年间批评家们对旧约各卷所作的种种评断，一边是这些书卷本身——是它们在同一时期内，给敬虔的圣经读者所提供的那种坚实、恒久、提升人、并在理智上属灵的激励。《圣经文库》（Bibliotheca Sacra）〕