APPENDIX: HARNACK ON EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE; THE AUTHORSHIP OF ISAIAH ｜ 附录：哈纳克论早期基督教文献・以赛亚书的作者问题

ENProfessor Hommel concludes the preface to the English edition of his work with this brief sentence: ["'External evidence' must be the banner under which all students of Old Testament literature are to range themselves in the future."] In the preface to the first volume of his Chronology of Ancient Christian Literature (1897), Adolph Harnack of the University of Berlin—acknowledged by the scholarship of Europe and America as the foremost historical scholar of the day—deliberately affirms: ["There was a time, and the general public has not yet come out of it, in which it was deemed necessary to regard the oldest Christian literature, including the New Testament, as a web of deceptions and falsehoods. That time is past. For science that time was an episode, in which much was learned, and since which much must be forgotten. But the results of the following investigations go much farther in the 'reactionary' direction than the middle ground of modern criticism: in its main points, and in nearly all of its specific details, the oldest literature of the Church, judged merely as historical literature, is true and trustworthy. There was a time when Baur and his school believed that an intelligible and reliable sketch of the development of primitive Christianity could be outlined only by surrendering, for the greater part of the ancient Christian literature, the self-evidence of the writings themselves and the testimony of tradition, and by dragging down the time of their composition by several centuries. The assumptions of the school of Baur may now be said to have been universally given up; but there still remains in the criticism of the old Christian writings an indefinite distrust. The last twenty years have marked a 'retrograde' movement. I am not ashamed or afraid of that word 'retrograde,' for things may as well be called by their right names; and there is no question about our retrograde movement in the direction of tradition, in the sphere of our criticism of the sources of primitive Christianity. The chronological boundaries within which tradition has framed the sources are, in all main features, true and trustworthy, from the Pauline epistles to Irenaeus; and this compels the historian to withdraw from all theories concerning the historical course of events which deny these boundaries. The time is coming, and is already here, when there will be little interest in the literary problems of primitive Christianity, because the authority of tradition will be generally recognized. In history, not in literary criticism, lie the problems of the future."]

BSBLuke 1:3 Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

中何梅尔教授在其著作英文版序言的末尾，以这样一句简短的话作结：〔『「外部证据」必须成为将来一切旧约文献研究者所当归聚于其下的旗帜。』〕柏林大学的哈纳克（Adolph Harnack）——被欧美学界公认为当今首屈一指的历史学者——在其《古代基督教文献年代学》第一卷（1897 年）的序言中郑重申明：〔『曾有一个时期（而一般公众至今还没有从中走出来），人们认为必须把最古老的基督教文献、包括新约在内，看作一张由欺骗与谎言织成的网。那个时期已经过去了。对学术而言，那不过是一段插曲：其间学到了许多，此后也有许多必须被忘掉。但以下诸项研究的结果，在「反动」（即回退）的方向上，走得比现代批判学的中间立场远得多：就其主要各点、也就其几乎所有具体细节而言，教会最古老的文献——即便只当作历史文献来判断——都是真实可靠的。曾有一个时期，鲍尔（Baur）及其学派认为：要为原始基督教的发展勾勒出一幅可理解而可靠的图景，唯一办法就是：对古代基督教文献的大部分，既放弃这些著作自身的明证，也放弃传统的见证，并把它们成书的年代硬拉后好几个世纪。鲍尔学派的种种预设，如今可以说已被普遍放弃了；但在对古代基督教著作的考据中，仍残留着一种说不清的不信任。过去二十年标志着一场「回退」运动。我并不因「回退」这个词而羞愧或害怕，因为事情不妨用它们本来的名字来称呼；而在我们对原始基督教史料的考据领域里，我们正朝传统的方向回退——这一点毫无疑问。传统为这些史料所框定的年代界限，就其一切主要特征而言，从保罗书信直到爱任纽，都是真实可靠的；这就迫使史家从一切否认这些界限的历史进程理论中撤出来。那个时候正在来临，其实已经到了：那时人们对原始基督教的文献问题将不再有多少兴趣，因为传统的权威将被普遍承认。将来的问题在历史之中，而不在文学考据之中。』〕

ENAnd Principal Wace of King's College, London, referring to the collapse of Baur and his school, uses these plain words: ["In view of these results, it is surely time for Englishmen of all schools to ask themselves what value is to be placed upon a kind of criticism which has proved itself, in so conspicuous an instance, to be capable of such portentous errors. People have talked for some time past about German scholarship and German criticism as if it had some of the attributes of papal infallibility, or as though, at all events, it should be treated with general deference and submission; and it turns out that the hypothesis which in recent times laid the chief claim to this respect started from a blunder, proceeded by shutting its eyes to facts, and ended in conclusions now proved to be preposterous. Wellhausen and his followers are similarly endeavoring to explain the Old Testament as a natural human development by turning it topsy-turvy, and would make out that the Law of Moses is the product and not the starting-point of Jewish life and history—so that, as it has been concisely put, in place of the expression 'the Law and the Prophets' we ought to speak of 'the Prophets and the Law.' This theory has been received in Germany with an admiration similar to that which greeted the enterprise of Baur, and it has been echoed over here, in some quarters where more caution and sense of responsibility might have been expected, as the latest oracle of an infallible criticism. The history of the school of Baur will suggest to thoughtful minds the wisdom of exercising a good deal of patient reserve, before allowing themselves to be much disturbed in either direction by this new hypothesis."]

BSB1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.”

中伦敦国王学院院长韦斯（Principal Wace）论到鲍尔及其学派的崩解时，用了这样几句直白的话：〔『鉴于这些结果，各派的英国人现在实在该问问自己：一种考据学，既已在如此显眼的一桩事例上证明自己能犯下如此惊人的错误，那么它究竟该被赋予多少价值？一段时间以来，人们谈论德国的学术与德国的考据学，仿佛它具有教皇无谬性的某些属性，或者至少仿佛应当对它普遍恭敬顺服；而结果表明：近来最有资格获得这种敬意的那套假说，起点是一个错误，过程是对事实闭眼不看，结局则是如今已被证明为荒谬的种种结论。威尔豪森及其追随者也在做类似的事：他们要把旧约解释成一种自然的人类发展，办法是把它整个颠倒过来，硬说摩西的律法是犹太人生活与历史的产物、而非其起点——以致如人们精练地表述的那样：我们不该再说「律法和先知」，而该说「先知和律法」。这套理论在德国所受到的赞叹，与当年迎接鲍尔那番事业的赞叹相仿；而在我们这边，它也在某些本该更谨慎、更有责任感的圈子里被当作某种无谬考据学的最新神谕而传诵。鲍尔学派的历史，会向善思之人提示一种智慧：在容让自己被这套新假说往任何一个方向大加搅动之前，先耐心保留相当长一段时间的判断。』〕

EN[Touching the authorship of Isaiah. Arguments for diversity of origin in the book of Isaiah, drawn from literary considerations such as style and etymology, are risky. Three thousand years from this time it will probably be argued, from literary characteristics, that Tennyson could not have written both "The Northern Farmer" and "In Memoriam." But no matter what the literary diversities may be, there is something that runs beneath them all and overcomes all their force: there is a psychological unity from chapter I. to chapter LXVI. The essential ideas that underlie the work of the first Isaiah underlie the work of the second also. The formula of the first Isaiah is: captivity (predicted), return, consequences—universal righteousness. The formula of the second is: captivity (assumed), return, consequences—universal righteousness. In both, the Messianic conception comes in as a means to the end involved in the universal ethical consequences. What distinguishes the latter part is the "far-offness" of its contemplated events: no man would be writing in this way in Jerusalem beleaguered, or in Babylon with the invincible Cyrus bearing down upon it or in possession of it. But a man would write in Isaiah's way who was contemplating disaster and discipline as a necessity for Jerusalem under the retributive and righteous government of God—out from which must still come blessing to Zion and to men. C. Caverno.]

BSBIsaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

中〔关于以赛亚书的作者问题。从文体、词源等文学方面的考量出发，主张以赛亚书出自不同来源，这类论证是有风险的。三千年之后，人们大概也会根据文学特征来论证：丁尼生（Tennyson）不可能同时写出《北方农夫》与《悼念集》。但无论文学上的差异有多大，底下总有一样东西贯穿其间，压过这一切差异的分量：从第一章到第六十六章，有一种心理上的统一。支撑『第一以赛亚』之作品的那些根本思想，也同样支撑着『第二以赛亚』的作品。第一以赛亚的公式是：被掳（预告）—归回—其结果：普世的公义。第二以赛亚的公式是：被掳（预设为已然）—归回—其结果：普世的公义。在两者之中，弥赛亚的观念都是作为手段进入的，指向那含在普世伦理结果之中的目的。后半部分的独特之处，在于它所展望之事件的『遥远感』：没有人会在被围困的耶路撒冷中、或在无敌的居鲁士压境或已占领的巴比伦城中，这样写作。但一个人若是把灾祸与管教看作耶路撒冷在神施行报应之公义治理下必经的历程——而从这历程中仍必有福分临到锡安、临到世人——他就会照以赛亚的写法去写。卡维诺（C. Caverno）〕