【刊物文章系列】四經?五經?六經?對妥拉批判學的評析

本文來自《建道學刊》2002年(18):21-46。後來修訂於《通情達理:從語言學看舊約敘事文體的連貫性》(香港:漢協,2006):9-54。

Abstract

Tetrateuch? Pentateuch? Haxateuch? Analysis of Torah Criticisms 

Since the last century, most scholars have believed that each book of the Bible was not “written” at only one definite moment in time, but by a long process.  The Pentatech is one of the most obvious examples.  Because of the passing of a long period of time, a text, either oral or written, needs to be transmitted from one generation to another.  Scholars, therefore, have shifted their interests from the exegesis of a text to the discovery of the way in which a text is transmitted.  This kind of study is very important because it involves dischronic analysis of a text, which may help us to understand a text more precisely.  This paper hopes to discover how the Pentateuch had been transmitted before the period of the fixation of the text.  Various ideas about the process of transmission that scholars hold nowadays are examined.  They includeWellhausen’s source criticism, Gunkel’s form criticism, The Uppsala school’s oral tradition, von Rad’s and Noth’s traditio-historial criticism, Childs’ canonical criticism.  At the end, response is made to their theories.

學者在上世紀已相信聖經內的書卷不是在短時間內寫成的,反而是經過漫長的歲月才能形成,妥拉就是明顯的例子。由於是經過這長時間的流傳過程,學者從對經文的解釋,把注意力轉移至研究經文是如何傳遞的,這種歷史的分析是很重要的,起碼能幫助我們更準確地去理解經文的本質。這篇文章包括分析各種研究妥拉形成的批判學,從不同的理論去看妥拉形成前的流傳情況,這些理論包括威爾浩生的來源批判學、袞克爾的形式批判學、北歐學派的口傳的傳統、馮拉德和諾馬丁的傳統歷史批判學、以及蔡爾茲的正典批判學。最後,本文亦有對這些批判學的評論。

訂閱即可取得存取權限

立即訂閱,即可閱讀更多內容。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.