|
Patrick Simon
|
Posted -
2006/5/26 下午 11:41:43
|
|
|
從教會歷史看舊約正典和次經---拙要
http://coffeehouseclub.com/mondain/
mondain
對於舊約的第三部分"聖卷"(Ketubim, 希臘文作 Hagiographa), 次經"便西拉智訓"的希臘文譯者, 作者的孫子, 在其希臘文譯本的前言中(132 B.C.)將之稱爲"τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων","τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων","τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων"(Swete,H.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge University Press, 1914. 217):
Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom... my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom... For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language...
(Prologue to Sirach, KJV. <http://www.hti.umich.edu/bin/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3914423>)
亞歷山大的猶太學者 Philo 在 De Vita Contemplativa 中也有類似的說法:
... but studying in that place the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns, and psalms, and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection. (On the Contemplative Life or Suppliants, 3. translated by Charles Duke Yonge. <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html>)
他們都沒有給出具體的正典目錄, 我們只能知道新約時代的舊約聖經是由三部分組成的, 便西拉智訓的作者在"讚揚列祖"的部分逐卷列舉律法和先知時還提到了所羅巴伯, 耶書亞和尼希米(49:13-15), 暗示出以斯拉-尼希米作爲"其他的書卷"已被固定下來了(王立新, 古代以色列歷史文獻, 歷史框架, 歷史觀念研究). 對於其中的第三部分也沒有一個明確的目錄, 直到猶太歷史學家 Josephus (37-101 A.D.) 在 Contra Apionem 中論及正典時, 我們才看到確切的 22 卷的希伯來聖經, 而且他認爲這正典早已形成, "多年來, 我們從不敢有所增減或更改":
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.(1, 8. <http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/apion-1.htm> Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History. 3, 10.)
沒有數不清的矛盾作品, 只有二十二本記載歷史的書, 被公正地評爲神聖著作. 其中五本爲摩西所寫. 書裏提及了法律和常規, 包括人類之始直到他的終局, 前後約有三千年. 摩西之後的申言者完成了十三本著作, 從摩西記載到亞達薛西(接續居魯士Xerxes的波斯國王)滅亡. 其餘四本則是讚美神的詩歌, 以及人類生活的法則. 雖說亞達薛西至今的一切事也紀錄了下來, 卻不像之前的著作那樣權威, 因爲他們不像前者有申言者確切的傳承. 但我們對這些著作的看法卻很清楚. 多年來, 我們從不敢有所增減或更改. 打從國家創建時, 猶太人就深信這些著作是神的教訓, 並依此行事. 若是必要, 還要歡然爲其受死. (<http://ekklesiahistory.fttt.org.tw/gb2312/book03/chapter10.htm>)
而耶穌在提及舊約正典時, 亦不止律法和先知兩部分, 他所承認的舊約聖經也是三部分組成的:
耶穌對他們說, 這就是我從前與你們同在之時, 所告訴你們的話, 說, 摩西的律法, 先知的書, 和詩篇 ψαλμοῖς 上所記的, 凡指著我的話, 都必須應驗.(路24:44)
新約在這裏將詩篇與舊約中另兩大部分並列, 其"詩篇 ψαλμοῖς "究竟系何所指? 其實早在耶穌以前, 舊約聖經就已經由三部分組成, 所以可以肯定耶穌和 Josephus 一樣用"詩篇"來指代聖經的第三部分. 他曾將但以理稱爲先知(太24:15), 而 Josephus 也將"聖卷"中的部分書卷作爲"先知"的一部分, 他所說的"先知"記載了從摩西到亞達薛西的歷史, 可以肯定, Josephus 將"以斯拉", "尼希米"等書卷也包括在"先知"之內; 而他的第三部分則是由四卷詩歌組成: 有可能是詩篇, 約伯記, 箴言, 傳道書(Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: 217).
根據猶太人有時用"詩篇"來指代舊約的"聖卷"部分的做法, R. Beckwith 認爲路24:44所提到的"詩篇"和4QMMT中的"大衛"就是指整個"聖卷"(Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985: 11-15). 然而根據 F.M. Cross 的意見, 在主後70年以前, 法利賽猶太人的標準的正典還沒有確定(F.M. Cross, The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by H. Shanks. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. p146. Bible Review, summer, 1985). Jack P. Lewis 則指出"聖卷"作爲舊約正典並非只是從雅比尼 Jabneh 才開始的, 它的結果也並沒有什麽"官方"的效力, 並且在雅比尼關於正典的爭論也只是針對"歷代志"和"雅歌"而已(J.P. Lewis, 1964. What Do We Mean By Jabneh? Journal of Bible and Religion, 32:125-32. 以上見: Sundberg, A.C., "The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited <http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm>):
There is evidence that a discussion was held at Jamnia on the canonical status of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, but this is not enough to suggest that any binding or official decisions were made regarding the scope of the biblical canon at Jamnia.(Lewis, J.P., Jainnia Revisited, The Canon Debate, Lee Martin McDonald et al. Editors. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. p161)
R.C. Newman 考查了 他勒目 Talmud 中關於雅比尼的證據後認爲, 當時並沒有決定正典, 而是對早以存在的舊約達成了共識.(Newman, R.C., The Council Of Jamnia And The Old Testament Canon, 1983. Westminster Theological Journal 38, Spring, 1976.) 所以, 有理由認爲在雅比尼之前, "聖卷"主要書卷的正典地位就已經爲猶太人所接受, 而只對少數書卷仍然有爭議(好象優西比烏教會史中對新約少數書卷存疑一樣), 對於這些"有爭議的", 在基督教會似乎也沒有産生什麽爭議, 無論東派教會還是西派教會, 天主教會還是新教教會都承認其權威, 沒有對此産生分歧, 也與猶太人的看法是一致的(Baba Bathra 14b-15a, 約70-200 A.D.). 這是因爲, 舊約書卷成書時, 都已經是神的默示, 是擁有權威的. 這些著作得到人的認可; 通常是當人確認了作者是神的發言人, 著作就被認可, 最後, 就有一系列的書卷被收納爲正典(慕迪神學手冊). 正典是神的默示, 正典的地位和權威是在舊約書卷寫下時就形成的, "聖卷"中的書卷一出現就是正典. 故摩西所法, 先知作書, 義窮理竟, 文辭備足, 則正典傳焉.
我們再回過頭來看新約聖經對舊約的見證, 仍然可以通過其內在的見證, 認出其中的權威. 在新約中, 大衛被使徒稱爲"先知":
大衛既是先知, 又曉得神曾向他起誓, 要從他的後裔中, 立一位坐在他的寶座上. 徒2:30
耶穌也稱但以理爲先知(太24:15):
你們看見先知但以理所說的, 那行毀壞可憎的站在聖地.
所以但以理的預言是神的默示. 同樣地, "耶利米哀歌"的作者是先知耶利米, "路得記"的作者是先知撒母耳(並且教父 Origenes 曾見證"路得記"在猶太人的聖經中與"士師記"是同一本書), 所以"耶利米哀歌"和"路得記"也應當列入舊約正典. 而所羅門的"箴言"在雅各書第4章6節被當作正典:
但他賜更多的恩典. 所以經上說, 神阻擋驕傲的人, 賜恩給謙卑的人.
μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν· διὸ λέγει, Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν.(Nestle-Aland 27)
這節引文出自七十士譯本 Septuagint 的箴言第3章34節:
Κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν (Swete, H.B., Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Vol. II: I Chronicles--Tobit)
另外兩卷所羅門的作品傳道書和雅歌也因爲它們作者的身份和權威, 被認爲是正典(迦太基會議 Council of Carthage, Canon XXIV, 397 A.D. 就是因爲認爲所羅門智訓和便西拉智訓是所羅門的作品而接受其爲正典). 對約伯記而言, 在哥林多前書第3章19節被當作聖經正典:
因這世界的智慧, 在神看是愚拙. 如經上記著說, 主叫有智慧的中了自己的詭計. (比較: 伯5:13 他叫有智慧的中了自己的詭計, 使狡詐人的計謀速速滅亡. )
ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν· γέγραπται γάρ, Ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν· (Nestle-Aland 27)
假如我們接受, 在耶穌的時代, 猶太人的正典已經確定, 那麽在對次經而言就沒有沒有正典的地位. 相反, 假如我們認爲當時猶太人對希伯來聖經的第三部分"聖卷"尚不能完全肯定, 對其中的部分書卷存疑, 那麽次經的正典地位就更無從談起了. 猶太人從未將次經當作"神的聖言", 未曾將次經當作正典的一部分.
鑒於七十士譯本是在亞歷山大城翻譯成希臘文, 並且包括了次經, 所謂的 亞歷山大正典 Alexandrian Canon 的假說認爲居住在亞歷山大的猶太人視次經爲正典, 但居住在巴勒斯坦的猶太人卻否認它們. 然而"亞歷山大正典"是否真的存在, 卻是有問題的. 七十士本包括了次經, 並不意味次經就是正典的一部分. 1957年 Albert C. Sundberg, Jr. 在他的博士論文 The Old Testament of the Early Church 中對亞歷山大正典的假說提出了異議, 認爲其並不存在. 事實上, 自從 J. S. Semler 在18世紀提出這一假說後, 沒有更多的證據支援這一"正典"的存在(Sundberg, A.C., "The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited), 也沒有人見證過這一"正典"的存在.
居住在亞歷山大的猶太學者 Philo 在引證摩西五經時常用這樣的格式: φησί, εἶπεν, λέγει, λέγεται, γέγραπται, 而且他也用這樣的格式引用了約書亞記, 士師記, 撒母耳記上, 列王記上, 歷代志上, 詩篇, 箴言, 以賽亞書, 耶利米書, 耶利米哀歌和一些小先知書(Swete,H.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. p374). 雖然他對於正典並沒有給出明確的目錄, 但是他作爲一個亞歷山大猶太人卻從沒有引用過次經(Ryle, H.E., Philo and Holy Scripture, London:MacMillan, 1895. 33 <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/999/RYLE1.htm>). C. Siegfried 認爲(Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alten Testaments. Jena, 1875. 61) Philo 的正典基本上和今天的一樣, Herbert E. Ryle 認爲這是有可能的(見 Emil G. Hirsch et al., "Bible Canon", Jewish Encyclopedia. 146.). Ryle 認爲 Philo 的見證對於否認次經的地位雖然並非決定性的, 但卻很重要(Ryle, H.E. The Canon of the Old Testament London: MacMillan, 1904. 159-160).
Swete認爲(An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 225.)七十士本中包括了次經書卷可能是因爲當時紙草紙(papyrus)的卷軸是保存在盒子(κιβωτοί, κίσται, capsae, sistae)裏的. F.F. Bruce ("The Apocryphal Books." The Books and the Parchments. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1963. 164.) 和 W.O.E. Oesterley (An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha. S.P.C.K., 1935. <http://www.katapi.org.uk/OTApoc/BooksApocrypha.htm>) 也持同樣的看法. 這種觀點認爲:
在舊約印刷成爲一本書並加上封面之前, 各卷書的卷軸是要放在盒子裏妥善保存. 盒子的大小相同, 也用來爲書卷分類. 如果某個盒子裏有空地方, 人們也會用其他類似的著作把它裝滿. 次經各書卷也許就是這樣與希伯來正典發生了聯繫. 在內容和形式上, 這些作品與從希伯來文翻譯過來的正典不無共通之處, 將它們放在一起也不全無道理. 漸漸地, 這些書卷便被理所當然地接納爲舊約希臘文版的一部分, 而早期基督徒將舊約印製成書的時候, 自然也把次經放了進去, 儘管次經從來也不是古代以色列歷史中演化出來的希伯來正典的一部分. (約翰•德雷恩. 舊約概論. Drane, John. Introducing the Old Testament. 許一新 譯. 北京大學出版社, 2004. 22)
其次, 是否能因爲七十士譯本中次經的流傳和使用就將之作爲猶太人接納次經或者"亞歷山大正典"的理由呢? 同樣不能. 首先七十士譯本的舊約不等於首正經加次經, 有的抄本了包括瑪喀比三, 四等書卷, 有的舊約則不完整, 或只包括部分的首正經或次經.
其次使用次經並不意味著把次經當作正典. 有證據表明, 在拉比作品中, 拉比們也使用次經. Origenes 見證馬喀比傳在希伯來文中被稱爲 Sarbeth Sabanaiel (Eusebius, The Church History, 6, 25, 2.). Sundberg ("The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited) 注意到 Talmud 中曾三次引用次經便西拉智訓. Hieronymus 在拉丁武加大譯本的次經書卷的序言裏承認他是從猶太人那裏得到希伯來文版本的便西拉智訓, 瑪喀比一書, 多比傳, 另外還有猶滴傳的"迦勒底語 Chaldean"(古亞蘭文 Aramaic) 版本, 在多比傳的序言(29.25)他還見證僞經 禧年書 Book of Jubilees 的希伯來文版本. Pfeiffer (Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941. p66) 指出到12世紀便西拉智訓仍然傳抄; 而 Nachmanides 在1266或67年的講解"傳道書"時提到"所羅門智訓", 暗示當時"所羅門智訓"也在猶太人中流傳.(Sundberg, "The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited) 那麽是否可以認爲猶太人承認了次經的權威, 或者直到13世紀希伯來聖經仍未定典呢? 顯然, 使用次經和把次經當作正典是兩碼事.
所以對上帝交托聖言的猶太人而言, 雖然在兩約之間的時代流傳有各種經外的作品, 但是他們從未將這些作品當作聖經正典, 猶太人的正典是耶穌所見證的"律法, 先知和詩篇"三部分.
新約教會對舊約見證
對於接受次經爲正典的人來說, 其理由之一是因爲新約時代七十士譯本的廣泛使用. 新約作者在引用舊約時使用的是七十士譯本, 而且他們還使用了七十士譯本所包括的次經, 他們據此認爲主耶穌和使徒是承認七十士譯本中次經的權威的. 所謂"'七十士譯本'是基督徒的舊約 Christian Old Testament"(基督教聖經舊約正典歷史問題). 但是七十士譯本不等同於基督徒的正典, 也不完全是基督徒的正典, 因爲現存的抄本中包括基督徒正典以外的作品. Codex Alexandrinus (A) 包括 Clemens Romanus 的兩封書信, Codex Sinaiticus (א) 包括了巴拿巴書 The Epistle of Barnabas 和黑馬牧人傳 Pastor of Hermas, Codex Claromontanus (D) 除了黑馬牧人傳之外, 還包括了保羅行傳 Acts of Paul 和彼得啓示錄 Revelation of Peter 這樣的經外作品. 並且, 如果考查新約對舊約的引用, 就會發現其實基督徒的舊約也並非只有七十士譯本. 新約作者們在引用舊約時, 大致有以下五種情形:
(l) those that agree with both LXX and Hebrew, constituting more than half the total number; (2) those that agree with one LXX text against another; (3) those that agree with the LXX against the Hebrew; (4) those that agree with the Hebrew against the LXX; (5) those that differ from both the LXX and the Hebrew. The latter would include citations from one or more Aramaic Targums (oral or written), free renderings of the substance of a passage, etc.(Ronald F. Youngblood, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Ch.10: Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. <http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/10.php>)
耶穌和使徒們在使用七十士譯本:
• 例如耶穌引用以賽亞書29章13節時, 十分接近七十士譯本:
Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος Ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας. (Swete, H.B., Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Vol. III: Hosea--4 Maccabees. p151.)
比較馬可福音第7章6-7節:
耶穌說, 以賽亞指著你們假冒爲善之人所說的預言, 是不錯的, 如經上說, 這百姓用嘴唇尊敬我, 心卻遠離我. 他們將人的吩咐, 當作道理教導人, 所以拜我也是枉然.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαΐας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ· μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων. (Nestle-Aland 27)
• 論到以利亞:
耶穌說, 以利亞固然先來, 復興萬事. 經上不是指著人子說, 他要受許多的苦, 被人輕慢呢? (可9:12)
ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς, Ἠλίας μὲν ἐλθὼν πρῶτον ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα, καὶ πῶς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενηθῇ;
耶穌所說的ἀποκαθιστάνει (Strong's Number 600)來自於七十士本的 ἀποκαταστήσει, 而不是 馬所拉本 Masoretic Text 的希伯來文 שיב (Strong's Number 7725).
• 馬太福音第21章16節引用詩篇也於七十士本一致:
耶穌說, 是的, 經上說, 你從嬰孩和吃奶的口中, 完全了讚美的話. 你們沒有念過嗎? (太21:16)
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ναί· οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι Ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων κατηρτίσω αἶνον;
七十士本詩篇 ΨΑΛΜΟΙ 8:3:
ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων κατηρτίσω αἶνον ἕνεκα τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου τοῦ καταλῦσαι ἐχθρὸν καὶ ἐκδικητήν.(Swete, H.B., Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Vol. II: I Chronicles--Tobit, 219.)
新約不僅引用了七十士本中不同于希伯來文本的地方, 有時也與希伯來原文保持一致而與七十士譯本不同, 可以舉幾個例子:
•在撒種的比喻中, 耶穌說:
穀既熟了, 就用鐮刀去割, 因爲收成的時候到了. (可4:29 )
ὅταν δὲ παραδοῖ ὁ καρπός, εὐθὺς ἀποστέλλει τὸ δρέπανον, ὅτι παρέστηκεν ὁ θερισμός. (Nestle-Aland 27)
這實際上間接提到(allude)了約珥書(3:13)上的一句話:
שִׁלְחוּ מַגָּל, כִּי בָשַׁל קָצִיר; בֹּאוּ רְדוּ, כִּי-מָלְאָה גַּת--הֵשִׁיקוּ הַיְקָבִים, כִּי רַבָּה רָעָתָם
開鐮吧. 因爲莊稼熟了. 踐踏吧. 因爲酒榨滿了, 酒池盈溢. 他們的罪惡甚大.
與希伯來文不同的是, 七十士譯本在這裏卻用了"葡萄收穫" τρύγητος, 而不是"莊稼熟了"
ἐξαποστείλατε δρέπανα, ὅτι παρέστηκεν τρύγητος...
Bring forth the sickles, for the vintage is come...(Brenton,C.L., The Septuagint LXX: Greek and English. London: Samuel Bagster, 1870. p1084)
• 耶穌論到他的血時說:
耶穌說, 這是我立約的血, 爲多人流出來的. (可14:24)
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν·(Nestle-Aland 27)
通過對以賽亞書第53章12節的比較可以發現耶穌所說"流出來"其實更接近希伯來文本的"將命傾倒", 而不是七十士本的"his soul was delivered to death":
לָכֵן אֲחַלֶּק-לוֹ בָרַבִּים, וְאֶת-עֲצוּמִים יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱרָה לַמָּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ, וְאֶת-פֹּשְׁעִים נִמְנָה; וְהוּא חֵטְא-רַבִּים נָשָׂא, וְלַפֹּשְׁעִים יַפְגִּיעַ
所以我要使他與位大的同分, 與強盛的均分擄物. 因爲他將命傾倒, 以致於死. 他也被列在罪犯之中. 他卻擔當多人的罪, 又爲罪犯代求.
διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῖ σκῦλα, ἀνθ’ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη· καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη.
Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities. (Brenton, 889.)
此外, 新約還多次引用舊約的亞蘭文譯本 Targum:
• 耶穌在馬可福音第4章12節用以賽亞書第6章9-10節說:
恐怕他們回轉過來, 就得赦免.
ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν, μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς.
但七十士本和馬所拉本的以賽亞書第6章10節的均作"醫治", 只有 Targum 作"赦免" וְיִשתְבֵיק .
• 馬太福音第26章52節:
耶穌對他說, 收刀入鞘吧. 凡動刀的, 必死在刀下.
與 Targum Isaiah 50:11 一致:
הָא כוּלְכוֹן מְגָרַן בְאִשָא מְתַקְפֵי חְרַב אִיזִילוּ פִילוּ בְאִשָא
דְגָרִיתוּן וּבַחֲרַב דְתַקֵיפתוּן מִמֵימְרִי הְוָת דָא לְכוֹן
לְתַקלָתְכוֹן תְתוּבוּן
(The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, CAL. Hebrew Union College. <http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/>)
這裏引用了以賽亞書第66章24節:
他們必出去觀看那些違背我人的屍首. 因爲他們的蟲是不死的, 他們的火是不滅的. 凡有血氣的, 都必憎惡他們.
七十士本和希伯來文舊約在這裏都不是在談論地獄的永罰. 而在 Targum 中, 卻與耶穌一樣都是關於地獄 בְגֵיהִנָם Gehenna 和審判 מִידְדָנִין :
וְיִפְקוּן וְיִחזוֹן בְפִגרֵי גֻברַיָא חַייָבַיָא דִמרַדוּ
בְמֵימְרִי אְרֵי נִשמָתְהוֹן לָא יְמוּתֻן וְאִשָתְהוֹן לָא
תִטפֵי וִיהוֹן מִידְדָנִין רַשִיעַיָא בְגֵיהִנָם עַד
דְיֵימְרוּן עְלֵיהוֹן צַדִיקַיָא מִיסָת חְזֵינָא (CAL)
... will not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and the wicked shall be judged in Gehenna...
在次經猶滴傳第16章17節和便西拉智訓第7章17節(LXX)也提到了這節經文, 同樣也是指著末世:
禍哉, 那攻擊我族的異民! 全能的上主在審判之日, 必要報復, 他們的肉體必受火燒蝕; 哀痛哭泣, 永不止息! (天主教思高中譯本友弟德傳16:17)
你當極力謙卑你的心靈, 因爲, 不虔敬人的罪罰, 就是烈火與蟲子. (天主教思高中譯本德訓篇7:19)
• 馬可福音12章記載了兇惡佃戶的比喻, 原型在以賽亞書第5章的"葡萄園之歌"找到. "萬軍之耶和華的葡萄園, 就是以色列家, 他所喜愛的樹, 就是猶大人. "(賽5:7), 可是"祭司長和文士並長老"(可11:27)卻"看出這比喻是指著他們說的"(可12:12). 從這段經文的希伯來文馬所拉本和希臘文七十士本都看不出其與以色列歷史上所發生的事件有什麽特別的聯繫. 但如果放到 Targum 的背景下, 這就不難理解了. 以賽亞書第5章2節說:
他刨挖園子, 撿去石頭, 栽種上等的葡萄樹, 在園中蓋了一座樓, 又鑿出壓酒池. 指望結好葡萄, 反倒結了野葡萄.
而在 Targum Jonathan 的以賽亞書第5章2節中"樓"和"酒池"卻作"聖殿" מַקדְשִי 和"祭壇" מַדבְחִי, 而且在 Targum Isaiah 5:5 提到聖殿被毀:
וּכעַן אְחַוֵי כְעַן לְכוֹן יָת דַאְנָא עְתִיד לְמַעְבַד
לְעַמִי אְסַלֵיק שְכִינְתִי מִנְהוֹן וִיהוֹן לְמִיבַז
אְתָרַע בֵית מִקדְשֵיהוֹן וִיהוֹן לִדיָש (CAL)
死海古卷 4Q500 也將以賽亞書第5章的葡萄園的比喻與聖殿聯繫在一起:
[...] may your mulberry trees blossom .... [...]
[...] your winepress, built of stone [...]
[...] at the gate of the holy height [...]
[...] your plantation and the channels of your glory [...]
[...] the branches of your delight to ... [...]
[...] .... [....]
(García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. Leiden, 1994. p402. Wim J.C. Weren, The Use of Isaiah 5,1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants. Biblica 79 (1998) 1-26.)
在僞經 以諾書 Book of Enoch 第89章66-67節也將"聖殿"稱爲"樓":
... And the lions and tigers eat and devoured the greater part of those sheep, and the wild boars eat along with them; and they burnt that tower and demolished that house. And I became exceedingly sorrowful over that tower because that house of the sheep was demolished, and afterwards I was unable to see if those sheep entered that house. (R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.)
同樣的用法還出現在使徒教父書信 巴拿巴書 The Epistle of Barnabas:
Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: "Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I? " "Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest? " Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, "Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again." It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction." (The Epistle of Barnabas, XVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-41.htm#P3407_580040
• 新約保羅書信以弗所書第4章8節引用舊約詩篇第68篇18節說:
所以經上說, 他升上高天的時候, 擄掠了仇敵, 將各樣的恩賜賞給人. (弗4:8)
你已經升上高天, 擄掠仇敵, 你在人間, 就是在悖逆的人間, 受了供獻, 叫耶和華神可以與他們同住. (詩68:18 )
兩節經文第三人稱與第二人稱之間的差異並不重要, 不同之處在于保羅說耶穌"將各樣的恩賜賞給人"而不是"受了供獻". 可是在 Targum 的詩篇這一節與保羅是一致的, 都是"將恩賜賞給人". 而且在早期基督徒所使用的 Pettisha 的舊約也與 Targum 是一致的.
(以上參見 Evans, Craig. "The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers." The Canon Debate. ed. Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. 191-94. Bruce, F.F. "The Targums." The Books and the Parchments. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1963. 137-138.)
可見在耶穌當時所使用的舊約聖經絕非僅僅七十士譯本, 有的問題是不能僅僅用七十士譯本和希伯來文舊約之間的差異就可以解決的. 要知道耶穌的母語是亞蘭文, 他使用亞蘭文的 Targum 是理所當然的. 耶穌沒有對七十士譯本表現出特別的偏愛, 新約的舊約背景並不能簡單化地認爲就是七十士譯本, 七十士譯本與希伯來文, 亞蘭文的舊約都是其中一部分. 既然如此, 那麽由於七十士譯本的原因而接受次經的前提就不成立了. 即使耶穌所使用的舊約聖經只有七十士譯本, 也不能認爲他當時就承認了七十士本中所包含的次經的權威, 因爲當時不少不接受次經的猶太人也是使用七十士譯本的聖經的. 前面已經說過, 七十士本包括了次經, 並不意味次經就是正典的一部分. 新約作者確實使用了次經(James Akin. Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament. <http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm>), 可是他們並沒有象援引希伯來聖經時那樣稱他們爲"經上說", 沒有承認過它們的權威. 在希伯來聖經以外, 初代基督徒不僅僅使用了次經, 更包括了其他的經外作品. 明顯的例子就是在猶大書中對僞經 摩西升天記 The Assumption of Moses (猶9)和 以諾書 (猶14)的使用, 和保羅在徒17:28, 林前15:33, 多1:12引用希臘詩人.(關於新約作者對經外作品使用, 更多的細節可以在這裏找到: Kevin P. Edgecomb. NT Allusions to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. <http://www.bombaxo.com/allusions.html>) 倘若僅僅因爲當時教會使用了次經, 就斷定次經在教會中的正典地位是荒謬的.
• Origenes Alexandrinus 承認猶太人的舊約正典是不包括次經的:
When expounding the first Psalm, he gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament as follows:
"It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters." Farther on he says:
"The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, `In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, `These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, `And he called`; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, `These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, `The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, `The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, `Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, `An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel. He gives these in the above-mentioned work. (Eusebius, The Church History, VI.xxv.1,2. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. I. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-11.htm#P3883_1835008>)
當他在撰寫詩篇釋義卷一時, Origen記載了舊約經文的目錄如下: 「我們從收集到的書卷可觀察到, 以希伯來文流傳下來的經典有二十二卷之多, 並且都根據希伯來字母的順序排列. 」
在更進一步的評論之後, 他就這樣說到: 「這二十二本希伯來文經典如下: 我們所稱爲《創世記》的, 爲希伯來經典之始, 名爲Bresith, 意即『起初』. 《出埃及記》, Welesmoth, 意即『這些人名』. 《利未記》, Waikra, 意即『祂呼召』. 《民數記》是Ammesphekodeim. 《申命記》是Eleaddabareim, 意即『主的話這樣說』. 《約書亞記》, 約書亞是嫩的兒子, 希伯來文Joshue ben Nun. 《士師記》和《路得記》列爲同一卷書, 希伯來文稱爲Saphateim. 《列王記一, 二》這卷書中, 《撒母耳》的意思是《蒙神所召者》. 《列王記三, 四》也是一卷書, 稱爲Wammelch David, 意即『大衛的國』. 《代上》《代下》這卷書名爲Dabreiamein, 意即『日誌』. 《Esdras一書, 二書》是一卷書, 《以斯拉記》意爲『幫助者』. 《詩篇》即Spharthelleim. 《所羅門的箴言》, 就是Meloth. 《傳道書》是Koeleth. 《歌中之歌》是Sir Hassirim. 《以賽亞書》名爲Jessia. 《耶利米書》和《哀歌》及耶利米所寫的書信, 稱爲Jeremia. 《但以理書》名爲Daniel, 是但以理以希伯來文寫的. 《以西結》是Jezekiel. 《約伯記》就是Job. 《以斯帖記》在希伯來的發音一樣是Esther. 除此之外還有《馬克比書》(The Maccabees), 希伯來文的標題是Sarbeth Sarbaniel. 他在以上我們所提到的書中, 說到這些事. (<http://ekklesiahistory.fttt.org.tw/gb2312/book06/chapter25.htm>)
其中沒有包括十二小先知, 這可能是他的疏失, 因爲在十二先知的正典地位上從來沒有什麽疑義; 他在耶利米書加入了耶利米書信, 可是猶太人的正典卻並非如此. 當他在提到所羅門智訓時沒有象 Augustinus 那樣將之歸給所羅門, 而僅接受箴言, 傳道書和雅歌(Origen, The Songs of Songs, Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Newman Press, 39. note 65, 317.). 需要指出的是, Origenes 在給 Africanus 的回信中贊成教會使用但以理書的補編 蘇撒拿傳, 猶滴傳和多比傳:
In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours.(A Letter from Origen to Africanus, 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-51.htm>)
Where you get your "lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets," I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves. However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do.(Ibid. 13.)
• Concilium Laodicenum (約 360 A.D.) 的正典沒有包括除巴錄書和耶利米書信外的次經:
CANON LIX. No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.
CANON LX. THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. (The Canons of the Synod Held in the City of Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana, Canon LIX,LX. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/2ancyra/Laocn59.htm, http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/2ancyra/Laocn60.htm)
• Augustinus 在論及正典時(De Doctrina Christiana, 2, 8, 13: PL 34)包括了多比傳, 猶滴傳, 所羅門智訓, 便西拉智訓, 瑪喀比傳上下卷:
Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:-Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles -these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:-Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:-Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul-one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.
(On Christian Doctrine 2, 8. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. II. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-33.htm#P4853_2627045>)
• 在 Augustinus 的影響下, Concilium Hipponense (Canon 36, 393 A.D.), Concilium Carthaginense (Canon 24, 397 A.D.) 接受了次經:
Canon XXIV.(Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
[The New Testament.]
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
(The Canons of the CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled at Carthage.Canon XXIV. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-146.htm#P8313_1657100)
• Athanasius 亦見證舊約正典書卷的數目是22, 不過他的舊約正典裏將巴錄書包括在耶利米書內, 而沒有包括其他次經書卷(猶滴傳, 多比傳, 所羅門智訓, 便西拉智訓)和以斯拉記, 並將它們與 十二使徒遺訓 Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles 和 黑馬牧人傳 Pastor 並列:
As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone (en toutoij monoij) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.
I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you. (Festal Epistle XXXIX. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV.<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-183.htm>)
• Rufinus 認爲次經不是正典, 將之與黑馬牧人傳 Pastor of Hermas 並列:
Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then fourbooks of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one hook; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
...
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not "Canonical" but "Ecclesiastical": that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have read in the Churches. (A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 37,38 <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-45.htm>)
• Decretum Gelasianum 引證 Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa (382 A.D.):
但今應討論的是: 天主的聖經, 整個公教會應該接納什麽和應該避免什麽.
首先, 舊約的次序: 創世紀一卷, 出谷紀一卷, 肋味紀一卷, 戶籍紀一卷, 申命紀一卷, 若蘇哀傳一卷, 民長紀一卷, 盧德傳一卷, 列王傳四卷, 編年紀二卷, 150篇聖詠集一卷, 撒羅滿書三卷, 箴言一卷, 訓道篇一卷, 雅歌一卷, 同樣智慧書一卷, 德訓篇一卷.
同樣, 先知書的次序: 依撒意亞一卷, 耶肋米亞一卷連同他的哀歌, 厄則克耳一卷, 達尼爾一卷, 歐瑟亞一卷, 亞毛斯一卷, 米該亞一卷, 嶽厄爾一卷, 亞北底亞一卷, 約納一卷, 納鴻一卷, 哈巴穀一卷, 索福尼亞一卷, 哈蓋一卷, 匝加利亞一卷, 瑪拉基亞一卷. 同樣, 史書的次序: 約伯傳一卷, 多俾亞傳一卷, 厄斯德垃上下兩卷, 艾斯德爾一卷, 友弟德傳一卷, 瑪加伯上下兩卷. (教會訓導文獻選集, 179. <http://www.chinese-catholic.com/simplified_Chinese/Council_of_Rome.htm>)
• Hieronymus (即 Jerome) 主張次經書卷是次等的, 不能被列爲正典, 在武加大 Vulgate 的前言裏他將次經稱爲"Apocryphal":
The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law.
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth, Jeremiah, the seventh, Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra.
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who wast, and art, and art to come.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, The Books of Samuel and Kings. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P8003_2598043>)
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.(Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P8042_2614660>)
The Septuagint version of Daniel the prophet is not read by the Churches of our Lord and Saviour. They use Theodotion's version, but how this came to pass I cannot tell... I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.(Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Daniel. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P8054_2617167>)
所以在武加大本裏, 次經是沒有正典地位的. 在脫理騰會議中認可武加大本爲"教會所批准應用的聖經版本":
此外, 本屆聖公會議認為: 如果把有關聖經的一切拉丁版本, 明白指出, 那些版本, 應被視為正式(正確)版本, 那可能為天主的教會, 獲益匪淺；(因此大會)規定並宣佈: 這古老的通用的, 為歷代教會所批准應用的聖經版本, 在公開朗誦, 討論, 宣講, 說明各方面, 都該被視為正式版本, 且誰也不得以任何藉口, 而敢(或)冒失地予以擯棄！… 而且, 大會願意對出版(聖經)的人們, 也同樣予以規則 … 因此規定: 以後聖經, 最好是以這古老通俗的版本為正式版本, 出版時, 要詳加校對 … (教會訓導文獻選集 1506,1508)
此後, 教宗比約十二世 Pius XII 在1943年9月30日的 聖神默示通牒 Divino Afflante Spiritu 又重申了 Vulgate 的"卓越權威". (教會訓導文獻選集 3825) 也就是說, 脫理騰會議中強調"教會所批准應用的聖經版本"是不承認次經的正典地位的.
教父們的意見並不完全統一, 但也有許多共同點. 在東方教會, Concilium Quinisextum (Concilium Trullanum, 692 A.D.) 認可了Canones Apostolicae, Concilium Laodicenum, Concilium Carthaginense, Athanasius, Gregorius Nazianzenus 和 Amphilochius 的決定或著作(Canon 2. The Canons of the Council in Trullo. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-135.htm#P6027_1352235>). 其中既有接受次經的, 也有不接受的, 因而東方教會的態度應當是這些看法的綜合, Henry Percival 認爲:
We have thus four [five if we accept the Laodicean list as genuine,] different canons of Holy Scripture, all having the approval of the Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical. From this there seems but one conclusion possible, viz.: that the approval given was not specific but general. (<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-197.htm#P11664_2185827>)
也就是說, 東方教會既接受對次經的使用, 同時也象 Athanasius 那樣承認次經與正典在權威上的差異. 另一方面, 希臘教父們都認同猶太人的正典, 堅持舊約的數目是22卷, 是希伯來文的字母的個數, 可是有時也將巴錄書和耶利米書信當作耶利米書的一部分(猶太人從未這樣認爲). 另外的Anastasius (In Hexameron, 7. PG 89, 940.), Nicephorus (Chronographia Brevis, Quae Scripturae Canonicae: PG 100, 1057-1058.) 也是如此. 他們在正典目錄之外也提到教會使用的其他書卷(包括次經), 以示與正典的區別. 這一做法始於 Origenes, 其後 Athanasius, Epiphanius 也如此處理, Cyrillus 在這方面則比較保守(參Swete, 222.). 因此在東方, 舊約正典相比希伯來聖經在書卷的數量上沒有增加, 而對待次經只是認可它們的使用.
而西方的教父諸如 Cyprianus, Tertullianus, Ambrosius 都沒有給出正典具體的目錄, 他們也頻繁地使用次經, 在引用次經時有時也稱之爲"聖經". Swete 認爲西方教會對次經的使用源於更早的使徒教父, 諸如 Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Polycarpus, Clemens Alexandrinus 等:
An earlier tradition is represented by the line of Christian writers, beginning with Clement of Rome, who quoted the 'Apocryphal' books apparently without suspecting that they were not part of the Canon. Thus Clement of Rome places the story of Judith side by side with that of Esther; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas and the Didache, and Tobit by Polycarp; Clement of Alexandria and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms, to which Origen adds Judith.An earlier tradition is represented by the line of Christian writers, beginning with Clement of Rome, who quoted the 'Apocryphal' books apparently without suspecting that they were not part of the Canon. Thus Clement of Rome places the story of Judith side by side with that of Esther; the Wisdom of Sirach is cited by Barnabas and the Didache, and Tobit by Polycarp; Clement of Alexandria and Origen appeal to Tobit and both the Wisdoms, to which Origen adds Judith.(Swete, 224)
然而這些教父所使用的書目並不止於次經, 他們在引用時也不如開列正典目錄來得謹慎, 有時也將次經以外的僞經當作"聖經"來引用. Clemens Romanus (Primae Epistulae ad Corinthios, 8, 3) 和 Clemens Alexandrinus (Quis Dives Salvetur, 40, 2) 都曾引證 Apocryphon of Ezekiel (James Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, 109 <http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/apocezekiel.html>). 其中 Clemens Romanus 還將之當作神的話語:
Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromata, 5, 11.) 還將 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 歸給先知西番亞(Emil Schürer, The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, 132 <http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/apoczephaniah.html>). 而以諾書除了出現在新約中, 在早期教會也被使用, 被 Tertullianus (De Cultu Feminarum, 1, 3, 3) 認爲是正典:
But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude. (On the Apparel of Women. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-06.htm#P292_58954>)
對他而言, 舊約聖經正典也不止於此:
Tertullian's canon of the Old Testament included the deuterocanonical books, since he quotes most of them. He also cites the Book of Enoch as inspired, and thinks those who rejected it were wrong. He seems also to recognize IV Esdras, and the Sibyl, though he admits that there are many sibylline forgeries. (Chapman, John. "Tertullian." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Robert Appleton Company, 2003. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm>)
然而教會歷史上卻沒有將 Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Apocalypse of Zephaniah 等接受爲正典. 教會並不因爲個別教父承認了僞經而承認了它們的權威, 同樣地教父著作中使用了次經也並不意味著教會承認了次經的權威. 如果要瞭解教會作家們對正典的看法, 他們所列出的目錄比較他們的引用而言是更可靠的來源; 而需要瞭解教會作家所使用的材料時, 他們的引用則成爲不可或缺的.
非洲教會的 Concilium Hipponense 和 Concilium Carthaginense 所表達的意見, 與 Augustinus 在 De Doctrina Christiana 中論及正典的態度是類似的, 並沒有反映教父們對正典書卷和次經書卷的區分, 只是籠統地加以接受. 那麽 Augustinus 的意見是否與 Hieronymus 對舊約正典與次經所做區分(即"只能造就信徒, 而無教導的權威", "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church". Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI. <http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-21.htm#P8042_2614660>), 或者 Rufinus 關於"Canonical" 與 "Ecclesiastical" 的論斷相左呢? 回答是並不矛盾的. 分析 Augustinus 的論述可以發現他事實上沒有否定 Hieronymus 的觀點, 也就是說二者是相容的. 6世紀的 Cassiodorus 在他的 De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum (Caput XII-XIV, PG 70: 1123-1126. <http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/cassinst1.html>)中就將他們二人的觀點並列, 沒有判斷究竟孰是孰非. Augustinus 的觀點承認不同的書卷在權威上存在差異, 他認爲那些沒有被完全接受的書卷次於教會一致接受的書卷, 只有少數教會接受的書卷次於大多數教會接受的書卷:
Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.(On Christian Doctrine II.viii. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. II.<http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-33.htm#P4853_2627045>)
與他同時代的 Hieronymus 不接受次經的權威, 他也承認並非所有教會都接受某些次經書卷(如所羅門智訓和便西拉智訓, De Civitate Dei, 17, 20.)的權威. 所以根據 Augustinus 的觀點, 那些並不爲所有教會所接受的次經在權威上不及爲所有教會都接受的首正經. 另一方面 Augustinus 認爲聖經是先知和使徒所作(Contra Cresconium Grammaticum Donatistam, 2, 31, 39: PL 43.), 可以作爲教理根據的舊約正典是"律法, 先知和詩篇":
Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini praeparati et cauti redditi sumus, sed in praescripto Legis, in Prophetarum praedictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius pastoris vocibus, in evangelistarum praedicationibus et laboribus, hoc est in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus, nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent quae obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum.( Epistula ad Catholicos de secta Donatistarum, 18, 47: PL 43. <http://www.sant-agostino.it/latino/lettera_cattolici/lettera_cattolici.htm>)
從這一點上說, Augustinus 並不同意所謂猶太人不接受次經"是要把一切有利基督教的書卷排除"(基督教聖經舊約正典歷史問題)的說法. Augustinus 在使用次經是常說明次經是不被猶太人接受的(猶滴傳: De Civitate Dei, 18, 26; 瑪喀比傳: De Civitate Dei, 18, 36; 便西拉智訓: De Cura pro Mortuis gerenda, 15.), 並指出兩約之間的時代自從瑪拉基, 哈該, 撒迦利亞以後直到另一個撒迦利亞--施洗約翰的父親--都沒有先知(De Civitate Dei, XVII.24). 他認爲教會接受瑪喀比傳的原因是因爲其中對殉道者的記載(De Civitate Dei, 18, 36.)
宗教改革前的教會
從中世紀到宗教改革, 教會的作家們繼承了教父對聖經正典的看法, 重申了他們對於正典和次經所作的區分, 同時又梳理歸納了教父們的觀點. 通過他們, 可以更清晰地瞭解到教會的學者究竟是如何看待次經地位的, 也可以使我們更清楚地認識教父們關於正典和次經的訓導. 他們爲今天的人們留下了汗牛充棟的著作, 天主教對於這些作品的看法可以參考 A.E. Breen 的 General Introduction to Holy Scripture, 新教的觀點可以看 William Webster 的文章 The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation (<http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html>).
Webster 在文章裏同意這些教會作家中 Isidorus Hispalensis, Rabanus Maurus, Petrus Blessensis, Thomas Aquinas 都是接受次經的. Breen 的書中更指出 Gilbert Crispin (General introduction to the study of Holy Scripture. 2nd Edition. Fort Collins: Roman Catholic Books. 491), 十二世紀中葉一無名氏作者, Aegidius Parisiensis, Petrus de Riga(Ibid. 491), Johannnes Beleth, Albertus Magnus (Ibid. 502), Bonaventura, Alexander Neckam, Ropertus Holgot (Ibid. 503), Thomas Waldensis (Netter), Johannes Ragusiensis (Ibid 504.), Tostatus (Ibid 504.) 都抱有類似的肯定次經的態度. 其中的 Thomas Aquinas 是中世紀最具影響力的學者, 其意見在教會中的地位是舉足輕重的, 然而卻也是有所保留的. 他論及次經時沿襲 Hieronymus 的術語, 將次經稱爲"apocryphos", 並對這個字作了解釋, 他認爲次經作者的權威是可疑的, 這些書卷的效力 robur 是因爲教會對它們的接受:
Ponit tamen Hieronymus quartum librorum ordinem, scilicet, apocryphos: et dicuntur apocryphi ab apo, quod est valde et cryphon, quod est obscurum, quia de eorum sententiis vel auctoribus dubitatur. Ecclesia vero Catholica quosdam libros recepit in numero sanctarum Scripturarum, de quorum sententiis non dubitatur, sed de auctoribus. Non quod nesciatur qui fuerint illorum librorum auctores, sed quia homines illi non fuerunt notae auctoritatis. Unde ex auctoritate auctorum robur non habent, sed magis ex Ecclesiae receptione.(Principium Biblicum, Pars 2. Corpus Thomisticum. <http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/ptc.html>)
Thomas Aquinas 雖然認爲次經是聖經的一部分, 但否定了次經著者的權威. 另外 Petrus de Riga 將便西拉智訓歸給耶穌同時代猶太學者 Philo, 倘若 Philo 是受到神默示的作者, 那他爲什麽在他的著作中都沒有提到過耶穌呢? Breen 從而認爲 Petrus de Riga 不是教會立場的見證. 另一方面, Breen 也承認 Notker Balbulus (General Introduction. 490), Rupertus Tuitiensis (Ibid. 495), Hugo de Sancto Victore (Ibid. 496), Radulphus Flaviacensis, Petrus Venerabilis(Ibid. 498), Johannes Sarisberiensis (Ibid. 500), Hugo Cardinalis (Ibid. 506), Guillelmus de Occam (Ibid. 507), Nicolaus Lyranus (Ibid. 508), Antoninus (Ibid. 513), Dionysius Cartusianus, Cardinal Ximenes, Erasmus (Ibid. 514), Cajetan (Ibid. 515) 等學者對次經權威的懷疑, 否定抑或他們對 Hieronymus 教導的堅持. 值得一提的是 Antoninus, 他參與了 1439年的 Concilium Florentinum, 而在這次大會的 Cantate Domino 請歌頌主詔書 (教會訓導文獻選集 1334) 表示接受次經, Antoninus 的例子再次旁證當時教會接納次經的同時仍然以 Hieronymus 的見證爲重要. 另據 Webster 所引述的 New Catholic Encyclopedia, 其實這次會議的法令中僅僅 Caeli laetentur 諸天同樂詔書 (教會訓導文獻選集 1300-1308) 是"不能錯" infallible 的.
Laetentur caeli is an infallible document, the only one of the Council.
Webster 另外還援引 Alcuinus, Agobardus Lugdunensis, Beda Venerabilis, Walafridus Strabus, Haymo Halberstatensis, Ambrosius Autpertus, Ricardus de sancto Victore, Honorius, Adam Scotus, Philippus Harvengius, Alonso Tostado, Jean Driedo, John Ferus, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis 等教會學者, 表明教會對次經的接受是不完全的, 並且認爲他們與首正經沒有同等的權威. 對其中的Alcuinus, Beda Venerabilis, Walafridus Strabus, Honorius 和 Petrus Comestor, Breen 持異議.
結論
無論是耶穌基督指出"摩西的律法, 先知的書, 和詩篇上所記的, 凡指著我的話", 還是保羅見證"神的聖言交托給猶太人" 都明白地表明舊約的正典是猶太人的律法, 先知和聖卷. 猶太人從未將次經書卷當作正典. 教會歷史上的聖師, 教父, 神學家們的著作, 聖經的注釋, 中世紀的標準集注又再三重申次經沒有希伯來正典那樣的權威. 因而認爲次經與舊約首正經擁有同樣的權威是與傳統背道而馳的. 教會將聖經正典視爲神的默示, 是信理的依據. 而次經的來源是可疑的, 因而沒有權威, 只能當作人的著作, 不能用它們來建立教理.
|
