我们日用的饮食

个人中心

搜索

我们日用的饮食

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN——第一课摩西五经引论

2024-10-13

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN——第一课摩西五经引论

目录
一、介绍
二、现代批判派的进路

假设前提

自然主义
历史进展

作者身份

上帝之名
重复叙述
矛盾之处

解经方式

来源批判
形式批判
传统批判
编辑批判
现代批判

三、现代福音派的立场

假设前提

超自然主义
历史进展

作者身份

圣经证据
摩西是主要作者

资料来源
过程
补充修正

解经方式

主题
历史
文学

四、总结

一、介绍

你有没有想过，如果我们没有《圣经》，基督教的信仰会变得何等的不一样？教会的领袖们会把一些教导，从一代传递到下一代，可是我们却没有办法评估他们的想法，面对不同的意见，我们也没有判断的标准。

在摩西时代，许多以色列人必然也曾经面对这样的情形。他们的祖先流传下来许多太古的历史和他们先祖的事迹，他们听到上帝如何拯救以色列人离开埃及，颁布他的律法给他们，带领他们前往应许之地。但是，在他们目前或是未来的景况里，他们要根据什么来确信上帝将会怎么对待他们呢？对于这些事情，若有不同的看法，他们要怎么去判断？为了回应这些问题，上帝赐给他们《圣经》的最初五卷书，作为信仰的准则，那就是我们现今所称的摩西五经。

这是我们摩西五经这系列的第一课，题目是摩西五经引论。在这一课里我们要介绍，《圣经》从创世记到申命记这五卷书，如何成为以色列信仰的准则。

我们的摩西五经引论要分为两个主要部份。第一，我们要谈到对于《圣经》这个部份的现代批判派的进路。这些批判代表一些解经家的观点，这些人否定《圣经》的完整权威。其次，我们要探索现代福音派的立场，这些《圣经》学者的立场肯定《圣经》完整的权威，乃是上帝启示的话语。让我们先来看，现代批判派的进路是如何解释摩西五经。

二、现代批判派的进路

虽然我们的课程会因此进入一个不同方向，然而我们理解到一个重要的情况就是，如果不是绝大多数，现今至少有许多《圣经》学者否认摩西五经乃是来自上帝的默示和权威。他们也不承认传统犹太教和基督教的看法，认为这五经是源自摩西时代，他是以色列一个伟大的立法者。有许多《圣经》评论家，教师和牧师，甚至一般信徒都认同这样的观点，因此认真研读《圣经》的学生实在难以避开这样的言论。为此缘故，我们觉得有必要去了解到底这些学者是如何批判《圣经》的这个部份。

在过去150到200年里，一些批判性的学者对于摩西五经的研究付出极大的关注。虽然我们福音派的人可能不同意他们的许多进路与态度，但是我们有必要知道许多旧约学者的立场，才能对他们的建议采取正确的回应。我们不能没有意识到我们周遭所发生的事情，好像只是在真空状态里研读《圣经》。我们需要在他人所说的处境中，提出我们的进路。——约翰·奥斯沃特博士

为了理解摩西五经的现代批判派的进路，我们要探讨三个议题：第一，影响批判观点的一些重要假设前提。第二，对于摩西五经作者身份的批判观点。第三，这些批判学者采取的一些重要解经方式。我们首先来看影响批判派进路的假设前提。

假设前提

对于《圣经》这个部份的现代批判派的观点，绝大的部份是来自十七和十八世纪西欧启蒙运动的理性思潮。

对我们而言，我们要注意的是启蒙运动所衍生出来的两个显著的假设前提。这两个观点深深的影响着摩西五经的一些关键解释。第一，我们要探讨自然主义的概念；第二，我们要看有关以色列信仰的历史进展的一些假设前提。让我们先来探讨自然主义。

自然主义

简而言之，启蒙运动的自然主义成为主导的学术信念，认为即使灵界是现实的存在，它们对于可见的世界也没有足以辨别的影响力。因着这个缘故，它们就没有学术研究的价值。到了十九世纪的中期，自然主义已经主导西方的每个学术领域，包含基督教信仰的研究。自然主义对于《圣经》研究的一个重大影响，就是一些受尊重的学者拒绝长久以来犹太教和基督教的信仰，即摩西五经乃是上帝所默示的。为此缘故，大多数学者对于摩西五经，就像他们对待古文明的其他宗教著作那样。这个观点认为摩西五经是包含各种错误，矛盾，甚至有意曲解历史，和虚假的神学，就像其他的人类著作那样。

有趣的是，这些假设前提导致的自然主义使得现代学者们放弃摩西五经是上帝的默示与权威，他们也因此对于以色列信仰的历史进展产生了一些特别的观点。

历史进展

到了十九世纪初期，自然主义已经导致我们所谓的自然历史主义。这个主义所持的信念是这样：要理解任何事情的最好方式，就是去理解这个事件是如何随着时间，透过各种自然原因而进展的。十九世纪的生物学家就是投身研究和解释地球上的生命是如何起源，然后通过千万年而演变成的。语言学家追溯人类语言的历史进展。考古学家重新建构人类不同社会的远古背景和进化。宗教领域的学者也是同样的注重世界各个宗教的自然与历史的演化。

整体而言，早期的现代西方学者们重新建构世界宗教的演变，以配合他们所理解的人类社会的进展。例如，人们通常假设古代的人先是形成原始部落社会，他们相信的是万物有灵论，就是相信自然界的每个东西都有精灵附着。随着时间过去，原始部落社会形成比较大的酋长治理群体，他们相信的是多神教，就是拜许多的神灵。随着不同的酋长族群结合成更大的联盟，宗教也开始从多神教转变成为单一主神教，就是相信在众神之中，有一个神是最伟大的。最后，随着大邦国和帝国的出现，强大的君王和祭司通常把他们的国家从单一主神教推向独一神教，就是只相信一个神。按着这个自然主义的历史观，人类是到了这个高度进化的阶段，才开始把宗教的规范加以编撰，记录下来。在此之前，宗教只是透过口语相传和礼仪传统，一代一代的传递下去。

当然，后来到了二十世纪，人类学家多半不认同宗教是按着这样简单的方式进展演变的。但是这些观点已经深入影响现代早期的一些《圣经》学者对摩西五经的解释和评论，而且这些观点持续着，甚至到今天还在影响着《圣经》研究。

我们所谓的「批判学说」通常假设旧约是反映出人们的信仰发展，从原始、比较简单的形式，进展到比较繁复的宗教形式，而后者一定是比前者好的。关于这个论点，我们倒是有些可说的。从正面来讲，上帝启示祂自己的确是逐步进展的，《圣经》也显示这一点，我们称之为「有机的增长」，就是关乎上帝的教义、主旨和观念是从种籽到最后完全成形，《圣经》甚至谈论它自己渐进的信息。的确，《圣经》和摩西五经都显示这样的进展模式。上帝的启示是从初始到全然开花结果。你也可以想象，好比在观看一个花开的逐渐显像照片。但是从反面来说，批判学者通常持的是人类历史的进化论观点，他们假定人类的进化是必然的。其实我们只要看周遭的状况，就会发现这个进化的必然性只是一个巨大迷信。不错，我们会进步，但就如我们会进步，我们也会退步。例如现代人有种傲慢思维就是看比较古老的好像就是必然是比较次等的。然而那只是一个哲学假设，却从未在《圣经》里出现过。——麦克尔·葛罗道牧师

现今较早期的学者对于世界宗教所持的观点，和《圣经》所描述的以色列信仰的发展，当然是有显著不同。摩西五经介绍以色列信仰是始终如一的独一真神。从亚当夏娃到挪亚、先祖们、到以色列支派的族长，他们忠诚的敬拜独一上帝，为万物的创造主宰。而且我们从创世记知道，在这些古老的时期，这个虔诚的独一上帝的信仰是借着口传和礼仪传统，一代一代的传下来。

而且，根据摩西五经，在摩西时代发生一个决定性的转变，以色列民族的信仰规范那时开始被编撰为成文的法典。为了预备以色列民族的建国，摩西首先把上帝赐下的律法写成约书和十诫，还有我们后来看到的，编撰摩西五经的其余部份，来引导以色列百姓的信仰。因此，根据《圣经》，以色列的信仰，远在他们有君王和圣殿之前，在摩西时代就很重视信仰的神圣法典。

众所周知的《圣经》叙述是这么清楚明白，现代的批判理论却因着自然主义历史观的假设，而认为这种时间表是不可能的。现今的批判学者们解构《圣经》对于以色列信仰的描绘，而按着所有原始宗教如何演变的现代理念加以重构。按他们的观点，以色列史前的祖先是信奉万物有灵的宗教，而随着以色列先祖从部落融合成为酋长治理的族群时，他们转向多神教。按这个观点，如果有个名为摩西的人带领以色列人出埃及，那么他所带领的以色列人不过只是众支派的联盟，他们信奉的是单一主神教。与《圣经》所叙述的相反，这些批判派的解经学者相信在社会发展的这个时期，是不可能有人把以色列的信仰规范写下来的。这些成文的法典应该是在以色列有君王的早期才会出现，因为那时君王和祭司要管理以色列百姓的信仰。因此根据这些批判派的学者，是从君王时期，以色列的宗教信仰才逐渐成为有经书的信仰。

我们已经触及现代批判派的进路对于《圣经》和以色列信仰的历史进展所采取的假设前提，现在要转向和这个息息相关的第二个议题，那就是这些观点如何影响这些学者们对摩西五经作者身份的批判。

作者身份

就我们所见到的，这些批判解经家认为以色列信仰是在他们的君王时期才开始被有系统的编撰成法典。当然这个假设意味着摩西并没有参与摩西五经的书写。相反的，这些书籍是经过冗长而复杂的过程，到君王时期才把这些从古代就口语相传的事迹加以整理汇集成不同的文件，然后要到以色列被掳流亡时期和回归之后，这些文件才被编辑成为我们如今所知道的摩西五经。不过，当研读《圣经》的学生们第一次听到许多学者所认为的这个摩西五经进展的历程时，他们多半会好奇到底有什么证据支持这观点。

这些学者对于摩西五经作者身份的批判，我们总结他们提出的三个主要证据。首先，我们来看摩西五经里出现不同的上帝之名。

上帝之名

早期的批判解经学者指出摩西五经出现几个对上帝的称呼，他们认为这就证明以色列信仰是经过长时间的演变。例如，摩西五经有时只简单的用希伯来文的「以罗欣」אֱלֹהִים 或是「上帝」。其他时候，上帝则是被成为「耶和华」אֱלֹהִים或是「主」。摩西五经也把这些名称结合成为像「耶和华以罗欣」或是「主上帝」，或者是「耶和华以勒」就是「主必预备」。上帝也被称为「以利以罗安」或是「至高上帝」，以及「以勒沙代」通常被翻译为「全能上帝」。

有个重点我们要指出，那就是摩西五经虽然对于上帝有不同称呼，但那可能也没有什么不寻常。二十世纪对于古近东其他宗教诸神名字的研究，显示出相同的作者也会用不同名字称呼他们的众神。但是这些早期的批判学者们却认为摩西五经使用不同的名字称呼上帝乃是长时间组合成的，他们相信上帝不同的名字显示出一个来源添加在另一个之后，如此最后显现于摩西五经里。

当你阅读旧约的时候，很快会注意到里面出现对上帝不同的称呼。创世记第一章，上帝之名是以罗欣，到了第二章，忽然出现耶和华这个名字。批判的学者们所持的进路与观点，和福音派解经家的很不一样，他们认为这些称呼是来自不同的源头。身为福音派基督徒，我认为我们需要退后一步来看更整全的画面。上帝是以罗欣，也是耶和华。以罗欣是全能的上帝，统管世界的那一位，是创造主，是世界各个邦国都要公认的至高者，无上的主宰。但是，因为祂与以色列这个国家的圣约关系，祂以一个非常位格化的名字：耶和华，启示祂自己。祂是：「我是」(自有永有者)，祂将是为着祂的子民，也必将与他们同在。耶和华是个圣约性质的名字，因为以色列人是上帝的选民。——大卫·塔磊博士

除了不同的上帝之名，许多批判学者们也要人们注意他们所谓的重复叙述，以此来支持他们对于摩西五经作者身份的看法。

重复叙述

我们不难看到摩西五经里有一些彼此类似的叙述。但是批判解经家认为这些段落显示那些叙述是来自不同族群的口语相传，然后这些叙述被记载在摩西五经里。

例如，解经家通常会就创世记1章1节到2章3节和创世记2章4到25节，指出他们所谓的「两个创造的叙述」。他们也指出创世记12章10到20节；创世记20章1到18节；创世记26章7到11节那几段叙述亚伯拉罕和以撒的谎言和危及他们妻子的故事，其间的相似性。传统的犹太教和基督教解经家都已经以合理的方式解释这些相似之处，但是批判派的解经家坚持这些叙述显示它们来自不同的口语相传，到后来才被编撰，记载在摩西五经里。

第三个证据是，批判学者们指出他们所认为的摩西五经里的矛盾之处。他们认为这些所谓的前后不一致，足以支持他们对于《圣经》这个部分作者身份的复杂重构。

矛盾之处

例如，他们经常指出在出埃及记12章1到20节和申命记16章1到8节，对于逾越节有不同的规范。还有出埃及记20章1到17节与申命记5章6到21节，对于十诫也有文字差异。然而，传统犹太教和基督教解经学者也已经表明这些差异是可以融合的。只是批判派的解经家还是认为这些差别之处，反映出不同口语相传和书写来源，经过冗长而复杂的历史过程，最后被汇编在我们今天所读的摩西五经里。

当你读《圣经》，特别是摩西五经，你会读到不同类型的文学叙述。例如创世记1章1节到2章3节，我们看到的图像是上帝按着一定顺序在七天里创造天地。祂如此说，事情就如此成就。那是一段惊心动魄的描述，述说上帝的大能，祂是创造主，按着祂的形象造了人类。紧接着2章4到25节，我们读到另一个创造的叙事，好像是一个接续上一个。当我们看这第二个叙事，有人会发现其中矛盾之处，因为在这里，上帝被称为耶和华上帝，而不是前面那位话语一出，事物就会存在的上帝。而是突出我们有一位亲自下来创造人类的上帝。经文说祂取了尘土，造出第一个男人，又从这个男人身上造出第一个女人。上帝不再是肉眼看不见的创造主，而是好像来到世间，用祂的双手造物的上帝。但是这第二个叙事乃是对第一个的互补相成，而不是矛盾抵触……而且我们必须记住，就算真的有矛盾，难道古代人就看不出来？我的意思是，那是关键所在，他们不是愚昧无知的人，即使年代不同，文化不同，他们还是有头脑，以他们的智慧把这些故事记载下来。因此，这第二个叙事给我们看到上帝是亲自参与创造。在神学上，我们说这是临在的上帝，上帝来到祂创造的世界里。我认为忠实地读《圣经》，就不要带着怀疑批判的心态，而是怀着想要理解的心思去读。当然读的时候，我可能会有疑问，但那是以信求知的过程。归根结底，我相信凡是《圣经》所记载的，就是上帝要记录在《圣经》里的；而身为读者，我的职责是专注的聆听，特别是那些困扰我的地方，我要尝试去明白，上帝有时把两件不同的事情并行陈列在《圣经》里，祂到底要说什么。而且我们还要心存感谢，因为在不同时候，不同场合，两个不同的画面可能在一种时刻比另一个时刻显出更清楚的意义。——布莱恩·罗素博士

我们已经探讨了现代批判派的进路对于假设前提和作者身份的处理，现在要来看批判学者们在处理摩西五经时，所遵循的几个主要解经方式。

解经方式

我们可以用许多方法来总结他们的讨论，不过我们只简单触及现代批判学者采用的五个主要解经方式。按着他们所衍生的次序，我们首先来看来源批判。

来源批判

来源批判，最初被称为文学批判，始于1866年出版的K.H.格拉夫写的《旧约的历史书》。后来被比较知名的解经家朱利思·魏浩森，在他1883年出版的《以色列历史绪论》里加以修饰改进。

来源批判认为摩西五经，就像所有其他古代宗教典籍，是源自于口语相传的故事。不过他们对摩西五经所专注认证和解释的部份，是他们相信在以色列君王时期所出现的独立书面文献。

顺着魏浩森的用词，摩西五经最早的资料来源，写于君王统治早期，通常被视为是文献J，雅巍派，之所以用这个称呼，是因为在这个书面材料的经文，上帝最凸显的名字是雅巍，在德语拼音是以J开头，和英文Jehovah（耶和华）类似。「J」的经文段落出现在创世记和出埃及记书卷里不同地方。批判学者们强调摩西五经的这些部分最初是写于主前950年所罗门王统治时期的犹大地。按着这个观点，「J」的经文段落是典型的讲论远古时代的文件，并证实在耶路撒冷的大卫王朝对以色列的宗教和社会有着集中的管理和规范。

摩西五经第二个书面材料被称为是文献E，以罗欣派，因为上帝在这些经文里通常被称为以罗欣。文献「E」也散见于创世记和出埃及记。根据这个理论，文献「E」是写于主前850年的北国，在以色列分为两个王国之后。文献「E」的经文宣扬北国的先知观点，带着对大卫王朝的批判。

第三个文献资料被称为是文献D，或是申命记派，因为那些文句主要是出现在申命记里，只有少部份偶尔出现于摩西五经的其他书卷。批判学者认为这批文件大概是介于主前622年，约西亚王的改革，到主前586年耶路撒冷亡于巴比伦，之间的年代写的。有个比较常见的理论是，文献「D」是从北国以色列投奔到南国犹大的利未人写的，这些利未人忠于大卫家，但也对它有所不满和谴责。

最后，摩西五经进展过程的第四个主要书面材料被称为是文献P，代表的是祭司的作者或是文士们。在一个常见的重构里，文献「P」是一群在主前500到400年间，书写利未记和编辑摩西五经其他书卷的祭司们。根据这个重新建构的说法，文献「P」的编撰目的是要用摩西五经引导被掳流亡后归回的以色列余民建立社会秩序和敬拜礼仪。

到了20世纪，称职有能的学者们已经对摩西五经来源批判的几乎每个层面都提出质疑，但是这些观点的蛛丝马迹依然出现在每个摩西五经的批判派的注释里。

形式批判

批判学者对于摩西五经采取的第二个主要方式被看为是形式批判。

形式批判始于赫尔曼·贡克尔在1901年写的《创世纪的传奇》，是旧约研究的一个专门领域。贡克尔和那些跟随他的学者们接受来源批判的主要原则，不过他们专注的是摩西五经衍生过程里一个比较早期的层面。形式批判不是着眼于摩西五经的文献来源，而是着重他们所认为的，在以色列君王时期之前就有的口语流传的故事。

在形式批判盛行的时代，学者们注意到口语传述在没有文字的部落文化里担负的作用。这些形式批判学者应用这些研究，试着找出在有文字之前，那些单纯生动的口语故事，它们提供了摩西五经的文献材料。

形式批判的方法基本上是双重的：一方面，形式批判学者分析经文，为了找出古老的口语形式，或是类型，例如神话，民间故事，英雄冒险事迹，爱情浪漫故事，传奇，寓言等；另一方面，他们把这些类型与文化场景，就是德文中口语传述的Sitze im Leben，即「生活背景」相联。这些场景包含敬拜，部落营地，家族教导，地方法庭等等。

例如形式批判学者认为创世记32章22到32节，雅各在毗努伊勒摔跤的那一段，原是古代部落族围在营火旁述说的故事。他们主张，发生在雅博渡口的神奇事件，原本是来自一些超自然的传奇故事。按着这个重构的理论，这个故事后来和一个名为雅各的部落人物有关连。

我们可以肯定的是，形式批判主义正确的强调《圣经》文本的结构和形式特征的重要性。但是，如同来源批判，形式批判也遭到各样的质疑，这些对于形式批判主义的质疑，特别着重于它对于《圣经》文本背后的口语传述与生活背景，所作的推测性重构。即使如此，到现今我们还是发现形式批判主义把许多批判学者导向可疑的结构重组，而不是导向存于《圣经》正典的摩西五经。

传统批判

批判学者解释摩西五经的第三个主要方式就是所谓的传统批判，或是常被称为传统-历史批判。

传统批判是建立在来源批判和形式批判的结论之上，他们的研究针对那些原始的口语传述和书面文本是如何演变成复杂的神学和政治观点。主导的学者例如马丁·诺斯在1948年发表的《摩西五经传统的历史》，和格哈德·拉德在1957年发表的《旧约神学》都提到摩西五经如何反应出各种传统的影响。

就他们所探讨的，传统批判学者指出在摩西五经里他们发现的，认为是互相矛盾抵触的一些神学信念。他们也认为摩西五经是把关乎创造，族长，出埃及，征服应许之地这些事件的不同传说加以整合。他们也探索一些关于以色列支派，大卫宝座，和耶路撒冷圣殿等的不同观点。他们相信这些复杂的神学支流深深的影响着摩西五经里出现的许多主题。

类似地，传统批判大部份的结论多年来已经遭到不少质疑，但是当旧约解经学者讲到一些经文反应出以色列的传统神学支流彼此之间的抵触矛盾时，你就还是会看到这个批判方式残留的痕迹。

编辑批判

批判学者解释摩西五经采用的第四个主要方式，通常被称为是编辑批判。正如这个名词所表明的，这个策略着重于那些假设的文献是如何被编辑成为我们现今所知的摩西五经。

编辑批判始于20世纪对于新约的研究，这个方式是要解释新约福音书之间的差异。编辑批判认为这些差异是对于先前一些书面记录的编辑重组导致的结果。

类似的批判方式也用在了摩西五经的研究。批判学者尝试着解释不同的编辑如何将早期的文献来源，例如文献「J」，「E」，「D」等编串起来，成为最后我们所见的摩西五经。这个批判特别着重于P文献的后期编辑工作。

编辑批判有其优势，让人注意现今《圣经》版本里的创世记到申命记这几本书。但是编辑批判未曾有突破性的脱离以前的来源批判，形式批判和传统批判的结论。

现代批判

到此，我们应当提一提现代批判，就是现今对于摩西五经影响比较重大的批判，所包含的趋势和特征。

过去几十年，许多主要的批判解经学者尝试要跳脱旧有的历史重构批判方式。他们乃是着眼于摩西五经传统希伯来文本里神学的一致性和深度。他们的批判采用不同的方式，例如修辞批判，正典批判，新文学批判等，只是其中的几个。但是他们共同的解释着重于，摩西五经是从犹太会堂和教会传给我们的。这些批判摩西五经的最后模式，是比早先的批判方式更有前景，但到底这些比较现代的批判会带出什么结果，只有时间才能证实。

就摩西五经的引论，我们已经探讨了对于《圣经》这个部份的现代批判派的进路，现在要来看这一课的第二个主题：对于摩西五经的现代福音派的立场，就是现今的福音派学者如何探讨《圣经》最初的这五本书。

三、现代福音派的立场

你应该还记得，就我们而言，我们对于福音派的定义是坚守《圣经》具有完整权威的信徒。当然，福音派信徒并不全然以同样方式持守这个信念。不过，我们将会看到对于《圣经》权柄的降服，使得福音派学者处理摩西五经的方式，与现代的批判学者有很大的不同。

我们要延续先前讨论的模式来简单介绍，对于摩西五经现代福音派的立场。首先我们要来看指引我们的一些重要假设前提；然后我们要探讨福音派对于摩西五经作者身份的看法；第三，我们要查考几个主要的福音派解经方式。让我们先来看几个重要的福音派假设前提。

假设前提

我们局限在两个假设前提，对比批判学者和福音派学者对立的观点。首先我们要来看福音派对于超自然主义所持的看法；接着我们要看福音派对于以色列信仰的历史进展的假设。让我们先来看我们对于超自然的看法。

超自然主义

「超自然」这个名词是为了与「自然」有所区别。当然对于相信上帝的人，我们知道上帝在任何情况下都能够有所作为。但是，自从苏格兰的怀疑论者大卫·休谟提出这样的区别，而且说：「我们没有理由相信超自然的作为」，这就变成一个议题了。而且这也变成许多人驳斥《圣经》可信的主要理由之一，他们的理由是，《圣经》里充满神迹奇事，而我们知道神迹是不可能发生的。那么，为什么我们知道神迹不会发生？因为在他们看来，大卫·休谟已经证实这一点。如果我们回头看休谟的论证，会发现那些论点并不扎实。事实上，他论证里其中的一个关键点就是：我们没有目击的证人，就是那些声称神迹的确存在的可信靠的目击者，当然现今我们就更不可能去检视。然而，即使在休谟的时代，还是有一些目击者证实上帝依然在行奇妙超然的事情，现今我们也有不少这样的人。如果神迹奇事现今都可以发生，那么我们更可以相信在救恩历史的一些重要关头也曾经有过上帝奇妙超然的作为。——柯瑞格·凯纳博士

《圣经》告诉我们，上帝通常是循着可辨认的模式来主导历史。理性和科学是上帝给予人的恩赐，让我们能够辨认这些模式。因为这个缘故，福音派学者也看重对于摩西五经一些理性和科学的探讨。但是，与此同时，跟随耶稣的门徒也相信上帝在过去和现今持续能够以超自然的方式介入世界。上帝的作为可以不用、超乎、甚至反乎一般的进程和自然的缘由。这样的信念在许多方面影响我们对于摩西五经的探讨；特别是我们确信上帝感动并主导《圣经》经文的书写，因此那些话语带着上帝的权柄，也是真实可信的。当然，我们也要小心，不能把对经文的解释与摩西五经实际的叙述相混；因为我们的解释随时都可能被更正。但是从福音派的观点，凡是摩西五经宣告是真实的就是真的，因为那些话语是受上帝所感而写。

我们对于超自然主义的假设前提也导向对于以色列信仰的历史进展的一些假设。

历史进展

我们之前已经谈过，现代的批判学者们认为以色列的信仰的进展也是像古代近东其他的宗教那样循着自然方式发展。但是福音派学者认为以色列的信仰是透过特别的神圣启示而进展。上帝是直接向人类启示祂自己，首先是对亚当，然后是挪亚，接着又对以色列的先祖亚伯拉罕、以撒、和雅各。祂在燃烧的荆棘丛中对摩西说话，在西乃山向以色列人颁布律法。这些不同方式的启示，使得以色列信仰的进展历程和古代近东其他宗教的发展很不一样。当然，上帝的普遍恩典和撒旦的影响，使得以色列人的信仰与其他国家的宗教有类似之处，但是以色列的信仰不是自然演变的，而是上帝超自然的引导以色列民早期的信仰，就如摩西五经所教导的。

我们已经探讨了在摩西五经的假设前提上，现代福音派的立场与批判学者采取截然不同的立场。这些观点导致对于摩西五经作者身份的对比看法。批判学者不接受摩西五经是来自摩西时代，但是福音派持续相信长久以来犹太教和基督教所相信的，摩西五经是来自摩西。

作者身份

为了探讨福音派对于摩西五经作者身份的观点，我们要从两个方向来看。首先，我们要提出支持这观点的一些《圣经》证据；第二，我们要解释为何现今福音派学者相信所谓的摩西是主要作者。让我们先来看摩西作者身份的《圣经》证据。

圣经证据

《圣经》经文包含足够多的《圣经》证据，证实传统的看法，摩西乃是这五经的作者。因着时间有限，我们只从《圣经》三个主要部份挑出一些经文，我们先从新约着手。路加福音24章44节，耶稣这么说道：

摩西的律法、先知的书，和诗篇上所记的，凡指着我的话都必须应验。（路加福音24章44节）

在这里，耶稣就如当时的犹太人那样，提到旧约的三个分类，摩西，先知和诗篇。借着这些名称，路加清楚显示耶稣把摩西五经，或是律法书，与摩西相联。

约翰福音5章46节，耶稣也提到摩西是五经的作者。他那么说道：

你们如果信摩西，也必信我，因为他书上有指着我写的话。（约翰福音5章46节）

除了耶稣的见证，其他新约经文谈到摩西五经一些明确的话语乃是出自摩西。例如马可福音7章10节；约翰福音7章19节；罗马书10章5节；以及哥林多前书9章9节。

事实上，新约乃是根据旧约所见证的，支持摩西的作者身份。旧约书卷有多处都把这五经与摩西连在一起。例如历代志下25章4节这么讲：

亚玛谢是照摩西律法书上……所吩咐而行。（历代志下25章4节）

旧约还有其他的经文把摩西与这五经相联，例如：历代志下35章12节；以斯拉记3章2节，和6章18节；还有尼希米记8章1节和13章1节。

我们也会注意到，新约和旧约的见证一般是根据摩西五经本身说到它的作者是何许人。严格说来，大部份的摩西五经没有作者署名。除了申命记1章1节以外，其他的书卷开始或是末尾都没有显示摩西的作者身份。不过，在古近东，这是很普遍的，即使在《圣经》里也并非不寻常。事实上，摩西五经有清楚叙述，证实是摩西从上帝领受启示，并且负责组合摩西五经的资料。例如出埃及记24章4节告诉我们，摩西写了出埃及记20章18节到23章33节的约书。而在利未记1章1和2节，我们看到利未记里的那些规范，是上帝透过摩西给予以色列人的。申命记31章1节和32章44节，我们读到摩西对以色列人说的话是包含在申命记里。总而言之，摩西五经清楚明述摩西是积极参与领受和传递五经大部份主要的内容。

五经和《圣经》其他许多证据，阐明为何福音派学者坚决反对批判学者对五经作者身份的臆测。《圣经》显然并不支持批判学者的重构，他们假设五经是摩西之后多年才书写成书的。如果照着旧约和新约的证据，我们可以放心相信，五经必然是和摩西相联的。

五经本身显示了它基本上是出自摩西的。显然，从出埃及记到申命记，摩西是主要的角色之一。经文本身显示大部份是出自摩西时代。例如出埃及记25章，我们读到耶和华晓谕摩西要把律法诫命的约书写下来，也就是出埃及记的21到23章。在利未记，我们看到上帝透过摩西给予的一系列话语和律法。当然，摩西更是民数记的主角。在申命记里摩西传达许多的话语，而在这卷书里，我们屡次读到摩西写下来这个或那个部份，然后交给祭司们。固然，这并不意味着摩西写下整卷的申命记，但是申命记本身告诉我们，他写下这卷书的主要部份。摩西写下那些重要的部份，然后交给祭司们。例如申命记里，不管摩西是不是最终结的作者或是叙述者，我们至少可以说，这卷书的百分之九十是摩西本人写的。——哥顿·约翰逊博士

我们已经看过了《圣经》证据支持摩西的作者身份这个基本观点，现在要来探讨第二个议题，现代福音派学者认为的摩西是主要作者到底是什么意思。

摩西是主要作者

针对批判学者对于摩西五经的论点，福音派学者以不同方式回应。到了二十世纪中期，所谓的「摩西是主要作者」已经成为惯常的说辞了。

爱德华·杨格在他1949年出版的著作《旧约概论》总结这个观点，他这么写着：

当我们断言是摩西写五经的时候，并非意味着是他本人写下每一个字……他可能采用之前已经存在的书面文献。此外，在上帝启示感动之下，可能后来也有小部份的增添甚至修改，不过，就实质与基本而言，那的确是摩西的作品。

就摩西的作者身份，福音派信徒已经通过不同途径去理解这个观点所包含的细节，但是当我们说到摩西是主要作者时，有三个因素是我们通常必须记住的，那就是摩西所使用的资料来源，他书写五经的过程，还有在摩西年代之后，五经的补充修正。我们先来考量摩西使用的资料来源。

资料来源：《圣经》告诉我们上帝以不同方式晓谕摩西，例如上帝用祂的指头写下原版的十诫。约书包含了上帝在西乃山上给予摩西的诫命法则。不过，如同《圣经》的其他部份，经文也显示出摩西写五经的时候也使用额外附加的资料。

就某一方面，他可能是引用各种口头传述，例如摩西很有可能从他的生母，或是幼年时从亲族那里，听到许多故事。还有，我们在出埃及记18章17到24节读到，摩西甚至从岳父米甸人叶忒罗那里领受不少教导。

每当我们谈到五经任何部份里涉及的口语传述，包含其他部份的原始历史，情况都是有些模糊，因为这些口传的故事没有显著具体的实证；‘口述’的意思就是什么也没有写下来。不过如果你稍微思考一下，我们就会明白，摩西大概不是在某一个日子忽然想起这些故事，而上帝也可能不会只是在某一天，跟他说一些没有任何口述背景的故事。我们可以找到的证据之一就是，即使现今的原始文化仍然依赖着口头传述，重复讲述他们族裔的古老事迹，许多这样的故事是从一个世代流传到下一个；回溯《圣经》形成的时代就是如此，那时人们也是作类似的事情。整体而言，对于摩西五经，我们最具体的例证就是，在出埃及记和民数记里记载的一些故事，经常又出现在申命记里。在申命记里，我们从上下文看到当摩西对以色列百姓讲话时，他的话语里包含一些我们可以在出埃及记和民数记里读到的片段记载。不过很有意思的是，即使这些故事很类似，却又不是完全相同。因此这显示摩西时代的文化，或是那时代以色列的文化，是会把过去发生事迹，那些昔日的故事，一代一代的传递下去；然后又会以独特的方式，把那些事迹应用在他们当时生活的景况里。比如，我们知道摩西小时候是与他自己生母生活在一起，因此有机会听到关于他先祖的一些故事，知道他自己身为希伯来人的身份，是亚伯拉罕的后裔之一。还有，当摩西后来和以色列的长老来往，甚至与岳父叶忒罗的生活，都让他知道更多关乎他祖先的独特事迹。因此，我们有理由相信，当摩西书写五经的时候，有些部份他是根据那些口述的故事，就是代代相传下来的故事。——理查德·伯瑞特博士

口语传述的影响足以解释当摩西在燃烧的荆棘前蒙召的一个不寻常记载。我们看出埃及记3章13和16节这么写着：

摩西对上帝说：「我到以色列人那里，对他们说：『你们祖宗的上帝打发我到你们这里来。』他们若问我说：『他叫什么名字？』我要对他们说什么呢？」……「你要对以色列人这样说：『耶和华─你们祖宗的上帝，就是亚伯拉罕的上帝，以撒的上帝，雅各的上帝，打发我到你们这里来。』」（出埃及记3章13和16节）

注意，上帝只在此告诉摩西称呼祂为耶和华上帝，以及亚伯拉罕，以撒，雅各的上帝。一定有人之前就教导摩西上帝之名是耶和华，和先祖的故事。否则，上帝这样的宣告会让摩西脑海里出现许多疑问。但是，我们看这里的叙述，摩西却是准备好了领受上帝的指示，他对于上帝的宣告并没有提出任何的询问。

我们甚至可以很有把握的说，摩西编撰五经时的资料来源也包含独立文献，例如出埃及记24章7节，那节经文显示摩西写的约书是一个独立的文献，他后来才纳入出埃及记这卷书里。还有民数记21章14到15节，摩西是从所谓「耶和华的战记」这本书里引申出一些地理名词。

除此之外，创世记5章1节, 经文很明确提到一个外在的文献资料，是所谓的亚当族谱。按着文句看来，摩西可能是说他是从一个实际的书卷希伯来文的赛弗 סֵ֔פֶר中，得知亚当后裔的资料。

还有，出埃及记17章14节，提到某个争战的记录。在那句经文里，上帝命令摩西：

你要将这话写在书上作纪念，又念给约书亚听。(出埃及记17章14节）

上帝给予摩西的命令显示出，摩西在书写五经之前，可能先个别的记录了一些事迹。

当你读摩西五经的时候，特别是创世记，你会发现摩西实际是把一些非常古老的文献编撰起来。我们知道，摩西事实上精通四种语言。他会埃及语；又因为他的生母也是他的乳母，他在希伯来人的家中受养育，所以他也会说希伯来话。我们晓得他也会说当时通行的语言，就是国际贸易和外交场合使用的阿卡德语；他可能也熟悉亚兰文，因为那是以色列人早先所用的，亚伯拉罕，以撒，雅各等人使用的语言。因此，摩西可说是一个受过良好教育和训练的人，从他汇编创世记的方式，他似乎是在告诉我们他是使用某些文献，我们读到有十来次他这么说道：「某某人的后代记在下面」，或是：「这些事记在下面……」，诸如此类的文句。显然那些文献是摩西有机会接触或是保存的，而且他有可能把那些文献从一些原始的语言，也许是部份亚兰文或是早期迦南语，翻译成他的同胞能明白的希伯来文，因为他是为着他们而写创世记。创世记之后的几卷书未必有这样的情况。当你读到利未记和民数记，当然还有出埃及记和申命记，在这几卷书里，摩西编撰的是当时发生的事迹，是他亲身所经历的，他主导那些事情的发生。更重要的是，上帝让那些事情发生，因为五经绝大部份是上帝借着祂的先知摩西传讲祂的话语。——道格拉斯·斯图亚特博士

当福音派学者说五经的主要作者是摩西的时候，他们除了确认五经里所包含的口语传述和文学资料来源，也公认五经实际上是经过一个复杂的过程书写完成的。

过程：首先，五经里有大部份在摩西实际书写之前，是透过口头叙述传达给以色列百姓。他在出埃及记和申命记几次对众人说的话，就是很清楚的例子。因此很有可能五经的其他部份也是先透过口传，后来才加以书写完成。

另一个可能是摩西雇用抄写员—秘书或是文士—来编撰五经。我们知道摩西是在埃及宫廷里受教育的，因此他一定熟悉宫廷里雇用文士、秘书们笔录公文这种行之有年的方法。身为以色列人的领袖，摩西可能任命一些抄写员，在他的督导之下，帮忙书写五经的大部份。

《圣经》也清楚说到其他的《圣经》作者也雇用秘书从事书写工作。例如耶利米书36章4节提到，先知耶利米指示他的门徒巴录把他说的话写下来。

这样的书写方式从五经所呈现的不均衡文体可以得到证实。例如创世记不同部份的叙述文体就各有差异，还有，申命记里公式化而一再重复的希伯来文文体和五经其他书卷又有显著不同。这些差异很可能来自不同文士的笔法所致。

摩西是主要作者这个观点不只着重摩西写五经采用的资料来源和书写过程，也涉及摩西之后，五经的补充修正。

补充修正：我们之前谈到，批判派解经者认为整体五经是以色列人归回后才完成最后版本。但福音派学者认定五经乃是源自摩西时代。不过，五经里有少许部份是摩西的年代之后才稍微加以修订补充的。

当然，对于摩西五经里一些特殊事例的日期确定，我们也必须小心。例如有些解经家认为每个提到非利士人的经文段落一定是写于摩西之后的年代。不过这个观点欠缺说服力，至少有三个原因：第一，考古的证据显示非利士人在该地区的存在颇受争议；第二，摩西可能用这个名词「非利士」（意思是客旅）为一个当时社会的通称；第三，即使「非利士人」这个名词不见知于摩西时代，后来补充使用这个名词，很有可能是要帮助摩西年代之后的读者们。

类似的情况还有例如创世记36章31到43节，解经家认为所列出的以东统治者的名单超出摩西活着的年日。但是创世记所列出的以东诸王，他们的身份并不确定。另一个可能是，所列的有些人名是在摩西年代之后才增补到这些经文里。

摩西五经里，一个微修订的明显例子是在创世记14章14节，那里写着：

亚伯兰听见他侄儿被掳去，就率领他家里生养的精练壮丁三百一十八人，直追到但。(创世记14章14节)

这段经文提到亚伯拉罕追捕他的敌人，直追到但。但是我们从约书亚记19章47节知道，这个北部地区原来不是这个名字，是到约书亚时代才改名为但。因此创世记14章14节显示了一个地名的修订。这样的增补修订是为了帮助后来的读者按着他们所知的地理知识，而能更了解亚伯拉罕的故事。五经里其他经过修正补充的经文可能也都是相同缘故。

五经里最为人所知，也最重要的增补之处，就是申命记34章摩西过世的记载。但即使在这里，对于以色列的立法者的身后之事，我们也只有这一点附录解释而已。

除了像这样的微增补，五经的文字随着希伯来文的发展也有所修正。近代的研究强烈表明，摩西书写所用的文字是学者称为原始希伯来文，从埃及发现的一种称为阿马尔奈文书的国际文档里的证据表明，这种形式的希伯来文与使用在摩西时代的迦南方言十分接近。但是，那种希伯来文是比我们看到的五经的传统希伯来文本还要早期的文字。

旧约的语言问题一直让人着迷。何时使用这个语言？它从何而来？它在哪里出现？这些问题长久以来一直让人困惑，因为从考古出土的证据，我们质疑是否真的有古希伯来文书写的作品？二十世纪以来，我们有了不少出土的文本。不过它们的年代都是比摩西的时代还要晚。那么，我们是怎么处理这个问题的呢？我们有主前13和14世纪的文物证据，那是一个外交函件的整体档案，不是在后来成为以色列居住地的迦南，而是在埃及挖掘出来。那些文件是用阿卡德文写的，它实际是一个源自米所波大米的语言，是那个时代的国际外交语言。书写的人是迦南人，信是写给他们在埃及的统治者，他们有稍微注解写信的地点是在迦南。这个当时的迦南语言让我们得以连上摩西时代的希伯来文。虽然我们没有找到任何摩西时代的希伯来文献，不过这些外交信函成为我们的联系资料，从那些补充注解我们连到摩西时代的希伯来文，再连到我们所知的标准《圣经》希伯来文，那是被掳之前大部份以色列人通用，也是被掳之前文本使用的语言。这个联结虽然不是直接的，却是具体而真实的。——汤姆·皮特博士

介于主前1000到600年之间的以色列君王时期，他们的语言已经演变到今天所谓的「古老」或「古希伯来文」。许多学者们同意五经有些部份，例如出埃及记15章和申命记32章的书写是很近似这个阶段的希伯来语。

不过，五经的绝大部份，不论字汇，拼音和文法，都比较近似于经典希伯来文，就是在希伯来语言的发展过程中，介于主前800年中期到600年早期之间所使用的语文。

这个例证显示，摩西本人所使用的原始希伯来文，后来是修订为古希伯来文，再演化到如今希伯来文《圣经》里的经典希伯来文。

我们要记得的一个重点就是，在耶稣、他的门徒和先知的时代，他们所读的摩西五经的希伯来文已经经过这些阶段的变化了。但这个事实并没有拦阻耶稣和跟从祂的人不把他们当时的五经认为不是摩西本人所写的。因此今天，身为基督的跟随者，我们也能确定现在所读的摩西五经，依然显明是摩西的原本写作。

至此，我们已经探讨了现代福音派的观点，也论到福音派学者对于五经一些重要的假设前提。我们思考了福音派学者如何看待《圣经》这个部份的作者身份。现在我们来看这些观点如何影响福音派学者采取的解经方式。

解经方式

关于这些解经方式，我们能谈论的有很多，不过我们只着重于福音派学者所奉行的三个主要方向。第一，我们要来看所谓的主题解经，然后我们要探讨历史解经，最后我们要查看文学解经。这三个方式并非各自为政，而是密切的交互运作；不过它们各有其着重之处，因此我们还是一个一个的依序来看，首先让我们来探讨主题解经。

主题

按着主题解经，我们乃是把摩西五经看作是一面镜子，它反映出对我们非常重要的一些议题。福音派学者已经强调过《圣经》这个部份的一些主题，但是我们也看到五经的每一卷书也各有其重要特点。当然，摩西本人可能有，也可能没有要刻意去强调这些主题。这个方式显示出几千年来基督教解经的特质。

基督教所强调的主题，列在单子上的有一长串。有些人特别着重人际问题和当前的争议。另外一些人是用五经来支持他们的传统系统神学观点；例如五经启示了许多关乎上帝的事情，也花了很多的篇幅讲到人性的不同层面，此外也相当的关注其他的受造物。

主题解经的最大缺点之一在于它轻忽了摩西最初写五经的主旨是为了那些跟随他要去到应许之地的以色列人。因为他们忽略这个原本的处境，所以主题解经常常只是留意到那些次要的主题。

即使这样，我们要牢记的是新约认同对于五经的这个解经方式。我们看到耶稣和新约的作者们处理一些生活议题，例如因信称义，离婚，信心，工作，还有五经里提到的一些次要议题时，他们也是诉诸于摩西写的这几卷书。所以，只要我们小心，不要错误的把某些主题强加在经文里，主题解经仍然是解读摩西五经的一个宝贵方式。

除了主题解经这个解经方式，福音派学者通常称探讨五经的另一个方式，我们可称之为历史解经。

历史

福音派信徒不但相信摩西五经的这些神学主题是真实的，而且也随从耶稣和他的使徒与先知们的榜样，相信五经的历史记录也是真实的。因此，福音派学者通常认为摩西五经是一个管道，让我们得知过去发生哪些事情。

我们已经谈过主题解经是把五经看作像一面镜子，反映出我们有兴趣的一些主题。但是历史分析则是把五经看作是探讨历史的窗口。我们透过摩西的书，来探讨那些书卷当时的历史情况。

创世记是追溯从起初的创造到约瑟的年代。出埃及记的主要叙述是从约瑟的死到以色列人与摩西在西乃山脚扎营的年日。利未记详细叙述在西乃山时，摩西所领受的一些诫命法则和宗教礼仪。民数记谈到以色列人出埃及之后，第一代和第二代从西乃山前行到摩押平原。申命记则是精心记载以色列人即将进入迦南，因此摩西在摩押的平原数次对他们所说的话。按着历史解经，福音派学者利用这个相当明显的历史情况来解读五经。

历史解经虽然是一个很宝贵的解经方式，不过以此来解读五经也有其限制。就像主题分析一样，历史解经也轻忽摩西和他的原本读者，而是着重于五经书写之前，上帝在不同年代的作为，例如，上帝对亚当和夏娃作了什么事情？挪亚时期的洪水有何意义？亚伯拉罕如何与上帝互动？以色列人过红海时上帝完成哪些事情？这些都是合理的探索，但是他们忽略了摩西身为作者和以色列人是原本读者的基本重要意义。

福音派信徒从五经的主题解经和历史解经受益很多，但是过去几十年来，第三个解经方式成为显著趋势，我们称之为文学解经。

文学

我们前面提到，主题分析是把五经看为像镜子那样，反映出对我们重要的一些主题；历史分析则是把五经视为历史事件的窗口，透过这个窗口去看五经书写之前的情况。相对地，文学分析是把五经当作一幅画像，一个文学艺术作品，其创作目的是以一些特定方式来影响作品的原本听众。基本而言，文学解经所问的是：摩西书写五经的时候，他打算让那些文字对他的原本读者，就是那些跟随他的以色列人产生什么影响？

公平而论摩西写五经是有许多的目的，但概括一下这些目的对大家会有益处。为此，我们可以描述摩西的目标：身为上帝命定的领袖，

摩西写五经，为的是装备以色列人，在他们征服应许之地，并且在那里定居时，能够忠心的事奉上帝。

摩西并不只是谈到一些抽象的主题，或是仅仅记载一些历史事件，而是借着这五经里的每个主题和历史故事来达成他的目标。

文学解经认为摩西编撰五经时，是立于两个时期之间。就一方面而言，我们可以称摩西所书写的是关乎那个世界，就是一些过去所发生的事件。创世记所记载的事情，它们发生的年代远早于摩西的时代。出埃及记和利未记着重的是离开埃及之后，第一代的以色列人在那期间所经历的事情。民数记和申命记记载的是以色列人第一代到第二代所经历的事件。当摩西写五经的每一卷书的时候，他的心思里是存记着从过去到当前这几个不同的时代。

而另一方面，摩西也是为他们的世界而书写，是为着他当时所带领的那些读者群而写。摩西从「那个世界」的过往取材，来教导他的读者们，在「他们身处的世界」，事奉上帝的时候，他们应该怎么思想，行动和感受。为了达成这个目标，摩西书写的方式是以「那个世界」联结到「他们的世界」。

摩西以三个方式将过去与他的读者群相联。首先，他让以色列人知道那些过去发生的事情，乃是他们当前经历的背景或是根源；他也提供他们可效法或是拒绝的模式；还有他把所编撰的事迹塑造为他的读者世界的预示。

五经里有不少叙述清楚显示摩西所作的这些联结。例如创世记15章12到16节，摩西告诉他的读者们，关于上帝的应许，要使他们出埃及的背景。这个应许在他们的年代得以应验。在创世记2章24节，摩西解释亚当和夏娃的婚姻，乃是上帝忠诚子民婚姻的模式。还有在创世记25章23节，摩西记载雅各和以扫在他们母亲的腹中彼此相争，乃是预示着他的以色列读者们在他们的年日要和以东人对抗。

「那个世界」与「他们的世界」一些明显的联结出现在五经的各处。不过绝大部份，这些联结则是很隐约而暗示性的。因此，文学解经的主要任务之一就是分辨出摩西如何把过去的「那个世界」与他的读者群身处的「他们的世界」相联起来。

几千年来，对于五经的解释一直是着重于主题和历史解经的方式，更甚于文学解经。为此，我们对于摩西书卷的课程，将会以大部份时间讨论文学解经。我们要解析摩西是如何塑造每一卷书的内容，为的是提供他的读者群当前经历的背景根源，典范模式和先兆预示。我们要探讨：什么是摩西要他的读者留意和看重的，他如何把书卷里的内容和他们的生活联系起来，还有他如何带领原本读者群在他们的年日里能忠诚地事奉上帝。

四、总结

在摩西五经引论的这一课里，我们探讨了现代批判派的进路对于《圣经》这个部份的一些重要特质。我们谈到批判的解经学家采用的假设前提，导致对于五经的作者身份和经文解释的一些观点。我们也谈论现代福音派的立场，看到现今福音派学者的假设前提导致对于五经的作者身份和经文解释有着十分不同的观点。

当我们继续探索摩西五经时，会注意到引论提到的这些议题又会多次的显现出来。在这些情况下，我们会发现自己更能妥善处理《圣经》的这个基础部份。接下去，我们要思考这类问题：摩西为什么要写五经的每一卷书？这些书卷的原本目的是什么？摩西五经对于摩西最初的读者群体会有那些含意？透过回答这些问题，我们会找出摩西原本心意的一些重要定向。我们不仅将会看到，《圣经》最初的这五卷书如何成为摩西时代以色列人信仰的最早规范，而且也将会发现，这几卷书也成为我们现今跟随基督的信仰准则。

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN

第一课摩西五经引论

第二课太古历史：完美的世界

第三课太古历史：失而复得的乐园

第四课太古历史：暴力的世界

第五课太古历史：正确的方向

第六课亚伯拉罕的生平：结构与内容

第七课亚伯拉罕的生平：原本含义

第八课亚伯拉罕的生平：现今应用

第九课先祖雅各

第十课约瑟和他的兄弟们

第十一课出埃及记概论

INTRODUCTION

Have you ever wondered how different the Christian faith would be if we didn't have the Bible? Leaders would pass instructions from one generation to the next, but there would be no way to evaluate their ideas, no standard by which we could judge between differing opinions.

This must have been how it was for many in Israel in the time of Moses. Their ancestors had passed down accounts of primeval history and their patriarchs. They'd told the story of how God had delivered Israel from Egypt, given them his law, and led them toward the Promised Land. But what were they to believe God was going to do with Israel in their current circumstances, and in the future? How were they to judge between differing opinions on these matters? God answered these kinds of questions by giving them the first five books of the Bible as the standard of their faith, the books we now call the Pentateuch.

This is the first lesson in our series The Pentateuch, and we've entitled it, "Introduction to the Pentateuch." In this lesson we'll introduce how the biblical books of Genesis to Deuteronomy served as the standard for Israel's faith.

Our introduction to the Pentateuch will divide into two main parts. First, we'll describe modern critical approaches to this part of the Bible. These approaches represent the views of interpreters who deny the full authority of Scripture. Second, we'll explore modern evangelical outlooks, the views of biblical scholars who affirm the full authority of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Let's look first at modern critical approaches to the Pentateuch.

MODERN CRITICAL APPROACHES

Although our lessons will go in a different direction, it's important for us to realize that many, if not most, modern biblical scholars have denied the divine inspiration and authority of the Pentateuch. They've also denied the traditional Jewish and Christian view that the Pentateuch came from the days of Moses, Israel's great lawgiver. So many commentators, teachers, pastors, and even lay people have endorsed these views that it's nearly impossible for serious students of Scripture to avoid them. And for this reason, it's crucial that we have some understanding of how critical scholars have handled this part of the Bible.

二、现代批判派的进路

In the last 150 to 200 years, critical scholars have given a great deal of attention to study of the Pentateuch. And although we evangelicals may disagree with many of those approaches, it's necessary for us to be aware of where many Old Testament scholars are in order that we can respond to their suggestions correctly. We must not simply do our Bible study in a vacuum, as it were, without being aware of what's going on around us. We need to state our approaches in the light of all that is being said elsewhere. [Dr. John Oswalt]

——约翰·奥斯沃特博士

To understand modern critical approaches to the Pentateuch, we'll look at three issues: first, some important presuppositions that have influenced critical outlooks; second, critical perspectives on the authorship of the Pentateuch; and third, a number of significant interpretive strategies that critical scholars have pursued. Consider first some of the presuppositions that influence these approaches.

Presuppositions

For the most part, modern critical views on this part of the Bible flowed directly from the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment in seventeenth and eighteenth century Western Europe.

假设前提

对于《圣经》这个部份的现代批判派的观点，绝大的部份是来自十七和十八世纪西欧启蒙运动的理性思潮。

For our purposes, we'll focus on two significant presuppositions that grew out of the Enlightenment. Both of these perspectives have deeply influenced critical interpretations of the Pentateuch. First, we'll consider the concept of naturalism. And second, we'll look at presuppositions about the historical development of Israel's faith. Let's start with naturalism.

Naturalism

In brief, Enlightenment naturalism was the dominant scholarly belief that if spiritual realities existed at all, they had no discernable effect on the visible world. And for this reason, they had no place in academic research. By the middle of the nineteenth century, naturalism dominated every academic field in the West, including studies in the Christian faith. One major effect of naturalism in biblical studies was that well-respected scholars rejected the longstanding Jewish and Christian belief that the Pentateuch was inspired by God. And for this reason, most handled the Pentateuch in the same ways that they handled the religious writings of ancient cultures in general. In this view, the Pentateuch contains all kinds of errors, contradictions and even intentional misrepresentations of history and false theology, like all other merely human writings.

自然主义

Interestingly enough, as the presuppositions that led to naturalism freed modern scholars to dismiss the inspiration and authority of the Pentateuch, they also led to certain outlooks on the historical development of Israel's faith.

Historical Development

By the early nineteenth century, naturalism had led to what we may call "naturalistic historicism." This was the belief that the best way to understand any subject is to understand how it developed over time through natural causes. Nineteenth century biologists devoted themselves to explaining how life on earth originated and evolved through the millennia. Linguists traced the historical developments of human languages. Archeologists reconstructed the ancient backgrounds and advancements of human societies. And scholars in the field of religion gave similar priority to describing the naturalistic, historical evolution of world religions.

历史进展

By and large, early modern western scholars reconstructed the evolution of world religions to align with their understanding of developments in human society. For instance, it was commonly assumed that ancient people first formed primitive tribal societies that practiced animism, the belief that objects in nature had spirits associated with them. As time passed, primitive tribal societies formed larger chiefdoms that practiced polytheism, a belief in many gods. As various chiefdoms formed larger confederations, religion began to move from polytheism to henotheism, the belief that one god was greatest among all gods. Finally, with the development of large kingdoms and empires, powerful monarchs and priests often moved their nations from henotheism toward monotheism, belief in one god. And in this naturalistic historical view, it wasn't until this highly developed stage that the norms of religion began to be codified, or written down. Prior to this time, religion had passed from generation to generation only through oral and ritual traditions.

Now, we should note that later in the twentieth century anthropologists largely discredited the idea that religions evolved in such a simple manner. But these outlooks deeply influenced the ways biblical scholars handled the Pentateuch early in the modern period. And they continue to influence biblical scholarship even today.

What we call "critical scholarship" often assumes that the Old Testament reflects a development of beliefs from a primitive, less sophisticated form of religion to a more complex, more sophisticated form of religion, the latter being better than the former. There are a couple of things we can say about that. One thing, positively speaking, we can say that there is a progress in how God reveals himself. The Bible shows this, what we call "organic growth," where doctrines and themes and ideas about God grow from seed to full form, and so the Bible even talks about its own progressive message. And so, yes, there is a form of progression within the Bible and within the Pentateuch. It's a movement from the beginnings of God's revelation to the full flowering, if you will. If you can imagine a time-lapse photo of a flower blossoming. But, negatively speaking, critical scholars generally hold an evolutionary or development view of human history which assumes the inevitability of progress… Now, all we have to do is look at the world around us to see that the inevitability of progress is a great myth. Yes, we progress, but also as we progress, we also devolve. So, there's something about the hubris of the modern that looks upon something older as more inferior, whereas in fact, that is a philosophical assumption, it's not something that's found within the Bible itself. [Rev. Michael J. Glodo]

——麦克尔·葛罗道牧师

Early modern outlooks on world religions were obviously different from the way the Bible depicts the development of Israel's faith. The Pentateuch presents Israel's faith as consistently monotheistic. From Adam and Eve, to Noah, to the patriarchs, to the heads of Israel's tribes, the faithful worshiped the one true God as the Creator of all. And, as far as we know from Genesis, in these early stages, this true, monotheistic faith was passed through oral and ritual traditions from one generation to the next.

Then, according to the Pentateuch, a decisive transition took place in the days of Moses. At this time, the norms of Israel's faith began to be codified. Moses prepared Israel for nationhood, first by writing down God's law in the Book of the Covenant and the Ten Commandments, and, as we'll see later, by composing the rest of the Pentateuch to guide Israel's faith. So, according to the Bible, Israel's religion was oriented toward sacred writings from the time of Moses, long before Israel had a king and temple.

As straightforward as this well-known biblical account is, modern criticism considered this timeline impossible due to the assumptions of naturalistic historicism. Modern critical scholars deconstructed the biblical portrait of Israel's faith. And they reconstructed it to conform to modern ideas of how all primitive religions evolved. In this outlook, Israel's prehistoric ancestors embraced tribal animism. Then, the patriarchs of Israel moved toward polytheism as their tribes merged together in what amounted to chiefdoms. In this view, if there was a Moses who led Israel out of Egypt, the Israelites he led were little more than a confederation of tribes characterized by henotheism. And, contrary to the Scriptures, critical interpreters believed that, at this stage of social development, it would have been impossible for someone to have written down the standards of Israel's faith. Such written standards only could have emerged during Israel's early monarchy, when Israel's kings and priests sought to regulate Israel's faith. So, according to critical scholars, it was from the time of the monarchy that Israel's religion increasingly became a religion of the book.

Now that we've touched on the presuppositions of modern critical approaches toward Scripture and the historical development of Israel's faith, we should turn to a second, closely related issue. How have these outlooks affected critical approaches to the authorship of the Pentateuch?

Authorship

As we've seen, critical interpreters believed that Israelite faith only began to be codified in the time of Israel's monarchs. And of course, this assumption meant that Moses had no involvement in writing the Pentateuch. Rather, these books resulted from a long, complex process that began with ancient oral traditions that were compiled into various documents during the monarchical period. And it was only during and after the time of Israel's exile that these documents were edited and compiled into the Pentateuch as we now know it. Now, when students of Scripture first hear that many scholars believe in this long history of the Pentateuch's development, they almost always wonder what evidence supports it.

作者身份

We'll look at this approach to the Pentateuch's authorship by summarizing three of the main evidences offered by critical scholars. We'll begin with variations in divine names found in the Pentateuch.

这些学者对于摩西五经作者身份的批判，我们总结他们提出的三个主要证据。首先，我们来看摩西五经里出现不同的上帝之名。

Divine Names

Early critical interpreters noted that the Pentateuch has a variety of names for God. And they argued that these variations were evidences of a long evolution of Israel's faith. For instance, sometimes the Pentateuch simply uses the Hebrew term "Elohim" or "God." Other times, God is called "Yahweh" or "the Lord." The Pentateuch combines these terms with each other and with other terms as well, like "Yahweh Elohim" or "the Lord God," and "Yahweh Yireh," or "the Lord provides." God is also called "El Elyon" or "God Most High," and "El Shaddai," often translated "God Almighty."

上帝之名

Now, it's important to note that while the Pentateuch does reflect a variety of names for God, this may not have been unusual. Twentieth century research into divine names of other ancient Near Eastern religions has pointed out that the same authors use a variety of names for their gods as well. Still, early critical scholars thought that variations in the names of God in the Pentateuch revealed a long history of composition. They believed that different names for God indicated that one source was added to another and another, and eventually resulted in the Pentateuch.

When you're reading through the Old Testament, it doesn't take you very long to note that there are different names for God. In Genesis 1 the name for God is Elohim. Genesis 2, all of a sudden, you have the name Yahweh. Critical approaches will understand this very differently than an evangelical would. A critical scholar would say these come from different sources… As evangelicals, I think we need to step back and understand the bigger picture. God is Elohim, and he is Yahweh. Elohim is the God Almighty, the one who is over the world, the Creator, the one that all nations of the world would recognize as that higher power, that ultimate figure. But in a covenant relationship with the nation of Israel, he reveals himself in a very personal name, Yahweh. He is the "I Am" who will be for his people and will be with his people. And that is a covenant name because Israel is God's chosen people. [Dr. David Talley]

——大卫·塔磊博士

In addition to variations in divine names, many critical scholars have supported their views on the authorship of the Pentateuch by drawing attention to what they've called "duplicate accounts."

除了不同的上帝之名，许多批判学者们也要人们注意他们所谓的重复叙述，以此来支持他们对于摩西五经作者身份的看法。

Duplicate Accounts

It isn't difficult to see that a number of passages in the Pentateuch resemble each other. But critical interpreters have argued that these passages reflect different oral traditions among different groups of people, and the processes by which these accounts came to be written down in the Pentateuch.

重复叙述

For example, interpreters have often pointed to what they call the "two creation accounts" in Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. They've also pointed out the similarities between the accounts of Abraham and Isaac when they lied and endangered their wives in Genesis 12:10-20; 20:1-18; and 26:7-11. Both traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters have explained these similarities in reasonable ways. But critical scholars maintain that these accounts represent different oral traditions that were written down and later incorporated into the Pentateuch.

In the third place, critical scholars have pointed to what they consider inconsistencies in the Pentateuch. And they claim that these so-called inconsistencies support their complex reconstructions of this part of the Bible's authorship.

Inconsistencies

For example, they've often noted differences between the regulations for Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8. And they've pointed out variations between the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Once again, traditional Jewish and Christian interpreters have shown how these and other differences can be reconciled. But critical interpreters have seen them as reflecting a long, complex history of oral traditions and written sources that were woven together into the Pentateuch as we have it today.

矛盾之处

When you read the Bible and the Pentateuch in particular, you're confronted with a lot of different types of literature. And sometimes when you read it, you read things like, for example, when the book of Genesis starts off you have Genesis 1:1–2:3… We have a picture of God creating over seven days a particular order. God creates with his speech and it's a powerful statement about God being powerful, God being the Creator, God creating humanity in his image. And then the very next chapter, 2:4-25, we have another story of creation, that are kind of one right after another. When you look at that one, some people would see contradictions because now we see God is called the Lord God. Instead of being this God who just speaks things to existence, we have God actually coming down; he creates people. It says he makes a human out of mud, the first man. And then he takes the first woman right out of the man. So, you see God, instead of being this sort of invisible creator God, God's down almost, in human terms, kind of making stuff happen with his hands… But by having that other story, which is ultimately complementary, not contradictory… And again, we always have to remember if there's really contradictions, do we really think ancient people didn't see these things? I mean, that's a key piece.

They aren't stupid people. It's a different time, a different culture, but they still have brains, and in their wisdom they keep these things together. And so like the second story gives us a God who is more hands-on. We call that in theology a God who is immanent, the God that comes into creation… And I think the faithful way of reading Scripture is not to read it suspiciously but ultimately read it with a sense to understand it. You know, I may have questions, but it's a faith-seeking understanding, and at the end of the day, I believe that what's in the Bible is what God wants to be in the Bible, and my job as a reader is to listen to it attentively, especially in places that may bother me, to try to see, what's God really saying by putting these two different things sometimes in juxtaposition. But we should be grateful for that because at different times in different places those two different kinds of images may speak more meaningfully at one time than at another time. [Dr. Brian D. Russell]

他们不是愚昧无知的人，即使年代不同，文化不同，他们还是有头脑，以他们的智慧把这些故事记载下来。因此，这第二个叙事给我们看到上帝是亲自参与创造。在神学上，我们说这是临在的上帝，上帝来到祂创造的世界里。我认为忠实地读《圣经》，就不要带着怀疑批判的心态，而是怀着想要理解的心思去读。当然读的时候，我可能会有疑问，但那是以信求知的过程。归根结底，我相信凡是《圣经》所记载的，就是上帝要记录在《圣经》里的；而身为读者，我的职责是专注的聆听，特别是那些困扰我的地方，我要尝试去明白，上帝有时把两件不同的事情并行陈列在《圣经》里，祂到底要说什么。而且我们还要心存感谢，因为在不同时候，不同场合，两个不同的画面可能在一种时刻比另一个时刻显出更清楚的意义。

——布莱恩·罗素博士

Now that we've looked at modern critical approaches in terms of their presuppositions and views of authorship, we can consider some of the main interpretive strategies that critical scholars have followed as they've handled the Pentateuch.

我们已经探讨了现代批判派的进路对于假设前提和作者身份的处理，现在要来看批判学者们在处理摩西五经时，所遵循的几个主要解经方式。

Interpretive Strategies

There are many ways to summarize these matters, but we'll touch on five major interpretive strategies of modern critical scholars. We'll consider these strategies in the order they developed starting with source criticism.

解经方式

Source Criticism

Source criticism, or as it was first called, "literary criticism," originated in the work of K. H. Graf entitled The Historical Books of the Old Testament, published in 1866. It was refined by the better-known interpreter, Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel, published in 1883.

来源批判

Source critics believed that the Pentateuch had grown out of oral traditions, just like all other ancient religious writings. But they concentrated their attention on identifying and interpreting parts of the Pentateuch that they believed came from independent written sources that emerged during Israel's monarchical period.

Following Wellhausen's terminology, the earliest documentary source of the Pentateuch, written in the early monarchy, has normally been deemed "J" for the Yahwist. It bears this name because the prominent name for God in passages identified with this written source is "Yahweh" — spelled with a "J" in German, much like we spell the name "Jehovah" in English. "J" passages appear scattered in the books of Genesis and Exodus. Source critics have argued that portions of the Pentateuch were originally written in Judah during the days of Solomon around 950 B.C. In this outlook, "J" passages represent a document that told of ancient times and supported the centralization and the regulation of Israelite religion and society by David's dynasty in Jerusalem.

顺着魏浩森的用词，摩西五经最早的资料来源，写于君王统治早期，通常被视为是文献J，雅巍派，之所以用这个称呼，是因为在这个书面材料的经文，上帝最凸显的名字是雅巍，在德语拼音是以J开头，和英文Jehovah（耶和华）类似。「J」的经文段落出现在创世记和出埃及记书卷里不同地方。批判学者们强调摩西五经的这些部分最初是写于主前950年所罗门王统治时期的犹大地。按着这个观点，「J」的经文段落是典型的讲论远古时代的文件，并证实在耶路撒冷的大卫王朝对以色列的宗教和社会有着集中的管理和规范。

A second written source of the Pentateuch has been deemed "E," for the Elohist, because God normally is called Elohim in these passages. "E" materials also appear in Genesis and Exodus. According to this theory, "E" sources were written around 850 B.C. in the North, after the division of Israel into two kingdoms. "E" texts promoted northern, prophetic views that were critical of David's dynasty.

A third literary source has been called "D," or the Deuteronomist. It's given this name because "D" materials appear primarily in the book of Deuteronomy and only occasionally in other parts of the Pentateuch. This material is usually dated sometime between Josiah's reforms in approximately 622 B.C. and the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 B.C. In one common theory, "D" represented the work of Levites who defected from northern Israel to Judah. These Levites were loyal to David's house, but also critical of it.

Finally, a fourth major literary source in the Pentateuch's development has normally been called "P," standing for the Priestly writer or writers. In one common reconstruction, "P" was a group of priests who composed Leviticus and compiled and edited other portions of the Pentateuch between 500 and 400 B.C. According to this reconstruction, "P" designed the Pentateuch to direct social order and worship after a remnant of Israel had returned from exile.

Now, during the twentieth century, competent scholars left hardly any aspect of source criticism unchallenged. Yet, vestiges of these outlooks still appear in nearly every critical commentary on the Pentateuch.

Form Criticism

A second major strategy of critical approaches toward the Pentateuch has been deemed "form criticism."

形式批判

批判学者对于摩西五经采取的第二个主要方式被看为是形式批判。

Form criticism began as a specialized field of Old Testament studies with the work of Hermann Gunkel in The Legends of Genesis, written in 1901. Gunkel and those that followed him accepted the major tenets of source criticism, but they focused on an earlier aspect of the Pentateuch's development. Rather than focusing on the Pentateuch's written sources, form critics concentrated on what they believed to be the oral traditions that predated the time of Israel's monarchs.

During the time when form criticism was popular, scholars noted the ways oral traditions functioned in illiterate tribal cultures. Form critics applied these studies as they searched for the pure, dynamic, pre-literary traditions that led to the documentary sources of the Pentateuch.

Form criticism's method was basically twofold: On the one side, form critics analyzed passages to discover ancient oral forms, or genres, like myths, folk-tales, sagas, romances, legends, and parables. On the other side, they associated these genres with cultural contexts known as the "Sitze im Leben," or the "life settings" of these oral traditions. These contexts included worship, tribal campsites, familial instruction, local courts, and the like.

形式批判的方法基本上是双重的：一方面，形式批判学者分析经文，为了找出古老的口语形式，或是类型，例如神话，民间故事，英雄冒险事迹，爱情浪漫故事，传奇，寓言等；另一方面，他们把这些类型与文化场景，就是德文中口语传述的Sitze im Leben，即「生活背景」相联。这些场景包含敬拜，部落营地，家族教导，地方法庭等等。

For example, a number of form critics have treated the account of Jacob wrestling at Peniel, in Genesis 32:22-32, as a story that was originally told around the campfires of an ancient tribe. They've argued that it initially grew out of tales of supernatural, magical events at the ford of the Jabbok River. In this reconstruction, it was only much later that the story was associated with a tribal figure known as Jacob.

To be sure, form criticism rightly stressed the importance of the structures and formal features of biblical texts. But, like source criticism, form criticism has also been challenged in a variety of ways. Challenges to form criticism focus especially on its speculative reconstructions of the oral forms and settings behind biblical texts. Even so, we still find form criticism turning many critical scholars toward questionable reconstructions even today, rather than toward the Pentateuch as it exists in the canon of Scripture.

Tradition Criticism

A third major way that critical scholars have interpreted the Pentateuch is often called tradition criticism or traditio-historical criticism.

传统批判

批判学者解释摩西五经的第三个主要方式就是所谓的传统批判，或是常被称为传统-历史批判。

Building on the conclusions of source and form criticism, tradition critics focused on how primitive oral traditions and written texts developed into complex theological and political perspectives. Leading scholars like Martin Noth in A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, published in 1948, and Gerhard von Rad in his Theology of the Old Testament, published in 1957, asked how the Pentateuch reflected the influence of various traditions.

Among other things, tradition critics identified what they believed to be sets of competing theological beliefs found in the Pentateuch. They noted how the Pentateuch reflected consolidations of diverse traditions on subjects like creation, the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of the Promised Land. They also explored views concerning the tribes of Israel, David's throne, and Jerusalem's temple, to mention just a few. And they believed these complex streams of theology deeply influenced many of the major themes that appear in the Pentateuch.

Once again, most of the specific conclusions of tradition criticism have been questioned through the years. Yet, we can see the vestiges of this approach when Old Testament interpreters speak of passages reflecting various streams of tradition in Israel that contradicted or even competed with each other.

Redaction Criticism

A fourth major way that critical interpreters have approached the Pentateuch's development has been called redaction criticism. As the word "redaction" indicates, this strategy focused on how hypothetical documents were edited together into the Pentateuch as we know it today.

编辑批判

Redaction criticism began in the twentieth century in New Testament studies as a way of explaining the differences between the Gospels of the New Testament. Redaction critics believed these differences resulted from editing and reshaping previously written records.

Similar techniques were applied to the Pentateuch. Attempts were made to explain how different editors took earlier written sources like "J", "E", and "D" and wove them together until the Pentateuch reached its final shape. This approach especially focused on the late editorial work of "P."

Redaction criticism had the advantage of drawing attention to the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy as they appear in the Bible today. But redaction criticism never broke significantly with the conclusions of source, form and tradition criticism.

Contemporary Criticism

At this point, we should mention some of the tendencies that characterize contemporary criticism, or the more current influential critical approaches to the Pentateuch.

现代批判

到此，我们应当提一提现代批判，就是现今对于摩西五经影响比较重大的批判，所包含的趋势和特征。

In recent decades, many leading critical interpreters have sought to go beyond older critical historical reconstructions. Instead, they've concentrated on the remarkable theological unity and depth of the Pentateuch's traditional Hebrew text. These approaches have taken different forms — rhetorical criticism, canonical criticism, new literary criticism — to name just a few. But they all share a focus on interpreting the Pentateuch as it's been handed to us through the synagogue and the church. Treatments of the Pentateuch in its final form are more promising than older critical approaches. But only time will tell what fruit these more contemporary approaches will yield.

So far in our "Introduction to the Pentateuch", we've focused on modern critical approaches to this part of the Bible. Now we should turn to our second main topic in this lesson: modern evangelical outlooks on the Pentateuch. How do evangelicals today approach the first five books of the Bible?

MODERN EVANGELICAL APPROACHES

You'll recall that for our purposes here we've defined evangelicals as those who hold to the full authority of Scripture. Needless to say, evangelicals haven't always applied this conviction in precisely the same ways. But as we'll see, this commitment to Scripture's authority still leads evangelicals to handle the Pentateuch very differently than modern critical scholars.

三、现代福音派的立场

We'll summarize modern evangelical outlooks on the Pentateuch along the lines of our earlier discussion. First, we'll look at some important presuppositions that should guide us. Second, we'll consider evangelical outlooks on the authorship of the Pentateuch. And third, we'll survey several major evangelical interpretive strategies. Let's look first at some important evangelical presuppositions.

Presuppositions

We'll limit ourselves to two presuppositions that contrast critical and evangelical outlooks. First, we'll examine our belief in supernaturalism. And second, we'll look at our presuppositions about the historical development of Israel's faith. Let's look first at our belief in supernaturalism.

假设前提

Supernaturalism

"Supernatural" is kind of our modern language as distinguished from "natural" because, of course, if we believe in God, we believe God works through all things. But since the Scottish skeptic philosopher David Hume made that kind of distinction and said, "Well, we don't have reason to believe in supernatural activity," it's been an issue. And that's been one of the main reasons that many people have argued against the reliability of the Bible, because they say, well, the Bible is full of miracles and we know that miracles don't happen. Well, why do we know miracles don't happen? Well, because David Hume "proved" that. And you go back and you look at his argument, and his argument isn't very good at all. In fact, one of the key points of his argument is that we don't have eyewitnesses, who — credible eyewitnesses — who claim the existence of miracles, certainly not today when we can test it. And yet, even in Hume's day, there were credible eyewitnesses that God was still doing miraculous things, and today we have an incredible number of those… And if they take place today, how much more can we expect that they took place at significant junctures in salvation history as God was working. [Dr. Craig S. Keener]

超自然主义

——柯瑞格·凯纳博士

The Scriptures teach that God ordinarily directs history in ways that follow discernable patterns. Reason and science are gifts from God that help us discern these patterns. And for this reason, evangelicals rightly value rational and scientific research into the Pentateuch. But at the same time, followers of Jesus also know that God has involved, and continues to involve himself supernaturally in the world. God acts in ways that are without, beyond, and even against ordinary processes and natural causes. This belief affects our study of the Pentateuch in many ways. But in particular, it assures us that God inspired and superintended the writing of these Scriptures. So, they are his fully authoritative and reliable Word. Of course, we always have to be careful not to confuse our interpretations with what the Pentateuch actually says. Our interpretations are always subject to improvement. But from an evangelical point of view, whatever the Pentateuch actually claims to be true is true because it is inspired by God.

Our presuppositions about supernaturalism lead directly to presuppositions about the historical development of Israel's faith.

我们对于超自然主义的假设前提也导向对于以色列信仰的历史进展的一些假设。

Historical Development

As we've seen, modern critical scholars have argued that Israel's faith developed by natural means along the same lines as all other religions in the ancient Near East. But evangelicals hold that Israel's faith developed through special divine revelations. God actually revealed himself directly to men and women, beginning with Adam, and then Noah. And he also spoke to Israel's patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He addressed Moses in the burning bush. He disclosed his Law to Israel at Mount Sinai. These kinds of revelations caused Israel's faith to develop differently than other religions in the ancient Near East. To be sure, God's common grace and the influence of Satan led to similarities between Israelite faith and the religions of other nations. But Israel's faith did not simply evolve naturally. Instead, God supernaturally led the development of Israel's early faith just as the Pentateuch teaches.

历史进展

We've considered modern evangelical outlooks and the presuppositions that contrast with critical approaches to the Pentateuch. These outlooks have led to contrasting beliefs about the Pentateuch's authorship. Critical scholars reject the idea that the Pentateuch could have come from the days of Moses. But evangelicals continue to affirm the longstanding Jewish and Christian belief that the Pentateuch came from Moses.

Authorship

To investigate evangelical outlooks on the Pentateuch's authorship, we'll look in two directions. First, we'll note some biblical evidence for this point of view. And second, we'll explain how modern evangelicals believe in what's been called "essential Mosaic authorship." Let's start with some biblical evidence for Moses' authorship.

作者身份

Biblical Evidence

Scripture contains more than enough biblical evidence for the traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. But for the sake of time, we'll consider just a few passages from three distinct parts of the Bible, starting with evidence from the New Testament. Listen to Luke 24:44 where Jesus said:

圣经证据

Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).

Here, Jesus referred to the entire Old Testament in three divisions, much like other Jews in his day: Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Through these designations, Luke plainly indicated that Jesus associated the Pentateuch, or Torah, with Moses.

摩西的律法、先知的书，和诗篇上所记的，凡指着我的话都必须应验。（路加福音24章44节）

Jesus also referred to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch in John 5:46 where he said:

约翰福音5章46节，耶稣也提到摩西是五经的作者。他那么说道：

If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me (John 5:46).

In addition to Jesus' own testimony, other New Testament passages refer to specific portions of the Pentateuch as coming from Moses. We see this in places like Mark 7:10; John 7:19; Romans 10:5 and 1 Corinthians 9:9.

你们如果信摩西，也必信我，因为他书上有指着我写的话。（约翰福音5章46节）

In reality, the New Testament support for Mosaic authorship was based on the testimony of the Old Testament. And on many occasions, Old Testament books associate the Pentateuch with Moses. For example, listen to 2 Chronicles 25:4:

事实上，新约乃是根据旧约所见证的，支持摩西的作者身份。旧约书卷有多处都把这五经与摩西连在一起。例如历代志下25章4节这么讲：

[Amaziah] acted in accordance with what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses (2 Chronicles 25:4).

Similar Old Testament passages also associate Moses with the Pentateuch, including verses like 2 Chronicles 35:12; Ezra 3:2 and 6:18; and Nehemiah 8:1 and 13:1.

亚玛谢是照摩西律法书上……所吩咐而行。（历代志下25章4节）

旧约还有其他的经文把摩西与这五经相联，例如：历代志下35章12节；以斯拉记3章2节，和6章18节；还有尼希米记8章1节和13章1节。

We should also note that the testimony of the New Testament and Old Testament in general is based on what the Pentateuch itself says about its author.

我们也会注意到，新约和旧约的见证一般是根据摩西五经本身说到它的作者是何许人。

Strictly speaking, most of the Pentateuch is anonymous. Except for the first verse of Deuteronomy, Moses isn't named at the beginning or the end of any of these books in a way that would indicate his authorship. But this was not uncommon in the ancient Near East. Nor was it unusual in the Scriptures. In fact, the Pentateuch itself makes explicit statements verifying that Moses received revelations from God and was responsible for the Pentateuch's composition. For instance, Exodus 24:4, tells us that Moses wrote the Book of the Covenant found in Exodus 20:18–23:33. In Leviticus 1:1-2 we learn that the regulations in Leviticus were given to Israel through Moses. In Deuteronomy 31:1 and 32:44, we're told that Moses gave the speeches contained in the book of Deuteronomy. In sum, the Pentateuch clearly and explicitly claims that Moses was actively involved in receiving and transmitting the contents of major portions of the Pentateuch.

严格说来，大部份的摩西五经没有作者署名。除了申命记1章1节以外，其他的书卷开始或是末尾都没有显示摩西的作者身份。不过，在古近东，这是很普遍的，即使在《圣经》里也并非不寻常。事实上，摩西五经有清楚叙述，证实是摩西从上帝领受启示，并且负责组合摩西五经的资料。例如出埃及记24章4节告诉我们，摩西写了出埃及记20章18节到23章33节的约书。而在利未记1章1和2节，我们看到利未记里的那些规范，是上帝透过摩西给予以色列人的。申命记31章1节和32章44节，我们读到摩西对以色列人说的话是包含在申命记里。总而言之，摩西五经清楚明述摩西是积极参与领受和传递五经大部份主要的内容。

These and many other biblical evidences explain why evangelicals have stood strong against critical speculations about the Pentateuch's authorship. Clearly, Scripture doesn't support critical reconstructions that assume the Pentateuch was written much later than the life of Moses. If we follow the testimony of the Old and New Testaments, we can rest assured that we should associate the Pentateuch with Moses.

The Pentateuch itself presents itself as being essentially Mosaic. Moses is one of the major characters, of course, from Exodus through Deuteronomy. And the text presents itself as being largely from the time of Moses. We're told in Exodus, for example … that Yahweh told Moses to write the Book of the Covenant, which is Exodus 21 to 23. We're told in the book of Leviticus that we've got a series of speeches and laws presented from Moses. Moses is the main character in the book of Numbers, of course. In the book of Deuteronomy we've got a series of speeches that Moses delivered, and we're told several times within the book of Deuteronomy that Moses wrote this section and handed it to the priests. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy as a whole per se, but the book of Deuteronomy itself tells us that significant portions of the book, the bulk of the book, Moses wrote and then handed to the priests. So, for example, in Deuteronomy, whether or not he was the final author or the final narrator, we may have at least 90% of the book that Moses himself wrote. [Dr. Gordon H. Johnston]

——哥顿·约翰逊博士

Having seen that the basic concept of Mosaic authorship is supported by biblical evidence, we should turn to a second consideration. What do modern evangelicals mean by essential Mosaic authorship?

我们已经看过了《圣经》证据支持摩西的作者身份这个基本观点，现在要来探讨第二个议题，现代福音派学者认为的摩西是主要作者到底是什么意思。

Bullet: Essential Mosaic Authorship

As evangelicals responded to critical views on the Pentateuch, they refined their responses in a variety of ways. But by the middle of the twentieth century, it became common to speak of "essential Mosaic authorship" of the Pentateuch.

摩西是主要作者

针对批判学者对于摩西五经的论点，福音派学者以不同方式回应。到了二十世纪中期，所谓的「摩西是主要作者」已经成为惯常的说辞了。

Listen to the way Edward J. Young summarized this outlook in his Introduction to the Old Testament, published in 1949:

爱德华·杨格在他1949年出版的著作《旧约概论》总结这个观点，他这么写着：

When we affirm that Moses wrote … the Pentateuch, we do not mean that he himself necessarily wrote every word… [He may] have employed parts of previously existing written documents. Also, under divine inspiration, there may have been later minor additions and even revisions. Substantially and essentially, however, it is the product of Moses.

Now, evangelicals have understood the details of this outlook on Moses' authorship in a variety of ways. But to one degree or another, we speak of "essential Mosaic authorship" to remind ourselves of three factors that we must always keep in mind: the sources Moses used, the process by which the Pentateuch was written, and the updating of the Pentateuch that took place after the days of Moses. Let's consider first the sources Moses used.

Sources. The Scriptures tell us that God revealed himself to Moses in different ways. For instance, God wrote the original Ten Commandments with his own finger. And the Book of the Covenant contains the laws that God gave Moses on Mount Sinai. But, as with many other parts of Scripture, there are indications that Moses also used additional sources as he wrote the Pentateuch.

On the one hand, he probably drew from a variety of oral traditions. For instance, in all likelihood Moses learned some things from his birth mother and extended family during his early childhood. Moreover, we see in Exodus 18:17-24 that Moses was quite receptive to instruction from his father-in-law, Jethro the Midianite.

Any time we talk about oral traditions behind any part of the Pentateuch, including the primeval history or some other part, it's a bit nebulous because there is obviously no concrete evidence for it. That's what it means when you say it's "oral", it means nothing was written down. But when you think about it for just a minute, we know a couple of things that help us realize that Moses probably did not just simply one day think up these stories, nor did God probably just tell him these stories one day without any kind of oral background. One evidence of that is just the fact that primitive cultures even today depend a lot on storytelling, a lot on repetition from generation to generation of ancient stories of their peoples, and this is often paralleled back to biblical times when people would do similar sorts of things. And the most concrete evidence we have of that in the Pentateuch, as a whole, is the way that the stories that are found in Exodus and Numbers are repeated often in the book of Deuteronomy.

And in the book of Deuteronomy, we're given the context where Moses is giving speeches or giving sermons that include elements that we find also in the book of Exodus and Numbers. But the interesting thing about them is while they're similar they're not exactly the same. And so, there was a culture in the days of Moses, there was a culture in Israel in those days, of taking stories from the past or taking tales from the past, things that had happened and how they'd been passed down from generation to generation and then using them in specific ways in the context where you lived. And of course, you know Moses grew up in his mother's home in the early years of his life, and this of course would have given him stories to know about his ancestors, know about his identity as a Hebrew, know his identity as one who descended from Abraham. And, of course, as Moses would interact with the elders of Israel, even upon his return from his time with Jethro, he would have been learning even more stories that were distinctive to his ancestry. And so, there's good reason to think that Moses did, in fact, depend on oral traditions, or stories that were told from generation to generation, as he wrote different parts of the Pentateuch. [Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.]

在申命记里，我们从上下文看到当摩西对以色列百姓讲话时，他的话语里包含一些我们可以在出埃及记和民数记里读到的片段记载。不过很有意思的是，即使这些故事很类似，却又不是完全相同。因此这显示摩西时代的文化，或是那时代以色列的文化，是会把过去发生事迹，那些昔日的故事，一代一代的传递下去；然后又会以独特的方式，把那些事迹应用在他们当时生活的景况里。比如，我们知道摩西小时候是与他自己生母生活在一起，因此有机会听到关于他先祖的一些故事，知道他自己身为希伯来人的身份，是亚伯拉罕的后裔之一。还有，当摩西后来和以色列的长老来往，甚至与岳父叶忒罗的生活，都让他知道更多关乎他祖先的独特事迹。因此，我们有理由相信，当摩西书写五经的时候，有些部份他是根据那些口述的故事，就是代代相传下来的故事。

——理查德·伯瑞特博士

The influence of oral traditions explains a remarkable feature of Moses' call at the burning bush. Listen to what took place in Exodus 3:13, 16:

口语传述的影响足以解释当摩西在燃烧的荆棘前蒙召的一个不寻常记载。我们看出埃及记3章13和16节这么写着：

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" … "[S]ay to them, 'The Lord, the God of your fathers — the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — appeared to me'" (Exodus 3:13, 16).

Notice that God simply told Moses to refer to him as "the Lord" — or Yahweh — "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Someone must have taught Moses about the divine name Yahweh and the traditions of the patriarchs. Otherwise, God's statement would have raised countless questions in Moses' mind. But, as we see here, Moses was so well prepared to receive God's directive that he never raised any questions about it.

We can be even more confident that Moses' sources also included independent documents when he composed the Pentateuch. We see this in places like Exodus 24:7. This verse indicates that Moses wrote "the Book of the Covenant" as an independent document that he later included in the book of Exodus. And in Numbers 21:14-15, Moses quoted geographical references from an existing book known as "the Book of the Wars of the Lord."

In addition to this, in Genesis 5:1, we read what is likely an explicit reference to an external literary source called "the book of the generations of Adam." As this literal translation indicates, Moses probably referred to information that he acquired from an actual "book" or "scroll" — sepher in Hebrew — about Adam's descendants.

除此之外，创世记5章1节, 经文很明确提到一个外在的文献资料，是所谓的亚当族谱。按着文句看来，摩西可能是说他是从一个实际的书卷希伯来文的赛弗 סֵ֔פֶר中，得知亚当后裔的资料。

Moreover, Exodus 17:14 refers to a record of battle. In this verse, God commanded Moses:

还有，出埃及记17章14节，提到某个争战的记录。在那句经文里，上帝命令摩西：

Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it (Exodus 17:14).

God's command to Moses indicates that Moses independently recorded at least some events before he wrote the Pentateuch as a whole.

你要将这话写在书上作纪念，又念给约书亚听。(出埃及记17章14节）

上帝给予摩西的命令显示出，摩西在书写五经之前，可能先个别的记录了一些事迹。

When you take a look at the Pentateuch it appears that, especially in the case of the book of Genesis, Moses was actually incorporating very ancient documents. We know Moses would have known, actually, four languages. Moses knew Egyptian. He also knew Hebrew because he was raised in a Hebrew family; his mother was his own wet nurse. We also know that he would have known the common language of that day, the international trade and diplomatic language called Akkadian. And he also would have known Aramaic, because Aramaic is a language that the Israelites spoke in their early days — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so on. So, Moses was a very, very well-trained, well-educated person, and it appears from the way that he structured the book of Genesis that he's telling us he was using certain documents, because ten times he says to us, "These are the generations of…" or "These are the accounts of…" so-and-so. And it appears that those are accounts that he had access to, that he had preserved, that he had translated, perhaps, from some original language, partly Aramaic, perhaps, or earlier Canaanite, into the Hebrew that he wrote in for the people that he was writing Genesis for. Not necessarily was this the case after Genesis. Once you get to Leviticus and Numbers and so on, and certainly Exodus and Deuteronomy, once you get the final four books of the Pentateuch, Moses is composing those on site, on the scene. He's right there; he's making it happen. And more importantly, God's making it happen, because the bulk of those books is God's words through his prophet. [Dr. Douglas Stuart]

——道格拉斯·斯图亚特博士

In addition to acknowledging oral and literary sources for the Pentateuch, when evangelicals speak of essential Mosaic authorship they also acknowledge that the Pentateuch was actually written down through a complex process.

Process. To begin with, Moses delivered much of the Pentateuch through oral recitation before it was actually written down. His speeches in Exodus and Deuteronomy provide us with explicit examples of this. And it's likely that other portions of the Pentateuch were also delivered to Israel orally at first and then written down later.

It's also very likely that Moses employed amanuenses — secretaries or scribes — to compose the Pentateuch. We know that Moses was educated in the courts of Egypt. So, he would have been familiar with the well-established practice of using scribes and secretaries for writing official documents. As Israel's leader, Moses probably commissioned amanuenses to write much, if not all of the Pentateuch under his supervision.

Scripture is clear that other inspired biblical writers also employed secretaries. For instance, in Jeremiah 36:4, the prophet Jeremiah explicitly instructed his disciple Baruch to write down his words.

《圣经》也清楚说到其他的《圣经》作者也雇用秘书从事书写工作。例如耶利米书36章4节提到，先知耶利米指示他的门徒巴录把他说的话写下来。

We can see evidence of this practice primarily in the Pentateuch's uneven literary styles. For instance, the narrative styles that appear in various portions of Genesis are quite different from each other. And we see remarkable differences between the formulaic and repetitious Hebrew of Deuteronomy and all the other books of the Pentateuch. In all probability, variations like these reflect the work of different scribes.

Essential Mosaic authorship concerns not only the sources and the process Moses used, but also the updating of the Pentateuch after the time of Moses.

摩西是主要作者这个观点不只着重摩西写五经采用的资料来源和书写过程，也涉及摩西之后，五经的补充修正。

Updating. As we've seen, critical interpreters treat the entire Pentateuch as reaching its final form after Israel's return from exile. But evangelicals have held that the Pentateuch originated in the days of Moses. Still, there are some portions of the Pentateuch that represent slight editorial updating after the days of Moses.

Now, we have to be very careful as we date particular elements of the Pentateuch. For instance, some interpreters have suggested that every passage that mentions "Philistines" must have been written after the days of Moses. But this point of view is less than convincing for at least three reasons. First, the archeological data for the presence of Philistines in the region is disputed. Second, Moses may have used the term "Philistine" (which means "traveler") as a sociological designation. And third, even if the term "Philistine" was not known in Moses' day, it's always possible that the use of "Philistine" simply represents a slight updating to aid audiences after the days of Moses.

In a similar way, interpreters have argued that the list of Edomite rulers in Genesis 36:31-43 goes far beyond Moses' lifetime. But the identifications of Edom's rulers listed in Genesis are not certain. And it's also possible that these passages merely contain slight extensions of lists added after Moses' time.

One clear example of minor updating in the Pentateuch appears in Genesis 14:14. There we read:

摩西五经里，一个微修订的明显例子是在创世记14章14节，那里写着：

When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan (Genesis 14:14).

亚伯兰听见他侄儿被掳去，就率领他家里生养的精练壮丁三百一十八人，直追到但。(创世记14章14节)

This passage says that Abraham pursued his enemies "as far as Dan." But we learn in Joshua 19:47 that this northern region wasn't named Dan until the days of Joshua. So, the Scriptures themselves indicate that Genesis 14:14 reflects an updated place name. This type of modernization would have helped later readers associate the story of Abraham with geography they knew. And it's likely that a number of other passages in the Pentateuch were updated in this same way as well.

Perhaps the best known and most significant updating found in the Pentateuch is the record of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34. But even here, we have little more than an appendix explaining what happened to Israel's lawgiver.

In addition to minor updates like these, the Pentateuch's language was also updated as the Hebrew language developed. Recent research strongly suggests that Moses wrote in a language that scholars have called "proto-Hebrew." Evidence from international documents found in Egypt, known as the "Amarna letters" indicates that this form of Hebrew was closely related to Canaanite dialects used in Moses' day. But this language was much earlier than what we find in the traditional Hebrew text of the Pentateuch.

The question of the language of the Old Testament is a fascinating one. When did this language… Where did it come from? Where did it emerge? It is one that has puzzled people for a long time, because the evidence on the ground from archeology, is there even Hebrew writing, ancient Hebrew? And we do have quite a bit of texts that have been excavated in the recent past, in the twentieth century. And, but they all come late. They come later than the Mosaic time… And so, what do you do with that? Well, we have evidence during the thirteen hundreds, fourteenth century B.C. that there was a whole diplomatic correspondence, an archive that was excavated, not in Canaan, the land of Israel — that will become the land of Israel — but in Egypt… And they write in Akkadian, which is a language that really originates from Mesopotamia, but it's the lingua franca, it's the international language of diplomacy of the time. But they're Cannanites, they're local guys writing to their rulers in Egypt, and they have little margin notes that they have there, and this is written in Canaanite. And then that's our connection. The Canaanite language is then what connects us to the Hebrew of the Mosaic time. Now, of course, we don't have any record, we don't have anything left of the Hebrew of the Mosaic era, but that's our connection, that's our bridge. So, it goes from the Canaanite margin notes that we have to the Hebrew of Moses' time to the Hebrew that we know as standard biblical Hebrew in which most of the pre-exilic Hebrew and the text of preceding the exiles come from. So, that's our connection. It's an indirect one, but it's a real one, and it's a substantial one. [Dr. Tom Petter]

——汤姆•皮特博士

During the time of Israel's monarchs, between 1000 B.C. and 600 B.C., the language had developed into what is now called "old" or "Paleo-Hebrew." Many scholars would agree that portions of the Pentateuch resemble this stage of Hebrew, such as parts of Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy 32.

But the vast majority of the Pentateuch very closely resembles the vocabulary, spelling, and grammar of what we now call "Classical Hebrew," a stage in the development of Hebrew that was in use sometime between the mid-eighth and the early sixth centuries B.C.

From this evidence, it would appear that the Proto-Hebrew that Moses himself used was updated to Paleo-Hebrew. Then it was later modernized into Classical Hebrew as we have it now in the Hebrew Bible.

这个例证显示，摩西本人所使用的原始希伯来文，后来是修订为古希伯来文，再演化到如今希伯来文《圣经》里的经典希伯来文。

It's always important to remember that in the days of Jesus and his apostles and prophets, the Hebrew of the Pentateuch had already gone through these kinds of changes. But this fact didn't dissuade Jesus or his followers from treating the Pentateuch of their day as faithfully representing what Moses himself wrote. So, as followers of Christ today, we can rest assured that the Pentateuch, as we have it now, faithfully represents Moses' original writings.

So far, we've looked at modern evangelical outlooks and touched on some important presuppositions that evangelicals bring to the Pentateuch. And we've considered how evangelicals view the authorship of this part of the Bible. Now, let's note some of the ways these outlooks have affected the interpretive strategies that evangelicals follow.

Interpretative Strategies

There are many ways to describe these interpretive strategies, but we'll speak of three main directions that evangelicals have pursued. First we'll consider what we may call thematic interpretation. Then we'll explore historical interpretation. And finally, we'll investigate literary interpretation. These three strategies are highly interdependent and never operate apart from each other. But they represent different emphases, so it will help to look at them individually, beginning with thematic interpretation.

解经方式

Thematic

In thematic interpretation, we hold up the Pentateuch like a mirror to reflect on issues that are important to us. Evangelicals have legitimately emphasized certain topics or themes in this part of the Bible. But as we'll see, every book in the Pentateuch has its own sets of priorities. So, Moses himself may or may not have emphasized these themes. This approach has characterized much of Christian interpretation throughout the millennia.

主题

The list of themes that Christians have emphasized is very long. Some have stressed personal questions and current controversies. Others have used the Pentateuch as support for their views in traditional systematic theology. For instance, the Pentateuch reveals many things about God. It also spends a great deal of time on different aspects of humanity. And it gives a lot of attention to the rest of creation in general.

Now, one of the greatest drawbacks to thematic interpretation is that it often minimizes the fact that Moses' original themes were for the Israelites who followed him toward the Promised Land. And because little attention is given to this original context, thematic interpretations often do little more than draw attention to minor themes.

Still, we should always keep in mind that the New Testament validates this approach to the Pentateuch. Jesus and New Testament authors looked to the books of Moses when they dealt with themes like justification by faith, divorce, faith and works, and a host of other relatively minor themes in this part of the Bible. So, as long as we're careful not to read themes into these Scriptures, thematic interpretation can be a valuable approach to the Pentateuch.

In addition to the interpretive strategy of thematic interpretation, it's also been common for evangelicals to explore the Pentateuch with what we may call historical interpretation.

除了主题解经这个解经方式，福音派学者通常称探讨五经的另一个方式，我们可称之为历史解经。

Historical

Evangelicals not only believe that the theological themes of the Pentateuch are true. But, following the examples of Jesus and his apostles and prophets, we also believe that the Pentateuch's record of history is true. For this reason, evangelicals have often interpreted the Pentateuch as a means of discovering what happened in the past.

历史

We've mentioned that thematic interpretive strategies treat the Pentateuch like a mirror that reflects on themes that are of interest to us. But, historical analysis treats the Pentateuch like a window to history. We look through the books of Moses, as it were, to explore the history that lies behind them.

Genesis traces history from creation to the days of Joseph. Exodus' main storyline extends from the death of Joseph to the time when Israel encamped with Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai. Leviticus elaborates on some of the laws and rituals that Moses received while at Mount Sinai. Numbers traces the march of the first and second generations of the exodus from Mount Sinai to the Plains of Moab. And Deuteronomy elaborates on Moses' speeches to Israel on the plains of Moab, as they were about to enter Canaan. In historical interpretation, evangelicals have capitalized on this rather obvious historical orientation.

As valuable as historical interpretation has been, this approach to the Pentateuch has its limitations as well. Much like thematic analysis, historical interpretation gives relatively little attention to Moses and his original audience. Instead, the orientation is toward what God did in different periods of time before the books of the Pentateuch were written. What did God do with Adam and Eve? What was the significance of Noah's flood? How did Abraham interact with God? What did God accomplish when Israel crossed the sea? These are legitimate pursuits, but they minimize the significance of Moses as the author and Israel as the original audience.

Clearly, evangelicals have benefitted in many ways from thematic interpretation and historical interpretation of the Pentateuch. But in recent decades, a third orientation has moved to the foreground, what we may call literary interpretation.

福音派信徒从五经的主题解经和历史解经受益很多，但是过去几十年来，第三个解经方式成为显著趋势，我们称之为文学解经。

Literary

As we've seen, thematic analysis treats the Pentateuch as a mirror that reflects on themes that are important to us. Historical analysis treats the Pentateuch as a window to historical events prior to the writing of the Pentateuch. By contrast, literary analysis treats the Pentateuch as a portrait, a literary work of art designed to impact its original audience in particular ways. Essentially, literary interpretation asks: How did Moses intend to impact his original Israelite audience as he wrote the Pentateuch?

文学

It's fair to say that Moses had many purposes. But it helps to describe these purposes in general terms. So, we'll describe Moses' goal in this way: As Israel's God-ordained leader,

公平而论摩西写五经是有许多的目的，但概括一下这些目的对大家会有益处。为此，我们可以描述摩西的目标：身为上帝命定的领袖，

Moses wrote the Pentateuch to prepare Israel for faithful service to God in the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land.

Rather than touching on an assortment of themes in the abstract, or dealing with events out of mere historical interests, in one way or another every theme and historical record in the Pentateuch was designed to accomplish this goal.

摩西写五经，为的是装备以色列人，在他们征服应许之地，并且在那里定居时，能够忠心的事奉上帝。

摩西并不只是谈到一些抽象的主题，或是仅仅记载一些历史事件，而是借着这五经里的每个主题和历史故事来达成他的目标。

Literary interpretation acknowledges that Moses stood between two periods of time as he composed the Pentateuch. On the one side, Moses wrote about what we may call "that world," events that had taken place in the past. Events in the book of Genesis occurred long before Moses' day. Exodus and Leviticus concentrate on events during the time of the first generation of the exodus from Egypt. Numbers and Deuteronomy include events in the time of the first generation to the days of the second generation. When Moses wrote each book of the Pentateuch he had these various times from the past in mind.

On the other side, however, Moses also wrote for "their world," for the days of his original audience. Moses drew from the past of "that world" to teach his audience how they should think, act, and feel in service to God in "their world." To accomplish this goal, Moses wrote about "that world" in ways that would connect it with "their world."

Moses connected the past to his original audience in three main ways. He gave them accounts of the past that established the background or origins of his audience's current experiences. He also provided them with models to imitate and reject. And he shaped his accounts as foreshadows or adumbrations of his audience's world.

At times, Moses made these connections rather explicit. For instance, in Genesis 15:12-16, Moses told his audience about the background of God's promise to bring them out of Egypt. This promise was being fulfilled in their day. In Genesis 2:24, Moses explained that Adam and Eve's marriage was a model for marriage among God's faithful people. And in Genesis 25:23, Moses reported that the wrestling between Jacob and Esau in their mother's womb was a foreshadow of the struggle between his original Israelite audience and the Edomites in their day.

Explicit connections between "that world" and "their world" appear here and there in the Pentateuch. But for the most part, these connections were implicit. So, one of the chief tasks of literary interpretation is to discern how Moses connected "that world" of the past to "their world" of his original audience.

For millennia, the interpretation of the Pentateuch has stressed thematic and historical strategies far more than literary analysis. So, in our lessons on the books of Moses, we'll devote most of our time to literary interpretation. We'll unpack how Moses shaped the content of each of his books to provide backgrounds, models and foreshadows of his audience's experiences. We'll explore what Moses emphasized for his original audience, how he connected the content of his books to their lives, and how he led his original Israelite audience toward faithful service to God in their day.

CONCLUSION

In this introduction to the Pentateuch we've examined some crucial features of modern critical approaches to this part of the Bible. We've considered how the presuppositions of critical interpreters have led to certain views of the Pentateuch's authorship and particular kinds of interpretations. We've also looked at modern evangelical outlooks and seen how the presuppositions of modern evangelicals have led to a very different view of authorship and interpretation.

四、总结

As we continue to explore the Pentateuch, we'll see these introductory considerations move to the foreground many times. And as they do, we'll find ourselves better equipped to deal with this foundational part of the Bible. Along the way, we'll consider questions like: Why did Moses write each book of the Pentateuch? What was the original purpose for these books? What were the implications of the Pentateuch for Moses' original audience? By answering these kinds of questions, we'll discover crucial orientations toward Moses' original meaning. And not only will we see how the first five books of the Bible served as the earliest standard of Israel's faith in the days of Moses, but we'll also discover how these books should serve as the standard of our faith as we follow Christ today.

网址：

神学教育

下一篇：这是最后一篇

上一篇：这是第一篇

我们日用的饮食

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN——第一课 摩西五经引论

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN——第一课 摩西五经引论

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN——第一课摩西五经引论

旧约研究3——摩西五经 PEN——第一课摩西五经引论