|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
The following book has been extracted from Turrettin’s Institutio Theologiae Elencticae.
以下这本书摘自吐尔泰英的《论辩神学纲要》。
中文下载
The title of this section is 21 “questions” about Scripture Locus II of Institutio of Theologiae Elencticae, Beardslee, J.(ed. & trans.), (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981) scanned by Paul Rittman
这一部分的标题是关于圣经的21个”问题”，出自《论辩神学纲要》第二教义要点，贝尔兹利编译，（大急流城：贝克书屋，1981年）保罗·里特曼扫描。
Reading Reformed works on Scripture (here I would group Calvin’s Institutes, William Whitaker’s Disputations on the Holy Scriptures, as well as Turretin) can be very illuminating, and presents a rather different perspective on Scripture than many modern writers (1).
阅读改革宗关于圣经的著作（这里我会将加尔文的《基督教要义》、威廉·惠特克的《圣经争辩》以及吐尔泰英归为一类）能够非常有启发性，并呈现出与许多现代作者相当不同的圣经观点(1)。
While this article is providing a brief introduction to Turretin, what I’m saying below could just as well be said of the others mentioned above.
虽然这篇文章提供了对吐尔泰英的简要介绍，但我下面所说的同样适用于上面提到的其他人。
One theme is the presuppositional approach to the Bible, which was used in addition to the more evidentialist approaches more popular now.
一个主题是对圣经的前设方法，这种方法是在现在更流行的证据主义方法之外使用的。
Presuppositionalism, as a methodology, is not merely something that the Reformers utilized.
前设主义作为一种方法论，不仅仅是改教家们所使用的东西。
It was foundational to Reformation theology (2).
它是改教神学的根基(2)。
Look at Turretin’s thoughts on the Bible’s inspiration, for example.
例如，看看吐尔泰英对圣经默示的思考。
In question He doesn’t attempt to prove its inspiration, or even, simply to demonstrate that such a view is reasonable (in contrast to modern evangelicals, who will argue that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and that prophetic writings were indeed written before the events predicted, and so, based on these premises, that the inspiration of the Bible is a valid conclusion).
在问题中，他没有试图证明圣经的默示性，甚至没有简单地证明这种观点是合理的（与现代福音派形成对比，他们会论证相信耶稣从死里复活是合理的，预言性著作确实在预言事件发生之前就被写成，因此基于这些前提，圣经的默示性是一个有效结论）。
Instead, Turretin (in Question 6, Section 8) places the Bible’s inspiration in the Aristotelian category of First Principles (which have to be assumed, and cannot be proven or disproven).
相反，吐尔泰英（在第6问第8节）将圣经的默示性归入亚里士多德的第一原理范畴（这必须被假设，不能被证明或反证）。
He also writes of the witness of the Holy Spirit, in the minds and hearts of the regenerate, to Scripture’s inspiration(3).
他也写到圣灵在重生者的心思和心灵中对圣经默示性的见证(3)。
Both of these approaches are presuppositional, as opposed to evidential.
这两种方法都是前设性的，而非证据性的。
In short, they are part of a paradigm or world-view, as opposed to propositions that can be proved or disproved to skeptics.
简而言之，它们是范式或世界观的一部分，而不是可以向怀疑论者证明或反证的命题。
A second approach taken by Turretin might be surprising to those who have not studied Reformation bibliology-its “tiered” understanding of authoritative Scripture.
吐尔泰英采用的第二种方法可能会让那些没有研究过改教圣经学的人感到惊讶——它对权威圣经的”分层”理解。
In contrast to the Roman theologians of their day (and the KJV advocates of today), Turretin held that the original Hebrew and Greek readings had not been lost, but were located in the majority of the manuscripts that were available.
与他们那个时代的罗马神学家（以及今天的钦定版支持者）不同，吐尔泰英认为原始的希伯来文和希腊文读本并没有失传，而是存在于可获得的大多数抄本中。
He did not argue that any or every copy was perfect, but only that such errors could be easily straightened out by a diligent sifting through the various manuscripts.
他没有论证任何或每一份抄本都是完美的，而只是说这些错误可以通过勤勉地筛选各种抄本而轻易纠正。
Turretin was very clear that if the original readings had in fact been lost in the course of history, there would be no way of knowing which readings were in fact original, and no way of knowing whether in fact the Latin Vulgate was or was not, a pure copy of the original texts.
吐尔泰英非常清楚地说，如果原始读本在历史进程中确实失传了，就没有办法知道哪些读本实际上是原始的，也没有办法知道拉丁文武加大译本实际上是否是原文的纯净副本。
He didn’t simply uphold the value of Bibles translated into the common tongue, over against the Vulgate.
他不仅仅是支持翻译成通用语言的圣经的价值，以反对武加大译本。
He also argued that the Vulgate itself was a corruption of the original text, which could be known and determined by comparing the Hebrew and Greek readings with the Vulgate.
他还论证武加大译本本身就是原文的讹误，这可以通过比较希伯来文和希腊文读本与武加大译本来了解和确定。
This primacy of the original languages was necessary for any certainty about the accuracy of translated Bibles.
这种原文语言的首要地位对于确定翻译圣经准确性的任何确定性都是必要的。
And so Reformed bibliology recognized a tiered system of authority.
因此改革宗圣经学认可一个分层的权威体系。
On the upper level are the manuscript copies of Hebrew and Greek, which could be used to create or correct vernacular translations.
在上层是希伯来文和希腊文的抄本副本，这些可以用来创作或纠正方言译本。
Secondary to this were the vernacular translations themselves, which were to be read and studied by the faithful as God’s inspired word, but which could not be used to correct the original tongues, and might even have errors in them (the translations).
次于此的是方言译本本身，这些要被信徒作为神的默示话语来阅读和研读，但不能用来纠正原文，甚至可能在其中（译本）有错误。
A third approach is the role that inspiration plays in their view of the transmission of the biblical text throughout history.
第三种方法是默示在他们对圣经文本在历史中传承的看法中所起的作用。
Because the Bible is inspired, one would expect that such God-breathed Words would not die out or be lost in history.
因为圣经是默示的，人们会期望这样神所呼出的话语不会在历史中消失或失传。
No attempt is made to prove this evidentially; this concept of the preservation of Scripture is deduced from the Bible’s inspiration.
没有尝试用证据来证明这一点；这种圣经保存的概念是从圣经的默示性推演出来的。
Of course it is true that the Reformers believed that the true, original Greek and Hebrew readings had been preserved in the majority of the manuscripts; yet this was a belief that did not arise from a comparison among the majority of the manuscripts, or a consultation of very early manuscripts.
当然，改教家们确实相信真正的、原始的希腊文和希伯来文读本已经在大多数抄本中得到保存；然而这是一种信念，并非来自大多数抄本之间的比较，或对很早期抄本的查阅。
Their approach stands in sharp contrast to modern textual criticism, which holds that while most of the true original readings have survived in the majority of the Greek manuscripts, that a large percentage died out and were overtaken by (mainly) additions from scribes over the centuries.
他们的方法与现代文本批判形成鲜明对比，后者认为虽然大多数真正的原始读本在大多数希腊文抄本中得以存活，但有很大比例消失了，并被几个世纪以来文士的（主要）添加所取代。
Now I am not about to suggest that in order to be truly “Reformed,” or even “orthodox,” one cannot subscribe to modern-day textual criticism.
现在我不打算暗示为了成为真正的”改革宗”，甚至”正统”，人就不能赞同现代文本批判。
Nor do I suggest that the Reformers were infallible (in their textual theories or otherwise).
我也不暗示改教家们是无误的（在他们的文本理论或其他方面）。
As a credo-baptist I couldn’t hold that position for long.
作为一个信条浸礼会者，我不能长期持有那种立场。
But their arguments here do deserve a hearing.
但他们在这里的论证确实值得听取。
It is unfortunate that modern theories of textual criticism are the only ones heard by so many people.
遗憾的是，现代文本批判理论是许多人听到的唯一理论。
As a matter of fact, Turretin in Question 12, identified two methodologies in textual criticism.
事实上，吐尔泰英在第12问中识别了文本批判中的两种方法论。
One, used for the critical text, was to use human reason in comparing different manuscripts or versions, even to the point of making conjectural emendations.
一种，用于批判文本的，是使用人的理性来比较不同的抄本或版本，甚至到了进行推测性修正的程度。
The second was to accept as divinely inspired, the words of the Greek and Hebrew texts, which does not place human reason on a level of authority with God.
第二种是接受希腊文和希伯来文本的话语为神圣默示的，这不会将人的理性置于与神同等的权威水平。
As he continued to argue, if indeed we are able to correct the Hebrew MSS, then there is no way that it can be authoritative, because any word we don’t like can be eliminated.
正如他继续论证的，如果我们确实能够纠正希伯来文抄本，那么就没有办法让它成为权威的，因为任何我们不喜欢的词都可以被删除。
None of the above is to suggest that the only thoughts we need to think about the Bible, were written down by the Reformers.
以上所述并不是要暗示我们需要对圣经思考的唯一思想都是由改教家们写下的。
For example, the works done from a more evidentialist perspective (justifying Christian claims of the Bible’s inspiration and reliability) in recent years has provided solid answers to people (Christians and non-Christians alike) asking legitimate and fair questions about the Bible.
例如，近年来从更多证据主义角度所做的工作（为基督徒关于圣经默示性和可靠性的主张进行辩护）为询问关于圣经的合法和公正问题的人们（基督徒和非基督徒都包括）提供了坚实的答案。
But without paying attention to the answers to these questions that Turretin and his ilk gave, we run the risk of re-inventing the wheel (at best), by refusing to learn from the warriors of the faith who stood before us.
但如果不注意吐尔泰英及其同类对这些问题所给出的答案，我们就冒着（充其量）重新发明轮子的风险，因为拒绝从在我们之前站立的信仰战士身上学习。
- These same ideas can be seen also in Chapter 1, Section 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
- 这些相同的观念也可以在《威斯敏斯德信条》第一章第八节中看到。
- This is not the place to discuss the advantages of either presuppositional or evidential approaches to defending and articulating the faith (and each side does have its advantages). I only wish to highlight here differences between the more presuppositional approach of the Reformers, and the more modern evidentialist approach.
- 这里不是讨论前设或证据方法在为信仰辩护和阐明方面的优势的地方（每一方都有其优势）。我只想在这里强调改教家们更多前设方法与更现代的证据主义方法之间的差异。
- His arguments here are rather similar to Calvin’s, in his Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 7.
- 他在这里的论证与加尔文在其《基督教要义》第一卷第七章中的论证相当相似。
Table of Contents
目录
Introduction: Questions on The Doctrine of Scripture. 3
引言：关于圣经教义的问题。第3页
The Necessity of Verbal Revelation. 5
言语启示的必要性。第5页
The Necessity of Scripture. 7
圣经的必要性。第7页
The Divine Imperative of Written Revelation. 10
成文启示的神圣命令。第10页
The Authority of Scripture. 12
圣经的权威。第12页
Apparent Contradictions in Scripture. 19
圣经中的表面矛盾。第19页
The Knowledge of Scriptural Authority. 24
圣经权威的知识。第24页
The Preservation of the Canon. 31
正典的保存。第31页
The Canonicity of the Old Testament 34
旧约的正典性。第34页
The Canonicity of the Apocrypha. 38
次经的正典性。第38页
The Purity of the Original Text 42
原文的纯正性。第42页
The Authentic Version of Scripture. 47
圣经的真实版本。第47页
The Authenticity of the Hebrew Text 51
希伯来文本的真实性。第51页
The Need of Translations. 56
翻译的需要。第56页
The Authenticity of the Septuagint 60
七十士译本的真实性。第60页
The Authenticity of the Vulgate. 63
武加大译本的真实性。第63页
The Perfection of Scripture. 66
圣经的完备性。第66页
The Perspicuity of Scripture. 73
圣经的清晰性。第73页
The Reading of Scripture. 77
圣经的阅读。第77页
The Meaning of Scripture. 79
圣经的意义。第79页
The Supreme Judge of Controversies and the Interpreter of Scripture. 83
争议的最高审判者和圣经的解释者。第83页
The Authority of the Fathers. 90
教父的权威。第90页