最近聽了高銘謙博士三節有關釋經與查經帶領的講座。我嘗試把課堂內容重新整理，寫成三篇學習筆記與反思。這三篇文章並不是逐堂筆錄，也不是要完整重述高博士所有教學內容，而是按着他在課堂中所呈現那種高度邏輯性的釋經脈絡，重新整理我所聽見的內容，再加上一些自己的思考整理。
Recently, I attended three lectures by Dr. Ko Ming Him on biblical interpretation and the leading of Bible studies. I have tried to reorganize what I learned into three essays of notes and personal reflection. These essays are not transcripts of the lectures, nor are they intended to reproduce everything Dr. Ko taught. Rather, I have tried to follow the highly logical interpretive framework he presented in class, to reorganize what I heard, and then to add some of my own reflections along the way.
多年來預備講章，我其實一直在處理「經文說甚麼」與「今天如何宣講」之間的距離。很多閱讀和判斷，做得久了，漸漸會變成一種直覺：看到重複的字會停下來，看到人物反常的反應會追問，看到敘事突然轉折，也會自然懷疑作者是否正在鋪排甚麼。高博士的課堂有意思之處，是他以很清楚的邏輯，把整個閱讀經文的過程逐層拆開，帶領我們重新檢視：當我們說自己「讀到」一段經文時，我們究竟看見了甚麼？又為甚麼偏偏看見這些東西？
Over the years, much of my sermon preparation has involved wrestling with the distance between “What does the biblical text say?” and “How should this text be proclaimed today?” After doing this kind of reading for a long time, many interpretive judgments gradually become almost instinctive. When I notice a repeated word, I tend to slow down. When a biblical character responds in an unexpected way, I begin asking why. When a narrative suddenly changes direction, I naturally wonder whether the author is deliberately preparing the reader for something. One of the things I appreciated about Dr. Ko’s lectures was the way he took this entire process of reading Scripture and carefully unpacked it, layer by layer. In doing so, he invited us to reconsider a very basic question: when we say that we have “seen” something in a biblical passage, what exactly have we seen—and why did we notice those particular things?
高博士提出，閱讀聖經時，其實涉及三個不同的世界：文本背後的世界、文本當中的世界，以及文本前面的世界。文本背後的世界，是作者及經文形成時所處的歷史、文化和社會處境；文本當中的世界，是我們實際讀到的文字、人物、事件、結構和敘事；文本前面的世界，則涉及讀者所身處的世界。這三個世界彼此相關，卻不能混為一談。我們今天讀聖經，生活在二十一世紀的加拿大，有自己的文化、教育、政治制度和生活經驗；聖經作者卻活在完全不同的時空。即使只是相隔二十年，兩代人有時已經很難彼此理解，更何況我們與古代世界相隔二千多年。如果讀者沒有意識到這種距離，很容易把自己的世界直接放進經文，以為自己所理解的，就是作者當時所說的。
Dr. Ko suggested that reading Scripture involves three distinct worlds: the world behind the text, the world within the text, and the world in front of the text. The world behind the text refers to the historical, cultural, and social circumstances in which the author lived and the biblical text took shape. The world within the text is the literary world we actually encounter—the words, characters, events, structures, and narratives before us. The world in front of the text concerns the world inhabited by the reader. These three worlds are related, but they should not simply be collapsed into one another. When we read the Bible today, we do so as people living in twenty-first-century Canada, with our own culture, education, political institutions, and life experiences. The biblical authors, however, inhabited worlds very different from ours. Sometimes people separated by only twenty years already struggle to understand one another across generations. How much greater, then, is the distance between us and people who lived more than two thousand years ago? Unless readers become conscious of that distance, it is remarkably easy to project our own world into the biblical text and then assume that what we understand is what the author was saying in the first place.
高博士用《歷代志》作為其中一個例子。《歷代志》所敘述的內容，大量涉及大衛、所羅門、聖殿及猶大諸王的歷史，換言之，文本當中的世界主要是第一聖殿時期的歷史。然而，《歷代志》的成書與編修背景，卻普遍被放在被擄後的波斯時期來理解。這就產生了一個很重要的閱讀距離：作者所重述的是第一聖殿的歷史，但他所面對的，卻是第二聖殿時期的群體。這群人經歷過亡國、被擄和歸回，重新建立聖殿，也重新思想自己究竟是誰。因此，當《歷代志》的作者再次書寫大衛、所羅門、聖殿、敬拜和尋求耶和華時，他並不是單純抄寫一段舊歷史，而是在一個新的歷史處境中重新述說以色列的過去。
Dr. Ko used Chronicles as one example. Much of Chronicles recounts the history of David, Solomon, the temple, and the kings of Judah. In other words, the world within the text is largely the history of the First Temple period. The composition and final shaping of Chronicles, however, are commonly understood against the setting of the post-exilic Persian period. This creates an important interpretive distance: the Chronicler retells the history of the First Temple while addressing a community living in the Second Temple period. This was a community that had experienced national collapse, exile, and return. They had rebuilt the temple and were once again wrestling with the question of who they were. Therefore, when the Chronicler writes again about David, Solomon, the temple, worship, and seeking the LORD, he is not simply copying an old historical record. He is retelling Israel’s past within a new historical setting.
這一點非常重要。因為如果我們只停留在文本當中的世界，可能只會問：「大衛做了甚麼？所羅門如何建殿？」但當我們意識到文本背後的世界，問題便開始改變：為甚麼一個身處第二聖殿時期的作者，要如此仔細重述第一聖殿的歷史？為甚麼他特別強調尋求耶和華、聖殿敬拜和利未人的職分？昔日的歷史，對被擄歸回後的群體究竟有甚麼意義？同一段文字，一旦放回經文形成的世界，閱讀的厚度便完全不同。
This distinction matters enormously. If we remain only within the world of the text, we may ask, “What did David do?” or “How did Solomon build the temple?” But once we become attentive to the world behind the text, our questions begin to change. Why would an author living in the Second Temple period retell the history of the First Temple with such care? Why does he place particular emphasis on seeking the LORD, temple worship, and the ministry of the Levites? What significance did Israel’s earlier history have for a community that had survived exile and returned to the land? The same words acquire an entirely different depth once they are read within the world in which the text itself took shape.
高博士又以《詩篇》作另一個例子。每一首詩篇都有自己的文本世界，也可能有自己的歷史背景。例如《詩篇》五十一篇的標題，把詩篇放在大衛與拔示巴事件，以及拿單先知責備大衛的背景之下。這是個別詩篇背後的世界。但當我們今天打開《詩篇》，我們所讀的並不是一百五十首隨意堆放在一起的詩歌。《詩篇》本身經歷收集、編排和編輯。為甚麼第一篇放在第一篇？為甚麼某些詩篇彼此相連？為甚麼十五首「上行之詩」由一百二十篇至一百三十四篇被編排在一起？這些問題已經不再只是問個別詩人的原意，而是開始留意編輯者如何讓一組詩篇彼此對話。
Dr. Ko also used the Psalms as another example. Each psalm has its own textual world and may also have its own historical setting. The superscription of Psalm 51, for instance, places the psalm in the context of David’s sin involving Bathsheba and the prophet Nathan’s confrontation of him. That is the world behind this particular psalm. Yet when we open the book of Psalms today, we are not reading 150 poems that happened to be placed together at random. The Psalter itself has undergone processes of collection, arrangement, and editing. Why is Psalm 1 placed first? Why do certain psalms appear beside one another? Why are the fifteen “Songs of Ascents,” Psalms 120–134, gathered into a single sequence? Questions such as these move beyond asking only what an individual psalmist originally intended. They also invite us to pay attention to how the editors of the Psalter arranged these poems so that they might speak to one another.
高博士特別談到「上行之詩」。這十五首詩並非全部寫於同一年代，個別詩篇可能有不同作者、不同歷史處境，但後來被收集在一起，成為一個詩篇群組。當它們被放在一起，次序本身便值得研究。讀者不再只是讀一首孤立的詩，而是沿着一條被編排的路線前進。換言之，我們有時要問的是詩人說甚麼，有時也要問編輯者為甚麼把這首詩放在這裏。不同層次的問題，所處理的是不同層次的文本世界。
Dr. Ko gave particular attention to the Songs of Ascents. These fifteen psalms were not all written in the same period. Individual psalms may have come from different authors and different historical circumstances, yet they were eventually gathered together as a recognizable collection. Once they were placed together, their sequence itself became worthy of interpretation. The reader is no longer encountering an isolated psalm but travelling along a deliberately arranged literary path. In other words, sometimes we need to ask what the psalmist is saying; at other times, we also need to ask why an editor has placed this particular psalm here. Different questions address different levels of the textual world.
這讓我重新想到一件很基本、卻很容易被信徒忽略的事情：讀經並不是眼睛看見文字，就自然等於看見經文。
This brought me back to something very basic, yet easily overlooked by Christians: reading the words on the page is not necessarily the same thing as seeing what is actually happening in the text.
高博士在課堂中又曾以《約翰福音》四章四十三至四十五節示範觀察經文。他很簡單地從5W1H開始：誰？甚麼？何時？何地？為甚麼？如何？「過了那兩天，耶穌離開那地方，往加利利去。」誰離開？耶穌。離開哪裏？「那地方」。往哪裏？加利利。甚麼時候？過了兩天。做了甚麼？離開、前往。這些問題看起來非常基本，甚至簡單得令人以為沒有甚麼學問，但它們的作用，是迫使讀者先停留在經文之中，把實際存在於文本的資料逐一看清楚。
In class, Dr. Ko also used John 4:43–45 to demonstrate the observation of a biblical text. He began very simply with 5W1H: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? “After the two days, Jesus departed from there for Galilee.” Who departed? Jesus. From where? “There.” Where was he going? Galilee. When? After two days. What did he do? He departed and went elsewhere. These questions can seem so elementary that we may wonder whether there is anything particularly scholarly about them. Yet their purpose is to force the reader to remain with the text long enough to identify carefully the information that is actually there.
問題是，觀察是否真的完全客觀？高博士提出了一個很有意思的提醒：我們總要帶着某種框架進入經文，才可能把某些資料「勾」出來。當我問Who，我會看見人物；問Where，我會看見地點；問When，我開始留意時間。如果我不再使用5W1H，而改用「比較」作為閱讀框架，我看見的東西又會不同。
But is observation ever completely objective? Dr. Ko offered an important reminder: we always approach a text with some kind of framework, and it is through that framework that certain features of the text are “caught” by our attention. If I ask Who?, I begin noticing people. If I ask Where?, locations come into focus. If I ask When?, I begin paying attention to time. But suppose I stop using 5W1H and instead use “comparison” as my reading framework. I may begin to see something different.
仍然以《約翰福音》四章為例。當我們開始比較，就可能留意「離開」與「前往」；再讀四十四至四十五節，則會看見「沒有人尊敬」與「接待他」之間的張力。一邊是先知在自己的家鄉不受尊敬，另一邊卻是加利利人接待耶穌。當「比較」這個框架被放進經文，一些原本容易快速讀過的關係便開始浮現。若使用「分段」，我們又會開始留意一個段落從哪裏開始、在哪裏結束，某一句究竟承接上文，還是開啟下文。
Still using John 4 as an example, once we begin comparing elements in the passage, we may notice the relationship between “departed” and “went.” Then, as we read verses 44 and 45, we may notice the tension between receiving “no honour” and being “welcomed.” On one side, a prophet receives no honour in his own country; on the other, the Galileans welcome Jesus. Once “comparison” becomes part of our reading framework, relationships that might otherwise have been passed over quickly begin to emerge. If we use literary segmentation as another framework, we begin to notice where a unit starts and where it ends, and whether a particular sentence concludes what came before or introduces what follows.
因此，所謂「觀察經文」，其實沒有我們想像中那麼簡單。讀者不是一部掃描器，把經文所有資料平均地接收進來。我們總會留意某些東西，也忽略某些東西；某些字會引起我們注意，另一些細節則可能讀過十次仍然沒有看見。高博士的意思並不是說，既然人人都有框架，釋經就變成純粹主觀；相反，正因為我們知道自己需要框架，所以更要學習使用受約束、有紀律的閱讀方法，讓文本本身不斷修正我們。
“Observing the text,” then, is far less simple than it first appears. Readers are not scanners that receive every piece of textual information equally. We notice some things and overlook others. Certain words attract our attention, while other details may remain invisible even after ten readings. Dr. Ko’s point was not that, because everyone reads through some kind of framework, biblical interpretation must therefore be purely subjective. Quite the opposite. Precisely because we recognize that frameworks are unavoidable, we need disciplined and accountable ways of reading that allow the text itself continually to correct us.
也正因如此，閱讀框架的重要性，不只是幫助我們看見更多資料，更是幫助我們離開自己原有的閱讀限制。人總有自己熟悉的神學語言、關心的議題和慣常的思考方式。如果沒有一套較有紀律的閱讀方法，我們很容易以為自己正在讀經，其實只是不斷在經文中尋找自己本來已經相信的東西。
For this reason, interpretive frameworks matter not simply because they help us see more information, but because they help us move beyond the limitations of our habitual ways of reading. Every reader has familiar theological language, particular concerns, and established patterns of thought. Without disciplined reading practices, we can easily imagine that we are reading Scripture when, in reality, we are repeatedly searching the text for what we already believe.
這種情況在講道中並不少見。有些講員無論講甚麼經文，最後都可以講到「所以我們要更多研讀神的話」；有些講員無論從哪一卷書開始，結論總是「所以我們要傳福音」；也有些講章，不論經文正在處理審判、盟約、聖潔、智慧，還是群體秩序，最後都可以歸結為「耶穌愛你」。研讀神的話重要，傳福音重要，耶穌愛我們當然也是真理。問題從來不是這些道理對不對，而是：眼前這段經文，究竟是不是在說這件事？
This happens in preaching more often than we may care to admit. Some preachers can begin with almost any biblical passage and eventually arrive at, “Therefore, we need to study God’s Word more.” Others can preach from almost any book of the Bible and conclude, “Therefore, we need to evangelize.” Still others can begin with texts dealing with judgment, covenant, holiness, wisdom, or the ordering of the community and somehow reduce every sermon to, “Jesus loves you.” Studying God’s Word matters. Evangelism matters. And, of course, the love of Christ is true. The issue is not whether these theological claims are correct. The real question is this: is this particular passage actually saying that?
如果一個人讀不同的經文，最後總是讀出相同的答案，我們便需要問：究竟是經文在說話，還是讀者自己在說話？當一個講員不斷把自己最熟悉、最重視，甚至最喜歡的神學觀念放進不同經文，再從經文中「發現」同一個結論，這其實不是釋經，而是把自己的意念讀入經文。更困難的是，很多人自己並不察覺。他可能很真誠，也可能所講的每一句都是正確的基督教道理，但講出正確的神學命題，不等於正確地解釋了眼前這段經文。
If a person reads many different biblical texts and continually arrives at the same answer, we may need to ask: is the text speaking, or is the reader speaking? When a preacher repeatedly brings a familiar, cherished, or personally significant theological idea to different passages and then “discovers” that same idea in every one of them, this is not really exegesis; it is reading one’s own ideas into the text. What makes the problem more difficult is that the preacher may be entirely unaware of doing it. He may be sincere, and every theological statement he makes may even be correct Christian doctrine. But stating a correct theological proposition is not the same thing as correctly interpreting the biblical passage before us.
這讓我更明白高博士為甚麼如此仔細地拆解觀察經文的過程。5W1H、比較、分段等閱讀框架，看起來只是一些基本工具，但它們其中一個重要作用，正是迫使讀者暫時離開自己最熟悉的答案，重新回到文本：誰在說話？發生了甚麼？作者為甚麼在這裏加入這一句？前後有甚麼比較？段落如何發展？框架不是限制我們閱讀，而是幫助我們看見自己的限制。
This helped me understand more clearly why Dr. Ko spent so much time unpacking the process of observing a text. Tools such as 5W1H, comparison, and literary segmentation may appear basic, but one of their most important functions is to force readers temporarily away from their most familiar answers and back into the text itself: Who is speaking? What is happening? Why does the author include this sentence here? What comparisons or contrasts appear before and after it? How does the passage develop? These frameworks do not restrict our reading; they help us recognize the limitations we already bring to our reading.
這一點對我而言很值得反思。多年預備講章後，我確實有一些自己很自然的閱讀習慣。我喜歡留意敘事中的不尋常之處，也很容易被矛盾、張力和人物行為背後的問題吸引。這與我的性格和做學問的方法有很大關係。但同一時間，這也意味着我可能特別容易看見某一類問題，而沒有那麼自然地留意另一類問題。高博士把觀察的過程拆開，反而讓我更清楚問自己：我為甚麼看見這一點？是經文真的把它放在中心，還是因為我本來就對這類問題有興趣？如果換另一個閱讀框架，我會不會看見一些原本忽略的東西？
This is something I have found particularly worth reflecting on. After years of sermon preparation, I certainly have interpretive habits that have become second nature. I tend to notice unusual features in narratives, and I am readily drawn to contradictions, tensions, and the questions that lie behind the behaviour of biblical characters. This has a great deal to do with my personality and with the way I have learned to think and study. At the same time, however, that means I may be especially quick to notice one kind of question while being less naturally attentive to another. By breaking the observational process into its component parts, Dr. Ko’s approach encouraged me to ask myself more consciously: Why did I notice this? Is it because the text itself places this issue at the centre, or because I am naturally interested in this kind of question? If I approached the passage through another reading framework, might I see something I had previously overlooked?
我想，這可能就是釋經訓練其中一個很重要的價值。訓練不是讓我們變成一個沒有個性、沒有經驗、沒有前設的讀者。事實上，這樣的讀者大概並不存在。訓練是讓我們愈來愈知道自己正在做甚麼，也愈來愈願意讓經文約束自己的閱讀。我們不是假裝自己完全客觀，而是學習對自己的閱讀保持警覺：我帶了甚麼問題進來？我用了甚麼框架？我所看見的，有沒有足夠的文本證據？經文有沒有一些東西，正在挑戰我原先的理解？
I think this may be one of the most important values of training in biblical interpretation. The goal is not to turn us into readers without personality, experience, or presuppositions. Such readers probably do not exist. Rather, training helps us become increasingly conscious of what we are doing and increasingly willing to allow Scripture to discipline our reading. We do not pretend to be perfectly objective. Instead, we learn to remain critically self-aware about the act of interpretation itself: What questions am I bringing to this passage? What framework am I using? Is there sufficient textual evidence for what I think I see? Is there something in the text that challenges my initial understanding?
有時我們太快問：「這段經文對我有甚麼提醒？」甚至太快想：「這篇道可以怎樣講？」但在這些問題以前，也許還有一件更基本的事：我究竟有沒有看清楚經文？
Sometimes we are too quick to ask, “What is this passage saying to me?” Or we move too quickly to, “How could I preach this?” But before either of those questions, perhaps there is something even more basic that needs to be asked: Have I actually seen the text clearly?
因為你怎樣看，確實會決定你看見甚麼。而釋經者需要學習的，不只是看得更多，而是看得更自覺、更仔細，也更願意讓自己所看見的，接受經文本身的檢驗。
Because how we read really does shape what we see. The task of the interpreter is therefore not merely to see more, but to learn to see more consciously, more carefully, and with a greater willingness to have what we think we see tested by the text itself.
這可能是我從高博士這幾節課堂中，再一次被提醒的事：不要急着替經文說話，先學習讓經文把自己呈現出來。
Perhaps this is the reminder from Dr. Ko’s lectures that has stayed with me most strongly: Do not be too quick to speak for the text. First, learn to let the text show itself.
Antony傳道
沒有留言 :
發佈留言