正文
他是個學者. 他的著作也都是關於他的研究. 他現在任北卡羅萊納大學(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)宗教研究係主任.
Bart D. Ehrman is a New Testament Scholar and an expert on Early Christianity. He received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He currently serves as the chairperson of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, and worked closely as an editor on a number of the Society's publications. Currently, he co-edits the series New Testament Tools and Studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
我之所以說他象ICLL是指他們都曾經是虔誠的信徒, 而在不斷的學習後導致放棄信仰的.
Bart Ehrman 放棄信仰是因為: 1) 聖經無誤說是他曾經信仰的基石之一, 當他通過自己的學習發現事實不是這樣時, 另一位聖經學者點評說:"因為過於把信仰建立在聖經無誤上....他也許覺得受到了欺騙, 反應如此激烈,
以致於放棄了曾經的信仰; 2) 他通過自己的學習和研究, 成長為曆史學家,專門於早期基督教曆史, 在對前三世紀基督教曆史的研究中, 他發現, 從曆史學家的角度, 根本沒有耶酥複活的曆史證據, 我想這才是對他曾有信仰的最致命的一擊.
這裏有一段他和一個福音學者William Lane Craig 辯論有無耶酥複活曆史證據中的話(Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?):
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-tran.pdf
I want to say at the outset something similar to what he said at the beginning of his speech. I used to believe absolutely everything that Bill just presented. He and I went to the same evangelical Christian college, Wheaton, where these things are taught. Even before that I went to a yet more conservative school, Moody Bible Institute, where "Bible" is our middle name. We were taught these things there even more avidly. I used to believe them with my whole heart and soul. I used to preach them and try to convince others that they were true. But then I began studying these matters, not simply accepting what my teachers had said, but looking at them deeply myself. I learned Greek and started studying the New Testament in the original Greek language. I learned Hebrew to read the Old Testament. I learned Latin, Syriac, and Coptic to be able to study the New Testament manus and the non-canonical traditions of Jesus in their original languages. I immersed myself in the world of the first century, reading non-Christian Jewish and pagan texts from the Roman Empire and before, and I tried to master everything written by a Christian from the first three hundred years of the church.
I became a historian of antiquity, and for twenty-five years now I have done my research in this area night and day. I'm not a philosopher like Bill; I'm a historian dedicated to finding the historical truth. After years of studying, I finally came to the conclusion that everything I had previously thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong.
Dr. Bart Ehrman觀點很明確, 從曆史學角度看, 沒有耶粟複活的曆史證據. 要接受耶粟複活,那也隻能是從神學意義上的接受, 一個人能憑借的隻有"信心".
曆史學家無法讓曆史在眼前重現, 唯一能做的是根據曆史資料, 建立曆史上"最可能(most probably)"發生過什麽. 耶酥複活作為一個"奇跡(miracle)", 因為是和自然常識違背的, 所以發生的幾率是極低的, 我們什麽時候見過死人複活? 所以, 在看到他墓穴空了以後, 可能的各種解釋中(屍體被盜等等), 複活是幾率最低的一種. 幾率高也就不是"奇跡(miracle)"."奇跡(miracle)"之所以為奇跡, 就是因為它有違自然規律, 是超自然的.
而且除新約福音外, 沒有其他曆史資料能證明耶酥複活. 而新約福音都是寫於耶酥死後幾十年的, 作者沒有一個是耶酥的直接目擊者, 新約福音內容其實是記錄的早期基督徒的口頭流傳的傳統, 記錄的是一個"legend"傳說!
所以沒有曆史證據證明耶酥複活.
要接受耶粟複活,一個人能憑借的隻有"信心".
這是個很簡化而未必精確的對Dr. Bart Ehrman觀點的摘要. 那場辯論非常精彩, 就是太長了. 有興趣的可以自己讀下記錄.
Dr. Bart Ehrman的結束語:
Dr. Ehrman's Conclusion
Well, I appreciate very much the personal testimony, Bill. I do think, though, that what we've seen is that Bill is, at heart, an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus and that he's trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end. I appreciate that, but it's not just whether a professional historian can argue something, it's whether history can be used to demonstrate claims about God. I have, in fact, disputed the four facts that he continually refers to. The burial by Joseph of Arimathea I've argued could well be a later invention. The empty tomb also could be a later invention. We don't have a reference to it in Paul; you only have it later in the Gospels. The appearances of Jesus may just as well have been visions of Jesus as they were physical appearances of Jesus because people did and do have visions all the time.
And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection.
Going on to talk about why in fact my scenario doesn't work, he says it's more implausible that the family members stole the body than it would be to say that God raised Jesus from the dead. Why? They'd have no motive. Well, in fact, people act on all sorts of motives, and motive is one of the most difficult things to establish. Historically, maybe his family wanted him to be buried in the family tomb. No one knew where he was buried, he says. Well, that's not true; in fact the Gospels themselves say the women watched from afar, including his mother. There wasn't enough time for this to happen. It happened at night. How much time does one need? It doesn't explain the grave clothes. Well, the grave clothes are probably a later, legendary embellishment.
It can't explain the appearances of Jesus. Yes, people have visions all the time. Once people come to believe Jesus' tomb was empty, they come to believe he's raised from the dead, and they have visions. I'm not saying I think this happened. I think that it's plausible. It could have happened. It's more plausible than the claim that God must have raised Jesus from the dead. That is not the most probable historical explanation.
You will have noticed that Bill had five more minutes to answer my questions, and he refused to answer my questions, and one might ask why. Let me conclude by telling you what I really do think about Jesus' resurrection. The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their ures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he got crucified, and so he couldn't be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who's squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their ures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God's suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their ures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him.
And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew ures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he's been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn't an earthly Messiah; he's a spiritual Messiah. That's why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That's why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection. It wasn't three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn't know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed.
Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we got the Gospels of the New Testament written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later.
Bart D. Ehrman is a New Testament Scholar and an expert on Early Christianity. He received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He currently serves as the chairperson of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, and worked closely as an editor on a number of the Society's publications. Currently, he co-edits the series New Testament Tools and Studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
我之所以說他象ICLL是指他們都曾經是虔誠的信徒, 而在不斷的學習後導致放棄信仰的.
Bart Ehrman 放棄信仰是因為: 1) 聖經無誤說是他曾經信仰的基石之一, 當他通過自己的學習發現事實不是這樣時, 另一位聖經學者點評說:"因為過於把信仰建立在聖經無誤上....他也許覺得受到了欺騙, 反應如此激烈,
以致於放棄了曾經的信仰; 2) 他通過自己的學習和研究, 成長為曆史學家,專門於早期基督教曆史, 在對前三世紀基督教曆史的研究中, 他發現, 從曆史學家的角度, 根本沒有耶酥複活的曆史證據, 我想這才是對他曾有信仰的最致命的一擊.
這裏有一段他和一個福音學者William Lane Craig 辯論有無耶酥複活曆史證據中的話(Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?):
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-tran.pdf
I want to say at the outset something similar to what he said at the beginning of his speech. I used to believe absolutely everything that Bill just presented. He and I went to the same evangelical Christian college, Wheaton, where these things are taught. Even before that I went to a yet more conservative school, Moody Bible Institute, where "Bible" is our middle name. We were taught these things there even more avidly. I used to believe them with my whole heart and soul. I used to preach them and try to convince others that they were true. But then I began studying these matters, not simply accepting what my teachers had said, but looking at them deeply myself. I learned Greek and started studying the New Testament in the original Greek language. I learned Hebrew to read the Old Testament. I learned Latin, Syriac, and Coptic to be able to study the New Testament manus and the non-canonical traditions of Jesus in their original languages. I immersed myself in the world of the first century, reading non-Christian Jewish and pagan texts from the Roman Empire and before, and I tried to master everything written by a Christian from the first three hundred years of the church.
I became a historian of antiquity, and for twenty-five years now I have done my research in this area night and day. I'm not a philosopher like Bill; I'm a historian dedicated to finding the historical truth. After years of studying, I finally came to the conclusion that everything I had previously thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong.
Dr. Bart Ehrman觀點很明確, 從曆史學角度看, 沒有耶粟複活的曆史證據. 要接受耶粟複活,那也隻能是從神學意義上的接受, 一個人能憑借的隻有"信心".
曆史學家無法讓曆史在眼前重現, 唯一能做的是根據曆史資料, 建立曆史上"最可能(most probably)"發生過什麽. 耶酥複活作為一個"奇跡(miracle)", 因為是和自然常識違背的, 所以發生的幾率是極低的, 我們什麽時候見過死人複活? 所以, 在看到他墓穴空了以後, 可能的各種解釋中(屍體被盜等等), 複活是幾率最低的一種. 幾率高也就不是"奇跡(miracle)"."奇跡(miracle)"之所以為奇跡, 就是因為它有違自然規律, 是超自然的.
而且除新約福音外, 沒有其他曆史資料能證明耶酥複活. 而新約福音都是寫於耶酥死後幾十年的, 作者沒有一個是耶酥的直接目擊者, 新約福音內容其實是記錄的早期基督徒的口頭流傳的傳統, 記錄的是一個"legend"傳說!
所以沒有曆史證據證明耶酥複活.
要接受耶粟複活,一個人能憑借的隻有"信心".
這是個很簡化而未必精確的對Dr. Bart Ehrman觀點的摘要. 那場辯論非常精彩, 就是太長了. 有興趣的可以自己讀下記錄.
Dr. Bart Ehrman的結束語:
Dr. Ehrman's Conclusion
Well, I appreciate very much the personal testimony, Bill. I do think, though, that what we've seen is that Bill is, at heart, an evangelist who wants people to come to share his belief in Jesus and that he's trying to disguise himself as a historian as a means to that end. I appreciate that, but it's not just whether a professional historian can argue something, it's whether history can be used to demonstrate claims about God. I have, in fact, disputed the four facts that he continually refers to. The burial by Joseph of Arimathea I've argued could well be a later invention. The empty tomb also could be a later invention. We don't have a reference to it in Paul; you only have it later in the Gospels. The appearances of Jesus may just as well have been visions of Jesus as they were physical appearances of Jesus because people did and do have visions all the time.
And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection.
Going on to talk about why in fact my scenario doesn't work, he says it's more implausible that the family members stole the body than it would be to say that God raised Jesus from the dead. Why? They'd have no motive. Well, in fact, people act on all sorts of motives, and motive is one of the most difficult things to establish. Historically, maybe his family wanted him to be buried in the family tomb. No one knew where he was buried, he says. Well, that's not true; in fact the Gospels themselves say the women watched from afar, including his mother. There wasn't enough time for this to happen. It happened at night. How much time does one need? It doesn't explain the grave clothes. Well, the grave clothes are probably a later, legendary embellishment.
It can't explain the appearances of Jesus. Yes, people have visions all the time. Once people come to believe Jesus' tomb was empty, they come to believe he's raised from the dead, and they have visions. I'm not saying I think this happened. I think that it's plausible. It could have happened. It's more plausible than the claim that God must have raised Jesus from the dead. That is not the most probable historical explanation.
You will have noticed that Bill had five more minutes to answer my questions, and he refused to answer my questions, and one might ask why. Let me conclude by telling you what I really do think about Jesus' resurrection. The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their ures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he got crucified, and so he couldn't be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who's squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their ures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God's suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their ures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him.
And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew ures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he's been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn't an earthly Messiah; he's a spiritual Messiah. That's why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That's why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection. It wasn't three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn't know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed.
Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we got the Gospels of the New Testament written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
