问题：最近在查经班带查经的时候, 遇到了一个我自己都无法说服自己的问题, 问题出现在马可福音2:25-2 耶稣说大卫在亚比亚他作大祭司的时候吃了陈设饼, 这句话显然和撒母耳记上21:1-6的史实不符, 是耶稣记错了吗, 还是后人抄错了?
我查了一些网络上的解经如下, 我觉得解经书硬凹得很严重, 说那个时候亚比亚虽然是小孩但他就算和他同年代, 这实在令人难以接受, 圣经明明说” 大卫在亚比亚他作大祭司的时候”(NIV: In the days of Abiathar the high priest.) 如何能为了力守圣经无误而硬掰呢? 甚至我看到一些解经资料中说古卷抄者有看到这一段明知有错所以直接空白跳过, 到底是不是耶稣说错或马可记错? 烦请您拨冗回答.
答：
这问题实在有够难，即使我不断查考一些解经书，到现在，我也还没办法做出很理想的解释。
我只能说：
一、圣经绝对无误，这是我们永远必须保持的信念。
面对圣经里一切看似矛盾与错误的难题，我们都只能在‘圣经无误’这个最基本的立场上，来尝试解答问题。
二、至于到底是亚希米勒或亚比亚他，有些可能的解释（但未必能让人很满意）：
1.笔误
不是圣经有误，而是文士抄写的过程可能抄错。
2.以最出名或比较具代表性的人来当家族人物的代表，其他人则被省略
也就是说，被列出的那人名，但未必表示就真的是那个人。
比方说：马太福音的耶稣家谱，为了达成一种‘十四代’的切割法，所以这些家谱其实有很多人都被省略掉。
我们看到的‘A生B’，未必就表示B是A所亲生，是A的亲生儿子，
事实上，连孙子，都可以被圣经简写成‘A生B’。
3.马可福音的圣经原文意思是：
‘正在亚比亚他………那个大祭司…………的时候’
那个希腊文用法，是当时很常见的希腊文使用法。
这是一种‘广泛性’的用法，不是‘特定且精确’的用法。
所以，该句经文意思，只是说亚比亚他‘在世时’，而非亚比亚他‘实际当大祭司的时候’。
请注意这两种意思的差异性：
‘正在亚比亚他………那个大祭司…………的时候’
vs
‘正在亚比亚他………当大祭司…………的时候’
换言之，大卫当时确实是发生在亚比亚他的父亲亚希米勒时，
当时，亚比亚他只是小孩，
但是，因为亚比亚他后来当大祭司，而圣经也常有这种‘用最高的职称’来称呼人的情形，
所以，即使当时亚比亚他还小，但依然称那是亚比亚他那个大祭司的时候，并非不可理解。
以上是一些尝试说明，提供参考。
小小羊
https://www.xiaoxiaoyang.net/archives/1259
- #1
![]()
智杰 于2010/03/01 15:59 
- 我有一些英文的参考书(好像没有中文版) 不知道有没有参考作用.
Hard Saying of the bible
Who Was the High Priest?
In Mark we read that Jesus said that Abiathar was priest when David received and ate some of the bread of the Presence from the tabernacle. In terms of the point that Jesus is making it really does not matter who was priest, for the issue is the breaking of the rule about a layperson eating consecrated bread and its application to Jesus' disciples breaking the sabbath regulations. However, when we look up the incident in 1 Samuel 21:1–6, the text reads “Ahimelech” rather than “Abiathar.” Was Jesus mistaken? Surely the Pharisees would have caught the error?
The first point to note is that Abiathar and Ahimelech are son and father. The son, Abiathar, first appears in 1 Samuel 22:20 as the one son of Ahimelech who escaped when Saul slaughtered the priests of Nob and their families for having helped David. Abiathar then remains with David and later serves as high priest during his reign. It looks like the son has been switched with the father.
The second thing we should look at is the textual tradition. There is no evidence that this switch is a textual error. It is true that the Western text does omit the priest's name, but none of the other textual traditions do, and the Western text does sometimes correct or add to the text in various books. When the Western text's reading remains unsupported by other textual traditions, it is not taken as very weighty. In fact, the Western text actually follows the other Synoptics, for Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4 both drop this offending name. Thus there appears to be solid evidence that Mark wrote “Abiathar.”
There have been attempts to solve the problem by arguing that “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” should be understood to mean “In the section [of Samuel] entitled 'Abiathar,'” since this section explains how Abiathar joined David (and there were no chapter and verse numbers for citing Scripture in Jesus' day). However, if that is what it means, Mark found a most awkward way of expressing it. To mean this, the Greek phrase with “Abiathar” in it should have been placed in Mark 2:25 right after “Have you never read?”
Likewise some argue that the phrase means “when Abiathar who became high priest was alive.” However, if this was what were intended (if Jesus had forgotten the name of Abiathar's father or thought his listeners would not recognize it), a phrase like “in the days of the father of Abiathar the high priest” or “in the childhood of Abiathar the high priest” would have expressed the thought clearly. The phrase as it stands would express such an idea so unclearly and awkwardly that it is unlikely that it means this.
What, then, are the possibilities? First, we can be fairly certain that Mark is not covering up the Pharisaic response to an error Jesus made. If Mark had been aware of such a problem, he would have omitted the whole story or changed the name rather than simply omitted the Pharisaic response. Mark probably did not see any other problem with this passage than the issue of Jesus' defending his disciples' breaking the sabbath regulations.
Second, if Mark did not see the problem, he did not see it for one of three reasons: (1) he actually wrote Ahimelech and the more familiar name crept into the text at a very early stage, perhaps as an error in the first copying (often texts were read aloud to scribes making copies, so an oral substitution of the more familiar name for the less familiar would be quite possible), or (2) he received the story as it is and did not himself realize that there was a problem with it (in the latter case, we do not know if Jesus actually said “Abiathar” or if he said “Ahimelech” and the more familiar Abiathar was substituted in the course of oral transmission), or (3) his view of historical accuracy was not bothered by such an issue, since the main point is not affected by it. Whatever the case, Mark apparently did not realize that there was a problem.
The truth is that this is one of the problems in Scripture for which we do not have a fully satisfactory solution. We do not have Mark's original edition to check which name was in it, nor do we have Mark here to question about his state of mind. We do not have a tape recording of the preaching of Peter (thought by many to be the source of Mark) to see if he was using the right or the wrong name. While many ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous slip, it did seem to bother Matthew and Luke, so we cannot be sure that it would not have bothered Mark. Thus we can either arbitrarily select one of the speculative solutions mentioned in the previous paragraph, perhaps choosing the one which pleases us the best, or we can say, “We honestly don't know what the answer is to this problem, nor are we likely to ever know.” In that case, this verse makes plain that our knowledge is always partial so that our trust remains in God rather than in what we know.
*****
IVP Background commentary Mark 2:26.
Abiathar was not yet high priest when David was given the bread, but Mark employs the term in the standard manner of his day: “high priest” was applied to any member of the high priestly family with administrative power, which would have included Abiathar when David came to Ahimelech, Abiathar's father.
tn A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase
*****
NEt bible <a href=' http://net.bible.org/bible.php ' rel='nofollow'> http://net.bible.org/bible.php </a>
(ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew") is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,” but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7. Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty.
(1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: DW {271} it sys and a few others omit ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {AC Θ Π Σ Φ 074 Ë13 and many others} add τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως, giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading.
(2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark's source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point.
(3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ἐπί + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” would be a viable option.
(b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?” Here the final phrase is simply ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture. Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως: “when Abiathar was high priest.” It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete,and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision.
我也曾想过翻译出来看看. 但一想到弟只姊妹看不懂我翻译出来的东西还好. 但万一我翻译错误弟只姊妹因我的错误而被误导就糟了.
所以才只把原文寄上. 希望有其他弟兄能翻译看看.
其实那些资料跟小小羊所说的分别不大, 只是一点点不大的分别而已. 我试试翻译重点看看
重点
1. 耶稣说大祭司亚希米勒”而不是“亚比亚他, 是耶稣出错吗? 如果是, 当时法利赛人肯定会说出这是错处的.
2. "大祭司" 这名词可在任何大祭司的家人身上
3. 小小羊文章的第3点.
『正在亚比亚他………那个大祭司…………的时候』
书说虽然有可能这样翻译，但文法不是最自然, 最自然的翻译还是正在亚比亚他………当大祭司…………的时候』
但因文法学上到现在还是不完全, 可能有别的译法.要留待将来解决
我去书店看过一些别的没有翻译成中文的注释, 但我记忆中最多的说法是"这不是那段经文的重点"
希望能帮得上一点忙
- #2
![]()
Poyueh 于2010/03/28 15:41 - 今天在您的BLOG上看到这篇文章，刚好手边有《圣经的无误与难题》（饶孝柏着），里面有对于这个问题进行较为深入的探讨。
因为这个问题的探讨长达十五面，所以我只简单的列出他的结论，希望可以作为参考。
－－－－－－－－－－
一.
...亚比亚他的父亲亚希米勒，只出现在大卫逃难的初期，与大卫只有一面之缘；而亚比亚他则陪伴大为一生之久。
到了所罗门时代，虽然因亚比亚他的不忠，被解除职权，可是所罗门还是称他为「祭司长」（王上二27，四4）。
故大卫时代祭司的领袖，一直都以亚比亚他为首、以他为代表。
二.
...耶稣举大卫吃陈设饼之例时，说是「亚比亚他作大祭司」；旧约撒母耳记上二十一1~9记载的虽是亚希米勒，但他是出来接待大卫的祭司，而大祭司却是亚比亚他，耶稣并没有说错。
－－－－－－－－－－
以上摘录自《圣经的无误与难题》，希望会有帮助。
- #3
![]()
小小羊 于2010/03/28 18:39 - Poyueh弟兄所提供的这本书，我手上有。
饶牧师是位好牧师，信仰相当纯正。
他写的这本书也相当不错，针对许多圣经难题，提出一些解释与看法。
不过，我并不是完全认同饶牧师这本书的观念与论点。
基本上，饶牧师主张圣经『原稿』可以有『小差别』。
这种理论，当然可以解决一些问题，
但是，却可能带来更严重的问题。
因此，我对他这种理论，以及从这里论所导引出来的解经与难题回答，主张大家可以参考，但必须保持警戒。
不过，他在关于亚比亚他或亚希米勒这个圣经难题上所提出的分析与看法，倒是相当值得阅读与参考。
由于全文很长，所以我们无法转贴，对研经有兴趣的弟兄姊妹，可以自行去阅读。
我的立场，是认同芝加哥圣经无误宣言的。
这份宣言，关于圣经无误部分，我们园地已经张贴过：
『芝加哥「圣经无误」宣言(转贴) 』
<a href=' http://blog.roodo.com/yml/archives/9743521.html ' rel='nofollow'> http://blog.roodo.com/yml/archives/9743521.html </a>
这宣言第十三条的立场，是与饶牧师那种认为圣经原稿可以有小差别的立场不一样的。
https://mickey1124-pixnet-net.translate.goog/blog/post/269196372?_x_tr_sl=zh-TW&_x_tr_tl=zh-CN&_x_tr_hl=zh-CN&_x_tr_pto=sc
No comments:
Post a Comment