好文推介

喺最新一期 Biblical Archaeology Review 有篇文章我覺得寫得好好, 想喺度講下.

=====================================================
BAR 35:01, Jan/Feb 2009

Biblical Views: Breaking the Trend of Biblical “Breaking News”

By Craig A. Evans

Scholars and the general public alike have grown accustomed, perhaps even hardened, to sensational announcements every year that have something to do with the Bible, Jesus or Christian origins. From The Da Vinci Code to the supposed tomb of Jesus and his family, and the seemingly annual reports about finding Noah’s ark or the Ark of the Covenant, much of the news in our field is incredible—literally. And, of course, several artifacts (such as the Jehoash inscription and the James Ossuary inscription) were widely publicized before being declared forgeries—although the evidence in support of forgery is far from conclusive (see Strata).

In light of all of this noise, I would not be surprised in the least if the public interest in Biblical scholarship and archaeology begins to wane. Future discoveries, even important ones, may well be met with cynical responses such as “We have heard this before.” How is the average person supposed to know when a truly remarkable discovery has been made?

This brings me to the stone inscribed with “Gabriel’s Revelation,” recently published in BAR.a This remarkable find required no hype. Yet the impulse to sensationalize the find, complete with extravagant claims, is already well underway. This is unfortunate.

Ada Yardeni, a respected epigrapher, dates the stone and its two columns of inked Hebrew script to the late first century B.C. or early first century A.D.

......

Yardeni’s interpretation is cautious. She describes the text as a vision, a string of prophecies, evidently by someone named Gabriel, addressed to someone in the second person. Several passages of Scripture are alluded to or quoted in part. The focus of the vision seems to be Davidic and may be messianic.

Contrasting Yardeni’s cautious interpretation is Israel Knohl’s daring thesis that the Gabriel vision foretells the appearance of a suffering Messiah son of Joseph, a concept that served as a sort of template for Jesus. After all, Jesus was a “son of Joseph” (Luke 4:22; John 6:42), so surely he understood himself in this light. According to Knohl, this explains why Jesus saw himself as a messiah who would suffer and not as a conquering Messiah son of David. This seems to me a rather shaky line of reasoning.

Knohl has certainly done a great deal of research into the tradition of the suffering Messiah son of Joseph, but is this messiah even present in the Gabriel text? That is far from certain. Neither “Joseph” nor “son of Joseph” appears in the surviving text, and it makes no mention of a suffering figure.

Even if we agree with Knohl’s interpretation of line 80 (“In three days, live, I, Gabriel, command you”)b as referring to resurrection, who is being resurrected? The text says it is the “prince of princes”; there is nothing here about a Messiah son of Joseph. One should bear in mind that Knohl’s reconstructions and interpretation lend significant support to the thesis of his book The Messiah before Jesus, a thesis that has not escaped serious criticism.

......

No doubt this interesting debate will continue. The Gabriel text may turn out to be truly significant and of great interest to Jews and Christians alike. It could certainly contribute to our understanding of early Judaism and extra-Biblical prophetic texts around the turn of the era. But we scholars owe it to ourselves and to the public to make sure that careful study of the stone and its properties is undertaken before we start propounding theories that may go well beyond the evidence—particularly in connection to Biblical figures. Priority should be given to further analysis of the text, including the possibility of recovering words and letters no longer visible to the naked eye, locating the site from which it was taken (if possible), and study of the site itself. Perhaps after further study we will be better able to understand the origins and context of this and other fascinating artifacts—without resorting to sensational scholarship.
=====================================================

睇到呢篇文章, 又不期然令我想起影音使團當年 (2003-2004) 未做任何考證就見晒報兼夾拍埋電影話香港教會發現到挪亞方舟o既英雄事蹟. 而事實係, 過咗咁多年, 到今日, 都仲未有任何證據證實嗰舊嘢係挪亞隻方舟.

荒謬. 未經證實就唔該你唔好出聲住啦. 到時証實搞錯咗, 你點同嗰 d 睇完你嗰齣充滿錯誤資料o既電影信咗o既人交代? 俾非信徒恥笑條數又點計? 等下都唔得, 就係要急不及待要功攞威. 真係樣衰.

Suspiria

以前好細個嗰時, 老豆好鍾意帶我去睇鬼戲, 人地細個喺床上面有父母講兒童故事, 我老豆就讀鬼故我聽, 仲記得, 嗰本書叫"香港怪談", 喺屈臣氏買. 但係大個咗, 都已經唔記得睇過乜戲, 除咗一齣,印象極深, 講班人喺戲院睇鬼戲, 點知鬼戲入面 d 喪屍喺真實戲院度, 仲記得細個睇嗰時超驚, 超刺激, 因為俾 d 喪屍傷到少少, 就會變埋喪屍. 但係大個咗, 就連齣戲名都唔記得, 直到冇幾耐之前, 偶然下知道齣戲叫 Demons, 由歐洲一個出名拍恐怖片o既人 produce o既, 呢個人就叫 Dario Argento.

又聽講佢最出名o既電影叫 Suspiria, 所以就搵咗嚟睇. 其實呢齣戲個故事好弱, 不過就係以畫面同音樂取勝, 造出恐怖氣氛. 當睇o既時候, 第一件事注意到o既就係 d 顏色, 非常鮮艷, 甚至有種好似睇緊童話書嗰種夢幻感覺. 後來睇返資料, 個導演話齣戲個 idea 係來自佢女朋友o既一個惡夢. 呢方面嚟講, 佢真係好成功, 我喺睇資料之前已經覺得齣戲有種"惡夢"感, 佢係拍到出嚟. 另外幾個角色o既死法, 都好多人討論, 認為係恐怖片中o既經典. 呢齣戲好舊, 當時o既 special effect 同今時今日當然係不可同日而語, 但係亦因為如此, 所以拍得特別有心思, 唔似而家 d 戲咁成日飛條腸出嚟 d 水皮招數. 尤其係第一個 death scene, 由開始都結尾, 都令人覺得好緊張, 證實唔需要核突都可以拍到出色恐怖感. 如果你問我呢齣戲成為恐怖片驚唔驚, 我就覺得全片 98% 都唔驚, 好多時都係冇事發生, 只係為下個驚嚇 moment 準備, 但係真正要嚇你嗰時, 就真係會嚇到彈起. 例如最後同個女巫對峙嗰幕, 突然開門走個人入嚟嗰下真係睇到有心寒.

音樂亦非常出色, 同畫面顏一樣, 充滿夢幻同懸疑o既感覺. 上面 youtube 條片就係其中一首主題音樂, 俾你 feel 下.

總括嚟講, Suspiria 有排都未到 Omen 或 Exorcist 嗰種經典程度, 因為故事太弱. 不過亦一看無妨, 同而家荷里活唔係開肚爆腦就日式長髮女鬼好唔同.

特首 9up

早幾日, 特首喺立法會中話唔想同議員 9up:



有趣o既係, 佢事後唔肯認, 話講緊"鬥up", 唔係"9up". 電視, 電台, 所有報紙, 都異口同聲話係"鬥up", 而家可以喺電視上睇到o既片段, 同聲音檔案, 都係缺少咗呢段"9up發言"的. 明顯係政府同香港傳媒打咗招呼, 大家識做. 至於係"9up"定"鬥up", 大家自己分辨, 呢個聲音檔案可以幫你聽得更清楚, 將特首句說話變慢, 俾你自己分析:



而家全香港夠膽講呢單嘢o既只有 myradio, 唔係話乜嘢大事, 但係睜大眼講大話, 操控消息流通, 呢 d 咁"中共"o既作為真係令人非常反感:

Agatha Christie: Death on the Nile

呢本我覺得仲好睇過我上次睇嗰本. 條橋好簡單, 一穿咗就會"哦"一聲, 省然大吾, 但係作者講故事o既技巧高超, 一路跟住劇情, 讀者竟然會慢慢唔記得最簡單o既事實, 感覺好似跳咗入書裡面o既兇手, 又或者係 Christie 所設計o既陷阱一樣, 不過係非常滿足o既感覺, 非常好玩. 個機關其實好簡單, 不過就係由頭睇到尾都睇唔到.

不過亦有缺點. 點會喺主要兇案之外仲同時間發生咁多其他古怪嘢? 實在太過巧合, 分明就係作者要用呢堆嘢出嚟分散讀者注意力.

[Sunday School] Day 3: topic 2 part 2

[carrying on from last week's topic on the Scrolls and textual criticism...]



Pictures of two of the longest scrolls. There are interest stories behind them, but I'm too lazy to type them out here.



Pictures of two once sensation-arousing scrolls. Some scholars had suggested that 4Q285 says "they killed the Messiah," which would be a striking parallel to New Testament Christology. But nowadays, most scholars agree that it actually says "the Messiah kills them." On the right is a picture of a little fragment with Greek words written on it. Someone suggested that this is a copy of the Gospel of Mark. But seeing that the only complete word preserved on this little fragment is KAI, which means "and" in English, we had better abandoned a maverick suggestion like that.



The work with the Scrolls is like piecing together the largest puzzle in the world. The progress was slow, and there were even talks of a Dead Sea Scrolls monopoly by the 80s. But in 1990/1, a series of events led to the end of the so-called monopoly. One thing that happened was Martin Abegg's reconstruction of the unpublished Scrolls using a concordance and a computer program that he wrote himself. On the right is a photo of such a concordance of the Scrolls. I took those pictures myself. Am I not so very cool?



Scholars date the scrolls to 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE.



The Scrolls contain the earliest copies of the Old Testament.



Before the discovery of the Scrolls, the earliest complete copy of the Old Testament is the Leningrad Codex, from around 1000 CE, which is quite late.



Here is a list of the number of copies of each OT book found among the Scrolls. No copies of Nehemiah and Esther.



A few examples of how the Scrolls can contribute to OT studies. Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm, and we knew that one verse is missing.



Thanks to the Scrolls, we have no recovered that missing verse! Psalm 145 in Hebrew is now complete.



Another example. Psalm 22.16 in Hebrew says "like a lion are my hands and my feet," which makes little sense. The same passage in the Greek translation sounds a lot better, and would actually parallel New Testament Christology quite well. But hey, it is a translation after all.



But thanks to the Scrolls, we now know that in this case the Greek has actually preserved the better reading than did the MT.



Same thing here with 1 Sam 10. The NRSV has incorporated materials from the Scrolls, and the NIV has not. That's why there's such a huge difference in our bibles.



Similar things happen to the New Testament too. Textual criticism is an important excercise in biblical studies.



Some big names in the Chinese Christian community speak very highly of the Bible Code, thinking that it proves the divine origin of the bible.



The idea of the Bible Code is that if you skip a certain number of words in the bible, you'll get some special messages. For example, (I'm making this up) if you skip every 1,234th word, you will come up with the word "STUPID". Using this, Drosnin predicted the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin before the actual assassination.





Afterwards, Drosnin found more Bible Codes. But unfortunately, this idea stinks. The problem is, we don't have a copy of the bible that is 100% accurate. And because the Bible Code depends on counting the number of letters, the addition or subtraction of even one letter would change everything. The bible that Drosnin used is probably just the Hebrew Bible that we can buy anywhere, which is based on the Leningrad Codex, which apparently is far from a perfect copy of the original bible. So he should call this Leningrad Codex Code, not Bible Code. And if anything, he's proved that the Leningrad Codex is divinely inspired, not the bible was inspired.

Just absurd.

代禱事項

喺 2007 年, 香港"全城更新"運動o既"全球禱告日"中, 教會為黃大仙區禱告, 祈求主將黃大仙改名做慈黃村. 禱文結尾如下:

====================================
神啊，在祢沒有難成的事，故此我們大膽呼求祢，把本區的名稱更改，以一個中性的「慈黃區」取而代之！我們亦盼在區內能建立一座基督教大樓，見證教會合一及高舉主耶穌基督！

主啊，願祢垂聽我們呼求，也願祢在黃大仙區得回祢當得的榮耀與稱頌。感謝主，奉主耶穌基督聖名求，阿們。
====================================

"黃大仙"當然係會毒害好多小朋友同年青人, 搞到佢地大個咗就個個信晒黃大仙; 而起基督教大樓亦非常重要, 試問冇間靚靚大樓又如何"見證教會合一"同埋"高舉主耶穌基督"呢? 過咗成年, 神都仲未答允佢地o既祈求, 不如香港教會發起運動, 上天堂示威請願表達意見啦.

香港基督教徒 = 神

======================================
我向立法會外集會基督徒派單張

一名對同志友善的基督徒


二○○九年一月十日週六早上，立法會聆聽團體就《家庭暴力條例》修訂以涵蓋同性同居者所發表的意見。有不少保守基督教團體擔心「家庭」一詞因條例的修改而涵蓋同性戀關係，最終導致同性婚姻合法化，要求條例涵蓋所有同住關係者，並改名《家居暴力條例》。據報導當天立法會內出現了激烈爭拗的場面。

我在立法會外也有一些值得一提的經歷。黃成智議員鼓勵基督徒參加於立法會外遮打花園舉行的聲援集會。當天約有四百多人參與，比預計的千五人少。

我偕同太太及另一位朋友在集會人群中穿梭，派發基督教非保守派意見的單張，內容已附。難為了太太，她在開始派發沒多久，遇到有幾位女士很快手地把單張彈回給太太，說：「我們是正常人！與你不同！」並表現得好像單張及太太是污穢似的一般。後來，她遇到一位男士從人群中閃出，衝向她，一手搶去她手上的全部單張，消失於人群中，後來她聽到一名女士說單張已撕毀棄掉。她向我訴苦的時候是哭著的。在回家之後，她還哭了好幾次，她是基督徒，她說她沒有想過基督徒的態度可以是那麼恐怖的。我的遭遇則比較幸運，只一次聽到有一把男聲在我的身後大叫：「垃圾！不要接他的單張！」可能是我的身手較好吧（笑），有兩三次有人試圖搶去我手上的單張，我也能及時縮開。無意在此投訴或指控些甚麼，在那個場合派發另類單張，我個人早已預算了有那種反應，亦明白那是個別人士的反應而已，只想在此呼籲各位基督徒理性對待不同的聲音。

......

======================================

有時我真係覺得好神奇, 唔知點解, 基督徒竟然係世上最嚴格o既人, 基督教學校係最嚴o既學校, 基督徒父母係最嚴o既父母, 等等. 而且佢地唔係對自己嚴格, 而係對人地嚴格; 唔單止對身邊o既基督徒嚴格, 對唔係基督徒o既人都一樣嚴格, 唔准人地做呢樣嗰樣, 惡到無倫. 我覺得神奇, 係因為佢地自己犯罪嗰時, 愛佢地o既神都冇出手阻止, 但係佢地就非常積極阻止其他人做佢地認為係犯罪o既行為. 如果對人關懷或愛護就等於要奪去佢犯罪o既自由, 咁神對人o既關懷同愛護就真係少之又少, 幾近於無. 喺聖經入面, 神又幾時有叫過以色列去阻止其他鄰近種族o既同性戀行為? 新約聖經又邊道有叫過基督徒阻止非基督徒o既同性戀行為? 我真係唔明. 佢地打住為聖經而戰o既旗幟, 行動卻其實冇聖經基礎, 非常奇怪.

基督教會反對同同性戀有關o既政府政策通常出現o既題目係家庭定義. 男同男或女同女, 跟聖經中"家庭"o既定義唔同, 所以佢地就唔應該得到"家庭"可以得到o既權利同保障. 我個人認為係非常荒謬. 第一, 聖經為家庭下o既定義, 不止係男女做夫妻, 仲有包括生仔女, 生養眾多, 遍滿全地, "父母兒女"先係家庭喺聖經中o既完整定義. 我已經結咗婚, 但係冇仔女, 亦冇打算要生仔女, 所以就聖經定義, 我呢個唔算係家庭; 但係我一樣可以得到家庭有o既法律權利同保障, 但係從來冇基督徒會話要攞走我o既家庭權利. 點解針對同性戀, 又唔針對我呢? 我不能不認為, 教會的確係有 discriminate 同性戀.

仲有, 現代教會好明顯係跟聖經少少, 又跟唔足. 喺聖經入面, 有好多有關家庭o既教導, 包括當家庭中出現寡婦, 死者個兄弟就應該娶埋個阿嫂, 幫自己兄弟留點血脈. 呢個喺舊約聖經有, 喺新約入面耶穌同人討論律法亦有提及, 佢明顯係假定咗呢條家庭律法應該存在. 點解教會 d 人唔照做呢? 而最重要o既係, 人人都講"家庭"o既聖經定義, 但係我好懷疑到底有幾多人真係有認真睇聖經如何為"家庭"下定義. 我問, "家庭"喺希伯來文入面係乜嘢? 有幾多人知道? 又有幾多人知道, 舊約聖經嚴格來說, 其實係冇"家庭"呢個詞語. 乜乜創世記o既"家庭"定義, 真係令人 R 頭. 自己一知半解, 仲想要削減人地o既法律權利, 真係不負責任.

第二, 先唔講透過聖經為"家庭"下定義當中涉及o既複雜問題, 點解人地要接受聖經o既定義呢? 咁同要 Galileo 接受聖經對"世界"o既定義有乜分別? 而家好多基督徒話, 聖經冇講過世界係平, 只係當時 d 教會人睇錯聖經. 事實係, 呢 d 現代基督徒用自己o既科學智識扭曲聖經原意, 因為聖經根本就係講緊一個平o既世界, 同古代中東文化, 希臘文化一模一樣, 冇乜好奇怪的. 點解人地要接受聖經對"家庭"o既定義? 咁可蘭經呢? 希臘傳說呢? 波若菠蘿蜜瓜經呢?

Agatha Christie: The Mysterious Affair at Styles

今日剛剛睇完 Agatha Christie 寫o既第一本偵探小說, 亦係名揁探 Hercule Poirot 第一次出場o既舞台. 雖然係 1920 咁舊o既小說, 但係都好容易睇, d 英文唔深, 好易明. 故事講有個有錢婆被毒死, 但係現場係密室, 毒藥係一食就會好快發作o既毒, 有張燒剩o既遺囑. 講 Poirot 如何捉個兇手出嚟, 好好睇, 一路俾個作者帶住估兇手, 以我自己嚟講, 到尾我差唔多所有角色都懷疑過晒, 就係冇諗過係真正兇手嗰個, 但係又言之成理.

書中有幾句 Poirot 講o既金句, 放喺聖經研究, 或任何認真o既探索中都好有道理:


"You gave too much rein to your imagination. Imagination is a good servant, and a bad master. The simplest explanation is always the most likely."

~ Poirot


"It is certainly curious," I agreed. "Still, it is unimportant, and need not be taken into account."

A groan burst from Poirot.

"What have I always told you? Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory, let the theory go."

~ Poirot


我覺得好好睇, 會繼續追佢其他小說.

James Patterson + Michael Ledwidge, Step on a Crack

早幾日睇完本英文小說, 好勁. 自從 Da Vinci Code 之後, 就冇睇過英文小說, 因為實在太多書要睇, 花時間睇小說感覺上好痴線. 不過上個星期行書局, 見到呢本 hardcover 賣 $7, 個作者又出名, 所以買咗.

個故事都幾有趣o既, 講有班人捉咗班名人喺間教堂入面, 主角要救人同捉賊, 鬥智鬥力之類, 好似好多荷里活電影咁o既故事. 不過我就唔係咁鍾意 d 角色, 個主角又悶, 係個完美老公, 完美老豆, 有十個養仔養女, 捉賊又勁, 完美到令人覺得厭煩. 不過本書又唔係唔好睇, 如果唔係我都唔會睇得完. 不過就冇想像中咁好睇囉, 又話 best selling author 又乜乜物物. 聽講個作者最出名o既係 Alex Cross 系列, 我諗我會俾多個機會佢, 遲下會買本試多次.

[Sunday School] Day 2: topic 2 part 1

[we're starting on a new topic...]



We'll now talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, Textual Criticism, and the Bible Code. These subjects are related somehow.



Let's begin with a question to illustrate why I think this is an interesting topic to look at. We're told that it is not a good idea to add or take away things from the Bible. We don't fool around with it. But look at 1 Sam 10.27, why the heck is the same passage so much longer in the NRSV compared with the NIV? What on earth happened? To explain what happened, we'll need to take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the idea of textual criticism.



I will first give you a brief introduction to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then we'll consider their significance to OT studies. After all those, we'll look at something way less cool--the Bible Code, and have a good laugh at it. Just for fun.



Just to clarify, we're not talking about squirrels from the Dead Sea, but scrolls with writings on them.



According to one popular version of the story, around 1947, some shepherd boys found a cave of jars and scrolls. They extracted 7 scrolls and sold them to people. Those who purchased the scrolls didn't know their value, so they showed them to scholars. Sukenik of the Hebrew University and scholars of the American School of Oriental Research were the first to recognize the value of these scrolls.



Here are some pictures of the cave where those shepherd boys found the scrolls.



A picture of Sukenik studying one of the scrolls from Cave 1.



Someone tried to sell scrolls from Cave 1 in the US. Yigael Yadi, the son of Sukenik, saw the ad on the WSJ, so he sent someone to purchase the national treasures and flew them back to Israel.



After people recognized the value of the scrolls from Cave 1, they started looking for more. In the end, they found another 10 caves contained scrolls. They also excavated a ruin in the neighbourhood of the caves. Many believe that it was the inhabitants of the ruin were the original owners of the scrolls.



We found some 900 manuscripts in those caves, encompassing a wide array of different writings, even a treasure map written on copper among them.



Here is a picture of the Copper Scroll.

[to be cont']

[Sunday School] Day 2: topic 1 part 2

[carrying on from last week's topic]



4 Ezra dates to some time after 70 CE. It mentions 94 divinely-inspired books, 24 of which are made available to the public. Are those the 24 books in the Jewish scriptures?



Josephus lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Here he mentions 22 books that the Jews treasured. Did Josephus know of a canon that has 2 less books than the Jewish scriptures? Or, did he combine some of the books and came up with the number 22?



There is also evidence that the Rabbis continued to debate the canonical status of certain books (e.g., Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes; all in the Writings section).



We've read a lot of stuff. But now, having seen the evidence, we may now draw some sensible conclusions.



Here we see two views. The one in the Encyclopaedia says that some rabbis around 100 CE sat down and decided the canon. The other in the Oxford Dictionary says that there was nobody in particular made up the canon; it was just a natural process.



Here is how I would answer if am presented with these questions. You're welcome to draw different conclusions.