CBGM 應該都好難睇得明...

之前提過, 我都好有興趣想學多 D 關於 Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) 的知識. 我都真係有去搵D書同文章嚟睇o架, 不過真係睇到一舊雲, 直至我睇到呢篇文章: 

Stephen C. Carlson, "A Bias at the Heart of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)," JBL 139 (2020) 319-340.

呢篇文算係寫得比較易明, 起碼我明的部份算係多少少. 但係令我感到絕望的, 係跟住我喺網上見到一篇由Gerd Mink寫的回應文章, 直指Stephen Carlson誤解咗CBGM, 而Gerd Mink就係CBGM的原創人: 

//Criticisms of the CBGM are always welcomed, and we are eager to incorporate suggestions for improving it. Unfortunately we were not able to use Carlson’s publication as fodder for making improvements because his article evinces a general lack of understanding of the method.

...

The core problem of Carlson’s article is that he does not seem to understand the overall concept of the CBGM.

...

Carlson's assumption that there is bias in the CBGM is the result of misunderstandings and wrong application.

...

In only selectively and superficially engaging with the relevant literature, Carlson’s article has unfortunately cultivated a new series of misunderstandings about the CBGM and its functionalities, most of which could have been avoided had he just made use of my entry level “Introductory Presentation.”//

如果連Stephen Carlson一篇登喺JBL的學術文章都睇唔明CBGM, 咁我何德何能, 點會搞得明? sosad

Peter Enns講解Julius Wellhausen同Documentary Hypothesis

https://thebiblefornormalpeople.podbean.com/e/episode-125-pete-enns-voices-from-the-past-part-1/

我一向都有聽呢個podcast, 唔係集集都o岩聽, 但係最新呢集, 係Peter Enns喺度講解Julius Wellhausen同Documentary Hypothesis, 應該係我目前為止聽得最有趣味的一集. 推介.

Dale Allison: "We all see what we expect to see and want to see"

我一向都很欣賞Dale Allison的坦誠, 佢會更正自己之前寫過的嘢, 亦會對自己本來信奉的嘢提出疑問. 最近喺佢一篇文入面, 見到呢段文字, 是很真實的情況:

Imagine with me a young graduate student in a department of religion. She becomes convinced, let us say, that Albert Schweitzer’s reconstruction of Jesus was close to the truth—or, as the case may be, not close to the truth—because a revered professor, whose arguments she has not the means to rebut, persuades her of this. Once her paradigm about Jesus is in place, a cognitive bias will also be in place. We all see what we expect to see and want to see—like highly prejudicial football fans who always spot more infractions committed by the team they are jeering against than by the team they are cheering for. If we hold a belief, we will notice confirming evidence, especially if we are aware that not everyone agrees with us. Disconfirming evidence, to the contrary, makes us uncomfortable, and so we are more likely to miss, neglect, or critically evaluate it. We do not see things as they are but as we construe them to be. After a period of time, then, one might anticipate that our graduate student will have collected her own evidence for her professor’s belief and become all the more persuaded of its correctness. As soon, moreover, as she communicates her views in public fashion, say by tutoring undergraduates or publishing a paper, she may be set for life—especially as one’s self-perception as an expert, the psychologists tell us, typically enlarges self-confidence. The prospect of embarrassment from publicly admitting error can make it hard to admit error to oneself, to undertake the difficult cognitive task of rearranging data into a new pattern after one has long been looking at an old pattern.

...... 

In my own case, my picture of Jesus was developed long before I much worried about the details of method, and long before I went on record as espousing this or that view of the criteria of authenticity. Moreover, and as one would cynically expect, the method that I developed later led straight to a Jesus congenial to the judgments of my youth. This I find disturbing, and my history cannot be atypical. Surely no one started with method. The implication seems to be that developing and deploying our criteria serve less to help us make truly new discoveries than to help us to confirm inclinations already held in advance.

 Dale C. Allison, Jr., "How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity," in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (eds. T. Holmen and S.E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 3-30.

Dale C. Allison演講: The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus

今個星期推介o既演講嘉賓係 Dale C. Allison, 佢最著名o既研究係有關耶穌研究、福音書、雅各書, 今次選佢係因為佢最近跳槽, 去 Princeton Theological Seminary 坐正做 Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament Studies, 非常巴閉. 最近佢喺一本新書 Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity 入面有篇文, 叫"It Don’t Come Easy: A History of Disillusionment", 講佢自己做耶穌研究o既經驗, 點樣愈嚟愈覺得 criteria of historicity 靠唔住, 引起學術界入面不少討論.

以下呢段片, 係佢喺2008年, 喺 Duke o既 Kenneth W. Clark Lectures 入面兩個演講, 主題為:
The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus

James VanderKam: 死海古卷與早期教會講座

 

 

今個星期推介的是 University of Notre Dame 的 James VanderKam, 佢係死海古卷的編輯之一, 係死海古卷、Book of Jubilees、古代日曆、古代猶太傳統專家. 唔係梁燕城嗰種專家, 而係全世界最頂尖嗰種. 2007年2月5至7日, VanderKam 喺 Point Loma Nazarene University 作出四次演講, 主題係"The Dead Sea Scrolls and Earliest Christianity", 對死海古卷同早期基督教有興趣o既人值得聽. 英文就一定的, 老老實實, 要聽頂尖學者演講, 唔可能係中文講座.

第一講
死海古卷與聖經文本
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Texts of Our Bibles

第二講
死海古卷與早期耶教的猶太背景
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Context of Early Christianity

第三講
死海古卷與耶穌及福音書
The Dead Sea Scrolls in Relation to Jesus and the Gospels

第四講
死海古卷與使徒行傳及保羅書信
The Dead Sea Scrolls in Relation to Acts and Paul's Letters

ABC 電台節目回顧 Geza Vermes

Rachael Kohn 喺 ABC 電台o既節目回顧 Geza Vermes, 講到佢生平同埋學術貢獻, 節目內容包括有 主持 Rachael Kohn 獨白, 訪問牛津學者 Martin Goodman 同埋 Vanderbilt Univeristy 的 Amy-Jill Levine. 中間亦插入少少幾年前 Rachael Kohn 同 Geza Vermes 做的訪問節錄. 保證好聽過《耶教異聞錄》sosad. 不過講或寫中文的, 直到而家, 似乎都只得我有詳盡少少講 Geza Vermes, 呢方面我覺得算係一種建樹.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/spiritofthings/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-jesus3a-the-life-work-of-geza-vermes/4729428

學者回憶 Geza Vermes

陸陸續續有更多知名學者撰文講 Geza Vermes, 其中特別值得睇的, 包括有 Philip Alexander 寫o既呢篇長文, 同埋 Marginalia Review 特別邀請多位頂尖學者寫的特輯, 包括有Fergus Millar, Emanuel Tov, Paula Fredriksen, Tessa Rajak, Joan Taylor, Philip Alexander, Sidnie White Crawford, Timothy Lim, Charlotte Hempel, James D. G. Dunn, C. T. R. Hayward, James Davila..

尋晚已經如期出咗youtube片講 Geza Vermes, 希望今個或下個星期可以再寫篇文講同類型話題, 咁就完成我今次 Vermes 三部曲了 sosad

Geza Vermes對耶穌研究的貢獻

上個星期我好勤力, 前所未有地花咗好長時間準備做耶教異聞錄的節目, 因為係講Geza Vermes同死海古卷, 我好想講得好, 有多尐有意義o既資訊, 亦想有個合理o既結尾, 所以搞咗我好耐, 最後效果恰如我當初想像, 算滿意.

我打算今個星期喺youtube出條片再講Geza Vermes對耶穌研究的貢獻, 唔覺意聽到Mark Goodacre有一段錄音, 講第三波耶穌研究, 其中有提及Geza Vermes:
http://podacre.blogspot.ca/2011/02/nt-pod-49-what-is-third-quest-of.html

另外, N.T. Wright 2002年喺CS Lewis Institute一個講座入面講耶穌, 第一講"What's the Problem with Jesus?"亦有提及少少耶穌研究的歷史, 同埋Geza Vermes, Ben Meyer, EP Sanders等人:
http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/audio/by/album/finding_and_following_the_true_jesus

Geza Vermes (1924-2013)

 

 

牛津大學的聖經學者 Geza Vermes (1924-2013) 今日由於癌症去世，生前曾經當過天主教神父，後來改信猶太教，是研究第二聖殿時期猶太教和早期基督教的頂尖學者之一，亦是牛津大學首個 Jewish Studies 教授。
 

Geza Vermes 曾出版大量書藉和學術報告，遍及多個與聖經研究有關的研究題目，其中最為人熟悉的包括有 Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels ，透過猶太人文獻和文化角度去了解猶太人耶穌，為當時的耶穌研究去除耶教神學包袱，而以歷史學家的視野去作探討。Vermes另一本最受歡迎的書，應該是死海古卷的英文翻譯 The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English ，在80年代，他亦曾經很勇敢地公開表示，有些學者把死海古卷私有化，是一宗醜聞。

Markus Bockmuehl 新網站研究西門彼得

牛津大學 Keble College 的著名聖經學者 Markus Bockmuehl 過去幾年出版了兩本相當重要的學術書，包括 The Remembered Peter in Ancient Reception and Modern Debate 和 Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory，有關西門彼得在早期教會傳統中的位置。

Bockmuehl 近日成立了新網站，專為研究西門彼得而設，把提及西門彼得的文字集中，提供其原文和英文翻譯，並將資料分門別類，例如分作不同年代，分類成不同起源地。source

免費 Loeb Classical Library 系列

以前返學o個時成日夢想會終於儲整Loeb Classical Library入面每一本, 不過而家我最大興趣已經唔係聖經研究 (而家我係冇任何 hobby), 當然唔會搵 d 咁錢o黎嘥.

不過由於年代久遠, 其實Loeb Classical Library入面好多書都已經冇o左版權, 近日有人將其中已經完結晒版權o既書放上網, 合共有245個 pdf file: http://ryanfb.github.com/loebolus/

其中好多對聖經學生都係重要o既資源, 例如 Josephus, Suetonius, Herodotus, Pliny the Younger等. 呢個系列o既特別係有英文同原文對照, 所以讀書時人人都要用的.

林以諾反對原文解經

7 年希伯來文唔夠精通, 即是話要花更多時間喺語文上面, 解經時更加小心, 要保持謙虛, 而唔係放棄原文解經. 竟然有人公然反對原文解經, 除咗美國嗰D King James Only癲佬之外, 林以諾係第一個.

嗯, 即使係林以諾, 都冇理由癲得咁徹底. 可能係棟篤笑片段...

Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?

頭先o係Huffington Post睇到一篇反基群眾首席偶像Bart Ehrman寫o既一篇文章，叫"Did Jesus Exist?"

我唔認為Bart Ehrman係反基，所以佢仲係有理智的，呢篇文其中一段咁講﹕

One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

[全文]

o係我個頻道o個度，不時有人留言話耶穌冇存在過，大佬，咁又誇得滯。乖啦，聽Bart Ehrman講啦。

基督教護教學已走到末路？

頭先o係網上新聞網站睇到近日幾單新聞﹕

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026470/Prof-John-Schneider-quits-Michigan-Christian-college-science-questions-Bible-stories.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

主要就係講o係美國一間叫做Calvin College o既基督教機構，有兩個聖經教授，John Schneider同Daniel Harlow因為各自o係佢地o既文章中對聖經中一 d 故事o既歷史性提出質疑，所以好多當地基督徒向校方施壓，要踢走佢地。其中前者已經辭職唔撈，而後者就仲頂住... 暫時。

文中又提及，其實我母校Trinity Western University一個 Bio 教授亦講，雖然佢係基督徒，但係需要講人類冇可能源自兩個人（即亞當同夏娃）。不過我母校算開明，呢個教授仲未出事... 暫時。

其實呢 d 新聞令我覺得，其實傳統o個套基督教護教學本來就係非常脆弱，現今已經走到絕路，"聖經入面所有故事，每一個細節都係符合科學同歷史"，呢個係一條不可能守得住o既防線。不過，亦唔代表基督教護教學就此玩完，但極需要更新論述，唔好再當聖經係歷史教科書或天文通識書。我認為而家呢個階段，呢班基督徒學者出o黎指出聖經有邊幾條不可防守的防線，就係想進行呢個革新的第一步，可惜有班古老石山基督徒當正佢地係異端，唔肯及早面對現實，重新起步。

BibleWorks 9

頭先喺 email 度收到最新版本 BibleWorks 9 o既廣告. 雖然係唔會買, 不過都有留意下有乜新o野.

http://www.bibleworks.com/content/new.html

非常可惜, 基本上係冇乜有用o既新o野, 尤其係 primary text 方面, 非常缺乏. 唯一我覺得有少少興趣o既, 就係個 Manuscript Project, 據講有相片同埋 transcription. 對於時常要做新約 textual criticism o既人嚟講, 係有用o既, 對我就冇乜用, 只係得個有型.

結論: 買一定唔會; download可以考慮一下, 其實都未必. 令人失望o既新 version.

又多一個該亞法骨盒？

最近o係度諗，呢個blog用o黎做乜好，因為以前我會寫出o黎o既話題，而家就轉為錄落youtube度，個blog變o左冇乜用。

不過有時有d新料，又唔得閒錄youtube，其實都可以 講下。例如頭先食飯見到呢個新聞﹕

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/israeli-scholars-say-2000-year-old-burial-box-linked-to-bibles-high-priest-is-genuine/2011/06/29/AGOoCXqH_story.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/israeli-scholars-say-biblical-burial-box-genuine-1.2993011

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/29/israeli-scholars-confirm-authenticity-2000-year-old-burial-box-belonging-to/

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=227184

以呢d報導睇，就係冇幾耐之前，有幾個非法販賣古物o既人被差佬拉o左，o係佢地d貨入面，發現有呢個骨盒，上面寫住"Miriam daughter of Yeshua son of Caiaphas, priest of Maaziah from Beth Imri"。最近就出o左個官方報告，經Bar Ilan U 同埋 Tel Aviv U o既專家考核後，認為呢個骨盒係真貨。

而家未睇到骨盒上面d字，但係我會好想睇下該亞法寫成點。因為之前有另一個"該亞法骨盒" ，被Craig Evans等學者質疑，話上面其實寫o既並唔係該亞法個名，而係"高法"之類。呢個係一個值得 follow o既新聞。

點解基督徒選擇性遵守聖經教導?

呼籲影音使團承認"挪亞方舟 驚世啟示"是超錯

[Secret Gospel of Mark] 真正筆跡專家意見

Biblical Archaeology Society 做咗件好有趣o既事. 佢地搵咗個真正o既筆跡專家去研究 Secret Gospel of Mark, 睇佢到底係咪 Morton Smith 自己假造出嚟. 詳情唔喺呢度講, 不過呢住專家o既結論係:

===========================================
It is my professional opinion that the writers of the questioned document of “Secret
Mark” on the document listed as Q1, Q2 an Q3 and Morton Smith's handwriting on
the documents listed as K1 – K27, are most probably not the same.

Therefore it is highly probable that Morton Smith could not have simulated the
document of “Secret Mark” .
===========================================

BAS 對呢單嘢o既簡介:

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/secret-mark-handwriting-analysis.asp

專家o既正式報告:

http://www.bib-arch.org/pdf/secret-mark-analysis.pdf

未得閒細心睇. 將來可能會講下我對呢個報告有乜睇法. 不過呢 d 嘢好專業, 只怕我可能睇都睇唔明, 我唔會好似某 d 乜乜使團咁, 唔識扮專家, 乜都扮晒大發現咁.

恥笑香港挪亞方舟事工