我們什麼時候需要讀註釋書？When Should We Read Commentaries?
作者：Lane Keister 譯者：駱鴻銘
如果你問五個不同的牧師，你會得到五種完全不同的答案。例如，Paul Levy，他會把幾本註釋書完整讀完後，才開始一個講道系列。之後，他只有在卡住的地方才去讀註釋書。其他人（這似乎是絕大多數人的立場）則提倡，我們應該只在寫講章或研經過程的最後，才使用註釋書。針對這個立場提出的理由是，我們應該給聖靈的運行留下空間，也不應該像鸚鵡學舌那樣，僅僅重覆別人說過的話。有些人甚至倡導，直到講章寫完之前，都不應該讀註釋書。我的經驗有點不同。Ask five different
pastors this question, and you will get five completely different answers. Paul
Levy, for instance, reads a couple commentaries all the way through before
starting a sermon series. After that, he uses them only when he’s stuck. Others
(and this seems to me to be the majority position) advocate that one should
only use commentaries at the very end of the process of writing a sermon or
Bible study. Oftentimes, the justification for this position is that one must
make allowance for the work of the Holy Spirit, and we should not merely parrot
what other people say. Some even advocate that no commentaries should be read
until after the sermon is written. My experience is a little different.
我發覺在我很仔細地讀完聖經原文後，我仍然不會有太多原創的想法。我一向不是個很有原創思想的人。只有當我和其他人對話時，我才會開始形成我自己的想法，而這些人比起我在經文上所下的功夫要深得多。I find that after I
have gone through the text in the original languages very carefully, I still
don’t have very many
thoughts of my own. I am not much of an original thinker. I really only form my
ideas of what the text says in conversation with others who have delved far
more deeply into the text than I have.
正如任何神學書籍，我們都會把肉吃進去，把骨頭吐出來，讀註釋書也是同樣的情形。當然，要盡一切努力，獨力地、仔細地閱讀經文（而且是先讀，特別是這樣，你才能明白註釋書在說些什麼）。不過，你為什麼要只限定在你自己的想法上呢？為什麼不能讓教會歷史的詮釋，豐富你對經文的理解？我通常會發現，我對一段經文最終的立場，是從許多來源蒐集來的金礦所得到的折衷。我經常會感到驚訝，這是如何辦到的。我曾經花好幾個星期讀的一本註釋書，有時候會在某一處它抓住經文意義的地方，證明其存在的理由，是其他註釋書找不到的。有時候這會是很驚人的洞見。也有些註釋書，幾乎在每一頁上，都有很牢靠的見解（雖然這樣的註釋書很少）。As with any
theological book, one eats the meat and spits out the bones. The same is true
for commentaries. By all means, work through the text carefully on your own
(and do it first, not least so that you can understand what the commentaries
are saying). However, why limit yourself to your own ideas? Why not allow the
historical stream of churchly interpretation to feed into your understanding of
the text? I usually find that my final position on a text has a very eclectic
set of nuggets gleaned from many different sources. I am often surprised at how
it works. A commentary from which I got no help for weeks at a time sometimes
justifies its very existence in one week where it nails the text and none of
the others did. It can be breathtaking at times. Then there are those
commentaries that very often have solid insights on almost every page (though
these are rare).
要回應有關聖靈的反對意見很簡單。首先，聖靈是藉著禱告而來。我深深地懷疑讀更多的註釋書會構成聖靈無法克服的障礙。此外，為什麼聖靈無法透過那些註釋書給你所需要的來運作呢？聖靈不能使用一些已經過世的歐洲和美國男性白人（有些還活著）的話嗎？也有一些很精彩女性的註釋家，寫了不少很棒的註釋書（我的腦海裡很快浮現出Joyce Baldwin和Karen Jobes）。To answer the
objection about the Holy Spirit is easy. Firstly, the Holy Spirit comes through
prayer. I seriously doubt that reading more commentaries constitutes an
obstacle that the Holy Spirit cannot overcome. Furthermore, why couldn’t the
Holy Spirit be operating through those commentaries to give you what you need?
Can the Holy Spirit use the words of dead white European and American males
(and a few of them alive still)? There are some excellent female interpreters
of Scripture as well, who have written good commentaries (Joyce Baldwin and
Karen Jobes spring immediately to mind)
我所想到的最悲哀的事情是當一個牧師以為他比教會歷史上所有的人都聰明，因此沒有必要參考任何人對一段經文的想法。真的嗎？你比加爾文更聰明嗎？比奧古斯丁更聰明嗎？你有聖靈，而他們沒有？我們不是任何一位註釋家的奴隸。我們不需要去相信任何一位沒有受到聖靈光照的神學家所寫的任何東西。讀註釋書的意思不是說我們就受到它們的限制，而是鐵磨鐵，讓我們的思想更敏銳，如同聖經/箴言所說的。為什麼要讓我們的思想，因為拒絕去參與有關這段經文的意義之歷史悠久的對話而變得呆滯呢？不必要地限制自己，會造成非常沉悶的講章，經文中的許多金礦就這樣被忽略掉，好叫他可以只挑他喜歡講的來講。The saddest thing
of all in my mind is when a pastor thinks he is so much smarter than church
history that he doesn’t need to read what anyone else thought on a passage
of Scripture. Really? So you’re smarter than Calvin, are you? Smarter than
Augustine? You have the Holy Spirit and they did not? We are not enslaved to
any one interpreter. We are not required to believe everything that any
non-inspired theologian wrote. Reading them does not mean that we are limited
to them. But iron sharpens iron, as the biblical proverb has it. Why allow
ourselves to be dulled by refusing to engage in the great centuries-old
conversation about the meaning of the text? Limiting ourselves unnecessarily
can result in very dull sermons, where so many nuggets in the text are simply
by-passed so that the pastor can get up on his hobby-horse.
不要搞錯了：無論你對閱讀註釋書採取什麼立場，都存在著一些危險。讀很多註釋書的危險是驕傲，過度的解讀，呈現太多的不同解讀（這常常會讓會眾感到無所適從），僅僅是鸚鵡學舌地重覆他人說過的話，以及混淆我們對一段經文意義的了解。然而，閱讀太少的註釋書的危險，在我看來，遠比讀太多註釋書要嚴重。以下是讀太少註釋書的危險：不斷複製自己的見解；獨特的見解；錯失經文太多的細節；一些沒有經文根據的應用；即興的講道（美其名是由聖靈帶領，想講什麼就講什麼）。驕傲，過度依賴自己的詮釋技巧（抵觸了箴言的格言，不要依賴自己的聰明）；蔑視教會歷史；輕看聖靈在教會其他時代的工作；「年代勢利眼」（古代的一定比現代的差）。對我來說，讀太多註釋書的危險，比起讀太少的註釋書的危險要更容易避免，因為它們都是很明顯的。倘若一篇講章是與這段經文的許多心智互動的結果，這不就是有許多的謀士嗎？這不是更安全嗎？因此，我提倡，也實行一種在寫講章和預備研讀聖經過程中，早一點閱讀註釋書的做法。我提倡，在仔細用原文閱讀經文後，馬上去閱讀註釋書（在時間和金錢容許下，越多越好）。Make no mistake:
there are dangers no matter what position you take on the reading of
commentaries. The dangers of reading lots of commentaries are pride, an
overdose of explanation, a presentation of too many alternative interpretations
(which can easily bewilder a congregation), merely parroting in the sermon what
others say, and confusion in one’s own mind about the meaning of the text. The
dangers of reading too few commentaries, however, outweigh the dangers of
reading too many, in my opinion. For here are the dangers of reading too few:
ingrown, idiosyncratic interpretation; missing too many details of the text;
application that has no root in the meaning of the text; stream of
consciousness preaching; pride and over-reliance on one’s own interpretive
skills (which would fall foul of Proverbs’ dictum to lean not on your own
understanding); a despising of church history; a denigration of the Holy
Spirit’s work in other ages of the church; chronological snobbery. It seems to
me that the dangers of reading too many are more easily avoidable than the
dangers of reading too few, since they are more obvious. If a sermon is the
result of one mind interacting with many minds about the text, is there not a
multitude of counselors? Isn’t that safer? I advocate, therefore, and practice
an earlier reading of the commentaries in the process of sermon-writing and
Bible study preparation. I advocate reading the commentaries (and as many as
time and money allow) right after the careful reading of the text in the
original languages.
