“錯引”耶穌？反駁巴特埃爾曼"Misquoting"
Jesus? Answering Bart Ehrman
作者: Greg Koukl
譯者: 張逸萍
《紐約時報》的暢銷書《錯引耶穌》（Misquoting Jesus）的副標題是“聖經傳抄/更改的內幕”和“為什麼”（The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why），作者巴特·埃爾曼（Bart Ehrman）的矛頭直指向任何認為新約文件可信的基督徒。下面這句話就是了：
In
Misquoting Jesus, the New York Times bestseller subtitled The Story Behind Who
Changed the Bible and Why, author Bart Ehrman fires a shot meant to sink the
ship of any Christian who thinks the New Testament documents can be
trusted. Here it is:
說“底本”（即原文檔）是上帝默示的，有什麼意義？我們沒有底本！我們只有錯誤百出的副本，其中絕大多數是底本之後的幾個世紀抄寫的，並且顯然在數千個地方，與底本不同……我們的手稿中的差異，比新約中的單詞還多。[１] [強調語氣乃原作所有]
What
good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the
vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different
from them, evidently, in thousands of ways….There are more variations among our
manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.[i] [emphasis in the
original]
就這些事實表面而言，埃爾曼對是正確的。新約有130,000個單字，然而，倖存的手稿（手寫的副本）揭示了約40萬次用語不相符。[２] 事實上，埃爾曼指出，手稿「在很多地方彼此不同，我們甚至不知道有多少差異。」[３]
Ehrman
is right on the facts, as far as they go.
There are 130,000 words in the New Testament, yet the surviving
manuscripts (the handwritten copies) reveal something like 400,000 individual
times the wording disagrees between them.[ii]
Indeed, Ehrman points out, the manuscripts “differ from one another in
so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are.”[iii]
此外，巴特·埃爾曼是一位有成就的學者，有著無可挑剔的誠意。他與布魯斯·梅茨格（Bruce Metzger）共同撰寫了《新約經文》（The Text of the New Testament）（第4版） - 以該領域的學術標準而論，梅茨格可說是當時最偉大的新約聖經手稿學者。[４]
Further,
Bart Ehrman is an accomplished scholar with impeccable bona fides. He co-authored The Text of the New Testament
(4th Edition)—an academic standard in the field—with Bruce Metzger, arguably
the greatest New Testament manuscript scholar alive at the time.[iv]
《華盛頓郵報》（The Washington Post）稱﹕「《錯引耶穌》對大多數基督徒認為是福音的很多新約事件，都表示懷疑。」《出版商週刊》（Publishers Weekly）相信埃爾曼的論點可「確保讀者可能再也不會以同樣的眼光閱讀福音書或保羅書信。」[５]
The
Washington Post says Misquoting Jesus “casts doubt on any number of New
Testament episodes that most Christians take as, well gospel.” Publishers Weekly promises that Ehrman’s
arguments “ensure that readers might never read the gospels or Paul’s letters
the same way again.”[v]
當然，這正是埃爾曼想要的。《錯引耶穌》是近年流行的那種 - 將“他們不想要你知道的事情” 曝光的把戲。當他在普林斯頓大學當研究生時，埃爾曼“揭露”他的發現，就是那些破壞他自己“作為重生基督徒”信仰的發現，讓他接受了不可知論，也是他現在對上帝所抱的態度。[６]
Which,
of course, is exactly what Ehrman wants.
Misquoting is the kind of what-they-don’t-want-you-to-know exposé that
has become popular in recent years.
Ehrman “exposes” discoveries that sabotaged his own “born-again” faith
while a graduate student at Princeton, leaving him with the agnosticism about
God he now embraces.[vi]
聖經是否因為2000多年的抄寫和再抄寫，而被更改了？埃爾曼回答說：「是的，非常明顯。」更糟糕的是，大量的更改，使人幾乎不可能對重建底本有任何信心。
Has
the Bible been changed over 2,000 years of copying and recopying? Ehrman answers, “Yes, significantly.” Worse, the massive number of alterations make
it virtually impossible to have any confidence of reconstructing the
autographs.
若不知道原文檔是怎樣的，就沒有上帝所默示的文本； 沒有上帝所默示的聖經，就沒有正統的基督教。只有一堆關於耶穌的屬靈想法，在多種互相衝突的文檔中表達出來，這些文檔會隨著時間而倒塌。
Without
the original renderings, there is no inspired text. Without inspired Scripture, there is no
orthodox Christianity, only a jumble of spiritual ideas about Jesus expressed
in a diverse body of conflicting texts that have tumbled down to us through the
corridors of time.
這種懷疑是否有理？簡單地說，沒有。儘管埃爾曼有這樣的資格，[７] 他講的“誰知道底本講什麼”的觀點，並不是多數“文本鑑別學”（Textual Criticism，又作文本批判學、經文批判、低等批判）學者的意見。包括埃爾曼的導師布魯斯·梅茨格，埃爾曼以這書獻給他的。學者們有這樣的信心，其原因在於重建任務本身的性質。
Is
this skepticism justified? Simply put,
no. In spite of Ehrman’s credentials,
his who-knows-what-the-original-text-said view is not the majority opinion of
textual scholars. This includes Bruce
Metzger, Ehrman’s mentor, to whom he dedicated the book. The reasons for this confidence are based in
the nature of the reconstructive task itself.
重建莎莉阿姨的秘方
Reconstructing
Aunt Sally’s Recipe
手稿是手工抄寫的文檔。在主後最早的1500年裏，聖經的所有副本都由文士抄寫，他們盡其所能 - 在大多數情況下 - 忠實傳遞文檔。無可避免，錯誤是會發生的，當錯誤在後續幾代文檔中被複製時，又產生具有相同錯誤的多個副本，於是錯誤會按幾何級數地複雜化。[８] 似乎很清楚，有些變化是故意的，甚至有神學上的動機。
A
manuscript is a hand-copied text. For
the first 1500 years after Christ, all copies of the Bible were reproduced by
scribes who did the best they could—in most cases—to faithfully transmit the
text. Inevitably, mistakes happened
which were then compounded geometrically when the flaw was copied, spawning
multiple copies with the same error in subsequent generations of
texts.[vii] Some changes, it seems
clear, were intentional and even theologically motivated.
鑑於這樣的歷史，很難想像怎麼可能恢復原文稿。然而，這種不確定性來自兩個誤解，其實就是對古代文物的傳播史裏的等級和檔案的誤解。
Given
that history, it’s hard to imagine how an original can be restored. The uncertainty, though, is based on two
misconceptions by the rank and file about the history of the communication of
ancient material like that found in the New Testament.
第一個誤解是﹕傳播或多或少是線性的 - 一個人將消息傳遞給第二個，再傳遞給第三個人，等等，叫很多代以後的人，都只有一個版本。第二個誤解是﹕是口頭傳播的，所以比寫下來的東西，更容易扭曲和誤解。
The
first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear—one person
passing the message on to a second who gives it to a third, etc., leaving a
single message many generations removed from the original. Second, the objection assumes oral
transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something
written.
這兩個假設都不適用於新約的文本。首先，傳播是以書面形式完成的，書面文稿可以測試，口頭傳播卻不能。其次，傳播不是線性的，而是幾何級數式的 - 例如，一封書信產生10個副本，它們又產生100個等等。
Neither
assumption applies to the text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was done in writing,
and written manuscripts can be tested in a way oral communications cannot. Second, the transmission was not linear, but
geometric—e.g., one letter birthed 10 copies which generated 100 and so on.
讓我舉例說明測試是如何進行的。它將幫助您了解學者們如何能充滿信心地，從來自與底本相隔幾個世紀而又相互衝突的手稿，重建原文件。
Let
me illustrate how such a test can be made.
It will help you see how scholars confidently reconstruct an original
from conflicting manuscripts that are centuries removed from the autograph.
假設莎莉阿姨在夢中得到一份叫她青春長駐的靈丹妙藥配方。當她醒來時，她在一張紙上潦草地寫下這配方，然後跑到廚房去配製她的第一鍋“莎莉秘方湯”。幾天后，她變成了一個容光煥發的青年人。
Pretend
your Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her
youth. When she awakes, she scribbles
the complex directions on a sheet of paper, then runs to the kitchen to mix up
her first batch of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
In a few days, she is transformed into a picture of radiant youth.
莎莉阿姨非常興奮，她把手寫的秘方發給三個牌友（莎莉阿姨活在科技黑暗時代 - 沒有復印機或電子郵件）。接著之後，她們又各為自己的十個朋友抄寫副本。
Aunt
Sally is so excited she sends detailed, handwritten instructions to her three
bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no
photocopier or email). They, in turn,
make copies for ten of their own friends.
一切都順利，直到有一天，莎莉阿姨的狗狗吃掉原來那份手稿。她驚慌失措地聯絡了那些遭到類似神秘事件的朋友。那些從她三個收到原手稿的牌友手中也收到副本的人，也被通知了，為要試圖恢復原來的文字。
All
goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s schnauzer eats the original script. In a
panic she contacts her friends who have mysteriously suffered similar
mishaps. The alarm goes out to the
others who received copies from her card-playing trio in an attempt to recover
the original wording.
莎莉收集了所有倖存的手寫副本，共計26份。當她把它們攤開在廚房桌子上時，她立即註意到了差異。除了到處拼寫錯的單字和縮寫外，有23份副本幾乎相同。而其他三份裏，有一份的烹調材料，以不同的次序列出；另一份把兩個短語倒置了（“混合然後剁碎”而不是“剁碎然後混合”）；還有一份包含了其他手稿未提及的烹調材料。
Sally
rounds up all the surviving handwritten copies, 26 in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen
table, she immediately notices differences. Twenty-three of the copies are
virtually the same save for misspelled words and abbreviations littering the
text. Of the remaining three, however,
one lists ingredients in a different order, another has two phrases inverted
(“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”), and one includes an ingredient
not mentioned in any other list.
你認為莎莉阿姨可以從這些證據中，準確地重建她原來的處方嗎？她當然可以。拼寫錯誤和縮寫是無關緊要的，次序亦然（這些差異都意味著相同的意思）。次序倒置的短語比較特別，但可以很容易地修復，因為人們不能混合未被剁碎的東西。然後莎莉會刪除那額外的材料，因為一個人錯誤地添了一樣，是有可能的，而25個人都意外地漏掉它，乃是不可能的。
Do
you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this
evidence? Of course she can. The
misspellings and abbreviations are inconsequential, as is the order of
ingredients in the list (those variations all mean the same thing). The single inverted phrase stands out and can
easily be repaired because one can’t mix something that hasn’t been chopped.
Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one
person would mistakenly add an item than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
即使差異很多和多樣，我們仍然可非常有信心地重建原文稿，因為只需要有足夠的副抄本和一點常理。
Even
if the variations were more numerous and diverse, the original could still be
reconstructed with a high level of confidence with enough copies and a little
common sense.
這是簡化的講法（非常簡化，但你明白了），這就是學者們如何做“文本批評”的工作。這是一個學術專業，用於重建所有古代文獻，而不僅僅是宗教文檔。這不是基於猜測和宗教信仰的隨意工作，卻是一個謹慎的分析過程，以至機敏的批判家們能確定任何作品所可能有的訛誤程度，並在某些條件下，高度確定地重建原文。
This,
in simplified form (very simplified, but you get the point), is how scholars do
“textual criticism,” an academic enterprise used to reconstitute all documents
of antiquity, not just religious texts.
It is not a haphazard effort based on guesses and religious faith. It is a careful analytical process allowing
an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work and,
given certain conditions, reconstruct the original with a high degree of
certainty.
這最後一點道出整個討論的關鍵問題：無論整理前的差異數量有多少，我們都可以有信心地恢復原版本嗎？這個關鍵問題的答案取決於三個因素。 首先，有多少份抄本？第二，手稿有多舊？第三，不同之處（差異）的性質是什麼？
This
last point raises the key question of this entire discussion: Regardless of the raw number of variants, can
we recover the original reading with confidence? The answer to that pivotal question depends
on three factors. First, how many copies
exist? Second, how old are the
manuscripts? Third, what is the exact
nature of the differences (the variants)?
多少和多舊？
How Many and How Old?
如果現有的手稿數量很少，而原稿與最舊的副本之間的時間差距很大，那麼，重建底本就很困難。但是，如果有許多副本，並且最舊的副本與原稿的時間接近，實際上就是說，學者可以肯定，他能確定原稿的措辭。[９]
If
the number of manuscripts available for comparison are few and the time gap
between the original and the oldest copy is wide, then the autograph is harder
to reconstruct. However, if there are
many copies and the oldest ones are closer in time to the original, the scholar
can be more certain she has pinpointed the exact wording of the initial text,
for all practical purposes.[viii]
若留意非聖經文檔的記錄，可讓人了解新約手稿證據的重要性。這些就是歷史學家依賴的，所有古代世俗著作的資料。它們也是根據現有的文稿證據，非常有信心地修復的。[１０]
To get an idea of the significance of the New
Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical
texts. These are secular writings
historians rely on for all their data from antiquity that have been restored
with a high level of confidence based on available textual evidence.[ix]
約瑟夫（Josephus）的第一世紀文獻《猶太戰爭》（The Jewish War ）只有九份完整手稿留下來，抄寫時間是第五世紀 - 寫作後的四個世紀。[１１] 塔西圖斯（Tacitus）的《羅馬帝國編年史》（Annals of Imperial Rome ）是新約時代羅馬世界的主要歷史資料之一。然而，令人驚訝的是，只有兩份手稿倖存，而且是定期為中世紀的。[１２] 修昔底德（Thucydides）的《歷史》（History）有八份留下來；凱撒（Caesar）的《高盧戰爭》（ Gallic Wars），十份；希羅多德（Herodotus）的《歷史》（History），八份；還有七份《柏拉圖》。所有這些都與原作相距超過一千多年。荷馬（Homer）的《伊利亞特》（Iliad）有647份現存的副本，所以它的手稿證據，在世俗作品中最驕人。[１３]
Josephus’
first century document The Jewish War survives in only nine complete
manuscripts dating from the 5th century—four centuries after they were
written.[x] Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial
Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New
Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in only two manuscripts dating
from the Middle Ages.[xi] Thucydides’
History survives in eight copies. There
are ten copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and
seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive
manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.[xii]
請注意，於大多數古代文獻，只有少數手稿倖存，有些手稿和原稿相隔，有800 - 1500年，或更長。然而，學者們確信他們能準確地重建原稿。事實上，幾乎我們所有的古代歷史知識都依賴於這些文件。
Note
that for most ancient documents only a handful of manuscripts exist, some
facing a time gap of 800-1500 years or more.
Yet scholars are confident they have reconstructed the originals with a
high degree of accuracy. In fact,
virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like
these.
聖經手稿證據
The Biblical Manuscript
Evidence
相比之下，新約聖經的手稿證據令人驚嘆（另見F.F.Bruce和McDowell）。最近的一個統計，顯示有5,500份個別的希臘文手稿。[１４] 這些早期片段有﹕大寫抄本（uncial codices，大寫希臘文字手稿，合成書本形式）和小寫抄本（minuscules，草書風格的小希臘文字）。
The
manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning by comparison. A recent count shows 5,500 separate Greek
manuscripts.[xiii] These are represented
by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound
together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style).
在9至15世紀的2,795個小寫抄本碎片中，其中34個，有完整的新約。[１５] 有著幾乎完整的新約的大寫抄本，可以追溯到4世紀及更早。梵蒂岡抄本（Codex Vaticanus）可能是歷史最悠久的，追溯至325-350年。[１６] 宏偉的西乃山抄本（Codex Sinaiticus），追溯至340年，[１７] 包含一半的舊約和幾乎全部新約。亞歷山大抄本（Codex Alexandrinus）包含整個舊約和幾乎完整的新約，可追溯到5世紀中葉。[１８]
Among
the 2,795 minuscule fragments dating from the 9th to the 15th centuries are 34
complete New Testaments.[xiv] Uncial
manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the 4th
century and earlier. Codex Vaticanus is
likely the oldest, dated c. 325-350.[xv]
The magnificent Codex Sinaiticus, dated c. 340[xvi], contains half the
Old Testament and virtually all of the New.
Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly
complete New Testament and dates from the mid-5th century.[xvii]
最有趣的證據來自碎片。切斯特·比替紙草抄本（Chester Beatty
Papyri）包含大部分的新約，並且可以追溯到三世紀中葉。[１９] 1956年宣布的寶地母紙草抄本（Bodmer Papyri II）系列，包括約翰福音的前十四章的大部分內容，以及最後七章的大部分內容，它的歷史可以追溯到主後200年，或更早。[２０]
The
most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of
the New Testament and is dated mid-third century.[xviii] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose
discovery was announced in 1956, includes most of the first fourteen chapters
of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.[xix]
然而，最驚人的發現是在埃及發現的約翰福音18章31-33節的一小部分，被稱為約翰雷蘭蒲草紙（John Rylands Papyri），只有三英寸見方，它是新約任何部分的最早抄本。紙莎草紙的日定期為主後117-138年（雖然它可能更早），[２１] 顯示約翰福音在其寫成的40年內，傳播到遙遠的埃及。
The
most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33,
discovered in Egypt. Known as the John
Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known
copy of any part of the New Testament.
The papyri is dated at A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),[xx]
showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 40
years of its composition.
請記住，大多數紙莎草紙是碎片。只有大約50份手稿包含整個新約聖經。即使這樣，文本證據也非常豐富，特別是與其他古代作品相比之下。
Keep
in mind that most papyri are fragmentary.
Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. Even so, the textual evidence is exceedingly
rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.
還有兩項事物，可以相互驗證手稿的準確性：古代版本（翻譯）和稱為“教父語錄”的，就是我們早期教父曾引用過的經文。
Two
other cross-checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions (translations) and citations
by early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”
教會早期，聖經被翻譯成拉丁文（現有10,000份抄本）。[２２] 到了3世紀和4世紀，新約聖經被翻譯為科普特語和敘利亞語，又被復制；不久之後，又有亞美尼亞語和格魯吉亞語的。[２３] 隨著福音傳播和教會的成長，這些版本幫助傳教士，用當地人自己的語言，把福音傳至新的文化中。翻譯版本也幫助現代學者回答有關希臘手稿的問題。
Early
in the history of the Church, the Scriptures were translated into Latin (10,000
copies exist[xxi]). By the 3rd and 4th
centuries the New Testament had been translated and reproduced in Coptic and
Syriac, and soon after in Armenian, and Georgian, among others. [xxii] These texts helped missionaries reach new
cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the church grew.
Translations help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying
Greek manuscripts.
此外，還有古老的經外資料 - 教義，教誨和教父的引用 - 這些都詳細地引用經文。實際上，“教父語錄”本身幾乎包括新約聖經中的每一節經文。[２４]
In
addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—catechisms, lectionaries,
and quotes from the church fathers—that cite Scripture at great length. Indeed, the patristic quotations themselves
include virtually every verse in the New Testament.[xxiii]
我希望你在這裡留意到一些事情。巴特埃爾曼對聖經文本的主要關注點（大量的差異），只能在有大量手稿的情形中出現。學者們普遍認為這是好事，不是壞事 - 好消息，不是壞消息 - 因為導致問題的條件，正是提供解決方案的條件。愈多手稿可用以比較，則愈多差異可能出現，但也有愈多原材料可作比較，以解決差異的問題。
I
want you to notice something here. The
chief concern Bart Ehrman raises regarding the biblical texts—the massive
number of variants—can only arise with a massive number of manuscripts. Scholars universally consider this a virtue,
not a vice—good news, not bad—because the condition causing the problem is the
very condition providing the solution. The more manuscripts available for
comparison, the more changes that will likely appear, but also the more raw
material to use for comparison to fix the problem the variants pose.
排山倒海似的一大堆的手稿，讓我們有足夠理由，相信原稿在整體文檔中被保存下來。不需要找其他東西來替代缺失的部分。我們有110％的文檔，而不是90％。[２５] 真正的問題是：我們是否知道如何將麥子與稗子分開，以恢復原始版本嗎？其答案完全取決於我們的最後一個問題：這些差異的性質是什麼？
This
mountain of manuscripts gives us every reason to believe the originals have
been preserved in the aggregate. No
missing parts need be replaced. We have
110% of the text, not 90%.[xxiv] The
real question is this: Do we know how to
separate the wheat from the chaff to recover the original reading? That depends entirely on our last
question: What is the nature of the
variants themselves?
那些討厭的差異
Those Pesky Variants
根據手稿專家丹尼爾華萊士（Daniel Wallace）的說法，「版本文字的差異，只不過是與標准版本不同（例如，印刷版本，某特定的手稿等），它們涉及拼寫、單詞順序、省略、添加、替換，或完全重寫。」[２６] 請注意，任何差異，無論多麼微小，都會增加總數。
According
to manuscript expert Daniel Wallace, “A textual variant is simply any
difference from a standard text (e.g., a printed text, a particular manuscript,
etc.) that involves spelling, word order, omission, addition, substitution, or
a total rewrite of the text.[xxv] Note
that any difference, no matter how slight, is added to the total count.
這些差異究竟是什麼？它們可以分為兩類：重要的差異和微不足道的差異。一個微不足道的差異，絕對不會影響我們重建原版本。無論哪個解讀是原本的，意思都一樣。
What
exactly are those differences? They can
be divided into two categories:
significant variants and insignificant ones. An insignificant variant has absolutely no
bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original text. The meaning remains the same, regardless of
which reading is the original.
例如，超過一半的差異（是的，超過200,000）是拼寫錯誤，[２７] 是意外的（例如﹕ie / ei錯誤，在經文中，與及在我們自己的寫作中，一樣普遍），或不同的拼寫的選擇（例如﹕kreinai vs. krinai）。還有一大堆其他例子，都是在縮寫或風格上，無關緊要的差異（一個定冠詞出現在一個名字之前 - “the James” - 卻不在另一處，因為它沒有改變其意義）。[２８]
For
example, well over half the variants (yes, more than 200,000) are spelling
errors,[xxvi] due either to accident (the ie/ei mistake is as common in
Scripture as it is in our own writing), or different choices of phonetic
spelling (kreinai vs. krinai). A host of
others are immaterial differences in abbreviation or style (a definite article
appearing before a name—“the James”—omitted in another because it adds nothing
to the meaning).[xxvii]
顯然，一些微不足道的變化在神學上很重要。KJV約翰壹書五章（“約翰引句”，Comma Johanneum）的呈現，似乎與三位一體相呼應，這是一個重要的教義問題，但顯然這個差異不在原版，所以它沒有產生任何文本問題。它只出現在四個手稿中，最早可追溯到10世紀（另外四份，抄寫員把它寫在頁邊），[２９] 幾乎一般人都認為是訛誤。此外，三位一體的教義並不依賴於這段文字，而是由許多其他沒有問題的段落驗證得來的。
Clearly,
some insignificant variations are theologically important. The rendering in the KJV of 1 John 5 (the
Comma Johanneum) appearing to echo the Trinity is about a significant doctrinal
issue, but clearly this variant is not in the original so it creates no textual
concern. It appears in only a four
manuscripts, the earliest dating from the 10th century (four others have it
penciled into the margin by a scribe),[xxviii] and is almost universally
acknowledged to be a corruption. Further, the doctrine of the Trinity does not
rely on this text, but is verified by many other passages not in question.
若數千個差異，都只出現在一個手稿中（“單數讀數”），是類似的問題。這些明顯的錯誤很容易糾正。
A
similar problem occurs with thousands of other variants that appear in only one
manuscript (“singular readings”). These obvious mistakes are easily corrected.
以下是華萊士所總結的差異方式：[３０]
Here’s
how Wallace[xxix] sums up the variations:
1.拼寫差異或無意義讀數（例如，漏掉一行）
Spelling
differences or nonsense readings (e.g., a skipped line)
2.不重要的字的次序（“基督耶穌”與“耶穌基督”）和同義詞
Inconsequential
word order (“Christ Jesus” vs. “Jesus Christ”) and synonyms
3.雖然不切實，但有意義的差異（例如，“約翰引句”）
Meaningful,
though non-viable variants (e.g., the Comma Johanneum)
4.有意義且切實的差異
Variants
that are both meaningful and viable
華萊士的最後一個類別構成“遠低於”所有差異的1％。[３１] 換句話說，超過396,000處的差異，不影響我們重建原版本的能力。即使有文本上切實的差異，絕大多數人在神學上的影響，都是微不足道的，相對地，它們“不能引起人的興趣”。[３２] 爾曼自己也承認這些事實。
Wallace’s
last category constitutes “much less than” 1% of all variations.[xxx] In other words, more than 396,000 of the
variants have no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original. Even with the textually viable differences
that remain, the vast majority are so theologically insignificant they are
“relatively boring.”[xxxi] These facts
Ehrman himself freely admits:
在我們早期的基督教手稿中發現的大多數差異，與神學或思想體系無關。最早遠的差異，都來自﹕純粹和簡單的 - 筆誤、意外遺漏、無意的添加、拼寫錯誤的單詞，這樣或那樣的錯誤。[３３]
Most
of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with
theology or ideology. Far and away the
most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen,
accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one
sort of another.[xxxii]
華萊士的第四類 - 有意義（在文本意義上）且切實的差異 - 是唯一能產生後果的。「我們在這裡講到」，科斯滕貝格（Kostenberger）和克魯格（Kruger）寫道﹕「關於有兩種（或更多）可能的解讀，各自的證據……相對平等。」[３４]
Wallace’s
fourth category—those variants both meaningful and viable (in a textual
sense)—is the only one of any consequence. “We are talking here,” write
Kostenberger and Kruger, “about a situation where there are two (or more)
possible readings, and the evidence for each reading…is relatively
equal.”[xxxiii]
在這裡，專業文本鑑別家的分析技巧，可用來淘汰最不可能的差異。他們有一套特定的規則 - 分析文檔的規則 - 這使他們能解決絕大多數衝突，於是滿有信心地恢復原稿。
Here
the analytical skills of the professional textual critic are applied to weed
out the most unlikely variants. She has
at her disposal a specific set of rules—the accepted canons of textual
analysis—that enable her to resolve the vast majority of conflicts to recover
the original with a high degree of confidence.
諷刺的是，這正是埃爾曼在他對新約文件的結論，無意中證明了的。
Ironically,
this is precisely the point Ehrman unwittingly demonstrates as he closes out
his case against the New Testament documents.
埃爾曼的“十大”
Ehrman’s
“Top Ten”
在《錯引耶穌》平裝版的最後一頁，埃爾曼列出“不在新約原文中的十大經文”，作為他的的謝幕炮火，但卻證明他的整個論點都是錯的。
On
the final page of the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman lists the
“Top Ten Verses That Were Not Originally in the New Testament.” It serves as his parting salvo, but in
reality proves his entire thesis false.
首先，我立即認出十段經文中，有六段，在我使用的聖經譯本（NASB）裏，都在邊註中註明這些經文不在最早的手稿中。沒有什麼可驚奇的。
First,
I immediately recognized six of the ten citations, and in every case my own
Bible translation (NASB) makes a marginal note that these verses are not in the
earliest manuscripts. No surprises here.
其次，埃爾曼的“十大”名單中，有三分之一畢竟是在新約聖經中。事實上，路加福音22：20,24：12和24：51b是有問題的。然而，同樣的字句卻在沒有爭議的段落中逐字出現（分別為馬太福音26:28和馬可福音14:24;約翰福音20：3-7;使徒行傳1：9,11）。
Second,
one third of Ehrman’s “Top Ten” list actually is in the New Testament, after
all. Luke 22:20, 24:12, and 24:51b are,
in fact, questionable in Luke. They do
appear, however, almost word for word in uncontested passages (respectively,
Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24; John 20:3-7; Acts 1:9, 11).
第三，若刪除埃爾曼所列出的任何有差異經文，不會損害任何神學思想。即便是刪除馬可福音的長結束（16：9-20），或者關於耶穌和行淫時被拿的婦人那一段很有魅力，但很可能不在正典中的對話（約翰福音7：53-8：11），亦然。
Third,
nothing of theological consequence is lost by striking any of the variants
Ehrman lists, even the long ending in Mark (16:9-20) or the engaging but likely
non-canonical account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John
7:53-8:11).
最後（也是最具破壞性的），埃爾曼所列舉的，證明了和他的意圖剛好相反的事情。他絞盡腦汁地說，我們永遠失去原文檔了。他所列舉的，本身表明了﹕我們可以認出最嚴重的錯誤段落，然後刪除它們。
Finally
(and most damaging), Ehrman’s list proves just the opposite of what he
intends. For all his hand wringing that
the original text is lost forever, his list itself demonstrates it’s possible
to recognize the most important spurious renderings and eliminate them.
埃爾曼自己的作品（《錯引》，還有《The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture》）證明上面提到的文本鑑別法 - 他用來批評新約的方法 - 足以恢復原稿面目。又證明大量的差異不會影響我們重建原稿的能力，反之，我們擁有的豐富手稿證據，使我們能夠清除掉大部分差異。否則，埃爾曼無法自信地列出他的“十大” - 或任何其他不在新約聖經中的經文。
Ehrman’s
own works (Misquoting and also The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) prove that
the text-critical methods mentioned above—the very methods he uses to critique
the New Testament—are adequate to restore the original reading. It is proof that the massive number of
variants do not interfere with our ability to recapture the original, but
instead the rich manuscript evidence we possess allows us to weed out the vast
percentage of variants. Otherwise Ehrman
would not be able to say with confidence his “Top Ten”—or any other verses—are
not in the New Testament.
還給有諷刺的事情，就是他在另一部作品中所承認的事實。將《錯引耶穌》的悲觀意識，與他和梅茨格爾合著的《新約經文》所展現的樂觀情緒進行比較：[３５]
This
is a fact he acknowledges (again, ironically) in another work. Compare the
pessimism of Misquoting Jesus with the optimism expressed in Metzger and
Ehrman’s The Text of the New Testament:[xxxiv]
除了新約希臘文手稿和早期版本的文本證據，文本鑑別家還可以比較早期教父所寫的評論，講道和其他論文中所引用的許多經文。事實上，這些引用是如此的廣泛，以至如果我們對新約聖經文本知識的所有其他來源都被摧毀，它們仍然足以用來重建整個新約聖經。[強調加上的]
Besides
textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early
versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in
commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers.
Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our
knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be
sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New
Testament. [emphasis added]
巴特·埃爾曼的兩本書，上面都寫著他的名字，給人完全相反的印象。[３６] 兩者都是在同一年（2005年）出版的。
Bart
Ehrman has two books with his name on them that give the exact opposite
impression.[xxxv] And both were
published the same year (2005).
我們可以從證據中得出什麼結論？幾乎所有新約文件中的400,000個差異 - 拼寫錯誤、倒置的單詞、不切實的差異等 - 對重建原稿的任務，完全無關緊要。幾乎所有剩下的差異，嚴格地使用已被接受的文本鑑別規則，都可以解決。
What
can we conclude from the evidence?
Virtually all of the 400,000 differences in the New Testament
documents—spelling errors, inverted words, non-viable variants and the like—are
completely inconsequential to the task of reconstructing the original. Of the remaining differences, virtually all
yield to a vigorous application of the accepted canons of textual criticism.
這意味著我們的新約純淨度超過99％。在全部文檔的20,000行中，只有40行有疑問（約400字），[３７] 沒有影響任何重要的教義。
This
means that our New Testament is over 99% pure.
In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about
400 words),[xxxvi] and none affects any significant doctrine.
學者D.A. 卡森（D.A. Carson）這樣總結：「利害攸關的是﹕文本的純淨度如此實在。我們認為這些差異，不能以任何方式，損害我們信以為真的任何教義，和我們被命令去做的任何事情。」[３８]
Scholar
D.A. Carson sums it up this way: “What
is at stake is a purity of text of such a substantial nature that nothing we
believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any
way jeopardized by the variants.”[xxxvii]
我們的主要問題是﹕「我們能否非常肯定地複制原來的新約？」甚至巴特埃爾曼，自己本人也證明﹕我們可以。
Our
chief question has been, “Can we reproduce the original New Testament to a high
degree of certainty?” Even Bart Ehrman,
in spite of himself, demonstrates we can.
註釋
[１]
Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus—The Story Behind
Who Changed the Bible and Why, first paperback edition (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2007), 7, 90. [２]
Daniel Wallace, “The Number of
Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation,” bible.org. [３]
Ehrman, 10. [４] Bruce Metzger
passed away in 2007. [５] Both quotes can
be found on the back cover of Misquoting Jesus. [６] Ehrman, 7, 257. [７] Michael Kruger on STR Radio, July 25, 2010. [８] When a large number of manuscripts exhibit
the same “signature” pattern of variations, they are referred to as
a text family or a “text type,” e.g., the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text,
or the Majority Text (aka the Byzantine Text, the underlying manuscript family
of the KJV). [９] Kostenberger and
Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 205. Sufficient
certainty is the goal, not absolute certainty. [１０] Very minor differences in number appear in various
catalogs of these documents, but these are accurate enough to make our point. [１１] Paul Barnett, Is the New
Testament History? (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1986), 45. [１２] Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405. [１３] Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. [１４] Kostenberger and Kruger, 207. The number of manuscripts is continually
increasing as more are discovered. [１５] Geisler & Nix, 402. [１６] Ibid., 391. [１７] Ibid., 392. [１８] Ibid., 394. [１９] Ibid., 389-390. [２０] Metzger, 39-40. [２１] Geisler and Nix, 388. [２２] Kostenberger and Kruger,
208. [２３] Barnett, 44. [２４] Metzger, 86. [２５] Daniel Wallace, “The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are
They Identical?" Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 169. [２６] Daniel Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical
Miscalculation.” [２７] Daniel Wallace, “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?” [２８] Kostenberger and Kruger, 215-217. [２９] Ibid., 219. [３０] Daniel Wallace, “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?” [３１] Ibid. [３２] Kostenberger and
Kruger, 226. [３３] Ehrman, 55. [３４] Kostenberger and Kruger,
225. [３５] Metzger and
Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration, 4th Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 126. [３６] To be fair, this portion was
undoubtedly authored by Metzger. Nonetheless, the ironic conflict remains. [３７] Geisler and Nix, 475. [３８] Carson, D.A., The King James
Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 56.
