close
問題：最近在查經班帶查經的時候, 遇到了一個我自己都無法說服自己的問題, 問題出現在馬可福音2:25-2 耶穌說大衛在亞比亞他作大祭司的時候吃了陳設餅, 這句話顯然和撒母耳記上21:1-6的史實不符, 是耶穌記錯了嗎, 還是後人抄錯了?我查了一些網路上的解經如下, 我覺得解經書硬凹得很嚴重, 說那個時候亞比亞雖然是小孩但他就算和他同年代, 這實在令人難以接受, 聖經明明說” 大衛在亞比亞他作大祭司的時候”(NIV: In the days of Abiathar the high priest.) 如何能為了力守聖經無誤而硬掰呢? 甚至我看到一些解經資料中說古卷抄者有看到這一段明知有錯所以直接空白跳過, 到底是不是耶穌說錯或馬可記錯? 煩請您撥冗回答.
答：
這問題實在有夠難，即使我不斷查考一些解經書，到現在，我也還沒辦法做出很理想的解釋。
我只能說：
一、聖經絕對無誤，這是我們永遠必須保持的信念。
面對聖經裡一切看似矛盾與錯誤的難題，我們都只能在『聖經無誤』這個最基本的立場上，來嘗試解答問題。
二、至於到底是亞希米勒或亞比亞他，有些可能的解釋（但未必能讓人很滿意）：
1.筆誤
不是聖經有誤，而是文士抄寫的過程可能抄錯。
2.以最出名或比較具代表性的人來當家族人物的代表，其他人則被省略
也就是說，被列出的那人名，但未必表示就真的是那個人。
比方說：馬太福音的耶穌家譜，為了達成一種『十四代』的切割法，所以這些家譜其實有很多人都被省略掉。
我們看到的『A生B』，未必就表示B是A所親生，是A的親生兒子，
事實上，連孫子，都可以被聖經簡寫成『A生B』。
3.馬可福音的聖經原文意思是：
『正在亞比亞他………那個大祭司…………的時候』
那個希臘文用法，是當時很常見的希臘文使用法。
這是一種『廣泛性』的用法，不是『特定且精確』的用法。
所以，該句經文意思，只是說亞比亞他『在世時』，而非亞比亞他『實際當大祭司的時候』。
請注意這兩種意思的差異性：
『正在亞比亞他………那個大祭司…………的時候』
vs
『正在亞比亞他………當大祭司…………的時候』
換言之，大衛當時確實是發生在亞比亞他的父親亞希米勒時，
當時，亞比亞他只是小孩，
但是，因為亞比亞他後來當大祭司，而聖經也常有這種『用最高的職稱』來稱呼人的情形，
所以，即使當時亞比亞他還小，但依然稱那是亞比亞他那個大祭司的時候，並非不可理解。
以上是一些嘗試說明，提供參考。
小小羊
答：
這問題實在有夠難，即使我不斷查考一些解經書，到現在，我也還沒辦法做出很理想的解釋。
我只能說：
一、聖經絕對無誤，這是我們永遠必須保持的信念。
面對聖經裡一切看似矛盾與錯誤的難題，我們都只能在『聖經無誤』這個最基本的立場上，來嘗試解答問題。
二、至於到底是亞希米勒或亞比亞他，有些可能的解釋（但未必能讓人很滿意）：
1.筆誤
不是聖經有誤，而是文士抄寫的過程可能抄錯。
2.以最出名或比較具代表性的人來當家族人物的代表，其他人則被省略
也就是說，被列出的那人名，但未必表示就真的是那個人。
比方說：馬太福音的耶穌家譜，為了達成一種『十四代』的切割法，所以這些家譜其實有很多人都被省略掉。
我們看到的『A生B』，未必就表示B是A所親生，是A的親生兒子，
事實上，連孫子，都可以被聖經簡寫成『A生B』。
3.馬可福音的聖經原文意思是：
『正在亞比亞他………那個大祭司…………的時候』
那個希臘文用法，是當時很常見的希臘文使用法。
這是一種『廣泛性』的用法，不是『特定且精確』的用法。
所以，該句經文意思，只是說亞比亞他『在世時』，而非亞比亞他『實際當大祭司的時候』。
請注意這兩種意思的差異性：
『正在亞比亞他………那個大祭司…………的時候』
vs
『正在亞比亞他………當大祭司…………的時候』
換言之，大衛當時確實是發生在亞比亞他的父親亞希米勒時，
當時，亞比亞他只是小孩，
但是，因為亞比亞他後來當大祭司，而聖經也常有這種『用最高的職稱』來稱呼人的情形，
所以，即使當時亞比亞他還小，但依然稱那是亞比亞他那個大祭司的時候，並非不可理解。
以上是一些嘗試說明，提供參考。
小小羊
我有一些英文的參考書(好像沒有中文版) 不知道有沒有參考作用.
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 http://net.bible.org/bible.php
(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: D W {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; {A C 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.
我也曾想過翻譯出來看看. 但一想到弟只姊妹看不懂我翻譯出來的東西還好. 但萬一我翻譯錯誤弟只姊妹因我的錯誤而被誤導就糟了.
所以才只把原文寄上. 希望有其他弟兄能翻譯看看.
其實那些資料跟小小羊所說的分別不大, 只是一點點不大的分別而已. 我試試翻譯重點看看
重點
1. 耶穌說大祭司亞希米勒”而不是“亞比亞他, 是耶穌出錯嗎? 如果是, 當時法利賽人肯定會說出這是錯處的.
2. "大祭司" 這名詞 可在任何大祭司的家人身上
3. 小小羊文章的第3點.
『正在亞比亞他………那個大祭司…………的時候』
書說雖然有可能這樣翻譯，但文法不是最自然, 最自然的翻譯還是正在亞比亞他………當大祭司…………的時候』
但因文法學上到現在還是不完全, 可能有別的譯法.要留待將來解決
我去書店看過一些別的沒有翻譯成中文的注釋, 但我記憶中最多的說法是 "這不是那段經文的重點"
希望能幫得上一點忙
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 http://net.bible.org/bible.php
(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: D W {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; {A C 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.
我也曾想過翻譯出來看看. 但一想到弟只姊妹看不懂我翻譯出來的東西還好. 但萬一我翻譯錯誤弟只姊妹因我的錯誤而被誤導就糟了.
所以才只把原文寄上. 希望有其他弟兄能翻譯看看.
其實那些資料跟小小羊所說的分別不大, 只是一點點不大的分別而已. 我試試翻譯重點看看
重點
1. 耶穌說大祭司亞希米勒”而不是“亞比亞他, 是耶穌出錯嗎? 如果是, 當時法利賽人肯定會說出這是錯處的.
2. "大祭司" 這名詞 可在任何大祭司的家人身上
3. 小小羊文章的第3點.
『正在亞比亞他………那個大祭司…………的時候』
書說雖然有可能這樣翻譯，但文法不是最自然, 最自然的翻譯還是正在亞比亞他………當大祭司…………的時候』
但因文法學上到現在還是不完全, 可能有別的譯法.要留待將來解決
我去書店看過一些別的沒有翻譯成中文的注釋, 但我記憶中最多的說法是 "這不是那段經文的重點"
希望能幫得上一點忙
| 檢舉 | Posted by 智傑 at 2010年03月1日 15:59
今天在您的BLOG上看到這篇文章，剛好手邊有《聖經的無誤與難題》（饒孝柏 著），裏面有對於這個問題進行較為深入的探討。
因為這個問題的探討長達十五面，所以我只簡單的列出他的結論，希望可以作為參考。
－－－－－－－－－－
一.
...亞比亞他的父親亞希米勒，只出現在大衛逃難的初期，與大衛只有一面之緣；而亞比亞他則陪伴大為一生之久。
到了所羅門時代，雖然因亞比亞他的不忠，被解除職權，可是所羅門還是稱他為「祭司長」（王上二27，四4）。
故大衛時代祭司的領袖，一直都以亞比亞他為首、以他為代表。
二.
...耶穌舉大衛吃陳設餅之例時，說是「亞比亞他作大祭司」；舊約撒母耳記上二十一1~9記載的雖是亞希米勒，但他是出來接待大衛的祭司，而大祭司卻是亞比亞他，耶穌並沒有說錯。
－－－－－－－－－－
以上摘錄自《聖經的無誤與難題》，希望會有幫助。
因為這個問題的探討長達十五面，所以我只簡單的列出他的結論，希望可以作為參考。
－－－－－－－－－－
一.
...亞比亞他的父親亞希米勒，只出現在大衛逃難的初期，與大衛只有一面之緣；而亞比亞他則陪伴大為一生之久。
到了所羅門時代，雖然因亞比亞他的不忠，被解除職權，可是所羅門還是稱他為「祭司長」（王上二27，四4）。
故大衛時代祭司的領袖，一直都以亞比亞他為首、以他為代表。
二.
...耶穌舉大衛吃陳設餅之例時，說是「亞比亞他作大祭司」；舊約撒母耳記上二十一1~9記載的雖是亞希米勒，但他是出來接待大衛的祭司，而大祭司卻是亞比亞他，耶穌並沒有說錯。
－－－－－－－－－－
以上摘錄自《聖經的無誤與難題》，希望會有幫助。
| 檢舉 | Posted by Poyueh at 2010年03月28日 15:41
Poyueh弟兄所提供的這本書，我手上有。
饒牧師是位好牧師，信仰相當純正。
他寫的這本書也相當不錯，針對許多聖經難題，提出一些解釋與看法。
不過，我並不是完全認同饒牧師這本書的觀念與論點。
基本上，饒牧師主張聖經『原稿』可以有『小差別』。
這種理論，當然可以解決一些問題，
但是，卻可能帶來更嚴重的問題。
因此，我對他這種理論，以及從這裡論所導引出來的解經與難題回答，主張大家可以參考，但必須保持警戒。
不過，他在關於亞比亞他或亞希米勒這個聖經難題上所提出的分析與看法，倒是相當值得閱讀與參考。
由於全文很長，所以我們無法轉貼，對研經有興趣的弟兄姊妹，可以自行去閱讀。
我的立場，是認同芝加哥聖經無誤宣言的。
這份宣言，關於聖經無誤部分，我們園地已經張貼過：
『芝加哥「聖經無誤」宣言(轉貼) 』
http://blog.roodo.com/yml/archives/9743521.html
這宣言第十三條的立場，是與饒牧師那種認為聖經原稿可以有小差別的立場不一樣的。
饒牧師是位好牧師，信仰相當純正。
他寫的這本書也相當不錯，針對許多聖經難題，提出一些解釋與看法。
不過，我並不是完全認同饒牧師這本書的觀念與論點。
基本上，饒牧師主張聖經『原稿』可以有『小差別』。
這種理論，當然可以解決一些問題，
但是，卻可能帶來更嚴重的問題。
因此，我對他這種理論，以及從這裡論所導引出來的解經與難題回答，主張大家可以參考，但必須保持警戒。
不過，他在關於亞比亞他或亞希米勒這個聖經難題上所提出的分析與看法，倒是相當值得閱讀與參考。
由於全文很長，所以我們無法轉貼，對研經有興趣的弟兄姊妹，可以自行去閱讀。
我的立場，是認同芝加哥聖經無誤宣言的。
這份宣言，關於聖經無誤部分，我們園地已經張貼過：
『芝加哥「聖經無誤」宣言(轉貼) 』
http://blog.roodo.com/yml/archives/9743521.html
這宣言第十三條的立場，是與饒牧師那種認為聖經原稿可以有小差別的立場不一樣的。
| 檢舉 | Posted by 小小羊 at 2010年03月28日 18:39
全站熱搜
留言列表
