:: 明道社 :: Ming Dao Press Ltd ::


明道培訓明道行事曆課程總覽及須知聖經精讀團契明道讀經課程聖言善道－新舊約證書課程明道聖經專題講座明道出版書籍出版影音產品明道試讀研習本答案下載電子書明道刊物明道通訊明道電子報網上研經平台聖地風貌相片集聖經地圖培訓錄影討論區網上研經平台明道文庫總目錄靈食蜜語每週一文學者文庫認識明道歷史使命董事顧問同工支持明道

目前位置：明道社網上研經資源 >>學者文庫

以賽亞書的神學

從以賽亞書的組合策略初探以賽亞書的神學

作者 : 黃儀章博士（伯特利神學院聖經系教授）

以賽亞書三十六至三十九章過去被人忽視

長期以來，舊約學者都認為以賽亞書三十六至三十九章是重要的。¹然而，他們大多只關心歷史批判（historical criticism）或文學批判（literary criticism）的分析。關於前者，曾被提出的歷史問題有：「主前701年發生了甚麼事？」「這城 [耶路撒冷]怎樣得到解救？」，及「西拿基立的軍隊發生了甚麼事？」²關於後者，問題涉及文學的從屬性（literary dependency）：³「在文學上，賽三十六至三十九章是從屬於王下十八至二十章嗎？」⁴或「王下十八至二十章是從屬於賽三十六至三十九章嗎？」⁵或「在文學上，賽三十六至三十九章和王下十八至二十章，皆從屬於一個共同的來源嗎？」⁶舊約學者Seitz指出，當這些歷史和文學批判的問題佔據著以賽亞書的研究時，賽三十六至三十九章的「功能和目的」就被忽略了。⁷有關這點，Seitz有這樣的評論：「一直以來，關乎耶路撒冷在主前701年得解救的敘述的詮釋，都被一些非常獨特的歷史批判和文學批判的問題規限著，其不幸的結果，就是引致詮釋者離開現存形狀的以賽亞書的文本，沒有認真地處理當中的問題。」⁸

另一方面，Seitz，Smelik 和 Ackroyd 不約而同地指出，當釋經家在詮釋賽三十六至三十九章時，他們都繞過以賽亞書，進到列王紀上去。Seitz指出：「直至近代，賽三十六至三十九章的討論，主要都是聚焦在一些特別的歷史問題上，而這些問題主要都是與耶路撒冷在主前701年發生了甚麼事有關。因這緣故，學者們的興趣都較多放在賽三十六至三十七章，而賽三十八至三十九章卻沒有得到應得的重視。另外，基於列王紀已處理相同的歷史處境 (王下十八13 －十九37)，因此以賽亞書相關的前兩章經文的重要性便被蓋過了。」⁹Smelik 也指出：「一直以來，賽三十六至三十九章作為以賽亞書的一部份，都頗被忽視。主要的原因，是因為它們與王下的經文 (王下十八13, 17 －二十19) 極為相似……因此，在大部份以賽亞書的釋經書中，這段經文都是被忽視的；讀者會被轉介至列王紀的釋經書去。」¹⁰最後，Ackroyd也表達出他在這方面的慨歎：「當我為 Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary 寫有關以賽亞書的釋經時，我發現在寫賽三十六至三十九章時，受到不少限制，因為根據普遍的觀念，這幾章屬於列王紀下，因此，它們會在列王紀下被完全處理。我只能做到的，就只有把它們之間的不同指出來……但這卻忽略了這幾章經文在以賽亞書中所發揮的功能。」 ¹¹

第 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 頁

¹	Wolf: “The key to understand the structure of the Book of Isaiah is to understand the four chapters that constitute the historical interlude, chapters 36-39” (Herbert Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 39).
²	Seitz: “Virtually all studies of the narrative tradition in Isa 36-37 focus on historical questions” (Christopher Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny. The Development of the Book of Isaiah. A Reassessment of Isaiah 36-39 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991], 47). 例如：W. H. Shea, “Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 401-18；A. R. Millard, “Sennacherib’s Attack on Hezekiah,” Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985): 61-77；Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis；Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusale；H. Tadmor, “Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical Considerations,” Zion 50 (1985): 65-80；A. Laato, “Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis in 701 B.C.,” Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (1987): 49-68；C. van Leeuwen, “Sennacherib devant Jerusalem,” Oudtestamentliche Studiën 14 (1965): 245-72；H. Wildberger, “Die Rede des Rabsake vor Jerusalem,” Theologische Zeitschrift 35 (1979): 35-47；A. K. Jenkins, “Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings 18:13-19:37,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 284-98。
³	有關文學從屬性問題的產生，是因為賽36-39和王下18:13-20:19有很多相似的地方，包括事件發生的先後次序 (賽36-37//王下18:13和18:17-19:37；賽38//王下20:1-11；賽39//王下20:12-19)。但我們也應注意到，雖然兩者相似，但當中亦有不同的地方，特別是：王下18:14-16關乎希西家向亞述王求情的記載，在以賽亞書並沒有出現；賽38:9-20關乎希西家的感恩禱告，也沒有在王下出現。
⁴	這是普遍學者的看法，例如，Motyer: “It has long been the majority view that these chapters have been taken into Isaiah from the Book of Kings, and it remains so today" (Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary [Downers Grove: IVP, 1993], 285)；Schmitt: “Scholars usually agree that much of Isaiah 36-39 was borrowed from 2 Kings to bring the various Isaiah materials together in one place” (John Schmitt, Isaiah and His Interpreters [New York: Paulist Press, 1986], 92)；Smelik: “According to general opinion the parts in Kings are more original than the chapters in Isaiah. It is assumed that Isaiah 36-39 have been extracted from 2 Kings and added to the already completed first part of the Book of Isaiah (Isa 1-35) in the same way as the concluding chapter of Kings has been added to the Book of Jeremiah” (K. A. D. Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy,” Oudtestamentliche Studiën 24 [1986]: 70)。這看法最初是由Gesenius提出(Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über den Jesaja [Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1821], 932-36)。自始之後，這看法普遍被學者接受。但在近代以賽亞書的研究，Gesenius的看法受到強烈質疑，例如，Seitz: “Gesenius’s decision to regard Isa 36-39 as derived from Kings has proven fateful for subsequent research. On the one hand, German scholars up to the modern period have often refused to treat these chapters as part of a broader analysis of the Isaiah traditions. On the other hand, shifting the interpretation of 36-39 into the territory of Kings has meant a decided interest in strictly historical matters, in isolation from literary developments within Isaiah, to be sure, but also in isolation from literary developments in Kings outside the narrower unit 18:13-19:17” (Seitz, Zion's Final Destiny, 49)。
⁵	這看法由Smelik提出：“The general opinion that Isaiah 36-39 are borrowed from Kings has to be reconsidered. In my view these narratives were intended to be inserted between the two parts of Isaiah . . . Only some time afterwards, they were added to the book of Kings because of the prominent part played by king Hezekiah in these narratives” (Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy,” 74)。基本上，Smelik所持的理由是第一，有關希西家患病，以賽亞書的記述比王下的好；第二，賽36-39在以賽亞書中扮演一道橋樑的作用，把第一以賽亞和第二以賽亞連接起來；第三，賽36-39不順序的記述，在以賽亞書中可以得到更好的解釋，就是作為一個寫作技巧，把賽39巴比倫使節的探訪和賽40以色列人被擄至巴比倫這兩段經文串連起來。Smelik的看法得到Hays和Stuart (John H. Hays and Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987], 372)，John Walton (John Walton, “New Observation on the Date of Isaiah,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 [1985]: 129-32) 和 Herbert Wolf (Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah, 171) 的支持。
⁶	例如，Motyer: “The theory which best fits the facts is that both Isaiah and Kings had access to annuals and records and used them to suit their own purposes as historian” (Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 286)。
⁷	Christopher Seitz, Isaiah 1-39. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for teaching and Preaching [Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993], 243.
⁸	Seitz: “Traditionally, interpretation of the story of Jerusalem's deliverance in 701 B.C. has been carried out within certain very specific historical and literary-critical parameters, which unfortunately have led the interpreter away from any serious engagement with the Isaiah text in its present form” (Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, 242); “In our judgment, because modern scholarship has been chiefly interested in determining how the army of Sennacherib was felled in the events of 70 B.C. (or if it was felled at all), the design of the narrative in its present form has often been ignored in the name of sifting out ‘objective’ records uncontaminated by theological bias” (Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, 252).
⁹	Seitz: “discussion of chapters 36-39 has, until recently, been largely carried out with an eye toward certain specific historical problems, chiefly among them determining what happened to Jerusalem in 701 B.C. As such, interest in chapters 36-37 has overshadowed concern with chapters 38-39. At the same time, the former two chapters in Isaiah have themselves been overshadowed by the material in Kings that deals with the same historical circumstances (2 Kings 18:13-19:37)” (Seitz, Isaiah 1-39, 204).
¹⁰	Smelik: “Chapters 36-39 constitute a part of the Book of Isaiah that was rather neglected until recently. This was mainly because they are almost identical to parts of 2 Kings (2 Kings 18:13, 17-20:19) . . . In most commentaries on Isaiah these chapters are, therefore, omitted; the reader is referred to a commentary on Kings” (Smelik, “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy,” 70).
¹¹	Ackroyd: “When writing the commentary on Isaiah for the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary, I found myself put under restraint in writing on Isaiah 36-39, because, in the common view, these chapters belong in 2 Kings, and it is there that they will be fully handled. I was limited virtually entirely to points of difference . . . But this is to ignore what these chapters do to the Book of Isaiah, how they function within it” (Peter Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36-39: Structure and Function,” in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P., ed. W.C. Delsman [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Valag, 1982], 15).