哲学研究

参考文献

陈贻绎，2012年：《希伯来圣经的“正典化”探究》,载《世界历史》第4期。

李思琪，2020年：《〈马索拉文本〉，〈七十子译本〉与〈希伯来圣经〉的古代传播史》，载《世界历史》第4期。

吴飞，2020年：《经学何以入哲学？---兼与赵汀阳先生商榷》，载《哲学研究》第11期。

Bernstein,M.J.,2013，“‘Rewritten Bible’:A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness？”,in Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran,Leiden:Brill.

Brooke,G.J.,2009，“New Perspectives on the Bible and its Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls”,in D.Dimant and R.G.Kratz(eds.),The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran,Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck.

Collins,J.J.,1995，“Before the Canon:Scriptures in Second Temple Judaism”,in J.L.Mays,D.L.Petersen and K.H.Richards (eds.),Old Testament Interpretation:Past,Present and Future:Essays in Honor of Gene M.Tucker,Edinburgh:T&T Clark．

Crawford,S.W.,2008,Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times,Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.

Fishbane,M.,1985,Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel,Oxford:Oxford University Press.

García Martínez,F.and Tigchelaar,E.J.C.(eds.),1997-1998,The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition,Leiden:Brill;Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.

Goodman,M.,2009，“Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second Temple Period and Its Aftermath”,inJournal of Jewish Studies60 (2）．

Hughes,J.A.,2006,Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot,Leiden:Brill.

Kratz,R.G.,2013,Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels,Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck．

Levinson,B.M.,2013,A More Perfect Torah:At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the Temple Scroll,Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns.

Lim,T.H.,2013,The Formation of the Jewish Canon,New Haven,Connecticut:Yale University Press.

Mason,S.,1992，“Fire,Water and Spirit:John the Baptist and the Tyranny of Canon”,inStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses21 (2）．2002，“Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon”,in L.M.McDonald and J.A.Sanders (eds.),The Canon Debate:The Origins and Formation of the Bible,Peabody,Mass.:Hendrickson.

Metzger,B.,1972，“Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha”,inJournal of Biblical literature91 (1）．

McDonald,L.M.and Sanders,J.A.(eds.),2002,The Canon Debate:The Origins and Formation of the Bible,Peabody,Mass.:Hendrickson Publishers.

Mroczek,E.,2016,The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity,Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Najman,H.,2003,Seconding Sinai:The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism,Leiden:Brill.2012，“The Vitality of Scripture Within and Beyond the‘Canon’”,inJournal for the Study of Judaism43.2025,Scriptural Vitality:Rethinking Philology and Hermeneutics,Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Forthcoming，“Early Biblical Interpretation”,in K.Dell and D.Lincicum(eds.),The New Oxford Bible Commentary,Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Najman,H.and Schmid,K.,2022，“Reading the Blood Plague (Exodus 7:14-25):The Hermeneutics of a Composite Text”,inJournal of Biblical Literature141 (1）．

Najman,H.and Tigchelaar,E.,2014，“Unity After Fragmentation”,inRevue de Qumran26 (4）．

Newman,J.H.,1999,Praying by the Book:The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism,Atlanta:Scholars Press.

Nickelsburg,G.W.E.,1984，“The Bible Rewritten and Expanded”,in M.E.Stone (ed.),Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period,Assen:Van Gorcum.

Noll,K.L.,2011，“Did‘Scripturalization’Take Place in Second Temple Judaism？”,inScandinavian Journal of the Old Testament:SJOT25 (2）．

Schmid,K.,2022，“The Rise and Fall of the Notion of‘Sp?tjudentum’in Christian Biblical Scholarship”,in A.Bakker (ed.),Protestant Bible Scholarship:Antisemitism,Philosemitism and Anti-Judaism,Leiden:Brill.

Schniedewind,W.M.,2015，“Scripturalization in Ancient Judah”,in B.B.Schmidt(ed.),Contextualizing Israel's Sacred Writings,Atlanta,Georgia:SBL Press.

Screnock,J.,2018，“Is Rewriting Translation?Chronicles and Jubilees in Light of Intralingual Translation”,in Vetus Testamentum68 (3）．

Segal,M.,2005，“Between Bible and Rewritten Bible”,in M.Henze(ed.),Biblical Interpretation at Qumran,Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.

Sommer,B.D.,1996，“Exegesis,Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible:A Response to Lyle Eslinger”,inVetus Testamentum46.

Tov,E.,2001,Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,Minneapolis,Minn.:Fortress Press.

Vermes,G.,1961,Scripture and Tradition in Judaism:Haggadic Studies,Leiden:Brill.

Zahn,M.M.,2020,Genres of Rewriting in Second Temple Judaism:Scribal Composition and Transmission,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

(1)吴飞于《经学何以入哲学?——兼与赵汀阳先生商榷》一文中指出,各大文明传统的经典体系通常由原始经典与后续形成的创作经典共同构成,后者作为前者的补充,使得文明经典体系更加完备和成熟。创作经典体现了文明的高度,而其发展始终离不开原始经典的滋养。(参见吴飞,第41页)

(2)“Haggadic”一词源于希伯来语“Haggadah”(■),在犹太教中指故事、传说、寓言和道德教导。与“Halakhah”(律法)相对,Haggadah更注重叙事和道德教育。

(3)这也引发了关于“翻译”作品是否应划分为“圣经重写”的讨论,例如,斯科诺克(J.Screnock)认为翻译和“圣经重写”具有高度的相似性,翻译者进行意义生成和创造的工作,保持文本延续性、一致性的同时也引入新的观念,在语境转化的过程中赋予文本新的意义,因此翻译也是重写的一种类型。(cf.Screnock;Bernstein,p.44)

(4)文中所引的《创世记》《利未记》《申命记》《禧年书》《圣殿古卷》《4Q五经重编》等经文体例遵循国际标准引用格式。《希伯来圣经》的中文翻译来自和合本,死海古卷的文本翻译自加西亚·马丁内斯(F.García Martínez)与提赫拉尔(E.Tigchelaar)合编的《死海古卷习本》。(cf.García Martínez and Tigchelaar[eds.])

(5)首次出现权威希伯来经文数量的记载为公元一世纪末期,犹太历史学家约瑟夫斯(F.Josephus)提出了二十二部经书,而犹太启示录《以斯拉四书》则提到二十四部。(cf.Lim,pp.180-181)

(6)许多后期的拉比文献记载了关于正典文本范围的争论,例如,《米什拿·亚达伊姆》(Mishnah Yadayim)表明,关于正典的组成并没有普遍的共识,《传道书》和《雅歌》这两本书是否属于《圣经》仍然产生许多争议,其他文献则记录了关于《便西拉智训》《路得记》和《以斯帖记》地位的讨论。(ibid.,p.180)

(7)雷曼(S.Leiman)和贝克维斯(R.Beckwith)认为该正典在公元前二世纪就已经被封闭,而桑德伯格(A.Sundberg)和巴顿(J.Barton)则坚持该正典在公元一世纪仍然保持开放。(ibid.,p.179)

(8)“Pesher”源自希伯来语,意为“解释”或“解读”,作为最早的犹太圣经注释,是死海古卷中特有的经文解释方法,主要将《先知书》经文重新诠释为对当前时代或未来事件的预言和隐喻。

(9)详见莫洛切克(E.Mroczek)对“伪经”和“次经”的批评 :“我们称之为‘次经’或‘伪经’的文本,之所以被如此称呼,仅仅是因为它们不属于新教《旧约》的正典,而非出于任何内在原因……当《圣经》成为核心文本时,其他一切文本都退居为‘副文本’,即辅助材料,其目的是为《圣经》提供背景和解释。”(Mroczek,p.7)

(10)这里尝试区分阐释和解经,解经专指对特定《圣经》文本的解释和详细分析,关注解读某个特定段落、句子或词汇的含义,目标是从文本中得出原始、正确的含义,通常是从作者的意图、历史背景和上下文出发;而阐释尝试探讨理解的本质,强调解释的原则、方法和理论,探讨文本整体的框架和意图。

(11)纳伊曼在近期的研究中,以《出埃及记》7:14-25节为案例,融合语文学和阐释学进行阅读,并强调一种“作为解释学的语文学”,即“以词源学和语法的严谨性为前提,但通过将其应用于一种复杂且与作品或文集相互交织的释读实践,超越了这一模式”(Najman and Schmid,p.42)。

(12)这种前进式的思考体现了纳伊曼对圣经阐释学的哲学体察,纳伊曼引用克尔凯郭尔的思想来建构阐释学框架——“哲学正确地指出,人生必须向后理解。然而,人们往往忘记了另一种说法——人生必须向前活。”(cf.Najman,2025,p.5,n.9)

(13)尽管目前的学术研究早已用“早期犹太教”(Frühjudentum)这一术语代替,但此时期丰富的文本活性和生产力依然未得到承认和足够的重视。(cf.Schmid)