欢迎回到《无耻的教皇党》。 Welcome back to Shameless Popery.
我是乔·赫施迈尔，今天我想探讨三个问题。 I'm Joe Heschmeyer, and I want to explore three questions today.
第一，谁决定哪些书属于圣经？ Number one, who decided which books belong in the Bible?
第二，他们决定了多少本书？ Number two, how many books did they decide?
第三，今天作为基督徒，我们有正确的书吗？ And number three, do we today, as Christians, have the right ones?
杰西卡在Patreon上推荐我回应一个叫Bible Animations的小组的视频，链接在下方。 Jessica over on Patreon, which, by the way, is in the link below, recommended that I do a response to this video from a group called Bible Animations.
它制作得很好，试图为新教的66本圣经辩护，并反对公教会使用的73本圣经。 It's very well put together, trying to defend the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and argue against the 73-book Bible used by Catholics.
这是视频介绍的一点预告。 So, here's a little teaser for kind of the introduction to the video.
经过几个月的研究，这是我们编纂66本圣经的真实历史故事。 So, after months of research, this is the true and historical story of how we compiled our 66-book Bible.
有这样的承诺，我怎么能不想参与呢？ Music With a promise like that, how could I not want to engage with it?
特别是因为这确实值得称赞。 Especially because this is, I want to give credit where it's due.
制作这个视频的人做得很好，制作了一个非常好看的产品，并努力弄清新教徒的圣经来源。 The person who made this did a great job of putting together a really nice-looking product and doing his work in trying to figure out where do Protestants get their Bible from.
然而，不幸的是，视频中有很多错误的地方，这些地方非 常重要，希望能帮助那些真正想了解这个问题真相的人。 However, unfortunately, there are a lot of things that the video gets wrong that are really important and are hopefully helpful to anyone who's actually trying to find out the truth about this question.
所以，我想先介绍一下他为什么会问这个问题的背景。 So, I want to give a little bit of the background to, like, why he's asking this in the first place.
然而，我的朋友有一个王牌，一个我还没有探索过的话题，我们66本圣经起源背后的真相。 However, my friend had a trump card, a topic I hadn't yet explored, the truth behind the origin of our 66-book Bible.
这是我从未真正考虑过的事情。 It's something I'd never really considered.
在信仰中成长，我一直相信神的话语是真实的，但我从未质疑过它的来源或编纂方式。 Growing up in the faith, I always trusted God's Word to be true, but I never questioned where it came from or how it was compiled.
如果有我们遗漏的书呢？ What if there were books we were missing?
或者有不属于神的真道的书呢？ Or books that don't belong in God's true Word?
当我的朋友告诉我，我们的66本圣经实际上少了七本时，我开始挣扎并受到更大的挑战。 I started to wrestle and was challenged even further when my friend told me that our 66-book Bible is actually seven books short.
好的，我非常喜欢这个，因为他在问正确的问题。 Okay, so I really like this because he's asking the right questions.
我会强调其中的三个问题。 And I would highlight three of them.
第一，圣经从哪里来？ Number one, where did the Bible come from?
第二，你怎么知道你的圣经有正确数量的书？ Number two, how do you know that your Bible has exactly the right number of books?
不多不少。 No more, no less.
是更少吗？ Is it fewer?
我从不知道。 I never know.
第三，如果有人来从圣经中删除或添加书籍，可以吗？ Number three, would it be okay for somebody to come along and take books out of the Bible or add books to the Bible?
我知道你们很多人会说，显然不可以。 And I know many of you are saying, obviously not.
但当我们深入历史时，你会看到确实有人这样做了，这就是新教徒今天拥有的圣经的由来。 But as we're going to get into the history, you're going to see there were people who did exactly that, which is how Protestants ended up with the Bible that they have today.
我有点超前了，所以我想先给大家一个框架，说明我们在这里讨论的内容。 I'm getting ahead of myself, though, so I want to give a little bit of a framework of what we're talking about here.
正如他说的，新教徒今天使用的圣经中缺少七本书。 As he said, there are seven books that are missing from the Bibles used by Protestants today.
那些书是《多比传》、《犹滴传》、《巴录书》、《德 训篇》、《智慧篇》、《马加比上》和《马加比下》。 Those books are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
除了这七本书外，还有不同版本的《但以理书》和《以斯帖记》。 And then in addition to those seven, you also have different versions of Daniel and Esther.
早期基督徒、公教会、东正教和科普特教会今天使用的版本比新教徒使用的版本更长。 The versions used by the early Christians and by Catholics and Orthodox and Copts today are longer than the versions used by Protestants.
例如，新教版本的《以斯帖记》甚至没有提到神。 And so, for instance, the Protestant version of the book of Esther doesn't even mention God.
所以有一些非常重要的区别。 So there are some pretty important differences.
好的，既然说到这里，我将转向他解释66本圣经来源的尝试，从他需要做的一个区分开始。 Okay, so with that said, I'm going to turn it over to his attempt to explain where does the 66 book Bible come from, beginning with a distinction he says he needs to make.
我需要做一个快速的区分。 I need to make a quick distinction.
我和我的朋友可能对他真正认为圣经是什么持相反的观点。 My friend and I likely have opposing views on what he actually believes the Bible is.
它是一套经过授权的文集吗？ Is it an authorized collection of writings?
它是一套经过授权的文集吗？ Or is it a collection of authorized writing?
一种观点认为教会赋予这些书作为圣经的权威，而另一种观点认为这些书本身已经具有权威。 One view says that the Church gives the books their authority as scripture, whereas the other view says the books themselves already have the authority.
我们只需要弄清楚它们是哪几本。 We just need to figure out which ones they are.
这是新教徒对公教会观点的一个非常常见的误解，公教会直接谴责这种观点。 This is a really common Protestant misconception of the Catholic view, and it is directly condemned by the Catholic Church.
公教会并不教导他说的那种观点，事实上明确表示相反的观点。 The Catholic Church does not teach what he's saying is the Catholic view, and in fact explicitly says the opposite.
早在第一次梵蒂冈会议上，我们被告知这些书，即圣经的书，被认为是神圣 和规范的，不是因为教会在它们由人类技能创作后通过她的权威批准它们。 As far back as the first Vatican Council, we're told that these books, the books of the Bible, were told to be sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they'd been composed by unaided human skill.
换句话说，这不像教会只是拿起电话簿说，砰，你现在是默示的圣经了。 In other words, it isn't like the Church just took the phone book and said, boom, you're inspired scripture now.
事情不是这样的。 It doesn't work like that.
而是我们被告知，这不仅仅是因为它们包含无误的启示。 But rather, we're told, it's not even simply because they contain revelation without error.
电话簿可能包含所有正确的名字和号码。 The phone book may have all the right names and numbers in it.
这并不意味着它是默示的。 That doesn't make it inspired.
它们的作者是神，我们因此委身于教会。 And they have God as their author, and we're as such committed to the Church.
所以教会，如我们将看到的，在权威地、无误地识别哪些书 在圣经中、哪些书不在圣经中，仍然有非常重要的作用。 So the Church, as we're going to see, still has a really important role to play in identifying authoritatively and without error which books are and aren't in the Bible.
但这不是教会赋予它们默示，这从来不是公教会的主张。 But it isn't that the Church is giving them their inspiration, and that has never been the Catholic claim.
所以，当你听到新教徒这样说时，他们其实是在给你一个小红旗，表明他们对这个话题不了解。 So when you hear Protestants make that, what they're doing is giving you a little red flag that they don't know what they're talking about on the subject.
让我们回到他说的话，因为他首先要看新约，我们实际上在这方面是同意的，然后再进入旧约。 Let's turn back to what he's got to say because he's got to look at the New Testament first where we actually agree, and then get into the Old Testament.
现在让我们进入新约。 Let's get into the New Testament now.
我发现自己从所有地方的《新约》开始。 I found myself starting with the New Testament of all places.
我从那里开始的原因是，因为对第一世纪写的27本书的争论要少得多， 因为它们都有特定的特征和作者资格，使它们与其他历史文献区分开来。 The reason I started there is because there's much less debate over the 27 books written in the first century because they all have specific traits and author qualifications that set them apart from other historical documents.
在某种程度上，我完全同意他说的。 In one way, I totally agree with what he's saying here.
关于新约的争议要少得多，但我们应该注意几个原因。 There's a lot less dispute about the New Testament We should watch out for a couple reasons.
第一，这是不符合历史的。 Number one, this is ahistorical.
意思是，基督徒不是从新约开始，然后倒推发现旧约的。 Meaning, Christians didn't start with the New Testament and then discover an Old Testament by working backwards.
相反，犹太人和早期基督徒接受了现在编纂在旧约或犹太希伯来圣经中的著 作，就是在这个世界中，神以多种方式说话，基督到来，福音首次被传讲。 Rather, the Jews and then the early Christians received the writings that are compiled now in the Old Testament or in the Hebrew Bible in the Jewish case and it's into this world in which God had been speaking in many and various ways that Christ arrives and the Gospel is first preached.
所以，从新约开始倒推是不符合历史的，可能会导致一些错误的结论。 And so, beginning with the New Testament and working backwards is ahistorical and can lead to some faulty conclusions.
我想在这里给出第二个警告的原因是，这可能对历史证据不忠实。 The second reason I want to give a little bit of warning here is that it can be unfaithful to the historical evidence.
他实际上处理得比大多数人好，但有时你会听到人们谈论新约和旧约的正典似乎 是在不同的时间和地点由教会确定的，但实际上整个圣经确定哪些书属于旧约和 新约是同时进行的，所以同一个作者经常会告诉我们这些书属于旧约和新约。 And he actually does a better job than most in handling this, but you'll sometimes have people talk about the New Testament canon being settled and the Old Testament canon being settled as if the Church was settling these two things at different times and different places but rather the story is more that the entire Bible figuring out which books belong in the Bible in the Old and New Testament was going on simultaneously so one and the same author will often tell us these are the books that belong in the Old and the New Testament.
我提到这一点是为了澄清，但仍然存在一个更深层次的问题，这个更深层次的问题是 ，假设现代公教会和新教徒有相同的新约，也许你甚至可以想象一个所有基督徒都有 相同新约的世界，但事实并非如此，但仍然留下了一个问题，他们有正确的书吗？ So I just mention that for the sake of clarity but there's still a deeper problem and that deeper problem is this okay, so granted modern Catholics and Protestants have the same New Testament maybe you can even imagine a world in which every Christian ever had the same New Testament as we're going to see that's not the case but still leave us with the question well, do they have the right ones?
他们有正确的新约吗？ Do they have the right New Testament?
基督徒的共识是否自动意味着这是正确的答案？ Does a consensus of Christians automatically mean it's the right answer?
我认为这很重要，因为如果你要说我们可以相信早期基督徒的共识，如果他们都这 么说，那么我们可以相信这是对的，那么为什么不在其他事情上也相信他们呢？ And I think this is important because if you're going to say we can trust the consensus of the early Christians you know, if they're all saying this then we can just trust that it's right well then why not trust them on the other things?
因为在这个视频的早些时候，他谈到他和他的公教会朋友在洗礼、恩典与行为和使徒继承上的 分歧，如果你回去看，你会发现早期基督徒在这些问题上的共识倾向于公教会的一方，这显然 是一个大问题，我只想说并放在一边，但只是问一个问题，你能相信早期基督徒的共识吗？ Because earlier in this video he talked about how he and his Catholic friend, he disagrees on baptism, grace and works and apostolic succession, all of which if you go back and look, you're going to find something like a consensus on the early Christians on the Catholic side of that issue now that is obviously a big can of worms I'm going to just say and leave to one side, but just to ask the question, can you trust the early Christians consensus or not?
如果你能相信，那很好，你有了新约；如果不能，我们就有麻烦了，不 仅在使徒继承、洗礼、恩典与行为上有麻烦，在新约本身上也有麻烦。 If you can then great, you've got a New Testament if you can't, we're in trouble, not just on apostolic succession, baptism, grace and works but also on the New Testament itself.
好的，现在事情变得更加复杂，因为尽管在我提到的新约正典问题上基本上有 普遍的共识，但实际上还有更多的质疑和分歧，试图弄清哪些东西属于圣经。 Okay, now it gets even a little more hairy than that because even though there's basically universal agreement on those issues that I mentioned on the New Testament canon itself there's actually a good deal more questioning and disagreement and trying to figure out the edges of which things belong in the Bible.
现在我想在这里非常明确，核心群体，如福音书，基本上是普遍同意的。 Now I want to be really clear here the core group, things like the Gospels, were basically universally agreed to.
这些没有真正的争议，但在边缘有很多书存在问题，那么我们如何知道我们今天的新约是 正确的，而不是例如他提到的最早的新约正典《莫拉托利残片》或《莫拉托利正典》。 There's no real controversy on those, but there are plenty of books around the border if you will where there is a question so on what basis do we know that our New Testament today is right as opposed to, for instance the earliest known New Testament canon the Moratorium Fragment or the Moratorium Canon, which he talks about.
正如他指出的，它与我们在现代新约中发现的所有内 容不匹配，无论是在公教会还是新教徒的圣经中。 As he points out, it doesn't match up with all of the things we find in modern New Testaments in either a Catholic or a Protestant Bible.
然而，这个正典并不完美。 However the canon wasn't perfect.
它缺少了六本我们现在接受为正典的书，并包括了两本我们在现代圣经中找不到的书，所以 他说最早的新约尝试是不完美的，是错误的，有一本书不应该在里面，《彼得启示录》。 It was missing six books that we now accept to be canon, and included two books which we don't find in our modern Bibles So he's just said that the earliest New Testament attempt gets it imperfect, gets it wrong, has one book in that shouldn't be, the Apocalypse of Peter.
他要说有两本书不应该在里面，但我们实际上有《所罗门智慧书》，尽管它是一本旧约书。 He's going to say two books in that shouldn't be, but we actually have Wisdom of Solomon, although it's an Old Testament book.
这里有一个更大的问题是，《莫拉托利残片》最初是否只是新约书籍的 列表，还是包含旧约和新约，因为顾名思义，我们只有其中的一部分。 There's a bigger question here of whether the Moratorium Fragment was originally just a list of New Testament books, or whether it had Old and New Testament, because as the name suggests, we just have a portion of it.
我们有一个残片。 We've got a fragment.
但这表明《所罗门智慧书》被基督徒使用。 But this suggests that Wisdom of Solomon is being used by the Christians.
我的意思是，这不仅仅是暗示。 I mean, it doesn't just suggest.
它明确地说，《所罗门智慧书》被写《莫拉托利残片》的人在公元100年代考虑。 It explicitly says Wisdom of Solomon is being considered by whoever writes the Moratorium Fragment in the 100s.
那么我们如何知道现代新教徒是对的，而旧时的人是错的？ So how do we know modern Protestants have it right, and these guys in the old days had it wrong?
他并没有给我们任何连贯的观点。 He doesn't really give us any kind of coherent view.
现在你可以说最终圣灵引导教会在这个问题上达成明确的共识。 Now you could say eventually the Holy Spirit guides the Church into clarity around the issue.
这是一个完全一致的标准。 That is a perfectly consistent standard.
这是我最终的结论，但如果你要看到这一点，如我们将 看到的，你会得到公教会的圣经，而不是新教的圣经。 That is the place I end up myself, but if you're going to see that, as we're going to see, you end up with the Catholic Bible and not the Protestant Bible.
他将为你提供所有你需要看到的部分。 And he's going to give you all the pieces you need to see that.
但好吧，他仍然会尝试提出一种方法，让我们能够弄清楚哪些书 属于圣经，哪些不属于，因为据说早期基督徒使用了四重测试。 But okay, he's going to nevertheless try to come up with a way where we can figure out which books do and don't belong in the Bible because of the four-fold test that was allegedly used by the early Christians.
教父们在寻找神的道时有四个主要标准。 There was four main criteria the Fathers looked for when searching for God's Word.
第一，它是由使徒或接近使徒的人写的吗？ One, was it authored by an Apostle or someone close to an Apostle?
第二，它被基督的身体接受了吗？ Two, is it accepted by the Body of Christ?
第三，它包含一致的教义吗？ Three, does it contain consistent doctrine?
第四，它包含反映圣灵的道德和精神价值吗？ And four, does it contain the moral and spiritual values that reflects the Holy Spirit?
好的，所以请注意他的标准。 Okay, so just notice his criteria here.
所有这些都依赖于早期基督徒的可靠性。 All of them depend on the reliability of the early Christians.
现在，他认为这些早期基督徒在洗礼重生、使徒继承、他们对教会的看法以及许多问题上是错误的。 Now, he thinks these early Christians are wrong on baptismal regeneration, on apostolic succession, on their vision of the Church, on a whole number of issues.
我不知道你如何能同时持有这两种观点。 And I don't know how you can hold these two things simultaneously.
这是我的意思。 Here's what I mean.
他所说的教父们使用的四个所谓标准。 The four alleged criteria he says the Church Fathers used.
现在，他们是否真的使用了这些标准是一个大问号。 Now, whether they really used those or not is a big question mark.
你会看到很多新教作家列出各种不同的清单，列出据称使用的东 西，但我很少看到有人提供哪怕是一个脚注来支持这些说法。 You get plenty of Protestant authors making all of these different lists about the things allegedly used, and I rarely see anyone providing even, like, a footnote to try to support these claims.
但也许这是正确的。 But maybe this is true.
这不是重点，不是我现在争论的重点。 It's not here or there, not the point of what I'm arguing right now.
我现在争论的重点是，假设这是正确的。 The point of what I'm arguing right now is, let's assume this is right.
早期基督徒关注的四件事是，第一，它来自使徒或与使徒在一起的人吗？ That the four things the early Christians look to are, number one, did it come from an Apostle or someone with the Apostles?
第二，它被基督徒接受了吗？意思是大概被教会接受了吗？ Number two, was it accepted by Christians, meaning presumably accepted by the Church?
第三，它与什么一致？ Number three, is it consistent with what exactly?
所传讲的教义？ The preached doctrine?
他们已经知道的事情？ The things they already knew?
我的意思是，从新约开始会导致一些奇怪的地方。 I mean, this is where starting with the New Testament leads to some weird spots.
如果你从新约开始，你怎么知道新约中的一本书是否与你应该协调的一致？ If you're beginning with the New Testament, how do you know if a book in the New Testament is consistent with whatever you're supposed to be harmonizing it with?
你从这里开始。 You're starting here.
然后第四，他称之为圣灵的价值观。 And then fourth, this thing he calls the values of the Holy Spirit.
但再次强调，如果不是来自圣经，你怎么知道圣灵是什么，他在教什么，他的价值观是什么？ But again, how do you know what the Holy Spirit is all about and what he's teaching and what his values are if it's not coming from Scripture?
似乎有一种模糊的诉诸使徒传统，即使在我们知道哪些书在圣经中之 前，我们已经听到了福音的传讲，所以早期基督徒有一种可靠的方式 来知道不仅仅是福音，甚至是哪些书属于新约，哪些不属于新约。 There seems to be a vague sort of appeal to apostolic tradition that even before we know which books are in the Bible, we've already heard the Gospel preached, and so the early Christians have a reliable way of knowing not just the Gospel but even which books do and don't belong in the New Testament.
如果这是他的观点，我很想听到更多的阐述，以及你如何将其与唯独圣经这样的教义协调起来。 If that is his view, I'd love to hear more articulation of that and how you can harmonize that with something like Sola Scriptura.
因为听起来他在说，我们唯一可靠地知道哪些书在圣经中的方法是信任使徒传统和早期教会的共识。 Because it sounds like he's saying the only way we can know which books are in Scripture reliably is by trusting apostolic tradition and by trusting the consensus of the early church.
他从未明确地说过这一点，但没有传统或早期教会的共识，我不知道你怎么知道。 He never explicitly says that, but without something like tradition or the consensus of the early church, I don't know how you know.
你如何通过阅读福音书知道它是由马太、马可、路加或约翰写的？ How are you going to know from reading a Gospel whether it was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
没有一本福音书告诉你这一点。 None of the Gospels tell you that.
没有一本书说，我，路加，告诉你以下内容。 None of them say, I, Luke, tell you the following.
这就是我的身份。 And here's who I am.
我认识圣保罗。 I know St. Paul.
我们一起旅行。 We traveled together.
你找不到这些内容。 You don't find any of that.
那么你怎么知道哪些书属于新约和旧约？ So how do you know which books belong in the New and Old Testament?
再次强调，我们现在只看新约。 Again, we'll look just at the New Testament for now.
如果不是从早期教会的共识和见证中，你怎么知道哪些书属于那里？ How do you know which books belong there if not from the consensus and the witness of the early church?
好的，那么，旧约呢？ Okay, so then, what about the Old Testament?
这是我们在这里讨论的真正焦点。 That's the real focus of what we're talking about here.
所以让我们转向这个问题。 So let's turn to that.
这里我想暂停一下。 Here's where I want to pause.
因为我们还没有讨论旧约正典，这本书是整个辩论的关键。 Because we haven't yet discussed the Old Testament canon, the book on which this entire debate is hinged.
公元前450年，一本书被编纂，叫做《塔纳赫》，是古代犹太人使用的第一本希伯来圣经。 450 BC, a book was compiled called the Tanakh, the first Hebrew Bible used by the ancient Jews.
但只包括24本书，并分为以下三个部分。 But there were only 24 books included, and they were split into three sections as follows.
实际上，我刚刚做了一个长达一个小时的视频，所以我会省略一些细节。 So I actually just did an entire hour-long video on this, so I'm going to spare some of the details.
如果你想深入了解，请观看视频《耶稣时代的圣经，有多不同？》，在其中我探讨了犹太正典 在公元前450年关闭是不真实的。事实上，直到基督时代的半个千年后，它也没有关闭。 If you want the deep dive, go to the video The Bible in Jesus' Day, How Different Was It?, in which I explore how it's just not true that the Jewish canon was closed in 450 BC. In fact, it wasn't even closed half a millennium later around the time of Christ.
但现在，我只想给出四个快速的事实，谈谈我们在学术上 的现状，以及为什么没有可靠的人说他刚才说的那种话。 But for now, I'm just going to give four quick facts to talk about where we are with the scholarship and why nobody reliable is saying the kind of things he just said.
首先，在发现死海古卷之前，学术界的共识是基本上有三个不同的时期。 First, the scholarly consensus prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was that there were basically three different periods.
如你所闻，犹太正典由三部分组成，律法、先知、著作。 As you heard, the Jewish canon is made up of three sections, Law, Prophets, Writings.
所以当时的观点是，律法，即《托拉》，大约在公元前400年确定。但先知部分 在另一200年后，即公元前200年才确定。而著作部分在基督时代仍未确定， 这就是为什么你会看到所有这些对律法和先知的引用，而不是律法、先知和著作。 And so the view was that the Law, the Torah, had been settled around 400 BC. But the Prophets weren't settled for another 200 years, until 200 BC. And the Writings section was still up in the air at the time of Christ, which is why you get all these references to the Law and the Prophets, not the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
在基督时代，没有人说律法、先知和著作。 Nobody ever says the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings at the time of Christ.
但这一切都在发现死海古卷之前。 But that was all before the Dead Sea Scrolls.
然后，发现死海古卷后，我们意识到事情比那更混乱。 Then, discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, we realize things are even more chaotic than that.
事实上，有些团体如撒都该人和撒玛利亚人只接受《托拉》。 That, in fact, there were groups like the Sadducees and the Samaritans who only accepted the Torah.
有些团体如艾赛尼派，死海古卷社区，他们似乎有一种非常不同的圣经，但仍然属于犹太教的范畴。 There were groups like the Essenes, the Dead Sea Scroll community, who seemed to have a very different kind of Bible, but were still part of the umbrella of Judaism.
在基督时代之后，关于哪些书属于圣经、哪些不属于圣经的争议仍然存在，并且有详细记录。 And there were disagreements well after the time of Christ, well-documented ones, about which books do and don't belong in the Bible.
所以，第二个原因。 So, a second reason.
学者们相信这一点的主要原因之一是，没有证据表明存在 这种据说在基督时代前450年存在的24本书的圣经。 One of the major reasons scholars believe this is because there's just no evidence of this 24-book Bible that we're told existed from 450 years prior to the time of Christ.
我们能找到的最接近的证据是约瑟夫斯，他在基督时代之后写作，并主 张一个包含《托拉》、13本先知书和4本著作的22本书的圣经。 The closest we're going to get is Josephus, who is A. writing after the time of Christ, and B. arguing for a 22-book Bible that has the Torah, 13 prophets, and 4 writings.
而现代犹太圣经有24本书，包含8本先知书和11本著作。 Whereas, the modern Jewish Bible has 24 books, with 8 prophets and 11 writings.
第三，你可以在犹太《塔木德》中自己阅读，了解基督之后几个世纪的拉比辩论 ，讨论《以斯帖记》、《雅歌》、《传道书》和《德训篇》是否属于犹太正典。 Third, you can read for yourself in the Jewish Talmud about the rabbinical debates that take place for centuries after Christ over whether or not books like Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Sirach belong in the Jewish canon.
关于最后一点，我要指出，《德训篇》在犹太《塔木德》中被明确引用为圣经。 And to that last point, I would point out that the book of Sirach is explicitly cited to as Scripture in the Jewish Talmud.
所以，在《巴巴·卡玛》92b中，我们看到它被引用为圣经。 So, in Bava Kamma 92b, we get it quoted as Scripture.
现在，这是真的。 Now, it's true.
最终，拉比们决定它不属于犹太正典。 Eventually, the rabbis decide it doesn't belong in the Jewish canon.
它不属于犹太圣经。 It doesn't belong in the Jewish Bible.
但我们今天所知的《塔纳赫》并没有在公元前450年确定，也没有 在基督时代确定，学术界的共识是在基督时代很久之后才确定的。 But the Tanakh, as we know it today, is not settled in 450 B.C. It's not settled at the time of Christ, and the scholarly consensus is settled sometime well after the time of Christ.
这将非常重要，因为他提出的最大论点之一是，我们不 应该有这些有争议的书，因为它们没有进入犹太圣经。 That's going to be really important because one of the biggest arguments he makes is that we shouldn't have these disputed books because they don't make it into the Jewish Bible.
但犹太圣经直到那些拉比拒绝基督很久之后才确定。 But the Jewish Bible isn't settled until long after those same rabbis had rejected Christ.
因此，依赖他们作为对基督徒的持续权威在历史上是不正确的。 And so, relying on them as an ongoing authority over Christians is historically incorrect.
在基督时代，这些书，如我们将看到的，被用作圣经，我们相信 这一点的原因之一是我们最常引用的东西根本不是希伯来圣经。 At the time of Christ, these books, as we're going to see, were used as Scripture, and one of the reasons we believe that is because the most common thing we see cited to isn't the Hebrew Scriptures at all.
而是被称为《七十士译本》的希腊版本，宽泛地称为《七十士译本》。 It's the Greek version called the Septuagint, loosely called the Septuagint.
但我有点超前了，因为我对此非常兴奋。 But, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself because I'm very excited about this.
我们将讨论《七十士译本》，但首先，我想跳到他提出的四个 论点，即为什么他说马丁·路德有理由从旧约中删除七本书。 We're going to get into the Septuagint, but first, I want to jump to where he makes four arguments for why he says Martin Luther was right to remove seven books from the Old Testament.
它们没有被包括在路德的旧约中的四个主要原因。 There were four main reasons why they weren't included in Luther's Old Testament.
第一，它们不在原始希伯来旧约中，意思是它们没有被耶稣时代的犹太人或早期教父接受为圣经。 One, they weren't in the original Hebrew Old Testament, meaning they weren't accepted as Scripture by the Jews of Jesus' time or the early church fathers.
所以那些声称它们没有被耶稣时代的犹太人或早期教父接受的说法显然是不真实的。 So those claims that they weren't accepted by the Jews of Jesus' time or by the early church fathers are demonstrably untrue.
现在，我已经提到他关于《塔纳赫》在基督时代确定的观点是错误的 ，但你也可以在公元100年代看到圣殉道者游斯丁抱怨他那个时代 的犹太人不使用《七十士译本》，如我们将看到的，它包含这些书。 Now, I've already mentioned how his idea about the Tanakh being settled at the time of Christ is wrong, but you can also see for yourself in the 100s, St. Justin Martyr complaining that the Jews of his day don't use the Septuagint, which, as we're going to see, has those books.
在公元200年代，奥利金明确谈到《多比传》、《犹滴传》和《但以理书》和《 以斯帖记》的长版本如何被基督徒使用，而不是被犹太人使用在他们的圣经中。 And you have in the 200s, Origen talking explicitly about how books like Tobit and Judith and the longer versions of Daniel and Esther are used by Christians and not by Jews in their Scriptures.
事实上，你甚至不需要看任何那些早期教会的资料。 In fact, you don't even need to look to any of those early church sources.
他自己告诉你，公元300年代第一次有组织的基督徒尝试形成的圣经明确 与公教会的圣经一致，包含所有七本有争议的书，并且不符合新教圣经。 He tells you himself that the first organized Christian attempt to form a Bible in the 300s explicitly matches up with the Catholic Bible, includes all seven of the disputed books, and doesn't match the Protestant Bible.
公元393年，由于基督教在罗马帝国合法化，希波会议召开 ，这是早期基督徒希望为早期教会建立官方圣经正典的聚会。 393 A.D. Thanks to Christianity now being legal in the Roman Empire, the Synod of Hippo took place, a gathering where early Christians hoped to establish an official biblical canon for the early church to use.
他们的新约与我们现代的27本书的集合相同，但旧约并不那么简单。 Their New Testament was identical to our modern-day collection of 27 books, but the Old Testament wasn't so simple.
所以他会承认它完全符合公教会的圣经，但他会问，为什么会这样？ So he's going to acknowledge that it matches perfectly the Catholic Bible, but he's left asking kind of like, well, why is this?
为什么他们不只是使用他认为在基督时代已经确定的犹太正典呢？ Why are they not just using the Jewish shnock, which he thought was settled from the time of Christ?
他提出了两个想法。 And he comes up with two ideas.
让我吃惊的是我从未见过的七本书。 What jumped out to me was the seven books I've never seen before.
原来在犹太时间线上有一个空白。 Turns out there's a gap in the Jewish timeline.
事实上，有四个世纪的历史似乎缺失了。 Four centuries, in fact, where the history is seemingly missing.
这些附加的书填补了那个时期，并讲述了当时准确的历史叙述和教导。 Well, these additional books fill that time period and recount accurate historical narrative and teaching from the time.
它们被包括在正典中，主要是因为它们被包括在《七十士译本》中，这是 希伯来圣经《塔纳赫》的第一个希腊语翻译，编纂于那些沉默的世纪。 They were included in the canon primarily because of their inclusion in the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, compiled during those centuries of silence.
好的，他在这里提出了两个主张。 Okay, so he's going to make two claims there.
首先，在犹太历史版本中有400年的神圣沉默。 First, that there's 400 years of divine silence in the Jewish version of history.
现在，如我们将看到的，这不是真的。 Now, as we're going to see, that's not true.
预言停止了400年的想法不是早期基督徒教导的，实际上也不是早期犹太人教导的。 The idea that prophecy stops for 400 years is not something that the early Christians taught, and it's not actually something the early Jews taught either.
第二个主张是正确的，即《七十士译本》包含这些书，所以他认为《七十士 译本》只是犹太《塔纳赫》的翻译，想象犹太《塔纳赫》先存在，而《七十 士译本》只是翻译它，并且不知何故错误地添加了七本书，或其他什么。 Second claim is going to be correct, which is that the Septuagint has these books, and so he thinks of the Septuagint as just a translation of the Jewish Tanakh, imagining that the Jewish Tanakh was around first, and the Septuagint just translates it and somehow ends up adding seven books by mistake, or something.
但让我们深入探讨这些主张。 But let's get into each of those claims.
首先，400年神圣沉默的想法。 So first, the idea of 400 years of divine silence.
这是另一个常见的新教主张，实际上与新约相悖。 This is another common Protestant claim, and is really contrary to the New Testament.
耶稣说律法和先知到约翰为止。 Jesus says the Law and the Prophets were until John.
旧约的启示时期持续到施洗约翰。 The Old Testament period of revelation continues until John the Baptist.
我们没有任何迹象表明它在400年内突然停止，没有任何警告或解释。 We have no indication from that that it stopped for 400 years just abruptly and without any warning or explanation.
事实上，《希伯来书》1:1谈到神以多种方式对先知说话，现在通过圣子说话。 And in fact, Hebrews 1.1 talks about how God spoke in many and various ways to the prophets, and now speaks by the Son.
它谈到了一个神圣启示的过程。 It speaks of a process of divine revelation.
这种没有解释的400年中断的想法在圣经中完全不存在。 This idea of a 400 year interruption with no explanation is completely absent from Scripture.
我们没有任何迹象表明。 We don't get a whiff of it.
事实上，我们看到的是完全相反的情况。 In fact, we see the exact opposite.
例如，你有女先知安娜，她在《路加福音》2章中，在耶稣还是婴儿时在圣殿中。 You have, for instance, the prophetess Anna, who's in Luke 2, who's in the temple at the time Jesus is a baby.
所以，不，预言停止了400年是不真实的。 So, no, it's just not true that prophecy stopped for 400 years.
实际上，后来拉比们声称，神圣启示在公元前450年停止。但他们 没有说它在400年后与基督一起重新开始，因为他们不相信基督。 What you in fact have later, rabbis will claim, divine revelation stopped in 450 BC. But they didn't say it started up again 400 years later with Christ because they don't believe in Christ.
他们认为启示就此结束，这是一个后基督教的观点，在很大 程度上解释了为什么他们不需要听基督徒或这些后来的书。 They argued that revelation just ended then, and that is a post-Christian view that in no small way was an explanation for why they don't need to listen to Christians or these later books.
在基督时代并非如此。 That is not the case at the time of Christ.
在耶稣时代，没有人说过400年的神圣沉默，我们看到先知和女先知在工作。 Nobody at the time of Jesus is saying anything about 400 years of divine silence, and we see prophets at work, prophetesses.
那么，《七十士译本》呢？ So, what about the Septuagint, then?
在这里，我认为有一个更好的论据。 There, I think there's a much better case.
《七十士译本》是这个故事中非常重要的一部分。 The Septuagint is a really important part of this story.
所以，蒂姆·麦克莱在他的书《七十士译本在新约研究中的使用》中，我喜欢他的表达方式。 So, Tim McLeigh, in his book, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, I like the way he frames it.
他说《提摩太后书》3:16说，所有的圣经都是神所默示的。 He says 2 Timothy 3 16 says, all Scripture is inspired by God.
我们都很容易承认，这里的圣经指的是犹太人的权威著作，但这到底是什么意思呢？ We've all readily acknowledged that the referent for Scripture here is the authoritative writings of the Jews, but what exactly does that mean?
比如，它具体指的是哪些著作，对吧？ Like, exactly which writings is it asking about, right?
比如，当它说所有的圣经都是神所默示的，在上下文中，圣保罗在谈论提摩太从小接触的犹太圣经。 Like, when it says all Scripture is God-breathed or all Scripture is inspired, in context, St. Paul's talking about the Jewish Scriptures that Timothy had grown up with.
那会是哪本圣经呢？ What Bible would that have been?
所以，蒂姆·麦克莱这样问。 And so, Tim McLeigh asks it like this.
他说，这节经文是指那些保存在《马所拉文本》中的圣经，这是后来的希伯来 版本，后来成为新教旧约的基础，还是指那些保存在希腊语中的犹太圣经，后 来通过翻译成古拉丁文，再到《拉丁通俗本》，成为公教会旧约的基础。 He says, well, does that verse refer to these Scriptures that were preserved in the Masoretic Texts, this is the later Hebrew version, which have come to be identified with the Hebrew Bible that later became the basis for the Protestant Old Testament, or does it refer to the Jewish Scriptures preserved in the Greek language, that later became the basis for the Catholic Old Testament via their translation into the Old Latin, and then the Latin Vulgate.
所以，稍微简化一下问题，在仅有希伯来文的版本中，你通常会有较少的书。 So, oversimplifying the question a little bit, in the Hebrew only version, you tend to have fewer books.
在希腊文版本中，在《七十士译本》版本中，你有这七本有争议的书。 In the Greek version, in the Septuagint versions, you have these seven disputed books.
这在两方面都是一种简化。 And this is an oversimplification in both directions.
我承认这一点，但这是他的表达方式。 I acknowledge that, but that's the way he frames it.
我喜欢他的表达方式，而且这个问题有一个非常简单的答案。 I like the way he frames it, and there's a very easy answer to the question.
正如弗洛伊德·菲尔森指出的，他是一位我认为是长老会的新约研究者 ，在1940年代指出，新约中有大约160段经文直接引用了旧约。 As Floyd Filson, who is a, I believe, Presbyterian New Testament researcher, in the 1940s, points out that there are some 160 passages in the New Testament in which the Old Testament is directly quoted.
不仅仅是提及，而是直接引用。 Not just alluded to, but quoted directly.
他说，在绝大多数情况下，这些引用显然来自《七十士译本》。 In the heavy majority of these, he says, the quotation is obviously derived from the Septuagint.
现在，他说，这并不意味着它总是逐字逐句的，但要么是 精确的再现，要么是与《七十士译本》有实质性的相似。 Now, he says, that doesn't mean it's always literally verbatim, but it's either an exact reproduction or substantial likeness to the Septuagint.
所以，如果你想知道在耶稣时代，一个信徒犹太人心中的圣经是什么，而不 是在圣殿被毁后，法利赛人成为整个犹太教的主导派别的后来的拉比们，如 果你问的是耶稣时代的情况，我认为这是这里的问题，那么，很明显。 So, if you're wondering what scriptures would be on the minds of a believing Jew in the time of Jesus, as opposed to later rabbis after the temple's destroyed and the Pharisees become the dominant party for all of Judaism, if you're asking at the time of Jesus, which is, I think, what the question is here, well, it's quite clear.
是《七十士译本》。 It's the Septuagint.
它包含这些书。 And it has these books.
现在，这是一个强有力的论据。 Now, that's a strong argument.
所有关于耶稣时代犹太排斥的论点，我们现在必须颠倒过来，说，不，不，耶稣时代有犹太包容。 All of the arguments of Jewish exclusion at the time of Jesus, we now have to turn them on their head and say, no, no, there was Jewish inclusion at the time of Jesus.
在圣经的版本中，耶稣、使徒和福音书作者被引用。 In the versions of Scripture, Jesus, in the apostles, in the evangelists are quoted.
好的。 Okay.
我们可以看到几个例子。 We can see a couple examples of this.
我只给你一个例子。 I'm going to give you just one.
因为这不仅仅是措辞上的细微变化或其他什么。 Because it's not just a matter of slight shifts in the verbiage or something.
我的意思是，正如你刚才听到的，有七本完整的书是不同的。 I mean, as you just heard, there are seven entire books that are different.
在措辞和经文上也有差异。 There's also differences in the wording and passages.
所以这不仅仅是我碰巧找到的，比如我这里有KJV，那边有NIV，我就随便拿最近的一个。 So it's not just like whatever I happen to find, you know, I've got the KJV over here, the NIV, I'll just grab for the closest one.
不，不是这样的。 No, it's not that.
例如，在《希伯来书》10章中，有一个预言取自《诗篇》40篇，讲述 基督来到世上时说，祭物和供物是你不喜悦的，但你为我预备了身体。 For instance, in Hebrews 10, there's a prophecy that is taken from Psalm 40 about how when Christ came into the world, he said, sacrifice and offerings, thou is not desired, but a body thou has prepared for me.
但问题是。 But here's the thing.
那个预言只在《七十士译本》中找到。 That prophecy is only found in the Septuagint.
希伯来文版本说，祭物和供物是你不喜悦的，但你给了 我一个开通的耳朵，这似乎根本不是道成肉身的预言。 The Hebrew version says, sacrifice and offering, thou is not desired, but thou has given me an open ear, which does not seem to be a prophecy of the Incarnation at all.
你为我预备了身体显然是一个关于道成肉身的基督学预言。 A body thou has prepared for me is clearly a Christological prediction of the Incarnation.
事实上，希伯来文字面意思是，你为我挖了耳朵。 In fact, the Hebrew literally says, ears thou hast dug for me.
所以我提出这一点有两个原因。 So I'm putting this out for two reasons.
第一，当有分歧时，我们压倒性地发现他们站在《七十士译本》一边，而不是希伯来文版本。 One, when there's a disagreement, we overwhelmingly find them siding with the Septuagint over the Hebrew versions.
第二，我们不需要相信希伯来文是原始和更准确的版本。 And second, we don't need to believe that the Hebrew is the original and more accurate version.
认为因为它是希伯来文的，所以更可靠、更准确、更忠实于原文，这是一个错误。 It would be a mistake to assume that because it's in Hebrew, it's therefore more reliable and more accurate and more faithful to the original text.
我们可以找到一些地方，希伯来文显然被腐化，而希腊文更好地保存了发生的事情。 We can find places where the Hebrew is clearly corrupted, and the Greek better preserves what happened.
所以我告诉你所有这些。 So I give you all of that.
这是一个大话题，说《七十士译本》是新约中通常使用的圣经，并且包含这些书。 This is a big topic to say the Septuagint is the Bible usually used in the New Testament, and it includes these books.
所以假设相反的论点是错误的。 And so an argument that assumes the opposite is mistaken.
好的，现在让我们来看他的论点。 Okay, let's go to his arguments now.
在《托拉》中，神告诉摩西如何将更多的书添加到旧约正典中。 Within the Torah, God tells Moses how more books will be added to the Old Testament canon.
他将，引用，兴起一位像你这样的先知，神自己将，引用 ，追讨任何不听从我以我的名义说话的先知的话的人。 He will, quote, rise up a prophet like you, and that God himself will, quote, call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.
这是一个小点，但我想提一下，因为他引用了《托拉》中的内容，讲述神如何应许一位像摩西这 样的先知，他声称这是我们需要了解的模式，比如所有未来的预言如何在正典著作中发挥作用。 This is a small point, but I wanted to address it, because he quotes from the Torah how God's promising a prophet like Moses, and he claims that this is a pattern we need to know for, like, how all future prophecy is going to work for canonical writings.
这根本不是这段经文中发生的事情。 That's just not what's happening in this text at all.
事实上，我有点惊讶听到他引用《申命记》28章，因为它在新约中被明确地视为基督学预言。 In fact, I'm sort of surprised to hear him use Deuteronomy 28, because it's pretty explicitly taken in the New Testament as a Christiological prophecy.
在某种意义上，这是对约书亚的预言。 In one sense, it's a prophecy of Joshua.
在更深的意义上，这是对耶稣的预言。 In a deeper sense, it's a prophecy of Jesus.
例如，在《约翰福音》1:21中，当施洗约翰在外面做事时，他们问他，你是那先知吗？ So, for instance, in John 121, when John the Baptist is out doing his thing, they ask him, are you the prophet?
他们指的是什么？ What are they referring to?
《申命记》中预言的那位先知。 The prophet that had been foretold in Deuteronomy.
事实上，圣彼得在《使徒行传》2章中将明确引用《申命记 》中的这段经文，并将其应用于基督，说明耶稣就是那位。 And in fact, St. Peter, in Acts chapter 2, is going to quote explicitly from this passage in Deuteronomy and apply it to Christ, how Jesus is the one.
因为《申命记》28章说将有一个像摩西一样的人面对面见到神。 Because the Deuteronomy 28 passage says there'll be someone like Moses who sees God face-to-face.
这其中有一个美丽的基督学。 There's a beautiful Christology to this.
这绝对不是在告诉你如何将书籍纳入圣经，或给你一个标准来做到这一点。 It is absolutely not telling you how to get books in the Bible, or giving you a standard for how to do that.
这根本不是经文中发生的事情。 That's just not what's going on in the text at all.
好的。 Okay.
最终，他将提出四个最终论点，反对他认为路德有理由将这七本书从圣经中删除的原因。 Ultimately, though, he's going to raise four final arguments against why he thinks these seven books, Luther was right to remove them from the Bible.
他这样开始。 And he begins like this.
现在，正如我们已经看到的，第一个主张完全不真实。 Now, as we've already seen, that first claim is just flatly untrue.
耶稣时代的犹太圣经确实包括这些书，早期基督徒在引用这些 书并多次称它们为圣经时非常明确，包括他自己引用的地方。 The Jewish Bible in Jesus' day did include those books, and the early Christians were absolutely clear in quoting from them and calling them scripture numerous times, including at places he cites himself.
这是他的第二个论点。 Here's his second.
所以我实际上同意这个。 So I actually agree with this one.
旧约确实与新教的唯独信心称义教义，即唯独信心相矛盾。 The Old Testament does contradict the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, or sola fide.
新约也是如此。 So does the New Testament.
特别是，你可以在《雅各书》中看到这一点。 Particularly, you can see this in places like the Epistle of James.
现在，我不是唯一这样想的人。 Now, I'm not alone in thinking that.
马丁·路德自己也这样认为。 Martin Luther thought that himself.
所以他在《雅各书》的序言中指出，他否认这本书的使徒作者身份。 So he points out in his preface to the Epistle of James that he denies the apostolic authorship of the book.
他不相信这是由使徒写的。 He doesn't believe it was written by an apostle.
记住，早些时候新约收录的标准是使徒起源。 Remember earlier the criteria for inclusion in the New Testament is of apostolic origin.
他认为它不是使徒起源，并提出如下论点。 He thinks it wasn't of apostolic origin, and he argues as follows.
他说，首先，它完全反对圣保罗和所有其他圣经，将称义归于行为。 He says, in the first place, it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of scripture in ascribing justification to works.
所以他认为它与唯独信心相矛盾。 So he thinks it contradicts sola fide.
现在，我认为他在这里误读了圣保罗。 Now, I think he's misreading St. Paul here.
你可能是一个认为他误读了圣雅各的新教徒，但我认为我们可以同意，马丁·路德在处理《雅各书》 2:24这样的经文时遇到了困难，这段经文说，你们看见，人称义是因着行为，不是单因着信心。 You might be a Protestant who thinks he's misreading St. James, but I think we can agree that Martin Luther's having trouble squaring passages like James 2 24, which says, you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
除非你是路德宗并将其添加到《罗马书》3:28中，否则信心单独 这个短语在圣经中唯一出现的时间是当它说称义不是单靠信心时。 The only time the phrase faith alone appears in the Bible, unless you're Lutheran and you add it to Romans 3 28, the only time it appears in the Bible is when it says justification is not by faith alone.
现在，你可以尝试以任何方式解释这一点，但路德说，不，这只是与我的神学相矛盾，对吧？ Now, you can try to interpret your way around that all you want, but Luther said, no, this just contradicts my theology, right?
所以我要在这里指出的是，如果你的神学与圣经相矛盾，重点不是现在 去改变圣经，去删除旧约的七本书，像路德那样质疑新约的四本书。 And so the point I'd make here is if your theology contradicts scripture, the point isn't to now go change scripture, go cut out seven books of the Old Testament, go call in question four of the new like Luther does.
而是要改变你的神学以符合圣经，而不是改变圣经以符合你的神学。 It's instead to change your theology to match scripture, rather than changing the Bible to match your theology.
好的，让我们来看他的最后两个理由。 Okay, let's get to his final two reasons.
第三，它们被纳入的历史依据不如预先确定的《塔纳赫》正典那么强。 Three, the historical basis for their inclusion wasn't as strong as the pre-established canon of the Tanakh.
我不知道他第三点的意思，是说有历史上的差异，还是说它们没有被广泛接受之类的。 I don't know what he means by that third one, whether he's saying there's like historical discrepancies or just that they weren't as widely accepted or something like that.
这并不完全清楚，但我会这样说。 It's not entirely clear, but I would say this.
在《马加比上》中，我们看到提到了为期八天的光明节的创立。 In 1st Maccabees, we get a reference to the creation of an eight-day festival of Hanukkah.
这是我们拥有的最早的证据。 This is the earliest evidence we have of it.
这是我们在圣经中唯一在旧约中找到提到光明节的地方，连同《马加比下》。 This, along with 2nd Maccabees, is the only places in the Bible we find Hanukkah mentioned in the Old Testament at all.
在新约中，我们发现耶稣在庆祝，或至少参加了修殿节。 In the New Testament, we find Jesus celebrating, or at least attending, the Feast of the Dedication.
那就是光明节。 That's Hanukkah.
在它被称为光明节之前，在你得到所有塔木德对光明节的 重新解释之前，它最初是关于马加比时期圣殿的奉献。 Before it's known as the Festival of Lights, before you get all the Talmudic reinterpretations of Hanukkah, it was originally about the dedication of the Temple during the Maccabean period.
所以在《约翰福音》10:22-23中，我们看到耶稣上耶路撒冷参加修殿节。 And so in John 10, 22-23, we see Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Dedication.
这似乎是他承认《马加比书》的历史性。 That appears to be him acknowledging the historicity of Maccabees.
现在，你也在这个视频中听到他说这些书至少是他说的一般可靠的。 Now, you already heard him as well in this video say these books are, at least he says, generally reliable.
所以，我不知道他在这里表达的标准是什么，这将是 一个拒绝这些包含真实和准确信息的书的好理由。 So, I don't know what standard he's articulating here that would be a good reason to reject these books that have information that is true and accurate.
现在，这只是看历史的东西。 Now, that's just looking at the historical stuff.
如果你看看《智慧篇》2章，它预言了神的儿子来临并被处以羞辱 的死，这在一种非常难以预先预测的方式中明确地基督学，对吧？ If you look at places like Wisdom 2, which prophesies about the Son of God coming and being put to a shameful death, that's really explicitly Christological in a way that would be very hard to predict beforehand, right?
比如，这些据称没有默示的作者是如何知道弥赛亚来临 并声称是神的儿子并被他的迫害者处以羞辱的死的？ Like, how did these uninspired authors, allegedly, know what was going to happen with the Messiah coming and claiming to be the Son of God and being put to a shameful death by his persecutors?
很难争辩这一点。 Difficult to argue that.
好的，让我们来看第四个理由。 Okay, let's get to the fourth reason.
第四，新约从未确认这些书为圣经。 And four, the New Testament never affirms any of these books as Scripture.
我想确保我们简短地谈谈这一点，因为这是一个常见的误解 ，一个常见的错误，即哦，新约没有提到这些书是圣经。 I want to make sure we touch on this very briefly because this is a common misconception, a common mistake, that oh, the New Testament doesn't mention these books as Scripture.
在某种意义上，这绝对是正确的，但你必须做出三重区分。 In one sense, that's absolutely true, but there's a three-fold distinction you have to make.
新约与旧约有三种互动方式。 The New Testament interacts with the Old Testament in three ways.
有时它暗示或引用，有时它引用，有时它作为圣经引用。 Sometimes it alludes to or references it, sometimes it quotes it, and sometimes it quotes it as Scripture.
所以他的论点是，没有明确的地方表明这七本有争议的书被明确引 用为圣经，因为你有一些被引用的东西不被认为是圣经，对吧？ So his argument is there's no clear places in which these seven disputed books are at that highest level of being quoted explicitly as Scripture because you have stuff that gets quoted that isn't considered Scripture, right?
仅仅因为某些东西被引用并不会自动使其成为圣经，但另一方面，有 很多公教会和新教徒接受的圣经书籍根本没有被作为圣经引用过。 The mere fact something's quoted doesn't automatically make it Scripture, but the flip side is there are plenty of biblical books that Catholics and Protestants accept that are never quoted as Scripture at all.
例如，马克·曼加纳诺在他的《旧约导论》一书中提到，虽然新约引用了大多 数旧约书籍，他是新教徒，所以大多数在他的圣经中，他承认有几个例外。 So, for instance, Mark Manganano in his book Old Testament Introduction mentions that while the New Testament quotes from the majority of Old Testament books, he's a Protestant, so the majority of ones in his Bible, he acknowledges that there are several exceptions.
《约书亚记》、《士师记》、《路得记》、《列王纪下》、《历代志上》、《 历代志下》、《以斯拉记》、《尼希米记》、《以斯帖记》、《传道书》、《 雅歌》、《耶利米哀歌》、《俄巴底亚书》、《那鸿书》和《西番雅书》。 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2nd King, 1st Chronicles, 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah.
所以，如果你的论点是次经书籍，也就是这些所谓的旁经书籍，我们在《希伯来书》 11章等地方找到的引用，它们没有被明确引用为圣经，好吧，但那是什么论点？ So if your argument is the Deuterocanonical books, which is, you know, these so-called Apocrypha books, which we find referenced in places like Hebrews 11, they're not explicitly quoted as Scripture, fine, but what argument is that?
按照这个标准，你必须扔掉你很多的旧约。 By that standard, you have to throw out a lot of your Old Testament.
所以我提到这些是为了说这些不是反对早期基督徒拥有的 圣经的好论点，也不是支持新教66本圣经的好论点。 So I mention all that to say those are not good arguments against the Bible that the early Christians had, and they're not good arguments for the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.
所以总结一下，有两种基本方法可以处理事情。 So to sum up the case, there's basically two ways you can approach things.
一旦你摆脱了历史上的误解，比如在公元前450年确定所有这些，或者你知道， 这在耶稣时代不在圣经中，所有这些事情，如果你想深入了解，请看上周的视频。 Once you get rid of the historical misconceptions, like settling it all in 450 BC, or, you know, this not being in the Bible at the time of Jesus, all of those things, which again, if you want a deeper dive, look at last week's video.
你剩下的就是这个。 You're left with this.
这是一个混乱的过程，不可否认，对于犹太教和基督教来说 ，在基督之后的最初几个世纪里，这是一个混乱的过程。 This is a messy process, undeniably a messy process, for Judaism, for Christianity, in these first few centuries after Christ.
但这个过程的结论是基督徒聚集在一起说这73本书，这以几种不同的方式发生。 But the conclusion of this process is the Christians coming together and saying these 73 books, and this happens in several different ways.
实际上，它比他所说的还要复杂一点，但我们对这个过程有一个明确的结论。 It's actually even a little more complicated than he gives it there, but we have a clear conclusion to the process.
例如，在佛罗伦萨会议上，仍然是在宗教改革之前，公教会、 东正教和科普特基督徒聚集在一起，再次确认这73本书。 And you have, for instance, much later at the Council of Florence, still before the Reformation, the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Coptic Christians coming together and affirming again these 73 books.
所以我们要么相信圣灵引导了那个过程，要么不信。 所以你要么剩下公教会的圣经，要么什么都没有。 So we either trust that the Holy Spirit guided that process, or we don't. So you either are left with the Catholic Bible or nothing.
就像一个混乱的局面，我们不知道我们是否有正确的书。 Like just a chaotic, we don't know if we've got the right books or not.
我认为有充分的理由信任神，信任圣灵的工作，并信任作为其结果的公教会圣经。 I think there's good reasons to trust in God, trust in the work of the Holy Spirit, and trust in the Catholic Bible that is the result of that.
一旦你摆脱了所有的误解，比如教会赋予圣经权威，或 者圣经在450年前就已经确定，这些都是错误的。 Once you get rid of all of the misconceptions, you know, the Church gives the Bible its authority, or the Bible was set 450 years before, those things are wrong.
摆脱那些错误的东西，你就剩下一个非常明确的选择：要么神在工作，他在保护他 的圣经，我们可以信任公教会的圣经，要么他没有，我们不知道该信任哪本圣经。 Get rid of those wrong things, and you're left with a very clear choice between God is at work, He's protecting His Bible, we can trust the Catholic Bible, or He's not, and we don't know what Bible to trust.
好的。 Okay.
最后，我想做几个简短的感谢，致敬，教会公告之类的事情。 In closing, I want to give a couple quick acknowledgments, shout-outs, church bulletin announcements, you know, that sort of thing.
第一，本集和上周的节目灵感来自我的Patreon上的杰西卡·P。 Number one, this and last week's episode were inspired by Jessica P. over on my Patreon.
我喜欢Patreon赚钱，但我没有意识到它将是一个多么好的地方 ，不仅仅是为了产生伟大的社区和内容，人们还提供了非常好的想法。 I loved Patreon for money, but I didn't realize what a great place it was going to be for just producing great community and content, and people are giving really good ideas.
我在那里真的很享受，所以如果你想来看看，我会在下面的描述中放一个链接。 I'm really enjoying myself over there, so if you want to come check it out, I'll put a link in the description below.
第二，我正在尝试一种新的格式，稍微短一点的节目，但希望每周做两个。 Number two, I'm trying a new format of slightly shorter episodes, but hopefully going to do two a week.
我认为根据人们的观看时间，人们大约在半小时左右就会退出。 I think based on people's watch time, that people tap out around half an hour or so.
我很难把自己控制在半小时内，所以我们会折中一下。 I have trouble keeping myself to half an hour, so we'll cut the difference.
第三，我想表扬托马斯·W所做的伟大工作。 And number three, I want to acknowledge the great work Thomas W. has been doing.
他最近在公教会答疑被聘用，他真的在视觉和听觉方面清理、美化和专业化了很 多东西，特伦特会议和Shameless Popery都在发布这些内容。 He's recently hired on at Catholic Answers, and he's really cleaned up, spruced up, and professionalized a lot of this stuff visually, and from an auditory perspective, that both Council of Trent and Shameless Popery are putting out.
所以感谢托马斯，也感谢所有通过捐款帮助像托马斯这样的人加入的人。 So thank you to Thomas, and thank you to all of you who, with your donations, help bringing people like Thomas aboard possible.