呵呵，又一个自由主义出来了！
※ 引述《rehoboth (火流星！降临！)》之铭言：
: 老鱼这篇介绍提到了【基督复活和升天后，仍然是人.....
: 而在另一篇对自由神学的看法中，却对
: The Quest of Historical Jesus/追寻历史的耶稣，过度抹黑。
: 追寻历史的耶稣，强调的是"耶稣身为人"的一面，
: 但却无法必然的推论"耶稣只是人，不是神"
呵呵，看来星火真的不了解‘历史的耶稣’的背景诶！
Theological Studies 51 (1990)
THE HISTORICAL JESUS: RETHINKING SOME CONCEPTS
JOHN P. MEIER
The Catholic University of Americ
这篇文章有一段话：
。。。phrase "the historical Jesus" or "the Jesus of history"4 is freely
used, though all too frequently without detailed methodological discussion of
the origin and meaning of the category. Often there will be a passing
reference to the fact that the "historical Jesus" is distinguished from the
Christ of the kerygma, the Christ of faith, Jesus as presented to Christian
faith in the Gospels, or simply the Christian faith.
这段话论到‘历史的耶稣’的背景，就是历史的耶稣把自身与教义的耶稣或信仰的耶稣，
或福音书中基督教信仰展现的耶稣，或基督教的信仰分别开来。
The Quest for the Historical Jesus:
What Is It and Why Should I Care?
Jared Compton
Instructor in New Testament
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
这篇文章有一段话：
H. S. Reimarus (1694–1768)。。。Reimarus sought to show that the
Christianity of his day (i.e., continental Protestantism) was a ruse, resting
on a Jesus created by the earliest Christians.9 The “real” Jesus, according
to Reimarus, was a failed Jewish reformer, who’d met his end on a Roman
cross just outside Jerusalem. Instead of cashing in their revolutionary
hopes, the disciples decided rather to steal Jesus’ body, invent the story
of his resurrection, cast Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures,
and, as a result (and with considerable help from Paul10) to found the early
Church.
Reimarus想要告诉当时的基督教，耶稣是早期基督徒创造出来的人物。‘真正’的也是是
一个失败的犹太教革新者，死在十字架上。门徒决定偷走耶稣的尸体，发明了他复活的故
事，把基督塑造为应验犹太教经典的人物，结果就是建立了早期教会。
还有一段话：
Strauss argued that much of what the Gospels record did not literally happen;
rather—and here he and Reimarus walk together—the stories were invented
(this time “unconsciously”17) by the earliest Christians in an attempt to
relay the true significance of Jesus’ life.18 Thus to uncover the historical
Jesus, the Gospels must be demythologized. (You can imagine how subjective
the criteria for such work must be.) For his labors Strauss lost his post at T
übingen.19
Strauss认为福音书的记者从未发生过，那些故事都是早就基督教编纂出来的，尝试建立
基督的生命。所以，如果要重新发现历史的耶稣，福音书必须被去神话化。
MSJ 23/1 (SPRING 2012) 7–42
THREE SEARCHES FOR THE “HISTORICAL JESUS”
BUT NO BIBLICAL CHRIST:
THE RISE OF THE SEARCHES (PART 1)
搜寻‘历史的基督’，但不是圣经的基督：搜寻的开始（第一部分）
F. DAVID FARNELL, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT
THE MASTER’S SEMINARY
还有一段话：
Robinson continues regarding the first alleged quest that “[t]his was in
fact the assumption of the nineteenth century quest of the historical Jesus.
For this quest was initiated by the enlightenment in its effort to escape the
limitations of dogma . . . . unrestricted by the doctrinal presentations of
him in the Bible, creed and Church.”[4] Since no perceived agreement or
consensus exists as to who or what the “historical Jesus” is or even if
such a definition can even be determined, the consequence appears to be that
it is to be defined negatively since a general agreement exists among
questers that whatever the “historical Jesus” is or was, He is not, indeed
cannot be, equated fully with the Jesus who is presented in the gospels.
Since historiography, i.e. hypotheses of what can take place in a time-space
continuum in reference to historical-critical ideology, cannot encompass the
supernatural, indeed, rules it out from the very beginning, whatever the “
historical Jesus” is, He cannot be equated with the Jesus as He is presented
in the gospels.[5]
Robinson继续论到所谓的第一个探索，说‘事实上，这乃是对于十九世纪的历史的耶稣的
探索的假设。因为这个探索乃是从启蒙运动中，对于尝试脱离教义捆锁的尝试所发起的。
。。。脱离他在圣经、信经和教会的教条中的描述。’因为，对于‘历史的耶稣’到底是
谁或什么，甚至这个词的定义当如何被确立根本没有任何共识，这就导致这个词被负面的
定义，因为在参与搜寻的人士间有一种共识，就是不过‘历史的耶稣’现今/曾经是什么
，祂不是，也不能是福音书所展现的耶稣。因为，根据历史编纂（historiography），例
如：根据历史批判的观念，在时间—空间的延续性中能够发生的事件，不能包含超自然的
事件，就是，从一开始就排除了超自然的事件，不管‘历史的耶稣’是什么，祂不能被视
为福音书展示的耶稣。
换句话说，耶稣的神蹟，复活，和耶稣为神这些‘超自然’的事件都不可能被包括在‘历
史的耶稣’的框架里面！
该文接下来继续介绍：
As a result, the term “historical Jesus” is perhaps best termed the “
existential Jesus,” for, as will be seen, a close examination of the
questing reveals that the “historical Jesus” is whatever the quester a
priori determines Jesus to be or wants Him as somehow significantly in
distinction from the biblical documents. This subjectivity is highlighted in
reviewing terms used today in the “third search” to define the “historical
Jesus”: an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occult magician,
an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a
political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an
historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a
Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious
eschatological agent, and the list would go on and on.[6] No one embraces all
of these images, but they are presented by their advocates as the most
reasonable reconstruction of “the historical Jesus.” After an arbitrary a
priori decision has been made on a preconceived concept of Jesus, criteria of
authenticity, stemming from tradition criticism, can be applied to the
gospels and that concept of Jesus affirmed. Since the criteria are subjective
and conflicting, other criteria can be invented and applied to ensure the
desired outcome. The critical weakness, as well as subjectivity, of these
criteria lies in the fact that the same criteria can be applied or countered
with different criteria to ensure whatever view has already been assumed.[7]
The current situation of widely conflicting views on who the “historical
Jesus” was has prompted Jesus Seminar participant John Dominic Crossan to
comment, “Historical Jesus research today is becoming something of a
scholarly bad joke” and “an academic embarrassment” as well as giving the
“impression of acute scholarly subjectivity in historical research.”[8]
这就造成，‘历史的耶稣’这个词或许最好被称之为‘存在主义的耶稣（existential
Jesus）’，因为，正如同我们将会看见的，对于搜寻更为仔细的检视揭示‘历史的耶稣
’就是搜寻者默认的耶稣，或希望在某种意义上与圣经文献间产生巨大差异的耶稣。这个
主观性爱今日的‘第三个搜寻’中所使用定义‘历史的耶稣’的名词中被凸显出来：一位
末世的先知，一位加利利的圣人，一位神秘的魔术师，一位启迪人的拉比，一位让人精神
恍惚的心理治疗师，一位犹太人的智者，一位政治革命家，艾赛尼派的阴谋家，四处游荡
的驱魔人，一个历史的神秘人物，解放神学家的原型，一位农奴工匠，一位遵守可拉的法
利赛人，一位类似犬儒派的哲学家，一位自我启发的末世代理人，这个清单还没完。没有
人接受这所有的描述，但是它们代表了它们的提倡者的观念，他们用最为理性的方式重建
了‘历史的耶稣’。在针对一个默认的耶稣观念做出一种随心所欲的默认立场手，可靠性
的准则就从传统的批判主义远远而出，被应用在福音书并耶稣的观念上。因为标准是主观
的，并自相矛盾的，其他的标准也能够被发明，并用于保证产生合乎个人理想的结果。那
些标准批判主义弱点，以及主观性都是建立在同一个标准能够被用于，或被视为其他的标
准之上的事实，这样做是为了保证已经被假设的观点。目前这种广泛的，对于‘历史的耶
稣’具有相互冲突观点的情况，都是由John Dominic Crossan所参加的耶稣学会（Jesus
Seninar）所鼓吹的，他评论到，‘今日历史的耶稣的研究已经成为某种学术上的丑恶笑
话’并且‘一种学术上尴尬结果’还造成‘一直对于在历史研究领域中的学术具有尖锐主
观主义的印象’。
请注意，‘历史的耶稣’所寻找的，可以是：一位末世的先知，一位加利利的圣人，一位
神秘的魔术师，一位启迪人的拉比，一位让人精神恍惚的心理治疗师，一位犹太人的智者
，一位政治革命家，艾赛尼派的阴谋家，四处游荡的驱魔人，一个历史的神秘人物，解放
神学家的原型，一位农奴工匠，一位遵守可拉的法利赛人，一位类似犬儒派的哲学家，一
位自我启发的末世代理人。。。。。。但，就是‘不是神’。
这也是为什么，早期华人教会受基要主义影响的基督教领袖，都异口同声的把高等批判/
历史-文法批判/自由主义神学称之为‘不信派’的缘故。因为他们的信仰是建立在唯物主
义/唯理主义之上，不承认任何超自然的事件，所以，耶稣对他们而言，只不过是一个‘
历史的人物’——这是‘历史的耶稣’名称的由来，而不是神。
当星火宣称我‘抹黑’The Quest of the Historical Jesus，我引用Albert
Schweitzer 1910年伦敦英文版的资料。
Pg。1 The greatest achievement of German theology is the critical
investigation of the life of Jesus. What it has accomplished here has laid
down the condition and determined the couse of the religious thinking of
future.
史怀哲说的很清楚，德国神学最为伟大的贡献就是批判学，而批判学为研究耶稣生平垫底
了基础，环境而发展的方向。
接下来的段落：
In the history of doctrine its work has been negative; it has, so to speak,
cleared the site for a new edifice of religious thought. In describing how
the ideas of Jesus were taken of by the Greek spirit, it was tracing the
growth of that which must necessarily become strange to us, and as a matter
of fact, has become strange to us.
史怀哲在此说到，教义在历史中的工作是父母的，而批判学澄清了这种被改造过的宗教思
想。批判学描述了耶稣的观念如何被希腊的精神吸收。。。。换句话说，基督教是希腊文
化的产物——这正是后来哈拿克的立场。
Pg.3-4 That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus
Christ of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident…. The historical
investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its rise from a purely
historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of history as a ally in the
struggle againt the tyranny of dogma. Afterwards when it was freed from this
dogma it sought to present the historic Jesus in a form inteliigible to its
own time.
历史的耶稣与我们如今认为不辩自明的，教义上的具有二性的耶稣基督不同。对于基督生
平的历史研究为的是摆脱教义对历史耶稣真相的暴虐统治——哈那克也采用了，后来演变
成为今日‘圣经神学’所谓：让圣经的本文说话——而当真相脱离了教义之后，它就能够
根据自身的时代用理性的形式展现历史的耶稣——换句话说，19世纪的历史的耶稣，20世
纪的历史的耶稣，和21世纪的历史的耶稣因为处境不同，当时人们理解不同，而成为三位
能够满足三个不同时期的耶稣。
请问，星火‘认可’上述的一对观点吗？
当星火宣称：
: 追寻历史的耶稣，强调的是"耶稣身为人"的一面，
: 但却无法必然的推论"耶稣只是人，不是神"
那么，请问，那一位‘历史的耶稣’学者承认‘耶稣是神’的？请举例？
: 挪用"强调耶稣是人的一面"的研究结论去主张"耶稣只是人不是神"，是个人层级的事
: 老鱼的滑坡推论把一堆人拉黑。
: 至于对形式批判和强调文法解经的过度抹黑，是同样的手法，以后再谈。