This exegetical article is written as an expression of sincere congratulation to my good friend and colleague Dr. Ronald Y. K. Fung on the occasion of his 60th birthday. It is most appropriate that the article takes "Blessings and Congratulations" as its topic.

        The text under study, Ruth 4:11-17 , concludes the book of Ruth, except for the genealogy that follows. It takes the story of the book to a climax with two episodes: the marriage of Ruth to Boaz and the birth of a son as a result of the union. The narrative in the passage alternates with the words spoken, first by the people and the elders at the city gate who pronounced a wedding blessing, and then by the women in the city who congratulated Naomi on account of the new-born child. The themes of the earlier chapters of the book, such as childlessness in the family, security for the aging Naomi and a home for the young Ruth, all find their fulfilment at the close of the book.
The blessings and well wishes focus on fertility and fame, and prepare for the inclusion of the genealogy which points to David as the descendent of Boaz. As Naomi is the centre of attention in chapter one, likewise she occupies a central place at the end of chapter four. The son of the levirate marriage is also spoken of as a son born to Naomi.

        The mention of David in verse 17 and the family line of Perez up to David listed in verses 18-22 bring the dramatic story of the two women and the levirate marriage of Boaz and Ruth, otherwise an account of ordinary people and household events, into the main stream of salvation history in biblical revelation.

        A brief passage in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 13:1-14), which is composed of "synoptic" (parallel to 2 Sm 6:2-11) and "non-synoptic" passages, is selected for study. These two types of passages are shaped by the author into an organic whole. The article first examines briefly the textual basis of the passage, and then focuses on its main ideas. The examination shows that the author puts great emphasis on the "all Israel" concept and pictures the removal of the Ark of God as the undertaking of this united group. The text reflects a very broad concept about the boundaries of the Israelite territorial extent on the one hand and a "democratized" image of King David on the other. By shaping the material in this way, the author of 1 Chronicles achieves a different literary effect from that of the book of Samuel.

      The use of Memra in the Targumim cannot be ascribed to either anti-anthropomorphism or "natural paraphrase," as G. F. Moore calls it. We submit that those who were responsible for this Targumic tradition had noticed the seeming contradiction of God's personal presence in Israel and the emphasis upon His transcendence, and they tried to resolve this dilemma by placing a greater distance between God and man.

吳 羅 瑜

　　根 據 可 十 五 40 和 路 八 1-3 的 記 載 ， 一 般 學 者 認 為 ， 耶 穌 周 流 加 利 利 四 方 宣 講 天 國 福 音 時 ， 有 些 婦 女 伴 隨 著 祂 ， 這 是 歷 史 上 確 鑿 的 事 實 。 然 而 ， 有 些 學 者 （ 特 別 是 婦 權 運 動 的 一 些 擁 護 者 ） 卻 聲 稱 ， 相 對 於 馬 可 福 音 的 記 述 而 言 ， 路 八 1-3 把 伴 隨 耶 穌 的 婦 女 描 繪 為 有 財 有 勢 的 人 ， 又 把 她 們 的 門 徒 身 分 貶 抑 為 服 侍 男 性 飲 食 的 角 色 ， 這 做 法 跟 路 加 的 一 貫 作 風 相 符 ， 就 是 貶 抑 抹 大 拉 馬 利 亞 和 其 他 婦 女 在 見 證 和 宣 講 耶 穌 復 活 一 事 上 的 地 位 ， 另 一 方 面 高 舉 彼 得 和 十 二 門 徒 的 重 要 性 。 對 某 些 學 者 來 說 ， 這 反 映 了 當 時 富 父 權 色 彩 的 主 流 教 會 與 一 些 容 納 婦 女 領 袖 的 流 派 （ 如 服 膺 諾 思 底 主 義〔Gnosticism〕和 孟 他 努 主 義 者〔Montanism〕）之 間 的 爭 辯 。

　　本 文 針 對 這 些 質 疑 路 八 1-3 的 歷 史 可 靠 的 論 點 ， 從 三 方 面 入 手 ， 簡 略 討 論 ： （ 一 ） 諾 思 底 著 述 對 抹 大 拉 馬 利 亞 和 另 一 些 婦 女 的 形 容 ； （ 二 ） 路 加 福 音 對 有 關 婦 女 的 刻 劃 ； （ 三 ） 第 一 世 紀 加 利 利 的 社 會 、 經 濟 狀 況 ， 與 婦 女 可 能 扮 演 的 角 色 。

　　由 於 諾 思 底 作 品 中 對 話 形 式 的 虛 擬 性 、 對 陰 性 常 有 的 蔑 視 ， 以 及 抹 大 拉 馬 利 亞 在 一 些 諾 思 底 宇 宙 觀 中 被 視 為 耶 穌 配 偶 的 特 殊 身 分 ， 我 們 不 宜 視 這 些 作 品 為 歷 史 資 料 ， 試 圖 藉 此 重 繪 耶 穌 生 平 與 婦 女 的 關 係 。 這 些 作 品 中 ， 馬 利 亞 的 顯 著 地 位 ， 她 與 彼 得 的 競 爭 、 矛 盾 ， 也 不 代 表 背 後 諾 思 底 群 體 高 舉 婦 女 領 袖 、 跟 主 流 教 會 在 這 方 面 抗 衡 的 現 象 。 再 者 ， 不 論 是 諾 思 底 作 品 ， 或 是 主 流 教 會 的 著 作 ， 似 乎 都 假 定 在 耶 穌 的 生 平 中 ， 祂 的 女 性 跟 隨 者 並 無 跟 男 性 門 徒 一 起 出 去 宣 講 天 國 福 音 。

　　就 路 八 1-3 而 論 ， 有 關 婦 女 以 財 物 服 侍 耶 穌 和 十 二 門 徒 這 幅 圖 畫 ， 並 非 貶 抑 她 們 的 角 色 。 事 實 上 ， 路 加 福 音 後 來 對 她 們 的 描 繪 似 乎 把 她 們 視 為 耶 穌 的 女 門 生 ， 她 們 不 僅 聽 到 耶 穌 對 十 二 門 徒 的 教 訓 ， 而 且 具 備 足 夠 的 資 格 ， 可 見 證 耶 穌 的 生 平 、 死 亡 和 復 活 。

　　路 加 對 這 些 婦 女 的 描 述 ， 跟 第 一 世 紀 加 利 利 的 社 會 、 經 濟 狀 況 十 分 吻 合 。 因 著 當 日 社 會 對 婦 女 的 歧 視 與 限 制 ， 耶 穌 不 大 可 能 差 派 婦 女 一 對 對 或 一 組 組 地 出 去 傳 講 福 音 ， 祂 所 差 出 去 的 七 十 人 中 ， 大 概 也 不 包 括 夫 婦 在 內 。 今 人 若 堅 持 耶 穌 的 男 女 跟 隨 者 在 當 日 有 完 全 相 同 的 角 色 和 身 分 ， 並 為 此 爭 辯 不 休 ， 便 大 有 「 時 空 犯 駁 」 的 可 能 ， 而 且 不 大 符 合 耶 穌 教 訓 的 精 神 。

        When we compare Luke 21:23 with Mark 13:17-18, we notice that the phrase "pray that it may not happen in winter" of Mark 13:18 is missing in Luke. Since the Gospel of Mark is one of the main sources which Luke used in composing his gospel, and Luke emphasized the teaching of prayer more than other evangelists did, the absence of this phrase is worth investigating.

        This paper attempts to rule out two commonly held ideas concerning Luke's omission of Mark 13:18, that is, (1) by the time when Luke wrote the gospel, the tribulation had already taken place when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed not in winter, but in summer; and (2) Luke did not omit the phrase, he simply relocated it to 21:36. This paper argues that Luke left out the phrase because he did not share the opinion that we should evade hardship by praying that the tribulation should not come in winter.

    Recent New Testament scholarship agrees that Paul's aim of writing Romans is not only to find support from the Roman Christians for his impending trip to Jerusalem and mission plan to Spain, but also to deal with concrete problems. However, the suggestion that in Romans Paul was trying to pacify a Christian community which was not only seperated from the synagogue, but also divided into different groups opposing each others, is problematic. Starting from the historical circumstance of the Roman church, this study is an attempt to argue for the reading of Romans from a different angle. The point of departure is that Romans is not dealing with problems between Christians, but between Christians (Jews and Gentiles) and Jews (non-Christians). The two parties were not yet seperated when Paul wrote the letter, although Christians might have also gathered in their own homes. Paul strived to build a sympathetic relationship between them. His wishes were that the Jews should accept Christians as the people of God, and the Christians respect the primary position of the Jews in salvation, so that the fidelity and glory of God would be confirmed, and Paul may gain support from both parties to the benefit of his days in Jerusalem as well.

        This paper examines the way of spirituality in Col 3:1-4. The Colossian church then was being influenced by a heresy which taught a way of spirituality that emphasized regulations, taboos, and ascetic practices, in order to appease angels for gaining access to heavenly experiences and thus approaching God. Paul pointed out that behind the false teaching were evil spiritual powers aiming at making accusations against men in their transgressions. Besides, such legalistic and ascetic approach to spirituality was in reality not effective to combat the gratification of the flesh. Rather, Paul highlighted the centrality and the supremacy of Christ, who both reigned over the spiritual powers in creation and conquered them through the cross. Owing to the union with Christ through faith, believers were already participating in the victory of Christ and freed from the dominion of the evil powers with their accompanied legalism. In their co-resurrection with Christ, believers were already enjoying heavenly status, and should therefore set their minds upon things in the heavenly realm, which included the glory, power, and victory of Christ, as well as the final victory into which Christ would lead the believers amid their ongoing spiritual warfare. By letting the word of Christ dwell richly among them, believers orientated themselves toward living out the heavenly reality experienced in Christ, and their lives were being transformed from inside out and from personal to communal, forsaking any attempt to approach God through legalistic-ascetic ways that might lead to self-boasting. This is the Christ-centered way of spirituality taught in Col 3:1-4.

馮兆成
中 國 神 學 研 究 院 道 學 碩 士 ， 威 斯 敏 斯 特 神 學 院 哲 學 博 士 ； 現 任 中 國 宣 道 神 學 院 講 師 及 院 牧 。

        Philemon is a short letter but packed with powerful rhetoric of will and persuasion, of love and coerciveness. This article uses rhetorical insights to identify Philemon as an ambassadorial persuasion of gospel-love for a runaway slave. Paul asks Philemon not to punish Onesimus but to welcome him as a beloved brother in the Lord (v.16). The reasons Paul asks Philemon to accept Onesimus are: (i) for Paul's sake and out of love; (ii) now they are a family; and (iii) koinonia.

        The rhetorical reading of Philemon points to the more fundamental Pauline revolution of overcoming the evil of ancient slavery system. Paul does not want to boss Philemon and compel him to follow his word. Instead, Paul seeks the freedom of Onesimus by asking Philemon to approve it out of his own freewill. Paul speaks of Onesimus "both as a man and as a brother in the Lord" (v. 16). In that sense, Paul does have a social programme in response to the slavery system new creation in the Lord.

作者簡介
楊 克 勤 ， 獲 美 國 以 利 諾 州 西 北 大 學 （Northwestern University） 哲 學 博 士 （Ph. D.）， 主 修 新 約 詮 釋 研 究 。 現 任 迦 勒 福 音 神 學 院 （Garrett-Evanglical Theological Seminary） 及 西 北 大 學 研 究 院 新 約 助 理 教 授 。 曾 在 學 術 及 教 牧 中 英 文 期 刊 發 表 聖 經 專 文 。 著 作 有 Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 《 女 男 之 間 》 （ 香 港 ： 建 道 ，1995）等 。

        In this paper special attention is paid to the citation of Psalm 8:4-6 in Hebrews 2:6-8a, but the overall picture of the use of the OT in Hebrews is kept in view. Our discussion begins with the OT text behind Hebrews: Is it the LXX as traditionally viewed, or is it a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text? Scholarly investigation still goes on. The text of Ps 8:4-6 is faithfully cited, though one line is omitted ("You made him ruler over the works of your hand") probably intentionally to facilitate christological application. While omissions found in the Qumranic Peshers reflect arbitrary citations and pneumatic rewriting, the basically verbatim citation in Heb 2:6-8a discloses careful transcription from a text, rather than memorization. The citation formula here, "someone somewhere says," is a replacement of the customarily used "God says" in Hebrews, as "God" is already the second person in Heb 2:6-8a.

        Heb 2:6-8a seems to exhibit the use of double entendre which is typical of Jewish implicit Midrash. However, its form of citation which leads on to some explicit commentary makes it look more like the Qumranic Peshers. Besides the double meaning of the words "angels/gods" and "a little lower/for a little while," we note that "(the) Son of Man" can refer to either "man" or "Christ," but the intention of a double meaning here is debated among scholars. Childs considers Heb 2:6-8a a proof-text by which christology was read into Psalm 8, so the term refers to Christ. Fung and others hold that it is applied to Christ only subsequently in v. 8b or v. 9, so there is no double meaning in the citation. According to Bruce, there is a "tacit identification" of the term with "the one like a Son of Man" in Dan 7:13. It is important to note that these views result from different methods of analysis. Linguistic and grammatical analysis may be used to argue against double meaning, but if Hebrews is placed alongside the interpretative traditions of its times, then the likely influence from Dan 7 and the joint use of Ps 8 with Ps 110 (the latter being cited in Heb 1:13) point to a christological reference in the citation, and thus the familiar use of double entendre. This consideration of the contemporary background should have priority over a diachronic reconstruction of traditional reinterpretations, upon which Childs's view is based.

        Thus the author of Hebrews interprets Ps 8:4-6 in eschatological light as a prophecy to be fulfilled in Christ. The ensuing commentary resembles an "explicit Midrash," and the repetition of the word "to subject" reminds us of the typical use of keywords in Qumranic Peshers. Paul uses exactly the same keyword "to subject" in his interpretation of Ps 8 in 1 Cor 15:27.

        The macro structure of Hebrews includes Pesher-like discussions on four "core citations," namely, Ps 8:4-6; Ps 95:7-11; Ps 110:4 and Jer 31:31-34. The citation of Ps 8:4-6 in Heb 2:6-8a is, therefore, the core of the first "Pesher" (chapters 1-2) which introduces the overall theme of Jesus as the High Priest (2:17). Subsequent "Peshers" elaborate on the High Priest's "faithfulness" (chapters 3-4), his being "merciful" and being "eternal" (chapters 5-7), and the "priestly sacrifice" he offered (chapters 8-10). The remarkable consistency demonstrated in the eschatological outlook and christological goal of these "Peshers" distinguishes Hebrews from all other Jewish interpretative works.

        The monumental work of Michael Fishbane Biblical Interpretation of Ancient Israel has well demonstrated that the Hebrew Bible we have today is a complex weaving of traditum and traditio by way of their interaction, interpenetration and interdependence. The received traditum of ancient Israel was not merely copied, studied, transmitted, or recited, but was also redacted, elucidated, reformulated and transformed. The New Testament basically followed this exegetical tradition of scripture citing scripture or inner biblical interpretation.

        Our survey and assessment on the inner biblical exegesis of the New Testament surround six major issues: (1) the textual traditions and form of the Old Testament citations. There are eight possible explanations for the New Testament using a different form from the standard Septuagint; (2) the citation formulae used, as compared to those in the Old Testament, Qumran literature and rabbinic writings; (3) the interpretative methods of the New Testament authors. The interpretative procedures are often related to the rabbinic and Qumran interpretation of the Hebrew scripture as midrash. Various interpretative techniques in Jewish hermeneutics including interpretation according to rabbinic hermeneutical rules, midrash-pesher, literal interpretation, allegorical interpretation, typological interpretation, found in all kinds of Jewish literature are compared with that used in the New Testament; (4) the underlying presuppositions as the New Testament authors used the Old Testament. The way the New Testament writers used the Old Testament is often guided by their theological convictions. These theological beliefs of the writer or the community of which he is a member and the teaching of the Scripture form a kind of hermeneutical circle in which they shaped the understanding of each other; (5) the theological implications of the use of the Old Testament in the New. Scholars debate whether the New Testament authors had in some way distorted the original meaning of the Old Testament passages in their quotations. This has also implications on the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of Christians today to employ the interpretative methods used in the New Testament; and (6) the notion of intertextuality in the understanding of the interpretative nature of the process in incorporating an antecedent text into the target text.

        The study of inner biblical exegesis in the New Testament must also take into account the role of the Hebrew canon in the first century C.E. and the use of Jewish interpretative traditions other than the Hebrew canon.

        The present study attempts to investigate the origin and the nature of the Greek of the New Testament from a sociolinguistic perspective. The more than 20 regional ancient Greek dialects in the pre-classical world were held in check by a powerful tendency to the emergence of a supradialectal Greek speech form, and this resulted in the Attic Koine in the early fifth century B.C. and the Hellenistic Koine in the Hellenistic period and thereafter. The interdisciplinary nature of sociolinguistics has offered a very legitimate and illuminating service to our better understanding of the entire development. The hybridized nature of the Hellenistic Koine is also studied under the analogy of the pidgin-creole and koineization.

        Since the first Chinese Bible version translated by Robert Morrison was published in 1823, the question whether the term Shin（神）should be employed to translate the words "Elohim" and "Theos" had drawn the attention of many missionaries in China. Later in 1843 when a committee was formed for the purpose of revising the former version, its members were in fierce argument. Among them were William J. Boone, missionary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and Walter H. Medhurst of the London Missionary Society. Boone was an advocate of the Shin translation. He suggested that when translating the two words into Chinese, the old term Shin, which was the generic name for God in Chinese language, should be used. He also pointed out that the term Shang-ti（上帝）was totally inadmissible because it was the name of the chief Deity of the Chinese. However, Medhurst had entirely different opinions. He asserted that the word Shin in Chinese means Spirit, and that in the translation of the Scriptures it could not be used to render "Elohim" and "Theos". He maintained that the real generic name for God in Chinese language was Ti（帝）, and therefore the term Shang-ti or Tien-ti（天帝）should be used.

        When interpreting the Bible, Chinese scholars for many years have been using the historical-grammatical approach. It is time to explore other modern approaches such as text-centered and reader-response.

        This paper, using Gen 22:1-19 as an example, introduces the readers to these two approaches and analyses their strength and weaknesses together with those of the historical-grammatical.

        In view of the strength and weaknesses of the three approaches, and against the background of postmodernism and Christians' illiteracy of the Bible, a question naturally arises: What approach to biblical interpretation should Chinese Bible scholars use?

        It is suggested that we should consider a "syncretic" approach. First, we would determine the original meaning of the text by utilizing the historical-grammatical approach as well as the parts suitable for this purpose in the text-centered approach. Second, we could, on the basis of the original meaning, arrive at legitimate applications for our lives; this is the first-level application. Third, reader-response approach, especially from the perspectives of psychology, marriage and family, ecology, social justice, feminism, and Chinese culture, can then be used to come up with a second-level application.

        This syncretic approach is based on the conviction that the Bible is God's word and the original meaning is relevant for any generation, including ours.

        Christians pray to God, and one's temperamental inclination strongly affects one's prayer style. There is much difference between the extravert and the introvert, the feeling and the intuitive and the thinking and the feeling types of people. Understanding the inter-relationship between temperament and prayer helps the practice of prayer. Actually in church history different spiritual traditions reflect different temperaments. The Franciscan, the Ignatian, the Thomistic and the Augustinian spiritualities represent the Dionysian, Epimethean, Promethean and Apollonian temperament types respectively.

        We may also comprehend this phenomenon from the view point of temperament and learning styles. When such understandng is applied to Bible study, for example, systematic Bible reading or biblical exegesis, we would be more ready to explore multiple possibilities to cater to people of different temperaments.