论文部分内容阅读
《书屋》杂志转来齐红伟先生针对发表于该刊2001年第12期上拙作《重读上帝》一文(以下简称“齐文”)所写的读后感,要我看看。拜读之余,深感齐先生除行文中使用了几个令人稍感不适的语词外,总的说来,还是出于对笔者的关心,在有所溢美的情况下,希望笔者在后续的文章中避免”一些不太严谨之处”,并希望“在宽容氛围和真诚对话中尊重学术规范,辨明课题真意”。“齐文”大致分为两个部分:其一针对拙文“知识性错误(“硬伤”)”,罗列了十条之多;其二为拙文“尚需斟酌”的“观念”,亦有六条。笔者以为,必须是只可能有惟一正确答案的问题,才能产生“知识性错误”的“硬伤”。但“齐文”所列的拙作“知识性错误”,似乎只有第一和第三条才有可能成立,是否为笔者错误则又另当别论;其他都是基于不同的“观念”对《圣经》的文本有着不同的理解而产生的解读差异。
Book and magazine turned to Mr. Qi Hongwei for his read-through on the eloquent rehearsal of God published in issue No. 12 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Qi Wen”). Let me see. In addition to reading, deeply Qi Qi in addition to the text used in a few slightly discomfortable words, in general, or out of concern for the author, in the case of some overflowing, I hope the author in the follow-up The article avoids “some less rigorous” and hopes “to respect academic norms and identify the true meaning of the subject in a tolerant atmosphere and sincere dialogue.” Qi Wen is broadly divided into two parts: one is directed against the clumsy “knowledge error” (“flawed”), listed as many as ten; the other is the “concept” that I still need to consider, and six . The author believes that we must be the only correct answer to the question, in order to produce “intellectual error” of “flawed.” However, the “intellectual error” listed in Qi Wen seems to have been established only in the first and third articles. Whether the author is wrong or not is another matter. Others are based on different “ideas” "The text has a different understanding of the resulting interpretation of differences.