（按上圖或按此免費下載）

高銘謙

撮要

歷代志（Chronicles）與撒母耳—列王紀（Samuel-Kings）之間的文本互涉 性（intertextuality）向來都是學者熱烈討論的課題。早期的學者相信歷代志詮釋及演繹較早成書的撒母耳—列王紀。直至死海古卷的撒母耳記出土後，學者相信歷代志作者忠誠地倚賴死海古卷的撒母耳記抄本來編寫歷史，這樣忠誠的編寫改變了學者對歷代志作者引用史料的手法，認為他不是隨意刪改，而是忠誠地引用。本文嘗試總結這一百年來學者的討論，並分析近期有些學者提出的「記憶性差異」，指出歷代志作者是倚賴某一個撒母耳—列王紀的文本，作為他寫作的藍本，而這應該仍然是目前對它們文本互涉的最好解釋。

ABSTRACT

The intertextuality between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles has been one of the most disputed issues in the study of Chronicles. The earlier model maintains that Chronicles is a later elaboration and interpretation of Samuel-Kings. This model, however, has been challenged after the discovery of Qumran Scroll 4QSama , in which scholars begin to believe that the Chronicler is more faithful and conservation to his Vorlage than what had been originally conceived. This article attempts to summarize the scholarly debates on this issue during this century, and to analyze a theory called “memory variant” proposed by some scholars. As such, this paper contends that a version of Samuel-Kings as the Vorlage of Chronicles remains still the best model to articulate the intertextuality.

原載於《建道學刊》43期（2015年1月），頁 1-12。