（按上圖或按此免費下載）

撮要

艾查提出文法歷史釋經方法乃五旬宗運動在四十年代起「福意派化」的產物，實質上損害了五旬宗及靈恩運動的本質。他借助後現代的後批判敍事詮釋學，倡儀一套可以真正合乎五旬宗運動身份和特色的聖經詮釋進路。

他認為五旬宗的詮釋前設是約珥書末後春雨的形上敍事傳統，而特色是透過聖經、敍事羣體和聖靈三角互動關係，共同「建構」出經文在今天的意義。他總括五旬宗的神學思考是一種敍事性及由下而上的經驗性進路。

本文嘗試從多角度評估艾查的詮釋獻議：包括（1）艾查對「理解前設」的概念混淆了「實然」作「應然」；（2）末後春雨復原論的前設乃誤解聖經；（3）否定「作者原意」釋經也沒有「文本原意」釋經，結果釋經之最後準則便在於釋經社羣而非經文之上；及（4）艾查後批判敍事釋經不能產生命題性教義，並且必然導致多元主義之真理觀，有違五旬宗本身尊重聖經權威的傳統。

我們認為艾查的學說可以在聖經應用上帶來一些智慧和亮光，但前題是必須先釐清解釋（what it meant）和應用（what it means）本質上之分別，並且認定應用必須建基在正確解釋之上。

ABSTRACT

Kenneth Archer asserts that grammatical-historical exegesis was introduced into Pentecostalism during its “Evangelicalization Stage” in 1940s. This hermeneutical approach is in fact hurtful to the essence of Pentecostalism. Utilizing the postmodern post-criticism, he proposes a hermeneutical approach that is believed to be truly consistent with the Pentecostal identity and distinctives in faith.

Archer believes that the presupposition of Pentecostal Hermeneutic is the tradition of Latter Rain metanarrative in Joel. Through a tridactic dialectical and dialogical interdependent relationship between Scripture, Spirit and Community, the meaning of the Scriptural text for the community today is “made”. He concludes that the Pentecostal way of doing theology is narrative and experiential from below.

This paper attempts to evaluate Archer’s proposal: ( 1) His concept of “preunderstanding” confuses what “is” with what “ought to be “; (2) The Latter Rain metanarrative is grounded on bad exegesis;(3) there is no “intention of the text “ if we forego the idea of “authorial intention”. As such, the ultimate criterion in determining the meaning rests upon the reading community rather than the text itself; and (4) Archer’s post-critical narrative criticism cannot produce propositional doctrines that entails pluralistic view of truth that is going against the traditional respect for Biblical authority in Pentecostalism.

原載於《建道學刊》39期（2013年1月），頁85-115。