2008年9月29日星期一

常年期第廿六主日:彌撒福音問題

從論盡神學討論區得知,昨天主日彌撒的福音經文〈二子的比喻〉(瑪21: 28-32),新舊版之間有所分別。

按照現時新訂《主日感恩祭》小冊子所載的版本--

「你們以為怎樣?從前有一個人,有兩個兒子。他對第一個兒子說:孩子!你今天到葡萄園去工作吧!這兒子答應說:主,我去。但他卻沒有去。父親又對第二個說了同樣的話,第二個卻回答說:我不願意。但後來悔悟過來,而又去了。

「兩個兒子中,那一個履行了父親的意願?」

他們說:「後一個。」

即與先前的版本有所不同。按照舊版的《主日感恩祭》和《福音書》的次序則恰好相反:頭一個兒子先說不去葡萄園、但後來則知錯而而去了;而後一兒子則先說「去」但後來沒有去。「聽眾」(司祭長和民間的長老)的回應,則是「首位」兒子履行了父親的意願。

這一問題,頗掀起我的興趣。

查考家中所收藏的聖經版本,則發現〈二子的比喻〉原來可以有三種版本:
  • 而現時思高聖經譯本(包括新舊約合訂本和譯釋版系列),則與新版主日感恩祭相符。
  • 「新」(Nova Vulgata)和「舊」(Clementina Vulgata)拉丁通行本,與舊版《主日感恩祭》的版本相符。而其他英語譯本(如Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Douay-Rheims, New International Version)亦是這樣。
  • 一本「學術」拉丁通行本,則指出有一種版本,當中兒子回應的次序,與上述拉丁通行本一樣,但聽眾的回應,則是「後者」(novissimus),即「司祭長和民間的長老」們,認為那口口聲聲說跟從、但後來沒了件事的兒子,是履行了父親的旨意!
瀏覽了互聯網,發覺有一本稱為《New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis》(Adelbert Denaux, Joël Delobel著)的書,當中提及「二子比喻」的校勘問題。

原來瑪竇福音中的〈二子比喻〉,在對觀福音中乃屬獨有。但至今留傳世間的希臘文版本則有三種。現將該些版本的分別,中譯及表列如下:





節數第一式第二式第三式
29他回答說:主,我去。但他卻沒有去。他回答說:我不願意。但後來悔悟過來,就去了。他回答說:我不願意。但後來悔悟過來,就去了。
30他對第二個也說了同樣的話,第二個卻答應說:我不願意。但後來悔悟過來,而又去了。他來給第二個說了同樣的話,第二個卻答應說:主,我去。他卻沒有去。他來給第二個說了同樣的話,第二個答應說:主,我去。但卻沒有去。
31a二人中那一個履行了父親的意願?」他們說:「後一個。」二人中那一個履行了父親的意願?」他們說:前一個。這兩個中那一個履行了父親的意願?」他們說:後一個。


按照上述圖表,則現時(新版、試用本《主日感恩祭》)彌撒經書所採用的,乃是第一式的版本。

思高聖經譯釋版給予以下解釋:
......就校勘學來說,是這一種經文較為確切;但就上下文的意義來說,我們所選取的經文[按:即第一式]更為適合,因為有上下文為依據,故此比較容易解釋。現有拉丁通行本的經文,如註中之譯文[按:即第二式] ......
但在禮儀而言,我們應選取哪一版本?

根據教廷聖禮部的指引《Liturgiam authenticam》:

37. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.[32] Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained. In preparing new translations, it would be helpful, though not obligatory, that the numbering of the verses also follow that of the same text as closely as possible.

38. It is often permissible that a variant reading of a verse be used, on the basis of critical editions and upon the recommendation of experts. However, this is not permissible in the case of a liturgical text where such a choice would affect those elements of the passage that are pertinent to its liturgical context, or whenever the principles found elsewhere in this Instruction would otherwise be neglected. For passages where a critical consensus is lacking, particular attention should be given to the choices reflected in the approved Latin text.[33]

39. The delineation of the biblical pericopai is to conform entirely to the Ordo lectionum Missae or to the other approved and confirmed liturgical texts, as the case may be.

[32] Cf. Council of Trent, Session IV, 8 April 1546, De libris sacris et de traditionibus recipiendis, and De vulgata editione Bibliorum et de modo interpretandi s. Scripturarum : Denz.–Schönm., nn. 1501-1508 ; Pope John Paul II, Apost. Const. Scripturarum thesaurus, 25 April 1979: AAS 71 (1979) 558-559.

[33] Cf. Pope Paul VI, Address to the Cardinals and Prelates of the Roman Curia, 23 December 1966, n. 11: AAS 59 (1967) 53-54; cf. Address to the Cardinals and Prelates of the Roman Curia, 22 December 1977: AAS 70 (1978) 43; cf. Pope John Paul II, Apost. Const. Scripturarum thesaurus, 25 April 1979: AAS 71 (1979) 558; Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum, editio typica altera 1986, Praefatio ad Lectorem.

若按照上述原則,那麼我們是否應跟從《新拉丁通行本》所列出(即回復舊版《主日感恩祭》)的版本?

沒有留言: