其實, 我覺得睇書係好, 無知不是好事, 但係同時亦要明白, 睇書又唔係真係極之重要, 尤其是如果睇的書唔係primary sources, 而係現代人寫的書, 睇一百本都冇用, 因為喺聖經研究的世界入面, 書就係會過時的, 而且係迅速過時. 碰巧睇Dale Allison一本書, 佢寫呢個現象寫得很到肉.
Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus:
[Yet even if there were some sort of contemporary consensus on these more interesting and important issues, would it not be unwise to build a house of faith upon a recent academic head-count? Famous names rise and fall. Ideas come and go. Today's consensus will be tomorrow's memory. Big books on Jesus are like the clouds: no matter how large, imposing, and beautiful they may be, they never last for long. There will never be any definitive non-canonical edition of his life.
We need some perspective here, which the past supplies. Sixty years ago, an informed British theologian might well have thought it prudent, having read C. H. Dodd, T. W. Manson, and Vincent Taylor, to take their concurrence as a safe court of appeal. Those three New Testament scholars were, at the time, and at least in England, a sort of academic trinity, the big names to be reckoned with; and surely, one might have surmised with some justification, their agreement on a matter constituted the scholarly consensus about it.
Although such would indeed have been the consensus then, nothing lasts. Any theological thinking that turned Dodd, Manson, and Taylor into a collective polestar by which to navigate would have gone off course as soon as those three mortals and their commanding influence passed away. Likewise, any contemporary theology that takes its bearings from contemporary reconstructions of the historical Jesus will be defunct as soon as those reconstructions become defunct, which will not be very long.
We may, out of foolish pride, imagine that our contemporary results will somehow prove to be more important and to have a longer shelf-life than those of our scholarly ancestors; but we will become passe soon enough. Our academic descendants will look back on our writings as we look back on the works of the nineteenth century: maybe a few of our writings will be of antiquarian interest, but any authority they once had will be long gone. This is one reason why I am allergic to the phrase "assured critical result." Those three words - which too often function as a simplification for novices and as an excuse for scholars to think less - fail to resonate with my experience, which is rather that the discourse of New Testament scholars is Heraclitean: everything keeps changing. Working with "assured critical results" reminds me a bit of the old saw about shoveling frogs into a wheelbarrow: they keep coming out even as one is trying to shovel more in.]