PENTATEUCH ｜ 摩西五经

ENPENTATEUCH. The literal Greek name given to the first five books of the Old Testament, commonly called the Five Books of Moses. See Criticism; Old Testament. The meaning and effects of the scheme of the destructive criticism. [Whether the newer criticism is to stand or fall depends upon the judgment to be passed on its conclusions in regard to the Pentateuch: this is the pivot upon which the whole question turns. If the so-called "critical" method is right, the Pentateuch, instead of being the work of Moses, becomes a literary mosaic—consisting of chapters and paragraphs and even tiny morsels of verses, cut out of the works of a number of different authors, all of whom lived ages after the Exodus; and so cleverly have they been pieced together by a compiler as to deceive Jews, Samaritans, and Christians up to the present day. The narratives contained in them are derived for the most part from popular tradition, and, since they were written down centuries after the events they profess to record, are little worthy of credit. So far from being the earliest portion of Scripture—the foundation upon which the religion of Israel rested—the Law is later than the prophets, and marks a period of religious decline. The tabernacle with which it was associated was as much a fiction as the revelation on Mount Sinai, and owed its origin partly to the ideal temple described by Ezekiel, partly to the temple of Zerubbabel. A. H. Sayce.]

中摩西五经（Pentateuch）。这是旧约头五卷书的希腊文直译名，通称『摩西五经』。参主题词条：圣经批评学（052）；旧约（119）。破坏性批评这一方案的含义与后果。〔新派批评学能否站得住，取决于人们对它关于五经之结论所作的判断：这是整个问题所系的枢轴。若这所谓『批判』方法是对的，那么五经就不再是摩西的著作，而成了一幅文学的马赛克拼图——由若干不同作者著作中裁下的章、段、甚至一节节的碎屑拼成，而这些作者全都生活在出埃及之后许多世代；一位编纂者又把这些碎片拼接得如此巧妙，以致把犹太人、撒玛利亚人与基督徒一直骗到今天。其中所含的叙事，大多来自民间传说；既然是在其所声称记载之事件发生数百年后才写下的，就没多少可信度。律法非但不是圣经最早的部分（即以色列宗教赖以立足的根基），反倒晚于先知书，标志着一个宗教衰落的时期。与律法相连的会幕，和西奈山上的启示一样纯属虚构，其来源一部分出于以西结所描绘的理想圣殿，一部分出于所罗巴伯的圣殿。赛斯（A. H. Sayce）〕

EN[If this be a true representation of the case, then the jewel set in the crown of the Scriptures reflects a false luster: we have in the Pentateuch simply a five-fold imposition, a nearly worthless composite of mingled cleverness and fraud. Real homogeneousness of texture there is none. Patriarchal history—excepting some floating myths—completely gone. Mosaic history even, only represented in some scattered debris borne downward on the heaving waters of a beclouded tide. A sacred history of the Old Testament, properly speaking, there can be none: it is reduced simply to an account, more or less credible, of the rise, development, and decline of a Jewish sect that reached its bloom after the Exile. The great lawgiver of the old economy—and withal the grandest figure in primitive history—was not Moses after all, but Ezra the priest! The standing designation "the Law and the Prophets," sanctioned and sanctified by the usage of Christ and His apostles, is a misnomer; it should rather be "the Prophets and the Law," the real historic order being just the reverse of the order as it now appears. Protevangelium there is none: the promise made to the seed of the woman—shining like another Bethlehem star over the birthplace of human sin—is a Jehovistic conceit, meaning something or meaning nothing. There is as radical an overturning of Biblical theology, you will see, as of Biblical history as hitherto conceived. For this new scheme, as it leaves the history of redemption without an orderly beginning, so it leaves it without a sufficient end: it smites off the roots of the development, and is only consistent in looking for nothing among the branches. The one fitting consummation of the national life and religion of Israel is openly declared to be, not Jesus Christ of the seed of David, whose day Abraham saw and was glad, but the political catastrophe which overtook the Jewish state seventy years after our era began, and the rabbinical schools which then sprang up. Without extravagance of statement, such is the startling discovery which scholars professing to be governed by strictly scientific principles have made in our day. E. C. Bissell, "The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure."]

中〔如果这果真是实情，那么镶在圣经冠冕上的这颗宝石所映出的便是虚假的光泽：我们在五经里所有的，不过是一场五重的蒙骗，一件由机巧与欺诈掺和而成、几乎一文不值的杂拼之作。质地上真正的同源一贯，一点也没有。族长时代的历史——除了几段漂浮的神话——荡然无存。就连摩西时代的历史，也只剩下几片零散的残骸，随着一股被云雾遮蔽的浊流起伏漂下。严格说来，旧约根本不可能有什么『圣史』：它被降格为一份或多或少还算可信的记述，讲一个犹太教派如何兴起、发展、衰落——而这教派的鼎盛期还在被掳归回之后。旧制度中伟大的立法者——同时也是上古史上最伟岸的身影——到头来竟不是摩西，而是祭司以斯拉！『律法和先知』这一固定称谓，经基督与他使徒的用法所认可、所圣化，如今竟成了误称；据说该改称『先知和律法』，因为真实的历史顺序恰与现今呈现的顺序相反。『原始福音』（Protevangelium）也没有了：那向女人后裔所发、如另一颗伯利恒之星照在人类罪之出生地上的应许，被说成是『耶和华典作者』的一点巧思，可有可无。你会看到：对圣经神学的颠覆，与对迄今所认知之圣经历史的颠覆，一样彻底。因为这套新方案，既让救赎的历史失去有序的开端，也就让它失去足够的终局：它砍掉了这一发展的根，然后倒也前后一致地宣称枝子上找不到什么。以色列国族生命与宗教唯一相称的成全，如今被公然宣布为：不是大卫后裔耶稣基督（亚伯拉罕欢欢喜喜仰望他的日子），而是我们纪元开始七十年后临到犹太国的那场政治大祸，以及随之兴起的拉比学派。毫不夸张地说，这就是自称严格遵循科学原则的学者们在我们这时代所作出的惊人发现。比塞尔（E. C. Bissell），《五经：其起源与结构》〕

EN[In view of the present state of knowledge, it is scarcely necessary to adduce evidence for the facts that the Israelites did really sojourn in Palestine and in Egypt, and went out from the latter preparatory to their return to Canaan as conquerors under Joshua. A chain of circumstantial evidence furnished by Chaldea and Egypt—and latterly by Canaan itself—now corroborates the Bible history from the time of Abraham to that of Joshua, and is daily becoming more clear and complete; so that no one is so hardy as to dispute the facts of the oppression and the Exodus, while, except a few disputed dates, the connection with Egyptian history is plain. The correspondence contained in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, belonging to the reigns of two Pharaohs intermediate between the time of Joseph and the Exodus, has within a few years shed a flood of light on the condition of Canaan at and before the conquest by Joshua; and only last year an inscription of Meneptah, discovered by Prof. Flinders Petrie, has thrown new light on his relation to Israel. We have also the evidence of the Egyptian monuments and tombs to prove that in Egypt the Israelites had been dwelling for several generations with a highly cultivated and civilized people, and this in the time of its highest prosperity: the architecture, the sculpture, the agriculture, the manufactures, and the literary productions of the Egyptians of this period are of the highest character; and the subsequent history of the Israelites shows that they would not be slow to take advantage of the educational opportunities offered them. But these people had been subjected to a strange reverse: from a prosperous and even privileged condition they had been reduced to serfdom, and were ground down with exactions and enforced labor of the most oppressive kind. They greatly needed a leader; and, according to their own account, he was furnished to them in the person of Moses—one of their own people, but educated with the princes of Egypt, trained in all their science and literature, accustomed to act in high and responsible positions. Such a man was suited to gather around him the more intelligent, public-spirited, and influential men of his race, and might hope to lead them forth to freedom. J. W. Dawson.]

BSBActs 7:22 So Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

中〔按目前的知识状况，几乎无须再为以下事实举证：以色列人确曾寄居巴勒斯坦与埃及，又从埃及出来，为要在约书亚率领下以征服者身份返回迦南。迦勒底与埃及——以及晚近迦南本地——所提供的一条旁证之链，如今印证了从亚伯拉罕到约书亚这段圣经历史，并且日渐清晰完整；以致再没有人敢于否认『受欺压』与『出埃及』的事实；除了几个有争议的年代之外，它与埃及历史的衔接是清楚的。阿玛尔纳（Tel-el-Amarna）泥板文书中的往来信件，属于约瑟时代与出埃及之间两位法老在位期；近几年来，它们为约书亚征服之时及之前迦南的状况投下大量光亮。而就在去年，弗林德斯·皮特里教授（Prof. Flinders Petrie）发现的麦伦普塔铭文，又为这位法老与以色列的关系提供了新线索。我们还有埃及碑刻与陵墓的证据可以证明：以色列人在埃及曾与一个高度开化文明的民族同住数代之久，而且正当那民族最繁盛的时期：这一时期埃及人的建筑、雕刻、农业、工艺与文学作品都属最高水准；而以色列人后来的历史表明，他们绝不会迟迟不去利用摆在面前的教育机会。但这民族遭遇了一场奇特的翻转：从兴旺甚至优越的境况，被贬为农奴，被最沉重的苛派与强制劳役碾压。他们极需一位领袖；而按他们自己的记述，这位领袖以摩西其人的形式被赐给了他们——他是他们自己族中的人，却与埃及王子一同受教育，受过埃及一切学术与文学的训练，惯于在高位与要职上行事。这样一个人正适合把本族中较有见识、较有公心、较有影响力的人聚拢在自己周围，并可望带领他们出去得自由。道森（J. W. Dawson）〕

EN[The contention of the higher critics is that the Pentateuch was mainly of post-exilic origin—after the return from the Babylonian captivity. Against this stands the demonstration that literary art and culture, ethical and civil progress, stood as high in the age of Abraham as they did in the age of Nebuchadnezzar. The library of Assurbanipal was a storehouse of literature as ancient to him as the Apostolic age is to us. How do these facts bear upon the authorship of the Pentateuch? Moses was a man of eminent ability; he had unsurpassed opportunities for literary and general culture; he had the highest incentives that were possible to a man. His people were just awakening to national consciousness—and he was largely the instrument of that awakening. To such a people the unification which alone could come of a national history, national law, national religion, and religious aspirations—this unification was necessary to their national existence, especially under the adverse circumstances in which they were. Here, then, we have the materials, the facilities, the opportunity, the man, and the pressing necessity, for the national literature. No such conjuncture of causes for the production of the Pentateuch ever afterward occurred. The methods of literary criticism are not new; the employment of it from the rationalistic standpoint has been as much the rage as materialistic evolution was twenty years ago—but the life of this philosophic fad will be shorter than its predecessor. The Interior.] [The argument from the discoveries of modern exploration in favor of the Bible is this: wherever the Old Testament record refers to the great kingdoms and empires which surrounded the Hebrews, it is found to be absolutely correct when its allusions and its words can be tested by contemporaneous monuments whose authenticity is unquestioned and whose testimony is altogether impartial and undesigned. Monumental research does two things: first, it proves the truth of the events recorded by the Old Testament; and second, it proves that the accounts of these events must have been written at the time they claim to have been written. Moses could write the Pentateuch; and in writing it he could use and quote from older documents—for here are older documents. The use of these documents does not invalidate the claim to inspiration on the part of Moses: it only shows that for the most part God always uses natural methods in doing His work. The inspiration of Moses comes into play in the sifting and editing of these older documents, and in the proper appropriation of them to God's work. D. Gregg.]

中〔高等批评家的主张是：五经主要成书于被掳归回之后。与此相对的，是这样一项论证：文学艺术与文化、伦理与文明的进展，在亚伯拉罕的时代已与尼布甲尼撒的时代同样高。亚述巴尼帕的图书馆是一座文献宝库，其藏品对他而言之古老，正如使徒时代对我们之古老。这些事实与五经的著作权有何关系？摩西是一位才具卓越的人；他拥有无与伦比的文学与通识教育机会；他也怀有一个人可能拥有的最高动机。他的民族当时正在觉醒为国族意识——而他在很大程度上正是这觉醒的器具。对这样一个民族而言，唯有国族历史、国族律法、国族宗教与宗教理想才能带来的那种统合——这统合对他们国族的存在是必需的，在他们所处的逆境之下尤其如此。那么，在这里我们就齐备了产生国族文献所需的：材料、条件、时机、人物、以及迫切的必要性。此后再没有出现过如此众因辐辏、足以产出五经的时刻。文学批评的方法并不新鲜；从理性主义立场使用这些方法，一时风靡的程度不亚于二十年前的唯物进化论——但这一学术时尚的寿命，将比它的前任更短。《The Interior》（内地报）〕〔近代考古发现有利于圣经的论证是这样的：凡旧约记载提到希伯来人四围的大国大帝国之处，只要它的提及与用语能够拿同时代碑碣来检验——那些碑碣的真实性无可置疑，其见证又完全中立、并非有意为之——就发现旧约绝对准确。碑碣研究做成两件事：第一，它证明旧约所记事件属实；第二，它证明这些事件的记述必定写于它们自称写作的那个时代。摩西能够写五经；而在写五经时，他也能够使用并引用更早的文献——因为更早的文献确实存在。使用这些文献并不使摩西受默示的宣认失效：它只表明，神做他的工作，绝大多数时候总是使用自然的方法。摩西的默示，正体现在对这些更早文献的甄别与编订之中，体现在把它们恰当地取用于神的工作之中。格雷格（D. Gregg）〕

EN[In the Prophets are unmistakable allusions to the Pentateuch, or its essential historic setting: all their utterances are based on such a presupposition. They recognize a covenant made with God through Mosaic mediation; that covenant had not been kept; their whole activity proclaims a perverse trend of thought and conduct against which they relentlessly fight, one and all. Founders of a religion they were not, and could not be—men like these, without a sign of collusion; but mighty reformers they were, who set their faces like a flint against a prevailing degeneracy and lapse of the people whom God had chosen for His own. E. C. Bissell.] [If you deprive the Prophets of the one book on which their teaching could be founded, how do you account for the Prophets and their teaching? You frame a theory which accounts for the composition of the Pentateuch on naturalistic principles; but in so doing you cut the ground from under the Prophets' feet. The Prophets had to learn before they could teach: what was their text-book? Not the Law—it had to be fabricated. Not the history (at least with the earlier Prophets), for it had yet to be written in the true spirit. By whom, then, were the Prophets taught? By the direct inspiration of God apart from all human means? That is the only answer the modern critics have left for themselves—an answer which they certainly will not give. Watson, "Law and Prophets."]

BSBJeremiah 7:22, 23 22 For when I brought your fathers out of the land of Egypt, I did not merely command them about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but this is what I commanded them: Obey Me, and I will be your God, and you will be My people. You must walk in all the ways I have commanded you, so that it may go well with you.

中〔先知书中有对五经、或对五经所设定之基本历史背景的明白无误的提及：他们的一切宣讲都建立在这一前提之上。他们承认有一个借摩西作中介与神所立的约；这约没有被遵守；他们全部的活动都在宣告一种乖谬的思想与行为潮流，而他们一个不落地对之毫不留情地作战。他们不是（也不可能是）一个宗教的创立者——这样一群人，彼此之间毫无串通的迹象；但他们确实是强有力的改革者：他们板起脸如坚石一般，抵挡神所拣选为自己产业之民中普遍的堕落与背离。比塞尔（E. C. Bissell）〕〔你若剥夺先知们赖以立教的那一部书，你又如何解释先知们及其教训呢？你构造出一套理论，用自然主义原则解释五经的成书；但你这样做的同时，也就把先知们脚下的地面抽掉了。先知们必须先学，然后才能教：他们的课本是什么？不是律法——按你的说法，律法还有待编造。也不是历史（至少对较早的先知而言），因为历史还有待以真精神写成。那么，先知们是被谁教导的呢？是不假任何人间途径、由神直接默示的吗？那是现代批评家给自己留下的唯一答案——而这个答案他们是断然不会给出的。沃森（Watson），《律法与先知》〕

EN[It passes my power of belief, and all historical probability, to regard the laws of Exodus and Leviticus as invented by the contemporaries of Alexander the Great. It is not only the general contents of these books, but the smallest details, that are at war with this adaptation. Take one example among a thousand: "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 22:21; 23:9). Can we believe that we have here a writer, a legislator, of the third century B.C.? It is said that the Pentateuch could not have been composed in ancient times, for two reasons: 1. It is not in strict order; it contains repetitions, incongruities, even contradictions. 2. Its legislation is a work of reflection, which could not have been made at the beginning of a new-born society. I do not hesitate to assert that the first argument proves precisely the contrary. It is not at a time of social peace, quiet and reflection, that a priesthood—with ever so little intelligence—could produce a work of this kind. A work with want of order, with repetitions not identical, with incongruities, with facts difficult to harmonize, could only be the product of daily journals kept by many, or the union of many documents considered worthy of too much respect to be altered at all, even to better the form of it. The character assigned to the Pentateuch is, therefore, the proof of its antiquity. If Exodus were only a post-exile forgery, would we be able to discover the stopping-places of the Israelites in their flight from Egypt? If it were this forgery, the forgers must have copied the religious usages of Babylon, and not those of Egypt—but it was Egypt, and not Babylon, that they were forbidden to imitate. All the efforts made to bring the Hexateuch to this side of the Exile will always meet these impassable obstacles: the impossibility of the success of such a gigantic forgery, unheard of in the history of the world; the nature of these books, incompatible with the state of Asiatic civilization after Cyrus; the absolute failure of indications warranting the hypothesis of a social change so radical and important. That there might have been alterations, additions, errors of transcription, all historical criticism warrants us in supposing. Let us mark this fact: on the one side, testimonies exterior, positive, exact, are demanded before admitting the antiquity of the Pentateuch—which has in its favor possession and presumption; on the other side, not even the slightest historical indication of the great fact of the late forgery, not the least, most distant allusion, is demanded for justification of the change.]

BSBExodus 22:21 You must not exploit or oppress a foreign resident, for you yourselves were foreigners in the land of Egypt.

中〔要我相信出埃及记与利未记的律法是亚历山大大帝同时代人所杜撰的，那超出了我信念的能力，也超出了一切历史的或然性。与这种改写说相抵触的，不仅是这些书卷的总体内容，更是其中最细微的细节。从上千个例子中随手取一个：『不可亏负寄居的，也不可欺压他，因为你们在埃及地也作过寄居的』（出埃及记 22:21；23:9）。我们能相信这里说话的是一位公元前三世纪的作者、一位那时的立法者吗？有人说五经不可能成于上古，理由有二：1. 它次序不严整；含有重复、不一致、甚至自相矛盾之处。2. 它的立法是深思熟虑的产物，不可能出自一个新生社会的开端。我毫不迟疑地断言：第一条论据恰恰证明了相反的结论。绝不是在社会安定、平静、可从容反思的时期，一个祭司阶层——哪怕只有一丁点智力——会造出这样一部作品。一部缺乏条理、含有不尽相同的重复、含有不一致、含有难以调和之事实的作品，只可能是许多人所记日志的产物，或是许多份被敬重到连形式都不敢稍加润饰之文献的汇合。因此，人们加给五经的这些『毛病』，恰恰是它古老的凭证。倘若出埃及记只是被掳后的伪造，我们还能考订出以色列人逃离埃及途中的各处驻扎地吗？倘若它是这样的伪造，伪造者必定会抄袭巴比伦的宗教习俗，而不是埃及的——可经上禁止他们效法的，恰恰是埃及，不是巴比伦。一切想把『六经』（Hexateuch）挪到被掳之后的努力，永远会撞上这几道无法逾越的障碍：这样一场规模浩大、世界史上闻所未闻的伪造要成功，是不可能的；这些书卷的性质，与古列之后亚洲文明的状况格格不入；而支持『如此彻底重大之社会变革』这一假说的迹象，则完全付诸阙如。至于其中可能有过改动、增补、抄写讹误——这是一切历史考订法都容许我们设想的。请留意这个事实：一方面，人们要求先有外部的、正面的、确切的证据，才肯承认五经的古老——而五经本来就占有『既成事实』与『推定』之利；另一方面，对于『晚期伪造』这一重大事实，人们却连最微弱的历史迹象、连最遥远的一丝暗示都不要求，就为这一改判开脱了。〕