加载中…
个人资料
lynx
lynx
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:15,718
  • 关注人气:2
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

Genesis1:1–2:3 (1)下

(2006-12-19 12:42:49)

Genesis1:1–2:3 <wbr>(1)下

Genesis 1:1–2:3 (1) [译文] 下
(续前)
Beyond this, there is the overall structure of the passage built upon the opening two adjectives, which describe the initially created-but-not-yet-refined earth as both “formless” and “void.” Following that de????ion of the setting, the rest of the account is showing how, over the first three days, the problem of the earth's formlessness is solved as God shapes the creation, and how, over the next three days (and perhaps beginning on the third day, if you count the plants), the earth’s emptiness is replaced by the various created things that God places in the newly shaped regions.

除此之外,整段的总体结构是建立在开头的两个形容词上,叙述着刚开始被造、仍待琢磨的地,是“空虚”(译按,formless,没有形状)与“混沌”(译按,void,空无所有)的。从这个场景的叙述,其余的记载显示,头三天中,地空虚的问题被解决了,上帝塑造了地﹔以及,在接下来的三天中(如果算植物,第三天大概也包括在内),混沌(空空如也)的地被各种被造物所填满,是上帝把它们安放在已经造好的区域里面。

Another way of seeing this same thing is to look at the relationship between the days and the obvious structuring taking place there. For example, the first day corresponds to the fourth day, the second day corresponds to fifth day, and the third day corresponds to sixth day. On day one you have the creation of the entities of light and darkness, and then on day four the creation of heavenly bodies like the sun and moon that relate directly to that. On day two you have the creation of the sky and seas, and on day five the population of the skies and seas with fish and birds. On day three you have the creation of dry land, and on day six you see the creation of the animals and the people that will inhabit the dry land.
另外一个看同一件事的方法是这些日子彼此的关系,和明显发生的结构。例如,第一天相对于第四天,第二天相对于第五天,第三天相对于第六天。第一天你看到光和暗的造成,然后在第四天有天体(如直接与此相关的日、月)的形成。第二天,你看到天和海的创造,而在第五天,有天空的飞鸟和海中的鱼的创造。第三天有旱地的创造,而在第六天你看到居住在这旱地上的动物和人的创造。

The seventh day is a day of rest from all this creative activity. But it too adds to the overall structured nature of the account. It also makes it clear that, among other things, Israel’s Sabbatarian practices were grounded on the very order of creation itself. We’ll look more closely at that later.
第七天是从所有的创造活动中休息的一天,但是它也补充了这个纪录中整体结构的本质。除此之外,它也清楚表明,以色列安息日的惯例,是奠基于创造秩序的本身。我们等一下会更详细地来看。

But the thing to see at this point is simply the highly structured nature of the form and content of this prologue, including the high degree of repetition of key words and phrases throughout. This is history, but it’s not typical history. It’s not a “Just the facts, ma’am” kind of history.
到此为止,我们该看到的只是这个开场白的形式与内容,和高度有结构的本质,包括一些重要字、词高度的重复。这是历史,但不是典型的历史。它不是“只要事实,女士”(Just the facts, ma’am)一类的历史。

So, again, when you look at the prologue as a whole and ask, “What is it that we have here, and how does it relate to that which follows?” what you see is that it is an account that accomplishes a number of purposes all at once:
因此,再一次,当你把开场白当成一个整体,然后问:“我们有些什么?它与后面有什么关系?”你看到的是同时达成一些目的一个纪录。

1. It shows the power and superiority of Israel’s Creator God over all other alleged pagan gods.
2. It shows a great deal of literary structuring, including a strong element of linguistic features based upon the number seven. In so doing, it sends the strong message of the perfection of God’s creative work, and makes the section more memorable.
3. It shows a lot of structure just in terms of its ideas and content, and arranges these in a way that facilitates the remembering and retention of the things written here.
1. 它显示以色列的创造者的权能和优越性,超乎其他异教所谓的神祗。
2. 它显示出很多的文学结构,包括根据数字七,一个很强的语言特征的元素。因为如此,它传道出一个很强的信息,有关上帝创造工作的完美,也使整个段落容易记住。
3. 它在概念和内容上显出许多的结构,并且经过妥善安排,帮助所写下来的东西容易记忆和保存。

And all of this leads me to conclude that one of the main features of this account, and one of the reasons it has been so highly structured, is to make it a fairly memorable and "transferable" or “portable” story. Having a format which made the creation story — and the message of the creation story — more memorable and portable was important precisely because of the crucial, foundational significance of this account. It would be a highly useful thing for the people of Israel, especially at this point in their history.
所有这些使我结论到这个记载的一个主要特征,也是它之所以有如此高度结构的原因,是使它变成一个相当容易背诵和“传送”,或“携带”的故事。创造故事和创造故事的信息有一个形式,使它容易背诵和携带是很重要的,正是因为这个纪录至关重要、有根基性的重要性。它对以色列民非常有用,特别在他们历史中的这个关头。
I remember a rhyme my mother taught me years ago, which I cannot recall all of, but enough of it has always stayed with me to fulfill its purpose. It goes something like this:
我记得一个韵文,是我母亲很早以前教我的,我没有完全记得,但足够使它成为我的一部分,达成它的功能。它大概是这样说的:

"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have 31 except … February, and it’s a silly month anyway…"
九月有三十天,四月、六月、十一月;其余的有三十一天,除了二月,反正它是个糊涂的月份。

Now, the purpose of that little rhyme was to help me to remember the number of days in the different months. And in order for the device to work, in order to make it rhyme and thus more easily memorized, it actually presents the months out of sequence. To put it another way, it dischronologizes them — not to mislead me, but to serve its intended purpose, to function as a memorable device for recalling the number of days in the months. But if I had taken my mother's rhyme and tried to use it as the basis for ordering the months on a calendar, then I would have been misusing my mother's rhyme. I would have been reading it wrongly, and using it for a purpose other than that for which it was intended.
如今,这个小韵文帮助我记得不同月份各有几天。为了使它有作用,为了使它押韵而容易被记忆,它的确没有让月份按次序排列。换句话说,它弄乱了它们的次序──不是为了误导我,而是为了达成它的目的,就是作为记忆的工具,以记住月份的天数。但是如果我用我母亲的韵文,作为月历中排列月份的根据,那么我可能错用了我母亲的韵文。我可能误读了它,把它用在它本来没有想要达成的目的上。

In a similar fashion, if the purpose of the Genesis prologue was to communicate the perfection and fullness of God's creation, the superiority and uniqueness of God over against other false gods, and the wisdom and orderliness and breadth of his creation — and not to provide a scientific or chronological portrait — then we misuse and misread the prologue when we force it into that mold.
类似的情形,如果创世记开场白的目的是传达上帝创造的完美和丰富,上帝的无上性和独特性,是超乎其他的假神之上,以及他创造的智慧和秩序,以及广度──而不是提供一个科学或按年代序的描写──那么,当我们要强迫它适应这个模式,我们就误用和误解了这个开场白。

Even further, when we do these sorts of things, we create a perspective that does not easily mesh with Genesis 2:5-17. In that section, you have an account that explains how and why things did or did not happen when they did according to providence. And, along with that, you have a different sequence of events in several places. Now, admittedly, there are ways to interpret these texts that harmonize the two sequences. There is a scholar named John Currid who handles this fairly well. But even allowing for the possibility of these interpretations (which are not convincing in my estimation), these interpretations do not deal with the providential explanation that underlies the account, and that Meredith Kline has discussed so well.
更有甚者,当我们这样作的时候,我们创造了一个不容易与创世记2:5-17契合的观点。在那个段落中,我们有一个记载是解释事情的确按照上帝的护理(providence),为何和如何发生或没有发生。同时,在许多地方,事件也有不同的顺序。那么,无可厚非的,为了使这两个次序能吻合,对这些经文就有很多不同的解释。有一个名为克里(John Currid)的学者把这个问题处理得相当好。但是即使承认这些解释的可能性(就我的判断并没有说服力),这些解释并没有处理落在这些纪录背后的上帝护理的解释。在这点上克莱恩(Meredith Kline)讨论得很好。


Let me illustrate what I am getting at. Genesis 2:5-7 re-describes the creation of man, and provides more detail than we saw in chapter 1. In setting the scene for this creation of man, the passage says that this happened at a time when “no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up.” Now, on the surface, this seems to contradict what happened on day three in the prologue where God caused the earth to sprout plants and fruit trees to cover the earth with vegetation.
让我说明我所领受的。创世记2:5-7重述了人的创造,提供我们在第一章看到的更多细节。在为创造人布置其场景中,这段经文提到这件事是发生在“当野地还没有草木,田间的菜蔬还没有长起来”的时候。那么,从表面上来看,这似乎与开场白中第三天发生的事相抵触,在那里,上帝使地长出植物和水果树,使地上覆盖着菜蔬。

In an attempt to reconcile these two passages, some scholars suggest that the plants that were created in Genesis 1 were wild plants and trees that reproduce on their own. They argue that Genesis 1 describes plants and trees that spread their own seed without any outside help. By contrast, the plants described in chapter 2 do not spring up by themselves. Rather, they are crops, like corn and wheat, plants that require special care and outside help, and which do not as easily or naturally reproduce themselves.
为了尝试调和这两个段落,有些学者主张在第一章中造的是野生的植物和树木,它们会自行繁殖。他们认为创世记第一章描述的植物和树木,会自行散播他们自己的种子,不必靠任何外来的帮助。相对的,第二章所描述的植物,不是靠它们自行生长,而是它们需要收割,有如玉米和麦子,是需要特别照料和外在帮助的植物,不容易自行繁殖。

Now, that is, admittedly, a clever explanation, but it ignores one essential fact: the explanation that chapter 2 provides for these plants not yet appearing in the field at the time before the man was created. That explanation is found in Genesis 2:5: “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain.”
无可否认的,是一个很聪明的解释,它忽略了一个很基本的事实:人被创造前,第二章为这些植物所作的解释,还没有出现在田野。这个解释在2:5:“因为耶和华神还没有降雨在地上。”

If Genesis 1 is only talking about certain kinds of plants, and Genesis 2 is talking about entirely different kinds of plants, then the reason given in Genesis 2:5 doesn’t make sense. Because if the reason there were no crops is because there was no rain, then that fact would also have prevented their being any other plants. Do you see what I’m saying? The distinction between the kinds of plants being created may solve one problem, but it ignores another and more significant one: the providential foundation that lies behind Genesis 2.
如果创世记第一章说的只是某些植物,第二章说的是完全不同种的植物,那么在2:5所说的理由就不合理了。因为如果没有菜蔬的原因是因为没有雨,那么这个事实也会使其他植物无法生长。你了解我说的吗?做出不同种类植物的区分也许可以解决一个问题,但是它忽略了其他更重要的问题:第二章背后的上帝的看护的基础。

And so, at the end of the day, you have something of a conundrum, trying to reconcile and harmonize two passages that, on the surface at least, do not easily go together. However, this reality highlights perhaps the most significant fact about these passages, which can, in spite of its significance, be easily missed: These two passages appear side-by-side, back-to-back.
如此,在忙了一天过后,你有了一个机智问答,至少在表面上试着要调和两个不容易并行的段落。然而,这个现实也许标志着这些段落最重要的事实,虽然很重要,但是却很容易被忽略:就是这两段经文是并排出现的,一段接着另外一段。

Now, this may seem fairly unimportant, but as I’ve already suggested, it may be the most important fact of all. In other words, we have here two accounts of the creation, from different perspectives and with differing emphases. And yet the author, who certainly understood these stories better than we do, placed them together. He apparently saw no contradictions between them, no reason to edit one account or the other, and no reason to smooth over the two into a more blended whole. He kept them as they are, and this fact speaks volumes. It forces us to wrestle with these texts until we see through the author’s eyes, understanding how these two accounts work together.
这看起来似乎不太重要,但正如我所说的,这可能是最重要的事实。在这里我们有两个创世记的纪录,是从不同的角度,各有不同的强调。然而比我们更了解这些故事的作者,却把它们放在一起。他显然没有看到它们之间的矛盾,也看不到理由要对它们加以编辑,也没有理由把这两段加以混合,制造出更协调的整体。他保留它们的原貌,这个事实很有份量。它迫使我们和这些经文过招,直到我们透过作者的眼来看这些经文,了解这两个记载如何分工合作。

At present there are two main options within the Reformed camp, and this is what we have been discussing here. The one view sees both accounts as being the same with regard to their literality and purpose, with both intending to show the proper ordering and sequence of the creation. It assumes that we are meant to look for all kinds of historical and scientific detail in our reading.
到目前为止,改革宗阵营有两大选择,这是我们正在讨论的。一个观点认为两个记载就他们的文学性和目的来看,是同一个记载,都是为了显示创造的适当秩序和顺序。它假设我们在阅读时应当寻找各种历史和科学的细节。
The other main view is that the two passages are not the same. Yes, they are talking about the same things. They are both factual; they both convey true history. But the primary concern is not found in the details of sequencing and order. Instead it is found in the overall message and structure. The author did not intend to teach his original audience about the sequence of creation. Instead, in the opening account he subjugated some of the chronological details in order to create a more poetic structure that made the account memorable, portable, transferable, and (dare I say?) catechetical. This served a vital pedagogical function. And pedagogy was imminently practical in ancient times. After all, the Hebrew people at large had to remember everything — they had no pocket Old Testaments to consult.
另外一个主要的观点是认为这两个段落不是相同的。是,他们是在谈论同一件事,他们都是事实,他们都传递了真的历史。但是主要关注的不是顺序和秩序,而是在整个信息和结构中可以发现的。作者并不是要教导他的原始听众有关创造的秩序。在开头的记载,他为了创造一个更诗体的结构,抑制了一些按年代顺序排列的细节,使得这个记载变得容易记忆,携带和传送,同时,也更容易教导。这发挥了一个教学的功能。教学在古代是一个很重要的实践。毕竟,希伯来人就总的来说,必须记得所有的事情──他们没有旧约小册可以参考。

And so, again, let me be clear: This opening account of the creation is a true accounting of God, who did create the world, who did so in a wise, magnificent, supernatural and natural, orderly fashion, who then populated that world with creatures. Further this same God in the course of that creation made two people – Adam and Eve — and placed them in a real garden and gave them a real commission and a real prohibition to live by. As such, Genesis is certainly a true accounting; it is not some sort of myth, or flight of fancy, or fiction.
如此,我再说明清楚:这个创造开头的记载是上帝真实的记载,他的确创造了世界,以一个智慧、宏伟的、超自然也是自然的、有秩序的方式,然后使生物遍满了世界。更进一步,同一个上帝在这个创造过程中,创造了两个人──亚当和夏娃──把他们安置在一个真的花园,给他们一个真的使命,以及真的禁止令,作为其准则来生活。如此,创世记当然是一个真的记载,它不是某种的神话,想象或幻想和虚构的小说。

The prologue to Genesis is a historical account, but it is a poetically historical account whose impact is not to be felt so much in the individual sequence of its days but in the overall message of the creation week. And the message of the week, as a whole, is this: At the center of God’s purposeful, all-powerful, creative work are two people who are privileged to be, and commissioned to live, as Images of God, filling the creation with others who bear God’s likeness and managing God’s creation on his behalf and for his glory.
创世记的开场白是一个历史的记载,但它是一个诗意的历史记载,它的作用不是其个别日子的顺序,而是在创造星期中的整体信息。此信息是:上帝有目的、全能、有创意的工作,其中心是两个人。他们被赋予特权和使命,作为神的形像,使创造界布满其他具有神样式的人,代表上帝,为了祂的荣耀而管理造物。

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有