猶太人分享：現(xiàn)代猶太人如何看待猶太祖先“出埃及”的真實(shí)性？其現(xiàn)實(shí)意義何在？
How do you accept the Exodus from Egypt?
譯文簡介
埃及會覺得有大量的奴隸脫逃很是尷尬，所以很有可能不會花功夫去銘記此事。在過去，他們曾經(jīng)試圖“遺忘”那些不受歡迎的法老
正文翻譯
（圖解：以色列人大規(guī)?！俺霭＜啊保?br />
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
As a secular jew this isn't really an issue for me. It's pretty clear the exodus couldn't have happened (at least not nearly to the scale that's described in the Torah). And there's plenty of evidence that supports the notion that the Israelites came from the Canaanites, which opposes the exodus and Joshua's conquest narrative.
作為一個(gè)世俗猶太人，這個(gè)問題對我來說其實(shí)是不成立的。出埃及這種事是不可能發(fā)生的（至少不可能達(dá)到《摩西五經(jīng)》所描述的那種規(guī)模），這太明顯了。而且有大量證據(jù)支持以色列人起源于迦南人的說法，這就與出埃及記以及約書亞征服迦南地的敘說相悖了。
While the historicity isn't the point, it tends to be accepted that the Israelites began as southern Canaanites and/or local nomads. There are extensive historical records of Egypt taking slaves from these groups and of slaves escaping. Then you have Yahweh popping up in Canaanite mythology as a rival storm daddy god to El. Eventually Yahweh and El are syncretized, and then the religion becomes first henotheistic, then monotheistic--aka Judaism--but none of this answers the question of where the locals picked up Yahweh to begin with. Meanwhile, the historical documentation for the surrounding desert is incredibly poor, leading some historians to posit that Yahweh may have begun as a god from a nomadic desert tribe that was picked up by Canaanites/other locals passing through the desert and transplanted into the Canaanite pantheon. So the story of the Exodus may not be word-for-word true, but I personally believe that it may be a way of mythologizing, condensing, and glamorizing real historical trends from the period that very much led to the creation of Judaism as we know it.
雖然其史實(shí)性并不是重點(diǎn)，但人們傾向于接受以色列人的源頭是南部的迦南人和/或當(dāng)?shù)氐挠文撩褡?。有海量的歷史記錄表明，埃及曾經(jīng)從這些族群中把人抓去當(dāng)奴隸，也有奴隸逃亡的記載。然后，你會在迦南神話中發(fā)現(xiàn)“耶和華”的存在，其為伊勒（EL）的對手暴風(fēng)父神。最終，耶和華和伊勒合二為一，然后這種宗教先是變成了一神論，然后變成了一神教，即猶太教，但這些全都沒有回答這個(gè)問題：當(dāng)?shù)厝说降资菑哪睦镩_始接受耶和華的。同時(shí)，從周邊沙漠地區(qū)出土的歷史文獻(xiàn)極為貧乏，導(dǎo)致一部分歷史學(xué)家斷定一開始耶和華可能是一個(gè)沙漠游牧部落的神，被經(jīng)過這片沙漠的迦南人/其他當(dāng)?shù)厝私邮?，傳播范圍超出了這片沙漠，并被移入到了迦南人的眾神之中。因此，出埃及的故事也許不是每一個(gè)字都屬實(shí)，但我個(gè)人相信，它可能是對這段歷史時(shí)期真實(shí)歷史動(dòng)態(tài)的一種神話化、濃縮化和美化的方式，也在很大程度上導(dǎo)致了我們所知的猶太教的產(chǎn)生。
（回）是的，我的解讀是，這就和我看待諾亞和大洪水的方式是一模一樣的。一個(gè)影響了我們這個(gè)族群心靈的重大歷史事件經(jīng)過神化的版本。
The fundamental principle that Torah is not a history book, basically.
基本原則就是：從根本上說，摩西五經(jīng)并不是史書。
拉什在評論《摩西五經(jīng)》時(shí)，一開頭就援引了伊扎克導(dǎo)師的說法，后者認(rèn)為《摩西五經(jīng)》的起點(diǎn)本該是“你們要以本月為正月”，這樣就跳過了整部《創(chuàng)世紀(jì)》和《出埃及記》的前三分之一，涵蓋了原本的《出埃及記》，這個(gè)例子就說明了歷史元素相對不重要。
（譯注：拉什為中世紀(jì)的一名法國拉比；伊扎克（Yitzhak Yosef）是以色列塞法迪猶太人的首席拉比）
I don't see the contradiction here, Torah is full of Midrash and is, ultimately, not meant to be viewed as 100% historically accurate but existent to convey theological principles. That's why Chazal said Torah isn't a book of history, even if it has history in it.
The Exodus happened, but did it happen exactly as a plain reading of the Torah states? Not necessarily.
我沒看出哪里有矛盾，《摩西五經(jīng)》充滿了米德拉什（即注釋），從根本上不是為了被看成百分之百準(zhǔn)確的史實(shí)的，其存在是為了傳達(dá)神學(xué)原則。這就是為什么他說《摩西五經(jīng)》不是史書，盡管其中含有歷史內(nèi)容。
《出埃及記》是發(fā)生過的，但具體經(jīng)過是否和《摩西五經(jīng)》字面陳述的一模一樣？那可不一定。
Like much of the Torah, I think a good part of it is sacred myth. It's an origin story of the nation of Israel, it is central to our identity and to our history, and it doesn't have to be 100% word for word exact history for it to be important to us or to be worthy of retelling and learning.
就像《摩西五經(jīng)》的大部分內(nèi)容一樣，我認(rèn)為其中很大的一部分是神圣的神話。它是以色列民族的起源故事，對我們的身份認(rèn)同和歷史至關(guān)重要，而且它不一定非得要100%合乎史實(shí)，才能為我們所重視乃至值得傳揚(yáng)和學(xué)習(xí)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
我真的不知道這個(gè)故事是否在現(xiàn)實(shí)中發(fā)生過，但這對我來說并不重要。這是一個(gè)已經(jīng)被我們認(rèn)定對破解“我們是誰”至關(guān)重要的故事，幾千年來我們一直是高度尊重它的。這套傳統(tǒng)及其遺產(chǎn)對我來說已經(jīng)足夠好了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
（回）視角很有趣！我確實(shí)聽說過有很多猶太人對其真實(shí)性不會想太多，因?yàn)樗麄冇X得這并不重要。
The lesson, for me (and for my students, when I teach) isn't "how do we know that all of this happened?" it's "What does this all mean for and to me?"
在我看來（那些聽我上課的學(xué)生也是如此），這一課并不是“我們怎么才能確定這一切都發(fā)生過？”，而是“這一切對我來說意味著什么？”
Many great stories can be ruined by some shmuck in the back yelling “No actually thats not historically what happened “.... its like watching jurassic park with a paleontologist , just ruins the whole thing.
有很多偉大的故事都會被一些蠢材毀掉，他們會在背后大喊，“不，根據(jù)歷史，這事兒其實(shí)并沒有發(fā)生過”…這就像是和一個(gè)古生物學(xué)家一起觀看電影《侏羅紀(jì)公園》，他們把一切毀了個(gè)徹底。
Historians who make outright claims that the Exodus did not happen are usually taking the Bible more literally than even traditional Jewish commentators.
通常，那些直截了當(dāng)?shù)芈暦Q出埃及記沒有發(fā)生過的歷史學(xué)家，他們從字面上理解圣經(jīng)的傾向，甚至都超過了傳統(tǒng)的猶太人評論家。
他們會說“有一百萬人在此地露營卻沒有留下某種痕跡是不可能的”，好嘛， 就算這是真的，誰規(guī)定一百萬這個(gè)數(shù)字要按字面意思去理解呢？那個(gè)時(shí)期的文明，在使用數(shù)字時(shí)是取其象征意義的?！赌ξ魑褰?jīng)》也是如此。
Archeology suggests that the ancient Hebrews separated themselves out of the Canaanites. There is evidence that Canaan/Israel was in fact Ruled by Egypt, or at least it was a vassal state. While there may have been small migrations of people from Egypt to Canaan, it was nothing on the scale of the Exodus account in the Torah. However sacred scxture wasn’t written as natural history today is written. The Torah/Tanakh was written to convey hope, identity, boundaries, and kinship in the face of a brutal Bronze Age world, and it worked. In fact it worked so well that even now in the Information Age, the Exodus story still brings people hope.
考古學(xué)研究表明，古希伯來人讓自己從迦南人中分離了出來。有證據(jù)表明，迦南/以色列實(shí)際上是由埃及統(tǒng)治的，至少也是個(gè)附庸國。雖然可能有小部分人從埃及遷徙到了迦南，但和《摩西五經(jīng)》中《出埃及記》的規(guī)模相比，根本不算什么。但是，神圣的經(jīng)文并不是像今天的自然史那樣寫就的。寫作《摩西五經(jīng)》/《塔納赫》是為了在面對青銅時(shí)代的殘酷世界時(shí)，傳達(dá)希望、身份認(rèn)同、界限和血緣關(guān)系的，而且它奏效了。事實(shí)上，它成效卓著，甚至到了現(xiàn)在的信息時(shí)代，《出埃及記》的故事仍能給人以希望。
A) It's been thousands of years. Records get lost
B) Egypt would find a mass slave break embarrassing so would likely not make an effort to remember it. They have tried to 'forget' unpopular pharaohs before
C) Many arc?ologists/researchers aren't neutral and actively want the story to be fake
D) The entire Sinai hasn't been dug up or explored
E) We know labor disputes happened, odds are Exodus is one of them that just got super exaggerated
A) 已經(jīng)過去了幾千年。記錄會佚失
B) 埃及會覺得有大量的奴隸脫逃很是尷尬，所以很有可能不會花功夫去銘記此事。在過去，他們曾經(jīng)試圖“遺忘”那些不受歡迎的法老
C) 很多考古學(xué)家和研究人員并不中立，他們采取了積極的行動(dòng)，希望把這個(gè)故事變成假的
D) 整個(gè)西奈半島還沒有被挖掘或探索過
E) 我們知道發(fā)生過勞動(dòng)糾紛，《出埃及記》有可能就是其中的一例，只是被無限夸大了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I love history.
我愛歷史。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
有一個(gè)故事，說的是二戰(zhàn)時(shí)有一架轟炸機(jī)在北非墜毀。這架轟炸機(jī)幾十年來都沒有被找到，因?yàn)槟莻€(gè)地區(qū)，沙子轉(zhuǎn)移物體的速度太快了。那是一架非常結(jié)實(shí)的金屬飛機(jī)，有三輛公交車那么大，幾十年來都沒有人發(fā)現(xiàn)它！
而現(xiàn)在，你卻告訴我，你驚訝于我們找不到幾千年前青銅時(shí)代的一群人穿越同一地區(qū)的證據(jù)？比如什么證據(jù)呢？一個(gè)你拇指大小的箭頭？紙張或書面文件在那種環(huán)境下不出幾天就會被徹底毀掉，更不用說幾百年了。
在我看來，其他民族的歷史在沒有被證偽之前都是可信的，而猶太人的歷史在找到證據(jù)之前卻被認(rèn)為是在撒謊。沒有人要求美國人拿出實(shí)物證據(jù)來證明華盛頓橫渡過特拉華河。在出現(xiàn)能推翻它的證據(jù)之前，人們都會相信。但猶太人在沙漠中游蕩？給我看證據(jù)，不然它就沒有發(fā)生過！你又能找到些什么呢？當(dāng)時(shí)99%的東西都是由生物可降解材料制成的。也許你會發(fā)現(xiàn)少量的金屬，但你沒有能力追查到它是屬于誰的。請記住，猶太人的工具和武器是從埃及人那里拿過來的，所以有大量的證據(jù)看起來都像是埃及旅行者留下的，而非猶太人。
（譯注：圖為《華盛頓橫渡特拉華河》（Washington Crossing the Delaware），系德國藝術(shù)家?，敿~埃爾·洛伊茨于1851年創(chuàng)作的一副油畫，描繪了美國獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)特倫敦戰(zhàn)役期間，華盛頓于1776年12月25日橫渡特拉華河的場景）
I think a lot of these comments and historians miss a key part. Let's say it's mythology. So our founding mythology is steeped in slavery and casting it off. That's fairly unique. Are there other founding mythologies where they're all like, we were slaves and literally "short on spirit," a broken people for 400 years and came back from that and still here today? I'm not a historian but I cannot think of any other origin story like that. As others have pointed out, other heros are descendants of wolves, bears, gods, amazing things. Not us.. That's what's interesting to me.
我認(rèn)為有很多評論和歷史學(xué)家都忽略了一個(gè)關(guān)鍵部分。讓我們假設(shè)它是神話。因此，我們的立國神話是沉浸于奴隸制以及擺脫奴隸制的。這可就相當(dāng)獨(dú)特了。是否還有其他的立國神話會是這個(gè)模樣：我們是奴隸，而且確實(shí)“欠缺精神力”，是一個(gè)破碎的族群，這種四分五裂持續(xù)了四百年，然后獲得了重生，到今天仍然屹立在這里。我不是歷史學(xué)家，但我想不到有什么其他的起源故事是這樣的。正如其他人指出的，其他民族的英雄都是狼、熊、神以及各種神妙存在的后裔。而我們不是。這才是我感興趣的點(diǎn)。
The story has certainly happened, whether the details are true or not, it is true at its core.
毫無疑問這個(gè)故事發(fā)生過，不管各種細(xì)節(jié)是真是假，故事的核心是真實(shí)的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Is there another nation that emphasizes slavery and suffering as a significant part of its heritage? Usually, the typical heritage of a nation goes as follows: "We were brave nomadic tribes, we conquered many countries and began to prosper."
Therefore, slavery and the Exodus couldn't be invented out of the blue.
恐怕沒有第二個(gè)國家會去強(qiáng)調(diào)奴隸制和苦難是其遺產(chǎn)的重要組成部分吧？通常情況下，比較有代表性的民族傳統(tǒng)會這么說，“我們是勇敢的游牧部落，我們征服了很多國家并開始走向昌榮”。
因此，奴隸制和出埃及記不可能是憑空發(fā)明出來的。