高利克 斯洛伐克科学院
Gálik, Jozef, The Slovakia Academy of Sciences
原文Original
Hebrew Deuteronomistic and Early Chinese Confucian Historiography: A Comparative Approach
My paper is concerned with the material from the early Chinese historical work Zuo Zhuan (The Commentary of Mr. Zuo, 4th cent. B. C.) and the books from the Bible: 1 and 2 Samuel and 1and 2 Kings (6th cent. B. C.) I am looking at them as typologically similar historical writings without any contact between them but nevertheless nearer to each other as examples of some of the oldest “narrative histories” in Asia and in the history of mankind.
From the historical materials connected with the history of the Near East (Mesopotamia, Levant), Egypt and early Greece, the books in the Hebrew Deuteronomistic writings: 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings are most similar to The Commentary of Mr. Zuo. The latter, as all Sinologists know, is an historical treatment and detailed elaboration of the book Chun Qiu (Spring and Autumn Annals) of the State Lu, where Confucius was born and is traditionally attributed to him. The book comprises the records of events that occurred in various Chinese states and their historical elaboration from 772-481 B. C. The Hebrew Deuteronomistic histories under review start with the delineation of historical facts from around 1050 B.C. up to 586 B. C.
Why are these two histories in a great measure similar and to a lesser degree different?
1. Theocracy was ruling form in Judah and Israel and fully respected by the biblical book Deuteronomy (申命记) mishneh torah “the second Book of Law” and the Deuteronomistic historian(s). In China there was no theocracy of the kind respected and realized in the land of Hebrews, but the Chinese rulers of Zhou Dynasty followed a kind of uranocracy (Uranus, or Ouranos means heaven in Greek), which was much more loose and not hallowed so much by the absolute divine authority intervening always in the human acts.
2. The kings in Judah and Israel were anointed representatives of Yahweh’s absolute authority and regarded as his sons (2 Samuel, 7:4). This “divine sonship” was similar to that in China of the Zhou Dynasty (ca. 1145-256 B.C.), at least up to the 4th cent. B.C.), when Tian (天) Heaven was regarded as the all powerful, purposeful, apparently anthropomorphic deity, who sent down blessings or disasters according to whether he was pleasing or not with human behavior.
3. The Chinese did not have a book similar to Deuteronomy. In this book there are not the laws themselves, but their religious and moral forces that are applied to the description of the historical process. Hebrew rituals were comparable to li (礼)，which in China were sacred rituals at first, later transformed into the rules of civilized behavior. The Chinese fully respected xiao (孝) filial piety comparable to the Fifth Commandment. Deuteronomic righteousness was similar to the Chinese yi (义)，virtue to de (德)，loyalty to zhong (忠), faithfulness to xin (信).
If we agree with the characteristics of the four Hebrew books as “narrative histories”, The Commentary of Mr. Zuo is just this kind of work. Similar are the narrative methods, repetitions in the text, use of parallels and extreme economy of the style. Common are also didactic tendencies of the compared works. From the point of view of the historiographical methods are the Hebrew works more progressive than The Commentary of Mr. Zuo, but they are “rather a literature of propaganda” (Thomas C. Römer) for theocratic rule.
The early Chinese work The Commentary of Mr. Zuo is together with the Hebrew Deuteronomistic historical works and the History by Herodotus (5th cent. B.C.), one of the oldest historical works in the world.
译文Translation
希伯来申命记派与中国早期儒家的历史经典：一次对比的尝试
本文关注的材料来自中国古代历史著作《左传》（《春秋左氏传》，公元前4世纪）与《圣经》中的《撒母耳记》（上、下）和《列王记》（上、下）（公元前6世纪）。笔者认为，它们在类型学上属于相似的历史著述，虽然并无丝毫联系，然而却彼此相似。一个是亚洲“叙事性历史”的滥觞，另一个则是人类历史上最古老的“叙事性历史”的典范。
从相关历史材料来看，希伯来圣经申命记中的《撒母耳记》和《列王记》描述了近东（美索不达米亚、黎凡特）埃及和早期希腊的历史，在这一点上与《左传》最为相似。如汉学家们所知，《左传》是一本评价历史的书，它是对鲁国史书《春秋》微言大义的阐发。鲁国是孔子的父母之邦，传统上也认为《春秋》由孔子编订。《左传》收录了发生在公元前772年到公元前481年间发生在中国各诸侯国的历史事件并附有历史阐述。而我们所考察的希伯来申命记文本也是对公元前1050年到公元前586年的历史进行评述。为什么这两本史书在大的方面相似，而在细微处又各有不同呢？
1、在犹大和以色列的神权政治完全遵从圣经的《申命记》（也被称为第二律法）和申命派主义历史学家的意见。在中国没有像希伯来那样的神权时代，而中国周朝的统治者奉行的是乌那诺斯统治，即天道统治（乌那诺斯在希腊文中意指天），这样的统治更加松散，也更少有神意绝对权力介入于人间社会行动。
2、犹大和以色列的王代表了耶和华的绝对权力，被认为是神子。（撒下7：4）这种“神意的父子关系”在中国的周朝（公元前1145-公元256）也有类似的表现，至少在公元前4世纪时还是如此。那时，天都被认为是全能、有目的性、明显的拟人化的神，他依据自己对人的行为的喜恶而降下祸福。
3、中国没有与申命记相似的书。在他们的书里没有法律本身，但他们的宗教和道德也会用来解释历史进程。希伯来的仪式可以与礼相比，礼在中国最初的含义也是祭祀，后来才转变成对人文明举止的要求。中国人对孝的强调，也与十诫中第五条相似。另外，申命记中的正义相似于中国的“义”，美德相似于“德”，忠诚相似于“忠”，信实相似于“信”。
如果我们同意希伯来经典中的这四部分是叙事性的历史，那么《左传》也是如此。在叙事策略、重复叙述、排比运用、文风简约上，二者都是相似。这种相似还体现在道德教诲上。从史学方法的角度来看，希伯来的作品比《左传》更先进，但它更象是进行神权统治的“一种宣传文献”。（托马斯C. 霍蒙）中国早期的《左传》可以与希伯来的历史经典和希罗多德的《历史》（公元前5世纪）一起，并列为世界最早的历史著作。