Genesis Commentary in Traditional Chinese Style/ 对《圣经•创世记》的金圣叹式评点

十年磨一剑。高峰枫在加州大学伯克利钻研圣经学，回国后在此文中“拿西方第一经典《圣经》‘动刀’”，作为“燔祭”献给我国传统文学批评方法，真是“快哉快哉”。关于动“刀”之文，还让我想起古人一篇短的：

聊斋志异•快刀

明末济属多盗，邑各置兵，捕得辄杀之。章丘盗尤多。有一兵佩刀甚利，杀辄导窾。一日捕盗十余名，押赴市曹。内一盗识兵，逡巡告曰：“闻君刀最快，斩首无二割。求杀我！”兵曰：“诺。其谨依我，无离也。”盗从之刑处，出刀挥之，豁然头落。数步之外犹圆转，而大赞曰：“好快刀！”

亚伯拉罕杀子的故事

高峰枫

《读书》2003.3

……

不知为什么，每当我读亚伯拉罕这段放事，总会不由自主地想到《水浒》，特别是被金圣叹批过的那部《水浒》。我总觉得用批《水浒》的方式来注解亚伯拉罕杀子故事，于义理和文章都可以兼顾。克尔凯郭尔曾说：“亚伯拉罕故事之奇绝处在于，不管人们对它的理解有多么充分，它永远是一段光辉的故事。”读到这样的话，我也就不用在乎自己的理解有多么的浅陋了。下面我将以评点的形式来批注《创世记》第二十二章前十六节。《圣经》中译文是通行的“和合本”，个别字句根据 Robert Alter 的最新英文译注本(诺顿，一九九五年)稍加改动。批语融合上述各家意见，也参照一些《旧约》学者的注释(人名和书目此处不一一列出)，笔法则着意模仿金圣叹。

采用我国古典小说批评来剖析希伯来经典，除了向金圣叹这位文学怪才致意之外，还有另一层含义。二十世纪八十年代以来，西方现代文学批评夹杂着吵闹声源源不断输入我国，这些舶来品当中哪些是精华，哪些是糟粕，我们现在应该看得稍稍清楚一些了。至于这些五花八门的理论对我国学术本身是否有什么积极的影响，前景似乎不容乐观。但是我们固有的传统文学批评除了专业学者之外，似乎无人问津。而下面的评点就是想来印证传统小说批评威力巨大。我们就是要拿西方第一经典《圣经》“动刀”，而且还是希伯来圣经的首卷，希望能有一些象征意义。以批《水浒》的鬼才来注《创世记》，我们可以看到小说评点不仅不输于其他光怪陆离的文论，而且完全可以吸收、消化、甚至改造西方的经书。

这些事以后，（将上文一笔代过。） 神要试验亚伯拉罕，（劈手写来。无半点征兆。没头没脑。妙。）就呼叫他说：（鹘突。不写何时何地，完全跳脱于时空之外。确是真神。）“亚伯拉罕!” 他说： （神从无何有之乡呼叫。亚伯拉罕亦是在无何有之乡应答。）“我在这里。”（此句全文凡三现。亚伯拉罕对神。以撒。天使无不应以此句。读者需留意。）神说： “你带着你的儿子，（哪个儿子。）就是你独生的、（独子。）你所爱的（爱子。）以撒（东说西说。最后方点出名姓。）往摩利亚地去，在我所要指示你的山上， 把他献为燔祭。”（骇人。）

亚伯拉罕清早起来，（神妙之笔。神不说破原因。亚伯拉罕亦不追问。一句清早起来。何等悠闲。又是何等动人心魄。）备上驴，（细。）带着两个小厮（细。）和他儿子以撒，（儿子字样反复出现。需留意。）也劈好了燔祭的柴，（点出有刀。）就起身往神所指示的地方去 了。（看他慢慢写来。全似无事人一个。）到了第三日，（于路程只字不提。真吓煞人也。）亚伯拉罕举目远远看见那地方。亚伯拉罕对他的小厮说：“你们和驴在此等候，我与童子往那里去拜一拜，就回到你们这里来。”（支开旁人。） 亚伯拉罕把燔祭的柴放在他儿子以撒身上，自己手里拿着火与刀，（自己拿着危险物事。借此可略窥亚伯拉罕心事。）于是二人同行。（一老一少。一个手持利刃。一背负柴薪。一个满腹心事。一个浑然不觉。父只要杀子。子只要听从。）以撒对他父亲亚伯拉罕说：（看他句句不离儿子。父亲。）“父亲哪!”（叫得亲切。）亚伯拉罕说：“我儿，（答得也亲切。）我在这里。”（又是这句。）以撒说：“请看，火与柴都有了，但燔祭的羊羔在哪里呢？”（小孩子家恁地精细。莫非已生疑。）亚伯拉罕说：“我儿，（又是一句我儿。令人泪下。）神必自己预备作燔祭的羊羔。”（语带玄机。）于是二人同行。（又一句二人同行。父要送子上黄泉路。）

他们到了神所指示的地方，（字字紧扣神。）亚伯拉罕在那里筑坛，把柴摆好，捆绑他的儿子以撒，放在坛的柴上。（筑坛。摆柴。捆子。有条不紊。笔法狠辣之极。）亚伯拉罕就伸手拿刀，（一切收拾停当。霍地抽出刀来。令人心惊肉跳。）要杀他的儿子。（局面至此。真真是回天乏术。野猪林中胖大和尚安在。）耶和华的使者从天上呼叫他说：（又是一声呼叫。）“亚伯拉罕!亚伯拉罕！”（连声呼叫。足见情势危急。）他说：“我在这里。”（不管天塌地陷。只是这句。）天使说；“你不可在这童子身上下手，一点不可害他。（两番制止。以见危急。）现在我知道你是敬畏神的了，因为你没有将你的儿子、就是你独生的儿子（回应最初的试探。）留下不给我。”亚伯拉罕举目观看，（前番举目观看。看到以撒的刑场。此番举目观看。看到替罪羊。两番举目观看。读者于此等处断不可轻轻放过。）不料，有一只公羊，两角扣在稠密的小树中，亚伯拉罕就取了那只公羊来，献为燔祭，代替他的儿子。（以儿子结此一段奇文。）

God, Abraham, and Mimesis/ 上帝、亚伯拉罕和艺术再现

While God and Abraham, the serving-men, the ass, and the implements are simply named, without mention of any qualities or any other sort of definition, Isaac once receives an appositive; God says, “Take Isaac, thine only son, whom thou lovest.” But this is not a characterization of Isaac as a person, apart from his relation to his father and apart from the story; he may be handsome or ugly, intelligent or stupid, tall or short, pleasant or unpleasant—we are not told. Only what we need to know about him as a personage in the action, here and now, is illuminated, so that it may become apparent how terrible Abraham’s temptation is, and that God is fully aware of it. By this example of the contrary, we see the significance of the descriptive adjectives and digressions of the Homeric poems; with their indications of the earlier and as it were absolute existence of the persons described, they prevent the reader from concentrating exclusively on a present crisis; even when the most terrible things are occurring, they prevent the establishment of an overwhelming suspense. But here, in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice, the overwhelming suspense is present; what Schiller makes the goal of the tragic poet—to rob us of our emotional freedom, to turn our intellectual and spiritual powers (Schiller say “our activity”) in one direction, to concentrate them there—is effected in this Biblical narrative, which certainly deserves the epithet epic.

--Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: the Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 11.

The Homeric poems present of definite complex of events whose boundaries in space and time are clearly delimited; before it, beside it, and after it, other complexes of events, which do not depend upon it, can be conceived without conflict and without difficulty. The Old Testament, on the other hand, presents universal history: it begins with the beginning of time, with the creation of the world, and will end with the Last Days, the fulfilling of the Covenant, with which the world will come to an end. Everything else that happens in the world can only be conceived as an element in this sequence; into it everything that is known about the world, or at least everything that touches upon the history of the Jews, must be fitted as an ingredient of the divine plan; and as this too became possible only by interpreting the new material as it poured in, the need for interpretation reaches out beyond the original Jewish-Israelitish realm of reality—for example to Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Roman history; interpretation in a determined direction becomes a general method of comprehending reality; the new and strange world which now comes into view and which, in the form in which it presents itself, proves to be wholly unutilizable within the Jewish religious frame, must be so interpreted that it can find a place there.

--Ibid, 17.

© Copyright by Dun Wang (王敦). All rights reserved. 著作权拥有者：Dun Wang (王敦)。