173。卡尔.巴特把创世记当作是非真实历史的传奇（巴特，小草译）
作者：卡尔.巴特（Karl Barth） 译者：小草
译注：首先说明，我翻译卡尔.巴特对圣经创世记所持的非真实历史的观点的论说，不是我赞同他，而是为了揭示他对圣经的不信和否定，是作为批判他的直接证据，证明他是道地的不信圣经、甚至批判圣经的自由派人士。那些宣称巴特是在维护正统的基督教、归回对圣经的尊重的人士是在撒谎！巴特对圣经所持的观点和立场就清楚地证明了，巴特根本不是在维护基督教信仰，更谈不上尊重圣经，而是以主观和不信的态度在批判和抵毁圣经，是在拆毁圣经的权威性。因为，如果圣经的记载有误、不是真实的，而是混杂了非真实的传奇故事在其中的话，我们的信仰就是建立在不可靠的传奇故事之上，而不是建立在实实在在的真理之上。圣经的绝对权威性和无误性是基督教信仰的根基，是不容妥协或否定的。此文直接译自巴特的代表作《Church Dogmatics： The Doctrine of Creation, Volume 3, Part 1》（教会教义学：创造的教义，第三卷，第1部）第79-81页。英文原文的截图附在文后，第81页有划去两段没翻译。
我们说，创造的历史是 "非历史性的"，也就是说，它是一个不能被 "历史性地 "觉察和理解的历史，但它具有所有 "历史 "的样貌，有它自己的历史性实际。如果情况不是这样，它就不是创造的历史。因此，关于它的叙述就不可能被理解为一种 "历史性的"关系。
当我们这样说的时候，我们是在认真对待这样一个事实，即圣经讲述的创造故事是缺少人的见证。“我立大地根基的时候，你在哪里呢？你若有聪明，只管说吧。 "（约伯记38：4）如果人不能宣布他在哪里，那么显然他也不能从个人的观察和理解中 "历史性地 "宣布上帝立大地根基时发生了什么，或如何发生的。如果没有历史学家，即使因为这个原因（接受他觉察和理解所发生的事情的能力），显然也不可能有 "历史"。
但其次，我们坚持这样一个事实，即圣经中的创造故事的内容具有明确的史前特征；显然是在自然历史之前的意义上来说的。它们自然涉及到一个发生在时间上的事件，但这个事件的出现是所有其他历史的自然的前提。不可能有这样的历史记载，在那里，天、地、海、植物和野兽以及最后的人的第一次出现，也就是说，在那里，它们还没有存在，但会像创世记第1章中大致描述的那样出现，也像在创世记第2章中更简要地描述的那样出现。 只有在自然界存在的实际里发生的事件才是历史。但在这一点上，我们必须处理在自然界不存在和存在的边界上发生的事件。如果有任何关于此类事件发生的描述，它们当然不可能是 "历史"。
第三，我们考虑到这样一个事实：在圣经的前面几页，我们不是只有一个，而是有两个关于创造的不同描述，这些描述在圣经的其他地方被独立地提及，当我们对这些经文进行解释，并试图在创世记的背景里来理解这些经文时，这些创造的描述因此被延伸，但也有部分是相互矛盾的，应该注意到，它们不仅以极大不同的兴趣描述这些事件，而且还以非常不同的方式描述。从另一个角度来看，这些叙述中的每一个都显示出令人头疼的疏忽和不可调和的矛盾。强烈怀疑它们是取自不同的资料来源，这些资料产生于不同的时间、不同的背景、和不同的思想方式。出于谨慎思考，肯定就会远离评价和贬低那些与出自不同来源的假设有关的东西，因为这些实在无关乎做出诠释。然而，即使这样做了，即使我们看到两个叙事的共同点，即使我们确定这个共同点无疑是两个叙事中的决定性因素，我们也不能不看到，两个叙事中可能被认为是 "历史性的 "东西，如果没有其他矛盾的话，并不属于这个共同点，因此，即使有可能从这些叙事中构建 "历史性的 "画面，但实际上我们不可能不对一个或另一个或两者造成损坏。试图对这两种叙述进行 "历史性的 " 调和的旧式的诠释者并没有太忠于文本上所写的。 文本上所写的，可以说是出自独立的来源，将两种不同的叙述并列在一起以调和 "历史性的 " 基层是不良的方式。如果我们以这种方式阅读和解释它，我们只能对它造成损坏。
创造的历史是 "非历史性的"，或者更准确地说，是 "史前的"历史。我们必须小心，不要再陷入同样走不通的释经和教义的主张，认为它不是历史，而是对一个非历史的和非时间的实际的伪装。但是我们必须再次在教义和释经的基础上，坚持认为它不是 "历史性的 "历史。不是所有的历史都是 "历史性的"。我们重申，就其与上帝直接的相关性而言，每个历史实际上都是 "非历史性的”，也就是说，它不能被推导和比较，因此不能被觉察和理解。但这并不意味着它就不再是真正的历史。在它的决定性因素或维度上，在它的方向上最终是重要的和有趣的，所有的历史，作为真正的历史，都是 "非历史性的"。而这一点越是如此，越是明显，这个元素越是占有主导性，与上帝的直接相关性这个维度就越会显现出来。创造的历史只有这个因素。在创造历史里面，造物主和被造物直接相遇。在这个最高的意义上，它是真正的历史，但在这个最高的意义上，它是“非历史性的”，是史前的历史。正是由于这个原因，它只能成为 "非历史性的”、史前的描述和叙述的对象。
除了 "历史性的 "，一直存在着合理的 "非历史性的 "和史前的历史观，以及 "非历史性的"和史前的传奇（Saga）描绘。
在下面的内容中，我使用传奇（Saga）是在史前的实际的直观和诗意的描绘的意义上而言的，史前的实际是一次性地在时空里出现。传说和轶事应被视为传奇的变质的形式：传说是对具体的人的个性以传奇的形式进行描述，而轶事则是以传奇的形式对这种个性或具体的历史情境进行出乎意料的阐述。如果神话的概念证明是不恰当的，这一点还有待证明，那么很明显，描述圣经的创世史的唯一概念就是传奇。
它实际上包含了大量的传奇（甚至是传说和轶事），这是由于圣经的见证的性质和主题决定的。它也包含 "历史"，但通常带有或多或少的强烈的传奇包装。这对与上帝直接相关性很突出的历史是不可避免的，就像圣经所叙述的历史一样。另一方面，它也包含大量的带有历史包装的传奇，这也不足为奇，因为迄今为止，它所涉及的大部分事件都发生在至少在原则上 "历史”和 "历史性的叙述 "还是可能的范围里。谨慎地来说，它几乎不包含纯粹的 "历史"，也不包含纯粹的传奇，这两种很少能清楚地被识别出是属于哪一种。这两种元素通常是混合在一起。在圣经里，我们通常必须同时考虑历史和传奇。
相关博文：
正统基督教神学家对巴特的批判，抵挡曾邵愷，林鸿信，周学信对巴特的推崇
附：英文原文
We say that the history of creation is "non-historical," i e., that it is a history which cannot be "historically" perceived and understood, but has in face of all "history" its own historical reality. If this is not the case, it is not the history of creation. Hence the account of it cannot possibly be understood as a "historical" relation.
When we say this, we take seriously the fact that the Bible tells the story of creation as one which (apart altogether from its content) had no human witnesses. Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth Declare, if thou hast understanding"(Job 38：4). If man cannot declare where he was, then obviously he cannot declare "historically" from personal observation and understanding, what took place when God laid the foundation of the earth, or how it took place. If there is no historian, even for this reason(accepting his ability to perceive and understand what took place), there can obviously be no “history ".
But secondly we maintain the fact that the content of the biblical creation stories as such has a definite pre-historical character; obviously in the sense of being prior to natural history. They naturally deal with an occurrence which took place in time, but this occurrence is that of the emergence of the natural presuppositions of all other history. There can be no historical account where heaven and earth and sea, plants and beasts and finally man make their first appearance, i.e., where they do not yet exist but are to do so as portrayed in broad outlines in Gen. I and also more briefly in Gen. 2. Only occurrences within the existent reality of nature can be historical. But at this point we have to do with occurrences on the frontier of the non-existence and existence of nature. If there can be any accounts of such occurrences at all, they certainly cannot be "historical."
And thirdly we take into consideration the fact that on the first pages of the Bible we do not have only one but two different accounts of creation, and that these are expanded but also partially contradicted by isolated references to the theme in the rest of the Canon When we come to the exegetical appraisal of these passages, and the attempt to understand them in the setting in which they confront us in Genesis, it is to be noted that they not only describe the events with greatly varying interests but also in very different ways. Seen from the point of view of the other, each of these accounts reveals painful omissions and irreconcilable contradictions.
The suspicion becomes strong that they derive from different sources, originating at different times, against different backgrounds, and from a different intellectual approach. A thoughtful consideration will certainly hold itself aloof from the evaluation and disparagement (Gunkel) often associated with the familiar hypothesis of different sources, because these have really nothing to do with exposition. Yet even if that is done, even if we do not fail to see the common denominator of both narratives, even if we establish that the common denominator is undoubtedly the decisive element in both, we cannot fail to see again that what might be considered "historical" in either-if not contradicted on other grounds-do not come under this common denominator, so that even if it were intrinsically possible to construct "historical "picture from the narratives we cannot actually do so without doing violence to one or the other or both. The older expositors who attempted "historical" harmonization of the two accounts did not adhere too closely to what is actually written. What is written-and this may be said independently of all source-hypotheses-is ill-adapted in its juxtaposition of two different accounts to mediate" historical" sub-stratum. We can only do violence to it if we read and interpret it in this way.
The history of creation is "non -historical-"or, to be more precise, pre-historical history. We must be careful not to fall back into the equally impossible exegetical and dogmatic proposition that it is not history but the disguise of an unhistorical and timeless reality. But again we have to insist on dogmatic and exegetical grounds that it is not a "historical" history. Not all history is "historical." We repeat that in its immediacy to God every history is in fact "non-historical, i.e., it cannot be deduced and compared and therefore perceived and comprehended. But this does not mean that it ceases to be genuine history. In its decisive elements or dimensions, in the direction in which alone it is ultimately important and interesting, all history-as genuine history-is "non-historical." And this the more so, and the more palpably, the more this element predominates, the more this dimension-the immediacy of history to God-emerges. The history of creation has only this element. In it Creator and creature confront each other only in immediacy. In this supreme sense it is genuine history, but also in this supreme sense it is “non -historical-,"pre-historical history. And for this very reason it can be the object only of "non-historical”, pre-historical depiction and narration.
In addition to the "historical" there has always been a legitimate "non-historical" and pre-historical view of history, and its "non-historical" and pre-historical depiction in the form of saga.
In what follows I am using saga in the sense of an intuitive and poetic picture of a pre-historical reality of history which is enacted once and for all within the confines of time and space. Legend and anecdote are to be regarded as a degenerate form of saga: legend as the depiction in saga form of concrete individual personality, and anecdote as the sudden illumination in saga form either of a personality of this kind or of a concretely historical situation. If the concept of myth proves inadequate-as is still to be shown-it is obvious that the only concept to describe the biblical history of creation is that of saga.
That it does actually contain a good deal of saga (and even legend and anecdote) is due to the nature and theme of the biblical witness. It also contains" history," but usually with more or less strong wrapping of saga. This is inevitable where the immediacy of history to God is prominent, as in the histories which the Bible relates. On the other hand, it also contains a good deal of saga with historical wrappings, and this again is not surprising when by far the greater part of the events related by it takes place in the sphere where "history” and "historical accounts " are at least possible in principle. To put it cautiously, it contains little pure " history" and little pure saga, and little of both that can be unequivocally recognized as the one or the other. The two elements are usually mixed. In the Bible we usually have to reckon with both history and saga.
附图：《Church Dogmatics： The Doctrine of Creation, Volume 3, Part 1》p 79 - 81
