It's kind of an impossible question.

這是個不可能回答的問題。

It's the kind of question that requires more of an explanation to ask than to answer, which is a little bit strange.

這個問題的提出比回答更需要解釋，這有點奇怪。

So I thought, the Bible is not a book.

所以我想，《聖經》不是一本書。

It's a library.

這是一個圖書館。

And like any good library, it contains an amalgamation of different genres.

和其他優秀的圖書館一樣，它包含了各種不同類型的內容。

And so asking if the Bible is true, you might as well ask if the corpus of Shakespeare is true.

是以，問《聖經》是否真實，還不如問莎士比亞的作品是否真實。

It sort of betrays a misunderstanding of how people interact with the text.

這有點像是誤解了人們與文本的互動方式。

So I thought, will Dinesh argue that the Bible is literally true, historically true, allegorically true, morally true, theologically true, metaphorically true?

所以我想，迪尼希是否會認為《聖經》在字面上是真實的、在歷史上是真實的、在寓言上是真實的、在道德上是真實的、在神學上是真實的、在隱喻上是真實的？

And I suppose the only thing for it is to sort of try each one on for size.

我想唯一的辦法就是試穿每件衣服的尺寸。

So maybe beginning with Genesis in an attempt, clearly not at historicity, but rather allegory and metaphor, we can deal with one of our types of truth here.

是以，也許我們可以從《創世紀》開始，嘗試（顯然不是歷史性的，而是寓言和隱喻）處理我們這裡的一種真理。

We're introduced to Adam and Eve, who are told in no uncertain terms by God not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

上帝明確告訴亞當和夏娃不要吃善惡樹上的果實。

You may begin to wonder why knowledge of good and evil is such a bad thing, but the thought is interrupted by the introduction of the serpent, who says to Eve, did God say that if you eat of the tree, then in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die?

你可能會開始想，為什麼知道善惡是件壞事，但蛇的出現打斷了你的思緒，它對夏娃說，上帝說過，如果你吃了那棵樹上的果子，在你吃的那一天，你就必死無疑嗎？

And Eve says, yes.

夏娃說，是的。

And the serpent says, well, that's not going to happen.

蛇說，那是不可能的。

God just knows that if you eat of it, you'll become like him, knowing good and evil.

上帝只知道，如果你吃了它，你就會變得像他一樣，知道善惡。

And he doesn't want that at all.

他根本不想這樣。

You're not going to die.

你不會死的

So Eve famously takes the fruit, eats some, gives some to Adam, and what happens?

於是，夏娃摘下了果子，吃了一些，又給了亞當一些，結果呢？

Do they die in the day thereof?

他們會在那一天死去嗎？

Some people say in a metaphorical sense, yes, we'll get to that in a second, but at least on the surface of it, no.

有些人從隱喻的角度說，是的，我們馬上就會說到，但至少從表面上看，不是。

What does happen?

發生了什麼？

God tells us himself.

上帝親自告訴我們

He says, now the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

他說，現在這個人變得和我們一樣，知道善惡。

He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and eat from the tree of life, lest he inherit eternal life.

絕不能讓他伸手去吃生命樹上的果子，以免他繼承永生。

And with this, Adam and Eve are banished from the garden of Eden.

就這樣，亞當和夏娃被逐出了伊甸園。

So who's telling the truth here?

那麼，誰說的是實話呢？

This story is quite mystifying to me, and I'm not the first to point this out.

這個故事對我來說很神祕，我不是第一個指出這一點的人。

There's actually an apocryphal gospel discovered near Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 1940s, dated to around the second or third century, called the Testimony of Truth, a gospel that didn't make it into the New Testament, which identifies the serpent, interestingly, who's never called Satan in the text, by the way, identifies the serpent with Jesus.

事實上，20 世紀 40 年代在埃及的那格-哈馬迪附近發現了一本啟示錄式的福音書，年代大約在第二或第三世紀，名為《真理的見證》，這本福音書沒有被寫入《新約聖經》，其中指出了蛇的身份，有趣的是，文本中從未稱其為撒旦，順便說一句，將蛇與耶穌相提並論。

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but it does seem that the sort of allegorical truth of the story leaves a lot to be desired.

我不知道自己是否會走得那麼遠，但這個故事的寓言真實性似乎還有很多不足之處。

I'm told that maybe Adam and Eve died a sort of spiritual death, or mortality entered the world.

有人告訴我，也許亞當和夏娃死於某種精神死亡，或者是死亡進入了這個世界。

But then we need to ask why it is that God had to proactively banish them from the garden of Eden.

但我們不禁要問，為什麼上帝要主動把他們逐出伊甸園呢？

This isn't some natural result of sin that mortality entered the world, they're banished.

這並不是凡人進入這個世界後自然產生的罪惡，而是被放逐了。

And the implication is that they could have just as easily reached out and eaten from the tree of life, but God didn't want this to happen, so he guards the gates of Eden with a cherubim, with a flaming sword.

言下之意是，他們本可以輕而易舉地伸手吃掉生命之樹的果實，但上帝不希望這樣的事情發生，所以他用基路伯和火焰劍守衛著伊甸園的大門。

I find this quite strange, and I'd like to know what Dinesh thinks of it.

我覺得這很奇怪，想知道迪內希對此有何看法。

Moving on quickly, I suppose, to the events of the later Old Testament, skipping over Exodus, we're introduced to another form of truth that I want to potentially engage in, and that's the concept of moral truth.

我想，跳過《出埃及記》，我們很快就會看到《舊約》後期的事件，我們會看到另一種形式的真理，我想這就是道德真理的概念。

That's another one that I spoke about in the beginning just there, the concept of moral truth.

這是我在開頭提到的另一個概念，道德真理的概念。

When we look at some of the military conquests of the Old Testament, bear in mind that the promised land pledged to Abraham is not an empty plain.

當我們回顧《舊約》中的一些軍事征服時，請記住，許諾給亞伯拉罕的應許之地並不是一片空曠的平原。

Its indigenous inhabitants had to be, shall we say, displaced by a series of military campaigns, ordered by God and carried out by his prophets.

可以說，上帝下令並由其先知執行的一系列軍事行動使當地居民流離失所。

Thus, we have such commands as in Deuteronomy, chapter 20.

是以，我們在《申命記》第 20 章中看到了這樣的命令。

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

當你進軍攻打一座城市時，向那裡的人民提出和平建議。

Sounds promising to start with.

聽起來很有希望。

If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor, and shall work for you some peace.

如果他們接受並打開城門，城內所有的人都將接受強制勞動，併為你們工作，以求安寧。

If they refuse to make peace and engage you in battle, which, why would they do that on these terms?

如果他們拒絕講和並與你們交戰，他們為什麼要以這樣的條件這樣做呢？

Lay siege to that city.

圍攻那座城市

When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

當耶和華你的神把它交到你手裡的時候，就把裡面所有的人都殺了。

As for the women, the children, and the livestock, and everything else in the city, they get to go, no, sorry, hold on.

至於城裡的婦女、兒童、牲畜和其他一切，他們都可以走了，不，對不起，等等。

You may take these as plunder for yourselves.

你們可以把這些當作自己的戰利品。

That's right.

這就對了。

And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

你們可以使用耶和華你們的上帝從敵人那裡賜給你們的戰利品。

Likewise, in 1 Samuel, we have the destruction of the Amalekites.

同樣，在《撒母耳記上》中，我們看到了亞瑪力人的毀滅。

The order, now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.

命令，現在去攻擊亞瑪力人，徹底摧毀屬於他們的一切。

I'm told sometimes that this is actually an exercise in hyperbole.

有時有人告訴我，這其實是一種誇張的做法。

God didn't mean everyone.

上帝並不是指所有人。

It continues, do not spare them.

繼續說，不要放過他們。

Put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

處死男人和女人、孩子和嬰兒、牛羊、駱駝和驢子。

And if you think that this is hyperbole, consider what happens when Saul does conduct the destruction of the Amalekites as ordered and decides to leave alive the king as well as some of the best of the livestock.

如果你認為這是誇張的說法，那麼想想當掃羅按照命令消滅亞瑪力人並決定留下國王和一些最好的牲畜時會發生什麼。

He leaves them alive.

他讓他們活著。

For this small act of mercy, God responds by saying to the prophet Samuel, I regret that I have made Saul king because he's turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.

對於這個小小的仁慈之舉，上帝的迴應是對先知撒母耳說：我很遺憾我立掃羅為王，因為他背離了我，沒有執行我的訓示。

So not even the animals can escape this genocide.

是以，就連動物也無法逃脫這場種族滅絕。

So I'd like to ask Dinesh, I suppose directly, which is it?

所以我想直接問迪尼希，到底是哪個？

Is this a morally corrupt series of events?

這是一連串道德敗壞的事件嗎？

Or do I have to dispel with my moral intuition that genocide, including of innocent children, is a bad thing?

還是說，我必須用道德直覺來消除種族滅絕，包括對無辜兒童的種族滅絕，是一件壞事？

There's plenty more to talk about in that regard.

這方面還有很多話題要談。

I don't want to take up too much time.

我不想佔用太多時間。

This isn't, of course, to mention the advocacy and explicit instructions around slavery in the Old Testament.

當然，這還不是指《舊約》中對奴隸制的倡導和明確訓示。

Hopefully we can get onto those too if we want to go down the moral path.

如果我們想走道德之路，希望我們也能走上這些道路。

But I think that the most natural interpretation of the question is the concept of historicity, the literal truth of the Bible, that is.

但我認為，對這個問題最自然的解釋是歷史性概念，即《聖經》的字面真實性。

This is where I think we have to move to the New Testament because the genre of the gospel seems to be historical biography, unlike the mythology of a book like the Psalms or Genesis or Job.

這就是我認為我們必須轉向《新約聖經》的原因，因為福音書的體裁似乎是歷史傳記，與《詩篇》、《創世紀》或《約伯記》等書的神話不同。

And here there's a lot to talk about.

在這裡，我們有很多話要說。

We begin with the birth narratives.

我們從出生敘述開始。

There are two birth narratives in the gospels, in Matthew and Luke.

在《馬太福音》和《路加福音》中，有兩個關於出生的敘述。

Both give different accounts.

兩者說法不一。

Both have a genealogy of Jesus, for example, but the genealogies are different.

例如，兩者都有耶穌的家譜，但家譜的內容不同。

I'm told this is because one records Mary's genealogy and one records Joseph's.

我聽說這是因為一個記錄了馬利亞的家譜，一個記錄了約瑟夫的家譜。

You can do this if you like.

如果你願意，可以這樣做。

It doesn't seem like the most natural reading of the text if you're not already predisposed to synchronize the accounts.

如果你還沒有同步賬戶的傾向，這似乎不是最自然的文本解讀。

Then we have, for example, the flight to Egypt, which is only recorded in Luke, which is difficult to reconcile with Matthew's account that they went to the temple in Jerusalem instead.

例如，路加福音中只記載了逃往埃及的過程，這與馬太福音中關於他們前往耶路撒冷聖殿的記載很難調和。

But more importantly, Matthew then says that the family traveled to Nazareth and he says, so was fulfilled what was said through the prophets that he shall be called a Nazarene, quoting the prophets.

但更重要的是，馬太接著說，他們一家來到拿撒勒，他說："這樣，藉著先知所說，他必稱為拿撒勒人的話，就應驗了。"他引用了先知的話。

Now you'll notice if you read an online Bible that where the Old Testament prophets are quoted, there's a little footnote telling you what the prophecy is.

現在，如果你在網上閱讀《聖經》，就會發現在引用《舊約》先知預言的地方，都會有一個小腳註，告訴你預言是什麼。

In this case, you won't find one because the prophecy simply doesn't exist.

在這種情況下，你找不到預言，因為預言根本不存在。

It's not there.

它不在那兒。

There's no such thing.

沒有這種事。

So there are two options here.

是以，這裡有兩種選擇。

Either Matthew made up this prophecy or got it wrong, in which case the New Testament is mistaken, or the prophecy does exist, but for some reason fell out of our scriptural tradition and now no longer exists, which makes the accuracy and at least the completeness of the Old Testament suspect.

要麼是馬太編造了這個預言，要麼是馬太弄錯了，這樣的話，《新約聖經》就是錯誤的；要麼是這個預言確實存在，但由於某種原因從我們的聖經傳統中消失了，現在已經不復存在，這就使得《舊約聖經》的準確性至少是完整性受到懷疑。

So again, I'd like to ask directly which it is.

所以，我想再次直接問是哪一個。

Finally, I suppose I should mention the contradictions that a lot of people point to in the Gospels.

最後，我想我應該提到很多人指出的《福音書》中的矛盾之處。

Some of these, I think, are legitimate, some are not.

我認為，其中有些是合理的，有些是不合理的。

I'll give you some examples very quickly of Gospel contradictions that I do think are real contradictions.

我很快就會給你們舉幾個例子，來說明福音書中的矛盾之處，我認為這些矛盾之處確實存在。

First, the date of Jesus' crucifixion.

首先是耶穌受難的日期。

Was it before the Passover, as John states, or was it after the Passover as the synoptic Gospel state?

是在逾越節之前，如約翰所說，還是在逾越節之後，如對觀福音所說？

Second, Jesus is sending out his disciples to teach.

第二，耶穌派門徒去教書。

In Mark, he tells them to take nothing with them except a staff.

在馬可福音中，他告訴他們除了一根杖以外什麼都不要帶。

In Matthew and Luke, he says, take nothing with them, including no staff.

在馬太福音和路加福音中，他說，什麼都不要帶，包括不要帶杖。

So do they take a staff or do they not?

那麼，他們到底帶不帶工作人員？

A pedantic contradiction, but a contradiction nonetheless, and one that's led people like Barnabas, Ahern, to write entire articles on this.

這是一個迂腐的矛盾，但仍然是一個矛盾，它導致像巴納巴斯、埃亨這樣的人寫了整整一篇文章來討論這個問題。

And Augustine himself actually distinguished between a literal staff and a metaphorical staff to explain this difference.

奧古斯丁本人實際上也區分了字面意義上的杖和隱喻意義上的杖，以解釋這種區別。

Anything, I suppose, except considering the possibility of even the most minor of Gospel contradictions.

我想，除了考慮福音書中最微小的矛盾的可能性之外，什麼都可以。

Third, Jesus flipping the tables at the temple.

第三，耶穌在聖殿翻桌子。

A famous story, but did you know that in the Gospel of John, this takes place at the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

這是一個有名的故事，但你知道嗎，在《約翰福音》中，這個故事發生在耶穌傳道之初。

In the synoptics, it takes place near the end.

在對觀福音中，它發生在接近結尾的地方。

So when did that occur?

那是什麼時候發生的呢？

Mary Magdalene, after the resurrection of Jesus, runs to the disciples in John's Gospel and says, they've taken the Lord, and we do not know where they have put him.

耶穌復活後，抹大拉的馬利亞跑到約翰福音的門徒面前說，他們把主帶走了，我們不知道他們把他放在哪裡。

Strange thing for her to say if, as the Gospel of Matthew recounts, she's visited by an angel at the tomb who tells her exactly where Jesus is going.

如果按照《馬太福音》的記載，天使在墳墓前拜訪了她，並告訴她耶穌要去的確切地點，她這樣說就太奇怪了。

And then she's met by Jesus herself on the way to the disciples to bring them the news.

然後她在去找門徒的路上遇到了耶穌本人，給他們帶來了這個消息。

Strange for her to then say that they've taken the Lord and we do not know where they've put him.

奇怪的是，她後來又說他們帶走了上帝，我們不知道他們把他安置在哪裡。

There's more to say on this.

關於這一點，還有很多話要說。

Interpolations, things which seem not to be in our oldest manuscripts, but end up in newer manuscripts of the New Testament, such as the adulterous woman, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

篡改，即在我們最古老的手稿中似乎沒有的內容，卻出現在較新的《新約》手稿中，例如姦淫的婦人，讓沒有罪的人先投石頭。

Most scholars agree that this was not in our earliest manuscripts and was added in at a later date.

大多數學者都認為，我們最早的手稿中並沒有這段文字，是後來加上去的。

And if we can see that the Gospel stories were edited after they were written down, there's no reason to think that they couldn't be edited before they were written down as oral traditions too, as well as the entire ending of Mark 16.

如果我們可以看到福音書故事在被寫下來之後經過了編輯，那麼就沒有理由認為它們在作為口述傳統被寫下來之前不會經過編輯，《馬可福音》第 16 章的整個結尾也是如此。

There's a longer version and a shorter version because the longer version simply isn't in our earlier manuscripts.

有一個較長的版本和一個較短的版本，因為較長的版本在我們早期的手稿中根本沒有。

These documents don't seem to have the historical reliability either.

這些文件似乎也不具備歷史可靠性。

So in conclusion, I've probably spoken for too long here.

最後，我可能說得太久了。

Are we talking about allegorical truth, moral truth, metaphorical, theological truth, historical truth?

我們談論的是寓言真理、道德真理、隱喻真理、神學真理還是歷史真理？

I suppose what I want to say to Dinesh is take your pick and I'll probably have something to say about it.

我想我想對迪尼希說的是，你自己選吧，我可能會有話要說。