不必听你的声音，因为我能比你自己更好地谈论你。不必听你的声音。只需告诉我你的痛苦。我想知道你的故事。然后我会把它以一种新的方式讲述给你听。以一种使它变成我的、属于我自己的方式讲述给你。重新书写你，我便重新书写了自己。我仍是作者，是权威。我仍是殖民者，是言说的主体，而你如今处于我言说的中心。（Hooks 1990: 243）

No need to hear your voice when I can talk about you better than you can speak about yourself. No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own. Re-writing you I write myself anew. I am still author, authority. I am still colonizer the speaking subject and you are now at the center of my talk. (Hooks 1990: 243)

历史与集体记忆往往是由社会精英编织而成的一幅叙事织锦，普通民众的声音被忽视，受压迫者、被殖民者、原住民和边缘群体的自我表达也常常缺席。

History and collective memory are often a tapestry of stories woven by social elites, with disregard for the voices of ordinary people and selfrepresentation of the oppressed, colonised, indigenous and marginalised.

许多关于巴勒斯坦的历史记载是由掌权的精英以及为征服者和殖民者服务的人所撰写的。然而，如今关于巴勒斯坦的著述受三种不同传统的影响，形成了三类作品。

Much of the histories of Palestine are written by powerful elites and those who are in the service of conquerors and colonisers. However, today there are three types of writings on Palestine influenced by three distinct traditions:

(1) 经文地理学与以色列殖民主义者的著述；(2)

(1) scriptural geography and Israeli settler-colonialist writings; (2)

以色列"新史学"的论述将巴勒斯坦长达数千年的历史仅仅视为现代以色列的附录；以及(3)

the discourses of the ‘New Histories’ of Israel in which the millennia-long history of Palestine is treated as a mere appendix to modern Israel; and (3)

这些著作依托于基于巴勒斯坦人民史的原住民与去殖民化学术、“自下而上的历史”、底层研究、原住民的自我表述，以及爱德华·赛义德和弗朗茨·法农关于殖民者与被殖民者的经典著述。本书属于第三类著作。它优先为巴勒斯坦及巴勒斯坦人发声，让巴勒斯坦自己说话。本书对另外两种话语提出了挑战。

indigenous and decolonisation scholarship informed by a people’s history of Palestine, ‘history from below’, subaltern studies, indigenous selfrepresentation and the classical writings of Edward Said and Frantz Fanon on the coloniser and colonised. This work comes under the third category of writings. It prioritises giving Palestine and the Palestinians a voice and allowing Palestine to speak for itself. The other two discourses are challenged in this book:

•东方学、圣经研究和殖民主义著作：这类关于历史与集体记忆的文献，大多由西方或以色列犹太复国主义者的圣经地理学撰写并传播，为权势精英服务，很少顾及巴勒斯坦本土的能动性与声音。此外，这些著作掩盖了该国的历史，关于巴勒斯坦的历史叙述往往借助帝国的更替、帝国征服或王朝年表（罗马、奥斯曼、英国等）来构建，且采取的是“外部视角”。历史学家们（其研究经费往往依赖权势精英）几乎没有意愿从“内部”记录巴勒斯坦的声音，即不依赖圣经神话叙事或帝国占有，并将巴勒斯坦视为具有自身能动性、能够主导自身命运的主体。

• Orientalist, biblicist and colonialist writings: this literature of history/ collective memory has been largely produced and circulated by Western or Israeli Zionist biblical geography on behalf of powerful social elites, with little regard for the autochthonous Palestinian agency and voices. Furthermore, obscuring the history of the country, historical approaches to Palestine are often constructed through the chronologies of empires and through imperial conquest or dynastic chronologies (Roman, Ottoman, British and so forth) and ‘from without’. There is very little appetite among historians, often dependent on funding by powerful elites, to record the voice of Palestine ‘from within’, independent of biblical myth-narratives or imperial possession, or as having its own agency and shaping its own destiny.

“以色列”的新历史:这位犹太复国主义自由派殖民者常试图将“定居者殖民”与“民主”结合起来——这是两个相互矛盾的计划。近几十年来,这一倾向促成了以色列“新历史”的出现。这些新历史也得到了资金雄厚的“和平进程”产业的支持。该产业催生了“新”的学术精英,这些精英大多出自同一批有权势的社会阶层,并重新包装了各种话语,试图将巴勒斯坦纳入并淡化其延续数千年的历史,归入“以色列—巴勒斯坦”这一框架之下。这一新的“以色列—巴勒斯坦”和平产业最具启示意义的一个方面,体现在那个常被连字符连接的“以色列—巴勒斯坦”之中:以色列被塑造为核心(首要)政治实体,而巴勒斯坦则成为以色列的(次要、被边缘化、从属的)附庸。这些以色列新历史的设计目的,是对巴勒斯坦持续进行的定居者殖民的影响进行微观管理,而非加以挑战。即使整部著作聚焦于奥斯曼统治下的巴勒斯坦(1516–1917年)或以色列国成立之前的英国委任统治时期的巴勒斯坦,这种时代错置的说法依然被使用。以色列本身是在1948年通过对巴勒斯坦原住民进行种族清洗而建立的,建立在一个国家的废墟之上。关于奥斯曼或委任统治时期巴勒斯坦历史的著作,如今常被包装成关于以色列的“新历史”或“新视角”,而这些以色列新历史的自由派殖民者却懒得解释:为何一个1948年才建立的新国家(以色列),竟要置于一个已存在数千年的国家(巴勒斯坦)的名称之前。犹太复国主义的以色列新历史常常声称要“代表”并“为……发声”于所有人,却无视权力的不对称,以及“被殖民者”(巴勒斯坦)与“殖民者”(以色列)之间在根本上截然不同的经历。 在1998年发表于《金字塔报》网络版的一篇著名文章《新历史，旧观念》中，已故的爱德华·萨义德对以色列的犹太复国主义“新史学”提出了质疑。这些“新史学”试图在“以色列”与“巴勒斯坦”之间制造人为的对称，表面上弥合殖民者（以色列）与被殖民者（巴勒斯坦）之间的“叙事鸿沟”。然而实际上，以色列的这些“新史学”是要代表巴勒斯坦、为巴勒斯坦人发声，而不是让巴勒斯坦的土著人民自己说话。

• The New Histories of ‘Israel’: the Zionist liberal coloniser has often sought to combine ‘settler-colonisation’ with ‘democracy’ – two contradictory projects – and this tendency has in recent decades contributed to the emergence of the ‘New Histories’ of Israel. These new histories have also been backed by the generously funded ‘peace process’ industry – an industry which has spawned ‘new’ academic elites, drawn for the most part from the same powerful social classes, and repackaged discourses which have sought to subsume Palestine and obscure its millennia-long history of the country under the rubric of ‘Israel-Palestine’. One of the most revealing aspects of this new peace industry of ‘Israel-Palestine’ is found in the much-hyphenated ‘Israel-Palestine’, with Israel constructed as a core (primary) political entity and Palestine as a (secondary, marginalised, subordinate) appendage to Israel. These New Histories of Israel are designed to micro-manage, rather than challenge, the impact of ongoing settler-colonialism in Palestine. This anachronism is deployed even when the entire work focuses on Ottoman Palestine (1516‒1917) or Mandatory Palestine before the State of Israel came into existence. Israel itself was created in 1948 by ethnic cleansing the indigenous people of Palestine and founded on the ruins of a country. Works published on the history of Ottoman or Mandatory Palestine are often now packaged as ‘New Histories’ or ‘New Perspectives’ on Israel, without the liberal colonisers of these New Histories of Israel bothering to explain why a new state (Israel), which was created in 1948, should come before the name of a country (Palestine) which has existed for millennia. The Zionist New Histories of Israel often claim to ‘speak for’ and ‘represent’ everyone, while ignoring that the asymmetry of power and experiences of ‘colonised’ (Palestine) are fundamentally different from the experiences of the ‘coloniser’ (Israel). In a famous 1998 article in Al-Ahram online, entitled: ‘New History, Old Ideas’,5 the late Edward Said challenged the Zionist ‘New Histories’ of Israel, which seek to create artificial symmetry between ‘Israel’ and ‘Palestine’ and, on the face of it, bridge the ‘narrative gap’ between the coloniser (Israel) and colonised (Palestine). In effect, however, the New Histories of Israel seek to represent Palestine and speak for the Palestinians, rather than allowing the indigenous people of Palestine to speak for themselves.

在其开创性著作《古代以色列的发明:巴勒斯坦历史的沉默》中,基思·惠特拉姆(1996)指出,“古代以色列”一词是作为非历史的宗教教条被发明出来的。他将现代圣经研究的问题与巴勒斯坦问题联系起来,并考察了圣经学术为指称该地区而选用的术语所蕴含的政治含义。惠特拉姆表明,对这片土地的命名如何暗含着控制与占有;“以色列之地”这一宗教性术语——一种晚出的宗教文学虚构,与该土地实际历史中的任何特定时期都无关——如何在西方和以色列的学术研究中被赋予了世俗的政治意义。他还认为,在西方和以色列的圣经研究中,“巴勒斯坦”一词本身没有内在意义,也没有自身的历史,而只是为以色列的历史提供背景。与这种历史缺失相伴的,是土地上原住巴勒斯坦居民的缺席。巴勒斯坦及其居民的历史总体上被对“古代以色列”的关注与探寻所吞没、所沉默(Whitelam 1996: 40‒45)。

In his seminal work The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, Keith Whitelam (1996) shows how the term ‘ancient Israel’ was invented as ahistorical religious dogma. He links the problems of the modern biblical discipline to the Palestine question and examines the political implications of the terminology of biblical scholarship chosen to represent this area. Whitelam shows how the naming of the land implied control and possession; how the religious term ‘the land of Israel’ – a late religio-literary fiction that does not relate to any particular period in the actual history of the land – has been invested with secular political meaning in both Western and Israeli scholarship. He also argues that in Western and Israeli biblical scholarship the term Palestine has no intrinsic meaning of its own, no history of its own; but provides a background for the history of Israel. Commensurate with this lack of history is also the absence of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the land. The history of Palestine and its inhabitants in general is subsumed and silenced by the concern with, and the search for, ‘ancient Israel’ (Whitelam 1996: 40‒45).

受爱德华·萨义德的著作《东方学》(1978)和《巴勒斯坦问题》(1980)启发,惠特拉姆有力地论证道:专门聚焦巴勒斯坦的圣经东方学,曾是西方霸权式东方学话语与再现的一部分,并且是其延伸;这种话语的书写,从未将任何“东方”主体纳入视野。

Inspired by the works of Edward Said, Orientalism (1978) and The Question of Palestine (1980), Whitelam argues powerfully that specific Palestine-focused biblical Orientalism have been part of and an extension of the hegemonic Orientalist discourse and representation in the West, which has been written without any ‘Oriental’ subject in view.

对于赛义德和怀特拉姆而言，在这一东方学—圣经话语中，巴勒斯坦的地方文化及巴勒斯坦人被描绘为既无能力采取统一行动，也不具备集体记忆。怀特拉姆进一步发展了赛义德的论点，指出古代巴勒斯坦的历史已被圣经研究的话语所忽视和压制，而这一话语有其自身的议程。

For both Said and Whitelam, in this Orientalist‒biblical discourse the local cultures of Palestine and Palestinians were presented as incapable of unified action or collective memory. Whitelam develops Said’s arguments further, showing that the history of ancient Palestine has been ignored and silenced by the discourse of biblical studies, which has its own agenda:

“西方学术界发明了古代以色列，并使巴勒斯坦的历史沉默”（Whitelam 1996: 1, 3）。惠特拉姆坚持认为，古代巴勒斯坦有其自身的历史，需要从浪漫化的圣经东方主义和经典地理学的掌控中解放出来。

‘Western scholarship has invented ancient Israel and silenced Palestinian history’ (Whitelam 1996: 1, 3). Ancient Palestine, Whitelam insists, has a history of its own, and needs to be freed from the grasp of romantic biblical Orientalism and scriptural geography:

巴勒斯坦历史的问题一直未被圣经研究提及，它被按照欧洲民族国家的形象来虚构古代以色列的做法所压制。只有当我们揭露了这一虚构所带来的种种影响之后，巴勒斯坦历史才能摆脱圣经研究及其所塑造的话语体系的束缚。

The problem of Palestinian history has remained unspoken within biblical studies, silenced by the invention of ancient Israel in the image of the European nation state. Only after we have exposed the implications of this invention will Palestinian history be freed from the constraints of biblical studies and the discourse that has shaped it.

(Whitelam 1996: 36)

(Whitelam 1996: 36)

正如下文将看到的,现代浪漫主义的圣经东方学和新教复原主义,是西方支持犹太复国主义、并赞助以色列国建立的两大意识形态催化剂。

As we shall see below, modern romantic biblical Orientalism and Protestant Restorationism were two of the ideological catalysts for supporting Zionism in the West and for backing the creation of the Israeli state.

特定于巴勒斯坦的《圣经》东方主义还导致了一个有害的神话的炮制：巴勒斯坦是“没有人民的土地，属于没有土地的人民”；而基督教シオニズム的长期发展，为“没有巴勒斯坦人的巴勒斯坦”这一概念奠定了基础（Kamel 2014:

Specific Palestine-focused biblical Orientalism also led to the concoction of the pernicious myth that Palestine was ‘a land without people for a people without land’ and the long development of Christian Zionism laid the foundation for a concept of Palestine without Palestinians (Kamel 2014:

1‒15, 2015; Masalha 1997)。在现代时期,欧洲作家将terra nullius(无主地)概念用于领土扩张和殖民征服。关于巴勒斯坦是无主地的各种说法在犹太复国主义定居者文化中广为流传(Wolfe 2006: 391; Masalha 1992, 1997)。

1‒15, 2015; Masalha 1997). In the modern period, European writers adopted the terra nullius concept for territorial and colonial conquests. Variants on the theme of Palestine being terra nullius were popularised in Zionist Jewish settler culture (Wolfe 2006: 391; Masalha 1992, 1997).

在巴勒斯坦,多元信仰与多神信仰相伴而行,数千年来,该地一直是一个多信仰、多神信仰的政体;这片土地上宗教与文化的繁多,是其最引人注目、最具特色的面貌之一。这种信仰的多样性,以及巴勒斯坦(和阿拉伯半岛)作为三大一神教传统发源地的角色,是本书的一个重要主题。本书认为,宗教多元主义始终处于巴勒斯坦多元身份认同的核心,而且远远早于一神教的出现。

In Palestine multifaith and polytheism went hand in hand and for millennia the country was a multifaith/polytheistic polity; the multitude of religions and cultures in Palestine is one of its most striking and characteristic features. This multitude of faiths in the country and the role of Palestine (and Arabia) as the birthplace of the three monotheistic traditions is a major topic of this work, which argues that religious pluralism has always been at the heart of the pluralist identity of Palestine, well before monotheism.

公元前5世纪，希罗多德是第一位生动描述一个地理上自然形成的多信仰国家的历史学家。

Writing in the 5th century BC, Herodotus was the first historian to describe vividly a multifaith country located naturally (geographically)

在腓尼基与埃及之间，他用“Palaistinê”（Παλαιστίνη）一词来指称一个地理区域，该区域比古代非利士地区更大。他还记载，巴勒斯坦地区深受多神信仰影响。如今，考古学的发现，包括近期在非利士地区进行的考古发掘，都关系到西方大学和学校讲授古代巴勒斯坦历史与遗产的方式。这些发现证实了希罗多德对多神信仰的巴勒斯坦的描述，同时与《旧约》的宏大叙事相矛盾。事实上，一神论是逐步演变而来的（而非革命性的突变），经历了一种以中心化表征为策略的过程：从多神信仰（众多异教神祇）到拜一神论（monolatrism），再从“混合多神”（异教的“诸神之神”）到严格的一神论，聚焦于唯一的真主和唯一的权威，这一过程在中世纪早期伊斯兰教兴起之后得以完成。

between Phoenicia and Egypt, and to denote a geographical region he called Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη) which was larger than ancient Philistia. He also reported that Palestine was deeply polytheistic. Today the findings of archaeology, including recent archaeological excavations in Philistia, which are central to the ways in which the ancient history and heritage of Palestine are understood and taught in Western universities and schools, confirm Herodotus’ account of polytheistic Palestine and contradict the grand narratives of the Old Testament. In fact monotheism evolved gradually (not in a revolutionary fashion) through a centring strategy of representation from polytheism (many pagan gods) to monolatrism,6 and from ‘mono-polytheism’ (pagan ‘God of gods’) to strict monotheism, focusing on one God and one authority, under Islam in the early Middle Ages.

“圣经”和“圣经的”这两个词，在不同时代、对不同的人而言，意思并不相同。今天人们普遍认识到，“圣经”并非一部单独的书，而是一个书的汇编。基督教区分出两个传统，即旧约和新约；而《古兰经》则指出，与“圣经”相关的有三个各自独立的传统，或称三部圣书：归于穆萨（摩西）名下的《讨拉特》（或称《托拉》），即《律法书》；《引支勒》，这是阿拉伯语对穆斯林所信奉的耶稣原始福音的称呼；以及归于达五德（大卫）名下的《宰布尔》（或称《诗篇》）。与“圣经”的演变相关的传统和来源的多样性，是任何关于“圣经式”叙事演变的学术理解的核心。

The terms holy ‘Bible’ and ‘biblical’ as signifiers meant different things to different people across the centuries. Today it is widely recognised that the ‘Bible’ is not a single book; it is a library of books. While Christianity distinguishes between two traditions, Old Testament and New Testament, the Quran identifies three distinct traditions, or holy books, associated with the Bible: the Tawrah (or Torah) attributed to Moses, the Injil, the Arabic name for what Muslims believe to have been the original Gospel of Jesus, and Zabur (or the Book of Psalms), attributed to David. The diversity of traditions and sources associated with the evolution of the ‘Bible’ is central to any scholarly understanding of the evolution of ‘biblical’ narratives.