C. ON God

C. 上帝

II. Basic principles of Patristic teaching

II. 教父之授業的基本原則

1. The period prior to the Cappadocian Fathers

1. 直至卡帕多西亞教父之時

In this lesson we shall examine the historical framework in which the Dogma on God evolved during the Patristic era. I would like to remind you that the Patristic era inherited the Triadic formula “Faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” from the biblical era. And because this formula, or rather, this belief, had to be accepted by every Christian during baptism – it was not possible for one to become a Christian without passing through this confession of faith – it is quite understandable, how it was impossible for one to flatly reject the Holy Trinity in retrospect. Differences did arise with regard to the interpretation of this formula, however, as the formula itself had been accepted, any discussion on the topic of the Holy Trinity always maintained this restricting factor. In other words, whenever anyone placed any doubts on the Holy Trinity with their positions, the discussion would automatically be terminated. It was something that nobody could deny. In my previous lesson, I had outlined how the Church reached this point and why. The reasons are deep-seated. It was impossible for it to be any other way, from the moment that this special relationship between Christ and God and the role of the Holy Spirit had been accepted in the life of the Church. Now, because the Patristic era inherited this Triadic formula, it had to ensure two things: that it be interpreted it in such a way as to exclude interpretations that would lead to idolatry; that is, interpretations of this Triadic formula that would distance the meaning of God according to the Old Testament principles on the God of the Hebrews, as defined in the previous lesson. Therefore, in their interpretation, this had to be taken into account. The second thing that had to be done was to give this formula a content that would interpret this belief in such a way that would signify something to the cultural environment of the Patristic era. Take special note here, as it also applies today, i.e., that Theology and Dogmatics could not be an internal interest for only a few people; that is, we say something that we alone understand, and we are not concerned if these things seem like nonsense to anyone else beyond us. That was not the spirit of the Fathers. The spirit of the Fathers was assuredly to address their times, and to say things that bore a certain meaning to the people of their times. This required an interpretation, an attempt to interpret the Dogma, always within the philosophical categories of contemporary thought that were also familiar beyond Christendom. This pertained to the educated of those times. But it also contained a lifestyle such that would make the simpler folks embrace this faith, this idea of God, with a particular kind of personal acceptance. We must now examine this interpretation, first of all historically, then from our point of understanding of this Dogma. During the 2nd century, an attempt to interpret this Triadic Dogma was made – chiefly by the Apologetes – and it was the following: They preoccupied themselves with the Logos, the second Persona of the Holy Trinity, Whom they considered to be a projection of God outside His Person, for the purpose of creating the cosmos. In this way, there was a certain vagueness as to whether the Logos belonged to the sphere of the Uncreated God, or in the sphere of the cosmos. It was unclear, because when we say that God becomes Triadic, or, that He acquires the Logos in order to externalize Himself and create the cosmos, then we are associating the existence of the Logos with the existence of the cosmos. This was the problem, and it made itself very apparent during the 4th century, with Arianism. There, the problem had reached its limits, when Arios followed up this Theology of the Logos, to arrive at the conclusion that the Logos belonged to the sphere of the created world and not to the sphere of the uncreated God. Thus, in the 2nd century, this meaning and this interpretation brought about certain problems. One of the Apologetes who gave a better direction, but not an entirely satisfactory one, was Theophilos of Antioch during the 2nd century, who made the distinction between the inner logos and the expressed logos. With this definition, he tried to say (as Justin said, and as was customary during the 2nd century with the Apologetes) that while the Logos may be a projection of God outside Himself for the purpose of creating the cosmos, nevertheless it pre-existed within God, as an inner Logos. Just as we have an inner expression inside us before we speak, and we afterwards make this expression a verbal one, in the same way, God always had the Logos, but when He decided to create the cosmos, He made this inner Logos an external expression. It was His way of safeguarding Himself from the world. But this interpretation was not sufficient, as it again left the unanswered question of whether the inner logos can exist without having its verbal expression, as it would thus cease to be the Logos. This was one attempted interpretation. Another one was the kind we called mannerist; that is, to perceive the three Personae of the Holy Trinity as three roles, three manners in which God appears. Three roles that God played: the Father in the Old Testament, the Son in the New Testament, and after the New Testament – in our time – as the Holy Spirit. This theory was mainly developed by Savellius at the beginning of the 3rd century, and it became especially widespread in the West. He was of North African origin, but his activities were mainly in Rome and his teachings spread rapidly to the East as well. Savellianism naturally caused a serious disturbance, nevertheless, his views were rejected, namely, that God - the Holy Trinity – is equivalent to three roles, three facades that God put on in order to play a certain role in history, even if it was only for our sakes. The Church reacted so intensely to Savellianism, that any form of crypto-Savellianism gave rise to the most acute reactions, especially in the East. And it is characteristic, that the East always looked upon the West with suspicion in regard to Savellianism, during this period, the 4th century. The Westerners were always willing to embrace any form of Savellianism, while the Easterners insisted that we must definitely keep these three Personae separate. In the 2nd century with the Apologetes, the issue was set out clearly, as follows: The three Personae of the Holy Trinity are “Three in Number”, in the sense of a numeric three; we do not refer to a One, to a unit, which either broadens – as Savellius claimed – and becomes (or takes on) three forms, or which takes in any other external element within the One God; this number of three is located within the very meaning of God. In other words, God never existed alone. Thus, the Fathers took that important step in distinguishing between the meaning of One and the meaning of Only; this was done, because in ancient Hellenism and the ancient Greek religion, God was understood as a Unit. I am referring to the Hellenic philosophical religion. There was always the secular religion – the secular polytheism – but polytheism was of a lower standard. The ancient Hellenes’ true religion was in fact monotheistic ( and very monotheistic at that ); so much so, that God was the Absolute One. And as you know, Neo-Platonism likewise identifies God as the One. When the question of God, of the One God, is posed within a Christian framework, this question is raised: whether God is an Absolute Unit, and what being a “Unit” means. Philon in the 1st century interprets monotheism (albeit a Hebrew, in this matter he was intensely influenced by Greek thought); he interprets the One God as “indeed the only One”. His comment on that certain part of the Old Testament that speaks of the creation of woman is characteristic: “it is not good for man to be one only; let us make for him a helper in his likeness” (Genesis 2,18). Commenting on this verse, Philon says that man cannot be alone; he cannot be allowed to be on his own, because only God can be the Only One. That is, God as One is the Only One. It is obvious to you here, that this conflicts with – or rather, brings up – the huge problem of the Holy Trinity, to which the Apologetes responded immediately. They reacted vehemently to this Philonian perception and said that God is One, but not Only. From a philosophical and existential perspective, one can see that this opens up entirely new paths in ontology; later on, we shall see its significance. For the time being, take note that the Church decided at an early stage to accept a monotheism that did not associate the One God with the Only God. God is not loneliness, or solitude. He was never Alone. The number three was always representative of actual entities that associated with one another, and not a unit that took on various appearances or played various roles. Subsequently, this sensitivity as to the entity of each Persona posed a grave interpretational problem, at least in the sphere of philosophical interpretation and understanding. Therefore, whenever Christians spoke of these things, were they actually saying something, about what they meant, or were they just talking nonsense and understanding it only between themselves? The Fathers could not allow the matter to drift about, in this clouded and confused state. So they made certain attempts. The story behind this whole affair is very complicated ( These things are well known, from the History of Dogmatics. ) We shall refer to the main phases of these attempts, and will persevere on the outcome of these attempts of interpretation. First of all, on the matter of terminology: serious problems arose as to how they should interpret, how they should say, what words should they use, when stating that God is Triadic; that He is One and three Personae, three entities at the same time, and not three different facades. At the end of the 2nd century, Tertullian uses a Latin expression - within the framework of terminology – which later proved to be the determining expression : this expression was “UNA SUBSTANTIA, TRES PERSONAE”. With the term “substantia” he wished to define the One God, and the unity. With the term “personae”, he wanted to indicate Triplicity. This wording by Tertullian passed through to the East, to the Hellenic-speaking Christians, mainly through Hippolytus who was influenced by Tertullian and who – as you know – was born in Rome but was well versed in the Greek language and who translated this wording. Translated how? Here lies the immense problem. The word “sub-stantia” in Greek is translated as “hypo-stasis”. The “personae” have been translated as “individuals” (persons). Now, they faced other difficulties. To say that God is a hypostasis, means that we give an ontological content to the term hypostasis (besides, the word hypostasis always had an ontological content – it denoted the stable being; or, that which supported a being; every being is supported on a base – this base is its hypostasis. This term in Greek passed through many adventures throughout the centuries, but it basically bore the same meaning. When we say that a rainbow does not have a hypostasis, we are saying that although it is a phenomenon, it lacks hypostasis. On the other hand, a table does have a hypostasis, because it has an ontological basis.) Therefore, generally speaking, the term ‘hypostasis’ denotes that God is indeed One, one hypostasis, but then the personae immediately create a problem. Because the word persona in ancient Hellenism had exactly the same meaning as the word ‘façade’. The word persona in ancient Greece was derived originally from its anatomical aspect, to indicate the surface of the head which was the face. But very soon it became a technical term, to be used in theatres in a ritualistic manner, inasmuch as the actor would wear a mask, as was the custom for actors at the time. It is easy to understand the imminent danger when transferring this term in Greek, with reference to the Holy Trinity : Savellianism. How was it possible for this Tertullian term to be accepted in the East, without any detailed explanations? From the time of Origen onwards, the term ‘hypostasis’ had replaced the term ‘persona’ in the East, and therefore it was said that God had three hypostases. However, in translating the term hypostasis into Latin, it immediately created ‘tres substantiae’, therefore, the Latin-speaking people faced the problem where they had the expression ‘una substantia’; now, it would not be fitting, to say ‘UNA SUBSTANTIA, TRES SUBSTANTIAE’; it was not possible. There was in fact an immense problem caused by this confusing terminology. And the problem was not simply a linguistic one, it was a matter of what content these terms had, and how they could become accepted without basically leading anyone towards Savellianism; and for the East, this was a very important issue. Well, what was to be done? An entire story ensued.

在這節課中我們將看看，關於上帝的教義在教父時代期間之發展是有甚麼種的歷史性的結構。 我想提醒你， 這個教父的時代從聖經的時代裡繼承了「對天父 、兒子、和聖靈同時之信仰」的三位一體的公式。因為這個公式，也就是，這種信 仰，是必須由每個基督徒在洗禮之時所接受的 -- 一個人若是不承認這個信仰則是 不可能成為基督徒的 -- 於是， 無人可以斷然地拒絕三位一體的公式之事，這在回顧中即成為非常可以理解的。 然而，在關於這個公式的詮釋方面，大家確實是有不同的意見的，但是，當這個公式本身被接受之後，任何關於神聖的三位一體的這個主題的議論總是保持著這個限制的。換句話說，每當某人因他的立場之故對於神聖的三位一體之事有任何的懷疑之時，議論就會自動地停止。神聖的三位一體是沒有人能夠否認的東西。 在我之前的課堂裡，我已略述過教會是如何以及為甚麼會到達 這個境界的。其之原因是根深蒂固的。自從基督和上帝之間的那種特別的關係以及聖靈的特别的角色在教會的生命中被接受了的時刻開始，它就不可能會是任何其他的情形 。 現在，因為教父時代繼承了這個三位一體的公式，它必須確保著兩件事情：第一，我們必須如此解釋它， 以至能排除掉任何會導致於偶像崇拜的解釋；也就是， 任何會使上帝的意義偏離開在舊約聖經中的希伯來人的上帝之義 （這在之前的課堂中已定義出的）的關於三位一體之性的解釋。所以，在他們的詮釋中，這是必須被考慮到的。 第二件必須完成的事情乃是，他們得給 予這個公式如此性的一種内容，以便能使對於這個信仰的理解表示出某些對於教父時代的文化環境來說會 有意義的東西。你在這裡得特別注意一下， 因為這也適用於今日，也就是，神學和教義學不能夠是只 對於一少部份的人起興趣的；即，我們說些只有我們獨自能够理解的事， 並且我們不去管這些事情對於我們之外的其他的任何人來說是否聽來只像是胡說八道。那不是教父 們的精神。教父們的精神確實是 ，一定得與他們的時代對話的，一定得與他們的時代的人們說些對他們來說也是有意 義的事情。這需要我們嘗試著對教義作出解釋， 並且這總是得以對於基督教之外的人們來說也是熟悉的、當代思想的哲學之類別等等來行事。這是在有關於受過高等教育的人們的方面上。但是它也包含著如此的一種生活方式，以便會使更單純的人們也以個人私有性的方式來接受這個信仰，這個對於上帝的看法。我們現在必須看一下這種詮釋，首先在其之歷史性的方面上，然後再從我們對於這個教義的理解的觀點出發。 在第二世紀期間，有人 (主要是 Apologetes) 嘗試著對這個三位一體的教義做出詮釋； 而這是如以下的方式：他們主要是關心於 Logos ，那個神聖的三位一體中的第二者；他們認為這是上帝在他的人格之外為了創造宇宙而出現的形式。以此，Logos 到底是屬於未受造的上帝的範圍裡，還是屬於宇宙的範圍裡，這是很磨糊的。這之所以是不清楚的，則是因為，當我們說，上帝是三位一體的時候，或者，他成為 Logos 以便給予自己外形來創造宇宙，我們即是將 Logos 的存有與宇宙的存有相聯繫上。這是一個問題，並且它在第四世纪之時因阿裡烏斯教之故已變得非常明顯的了。在那裡，這個問題已到達了極點：Arios 接受了這個 Logos 的神學，以便結論，Logos 是屬於受造物的世界的範圍裡，而不是屬於未受造的上帝的範圍裡。因此，在第二世紀之時，這個意義和這個詮釋則帶來了某些問題。 給了這個問題一個更好的答案 （雖然這不是一個完全令人滿意的答案）的 Apologetes 其中的一位，則是第二世紀期間的 Theophilos of Antioch。他在內在的 Logos 和外在的 Logos 之間作出了區別。以這個定義，他可說（就如 Justin 說過了的一般，也就如 Apologetes 在第二世紀期間習慣說的），雖然 Logos 可能是上帝為了創造宇宙而在自己之外所出現的型式，然而它在事前已在上帝之中存在著；這就是內 在的 Logos。就如我們在講話之前在我們的內心之中已有想說之事， 而我們之後才將這事表達出，同樣的，上帝向來是有 Logos 的，但是當他決定創造宇宙的時候，他才將這個內 在的 Logos 對外表現出。這是他將自我從世界捍開的方式。但是這種詮釋仍是 不足夠的，因為它未回答，內在的 Logos 若是未被表達出是否仍然能夠存在 --因 為它將不再是 Logos。 這是第一種嘗試過的詮釋。另外一種則是我們所謂的 Mannerist 的形式；也就是，將神聖的三位一體的三個人格當成是三種不同的角色：上帝所自我出現的三種不同的方式。上帝所扮演的三個角色：在舊約聖經中的天父，在新約聖經中的兒子，在新約聖經之後 （ 在我們的時代裡） 的聖靈。這個理論主要是由 Savellius 在第三世紀的開始之時所發展出的，並且它在西方世界裡變得非常流行。Savellius 是北非人，但是他的活動範圍主要是在羅馬，而且他的教義也迅速地向東方擴展。Savellianism 自然地導致於一些嚴重的騷動，然而，他的看法是被拒絕的，也就是，上帝 -- 神聖的三位一體 -- 等於是三個角色，上帝為了在歷史上扮演某個角色而戴上的三個面子，即使它只是因我們的緣故。 教會如此激烈地反對 Savellianism，甚至任何種類的隱秘性的 Savellianism 皆引起最敏銳的反應，尤其是在東方。所以，東方在這段時期， 在第四世紀期間，在關於 Savellianism 的那方面上總是懷疑著西方的。西方人總是願意接受任何種類的 Savellianism，然而東方人則堅持著我們必須肯定地將這三個人格分開。在第二世紀之時，Apologetes 將在此的問題很清楚地如以下的方式表明出：神聖的三位一體的三個人格「是在數字上來說是三的」，也就是數位意義中的三；我們不是指著一者，一個單位，而它或者寬展至 -- 如 Savellius 所說的 -- 以及成為（或呈現出）三種形式，或者吸收到任何其他在外的要素於身為唯一之者的上帝之中；這個三的數字是位於上帝本身的意思之中的。換句話說，上帝决不是獨自存在的。所以，教父們在「一個」和「唯一」的意思之間作出了特别重要的辨別；這是必定得作的，因為在古代的希臘思想和宗教中，神是被理解為一個單位的。我是在講希臘哲學性的宗教。在那裡總是有現世性 (secular) 的宗教 -- 現世性的多神教 - 但是多神教是一個更低的標準。真正的古代希臘的宗教事實上是一神論的（而且是非常一神論的）；它真是這樣，甚至，神是絕對的唯一之者的。而你也已知道，新柏拉圖派的哲學同樣地把上帝視為是唯一之者的。當關於上帝的問題，關於一個上帝的問題，是在基督教的結構以內被提出的時候，另外出現的一個問題就是：是否上帝是一個絕對的單位，以及身為一個單位是甚麼意思。 在第一世紀的時候，Philon 想解釋一神論（雖然他是希伯來人，但是在這件事情中，他是很被希臘人的思想所影響到的）；他把「一個的神」解釋為「惟一的一個」。他對舊約聖經中的創造女人的故事所作出的評論是很特點的：「那人獨居不好，我要為他造一個配偶幫助他。」（創世記， 2， 18） 在評論這篇散文之時， Philon 說，人是不能單獨生存的；他是不能被允許只靠自己的，因為只有上帝才能夠是惟一的一個。即，作為一者的上帝是惟一的一者。 你在這裡很明顯地可以看出，這與神聖的三位一體的大問題相衝突 -- 或者 說，它帶出這個大問題。 於是 Apologetes 立即作出回答。他們強烈地對這種 Philonian 的理解作出反應，並且說，上帝是一者的，但是不是唯一之者。從一個哲學和存在性的角度來看，這在存在論中將會開發出完全新的路徑；我們將在以後看到其之意義。暫時，注意一下教會在此初期之時已决定接受一種不把身為一者的上帝與身為唯一之者的上帝相聯繫上的一神論。上帝不是寂寞或孤獨的。他向來不是單獨的。三的這個數字總是表示著互相有聯繫的實際的實體，而不是表示著一個具有多種 外觀，或扮演著多種角色的一個單位。隨後，這個對於每個人格的實體性的敏感性導致於一個嚴重的詮釋的問題，至少在哲學性的詮釋和理解的範圍中來說。所以， 每當基督徒談到這些事情的時侯，到底他們是在說 些關於他們所意味著之事的東西呢，還是他們只是在胡說八道些只 有在他們自己之間才可理解的東西？教父們不能夠允許這件事情浮動在這個混亂不清的情况中。 因此，他們試著將事情弄清楚。關於整個這些事的故事是很複雜的。（ 在教義學的歷史中，這些事已是很著名的。）我們將要提到這些教父們的企圖的主要階段等等，並且將 堅持於這些詮釋的企圖的結果中。 首先，在關於術語學的方面上，嚴重的問題則是，當他們聲明上帝是三位一體的之時，他們應該如何去解釋，他們應該如何去說，他們應該使用什麼種的術語來說：上帝是一者的而又是三 個人格，他同時是三個實體，而又不是三個不同的面 貌。在第二世紀末， Tertullian 使用一個拉丁文的表達方式 （這是在術語學的結構以內），而這在以後 被證明是決定性的表達方式：那就是「UNA SUBSTANTIA，TRES PERSONAE」。他想以「substantia」這字來定義是為一者的上帝以及他的統一性。 以「personae」，他想指示出上帝的三體性。由 Tertullian 所作出的這句措詞通到東方的、說希臘語的基督徒們，主要是透過 Hippolytus。 他被 Tertullian 影響到，並且 -- 你已知道 -- 他是在羅馬出生的，但是他精通於希臘語，而且翻譯了這句措詞。但是，他是如何翻譯的？在這裡則是一個龐大的問題。 「 sub-stantia 」是以「 hypo-stasis 」被翻譯於希臘文中的。「personae」被翻譯為「個人」（individual, person）。現在，它們面對著其他的困難。如果說上帝是一個 hypostasis，這意味著我們得帶給 hypostasis 這字一個存在性的內容。（再說， hypostasis 這字總是有一個存在性的內容的 -- 它表示著一個固定的存有者；或者，那個支持著一個存有者的東西；每一個存有者都是支持在一個基礎上的 -- 這個基礎就是它的 hypostasis。在希臘文中，這個字在整個世紀中經歷過很多的經險，但是它在基本上是有著同樣的意思的。當我們說彩虹沒有 hypostasis 的時候，我們是在說，雖然它是一種現象，但是它缺少著 hypostasis。而在另一方面上，一張桌子是有著 hypostasis 的，因為它是有存在性的基礎的。） 所以，一般而言， ' hypostasis ' 這字表示著上帝確實是一者，一個 hypostasis，不過，他的人格們（ personae） 立即造成了問題。因為在古代希臘文中，person 確切地有與 facade （面相）同樣的意思。在古代的希臘文中，person 這字主要是從其人體意思的方面中得來 的，表示著頭的表面，也就是臉。 但是它很快地成為了一個專業術語，以一種禮儀的方式在戲劇中被使用著，比如，一個演員會穿戴著一個假面罩，就如當時的演員們的習俗。我們很容易地理解到，在關於神聖 的三位一體的方面上，當這字被傳於希臘文中的時候，它即將面臨 著什麼種的危險：Savellianism。這個 Tertullian 的說法，是如何能没有任何詳盡的解釋而在東方世界裡被接受的？ 在東方的世界中，從 Origen 的時代開始， ' hypostasis ' 取代了 person ，因此，人們說，上帝有三個 hypostases。 然而，當人們再把 hypostasis 翻譯成拉丁語的時候，他們立即制造出 ' tres substantiae '的說法，因此，講拉丁語的人們面對著另一個表達性的問題 ，因為他們之前已有 una substantia ' ；現在，若說 ' UNA SUBSTANTIA， TRES SUBSTANTIAE ' ，那則不會是合適的；這是不可能的。這個混亂的術語事實上造成了一個龐大的問題。並且，這個問題不是只是語言學上的，它表示著，這些術語到底有著什麼内容，他們如何能夠被人接受而又不在基本上引導任何人至 Savellianism；對東方世界來說，這是一個很重要的問題。我們應該怎麼樣？一連串的故事於是接踵而來。