https://theologychina.weebly.com/fouad-tawfike-260323200422522305633554223601261592361235199201262252230563355426530619968204912749132113303403526440670.html
NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY IS NICENE CHRISTOLOGY: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE
新約基督論就是尼西亞基督論：一個正統的觀點
BY MINA FOUAD TAWFIKE
[email protected]
St Francis Magazine Vol 8, No 4 | August 2012
St Francis Magazine is a publication of Interserve and Arab Vision
Abstract/摘錄:
In his book The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History,
Michael Baigent states that the aim of the Council of Nicaea‘was to get
support for the idea that Jesus Christ was “of one being” with God the
Father, a claim that Arius and others disputed; for them, Jesus was not divine
’ (p. 83). Princeton’s Elaine Pagels dryly observes: “Those who opposed
this phrase pointed out that it occurs neither in the Scriptures nor in
Christian tradition” (Beyond Belief, p.173). In this paper I will argue
that such ideas, which argue that Christ was deified in the Council of
Nicaea, are incoherent and indefensible. They completely ignore three
centuries of written tradition (writings of the Fathers, the New Testament,
tombstones and songs of praise) and oral tradition (which is shown in the
liturgical practices), of both which completely support Nicaea.
Michael Baigent在他的書，耶穌報告：探索歷史中最大的騙局中宣稱尼西亞大會的目的
就是『要支持耶穌基督與父神是‘同一個存有（of one being）’，這是亞流並其他人士
所否定的；對於他們，耶穌不是神』（P.83）。普林斯頓的Elaine Pagel乾巴巴的觀察到
：『那些反對這個句子的人支持，這個關鍵既沒有出現在經文，也沒有出現在基督教傳統
中』（Beyond Belief, p.173）。我將在本文中爭辯基督在尼西亞大會中被神化的觀念，
是語無倫次並站不住腳的。他們完全無視於三個世紀的書寫傳統（教父、新約、墓碑並讚
美詩的文字）並口述傳統（表明在禮拜儀式中），兩者都完全支持尼西亞。
1 Jesus Christ: A Deified Man, or an Incarnate God?
耶穌基督：一個被神化的人，抑或是道成肉身的神？
Baigent, Pagels and others suggest that Christ's so-called Nicene deification
was due to the direct effect of the Greco-Roman civilization, especially on
the Jewish culture in Palestine. The evidences provided for this idea are
the characteristics or properties given to the Roman emperors, like “the god
”, “the lord”, and “the giver”. For instance, in an inscription dating
back to the third century BC we read, “Ptolemy the savior and god: （希臘文
）.” We may see various inscriptions and texts that give the same meaning
and the first question we pose is, could these ideas about divinity be
related to the godhead of Christ? Or, more specifically, was it this sort of
concept that led to the Nicene doctrine of the Word being “of one substance
” with the Father, as authors like Pagels and Baignet have suggested?
Beigent，Pagels和其他認為基督所謂的尼西亞定義乃是希臘—羅馬文化影響的直接結果
，特別是對於在巴勒斯坦的猶太文化。支持這個觀點的證據乃是羅馬皇帝所提供的特徵和
屬性，就像『神（the god）』、『主（the lord）』，『賜予者（the giver）』。例如
，在一份三世紀的碑文上，我們讀到，『托勒密是救主與神（Ptolemy the savior and
god）：（希臘文）』我們或許看見許多碑文和文字對於我們的第一個題目提出相同的意
義，那些關於基督神性的觀念是否與基督的神格有關呢？或，更為特別的是，這種觀念是
否導致尼西亞關於道與父『同質（of one substance）』的教義，就像Pagels和Baignet
那些作者所認為的嗎？
2 The Theology of Christ’s Incarnation
基督道成肉身的神學
Against Pagels and other like-minded thinkers, I argue that the theology of
God Incarnate goes far beyond the idea of an “incarnated god”. In biblical
thought, the key concept is related to salvation and redemption, i.e. its
main purpose is redeeming and saving humanity. This theological theme is
seen in the Old Testament and the Jewish rabbinic writings. It completely
and fundamentally differs from the idea of gods’ incarnations in mystery
cults and the Greco-Roman thought. This Biblical presentation, which implies
a soteriological dimension, contrasts with the idea of Christ being deified
in the sense that Greek and Roman humans could be deified; indeed a doctrine
of the “deification of Christ” could not serve the Christian doctrine of
salvation presented by the New Testament and as understood in the Orthodox
Tradition.
為了駁斥Pagels和其他觀點一致的思想家，我爭辯神成為肉身的神學遠遠超過一位『成為
肉身的神（an incarnated god）』的觀念。在聖經的思想中，關鍵的觀念乃是與救恩和
救贖有關的，例如：它的主要目的是救贖並拯救人類。我們能夠在舊約和猶大拉比作品中
看見這個神學的主題。它完全並從根本上與神（god）在神秘邪教和系列—羅馬思想中成
為肉身的觀念不同。這個聖經的說法，暗示一個救贖論的向度，與基督在希臘和羅馬人被
神化的意義上被神化的觀點是完全向悖逆的；的確，『基督被神化』的教育不能符合新約
展現的基督教救贖教義並正統傳統的認知。
Christianity is considered a compound philosophy in the shape of coordinated
systems of dogma and liturgical rituals that communicate the Word of God and
his death on the cross as recorded in the Holy Bible. The rituals are nothing
without these dogmatic bases. On the contrary, the bases of the Greco-roman
cults are totally the opposite. Their rituals do not express written texts
or even oral ones, or dogmas or any philosophical justifications. In fact
the Greco-Roman religions are related to rites more than faith. This is
totally different from Christianity, which identifies a communal,
ecclesiastical relationship with God in Christ, made known graciously by God
and appropriated by faith in this message. The dogmas are lived out and
experienced in the rituals of the Church, which in Orthodoxy are called
mysteries (Arabic,
asraar).
基督教被認為是一個根據聖經的記載，將哲學與教義系統和禮儀儀式結合以在十字架上交
通神的道和祂的死亡的複合物。意識不過就是根據那些教義。相反地，希臘—羅馬的異教
的基礎乃是完全與其向悖逆的。它們的意識並沒有表達某種的書寫文字或口述傳統，或教
義，或任何哲學的佐證。事實上，希臘—羅馬的宗教更聯繫於儀式，而不是信仰。這與基
督教完全不同，基督教講交通中並教會中的關係聯繫於在基督裡的神，在這個信息中使用
神的恩典並信仰讓人們認識並熟知。教義透過教會在儀式中的經驗被活化，在正統中被稱
作奧秘。（阿拉伯語，asraar）。
Incarnation was not an aim itself, but it was a means of fulfilling an aim.
This aim was humanity. It shows how incarnation expresses the deepest
relationship between God and man. Because God, who is Spirit, became flesh
for us, so his salvation did not remain purely theoretical—only to be
believed in the heart and assented to in the mind—but physical, to be
participated in. Because of this, Orthodoxy, like Jesus and St Paul, sees no
tension between a strong affirmation of the real, physical rituals of the
sacraments as salvific participations in the Trinitarian fellowship, while
also affirming that salvation is purely gift and grace. Greco-Roman cults
had no way of bringing together these aspects of the human experience—ritual
and faith—because they did not have a way of bringing together the human and
the divine in a man. Orthodox Christianity does.
道成肉身並不是自身的目標，而是達成目標的手段。這個手段就是人性。它表明道成肉身
如何展示神與人見最深邃的關係。因為，是靈的神為我們成為肉身，好叫祂的救恩不再僅
僅是理論的——只能在心裡被相信，並在心思中被肯定——而是實實在在的，能被人有份
。因為這個原因，正統派，像耶穌和保羅，並不認為強烈的人都一種真實並物質的聖禮禮
儀作為有份與三一的交通產生的救恩會有任何的張力，在同時也肯定救贖純粹是一種恩典
和恩賜。希臘—羅馬的異教則完全無法融合這些方面的人類經驗—儀式與信仰—因為它們
沒有辦法把神與人帶入一個人之中。正統基督教卻又辦法。
3 Patristic Testimony and Ante-Nicene Christology
教父的見證和尼西亞前的基督論
Ante-Nicene Christology was not any different from that of Nicaea, which is
what Pagels suggests. Both are the same and are based on the Biblical
Christology. Two important concepts of this Christology can be found in the
Bible: the concept of Logos (the Word Incarnate) and the concept of the Son
of God.
尼西亞前的基督論與尼西亞的基督論並沒有任何的不同，這是Pagels的看法。兩者完全相
同，也都根據與聖經基督論（Biblical Christology）。我們可以從聖經中找到這個基督
論的兩個重要觀念：道的觀念（道成肉身）並神的兒子的觀念。
Here are some relevant verses on the Logos, the Word Incarnate: Mt 5:37,
28:15, Mk 4:15, Lk4:32, 4:36, 5:15, Jn.1:1, 4:37, Ac 6:5, 11:22, Rom 6:6,
9:9, 1Cor1:18, 2:4, 2Cor 1:18, 10:10, Eph 4:29, 6:19, Co. 3:16, 4:6,
1Thes1:8, 2Thes 1:8, 3:1, 1Tim 1:15, 2Tim 2:9, Ti 2:5, Heb 2:2, 4:2, 1Jn
1:10, 2:7, and Rev 19:13.
此处是一些与道并道成为肉身相关的经文： Mt 5:37, 28:15, Mk 4:15, Lk4:32, 4:36,
5:15, Jn.1:1, 4:37, Ac 6:5, 11:22, Rom 6:6, 9:9, 1Cor1:18, 2:4, 2Cor 1:18,
10:10, Eph 4:29, 6:19, Co. 3:16, 4:6, 1Thes1:8, 2Thes 1:8, 3:1, 1Tim 1:15,
2Tim 2:9, Ti 2:5, Heb 2:2, 4:2, 1Jn 1:10, 2:7, and Rev 19:13。
Son of God: the cries of the unclean spirits, and those with evil spirits, “
You are the son of God,” (Mr 3:11, 5:7, Lk4:41) cannot be considered a pagan
influence, but this title reminds us of the texts of Qumran. For example,
codec 4Q246 which is known as Aramaic Apocalypse (dating back to 25 BC) is of
a Jewish origin, and much older than the NT. The text speaks about a man
entitled “son of God” or “son of the High” and “his rule will be an
eternal kingdom.” The text sees that person as a universal savior, so this
apocalypse affirms that the concept of “son of god” in the New Testament is
not derived from some pagan origins.
神的兒子：這是污靈並那些被邪靈附身之人的呼喊，『你是神的兒子，』（Mr 3:11,
5:7, Lk4:41）不能被認為是一種異教的影響，這乃是昆蘭文獻所留給我們的稱為。例如
，4Q246抄本被視為亞蘭文的啟示錄（日期可以追溯到25BC）是源自於雅威的傳統，也遠
比新約古老。本文論點一個人被稱作『神的兒子（son of God）』或『至高者的兒子（
son of the High）』，並『他的政權是永恆的國度（his rule will be an eternal
kingdom）』。本文看見一個人是宇宙的救助，所以這個啟示錄肯定了新約中『神的兒子
』並不具有某種異教的起源。
The Biblical theological vision closely identifies God and his Christ, the
Word Incarnate. This is the faith we find among the Apostolic Fathers and
the Ante-Nicene era.
聖經神學版本則緊密的把神等同於祂的基督，成為肉身的道。這是我們在使徒教父並尼西
亞前時期發現的信仰。
The Epistle of Barnabas (likely written after the destruction of the Temple
in 70 AD and before rebuilding the city by Hadrian – 132- 135 AD) refers to
Christ as the Son of God who will execute the final judgment: “he will
execute judgment…he revealed himself to be God’s Son.” (5.7-9) Barnabas
repeats this idea in several places: in 7.2 he says:
巴拿巴書（可能寫於聖殿被毀的70AD之後，並在Hadrian重建耶路撒冷之前