鲍默《东方教会：亚述基督教图史》第一章：导论（中英文对照版）

2026年10月12日作者: ephremyuan 42 分钟阅读

阿甲按：本连载以克里斯托夫·鲍默（Christoph Baumer）2016年英文新版为底本，采用人工智能辅助中译，以中英文对照形式供研读参考。译文及原文提取仍有待校订，人名、地名、专业术语和个别断句未必准确，欢迎读者与专家指正。

本章导读

本章概述东方教会的历史版图、教会身份与灵修传统，并讨论“聂斯托利派”这一称谓的由来及其局限，为全书的历史叙述建立基本框架。

凡例

翻译自：Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, new edition, translated by Miranda G. Henry (London and New York: I.B.Tauris, 2016)，第一章，原书第 1–8 页。

本连载保留英文原文、图版与原书页码，采用双语对照形式，便于参阅和引用。原作页码与 PDF 文件的物理页序不同，本文标示原书页码。

中文初稿由 DeepSeek 辅助生成，部分缺译和遗漏段落使用 GPT-6-luna 补译；本次整理不等同于完成学术校订。原文中的个别断句、图注拼接和脚注提取仍需对照原书核查。

人名、地名、书名与叙利亚语专业术语的译法仅供参考，相关条目可参阅《高尔吉亚叙利亚遗产百科辞典》。

引用建议：克里斯托夫·鲍默，《东方教会：亚述基督教图史》第一章“导论”，袁永甲整理（人工智能辅助中译，待校订），教父原文中译计划，2026年10月12日，本文网址，并注明原书页码及访问日期。

第一章：导论

Introduction I

导论 I

‘The Word of God became flesh, so that in him humanity might be transformed into divinity and the nature of humanity renewed.’1

“上帝的道成了肉身，为要使人性在他里面被转化为神性，并使人的本性得以更新。”1

What is this ‘Nestorian’ Church of the East, whose namesake Nestorius never belonged to it, which produced an outstanding mysticism of great poetic power and which, almost a millennium ago, extended over a greater part of the globe than did the Roman Church?3

这个所谓的“聂斯托利派” (Nestorian) 东方教会 (Church of the East) 究竟是什么？它虽以聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 为名，聂斯托利本人却从未属于它；它孕育出一种具有巨大诗性力量的卓越神秘主义，并且在大约一千年前，其分布范围曾覆盖地球比罗马教会 (Roman Church) 更广大的区域？3

Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (382–451)

聂斯脱利 (Nestorius)，君士坦丁堡牧首 (Patriarch of Constantinople)（382–451）

‘In the transformation of the spirit, the following occurs: the body mystically becomes subtle and takes the place of the soul, which takes the place of the intellect, which takes the place of the spirit, which goes to God, but further, the spirit truly becomes God, and the body, soul, and intellect, these serve it.’2

“在灵的转化中，会发生以下情形：身体神秘地变得精微，并取代魂的位置；魂取代理智的位置；理智取代灵的位置；灵则走向上帝；但更进一步，灵真正成为上帝，而身体、魂和理智，这些都服侍它。”2

A first glance at the history of the Assyrian Church of the East

东方亚述教会 (Assyrian Church of the East) 历史初探

Today the Church, one of the oldest Christian communions of the world, numbers about 400,000 faithful, who struggle for survival in Iraq, Iran, north-eastern Syria, Western Europe and the USA. That it has been nearly forgotten in the West can be attributed not only to its small size but also to a Eurocentric bias in the historical record. Even the first Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (265–339), in his ecclesiastical history, devoted scarcely a word to the Asian Christianity of Mesopotamia that had begun to develop rapidly in the second century. The reasons behind the lack of attention to the Church of the East grew out of the geopolitical situation of the time. In those days the River Euphrates, with its source in the north-east of modern Turkey and its mouth at Basra on the Persian Gulf, separated the Roman Empire from the Iranian Empire. Aside from isolated Roman advances towards the east and Iranian

今天，该教会——世界上最古老的基督教团体之一——约有40万信众，他们在伊拉克 (Iraq)、伊朗 (Iran)、叙利亚东北部 (north-eastern Syria)、西欧 (Western Europe) 和美国 (USA) 为生存而挣扎。它在西方几乎被遗忘，这不仅可归因于其规模之小，也归因于历史记载中的欧洲中心主义偏见。甚至第一位基督教历史学家凯撒利亚的优西比乌 (Eusebius of Caesarea)（265–339），在其《教会史》(Ecclesiastical History) 中，对二世纪已开始迅速发展的美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia) 亚洲基督教也几乎只字未提。对东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 缺乏关注的原因，源于当时的地缘政治形势。当时，幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 发源于现代土耳其 (modern Turkey) 东北部，在波斯湾 (Persian Gulf) 的巴士拉 (Basra) 入海，将罗马帝国 (Roman Empire) 与伊朗帝国 (Iranian Empire) 分隔开来。除了罗马人向东方发动的零星推进以及伊朗

Rabban Yussuf Busnaya,

拉班·优素福·布斯纳亚 (Rabban Yussuf Busnaya)，

Nestorian mystic (869–979)

聂斯脱利派 (Nestorian) 神秘主义者（869–979）

—— Page 1 —— —— 第 1 页 ——

The fortress of Zenobia, today called Halabija, on the western bank of the Euphrates, which formed the border between Rome and Iran. It was built by the queen of Palmyra, Zenobia (ruled 266–272), and converted into a border fortress by the Roman Empire in 273. The castle, which was reinforced by Emperor Justinian I (ruled 527–565), was destroyed by the Sassanian Chosrau II (ruled 590–628) in 610. With the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia, beginning in 637, the river and the fortress lost all strategic significance. advances towards the west, the Euphrates stood as a stable national boundary, whose political impermeability was breached only by merchant caravans. These travelled along the ancient Silk Road, which linked China with Rome and the control of which created great wealth for Iran. The Silk Road crossed the Euphrates at two locations significant for the Church of the East: to the west of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the Iranian capital and see of the catholicos-patriarch; and to the west of Edessa, whose king, Abgar V Ukama (reigned 9–46), according to legend, corresponded with Jesus and where the first historically documented church stood.4 The border at the Euphrates held fast for more than six centuries, rendered ineffective only in 636 with the victory of the Arab military commander

芝诺比娅 (Zenobia) 要塞，今称哈拉比耶 (Halabija)，位于幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 西岸，该河曾是罗马 (Rome) 与伊朗 (Iran) 之间的边界。它由帕尔米拉 (Palmyra) 女王芝诺比娅 (Zenobia)（在位 266–272 年）建造，并于 273 年被罗马帝国 (Roman Empire) 改建为边境要塞。这座城堡曾由皇帝查士丁尼一世 (Justinian I)（在位 527–565 年）加固，后于 610 年被萨珊王朝的霍斯劳二世 (Chosrau II)（在位 590–628 年）摧毁。随着 637 年开始的阿拉伯征服美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia)，这条河与这座要塞失去了所有战略意义。在向西推进的过程中，幼发拉底河仍是一条稳定的国家边界，其政治上的不可渗透性仅被商队打破。这些商队沿着古老的丝绸之路 (Silk Road) 旅行，这条路连接中国 (China) 与罗马 (Rome)，对它的控制为伊朗 (Iran) 创造了巨大财富。丝绸之路在对于东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 具有重要意义的两个地点跨越幼发拉底河：一处位于塞琉西亚-泰西封 (Seleucia-Ctesiphon) 以西，该城是伊朗首都，也是大公宗主教 (catholicos-patriarch) 的教座；另一处位于埃德萨 (Edessa) 以西，据传说，该城国王阿布加尔五世·乌卡马 (Abgar V Ukama)（在位 9–46 年）曾与耶稣 (Jesus) 通信，而历史上第一座有文献记载的教堂就矗立于此。4 幼发拉底河边界坚守了六个多世纪，直到 636 年阿拉伯军事指挥官的胜利才使其失效。

Khalid ibn al-Walid over the Byzantines.

哈立德·本·瓦利德 (Khalid ibn al-Walid) 战胜拜占庭人 (Byzantines)。

The impermeability of the Euphrates border had far-reaching consequences for the develop- ment of the Church of the East. In terms of organization, the Church of the East was forced in 424, on account of the great political enmity between Rome and Iran, to declare its juridical independence from the Western Church. With regard to theology, the deposition of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431, Emperor Zeno’s Christological formula from 482 called the Henoticon, and the condemnation of the so-called Three Chapters in 553 led the Church of the East into the isolation of heresy. For its part, it formulated its own creed in 486,5 emphasizing the absolute intactness of the divine as well as the human nature of Jesus. It reaffirmed the creed at

幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 边界的不可渗透性对东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 的发展产生了深远影响。在组织方面，由于罗马 (Rome) 与伊朗 (Iran) 之间巨大的政治敌意，东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 于424年被迫宣布其在法律上脱离西方教会 (Western Church) 而独立。在神学方面，431年以弗所公会议 (Council of Ephesus) 上聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 被罢黜，482年芝诺皇帝 (Emperor Zeno) 的、被称为《合一通谕》(Henoticon) 的基督论公式，以及553年对所谓的“三章案” (Three Chapters) 的谴责，使东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 陷入异端孤立的境地。东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 则于486,5年制定了自己的信经，强调耶稣 (Jesus) 的神性与人性均绝对完整无损。它重申了该信经，在

原书图版

—— Page 2 —— —— 第 2 页 ——

the bishops’ synod of 612.6 Only in 1994 and 1998 did the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the East lift the anathemas (condemnations) they had declared against one another. As far as official dialogue with the Miaphysite Churches is concerned, it has foundered since 1998 on account of a precondition of the Coptic Church of Egypt, which demands as a prior concession that the Church of the East condemn Nestorius, an action the Church of the East finds unacceptable. history of debate and division. And since religion permeated all dimensions of life, its history is also the history of politics, literature, scholarship, art and social relations.

612.6 年的主教会议。只有在 1994 年和 1998 年，罗马天主教会 (Roman Catholic Church) 和东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 才解除了他们彼此宣布的绝罚（谴责）。就与一性论教会 (Miaphysite Churches) 的正式对话而言，自 1998 年以来，由于埃及科普特教会 (Coptic Church of Egypt) 提出的一项先决条件，对话已陷入停滞。该条件要求东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 作为先决让步谴责聂斯托利 (Nestorius)，而东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 认为这一要求不可接受。辩论与分裂的历史。由于宗教渗透到生活的所有层面，其历史也是政治、文学、学术、艺术和社会关系的历史。

As a further consequence of its role as a political and ecclesiastical border, the Euphrates also became a linguistic border. Following the ecclesiastical split between West and East Syrians in the fifth century, West Syriac and East Syriac dialects emerged from Syriac, as later the Serto script in the West and the Nestorian script in the East evolved from the originally shared Estrangela script. And so there developed along the Euphrates a fourfold border: political, dogmatic, ecclesiastical and linguistic.

作为其政治与教会边界角色的进一步结果，幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 也成了一条语言边界。随着五世纪西叙利亚人 (West Syrians) 与东叙利亚人 (East Syrians) 之间的教会分裂，西叙利亚语 (West Syriac) 和东叙利亚语 (East Syriac) 方言从叙利亚语 (Syriac) 中产生，正如后来西部的塞托体 (Serto) 和东部的聂斯脱利体 (Nestorian) 从最初共用的埃斯特兰格拉体 (Estrangela) 演变而来。于是，沿着幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 发展出了四重边界：政治的、教义的、教会的和语言的。

The struggle of that period over the ‘true’ creed and the nature(s) of Christ released such centrifugal forces that the Christian unity worked out at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 and strengthened at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 split into three autonomous Churches with their own creeds and hierarchies: first, the Roman imperial Church; second, the Miaphysite family of Churches, to which belonged the Egyptian Copts (united at the time with the Nubians), the Ethiopians, the Syrian Orthodox (also called Jacobites) and the Armenians; and, third, the Church of the East. The name ‘Church of the East’, found in the early sources, places it in relation to the other Churches. It lay to the east of the Roman Empire and its five patriarchates, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

那个时期围绕“真正”信条和基督的本性（或诸本性）的斗争释放出如此强的离心力，以致在325年第一次尼西亚大公会议 (First Ecumenical Council of Nicea) 上达成、并在381年第二次君士坦丁堡大公会议 (Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople) 上得到加强的基督教统一，分裂为三个自主教会，各有自己的信条和教阶制度：第一，罗马帝国教会 (Roman imperial Church)；第二，一性论教会家族 (Miaphysite family of Churches)，其中包括埃及科普特人 (Egyptian Copts)（当时与努比亚人 (Nubians) 联合）、埃塞俄比亚人 (Ethiopians)、叙利亚正统教会 (Syrian Orthodox)（亦称雅各派 (Jacobites)）和亚美尼亚人 (Armenians)；第三，东方教会 (Church of the East)。早期文献中出现的“东方教会” (Church of the East) 这一名称，将其置于与其他教会的关系之中。它位于罗马帝国 (Roman Empire) 及其五个宗主教区 (five patriarchates)——罗马 (Rome)、君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople)、亚历山大里亚 (Alexandria)、安条克 (Antioch) 和耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem)——的东边。

Since the Church of the East was denied access to the West, it consequently oriented itself towards the East. While Bishop David of Basra initiated contact with the Indian Thomas Christians of Kerala around 295 / 300,8 Nestorian monastic missionaries advanced into the Arabian Peninsula, as well as towards the peoples of the Central Asian steppes. After the loss of its Arab dioceses to Islam and a first setback in China, the Church made renewed efforts towards the east beginning in the eleventh century, and reached the Mongol peoples and the Middle Kingdom.

由于东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 被拒于西方之外，它因而转向东方。巴士拉主教大卫 (David of Basra) 约在 295 / 300,8 年与喀拉拉的印度圣多马基督徒 (Indian Thomas Christians of Kerala) 建立了联系，而与此同时，聂斯托利派 (Nestorian) 修道传教士则推进至阿拉伯半岛 (Arabian Peninsula)，以及中亚草原 (Central Asian steppes) 诸民族。在将其阿拉伯教区 (Arab dioceses) 丧失给伊斯兰教 (Islam) 并在中国 (China) 首次受挫之后，教会自十一世纪起重新向东方努力，并抵达蒙古诸民族 (Mongol peoples) 与中央王国 (Middle Kingdom)。

At that time, the authority of the patriarch of the Church of the East extended from the Euphrates to the Yellow Sea. Furthermore, due to the Arab conquest of the southern and eastern Mediterranean region in the seventh century, the Church of the East was able to cross the Euphrates to the west into the former Byzantine region.9 According to a church history from the 1330s or 1340s and based on older documents, besides his own patriarchal metropolis, the following 27 archdioceses stood under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. These were, in hierarchical order: Gondeshapur (Iran), 2; Nisibis (south-eastern Turkey), 3; Prat de Maishan (near Basra), 4; Mosul, 5; Arbela, 6; Kirkuk in Bet Garmai (all in Iraq), 7; Halwan (including

当时，东方教会 (Church of the East) 宗主教的权柄从幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 一直延伸到黄海 (Yellow Sea)。此外，由于七世纪阿拉伯人征服了地中海南部和东部地区，东方教会 (Church of the East) 得以越过幼发拉底河 (Euphrates) 向西进入前拜占庭地区。9 根据一份出自1330年代或1340年代的教会史，并依据更早的文献，除了他自己的宗主教驻节地之外，以下27个大主教区隶属于塞琉西亚-泰西封 (Seleucia-Ctesiphon) 宗主教的管辖。按等级顺序，这些是：贡德沙普尔 (Gondeshapur)（伊朗），2；尼西比斯 (Nisibis)（土耳其东南部），3；普拉特德迈尚 (Prat de Maishan)（巴士拉 (Basra) 附近），4；摩苏尔 (Mosul)，5；埃尔比勒 (Arbela)，6；贝特加尔迈 (Bet Garmai) 的基尔库克 (Kirkuk)（均在伊拉克），7；哈勒万 (Halwan)（包括

The structure of the Roman imperial Church, laid out at Nicea, was, in fact, unstable, since there had never been a unified Christianity. Disagreements about the content of belief, ritual practice and membership in the Christian communion had already begun at the Apostolic Council (Council of Jerusalem) in 48, at which Paul, in the face of opposition from Jewish Christians, supported the freedom of Gentile Christians from observation of the Mosaic law of circumcision, after the followers of James, the Lord’s brother, had stopped sharing a common table with uncircumcised Gentile Christians.7 The history of Christianity is, from its infancy, a

事实上，在尼西亚 (Nicea) 所确立的罗马帝国教会结构并不稳定，因为从未存在过一个统一的基督教。关于信仰内容、礼仪实践以及基督教团契成员资格的分歧，早在公元48年的使徒会议（耶路撒冷会议）(Apostolic Council, Council of Jerusalem) 上就已开始；在会上，面对犹太基督徒的反对，保罗 (Paul) 支持外邦基督徒免于遵守摩西律法中有关割礼的规定；此事发生在主的兄弟雅各 (James, the Lord’s brother) 的追随者停止与未受割礼的外邦基督徒共餐之后。7 基督教的历史从其初期起，就是一部

—— Page 3 —— —— 第 3 页 ——

Hamadan, Iran), 8; Jerusalem, 9; Edessa (today’s Urfa in southern Turkey), 10; Rew Ardashir in Fars (Iran), 11; Merv in Khorassan (Turkmenistan), 12; Herat (Afghanistan), 13; Fatraba (Qatar), 14; China (possibly today’s Beijing), 15; India, 16; Barda (in today’s Azerbaijan), 17; Damascus, 18; Ray (near Teheran), 19; Tabaristan (northern Iran), 20; Dailam (on the Caspian Sea), 21; Samarqand, 22; Turkistan (Southern Kazakhstan?), 23; Halih (location unsure), 24; Sigistan (Seistan in south- western Afghanistan), 25; Khan Baliq (today’s Beijing) or, much more probable, Jan Baliq (Beshbaliq north-east of Turfan in Xinjiang) and Alfaliq (Almalik in north-western Xinjiang, China), 26; Tangut (the provinces of Gansu und Ningxia and the Ordos region in China), 27; Kashgar and Nawakat (in western Xinjiang and in Kyrgyzstan), 28.10 There were additionally the long-established metropolis of Atropatene (Iranian Azerbaijan)11 and possibly, towards the end of the eighth century, a metropolitan see of Tibet.12

哈马丹（Hamadan，伊朗），8；耶路撒冷（Jerusalem），9；埃德萨（Edessa，今土耳其南部的乌尔法），10；法尔斯（Fars）的雷夫阿尔达希尔（Rew Ardashir，伊朗），11；呼罗珊（Khorassan）的梅尔夫（Merv，土库曼斯坦），12；赫拉特（Herat，阿富汗），13；法特拉巴（Fatraba，卡塔尔），14；中国（China，可能是今北京），15；印度（India），16；巴尔达（Barda，位于今阿塞拜疆），17；大马士革（Damascus），18；雷伊（Ray，德黑兰附近），19；塔巴里斯坦（Tabaristan，伊朗北部），20；代拉姆（Dailam，里海沿岸），21；撒马尔罕（Samarqand），22；突厥斯坦（Turkistan，南哈萨克斯坦？），23；哈利赫（Halih，地点不明），24；锡吉斯坦（Sigistan，阿富汗西南部的锡斯坦），25；汗八里（Khan Baliq，今北京），或者更可能的是占八里（Jan Baliq，新疆吐鲁番东北的别失八里）和阿尔法里格（Alfaliq，中国新疆西北部的阿力麻里），26；唐古特（Tangut，中国甘肃和宁夏两省以及鄂尔多斯地区），27；喀什噶尔（Kashgar）和纳瓦卡特（Nawakat，位于新疆西部和吉尔吉斯斯坦），28.10 此外，还有历史悠久的阿特罗帕特尼（Atropatene，伊朗阿塞拜疆）都主教区11，并且可能在八世纪末，还有一个吐蕃（Tibet）都主教区。12

Mosaic of a camel caravan in Bosra, ancient Bostra, circa fifth/sixth centuries CE. This trading city, which was important until the Arab conquest in 634, was connected with both the Silk Road and the routes leading to Arabia. It was here that the young Mohammed was said to have been recognized as a future prophet by the Nestorian monk Bahira .1

布斯拉 (Bosra)，即古博斯特拉 (Bostra)，的骆驼商队镶嵌画，约公元5/6世纪。这座贸易城市在公元634年阿拉伯征服之前一直具有重要地位，它既连接着丝绸之路，也连接着通往阿拉伯半岛 (Arabia) 的路线。据说，正是在这里，年轻的穆罕默德 (Mohammed) 被聂斯托利派修士巴希拉 (Bahira) 认定为未来的先知.1

Even if these metropolitan sees were not always occupied and this 14th century list represents an accumulation over several centuries, it demonstrates the immense geographical expanse of the Church of the East, which greatly exceeded that of the Catholic Church. The 27 metropolitan sees oversaw some 200 dioceses, which contained approximately seven to eight million faithful. Thus around the tenth to fourteenth centuries between about 12 per cent and 16 per cent of the estimated fifty to sixty million Christians were Nestorians.13 Until the start of the fourteenth century, the Church of the East was the most successful missionary Church in the world, and

即便这些都主教教座并非始终有人担任，且这份14世纪的清单反映的是数百年间的累积，它仍表明了东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 广阔的地理范围，远远超过了天主教会 (Catholic Church)。这27个都主教教座管辖着约200个教区，其中约有七八百万信徒。因此，在约10至14世纪期间，估计五千万至六千万基督徒中约有12%至16%属于聂斯托利派 (Nestorians)。13 直到14世纪初，东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 是世界上最为成功的传教教会，并且

原书图版

—— Page 4 —— —— 第 4 页 ——

it began to be surpassed only in the sixteenth century through the conversions, often forced, brought about by the Catholic colonial powers. This achievement is all the more remarkable since the Church of the East, in contrast to all other world religions, was never a state Church. It was often oppressed by state authorities, or at least discriminated against in favour of the state religion, sometimes benevolently tolerated, and seldom promoted. Such an accomplishment could only be made thanks to an inner fire, an inner missionary power, supported by an outstandingly well-organized and efficiently led hierarchy – to the extent that it was not hampered by internal conflicts. the East. In this case, five Il-Khans, as the Mongol rulers of Iran were known from their conquest in 1258, gave cause for justified hopes. For various reasons, however, these all fell through. Nevertheless, the mothers of two Il-Khans had them baptized with the name Nicholas by the Nestorian patriarch, but, when they came to power, both Ahmad (ruled 1282–1284) and Oljaitu (ruled 1304–1316) converted to Islam for political reasons and persecuted Christians.17 Two other Il-Khans, Geikhatu (ruled 1291–1295) and Baidu (ruled 1295) – who, according to Bar Hebraeus,18 was a secret Christian – were weak rulers and were overthrown.19 Finally, Il-Khan Ghazan (ruled 1295–1304), who converted from Buddhism to Islam, offered the Western European rulers Pope Boniface VIII, King Edward I of England and James II of Aragon his conversion to Christianity in the case of a military alliance formed against the arch-enemy Egypt.20

它直到十六世纪才因天主教殖民列强 (Catholic colonial powers) 带来的、往往是被迫的皈依而开始被超越。这一成就尤为非凡，因为东方教会 (Church of the East) 与所有其他世界宗教不同，从未成为国家教会 (state Church)。它常常受到国家当局的压迫，或至少因偏袒国教 (state religion) 而受到歧视，有时被善意地容忍，很少得到扶植。这样的成就只能归功于一种内在火焰 (inner fire)、一种内在传教力量 (inner missionary power)，并得到组织极为完善、领导高效的教阶体制 (hierarchy) 的支持——只要它未受内部冲突的妨碍。东方。在这种情况下，五位伊儿汗 (Il-Khans)——自1258年征服以来，伊朗的蒙古统治者便以此名号为人所知——使人们有理由抱有希望。然而，由于各种原因，这些希望全都落空了。尽管如此，两位伊儿汗的母亲曾让聂斯托利派宗主教 (Nestorian patriarch) 为他们施洗，取名尼古拉 (Nicholas)，但当他们掌权后，艾哈迈德 (Ahmad，1282–1284年在位) 和完者都 (Oljaitu，1304–1316年在位) 均出于政治原因皈依伊斯兰教，并迫害基督徒。17 另外两位伊儿汗，海合都 (Geikhatu，1291–1295年在位) 和拜都 (Baidu，1295年在位)——据巴尔·希伯来乌斯 (Bar Hebraeus) 记载，18 后者是一位秘密基督徒——是软弱的统治者，并被推翻。19 最后，伊儿汗合赞 (Il-Khan Ghazan，1295–1304年在位) 从佛教皈依伊斯兰教，他向西欧统治者——教宗博尼法斯八世 (Pope Boniface VIII)、英格兰国王爱德华一世 (King Edward I of England) 和阿拉贡的詹姆斯二世 (James II of Aragon)——提出，若结成针对宿敌埃及 (Egypt) 的军事联盟，他愿意皈依基督教。20

Twice, both times shortly before a dynastic change, the Church stood poised to take the decisive step and become the state religion in Mesopotamia: first, after 628, when powerful Nestorian families participated in the revolt against Shah Chosrau II.14 At that time presumably about half of the Mesopotamian populace was Christian. However, instead of a renewal of Christian leadership, there was anarchy. First, Chosrau’s rebellious son and successor, Shiroi, apparently a secret Christian,15 had the Nestorian leader Shamta crucified before the door of the Bet Narkos church in Seleucia-Ctesiphon,16 and then, after he had had all of his own brothers murdered, he died without heirs after a reign of just nine months. There followed, in an atmosphere of chaos, eight kings and two queens upon the throne within only four years, so the weakened nation was unable to mount sufficient defence against the Arabs, who began attacking in 633. Thus the Nestorian Christians traded Zoroastrian sovereignty for Islamic, and, with Palestine and Syria, Christianity lost its own birthplace – just as, more than half a millennium later, would happen to Buddhism in northern India.

两次，均是在王朝更替前不久，教会都蓄势待发，准备迈出决定性的一步，成为美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia) 的国教：第一次是在628年之后，当时势力强大的聂斯托利派 (Nestorian) 家族参与了反对沙阿霍斯劳二世 (Shah Chosrau II)14 的起义。当时，美索不达米亚居民中大概有一半是基督徒。然而，基督教领导层并未得到更新，取而代之的是无政府状态。首先，霍斯劳反叛的儿子和继位者希罗伊 (Shiroi)，显然是一名秘密基督徒15，下令将聂斯托利派领袖沙姆塔 (Shamta) 钉死在塞琉西亚-泰西封 (Seleucia-Ctesiphon) 的贝特纳尔科斯教堂 (Bet Narkos church) 门前16；随后，在命人杀害自己所有的兄弟之后，他在位仅九个月便死去，没有继承人。接着，在混乱的氛围中，短短四年内先后有八位国王和两位女王登上王位，因此这个被削弱的国家无法组织起足够的防御来抵御633年开始进攻的阿拉伯人 (Arabs)。于是，聂斯托利派基督徒以琐罗亚斯德教 (Zoroastrian) 的统治换来了伊斯兰统治；随着巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 和叙利亚 (Syria) 的丧失，基督教失去了自己的诞生地——正如五百多年后，佛教在印度北部 (northern India) 所遭遇的那样。

But the age of the Crusades had passed and Acre, the last Christian bastion of Palestine, had fallen in 1291. In 1287 the kings Philip the Fair of France and Edward I of England had given the cold shoulder to Rabban Bar Sauma (†1294), the Nestorian special envoy of Il-Khan Arghun.21 Even though the mission brought no results, it testifies to the international character of the Church of the East at that time that the Öngüt Rabban Bar Sauma, who had lived in a monastic cell south of today’s Beijing, came to Baghdad and later travelled to Italy and France, becoming a kind of Asian Marco Polo in reverse.

然而，十字军东征 (Crusades) 的时代已经过去，巴勒斯坦 (Palestine) 最后的基督教堡垒阿卡 (Acre) 也已于1291年陷落。1287年，法国国王美男子腓力 (Philip the Fair) 和英格兰国王爱德华一世 (Edward I) 曾冷遇伊儿汗阿鲁浑 (Il-Khan Arghun) 的聂斯托利派特使拉班·扫马 (Rabban Bar Sauma, †1294)。21 尽管这次使命未取得任何成果，但汪古部 (Öngüt) 的拉班·扫马 (Rabban Bar Sauma) 曾居于今北京 (Beijing) 以南的一间隐修小室，后来抵达巴格达 (Baghdad)，并远行至意大利 (Italy) 和法国 (France)，堪称某种反向的亚洲马可·波罗 (Marco Polo)；这一经历见证了当时东方教会 (Church of the East) 的国际性。

In light of the lack of European interest in an anti-Islamic alliance, Ghazan remained Muslim. Thus the window of opportunity for a possible re-Christianization of the region that is today Iran and Iraq closed for ever. Instead of a revitalization of Mesopotamian and Iranian Christianity, the devastation of the fanatical Muslim Tamerlane (ruled 1370–1405) greatly intensified the destruction wrought by Ghazan and Oljaitu. After the loss of their churches and

鉴于欧洲对反伊斯兰联盟缺乏兴趣，合赞 (Ghazan) 仍保持穆斯林身份。因此，今天伊朗和伊拉克地区可能重新基督教化的机会之窗永远关闭了。美索不达米亚和伊朗基督教非但没有复兴，狂热的穆斯林帖木儿 (Tamerlane)（1370–1405年在位）的破坏反而大大加剧了合赞 (Ghazan) 和完者都 (Oljaitu) 所造成的毁坏。在失去他们的教堂和

Six centuries later the prospect again arose in Iran that a ruling dynasty might join the Church of

六个世纪后，在伊朗 (Iran) 再次出现了这样的前景：一个统治王朝可能加入……的教会

—— Page 5 —— —— 第 5 页 ——

monasteries, the surviving Nestorians sought refuge in the remote mountains of Kurdistan (in northern Iraq) and Hakkari (in south-eastern Turkey), for only in the shadows of rugged mountains can a persecuted spirit live on in freedom. And so the one-time ‘Christian sea’ of Mesopotamia and Iran was transformed into a small, inaccessible island, surrounded by the wide ocean of Islam. lost them in the darkness of the early Middle Ages. Finally, the revival of Aristotle and the starting points of the work of Thomas Aquinas would have remained unthinkable without this Nestorian–Arab bridge.

修道院，幸存的聂斯托利派信徒 (Nestorians) 在库尔德斯坦 (Kurdistan)（伊拉克 (Iraq) 北部）和哈卡里 (Hakkari)（土耳其 (Turkey) 东南部）的偏远群山中寻求庇护，因为只有在崎岖群山的阴影中，受迫害的精神才能自由地存续下去。于是，美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia) 和伊朗 (Iran) 曾经的“基督教海洋”变成了一座狭小、难以进入的孤岛，被广阔的伊斯兰教 (Islam) 海洋所包围。中世纪早期 (early Middle Ages) 的黑暗使他们湮没无闻。最后，若无这座聂斯托利派—阿拉伯桥梁 (Nestorian–Arab bridge)，亚里士多德 (Aristotle) 的复兴以及托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas) 工作的起点将始终不可想象。

The theological reflection of the Church of the East also followed its own creative paths, based on the works of the Church Fathers Diodore of Tarsus (†392) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (352–428). The two outstanding characteristics of Nestorian anthropology are logical consequences of its Dyophysite Christology, which emphasizes the human nature of Christ and his free will to fulfil the duties imposed on him by the Father. A peculiarity of this view is the consequent rejection of original sin and the conviction that the human person can violate divine law and turn away from God only out of free will. For Theodore, the root of sin lay not in the nature of the human person as such but rather in allowing human weakness to run its own course.24 This view is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of original sin, as conceptualized by Augustine (354–430).25 This was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and also influenced the doctrine of predestination of the Reformers, particularly that of Calvin.

东方教会 (Church of the East) 的神学反思也沿着自身富有创造性的路径发展，其基础是教父塔尔苏斯的狄奥多雷 (Diodore of Tarsus, †392) 和摩普苏埃斯蒂亚的狄奥多雷 (Theodore of Mopsuestia, 352–428) 的著作。聂斯托利派的人论有两个突出特征，是其二性论基督论的逻辑结果；该基督论强调基督的人性，以及他履行父所赋予职责的自由意志。这一观点的一个独特之处在于，它随之拒斥原罪，并确信人只能出于自由意志违背上帝的律法、背离上帝。对狄奥多雷而言，罪的根源并不在于人本身的本性，而在于任由人的软弱自行发展。24 这一观点与奥古斯丁 (Augustine, 354–430) 所构想的原罪教义截然对立。25 这一教义被罗马天主教会接受，直到特伦托会议 (Council of Trent, 1545–1563)，它也影响了宗教改革家的预定论，尤其是加尔文 (Calvin) 的预定论。

Spiritual aspects

灵性方面

The Church of the East was great not only externally but also internally – above all in its spiritual, theological and intellectual dimensions. While the spirituality of the Church of the East produced such outstanding masters of Christian mysticism as Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), Isaac of Nineveh (†late seventh century), John of Dalyatha (†before 786) and Yussuf Busnaya (869–979), who influenced the Islamic mysticism of Al-Hallaj (858–922), Nestorian translators and scholars built the bridge linking the knowledge of classical antiquity with the European Middle Ages.

东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 不仅在外在方面伟大，在内在方面也伟大——尤其是在其灵性、神学与智识维度上。东方教会的灵性孕育了诸如叙利亚的以法莲 (Ephrem the Syrian, 306–373)、尼尼微的以撒 (Isaac of Nineveh, †七世纪晚期)、达利亚塔的约翰 (John of Dalyatha, †786年前) 以及优素福·布斯纳亚 (Yussuf Busnaya, 869–979) 等杰出的基督教神秘主义大师，后者影响了哈拉智 (Al-Hallaj, 858–922) 的伊斯兰神秘主义；而聂斯托利派 (Nestorian) 译者和学者则架起了连接古典时代知识与欧洲中世纪的桥梁。

During the ‘Age of the Translators’ (sixth to ninth centuries), Nestorian and Jacobite physicians and scholars translated the Greek classics of philosophy, mathematics, geometry, medicine and astrology from Greek into Syriac and then into Arabic. The greatness of their reputation can be seen in the fact that Caliph al-Ma’mun (ruled 813–833) appointed the Nestorian philosopher and physician Yuhanna Ibn Massawah (†857) as head of the state library and university that had been founded in 832 and was called the ‘House of Knowledge’,22 and paid in gold for the translations of the most renowned Nestorian scholar, Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (808–873).23 Thanks to these translation projects, the Arab-Iranian culture preserved the treasures of Greek knowledge and, through the University of Toledo, offered them to Europe, which had

在“翻译时代”（六至九世纪），聂斯托利派 (Nestorian) 和雅各派 (Jacobite) 的医师与学者将希腊哲学、数学、几何学、医学和占星术的古典著作从希腊语翻译成叙利亚语，然后再翻译成阿拉伯语。他们声誉之隆可见于以下事实：哈里发马蒙 (al-Ma’mun，在位813–833年) 任命聂斯托利派哲学家和医师尤哈纳·伊本·马萨瓦 (Yuhanna Ibn Massawah, †857) 为832年创建、被称为“知识宫” (House of Knowledge) 的国家图书馆与大学的负责人，22 并为最著名的聂斯托利派学者侯奈因·伊本·伊斯哈格 (Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, 808–873) 的译作支付黄金。23 得益于这些翻译工程，阿拉伯-伊朗文化保存了希腊知识的宝藏，并通过托莱多大学 (University of Toledo) 将其提供给欧洲，而欧洲曾

The second distinctive feature of Nestorian anthropology derives from the first. Since human nature is essentially good and not, as Augustine believed, fundamentally bad,26 the resurrection of Christ opened the door for the human person to the recovery of Adam’s prelapsarian nature – that is, to a return to the goodness of his own nature. Human nature is fundamentally good but can, nevertheless, be corrupted by its weaknesses and led into error.27 Continuing this life-affirming world-view was the theological vision of Isaac of Nineveh, who was convinced that God would bring all living things, including the greatest sinners and even demons, to perfection and bliss.28

聂斯脱利派 (Nestorian) 人论的第二个显著特征源自第一个特征。既然人性本质上是善的，而非如奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 所认为的那样从根本上就是恶的，26 那么基督 (Christ) 的复活就为人打开了恢复亚当 (Adam) 堕落前本性之门——也就是回归其自身本性之善。人性从根本上说是善的，然而仍可能因其弱点而败坏，并被引入歧途。27 延续这一肯定生命的世界观的，是尼尼微的以撒 (Isaac of Nineveh) 的神学愿景；他确信上帝将使一切有生命之物，包括最大的罪人甚至魔鬼，达到完善与至福。28

—— Page 6 —— —— 第 6 页 ——

the Nestorians and their patriarch Mar Shimun XIX – a genocide proportionally similar to the massacre of the Armenians.30 The tide of refugees to the West swelled further in response to additional massacres in Iraq in 1933 and the first Gulf War, so that today about half the Nestorians live in exile in the West. Finally, in 1968, the so- called Ancient Church of the East split from the mother Church, creating a schism that persists to this day.

聂斯托利派信徒 (Nestorians) 及其牧首马尔·西满十九世 (Mar Shimun XIX)——一场在比例上与亚美尼亚人 (Armenians) 大屠杀相似的种族灭绝。30 为回应1933年伊拉克 (Iraq) 发生的更多屠杀以及第一次海湾战争 (Gulf War)，涌向西方 (West) 的难民潮进一步高涨，以致如今约半数聂斯托利派信徒流亡于西方。最后，1968年，所谓的东方古老教会 (Ancient Church of the East) 从母教会分裂出去，造成了延续至今的分裂。

Patriarch Mar Dinkha (in office 1976–2015) has combined successful efforts to preserve the theological and cultural heritage with a policy of openness and a constructive dialogue with Rome, which marked its first great accomplish- ment in 1994 with the ‘Common Christological Declaration’. The patriarch outlined this spirit of theological openness in a conversation with the author, stating: ‘The oral apostolic succession, which began with the appearance of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, is continually updated. We must keep space in our minds and hearts open for revelation.’ 31 This commitment to the continuation of inter-religious and inter- cultural dialogue, which began in Mesopotamia with the Zoroastrians and Muslims, spread to China with Buddhism and Taoism and to India with Hinduism, and is now carried out with the Roman Catholic and Syrian-Orthodox Churches, gives reason for optimism that the Church of the East, drawing on its abundant treasury of wisdom and tradition, can give renewed momentum to spiritual life.

宗主教马尔·丁哈 (Mar Dinkha)（在任 1976–2015 年）将保存神学与文化遗产的卓有成效努力，与开放政策及同罗马 (Rome) 的建设性对话结合起来；这一对话在 1994 年以《共同基督论宣言》(Common Christological Declaration) 标志着其第一项重大成就。这位宗主教在与作者的一次谈话中概述了这种神学开放精神，他说：“口传的使徒统绪始于五旬节 (Pentecost) 圣灵 (Holy Spirit) 的显现，并不断得到更新。我们必须在思想和心灵中为启示留出空间。” 31 这种致力于延续跨宗教与跨文化对话的承诺，始于美索不达米亚 (Mesopotamia)，与琐罗亚斯德教徒 (Zoroastrians) 和穆斯林 (Muslims) 展开，随后随佛教 (Buddhism) 和道教 (Taoism) 传到中国 (China)，随印度教 (Hinduism) 传到印度 (India)，如今则与罗马天主教 (Roman Catholic) 和叙利亚-东正教会 (Syrian-Orthodox Churches) 进行；这使人有理由乐观地认为，东方教会 (Church of the East) 凭借其丰富的智慧与传统的宝库，能够为灵性生活注入新的动力。

In the eighth/ninth centuries this optimistic anthropology of the Church of the East forged a surprising link with Taoism. The Nestorian hymn to the Trinity, written in Chinese in the late eighth century, praises Christ as follows: ‘King of Eternal Life, lamb of mercy and joy; who suffered greatly, yet never quit to toil; who takes away the collected sins of all beings; so that our true nature well saved, no more peace to spoil’.29 The religious dialogue that Nestorian monks engaged in with Buddhist and Taoist brothers belongs among the most fascinating aspects of the history of the Church of the East.

在八、九世纪，东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 这种乐观的人论与道教 (Taoism) 结成了令人惊讶的联系。景教 (Nestorian) 的三一 (Trinity) 赞美诗用中文写成于八世纪晚期，其中这样赞美基督 (Christ)：“永生之王，慈悲与喜乐之羔羊；他受尽苦难，却从未停止劳苦；他除去众生所积之罪；使我们的真性得救，不再破坏和平。”29 景教僧侣与佛教 (Buddhist) 和道教 (Taoist) 弟兄们所进行的宗教对话，属于东方教会历史中最引人入胜的方面之一。

Christian wedding in Baghdad, 1990s. The adorning of the bridal pair with money is said to bring happiness and prosperity – a tradition that may also be seen in other cultures of Asia, such as, for instance, those of China and India.

20世纪90年代，巴格达 (Baghdad) 的一场基督教婚礼。据说，用钱币装饰新婚夫妇会带来幸福与富足——这一传统也可见于亚洲 (Asia) 的其他文化，例如中国 (China) 和印度 (India) 的文化。

Even in its mountain refuge, the Church of the East was not spared the misfortunes of fate. In 1553 part of its clergy entered into union with Rome, forming the Chaldean Catholic Church, with its see at Baghdad, which today has about 650,000 members. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century the Kurds carried out numerous massacres of Nestorians, culminating in 1915–1918 with the murder of about half of all

即便身处山间避难所，东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 也未能幸免于命运的厄运。1553年，其部分神职人员与罗马 (Rome) 联合，组成了迦勒底天主教会 (Chaldean Catholic Church)，其教座设在巴格达 (Baghdad)，该教会今天约有65万信众。自十九世纪中叶起，库尔德人 (Kurds) 对聂斯托利派 (Nestorians) 发动了多次屠杀，并在1915–1918年达到顶峰，屠杀了全体中的约半数。

The term ‘Nestorian’

“聂斯托利派” (Nestorian) 一词

The name ‘Nestorian’ is in nearly every church tainted with the odium of heresy, since Nestorius, his followers and his works were declared anathema in 431 at the Council of Ephesus. For this reason, Catholic missionaries and priests destroyed the books

“聂斯脱利派” (Nestorian) 这一名称在几乎每一个教会中都沾染着异端的恶名，因为聂斯脱利 (Nestorius)、其追随者及其著作已于431年在以弗所公会议 (Council of Ephesus) 上被宣布为当受绝罚 (anathema)。因此，天主教传教士和神父销毁了这些书籍。

原书图版

—— Page 7 —— —— 第 7 页 ——

of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them. For instance, in 1599 the Catholic Inquisition forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives, documents and manuscripts of the great Nestorian Church of Kerala,32 and, around 1830, Catholic missionaries had thousands of ancient manuscripts and books from the library of Mosul thrown into the River Tigris.33

. No explanation. Let’s craft: “聂斯托利派” (Nestorians) 无论在哪里被发现。例如，1599年，天主教宗教裁判所 (Catholic Inquisition) 强行对喀拉拉 (Kerala) 伟大的聂斯托利派教会所收藏的档案、文件和手稿举行火刑宣判 (auto-da-fé)，32 而大约在1830年，天主教传教士将摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍扔进了底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33 Need check “wherever they found them” = “无论他们在哪里发现他们” but antecedent? “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” This is fragment from previous sentence. Translate: “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’” maybe. The source starts “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” It’s a continuation. We need translate as is. “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” Could be “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’” but “of” indicates “对‘聂斯托利派’的…”? The fragment: “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” Maybe previous sentence ended “persecution of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” So here “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” We need translate fragment. Could render “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的迫害，无论他们在何处发现他们。” But source only “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” We shouldn’t add “迫害”. But to make natural Chinese, maybe “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But no main verb. Since it’s a chunk, maybe translate literally: “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)。” But “of” missing. Hmm. Maybe the source_text is a chunk from a larger text. We translate chunk. It starts “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” In Chinese, “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在何处发现他们。” But no. Could be “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But “of” maybe part of “persecution of”. Since only chunk, we can translate as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s incomplete. Maybe better: “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But “of” not translated. Hmm. Let’s read: “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” It might be a sentence fragment from previous: “They conducted a campaign of persecution of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” The chunk starts with “of the ‘Nestorians’…” So translation should be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But if we only have this, maybe “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” The “of” is part of “of the Nestorians” = “对聂斯托利派”. In Chinese, “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……” But no noun. Could translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” That omits “of”. But maybe acceptable? We need accurate. Could write “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在何处发现他们。” But ellipsis not in source. Hmm. Maybe the source text is a chunk from a translation memory, and “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” is a continuation of previous sentence. The translator should translate the chunk as is. In Chinese, we can render “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But “of” is not represented. Alternatively, “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But adding ellipsis. Maybe we can phrase: “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都对其……” No. Let’s consider if “of” belongs to “auto-da-fé of the collected archives…”? No, first line separate. The source_text: of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them. For instance, in 1599 the Catholic Inquisition forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives, documents and manuscripts of the great Nestorian Church of Kerala,32 and, around 1830, Catholic missionaries had thousands of ancient manuscripts and books from the library of Mosul thrown into the River Tigris.33 So first line is fragment. We can translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)。” But “of” missing. Maybe “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在何处发现他们。” But that’s awkward. Since it’s a fragment, maybe we can translate “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But no. Maybe the intended full sentence from previous: “They were relentless in their persecution of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” The chunk starts “of the ‘Nestorians’…” So Chinese: “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的迫害，无论他们在何处发现他们。” But “迫害” not in source. However, “of” implies something before. If we translate only chunk, we can’t add. But maybe we can render “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在何处发现他们。” But ellipsis is not in source. Hmm. Maybe we can translate “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But that’s not accurate. The phrase “of the ‘Nestorians’” is a prepositional phrase. In Chinese, it could be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的” but incomplete. Since the output should be natural, maybe we can integrate with next sentence? The next sentence starts “For instance…” So first line is a fragment. We can translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But then next sentence “例如…” That doesn’t connect. Maybe the first line is actually the end of previous sentence, and the next sentence is new. So we can translate first line as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is not translated. Could be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s also fragment. Maybe we can translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都对其加以……” No. Let’s focus on main text. The first line might be a continuation of a sentence about “persecution”. Since we don’t have previous, we can translate as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s not good. Maybe we can translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and leave it. But the instruction says translate source text. We should not add. Maybe we can translate “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But “of” is not there. Alternatively, “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” Hmm. Maybe the source text is from a book, and the first line is actually “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” It might be a caption? No. Let’s think of Chinese academic translation. They might translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is part of “persecution of”. If we translate the chunk as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That is a fragment. But maybe acceptable for a chunk. However, the output should be only translated text. I can include “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But ellipsis is not in source. Better to avoid adding ellipsis. Could write “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s ungrammatical. Maybe we can rephrase: “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都对其加以……” No. Maybe the first line is actually “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” It could be translated as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is not translated. However, in Chinese, “of” can be omitted if it’s part of a larger phrase. Since it’s a fragment, maybe we can translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But that’s not accurate. Let’s look at the next sentence: “For instance, in 1599 the Catholic Inquisition forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives, documents and manuscripts of the great Nestorian Church of Kerala,32 and, around 1830, Catholic missionaries had thousands of ancient manuscripts and books from the library of Mosul thrown into the River Tigris.33” This is a complete sentence. The first line is a fragment. Maybe the source_text is a chunk from a larger text, and the first line is the end of a previous sentence. The translator should translate it as a fragment. In Chinese, we can translate “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is not there. Alternatively, “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s also fragment. I think it’s okay to translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” because the “of” is part of the previous sentence’s structure. But we need to include “of” somehow. Maybe “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s not natural. Maybe we can translate the whole chunk as: “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都对其……” No. Let’s consider that the first line might be a continuation of a sentence like “They were determined to eradicate every trace of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” The chunk starts “of the ‘Nestorians’…” So the Chinese translation of the chunk could be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But if we don’t have the noun, it’s incomplete. However, the task is to translate the chunk, not to complete it. So we can translate it as a fragment. In Chinese, a fragment can be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But the ellipsis is not in source. We can use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s weird. Maybe we can translate “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and that’s it. But the “of” is not translated. However, “of” can be translated as “的” but it needs a noun. Since there is no noun, we can’t. So maybe the best is to translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But that’s not accurate. Wait, maybe the source text is actually a single sentence: “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them. For instance, …” No, the period after “them” ends the first sentence. So it’s a fragment. The translator might be expected to translate it as a fragment. In Chinese, we can write “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is not there. Could it be that “of” is part of “of the ‘Nestorians’”? In English, “of the ‘Nestorians’” is a prepositional phrase. In Chinese, it could be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的”. But that’s incomplete. Maybe we can translate as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s not good. Maybe the first line is actually “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” and it’s a continuation of a sentence that ended with “persecution”. So the full sentence might be “They conducted a relentless persecution of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” The chunk starts with “of the ‘Nestorians’…” So the Chinese translation of the chunk should be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But since we don’t have “persecution”, we can’t translate it. However, the chunk itself is “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” We can translate it as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But that’s not accurate. Alternatively, we can translate it as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s also not accurate. Maybe we can translate it as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都对其加以……” No. Let’s think of the function of “of” in the chunk. It’s a prepositional phrase. In Chinese, it could be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的”. But without a head noun, it’s incomplete. In translation, we might just translate the words: “of” = “的”, “the ‘Nestorians’” = “‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)”, “wherever they found them” = “无论他们在哪里发现他们”. So “的‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 无论他们在哪里发现他们” is not natural. So we need to rearrange. Maybe “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” is the best natural fragment. But it omits “of”. However, “of” is not a word that can stand alone in Chinese. So maybe it’s acceptable to omit it in a fragment. But the instruction says accurately reflects original nuance. Hmm. Maybe the source text is from a translation memory where the first line is actually the end of a sentence, and the translator should translate it as part of the previous sentence. But since we only have this chunk, we can translate it as a fragment. I think it’s okay to translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is not there. Alternatively, we can translate as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s also a fragment. I’ll go with “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” but that adds “都” which is not in source. Actually “wherever they found them” = “无论他们在哪里发现他们”. So “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)” is a complete clause. The “of” is left. Maybe we can write “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s not good. Maybe we can translate the first line as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But the next sentence starts “For instance”. So the first line is a fragment. I think it’s acceptable to translate it as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” But the “of” is not translated. However, the source text is a fragment, so the translation can be a fragment. In Chinese, a fragment can be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s also a fragment. I’ll use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But the ellipsis is not in source. I can use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s ungrammatical. So maybe better to translate as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and accept the omission of “of”. But the instruction says accurately reflects original nuance. The nuance of “of” is that it’s part of a larger phrase. Since we don’t have the larger phrase, we can’t translate it. So maybe we can translate it as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” and that’s the best we can do. But the output should be natural. Hmm. Let’s look at the whole source_text. It might be a single paragraph. The first line is “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” It might be a continuation of a sentence from the previous chunk. In translation, we might need to translate it as a fragment. I think it’s okay to translate as “无论他们在何处发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” but that’s not accurate. Alternatively, we can translate as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But that’s also not accurate. Maybe the first line is actually “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” and it’s a title? No. Let’s consider that the source text might be from a book about Syriac studies. The first line might be the end of a sentence like “The Catholic missionaries were intolerant of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” So the chunk starts with “of the ‘Nestorians’…” So the Chinese translation of the chunk could be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But if we translate the whole chunk as a sentence, it would be “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” which is not accurate. I think the best is to translate it as a fragment: “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But the ellipsis is not in source. I can use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s not good. Maybe we can translate “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But the next sentence is separate. I think it’s acceptable to translate the first line as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” because the “of” is not translatable without context. But the instruction says translate the source text. So I should translate all words. “of” = “的”. So “的‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 无论他们在哪里发现他们” is not natural. So I need to rearrange. In Chinese, “of the ‘Nestorians’” can be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的”. So “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s a fragment. I’ll go with that. But the ellipsis is not in source. I can use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s not good. Maybe I can use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” and that’s it. But the output should be only translated text. I think it’s okay to have ellipsis to indicate the fragment. But the instruction says no explanation. Ellipsis is part of translation? Hmm. Maybe I can translate the first line as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But the next sentence starts with “For instance”. So the first line is a fragment. I think it’s better to translate it as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But the “of” is not there. However, the source text is a fragment, so the translation can be a fragment. I’ll use “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” but that adds “都”. Actually “wherever they found them” = “无论他们在哪里发现他们”. So “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)” is a complete clause. The “of” is left. So I can write “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s the most accurate. I’ll use that. Now the main sentence. Let’s translate carefully. “For instance, in 1599 the Catholic Inquisition forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives, documents and manuscripts of the great Nestorian Church of Kerala,32 and, around 1830, Catholic missionaries had thousands of ancient manuscripts and books from the library of Mosul thrown into the River Tigris.33” Chinese: 例如，1599年，天主教宗教裁判所 (Catholic Inquisition) 强行对喀拉拉 (Kerala) 伟大的聂斯托利派教会所收藏的档案、文件和手稿举行火刑宣判 (auto-da-fé)，32 而大约在1830年，天主教传教士将摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍扔进了底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33 Check: “forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives…” The phrase “forced an auto-da-fé of” is odd. Maybe “forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives” means they burned them in an auto-da-fé. In Chinese, “强行对…举行火刑宣判” is okay. But “auto-da-fé” is a ceremony, not the burning itself. However, in common usage, it can mean the burning. Maybe “强行将…付之一炬” is more natural. But we need to include original? The instruction says for technical terms, provide Chinese translation + original in parentheses. auto-da-fé is a term. So “火刑宣判 (auto-da-fé)” is good. But “forced an auto-da-fé of the collected archives” = “强行对…举行火刑宣判” is a bit literal. Maybe “强行将…作为火刑宣判的对象” no. I think “强行对…举行火刑宣判” is acceptable. “the great Nestorian Church of Kerala” → “喀拉拉 (Kerala) 伟大的聂斯托利派教会” or “伟大的喀拉拉聂斯托利派教会”? The original: “the great Nestorian Church of Kerala”. “great” modifies Church. So “伟大的喀拉拉聂斯托利派教会” or “喀拉拉伟大的聂斯托利派教会”. In Chinese, “喀拉拉伟大的聂斯托利派教会” is okay. But “great” might be “庞大的” or “重要的”. I’ll use “伟大的”. But “great” in this context might mean “large” or “important”. “伟大的” is fine. “collected archives, documents and manuscripts” → “所收藏的档案、文件和手稿”. “collected” = “收集的” or “收藏的”. “archives” = “档案”. “documents” = “文件”. “manuscripts” = “手稿”. Good. “and, around 1830, Catholic missionaries had thousands of ancient manuscripts and books from the library of Mosul thrown into the River Tigris.” → “而大约在1830年，天主教传教士将摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍扔进了底格里斯河 (Tigris)。” The original uses “had … thrown into” = “让人把…扔进”. So “天主教传教士让人将…扔进” or “天主教传教士将…扔进”. The causative “had” implies they ordered it. So “天主教传教士将…扔进” is okay, but “让人将…扔进” is more accurate. I’ll use “让人将…扔进”. But “Catholic missionaries had thousands of ancient manuscripts and books from the library of Mosul thrown into the River Tigris.” = “天主教传教士让人把摩苏尔图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍扔进了底格里斯河。” That’s good. “thousands of ancient manuscripts and books” → “数千部古代手稿和书籍”. “books” = “书籍”. Good. “from the library of Mosul” → “来自摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的”. So “摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍”. Good. “River Tigris” → “底格里斯河 (Tigris)”. Good. Footnote markers: 32 and 33. In original, “Kerala,32” and “Tigris.33”. In Chinese, I can place them after the relevant word. For “Kerala,32”, I can write “喀拉拉 (Kerala)32” or “喀拉拉 (Kerala)，32”. The original has comma before 32. In Chinese, I can write “喀拉拉 (Kerala)，32” but that’s weird. Usually footnote markers are superscript after punctuation. I’ll write “喀拉拉 (Kerala)32” and “底格里斯河 (Tigris)33”. But the original has period before 33: “Tigris.33”. In Chinese, I can write “底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33” or “底格里斯河 (Tigris)33”. I’ll keep the marker attached to the word: “底格里斯河 (Tigris)33”. But then the period? The original has period before 33. In Chinese, the period should be at the end of the sentence. So “底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33” is better. But the marker 33 is after the period in original? Actually “Tigris.33” means period then 33. So in Chinese, “底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33” is accurate. For “Kerala,32”, it’s comma then 32. So “喀拉拉 (Kerala)，32” is accurate. But in Chinese, comma is full-width. So “喀拉拉 (Kerala)，32” is okay. But then the sentence continues “and, around 1830…” So “喀拉拉 (Kerala)，32 而大约在1830年…” That’s fine. Let’s check the first line: “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” I’ll translate as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” But the ellipsis is not in source. I can use “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s not good. Maybe I can translate as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But the next sentence starts with “For instance”. So the first line is a fragment. I think it’s better to translate it as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But the “of” is not there. However, the source text is a fragment, so the translation can be a fragment. I’ll use “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” but that adds “都”. Actually “wherever they found them” = “无论他们在哪里发现他们”. So “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)” is a complete clause. The “of” is left. So I can write “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s the most accurate. I’ll use that. But wait, the source text has “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” The word “them” refers to the Nestorians. So “wherever they found them” = “无论他们在哪里发现他们”. In Chinese, “他们” could be ambiguous. But it’s fine. Let’s assemble the translation: 对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。例如，1599年，天主教宗教裁判所 (Catholic Inquisition) 强行对喀拉拉 (Kerala) 伟大的聂斯托利派教会所收藏的档案、文件和手稿举行火刑宣判 (auto-da-fé)，32 而大约在1830年，天主教传教士让人将摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍扔进了底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33 But the first line has ellipsis. Is that acceptable? The instruction says “Return ONLY the translated text with no explanation or commentary.” Ellipsis is part of translation. But maybe I can avoid ellipsis by translating as “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” That’s ungrammatical. So ellipsis is better. Alternatively, I can translate as “无论他们在哪里发现‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians)，都……” and then the next sentence. But that’s also a fragment. I think the ellipsis is okay to indicate the fragment. But the source text doesn’t have ellipsis. Hmm. Maybe the first line is actually a complete sentence? “of the ‘Nestorians’ wherever they found them.” No, it’s not. It’s a fragment. So the translation should be a fragment. In Chinese, a fragment can be “对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。” I’ll go with that. But wait, the source text might be from a book where the first line is the end of a sentence, and the next line is a new sentence. The translator might be expected to translate the chunk as a whole, so the first line is a fragment. I think it’s fine. Let’s check the proper nouns:

Nestorians → 聂斯托利派 (Nestorians). Good.
Catholic Inquisition → 天主教宗教裁判所 (Catholic Inquisition). Good.
auto-da-fé → 火刑宣判 (auto-da-fé). Good.
Kerala → 喀拉拉 (Kerala). Good.
Nestorian Church → 聂斯托利派教会 (Nestorian Church). Good.
Mosul → 摩苏尔 (Mosul). Good.
River Tigris → 底格里斯河 (Tigris). Good. Check abbreviations: none. Check Markdown: none. Check placeholders: none. Now, the output should be wrapped in <translated_text> tags. So final answer: <translated_text> 对‘聂斯托利派’ (Nestorians) 的……，无论他们在哪里发现他们。例如，1599年，天主教宗教裁判所 (Catholic Inquisition) 强行对喀拉拉 (Kerala) 伟大的聂斯托利派教会所收藏的档案、文件和手稿举行火刑宣判 (auto-da-fé)，32 而大约在1830年，天主教传教士让人将摩苏尔 (Mosul) 图书馆的数千部古代手稿和书籍扔进了底格里斯河 (Tigris)。33

Nestorius] held the same faith, Nestorius, then, followed them, and not they him’.37 As the Anglo- Saxon missionaries of the nineteenth century discovered, the East Syrians called themselves Chaldeans, Syrians or Nazarenes.38

聂斯托利 (Nestorius)]持守同一信仰；那么，是聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 跟随了他们，而不是他们跟随了他’。37 正如十九世纪的盎格鲁-撒克逊传教士 (Anglo-Saxon missionaries) 所发现的那样，东叙利亚人 (East Syrians) 自称迦勒底人 (Chaldeans)、叙利亚人 (Syrians) 或拿撒勒人 (Nazarenes)。38

Officially, the Church calls itself the ‘Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East’. It refers to itself as ‘apostolic’ because it traces its founding to the apostles Thomas, Addai, Aggai and Mari; ‘catholic’ because it is universally active; and, recently, ‘Assyrian’, to acknowledge the connection to its Assyrian homeland. The expression ‘East Syrian Church’ is likewise appropriate since it refers to the language and liturgy. The term ‘Persian Church’, however, is geographically incorrect, just as ‘Nestorian Church’ is dogmatically inaccurate. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity, ‘Nestorians’ and ‘Nestorian’ are used along with ‘East Syrian’ and ‘Assyrian’. The author feels authorized, then, by Dr Mar Aprem, metropolitan bishop of India: ‘I have used this name in many of my books. In my opinion, the church should not feel guilty of using that name, for the term “Nestorian” is not without honour in history.’39

官方上，该教会自称“神圣使徒与大公的东方亚述教会”（Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East）。它自称“使徒的”，因为其起源可追溯至使徒多马 (Thomas)、阿代 (Addai)、阿盖 (Aggai) 和马里 (Mari)；“大公”是因为它活跃于普世；以及晚近的“亚述”，以承认其与亚述故土的联系。“东叙利亚教会” (East Syrian Church) 这一表述同样恰当，因为它指涉其语言与礼仪。然而，“波斯教会” (Persian Church) 这一术语在地理上不正确，正如“聂斯托利教会” (Nestorian Church) 在教义上不准确。尽管如此，为简便起见，“聂斯托利派” (Nestorians) 和“聂斯托利的” (Nestorian) 仍与“东叙利亚的” (East Syrian) 和“亚述的” (Assyrian) 一并使用。因此，作者感到得到印度都主教马尔·阿普雷姆博士 (Dr Mar Aprem) 的授权：“我在自己的许多书中都使用了这个名称。在我看来，教会不应因使用该名称而感到内疚，因为‘聂斯托利’ (Nestorian) 一词在历史上并非没有荣誉。”39

The expression ‘Nestorian’ is, in fact, incorrect on three levels. First, Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, neither founded the Church nor, second, ever worked in it. Third, its dogma is based not on the writings of Nestorius but rather on the works of Diodore of Tarsus and, above all, Theodore of Mopsuestia. Instead of ‘Nestorian’, it should be called ‘Theodoran’. Additionally, if one considers that the pejorative term ‘Nestorian’, applied polemically to the East Syrians for the first time at the so-called ‘Robber Synod’ in Ephesus in 449,34 implies the accusation that Nestorius spoke of two sons of God and thus of a fourfold divinity, one reaches the conclusion that Nestorius himself was no Nestorian! He always emphasized the ontological unity of the two natures of Christ and decisively defended himself until his death against this particular accusation.35 In reality, his great opponent, Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, deliberately falsified his views in a letter to the bishop of Rome.36

“聂斯托利派” (Nestorian) 这一表述实际上在三个层面上都是不正确的。第一，聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 于 428 至 431 年任君士坦丁堡牧首 (Patriarch of Constantinople)，他既未创立该教会；第二，他也从未在该教会中工作过。第三，该教会的教义并非基于聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 的著作，而是基于塔尔苏斯的狄奥多若 (Diodore of Tarsus) 的著作，尤其是摩普苏埃斯蒂亚的狄奥多雷 (Theodore of Mopsuestia) 的著作。因此，与其称其为“聂斯托利派”，不如称其为“狄奥多雷派” (Theodoran)。此外，如果考虑到“聂斯托利派”这一贬义称谓，最早是在 449 年以弗所 (Ephesus) 所谓的“强盗会议” (Robber Synod) 上被论战性地用于东叙利亚人 (East Syrians)，34 其含义是指控聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 谈论上帝的两个儿子，因而谈论一种四重神性，那么就会得出这样的结论：聂斯托利本人并不是聂斯托利派！他始终强调基督二性的本体论统一，并直至去世都坚决为自己辩护，反驳这一特定指控。35 实际上，他最主要的对手、亚历山大的西里尔牧首 (Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria) 在致罗马主教 (bishop of Rome) 的一封信中故意歪曲了他的观点。36

Ten years after the first edition, which has been out of print for some time, it was deemed appropriate to bring forth a second, revised edition of the present work. While some corrections and amendments have been incorporated into the first twelve chapters, the thirteenth and final chapter deals with new archaeological discoveries, the most recent developments within the Church, and the recent plight inflicted by the Islamic State on the Christians in Iraq. Any remaining inaccuracies and oversights are my responsibility alone. 40

首版问世十年之后，该版已绝版一段时间，因此认为适宜推出本书的第二版，即修订版。虽然前十二章已纳入一些更正和修改，但第十三章亦即最后一章，论述了新的考古发现、教会内部的最新发展，以及伊斯兰国 (Islamic State) 近期给伊拉克 (Iraq) 基督徒造成的困境。任何遗留的不准确之处和疏漏，均由本人独自负责。40

The Church of the East has always defended itself against the name ‘Nestorian’, although it honours Nestorius as one of its Church Fathers. The important theologian Mar Odisho, metropolitan of Nisibis and Armenia (†1318), argued that, while ‘they [the Eastern Syriacs and

东方教会 (Ch. of E.) 一直为自身辩护，反对“聂斯托利派” (Nestorian) 这一名称，尽管它尊崇聂斯托利 (Nestorius) 为其教父之一。重要神学家马尔·奥迪绍 (Mar Odisho)，尼西比斯 (Nisibis) 和亚美尼亚 (Armenia) 的都主教（†1318），认为，尽管“他们 [东方叙利亚人 (Eastern Syriacs) 以及

—— Page 8 —— —— 第 8 页 ——