John Solheid博士：奥利金论祈祷——索尔海德新译本访谈
目录
按：此为索尔海德博士（Dr. John Solheid）受帕帕斯教父学研究所（Pappas Patristic Institute）所长T. Campino神父访谈，讨论其正在为Brepols出版社《基督教文献丛书》系列准备翻译的奥利金《论祈祷》（De Oratione）新译本。访谈涵盖奥利金研究现状、《论祈祷》的文本结构、手稿流传史、奥利金的祈祷神学（包括对《主祷文》的逐节注释）、三位一体论以及翻译方法论等诸多课题。讲稿由阿甲整理，若整理和翻译有任何问题，欢迎指正。
若要引用本文，John Solheid，《奥利金论祈祷：索尔海德新译本访谈》（伦敦：光从东方来，2026年06月04日），本网页网址，引用日期。也请参考版权申明
油管订阅，以及📁网盘「请进入学术讲座文件夹」。
John Solheid博士：奥利金论祈祷——索尔海德新译本访谈
[English] When my wife saw the note on my calendar that we were going to be discussing Origen, she said, isn’t that that heretic?
Welcome everybody. I’m T. Campino, director of the Pappas Patristic Institute at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston. And joining me today is Dr. John Solheid. John is going to be talking to us about Origen’s celebrated treatise on prayer, which he’s preparing for the Brepols’ Library of Christian Sources series. And I want to tell you, John, when my wife saw the note on my calendar that we were going to be discussing Origen, she said, isn’t that that heretic? And of course, as a good Orthodox Christian, I said, yes, but. So we’re going to dive into this topic with John, but first a few words of introduction. John holds a PhD from the University of St. Michael’s College. He’s currently serving as adjunct professor of patristics and theology at St. Augustine Seminary in Toronto. He’s also adjunct professor of biblical Greek at the St. John’s School of Theology at the seminary in Collegeville, Minnesota.
And he’s a fellow of the Metropolitan Andrei Sheptitsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, also in Toronto. And his book, Pedagogy of the Heart, Grammar, Philosophy, and the Christian Reader in Origen’s Greek Homilies on the Psalms, has been published in Brill’s Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae series and is out now. So welcome, John. It’s great to have you with us.
T. Campino, thank you very much. It’s great to be here. I’m very delighted to have this conversation with you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, John.
[中文] 当我妻子看到我日历上写着我们要讨论奥利金时，她问道：“那不是那个异端分子吗？”
欢迎各位。我是T·坎皮诺，波士顿圣十字希腊东正教神学院帕帕斯教父学研究所的所长。 今天与我一同出席的是约翰·索尔海德博士。约翰将向我们介绍奥利金那部著名的《论祈祷》专著，他正在为布雷波尔斯出版社的《基督教文献丛书》系列撰写该书的导论。 约翰，我想跟大家说，当我妻子看到我日历上写着我们要讨论奥利金时，她问：“那不是那个异端吗？”当然，作为一名虔诚的东正教徒，我回答说：“是的，但是……” 接下来我们将与约翰深入探讨这个话题，但首先请允许我做个简短介绍。约翰拥有圣迈克尔学院（University of St. Michael’s College）的博士学位，目前在多伦多的圣奥古斯丁神学院担任教父学与神学兼职教授。 他同时也是明尼苏达州科利奇维尔神学院圣约翰神学学院圣经希腊语的兼职教授。
此外，他还是位于多伦多的安德烈·谢普蒂茨基大主教东方基督教研究学院的院士。 他的著作《心灵之教：奥利金〈诗篇希腊文讲道集〉中的语法、哲学与基督徒读者》，已由布里尔出版社（Brill）在《Vigiliae Christianae》系列增刊中出版，现已面世。欢迎你，约翰。很高兴你能加入我们。
T.坎皮诺，非常感谢。能来到这里我很高兴。能与你进行这次对话，我感到非常欣喜。非常感谢。
谢谢你，约翰。
[English] So let’s start by telling us a little bit about yourself and your background and how you got into this topic, because the subject of Origen and his exegesis and this theology is something that bridges your previous work with this project that you’re working on now. So how did you come to this?
Oh, that is a big question. I first came to Origen. On Prayer was one of the first texts from Origen that I ever read. I read it in a patristics class as a master’s student a very long time ago. I knew then that I wanted to read Origen, even though I find On Prayer to be a very complicated text to read and get through, but it’s beautiful.
So when I did my doctoral work, as you mentioned, I looked at Origen’s homilies on the Psalms, which were discovered in 2012, sitting at the State Library in Munich, a collection of 29 homilies on 10 different Psalms in Greek. They had been sitting there for a very long time. I can’t remember how old the manuscript is, 14th century, maybe, or maybe even earlier. But no author had been attributed to it. There had been some speculations. I think at some point in the transmission, somebody suggested maybe Michael Psellos, the Byzantine philosopher and poet. But in 2012, the librarian there cataloging these manuscripts saw evidence that they were actually from Origen. So she collaborated with Lorenzo Perrone and a group of Italian scholars, and they verified that this was indeed from Origen. That was shortly before I started my doctoral program. So it made for an easy choice to do something new on this new area of Origen studies.
And the thing that always strikes me about Origen, he’s so concerned to lead his audience towards a direct encounter in the heart. He repeats it over and over again that when Scripture talks about sense organs, it’s doing so in a figurative way to talk about the spiritual organs, and the spiritual organ par excellence is the heart, the mind, or in the Stoic term, the hegemonikon, the moral governing center of the human person. This is where we encounter God, and this is where we see God, as depicted in Matthew 5:8 in the Beatitude. So all of it, all of his teaching, when he’s presenting grammatical instruction, talking about specific points of grammar, whether it’s a definition of terms, scripture’s way of speaking, prosopology, so identifying who the people, the characters are in the text who are speaking, it’s all oriented towards getting his audience to focus their mind on these subjects such that they’re putting away all distractions. And they’re able to then focus the mind on what its proper object is, and that’s contemplation of the divine. Now prayer emerges as almost the situation where we have this contact, so it’s not a leap. Origen in his homilies will talk about needing to pray in order to gain this kind of divine insight, because for him there’s this huge gap, there’s this ontological gap between human beings and God that can’t be bridged by human means alone. So he would reject Kant, for example, Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone. And he said that’s insufficient. So there’s this other thing that’s needed, and that’s prayer, which both is really, as we would commonly understand it, praying for divine aid, but also settling your mind, getting it into a disposition in which it can receive God, in which it can become this chora, this receptacle for divine grace. And then it is able to know something of the divine. So it really wasn’t a far leap for me to go from that project into what is prayer for Origen in general?
Because I didn’t really get into that in the dissertation, only bits and pieces of prayer, it just became something that was natural for me to say, well, maybe I should look at what Origen understands about prayer itself and to look at this text to do so.
And secondly, I also wanted to do a translation of something from Origen. A friend of mine, Lavinia Cerioni, knew of Tom O’Laughlin, Thomas O’Laughlin. She knew he was looking for somebody to do translations for this series in Brepols that’s been going on. So she got me in touch with him at Oxford in 2024. And it just so happened he wanted somebody to do this. And here we are. Those are the kind of two things that brought me to doing this particular project on Origen’s On Prayer.
[中文] 那么，让我们先请您简单介绍一下您自己、您的背景，以及您是如何接触到这个课题的，因为奥利金及其释经学和神学这一主题，恰好连接了您以往的研究与您目前正在进行的项目。您是如何接触到这个课题的？
哦，这可真是个大问题。我最初接触奥利金，是读了他的《论祈祷》——那是我读过的奥利金最早期的著作之一。 那是很久以前，我还在读硕士时，在教父学课上读到的。当时我就知道我想研究奥利金，尽管我觉得《论祈祷》是一部非常晦涩难懂、难以读通的作品，但它确实很美。
所以当我攻读博士学位时，正如你提到的，我研究了奥利金的《诗篇讲道集》。这批手稿于2012年在慕尼黑州立图书馆被发现，是一套包含29篇关于10首不同诗篇的希腊语讲道集。 这些手稿在那里尘封了很长时间。我记不清手稿具体有多古老了，可能是14世纪的，甚至可能更早。但此前一直没有确定作者。虽然曾有过一些推测。我想在流传过程中，曾有人提出可能是拜占庭哲学家兼诗人米迦勒·普塞洛斯。 但2012年，负责编目这些手稿的馆员发现了证据，表明它们实际上出自奥利金之手。于是她与洛伦佐·佩罗内及一群意大利学者合作，证实了这确实是奥利金的作品。那是在我开始攻读博士学位之前不久。 因此，在这个奥利金研究的新领域开展新研究，对我来说是一个顺理成章的选择。
奥利金令我印象最深的一点是，他极力引导听众在内心深处进行直接的邂逅。 他一再强调，当圣经提及感官时，其实是以比喻的方式来指代属灵的器官，而属灵器官中的至高者便是心、意，或者用斯多葛学派的术语来说，就是“hegemonikon”——即人的道德治理中心。 正如《马太福音》5章8节“八福”所描述的，这就是我们遇见上帝的地方，也是我们看见上帝的地方。 因此，他所有的教导——无论是讲解语法规则、探讨具体语法要点，无论是术语定义、经文的表达方式，还是人名考据（即辨识经文中说话者的身份）—— 这一切都旨在引导听众将心神聚焦于这些主题，从而摒弃一切干扰。如此，他们便能将心神集中于其应有的对象，即对神性的默观。此时，祈祷便自然成为我们与神建立这种联系的途径，因此这并非一种突兀的跳跃。 奥利金在其讲道中会谈及需要通过祈祷来获得这种神圣的洞见，因为对他而言，人类与上帝之间存在着巨大的鸿沟——一种本体论上的鸿沟，仅凭人类自身的力量无法跨越。 因此，他会反对康德的《仅凭理性范围内的宗教》一书。他说那是不够的。 因此还需要另一件事，那就是祈祷。正如我们通常所理解的那样，祈祷既是为了寻求神的帮助，也是为了安顿心灵，使其进入一种能够接纳上帝的状态，成为“科拉”（chora），即神圣恩典的容器。 如此，心灵方能领悟神性之奥秘。因此，从那个研究项目转向探讨奥利金对祈祷的整体理解，对我而言并非遥不可及。
因为我在博士论文中并未深入探讨这一主题，仅零星提及了关于祈祷的内容，因此对我来说，自然而然地便产生了这样的想法：或许我应该探究奥利金对祈祷本身的理解，并通过研读这一文本来实现这一目的。
其次，我也想翻译奥利金的某部著作。我的朋友拉维尼亚·塞里奥尼（Lavinia Cerioni）认识汤姆·奥劳林（Thomas O’Laughlin）。她知道他正在为Brepols出版社正在进行的系列丛书寻找译者。 于是她在2024年帮我联系上了他在牛津的奥拉夫林。巧合的是，他正需要人来完成这项工作。于是，我们就这样开始了。正是这两件事促使我着手进行这个关于奥利金《论祈祷》的特定项目。
[English] So before we dive into the treatise on prayer itself, can you tell us a little bit about the state of the question in terms of Origen studies, Origen scholarship? Because most people will have their understanding of Origen and his reputation, his legacy, and his work. But where do things stand in terms of our study and our knowledge of Origen and his corpus? Partly because we have these newly discovered or more recently discovered treatises.
To be honest, Origen studies is one of these fields that’s a bit like Augustinian studies. It’s huge. It’s just massive. I don’t know if I could boil it down to one status questionis, but if I had to, I would probably say something like, particularly even going back to the Origenist controversy in the late 4th century, Origen has been read theologically really through the lens of the Council of Nicaea. And that means questions would be asking, did Origen say that the Son of God was a creature, a ktisma, something that would put him in the Arian camp in the early 4th century. And did he apply the term homoousios to the Son and Father? And he doesn’t. In fact, Origen expresses great reluctance to talk about the homoousios. He uses the term but not quite in the Nicene sense, in his commentary on John. And he expresses a lot of reluctance to even talk about ousia, the substance, when it comes to God. Partly because he sees one danger dividing God into parts, which he would accuse the Gnostics of doing with these different emanations, such that each emanation is a lesser part of the divine. Or the opposite extreme, you have the Monarchians who he accused—we don’t have a lot of literature from the Monarchians, but he accused them of diminishing the individual substances, the individual beings within the Trinity, such that the Father, Son, and Spirit distinctions were blurred, and he wanted to maintain those distinctions. So it gets easy for someone in the anti-Nicene camp, or even maybe somewhat sympathetic to Arius’s position, like Eusebius of Caesarea, to take Origen as their champion. And then at the same time, Athanasius can also claim Origen as his champion. And I think modern scholarship has now begun to recognize we can’t read Origen through that lens. We have to read him according to the concerns he had at his time. So now we’re getting more interest in Origen’s Trinitarian theology in response to the Monarchians or Gnosticism rather than seeing them through this lens of Nicaea and then asking is he a heretic or not. Now that’s one angle. Other angles, like we talked about, you mentioned the heresy part.
Some of that comes from his notion of the pre-existence of the soul, and scholars are pretty much in consensus, I think for the most part. There might be a couple who say that Origen didn’t really teach a pre-existence of the soul. I think we most agree that he did, but it’s very unclear what it is. If this pre-existence was some point in time, in age, as we would commonly think of it, or if he’s just thinking about the logical implications of certain questions. And then there’s the apokatastasis, which is universal salvation. Where he gets accused of saying that the devil himself will be saved. I think there’s more disagreement on that. Ilaria Ramelli, for example, would take the position that, yes, for Origen, every rational being will be saved, and that includes the devil. It’s just that the devil is not devil by nature. The devil became the devil through habituating to evil to such an extent. There’s merit to that argument, though I’m still not completely convinced by it. But Origen would say, we’re all humans and angels are all rational beings. We have this nous and reason. And of course, he would never say that the devil was evil by nature, because then that would implicate God in the devil’s evil for Origen. So logically, there’s a logical conclusion from him that, yes, even the devil would eventually be saved. It’s just that God’s grace would overpower him to such an extent that he would choose to receive it and he would no longer be an enemy. But then there’s the question of, will the devil and the demons all share the same kind of status in relationship to God as the saints? And there, I think, we’re probably on firmer ground to say that, no, they wouldn’t. Origen even says there’s a hierarchy in heaven, such that saints are people who in the eschaton are much closer. And then there’s others who hadn’t really done as much as the saints, yet they merit their eternal reward, and so on and so forth. So I think if we were to say that the devil would no longer be devil, no longer be evil, he still wouldn’t share that kind of same status as Moses or Isaiah or the apostles, that kind of thing. So those are some of the questions that circulate around Origen. And I don’t know how much is really being done with the apokatastasis. I wrote a paper on it a couple of years ago. It’s coming out in Studia Patristica. I don’t like it. It’s not a good paper; it’s garbage. But I think the real interesting questions now are looking at Origen’s Trinitarian theology in light of pre-Nicene concerns. And I think that’s opening up very interesting avenues of research, some that are even relevant for my translation of On Prayer.
[中文] 那么，在深入探讨这篇关于祈祷的论著之前，您能否先简要介绍一下奥利金研究领域当前的研究现状？毕竟，大多数人对奥利金及其声誉、思想遗产和著作都有自己的理解。 但就我们对奥利金及其著作的研究和认知而言，现状究竟如何？部分原因在于我们发现了这些新近出土或较晚发现的论著。
坦率地说，奥利金研究是一个类似于奥古斯丁研究的领域。它非常庞大，规模极其宏大。 我不确定能否将其浓缩为一个核心问题，但若非要概括，我大概会这样说：特别是追溯到4世纪末的奥利金主义争议，人们在神学上解读奥利金时，实际上始终是通过尼西亚公会议的视角。 这意味着研究问题往往会聚焦于：奥利金是否曾宣称神的儿子是受造物（ktisma）——这种观点在4世纪初会将其归入阿里乌派阵营；以及他是否将“同质”（homoousios）这一术语应用于圣子与圣父？而他并未如此。 事实上，奥利金对讨论“同质”（homoousios）一词表现出极大的不情愿。他在《约翰福音注释》中虽使用了该术语，但其含义并不完全符合尼西亚会议的定义。而且，当涉及上帝时，他甚至对讨论“本体”（ousia）一词也表现出强烈的抗拒。 部分原因在于，他认为将神分割为部分存在某种危险——他指责诺斯替派正是通过这些不同的“流溢”来分割神，使得每个“流溢”都成了神性中较低级的部分。 或者走向另一个极端，他指责的“君主论者”——虽然我们没有太多关于君主论者的文献，但他指责他们贬低了三位一体中各个个体的“本质”和“存在”，以致父、子、圣灵之间的区别变得模糊，而他希望维持这些区别。 因此，对于反尼西亚阵营中的人，甚至像凯撒利亚的优西比乌这样对阿里乌斯立场多少有些同情的人来说，将奥利金视为他们的代言人便变得轻而易举。与此同时，亚他那修也可以声称奥利金是他的代言人。 我认为现代学术界现已开始认识到，我们不能通过这种视角来解读奥利金。我们必须根据他所处时代的核心关切来理解他。 因此，如今我们对奥利金的三位一体神学产生了更多兴趣，着眼于其对一神论者或诺斯替主义的回应，而非仅通过尼西亚的视角审视，进而追问他是否为异端。这只是一个角度。其他角度，正如我们所讨论的，你提到了异端这一部分。
其中部分观点源于他对灵魂先存的理解，学者们对此基本达成共识，我认为大体如此。或许有极少数人认为奥利金并未真正教导灵魂先存。但我认为我们大多认同他确实教导了这一点，只是其具体内涵尚不明确。 这种“先存”究竟是指我们通常所理解的某个时间点或时代，还是他仅仅是在探讨某些问题的逻辑推论？此外还有“普救论”（apokatastasis），即普世救赎。正因如此，他被指控宣称连魔鬼本身也会得救。 我认为在这点上存在更多分歧。例如伊拉里亚·拉梅利（Ilaria Ramelli）的观点是：对奥利金而言，确实所有理性存在都将得救，这包括魔鬼。只是魔鬼并非天生就是魔鬼，而是因长期沉溺于邪恶而逐渐沦为魔鬼。 这一论点虽有可取之处，但我仍未完全信服。不过奥利金会说，我们都是人类，天使也都属于理性存在。 我们拥有这种“努斯”（nous）和理性。当然，他绝不会说魔鬼天生邪恶，因为对奥利金而言，那样就意味着上帝要为魔鬼的邪恶负责。因此从逻辑上讲，他得出的结论是：是的，就连魔鬼最终也会得救。 只是上帝的恩典将以如此强大的力量征服他，以致他会选择接受恩典，从而不再是敌人。但随之而来的问题是：魔鬼和恶魔在与上帝的关系上，是否会与圣徒享有同等地位？ 对此，我认为我们更有把握断言：不，他们不会。奥利金甚至指出天国存在等级制度，圣徒在末世时将与上帝更为亲近。 此外，还有那些虽未如圣徒般功绩卓著，却仍配得永恒赏赐的群体，诸如此类。 因此我认为，即便我们说魔鬼将不再是魔鬼、不再作恶，他仍无法与摩西、以赛亚或使徒们享有同等地位。 这些便是围绕奥利金展开的一些问题。至于“万物复原论”（apokatastasis）目前究竟被探讨到了什么程度，我也不清楚。几年前我曾就此写过一篇论文，即将发表在《教父学研究》（Studia Patristica）上。 我不喜欢那篇论文。它写得不好，简直是垃圾。但我认为，当下真正有趣的问题是，从尼西亚会议前的神学关切出发，重新审视奥利金的圣三一神学。我认为这正在开辟非常有趣的研究方向，其中一些甚至与我正在翻译的《论祈祷》相关。
[English] [71] So are we still limited by the question of the availability of texts and problematic translations, for example, the Latin translations of Rufinus? [72] That unfortunately is just the reality. [73] The most important text is On First Principles, and that’s the one that everybody knows, and that’s only extant in Greek and fragments, preserved mostly in the Philokalia. There’s debate about who compiled the Philokalia, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just say Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. But we do have it in its entirety in a translation of Rufinus, and then we have Greek fragments that are preserved by Epiphanius of Salamis, who really, almost more than anyone perhaps, ushered in the Origenist controversy in the fourth century. [74] Some scholars will read his Greek fragments as though they faithfully represent what Origen said. Then there are some that are more skeptical and say he had polemical reasons, that maybe we shouldn’t take his fragments of Origen at face value. [75] I don’t have a position on that. I haven’t really looked into it very much, but that’s one of the questions. And then, the Latin of Rufinus has the same problems. People will say, well, he’s polemically indebted to Origen and a staunch defender of Origen. So he’s going to manipulate the text to present Origen as this [76] pro-Nicene theologian. [77] Again, I don’t really have a position on that, although I think there’s a scholar, is it [78] Adele Monaci, I think. I’m going on memory here, but I think she has an essay re-examining Rufinus as a translator of Origen, because we have from him, I think, five [79] homilies from Origen on Psalm 36 translated into Latin. And if I’m not mistaken, I think she shows that for his translation of those, we have four Greek homilies, not five, like we do in Rufinus’ Latin, but she seems to think that Rufinus is actually quite faithful to what Origen is saying. [80] Of course, that could just be because there’s nothing doctrinally problematic in those homilies, I don’t know. But those are certainly some of the questions that still linger, and I don’t know if there ever will be a satisfactory answer, given the nature of the text that we have. [81] So this is not the case with the Treatise on Prayer, which exists in a complete Greek text. [82] That is correct. It exists in a complete Greek text, one manuscript at Cambridge, [83] 15th century, it’s estimated. [84] And yes, we have this in its entirety in Greek. There are some lacunae, gaps in the text. There are nine altogether, but they’re very early on in the treatise. So I think through the first, like, five or six sections of it, and there are 34 sections of it, so it’s very early. Fortunately, yes, this is one of the texts we have that is Greek in its entirety, along with these homilies on the Psalms. [85] I think we have, I can’t remember how many homilies on Jeremiah that we have that are in Greek. [86] The homily, his homily on the Witch of Endor in First Samuel is in Greek, I think. [87] His Commentary on John is in Greek, although of the 32 books he originally composed, we only have [88] I think maybe, I don’t know, 10 if that, no, not even that, I don’t think, seven or eight, maybe even. [90] It’s very unfortunate. Most of our texts from him come from Latin.
[中文] [71] 那么，我们是否仍然受限于文本的存世情况以及存在问题的译本，例如鲁菲努斯的拉丁文译本？ [72] 遗憾的是，这正是现实。 [73] 最重要的文本是《论第一原理》，这也是众所周知的，但现存的只有希腊文版本和残篇，主要保存在《圣教集》中。关于《圣教集》的编纂者存在争议，但为了简便起见，我们姑且认为是巴西尔和格雷戈里·纳齐安泽。 不过，我们确实拥有鲁菲努斯译本的全文，此外还有萨拉米斯的埃皮法尼乌斯所保存的希腊文残篇——他或许比任何人都更深刻地引发了四世纪的奥利金主义争议。 [74] 有些学者会将他引用的希腊文片段视为奥利金的原意。也有人持更怀疑的态度，认为他出于论战目的，因此我们或许不应全盘接受他引用的奥利金片段。 [75] 我对此没有明确立场。我尚未深入研究，但这确实是一个值得探讨的问题。此外，鲁菲努斯的拉丁文译本也存在同样的问题。人们会说，他从论战角度受奥利金影响，且是奥利金的坚定捍卫者。 因此他会篡改文本，将奥利金塑造成一位 [76] 支持尼西亚信经的神学家。 [77] 同样，我对此没有明确立场，不过我记得有位学者，是 [78] 阿黛勒·莫纳奇（Adele Monaci），我记得是她。我这只是凭记忆，但我想她写过一篇论文，重新审视了鲁菲努斯作为奥利金译者的身份，因为据我所知，我们从他那里得到了五篇 [79] 奥利金关于《诗篇》第36篇的讲道词，被译成了拉丁文。 如果我没记错的话，她指出针对这些译文，我们手头仅存四篇希腊文讲道集，而非鲁菲努斯拉丁文译本中的五篇，但她似乎认为鲁菲努斯实际上相当忠实于奥利金的原意。 [80] 当然，这可能仅仅是因为这些讲道中没有教义上的问题，我也不确定。但这些无疑是仍悬而未决的问题，鉴于我们所拥有文本的性质，我不知道是否会有令人满意的答案。 [81] 因此，《论祈祷》的情况则不同，该书现存完整的希腊文文本。 [82] 没错。它现存完整的希腊文文本，剑桥大学藏有一份手稿， [83] 据推测是15世纪的。 [84] 是的，我们拥有这部完整的希腊文文本。文本中确实存在一些缺漏，总共九处，但都出现在论著的开头部分。所以我认为，前五、六节内容——全书共有34节——都完整无缺，所以这些缺漏出现在非常早的阶段。 幸运的是，是的，这是我们拥有的完整希腊文文本之一，还有这些关于《诗篇》的讲道集。 [85] 我记得我们拥有若干篇关于《耶利米书》的希腊文讲道集，具体数量记不清了。 [86] 那篇关于《撒母耳记上》中“恩多女巫”的讲道，我记得也是希腊文的。 [87] 他的《约翰福音注释》是希腊文的，尽管他最初撰写的32卷书中，我们仅存 [88] 我觉得大概，我不确定，10篇吧，不，甚至不到那个数，我想可能只有七八篇，甚至更少。 [90] 这实在令人遗憾。我们现存的大部分他的文本都来自拉丁文。
[English] So it’s interesting, I don’t know if people listening perhaps are not aware, it’s significant that the treatise on prayer comes from a 15th century manuscript. People might not know that most manuscripts that we have are late Byzantine. So the majority are from the 15th, the 14th century. And as you go further back in time, you get fewer and fewer. We have a lot of manuscripts from the 11th, 12th, 13th century, some from the 10th, the 9th, but as you go further back, you have fewer and fewer, which is one of the reasons that people are so interested in things like Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, these early—and by early we mean late antique manuscripts—so none of them go back to the apostles.
But this also means that people are copying Origen in the 15th century. So in other words, around the time of the Council of Florence, around the time of Mark of Ephesus for our Orthodox listeners, people are still copying manuscripts of Origen, and that’s significant. Yes, I agree. Now where the copying takes place, Photius in Constantinople, his library there, a tremendous source, I think, of copying Byzantine manuscripts. This one, so this is interesting.
The manuscript of On Prayer, and it’s digitized, and I sent you the link, so I don’t know if we’d ever be able to open it up, but if we do during our conversation, we can see that it’s bound together with the extant Greek manuscript of Origen’s commentary in Matthew, which again is another text we have in Greek, but not in its entirety. But most of it, and at some point in the transmission they were bound together and you can even see kind of where they tied them up in the binding. And that manuscript at one point was in the library of Formos, Germany. And I don’t know if that’s where it was copied. I would ask, were they copying Byzantine manuscripts in Formos, Germany in the 1400s? I don’t know, but Venice, maybe, but then there’s also Constantinople, where it might have come from.
But whatever the case with that, Daniel Pierre Juve, the 17th century bishop in Paris, or outside of Paris, I can’t remember where exactly, kind of gives us a history of what he knew of the text. And he tells us, so he made a copy. He finds it in Stockholm, Sweden in the late 1600s and he makes a copy of it, and then in his copy gives a Latin introduction where he talks about it being in Formos, Germany. And the city, I think, gets raided by an army and a soldier takes a manuscript and he sells it to someone and it makes its way up to, I think, The Hague in the Netherlands and then from there, I think, it goes to Sweden. And Isaac Voss, who I think was in the Queen of Sweden’s court, works with it. And he gives it to this guy, Herbert Thorndike, who’s a canon at Westminster in London. And then Herbert Thorndike gifts it to Cambridge. That’s kind of its history.
Somewhat, I guess we could maybe say somewhat miraculous in some way that the soldier said, hey, let’s not destroy this thing, let’s sell it to somebody who might use it. So the manuscript has a pretty interesting history itself. So John, pull up the manuscript at any point. You should be able to share your screen any point that you want to share it. But like I said, we can also add it into the video after. Yeah, okay, great. So here, let me just pull it up right now and I’ll show you what I mean, them being bound together.
So I had the fortune of going to Cambridge in August. It’s at the Wren Library, Trinity College, and it’s well preserved. It’s on paper. Paper as opposed to parchment for those. Paper as opposed to parchment, that’s correct, yep. Which I think comes from China, doesn’t it? Didn’t Europe acquire paper from China or somewhere in Asia? Comes from the east, yeah. Which tells you it’s generally later, but not always. Yeah, I think we start to see it, what, in about the 11th century, maybe a little bit earlier? I think there are instances of earlier from the Arab world, from the trade coming, but generally it’s not the main medium until later.
All right, can you see the screen? Yes, okay. So you see here, on the right you see the first page of On Prayer and then on the left you can see the final page of the commentary on Matthew. And if you look closely you see, so these things here that look like a tear, that actually comes from the previous binding that they just must have cut off. And then you can see they’re sewn together right here. And on the first page, there’s a bit of damage. You can see a tear here and then a patch that somebody put on there to cover up some kind of damage that was done. And this is one of the lacunae. And this is a difficult one to try to solve. But yeah, this is an example of what that would be.
And you talked about reception. There’s, if I can show real quickly here. I think it’s on 219 verso, is it? Nope, 218 verso. Yes, okay. So we’re going to talk about the structure of On Prayer in a little bit, but here’s, this is very interesting. So if you look on the far left, which would be the far right margin of 218 verso, you see these marginalia. And you can see the pages were kind of cut off when they rebounded, probably. And so we’ve got Ir, Ima, Ton. I can’t remember what this is. It’s been reconstructed. So this should be Epikarima, and then Ton. And then it’s of those who reject prayer. And then a little bit further down, there’s another one, P Kirima, and then there’s two more, another one, and another one right there.
And these correspond to the part in the text where Origen is enumerating the different objections of people who reject the practice of prayer. So these would be objection number four, objection three, objection two, and objection number one up here. So it seems like a scribe working with the manuscript or perhaps even the copyist himself. I’m not well trained in comparing hands yet, but found this helpful as a reader’s aid, which I think is quite interesting also for the reception of On Prayer. And other notes that might be of relevance here, we’ve got, there’s a whole bunch of these, simiose or notabene, so this is a sigma eta, the abbreviation with the little markup here indicating the abbreviation. So there are tons of these in the text. So somebody reading it liked it and wanted to note a whole bunch of points that Origen was making.
[中文] 这很有意思，我不知道听众们是否知道，这篇关于祈祷的论著出自一部15世纪的手稿，这一点颇具意义。 大家可能不知道，我们现存的大多数手稿都属于晚期拜占庭时期。因此，绝大多数手稿来自15世纪或14世纪。而随着时间的倒推，手稿的数量就越来越少。 我们拥有大量11、12、13世纪的手稿，也有一些10世纪和9世纪的，但越往前追溯，数量就越少，这也是人们对《亚历山大抄本》、 《西奈抄本》等早期手稿——这里所说的“早期”指的是古罗马晚期手稿——因此，这些手稿都没有追溯到使徒时代。
但这也意味着，15世纪时人们仍在抄写奥利金的著作。换言之，大约在佛罗伦萨大公会议时期，对于我们的东正教听众来说，也就是以弗所的马可活跃的那个时代，人们仍在抄写奥利金的手稿，这一点意义重大。是的，我同意。 至于抄写发生在哪里，君士坦丁堡的福提乌斯及其那里的图书馆，我认为是拜占庭手稿抄写的重要来源。这一份，所以这很有意思。
《论祈祷》的手稿，它已被数字化，我已将链接发送给你， 所以我不确定我们能否打开它，但如果在交谈过程中能打开的话，我们会看到它与现存的奥利金《马太福音注释》希腊文手稿装订在一起，后者同样是我们仅存的希腊文文本，但并非完整版本。 不过大部分内容都保留了下来，在流传过程中它们曾被装订在一起，甚至还能看到装订处被捆扎过的痕迹。这卷手稿曾一度收藏于德国福莫斯的图书馆。 我不确定它是否是在那里被抄写的。我想问，15世纪的德国福尔莫斯是否在抄写拜占庭手稿？我不确定，但也许是在威尼斯，当然还有君士坦丁堡，它可能就源自那里。
无论情况如何，17世纪的巴黎主教丹尼尔·皮埃尔·朱夫——或者说是在巴黎以外的地方，我记不清确切地点了——向我们讲述了他所了解的这部文本的历史。 据他所述，他曾制作了一份抄本。17世纪末，他在瑞典斯德哥尔摩发现了这部手稿并进行了抄录，随后在自己的抄本中附上了一篇拉丁文序言，其中提到手稿曾存于德国的福莫斯。 我想，那座城市后来遭到军队洗劫，一名士兵拿走了手稿并将其卖给某人，手稿随后辗转到了荷兰的海牙，我想，之后又从那里流落到了瑞典。 艾萨克·沃斯（Isaac Voss）——我记得他当时在瑞典王后宫廷任职——曾研究过这部手稿。他将其转交给赫伯特·桑迪克（Herbert Thorndike），后者是伦敦威斯敏斯特大教堂的教士。随后，赫伯特·桑迪克又将手稿捐赠给了剑桥大学。这就是它的来历。
某种程度上，或许可以说这多少有些奇迹色彩——那位士兵当时想：嘿，别毁了这东西，把它卖给可能用得上的人吧。所以这份手稿本身就有一段相当有趣的历史。约翰，你随时可以调出手稿画面。 你随时都可以共享屏幕。不过就像我说的，我们也可以在视频后期制作时加入这段内容。好的，没问题，太好了。那么，我这就调出来，向大家展示我的意思——就是它们被装订在一起的样子。
八月份我有幸去了趟剑桥。它保存在三一学院的雷恩图书馆，保存得相当完好。它是纸质的。对于那些人来说，纸张与羊皮纸不同。 纸张而非羊皮纸，没错，是的。我认为纸张源自中国，对吧？欧洲不是从中国或亚洲某地获得纸张的吗？确实来自东方，没错。这说明纸张通常出现得较晚，但也不尽然。 是的，我记得大约从11世纪开始出现，也许稍早一点？我想阿拉伯世界有更早的例子，通过贸易传入的，但总体上直到后来纸才成为主要载体。
好的，你能看到屏幕吗？是的，好的。你看这里，右边是《论祈祷》的第一页，左边则是《马太福音注释》的最后一页。 如果仔细看，你会发现，这里这些看起来像撕裂的地方，其实是来自之前的装订，他们肯定只是把它剪掉了。然后你可以看到，它们就在这里被缝合在一起。 第一页上有一处损坏。你们可以看到这里有个破口，然后有人贴了一块补丁，用来遮盖之前的某种损伤。这就是缺文之一。这处缺文很难补全。但没错，这就是缺文的典型例子。
你刚才提到受众反应。如果我能快速展示一下的话。我记得是在219页背面，对吗？不对，是218页背面。是的，好的。稍后我们会讨论《论祈祷》的结构，但这部分非常有趣。 如果你看最左边——也就是218页背面最右边的页边，你会看到这些页边注。你可以看出，这些页面在重新装订时可能被裁切了一部分。所以这里有Ir、Ima、Ton。我不记得这是什么了。 这是经过复原的。所以这里应该是Epikarima，然后是Ton。接着是关于那些拒绝祈祷的人。再往下一点，还有另一个，P Kirima，然后还有两个，另一个，还有那个就在那里。
这些对应于文本中奥利金列举那些拒绝祈祷实践者各种异议的部分。因此，这里应是第四个异议、第三个异议、第二个异议，以及最上面的第一个异议。看来是抄写员在处理手稿时所为，甚至可能是抄写员本人所为。 虽然我尚未接受过专业的笔迹比对训练，但发现这些标记对阅读颇有帮助，我认为这对《论祈祷》的接受史研究也颇具意义。 此外还有其他可能相关的批注，这类批注数量众多，既有“simiose”也有“notabene”，这里是“sigma eta”的缩写，旁边的小标记表明这是缩写。文本中这类批注不胜枚举。 看来当时有位读者读后颇为欣赏，特意标注了奥利金提出的诸多观点。
[English] So tell us about the structure of the text and its contents. Okay. Let me just stop sharing. The structure is roughly divided into five parts. Here we go. It starts with a prologue. As I said before, there are 34 sections or chapters, if you want to call them that. Those numbers are not in the manuscript. They come from the critical edition of Paul Ketchow from 1899. The first two are a prologue, and their origin really situates the work and the problem of talking about prayer within epistemology. He says there are certain things that are impossible for human beings because our minds are weighed down by our corruptible bodies. He cites Wisdom 6.13 there. There are things that are impossible, so we need divine grace to help us comprehend something of them. One of these things he says is prayer. What prayer is and how we pray, that’s pretty much the prologue. There he brings up Paul, Romans 8:26, how we ought to pray we do not know, but the Spirit intercedes with sighs. After that prologue, he transitions to the main argument, the main body of the text. In sections three to four, he goes into how scripture uses the term efki and prosefki. He contrasts it. There are certain occasions where it’s used in the sense of a vow, where somebody says, “God, if you do this to me, I will commit to doing this.” He says that’s not really prayer in its proper sense that we’re going to be talking about here. So then he talks about the different types of prayer. There’s petitions, there’s prayers, there’s confessions? No, what is it? I can’t remember. And thanksgivings. From 1 Timothy. After this discussion of what prayer is and how defining his terms, he can outline his argument. In section five he goes on to these objections. We see here in 5.1 the occasion for the text because he references this guy Ambrose and this woman Tatiana. We don’t have any other information about who Tatiana is, but she’s probably not Ambrose’s wife. I think that would be Marcella, whom Origen mentions at the end of his letter to Julius Africanus. Tatiana could be perhaps their daughter or Ambrose’s sister. We just don’t know. Ambrose, we know from Origen and Eusebius, was Origen’s patron. Eusebius tells us that Origen meets Ambrose, who is a member of this Valentinian group in Alexandria. He persuades Ambrose to take on an orthodox form of Christianity. Ambrose then decides he’s going to underwrite all of Origen’s scholarly activities. He provides Origen with stenographers, copyists, and whatever materials he needs to compose his work. Is it true that Origen had female scribes among his copyists? That is in Eusebius. The calligraphe is in the feminine. The tachygraphoi are masculine. We don’t really know the precise makeup of these, but some do appear to have been women, which is actually quite interesting. Clement of Alexandria, Origen’s predecessor in Alexandria, was very open to having women in his teaching sessions in his classes. I think Origen here, if this is accurate, was probably the same. We just don’t know more precisely about that. I mentioned this letter to Julius Africanus. Sextus Julius Africanus was in Jerusalem, and he was a polymath in the early church. He writes to Origen and says, “I was really amazed to hear you give a discourse on the story of Susanna in the book of Daniel. You treated it as if it’s an authentic part of the book where, if we look at it from a literary perspective, there’s evidence that it’s actually a later composition, an addition to the text.” Origen writes back. He gives his defense of why he thinks it’s original. He says, even if it’s not original, the church uses it. So I don’t think we should get rid of it. We should keep our tradition. But then at the very end, he wraps up saying, “This is what I have to say. I send you greeting or give my greetings to so-and-so and so who are there in Jerusalem with you.” And Ambrose and then some other people. I think Marcella and there’s a couple of the names here send their greetings as well. So you get a sense of who these people are that are in this little group. But I can’t remember if Marcella was the only woman or not. I’d have to look again. If that answered your question, I don’t really know. Ambrose is so interesting. We know very little about Ambrose except for what Origen tells us. Origen, in about the year 231, somewhere around there, leaves Alexandria after he gets into this conflict with his bishop Demetrius and he goes to Caesarea Maritima in the Holy Land. He tells us in the prologue to book six of his commentary on Matthew that he started working on book six in Alexandria, but the storm brewed up against him and he had to flee. He laments that his copy didn’t come with him. I think his stenographers didn’t make it with him either, if I remember what he says. When he gets to Caesarea, he starts book six all over again. We can date book six to about 231, 232. In book 10, there’s some discussions which overlap with his commentary on prayer, which leads Paul Ketchow to think “On Prayer” is probably written around the same time. Pierre Notin and pretty much anybody who studied this text situates it between 231 and 235, somewhere around there. He mentions Ambrose in this text. What does Ambrose do? What does he say? Ambrose gave him a number of objections to the practice of prayer, and he asked Origen to give a response, a philosophical response. Origen’s language here, he talks about it as a problema, when he lists these objections, he responds to them immediately. Section five is the objections, and section six is his initial response to them. The objections all boil down to something to the effect of God has providence. If God is unchanging, first of all, prayer is irrational because you’re not going to change God’s mind. God is simple. Second, God is provident. If God foresees what’s going to happen in the future, it’s going to happen regardless of what you do about it. I can’t remember a couple of the other objections specifically, but they revolve around these particular themes. Origen starts his refutation with a discourse on the nature of motion in different beings. Sticks and stones and beings that don’t have any life in them can only be moved by something outside of themselves. Whereas if we get into living things, things that might appear to have their own self-motion, some have it as just the nature of their bodily constitution. It’s within the nature of bodies to change and to go through flux, addition, and so forth. But that’s not a rational kind of movement, and it’s not a movement impelled by any kind of image. Whereas when we get into things that have some kind of soul, like animals, they respond; they have an image that arises and then they respond by impulse. Then you have rational beings like us who receive this impulse but then we have this thing called reason which allows us to discern right from wrong and choose accordingly. He says if you take away our ability for self-movement through ourselves, you take away what makes us who we are. He says we would no longer be rational. In fact, we would not even be a living being if we took away this kind of self-motion that even animals have to some extent, even but lesser so than humans. Lorenzo Peroni has mentioned this in his huge mammoth book on prayer in Italian. What we’re dealing with here as a text is something that’s akin to the problemata calicis or problems and solutions genre that goes back at least to Aristotle. I think he’s right. I think this is a philosophical text structured as such. You get his preface where he introduces the topic and talks about how it’s unknowable for human beings and we need divine aid to get there. Then when he begins his discourse on what prayer is he goes to the definition of terms. Then when we get to these philosophical objections he begins with fundamental principles of motion. As the argument progresses, he talks more about, even if we don’t get the kinds of benefits of prayer that we might think we should get, we still get benefits because we compose ourselves in a certain way that we focus our mind on its proper object, the divine, and in doing so, we clear the hegemonikon or the heart of all this clutter that gets in the way and bogs it down. So even if we don’t get some kind of material benefit, we get a benefit that’s more proper to who we are. That makes up the first part, chapters 3 to 16 or 17, is what Origen himself calls the problem of prayer, problema. Then the second part, chapters 18 to 31, is a lemma by lemma, or verse by verse commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. Origen transitions here in a way that’s quite suggestive. He says, now that we have struggled with the problem of prayer, problema, it’s now time to talk about what we learn about prayer from the scriptures, what the prayer that we are taught to do. This is where he gets into the Lord’s Prayer. There’s an interesting thing in the manuscript, where in the marginalia, a scribe writes, “arti,” and that’s where Origen transitions to his commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. But he first goes through comparing the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and Luke and says they looked for evidence in Mark to see if there was a similar thing there. He concludes that these are two separate prayers, because in Matthew it comes immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. Whereas in Luke, it’s in response to one of the disciples asking Jesus to teach them how to pray. He says these are really two different prayers, even though they overlap in many ways. His verse by verse really focuses more on Matthew’s articulation of it. It’s interesting when he says, now that we’ve struggled with this, we are going to go on to this. He uses plurals there. It’s almost as if he’s talking to a group, classroom maybe, but at least Ambrose and whoever else, there might have been a couple other people in there doing this project. He says, we looked in Mark to see if there was anything similar and we didn’t find anything similar. It’s almost like there’s a group exercise going on that’s unfolding in this process. If we read his plurals as plurals, I know some people say it’s more the majestic plural, but In my translation, I’m going to stick with the actual plural when he says we did this. Then you get the verse by verse on the Lord’s Prayer. After his little discourse where he compares Matthew and Luke, he actually gets into the verses. Our Father, who art in heaven. And at that point in the manuscript, there’s another marginalia that says “our key.” So If you’ve read Origen enough, you know that before he really gets into talking about something, he’s going to have a lengthy preface to what he’s going to say. Sometimes he doesn’t actually get into the heart of it until later. I’m wondering if the scribe is writing down “our key” at the very beginning of this and thinking this is okay, he’s going to get into his commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. Two pages later, he finally gets to the actual verses. I don’t know, but that’s kind of interesting to think what the scribes were doing when they were copying or reading this manuscript. After the Lord’s Prayer, he talks about having to come back to the problem of prayer, again, almost with an addendum. There he talks about different practical aspects. What kind of bodily posture should we have when we’re praying? If we’re supplications, that’s what it is, supplications, not confessions. It’s petition, prayer, supplication, thanksgiving. For somebody who’s giving supplication, it’s proper to be kneeling because that’s a proper disposition for a soul that’s really asking for forgiveness. Giving praise, you should stretch out your arms, in the Orans position, so on and so forth. He asks the question, should we pray in whatever direction the sun is sitting, or should we always pray to the east? He says, “I can understand why people would say we pray to wherever the sun is, but we should really pray to the east, regardless of where the sun is, because that’s where the sun rises.” This, of course, is symbolic of the resurrection of the Sun of Justice. After those practical questions for prayer, he gives his conclusion. It’s very brief. It’s not even really a conclusion. It’s, “This is what I have for you guys. It was hard. We talked about all these different things. Read it with a little bit of grace because I’m a human and I can’t get everything perfect.” That’s kind of the structure.
[中文] 那么，请跟我们说说文本的结构及其内容。 好的。我先暂停一下共享。 结构大致分为五个部分。 开始吧。开头是一个序言。 正如我之前所说，全书共有34个部分，或者说章节，如果你愿意这么称呼的话。 这些编号在手稿中并没有。它们源自保罗·凯乔（Paul Ketchow）1899年的校注本。前两部分是序言， 其开篇部分实际上阐明了这部作品的背景，以及在认识论框架下探讨祈祷这一问题的意义。 他指出，有些事情对人类而言是无法企及的，因为我们的思想被易朽的肉体所束缚。他在这里引用了《智慧书》6:13。 既然有些事情无法企及，我们就需要神的恩典来帮助我们理解其中的一部分。他说，祈祷正是其中之一。 祷告的本质及其方式，基本上就是序言的内容。他在那里援引了保罗在《罗马书》8:26中的话：我们虽不知道当怎样祷告，但圣灵用叹息替我们祈求。 在序言之后，他过渡到主要论点，即文本的主体部分。在第三至第四节中，他深入探讨了圣经如何使用“efki”和“prosefki”这两个术语，并对其进行了对比。 在某些场合，这些词被用作誓言，比如有人说：“神啊，如果你这样待我，我就承诺去做那件事。”他说这并非我们在此要讨论的严格意义上的祷告。于是他谈到了祷告的不同类型。 有恳求，有祈祷，还有 认罪？不，是什么来着？我记不清了。还有感恩。出自《提摩太前书》。 在讨论了什么是祷告以及如何 界定相关术语之后，他便能阐述自己的论点。在第五部分，他接着探讨了这些反对意见。 我们在5.1节中看到了这段经文的背景，因为他提到了一个叫安布罗斯的男子和一位名叫塔蒂亚娜的女子。我们对塔蒂亚娜的身份没有其他信息，但她很可能不是安布罗斯的妻子。 我认为那应该是马塞拉， 奥利金在致朱利叶斯·阿非利加努斯的信末曾提及她。塔蒂亚娜或许是他们的女儿，也可能是安布罗斯的妹妹。我们不得而知。据奥利金和优西比乌记载，安布罗斯是奥利金的赞助人。 优西比乌告诉我们，奥利金曾与亚历山大的瓦伦丁派成员安布罗斯会面。 他劝说安布罗斯接受正统的基督教形式。随后，安布罗斯决定资助奥利金的所有学术活动。 他为奥利金提供了速记员、抄写员，以及奥利金撰写著作所需的一切材料。 奥利金的抄写员中是否真有女性？ 这一点在优西比乌的记载中有所提及。 “calligaphe”（速记员）一词是阴性词。 而“tachygraphoi”（速记员们）则是阳性词。 我们虽不清楚这些人员的具体构成，但其中确实似乎有女性，这其实颇为耐人寻味。亚历山大的克莱门特——奥利金在亚历山大的前任—— 对女性参与他的 课堂教学持非常开放的态度。我认为奥利金在此处，如果这一说法准确的话，态度大概也是如此。 只是我们对此尚无更确切的了解。 我曾提到过这封写给尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯的信。 塞克斯图斯·尤利乌斯·阿非利加努斯当时身在耶路撒冷，是早期教会的一位博学之士。他在信中对奥利金说：“听闻你讲解《但以理书》中苏珊娜的故事，我深感惊叹。 你将其视为该书的正统部分，但若从文学角度审视，有证据表明这实际上是后世增补的内容。” 奥利金回信了。他阐述了自己认为该段落属于原著的理由。他说，即使它不是原著，教会也在使用它。所以我认为我们不应该将其剔除。我们应当保持我们的传统。但在信的结尾，他总结道：“这就是我想说的话。 我向你们问候，也向在耶路撒冷与你们同在的某某和某某致意。”还有 安布罗斯以及其他一些人。我想马塞拉和这里提到的另外几位也送上了问候。所以你能大致了解这个小团体中都有哪些人。 但我记不清玛塞拉是不是唯一的女性了，得再查查。 如果这回答了你的问题，我也说不准。 安布罗斯真是个有趣的人物。除了奥利金告诉我们的那些，我们对他知之甚少。大约在公元231年左右，奥利金因与主教德米特里发生冲突而离开亚历山大，前往圣地的海边凯撒利亚。 他在《马太福音注释》第六卷的序言中提到，他原本在亚历山大开始撰写第六卷，但风波骤起，迫使他逃离。 他惋惜自己的手稿未能随身带走。如果我记得没错，他的速记员似乎也没能和他一起离开。 抵达凯撒利亚后，他重新起草了第六卷。我们可以将第六卷的成书时间定在约231年或232年。在第十卷中，有些讨论内容与他的《论祷告》注释有所重叠，这使得保罗·凯乔认为《论祷告》大概也是在同一时期写成的。 皮埃尔·诺坦以及几乎所有研究过这部文本的学者都将其创作时间定在231年至235年之间，大致就在那个时期。他在文本中提到了安布罗斯。安布罗斯做了什么？他说了什么？ 安布罗斯 向他提出了若干关于祈祷实践的异议，并要求奥利金作出回应，即哲学层面的回应。 奥利金在此处的表述中，将此视为一个“问题”（problema）， 当他列举这些异议时，随即予以回应。 第五节是这些反对意见，第六节是他对这些意见的初步回应。这些反对意见归根结底都指向一个核心观点：即上帝具有预定论。如果上帝是永恒不变的，首先，祈祷是荒谬的，因为你无法改变上帝的意念。上帝是至简的。 其次，上帝是预定的。 如果上帝预见了未来将发生什么，那么无论你采取什么行动，事情都会照旧发生。 我记不清其他几条具体反对意见了，但它们都围绕着这些特定主题。奥利金从论述不同存在体的运动本质开始进行反驳。 木棍、石头以及那些毫无生命的存在，只能被自身之外的力量所推动。而若论及生物——那些看似具有自主运动能力的存在——其中有些生物的自主运动仅仅源于其身体构造的本质。 身体的本质在于变化，经历流变、增减等过程。但这并非理性层面的运动，也不是由某种意象所驱动的运动。 反观那些拥有某种灵魂的事物，例如动物，它们会做出反应；它们心中会浮现某种意象，继而受其驱使作出反应。至于像我们这样的理性生物，虽然同样会接收到这种驱动力，但我们还拥有“理性”这一特质，它使我们能够辨别是非并据此作出选择。 他说，若剥夺我们通过自身进行自主运动的能力，就等于剥夺了我们之所以为人的本质。他说我们将不再具备理性。事实上，若剥夺这种连动物（尽管程度不如人类）在某种程度上都具备的自主运动能力，我们甚至将不再是生命体。 洛伦佐·佩罗尼在他那部关于祈祷的意大利语巨著中曾提及这一点。我们在此探讨的文本，其性质类似于“杯之难题”（problemata calicis）或“问题与解答”体裁，这种体裁至少可追溯至亚里士多德。我认为他是对的。 我认为这是一部结构上符合此类特征的哲学文本。在序言中，他引出了主题，并论述了人类无法独自领悟这一真理，需要神的帮助才能抵达。 随后，当他开始论述祈祷的本质时，便转向了术语的定义。接着，在探讨这些哲学异议时，他从运动的基本原理入手。随着论述的推进，他进一步阐述道： 即便我们未能获得那些自以为理应从祈祷中获得的益处， 我们依然获得了益处，因为我们以某种特定方式调整了自身， 将心神专注于其应有的对象——神性；通过这一过程，我们清除了“主宰心智者”（hegemonikon）或心灵中所有阻碍心智、使其陷入泥淖的杂念。 因此，即便我们未能获得某种物质上的益处， 我们仍获得了更符合我们本性的益处。这构成了第一部分， 即第3章至 第16或17章，奥利金本人称之为“祈祷之问题”（problema）。 接着是第二部分， 第18章至第31章，是对《主祷文》逐条（或逐节）的注释。 奥利金在此处的过渡颇具深意。他说，既然我们已经探讨了“祷告之难题”（problema），现在是时候谈谈我们从圣经中关于祷告的启示，以及我们被教导要如何祷告。这就是他开始论述《主祷文》的地方。 手稿中有一处耐人寻味之处： 在页边注中，一位抄写员写下了“arti”一词，而奥利金正是以此为过渡，开始了对《主祷文》的阐释。 但他首先对比了马太福音和路加福音中的《主祷文》，并提到他们曾在马可福音中寻找证据，以确认那里是否存在类似内容。 他得出的结论是，这两处祷文实为两篇独立的祷文，因为在马太福音中，它紧接在《登山宝训》之后。 而在路加福音中，则是回应门徒中有人请求耶稣教导他们如何祷告。他说，尽管这两段祷文在许多方面有重叠，但它们实际上是两段不同的祷文。他在逐节讲解时，更多地侧重于马太福音中的表述。 有趣的是，当他说“既然我们已经探讨了这一点，接下来我们将继续讨论这个”时，他使用了复数形式。 这几乎就像他在对一群人讲话， 也许是在教室里， 但至少安布罗斯和其他人，当时可能还有另外几个人参与这个项目。他说，我们查阅了《马可福音》以查看是否有类似内容，但没有发现任何相似之处。 这几乎就像是在进行一项小组练习，整个过程正在逐步展开。 如果我们将他的复数形式理解为字面上的复数——虽然我知道有人认为这更多是“尊严复数”—— 但在我的译文中，当他说“我们做了这件事”时，我会坚持使用实际的复数形式。 接着便是对《主祷文》的逐节解读。在他那段比较马太福音与路加福音的小论述之后，他便真正开始分析经文。 我们在天上的父。而在手稿的这一处， 还有另一条旁注写着“我们的钥匙”。所以 如果你读过足够多的奥利金，就会知道在他真正开始论述某个主题之前，总会先对即将阐述的内容写一段冗长的序言。 有时他直到后半部分才真正切入核心。我不禁好奇，抄写员在开头写下“我们的钥匙”时，是否以为这样就没问题了，以为奥利金接下来就要开始讲解《主祷文》了。 两页之后，他才终于写到经文本身。我不确定，但想象抄写员在抄写或阅读这份手稿时的心态，确实挺有意思的。 在《主祷文》之后， 他提到必须再次回到祷告的问题上，几乎像是在写一个附录。在那里，他谈到了不同的实际方面。我们在祷告时应该采取什么样的身体姿势？ 如果我们是在恳求，那就是恳求，而不是忏悔。 即祈求、祷告、恳求、感恩。对于正在恳求的人来说，跪下是恰当的，因为这才是真正寻求宽恕的灵魂应有的姿态。在赞美时，你应该伸展双臂，呈“祈祷者”姿势，诸如此类。 他提出了一个问题：我们应该面向太阳所在的方向祈祷，还是始终面向东方？他说：“我理解人们为何会说要面向太阳所在的方向祈祷，但无论太阳在哪里，我们其实都应该面向东方，因为那是太阳升起的地方。” 这当然象征着“正义之太阳”的复活。 在探讨了这些关于祈祷的实际问题后，他给出了结论。内容非常简短，甚至算不上真正的结论。他说：“这就是我给你们的。这很难。 我们讨论了这么多不同的内容。请带着一点宽容去阅读，因为我也是人，不可能做到尽善尽美。”大致就是这样的结构。
[English] So the structure lends itself to asking some questions about the content. So he speaks at the beginning about how he sort of distinguishes but doesn’t distinguish between effi and pros-effi, which is an interesting terminological digression. But then he has this distinction or structure that you mentioned. So this is the sort of petition, praise, or glorification, something that’s called adoration.
Yeah.
Supplication and then thanksgiving.
The Greek terms are harder to align with those categories I feel like, so prosyth, the term translated as glorification or praise adoration, how does he talk about that or does he just draw these lines between the greek terms and the english so.
He and posse he takes as interchangeable and he looks through different appearances of them in scripture and how scripture uses them. He says they’re effectively the same thing. He doesn’t, so he doesn’t distinguish between them.
I’d have to look actually at my translation to see what specific biblical passages he uses. I can’t remember off the top of my head.
But prosophi, of course, was also for, in Hellenistic Judaism, was the house of prayer. But Origen seems to take it as synonymous with fhe. He doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two.
So the other thing is that they cease and enthe cease, this petition or supplication, petition versus supplication. How does he distinguish those? This is sort of number one and number three on the list.
Yeah, yeah. So the petition is simply, I think, asking for… let me get back into my translation and just take a look real quick, just to make sure I’m getting it right here. In section 14, he brings up 1 Timothy, and says that Paul gives us four terms that are relevant for our discourse: supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings. Supplication, he says, is a prayer that is sent up to obtain something that is lacked by someone. Prayer, f key or post f key, is sent up by someone with praise for greater things. Petition is a request to God for certain things by someone who…
Okay, so it seems like the difference between supplication and petition, so the first and the third, is that supplication is sent up by someone who lacks something and there’s a bit of humility there. Whereas a petition, he says, is a request very similar to supplication, but the person who presents it has a greater boldness, a greater parousia. So I don’t know if there’s a certain kind of condition that’s changed between a supplicant and someone making a petition. I don’t know.
Okay, so here’s one. Deesis, supplication. So here he gets to Luke. Gabriel says to Zechariah, when Zechariah appears to be praying about the birth of John the Baptist. It says, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your supplication was heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear a son with you, and you will call his name John.”
And then in Exodus, the making of the golden calf, it says, “Moses prayed before the Lord God and said, Why are you provoked to anger, Lord, for your people whom you led out of Egypt with great strength?” And that’s a supplication. Let’s see, and then petition and terms used by the apostles. So Paul reasonably assigns this to our control, but petition… So prayer is something that’s within our control, but petition Paul links with the Spirit, so it’s something that we need the Spirit’s help to do because being greater than us and one who possesses boldness. When he says Paul is greater than us and possesses a certain boldness when he says, “How we ought to pray as we ought we do not know, but the spirit himself with unspeakable groans intercedes with God, and he who searches the heart knows the will of the Spirit that intercedes with God for the saints.”
This is sort of calling in a favor, making a request of somebody who will grant the request, as opposed to asking for some kind of patronage.
Yeah, and I think that’s actually, I think, spot on. And I think that’s probably why for petition then, we need the aid of the Spirit to do it, because there’s a certain additional kind of confidence that we bring with it. Yeah.
Interesting. Yeah, that’s illuminating, because when you read descriptions of the text, these two are not necessarily distinguished very clearly. So that’s helpful. But this brings us to the question of who we pray to, and Origen famously says that we pray to the Father, and that we pray sort of with Christ, right, as our kind of confrere, and he himself is one who prays, so we don’t pray to him, we pray to the Father. Can you talk a little bit about that? It’s an important feature of the text.
[中文] 因此，这种结构自然让人对内容产生一些疑问。他在开头提到，他虽然在某种程度上区分了“effi”和“pros-effi”，但又并未真正将其区分开来，这是一个有趣的术语上的插曲。 但随后他提出了你提到的这种区分或结构。这属于一种祈求、赞美或颂扬，也就是所谓的“敬拜”。
是的。
先是祈求，然后是感恩。
我觉得希腊语术语很难与这些类别对应，比如“prosyth”——这个被译为“颂扬”、“赞美”或“敬拜”的词，他是如何讨论它的？还是说他只是在希腊语术语和英语术语之间划了这些界限？
他将“prosyth”和“posse”视为可互换的，并考察了它们在圣经中的不同表现形式以及圣经如何使用它们。他说它们实际上是同一回事。他并没有……所以他并不区分它们。
我得查一下我的译本，看看他具体引用了哪些圣经经文。 我一时想不起来。
当然，“prosophi”在希腊化犹太教中也指“祷告之所”。但奥利金似乎将其视为“fhe”的同义词。他似乎并不区分二者。
所以另一个问题是，他们停止了，而“enthe”也停止了，这种“恳求”或“祈求”，即“恳求”与“祈求”的区别。他是如何区分这两者的？这大概就是清单上的第一点和第三点。
是的，是的。所以“恳求”只是，我认为，就是请求…… 让我回到我的译文中，快速看一眼，确保我这里理解正确。在第14节中，他提到了《提摩太前书》，并指出保罗给了我们四个与我们的讨论相关的术语：恳求、祷告、祈求和感谢。 他说，恳求是一种为了获得某人所缺乏之物而向上献上的祷告。祷告（无论是按F键还是按后F键），是由某人为了赞美更伟大的事物而献上的。祈求则是某人向神请求某些事物……
好的，看来“恳求”与“祈请”（即第一项和第三项）的区别在于：恳求是由缺乏某些事物的人发出的，其中带着些许谦卑。 而“请愿”，他解释道，虽与“恳求”极为相似，但提出者却怀有更大的胆量，更强的临在感。所以我不知道恳求者与请愿者之间是否存在某种特定的状态差异。我不确定。
好的，这里有一个例子。Deesis，即恳求。 接着他提到路加福音。当撒迦利亚似乎正在为施洗约翰的诞生祷告时，加百列对他说：“撒迦利亚，不要害怕，因为你的祈求已被垂听，你的妻子伊丽莎白将为你生一个儿子，你要给他起名叫约翰。”
然后在《出埃及记》中，关于制造金牛犊的记载，经文说：“摩西在耶和华神面前祷告说：‘主啊，你为何向你用大能从埃及领出来的百姓发怒呢？’”这就是一种恳求。 再来看使徒们使用的“祈求”及相关术语。保罗合理地将这部分归于我们可掌控的范畴，但“祈求”…… 所以祷告是我们能够掌控的，但保罗将“祈求”与圣灵联系在一起，因此这是我们需要圣灵帮助才能做到的，因为圣灵比我们更伟大，且拥有胆量。 当保罗说圣灵比我们更伟大且拥有某种胆量时，他这样说：“我们本不晓得当怎样祷告，只是圣灵亲自用说不出来的叹息替我们祈求。鉴察人心的，晓得圣灵的意思，因为圣灵是替圣徒祈求的。”
这就像是向一位定会应允的人求助，向他提出请求，而不是寻求某种庇护。
是的，我觉得这其实非常准确。 我想这大概就是为什么在祈求时，我们需要圣灵的帮助，因为这会带来一种额外的信心。是的。
很有意思。是的，这很有启发性，因为当你阅读经文的注释时，这两者往往并没有被非常明确地区分开来。 所以这很有帮助。但这引出了我们向谁祈祷的问题，奥利金曾著名地指出，我们是向圣父祈祷，并且我们是与基督一同祈祷，对吧，他就像我们的同伴，而他自己也是一个祈祷者，所以我们不是向他祈祷，而是向圣父祈祷。 你能就此稍作阐述吗？这是文本的一个重要特征。
[English] It is a very important feature of the text, and it is one that would land Origen in a little bit of trouble. In the fourth century, this is where he gets accused of what’s called subordinationism, where for Origen the Son was somehow less in dignity than the Father. This is section 15. This is where he gets into that. This is how he says it. If we listen, kousomen, to what prayer actually is, prosephi, and I think actually is toonti, but I can’t remember what the Greek has there. We must not pray to any begotten beings. Notice he doesn’t call the Son here created, but begotten. So we don’t pray to any begotten beings, not even to Christ himself, but to the God of the universe and the Father alone, to whom our Savior himself prayed, as we said previously, and as he teaches us to pray.
So his argument at this point is twofold. One, we don’t pray to begotten beings, which he distinguishes here from created beings, and scripture itself. Jesus himself teaches us to pray to the Father. He did not teach us to pray to him. This is really where we get into this issue of whether he is pro-Nicene or anti-Nicene, and where those labels are anachronistic and not helpful, because he says, “For if he is distinct from the Father, as it is shown in other places, the Son of the Father has his own being and individual existence.” So that’s how I’m rendering kat uzeon, his own being, and his own individual existence, which he here [calls] not hypostasis, but hypo-kemanon.
So the Son is distinct from the Father, both, he says here, in substance and in this kind of what lies underneath that substance. Then we must pray either to the Son and not the Father, or to both, or to the Father alone. So if we maintain that the Son is distinct from the Father, then we ask ourselves: are we supposed to pray to multiple beings, to multiple gods? And he says whosoever will acknowledge that the one who will speak to the Son and not to the Father is most absurd and contrary to the self-evident truth. But, if it’s to both, then it is clear that we would offer requests in the plural, and we would say something like this, “You all grant, you all save,” which are obviously absurd. Nor has anyone demonstrated that this is found expressed in these ways in the scriptures.
So I think what he’s doing here, so Origen… One of his first principles in talking about God is that God is a simple substance. So there’s no multiplicity in God, and there’s no change in God. So if we were to offer prayers to the Father and the Son, we would do so in the plural, which he sees as somehow inappropriate to address to a simple substance. That, I think, is what he’s talking about here. But then he does say what we do. Therefore, it remains for us to pray to the God of the universe and Father alone, but not without the high priest, who was appointed with an oath by the Father. According to the verse, he swore an oath and he will not change his mind. That’s Hebrews 7.20, 7.21.
Giving thanks to God in their prayers, the saints expressed gratitude to him through Jesus Christ. So he doesn’t say that we leave Christ out. He just says Christ is not the proper recipient of our prayer, but we pray to the Father through Christ. So he kind of gives a Trinitarian lens to it. So it’s interesting that he replicates the sort of doxological formula that will come into controversy later. Sort of we pray in the Spirit through the Son, through the Father. It’s sort of a reverse doxology.
It’s interesting that he distinguishes the Son here as genitos. One of the things we’re told when we study 4th century theology is that the distinction between genitos, the difference between generated meaning begotten and generated meaning created, this isn’t a firm distinction until later, until the time of Athanasius. But do you see this clearly distinguished here in this treatise? Well, when you phrase it like that, I’m not sure I would go that far. What does he mean here, genitos? And is he creating some kind of a distinction? We have to remember in On First Principles, Origen articulates the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. And he does this also, I think, in his commentary on John, is it book one? I can’t remember. But on the premise that God is unchangeable, when we call God Father, we don’t mean that there was a time when God was not Father and then later became Father. So, Origen reasons then that the Son is always the Son, and this generation is one that’s eternal. It doesn’t take place in time. So then you could logically say from that there was no time when the Son was not, whereas someone like Arius would say there was a time when he was not.
But does Origen create that kind of firm distinction that we see articulated after Nicaea? I don’t think I would go that far. I don’t think Origen would have anticipated what was going to unfold probably about 75 years after he died.
[中文] 这是文本中一个非常重要的特征，也是让奥利金陷入些许麻烦的原因。在四世纪，他正因这一点被指控为“从属论”，即奥利金认为圣子在尊荣上某种程度上低于圣父。 这是第15节。他正是在此处论及这一观点。他的表述如下：如果我们倾听（kousomen），祷告的本质究竟是什么（prosephi），我认为实际上是（toonti），但我记不清原文希腊文的具体表述了。 我们绝不可向任何受生者祈祷。请注意，他在此处并未称圣子为“受造者”，而是“受生者”。因此，我们不向任何受生者祈祷，甚至不向基督本人祈祷，而只向宇宙之神、独一的父神祈祷——正如我们先前所言，我们的救主自己曾向祂祈祷，祂也教导我们如此祈祷。
因此，他在此处的论点有两方面。第一，我们不向受生的存在祈祷——他在此将受生的存在与受造的存在区分开来，并援引圣经本身。耶稣亲自教导我们向父祈祷，他并未教导我们向他祈祷。 这正是我们探讨他究竟是支持尼西亚派还是反对尼西亚派的关键所在，而这些标签在此既不合时宜也无助于理解，因为他说：“因为如果他与父神有别——正如其他地方所示——那么作为父神的儿子，他便拥有自己的本体和独立的存在。” 因此，我将“kat uzeon”译为“他自己的本体”和“他自己的独立存在”，他在此处并非称之为“hypostasis”（位格），而是称之为“hypo-kemanon”。
因此，圣子与圣父是相异的，他在此指出，这种相异既在于本体，也在于本体之下所蕴含的本质。于是，我们必须决定是向圣子而非圣父祈祷，还是向二者一同祈祷，抑或仅向圣父祈祷。 因此，若我们坚持圣子有别于圣父，便需自问：难道我们该向多个实体、多个神明祈祷吗？他指出，凡是主张应向圣子而非圣父祈祷者，其观点最为荒谬，且与不言自明的真理相悖。 但若向二者同时祈祷，显然我们便需以复数形式提出请求，例如说“你们都赐予，你们都拯救”，这显然荒谬。况且，也无人能证明圣经中存在此类表述。
因此我认为，奥利金在此的论点是……他在论及上帝时的一个基本原则是：上帝是单一实体。因此，上帝内部不存在多重性，也不存在变化。 因此，若我们要向圣父和圣子祈祷，就必须使用复数形式，而他认为这种形式用以称呼一位单纯实体，在某种程度上并不恰当。我认为，这就是他在此所论述的。但他随后确实说明了我们的做法。 因此，我们应当仅向宇宙之神、独一的父神祷告，但这并非不包括那位由父神以誓言所立的大祭司。根据经文，父神曾起誓，祂必不改变心意。这就是《希伯来书》7章20节、21节。
圣徒们在祷告中向神献上感谢，是通过耶稣基督向他表达感恩。所以他并没有说我们要排除基督。他只是说基督并非我们祷告的直接对象，而是我们通过基督向父神祷告。因此，他某种程度上赋予了这一观点三位一体的视角。 有趣的是，他在此复现了后来会引发争议的那种颂荣公式。我们仿佛是借着圣灵，通过圣子，进而通过圣父来祷告。这是一种反向的颂荣。
值得注意的是，他在此将圣子称为“genitos”。 研究四世纪神学时，我们常被告知，“genitos”的区分——即“被生”（begotten）与“被造”（created）的区别——直到后来，直到亚他那修时代才成为明确的界定。但你是否认为在这篇论著中，这一区分已十分清晰？ 嗯，你这么一说，我不确定我会走那么远。他这里用“genitos”是什么意思？他是在建立某种区分吗？ 我们必须记住，在《论第一原理》中，奥利金阐述了圣子永恒生成的教义。 我认为他在《约翰福音注释》中也阐述了这一点，是第一卷吗？我记不清了。但基于“神是不变的”这一前提，当我们称神为“父”时，并非指曾有过神不是“父”的时期，而是在后来才成为“父”。 因此，奥利金进而推论：圣子始终是圣子，这种“生”是永恒的，它不发生在时间之中。由此逻辑上可以说，圣子从未有过不存在的时刻，而像阿里乌斯这样的人则会说，曾有过圣子不存在的时刻。
但奥利金是否确立了那种我们在尼西亚会议后所见到的明确区分？我认为他并未做到这般彻底。我想奥利金恐怕也未曾预料到，在他去世约75年后，事情会如何发展。
[English] So it makes me wonder if one of the reasons this text doesn’t remain of interest is the Christological controversies that unfold in the middle Byzantine period. In the 11th and 12th centuries, these controversies were precisely over to whom one prays in the Eucharist. Is one praying through the Father, through the Son, etc.? And so this precise topic continues to be of interest. Obviously, the manuscript is a little bit later. But on the note of the Eucharist, the other thing that this text is known for is Origen’s interpretation of the daily bread. So he says specifically that we shouldn’t pray for mundane things, but then he has to explain why we pray for daily bread. And he gives what I think, for our Orthodox Christian readers, is a tempting interpretation of epiousios.
The problem that I often tell people is that one doesn’t see that language in the Fathers after this. One doesn’t see that interpretation. So can you talk a little bit about how Origen interprets that?
Epiousios there. Yes, this is one of the lengthier sections in the treatise, because he does a couple of different things with it, much like all of his biblical commentaries, he will provide multiple different interpretations. This begins in section 27. Early on in the treatise, I think it’s in the prologue, or maybe in section three, where Origen applies this agraphon, or this unwritten saying attributed to Jesus, something to the effect of, don’t pray for the lesser things, pray for the greater things, and then the lesser things will be added. So he starts off with that. Some people assume we’re told to pray for corporeal bread. How does one, he says, who says that we must request heavenly and great things? So that’s a reference to the agraphon again. Since neither is the bread that is delivered for the body a heavenly substance, nor is praying for such a thing a great request. So it’s kind of mundane. How is this consistent with this agraphon of Jesus who said, pray for the greater things and lesser things will be added? So it’s kind of gives you a hint that he’s not going to read this as corporeal bread. But then he goes, there’s a section where he takes apart the term itself, epiousion, and he says, well, if we just take a look at this word, we have an epi, which is for, and then ousia, which refers to substance. So we’re told in the word itself that this is some kind of a bread for our substance. And if we know then that we’re supposed to ask for the greater things, and if the corporeal bread is a lesser thing that we’re not really supposed to ask for, this must be some kind of substance that is not like a material substance. It’s got to be some kind of a spiritual or intellectual substance. That’s kind of his argument for why he doesn’t take this as something that is corporeal. And he doesn’t apply it to the practice of the Eucharist, which is something that he doesn’t really talk a lot about in general. He mentions it a few times, and in the beginning of this treatise, he actually criticized—something I forgot to mention—so these objections here that are leveled against prayer, where do they come from? Some people think that they originate kind of in Gnostic circles, and Origen himself alludes to the people who do away with the physical things altogether and who practice neither baptism nor Eucharist. So clearly, Origen is practicing the Eucharist, even though he doesn’t kind of expound on it theologically very much. But here, in this case, he doesn’t at all link the daily bread with the Eucharist. Rather, he links it with. He connects it with John 6:51, the bread of life, but it’s really more feeding on the bread of life through our encounter in the scriptures, I think, is where he’s taking this to. This is where we get really our spiritual nourishment from. It’s like the real presence in scripture itself.
One of the things that reminds me is that, because this manuscript does originate in the 15th century, you do have the group called the Bogomils in the Byzantine world, who are essentially a kind of eastern Albigensian group, and they reject all forms of prayer except for the Our Father, which draws an interesting line to this text, but they also reject the sacraments of the church. So it would be interesting to know how exactly this text lines with that, and because it’s probably relevant to its reception, at least in a very broad way.
[中文] 这让我不禁思考，这段文本之所以不再引人关注，是否部分原因在于中世纪拜占庭时期爆发的基督论争论。在11世纪和12世纪，这些争论恰恰围绕着在圣体圣事中向谁祈祷这一问题展开。 是应当通过圣父、通过圣子等来祈祷吗？因此，这一具体议题至今仍引人关注。显然，该手稿的成书时间稍晚于此。但在论及圣体圣事时，该文本的另一大特色在于奥利金对“日用的饮食”的诠释。 他明确指出，我们不应为世俗之事祈祷，但随后又必须解释为何要祈求“日用的饮食”。他给出的“epiousios”一词的解释，我认为对我们的东正教读者而言极具吸引力。
我常向人指出一个问题：此后教父们的著作中再未出现这种表述，也未见这种解释。那么，您能否简要谈谈奥利金是如何解释这一点的？
关于“epiousios”这一点。是的，这是该论著中篇幅较长的部分之一，因为他对这一词汇进行了多方面的探讨，正如他所有的圣经注释一样，他会提供多种不同的解释。这从第27节开始。 在该论著的早期部分，我记得是在序言中，或者可能在第3节，奥利金引用了这个“未写下的言语”（agrafon），即归于耶稣名下的那句未被记载的箴言，大意是：不要为小事祈祷，要为大事祈祷，这样小事自然会加给你们。 所以他以此开篇。 有些人认为我们被要求祈求的是肉身的面包。他说，既然有人主张我们必须祈求天上的大事，那该如何理解呢？这又再次引出了那个“未写之言”。因为既为身体所赐的面包并非天上的物质，祈求这样的事物也并非伟大的请求。 所以这有点世俗。这怎么能与耶稣那句“祈求更重大的事，次要的事自会加给你们”的无字经相符呢？这多少暗示了他不会将此解读为物质的饼。 但随后他进一步分析了“epiousion”这个词本身，他说：如果我们仅从字面看，这个词由“epi”（意为“关于”）和“ousia”（意为“实质”）组成。 因此，单从这个词本身来看，它就告诉我们，这是一种关乎我们本质的“面包”。既然我们知道应当祈求更重大的事，而物质上的面包属于我们不该真正祈求的次要之事，那么这必然是一种不同于物质本质的存在。 它必然是一种精神或理性的实质。这便是他认为此物并非物质之物的论据。 他并未将这一观点应用于圣餐礼的实践，因为圣餐礼本身是他通常很少谈及的话题。他虽曾数次提及，但在本论著开篇时，他实际上曾批评过——这一点我之前忘了提到——那么，这里针对祈祷提出的这些反对意见，究竟源自何处？ 有人认为它们源于诺斯替派圈子，奥利金本人也曾提及那些完全摒弃物质事物、既不施行洗礼也不参与圣餐礼的人。因此很明显，尽管奥利金在神学上并未对此多加阐述，但他本人确实在实践圣餐礼。 但在本段论述中，他并未将“日用的饮食”与圣餐礼联系起来，而是将其与…… 他将其与《约翰福音》6章51节中的“生命之粮”联系起来，但我认为，他真正要表达的是：我们通过在圣经中的相遇来领受生命之粮。这才是我们真正获得属灵滋养的源泉。这就像是圣经本身所蕴含的真实临在。
有一件事让我想起，因为这份手稿确实源自15世纪， 当时拜占庭世界确实存在一个名为“波戈米尔派”的群体，他们本质上是一种东方的阿尔比派，除了《主祷文》外，他们拒绝一切形式的祷告，这与本文形成了一条有趣的联系，但他们同时也拒绝教会的圣礼。 因此，探究这篇文本与该教派的关联究竟何在，将颇具意义，因为这至少在宏观层面上，可能与其接受史相关。
[English] But I want to end by asking you your approach to the translation itself. Translators often get asked how they approach rendering ancient Greek into English, and whether they’re more on the literal side or more on the paraphrastic side. Could you address this general question?
That’s something I’m still learning as I go along. This is my first translation. But before, I just want to mention for people who watch, go to section 27.8, because there Origen is going to expand on ousia, substance. And there he goes through the different philosophical definitions of matter, hyle. It’s a very interesting discussion there.
A couple of things for me, since this is my first translation, my first independent translation. I’m doing a couple of other collaborative projects with a friend of mine, Kai Heinz, where we’re translating some other smaller texts. But because I’m inexperienced at this, my first go through, I have a full draft done and I tried to stick to what the Greek actually has. So I’m trying to be very conservative in not altering the text too much. Now, when you read patristic literature in Greek, you’ll see that their sentences can go on for a very long time, even before you get to the main verb. And so when I do that in English and I stick to that, it makes for kind of clumsy reading. So as I go through and I revise, I’ll probably try to smooth it a little bit, but I don’t want to chop up these things into different sentences too often. I want to put it into English as closely as it is with the Greek text. But I’m still kind of figuring out where to balance that because there are points where you can go several lines without a period, and it just makes it hard. So at some point I’ll probably end up breaking it up into two sentences or something like that.
The other thing that I’m also thinking about here, before I was talking about, at the beginning of his section on the Lord’s Prayer, Origen had talked about: we have finished our discussion regarding the problem of prayer. Now it’s time to go on to this next struggle, which is talking about the prayer that Jesus taught us. And he’s using plural pronouns and he’s using first person plural verbs and plural participles. Rowan Greer, who’s got the most recent translation of this from 1979, he takes all of those plurals, almost every one in the Treatise, with a few exceptions, and he takes them as the majestic plural and translates them in the singular. I think if we keep them in the plural, it does actually lead to questions about the social context in which Origen produced the text. As I hypothesize, I think there’s some kind of group activity going on here where it’s not just Origen dictating to stenographers. It’s certainly not Origen sitting down at a desk and writing this out. That’s not how Origen composed his texts. He tells us that he dictated them and stenographers would take them down in shorthand and then he would edit them and revise them for publication. I actually think there’s a group process that unfolds here where, at the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer, this transition, and then he says, we looked in the Gospel of Mark to see if there are any kind of similar prayers, but we didn’t find any. That kind of sounds like, in the course of producing this text, the group worked together to study Matthew and say, well, we don’t really find anything here. There are a couple of other instances of that kind of expression, which leads to here. Here’s a great example. Our Father who is in heaven. This is where the very beginning of his verse-by-verse on Matthew on the Lord’s Prayer. Twenty-two point one, section twenty-two, is worth looking at most carefully for what the Old Testament, in the Palaia Diatheke, says, if a prayer is in it anywhere, that calls God Father. For at the moment, having scrutinized the matter as far as we were able, and having scrutinized here, that’s a nominative plural participle that he’s using. I think it is exetazontes. I can’t remember the exact participle. We did not find any prayers. Heuronmen. So he’s beginning his verse-by-verse commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. What do they do to start? They do an exercise where they look in the Old Testament to see if there’s any prayers there that call God Father. They didn’t find any. If we render that into the singular, I think we miss perhaps a window into the process in which this text was produced. I think being rather conservative with rendering the plurals as plurals opens up very interesting historical questions for us. That’s another aspect that I’m doing in my translation. And then the final point…
It probably strengthens your argument that Origen wouldn’t have to look through Mark to know that there’s no Our Father there. Origen by himself would have known.
He would have known. That’s an excellent point. It’s even interesting that he did that at all. But it also raises questions about the people who were with him. Would they not have known, too, that in Mark there was nothing?
I think that, again, I get criticized for this sometimes. Some people think I read too much into the plurals, but I think there’s something there. And another thing I’m trying to bring out in my translation is the philosophical context in which Origen is composed. It’s not merely a text addressing ecclesiastical practice. It’s responding to philosophical objections to prayer. We see in those objections that are articulated at the beginning, parallels in Middle Platonic philosophers like Maximus of Tyre, for example, who opposes petitionary prayer on very similar grounds to the ones that are articulated in the objections that Origen lists here. He’s engaging in a much broader philosophical discourse. When he does that, like with Epiousion, and he gets into this discussion of hyle, I really want to bring that out and make it clear to the reader that this is more than just something for church practice and spirituality. He’s actually providing a rational account for a Christian practice using philosophical language.
[中文] 但最后我想请教您对翻译本身采取的处理方式。译者们经常被问到，他们是如何将古希腊语译成英语的，以及他们更倾向于直译还是意译。您能谈谈这个问题吗？
这是我仍在边做边学的事情。 这是我的第一部译作。但在开始之前，我想提醒各位观众，请翻到第27.8节，因为奥利金将在那里详细阐述“ousia”（实体）的概念。他会逐一探讨“hyle”（物质）在不同哲学流派中的定义，那里的讨论非常引人入胜。
还有几点需要说明，因为这是我的首次翻译，也是我第一次独立完成翻译。 我正与一位朋友凯·海因茨（Kai Heinz）合作进行其他几个项目，我们正在翻译一些较短的文本。但因为我在这方面经验尚浅，这是我的首次尝试，我已经完成了一份完整的初稿，并尽量忠实于希腊原文。 因此我力求非常保守，尽量不做过多改动。现在，当你阅读希腊语的教父文学时，你会发现他们的句子往往非常冗长，甚至在出现主要动词之前就已经很长了。 因此，当我将这种结构直接保留在英文译文中时，读起来会显得有些笨拙。所以在后续的修订过程中，我可能会适当调整以使行文更流畅，但我不希望过分频繁地将这些长句拆分成多个短句。 我希望将原文尽可能忠实地译为英语。但我仍在摸索如何把握平衡，因为有些地方连续几行都没有句号，这确实让人难以阅读。所以到一定程度，我可能还是会将其拆分为两个句子之类的处理。
另外，我还想到一件事——之前我提到过，在奥利金论及《主祷文》这一章节的开头，他曾提到：我们关于祷告问题的讨论已经结束。 现在是时候转向下一个课题了，即讨论耶稣教导我们的祷告。他使用了复数人称代词，以及第一人称复数动词和复数分词。 罗温·格里尔（Rowan Greer）拥有1979年出版的最新译本，他将《论主祷文》中几乎所有这些复数形式（仅有少数例外）都视为尊严复数，并将其译为单数。 我认为，若保留复数形式，反而会引发对奥利金撰写文本时社会背景的思考。据我推测，这里似乎存在某种集体活动，而不仅仅是奥利金向速记员口述。 奥利金肯定不是坐在书桌前独自写下这些内容的。这并非奥利金撰写文本的方式。他告诉我们，他是口述的，速记员用速记法记录下来，随后他会进行编辑和修订以备出版。 我实际上认为这里存在一个展开的集体过程：在《主祷文》开头，有这样一个过渡，随后他提到，我们查阅了《马可福音》以寻找是否有类似的祷文，但并未发现。 这听起来像是，在撰写本文的过程中，小组共同研读了《马太福音》，并表示：“嗯，我们在这里确实没找到什么。”还有几处类似的表述，最终引出了这里。这是一个很好的例子：“我们在天上的父”。 这正是他关于《马太福音》中《主祷文》逐节讲解的开篇。第22.1节（第22章）值得我们特别仔细研读，看看《旧约》（Palaia Diatheke）中是否存在任何祷文称呼上帝为“父”。 因为目前，在我们力所能及的范围内仔细查考过此事，并在此处查考过，他所用的是一个主格复数分词。我想是exetazontes。我记不清确切的分词了。 我们没有找到任何祷文。Heuronmen。因此，他开始对《主祷文》进行逐节注释。他们首先做了什么？他们进行了一项查考，在《旧约》中寻找是否有祷文称神为“父”。他们没有找到。 如果我们将该词译为单数，我认为我们或许会错过一扇窥探该文本形成过程的窗口。我认为在处理复数时保持保守态度，将其译为复数，会为我们开启一些非常有趣的历史问题。这也是我在翻译中着重处理的另一个方面。然后最后一点……
这或许能强化你的论点：奥利金根本无需查阅《马可福音》便知其中没有《主祷文》。奥利金自己早就清楚这一点。
他当然知道。这确实是个极好的观点。他之所以这么做，本身就很有意思。但这同时也引发了关于他身边那些人的疑问。难道他们不知道《马可福音》里根本没有相关内容吗？
我想，我有时会因此受到批评。有些人认为我对复数形式的解读过于牵强，但我认为其中确有深意。此外，我在翻译中还试图凸显奥利金写作时的哲学背景。这不仅仅是一部针对教会实践的文本。 它是针对哲学界对祈祷提出的异议所作的回应。我们在开篇阐述的那些异议中，可以看到与中世纪柏拉图主义哲学家（例如提尔的马克西穆斯）观点的平行之处——他反对祈求式祷告的理由，与奥利金在此列举的异议中所阐述的理由极为相似。 他参与的是一场更为广阔的哲学论述。当他像在《论祈求》中那样，深入探讨“质料”（hyle）这一概念时，我特别希望突显这一点，并向读者阐明：这绝非仅仅关乎教会实践与灵性修持。他实际上是在运用哲学术语，为一种基督教实践提供理性阐释。
[English] [336] John, thank you so much for coming and talking about this project of yours. We look forward to seeing your translation. Is there anything you would want to add that we haven’t covered? [337] There’s a lot, but for the sake of time, probably not. [338] There is something interesting though that I came across by chance. [339] For a paper I presented in Toronto at the Canadian Patristic Society last year, I was looking at Didymus the Blind’s lectures on the Psalms and those are very interesting because those are transcripts that we have from stenographers taken down that, for whatever reason, they just didn’t edit them and revise them for publication. We see student questions in the transcript, and then we see Didymus replying. And there’s one student in there, [340] I can’t remember which lecture on which psalm, I think it was Psalm 40 or something like that. The student says, [341] don’t we pray using the imperative rather than the optative? And the student says, yes, we do. And he doesn’t expand on that. But that is an element that we see in On Prayer, [342] where Origen is addressing why in the Lord’s Prayer imperatives are used instead of optatives. [343] Do we have a window here again with Didymus into the reception of this text in the mid to late 4th century? [344] I think that’s a very interesting question. I think the Cappadocians even get into praying with the imperative sometimes too, rather than the optative, because you would think the optative is used to express wishes. You would think that it would be used to express a wish. And Origen takes Tatian to task, just a martyr student, Tatian, for not recognizing that scripture uses imperatives rather than optatives to express prayer. And the first thing he goes to is, why the imperatives are used in Genesis 1? [345] Would God have needed to use an optative to wish that these elements of creation unfolded? No, he just commanded and there it was. Another interesting element of the text and its reception. [346] Yeah, that’s very interesting. [347] I hope you’ll continue to bring that out. [348] Thank you so much for doing this and for talking to us about this project. If nothing else, for reawakening our interest in this massively important historical treatise on prayer. It’s one of the earliest treatises on the subject. We take these things for granted, but it’s providential that it survives in this manuscript. We look forward to reading your translation. Thank you very much. [349] TK, thank you very much. It’s been a real pleasure.
[中文] [336] 约翰，非常感谢你今天来和我们聊聊你的这个项目。我们很期待看到你的译作。还有什么我们没提到、你想补充的吗？ [337] 其实有很多，但考虑到时间关系，可能就不说了。 [338]不过，我偶然发现了一件很有意思的事情。 [339] 去年我在多伦多加拿大教父学会发表论文时，研究了盲人迪迪摩斯关于《诗篇》的讲义。这些讲义非常有趣，因为它们是速记员记录下来的原始稿件，不知出于何种原因，这些稿件并未经过编辑和修订就直接出版了。 在记录中，我们可以看到学生们的提问，以及迪迪莫斯的回答。其中有一位学生， [340] 我记不清是哪篇关于哪篇《诗篇》的讲课了，我想应该是《诗篇》第40篇之类的。 这位学生问道： [341] 我们祈祷时不是用命令式而非愿态吗？学生回答说，是的，确实如此。但他并未对此展开论述。 但这正是我们在《论祈祷》中看到的要素， [342] 奥利金在其中探讨了为何《主祷文》中使用命令式而非愿态。 [343] 迪迪摩斯是否再次为我们提供了一个窗口，让我们得以窥见四世纪中后期对这一文本的接受情况？ [344] 我认为这是一个非常有趣的问题。我认为卡帕多西亚教父们有时甚至也会采用命令式而非祈愿式来祷告，因为人们通常认为祈愿式是用来表达愿望的。人们通常认为它应该用来表达一种愿望。 奥利金曾批评塔提安——这位殉道者兼学生——未能认识到圣经使用命令式而非愿态来表达祈祷。他首先探讨的便是：为何《创世记》第一章中使用了命令式？ [345] 上帝难道需要用祈愿式来祈愿这些受造之物显现吗？不，他只是下令，它们便出现了。这是文本及其接受史中的另一个有趣之处。 [346] 是的，这非常有趣。 [347] 希望你能继续深入探讨这一点。 [348] 非常感谢你参与这次活动，并向我们介绍这个项目。至少，你重新唤起了我们对这部关于祈祷的极其重要的历史论著的兴趣。这是该主题最早的论著之一。 我们往往对这些事物习以为常，但它能以手稿形式流传至今，实属天意。我们期待阅读您的译本。非常感谢。 [349] TK，非常感谢。这次交流真是令人愉悦。