作者：伍国宝

1. 妥拉的神圣启示地位

在三大唯一神宗教(基督教、回教及犹太教) 中，妥拉torah所占的地位是非常重要的。三者都以亚巴郎为祖先、信仰楷模；梅瑟为组织国民的典范。(1) 基督教深信耶稣是基督、天主子，即妥拉所预示要来的默西亚，现在已完成救赎工程，祇待其光荣再来；犹太教则仍等待这妥拉所预言的默西亚；而回教则以为耶稣是一位伟大先知。很明显他们是同一根本启示而分出的宗教。基督教在梵二大公会议中决定以大公精神鼓励世界和平联合一起UR4。(2) 二次世界大战后，人类痛定思痛，亦深切明白大同天国理想的需要。教会在圣神引导下努力发展，并已渐渐开始凝聚合一气候。在唯一神降凡近二千年，世界首领从人民的取向中都认同和平民主、经济互利的重要而贬低恐布暴力与灭族争战。三大宗教崇奉的唯一神所赐给人类的祝福是天主与人类是一家人。要保持宗教对人类的祝福，三教的信徒必须藉着圣子寻根索源于天父，在其圣神内团结一致，否则舍本逐末，各执一端就成为宗教战争，亦是宗教分裂的之始，这是人类的咒诅。大家和平共处的最好方法是彼此瞭解，而彼此瞭解的最好方法是在大家都从互信同根的经文开始。

在犹太教圣经中，妥拉亦称为梅瑟五书：即创世纪、出谷纪、肋未纪、户籍纪和申命纪。犹太人的塔耳慕德(Talmud) 有以五本五份之一的书来标示出天主的祝福。基督教与回教都是从这宗教繁衍出来的。无论犹太教或基督教都以妥拉为圣的，是天主启示的内容(若5：39，46；路24：25－27，44)。犹太人流徙巴比伦后建立第二圣殿时(约于公元前458年)，由厄斯德拉公开宣布妥拉成为正典(厄下8－10)。(3) 基督教会一向以之为圣，但于十六世纪面对马丁路德改革教会时，才确定妥拉的正典性。



1.《圣经辞典》，思高圣经学会　(1975)　1171。

2.《梵蒂冈第二届大公会议文献》大公主义法令4，中国主教团秘书处(1975)　566－568。

3.R. Hammer, The Classic Midrash. Tannaitic Commentaries on the Bible. (Paulist 1995) 1.

2. 马尔谷幅音的历史性及宗教意义

马尔谷在教会传统上是与玛窦、路加为对观福音。若望福音与马尔谷迥然不同在于刻意承接马尔谷的天启之余。但过去基督教会都认为马尔谷是最不重要的一本福音。

它是最短的，被公认为文笔最差的，历来以为是玛窦福音与路加福音的简化或重写。直到十九世纪末，在圣经文学批判研究下，才发现马尔谷是最早写成的福音。

最近二十年(1970－90年) 的圣经研究中，学者有趋势对马尔谷编纂耶稣的历史放在教会反省层面中，其属性应是一些教会最原始的神学资料。这样使马尔谷福音等同了玛窦福音及路加福音，亦编放其反思于保禄书信之后，最迟约于公元67－70年写成。近这十年，圣经学者更以为它是于公元70年编写而成13：2；cf. 14：58；15：29。(4)这时正是教难时期(64年)，亦是罗马兵捣毁耶京与圣殿的时刻(67－70年)。

有一些较晚期的记录：即此福音的大字体抄本(uncials) 及小书写体抄本(minuscules) 的羊皮卷认为马尔谷是写于公元42－44年间。约于耶稣升天后十年至十二年左右。(5)这论点亦很相近教难开始期，约于公元42年，即若望的哥哥雅各伯被黑落德用剑杀了的时期(宗12：1－5)。(6) 教难发生后，加速了宗徒写福音的工作，笔传福音已渐渐形成(宗6：1－4)。马尔谷福音载有最早的笔传，即最接近历史中的耶稣，它比路加与玛窦更详尽记述有关耶稣行奇迹的报道5：1－20；9：14－29。明显地，无论从历史角度或经文角度，马尔谷是处于新约的纵学之首(the head of the diachronic study)。



4.R.E. Brown, The Death Of The Messiah, Vol. 1 (Doubleday 1994) 4.

5.H.B. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Macmillan 1908) xl.

6.L.M. Fedrigotti, "The Gospel and the Gospels : " Theology Annual 16 (Hong Kong Holy Spirit Seminary College 1995) 203.

3. 马尔谷的文学结构与妥拉的内在关系

表面上马尔谷的文笔是急就章1：12；18；20。全书像没有一定规律及结构。细心阅读后才可以见其文气及文采，并可见到清晰的一组组同类资料。(7) 马尔谷的写作目的是证明耶稣是天主子，而这根据完全在于初期教会的圣经。若从第一世纪第一本基督徒作品的历史背景来瞭解，当时基督徒的妥拉有自己的书名。他们如同我们中国人一样以经书的首句命名，而非如希腊文化般以经书的核心内容为书名。妥拉的第一本书的希腊名称为创世纪，实在希伯来原文称为「在起初」(Bareshit) (创1：1)；妥拉的第二本书的希腊名称为出谷纪，实在希伯来原文称为「这些名字」(Shemot) (出1：1)；妥拉的第三本书的希腊名称为肋未纪，实在希伯来原文称为「祂叫了」(Wayyiqra) (肋1：1)；妥拉的第四本书的希腊名称为户籍纪，实在希伯来原文称为「在旷野」(Bammidbar) (户1：1)；而妥拉的第五本书的希腊名称为申命纪，实在希伯来原文称为「这些说话」(Devarim)，这是梅瑟依天主吩咐所讲的(申1：1－3)。(8) 奇怪的，这些希伯来原文的词汇及书中的述文，不约而同地一一出现在马尔谷福音中，并成为主段及发展内容(cf. Bacon on Matthew)：(9)

1：1 (祂的「开始」)?3：12；

3：13 (祂想要的十二人的「名字」)?6：6；

6：7 (「祂叫了」)?8：21；

8：22 (在这「荒野」里8：4；在村外8：23，26；「在路上」10：52)?10：52；

11：1 (11：6门徒就按照耶稣所吩咐的(话) 对他们说了)－－16：20 (16：19主耶稣给他们说了「这些话」以后，就被接升天，坐在天主的右边。)

在1：1及6：7中，很明显见到梅瑟五书的第一及第三个书名形成重要的段落之首字辞：「开始」及「呼召」。在3：13有明确的十二名字与出谷纪的第一句所论及的名字相同意义，而以3：16及3：17重覆提及起名的动词。故这第二段亦可以名为「名字篇」或「起名篇」。在8：22－10：52中，虽然起首几节没有明确出现所假设的「在旷野」这词汇，但在8：4早已开始了这在旷野的路程the way。事实上，妥拉中的户籍纪强调以民出离埃及往福地的路程on the way。同时，在11：1开始就好像没有「这些说话」这词汇，但有一个重要的事实就是「耶稣打发两个门徒，对他们说」的说话内容，并有耶稣在耶路撒冷中所讲的说话，以11：6及16：19的「吩咐」和「这些话」两个词汇作为前呼后应笔法inclusio。

从这些纲领词汇来发挥天主子耶稣基督福音的开始到复活升天1：1－16：20，就可知道马尔谷福音与旧约，特别是与妥拉息息相关。有可能历史中的耶稣真是如此刻意地生活过妥拉的内容，但圣神帮助神圣作者记录起来，实在如是的发生了，至少若望福音是如此瞭解及证明(道成肉身)，而路加及玛窦都没有大更改马尔谷所写下的。正如犹太人深信妥拉是神圣笔授了天主的说话，同样，基督徒深信这活妥拉的耶稣就是生活天主的神圣启示，这亦是犹太人所深信的神圣口授。祂讲出天主的心意，由过去到现在，直到永远。在马尔谷福音中，神圣作者指出耶稣的教训才是真正的神圣口授，具有权威，不像那些经师一样1：22，27。祂的说话在新盟约中，即在感恩礼仪中，继续与门徒通传。祂将在旧约面前命令以色列的一切事，都告诉了人类(出25：22)。这旧约的约柜实在祇是耶稣显圣容时的模拟。耶稣就是活天主，而梅瑟与厄里亚是左右的活革鲁宾9：2－8。(10)

马尔谷与旧约所启示的一贯性，可细节地划为三与五之分

三分是以旧约圣经三个重要正典部分所预言的内容而分出来：即妥拉、先知书及圣卷。神圣作者很巧妙的安排他们的预言在耶稣身上一一实现(路24：44)。这样的三分法不是我们现在思高圣经的旧约分法及排序，故我们祇能回到初期教会对希伯来文原经的分法与排序的意识。

教会以a－先知书丛中最后一本?玛拉基亚先知书来指明天主将亲自来审判人类的日子，而这「时间」正就是旧约的终结。这就是所有先知努力预言快要来临的上主日子(拉3：19－23)；以b－妥拉的最后一部份?申命纪的最后的一句结语来断言有「一位好比梅瑟的先知」会到来(申34：10－12；cf.申18：15－19)；以a'－圣卷书丛中的终结，即编年纪下一书来指出在「一地方」将有一位比居鲁士王更伟大的国王会亲自带领选民及全人类迈向「耶路撒冷圣殿」，在那里天主必与人同在(编下36：22－23)。

在马尔谷福音中，很容易见到这三重诏书，神圣作者禀奏人类历史已于耶稣身上成就了天主预定的计划：1.「那日子」，2.「有一位人物」，3.「在某处」完成救恩工程(路24：25－27，44；玛5：17－20)。

五分是在于与妥拉五书相贯穿，而达到一个犹太文学的文互表达笔法chiastic结构：

a 甲
＼ ∕
b－ (乙)
∕ ﹨
a' 甲'

若加上妥拉所分五而一的标示词汇及犹太的核心圆交互对称笔法来假设马尔谷福音的写作方法，可见到一个很有系统的文学结构。在细节方面，马尔谷本身的文学结构亦有其内在关系来证明这些文学主段的存在，细心阅读后，可见其文笔紧奏，思路精巧：

a－耶稣是天国临于选民中的福音?先知书所预言1：1－3：12 → 开始篇(新酒旧皮囊)

b－祂是比梅瑟大的天主子？妥拉所预言3：13－10：52 (新酒新皮囊)

          ∕ 甲－祂开始天国的工程3. 13－6. 6 → 名字篇
这天主子  － 乙－祂与门徒开始天国征途6. 7－8. 21 → 呼召篇
          ＼ 甲'－祂启发门徒跟随自己受苦，步武默西亚的行程8：22－10：52 → 旷野篇


a'－祂到耶京为使天国临现普世－圣卷所预言11：1－16：20 → 说话篇 (两者得保存) (11)

现在尝试将梅瑟五书的传统犹太书名放于马尔谷福音中作细节分析，并附上考证：

3.1 开始篇：耶稣就是天国临现于选民中的福音

　　－－先知所预言1：1－3：12

一A天主所预定的默西亚已来到了，世界应准备好迎接祂1：1－8

一B这默西亚的身份是天主子1：9－13

一C祂的目标是与门徒建设天国1：14－20

一B' 祂的一天正如先知所预言的「上主的日子」1：21－45

一A' 世界领袖因妒忌而拒绝祂2：1－3：12

3.1.1 细节分析

一A若翰洗者在旷野准备天主所预定的默西亚的到来1：1－8

a1　书目1：1

a2　先知所预言l：2－3

a3　若翰洗者为祂的前驱1：4－8

一B耶稣受洗时已揭示了自己是天主圣子的身份1：9－13

b1　耶稣受洗1：9－11

b2　耶稣受试探1：12－13

一C祂在加里肋亚开始宣讲天国及召选首批门徒1：14－20

c1　时间1：14－15

c2　地点及人物1：16－20

一B' 祂一天的工作是驱逐魔鬼，治病及宣讲天国1：21－45

b' 1　祂在会堂教训人和驱魔：治好一男人1：21－28

b' 2　祂在家中治好伯多禄的岳母：治好一女人1：29－31

b' 3　日落后仍治病1：32－34

b' 4　祂的一天概况是在会堂里宣讲天国并驱魔1：35－39

b' 5　祂治好癞病人，但祂不愿公开宣传自己l：40－45

一A' 祂因运用天主子权力赦免人罪，而被世界的宗教领袖妒忌和拒绝，他们指摘耶稣的五个错误2：1－3：12如下：

a' 1　祂治好瘫子，但因显示了自己的神力而被拒绝2：1－12

a' 2　祂召选玛窦税吏能与罪人共餐同饮而被拒绝2：13－17

a' 3　祂论禁食，并宣传新生命的喜讯，不合传统意思2：18－22

a' 4　祂表明自己是安息日的主人，并以权威默许门徒不守安息日2：23－28

a' 5　在安息日，祂在会堂治好枯手人，法利塞人因而要谋害祂3：1－6

a' 6　总结：祂的医治是驱魔工程3：7－12

3.1.2 考证

一A的1：1－8与一A' 的2：1－3：12形成第一重的首尾紧扣的对称文学Inclusio。

例一：在1：4与2：5中，前者有「此时若翰出现在旷野里施洗，并宣讲悔改的洗礼，以赦免罪过」；后者有「耶稣一见了他们的信心，就对瘫子说：『孩子！你的罪赦了』」。扣准前后文章的同义字是罪赦。

例二：在一A的1：3－5与一A' 的2：6－7中，前者有「旷野中有呼号者的声音……犹太全地和耶路撒冷的群众都出来，到他那里，承认自己的罪过，在约但河里受他的洗」；后者有「那时，有几个经师坐在那里，心好想：『怎么这人这样说话呢？他说了亵渎的话；除了天主一个外，谁能赦罪呢』」。扣准前后文章的同义词有旷野呼声及心里忖度声。

例三：在一A的1：7－8与一A' 的3：11中，前者有「他宣告说：『那比找更有力量的，要在我以后来，我连俯身解他的鞋带也不配。我以水洗你们，他却要以圣神洗你们』」。后者有「邪魔一见了他，就俯伏在他面前，喊说：『你是天主子』」。扣准前后文章是相同的权威，无论若翰或邪魔都俯伏于耶稣的权下。

一B的1：9－13与一B' 的1：21－45是第二重的首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：1：11与 1：23－24，前者有「此时有声音从天上说：『你是我的爱子，我因你而喜悦』」。后者有「当时，在他们的会堂里，正有一个附魔的人，他喊叫，说：『纳匝肋人耶稣！我们与你有甚么相干？你竟来毁灭我们！我知道妳是谁，你是天主的圣者』」。扣准前后文章的是指明相同的身分，无论天上神明或邪魔都证明耶稣是天主的爱子及天主的圣者。

例二：一B的1：12－1：与一B' 的1：35其中相同的扣准词是在旷野。

3.1.3 这开始篇中与创世纪最突出的相同寓意意境 (typological sense) 有

1. 耶稣与教会是新人的关系一如亚当与亚娃(创1－3) 及雅各伯与黎贝加(创29)；

2. 蛇与世界的领袖的狡猾尤如魔鬼一样，不断试探耶稣及选民(创3－50)；

3. 安息日的主与耶稣的权力相同：天主创世时休息的一天等同耶稣赎世时显圣的一天(创1：1－2：3)。

4. 洪水灭世与洗礼的罪赦有共同洁净罪恶的效果(创6－9)。

3.2 名字篇：祂在加里肋亚开始天国工程

　　－－妥拉所预言三之一3：13－6：6

二A这是祂所想要的十二人的名字，以取代了原本的十二支派3：13－19

二B这些人与祂是真亲属家人关系，但本家却不尊重祂3：20－35

二C这新的家庭关系如比喻指标着宣讲的天国4：1－34

二B' 这家主有超越大自然、魔鬼及生命的权力，新家人很尊重祂4：35－5：43

二A' 因为祂是玛利亚之于，自己乡亲的拒绝了祂，本来不是祂家人的反跟随了祂6：1－6

3.2.1 细节分析

二A祂选了十二人取代了以色列十二支派的名份3：13－19

二B祂的真亲属(以自己身分破亲疏的界限) 3：20－35

b1 耶稣受自己家人及经师的毁谤3：20－30

b2 耶稣的真亲属3：31－35

二C祂以比喻宣讲天国(以言论破智愚的界限) 4：1－34

c1 撒种的比喻4：1－9

c1.1 解释用比喻的原因4：10－12

c1.2 解释这撒种的比喻4：13－20

c2要如何聆听4：21－25

c2.1 灯的比喻4：21－23

c2.2 尺的比喻4：24－25

c3 种子自长的比喻4：26－29

c4 芥子的比喻4：30－32

c5 总结：取譬设教的用意是使众人明白4：33－34

二B' 祂有惊人的大权能，连大自然、魔鬼及人的生命也要听祂的话(以自己身分破洁与不洁的界限) 4：35－5：43

b' 1 平息风浪4：35－41

b' 2 治好革辣撒附魔人?治好一(外邦) 男人5：1－20

b' 3 治好血漏病人?治好一(外邦) 女人

b' 4 复活雅依洛女儿5：21－43

二A' 祂因是玛利亚的儿子而受自己乡人所拒绝6：1－6a

a' 1 祂周游四处福传6：6b

3.2.2 考证

二A的3：13－19与二A' 的6：1－6是第一重的首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：在3：13与6：1中，前者有「随后，耶稣上了山」；后者有「耶稣从那里起身，来到自己的家乡」。扣准的同义词是耶稣的上了及起身的行动。

例二：二A的3：16－17与二A' 的6：3，前者有「西满、雅各伯」；后者有「雅各伯、若瑟、犹达、西满」。

例三：在二A的3：14－15与二A' 的6：2－3，扣准同义字词及句子为「权柄」及「奇能」，「为同在一起」与「也都在我们这里吗」；反义词有「宣讲」与「听了」。

二B的3：20－35与二B' 的4：35－5：43形成第二重的首尾紧扣。

例一：在3：22与 5：2中，前者有「他附有邪魔，贝耳则步」；后者「有附邪魔的人」。

例二：在二B的3：31与二B' 的5：19中，前者有「耶稣的真亲属玛利亚出来找耶稣」；而后者有「你回家到你的亲属那里」。

例三：在二B的3：24－26与二B' 的4：38中，前者有「灭亡」而后者有「丧亡」。

3.2.3 这名字篇中与出谷纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.十二支派与十二人的召叫在于天主的名显圣(出1－3)。

2.法郎是附魔的，同样选民亦是；埃及人对以色列以怨报德与耶稣的乡里厌恶耶稣相同(出4－14)。

3.梅瑟带领选民出谷等同耶稣带领门徒出离世俗(出4－15)。

4.天主降十灾给埃及人以显其名为圣，耶稣以食物祝福信者以显其名为圣(出16)。

5.天主子民的成立与耶稣真亲属的确立(出16－40)。

3.3 呼召篇：祂与门徒开始天国征途

　　－－妥拉所预言三之二6：7－8：21

三A祂差遣那十二人出外福传6：7－29

三B祂增饼饱食五千人，步行水上及治病6：30－56

三C祂突破犹太法律中洁与不洁的界限7：1－23

三B' 祂第二次增饼饱食四千外邦人7：24－8：10

三A' 法利塞人试探祂，同样自己的门徒亦误解了祂8：11－21

3.3.1 细节分析

三A祂差遣那十二人出外福传6：7－29

a1 祂要求门徒福传时，要过着简朴的生活(与城镇会堂相对) 6：7－13

a2 若翰之死(前驱完成了，后继有自己的门徒) 6：14－29

三B祂增饼饱食五千人，步行水上及治病6：30－56

b1祂增饼饱食五千人6：30－44

b2 祂步行水上助门徒6：45－52

b3 总结：祂的工作是喜讯6：53－56

三C祂突破犹太法律中洁与不洁的界限的意义7：1－23

c1 祂指出经师们错解法律的精神，废天道而尊人事7：1－13

c2 祂又用比喻教训所有人，以解释洁与不洁的界限7：14－15

c3 祂给门徒解释这些比喻的真正意义7：16－23

三B' 祂第二次增饼饱食四千外邦人7：24－8：10

b' 1 在外邦人区，祂医好一附魔女子7：24－30

b' 2 在外邦人区，祂医好一聋哑男子7：31－37

b' 3 在外邦人区，祂第二次增饼饱食四千人8：1－10

三A' 祂被法利塞人试探及被自己的门徒所误解8：11－21

a' 1 祂拒绝法利塞人的试探8：11－13

a' 2 祂的门徒仍然不瞭解祂8：14－21

3.3.2 考证

三A的6：7－29与三A' 的8：11－2；形成第一重首尾紧扣文笔：

在6：10－12与8：12－13中的紧扣字词是有相同意思的：「出去」与「离开」及「作为反对」与「必不给」。

在6：20与的8：17－18，其中紧扣的字词是相反的，即「黑落德知道并听若翰的话」，反而「门徒仍然未瞭解耶稣」。

三B的6：30－56与三B' 7. 24－8. 10形成第二重首尾紧扣。

这里的内容非常明显地互扣：「饱食五千人」与「饱食四千人」；「犹太人」与「外邦人」；「五个饼」与「七个饼」。在犹太中，「有黑落德的女儿附魔」；在外邦中，「有客纳罕妇人的女儿附魔」。

3.3.3 这呼召篇与肋未纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.门徒如肋未支派为别人侍立于天主前(肋1－10)。

2.他们被召为突破洁与不洁的界限(肋11－15)。

3.肋未供十二派的饼为天人之约，门徒则侍立耶稣前以供洁与不洁的人吃饼为约(肋17－26)。

3.4 旷野篇：祂启发门徒跟随自己受苦仆人的默西亚方法

　　－－妥拉所预言三之三8：22－10：52

四A祂开启贝特赛达瞎子(喻门徒) 的眼8：22－26

四B第一次预言受苦及复活8：27－9：29

四C第二次预言受苦及复活9：30－10：31

四B' 第三次预言受苦及复活10：32－45

四A' 祂医好耶里哥瞎子10：46－52

3.4.1 细节分析

四A祂开启贝特赛达瞎子的眼(喻门徒或慕道者) 8：22－26

四B第一次预言受苦及复活8：27－9；29

b1 祂问门徒：「我是谁？」，伯多禄明认耶稣为默西亚8：27－30

b2 第一次预言8：31－38

b3 祂给门徒解释跟随祂的后果?十字架苦路8：34－38

b4 祂显圣容以鼓励门徒不要怕苦跟随祂9：1－13

b5 祂医好附魔的小孩子9：14－29

四C第二次预言受苦及复活9：30－10：31

c1 第二次预言9：30－34

c2 祂教训门徒跟随祂进天国的两个条件9：35－41

c2.1 有小孩子的心及愿作最微小的人9：35－37

c2.2 愿与其他人一起行善9：38－40

c3 五个真正跟随祂的教训9：41－10：31

c3.1 真正跟随祂是要受火试炼出来的9：41－50

c3.2 真正跟随祂的是不可拆散婚姻10：1－12

c3.3 真正跟随祂的是被祝福的小孩10：13－16

c3.4 真正跟随祂的是必须放弃所有一切10：17－27

c3.5 真正跟随祂，才有真财富10：28－31

四B' 第三次预言受苦及复活10：32－45

b' 1 第三次预言10：32－34

b' 2 门徒渴望在天国中坐于耶稣的左右10：35－40

b' 3 祂鼓励门徒做谦卑仆人10：41－45

四A' 祂医好耶里哥瞎子10：46－52

3.4.2 考证

四A的8：22－26与四A' 的10：46－52形成第一重的首尾紧扣文笔。

明显的是医好瞎子，细节中很多是互扣的不在话下。

四B的8：27－9：29与四B' 的10：32－4'形成第二重的首尾紧扣。

很明显的，三次的预言受苦及复活是相关的，细节中很多是互扣的不在话下，而突出第二次的内容：作祂门徒的条件及要求。

3.4.3 旷野篇与户籍纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.天主给梅瑟进入福地前的吩咐与耶稣给门徒起程进入天国前的吩咐(户1－10)。

2.梅瑟与同行者对将来要发生的事是盲目的，尤如门徒对将来是盲目的一样(户10：11－21：35)。

3.巴郎的神示与耶稣预言将来受苦(户22－25)。

3.5 说话篇：祂在耶京开始普世救赎工程

　　－－圣卷所预言11：1－16：20

五A祂以天主子身分来到耶京最末的一周11：1－12：44

五B祂预言末世事件：神权必胜世权13：1－37

五C面对反对者，祂的不抵抗行动使门徒迷离14：1－42

五B' 祂的神权被世权所侵吞，致使当时世人迷离 14：43－15：47

五A' 祂在新的一周的第一天复活了(突破生死关系)16：1－20

3.5.1 细节分析

五A祂以天主子身分来到耶京的一周11：1－12：44

a1 第一天祂荣进耶京，达味圣城11：1－11

a2 第二天祂洁净圣殿11：12－25

a2.1 诅咒无花果树11：12－14

a2.2 祂洁净圣殿11：15－19

a2.3 第三天无花果树真的枯死了11：20－25

a3 祂舌战耶京权贵11：27－33

四个当时宗教上的难题12：1－34

a3.1 祂以比喻揭示自己独生圣子的身分，并控诉当时的领导人12：1－12

a3.2 祂要求人真正归属自己的主12：13－17

a3.3 祂解释真有复活的生命12：18－27

a3.4 祂解释法律的真正精神12：28－34

a4 祂反问权贵与民众有关自己达味之子的身分12：35－37

a5 祂的审判12：38－44

a5.1 祂指控经师的恶行12：38－40

a5.2 祂称赞穷寡妇的信德12：41－44

五B祂预言将来的末世事件(突破现在与未来) 神权必胜世权13：1－37

b1 祂离弃圣殿13：1－2

b2 祂分享祂所知道的未来事件13：3－23

b2.1 末世的先兆13：3－8

b2.2 门徒必受迫害13：9－13

b2.3 在犹太要发生的事13：14－18

b2.4 人子的来临13：19－23

b3 在末世时祂要光荣回来13：24－37

b3.1 祂来临时的可怕现象13：24－27

b3.2 祂用无花果树的比喻提醒这来临的时刻13：28－32

b3.3 祂教训门徒应醒寤不寐13：33－37

五C祂最后面对反对者的行动使门徒迷离14：1－42

c1 两天后(即第五天) 在伯达尼的傅油14：1－11

c2 最后晚餐14：12－25

c3 预言门徒的失信14：26－31

c4 山园祈祷14：32－42

五B' 祂的神权被世权所拒败，使世人迷离14：43－15：47

b'1 祂被拘捕的时日是赤身而逃的日子(亚毛斯先知所预言天主惩罚以色列的日子，亚2：16) 14：43－52

b'2 祂被大司祭和众人所拒绝14：53－65

b'3 祂被伯多禄所背弃14：66－72

b'4 祂被比拉多判死刑15：1－15

b'5 祂被侮辱15：16－20

b'6 祂被钉在十字架上死15：21－41

b' 6.1 西满助背十字架15：21－22

b' 6.2 祂被钉的过程15：23－28

b' 6.3 悬在十字架上仍然受人侮辱15：29－36

b' 6.4 祂断气死在十字架上15：37－41

b'7 (第六天) 祂被埋葬15：42－47

五A' 新的一周的第一天祂复活了(突破生死关系) 16：1－20

a'1 坟穴空了，但有天使报告他复活了16：1－8

a'2 一周的第一天祂复活后的显现16：9－18

a'3 祂升天并坐于天主的右边16：19－20

3.5.2 考证

五A的11：1－12：44与五A' 的16：1－20形成第一重首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：11：11「一周的第一天进耶京，时辰已晚，」与 16：2「一周的第一天她们来到了坟墓」；

例二：11：1「将近耶路撒冷」与 16：7「先往加里肋亚去」；

例三：11：20「无花果树连根也枯干了」与16：6「他已经复活了」；

例四：11：18「全群众对他的教训都惊奇不已」与16：8「妇女就非常惊恐」；

例五：11：23「他心里若不怀疑反相信祂说的心成就」与16：11「他们却不相信她见了耶稣」；

例六：12：41－44「穷寡妇的信德」与 16：1－11「妇女的信德」；

最后的12：1－37，在五个难题上，耶稣显示自己的身份与16：9－18的复活显现及五个奇迹以证明复活的主偕同门徒的事实。

五B的13：1－37与五B' 14：43－15：47形成第二重首尾紧扣文笔。

例一：耶稣离弃人手所做的圣殿13：1－25与伯多禄离弃耶稣生活圣殿14：43－72；

例二：耶稣预言受迫害13：9－13与耶稣受迫害15：1－41。

3.5.3 这说话篇与申命纪最突出的相同寓意意境

1.梅瑟的说话会一一应验，同样耶稣在耶京所讲的每一句话亦要一一应验(申1－34)。

2.梅瑟所见的福地与耶稣复活永生的福地相同(申32－33)。

3.选民进福地与耶稣偕门徒进耶京(苏1－24)。

4.天主的话与旧约有连系，耶稣的话与新约有连系。

  7.V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Macmillan 1972) 105-113.

8.傅和德，《旧约的背景》圣神修院神哲学教材2，香港　(1994)　304.

9.B.W. Bacon, "The Five Books Of Matthew Against The Jews" The Expositor 15 (1918) 56-66.

4. 总结

妥拉与马尔谷是有一定的文学结构关系。若读者能走入神圣作者心神次序而理解福音的堂奥，就不容易迷失于字面上的内容。从正典品评角度(Canonical approach)，神圣作者写下福音时已有一共学上的处理手法(a synchronic touch)。(12) 启示是一整体，新旧约的关系不能因人的误解而改变了其纵向性，导致人类分裂。当信徒彼此瞭解，就发现耶稣基督的福音与犹太宗教的妥拉是唯一神与全人类建立的同一爱情盟约。这样基督教会更尊重犹太宗教，而犹太宗教更能帮助人类发现天主原本给人类祝福的伟大。就让大家更坦诚地与世界分享天父对人类的救恩。

　

11.R.A. Guelich, Mark 1-8 : 26 World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A (Word Books 1989) vi-vii.

12.E.S. Malbon, 'Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark. 3-13' The Biblical Seminar (JSOT 1991).

作者：黄凤仪

前言

保禄在他的真实书信中，好像没有多少讨论性爱(sexual love)。他多番谈论的 ，反而是邪淫(sexual sins, sexual immorality，参看罗 1：24；13：13；格前 5：1；6：13，18：10：8；格后12：21；迦5：19：得前4：3)，或与此相关的表现(淫荡，参看格前5：9，11；6：9)。而且他看来是比较集中于格林多人前书讨论关乎性的问题，其中首要的为格前6：12－20。

在格前6：12－20，保禄极力反对纯肉欲的结合(比方召妓)。他说这等于犯邪淫，极之不当。人犯邪淫冒犯基督，冒犯自己的身体，冒犯圣神。(1)

除了格前6：12－20以外，还有其他的吗？不难发现，保禄在格前7：1－7续谈两性的关系。这极可能是团体向他提出的一个问题。团体似乎在问人应否婚嫁以及夫妇应否禁欲或类似的问题。只是，他们为甚么会这样问呢？

一．格前7：1－7的写作背景

「男人不亲近女人倒好」(格前7：1b)。(2) 这句看来相当浅明的话在释经方面备具争议。保禄是否在推崇独身生活而轻视婚姻生活？或许更该问，这句话是否出自保禄的口？

有关这句话的来源，意见不一，基本上可归纳为三种不同的看法：(1) 这是保禄所说的，他在表达自己对婚姻生活的见解；(2) 保禄在引用某些格林多人的说话，并表示自己接纳他们的见解；(3) 保禄在引用某些格林多人的说话，但随即辩证自己完全不同意他们的见解。(3)

不少人选择第三种看法，(4) 且对他们坚持的看法有以下的解释。(5) 他们说，格前7：1b反映的实是团体内某些激进份子的谬论，保禄在发表自己的真知卓见时，综合地重提他们所说的。故此他在格前7章纠正他们的错误思想，正如他在格前 12章纠正某些团体成员对神恩的看法一样。面对独身生活为唯一的理想生活的问题，保禄的答覆是多方面的。他首先陈明，一般人过的应是婚姻生活(7：2)，除非为了祈祷的缘故，否则夫妻不应禁欲(7：5)。保禄如此恳请信众乃是为他们着想，免得他们因不能节制而犯淫乱(7：2，5)。的确，保禄愿意看见他们像他一般过独身生活(7：7a，8)，但这是不可强求的，因为各人所得的恩宠不同(7：7b)，所领受的神恩亦各异(12：11)。

亦有人认为，格林多团体成员面对的疑惑，也有可能源自外界的影响。(6) 总的来说，昔日基督徒面向外面的花花世界，一定会感到某程度上的张力。因着与外间的距离以及其它社会因素，维护教会的训导定必然的。如是，一些人可能在设想，甚么是理想的基督徒婚姻生活？不过就在这种追寻中，出现了偏差，以为理想的基督徒婚姻生活就是一种禁欲的生活。于是，保禄必须加以纠正。他的基本论调可能是：当基督徒度一种纯正的生活时，别人就能把他们从这个罪恶世界中识别出来。他早在得前4：3－8已如此说(特别是得前4：4－5；亦参看哥3：5)：信众在言行举止上应与别不同，整个生活应植根于基督，并以悦乐天主为重；亦即是说，基督徒的婚姻生活有更深层的意义，应与世俗的不一样。他也在格前7：2示意，对那些没有被召去度独身生活的未婚人士来说，淫乱构成一种威胁。若与前面的章段5：1一起看，屈服在这种威胁下就相等于过渡到外面罪恶的世界中(再看得前4：5)。基督徒应以外面世界的败坏道德生活为鉴，并藉此较正自己的伦理道德准绳(参看格后6：14－7：1)。

视格前7：1b为引文者同时辩论说，这样念格前7章比较合理，经文本身亦较与其上下文吻合。(7) 先说其上文。在6：12－20，保禄引用创世的故事，因为天主在造人时曾说：人独处不好(6：16)。他亦把男女的结合喻作基督徒与基督的结合(6：15，17)。最后，他视人的身体为「圣神的宫殿」，藉此把身体圣洁的结合和与娼妓的结合形成一个强烈对比(6：15，19)。再说其下文。若保禄真的在大声疾呼禁欲，也与下文不合。他在7：2，5视婚姻性生活为避免淫乱诱惑的良方。此外，在7：3－4他清楚确认婚姻性生活为夫妻的权利和义务。

也有人提示，在研究格前7章的时候，必须肯定两个事实。(1) 格林多可能是世界上最不道德的城市，旧的格林多声名狼藉，而新的格林多就像当代的大海港和经贸中心一样，有其繁荣，但亦有其堕落的一面。保禄所建的基督徒团体就居住在这样的环境中，四面受诱。可以想像，保禄给他们写信时，采取的可能是宁可严格，不可放松的态度。(2) 保禄仍受基督快要再来信念的影响(参看7：31)。早期基督徒相信基督第二次再来迫在眉睫。虽然这种盼望迟迟没有实现，不过保禄致书给格林多团体时，还是受它的影响。基于基督快要再来的信念，他所给的指示纯粹是临时性的。假若他所看到的，不是临时的，而是比较永久的话，他所给的指示，可能会有所不同。(8)

更有人相信，基督再来的信念，也影响着团体。(9) 团体可能在致书给保禄时从这个角度向他提出一连串的问题。基督即将再来，我们应当如何作准备？夫妻藉着禁欲来作准 备？未婚的无论如何也要过独身生活作准备？在那种情况下才能嫁娶而又与这种准备无抵触？我们但见保禄谨慎地且从牧民的角度去尝试答覆这些问题，心中怀着三个要点：(1) 首要的乃这个大原则：「各人在甚么身份上蒙召，就该安于这身份」(7：20；亦参看7：24)；(2) 各已婚或未婚身份的境况和需要都不一样；(3) 独身生活作为一种基督徒身份具极大的价值。最后的一点亦正是保禄的烦恼所在。在格林多的基督徒团体中，可能有一小撮人，对于性，就像往后的清教徒一般，抱有一种要征服的心态。他们过于自信，以为可以自制，不为私欲偏情所支配。他们欠缺的，乃自知之明，也高估了自己的修炼功力。故此保禄有必要向他们解释清楚，他所提出的乃是一个广泛的原则，不具任何约束力。他没有说一位未婚人士接受基督信仰时，便与婚姻绝缘。

这些学者总括他们的见解说，保禄写格前7章的目的乃为帮助部份团体成员明白，就算在基督快要再来的催迫下，人仍必须小心选择自己的身份。这完全是个人的选择，无人能代行。他虽然对独身生活怀有较大的敬意，但却没有轻视性爱或婚姻生活的意思。他比较看重独身生活的理由似有两个：(1) 在末世考验时，已婚人士要遭受更大的痛苦(7：28b；亦参看谷13：17及其平行文)；基督徒已要面对「现时的急难」(7：26)，无谓再增添有一头家的「挂虑」(7：32)。(2) 独身者有更大的自由献身于基督徒职务，可以一心一意「挂虑主的事」(7：32－35；亦参看罗15－17；格后11：28；斐2：20)。(10)



1.参看拙文，「从格前6：12－20看保禄的性爱观念」，《神思》32　(1997) 1－9。

2.思高版念：「我认为男人不亲近女人倒好」。

3.参看W.E. Phipps, "Is Paul's Attitude Toward Sexual Relations Contained in 1 Cor 7.1? ", NTS 28 (1982) 125-131, p. 125.

4.参看R.F. Collins, "The Unity of Paul's Paraenesis in 1 Thess 4.3-8 ; 1 Cor7.1-7. A Significant Paralle", NTS 29 (1983) 420-429, pp. 424, 429 n.34 ; M.Y. Macdonald, "Women Holy in Body and Spirit : The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7", NTS 36 (1990) 161-181, p.162 ; J.Murphy-O' Connor, "The First Letter to the Corinthians", NJBC, p.804.

5.比方：R.F. Collins, pp. 424-425.

6.参看M.Y. Macdonald, "The Ideal of the Christian Couple : Ign. Pol. 5.1-2 Looking Back to Paul", NTS 40 (1994) 105-125, pp. 110-111, 113, 117 ; 及其另一篇着作，参看R.F. Collins, "The Unity of Paul's Paraenesis in 1 Thess 4 : 3-8 ; 1 Cor 7 : 1-7, A Significant Parallel", NTS 29 (1983) 420-429, pp. 424, 429 n. 34 ; M.Y. Macdonald, "Women Holy in Body and Spirit : The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7", NTS 36 (1990) 161-181, p. l62 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, "The First Letter to the Corinthians", NJBC, p. 804.

7.参看W.E. Phipps, p. 128.

8.比方W. Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Edinburgh : St. Andrew rev. ed. 1975) 58.

9.参看M.L. Barre, "To Marry or to Burn : πυρουσθαιin 1 Cor 7 : 9", CBQ 36 (1974) 193-202, p. 198.

10.参看M.L. Barre, p. 201.

二．格前7：1－7释义

格前7章整章的思想，可能已涵括在其首段7：1－7中，值得细看。

1. 格前7：1－7的上文下理和内在结构

在格前7－1'章，保禄像是在答覆格林多教会团体透过函件向他提出的问题。他在7：1这样说：「论到你们信上所写的事……」。团体提出的问题可能包括：婚姻生活和独身生活的问题(7章)；吃祭邪神祭品的问题(8－10章)；信众聚会、崇拜的问题(11－14章)；以及基督徒复活的问题(15章)。

若是从格林多团体诸多提问的角度去看格前7章，那么整章经文的结构可以分析如下，从中看到保禄给团体的多个答案：(11)

给那些以为基督徒不应当结婚的人的劝告(7：1－2)；

给那些认为尽管是已婚的也要分房的人的劝告(7：3－7)；

给未婚者和寡妇的劝告(7：8－9)；

给那些认为已婚的也应当分开的人的劝告(7：10－11)；

给那些认为在混合婚姻中，基督徒和非基督徒双方应当离婚的人的劝告(7：12－16)；

给基督徒的指示，无论其身份为何，都要善度基督徒生活(7：17－24)；

给贞女的劝告(7：25，36－38)；

给信众的劝谕，劝告他们不要让任何东西妨碍自己事奉基督，因为日子不久了，他快将再来(7：26－35)；

给那些有意再嫁的寡妇的劝告(7：38－40)。

若接受团体只向保禄广泛地提出关于婚姻生活和独身生活的问题，那么格前7章可有如下所见的另一种结构分析。(12) 对于这两种不同的生活，保禄作了多方面的讨论：论婚姻中的性生活(7：1－7)；论寡妇、鳏夫再嫁娶(7：8－9)；论离婚(7：10－16)；基督徒应安于蒙召前的身份的劝谕(7：17－24)；给未婚者的劝谕(7：25－35)；论贞女出嫁(7：36－38)；论寡妇再婚(7：39－40)。

至于格前7：1－7的内在结构，则有建议分析如下：互爱的婚姻生活(7：1－4)；禁欲的问题(7：5－7)。(13)

2. 格前7：1－7背后的大前提

有人认为，若要了解格前7：1－7甚或整章第7章，对当时的思想网络，要有一定的认识。(14) 在希腊人的思想里，有一种强烈的趋向，就是轻视身体和有关身体的东西。这种趋向会使人采取以下的立场：身体是完全不重要的，我们可以为所欲为，让它的肉欲完全得到发泄。不过这种趋向也会产生与此完全相反的观点，就是：身体是罪恶，我们必须制服它，甚或完全除掉它；我们必须起码消除一切身体的本能和欲望。保禄在格前7章所讨论的似乎是第二种观点。格林多的信徒，至少他们中有些人，在劝诱别人，一个人假若要做完全的基督徒，就必须拋弃物质的东西，必须拒绝嫁娶。

保禄在格前7章的回答非常切合实际。事实上，他不外在说：「了解你们的环境所在，切记你们是居于格林多，就算是走在街上，到处都是试探、诱惑。更要认识你们身体的构造和天生的本能。你们嫁娶远比跌在罪中好。」

这种说法，听起来似乎保禄有轻看婚姻之嫌，视婚姻为避免日后不幸遭遇的途径。事实上却不是这样。保禄实在忠诚的面对事实，定下四海皆准的规则。人不应当尝试不自然、不适合自己的生活；人不应当有意的把自己置身于四围都是试探引诱的境况中。保禄知道得很清楚，人是不一样的。他似乎在说：「细问你自己，拣选一种最能让你活出真实基督徒生活的方式；不要尝试不自然的标准；你能力所不及的，为你也就是错误的。」

3. 释经

「……我认为男人不亲近女人倒好」(7：1b)。这是思高版的翻译，RSV的翻译为：It is well for a man not to touch a woman。原文本来没有连系动词「is」，且较早期的手抄本是没有标点符点的。从句子本身不易辨认出这是保禄自己的陈辞或是格林多人信中的引文。句子本身与在7：8及7：26所念到的相近但不完全一样。这节经文首部的短句「论到你们信上所写的事」(7：1a) 的「论到」二字，就如在其他经文看到的一样(7：25；8：1；12：1；16：1，12)，本身不含一个可以带出一句引文的动词。故若要认识句子的本质，需从其上下文看。保禄若真的在这里表达自己的意见，那么句子本身就似乎与下文不十分吻合。若是从中念出连系动词「is」，即是说格林多团体中人在表达自己的见解，从其上下文去看，也是怪怪的。比较合情理的念法乃是，保禄在引用团体中部份人士向他提出的一个有关修炼的问题：「是否男人不亲近女人倒好？」(Is it well for a man not to touch a woman?) 这即是说，在句于中加上一个连系动词及一个问话符号。(15)

此外，「好」在新约有「正确」或「必要」的意思。Is it good (well) 就是：是正确的吗？是必要的吗？而「男人／女人」则包括在婚姻内或婚姻外的男女，且看保禄在随后的答覆中也分开来讨论(7：2－7；7：8－9)。(16) 他给夫妇的指示是命令式的：「男人当」，「女人当」，(17) 故在这里的男女应是已婚的男女。「有」指向两性的关系，意即夫妇要过正常的性生活，理由是为了避免淫乱。(18) 婚姻中的性生活不是可有可无的，它是一种义务，男女双方都应尽的，更不能为了宗教上或苦身克己的原因而感到迟疑不安。(19) 一朝结合，个人已完全放弃自己身体的主权而让对方拥有，拥有这个身体已成为对方的权利。如是，在婚姻生活中，男女双方完全平等，对于房事，各有相同的权利和义务(7：2－4)。

「你们切不要彼此亏负……」(7：5)。男女在婚姻生活中，应持续房事，这是一种「债项」(debt)，是互欠的，必须偿还。(20) 不过也可有例外。若相方同意，可以为了专务祈祷而禁欲一段时期。(21) 保禄没有说可禁欲多久，但他则有说明，时期一满，二人便应重新过正常的性生活。在禁欲一事上，若没有过之而无不及，就不会受撒殚的诱惑了。(22)

在格林多可能有人在教唆，凡已婚，要做真正的基督徒，不可同房。这是视身体与本能为罪的伙伴的另一种表现。保禄则宣告一个非常伟大的原则。婚姻乃共甘苦的生活。丈夫不能不顾妻子而单独行动；妻子也是这样。二人必须随时随地采取一致的行动。在特别锻炼时期，比方为要专心祷告，或可把身体的事，暂时放在一边；不过这必须先得双方同意，并只能实行一段短时期，不然必会造成一种局面，让试探有机可乘。(23)

「我说这话，原是出于宽容。并不是出于命令」(7：6)。实质上，「这话」指向他往后所说的。(24) 保禄又好似轻视婚姻？他说，这不是一种合乎理想的命令；有好多地方是因着人的软弱而让步。(25) 他宁愿每人达到一种思想，像他一样。这到底是甚么呢？我们只能推测。肯定的是，他的心愿，按照理想，是其他的人要效法他。这完全是出于他相信基督第二次再来的日子，迫在眉睫：时间是这样短促，我们不可有太多的牵制及物质的阻碍。其实，保禄并不轻视婚姻；他坚定地主张人要把一切精力集中预备基督的再来。(26)

「如同我一样」(7：7) 的本意要到下文才见明显。保禄极之可能曾娶妻，因为在归化之前，作为一位犹太领袖，他应是有家室的。但在从事宗徒传教活动时，他已是独身了。从他的书信可见，他可能是一位鳏夫，或是他的妻子在他归化之前后。跟他异离。(27)

「……得自天主的恩宠：有人这样，有人那样」(7：7)。保禄常论及天主的恩宠。他将在格前 12章整章讨论不同的神恩。在格前7：7，重要的还是他如何看两者的价值。他明显地说，无论是独身生活或是婚姻生活(包括性生活)，同样来自天主的恩宠。对于信众作何等的选择，他不强求。且深信若是他们忠于自己作选择，天主的恩宠就在其中。(28)


  11.参看W. Barclay, pp. 57-58 ; 类似分析见H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia : Fortress1975) 114.

12.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible (New York-London-Toronto-Sydney-Auckland : Doubleday 1976) 205-226.

13.参看同上，p. 205。

14.参看W. Barclay, pp. 58-59 ; H. Conzelmann, pp. 114-115.

15.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, pp. 205-206 ; H. Conzelmann 认为他们提出的问题可能是："Is sexual intercourse allowed (at all)?", p. 115.

16.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 208.

17.参看同上；但H. Conzelmann则认为这里涉及的是一个concession，有"may have" 的意思，pp. 116，118。

18.H. Conzelmann 指出保禄在这里没有提供在婚姻中维持正常性生活的正面理由，p. 116。

19.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 208 ; H. Conzelmann, pp.116-117.

20.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 208 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 804.

21.J. Murphy-O' Connor指出，祈祷只是其中的一个理由而已，p. 804。

22.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 209.

23.参看W. Barclay, p. 60.

24.参看W.F Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 207 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 80..

25.参看H. Conzelmann, p. 118 : J. Murphy-O' Connor则说保禄只在提供意见，p. 804.

26.参看W. Barclay, pp. 60-61.

27.参看同上；W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, p. 209 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 804.

28.参看W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, pp. 207, 209 ; J. Murphy-O' Connor, p. 804.

结语

由格前6：12－20所见，保禄对性爱有一定的看法，且是相当正面的。人具有一个身体，意即他能与别人建立起一种关系。这个身体具性的本能和欲望。在性爱行动中，男女合成一体。「二人成为一体」是这种行动的终向，在性的结合中把对伴侣的信与爱完全流露，并在交融中表达对天主的爱与信靠。把性的行动孤立起来不能达致以上的目的，当这种行动纯粹是一种交易而不存有关怀、忠信、和爱时(比方召妓)，就会变成一种偏差的行径，纯粹是性行为而不是性爱了。

查看格前7：1－7后，发觉保禄在此对性爱持有同样正面的看法。(29) 首先，他极可能在7：1没有说「我认为男人不亲近女人倒好」。再者，在余下的章节他更采取不同的语调去表达自己的概念。他命令已婚者应尽亲近伴侣的义务(7：2－5)，但就在个人身份的选择上，他则没有出命，看出无论是婚姻生活或是独身生活，同样能够彰显天主的恩宠(7：6－7)。

由此可见，保禄给团体关于婚姻生活的答覆是很清楚的。婚姻乃共甘苦的旅程。无论作甚么，做丈夫的或是妻子的都不能不顾及对方而单独行动。夫妻无论作甚么都必须一致。在性生活方面亦是如此。做丈夫的不可把妻子当作自我满足的工具，反过来说亦是一样。夫妻在整个婚姻生活中，在精神与肉体方面，都应得到满足。亦即是说，夫妻不可终止性生活。在婚姻生活中，夫妻平等，二人都有应得的权利和应尽的义务。一朝结合，人不再全权支配自己的身体，这个身体已为对方而赐予，二人在爱中满全对方的需要。这样婚姻中的亲密接触实在不是「性生活」而是「性爱生活」了。


29.有关格前6：12－20与格前7章的紧密关系，参看B. Byrne "Sinning against One's Own Body : Paul's Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6 : 18", CBQ 45 (1983) 608-616, pp. 614-616.

作者：黄淑珍

爱的跳跃伯纳《雅歌讲道集》的再读--(神学硕士论文纲要)


1. 论文题目

顾名思义论文的研究对象是伯纳．明谷(1090－1153) 的《雅歌讲道集》。为什么取题《爱的跳跃》？论文作者(以下简称作者) 初读《雅歌讲道集》后就有这样的感受?伯纳以「爱」来贯穿整辑讲道集，因此论文也以「爱」的脉络来研读雅歌。选择「跳跃」一词是取其灵活性。心中充满爱意的人活力充沛，《爱的跳跃》就是尝试探讨爱如何充满活力在我们的生命中跳动着。论文的研究范围是伯纳在此讲道集论述的爱。

「跳跃」在论文也有另一个用法，就是跟随伯纳从一个思想领域跳到另一个。为能自如地在不同的思想领域上跳跃，我们需要「跳板」。这些准备工夫在论文中称为「跳板」寻找法，包括明白：文本与背景的关系(text and context)、文本与模式(text and pattern)和模式与词汇(pattern and word)。「跳板」又有二用：一是从人间跳跃到天人的层次，二是从天上跳回人间……下文再述。

题中的「读」有多层的意义：(1) 汲取文本的意义，(2) 欣赏文本，(3) 宣和外扬。作者愿意透过汲取意义和欣赏文本而进入伯纳的意境，从那里再看人性的经验，之后将读过的宣示、铺叙出来。

2. 论文结构

前言  
缩略语  
伯纳重要作品一览表  
目录  
第一章 导言
第二章 活力非凡的伯纳
伯纳出生的世代
伯纳-----熙笃会的先锋
伯纳的写作生涯
伯纳的面面观
伯纳的两根思想支柱
第三章 天人恋曲
体裁
写作特色
神学意念
第四章 妙桨三章
亲吻
卧室
结合
第五章 曲终情未了
伯纳神学思想的串联
性爱的神学意义
「综合」与「探索」
第六章 结论
书目

3. 论文内容

论文以六章的篇幅来陈述。

第一章导言介绍论文的写作动机、研究方法和架构。

第二章名为活力非凡的伯纳，是介绍伯纳的生平及着作，及《雅歌沟道集》产生的背景(text and context)。

学者认为十二世纪是一个人文复兴的时代，其特色是认识自我，在灵修方面已经达到中世纪的高峰，而人文精神又已经发展到一个整合和平衡的阶段。伯纳一方面秉承了优良的传统，另一方面又开拓新路向。不论在文化、灵修及文学上，十二世纪所取得的辉煌成就，而伯纳活在其中，实是功不可没。

伯纳是熙笃会的先锋，他是充满魅力的，年青时入隐修院，他的兄弟、舅舅和朋友也被他吸引而愿意随他一起进入熙笃会。他的一次讲道就成功地引致巴黎的一班神职修士决意进入明谷修院度默观的生活。

当了十五年本笃会院长的威廉．圣提里(William of St. Thierry) 也是因为伯纳的缘故而从本笃会转到熙笃会。然而，他支持十字军的行动和与伯多禄．亚培拉(Peter Abelard) 的争论却引来一些微言。对于支持十字军的行动，伯纳问心无愧。至于他与亚培拉的争论，问题的症结可能是他们基本上对圣经有着不同的态度。

亚培拉的读经法，以明瞭为主：诵读(lectio)、提问(quaestio)、讨论(disputatio)、宣讲(predicatio)，这种做法称为「神圣的卷页」(sacra pagina)。伯纳的讲经法，着重进入祈祷的境界：读经(lectio)、喃喃的读法犹如牛反刍其食物(ruminatio)、默想(meditatio)、进入高度祈祷境界(oratio)、宣讲(predicatio)，这种做法传统称为「神圣的诵读」(lectio Divina)。

伯纳是一位天才横溢、豪情奔放的多产作家。伯纳的主要思想在他早期的两篇作品已可见到，它们是《论爱天主》(De diligendo Deo, 1126) 和《论恩宠与自由抉择》(De gratia et libero arbitrio, 1127)。前者是他的爱情神学，而后者是他的人学的基础。伯纳的作品和书信，使他本来已是多采多姿的一生，更形丰盛。

第三章是天人恋曲，集中看《雅歌讲道集》，尝试对此集的体裁、写作特色及神学意念作一探讨。86篇讲道是一丰富的爱情宝藏。《雅歌讲道集》的讲道与其说是一系列，不如说是散文。因为很可能从没有在群众面前讲论过的。这些散文是环绕雅歌1：1－3：1论述天人之爱。

在探讨《雅歌讲道集》的写作特色中，作者察觉到伯纳是以寓意方式来诠释雅歌的。

《雅歌讲道集》是用了十八年(1135－1153) 时间写成的，既有深度，又多元化。书中有很多模式(pattern) 伯纳用来表达其思想。此举因为他重视经验，尤其是神契经验，用模式的好处就是将零散的资料集中起来。由于论文的研究范围是爱，因而选择三个有关系性爱的模式：亲吻、卧室和结合。

伯纳虽然予以经验相当的权威，但他同时指出单靠经验的不足。经验需要信仰的扶持，和圣经的规范。在这一节的探索所得到的结论是：信仰产生经验、规范经验，经验丰富信仰、体现信仰；圣经提升经验，经验丰富圣经。

第四章是妙乐三章，作者根据伯纳的模式扮演演绎者的角色。

伯纳以模式为铺陈方法，内中具备了特殊的装置，就是指他运用词汇多层意义的技巧(pattern and word)。一个词汇可有两至三层意义：(1) 公用的(conventional)，(2) 专用的(idiomatic)，(3) 功能性的转移(functional)。例如卧室一词，它的公用意义是指一处可供人休息的空间；它的专用意义是指夫妇独处的空间，也可以是亲密性生活的场所；在它的功能意义上，伯纳展现了他将词汇转向(bending) 的技巧，伯纳将「真正的卧室」变成默观的最高境界。在伯纳的情形，这种转移是建基于他个人的默观经验之上。一个模式通常是透过几个关键性的词汇，和它们所含蕴的多层意义而得以建立的。

「亲吻」模式的着眼点是恩宠的充盈；「卧室」模式将人带进默观的最高境界，在那里人有参透天地奥秘的可能；在「结合」模式里，伯纳带领人逐步迈向与圣言结合，也展示了与圣言结合的意境。在介绍伯纳的模式当中，作者给予读者一个视框，透过这个视框帮助读者进入伯纳的思想和明白他的经验。

第五章拟题曲终情未了。伯纳的思想天马行空，他诠释雅歌至3：1「夜间我在床上，寻觅我心爱的」。天主就让他走入光明的处所之中，正如伯纳书中的结语：「我们不是黑夜和阴暗之子，我们行走如光明之子。」第86篇讲道是未完成的。另一方面，这天人恋曲令人荡气回肠，陶醉其中，虽然是曲终但却情未了。

在第五章作者使用了「跳板」二用法。作者进入了伯纳从男女之爱跳到天人之爱的意境，并尝试在意境中找出它的脉络，这是第一跳。接着作者再从天人之爱跳到人间之爱?从天人之爱折回看性爱的本质，这是第二跳。第五章旨在综合熟悉的题材和探索新的洞悉。

在综合部份，作者以伯纳神学中一个主调「刺痛神学」(theology of compunction) 串联讲道集的思想。「刺痛」是天主于人之内所作的行动，藉此来唤醒沉迷的人。「刺痛」是源于两个共存的内在根由：罪，及对天主的渴求；意谓人意识到自己罪恶的同时也发现天主伟大的慈爱；人本因自己的罪而失望，现在的刺痛又因天主的美善而满怀希望。所以「刺痛神学」基本上是乐观的。

在替伯纳神学思想作串联上，作者以三个课题来演绎：旅途、恩情和默观。

旅途点出人在迈向与圣言结合的进度，亦即人在爱的成长及迈向成全路上的不同阶段。在模式的铺叙里，伯纳好像曾勾画出多个的旅途，但基本上是殊途同归。由于人有不同的角度、感受、或强调，因而产生不同的描述和道理。

恩宠是伯纳神学的主导思想，这意识在「结合」模式中尤为突出。虽说是恩宠主导，但在起点及通往与圣言结合的路途中，伯纳展示了天主的恩宠与人的自由不断交织，以致难以辨认哪一刻的行动是恩宠的效应，和哪一刻是自己的抉择。到最后，新娘因着爱竟将自己的意志符合新郎的意志，祂的旨意就是她的抉择。

默观为伯纳虽是极高的享受，但总离不开爱德工作，他在两者中不断寻求平衡。新娘既是情人又是母亲，要以乳液?宣讲天主的话语?来喂养婴儿。与情人互相凝望固然使人悦乐，但照顾孩子不竟是母亲的天职。但在另一处，伯纳却直言孩子当然是母亲深爱的，然而最能满足新娘的，还是新郎的亲吻。其实新娘的情人和母亲的双重身分不但没有矛盾，反而能相辅相成。爱德服务也是祈祷的一种，属于天主的工程。

当人决定不再自我封闭而愿意开放于天主时，也同时向其他人开放，愿意让圣神倾注的恩赐从自己身上外溢，使人受惠。爱德的服务美化了新娘，新娘的美貌吸引圣言的造访。最后，伯纳以垃匝禄、玛利亚和玛尔大同是一家人，来比喻新娘的三重美善：懂得为自己的处境而痛哭(如拉匝禄)，和在天主之内而喜乐(如玛利亚) 与此同时又有力量去帮助别人(如玛尔大)。新娘愿意在这三方面取悦天主，成为圣言眼中最漂亮的新娘。

在探索部分，作者尝试从性爱作为天人之爱的象征，看性爱的神学意义。男女爱可算是天人之爱的自然象征，此自然象征的功能：男女之爱肖似、反映、预尝，象征、体验天人之爱。这一节的探讨是颇为特别，因为作者除了善用伯纳的专长外，也揉合了其他方面的资料，如：心理学和真实经验，作反思。这一节的探讨也受天人之爱的光照。作者希冀藉这探讨给今日的基督徒夫妇一些启迪，也愿意给论文带来一点时代的气息。

性爱的本质在这里有八个意义：性与爱形影不离、在结合中享受爱侣、爱得出神、爱情的专一、相敬如宾、情投意合、爱情的结晶、爱的动力就是天主。在述说人灵与圣言结合的情境时，伯纳强调在结合中享受圣言、及结合境界可达至出神(ecstasy)。为此，在论述性爱的神学意义时，性高潮及性爱中的享受幅度是无可避免的课题。这些课题都是在神学上较少触及的。

伯纳视子女为夫妇爱情的甜美果实，将婚姻的承诺伸延到生育和教养子女之上。新娘和新郎在爱内共享平等这课题更是从天人之爱中演绎过来的，唤回了夫妇之爱中一个重要但又较忽视了的一环。作者更在这一节中提出了所谓「初夜的灵修」。

第六章是论文的结论，包括：交代、分享和邀请。在交代中，作者答覆在导言中所提出的挑战、看好奇心换来些甚么及回顾论文可有不足的地方。在分享中。作者愿意将这次在论文钻研上所得着的与读者分享。三个心得是：神学与灵修、繁忙中作默观、无边的止境。最后作者邀请读者投入生命经验的跳跃?延续那停不了的跳跃。

论文的整体结构有点儿像「漏斗」，先是最宽阔的，然后逐渐收窄，最后让伯纳的影响力流进我们的生命里。

论文评语

韩大辉

　

作者以「跳过山岗，跃过丘陵」(歌2：8) 设题为＜爱的跳跃＞。副题＜伯纳《雅歌讲道集》的再读＞说明所用的资料。现在先谈读后四个感受：爱中寻真我、智美相辉映、天人两面看、言尽意无穷。

1. 爱中寻真我

神学不但做学问，重要的是寻真理。十二世纪的欧洲处于复兴和更新的时代，作者标榜当时的人文关怀：「认识自我」(know myself)，因而将寻真理升到寻真我的存在性层面。伯纳天才横溢，在那世代中，有非凡的贡献。作者深入了解伯纳熙笃会的灵修「寻找天主」(quaerere Deum) 和个人心历「刺痛」(compunctio)，并以此作为自己研究的基本态度：意识罪性、渴求天主。论文充满伯纳的灵感，作者不忘诠释者的角色，指出《雅歌讲道集》的隐喻的要义，过程中作者深感天主的大爱，在字里行间流露出来，宛如从「灌注」(infusio) 到「外溢」(effusio) 一般。这是「爱中寻真我」。

2. 智美相辉映

伯纳论述基督净配，「虽黑犹美」(歌1：5 nigra sum, sed formosa)，她「长期流徙，疲惫黝黑，天生丽质，美艳照人」(SC 27 : 14 quam etsi labor et dolor longi exsilii decolorat, species tamen caelestis exornat)。当然，这「天生丽质」是指天主的恩宠。论文的作者大概因交文考试而疲惫，但仍不忘天主的爱，「新娘的美貌就是爱」(decor sponsae ... charitas est)。「教使人博学 、爱令人生智」(instructio doctos reddit, affectio sapientes)。天主连同智慧将美貌赐给人，就是以德行和神恩装饰其灵魂，使能肖似天主降生的圣言。这样爱智(philosophia) 与爱美(philokalia) 成为灵魂的渴求，而智与美正好揉合在默观中，那里「新娘摸索新郎神秘魅力的所在，此刻新郎完全属于新娘。」

3. 天人两面看

作者的跳板二用法，显然仿效了伯纳的寓意读经法，「以此言彼」(allegory)，就是在读经时，作意义的转移(locutio tropica)，以文字(史实) 为基础、正确伦理的训导为屋顶，这样以寓意为墙壁的建筑，才不会瓦解。作者在描写伯纳的背景、文本、摸式及词汇时，建立「跳板」，从经验的领域，跳到伯纳所言的天人之恋，轻轻从经验跃进永恒。然而，在同样的跳板，作者也从天人之恋跳回人间之情(第五章第二部份)。作者对伯纳的文本，可说「入乎其内、出乎其外」，人则观天人之爱，出则顾人间之情。一朵小花里看出一个天堂，天堂却隐藏在小花中。

此外，作者强调个人经验和读圣经两者相辅相成。「圣经随着阅读的人而增长」(Scriptura cum legente crescit)，在信仰(regula fidei) 的光照下，圣经提升经验，经验提升圣经。由此引申神学必须与灵修并存。单靠神学的理据，只会擦出斗咀的精灵，只有配合灵修的神学，才能闪出智慧的光亮。

4. 言尽意无穷

伯纳的灵感源于其读经法(Lectio Divina)。作者在解释这方法时，亦指出其默观的一面，是圣言来寻找人，「道寻知音」。圣言与人同步，有「说不完的事」。

事实上，整辑《雅歌讲道集》熬了伯纳十八个年头，没有完成整个雅歌的诠释，最终停在雅歌三章一节：「夜间我在床上，寻觅我心爱的」，天主便召他回去，让他在天上找到「心爱的」。伯纳的思想，天马行空，其86篇道理所述之事，可说「多而杂」，再多十八年，恐怕也说不完，但全书并非杂乱无章，反而恒常地返回在「刺痛」(compunctio)中寻找天主(quaerere Deum) 的脉络。诚然，那寻找的心，面对天主的圣言，确有「释不完的经」。

论文第五章，以「曲终情未了」为题，正好指出，人生于世，不论处于何种生活环境，只要有爱，甚么事都可从有涯到无涯。甚至，爱可转化人的身分，提升人的承诺，「连死亡也不能将我们分开」，神学寻找生活经验的解释(meaning)，若没有爱，就会失去意义(meaningfulness)。有了爱，神学才可成为「出神」的默观、「爱不完的情」。

结论

论文共viii + 102页，分六章，除导言和结论外，中间四章包括伯纳生平、背景、资料来源、分析、综合。论题清晰，层次分明、行文工整。神学用语，驾轻就熟。方法论的应用，亦渐趋成熟。以中文资料而论，这份研究有助认识中世纪的神学和灵修，值得出版。然而，文中间中有些牵强之处和手民之误，幸无伤大雅，如日后出版，须作更正。

作者：周景勋

诸言

1. 引子

有一次，侄儿的布乌龟失掉了，我急忙往商店跑，很辛苦才找到一只与失掉的布乌龟一模一样的。但小侄儿拿在手人总是叫着：「不是原来的一只！」我问他有什么不同？形状一样，大小一样，颜色一样。他愈叫愈大声：「不一样就不一样！只是相似。」哭着的小侄儿一定要找回那只从他一岁半开始便陪伴在床边的布乌龟，他只知道现在拿着的布乌龟不是陪他两年的那一只……。

2. 问题

究竟世界上有没有两件东西是完全相同一样的呢？

究竟世界上有没有完全不相同的两件东西呢？

为什么在小侄儿心中只有那「一」只陪伴他两年为布乌龟呢？而在商店中，不是有很「多」同模样、同大小、同颜色的布乌龟吗？

为什么新买来的布乌龟与失掉的一只只是「相似」，而不是相同呢？

3. 说明

要解答以上的问题，我们必须从形上学的观点，因为形上学是探讨「存有」的知识，也如亚里斯多德在《形上学》一书的开始就提出：「人人生而有求知的欲望」，即《大学篇》中所强调的：「格物致知」的求知路向；这可以说是从经验开始，把握事物的真相，找出最普遍的概念：我们从经验中不同的事物－－「多」的层面，找出最普遍的「共相」－－「多」的层面，即「存有」的概念(其实，在研究「存有」时，亦当注意到「存有」的经验层面，即人能直觉到 「存有」。)，作为基本的对象，成为一切知识的基础，也是一切现实的基础。而在「一」与「多」不同的层面中谈论「存有」，我们会发现事物间：一方面是相同而为一的，一方面不相同而为多，这种奇异的特征在形上学中称为「存有」概念的类比性。在中国哲学中有言：「形而上者谓之道，形而下者谓之器」(易系辞传)，「道」与「器」都是类比性的概念，「道」乃万物之所宗，故为形而上的「一」； 「器」乃万物之所散，故为形而下的「多」。

因此，我们在下列要分别探讨的内容如下：

一．类比的意涵

1. 类比概念的意义

2. 类比的种类

二．「一」与「多」的问题剖释

三．「存有」是「一－－同」又是「多－－异」的类比概念的说明

一．类比的意涵

1. 类比概念的意义

类比(ANALOGY) 的字源出自希腊文ανα-λογοζ(ana-Logos) / αναλογια(analogia)，它有相似、类似、互相比照、类同、类比等意思；若用在哲学上，「类比」一词更深奥地指向「存有」的概念上作形上的说明；在士林哲学上更强调在类比词的意义之下，来探讨「神与受造物」的关系，若对类比的概念不清楚，便无法深入研究形上学，以及神学了。

因为「类比」意谓着：「两物或多物之间的比例或相似。」(1) 即根据某一存有物与另一存有物的关系而领会该物；更好说是：一个存有物的存有是由于别的存有物相比之下而显示出来，至少会显得更清楚一些，而且能了解两者间的同与异；故若两物完全相同则不用比较，若完全不相同亦不必比较；即两物若无相同之处，根本无法加以比较，若无相异之处，则比较只是重覆而无意义。然而，存有物在存有上往往同时相同又相异，这才产生「类比」的概念，即以「类比词」来描述「存有的类比概念」。一般而言，「类比词」(Analogous term)乃介于「两极端之间」，此两极端即是「同义词或单义词」(Univocal term)，和「异义词或多义词」(Equivocal term)。(2) 而「存有」本身就是「类比词」；就「存有之为存有」来说是「一」也是「多」，即在「存在」上指一事物与其他事物是相同的(统一性)；若从「本质」上言，则指殊多不同的事物是相异的(个别性)。(3) 由于形上学乃研究「存有之为存有」的学问，故形上学所有的概念都可以说是类比概念。

类比概念在希腊早期的哲学家思想中已有应用柏拉图更用以表达事物间的相似地方，但没有详细的阐明。到亚里斯多德时，他在《形上学》一书第四卷第二章中有明显的阐述和发挥，定断了类比概念的重要性，亚氏说：

「存有」可以用许多不同方式去谈论，但是常与一个唯一的原理，与某一个唯一的本质有关；「存有」的意义不是单纯多义的，例如当我们用「健康的」一词时，可以形容许多束西，但皆与健康有关，或因一物能保持健康，或因一物能产生健康，或因为是健康的征兆，或因为是承受健康者……「存有」的情形也是如此，可以用许多方式去谈论，但每一方式皆与唯一的原理有关。(释：此唯一原理指自立体，因为自立体是充实的，主要的存有，本身即是存有，而依附体是次要的存有，因为须依附自立体，才能存在。)有些束西被称为存有，因为是自立体，有些是自立体的变化，以及所有归属于自立体的：毁灭、缺乏、性质，那些使自立体发生和产生的束西，那些与自立体有关东西或这些东西的否定，或自立体本身的否定。为了这个理由我们才说「非有」是「非有」。(释：某物的缺乏和非有可视为自立体的依附体，例如盲和无知的存在，只有被视为自立体的缺乏或非有，才可以理解。没有视力，也不会有视力的缺乏，即盲。没有知识，也不会有知识的缺乏，即无知。) (4)

亚里斯多德从一个被应用的词汇，如「健康的」，在应用时就具有多种意义，表达了既同一而又有异多意义的类比概念；所以亚氏在《形上学》第十一卷第三章中又有清楚的说明：

因为哲学普遍地讨论「存有之所以为存有」，而不是讨论存有的某些部份；且「存有」一词不仅用于一种意义，更用于多种意义；由此，若「存有」乃用于多义时，就不在共同的意义中，「存有」就不会隶属一门学术(因为多义词不会有共同等级的)。但若，「存有」一词乃根据一个共同意义而被应用时，「存有」就会隶属于一门学术。所以，「存有」一词犹如「医疗的」和「健康的」，就如上述所强调的，各有多种的意义……。(5)

然而，亚氏以「存有」一词作为类比概念的展示，只是从「存有」的功能上加以述说；当然在形上学上所谈论的「存有」本身，潜能与现实，自立体与依附体，一与多等问题都是类比概念，但亚氏未能将之有系统地发展成为一个类比原理。但到多玛期时，类比概念更能清楚详细的阐述说明，我们可以从多玛斯诠释亚氏的形上学中得到证实，且明 确地明示类比的知识基于存有的类比。

多玛斯在诠释中说：「这是很明显的，所谓类比词乃介于同义词与异义词的中间的一种应用方法。就同义词而论乃意味着不同事物有绝然同一和完全相同的意义；例如：「动 物」一词，乃包含了「马」和「牛」，表示有生命的，有感觉的自立体。就异义词而论，则同一的名词意味着不同的事物与完全不同的意义，例如Canis(狗) 一词，很清楚是可以指星座，同时确实是指动物的一种；故在类比词的含意中，同一的名词应用于不同的事物时，其意义是部份相同，部份却不相同。」(6)

其实，多玛斯在诠释亚氏《形上学》卷四第二章及《伦理学》中都有确定：无论是同义词或异义词，其表示「同」与「异」乃根据对一物的不同关系而言，就是类比说法；其所肯定的：类比概念乃表达事物，特别指「存有」，在同一名词的应用中，有「相同而一」又有「相异而多」的说法，即「部份相同及部份不同」的意义，更好说：类比概念乃肯定「存有」不是同义的，也不是异义的，因为「存有」在形成万物时，有其「同」的一面，也有其「不同」的一面。

2. 类比的种类

类比概念既然是一物与另一物的相连关系而成立的，因此，类比概念也因物的同异区分而有不同的种类。一般来说，类比的种类分为二种：即「归属类比」(Analogy of Attribution) 与「比例类比」(Analogy of Proportionality)。然而，葛慕兰教授在研究亚里斯多德与类比的关系上，提出了：「范畴类比」(Predicamental Analogy)。(7) 今分述于下：

2.1 范畴类比

范畴一词始于亚里斯多德，因亚氏的哲学以解释范畴之殊多与统一为目标。他将基本的范畴分为两类，一为「自立体」，另一为「依附体」。自立体是「在己之有」，它是正式的存有，是第一类比者；反之，依附体则是「在他之有」。它是由于自立体的缘故而存在和统一的。这一种类比，称为「范畴类比」。(8)

2.2 比例类比

亚里斯多德在伦理学中曾说过：「悟性在心灵中，如同视觉在身体内。」(9) 这句话实在就是一句「比例类比」的话，因为比例类比乃指出「相涉事物间关系的类似」。(10)比例类比文可以分为「原义的」(Proper Proportionality) 和「非原义的」(Improper Proportionality) 两种：

2.2.1 原义的比例类比

名词所表达意义，实际上在所有类比极(11) 里出现，而彼此间无独立与依赖、原因与效果等关系，所以没有主要与次要类比极之分，如「存有」说明造物主、受造物；自立体、依附体。

2.2.2 非原义的比例类比

又称为「比喻类比」，名词所表达的意义实际上只在主要类比极埋出现，在次要里完全找不到，如微笑的草坪。(12)

2.3 归属类比

归属类比概念乃对事物互相关涉的同一点中，指出其不同的关系。(13) 这可从内在的和外在的分别说明：

2.3.1 内在的归属类比

名词所表达的意义实际上在主要与次要类比极里都会出现，但彼此间有独立与依赖、原因与效果等关系，故有主要与次要类比极之分，如「存有」说明造物主与受造物、自立体与依附体，强调彼此间的不同关系。

2.3.2 外在的归属类比

名词所表达的意义实际上只在主要类比极出现，在次要类比极里则找不到，但与主要类比极有些关系，通常是原因或效果的关系，如「健康的」，说明人体、食物、药物、皮肤的颜色。(14) 而人体乃主要的类比极(者)；食物、药物、皮肤的颜色则为次要的类比极。归属类比在此不指出次要类比极的任何内在特性，只指出它们与主要类比极之间的外在关系：因果、条件、标记等关系。





1.布鲁格编著(项退结编译)，《西洋哲学辞典》，国立编译馆印行：见「Analogy类比」36。

2.曾仰如著，《存有者的类比概念之探微》(上)　哲学与文化月刊164，第十二卷第七期，8，9。

所谓『同义词』，乃指一个名称或名词所指的主要内容。在『同一意义下』可以适合于不同的每一个别物。即不同的个别物的实质意义－－本质，就是该名词所指的主要内容。换言之，不同的个别物的实质意义－－本质，与一个名词所表达的内容是完全相同的。譬如：『人』是一个名词，其实质意义是『理性动物』，那么，『理性动物』即是此名词所指的主要内容，当它指张三、李四、王五、赵六时的意义是完全相同的，他们都是『人』－－理性动物；在此意义下，他们是完全相同的，他们都具有完全相同的人性，都是『理性动物』。『人』的名词所指的主要内容之所以能在完全相同的意义下，适合于他们的理由，是因为人藉着理智的抽象作用，把他们原有的共同点抽出，形成适合于他们的『普遍概念』。既是每一个别物的原有共同点，自然对他们也能完全相同地适合。也因此，所有真正、正式或严格的普遍概念(共相) 都是同义词，譬如『桌子』，当说明饭桌、书桌、办公桌；『花』，当说明菊花、桂花、玫瑰花；『生物』，说明植物、动物和人类；『狗』，说明狼狗、狮子狗和哈巴狗；『金属品』，说明金、银．铜、铁时。均为『同义词』。

至于『异义词』：异义词与同义词的意义恰恰相反，是另一个极端，也可以说是模棱两可的名词，它所指涉的不同对象，有完全不同的意义。换言之，同一名词有两个以上完全不同的意义，由于它所指涉的对象有完全不同的本质之故，所以也称为『同名异义词』，除了音与字体相同外，名词所指明的意义则完全不同，譬如『黄牛』这个名词，指拉车或耕田的动物，及指以高价出售入场卷或车票的不法之徒时。即是『异义词』，因为前者为非理性动物．后者则为理性动物，两者在本质上是风马牛不相及的。

3.「本质」与「存在」两个名词，因意义复杂，容易引起误解。无论如何，在论有限实体之结构原理时。用「存在」一词意指有限实体与其他有限实体的相同或统一性。相反，「本质」一词则指殊多有限实体的相异或个别性。见：葛慕兰教授著，「第五章『一』与『多』的问题」，(形上学)，先知出版社　民63年十月初版　96-97。

4.李震著，「第六章　存有的类比性」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　91，102，103。

参阅St. Thomas Aquinas, (translated by John P. Rowan), Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Library of Living Catholic Thought, Vol. 1, Book IV, Lesson 1, Aristotle's text, Chapter 2, p. 125.

5.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book XI, Chapter 3, p. 786. (先知出版社)

6.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's Book XI, Chapter 3, p. 786 (先知出版社)。多玛斯诠释，No. 2197, p. 788。

7.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　134。

8.同上。

9.同上，165。(Nicomachean Ethics I 1096, b 25.)

10.李震著，「第六章　存有的类比性」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　94。

11.所谓「类比极」(Analogato) 乃是指类比关系的当事者，譬如「存有」概念应用于神与受造物；自立体与依附体，此四者即是「存有」的类比极。

12.葛慕兰教授著，「第五章　『一』与『多』的问题」，《形上学》，先知出版社　民63年十月初版　17，录自18页。

13.李震著，「第六章　存有的类比性」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　94。

归属类比对于不同事物相涉之点指出同一性，对于涉及此点的各种关系则指出不同性；换言之，此种类比观念对于同一的相涉之点指出不同的关系。

14.葛慕兰教授著，「第五章　『一』与『多』的问题」，《形上学》，先知出版社　民63年十月初版　17，录自18页。

二．「一」与 「多」的问题剖释

在宇宙间存在着万事万物，但最奥秘的一点是：在万事万物中，我们不可能找到二件事物是完全相同的，也就是说：「我」的存在是唯一的，人世间找不到一个与「我」一模一样、完全相同的「我」；尽其量，只可以找到一个「相似」的「我」。而「我」却只是万物中的「一」个，在万物中有着无数的「我」、「你」、「他」。这就是形上学所谈论的「一与多」的问题。

形上学既然是讨论「存有」的学问，而「存有」这个事实，一方面显示万物为「一」，因为它是万物所共同具有者；另一方面又显示万物为「多」，因为经验告诉我们，「存有」分成许多不同的个体而存在着。那么，万物便成为「一」，又成为「多」了，此一「一」与「多」的二律背反，是一个不可以否认的事实。如是者，我们如何解释呢？实在是形上学的基本问题，其基本目标，在于将「多」归于「一」。(15)

要解决「一」与「多」的问题，我们必须证明「多」不是虚无幻想的，而是「存有」。

亚里斯多德在解释「一」与「多」时说：「『多』谓凡已区分或可以区分的意思，『一』则意谓不可区分或未区分的意思。」(16) 当然，可不可以区分所指的是事物，更好说是一个「个体」；换言之，谈「一」与「多」必须先证明「个体」是存有的一种方式。譬如说：一个人、某一事物，其所指的是一个「个体」的存在，这「个体」是「存有」；而人、事物，其所指的不是一个「个体」，却包容了所有人的个体，所有事物的个体而为「多」，然其所指的也是「存有」。

再者，在我们的经验中，我们可以从亚里斯多德的「十范畴」去了解事物的「一」与「多」的关系；我们在经验中所看见的事事物物，如一张桌子，我们可以直接看到它的大小、形状、颜色；用手去摸，可以感到软、硬、冷、热。在分析下，我们可以说，一张桌子是「自立体」，而看见的大小形状颜色，感受到的软、硬、冷、热都是依附体。这一张 桌子是一个「个体」，但其属性却有很多；而且，倘若没有「桌子」这个自立体，则其属性：大小形状等都没有义意而不存在；相反的，一个自立体没有了属性，它也是空泛的；所以，我们可以说，个体是受限定的，也是固定的，亦是有限的，不是绝对的；因此，我们可以说：「一」属于「多」，「多」属于「一」，「一」与「多」是分不开的。无怪乎亚里斯多德的形上学(哲学) 必须谈论「范畴」，以解释范畴的「多」与「一」为目标。更将自立体－－在己之有，即正式的存有比寓作第一类比者；而依附体－－在他之有，即由于自立体的缘故而存在和统一者，这种类比称为「范畴类比」(Predicamental analogy)。(17) (有些学者认为「范畴类比」是矛盾的，其原因在于内容上所表达的乃又是「一」，又是「多」，但事实上是没有矛盾的，因为「存有」概念「明晰地」(explicitly) 表达了「一」，同时「含蓄地」(inplicitly) 包括了「多」。)

由上所言，我们可以肯定，要解决「一」与「多」的问题，必须证明「个体」是存有的一种方式(上面也曾提过，这里再强调一次)。葛慕兰教授所着的《形上学》一书中，很强调这一个思想，而且有很清楚的说明，今引述于下：

「个体」(individual) 一词系指具有单一性的超越特征；也就是说个体虽与其它个体分明或殊异(即有所区分)，但内里却完整。……我们从经验方面来描述与分析个体存在的事实。

(1)自我或内在世界

内在经验，即以反省的方式来讨论自我时，其单一性与自律皆直接而显明地呈现出来。

(a)单一性(Unity)

我认识自己是单一而非殊多的实体。

我的行为分散在时空里，我心中有不同的愿望，我的意识不断地发生变化。虽然，在某程度内，自我受此分散于时空内的行为的影响，但自我却能控制这些行为，保存自己的同一性。

(b)自律(Autonomy)

即我对自己与周围的一切事物，能分辨清楚。

只要注意我的身体对于周围事物的行为，这分明性就清晰地显示出来，因为我的身体对它们的移动，有自己的生活、对周围的影响亦有反应。

此自律性，在精神活动，即思考与意愿中，努力克服由它们而来的限制时，特别明显。我的意识决定我自己的行为，并且知道在决定时，非受任何物理的强迫，或受决定动机无法抵抗的压力以及本能的冲动等，而是我自己的自由自主所致。

结论：

在内在经验里出现的「自我」，无疑地具有「个体」的特征。又，自我也可以改称为「位」。

「位」一词意指：「能够过理性生活的个体」。换言之，「位」指特殊的个体，它的单一性与自律达到理性意识。但在另一方面，自我的个别性并不完全，它也是复杂而有限的。

(c)复杂(Complexity)

如上所述，自我的复杂性似乎分散在时空内，自我包含了许多同时发生，并且屡次互相对立的殊多行为与倾向。这种现象多少破坏了人格的单一性，又由于自我不断地变化，似乎也影响了它的恒存。

(d)有限(Finiteness)

自我在与其他事物对立的时候才分明；但也因与他物对立，自我亦受周围的影响。这样看来，自我不能完全自律，而与周围有密切的关系。自我的受限在活动中表现得最为清楚。又自我的活动除了外在条件所遇到的困难而外，也受到本身的限制。

(2)「非我」或外在世界

宇宙中有许多与自我不尽相同的类比实体，例如：他人、动物、植物等。必须注意的是个体的美善愈低于人类的美善，其个别性或单一性与自律也就愈减弱，此称为「个别性降级律」。

植物的活动没有知觉，动物有知觉与欲望，但其活动是由个体所限定。至于无机体虽也是个体，但其个别性极微小，且由于它能做其他个体的成份，故确定其中那一份子是个体，并非易事。

结论：

由上述的事实可知有限实体是实在且分明的个体，即单一的实有，实际上分为殊多个体。(18)

既然我们可从上面所言的「个体」中了解「一」与「多」的内涵；其实也就是了解事物的「不变与变化」「限定与不限定」、「整全与分散」。

因此，我们本着哲学的基本目标：在于把「多」归于「一」、「分散」归于 「整合」，「不限定」归于「限定」、「变化」归于「不变」，以谈论「存有」这个事实，一方面显示万物为「一」、「整合」、「限定」、「不变」，因为「存有」是万物所共同具有者；另一方面又显示万物为「多」、「分散」、「不限定」、「变化」，因为经验告诉我们，「存有」分成许多不同的个体而存在着。(19)

然而，「存有」的「相同」与「相异」所容的「一」与「多」等概念，都是形上学的「类比概念」，故我们在下一节中详细地说明「存有」是「一－－同」又是「多－－异」的类比概念说明之。

15.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月134。

16.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's Book X, Chapter 3 : 1054a, p. 786. (先知出版社)

17.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　134。

18.葛慕兰著，「第五章　「一」与「多」的问题」，《形上学》，先知出版社　民63年　88-91。

19.参阅葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　134。

三．「存有」是「一－－同」又是「多－－异」的类比概念说明

我们曾说过：「存有」既非多义，亦非一义的，于是我们肯定它乃是「类比的」。而一般说来，「类比」一词意指：乃将不同但相似的实在物体，予以统一，即将「多」归于「一」。按照亚里斯多德和多玛斯的认为，实在物体是由「质料」与「形式」两个内在原理，互相结合而成的。但在宇宙间，实在物体很多，而且不尽相同，那么如何才具有相同性呢？这就是说：「存有」与「存有」之间如何表明其「相同性」与「相异性」？

在多玛斯所着的《论自然原理》一书中(De Principiis Naturae 1253-1255)，将宇宙万有的相同性分成不同的层次，此乃从万有的相异性中，给予统一起来：

(1)「个体」，这是数目上的统一；例如孔子，他是一个人；孟子，他也是一个人……。

(2)「种」的统一，亦即不同的个体同属于一「种」；例如孔子、孟子、荀子，这几个不同的个体同属于「人」这一「种」。

(3)「类」的统一，亦即不同「种」的个体同属于一「类」；例如墨子(他是一个人)，小花(牠是一只猫)，小白(牠是一条狗)，这三个不同「种」的个体，皆属于「动物」这一「类」。

(4)「类比」的统一，此即不同「类」的事物，相互之间具有相同性。例如「自立体」与「分量」，它们虽分属于不同的范畴(亦即不同的「类」)，但相互之间仍有「存有」这相同性，由此可见，「存有」一词不是一义的，也不是多义的，而是类比的。(20)

其实，多玛斯所言的统一乃是「存有」的类比概念的相同，这都是从亚里斯多德的形上学引用而加以说明的，如：

(1)内在原理的相同性与相异性，说明万物的原因与原理，一方面不相同，另一方面，以类比的方式说却都相同。(21)

(2)统一件(相同性) 为：有的因做为数目上之单位而统一，有的因同属于一种或一类而统一，有的因类比而统一。(22)

(3)存有的意义是殊多的，但由于它们与基本的意义－－即自立体－－关系密切，故具有统一性。(23) 这类比说的主要根源乃来自亚里斯多德之肯定形上学的对象具有统一性。

然而，多玛斯在《论存有与本质》(On Being and Essence) 一书中提出「存有」的范畴类比，将依附体和自立体联合起来－－自立体是基本的存有，因为它在本体论上是独立的；反之，依附体则仅是相对的存有，因为它完全倾向自立体，必须靠着自立体而存在；还有，自立体是依附体存在的原因，因为自立体是主要的类比极，乃是层次高且真实的存有，不单是依附体的「主体」，更是具备一切作为依附体所要分享的美善；故，在范畴类比的范围里，存有之层次的统一，是以「分享」的关系为基础。

层次的统一力在元形元质上立言的，即从现实与潜能结合而成，凡元形－－现实高的，其层次便高，所有的存有都包含在这些层次里，自纯粹的现实以下，到形质结合成的存有，皆在这层次里；而至纯粹的现实，本质即是存有本身，其存有便为单纯，乃层次中最高者－－这便是「神」的存有。(24) 而「神」的存有与「万有」的存有亦是一个类比关系，我们如何调和两者之相同(统一) 和相异呢？这实在必须从「超越」的关系类比上去谈，其内容涉及「创造」与「受造」，即万有是神所创造的，故能「分享」神的美，与神「相似」(但「神」不相似人)，并「隶属」于神。(25) 我们在本文中不加以讨论和说明。

话说回来，范畴类比乃由于依附体与自立体之间的关系而统一的，故「存有」的类比不是「一义」或「异义」的，而是用两种甚为相似、而又互相补充的方式表示出来的：自立体与依附体皆为存有，但自立体是首要的，且是本性所要求的存有；依附体则是次要的，由「分享」所致的存有。

无怪乎有人如此形容：「类比乃哲学的救恩。」因为「存有」的概念实在很奥妙，给予人的思考很大的挑战，也是人反省的刺激，以及是追根究底的理知的诱惑。(26) 所以，历代的哲学家对「存有」的探索也层出不穷，而以「类比」概念来表达是最清楚的。



20.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　138-139。

21.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book V, Chapter 4, 5, 1070, a31. (先知出版社)

22.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book V, Chapter 6, 1016, b31-1017, a2 ; Chapter 9, 1018, a13. (先知出版社)

23.Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, Vol. 2, Aristotle's text Book IV, Chapter 2, 1003, a33-b10 (先知出版社)。可参阅葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　136-137。

24.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　141-142。

25.葛慕兰著，《多玛斯类比说的发展》　哲学论集7，辅仁大学哲学研究所编印　民65年6月　143-152。

26.G.B. Phelan, St. Thomas and Analogy (Milwaukee : Marquette University 1943 Second printing).

结论

为解决「存有」的「一与多」之问题，我们提出了类比说，特别将亚里斯多德的形上学思想中的类比概念加以说明，也将多玛斯所言的类比说作为亚氏思想的补充描述出来，使我们了解到「存有」的类比概念实在是一种实体事物的统一；而这个统一的功能，若要发展下去，必然是到达「神」的存有问题上，类比在这问题上也必然显得更重要，正如李震教授在《中外形上学比较研究》一书的下册中说：

「存有」的类比性使万有可以互相沟通，万有在「存有」的基础上不再互不相干。有限存有与无限存有、物质存有与精神存有，天、人和自然皆可融通，合为一体。另一方面，万有又可维持各自的本性，使同中有异，异中有同，共同勾画出一个多彩多姿的世界或景象。(27)

同样的，在「绪言」中，我们曾提过中国哲学中的「道」和「器」都是类比性的概念，倘若能将这思想发挥研究，必定能有精采的内涵意义和价值，因为中国哲学中，尤以儒道思想，都是从人的生命作一超升的路向，以打通人与天与道的通路，即要由有限到无限的终极，达至「天人合一」、「道通为一」的境界，而类比的方式是最合宜有理的，也适合人性的要求，以及人反思的了解。

　

附录

王秀谷着，《多玛斯思想中的「一」及其他》　辅仁大学神学论集22，471-482。

多玛斯应用了亚里斯多德的「元形－－元质」的思想来讲解奥斯定的「灵魂－－肉身」间的关系。其目的在于解释「存有」之「一与多」的问题，特别是「人的统一性」问题，故多玛斯认为：一如在 「元形元质学说」(Hylomorphism) 中，每「一」有形之物，均应由「元形－－元质」的形上原理来领悟它是此「一」有形之物，同样人之为人，因人有「元形－－元质」关系的灵魂和肉身。多玛斯在奥斯定思想上所增益的，不是灵肉之「别」，而是灵肉之「合」，即是「灵魂肉身」共成「一」人，其功能也是「整个人」的功能。多玛斯甚至说：「灵魂没有功能，而是『人』透过灵魂才有其功能」(anima non operator, sed home operatur per animam-Comm. X, Ethics., lectio 6)

为更进一步欣赏多玛斯的「人之统一性」，我们可以将它放进多玛斯的整个「一的理论」中来看。原来，天下皆「一」也，世间的形形色色无不是「一」。这些「一」来自何方？多玛斯说：正像天主是太一，他创造了世间的小一(sicut Deus est unus, ita et unum produxit-De potentia, Q. 3, art 16 ad 1)。「一」是宇内万品来自天主的痕迹，尽管世物之「一」都是「合成」之一，都不是纯然之「一」－－因为只有天主才是纯然的太一。此「太一」造生了万物，很自然地万物便带有太一的痕迹。万物在「一」方面相似天主，一则因为每一物都是「一」；二则因为一切受造物又有「秩序之一」(unitas ordinis)；三则因为受造物在「一」的工夫上可以模仿，接近天主。故我们也可说「一」是「存有特征」之首。(至于「存有的其他特征」－－「真、善」皆出于「一」之肯定，故必返于「太一」－－「人之真」是「具体人的可认知的一面；而「人之善」是「具体人的可爱的一面」。在多玛斯思想中「一、真、善」的「一」，是三者中最基本的。)

多玛斯「一」的看法极为辽阔：由太一开始，整个宇宙之内莫非「一」，我们仅就「人」之「一体」而稍予发挥。现在，我们不谈「夫妇之一」、「家庭之一」、「民族之一」、「人类之一」，仅稍谈一谈「宇宙之一」。前曾谈过「太一创造出许多小一」，而今可说「这许多小一相合而成大一」。古人说：「至大无外，谓：大一……天地一体也」(庄子天下篇)；这里的「大一」，正好可与多玛斯用的UNIVERSUM相参照，而「天地一体」也正好与多玛斯视「宇宙」为一有秩序而又有相互关联的一体相参照。



27.李震著，「类比观念的功用」，《中外形上学比较研究》(下册)，中央文物供应社　民71年　95。

作者：韩大辉 Hon, Tai Fai, Savio

有了信仰，便防碍哲学吗？用了哲学，便毁掉神学吗？

本文尝试简单回答这两个问题。首先，论述为何有人称哲学是信仰的绊脚石；第二，论述哲学与信仰的和谐；第三，哲学可为神学服务；第四，哲学于神学的作用。

人不断在寻找，总想将呈现出来的问题，一一解答，最后能把握和活出真实的人生意义，这个过程，就像回应一个召唤一般。从基督信徒的角度看，那召唤我们的就是天主。祂创造了我们，给予生命，从没有离开过我们的生活，而人与生俱来，就从心底里，不断要寻找祂，并在其历史和文化中，感受到祂的临在。

当人察觉到天主就在历史中，尤其透过基督事件，显示自己，人就把自己的理智和意志完全交给天主，接纳祂启示的真理，即祂为委身和依附的对象，并全人向祂表示自己的同意，这就是信仰。

活出信仰，有不同的方式和层面，例如：参加礼仪庆典(弥撒)，积极传福音，善度良好的道德生活，以基督的爱心参与社会建设等。礼仪，福传、道德、爱心就像信仰的外衣，人们看见这外衣，就会看出这是信徒。当然，我们假设或希望，穿这件外衣的人都是诚于中，形于外。

另一方面，人活在此世，亦会按其理性，在自己生活中，了解世界，寻找人生的答案，并按自己所确定的活出来。我们暂且不谈这些答案是否真确、融通、完整、严谨、科学，而笼统地称按此努力得出来的答案为哲学。信仰和哲学都同样地提供人生观，不过，前者源于启示，后者依靠理性。事实上，信仰和哲学提供的人生观有时会很不同。

这里不期然会冒起一些问题：假如信仰是真的，难道哲学就是假的吗？两者是必然彼此对立的吗？假如是不的话，哲学作为严谨的学问对信仰可有益处？何种益虚？

一．哲学是信仰的绊脚石

「你们要小心，免得有人以哲学，以虚伪的妄言，按照人的传授，依据世俗的原理，而不是依据基督，把你们勾引去了。」(哥2：8) 有些人藉保禄这番话来劝人慎防哲学的误导，因为哲学是异端之根源。一些教父，如戴先(Tatian) 和戴都良(Tertullian) 亦引用此言严厉抨击哲学，督促教友，为保全基督教导的纯美，绝不该受哲学的沾染。

「属血气的人，不能领受天主圣神的事」(格前2：14) 有些人认为哲学全赖人的理性，而人在罪的污染下，理性本身也是败坏的。故此，哲学只会阻碍信仰。此外，哲学使人骄傲，因为人会企图以自己的思维取代圣经，甚至以作工取代恩宠。自宗教改革后，不少新教徒从这神学角度去否定哲学的重要性。

有信仰的人只该传达其所接受的真理，为基督徒来说，就是传福音。「我若不传福音，我就有祸了。」(格前9：16)「我没有用高超的言论或智慧，给你们宣讲……我曾决定，在你们中不知道别的，只知道耶稣基督，这被钉在十字架上的耶稣基督。」(格前2：1－2) 因此，为有些人，传基督就不该讲人的智慧，哲学是信仰的绊脚石。

到了所谓现代，笛卡儿为建立哲学体系的必然性，对任何知识全面疑惑，将信仰的真理搁置一旁。休谟则将知识只规范在感官经验中，任何超出此经验的，都不得而知。康德声称纯粹理性不可知悉物自身，只可将宗教作为现象研究，但不能对神自身作理性的肯定，只有透过信仰，人才可接受神。哲学不能达到任何有关神的真理。这理论不知不觉地成为现代哲学的基本预设。

在这启蒙运动下，冒起很多近代哲学的研究，将信仰和理性对立起来，就好像信仰是理性的坟墓。若要运用理性，非要假装没有信仰不可。总之，搁置信仰，理性才可得到释放。这样，所谓「基督徒哲学」为现代的「唯理主义者」简直荒谬绝伦。

拒绝信仰渗入哲学，免得哲学受损，这种戒心以不同的方式一直伸延到近代。例如，海德格认为哲学本身的功能就是提问，若有人自以为已有答案，又如何真实地提问，为此，基督徒哲学是一个悖理。雅士培宣称谁有先存的答案，在哲学上必注定失败，因为哲学是向超越开放的进程，任何理念上固有的绝对肯定必会阻滞此进程。

二．哲学与信仰的和谐

究竟哲学和信仰是否势不两立？于此问题，硬要塞一个答案，很容易会擦出斗咀的精灵，但平心反省，也许会擦出妙悟的光亮。本文无意省略这问题的复杂性，其企图以有限的篇幅作些基本的肯定。

首先，保禄说过：「我们在成全人中，也讲智慧」(格前2：6)，成全的人是指属神的人，已归主的人。智慧是指天主奥秘的智慧，就是基督。为此，教父中也有人称基督徒的教义为真正的哲学，犹思定(Justin) 便是一例，因为他认为这教义正好答覆所有人最基本的问题。哲学家的要务是对现世、来生、神和人的问题提出答案，其次该按真道生活和见证。基督就是真道，就此而论，基督徒是哲学家，其教义是真正的哲学。也有教父把信仰看成基督徒的慧境(Christian gnosis)。亚力山大的克莱孟(Clement) 是其中一个，他认为保禄在哥2：8所述的，仅指错误的哲学(如：享乐主义、物质主义) 而言，故不能一概而论地排斥哲学。相反，为使人接受宗徒的宣讲，该将之套以正确的哲学(如：柏拉图的思想)，因为天主给犹太人法律，外邦人哲学，两者都为助人接受基督。

第二，人的理性虽受罪的败坏，但不至连天主的声音也听不到。创世纪在描写人犯罪后，上主天主呼唤他，「你在那里？」(创3：9)。当然。信仰与哲学之间的和谐最终建基于神与人的关系。天主给人自由可辨别祂的召唤，能认出那召唤是指向神的慈爱生命，自由是神让人作回应的选择，而回应是信仰的行动。就此而论，信仰既是人性行为又是神的恩宠，它和人的自然理性互不对立。

第三、哲学可成为信仰的前导。信仰主要是因福音和恩宠而产生。基督要门徒往普天下传福音，是因为福音可使人信耶稣，而信耶稣可得永生。这表示信仰本身亦须有普遍为人接受的特性。这信仰的普及性，按多玛斯的意见，是指人共通的理性。信仰的内容至少不与理性发生矛盾，为众人是可接受的。初接触信仰的人，难以即时接受全部圣经，故向初学基督道理的人，可先诉诸信仰的普及性，亦即人共通的理性。于此而言，哲学可作信仰的前导，即借助哲学的探索，肯定人性是向无限的超越开放，说明理性不足悟透超性的真理，指出基督教义的可信性，和指向信仰的领域。

第四，有了信仰，并不损害理性。换言之，即使将信仰看成答案，仍不会使基督徒做假哲学。这由于信仰提供答案，哲学寻找问题。有了答案，不等于没有问题。人在生活上碰到的问题如此之多，从信仰中悟出的答案，未必能对号入座。基督徒无法从信仰找到答案，除非先弄清楚问题是甚么。哲学按其提问的本质，正好助人把握问题实在的症结，这样，基督徒才容易从圣传和圣经的「信仰宝库」中，寻找合宜的答案。

第五、信仰可提供哲学一些意念，而不损害哲学的独立性，因为哲学本身不可能没有任何先存意念而得以启动，至少哲学家要选择信任或不信任自己的理性，休谟和康德等人选择的知识论是反对形上学的，故无从以理性对神作任何肯定，可是这种选择既非唯一，亦欠说服力。此外，还有另一个事实，不论中外古今，哲学之所以兴盛，乃因宗教信仰与理性不断进行交谈，是批判而有建设的交谈。就人类思想发展而论，宗教信仰和哲学不得不讨论对方和自身关系的问题，两者虽有时互相排斥，但仍可彼此丰富。

三．哲学可为神学服务

上文提过，哲学既不限信仰对立，那么哲学是否有助信徒对自己的信仰仲有系统的反省？

有人认为，神学已有严谨的治学方法去研究启示，再者，他们认为哲学企图以人的思维取代天主的启示，这只会使神学败坏。因此，神学为了维护自己本质的纯美而须排斥哲学。

的确，我们承认，神、哲学各有本身的方法，但不同意所有哲学都不能帮助神学。这里我们要注意，他们所排斥的是「以人的思维取代天主的启示」的哲学，这种「取代」意味人在信仰的主动性，而非天主的主动性，这固然不对，但他们并非针对所有的哲学。其实，问题的重心该是，何种哲学才可为神学服务？

首先是那肯定人推理能力的哲学，因为神学需要推理。我们须解释神学的基本推理。神学是研究启示的学问，它的大前提是对天主的信赖，祂确保其自我启示的真确性，当这学问专注某个课题。以启示的内容为起点，并引申其义，只要推理没有出错，神学结论的真确性便可奠基于启示的真确性。

此外，既然天主按其肖象造了人，使人真有理性，又按人的理解程度而降生，启示自己，那么只要神学有正确推理，其结论应是真实无妄的，除非人在推理时出错，或天主给人理性根本是为骗人的。神学的冒升，诚如多玛斯所言，是因为天主赐人信仰和理性，让人能进入天主自我的认识中，犹如天主给犹太法律，外邦人哲学，为帮助他们接受基 督。即使人可因为疏懒而在推理上出错，但并不表示理性一无是处，正由于理性是天主所赐，本身是可信靠的。为此，就人的理性，神学需要那些寻找正确推理的哲学。

由于神学不是纯粹象征性的谈论，与事实无关。神学可贵之处，在于能说出与事实相符的真理，那么其谈论必须指涉神本身的存有。假如耶稣关乎三一之神的宣讲不是空谈，那么为了解其内容，自然就需要形上学的协助。在最初几个世纪，基督二性结合于一位和天主三位一体的道理，已在圣经之外，寻找哲学语言的辅助。事实上，神、哲学的共同点是对真理的敬爱，就此而言，两者不必背道而驰。从神学观点而否定哲学功能的人，与其说排除哲学本身，毋宁说企图摈弃形上学或本体论(即谈论所有存在物本身的学问)，或拒绝以形上学论天主。这里我们要声明，形上学不是全能的，不足以表达天主整全的奥迹，但也不至一无是处，连部分的真理也得不到。假如神学要助人了解天主存在的方式，便须接受肯定形上学的哲学。

四．哲学于神学的作用

首先，让我们肯定一下神学的作用。神学诞生于信仰，并在信仰中发展，为信仰而服务。信仰不排除哲学，只有与哲学合作，神学才可成为真正的学问。这说法有几个含义。

第一，人以信仰接受天主的启示，信仰是人生答案，但这答案并不取消问题；哲学使问题更尖锐，使推理更准确；神学使信仰更贴合人生。

第二，信仰论及天主的存有；哲学确立人意识对存有的开放，这开放拥有彻底批判理性自身的价值，洞悉理性的局限，对天主认知的不足；神学则进入信仰的领域，让信仰光照理性，探求天主自我启示的意义。

第三，传福音预设信仰的普及性，此特性超越众多宗教和文化的表象，而诉诸人共通的理性；哲学可确立圣言的聆听者有起码的理性，足以辨别启示的可信性；神学则开发启示的内容，藉以加深信仰。

换言之，假如神学是信仰追求明瞭(fides quaerens intellectum)，那末，哲学可助神学为信仰追求文化、真理和智慧(fides quaerens culturam, veritatem, sapientiam)。

1. 追求文化

就如以色列民离开埃及获得解放时，按梅瑟吩咐，同埃及人要求金银和衣服，因为这是他们应得的；同样，基督徒为表达那解放性的真理，亦大胆地取用教外人的文化和哲学，因为凡能表达真理的，就是道的种子(logoi spermatikoi)。原应属于成为人身的道－－基督真理。教父们很有智慧地采用了希腊的哲学来说明基督徒的信仰，也因此以信仰而丰富了希腊哲学的内涵。

哲学的培育在于领导学员(不论平信徒或将来成为神父的修生)，从经验开始，对现象进行观察、反省和推理，根据万古常新的哲学真理，对人、对宇宙和对天主，获得一个有根据而又和谐的认识。同时亦应熟习当代的哲学潮流，尤其那些在其本国影响较大者，认识现代科学的进步，建立与现代人交往的能力。

2. 追求真理

早期基督徒的艺术有很好的提示。在第三世纪，基督徒石棺上，常刻有三个角色：牧者、祈祷者和爱智者(哲人)。这三个角色都与基督有关，而且对死亡提出的问题，能给予答案。牧者使人记起圣咏23篇，「上主是我的牧者……纵使经过死荫的幽谷，我也一无惧怕。」祈祷者指出人所渴求的最高境界，是在祈祷中达到。爱智者本来代表那四处宣讲智慧的人，在面对死亡的事实，提出生命的意义，而基督作为真理，就是最完美的爱智者，因为祂的答案并非推理出来，而是祂本人。祂就是复活和生命。

在天主教神学院中，智能培育不可脱离人格、灵修、牧民的幅度，其关键在于读哲学的阶段。哲学的重要性不容低估，它一方面保证客观真理的确切性，另一方面指出启示真理的可信性，真理是人将自己完全奉献给基督和教会的基础。了解事情不算太难，但若不能保证真理的确切性，或指出启示的可信性，就难于作彻底的奉献。哲学的探索与其说确定真理，倒不如说在于加强对真理的敬和爱，使人领悟真理非人所创造或主宰，而是天主赐给人的礼物。

由于目前的文化对宗教冷漠，人强调主观的判准，欠缺对客观理性的信任，高科技又带来新的困惑，那么哲学的训练，应注意人基本的需要，即分享天主理性的光辉，寻求智慧，渐渐向天主和人更开放。这要强调人对心灵与真理之间关系的基本觉醒，藉此，启发学员严格地探索真理，承认人的限度，关注哲学与生活之间的和谐，以及激发学员进入问题中，务使将来读神学时，在信德的光照下，能以救赎奥迹构思符合人生的答案。

3. 追求智慧

敬爱真理的人，容易活出爱智者的气质。他们在忧患意识启迪中，澈悟生命之可贵，在内心良知督导下，常以悲天悯人之情行事，在动心忍性考验里，孕育豁达的风骨。这样，智慧油然而生，使人以纯然真我之心深深融入天地宇宙的幽邃奥秘中，与万物生机相通，将其璀灿的生命景象投射到实际人生中。追求真、善、美的人自然对人生慧境心仪。

在第十二世纪，西方的经院神学开始强调理性、逻辑的运用，当时的寺院(隐修院) 神学为平衡过分的理性幅度，仍坚持虔敬的心性，基本上是指以祈祷的态度研读圣经(Lectio Divina)，目的主要不是求知识，而是求取与降生圣言的造访(Visit from above)，与祂亲密相聚的神契经验(mystical experience)。这一点对今日从事神学工作者来说，不容忽视。

奥思定的传统也是为了追求智慧，「我相信为了解，我了解为相信」，「我希望用理性去看我所相信的，所辩论过的和所辛苦耕耘过的。」(1)。

中世纪的寺院神学，多次引用圣咏的话：「敬畏上主是智慧的开端」(initium sapientiae timor Domini咏110：10) 假如神学工作者以天主为大前提而推理的，那末，他(她) 必须在主前满怀敬畏。这只是智慧的开端，但智慧逐渐在爱内增长。最后，圆满的爱会驱除怕惧(若一4：18)。

安瑟莫认为由于爱(affectio)，人才从信仰追求了解。同样伯纳认为，「教使人博学，爱令人生智。」(2) 确实，哲学的外文字源是解作爱智(philosophia)。智慧一向被视为德行，无非是强调一种以爱为主导的灵修生活。

伯纳又说：「那里有爱，就没有辛劳，却令人回味不已。也许智慧(sapientia) 一词源于滋味(sapor)，正因为智慧加于德行，犹如在无味或苦涩的东西上加入调味品一般，使之美味非常。若将智慧定义为好事的滋味，亦无可厚非。」(3) 辛劳是指做学问的过程，但有爱的陪伴，就有滋味(智慧) 了。

做学问尽管很重要，但追求智慧更重要。卢柏说：「我并不遣责做学问的工作(七艺)……但那些不用学问来追求智慧果实的人，显然有罪，因为天主将研究学艺的功夫赐给我们，正是要我们在认知中拥有天主，和将荣耀归于祂。」(4)

为此，文德说：「

千万不要这样想：

只求阅读，不求热诚，

只求推敲，不求灵性悦乐，

只求工作，不求虔敬，

只求知识，不求爱德，

只求了解，不求谦逊，

只求钻研，不求天主恩宠，

只求认识自我，不求天主倾注的智慧。」(5)

追求智慧的人，必会寻找与耶稣亲密的时刻，就像那位被选的宗徒，在最后晚餐时，将自己的头靠着主的胸膛，在那里拥有一切的洞悉和智慧的宝库。主说：「玛利亚选择了更好的一分，是不能从她夺去的。」(路10：42) 基本上，神学中的哲学幅度，也是为打好智慧灵修的基础。

作为本文结论，我们可说：有了信仰，并不防碍哲学。甚至会丰富哲学的内涵。用了哲学，绝不毁掉神学，反而助长神学的智慧。不过，这一切该以爱为起点，以爱为终点，如保禄说：「在爱中，追求真理。」(弗4：25)

　

  1. "Credo ut intelligarn, intelligo lit credam". Augustine, Sermones 43, 7, 9.

"Desideravi intellectu videre quod credidi, et multum disputavi et laboravi", De Trinitale XV 28.

2. "Instructio doctos reddit, affectio sapientes". Bernard of Clairvaux Sermones super Cantica Canticorum 23:14)

3. "Ubi autem amor est, labor non est, sed sapor. Forte sapientia a sapore denominatur, quod virtuti accedens, quoddam veluti condimentum, sapidam reddat, quae per se insulsa quodam modo et aspera sentiebatur. Nec duxerim reprehendendum, si quis sapientiam saporem boni definiat". (Ibidem 85:8)

4. "Non ergo studia condemnat (...) sed hoc in eis culpat, quod non quaesierunt ex eis sapientiae fructum, propter quern artes istae a Deo data sunt, id est in notitia habere Deum et glorificare sicut Deum". Rupert of Deutz, De operibus Spiritus Sancti, 6:6.

5. S. Bonaventura, Itinerarium mentis in Deum, Prol. 4

参考书目

1. 罗光，《士林哲学．理论篇》，台北　学生书局　1988。

2. 曾仰如，《十大哲学问题之探微》，台北　辅大　1991。

3. 李震，《基本哲学探讨》，台北　辅大(二版)　1996。

4. 李震，《中外形上学比较研究》，台北　中华文化复兴运动推行委员会　中央文物供应社　1989。

5. 邬昆如，《哲学概论》，台北　五南图书出版有限公司(第四版)　1992。

6. 尹大贻，《基督教哲学》，四川人民出版　1987。

7. Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (6 January 1970).

8. Idem, The Theological Formation of Future Priests (22 February 1976).

9. John Paul II, Pastores dabo vobis Apostolic Exhortation (Vatican 1992).

10. Maurice Nedoncelle, Existe-t-il une philosophic Chretienne? (Paris : Artheme Foyard 1956).

11. Hans Urs von Balthasar, On the task of Catholic philosophy in our time, in Communio 20 (Spring 1993) 147-187.

12. Joseph Ratzinger, Faith, philosophy and theology, in Communio 12 (Fall 1985)351-361.

13. Mark D. Jordan, The terms of the debate over "Christian philosophy", in Communio 12 (Fall 1985) 293-311.

14. Giovanni B Mondin, Relazione tra filosofia e teologia, in Seminarium 29 (1989) 26-36.

15. Rino Fisichella, Oportet philosophari in theologia. Delineazione di un sentiero per una valutazione del rapporto tra teologia e filosofia, in Gregorianum 76, 2 (1955) 221-262.

by T.McIntyre S.J.

THE JUBILEE YEAR AGAINST ITS OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

  The Holy Years

a. The sabbatical year

Yahweh spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and said: 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When you enter the country which I am giving you, the land must keep a Sabbath's rest for Yahweh. For six years you will sow your field, for six years you will prune your vineyard and gather its produce. But in the seventh year the land will have a sabbatical rest, a Sabbath for Yahweh. You will neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard nor reap grain which has grown of its own accord, nor gather the grapes from your untrimmed vine. It will be a year of rest for the land. But what the land produces in its Sabbath will serve to feed you, your slave, male and female, your employee and your guest residing with you; for your cattle too. and the wild animals of your country, whatever it produces will serve as food. ' (Leviticus 25:1-7)

b. The year of jubilee

You will count seven weeks of years -- seven times seven years, that is to say a period of seven weeks of years, forty-nine years. And on the tenth day of the seventh month you will sound the trumpet-call; on the Day of Expiation you will sound the trumpet throughout the land. You will declare this fiftieth year to be sacred and proclaim the liberation of all the country's inhabitants. You will keep this as a jubilee: each of you will return to his ancestral property, each to his own clan. This fiftieth year will be a jubilee year for you; in it you will not sow, you will not harvest the grain that has come up on its own or in it gather grapes from your untrimmed vine. The jubilee will be a holy thing for you; during it you will eat whatever the fields produce. (Leviticus 25:8-12)

Introduction

I suggest that you first read the whole of chapter 25 of the Book of Leviticus. However, enough of the chapter has been quoted above to give the feel for the great liberation intended by this piece of legislation. Every 7th year in the Promised Land is to be a sabbatical year - a year of rest for the land - in which the land will lie fallow and will not be worked by human hands. The 7th sabbatical year, i.e. every 49th year, is to be a very special sabbatical year. Moses is to sound the trumpet throughout the land of Israel, declare this 49th/50th year to be sacred, proclaim the liberation of all Israelites: "each of you is to return to his ancestral property, each to his own clan". The beginning of the Jubilee year then was to be a period of great rejoicing. Leviticus gives the impression of a great home-coming celebration.

Reading the passage just like that and at the same time keeping in mind verses one and two, we might furrow our brows trying to picture the whole situation. Yahweh is speaking to Moses in the third month after the Israelites' great liberation from Egypt. Moses is on Mount Sinai, which is a long way from the Promised Land. The Israelites, camped at the foot of the mountain, have yet to break camp and set out on the long journey, murmur against Yahweh and Moses many times on the way and as a result spend 40 years in the desert - as is described in the Book of Numbers. Furthermore the conquest of the promised land, as described in the Book of Joshua, has not yet taken place. Why then should there be this great rejoicing in the 49th/50th year after entry into the land? And what is this talk of liberation and of each one re- turning to his own inheritance and his own clan? Even Moses would have been perplexed.

Later in chapter 25 there is mention of buying and selling land "among yourselves" [v.l4], saying it is not to be sold outright [v.23]. Next there is mention of an Israelite being reduced to poverty [vv.25, 35, 39], and a question of loans without interest and even of a man having to sell himself [v.39]. All these things happen among Israelites, but in v.47 there is the possibility of an Israelite selling himself to a person who is not an Israelite. These references show that, in fact, the chapter is closely connected with the economic life and the structure of a society based on a land economy.

This suggests that a long story has to be told if we are to grasp the full import of chapter 25 of the Book of Leviticus and the kind of liberation the Jubilee Year was meant to bring.

God, A People and A Land

The story of the Old Testament is a story of how God, under the name Yahweh, chose an insignificant people, the descendants of Abraham, to be his own people and promised them a land. The Book of Exodus opens with this people of God's predilection as slaves in the land of Egypt. God called Moses to lead this people out of Egypt, through the Reed Sea and out into the desert. In the third month after leaving Egypt they arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai. There God made a covenant with them: Yahweh would be their God and they would be God's people. It was here at the foot of this mountain that the Israelites became a people. Up to this they had been slaves of the Pharaoh of Egypt, now they were God's own people, and the living God would guide and teach them.

God could not be seen but worked through a chosen representative, Moses. God spoke to Moses and Moses spoke to the people. It was on Mount Sinai that God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, the basic law by which the people were to live. This law made known the demands of the liberating God on the Israelites and sketched in broad outline the structure of their society, which should be liberating, too. The people are to be assimilated to God and not God to the people.

To show that the law came from God, the Bible tells us that it was written on two tablets of stone, "inscribed by the finger of God" [Exod 31:18]. This law is to be found in two books of the Bible, the first version in the book of Exodus [20:1-17], and the second in the book of Deuteronomy [5:6-21].

The Ten Commandments

The first two commandments spell out clearly that Yahweh is their God, the one who brought them out of Egypt. They must never forget that primitive experience and the God who brought them into being. They must give themselves wholly to God, the hidden God who spoke out of fire and smoke. Neither must they dull the primitive experience by making images of God as other people had of their gods. Neither could they try to use God's name to obtain an advantage for themselves. They were consecrated to God alone and so were a Holy People, separated from all other peoples [Exod 20:1-7].

The third commandment, concerning the Sabbath day, had similarly far reaching implications. Every seventh day was a 'holy' day. It was a tithe from the time allotted them by God. It was a day of rest not only for the heads of the clans but also for their sons and daughters, for men or women servants, for their animals and the alien living among them [Exod 20:8-11]. The Book of Deuteronomy expands this, but drops the motive of God resting on the seventh day, and adds another: "Remember that you were once a slave in Egypt, and that Yahweh your God has commanded you to keep the Sabbath day". Even without this addition in Deuteronomy the promulgation of the Sabbath institution, which belongs to the basic law, brought liberation into the daily lives of all the people. Truly, Yahweh is a liberating God. We may note that about 30 years ago i.e. 3,000 years after Moses, the employers of Hong Kong could not afford to give their workers one day's rest in seven.

The other commandments can be noted in passing. They protect the life, good name and property of individuals, and the well being of the family.

Not much reflection is required to see that the Ten Commandments are not irrelevant to the Year of Jubilee. The law codes found in the Pentateuch can be said to be expansions of the Ten Commandments. These law codes are: the Code of the Covenant [Exod 20:22-23:19]; the Holiness Code [Lev chapters 17-26], and Deuteronomy [Deut chapters 12-26]. Each of these codes works out in a certain amount of detail how the Israelites were to live out their lives according to the Ten Commandments in the changed circumstances in which they found themselves. The Jubilee Law comes towards the end of the Holiness Code [Chapter 25 and 27:17-21]; the only other mention of Jubilee is in Num 36:4 and Ez 46:17.

Entry into the Promised Land

The Book of Joshua deals with the entry of the people of Israel into the Promised Land. Some of the tribes [Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh] were already settled on the far side of the Jordan, but all the tribes were to take part in the conquest of the land given to them by God.

When the time came for the remaining tribes to receive their inheritance, Joshua sent men to survey the country. "The men left, went all over the country and surveyed it by towns, in seven sections, writing down their findings in a book, and then went back to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh. Joshua cast lots for them in Yahweh's presence at Shiloh, and there Joshua divided the country between the Israelites, share by share" [Josh 18:9-10]. This is a very short summary of the apportioning of the Promised Land and we can take it for granted that it was much more complicated than that. However, what comes across is that Yahweh had sovereign dominion over all the land and so assigned to the tribe, the clan and the family the land they possessed. This is put very simply in Lev 25:23 -- "the land is mine". The casting of lots was simply a way of making known what Yahweh had already decided.

The Land: Necessary for a Family's 'Shalom'

Probably some of the land was held in common for pasturage and a portion of land suitable for growing crops was assigned to each family. For many generations the ideal in Israel was each man taking his rest under his own vine and fig tree with no one to trouble him [1 Kgs 5:5; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10]. This plot of land was probably passed on to the eldest son and preserved in the family. If a property owner died without any sons to succeed him the land passed on to his daughters if they married within the tribe [Num 27:7-8]. The law which bound a man to marry his widowed and childless sister-in-law, the Law of Levirate, had the purpose of providing heirs and the continued possession of the land by the family [Deut 25:5-10]. If an Israelite fell into poverty and had to sell his inheritance, his nearest male relative [go'el] had the right to acquire it [Lev 25:25, 47-49]. All these laws had the purpose of preserving intact the family inheritance which was necessary for the family's 'shalom'.

The story of Naboth's vineyard is an indication of how highly the landowner valued his property. "Naboth of Jesreel had a vineyard close by the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria. Ahab said to Naboth, 'Give me your vineyard garden, since it adjoins my palace; I will give you a better vineyard for it, or if you prefer, I will give you its value in money.' Naboth, however, said to Ahab, 'Yahweh forbid that I should give you my ancestral heritage'" [I Kings 21:1-3]. Naboth paid for his stubbornness with his life.

In Psalm 16 the faithful man says that it is Yahweh who is his in-heritance. This also shows the place that the inheritance had in the hearts of the people [Ps 16:5-6], for a man's inheritance was his most prized possession.

The March of Time

This section and those immediately following give a bird's eye view of about eight hundred years of Israel's history. Its purpose is to show the continued necessity of updating the applications of the basic law given by Yahweh to Moses.

Israel Under Judges and Kings

During the days of the Judges [about 1200-1050 B.C.E.] Israel was loosely structured politically. The tribes came together at a central shrine like Shiloh and then went back again to a peaceful way of life. They came together at other times to repel marauders. That way of life seems to have been a very modest one. It is found even at the beginning of the monarchy. The first king of Israel, Saul [about 1020 B.C.E.], was anointed by Samuel when he was out searching for his donkeys [I Sam 9:1-2]. Saul also ploughed his own fields [1 Sam 11:5]. David's family seems to have belonged to the same solid stock because David as a youth was a shepherd boy. Furthermore the present he brought to king Saul was a very modest one from a farming family, "five loaves, a skin of wine and a kid" [1 Sam 16:20]. After the conquests of David [1000-962 B.C.E.] and the consolidation of the state under Solomon [961-922 B.C.E.], changes in life style became obvious. The oppressive nature of the state under Rehoboam [922-915 B.C.E.] and the revolt by Jeroboam 1 [922-901 B.C.E.] with the consequent division of the kingdom into Israel and Judah foreshadowed greater changes to come.

Yahweh Speaks Through the Prophets

Here we are interested only in the social changes brought about under the reign of a later king of Israel, Jeroboam II [783-743 B.C.E.]. "His long and prosperous reign set the stage for the gross social and religious conditions that provoked the tirades of the prophets Amos and Hosea" [NJBC, 75:99]. In the light of the faith of their fathers they condemned luxury, sexual immorality, insincere worship and idolatry. This situation was not confined to Israel; to a lesser extent it was also true of Judah.

The prophets give ample evidence of the social changes of the age. Prosperity was the order of the day, to get rich was glorious. '"How rich I have become!' says Ephraim, 'I have made a fortune'" [Hos. 12:9]. Isaiah is similarly explicit, "The land is full of silver and gold and treasures unlimited" [Is 2:7]. The prophets condemn displays of luxury in several forms, e.g. in dwellings [Hos 8:14; Amos 3:15, 5:11], inentertainment [Is 5:11-12; Amos 6:4], and in dress [Is 3:24].

This new spirit abroad in the land had a profound effect on Israel's ancient ideal of each man under his own vine and fig tree with no one to disturb him. The prophets also condemned the buying up of land and houses. Isaiah has a powerful passage: "Woe to those who add house to house and join field to field and there is nowhere left and they are the sole inhabitants of the country" [Is 5:8]. Micah speaks of evil-doers as "seizing the fields they covet ... owner and house they seize alike, the man himself as well as his inheritance" [Mic 2:1-2; Amos 8:5]. Judges who took bribes must have contributed greatly to this injustice, [Is 1:25; Jer 5:28; Mic 3:11. 7:3]. Creditors who knew no pity also make their appearance: "They have sold the upright for silver and the poor for a pair of sandals" [Amos 2:6-8, 8:6].

From these quotations we see that those who had the misfortune to fall into poverty were liable to lose not only their land but their freedom as well. This situation is well illustrated by the story of the widow's oil which is to be found among the stories about the prophet Elisha [2 Kgs 4:1-7]. The wife of a dead prophet came to Elisha saying, "A creditor has now come to take my two children and make them his slaves". That was because she could not pay her debts, and she had pledged her children against the payment of the debt. All she had left was a jar of oil. Elisha told her to borrow empty jars from all her neighbours and then keep pouring oil from her own jar into the borrowed jars. When this was done she went to Elisha again who said to her: "Go and sell the oil and redeem your pledge; you and your children can live on the remainder ".

The Punishment for Sin

"When Solomon fell asleep with his ancestors, he was buried in the City of David his father; his son Rehoboam succeeded him" [I Kgs 11:43]. Rehoboam's attitude to the people brought about a political split among the tribes. The kingdom of David was split into Israel and Judah. The City of David, Jerusalem, which had been the political and religious capital of the whole of Israel, was now in Judah. Jeroboam I [922-901 B.C.E.], king in the northern kingdom, Israel, feared for the stability of his kingdom and his own life if the people continued to "go up to the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices" [I Kgs 12:26]. To offset the attraction of Jerusalem, he set up two golden bulls at each end of his kingdom, one at Bethel and one at Dan, as symbols of Yahweh. The bull happened to be the symbol of the god, Baal, of Canaan. This was the 'sin of Jeroboam'. It meant assimilating Yahweh to Baal. This apostasy on Jeroboam's part had the effect of unravelling the moral and religious life of the Northern Kingdom, Israel; it was to have disastrous consequences. The Bible does not have many words of praise for the northern rulers. When Samaria, the capital, was taken by the Assyrians, in 721 B.C.E., and the kingdom itself incorporated into the Assyrian empire and its people deported, the biblical writers fairly and squarely laid the blame on Jeroboam's act of rebellion against Yahweh [2 Kgs 17:7-23].

We might be inclined to think that the 'sin of Jeroboam' with its rejection of Yahweh was like the act of a politician in modem times switching to a new political party. Life then goes on as before - the politician is still working for the 'common good'. That is not so. It was a total rejection of God and God's Covenant. The writer of 2 Kgs puts things very clearly. The destruction of the northern kingdom happened because the king and its people rebelled "against Yahweh their.

God who had brought them out of Egypt, out of the grip of Pharaoh king of Egypt" [2 Kgs 17:7]. Overnight the Israelites were back again in Egypt as slaves and under the whiplash of the overseers. Jeroboam I [922-901 B.C.E.] and his advisers were probably in high spirits at the success of their political and religious policies. Jeroboam II [786-746 B.C.E.] and his advisers at the end of his long reign must have been equally happy at the prosperity and security they had achieved. The only trouble was that the two Jeroboams and the other kings in between were the new Pharaohs, and their overseers with their whips were the greedy landowners, the corrupt judges and the pitiless creditors. It is hardly an accident that the prophet Amos appeared during the reign of Jeroboam II, and that he should have been the most uncompromising critic of the apparent prosperity and stability of the kingdom. It was as bad if not worse than the states round about it; both it and they would be destroyed. Yahweh was as good as his word; what Amos saw so clearly happened in the next generation.

JUDAH, TOO, FALLS SHORT. Judah fared somewhat better in the eyes of the Biblical authors. Some kings feared Yahweh, particularly Josiah [640-609 B.C.E.], who carried out far-reaching reforms. It was during his time that a copy of the law, probably incorporating the contents of chapters 12 to 26 of the present Book of Deuteronomy, was found in the Temple [2 Kgs 22:3-10]. The contents of this book [One God, One People, One Sanctuary] opened the eyes of Josiah, so that he decided to put it into practice. The reformation was not wholly successful.

Josiah's successors followed the path of rebellion. Josiah was killed while opposing the advance of the Egyptian Pharaoh, Necho, towards the north. Josiah's son, Jehoiakim [609-598 B.C.E.], after a short break succeeded to the throne. Jeremiah has harsh words for Jehoiakim. The passage is too long to quote in full: "Disaster for the man who builds his house without uprightness ... who makes his fellow-man work for nothing, without paying him his wages. ... Are you more of a king because of your passion for cedar? ... You have eyes and heart for nothing but your own interests, for shedding innocent blood and perpetrating violence and oppression" [Jer 22:13-17].

In due time the fate that befell the Northern Kingdom became the fate of the southern portion, too. This time it was the Babylonians who carried out Yahweh's will, for the Assyrian empire had fallen before the onslaught of the Babylonian armies. Nebuchadnezzar, head of the new superpower, attacked Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., destroyed the temple and carried off the upper class into captivity in Babylon.

The Exile [587-539 B.C.E.]

In the thought of the time, when one nation conquered another the victory was due not only to the superiority of the army and its general; it was due above all to the superiority of the victor's god. This was the god to be cultivated in future. The destruction of Jerusalem with the Temple of Yahweh would have meant to the peoples round about that Yahweh was powerless. It must have been a shattering blow to the exiles in Babylon. They had been removed from the land promised them by Yahweh and in their daily lives looked on in perplexity at the processions of the 'victorious' gods of Babylon. The temptation to doubt Yahweh was ever present.

Their faith in Yahweh was shaken. Nevertheless, it stood the test and came out purified and strengthened. Yahweh had said that if the people did not stop committing sin, did not stop going after false gods and did not stop oppressing the poor, punishment was sure to follow. Everything happened as Yahweh said it would. Yahweh had kept the Covenant; the people on the other hand had not.

Certain institutions, like circumcision and the sabbath, held them together as a people and at the same time separated them from others. Circumcision was a sign of who belonged to God's people and who did not. Strict observance of the sabbath, with its readings from Scripture, its songs of praise, lamentations, and petitions became all important in reminding them weekly of Yahweh, who brought them out of Egypt.

They were also spurred on to carry on the work of trying to understand what God wanted of them as a people and embody this in concrete rules of life intelligible to all and covering all aspects of their life. It was a massive undertaking. It meant sifting through the writings of the past and preserving them not only for their own sake but also as God's Word to them. It seems that it was there in the Exile that at least a 'draft' of the Torah [Genesis - Numbers] was produced, the Deuteronomic history [Joshua - Kings] was 'edited', and collections were made of the writings of the prophets.

They were greatly encouraged by a prophet of their own. He was "Deutero-lsaiah" -- to give a name to this nameless prophet. He spoke God's word to the exiles, which in their situation could only be a word of consolation, forgivenness, salvation, and liberation. The period of punishment was over. They would embark on a new Exodus. The gods of the Babylonians were powerless, Cyrus of Persia would prove that. They were encouraged to put their trust Yahweh.

Cyrus occupied Babylon in 539 B.C.E. That event signalled the end of the Babylonian empire just as the Assyrian empire had ended with the capture of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E., less than one hundred years before. The enslaving empires were dead but the people of God lived on; however, they were still in exile.

The Return and Restoration

In 538 B.C.E., Cyrus issued a decree permitting the exiles to return to Jerusalem, and granting permission to rebuild the Temple at state expense and restoring the sacred vessels plundered by Nebuchadnezzar. For the returning first wave the approach to Jerusalem must have been a very joyous occasion. It was another experience that they would not forget. In their enthusiasm they built an altar and began laying the Temple foundations, but it was 515 B.C.E. before the building was completed.

About 445 B.C.E., Nehemiah, a Jewish eunuch in the Persian court, returned to Jerusalem. He rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and instituted social reforms. Ezra, the scribe, around the same time was responsible for the religious reform and an edition of the Bible. At a celebration of the feast of Shelters [='Tabemacles' or 'Booths' in some translations] the returned exiles gathered in the square in front of the Water Gate in Jerusalem and "they asked Ezra to bring the Book of the Law of Moses which Yahweh had prescribed for Israel" [Neh 8:1]. That day they renewed the Covenant with Yahweh. There was great rejoicing for eight days complete with shelters made of "branches of olive, pine, myrtle, palm and other leafy trees" [Neh 8:15].

Their Vision

What was the vision that enabled the small group to keep the faith and establish a new Israel, albeit much smaller than before? It was the vision that inspired Moses - God's Covenant still held. God had given them back their land. Never again could they waver between their own living, holy, jealous and liberating God and the gods of the nations surrounding them. Those gods were falsehoods that could not be relied upon.

The people had failed to take God seriously and destruction had followed. This time God's word to Moses and to the Prophets had to be made known to the people. The three codes mentioned above and other laws were now given their final edition. Here we are interested only in the ordering of the economic life in the Promised Land.

  The Jubilee Spirit

The Code of the Covenant [Exodus 20:22-23:33]

This is so called in modem authors because of the mention of Moses in Exod 24:7 reading the book of the Covenant. Scholars believe that the nucleus of that was the Ten Commandments. However, mention of slaves, fields, cattle and vineyards suggests that it was written for a settled population. The contents best fit the period of the Judges inisrael [c.1200-1025 B.C.E.]. The code could have been promulgated during assemblies like the assemblies mentioned in Josh 8:30-35 or Josh 24. It applied the basic law to the settled population in Israel during the end of the second millennium B.C.E.

CONCERNING THE FALLOW YEAR. Intensive cultivation of crops impoverished the soil, resulting in greatly reduced harvests. Even in the very early days of agriculture farmers came up against this phenomenon and devised various means of improving harvests. One of these means was to allow the land to lie fallow for a year. The first mention of the fallow year in the Bible is in Exod 23:11: "For six years you will sow your land and gather its produce, but in the seventh year you will let it lie fallow and forgo all produce from it." The same law was applied to the vineyard and the olive grove. The reason given in the code for the fallow year has nothing to do with agricultural sfience; instead it was to benefit poor people and wild animals.

Why the seventh? Immediately following this law there is reference to resting on the sabbath day, i.e. every seventh day. So, it would seem that the sabbatical year was modelled on the seven-day week.

LIBERATION EACH SABBATICAL YEAR. Mention was made of the poor in connection with the fallow year. The Covenant Code tries to mitigate another more serious evil, the loss of freedom as a result of poverty and loss of land. "When you buy a Hebrew slave, his service will last for six years. In the seventh year he will leave a free man without paying compensation" [Exod 21:2-3]. Verses 1-11 deal with slaves, male and female. If the man preferred to stay with his master because e.g. he was given a wife from one of his master's women slaves, there was a special rite authenticating this desire. His ear was pierced with an awl at the door. This symbolic act indicated the slave's obedience [ear] to the master of the house [door].

The Deuteronomic Code

Roland de Vaux (1961, p. 144) suggests that fundamentally the Deuteronomic Code was the law' reported to have been discovered in the Temple in the time of Josiah [2 Kgs 22:8f]. It contains a number of ancient elements which seem to have originated in the Northern kingdom, but it is difficult to say how long before the reign of Josiah [640- 609 B.C.E.] they were collected and completed. Possibly they were brought to Judah after the fall of Samaria [721 B.C.E.] and put together under Hezekiah [716-687 B.C.E.] The same author suggests that it was designed to replace the old code. As we saw above, there were tremendous political, social, economic, and religious changes from the time of David to the capture of Samaria. The new code was designed to apply the basic law to these changes. Here we are interested only in the structuring of the socio-economic life of the Israelites.

POOR AND NEEDY. Lohfink (1996) has submitted the Book of Deuteronomy to a very close linguistic analysis and has found that the words "poor" and "needy" are confmed to chapters 15 and 24, which deal with laws related to indebtedness. In these chapters he finds five laws which deal with the different stages by which a free Israelite, man or woman, loses his or her house of land and ends up being a slave.

Following Lohfink's analysis, we can set out these different stages as follows:

Stage 1: A farmer, due to crop failure or for some other reason, finds that he needs a loan in order to provide food, clothes and shelter. "The law in Deut 15:7-11 calls on his brother Israelite to give him an interest-free loan. Such a loan may be enough to solve his problem.

Stage 2: If this is not enough and the farmer is later compelled to work for another farmer as a farm hand in order to make some money, the law in Deut 24:14-15 provides him and his family with a daily wage. Jeremiah would have approved of the law.

Stage 3: This may not be enough and his creditor may be inclined to seize the poor farmer's goods as a pledge. Deut 24:10-13 protects him to the extent that the farmer's face is saved when the creditor comes to collect the pledge.

Stage 4: If the taking possession of the pledge is not enough to ensure the payment of the loan, the legal system of the time provided that the debtor would have to sell one of his family members to the creditor to settle the debt. The story in 2 Kgs 4:1-7 gives us a graphic description of the dilemma of the debtor.

Stage 5: In this case Deut 15:1-6 says that no one be enslaved at least in the sabbatical year. It a person is enslaved in any other year, Deut 15:12-18 says that he or she should be released in the sabbatical year. Furthermore the released person should be provided with all the necessities to start off anew on the farm.

As Lohfink says: "The problem of indebtedness is thought through systematically. The legal system is attempting to bring every aspect of this practice to an end". This ideal is expressed in Deuteronomy as, "There must be no poor among you" [Deut 15:4]. According to these laws the 'poor' are not a definite group of people accepted as fomiuig a part of Israel. They are like individuals who have become sick through some disease; the cause of the disease must be removed right away. The indebtedness mentioned above is such a disease; it cannot be tolerated, it must be removed from Israel. Israel' and 'shalom' should be synonymous. That is only possible if Israel "obeys Yahweh your God by carefully keeping these commandments which I lay upon you this day" [Deut 15:5].

GROUPS WITHOUT LANDED PROPERTY. There is another set of laws which provide for groups of people without land. These were provided for by other laws. They were not mentioned along with the poor, because their support was guaranteed by the structures of society and were given a share in all the festivals of the land. They were part of Israel; there may be Levites, aliens, orphans and widows in Israel, but there must be no "poor" [Deut 15:4] It is surprising to find slaves mentioned among the other four and not with the 'poor'. They were part of the house or family to which they belonged. It is presumed that the slave will be well treated and may not want to leave his master, "because he loves you and your household and is happy with you". The rite mentioned in the Code of the Covenant [Exod 21:5-6] can then be performed. A female slave was dealt with in the same way.

UTOPIA? Some Scripture scholars regard this vision of Israel as a dream conjured up by the Deuteronomists. But, as Lohfink says, they believed that this impossible society could turn into a reality. Israel was called by Yahweh. It was Yahweh who kept it in existence down the centuries and who brought it back from exile as earlier out of Egypt. The society outlined by Deuteronomy was not a dream but a promise.

THE FEAST OF SHELTERS. Towards the end of the Book of Deuteronomy we are told that Moses committed the Law [== Deuteronomic Code] to writing and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of Yahweh's covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. Moses then commanded the Israelites: "At the end of seven years, at the time fixed for the year of remission, at the feast of Shelters, when all Israel assembles in the presence of Yahweh your God... you must proclaim this Law in the hearing of all Israel" [Deut.31:9-13]. The feast of Shelters began on the 15th day of the seventh month, and was the climax of the agricultural year when all the crops including the grapes had been gathered in. It was a time of great rejoicing [Deut 16:13-14].

The Holiness Code [Leviticus 17-26]

This Code, like that of Deuteronomy, begins with rules about sacrifices and ends with blessings and curses. It seems to have come into being as an independent literary complex towards the end of the monarchy and the early days of the exile, but in a different milieu from that of Deuteronomy. Since it shows a preoccupation with rites and the priesthood it is regarded as belonging to the priestly tradition.

The name of the Code comes from the stress on Yahweh's holiness: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy"' [Lev. 19:1]. Yahweh is separated from all other gods, and all forms of immorality are an abomination; Israel take note!

Like the other codes before it, the Holiness Code 'updates' the application of the basic law to the daily lives of the Israelites in new circumstances. So customs from the distant past were included together with additions that were found necessary after the return from Babylon. An example of an addition to a piece of legislation from the past is found in chapter 23:1-36, which deals with the feasts of Israel. Then in 23:37-38 comes a summary conclusion which signals the end of the section on the calendar. However, the section then continues with two items of legislation about the feast of Shelters. The first piece is about waving palm branches and rejoicing before Yahweh for seven days. The second is about living in shelters for seven days to remind all Israelites of their coming out of Egypt [Lev 23:39-43]. It is clear that these two ancient customs were passed on in the legislation after the Exile with the purpose of reminding those who returned that it was Yahweh who brought them out of Egypt - and out of Babylon. While they were rejoicing during the harvest festival the Israelites were to keep in mind that Yahweh was the Lord of the Harvest, the Lord of the Covenant and the Lord of History. The legislation looks to the past and to the future. We might note in passing that the celebration just mentioned reminds us of Chinese festivals like the Dragon Boat and Mid-Autumn festivals.

The Jubilee Year [Leviticus 25]

In this chapter, the old laws connected with the economic and social life of Israel have been collected and reinterpreted. We have seen above that the Sabbath rest goes back to the earliest days of Israel. That was already a major advance in the liberation of God's people.

However, it did not meet the built-in uncertainties of daily life where people fall into poverty and where debts and loans bring new relationships that complicate social structures. The institution of the Sabbatical Year [Deut 15:1-18] with its remission of debts and the manumission of slaves was meant in large part to deal with those situations. This institution, however, was also found to be lacking.

Hence the institution of the Jubilee Year. There is disagreement among scholars about the meaning of the word 'jubilee'. Since the year is inaugurated on the Day of Atonement with the sound of a trumpet [shopar], some scholars think that the institution was in existence in the past when the Hebrew word yobel was used for a trumpet. Others think that a word similar to yobel with a possible meaning of 'remission' lies behind the word jubilee.

The purpose of this Jubilee Year was to get to the root of the problem of poverty and to restore once and for all the rights of ownership to the land. The rightful owners were those to whom Yahweh had allotted the land in the first place. Only Yahweh is the true owner of all the land. [25:23]

The Jubilee Year is a very special instance of the Sabbatical Year. It is to be celebrated on every 7th sabbatical year [v.8] and ends a cycle of 49 years. In v.lO it is called "the 50th year", possibly because the number 'fifty' was a familiar number in the agricultural year. To have two fallow years in a row, both the 49th and the 50th, would have been an impossible burden for a farming community.

THE FALLOW YEAR: 25:1-7. The introductory verses tell us that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, with a message for the people of Israel. It was a message about the land which God was about to give them, "The land shall keep a sabbath to the Lord" [v.2b]. Just as the people of Israel kept a day of rest in every seven, so the land was to keep a year of rest in every seven. There is a stress on the land "resting". The land belongs to Yahweh [v.23] and that ownership is to be acknowledged. The people can work on it for six years, but on the seventh it is sacred - not to be touched with farming tools.

What the land produces by itself will supply them with food. The message seems to be: "Trust Yahweh". This message is reinforced by vv.l7-23.

THE JUBILEE YEAR: 25:8-12. The jubilee year was a specially sacred period. It was calculated exactly, in the 49th year [7x7]; it was to begin on the 10th day of the 7th month, the day of atonement, and liturgically introduced with the sound of the trumpet "throughout all your land". "You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family" [v.lO]. There is a general liberation from some kind of burden, which allows a man to get back his stake in the land and at the same time to join his clan; it is a restoration to his previous and, we might add, his ideal way of life. From the sketch of the history of Israel we can see that the burden under which the poor laboured was debt. In Deuteronomy we saw that the words 'poor' and 'debt' were closely connected.

What is the meaning of 'jubilee' in verse 10? From the context it appears as a solemn home-coming after the general release from debt or slavery. Perhaps the release of the Israelites from their exile in Babylon sparked the imagination of the author [Jer 31:9; Is 55:12].

CHANGING ISRAELITE ATTITUDES 25:13-16. In this section the author, still speaking of the jubilee year, wants to lay bare the attitudes that led to the loss of property and a stake in the land in the first place. Some take advantage of their strong position and drive a hard bargain. The poor have to agree or starve; they have to hand over their right to use their own property to another. The jubilee legislation wants to change that attitude. What is actually being sold or bought is a number of harvests, where the number depends on the number of years since the last jubilee year. The jubilee meant that there could be no outright buying or selling of property.

THE LAND IS YAHWEH'S : 25:13-16. Here it is repeated that the Israelites are not to wrong one another, and that is followed by an exhortation to fear Yahweh by keeping the commandments. Then they will live in security in the land and the land will supply them with what they need. The tone of exhortation in this passage suggests thafthe author is not interested in a mere legal prescription but has in his mind a rosy picture of the state of things when everybody is following the spirit of Yahweh's law.

During the fallow year, they are not to worry about eating their fill, for Yahweh will bless them during the sixth year by increasing the yield. They will have enough food during the fallow year and until the next harvest. Here we may note in passing that in the author's mind there is a close connection between the sabbatical year and the jubilee year.

IF YOUR BROTHER BECOMES POOR: 25:24-55. The rest of the chapter deals with a number of cases beginning with the phrase, "If your brother becomes poor" [vv.25, 35, 39 and 41],

1. 25:25-34. What happens if a landowner can no longer support himself and his family and is obliged to sell the land allotted to him by Yahweh? The next-of-kin has a right to step in and acquire the land. Originally the purpose of this law was to ensure that the land was not alienated from the extended family or clan. However, according to the jubilee legislation, the property had to revert to the original owner in the 49th year.

2. 25:35-38. If an Israelite has lost his stake in the land what are the duties of a brother Israelite? His 'brother' has a duty to take him in and give him hospitality as he would to a stranger or alien. "You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit" [v.37]. No doubt the poor brother is expected to work for the man who has taken him in. In v.38 there is the reminder that Yahweh brought them out of Egypt and gave them this land.

3. 25:39-46. In W.35-38 the ideal put before the Israelites could be summed up with a quotation from Matthew's Gospel: "Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" [Mt 5:48]. This is Matthew's reformulation of Lev 19:2: "Speak to the whole community of Israel and say, 'Be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy'. St Luke has, "Be merciful, just as your Father is mercifal"" [Lk 6:36].

The Israelites obviously fell short of this ideal. In this section the poor man has to sell himself to his brother Israelite in order to survive. He is not to be treated in the same way one treats a slave taken from the surrounding nations, i.e. with harshness. His status is that of the hired hand or the alien living with the people of Israel. In the jubilee year he and his children are to return to his own family and to the possession of his fathers.

This piece of legislation seems to ignore the slave laws of Exod 21:1-11 and Deut 15:12-18 in which a 'Hebrew' slave had to be liberated after six years of service. But the jubilee legislation allows that a man might be a slave for 40 or more years. Is this a backward step or a concession to reality? Or is it something else?

The reasons given for this piece of legislation are very informative. "For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with harshness, but shall fear your God" [vv.41-42]. An Israelite cannot be the 'possession' of a fallow Israelite -- he belongs to Yahweh.

4. 25:47-55. This piece of legislation concerns the Israelite who sells himself not to a brother Israelite but to a non-Israelite. His situation is similar to that of the man in vv,39-46. However, in this case special mention is made of the right of redemption; any blood relation can redeem him, or he may redeem himself.

LEV 27:16-25. This passage is the only other passage in Leviticus which speaks of the jubilee year. It concerns land dedicated to Yahweh.

An Impossible Dream?

The provisions of the Jubilee Law have puzzled many scholars. Could its provisions have been put into effect? It speaks of the 49th and the 50th years as being jubilee years for the whole land of Israel. Two fallow years over the whole land of Israel would seem to place an intolerable burden on the food supply.

The buying and selling of land [v.l4], the taking of interest on loans and enslavement for non-payment of debts appear to have been a regular practice after the Exile, as it was during the time of the monarchy. The general return of lands after a long period of alienation would be a difficult if not impossible task. Land reform is not achieved by the blowing of a trumpet; the walls of vested interest do not tumble so easily.

The liberation of those enslaved for debts would have to be postponed for an intolerably long period in some cases; the slave himself might be dead by that time. Furthermore the law conflicts with the liberation mentioned in Deuteronomy for the sabbatical year.

Putting the Jubilee Law into effect would mean not only a reordering of the socio-economic life of the whole society. It would also mean a change of attitudes. It would mean removing sin and rebellion against Yahweh or, to use Ezekiel's turn of phrase, replacing hearts of stone with hearts of flesh [Ezek.36:26-27]. That is more than the law can do.

The Real Purpose of the Jubilee Year

THE AUTHOR'S FAITH. The whole of chapter 25 deals with land and those who have lost a stake in the land. We have to keep in mind the faith-vision of the priestly writer. It is already indicated in the First two verses of chapter 25: "Yahweh spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai and said: 'Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ..."'. Those two verses are the author's way of summarising the doctrine of the Book of Exodus.

1. Yahweh was the God of the Israelites who chose them when they were the slaves of the Pharaoh of Egypt. He wanted them to recognise him as their God by being holy as he is holy.

2. Yahweh liberated them, he is their liberator and they are his 'slaves'.

3. Yahweh gave them a basic law to live by, namely the Ten Commandments, and a land to live in.

These three points are cardinal to the author's faith. They are his Covenant faith. Yahweh, the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt and who made the covenant with them on Mount Sinai, is the same God who brought them back from Babylon and restored Jerusalem to them. Yahweh always remembers the covenant [Ps 105:8] and everything is in Yahweh's hands.

THE AUTHOR'S OWN EXPERIENCE

1. The author had been poring over all the laws up to that time and saw how they applied the basic covenant law in various historical circumstances. He reflected how he could pass on the gist of these laws and the spirit they embodied to his own and succeeding generations.

2. He was also a man of the Old Testament world which until a very late period did not see any life beyond the grave. Yahweh's promises would have to be fulfilled in this world, not necessarily in the lifetime of an individual, but certainly in the lifetime of Israel. Another characteristic of the Old Testament world was its stress on family solidarity. As Ezekiel chapter 18 and other texts show us, around the time of the Exile family solidarity began to accommodate individual responsibility. The author of Leviticus could then see the jubilee year as the fulfilment of the aspirations of all those alienated from their land and enslaved because of debt. It would be Yahweh's gift to them and their families.

3. The joy of the feast of Shelters which took place after the ingathering of the harvest, and which commenorated Israel's Exodus from Egypt would also have left an impression on him. The return from Babylon would have the same effect as is suggested in Isaiah 55:12, which is the conclusion to the Book of Consolation. In fact that proclamation of liberation and the home-coming celebration seems to have fired his imagination.

4. The author was probably in contact with ideas similar to those found in Isaiah 61:1-3, which is quoted by Lk 4:19. There, the prophet says that the Spirit of Yahweh has sent him to proclaim liberty to captives and a year of favour from Yahweh. If this text of Isaiah was written before Lev 25 and the author knew of it, he would have felt that he was giving effect to God's word.

SO LET IT BE ENACTED, SO LET IT BE DONE. The past, present and future, the whole of history, is in Yahweh's hands. Yahweh is a liberating God, a God of the individual, the family and the people of Israel, and a God of joy for the individual and the family. The ideal situation in the lifetime of Solomon is God's will for the people of Israel: "Judah and Israel lived in security, everyone under his vine and his fig tree, from Dan to Beersheba, throughout the lifetime of Solomon" [I Kings 5:5]. Nothing is impossible for God [Lk 1:37].

The society outlined by Deuteronomy and Leviticus 25 was not a dream but Yahweh's promise awaiting fulfilment. St Luke tells us that this promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ [Lk 4:16-21].

作者：伍维烈 William NG O.F.M.

FRANCISCAN PERSPECTIVES ON ECCLESIOLOGICAL MODELS

Introduction

Two anecdotes in the early biographies of St Francis of Assisi describe the deep ecclesial character of Franciscan spirituality. In the dilapidated church of San Damiano, Francis heard the crucifix asking him to 'rebuild my house'. (1)Naively, Francis went out to renovate the church buildings immediately. In another account. Pope Innocent III had a vision of Francis holding up a church falling down and in his dream this church was the Lateran Basilica, the Mother Church of the West. (2) In these narratives, the mediaeval authors employed the imagery of the Church as a building to illustrate the contribution of St Francis' charism to the life of the Church. Vatican II ecclesiology reminds one that indeed the Church is sometimes portrayed as a building of God (aedificatio Dei). (3)

The inseparable ecclesiological link of St Francis is also expressed eloquently by Julian of Speyer in the liturgy for the Feast of St Francis. The first antiphon of First Vespers reads:

Franciscus vir catholicus et totus apostolicus, ecclesiae teneri Fidem Romanae docuit, Presbyterosque monuit. (4)

After the Vatican II renewal of the Liturgy, the new Liturgy of Hours (Proper for Franciscans) retains the first half of this antiphon:

Franciscus vir catholicus et totus apostolicus, missus est in praeparationern Evangelii pads. (5)

It is clear that catholicity and apostolicity are distinctive traits of a particular ecclesial quality of St Francis. (6)Being ecclesial may imply a certain ecclesiology, implicit or explicit, for St Francis, his followers and all those inspired by him throughout the ages.

This short paper attempts to test if it is possible to construct a Franciscan ecclesiology. Specifically it will deal with a basic ecclesiological study -- the model of the Church -- with the assistance of Franciscan insights, i.e. from writings by Francis, his biographies and exhortative stories (pseudo-biographies) about him. This approach is made possible with the Vatican II ecclesiological trend of new methodological options. The new methodological options emphasise the word of God which is alive and is transmitted in the teachings of the Fathers, the Councils and the magisterium as well as the testimony of the liturgy and the Christian life of the People of God. (7) From a historical-salvific perspective, the life of this well-loved saint, as captured by the Franciscan sources, can be considered a particular testimony of the Christian life and indeed a methodological option. However, textual criticism of the Franciscan sources is a highly specialised field and is beyond the scope of this short essay.

The bulk of this paper is a typological study of the Church. Classical models such as People of God and the Body of Christ, Herald and Servant, will be reviewed from a particular Franciscan view. An alternative ecclesiological model will also be proposed. Before this, it is necessary to give a short exposition of how the Franciscan fraternity or indeed any community of a religious congregation or order - can be an expression of the Church. This is to establish the validity of using the experience of the Franciscan movement as a source for theological enrichment.



  


1. 2 Celano 10; Legenda Major 2:1; Legend of Three Companions 13c. In Habig, M. (ed.), St Francis ofAssisi: Writings and Early Biographies (English Ominibus of the Sources for the Life ofSt Francis) (Chicago: Franciscan Herald 1972).

2. 2 Celano 17b; Legend Major 3:10; Legend of Three Companions 51. In Habig.

3. Lumen gentium (LG) 6. In Abbot, W. (ed.). The Documents of Vatican II (London: Geoffrey Chapman 1966).

4. Antiphonale Romano-Seraphicum pro Horis Diurnis (Paris: Desclee 1928) 967.

5. Proprium Liturgia Horarum pro sodalibus Ordinis Fratrum Minorum (Madrid: OFM 1974)200.

6. See introductory notes in Armstrong, R. and Brady, 1. (eds.), Francis and Clare: The Complete Works (New York: Paulist 1982) 15-17.

7. Antbn A., Postconciliar Ecclesiology: Expectations, Results and Prospects for the Future. In Latourelle, R. (ed.),Vantican II : Assessment and perspectives ,Assessment and Perspectives, Vol.I (New York: Paulist 1989) 407-438; cf.412.

The Religious Community and the Constitutive Elements of the Church

Would it be possible to draw out an ecclesiology from the Franciscan vision? This is only permissible if it can be demonstrated that the outflow of Franciscan spirituality - especially through the community of friars - is not merely a part of the Church but an expression of the Church. For the part regarding religious life, both postconciliar and New Testament concepts must be examined with regard to Franciscanism.

In the Vatican II understanding of religious life itself, any order or congregation belongs to, and is inseparable from, the life and the holiness of the Church. (8)The same article of the Constitution on the Church states: 'the profession of the evangelical counsels, then, appears as a sign which can and ought to attract all the members of the Church to an effective and prompt fulfilment of the duties of their vocation.' Avery Dulles' sixth model of the Church -- the Church as a community of disciples-- brings out the relationship of religious community and the Church well: 'the possibility of a more radical style of discipleship was offered by the religious life.' (9) In other words, religious life is a radical expression of the Church; and, even within the Church, the religious state appears to be a contrast society. Certainly, this is an image of the Church herself, being a contrast society in relationship to the

world. Therefore, Dulles observes that 'communities of this type religious orders or basic communities] are, in a very important sense, realizations of the Church.' (10)

Religious communities, in this case the Franciscan community, suit this postconciliar ecclesiological understanding. Francis wrote in the Rule of 1221 to his friars: "The rule and life of these brothers is this: to live in obedience, in chastity and without anything of their own, and to follow the teaching and footprints of our Lord Jesus Christ...' (11) It is following Jesus Christ which gives Franciscan brotherhood an ecclesial expression in the model of a disciple-community. Indeed, this imitation of Jesus is a central thesis for the model of discipleship, as observed by Dulles: 'The discipleship model motivates the members of the Church to imitate Jesus in their personal lives.' (12) The keyword 'disciple' was used by Francis in his admonitions regarding perfect obedience, a virtue proper for one in dealing with the Church, 'The Lord says in the Gospel: He who does not renounce everything he possesses cannot be my disciple; and he who wishes to save his life must lose it.' (13)

One important New Testament understanding of the Church hinges on the constitutive elements of the Church. The 'summary of summaries' of Acts 2:42-47 is held here as the yardstick of what makes a Church perse. Four elements are seen as the prime qualities of the early Church in Jerusalem:

．the apostles' teaching

．the communion/fellowship

．the breaking of bread

．the prayers

St Francis did not start a new Church, in'the way Luther or Calvin did. Instead, he founded a brotherhood of men religious within the Catholic Church. Besides this, many lay people were attracted to his spirituality and "Third Orders' were developed. Unlike other Gospel movements of the day, Francis never asked these seculars to leave the Church or join his fraternity. Instead they were encouraged to remain obedient to the Church and to deepen their Christian commitment in the Church.

Rightly understood, the apostles' teaching refers to the teaching of Jesus himself. On the surface, the foci of teaching were different: Jesus focused on the coming of the Kingdom and the apostles focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet because the paschal mystery was precisely the realisation of the Kingdom, the apostles' teaching was the same as that of Jesus. Francis referred his order to the direct source of the apostles' teaching: 'Listen, sons of the Lord and my brothers [...]. Incline the ear of your heart and obey the voice of the Son of God.' (14)

By Francis' time, the breaking of bread had long already evolved into the Eucharistic celebration. In the same Letter to the Entire Order, Francis suggested 'only one Mass be celebrated each day in the places in which the brothers stay.' (15) Elsewhere in his admonitions, rules and letters, Francis showed great Eucharistic piety, not uncharacteristic of the culture of the time. (16) For the lay faithful, Francis saw the need of receiving the Body and Blood, especially in the context of the confession of sins. (17)

It is significant that in the above quotation Francis suggested only one Mass be celebrated, and there was no concelebration. Celebration of only one Mass -- even when there were more than one sacerdotal brother -- meant a realisation of the communion. In other words, the Mass was more important as a communion than as a source of stipends or even as an obligation of the priestly order. In this, the above two constitutive elements, apostles' teaching and breaking of bread, found their ritual celebration as the Liturgy of the Word and as the Eucharist. No wonder Francis cautioned the clergy to 'be aware of the great sin and ignorance [...] toward the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His most holy written words which consecrate [His] Body.' (18)

An important actualisation of the fellowship finds its expression in the vow of poverty. Although Francis would not allow even communal property, sharing of material things for use would be natural. Yet for the general faithful, Francis recalled the basic attitude which formed the backbone of communion: love. He reiterated Christ's commandment of love: 'And let us love our neighbours as ourselves. And if there is anyone who does not wish to love them as himself, at least let him do no harm to them, but rather do good. [...] Let us then have charity and humility [...]. (19)

Francis saw prayer as fundamental not only for the friars but also for all of the faithful. Both the First and the Second Rules for the friars contain a detailed description of the norms regarding the Divine Office and fasting. (20) For the faithful, Francis exhorted: 'Let us praise Him and pray to Him day and night, saying "Our Father, Who art in heaven," since we should pray always and never lose heart.' (21)

In Francis' writings, certain images are used to describe the fraternity which are also valid images for the Church. For instance, there is a strong theme that the brotherhood has to be in via. In the First Rule, when explaining poverty, Francis used the phrase 'when [the brothers] go through the world' (22) to denote the itinerant nature of the friars, whereas the Second Rule borrowed a Scriptural reference (23) to describe the brothers 'as pilgrims and strangers in this world, who serve the Lord.'(24) This 'pilgrims and strangers' was again taken up in Francis' last Testament. (25) This pilgrim church image of being in via is echoed in Lumen gentium: 'While on earth she journeys (peregrinatur) in a foreign land away from the Lord, the Church sees herself in exile.' (26) One can thus boldly propose that the Franciscan expression of a community friarhood is an expression of the Church. If this is accepted, the spirituality related to the saint can be used to complement ecclesiology.



  


1. 2 Celano 10; Legenda Major 2:1; Legend of Three Companions 13c. In Habig, M. (ed.), St Francis ofAssisi: Writings and Early Biographies (English Ominibus of the Sources for the Life ofSt Francis) (Chicago: Franciscan Herald 1972).

2. 2 Celano 17b; Legend Major 3:10; Legend of Three Companions 51. In Habig.

3. Lumen gentium (LG) 6. In Abbot, W. (ed.). The Documents of Vatican II (London: Geoffrey Chapman 1966).

4. Antiphonale Romano-Seraphicum pro Horis Diurnis (Paris: Desclee 1928) 967.

5. Proprium Liturgia Horarum pro sodalibus Ordinis Fratrum Minorum (Madrid: OFM 1974)200.

6. See introductory notes in Armstrong, R. and Brady, 1. (eds.), Francis and Clare: The Complete Works (New York: Paulist 1982) 15-17.

7. Antbn A., Postconciliar Ecclesiology: Expectations, Results and Prospects for the Future. In Latourelle, R. (ed.),Vantican II : Assessment and perspectives ,Assessment and Perspectives, Vol.I (New York: Paulist 1989) 407-438; cf.412.

8. LG44.

9. Dulles, A., Models of the Church, Expanded Edition (Garden City, NY: Double- day 1987).

10. Dulles, 62.

11. First Rule I: I in Armstrong. Subsequent quotations of writings by St Francis are from this book. The numbering system to each paragragh is in accordance with that in the book.

12. Dulles, 222-223.

13. Admonition 3.

14. Letter to the Entire Order 5-6.

15. Letter to the Entire Order 30.

16. Ample examples can be found, such as: Letter to the Entire Order 12, 27; Testament 4,6,8, 10, 13, Admonition I and Second Letter to the Faithful 34. All these will be elaborated later.

17. Second Letter to the Faithful 22.

18. Letter to the Clergy 1.

19. Second Letter to the Faithful 26,27, 30.

20. First Rule Chapter 3; Second Rule Chapter 3.

21. Second Letter to the Faithful 21.

22. First Rule 14.

23. 1 Peter 2:11.

24. Second Rule 6.

25. Testament 24.

26. LG6.

Models of the Church: Introduction

The reality of the Church is essentially a mystery. A language of signs and symbols -- including images, models and paradigms -- can mediate the understanding of something abstract. Throughout the ages, images have been used to gain a better understanding of the mysteries of faith. (27) Dulles pushes the methodology further and suggests that 'when an image is employed reflexively and critically to deepen one's theoretical understanding of a reality it becomes [...] a model.' (28) Models become paradigms when they are successful in solving many kinds of problems and can be used for future problems. (29)

Two aspects of the use of models as mediation in ecclesiology for the discussion of St Francis and the models of the Church are important. Firstly, the historical Francis may have had a clear and distinct understanding of the essence of the Church, i.e. intentionally subscribing to only one or two 'models' of the Church. This may have been simply because that was the 'official ecclesiology' (although not necessarily a dogma) and he -- without the benefit of a liberal environment or Vatican II -- could not have chosen otherwise. That is to say, Francis may have had only one or two direct ecclesiological 'models' because they were immediate to his understanding of the Church.

Secondly, there may be other ecclesial views, besides the immediate ones, inherent in Franciscan spirituality. These views could also be expressed through the use of other models, although Francis might not have been concerned with all these sophisticated theological nuances. His own spirituality was often brought about as if based on some other particular ecclesiological models, or even paradigms. In other words, because Francis was such an ecclesial man, his spirituality could not be divorced from the mystery of the Church: any particular concept must tie in with an intermediate vision of the church, which may not have been the same as his immediate ecclesial view. Nevertheless in reality the distinction between these two is never sharp. There is an overlap between them. Francis' contribution to ecclesiology is often a mixture of these direct and indirect mediations.

  


27. cf Dulies, 26.

28. Dulies, 27.

29. Dulies, 29.

The Church as an Institution

In this model, the mystery of the Church is manifested as societas perfecta. As Dulles observes, 'the notion of the Church as society by its very nature tends to highlight the structure of government as the formal element in the society. [... Nevertheless,] institutionalism [...] is not the same thing as the acceptance of the institutional element in the Church.' (30) A usefill aspect of this ecclesiology is that the powers and functions of the Church [are] divided into three: teaching, sanctifying and governing.' (31) The consequential distinction into the teaching Church versus the taught Church, the sanctifying Church versus the sanctified Church and the governing Church versus the governed Church (32) truly reflects the institutional character. Yet it may, and it often does, degenerate into institutionalism.

In the history of ecclesiology, only a few such models were developed and dominated theology for each given period. St Francis lived in mediaeval times, when the institution model of the Church as societas perfecta reigned -- the Church seeing herself as an institution. Naturally Francis acquired a similar ecclesiology. This was reflected in his understanding of the magisterium, the clergy and the hierarchy. Francis had a clear idea that the friars had to conform to the teaching of the Church, i.e. being part of the taught Church. The First Rule outlined the primacy of the magisterium: 'All the brothers must be Catholics, [and] live and speak in a Catholic manner. But if any of them has strayed from the Catholic faith and life, in word or in deed, and has not amended his ways, he should be completely expelled from our frater-nity.' (33) Regarding the conditions for the acceptance of candidates, Francis wrote: "The minister should diligently examine them concerning the Catholic faith and the sacraments of the Church.' (34)

The sanctifying / sanctified Church quality was brought out by Francis in his descriptions of the clergy. He asked all the faithful to visit churches frequently and venerate and show respect for the clergy because they alone administered the holy words and blood of our Lord Jesus. (35) Therefore those who sinned against the clergy committed a greater sin than against all other people of this world. (36) Without a taint of inclination to clericalism, Francis' concern for the clerics was not due to their own merit but because their ministry concerned the Body and Blood of our Lord, the only source of our sanctification.

There are more examples of the governing nature of the Church in Francis' own writings. His concern for approval and accordance manifested the institutional function well:

I command the ministers through obedience to petition the Lord Pope for one of the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, who would be the governor, protector, and corrector of this fraternity (Second Rule 12:3-4).

No [candidate] should be accepted contrary to the form and the prescription of the holy Church (First Rule 2:12).

The brothers shall not preach in the diocese of any bishop when he has opposed their doing so (Second Rule 9:1). No brother should preach contrary to the form and regulations of the holy Church [...] (First Rule 17:la).

The clerical [brothers] shall celebrate the Divine Office according to the rite of the holy Roman Church (Second Rule 3:1).

Taking these three functions as a whole, the 'institutional' Church --rather than an institutionalistic Church -- for Francis was not an obstacle to faith but instead became an expression of faith in terms of an object of obedience, a source of identity and a motivation of missions. Seeing the Pope as the visible head of the church, Francis proclaimed in the rule: 'Brother Francis and whoever will be the head of this order promises obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope Innocent and to his successors (First Rule Prologue).'

Dulles recognises the strong sense of corporate identity resulting from the institutional model as an asset. (37) No wonder Francis stated in the letter to the faithful that 'we must also be Catholics'. (38) In explaining why he wrote a Testament in addition to the Rule, he said, 'so that we may observe in a more Catholic manner the Rule.' These two uses of the word "Catholic" include not just the three functions of being taught, sanctified and governed but also a sense of pride. Dulles recognises that 'the institutional model gives strong support to the missionary effort [...] to save [non-believers'] souls by bringing them into the institution.' (39) On the surface at least, Francis' great interest in sending friars to Muslim places to preach and to convert them seems to confirm his ecclesiological leaning, although his true motivation may have been more salvific than institutional.

Although Francis' ecclesiology may have been institutional, it does not follow that Francis himself was institutionalistic or that he was thereby clericalist, juridicist and triumphalistic. (40) This is proved by the fact that Francis never received the holy order of priesthood, as well as that he was more concerned with compassion than punishment (41) for brothers at fault. Moreover, his own ecclesiology was richer than the institutional model -- it was supplemented by other models, as described below.



  


30. Dulles, 34.

31. Dulles, 37.

32. Dulles, 37.

33. First Rule 19:1, 2.

34. Second Rule 2:2

35. Second Letter to the Faithful 33 and 35

36. Admontion 26 : 3-4

37. Dulles, 42

38. Second Letter TO THE Faithful 32.

39. Dulles, 42.

40. Three criticisms of the institutional Church by Emile de Smedt, quoted in Dulles, 39.

41. This will be elaborated later.

The Church as People of God

The People of God model is straightforward, realistic and practical. With a strong Biblical base and a concrete image, this model expresses the organicity of the human aspect. Vatican II theology has restored this model to its proper place: we may note the precedence of The chapter title 'People of God' before "The Hierarchical Structure of the Church'. For St Francis, the Church as People of God possibly was not an ecclesiology per se but a reality. In the last chapter of the First Rule, Francis invited ('begged') the whole Church (and beyond) to give God thanks. (42) Mico analysed this as essentially a 'universal vision' of The People of God, corresponding to the two parts of the triumphant church in heaven and the pilgrim church in via. (43) This glorious church in heaven is referred to by Francis in a quasi-litany of saints:

the glorious Mother, Blessed Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, and all the blessed angels, saints, John the Evangelist, Peter, Paul, patriarchs, prophets, innocents, apostles, evangelists, disciples, martyrs, confessors, virgins, blessed Elijah and Henoch, saints past, present and future. (44)

After this comes a litany of the members of the pilgrim church on earth, which is similar to the one in Lumen genfium:

St Francis : First Rule 23:7ff  Lumen gentium 41
   (number indicating the order)
  1.  shepherds Of Christ's flock
Priests; 2. Priests
Deacons, 3. Deacons
Subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, Lectors, porters, and all clerics  4. Clerics
All religious men and women, 　    
All lay brothers and youth, the poor and the needy, 8 Those oppressed by poverty, infirmity, sickness or other hardship
Kings and princes,    
Workers and farmers, servants,  Labourers
And masters    
All virgins and continent and married women, 6 Married couples and Christian parents, windows and single people,
All lay people, men, women, children, adolescents, the youth and the old 5 Laymen, the healthy and
The healthy and    
The sick,  8 (those oppressed by poverty, infirmity, sickness or other hardships,)
All the small and the great
    

　 　
Under this 'pilgrim Church' (not a term Francis used), the litany includes a cosmic dimension that is definitely beyond an institutioal understanding:

all peoples, races, tribes, and tongues, all nations and all peoples everywhere on earth who are and who will be.

Such a vision supplements the ecclesiological model of the Church as People of God. Mice's analysis of this as 'universal vision' of the people of God aptly describes Francis' understanding of ecclesial catholicity.

Besides the poetic litany offered in the hymn of Thanksgiving, within the Franciscan tradition this 'People of God' view of the Church found its graphic imagery in the San Damiano crucifix, the one which asked Francis to rebuild God's house -- the Church. This Byzantine icon had many human figures (as well as angels) around Jesus in the centre. The graphic portrait has indeed two strong ecclesiological character, depicting the model of the Church as people of God: Jesus in the centre with the church triumphant of saints on the top and at the side of Jesus. The people at the side of Jesus acquire a more humanistic figure, more easily identified as 'pilgrims', although they are indeed saints. The smaller figures are 'sinners' who crucified Jesus. This may correspond to the axiom that the people of God model does not only include saints but also sinners, the weak, the rebellious and the anti-witness too. This vivid representation again can be connected with the breadth of the universal character of Francis' ecclesial view.



  


42. First Rule 23:7

43. Mico, J., The Spirituality of St Francis: Holy Mother Church. Greyfriars Review 8(1) (1994) 17.

44. First Rule 23:1-6 paraphrased, because Francis used many adjectives for the saints.

The Church as Body of Christ/ Sacrament/ Mystical Communion

The Church as Body of Christ is characteristically a conception of Pauline theology, with numerous Scriptural references. (45) It is a strong image of such essential features of the church as Christ being the head and the dependence of each member of the church on each other. The Church as Sacrament, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept. (46) The Church is the Sacrament of Christ in the same way that Christ is the Sacrament of God. By definition, a sacrament is more than a sign of grace; it is a full sign, meaning in it is the grace which it signifies. With this model, the goal of the church is made clear: 'to purify and intensify man's response to the grace of Christ.' (47) The Church as a mystical communion speaks about the other side of the institutional church - that the Church is a not just a Gemeinschaft (society) but also a Gesellschaft (community). Such a model emphasises the vertical dimension of 'divine life disclosed in the incarnate Christ and communicated to men through his Spirit' rather than the horizontal aspect of a secular community. (48)

Although these three models are used separately, they supplement each other. Of these three ecclesiological models, it is not apparent that St Francis subscribed to one in particular. Actually, one aspect of Francis' understanding of the Church refers to a combination of these models. The great Eucharistic devotion in Francis' spirituality can be a source for ecclesiological investigation in connection with these three models. "This is even more true with postconciliar ecclesiology. Before analysing his version, these three are treated separately.

Lumen gentium points out, with the model of the Church as mystical communion, that: 'Celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice, therefore, we are most closely united to the worshipping Church in heaven [...].'(49) Bekes proposes that before the Church celebrates the Eucharist, it is the Eucharist that makes the Church. An examination of the origins of the Eucharist, particularly that of the Passover meal being constitutive of the ecclesial community, makes clear the two aspects of the essence of the Church. There is a vertical sense: divine communion through Christ in the Spirit with the Father, and a horizontal sense: human and ecclesial communion with all those who live in divine communion. (50) This thesis combines two models together: the vertical sense emphasises the sacramentality of the Church whereas the horizontal sense highlights the communion of the Church. Compared with Hamer's concept of vertical and horizontal dimensions of communion, (51) Bekes' thesis is more transcendent and integrates the mystery of the Church better, as the following diagram represents.

DIVINE COMMUNION  DIVINE COMMUNION  

Human

Communion

(Secular)
  Human Communion of Those who Share the Same Divine Communion  
COMMUNION MODEL  EUCHARISTIC MODEL  

No wonder the New Catechism states that "The Church is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. (CCC 752)' This is just another interpretation of what is said in the Vatican II documents: 'Really sharing in the body of the Lord in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with him and with one another.' (52) This postconciliar ecclesiology centred on the Eucharist has the breadth of being integrative. Diagrammatically, one can draw:

Three separate ecclesiologies

Body Of Chritst Communion Sacrament

An inegrated ecclesiology

Eucharist = Communion + Sacrament

Such Eucharistic ecclesiology perhaps is paradigmatic as not only the communion and the sacrament models can be integrated, but also the models of Church as Body of Christ and as the community of disciples. For instance: "The divine and human communion is the theandric unity of Christ as brought about mystically in his body, which is the Church.' (53) "The community of disciples encounters Jesus under the symbolic forms as the crucified and risen Lord, and thus as the sacrifice that reconciles sinners to God.' (54)

Now with a Eucharistic understanding of what the Church is, everything which Francis has written about the Eucharist may suitably become ecclesiological. For instance, piety towards the Eucharist in reality reflects the sacramentality part of the vertical mystery: the presence of Christ in the Church through the Eucharist.

"Therefore, kissing your (brothers') feet and with all that love of which I am capable, I implore all of you brothers to show all possible reverence and honour to the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...

O admirable heights and sublime lowliness!

O sblime humility!

O humble sublimity!

That the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under the little form of bread. (55)

And the Lord gave me such faith in churches that I would simply pray and speak in this way: 'We adore you, Lord Jesus Christ, in all Your churches throughout the world, and we bless You, for through Your holy cross You have redeemed the world.' [...] I see nothing corporally of the Most High Son of God in this world except His Most holy Body and Blood... (56)

[See,] daily He comes down from the bosom of the Father upon the altar in the hands of the priest. [...] And in this way the Lord is always with His faithful, as He Himself says: "Behold I am with you even to the end of the world." (57)

Likewise the mystical communion ('horizontal' for Bekes but 'vertical' for Hamel), finds its expression in the fraternal ideal of St Francis for his brotherhood -- as well as for the Church, humankind and finally the whole creation. One particular actualisation -- more on the human relationship level -- is the concern for showing mercy and compassion in dealing with brothers who have sinned. Such clemency waseven written into the Rule -- not so much as a legal requirement but a form of life: If [...] there should be some brother who wishes to live according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit, the brothers with whom he is [living] should admonish, instruct and correct him humbly and diligently.' (58) Stretching the evangelical fraternity to a mystical communion level, Francis even asked of the Ministers, as Jesus asked of Peter on forgiveness: 'And if [the brother who has sinned and hasbeen forgiven] should sin thereafter a thousand times before your very eyes, love him more than me so that you may draw him back to the Lord.' (59)

"These quotes are not simply indicative of a medieval Eucharistic piety or a radical evangelical movement. They are representative of a sense of:

the sacramental presence of Christ in the mystery of the Church in a vertical direction; and,

agape within a fellowship in a horizontal direction. These are the two aspects of a Franciscan ecclesiology of Eucharist. As Bekes observed, the two are linked: 'the very mystery of divine redemption is made sacramentally present and constantly accomplished within the Christian community.' (60)



  


45. I Cor6:12-20; 10:14-22; 12-4:31; .Col l:3ff;Eph 1:10,21-23,5:25-26.

46. Theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, E Schillebeeckx and Yves Congar as well as the Vatican II Council Fathers employed such a concept. See Dulles, 63ff.

47. Dulles, 73

48. Dulles, 49-50

49. LG 50

50. Bekes, G.J., The Eucharist makes the Church: the Ecclesial Dimension of the Sacrament. In Latourelle, R. (ed.), Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives (New York: Paulist 1989) 356-363.

51. Quoted in Dulles, 49-50.

52. LG 7.

53. Bekes, 356

54. Duties, 216.

55. Letter to the Entire Order 12 and 27.

56. Testament 4-5, 10.

57. Admonition 1:18, 22

58. First Rule 5:5

59. Letter to a minister 11.

60. Bekes, 356

The Church as Herald

In this model, the Word of God is held central. The act of proclamation, in addition to the profession, of the word to the whole world characterises the mission of the Church. (61) Francis always had high regard for the word: 'Let us hold onto the words, the life, and the teaching and the Holy Gospel of Him.' (62) in the time of great Eucharistic devotion during the Middle Ages, Francis revolutionarily reemphasised the importance of the Word. Unlike the original version of this model, which is undoubtedly very Protestant in placing the word over the sacrament, (63) Francis highlights the dual importance of both. There is a strong kerygmatic element in the Franciscan movement. Religious before his time were almost uniformly monastic, both coenobitic and eremetic; the Franciscan movement, not unlike some other Gospel movements of the time, stressed preaching. The difference was that Francis and his brothers remained in the Church.

For Francis, his heraldic ecclesiology positively complemented the institution mentality: Francis himself went to preach to the Muslims and he was open for his brothers to do likewise. (64) On preaching to the Saracens, i.e. the Muslims, Francis said, there were two ways to live among the non-believers. Besides not being engaged in arguments or disputes but acknowledging that they are Christians, 'another way is to proclaim the word of God when they see that it pleases the Lord, so that they believe in [...] God [...] and that they be baptised and become Christians.' (65) The concern for proclaiming is heraldic and the consideration for having converts baptised and becoming Christians shows signs of an institutional Church model. This is echoed in the twentieth century presentation of the herald model: the intention of the preacher is not to improve the world, but to summon it to belief in Jesus Christ and to bear witness to the reconciliation which has been accomplished through Him and His dominion. (66) Indeed, as Francis wrote, 'Blessed is that religious who takes no pleasure and joy except in the most holy words and deeds of the Lord, and with these leads people to the love of God in joy and gladness.' (67) This admonition of Francis for the individual friar can be applied on a corporate level to the entire community, the Church. Thus the word, which includes the recording of the deeds, being so central for this ecclesial community is a reflection of the heraldic ecclesiology. As shown earlier, Francis' respect for the clergy, because of their tie with the sacrament, reflects the institutional ecclesiology. A similar case for the heraldic ecclesiology is manifested in his concern for honouring and respecting 'all theologians and those who minister the most holy divine words as those minister spirit and life to us.' (68)

Yet he nevertheless recognised the profundity of the word. This was demonstrated in the following remarks:

Those religious who do not wish to follow the spirit of Sacred Scripture, but only wish to know [what] the words [are] and [how to] interpret them to others are killed by the letter. (69)

All brothers should preach by their deeds. (70)

Although this awareness originally works on an individual level of admonition, it indeed enriches the heraldic ecclesiology by pointing out that the proclamation is not an absolute end. This insight substantiates a missiological concern: following what one preaches and preaching by one's deeds are no less important than the act and content of the proclamation; the proclaimer on his own is a personified sermon.



  


61. Richard McBrien, quoted in Dulles, 76.

62. First Rule 22:41.

63. Dulles, 76.

64. Second Rule 12.

65. First Rule 5:6-7

66. Dulles, 94.

67. Admonition 20.

68. Teastament 13.

69. Admonition 7:3, word order changed to bring out the meaning better.

70. First Rule 17:3

The Church as Servant

In this model the Church is seen to be bounded by a 'sense of brotherhood that springs up among those who join in Christian service towards the world.' (71) This is related to two New Testament concepts: κοινωνια (brotherhood "(72) /fellowship) and διακονια (service). This model, by its very name 'servant', bears three unfortunate ambiguities, namely the implication of working under orders, or the work itself being demeaning, or serving to the good of others. (73) Nevertheless, three useful aspects can concurrently be made clear: for the service of God, out of love and to 'wash each other's feet' (meaning humility and commitment within aκοινωνια). (74)

This model, as an ecclesiological one, has an indirect reference in the Scriptures, namely the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. (75) Franciscan sources, although not concerning the Church explicitly, can greatly supplement the understanding of the servant Church by elevating the individual servanthood to a collective servanthood of the Church. In particular, one important set of Francis' writings is the Admonitions and almost two thirds of these are known as 'Servant of God Admonitions'. These 'beatitudes', originally meant to be 'criteria of a true friar', (76) can also enrich the many aspects of the servant Church ecclesiology.

For instance, on the issue of ministry within the order, Francis himself writes: 'Those who are placed over others should glory in such an office only as much as they world were they assigned the task of washing the feet of the brothers.' "(77) 'And let the ministers and servants remember what the Lord says: I have not come to be served, but to serve.' (78) This can be applicable to the ministry of the Church, particularly regarding the hierarchy, which requires an attitude of humility.

The instrumentality and theocentricity as servant of God are brought out by another Admonition: It is a great shame for us, servants of God, that [...] we wish to receive glory and honour by recounting our deeds.' (79)

The servant image in Francis' Servant of God Admonitions can complement many other ecclesiological aspects:

The Church as a humble servant

The humble servant may be an image of a humble servant Church:　

'A servant of God may be recognised as possessing the Spirit of the Lord [.,.] if the flesh does not pride itself when the Lord performs some good through him [...]' (80)

'Blessed is that servant who does not pride himself on the good that the Lord says or does through him any more than on what He says or does through another.' (81)

Such an understanding is an important complement to a victorious Church triumphant and brings out the minority image of a contrast society.

Love in a communion

Francis wrote:

Blessed is the servant who would love his brother as much when he is sick and cannot repay him as he would when he is well and can repay him; (82) [and] who would love and respect his brother as much when he is far from him as he would when he is with him, (83)

This can be related to the importance of fellowship-love in a mystical communion of the Church. On a personal level, each member of the Church - as a servant - must bear his brothers. On a corporate level, the Church herself as a servant must bear all humanity, or even the entire creation, as a brother when it is sick and do this with love and respect. This is an important notion for how the Church relates to the world.

Patience during suffering

the circumstance of suffering and the attitude of patience are relevant for the Church, especially in time of trials and persecution. Francis wrote:　

But when the time comes in which those who should do him justice do quite the opposite to him, he has only as much patience and humility as he has on that occasion and no more. (84)

The true peacemakers are those who preserve peace of mind and body for love of our Lord Jesus Christ, despite what they suffer in this world. (85)

By sharing suffering, the church participates in the paschal mystery of Christ and thereby Christ continues to be present in the Church. This aspect balances a triumphant image of the Church.

Penance for sins

A strong theme in Franciscan spirituality was the concern for doing penance, as seen by the early name for the friars, the "Penitents from Assisi". This theme was carried out too in the Servant Admonitions:　

He is the faithful and prudent servant who for all his offences does not delay in punishing himself, inwardly through contrition and outwardly through confession and penance for what he did. (86)

Blessed is the servant who would accept correction, accusation and blame from another as patiently as he would from himself. (87)

Therefore, blessed is that servant who having such an enemy in his power, will always hold him captive and wisely guard himself against him, because as long as he does this, no other enemy, seen or unseen, will be able to harmhim. (88)

This is indeed an important complement to an integral ecclesiology. The Church is at the same time sinful and sanctifying. With such stress on the servant as a penitent, one can appreciate the need of the servant Church -- not just the individual members -- to accept its own vulnerability to make mistakes and the need to convert continuously.

Word in the herald image

The servant is at the service of the word. Francis borrowed and applied the beautiful imagery of Our Lady to the servant:

Blessed is the servant who keeps the secrets of the Lord in his heart. (89)　

The Church should take this as an example of keeping the word. Furthermore, this servant cannot be careless with his own speaking because his true nature should be heraldic in proclaiming the Word of God:

Blessed is the servant who [...] is not quick to speak but wisely weighs what he should say and should reply. From such an exposition of these sources, a Franciscan ecclesiology of the servant Church does not dwell too much on the kind of service but on the substance of service, namely the theocentricity, the humility, the communion aspect, the suffering, the penance and the relation concerning the word.



  


71. Dulles, 97.

72. The Brotherhood finds its radical and concrete expression in religious life. Nowonder the Francisicans -- and other mendicant religious, such as Dominicans -- are known as friars, meaning brothers.

73. Dulles, 99.

74. Dulles, 99.

75. Indirect because the songs point to Christ, and the Church is onky a continuation of His presence.

76. Armstorg, 31, footnote

77. Admonition 4:2

78. First Rule 4:6

79. Admonition 6:3

80. Admonition 12:1-2

81. Admonition 17:1

82. Admonition 24.

83. Admonition 25.

84. Admonition 13:2

85. Admonition 15:2

86. Admonition 23:2

87. Admonition 22:1

88. Admonition 10:3

89. Admonition 28.

Our Lady as a Model of the Church

The Vatican II Constitution on the Church devotes an entire chapter to Our Lady to show the Marian dimension of ecclesiology. This is in accordance with the Patristic tradition: 'As St Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a model of the Church in the matter of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ.' (90) St Francis has a profound understanding of Our Lady in relation to the Church )) in her relationship with the Trinity, the significance of the mystery of incarnation and the realisation as a family.

In the Antiphon for the Office of Passion (Francis' own writing), in Lumen gentium, as well as in the postconciliar catechism, a triad of Marian images is made with an ecclesiological mind:

Lumen gentium

52 on Our Lady
CCC 796 on the Church St. Francis' Antiphon of the Office of Passion
God Of The Father 2. Favourite daughter of the Father 1. [People of God] 1. The daughter and the servant of the most high and supreme King and Father of heaven
God the Son 1. Mother of the Son Of God 2. Body Of Christ --Son Of Christ 2. The Mother of our most holy Lord Jesus Christ
God Of The Holy Spirit 3. Temple of the Holy Spirit 3. Temple Of The Holy Spirit 3. The Spouse of the Holy Spirit

This matrix tabulates the various Trinitarian visions of the Marian model of the Church. For Francis, the Church is portrayed with the images of Our Lady as daughter, servant (ancilla), (91) mother and spouse. All these images are illuminative for grasping an aspect of the mystery of the church. For instance, the ancilla aspect definitely relates to the servant model but at the same time adds a feminine dimension as well as a Marian element.

With such a litany of familial relationships, one immediate consequence of this Marian ecclesiology is a family vision of the Churcli. In Francis' conception, all the faithful are children of the heavenly Father, and more specifically,

when faithful souls are joined to our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, they become spouses of Christ;

when they do the will of Christ, they become brothers to Him;

when we carry Him in our heart and body through divine love and a pure and sincere conscience and when we give birth to Him through holy manner of working, we become mothers of Christ. (92)

It is interesting to note that in this version the family vision has a definite Christocentric focus. Although Francis was not consistent in deciding if the Church is the spouse of Christ or of the Holy Spirit, it is certain that he regards the entire community of faith as a spiritual family. This is made more clear for the friars: 'Let the brothers give witness that they are members of one family.' (93) On a collective level, the Church is indeed a household (familia) of God in the Spirit, as Lumen gentium points out.

Another important Marian devotion of St Francis is expressed in the Salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary which bears a definite ecclesiological element:

Ave Domina, sancta Regina, sancta Dei genetrix Maria, quae es virgo ecclesia facta...

(Hail, 0 Lady, holy Queen, Mary,, holy Mother of God; you are the virgin made Church...). (94)

The ecclesiological significance of this prayer cannot be overemphasised. Mico analysed that this meant Mary's dignity as an anticipatory image of the Church because Our Lady was at God's disposal so that the Son of God could take flesh in her womb. (95)

At the centre of this salutatory prayer is a climax of six Aves: Ave palatium eius, ave tabernaculum eius, ave domus eius, ave vestimentum eius, ave ancilla eius, ave mater eius. (Hail, His Palace; Hail, His Tabernacle; Hail, His Home; Hail, His Robe; Hail, His Servant; Hail, His Mother.) (96) The first four of these titles refer to the mystery of the incarnation and Our Lady's role in co-operating with God to make it possible. This can be said to be dignity of the Church -- 'the place where humanity meets the Trinue God'. (97) The first two Aves, palace and tabernacle, relate to both dimensions of being triumphant and being pilgrim. The home and the robe concern both an interpersonal and a personal dimension of God among and with humanity. All four of these conform to the Vatican II appreciation of the solidarity of Godwith humankind: "The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple (in templo habitat).' (98) Needless to say, the servant and the mother images refer to a horizontal mystical communion model, contrasting with the first four images, which refer to the vertical sacramental model.

Although the Church is a dwelling place which God has prepared for humankind, it is also the place where humankind prepares to meet God. As we have seen earlier in the Eucharistic ecclesiology the Eucharist makes the Church when the Church celebrates the Eucharist. Francis wrote: 'And let us make a home and dwelling place for Him who is the Lord God Almighty, Father and Son and Holy Spirit.' (99) The Church's loving acceptance of the indwelling of the Three Divine Persons is what makes it the true temple of the Trinity, the place where it is possible to live out the saving mystery of God.' (100) In short, a Franciscan-Marian ecclesiology is integrative. Using Our Lady as a focus, various models can be interlinked.





  


90. LG 63.

91. Latin version of the Antiphon in Esser, C. (ed.), Opuscula Sancti Patris Francisci Assisiensis (Rome: Collegii S Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas 1978).

92. Firast Letter to the Faithful 7.

93. Second Rule 6:7

94. Salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary (SBV)

95. Mico,15.

96. SBV. Latin version in Esser.

97. Mico, 15.

98. LG 4.

99. First Rule 22:27

100. Mico, 16.

The Church as Lady Poverty

Francis did not write about Lady Poverty in connection with the Church. Yet with the fruits of postconciliar ecclesiology as described above, this favourite theme in the Franciscan tradition can be used as an image, if not a model, of the Church. The term Lady Poverty (Domina paupertas) did not appear often in Francis' writings. It is found in the Salutations of the Virtues: 'Hail, Queen Wisdom [...], Lady holy Poverty.' (101) Elsewhere this Lady Poverty only appears in other sources, namely the biographies and pious stories. Francis 'panted with all his heart after Lady Poverty.' (102) Its direct link to the preferential option for the poor is a strength of this image. The option for the poor -- not just Francis' -- is 'derived from an earlier option: the option for Jesus Christ, Lord of History.'(103) These are the two dimensions of Francis' same commitment. A discussion of Franciscan poverty is beyond the scope of this paper but it is enough to note that Francis opts for neither a material poverty nor a spiritual poverty but a synthesis of the two -- an evangelical poverty. (104)

On a mural in the St Francis Basilica in Assisi, Francis is portrayed as being married to the Lady Poverty by Christ. If Francis -- the alter Christus -- is espoused to her. Lady Poverty must also represent to some extent the Church, just as the Church in the Bride of Christ. (105) A closer examination of the idea of Lady Poverty can enhance a Franciscan ecclesiology. Although Francis did not write further on Lady Poverty, one pious story stands out as a source: Sacrum Commercium (The Love Story) between Francis and the Lady Poverty. Although it was not written by Francis himself and is not a historical account, the story captures the essential spirit of Franciscan poverty. Throughout the story, various passages about Lady Poverty can be extrapolated to become ecclesiological, although the original intent of the author may have only been to personify a highly regarded virtue.

Bride of Christ

At one point, Lady Poverty is addressed as 'a most faithful spouse, a most tender lover of Christ.' (106) Further, the story recalls how Christ himself led a life of poverty: 'while he was in the world he clung to [Lady Poverty] alone and proved that [she was] completely faithful in all things.' (107)

Sacrament of Christ -- Mystery of Incarnation

That the Lady prepared in the human person a place and a dwelling of God (108) could refer to the sacramentality of the Church. This ecclesiological quality of sacramentality is made obvious when the Marian dimension is brought forward again in the story: the Lady Poverty 'prepared a place that would be satisfactory to [Christ], a throne upon which he would sit and a dwelling in which he would rest, namely, the most poor virgin.' (109)　

Church as Servant -- Church as Herald -- Church as Contrast Society

The Lady spoke with Francis in the story and her speech contained a reference to the Suffering Servant, which is already used as a model of the Church: '[I am] a poor little one, tossed with tempest, without all comfort.' (110) And then, on a kerygmatic note, 'When [Jesus] chose certain necessary witnesses of his preaching, [,.,] he chose [...] poor fishermen. ' (111) ' If the Church is meant to continue the presence of Christ, certainly the Lady Poverty is an image qualified to supplement the heraldic model. When Lady Poverty is described as hated bitterly by the sons of Adam, (112) this points to a contrast society image of the Church being distinct from the world.

Church as Body of Christ

Further in the story of Lady Poverty, the poverty of Christ is highlighted in connection with the Body: 'when [Christ] hung there naked, his arms outstretched, his hands and feet pierced, [Lady Poverty] suffered with him, so that nothing in him should appear more glorious than [she].' '(113) The body imagery here - made strong by the stark nakedness and the emphasis on the arms, hands and feet - can supplement the doctrine of the Body of Christ as the Church -- and this Body includes the dimension of poverty.

Church as Eucharistic Community and as Community of Salvation

The story of Lady Poverty ends with 'when everything was ready, the brothers constrained Lady Poverty to eat with them.' ' (114) The banquet is a very beautiful Eucharistic image because it signifies convivium -- as in Thomas' hymn to the Eucharist (115) -- eating the agape meal, sharing of the life-giving bread and the cup of salvation. Further, Lady Poverty is said to have been given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. ' (116) In this way, the Church is a community of salvific grace.

The benefits of this image of Lady Poverty are numerous. One obvious positive use of this image is the emphasis that the Church has to be a church of the poor. According to liberation theology, the poor are 'sacrament of God'. (117) There is a strong evangelical root: Jesus affirms that if one does a work of charity to the least of the brothers it is done to himself. The relationship is that of immediacy, not intermediary:

The poor are the sacrament of Jesus: the manifestation and communication of this mystery, the setting for his revelation and dwelling. [...] In the poor, God is met precisely in poverty. This sacrament of the poor [...] remains the only sacrament necessary for salvation. The way to God goes necessarily, for everyone without exception, through human beings -- human beings in need [...]. (118)

In this image, because the Church of the poor is emphasised, a deep reflection on the Church as Lady Poverty is bound to lead to a constant renewal of institutional structures and questioning of the Church-world relationship. Therefore, this image successfully relates to two of the ecclesiological issues listed as belonging to postconciliar theology. (119)

There are also weaknesses with this model. For instance, in the story the Lady Poverty is portrayed as standing on the summit of a mountain, (120) which gives a false impression of being inaccessible. Secondly, this image has a definite Franciscan ring which is not helpful outside the movement. Nevertheless, at least this can serve as an example of drawing upon alternative sources for doing theology.





  


101. There is a Marian dimension. Some manuscripts call this piece 'The Virtues possessed by the holy Virgin'. See notes quoted in Armstrong.

102. 2 Celano 55 (This version is a translation by Bodo).

103. Boff, C. and Pixley, G., The Bible, the Church and the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis 1989)115.

104. This differentiation of poverty is found in Chapter 7 in Boff and Pixley, 139-158. The attribution to Francis of doing so is mine. 'Christian poverty is not just an ideal for individuals, the community and the Church; it is also an ideal for humankind and for a society that seeks to operate on the level of human beings and their mystery.' Boff, 156.

105. Borrowing an image first used by Irenaeus in Adv. haer., LG 4 states that 'Constantly [Christ] renews [the Church] and leads her to perfect union with her Spouse.'

106. Sacrum Commercium 20. In Habig. Subsequent references to Sacrum Commercium are also from this version.

107. Sacrum Commercium 19.

108. Sacrum Commercium 1.

109. Sacrum Commercium 19.

110. Sacrum Commercium 15.

111. Sacrum Commercium 20.

112. Sacrum Commercium 5.

113. Sacrum Commercium 21.

114. Sacrum Commercium 59.

115. O Sacrum convivium, in quo Chrislus sumilur. recolitur memoria passionis ejus.mens impleturgralia etfuturaegloriaepignus nobis datur.

116. Sacrum Commercium 4.

117. BoffandPixley,114.

118. BoffandPixley,113-114.

119. Eight issues are listed in Anton, 407.

120. Sacrum Commercium 14.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to prove that it is possible to construct a single Franciscan ecclesiology. It has looked at the different models of the Church from Franciscan perspectives. This is possible because the Franciscan movement is an expression of the Church, and shares the same ecclesial constitutive elements. The Franciscan sources can enrich the appreciation of the various models of the Church. Directly, St Francis did see the Church in an institution model, a people of God model as well as a Marian model. These three models were classic theological themes and Francis' direct use of these was natural.

Indirectly, the postconciliar models -- the Eucharistic, herald and servant -- can be approached too through the writings of Francis. Finally, the image of Lady Poverty is suggested as an alternative model to bring out the Church of the poor in particular. No wonder the whole Church, not just the Franciscans, could and should sing the antiphon -- Franciscus vir catholicus et lotus apostolicus -- wholeheartedly: not simply to celebrate this medieval saint but to celebrate the mystery of the Church, as Francis saw it and lived it out so deeply and so well.

by Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti S.D.B.  

MARTINO MARTINI'S DE BELLO TARTARICO :

LATE MING AND EARLY QING CHRONICLE, A VALID POINT OF REFERENCE FOR A "HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE"



1. Introduction : Chronicles and Histories

1.1 Is Martino Martini (*) a chronicler or a historian? The answer to this question will depend on the meaning we attach to the terms "chronicle" and "history". For the purpose of our investigation, a simple differentiation between these two kinds of historical accounts will do. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, C.W. Jones, under the word "chronicle", gives this description of the genre: "Chronicles, records of noteworthy events both natural and cultural, arranged in chronological order, represent a more detailed and sophisticated form of annals [...]. Insofar as they are bare statements of fact, given without comment and compiled without inductive purpose, chronicles differ essentially from history (Gr. historia, "inquiry"), which is understood as being concerned not only to describe but also to interpret the actions of men. Nevertheless few chronicles are entirely free of tendentiousness; from the earliest times their compilers began to select data in order to exalt a reigning house or a religion, or to provide moral exempla." (1) Even a superficial reading of Martini's De bello tartarico shows that both this description of the genre "chronicle" and the proviso attached to it are relevant to Martini's work. How relevant are they? Is Martini "a chronicler with a purpose"? "These are the kind of questions that I am going to deal with.

1.2 The starting point of my research is the article which the late Chinese historian Ma Yong wrote for the First International Congress on Martino Martini. (2) This article is, as far as I know, the first and the best concise presentation of Martini's De bello tartarico to the world. At the beginning and at the end of his presentation, Ma Yong expresses a twofold judgment which will form the backbone of my own discussion. At the beginning Ma Yong says: "The De bello tartarico is not a truly historical work, but is rather a non-systematic collection." (3) At the end of the article Ma Yong says: "[The De bello tartarico] remains a reference work of excellent historical value." (4) So in Ma Yong's view, Martini's book on the final struggle of the Ming against the Qing is "not a truly historical work", but "a reference work of excellent historical value." The title and the content of my article are simply meant to illustrate this careful judgment of the distinguished Chinese historian.

1.3 Martino Martini, for his part, considered his own work to be a true "history", in the sense, of course, given to this term in his own times. The De bello tartarico reads much like the continuation of the Tongjian Gangmu, the supplement to the official Chinese history of the Song and Yuan dynasties, parts of which Martini probably had occasion to read. (5) Today, however, we understand the word "history" in a stricter sense, and distinguish history-writing from chronicle-writing and other literary forms. If I may elaborate somewhat in a personal way the distinction given above between "history" and "chronicle", I would say that the most striking difference between the two forms lies in this: history-writing is essentially a communitarian enterprise; it presupposes an as wide as possible search for documents, a comparison and an interpretation of these documents, and the offering of this interpretation to the scrutiny of scholarly criticism. Chronicle-writing, instead, is a highly individual enterprise; its purpose is to offer a valuable historical document to posterity regarding persons and events that the chronicler deems memorable; its contents consist mainly (if the chronicle is to be valuable) of eye-witness reports, whether the eye-witness is the chronicler him/herself or people directly contacted by him/her. So, on the one hand, a chronicle shares somehow the highly individual character of a diary. But, on the other hand, it is different from a diary, in that the focus of attention in a chronicle is not introspection but interested observation of the events and persons of the surrounding world. This 'public' interest is something the chronicle shares with history. A final point distinguishing chronicles from histories is that it is essential for the chronicler that he or she be contemporary or almost contemporary with the events he or she describes. Instead, for true history writing, it is essential that there be a certain time lag between the history-writer and the events he or she describes, so as to ensure independence and objectivity of judgment. If not "the mother of truth", time is at least "the midwife of historical truth". This point was well taken by the European editor of the Qing history published in Europe in 1780 while emperor Kang Xi was still alive: "[It is] impossible to have the authentic history of the Qing, because such a history can appear only when another dynasty has succeeded the present one." (6)

1.4 From this elementary outline of the literary forms of history-writing and chronicle-writing it is already rather clear where Martino Martini and his De bello tartarico stand. (7) Contemporary with most of the events he describes, often passing a very personal judgment on persons and events, he is one of the many primary sources (8) for the history of this period, when China saw the dramatic, even tragic, dynastic change from Ming to Qing. This is a crucial period whose claims to be treated as the beginning of the history of Modem China are at least as good as those of the Opium Wars period.(9) In the rest of my paper I will illustrate how Martini's "Chronicle" of the Ming-Qing succession wars differs from a standard "history" of the period. I shall concentrate especially on one aspect: the judgments Martino Martini passes on several personalities and events, judgments which I have found to be at odds with the findings of contemporary historiography.(10)



  


* Martino Martini, S.J. was born in Trent in 1614; he went to Rome in 1632 to continue his studies and in 1636 he joined the Society of Jesus. In 1640 he left Rome for China as a missionary and reached Macao in 1643. In Europe, in the sixth decade of the seventeenth century, he published his main historical and geographical works on the Chinese Empire. He returned to China and died in Hangzhou in 1661. Martini's three main works are the following: 1) De bello tarlarico, 2) Novus alias sinensis, 3) Sinicae historiae decas prima. In recent years scholarly interest in the person and work of Martino Martini S.J. has been stimulated by international congresses jointly organized by the University of Trent (the city of the Council!) and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. The proceedings of these congresses have been published in book form and constitute a precious reference material for the study of the Martino Martini: 1) Giorgio Melis (ed.), Martino Martini: geografo, cartografo, storico, teologo, Trento 1614－Hangzhou 1661, Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Italian-English edition (Trento: Provincia Autonoma, Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali 1983) 248-262; 2) Franco Demarchi and Riccardo Scartezzini (eds.), Martino Martini: A Humanist and Scientist in Seventeenth Century China, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Martino Martini and Cultural Exchanges between China and the West, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing 5-6-7 April 1994 (Trento: Universita Degli Studi 1996). This book has been published also in Italian and in Chinese. The writer of this article happens to hail also from Trent, Martino Martini's fatherland. This research is meant as a humble contribution to the knowledge of this great Catholic missionary of the Society of Jesus in the turbulent China of the mid-seventeenth century.

1. C. W. Jones, "Chronicle", Encyclopedia Britannica (1972 edition). Volume 5, 713. This current meaning of 'chronicle' is somehow the reverse of the meaning current in classical antiquity. As C.W. Jones points out in the same article, "some grammarians followed Verrius Flaccus [...] in distinguishing chronicles (annales) and history (historiae) as accounts respectively of past or of current events: Tacitus, for instance, in his Annals wrote of events that occurred before his birth or in his early childhood, and in his Histories described his own times. This specific terminology, however, was not followed by the medieval historiographers of western Europe, whose work the word 'chronicle' particularly denotes. [...] Their scribes described such works indiscriminately as chronica or historiae. In the main, however, chronicles continued to provide succinct dry records of indisputable events and phenomena such as legations, councils, coronations, deaths, earthquakes, eclipses and wars, securely set in a framework of time." (Ibidem, 713-714). I think this quotation goes a long way to explain in what spirit Martino Martini wrote the De bello tartarico and why the early translations were entitled, for example, Histoire de la guerre des Tartares contre la Chine.

2. Ma Yong, "Martino Martini's activity in China and his works on Chinese history and geography", in Giorgio Melis, Martino Martini, 248-262.

3. Ibidem, 255.

4. Ibidem, 257.

5. This Chinese historical work, which ends with the Yuan dynasty, has been available to me only in the French translation of De Mailla (cf. note 6). This translation seems to have supplemented the original work with other material concerning the Ming and Qing dynasties (perhaps the Tungjian Man, published with the approval of emperor Qian Long in 1759). Ma Yong surmises that the original Tongjian Gangmu by Zhu Xi was probably one of the sources of Martini's Sinicae historiae decas prima. Chapters 1-22 of the Tongjian Gangmu deal with the Song dynasty; chapters 23-27 with the Yuan dynasty.

6. My translation from the French of Joseph-Anne-Marie de Moyriac de Mailla (trans.), Histoire Generate de la Chine, Tome Onzieme: Vingt-Deuxieme Dynastie. Les Tsing. (Paris: Ph.D. Pierres & Clousier 1780) 1, note 1. Here the European editor (Le Roux des Hautesrayes) is merely echoing a standard principle of Chinese historiography, namely, that the history of a dynasty can be written only by historians of the next dynasty. The reason for such a principle of Chinese historiography is well illustrated in the period under consideration by the tampering with historical records at the hands of the infamous imperial eunuch Wei Zhung Xian, cf. Fredrick W. Mote and Denis Twitchett (eds.). The Cambridge History of China, Volume 7: The Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644, Part I (Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University 1988) 607-608.

7. Ma Yong, p.255, calls Martini's De hello tartarico "a documentary book of things he has seen and heard.".

8. Martino Martini's De hello tartarico is listed among this period's Primary Sources (as distinct from Secondary Sources) in at least one of the recent historical works on the end of Ming and the beginning of Qing which I have consulted in the library of the University of Hong Kong. Unfortunately I have been unable to retrace this reference.

9. Cf. Immanuel C.Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, Second Edition (New York, London, Toronto: Oxford University 1975) 4.

10. Since unfortunately I have been unable to gain access to the Latin original of Martini's De bello tartarico, in the following sections, when quoting from Martini's work, I shall have to translate from the (early, but already second) French translation of the De hello tartarico published as an Appendix to the Histoire Universelle de la Chine by Alvarez Semedo, Lyon: Hierosme Prost, 1667, with this title: Histoire de la guerre des Tortures, centre la Chine. Contenant les revolutions estranges, qui soni arrivees dans ce grand Royaume, depuis quaranie ans. Traduite du Latin du P. Martin Martini. For some passages I have used the partial English translation of Martini's work given in the History of the Two Tartar Conquerors of China, Including the Two Journeys into Tartary of Father Ferdinand Verbiest, in the Suite of the Emperor Kang-Hi, from the French of Pere Pierre Joseph D' Orleans of the Company of Jesus, to which is added Father Pereira 's Journey into Tartary in the Suite of the Same Emperor, from the Dutch of Nicolaas Witsen. Translated and Edited by the Earl of Ellesmere. With an Introduction by R.H. Major, Esq., of the British Museum, Honorary Secretary of the Hakluyt Society, London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society (1854). The original work of Pierre Joseph D'Orleans is entitled Histoire des Deux Conquerans Tartares qui ont subjuge la Chine (Paris: Claude Barbin 1688). Therefore, this English translation, I sometimes use, is a second-hand translation like mine. In this second-hand translation of mine, for the proper names I have kept the phonetic system of the French translation, providing as far as possible the Chinese equivalent (in pin yin between square brackets). This is necessary because some of the transliterations used in the French translation are very different from current ones. When no equivalent is provided, I will add a question mark between square brackets, thus [?], meaning that I have been unable to find the corresponding Chinese characters. In the following notes I shall refer to the French translation as the Histoire. When quoting from contemporary historical works, I shall keep the phonetic system of each work without adding the pin yin equivalent.

2. A Chronicler's Judgment on People and Things

2.1 Martino Martini's judgment on the Wan Li Emperor (1573-1920)

2.1.1 Martino Martini offers a twofold judgment on the last great emperor of the Ming dynasty, who died on August 18, 1620, and was followed on the throne by only minor figures. The first time he mentions him, Martini delivers a very flattering judgment indeed: "In this way the Empire was solidly established. The Chinese enjoyed peace for almost 250 years under the rule of the family Thamin [Da Ming]. While the seven little sovereigns who had divided among themselves Eastern Tartary were carrying on a cruel [internal] war, the whole of China obeyed Vanlie [Wan Li], the thirteenth emperor of this family, who was not only one of the most just and wise princes of the world, but also one of the happiest. His reign, in fact, begun in the year 1573, did not end until 1620, so that he governed this powerful monarchy for forty- seven years, to the incredible satisfaction of all his peoples." (11) The chronicler's emphasis is all too clear in such a passage. On the other hand, Martini is too much of a realist not to see some black spots in all this light. Moving towards the end of the reign, Martini becomes more critical. Commenting on Wan Li's reception of Nu Er Ha Chi's "Seven Grievances", Martini remarks: "Vanlie in this confrontation did not make use of his habitual prudence. For, having received this letter, he did not care to handle the matter himself, but handed it over to the Mandarins. This emperor, who was so experienced in the management of affairs, by such a negligence committed a totally irresponsible mistake." (12)

2.1.2 The last time Martini mentions Wan Li, he blames him for another fault, but this time the fault is something in which Martini feels personally involved, both as a Catholic missionary and as a member of the Society of Jesus: "This same year [1518] some persons pressured the Emperor Vanlie to expel from China the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, who were announcing the Gospel in his kingdom. The love he had for the Christian Religion, and for the Fathers who taught it, made him reject several times this proposal; but finally, having let himself be overcome by the ceaseless demands of Xinqui [?], who was one of the major Mandarins and one of the greatest enemies of the true Religion, he issued an edict by which he ordered all the Fathers in charge of the churches throughout China to leave the kingdom. [...] The emperor did not stop at that. He denied to all his subjects the right to embrace the Christian Religion. By this denial he gave the opportunity to all true Christians to prove their perseverance. But this is not the place to relate exactly all that happened during this persecution; I have mentioned it only to show how God's providence is admirable in its doings. It is God's providence that by hidden means has stirred up this cruel war against the Chinese, precisely when they refused to accept the peace of the Gospel." (13)

2.1.3 On the whole, therefore, Martini's judgment on the emperor Wan Li is positive. The last word is rather negative, but the motivation is historical-theological, not strictly historical. (14) If we turn to contemporary historiography, we find that it judges Wan Li in a way diametrically opposed to that of Martini. The judgment of present-day historians on the last great Ming emperor is mainly negative, with some positive remarks. The Cambridge History of China (1988), which draws also upon recent Chinese historiographical research, blames Wan Li for his 'extravagance' and 'profligacy'. (15) His last few years are judged "disastrous, politically, economically, and particularly militarily." (16) His stinginess, leading to an unnecessary increase in taxes, "caused great unhappiness at court and throughout the empire." (17) This view of Wan Li is not something totally new. K.S. Latourette (1954) had already judged Wan Li to be simply 'incompetent', with few wise decisions to his credit. (18)

2.1.4 From this comparison between Martini's judgment and that of present-day historians we can conclude that the individual chronicler is on the losing side when he is called upon to give a general judgment on a whole period and on the overall performance of a person. The total picture escapes him, many crucial data are unknown to him, and so his judgment is inevitably relative and subjective. All this notwithstanding, his judgment is not useless. By his or her judgment the chronicler makes an essential contribution to historiography in that he or she bears witness to attitudes current in his or her time with regard to the facts and the persons chronicled. Thus Martini's emphatically positive judgment on Wan Li's reign tells us how at least part of the Jesuit community in China viewed the emperor that granted a piece of burial ground to the Jesuit pioneer Matteo Ricci, when the latter died in 1610. Perhaps Martini's judgment also reflects the nostalgic impression of Wan Li's reign lingering in the hearts of the Chinese people who were confronted with the chaotic situation during the forties in mid-17th century China.

2.2 Martino Martini's judgment on Nu Er Ha Chi's "Seven Grievances"

2.2.1 When addressing the topic of the "Seven Grievances", strangely enough, Martini seems to go out of his way to stress the sincerity of Nu Er Ha Chi when writing his letter to Emperor Wan Li: "It was in 1516 that [Nu Er Ha Chi] entered Chinese territory and took possession of this city. When he had conquered it, he wrote to the king of China a letter which had nothing barbarian but the alphabet. In this letter [...], in terms full of respect and submission, he reported that he had started the war in self-defense against the violence of the Mandarins, who had cruelly assassinated his father; however, he was ready to lay down arms and to return the city he had taken by surprise, if [the emperor] would give him an audience and do him justice." (19)

2.2.2 Martini's judgment on the above-mentioned response of Wan Li to Nu Er Ha Chi indirectly contains an additional positive assessment of the content of Nu Er Ha Chi's letter. However, contemporary historiography does not divide the praise and the blame so neatly. Martini must have known the content of the famous letter. Impressed by the form, he may have not reflected enough on the content. The Cambridge History of China has this to say about Nu Er Ha Chi's "Seven Grievances": "Still claiming to desire a peaceful settlement, Nurhaci now publicized his Seven Grievances [...]. These grievances could be redressed only by a cession of territory to him and by annuities of gold, silver, and silk fabrics－in effect, a tribute from Peking. Those conditions were calculated to be unacceptable to Peking." (20)

2.2.3 Behind this modem appreciation of Nu Er Ha Chi's letter, there is the awareness that, however diplomatic the form, the substance of the message was that the relationships of emperor and tributary vassal had to be reversed. In my opinion, this awareness is the fruit of four hundred years of mutual contacts between China and Europe. Only gradually have Europeans become aware of imperial China's expectation of a "tributary consciousness" on the part of nations coming into contact with her. (21) Perhaps this is a point worth researching: were the 17th century Jesuits in China aware of this fact? Since the time of Matteo Ricci they were aware of the importance of precious gifts in dealing with the Chinese authorities. But did they perceive the true significance of these gifts in the eyes of the Chinese imperial court? Only if Martini had been aware of this true significance, could he have guessed the real import of Nu Er Ha Chi's letter. Time, after all, is a great clarifier.

2.3 Martino Martini's judgment on Yuan Chung Huan (1584-1630)

2.3.1 With regard to Yuan Chung Huan, Martini's judgment is particularly open to criticism, since he turned a national hero into a scoundrel. Or shall we say that a chronicler's scoundrel sometimes may unexpectedly become history's hero and vice versa? This is what Martini has to say of the great Chinese general: "Yuen [Yuan] was a spirit of tricks and intrigues, equally eloquent in the discourses he pronounced vocally and in those he concocted on paper. [...] It must be admitted that, if he had as much fidelity to his king and love for his country, as he had eloquence and savoir-faire, he could have rendered to the public invaluable services. But his insatiable avarice made him accept a prodigious amount of gold and silver offered him by the Tartars. Consequently, he used all his ingenuity to advance their designs." While describing in detail how he collaborated under cover with the Manchus, Martini calls him 'traitor' and twice "this perfide." (22)

2.3.2 To issue such a clear-cut description of the personality of Yuan, Martini, we may surmise, must have relied on first-hand information from someone among his fellow-Jesuits who had some dealings with Yuan. (23) Or he may have taken for granted the impression, which must have been current among the people, of Yuan as a traitor, since he was executed by the emperor precisely on a charge of treason. However, Martini seems to have overlooked the fact that the Manchus were also able to play dirty tricks. Historians today are of the opinion that all that Martini says about the intentions of Yuan were, in reality, nothing but rumours started by the Manchus. "Fearful of Yuan's military prowess, the Manchus hoped to discredit him in the eyes of the Ch'ung-chen emperor. The rumors gained credibility because Yuan had negotiated a temporary truce with Abahai several years earlier. On 13 January 1630 he was arrested and charged with treason. [...] The emperor [,.,] had his most talented general, Yuan Ch'ung-huan, cut to pieces in the capital on 22 September 1630." (24)

2.3.3 Not only is the supposition of treason wrong in Martini's account, but several of the details also seem to be inaccurate. The timing of the whole event is not clear. Here Martini is relating facts that happened a dozen years before his arrival in China. For his account he had to rely on other people's reports, which, in this case, contained a very strong bias against Yuan Chung Huan. Martini's unsuspecting acceptance of this bias may be due to the fact that Mao Wen Long (1576-1629) died in suspicious circumstances while in the company of Yuan Chung Huan. Now Mao was held in the highest esteem by the Jesuits in China. Martini calls him "the incomparable Maouenlung." (25) One reason for such an esteem was that Mao Wen Long was a Christian sympathizer. (26) Martini uncritically records as a proven fact the unprovable rumour about his death: "[Yuan Chung Huan] invited this great captain to a feast and poisoned him." (27)

2.4 Martino Martini's Judgment on Dorgon (1612-1650)

2.4.1 With regard to Martini's judgment on Dorgon, if we compare the text of the De bello tartarico in the first edition and the Appendix added to it in the second edition, we realize that Martini makes a dramatic turn-about in the Appendix. In the text of the first edition, Martini's assessment of Dorgon is extremely positive. Since Martini was at the Peking court in 1650 before Dorgon's death, he might have known the great Manchu personally. In the De bello tartarico Martini says that he saw the return to Peking of the triumphant army which Dorgon personally led to conquer the fortress of Da Tong. (28) After recording the news of his death, Martini eulogizes him in these terms: "For the rest Amauang [that is, Dorgon] died at the beginning of the year 1651, after obtaining so many victories, which have been as advantageous to the Tartar cause as his death will be disastrous. In fact, he was an admirable man, whose government was so just that the Tartars and the Chinese loved him equally. Moreover, one cannot deny that his loss has dealt a terrible blow to the power of the conquerors." (29)

2.4.2 It is evident that Martini was unaware of the power struggle that followed that death of Abahai, eighth son and second successor of Nu Er Ha Chi and Dorgon's brother. Martini's report of Dorgon's coming to power is idyllic: "[Abahai] when dying adjured his brothers to contribute with all their might to the enterprise that he had started and that could not be brought to a successful end except through their courage. He then chose the eldest brother as tutor to his son, to be the Regent as long as the latter was a minor. The last words of this dying king had so much effect on the spirit of these ambitious princes, that they all worked together with an admirable unity for the establishment of the greatness of their nephew."(30) As a matter of fact, Abahai had appointed two regents, "Jirgalang, a nephew of Nurhaci, and Dorgon, Nurhaci's fourteenth son." (31) Jirgalang was stripped of power by Dorgon's political manoeuvring. I think it is reasonable to surmise that behind Martini one can hear the voice of Dorgon explaining to the foreign missionaries how he came to power.

2.4.3 Martini goes so far in his admiration for Dorgon as to excuse him for the tragic death of Haoge (the child emperor's elder brother and Dorgon's rival): "Dorgon not only imprisoned Haoge but also took his wife as one of his concubines. [...] The imprisonment and the subsequent death of Haoge (which followed immediately after imprisonment) had the immediate effect of making Dorgon look like a tyrant." (32) Martini is aware of the problematic nature of Haoge's death, but he has this to say: "For the rest, this general [that is, Haoge], after obtaining such a decisive victory, and having been badly received by his brother Amauang [that is, Dorgon], found death, where he had reason to expect only a triumph. [...] This prince, who was truly generous and who did not deserve to experience the rigor of such bad fortune, not wishing to be the first Tartar to suffer such an ignominy, strangled himself in his palace. Someone has said that Amauang in a fit of jealousy had provoked his brother on purpose. But it is more probable that Amauang used such severity towards him only because he was worried that his brother would be a danger to the empire, given his too vehement temperament." (33) Again, one must say that Martini's report appears to reflect only too closely the machiavellian Dorgon's own version of the whole affair.

2.4.4 Strange to say, on the very same page of his work Martini ends the text of the first edition of his "History" and, in the second edition, adds some news which he had received in Europe from China. The last paragraph of this page reads as follows: "After the death of Amauang, the young Nunchi [Shun Zhi], of whom he had been the tutor, took charge of all affairs as soon as he was crowned. Then the hidden designs and the secret practices during the regency of this uncle of the emperor were discovered. The prince, intending to establish his authority by a just and severe punishment of the crimes of his uncle, ordered the destruction of his tomb which had been beautifully constructed in his honour. After his corpse was taken out of the tomb, he had it beheaded and dishonoured, in the manner in which corpses of criminals are usually treated. The anger of the emperor did not erupt only against his uncle, but it made its effect felt also on people in power who had been his confidants." (34) Martini's turn-about is surprising. Reacting hurriedly to the news, the chronicler, who had had such great admiration for Dorgon, goes to the other extreme and accepts without more ado the blackening of Dorgon's character at the hands of his enemies. Martini, though aware of Jirgalang's vengeful behind-the-scenes activity, (35) does not doubt. In reality, this is how 20th century historians describe the situation at the court of Peking after Dorgon's death: "Policy-making in 1650-1651 was dominated by Jirgalang, with the child emperor and the three administrative princes playing supporting roles. The immediate concern of the Jirgalang-controlled government was the removal and punishment of Dorgon's men." (36) Unlike the chronicler, the historian doubts the factual nature of many reports: "Dorgon's coffin was found upon excavation to hide a yellow robe (which only befitted an emperor). Whether the yellow robe was planted to substantiate [the accusations] or not remains questionable [...]." (37)

2.4.5 Was Dorgon then black or white? Chronicles are easily peopled by black and white characters, history by grey ones. Our contemporary historians support the claim that Dorgon was an extremely clever politician. An aspect of this cleverness was a curious mixture of ruthlessness and tolerance. But where Li Zi Cheng failed, Dorgon succeeded: "Dorgon possessed [...] a forgiving sense of exigency (ch'uan) that contrasted sharply with the crude and overbearing righteousness that had betrayed Li Tzu-ch'eng [Li Zi Cheng]'s original intent." (38) Another historian, who initially almost echoed Martini's earlier judgment but then proceeded to criticize Dorgon, views the Manchu Regent thus: "Dorgon's contribution to the young dynasty cannot be ignored [...]. In reaching the summit of power at a relatively early age, Dorgon in effect halted his own career; he seems to have experienced the frustration of having no higher estate to reach for. He began to indulge himself in pleasure-seeking." (39) As for the posthumous vilification of Dorgon, this must be noted: "It was not until 1778 when Emperor Ch'ien-lung (1736-1795) re-examined the merits and faults of the dynasty's founders that his good name was restored and he was exonerated." (40)

2.4.6 Martino Martini's volte-face with regard to his judgment on Dorgon raises the question why, in his second edition, he did not modify the eulogy of Dorgon in the first edition, in order to make it fit in more neatly with subsequent news and his later negative judgment. In my view, by omitting to do so (or shall we say, refusing to do so), Martini proves himself a true and reliable chronicler. As it now stands, the text of Martini's 'History' bears witness to the way in which the chronicler viewed the personality of Dorgon before and after the news of his posthumous degradation. By keeping the two judgments distinct, Martini has made his chronicle more valuable for the historian than if he had harmonized them.

2.5 Martino Martini's judgment on the cause of the Peasant Rebellions

2.5.1 Martini wastes no sympathy on the rebel leaders whom he regularly calls 'bandits'. The immense success they enjoyed at first, with which they initially met, would seem to suggest that we add some qualification to this radically negative designation by our chronicler. Martini follows more closely the movements of one of them, Li Zi Cheng. (41) As for Zhang Xian Zhong, after a first brief mention, Martini seems to forget him, until he devotes the last pages of his 'History' (42) to the rebel leaders. Unlike Martini, who must have been horrified by the eye-witness accounts he received about the atrocities perpetrated by the rebels, present-day historians credit the two rebel leaders with at least an initial sense of justice, which won them a large measure of popular support.(43)

2.5.2 As for the causes of these rebellions, Martini mentions famines, local injustices, greed for easy profit, but above all the policy of over-taxation: "These bands grew more and more, because the emperor drew people to despair by the severity with which he demanded the payment of the tributes that were normal during the years of bumper harvest." (44) Actually, the problem was much vaster. Environmental, climactic, demographic, economic and political factors combined to precipitate the situation. (45) The first movements of rebellion appeared already in the early 1620s. (46) In the mid-30s the rebellions gathered momentum. (47) In the end the pervasive social injustice brought all causes of social unrest to a head. Increasing taxes reflected increasing hardships, but no rebellion would have erupted without the linkage of taxation with social injustice. The following conclusions by a modem historian on the causes of the T'ung-ch'eng uprising of 1634 agree with this pinpointing of the root causes of the rebellions: "Other observers were less surprised at the violence, and suggested that the wealthy members of the community had brought it upon themselves by their outrageous and often illegal treatment of social and economic inferiors. And although the T'ung-ch'eng uprising was put down rather quickly, the tensions between rich and poor that existed there also existed in other parts of southeastern China during the mid-1930s, tensions resulting from, among other things, the collusion among local officials, corrupt yamen functionaries and powerful landowners. Many landowners had for years falsified tax records, and evaded a substantial portion of their tax obligations. With the continual pressure from the central government to fill the local tax quotas, an even greater share of the burden was shifted to smaller property owners who lacked the financial resources and political connections to defend themselves against unfair exactions." (48) Such an analysis is evidently the fruit of a cooperative effort by generations of historians who painstakingly collected and studied socioeconomic evidence relevant to the Peasant Rebellions. Nobody will blame Martino Martini for not stressing the connection between over-taxation and social injustice. It is interesting to note, however, how close Martini comes to such an analysis when he too, besides over-taxation, indicates the local injustices, the excessive greed and the famines as the spark that ignited the great fire of the Peasant Rebellions. (49) Martini is only a chronicler, yes, but a remarkably observant one!



  


11. Histoire, 379.

12. Histoire, 380.

13. Histoire, 382-383. It should be noted that Martini is aware that such an extended theological reflection is a 'digression' in a history book.

14. By 'theological' I mean a judgment based on convictions derived from religious faith.

15. Cambridge History of China, 589.

16. Ibidem, 590.

17. Ibidem.

18. K.S. Latourette, The Chinese, Their History & Culture, Vol. 2, 3rd ed. (New York: Maemillan 1945)307.

19. Histoire, 380.

20. Cambridge History of China, 577.

21. Cf. Alain Peyrefitte, The Collision of Two Civilisations: The British Expedition to China in 1792-4, Translated from the French by Jon Rothschild (London: Harvill 1993). The original French is entitled L'Empire Immobile ou Le Choc des Mondes (Libraire Artheme Fayard 1989).

22. Histoire, 393-394.

23. Hsu, Rise, 23 says that in 1626 Yuan repelled Nu Er Ha Chi "using cannons cast by Jesuit missionaries."

24. Cambridge History of China, 616-617. Cf. Hsu, Rise, 24.

25. Histoire, 389.

26. D' Orleans, Histoire, 13-14: "Many similar examples occurred during this war in which the Christian religion was honoured, either by her open professors, or by those who, having associated with them, had adopted their precepts. A celebrated chief called Mauvenlon was amongst the latter."

27. Histoire, 393.

28. Ibidem, 441. Martini left Peking before the death of Dorgon (Ibidem, 445). That Martini was at the court during Dorgon's regency can be inferred from what he says about two Jesuits from Sichuan: "The uncle of the Emperor [wanted] them to come to the court of his nephew, where I left them in the year 1650." (Ibidem, 454).

29. Ibidem, 445. Martini having already left Peking before Dorgon's death (cf. note 27), his date of Dorgon's death lacks precision. Dorgon actually died in 1650. Cf. Adam Lui, Two Rulers in One Reign: Dorgon and Shun-chih 1644-1660 (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, 1989) 41. However, Martini must have heard of Dorgon's death and the subsequent turmoil before he left China. Cf. Histoire, 445.

30. Histoire, 408.

31. Hus, Rise, 27.

32. Lui, Two Rulers, 10.

33. Histoire, 454-455.

34. Ibidem, 456.

35. Histoire, 445.

36. LUI, Two Rulers, 41.

37. Ibidem, 36.

38. Frederic Wakeman Jr., "The Shun Interregnum of 1644". In Jonathan D. Spence and John E. Wills Jr., (eds.). From Ming to Ch' ing: Conquest, Region, and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century China (New Haven and London: Yale University 1979)75.

39. Hsu, Rise, 32.

40. Ibidem, 33.

41. Histoire, 392-393, 397-400, 403-406, 412.

42. Ibidem, 445-457.

43. Cf. Wakeman, "The Shun Inteiregnum", 50-58. Compare James B. Parsons, Peasant Rebellions of the Late Ming Dynasty (Tucson: University of Arizona 1970).

44. Histoire, 398.

45. Cambridge History of China, 585-590.

46. Ibidem, 602-605, 610-611, 615-616.

47. Ibidem, 621-640.

48. Ibidem, 626.

49. Histoire, 398.

3. Conclusion: Martino Martini, A True Chronicler

3.1 In the body of my paper I have concentrated on certain points of Ming-Qing history where Martino Martini's judgment appears to be defective in some respects. However, I would not like to leave the impression that Martini is a careless judge of people and events. On the contrary, it is not without difficulty that I have succeeded in tracing these four or five instances in which his judgment is at variance with that of 20th-century historiography. Of course, all along I have assumed contemporary historical judgment to be the more correct one. I think this assumption is right insofar as 20th-century historians can observe 16th-century events from a vantage point which was not available to Martino Martini. "Was it true glory? We must leave this arduous judgment to posterity" writes Alessandro Manzoni, the author of The Betrothed, in the ode written upon hearing the news of the death of Napoleon Bonaparte. (50) Only time makes it possible for us to come to know at least something of what has been going on behind the scenes and to assess the relative greatness of historical personalities. "This observation, far from belittling Martino Martini's contribution to history-writing, makes us wonder all the more at the basic correctness of the great majority of his historical judgments. In fact, there are dozens of evaluations in the De bello tartarico which have been vindicated as correct by modem historiography. In my opinion, therefore, Ma Yong's description of Martino Martini as a balanced and impartial judge of historical events and persons remains unshaken. Martini, Ma Yong writes, is a recorder of facts who "does not give excuses for the Ming nor for the Qing dynasties." (51)

3.2 The ground for such an independence and balance of judgment can perhaps also be probed. It seems to me that this ground is the staunchly ethical approach Martino Martini adopts in evaluating people and happenings. It is this ethical standpoint that allows him consistently to praise loyalty and condemn treachery, on whatever side they may show up. A sure sense of morality is what makes him condemn the Ming practice of executing unsuccessful generals and officials, (52) while at the same time condemning the Qing conquest as 'insolent' and the extermination of the previous dynasty at the hands of the Qing conquerors as 'tyrannical'. (53) Zhang Xian Zhong is criticized most harshly because "he [involved] the innocent in the punishment of the guilty." (54) Abahai is praised because he "tempered the cruelty which [his predecessors] had used against the conquered peoples, in order to gain their allegiance through love as well as by the force of arms. [...] So true is it that, in order to gain a kingdom, love is a machine more powerful than any weapon. On the contrary, cruelty causes the loss of empires which power joined to kindness seems to have established on unshakeable foundations." (55) It is clear that it is the absoluteness of moral values that enables Martini to steer a safe course in his endeavour to sift good from evil in the complexity of the human condition.

3.3 There is one kind of judgment in Martino Martini's 'History' which perhaps causes some problems and, therefore, calls for some interpretation. It is the kind of judgment which we could call 'theological'. We have seen one instance of such a theological judgment in Martini's explanation of the cause of the decline of the Ming dynasty after emperor Wan Li's reign. These theological judgments are based on Martino Martini's world-view, which was essentially shaped by the Christian faith in God as the Lord of History and the Judge of Human Destiny.(56) With regard to this kind of judgment I shall point out that our chronicler is as sincere and as convinced as in making his ethical judgments. Martini's theological judgments are not superstitious nor are they to be understood as a Christian's simple-minded, self-serving approach. Martini's theological judgments are of a piece with his ethical judgments. This can be seen from the fact that, for Martini, "being favourable to Christianity" is not of itself a sufficient ground for a positive judgment on a person. It is necessary that this pro-Christian attitude be united to moral behaviour. Martini's theological and ethical judgments share a common root. This root is the unshakeable conviction that there is a real difference between right and wrong, between good and evil, between true and false, and that this difference is absolute. So, for example, Martini's opinion of the rebel leader Zhang Xian Zhong is firmly negative, notwithstanding the latter's sympathy for Christianity. Listening to him in conversation, Martini says, one would think "that he was a Christian well instructed in the mysteries of the faith. As a matter of fact, he had a good knowledge of Christianity, drawn from books in print, in which the maxims of the Christian religion are explained in the Chinese language; but these explanations helped only to make him a more vicious criminal, because he knew the will of his heavenly Lord and despised it." (57)

3.4 Do Martino Martini's judgments show some kind of cultural limitation or time conditioning? Such a limitation and conditioning, of course, cannot be totally avoided. We are all children of our own times! Contemporary historians are no longer so reluctant to recognize this. On one particular point Martini seems to me to be unconsciously influenced by the social consciousness of his time and age. Martino Martini appears to take for granted the legitimacy and the validity of constituted authority. This is especially apparent in his uncompromising condemnation of the Peasant Rebellions. But it also crops up throughout his 'History' in the form of a certain incapacity to doubt the truth of the motivations of official decisions. He does not doubt that the Chong Zhen emperor's treatment of Yuan Chong Huan could be unjust. He does not doubt the justice of Dorgon's treatment of Haoge. Finally, he does not doubt the truth of the slanders against the memory of Dorgon. (58) In each case, the reluctance to doubt may be related to the fact that constituted authority is involved. And Martini's respect for constituted authority may be related to his theological and ethical convictions. Martini seems to think that authority cannot be properly constituted without the providential help of God who cares for the well-being of all peoples. Consequently, as long as authority is 'constituted' it is thereby also legitimate' and under God's special providential design. Perhaps this is the reason why Martini practically never doubts the motivation of legitimate authorities. Today, however, we are aware that such a way of thinking is a kind of "theological short-circuit". God wants his people to supervise its authorities, not to trust them too generously, because "power tends to corrupt". These limitations notwithstanding, however, Martino Martini's chronicle successfully shares in history's mission to be magistra vitae.

3.5 I must admit that possibly I have dwelt too long on the analysis of Martino Martini's historical judgments. After all, the value of a chronicler for history lies more in the factuality of his or her reports rather than in his or her value judgments. Martini himself is aware of this and so several times he points out that he personally witnessed the events he narrates. (59) At other times he tells us the source of his information. (60) Moreover, he is careful to indicate how far his information extends. Often he ends an account by practically saying: "This is what I know for sure. How events have further developed I don't know." (61) Martini shows himself well-informed also about what happened in the thirty years before his arrival in China, that is, before the year 1643. He had done his research work well, painstakingly and meticulously, that is, with the same scientific attitude that inspires his other works. Only by relying on more direct witnesses can one challenge some of his statements. (62) By now, therefore, I think we can confidently assert that Martini's qualifications as a chronicler are impeccable. Further, is he "a chronicler with a purpose"? Again, I think by now it is clear that we can reply: yes. But this purpose is the inescapable purpose of all true history, namely, to be a report of the past that opens the way to the future by pointing to the enduring validity, for man's dignity, of moral absolutes and of social justice under God.

3.6 In conclusion, we may say that Martino Martini is the kind of chronicler that historiography needs to obtain an adequate view of an era. Martini has only rarely been referred to in later European historiography of China. "This is perhaps due to the fact that he was the earliest European chronicler of the events of the Ming-Qing watershed and his accounts very soon entered into other better known presentations of Chinese history. (63) With regard to Chinese historians, Ma Yong states that the De bello tartarico "is of first-hand historical value and it is not ignored by Chinese scholars who are interested in the Qing dynasty." (64) Besides being a precious primary source for historians, I think Martino Martini can also be a model for contemporary chroniclers. Contemporary historians cannot dispense with the help of chroniclers of Martini's stature. Such chroniclers assist the historian to see things from the point of view of ordinary people. Only with an abundance of such chroniclers will history not be 'royal' or 'dynastic' or 'elitist' history, but truly what it should be, a "history of the people."



  


50. "Fu vera gloria? Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza!" Ode "5 maggio" by Alessandro Manzoni, poet and novelist. Manzoni's The Betrothed (I promessi sposi) is the greatest novel in Italian literature.

51. Ma Yong, 256.

52. Histoire, 387, 395.

53. Ibidem, 416-417, 436.

54. Ibidem, 446.

55. Ibidem, 315.

56. Cf. Ibidem, 382-383, 386, 444-445, 456, 458.

57. Ibidem, 448. It seems to me that Ma Yong somehow underestimates the depth of Martino Martini's moral and religious convictions when he says: "when taking sides, his main criterion was faithfulness to the Roman Curia." (Ma Yong, 257) On the other hand, Ma Yong is right in perceiving that fidelity to the Roman Pontiff is for Martini an ethical and religious imperative.

58. Histoire, 394, 454-455.

59. Histoire, 413, 418, 441.

60. Ibidem, 428. 446, 456, 457.

61. Histoire, 425, 426, 436, 444, 445, 454, 455.

62. This is what Pierre Joseph D'Orleans does regarding the response of the old father of Ming general Wu San Gui (1612-1678) to Li Zi Cheng's blackmail. Martini relates that Wu San Gui's father gave in to Li Zi Cheng's pressures (Histoire, 406-407). Pierre Joseph D'Orleans, instead, relying on the more direct witness of Adam Schall, has this to say: "This is the account which father Adam's letters give of the transaction; by which it is evident that the father Martini's recollections were not so exact, for he relates that Us [Wu San Gui's father] showed symptoms of weakness and entreated his son to submit to the tyrant. The father Adam, who was in the country, and even in the capital, at the time, is the more credible of the two." (D'Orleans, History, 17-18).

63. So, for example, one third of the first thirty pages of D'Orleans' History is an almost direct translation from Martini's De bello tartarico. D'Orleans acknowledges his debt to Martini in the Preface thus: "I follow in many things the fathers Martini and de Rougemont; but more especially the letters of father Adam Schall [...]." (History, iv) Another interesting use made of Martini's 'History' is the (Abdallae Beidavaei) Hisloria Sinensis. Persice e gemino Manuscripto edita, Latine quoque reddita ab Andrea Mullero Greiffenhagio. Accedunt eiusdem Notae nwrginales...Harmonia Abdallianae & Martinianae. caeterneque Europaeis traditae Historiae Sinensis perpetuis testimoniis ob oculos ponitur. Berolini, Typis Christophori Rungii, Anno MDCLXXVII, expressa, nunc vero una cunri additainentis edita ab Antonio filio. Quovultdeo Abrahain Mullero. Jenae, Prostat apud Johannern Bielkivm, 1689. This volume is no. 710 in the Section Latine of the Catalogue de la Bibliotheque du Pe-Tang (Pekin: Imprimerie des Lazaristes 1949). A copy of this Catalogue is kept in the library of the Interregional Catholic Major Seminary of Sheshan (Shanghai).