No description available.

由於歷史和神學的複雜原因，自二十世紀後半葉至今的數十年時間里，正教神學經歷了一場十分可觀的復興，使得正教神學在國際學術界得到廣泛重視和熱烈的討論，其中尤為引人注目的是一嚮被視作正教特有的古老教義──成神論。它一經現代學者關注，便迅速發展成為普世教會對話的重要論題，為更多來自西方基督教傳統的神學家所研究。而現時，關於成神論的一個研究熱點就是發掘西方傳統中重要神學家思想中的成神論因素，或是探討其思想與成神論的關係。本研究關注的正是巴特（Karl Barth, 1886-1968）與成神論的關係。 / 現有對於巴特神學與成神論進行比較研究的文獻數量極少，而且存在著一個重要問題，即沒有能夠展現一個在規模上和深度上相當的成神論綜述，作為與巴特神學進行比較的參照。為解決這一問題本文選擇了洛斯基（VladimirLossky, 1903-1958）、茲茲奧拉斯（John Zizioulas）與斯塔尼萊（Dumitru Stăniloae,1903-1993）三位現代正教神學大家為代表，通過他們三人的神學來展現正教成神論的一個較為全面的風貌。 / 在這三位神學家中，洛斯基的神學主要繼承了聖帕拉瑪（St. Palamas,1296-1359）的思想，著力闡發上帝的神聖能力與神聖本質相區分的傳統教義，以此為進路通嚮成神論；茲茲奧拉斯則是以卡帕多西亞教父的論述的"位格"概念為核心，逐漸擺脫了神聖能力與神聖本質相區分的既定格局，發展出一種通過人與上帝的位格相遇而實現的成神論；斯塔尼萊作為一位集大成的正教神學家，在其巨著《正教教義神學》中系統展現了正教神學的全貌，說明了以人論、基督論、拯救論為主要支點的成神論，其實是正教教義神學的終極歸宿和總目標。 / 在考察過三位正教神學家的成神論思想后，轉入巴特的神學。針對與成神論關係密切相關的論題，著重考察巴特的基督論、人論，以及基於這二者的救贖論，並與東正教相對應問題的比較。通過比較最終發現，雖然兩者間在某些論題確實存在著難以抹殺的分歧，但巴特神學以基督論為基礎建構起的人論則與東正教傳統有著顯著的親和力，尤其在對罪觀的闡述上，已然突破了東西傳統之間的壁壘，形成了具有普世意義的教義理論，說明巴特的拯救觀已然超出了傳統西方的救贖論模式，與正教成神論有趨同之勢。 / 最後，在對整個研究做出總結的基礎上，闡明本研究的內在動機和現實意義，即進一步推進漢語學界對東正教神學的了解和認識，進而改善因了解的片面性造成的、在漢語學界仍然存在的對基督宗教的成見。並通過說明東正教神學思想與中國傳統思想的親和性，展現東正教神學研究對於建構漢語神學的積極意義。 / Due to both historical and theological reasons, the Orthodox theological tradition underwent a significant revival during the past several decades. Some themes in the Orthodox tradition drew the attention of international academia. Among them, the ancient doctrine of deification is unquestionable the most attractive one, which quickly became an important topic in the ecumenical dialogue. Nowadays, one of the hot issues concerning the study of deification is the comparison between the Orthodox and Western understandings of theosis or deification. In this thesis, the relation between Karl Barth(1886-1968)'s theology and the Orthodox doctrine of deification will be explored. / There are only a small number of existing studies dedicated to the comparison between Barth and the Orthodox doctrine of deification, and they focused rather exclusively on Christology. In order to give a comprehensive and extensive comparison between Barth and the Orthodox doctrine of deification, this thesis choose three masters of modern Orthodox theology as the reference points for comparison, and they are V. Lossky(1903-1958), John Zizioulas, and D.Stăniloae(1903-1993). / Following St. Palamas(1296-1359), Lossky based his theology of deification on the distinction between divine energy and essence. Zizioulas inherited Cappadocian Fathers' thought, and explained deification in terms of personal encounter. Staniloae articulated a comprehensive Orthodox dogmatic theology with deification as the centre or key of the whole system, and took theological anthropology, Christology, and Soteriology as the three pillars of the doctrine of deification. / After exploring these three orthodox theologians' thought, the discussion will turn to Barth’s theology, especially his Christology, anthropology, and doctrine of salvation. We will find that Barth’s theological anthropology, which is oriented by his Christology, shows certain similarities to the anthropology in Eastern Orthodox theology, and they share similar understanding of unio hypostatica and communicatio idiomatum. Furthermore, Barth’s understanding of sin together with salvation is not only quite far away from the hamartiology prevalent in western theological tradition, which is focused on original sin and its redemption, but also comes closer to the Orthodox theological tradition. Though there are undeniable differences between Barth and Orthodox theology, there are also significant affinities between them on the issue of deification. / To the end of this study, this thesis will discuss the significance of the studies of Orthodox theology for the Chinese academica. It is foreseeable that a careful study of Orthodox theology will clear some of the misunderstandings of or even biases against Christianity prevalent in the Chinese-speaking world. Meanwhile, the studies of Orthodox theology can also contribute a lot to the construction of Sino-Christian Theology due to the similarities between Orthodox theology and traditional Chinese religious-philosophical thought. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 張少博. / Parallel title from added title page. / Thesis (Ph.D.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-137). / Abstracts also in English. / Zhang Shaobo.

This thesis presents an examination of the change in position of George (Gennadios) Scholarios on the question of the Union of the Roman and Eastern churches. The question I will address concerns the reason for Scholarios’ dramatic change of position from pro-Union to anti-Union, within a few years of the Council of Florence 1438-1439, where the Union of churches had been agreed. I will argue that Scholarios’ changed position on Union is best explained by political factors that influenced his decision, and was not simply governed by the theological questions debated at the Council of Florence. In Chapter One, the Introduction, I will introduce a critical analysis of the existing field of research, to set the thesis in the context of Scholarios scholarship that has previously been undertaken. In Chapter Two, Research Questions and Methodology, I will outline the scope of this thesis, discussing the crucial questions that need to be addressed and the method I will use to develop my arguments. In Chapter Three I examine the key cultural role that the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas played in the fifteenth century, and the extent to which Scholarios’ views were formed and shaped by this philosophical context. This chapter will argue that these philosophical influences provided the initial motivation that moved Scholarios towards Union. As the implications of such political aspirations warrant further investigation; I go on to examine Scholarios’ writings, not only on philosophy, but also on theology. I will explore whether the political guidance offered in taking up the study of philosophy was also to be discerned in the study of theology. In Chapter Four, I will examine how Aristotelian philosophy was deployed as an explanatory tool in interpretations of polemics, debates, and panegyric and rhetoric works of the period. I will suggest that Byzantine preambles, poems, sermons and theological panegyrics were also subject to general imperial legislation. In Chapter Five, I will argue that Scholarios’ study of Aristotelian philosophy allowed him to form a view of how the political future of the Empire might to be developed. I explore Scholarios’ visionary ideas of reform and contrast these with Plethon’s political perspective. I suggest that the acrimonious relationship between Scholarios and Plethon was due to their political and philosophical differences, which defined the way they viewed the future of the Empire. In Chapter Six, I argue that the primary key to comprehending the relationship between East and West lies in understanding the vested commercial interests. I argue the Byzantine state had deteriorated owing to foreign powers—the Italian city states, Catalonians, Franks and the Ottoman Turks—attempting to acquire and dominate the commercial and strategic political domains of the Eastern Roman Empire. This was initially driven by trade and commercial rivalry between the Latins; commercial interests also prompted the development of naval and military power by the Latins at the expense of the Eastern Roman Empire, which eventually left the Empire militarily and financially destitute. One result of this deterioration in the commercial and military power of the Empire was to allow the progressive rise in dominance of the Ottoman Turks. In light of the dangerous situation the Empire was facing, Scholarios—in the service of the imperial bureaucracy and under the dominance of the Emperor’s political policy—sought to solve the dilemma and reconstruct the Empire's political power. In Chapter Seven, I will argue that these political events, together with the political aspirations of Scholarios, led to his change of position from pro-Union to anti-Union. I will suggest that examination of the cultural, commercial and political influences in play leads to the conclusion that Scholarios’ pro-Union position was primarily motivated by the objective of obtaining military aid. When it became apparent that such aid was not forthcoming, his position changed from pro-Union to anti-Union, as it was politically expedient for him to do so in light of the growing dominance of the Ottoman Turks. I argue that Scholarios followed the political policy concerning pro-Unionism proposed by Dimitrios Kydonis, and it was not until the political event of the Battle of Varna in 1444, when the Latin military forces lost to the Ottoman Turks that Scholarios formally openly declared his anti-Union stance. In the conclusion, I will argue that, following my presentation of the evidence as outlined above, the political motivations constitute the strongest reasons for Scholarios’ decision to change his stance on the Union. This conclusion allows us to understand the vested commercial and political interests at stake, since the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine state), had deteriorated owing to the dominance of foreign powers. The ramifications are to be seen in the outcome of the Council of Florence where the Byzantines sought the aid from the West, but also demonstrated its dependency upon them. In the light of the growing power of the Ottoman Turks, the Emperor’s political policy sought to solve the dilemma and reconstruct the Empire's political power.

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 2006. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [61-63]).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 53-55).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, N.Y., 2002. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-67).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Trinity International University, 2002. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 402-420).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1977. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 67-68).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1989. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 49-50).

Thesis (B. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1973. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 113-115).