How Fake Is Church History?

罗马教会的历史有多假
......接上篇

The fake autobiography of the Latin Church

伪造的罗马天主教会自传

It should now be clear that the very concept of a Gregorian “reform” is a disguise for the revolutionary character of the reformers’ project; “the idea that Gregorians were rigorous traditionalists is a serious oversimplification,” argue John Meyendorff and Aristeides Papadakis; “the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction.” In fact, before the twelfth century, “the pope’s fragile hold upon Western Christendom was largely imaginary. The parochial world of Roman politics was actually the papacy’s only domain.”[15] Aviad Kleinberg even argues that, “until the twelfth century, when the pope’s status was imposed as the ultimate religious authority in matters of education and jurisdiction, there was not really an organization that could be called ‘the Church’.”[16] There certainly were no “popes” in the modern sense before the end of the eighth century: this affectionate title, derived from the Greek papa, was given to every bishop. Even conventional history speaks of the period of the “Byzantine papacy,” ending in 752 with the conquest of Italy by the Franks, and teaches that civil, military and even ecclesiastical affairs were then under the supervision of the exarch of Ravenna, the Greek representative of the Byzantine Emperor.[17]

现在应该清楚的是，格里高利“改革”的概念本身是改革者计划的革命性质的伪装,约翰·梅恩多夫和阿里斯蒂德斯·帕帕达基斯认为："主张格列高利教皇是严谨的传统主义者是一种严重的过度简化，传统的结论认为格里高利教徒是一贯的统一传统的捍卫者，这在很大程度上是虚构的。”事实上，在十二世纪以前，“教皇对西方基督教的脆弱控制很大程度上也是虚构的，教皇唯一能控制的只有罗马政界这一小块狭隘的领域。”Aviad Kleinberg甚至提出了这个观点，“直到12世纪，当教皇的地位被确立为教育和司法方面的最高宗教权威之前，并没有一个真正的组织可以被称为‘教会’。
”在八世纪末之前，确实没有现代意义上的“教皇（pope)”：每个主教都被授予这个亲切的称号，这个称号来自希腊语“爸爸(papa)”。甚至传统的历史也提到了“拜占庭教皇(papacy)时期”，这个时期结束于公元752年法兰克人占领意大利，传统历史中还说，公民，军队，甚至神职事务都由拜占庭皇帝的希腊代表，派驻意大利那文纳的总督监督。

This means that the first-millennium history of the Western Church written by itself is a complete sham. One of its centerpieces, the Liber Pontificalis, a book of biographies of the popes from saint Peter to the ninth century, is today recognized as a work of imagination. It served to ascertain the pope’s claim to occupy the “the throne of saint Peter” in an unbroken chain going back to the first apostle — the “rock” on which Jesus built his kingdom (Matthew 16,18).

这意味着西方教会自己所写的第一个千年的历史是完全虚假的。它的核心典籍之一《教宗名录》是一本从圣彼得直到九世纪的教皇的传记，今天被认为是一部全凭想象力的作品。它用来使人确信，教皇声称的传袭于“圣彼得的宝座”，是在一条一脉相承的链条上并可追溯至第一位使徒——耶稣建立他王国的“磐石”(马太福音16,18)。
【译注，耶稣将教会建立在磐石上的“磐石”是指彼得，还是其它，历史上观点分歧较大。有一种观点是耶稣说彼得是磐石，他将建立他的教会在这磐石上，耶稣这里似乎语意双关： “你是彼得，我要把我的教会建造在这磐石上。”因为彼得的名字就是“磐石”的意思。】
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


As the story goes, in the second year of Claudius, Peter went to Rome to challenge Simon Magus, the father of all heretical sects. He became the first Catholic bishop and was crucified head downwards in the last year of Nero, then buried where St. Peter’s Basilica now stands (his bones were found there in 1968). That story appears in the works of Clement of Rome, the fictional travelling companion and successor of Peter, whose prolific literature in Latin contains so many improbabilities, contradictions and anachronisms that most of it is today recognized as apocryphal and renamed “pseudo-clementine”. Peter’s story is also the theme of the Acta Petri, supposedly written in Greek in the second century but surviving only in Latin translation. It is also told by Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202 AD), another author supposedly writing in Greek but known only through defective Latin translations.

故事是这样的，在克劳逖一世在位的第二年【译注，克劳逖一世公元41年即位于罗马】，彼得去罗马挑战异教之父，行邪术的西门【译注，西门为圣经人物】，他成为了第一位天主教主教，在尼禄皇帝在位的最后一年被头朝下钉死在十字架上【译注，尼禄于公元54-68年在位】，然后被埋葬在圣彼得大教堂现在所在的地方(1968年在那里发现了他的骨骸)。这个故事出现在罗马人克莱门特的作品中，他是一个虚构的彼得的旅伴和继承人，其多产的拉丁语文学作品中包含了非常之多的不可能之事、自相矛盾和时代错乱，绝大多数在今天被认为是伪书，并重新命名其为“假克莱门特”。
彼得的故事也是《佩特里学报》的主题，这个文件据说是在公元2世纪用希腊文写成的，但仅存拉丁语译文。里昂的依勒内(约公元130-202年)也讲述过这个故事，据说他是另一位用希腊文写作的作家，但人们只能通过有缺陷的拉丁文翻译了解他的作品。

There is no reason to take that story as reliable history. It is self-evident propaganda. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the New Testament, which says nothing of Peter’s travel to Rome, and assumes that he simply remained the head of the Jerusalem church. The legend of saint Peter in Rome tells us nothing about real events, but informs us about the means deployed by the Roman curia to steal the birthright from the Eastern Church. It is fake currency minted to overbid on Constantinople’s genuine claim that the unity of the Church had been achieved in its immediate vicinity, at the so-called “ecumenical” councils (Oikouménê designated the civilized world under the authority of the basileus), whose participants were exclusively oriental.

没有理由把这个故事当作可靠的历史，不言而喻，它就是宣传，而且，它与新约全书不一致，新约全书中没有提到彼得去了罗马，并认为他只是继续担任耶路撒冷教会的领袖。罗马的圣彼得传说没有告诉我们任何真实的事件，而是让我们明白了罗马教廷用来从东方教会窃取正当名分的手段。这种造假行为旨在针对君士坦丁堡的真实主张作漫天要价，君士坦丁堡在所谓的“普世基督教”会议上主张的统一教会的范围在其邻近地区（Oikouménê指定为希腊皇帝巴塞勒斯统治下的文明世界)，与会者都是东方人。

Although we cannot delve here into the editorial history of the New Testament, it is interesting to note that the story of Paul’s travel to Rome also bears the mark of falsification. If we remember that the Byzantines called themselves “Romans”, we are intrigued by the fact that, in his “Epistle to the Romans” (written in Greek), Paul calls the Romans “Greeks” to distinguish them from Jews (1,14-15; 3,9). Moreover, if we look up on a map the cities addressed by Paul in other epistles — Ephesus, Corinth, Galata, Philipae, Thessaloniki (Salonica), Colossae — we see that Italian Rome was not part of his sphere of influence. Paul’s trip to Rome in Italy in Acts 27-28 (where Italy is explicitly named) belongs to the “we section” of Acts, which is recognizably foreign to the first redaction.

虽说我们不能在这里钻研新约所编撰的历史，但有趣的是，保罗的罗马之行的故事也有伪造的痕迹，我们应该还记得拜占庭人称自己为"罗马人"，令人好奇的是，在他用希腊文写的《罗马人书》中，保罗将罗马人称为“希腊人”，以区别于犹太人(1,14-15;3、9)。此外，如果我们在地图上查找保罗在其他书信中提到的城市--以弗所、科林斯、加拉塔，菲利亚，塞萨洛尼基(萨洛尼卡)，科洛塞--可以看到意大利的罗马并不在他的影响范围之内，《使徒行传》27-28章中的保罗的意大利罗马之行属于使徒行传的“我们部分”，这和它的首次修订完全不同。

Our main source for the early history of the Church is Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History in ten volumes. Like so many other sources, it was supposedly written in Greek, but was known in the Middle Ages only in Latin translation (from which it was later translated back into Greek). Its Latin translation was attributed to the great saint and scholar Jerome (Hieronymus). Saint Jerome also produced, at the request of Pope Damasus, the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate, which would be decreed the sole authorized version at the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century.

教会早期历史的主要资料来源是尤西比乌斯的十卷本《教会史》，和许多其他原文一样，它据说是用希腊文写的，但在中世纪只有拉丁译文(后来被翻译回希腊文)。它的拉丁语翻译归功于伟大的圣人和学者杰罗姆(希罗尼穆斯)，圣杰罗姆还应罗马教皇达马苏的要求，创作了拉丁文圣经，也就是公认的拉丁圣经通行本，它是16世纪中期的特伦特大公会议的唯一授权版本。
【译注，尤西比乌斯[Eusebius]（约 260—340），生于巴勒斯坦，当选为恺撒里亚的主教，是基督教史学的奠基人。著有《编年史》、《基督教会史》和《君士坦丁传》等，影响很大。他被称为“教会史”之父和拜占庭的第一位历史学家】
【译注，杰罗姆，也译作哲罗姆，约340年－420年，是古代西方教会的圣经学者，他完成了圣经拉丁文译本《武加大译本》。哲罗姆很早就显露出对藏书的热情，并建立了古典晚期最卓著的私人图书馆；他在罗马接受教育，去莱茵河边寻求仕途，并在皈依苦修理念后前往叙利亚的荒漠地区苦行，晚年时（386年－420年）定居于耶稣的出生地伯利恒，过着苦修隐居的生活】
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Eusebius is our main source on the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. Two panegyrics of Constantine have been preserved, and they make no mention of Christianity. Instead, one contains the story of a vision Constantine had of the sun-god Apollo, “with Victory accompanying him.” From then on, Constantine placed himself under the protection of Sol invictus, also called Sol pacator on some of his coins.[18] What Eusebius writes in his Life of Constantine about the battle of the Milvian Bridge is obviously a rewriting of that earlier pagan legend. When marching on Rome to overthrow Maxentius, Constantine “saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, ‘by this sign, you shall win’.” The following night, Christ appeared to him in his dream to confirm the vision. Constantine had all his troops paint the sign on their shields and won the battle. Eusebius describes the sign as the Greek letters Chi and Rho superimposed, and tells us it represents the first two letters of Christos. This Chi-Rho sign is found in a great variety of mosaic and reliefs up to the time of Justinian, and it is especially common in the Pyrenean region, often with the addition of a sigma, as documented in this monography.[19] Some hypothesize that it carried in pagan time the meaning pax. Whether that is the case or not, there is no evidence that the Chi-Rho was of Christian origin.

在君士坦丁皇帝皈依基督教这个事件上，尤西比乌斯是主要的资料来源，君士坦丁的两篇颂词被保留了下来，但都没有提到基督教。反而，一篇的内容是君士坦丁对太阳神阿波罗产生幻想的故事，“胜利与他相伴”。从那之后，君士坦丁把自己置于不可征服的索尔的保护之下，他的一些硬币上也有索尔。
尤西比乌斯在《君士坦丁传》中写的关于米尔维安大桥之战的内容很明显改编自早期的异教传说，当君士坦丁向罗马进军打算推翻马克森提乌斯时，他“亲眼看到在天国有一个十字架标志在太阳的光芒中出现，传递着这样的信息:‘凭此标志，你将获胜’。”第二天晚上，基督出现在他的梦中，证实了他所见的异象。君士坦丁让军队在盾牌上画了这个标志，赢得了这场战斗。
尤西比乌斯把这个标志描述为希腊字母X和P的重叠，并告诉我们它代表基督名字的头两个字母的。直到查士丁尼时代，这个XP符号在各种各样的马赛克镶画和浮雕中都有发现，它在比利牛斯地区特别常见，而且通常加上一个Σ(西格玛)，有些人推测它在非基督时代具有和平的含义【译注，pax意为和平女神】,不管是不是这样，并没有证据表明XP标志起源于基督教。
【米尔维安大桥之战发生于公元312年10月28日,交战双方为罗马帝国的君士坦丁一世和马克森提乌斯。是役之名来源于战役的发生地米尔维安大桥，它是台伯河上的重要桥梁，君士坦丁赢得了这场战役的胜利，使得他能在后来废除四帝共治成为罗马帝国的唯一君主，马克森提乌斯在交战时溺毙于河中，按照尤西比乌和拉克坦修斯等编年史学家的说法，这场战役标志着君士坦丁皈依基督教的开始。拉克坦修斯提到,上帝向君士坦丁及其部下托梦，允诺只要他们把十字架涂在他们的盾牌上他们就会胜利。君士坦丁凯旋门的建造即是为了庆祝这场胜利。人们常常把这场战役的胜利归功于教会的介入，不过，这座凯旋门上却没有任何基督教标志】




What does Chi-Rho have to do with Christ?

XP与基督有什么关系？

I hope to have shown that there is ample cause for radical skepticism regarding the autobiography of the Roman Church. It is not just legal documents that were forged. The whole underlying narrative could be phony. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, one man, Jesuit librarian Jean Hardouin (1646-1729), spent a lifetime researching and questioning Church history, until he came to the conclusion of a massive fraud originating in Benedictine monasteries in the thirteenth century. His conclusions were published posthumously in Ad Censuram Veterum scxtorum Prolegomena (1766). According to Hardouin, all the works ascribed to Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan, and Gregory the Great, were in fact written just decades before the cunning Boniface VIII (1294-1303) promoted them as the “Latin Fathers of the Church.” Eusebius’ history translated by Jerome is a web of fiction according to Hardouin.

我想我已清楚表明，有充分的理由对罗马教会的自传提出根本性的怀疑。伪造的不仅仅是法律文件，甚至整个底层叙事都是假的。在17世纪晚期和18世纪早期，有一个人名叫让·哈都因(1646-1729)，他是耶稣会的图书馆长，花了一生的时间研究和研究质疑教会历史, 最后他发现了一个源自13世纪本笃会修道院的大规模骗局，他的结论在他死后发表在《圣经前传》中（1766年），根据哈都因的说法，所有奥古斯丁、杰罗姆、米兰的安布罗斯和格里高利一世教皇等人名下的作品，实际上在它们被狡诈的卜尼法斯八世教皇(1294-1303)推崇为“教会的拉丁教父”的几十年之前，才被写了下来。根据哈都因的说法，杰罗姆翻译尤西比乌的史书的说法都是虚构的。

The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin were translated in English in the nineteenth century by Edwin Johnson (1842-1901), who built up on Hardouin’s insights in his own works, starting with The Rise of Christendom (1890), followed one year later by The Rise of English Culture. Johnson argued for a medi origin of most literary sources ascribed to Antiquity or Late Antiquity, and insisted that the whole first-millennium history of the Roman Church was fabricated by the Roman curia in its effort to impose its new world order.

19世纪，埃德温·约翰逊(1842-1901)将让·哈都因的《绪论》翻译成英语，他在自己的作品中融合了哈都因的见解，首先，他发表了《基督教的崛起》(1890)，一年后发表了《英国文化的崛起》。约翰逊认为，大多数所谓古代或古代晚期的文学作品都源自于中世纪，罗马教会的第一千年历史是由罗马天主教廷捏造的，目的是把它的新世界秩序强加于世人。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


The medi origin of these texts, Johnson says, explains why their supposed authors are fighting heresies that so much resemble the heresies fought by the medi Church. The Manicheans and Gnostics attacked by Tertullian, Augustine and Irenaeus of Lyon are like the ghosts of those attacked under the same denominations by twelfth and thirteenth-century popes. According to Patricia Stirnemann, the oldest manuscxt of Augustine’s Contra Faustus, written and preserved in the abbey of Clairvaux, is the witness of the struggle against “the resurgence of a neo-manicheism in the 12th century” (she doesn’t question the authorship of the work, but gives us additional reason to do so).[20]

约翰逊说，这些文本的中世纪起源解释了为什么说它们可能的作者是在对抗异端邪说，这与中世纪天主教会与异教的斗争非常相似。如同被德尔图良攻击的摩尼教徒和诺斯底派，而当年的奥古斯丁和里昂的艾勒内就如同受到12和13世纪的教皇的教派攻击的游魂野鬼。根据Patricia Stirnemann的说法，奥古斯丁的《反浮士德》最早的手稿是在法国克莱沃大修道院写成并收藏的，它见证了与“12世纪新摩尼教复兴”的斗争(她没有质疑作品的作者，但给了我们更多的理由去这样做)
【译注，诺斯底派是指公元2-3世纪盛行于古罗马的宗教与哲学运动，基督教早期的三大异端之一】
【译注，德尔图良，生于古罗马的迦太基城（今突尼斯附近），是罗马帝国驻北非军队的一个百夫长的儿子，原是异教徒，约于195年皈依基督教，被誉为基督教的第一个护教者】
【译注，奥古斯丁，354-430年，出生于罗马帝国统治下的北非努米底亚王国，基督教早期神学家，教会博士，以及新柏拉图主义哲学家，曾经是一名摩尼教徒。其思想影响了西方基督教教会和西方哲学的发展，并间接影响了整个西方基督教会，重要的作品包括：《上帝之城》《基督教要旨 》和《忏悔录》】

The context of the Latin colonization of the East by the crusaders is transparent in many spurious sources from Late Antiquity, according to Johnson. Jerome’s biography is a case in point: “he is made to travel from Aquileia to Rome, and from Rome to Bethlehem and to Egypt. He settles at Bethlehem, is followed by Roman ladies, who found there a nunnery, and there he dies. This is a reflection of something that was happening during the later Crusades.”[21] The same goes for Constantine: the legend of his military conquest by the sign of the Crucified bears the mark of the age of the crusades, “when military men came under monkish influence.”[22]

拉丁人通过十字军东征在东方殖民的内容在许多古代晚期的虚假资料中是一眼可见，约翰逊以杰罗姆的传记为例:“他被迫从阿奎利亚到罗马，从罗马到伯利恒，再到埃及，他在伯利恒定居，罗马妇女们跟随着他，她们在那里发现了一座女修道院，他在那里去世。这反映的是十字军东征后期发生的一些事情。”君士坦丁也一样，他的传奇军队借助十字架标志克敌致胜，标志着十字军时代的到来，“在修士的影响下军人们出发了”。

If all first-millennium Church history is bogus, how can we reconstruct the real history of the Church before the Gregorian reform? Johnson says there was no Western Christianity then: the Western Church was “a purely Media institution, without either literary or oral lixs with the past,” and its fables “were not heard of in the world until the epoch of the Crusades.”[23] A less radical hypothesis is that Christianity only became a dominant force in the West with the Gregorian reform. In any case, there is ample evidence that it imposed its religious hegemony not so much by the destruction of pagan traditions as by their appropriation. The cult of Notre Dame, which owes much to Bernard de Clairvaux (1090–1153), was superimposed on cults of Diane and Isis.

如果第一个千年的教会历史都是假的，我们如何能够重建格里高利改革之前的教会的真实历史? 约翰逊说，当年还没有西方基督教:西方教会是“一个纯粹的中世纪机构，与过去没有文学或口头上的关联”，它们的宗教故事“在十字军东征时代以前，在世界上听都没听说过。”一个不那么激进的假设是，基督教只是在格里高利改革之后才成为西方世界的主导力量， 有充分的证据表明，在很多情况下,它所强加的宗教霸权对异教传统的破坏并不如对异教传统的占有那么普遍，比如对巴黎圣母院的狂热就如同对黛安娜与对ISIS的崇拜的叠加。

What the Gregorian reformers did was rewrite history in order to create the illusion that Christianity was 1000 years old in Europe. Not all sources were written from scratch. Many were simply heavily edited. One example is the Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede the Venerable (672-735). James Watson has shown that it was originally a History of the English People with no mention of Christianity; it was heavily interpolated during the tenth century, Watson says, when “most of the ecclesiastical notices in the work have been engrafted with the original history.”[24] A somewhat different case is the Christianization of Boethius (c. 480-524), turned into a Christian theologian and martyr at the time of Abélard, although his famous Consolation of Philosophy doesn’t contain the slightest mention of his supposed Christian faith.

格里高利教皇时期的改革者所做的就是改写历史，以制造基督教在欧洲已有1000年历史的假象。并非所有的资料都是从零开始写作的，有许多只是经过了大幅修改。一个例子是可敬的比德所著的《英国人的教会史》(672-735)，詹姆斯·沃森已经证明它最初是英国人的历史，没有提到基督教，在十世纪，它被插入和篡改了大量的内容，沃森说，当时“教会的大多数告谕都被植入到历史原文之中去了。”另一个有点不同的例子是波伊提乌(约480-524)的基督教化，他变成了一名基督教神学家，尽管他著名的《哲学的安慰》中丝毫没有提到他所谓的基督教信仰。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


As for the History of the Franks, supposedly written at the end of the sixth century by Gregory of Tours, and virtually our only source on Clovis’ conversion to Catholicism, it is most probably a clerical forgery from the Gregorian period, possibly using earlier sources. It is interesting to note that our pseudo-Gregory of Tours (perhaps Odilo of Cluny, who wrote a Life of Gregory) believed it possible for a medi power to orchestrate the systematic rewriting of all books: he writes that King Childeric introduced new signs into the Latin alphabet, and “wanted all the old manuscxts to be erased with pumice stone, to make other copies, where the new signs would be used” (chapter IV).[25]

至于《法兰克人的历史》，据说是由法国图尔人格列高利在六世纪末写的，也是我们了解法兰克国王克洛维改信天主教的唯一资料，它八成是教皇格里高利时期的神职人员的伪造品，可能使用了早期的原文资料。有趣的是，图尔的伪格列高利(也许是克吕尼修道院的奥德罗--《格列高利传》的作者)相信，中世纪的当权者可以有组织地系统性改写所有的书籍，他写道，柴尔德里克国王把新符号引入了拉丁字母表，并且“想要用浮石擦除所有的旧手稿的内容，使用新符号制作新的副本。”
【译注，克洛维，466年 - 511年，法兰克王国奠基人、国王，后来皈依基督教】

Chroniclers of the eleventh century are important sources for understanding the Christianization of Europe. Thietmar of Merseburg spoke in his Chronicon of a new dawn illuminating the world in 1004, and the French monk Rodulfus Glaber wrote:

11世纪的编年史学家是理解欧洲基督教化的重要资料来源，德国默塞堡的蒂亚马尔在他的编年纪事中说到，一个新黎明的光芒在1004年照亮了世界，法国修士罗道夫斯·葛雷博写道:

“At the approach of the third year after the year 1000, in almost all the earth, especially in Italy and in Gaul, the churches were rebuilt. Although they were in a good state and did not need it, the whole Christian people competed for possession of the most beautiful churches. And it was as if the world itself, shaking the rags of its old age, covered itself on all sides with a white mantle of churches. Then, at the initiative of the faithful, almost all the churches, from the cathedrals to the monasteries dedicated to the various saints, and down to small village oratories, were rebuilt, only more beautifully” (book IV, §13).[26]

“在跨入公元1000年之后的第三年时，几乎在全世界，特别是在意大利和高卢，教堂都在重建。虽然他们的状态良好，并不需要这样，整个基督教民族都在为拥有最美丽的教堂而竞争。仿佛这个世界自己要抖落它那陈旧的破衣衫，将教堂的白色斗篷覆盖全身。然后，在信徒的倡议下，几乎所有的教堂，从大教堂到修道院都奉献给了各种各样的圣徒，甚至连乡村的小教堂都得以重建，只是更加美丽了”

Since Rodulfus writes under Cluniac supervision (he dedicates his work to the abbot of Cluny Odilo), we must be wary of his claim that what appeared new was in fact old, for this was the pretense of the Gregorian “reformers”. Because he says the churches were “in a good state”, their “rebuilding” may be an understatement for their rededication to a new cult. Gregory the Great (590-604), who seems to be a duplicate of Gregory VII, is reported to have recommended that pagan temples be exorcised and reused for Christian worship, and many local traditions in France assert that Romanesque churches were originally pre-Christian sanctuaries.[27] As for the “basilicas”, their name derives from a Greek word designating a royal building, more precisely a chamber of justice under the authority of the basileius. Textbook history says that, as the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, the basic architectural plan of the basilica was adopted for major church buildings throughout Europe, but that explanation has the ring of a flinch.

由于罗道夫斯是在克吕尼修道会的监督下写作的(他把他的作品献给克吕尼修道院院长奥德罗)，我们必须警惕，他所说的新面貌其实是旧的，这是为格里高利“改革者”创造的借口。因为他说教堂“状态良好”，所谓“重建”可能是为把它们重新奉献给一个新的狂热教派故作轻描淡写。格里高利大教皇(590-604)似乎是格里高利七世的复制品，据说，他曾建议对异教寺庙进行驱魔，供基督徒使用敬拜,法国许多地方传统认为，罗马式教堂最初是前基督教时期的庇护所，至于“巴西利卡式教堂”，他们的名字来源于希腊文，指的是皇家建筑，更准确地说，是巴塞勒斯统治下的法庭【译注，巴塞勒斯是东罗马帝国统治者的希腊语称呼，意为帝王，巴西利卡与巴塞勒斯词源一致】。历史教科书上说，罗马帝国采用基督教为国教时，长方形教堂的基本建筑方案就被欧洲各地的主要教堂采用，但这种解释有一种回避的意味。


The Byzantine Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna

意大利那文纳的拜占庭巴西利卡式圣维塔莱大教堂

In reality, Western Christianity was in its infancy in the year 1000 AD. As for its birth in the East, it is shrouded in mystery, for whatever genuine Greek source could inform us has either been destroyed or heavily edited. The subject is beyond the scope of this article, but let us simply ask: Is it conceivable that the great basilica built by Justinian in the sixth century was dedicated to Christianity and named Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom)? Sophia is the goddess of philosophers, not priests, and no “saint Sophie” promoted by Jacques de Voragine in the thirteenth century can hide that fact. Edwin Johnson argued that Christianity and Islam were born in the same period. A case can be made that Hagia Sophia was Christianized during the reign of the iconoclast basileus Leo III the Isaurian (717-741), when it was stripped of all its icons and sculptural work, or in 842, when it was redecorated.

事实上，公元1000年时，西方基督教还处于婴儿期。在它从东方的诞生之日起就一直笼罩在神秘之中，因为任何能提供信息给我们的真实希腊文原件不是被毁就是被严重改写。下面这个问题超出了本文的范围，但让我们简单地问一下：可以想象君士查丁堡的大教堂是在六世纪由查士丁尼建造并奉献给基督教的吗，而且命名为圣索菲亚大教堂(索菲亚意为神圣的智慧)? 索菲娅是哲学女神，不是牧师，也不是“圣女索菲娅”哦。在十三世纪由雅克·德·沃拉贡提出的观点掩盖了这一事实。埃德温·约翰逊认为基督教和伊斯兰教诞生于同一时期，这是有道理的，圣索菲亚教堂是在反对拜物的东罗马皇帝，伊萨里亚人利奥三世(717-741)统治期间被基督教化的，当时它被夺走了所有的圣像和雕塑，当它被重新装修时，已是842年前后了。

We have now reached a point where one of the working hypotheses of our first article can be reconsidered: although French scholar Polydor Hochart was fully justified to question the prevailing theory that Christian monks copied pagan books on precious parchments,[28] we must consider the alternative theory that those who copied in the ninth to eleventh centuries the manuscxts that humanists discovered in the fourteenth century were actually not Christians. This will become clearer in our the next.

我们现在已经到了这个地步，可以重新考虑我们第一篇文章中的一个假设了:尽管法国学者波利多·霍查特完全有理由对主流理论认为的基督教修士在珍贵的羊皮纸上誊抄异教书籍提出质疑，我们必须考虑另一种理论，人文主义者在14世纪发现的手稿，其9至11世纪的抄写者实际上不是基督教徒。这将在下一篇文章中变得更清晰。
（全文完）

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处