本文透過挑戰傳統且常具誤導性的「聶斯多略派」標籤,重新評 估東方敘利亞教會（亦稱「東方教會」— 在東亞歷史上被稱為「景 教」）的歷史與神學身分。透過對敘利亞文史學及吐魯番出土殘卷的 跨學科分析,筆者論證「聶斯多略派」一詞實為羅馬帝國境內的外來 稱謂與貶義標籤,未能反映「東方教會」的主體性與思想根基。
本文前半部探討東敘利亞教會於薩珊帝國境內所展現的制度性 史學意義上的獨立性。透過分析東方主教會議的文獻以及巴爾哈德-沙巴（Barḥadbshabbā）的著作,特別是《創建學派的緣由》（The Cause of the Foundation of the Schools）,本研究證實,該教派的傳承並非圍 繞聶斯多略（Nestorius）而建構,而是以被稱為「詮釋者」的莫普蘇埃 斯提亞的西奧多（Theodore of Mopsuestia）為核心。這套「西奧多派」 教義為波斯境內的教會帶來了一種神學,其重點在於對《聖經》的歷史詮釋以及透過塵世的進步; 而尼西比斯學派則以一種主觀且富有 創造性的方式繼承了這項遺產,這明顯區別於羅馬教會對基督論的 關注。
本文後半部分旨在證實這些教義在中亞的傳承及其後續的文化 適應。透過考察在吐魯番發現的《聖詠》粟特語與中波斯語譯本,作 者指出,傳統《七十賢士譯本》的標題所採用的「寓言式」詮釋,已被 新「西奧多派」的標題所取代,因為這些標題反映出歷史性詮釋的框 架和植根於新環境的全新「禱告詞」。此外,對這些殘篇的語言學分析 — 例如粟特術語 əktān（ī意指業力中的「行為」）的運用,以及中波斯語中kirbakka（r 「行善者」）與 bazzakka（r 「作惡者」）所體現的倫 理二元論 — 揭示了一種微妙的「主觀適應」過程。
本文結論指出,東敘利亞教會 ／景教不應被視為羅馬基督宗教的 異端分支,而應被理解為「東方教會」發展軌跡的巔峰：一個將西奧 多教義融入其古老根基、促進內部成長,並堅定不移地將其宗教實 踐適應於波斯、粟特及中國文化。

This article re-evaluates the historical and theological identity of the East Syriac Church, also called the “Church of the East”—historically known in East Asia as “Jingjiao” (景教: the “Luminous Religion”)—by challenging the conventional and often misleading label of “Nestorianism.” Through an interdisciplinary analysis of Syriac historiography and fragmentary manuscripts from Turfan, the author argues that the term “Nestorian” is an exonym and a pejorative label coined within the Roman Empire, which fails to reflect the agency and intellectual foundations of the “Church of the East.”
The first half of the paper examines the institutional and historiographical independence of the East Syriac Church within the Sasanian Empire. By analyzing the texts of the oriental synods and the works of Barḥadbshabbā, specifically The Cause of the Foundation of the Schools, the study demonstrates that the community’s lineage was constructed not around Nestorius, but around Theodore of Mopsuestia, called “the Interpreter”. This “Theodorian” Teaching brought to the churches in the Persian Territory a theology that focused on historical interpretation of the Bible and progress through the temporal world, and the School of Nisibis inherited this legacy in a subjective and creative manner that was very distinct from the Christological preoccupations of the Roman Churches.
The second half provides some evidence for the transmission of these teachings and their subsequent cultural adaptation in Central Asia. By examining Sogdian and Middle Persian translations of the Psalms discovered in Turfan, the author highlights the replacement of traditional “allegorical” interpretation of Septuagint headings with new “Theodorian” headings that reflect a historical interpretive framework and new “Canons” rooted in a new environment. Furthermore, linguistic analysis of these fragments—such as the use of the Sogdian term əktānī (evoking karmic “deeds”) and the Middle Persian ethical dualism of kirbakkar (“Good-doer”) and bazzakkar (“Evil-doer”)—reveals a sophisticated process of “subjective adaptation.”
The paper concludes that the East Syriac Church/Jingjiao should be understood not as a heretical offshoot of Roman Christianity, but as the culmination of the “Eastern” trajectory: a community that integrated Theodorian teaching into its ancient foundations, fostered internal growth, and resolutely adapted its religious practice to the Persian, Sogdian, and Chinese cultural spheres.