摩普绥提亚的狄奥多若（350-428）是安提阿学派著名解经学家，受到后世东叙利亚教会（包括中国景教教会）的尊崇。在他看来，解经需满足两个目标，即“单义性”和“整全性”。单义性是指词语在基础意义上保持同一的性质，整全性是指经节主题保持逻辑融贯的性质。狄奥多若认为两者密不可分。以往学者以修辞学进路重构狄奥多若的解经方法，这种进路虽然把握了其中的整全性目标，但却因其维护“图像整体性”而有轻视词语基础意义的倾向，未免会导致单义性目标的缺失。有鉴于此，本文提出一条新的、更为圆融的本体论进路：借助第一实体的优先性和奠基性来同时支撑两大解经目标，并且为“字意解经”与“寓意解经”的传统方法论之争提供新的评断维度。斯腾策尔等人在讨论古希腊哲学中的第一实体问题时，曾经涉及“最后的、最低的、不可再分的区分单元”这一本体论概念。这一概念强调了第一实体的优先性和奠基性的地位，因而可以为本论文重构狄奥多若的解经方法提供本体论的基础。在狄奥多若所使用的解经学术语中，“身相”（?ܢ?ܡ?）和“身位”（?ܪ?ܘ?ܐ）居于核心的地位。就本体论层次而言，上述两个概念都属于“最后的、最低的、不可再分的区分单元”，都表示个别或个体，并且在本体论上均居于优先和奠基的地位。正是两者在本体论上的奠基地位，一方面保证了词语基础意义的同一（即其“单义性”），另一方面又保证了经节主题的逻辑融贯（即其“整全性”）。狄奥多若依据不同的情境，援用“身相”和“身位”来达成不同的解经目标：首先，就“身相”而言，它表示第一实体在形而上学的奠基性，借助它可以奠定词语的基础意义。狄奥多若认为，凡是“实词”皆有其身相，它们在不同语境中维持基础意义的恒定，即能够维持其“单义性”。其次，就“身位”而言，它表示第一实体在逻辑上的奠基性，借助它可以实现经节主题的逻辑融贯性。狄奥多若认为，惟有采用具有身位的词语作为主词，才能保持其意义的稳定，并使属性得以统一、“事态”得以延展、经节主题得以融贯，从而维护其“整全性”。最后，借助于上述本体论进路，本论文又尝试重审狄奥多若与奥利金的解经方法之争。通过“logos”等词例的分析，本论文提出：上述解经方法之争乃是一场本体论意义上的争论；所谓“寓意解经”和“字意解经”之分歧，实则反映了双方对于“身”的不同理解。其实两种解经方法并非截然对立，而只是侧重点有所不同。

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) was a famous exegete of the Antiochian school, revered by the later Eastern Syriac Church (including the Chinese Jingjiao). In his view, there are two goals to be met in the Exegesis of the Bible, namely, "univocity" and "wholeness”. Univocity refers to the nature of the words to remain the same in their fundamental meaning, and wholeness refers to the nature of the verses’ theme to remain logically coherent. Theodore believes that the two are inextricably linked. Previous scholars have reconstructed Theodore's exegetical method by rhetorical approach. Although this approach captures the goal of wholeness, it tends to disregard the fundamental meaning of words because it maintains "iconic wholeness," which inevitably leads to the loss of the goal of univocity. In view of this, this dissertation proposes a new and more rounded ontological approach: to support the two major goals of exegesis simultaneously with the priority and foundation of the first substance, and to provide a new assessment of the traditional methodological debate between "literal exegesis" and "allegorical exegesis".In discussing the problem of the first substance in ancient Greek philosophy, Julius Stenzel and others have dealt with the ontological concept of the "last, lowest, indivisible unit of division". This concept emphasizes the priority and fundamental status of the first substance, thus provides the ontological basis for the reconstruction of Theodore’s approach to the exegesis in this dissertation. Among the exegetical terms used by Theodore, "Qnoma" (?ܢ?ܡ?) and "Parsopa" (?ܪ?ܘ?ܐ) undoubtedly played the key role. In terms of the ontological level, both of these concepts belong to the "last, lowest, indivisible unit of division", both denote the particular or the individual, both are ontologically prioritized and fundamentalized. It is the ontological foundation of both that guarantees the unity of the fundamental meaning of words (i.e., their "univocity") on the one hand, and the logical coherence of the hypothesis of the verses (i.e., its "wholeness") on the other.Theodore invokes the terms "Qnoma" and "Parsopa" in different contexts to achieve different goals of exegesis. Firstly, in the case of "Qnoma", it denotes the metaphysical foundationess of first Substance, by means of which the foundational meaning of words can be founded. Theodore argues that all "content words" have Qnoma, thus maintain the constancy of their foundational meaning in different contexts, i.e., they are able to maintain their "univocity". Secondly, in the case of "Parsopa", it denotes the logical foundationess of the first Substance, by means of which the logical coherence of the hypothesis of verses can be achieved. Theodore argues that the only way to maintain the stability of the meaning of the word which has “Parsopa” is used as a subject , so that the attributes can be unified, the "Pragma"(Fact) can be extended, and the hypothesis of the verse can be integrated, thus preserving its "wholeness". Finally, with the help of the ontological approach mentioned above, this dissertation attempts to revisit the controversy between Theodore and Origen's Exegetical method. Through the analysis of the word "logos" and other examples, I propose that the above-mentioned debate on the exegetical method is rather an ontological one; the difference between the so-called "Allegorical Exegesis" and the "literal exegesis" actually reflects the different understanding of "Shen"（the common basic of “Qnoma” and “Parsopa”）between the two sides. In fact, these two exegetical methods are not diametrically opposed to each other, but only have different emphases.