On the Implications of Engels’s Late-Life Study of Religion

After Marx’s death, Engels, as a revolutionary mentor, took up the banner of the international communist workers’ movement. Guiding the practice of the international workers’ movement, defending and developing Marxism became his sacred mission and inescapable responsibility. In his later years, Engels devoted his main energy to editing Marx’s magnum opus *Capital*. However, it is worth noting that the study of religious questions was also a significant stroke in his late-life research, a subsidiary thread in the study of Engels’s later years. In the long-term practice of the international workers’ movement, the question of religion was always an unavoidable topic. On the one hand, religion and socialism were linked to a certain extent; there was a certain superficial similarity between the two. This link and similarity had a certain deceptive quality within the workers’ movement, producing a relatively negative influence and causing the international workers’ movement to deviate to some degree from the correct path of development. On the other hand, radical atheism and the assertion and practice of violently and forcibly abolishing religion seriously deviated from Marxism and were detrimental to the development of the workers’ movement. It is not difficult to see that Engels’s late-life study of religion has great theoretical and practical significance. An in-depth exploration of its purpose and significance is necessary for re-understanding the achievements of Engels’s late-life study of religion, for assessing whether Engels’s attitude toward religion changed in his later years, and for evaluating the historical status of Engels’s late-life view of religion.

马克思逝世之后，恩格斯作为革命导师扛起了国际共产主义工人运动的大旗。指导国际工人运动实践、捍卫和发展马克思主义成为他神圣的使命与不可推卸的责任。晚年的恩格斯将主要精力用于整理马克思的巨著《资本论》，但是值得注意的是，关于宗教问题的研究也是其晚年研究中浓墨重彩的一笔，是研究恩格斯晚年的一条支线。在国际工人运动的长期实践中，宗教问题始终是一个避无可避的话题。一方面宗教与社会主义在一定程度上存在着某种关联，两者在表象上存在某种相似之处，这种关联与相似之处在工人运动中具有一定的迷惑性，这种迷惑性产生了较为消极的影响，使得国际工人运动一定程度上偏离了正确的发展方向；另一方面激进的无神论与暴力强制消灭宗教的论断与实践又严重背离了马克思主义，不利于工人运动的发展。不难发现，恩格斯晚年的宗教研究极具理论和实践意义，深入挖掘其研究目的与意义对重新认识恩格斯晚年宗教研究的成果、看待恩格斯晚年宗教态度是否发生转变以及评价恩格斯晚年宗教观的历史地位十分必要。

I. The Needs of Real Revolutionary Struggle

一、现实的革命斗争的需要

The question of religion occupied a pivotal position in the practice of the international communist workers’ movement. A correct understanding of the religious question concerned the direction of advance of the international workers’ movement. In real revolutionary struggle, there were mainly two erroneous views on religion: one was to deny the existence of God and to hold that religion should not exist, i.e., radical atheism’s forcible abolition of religion; the other was to acknowledge the existence of God while simultaneously linking religion with socialism, blurring the distinction between religious belief and the lofty ideal of communism. Engels promptly criticized both of these erroneous views, largely eliminating their negative influence in the international workers’ movement.

宗教问题在国际共产主义工人运动实践中占据举足轻重的地位，对宗教问题的正确认识关乎到国际工人运动的前进方向。在现实的革命斗争中，对待宗教主要有两种错误认识：一种是否认神的存在，并且认为宗教不应该存在，即激进无神论强制消灭宗教；另一种是承认神的存在，同时将宗教与社会主义联系在一起，模糊了宗教信仰与共产主义远大理想。恩格斯及时批判了这两种错误观点，很大程度上肃清了其在国际工人运动中的消极影响。

(1) Refuting Radical Atheism and the Forcible Abolition of Religion, Elucidating the Inherent Laws of Religion

（一）驳斥激进无神论和强制消灭宗教论，阐明宗教固有规律

How should the question of religion be treated? What religious policy should be adopted? Given the development of the social revolution at the time, Engels needed to provide a scientific answer to this, thereby defending Marxism’s guiding position in the workers’ movement. Beginning in 1872, Bismarck, under the banner of the *Kulturkampf* [1]1 The *Kulturkampf* (German for “culture struggle”) was a conflict from 1871 to 1878 between the German government under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and the Catholic Church, aimed at reducing the political and social influence of Catholicism., promulgated the May Laws against Catholicism, attacking the Catholic Church through legislation. However, his aim was not to eliminate the problem of religious belief, but to use atheism’s opposition to religion to conceal his political objective—weakening the Catholic Church and the Center Party it represented, thereby consolidating the rule of the German Empire. When the vigorous development of the German socialist workers’ movement threatened the rule of the Bismarck government, he turned the spearhead of struggle against the Social Democratic Party of Germany. As Engels wrote in a letter to Kautsky in 1884: “No matter how much Geiser [2]2 Bruno Geiser (1846–1898) was a German Social Democratic politician and writer. curses the atheists, Bismarck will not satisfy him—he will not repeal the Anti-Socialist Laws.” [3]3 The Anti-Socialist Laws (Sozialistengesetze) were a series of laws enacted in Germany from 1878 to 1890 that banned socialist, social democratic, and communist organizations and publications. A similar situation also appeared in the international workers’ movement. The Blanquist [4]4 Blanquists were followers of the French revolutionary Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805–1881), who advocated the seizure of power by a small, disciplined group of revolutionaries through insurrection. émigrés “imagined all revolutions as a surprise attack carried out by a small number of revolutionaries,” advocating the initiation of violent revolution through conspiracy by a small number of revolutionaries to realize the dictatorship of a minority. Engels criticized them for “taking their impatience in the practical sphere as a theoretically convincing argument” in the realm of practice. In dealing with the question of religion, they held that religion had long enslaved people, preventing them from recognizing their true interests, so they signed the Commune decree [5]5 This refers to a decree of the Paris Commune of 1871 that separated church and state, abolished the budget for religious worship, and declared church property to be national property. prohibiting all religious propaganda and religious organizations. The Bakuninists [6]6 Bakuninists were followers of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), who opposed all forms of state authority and advocated for a stateless, egalitarian society through violent revolution. likewise advocated abolishing the state apparatus through radical violent revolution, but their aim differed from that of the Blanquists; they sought to achieve a state of absolute freedom and anarchy, and atheism was likewise their label. Engels believed that the Blanquist émigrés and the Bakuninists “are more radical than anyone else in atheism.” Clearly, this was not a commendatory statement. As Engels said: “The only service that can be rendered to God in our time is to proclaim atheism as a compulsory dogma and to outdo Bismarck’s ecclesiastical legislation in the *Kulturkampf* by prohibiting religion altogether.” [7]7 This quotation is from Engels’s 1874–1875 article “The Emigrant Literature,” specifically the section “Programme of the Blanquist Commune Refugees.” It is evident that Engels did not agree with the view of radical atheism. Therefore, if atheism continued to be overemphasized in the international workers’ movement, it was in a sense doing propaganda for God, for the concept of atheism always presupposes the existence of the concept of God.

如何对待宗教问题？应该采取怎样的宗教政策？根据当时社会革命的发展，恩格斯需要对此给与科学的回答，以此来捍卫马克思主义在工人运动中指导地位。从1872年开始，俾斯麦打着文化斗争的旗帜，颁布了反对天主教的五月法令，以立法的形式对天主教会发起攻击。但他并不是为了肃清宗教信仰问题，而是为了借无神论反对宗教来掩盖其政治目的——削弱天主教会及其代表中央党的权力，以此来巩固德意志帝国的统治地位。当德国社会主义工人运动蓬勃发展危及到俾斯麦政府的统治地位时，他又将斗争的矛头指向了德国社会民主党。正如1884年恩格斯在与考茨基的通信中写道：“不管盖泽尔如何骂无神论者，俾斯麦还是不会让他满意——不会废除反社会党人法。”国际工人运动中也出现了类似的情况，布朗基流亡者们把“一切革命想象成由少数革命家所实现的突袭”，主张通过少数革命家的密谋发动暴力革命，实现少数人的专政。恩格斯批评他们在实践领域中“把自己的急躁当做理论上令人信服的论据”。在对待宗教问题方面，他们认为宗教长期奴役人们，使他们不能认清自己真正的利益，所以他们签署公社法令来禁止一切宗教宣传和宗教组织。巴枯宁主义者同样主张通过激进的暴力革命消灭国家机器，但他们的目的与布朗基主义者不同，他们是为了达到绝对自由的无政府的状态，无神论同样是他们的标签。恩格斯认为布朗基流亡者和巴枯宁主义者“在无神论方面比所有的人都激进”。显然这不是一种夸赞的说法，正如恩格斯所讲：“在我们的时代唯一能替神帮点忙的事情，就是把无神论宣布为强制性的信条，并以禁止一切宗教来超越俾斯麦的文化斗争中的反教会法令”，可见，恩格斯对激进的无神论的观点是不赞同的。所以在国际工人运动中若是继续过分强调无神论，在某种意义上就是在替神宣传，无神论概念的存在总是以神概念的存在为前提的。

Regarding the forcible abolition of religion, besides Bismarck’s May Laws against Catholicism, Eugen Dühring’s [8]8 Eugen Dühring (1833–1921) was a German philosopher and economist whose views Engels criticized extensively in *Anti-Dühring*. idea of violently abolishing religion was also criticized by Engels. Dühring held that all fundamental components of religion and worship must be removed from the future social common system; he opposed all religion and incited the future gendarmes to attack religion. To refute Dühring’s erroneous assertions, Engels systematically discussed the essence of religion, the roots of its emergence, and its extinction in *Anti-Dühring*. He argued that “all religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.” [9]9 This is the classic definition of religion given by Engels in *Anti-Dühring* (1878). The emergence of religion has its specific natural, social, and epistemological roots. Correspondingly, religion should also disappear of itself with the elimination of the roots of its emergence, not, as Herr Dühring claimed, be simply and violently attacked by gendarmes. Such an approach by Herr Dühring would only help religion to “martyrdom and prolongation of its period of life.” [10]10 This phrase is from Engels’s *Anti-Dühring*, where he argues that persecution only strengthens religion.

在强制消灭宗教方面，除了俾斯麦反对天主教的五月法令外，欧根·杜林先生暴力消灭宗教的思想同样遭到恩格斯的批判。杜林认为未来社会共同体系中必须除去宗教和膜拜的一切基本组成部分，他反对一切宗教并唆使未来宪兵进攻宗教。恩格斯为了驳斥杜林的错误论断，在《反杜林论》中对宗教的本质、宗教的产生根源、宗教的消亡等问题作了系统的论述，他认为“一切宗教都不过是支配着人们日常生活的外部力量在人们头脑中的幻想的反映，在这种反映中，人间的力量采取了超人间的力量的形式”。宗教的产生有着其特有的自然根源、社会根源和认识根源，相应的，宗教也应该是伴随着其产生根源的消除而自行消亡，而不是如同杜林先生所说的那样简单暴力的用宪兵去攻击宗教，杜林先生的这种做法只会帮助宗教“殉道和延长生命期”。

(2) Distinguishing Christian Socialism from Scientific Socialism, Indicating the Direction of the International Communist Movement

（二）区分基督教社会主义与科学社会主义，指明国际共产主义运动方向

A very important purpose of Engels’s late-life study of the history of primitive Christianity was to explain that communist faith and religious faith are two different types of path for human liberation, and thereby to indicate the direction of the international communist workers’ movement. It is undeniable that primitive Christianity and socialism do indeed have similarities and commonalities. For example, the groups of both are the oppressed, both are mass movements, and both yearn for liberation. Beyond the commonalities, through his investigation of the history of primitive Christianity, Engels also pointed out that there are essential differences between the two. These differences are mainly manifested in two aspects: first, primitive Christianity had already changed in its later development; second, unlike primitive Christianity’s salvation in the afterlife, socialism focuses on the liberation of real people in the present world. Through historical investigation, Engels discovered that primitive Christianity had already undergone tremendous changes. He believed that “the Christianity of that time, which was not yet self-conscious, was as different as heaven from earth from the later world religion fixed by dogma at the Council of Nicaea” [11]11 Friedrich Engels, “On the History of Early Christianity,” in *Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Collected Works*, vol. 27 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 447. The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) was the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine, which established the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the date of Easter.; primitive Christianity had no concept of the holy Trinity or original sin, and these precisely became the basis for later Christian dogma, indicating that later Christianity already contained the consciousness of the ruling class, with factors such as deception and inequality mixed into it, and the believers’ quest for salvation had become a tool for the interest groups of the ruling class to extract benefits. However, primitive Christianity “had the feeling that a struggle was being waged against the whole world and that this struggle would end in victory, a longing for the struggle and a confidence in victory that are completely lost in modern Christians and, in our age, exist only on the other side of society — among the socialists” [12]12 Ibid., p. 449.. As fellow oppressed people, likewise struggling against the powerful earthly world, likewise a mass movement, Engels affirmed the fighting spirit and fighting methods of primitive Christians, but this fighting spirit has been lost in modern Christians. Modern Christianity has become a tool for the ruling class to maintain its rule, a Christianity with the consciousness of the ruling class, which, compared with primitive Christianity, has added deception and stupefaction. But religious control cannot stop the tide of the proletariat, because it is passive, so it is destined to be destroyed, as Engels said: “No religious doctrine can support a tottering society.” [13]13 Ibid., p. 451. Whether it is religious faith or communist faith, their ultimate goal is the question of human salvation. Communism seeks the liberation of all humanity through the transformation of the present world, while Christianity seeks salvation in the afterlife beyond this world. The inevitable demise of capitalism cannot be saved by religion; the inevitable victory of socialism has become a logical necessity and its path of realization has been found. Only by establishing the lofty ideal of communism, uniting as one, and consciously resisting the religious stupefaction of the bourgeoisie can the oppressed proletariat overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie, liberate all humanity, and thereby liberate themselves. This is the lofty ideal of communism, which is different from religious faith.

恩格斯晚年研究原始基督教历史的一个很重要的目的就是为了说明共产主义信仰与宗教信仰是两种不同类型的人的解放路径，进而指明国际共产主义工人运动的方向。不可否认，原始基督教与社会主义确实存在相似与共同之处。例如，两者的群体都是被压迫者，都是群众运动，都渴望得到解放。除了共同点之外，通过对原始基督教历史的考察，恩格斯同样指出了两者存在着本质的区别。这种区别主要表现在两个方面：一是原始基督教在后来的发展中已经发生了变化；二是不同于原始基督教来世的得救，社会主义注重现实人的现世的解放。经过历史的考察，恩格斯发现原始基督教已经发生了巨大的变化，他认为“当时的还不曾有自我意识的基督教，同后来在尼西亚宗教会议上用教条固定下来的世界宗教，是有天渊之别的”，原始基督教是没有神圣的三位一体和原罪概念的，而这些恰好成为后世基督教教条的根据，这表明后世的基督教已经有了统治阶级的意识存在，欺诈和不平等等因素已经掺杂于其中，信徒的寻求得救诉求已经变成了统治阶级利益团体借以攫取利益的工具。但是原始基督教“有正在进行一场对整个尘世的斗争以及这一斗争必将胜利的感觉，有斗争的渴望和胜利的信心，这种渴望和信心在现代基督徒身上已经完全丧失，在我们这个时代里，只存在于社会的另一极——社会主义者方面”，同样作为被压迫者，同样是与强大的尘世斗争，同样是群众运动，恩格斯肯定了原始基督教徒的斗争精神和斗争手段，但是这种斗争的精神在现代基督徒身上已经丧失了，现代基督教已经成为统治阶级维护其统治的工具，成为了具有统治阶级意识的基督教，与原始基督教相比已经多了欺诈与麻痹，但是宗教控制并不能阻挡无产阶级的潮流，因为它是消极的，所以注定要被摧毁，正如恩格斯所言：“任何宗教教义都难以支撑一个摇摇欲坠的社会。”无论是宗教信仰还是共产主义信仰，它们的最终目标都是人的得救问题。共产主义是在现世的改造中寻求全人类的解放，而基督教是在死后的彼岸寻求得救。资本主义的必然灭亡不是依靠宗教就能拯救的，社会主义的必然胜利已经成为逻辑必然并且其实现路径已被找到，作为被压迫的无产阶级只有树立共产主义远大理想，团结一致，自觉抵制资产阶级的宗教麻痹，才能推翻资产阶级的统治，解放全人类，进而解放自己，这就是不同于宗教信仰的共产主义远大理想。

Precisely because primitive Christianity and socialism have certain similarities, a school that reconciles the two — Christian socialism — emerged. This doctrine blurs the boundary between the two, is highly deceptive in the international workers’ movement, and hinders the development of the international workers’ movement. A typical case is that in the early period of the European workers’ movement, Wilhelm Weitling advocated early Christian communism. In the book *Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom*, he ruthlessly criticized capitalist society and advocated establishing a society of harmony and freedom. However, the harmony and freedom he spoke of were based on the necessity of dissolving all individual interests into a common, general interest and entrusting the leadership of this interest to those most talented in the most beneficial sciences. Furthermore, he advocated that a society of harmony and freedom should implement a system of common ownership and sharing, and vigorously promoted the advantages of this system. But how can this entrustment be guaranteed? What should be done when all individual interests conflict with the common general interest? How can private property be shared? It is not difficult to find that Weitling’s theory is full of the colors of utopianism, egalitarianism, and ultra-democracy. In *The Gospel of a Poor Sinner*, Weitling specifically elaborated on what communism is, reconciled communism with religious sentiment, and added a religious color to communism. He believed that communism and religion are both matters of the heart, that communism cannot be guaranteed without an inner fervor like religious sentiment, and that communism can use the immense power contained in religious sentiment for its own benefit. After Weitling was imprisoned, Kuhlmann took the opportunity to preach his own gospel, advocating the establishment of a new world and a spiritual kingdom on earth, with himself as the master of this new world, capable of expressing all the pain, all the longings, and all the hopes of everyone. Engels called his theory “nothing but the most vulgar, sentimental twaddle, decked out with half-biblical phrases in the style of Lamennais and delivered with the arrogant tone of a prophet.” [14]14 Friedrich Engels, “The Book of Revelation,” in *Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Collected Works*, vol. 26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 536. Kuhlmann was a self-proclaimed prophet who preached a form of Christian socialism in the 1840s. Lamennais was a French Catholic priest and philosopher who developed a form of Christian socialism. With the development of the practice of the international workers’ movement, extreme cases like Kuhlmann’s have become rare. However, with the secularization of Christianity, Christian socialism has also developed correspondingly; it has become more deceptive and seductive, eliciting a strong response in the workers’ movement. Its notable characteristics are that it is greatly influenced by Marxism, pays increasing attention to the actual struggles of workers, and has prominent practical features. For example, organizations and groups such as the “Christian Social Union” and the “Church Socialist League” in Britain, the “Christian Labor Association” in Boston, and the “Christian Social Workers’ Association” in Germany often use ideas such as collectivism and the labor theory of value as their theoretical weapons to carry out the workers’ movement. However, unlike scientific socialism, which overthrows the bourgeois state machine through violent revolution, realizes the dictatorship of the proletariat, and carries out social transformation, Christian socialism advocates reforming society through peaceful means, using parliaments, voting and elections, legal strikes, and other methods to achieve its goals. The inherent weakness and compromise of Christian socialism are precisely what Engels criticized. His late-life study of religion was largely aimed at eliminating the negative influence of Christian socialism in the international workers’ movement.

正是因为原始基督教与社会主义存在一定相似之处，调和两者的流派——基督教社会主义出现了。这种学说模糊了两者的界限，在国际工人运动中极具迷惑性，阻碍了国际工人运动的发展。较为典型的案例就是在欧洲工人运动初期，威廉·魏特林鼓吹早期基督教共产主义。在《和谐与自由的保证》一书中对资本主义社会进行了无情的批判，他主张建立一个和谐与自由的社会，但是他所谓的和谐与自由是建立在必须把一切个人利益溶化在一个公共的一般的利益中，并且把这个利益的领导委托给那些在各种最有益的科学中最有才能的人，此外他还主张和谐与自由的社会应该实行共有共享制度，并大力宣扬共有共享制度的优点。可是这种委托如何得以保证？一切个人利益如果和公共一般利益发生冲突时应该怎么办?私有财产何以可能共享？不难发现魏特林的学说充满了空想主义、平均主义和超民主主义的色彩。在《一个贫苦罪人的福音》中，魏特林专门对共产主义是什么进行了阐述，并且对共产主义与宗教感情进行调和，给共产主义增添宗教的色彩。他认为共产主义和宗教都是心的事业，共产主义如果没有如同宗教感情一样的内心热望就不能得到保证，共产主义可以利用宗教感情中所蕴涵的巨大力量来为自身谋利。魏特林坐牢之后，库尔曼趁机宣传自己的福音，主张建立新世界和人间的精神王国，而他自己就是这个新世界的主宰，能够表达所有人的一切痛苦、一切渴求和希望。恩格斯称其学说“不过是饰以拉梅耐式的半圣经味的词句，并用先知的傲慢口吻讲出的一种最庸俗的伤感的胡诌”。随着国际工人运动实践的发展，像库尔曼的这种极端情况已经很少见，但是随着基督教的世俗化，基督教社会主义也相应得到发展，它更具欺骗性和诱惑性，在工人运动中反响强烈。其显著特征就是受马克思主义影响较大，越来越关注现实工人的斗争，实践性突出等特点。例如英国的“基督教社会联合会”、“教会社会主义者团”，波士顿的“基督教劳动协会”，德国的“基督教社会工人协会”等团体和组织，他们多将集体主义、劳动价值论等思想作为自己的理论武器开展工人运动。但是不同于科学社会主义通过暴力革命推翻资产阶级国家机器，实现无产阶级专政，进行社会改造，基督教社会主义主张以和平手段改良社会，利用议会、投票选举、合法罢工等手段达到自己的目的。基督教社会主义骨子里的软弱性和妥协性正是恩格斯所批判的，其晚年研究宗教很大程度上正是为了肃清基督教社会主义在国际工人运动中的消极影响。

II. Defending and Developing Historical Materialism

二、捍卫和发展历史唯物主义

In 1845, Engels met Marx again, and in *The German Ideology*, by criticizing the idealist conception of history of Feuerbach, Bauer, Stirner, and others, they systematically and profoundly expounded the basic principles of historical materialism. This was the first exposition of the theory of historical materialism. However, in Engels’s later years, the theory of historical materialism came under attack. This attack was mainly manifested in two forms: one was distorting historical materialism into economic determinism, and the other was treating historical materialism as a universal formula. Engels’s late-life study of religion was precisely a great practice of applying historical materialism as a research method to guide the study of religion, and it was a defense and development of historical materialism.

1845年恩格斯与马克思再次相会，并在《德意志意识形态》中通过批判费尔巴哈、鲍威尔和施蒂纳等人的唯心史观，系统深刻地阐述了历史唯物主义的基本原理，这是历史唯物主义理论的首度阐发。但是在恩格斯晚年时期，历史唯物主义理论受到了非难，这种非难主要表现为两种形式，一是将历史唯物主义曲解为经济决定论，二是将历史唯物主义当作万能公式。恩格斯晚年的宗教研究正是将历史唯物主义作为研究方法运用于指导宗教研究的伟大实践，是对历史唯物主义的捍卫和发展。

(1) Refuting Economic Determinism and Proposing the Idea of Intermediate Links

（一）驳斥经济决定论，提出中间环节思想

Regarding economic determinism, Engels held that “if one asserts that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, then he transforms this proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd piece of empty talk.” However, the economic base does indeed play a tremendous role; it not only influences the struggles of history but also determines the form of those struggles to a great extent. It is the principal factor but not the only factor, because various factors of the superstructure also exist—for example, various theories of law, politics, jurisprudence, philosophy, and religion. These factors all affect the course of historical struggles. Yet the interaction of these superstructural factors “ultimately asserts itself as necessity in the midst of an endless array of contingencies (that is, of things and events whose inner connection is so remote or so difficult to determine that we can regard it as nonexistent and ignore it).” Why, then, is it often difficult to discern the connection between economic factors and the various factors of the superstructure? This is because “the higher ideologies, that is, those still further removed from the material economic base, take the form of philosophy and religion. Here the connection between ideas and their material conditions of existence becomes ever more complicated, ever more obscured by intermediate links. But the connection exists.” That is to say, when exploring the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, Engels used proximity to the economic base as a criterion to divide the superstructure into ideologies directly linked (legal, political, and juridical) and those indirectly linked (philosophical and religious). It is precisely these directly linked legal, political, and juridical ideologies that become the intermediate links between the economic base and philosophy and religion. Through this division of intermediate links, Engels, in his later years when re-elaborating historical materialism, smoothly constructed a bridge connecting economic factors with religious factors. Engels held: “Once a religion has taken shape, it always contains certain traditional materials, for in all ideological fields tradition is a great conservative force. But the changes that these materials undergo are brought about by the class relations, that is, the economic relations, of the people who cause these changes.”

对于经济决定论，恩格斯认为“说经济因素是唯一决定性的因素，那么他就是把这个命题变成毫无内容的、抽象的、荒诞无稽的空话”，但是经济基础确实发挥着巨大的作用，不仅会影响历史的斗争，而且会在很大程度上决定斗争的形式，它是主要因素但并不是唯一的因素，因为还有上层建筑的各种因素存在，例如各种法的、政治的、法律的、哲学的以及宗教的理论，这些因素都会影响到历史斗争的进程，但是上层建筑这些因素的相互作用“归根到底是经济运动作为必然的东西通过无穷无尽的偶然事件（即这样一些事物和事变，它们的内部联系是如此疏远或者是如此难于确定，以致我们可以认为这种联系并不存在，忘掉这种联系）向前发展”。那么，为什么在很多时刻难以洞悉经济因素与上层建筑的各种因素之间的联系呢？这是因为“更高的即更远离物质经济基础的意识形态，采取了哲学和宗教的形式。在这里，观念同自己的物质存在条件的联系，越来越错综复杂，越来越被一些中间环节弄模糊了。但是这一联系是存在的”。也就是说，在探讨经济基础与上层建筑的关系时，恩格斯将与经济基础的远近作为标准将上层建筑划分为直接联系的法的、政治的、法律的意识形态和间接联系的哲学和宗教的意识形态，正是这种直接联系的法的、政治的、法律的意识形态成为了经济基础与哲学和宗教之间的中间环节。通过这种中间环节的划分，恩格斯晚年再度阐发历史唯物主义时便顺利的搭建起了经济因素与宗教因素联系的桥梁，恩格斯认为：“宗教一旦形成，总要包含某些传统的材料，因为在一切意识形态领域内传统都是一种巨大的保守力量。但是，这些材料所发生的变化是由造成这种变化的人们的阶级关系即经济关系引起的”。

Engels’s study of bourgeois political revolutions and religious criticism well corroborates the idea of intermediate links, clearly elucidating the relationship among economy, politics, and religion. The bourgeois struggle against the feudal system reached its apex after three great decisive battles: the first uprising triggered by the German Reformation, the second uprising triggered by Calvinism, and the French Revolution, which completely cast off the religious cloak. Luther’s doctrine of “justification by faith” was a critique of the religious teachings of the Roman papacy; because it represented the interests of the common people and urban burghers, it sparked the first uprising. Calvin’s doctrine of “predestination” was a critique of Luther’s religious teachings; it closely matched the adventurous spirit of the bourgeoisie and represented bourgeois interests, thus sparking the second uprising. The bourgeois theory of equality was a critique of the form of the religious cloak; it likewise represented bourgeois interests, so the French Revolution completely discarded the religious cloak and directly manifested itself as a purely political struggle. It can be seen that the bourgeois revolutionary movement was inseparable from religious criticism; the transformation of the religious ideas guiding the uprisings occurred precisely to serve the political aims of the bourgeois revolution. But how did these political aims arise? Why did the bourgeoisie oppose the feudal system? This was because the emerging bourgeoisie represented more advanced productive forces and more progressive relations of production, conforming to the historical trend of the time. The sum total of these progressive relations of production constituted the economic base. It was precisely because of the existence of this economic base that the revolutions and uprisings launched by the emerging bourgeoisie to fight for their own interests came into being. As Engels said: “These uprisings, like all mass movements of the Middle Ages, were always clad in a religious cloak and took the form of a struggle to revive the increasingly degenerate primitive Christianity; but behind the religious fanaticism, there always lurked tangible worldly interests.” Through the above analysis, the connections among economy, politics, and religion are clearly revealed. This represents a further development of the theory of historical materialism by Engels.

恩格斯对于资产阶级政治革命和宗教批判的研究很好地佐证了中间环节思想，清晰地阐明了经济、政治与宗教之间的关系。资产阶级反对封建制度历经三次大决战后到达顶点，这三大决战分别是由德国宗教改革引发的第一次起义、由加尔文教派引发的第二次起义以及完全抛开宗教外衣的法国大革命。LD宗的“因信称义”主张是对罗马教廷宗教教义的批判，因为其代表着平民和城市市民的利益，所以引发了第一次起义；加尔文教派的“预定论”是对LD宗教义的批判，与资产阶级的冒险精神十分契合，代表着资产阶级的利益，所以引发了第二次起义；资产阶级的平等理论是对宗教外衣形式的批判，同样代表了资产阶级的利益，所以法国大革命完全抛开了宗教的外衣，直接表现为纯粹的政治斗争。可以看出资产阶级的革命运动与宗教批判的关系密不可分，指导起义的宗教思想之所以会发生转变就是为了迎合资产阶级革命的政治目的。但是政治目的何以产生？资产阶级为何要反对封建制度？这正是因为新兴的资产阶级代表着更为先进的生产力，代表着更为进步的生产关系，顺应了当时历史的潮流，这种进步的生产关系的总和也就构成了经济基础，正是由于这个经济基础的存在才产生了新兴资产阶级为争取自身利益而发起的革命和起义。正如恩格斯所说：“这些起义同中世纪的所有群众运动一样，总是穿着宗教的外衣，采取为复兴日益蜕化的原始基督教而斗争的形式；但是在宗教狂热的背后，每次都隐藏有实实在在的现世利益。”通过以上分析，经济、政治与宗教之间的联系便很清晰的呈现出来，这是恩格斯对历史唯物主义理论的进一步发展。

(II) Criticizing the Formulaic Treatment of Historical Materialism and Advocating In-Depth Study of History

（二）批判历史唯物主义公式化，倡导深入研究历史

In 1890, Bismarck was forced to resign, and the Anti-Socialist Laws were also successively repealed. Just at this time when the proletarian struggle had achieved victory and the ruling class’s strategy had undergone a moderate shift, in order to sum up experience and formulate a new struggle program and strategy for the Party, opportunists emerged within the German Social Democratic Party. These were the “Youngsters,” representing “Left” opportunism, composed mostly of writers and university students. The “Youngsters” claimed to be Marxists but had not grasped the essence of Marxist theory. They merely flaunted Marxist theory as a fashionable thing, without ever systematically and deeply studying it. Their understanding of the German Democratic Party’s struggle strategy, organizational principles, and theoretical foundations deviated from Marxism. For example, in terms of struggle strategy, the “Youngsters” completely ignored all the real conditions of the Party’s struggle, blindly inciting workers to strike, causing some confusion in the workers’ thoughts and actions. In terms of organizational principles, they used newspapers and other opinion platforms to undermine the Party’s democratic centralism, damage the Party’s authority, and violate Party discipline. In terms of theoretical foundations, they turned Marxism into dogma and formulas. To eliminate the negative influence of the “Youngsters” in the workers’ movement, Engels clearly pointed out: “If the materialist method is not taken as a guide to the study of history, but as a ready-made formula according to which historical facts are tailored, it will turn into its own opposite.” Engels believed that “among the young writers attached to the Party, very few have taken the trouble to study economics, the history of economics, commercial history, industrial history, agricultural history, and the history of social formations.” He strongly opposed the practice of German young writers who, instead of seriously studying various histories, simply pasted materialism as a cliché or label onto everything. Pasting labels or merely mouthing historical materialism as a catchphrase would divorce research work from social practice; real problems would not be solved, and research would make no progress. This was dogmatic and ossified Marxism, the opposite of Marxism. Therefore, Engels encouraged everyone: “It is necessary to re-study all of history, to study in detail the conditions of existence of various social formations, and then to try to derive from these conditions the corresponding views on politics, private law, aesthetics, philosophy, religion, etc. In this respect, very little work has been done so far.” Undoubtedly, this very little work included his late-life research on the history of primitive Christianity.

1890年，俾斯麦被迫xt，《反社会党人非常法》亦相继废除，就在这无产阶级斗争取得胜利，统治阶级策略发生温和转变之际，为了总结经验和指定党的新的斗争纲领和策略，德国社会民主党内出现了机会主义者，他们就是代表“左”倾机会主义的“青年派”，多由文学家和大学生组成。“青年派”自称是马克思主义者，但却没有领会到马克思主义理论的精髓，他们仅仅是把马克思主义理论当作一种时髦的东西而大肆宣扬，从未系统深入的研究马克思主义理论，他们对德国民主党的斗争策略，组织原则和理论基石的理解是背离马克思主义的。例如，“青年派”在斗争策略方面完全不顾党进行斗争的一切现实条件，盲目的鼓动工人进行罢工，给工人的思想和行动造成了一定的混乱；在组织原则方面他们利用报刊等舆论阵地，破坏党的民主集中制，损害党的权威，违反党的纪律；在理论基石方面他们将马克思主义教条化、公式化。为了消除“青年派”在工人运动中的消极影响，恩格斯明确指出：“如果不把唯物主义方法当做研究历史的指南，而把它当做现成的公式，按照它来剪裁各种历史事实，那它就会转变为自己的对立物”。恩格斯认为“在依附于党的青年著作家中间，是很少有人下一番功夫去钻研经济学、经济学史、商业史、工业史、农业史和社会形态发展史的”。他对于德国青年著作家们不去认真研究各种历史而是将唯物主义当作套语和标签贴到各种事物上的做法是十分反对的，因为贴上标签或是仅仅将历史唯物主义当作KH挂在嘴边就会使研究工作脱离社会实践，现实问题并不能得到解决，研究并不能取得任何进展，这是教条和僵化的马克思主义，是马克思主义的对立物。所以恩格斯勉励大家“必须重新研究全部历史，必须详细研究各种社会形态的存在条件，然后设法从这些条件中找出相应的政治、私法、美学、哲学、宗教等等的观点。在这方面，到现在为止只做了很少的一点工作”，毫无疑问，这很少的一点工作包含了其晚年对原始基督教历史所做的研究。

III. The Unraveling of the Personal Biblical Complex

三、个人圣经情结之解结

Roland Boer uses the “Bible complex” to describe the relationship between Engels and the Bible, and “self-disenchantment” to characterize the process of early Christianity’s influence on Engels. Engels’s transformation in religious belief was indeed complex, and it was precisely this complex transformation that prompted his lifelong study of the Bible. Moreover, biblical phrases frequently appear in his writings, revealing the subtle connection between Engels and the Bible. In a letter to Kautsky, Engels wrote: “In 1841 I read F. Benary’s lectures on the Revelation of St. John and became interested in the subject. From that time on I realized that this is the oldest and most important part of the New Testament. The conception and preparation of this article has taken fifty-three years.” [19]19 Engels’s letter to Karl Kautsky, 4 June 1894, referring to his article “On the History of Early Christianity,” published in 1894–1895. The article referred to is Engels’s “On the History of Early Christianity,” written in 1894. The fifty-three years of conception and preparation directly indicate Engels’s strong interest in biblical research. In his later years, Engels re-criticized German biblical criticism, clarifying his latest findings on biblical research. This was the culmination of his lifelong study of religion, the satisfaction of his personal interest in religious research, and the unraveling of his early Bible complex.

罗兰·波尔用圣经情结来表述恩格斯与圣经之间的关系，用自我驱魅来形容早年基督教对恩格斯的影响过程。恩格斯的宗教信仰转变过程的确复杂，正是这种复杂的转变促使其对于圣经的研究贯穿其一生，此外其著作中也经常会见到圣经里的词句，可见圣经与恩格斯之间微妙的联系。恩格斯在与考茨基的通信中写道：“1841年我读了弗·贝纳里关于《启示录》的讲义之后。就对这个题目发生了兴趣。从那时起我才明白，这是《新约全书》中最古老、最重要的部分。这篇文章的酝酿构思已经五十三年了。”这篇文章指的就是恩格斯于1894年撰写的《论原始基督教的历史》，五十三年的酝酿构思直接地表明了恩格斯对圣经研究的浓厚兴趣。恩格斯晚年对德国圣经批判进行再批判，阐明了自己对圣经研究的最新成果，这是其一生宗教研究的总结，是个人宗教研究兴趣的满足，是早年圣经情结的解开。

(I) The Complexity of Engels’s Early Transformation in Religious Belief

（一）恩格斯早期宗教信仰转变之复杂性

Engels was born in Barmen, Rhine Province, Prussia. His father was a devout Christian who demanded that his children unconditionally believe in the Bible and obey its doctrines, and was very conservative in matters of religious belief. However, his mother was fond of art and literature, relatively open-minded, and greatly influenced Engels. Growing up in a family atmosphere where conservatism and relative openness coexisted made it possible for Engels to become troubled by the issue of religious belief.

恩格斯出生于普鲁士莱茵省巴门市，他的父亲是个虔诚的基督徒，要求子女无条件信奉圣经并遵守教义，在对待宗教信仰方面十分保守，但是他母亲酷爱艺术和文学，思想相对开放，这极大地影响了恩格斯，成长于保守与相对开放并存的家庭氛围中使得恩格斯在宗教信仰问题方面陷入困扰成为可能。

The transformation of the young Engels’s religious belief is mostly seen in his letters to the brothers Friedrich and Wilhelm Graeber. In these letters, the discussions and debates between Engels and the Graeber brothers over contradictions in the Bible clearly witness Engels’s early transformation in religious belief. These contradictions in the Bible deeply troubled Engels. As he himself said: “I cannot understand how orthodox preachers can cling so rigidly to orthodox views when there are such obvious contradictions in the Bible.” The Graeber brothers could not answer Engels’s questions, so Engels had to constantly engage with and study different doctrines, a process that was extremely complex and painful. He said: “I wish I could see a radical change in the religious consciousness of the world. If only I could get everything clear!” This is a true portrayal of Engels’s inner state. But trouble is by no means a bad thing; trouble also comes with the impetus to move forward. It was precisely for this reason that the young Engels’s religious thought transformation advanced step by step. Initially, the young Engels transformed from a mystic into a supernaturalist: “I was never a Pietist; I was once a mystic, but that was tempi passati; I am now an honest, magnanimous supernaturalist.” After coming into contact with Schleiermacher’s doctrine and being influenced by his liberal theology, Engels stated: “This is Schleiermacher’s doctrine, and it is this doctrine that I endorse.” Later, the appearance of David Friedrich Strauss’s *The Life of Jesus* caused mysticism to bow before the four Gospels and made Engels realize that religious belief was inherently full of holes. At this point, Engels transformed into “an ardent Straussian.” Then, through Strauss, Engels came to know Hegel’s thought. Hegel’s philosophy of history spoke Engels’s mind, so much so that Engels said: “I am on the verge of becoming a Hegelian.” Subsequently, Feuerbach’s *The Essence of Christianity* was published, and materialism directly ascended the throne: God is merely the illusory reflection of the human essence. Once this view was put forward, it caused a tremendous liberating effect in the realm of thought. Engels said: “We all became Feuerbachians for a time.” However, Feuerbach was idealist in the field of social history; he did not want to abolish religion and advocated establishing a religion of love. He believed that “religion is the relationship of feeling, the relationship of heart between human beings, which formerly sought its truth in the illusory reflection of reality (through a god or many gods, the illusory reflection of human characteristics), but now seeks its truth directly, not indirectly, in the love between I and you.” But this love, as an abstract existence, still needed to find its answer in the actual material production. Therefore, in the end, Engels and Marx transcended the limitations of Feuerbach’s half-baked materialism, expounded the materialist theory of history, established a new worldview, and ultimately moved toward the communist faith.

青年恩格斯宗教信仰的转变多见于与格雷培兄弟的书信，书信中恩格斯与格雷培兄弟关于圣经中自相矛盾问题的探讨与争论清晰地见证了恩格斯早年的宗教信仰转变。圣经中这些矛盾深深地困扰着恩格斯，正如他自己所言：“我无法理解，当圣经中出现一些相当明显的矛盾时，正统派的传教士们怎么还能这样拘泥于正统的观点，”而格雷培兄弟并不能解答恩格斯的困惑，所以恩格斯只有不断接触和研究不同的学说，而这个过程是极其复杂和痛苦的，他说：“我希望我能见到世界的宗教意识发生一场激进的变革。要是我把一切都弄清楚就好了！”这正是恩格斯内心的真实写照。但是困扰绝非坏事，困扰也伴随前进的动力，青年恩格斯的宗教思想转变正是因此一步步往前迈进。青年恩格斯最初是由一名神秘主义者转变为超自然主义者，“我从来就不是虔诚主义者，我一度是个神秘主义者，但这是tempi passati；我现在是一个诚实的、对人宽宏大量的超自然主义者”；在接触了施莱尔马赫的学说后，受其自由主义神学的影响，恩格斯表明“这就是施莱艾尔玛赫尔的学说，而我赞同的也正是这个学说”；后来施特劳斯的《耶稣传》的出现，使得神秘主义拜倒在四福音书面前，并且使恩格斯认识到宗教信仰本就漏洞百出，此时恩格斯转变为“一名热心的施特劳斯主义者”；紧接着恩格斯通过施特劳斯了解到黑格尔的思想，黑格尔的历史哲学写出了恩格斯的心里话，以致于恩格斯说道：“我正处于要成为黑格尔主义者的时刻”；此后费尔巴哈《基督教的本质》出版了，唯物主义直接登上宝座，上帝不过只是人的本质的虚幻反映而已，此观点一经提出，在思想领域引起了巨大的解放作用，恩格斯说“我们一时都成为费尔巴哈派了”。但是费尔巴哈在社会历史领域却是唯心主义的，他不想废除宗教，并主张建立一种爱的宗教。他认为“宗教是人与人之间的感情的关系、心灵的关系，过去这种关系是在现实的虚幻映象中（借助于一个神或许多神，即人类特性的虚幻映象）寻找自己的真理，现在却直接地而不是间接地在我和你之间的爱中寻找自己的真理了”。但是这种爱作为抽象的存在仍然需要到现实的物质生产中寻求解答，所以最后恩格斯和马克思又超越了费尔巴哈半截子唯物主义的局限，阐发了唯物主义历史理论，树立了新的世界观，最终走向了共产主义信仰。

(II) German Biblical Criticism and Political Criticism

（二）德国的圣经批判与政治批判

The combination of politics and religion was one of the hallmark features of Western Europe during the Middle Ages. The church and the pope were the actual controllers of political power. The church’s mode of action was based on doctrine, and doctrine originated from the Bible. Conformity to the Bible meant religious orthodoxy, while deviation from the Bible was considered religious heresy. Therefore, different interpretations and studies of the Bible directly affected the establishment of religious doctrine and, to a large extent, could influence changes in political power. With the questioning of the Vulgate Bible by humanists during the Renaissance, the biblical foundation of scholasticism began to collapse. The path of religious doctrinal reform was officially opened, and various Protestant denominations emerged in response to the times. This mainly occurred in Germany, as Engels stated: “Only the Germans possess theology, and for this reason they have the object of criticism—historical, philological, and philosophical criticism. This criticism is a German product, and without German Protestantism it would have been impossible, yet it is absolutely necessary.” [20]20 Engels, “The Book of Revelation,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26, p. 111. Germany’s religious reform proceeded along two lines: one was German biblical criticism, and the other was the beginning of the bourgeois revolutionary movement against the feudal system. The work of German biblical criticism involved the investigation and study of the dates, origins, and historical significance of the New and Old Testament writings. From a critical perspective, German biblical criticism was mainly based on linguistics and history. The representative figures were Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette and Ferdinand Christian Baur. De Wette, in his *The First Gospel Writer, or a Critical Exegetical Study of the Relationship of the First Three Gospels*, purely from a linguistic standpoint, examined the chronological order and mutual dependence of the Gospels. Later, Baur, based on the specific content of the Gospels, confirmed this historically.

政治与宗教相结合是中世纪时期西欧地区的标志特征之一，教会与教皇才是政治权利的实际掌控方，教会的行为模式是根据教义而来，而教义正是来源于圣经，同于圣经便是宗教正统，有悖于圣经则被认作宗教异端，所以对圣经的不同阐释与研究，直接关系到宗教教义内容的确立，很大程度上会影响政治权利的变更。随着文艺复兴时期人文主义者对武加大圣经译本的质疑，经院哲学的圣经基础开始坍塌，宗教教义改革之路正式开启，各种新教应时而生，而这主要发生在德国，正如恩格斯所讲：“只有德国人掌握着神学，并且由于这个缘故而拥有批判——历史学的、语文学的和哲学的批判的对象。这种批判是德国的产物，如果没有德国的新教，这种批判是不可能的，然而它是绝对必要的。”德国的宗教改革沿着两条脉络行进，其一是德国的圣经批判，其二是作为资产阶级反对封建制度革命运动的开端。德国的圣经批判工作就是对新约、旧约著作的年代、起源与历史意义等问题的考察研究。从批判角度上来看，德国圣经批判主要是基于语言学和历史学，其中代表人物分别是维耳克和鲍威尔，维耳克在《最初的福音书作者或对头三个福音书的亲近关系的诠释性考证研究》中单纯的从语言方面考证了福音书的时间顺序和相互依存关系，而后鲍威尔又根据福音书的具体内容从历史上加以证实。

From the perspective of critical direction, German biblical criticism developed mainly along two lines, namely the Tübingen School and the research of Bruno Bauer. The rational critique of the Bible by the Tübingen School greatly weakened the authority of the Bible, acknowledging that the four Gospels are later elaborations of lost texts. This school pointed out contradictions within the Bible, “striking out all miracles and contradictions in the historical narrative as unacceptable,” while at the same time attempting “to salvage whatever could still be salvaged,” retaining certain biblical claims as historical truths and thereby reserving space for faith. The great merit of Bruno Bauer’s research lay not only in his relentless critique of the Gospels and the Epistles, but also in his serious investigation of the ideas and sources that constituted the Christian system, namely the purely Greek and Greco-Roman elements. Engels believed that it was precisely these elements that “opened the way for Christianity to become a world religion.” Why, then, did Engels divide German biblical criticism into these two different directions? What are the similarities and differences between their critical studies of the Bible? The similarity is that both criticized the New Testament, the Gospels, and early Christian literature, greatly weakening the authority of the Bible. The difference lies in the intensity and depth of their critique. The Tübingen School, including David Friedrich Strauss, remained at the level of critical research on the historical accounts in the Bible, distinguishing to some extent between historical accounts and historical truth—for example, Strauss distinguished between Jesus as a historical figure and Jesus as the object of Christian faith. Bauer, by contrast, held that almost none of the content of the Gospels could be proven as historical fact, and that the boundary between historical accounts and historical truth was difficult to grasp; thus he took a different path, directly conducting in-depth research on the intellectual sources of the Christian system and how it achieved dominance—something the Tübingen School failed to do. Engels believed that the remnants of the Bible not refuted by the Tübingen School “provide the highest limit of what can still be scientifically acknowledged as a debatable question,” that is, the boundary between science and faith; Bauer’s research, on the other hand, provides us with “the highest limit of what can be refuted by science,” that is, the highest limit of what historical research can study at the present stage. Truth lies between the two. In his later years, taking the opportunity of Bauer’s death, Engels re-criticized German biblical criticism, affirming Bauer’s critique of Strauss’s “myth theory” and Bauer’s contribution to the historical origins of Christianity. At the same time, Engels also pointed out shortcomings in Bauer’s research—for example, Engels noted that Bauer did not fully recognize that Christianity originated from the popularized ideas of the Philonic school, rather than directly from Philo’s writings; that Bauer mistakenly believed the birthplace of Christianity was in Alexandria and Rome; and that Bauer’s idealist stance hindered his elucidation of how Christianity achieved victory and world dominance. Engels therefore further advanced his own views on the historical origins and development of Christianity based on the materialist conception of history.

从批判方向上来看，德国圣经批判主要按照两个方向发展，即蒂宾根学派和鲍威尔的研究。蒂宾根学派对圣经的理性批判极大地削弱了圣经的权威，它承认四福音书是已佚典籍后来的加工品。该学派指出圣经中自相矛盾的地方，将“历史记叙中一切奇迹和矛盾都作为无法接受的东西而勾销”，同时，又企图“挽救一切还能挽救的”，把圣经中的某些说法当作历史的真实保留下来，给信仰预留了空间。布鲁诺·鲍威尔研究的巨大功绩在于不仅对福音书和使徒书信作了无情的批判，并且认真研究了构成基督教体系的观念、思想的来源，即纯希腊和希腊—罗马的成份。恩格斯认为正是这种成份“给基督教开辟了成为世界宗教的道路”。那么恩格斯为什么要将德国圣经批判分为两个不同的方向呢？两者对圣经的批判研究到底有何同异？相同点在于：两者均对新约、福音书以及早期基督教文献进行了批判，极大的削弱了圣经的权威。不同点在于：两者的批判力度与深度不同。包括施特劳斯在内的蒂宾根学派只是停留在对圣经中的历史记述的批判研究，一定程度上区分了历史记述与历史真实，例如施特劳斯区分了作为历史人物的耶稣与作为基督教信仰对象的耶稣；而鲍威尔认为福音书的全部内容几乎无法被证明为历史事实，历史记述与历史真实之间的界限难以把握，于是他另辟蹊径，直接对基督教体系的思想来源及其如何取得统治地位的问题展开深入研究，这是蒂宾根学派没能做到的部分。恩格斯认为圣经中未被蒂宾根学派批驳的残余部分“提供了一个目前尚可被科学承认为有待争论的问题的最高极限”，即科学和信仰之间的边界；鲍威尔的研究则为我们提供了“可以为科学所批驳的最高极限”，即现阶段历史学所能研究的最高限度。真理存在于两者之间。恩格斯晚年借着鲍威尔逝世的机会，对德国圣经批判进行再批判，肯定了鲍威尔对施特劳斯“神话论”的批判，肯定了鲍威尔在基督教历史起源方面所做的贡献。与此同时，恩格斯也指出了鲍威尔研究中的不足之处，例如恩格斯指出鲍威尔没有充分注意到基督教起源于通俗化了的斐洛派的观念，而不是直接产生于斐洛的著作；鲍威尔错误地认为基督教的诞生地在亚历山大里亚和罗马，以及鲍威尔的唯心主义立场妨碍了其对基督教如何取得胜利和世界统治地位问题的阐明。于是恩格斯基于唯物主义历史观进一步提出了自己对基督教历史起源与发展问题的见解。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

In summary, through an in-depth exploration of the purpose and significance of Engels’s late-life study of religion, the question of whether Engels’s attitude toward religion changed and the question of the achievements and status of Engels’s late-life religious research are to some extent resolved. For those who hold that Engels’s attitude toward religion underwent some moderate shift in his later years, from the standpoint of religious critique, Engels remained consistent. First, it must be pointed out that critique is not simple negation but sublation—a more rational and scientific explanation of religion. In the youth of Marx and Engels, the political field in Germany was fraught with obstacles, so political critique could only be carried out through the critique of religion. After the establishment of historical materialism, Marx and Engels turned from the critique of heaven to the critique of the earth, and the critique of religion was transformed into a critique of the secular basis on which religion depends. In their later years, they delved deeply into the history of primitive Christianity and theoretically clarified the connection between ideology—a higher form further removed from the material economic base—and the economic base. This bridging and profound understanding of primitive Christianity made their late-life critique of religion more thorough. Therefore, Engels’s attitude toward religion in his later years did not undergo a moderate shift. As for the view that after Marx’s death, Engels’s thought deviated from Marx’s, this is clearly untenable, because in his later years Engels always stood on the Marxist position to lead the international workers’ movement, and actively fought against anarchism and revisionism to defend Marxist theory. In Engels’s late-life writings on the history of primitive Christianity, it can be seen that he consistently explained religious issues from the standpoint of historical materialism, and historical materialism was precisely Marx’s great discovery. Hence, Engels’s late-life research results are always consistent with Marx’s thought, not opposed to it. These late-life writings of Engels on religion greatly enriched the content of Marxist religious theory, adding a strong sense of historical depth to Marxist religious theory. They are an important component of Marxist religious theory, and their status in the field of Marxist religious research is unshakable.

综上所述，通过对恩格斯晚年宗教研究目的与意义的深入挖掘，恩格斯对待宗教态度是否转变的问题以及恩格斯晚年宗教研究成果与地位的问题在某种程度上得到解答。对于那些认为恩格斯晚年对宗教的态度发生某种温和的转变的观点，从宗教批判的立场上来看，恩格斯是始终如一的。首先需要指出批判不是单纯的否定而是扬弃，是对宗教更加理性与科学的说明。马克思、恩格斯青年时代的德国，政治领域荆棘丛生，所以只能通过对宗教的批判进行政治批判，唯物史观确立之后，马克思、恩格斯从对天国的批判转向了对尘世的批判，对宗教的批判转变为对宗教赖以存在的世俗基础的批判，在其晚年更是深入研究原始基督教的历史并从理论上清晰地说明了更高的更远离物质经济基础的意识形态——宗教与经济基础之间的关联，这种桥梁的搭建和对原始基督教的深刻理解使得其晚年对宗教的批判显得更加彻底，所以恩格斯晚年对待宗教的态度并没有发生温和的转变。对于在马克思过世之后，认为恩格斯思想有悖于马克思的这种对立的观点，显然是站不住脚的，因为晚年的恩格斯始终站在马克思主义的立场上来领导国际工人运动，并且为了捍卫马克思主义学说，积极的与无政府主义和修正主义展开斗争。在恩格斯晚年关于原始基督教历史的文献中，可以看出其始终是站在历史唯物主义的立场上来说明宗教问题的，而历史唯物主义理论正是马克思的天才发现，所以恩格斯的晚年研究成果与马克思的思想是始终一致的，并不对立。恩格斯晚年关于宗教的这些文献极大地丰富了马克思主义宗教理论的内涵，为马克思主义宗教理论增添了浓烈的历史厚重感，是马克思主义宗教理论的重要组成部分，在马克思主义宗教研究领域的地位不可撼动。

(Authors: Wang Liangbin, Jing Tao, Chen Yi)

（作者：王良滨 景涛 陈仪）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心