A Pioneering Model for Guiding the Study of Religious History with Historical Materialism

The Marxist view of religion is a complete and scientific theoretical system constructed on the basis of historical materialism. It not only makes a profound judgment on the fundamental question of the essence of religion but also provides a sharp weapon for us to analyze specific religious phenomena, religious history, and religious doctrines, demonstrating its powerful vitality. However, some scholars currently hold that "Marx's view of religion is the opium theory" and that "in Marx's view, religion is nothing but ideology," thereby asserting that the Marxist classical writers' study of religion consists only of abstract judgments, lacking empirical analysis of concrete issues. These arguments undoubtedly narrow and belittle the Marxist view of religion. In fact, Marx and Engels both placed great importance on combining scientific abstraction with concrete analysis, consciously applying historical materialism as "the guiding principle of my studies" once it was obtained, and this was no exception in the case of religion. As co-founders, scientific practitioners, and unremitting promoters of historical materialism, Engels's later research on early Christianity can be regarded as a brilliant model of consciously applying historical materialism to the study of the history of religious thought. This series of achievements transcended the bourgeois idealist study of religious history and the incomplete religious research of the Young Hegelians, providing an excellent example for us to fully utilize and deeply interpret the Marxist view of religion. Since reform and opening up, domestic academia has achieved relatively fruitful theoretical results in research on the theoretical connotation, developmental process, and critical value of Engels's view of religion, as well as in specialized studies on Engels's treatment of Christian issues. However, overall, most of these previous academic achievements have been subsumed within the study of the Marxist view of religion as a whole, and there have been relatively few independent, holistic investigations of Engels's religious research as a distinct body of work. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth study of Engels's later series of articles on early Christianity, review Engels's answers to a series of important questions and the interlocking logic of his argumentation therein, grasp and comprehend Engels's religious research more deeply, and derive from it the methodology and practical inspiration for the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies and scientific atheism research.

马克思主义宗教观是在唯物史观基础上构建的完整的、科学的理论体系。它不仅对宗教的本质这个根本性的问题做出了深刻判断,还为我们分析具体的宗教现象、宗教历史、宗教教义提供了锐利武器,彰显出其强大的生命力。然而当下有部分学者认为“马克思的宗教观就是鸦片说”,“在马克思看来,宗教就是不折不扣的意识形态”,从而断言马克思主义经典作家对宗教的研究仅仅是由一个个抽象的论断组成,缺乏对具体问题做出的实证分析。这些论调无疑是对马克思主义宗教观的窄化和矮化。事实上,马克思和恩格斯都高度重视将科学抽象与具体分析相结合,自觉地将唯物史观作为“一经得到就用于指导我的研究工作的总的结果”,在宗教方面也不例外。作为唯物史观的共同创立者、科学运用者和不懈推进者,恩格斯晚年对原始基督教的研究可谓是自觉运用唯物史观研究宗教思想史的光辉典范。这一系列成果超越了资产阶级唯心主义的宗教史研究与青年黑格尔派不彻底的宗教研究,为我们充分运用、深入阐释马克思主义宗教观提供了一个很好的范例。改革开放以来,国内学术界在恩格斯宗教观的理论内涵、发展历程、批判价值研究等方面以及恩格斯关于基督教问题的专题研究方面都取得了较为丰硕的理论成果。但是总体来看,学术界以往这些研究成果大多涵括于整体意义上的马克思主义宗教观研究之内,对恩格斯的宗教研究成果进行整体性的独立考察的相对较少。因此,有必要深入研读恩格斯晚年对原始基督教研究的系列文章,回顾恩格斯在其中对一系列重要问题做出的解答及其背后环环相扣的论述逻辑,更加深入地把握和领会恩格斯的宗教研究,从中感悟马克思主义宗教学学科建设和科学无神论研究的方法论和现实启示。

I. "Human Creation" Rather Than "Divine Creation": Engels's Exploration of the Essence of Early Christianity

一、"人创”而非"神创”:恩格斯对原始基督教的本质论探源

The first major foundational question Engels needed to address in interpreting religious history was: Who was the creator of early Christianity and its numerous doctrines? This is also one of the core issues in the struggle between atheism and theism, and between the materialist and idealist views of religion. Before Engels, the dominant mainstream view in society was essentially idealist. Christian missionaries adhered to the "theory of divine creation of religion," believing that the founder of Christianity was Jesus Christ, who became flesh to save the world, along with his disciples. They held that texts such as the Bible, which are rich in religious doctrine, although written by the disciples, were essentially the result of the disciples receiving "divine revelation." The Young Hegelian philosopher Bruno Bauer, once known for his critique of biblical texts, proposed that religion was created by human beings. However, he "like all people who struggle against deep-rooted prejudices, went too far in many places," leading to numerous errors in his arguments and incorrect judgments on many basic facts. The above views either stand within the narrative logic of religion, accepting "God created religion" from religious doctrine as a self-evident, unshakable premise; or they prioritize a predetermined stance, distorting basic historical facts to serve the contemporary need to criticize the Bible, and thus fail to provide a scientific answer to the question of the creator of early Christianity.

恩格斯要解决的关于宗教史阐释的第一个重大的基础问题是:原始基督教及其众多教义的创造者是谁?这也是无神论和有神论、唯物主义宗教观和唯心主义宗教观斗争的核心问题之一。在恩格斯之前,社会上占统治地位的主流观点基本上是唯心主义的。基督教的传教士们坚持“宗教神创论”,认为基督教的创立者是为了拯救世人“道成肉身”的耶稣基督及其门徒,圣经等富含宗教教义的文本虽然是门徒书写的,但是其本质上是门徒获得“神启”之后的成果。一度以圣经文本批判知名的青年黑格尔派哲学家布鲁诺·鲍威尔虽然提出了宗教是由世人所创造的观点,但他“像一切对根深蒂固的偏见做斗争的人们一样,在许多地方是做得过分的”,导致其论据错漏百出,对许多基本事实做出了错误判断。以上观点或站在宗教的叙事逻辑之内,把宗教教义中“上帝创造宗教”作为一个自明的、不容撼动的前提去接受;或者立场先行,为了服务于当时批判圣经的现实需要而对基本史实进行篡改,无法对原始基督教创造者问题作出科学回答。

Faced with this situation, Engels fully absorbed the research results of his predecessors and used the sharp weapon of historical materialism. He not only scientifically summarized the essence of religion—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"—but also put forward the judgment that "Christianity, like every great revolutionary movement, was made by the masses," and elaborated on this in detail by combining it with facts from religious history. Specifically, Engels mainly made the following four judgments to support the "theory of human creation."

面对这种情况,恩格斯充分吸收前人的研究成果,运用唯物史观这一锐利武器,不仅科学概括了“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”这一宗教的本质,还提出了“基督教同任何大的革命运动一样,也是群众创造的”论断,并且结合宗教史的事实做了详细的展开。具体而言,恩格斯主要做出以下四个判断以支撑“人创论”的观点。

First, the epistles and scriptures of early Christianity partly originated from the works of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, who were real, sentient human beings.

第一,原始基督教的经文书信部分来源于作为现实的、感性的人的古希腊罗马哲学家的作品。

The Bible clearly states: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). However, identical passages of text had already appeared in the works of the ancient Roman poet Persius and the philosopher Philo, which were written before the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles. Although Christians also noticed the similarities between the Bible and these ancient Greco-Roman writings, standing on the ground of apologetics, they had to insist that others had plagiarized the Bible, not that the Bible had plagiarized others. This view carries a strong ideological color and violates the true face of history. Regarding this phenomenon, Engels commented with an ironic tone: "In some places they seem to have been copied from the New Testament, which had not yet been written at that time." In his research, Engels also fully absorbed and utilized the achievements of bourgeois scholars. He pointed out in his article: "Bauer has proved that the Apostolic Epistles often plagiarize Seneca word for word." It is precisely for this reason that Engels compared the Stoic philosopher Seneca to the uncle of Christianity.

圣经中明确指出:“圣经都是神所默示的,于教训、督责、使人归正、教导人学义都是有益的”(《提摩太前书》3:16)。然而在福音书和使徒书信出现之前成书的古罗马诗人柏西阿斯(persius)和哲学家斐洛的作品中,已经出现了与其完全相同的文字段落。虽然基督徒也看到了圣经与这些古希腊罗马著作篇章的相似性,但是他们站在护教的立场上,不得不强调是他人抄袭了圣经而非圣经抄袭了他人。这种观点带有强烈的意识形态色彩,违反了历史的真实面貌。对于这个现象,恩格斯用反讽的语气评论道:“有些地方仿佛是从那时还不曾写下的新约上抄来的。”恩格斯在研究中还充分吸收运用了资产阶级学者的成果。他在文章中指出:“鲍威尔已经证明,使徒书信常常一字不差地抄袭塞涅卡。”也正因为如此,恩格斯将斯多葛学派的哲学家塞涅卡比作基督教的叔父。

Second, the scriptures and doctrines of early Christianity were heavily intermingled with cultural traces of the historically real Jewish people.

第二,原始基督教经文和教义中大量掺杂着犹太民族这一历史上真实存在民族的文化痕迹。

First, in the text of the Book of Revelation, the author elevates the Jews to a very high status. For example, when Revelation describes the scene of the saints before the throne of God, the first to appear are 144,000 Jews from the twelve tribes, followed only by other Gentiles who converted to Judaism. Second, the author of this text refers to his fellow believers only as "Jews," and when criticizing and condemning members of other sects, he states: "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 3:9). Third, the God "Yahweh" of early Christianity originated from the unique national god "Yahweh" of the Jewish people. Finally, the scriptures of early Christianity contain numerous condemnations of the Gentiles' practice of eating meat sacrificed to idols and committing fornication, which were precisely important issues of long-standing debate between Judaism and other religions. After listing much relevant material, Engels concluded: "All this is based entirely on pre-Christian, Jewish materials, and thus contains almost exclusively purely Jewish ideas."

其一,在《启示录》经文中,作者将犹太人提到很高的地位。例如,《启示录》在描述圣徒在神的宝座之前出现的场景时,首先是来自12个宗派的144000个犹太人,其次才是改信犹太教的其他异教徒。其二,这篇经文的作者在称呼自己教友的时候只称他们为“犹太人”,在批判谴责其他宗派分子的时候指出:“那撒但一会的、自称是犹太人、其实不是犹太人”(《启示录》3:9)。其三,原始基督教中的上帝“耶和华”来源于犹太人独有的民族神“雅赫维”。最后,原始基督教经文中大量谴责异教徒吃祭拜偶像之物和行奸淫之事的行为,而这正是犹太教和其他宗教长期争论的重要问题,等等。在罗列了许多相关材料之后,恩格斯总结道:“所有这一切都完全是以基督教之前的、犹太教的材料构成的,因而这里几乎全都是纯粹犹太教的观念。”

Third, the doctrines of Christianity originated from ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, especially the teachings of the Stoic school.

第三,基督教的教义来源于古希腊罗马哲学家,特别是斯多葛学派哲学家的学说。

Engels believed that the core concepts of Christianity were a popularized and vulgarized embodiment of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, particularly Stoic philosophy. For example, the Stoics first proposed the idea of natural law, that is, the belief that there exists in the universe a universal principle governing all things, namely the Logos. In the New Testament’s Gospel of John, the author directly equates the Logos with God, stating at the very beginning of the text: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The Stoics first advanced the concept of the equality of all people, holding that regardless of birth, race, status, or wealth, all human beings are the same. This is very similar to the Christian idea that all are equal before God. The Stoics first put forward the concept of cosmopolitanism. This concept holds that every person is a member of the single human family, and that the relationship of the individual to humanity as a whole is superior to the relationship with any particular race or state; therefore, one must establish a new cosmopolitan outlook that transcends a single race or nation. This is very similar to the way Christians within the faith call one another brothers and sisters, and so on. Regarding the relationship between Christianity and Stoic philosophy, Bauer conducted extensive research, demonstrating the similarities between Stoic philosophy and Christian concepts. It is in this sense that Engels, in his commentary on Bauer, pointed out that his most outstanding research achievement was that “Philo of Alexandria, who was still alive at an advanced age in the year 40, is the real father of Christianity.” [1]1 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture. It is a key concept in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

恩格斯认为,基督教的核心观念是古希腊罗马哲学特别是斯多葛学派哲学观念的大众化、通俗化的体现。例如,斯多葛学派首先提出了自然法思想,也就是认为宇宙中存在着某种支配一切事物的普遍法则,即逻各斯。而在《新约.约翰福音》中,作者直接把逻各斯和神划上了等号,在经文的一开始就指出:“太初有道,道与神同在,道就是神”(《约翰福音》1:1)。斯多葛学派首先提出了人人平等的观念,认为人与人之间无论出身、种族、地位和财富如何,他们都是相同的。而这与基督徒在上帝面前人人平等十分相似。斯多葛学派首先提出了世界主义的概念。这一概念认为每个人都是人类大家庭中的一员,个人与人类整体的关系优于与个别种族、与国家的关系,因此要树立一种超越单一种族和国家的世界主义新观念,而这和基督教内信徒互称兄弟姐妹十分相似,等等。在基督教与斯多葛学派哲学的关系上,鲍威尔进行了大量研究,证明了斯多葛学派哲学和基督教理念的相似性。也正是在这个意义上,恩格斯在评论鲍威尔时指出,他的最卓越的研究成果是“公元40年还以高龄活着的亚历山大里亚的犹太人斐洛是基督教的真正父亲”。

Fourth, the developmental history of early Christian doctrine reveals a process of layer-by-layer accumulation of creation by actual, real human beings, and cannot reflect the instantaneous creation of a supreme God.

第四,原始基督教教义的发展历史体现出一个个现实的人的层层创作积累过程,无法体现出至高无上的神一蹴而就的创造。

If Christian doctrine originated from the creation of a supreme God, it should have been perfect and flawless from the very beginning. The doctrines embodied in the various scriptures would not show traces of development from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the complex, from the isolated to the comprehensive, nor would there be contradictions and conflicts between doctrines. But the facts are precisely the opposite: the developmental history of Christian doctrine clearly exhibits characteristics of gradualness and internal conflict. Using linguistic methods to analyze the various books of the Bible, Engels pointed out: “That the so-called Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and this Book [Revelation] belong to at least three different authors can be clearly confirmed even without looking at the completely contradictory doctrines they expound, simply from their writing style.” In the earliest Christian document, the Book of Revelation, core concepts such as original sin, the Logos, and offering spiritual worship and repentance before God are entirely absent. The so-called Christian morality is limited to a single precept: “abstain from fleshly lusts.” This reflects the earliest, most rudimentary form of Christianity: in terms of doctrine, “not a word is said about original sin. Not a word about the Trinity.” The later systematized and complete doctrines here show “not a trace.”

如果基督教的教义来源于至高无上的神的创作,那么应当一开始就是完美无缺的,各篇经文中体现的教义不会出现从低级到高级、从简单到复杂、从孤立到全面的痕迹,也不会出现教义与教义之间的对立与冲突。但是事实与此恰恰相反,基督教教义的发展历史显现出明显的渐进性与前后冲突特征。恩格斯通过语言学的方法分析圣经中的各个篇目,指出:“所谓约翰福音、约翰书和本篇,至少属于三个不同的作者,这一点,即使不看它们所阐述的全然互相矛盾的教义,单从它们的文字也可以清楚地得到证实。”在基督教最早期的文献《启示录》中,原罪说、逻各斯和在神面前用心灵奉献忏悔等核心的观念均没有出现,而所谓的基督教道德只有“禁止肉欲”一条。这体现出基督教一开始的最粗糙形式:在教义方面,“关于原罪,未见片言只语。关于三位一体,也只字未提”,后期体系化、完整化的教义在这里“连一点痕迹也没有”。

Engels’s answer to the question of the origin of early Christianity and its creators not only adhered to the atheistic view of “human creation” but also identified the specific scholars, texts, and events that, in the course of historical development, constituted the sources of religious elements. This series of arguments and the process of reasoning conform to the epistemology of historical materialism, making the concept of “human-created religion” more concrete and profound, and making an outstanding contribution to correctly understanding the origins of early Christianity.

恩格斯对原始基督教及其教义创造者问题的回答不仅坚持了“人创论”的无神论观点,更是找到了历史发展中构成宗教元素来源的具体学者、文本和事件。这一系列论据及论述过程符合唯物史观的认识论,使得“人创宗教”的观念更加具体深入,为正确认识原始基督教起源问题做出了突出贡献。

II. Distorted Visions Based on Real History: Engels’s Epistemological Reduction of the Creation of Visions in Early Christianity

二、以真实历史为基础的扭曲异象:恩格斯对原始基督教幻景创作的认识论还原

The second major foundational problem Engels sought to resolve was whether the many absurd and bizarre visions in early Christianity—which Christians nevertheless regarded as historical facts and correct prophecies of the future—were real. The scriptures of early Christianity contain many miraculous visions. For example, the Book of Revelation describes a scene: “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads” (Revelation 12:1-3).

恩格斯要解决的第二个重大的基础问题是:原始基督教中许多荒诞、怪异,但是被基督徒认为是历史事实和对未来的正确昭示的幻景是否真实。在原始基督教的经文中存在着许多神奇的幻景,如《启示录》中曾经描述这样一段场景:“天上现出大异象来。有一个妇人,身披日头,脚踏月亮,头戴十二星的冠冕。她怀了孕,在生产的艰难中疼痛呼叫。天上又现出异象来。有一条大红龙,七头十角,七头上戴着七个冠冕”(《启示录》12:1-3)。

In the process of spreading Christianity, these visions and signs greatly enhanced its mystery, involuntarily arousing in the masses a feeling of wanting to worship. These visions also vividly depicted the appearance of the world people go to after death: they described the place Christians go to as heaven and the place non-Christians go to as hell, becoming an important factor in promoting the widespread dissemination of Christianity. Therefore, the authenticity and origin of these visions became a crucial issue in the struggle between theism and atheism. Christian missionaries believed that these visions all originated from divine revelation and were things that would inevitably be realized in the future. “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place” (Revelation 1:1). Medieval freethinkers and some scholars of the Enlightenment proposed the “religious fraud theory,” holding that the founders of Christianity were essentially a group of deceivers, and dismissing all the constituent elements of Christianity, especially the various visions, as fabrications by swindlers, arguing that they reflected no real history whatsoever. The above views either use the text of the Bible as evidence for the correctness of the content recorded in the Bible, falling into the logical trap of circular reasoning, or they take a position first and crudely negate all visions, thereby overlooking the valuable content hidden behind them, failing to provide a correct answer to the question of the authenticity of the visions.

在基督教的传播过程中,这些幻景与异象大大增强了基督教的神秘性,让群众不由自主产生一种想要顶礼膜拜的感觉。这些幻景同时还生动描绘出人们死亡后所去世界的样子:它们将基督徒去到的地方描述成天堂,非基督徒去到的地方描写为地狱,成为促使基督教广泛传播的重要因素。因此,这些幻景的真实性与来源成为有神论和无神论斗争的重要问题。基督教的传教士们认为,这些幻景都来源于神的启示,是在未来必然实现的内容。“耶稣基督的启示,就是神赐给他,叫他将必要快成的事指示他的众仆人”(《启示录》1:1)。中世纪的自由思想者和启蒙运动中的部分学者提出“宗教骗局论”,认为基督教的创立者本质上是一群骗子,并将基督教的各种组成元素特别是各种幻景一概斥为骗子的捏造,认为其中不能体现出任何真实的历史。以上观点或将圣经中的文字作为论证圣经记载内容正确性的论据,进入循环论证的逻辑陷阱;或立场先行,将幻景一律粗暴地否定,从而忽视了其背后蕴藏的有价值内容,无法对幻景真实性问题做出正确回答。

Faced with this situation, Engels insisted on analyzing the problem using the Marxist “theory of active reflection,” [2]2 This is a quotation from Engels's work on the history of early Christianity. pointing out that the objective material world, which exists independently of human consciousness, is the object and source of cognition; that cognition is the subject’s active reflection of the object, a subjective image of the objective world; and he further developed this analysis in conjunction with the content of the biblical Book of Revelation. Specifically, Engels made the following three judgments.

面对这种情况,恩格斯坚持用马克思主义“能动的反映论”分析问题,指出,客观的不依赖于人的意识而存在的物质世界是认识的对象和源泉;认识是主体对客体的能动反映,是客观世界的主观映像,并且结合圣经《启示录》中的内容进一步展开。具体而言,恩格斯主要做出以下三个判断。

First, the numerous visions in the Book of Revelation do not exist in real society; they are products of the author’s fabrication.

第一,《启示录》中的众多幻景在现实社会中并不存在,是作者虚构的产物。

In the Book of Revelation, the author explicitly states: “I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things” (Revelation 22:8). However, after attending lectures given by Professor Ferdinand Benary at the University of Berlin, Engels discovered that “the visions which constitute almost the entire content of the Book of Revelation are for the most part copied verbatim from the ancient prophets of the Old Testament and their later imitators.” These visions are also not events that will happen in the future, as the scripture claims, but rather “events that have already happened and are well known to the real author.” Engels pointed out that the reason the author of the Book of Revelation presented events that had already happened as prophecies was that the author wanted to use the correctness of the prophecies to confirm that his own judgments about the future were also correct, that is, “to make the reader accept the final prophecy that the Israelites would overcome all hardships and ultimately triumph.”

在《启示录》中,作者明确说明:“这些事是我约翰所听见所看见的”(《启示录》22:8)。然而恩格斯在听取斐迪南.贝纳里教授在柏林大学讲述的课程后发现:“几乎构成《启示录》全部内容的那些幻景,多半是逐字抄自旧约中的古代先知及其后来的模仿者。”这些幻景也不是如经文中所说的未来将会发生的事情,而是“早已发生并为真正作者所熟知的一些事情”。恩格斯指出,之所以《启示录》的作者将早已发生的事情当作预言,是因为作者想通过预言的正确性来证实自己对未来的判断也是正确的,也就是“使读者能够接受最后关于以色列人会克服一切苦难,终将胜利的预言”。

Second, among the numerous visions in the Book of Revelation, certain specific image elements can find their corresponding real-world basis, reflecting the historical conditions of that time.

第二,《启示录》的众多幻景中,某些具体的形象要素能够找到其对应的现实基础,反映出当时的历史状况。

Engels points out that during the period when the Book of Revelation was written, Christians were suffering persecution from the Roman authorities, and the believers were filled with fear. To strengthen the believers’ confidence and simultaneously avoid official censorship, the author used various fantastic visions to refer to real people, events, and things, making a series of prophecies. He conducted an in-depth analysis of the number “666,” which appears multiple times in the text, and used the correspondence between numbers and letters in Kabbalah to determine that it referred to the Greek “Nero Caesar.” He also spelled “Nero Caesar” using Hebrew letters, obtaining another number, “616,” which also appears multiple times in the text, thereby cross-verifying the reliability of the research. Engels further points out that the “woman clothed in scarlet” described in Revelation is a metaphor for Rome, the great city that rules over the kings of the earth, and the “seven kings” represent the rulers of Rome. The period when Revelation was written can be inferred from the text’s statement, “five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come,” to be the reign of Galba from June 68 to January 69 AD. Through these various methods, Engels translates the meaning the author of Revelation intended to convey obscurely: “Nero will return around 70 AD, and during his reign he will carry out a reign of terror lasting 42 months, or 1,260 days. After this period, God will appear, defeat Nero the Antichrist, burn this great city with fire, and bind this devil for a thousand years.”

恩格斯指出,在《启示录》成书时期,基督徒正遭受罗马当局的迫害,信徒们心中充满了恐惧。为了增强信徒们的信心,同时为了避免当局的审查,作者用各种神奇的幻景指代现实中存在的人、事、物,做出了一系列预言。他深入分析了在文本中多次出现的数目字“666”,并使用“喀巴拉”中数字与字母的对应关系分析出其代指的是希腊文中的“尼禄凯撒”。他还使用希伯来文字母拼写“尼禄凯撒”,得到了另一个在文本中多次出现的数目字“616”,交叉证明了研究的可靠性。恩格斯进一步指出,《启示录》中所描写的“身着朱红色衣服的女人”,是管辖地上众王的大城—罗马的隐喻,“七位王”则代指罗马的统治者。而《启示录》的成书时期,则可以通过文本中“五位已经倾倒了,一位还在,一位还没有来到”这句话推断出是公元68年6月到69年1月加尔巴统治期间。恩格斯通过以上各种方法,将《启示录》作者想要隐晦表达的意思翻译出来,即“尼禄将在公元70年前后回来,在他在位期间要施行的恐怖统治,将持续42个月,即1260天。过了这段时间,神就会出现,战胜尼禄这个反基督者,用火焚毁这座大城,并把这个魔鬼捆绑一千年”。

Third, the process of forming the visions in Revelation reflects the subjective initiative exerted by its creator on the basis of historical facts.

第三,《启示录》中幻景的形成过程体现了其创造者在历史事实基础上发挥的主观能动性。

Engels believes that the various visions recorded in Revelation are precisely a distorted reflection of the social reality and people’s psychological and ideological conditions at that time. Engels points out, “What Christianity was like in 68 AD we can see as in a mirror from this chapter,” and “it reflects the ideas of that time with the most naive truthfulness and corresponding customary language.” However, this appearance and these ideas are distorted. “As for artificial religions… but at their founding, deception and falsification of history were indispensable, and Christianity, as Bauer pointed out in his critical study of the New Testament, showed considerable achievements in this regard from the very beginning.” Engels argues that, faced with the historical fact of the existence and development of primitive Christianity, one cannot lightly deny Christianity entirely as previous researchers did, but must solve problems such as “Where did the ideas and thoughts that were combined into a system in Christianity come from, and how did they achieve world dominance?”

恩格斯认为,《启示录》中所记录的种种幻景正是当时社会现实及人们心理、思想状况的扭曲反映。恩格斯指出,“公元68年时的基督教是什么样子,我们可以像看镜中映像一样从这一篇章中看到”,“它以最朴素的真实性和相应的习惯语言反映出了当时的观念”。然而,这种面貌和观念是经过扭曲的。“至于人为的宗教……但在其创立的时候,便少不了欺骗和伪造历史,而基督教,如鲍威尔在考证新约时所指出的,也一开始就在这方面表现出了可观的成绩。”恩格斯认为,面对原始基督教的存在和发展这一历史事实,不能像以往的研究者一样轻佻地将基督教完全否定,而应当解决“在基督教中被联结成了一种体系的那些观念和思想,是从哪里来的,而且是怎样取得世界统治地位的?”等问题。

Engels’ answer to the question of the authenticity of the visions in primitive Christian scriptures both exposes the essential illusoriness and fictitiousness of all visions and, from an epistemological perspective, restores the real basis and formation process of these distorted visions. This analysis provides important content for the contemporary scientific promotion of atheism.

恩格斯对原始基督教经文中幻景真实性问题的回答既揭穿了各种幻景本质上的虚幻性和虚构性,又从认识论的角度还原了这些扭曲幻景的现实基础与形成过程。这一分析为当下科学宣传无神论提供了重要内容。

III. The Darwinian Winner: Engels’ Practical Interpretation of the Reasons for Primitive Christianity’s Ascendancy to Dominance

三、达尔文式竞争的胜利者:恩格斯对原始基督教取得统治地位原因的实践论阐释

The third major question Engels needed to solve was: Why was primitive Christianity able to defeat other popular religions of the time in the struggle for survival and achieve dominance? Saint Augustine, a famous theologian of the Roman Empire who happened to live in this period, believed this was mainly because God continuously manifested “miracles” through divine plan and grace. Theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, on the other hand, believed it was the missionary spirit of preachers inspired by God and the translation and dissemination of the Bible that led more people to accept Christianity. Although Bauer provided a large amount of valuable material, “the idealism of this German philosopher hindered him, preventing him from making clear observations and precise explanations. Often at critical junctures, he had to use empty words instead of facts,” to the point of also erasing the genuine components in the history of primitive Christianity. The above views either attribute the dominance of primitive Christianity to God, a non-existent entity, or abandon historical facts for arbitrary analysis at key points, failing to provide a scientific answer to the reasons for primitive Christianity’s ascendancy to dominance.

恩格斯要解决的第三个重大问题是:为什么原始基督教能够在生存竞争中打败当时流行的其他宗教并取得统治地位?恰好生活在这一时期的罗马帝国著名神学家圣奥古斯丁认为,这主要是因为上帝通过神圣的计划和恩典不断展现“神迹”。而圣托马斯.阿奎那和马丁.路德等神学家则认为是上帝感召下传教士的献身精神与圣经的译介传播使得更多人接受了基督教。鲍威尔虽然提供了大量珍贵的材料,但是“这位德国哲学家的唯心主义妨碍了他,使他不能作明晰的观察和精确的说明。往往在紧要关头,不得不用空话来代替事实”,以至于将原始基督教历史中真实的成分也一并抹去。以上观点或将原始基督教的统治地位归功于上帝这个不存在的实体,或在关键环节抛开史实进行随意分析,无法对原始基督教取得统治地位的原因做出科学回答。

Faced with this situation, Engels points out that because value evaluation is subjective, the process of the spread and expansion of religious influence cannot be understood through pure speculative analysis. The reason primitive Christianity achieved victory was that its ideas and doctrines were highly adapted to the economic, political, and social conditions of the Roman Empire. Specifically, Engels makes the following three judgments.

面对这种情况,恩格斯指出,由于价值评价具有主体性,因此不能通过纯粹的思辨分析来认知宗教影响传播扩大的过程。原始基督教取得胜利的原因,是因为其思想教义与罗马帝国的经济、政治和社会状况高度适应。具体而言,恩格斯做出以下三个判断。

First, the cosmopolitan concept of “equality for all” in primitive Christianity adapted to the needs of the “unified” Roman Empire to consolidate its rule.

首先,原始基督教“人人平等”的世界主义观念适应了“大一统”的罗马帝国推广统治的需要。

Before being conquered by the Roman Empire, from the Italian peninsula, Greek city-states, the Kingdom of Macedon, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, “we can almost everywhere see society completely divided into various distinct ranks, and social status divided into multiple layers.” For example, in the typical Greek city-state of Athens, the archon Solon divided citizens into four classes based on property, enjoying different political and military rights and obligations, in addition to distinctions between citizens, foreigners, and slaves. These differences in identity, rank, and status naturally created barriers and divisions in identification among people. Engels points out that the rule and occupation of the Roman Empire, by changing the political order and old conditions of social life, produced a “remarkable leveling effect,” simplifying the differences between people. Specifically, this simplification of differences is manifested on three levels: On the political level, the Roman Empire eliminated the internal class divisions of previous states, replacing them with the simple distinction of whether one was a Roman citizen (except for the still-retained institution of slavery). On the economic level, the Roman Empire required all people to accept uniformly the tax exploitation carried out in the name of the state. On the legal level, the Roman Empire abolished the legal systems of the original states, requiring that “everywhere, Roman judges make judgments according to Roman law.” The conquest of the Roman Empire canceled the particularities of the people living in its ruled territories, endowing them with the universality of being ruled and oppressed by the Roman Empire. This “equal oppression” diluted other differences among the oppressed masses, giving them a sense of “fellow suffering” and a tendency towards mutual aid, which adapted to the Christian religious doctrine of equality before God regardless of race, wealth, or status, where everyone has the right to enjoy God’s grace and love. As Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring: “Christianity only recognized one kind of equality for all people, the equality of original sin, which was entirely consistent with its nature as a religion of slaves and the oppressed.”

在被罗马帝国征服之前,从意大利半岛、希腊城邦、马其顿王国、叙利亚、埃及和北非,“我们几乎到处都可以看到社会完全划分为各个不同的等级,看到社会地位分成多种多样的层次”。如在典型的希腊城邦雅典,执政官梭伦依据财产的多少将公民分为四个等级,享有不同的政治、军事权利和义务,除此之外还有公民、外邦人和奴隶之间的差别。这种身份、等级与地位的差别,自然而然造成了人与人之间认同的隔阂与分裂。恩格斯指出,罗马帝国的统治与占领,通过改变政治秩序和旧有的社会生活条件,产生了“惊人的荡平一切的作用”,使得人与人之间的差别简单化了。具体而言,这种差别的简单化体现在三个层面:在政治层面,罗马帝国消灭了以前各个国家内部的等级划分,代之以是否是罗马帝国公民的简单差别(仍然还保留着的奴隶制度除外)。在经济层面,罗马帝国要求所有人民都要无差别地接受以国家名义进行的税收压榨。在法律层面,罗马帝国废除了原来各个国家的法律制度,要求“到处都由罗马法官根据罗马法进行判决”。罗马帝国的征服,取消了其统治地区生活的人民的特殊性,赋予他们被罗马帝国统治和压迫的普遍性。这种“平等的压迫”淡化了被压迫群众之间其他层面的差别,使他们产生“同病相怜”的感觉和互相援助的倾向,而这则与基督教不分人种、不分贫富、不分尊卑、在上帝面前人人平等、人人都有权享受上帝恩典和慈爱的宗教教义相适应。正如恩格斯在《反杜林论》中写道:“基督教只承认一切人的一种平等,即原罪的平等,这同它曾经作为奴隶和被压迫者的宗教的性质是完全适合的。”

Second, the doctrines of “sin within me” and “salvation of the soul” in primitive Christianity catered to the tendency of the common people during the Roman Empire period who, unable to pursue material salvation, turned to seek spiritual comfort, and thus gained the conviction of the masses.

其次,原始基督教“罪孽在我”“灵魂得救”的教义迎合了罗马帝国时期普罗大众无法追求物质得救,转而追求思想安慰的倾向,因此得到了群众的信服。

Engels points out that the rule of the Roman Empire divided the extremely complex social estates and nationalities into three classes: the rich, the great landowners, and the usurers; the free citizens without property; and the broadest masses — the slaves. Yet regardless of the height of their class or the amount of wealth they possessed, they all found themselves in a state of "universal rightlessness" before the Roman authorities: during the period from Tiberius to Nero, there were instances where the authorities arbitrarily sentenced rich men to death in order to confiscate their property; in the various provinces, free citizens without property had to face endless labor and competition with the slave class; and the slave class remained perpetually under the control and enslavement of the slave-owners. Faced with the aggression and rule of the Roman Empire, many also engaged in resistance and struggle. Among the more famous of these were the Spartacus uprising, the Jewish revolt, the Catalonian revolt, and so on. [1]1 The “Two Integrations” (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture. It is a key concept in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Yet because the balance of forces was too disparate, these uprisings and struggles could not avoid the outcome of defeat. The defeat of the uprisings of the inhabitants of various regions led to the most rebellious and most revolutionary spirits among the peoples "being eliminated, if not before the conquest, then during the conquest, and often even after the conquest, in the struggle." [2]2 This is a quotation from Engels's work on the history of early Christianity. At the same time, the thinkers who should have guided the progressive direction of the common people could not bear the responsibility of educating the masses. Either they pursued material interests, simply making a living by teaching the content of books, or they attached themselves to the rich, defending their actions. Faced with the profound real-world suffering brought about by the rule of the Roman Empire, from the common people to the upper aristocracy, they had to accept this state of universal rightlessness and the result that the status quo could not be improved, ultimately leading to a universal dejection and spiritual decadence. In the face of this situation, primitive Christianity explicitly stated that "the guilt lies in me," holding that the many sufferings in reality all originated from "original sin," which could not be escaped through one's own actions and efforts, thereby providing a rationalization for the miserable conditions faced by the common people that conformed to their own cognition. On this basis, primitive Christianity further pointed out that anyone could achieve the salvation of their soul through faith in Jesus Christ, who sacrificed himself for humanity. This easily understood formula of "sin – atonement" evoked resonance among the people and gave them ideological comfort.

恩格斯指出,罗马帝国的统治将极其复杂的社会等级和民族分成三个阶级,分别是富人、大地主、高利贷者;没有财产的自由民;最广大的群众—奴隶。然而无论他们所处的阶级高低和拥有的财富多少,他们在罗马当局面前都处于“普遍的无权”地位:在梯比里乌斯到尼禄统治时期,出现了当局任意判处富人死刑以没收其财产的现象;在各个行省中,没有财产的自由民需要面对无穷无尽的劳动和与奴隶阶级的竞争;而奴隶阶级则始终处于奴隶主的控制与奴役下。面对罗马帝国的侵略和统治,也有许多人进行了反抗和斗争。其中比较著名的有斯巴达克斯起义、犹太人起义、卡塔兰尼起义,等等。然而由于力量对比过于悬殊,这些起义与斗争都无法避免失败的结局。各地居民起义的失败,导致各民族中最有反抗精神、最有革命精神的人,“不是在被征服前、被征服时、甚至往往在被征服后的斗争中被消灭”。与此同时,本应当指引普罗大众进步方向的思想家们也不能承担起教化大众的责任。他们或追逐物质利益,单纯以教授书籍中的内容为生,或依附于富人,为其所作所为辩护。面对罗马帝国统治所带来的深重现实苦难,从普罗大众到上层贵族不得不接受这种普遍无权的地位和现状无法改善的结果,最终导致普遍的意志消沉和精神颓废。面对这种情况,原始基督教明确指出“罪孽在我”,认为在现实中的诸多苦难都来源于无法通过自己的行为和努力摆脱的“原罪”,为普罗大众面临的悲惨状况提出了符合其自身认知的合理化解释。在此基础上,原始基督教进一步指出,任何人都可以通过信仰为人类牺牲的耶稣基督使灵魂得到拯救。这种“有罪-赎罪”的容易理解的公式在人群之间唤起共鸣,给他们以思想上的安慰。

Finally, the simplified, popularized, and mass-oriented rituals and doctrines of primitive Christianity conformed to the cognitive level of the religious population at that time.

最后,原始基督教简易化、通俗化、大众化的仪轨和教义符合当时信仰宗教人群的认知程度。

Engels points out that among the three classes of the Roman Empire, the first two classes still had the possibility of obtaining sensory pleasures through money to seek escape from reality; however, the slave class, which had neither money, nor power, nor opinions, nor freedom, could only avoid falling into utter despair by pursuing the ideological comfort of religion. Moreover, because the slave class constituted the vast majority of the population of the Roman Empire, the doctrines of any religion could only be widely disseminated if they conformed to the cognitive level and practical needs of the slave class. Engels deeply analyzed the differences in doctrines and rituals between all past religions and primitive Christianity. He pointed out that in all past religions, religious ceremonies such as sacrifices, pilgrimages, and dietary precepts were extremely important matters. "Only by participating in sacrifices and pilgrimages, and in the East also by observing extremely tedious dietary and purity regulations, could one prove one's religious affiliation." [3]3 This is a quotation from Engels's work on the history of early Christianity. The high importance attached to religious rituals increased the estrangement and opposition between people, added difficulty for the common people in believing in religion, and even caused ancient Eastern societies to decline. Compared with other religions such as Judaism and Islam, primitive Christianity abolished all tedious rituals and stipulated that all nationalities were equal before God. This simplification of the steps for believing in religion and the egalitarian tendency of welcoming all people to believe in it adapted to the cognition of the oppressed people of the time, providing a highly feasible path for all oppressed people who wanted to escape the suffering world and seek release from reality. Primitive Christianity also absorbed a large number of believers from the lower classes, laying a good foundation for its later development into a world religion.

恩格斯指出,在罗马帝国的三个阶级中,前两个阶级还有可能通过金钱获得感官享乐以寻求从现实中解脱,然而既无钱、又无权、没有主见还无自由的奴隶阶级只能通过追求宗教这种思想的安慰来避免陷入彻底绝望的境地。又因为奴隶阶级占罗马帝国人口的绝大多数,因此任何一个宗教的教义只有符合奴隶阶级的认知水平和现实需要,才能够得到广泛传播。恩格斯深入分析了过去一切宗教和原始基督教在教义和仪轨方面的差别。他指出,在过去的所有宗教中,祭祀、巡礼和饮食戒律等宗教仪式是十分重要的事情。“只有参加祭祀和巡礼,在东方还须遵守十分烦琐的饮食和洁净方面的清规,才能证明自己的教籍。”对宗教仪式的高度重视增加了人与人之间的隔阂与对立,为普罗大众信仰宗教增添了难度,甚至使得古代东方社会趋于衰落。与犹太教和伊斯兰教等其他宗教相比,原始基督教取消了一切繁琐的仪式,规定所有民族在上帝面前一律平等。这种信教步骤的简易化与欢迎一切人信教的平等倾向适应了当时被压迫人民的认知,为所有想要摆脱苦难世界,寻求从现实中解脱的被压迫之人提供了高度可行的路径,原始基督教也从底层人民中吸收了大量的信徒,为后来进一步发展成为世界宗教打下了良好的基础。

In his answer to the question of the reasons for primitive Christianity's attainment of a dominant position, Engels clarified the process by which this social consciousness of primitive Christianity adapted to and reacted upon the social being of the time, transforming into a dominant social force. This series of arguments and the process of argumentation can be called a model for using historical materialism, especially the method of class analysis, to analyze concrete problems.

恩格斯在对原始基督教取得统治地位原因的回答中明确了原始基督教这一社会意识是如何适应并反作用于当时的社会存在,并转化成为占统治地位的社会力量的过程。这一系列论据及论述过程可谓是利用唯物史观特别是阶级分析方法分析具体问题的典范。

IV. Practical Implications

四、现实启示

Engels's late-life series of studies on primitive Christianity, building upon the achievements of Western religious critique and atheism, are important texts that apply historical materialism to analyze concrete religious issues. They hold significant meaning for advancing the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies and scientific atheism research.

恩格斯晚年原始基督教系列研究是承接西方宗教批判和无神论研究成果,运用唯物史观分析具体宗教问题的重要文献,在推进马克思主义宗教学学科建设和科学无神论研究中具有重要意义。

(I) The late-life series of studies on primitive Christianity by Engels should be highly valued from the perspective of the holistic nature of Marxist theory, with particular attention to fully recognizing the scientific and systematic character of the Marxist view of religion.

(一)应当从马克思主义理论的整体性高度重视恩格斯晚年原始基督教系列研究,特别是充分认识马克思主义宗教观的科学性、系统性

As a co-founder of Marxism, a scientific practitioner, and an unremitting promoter, Engels's study of primitive Christianity can be called a pioneering model for guiding the study of religious history with Marxism, especially historical materialism. It is an indispensable primary source document for deeply understanding and comprehending the basic principles of Marxism and for guiding religious work under the new situation. Regrettably, however, research in the academic world commensurate with its importance is still rare. This is reflected in: First, compared with the religious thought of other classical Marxist writers, the number of specialized studies in the academic world on Engels's relevant expositions is still relatively small. Second, Engels's relevant expositions were put forward over 150 years ago. In recent years, a large number of new materials, new viewpoints, and new insights concerning the history of primitive Christianity have emerged in overseas academic circles and Christian circles. Yet domestic academic circles remain largely at the stage of summarizing and restating Engels's relevant expositions, lacking both the translation, introduction, and evaluation of overseas academic research on Engels's relevant expositions, and lacking in-depth analysis of the methodological principles embodied in Engels's relevant research. Third, a small number of scholars hold a questioning attitude towards individual assertions in Engels's relevant expositions and have put forward new viewpoints based on the knowledge systems of other disciplines. While this attitude of not rigidly adhering to the texts of classical writers and treating Marxism with a developmental perspective is certainly good, their argumentation process and logic are very vague, and they cannot produce strong evidence to prove their viewpoints. Adhering to the holistic nature of Marxist theory requires us to conduct research using methods that unify logic and history, and unify macro-level and micro-level research. In this regard, Engels has set an example for us. A fair evaluation should be given to the historical status of Engels's relevant research, and on this basis, the Marxist view of religion should be understood more accurately.

作为马克思主义的共同创立者、科学运用者和不懈推进者,恩格斯对原始基督教的研究可谓是以马克思主义特别是唯物史观指导宗教史研究的开山典范,是深入理解体会马克思主义基本原理,指引新形势下宗教工作不可多得的一手文献资料。然而令人遗憾的是,当今学界与其重要性相匹配的研究尚不多见,这体现在:第一,比之其他马克思主义经典作家的宗教学思想,学界对恩格斯相关论述的专门研究数量仍然相对较少。第二,恩格斯相关论述的提出时间距今已有150余年。近些年来,海外学界和基督教界关于原始基督教历史的新材料、新观点和新见解大量涌现。然而国内学界仍基本停留在概括和复述恩格斯相关论述的阶段,既缺乏对海外学界关于恩格斯相关论述研究的译介与评析,又缺乏对恩格斯相关研究中体现出的方法论原则的深入探析。第三,有个别学者对恩格斯相关论述中的个别论断持商榷态度,并且基于其他学科的知识体系提出了新的观点。这种不拘泥于经典作家文本,用发展的眼光对待马克思主义的态度固然是好的,然而其论证过程和论证逻辑却十分含糊,不能拿出有力的证据以证明其观点。坚持马克思主义理论的整体性,要求我们运用逻辑和历史相统一、宏观研究和微观研究相统一的方法进行研究。在这方面,恩格斯为我们做出了典范。应当对恩格斯相关研究的历史地位给予公正评价,并在此基础上更加准确地理解马克思主义宗教观。

(II) Persist in using historical materialism to deeply guide contemporary research and writing on religious history, and consolidate the discourse power of Marxism in the field of religious research.

(二)坚持运用唯物史观深入指导当代宗教史研究与书写,巩固马克思主义在宗教研究领域的话语权

Taking Marxism as the guide is the fundamental hallmark that distinguishes religious studies in China in the New Era from other forms of religious studies, and it is also the basic principle for perfecting the construction of its disciplinary system, advancing innovation in the academic system, and strengthening the construction of the discourse system. However, since a period in the 1990s, a trend of de-Marxification has emerged in China’s religious studies and research on the history of religion. This is reflected in the following: first, in research, there has been a dilution of the basic stance, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism, replaced by an endorsement of Western religious studies value propositions such as “de-ideologization,” “suspending belief,” and “value neutrality.” For example, some scholars have proposed “changing the view that ‘religion is ideology,’” arguing that it is necessary to “conduct comprehensive, multi-level reflections on traditional religions and real-world religious issues from a cultural studies perspective.” Second, there have been calls for a “re-understanding” and “re-evaluation” of the nature and function of religion, unilaterally emphasizing the positive role of religion while neglecting the complex social and political factors behind it. For instance, some scholars have reinterpreted the Marxist “opium of the people” thesis, arguing that religion is “merely a palliative in a life of suffering and hardship” and “exists as a kind of emotion, consciousness, and ultimate concern for ordinary people.” They use this understanding to “eliminate misunderstandings and even hostility between theistic religions and ordinary people toward Marxism,” and propose that “we can no longer artificially reinforce the separation and opposition between Marxism and religion.” Third, in modern Chinese history, there are confused understandings of many major issues related to religion, and even stances taken on the wrong side. For example, a large number of books claim that missionaries came to China “merely out of a fervent devotion to spreading the gospel,” while ignoring the basic historical fact that imperialism used foreign religions like Christianity, with the help of some missionaries, to invade China, objectively achieving the effect of whitewashing the history of colonial and imperialist aggression against China. In the face of these various chaotic phenomena, we must adhere to the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method in understanding and writing religious history, follow the relevant laws of religious work, and deepen research and properly handle issues related to the religious sphere.

以马克思主义为指导,是新时代中国宗教学研究与其他各种宗教学研究区别的根本标志,也是完善其学科体系建设、推进学术体系创新、加强话语体系构建的基本原则。然而自20世纪90年代的一段时间以来,中国的宗教学和宗教史研究却出现了一股去马克思主义的倾向。这体现在,第一,在研究中淡化马克思主义的基本立场、观点和方法,转而标榜“去意识形态化”“悬置信仰”“价值中立”等西方宗教学的价值主张。例如,有学者提出“要改变‘宗教是意识形态’的观点”,认为要“从文化学角度对传统宗教和现实宗教问题进行全方位、多层次的思考”。第二,提出对宗教的本质和作用进行“再认识”“再评价”,片面强调宗教的积极作用,却忽视了宗教背后包含的复杂社会政治因素。例如,有学者重新解读马克思主义的“宗教鸦片论”,认为宗教“只是苦恼和困顿生活中的缓解剂”,“更是作为普通人的一种情感、意识、终极关怀而存在的”,并要以此理解“消除有神论宗教和普通民众对马克思主义的误解乃至敌对”,并提出“不能再人为地强化马克思主义与宗教之间的隔绝和对立了”。第三,在中国近现代史中,众多和宗教相关联的重大问题上存在糊涂认识,甚至站在错误立场。例如,有大量书籍认为传教士来华“只是怀着一股为传福音奉献的热忱”,却无视帝国主义利用基督教等外来宗教,并在部分传教士的帮助下侵略中国的基本史实,客观上达到了为殖民主义和帝国主义的侵华史涂脂抹粉的效果。面对种种乱象,应当坚持以马克思主义的立场、观点和方法认识和书写宗教历史,遵循宗教工作相关规律,更加深入研究和妥善处理宗教领域相关问题。

(3) Starting from the perspective of the “Two Integrations,” deepen research on atheist thought within fine traditional Chinese culture

(三)从“两个结合”视角出发,深化对中华优秀传统文化中无神论思想的研究

Engels placed great importance on the critical examination and absorption of historical religious studies and atheist thought. In his later years, in his research on early Christianity, he enumerated, identified, utilized, and critically assimilated the views of numerous religious researchers or schools, such as Bruno Bauer, Ernest Renan, Lucian, the Tübingen School, and Ferdinand Baur, considering that they had provided “very valuable materials.” Lenin also recorded in his essay “On the Significance of Militant Materialism”: “Engels long ago enjoined the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate the militant atheist literature of the late 18th century and to circulate it widely among the people.” China has been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country since ancient times. Through long-standing debates on the relationship between “Heaven and humanity” (i.e., the existence or non-existence of the “Mandate of Heaven”), debates on the relationship between “form and spirit” (i.e., the existence or non-existence of ghosts and gods), and struggles against feudal superstition, it has accumulated rich resources for religious studies and a historical legacy of atheism. In the pre-Qin period, the thought of figures such as Confucius, Laozi, and Xunzi already contained numerous traces of atheism. In the Han dynasties, Wang Chong, in his *Lunheng* (Balanced Discourses), put forward important views such as “the Way of Heaven is natural and inactive,” and used logical reasoning to critically examine theology and the popular Daoist immortal techniques of the time. In the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, Fan Zhen, in his *Shenmie Lun* (On the Extinction of the Spirit), proposed that “when the form decays, the spirit perishes,” providing a full and profound exposition on the relationship between the body and the spirit. In the Sui and Tang dynasties, Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan; in the Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties, Zhang Zai, Wang Anshi, and Ouyang Xiu; and in the Qing dynasty, Wang Fuzhi and Huang Zongxi were all representative figures of atheist thought of their times, leaving behind a rich and colorful body of atheist literature for later generations. Although these texts, constrained and influenced by the level of understanding, conditions of the era, and social systems, inevitably possess certain shortcomings and limitations, they are models of Chinese people telling Chinese stories in Chinese discourse, and are more easily understood and accepted by the people of all ethnic groups in our country. We should further study the deep-seated compatibility between Marxist atheism and the resources of atheist thought in fine traditional Chinese culture, use Marxism to creatively transform and innovatively develop these resources, and better advance the research and propagation of scientific atheism in the New Era.

恩格斯高度重视对历史上的宗教研究和无神论思想进行批判性审视与吸纳。在其晚年对原始基督教的研究中,他对布鲁诺·鲍威尔、埃内斯特·勒南、琉善、图宾根学派和费迪南德·贝纳里等众多宗教研究者或学派的观点进行列举、鉴别、利用与扬弃,并认为他们提供了“很珍贵的材料”。列宁在《论战斗唯物主义的意义》一文中也曾记述:“恩格斯早就嘱咐过现代无产阶级的领导者,要把18世纪末战斗的无神论的文献翻译出来,在人民中间广泛传播。”中国自古以来就是一个多民族多宗教的国家,在长期以来的“天人”(即有无“天命”)关系论战、“形神”(即有无鬼神)关系论战和反封建迷信斗争中积累了丰富的宗教研究资源和无神论历史遗产。先秦时期的孔子、老子、荀子等人的思想中已经有了大量无神论的痕迹,两汉时期的王充在《论衡》中提出了“天道自然无为”等重要观点,并运用逻辑思辨对神学和当时流行的道家神仙方术进行理性的批判。魏晋南北朝时期的范缜在《神灭论》中提出“形谢而神灭”,对肉体和精神的关系问题作出充分而深刻的论述。隋唐时期的韩愈、柳宗元,宋元明时期的张载、王安石、欧阳修,清代的王夫之、黄宗羲等人均是当时无神论思想的代表人物,给后人留下了丰富多彩的无神论文献。虽然这些文献由于认识水平、时代条件、社会制度的制约和影响,不可避免地存在某些缺点和局限性,但它们是中国人用中国话语讲述中国故事的典范,更容易为我国各族人民所理解和接受。应当进一步研究马克思主义无神论和中华优秀传统文化中无神论思想资源的深层次契合性,用马克思主义对这些资源进行创造性转化、创新性发展,在新时代更好地将科学无神论的研究和宣传推向前进。

(Author’s bio: Liu Xuchen, Master’s student, School of Marxism, Tsinghua University)

（作者简介:刘旭宸,清华大学马克思主义学院硕士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心