【作者】 高萍；

【导师】 傅永军；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 外国哲学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 19世纪,德国的犹太人问题呈现愈演愈烈、日趋升级之势：在前期,犹太人并未与其他民族的犹太人那样获得应有的解放,反而因德国国内的混乱状态备受各阶层欺凌冷遇,犹太人一直为争取自身的解放不断地斗争,在后期,犹太人问题受到新反犹主义的不断刺激,在很大程度上逐渐演变为犹太复国主义运动和犹太社会主义思想的发展,致使以基督教为主流文化的德国多数人排犹反犹情绪的空前高涨,激化了基督教与犹太教由来已久的矛盾,犹太人问题因此成为引发德国宗教学界两教论战的导火索。这其中主要表现为自由派神学和自由派犹太神学之间因犹太人问题引发的关于两教信仰是否合理的对抗论战：迫于犹太教和犹太人问题的日渐威胁,基督教为证明自身宗教信仰及其理性主义统治的合理性而对自身优越地位的突出及其对犹太教的批判,反映出多数德国人试图切断与犹太人和犹太教的一切联系,并极力将犹太人从德国彻底清除出去的极端心理；犹太教面对随之而来的一系列严峻问题,诸如整个犹太民族是否像多数德国人所描述的那样是一个低劣种族、犹太教是否还要继续受到基督教的排斥压制、犹太人是否应顺然接受被彻底清除出德国的厄运等,也相应地为挣脱基督教的绝对统治和论证自身宗教信仰的合理性作出辩护,以确证犹太教和犹太人的存在价值与意义。两种神学之间的争论通过德国自由派神学家阿道夫·哈纳克与犹太学者利奥·拜克的一场论战表现出来。哈纳克从经验和情感的角度对基督教的自由主义信仰本质作出了明确界定,以此表明基督教绝对统治和合理性和优越地位,他试图切断与犹太教的一切联系,否定犹太教的弥赛亚、耶稣等基本教义和观念,以贬低犹太教和犹太人的存在价值与意义,由此将整个犹太民族作为一个低劣的种族从德国清除出去,为此哈纳克分别以“基督教是唯一的自由主义信仰”、“诋毁法利赛人”、“四大福音书作为神圣启示的可靠性”和“耶稣思想的本源”为题,从基督教的起源、法利赛人、福音书和历史上耶稣的思想本源四个方面对犹太教提出了批判诘难。哈纳克对犹太教的批判和诘难代表了自由派神学对犹太教和犹太人问题的敌对态度,这一单方面的挑战势必招致自由派犹太神学的积极还击,其代表人物利奥·拜克本着维护犹太宗教信仰的神圣地位和犹太人的尊严,以证明犹太教和犹太人存在价值和意义的坚定决心,不卑不亢地对哈纳克的诘难作出了反批判。利奥·拜克对哈纳克的反批判以两教之间的渊源联系为基本出发点。针对哈纳克的四方面诘难,拜克从伦理和实践的角度分别以“作为神圣信仰来源的犹太教”、“法利赛人在犹太历史上的重要作用”、“四大福音书的不可靠性”和“耶稣思想的犹太本源”为题进行了有理有据地反驳,其中他通过对保罗神学、福音书传统和耶稣思想的犹太本源等方面确证了两教的历史渊源联系,从宗教发展的根源上彻底反驳了哈纳克的论证体系,明确了犹太教的基本教义与观念,推翻了哈纳克试图抬升基督教信仰、贬低犹太教的极端偏狭观点,它也是自由派犹太神学对自由派神学的一拳重击,有力地证明了犹太教和犹太人存在的合理性；其间拜克对犹太教的伦理一神本质和持续性动态发展等特征进行了初步现代化的阐释和改造,使犹太教表现为一种不断自我更新、适应现代化社会发展的宗教形态,有针对性地驳斥了哈纳克对犹太教的歪曲理解。尽管拜克反驳了哈纳克的观点,但他立足于两教渊源联系的思想也为其进一步阐释两教关系打下了基础。在此基础上,拜克以宗教宽容理念为指导思想,通过对两教差异的比较分析,在借鉴两教学者关于两教关系研究的成果之上,对两教走向对话合作的良性关系作出了积极展望。他以两教的神学指导思想和表达虔诚的类型两方面作为比较对象,具体分析了两教之间的差异,在此过程中,拜克也对基督教偏离犹太教本质特征的诸多方面提出了批判,而更重要的是拜克承认了基督教作为一种宗教形态的独立性,所以在他看来,犹太教和基督教这两种母子宗教形态在现代和未来的社会中将会求同存异走向相互理解和对话合作,体现出现代犹太学者的博大宽容胸怀；同时这也是拜克对犹太教的伦理一神本质、持续性动态发展等特征以及由此体现出来的对立统一辩证思想体系的确证,以此表明犹太教因其独特的民族传统文化和特选子民的神圣责任而拥有无可替代的历史地位,她的伦理一神本质和持续性动态特征以及自身思想体系的张力发展使其具备了无限发展潜力与生生活力,犹太教和犹太人也因此拥有了无可质疑的存在合理性与发展空间；这也是拜克通过两教关系的研究对其政治诉求的抒发,即犹太教不会再被类似二战等任何的困难厄运所击倒,她始终都会以上帝特选子民所拥有的神圣权威地位及其信仰生活的伦理性实践屹立于世界之林,以此有力地确证了犹太教和犹太人存在的价值和意义。笔者在文中表达的基本观点是：拜克参与论战反驳哈纳克的目的不是为了贬低或批判基督教,而是消除两教之间的误解,克服矛盾和分歧,避免新的冲突对立,这决定了拜克关于两教关系的研究以两教的渊源联系作为基本出发点以反驳哈纳克和阐释两教关系,在承认基督教自身独立性并与犹太教存在差异的基础之上寄希望于两教能够求同存异、走向对话合作良性关系的发展,拜克也因此较之同时代的其他学者在两教关系研究方面而与众不同,体现出他虽身处两教论战语境仍能设身处地从犹太教的立场理解基督教的难能可贵,同时又因对两教友好和谐关系的远见性前瞻为宗教关系的处理和应对提供了榜样和模范。其间,拜克从伦理和实践角度对犹太教的伦理一神本质、持续性动态发展等特征的阐述是他对犹太教进行地现代化阐释和改造,体现出拜克从理性主义到存在主义思想重心的转变,同时,他对“隐秘”与“诫律”等犹太对立统一内在要素的强调也展现出他对立统一的辩证思想体系,使犹太教在矛盾统一的张力运动中表现出与现代社会发展相适应的不竭动力以及无限潜力,这既是拜克对犹太民族传统文化的传承和维护,也是为表明犹太教具备适应德国主流文化和现代社会要求发展的特征作出的回答,更是对历经二战洗礼的犹太民族在现代和未来社会存在的价值和意义的有力确证。基于这一观点,本论文的整体结构分为三个部分。第一部分包括第一章和第二章,概要论述引发拜克研究两教关系的历史语境,即19世纪围绕犹太人解放为核心的犹太人问题对于德国宗教学界的主要影响,即自由派神学因对犹太人问题的极端敌对反应单方面挑起了与自由派犹太神学的一场论战,这即刻引起了犹太教方面以自由派神学为代表的犹太学者对于论战和犹太人问题的积极回应,从而促成了世纪之交的一场论战。其中在基督教方面主要表现为哈纳克从基督教的起源、法利赛人、福音书和耶稣四方面对犹太教单方面提出了批判,以借此斩断与犹太教的一切联系、突出基督教独一无二的优越地位。第二部分包括第三章和第四章,是拜克论述两教关系的主体。这一部分主要分析拜克是如何以两教的渊源联系为起点分别针对哈纳克的批判提出了强有力地反批判,摧毁了哈纳克论证的整个框架,进而拜克以宗教宽容理念为指导,本着求同存异的原则着眼于对基督教作为一种独立宗教形态的肯定,从两教的神学指导思想和表达虔诚类型两个方面比较分析了两教之间的差异,最后积极地对两教走向对话合作的友好关系作出了前瞻性地展望,表现出犹太学者的博大宽容胸怀。在此过程中突出强调拜克从伦理和实践角度对犹太教的伦理一神本质、持续性动态发展等特征进行地现代化阐释和改造,使犹太教表现为一种与时俱进、生生不息、不断前进的宗教形态。第三部分包括第五章和结语,是对拜克关于两教关系思想所作的评论和分析。这一部分将结合两教学者对拜克关于两教关系思想的评论,尤以其中的积极评价为参考,通过比较拜克与哈纳克在论战中的成败得失,由此得出尽管拜克是从伦理和实践的角度而不同于哈纳克从情感和经验角度所作的反批判,但如上述拜克的参战目的即消解两教之间的误解,以避免新一轮的冲突矛盾,同时确证犹太教和犹太人的存在价值与意义却决定了拜克反驳哈纳克出发角度的不同,而这种论证角度的不同却在反驳和论证的效果上更佳；尽管拜克在所作反批判和论证的过程中也有不尽如人意之处,诸如少数方面没有相应针对性的批判或因说理需要引用了《新约》文段等,但拜克有理有据、铿锵有力的论证说理总能弥补这些美中不足,因此能够相应地还击以哈纳克为代表的自由派神学提出的挑战；而且,拜克在比较分析两教差异基础上对基督教独立性的认同更多地体现出犹太学者的宽容胸怀和对宗教宽容理念的切身实践,更重要的是,拜克以两教渊源联系为立足点反驳哈纳克的诘难,并由此转向对两教走向对话合作关系的阐释成为宗教学者处理宗教间关系的典范,这种基于全球化和宗教关系多元化对于两教关系的理性思考和预见性前瞻都是现当代学者和相关人士以资借鉴的有益指导。更多还原

【Abstract】 In19th century, German Jews’problem tended to become increasingly fierce:in the former part, German Jews did not get emancipation which they should have deserved as in the other peoples, instead, they got humiliation from all fields owing to German Chaos state that did not fulfill a unity. Therefore German Jews had been always struggling for their emancipation. In the latter part, because of the constant irritating of new anti-Semitism, German Jews’problem gradually turned to promote Jewish Zionism movement and Jewish socialism. This caused an unprecedented upsurging of anti-Semitism in most German people whose dominating culture was Christianity. These intensified the long-standing contradictory between Judaism and Christianity. Thus Jews’problem became a fuse of the debate between them in German religious circle. That was mainly represented by a confronting debate about their own justifiability between liberal theology and liberal Jewish theology:under the threat of Judaism and Jews’problem, Christianity tried to emphasize his own superior place and criticize Judaism for its own justifiability and rational thought system. That reflected an extreme mind of most Germans who endeavored to cut all relations with Jews and Judaism, and then clear Jews out of Germany completely; With this, Judaism faced a series of problems, such as whether the whole Jewish people was just as what they had been described as an inferior people, whether Judaism should continue to be under the control of Christianity, and whether Jews should accept the doom of being cleared, etc., so she would accordingly justify for her reasonable existence and escape from the absolute control of Christianity, in order to justify the existence value and significance of Judaism and Jews. The debate between these two was outstandingly manifested by Adolf von Harnack and Leo Baeck.Harnack clearly defined the Christian nature as a liberal faith from the experience and emotion viewpoints, to show the justifiability of Christianity’s absolute control and superior place. He tried to cut all relations with Judaism, denied the basic doctrine and idea of Judaism, in order to depreciate Judaism and Jews’ existence value and significance, and clear the whole inferior Jewish people out of Germany. Harnack made use of four titles respectively,"Christianity as the Only Liberal Faith","Defaming Pharisees","The Facticity of Four Gospels as a Divine Revelation" and "The Origin of Jesus’ Thoughts" to criticize Judaism, from such aspects as Christian origin, Pharisees, gospels and source of Jesus’ thoughts, etc.. This stood for a hostile attitude of liberal theology towards Judaism and Jews’ problem, which would cause a positive fight back from liberal Jewish theology. That is why the typical representative Leo Baeck made a refutation rather sternly, with a determined mind to maintain the sacred place of Jewish faith as well as Jews’ dignity, and justify their existence value and significance.Leo Baeck based his refutation on the historic origin relation between Christianity and Judaism. He made a strong defence from ethics and practice viewpoints, with "Judaism as the Origin of a Divine Faith","Pharisees’ Important Role in Jewish History","The Unreliability of Four Gospels as a Divine Revelation", and "Jesus Thoughts’ Jewish Origin". In this course, he justified this historic origin relation through the Jewish origin of Paul’s theology, gospels’ tradition and Jesus’ thoughts, so as to refute Harnack’s argumentation system from the religious origin, defined Jewish basic doctrine and idea, in order to overturn Harnack’s extremely parochial understanding for raising Christianity and reducing Judaism. That was a big fight for liberal theology from liberal Jewish theology, thus justifying Judaism and Jews’ existent rationality. Meanwhile, he made a preliminary modernized interpretation for the ethical monotheic nature and constant dynamic development character of Judaism, through which Judaism manifested itself as a constant updating religious form keeping up with the development of modern society. That made a strong refutation for Harnack’s misunderstanding of Judaism. However Baeck refuted Harnack’s criticism, that he based this refutation on their historic origin relation served as a steady basis for his interpretation of their relationship.With that, Baeck made a comparative analysis into the difference between the two religious forms, with religious tolerance as the guidance, and make a positive outlook for a sound relation between Judaism and Christianity. He compared their guiding ideas and piety expression type for a concrete analysis into their difference. Within this course, Baeck criticized some aspects Christianity had deviated from Judaism; what’s more important, Baeck acknowledged the independence of Christianity. As far as he is concerned, these two mother-child religions would tend to an understanding, dialogue and cooperation relationship, which reflects Baeck’s tolerant mind. It is also Baeck’ justification for Jewish ethical monotheic nature, constant dynamic development feature, and its dialectical thought system, to show that Judaism has an irreplaceable historical place for her unique traditional culture and sacred responsibility of the selected, and her ethical monotheic nature and dynamic feature as well as the tension system explain for her infinite potential and everlasting energy, thus justifying the existence rationality and space of Judaism and Jews. It is also an expression of Baeck’s political appeal, namely, Judaism, not to be defeated by any difficulty or doom as the second World War, would stand firmly in the world with her selected subject place and ethical nature in a faithful life all along to prove the existence value and significance of Judaism and Jews.The basic idea this dissertation says lies in that, the aim which Baeck took part in the debate with Harnack is not to depreciate or criticize Christianity, but to eliminate the past misunderstanding between Judaism and Christianity, overcome their contradiction and conflict, and to avoid new antinomy. This offers a sound explanation for Baeck’s refutation and interpretation of the relationship between these two religious forms. For this, Baeck stands out distinctively among his contemporaries, which explains his respect with other different religions, and his positive outlook as a model. During this course, his modernized interpretation of Judaism’s nature and feature reflects a turn of focus from rationalism to existentialism, and his emphasis of dialectical components characterized by Mistery and Commandment showed his dialectical thought system, which explains Judaism develope with everlasting power and infinite potential parallel with the modern society within a tension movement. That serves as Baeck’s inheriting and maintaining of Jewish traditional culture, also a sound answer for the question of whether Judaism could meet with the requirements of German dominate culture and modern society, and more as a firm justification for the existence value and significance of Jewish people who had undergone a severe test of the second World War.The whole framework could be divided into three parts. Part one is made up of the first two chapters, which introduces the historical environment invoking Baeck’s study on this relationship, namely, the main effect of German Jews’problem focused on Jews’ emancipation on German religious circle. That is represented by the extreme opposing reaction of liberal theology to Jews’ problem caused a debate with liberal Jewish theology, which helped to bring about a debate at the turn of the century. On the side of Christianity, the typical representative is that Harnack criticized Judaism from such four aspects as the origin of Christianity, Pharisees, gospels and Jesus.Part two is composed of the main body of Baeck’s interpretation of that relationship, Chapter Three and Four. This part mainly analyzes how Baeck made a strong defence for Harnack’s criticism with the historic origin between Judaism and Christianity to overturn the Harnack’s whole argument framework; then under the guidance of religious tolerance idea, Baeck compared their difference with the principle of seeking common ground while reserving differences, and finally looked into the future with a positive outlook for a cooperation and friendly relationship.Part three, comprising Chapter Five and conclusion, is an analysis and comment on Baeck’s thought about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. It would combine some comments from both sides, especially the positive one as the main reference, compare the strong and weak points in this debate from Harnack and Baeck, and then make the conclusion as follows:Although Baeck’s refutation derived from a differenct viewpoint, just as the above mentioned about Baeck’s aim, which determined Baeck’s different viewpoint from Harnack, and a more result in refutation and justification. Although there is weakness in Baeck’s refutation and justification, his ways of debating would finally make up for these weak points anyway, which accordingly fought back for the challenge from liberal theology. Moreover, Baeck’s acknowledgment for Christianity’s independence manifested more of a tolerant mind of Jewish scholars as well as their practice of this idea. What’s more important, the rational thinking of religion relations and predictable outlook behind Baeck’s turn, from his refutation of Harnack to his interpretation of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, would serve as some helpful guidance for contemporary scholars and other people referred.更多还原