正教與異端：明、清時期「大秦景教流行中國碑」的注疏研究

Orthodoxy and Heresy: Exegeses of the Nestorian Stele in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

「大秦景教流行中國碑」的研究大多重在考證唐代景教的實況，以致陽瑪諾、楊榮鋕和王先謙三人的景教碑注疏長期為人所忽視。本文轉換視角，視之為明、清宗教互動的素材，指出這三種注疏乃晚明以來入華的基督教與反教士人因社會變遷，論敵不同，所發展出的論述策略。這些注疏或無助於理解唐代的景教，卻是明、清的基督教社群在華歷史記憶之所繫。不同基督教派藉著注疏歷史上同源異端所留下的同方碑文，試圖將本宗融入中國諸教並存的地景；在教內區隔正教（orthodoxy）與異端（heresy）、排詆外道（paganism）並批判中國的在地信仰。景教碑的注疏，因而成為研究正教與異端之歷史建構的絕佳案例。本文指出異端與外道不同：異端源於正教內部，紫朱難明；外道辨識容易，判然有別。然而，異端之存在端賴正教。若無所謂正教之對照，便無由反映同門異端信仰的微小差異。正教與異端之別，看似矛盾，卻相依而立。本文也指出不同的歷史行動者藉著注疏景教碑以定義「教」的意涵。這些看似疏解碑文的文本，不但回響著中國現代「宗教」的概念，也是不同「教」間畫界政治的表徵；提醒我們除了重視因傳教事業而促進的中、西文化交流，也不當疏忽在交流過程中，各「教」間的彼此爭鋒。

Studies of the Nestorian stele focus mostly on deciphering and reconstructing Nestorianism in the Tang dynasty. However, its exegeses by Emmanuel Diaz Jr. (15741659), a late-Ming Jesuit missionary, Protestant Rongzhi Yang(1855-1919), a late-Qing commentary, as well as an abridged version of Yang’s treatise by Xianqian Wang (18421917), a Confucian scholar, have long been overlooked. This article looks at the stele as the material for Ming-Qing religious interactions and I argue that these exegeses were the new discursive strategies adopted by Christianity, reintroduced since late Ming and late Qing respectively, against the backdrop of societal changes and shifting dynamics of argumentation. In addition, I examine how Confucian opponents of Christianity appropriated Yang’s text in an attempt to reinstate the status of Confucianism in the empire right on the eve of Qing dynasty’s demise. Given that the stele in question was regarded by Ming-Qing Christian communities as something that reconstructs the religion’s historical memory in China, exegeses from various interpretative spectrums emerged as a result. Through exegeses of the stele script documenting heresies of a common historical origin, denominations of Christianity reinterpreted and re-wrote the script in an attempt to incorporate themselves into China’s multi-religion landscape. Within Christianity, orthodoxy and heresy were separated, paganism was denounced, and China’s local religions were criticized. My article points out that heresy and paganism are different, and that the latter is easy to identify. However, the existence of heresy hinges upon orthodoxy in that the former originates from within orthodoxy and their distinction can be tricky. In other words, the minutiae of heresy cannot be reflected without the orthodoxy in comparison. In this regard, the differences between orthodoxy and heresy may appear contradictory but in actuality they are co-dependent. By analyzing how these interlocking commentaries on the same text highlight the importance of the concept of jiao 教, we shall uncover the textual politics of evidential scholarship by elucidating how different historical agents understood the concept of jiao, a question with significant implications for our understanding of “Chinese religion” and how believers in different jiao attempted to demarcate the boundaries of the true faith through competing interpretations.