The "Great Persecution" offers some important problems for the study of the conflict between the Roman Empire and the Church. We must examine it not only on the level of religion but also the political and social backgrounds. Therefore, it seems that Maximinus Daia is the most interesting persecutor in this period. He ruled the East of the Empire where Christians were most densely populated in the Empire, and he persecuted the Church more violently than any other emperor. He tried to revive paganism energetically in order to establish the moral unity in his dominions. Then we find it important that many cities in the East petitioned to the Emperor against the Christians and asked him to persecute them, for it means that Daia's persecution was regulated by some external conditions. We can find some factors which determined the course of his persecution. First of all, he faced the political crisis in the Empire which affected his Christian policy, so his attacks against the Church were very intermittent. He was the sole emperor who resumed the persecution after Galerius had issued an edict of toleration, but he was forced to relax the persecution by Constantine and Licinius. After his defeat Daia was even obliged to publish an edict of toleration. Maximinus, however, intended to accomplish the persecution to the last, which was his fundamental policy. And it was the traditional Roman religion-paganism -that made him choose such a policy. He was not a brutal persecutor, for he rather desired that through persuasion his subjects should be brought fitly to reverence the gods and that the Christians should not be constrained by violence. We may consider he was devoted to paganism and was even an intelligent emperor. He regarded Diocletian as his father and called himself Jovius-another name of Jupiter who was the main god of the tetrarchic system. He inherited Diocletian's policy including the persecution, and wanted to obtain the rank of the first Augustus. The reform and reorganization of paganism were executed, parallel with the persecution. Temples were restored. Perhaps in conscious imitation of the Church he organized a hierarchy of priests. They were drawn from among those who had shown themselves zealous in the service of paganism. And the forged anti-Christian books like Acts of Pilate were published and taught in the school. General sacrifices were ordered to be made by all people. Then we must give attention to the petitions against the Christians, which asked that they should be expelled from the cities. The petitions were sent to the Emperor by many cities like Nicomedia, Antioch and so on from autumn 311 to summer 312. It is clear that the cities petitioned spontaneously and they became one of the causes for reopening the persecution at the end of 311. But we can not overestimate the pressure of the petitions on the policy of Maximinus. For the pagan citizens who had petitioned, e.g. Theotecnus of Antioch, belonged to the upper classes. They supported the policy of persecution by means of petition, and were granted by the Emperor offices of the empire or of the pagan organization, or even some boons for the city itself in return for their devotion to the gods. So it seems that the Emperor and these citizens were interdependent. Rather we should find that paganism was declining in this period. Eusebiuss often says that pagan people in the lower classes disliked the persecution and orders of sacrifices, and they felt pity for the Christians. So paganism must be "revived" by Maximinus and it was a vain attempt. Before Maximinus was defeated by Licinius in 313 he had been defeated by the Church.

抄録全体を表示

Why did the Buddha not answer the ten questions (four on life after death, four on the end and limit of the world, and two on the relation of body and soul) asked by other religious thinkers? His reason has not been clear yet.

A most popular opinion is that Buddhism is a way of empirically pursuing enlightenment, and thus it does not play with metaphysical questions. But Buddhism analyses all dharmas (things/matters), including imaginary ideas. Metaphysical aspects are naturally included.

Some scholars understand that avyākata means silence or the cessation of judgment to the ten questions as they are unknowable. But the Buddha allowed his disciples to name him sabbaññu (the omniscient). Is it plausible that there remained somethings unknowable to him?

On the contrary, the Buddha often preaches to his disciples that the ten questions do not make sense. That would mean that the ten questions themselves do not logically stand up from the Buddhist viewpoint, which consists of the three aspects: all constituent matters are unstable, all constituent matters are meaningless, and all matters are unsubstantial.

From the Buddhist viewpoint, the four questions on life after death do not understand the point that a “person” does not exactly exist, but mental and physical activities dependently originate.

The four questions on the end and limit of the world do not stand either, because perception of the world is the world for sentient beings. One can perceive nothing beyond his/her perception. The end and limit of the world means the end and limit of his/her perception.

Finally, because an eternal and unchangeable “soul” does not exist, such an imaginary concept cannot be subject to speculation.

抄録全体を表示

宗教多元主義はキリスト教神学から生まれた思想であるが、これをイスラーム的に構成し直し、との共存を説くムスリムが増えている。その中には、来世におけるの救済可能性を主張する者と、そのような議論を避けて現世的問題に特化する者がいる。例えば、ペレニアリストでもあるナスルは、伝統宗教の多様性を神の意志に帰し、「相対的絶対」の理論により他宗教の真理性を認める。しかし、この立場は、ムスリムの間であまり支持されていない。イスラームが他宗教に優越するという大方のムスリムの信念に反するからである。これに対し、今日有力なのは、現世での市民権を論じる多元主義である。例えば、カラダーウィーは、信仰に対する賞罰は神のみに委ねられるとして、イスラーム国家における信教の自由の保障と宗教的差別の廃止を訴える。だが、イスラーム国家という前提そのものが多元主義と矛盾するとの見方もある。このように、市民権論においても、救済論と同様、イスラームの優越性と多元主義との衝突が問題となっている。

抄録全体を表示

    仏伝の記述において、五比丘に対する初転法輪の直前に、であるウパカとの邂逅エピソードが挿入されている。本稿は、特にパーリ『律蔵』「大品」において、そのエピソードにどのような意義があるかを明らかにすることを目的とする。そのエピソードついては、ウパカに対して釈尊の説得が失敗した、と解釈される場合が多い¹⁾。すなわち、釈尊自身も順風満帆な伝道活動を送っていたのではないのであるから、仏教教団の出家者たちも失敗に落胆することなく、伝道活動に従事せよというメッセージが含まれているというものである。
　このエピソード自体は、仏伝資料の成立と発展という観点では、決して最古層に属するプロットではないようである²⁾。であるならば、初転法輪の直前に、あえて失敗例としてのエピソードを挿入したという解釈を見直す必要があるのではないか？ そこで、本稿では、このウパカとの邂逅エピソードが初転法輪の直前に置かれているというその意義について、テキスト編纂の意図に顧慮しながら、検討することとしたい。
　本稿の概要は以下のとおりである。まず、パーリ『律蔵』「大品」における、ウパカとの邂逅エピソード直前までのプロット構成を確認する。そして、当該パーリ語テキストならびに『南伝』の和訳を引用し、その内容について検討する。さらに、ウパカとの邂逅エピソードが他のテキストでは、どのように取り扱われているかを概観しつつ、パーリ『律蔵』「大品」との差異等を指摘する。そして、最後に、ウパカとの邂逅エピソードの意義について、私見を述べることとする。

抄録全体を表示

The Vita Constantini(VC), an encomiastic biography containing fifteen imperial letters, is one of the most important and controversial sources on the reign and personality of Constantine the Great that the church of the post-Constantinian period ever produced. Although certain critics have sometimes questioned its Eusebian authorship, recent studies have made extensive use of the text as a reliable literary source, suggesting that the issue has been conclusively resolved. Indeed, serious debate on this matter ceased in the 1970s. However, a critical reading of the text of the VC reveals that there are marked discrepancies between its description of the religious policy of Constantine and the picture of religious policy painted by pagan literature and legal texts. Most scholars are aware of this, yet they try to explain these discrepancies away as interpolations, in order to preserve the traditional view concerning its authorship from challenge. Thus, it is possible to suggest the following: 1)The characteristics of an intolerant emperor as they appear in the VC should neither be attributed to the historical Constantine (who was in fact tolerant of pagan religious practices) nor considered as stemming from the hand of an anonymous interpolator, since this antipagan writing is permeated with subversive ideas which form its conceptual framework. The enmity towards the Roman cultural heritage should therefore be viewed as being a constituent part of the work-thereby precluding the possibility of interpolations or posthumous editorial additions. 2)The VC could have been written by anyone living during a period after the death of Eusebius when the emperor was enforcing an anti-pagan policy-that is, in the time of Constantius II or later. 3)The notion of eusebeia (piety)-generally indicating any pious act for the benefit of the gods-is extended in the VC to encompass a negative attitude towards the impious. Indeed, from the start of the third century onwards there are many recorded instances of pagan assaults on Christians as acts of expiation (for example, Tert Apol 41.2 Christianos ad leonem!). However, neither the church nor the government succumbed to the popular outcry, and it was not until the latter half of the fourth century that the notion of piety in the form of a double negation was conceived. Theodosius II prescribes punishment of religious dissidents as a holy sacrifice to secure divine favor (Novellae 3.8). 4)If the VC is assigned to the time of Constantius II, it could belong to the literary genre of specula principum (mirrors for princes)-that is, its purpose could be to instruct him on how to behave towards and rule his subjects (both pagans and Christians alike) and to caution him against interfering in the internal affairs of the church. However, assigning the VC to the era of the Theodosian dynasty would instead suggest that it was composed in reply to pagan criticism of Constantine's pro-Christian policy. This seems more probable, since it is only after the 370s that the approval of physical violence which characterizes the VC is clearly attested in Christian literature.

抄録全体を表示

The European missionaries who came to Japan in the 16^th century found themselves faced with values very different from those they had grown used to in their home countries.This was especially the case with the Japanese views on marriage, which stood diametrically opposed to the Catholic idea that marriage was a one-time, unbreakable bond. The Catholic Church took the position that the marriage institution was linked to ideas on the cases of conscience and that questions concerning it fromed an important subfield of the theology of morality. In this paper, based on materials left by the Society of Jesus, the author discusses the process by which missionaries, groping for a solution to the problem of reconciling Church law with the actual practices of Japanese society, established a marriage doctrine for Japan. In 1592, Visitor Alessandro Valignano asked the famous Spanish theologist Gabriel Vazquez about his ideas on marriage; and in 1595, Vazquez' response was offered. However, as the historical examples of marriages show, the Jesuit missionaries had already arrived at and practiced some of their own ideas concerning marriage before they were instructed by Vazquez. In order to facilitate the propagation of Christianity, they recognized the possibility of divorce and tacitly allowed marriages between Christians and nonChristians. Moreover, they even wished to avoid applying to Japan the rulings of the Council of Trient concerning marriage. The marriage policy of the Society of Jesus for propagating Christianity in Japan provoked harsh criticism both from within and without the Society. In response to this, when Valignano asked leading theologians and even the Pope for a clear endorsement of his policies, Vazquez obliged. His response, endorsed in turn by by the Jesuit General and the Pope himself, became the foundation for countering criticism directed at the Jesuits' marriage policies in Japan. Afterwards, the views on marriage of the Society of Jesus became the norm in Japan, and they were included in Bishop Luiz de Cerqueira's Manuale ad Sacramenta Ecclesiae Ministranda, [Nagasaki, 1605].This solution to the problems connected with marriage policies, however, soon became moot by the promulgation of the interdiction of Christianity and the inevitable suspension of the activities of the Church in Japan.

抄録全体を表示