中國佛教歷史學（Historiography: China）（BRILL《佛教大百科全書》）

廣告一下，荷蘭博睿（Brill）出了新的《佛教大百科全書》，第一卷剛剛出來。其中“中國佛教歷史學”的詞條（頁780-791）為我撰寫（感謝斯坦福大學柯嘉豪教授的盲審意見，以及牛津左冠明的修改意見）：
此套《百科全書》的信息如下（價錢頗貴，三百多美金）：
Brill's Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Volume One：Literature and Languages
Edited by Jonathan A. Silk, Leiden University, Editor-in-Chief. Consulting Editors: Oskar von Hinüber, Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg and Vincent Eltschinger, Austrian Academy of Sciences
It has been evident for many years that no authoritative, reliable, and up-to-date reference work on Buddhism yet exists in any language. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism aims to fill that gap with a comprehensive work, presented in two phases: a series of six thematic volumes including an index volume, addressing issues of global and regional importance, to be followed by an ever-expanding online resource providing access both to synthetic and comprehensive treatments and to more individuated details on persons, places, texts, doctrinal matters, and so on.
Illustrated with maps and photographs, and supplemented with extensive online resources, the print version of the thematic encyclopedia will present the latest research on the main aspects of the Buddhist traditions in original essays written by the world’s foremost scholars. The encyclopedia aims at a balanced and even-handed view of Buddhist traditions, presenting the most reliable accounts of well-known issues and filling gaps in heretofore-neglected areas. In doing so, it emphasizes that Buddhism is simultaneously constituted by a plurality of regional traditions and a far-reaching phenomenon spanning almost all of Asia, and more recently far beyond as well.
Volume I, which will appear in 2015, surveys Buddhist literatures, scriptural and nonscriptural, and offers discussions of the languages of Buddhist traditions and the physical bases (manuscripts, epigraphy, etc.) available for the study of Buddhist literatures. Subsequent volumes will address issues of personages, communities, history, life and practice, doctrine, space and time, and Buddhism in the modern world.
我看看能不能把詞條發出來：
Historiography: China
Chinese Buddhist historiography was profoundly
influenced by the rich indigenous tradition of secular
historical writing. Accurate records kept by
officially appointed historians date back to approximately
2,500 years ago, to the period preceding the
unification of the empire under the Qin (秦). In fact,
the earliest testimonies of this practice can be found
in oracle bone inscriptions, which represent the
earliest form of writing in China. These documents,
predominantly religious in character and extremely
concise, often contain the three key elements of personages,
time, and a basic narrative structure.
These features are developed with great sophistication
in the oldest surviving histories proper: the
Shujing (書經; Book of Documents, the earliest strata
of which date to the early Zhou [周] dynasty), the
Chunqiu (春秋; Spring and Autumn Annals, covering
the period 722 to 481 bce, traditionally considered
to have been edited by Confucius), the Zuo Zhuan
(左傳; a commentary on the former work), as well
as the Guoyu (國語; Discourses of the States), which
collects the sayings of rulers and other prominent
individuals from roughly the same period. Later,
between the 3rd and 1st century bce, the Zhanguo
(戰國策; Intrigues of the Warring States) recorded
the strategies used by the competing kingdoms
during the turbulent period leading up to the Qin
unification. During the Former Han dynasty (206
bce–9 ce), Sima Qian (司馬遷; 145 or 135 bce–86
bce), widely regarded as the father of Chinese historiography,
wrote his masterpiece, the Shiji (史記;
Records of the Grand Historian), whose format was
later adopted, with only minor modifications, in the
compilation of official dynastic histories (zhengshi
[正史]) of subsequent dynasties.
This sophisticated native historiographical tradition
was the rich soil on which Buddhist historiography
later grew. Authors of the great works of
Buddhist historiography worked in the vast majority
of cases as ordained monks. However, prior to entering
the saṅgha, they would have received traditional
Confucian education, an arduous process of training
that involved mastering a vast body of texts, including
the main works of secular historiography. (For
an overview of the non-Buddhist learning of monks
in the early period, see Cao, 1994, and the discussions
in Zürcher, 1959.)
While for the Chinese Buddhist historians their
expertise in secular mainstream literature was a
matter of course, they frequently used it programmatically
for the purpose of proselytizing among the
educated public. Further, especially during the religion’s
first few centuries in China, its followers faced
recurrent attacks against their theory and practice
from hostile elements at court, which at times led to
anti-Buddhist persecutions. In this environment of
fierce contestation Buddhists found themselves having
to constantly reassert their claims to authority,
which they did, among other means, by refining and
redefining their own historical self-understanding
and its public presentation (for one discussion of a
“Buddho-Daoist conflict,” see Zürcher, 1959, ch. 6).
Finally, the development of Chinese Buddhist
historiography was closely linked to the formation
of the Chinese Buddhist canon: at stake was the
problem of scriptural authenticity. When Buddhism
first reached China, texts in exotic Indic languages
transmitted orally or in written form would naturally
be seen as imbued with an aura of authenticity,
and thus with power. From then on, the concern
with authenticity was central to the tradition. Buddhist
historians, especially Vinaya specialists – who,
as pointed out by Cao Shibang (1999), played a crucial
role in the formation of Buddhist historiography
in China – took up the herculean task of safeguarding
against intrusions into the canon of texts perceived
to be of questionable authorship, or as plain
forgeries. The scriptural catalogues they wrote, an
important branch of Chinese Buddhist historiography,
combined the function of inventorying the
ever growing numbers of translations with the more
politically charged task of establishing the authenticity
of scriptures.