近代佛教史研究是在近代史學變革和佛學復興的背景下展開的，受到了新舊學術的雙重影響。其治學範圍已經不再侷限於史料的收集與考證，而是深刻地根植在研究者的史學立場和信仰背景之中，是學者從史學以及宗教角度對文化傳統之轉化和新學術範例之建構的思考。本文重點在於探索近代佛教史背後的史學背景，從而說明學者們如何思考歷史研究之門徑和傳統之重新定位的問題。概括而言，民國佛教史寫作中的分歧主要體現在兩個問題上，其一是史料和史觀的關係；其二是中國和印度的關係。對這兩個問題不同的回答，是使得這一時期佛教史研究呈現出不同面貌的重要原因。以梁啟超、湯用彤和呂澂圍繞著《四十二章經》的論辯為例，可以透過他們在面對同一歷史文獻和歷史事件時相互對立的觀點和結論，說明不一樣的史學傾向是如何在很大程度上決定了具體的佛教史寫作。 Buddhist historiography in modern China, as one part of the revival of Buddhism and reform of historiography, develops under the dual impact of traditional scholarship and foreign intellectual trends. Due to the different historical viewpoints and faith positions of the scholars, this branch of study not only dealt with data collection and textual criticism, but also quickly gained in diversity and complexity, closely linked with almost every significant phenomenon in the process of the modernization of Chinese scholarship, such as the cultural reconstruction and academic transformation. This article mainly focuses on the background behind the historical writing of Buddhism in modern China, seeking to explain how the scholars were re-thinking about the methodology of historical study and how they were redefining Chinese traditions. To investigate the phenomenon of modern Chinese historiography of Buddhism, there are two issues need to be elaborated upon, one is the relationship between historical records and historiographical concepts; the other is the relationship between China and India. Different perspectives of these two issues lead to opposite views and conclusions. A debate between Liang-Qichao, Tang-Yongtong and Lü-Cheng around ＂The Sutra in Forty-two Sections＂, for example, can illustrate how the different historiographical tendencies largely determine the specific historical writing of Buddhism.