Refuting the “Plagiarism” Charge of McLellan and Rosen

For a long time, represented by domestic scholars such as Niu Sulin, Jia Runguo, and Lü Daji, the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right* (hereinafter referred to as the *Introduction*) has been widely regarded in domestic academic circles as the foundational work of the Marxist view of religion. As a companion piece to the *Introduction*, Marx’s *On the Jewish Question* (hereinafter referred to as *The Question*) contains a concentrated critique of Bauer’s view of religion, which is also mentioned in articles by domestic scholars such as Long Qun, Zhang Shuangli, Li Shumei, and Yang Ying. An in-depth interpretation of the originality of Marx’s religious thought in the *Introduction* and *The Question* holds significant theoretical and practical importance for our deep understanding of the Marxist view of religion.

长期以来，以牛苏林、加润国、吕大吉等国内学者为代表，《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》（以下简称《导言》）被国内学界普遍认为是马克思主义宗教观的奠基之作。作为《导言》的姊妹篇，马克思在《论犹太人问题》（以下简称《问题》）中更是对鲍威尔的宗教观进行了集中的批判，这在龙群、张双利、李淑梅、杨楹等国内学者的文章中也被提及。深入解读《导言》和《问题》中马克思宗教思想的独创性，对于我们深入理解马克思主义宗教观具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。

In contrast, in Western academia, the British scholar David McLellan, in his works, excessively belittles the status of Marx’s critique of religion. Using the *Introduction* as his textual basis, he argues that Marx repeatedly borrows Bauer’s original phrasing in the text, and thus contends that Bauer was still an important model for Marx in the field of religious critique. The Polish scholar Zvi Rosen also maintains that most of Marx’s discussions on religion are plagiarized from Bauer. This article attempts to refute this challenge, thereby defending the independent status of Marx’s early view of religion. Overall, Marx’s view of religion during this period was expressed more precisely on the basis of correcting Bauer, reflecting his transcendence of Bauer’s view of religion.

反观西方学界，英国学者戴维·麦克莱伦在其著作中过分贬低马克思宗教批判的地位，他以《导言》为文本依据，认为马克思多次在文中借用鲍威尔的原话，进而认为鲍威尔此时依然是马克思在宗教批判领域的重要典范。波兰学者兹维·罗森也认为马克思有关宗教的论述大多是在抄袭鲍威尔。本文试对这一诘难给予反驳，从而捍卫马克思早期宗教观的独立地位。总体来讲，马克思在这一时期的宗教观是在更正鲍威尔的基础上，更加精准地进行表达，体现了他对鲍威尔宗教观的超越。

I. The Connotations of Bauer’s View of Religion

一、鲍威尔宗教观的内涵

When discussing the religious thought of Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) is an unavoidable figure. Bauer’s religious views unfolded in his polemic with Strauss; the opposition between them can be seen as the opposition between the “self-consciousness” viewpoint and the “substance” viewpoint. Bauer’s critique of religion includes four layers of connotation:

谈及鲍威尔（Bruno Bauer，1809-1882）的宗教思想，施特劳斯（David Friedrich Strauss，1808-1874）是无法回避的一个人。鲍威尔的宗教观点是在与施特劳斯的论战中展开的，可以把他们之间的对立视为“自我意识”观点与“实体”观点的对立。鲍威尔的宗教批判包括四重内涵：

First, regarding the attitude toward Gospel narratives, Strauss believed that the Gospel stories were actually unconscious expressions of collective religious sentiment within religious communities, not products actively created by individual consciousness, and he called this view the principle of “substance.” Bauer, on the other hand, argued that the Gospel stories were artificial, conscious fabrications, arising from “self-consciousness,” thus distinguishing himself from Strauss’s “collective unconscious” viewpoint.

第一，在对待福音故事的态度方面，施特劳斯认为福音故事实际上是宗教社团中集体宗教情感的无意识表现，并非个人意识主动创造的产物，并把这种观点称为“实体”的原则。鲍威尔则认为福音故事是人为的有意识的编造，产生于“自我意识”，这就区别于施特劳斯“集体无意识”的观点。

Second, regarding the driving force of historical development, Bauer attributed it to the impetus of “self-consciousness.” He believed that through the purely critical activity of “self-consciousness,” history could be advanced, which fell into idealist historical materialism. In contrast, Strauss considered the driving force of historical development to be “substance.” The “self-consciousness” frequently invoked by Bauer was actually a stage in the development of Hegel’s “absolute spirit.” In any case, neither Strauss nor Bauer truly transcended the framework of Hegel’s speculative idealism; rather, they seized upon one part of Hegel’s philosophy to oppose another part. [1]1 *The Last Trumpet* (Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts) was an 1841 pamphlet by Bruno Bauer, published anonymously, attacking orthodox Christianity and defending Hegelian philosophy. A second part was planned but never completed.

第二，在历史发展动力发面，鲍威尔归之于“自我意识”的驱动。他认为要在“自我意识”的纯粹批判活动中，推动历史的前进，这就陷入了唯心史观。与之相反，施特劳斯认为历史发展的动力是“实体”。被鲍威尔频繁提及的“自我意识”实际上是黑格尔“绝对精神”的一个发展阶段。不论如何，施特劳斯和鲍威尔都没有能真正超越黑格尔思辨唯心主义的框架，而是抓住黑格尔哲学的其中一个部分去反对另一个部分。

Third, regarding the status of the masses and outstanding intellectuals, Bauer regarded the masses as an obstacle to historical development and saw outstanding intellectuals as the driving force of historical progress, believing that only intellectuals were capable of critical thinking and possessed “self-consciousness.” Bauer placed great emphasis on the role of outstanding intellectuals, arguing that the masses always clustered around them. He also bestowed upon the Prussian kingdom an honor disproportionate to reality, claiming that the Prussian kingdom, like intellectuals, possessed “self-consciousness,” reflecting the limitations of his bourgeois stance.

第三，在对待人民群众和杰出知识分子的地位方面，鲍威尔将人民群众视为历史发展的阻碍，把杰出的知识分子看成推动历史发展的动力，认为只有知识分子能够进行批判性思维，拥有“自我意识”。鲍威尔十分重视杰出知识分子的作用，认为群众总是围绕在知识分子周围。他还赋予普鲁士王国与实际不相匹配的荣耀，认为普鲁士王国和知识分子一样拥有“自我意识”，体现了他资产阶级立场的局限。

Bauer believed that the masses invested their energy in supporting religion rather than in focusing on progressive causes. The masses were unable to perceive the drawbacks of religion and could only be deluded by it. He expressed dissatisfaction with this conservative practice and regarded the masses as the enemy of spirit. He even attributed the failure of great historical undertakings to arousing the enthusiasm of the masses, which reflects his extreme belittlement of them. Following this line of thought, the proletariat, as the main representative of the masses, was naturally also untrustworthy.

鲍威尔认为，群众把精力投放在对宗教的支持上，而非对进步事业的关注。群众无法对宗教的弊端有所察觉，只能被宗教所迷惑。他表达了对这种保守做法的不满，并将群众视为精神的敌人。他甚至将历史上伟大事业的失败归咎于唤起了群众的热情，这里体现了他对群众的极大贬低。按照这个思路，作为群众的主要代表，无产阶级自然也是不可信任的。

Fourth, Bauer opposed communism, especially expressing strong dissatisfaction with communism’s emphasis on the power of the proletariat. He himself opposed class struggle and advocated dealing with illusions in the mind through critique, believing that this could change real society. This claim is clearly absurd, reflecting his stance of defending Germany’s reactionary rule.

第四，鲍威尔对共产主义持反对态度，尤其针对共产主义对无产阶级力量的强调，鲍威尔表达了自己的强烈不满。他本人是反对阶级斗争的，主张以批判的方式对待头脑中的臆想，认为这样就可以改变现实社会。这一说法显然是荒谬的，体现了他维护德国反动统治的立场。

II. Marx’s Transcendence of Bauer’s View of Religion in the *Introduction*

二、马克思在《导言》中对鲍威尔宗教观的超越

The author believes that when Marx wrote the *Introduction*, he was based on his own independent thinking, which demonstrates a transcendence of Bauer’s view of religion, and not, as McLellan and Rosen claim, plagiarism of Bauer. Specifically, Marx’s transcendence of Bauer’s view of religion is manifested in three aspects: the transcendence of materialist thought, the transcendence of thought on the driving force of historical development, and the transcendence of communist thought.

笔者认为，马克思在创作《导言》时是基于自己的独立思考，其中呈现出对鲍威尔宗教观的超越，而并不是像麦克莱伦和罗森说的那样，是在抄袭鲍威尔。具体来说，马克思对鲍威尔宗教观的超越体现在唯物主义思想的超越、历史发展动力思想的超越和共产主义思想的超越三个方面。

(A) Transcendence of Materialist Thought

（一）唯物主义思想的超越

Marx believed that religion, as an inverted worldview, originates from an inverted real world, and is not, as Bauer claimed, a product of “self-consciousness.” Marx deepened his critique of religion into a critique of real society, which already shows signs of materialist thought. Marx clearly defined the relationship between the critique of religion and the critique of society, a relationship that Bauer left ambiguous. In the opening sentence of the *Introduction*, Marx clarified the status of the critique of religion, arguing that enough attention had already been paid to this issue and that the focus should now shift from the critique of religion to the critique of society. After all, excessive focus on religion is a sign of going astray, only causing people to become obsessed with illusions. For Marx, the critique of religion was merely a means; his goal was to implement the critique of society. At this point, the priority of the critique of society has been highlighted. This differs from Bauer, because in Bauer’s works, the relationship between the critique of religion and the critique of society is unclear; he even sometimes considered religion to have decisive significance.

马克思认为宗教作为颠倒的世界观，源于颠倒的现实世界，并不如鲍威尔所言，是“自我意识”的产物，马克思从宗教批判深入到对现实社会的批判，这里已经体现出唯物主义思想的迹象。马克思明确规定了宗教批判和社会批判的关系，鲍威尔对这两者的关系界定是模糊不清的。马克思在《导言》的首句就明确了宗教批判的地位，认为在此之前已经关注这个问题足够多了，目前应该实现关注焦点的转变，从宗教批判到社会批判。毕竟，对宗教的过分关注是误入歧途的表现，只会造成人对假象的执迷。对马克思而言，宗教批判只是手段，他的目的在于落实到社会批判。至此，社会批判的优先位置已经突出出来。这点与鲍威尔是不同的。因为在鲍威尔的著作中，对于宗教批判和社会批判的关系并不清晰，他甚至认为宗教有时有决定性的意义。

Human essence was originally to be realized in real society, but due to unreasonable state and social systems, this ideal could not be achieved. Backward states, in order to control the populace, utilized religion, attempting to use it as spiritual consolation. Influenced by Feuerbach’s *The Essence of Christianity*, Marx solemnly explained the relationship between God and man, pointing out that man created God, and that God is the projection of man’s essence in the otherworldly realm. Religion has a dual function: on the one hand, it reflects real suffering; on the other, it embodies the protest and struggle of believers. Opium is an addictive substance; the masses, having lost self-consciousness, cannot settle their painful selves in reality, so they borrow self-constructed illusions, or religion, to achieve self-numbness, hoping for the otherworldly realm to gain temporary satisfaction. When discussing the critique of religion, its essence is the critique of the backward states behind religion. Marx clearly proposed carrying out real critique, demanding the revelation of religion’s concealment of the harsh conditions of the vale of tears.

人的本质本来是要在现实社会中实现的，但由于不合理的国家和社会制度，导致这一理想无法实现。落后国家为了控制民众，利用宗教，试图以之为精神抚慰。受费尔巴哈《基督教的本质》一书的影响，马克思郑重说明了神与人的关系，指出是人创造了神，神是人的本质在彼岸世界的投射。宗教具有双重作用，一方面反映了现实的苦难，另一方面也体现了信教者的抗议与挣扎。鸦片是让人上瘾的东西，失去自我意识的民众无法安置现实中痛苦的自己，于是借用自我构建的幻象或者说宗教实现自我麻痹，寄希望于彼岸世界，以求得短暂的满足。论及宗教批判，其实质是对宗教背后的落后国家的批判。马克思明确提出要进行现实批判，要求揭示宗教对苦难尘世恶劣状况的遮蔽。

There is a sentence by Marx discussing the relationship between religion and self-consciousness that seems full of Bauer’s coloring. He points out that where religion exists, self-consciousness is “nothing,” whether it is the “nothing” that has not yet attained itself or the “nothing” that has lost itself again. However, the key to Marx’s expression lies in the part after “but.” He points out that because man exists in the real world, he is inevitably influenced by the objective world; therefore, man’s self-consciousness must also be rooted in the real world. In this sense, the real world is the fundamental source of illusory religion. This turn precisely embodies Marx’s transcendence of Bauer. Marx paid attention to the level of real society and the political state, unlike Bauer, who only remained at the level of self-consciousness. The logic here is: the inverted real world suppresses man’s self-consciousness, forming an inverted conception, namely religion.

马克思有一句讨论宗教与自我意识关系的话，似乎充满了鲍威尔的色彩，他指出宗教所在之地，自我意识是“无”，不论是尚未获得自身的“无”，还是再度丧失自身的“无”。然而马克思这一表述的关键在“但是”之后的部分，他指出，由于人是在现实世界中存在的，不可避免会受客观世界的影响，因此，人的自我意识必然也是根植于现实世界的。这么说来，现实世界才是虚幻宗教的根本源头。这一转折，恰恰体现了马克思对鲍威尔的超越之处。马克思关注到了现实社会和政治国家的层面，而不像鲍威尔那样只是停留在自我意识层面。这里的逻辑是：颠倒的现实世界压制了人的自我意识，形成了颠倒的观念，即宗教。

In the *Introduction*, Marx also surpasses Bauer in another respect: the discussion of moving from “illusory happiness” to “real happiness.” The “chain” refers to the actual system that makes people feel oppressed and enslaved, while the “imaginary flowers” refer to religion. Marx’s demand to criticize religion does not mean letting people coexist directly with the backward actual system, but rather to thoroughly criticize the actual system and “pluck fresh flowers.” The author believes that “fresh flowers” precisely refer to the truth of this world that replaces religion, representing genuine happiness in the real world. It is not about placing hope in the illusions of the otherworldly realm or in religious faith, thereby submitting to the actual feudal autocratic system, but about confronting the irrationality of actual society head-on, with the proletariat leading the people, on the basis of rational critique, to seek real happiness in this world.

马克思在《导言》中还有一处对鲍威尔的超越，关于从“虚幻幸福”到“现实幸福”的论述。“锁链”指的是使人感到压迫和被奴役的现实制度，“虚幻的花朵”指的是宗教。马克思要求批判宗教，并不是说让人们与落后的现实制度直接共处，而是要彻底批判现实制度，并“采摘新鲜的花朵”。笔者认为“新鲜的花朵”恰是指取代宗教的此岸真理，代表现实世界中真正的幸福。不是寄希望于彼岸世界的幻象，寄希望于宗教信仰，从而臣服于现实的封建专制制度，而是直面现实社会的不合理，由无产阶级带领人民，在理性批判的基础上，探寻此岸世界的现实幸福。

What does Marx mean by the truth of this world? In the *Introduction*, it refers to unfolding a critique of reality on the basis of shattering religious illusions, realizing that “man is the highest essence for man,” and overthrowing all relations that enslave people. It is precisely in the sense of this critique of reality that Marx’s *Introduction* already shows signs of materialist thought.

马克思所言的此岸真理指的是什么呢？在《导言》中指的是在击碎宗教幻象的基础上展开现实批判，实现“人是人的最高本质”，推翻一切奴役人的关系。正是在现实批判的意义上，马克思的《导言》已经呈现出唯物主义思想的迹象。

(II) Transcendence in the Driving Force of Historical Development

（二）历史发展动力的超越

Bauer believed that historical progress was driven by the critical activity of self-consciousness, while Marx pointed out from a realistic perspective that the backward actual system of Germany and the speculative legal philosophy and philosophy of the state, which were contemporaneous with the times, must be criticized in practice, thereby promoting historical progress.

鲍威尔认为历史的进步是由自我意识的批判活动推动的，马克思则从现实角度指出要在实践中批判德国落后的现实制度和与时代同步的思辨的法哲学和国家哲学，以此推动历史的进步。

At that time, countries that had already undergone bourgeois revolutions were ahead of Germany in terms of political system. Marx satirized the then-stagnant state of Germany, aiming to make the oppressed aware of their own slavish condition, thereby preparing them for an uprising. This resistance was beneficial not only for Germany but also for other countries that had already established capitalist systems. Because Germany’s present was equivalent to the past of other countries; as long as feudal residual forces still existed in Germany, there was a risk of regression for the bourgeois revolutions in other countries. Therefore, it was necessary to resolutely abolish Germany’s feudal autocratic system.

当时已经进行过资产阶级革命的国家在政治制度方面领先于德国，马克思对当时德国沉闷的现状进行了一番讽刺，目的是让被压迫的人意识到自身奴隶般的处境，从而为奋起反抗做好准备。这种反抗不仅对德国是有益的，对其他已经确立了资本主义制度的国家也是有益的。因为德国的现在相当于其他国家的过去，只要德国还存有封建残余势力，其他国家的资产阶级革命就存在倒退的风险，因此要坚决废除德国的封建专制制度。

The only thing in Germany that was contemporaneous with the times was its speculative legal philosophy and philosophy of the state. Marx pointed out that while publicly criticizing the German system, it was also necessary to criticize German legal philosophy and philosophy of the state. If criticizing the German system meant struggling against the past of other capitalist countries, then criticizing German legal philosophy and philosophy of the state meant struggling against the present of other capitalist countries. Although German legal philosophy and philosophy of the state had not yet been realized in Germany, they had already become reality in other capitalist countries and would subsequently become the actual system of Germany in the next stage. Criticizing German legal philosophy and philosophy of the state was, in fact, also criticizing the countries that had completed bourgeois revolutions. The systems and developmental status of these countries represented Germany’s future, so thorough criticism was necessary to truly bring the critique up to the height of the times.

德国唯一与时代同步的是它思辨的法哲学和国家哲学。马克思指出在对德国制度进行公开批判的同时，必须对德国的法哲学和国家哲学也展开批判。如果说批判德国制度是在同其他资本主义国家的过去作斗争，那么批判德国的法哲学和国家哲学就是在同其他资本主义国家的现在作斗争。德国的法哲学和国家哲学虽然尚未在德国实现，但在其他资本主义国家那里已经成为现实，随后也将成为德国下一个阶段的现实制度。对德国的法哲学和国家哲学进行批判，其实也就是在批判已经完成资产阶级革命的国家，这些国家的制度和发展现状就是德国的未来，所以必须进行彻底批判，才能真正使批判达到时代的高度。

Marx criticized the one-sided theoretical and practical factions. Neither faction correctly understood the relationship between philosophy and reality. The practical-political faction directly negated philosophy, failing to recognize the important guiding role of philosophy for the German revolution. After all, in German history, theory had played an important role; the Reformation was guided by theory. In Marx’s view, German philosophy should belong to the category of reality, even if it was reality in the mind. This was because Germany was a nation that valued philosophy, often generating ideas in the mind and then transforming society. The theoretical-political faction also had limitations; it affirmed philosophy but did not proceed to negate it, which also lacked a critical spirit. Marx revealed the narrowness of the theoretical-political faction: they only directed their critique at the practical-political faction while being overly lenient with themselves.

马克思批判了各有偏颇的理论派和实践派，这两派均没有正确认识到哲学和现实的关系。实践政治派直接否定了哲学，没有意识到哲学对德国革命的重要指导作用，毕竟在德国历史上，理论曾经发挥过重要作用，曾经的宗教改革便是由理论引导的。在马克思看来，德国的哲学应是属于现实范畴的，即便是头脑中的现实。因为德国是一个重视哲学、往往从头脑中产生想法、进而变革社会的民族。理论政治派也存在局限，没有在肯定哲学后继续否定哲学，这也是缺乏批判精神的。马克思揭示了理论政治派的狭隘，他们只把批判的矛头针对实践政治派，而对自身过分宽容。

Marx emphasized that the critique of German speculative legal philosophy and philosophy of the state must be carried out in practice, and at a principled height, to promote historical progress. To this end, it was necessary for the masses to grasp a thorough theory. This returns to the critique of religion at the beginning of the *Introduction*. The so-called thorough theory ultimately boils down to the guiding principle of humanism with supreme significance: “man is the highest essence for man.” In concrete practice, this means abolishing religion, overthrowing all relations that enslave people, and restoring the essence of man to man himself. Just as the Reformation once toppled the Pope from his divine pedestal, turning religious devotion into a task that people could accomplish within themselves, the humanist philosophy of the present will liberate the people, enabling them to break free from the spiritual shackles brought by religion.

马克思强调要在实践中对德国思辨的法哲学和国家哲学展开批判，并且是有原则高度的批判，以推动历史的进步。为此，就需要群众掌握彻底的理论。这里又回归到《导言》开篇对宗教的批判，所谓彻底的理论，最终归结为“人是人的最高本质”这样一条具有至高意义的人本学指导原则。具体到实践中，就是要废除宗教，推翻一切奴役人的关系，使人的本质复归于人自身。正如曾经的宗教改革将教皇推下神坛，使对宗教的笃信变成了人们在自我内部就可以完成的事业，如今的人本主义哲学将解放人民，使人们挣脱宗教带来的心灵枷锁。

(III) Transcendence in Communist Thought

（三）共产主义思想的超越

Criticizing German legal philosophy and philosophy of the state had far-reaching significance. It was equivalent to Germany needing to leap over the two obstacles of the feudal system and the capitalist system in one somersault, and after achieving political emancipation, to continue completing human emancipation. This raised the goal of a communist revolutionary struggle.

批判德国的法哲学和国家哲学意义深远，相当于德国要一个筋斗越过封建制度和资本主义制度两重障碍，在实现政治解放后继续完成人的解放，这就提出了共产主义革命的奋斗目标。

The German revolution required a material foundation. As early as his work on the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx saw the reactionary nature of the Prussian government and the plight of the people living under this backward system. In October 1843, in Paris, Marx came into direct contact with workers for the first time, attempting to gain an in-depth understanding of their living conditions and participating in their revolutionary activities. The more deeply he engaged with workers, the more he recognized the impracticality of a “partial, purely political revolution.” This was because the situation in Germany was very different from that in France, and also because, almost simultaneously with the bourgeoisie’s struggle against the feudal system, the proletariat had begun its struggle against the bourgeoisie. Regarding the goal of achieving human emancipation, the weak, egoistic, and narrow-minded bourgeoisie was incapable of shouldering this heavy responsibility and could not become a thorough revolutionary class.

德国革命需要物质基础。早在《莱茵报》工作期间，马克思就看到了普鲁士政府的反动本质，看到了在这一落后制度下处境艰辛的人民。1843年10月，马克思在巴黎第一次直接接触到工人，尝试深入了解工人的生活状况，并参与工人的革命活动。他越是深入接触工人，越是认识到“局部的纯政治的革命”的不切实际，因为德国与法国的情况大不相同，还因为几乎在资产阶级反对封建制度的同时，无产阶级也开始了反对资产阶级的斗争。就实现人的解放这一目标而言，软弱的、利己主义的、狭隘的资产阶级无法担此重任，无法成为彻底的革命阶级。

The actual possibility for German liberation lay in the proletariat. This was not only because the proletariat emerged with the rise of industry, but also because the dissolution of the intermediate estates produced an artificially created mass of paupers. Paupers and serfs also joined in, swelling the original ranks of the proletariat. The special position of the proletariat determined that their cause of liberating all humanity was accomplished simultaneously with the goal of liberating themselves. Therefore, their perspective was, from the outset, higher than that of the narrow-minded bourgeoisie.

德国解放的实际可能在于无产阶级。不仅是因为无产阶级是伴随着工业的兴起产生的，还因为中间等级的解体产生了人为造成的贫民，贫民和农奴也纷纷加入，扩充了原有的无产阶级队伍。无产阶级的特殊地位决定了他们解放全人类的事业是同解放自己的目标同时完成的，因此其视角从一开始就高于狭隘的资产阶级。

Marx regarded the proletariat, situated at the very bottom of society, as the main force for transforming society. He called on the proletariat to arm their minds with humanist thought, carry out social revolution, and achieve human emancipation. This embodies his communist thought.

马克思将处于社会最底层的无产阶级视为变革社会的主体力量，号召无产阶级用人本学思想武装头脑，进行社会革命，实现人的解放，这里体现了他的共产主义思想。

III. Marx’s Transcendence of Bauer’s Religious Views in *On the Jewish Question*

三、马克思在《问题》中对鲍威尔宗教观的超越

*On the Jewish Question* and the *Introduction* are both works from the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period. When writing *On the Jewish Question*, Marx directly expressed his dissatisfaction with Bauer. Since they are companion pieces created at the same time, they complement and are closely related to each other. It is untenable to claim that Marx vigorously refuted Bauer in one piece while plagiarizing him in the other. Specifically, in *On the Jewish Question*, Marx corrects Bauer on three progressively deeper dimensions.

《论犹太人问题》与《导言》同为《德法年鉴》时期的作品，马克思在写作《问题》时就直接表达了对鲍威尔的不满。既然是同一时间创作的姊妹篇，就意味着是相互补充，紧密关联的。马克思不可能在其中一篇大力批驳鲍威尔，在另外一篇抄袭鲍威尔，这显然是站不住脚的。具体来说，马克思在《论犹太人问题》中对鲍威尔进行了层层递进的三个维度的纠正。

(I) Political Emancipation Can Be Achieved Without Abandoning Judaism

（一）不必放弃犹太教就可以实现政治解放

Bauer believed that before political emancipation was achieved in Germany, Jews should not selfishly seek special liberation for themselves. In his view, the opposition between Jews and the Christian state lay in the religious opposition between Judaism and Christianity. Bauer hoped to achieve emancipation by having both Jews and Christians abandon their respective religions, believing that this would establish a truly real state and complete political emancipation. In short, Bauer believed that only by abolishing religion could a real political state be established.

鲍威尔认为在德国实现政治解放之前，犹太人不应该自私自利地为自己谋求特殊的解放。在他看来，犹太人和基督教国家的对立在于犹太教和基督教之间的宗教对立，鲍威尔指望通过犹太人和基督徒各自放弃宗教的方式实现解放，认为如此一来就可以建立起真正的现实国家，完成政治解放。总之，鲍威尔认为只有废除宗教，才能建立起现实的政治国家。

Marx disagreed with this one-sided understanding, pointing out that Bauer confused political emancipation with human emancipation. Even in countries that had already achieved political emancipation, religion still existed, merely having been transferred to civil society. The establishment of a political state does not presuppose the abolition of religion; the abolition of religion belongs to the category of human emancipation. Marx did not believe that political emancipation must be achieved through the abandonment of religion, because, in his view, in a completed political state, the privilege of faith, as a universal human right, should be respected.

马克思不同意这种片面的理解，指出鲍威尔是把政治解放和人的解放混为一谈了，即便在已经完成政治解放的国家中，依然存在宗教，只是转移到市民社会中了。政治国家的建立并不以废除宗教为前提，废除宗教属人的解放的范畴。马克思不认为政治解放必须通过放弃宗教来实现，因为在他看来，在完成了的政治国家中，信仰的特权作为普遍的人权应该受到尊重。

In sum, the core distinction between Bauer and Marx lies in the order of priority regarding the abolition of religion and political emancipation. Bauer believed that religion must be eradicated before political emancipation could be achieved, whereas Marx held that political emancipation could be realized without the abandonment of Judaism.

总之，鲍威尔与马克思的核心区别在于对待废除宗教和政治解放的先后顺序。鲍威尔认为必须根除宗教才能实现政治解放，马克思则认为不必放弃犹太教就可以实现政治解放。

(II) The Jewish Question is closely linked to the question of human emancipation

（二）犹太人问题与人的解放问题紧密关联

Bauer's goal was political emancipation, so he stopped at the critique of the so-called Christian state, without shaking the foundations of the capitalist state and without proceeding to explore the question of human emancipation, which reflects his distinct bourgeois stance. Marx believed that on the basis of the completed political state, political critique must be continued in order to truly touch the essence of the Jewish question and achieve human emancipation.

鲍威尔的目标是政治解放，所以仅止于对所谓基督教国家的批判，却没有动摇资本主义国家的根基，没有继续探讨人类解放的问题，体现了他鲜明的资产阶级立场。马克思认为要在完成了的政治国家基础上，继续进行政治批判，才能真正触及到犹太人问题的实质，实现人的解放。

For Marx, political emancipation and human emancipation are two different concepts; the Jewish question belongs to the category of human emancipation. In the completed political state, the state has been emancipated from religion, but actual human beings have not; religion still exists in civil society, that is, what Marx calls the secular god. Marx emphasized that the essence of the Jewish question is the contradiction between a believer of a certain religion and his own citizenship, the contradiction between the political state and civil society, and also the question of human emancipation.

在马克思那里，政治解放和人类解放是两个不同的概念，犹太人问题属人类解放的范畴。在完成了的政治国家中，国家从宗教中解放出来了，但是现实的人却没有，宗教依然存在于市民社会中，即马克思所言的世俗神。马克思强调，犹太人问题的实质是某种宗教信徒同自己公民身份的矛盾，是政治国家和市民社会的矛盾，也是人的解放问题。

In the completed political state, Jews face a contradiction between monetary power and political rights. Even if, conceptually, political rights are placed above them, in practice economic power outweighs political rights. Economically, Jews hold large amounts of money, but politically they have no power. What rules secular society is the secular god of the Jews, namely money. The Jewish nation is a nation that takes delight in amassing wealth; this reflects Marx's ironic tone.

在完成了的政治国家里，犹太人在金钱权利和政治权利方面存在矛盾，即便在观念上，政治权利位居其上，但在实际中却是经济实力大于政治权利。犹太人经济上握有大量金钱，政治上却无权。统治世俗社会的是犹太人的世俗的神，即金钱。犹太民族是以发财致富为乐趣的民族，这体现了马克思的讽刺意味。

Christianity causes the human essence to be alienated spiritually; Judaism transfers this alienation in practice. Humanity has gone from being dominated by religion to being dominated by money. Only by eliminating this monetary control over humanity, eradicating the mercenary Jewish spirit, and practically completing human emancipation will the Jews naturally be liberated. This is Marx's method for resolving the Jewish question.

基督教使人的本质在精神上外化，犹太教把这种外化在实践中让渡出去。人从被宗教支配变成了被金钱支配。只有消除这种对人类的金钱控制，消灭唯利是图的犹太人精神，切实完成人的解放，犹太人自然会得到解放。这是马克思解决犹太人问题的方法。

(III) The Jewish question is a secular question, not a theological one

（三）犹太人问题属于世俗问题而非神学问题

Bauer regarded the Jewish question as a purely theological one; his belief that liberation could be achieved through the renunciation of religion clearly runs counter to Marx's view. In reality, in the completed political state, religion and private property still exist, and the members of civil society, as actual human beings, are not genuine citizens. Because they do not enjoy true sovereignty, they merely immerse themselves in religious imagination; their actual personal lives are deprived.

鲍威尔将犹太人问题视为一个纯粹的神学问题，他认为通过放弃宗教可以实现解放的信念，显然与马克思的观点背道而驰。实际上，在完成了的政治国家里，依然存在宗教、私有财产，并且市民社会的成员作为现实的人并非真正意义上的公民。因为他们没有享有真正的主权，只是沉浸在宗教想象中，他们的现实个人生活是被剥夺的。

In this environment, believers do not enjoy civil rights. Marx attributes this to the split between the political state and civil society. Bauer stopped at political emancipation, so he allowed this split to persist, without realizing that political critique must be continued. Marx realized that political life, which should in practice be the end, is instead placed after civil society and becomes a means, while profit-seeking in civil society is taken as the end. This phenomenon of political life becoming a means in theory is prominently manifested in the French Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1791 and 1793.

在这种环境下，作为信徒的人并不享有公民权，马克思将其归因于政治国家和公民社会的分裂。鲍威尔止于政治解放，所以任由这种分裂持续存在，而没有意识到要继续进行政治批判。马克思意识到本来应该在实践中成为目的的政治生活，却被放置在市民社会之后成为了手段，而市民社会中的经商牟利反而被作为目的，这种政治生活在理论上成为手段的现象显著体现在1791年和1793年的法兰西《人权宣言》中。

In capitalist states where feudal rule has been overthrown, what exists is the egoistic person of civil society. In civil society, people are still subject to religion and have not escaped private property, because the activity of profit-seeking still exhibits egoistic characteristics. The secular god of the Jews is money; this secular foundation is the practical need for selfishness. Only by being liberated from this mercenary mindset can true human emancipation be achieved. This mercenary characteristic is called by Marx the essence of the Jewish spirit.

在封建统治被推翻的资本主义国家里，存在的是市民社会中利己主义的人，在市民社会中，人依然受制于宗教，也没有摆脱私有财产，因为在经商牟利的活动中依然体现出利己主义的特点。犹太人的世俗的神是金钱，这种世俗的基础是自私自利的实际需要。只有从这种唯利是图的思维中解放出来，才能实现真正的人类解放。这种唯利是图的特点被马克思称为犹太精神的实质。

Marx believed that only by continuing the critique of the political state, liberating humanity from the mercenary Jewish spirit in civil society, and ensuring that members of civil society enjoy genuine civil rights, can the Jewish question be truly resolved.

马克思认为，只有继续对政治国家进行批判，将人类从市民社会中唯利是图的犹太精神中解放出来，保证市民社会的成员享有真正的公民权，才能真正解决犹太人问题。

IV. The Unreasonableness of McLellan and Rosen's "Plagiarism Claim"

四、麦克莱伦和罗森“抄袭说”的不合理之处

A careful study of Marx's texts reveals that the "plagiarism claim" of McLellan and Rosen is untenable. The reasons are as follows:

仔细研究马克思的文本可以发现，麦克莱伦和罗森的“抄袭说”是站不住脚的。原因如下：

First, Marx had his own practical activities and writing pace; his view of religion was the result of the collision of his own practical experience and independent thinking, and cannot be stigmatized as plagiarism.

第一，马克思有自己的实践活动和写作步调，他的宗教观是自身实践经历和独立思考相互碰撞的结果，不能被污名化为抄袭。

Bauer and Marx had once planned to co-author the second part of *The Last Trumpet* (hereinafter referred to as *The Last Trumpet*). [1]1 *The Last Trumpet* (Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts) was an 1841 pamphlet by Bruno Bauer, published anonymously, attacking orthodox Christianity and defending Hegelian philosophy. A second part was planned but never completed. Bauer had already completed his own chapters for the second part of *The Last Trumpet* by the end of 1841, and was waiting for Marx's portion. However, before Marx could deliver the manuscript, the book was banned. From his letter to Ruge in February 1842, it is known that during this period Marx was busy writing "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction" and was ill in bed, lacking energy. [2]2 Arnold Ruge (1802–1880) was a German philosopher and political writer, a Young Hegelian and co-editor of the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* with Marx. This shows that Marx had his own independent trajectory of development and writing schedule, and was by no means following slavishly behind Bauer.

鲍威尔与马克思曾计划共同撰写《末日的宣告》（以下简称《宣告》）第二部分。鲍威尔在1841年底就已经完成了《宣告》第二部自己的那些篇章，一直在等待马克思的那部分。然而，马克思还未交付手稿，该书就被禁止。根据1842年2月他给卢格的信可知，这一时期马克思忙于撰写《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》，且卧病在床，精力不济。这里可以看出，马克思有自己的独立发展轨迹和写作安排，绝不是跟在鲍威尔后面亦步亦趋。

Why did Marx prioritize writing "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction"? In fact, during this period he had already begun to feel antipathy towards Bauer's approach of lofty self-consciousness. He had new perplexities and wanted first to think through what he considered the more pressing issues to express, namely, his reflections on the problem of material interests. In March 1842, in a letter to Ruge, Marx stated that the article "On Christian Art," originally intended as part of the second part of *The Last Trumpet*, "should be completely rewritten," because it was imbued with the tone of the first part of *The Last Trumpet*. [3]3 "On Christian Art" (Über christliche Kunst) was a planned article by Marx for the second part of *The Last Trumpet*, which he never finished. He was willing to use his new views to rethink this question, breaking free from the limitations of Hegel's mode of narration. Thus, if Marx had finished writing "On Christian Art" and had it published, he would inevitably have expressed his differences with Bauer. Although, regrettably, due to the turbulent political situation, we did not see the final presentation of this divergence. Lapin commented on this, saying that the absence of Marx's chapters directly led to the failure of the second part of *The Last Trumpet*, because this work made no substantial progress beyond the first part. [4]4 Nikolai Lapin was a Soviet Marxist scholar who wrote on Marx's early intellectual development.

马克思为何把《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》放在前面写呢？其实这一时期他对鲍威尔高昂自我意识的做法就已经开始反感，他有了新的困惑，想先思考清楚自己想要表达的更为紧要的问题，即对物质利益问题的思考。1842年3月，马克思在给卢格的信中认为，原本打算作为《宣告》第二部的《论基督教的艺术》一文“应当彻底改写”，因为它充满了《宣告》第一部的色彩。他愿意用他的新观点重新思考这个问题，摆脱黑格尔叙述方式的局限。由此可见，如果马克思来得及写完《论基督教的艺术》并刊印，他必然会表达出自己与鲍威尔的分歧。虽然很遗憾地，因为时局动荡的缘故，我们并未看到这一分歧的最终呈现。拉宾对此做出评论，马克思那几章的缺席，直接导致了《宣告》第二部的失败，因为这部作品在第一部的基础上没有太多实质性的进展。

Second, during the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, Marx's break with the "Free Men" shows that he had already drifted apart from Bauer.

第二，《莱茵报》时期马克思与“自由人”的决裂，显示他与鲍威尔已渐行渐远。

At the end of 1841, the Berlin "Free Men" group was formed, consisting of the core members of the Doctors' Club, with both Marx and Bauer among them. [5]5 The Doctors' Club (Doktorklub) was a Berlin circle of Young Hegelians formed in the late 1830s, which included Marx, Bauer, and others. The "Free Men" (Die Freien) was a more radical splinter group formed in 1841. In October 1842, Marx became editor-in-chief of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, and subsequently diverged from Bauer over their attitudes towards the "Free Men."

1841年底，柏林“自由人”小团体成立，由博士俱乐部的基本成员构成，马克思和鲍威尔都在其中。1842年10月，马克思担任《莱茵报》主编，随后与鲍威尔在对待“自由人”的态度上产生分歧。

Marx criticized the concept of freedom held by the "Free Men" group. The "Free Men" group took the Young Hegelian philosophy of "self-consciousness" as its core, aiming to achieve freedom through theoretical critique. The "Free Men" advocated the abolition of the state, which politically veered towards anarchism. Of course, the political struggle as understood by the "Free Men" was mainly a critique at the level of thought, not involving changes to actual conditions. This so-called freedom could only be a subjective freedom remaining at the level of thought, not attaining genuine freedom in reality. In contrast, Marx, already in his doctoral dissertation, had emphasized the realization of freedom in determinate being (*Dasein*). By the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, he went further, advocating for the realization of actual freedom of speech and of the press.

马克思对“自由人”团体的自由观进行了批判。“自由人”团体以青年黑格尔派的“自我意识”哲学为核心，目的是通过理论上的批判实现自由。“自由人”主张消灭国家，这就在政治上倒向了无政府主义。当然，“自由人”理解的政治斗争主要是从思想上批判，不涉及对实际状况的改变。这种所谓自由只能是停留在思想层面的主观的自由，并没有达到现实中真正的自由。与之相反，马克思在博士论文中就已经强调要实现定在中的自由。到了《莱茵报》时期，他更是提出要实现现实中的言论和出版自由。

The "Free Men" often sent their articles to the *Rheinische Zeitung*. These articles were radical and hollow. Marx opposed such articles and offered his advice: "Indulge less in vague generalities." [6]6 This phrase is from a letter by Marx to the "Free Men," criticizing their abstract and impractical style of critique. But this reminder was not heeded by the "Free Men"; instead, they accused Marx of being a conservative. Marx had hoped that Bauer would intervene in the practices of the "Free Men," but Bauer expressed his approval of them. Therefore, while breaking with the "Free Men," Marx also drifted apart from Bauer.

“自由人”时常将他们撰写的文章寄给《莱茵报》，这些文章激进而空洞，马克思反对这类文章，对此给出了自己的建议，“少发些不着边际的空论”，但这样的提醒并没有得到“自由人”的重视，“自由人”反而指责马克思为保守派。马克思曾希望鲍威尔对“自由人”的做法进行干预，鲍威尔却表示了他对“自由人”的赞许。因此，马克思在与“自由人”决裂的同时，也与鲍威尔渐行渐远。

The "Introduction" was written from mid-October to mid-December 1843. As shown above, the divergence between Marx and Bauer had already emerged before this time, and in *The Jewish Question* Marx directly began to refute Bauer's views on religion. Therefore, when McLellan claims that Marx's discussion of religion in the "Introduction" is plagiarizing Bauer, he is in fact erasing the independence of Marx's thought, which is truly inappropriate.

《导言》写于1843年10月中-12月中，由上文可知，马克思与鲍威尔的分歧在这一时间之前就已经出现，《问题》中马克思更是直接开始批驳鲍威尔的宗教观。所以当麦克莱伦说马克思在《导言》中有关宗教的论述是在抄袭鲍威尔时，实际上是在抹去马克思思想的独立性，实在是欠妥。

Third, a direct refutation of the "plagiarism claim."

第三，对“抄袭说”的直接反驳。

Take the famous statement "religion is the opium of the people" as an example. McLellan believes that Marx was plagiarizing Bauer here, and his evidence is that Bauer once said in *The Merit of Freedom* that religion "in its destructive frenzy, opium-addicted-like intoxication, prattles about an afterlife where everything will be renewed," and in *The Christian State* also spoke of theology's "opium-like influence" on people.

以“宗教是人民的鸦片”这一著名说法为例。麦克莱伦认为这是马克思在抄袭鲍威尔，他的论据是鲍威尔在《自由的功绩》中曾说宗教“在它那充满破坏狂，上了鸦片瘾似的迷醉中侈谈一切都将焕然一新的来世生活”，在《基督教国家》中也谈到神学对人“鸦片般的影响”。

However, in fact, similar views had been raised long before Bauer. Holbach proposed in *Christianity Unveiled* that religion is the art of narcotizing people; Maréchal stated in *The Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Atheists* that humanity is ruled by a religion that narcotizes people, and also explicitly mentioned the opium analogy; Hegel said in *Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion* that Hinduism strives to create a world of illusion through narcosis.

然而实际上，早在鲍威尔之前，就有人提过类似的观点，霍尔巴赫在《被揭露的基督教》中提出宗教是麻醉人的艺术；马拉夏尔在《古今无神论者词典》中曾说人类为麻痹人的宗教所统治，也明确提到鸦片一说；黑格尔在《宗教哲学》中曾说印度教竭力通过麻醉制造一个变幻的世界。

If Marx's statement is said to be plagiarizing Bauer, then could it not also be said that Bauer was plagiarizing Hegel, Holbach, and Maréchal? Tracing back in this way, would only the first person ever to have a similar statement be considered original, and everyone after that be plagiarizing? McLellan and Rawson did not continue to trace back further; this clearly bestows an unrealistic and undeserved reputation on Bauer, excessively elevating his status. In fact, Marx's discussion of religion in the "Introduction" is based on his own independent thinking, the result of analyzing the statements of predecessors with selection and discernment, carefully filtered by him. It is not, as distorted by McLellan and Rawson, an unthinking plagiarism of Bauer. The "plagiarism claim" has the fault of one-sidedly exaggerating Bauer's role and belittling Marx's independent thinking.

如果说马克思这一说法是在抄袭鲍威尔，那么是不是也可以说鲍威尔是在抄袭黑格尔、霍尔巴赫和马拉夏尔呢？如此往前追溯，是否只有首次有过相似说法的人才是原创，此后的全是在抄袭呢？麦克莱伦和罗森没有继续往前深入追溯，这显然是赋予鲍威尔不切实际的虚名，过分抬高了鲍威尔的地位。实际上，马克思在《导言》中对宗教的论述是基于自己的独立思考，有所取舍地分析前人论述的结果，是经过自己精心筛选的，并不像麦克莱伦和罗森歪曲的那样，是对鲍威尔不假思索地抄袭。“抄袭说”有片面夸大鲍威尔的作用，贬低马克思独立思考之过。

V. Summary

五、小 结

In summary, domestic scholars generally believe that Marx, in the "Introduction" and *The Jewish Question*, criticized Bauer's views on religion to a certain extent. However, there is a lack of in-depth and detailed analysis of the exact nature of the relationship between Marx's view of religion and Bauer's view of religion. This leads to an inability to mount a powerful counterattack when faced with the claims of Western scholars like McLellan and Rawson, who stigmatize the "Introduction" as "plagiarizing" Bauer's view of religion. This paper attempts to refute this challenge, thereby defending the original contribution of the "Introduction" within the Marxist view of religion. Through an in-depth study of *The Jewish Question*, it clarifies the true relationship between Marx and Bauer on the view of religion, neither exaggerating nor belittling Bauer's role in the formation of the Marxist view of religion. This clarification has very important theoretical and practical significance for accurately understanding the Marxist view of religion and thereby establishing a firm belief in it.

综上，国内学者普遍认为马克思在《导言》和《问题》中对鲍威尔宗教观进行了一定程度的批判，但对于马克思宗教观与鲍威尔宗教观究竟是何种程度的关系却缺乏深入而细致的分析，这就导致面对麦克莱伦和罗森等西方学者将《导言》污名化为“抄袭”鲍威尔宗教观的说法时无法给予有力的反击。本文试对这一诘难给予反驳，从而捍卫《导言》在马克思主义宗教观中的原创性贡献，并通过对《问题》的深入研读澄清马克思与鲍威尔在宗教观上的真实关系，既不过分夸大也不过分贬低鲍威尔在马克思主义宗教观的形成过程中的作用，这一澄清对于准确理解马克思主义宗教观，由此建立起对马克思主义宗教观的坚定信念具有十分重要的理论意义和现实意义。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心