Rethinking Marx’s “Triple Transcendence” of Bauer’s Critique of Religion

Academic discussion of the “Jewish question” has been largely confined to analyzing Bauer’s attitudes and insights on this issue from Marx’s standpoint, that is, by understanding Bauer through the citations or paraphrases of his views that Marx employs in his famous essay “On the Jewish Question.” In this regard, David Ingram once emphasized: “Since Bauer is rarely mentioned in citations concerning Marx, and when he is mentioned it is pejoratively, this point is easily overlooked.” [1]1 David Ingram, “The Retreat of the Political in the Modern Age: The ‘Jewish Question’ and the ‘Woman Question’ in Marx, Bauer, and Lassalle,” *Philosophy & Social Criticism* 34, no. 4 (2008): 449. This phenomenon can also be found in some influential biographical works on Marx’s thought, where the relevant exposition of the “Jewish question” mostly focuses on discussing Marx’s arguments, while Bauer’s views are only roughly paraphrased, without an in-depth analysis of Bauer’s thought. For example, in McLellan’s *Marx: A Biography*, the evaluation of Bauer’s views is limited to a citation of Marx’s letter to Ruge, stating that “Marx considered Bauer’s views ‘too abstract’.” [2]2 David McLellan, *Marx: A Biography* (London: Macmillan, 1973), 76. Domestic research is largely the same, that is, understanding Bauer’s thought through Marx’s exposition or from the critical perspective of Marx. Consequently, some scholars have suggested that solely analyzing the “Jewish question” from Marx’s perspective may cause confusion and misunderstanding of the theoretical judgments of Marx and Bauer. [3]3 See, for example, Shlomo Avineri, “Marx and the Jewish Question,” *Journal of the History of Ideas* 25, no. 3 (1964): 445-450. This research trend has led to many of Bauer’s insightful views being overlooked and not fully presented, resulting in “the role Bauer played in the formation of Marx’s thought being inappropriately underestimated.” [4]4 David McLellan, *The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx* (London: Macmillan, 1969), 55.

学界对“犹太人问题”讨论主要局限于站在马克思的立场来剖析鲍威尔对此问题的态度和见解，即通过马克思在其著名的《论犹太人问题》一文中所引用或是转述鲍威尔观点的方式来理解。对此，大卫·英格拉姆就曾强调：“由于鲍威尔在关于马克思的引述中很少被提及，且即使被提及也是带有贬义的，所以这一点也就很容易被忽略。”而这一现象同样也可以在一些具有重要影响力的马克思思想传记作品中发现踪迹，在这些传记中对“犹太人问题”的相关阐述也大多数都集中于讨论马克思的论点，而对于鲍威尔的观点仅是粗略转述，未对鲍威尔的思想进行深入地剖析。譬如在麦克莱伦的《马克思传》中对鲍威尔观点的评价，仅有转引马克思致卢格的信中所说的“马克思认为鲍威尔的观点‘太抽象’”的描述。国内研究也大体如此，即通过马克思的阐述或是站在马克思的批判视域下来了解鲍威尔的思想，因而有学者提出了单一的从站在马克思的视角来剖析“犹太人问题”，可能会造成混淆和误解马克思和鲍威尔思想论断的问题。这种研究趋向，致使鲍威尔许多富有洞见的观点被忽视、没有得到完整呈现，使得“鲍威尔对马克思思想的形成所起的作用被人们不适当地低估了”。

By delving into the text of Marx’s “On the Jewish Question,” written to critique and respond to Bauer, it can be discovered that Marx, to a certain extent, took Bauer’s critique of religion as the starting point for his own investigation of the issue of Jewish emancipation, and, on the basis of absorbing and drawing on Bauer’s critique of religion, enriched and fleshed out his own theoretical conception. Therefore, the understanding of the “Jewish question” cannot be entirely confined to the Bauer interpreted in Marx’s “On the Jewish Question”; rather, his unelucidated and latent thoughts should be excavated. As David Leopold pointed out, unfamiliarity with and vagueness about the thought of Marx’s opponent Bauer is precisely the greatest obstacle to fully understanding “On the Jewish Question.” He argues: “Without familiarity with Bauer’s thought, it is impossible to evaluate Marx’s critique of Bauer’s works, nor to evaluate the comparison of the two authors in scholarly academic works.” [5]5 David Leopold, *The Young Karl Marx: German Philosophy, Modern Politics, and Human Flourishing* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 101. Hence, this article takes Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” and Bauer’s *The Jewish Question* as core texts, distinguishing the intellectual divergences between the two on three core and crucial issues in the “Jewish question”: the object of critique, the theoretical line, and the path to resolution. It deeply interprets the regrettable aspects of Bauer’s theoretical cognition and the aspects of Marx’s theoretical transcendence, which will be beneficial for a comprehensive understanding and grasp of the critique of religion by both Marx and Bauer.

而通过深挖马克思为批判与回应鲍威尔而作的《论犹太人问题》文本，可以发现马克思在一定程度上是将鲍威尔的宗教批判思想作为其考察犹太人解放问题的起点，并在吸收与借鉴鲍威尔宗教批判思想的基础上充实与丰盈自身的理论构想。因此，对“犹太人问题”的理解不能完全囿于马克思《论犹太人问题》中所诠释的鲍威尔，而应挖掘出其未被阐发和潜藏的思想。正如大卫·利奥波德所指出的，对马克思所批判的对手鲍威尔的思想陌生而又模糊正是我们充分理解《论犹太人问题》的最大障碍。他提出：“若不熟悉鲍威尔的思想，不可能评价马克思对鲍威尔作品的批判，也不能评价学者学术作品中对两位作者的对比。”故而，本文以马克思的《论犹太人问题》和鲍威尔的《犹太人问题》为核心文本，辨析二者在“犹太人问题”中关于批判对象、理论路线和解决出路这三个核心而又关键的问题上所展现的思想分歧，深入解读鲍威尔理论认知的遗憾之处以及马克思思想上的超越之处，对全面地理解与把握马克思与鲍威尔的宗教批判思想将有所裨益。

I. The Shift in the Object of Critique: From the “So-Called Christian State” to the “True Christian State”

一、批判对象的转向：从“所谓基督教国家”到“真正的基督教国家”

Faced with the problem of Jewish emancipation, both Marx and Bauer launched a profound critique of the Christian state in which Jews lived, but their understanding and cognition of the Christian state were completely different. Marx emphasized in a letter to Ruge that Bauer’s views were too abstract, and that “we should open as many breaches as possible in the Christian state and cram in as much reasonable stuff as we can.” [6]6 Karl Marx, “Letter to Ruge (March 1843),” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), 400. This “breach” refers to Bauer’s erroneous cognition of the object of critique, the Christian state. Bauer “boldly, sharply, wittily, and thoroughly” dissected the “Christian state.” First, Bauer questioned the Christian state’s attitude toward Jews: whether “the injustice and ruthlessness are rooted in the nature of the past state system.” [7]7 Bruno Bauer, *The Jewish Question* (Braunschweig: Friedrich Otto, 1843), 3. In response, Bauer believed that if this premise were true, then only by changing the state system could Jews possibly be emancipated. But in Bauer’s eyes, this was utter nonsense, because the mutually exclusive relationship between Jews and Christians was the only correct relationship fostered by the Christian state. This is because the essence and foundation of the Christian state is religion (Christianity), and within the Christian state, excluding and oppressing Jews is legitimate, a perfectly natural matter. Therefore, Bauer firmly believed that the Christian state would never actively strive for the right of emancipation for Jews.

面对犹太人的解放难题，马克思与鲍威尔皆对犹太人所生活的SSHR的基督教国家这一对象展开了深刻的批判，但二者对基督教国家的理解认知是截然不同的。马克思曾在致卢格的信中强调鲍威尔的观点太过抽象，“应当在基督教国家上面打开尽可能多的缺口，并且尽我们所能塞进合理的东西。”这个“缺口”即是指鲍威尔对基督教国家这一批判对象的错误认知。鲍威尔“大胆、尖锐、机智、透彻”地对“基督教国家”进行了深入的剖析。首先，鲍威尔曾对基督教国家对待犹太人的态度发出疑问：基督教国家的“不公平和冷酷无情是否根源于过去的国家制度的本质”。对此，鲍威尔认为若是这一前提成立，那么只有在改变国家制度的情况下，犹太人才可能得到解放。但在鲍威尔眼中看来这简直是无稽之谈的事情，因为犹太人和基督徒相互排斥的关系才是基督教国家所营造的唯一正确的关系。这是由于基督教国家的本质和基础是宗教（基督教），而在基督教国家之中，排斥与压迫犹太人的行为是正当的，是再自然不过的事情。因此，鲍威尔坚定地认为基督教国家是根本不可能会主动地为犹太人争取解放的权利。

Precisely because of this misjudgment of the Christian state, Bauer naturally believed that the fundamental reason Jews were unentitled to human rights and civil rights lay in the Jews themselves. The narrow essence inherent in the Jewish religious identity caused them to be in a relationship of opposition, conflict, and exclusion with non-Jews; therefore, the essence of Jews “did not make them human beings, but made them Jews.” [8]8 Ibid., 19. On the one hand, Bauer believed that human rights are not a product of nature, but a result of historical privilege struggles and education; only those who struggle for and deserve human rights can enjoy them. Therefore, not only Jews but also Christians had no human rights. On the other hand, in Bauer’s eyes, the Jewish nation was a nation with strong exclusivity and refined egoism; this selfish, egoistic narrow essence of Jews disqualified them from enjoying human rights. Based on this, Bauer further satirized whether this Christian state, ruled by the spirit of religion, where the king possesses absolute free will and divine right is supreme, “knows citizens, and not merely subjects.” [9]9 Ibid., 56. Therefore, Bauer believed that in Germany (the Christian state), there were no citizens. Neither Christians nor Jews were citizens in the true sense; neither had achieved political emancipation and freedom. Hence, Jews should be no different. The reason Jews were unentitled not only to human rights but also to citizenship was that “although he is a citizen and lives in universal human relations, his narrow Jewish essence ultimately always triumphs over his human and political obligations,” [10]10 Ibid., 60. and the civil rights Jews did enjoy were merely formal; in secular life, Jews were still constrained by “religious privilege.” Although Bauer declared that Jews were unentitled to political power, he also soberly recognized that in real economic life, Jews were “entitled,” that is, “in theory, Jews are not granted political rights, but in practice they have great power, and display their political influence to a large extent, although this influence is curtailed in some details.” [11]11 Ibid., 114. In Vienna and Germany, Jews controlled the entire state with money; in trade unions and guilds as well, the powerful monetary force held by Jews had silently permeated the daily life of the European world. Thus, Bauer’s view on the political rights enjoyed by Jews was actually rather vague and contradictory: theoretically denying them, yet in practical life acknowledging and affirming the role Jews played in politics.

正是由于对基督教国家的误判，鲍威尔自然而然地认为犹太人无权享有人权和公民权的根本原因在于——犹太人本身。犹太人宗教身份所内蕴的狭隘本质导致他们与非犹太人是对立的、冲突的和排斥的关系，因此犹太人的本质并“没有使他们成为人，而是使他们成为犹太人”。一方面，鲍威尔认为人权不是自然的产物，而是历史中的特权斗争和教育的结果，只有那些争取且本应得到人权的人才能享有。所以，不仅犹太人没有人权，基督徒同样也没有人权；另一方面，在鲍威尔眼中犹太民族是一个具有强烈的排他性和精致的利己主义的民族，犹太人这种自私、利己主义的狭隘本质是没有资格享有人权的。基于此，鲍威尔又进一步讽刺道，这个以宗教精神为统治精神、国王拥有绝对的自由意志和神权至上的基督教国家“是否知道公民，而不是只知道臣民”。因此，鲍威尔认为在德国（基督教国家）是没有公民的。无论是基督徒还是犹太人都不是真正意义上的公民，都没有在政治上获得解放与自由，因此犹太人也不应该有所差别。而犹太人不仅无权享有人权，也无权享有公民身份的原因，是由于犹太人“尽管他是公民并生活在普遍的人的关系中，但他那犹太人的狭隘的本质最终总要战胜他的人的义务和政治的义务”，且犹太人所享有的公民权也仅只是形式上的享有，在世俗生活中犹太人仍旧被“宗教特权”所挟制。尽管鲍威尔宣称犹太人无权享有政治权力，但他也清醒认识到在现实的经济生活中犹太人却是“有权”的，即“在理论上不给予犹太人以政治权利，实际上他却有很大的权力，而且在很大的范围内显示自己的政治影响，虽然这种影响在一些细节上被削减了”。在维也纳、德国，犹太人用金钱控制了整个国家；在同业工会和行会也是如此，犹太人持有的强大金钱力量已悄无声息地浸润在欧洲世界的日常生活之中。由此可见，鲍威尔对于犹太人享有的政治权利的看法其实是较为模糊和矛盾的，理论上否定却又在实际生活中承认与肯定犹太人在政治上所发挥的作用。

Bauer held that Jews, because of their religious faith and selfish nature, were not entitled to equal political rights. Marx forcefully refuted this view. First, by citing the content of the concept of “human rights” in the constitutions of North America and France, Marx clarified that the acquisition of human rights absolutely does not presuppose the abolition of religion, thereby effectively refuting Bauer’s view that the condition for obtaining human rights is the abolition of the “privilege of faith.” On this basis, he further enumerated a series of legal provisions, such as the 1791 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, to demonstrate that freedom of religious belief is one of the specific contents recognized and acknowledged by human rights, clarifying that “the privilege of faith is a universal human right.” Second, by citing the interpretation of legal provisions in the 1793 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, namely that human rights are “natural and inalienable rights,” Marx forcefully attacked Bauer’s view that human rights are not a product of nature. Third, through the legal provisions’ explication of the right to liberty, Marx demonstrated that freedom is not established on the basis of what Bauer called “man’s association with other men,” but rather on the basis of atomistic, independent individuals; it is a narrow, independent, egoistic right. Contrary to Bauer’s view that Jews, due to their egoistic nature, are not entitled to human rights, Marx, by citing the legal formulations of equality, freedom, security, and property, forcefully demonstrated that “none of the so-called human rights go beyond the egoistic man,” and that egoism is precisely what is protected and recognized by rights. Therefore, through Marx’s logically rigorous argumentation, Bauer’s view that Jews, because of their religious faith and egoistic essence, are not entitled to equal political rights clearly collapsed of its own accord.

鲍威尔认为犹太人因其宗教信仰与自私的本性而无权享有平等的政治权利，马克思对此观点进行了强有力地反驳。首先，马克思通过引证北美与法国的宪法中的“人权”概念的内涵，阐明人权的获得绝不以废除宗教为前提条件，有力地驳斥了鲍威尔获取人权的条件需废除“信仰的特权”的见解。在此基础上，又进一步罗列了1791年法国《人权和公民权宣言》等系列法条论证了宗教信仰自由是人权所认可与承认的具体内容之一，阐明“信仰的特权是普遍的人权”。其次，马克思通过援引1793年法国的《人权和公民权宣言》中的法条所做的解释即人权是“自然的和不可剥夺的权利”，有力抨击了鲍威尔认为人权不是自然的产物的观点。再次，马克思通过法条对自由权的阐释，论证自由不是确立在鲍威尔所说的“人而同别人结合”的基础上，而是确立在原子式的独立个体之上的，是狭隘的、独立的、利己主义性质的权利。与鲍威尔认为犹太人因利己主义的本性而无权享有人权的观点相反，马克思通过引证平等、自由、安全、财产的法条表述，有力地论证了“任何一种所谓的人权都没有超出利己的人”，而利己主义恰恰是受到权利的保护与认可的。因此，经过马克思逻辑严密的论证，鲍威尔所主张的犹太人因其宗教信仰和利己主义的本质而无权享有平等政治权利的见解，显然不攻自破了。

Marx, on the other hand, calmly recognized that Bauer was deceived by the “so-called Christian state,” and thus the target of his critique inevitably missed the mark. In response, Marx conducted a detailed analysis of Bauer’s “so-called Christian state”: First, he revealed that “the so-called Christian state is nothing but a non-state,” because the Christian state takes Christianity as its state religion and possesses strong religious exclusivity and a pronounced theological character. Second, this state, which relies on religion and takes religion as its foundation of rule, causes the state to obliterate its own independence, and it can only be established in the form of “negating the state through Christianity.” From this, Marx further deduced that the characteristic of the so-called Christian state is that it is an “imperfect state.” For the state, religion serves as a means to supplement and compensate for the state’s defects, or as a cloak to sanctify it. Therefore, the Christian state is hypocritical and imperfect, and this inherent characteristic further confirms that “the so-called Christian state needs Christianity in order to complete itself as a state.” Religion occupies a core position in the overall construction of the Christian state, treating the actual state power organs as “servant churches.” Ironically, the state and power organs that proclaim themselves rulers of religion become instead objects deceived and suppressed by religion. Thus, in the Christian state, politics is also religiousized and held hostage by religion, forming a state system that “treats religion from a political perspective and politics from a religious perspective.” Hence, in the “so-called Christian state,” religion and politics are tightly interwoven; its essence is a form of alienated church-state relations, a regime and state under the domination of religious theology.

马克思则冷静地看清鲍威尔是被“所谓基督教国家”迷惑，故而其批判的标靶也不免射错了方向。对此，马克思对鲍威尔口中的“所谓基督教国家”进行了详细辨析：首先，他揭示“所谓基督教国家只不过是非国家”，这是由于基督教国家是以基督教为国教，并且具有强烈的宗教排他性和浓厚的神学色彩的国家。其次，这种依赖宗教且以宗教为统治基础的国家，致使国家泯灭掉了自身的独立性，通过“基督教来否定国家”的形式才得以成立。由此，马克思的进一步推论是，所谓基督教国家，其特质是“不完善的国家”。宗教对于国家而言，所充当的是补充和弥补国家缺陷的手段或是为其披上神圣化外衣的角色。因此，基督教国家是伪善的、不完善的，而这种内在的特质更加证实了“所谓基督教国家需要基督教，是为了充实自己而成为国家”。宗教在基督教国家的整体构建中处于核心地位，将现实的国家权力机关看作是“仆从的教会”。讽刺的是，宣称是宗教统治者的国家和权力机关，反而成了被宗教所迷惑和压制的对象。由此，在基督教国家中，政治也被宗教化、被宗教所挟制，形成了“既从政治的角度对待宗教，又从宗教的角度对待政治”的国家体系。故而，在“所谓基督教国家”中宗教和政治是紧密地交织在一起的，其实质上是政教关系异化的表现形式，是宗教神学统摄下的政权与国家。

Marx identified that the “true Christian state” is the “atheistic state, the democratic state, the state that relegates religion to the other elements of civil society.” Here, the “true Christian state” as explained by Marx is the modern state that has sublated the religious spirit. It no longer elevates religion as the supreme, unquestionable, dominant factor, but rather classifies religion, along with other elements like private property, as a prerequisite element for the existence of the political state. It is precisely for this reason that Marx held a fundamentally different understanding of the Christian state. Although Bauer saw the religious-theological essence of the Christian state and recognized its limitations, he mistakenly judged the Christian state as being the critique of the state itself. Marx, however, through his critique of the “Christian state,” saw that religion is essentially a refraction of the defects of the political state, a “perspective mirror” of real social problems, a mirror that exposes the limitations and drawbacks of the political state. It is worth noting that Marx devoted a certain amount of space to discussing the “so-called Christian state” and the “true Christian state,” not only to clarify the basic concepts of these two objects of critique, but also to highlight that Bauer remained within the perspective of religious theology when discussing the question of Jewish emancipation, which to some extent resulted from his misjudgment of the Christian state.

马克思指认，“真正的基督教国家”是“无神论国家、民主制国家，即把宗教归为市民社会的其他要素的国家”。在这里，马克思所阐释的“真正的基督教国家”，也就是扬弃了宗教精神的现代国家，是不再将宗教捧为至高无上、不容置疑的具有统治地位的主导因素，而是将宗教与私有财产等其他要素一样被归为政治国家得以存在的前提要素。也正是如此，马克思对基督教国家的理解持有迥然不同的认知。鲍威尔虽然看到了基督教国家的宗教神学本质，也认识到了基督教国家的局限，但他却错误地将基督教国家判定为是对国家本身的批判。而马克思却透过对“基督教国家”的批判，看到宗教实质上是政治国家缺陷的折射，是社会现实问题的一面“透视镜”，这面镜子暴露出政治国家的局限与弊端。值得一提的是，马克思用一定篇幅来讨论“所谓基督教国家”和“真正的基督教国家”，除了为廓清这两个批判对象的基本概念之外，还在于凸显出鲍威尔是驻足在宗教神学的视域中讨论犹太人的解放问题的，而这一定程度上正是由于其对基督教国家的误判。

II. Positioning the Theoretical Line: From Theological Questions to Secular Questions

二、理论路线的定位：从神学问题到世俗问题

Bauer continued the consistent tradition of the Hegelian school, i.e., the critical line of discussing real problems within a religious context “with the eyes of a theologian.” Naturally, he fell into the same pattern by categorizing the question of Jewish emancipation as a “philosophical-theological act,” deeply mired in the fog of religious theology. By analyzing Bauer’s text *The Jewish Question*, we might venture to speculate that Bauer perhaps attempted to step outside the perspective of religious theology to explore the path of Jewish emancipation. Hence, he raised the question of whether the problem must be resolved “through a religious answer” and whether the opposition must be resolved “through a religious interpretation.” Regrettably, however, Bauer ultimately failed to break the shackles of religious theology. As Marx summarized, Bauer judged the Jewish question as “the question of the relation of religion to the state, the contradiction between religious restriction and political emancipation.” Bauer firmly believed that as long as religious privileges existed, people could not truly achieve emancipation in real life, and the law only formally realized civic equality, while in actual life citizens would still be controlled and bound by religious privileges. Bauer regarded religion as the “entire essence” of the Jew, exploring the Jewish question within the category of religious theology, overemphasizing the influence of religion on Jews, and neglecting other important dimensions that made Jewish emancipation a contradiction and a problem. Although Bauer had already perceived that Jews also faced many problems in real civil society—for example, as mentioned earlier, Bauer discovered that Jews could manipulate the state by virtue of their control over money—he did not further investigate the important role money played in civil society, the connection between money and Jews, and many other social issues. Instead, he remained confined to viewing the problem from the perspective of religious theology, adopting a relatively circuitous route—using religion as a breakthrough to conduct a certain critique of civil society—and stubbornly judged the question of Jewish emancipation as a purely, singularly religious question.

鲍威尔延续了黑格尔派一贯的传统，即“用神学家的眼睛”在宗教语境中讨论现实问题的批判路线，自然他也不落俗套地将犹太人的解放问题归置为“哲学兼神学的行动”，深陷于宗教神学的迷雾之中。通过剖析鲍威尔的《犹太人问题》文本，或许我们可以大胆推测，鲍威尔可能也曾试图走出宗教神学的视域去探索犹太人的解放之路，所以发出了疑问，是否“必须通过宗教性的回答”解决问题，是否“必须通过宗教性的阐释”来解决对立问题。但遗憾的是，鲍威尔最终还是未能打破宗教神学的桎梏，正如马克思所归纳的那般，鲍威尔把犹太人的问题判定为“宗教对国家的关系问题、宗教束缚和政治解放的矛盾问题”。鲍威尔笃定只要宗教特权存在，就会致使人在现实生活中无法真正地实现解放，法律也只是在形式上实现了公民的平等，而在实际生活中公民仍旧会受到宗教特权的控制和束缚。鲍威尔将宗教看作是犹太人的“全部本质”，在宗教神学的范畴中探究犹太人问题，过分强调宗教对于犹太人的影响，忽视了使犹太人解放成为矛盾与难题的其他重要维度。纵然鲍威尔已经体察到了犹太人在现实的市民社会中同样也存在着诸多问题，譬如，前文所提到的鲍威尔发现犹太人凭借掌握金钱的力量可以操控国家等现象，但他没有进一步探究金钱在市民社会中所发挥的重要作用以及金钱与犹太人之间的关联等诸多社会问题，而是局限于从宗教神学的视野出发看待问题，采取比较迂回的路线即以宗教为突破口对市民社会进行了一定的批判，执着的将犹太人的解放问题判定为纯粹的、单一的宗教问题。

Although Marx granted a certain recognition to Bauer’s line of religious critique, he held that the very logic of Bauer’s religious critique was precisely the fundamental limitation of his theoretical construction. Bauer concentrated his focus entirely on criticizing Judaism, vainly seeking a breakthrough in ethereal religious theology, yet failed to recognize that the critical method he employed—the “alienation of religious alienation”—could not directly strike at the crux of the Jewish question. The main reason is that even after eliminating the religious elements from the political sphere, it remained impossible to effectively resolve the Jewish problem in real life, let alone cure the social problems reflected by the Jewish question. Compared with Bauer’s one-sided and superficial understanding, Marx had already profoundly realized that the critique of religion is “the premise of all other critiques,” but that the more important significance of the “struggle against religion” lies in the fact that it is “indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion,” shifting the target of critique from the ethereal world of religious theology to secular society, and resolving the crux at its “root.” Hence, in 1844, the *Mannheimer Abendzeitung* praised Marx for raising the question of Jewish emancipation “to the level of a thoroughgoing transformation of the whole of society.” In civil society, Marx keenly captured that “the monotheism of the Jew is therefore in reality the polytheism of many needs,” exposing that the principle of civil society is “practical need, egoism.” Under the rule of the secular god “money,” Judaism no longer needed to develop in religious form, because it had successfully integrated its specific “Jewish spirit” into the bloodstream of civil society and the real world, and civil society was accordingly constantly producing “Jews.” In civil society, Marx found the ultimate answer to the Jewish question, namely, “emancipation from the Jewish spirit.” Marx saw the selfish and self-interested traits displayed by Jews in the money transactions of civil society, and discovered the close connection between egoism and civil society. As McLellan said, “In fact, the German word ‘Judentum’ also has the meaning of ‘commerce,’ and Marx used the term in a double sense to some extent.” In Marx’s view, the question of Jewish emancipation was more like a relatively typical microcosm of the many problems emerging in commodity society. From this, it can be seen that Marx, unlike Bauer, no longer discussed the Jewish question within the religious context, but extended and projected it into the economic category of civil society for discussion, analyzing the civil society shaped by the Jewish spirit. This laid a certain foundation for Marx’s later investigation of commodities, money, and fetishism. In this sense, it can be said that *On the Jewish Question* to a certain extent prompted Marx’s research focus to shift from philosophy to political economy, that is, “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.”

尽管马克思对鲍威尔的宗教批判路线予以一定的认可，但认为鲍威尔宗教批判的理路恰恰也是他理论建树的根本局限所在。鲍威尔将关注的焦点都集中在批判犹太教身上，妄图在虚无缥缈的宗教神学上找寻突破口，却没有认识到他所采沿用的“宗教异化的异化”批判方法根本不能直击犹太人解放问题的关键之处。主要原因在于即便将政治领域中的宗教元素剔除之后，依旧无法切实解决现实生活中的犹太人难题，更无法治愈犹太人问题所隐射的社会问题。相较于鲍威尔单一、浅显的认识，马克思却早已深刻地意识到宗教批判是“其他一切批判的前提”，但“反宗教的斗争”更为重要的意义在于“间接地就是反对以宗教为精神抚慰的那个世界的斗争”，将批判的标靶从虚无缥缈的宗教神学世界转到了世俗社会之中，从“根”处解决症结。故而，1844年的《曼海姆晚报》称赞马克思将犹太人的解放问题“提到了对整个社会进行彻底改造的高度”。马克思在市民社会中，敏锐地捕捉到“犹太人的一神教，在其现实性上是许多需要的多神教”，揭露出市民社会的原则是“实际需要、利己主义”。在世俗神“金钱”的统治下，犹太教已不再需要以宗教的形式得以发展，因为它已经成功地把特有的“犹太精神”融入至市民社会和现实世界的血液之中，随之市民社会也在不断地造就“犹太人”。在市民社会之中，马克思找到了解决犹太人问题的最终答案，即“从犹太精神中解放出来”。马克思看到了犹太人在市民社会的金钱交易中所表现出的自私自利特质，发现了利己主义与市民社会的密切关联。正如麦克莱伦所说，“事实上，德语犹太人（Judetum）还有‘商业’的意思，马克思在某种程度上是在双重意义上使用这个词的。”在马克思看来，犹太人的解放问题更像是商品社会所出现的诸多问题中一个较为典型的缩影。由此可以发现，马克思已然不像鲍威尔那般停留在宗教语境中讨论犹太人问题，而是将其拓展与投射到市民社会的经济范畴中展开讨论，对犹太精神所塑造的市民社会展开剖析，这为后期马克思对商品、金钱及拜物教的探究做了一定的铺垫。在此意义上可以说，《论犹太人问题》在一定程度上促使马克思的研究重点从哲学转向了政治经济学，即“对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求”。

Marx denounced Bauer’s erroneous approach of “criticizing political conditions within religion,” pointing out that the correct approach should be “to criticize religion within political conditions,” “because religion itself has no content; its roots are not in heaven, but on earth.” Marx thoroughly recognized that the roots of religion lie in real society, and the development of religion is closely linked to the historical process of social development. Therefore, the examination of the Jewish question cannot “abstract from” or detach itself from the perspective of real social history; otherwise, its consideration would be abstract, empty, and ineffective. Bauer precisely committed this error, leading him to put the cart before the horse by criticizing politics within religion. Hence, in Bauer’s eyes, the question of Jewish emancipation degenerated into a theological question dressed in political garb. Through a profound analysis of the Christian state, Marx saw that the existence of religion is essentially a refraction of the state’s internal defects; the religious question is actually the social reality question hidden behind religion.

马克思斥责鲍威尔“在宗教当中来批判政治状况”的错误做法，指出正确的做法应当是“在批判政治状况当中来批判宗教”，这是“因为宗教本身是没有内容的，它的根源不是在天上，而是在人间”。马克思透彻地认识到宗教的根源是在现实社会之中，宗教的发展是与社会历史发展进程紧密联系的，因此，对犹太人问题的审视不能“撇开”或者脱离现实社会历史的视野，否则对其的考量是抽象、空洞与无效的。鲍威尔正是犯了此错误，导致其本末倒置地在宗教中批判政治。故而在鲍威尔眼里，犹太人的解放问题便沦为了穿着政治外衣的神学问题。而马克思透过对基督教国家的深刻剖析，看到了宗教的存在实质上是国家内在缺陷的折射，宗教问题其实是宗教背后所隐匿的社会现实问题。

Thus, unlike previous German scholars who remained entrenched in the perspective and stance of religious theology to discuss the relationship between Jews and Christians, and between Judaism and the Christian state, Marx broke free from the swamp of religious theology to examine the “Jewish question,” turning his gaze toward secular society. He proposed the theoretical line: “We do not turn secular questions into theological ones. We turn theological questions into secular ones.” As Michael Maidan directly stated, Marx’s argument “starts from the assumption that the Jewish phenomenon cannot be explained in religious terms, but rather in terms of the actual life of Jewish individuals.” Marx believed that the key to solving the “Jewish question” should be sought in the secular society in which Jews lived, and should be pondered in the soil that nurtured religion—social reality—rather than circling within theology as Bauer did. Marx wanted to “put the Jewish question on another track,” that is, to pull the Jewish question back from the theological sphere onto the track of secular society. In this regard, B. Slavin praised Marx as “the first thinker in history to point out how to truly solve the Jewish question and any other national question without religious coercion,” steering the solution to the Jewish emancipation problem onto the correct track and “refuting the theological formulation of this question.”

由此，马克思没有像以往的德国学者们固守在宗教神学的视域和立场下讨论犹太人和基督徒的关系、犹太教和基督教国家之间的关系，而是跳脱出宗教神学的沼泽去考察“犹太人问题”，将目光投向世俗社会之中，提出了“我们不把世俗问题化为神学问题。我们要把神学问题化为世俗问题”的理论路线。诚如迈克尔·麦丹（Michael Maidan）所直言的，马克思的论点“始于这样的设想，即犹太现象不能用宗教术语来解释，而是根据犹太人个人的实际生活来解释”。马克思认为要获得破解“犹太人问题”的钥匙，应从犹太人所生活的世俗社会之中去找寻，应到孕育了宗教的土壤——社会现实中去思考，而不是像鲍威尔那般在神学里兜圈。马克思要将犹太人的解放问题“纳入另一条轨道”，即把犹太人问题从神学领域拉回至世俗社会的轨道之中。对此，鲍·斯拉文称赞马克思“是历史上第一位指出了如何不通过宗教强制来真正解决犹太人问题和其他任何民族问题的思想家”，将破解犹太人的解放难题引向了正确的轨道，“驳倒这个问题的神学提法”。

III. Direction of the Solution: From the Abolition of Religion to Human Emancipation

三、解决方案的路向：从废除宗教到人的解放

Clearly, Bauer regarded the Jewish question as a purely religious one and naively believed that as long as Jews abandoned their Jewish faith, and other believers correspondingly abandoned their respective faiths, after stripping away the cloak of religious belief, all people would become equal citizens and thus attain their own emancipation. Bauer attempted to extract religion from politics, thereby achieving a state of separation between religion and politics, in order to solve the Jewish question. Hence, in Bauer’s view, the necessary condition for achieving political emancipation was to abandon religious belief, completely resorting to the path of abolishing religion to solve the Jewish problem.

显然，鲍威尔是将犹太人问题视为一个纯粹的宗教问题，并天真地认为只要犹太人放弃犹太教信仰，其他教徒也相应地放弃各自的信仰，在祛除了宗教信仰的外衣之后，所有人都是平等的公民，从而获得了自身的解放。鲍威尔试图从政治中抽离出宗教，从而达到宗教与政治相分离的状态，以此来解决犹太人问题。故而在鲍威尔看来，实现政治解放的必要条件是放弃宗教信仰，将解决犹太人的难题完全诉诸于废除宗教这一路径。

Faced with Bauer’s idealized and illusory scheme, and his erroneous positioning of political emancipation and religion in a mutually exclusive and antagonistic relationship, Marx refuted: “Political emancipation does not abolish a person’s actual religious devotion, nor does it seek to abolish such religious devotion.” This is because political emancipation does not require restricting or prohibiting people’s freedom of belief; the existence of religion is not contradictory to political emancipation. Taking North America and France as examples, Marx used facts to demonstrate that the completion of political emancipation does not require, as Bauer asserted, religion to be completely detached from people’s political life, because “even in countries where political emancipation is complete, religion not only exists but is a vigorous and vital existence, which proves that the existence of religion is not contradictory to the completion of the state.” Marx’s irrefutable examples forcefully clarified that in countries that have already achieved political emancipation, religion still persists; the completion of political emancipation does not conflict with the existence of religion. On the one hand, Marx clarified the proper relationship between political emancipation and religion that Bauer had distorted and confused, emphasizing that for the state, political emancipation means that religion is stripped of its political cloak, the state no longer takes religion as its criterion, and religion no longer dominates and directly controls the state as before. On the other hand, he stressed that the existence of religion is never an isolated, abstract existence, nor are the state and religion unrelated, independent entities; religion is precisely a reflection of the defects and limitations of the political status quo in the existing state.

面对鲍威尔这一理想化、虚妄的方案，并且将政治解放与宗教归置为一种水火不容、对立的错误关系之中，马克思批驳道，“政治解放并没有消除人的实际的宗教笃诚，也不力求消除这种宗教笃诚”，这是由于政治解放并不要求限制与禁止人的信仰自由，宗教的存在与政治解放也并不矛盾。马克思以北美和法国为例，用事实说明政治解放的完成并不是鲍威尔所认定的需要宗教完全脱离于人们的政治生活，因为“甚至在政治解放已经完成了的国家，宗教不仅仅存在，而且是生气勃勃的、富有生命力的存在，那么就证明，宗教的定在和国家的完成是不矛盾的”。马克思无可辩驳的例证有力地阐明了在已经实现了政治解放的国家中宗教依旧留存着，政治解放的完成与宗教的定在并不冲突。马克思一方面澄清被鲍威尔所曲解和混淆了的政治解放与宗教之间应当存在的合理关系，强调政治解放对于国家而言，是指宗教被褪去了政治性的外衣，国家不再以宗教为准则，宗教不再像从前那般占主导地位和直接控制国家；另一方面，强调宗教的存在从不是孤立、抽象的存在，国家与宗教也并不是毫不相关、各自为阵的独立个体，宗教正是现存国家中政治现状的缺陷和局限性的反映。

In Bauer’s view, the cause of political emancipation could be accomplished only through the path of completely abolishing religion. He naively believed that abolishing religion would resolve the contradictions and problems between Jews and the Christian state, that the state and the people would no longer be dominated and bound by religion, and that Jews would thereby attain complete freedom and political emancipation. Marx, however, had already clearly recognized how difficult and protracted the path of abolishing religion and achieving its disappearance would be. Marx consistently maintained a correct and objective attitude toward religion. In his later work *Capital*, he explicitly states: “The religious reflection of the real world can disappear only when the relations of practical everyday life present themselves to people in a transparent and rational form, as relations between people and between people and nature.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 90. In contrast, Bauer’s understanding of the problem of Jewish emancipation was rather superficial, which is why Marx sarcastically called Bauer’s approach “a truly theological and falsely political inquiry.” [19]19 Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 147. In the text *On the Jewish Question*, Marx emphasized the opposing pair “true” and “false” by printing them in bold type, mercilessly exposing the defect in Bauer’s analysis of the Jewish question, which remained trapped within a theological framework and proceeded from the perspective of the critique of religion. Marx satirized Bauer for ostensibly seeking a path to the political emancipation of the Jews, yet in reality still being mired in the speculative logic of religious theology, devising what he considered a perfect solution for the Jews—namely, the vain attempt to solve the problem of Jewish emancipation by abolishing religion. This was clearly a dead end, because thousands of years of human history have already demonstrated, without proof, that even in highly developed modern societies, no regime or state has ever completely eliminated religion, and political contradictions and problems are inevitably entangled with religious issues. A comparison of Marx’s and Bauer’s understandings of the abolition and disappearance of religion sufficiently reveals Marx’s far-sightedness and insight in dealing with religious issues.

在鲍威尔看来，政治解放的事业需要通过彻底废除宗教这一路径才能得以完成，他天真地以为废除宗教便可化解犹太人与基督教国家之间的矛盾与问题，国家和人民就不会再被宗教所统摄与束缚，从而使得犹太人获得彻底地自由和政治解放。马克思却早已清醒地认识到废除宗教、宗教消亡之路是多么的艰难而漫长。马克思一直对宗教秉持着正确而又客观的认识态度，在后期的《资本论》中明确阐明：“只有当实际日常生活的关系，在人们面前表现为人与人之间和人与自然之间极明白而合理的关系的时候，现实世界的宗教反映才会消失。”对比之下，鲍威尔对犹太人解放难题的认知是较为浅薄的，故而马克思讽刺鲍威尔是“真正神学的探讨和虚假政治的探讨”。在《论犹太人问题》的文本中，马克思将“真正”与“虚假”这对对立词以加粗的黑体字的形式加以强调，毫不留情地将鲍威尔停留在神学框架之内、从宗教批判的视角切入分析犹太人问题的缺陷之处揭露出来。马克思讽刺鲍威尔看似是在为犹太人的政治解放寻求途径，其实还是深陷于宗教神学的思辨逻辑之中为犹太人谋求在他看来是完美无缺的解决方案，即妄图以废除宗教来解决犹太人的解放问题。这显然是一条走不通的绝境之路，因为几千年的人类发展历史已经不证自明，即便在高度发达的现代社会，从未出现过某一政权或是某一国家彻底消除了宗教，而且政治矛盾与问题也往往不可避免地与宗教问题裹挟在一起。通过对比马克思与鲍威尔在废除宗教、宗教消亡这一问题上的认识，足以显示出马克思在处理宗教问题上的远见卓识。

Moreover, Bauer’s purely one-dimensional and narrow theological perspective led him to overlook the close connections between religion, civil society, and the political state, severing the intrinsic link between religion and society, and thus preventing him from forming a correct and profound understanding of the Jewish question. Hence Marx pointed out: “Bauer’s error lies in the fact that he criticizes only the ‘Christian state,’ not the ‘state as such,’ that he does not investigate the relationship of political emancipation to human emancipation, and that therefore he can only offer conditions that show he uncritically confuses political emancipation with universal human emancipation.” [20]20 Ibid., p. 151. Although Bauer also considered the problem of emancipation, his understanding was one-sided and deviant. Bauer not only confused the relationship between “political emancipation” and “human emancipation,” but also failed to delve into the crux of the problem, which Marx articulated as: “Criticism must also go a third step further. It must pose the question: what kind of emancipation is involved here?” [21]21 Ibid., p. 149. Where Bauer stopped short, Marx seized the key to the problem and further analyzed the question of human emancipation in depth. Transcending Bauer’s one-sided and abstract understanding, Marx clarified the two concepts of political emancipation and human emancipation: on the one hand, he fully affirmed the progressive significance of political emancipation; on the other hand, he profoundly pointed out the limitations of political emancipation, emphasizing that political emancipation is not the ultimate picture of true and complete human emancipation that Bauer believed it to be, and that political emancipation is not equivalent to human emancipation. Marx made it clear that there is still a long distance from political emancipation to the completion of human emancipation; only when “the human being who actually acts in civil society must reclaim the species-being through his own efforts” [22]22 Ibid., p. 168. can the cause of human emancipation be accomplished.

而鲍威尔这种纯粹的、单向度与狭隘的宗教神学视角，使他忽视了宗教与市民社会、政治国家之间所存在的密切关联性，割裂了宗教与社会的内在联系，因而无法对犹太人问题形成正确而又深刻的理解。故而马克思指出：“鲍威尔的错误在于：他批判的只是‘基督教国家’，而不是‘国家本身’，他没有探讨政治解放对人的解放的关系，因此，他提供的条件只能表明他毫无批判地把政治解放和普遍的人的解放混为一谈。”尽管鲍威尔也考量到了解放问题，但他的认知是片面且偏差的。鲍威尔不仅混淆了“政治解放”与“人的解放”二者之间的关系，还未能深入探究问题的要害，即马克思所提出的：“批判还应当做到第三点。它必须提出问题：这里指的是哪一类解放？”在鲍威尔浅尝辄止的地方，马克思抓住了问题的关键并进一步深入剖析了人的解放问题。马克思超越鲍威尔片面性、抽象化的理解，对政治解放和人的解放这两个概念作了澄清：一方面是充分肯定政治解放的进步意义，另一方面也深刻地指出政治解放的局限性，强调政治解放并不是鲍威尔所认为的实现人真正而又彻底的解放的最终图景，政治解放并不等同于人的解放。马克思明晰政治解放离人的解放的完成还有很长的距离，只有“在市民社会中现实地活动着的人必须依靠自己的力量索回类存在”时，才能完成人的解放事业。

Conclusion

结 语

Although Bauer’s reflections on the “Jewish question” were somewhat superficial, failing to uncover the deeper implications hidden behind this problem and unable to find a reasonable solution to the puzzle of Jewish emancipation, the critique of religion he displayed nonetheless opened a window for Marx to reveal the mystery of the Jewish question more thoroughly. As McLellan said: “Bauer’s influence on Marx was not a fleeting one, subsequently completely discarded. This influence was permanently absorbed by Marx into his method of thinking.” [23]23 David McLellan, *The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx* (London: Macmillan, 1969), p. 57. Therefore, probing the depths of the “Jewish question” and analyzing from multiple dimensions the classic interpretations of Marx and Bauer on this major practical issue helps to achieve a deeper understanding and recognition of the religious critique of both Marx and Bauer. At the same time, the critique of religion and the methods Marx employed in dealing with the “Jewish question” still possess important value and significance today, providing useful inspiration for us to better apply Marxist religious theory in practice to understand, guide, and address practical religious issues.

尽管鲍威尔在“犹太人问题”上的思考略显浅薄，未发掘到这一问题背后所潜藏的深层意蕴，也未能为破解犹太人解放难题找到合理的方案，但鲍威尔在其中所展露的宗教批判思想仍然为马克思更为透彻地揭示犹太人问题之谜打开了一扇窗。诚如麦克莱伦所说的：“鲍威尔对马克思的影响并不是一掠而过，随后就完全丢开了。这种影响被马克思长久地吸收到他的思想方法中去。”因而，叩问“犹太人问题”之钩沉，多向度地剖析马克思与鲍威尔在“犹太人问题”这一重大现实问题上的经典阐释,有助于更加深刻地理解与认识马克思与鲍威尔的宗教批判思想。同时，马克思在处理“犹太人问题”上所呈现的宗教批判思想、所运用的方法，迄今仍然具有重要的价值与意义，能为我们在实践中更好地运用马克思主义宗教理论认识、指导与处理现实宗教问题提供有益的启发。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心