Bruno Bauer: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>OAbot
m Open access bot: url-access updated in citation with #oabot.
 
imported>Aadirulez8
m v2.05 - Autofix / Fix errors for CW project (Link equal to linktext)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|German philosopher and theologian (1809–1882)}}
{{Short description|German philosopher and theologian (1809–1882)}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{refimprove|date=February 2022}}
{{inline citations|date=February 2022}}
{{Tone|article|date=August 2022|talk=Unencyclopedic tone}}
}}
{{Infobox philosopher
{{Infobox philosopher
|region = [[Western philosophy]]
|region = [[Western philosophy]]
|era = [[19th-century philosophy]]
|era = [[19th-century philosophy]]
|image = Brunobauer (cropped).jpg
|image = Bruno Bauer (cropped).jpg
|caption = Photograph of Bruno Bauer {{circa|1870}}
|caption =  
|name = Bruno Bauer
|name = Bruno Bauer
|birth_date  = 6 September 1809
|birth_date  = 6 September 1809
|birth_place = [[Eisenberg, Thuringia|Eisenberg]], [[Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg]]
|birth_place = [[Eisenberg, Thuringia|Eisenberg]], [[Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg]]
|death_date  = {{Death date and age|df=y|1882|04|13|1809|09|06}}
|death_date  = {{Death date and age|df=y|1882|04|13|1809|09|06}}
|death_place = [[Rixdorf]], Berlin, [[German Empire]]
|death_place = [[Neukölln (locality)|Rixdorf]], [[German Empire]]
|alma_mater  = [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Friedrich Wilhelm University]]
|alma_mater  = [[Humboldt University of Berlin|Friedrich Wilhelm University]]
|school_tradition = [[Rationalism]]<br />[[Young Hegelians]] (early)
|school_tradition = [[Rationalism]]<br />[[Young Hegelians]] (early)
|main_interests = Theology, politics
|main_interests = Theology, politics
|influences = [[G. W. F. Hegel]], [[J. G. Fichte]], [[David Strauss]], [[Max Stirner]], [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], [[Arthur de Gobineau]]
|notable_ideas = [[Gospel]] criticism based on self-consciousness; critique of religion as alienation; radical [[republicanism]]
|influenced = [[Karl Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Max Stirner]], [[Charles Darwin]], [[Sigmund Freud]], [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Karl Kautsky]], [[Arthur Drews]]
|notable_ideas = Early Christianity owed more to [[Stoicism]] than to [[Judaism]]
}}
}}


'''Bruno Bauer''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|aʊ|ər}}; {{IPA|de|baʊɐ|lang}}; 6 September 1809{{snd}}13 April 1882) was a German philosopher and theologian. As a student of [[G. W. F. Hegel]], Bauer was a radical [[Rationalism|Rationalist]] in philosophy, politics and [[Biblical criticism]]. Bauer investigated the sources of the [[New Testament]] and, beginning with Hegel's analysis of Christianity's Hellenic as well as Jewish roots, concluded that early Christianity owed more to [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] philosophy ([[Stoicism]]) than to [[Judaism]].<ref>see Bauer's work "Christus und die Caesaren" (English: ''Christ and the Caesars'')</ref>
'''Bruno Bauer''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|aʊ|ər}}; {{IPA|de|baʊɐ|lang}}; 6 September 1809{{snd}}13 April 1882) was a German philosopher, [[theologian]], historian, and [[Biblical criticism|biblical critic]]. A prominent member of the [[Young Hegelians]], he was a radical [[Rationalism|rationalist]] critic of the [[Bible]] and [[Christianity]]. Initially a student of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], Bauer became a central figure in the intellectual circles of the ''[[Vormärz]]'', the period preceding the [[German revolutions of 1848–1849|Revolutions of 1848]]. His philosophical work was a major influence on, and target of critique for, [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], with whom he had a close but tumultuous relationship.
 
Bauer is also known for his association and sharp break with [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], and for his later association with [[Max Stirner]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]. Starting in 1840, he began a series of works arguing that [[Jesus|Jesus of Nazareth]] was a 2nd-century fusion of Jewish, Greek, and Roman theology.<ref name="CC">[[Will Durant|Durant, Will]]. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972</ref>
 
== Biography ==
Bauer was born on 6 September 1809 at [[Eisenberg, Thuringia|Eisenberg]] in [[Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg]]. In 1815, Bauer's father got a job as a painter in a porcelain factory in Charlottenburg and the family moved to Berlin. From 1828 to 1834 Bauer studied at the University of Berlin under Hegel, [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]], [[Heinrich Gustav Hotho]], and [[Philip Marheineke|Phillip Marheineke]].  While at the university, Bauer's 1829 essay on [[Immanuel Kant]]'s aesthetics won the Prussian royal prize in philosophy on Hegel's recommendation.<ref name=":1">{{Citation |last=Moggach |first=Douglas |title=Bruno Bauer |date=2022 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/bauer/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-07-27 |edition=Spring 2022 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}</ref>
 
He became associated with the "[[Right Hegelians]]'" under Marheineke, who engaged Bauer years later to edit the second edition of Hegel's ''"Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion" (1818-1832)''.
 
From 1834 to 1839 Bauer taught theological and biblical texts in Berlin. In 1838 he published his {{lang|de|Kritische Darstellung der Religion des Alten Testaments}} (Critical Exhibition of the Religion of the Old Testament) in two volumes.
 
However, in 1839 he was transferred to the University of Bonn after publishing an attack on his former teacher [[Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg]].<ref name=":1" />
 
Consistent with his Hegelian Rationalism, Bauer continued in 1840 with, {{lang|de|Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes}} (Critique of the Evangelical History of John). In 1841 Bauer continued his Rationalist theme with, {{lang|de|Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker}} (''Critique of the Evangelical History of the [[Synoptic Gospels|Synoptics]]'').{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
From 1839 to 1841, Bauer was a teacher, mentor and close friend of [[Karl Marx]], but in 1841 they came to a break. Marx, with [[Friedrich Engels]], had formulated a socialist and communistic program that Bauer firmly rejected. Marx and Engels in turn expressed their break with Bauer in two books: ''[[The Holy Family (book)|The Holy Family]]'' (1845) and ''[[The German Ideology]]'' (1846).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rozen |first=Zvi |date=1970 |title=The Influence of Bruno Bauer on Marx' Concept of Alienation |journal=Social Theory and Practice |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=50–68|doi=10.5840/soctheorpract19701213 }}</ref>
 
He was dismissed from the University of Bonn in 1842 due to his unorthodox writings on the [[New Testament]].<ref name=":1" /> At no time in his writing was Bauer ever an orthodox Christian.
 
He was called a "Right Hegelian" by his contemporary David Strauss.  (cf. [[David Strauss]], ''In Defense of My 'Life of Jesus' Against the Hegelians'', 1838).  Also, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels accused Bauer of being a right-wing fanatic in their book
''The Holy Family: Against Bruno Bauer and Co.'' (1845), and in ''The German Ideology'' (1846).  Further, several scholars (e.g., Dr. Lawrence Stepelevich) still maintain that Bauer's book, ''Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist'' (1841), was a genuinely right-wing production.
 
Despite this, Bauer was much later accused of being a "Left Hegelian" because of his association, or rather his early leadership, of the [[Young Hegelians]]. The labels of 'Left' and 'Right' were only placed on Bauer by others; never by himself.
 
The Prussian Minister of Education, [[Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein|Altenstein]], sent Bauer to the [[University of Bonn]], to protect his Rationalist Theology from the critique of the Berlin orthodox, as well as to win over Bonn University to Hegelianism. Bauer, however, created many enemies at [[pietist]]-dominated Bonn University, where he openly taught [[Rationalism]] in his new position as professor of theology. Bauer attested in letters during this time that he tried to provoke a scandal, to force the government either to give complete freedom of research and teaching to its university professors or to openly express its anti-enlightenment position by removing him from his post.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
The pro-Hegelian minister Altenstein died in 1840 and was replaced by the anti-Hegelian Eichhorn. The government officials asked for advice from the theology departments of its universities. Except for the Hegelian [[Marheineke]], most said that a professor of Protestant theology should not be allowed to teach "atheism" to his student priests. As Bauer was unwilling to compromise his Rationalism, the Prussian government in 1842 revoked his teaching license. After the setbacks of the [[revolutions of 1848]], Bauer left the city. He lived an [[ascetic]] and [[Stoicism|stoic]] life in the countryside of [[Rixdorf]] near Berlin.<ref>{{cite book |chapter='The Republic of Self-Consciousness': Bruno Bauer’s Post-Kantian Perfectionism |first1=Michael Kuur |last1=Sørensen |first2=Douglas |last2=Moggach |author-link2=Douglas Moggach |date=2019-11-07 |doi=10.30965/9783846762844_010 |title=Perfektionismus der Autonomie |pages=203–226 |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]], Fink |isbn=9783846762844|s2cid=213377839 }}</ref>
 
Bauer continued to write, including more than nine theological tomes, in twelve volumes. The tomes varied between theology, modern history and politics. He wrote while working at his family's tobacco shop.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
Between 1843 and 1845, Bauer published {{lang|de|Geschichte der Politik, Kultur und Aufklärung des 18ten Jahrhunderts}} (''History of Politics, Culture and Enlightenment in the 18th Century'', in 4 volumes). In 1847 Bauer published {{lang|de|Geschichte der französischen Revolution}} (''History of the French Revolution'', in 3 volumes). Between 1850 and 1852 Bauer published {{lang|de|Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs}} (''A Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin''),<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bauer |first1=Bruno |title=Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprunges |date=1852 |publisher=Gustav Hempel |location=Austrian National Library |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dytLAAAAcAAJ |access-date=21 June 2024}}</ref> as well as {{lang|de|Kritik der paulinischen Briefe}} (''Critique of the Pauline Epistles'').<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bauer |first1=Bruno |title=Kritik der paulinischen Briefe |date=1851 |publisher=Gustav Kempel |location=The University of Chicago Libraries |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j_tMAQAAMAAJ&q=Bruno+Bauer+kritik |access-date=21 June 2024}}</ref>
 
In 1877 Bauer published {{lang|de|Christus und die Caesaren}} (''Christ and the Caesars''), and in 1882 he published {{lang|de|Disraelis romantischer und Bismarcks socialistischer Imperialismus}} (''Disraeli's Romantic and Bismarck's Socialist Imperialism'').{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
Bauer's final book on theology, ''Christ and the Caesars'' (1879), was his crowning effort to justify Hegel's position that Christian theology owed at least as much to Greco-Roman classical philosophy as it owed to Judaism.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
Bauer died at Rixdorf in 1882.
 
== Conflict with David Strauss ==
Shortly after the death of [[Hegel]], another writer, [[David Strauss]], who had been a reader of Hegel's writings, arrived in Berlin (1831). As a student of [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] he wrote a controversial book which is now famous, entitled, ''The Life of Jesus Critically Examined'', usually referred to as ''The Life of Jesus'' (1835). In this book, David Strauss announced his own landmark theory of 'demythologization' as an approach to the Gospels, but he also attempted to use Hegel's name and fame in the dedication of his book.
 
In the year of its publication, Strauss's book raised a storm of controversy. The Prussian king [[Friedrich Wilhelm IV]] tightened control of the Prussian University system, favouring an ultra-conservative approach to the New Testament. He strongly objected to the writing of David Strauss, and so he also blamed the Hegelian school in general, partly because Strauss had named Hegel in his dedication.
 
Bauer, now 26 years old, was chosen by the Hegelians to refute David Strauss in the Hegelian {{lang|de|Journal für wissenschaftliche Kritik}} (''Journal of Philosophical Criticism''). Bauer demonstrated that Strauss had thoroughly misrepresented Hegel. Bauer also demonstrated that David Strauss' dialectic was taken from Schleiermacher (who was antagonistic toward Hegel).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Massey |first=Marilyn Chapin |date=1977 |title=David Friedrich Strauss and His Hegelian Critics |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1201760 |journal=The Journal of Religion |volume=57 |issue=4 |pages=341–362 |doi=10.1086/486567 |jstor=1201760 |s2cid=170500435 |issn=0022-4189|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
 
Although Strauss's book had sold well throughout Europe, in 1838 Strauss published a rebuttal to Bauer in a booklet entitled, ''In Defense of my Life of Jesus against the Hegelians'' (1838). In that book, Strauss admitted publicly that his position had not been inspired by Hegel's philosophy or theology (with his dialectical Trinity). This firmly divorced Strauss of the Hegelian philosophy.
 
However, in this final exchange with the Hegelians, David Strauss criticized Bauer in invented terms still in use today.  Bauer was a [[Right Hegelian]] he claimed, as an insult, who uncritically defended all positions of orthodox Christian theology.  His own views, claimed Strauss, were [[Left Hegelian]] which, like Hegel, take a liberal and progressive approach to Scripture.  The terms were made famous by Marx and Engels, who used them in their own battle against the anticommunist Bauer.  Actually, Bauer never accepted those terms.  Strauss had already admitted he was not a student of Hegel.
 
The Prussian monarch, [[Friedrich Wilhelm IV]], an orthodox Christian, strongly objected to David Strauss, but considered Bauer's defense to be just as bad, so he banned many Hegelians from teaching in Universities, including Bauer.  For the rest of his life, Bauer continued to be bitter towards Strauss, and the elderly Bauer encouraged a young [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] to write articles sharply critical of Strauss. Nietzsche during this early period called Bauer, "[his] entire reading public!"
 
== Views on Christian origins ==
Bauer wrote a criticism of the [[New Testament]]. [[David Strauss]], in his ''Life of Jesus'', had accounted for the Gospel narratives as half-conscious products of the mythic instinct in the early Christian communities. Bauer challenged Strauss' notion that a community could produce such a marvelously connected narrative as the first Gospel. Rather, he believed only a single writer could be responsible for the first Gospel.
 
Bauer was one of the architects of the theory of [[Marcan Priority]] which remains the predominant approach to Gospel writings among scholars today, i.e., that the [[Gospel of Mark]] was the first Gospel written and the other Gospels merely added on to Mark's Gospel.  Bauer promoted the other two major architects of this theory, namely, [[Christian Hermann Weisse]] ''Die evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet'' (''The Gospel History, Critically and Philosophically Reviewed'', 1838) and [[Christian Gottlob Wilke]] (Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältniß der drei ersten Evangelien (The First Evangelist, Exegetical Critical Study on the Relationship of the First Three Gospels, 1838).
 
For Bauer, our current [[Gospel of Mark]] was completed in the reign of [[Hadrian]] (117–138 CE), although its prototype, the 'Ur-Marcus' (identifiable within the [[Gospel of Mark]] by critical analysis), was begun before the time of Josephus and the Roman–Jewish Wars (66-70 CE).
 
In 1906 [[Albert Schweitzer]] wrote that Bauer originally sought "to save the honor of Jesus and to restore His Person from the state of inanity to which the apologists had reduced it...to bring Him into a living relation with history."  However, he eventually came to believe that the Gospel was largely fiction and "regarded the Gospel of Mark not only as the first narrator, but even as the creator of the Gospel, thus making Christianity largely the invention of the single original evangelist" ([[Otto Pfleiderer]]).<ref name=":0">{{cite book|last=Schweitzer |first=Albert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YvX9ngEACAAJ&q=The+quest+for+the+historical+Jesus+Schweitzer |title=The Quest of the Historical Jesus |date=1906 |publisher=Fortress Press |isbn=978-0-8006-3288-5 |language=en}}</ref>
 
Although Bauer investigated the 'Ur-Marcus', it was his remarks on the current version of the [[Gospel of Mark]] that captured popular attention. In particular, some key themes in the [[Gospel of Mark]] appeared to be literary.
 
The [[Messianic Secret]] theme, for example, in which Jesus continually performed wonders and told witnesses never to tell anybody, seemed to Bauer to be an example of fiction. If so, Bauer wrote, the redactor who added that theme was probably the final redactor of our current version of the [[Gospel of Mark]]. In 1901, [[Wilhelm Wrede]] confirmed this in his own book, ''Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien'' (English: ''The Messianic Secret'', 1901).
 
For some influential theologians in the [[Tübingen School]], several [[Pauline epistles]] were regarded as forgeries of the 2nd century. Bauer radicalized that position by suggesting that '''all''' Pauline epistles were forgeries written in the West in antagonism to the [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]] of ''The Acts''. Bauer observed a preponderance of the Greco-Roman element over the Jewish element in Christian writings, and he added a wealth of historical background to support his theory. However, modern scholars such as [[E. P. Sanders]] and [[John P. Meier]] have disputed the theory and attempted to demonstrate a mainly Jewish historical background. Other authors, such as [[Rudolf Bultmann]], agreed that a Greco-Roman element was dominant.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
According to Schweitzer, Bauer took the position that the writer of [[Mark the Evangelist|Mark]]'s gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; [[Matthew the Evangelist|Matthew]]'s gospel was written by "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of [[Seneca the Younger|Seneca]]"; and Christianity is essentially "[[Stoicism]] triumphant in a Jewish garb" (ibid, Schweitzer).
 
Bauer added a deep review of European literature in the 1st century. In his estimation, many key themes of the New Testament (especially those that are opposed to themes in the Old Testament), can be found with relative ease in Greco-Roman literature that flourished during the 1st century. Such a position was also maintained by some Jewish scholars.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
Bauer's final book, ''Christ and the Caesars'' (1879) offers an analysis that shows common keywords in the texts of 1st-century writers like Seneca the Stoic and The New Testament. While that had been perceived even in ancient times, the ancient explanation was that Seneca was a secret Christian. Bauer was the first to attempt to demonstrate carefully that some New Testament writers freely borrowed from Seneca. One modern explanation is that common cultures share common thought forms and common patterns of speech, and similarities do not necessarily indicate borrowing.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
In ''Christ and the Caesars'', Bauer argued that [[Judaism]] entered Rome during the era of the [[Maccabees]] and increased in population and influence in Rome since then. He cited literature from the 1st century to strengthen his case that Jewish influence in Rome was far greater than historians had yet reported. The imperial throne was influenced by the Jewish religious genius, he said, citing Herod's relation with the Caesar family, as well as the famous relationship between [[Josephus]] and the Flavians, [[Vespasian]] and [[Titus]]. Also, a poem by [[Horace]] relates his greeting his Roman friend on a Saturday on his way to the local Synagogue.
 
According to Bauer, [[Julius Caesar]] sought to interpret his own life as an Oriental miracle story, and Augustus Caesar completed that job by commissioning [[Virgil]] to write his ''Aeneid'', making Caesar into the Son of Venus and a relative of the Trojans, thereby justifying the Roman conquest of Greece and insinuating Rome into a much older history.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
By contrast, said Bauer, [[Vespasian]] was far more fortunate since he had [[Josephus]] himself to link his reign with an Oriental miracle. Josephus had prophesied that Vespasian would become Emperor of Rome and thus ruler of the world. Since that actually came true, it smoothly insinuated Rome into Jewish history. After this, the Roman conquest of Judea would take on new historical dimensions.
 
According to [[Albert Schweitzer]], Bauer's criticisms of the New Testament provided the most interesting questions about the historical Jesus that he had seen.<ref>Schweitzer, Albert, The Quest of the Historical Jesus - 1906 - Adam and Charles Black, on p.159, Schweitzer explicitly states, "Bauer's 'Criticism of the Gospel History' is worth a good dozen Lives of Jesus, because his work, as we are only now coming to recognize, after half a century, is the ablest and most complete collection of the difficulties of the Life of Jesus which is anywhere to be found."</ref>
 
The second-last chapter of his ''Quest'' suggests that Schweitzer's own theology was partly based on Bauer's writings. The title of that chapter is "Thoroughgoing Skepticism and Eschatology" in which Schweitzer clashes head-on with [[Wilhelm Wrede]], who had recently (in 1905) proposed the theory of a [[Messianic Secret]]. Wrede's theory claimed that Jesus's continual commands to his followers to "say nothing to anybody" after each miracle was performed could be explained only as a literary invention of this Gospel writer. (That is, Wrede was the thoroughgoing sceptic, and Schweitzer was the thoroughgoing eschatologist.) Schweitzer began by showing that Wrede had merely copied the idea from Bauer. Then, he listed another forty brilliant criticisms from Bauer (pp.&nbsp;334–335) and disagreed with some of them (such as the so-called [[Messianic Secret]]) and considered others indispensable for any modern theology of the Gospel.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
That line of criticism has value in emphasizing the importance of studying the influence of the environment in the formation of the Christian Scriptures. Bauer was a man of restless creativity, interdisciplinary activity and independent judgment. Many reviewers have charged that Bauer's judgment was ill-balanced. Because of the controversial nature of his work as a social theorist, theologian and historian, Bauer was banned from public teaching by a Prussian monarch. After many years of similar censorship, Bauer came to resign himself to his place as a freelance critic, rather than an official teacher.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
[[Douglas Moggach]] published ''The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer'' in 2003. It is the most comprehensive overview of Bauer's life and works in English to date. Bauer's biography has now obtained more kindly reviews, even by opponents. In his own day, his opponents often respected him since he was not afraid of taking a line on principle. The topic of Bauer's personal religious views or lack thereof is a continuing debate in contemporary scholarship about Bauer.
 
One modern writer, Paul Trejo, has made the case that Bauer remained a radical theologian who only criticized specific ''types'' of Christianity and that Bauer maintained a Hegelian interpretation of Christianity throughout his life. According to Trejo, Bauer's allegedly radical book ''Christianity Exposed'' (1843) was actually mild, setting only one large sect of Christianity against another.{{sfn|Trejo|2002}}


Trejo also wrote that Bauer's ''Trumpet of the Last Judgment against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist'' was merely a comedy, actually a prank, in which Bauer pretended to be a right-wing cleric attacking Hegel.{{sfn|Trejo|2002|p=16}} The prank worked, wrote Trejo, and Bauer had a great laugh at the expense of anti-Hegelian clerics. Bauer was a legitimate Christian of the Hegelian school, wrote Trejo, who opposed only the "ingenuous" or ''literalist type'' of Christianity.
Starting as a [[Right Hegelians|right-wing Hegelian]], Bauer shifted to the left in 1839, developing a radical critique of religion and the state. He argued that the Christian [[gospels]] were not historical records but literary works of the human [[self-consciousness]]. His most significant work of this period, ''The Trumpet of the Last Judgement over Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist'' (1841), presented Hegel's philosophy as a revolutionary [[atheism]] that called for the overthrow of all existing religious and political institutions. Bauer's political thought was a form of [[republicanism]] based on the concept of "infinite self-consciousness," an ethical [[idealism]] that advocated for the constant transformation of society in pursuit of rational freedom.


== Antisemitism ==
During the 1840s, Bauer engaged with the emerging [[social question]], developing a critique of both [[liberalism]], for its basis in private interest, and the nascent [[Socialism|socialist]] movements. His controversial writings on Jewish emancipation, in which he argued that both Jews and Christians must renounce their particular religious identities to achieve universal freedom, led to his isolation from many of his former allies. Though he participated in the 1848 Revolutions, their failure led him to abandon his revolutionary republicanism and turn to conservative causes.
Beginning in 1848, critics accused Bauer of promoting virulent antisemitism in print within reactionary circles.<ref>{{cite book|last=Moggach |first=Douglas |author-link=Douglas Moggach |title=The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer |location=Cambridge |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |date=2003 |pages=17}}</ref> Bauer's view of Jews and Judaism is considered by some to have been absolutely negative, both when considering the past and when contemplating the present.{{sfn|Katz|1982|p=214}}


Others, like Trejo, argue that the charge is spurious, supposedly promoted by “neo-Marxists” who wish to deflect charges of Marx's own Anti-Semitism, despite Marx coming from a Jewish family and personally criticising Bauer’s Anti-Semitic claims throughout his written response.{{sfn|Trejo|2002}}
In his later life, Bauer developed a virulent [[Antisemitism|anti-Semitism]]. His post-1848 work focused on historical studies, particularly the origins of Christianity, and on the political development of Russia and the rise of global imperialism. Despite the profound change in his political orientation, his work continued to influence thinkers on both the left and the right, including [[Karl Kautsky]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].


In 1843, Bauer wrote ''[[The Jewish Question]]'', which was responded to in a pamphlet written by Karl Marx, entitled, "[[On the Jewish Question]]". According to Marx, Bauer argued that the Jews were responsible for their own misfortunes in European society since they had "made their nest in the pores and interstices of bourgeois society".<ref>{{cite book|last=Poliakov |first=Leon |title=The History of Anti-Semitism |volume=III: From Voltaire to Wagner |location=Philadelphia |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Press]] |date=2003 |pages=420}}</ref>
==Life and career==
===Early life and Hegelian studies===
Bruno Bauer was born on 6 September 1809 in [[Eisenberg, Thuringia]].{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=17}} His father was a porcelain painter, and the family moved to [[Berlin]] in 1815.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=227}} In 1828, Bauer enrolled as a theology student at the [[Humboldt University of Berlin|University of Berlin]], where he studied under [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] himself for three years, as well as Hegel's associates [[Philip Marheineke|Philipp Marheineke]] and [[Henrik Steffens]].{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=35}}{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=18}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=48}} Bauer was particularly disappointed with the teachings of [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]], whose attempts to find a compromise between various conflicting schools of thought seemed to Bauer to engender only ambiguity and uncertainty.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=18}}


Jacob Katz contextualizes Bauer's antisemitism with his passionate anti-Christianity, the latter of which caused Bauer to lose his professorship. Although, according to Katz, Bauer was "equally impatient with Christianity and Judaism",{{sfn|Katz|1982|p=169}} Bauer would frequently diverge from a review or opinion piece on a Jewish writer or thinker into a general consideration of "the Jew as a type", grasping at whatever negative characteristics he could find.{{sfn|Katz|1982|pp=214–215}}
In 1829, while still a student, Bauer won the annual Royal Prize in Philosophy on Hegel's recommendation for an essay on [[Immanuel Kant]]'s aesthetics.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=18}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=48}} Hegel lavished praise on the work, stating: "The lecture [...] develops most convincingly [...] there is consistent development of the thought and the author has also succeeded in exploiting the contradictions of the Kantian principles, which are incompatible."{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=18}} After graduating in 1832, Bauer began an academic career in theology.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=35}} He became a close associate of the Hegelian school, and was entrusted with editing the second edition of Hegel's ''[[Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion]]'' (1840).{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=19}} He taught at Berlin from 1834 to 1839, delivering lectures on theology, the Bible, and church history, and serving as the main editor for the ''Zeitschrift für spekulative Theologie'' (Journal for Speculative Theology).{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=19}} During this period, his work was imbued with a spirit of conservative orthodoxy. This led him to be chosen to write the official critique of [[David Strauss]]'s sensational 1835 book ''The Life of Jesus'', in which he initially defended the historicity of the Gospels.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=20, 36}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=18}}


Others, like Trejo,{{sfn|Trejo|2002}} write that Bauer is widely accused of being a "passionate anti-Christian" on the one hand, and is also widely accused of being a right-wing Christian on the other hand. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, for example, wrote two books against Bauer, ridiculing him as a right-wing Hegelian. There's no shortage of scholars, further, who join translator Lawrence Stepelevich in claiming that Bauer's publication, the 'Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist' (1841) was an earnestly right-wing Christian protest against Hegel. The histories of Bauer are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
===Left Hegelianism and biblical criticism===
By 1839, Bauer had made a decisive shift to a [[Left Hegelians|Left Hegelian]] position, marked by a public break with conservative orthodoxy in his polemical work ''Herr Dr. [[Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg|Hengstenberg]]''.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=42}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=49}} In this work and others, he defended the progressive character of Hegel's system and separated the "spirit of Christianity" from its dogmatic form, undermining the religious ideology of the [[Prussian Reform Movement|Prussian Restoration]].{{sfn|Moggach|2003|pp=62–64}} This turn was influenced by his involvement with the Berlin ''Doktorklub'' (Doctors' Club), an intellectual circle of [[Young Hegelians]] that included [[Karl Marx]], [[Karl Friedrich Köppen|Friedrich Köppen]], and others. Bauer was considered the moving spirit of this group.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=44}} His increasingly radical views led the Prussian Minister of Culture, [[Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein]], to move him to the [[University of Bonn]] in an effort to shield him from attacks in Berlin.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=49}}


A few scholars accuse Bauer of anti-Semitism, e.g. David Leopold's article, "The Hegelian Antisemitism of Bruno Bauer."<ref>{{Cite journal |title=History of European Ideas |journal=[[Pergamon Press]] |issue=25 |pages=179–206}}</ref> argues that Hegel and Bauer were ''both'' anti-Semites. Actually, Bauer's 1863 booklet, ''Judaism Abroad'' ({{lang|de|Das Judentum in der Fremde}}), did remark that Jewish readers should wait for their rights in Germany until the average German received his rights.
Bauer's radicalization intensified with his critiques of the [[Gospel|Gospels]], which he developed over a series of works from 1840 to 1842. The project began with his ''Critique of the [[Gospel of John]]'' (1840), followed by the three-volume ''Critique of the [[Synoptic Gospels]]'' (1841–42).{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=65}} In these works, Bauer argued that the Gospel narratives were not historical reports of the [[life of Jesus]], but literary products of the religious consciousness of the [[Early Christianity|early Christian]] community.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=71}}{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=51}} He saw the evangelists not as historians but as artists who had transformed earlier religious traditions into a new, dogmatic form.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=67}} He concluded that the figure of Jesus [[Christ myth theory|was a literary invention]], a transplantation of the community's own struggles and experiences onto a single representative figure.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=56}} This critique was aimed directly at the ideological foundations of the Prussian state, which used dogmatic Christianity for its legitimation.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=71}}


== Political ideology ==
Bauer's publications caused a major controversy. In March 1842, he was dismissed from his teaching position at the University of Bonn on the initiative of the conservative minister of education, Johann Albrecht Friedrich von Eichhorn.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=60}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=28}}
The first English-language rendering of Bauer's career was published in March 2003 by Douglas Moggach, a professor at the [[University of Ottawa]]. His book is entitled, ''The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer''. Moggach develops a republican interpretation of Bauer, in which Bauer is portrayed as reaching atheist conclusions because of his political commitments to free self-consciousness and autonomy, and his criticisms of the Restoration union of church and state. Other scholars continue to dispute that portrait.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}


Bauer was very hard to classify politically, being claimed by both the left and right-wing Hegelians.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
===Republicanism and ''The Trumpet of the Last Judgement''===
In October 1841, Bauer anonymously published his most significant philosophical work of the ''[[Vormärz]]'', ''Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts über Hegel, den Atheisten und Antichristen'' (''The Trumpet of the Last Judgement over Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist'').{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=62}} Described as the "''locus classicus'' for the Young Hegelian view of Hegel,"{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=53}} the book adopted the ironic guise of a pious pietist to denounce Hegel as a revolutionary atheist whose philosophy would inevitably lead to the destruction of religion, the state, and all social order.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=101}} The book's true purpose was to reclaim Hegel for the revolutionary cause by distinguishing between an "exoteric" Hegel who accommodated existing powers and an "esoteric," atheistic Hegel whose true meaning was accessible only to his radical disciples.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=53}} The book was praised by fellow Young Hegelian [[Arnold Ruge]] as a work of "world-historical importance."{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=54}}


During Bauer's direct studies under Hegel, he was awarded an academic prize when he was about 20 years old. [[Hegel]] died when Bauer was 22 years old. Perhaps this affected Bauer's personality; he may have seen himself as sitting quite close to the highest academic post in Prussia, and that might have gone to his head.{{cn|date=July 2024}}
In the ''Posaune'', Bauer interpreted Hegel's philosophy as a theory of "infinite self-consciousness," a power that creates and transforms the historical world.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=73}} This self-consciousness, he argued, was engaged in a constant revolutionary struggle against all "positivity"—that is, against all fixed, given, or reified institutions, whether religious or political.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=110}} The book outlined a political program based on the ruthless critique of all existing relations and a refusal to compromise, culminating in the revolutionary overthrow of the old order.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=99}} It advocated for a form of ethical perfectionism, a commitment to constantly transform political and social institutions in the name of freedom.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=99}}


When [[Hegel]] unexpectedly died in 1831, possibly of cholera, Bauer's official connections were drastically reduced. Bauer had few powerful friends during the fallout of Hegel's death, as shown by the fact that Bauer and many Hegelians lost their beloved University positions during that decade. The struggle with [[David Strauss]] and especially with the Prussian monarchy had set Bauer back quite a bit. This also affected Bauer's personality.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
===Social question and polemics===
[[File:Friedrich Engels - Die Freien (1842)-1.1 V01-1.2 raw RGASPI.jpg|thumb|Sketch depicting the ''Freien'' by [[Friedrich Engels]], 1842. Bauer is the fourth from the left.]]
After his dismissal from academia, Bauer became a leading figure among the Berlin ''Freien'' (The Free), a circle of Young Hegelians, and founded the journal ''Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung'' to promote his ideas of "pure critique."{{sfn|McLellan|1969|pp=39, 50}} In this period, he increasingly turned his attention to the [[social question]] and the political currents of the day.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=214–215}} He developed a critique of both liberalism and the emerging [[Socialism|socialist]] and [[Communism|communist]] movements. He saw liberalism as a defense of egoistic private interest that was incapable of genuine opposition to the authoritarian state.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=118}} He critiqued socialism for what he viewed as its own form of [[heteronomy]], arguing that communism was a dogmatic ideology that elevated the masses and their material needs over the critical spirit of the intellectual elite.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=224–227}}


Bauer went underground and began to write Hegelian newspapers here and there. In this journey he met some socialists, including [[Karl Marx]], his former student, and Marx's new friends, [[Friedrich Engels]] and [[Arnold Ruge]]. They were all left-wing radicals. Bauer was not a left-wing radical, but he was happy to be their leader if it could lead them back to a Hegelian understanding of the dialectic. Another member of those Young Hegelians, [[Max Stirner]], became Bauer's lifelong friend. Although Bauer was not a radical egoist, he preferred the company of Stirner to that of Marx, Engels and Ruge, whom he abandoned -- and who abandoned him.{{cn|date=July 2024}}
Bauer's most controversial interventions came in his 1843 writings on [[Jewish emancipation]], ''[[The Jewish Question|Die Judenfrage]]'' (''The Jewish Question'') and "The Capacity of Present-Day Jews and Christians to Become Free".{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=145, 229}} Arguing from his principle of universal self-consciousness, Bauer asserted that genuine freedom required the renunciation of all particularistic religious ties. He concluded that Jews, like Christians, could not be emancipated as a religious group but only as human beings, which required them to give up their religion.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=229}} This position was widely seen as an attack on one of the central demands of the progressive movement. It led to his break with many former allies, including Marx, who responded with his own famous essay, "[[On the Jewish Question]]".{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=229, 231}} According to [[Douglas Moggach]], Bauer's stance on this issue was a "costly error in judgement" that stemmed from a sectarian "republican rigorism" and a "conflation of right and morality".{{sfn|Moggach|2003|pp=148–149}}


The two new works by Marx and Engels that were critical of several Young Hegelians, including Bauer, were ''[[The Holy Family (book)|The Holy Family]]'', and ''[[The German Ideology]]''.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
===1848 Revolutions and later life===
Bauer was an active participant in the [[German revolutions of 1848–1849|Revolutions of 1848]]. He ran for election to the [[Prussian National Assembly]] as a candidate for [[Charlottenburg]], defending the principle of popular [[sovereignty]] and calling for the creation of a "league of equal right" that would carry the [[revolution]] into all spheres of social life.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|pp=173–174}} He defended the March barricade fighters in Berlin and attacked the liberal [[bourgeoisie]] for its willingness to compromise with the monarchy.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=173}}
[[File:Brunobauer_(cropped).jpg|thumb|Bauer {{circa}} 1870]]
The failure of the revolutions led to a "profound change" in Bauer's thought.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=180}} He abandoned his revolutionary [[republicanism]] and his ethics of perfectionism, becoming what was known as the "[[hermit]] of [[Neukölln (locality)|Rixdorf]]".{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=179}} His abiding [[anti-liberalism]] now led him to support [[conservative]] and, later, [[Antisemitism|anti-Semitic]] causes, and he collaborated for many years with the [[reactionary]] editor [[Hermann Wagener]], one of [[Otto von Bismarck]]'s closest advisers.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=8}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=50}} He developed a new political vision centered on the rise of global imperialism and the clash between Russia and the West. He saw Russia, with its all-encompassing unity of [[church and state]], as a force that would shatter the particularism of Europe and create the conditions for a new, post-[[metaphysical]] era.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|pp=180–181}} In his later years, he developed a virulent anti-Semitism, describing the "[[Jewish question]]" as the new form of the social question and contributing to the rhetoric of racial anti-Semitism in Germany.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|pp=17, 186}} Bauer died in Rixdorf (now part of [[Neukölln (locality)|Neukölln]]) on 13 April 1882.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=227}}


Bauer met with Marx again in London in the mid-1850s, while visiting his exiled brother [[Edgar Bauer|Edgar]] there. According to Marx's correspondence with Engels, Bauer presented him with a copy of Hegel's Science of Logic. Marx referred to this volume while completing his drafts of 'Capital'.{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
==Philosophy==
===Self-consciousness and critique===
The central concept in Bauer's philosophy during his ''[[Vormärz]]'' period was "infinite self-consciousness" (''unendliches Selbstbewußtsein'').{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=73}} For Bauer, this was not an abstract subjective state but the motive force of history itself—the dynamic, creative, and critical activity of human subjects.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=73}} It is "infinite" because it constantly negates and transcends any given, finite reality or "positivity".{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=112}} This self-consciousness achieves its ends through critique, which for Bauer is the theoretical and practical activity of exposing the contradictions in existing institutions and ideologies.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=110}} Drawing inspiration from the ''[[German Enlightenment|Aufklärung]]'' and the [[French Revolution]], Bauer argued that critique was a form of "[[Praxis (process)|praxis]]"; it is the "terrorism of true criticism" that prepares the ground for the actualization of philosophy in the world.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=158}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=52}} For Bauer, "theory is the strongest form of practice."{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=63}} His version of the [[dialectic]] differed from Hegel's in that it was a purely negative process of destruction, lacking Hegel's concept of ''[[aufheben]]'' (sublation), which involves preservation as well as negation.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=52}}


Bauer had already turned away from the socialism and communism of Marx and Engels, so he was immune to the barbs they wrote in ''The Holy Family or Critique of Critical Criticism. Against Bruno Bauer and Company'' by his pupils, Marx and Engels. Nevertheless, he had fallen quite far - from a favourite son of Hegel himself down to an enemy of both the right-wing and the left-wing as well. He found very few friends in this intellectual position aside from Max Stirner.
Bauer's theory is a form of ethical and historical idealism.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=9}} It is historical because the content of self-consciousness is derived from the rational comprehension of the historical process as the struggle for freedom.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=47}} It is ethical because it demands a commitment to "perfectionism"—an uncompromising will to transform the world in accordance with the universal principles of reason and freedom.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=52}} Bauer distinguished between the "individual self-consciousness" of particular persons and the "universal self-consciousness," which he identified with liberty and humanity.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=78}} The egoistic, religious person is trapped in the former, while the goal of history is the realization of the latter.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=80}}


Condemned by both the right-wing and the left-wing, Bauer settled into his family's tobacco shop to earn his living, though he continued to write. He never married, but he wrote many books, all the way to 1879. He died in 1883.
===Critique of religion===
Bauer's critique of religion was a cornerstone of his philosophical and political project. He originated the term "self-alienation" (''Selbstentfremdung'') to describe religion as the primary form of alienated self-consciousness.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=64}}{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=85}} In religion, he argued, humanity projects its own essential powers onto an external, transcendent being, and then worships this alienated essence as God.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=141}} This process is a "division in consciousness" that stems from objective deficiencies in social and political life; religion is a "distorted consciousness of a distorted reality".{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=64}}{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=93, 183}} The God that humanity creates is a "subhuman God," a distorted reflection of humanity's own alienated condition.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=65}}


== Argument against the existence of Jesus ==
He argued that Christianity, particularly in its [[Protestantism|Protestant]] form, represented the "perfection of the religious consciousness" because it had universalized this alienation to encompass all aspects of life.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=107}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=58}} In a famous passage, he described the alienated self of the Christian world as a "vampire of spiritual abstraction" that, having been drained of its own content, projects its powers onto a Messiah.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=89}} For Bauer, this total alienation was a necessary step, a ''Vorbereitungsgeschichte'' (preparatory history), for total liberation.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=106}} The critique of religion was therefore the necessary first step toward political revolution, as it aimed to dissolve the ideological foundations of the old order and restore to humanity its own creative powers.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=123}}
Bauer became the first author to systematically argue that Jesus did not exist.<ref name="voorst711">[[Robert E. Van Voorst]] ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. {{ISBN|0-8028-4368-9}} pages 7–11</ref><ref name="BeilbyEddy2009">Beilby, James K. and Eddy, Paul Rhodes. [https://books.google.com/books?id=O33P7xrFnLQC&pg=PA16 "The Quest for the Historical Jesus"], in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.). ''The Historical Jesus: Five Views''. Intervarsity, 2009, p. 16. See Strauss, David. [[iarchive:bub gb RmdLqnfw1OgC|<!-- quote=Strauss Jesus. --> "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined]], Calvin Blanchard, 1860.</ref>


Early in his academic career, however, Bauer was certain that Jesus certainly did exist - it was only that ordinary theologians continued to heap legend after legend onto the real, historical Jesus. In  Albert Schweitzer's ''[[The Quest of the Historical Jesus]]'' (1906), p. 143, Bauer is quoted as writing: "We save the honor of Jesus when we restore His Person to life from the state of inanition to which the apologists have reduced it, and give it once more a living relation to history, which it certainly possessed - that can no longer be denied."
===Republicanism and the social question===
Bauer's political thought was a form of [[republicanism]] that stood in opposition to both Restoration absolutism and possessive individualist liberalism.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=118}} He envisioned a "republic of self-consciousness," a self-determining community founded on a genuine common interest rather than the aggregation of private, egoistic interests that characterized modern civil society.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=160}} This republicanism required a radical transformation of individuals themselves, who must overcome their own particularity and elevate themselves to universality through ethical and political action.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=55}} He held a Hegelian view of the state as the "manifestation of freedom" but critiqued the existing "Christian state" for being tied to the atomized, egoistic world of civil society.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|pp=66–67}} He drew inspiration from the [[French Revolution]] and the federal model of the [[United States]].{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=121}}


Beginning in 1841, in his ''Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics'', Bauer argued that the [[Biblical Jesus]] was primarily a literary figure. However, he left open the question of whether a historical Jesus existed at all until his 1851 work, ''Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin'' and then in 1879 proposed his theory for the true origin of Jesus in ''Christ and the Caesars'', namely, that the Gospel writers freely used Greco-Roman classics in their mythical reconstructions of the life of the real man, Jesus of Galilee.
He distinguished between the ''Volk'' (the people), a revolutionary subject capable of acting on universal principles, and the ''Masse'' (the masses), an atomized, inert aggregate of private individuals characteristic of modern market society.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=151}}{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=224}} For Bauer, liberalism was the ideology of the ''Masse'', as it defined freedom as the pursuit of private property and thereby dissolved the bonds of ethical life.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=159}} After 1843, disappointed by the passivity of the masses in the face of political reaction, he turned to a theory of "pure critique," arguing that the intellectual elite must stand apart from the masses and their dogmatic ideologies.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=223–224, 232}} The task of the revolution was to create a true ''Volk'' by overcoming the egoism of mass society. This involved not only political change but also social emancipation, including the humanization of labor and the elimination of [[pauperism]].{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=164}}


We should note, however, that in this opinion, Bauer remained close to the dialectical theology of [[GWF Hegel]]. Hegel hailed from the Rationalist School of Biblical critique, starting with [[Johann Gottfried Herder]] and Heinrich Paulus (who had been Hegel's employer during his early days). There was in fact a large movement of Bible Rationalism in the early 1800s. Hegel and Bauer were both part of that movement. Hasty writers call that atheism. Actually, the literature of Hegel and Bauer affirms that Jesus was real - but that typical theologians had interpreted Jesus all wrong.
== Relationship with Karl Marx ==
[[File:Marx1.jpg|thumb|upright|Depiction of the young [[Karl Marx]]]]
Bauer's relationship with [[Karl Marx]] was central to the development of both thinkers. Marx was Bauer's student at the University of Berlin, attending his lectures assiduously in 1839, and became a junior member of the ''Doktorklub'' which Bauer led.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=127}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=70}} They developed a close friendship and intellectual collaboration; Bauer encouraged Marx to write [[The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature|his doctoral dissertation]] and planned to secure him a teaching position at Bonn.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=128}} They planned several joint publishing ventures, including a journal of atheistic critique to be called the ''Archiv des Atheismus'' (''Archive of Atheism'').{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=128}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=71}} During this period, Marx was widely seen as Bauer's most dedicated disciple.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=206}}


Bauer's 1842 work, ''Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes'' (3 vol) debated whether the gospels were purely literary, with no historically authentic material. While not yet rejecting the historicity of Jesus, Bauer denied the historicity of a [[supernatural]] Christ (viz. Jesus - a natural human).<ref name="Schweitzer.Quest">{{cite book|last=Schweitzer |first=Albert |url=https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich |title=The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede |year=1910 |page=[https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich/page/158/mode/2up 159] |author-link=Albert Schweitzer}}</ref>
The intellectual affinity was deep. Marx's doctoral dissertation is saturated with Bauerian themes: the conception of the post-[[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] schools of philosophy as a struggle for the freedom of self-consciousness, the idea of critique as a form of world-changing praxis, and the apocalyptic view of history as a series of catastrophic transformations.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=149–158}} The dissertation's preface declares, in a thoroughly Bauerian spirit, that philosophy opposes "all gods in heaven and earth that do not recognise human self-consciousness as the highest godhead."{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=71}} Marx's early views on religion, alienation, and ideology were profoundly shaped by Bauer. Marx's celebrated critique of religion in his 1843 introduction to his ''[[Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]]'' borrows heavily from Bauer's language and imagery, including the ideas of religion as an "opium-like influence," the "imaginary flowers" on the chains of oppression, and the "illusory sun" around which man revolves before revolving around himself.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|pp=78–79}} More fundamentally, Marx adopted Bauer's critical method, applying the critique of religion as a model for the critique of politics and economics.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=79}}


Bauer wrote, "Everything that the historical Christ is, everything that is said of Him, everything that is known of Him, belongs to the world of imagination, that is, of the imagination of the Christian community, and therefore has nothing to do with any man who belongs to the real world."<ref>{{cite book|last=Bauer |first=Bruno |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8Ac3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA308 |title=Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker |trans-title=Critique of the Gospel History of the Synoptics |publisher=O. Wigand |year=1842 |volume=3 |page=308 |language=de |quote={{lang|de|Die Frage, mit der sich unsere Zeit so viel beschäftigt hat ob nämlich Dieser, ob Jesus der historische Christus sey, haben wir damit beantwortet dass wir zeigten, dass Alles, was der historische Christus ist, was von ihm gesagt wird, was wir von ihm wissen, der Welt der Vorstellung und zwar der christlichen Vorstellung angehört, also auch mit einem Menschen, der der wirklichen Welt angehört Nichts zu thun hat. Die Frage ist damit beantwortet, dass sie für alle Zukunft gestrichen ist.}} |trans-quote=We have answered the question, with which our time has occupied itself so much, namely whether Jesus is the historical Christ, by showing that everything that the historical Christ is, what is said of him, what we say of him know, belongs to the world of ideas, and indeed to the Christian idea, and therefore also has nothing to do with a person who belongs to the real world. The answer to the question is that it has been deleted for all future use. |author-link=Bruno Bauer}}</ref> (see [[David Strauss]] (1808-1874) who pioneered the [[Quest for the historical Jesus|search for the "Historical Jesus"]] by also rejecting the supernatural events of "The Christ", in his 1835 work, ''Life of Jesus'').{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
The friendship broke down in late 1842 over political and tactical differences, particularly concerning the radicalism of the Berlin ''Freien'' and the direction of the ''[[Rheinische Zeitung]]'', which Marx was editing.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=131–132}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=74}} Even then, Marx continued to praise Bauer's work, and the final break came later.{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=75}} The split culminated in a series of polemical works. In ''[[The Holy Family (book)|The Holy Family]]'' (1845) and ''[[The German Ideology]]'' (1846), Marx and [[Friedrich Engels]] launched a comprehensive critique of Bauer and his philosophy.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=223}} They accused Bauer of being an abstract idealist who had turned "Critique" itself into a transcendent power, separate from the real struggles of the masses and material interests.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=235}} Bauer responded by accusing Marx of dogmatism and a shallow understanding of his work.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=238}} Despite the bitterness of the polemic, the two men re-established personal contact in London in the mid-1850s and discussed politics and philosophy.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=132}}


In his ''Criticism of the Pauline Epistles'' (1850-1852) and in ''A Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin'' (1850-1851), Bauer argued that Jesus had not existed.<ref name="Schweitzer128">Schweitzer, Albert. ''The Quest of the Historical Jesus''. Fortress, 2001; first published 1913, pp. 124-128, 139-141.</ref> Schweitzer notes, "At the end of his study of the Gospels, Bauer is inclined to make the decision of the question whether there ever was a historic Jesus depend on the result of a further investigation which he proposed to make into the Pauline Epistles. It was not until ten years later (1850-1851) that he accomplished this task, ({{lang|de|Kritik der Paidinischen Briefe}}. (Criticism of the Pauline Epistles.) Berlin, 1850-1852.) and applied the result in his new edition of the "Criticism of the Gospel History." ({{lang|de|Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs.}} [Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin] 2 vols., Berlin, 1850-1851) The result is negative: there never was any historical Jesus."<ref>{{cite book|last=Schweitzer |first=Albert |url=https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich |title=The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede|year=1910|page=[https://archive.org/details/questofhistorica00schwrich/page/156/mode/2up 157] |author-link=Albert Schweitzer}}</ref>
==Legacy==
Bruno Bauer was a pivotal, if controversial, figure in 19th-century German thought. His scholarly reputation was largely destroyed by Marx's polemics, which depicted him as a speculative idealist completely detached from reality.{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=4}} This caricature influenced generations of scholars, including [[György Lukács|Georg Lukács]] and [[Ernst Bloch]], who tended to dismiss Bauer as a minor figure who "lived off the crumbs of Hegelian philosophy".{{sfn|Rosen|1977|pp=10, 14}} As a leading [[Young Hegelians|Young Hegelian]], he played a crucial role in the development of radical [[biblical criticism]]. His argument that Jesus [[Christ myth theory|was a literary myth]] rather than a historical figure was famously praised by [[Albert Schweitzer]] as "the ablest and most complete collection of the difficulties of the life of Jesus which is anywhere to be found."{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=9}}{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=81}} Fellow Hegelian [[Karl Rosenkranz]] described him as "undoubtedly the most important" of the Berlin ''Freien'' "in character as in culture and talent."{{sfn|McLellan|1969|p=81}}


In ''Christ and the Caesars'' (1879) he suggested that Christianity was a synthesis of the [[Stoicism]] of [[Seneca the Younger]] and of the Jewish theology of [[Philo]] as developed by pro-Roman Jews such as [[Josephus]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Moggach |first=Douglas |author-link=Douglas Moggach |title=The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer |location=Cambridge |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |date=2003 |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=mEQd5VP1lBIC&pg=PA184 184]}} *Also see Engels, Frederick. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/05/bauer.htm "Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity"], ''Der Sozialdemokrat'', May 1882.</ref> Bauer's work was heavily criticized at the time; in 1842 he was removed from his position at the University of Bonn. Still, Bauer's works were well-cited throughout Europe for the rest of the 19th century. In the 20th century, his work had little impact on future myth theorists.<ref name="voorst711" /><ref name="CBen204">{{cite book|title=In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images |first=Clinton |last=Bennett |author-link=Clinton Bennett |date=December 1, 2001 |isbn=0826449166 |publisher=Continuum |pages=204}}</ref>
After 1848, Bauer's influence waned in progressive circles, but his later work anticipated themes that would be taken up by others. His prediction of an age of global imperialism and his critique of modern mass society as a form of cultural decay were influential on [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=181}} His late, virulent [[Antisemitism|anti-Semitism]], in which he recast the "[[Jewish question]]" as the central social problem of a declining Europe, contributed to the intellectual arsenal of modern anti-Semitism.{{sfn|Moggach|2003|p=186}} Despite this, his earlier work on the Roman origins of Christianity was later praised and developed by socialists like [[Karl Kautsky]] and Engels, who, in his later years, acknowledged Bauer's great contribution to solving the "Evangelical mystery" and paved the way for a selective use of his atheistic ideas in anti-religious propaganda, notably in the [[Soviet Union]].{{sfn|Rosen|1977|p=16}}
 
[[Christ myth theory]] proponents still assert the threefold argument originally asserted by Bauer - ''allegedly'':
* that the [[New Testament]] has no historical value.
* that there are no non-Christian [[Sources for the historicity of Jesus|references to Jesus Christ]] dating back to the first century.
* that Christianity had [[syncretism|syncretistic]] or mythical roots.<ref name="Voorst2000">{{cite book|last=Voorst |first=Robert Van |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&pg=PA9 |title=Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-8028-4368-5|page=9|quote=Bauer laid down the typical threefold argument that almost all subsequent deniers of the existence of Jesus were to follow (although not in direct dependence upon him). First, he denied the value of the New Testament, especially the Gospels and Paul's letters, in establishing the existence of Jesus. Second, he argued that the lack of mention of Jesus in non-Christian writings of the first century shows that Jesus did not exist. Neither do the few mentions of Jesus by Roman writers in the early second century establish his existence. Third, he promoted the view that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical at its beginnings. |author-link=Robert E. Van Voorst}}</ref>
 
This one-sided interpretation by author Van Voorst is quite common, but others, like Trejo,{{sfn|Trejo|2002}} say that such an interpretation lacks the nuance that we find inside the pages of Bauer's actual works. They say that Bauer didn't deny the existence of Jesus of Galilee - but merely questioned the legends and Nature miracles told about him. Like [[GWF Hegel]] and the Rationalist School, Bauer would focus on the historical environment and the ''teachings'' of Jesus, rather than engage in sophomoric debates about the reality of Nature miracles.
 
== Legacy ==
Bauer's scholarship was buried by German academia, and he remained a pariah, until [[Albert Kalthoff]] rescued his works from neglect and obscurity. Kalthoff revived Bauer's Christ Myth thesis in his ''Das Christus-Problem. Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie'' (''The Problem of Christ: Principles of a Social Theology'', 1902) and ''Die Entstehung des Christentums, Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem'' (''The Rise of Christianity'', 1904).{{citation needed|date=February 2022}}
 
[[Arthur Drews]] noted Bauer's views in his own work ''[[The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present]]'', "Christianity is the product of the intimidated class of Romans who needed a straw of hope and faith in their struggle against the egoism of Caesars. It's absurd to suppose it to be originating from Hierosolyma [Jerusalem]. The origin of the Gospel literature is then reexamined. Originally, it's just a demonstration of the new principle of freedom, in rebellion against the law-dominated world, represented by Judaism. The Gospels demonstrate various steps in the evolution of this esteem. The main factor of influence was the Roman empire, whose oppression forced the community to look for hope in a kingdom of heavens and exterminate the kingdom of Rome to make it possible. ... Absolutely no such thing as a historical Jesus of Galilee is needed to explain the genesis of Mark's gospel."<ref>{{cite book|last=Drews |first=Arthur |author-link=Arthur Drews |title=Die Leugnung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Karlsruhe 1926 |trans-title=The denial of the historicity of Jesus in the past and present. Karlsruhe 1926 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NvMOAAAAQAAJ |year=1926 |publisher=G. Braun |language=de |pages=65–68|quote=The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Schilling |first1=Klaus |title=The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present |url=http://www.egodeath.com/drewshistorymythiconlyjesus.htm |website=Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics |publisher=Michael Hoffman}}</ref>
 
Despite these attempts at revival, Bauer's positions are nowadays considered fringe. Already in 1906, Albert Schweitzer, while appreciating Bauer's earlier work, was sharply critical towards his later support for the [[Christ myth theory]], writing in his book ''[[The Quest of the Historical Jesus]]'' that Bauer "originally sought to defend the honor of Jesus by rescuing his reputation from the inane parody of a biography that the Christian apologists had forged." However, he eventually came to the belief that it was a complete fiction and "regarded the Gospel of Mark not only as the first narrator, but even as the creator of the gospel history, thus making the latter a fiction and Christianity the invention of a single original evangelist" ([[Otto Pfleiderer]]).<ref name=":0" />
 
In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a [[fringe theory]], which finds virtually no support from scholars,<ref name="Ehrman Blog2">{{cite web|last=Ehrman |first=Bart D. |author-link=Bart D. Ehrman |date=April 25, 2012 |title=Fuller Reply to Richard Carrier |url=https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/ |access-date=May 2, 2018 |website=The Bart Ehrman Blog |ref=none}}</ref> to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse.{{sfn|Voorst|2000|p=6}} Common criticisms against the Christ myth theory include: general lack of expertise or relationship to academic institutions and current scholarship; reliance on [[arguments from silence]], dismissal of what sources actually state, and superficial comparisons with mythologies.{{sfn|Casey|2014|p=243-245}}


== Major works ==
== Major works ==
Line 207: Line 111:


=== Translations ===
=== Translations ===
The great bulk of Bauer's writings have still not been translated into English. Only three books by Bauer have been formally translated:
The great bulk of Bauer's writings have still not been translated into English. Only a few works by Bauer have been formally translated:


* ''The Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist'' (1841, trans. Lawrence Stepelevich, 1989).
* ''The Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist'' (1841, trans. Lawrence Stepelevich, 1989).
* ''The Jewish Problem'' (1843, trans. Helen Lederer, Hebrew Union College Union-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1958).
* ''Christianity Exposed: A Recollection of the 18th Century and a Contribution to the Crisis of the 19th Century'' (tr. Esther Ziegler and Jutta Hamm, ed. Paul Trejo, 2002).
* ''Christianity Exposed: A Recollection of the 18th Century and a Contribution to the Crisis of the 19th Century'' (tr. Esther Ziegler and Jutta Hamm, ed. Paul Trejo, 2002).
* Bauer's ''Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from the Mythology of Rome and Greece'' (1879) was ably translated into English by scholars Helmut Brunar and Byron Marchant (2015, Xlibris Publishing).
* Bauer's ''Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from the Mythology of Rome and Greece'' (1879) was ably translated into English by scholars Helmut Brunar and Byron Marchant (2015, Xlibris Publishing).
Line 216: Line 121:
{{Reflist}}
{{Reflist}}


=== Sources ===
=== Works cited ===
* {{cite book |last=McLellan |first=David |year=1969 |title=The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx |publisher=Macmillan |location=London |oclc=463133222}}
* {{cite book |last=Moggach |first=Douglas |year=2003 |title=The Philosophy and Politics of Bruno Bauer |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0-521-81977-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Rosen |first=Zvi |year=1977 |title=Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx: The Influence of Bruno Bauer on Marx's Thought |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff |location=The Hague |isbn=90-247-1948-8}}
 
== Further reading ==
* {{cite book |last=Casey |first=Maurice |author-link=Maurice Casey |year=2014 |title=Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? |publisher=Bloomsbury T & T Clark |isbn=978-0-5672-9458-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YTFiAgAAQBAJ }}
* {{cite book |last=Casey |first=Maurice |author-link=Maurice Casey |year=2014 |title=Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? |publisher=Bloomsbury T & T Clark |isbn=978-0-5672-9458-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YTFiAgAAQBAJ }}
* {{cite book |last=Katz |first=Jacob |title=From prejudice to destruction: anti-Semitism 1700–1933 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |date=1982 |isbn=9780674325074 |location=Cambridge, MA}}
* {{cite book |last=Katz |first=Jacob |title=From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700–1933 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |date=1982 |isbn=9780674325074 |location=Cambridge, MA}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Trejo |editor-first=Paul |date=2002 |title=The First English Edition of Bruno Bauer's Christianity Exposed: A Recollection of the 18th Century and a Contribution to the Crisis of the 19th Century |translator-last1=Ziegler |translator-first1=Esther |translator-last2=Hamm |translator-first2=Jutta |publisher=Edwin Mellen Press |isbn=978-0-7734-7183-2}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Trejo |editor-first=Paul |date=2002 |title=The First English Edition of Bruno Bauer's Christianity Exposed: A Recollection of the 18th Century and a Contribution to the Crisis of the 19th Century |translator-last1=Ziegler |translator-first1=Esther |translator-last2=Hamm |translator-first2=Jutta |publisher=Edwin Mellen Press |isbn=978-0-7734-7183-2}}
== Further reading ==
* {{EB1911|wstitle=Bauer, Bruno|volume=3|page=538}}
* {{EB1911|wstitle=Bauer, Bruno|volume=3|page=538}}
* Barnikol, Ernst, 1972, ''Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialien''
* Barnikol, Ernst, 1972, ''Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialien''
Line 237: Line 145:
* Marx, Karl, 1975, ''On the Jewish Question,'' Collected Works, vol. 3 (New York: Int'l Publishers)
* Marx, Karl, 1975, ''On the Jewish Question,'' Collected Works, vol. 3 (New York: Int'l Publishers)
* Marx, Karl, Frederick Engels, 1975, ''The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism,'' Collected Works, vol. 4 (New York: Int'l Publishers); ''The German Ideology,'' Collected Works, vol. 5 (New York: Int'l Publishers, 1976)
* Marx, Karl, Frederick Engels, 1975, ''The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism,'' Collected Works, vol. 4 (New York: Int'l Publishers); ''The German Ideology,'' Collected Works, vol. 5 (New York: Int'l Publishers, 1976)
* McLellan, David, 1969, ''The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx'' (Toronto: Macmillan).
* Mehlhausen, Joachim, ''Dialektik, Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung. Die Grundlagen der spekulativen Orthodoxie Bruno Bauers in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der theologischen Hegelschule dargestellt'' (Bonn 1965)
* Mehlhausen, Joachim, ''Dialektik, Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung. Die Grundlagen der spekulativen Orthodoxie Bruno Bauers in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der theologischen Hegelschule dargestellt'' (Bonn 1965)
* Moggach, Douglas, ed., 2006, ''The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School'' (Cambridge Un. Press).
* Moggach, Douglas, ed., 2006, ''The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School'' (Cambridge Un. Press).
* Rosen, Zvi, 1978, ''Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx'' (The Hague: Nijhoff).
* Sass, Hans-Martin, 1967, "Bruno Bauers Idee der Rheinischen Zeitung", ''Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte'' 19, 221–276.
* Sass, Hans-Martin, 1967, "Bruno Bauers Idee der Rheinischen Zeitung", Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19, 221–276.
* Schweitzer, Albert, 1906/1913, ''The Quest of the Historical Jesus. A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede'' (Johns Hopkins Un. Press, 1998)
* Schweitzer, Albert, 1906/1913, ''The Quest of the Historical Jesus. A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede'' (Johns Hopkins Un. Press, 1998)
* Stepelevich, L.S., ed., 1983, ''The Young Hegelians, An Anthology'' (Cambridge Un. Press).
* Stepelevich, L.S., ed., 1983, ''The Young Hegelians, An Anthology'' (Cambridge Un. Press).

Latest revision as of 19:27, 14 December 2025

Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Template wrapper".Script error: No such module "Check for clobbered parameters".

Bruno Bauer (Template:IPAc-en; Script error: No such module "IPA".; 6 September 1809Template:Snd13 April 1882) was a German philosopher, theologian, historian, and biblical critic. A prominent member of the Young Hegelians, he was a radical rationalist critic of the Bible and Christianity. Initially a student of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Bauer became a central figure in the intellectual circles of the Vormärz, the period preceding the Revolutions of 1848. His philosophical work was a major influence on, and target of critique for, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, with whom he had a close but tumultuous relationship.

Starting as a right-wing Hegelian, Bauer shifted to the left in 1839, developing a radical critique of religion and the state. He argued that the Christian gospels were not historical records but literary works of the human self-consciousness. His most significant work of this period, The Trumpet of the Last Judgement over Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist (1841), presented Hegel's philosophy as a revolutionary atheism that called for the overthrow of all existing religious and political institutions. Bauer's political thought was a form of republicanism based on the concept of "infinite self-consciousness," an ethical idealism that advocated for the constant transformation of society in pursuit of rational freedom.

During the 1840s, Bauer engaged with the emerging social question, developing a critique of both liberalism, for its basis in private interest, and the nascent socialist movements. His controversial writings on Jewish emancipation, in which he argued that both Jews and Christians must renounce their particular religious identities to achieve universal freedom, led to his isolation from many of his former allies. Though he participated in the 1848 Revolutions, their failure led him to abandon his revolutionary republicanism and turn to conservative causes.

In his later life, Bauer developed a virulent anti-Semitism. His post-1848 work focused on historical studies, particularly the origins of Christianity, and on the political development of Russia and the rise of global imperialism. Despite the profound change in his political orientation, his work continued to influence thinkers on both the left and the right, including Karl Kautsky and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Life and career

Early life and Hegelian studies

Bruno Bauer was born on 6 September 1809 in Eisenberg, Thuringia.Template:Sfn His father was a porcelain painter, and the family moved to Berlin in 1815.Template:Sfn In 1828, Bauer enrolled as a theology student at the University of Berlin, where he studied under Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel himself for three years, as well as Hegel's associates Philipp Marheineke and Henrik Steffens.Template:SfnTemplate:SfnTemplate:Sfn Bauer was particularly disappointed with the teachings of Friedrich Schleiermacher, whose attempts to find a compromise between various conflicting schools of thought seemed to Bauer to engender only ambiguity and uncertainty.Template:Sfn

In 1829, while still a student, Bauer won the annual Royal Prize in Philosophy on Hegel's recommendation for an essay on Immanuel Kant's aesthetics.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Hegel lavished praise on the work, stating: "The lecture [...] develops most convincingly [...] there is consistent development of the thought and the author has also succeeded in exploiting the contradictions of the Kantian principles, which are incompatible."Template:Sfn After graduating in 1832, Bauer began an academic career in theology.Template:Sfn He became a close associate of the Hegelian school, and was entrusted with editing the second edition of Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1840).Template:Sfn He taught at Berlin from 1834 to 1839, delivering lectures on theology, the Bible, and church history, and serving as the main editor for the Zeitschrift für spekulative Theologie (Journal for Speculative Theology).Template:Sfn During this period, his work was imbued with a spirit of conservative orthodoxy. This led him to be chosen to write the official critique of David Strauss's sensational 1835 book The Life of Jesus, in which he initially defended the historicity of the Gospels.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Left Hegelianism and biblical criticism

By 1839, Bauer had made a decisive shift to a Left Hegelian position, marked by a public break with conservative orthodoxy in his polemical work Herr Dr. Hengstenberg.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In this work and others, he defended the progressive character of Hegel's system and separated the "spirit of Christianity" from its dogmatic form, undermining the religious ideology of the Prussian Restoration.Template:Sfn This turn was influenced by his involvement with the Berlin Doktorklub (Doctors' Club), an intellectual circle of Young Hegelians that included Karl Marx, Friedrich Köppen, and others. Bauer was considered the moving spirit of this group.Template:Sfn His increasingly radical views led the Prussian Minister of Culture, Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein, to move him to the University of Bonn in an effort to shield him from attacks in Berlin.Template:Sfn

Bauer's radicalization intensified with his critiques of the Gospels, which he developed over a series of works from 1840 to 1842. The project began with his Critique of the Gospel of John (1840), followed by the three-volume Critique of the Synoptic Gospels (1841–42).Template:Sfn In these works, Bauer argued that the Gospel narratives were not historical reports of the life of Jesus, but literary products of the religious consciousness of the early Christian community.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn He saw the evangelists not as historians but as artists who had transformed earlier religious traditions into a new, dogmatic form.Template:Sfn He concluded that the figure of Jesus was a literary invention, a transplantation of the community's own struggles and experiences onto a single representative figure.Template:Sfn This critique was aimed directly at the ideological foundations of the Prussian state, which used dogmatic Christianity for its legitimation.Template:Sfn

Bauer's publications caused a major controversy. In March 1842, he was dismissed from his teaching position at the University of Bonn on the initiative of the conservative minister of education, Johann Albrecht Friedrich von Eichhorn.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn

Republicanism and The Trumpet of the Last Judgement

In October 1841, Bauer anonymously published his most significant philosophical work of the Vormärz, Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts über Hegel, den Atheisten und Antichristen (The Trumpet of the Last Judgement over Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist).Template:Sfn Described as the "locus classicus for the Young Hegelian view of Hegel,"Template:Sfn the book adopted the ironic guise of a pious pietist to denounce Hegel as a revolutionary atheist whose philosophy would inevitably lead to the destruction of religion, the state, and all social order.Template:Sfn The book's true purpose was to reclaim Hegel for the revolutionary cause by distinguishing between an "exoteric" Hegel who accommodated existing powers and an "esoteric," atheistic Hegel whose true meaning was accessible only to his radical disciples.Template:Sfn The book was praised by fellow Young Hegelian Arnold Ruge as a work of "world-historical importance."Template:Sfn

In the Posaune, Bauer interpreted Hegel's philosophy as a theory of "infinite self-consciousness," a power that creates and transforms the historical world.Template:Sfn This self-consciousness, he argued, was engaged in a constant revolutionary struggle against all "positivity"—that is, against all fixed, given, or reified institutions, whether religious or political.Template:Sfn The book outlined a political program based on the ruthless critique of all existing relations and a refusal to compromise, culminating in the revolutionary overthrow of the old order.Template:Sfn It advocated for a form of ethical perfectionism, a commitment to constantly transform political and social institutions in the name of freedom.Template:Sfn

Social question and polemics

File:Friedrich Engels - Die Freien (1842)-1.1 V01-1.2 raw RGASPI.jpg
Sketch depicting the Freien by Friedrich Engels, 1842. Bauer is the fourth from the left.

After his dismissal from academia, Bauer became a leading figure among the Berlin Freien (The Free), a circle of Young Hegelians, and founded the journal Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung to promote his ideas of "pure critique."Template:Sfn In this period, he increasingly turned his attention to the social question and the political currents of the day.Template:Sfn He developed a critique of both liberalism and the emerging socialist and communist movements. He saw liberalism as a defense of egoistic private interest that was incapable of genuine opposition to the authoritarian state.Template:Sfn He critiqued socialism for what he viewed as its own form of heteronomy, arguing that communism was a dogmatic ideology that elevated the masses and their material needs over the critical spirit of the intellectual elite.Template:Sfn

Bauer's most controversial interventions came in his 1843 writings on Jewish emancipation, Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question) and "The Capacity of Present-Day Jews and Christians to Become Free".Template:Sfn Arguing from his principle of universal self-consciousness, Bauer asserted that genuine freedom required the renunciation of all particularistic religious ties. He concluded that Jews, like Christians, could not be emancipated as a religious group but only as human beings, which required them to give up their religion.Template:Sfn This position was widely seen as an attack on one of the central demands of the progressive movement. It led to his break with many former allies, including Marx, who responded with his own famous essay, "On the Jewish Question".Template:Sfn According to Douglas Moggach, Bauer's stance on this issue was a "costly error in judgement" that stemmed from a sectarian "republican rigorism" and a "conflation of right and morality".Template:Sfn

1848 Revolutions and later life

Bauer was an active participant in the Revolutions of 1848. He ran for election to the Prussian National Assembly as a candidate for Charlottenburg, defending the principle of popular sovereignty and calling for the creation of a "league of equal right" that would carry the revolution into all spheres of social life.Template:Sfn He defended the March barricade fighters in Berlin and attacked the liberal bourgeoisie for its willingness to compromise with the monarchy.Template:Sfn

File:Brunobauer (cropped).jpg
Bauer c.Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". 1870

The failure of the revolutions led to a "profound change" in Bauer's thought.Template:Sfn He abandoned his revolutionary republicanism and his ethics of perfectionism, becoming what was known as the "hermit of Rixdorf".Template:Sfn His abiding anti-liberalism now led him to support conservative and, later, anti-Semitic causes, and he collaborated for many years with the reactionary editor Hermann Wagener, one of Otto von Bismarck's closest advisers.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn He developed a new political vision centered on the rise of global imperialism and the clash between Russia and the West. He saw Russia, with its all-encompassing unity of church and state, as a force that would shatter the particularism of Europe and create the conditions for a new, post-metaphysical era.Template:Sfn In his later years, he developed a virulent anti-Semitism, describing the "Jewish question" as the new form of the social question and contributing to the rhetoric of racial anti-Semitism in Germany.Template:Sfn Bauer died in Rixdorf (now part of Neukölln) on 13 April 1882.Template:Sfn

Philosophy

Self-consciousness and critique

The central concept in Bauer's philosophy during his Vormärz period was "infinite self-consciousness" (unendliches Selbstbewußtsein).Template:Sfn For Bauer, this was not an abstract subjective state but the motive force of history itself—the dynamic, creative, and critical activity of human subjects.Template:Sfn It is "infinite" because it constantly negates and transcends any given, finite reality or "positivity".Template:Sfn This self-consciousness achieves its ends through critique, which for Bauer is the theoretical and practical activity of exposing the contradictions in existing institutions and ideologies.Template:Sfn Drawing inspiration from the Aufklärung and the French Revolution, Bauer argued that critique was a form of "praxis"; it is the "terrorism of true criticism" that prepares the ground for the actualization of philosophy in the world.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn For Bauer, "theory is the strongest form of practice."Template:Sfn His version of the dialectic differed from Hegel's in that it was a purely negative process of destruction, lacking Hegel's concept of aufheben (sublation), which involves preservation as well as negation.Template:Sfn

Bauer's theory is a form of ethical and historical idealism.Template:Sfn It is historical because the content of self-consciousness is derived from the rational comprehension of the historical process as the struggle for freedom.Template:Sfn It is ethical because it demands a commitment to "perfectionism"—an uncompromising will to transform the world in accordance with the universal principles of reason and freedom.Template:Sfn Bauer distinguished between the "individual self-consciousness" of particular persons and the "universal self-consciousness," which he identified with liberty and humanity.Template:Sfn The egoistic, religious person is trapped in the former, while the goal of history is the realization of the latter.Template:Sfn

Critique of religion

Bauer's critique of religion was a cornerstone of his philosophical and political project. He originated the term "self-alienation" (Selbstentfremdung) to describe religion as the primary form of alienated self-consciousness.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In religion, he argued, humanity projects its own essential powers onto an external, transcendent being, and then worships this alienated essence as God.Template:Sfn This process is a "division in consciousness" that stems from objective deficiencies in social and political life; religion is a "distorted consciousness of a distorted reality".Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn The God that humanity creates is a "subhuman God," a distorted reflection of humanity's own alienated condition.Template:Sfn

He argued that Christianity, particularly in its Protestant form, represented the "perfection of the religious consciousness" because it had universalized this alienation to encompass all aspects of life.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn In a famous passage, he described the alienated self of the Christian world as a "vampire of spiritual abstraction" that, having been drained of its own content, projects its powers onto a Messiah.Template:Sfn For Bauer, this total alienation was a necessary step, a Vorbereitungsgeschichte (preparatory history), for total liberation.Template:Sfn The critique of religion was therefore the necessary first step toward political revolution, as it aimed to dissolve the ideological foundations of the old order and restore to humanity its own creative powers.Template:Sfn

Republicanism and the social question

Bauer's political thought was a form of republicanism that stood in opposition to both Restoration absolutism and possessive individualist liberalism.Template:Sfn He envisioned a "republic of self-consciousness," a self-determining community founded on a genuine common interest rather than the aggregation of private, egoistic interests that characterized modern civil society.Template:Sfn This republicanism required a radical transformation of individuals themselves, who must overcome their own particularity and elevate themselves to universality through ethical and political action.Template:Sfn He held a Hegelian view of the state as the "manifestation of freedom" but critiqued the existing "Christian state" for being tied to the atomized, egoistic world of civil society.Template:Sfn He drew inspiration from the French Revolution and the federal model of the United States.Template:Sfn

He distinguished between the Volk (the people), a revolutionary subject capable of acting on universal principles, and the Masse (the masses), an atomized, inert aggregate of private individuals characteristic of modern market society.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn For Bauer, liberalism was the ideology of the Masse, as it defined freedom as the pursuit of private property and thereby dissolved the bonds of ethical life.Template:Sfn After 1843, disappointed by the passivity of the masses in the face of political reaction, he turned to a theory of "pure critique," arguing that the intellectual elite must stand apart from the masses and their dogmatic ideologies.Template:Sfn The task of the revolution was to create a true Volk by overcoming the egoism of mass society. This involved not only political change but also social emancipation, including the humanization of labor and the elimination of pauperism.Template:Sfn

Relationship with Karl Marx

File:Marx1.jpg
Depiction of the young Karl Marx

Bauer's relationship with Karl Marx was central to the development of both thinkers. Marx was Bauer's student at the University of Berlin, attending his lectures assiduously in 1839, and became a junior member of the Doktorklub which Bauer led.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn They developed a close friendship and intellectual collaboration; Bauer encouraged Marx to write his doctoral dissertation and planned to secure him a teaching position at Bonn.Template:Sfn They planned several joint publishing ventures, including a journal of atheistic critique to be called the Archiv des Atheismus (Archive of Atheism).Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn During this period, Marx was widely seen as Bauer's most dedicated disciple.Template:Sfn

The intellectual affinity was deep. Marx's doctoral dissertation is saturated with Bauerian themes: the conception of the post-Aristotelian schools of philosophy as a struggle for the freedom of self-consciousness, the idea of critique as a form of world-changing praxis, and the apocalyptic view of history as a series of catastrophic transformations.Template:Sfn The dissertation's preface declares, in a thoroughly Bauerian spirit, that philosophy opposes "all gods in heaven and earth that do not recognise human self-consciousness as the highest godhead."Template:Sfn Marx's early views on religion, alienation, and ideology were profoundly shaped by Bauer. Marx's celebrated critique of religion in his 1843 introduction to his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right borrows heavily from Bauer's language and imagery, including the ideas of religion as an "opium-like influence," the "imaginary flowers" on the chains of oppression, and the "illusory sun" around which man revolves before revolving around himself.Template:Sfn More fundamentally, Marx adopted Bauer's critical method, applying the critique of religion as a model for the critique of politics and economics.Template:Sfn

The friendship broke down in late 1842 over political and tactical differences, particularly concerning the radicalism of the Berlin Freien and the direction of the Rheinische Zeitung, which Marx was editing.Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Even then, Marx continued to praise Bauer's work, and the final break came later.Template:Sfn The split culminated in a series of polemical works. In The Holy Family (1845) and The German Ideology (1846), Marx and Friedrich Engels launched a comprehensive critique of Bauer and his philosophy.Template:Sfn They accused Bauer of being an abstract idealist who had turned "Critique" itself into a transcendent power, separate from the real struggles of the masses and material interests.Template:Sfn Bauer responded by accusing Marx of dogmatism and a shallow understanding of his work.Template:Sfn Despite the bitterness of the polemic, the two men re-established personal contact in London in the mid-1850s and discussed politics and philosophy.Template:Sfn

Legacy

Bruno Bauer was a pivotal, if controversial, figure in 19th-century German thought. His scholarly reputation was largely destroyed by Marx's polemics, which depicted him as a speculative idealist completely detached from reality.Template:Sfn This caricature influenced generations of scholars, including Georg Lukács and Ernst Bloch, who tended to dismiss Bauer as a minor figure who "lived off the crumbs of Hegelian philosophy".Template:Sfn As a leading Young Hegelian, he played a crucial role in the development of radical biblical criticism. His argument that Jesus was a literary myth rather than a historical figure was famously praised by Albert Schweitzer as "the ablest and most complete collection of the difficulties of the life of Jesus which is anywhere to be found."Template:SfnTemplate:Sfn Fellow Hegelian Karl Rosenkranz described him as "undoubtedly the most important" of the Berlin Freien "in character as in culture and talent."Template:Sfn

After 1848, Bauer's influence waned in progressive circles, but his later work anticipated themes that would be taken up by others. His prediction of an age of global imperialism and his critique of modern mass society as a form of cultural decay were influential on Friedrich Nietzsche.Template:Sfn His late, virulent anti-Semitism, in which he recast the "Jewish question" as the central social problem of a declining Europe, contributed to the intellectual arsenal of modern anti-Semitism.Template:Sfn Despite this, his earlier work on the Roman origins of Christianity was later praised and developed by socialists like Karl Kautsky and Engels, who, in his later years, acknowledged Bauer's great contribution to solving the "Evangelical mystery" and paved the way for a selective use of his atheistic ideas in anti-religious propaganda, notably in the Soviet Union.Template:Sfn

Major works

  • De pulchri principiis, Prussian royal prize manuscript, first published as Prinzipien des Schönen. De pulchri principiis. Eine Preisschrift (1829), new ed. Douglas Moggach und Winfried Schultze (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996).
  • "Rezension (review): Das Leben Jesu, David Friedrich Strauss," Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, Dec. 1835; May 1836.
  • Kritik der Geschichte der Offenbarung. Die Religion des alten Testaments in der geschichtlichen Entwicklung ihrer Prinzipien dargestellt 2 vol. (Berlin, 1838).
  • Herr Dr. Hengstenberg (Berlin, 1839).
  • Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes (Bremen, 1840)
  • "Der christliche Staat und unsere Zeit," Hallische Jahrbücher für deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst, June 1841.
  • Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1841)
  • Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts über Hegel, den Atheisten und Antichristen (Leipzig, 1841); trans. L. Stepelevich, The Trumpet of the Last Judgement against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist. An Ultimatum (Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1989)
  • (anon.) Hegels Lehre von der Religion und Kunst von dem Standpuncte des Glaubens aus beurteilt (Leipzig, 1842); new ed. Aalen (Scientia Verlag, 1967)
  • Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit (1842)
  • Die Judenfrage (1843) ("The Jewish Question")
  • Das Entdeckte Christentum (Zürich, 1843, banned and destroyed, into oblivion until 1927: ed. Barnikol); transl. Esther Ziegler, Christianity Exposed (MellenPress, 2002)
  • "Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen, frei zu werden," in Georg Herwegh (ed.), Einundzwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz (Zürich und Winterthur, 1843)
  • Geschichte der Politik, Kultur und Aufklärung des 18. Jahrhunderts, 4 vol. (1843–45)
  • "Die Gattung und die Masse", Allg. Lit.-Ztg. X, September 1844
  • Geschichte Deutschlands und der französischen Revolution unter der Herrschaft Napoleons, 2 vols. (1846)
  • Der Ursprung des Galaterbriefs (Hempel, 1850)
  • Kritik der paulinischen Briefe ("Critique of Paul's epistles") (Berlin, 1850-1851)
  • Der Ursprung des ersten Korintherbriefes (Hempel, 1851)
  • Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, 3 vols. (1850–51); 4th vol. Die theologische Erklärung der Evangelien (Berlin, 1852).
  • Russland und das Germanentum 2 vol. (1853)
  • Das Judenthum in der Fremde. (Berlin, 1863).
  • Philo, Renan und das Urchristentum (Berlin, 1874)
  • Einfluss des englischen Quäkerthums auf die deutsche Cultur und auf das englisch-russische Project einer Weltkirche (Berlin, 1878)
  • Christus und die Cäsaren...Transl. German to English by Helmut Brunar and Byron Marchant, Christ and the Caesars... available (Bloomington IN: Xlibris Publishing, 2015).
  • Disraelis romantischer und Bismarcks sozialistischer Imperialismus (1882)

Translations

The great bulk of Bauer's writings have still not been translated into English. Only a few works by Bauer have been formally translated:

  • The Trumpet of the Last Judgment Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist (1841, trans. Lawrence Stepelevich, 1989).
  • The Jewish Problem (1843, trans. Helen Lederer, Hebrew Union College Union-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1958).
  • Christianity Exposed: A Recollection of the 18th Century and a Contribution to the Crisis of the 19th Century (tr. Esther Ziegler and Jutta Hamm, ed. Paul Trejo, 2002).
  • Bauer's Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from the Mythology of Rome and Greece (1879) was ably translated into English by scholars Helmut Brunar and Byron Marchant (2015, Xlibris Publishing).

References

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Works cited

  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

Further reading

  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Wikisource This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainScript error: No such module "template wrapper".
  • Barnikol, Ernst, 1972, Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialien
  • Brazill, W.J., 1970, The Young Hegelians (New Haven: Yale University Press).
  • Eberlein, Hermann-Peter, Bruno Bauer. Vom Marx-Freund zum Antisemiten (Berlin: Karl Dietz-Verlag, 2009).
  • Engels, Friedrich, 1882, "Bruno Bauer und das Urchristentum," Sozialdemokrat, May 4 and 11.
  • Eßbach, Wolfgang, 1988, Die Junghegelianer. Soziologie einer Intellektuellengruppe (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag).
  • Kautsky, Karl, 1908, Der Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart: Dietz).
  • Kautsky, Karl, 1915, Nationalstaat, imperialistischer Staat und Staatenbund (Nürnberg)
  • Kegel, Martin, 1908, Bruno Bauer Und Seine Theorien Über Die Entstehung Des Christentums
  • Leopold, David, 1999, "The Hegelian Antisemitism of Bruno Bauer," History of European Ideas 25 (1999)
  • Leopold, David, 2007, The Young Karl Marx: German Philosophy, Modern Politics, and Human Flourishing (Cambridge Un. Press)
  • Löwith, Karl, 1967, From Hegel to Nietzsche (Garden City: Doubleday).
  • Mah, Harold, 1987, The End of Philosophy and the Origin of Ideology. Karl Marx and the Crisis of the Young Hegelians (Berkeley: Un. of California Press).
  • Marx, Karl, 1975, On the Jewish Question, Collected Works, vol. 3 (New York: Int'l Publishers)
  • Marx, Karl, Frederick Engels, 1975, The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism, Collected Works, vol. 4 (New York: Int'l Publishers); The German Ideology, Collected Works, vol. 5 (New York: Int'l Publishers, 1976)
  • Mehlhausen, Joachim, Dialektik, Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung. Die Grundlagen der spekulativen Orthodoxie Bruno Bauers in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der theologischen Hegelschule dargestellt (Bonn 1965)
  • Moggach, Douglas, ed., 2006, The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School (Cambridge Un. Press).
  • Sass, Hans-Martin, 1967, "Bruno Bauers Idee der Rheinischen Zeitung", Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19, 221–276.
  • Schweitzer, Albert, 1906/1913, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (Johns Hopkins Un. Press, 1998)
  • Stepelevich, L.S., ed., 1983, The Young Hegelians, An Anthology (Cambridge Un. Press).
  • Toews, J.E., 1980, Hegelianism. The Path toward Dialectical Humanism (Cambridge Un. Press).
  • Tomba, Massimiliano, 2002, Crisi e critica in Bruno Bauer. Il principio di esclusione come fondamento del politico (Naples: Bibliopolis); transl. Krise und Kritik bei Bruno Bauer. Kategorien des Politischen im nachhegelschen Denken (Frankfurt, 2005)
  • van den Bergh van Eysinga, G.A., 1963, "Aus einer unveröffentlichten Biographie von Bruno Bauer. Bruno Bauer in Bonn 1839–1842," Annali Feltrinelli
  • Waser, Ruedi, 1994, Autonomie des Selbstbewußtseins. Eine Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Bruno Bauer und Karl Marx (1835–1843) (Tübingen: Francke Verlag).

External links

Template:Sister project

Template:Christ myth theory

Template:Authority control