Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany, 1789-1848

Locating Themselves in History { 93

cultural achievement Wolf signals as relevant for the new Jewish science are the

precise topics he and his fellow Vereinler had been listening to Hegel lecture

on during the past few years. By the time Wolf wrote these words (published

in March 1822 ), the Vereinler had had occasion to hear their teacher lecture on

the philosophy of right or law [Recht] in three different versions prior to the

publication of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, on the history of philosophy ( 1819

and 1820 – 21 ), and the philosophy of religion ( 1821 ); and they would soon hear

his lectures on the philosophy of history ( 1822 – 23 ). It is, thus, all the more sig-

nificant that Wolf ’s definition of Judaism’s essential idea contradicts Hegel’s

characterization of Judaism in lectures the Vereinler would have heard.

In his 1821 philosophy of religion lectures Hegel still clung to a dismal in-

terpretation of Judaism that accorded with his characterization of Jews in his

posthumously published Early Theological Writings. Jews are externally deter-

mined, alienated, isolated, obstinate egos, essentially slaves to God rather than

divinely inspired free moral beings. In the same spirit, in his introduction to

his first philosophy of history lectures, delivered October 1822 –February 1823 ,^10

Hegel defines Judaism (together with Islam) as a religion of diremption (Reli-

gion der Trennung) in which there is no mediation between God and singular

consciousness—that is, no true spirit:

In general there occur in religion two cases, such that one is the religion of

diremption, in which... God is exterior as an abstract being, in which par-

ticular consciousness [die Einzelheit des Bewußtseins] is thus not posited,

so that this [being] may perhaps be called Spirit, but is only called so—an

empty name. Thus religion has been as Judaism, and Islam is even now.^11...

This is the religion of diremption, which can further take different forms, in

that something universal can be envisaged [vorgestellt] as a natural entity in

natural, elemental fashion, as air, fire, etc. It can, however, also be envisaged

as universal, as thought, as in Judaism, etc.^12

On the other side of Hegel’s schematic bifurcation of religious principles—on

the side of “the unity of the infinite and the finite, the unity of God and the

world”—lie Indian incarnation, Greek art, which “represents the divine in

human form,”^13 and Christianity: “in Christ appears [erscheint] the unity of

divine and human nature, which has the God appear in his son [welche den

Gott in seinem Sohn erscheinen läßt], and thus brings the unity to people’s con-

sciousness. This anthropomorphic nature is not represented [dargestellt] in an

unworthy manner, however, but rather in a way that leads to the true Idea of

God. Inherent in the true Idea of God is that it is not a beyond, remote from con-

sciousness [gegen das das Bewußtsein draußen und drüber steht] .”^14 Through-