Islam's "Strange secret sharer": Orientalism, Judaism, and the Jewish question

Comparative Studies in Society and History

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 437-473

  Pasto, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005194172     PISSN: 00104175     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0010417598001364     Document Type: Article

References (131)

1. See Robert Erwin, "Writing about Islam and the Arabs," Ideology and Consciousness, 9 (1981-82), 108-9; Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 108.
2. See Robert Erwin, "Writing about Islam and the Arabs," Ideology and Consciousness, 9 (1981-82), 108-9; Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 108.
3. See Bryan S. Turner, Religion and Social Theory (London: SAGE Publications, 1983), 29.
4. I prefer the term "Euro-Christian" to both "European" and "Western." As Hay and Delanty have noted the idea of "Europe" is an extension and achievement of the ecumenical goal of Christianity. See Dennis Hay, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968); and Gerard Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995). Even granting a decline of Christianity since the eighteenth-century enlightenment, contemporary European culture (I include the United States here) cannot be understood without the recognition of the influence of Christian ideas and religion. Ignoring the Christian element, as is common, is a sort of epistemological trick that minimizes religious influences on European thought and is very much tied in with Orientalists and other representations which see the Other as "religious" and the west as "secular." The term "Judaeo-Christian" is unacceptable since this "tradition" is a twentieth-century American political ideology and not a common and ancient, historical, cultural or religious tradition shared by Jews and Christians. Moreover, when writers use the term "Judaeo-Christian," they often mean simply "Christian," assuming that Judaism is representable through Christian categories. See Mark Savad, American Christianity and the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Ph.D. Diss., Syracuse University, 1985), and my example in note 6 below.
5. I prefer the term "Euro-Christian" to both "European" and "Western." As Hay and Delanty have noted the idea of "Europe" is an extension and achievement of the ecumenical goal of Christianity. See Dennis Hay, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968); and Gerard Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995). Even granting a decline of Christianity since the eighteenth-century enlightenment, contemporary European culture (I include the United States here) cannot be understood without the recognition of the influence of Christian ideas and religion. Ignoring the Christian element, as is common, is a sort of epistemological trick that minimizes religious influences on European thought and is very much tied in with Orientalists and other representations which see the Other as "religious" and the west as "secular." The term "Judaeo-Christian" is unacceptable since this "tradition" is a twentieth-century American political ideology and not a common and ancient, historical, cultural or religious tradition shared by Jews and Christians. Moreover, when writers use the term "Judaeo-Christian," they often mean simply "Christian," assuming that Judaism is representable through Christian categories. See Mark Savad, American Christianity and the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Ph.D. Diss., Syracuse University, 1985), and my example in note 6 below.
6. I prefer the term "Euro-Christian" to both "European" and "Western." As Hay and Delanty have noted the idea of "Europe" is an extension and achievement of the ecumenical goal of Christianity. See Dennis Hay, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968); and Gerard Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995). Even granting a decline of Christianity since the eighteenth-century enlightenment, contemporary European culture (I include the United States here) cannot be understood without the recognition of the influence of Christian ideas and religion. Ignoring the Christian element, as is common, is a sort of epistemological trick that minimizes religious influences on European thought and is very much tied in with Orientalists and other representations which see the Other as "religious" and the west as "secular." The term "Judaeo-Christian" is unacceptable since this "tradition" is a twentieth-century American political ideology and not a common and ancient, historical, cultural or religious tradition shared by Jews and Christians. Moreover, when writers use the term "Judaeo-Christian," they often mean simply "Christian," assuming that Judaism is representable through Christian categories. See Mark Savad, American Christianity and the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Ph.D. Diss., Syracuse University, 1985), and my example in note 6 below.
7. "Christian Writers on Judaism," Harvard Theological Review, 14:3 (1921), 197.
8. See David Pailin, Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984); Albert Hourani, Islam in European Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
9. See David Pailin, Attitudes to Other Religions: Comparative Religion in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984); Albert Hourani, Islam in European Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
10. See Ismar Schorsch, Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870-1914 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972); and various essays published together in From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (London: University Press of New England, 1994).
11. See Ismar Schorsch, Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870-1914 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972); and various essays published together in From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism (London: University Press of New England, 1994).
12. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Christianity, Judaism and Modern Bible Study," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 28 (1975), 75. Goshen-Gottstein was referring specifically to the early "exegetical revolution" of the "Humanist-Reformation background," but his remark is applicable to later scholarship. At the same time it should not be forgotten that Christian critical scholars were often as opposed to traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible as they were to Jewish interpretations. The difference between the two lies in the fact that Jews constituted a minority in European Christian societies, one moreover whose very corporate existence was always on the verge of illegitimacy. This is an important difference. While critical interpretations threatened to undermine traditional Christian theology and even some social formations, the continued existence of Christians or Christianity was never in doubt. The same can not be said for Jews and and Judaism. Jewish corporate existence was indeed called into question in nineteenth-century Europe; and critical studies of Jewish texts were often utilized to justify political and social polices that tended to undermine a separate Jewish corporate existence. Stefi Jersch-Wenzel briefly compares the situation of various Christian minorities to that of Jews in, "The Jews as a 'Classical' Minority in Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century Prussia," Leo Baeck Institute: Yearbook, 27 (1982), 37-47.
13. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Christianity, Judaism and Modern Bible Study," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 28 (1975), 75. Goshen-Gottstein was referring specifically to the early "exegetical revolution" of the "Humanist-Reformation background," but his remark is applicable to later scholarship. At the same time it should not be forgotten that Christian critical scholars were often as opposed to traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible as they were to Jewish interpretations. The difference between the two lies in the fact that Jews constituted a minority in European Christian societies, one moreover whose very corporate existence was always on the verge of illegitimacy. This is an important difference. While critical interpretations threatened to undermine traditional Christian theology and even some social formations, the continued existence of Christians or Christianity was never in doubt. The same can not be said for Jews and and Judaism. Jewish corporate existence was indeed called into question in nineteenth-century Europe; and critical studies of Jewish texts were often utilized to justify political and social polices that tended to undermine a separate Jewish corporate existence. Stefi Jersch-Wenzel briefly compares the situation of various Christian minorities to that of Jews in, "The Jews as a 'Classical' Minority in Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century Prussia," Leo Baeck Institute: Yearbook, 27 (1982), 37-47.
14. For surveys of Old Testament scholarship in Europe, see John W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century (London: SPCK, 1985); T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism (London: Methuen Press, 1893); R. J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism Since Graf. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); and R. C. Fuller, Alexander Geddes 1737-1802: A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism (Sheffield, Eng.: Almond Press).
15. For surveys of Old Testament scholarship in Europe, see John W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century (London: SPCK, 1985); T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism (London: Methuen Press, 1893); R. J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism Since Graf. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); and R. C. Fuller, Alexander Geddes 1737-1802: A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism (Sheffield, Eng.: Almond Press).
16. For surveys of Old Testament scholarship in Europe, see John W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century (London: SPCK, 1985); T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism (London: Methuen Press, 1893); R. J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism Since Graf. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); and R. C. Fuller, Alexander Geddes 1737-1802: A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism (Sheffield, Eng.: Almond Press).
17. For surveys of Old Testament scholarship in Europe, see John W. Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century (London: SPCK, 1985); T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism (London: Methuen Press, 1893); R. J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism Since Graf. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); and R. C. Fuller, Alexander Geddes 1737-1802: A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism (Sheffield, Eng.: Almond Press).
18. Johannes Fabian, Time and Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), 31.
19. Current efforts to change the title "Old Testament" to "Hebrew Bible," or substitute BCE and CE for BC and AD, while well intentioned, do not address the Christian temporalizations and authority that underlies these terms.
20. It also accounts for the many references to the "death of Judaism" in the nineteenth century. See Amy Neuman, "The Death of Judaism in German Protestant Thought from Luther to Hegel," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 61:3 (1993), 455-87.
21. Fries was a follower of Kant, who differed from his master in that he rejected the need for transcendental proofs. Fries believed that human perceptions of unity, value, harmony, and so forth, were real perceptions that were apprehended by the human facility of Ahndung, or intimation. Ahndung allows humans to sense reality, and myths, poetry, and philosophy are varying forms of expression of that reality. Two of his early works, The Wissen, Glaube und Ahndung of 1805, and the Von deutscher Philosophie Art und Kunst, ein Votum fur F. H. Jacobi gegen F. W. J. Schelling in 1812, were particularly influential on de Wette. In fact upon reading the latter work, de Wette wrote to Fries pledging his Biblische Dogmatik in support of Fries's work. See Rogerson's excellent biography of de Wette (1992). W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
22. Fries was a follower of Kant, who differed from his master in that he rejected the need for transcendental proofs. Fries believed that human perceptions of unity, value, harmony, and so forth, were real perceptions that were apprehended by the human facility of Ahndung, or intimation. Ahndung allows humans to sense reality, and myths, poetry, and philosophy are varying forms of expression of that reality. Two of his early works, The Wissen, Glaube und Ahndung of 1805, and the Von deutscher Philosophie Art und Kunst, ein Votum fur F. H. Jacobi gegen F. W. J. Schelling in 1812, were particularly influential on de Wette. In fact upon reading the latter work, de Wette wrote to Fries pledging his Biblische Dogmatik in support of Fries's work. See Rogerson's excellent biography of de Wette (1992). W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
23. Fries was a follower of Kant, who differed from his master in that he rejected the need for transcendental proofs. Fries believed that human perceptions of unity, value, harmony, and so forth, were real perceptions that were apprehended by the human facility of Ahndung, or intimation. Ahndung allows humans to sense reality, and myths, poetry, and philosophy are varying forms of expression of that reality. Two of his early works, The Wissen, Glaube und Ahndung of 1805, and the Von deutscher Philosophie Art und Kunst, ein Votum fur F. H. Jacobi gegen F. W. J. Schelling in 1812, were particularly influential on de Wette. In fact upon reading the latter work, de Wette wrote to Fries pledging his Biblische Dogmatik in support of Fries's work. See Rogerson's excellent biography of de Wette (1992). W.M.L. de Wette: Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
24. In latter editions this reads: "Judaism is the unsuccessful (verunglückte) restoration of Hebraism and a mixture of the same positive elements with the foreign mythological-metaphysical teachings; it is ruled by a reflexive mind without any living, vigorous emotions (Gefühl): it is a chaos that awaits a new creation. Its characteristic features are 1) In place of moral action there is metaphysical reflection, and in there much development. 2) Due to the symbolic misunderstanding a written religious source without independent production [arises]. What 3) was living and vigorous (Lebens und der Begeisterung) in the case of Hebraism, is a thing of concepts and devotion to the letter in the case of Judaism" (1831:114).
25. De Wette diverged from Hegel in a number of respects regarding Judaism. First, he separated Hebraism from Judaism, while Hegel treated Judaism (i.e., the religion of the Old Testament and Talmud) as a whole. Second, he accorded Hebraism a central role in shaping modern German-Protestant society. Where Hegal had privileged Greece, de Wette privileged Hebraism as the fount of modern cultural values such as spontaneity, individualism, and a balance between reason and feeling. Third, de Wette was to the left of Hegel in terms of his political views, though Hegel was more liberal in respect to granting civil rights to Jews (see below). For Hegel's view of Judaism, see Sholomo Avineri, "The Fossil and the Phoenix: Hegel and Krochmal on the Jewish Volksgeist," 47-63 in History and System: Hegel's Philosophy of History (Proceedings of the 1982 Sessions of the Hegel Society of America, Robert L. Perkins, ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984); and Peter C. Hodgsoon, "The Metamorphosis of Judaism in Hegel's Philosophy of Religion," The Owl of Minerva, 19 (1987), 41-52. For Hegel's view of Jewish emancipation, see Shlomo Avineri, "A Note on Hegel's Views on Jewish Emancipation," Jewish Social Studies (1963), 25:2, 145-51.
26. De Wette diverged from Hegel in a number of respects regarding Judaism. First, he separated Hebraism from Judaism, while Hegel treated Judaism (i.e., the religion of the Old Testament and Talmud) as a whole. Second, he accorded Hebraism a central role in shaping modern German-Protestant society. Where Hegal had privileged Greece, de Wette privileged Hebraism as the fount of modern cultural values such as spontaneity, individualism, and a balance between reason and feeling. Third, de Wette was to the left of Hegel in terms of his political views, though Hegel was more liberal in respect to granting civil rights to Jews (see below). For Hegel's view of Judaism, see Sholomo Avineri, "The Fossil and the Phoenix: Hegel and Krochmal on the Jewish Volksgeist," 47-63 in History and System: Hegel's Philosophy of History (Proceedings of the 1982 Sessions of the Hegel Society of America, Robert L. Perkins, ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984); and Peter C. Hodgsoon, "The Metamorphosis of Judaism in Hegel's Philosophy of Religion," The Owl of Minerva, 19 (1987), 41-52. For Hegel's view of Jewish emancipation, see Shlomo Avineri, "A Note on Hegel's Views on Jewish Emancipation," Jewish Social Studies (1963), 25:2, 145-51.
27. De Wette diverged from Hegel in a number of respects regarding Judaism. First, he separated Hebraism from Judaism, while Hegel treated Judaism (i.e., the religion of the Old Testament and Talmud) as a whole. Second, he accorded Hebraism a central role in shaping modern German-Protestant society. Where Hegal had privileged Greece, de Wette privileged Hebraism as the fount of modern cultural values such as spontaneity, individualism, and a balance between reason and feeling. Third, de Wette was to the left of Hegel in terms of his political views, though Hegel was more liberal in respect to granting civil rights to Jews (see below). For Hegel's view of Judaism, see Sholomo Avineri, "The Fossil and the Phoenix: Hegel and Krochmal on the Jewish Volksgeist," 47-63 in History and System: Hegel's Philosophy of History (Proceedings of the 1982 Sessions of the Hegel Society of America, Robert L. Perkins, ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984); and Peter C. Hodgsoon, "The Metamorphosis of Judaism in Hegel's Philosophy of Religion," The Owl of Minerva, 19 (1987), 41-52. For Hegel's view of Jewish emancipation, see Shlomo Avineri, "A Note on Hegel's Views on Jewish Emancipation," Jewish Social Studies (1963), 25:2, 145-51.
28. I am citing from the English translation, The History of Israel (London, 1867-86), with attention to the third German edition (1864).
29. Wellhausen was a student of Ewald and acknowledged his influence in a later memoir. The Prolegomena is dedicated to him. He cites George, Graf, and Reuss as important influences, though he says that he "learned best and most" from Vatke's Biblische Theologie (1835:14). He referred to de Wette as "the epoch making founder (Eröffner) of historical criticism in this field . . . he was the first clearly to perceive and point out how disconnected are the alleged starting point of Israel's history and that history itself" (1835:4-5). While Wellhausen states that de Wette did not succeed in reaching a secure position, he notes that he was the first "to perceive and demonstrate the gap between the alleged starting point of Israelite history and the history itself" (1835:4). Elsewhere in the Prolegomena he follows de Wette in regard to Chronicles, whose work here was "not improved upon." (1957:166). Even more explicitly, he described de Wette as "a clever chap" and stated that "all that I did in the Old Testament was in his books already." See Rudolph Otto, The Philosophy of Religion (London: Williams and Norgate, 1931), 152. Note also that literary aspect of the theory is significant in supporting the authority of the model. Building on de Wette's initial claims, Wellhausen argues that the very literary structure of the Old Testament proves the disjunctive and contradictory nature of Judaism and the resolving function of Christianity. I am citing from the English translation of the second edition, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridan Books, 1957), with attention to the sixth German edition (Berlin, 1927).
30. Wellhausen was a student of Ewald and acknowledged his influence in a later memoir. The Prolegomena is dedicated to him. He cites George, Graf, and Reuss as important influences, though he says that he "learned best and most" from Vatke's Biblische Theologie (1835:14). He referred to de Wette as "the epoch making founder (Eröffner) of historical criticism in this field . . . he was the first clearly to perceive and point out how disconnected are the alleged starting point of Israel's history and that history itself" (1835:4-5). While Wellhausen states that de Wette did not succeed in reaching a secure position, he notes that he was the first "to perceive and demonstrate the gap between the alleged starting point of Israelite history and the history itself" (1835:4). Elsewhere in the Prolegomena he follows de Wette in regard to Chronicles, whose work here was "not improved upon." (1957:166). Even more explicitly, he described de Wette as "a clever chap" and stated that "all that I did in the Old Testament was in his books already." See Rudolph Otto, The Philosophy of Religion (London: Williams and Norgate, 1931), 152. Note also that literary aspect of the theory is significant in supporting the authority of the model. Building on de Wette's initial claims, Wellhausen argues that the very literary structure of the Old Testament proves the disjunctive and contradictory nature of Judaism and the resolving function of Christianity. I am citing from the English translation of the second edition, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridan Books, 1957), with attention to the sixth German edition (Berlin, 1927).
31. These views are presented throughout the final section of the Prolegomena, which is called "Israel und Das Judentum."
32. I am still citing from the reprint included in the 1957 English translation of the Prolegomega.
33. See Rolf Rendtorff, "Die Hebraische Bibel als Grundlage christilisch-theologischer Aussagen über das Judentum," Judische Existenz und die Erneuerung der christlichen Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1981), 32-47; Lou H. Silberman, "Wellhausen and Judaism," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Semeia, 25 (1983), 75-82; Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).
34. See Rolf Rendtorff, "Die Hebraische Bibel als Grundlage christilisch-theologischer Aussagen über das Judentum," Judische Existenz und die Erneuerung der christlichen Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1981), 32-47; Lou H. Silberman, "Wellhausen and Judaism," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Semeia, 25 (1983), 75-82; Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).
35. See Rolf Rendtorff, "Die Hebraische Bibel als Grundlage christilisch-theologischer Aussagen über das Judentum," Judische Existenz und die Erneuerung der christlichen Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1981), 32-47; Lou H. Silberman, "Wellhausen and Judaism," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Semeia, 25 (1983), 75-82; Jon Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).
36. See his "Higher Criticism - Higher Anti-Semitism." Address delivered at the Judaean Banquet, March 16, 1903. Seminary Addresses and Other Papers by Solomon Schechter, with an introduction by Louis Finkelstein, (1959), 36, 37.
37. Moore was a Christian scholar who wrote a subsequent work designed to present Judaism in its own voice and counter the authoritative Christian constructions of Jewish past. See his Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (3 vols., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-30).
38. On the other hand it is possible to read the Wellhausen's Prolegomena against the anti-Semites and other opponents of Jews. First, by defining "Judaism" as a "religious community" since the time of the Babylonian exile, Wellhausen is saying in effect that Jews are not a "nation within a nation" but a religious community within the German nation. Thus, Jews are by the very nature of their corporate structure capable of assimilation into Germany. Second, by separating Hebraism from Judaism, Wellhausen frees German Christianity of any taint of Judaism and absolves Jews from the charge that they have contaminated German culture. Protestantism comes out of ancient Israel, not Judaism, and ancient Israel has all of the qualities - vitality, purity, spontaneity - admired by the Aryans.
39. Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich 1870-1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975), 191.
40. This was going against the grain of contemporary scholars, such as Hegel and F. A. Wolf, who considered the ancient Hebrew-Jewish culture inferior to that of the ancient Greeks. For example, Wolf wrote that the "Hebraic nation did not raise itself to the level of culture, so that one might regard it as a learned, cultured people. It does not even have prose, but only half-poetry. Its writers of history are but miserable chroniclers. They could never write in full sentences; this was an invention of Greeks." See Vorlesungen über die Alterlumwissenschaft, 1 (1831), 14; cited in Ismar Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, 346.
41. This was going against the grain of contemporary scholars, such as Hegel and F. A. Wolf, who considered the ancient Hebrew-Jewish culture inferior to that of the ancient Greeks. For example, Wolf wrote that the "Hebraic nation did not raise itself to the level of culture, so that one might regard it as a learned, cultured people. It does not even have prose, but only half-poetry. Its writers of history are but miserable chroniclers. They could never write in full sentences; this was an invention of Greeks." See Vorlesungen über die Alterlumwissenschaft, 1 (1831), 14; cited in Ismar Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, 346.
42. See Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1978), 12-17. See also Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), and "The Term 'Jewish Emancipation': Its Origin and Historical Impact," in Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History (Farnborough: Greggs, 1972), 21-45; Peter Pulzer, Jews and the German State. The Political History of a Minority, 1848-1933 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); and David Sorokin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
43. See Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1978), 12-17. See also Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), and "The Term 'Jewish Emancipation': Its Origin and Historical Impact," in Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History (Farnborough: Greggs, 1972), 21-45; Peter Pulzer, Jews and the German State. The Political History of a Minority, 1848-1933 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); and David Sorokin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
44. See Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1978), 12-17. See also Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), and "The Term 'Jewish Emancipation': Its Origin and Historical Impact," in Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History (Farnborough: Greggs, 1972), 21-45; Peter Pulzer, Jews and the German State. The Political History of a Minority, 1848-1933 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); and David Sorokin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
45. See Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1978), 12-17. See also Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), and "The Term 'Jewish Emancipation': Its Origin and Historical Impact," in Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History (Farnborough: Greggs, 1972), 21-45; Peter Pulzer, Jews and the German State. The Political History of a Minority, 1848-1933 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); and David Sorokin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
46. See Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1978), 12-17. See also Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), and "The Term 'Jewish Emancipation': Its Origin and Historical Impact," in Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History (Farnborough: Greggs, 1972), 21-45; Peter Pulzer, Jews and the German State. The Political History of a Minority, 1848-1933 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); and David Sorokin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
47. The East, of course, is as much an idea as a direction. Nevertheless, the Judaism of the prestate period clearly had more in common with other religions associated with East, Islam for instance, than it had with European Christianities. Jewish ritual language, prayer chanting, legal traditions, and scriptural exegesis saw their formation in the East and bear more than strong resemblance to their Islamic counterparts.
48. Sorokin, The Transformation, 23.
49. The very expression, bürgerliche Verbessurung (civil improvement), indicated a presumption of Jewish degeneration. This was a double entendre referring both to the "improvement" of Jews' civil status by the state as well as an "improvement" of the Jews themselves (Katz, From Prejudice, 35) notes that in discussions of Dohm's proposals, Mendelssohn substituted the term bürgerliche Aufname (acceptance, reception) for bürgerliche Verbesserung, which reflects his awareness of the negative implications of this term.
50. Dohm consulted Mendelssohn as he wrote the work and was given drafts before its publication. Edward Breuer states that Mendellsohn was aware of the public impact of Dohm's book and wanted to limit its focus to issues such as the Sabbath laws and the ability of Jews to perform military service. He was thus willing to ignore the disparagement of contemporary Jewish religion, contained even in the sympathetic work of Dohm, for tactical reasons. Breuer also points out that the final phrase, auch in ihrem Talmud die Befugnisse finden, appears out of joint syntactically. Since Dohm attached a footnote at this point stating that "a great Jewish scholar" had informed him that Talmudic and later Rabbinical traditions made it the duty of Jews to defend a city under attack or to save any life, even on the Sabbath, Breuer suggests that the phrase auch in ihrem Talmud die Befugnisse finden might have been added at the suggestion of Mendellsohn. See his essay, "Politics, Tradition, History: Rabbinical Judaism and the Eighteenth-Century Struggle for Civil Equality," Harvard Theological Review, 85 (1992), 368-9.
51. I am citing from Büshing's original article, published in Wöchentliche Nachrichten von neuen Landcharten, geographischen, statistischen und historischen Büchern und Schriften, 9:299-302, 319-20, 331-5.
52. Eisenmenger was a deceased professor of Oriental Languages in Heidelberg. Jews in Frankfurt vigorously protested the publication of his book and delayed its appearance for ten years. See J. Katz, From Prejudice, 13-22.
53. I am citing from the second edition of Dohm's Über die burgleriche Verbessurung der Juden (1783), which included the response of Schwager and others to the first edition.
54. Bauer's early studies on the Old Testament are almost apologetic in tone. They defend the harsher Biblical narratives from Deistic criticism and the Mosaic law from the "new critique" of de Wette. His programmatic article, "Prinzipien der mosaischen Rechts und Religions-Verfassung," was published in 1837 (Zeitschrift für spekulative Theologie, 2:292-306). Here Bauer rejects the approaches advocated by Michaelis and de Wette, as well as their explanations for the origins of the Mosaic law. According to Bauer. Michaelis viewed the law as an "artifice of Moses" used to protect the people from pagan influence: while de Wette saw it is a priestly "coup" which curtailed the free development of the people (1816:303). Against this Bauer presented an Hegelian approach, albeit lacking the source criticism of Vatke, in which the Mosaic law is a manifestation of the people's spirit and consciousness. He applies this methodology to the text in his two-volume Die Religion das Alten Testaments (1838). Here the Mosaic law is the highest expression of the people's consciousness, which in turn is the highest expression of the universal spirit at that time.
55. Bauer's early studies on the Old Testament are almost apologetic in tone. They defend the harsher Biblical narratives from Deistic criticism and the Mosaic law from the "new critique" of de Wette. His programmatic article, "Prinzipien der mosaischen Rechts und Religions-Verfassung," was published in 1837 (Zeitschrift für spekulative Theologie, 2:292-306). Here Bauer rejects the approaches advocated by Michaelis and de Wette, as well as their explanations for the origins of the Mosaic law. According to Bauer. Michaelis viewed the law as an "artifice of Moses" used to protect the people from pagan influence: while de Wette saw it is a priestly "coup" which curtailed the free development of the people (1816:303). Against this Bauer presented an Hegelian approach, albeit lacking the source criticism of Vatke, in which the Mosaic law is a manifestation of the people's spirit and consciousness. He applies this methodology to the text in his two-volume Die Religion das Alten Testaments (1838). Here the Mosaic law is the highest expression of the people's consciousness, which in turn is the highest expression of the universal spirit at that time.
56. Thus, on page 91 he says: "Is it always only Jews who have gained and lost in history? Are there no other people who have been marked by history, who have experienced something? Always and always, only the Jews" (Immer und immer nur die Juden!).
57. I am citing from Karl Marx Werke: Artikel Enwürfe März 1843 bis August 1844 (Berlin: Deitz Verlag, 1982).
58. Not all political writers, or Biblical scholars, viewed the Jewish past in terms of decline. Some argued that Judaism, as Mosaism or otherwise, was characterized from the very beginning by an anti-social, fanatical, and particularistic spirit. The degenerative model was favored by Protestant liberals, who supported the integration and reform of coeval Jews. Those who opposed both tended to favor a model of an essential Mosaic corruption. See Ludwig Christian Paalzow, Die Juden: Nebst einigen Bermerkungen über das Sendschreiben an Herrn Teller zu Berlin (Berlin, 1799), Der Jude und der Christ - eine Unterhaltung auf dem Postwagen (Berlin, 1803); Friedrich Wilhelm Grattenauer, Über die physische und moralische Verfassung der heutigen Juden (Leipzig, 1791); Friedrich Buccholz, Moses und Jesus oder über dasy intellektuelle und moralische Verhaltniss der Juden und Christer (Benin, 1803).
59. Not all political writers, or Biblical scholars, viewed the Jewish past in terms of decline. Some argued that Judaism, as Mosaism or otherwise, was characterized from the very beginning by an anti-social, fanatical, and particularistic spirit. The degenerative model was favored by Protestant liberals, who supported the integration and reform of coeval Jews. Those who opposed both tended to favor a model of an essential Mosaic corruption. See Ludwig Christian Paalzow, Die Juden: Nebst einigen Bermerkungen über das Sendschreiben an Herrn Teller zu Berlin (Berlin, 1799), Der Jude und der Christ - eine Unterhaltung auf dem Postwagen (Berlin, 1803); Friedrich Wilhelm Grattenauer, Über die physische und moralische Verfassung der heutigen Juden (Leipzig, 1791); Friedrich Buccholz, Moses und Jesus oder über dasy intellektuelle und moralische Verhaltniss der Juden und Christer (Benin, 1803).
60. Not all political writers, or Biblical scholars, viewed the Jewish past in terms of decline. Some argued that Judaism, as Mosaism or otherwise, was characterized from the very beginning by an anti-social, fanatical, and particularistic spirit. The degenerative model was favored by Protestant liberals, who supported the integration and reform of coeval Jews. Those who opposed both tended to favor a model of an essential Mosaic corruption. See Ludwig Christian Paalzow, Die Juden: Nebst einigen Bermerkungen über das Sendschreiben an Herrn Teller zu Berlin (Berlin, 1799), Der Jude und der Christ - eine Unterhaltung auf dem Postwagen (Berlin, 1803); Friedrich Wilhelm Grattenauer, Über die physische und moralische Verfassung der heutigen Juden (Leipzig, 1791); Friedrich Buccholz, Moses und Jesus oder über dasy intellektuelle und moralische Verhaltniss der Juden und Christer (Benin, 1803).
61. Not all political writers, or Biblical scholars, viewed the Jewish past in terms of decline. Some argued that Judaism, as Mosaism or otherwise, was characterized from the very beginning by an anti-social, fanatical, and particularistic spirit. The degenerative model was favored by Protestant liberals, who supported the integration and reform of coeval Jews. Those who opposed both tended to favor a model of an essential Mosaic corruption. See Ludwig Christian Paalzow, Die Juden: Nebst einigen Bermerkungen über das Sendschreiben an Herrn Teller zu Berlin (Berlin, 1799), Der Jude und der Christ - eine Unterhaltung auf dem Postwagen (Berlin, 1803); Friedrich Wilhelm Grattenauer, Über die physische und moralische Verfassung der heutigen Juden (Leipzig, 1791); Friedrich Buccholz, Moses und Jesus oder über dasy intellektuelle und moralische Verhaltniss der Juden und Christer (Benin, 1803).
62. Published in Kirchliche Reform, 1-7 (1847).
63. He adds that this is seen in Europe as well, among the Oriental-like Russians and Greeks (1847:38).
64. I am citing from the 1912 English translation, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (London: John Lane).
65. Chamberlain represents Jesus and Christianity in vol. 2. Paradoxically, Nazi historiography was perhaps closer to the truth than that of liberal Protestants, insofar it is less likely that Protestants are the "true Israel" than it is that German was colonized and that German native traditions were destroyed, by Roman and Roman-Christian conquest. Jews of course did not colonize Germany, but since Christianization did mean in effect the substitution of native ancestors, sacred symbols, and divinities, for their Jewish equivalents, then we can certainly speak of this as an ancient "Judaization" of Germany. We forget that Christianity is no more native to Germany than it is to America or Africa and that the processes of Christianization were probably similar in all these cases. Time does not negate such acts, although it may cover the memory of them. Here it is assisted by a complex ideology of superiority and progress, where an ancient Christian imperialism and missionization - and the destruction of European native traditions - are presented as positive and necessary developments that lead to civilization. The masking of the Christian colonization of Europe is further assisted by an ideology of Jewish culpability and Christian innocence, in which Jews are situated as the locus of violence, be it deicide or the bringing of intolerance to Europe, and Christians their innocent victims. For the claim that Jews brought intolerance to Europe, see Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (HBJ Publishers), in which she says Jews introduced "into Western Civilization an otherwise unknown element of fanaticism" (1951), 242. For a critique of Christian myths of innocence, see Burton Mack's A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (New York: Fortress Press, 1988), and especially his essay, "The Innocent Transgressor: Jesus in Early Christian Myth and History," Rene Girard and Biblical Studies. Semeia, 33 (1985), 135-65.
66. Chamberlain represents Jesus and Christianity in vol. 2. Paradoxically, Nazi historiography was perhaps closer to the truth than that of liberal Protestants, insofar it is less likely that Protestants are the "true Israel" than it is that German was colonized and that German native traditions were destroyed, by Roman and Roman-Christian conquest. Jews of course did not colonize Germany, but since Christianization did mean in effect the substitution of native ancestors, sacred symbols, and divinities, for their Jewish equivalents, then we can certainly speak of this as an ancient "Judaization" of Germany. We forget that Christianity is no more native to Germany than it is to America or Africa and that the processes of Christianization were probably similar in all these cases. Time does not negate such acts, although it may cover the memory of them. Here it is assisted by a complex ideology of superiority and progress, where an ancient Christian imperialism and missionization - and the destruction of European native traditions - are presented as positive and necessary developments that lead to civilization. The masking of the Christian colonization of Europe is further assisted by an ideology of Jewish culpability and Christian innocence, in which Jews are situated as the locus of violence, be it deicide or the bringing of intolerance to Europe, and Christians their innocent victims. For the claim that Jews brought intolerance to Europe, see Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (HBJ Publishers), in which she says Jews introduced "into Western Civilization an otherwise unknown element of fanaticism" (1951), 242. For a critique of Christian myths of innocence, see Burton Mack's A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (New York: Fortress Press, 1988), and especially his essay, "The Innocent Transgressor: Jesus in Early Christian Myth and History," Rene Girard and Biblical Studies. Semeia, 33 (1985), 135-65.
67. Chamberlain represents Jesus and Christianity in vol. 2. Paradoxically, Nazi historiography was perhaps closer to the truth than that of liberal Protestants, insofar it is less likely that Protestants are the "true Israel" than it is that German was colonized and that German native traditions were destroyed, by Roman and Roman-Christian conquest. Jews of course did not colonize Germany, but since Christianization did mean in effect the substitution of native ancestors, sacred symbols, and divinities, for their Jewish equivalents, then we can certainly speak of this as an ancient "Judaization" of Germany. We forget that Christianity is no more native to Germany than it is to America or Africa and that the processes of Christianization were probably similar in all these cases. Time does not negate such acts, although it may cover the memory of them. Here it is assisted by a complex ideology of superiority and progress, where an ancient Christian imperialism and missionization - and the destruction of European native traditions - are presented as positive and necessary developments that lead to civilization. The masking of the Christian colonization of Europe is further assisted by an ideology of Jewish culpability and Christian innocence, in which Jews are situated as the locus of violence, be it deicide or the bringing of intolerance to Europe, and Christians their innocent victims. For the claim that Jews brought intolerance to Europe, see Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (HBJ Publishers), in which she says Jews introduced "into Western Civilization an otherwise unknown element of fanaticism" (1951), 242. For a critique of Christian myths of innocence, see Burton Mack's A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (New York: Fortress Press, 1988), and especially his essay, "The Innocent Transgressor: Jesus in Early Christian Myth and History," Rene Girard and Biblical Studies. Semeia, 33 (1985), 135-65.
68. See Susanah Heschel, "Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influences on German Church Life," Church History, 63:4 (1994), 587-605. Marshall D. Johnson, "Power Politics and New Testament Scholarship in the National Socialist Period," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 23:1 (1986), 1-24; and Gilmer W. Blackburn, "The Portrayal of Christianity in the History Textbooks of Nazi Germany," Church History, 49:4 (1980), 433-45.
69. See Susanah Heschel, "Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influences on German Church Life," Church History, 63:4 (1994), 587-605. Marshall D. Johnson, "Power Politics and New Testament Scholarship in the National Socialist Period," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 23:1 (1986), 1-24; and Gilmer W. Blackburn, "The Portrayal of Christianity in the History Textbooks of Nazi Germany," Church History, 49:4 (1980), 433-45.
70. See Susanah Heschel, "Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influences on German Church Life," Church History, 63:4 (1994), 587-605. Marshall D. Johnson, "Power Politics and New Testament Scholarship in the National Socialist Period," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 23:1 (1986), 1-24; and Gilmer W. Blackburn, "The Portrayal of Christianity in the History Textbooks of Nazi Germany," Church History, 49:4 (1980), 433-45.
71. On Ireland, see David Beers Quinn, "Ireland and Sixteenth-Century European Expansion," Historical Studies, 1:1 (1958), 20-32; and on the Hopi, Robert Berkhoffer, Jr., Salvation and the Savage (Louisville: University of Kentucky, 1965).
72. On Ireland, see David Beers Quinn, "Ireland and Sixteenth-Century European Expansion," Historical Studies, 1:1 (1958), 20-32; and on the Hopi, Robert Berkhoffer, Jr., Salvation and the Savage (Louisville: University of Kentucky, 1965).
73. See Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
74. For India's Golden Age in European scholarship, see David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization 1773-1835 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969); and Mukesh Srivastava, "Mosaic of Narrative Manipulations: Power and Production of Subjectivity in (post) colonial India," Economic and Political Weekly (1992). On Sri Lanka, see Richard Gombrich, "Protestant Buddhism," in Theravada Buddhism, A Social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968).
75. For India's Golden Age in European scholarship, see David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization 1773-1835 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969); and Mukesh Srivastava, "Mosaic of Narrative Manipulations: Power and Production of Subjectivity in (post) colonial India," Economic and Political Weekly (1992). On Sri Lanka, see Richard Gombrich, "Protestant Buddhism," in Theravada Buddhism, A Social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968).
76. For India's Golden Age in European scholarship, see David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization 1773-1835 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969); and Mukesh Srivastava, "Mosaic of Narrative Manipulations: Power and Production of Subjectivity in (post) colonial India," Economic and Political Weekly (1992). On Sri Lanka, see Richard Gombrich, "Protestant Buddhism," in Theravada Buddhism, A Social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968).
77. I want to point out that Protestant scholars were not completely inventing Jewish past and that in some cases their own views accorded with native Jewish views. Thus, contemporary Jews also saw their present as a decline from a past, though Jews did not separate an ancient Israel from a later "Judaism." Decline was associated with galut - dispersion - and not with "Rabbinic Judaism." There were also nineteenth-century German Jewish critiques of traditional Jewish rabbinic leadership, though these critiques are to be distinguished from their Protestant counterparts because in many cases they were reproductions of the Protestant representation and based on the attempt of Jewish Wissenschaft scholars and rabbis to wrest Jewish leadership from the traditional rabbinic leadership. See Meyer, Response to Modernity; and Schorsch, Jewish Reactions. This confluence between native and colonizer's representation is not specific to Germany. Irwin notes how Orientalists adopted notions of Islamic decline from Ibn Kaldhun, Back and Forth, 111; and Sheldon Pollack notes that the "Brahmanizing tendency" of British scholars may have "recapitulated a precolonial Brahmanizing tendency on the part of the medieval ruling elites." "Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj," in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 76-133.
78. I want to point out that Protestant scholars were not completely inventing Jewish past and that in some cases their own views accorded with native Jewish views. Thus, contemporary Jews also saw their present as a decline from a past, though Jews did not separate an ancient Israel from a later "Judaism." Decline was associated with galut - dispersion - and not with "Rabbinic Judaism." There were also nineteenth-century German Jewish critiques of traditional Jewish rabbinic leadership, though these critiques are to be distinguished from their Protestant counterparts because in many cases they were reproductions of the Protestant representation and based on the attempt of Jewish Wissenschaft scholars and rabbis to wrest Jewish leadership from the traditional rabbinic leadership. See Meyer, Response to Modernity; and Schorsch, Jewish Reactions. This confluence between native and colonizer's representation is not specific to Germany. Irwin notes how Orientalists adopted notions of Islamic decline from Ibn Kaldhun, Back and Forth, 111; and Sheldon Pollack notes that the "Brahmanizing tendency" of British scholars may have "recapitulated a precolonial Brahmanizing tendency on the part of the medieval ruling elites." "Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj," in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 76-133.
79. I want to point out that Protestant scholars were not completely inventing Jewish past and that in some cases their own views accorded with native Jewish views. Thus, contemporary Jews also saw their present as a decline from a past, though Jews did not separate an ancient Israel from a later "Judaism." Decline was associated with galut - dispersion - and not with "Rabbinic Judaism." There were also nineteenth-century German Jewish critiques of traditional Jewish rabbinic leadership, though these critiques are to be distinguished from their Protestant counterparts because in many cases they were reproductions of the Protestant representation and based on the attempt of Jewish Wissenschaft scholars and rabbis to wrest Jewish leadership from the traditional rabbinic leadership. See Meyer, Response to Modernity; and Schorsch, Jewish Reactions. This confluence between native and colonizer's representation is not specific to Germany. Irwin notes how Orientalists adopted notions of Islamic decline from Ibn Kaldhun, Back and Forth, 111; and Sheldon Pollack notes that the "Brahmanizing tendency" of British scholars may have "recapitulated a precolonial Brahmanizing tendency on the part of the medieval ruling elites." "Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj," in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 76-133.
80. I want to point out that Protestant scholars were not completely inventing Jewish past and that in some cases their own views accorded with native Jewish views. Thus, contemporary Jews also saw their present as a decline from a past, though Jews did not separate an ancient Israel from a later "Judaism." Decline was associated with galut - dispersion - and not with "Rabbinic Judaism." There were also nineteenth-century German Jewish critiques of traditional Jewish rabbinic leadership, though these critiques are to be distinguished from their Protestant counterparts because in many cases they were reproductions of the Protestant representation and based on the attempt of Jewish Wissenschaft scholars and rabbis to wrest Jewish leadership from the traditional rabbinic leadership. See Meyer, Response to Modernity; and Schorsch, Jewish Reactions. This confluence between native and colonizer's representation is not specific to Germany. Irwin notes how Orientalists adopted notions of Islamic decline from Ibn Kaldhun, Back and Forth, 111; and Sheldon Pollack notes that the "Brahmanizing tendency" of British scholars may have "recapitulated a precolonial Brahmanizing tendency on the part of the medieval ruling elites." "Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj," in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer, eds. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 76-133.
81. This is my own term, which I coin as a parallel to "Ethnography." Stephen G. Burnett has used terms such as "ethnography" and "ethnographer" in his essay, "Distorted Mirrors: Antionius Margaritha, Johann Buxtorf and Christian Ethnographies of the Jews," Sixteenth Century Journal, 25 (1994), 275-87. Burnett states that he is adopting the terms from a paper delivered by R. Po-chia Hsia, "Christian Ethnographies of the Jews," presented at the conference, "The Expulsion of the Jews: 1492 and After" (University of California at Davis, April 2, 1992).
82. This is my own term, which I coin as a parallel to "Ethnography." Stephen G. Burnett has used terms such as "ethnography" and "ethnographer" in his essay, "Distorted Mirrors: Antionius Margaritha, Johann Buxtorf and Christian Ethnographies of the Jews," Sixteenth Century Journal, 25 (1994), 275-87. Burnett states that he is adopting the terms from a paper delivered by R. Po-chia Hsia, "Christian Ethnographies of the Jews," presented at the conference, "The Expulsion of the Jews: 1492 and After" (University of California at Davis, April 2, 1992).
83. Time and Other, 143-4.
84. Ibid.
85. Michaelis' response was published in the second of Dohm's Über die
86. Michaelis' response was published in the second of Dohm's Über die burgleriche Verbessurung. I am citing from the text as it appeared originally in the Orientalische und Exegetische Bibliotek, 19 (1782), 1-40.
87. I am citing from the English translation by F. Clarke, Theodore or the Skeptic's Conversion (Boston: Specimens of Foreign Standard Literature, 1841).
88. I am citing from Alfred Jospe's translation. See his essay, "The Study of Judaism in German Universities before 1933," Yearbook: Leo Baeck Institute, 27 (1982), 316-7.
89. Ibid., 317.
90. Zeitschrift für die religiosen Interessen des Judentums, 3 (1845) 81-97, 121-32, 361-8, 413-21.
91. This inversion of Hegelian categories was a common tactic of German Jewish scholarly resistance to contemporary historiography and judeography, and it was employed by Reform scholars as well. Another example is Solomon Formstecher's Die Religion des Geistes (1841). The work was written explicitly to counter the negative representation of Jews in German Universities and presents Judaism as the essence of the world Spirit or Idea. Christianity is only one manifestation of this Jewish Idea, arising as a necessary but temporary stage in the unfolding of a universal Judaism. Once its historical task is complete. Christianity will disappear - but Judaism, the essential Idea, will remain (1841:74ff. 393ff). Formstecher also rejects the use of different terms to describe different periods of Jewish history: "I do not utilize the designations Hebraism (Hebraismus), Israelitism (Israelititenthum) . . . for the representation of Judaism (Judenthum) . . . both terms . . . as contrasts, are found to be a product of capriciousness. . .Hebraism and Judaism remain just names, which are found hanging on preconceived non-historical definitions." (1841:vii-viii).
92. I am citing from Schorch's translation here: Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1975), 93-94. Graetz was even more assertive, if not offensive, in the Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (English trans., History of the Jews; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891-98). Here, Graetz was openly critical of Protestant Biblical scholars. Michaelis hated Jews because he was once insulted by a Jewish-French officer, an anti-Jewish animosity that affected his scholarship (ET, V:360). Similarly, scholars such as Eichhorn, Gesenius, Von Bohlen, and de Wette were "filled with antipathy to the Jews, and were thereby hindered from arriving at a correct understanding of the Old Testament" (V:695). He also castigated the "Teutomania" of German nationalist leaders and political writers such as Fries. He held Islam and Muslim Spain as enlightened counterparts to a barbaric Christian Europe, praised the Jewish capacity to survive an intolerant and oppressive Christianity, and claimed that the achievements of German culture were impossible without the influence of German Jews, past and present. It is no surprise that he came under sharp attack from majority historians such as Heinrich Treitschke, who saw Graetz's work reflecting a growing and "dangerous spirit of arrogance" among Jews: "What a fanatical fury against . . . Christianity, what deadly hatred just of the purest and most powerful representatives of the German character, from Luther to Goethe and Fichte. And what hollow, offensive self-glorification? Here it is proved with continuous satirical invective that the nation of Kant was really educated to humanity by the Jews only, that the language of Lessing and Goethe became sensitive to beauty, spirit, and wit only through Börne and Heine!" (in Walter Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit [Frankfurt, 1988], 10-11). Graetz responded, and a public debate ensued. However, "not a single important Jewish spokesman defended the Jewish historian. . . The consensus was unmistakable: Graetz had tactlessly blundered" in his condemnation of German heroes and culture (Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, 70). Even Graetz's initial responses focused on particulars and avoided the larger issues.
93. I am citing from Schorch's translation here: Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1975), 93-94. Graetz was even more assertive, if not offensive, in the Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (English trans., History of the Jews; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891-98). Here, Graetz was openly critical of Protestant Biblical scholars. Michaelis hated Jews because he was once insulted by a Jewish-French officer, an anti-Jewish animosity that affected his scholarship (ET, V:360). Similarly, scholars such as Eichhorn, Gesenius, Von Bohlen, and de Wette were "filled with antipathy to the Jews, and were thereby hindered from arriving at a correct understanding of the Old Testament" (V:695). He also castigated the "Teutomania" of German nationalist leaders and political writers such as Fries. He held Islam and Muslim Spain as enlightened counterparts to a barbaric Christian Europe, praised the Jewish capacity to survive an intolerant and oppressive Christianity, and claimed that the achievements of German culture were impossible without the influence of German Jews, past and present. It is no surprise that he came under sharp attack from majority historians such as Heinrich Treitschke, who saw Graetz's work reflecting a growing and "dangerous spirit of arrogance" among Jews: "What a fanatical fury against . . . Christianity, what deadly hatred just of the purest and most powerful representatives of the German character, from Luther to Goethe and Fichte. And what hollow, offensive self-glorification? Here it is proved with continuous satirical invective that the nation of Kant was really educated to humanity by the Jews only, that the language of Lessing and Goethe became sensitive to beauty, spirit, and wit only through Börne and Heine!" (in Walter Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit [Frankfurt, 1988], 10-11). Graetz responded, and a public debate ensued. However, "not a single important Jewish spokesman defended the Jewish historian. . . The consensus was unmistakable: Graetz had tactlessly blundered" in his condemnation of German heroes and culture (Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, 70). Even Graetz's initial responses focused on particulars and avoided the larger issues.
94. I am citing from Schorch's translation here: Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1975), 93-94. Graetz was even more assertive, if not offensive, in the Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (English trans., History of the Jews; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891-98). Here, Graetz was openly critical of Protestant Biblical scholars. Michaelis hated Jews because he was once insulted by a Jewish-French officer, an anti-Jewish animosity that affected his scholarship (ET, V:360). Similarly, scholars such as Eichhorn, Gesenius, Von Bohlen, and de Wette were "filled with antipathy to the Jews, and were thereby hindered from arriving at a correct understanding of the Old Testament" (V:695). He also castigated the "Teutomania" of German nationalist leaders and political writers such as Fries. He held Islam and Muslim Spain as enlightened counterparts to a barbaric Christian Europe, praised the Jewish capacity to survive an intolerant and oppressive Christianity, and claimed that the achievements of German culture were impossible without the influence of German Jews, past and present. It is no surprise that he came under sharp attack from majority historians such as Heinrich Treitschke, who saw Graetz's work reflecting a growing and "dangerous spirit of arrogance" among Jews: "What a fanatical fury against . . . Christianity, what deadly hatred just of the purest and most powerful representatives of the German character, from Luther to Goethe and Fichte. And what hollow, offensive self-glorification? Here it is proved with continuous satirical invective that the nation of Kant was really educated to humanity by the Jews only, that the language of Lessing and Goethe became sensitive to beauty, spirit, and wit only through Börne and Heine!" (in Walter Boehlich, Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit [Frankfurt, 1988], 10-11). Graetz responded, and a public debate ensued. However, "not a single important Jewish spokesman defended the Jewish historian. . . The consensus was unmistakable: Graetz had tactlessly blundered" in his condemnation of German heroes and culture (Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, 70). Even Graetz's initial responses focused on particulars and avoided the larger issues.
95. S. Unna, "Briefe von H. Grätz an Raphael Kirchheim," Jahrbuch der judisch-literarischen Gesellschaft, 12 (1918), 320.
96. Citing from the English translation of Maurice J. Bloom, Rome and Jerusalem (New York: Philosophical Library, 1958).
97. Schorsch, Jewish Reactions, 44-46.
98. Moreover, the Jewish effort to combat this authoritative historiography constitutes a significant early challenge to the Western intellectual hegemony and anticipates later twentieth-century critiques of dominant discourses, ethnographic authority, etc. John M. Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Sìecle Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), has already spoken of the need to revise the now-traditional model that the dominant anthropological discourse was only disrupted after the Second World War. He argues that critics have been lead astray through understanding Anthropology's enterprise as "merely one in which white Europeans have gone into the field to observe other, distinctly different races." What modern critics have overlooked "is that in the nineteenth century, anthropology classified the Jews as a race" and that the existence of (largely German) Jewish counter race texts "calls into question the notion that postwar European de-colonization was the first challenge to the majority discourse of European anthropology" (1994:2-3). The scratching pens of Zunz, Graetz and other German Jews should be added to the list of counter-hegemonic, and counter-Orientalist genologies. At the same time, whether the Jewish (and Christian) efforts at establishing a counter-Jewish discourse would have prevented subsequent events is impossible to say. The crisis in Germany was not one of representation alone nor one between Christians and Jews. While liberal Protestant scholars, Marx, and the Aryanizers, portrayed developments in modern Germany as metaphorically linked to developments in Jewish past, the economic and political problems of nineteenth-century Germany were not rooted in the Jewish Question. All Germans, Jews and Christian, were caught in a web of significant economic and political developments and in the end were unable to direct these developments to serve the general interest. That is not a specifically German problem nor one of the nineteenth century alone.
99. Cited in Kurt Randolph, "Wellhausen as an Arabist," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Semeia, 25 [1983], 111-55). On Ewald, see T. Witton Davies, Heinrich Ewald: Orientalist and Theologian (1803-1903; London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903). I have not mentioned Max Weber in this analysis, in part because I was treating nineteenth-century German scholarship. Weber appears to take the metaphorical approach to Judaism, transposing its (putative) contradictory tendencies into socio-economic relations of pariah versus inclusive identity, superstitious versus anti-magical practices, etc., and transferring them into a universal economic history in which the resolution and fulfillment of Israelite contradictions is modern Protestant-Capitalistic society. There is much more to Weber's views on Judaism than this, of course, but this strikes me as a significant feature of his work in relationship to my own analysis. See also Tony Fahey, "Max Weber's Ancient Judaism," American Journal of Sociology, 88:1 (1982), 62-87; and Jay A. Holstein, "Max Weber and Biblical Scholarship," Hebrew Union College Annual, 46 (1975), 159-79.
100. Cited in Kurt Randolph, "Wellhausen as an Arabist," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Semeia, 25 [1983], 111-55). On Ewald, see T. Witton Davies, Heinrich Ewald: Orientalist and Theologian (1803-1903; London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903). I have not mentioned Max Weber in this analysis, in part because I was treating nineteenth-century German scholarship. Weber appears to take the metaphorical approach to Judaism, transposing its (putative) contradictory tendencies into socio-economic relations of pariah versus inclusive identity, superstitious versus anti-magical practices, etc., and transferring them into a universal economic history in which the resolution and fulfillment of Israelite contradictions is modern Protestant-Capitalistic society. There is much more to Weber's views on Judaism than this, of course, but this strikes me as a significant feature of his work in relationship to my own analysis. See also Tony Fahey, "Max Weber's Ancient Judaism," American Journal of Sociology, 88:1 (1982), 62-87; and Jay A. Holstein, "Max Weber and Biblical Scholarship," Hebrew Union College Annual, 46 (1975), 159-79.
101. Cited in Kurt Randolph, "Wellhausen as an Arabist," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Semeia, 25 [1983], 111-55). On Ewald, see T. Witton Davies, Heinrich Ewald: Orientalist and Theologian (1803-1903; London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903). I have not mentioned Max Weber in this analysis, in part because I was treating nineteenth-century German scholarship. Weber appears to take the metaphorical approach to Judaism, transposing its (putative) contradictory tendencies into socio-economic relations of pariah versus inclusive identity, superstitious versus anti-magical practices, etc., and transferring them into a universal economic history in which the resolution and fulfillment of Israelite contradictions is modern Protestant-Capitalistic society. There is much more to Weber's views on Judaism than this, of course, but this strikes me as a significant feature of his work in relationship to my own analysis. See also Tony Fahey, "Max Weber's Ancient Judaism," American Journal of Sociology, 88:1 (1982), 62-87; and Jay A. Holstein, "Max Weber and Biblical Scholarship," Hebrew Union College Annual, 46 (1975), 159-79.
102. Cited in Kurt Randolph, "Wellhausen as an Arabist," Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Semeia, 25 [1983], 111-55). On Ewald, see T. Witton Davies, Heinrich Ewald: Orientalist and Theologian (1803-1903; London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1903). I have not mentioned Max Weber in this analysis, in part because I was treating nineteenth-century German scholarship. Weber appears to take the metaphorical approach to Judaism, transposing its (putative) contradictory tendencies into socio-economic relations of pariah versus inclusive identity, superstitious versus anti-magical practices, etc., and transferring them into a universal economic history in which the resolution and fulfillment of Israelite contradictions is modern Protestant-Capitalistic society. There is much more to Weber's views on Judaism than this, of course, but this strikes me as a significant feature of his work in relationship to my own analysis. See also Tony Fahey, "Max Weber's Ancient Judaism," American Journal of Sociology, 88:1 (1982), 62-87; and Jay A. Holstein, "Max Weber and Biblical Scholarship," Hebrew Union College Annual, 46 (1975), 159-79.
103. Keith W. Whitelam's Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (London: Routledge, 1996) takes yet another approach and explores the relationship between Orientalism, Biblical scholarship, and Zionism. Whitelam claims to analyze Biblical scholarship as an Orientalist discourse that was closely linked to British colonialism and Zionism. While some of his specific points are insightful, the work as a whole lacks "discursive depth." Thus, Whitelam all but ignores nineteenth-century Biblical scholarship, and as a result fails to see that Judaism is as much an invention of Biblical scholarship as ancient Israel. Reading the Invention of Ancient Israel we have no sense of Biblical scholarship's discursive functions in nineteenth-century Germany or its links with institutional practices designed to dissolve a Jewish identity. The invention of an ancient Israel or Hebraism served this colonial ideology of dissolution, a fact that is completely absent in Whitelam's work. Indeed, in some places Whitelam makes it appear as if Biblical scholars were dupes of the Zionist movement in inventing an ancient Israel that served Jewish nationalist interests - rather than seeing that Zionists adopted the model of Jewish past promoted by German Biblical scholars. See especially pages 74-78, and Neils Peter Lemche's similar comments: "Clio is Also Among the Muses! Keith W. Whitelam and the History of Palestine: A Review and a Commentary," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (1996), 108. Whitelam's work lacks discursive depth in another respect as well. He claims that Christian Biblical scholars and Jewish Zionists displaced and silenced Palestinian history through giving ancient Israel (but not Judaism, I would add) a central place in that history. By Palestinian history Whitelam generally means the history of the non-Israelite peoples in ancient Palestine, whose history was "silenced" by the Christian and Zionist emphasis on Israel. Whitelam leaves out the earlier impact of Roman Christianity and Islam here. Long before Biblical scholars and Zionists came on the scene, Christians and Muslims had privileged Israelites as the people of the original revelation and had placed Israel's history and divinity at the center of their own imperialist ideologies, silencing not only the history of the other people in Palestine, but local histories in Africa and Asia as well.
104. Keith W. Whitelam's Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (London: Routledge, 1996) takes yet another approach and explores the relationship between Orientalism, Biblical scholarship, and Zionism. Whitelam claims to analyze Biblical scholarship as an Orientalist discourse that was closely linked to British colonialism and Zionism. While some of his specific points are insightful, the work as a whole lacks "discursive depth." Thus, Whitelam all but ignores nineteenth-century Biblical scholarship, and as a result fails to see that Judaism is as much an invention of Biblical scholarship as ancient Israel. Reading the Invention of Ancient Israel we have no sense of Biblical scholarship's discursive functions in nineteenth-century Germany or its links with institutional practices designed to dissolve a Jewish identity. The invention of an ancient Israel or Hebraism served this colonial ideology of dissolution, a fact that is completely absent in Whitelam's work. Indeed, in some places Whitelam makes it appear as if Biblical scholars were dupes of the Zionist movement in inventing an ancient Israel that served Jewish nationalist interests - rather than seeing that Zionists adopted the model of Jewish past promoted by German Biblical scholars. See especially pages 74-78, and Neils Peter Lemche's similar comments: "Clio is Also Among the Muses! Keith W. Whitelam and the History of Palestine: A Review and a Commentary," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (1996), 108. Whitelam's work lacks discursive depth in another respect as well. He claims that Christian Biblical scholars and Jewish Zionists displaced and silenced Palestinian history through giving ancient Israel (but not Judaism, I would add) a central place in that history. By Palestinian history Whitelam generally means the history of the non-Israelite peoples in ancient Palestine, whose history was "silenced" by the Christian and Zionist emphasis on Israel. Whitelam leaves out the earlier impact of Roman Christianity and Islam here. Long before Biblical scholars and Zionists came on the scene, Christians and Muslims had privileged Israelites as the people of the original revelation and had placed Israel's history and divinity at the center of their own imperialist ideologies, silencing not only the history of the other people in Palestine, but local histories in Africa and Asia as well.
105. Compare Norman Daniel's Study of Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh: University Press, 1962), with Jeremy Cohen's The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982).
106. Compare Norman Daniel's Study of Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh: University Press, 1962), with Jeremy Cohen's The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982).
107. See T. O. Beidelman's study, W. Robenson Smith and the Sociological Study of Religion (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974).
108. A Myth of Innocence.
109. I have argued that this Christian myth of innocence has also been used to transform Judaism into a metaphor for native cultures around the world, who are then positioned as oppressive traditions in need of liberation and civilization. Jews and Jewish past, as I already noted, have been "good to think," and this metaphorical extension of Jewish identity and history perhaps constitutes another line of investigation. These arguments were presented in a paper called, "The Real Hidden Victim: Jesus as Perpetrator in Rene Girard's Theory of Violence," at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature in Chicago, IL., "Ideological Criticism Group/Reading, Rhetoric, and Hebrew Bible Joint Sessions" (1994). Some have claimed that these triumphalist notions stem from the Jewish Bible and the myth of conquest, such as Richard Rowling, Israel's Original Sin: A Catholic Confession (San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994). However, even if the Old Testament reflects such a view, which is debatable - see Jon Levenson's "Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament anti-Semitism," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 22:2 (1985), 242-260 - ascribing its application by Christians and Muslims to a Jewish origin is a mythical displacement of power and responsibility onto an authoritative center, comparable to blaming Native Americans for the American tobacco industry because the former introduced the leaf to Europeans.
110. I have argued that this Christian myth of innocence has also been used to transform Judaism into a metaphor for native cultures around the world, who are then positioned as oppressive traditions in need of liberation and civilization. Jews and Jewish past, as I already noted, have been "good to think," and this metaphorical extension of Jewish identity and history perhaps constitutes another line of investigation. These arguments were presented in a paper called, "The Real Hidden Victim: Jesus as Perpetrator in Rene Girard's Theory of Violence," at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature in Chicago, IL., "Ideological Criticism Group/Reading, Rhetoric, and Hebrew Bible Joint Sessions" (1994). Some have claimed that these triumphalist notions stem from the Jewish Bible and the myth of conquest, such as Richard Rowling, Israel's Original Sin: A Catholic Confession (San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994). However, even if the Old Testament reflects such a view, which is debatable - see Jon Levenson's "Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament anti-Semitism," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 22:2 (1985), 242-260 - ascribing its application by Christians and Muslims to a Jewish origin is a mythical displacement of power and responsibility onto an authoritative center, comparable to blaming Native Americans for the American tobacco industry because the former introduced the leaf to Europeans.
111. I have argued that this Christian myth of innocence has also been used to transform Judaism into a metaphor for native cultures around the world, who are then positioned as oppressive traditions in need of liberation and civilization. Jews and Jewish past, as I already noted, have been "good to think," and this metaphorical extension of Jewish identity and history perhaps constitutes another line of investigation. These arguments were presented in a paper called, "The Real Hidden Victim: Jesus as Perpetrator in Rene Girard's Theory of Violence," at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature in Chicago, IL., "Ideological Criticism Group/Reading, Rhetoric, and Hebrew Bible Joint Sessions" (1994). Some have claimed that these triumphalist notions stem from the Jewish Bible and the myth of conquest, such as Richard Rowling, Israel's Original Sin: A Catholic Confession (San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994). However, even if the Old Testament reflects such a view, which is debatable - see Jon Levenson's "Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament anti-Semitism," Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 22:2 (1985), 242-260 - ascribing its application by Christians and Muslims to a Jewish origin is a mythical displacement of power and responsibility onto an authoritative center, comparable to blaming Native Americans for the American tobacco industry because the former introduced the leaf to Europeans.
112. For recent representations of Jews and Judaism by Muslims, see the late Isma'il al Faruqi's work, Islam and the Problem of Israel (Islamic Council of Europe (1980); and Fazlur Rahman's "Islam's Attitude Toward Judaism," The Muslim World, 72 (1982), 1-13.
113. For recent representations of Jews and Judaism by Muslims, see the late Isma'il al Faruqi's work, Islam and the Problem of Israel (Islamic Council of Europe (1980); and Fazlur Rahman's "Islam's Attitude Toward Judaism," The Muslim World, 72 (1982), 1-13.
114. Tal, Christians and Jews, 167-76.
115. See Carlebach, Karl Marx, 125-7; and Bigler, The Politics of German Protestantism: The Rise of the Protestant Church Elite in Prussia 1815-1848 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972). Heine took note of Hengstenberg in his Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen. Writing of the French, he says:
116. See Carlebach, Karl Marx, 125-7; and Bigler, The Politics of German Protestantism: The Rise of the Protestant Church Elite in Prussia 1815-1848 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972). Heine took note of Hengstenberg in his Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen. Writing of the French, he says:
117. In many cases when a writer uses the term "Judaeo-Christian," they often use it in a way that subverts a Jewish voice. An example is Anne McClintock's, "The Return of Female Fetishism and the Fiction of the Phallus," New Formations, 19:1, 1-22, an analysis on the rise of pornography among women with attention to the work of Lacan. At one point, McClintock states that Lacan's narrative on the family "offers a tragic, philosophical replica of the Judaeo-Christian narrative." This sentence is immediately succeeded by the following: "In the male birthing ritual of baptism, a priestly midwife initiates the soul into citizenship of the church" (1993:15). There is certainly nothing Judaeo in "the male birthing ritual of baptism" nor the initiation of the soul into the church by "a priestly midwife," yet McClintock describes this as an element in a "Judeo-Christian narrative." On the same page McClintock states that "the Judaeo-Christian notion of the world as linguistic allegory" is found in the biblical verse: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was made flesh." She quotes here from the Gospel of John, which can hardly be considered as a text that represents a Jewish notion of the world. Unwittingly, I suspect, McClintock submerges and subordinates Jewish tradition into a Christian, privileging Christianity as the representative voice for the "Judaeo-Christian narrative." For similar examples see Edward Said, Beginnings: Intention and Method (New York: Basic Books, 1975), 178-9; and Johannes Fabian, Time and Other (1983), 1-3.
118. In many cases when a writer uses the term "Judaeo-Christian," they often use it in a way that subverts a Jewish voice. An example is Anne McClintock's, "The Return of Female Fetishism and the Fiction of the Phallus," New Formations, 19:1, 1-22, an analysis on the rise of pornography among women with attention to the work of Lacan. At one point, McClintock states that Lacan's narrative on the family "offers a tragic, philosophical replica of the Judaeo-Christian narrative." This sentence is immediately succeeded by the following: "In the male birthing ritual of baptism, a priestly midwife initiates the soul into citizenship of the church" (1993:15). There is certainly nothing Judaeo in "the male birthing ritual of baptism" nor the initiation of the soul into the church by "a priestly midwife," yet McClintock describes this as an element in a "Judeo-Christian narrative." On the same page McClintock states that "the Judaeo-Christian notion of the world as linguistic allegory" is found in the biblical verse: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was made flesh." She quotes here from the Gospel of John, which can hardly be considered as a text that represents a Jewish notion of the world. Unwittingly, I suspect, McClintock submerges and subordinates Jewish tradition into a Christian, privileging Christianity as the representative voice for the "Judaeo-Christian narrative." For similar examples see Edward Said, Beginnings: Intention and Method (New York: Basic Books, 1975), 178-9; and Johannes Fabian, Time and Other (1983), 1-3.
119. In many cases when a writer uses the term "Judaeo-Christian," they often use it in a way that subverts a Jewish voice. An example is Anne McClintock's, "The Return of Female Fetishism and the Fiction of the Phallus," New Formations, 19:1, 1-22, an analysis on the rise of pornography among women with attention to the work of Lacan. At one point, McClintock states that Lacan's narrative on the family "offers a tragic, philosophical replica of the Judaeo-Christian narrative." This sentence is immediately succeeded by the following: "In the male birthing ritual of baptism, a priestly midwife initiates the soul into citizenship of the church" (1993:15). There is certainly nothing Judaeo in "the male birthing ritual of baptism" nor the initiation of the soul into the church by "a priestly midwife," yet McClintock describes this as an element in a "Judeo-Christian narrative." On the same page McClintock states that "the Judaeo-Christian notion of the world as linguistic allegory" is found in the biblical verse: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was made flesh." She quotes here from the Gospel of John, which can hardly be considered as a text that represents a Jewish notion of the world. Unwittingly, I suspect, McClintock submerges and subordinates Jewish tradition into a Christian, privileging Christianity as the representative voice for the "Judaeo-Christian narrative." For similar examples see Edward Said, Beginnings: Intention and Method (New York: Basic Books, 1975), 178-9; and Johannes Fabian, Time and Other (1983), 1-3.
120. This Judeo-Christian invention of Judaism as a religion of the West seems much more problematic than the Zionist invention of a Jewish nation in the East. Jewish links to an ancient homeland in Palestine are pre-Zionist and present in Jewish prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, and history as well as in Christian and Muslim representations of Jews as a people in exile. On the other hand, the Jewish links to the West are of a more recent and of more problematical nature.
121. A similar point has been made by Aijaz Ahmed in his book, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London, 1992); and Arif Dirlik, "The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism" (Critical Inquiry, 1994), 328-56.
122. A similar point has been made by Aijaz Ahmed in his book, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London, 1992); and Arif Dirlik, "The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism" (Critical Inquiry, 1994), 328-56.
123. The trope West, in this case, also masks the role of Christianity both in Europe and in modern colonization. This serves to minimize the distance between Jews and Europe, as well as maximizing that between Arab Christian intellectuals such as Said and European Christians - both of whom otherwise have to acknowledge a common history of subordination over Jews.
124. See his essay, "Michael Walzer's Exodus and Revolution: A Canaanite Reading," in Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds. (London: Verso Books, 1988). See also Isma'il al Faruqi, Islam and the Problem of Israel, where he supports his own model of Judaism as a religion of contradictory combinations through an "objective historian's examination of the Torah" and an "unbiased reading" of the text, which shows that, first, it is composed of "many strata deriving from periods separate by hundreds of years; that its compilation must have been the work of centuries, thus repudiating once and for all the Jewish claim that the text of the Torah is verbatim revelation, as well as the Rabbinical claim, that that text is integrally the one given by Moses as revelation; and, second, that almost "every Torahic narrative or exhortation speaks, as it were, with two mouths. These traditions can best be described as 'universalist' and 'ethnocentrist". . . The universalist stand differs substantially from the ethnocentric in their conception of divinity, of revelation, of piety, of the covenant, of the people or nation, or the Day of Judgment, or morality, of the place of Jerusalem and Palestine in the religion" (1988:38). This view accords with his review of the "Islamic Critique of Judaism" as well (1988:77-80).
125. See his essay, "Michael Walzer's Exodus and Revolution: A Canaanite Reading," in Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds. (London: Verso Books, 1988). See also Isma'il al Faruqi, Islam and the Problem of Israel, where he supports his own model of Judaism as a religion of contradictory combinations through an "objective historian's examination of the Torah" and an "unbiased reading" of the text, which shows that, first, it is composed of "many strata deriving from periods separate by hundreds of years; that its compilation must have been the work of centuries, thus repudiating once and for all the Jewish claim that the text of the Torah is verbatim revelation, as well as the Rabbinical claim, that that text is integrally the one given by Moses as revelation; and, second, that almost "every Torahic narrative or exhortation speaks, as it were, with two mouths. These traditions can best be described as 'universalist' and 'ethnocentrist". . . The universalist stand differs substantially from the ethnocentric in their conception of divinity, of revelation, of piety, of the covenant, of the people or nation, or the Day of Judgment, or morality, of the place of Jerusalem and Palestine in the religion" (1988:38). This view accords with his review of the "Islamic Critique of Judaism" as well (1988:77-80).
126. This may perhaps partly explain Said's neglect of Germany, since he thereby avoids dealing with the German representation of Jews as "Orientals," a transgression of the boundaries he is attempting to construct in his Orientalism.
127. See, David N. Myers, Re-Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Shaye Cohen has shown how both Christian majority scholarship and notions of modern Jewish nationalism influence interpretations of Jewish history in what he terms the "Israeli school" of scholarship. See "The Political and Social History of the Jews in Greco-Roman Antiquity: The State of the Question," in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). For a study of the influence of nationalism on archaeology in the Middle East in general, see Neil Asher Silberman, Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East (New York: Anchor Books, 1989). Compare Zionist Historiography with Romila Thapur's study of Indian nationalist historiography, "Interpretations of Ancient Indian History," History and Theory, 7:3 (1968), 318-335).
128. See, David N. Myers, Re-Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Shaye Cohen has shown how both Christian majority scholarship and notions of modern Jewish nationalism influence interpretations of Jewish history in what he terms the "Israeli school" of scholarship. See "The Political and Social History of the Jews in Greco-Roman Antiquity: The State of the Question," in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). For a study of the influence of nationalism on archaeology in the Middle East in general, see Neil Asher Silberman, Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East (New York: Anchor Books, 1989). Compare Zionist Historiography with Romila Thapur's study of Indian nationalist historiography, "Interpretations of Ancient Indian History," History and Theory, 7:3 (1968), 318-335).
129. See, David N. Myers, Re-Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Shaye Cohen has shown how both Christian majority scholarship and notions of modern Jewish nationalism influence interpretations of Jewish history in what he terms the "Israeli school" of scholarship. See "The Political and Social History of the Jews in Greco-Roman Antiquity: The State of the Question," in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). For a study of the influence of nationalism on archaeology in the Middle East in general, see Neil Asher Silberman, Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East (New York: Anchor Books, 1989). Compare Zionist Historiography with Romila Thapur's study of Indian nationalist historiography, "Interpretations of Ancient Indian History," History and Theory, 7:3 (1968), 318-335).
130. See, David N. Myers, Re-Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995); Shaye Cohen has shown how both Christian majority scholarship and notions of modern Jewish nationalism influence interpretations of Jewish history in what he terms the "Israeli school" of scholarship. See "The Political and Social History of the Jews in Greco-Roman Antiquity: The State of the Question," in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). For a study of the influence of nationalism on archaeology in the Middle East in general, see Neil Asher Silberman, Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East (New York: Anchor Books, 1989). Compare Zionist Historiography with Romila Thapur's study of Indian nationalist historiography, "Interpretations of Ancient Indian History," History and Theory, 7:3 (1968), 318-335).
131. Gyan Prakash, "Orientalism Now," History and Theory, 34:3 (1995), 201. It may also open up new possibilities for understanding the common interests that unite the economic elites of the West and the East through a global capitalism that is far more "transgressive of boarders and authoritative frontiers" than any analysis of representation.