Carlin Romano: Who Took the 'Judeo' Out of 'Judeo-Christian'?
[Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle and literary critic for The Philadelphia Inquirer, teaches philosophy and media theory at the University of Pennsylvania.]
... Political Hebraism. Mark the phrase. Prepare to meet its makers. During four days here [Jerusalem], the new scholarly field flexed its muscles, determined to grow. In this neighborhood, the words "If you will it, it is no dream" pack a certain punch. The Shalem Center, founded by a group of Princetonians who made aliyah to Israel, willed it.
The subject's rise began at a conference organized here in August 2004, the topic more chronologically limited to "Jewish Sources in Early Modern Political Thought." Out of that emerged Hebraic Political Studies, a peer-reviewed journal co-edited by Arthur Eyffinger of the Huygens Institute (The Hague), and political scientist Gordon Schochet of Rutgers University, with the all-round assistance of Associate Editor Meirav Jones, a doctoral student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The fifth and final issue of Volume 1 came out at the tail end of 2006, with lead articles such as Joshua Berman's "Constitution, Class, and the Book of Deuteronomy" and "The Political Thought of John Locke and the Significance of Political Hebraism," by Fania Oz-Salzberger, the keynote speech of the first colloquium by the University of Haifa scholar and daughter of novelist Amos Oz.
The squib on the journal's inside front cover indicates its broad mission: "Hebraic Political Studies is an international, peer-reviewed journal that aims to evaluate the place of the Jewish textual tradition, alongside the traditions of Greece and Rome, in political history and the history of political thought. Hebraic Political Studies publishes articles that explore the political concepts of the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, the significance of reflections on Judaic sources in the history of ideas, and the role of these sources in the history of the West."
Yet December's invited papers and discussion demonstrated that "political Hebraism" poses — what would you expect around here? — uncertain borders. Was the Hebrew political tradition the same as the Jewish? Should the "Judeo-Christian tradition" itself be questioned? "I don't completely understand what 'political Hebraism' is," admitted Bernard M. Levinson, a professor of Jewish studies and Hebrew Bible at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, at the first session.
Co-editor Schochet tried to address the mystery in opening remarks, after paying tribute to pioneers of the field such as Michael Walzer in his book Exodus and Revolution (Basic Books, 1985). Schochet expressed the hope that political Hebraism's gestation period would continue. He urged a Wittgensteinian development according to the principle of "meaning as use" — a field that would be "what people make of it." He expressed pleasure that disagreements about the subject, and what the journal should include, kept mushrooming....
Read entire article at Chronicle of Higher Education
... Political Hebraism. Mark the phrase. Prepare to meet its makers. During four days here [Jerusalem], the new scholarly field flexed its muscles, determined to grow. In this neighborhood, the words "If you will it, it is no dream" pack a certain punch. The Shalem Center, founded by a group of Princetonians who made aliyah to Israel, willed it.
The subject's rise began at a conference organized here in August 2004, the topic more chronologically limited to "Jewish Sources in Early Modern Political Thought." Out of that emerged Hebraic Political Studies, a peer-reviewed journal co-edited by Arthur Eyffinger of the Huygens Institute (The Hague), and political scientist Gordon Schochet of Rutgers University, with the all-round assistance of Associate Editor Meirav Jones, a doctoral student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The fifth and final issue of Volume 1 came out at the tail end of 2006, with lead articles such as Joshua Berman's "Constitution, Class, and the Book of Deuteronomy" and "The Political Thought of John Locke and the Significance of Political Hebraism," by Fania Oz-Salzberger, the keynote speech of the first colloquium by the University of Haifa scholar and daughter of novelist Amos Oz.
The squib on the journal's inside front cover indicates its broad mission: "Hebraic Political Studies is an international, peer-reviewed journal that aims to evaluate the place of the Jewish textual tradition, alongside the traditions of Greece and Rome, in political history and the history of political thought. Hebraic Political Studies publishes articles that explore the political concepts of the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, the significance of reflections on Judaic sources in the history of ideas, and the role of these sources in the history of the West."
Yet December's invited papers and discussion demonstrated that "political Hebraism" poses — what would you expect around here? — uncertain borders. Was the Hebrew political tradition the same as the Jewish? Should the "Judeo-Christian tradition" itself be questioned? "I don't completely understand what 'political Hebraism' is," admitted Bernard M. Levinson, a professor of Jewish studies and Hebrew Bible at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, at the first session.
Co-editor Schochet tried to address the mystery in opening remarks, after paying tribute to pioneers of the field such as Michael Walzer in his book Exodus and Revolution (Basic Books, 1985). Schochet expressed the hope that political Hebraism's gestation period would continue. He urged a Wittgensteinian development according to the principle of "meaning as use" — a field that would be "what people make of it." He expressed pleasure that disagreements about the subject, and what the journal should include, kept mushrooming....