Colloquium of the EAJS

‘Hebrew Linguistic Thought and its transmission in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times’

7-9 July 2008, Oxford, Wolfson College

Convenor: Judith Olszowy-Schlanger

The 2008 Summer Colloquium of the EAJS was held at Wolfson College, Oxford, from 7 to 9 July 2008, with the generous support from the Rothschild Foundation Europe. The theme of this year’s colloquium was the recent developments in the study of the history of Hebrew linguistic ideas prior to the modern Hebrew ‘renaissance’, with the emphasis on the transmission of linguistic ideas through time and space among different Jewish communities, but also between Jews and their Arab and Christian neighbours. Hebrew grammar and lexicography were studied as a meeting point between different cultures and religious currents. A particular place was given to the question of the production of ‘linguistic tools’ (that is books conceived to facilitate language learning) and on pedagogical methods used in teaching, both private and institutionalized, throughout the centuries.

History of Hebrew grammatical tradition has held an important place in Jewish Studies from its 19^th century inception, but it is in the last two or three decades that we have witnessed a remarkable resurgence of scholarly interest in the field. The history of medieval Hebrew linguistics received a fresh impetus following the renewal of interest in original manuscripts, and notably from important discoveries made in the Firkovitch and Cairo Genizah collections. Christian Hebraism for its part is often studied with regards to its role in the shaping of European modern. However, despite these recent developments, scholars work in isolation, there are no international venues devoted specifically to the history of Hebrew linguistics in its various aspects and periods. As well, the discipline still lacks basic research tools, such as an exhaustive bibliography of the field, or a complete inventory of linguistic manuscripts and early printed books. This year’s colloquium offered the scholars working on the history of Hebrew grammar and linguistics in different periods and cultural contexts an opportunity to echange ideas and elaborate common methodological approches to the analysis of the sources.

The conference started with a key-note speech by Geoffrey Khan, University of Cambridge, who gave an overview of the ‘Karaite medieval tradition of Hebrew grammar’ with a focus on the discovery of previously unknown texts in the collections of Oriental manuscripts, namely in Firkovitch collections in St. Petersburg and in various collections emanating from the Cairo Genizah. Karaite grammar was also the subject of the paper ‘A Karaite paedagogical grammar of biblical Hebrew’ of Nadia Vidro, University of Cambridge, who focused on the ‘alamat (symbols) system of verb description and its role in the teaching of grammar. Maria Angeles Gallego, CSIC, Madrid, dealth with some aspects of the Karaite approach to the origins and nature of language, in her paper ‘Linguistic conventions in the thought of Abû al-Faraj Hârûn ibn al-Faraj’. The so-called classical Spanish school of Hebrew grammar also benefitted in recent years from a number of new discoveries. Mauro Perani, University of Bologne, presented the ‘Fagments of linguistic works in the so-called ‘Italian Genizah’, and notably some manuscripts fragments of previously unknown Hebrew translations of the Arabic works of Jonah ibn Janah. Jose Matinez Delgado, University of Granada, analysed ‘Morphology versus meaning: biblical mixed roots and the Andalusian Hebrew lexicographical theories’, in the light of newly discovered manuscripts. The work on manuscripts inspired Judith Kogel, IRHT, Paris, to review the Hebrew grammatical terminology, and to use it to reconstruct the history of the grammatical thought. She presented her project in her paper: ‘Towards a “mapping” of the Hebrew grammatical terminology of the Middle Ages: a history of transmission’. Since the Middle Ages, Hebrew grammar was not an exclusive domain of Jewish scholars. Early on, Christian scholars in Western Europe realised the importance of the knowledge of the Hebrew language for their quest of the original text of the Bible. Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, EPHE, IRHT,Paris, presented a newly discovered ‘Christian grammar of Hebrew in a thirteenth-century manuscript’. In a similar vein, Marco Bertagna, Ca’ Foscari, Venice/EPHE, Paris, studied fifteeth-century Christian annotations on a manuscript of the dictionary by Salomon ibn Parhon, in his paper ‘The Latin and Hebrew notes to the Mahberet he-‘Arukh in the MS Or. 221 of the Biblioteca Marciana (Venice)’. From the sixteenth century onwards, the engagement of Christian scholars in the study of Hebrew grammar is essential. Sophie Mesguisch-Kessler, University Paris III, gave a key-note speech on the major issues of the Christian hebraism of the Renaissance. Saverio Campanini, University of Bologne/Freie Universität, Berlin, analysed the importance of the Hebrew studies for ‘The quest for the holiest alphabet in the Renaissance’. The interaction between Christian and Hebrew linguistic ideas were discussed in the paper of Silvia di Donato, Ca’ Foscari, Venice, entitled ‘Philosophical elements in Miqneh Avram of Abraham de Balmes’ and of Jesus de Prado Plumed, University Complutense, Madrid/EPHE, Paris: ‘Quorum primus est demodo legendi & pronunciandi: teaching Hebrew phonetics in Early Modern Spain’. Irene Zwiep, University of Amsterdam, introduced us into a hitherto unknown fascinating world of Hebrew learning among Yiddish speaking Jews in the Netherlands, in her paper ‘Mafteah leshon ha-qodesh: a Hebrew grammar in Yiddish and Jewish-Christian hebraism in eighteenth-century Europe’. The last session included three papers dealing with a practical application of linguistic ideas in the field of exegesis, translation and word creation. Karolien Vermeulen, University of Antwerp, spoke about the use of exegetical figures in rabbinic literature, in her paper ‘When the Goyim’s game grow into grammar: on the transmission of ‘paronomasia”. Ronny Vollandt, University of Cambridge, shared with us some of his recent discoveries concerning the translation of the Pentateuch into Arabic, in ‘Some observations on early Judaeo-Arabic translation fragments of the Pentateuch from the Genizah: Rabbanite versus Karaite tradition’. Ilana Wartenberg, Paideia, Stockholm, spoke about the transmission of Arabic scientfic literature into Hebrew and the need to coin new terminology, in ‘The naissance of the medieval Hebrew mathematical language’.

The main aim of the colloquium: the fruitful discussion between scholars dealing with history of Hebrew linguistic ideas in different periods was clearly achieved. All the participants agreed that the coherence of the approaches and the importance of the research questions dealt with during the colloquium deserve a wider circulation. Publication of the proceedings of the colloquium has been scheduled for 2009.

The Cultures of Maimonideanism: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought

8th EAJS Summer Colloquium, Wolfson College, Oxford, July 16th to 19th, 2007

The 2007 EAJS Summer Colloquium convened at Oxford, Wolfson College, from July 16 to 19. It was organized by Gad Freudenthal (CNRS, Paris) and James Robinson (University of Chicago), and was attended by twenty-two scholars from Europe, Israel and the United States. We were also fortunate to have one local participant, the poet Philip Kuhn, who read from his kaddish poems on Maimonides – the man and his image.

The colloquium opened with brief remarks by Gad Freudenthal, who emphasized the therapeutic qualities of the Master Guide. Frank Griffel (Yale University) followed with a look at Maimonidean rationalism and ideas of enlightenment in the context of the Islamic-Arabic world, with special reference to al-Ghazali. All other lectures focused on reception and adaptation in later centuries. The presentations are given here in the order of the Colloquium:

Haim Kreisel (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), “Maimonideanism in Medieval Provence: Levi ben Avraham’s Approach to the Torah”; Judah Galinsky (Bar-Ilan University), “Rabbi Moshe of Coucy – Maimonidean or Anti-Maimonidean? Remarks on Sefer Misvot Gadol and the Reception of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah in Northern France”; Jonathan Dauber (Yeshiva University), “Early Kabbalah as a Culture of Maimonideanism”; Tamás Visi (Kabinet Judaistiky, Palacky University, Olomouc), “Maimonideanism in the Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries”; Maud N. Kozodoy (The Jewish Theological Seminary), “No Perpetual Enemies: Maimonideanism at the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century”; Abraham Melamed (The University of Haifa), “Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles: From Elite to Popular Culture”; Yaacob Dweck (Princeton University), “Maimonideanism in Leon Modena”; Mor Altshuler (Carmey Yosef), “R. Joseph Karo — a Sixteenth-Century Maimonidean”; Uri Melammed (The Hebrew University, The Hebrew Language Academy), “Maimonideanism in Yemen”; Abraham Socher (Oberlin College), “The Spectre of Maimonidean Radicalism in the German Haskalah”; Andrea Schatz (Princeton University), “The ‘Guide’ with the ‘Strong Hand’: The Early Maskilim and Maimonides, the Talmudist”; George Kohler (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), “The Rediscovery of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed by German Scholars in the 19th Century”; Menachem Kellner (The University of Haifa), “Which Maimonides? Varieties of Maimonides Readings in the ‘Lithuanian Yeshiva Movement’”; Dov Schwartz (Bar-Ilan University), “Maimonides in the Religious Zionist Tradition”; Michah Gottlieb (New York University), “Varieties of Anti-Maimonideanism”; Hanoch Ben-Pazi (Bar-Ilan University), “Eros Within the Limits of Mere Reason. Or: On the Maimonidean Limits of Modern Jewish Philosophy”; Benjamin Wurgaft (University of California, Berkeley), “The Uses of Maimonides in Modern Jewish Thought: from Solomon Maimon to Strauss and Levinas.”

In addition to the formal papers – each given an hour so that ideas could be developed in full – responses were given and discussions led by Görge Hasselhoff (Ruhr University, Bochum) and Roberto Gatti (University of Genoa). James Robinson offered concluding remarks which were followed by a round-table discussion. All agreed that the Colloquium was a great success and that a shift in scholarship is long overdue – from Maimonides himself to the many ideas, movements, traditions and mentalities that he inspired.

The Colloquium proceedings have been published in Supplements to The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Volume 9, 2009 (online: http://www.jewish-studies.info/files/maimonidesbrill.pdf)

James Robinson, University of Chicago

Gad Freudenthal, CNRS, Paris

The Teaching of Hebrew in European Universities

7th EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 18th to 20th July 2005

The 2005 Summer Colloquium, held at Yarnton Manor near Oxford, from 18 to 20 July, with generous assistance from the British Academy, was devoted to the question of the teaching of Hebrew in European universities. While a number of papers addressed aspects of the Hebrew language and its teaching, participants also discussed the present state of Hebrew in European universities. It very soon emerged that this is a timely, indeed urgent, subject for discussion. Speaker after a speaker painted a bleak picture of rapid and dramatic decline in the range and depth of Hebrew study available to students in different European countries (the sole exception being France). While not all European countries were represented at the Colloquium, there was no reason to suppose that the picture would be significantly different in the others.

Summaries of the various papers are given below, but the urgent concerns voiced at the colloquium demand to be given prominence at the outset of this report. The steep decline in Hebrew teaching was attributed not to a lack of interest but to reforms of university education, mainly stemming from the Bologna Accord, and to a funding crisis. Given the central place of Hebrew within Jewish Studies, the following manifesto was agreed by those present:

“We consider the teaching of Hebrew to be necessary for many central aspects of Jewish Studies, and therefore we call on the membership of the European Association of Jewish Studies to do all they can to ensure that in each country in Europe there is at least one centre where Hebrew is taught in depth.”

I shall come back to this manifesto at the end of my report. I have placed the text at the beginning to ensure maximum publicity and in the hope of stimulating an active debate and indeed some action.

The colloquium coincided with the publication by Peeters (Leuven) of the volume Jewish Studies and the European Academic World, edited by Albert van der Heide and Irene Zwiep, and containing the plenary lectures read at the VIIth Congress of EAJS in Amsterdam, July 2002. Albert van der Heide presented copies of the book to the three contributors present (Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Mauro Perani and Nicholas de Lange); the lectures contain a good deal of information about Hebrew teaching that is relevant to the discussions of the colloquium.

Turning now to the papers read at the colloquium, Mauro Perani (University of Bologna at Ravenna) began the proceedings with an illustrated lecture on “The Italian Geniza”, the name given to the extraordinarily rich discoveries of Hebrew manuscript materials reused in book bindings, mainly of notarial registers and cartularies of the later sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Over 8000 fragments had been discovered so far.

Mauro Perani also delivered a paper on “The teaching of Hebrew language in Italy: Bible versus Judaism”. After the Council of Trent the study of the Hebrew Bible was opposed by the Catholic Church, and Hebrew largely disappeared from the universities and from Italian culture for some four centuries. Such Hebrew study as existed in the universities during this period was limited to biblical exegesis, and was cut off from Jewish studies. In the 19th century, following the First Vatican Council, the faculties of theology within public universities were abolished and theological study was henceforth confined to religious seminaries. As for Jewish scholars, they were expelled from the educational system under the 1938 Fascist racial laws, and so the remaining link between Hebrew and Jewish studies was severed. From the 1960s and the Second Vatican Council, however, the climate changed again, and there was a dramatic upsurge of interest in Judaism, leading to a strong revival of interest in Hebrew finding exaggerated expression in what the speaker called the ebraico-latria of some ‘interlinear’ Italian translations of the Old Testament, embodying such calqued phrases as ‘sacerdotare’ or ‘nell’osso di questo giorno’ (‘in the bone of this day’ rendering be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh).

After a period of renewal and expansion, Hebrew study is threatened again by the recent reform of the university system. Hebrew is only present in the undergraduate programme in the course ‘L-Or/08’, which contains Hebrew language and literature and every form of Jewish culture from the beginning to the present day. This course is taught in thirteen universities; however in only two of these (Turin and Venice) does the presence of a team of teachers allow students to follow an articulated curriculum including Rabbinic Hebrew. Seven universities teach Modern Hebrew with the help of native speakers. The new credit system marks a serious impoverishment: whereas previously pupils studied Hebrew for three hours a week over a whole year, a credit now represents 6 hours of study, so that a pupil with five credits in Hebrew will only have had 30 hours of teaching. Professor Perani mentioned plans for a new Masters qualification on the conservation and evaluation of the Jewish cultural heritage, to be taught in Italian and English at the Ravenna branch of the University of Bologna.

W.J. van Bekkum (Groningen), in his presentation entitled “The drama of Hebrew Studies in modern European society: the case of the Netherlands”, discussed the dangers facing Jewish studies in the Netherlands and in Europe generally. The speaker singled out problems over funding, and the difficulty of finding an adequate definition of Jewish studies within the local academic context. On the credit side, a growing interest within Dutch society in Islamic and Arabic issues could potentially provide an opportunity to expand the teaching of Judaism.

In the first of the two keynote lectures Ora Schwarzwald (Bar Ilan) spoke of “The linguistic unity of Hebrew: Colloquial trends and academic needs”. She began by sketching briefly the different periods of Hebrew, and considering the place of earlier phases of the language, particularly Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, in Modern Hebrew, as well as the input of foreign languages such as Arabic and English. After discussing in detail some linguistic features of Modern Hebrew, Professor Schwarzwald commented on the prevalence of so-called ‘thin’ or impoverished language (lashon razah) in Israel today, which she explained with reference to a number of factors: a feeling of power after the 1967 war; American influence; television; secularization; and changing educational programmes and methods. She went on to discuss two approaches to language teaching, the ‘textual’ and the ‘communicative-pragmatic’ methods. The prevalence of the latter contributes to the impoverishment of the language and to a poor knowledge of the classical Hebrew sources. Hebrew has also lost its previous dominance in Jewish studies: a comparison of periodical articles listed in 1970 and in 2000 shows that whereas in 1970 42% of articles were in Hebrew and 33% were in English, in 2000 the respective figures were 24% and 48%. Professor Schwarzwald concluded her presentation with some instructive and entertaining examples of contemporary spoken and written Hebrew.

Yishai Neuman (INALCO, Paris), in his paper “A lexically creative approach to the teaching of Modern Hebrew as a foreign language”, explained a method of teaching Hebrew grammar that he has been developing. Hebrew’s morpho-syntax and morpho-semantics are much more transparent in Modern Hebrew than they were in pre-modern Hebrew. Modern Hebrew, because of its greater morphological regularity, should be used to facilitate the acquisition of lexicon, in preference to Biblical Hebrew, which is still the starting-point for many students because of the orientation of many of the teachers.

A discussion on European issues in the university teaching of Hebrew was dominated by the bleak picture painted by Mauro Perani, confirmed for Spain by Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Complutensian University, Cambridge, Mass.). Semitic philology, he explained, which had previously brought Hebrew and Arabic together under the same roof, had now been divided up, and the valuable link with Arabic had been lost. Meanwhile Modern Hebrew was being weakened since, for budgetary reasons, lecturers were no longer brought from Israel. A link with comparative religion has not solved any internal problems, and numbers are threatened by a shortage of employment opportunities for graduates. The greatest concentration is in Madrid, with five full and five associate professors. Granada has four associate professors. Most of the four Semitics professors in Barcelona are working on other Semitic languages, not directly on Hebrew, and in Salamanca both professors who teach Hebrew are historians. The state-funded research institute CSIC does not provide teaching, but conducts high-level research, including biblical Greek and Judaeo-Spanish. The Bologna Accord imposes a move of Hebrew away from a Jewish Studies major towards Asian languages, where it will probably attract fewer students and will be cut off from the Jewish cultural context.

The Dutch situation was reconsidered, and some positive points were tentatively put forward. The watering down of subjects could potentially be an opportunity to introduce more students to some elements of Hebrew and Jewish studies. Even if there is a lowering of standards at BA level under the Bologna system, the MA is more specialised (although it is hard to introduce a language at this stage)

Nicholas de Lange (Cambridge) sketched the position in the United Kingdom. While a number of universities have introduced courses or even centres of Jewish studies, most of these do not offer Hebrew language. This is clearly deeply unsatisfactory. In London, SOAS offers only Modern Hebrew, taught by a lector; University College, the only British university to have a department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, teaches Biblical, Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew. Outside London, only Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester offer the full range of periods of Hebrew. All British universities that teach Hebrew rely on very limited state funding or private benefactions, and the outlook does not look very bright.

Sonia Barzilay (Paris 8, Centre National de l’Hébreu) gave a much more rosy account of the situation in France, the one European country where there is still a large and thriving Jewish community. Jewish children study Hebrew either in private Jewish schools or (in the case of state school pupils) at Talmud Tora. Hebrew is available as one among a choice of foreign languages in schools, and is examined in the baccalauréat, and indeed in the competitive examinations for teachers, the CAPES and agrégation. Several universities and theological colleges (whose degrees are recognised as the equivalent of a university degree) teach courses in Hebrew, and in addition a Modern Hebrew is offered in a number of others. There is a significant student demand for Modern Hebrew.

It was agreed that the brief sentence on European universities in the article on Hebrew language in the recent Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies edited by Martin Goodman did not do justice to the subject, and several participants felt that there should be a “European Handbook” in which the specifically European dimensions of Hebrew and Jewish studies could be presented.

In a session devoted to Modern Hebrew literature Albert van der Heide (Amsterdam) spoke on “Agnon in class. Revisions and the development of modern literary Hebrew”. Taking examples from Agnon’s own revisions of his work in successive editions, he showed how the changes could be used to teach about the nuances of the language. Glenda Abramson (Oxford), in “Language and intimation in Mul Haya‘arot by A. B. Yehoshua”, demonstrated some ways in which close study of the vocabulary of a literary text (in this case particularly words indicating fire, flame, burning, etc.) could be used to enhance the teaching of the language. She also gave other examples of works in which the authors’ linguistic games and devices have proved helpful in the selection of literary texts for study, particularly for beginner students, without sacrificing the texts’ aesthetic principles.

In the second Keynote Lecture, Angel Sáenz-Badillos spoke on “The teaching of Hebrew language in Europe and America: a comparative approach”. Professor Sáenz-Badillos described courses and resources at sixteen American universities known for their Hebrew or Jewish studies teaching. Almost none had a department of Hebrew: Hebrew was mainly taught in the context of Near Eastern Language and Civilization or Near Eastern Studies. With just a few exceptions, Hebrew was not taught as a Semitic language, or from a linguistic or philological viewpoint, but as a tool for the understanding of texts. It was generally accepted that texts could be adequately studied in translation, with study of the original reserved for specialists. There was a clear focus either on Biblical or on Modern Hebrew; Rabbinic and Medieval Hebrew were only rarely available. In the case of a field like medieval Hebrew poetry the emphasis was exclusively on literary, historical or cultural aspects; there was almost no research on critical editions or linguistic studies. The students were mainly Jewish, or in the case of some Biblical Hebrew programmes, members of Christian churches. Several associations existed to aid the university teaching of Hebrew. Summing up the differences between Europe and the United States with regard to Hebrew teaching, Professor Sáenz-Badillos spoke first of the different historical background, sociological situation and academic traditions. The student body was different too (and in particular with the exception of France there was not the same preponderance of Jewish students in Europe). There was a greater linguistic interest (in philological study of Hebrew as a Semitic language, or in the history of the Hebrew language and of the philological study of Hebrew), and a more conservative approach to the study of methodology. In recent times Europeans had discovered the contribution of the Jews to the culture of the European countries and saw it as part of their own culture. There was a much greater interest in the medieval period than in America. Jewish studies had grown in Europe recently, but not to the same degree as in the USA; Israeli Hebrew was being taught increasingly in European universities. It remained to be seen what the effect of European convergence would be.

Sonia Barzilay treated participants to a demonstration of two CD ROMs for the teaching of Biblical and Modern Hebrew with which she had been involved in preparing (the former in conjunction with Mireille Hadas-Lebel). Both are available in Hebrew and English. [See www.yodea.com]

Finally, Rachel S. Harris (Oxford/SUNY Albany) spoke on “Cultural negotiations with the audience: the case of Haim Gouri’s Hanishkahim”. She spoke of the different versions in which the poems had been published and of different possible ideological interpretations; and presented her own English translation with comments.

The colloquium concluded with a summing-up of the discussions, and an attempt to draw some lessons for the future. This final session again noted the urgency of addressing the negative current trends, as described above. It was judged important for the membership of EAJS to engage actively in this debate, and to do their best to ensure the survival of Hebrew study at a serious level in each country, as mentioned in the manifesto cited at the beginning.

Nicholas de Lange

Convenor

Epigonism and the Dynamic of Jewish Culture.

6th EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 5th to 8th July 2004

In the lovely setting of Yarnton Manor, the EAJS once again hosted last year’s Summer Colloquium, entitled “Epigonism and the dynamic of Jewish culture”. The venue was instigated by Shlomo Berger and Irene Zwiep, both working in the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies of the Universiteit van Amsterdam. The colloquium’s section on Maimonides and Maimonideanism was under the direction of Steven Harvey of Bar-Ilan University.

The colloquium intended to discuss the role of epigones as ‘carriers of culture’ (rather than as second-rate artists, as common usage has it), and of ‘epigonism’ as a dynamic force in the development and dissemination of cultural codes. By introducing Epigonism as a dynamic force rather than dismissing it as an inevitable, secondary stage in cultural development, the organizers hope the study of the ‘the epigonic’ will finally rid itself of its apologetic tendencies. Scholars no longer face the need to rehabilitate ‘their’ epigone author, or to reassess and redefine the existing canon in which that author is supposed (not) to have operated. Exploring the consequences of this new concept may help us realize that culture is not shaped by great minds alone, and thus eventually result in a more appropriate model for writing Jewish intellectual history.

Twenty participants from Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, the US, Canada and Israel explored the topic in relation to the history of philosophy and science (from Maimonides, via Nissim of Marseilles, to Albert Einstein), literature (from Ibn Zabara to Perl), history, music, and the arts (from urban paradigms in rabbinic literature to contemporary painting). The outcome was a critical, highly interdisciplinary debate on the definition of (Jewish) epigonism and its constituents, and on the boundaries and possibilities of paradigms in Jewish intellectual history in the broadest sense. Themes that came up in the course of the discussion included: epigonism versus schools of thought; epigones versus great contemporaries; choice and determinism in epigonism; the creativity of epigonism; epigonism and innovation; epigonic genres; Jewish epigonism in universal debates, and the ‘Jewish genius’. The colloquium opened with a lecture-cum-recital by Zechariah Plavin (Jerusalem Academy of Music) on the theme of Jewish originality (and non-originality) in concert art music.

As the first step towards further co-operation and implementation of the new paradigm, the results of the conference will be published as the Studia Rosenthaliana Yearbook 2006 (Leuven: Peeters). The volume will include revised versions of most of the papers presented at the colloquium, plus invited contributions which will explore the relevance of the paradigm for European intellectual history in general. [Note: Now published as Studia Rosenthaliana Volume 40, 2007. Contents and abstracts available online here: http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=issue&journal_code=SR&issue=0&vol=40]

Shlomo Berger and Irene Zwiep, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Teaching the Holocaust in Higher Education in Europe.

5th EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 2nd to 4th July 2003.

This year’s EAJS/ECUTJC Summer Colloquium, on Teaching the Holocaust in Higher Education in Europe, was convened by Professor Jonathan Webber and Dr Isabel Wollaston (both of the Department of Theology, University of Birmingham) and took place from 2 to 4 July 2003 at Yarnton Manor, Oxford.

There were twenty-eight participants who came from Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Sweden and the UK. The colloquium was designed as a small, informal roundtable with plenty of opportunity for discussion. What made the Colloquium particularly stimulating, and indeed provoked lively discussion, was the fact that the participants came from a wide range of disciplines including history and the philosophy of history, Jewish studies, literature, museum studies, sociology and social anthropology, social psychology, theology, and included individuals working at Holocaust memorial sites and Holocaust educational outreach.

The bulk of the Colloquium took the form of seven sessions, introduced by brief presentations, on the following topics:

*        Reading holocaust testimony

*        Religious approaches to the Holocaust

*        Alternative models for teaching the Holocaust: history and social psychology

*        Is history the foundational discipline in teaching the Holocaust?

*        Intellectual and practical cooperation between universities and Holocaust museums in Holocaust education

*        Practical issues in Holocaust pedagogy in a German setting

*        Interdisciplinary teaching of the Holocaust from a British perspective

These sessions were interspersed with three plenary lectures which took a more conventional lecture format followed by discussion and were delivered by specially invited guests:

Professor Jörn Rüsen (President, Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut, Essen), ‘Is it possible to make sense of the Holocaust by historical thinking?’; Professor Egidijus Aleksandravicius (Professor of History, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas), ‘Absorbing the Holocaust into Lithuanian history and historiography’; and Dr Martha Kurkowska-Budzan (Institute of History, Jagiellonian University, Kraków), ‘Teaching the Holocaust as contemporary history in present-day Poland’.

The Colloquium concluded with a discussion of possible areas of future cooperation. Participants particularly appreciated the opportunity to meet with and exchange experiences and ideas with colleagues from throughout Europe who were working in similar areas, albeit in different disciplines, and expressed the hope that a colloquium along these lines could become an annual even (with each future colloquium exploring a different aspect related to teaching about the Holocaust and being held at a different location within Europe).

It was agreed that it would be beneficial if, as consequence of this Colloquium, a more formal network of those with an academic interest in holocaust education, whether working in universities, museums, or for NGOs, could be developed; and it was unanimously agreed that the convenors should set up a new European Association for Holocaust Studies, specifically to draw in people working in a wide range of disciplines across Europe, both east and west. The convenors are also exploring the possibility of publishing the proceedings of the Colloquium in the near future.

The convenors are grateful to the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies for providing the venue, and for financial support from the British Academy, the EAJS, the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies (Oxford) and the Department of Theology, University of Birmingham. We are grateful also to Karina Stern, of the EAJS secretariat, and to the staff of Yarnton Manor for ensuring the smooth and elegant running of the Colloquium.

Jonathan Webber

Isabel Wollaston