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

Issues in Jewish Philosophy

4th EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 23rd to 26th July 2001

When the EAJS was founded almost exactly 20 years ago, in May 1981, it saw as its first task the organization of international congresses once every three or four years in one of the countries of Europe. A further step was taken after the 1994 congress in Copenhagen, when it became clear that the intervals of four years between congresses were too long to keep interest in the Association going. It was then that a permanent Secretariat was founded, the Newsletter began to (re)appear in its present form, and a start was made to organize the annual Summer Colloquia at Yarnton Manor, home of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Cooperation with the Jerusalem-based International Centre for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization led to a special EAJS/ECUTJC formula for these colloquia. They should be devoted to well-defined topics within Jewish Studies and, unlike many other academic meetings of a similar nature, their programme should feature explicitly the teaching of the subject at hand. In addition, the papers to be given at the colloquia should be scheduled in such a way that there would be plenty of time for discussion and the exchange of ideas between scholars devoted to the same specialization. It is difficult to say how much these lofty ideals have actually been realized, but they seem to have greatly benefited the atmosphere of the colloquia which have taken place so far.

The first colloquium in 1996, on “Medieval Jewish Bible Exegesis”, was considered a great success by all participants, who were pleasantly surprised by the stimulating format of limited presentations and ample discussion. The next was devoted to the study and teaching of “Classical Rabbinic Judaism” and took place in much the same atmosphere. 1998 was the year of the Toledo Congress, and plans for the 1999 Colloquium could unfortunately not be realized. But last year’s colloquium on “Medieval Hebrew Poetry” was so successful that the participants decided to repeat the event in the near future, with the result that another colloquium on “Medieval Hebrew Poetry” is scheduled for next February in Granada; it is conceived as the next link in a chain of future colloquia on Hebrew poetry under the auspices of the EAJS.

This year’s Summer Colloquium, on “Issues in Jewish Philosophy”, was organized by Renier Munk (Amsterdam Center for Jewish Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). Fifteen scholars participated, both medievalists and scholars of modern Jewish thought. The combination of medieval and modern philosophy was intentional and elicited many favourable comments by the participants, although the medieval section was not completely unanimous on this point. In any case, the discussions revealed once again that not only is the study of philosophy a historical discipline, but it occasions creative thinking as well, whereby the impact of current debates is obvious.

In the opening session on Monday Alexander Samely (Manchester) philosophized on “The Temporality of Textual Meaning”, and Arthur Hyman (Yeshiva University) addressed “The Problem of Religious Language in Medieval philosophy”, with special attention to the contribution of Gersonides. The afternoon was rounded off by the festive presentation of Howard Kreisel’s new book Prophecy. The History of an Idea in Medieval Hewish Philosophy, which appeared as no. 8 of the Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, edited by Renier Munk.

During a long Tuesday Norman Solomon (Oxford) spoke on “The Changing Concept of Torah”, Sara Klein-Braslavy (Tel Aviv) on “The Solution of the Apories in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord”, and Steven Harvey (Bar-Ilan) presented, as a first instalment of his Haqdamology, a lecture on “The Author’s Introduction as a Key to Understanding Trends in Jewish Philosophy: The Pre-Maimonideans”.

Matthias Morgenstern (Tübingen) described “The ‘Marxist’ Elements in Isaac Breuer’s Philosophy of Religion” and Francesca Albertini (Fribourg) spoke on “Death as a Phenomenological Problem in Franz Rosenzweig’s Star of Redemption”. The day’s programme, which also included a discussion on the teaching of Jewish philosophy in academic setting, chaired by Martin Goodman (Oxford), closed with Mauro Zonta’s presentation of “Hebrew Scholasticism in Fifteenth-century Italy and Spain”.

On Wednesday Gad Freudenthal (CNRS Paris) discussed Maimonides’ ‘astral indeterminism’ in his lecture on “The Four Globes in Guide II: 9-10”, and James Robinson (Harvard University) extensively described “Natural Science in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes”.

Resianne Fontaine (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) described the motif of “The Three Worlds in Judah ha-Cohen’s Midrash ha-Hokhmah” and pointed to parallels with Joachim da Fiore’s eschatological prophecies. Howard Kreisel (Ben Gurion University) traced the difficulties for the Jewish scholars of medieval Provence in acquiring philosophical knowledge and discussed the role of “Levi ben Abraham’s Livyat Hen” in that process. Tamra Wright (London School of Jewish Studies) contrasted Levinas’s view on “The Scandal of Theodicy” with other moral and existential views on the problem of evil.

The colloquium concluded with a discussion on the present state of research in Jewish philosophy. All participants agreed that, however the future of the discipline develops, the free and leisurely talk on the many issues of their interest as was possible during these three days, had been a most stimulating experience for everyone there, albeit an occasion all too rarely available. The EAJS and the Centre for Jewish Philosophy are looking for ways to honour the participants’ wish to have this colloquium on Jewish philosophy ‘institutionalized’ by organizing a follow-up in the early summer of 2003.

Albert van der Heide

University of Leiden

Medieval Hebrew Poetry in Its Religious and Secular Context

3rd EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 24th to 27th July 2000.

Between 24 and 27 July 2000 a unique meeting of twenty-five participants took place under the aegis of the European Association for Jewish Studies, with the central focus being the Hebrew poetry of the Middle Ages. The series of lectures was opened by Esperanza Alfonso who reformulated the functions of the body terminology pertaining to the mamduh or benefactor in poetry of praise. Also Ulf Haxen, Karen Almbladh and Aurora Salvatierra Ossorio presented views and questions concerning Hebrew-Andalusian qasidahs, while Arie Schippers compared the allusions to biblical and koranic quotations defined as figures of speech. Mordecai Cohen dealt with the concept of metaphor in Moses ibn Ezra’s poetics, and Ottfried Fraisse showed the interrelationship of philosophy, exegesis and poetry in Moses ibn Tibbon’s thirteenth-century commentary on The Song of Songs.

A majority of the papers discussed trends and developments in Hebrew poetry from the thirteenth-century onwards: Jonathan Decter demonstrated the literary subtleties of Sefer Tahkemoni by Judah al-Harizi in contrast with Jacob ben Eleazar’s Sefer ha-Meshalim, proving that both authors express different attitudes towards the Andalusian past. Joseph Yahalom presented an important work on the theory of Hebrew poetry by the Baghdadi poet Eleazar ben Jacob ha-Bavli. Judith Dishon analysed the book of homonyms, The Perfumed Flower Beds, composed by Joseph ben Tanhum ha-Yerushalmi in fourteenth-century Egypt. Angel Sáenz-Badillos presented fascinating aspects of the satirical verses in Solomon Bonafed’s diwan and Judit Taragona summarized the present state of the manuscripts concerning the diwan of Solomon de Piera. Aviva Doron discussed the craft of poetry in Christian Spain and the poet’s commitment to telling the truth. Ann Brener characterised Isaac ha-Gorni, whose poetry opens a window onto the troubadour world of his own day and age, and Tova Beeri showed that in the Ottoman Empire Hebrew poetry gradually conformed to the demands of Turkish musical forms. Shlomo Berger described how ibn Gabirol’s Keter Malkhut retained its importance in seventeenth-century Yiddish translations. Hebrew verse from Spain and its aftermath was certainly not the exclusive theme of the Colloquium: others like Elisabeth Hollender, Zvi Malachi and Simha Goldin dealt with the poetry of Ashkenaz. Young lecturers like Yehoshua Granat and Naoya Katsumata discussed the concept of intertextuality and the Hebrew style of the hymnist Samuel the Third respectively. The contributions of these and other doctoral researchers to the interdisciplinary dimensions of the field in an open atmosphere of questioning and observing were a particular stimulant to the participants of a meeting which was a great success and has led to request for further similar colloquia in the future.

Wout van Bekkum

Early Rabbinic Judaism

2nd EAJS Summer Colloquium, Yarnton Manor, 22nd to 26th September 1997.

A successful colloquium was held in Yarnton Manor in September by the European Centre for the University Teaching of Jewish Civilization. It was convened by Martin Goodman (Oxford) and Philip Alexander (Manchester), under the auspices to the EAJS.

The colloquium, on the theme of Early Rabbinic Judaism, was attended by over forty scholars from France, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, England, Wales, Israel and the United States. The twenty-six speakers approached the study of rabbinic Judaism in the six centuries after the destruction of the Temple from a great variety of perspectives. Papers focused both on very specific issues and on more general methodological questions. Subjects tackled included (among others) the relationship of rabbinic texts to evidence (literary and archaeological) from the non-Jewish world; the history of the transmission of Talmudic texts; the dating of texts and their structural analysis; the relationship between Jewish and Christian biblical interpretation; the analysis of rabbinic liturgical behaviour as described in the texts; the historical background to rabbinic vocabulary; the nature of the targumim as literary products; the relation of rabbinic law to the Dead Sea Scrolls; and the use of computers in the exploration of rabbinic literature. It became apparent that no single approach to the teaching of the subject is possible or desirable. In the extended discussion much practical information was exchanged about the resources available for scholars and teachers.

Extract from Summary of the Colloquium:

“How do we convey to our students the body of knowledge which we call Early Rabbinic Judaism? First, I would like to stress the importance of languages. It is perfectly clear from all the papers we have heard that knowledge of the original languages is vital. The kind of work that was presented to us is impossible without a high level of linguistic competence. If access to the texts in their original languages is important at a research level, then it should be important at the level of teaching as well. Within the higher education system, at least in Britain, there is a strong bias against the learning of foreign languages. Languages have been dropped in many subjects where once they were a requirement. Foreign languages are increasingly being taught in translation. I think that somehow we have to fight to maintain the centrality of language acquisition to the teaching of our discipline.

Second, the content of our teaching should comprise both a body of information and a set of analytical tools. The body of information is provisional and changes as research develops. The tools are, in my view, more fixed. It is important that we convey to our students the provisional nature of the information we give them, and train them in the use of a variety of analytical methods, which will allow them to construct their own view of Early Rabbinic Judaism.

Third, we must respect what I would call the historical evolution of the discipline. This brings me back to the point that applying cultural studies approaches may be premature in the field of Rabbinics. We practice our particular craft within universities. But universities are evolving institutions. Moreover, they are institutions in which different disciplines are evolving at different speeds. This is a direct function of the application of resources. It is inevitable that large fields, such as the literary criticism of the major world literatures, which have huge manpower, should develop faster than smaller fields like our own, and should in a sense make the intellectual running. I do not think this should worry us unduly. We cannot short-circuit this process. If I might illustrate by an analogy: It used to be thought, I believe, that the foetus as it develops in the womb, recapitulates the various stages of human evolution. The same may be said of any discipline in the humanities. Broadly speaking, all have to pass through the same stages of development. So it is in our field. We must be careful not to force the pace of development too hard. If we do so, if we try to skip certain stages, we are likely to end up with an abortion.

There is a final observation I would like to make, and it relates to the growing technicalization of our field of study. Knowledge is accumulating at an alarming rate. Subjects which twenty years ago were only beginning to be broached, so that one scholar could basically encompass all that there was to know about them, are now so complex that doctoral students are working in one corner of them. Heikhalot mysticism is a case in point. This accumulation of knowledge, this growing technicalization and specialization within the field, has the effect of carrying research ever further from the grasp of students. The problem is exacerbated by an absence of textbooks. I know that the writing of textbooks carries little kudos in our discipline, and may not be a smart career move, but I think we all need to take seriously the problem of how to bridge the widening gap between research and the classroom. If we do not write textbooks, I can assure you that others less qualified will certainly try. The dangers of such pseudo-scholarship are well illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I would like to leave you with a slogan which for me sums up what we should be trying to do. It is taken from the distinguished American literary critic Lionel Trilling. Trilling suggested that the purpose of scholarship should be ‘to give our notion of history an appropriate complication’. That surely puts it in a nutshell. The aim of our research is to achieve ‘an appropriate complication’; the aim of our teaching is to convey that sense of complication to our students.

Philip Alexander