Volume 4 No 1 - Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

326 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISM [ VOL. 4:325
seem to promote violence against non-Jews alongside texts that seem to
promote a peaceful relationship with them” (ix).
Thus, after his Introduction (3-14), Eisen divides his book as follows:
2. Bible (15-64), 3. Rabbinic Judaism (65-110), 4. Medieval Jewish Philosophy
(111-128), 5. Kabbalah (129-140), 6. Modern Zionism (141-204), 7.
Conclusion (205-216), and Epilogue: “Personal Reflections on Where We
Go from Here” (217-238).
With regard to the biblical texts he selects (and there are others not
selected, of course), Eisen concludes:
The differences between the two readings can thus be largely explained
by three sources of ambiguity in the Bible: ambiguity in the semantic
meaning of the biblical text, from the smallest to the largest units; ambiguity
in the relative weight given to particular phrases, passages or concepts
within the overall scheme of the Bible; and ambiguity regarding the
use of historical context to explain violent passages (64).
In so doing, Eisen raises the larger question of how one ultimately
reads these texts—or any other text, for that matter: in the historical context
that initially gave rise to them, or independent of that original context and
thus maintaining contemporary integrity in each generation. Such a larger
question certainly informs the uses of sacred texts in every religious tradition,
but parochially here for Jews and Christians, who share these same
texts. This question could equally be applied to all religious traditions that
rely on the very sacrality of their textual materials (“God[s] words, holy
words) as foundational to their enterprise, e.g., Islam, Hinduism, and so on.
Turning to the rabbinic (post-biblical) period, Eisen correctly writes
that “given the history of Jewish subjugation before and during the rabbinic
period, it should therefore come as no surprise that rabbinic Judaism would
speak badly about non-Jews” (80), while at the same time “whatever dislike
the rabbis felt toward non-Jews, that antipathy did not translate into a violent
ethic” (81). Much more important and significant, therefore, that translation
into violent behavior was prevented due to the simple fact that Jews
up until 1948 (the birth of modern Israel) were powerless in every locale
and nation-state in which they resided. Thus, it is equally important to note
that “the rabbis endorsed nonviolence as a far-reaching value applicable
beyond their own immediate circumstances” (87), perhaps in effect becoming
a religion of powerlessness despite words to the contrary. One hesitates
but is likewise compelled to speculate what, indeed, would have been the
case were Jews under the leadership of their rabbis, in positions of power
and authority prior to the modern period. Would they have exercised violent
control toward others over whom they were the dominant power? Over