The Science of Judaism: From Leopold Zunz to Leopold Lucas
This is the revised text of the Lucas Memorial Lecture, delivered
in London on 22 June, 1999 in Memory of Franz D. Lucas , 4 March, 1921
- 9 July, 1998. An in-depth study of the Science of Judaism would exceed
the limitations of this paper. The author is currently preparing a comprehensive
study on this subject at the University of Sussex. in the form of a
DPhil thesis. Throughout this paper the German term Wissenschaft des
Judentums will be used.
If we are to talk of a science of Judaism, then it is self-evident that the word ‘Judaism’ is here being taken in its most comprehensive sense - as the essence of all the circumstances, characteristics, and achievements of the Jews in relation to religion, philosophy, history, law, literature in general, civil life and all the affairs of man - and not in that more limited sense in which it only means the religion of the Jews[1]
This excerpt from an article written in 1822 by Immanuel Wolf (1799-1847) is considered to be the first attempt to define the new discipline of Wissenschaft des Judentums. Although technically belonging to humanities, the term ‘Wissenschaft’ is used to distinguish it from traditional religious studies, by emphasizing an unemotional and objective approach. Whereas the traditional Jewish scholar would regard himself as part of the intellectual and spiritual chain, ascending all the way back to Moses and the Sinaitic revelation, the modern scholar of the Wissenschaft des Judentums was putting himself consciously outside of that chain, analyzing Judaism from an exterior detached standpoint. The study of Judaism changed from the search for the ultimate meaning of the God-given holy scriptures and rabbinical commentaries to an object of research. Wissenschaft des Judentums cleared the path for the acculturation of the German Jew into the larger society. It is not surprising that this approach was met at first with fierce opposition from the conservative part of Judaism,
[2] although the purpose of the new discipline changed dramatically from this initial starting point. While Wolf had specified that Wissenschaft des Judentums ‘treats the object of study in and for itself, for its sake, and not for any special purpose or definite intention, he did deny its implications for the social situation of the Jews:
No universally valid principle has yet been found for the relations of the Jews; and if there is ever to be a just decision on this issue, then this can clearly only be done through the ways of science. Scientific knowledge of Judaism must decide on the merits or demerits of the Jews, their fitness or unfitness to be given the same status and respect as other citizens. This alone will make known the inner character of Judaism and separate the essential from the accidental, the original from later addition. [3]
From the very outset, Wissenschaft des Judentums took on these two major objectives: to further both an ‘external’ and an ‘internal’ emancipation of the Jews in Germany. ‘External’ emancipation, or the gaining of ‘status and respect’, was to be brought about by convincing the non-Jewish public, most importantly the German academic establishment, of the cultural and historical validity of Judaism and the possibility of conceptualizing Judaism within a modern and scientifically valid framework. In the view of the commonly accepted founder of Wissenschaft des Judentums, Leopold Zunz (1794-1886), the equality of the Jews could only be brought about after official recognition of the new discipline.
[4] By contrast, the objective of ‘internal’ emancipation was to separate the ‘essential from the accidental’, to re-educate the Jewish population through a re-formed Judaism so as to enable the assimilated Jew to appreciate his ethnic heritage. At a time when the majority of the Jews in Germany had divested themselves of their traditional lifestyles and adopted the value system of the non-Jewish German majority, this internal factor became vitally important. Hermann Cohen (1842-1918) identified this most remarkable development within the German-Jewish community from the time of the emancipation, when he observed
Considering all changes that have occurred in the religious-cultural situation of Judaism in the last one hundred years, nothing is as striking as the diminishing or even disappearance of Jewish scholarship and knowledge amongst modem Jews.[5]
Wissenschaft des Judentums, held in dialectic tension between these two poles attempted to provide a solution to both.
From the very beginning of the movement, a continuous attempt to organize Wissenschaft des Judentums into some institutional form can be observed. It is the purpose of this study to highlight several different organizations of the new discipline through analysis of their impact on the interested public. All organizations to be described were founded upon the principles of a sincere desire and enthusiasm to better the lot of the Jews in Germany, both intellectually and socially, through education. While the founders all shared a common motive in establishing their respective organizations, they were well aware of the problems and challenges faced by their contemporaries. Each believed that the creation of his institution would go a long way towards solving these difficulties. Since Wissenschaft des Judentums was from its beginnings excluded from the German Universities, Jewish scholarly organizations always bore the additional responsibility of functioning as an ersatz-forum for the academic community.
The first organization of this kind, which aimed to provide general knowledge for Jews, was formed in 1819 and entitled the Verein für Cultur und Wissenschaft der Juden (Culturverein). Although placed at the very beginning of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement, the Culturverein deserves our attention, as both its objectives and its ultimate failure provide a key to understanding all other subsequent organizations.
Following Napoleon’s efforts to introduce civil equality, the optimistic trend among Jews to fully embrace emancipation was further strengthened by the Prussian edict of 1812, making all legally resident Jews ‘Einländer und Preussische Staatsbürger’ (countrymen and Prussian citizens). Three years later, however, hopes were disappointed after the contradictory regulations adopted by the different states at the Congress of Vienna. The outbreak of the infamous Hep-Hep riots in August 1819, spreading quickly from Würzburg to neighbouring communities, confronted the Jewish population with an expression of anti-Judaism reminiscent of medieval pogroms.
Although the Culturverein is generally thought to have been brought into existence as a direct result of the riots, a recently published letter by Leopold Zunz emphasizes the intercommunal and educational significance of this pioneering project. [6] Founded in 1819, this society for Jewish culture and science was initiated by some of the early protagonists of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, Eduard Gans (1798-1839), Leopold Zunz, Moses Moser (1796-1838) and Immanuel Wohlwill (1799-1847). The ultimate goal of the Culturverein was to investigate Judaism using the new critical-scientific methods, in order to vindicate the universal values of Judaism and thus counteract its inferior image in the eyes of Jews and Gentiles alike. This noble ideal was based on the premise that people only hate what they cannot understand, and that if the Jewish religion could be made comprehensible and accessible, anti-Jewish sentiment could be eradicated. The ‘rehabilitation’ of Jews would be a natural consequence of the organization’s activities. From a Jewish historical standpoint, the Culturverein was completely original, establishing an institute for the scientific study of Judaism and publishing the first scientific Jewish periodical, the Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, edited by Zunz. The Culturverein also instituted practice of holding lectureswhich were published in journal. Through this medium Zunz strove for an inner emancipation: a re-education Jewish masses spirit their German contemporaries.
The founders had hoped to reach and reform Judaism by means of the Zeitschrift, but the publication was unsuccessful. The complicated style was not an acceptable means of reaching the non-specialist public, and only three editions of the paper were ever printed.[7] In a letter to Leopold Zunz, Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), who joined the Culturverein in August 1822, complains about the incomprehensible language of the newspaper, declaring that if he did not happen to know what the authors were trying to say, he would not understand a word. [8] Heine’s frustration perfectly illustrates the imbalance between a strictly scientific approach and the need to transmit knowledge to the public through a medium they could understand. Consequently, the Culturverein failed to gain recognition amongst Jews and non-Jews alike. Its membership never exceeded one hundred persons, and it was officially dissolved in May 1824. While the public may not yet have been ready for this new discipline, it cannot be disputed that one of the major reasons for the failure of the Culturverein was its exclusive and specialized approach. In short, it was not populist enough for ‘Nathan Itzig’ to relate to it.
The Culturverein was the first of a series of organizations of a like nature, all begun in response to a combination of anti-Jewish impetus and intercommunal tension. Although unsuccessful in achieving its goals, the Culturverein is deserving of appreciation as the first attempt to create an organized body which sought to synchronize Judaism with modem research and to actively influence prevailing social opinion.
Some thirty years later, the Institut zur Förderung der Israelitischen Literatur was founded. Initiated by Rabbi Ludwig Philippson (1811-1889), the pioneer in kabbala studies Adolph Jellinek (1820-1893), and the historian Isaak Markus Jost (1793-1860), the Institut was based in Leipzig. Ludwig Philippson deserves notice as one of the most remarkable and influential German rabbis of the nineteenth century. He served for twenty-eight years as Rabbi of Magdeburg and was a prominent defender of a moderate Reform. Following a trend of organized assemblies of the Christian clergy and other career groups, he initiated the rabbinical Reform assemblies, attempting to strengthen the Reform movement through a unified programme. Among his numerous other activities, he is best known as co-initiator of the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. The major motivation behind his deep community involvement was to spread Jewish knowledge among his co-religionists, encourage them to learn about and participate in their Judaism. In order to diminish the effects of the missionary Bibles which had been widely distributed in secular Jewish circles by Christian missionaries Philippson founded a school of Bible study (‘Bibelanstalt’) in Berlin, and during the 1840s he published a German translation of the Bible, in accordance with Jewish tradition. His translation avoided the burdensome syntax of Zunz’s earlier rendition of the holy scriptures and was embellished with striking illustrations. As a result it was widely appreciated, and subsequent editions were published as late as 1913, one including illustrations by Gustave Doré.[9] The inclusion of a scholarly commentary in German at the foot of each page and of eye-catching, educational illustrations in the first edition reflects his efforts to make the results of modern research accessible to the wider public.
In his desire to reach a larger forum, Philippson established the first modern Jewish newspaper, the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums in 1837, which he edited until his death. The primary goal of the Allgemeine Zeitung was to strengthen Jewish consciousness through the inclusion of articles based on current issues of Jewish interest, earning Philippson the title of ‘the father of Jewish publishing’. By placing its columns at the disposal of other scholars, the Allgemeine Zeitung formed a bond between the researchers and the public. [10] The journal became essential in advocating support for new scholarly institutions like the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums and the lnstitut zur Förderung der Israelitischen Literatur.
The Institut can best be described as a publication society, allowing members, for a nominal annual fee, to receive books published by the society. Philippson assured members that the publications would not be highbrow scholarly works, nor contain political or polemic material, but would rather strive ‘to capture the interest of the masses and to entertain and educate them’.[11] Through this medium, Philippson tried to close the gap between the scientific investigation of Judaism and a public almost completely estranged from it. His society was devoted to the needs of his contemporaries, as he very strongly felt that only a popularization of scholarly studies could reach and influence the Jewish world. It was to Philippson’s credit that the Institut was a rousing success. During its existence between 1855 and 1873 about eighty books by four dozen authors were published ranging over the whole gamut of Jewish scholarship, and its peak membership reached over 3600. The most far-reaching publications were the first seven volumes of Graetz’ Geschichte der Juden (‘History of the Jews’), which made a tremendous impact on Jewish self-esteem as the first positive account of Jewish history. [12] The estimated distribution of all publications of the Institut amounted to an astonishing 182,000 volumes during the first ten years. Although opposed by some who believed that a popularization of any scientific discipline was blasphemous, or by others who simply refused to identify with an organization that was directed by a leading protagonist of Reform, the Institut proved beyond any doubt that a populist approach reaches the people. Philippson decided to end the activities of the organisation in 1873, when he felt that public interest had peaked and was on the decline and a new generation required more worldly reading material.[13]Nevertheless, the Institut was so successful that it was held up as a shining example for later generations.
The rise of political and racial anti-Semitism in the last decades of the nineteenth century gave birth to two organizations of a new kind. In 1891 the Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemnitismus (Abwehrverein) was established in Berlin. The main activities of this combined Gentile-Jewish enterprise consisted in publishing educational pamphlets and publicly combating anti-Semitic parties at elections. Two years later the Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Centralverein) was founded. Like the Abwehrverein, it was dedicated to safeguarding Jewish civil and social equality by means of legal intervention and the distribution of literature designed to combat anti-Semitism.
Since the demise of Philippson’s Institut, however, an organisation was sorely needed which directed its activities inwards, towards the ever more rapidly assimilating Jewish community. The anti-Semitic atmosphere of this period and its implications were commented upon some years later by Rabbi Josef Eschelbacher (1848-1916):
The ... Jew often faces abuse and ridicule of his beliefs and culture and even internalizes those prejudices, and does not know that they are based on a corruption of historical facts and is at a loss at how to react to them. This dearth of knowledge was countered by the Literaturvereine. [14]
The Literaturvereine were established through the efforts of Gustav Karpeles (1848-1909). Bom in Eiwanowitz in Moravia, and raised under the religious influence of his father, the Orthodox Rabbi Elia Karpeles, he studied at the conservative Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar in Breslau. Karpeles succeeded in gaining the respect of the Orthodox minority in Germany without being formally associated with it. He did this by establishing an Orthodox periodical, the Jüdische Presse, at a time when the Reform movement was on the rise, thereby endorsing the preservation of the conservative standpoint. Karpeles also viewed with favour the founding of the Adass Isroel, when this separatist Orthodox movement established itself in Berlin. However, in 1890 Karpeles became editor of the Allgemeine Zeitung. This development would not in itself be remarkable, were it not for the fact that even after having become the editor of the organ of Liberal Judaism in Germany, Karpeles kept up his cordial relationships with the Orthodox community. He was called the friend of collective Jewry (‘Gesamtjudentum’), one of the most prominent figures of cross-communal activity. Karpeles was in the rare position of being one of the few persons who could attempt to bring together Orthodox and liberal Jews under the auspices of one organization.
In 1892 Karpeles founded the first Verein für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur in Berlin. Its main goal was to raise the general awareness of Jews about their religion and culture, through lectures about all aspects of Judaism. The need to strengthen self-confidence and encourage resistance to assimilation became especially important in light of the new wave of violent verbal and physical anti-Semitism at the end of the nineteenth century.
Karpeles’ model was imitated in a number of German communities, but the local societies that followed the example of the Berlin group operated mostly independently from one another and worked without a national organizational structure. Karpeles had a vision of a common national Verband to link the existing local Vereine, coordinating their work and effectively organizing speakers in the respective communities. At the same time a nationwide organization would be helpful in the establishment of new Vereine, by giving them financial and organizational assistance. In 1893 Karpeles founded the nationwide Verband in Hannover. Personalities from across the spectrum of the Jewish religious and political life participated.
When the question of religious practice was raised at the founding meeting, Karpeles categorically excluded all discussion relating to religious services, insisting upon ‘complete religious and political neutrality in all communal matters.’ [15]This attitude was consistently sustained and made possible the participation of such Orthodox leaders as Hirsch Hildesheimer (1855-1910), who served for many years as board member of the Verband alongside an outspoken liberal like Martin Philippson (1846~l9l6). [16] This was the most striking advance on previous organizations: for the first time since the schism of the religious parties, all fractions of organized Jewry, including the strictly Orthodox, joined in the common goal of spreading modem Jewish scholarship. This cross-communal activity was a remarkable success at a time of bitter religious strife within the Jewish community and became a model for possible co-operation in the field of Wissenschaft des Judentums, even when certain limitations had to be set in order to preserve the cohesion of this religiously heterogeneous organization.
The fame of the Verband spread quickly through the Jewish communities, and similar organizations were set up in numerous other countries, from Constantinople to Melbourne, imitating the German model. When in 1902 Israel Abrahams turned to Karpeles for advice on how to set up a Union of Literary Societies in England, Karpeles responded with the following glowing endorsement, summing up the success of his organization:
The result of the work of these Societies ... is very satisfactory. Until about twelve years ago, the greater number of Jews in Germany had but a vague idea of their history and knew still less of their literature. That today a rudimentary knowledge of these subjects has become general, that a certain reverence for our history and literature has taken possession of our people, that our members purchase or read Jewish books is entirely due to the Literary Societies. They have helped to strengthen the spirit of religion, and they have done much in overcoming indifference.... I might with truth assert that that the Literary Society is the only link which binds many Jews who had ceased to participate in the synagogue service to Judaism and further that the Society has not infrequently become the bridge to the synagogue. In some provinces the entire resurrection of religious life, which has sunk to the lowest ebb, is entirely due to the Literary Societies ... and it has happened that people ... who had serious thoughts of conversion both for themselves and their children, have been won back to Judaism by means of our Societies. [17]
The Vereine were regarded as a German-Jewish version of the traditional house of learning (‘Bet ha-Midrash’), rapidly becoming a vital factor in the lives of many acculturated Jews. The lectures given at the Vereine encompassed all fields relevant to Jewish interest. Frequently a forum was held in which public debates and discussions were welcomed. By the First World War, the Verband had successfully established over two hundred local Vereine in Germany alone, amounting to over 15,000 members.
Beginning in 1898 the Verband published a Yearbook, devoted to general topics of Jewish culture, with an attached review of all the lectures given during the past year in the local Vereine. Year after year, the readers were assured that an impressive group of Jewish scholars was ready and willing to serve the greater cause of the Jewish community by sharing the fruits of Wissenschaft des Judentums with a non-specialist public. Of particular importance were the literary commentaries by Karpeles and the annual reviews by Martin Philippson, in which he evaluated the past year’s political situation for Jews in Germany and around the world. The Verband had enormous influence on German Jews and did much for the internal aspect of the emancipation process.
Although never an official concern of the Verband, it was the increasing anti-Jewish scholarship in the garb of theological research, emanating from the exalted forum of the Universities, which concerned Jewish scholars most. This development was interpreted by the majority of Jewish scholars as potentially anti-Semitic insofar as the results were readily misused to discredit Judaism. We can point to one specific sequence of studies which provoked feelings of disappointment and frustration among German Jews. Roughly encompassing the decades before and after the turn of the century, Protestant theology had taken up the quest for the historical Jesus, which gave rise to a great number of publications designed to reconstruct the social and religious environment in which the founder of Christianity had lived. These publications were considered by Jewish scholars to be deliberately ‘painting a dark Jewish background in order to make the figure of Jesus shine ever brighter.’ Ignoring Jewish primary source material, which the majority were neither willing nor able to translate, Protestant theologians based their historical knowledge almost entirely on the texts of the New Testament. This practice led to a one-sided and prejudiced portrayal of Jewish culture, causing the eminent philosopher Hermann Cohen to state that ‘our enemies ... are anticipating our destruction in the foreseeable future.’[18]
The publication which most upset the Jewish academic community was Das Wesen des Christentums (‘The Essence of Christianity’) by Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930). This book, based on a series of lectures given at the University of Berlin, was published in 1899. Harnack was the acknowledged leader of systematic Protestant theology in Germany, and his particular interest reflected the abovementioned academic trend.’[19] Harnack’s book was one of many, but it was the popular style of the book that won it such enormous acclaim. By dissociating Jesus from his Jewish roots, Harnack and his followers presented Judaism as an elementary stage on the path to Christianity, the new faith which liberated Judaism from its particularistic attributes. Harnack described the spiritual predecessors of the Jews, the Pharisees, as part of a ‘ruling class that had 1ittle pity for the misery of the common people’ and whose interest for ritualistic justice ‘suppressed their concern and mercy for the poor,’[20] even asserting that they were ‘holding the people in bonds and murdering their souls.’[21]Das Wesen des Christentums was a devastating attack on Judaism because it portrayed the Jewish religion as intrinsically unworthy, beyond any possible correction, and the Jews as ‘a nation that knew justice only qua violence.’[22]In contrast to the optimistic mood of the Enlightenment period, and ensuing hopes of a possible consolidation between Liberal Judaism and progressive Protestantism, this development was a significant setback. Gustav Karpeles was one of the first to express the need for a scholarly rebuttal of Das Wesen des Christentums, openly castigating the Jewish scholarly community or their failure to respond to this challenge:
It is very regrettable that no excellent Jewish theologian could immediately be found to dispute Harnack’s view and judgement of Judaism, and consequently prove the numerous and significant errors of this famous Protestant theologian ... Harnack’s books is read particularly in Jewish circles, and many Jewish students consider him to be the highest theological authority… [23]
It was this crisis about the essence of the religions which highlighted the deficit that the German Jews suffered as a result of the Wissenschaft des Judentums never having become an accepted discipline at the Universities. Whereas Christian scholars were able to maintain research with state support, their Jewish counterparts were isolated and marginalized, dependent on the goodwill of their co-religionists.
In this difficult situation it became a primary objective to persuade the authorities to establish a faculty for the study of Jewish culture at a German university. The request for such an institution is as old as Wissenschaft des Judentums itself.[24]Since the first attempts by Abraham Geiger in 1836,[25] and by Ludwig Philippson one year later,[26]numerous efforts to this effect had been made on the part of Jewish scholars.[27] The repeated refusal to grant such a seemingly logical and necessary demand frustrated Jewish activists, providing a constant painful reminder of their incomplete integration into German society. They had to be content with the conservative Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar in Breslau (founded in 1854), the Liberal Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (founded in 1872),[28] and the Orthodox Rabbinerseminar (founded in 1873) in Berlin. All three operated without official state recognition or financial support. Added to this unsatisfactory situation was the impression that Jewish scholars were isolating themselves increasingly from their public, by directing their research into ever more obscure areas.
The widening gap between ‘Lehre’ and ‘Leben’ (research and its practical application), which was heatedly discussed among the German scholarly community under the heading of a ‘crisis of learning’, was felt even more strongly by Jewish theologians than by their non-Jewish counterparts. This dichotomy was a new phenomenon in the Jewish world. Until the time of Moses Mendelssohn, study had gone hand in hand with the practice of the religious precepts. From the moment that Jews began to integrate into the larger society and to adopt the Weltanschauung of their German environment, many began to abandon the adherence to traditional religious practice, leaving behind them any knowledge about their own faith and culture. Within a very short time, perhaps two generations, this knowledge shifted from the wider community to a relatively narrow circle. This development gave rise to the new German-Jewish personality, the ‘Rabbiner-Professor’- the congregation rabbi who also acted as an intellectual leader, a substitute for the non-existent University professor in Jewish theology.
At the same time that Gustav Karpeles was diagnosing the crisis of Jewish learning and calling for radical solutions, a young student of the Lehranstalt was drawing similar conclusions. This was Leopold Lucas, who became acquainted with Karpeles through his involvement in the Verein für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur in Berlin.[29]
Convinced that the seemingly increasing number of Jewish converts to Christianity was directly linked to anti-Jewish theological publications, Lucas agreed that ‘the promotion of Wissenschaft des Judentums had become a necessity in the face of the horrifying 1oss of numbers among the educated; but was also, considering the attacks by members of other faiths, absolutely essential.’30This fear was not unfounded. In absolute numbers, conversions to Christianity between 1870 and 1900 numbered approximately 11,000. This might seem a negligible percentage, considering a Jewish population of over 500,000, but the fact that university educated Jews accounted for 36% of all conversions meant that they were over-represented by about ten to one. Two additional points are noteworthy: the first, that the period of increased anti-Semitism at the end of the century caused a rise in conversions, and the second, that over two thirds of the conversions at this time were to Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism.31Whereas the Centralverein and the Abwehrverein had been preoccupied with combating ‘popular’ anti-Semitism, the most recent threat, Protestant scientific’ anti-Semitism, was an area left untouched by any organization until now. It was precisely members of this educated social group who were most vulnerable to such arguments, and to whom conversion presented the strongest appeal.
Leopold Lucas was born on 18 September 1872 in Marburg and had a longstanding connection with Wissenschaft des Judentums. His great uncle was the famous philosopher of religion, Salomon Ludwig Steinheim, and familial ties existed to Heinrich Heine. After his Abitur in Marburg in 1892, Lucas took up the study of oriental languages, history and philosophy at the Universities of Berlin and Tübingen, completing a dissertation in 1895 entitled Die Geschichte der Stadt Tyrus zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge (‘The History of the City of Tyre at the Time of the Crusades’). Simultaneously, he studied at the Lehranstalt, where he received his rabbinical ordination in 1898.
The problematic state of the Lehranstalt must be acknowledged when discussing the reasons for Rabbi Lucas’ determination to create a new organization to revitalize interest in the scientific study of Judaism. From the time of its founding the Lehranstalt was in a state of continuous financial strain. A former student recalls the situation at the turn of the century:
The Lehranstalt was located ... in the front part of ... the Lindenstrasse Synagogue ... The Lehranstalt consisted after 32 years of its existence! – of a mere two rooms of the size of schoolrooms of an ordinary primary school.The same building was used as one of the Sunday schools for the Berlin Community. In addition to those two rooms, a slightly larger room … was used as the Library, and if I am not mistaken was at the same time the living room of the librarian.32
At that time only two teachers, Martin Schreiner and Eduard Baneth, were employed full-time.33 In short, the institution was in no position to take a strong stand against the ever-increasing pressures of anti-Jewish scholarship.
During his formative years of study in Berlin, Leopold Lucas had the opportunity to attend lectures by some of the leading scholars of the time, including the notorious self-proclaimed anti-Semite, Professor Heinrich von Treitschke. We can assume that Lucas was strongly affected by the spirit of anti-Semitism permeating German society. As early as 1897, while still a student, Lucas delivered a lecture to the Akademischer Verein für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur expressing the need for an organization to further Wissenschaft des Judentums on a larger scale. Founded by students at Berlin University in 1882, this academic society was the first German fraternity to include the word ‘Jewish’ in its title, a statement of bold self-identification in the face of the anti-Jewish atmosphere pervading the University. Placards announcing initial meetings were defaced or torn down.34
In 1899 Rabbi Lucas left Berlin to take his position as Rabbi of Glogau in Silesia, becoming the successor of Rabbi Benjamin Rippner (1842-1898). At this time the Jewish community of Glogau numbered 863 persons, among a population of 20,000 inhabitants. It was here that he and his wife brought up their family. Rabbi Lucas’ strong identification with his community manifested itself, when he turned down the far more prestigious position as Rabbi of Magdeburg. He remained the spiritual leader of Glogau’s Jewry until its destruction by the Nazis.
Rabbi Lucas is remembered as a highly gifted cleric, and his religious orientation can best be described as conservative-liberal.35 He combined a traditional religious lifestyle, exemplified by organizing daily synagogue services, keeping a kosher household and respecting the restrictions on the Sabbath day, with progressive views of an ever-evolving Judaism. His views are evident in his rabbinical inauguration sermon, where he portrays the essence of Judaism as consisting of three basic elements: belief in God, ethical law (‘Sittengesetz’) and historical development. These three components must interact harmoniously, none of them having precedence over any of the others. Rabbi Lucas’ tolerant and deeply humanistic world view becomes apparent when he envisions ‘the day when all legitimate parties will unify to create a peaceful state, and Israel, hand in hand with all true religion, will eradicate wrongdoing from the face of the earth.’ He showed great compassion for the numerous unbelievers of the time, whom he did not hold responsible for their scepticism. He held that their condition was the fault of modem society, lamenting that in the process of acculturation the unity of the Jewish people had been destroyed. He regarded as a solemn duty the recreation of this harmonious state which he was so sure had once existed. Lucas worked to create unity between all religious factions, showing remarkable concern and acceptance for all. He promised his community that he would teach a self-confident, non-apologetic theology which would not make concessions either to natural science or to philosophy.36
Rabbi Lucas gave frequent lectures for the benefit of the general public which were directed towards enlightening and improving Jewish-Gentile relations. This preoccupation mirrored his personal interest in the history of early Christian-Jewish relations. In 1910 he published Zur Geschichte der Juden im vierten Jahrhundert. This important study focused on the period in which Christianity had become the official state religion of the Holy Roman Empire and was redefining its position towards Judaism. In addition to his numerous lectures and discussion forums, Lucas published S. L. Steinheim’s manuscript Moses and Michelangelo (1899), Die Wissenschaft des Judentums und die Wege zu ihrer Förderung (1906), Mitteilungen auf Grund neuerer Forschungen über die Religionen (1920) and numerous scholarly book reviews. In 1911 he was elected a member of the Byzantinische Gesellschaft in Athens.
During his early years in Glogau, Rabbi Lucas never lost sight of the goal of creating an organization to systematize and strengthen Wissenschaft des Judentums. From May 1902 onwards he renewed his efforts to find support for a new organization. At that time Martin Philippson, the chairman of the Deutsch-Israelitischer Gemeindebund, the largest German-Jewish establishment, became enthusiastic about the idea and offered his support. His endorsement was the turning point for public interest in Lucas’ project. It had been suggested that greater support for existing institutions, like the Lehranstalt, would make a need for this new initiative obsolete. But Rabbi Lucas argued for a truly independent scientific forum, unfettered by one single institution, and with a broad range of contributors from across the German-speaking Jewish world. A first appeal, sent out by Rabbi Lucas, was met with interest, but also with resolute opposition from the Jewish scholarly establisbment. Rabbi Lucas criticized the state of Wissenschaft des Judentums, thereby minimizing the achievements of the existing seminars and offending their supporters. Nevertheless, the idea did spark sufficient interest for a new appeal to be drafted by Rabbi Lucas in collaboration with Hermann Cohen. This second document was circulated and signed by the leading protagonists of Wissenschaft des Judentums in the German-speaking countries, and on 2 November 1902 the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums was founded in Berlin.
In his introductory speech on the occasion of the founding of the Gesellschaft, Rabbi Lucas explained the objectives of the new organization. He castigated the ‘lamentable backwardness’ (‘beklagenswerte Rückständigkeit’) of Jewish scholarship in general, which he found to be often uncritical and uncoordinated. Although the Jewish world was blessed with gifted scholars, there was an indisputable need for an institution to centralize their research. In the light of the large number of theologians who were ‘erecting entire systems against Judaism’ and influencing public opinion, only a systematic and concerted effort on the part of the Jewish scholars could resist this challenge. Their major weakness was precisely that any plan or system was ... unnoticeable’. Research being done at the time was far too detailed, and had lost both the interest of Jews and its connection to real-life Judaism. It was vital to reconnect Jewish Studies with the Jewish community and bring about a trend in scientific research which would make it accessible to everyone. If this was not an option at German universities, where Jewish Studies was still not a recognized discipline, the Jews themselves would have to make it possible through the establishment of their own institution.
The plan that was drafted at this first assembly of the Gesellschaft reads as follows:
Unification of scholars: Great literary enterprises should be undertaken in order to coordinate different branches of research and apply their results more effectively. These projects would exceed the capacity of the individual.
Employment of new scholars: A rabbi, in addition to service rendered to his congregation, was often expected to publish books and papers, thereby furthering the study of Judaism. The Gesellschaft aimed to support university graduates financially so that they could devote all of their time and energy to turning out scientific works, without the burden of juggling a vocation with a private pursuit.
Popularization of Wissenschaft des Judentums without lowering intellectual standards by making scholarship available to the German-Jewish community.37
Of great importance was the decision to take over the prestigious but financially troubled journal for Jewish studies, the Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, founded in 1851 by Zacharias Frankel (1801-1875). The decision was a lifeline for the journal, which would otherwise almost certainly have had to cease its work. One major objective was to professionalize the publication by introducing a fee-paying system for printed articles. To increase circulation, each member of the organization received the Monatsschrift free of charge. Steps were taken to make the journal more readable and accessible, and regular book reviews on related topics were added. In order to stay in close contact with its members, the founding committee further decided that general assemblies accompanied by lectures would be held annually. These lectures were subsequently published.
The founding of the Gesellschaft was met with widespread approval within the Jewish world, attracting large monetary donations which enabled the immediate translation of plans into action. This positive reception led the Gesellschaft to finance itself primarily through contributions by wealthy co-religionists, together with the support of the Jewish communities and annual membership fees. The popularization of scholarly knowledge was always stressed by the founders of the Gesellschaft. It was emphasized that the language and form of the publications had to be strictly scientific, yet fully understandable for the non-specialist public. The decision to simplify the style of publication was a courageous one, not shared by all members, but accepted as necessary. The low cost of individual volumes and a 30% discount for members also helped to ensure the broadest possible distribution. Additionally, each member received a free copy of the popular Yearbook of the Verband den Vereine für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur. It was hoped that the guarantee of complete freedom for authors in realizing their objectives would result in widespread cooperation between scholars of different ideological backgrounds.38 It was the deep conviction of the founding fathers that Wissenschaft des Judentums (as well as all other science) had to be completely value free, in the sense that it should never be used for partisan purposes in the religious conflicts between conservative and progressive groups within the Jewish communities.39 At the first general assembly, in the spring of 1903, it was decided to produce a Grundriß der gesamten Wissenschaft des Judentums, a series of scholarly works which would encompass the entire field of Wissenschaft des Judentums, informing the reader about the latest developments in research. The Grundriß was divided into four categories; Linguistics (Sprachwissenschaft), History and literary history (Geschichtliche und Iiteraturgeschichtliche Fächer), Systematic subjects (Systematische Fächer),and Practical subjects (Praktische Fächer). These subjects were further divided into 36 subcategories, with the option to expand them at a later stage if deemed necessary. Scholars from across Europe and the United States were invited to contribute, and the plan was hailed excitedly as ‘the greatest Jewish literary enterprise in centuries.’40
In this context the apologetic publications are especially noteworthy, confirming the assumption that side-by-side with the desire to further Wissenschaft des Judentums through a systematic and comprehensive approach, the external aim of refuting Christian anti-Jewish scholarship was considered a priority during the first years of the Gesellschaft. Publications of this category included:
·Leo Baeck Das Wesen des Judentums (‘The Essence of Judaism’), 1905
·Moritz Güdemann Jüdische Apologetik (‘Jewish apologetics’), 1906
· Josef Eschelbacher Das Judentum im Urteile der modernen protestantischen Theologie (‘Judaism in the judgement of modern Protestant theology’),
· 1907 Josef Eschelbacher Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christentums (‘Judaism and the essence of Christianity’), 1908
Another enterprise of monumental proportions was the Germania Judaica, a comprehensive history of the Jews in Germany from the earliest times. The objective here was to list alphabetically any town or settlement where Jews had ever resided, as well as to include local history and a short biography of leading Jewish personalities.41 The third project was entitled Corpus Tannaiticum, a series of editions based on all available manuscripts of rabbinical texts.
The Gesellschaft as a scientific forum went a long way towards improving the attitudes of Christian theology towards Judaism. While the works of Jewish authors had generally received a negative press from the official organs of Christian theology, over time there was a change in viewpoint. Publications of the Gesellschaft such as Ismar Elbogen’s Jüdischer Gottesdienst were described in the Theologisches Literaturblatt as ‘epoch-making’ and ‘impressive’, while other Protestant newspapers complimented the Gesellschaft on its ‘superlative scientific contributions’. Additionally, many articles appearing in the Monatsschrift received positive reviews in the Christian press. The Gesellschaft acquired many members, amongst them university and state libraries, Christian scholars and clergy. At times the organization supported non-Jewish scholars in financing their research and publishing the results of their work, encouraging scholarly cooperation between the faiths.
In 1912 the Gesellschaft proudly published a book about the oldest Jewish cemetery in Europe entitled Die jüdische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom by the Protestant theologian Professor Nikolaus Müller. When his death prevented Müller from publishing the remaining part of his research, the New Testament faculty in Berlin successfully contacted the Gesellschaft about the possibility of a new, more complete publication on the topic. This project was well received and hailed in the Christian press as ‘a beautiful sign of the productive co-operation between Jewish and Christian scholars.’42 The claim made by the annual report, that the publication by Müller was ‘one of the best that our society has originated to date’,43 shows the enthusiasm that Müller’s participation had inspired within the Gesellschaft. In 1923 the Gesellschaft published Die Jüdisch-Deutschen Bibelübersetzungen (‘The Jewish-German Bible Translations’) by the two non-Jewish professors, Staerck and Leitzmann.
The peak membership of 2000 may seem modest, but this figure understates public awareness of the Gesellschaft, since almost all major German Jewish communities, as well as the B’nai B’rith Lodges, joined the Gesellschaft collectively, and their publications were available in most of the local community libraries. In total, the Gesellschaft published over fifty books and lectures and subsidized more than a hundred publications over the whole range of Jewish scholarship. It was assumed, at one point, that the majority of all Jewish academic publications in Germany were in one way or another supported by the Gesellschaft. The organization flourished for over thirty-six years, ceasing to exist on 9 November 1938. The last sign of its work is the final volume of the Monatsschrift of 1939, a ‘tragic heroic monument of German Jewish scholarship in its death throes.’44 The printed copies of this volume were confiscated and destroyed by the Nazis. A few copies were saved, and the book was reprinted after the war. In recent years, several publications of the Gesellschaft have been reprinted and re-published, as their scientific value is still highly esteemed.
In 1940 Leo Baeck called Leopold Lucas to Berlin to replace the emigrated Eugen Täubler (1879-1953) as lecturer in biblical literature and history at the Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. At this time, Rabbi Lucas assisted Leo Baeck in the secret preparation of two historically significant documents: ‘Manifest für das Deutsche Volk’, and ‘Rechtliche Stellung der Juden in Europa’, a book on Jewish history until the rise of Nazism. These were intended for distribution only after Hitler had been removed from power, but were overtaken by the war and the increased restrictions placed on Jews. Hence they remain unpublished. Under these circumstances, Rabbi Lucas decided to follow his son Franz into emigration. Tragically, the Lucases were already in possession of Bolivian immigration documents, procured for them by their son. But at the last moment the Bolivian government annulled all visas, and on 17 December 1942 Rabbi Lucas was deported together with his wife to Theresienstadt, where he perished on 13 September 1943.
In 1924, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Dr Lucas’ rabbinical career, Leo Baeck had offered the congratulatory letter on behalf of the rabbinical assembly, commending him for his scientific achievements, particularly mentioning his ‘merit in founding the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums,’ which guaranteed him an ‘eternal place in the annals of German Jewry.’45 The Gesellschaft had indeed made an innovative effort to learn from the successes and failures of its predecessors by combining the desire for exact and strictly scientific scholarship of the Culturverein with a popularization of the results of research as attempted by the Institut zur Förderung der Israelitischen Literatur of Ludwig Philippson, and finally, the recognition of the importance of involving scholars across the Jewish religious spectrum, as Gustav Karpeles had done with the Verband den Vereine für jüidische Geschichte und Literatur.
It cannot be denied that anti-Semitism was a major incentive for the establishment of all these organizations, and the Gesellschaft was no exception. It was unique, however, in its support for both internal and external emancipation, strengthening the ethnic consciousness of its supporters while representing a force to be reckoned with against the prejudiced anti-Semitic scholarship of Protestant theology. While it would have been too lofty a goal to change public perceptions of Judaism so that it became an accepted part of German culture, the significance of this organization should nevertheless not be underestimated. A specific example of academic recognition was when, during the First World War, twenty-eight prominent Protestant and Catholic theologians presented a petition to the Prussian Ministry of Education calling for the establishment of professorships for the study of post-biblical Judaism. In truth, the Gesellschaft did win respect for the Wissenschaft des Judentums in educated circles, and a more objective and just view of the Jews was certainly due, at least in part, to the stature which the Gesellschaft had added to Jewish scholarship.
© 1999 Henri Soussan
Footnotes
[1]Immanuel Wolf (Wohlwill), ‘Ueber den Begriff einer Wissenschaft des Judentums’, in Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1 (Berlin 1822), p. 1. Quotes here are taken from the English translation ‘On the Concepts of a Science of Judaism’ in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book (LBIYB) 2 (1957), pp. 194-204.
[2] For an overview, see Ismar Schorsch Scholarship in the Service of Reform, in LBIYB 35 (1990), pp. 73ff.
[3] Immanuel Wolf, ‘On the Concepts of a Science of Judaism’, p. 203f.
[4] Leopold Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin 1845), p. 58: ‘Die Gleichstellung der Juden in Sitte und Leben wird aus der Gleichstellung & Wissenschaft des Judentums hervorgehen’.
[5] Hermann Cohen, ‘Zur Begründung einer Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums’ in Jüdische Schriften, ed. Bruno Strauss (Berlin 1924), vol. 2, p. 210: ‘Unter allen Wandlungen, welche die religiös-kulturelle Verfassung des Judentums seit etwa hundert Jahren erfahren hat, ist keine so frappant wie die Verminderung oder gar das Verschwinden der jüdischen Gelehrsamkeit unter den modernen Juden’.
[6] cf. Edith Lutz, Der Verein für Cultur und Wissenschaft des Judentums und sein Mitglied H. Heine (Stuttgart 1997), p. 102.
[7] March 1822, second half of 1822, June 1823.
[8] In a letter to Leopold Zunz, 27 June 1823: Heine describes most of the third volume as ‘ungenießbar wegen der verwahrlosten Form’, and adds ‘ich bin fest überzeugt was ich nicht verstehe, versteht auch nicht David Levy, Israel Moses, Nathan Itzig, ja vielleicht nicht mahl Auerbach II. Ich habe alle Sorten Deutsch studiert, sächsisch Deutsch, schwäbisch Deutsch, fränkisch Deutsch - /aber unser Zeitschriftdeutsch macht mir die meisten Schwierigkeiten. Wüßte ich zufallig nicht, was Ludwig Marcus und Doctor Gans wollen, so würde ich gar nichts von ihnen verstehen.’ (cf. E. Lutz. pp.172f.).
[9] Schalom Ben-Chonn, ‘Jüdische Bibelübersetzungen in Deutschland’, LBIYB (1959), p. 317.
[10] cf. Ismar Elbogen in 30th Jahresbericht of the Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (1912), p. 62.
[11] Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums 19 (1855), p. 238.
[12] Other publications included Bibliothek der griechischen und römischen Schriftsteller über Judentum und Juden, Jahrbuch für Geschichte des Judentums und der Juden (1860-1869), and the majority of the works by Ludwig and Phöbus Philippson.
[13] Michael A. Meyer (ed), Deutsch-Jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit, vol. 3 (München 1997), p. 343.
[14] Rabbi Eschelbacher in Jahrbuch des Verbandes für Judische Geschichte und Literatur (JJGL) 7 (1904), p. 2.
[15] JJGL 2 (1899), p. 269.
[16] Even the strictly Orthodox newspaper Der Israelit regularly informed its readers of the activities of the local Verein in Frankfurt and of nationwide Verbandstage.
[17] Gustav Karpeles in a letter to Israel Abrahams, The Jewish Chronicle New Series 1(1902), p. 735. The corresponding English model was established in the same year.
[18] Hermann Cohen, ‘Zwei Vorschläge zur Sicherung unseres Fortbestandes’ in Jüdische Schriften, ed. Bruno Strauss (Berlin 1924), vol. II, p. 134: ‘Das Neue in unserer jetzigen Notlage besteht darin, daß unsere Gegner, in der Tat, so unglaublich es scheint, mit unserer in absehbarer Zeit zu bewirkenden Vernichtung rechnen.’
[19] Cf. Claude Welch, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century, vol. 2 (New Haven and London 1985), pp. 146ff.
[20] Adolf v. Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig 1929), p. 58.
[21] Harnack, ibid., p. 66.
[22] Harnack, ibid., p. 69.
[23] Karpeles in JJGL 5 (1902), pp. 20-22.
[24] S. L. Steinthal, ‘Festrede zum 25jährigen Jubiläum der Lehranstalt fur die Wissenschaft des Judentums’ in über Juden und Judentum, 2.ed. Gustav Karpeles (Berlin 1910), p. 242.
[25] A. Geiger, ‘Die Gründung einer jüdisch-theologischen Fakultät, ein dringendes Bedürfnis unserer Zeit’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 2 (1836).
[26] L. Philippson, ‘Aufforderung an alle Israeliten Deutschlands zu Subscriptionen, um eine jüdisch-theologische Fakultät und ein jüdisches Seminar zu begründen,’ AZJ I (1837), p. 349ff.
[27] On two separate occasions, in 1843 and again in 1848, Leopold Zunz petitioned the Prussian government, only to receive a negative reply. A reprint of the reply can be found in MGWJ 51(1907), pp. 654-658. On a separate occasion, in 1853, a Jewish foundation offered the University of Berlin 1000 Taler as a fellowship for two lecturers who would lecture on the subject of post-biblical Judaism.
[28] This Jewish seminary was founded under the name ‘Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums’, indicating its high academic standard, but had to change its name in 1883 under state pressure to the reduced status of ‘Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judentums’. In 1922, the institution was permitted to resume its original title, but when the Nazis came to power, it was forced to readopt the title ‘Lehranstalt’.
[29] His lectures in the Verein included: ‘Die Lage der Juden im Okcident und Orient’ (1899), ‘Die Juden in Spanien’ (1901), ‘Der Streit um den Talmud zur Zeit der Humanisten’ (1902), ‘Herodes der Große’ (1903), ‘Zur Gründung des Vereins zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums’ (1904), ‘Das Judentum zur Zeit der Entstehung des Chnstentums’ (1905), ‘Kaiser Julian und die Juden’ and ‘Constantin der Große und die Juden’ (1906), ‘Moses, Jesus, Mohammed’ (1911). cf. ‘Berichte über die literarische Tätigkeit der Vereine’ in JJGL.
30 cf. Leopold Lucas, ‘Zum 25-jährigen Jubiläum der Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums’, MGWJ 71(1927), p. 323.
31 cf. Michael A. Meyer (ed.), Deutsch-Jüdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit, vol. 3 (München 1997), p.20f.
32 Georg Herlitz, ‘Die Lehranstalt (Hochschule) für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin’, Bulletin des Leo Baeck Institutes 35 (1966), p. 198.
33 Additionally Rabbi Sigmund Maybaum helped out with a two hour lesson per week.
34 Martin Graetz, ‘The A.J.G.V’, LBIYB 8 (1963), p. 267.
35 Franz D. Lucas and Margret Heitmann, Stadt des Glaubens: Geschichte und Kultur der Juden in Glogau (Hildesheim 1991), p. 260.
36 cf. Erhart Dettmering (ed.), Rabbiner Dr Leopold Lucas, Marburg 1872 -1943 Theresienstadt: Versuch einer Würdigung (Marburg 1987), pp. 27-34.
37 cf. Leopold Lucas, Die Wissenschaft des Judentums und die Wege zu ihrer Förderung (Berlin 1906), pp. 10ff.
38 MGWJ 47 (1903), pp. 572f.
39 It was repeatedly insisted that the authors were solely responsible for their respective orks and that the contents did in no way lect the views of the Gesellschaft, by adding to each publication the words: ‘Die Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums überlaßt den Herren Autoren die Verantwortung für die in ihren Werken enthaltenen wissenschaftlichen Tatsachen und Ansichten.’ Through this statement, the founders distanced themselves a priori from any possible religious conflict that might ensue from the contents of a publication.
40 Martin Philippson in JJGL 8 (1905), p. 2.
41 The Gesellschaft managed to publish only the first part of volume one (encompassing earliest settlement until 1238). The completion of the work has been taken up after the war by the Leo Baeck Institute.
42 Theologische Literaturzeitung 47 (1922), p. 153.
43 MGWJ 57 (1913), p. 119.
44 Nahum H. Glatzer in Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 12 (Jerusalem 1972), p. 240.
45 E. Dettmering, Rabbiner Dr. Leopold Lucas, p. 36.