You are here:   Text > Irving Kristol on Jews and Judaism
 
Returning home after the war, Kristol discovered a new outlet for his literary as well as his theotropic impulses in the recently founded Jewish monthly Commentary. He hastily wrote a short story which, to his surprise, the magazine accepted and even paid for. Based upon his encounter with a young Jewish survivor in a displaced-persons camp near Marseille — in the story, the meeting takes place in the Zionist headquarters in Marseille — "Adam and I" recounts the confrontation between the troubled, guilt-ridden narrator (clearly, Kristol himself) and the rather aggressive young man seeking his help. This is Kristol's only published story. (He later wrote, and scrapped, a novel, deciding that fiction was not his forte.) It is also his first literary venture with an explicitly Jewish theme. He followed it up with a review of a book on the Holocaust and a short essay on Communist anti-Semitism.

"By the late 1940s," Kristol writes in one of his memoirs, "religious thought was my most passionate interest — though in the secular-liberal milieu in which I lived and worked, it was an interest to be revealed with prudence." This may seem an odd comment to make, for Kristol's "milieu" was then Commentary, where he had become an assistant editor. That Jewish journal, however, was itself of a decidedly "secular-liberal" temperament, not given to any serious interest in Jewish religion or for that matter religion in general. (Nathan Glazer, also on the staff at the time, has said that Kristol was the magazine's de-facto religion editor.) But if Kristol's interest was "to be revealed with prudence," his September 1947 contribution, the first after his appointment as an editor, was anything but prudent. Indeed, one wonders what prompted Elliot Cohen, the founding editor of Commentary, to publish so dense and erudite an essay by his new, 27-year-old junior editor, and what his readers made of it.

"The Myth of the Supra-Human Jew: The Theological Stigma" is a passionate discourse on the Christian origins of anti-Semitism, and it is a challenge from the outset. The essay opens abruptly with a shocking quotation: "Anyone who is not instinctively disgusted by the Synagogue is unworthy of a dog's respect." That sentence, Kristol explains, appeared in a 1905 book by the French novelist and Catholic polemicist Léon Bloy, Le Salut par les Juifs ("'Salvation through the Jews"); Bloy, in turn, had taken his title from the words of Jesus in the gospel of Saint John: Salus ex Judaeis est. "A strange sentiment," Kristol comments on the quotation about the synagogue, "for a book so titled, and one suspects the presence of a spirit of irony." But Bloy was not being ironic, Kristol insists; in expressing these two conflicting sentiments, anti- and philo-Semitic, he was entirely serious.

Nor was Kristol himself being ironic in opening his essay with that startling quotation from a book written early in the century by a theologian little known among American Catholics, let alone American Jews. Nor was he being deliberately pedantic in elaborating upon it with long excerpts and explications from Catholic thinkers like Raïssa and Jacques Maritain, Ernest Renan, Charles Péguy, even Pope Innocent III, as well as the Jewish theologian Joshua Trachtenberg, the German anti-Semite Hans Blüher, and the poet Rainer Maria Rilke. Where a magazine like Commentary might have been expected to focus on the social, economic, and political sources of anti-Semitism, Kristol subjected it to a profoundly, agonizingly theological examination.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
pbasch
December 7th, 2014
6:12 AM
Don, you could be right. I'm from NY (though Manh, not Bkln), and only semi-Jewish, but I remember a subtext among my Jewish friends, and especially their parents, that the Christian world, with its political power, social acceptance, seductive blonde women, delightful holidays (with their irresistible hallucinatory blend of Bible, paganism, and commerce - bunnies! elves! Jesus! Sales!), and alcohol, presented such a fearsome temptation, that to avoid being completely overwhelmed they had to take "us vs them" to new heights. Add that to the very American addiction to a good-guy/bad-guy mythos, where the actions of a "good guy" can only be good (regardless of what the action is) and contrariwise for "bad guys", and you get a toxic stew that, in my old granny's words, can only be "bad for the Jews." Just read up on the Ramopo Hasids and you'll see what I mean.

Avi Opincar
December 4th, 2014
8:12 AM
Since Torah's direct treatment of pharmaceutical science is less than scant, and its dilation upon moral duty comparatively abundant, one should well argue that Torah, according to even its own lights, was more in the business of promoting humanity's sacred obligation to care for the sick, and less in that of spelling out cost-effective recipes for safe well-tolerated asthma medications. So, given that Irving "Born Theotropic" Kristol publicly schlepped major nachas from his familiarity with Judaism, and claimed "neo-orthodox" street cred, to boot, it's quite wacky that Kristol seems at the same time to have feigned total ignorance of "Torah Umadda," Centrist Orthodoxy's elegant, and hardly secret, synthesis of Torah and mundane knowledge, including science. Perhaps only a guy possessed by such eerie ambitions might try to pull off something like that while expecting no one to notice what he was up to, and for his core readership to prove so reliably in the thrall of a childlike gullibility as to never, ever poke fun at his weirdo castigation of science's secularism, and of scientists' refusal to pronounce the human soul, and the existence of the World to Come, as directly observable and quantifiable matters of empirical fact. One can then but hope for Kristol's sake that, as he goes about enjoying the very best that his present destination has to offer, he's spending rather more time with Rav Esriel Hildesheimer than with Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, or Billy Graham, if for no other reason than that the food is probably a lot better. B'hatzlacha, Irving!

Don Phillipson
December 3rd, 2014
2:12 PM
I was struck by Kristol's memory of Brooklyn in the 1930s: "In school, the rabbi . . . taught the children to fear Gentiles and to spit when passing a church." Was this typical of American Jewry at this date? Nothing similar comes to mind in accounts of contemporary French, German or English Jewry. Is extremism a special characteristic of Brooklyn Jews?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.