But, as I see it, “collective Jewish memory” and “the sages’ approach” operate on a paradigm that is incommensurable with “scholarly Jewish history” and with secularity in general, Zionist or otherwise. What I would propose instead is an approach that is dialectical rather than integrative.This essay is in response to an earlier one by Eric Mechoulan: “What Is the Meaning of Jewish History?" You can find it on the Mosaic website. But be forewarned that Mosaic has changed its access rules. Non-subscribers can now only read three articles per month for free. Choose wisely!
That is, rather than imagining a reconciliation of these very different paradigms for relating to the past, we should recognize that there are both gains and losses that come from examining any historical phenomenon as either a committed insider or a disinterested outsider (so far as the latter is possible). Neither discourse in the first person nor discourse in the third person tells the whole story. In matters like those Mechoulan discusses, both unqualified identification and unqualified objectification have their limitations. The whole truth is larger than either traditional memory or modern critical historiography can accommodate alone.
Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.
