ciate. Not only so, but the book purportsnto answer the question of whynscience did not develop in Judaism,nthat is, a typical question in the greatntradition of Max Weber: why no capitalismnin China or India or Judaism?nExplaining why he could not benbothered to read the book, Hook repliednto me, “With respect to Jewish ornJudaic learning and lore, because ofnthe primitive Jewish education tonwhich I was exposed in the Brooklynnslum in which I grew up, I am annhaaretz [ignoramus]. There was neverntime to make it up, although I readnavidly in the history of the Jews andnone time the English and Germanntranslations of the books of Josephus,nwho fascinated me.”nThe Jewish study Hook foundnworth pursuing was then the historicalnand the secular, not the holy books butnthe one extant secular writing of ancientnJewish life, Josephus’ histories.nGiven the majestic voyage Hook undertook,nfrom the left to the right,ngiven the man’s remarkable capacity tonlearn and grow through life, his dismissalnof Judaic intellectual life (“therenwas never time to make it up”) isnremarkable. It makes us wonder hownsomeone who could rethink everythingnelse would not ask himself whether, innhis original exposure to the Judaicntradition, he might have missed somethingnimportant.nI point to Hook not because he isnexceptional but because he is quitenexemplary of the attitude toward Judaismncharacteristic of the Jewish neoconservatives,ntheir writings, and thenmagazines and platforms and foundationsnthey control. The contrast betweennNational Review, with its regularnpage devoted to religion (nownedited by Richard John Neuhaus) andnCommentaTy, with never a word onnJudaism, stands for much else. Whynhas the encounter with conservatism,nwith its profound appreciation fornChristianity (particulariy Roman CatholicnChristianity) not as useful but asntrue, left an entire cohort of Jewishnintellectuals indifferent to Judaism? Inthink the answers will vary, from casento case. In the instance of Hook, henwent from his Jewish roots to philosophy.nHe did not despise, he merelyndismissed his encounter with the relicsnof the mind of Judaism, and he nevernwent back to look again. He concludednthat Judaic thought was intellectuallyninconsequential, perhaps an embarrassment.nAs he moved from left tonright, he reconsidered every judgmentnbut that one.nNorman Podhoretz had a far superiornJewish education, studying in hisncollege years at Jewish TheologicalnSeminary of America. I remember thatnwhen he was chosen editor of Commentary,nthe fact that he had a Jewishneducation and was supposed to be ableneven to read Hebrew was cited asnreason for celebration; it was an elementnin his portfolio. Podhoretz quicklyndisappointed those who thought exposurento learning at JTSA wouldnmake much difference. He removednthe regular stigmata of Judaic writingnthat the magazine had long featured,ne.g., a monthly column. Cedars ofnLebanon, of Judaic classical prose. Hendismissed all of the contributors ofnJudaic articles; in the 1950’s, despitenthe generally sound critique of Steinberg,nthe magazine published articlesnof classic and enduring value, for example,nimportant papers by Heschelnand Buber. He printed occasional papersnof great value by Gershom G.nScholem and Jacob Katz, a regularncolumn of exceptional acuity by RobertnAlter on Jewish literature (for literature,nlike history, is kosher because it isnsecular), and that was that. Not a singlenJudaic religious thinker has been publishednin Commentary in a quarter of ancentury. Commentary is Jewish butnnever Judaic. Indeed, apart from intenseninterest in Israeli matters, evennthe episodes of serious Jewish, if notnJudaic, writing decline in frequency.nAnything Jewish may find its placenin the world view of the neocons ofnJewish origin, history, sociology, literature,npolitics — anything except religion.nThat seems to me anomalous,nand I point to the anomaly. All I knownis that, when it comes to the rich andnsanctifying Judaic religious life, with itsnsophisticated intellectual heritage ofnreflection and rigorous thought, thesenpeople stand at one with the left, innunity with the learned despisers ofnreligion. Their conservatism has notnyet fulfilled itself.nJacob Neusner is Ungerleider DistinguishednScholar of Judaic Studies atnBrown University.nnnLetter From APSAnby Barry Alan ShainnA Party Without GuestsnAt the last American Political ScientistsnAssociation (APSA) convention in Chicagon(September 3-6, 1987), I wasnimmediately struck, and happily so, bynthe unusual attention given to historicalnmatters. This certainly was a reflectionnof the convention’s theme that was anresponse to last year’s bicentennial celebrationnof the national Constitution.nNevertheless, there were two aspects ofnthis new historical sensibility that Infound deeply dissatisfying. The twoncentral historical themes — the Constitutionnand republicanism—were badlynhandled and, rather than reflecting simplenincompetence, their distorted presentationntold of the deeply held ideological,nreligious, and class biasesnamongst almost all of the association’snmembership.nMy dissatisfaction with the panelsnand the ensuing papers on the Constitutionnresulted from what I took to be anmisplaced emphasis on trying to discovernwith apodictic certainty what thenoriginal intent of the founders was.nUnder any understanding of constitutionalnjurisprudence, the intent of thendelegates to the national convention isnat best a tangential question and, atnworst, purely specious on at least twondifferent levels of analysis.nFirst, we know that many of thennationalist promoters of the convention—nincluding the two central authorsnof the main apologia for thendocument, Hamilton and Madison—nwere deeply dissatisfied with the finalnoutcome. On this level of analysis,ntherefore, their original intentions canntell us nothing about the final documentnor how it should be understood.nThis intellectual confusion is not anmatter of bias but simply of a mistakennapproach to the problem. It is on thensecond level of analysis, however, thatnstrong possibility of intellectual biasncrops up.nPutting aside how many Americansnactually supported the new frame ofnnational government (be it 5 percent orn20 percent), the importance attached tonthe intention of the “founders” fliesndirectly in the face of the originalnlegitimacy on which this governmentnrested. This framework of national gov-nJUNE 19881 45n