partment of Near Eastern Studies. ThernYale Department of Religious Studies includesrnin its Jewish studies anything Jewish,rnregardless of its bearing on the studyrnof the religion. So when universities dornorganize the subject, either they leave itrnout of the study of religion altogetherrnor they define it, within the study of religion,rnin a way utterly incongruent withrnthe way they study other religions. WhenrnProtestant divinity schools make appointmentsrnin Judaism, they want OrthodoxrnJews to teach the Old Testament but exhibitrnremarkably slight interest in the historyrnof Judaism beyond the advent ofrnChristianity. Whether or not Judaismrndied at Golgotha, interest in Judaism as arnliving religion of integrity and autonomyrnhas not survived among Christian professors.rnSo the Harvard Divinity Schoolrnused its Jewish-funded chair to appointrnJon Levinson, and Chicago used itsrncounterpart for S. Michael Fishbane,rnboth of them skilled exegetes of the OldrnTestament, but neither a distinguishedrnscholar of Judaism beyond Scripture.rnWhen the ethnic-Jewish scholars ofrn”Judaism” hold scholarly meetings, theyrnstudy everything but the religion: itsrntraits, structure, ethics, theology, impactrnupon the social order, and the way of lifernof its faithful. Judaism, in contrast to Islamrnor Christianity or Buddhism, findsrnno hearing. When the European Associationrnof Jewish Studies met in Toledo,rnSpain, last summer, 300 people assembledrnto conduct a jamboree of ethnicrnculture. When the Association of JewishrnStudies (U.S. and Canada) meets annuallyrnin Boston, its wildly incoherent programrnaccommodates every discipline,rnevery topic, every theory and attitude —rnexcept religion, to which no section isrndevoted. The World Union of JewishrnStudies, in its regular meetings inrnJerusalem every four years, has no sectionrnon the history of Judaism. When therndata of Judaism are addressed, thernparts — mysticism, philosophy, theology,rnlaw, institutions, liturgy, and literature —rnnever coalesce.rnSo much for academic societies.rnWliat about Jewish institutions of higherrnlearning? Here, the ethnicization of Judaismrnfinds enormous impetus. Jewishsponsoredrnand financed universities andrnresearch centers make room for everythingrnbut religion and the comparativernstudy of religions. Brandeis University,rnthe secular-Jewish university nearrnBoston, has no department of religiousrnstudies, nor does the Orthodox YeshivarnUniversity in New York City. The OxfordrnCentre for Jewish Studies emphasizesrnresearch in Jews’ histories, languages,rnand literatures; religion rarelyrncomes to the fore, even in the form ofrntheology. In Israel, departments and programsrnof religious studies, such as theyrnare, occupy a marginal position in theirrnown universities; topics pertinent to Judaismrnare treated principally in departmentsrnof Jewish thought. Israeli study ofrnJudaism as a religion is carried on by arnhandful of academicians, only two of internationalrnstanding. Jews College, London;rnthe Jewish Theological Seminary ofrnAmerica; Hebrew Union College-JewishrnInstitute of Religion—none of the principalrnEnglish-language centers for therneducation of rabbis encompasses withinrnits curriculum the academic study of religion,rnand very few professors in the rabbinicalrnschools qualify with doctorates inrnreligious studies.rnWhy is all this so? Because the Jews inrncharge of the politics of Jewish culture,rnand therefore in control of scholarship —rnthose that give the money and those thatrntake and spend the money—insist thatrn”Judaism” means anything Jewish butrnnothing religious. Above all, they do notrnwant the Jews as a group to be defined asrna religious eommunify. A nation (for thernstate of Israel), an ethnic community (inrnthe Canadian and U.S. mosaic of “peoples”),rna community of fate (includingrnanyone the Nuremberg laws called a Jewrnand anything such a person everrnthought, said, or did): To be a member ofrn”the Jews” involves everything except believingrnsomething or obeying religiousrnrules.rnThe moneybags and the windbagsrnconcur. So the money goes to Jewishrnhistory, especially holocaust studies, andrnthe academic jobs go to those that studyrnsomething—anything—about the Jewsrnbut Judaism. Scholars, whether Orthodoxrnor ethnic in private life, simply dismissrnthe category “religion” as irrelevantrnto Jewish learning. Judaism in the comparativernstudy of religions? Whateverrnfor?rnProfessor Stephen T. Katz, who holdsrna Cambridge University doctorate and isrna professor of Jewish studies and of religionrnat Boston University, recentiy askedrnCambridge University Press to commissionrnhim to edit a volume. The CambridgernHistory of Judaism, to be devotedrnto “Judaism” in the first six centuries A.D.rnCambridge Press has already publishedrntwo previous volumes, but the second ofrnthe two, which appeared a decade orrnmore after the chapters were written andrntherefore was obsolete on the day of publication,rncreated a huge scandal. Somernof the chapters simply ignored not thernprior ten but an entire 50 years of scholarship.rnOver the next decade and a half,rnCambridge could not manage to publishrnthe planned third and fourth volumes.rnAfter more than a decade of waiting, Irnwithdrew the five chapters I’d written forrnvolumes three and four, since by thatrnpoint they were woefully out-of-date. Researchrnhad moved on — including myrnown.rnBut Katz has asked Cambridge UniversityrnPress to revive the project. Whenrnwe review the topics he proposes, we seernthat he and his eo-editors, ordained Conservativernrabbis all —Reuven Kimelman,rnShaye J.D. Cohen, and David Halivni,rnwho teach at Brandeis University, BrownrnUniversity, and Columbia University, respectivelyrn—envision a volume of Jewishrnhistory, not the history of Judaism.rnThe topics tell the story: “Jewish statusrnin the Roman Empire after 70,” “Jewishrnrevolts and Roman persecutions,” “thernBar Kokhba Revolt,” “the diaspora fromrn70-235,” “the political and social historyrnof the Jewish community of Palestine,”rn”the economic history of Palestine,” “therninstitiition of the Patriarchate and Jewishrnself-government,” “Emperor Julian andrnthe Jews,” “Jews in Byzantium,” “Justinianrnand the Jews,” and on and on. Othersrndo encompass critical issues in the studyrnof religion (for instance, “the synagoguernand the liturgy”), but these are a smallrnpart of the whole. More important, not arnsingle entry addresses the theology ofrnRabbinic Judaism either as a whole or onrnany specific topic, nor is there anythingrnon ethics, the practice of Judaism, thernrites and rituals of the day, the disputesrnand debates, or the intellectual life of thernfaith. How Scripture is received andrntransformed; how the rabbis viewed Israelrnamong the nations; how they interpretedrnIsrael’s history from Scripture forward,rnlet alone their esehatological andrnmessianic doctrines and the principles ofrntheir creed—none of these critical issuesrnof the religious life is examined. If, inrnlate antiqinty, a Judaism other than thernRabbinic kind flourished, or if diversernmodes of practicing a single Rabbinic Judaismrndeveloped, we will learn nothingrnabout it from this volume. When itrncomes to the gentile world, antisemitismrnis covered, but not the views of Judaismrnset forth by Christian, pagan, and Zoro-rnMAY 1999/39rnrnrn