Reshaping Jewish Thought after the Holocaust. Emil Fackenheim's Confrontation with Unprecedented Modernity (2014)

UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN Reshaping Jewish Thought after the Holocaust Emil Fackenheim’s Confrontation with Unprecedented Modernity 12‐06‐2014 Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Introduction 2 1.1 1.2 2 2 Modernity and Religion Modernity and Judaism: confronting the Holocaust Emil Fackenheim 4 2.1 2.2 4 4 Life Scholarly work The Holocaust 6 3.1 3.2 3.3 6 6 7 Unique Incomprehensible Rupture Re‐reading the Bible after the Holocaust 8 4.1 4.2 8 8 Introduction Two types of murmurers: re‐reading biblical rebellions Moral obligations after the Holocaust 10 5.1 5.2 5.3 10 10 11 Introduction Tikkun olam: mending the Holocaust‐rupture Conclusion 6. Conclusion and final thoughts 12 7. Works cited 15 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Modernity and religion Modernity and religion are often presented as diametrically opposed concepts. Opponents of religion and orthodox believers alike uphold this view. The first claim modernity and religion to be incompatible for a reason obvious to them: religion as such is devoid of any sense of modernity. The latter contend the exact same, albeit on different grounds. In their opinion, it is the presence of divine revelation that leaves no room for modernity in religion. 1 Clearly, these two standpoints represent the extremes in the debate. Much more can be said, and has already been said by others, about the complex dynamics at play between modernity and religion. For the purpose of this discussion, however, it suffices to emphasize that the relationship between modernity and religion is characterized by tension, challenge and confrontation. In the modern era, religions have been faced with the challenge to review their believes, traditions, practices and scriptures in a world primarily concerned with progress, secularism, rationalism and science. 2 1.2. Modernity and Judaism: confronting the Holocaust When we limit our scope of ‘the modern era’ to the twentieth century, one historical event begs particular attention in a study of the confrontation between modernity and religion. The Holocaust, the systematic extermination of six million Jews by the Nazi regime,3 is a distinctive product of modernity. To this day, the atrocities of the event are part of modern politics through remembrance, but also by the scars that are inflicted on survivors and succeeding generations.4 Many Jewish thinkers have embarked on the daunting task of reconsidering Jewish religion in the aftermath of the Holocaust. To many of them, this critical event in history marks a rupture between their pre‐war and post‐war thinking. The 1 Staf Hellemans, “How Modern is Religion in Modernity?” in Religious Identity and the Role of Historical Foundation. The Foundational Character of Authoritative Sources in the History of Christianity and Judaism, ed. Judith Frishman et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 79‐80. 2 Fred. R. von der Mehden, Religion and Modernization in Southeast Asia (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 8. 3 Leora Batnitzky, How Judaism Became A Religion. An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011), 91. 4 Peter Barham, “The next village: modernity, memory and the Holocaust,” History of the Human Sciences 5 (1992): 39, accessed June 11, 2014, doi: 10.1177?095269519200500304. 2 Holocaust has radically changed their views about human nature, religious purpose, hope and trust. Subsequently, Jewish life and religion after the Holocaust can only be understood in relation to this event.5 Emil Ludwig Fackenheim (1916‐2003), philosopher and theologian, is one of these scholars. He has written extensively on the subject matter and is considered ‘the best trained philosopher among Jewish Holocaust thinkers’.6 It falls beyond the scope of this study to present an exhaustive discussion of his Holocaust theology and philosophy. Instead, I will concentrate on two elements of his work, namely his post‐war reading of the Bible and his discussion of the moral obligations Jews are faced with after the Holocaust. A close reading of (a selection of) Fackenheim’s work will give us an insight in how the pivotal moment of modern history has led to a reshaping of Jewish, religious thinking. Moreover, it will enable us to draw more general conclusions about the aforementioned complex confrontation between modernity and religion. In the following chapters, I will start with a brief discussion of Emil Fackenheim’s life and scholarly work. Second, I will elaborate on his appreciation of the Holocaust as the ‘uniquely unique’ event par excellence.7 In chapter 4, I will discuss Fackenheim’s post‐war reading of the Bible as discussed in his book The Jewish Bible after the Holocaust. A Re‐reading. The focus shifts from scripture to morals in chapter 5, where I pay attention to Fackenheim’s discussion of religious moral obligations after the Holocaust. Finally, I will discuss how the critical event of modern history, has brought about an inevitable reshaping of Jewish thought. Furthermore, I will present some final thoughts about the confrontation between modernity and religion that can be drawn from this study. 5 Michael L. Morgan, “Jewish Ethics after the Holocaust,” Journal of Religious Ethics 12, no. 2 (1984): 260‐261, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 11, 2014). 6 Robert Eisen, “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 96, no. 3 (2003): 269, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed June 11, 2014). 7 Emil Fackenheim and David Patterson, “Why the Holocaust is Unique,” Judaism 50, no. 4 (2001): 438, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 11, 2014). 3 2. Emil Fackenheim 2.1 Life Emil Ludwig Fackenheim was born in Halle, Germany. After graduating from the Stadtgymnasium, he moved to Berlin to continue his studies at the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. There, he studied Midrash, Bible, history and philosophy. His academic career came to an abrupt halt when, during Kristallnacht, he was arrested by the Nazis and held at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp for several months. Following his release, Fackenheim fled to Scotland and later to Canada. He was accepted at the University of Toronto and received his degree in philosophy in 1945. For five years, Fackenheim served as a Reform rabbi in Hamilton, Ontario. In 1948, he was invited to teach at the University of Toronto, a position he held for 35 years. Upon retirement in 1983, Fackenheim and his wife immigrated to Israel. He worked as a teacher at the Hebrew University, taught German theological students who traveled to Israel and paid several visits to the land of his birth where he received different degrees and honors for his scholarly work.8 Fackenheim died on 19 September 2003 in Jerusalem.9 2.2 Scholarly work Initially, in the period after World War II, Fackenheim was concerned with two intellectual interests: the tension between faith and reason and the role of revelation in modern culture. His work shows that Fackenheim was well versed in the ideas of philosophers such as Kant, Kierkegaard, Hegel and Rosenzweig. At first glance, it seems remarkable that it was not until 1966 that Fackenheim dealt with the atrocities the Jewish people had suffered at the hands of the Nazis.10 However, most Jewish theologians remained silent on the Holocaust for more than two decades after World War II. Instigated 8 Michael L. Morgan, “Emil Fackenheim,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 672, Gale Virtual Reference Library (accessed June 11, 2014). 9 Zev Garber, “Reflections on Emil Fackenheim z”l (1916‐2003): The Man and His Holocaust Philosophy,” Shofar. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 22, no. 4 (2004): 107, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 11, 2014). 10 Morgan, “Emil Fackenheim,” 672. 4 by the trial of Adolf Eichmann and the 1967 Six Day War, however, the 1960s and early 1970s saw a new wave of theological writing on the Holocaust.11 Fackenheim was among those theologians who endeavored to formulate a response to the unprecedented horror of the Holocaust. In a paper delivered in 1966, he acknowledged the significance of ‘facing the horrors at Auschwitz.’12 From that time on, Fackenheim dedicated his work to the philosophical, theological and political challenges of the Holocaust. 13 Convinced that an existential response to the Holocaust is possible, despite the impossibility to understand the event,14 Fackenheim authored no less than nine books and a vast amount of articles on the subject.15 Among his most famous works, elaborating his idea of a Jewish response to the Holocaust, are Quest for Past and Future (1970), God’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections (1970), To Mend the World: Foundations of Future Jewish Thought (1982) and The Jewish Bible after the Holocaust: A Re‐reading (1990). In these last two books, Fackenheim discusses the concepts that are the focal point of this study, namely the moral obligations that are inseparable from a Jewish response to the Holocaust and a necessary post‐war reading of the Bible. However, before delving into these ideas, it is important to shed light on Fackenheim’s perception of the Holocaust. 11 David Hazony, “The Man Who Saved God from the Holocaust,” Shofar. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 31, no. 4 (2013): 54, accessed June 11, 2014, doi: 10.1353/sho.2013.0088. 12 Morgan, “Emil Fackenheim,” 672. 13 Batnitzky, How Judaism Became A Religion, 92. 14 Morgan, “Emil Fackenheim,” 673. 15 Eisen, “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology,” 369. 5 3. The Holocaust Emil Fackenheim’s understanding of the Holocaust is threefold: the event is unique, incomprehensible and marks a rupture in history. I will briefly discuss these three characteristics. 3.1 Unique In several of his works, Fackenheim emphasizes that the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people has no precedent within Jewish history or outside Jewish history. He argues that the Holocaust differs from other cases of genocide in two respects. Firstly, in other cases of genocide people were killed for “rational”, though no less appalling, ends: wealth, power, territory and self‐interest. The Nazi murder of the Jews was devoid of any rational motive or goal. Instead, the Holocaust was the execution of an ideology that lacked any rational foundation.16 Even more unique than the crime is the situation of the victims. The Jews who perished during the Holocaust did not die because of their faith or race. Fackenheim points out that over a million children lost their life during World War II because of the faith of their great‐grandparents. This reasoning is in need of some explanation. Nazi law defined a Jew as a person with Jewish grandparents. Therefore, these children were killed not because of their own faith, but because of the faith of their great‐grandparents who raised Jewish children.17 On different occasions, Fackenheim has stated that ‘if the Holocaust was unique, for German Jews it was uniquely unique.’18 For many European Jews, disaster was brought upon them by an invading enemy. This was not the case for German Jews, like Fackenheim himself. Their suffering was inflicted by friends, neighbors and ‘people they (…) went to school with.’19 16 Emil L. Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections (New York etc.: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972), 70. 17 Ibid., 70. 18 Fackenheim and Patterson, “Why the Holocaust Is Unique,” 438. 19 Ibid., 438. 6 3.2 Incomprehensible In several of his central writings, Fackenheim brings forward the notion that intellectual understanding of the evil of the Holocaust is impossible. The historical event goes beyond all comprehension and presents the historian who strives for understanding with an inevitable paradox. In To Mend the World, Fackenheim formulates this paradox as follows: (T)he more the psychologist, historian, or “psychohistorian” succeeds in explaining the event or the action, the more nakedly he comes to confront its ultimate inexplicability. .20 3.3 Rupture For Fackenheim, as for many others, the Holocaust marks a total rupture. The catastrophic event has ruptured civilizations, cultures and religions.21 Throughout his work, Fackenheim acknowledges the rupture caused by the atrocious event of history: there is a constant distinction between history, religion and philosophy before and after the Holocaust. It is precisely this omnipresent rupture that lies at the basis of Fackenheim’s re‐reading of the Bible and his discussion of the moral obligation to attempt repair (tikkun). 20 Emil L. Fackenheim, To Mend the World: Foundations of Post‐Holocaust Jewish Thought, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 233. 21 Fackenheim, To Mend the World, 262. 7 4. Re‐reading the Bible after the Holocaust 4.1 Introduction In The Jewish Bible After the Holocaust, Fackenheim states that the rupture with history and tradition caused by the Holocaust makes it necessary for Jews today to read the Bible ‘as though they had never read it before.’22 The centuries long tradition of commentaries and sub commentaries, according to Fackenheim, can no longer function as a cushion between the reader and the text. This historical continuity has been ruptured by the Holocaust. In light of this event, Jews should return to the ‘naked’ text of the Ta’nach.23 After a discussion of the hermeneutical situation prior to the Holocaust, Fackenheim presents his own post‐war reading of the Jewish Bible in three essays. I will discuss two examples from his first essay, Two types of murmurers: re‐reading the Jewish Bible after Auschwitz, to illustrate Fackenheim’s reading of the ‘naked’ text. 4.2 Two types of murmurers: re‐reading biblical rebellions In this short essay, Fackenheim recalls several instances of rebellion in the Bible. Having fled Egypt, Moses and his people dwell in the desert. Nearly dying of thirst, the people turn to Moses and ask him for water for their cattle and their children. There was no water for the people to drink. Wherefore the people strove with Moses and said, ‘Give us water that we may drink,’ and Moses said unto them, ‘Why strive ye with me? Wherefore do you try the Lord?’ And the people thirsted there for water… and murmured against Moses, and said ‘wherefore hast thou brought us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst.’ (Exodus 17: 1‐3) The biblical narrator sides with Moses and the Lord. The murmurers, who beg Moses for water and thereby try the Lord, are reprimanded. On the other hand, Fackenheim draws attention to a post‐Holocaust reader. The image of children dying of thirst will no doubt bring this reader to take sides with the murmurers. Surely, the image of the sufferings in the 22 Emil L. Fackenheim, The Jewish Bible After the Holocaust: A Re‐reading (Bloomington etc.: Indiana University Press, 1990), viii. 23 Ibid., viii. 8 death camps lingers all too vividly in the minds of those who are familiar with, or have been exposed to, the monstrosities of the Nazi regime.24 A post‐Holocaust reading of the ‘naked’ Biblical text goes against the classical biblical narrator, against Moses and even against God. Another example shows how post‐Holocaust readers are at times obliged to side with the biblical narrator and against the rebellious murmurers. Fackenheim recalls the account of Korach and his men who came together and took a stand against Moses: ‘Ye take too much upon you, seeing that all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift yourselves up above the assembly of the Lord?’ (Numbers 16:3) Korach criticizes Moses, arguing that he has no special rights as leader because ‘all the people are holy’. Drawing from his vast knowledge of philosophy, Fackenheim holds that Korach and his man are like left wing Hegelians and Nietzscheans who hold it possible for mankind to achieve holiness.25 It was this line of thought that preceded the Nazism that culminated in the systematic killing of the Jews in Europe.26 Taking this into account, post‐ Holocaust readers are left with no other choice than to side with Moses and oppose the rebellious murmur of Korach and his men.27 Indeed, the rise to power of the Nazis has proven beyond any doubt the disaster that can come from the god‐like holiness Korach and his man attribute to themselves. Fackenheim’s reading of the Jewish Bible shows that the rupture caused by the Holocaust makes a new approach to the text an absolute necessity. Post‐Holocaust reading of the Bible is inevitably colored by knowledge, memory and experience of the critical event of modern history. This creates an abyss between the centuries long tradition of commentaries and the new, post‐war readers. It is exactly this chasm between tradition and the post‐Holocaust reality of the Jews that justifies Fackenheim’s plea for freeing the text from tradition, for reading the ‘naked’ test as it has never been read before. 24 Fackenheim, The Jewish Bible After the Holocaust, 28‐32. Ibid., 34. 26 Eisen, “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology,” 388. 27 Fackenheim, The Jewish Bible after the Holocaust, 35. 25 9 5. Moral obligations after the Holocaust 5.1 Introduction As mentioned earlier, for Fackenheim the Holocaust constitutes total rupture. However, he does not despair. He addresses the hardship and reality of post‐Holocaust Jewish reality in terms of Jewish Law. Fackenheim adds to the original 613 Jewish commandments (mitzvot) a 614th, post‐war commandment for the Jews: Jews are forbidden to give Hitler posthumous victories.28 He argues that since the unthinkable has been real, the Nazi genocide, the additional commandment has become a moral and religious necessity.29 It is this Commanding Voice of Auschwitz that compels Jews to mend the post Holocaust rupture.30 It is here that we arrive at a central concept of Fackenheim’s post‐Holocaust thought, the notion of tikkun olam31 (mending the broken world). 5.2 Tikkun olam: mending the Holocaust‐rupture Fackenheim states that the tikkun that is a moral obligation for the post‐Holocaust Jew, who heeds to the Commanding Voice of Auschwitz, is possible because already during the Holocaust a Jewish tikkun was actualized by acts of resistance.32 He recalls the resistance of Hasidim at Buchenwald who chose tefilin for prayer over bread,33 of the Polish noblewoman Pelagia Lewinksa who resisted the Nazi destruction of human dignity,34 or the Jewish mothers who risked their life to give life in the hell of the death camps.35 Each of these acts of resistance defied the Nazi logic of destruction and denied this evil logic its victory.36 28 Fackenheim, To Mend the World, 10. Ibid., 299‐300. 30 Eisen, “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology,” 384. 31 Tikkun refers to the Lurianic Kabbalistic notion of cosmic repair of God’s broken being and the world that is reflected in that being. This mending of brokenness is realized by performance of the commandments. (Ibid., 384). 32 Fackenheim, To Mend the World, 300. 33 Ibid., 218. 34 Ibid., 25‐26. 35 Ibid., 216. 36 Ibid., 301. 29 10 It is the resistance of Jews during the Holocaust that forms the foundation for present and future repair or tikkun. The rupture that is the result of the Holocaust can be repaired, because in the midst of the Holocaust people repaired the rupture as it was taking shape.37 However, early in his elaboration of the possibility of a post‐Holocaust repair of the rupture Fackenheim states that one must accept from the onset that this tikkun will be fragmentary at most. Those in the post‐Holocaust world have to accept their historical situatedness.38 Jewish faith has been upset for eternity and Jewish reality shall therefore be torn between despair and hope.39 5.3 Conclusion What conclusion can be drawn from the Commanding Voice of Auschwitz and the possibility of a fragmentary, post‐Holocaust tikkun? Fackenheim’s discussion of these concepts shows that post‐Holocaust Jews are confronted with a moral obligation that is deeply entrenched in the past, the present and the future. Heeding to the Commanding Voice of Auschwitz constitutes dedication to remembrance, Jewish survival, hope and an ongoing struggle with God.40 In the same way, the Jewish resistance during the Holocaust compels later generations to attempt to repair the rupture. The tikkun, that according to Fackenheim can never be more than a fragmentary bridging of the abyss between past and present caused by the Holocaust, connects pre‐war and post‐war Jews, Jewish thought and history. 37 Eisen, “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology,” 384. Fackenheim, To Mend the World, 256. 39 Eisen, “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology,” 384 40 Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History, 84‐89. 38 11 6. Conclusion and final thoughts Although modernity and religion are not direct opposites, the relationship between the two is characterized by a dynamics of tension, challenge and confrontation. Looking at the modern era, the Holocaust can be considered the pivotal moment of history and a particular challenge to Jewish religion. Emil L. Fackenheim is one among many Jewish thinkers who has devoted a considerable part of his scholarly career to a reconsidering of Jewish thought in the post‐ Holocaust era. His discussion of a re‐reading of the Jewish Bible and the moral obligations Jews are faced with after the Holocaust give an insight to the reshaping of Jewish thought in the post‐war era. For Fackenheim, the Holocaust is not only the critical event of modern history. In his prolific work on the subject, he repeatedly underlines that the Nazi genocide is a unique event. The irrational and systematic extermination of European Jews, solely on the grounds that they were born to Jewish parents, makes it impossible to compare the Holocaust to any other occurrence of genocide in history. Furthermore, Fackenheim describes the murdering of the Jews during the reign of the Germans Nazis as incomprehensible. Those who strive to understand the atrocities find themselves at an irresolvable paradox: the more one succeeds in explaining the event, the more apparent the inexplicability of it all becomes. Lastly, for Fackenheim the Holocaust marks a total rupture. After the horrible event, one cannot circumvent the constant distinction between history, religion and Jewish thought before and after the Holocaust. In his reconsideration of post‐Holocaust Jewish thought, Fackenheim proposes a radical re‐reading of the Jewish Bible. In his opinion, the total rupture makes it necessary for Jew to address ‘the naked’ text, unhindered by the centuries long tradition of commentaries. Fackenheim’s re‐reading as discussed in this study shows that the Holocaust has significant influence on one’s understanding of biblical accounts. Due to their historical situatedness and experience, post‐Holocaust readers are at times inclined to side with the rebellious murmurers in the Bible and at other times cannot chose otherwise than to side with God and his prophets. 12 Fackenheim’s work on Jewish post‐war moral obligation centers on the concepts of the Commanding Voice of Auschwitz and the mending of the broken world, tikkun olam. The dominant idea is that the resistance of Jews during the Holocaust has laid the foundation and at the same time creates the moral and religious obligation for post‐Holocaust Jews to put in every effort to mend the rupture caused by the unprecedented disaster. Despite the fact that the possibility for such a tikkun exists, Jews have to except that the bridging of the abyss between the past and the post‐war reality can only be fragmentary. Several conclusions can be drawn from Fackenheim’s philosophical and theological response to the Holocaust. Just as many other modern phenomena and events, the Holocaust has forced the Jewish religion to respond and look inward in order to find a way to confront modern times. It is not surprising that an event as unique and profoundly horrendous as the Holocaust requires a response that deals with core elements of religious tradition, namely scripture and morals. Fackenheim’s re‐reading of the Bible proves how the confrontation with modernity can alter a generation’s relationship with its religious tradition to the point where it is considered necessary to disregard authoritative tradition in order to come to religious views that better suit the needs of the time. In contrast, the Commanding Voice of Auschwitz undeniably proves that, even when faced with an apparently unbridgeable rupture, religious tradition is never fully detached from the past and can even be commanded by it. Religion appears to be divided between the tenacious grip of history and tradition and the demands of modernity that cannot be denied. Broadening our scope to a more general notion of the confrontation between modernity and religion begs the questions whether the conclusions drawn from the present study are exclusive to Judaism’s confrontation with modernity. Reflecting on the past semester,41 I feel at liberty to say that this is not the case. Fackenheim’s emphasize on the need to return to the ‘naked’ text is a religious response to modernity that can also be discerned in the Christian and Islamic tradition. Advocates of Nouvelle Théologie, Islamic reformists, such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, as well as Islamic feminists all opted for a reading of the ‘naked’ text. This direct return to the sources has proven to be an 41 My reference is to the MA Course Jews, Muslims and Christians: Confronting Modernity. Religious Transnationalism 1900‐2000, Leiden University, 2013‐2014. 13 effective way to reach modern insights or defend new standpoints without placing oneself completely outside of the religious tradition. A general characteristic of the confrontation between religion and modernity that is visible in this practice is that the authority to interpret religious texts no longer resides solely with revered scholars of the past. Instead, one can claim authority for one’s one ideas by returning to the ‘naked’ text, as Fackenheim puts it. With regard to moral obligations, the parallel in Christianity and Islam is less obvious. The Commanding Voice of Auschwitz has no apparent parallel in Christianity and Islam. This fact merely underscores Fackenheim’s stance that the Holocaust is unique and has no precedent within or beyond Jewish history. However, a general conclusion can be drawn with regard to morals, religion and modernity. The moral obligation implied by Fackenheim’s notion of tikkun and expressed by the Commanding Voice of Auschwitz is not new to the Jewish religion. Survival, perseverance and recovery are characteristics that can be ascribed to Jews of all times, past and present. The response required by the confrontation with modernity has traditional morals as its foundations. The same occurs in the case of Christianity and Islam where traditional morals are not disregarded, but rather reviewed and reshaped in order to maintain relevance in modern times. Religious responses to modernity, whether from orthodox believers, reformers or liberals all engage with modern times and phenomena in a sense of dialogue. Even those adherents of religion who fully oppose modernity have to engage in it in order to be able to proof why they are opposed to it. Therefore, instead of addressing the relationship between modernity and religion in terms of tension, challenge and confrontation it would be a step forward to speak of the dynamics in terms of encounter and engagement. 14 7. Works cited Barham, Peter. “The next village: modernity, memory and the Holocaust.” History of the Humans Sciences 5 (2009): 39‐56. Accessed June 11, 2014, doi: 10.1177/095269519200500304. Batnizky, Leora. How Judaism Became A Religion. An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Eisen, Robert. “Midrash in Emil Fackenheim’s Holocaust Theology.” Harvard Theological Review 96, no. 2 (2003): 369‐392. Accessed June 11, 2014, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. Fackenheim, Emil L. God’s Presence in History: Jewish Affirmations and Philosophical Reflections. New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972. Fackenheim, Emil L. The Jewish Bible After the Holocaust: A Re‐reading. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. Fackenheim, Emil L. To Mend the World: Foundations of Post‐Holocaust Jewish Thought. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Fackenheim, Emil L. and David Patterson. “Why the Holocaust Is Unique.” Judaism 50, no. 4 (2001): 438‐447. Accessed June 11, 2014, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Garber, Zev. “Reflections on Emil Fackenheim z”l (1916‐2003): The Man and His Holocaust Philosophy.” Shofar. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 22, no. 4 (2004): 107‐135. Accessed June 11, 2014, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Hazony, David. “The Man Who Saved God from the Holocaust,” Shofar. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 31, no. 4 (2013): 54‐73. Hellemans, Staf. “How Modern is Religion in Modernity?” in Religious Identity and the Role of Historical Foundation. The Foundational Character of Authoritative Sources in the 15 History of Christianity and Judaism, edited by Judith Frishman, Willemien Otten, Gerardus Antonius Maria Rouwhorst, 76‐94. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Mehden, R. von der. Religion and Modernization in Southeast Asia. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Morgan, Michael L. “Emil Fackenheim.“ Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Accessed June 11, 2014, Gale Virtual Reference Library. Morgan, Michael L. “Jewish Ethics after the Holocaust.” Journal of Religious Ethics 12, no. 2 (1984): 256‐277. Accessed June 11, 2014, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. 16