Majority History and Post-Biblical Jews

Abstract

That history is a seamless web, that any scheme of periodization is an arbitrary convenience to suit a point of view, these are wellknown propositions. Yet the most influential of all periodizations, that which divides history before the Incarnation from history after, is as unmodifiable as our sense of historic time itself. It orders the passing years for agnostics and Communists as for Christians. For the Jews the standard is dual, yet the Christian scheme is by far the more influential. If for some members of the majority the Christian ordering is a reflection of God's providence, while for others it is a mere convenience, for many in both camps the Incarnation still corresponds to one real division in history, whether that cesura be seen providentially or secularly. Before the first century A.D. the Hebrews were of great historical importance; thereafter the Jews are of little significance. The reign of a new truth had begun. So deep are the roots of identity that historians whose religion, if any, is well concealed have remained faithful to this element of Christian historiography even when they have abandoned the Christian account of Christianity, the criterion of success having replaced the sanctification of election. After the emergence of Christianity, a reprobation falls on the Jews, and a dark night of ignorance conceals their activities from the historical consciousness of most of western society until Dreyfus, the Balfour declaration, or Hitler once more draws historical attention to the Jews. It may be felt that to put the matter this way is to exaggerate either the importance of Jews to anyone save Jews or the silence of non-Jewish historians about Jews. The first problem may be left until later; the latter may easily be assessed by an honest answer to some simple questions. What understanding of the history of the Jews and of the majority's relations to the Jews will a student graduating from a liberal arts college have to give him intellectual and civic guidance? Will the student who has majored in history differ in this respect from other graduating seniors? Indeed, what of the man who has gained his doctorate in history? The answer in all three cases is, I believe, self-evident, but it would be well to document it and to give some explanation of why the situation is as it is. Assume a student who, for some peculiar reason, became interested in the post-biblical history of the Jews. Since Gooch's history of historical writing is in paperback and happens to be on his bookshelf,