Search Results

Religious Authority,” Social Forces 72 (1994): 749-774. Discharging his critical sensibilities, José Casanova suggestively offers, “the theory of secularization [...] tends to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.” José Casanova, “The Secular, Secularizations, Secularisms,” Rethinking Secularism , ed. Craig Calhoun, Mark Juergenmeyer, Jonathan VanAntwerpen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 54-74, here 60. Others like the German sociologist Detlef Pollack have not simply rhetorically wondered whether secularization is “a modern myth?” Detlef Pollack

The Positive-Historical trend in German Judaism located itself between modern Orthodoxy, as symbolized most prominently by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and Reform or Liberal Judaism, as represented especially by Rabbi Abraham Geiger. Its central position and unclear boundaries gave it the advantage of drawing adherents from a broad spectrum of religious Jews, but also attracted attacks from both sides. Both in Europe and in America, it emerged as a revolt against the Reform movement in which it had participated up to a point. In Germany, the establishment of

/1 (1915): 757-772. Secondary Sources Applegate, Celia. A Nation of Provincials. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Aschheim, Steven. The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890 - 1990. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Boa, Elizabeth and Palfreyman, Rachel. Heimat: A German Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Eisenstein, Daniela, Niefanger, Dirk and Och, Gunnar, eds. Jakob Wassermann: Deutscher - Jude - Literat. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2007

-European Jewry: he was the founder and first president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, whose perspective was to offer a balance between tradition and modernity in a conservative approach. In conclusion, I shall deal with these two last points: the end of the two schools and their influence on American Judaism. The founding of the institutes: the Jewish and non-Jewish context The Breslau Seminary—as the historians of German Judaism of the nineteenth century tell us Among the last fruits of the investigation on the Breslau Seminary I remind: Michael Meyer

://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-5078 . The idea to gather scholars from Europe, Israel, and the United States in order to discuss the Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar Fränckelscher Stiftung in Breslau in the context of Wissenschaft des Judentums and the new religious pluralism of the nineteenth century builds on a number of observations. Around the year 1840, the religious spectrum of German Jewry comprised, on the one hand, various orthodox orientations—from an anti-modern “Traditional Orthodoxy” to Neo-Orthodoxy, which combined its strict adherence to Jewish Law with an affirmative stance

in Pest in order to decide about a country-wide Jewish organization. In Germany, Hungary, and the United States, these three multi-denominational countries, an intra-Jewish confessionalization process mirrored the preceding Christian one, leading by the turn of the twentieth century to separate institutions, community federations, rabbinical assemblies, and rabbinical seminaries. In France, Austria, the Czech Lands and Italy, where Catholicism was the only recognized church on the eve of modernity, modern Judaism tended to develop a religious center unified and

In 1845, the German Rabbi Zechariah Frankel (1801–1875) quit the second liberal rabbis’ conference in Frankfurt am Main and established a new German-Jewish midstream movement—“the positive-historical Judaism.” Nine years later, he led the first rabbinical seminary in Germany, the Jewish-Theological Seminary of Breslau , and actually was the guide and intellectual-religious authority for new generations of rabbis, who followed his legacy. His ideology was midway between the Jewish Orthodoxy and Jewish Liberal movement. On him, see: Ismar Schorsch, From Text to