DOCSLIB.ORG

After Pew: Thinking About American Jewish Cohesion, Assimilation and Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
After Pew: Thinking About American Jewish Cohesion, Assimilation and Division After Pew: Thinking about American Jewish cohesion, assimilation and division Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz Senior Director, Research and Analysis Director, Berman Jewish DataBank The Jewish Federations of North America 1 October 2015 Introduction Since the release of the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of U.S. Jews, much of the commentary and conversation in American Jewish communal circles has been decidedly downbeat. The rise of so-called Jews of no religion, the decline in identification with institutional Jewish religious movements, and the steady increase in intermarriage have set many professionals and volunteers in the Jewish communal world on edge. Concerns about the strength and vitality of the Jewish community in an open, enticing American society are pervasive. While the concerns expressed in this discourse are legitimate and critical to the community’s future, the discourse itself has largely taken place without a well-defined conceptual framework. This is problematic, because survey data need a set of concepts to understand them. In this essay, I use a model of three concepts – cohesion, assimilation and division – that can help us better interpret and understand the current state of American Jewry. I’ll define them in greater detail below, but as a starting point, cohesion refers to the extent to which Jews interact with and feel close to each other, assimilation refers to the extent that they do not, and division refers to disagreements among them. Once I define the concepts more thoroughly, I’ll look at the Pew findings and some other data to assess the current balance of cohesion, assimilation and division among American Jews. I argue that while there are clear signs of assimilation and division, significant areas of cohesion remain as well. For most of this essay, I undertake this analysis from a value-neutral perspective, using these concepts to interpret recent data without saying that the situation is either good or bad, positive or negative. However, cohesion, assimilation and division also carry heavy connotations about the quality of communal life, and in that respect they are value-laden as well. Given the generally 1 pessimistic reactions to the Pew report, it’s fair to say that many American Jewish communal policy makers – both professional and lay – see a worrisome situation: not enough cohesion and too much assimilation and division. In my concluding thoughts, I address this set of values and ask: Can we understand the challenge of achieving cohesion and the inevitability of assimilation and division in positive ways? Are there alternative interpretations and, especially, more optimistic ways to understand the social processes that produce cohesion, assimilation and division? Can we, collectively, stake out a middle ground that acknowledges the good and the bad, the positive and the negative? Cohesion, Assimilation and Division The conceptual model I employ to understand American Jews comes from the work of Calvin Goldscheider, a sociologist, and Alan Zuckerman z’l, a political scientist (Goldscheider and Zuckerman 1984; Goldscheider 1989; Zuckerman 1990).1 The model has three main concepts – cohesion, assimilation and division – and like Goldscheider and Zuckerman’s approach, my analysis is structural. By this, I mean that I use the model to sort people into categories, examine behavioral and attitudinal patterns within and across those categories, and posit implications of those patterns for the group as a whole. What do I mean by these three terms, cohesion, assimilation and division, and how do they apply to American Jews today? Cohesion defines a group whose members interact peacefully and frequently with each other and partake in distinctive cultural, social and political activities of the group. It also includes a social-psychological component, in the sense that individual members feel emotionally attached to the group as a whole or feel a responsibility toward other group members. For Jews, cohesion results when they interact peacefully and often with each other – through their families, in their friendship networks, in their neighborhoods, and in the wide array of Jewish organizations that exist – and they do distinctively Jewish things together, from prayer to philanthropy, from politics to education. Cohesion also results when Jews feel that being part of the group is important to them or that they have a responsibility toward other Jews and the community as a whole. 1 In their works, Goldscheider and Zuckerman applied a transformationalist approach to American Jews. They posited that American Jews, like Jews in the modern period generally, have undergone large-scale structural transformations that provide new and emerging bases of cohesion and do not necessarily signify assimilation. They were arguing against scholars who viewed changes in American Jewry as overwhelmingly assimilationist. The debate largely dissipated as social science research on American Jews became increasingly dominated by social-psychology and issues of Jewish identity rather than social structure and stratification. In the wake of the Pew report, the debate over assimilation has been reignited (see Cohen 2014, Saxe 2014 and Wertheimer and Cohen 2014), though on different conceptual terms than those used by Goldscheider and Zuckerman. 2 Assimilation is one state of opposition to cohesion. Assimilation defines a group whose members are increasingly less likely to interact with each other, who increasingly discard the group’s distinctive cultural, social and political practices, and whose emotional connections to each other are declining. For Jews, assimilation occurs when there are fewer Jews in their family and friendship networks and in their neighborhoods, when they reduce their participation in Jewish organizations or their contributions to Jewish causes, when they are less likely to partake in Jewish cultural practices and political causes, and when they feel less emotionally connected to the group as a whole. In this model, maximal cohesion and maximal assimilation are at opposite ends of a continuum. At maximal cohesion, group members interact exclusively and peacefully with each other, maintain an extensive array of the group’s cultural characteristics, organize together for political purposes and share political views, and feel close or connected to the group. At maximal assimilation, group members interact with each other no more than randomly, that is, no more than proportionate to their share of the population, completely discard their group’s cultural distinctiveness and political organization, and do not feel connected to the group at all. For a group as a whole, maximal cohesion and maximal assimilation are ideal types, not empirical likelihoods. There may be individual members who approach these ideal types in their own lives, but it is hard to imagine a group in an open society that is either maximally cohesive or maximally assimilated. Some set of non-random interactions among members will likely occur, some distinctive cultural characteristics, social organization and shared political activity will likely be maintained, and some attitudinal or emotional connections will endure. Division is another state of opposition to cohesion. Whereas cohesion refers to a group whose members interact peacefully and in agreement with each other, division defines a group whose members disagree with each other, taking conflicting and at times incompatible positions on interpretations of the group’s own cultural practices and social and political interests, and sometimes on the larger issues in the societies where they live. For American Jews, divisions occur over the interpretation of Jewish religious obligations, U.S. and Israeli politics and policies, which communal responsibilities should receive priority funding, and on many other issues. Maximal cohesion and maximal division also stand at opposite ends of a continuum. At maximal cohesion, all group members agree with each other, all the time and across every issue. At maximal division, the group is divided into the same multiple and equally strong sub- groups that disagree fundamentally with each other every time an issue emerges that the group addresses. Again, maximal division is an ideal type, not an empirical likelihood. On many issues, a majority position emerges that signifies more cohesion than division. In addition, shifting alliances within the group are likely to emerge, so that the same groups are not always facing off against each other, again reducing division below its maximal level. 3 The Pew Survey of U.S. Jews: evidence for assimilation The Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of U.S. Jews was a nationally representative survey of American Jews – the largest, most extensive, certainly the most publicized, and arguably the most important in more than a decade.2 The full report of findings and methodology (Pew Research Center 2013) is available online,3 and Pew has made the data file available to researchers.4 The empirical findings reported here are mostly from the published report with some supplemental information that I calculated using the data file.5 First, some fundamentals: the Pew report estimates that there are 6.7 million Jews in the U.S. today, including 5.3 million adults and 1.3 million children,6 and that Jews are roughly 2.2% of the total U.S. population.7 The population estimate from Pew is higher than previous studies, though whether the population has been growing, shrinking or remaining relatively stable over time remains a contested issue in the research community.8 By near consensus, though, the share of Jews in the U.S. population has been declining over time. This is the case because even if the Jewish population has been growing, it has been doing so at a slower pace than the U.S. population overall, so that the proportion of the U.S. population that is Jewish has been shrinking. Beyond the population estimate, the major story line coming out of the Pew study, though not the only one, is the continuing assimilation of American Jews, so from our model perspective it makes sense to start by assessing assimilation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jew Taboo: Jewish Difference and the Affirmative Action Debate
    The Jew Taboo: Jewish Difference and the Affirmative Action Debate DEBORAH C. MALAMUD* One of the most important questions for a serious debate on affirmative action is why certain minority groups need affirmative action while others have succeeded without it. The question is rarely asked, however, because the comparisonthat most frequently comes to mind-i.e., blacks and Jews-is seen by many as taboo. Daniel A. Farberand Suzanna Sherry have breached that taboo in recent writings. ProfessorMalamud's Article draws on work in the Jewish Studies field to respond to Farberand Sherry. It begins by critiquing their claim that Jewish values account for Jewish success. It then explores and embraces alternative explanations-some of which Farberand Sheny reject as anti-Semitic-as essentialparts of the story ofJewish success in America. 1 Jews arepeople who are not what anti-Semitessay they are. Jean-Paul Sartre ha[s] written that for Jews authenticity means not to deny what in fact they are. Yes, but it also means not to claim more than one has a right to.2 Defenders of affirmative action today are publicly faced with questions once thought improper in polite company. For Jewish liberals, the most disturbing question on the list is that posed by the comparison between the twentieth-century Jewish and African-American experiences in the United States. It goes something like this: The Jews succeeded in America without affirmative action. In fact, the Jews have done better on any reasonable measure of economic and educational achievement than members of the dominant majority, and began to succeed even while they were still being discriminated against by this country's elite institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida State University Libraries
    )ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV 2020 The Jewish Civilization Samuel P. Huntington Forgot About: A Critique of Judeo-Christian Civilizational Values Dominique Rebekah Hoffman Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY College of Social Sciences and Public Policy THE JEWISH CIVILIZATION SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON FORGOT ABOUT: A CRITIQUE OF “JUDEO-CHRISTIAN” CIVILIZATIONAL VALUES By DOMINIQUE REBEKAH HOFFMAN A Thesis submitted to the Department of International Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Summer, 2020 1 SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. His theory was published first in a paper titled Clash of Civilizations in 1993. He later expanded upon his theory in a book titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. My thesis challenges Huntington’s oversight in not classifying a Jewish civilization, which he justifies as part of Western civilization based on shared “Judeo-Christian” values. Huntington’s work is widely debated, and not universally accepted. This essay assumes Huntington’s thesis is a lens to view international relations, this thesis does not hypothesize nor debate the validity of Huntington’s thesis in its entirety, rather seeks to challenge his classification of civilizations. For work that argues Huntington’s thesis is valid, please read the work of Robert D. Kaplan titled Looking the World in the Eye. For work that challenges the validity of Huntington, please read the work of Edward Said titled Clash of Ignorance (2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Front Matter
    Memories of Youth: Slovak Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the Nováky Labor Camp Master’s Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Antony Polonsky & Joanna B. Michlic, Advisors In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for Master’s Degree by Karen Spira May 2011 Copyright by Karen Spira ! 2011 ABSTRACT Memories of Youth: Slovak Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the Nováky Labor Camp A thesis presented to the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Waltham, Massachusetts By Karen Spira The fate of Jewish children and families is one of the understudied social aspects of the Holocaust. This thesis aims to fill in the lacuna by examining the intersection of Jewish youth and families, labor camps, and the Holocaust in Slovakia primarily using oral testimonies. Slovak Jewish youth survivors gave the testimonies to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, Israel. Utilizing methodology for examining children during the Holocaust and the use of testimonies in historical writing, this thesis reveals the reaction of Slovak Jewish youth to anti-Jewish legislation and the Holocaust. This project contributes primary source based research to the historical record on the Holocaust in Slovakia, the Nováky labor camp, and the fate of Jewish youth. The testimonies reveal Jewish daily life in pre-war Czechoslovakia, how the youth understood the rise in antisemitism, and how their families ultimately survived the Holocaust. Through an examination of the Nováky labor camp, we learn how Jewish families and communities were able to remain together throughout the war, maintain Jewish life, and how they understood the policies and actions enacted upon them.
    [Show full text]
  • FSU Jews in US and Canada (Brym, Slavina, Lenton)
    Contemporary Jewry https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-020-09315-5 Qualifying the Leading Theory of Diaspora Jewry: An Examination of Jews from the Former Soviet Union in Canada and the United States Robert Brym1 · Anna Slavina2 · Rhonda Lenton3 Received: 16 August 2019 / Accepted: 4 March 2020 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020 Abstract The leading theory of the Jewish diaspora asserts that Jewish communities outside Israel are steadily shrinking and assimilating to dominant cultures, with the decline being especially advanced among Jews from the former Soviet Union. We test this proposition with data from the 2013 Pew Survey of American Jews and the 2018 Survey of Canadian Jews. Our fndings suggest that Canada deviates from the global trend to a degree that afects even Jews from the former Soviet Union residing in that country. Although only about 25,000 Canadian Jews currently residing in Can- ada were born in the former Soviet Union and immigrated since 1970—a small frac- tion of the number who immigrated to Israel, the United States and Germany over the past fve decades—the Canadian outpost is worth studying because its features require a qualifcation of the leading theory of the Jewish diaspora, namely that assimilation rates vary by identifable features of national context. Keywords Jews from the former Soviet Union · Canada · United States · Religious retention · Ethnic retention An earlier version of this paper was presented at a symposium in honor of Dr. Mark Tolts, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 27 June 2019. We are grateful to the anonymous Contemporary Jewry reviewers for especially insightful and gracious comments that signifcantly improved the fnal product.
    [Show full text]
  • (2007-2010) Haskalah, Assimilation and Zionism in Galicia Der Wissen
    Between Traditionalism and Assimilation. Views on the Galician Jewry in Nathan Samuely, Karl Emil Franzos and Saul Raphael Landau. Francisca Solomon Betreut durch: Klaus Samuel Davidowicz, Doktoratskolleg “Galizien” (2007-2010) Johann Sonnleitner, Andrei Corbea-Hoisie Der Wissenschaftsfonds. M ost works of secondary literature dealing with M y thesis is essentially based on the methods of comparative text analysis and literary imagology. the above-mentioned authors employ a work-immanent Moreover, it contains elements from the field of the history of ideas and mentalities and draws on approach of analysis and apply the methodology of German methods from cultural transfer research. and Slavic literary criticism. While recent years saw the he more recent research approaches in the field of cultural studies make it possible to analyze publication of numerous studies and doctoral theses on Tthe complex of the Haskalah, assimilation and Zionism in Galicia in a very detailed manner. In the life and work of Karl Emil Franzos, which very much the given context, an analysis based on cultural transfer theory seems most suitable to demonstrate contributed to an “academic popularization” of the author the transcultural dimensions of these ideological orientations. and the problematic thematic complex of Galicia, Nathan n my thesis, I will thus show how cultural transfer took place from west to east, both at the Samuely and Saul Raphael Landau remained relatively Imicro and macro level. This will be exemplified by pointing out essential ideological structures unknown. Only a small number of papers deal with them and character constellations in the authors’ texts. Cultural transfer processes can be seen in the or mention them in passing.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Jewish Future After Immigration and Ethnicity Fade: H
    religions Article The American Jewish Future after Immigration and Ethnicity Fade: H. A. Wolfson’s Analysis in 1918 Joel Perlmann Levy Economics Institute, Bard College, 30 Campus Rd, Annandale-On-Hudson, NY 12504, USA; [email protected] Received: 11 October 2018; Accepted: 14 November 2018; Published: 19 November 2018 Abstract: H. A. Wolfson arrived in the United States at 16 from the Lithuanian region of the Russian Empire and at Harvard as a freshman five years later. He remained at Harvard until his death in 1974, as Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy. Among the most important historians of western religious philosophy, he published on contemporary issues only until 1925 and even then only rarely. Nevertheless, his 1918 article, “Pomegranates”, deserves attention. Wolfson clearly followed debates about the American ethnic future. He carved out an original and unexpected position on that issue, and on the American Jewish future within that context. He perceptively rejected Horace Kallen’s views of a “multi-national America”, and like Israel Zangwill’s Melting Pot, he stressed that full cultural and political assimilation would occur in the United States. But unlike Zangwill, he argued that Jewish religious creativity would find a long-term place in American life, once freed of its national trappings. Strongly supporting a Hebraic renaissance and a Jewish homeland in Palestine, he also emphasized with great force that the “we”—the east-European Jewish intellectuals and the Zionists—had greatly misunderstood the promise of Reform Judaism for the diaspora. Keywords: American Judaism; melting pot; pluralism; assimilation; Zionism; Yiddish nationalism Harry Austryn Wolfson died in 1974 at the age of 87, having spent his life since 1908 at Harvard University.
    [Show full text]
  • American Jewish Denominationalism: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
    American Voices American Jewish Denominationalism: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow David Ellenson In approaching the topic of Jewish religious denominationalism in America today, I will begin with an autobiographical “confession.” I was raised in an Orthodox synagogue, sent all of my children either to Solomon Schechter schools or Camp Ramah, was a member of a Conservative as well as a Reform congregation for over twenty years of my life, am an Associate member of the Reconstructionist Rab- binical Association as well as an alumnus of the rabbinical school of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, and currently serve as President of the premiere educational institution of the Reform Movement. My journey across denominational lines may well be instructive for a discus- sion of denominationalism, for my story of “boundary-crossings” is hardly unique among present-day American Jews. After all, denominational commitments and affiliations can be and have been approached on a host of different levels — ideolog- ical, institutional and folk. The first refers to the set of overarching general beliefs that inform the diverse movements and that are articulated by the elite leaders of each movement, while the second marks the organizational structures that mark each one. Finally, the folk level bespeaks those informal and highly eclectic sets of practices and beliefs that characterize the persons who affiliate with the diverse movements that are present in modern-day Jewish life. My journey is “instructive” precisely because it represents how permeable the borders often are for so many Jews as they traverse the diverse and multi-layered paths of modern Jewish life in their search for spiritual meaning and community.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper Series 2019
    International Development ISSN 1470-2320 Working Paper Series 2019 No.18-192 Poverty and Mass Education: the Jews in the Roman Empire David Aberbach Published: November 2018 Department of International Development London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street Tel: +44 (020) 7955 7425/6252 London Fax: +44 (020) 7955-6844 WC2A 2AE UK Email: [email protected] Website: www.lse.ac.uk/InternationalDevelopment Poverty and Mass Education: the Jews in the Roman Empire David Aberbach Senior Research Fellow, LSE International Development Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Studies, Department of Jewish Studies, McGill University [email protected] 11 November 2018 Origins of mass education of the poor can be traced to the rabbinic tradition in 3rd century CE Galilee, in reaction to repeated defeats of Jewish revolts against Rome, though the extraordinary social mobility of literate European Jews occurred only with the rise of State secularization and mandatory secular education, and accompanying Jewish emancipation after 1789. Abstract: Since 1789, mass education has been a key factor in development, enabling large numbers of people to escape at least the worst effects of poverty. This paper explores an ancient harbinger of mass education, among Jews in the Roman empire, the basis of Jewish religious education to modern times. Education became vital to Jewish survival after three disastrous wars against Rome (66-73, 115-117, and 132-135 CE), when the Jewish state was destroyed together with Jerusalem and its Temple, the centre of Jewish religion, as well as the Temple priesthood and Jewish aristocracy, leaving the authority of the Torah to its teachers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Immigrant Woman:Jewish Assimilation in the Lower East Side Ghetto of New York City, 1880-1914
    Student Research History Theses University of Puget Sound Year 2012 The Immigrant Woman:Jewish Assimilation in the Lower East Side Ghetto of New York City, 1880-1914 Rachael Siegel [email protected] This paper is posted at Sound Ideas. http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/history theses/1 The Immigrant Woman: Jewish Assimilation in the Lower East Side Ghetto of New York City, 1880-1914 Rachael Siegel 12/14/2012 Siegel 1 “The last day of our journey comes vividly to my mind. Everybody was on deck…enraptured by the sight of the harbor and the Statue of Liberty suddenly emerging from the mist. Ah, there she was, the symbol of hope, of freedom, of opportunity! She held her torch high to light the way to the free country, the asylum for the oppressed of all lands. We too…would find a place in the generous heart of America. Our spirits were high, our eyes filled with tears.” 1 The United States was viewed as a beacon of hope for many Eastern European Jews who fled difficult lives. These people had experienced a history of poverty and pogroms in Eastern Europe. They were expelled from cities, their leaders were denied communal authority, and they faced many restrictions regarding occupation and the right to own land and real estate. 2 The tsarist autocracy, for example, confined its Jewish subjects to the Pale of Settlement, 3 and created poverty-stricken communities, called Shtetl, which were easy targets for pogroms and other legal restrictions.4 But the immigrants’ transition to life in to New York City was not easy.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Emancipation and Schism: Economic Development and Religious Change ∗
    Jewish Emancipation and Schism: Economic Development and Religious Change ∗ Jean-Paul Carvalho Mark Koyama University of California, Irvine George Mason University June 17, 2016 Abstract This paper studies the impact of Jewish Emancipation and economic develop- ment on Jewish religious culture in 19th century Europe. In Germany, a liberal Reform movement developed in response to emancipation, while ultra-Orthodox Judaism emerged in eastern Europe. We develop a historical narrative and model of religious organization that accounts for the polarized responses by Jewish com- munities. Our explanation is based on a tradeoff between time and money contri- butions. A religious organization chooses between a relatively affluent community that expends little effort on religious participation and a poorer community that devotes a large amount of time and effort to religious activity. Political and economic development shape this tradeoff in unexpected ways, leading to com- plex forms of behavior such as religious schisms and cycles. When preferences are transmitted intergenerationally, organizations tend to be more conservative. Our historical narrative points to further extensions of extant models of religion, as well as providing broader insights into cultural integration and religious change. JEL Classification: D23, N33, Z12, J24 Keywords: economics of religion, club goods, community, economic development ∗Carvalho: Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697, [email protected]. Koyama: Center for Public Choice, Carow Hall, George Mason University, VA 22030, [email protected]. We thank the editor and two anonymous referees for their comments. We are grateful for valuable conversa- tions with Eli Berman, Lloyd Cohen, Tyler Cowen, Stephan Funk, Noel Johnson, Tom Klein, Mike McBride, Avner Offer, Francis Teal, Jared Rubin, Gaston Yalonetzky and Peyton Young.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA, Race, and Gene Talk in Judaism and Messianic Judaism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by IUScholarWorks Lineage Matters: DNA, Race, and Gene Talk in Judaism and Messianic Judaism Sarah Imhoff and Hillary Kaell In July 2012, Jewish Voice host Jonathan Bernis began his week- ly television program by telling the audience: “One of the questions I’m asked by Christians who love Jewish people and Israel is ‘How can I find out if I am Jewish? I just feel so Jewish. Is there any way to know?’” Then he introduced his guest: “My guest today says yes you can. He claims your history is actually written into your cells. He is a DNA expert who helps people discover their ancestry through DNA testing, and he is the world’s foremost authority on DNA testing as it relates to Jewish lineage. Please help me welcome to Jewish Voice DNA expert Bennett Greenspan.”1 At first, Bernis and Greenspan may seem like odd bedfellows. Bernis is a Messianic Jew and his target audience is evangelical and Pentecostal Christians with connections to Messianic Judaism, a loose movement of congregations, missionary associations, and online min- istries that incorporate aspects of Jewish culture and ritual into Chris- tianity. Messianic Jews believe that Judaism is a heritable “genetic” lineage and that Jews, therefore, remain Jewish even after they are “completed” through belief in the messiahship of Jesus. Although this idea is the fundamental basis for the movement, today upwards of 70 percent of congregants are actually what insiders call Gentile Believers (GBs), a fact that few scholars have addressed in depth likely because “ethnic” Jews like Bernis comprise Messianic Judaism’s public face.2 By contrast, Greenspan, CEO of the largest personal DNA test- ing company in the world, is Jewish, not Messianic.
    [Show full text]
  • Jews and Protestants
    Jews and Protestants Jews and Protestants From the Reformation to the Present Edited by Irene Aue-Ben-David, Aya Elyada, Moshe Sluhovsky and Christian Wiese Supported by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 1798/12) Die freie Verfügbarkeit der E-Book-Ausgabe dieser Publikation wurde ermöglicht durch den Fachinformationsdienst Jüdische Studien an der Universitätsbibliothek J. C. Senckenberg Frankfurt am Main und 18 wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken, die die Open-Access-Transformation in den Jüdischen Studien unterstützen. ISBN 978-3-11-066108-8 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-066471-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-066486-7 Despite careful production of our books, sometimes mistakes happen. Unfortunately, the CC license was not included in the original publication. This has been corrected. We apologize for the mistake. Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Lizenz. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Das E-Book ist als Open-Access-Publikation verfügbar über www.degruyter.com, https://www.doabooks.org und https://www.oapen.org. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019955542 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020, Aue-Ben-David et al., published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: ulimi / DigitalVision Vectors / gettyimages.de Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Open-Access-Transformation in den Jüdischen Studien Open Access für exzellente Publikationen aus den Jüdischen Studien: Dies ist das Ziel der gemeinsamen Initiative des Fachinformationsdiensts Jüdische Studien an der Universitäts- bibliothek J.
    [Show full text]