Introduction

The reform movement within Judaism is frequently considered

the inception of modern Judaism, particularly in regards to

record-keeping and historiography. Traditionally persecuted for

their religious and socio-cultural preferences, Jews achieved a

period in the 19th Century in which they were able to more fully

integrate themselves into their host countries. The Jews

identified themselves according to religious markers, and in

doing so there was a reduction in the overall indicators which

the host countries and their respective citizens used to

identify the Jews. No longer, for example, were Jews singled

out within a society through the use of clearly marked brands or

similar markings.

This process led to a movement of younger Jews away from

the traditional teachings. The socio-cultural structure which

had enabled the Jews to preserve their heritage throughout

centuries of persecution was dissolving, and with it was the

drive to conform to and promote these teachings. The

psychological stigma of Judaism is believed to play heavily into

this process, for the Jews had long been persecuted and yet now

had the opportunity to escape from these detrimental conditions

through identifying their lifestyles as distinctive from

Judaism.
 In order to preserve the Jewish heritage, the community

leaders identified that it was now necessary to teach the

history of Judaism using a different methodology (Crossen, 1995,

61). Rather than emphasizing the problems and the challenges

which the Jews had experienced, a new emphasis was placed upon

the past progress and the victories of noted Jewish figures.

This process had two extremely distinctive outcomes: First, it

promoted a new format through which traditional Jewish teachings

could be communicated to the new generations. More importantly,

however, it categorically separated Reform Jews from traditional

Judaism, and distinguished between orthodox and modern Jewish

traditions. This paper shall explore these two points and

demonstrate how the reform movement in Judaism impacted the

historiography through which Jews recorded their traditions.

The Significance of Historical Records within Judaism

Historical records are a comparatively new phenomenon

within the Jewish tradition. The history of the Jews tended to

not be recorded, with the rare and noted exception of the

Culturgeschichte. Written in the Middle Ages, the

Culturgeschichte was a collected study of the art and the folk

tales common to the Jews. It did not, however, focus on the

history of the Jews as a people but rather emphasized the

productions of culture which the Jews produced and relied upon

as teaching tools for children.

While fragments of Jewish history exist, particularly

within the decedents of those initially involved in the incident

in question, there is a void of clearly-defined linear history.

Much of the origins of the Jews have been extrapolated from the

Bible and from ritual and hymns, rather than identified through

factual or non-religious circumstances. As such, the creation

of historical records for the Jews during the Reform Movement

and the subsequent Masorti Judaism period characterized a new

era for the Jews, and thus can be seen as more significant due

to the lack of historical records prior to this period.

The Psychological Reform of Judaism

The past history of Judaism suggested to many Jews that

their shared heritage was worth forgetting. Now that

integration was acceptable, there was no longer a need to

emphasize the past as a means of helping maintain the community

structure. Nor, suggests one source, was there a general

perception among the Jews that unity was the only method through

which they could achieve long-term prosperity and success

(Borowitz, 1978, 19). Jews finally had opportunities to

productive, beneficial, and most importantly safe settings in

which to raise their families.

 The elder members of the Jewish community determined that

this process was likely to reduce the focus which Judaism had in

the lives of the Jewish people. The initial response to this

process was a rapid and concentrated return to the teachings of

Judaism. Now, the Jewish people banned themselves from

association with non-Jews, and developed a new set of

proscriptions which forcefully separated the Jewish community

from intermingling and, through this process, reducing the all-

important central principles of the Jewish faith within their

lives. This brief focus on traditional Judaism soon emerged as

Orthodox Judaism.

However, despite the immediate response to a purity of

Judaism as promoted by the Orthodox Jews, there was still a

lessening of focus within the Jewish community. The deviation

into Reform Judaism occurred at this point, where rabbis within

the community explored the theories of Judaism and how they

could be applied within a modern context. Two scholars are

credited for the redirection of Judaism at this point. Leopold

Zunz (1794-1886), while not a rabbi, was a leading theologian

within the Jewish community and characterized the condition of

Jewish history as a problematic issue for the continuance of the

Jewish faith. Zunz determined that the histories of the Jewish

people were vilified, even among the Jews themselves, for the

perceptions of the world towards the Jewish community had

traditionally been highly critical and negative. Zunz felt that

this negativity was reflected in the mode of transmission of

history among Jewish scholars. This indicated that through

teaching the history of Judaism, scholars who were themselves

Jewish were highly likely to undermine the perceptions of

Judaism within their students, or to reinforce the general sense

of negativity which predominated the study of the Jews

(Borowitz, 1978, 28).

Zunz proposed two critical reform strategies in helping to

change this systematic transference of negativity through the

generations. The first strategy was the identification of a

“scientific investigation of Judaism,” through which the

scholars can identify the content of traditional Jewish texts

and identify their historical significance. As a theory, a

scientific investigation of Judaism suggested that the

traditional texts carried with them a hidden context. The

traditional methods of teaching these texts stressed one

outcome, and Zunz felt as though distinctive outcomes could be

taught which did not focus on a negative perception of Jews but

rather accentuated the positive traits of the Jewish people. In

1832, Zunz published Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, or

the “history of the sermon.” ((Borowitz, 1978, 30) In this

book, Zunz formalized his theories of the scientific

investgation of Judaism. The book transformed the modes through

which rabbis and Jewish scholars approached traditional ritual

processes. In 1845, Zunz wrote and published the follow-up

text, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, which promoted the same

principles within the hymns and the literature of the Jews.

One of the traits which was common to both of these texts,

as well as Zunz’ many other books and papers on the scientific

investigation of Judaism, is that they conveyed an emphasis on

vernacular communication. Zunz believed that one of the

particular elements of separation which had occurred in Judaism

was an inability to communicate effectively with the people.

Zunz felt that Judaism had lost its ability to create a dialogue

with the common practitioner, and therefore appeared to the

layperson that the only true Jew was an individual who had

dedicated his entire life to the scholarship process. While

Zunz felt that formal ritual did still have a rightful place in

the process of Judaism, he indicated that the emphasis on ritual

over communication had made Judaism inaccessible to the average

person. In order for reform to occur and for the Jewish

tradition to survive, he suggested, there needed to be an

emphasis on dialogue and communication. It was not necessary to

maintain a highly ritualized, formualaic emphasis on traditional

ritual, but rather there needed to be a mode through which

communication was emphasized. The rabbinical community strongly

disagreed with Zunz’ theories of vernacular communication, and

this was a point of dissention which characterized much of Zunz’

reform efforts.

The second scholar which participated in a psychological

reform of Juwish history, as well as promoted the emergence of

modern-day Judiasm, was Rabbi Abraham Geiger. Geiger identified

that Zunz’ theories on the vernacular communication could be

translated into the communication of Jewish history. Geiger

indicated that Judaism was primarily the effort to encourage a

deeper level of connection between God and His followers. To

this end, Geiger suggested that the selective emphasis on

participation in ritual and an insistence on form removed the

connection between the individual and their worship of God.

Geiger emphasized that God wished the Jewish religious tradition

to focus on a communication of ethics and of a worship of

monotheism, where no other god had a central place of worship.

In order to ensure that the average Jew was still able to

communicate with God, Geiger suggested, reform was not only

necessary but was mandatory to keep pace with the modern Jewish

movement.

Like Zunz, Geiger’s theories were protested widely by

staunch traditionalists. In order to make his case, Geiger

returned to Jewish history and explored the religious texts.

Geiger found that there was precedent for the reformation of

Jewish teachings. Throughout the Jewish history, there were

reform movements used to reconnect the Jews to their religion,

yet these movements were not celebrated or vilified, but merely

integrated into the teaching of Judaism in order to facilitate

the connection between the person and God. Geiger took a

position that reform within religioun was funadmental to its

survival: Changes made at previous points in the history of the

Jewish tradition were not against the basic cannon, but rather

emphasized a need to concentrate upon a changing enviornment and

the reciprocal impact which this environment had upon the

person. Reforming Judaism was merely, suggested Geiger, a

process of evolution within the Jewish faith to keep pace with

the needs of its people. And, as the current environment was

one in which the people were increasingly isolated from Judaism,

Geiger stressed that similar change needed to be made in the

modern era.

These changes were inherent with the reform movement, with

the intended result of transforming Judaism into a new form

which did not isolate the individual. The Orthodox Jewish faith

stressed an adherence to religion, cannon, and ritual. However,

the reform movement was so willing to move away from these

binding cannons that there was an immediate and dramatic change

within the Jewish community. For example, the rite of

circumcision was identified as a cruel practice and was

abandoned outright in Reform Judaism. Furthermore, the freedom

from pressures placed upon the individual through the practice

of traditional ritual-based Judaism was lessened, and the Reform

Jews were better able to integrate into the European and

American communities.

There was, however, a massive psychological backlash found

among traditionalists. The emergence of a staunch form of

Orthodox Judaism came about through the emphasis upon ritual and

the role that it played within the life of the Jews. Yet the

Orthodox Jews were unable to keep pace with the popularity of

the Reform Judaism movement, and therefore change needed to

occur. The following section shall focus on the strategies of

Masorti Judaism, through which conservative Jews reevaluated the

historical cannons of the Jewish faith in order to identify a

“positive historical” emphasis on Judaism.

The Emergence of Masorti Judaism

Masorti Judaism, also referred to as conservative Judaism,

emphasized the belief among the more traditional Jewish

communities that the history and traditions of the Jewish people

needed to be “conserved.” The Orthodox Jewish communities

identified the Reform Judaism as likely to strip the Jewish

people of all historical frames of reference, and thus

permanently undermining the past of the Jews in order to engage

in a positive future. While Zunz and Geiger did create the

Reform Judaism movement through drawing upon the historical

precedence placed upon changing Judaism to fit the times, there

was an increased focus among Jews to create a positive attitude

within modern society and culture while also encouraging the

preservation of traditional Jewish law and ritual. Still, some

Orthodox Jews did not identify this process as fully meeting the

needs of preserving all of traditional cannon and ritual, and

there were further schisms within the practice of Judaism.

Masorti Judaism has also been referred to as the

“historical school” of Judaism (Borowitz, 1978, 184). It

integrates the historical teachings of the Jews into a more

modern context. The ideology of the school identifies the

conditions of Jewish law as mandatory for providing a framework

for the practice of Judaism, but the framework can be fit into

the context which emerges at the time.

The distance between Europe and the United States, where

Reform Judaism had become increasingly popular, also served to

characterize the development of Masorti Judaism. Rabbi Harvey

Meirovich writes that “Jewish identity in Israel was vastly

different from that in America.” The reasons for distinctions

among Jewish identity were embedded not only within the

conditions of religion, but more importantly were consolidated

within the socio-cultural emphasis placed upon both religion and

community in the United States. Meirovich argues that “In

Israel, Jewish identity was a function of nationality and

citizenship. It was given through birth or immigration and was

secular in character. American Jewish identity, however, was

essentially religious in character and had to be created

actively. If it were not fashioned, it simply would not exist.”

In order to promote and sustain Judaism within America, it was

necessary for the Jewish community to become immediately active

and to promote long-term reform of existing Judaism, in addition

to encouraging the inclusion of both new and traditional traits

common to Judaism. Meirovich suggests that:

“This was why the synagogue was so vital, as the most

effective vehicle for shaping and transmitting Jewish

identity outside a Jewish polity. In Israel, the

synagogue was insignificant because it contributed

nothing to Jewish identity. [The synagogue] was

actively avoided and abhorred by most Israelis because

of the negative baggage that Judaism as a religion

carried for Israel’s overwhelmingly secular

population. The vast majority of Israelis had been

stripped of their Judaism by two factors absent in

America: the state was founded in rebellion against

the Judaism of Eastern Europe, and the resurgence of

ultra-Orthodoxy had reinvigorated an antireligious

 animus among the secular population.” (Meirovich,

2004, p. 5)

In encouraging the long-term development of Judaism within

America, there needed to be a blend of traditional ritual in the

form of the synagogue and the emergence of the newfound Reform

Movement. Thus, within the United States, Judaism emerged as a

blend of both new and old characteristics, and arguably there

was a greater need for the iconography of Judaism within America

than in the more traditional European Jewish communities.

In terms of historiography, the Masorti Judaism integrated

the new practices of the reform movement into Orthodox Judaism,

and attempted to fit into a common ground which gratified both

parties. Wolf (1998) suggests that this process was necessary,

for neither Orthodoxy nor Reform Judaism were successful in

promoting a comprehensive understanding of the components

inherent in Judaism within a community-based environment. Wolf

writes: “The Reform movement was fatally handicapped by an

improbable theological history which [used] a document of late

Enlightenment hubris that surrenders all that is precious in our

tradition in favor of crudely rationalist proclamations.

Orthodoxy has been compromised by an obscurantist temptation

that has continually, and increasingly, undermined even its

brightest and most eloquent spokesmen.” The result, Wolf

suggests, was the Masorti Judaism strategy. Rather than relying

upon declarations of traditionalism or reform, the Masorti

Judaism approach worked to integrate the older texts within a

new context without altering them to a point of distortion.

Authorities within Masorti Judaism identify that it is literally

impossible to create a context in which there is no translation

or deviation from the pure texts, rituals, and hymns which

defined Orthodox Judaism while still promoting a more open mode

of communication and a complete dissolution of emphasis on same,

as the Reform Judaism movement demanded. A more middle of the

road approach was needed to integrate the traditional texts with

social change: Unlike what the Reform Jews promoted, this would

not permanently strip the initial text of the historical and

traditional writings, but would instead place a powerful

emphasis upon integrating the content of the text into a mode

modern setting.

The origins of this seemingly incompatible philosophy can

be traced to Germany, in which German Jews active in the

beginnings of “political Zionism” identified that there was a

certain degree of strength which could be drawn from

traditionalism. As occurred in the example of the synagogue

within the United States, the beginnings of the Zionist movement

identified that the history of the Jewish people could provide a

unifying point of view for the Jewish people. Specifically, the

perspectives of the individual could be realized through the

unifying force presented through the Jewish community. Masorti

Judaism thus strove to unite the existing scenarios of the

Jewish community with the current modern-day setting.

At this point in time, the Masorti Judaism movement was

able to draw upon the historiography of the Jewish people in

previously untapped mediums. Rather than communications between

rabbis, theologists, and scholars occurring through laborious

written communication and rare face-to-face meetings, the modes

of communication for the Jews became more open. The creation of

scientific and scholarly journals helped promote the collection

of theories corresponding to Reform and Orthodox Judaism, and

the resulting emphasis upon the development of Jewish thought

facilitated the principles of Masorti Judaism. It was, for the

first time, debated openly and among many of the most prominent

members of the Jewish community that change could indeed be

accomplished as a means of integrating the layperson into

Judiasm without losing the heart of the traditional cannon.

Furthermore the evolution of the journal and Jewish-

specific publications and digests facilitated an emphasis upon

the collection and distribution of historical data. Jews were

able to formalize and promote their views upon Jewish-specific

topics. It was possible for the Jew to identify the history of

their people in foreign countries, as well as explore potential

explanations for events long lost to the collective memory of

the Jewish historians and preserved by only fragments held by a

few solitary individuals.

This process led to not only a greater understanding of the

Jewish history and their subsequent traditions, but further

helped to promote the political philosophy of Zionism. The

Zionist movement was not specifically religious in nature but

rather was connected to the long-term trends of mobility which

the Jews used. Specifically, the mobility of the Jews was

forcibly facilitated by countries and communities which had

determined to drive the Jews out of their lands. With the

collections of data provided to the Jews, the Masorti Judaism

movement gradually assimilated traits of steadfast Zionism. A

rapid and extremely popular concept spread like wildfire among

the Jews, and this concept was that they had been the target of

persecution long enough. With the reams of historical data

collected for public use, this conclusion was easy to reach.

And it was not often questioned whether the development of a

history-based strategy towards identifying persecution might

have actually been motivated by Jewish scholars and authors

which had a bias to prove this same point, and wrote their

pieces on Jewish history with this goal specifically in mind.

Neusner (1997) writes that the Jews have identified that they

are now able to reclaim a homeland, namely the land of

Palestine. And, as previously noted, these perceptions are

centered in religious texts, for there were no historical texts

to help promote or dispute this process. Neusner writes that:

“The original reading of the Jews' existence as exile

and return derives from the Pentateuch, the Five

Books of Moses, which were composed as we now have

them (out of earlier materials, to be sure) in the

aftermath of the destruction of the Temple in 586

B.C.E. In response to the exile to Babylonia, the

experience selected and addressed by the authorship of

the document is that of exile and restoration. But

that framing of events into the pattern at hand

represents an act of powerful imagination and

interpretation. That experience taught lessons people

claimed to learn from the events they had chosen and

from the Pentateuch, which took shape in 450 B.C.E.

when some Jews returned from Babylonia to Jerusalem

[…].” (Neusner, 1997; 18)

As time progressed, the Masorti Judaism movement became a

solidified exploration of the Zionist view, helped in large part

by the collected information preserved in the new mediums.

Judaism, particularly in the less Orthodox communities, because

connected with Zionism to an extent where there was no realistic

distinction between religion and politics among the layperson.

Scholars and rabbis were less likely to participate in the

intermingling of political and historical perspectives, yet the

conditions through which this scenario were realized continued

to be promoted through the absolutism of anti-Jewish thought

presented in the published media.

Conclusion

The emphasis upon historical records within the Jewish

tradition is comparatively new. Prior to the acquisition of a

solid sense of place within a host country or culture, the Jews

did not have an opportunity to explore their past and generate

definitive histories. The Reform Movement was a response not

only to the new sense of place held by the Jews, but also

answered a need to restructure the cannon to communicate more

directly with the average individual rather than the hierarchy

of scholars and holy men. The emergence of the Orthodox Jews

similarly attempted to preserve tradition, but did not integrate

history into the process.

As a systemic effect of the lack of communication and the

permanence of place, the Jewish community needed to approach and

integrate their history into the modern perception of Judaism.

This process was facilitated through the publication of Jewish

thought and historical records. However, this process also

strongly connected the history of the Jews to a sense of

alienation, which fostered an emphasis on Zionism as a movement

to re-identify the Jews as a centralized community.

Works Cited

Borowitz, Eugene B. Reform Judaism Today: How We Live.

Behrman House Inc.: New York, 1978.

Crossen, John Dominic. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of

Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus.
New York: HarperCollins, 1995.

Meirovich, Harvey. “The Shaping of Masorti Judaism in Israel

American Jewish Community.” American Jewish Community.
Acquired 8 December 2004 at
http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PubIsrael.asp?did=142&pid=79

Neusner, Jacob. The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism.

6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.

Wolf, Arnold Jacob. “The theology of conservative Judaism -

Current Theological Writing.” Judaism. Vol 2 (17).
Spring. 44-49.