206 | Martin Buber’s Theopolitics
- “Ich habe keine Lehre” (I have no teaching) was Buber’s refrain when he met with
interested young kibbutznikim in his later years, a claim they found frustrating; Paul Mendes-
Flohr, “Martin Buber’s Reception among Jews,” Modern Judaism 6.2 (May 1986): 124–126. - PF 3.
- Ibid., 39.
- Buber calls Abraham’s journey a hījra several times; ibid., 41, 44. He is suggesting a par-
allel between Abraham and Muhammad as founders of theopolitical communities. Elsewhere
he refers to collections of “Moses’ Logia or Moses’ Hadith,” which may have assisted the first
Deuteronomists in the composition of their book; ibid., 197. Although there were comparisons
to early Islam in KG, these are more direct identifications between Jewish and Muslim tradi-
tions, perhaps reflecting composition in Palestine. - Ibid., 49.
- Ibid., 24.
- Ibid; WZB 257; To ra t 18.
- Ibid., 57–59.
- Ibid., 62, 65–66, 64, 69.
- Ibid., 67. Buber seems to expect his reader to know Alt’s distinction between laws that
are casuistic (“If someone... then you shall”) and apodictic (“You shall/shall not”). The dis-
tinction was well known in biblical studies. - Ibid., 68.
- KG 131.
- PF 22–24.
- Ibid., 23–24. This is in line with the discussion of “the Joshuanic reduction” in chapter 3.
- Ibid., 72. Buber could have chosen many descriptors for this movement; the fact that he
calls it “realist” is telling. When he uses “realist” negatively, he usually means self-described
realist political theorists (enemies of utopianism). - Here we find the development of a theme dating back to the preface of the first edition
of KG, namely the identity of the “eschatological tensions” mentioned there, which Das Kom-
mende was to develop; KG 16. The preface to the second edition also refers to “great tensions”
that “arose within Messianism.” Ibid., 40. Only one of the three tensions enumerated in PF,
however, corresponds to those enumerated earlier. The second and third tensions described
in KG are dealt with in PF, but strangely not in the chapter “The Great Tensions”; whereas the
second and third tensions found in PF are non-“eschatological” and simply provide dramatic
occasion for narrative progress. This constitutes further support for my claim that PF lacks
coherence thanks to its mixture of elements from Das Kommende with other material. - PF 84.
- Ibid., 83.
- Ibid., 100.
- For this reading, in which David does not refer to himself but to a figure of the future,
to work, one must not read li davar tzur yisrael as “The Rock of Israel said concerning me,”
as does the NJPS translation; instead, one reads “To me (the God of Israel speaks) is a ruler.”
Buber credits A. Klostermann with this interpretation, which in his view “has not been sur-
passed”; ibid., 85. - Ibid., 84.
- Ibid., 102.
- Buber calls Samuel’s sacrifice at David’s anointing “the last independent religio-
political act of the prophet”; ibid., 100. David offers the sacrifice when the ark is brought back
to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:17); Solomon at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8:62f ); Jeroboam
I at the dedication of his rival northern sanctuary (1 Kings 12:32). - Ibid., 101.