Martin Buber's Theopolitics

(Tina Sui) #1

208 | Martin Buber’s Theopolitics


of Franz Rosenzweig Reconsidered (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 32. Buber
straddles this tradition; he believes Judaism’s particularity to have universal ethical signifi-
cance but prefers not to speak of “monotheism.”



  1. The statement of Amos 5:25—“Did you bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the
    wilderness forty years, O House of Israel?”—is a strong indicator to biblical criticism that the
    Pentateuchal descriptions of a full priestly system in the desert are late additions. The rhetori-
    cal question presumes the answer no, and would not make sense if directed to an audience
    with a well-developed historical memory that such sacrifices did in fact occur. Buber reads 5:26
    (“Did you [at that time] carry [these idols] as your king?)” as a reminder of the ark.

  2. Ibid., 126–127.

  3. Ibid., 130.

  4. Thus for Buber, Amos 7:7 comes before 4:4–13, which comes before 8:2, which comes
    before 5:2. Only after 8:2, God’s announcement “The end is come upon my people Israel and I
    will pardon them no more” is the “prophecy of doom” uttered at 5:2. The terrible final vision
    of 9:1 follows this and leads Amos to make a speech that Buber finds split up and scattered
    in the verses 6:1–7, 6:11–14, and 5:27. This speech provokes the royal repression described at
    7:10–13.

  5. At Hosea 1:9 the prophet is instructed to name his youngest son Lo-ammi, “for you are
    not my people.” Buber reads the concluding clause as “and I am not Ehyeh to you,” meaning “I
    will not be present as I was before, in the meaning of my Name.”

  6. Thus Jonah, a “short story,” represents the true sense of prophecy, despite not describ-
    ing a historical prophet. Jonah announces an immutable decree, with no salvation whatsoever.
    Nonetheless, the Ninevites repent, saying, “Who knows, God may turn and repent, and turn
    from his fierce anger” (Jonah 3:9). “Human and divine turning correspond the one to the other;
    not as if it were in the power of the first to bring about the second, such ethical magic being far
    removed from biblical thought, but—‘Who knows’”; PF 129–130.

  7. Ibid., 153.

  8. Ibid., 141.

  9. Ibid., 152.

  10. Ibid.

  11. Ibid., 155.

  12. Ibid., 163.

  13. See note 3 earlier in this chapter.

  14. Ibid., 156.

  15. Ibid., 167–168.

  16. Ibid., 160.

  17. Ibid., 159, 169 (italics in original); WZB 379; To ra t 126.

  18. Ibid., 169. “‘Keeping still’ is holiness in regard to the political attitude of God and His
    people.” / “Das »Stillehalten« ist die Heiligkeit als die »politische« Haltung Gottes und seines
    Vo l k e s ”; W Z B 379. / מדת "השקט" היא הקדושה בחינת העמדה הפוליטית של אלהים ושל עמו; To ra t 126.

  19. Ibid., 169.

  20. Buber regards this fragment, though earlier in the book, as dated later, to the moment
    of the abortive Assyrian assault on Jerusalem.

  21. Buber designates 32:15–17 as a “messianic prophecy not to be denied Isaiah,” but he does
    not go into any detailed argumentation with scholars who would ascribe the passage to a later
    writer.

  22. Ibid., 168.

  23. PU 149.

  24. PF 170.

Free download pdf