PALLE YOURGRAU
635
These are shocking words, but they need to be seriously assessed, not
dismissed as mere symptoms of prejudice. The crucial question surely is
what is
meant
by "the chosen people." Here Weil would indeed appear
to have neglected the nuanced interpretations of the rabbinic tradition.
Would it not, then, be equally [un]fair, along these lines, if Weil were to
hurl the accusation of idolatry at the Christian tradition, which, after
all, worships a
man,
neglecting, thereby, all the nuances that the New
Testament brings to bear on this fundamental aspect of the Christian
faith? Christians, it would seem, cannot avoid the task of defending
their religion against the charge of idolatry. As Eric D'Arcy writes in
"Worthy of Worship: A Catholic Contribution": "At the heart of Chris–
tology is the problem, How can Jesus of Nazareth be at the same time
literally divine and literally human?" By the same token, Jews, for Weil,
cannot sidestep the task of "defending" the notion of "the chosen peo–
ple." This, indeed, is what David Novak does in his classic study
The
Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People.
Clearly, Weil permitted the elements of the Jewish tradition that
offended her to overshadow other, fundamental aspects of the religion,
from the Law of Mo es to the Psalms and the Prophets. A comprehen–
sive study of Weil's relationship to Judaism would have to account for
this. Yet it is surely important to draw attention, as Weil has, to the
apparent
dissonance
between those elements of the faith just cited
(which Weil herself admired), which point to the genius of the Hebrew
Bible in bringing forth the
spiritual
values represented by the one tran–
scendent God-"This is the word of the Lord...not by might nor by
power, but by my Spirit.. . ," says the prophet Zechariah-and the more
troubling aspects.
But are the dissonances Weil draws attention to real or only appar–
ent? However one chooses to answer this question, it should be clear
that it is nothing short of perverse to characterize someone who set her–
self-rightly or
wrongly-against
what she saw as a "collective," racial
element in the Hebrew Bible as an anti-Semite, i.e., as the worst kind of
racist.
As against this, there are those who would remind us that Weil
herself at one point appeared to accept the label of anti-Semite. Her
friend and biographer, Simone Petrement, however, puts the matter in
context: "About
1934,
she said one day to Bercher, as a joke, 'Person–
ally, I am an anti-Semite.' They had discussed it later and she agreed that
she was not really an anti-Semite and that the Jews she disliked were
those who regarded them elves as Jews before all else and so separated
themselves from other men. In short, what she disapproved of in
Judaism was what could possibly lead to sectarianism or fanaticism."
