Dimensions of Time in the Jewish Educational Thought of Joseph Lukinsky: Reflections on Maybe the Lies We Tell Are Really True edited by Barry Holtz and David Kahn (JTS, New York 2016)

ABSTRACT

This article represents a first attempt to analyze and synthesize the theological, hermeneutic, and educational insights of Joseph Sander Lukinsky, who was one of the foremost Jewish educational thinkers and master practitioners of recent times. Particular attention is paid to Lukinsky’s theology of revelation, to his educational theory, his hermeneutic orientation, and his practical pedagogy. The conclusion represents an effort to integrate the major insights gathered from these areas into a coherent web of thought.

KEYWORDS:

• Theology
• educational theory
• hermeneutics
• theory of practice
• pedagogy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ For Rosenzweig’s penetrating insights into the mitzvot relating to the Jewish calendar, see his magnum opus The Star of Redemption 1971, 308–328.

² In this respect, Lukinsky’s theology recalls Rosenzweig’s (1955) distinction between “commandment” and “law.” “Commandment,” for Rosenzweig, is perceived in immediate experience, while “law” represents a human response to and translation of that experience into enduring forms that recall it and re-enact it. The pathway to the experience of “commandment,” however, leads through the law and its performance.

³ Emphases mine.

⁴ From the title of a foundational essay written by one of Lukinsky’s closest friends, Robert Cover. For details of the article and Lukinsky’s response to it see Lukinsky (2016, pp. 161–200).

⁵ All quotes in the following section are from the chapter entitled “Scholarship and Curriculum: What Jewish scholarship means for Jewish education” in Lukinsky (2016, pp. 63–83).

⁶ The idea of a text or an ancient culture having a “right to self-determination” is my own.

⁷ For the term “distanciation,” as well as its correlative term, “appropriation” see Ricoeur’s essay entitled “The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation” in Ricoeur (1992, pp. 131–144).

⁸ All quotes referring to the terms “critical,” “conservative,” “radical,” and “moderate” hermeneutics are taken from this volume.

⁹ My analysis of Freud’s reading of Exodus, and that of other modern Jewish thinkers, can be found in Cohen (1999, pp. 35–65).

¹⁰ For the notions of “validity,” “meaning,” and “significance” in interpretation, see the foundational study written by the well-known contemporary representative of “conservative” hermeneutics—E.D. Hirsch (1967).

¹¹ Gadamer’s famous foundational work on hermeneutics, the one that had a profound influence on Gallagher is Truth and Method (1994). It is here that we can see him contending with the “conservative” approach of Schleiermacher and Dilthey, as well as with the “critical” approach identified with Habermas.

¹² For Fox’s “five levels” in his own words, see the interview about Camp Ramah that he gave to William Novak, “Vision at the Heart” in Fox (2016, pp. 324–326).

¹³ All quotes concerning the Parashat Shavua that occur in the coming paragraphs, unless otherwise indicated, come from these pages.