Martin Buber on Myth: An Introduction (review)

Book Reviews 147 Martin Buber on Myth: An Introduction, by S. Daniel Breslauer. New York: Garland Publishing Co., 1990. 395 pp. By putting Buber into the context of myth Breslauer gives us a new way of grasping much of Buber's variegated corpus. Buber on Myth contains good comparisons and contrasts between Buber and Eliade, Scholem, Theodor Reik, and W. Robertson Smith, along with a solid treatment of Buber and the Bible and a good section on Buber and Hasidism. It makes very clear how Buber rejects the reduction of myth to ritual, psychology, or existentialism, ala Bultmann. Breslauer says that the real crux of Buber's difference from lung and others on myth is ontological, not epistemological (p. 31). Actually it is both, and the failure to note this may account for Breslauer's uncritical acceptance of the subject-object way of knowing, his overemphasis on Buber's "subjectivity," and his failure to understand how Buber's legendary anecdote gives "stammeringwitness" not just to Buber's creative inspiration of present generations but also to the wonder and awe-filled events of the past. Breslauer's treatment of Buber on biblical myth is, on the whole, solid. Breslauer quite rightly points out that, in contrast to other biblical scholars, Buber sees myth and history as conjoined, rather than as alternatives. Buber discovers the key words not only of psalms, as Breslauer suggests, but of most of the Hebrew Bible that he translated. Breslauer's applying Buber's I-Thou philosophy (as Buber himself for the most part did not) to Buber's understanding of biblical myth (p. 71 passim) detracts from the force and wholeness of what Buber has to say. Breslauer's discussion of Buber's exegesis of the myths of Adam and Eve and of Moses in Exodus is much more detailed and solid than that on Enoch. It contains excellent and detailed understanding but also occasional strange misunderstandings, such as his relation ofBuber's emphasis on the biblical tesbuvab, or turning, with Platonic ideas of a return to the ideal. Particularly good is Breslauer's recognition of how Buber "points to a narrative coherence that integrates its psychological structural, and historical elements," uniting particular historical origins with universal significance. "He takes each myth as a recollection of a different historical event" (p. 222). Breslauer also gives us a sensitive treatment of the controversy between Buber and Gershom Scholem over the interpretation ofHasidism with special reference to the tales of Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav. In passing, Breslauer uncritically takes over Rivka Horwitz's mistaken assertion that Buber owes a debt to the thought of Ferdinand Ebner (PA). 148 SHOFAR Fall 1992 Vol. 11, No. 1 In evaluating Buber in his conclusion Breslauer states, on the positive side, that "Buber's attention to the sources of hasidism and refusal to reduce the meaning of myth to simply an existentialist, esoteric, or psychological significance allows him to present it honestly (p. 366). On the negative side, Breslauer writes: Buber's characterization ofmyth as a record of "I-You" meeting includes too many different kinds of stories under a single rubric and ignores the distinctive purpose of myth. Not only myth but other stories serve the same function of stimulating I·You relationships. Not only mythic memory but historical memory and imaginative, didactic tales fulfill a similar purpose (pp. 364f).· This is a strange criticism and one which illustrates the kind of lapses which mar an otherwise excellent study. First of all, while Buber once says that myth is the pure shape of meeting, he almost never uses the language of I and Thou (here I follow Ronald Gregor Smith's earlier and better translation ofI and Thou) in connection with myth. Breslauer superimposes it himself. Secondly, Buber distinguishes carefully between myth, saga, and legend, as Breslauer fails to note. Thirdly, he never claims that only myth embodies the I-Thou, as Breslauer implies. Maurice Friedman Department of Religious Studies San Diego State University John Selden on Jewish Marriage Law: The Uxor Hebraica, translated with a Commentary byJonathan R. Ziskind. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. 537 pp. At its best, scholarship in the humanities has served society as a civilizing force...