The Eclipse of God: Studies in the Relation Between Religion and Philosophy by Martin Buber, and: Judaism and the Modern Man: An Interpretation of the Jewish Religion by Will Herberg (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 403 The Eclipse of God: Studies in the Relation Between Religion and Philosophy . By MARTIN BullER. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. Pp. 192 with index. $2.50. J,udaism and the Modern Man: An Interpretation of the Jewish Religion. By WILL HERBERG. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1951. Pp. 31:3 with index, $'1.00. Two sons of the race of prophets have taken up the prophetical office for modern man. Buber and Herberg wish to lead souls away from the practical godlessness of our times, beyond the self-imposed limits of materialism and atheism, skepticism and idealism to the God of Revelation. Their message should prove beneficial to the modern man without faith; however, certain serious theological and philosophical deficiencies preclude the recommendation of these books to Catholics, and even diminish their value for others. Both authors survey the contemporary situation and its antecedents, but Buber is concerned with the philosophical antecedents, especially idealis~, while Herberg exposes the modern substitute faiths, especially scientism. Buber works as an essayist, gently pointing his remarks which display excellent and delicate perceptions accurately expressed, although his meaning is not always made explicit. Herberg is rather a forceful and systematic expositor who shows genuine acumen in the analysis of contemporary attitudes. Both declare the solution of the problem to be a genuine religion which will embrace the internal and external life of the individual and extend itself to society. But Buber, while retaining Judaism as his point of view, is concerned with the "eclipse of God" rather than with any sustained effort to develop an interpretation of Judaism. Herberg, however, goes from the modern crisis to the solution he finds in his interpretation of the Jewish religion. Nevertheless, Herberg admits that Judaism is not the exclusive solution; he believes that Judaism and Christianity together have a divine mission. Indeed, both authors are free from what Herberg himself has characterized as the "negativism of minority group defensiveness." Both are at least tolerant of Christianity and speak as integral members of a modern society to which they uphold with some intellectual power and attractiveness the supremacy of God, of the God who desires to be the God of our hearts. Marl;in Buber is a man of seventy-five, a famous man whose long career as a sincere Jew warmly devoted to God and at the same time an existentialist in philosophy is reflected in these lectures given at several American universities in 1951. In these studies on the relation between religion and philosophy, it is evident that by religion Buber means virtue of religion which leads the soul baek to the Reality of realities. By philosophy, 404 BOOK REVIEWS he understands for the most part idealism with its intellectual constructions and their aftermath which he believes has resulted in the eclipse of God. It is this philosophy to which he addresses his criticism. He characterizes Spinoza (although he does not seem to recognize his pantheism), Hegel, Kant and Nietzsche as philosophers who led to the eclipse of God by denying in various degrees His reality. The existentialists-Kierkegaard , Heidegger and Sartre-Buber, though existentialist himself, criticizes insofar as they neither rightly acknowledge nor interpret the faith of the Old Testament. Bergson, Hermann Cohen, Jung and Whitehead are also considered among the philosophers. Buber's committment to Judaism and his existentialism limit his religious outlook to an insistence on the imageless God, Who has not revealed anything about Himself, His revelation being concerned only with His deeds. Perhaps his religious limitation is responsible for some of his astonishing assertions about Christianity which he finds " ' Hellenistic ' insofar as it surrenders the concept of the ' holy people ' and recognizes only a personal holiness." (p. 138) Similarly inaccurate in his statement that " the peoples won to Christianity ... did not stand, like Israel, in a fundamental relationship to Him as the people of a covenant." (p. 139) Likewise "the Pauline and Paul stic theology depreciated works for the sake of faith." (p. 140) Moreover, even as a philosopher, Buber betrays a fundamental ignorance of Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy about which he nevertheless permits himself to make repeated depreciating remarks, laden with existentialist bias. Aristotle indeed did...