Norbert M. Samuelson. A User's Guide to Franz Rosenzweig's Star of Redemption. Curzon Jewish Philosophy Series. Surrey, UK: Curzon Press, 1999. xxv, 386 pp.; Ernest Rubinstein. An Episode of Jewish Romanticism: Franz Rosenzweig's The Star of Redemption. SUNY Series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion. Albany: SUNY Press, 1999. xiii, 306 pp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While The Star of Redemption is widely recognized as a great work, if not the single greatest work of modern Jewish thought, it has persistently had difficulty finding its readers. Written in an almost private language for a circle of friends and relations, it has taken almost a century to gain an audience that can find a way into its imposing architecture. The situation began to change in 1982 with Stéphane Mosès' System and Revelation, which offered a detailed reading of the whole text. I, for my part, tried to offer a philosophical interpretation of the methodology of each of the three parts in 1992, in Correlations in Rosenzweig and Levinas; Richard Cohen's Elevations offered a set of readings that linked Levinas and Rosenzweig in 1994. Yudit Kornberg Greenberg contributed a reading that emphasized the relation to the Kabbalah in her Better Than Wine, in 1996. The decade ended, however, with the two books under review here—both impressive, novel, and complex readings of The Star. Norbert Samuelson has given us a paragraph-by-paragraph paraphrase—or perhaps we need a new term, for Samuelson's book is a real commentary, leading us through the text and offering insight continuously, as well as pausing at key moments to guide us into richer connections. Ernest Rubinstein, for his part, has offered a demanding and challenging book that interrogates The Star, reading it not once but twice, and each time not only introducing the various key concepts and developments, but also measuring Rosenzweig against a rich theoretical framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".