Comments: Luxenberg reviewed

I have read this review and Luxenberg's work makes much more sense here than in the various popular media mentions. I still don't get why we should think that his explanation is better. So I am looking forward to a scholarly yet accessible to layman critical analysis of his work.

I am also interested in finding out about Luxenber's publications in scholarly journals. Those are usually of better quality (because of peer review, except when it fails) than a book.

Posted by Zack at August 20, 2003 05:05 PM


Agreed. As I said, Luxenberg's work should be read with a certain amount of skepticism; I also suspect it may be possible to test it using contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous texts for purposes of comparison.

But I think Luxenberg's analysis can only be evaluated on its own terms, through philological analysis. Relying on comparisons to the Hitler diaries, or citing the traditions, won't be sufficient.

Posted by Bill at August 20, 2003 05:18 PM

Bill: I agree.

Posted by Zack at August 20, 2003 09:57 PM


Here are two other reviews, not positive at all, but scholarly reviews.

Looks like this book is already a dud.



Posted by Mubin Shaikh at October 26, 2003 02:01 PM