The idea of reframing American Jewish history in a transnational perspective, as I understand it, aims chiefly to include Europe inside the frame. That, as I and a growing number of other writers have urged, is a most useful expansion of the classic focus by Jewish Americanists on the United States alone. In fact, this proposition no longer requires a novel and robust defense, since the transnational gaze is already a fairly established feature in some parts of American Jewish historiography. That is true with regard to the early American period of the Sephardi Atlantic diaspora and it holds true, as well, for the turn-of-the-twentiethcentury mass Jewish migrations out of Eastern Europe.1 It has taken somewhat longer for a similar approach to develop in relation to Central Europe—Germany in particular—as yet another theater of an integrated Euro-American Jewish history, but that sphere is also beginning to find its way into the literature (though mainly propelled, I should add, by German-trained scholars and not yet integrated into American Jewish historical training and discourse).2 This recent burgeoning of transnationalism in Jewish historiography is actually an exercise in revisiting much earlier thematic and ideational paradigms. Moshe (Murray) Rosman and Nils Roemer, respectively, analyzed this layering effect in two useful discussions that were pub-

中文翻译：

---

现代历史学家和犹太人的跨国视角

按照我的理解，以跨国视角重构美国犹太历史的想法主要旨在将欧洲纳入框架内。正如我和越来越多的其他作家所敦促的那样，这是对美国犹太主义者对美国的经典关注的最有用的扩展。事实上，这个命题不再需要新颖而有力的辩护，因为跨国凝视在美国犹太史学的某些部分已经是一个相当确定的特征。这对于美国早期的 Sephardi 大西洋侨民来说是正确的，对于 20 世纪之交的东欧大规模犹太人迁移也是如此。1 中欧——尤其是德国——作为另一个综合欧美犹太历史的舞台，需要更长的时间来发展类似的方法，但该领域也开始进入文学领域（尽管我应该补充说，主要是由受过德国培训的学者推动的，但尚未融入美国犹太人的历史训练和话语。2 最近在犹太史学中兴起的跨国主义实际上是在重新审视更早的主题和观念范式。Moshe (Murray) Rosman 和 Nils Roemer 在两个有用的讨论中分别分析了这种分层效应。由受过德国培训的学者编写，但尚未融入美国犹太人的历史训练和话语。2 最近在犹太史学中兴起的跨国主义实际上是在重新审视更早的主题和观念范式。Moshe (Murray) Rosman 和 Nils Roemer 在两个有用的讨论中分别分析了这种分层效应。由受过德国培训的学者编写，但尚未融入美国犹太人的历史训练和话语。2 最近在犹太史学中兴起的跨国主义实际上是在重新审视更早的主题和观念范式。Moshe (Murray) Rosman 和 Nils Roemer 在两个有用的讨论中分别分析了这种分层效应。