The German sociologist Ulrich Beck, who passed away in January 2015, was well known amongst Etty Hillesum scholars. For Etty Hillesum's diaries were the subject of the first chapter of his 2008 book, Der eigene Gott: Von der Friedensfähigkeit und dem Gewaltpotential der Religionen [A God of One's Own: Religion's Capacity for Peace and Potential for Violence]. In that first chapter, Beck makes use of Hillesum's diary notes to develop his religious-sociological notion of “a god of one's own.”

Hillesum researcher Maria Gabriella Nocita made a thorough study of Beck's ideas, publishing an article in Italian in 2013 in which it is apparent that she does not agree with Beck's view on Etty Hillesum. Nocita opposes Beck's analysis that Hillesum has written of a “Dio personale” [a personal God], saying instead that Hillesum wrote of a “Dio persona” [God as a person], as did, for instance, Saint Augustine. According to Nocita, by assuming that Hillesum wrote about a personal God instead of God as a person, Beck has misunderstood Hillesum's diaries.

In this essay, I too refer to Beck's interpretation and ask: Where did Beck hit the mark and where did he miss? I compare his views to conclusions I have drawn from my own research on the varying meanings of the word “God” in Etty Hillesum's writings.