One could say that Steiner never quite made up his mind on what kind of book he wanted to write. On the one hand, Errata could be seen as an autobiography of sorts, offering readers a light-feathered reconstruction (rather than an 'examination') of the author's life, from childhood to adulthood to seniorhood, with some introspection and insights on less biographic topics. On the other hand, some chapters are purely essayistic, with hardly any biographical elements at all, and though they are by far the most interesting sections of the book, their inclusion here results in an incohesive text.
Like most biographies, Steiner's life narrative is an ego trip in which the author selects and embellishes a few episodes from his memory bank to claim that his present was already inscribed in his past. And he does this, of course, with formidable pedanticism, name-dropping, classism, and literary verve. However, Steiner's recollections and reconstructions lack the socio-historical detail, or even the attention to the outside world, that make the fabric of good biographic fiction. This is the story of a man focused on himself, sheltered by both ego and class privilege from most things happening around him.
The book is saved from mediocrity by its more essayistic chapters, especially the ones on music, translation, and Judaism. In the latter, Steiner starts with a rather dangerous question: how did Judaism survive despite what he perceives, as most people do, to be a monolithic millenia-long story of persecution? His answer to this erroneous question is twofold, but the moral value and validity of these two approaches could not be more different; in fact, they are entirely contradictory.
Steiner rejects that the teleological purpose of the survival of Judaism could be the establishment of the State of Israel - a nation-state "armed to the teeth", teeming with maffiosi and corrupt politicians, just like any other country. (His silence on some of Israel's most unique traits, such as its sophisticated apartheid regime, betrays a complicity which doesn't befit the compassionate persona presented in the book's final pages). Steiner refuses to believe that Israel's "normalcy" could be the ultimate purpose of the saga of Judaism, perhaps because it amounts to assimilation - that is, to sacrifice its exceptionalism in order to become like any other state. So that purpose, he argues, is exile itself - diasporic existence as a virtue and a quest. Here Steiner embodies the stereotype - as seen by left-wing conspiracy loonies - of the globalist Jew who pledges allegiance to no flag: trees have roots, men have legs, and the exiled Jew is blessed, rather than doomed, to wander in search. Steeped in rootlessness, this exilic condition is said to be an antidote to ethnic hatred and the crimes committed in the name of flags and border worship.
This first answer, however, is contradicted by his second approach. Though Steiner tries to camouflage an age-old cliché with literary pomp and collage techniques, his is an old, all-too-familiar argument: Jewish exceptionalism. Steiner draws on three key figures/moments to illustrate the temporal depth of such exceptionalism: 1) Moses is supposed to offer mankind not only the first expression of monotheism, but also uncompromising moral dictates that seek to push man beyond his instincts; 2) the Sermon of the Mount is said to be "a collage of thoroughly rehearsed injunctions from the Torah, the psalms and the Prophets," but also goes beyond these sources in its call for the abandonment of worldly riches and forgiveness of aggressors; and finally 3) Marx's Socialist Utopia, which again is seen as a distinctively Jewish contribution to mankind.
(One could easily deconstruct the three figures/moments Steiner has chosen to illustrate this picture of exceptionalism: 1: While it can easily be shown that other civilizations have crafted monotheistic visions before Moses, there is no reason to suppose, outside the framework of an evolutionist teleology, that monotheism represents a more advanced spiritual or intellectual stage than any form of polytheism; on the other hand, a quick look at ancient Indian materials would be enough to infirm the idea that Mosaic offers an "unprecedented" challenge to "human instinct"; 2: Numerous Greek and Upanishadic materials called for the abandonment of worldly possessions long before the New Testament was composed; 3: If it is clear that Marx's socialist utopia owes much to the New Testament - which is arguably as Greek as Judaean -, his indebtedness to Hegel and French socialism is no less obvious.)
The purpose of these figures/moments in the text is clear: to substantiate, with some semblance of proof, the old "light unto the nations" rhetoric - that is, to translate an ancient political-religious precept into a factual history of chosenness. Trying not to be too obvious, Steiner states that "the count of ... visitors to Stockholm who are Jews at least in origin is so above any statistical norm or expectation as to be gloriously embarrassing." There is no mention, of course, of the importance of collective organizations/corporatism and class privilege in such count: true to his conservative bent, Steiner sees achievement as a divine reward, unpolluted by worldly considerations of class privilege. Before closing the chapter with a Trotsky quote, the ever reactionary Steiner abandons all modesty and points out that this is "a chosen people or club I would not resign from."
My point, of course, is that there is an obvious contradiction between this allegedly embarrassed form of ethnic chauvinism and the claim that 'homelessness' could be an antidote to ethnic hatred. What at first seems to be a call to embrace the old internationalist view that humans be allowed to circulate beyond borders ("the barbed-wire idiocy of frontiers") and find bonds beyond blood-and-soil myths - or perhaps even a light-handed critique of Israel's pagan worship of soil and borders - turns out to be nothing more than a secularized version of Jewish exceptionalism. That Steiner should fail to perceive the congruence between this view and the ideologies behind the Shoah is a particularly acute form of idiocy.